OK, Gary Glitter then

[WOM]

OK, Gary Glitter then

If not calendar years then what other, non-intrusive, basis could be used?

Phrenology.

[Bored Of Education]

OK, Gary Glitter then

I think "known but unrelated", rather than "family member", is the most common category of abuser. Making teachers' jobs all the harder: it's not just a matter of "Her Dad looks dodgy."

You were right to call me on this, WE, as I had been lazy and not tracked down the statistics. I now have, after a bit of time, but it is probably best if I give you the link rather than me just quoting bits and pieces from them but some are surprising.

The breakdown of who children are abused by when it isn't someone they know is an eye-opener and defintely contradicts the media "predatory peado" cartoon hate figure

[Caliban]

OK, Gary Glitter then

A section of paedophiles, the ones who are completely upfront and unrepentant about the whole thing, see themselves as "the homosexuals of the 21st century", in that they feel they are doing something that is totally natural and right, and they just have to wait for society's currently-backward norms to catch up with them.

I read a book recently by a bloke who created his own therapy technique and then self-published two books about the way he treats people. The books were written in the 80s before paedomania took hold, so I assume he didn’t realise how dodgy his remarks look.

Anyway, he presents a couple of his case studies, where women who were traumatised by childhood sexual abuse were found by him not to have been abused at all, but instigated the sex themselves and then felt guilty about it. Usually he concludes that their subconscious didn’t like the fact that they were doing something wrong themselves, so made them believe they’d been abused. I’m not intending to accuse this fellow of anything, but I think these quotes shows how ready some people are to excuse abuse by arguing that it’s really quite harmless and that the children actually enjoy it – it’s just society that creates the problem.

Genuine abuse of children, whether sexual or not, is one of the most repulsive things of which I can conceive but the current publicity is making people believe, genuinely believe, there has been abuse when none really exists. Is it really worse for a child to be sexually touched, without threats or violence, than to pull a pan of boiling water off the stove and scald themselves? Is it worse, if no pain or threats of any sort are involved, for a child to touch another person sexually than to be mangled in a car accident or to be savaged by a dog?

Of course it is not. A child has natural curiosity and experiences sexual feelings even though these feelings may be immature. These things are a part of normal life – the abnormality comes from the reactions of others. The guilt, shame, embarrassment or other emotion with which these experiences are overlaid is not natural to children but “educated” into them…

Of course sexual abuse of children takes place. It is done by males and females of all ages to both boys and girls. But if it takes place without any physical hurt or threat of harm then any problems that are caused by it are created by the attitude of society and the adults who influence the child.

[Amor de Cosmos]

OK, Gary Glitter then

70% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse outside of the family were by a boyfriend/girlfriend

One does wonder how many of those acts were perpetrated by a sixteen or seventeen year-old on a fourteen or fifteen year-old.

[WOM]

OK, Gary Glitter then

38% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse in the family were by a brother/stepbrother

I'd really like to see that stat broken out rather than lumped together.

[G-Man]

OK, Gary Glitter then

There is a distinction - a paedophile is attracted to children, i.e. those without secondary sexual characteristics. If you're attracted to adolescent or pubescent (rather than pre-pubescent) kids, you're not a paedophile, you're something else (I forget the word right now).

You're a pederast if you are particularly or exclusively attracted to adolescent or pubescent (a distinction I drew on the previous page).

TPC, I know there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the notion that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. That's why I referred to a strong body of opinion. But psychologists in the field certainly are increasingly taking that view.

Obviously, the idea that it is a sexual orientation complicates matters. As noted, it gives paedophiles a reference point for denial of the cruelty intrinsic to the exercise of their sexuality (ignoring, of course, that the "naturalness" of the act is not and cannot be reciprocal).

And it also compromises our visceral reaction to paedophiles, because if their condition is indeed a sexual orientation for which they cannot be held responsible we might be more open towards having pity for them. And then we can't hang 'em high that easily. Though, of course, they have the choice not to molest children, and must be held accountable when they do.

[Banana Banana]

OK, Gary Glitter then

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Chippy, I'm still not clear on where you're coming from here. Probation officers constantly have to take a view on whether an inmate is sincere in the rehab work they do. They refuse parole in those circumstances. Sex offenders get early release less often than other criminals. The courses don't guarantee release.

Actually I'll bow out of this. I am not really clear myself and would prefer to read others opinions. Sorry.

[Guest]

OK, Gary Glitter then

Ah yeah, sorry, the pederast/paedophile distinction, I see what you mean, although I do think the justifying happens in the way WOM says too.

Obviously, the idea that it is a sexual orientation complicates matters.

It would be awful, wouldn't it? For people affected by it. How horrible. The closest a person could get to being a monster by nature. How awful to have that and a conscience. Yes there is a choice, but imagine being told you had to choose not to have sex with women, or be evil?

[Tubby Isaacs]

OK, Gary Glitter then

Oh shit, don't do that. I don't think you're wrong. Probation officers all the time OK for release people who reoffend. The more terrible the crime the more of a problem this is, though of course with murder there's a test to pass- and I think reoffending (for murder) is about a quarter of one percent.

[Duncan Gardner]

OK, Gary Glitter then

Glitter comeback announced- the folkie fiddler tour:

[Bill Poster]

OK, Gary Glitter then



Predictably it didn't take long for someone to get the Photoshop out...

[Houdi Elbow]

OK, Gary Glitter then

QUOTE:
the same tabloids that delight in printing photos of 16 year old girls getting their tits out etc etc

If they do that, they'll get on the sex offender register themselves, I should think.

Some years ago Private Eye gave an example of one of the popular tabloids printing a topless photo of a model on her 16th birthday. As far as I know they weren't censured for it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

OK, Gary Glitter then

Hasn't the law been changed?