Pro-paedophilia campaigner locked up - too blinking right!!!

[tigerschick]

here

Sick

'I' still with Pan on this as he seems to be the only one able to see the wood for the trees.

Who said empathy for the abuser meant a lack of empathy for the victim?

I'm astounded by the short sightedness. '

The overwhelming feeling I have for the man who raped me (although I wasnt underage) was not rage- I think it would have been better for me if it had been, as it took a long time to resolve. No, it was sympathy. I knoew enough about the terrible childhood (passed from one aprent to the next because nobody wanted him) to understand where his self destruct issues came from. Didn't mean I forgave him (actually I did shortly after but later on I changed my mind about that, it kinda absolved him of the guilt and placed it onto me, which was wrong).

If somebo0dy hurt my child I am sure I would hate the,m, I am not big enough rise above that sadly- but all victims respond differently, because we ARE all different.

Cammelia, once again, that is NOT what was said. How is it that you keep ON misinterpreting what people are saying?

Sorry?

Once again?

I was referring to Mindles post, not yours.

Don't start "having a go"

I'm just commenting how I see it.

Its making me pmsl that the people who claim to want to understand the mind of the paedophile keep having their posts deleted for being rude and offensive

BTW I didn't report your post newlife, but I expect slim did

Is it offensive to say that I think you lack a few brain cells Camm? I know you were talking about Mindles post fgs!

Yes that's offensive but then you knew that.

Not sure what I've done to rattle your cage this morning

Camm can you understand that Mindles never said anything about "mak[ing] kind of connection between your behaviour and that of your abuser"?

Quote from Mindles:

"Given I was 14 or 15 and putting it about anyway,"

i have known lots of people(men)who were abused as children,sexually and/or physically,who would never dream of abusing a child.they know how it feels and would never inflict it on another.it really pisses me off when people trot out the 'he was abused as a child thats why he does it' line.
i have also known 2 paedophiles(long story)who,before i found out what they were,told me long stories about the terrible abuse they'd suufered as children.it was bullshit,neither of them had been abused,they were just setting up their justification of what they intended to do.like most abusive people,paedophiles can be very manipulative.

newlife-i dont know your full story but i cant help thinking that somewhere along the line you have been manipulated and brainwashed

pan-i can understand your feelings on this subject now i know you deal with things like this in your work.i have defended drug addicts many times as i used to work with them,and learnt that they are not all 'scum' etc,so from that POV i can understand your reasoning.

yes, IMO, the "it happened to me" line never cuts much ice. On the contrary, it should instill a further commitment to not serve up the same hurt to others. >.

And I and colleagues never seek to defend abusers for their actions.

The particularly griping thing about threads like this is the "in for 2 mins" posters who swing by, disgorge their bile on everyone else, and then bugger off. They have a 'right' to do this, but it is still gripe-worthy.
I don't even pretend to have all of the answers, but I do know that the "string'em all up/lock up immediately" response is expressed with minimum thought for the wider consequences.
Camm's question deeply annoyed me, yes,'twas unfair, and I did react badly, and I do withdraw the 'insult', if I may.
As others have said, there is not one stock victim response, and one is no worthy of expression than another.

I once had a cat who disgorged her bile ALL over the place.
What an utter shit that cat was, she died in the end.

Best all round really.

fuckinghell this thread has gone tits up since the polo discussion.

the one thing I would say is that we know a LOT about why people are sex abusers: they have almost invariably been abused themselves, either sexually, very often physically.

in early life, if a child is terrorised to a greater or lesser extent, their ability to conceive of another as a feeling thinking subject can be massively impaired. As I said two billion years ago, often men treat others as the object: you can only hurt someone if you objectify them in the main. Women often make themselves the object and hurt themselves.

the cycle of abuse is extended and worsened by violence, hatred and fear. that is where it started. the only thing that can break it is in fact empathy for the abuser. that doesn't mean you don't lock some of them up if they are high risk. what it does mean is that until society starts owning it's shit and understanding why this particular criminal element is so vilified and universally hated, this is not going to stop.

victims have the right to feel anything they want about this, rage, fury, hate venom. but the great mass that feel these things without having been victim of abuse need to take a long hard look at what it is IN THEMSELVES they are so afraid of and disgusted by.

universal taboos exist because of universal impulse.

and if you understand what I am saying then you will know exactly what i mean by that.

