Heartland

Like Michael Jackson? (allegedly) Yeah I hadn't thought of that.

Eva wrote:I think there's a fourth group, MF: those adults who perceive themselves as "still being (like)" children. I think a lot of paedophiles (sp?) belong to this group and I think this self-perception is one reason why unfortunately these people have such an appeal to children. It's not as if children were always forced to follow the evil stranger. Often it's somebody they trust for some reason or other. Example: There's a psychological test callled "Szondi Test", in which you choose photos of people you find trustworthy/nice and others of people you dislike. Children tend to choose the paedophiles as trustworthy and nice among these pictures. So these people must have a certain appeal.

In this group belong as well those men, who aren't (mostly because of a severe personality disorder) able to have sex/feel attracted to people of the same-age out of a very low self-esteem.

mark fiend wrote:Like Michael Jackson? (allegedly)

Voilà, I'd thought of him too...

canon docre wrote: In this group belong as well those men, who aren't (mostly because of a severe personality disorder) able to have sex/feel attracted to people of the same-age out of a very low self-esteem.

True.

canon docre wrote:

Eva wrote:I think there's a fourth group, MF: those adults who perceive themselves as "still being (like)" children. I think a lot of paedophiles (sp?) belong to this group and I think this self-perception is one reason why unfortunately these people have such an appeal to children. It's not as if children were always forced to follow the evil stranger. Often it's somebody they trust for some reason or other. Example: There's a psychological test callled "Szondi Test", in which you choose photos of people you find trustworthy/nice and others of people you dislike. Children tend to choose the paedophiles as trustworthy and nice among these pictures. So these people must have a certain appeal.

In this group belong as well those men, who aren't (mostly because of a severe personality disorder) able to have sex/feel attracted to people of the same-age out of a very low self-esteem.

I think this is probably true of a lot of the guys who would go for young teenagers, adolescents. I can see how low self-esteem could lead someone to be attracted to someone on the cusp of adulthood (physically if not legally in this culture). As young, "innocent", submissive and so on as possible without being physically a child. I suspect this is also true of the kind of man who has a constant preference for "barely legal" girls.
Basically someone he can feel dominant beside, because most grown women (or just fellow adults full stop) intimidate him in some way.
A pathetic character.

However, I think when it comes to cases of abuse of much younger children, there's something quite different and infinitely more sinister at work.
For example there was a case in Scotland a while back of a guy who had raped a 13-month-old baby. Seriously, consider that. Or don't... couldn't blame you. I can hardly bring myself to even type it. What in the name of all that is holy is going on in the mind of a person who can do something like that? OK, it's a very serious and extreme case, but there are countless cases of kids who are still unequivocably KIDS - not approaching puberty - being abused.

I am not a psychologist and I could be talking out of my arse, but could there be some psychopathic element to this kind of mindset? It seems to stretch beyond mere dominance into utter sadism. Like 120 Days Of Sodom... just taking pleasure in breaking every last moral (I would say, natural) taboo that human beings hold.
Almost renouncing one's humanity. Setting oneself outside... not just the particular society one lives in (which is often riddled with bizarre customs and quirks which serve the purpose of bonding a tribe or nation or race together, and would be rejected in other parts of the world as they have not been developed for the most basic survival needs), but outside human society full stop. Committing an action that would be considered criminal and vile from Tokyo to Timbuktu.

Does this provide the thrill for the perpetrator? Surely anyone who can inflict such suffering on a child has the same severe lack of empathy as a psychopath?

(I've got to agree with Lee, I would happily despatch someone like this with my own fair hand).

