Paedophiles amongst us? Here are the warning signs.

The biggest warning sign, as far as I can tell...

Is...

Brace yourself.

Is...

That they...

MOLEST CHILDREN!

I know, it is shocking!

Zoombie said:

The biggest warning sign, as far as I can tell...

Is...

Brace yourself.

Is...

That they...

MOLEST CHILDREN!

I know, it is shocking!

Click to expand...

Actually, no, they don't all do that.

I said it was a warning sign, not a diagnosis...

The problem I have with the article is...well, it is both silly and alarmist, but moreover, is fosters this continual belief in self diagnosis and laymen psychoanalysis.

I mean, I'm not even slightly up to date on how to ACTUALLY diagnose (let alone treat) someone who is a pedophile. Hell, I'm pretty sure i can barely manage to cure a case of the blues.

And here's this article that thinks that a few bullet points can take over for years of training and education. Yeah. For some reason, I doubt it.

Indeed, it's pretty much a waste of time. It would be much more wise to advise parents how to talk to their children about things like this.

Zoombie said:

The problem I have with the article is...well, it is both silly and alarmist, but moreover, is fosters this continual belief in self diagnosis and laymen psychoanalysis.

I mean, I'm not even slightly up to date on how to ACTUALLY diagnose (let alone treat) someone who is a pedophile. Hell, I'm pretty sure i can barely manage to cure a case of the blues.

And here's this article that thinks that a few bullet points can take over for years of training and education. Yeah. For some reason, I doubt it.

Click to expand...

It appears to just equate pedophile with child molester, which is untrue, unhelpful, etc.

Most molesters aren't pedophiles.

I wasn't going to touch this subject when I saw it a few hours ago, but well, we only live once... and this subject is close to my heart.

Not sure really how there is a difference to molesters to pedophiles... unless we are saying molesters only molest adults or that there is something different to what a molester does than a pedophile...but that might be another conversation.

I was more thinking when I read the article and reread it a couple of times early today, that I'm not sure it is actually wrong in a big way.

The reality is, that most pedophiles don't look as we think they do, and they can be married men, teachers, or what ever career they happen to be living... even un employed, shock horror, so I'm not sure, as much as I love Mccardy, why there is issue with the article, which I took as a general overview of the subject in an attempt to remind us that we can be complacent...pedohpiles can be any body.

I read the article and I confess I am still confused.

Which one of those assholes pictured was supposed to be the "good-looking charmer?"

RichardGarfinkle said:

Paedophilia is an attraction. It exists in the mind of the paedophile.
Molestation is an attack. It is an action in reality. One person raping another person.

A person who has an attraction need not attack anyone.

A person can rape without any attraction.

The two groups of people overlap but aren't the same.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see where you're going and understand your intention...

mccardey said:

That paedophiles can be anybody is exactly not the same as suggesting that paedophiles are probably childcare workers, photographers, people who are nice to children, or survivors of childhood sexual abuse - or the other categories mentioned, cooee. It's demonising and simplifying to the extreme and also it's wrong.

That some paedophiles might work in child care is not the same as saying that child-care workers should be suspected of being paedophiles. The heading is



It's a terrible article, which has been cleaned up a little bit since I posted but is still appalling.

Click to expand...

I don't think the intention to say the entire population is likely to be an offender, but statistically some occupations - or more so some offenders are likely to seek out certain occupations.

mccardey said:

ITheir point is that if you tick off all the people on the checkpoint (childcare workers, your partner, men, survivors of child sexual assault, photographers and the other people they've targeted) you should be good to go. Because that's how you spot paedophiles.

Grrr.

Click to expand...

Sadly, there isn't anyway to pick out a paedophile...but I kind of like the idea that although they haven't found the correct words and come across as very misguided, they are trying to open up the minds of people.... or perhaps just sell papers...anyways, like politics, this is another conversation I don't like entering, and I'm out of here.

Ugh. This reminds me of a "helpful" flier that went out a couple of years ago detailing the "warning signs" for deciding who was planning to rob your house.

• You've had a plumber to the house
• Hire a gardener.
• Electrician comes by to fix some faulty wiring.
• Fex Ex or UPS delivery.
• Have a new alarm installed.
• Someone look at buying a house down the street.
• Someone without kids move into the neighborhood.
• Someone asking for directions.
• etc.

Basically, anyone approaching or entering your house, and anyone on your street was actually there to rob you. I couldn't decide if it was a prank, or someone so completely terrified of being robbed that they literally saw potential hazards everywhere.

mccardey said:

Wow - interestingly they've just now taken out the par that suggested survivors of child sexual assault ought not to be trusted around children.

Click to expand...

They... suggested... what?

So, the author was that carried away with researching paedophiles, paedophiles in prison, people who take care of paedophiles, she just... forgot to widen her field of research, to, well, actually looking at the victims of paedophila in order to 'suggest' that conclusion? She didn't bother cross-referencing with her peers who have studied the victims?

*watches victims slip through the cracks unnoticed again*

Game of Dangerous Reality Check, anyone?

Way to find the most steretypical images of pedophile's ever . . .

Cyia said:

• Someone without kids move into the neighborhood.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of the Agatha Christie novel where the hero/heroine were trying to decide which one of a group of people was a spy. They never suspected the woman with the baby, because who would put their own kid in jeopardy? It turned out she was the spy, and it wasn't her baby - she'd taken it off someone else's hands.

Moral of the story: I wish whoever had written that flyer had read the book, so they could have added that to the checklist: Someone with kids possibly not actual parent, therefore should be considered potential criminal.

This is SO horrible. The vampire syndrome is so false...and bad media helps to propagate it. Yes...there are abuse victims who abuse...but being abused doesn't make you a future abuser.

You know...there are so many reasons we victims either never speak up or only speak up after decades of turmoil and struggle. Perpetuating lies and inaccuracies like the ones in this article has potentially lethal repercussions. It took me 34 years to come forward. In that time, the pedophile died. I have since learned that for every known victim of a pedophile, that same pedophile could have interfered with up to 100 other victims. Being silent actually makes more children vulnerable. Because the pedophile doesn't stop at one. But that one believes themselves alone in all the world. People have to feel safe about coming out about the abuse inflicted on them. Articles like the one cited does the exact opposite...a victim seeing that article will be reinforced that they better shut up and suffer through it.

This truly saddens me.