excellent post Sophable

Sophable - Great post.
The theory of hate being about self disgust, fear and denial is an interesting one, particularly in this instance.
To someone who absolutely and fundamentally cannot find in themselves anything but disgust and anger at the actions of a paedophile, the inference that the root of these feelings may be projection and fear of their own impulses is pretty incendiary.
Its an intriguing theory on human behaviour and whilst i'm certainly in no position to discount it, i just cant bring myself to believe it either.
Because boiled down to bare bones, it suggests that the only people who could truly be without paedophilic urges, however deeply surpressed they may be, are those without 'hate' for the actions of a paedophile.
I cant speak for anyone but myself, but think I represent a fairly average viewpoint in that i have not enough direct experience from either side of the abuse equation to sway my feelings wildly either way.
I would feel no more, no less (which is to say boundless) hate and loathing for a person who sexually molested my child as i would for someone who beat them to a pulp for the sake of having a macabre clip on their mobile phone.
Two seperate urges, although both routed, undoubtedly, in previous abuse cycles.
Do I doubt that either the paedophile or the violent attacker have themselves suffered greatly?
Absolutely not. At some point in their lives they will have been at the mercy themselves of an abuser, more often than not someone who should have protected them from the world.
Is that horrifically sad? To me, yes it is. Yet, would I still hate either of these people for damaging my child physically, emotionally and spiritually? Yes, with every fibre of my being. From the moment they opt to perpetuate the cycle, they lose victimhood as their primary status and become a perpetrator who has also at one time been a victim.
But would anyone really suggest that my feelings toward the 'violent' abuser were rooted in fear of my own impulses, as is suggested in regards to the 'sexual' abuser? I dont believe so.
Furthermore, I KNOW that my hatred would stem purely from the damage done to an innocent, undeserving child in the name of self gratification and the ONLY fear or guilt that would play a part in my anger would be of my failure to be the protector.

'the one thing I would say is that we know a LOT about why people are sex abusers: they have almost invariably been abused themselves, either sexually, very often physically. '

i would like to see hard evidence for this.

as a parent,my natural instinct is to protect my children,so why should my hatred and disgust of paedophiles mean that i have repressed urges myself?can it not be that i just cannot,for a second,understand why an adult would find children sexually attractive?i thought that sexual attraction was there so that the human race can continue,so why shouldnt it seem strange and sick to me that somebody would be attracted to those who are too young to reproduce?

i dont get this need to 'understand' everything these days.there are genuinley some people on this earth who are just scum and have no regard for other people,not for any reason just because that is their personality.yet the do-gooders of this world cant seem to accept that.

Thank you for that post Hannie55

That is how I feel

ooh diva I'd like to hear your views on homosexuality then!

what consenting adults do is none of my business,that is my view on homosexuality.afaik they are born that way and as long as innocent children aren't being harmed then it is no concern of mine.

But you surely aren't okay with it since it isn't sex in the name of procreation?

I think you'll find that not every gay person is born gay and certainly this is not proven even if every gay person wished to claim so.

The nature nurture argument is unresolved and ties in nicely with my attempt to challenge this view that some people are inherently bad.

I'd also like to know what your opinion is of people with other types of compulsion. If someone is compelled to eat or smoke or drink because of experiences they have had and feel powerless to change their behaviour do you lack the same empathy and desire to help as opposed to punish then?

NLNN - You have made some very good points - but you seem now to be grasping at straws in your attempts to make an individual poster look ignorant.
It does not reflect well on your overall contribution to the topic, which is a shame.

I see and acknowledge that. If I appear to be doing so it is only because I really hope that in challenging what I perceive as ignorance there might come some enlightenment or consideration of their own viewpoint. It certainly isn't for the sport.

I do find certain postings in reply to my comments rather self righteous and my personal opinion has yet to be acknowledged by said posters. I'm not asking for agreement but they ignore every counter argument and offer up yet another ill conceived notion thus perpetuating the most ridiculous of arguments.

newlife-you cant compare homosexuality or any type of drug addiction to paedophilia/child abuse.yes,i am ignorant of what 'causes' homosexuality,because it doesnt bother me and ive never felt the need to find out.

people who use drugs are harming themselves usually.drug use does effect society as a whole though so i think there is a need to get to the bottom of why people are driven to do such things.apart from the unfortunate babies born to heroin/crack addicts,nobody is born addicted to a substance.

child abuse is wrong.it is wrong to harm defenceless,innocent children.there is no comparison.

i dont know why you feel the need to defend paedophiles/chil abusers to the bitter end.do you have children?

Newlifenewname, Cammellia: I realised the implication of what I had written after I posted - I in no way meant to imply that I or anyone else was in any way responsible as a result of being sexually active. I think I meant to say that the difference lies in the fact that I wasn't deprived of my innocence, if you see what I mean.

I know the post came across differently though, I was typing in a hurry and didn't really phrase that very well...

i am not ignorant,newlife,and i do not need to consider my own viewpoints any more than i have done already.i am able to accept that in this world there are some people who are just bad through and through.i never used to think this,i always used to believe there had to be a reason why somebody was bad.but i was ignorant then,and had been manipulated.now i see things for what they are.i hope one day you will get to that point.