I agree that it becomes far more horrific in a case like that, there's a stage a which it alters from being pathetic to terrible. You would have to consider a person like that a psychopath and while I would still regard the death penalty as wrong I can understand why people would want that to happen.

markfiend wrote:What with comparisons being made with homosexuality, I happened to be reading a thread elsewhere about the (largely discredited) notion of the "gay gene". (Discredited because studies have shown that heterosexual parents are no less likely to have gay kids than gay parents)

If you consider that to grow up to be 100% unambiguously heterosexual (if that's possible) the following things have to happen:

1. Unambiguous development of sexual organs that match the XX or XY karyotype. (Ignoring aneuploidy of the sex chromosomes)
2. Unambiguous develpment of gender image to match the physical gender.
3. Development of sexual urge (instinct?)
4. This urge is directed at the gender opposite to both the physical and mental-image gender

Any of these steps can go "wrong"* leading to the spectrum of intersex, transsexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, homosexuality and all shades in between. The genetic mechanisms to ensure that all these steps occur "correctly"* are probably not worth the effort (evolutionarily speaking) when in 80% to 90% of cases (or even more when one considers that many homosexual people have children) they are no barrier to successful production of offspring (which is all that evolution "cares about" in the final analysis).

* I'm sure that people are aware of my opinions, but to clarify, the words "wrong" and "correctly" are not intended as any moral judgement whatsoever. I just can't think of a way of saying that development can take other courses than that which is usual, without long circomlocutions

One argument for the gene which I've heard (quite convincing until you start getting edgy about stereotypes) is that the behavioural characteristics which are in many cases part and parcel of homosexual life are actually desirable mating material for women until the point where the balance tips over to outright gay - sensitivity, feminine interests, etc. (Believe me, these aren't things that one picks up as a result of liking guys, though they probably spring from the same cause, in this case the hypothetical "gene") This desirability of "almost homosexual" males (from an evolutionary standpoint, not personal preference) could explain why what would seem like an evolutionary disadvantage has propogated so far. But I'm digressing from the thread a little here (maybe a split of the biological/pscyhological lines of discussion from the moral/legal ones is in order?).

A more convincing hypothesis, however, is that hormone levels received in the womb are responsible. The later offspring of a mother are more likely to be homosexual as, for want of deeper explanation, her masculine hormones are drying up. This then leads to the body developing masculine features (due to the presence of a Y chromosome) but the brain diverging and assuming a degree of femininity (due to hormone levels), which was reflected in some recent research which I can't cite off the top of my head (was in the Times' health section a month or two back...).

To the point, however, either scenario being the case, this doesn't indicate a common cause (any moral equivalence, real or imagined, aside) with paedophilia, since their is no "normal" line of development that one could have "mistakenly" followed to desire children. Rather, it seems to be rooted in the formation of more general tastes, such as blond vs brunette, short vs tall, etc, nothing so drastic as the gender of a prospective mate. The other possibility is, as mentioned earlier, that they could somehow have become stuck midway through their sexual development and not moved on from "last month's colour", so to speak. (As an aside, some of us adolescents worry horribly that we can never like older [wo]men and consistently surprise ourselves with our tastes 6 months later. But having been adolescents, you all knew that anyway ) I would go as far as to say that the two are very different issues. Tastes and fashions can change with time and aren't impossible to surpress. Deep rooted desires however, are a problem for those experiencing them too and should be compassionately dealt with accordingly.

If society could liberalise itself to the point where paedophilia (sexual attraction to children) is not erroneously lumped in with child abuse (acting upon that attraction), then maybe those who have a problem (i.e. They have a desire which morally cannot be fulfilled. The nature of the desire itself is neither here nor there) could come forward and get help before they offend. (Honestly, I have a great admiration for any 'closetted' paedophile who has legitimately never considered, or sworn not to consider, acting upon the urges in question - put in that position, stronger men than myself would give in) Note that I don't mean this in the sense of government "treatment" for homosexuality (the kind that killed Alan Turing) whereby the desire is curbed because it's "abnormal" - mature males are equally capable of consenting to sex with men as with women - rather that they can be counselled and convinced that while the desire is not inherently bad, that by it's nature, any desire for one who cannot consent can only be expressed through rape, which is clearly not acceptable.

