posted on July 12, 2001 08:36:41 AM new
So by now I've been able to think about the closing of the previous thread. This is not about moderation, AW makes the rules, it's their forum, and I accept their decision completely. It's also not, of course, an attempt to revive the previous thread. I will not repeat or defend my thesis in any way, read the other thread if you care to, there's not much more to say anyway.
As many might guess, this isn't the first time I've offered this analysis of child molestation. I wasn't caught by surprise by the reaction.
The first time however, I was surprised. In my mind, I was providing insight regarding an important topic which is not usually discussed. Insight I though would aid parents in seeing potential molestation.
Then, as now, the presentation stimulated some to an intense effort to discredit the thesis. Curiously however, the most dedicated efforts did not take the form of people trying to show me mistaken by offering opposing views (to their credit, those who believe in female molesters did mount a logical attack). Then, as now, the intense effort took the form of accusing me of saying something about adult oriented gay men (which I wasn't, either then or here). When that didn't seem to work, it took the form of widespread attack. Not on the core thesis, but on minor side issues, on the definition of words, or on me myself.
So I came to the implied question. Why do some of my detractors seem so rabid? Why are they willing to go to great lengths to get it shut down? Am I exposing THEM? I think this an unlikely hypothesis. Child molesters are rare, because we put them in prison. If you look randomly at the closest man to you, the odds are far less than 1 in 1000 that he has any significant potential to molest a child. Thus, I reject the belief that my intense detractors are themselves likely child molesters.
The next hypothesis I came to: maybe the broad topic makes some super uncomfortable. Clearly my thesis makes them super unfomfortable, but is it just the overall topic? Will AW shut down this thread too, because the broad topic is itself unsuited to the forum? Could be (and I'll accept that too). But I have my doubts. I suspect that being broadly uncomfortable wouldn't keep us from discussing axe murderers. Maybe I was too graphic? Maybe. We wouldn't really care to discuss the physics or anatomy of axe murdering. The important distinction of my thesis is that it does involve a detail, and it's hard to present without stating that detail. It's a fundamental vulnerability to the presentation, but I'll try to get better. No, I won't be presenting the thesis, cleaned up or not, on this forum again, ever.
I don't as yet have a presentable theory regarding the rabid opposition phenomenom.
posted on July 12, 2001 09:38:58 AM new"The first time however, I was surprised. In my mind, I was providing insight regarding an important topic which is not usually discussed. Insight I though would aid parents in seeing potential molestation."
If you will go back and really read your thread(all of it), you will see some excellent links were provided which could help one gain a better understanding of this very serious topic. You ignored most of them and it became obvious pretty fast that you really were not interested in "providing insight", but simply expressing your personal "feeling".
posted on July 12, 2001 10:58:30 AM new
Roofguy, I immediately had my hackles raised by your insistence throughout the thread of calling it "homosexual child abuse". You yourself agreed that homosexuals are seldom the perpetrators of same sex child abuse. So why continue to use that phrase that implies that homosexuals (meaning adult people attracted to other adults of the same sex) are responsible, when using another phrase such as 'same sex pedophilia' or 'same sex child molestation' would mean the same thing without the emotional connotations? Indeed, when I first started reading your posts, I thought you were saying that homosexuals were responsible for child molestation, and that infuriated me.
The fact that a man is inappropriately attracted to boys does not make him a homosexual, anymore than the fact that he's attracted to young girls makes him a heterosexual. There is something WRONG with him...he is a pedophile...and calling it 'homosexual child abuse' clouds the issue
Why does the wording make such a difference? Because myths like the fact that homosexuals are responsible for most child molestation are why homosexuals are considered inappropriate for teaching, coaching, and other jobs dealing with children. Calling your topic 'homosexual child abuse' does harm not only to homosexuals, but also makes people less willing to LISTEN to such bigoted nonsense long enough to realize that it's NOT EVEN YOUR POINT.
Secondly, I don't see the others decrying your thread or doubting your premise that men often 'seduce' children. Other posters just wanted to point out that women are also child molestors that may go undetected because of the blinders people wear. Not disagreeing with you, but adding to your premise that people do not look clearly at the topic of child molestation.
One good site that has a long document developed by the FBI in explaining the child molestor mentality is in the education section at http://www.missingkids.com. This document discusses the seduction molestor, as well as the savage molestor and different ways they lure kids. I think it is important not to ignore ANY of the types. Perhaps if you were more willing to listen to what posters were saying, you might have realized that most were not disagreeing with you.
Lisa
Edited to add: For those interested in the above article I mention, click on the link, then 'Education & Resources', then 'Library of Resources', then 'Child Sexual Exploitation', and finally 'Adobe PDF File'.
Check out what dictionary.com says about the term "homosexual".
In particular, it suggests not using the term as a noun, but finds it acceptable for use as an adjective, precisely as I have done. My usage is exactly as the dictionary defintion. Exactly. And it's a pretty PC dictionary at that.
Agreed, my thesis does not regard the definition of words, and perhaps I should subjugate my reluctance to adopt the redefinition of the day to the primary intent.
posted on July 12, 2001 11:49:16 AM new
Uh...Roofguy, so you're saying you've presented this argument before, only to have people misunderstand and attack you in the exact same way for calling it 'homosexual' child abuse? But instead of making your point without the misunderstanding, you'd rather hold up the dictionary afterwards for defense of your remarks?
I guess the question becomes...WHY??? What are you gaining? Is there some point I'm missing?
Lisa
posted on July 12, 2001 02:34:53 PM new
Some noteworthy thing about this definition of pedophilia:
By the posted definition, an adult who has sex with a 14 year old is not a pedophile.
By the posted definition, an adult who engages in sex with a 13 year old is not a pedophile, unless this action was part of or the result of some reccurent pattern.
Check it out for yourself. For what it's worth, anyone who imagines that this definition defines the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior seems destined for prison.
Indeed, no one posted a claim that being "not a pedophile" meant "not a child molester". I'll continue to decline to use the term pedophile.
posted on July 12, 2001 03:00:01 PM new
After reading parts of the previous thread, I had a co-worker tell me of a new neighbor she had that she thought was overly friendly with the kids in the neighborhood - she didn't want to "make waves" since the other parents seems to be OK with it. I mentioned to her some of the things I learned here - told her to call her local police to learn what she can do and look for.
I haven't talked to her about that since then, but thank you for possibly helping me to help the kids.