Motz wrote:If society could liberalise itself to the point where paedophilia (sexual attraction to children) is not erroneously lumped in with child abuse (acting upon that attraction), then maybe those who have a problem (i.e. They have a desire which morally cannot be fulfilled. The nature of the desire itself is neither here nor there) could come forward and get help before they offend. (Honestly, I have a great admiration for any 'closetted' paedophile who has legitimately never considered, or sworn not to consider, acting upon the urges in question

This once again draws the distinction between the kind of guy who has a prediliction for girls in their early teens and the kind who will abuse a much younger child. I think the first kind of guy may well attempt to console himself with "barely legal" pornography (God knows the internet is saturated with very young women posing as being even younger), and his own fantasies.
Psychopathic tendencies, however, are shown not to respond to either the threat of punishment or incarceration, and certainly not to the moral indignation or emotions of other people. So if there is a similar element at work in the mind of someone who abuses a younger child, he will not feel the guilt or have the conscience necessary to refrain from committing such acts if he gets the chance. Perhaps a reason for the high rates of re-offending. The younger the children a paedophile is attracted to, the less likely he is to wish to restrain himself for some moral reason.
I would imagine.

Recently there's been some very good research on the origins of homosexuality, I'll be back with a longer post when I've looked that up

boudicca wrote: I think this is probably true of a lot of the guys who would go for young teenagers, adolescents. I can see how low self-esteem could lead someone to be attracted to someone on the cusp of adulthood (physically if not legally in this culture). As young, "innocent", submissive and so on as possible without being physically a child. I suspect this is also true of the kind of man who has a constant preference for "barely legal" girls.
Basically someone he can feel dominant beside, because most grown women (or just fellow adults full stop) intimidate him in some way.
A pathetic character.

However, I think when it comes to cases of abuse of much younger children, there's something quite different and infinitely more sinister at work.
For example there was a case in Scotland a while back of a guy who had raped a 13-month-old baby. Seriously, consider that. Or don't... couldn't blame you. I can hardly bring myself to even type it. What in the name of all that is holy is going on in the mind of a person who can do something like that? OK, it's a very serious and extreme case, but there are countless cases of kids who are still unequivocably KIDS - not approaching puberty - being abused.

I am not a psychologist and I could be talking out of my arse, but could there be some psychopathic element to this kind of mindset? It seems to stretch beyond mere dominance into utter sadism. Like 120 Days Of Sodom... just taking pleasure in breaking every last moral (I would say, natural) taboo that human beings hold.
Almost renouncing one's humanity. Setting oneself outside... not just the particular society one lives in (which is often riddled with bizarre customs and quirks which serve the purpose of bonding a tribe or nation or race together, and would be rejected in other parts of the world as they have not been developed for the most basic survival needs), but outside human society full stop. Committing an action that would be considered criminal and vile from Tokyo to Timbuktu.

Does this provide the thrill for the perpetrator? Surely anyone who can inflict such suffering on a child has the same severe lack of empathy as a psychopath?

(I've got to agree with Lee, I would happily despatch someone like this with my own fair hand).

I'm tempted to agree that such a case is particularly horrific. What makes me refrain from agreeing is that it implies that the abuse of a 9 year old is somewhat more "understandable" or less horrific. And I simply R.E.F.U.S.E. any hint of different levels of inflicted "horror" regarding the abuse/rape of a child.
I understand any mother/father who takes revenge on the abuse of her/his child by killing the aggressor. When it comes down to punishment though I'm against death penalties due to human rights reasons, and beause you can't measure the punishmennt with the pain inflicted by the crime. You can only punish as severely as possible and - and this is the main point for me - keep these people away from society in general and children in particular.

Somebody has mentioned the parents who allow their 9 year girls to run around made up like proper Lolitas. I think this is very difficult terrain. On one hand I would also stop my daughter from going out "too made up", on the other hand children want to play, and so girls want to run around dressed up like princesses or like the admired adult girls/women. And a child has a right to play. What I think is most important is to teach your children that they're allowed to say "no", to refuse to kiss the disliked aunt/grandfather etc. And teach children to listen to their own voice so-to-speak. I remember when I was about 9 years old and met a 16 year old boy I admired very much in a dark (it was winter) place on my way home. He asked me to follow him to an even more obscure spot, I refused and ran home. Now, I don't know what his plans were etc., but I think it is most important for a child to know he/she is allowed his/her own will. That doesn't protect the child from everything but it's already a good guide to avoid certain situations.

Alright, the following post is a short outline of the article I read. There’s been a guy in Belgium who got his Ph. D. recently with a study on the origins of homosexuality, his study showed dominant mothers don’t have a great influence on it but her genes are far more important than the father’s genes. In his study he looks for the hetero-gene instead of the homo-gene (though that’s just a matter of how you call it), but more importantly this gene that tells you what your sexual preferences are is as old (if not older) than man, because it is of capital importance men like women and women like men for the survival of our ‘race’.

We know this gene is located in area Xq28, the lower part of our chromosomes, but as it is an utter mess down there - it’s literally stuffed with genes – it is hard to find, even more so because they don’t know what exactly they’re looking for. Depression can be located because the gene should produce serotonin, but what leads to a certain sexual preference? We have discovered the adultery gene, so why not go for the homosexuality gene

Another interesting point made is also among e.g. sheep and birds there are homosexuals. There are several theories on this: Some say it’s a defect which by accident positions the gene that tells women to like men with a man. Others say perfect systems are seldom in nature. If it works in 97% of the cases it’s okay to assure survival of the species, so it’s nothing but normal there are cases in which mistakes have been made.

But where genes influence half of it, the other half comes from the environment. School and home have nothing to do with this though, biological environment evermore. This has been proved by twin studies, what happens during formation of embryos is important, as is epigenetics. Epi is Greek for on top, not what genes you have, but which you use. If one brother is gay only 50% of the single egg (is that how you say it in English) twins brothers is homosexual too

The parents are influential too, genetic Dean Hamer discovered homosexuality more often occurs with uncles and cousins from the mother’s family. Mother genes have been proved to be way more influential on this than the father’s, mothers with high X-inactivation get ninety percent of their cells from the same X-chromosome from their XX-pair, these mothers are more likely to have homosexual suns.

But in the end it’s of course all your own choice, tons of gays just married women.

The research is far from crappy BTW, Sven Bocklandt got his Ph. D. in Antwerp after working with Dean Hamer, the first person to ever do important research on this matter and Eric Vilain in LA, a specialist in human sexuality. On top of that he’s homosexual himself

Funny/interesting findings from (well researched) studies they came across:

• The more older brothers you have the higher the chance to be gay gets, for every brother the chance rises 30%.
• Left handed people are 30% more likely to be homosexual.

The 'Lolita' comments are a bit scary for me.

I once dated a girl from Minsk who I met when she was starring in a stage production of Lolita. She was, of course, in her late teens, but the first time I encountered her she was playing a 13-year-old.

So, am I a potential devotee of the barely legal porn discussed earlier? Or am I capable of distinguishing fact from fiction and more than prepared to use a smattering of Russian to chat up some unsuspecting young foreigner?

Discuss, while my lawyers are watching

andymackem wrote:The 'Lolita' comments are a bit scary for me.

I once dated a girl from Minsk who I met when she was starring in a stage production of Lolita. She was, of course, in her late teens, but the first time I encountered her she was playing a 13-year-old.

So, am I a potential devotee of the barely legal porn discussed earlier? Or am I capable of distinguishing fact from fiction and more than prepared to use a smattering of Russian to chat up some unsuspecting young foreigner?

Discuss, while my lawyers are watching

I don't think it places you in dirty mac territory, Andy (although feel free to tell us anything that would! )
First of all, she was in reality, in her late teens. A woman to all intents and purposes - perhaps not of an age where people are entirely independent and "grown up" financially or legally (I'm referring to things like state benefit here, rather than age of consent or marriage), but this is fairly peculiar to modern western cultures. And she may not have all he wisdom or emotional strength of an older woman... but then again, neither do a lot of older women!
Secondly, I'm assuming you weren't attracted to her because she played that character.

I think the whole Lolita thing plays to a lot of men, in a more extreme sense to those who would stand the chance of being convicted as paedophiles, but also men who like to stick to women, but very young, innocent and supposedly easily-dominated ones.
It could be argued that a middle-aged man who habitually chooses women of say 18 or 19 has a mild version of the mentality that a guy who has consenting sex with a 13 year old has. The attraction of "deflowering" nubile young women... only it is more extreme in the latter case.

There are different degrees of these things. The phrase "shades of grey" really does apply when you are dealing with such a gradual process as maturing. I mean, I didn't go to bed one night, physically and emotionally a little child, and wake up the next morning a grown woman.

In reference to Eva's point about a child being a child - I would agree that sexual activity with any prepubescent boy or girl is horrific and vile, simple as that. I mean I'm trying to argue reasonably here but if someone like this accidentally fell into a pot of boiling acid, I'd do a happy dance. I just feel that it's a sliding scale - with puberty as the main marker, but above and particularly below this point, the younger the person is, the sicker I would deem anyone who saw them in a sexual light.

I certainly don't wish to imply that the rape of a 9-year old is a-OK. Is it a lesser crime than the rape of a child of just a few years? I'd rather say the latter crime is greater, by default I suppose that means I'm saying the former crime is lesser.
But to put it in perspective, I think both crimes could be considered greater, far greater, than most murders. Also, to return to my theory that there are perhaps two different kinds of paedophiles - one "lesser", if you must. I think once we start dealing with men who would abuse a very definitely prepubescent child (an 8 or 9 year old for example), you are probably looking at people who would quite happily push this perversion as far as possible and abuse a much younger child as well. Once you've broken the taboo of sexual desire for someone who is not sexually mature, I'm sure you'd be pretty much prepared to plumb the depths of depravity.

Motz wrote: If society could liberalise itself to the point where paedophilia (sexual attraction to children) is not erroneously lumped in with child abuse (acting upon that attraction), then maybe those who have a problem (i.e. They have a desire which morally cannot be fulfilled. The nature of the desire itself is neither here nor there) could come forward and get help before they offend.

I agree with you up to a point, from a theoretical perspective.

Anyway... why do the two things get lumped together? Or, turning it around... what separates paedophilia and child abuse?

Without offering an exhaustive list, I would suggest morality, fear of punishment and (self-) control of sexual desire. Call me a pessimist, but... In terms of these actually preventing the transition between desire and action, I'm not all that optimistic about the first one being reliable and much less so about the third. The second is probably the most convincing to me, and it doesn't seem like a very healthy reason.

I'm guessing it's something like a function of the perceived probability level of cause leading to effect and the unpleasantness of the effect that results in paedophilia and child abuse being lumped together.

A quick aside on other sexualities in animals: I've heard great things about the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

On a completely unrelated note:

Mr Wah, you have a great avatar. Fallen Angels is one of my favourite films (and so is Djunking Express (sp?)) and Wong Kar Wai (sp?) is one of my favourite directors.

Eva wrote:On a completely unrelated note:

Mr Wah, you have a great avatar. Fallen Angels is one of my favourite films (and so is Djunking Express (sp?)) and Wong Kar Wai (sp?) is one of my favourite directors.

Thank you Eva.

I am a big fan of Wong Kar-Wai too, but I think any avatar that features the lovely Michelle Reis ( ) can stand on its own merits.

WKW is probably the only film maker who really captures the mood and the more bizarre aspects of the city in which I live. Fallen Angels is probably the best example of that.

If you want to talk more about WKW, I'd be pleased to hear from you on PM.