Pedophilia POLL!

[Scudstorm]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

That's the error I was expecting to find in the article. Saying that out of all of the people who have been convicted of pedophilia a large number have looked at "quasichildporn" is not at all equivalent to saying that out of all of the people who look at "quasichildporn" a large number also abuse children.

The article actually mentions no porn at all, it barely stated that Pedophilia is a mental illness, and gave a definition for it, which I quoted in a previous post and will re-quote here:

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

And when I researched the second source, Government of Canada (1984). Report of the Committee on Sexual Offenses against Children and Youth, Vols. 1-11, and summary. Government of Canada, Department of Supply and Service as "Badgely Report; Cat. No. J2-50/1984/E, Vols. 1-11, H74-13/1984-1E, Summary, only one webpage stated anything at all in that study:

The Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth reporting the results of Canadian national surveys4 found that one-half of females and one-third of males reported being subjected to some form of sexual abuse during their lives, with 70% of the males and 62% of the females indicating that it occurred prior to pubescence.

All in all, none of his sources said anything about what he claimed to prove...

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

All in all, none of his sources said anything about what he claimed to prove...

Actually, I went back and looked at my link, and this is true. I grabbed the wrong footnote link off of wiki. My bad. -_-

Here are some better ones:

Convicted molesters who view child porn after release more likely to molest again
Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201–210.

30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child
RYAN C. W. HALL; RICHARD C. W. HALL (2007-04). "[http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues]" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-05-09.

A 1987 report by the U.S.A. National Institute of Justice described "a disturbing correlation" between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation.
Remarks of Arnold I Burns Before the Florida Law Enforcement Committee on Obscenity, Organized Crime and Child Pornography". NCJ 109133. National Institute of Justice. 1987-12-03. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=109133.

Now obviously we can't prove causality because of limitations on testing humans. But correlation we have in plenty. Its clear many if not all molesters view porn, in large amounts. Many molesters say that it stoked their need to molest. While its true that some people can look at child pron and not molest, the studies seem to show the majority cannot. These trends hold for both real and virtual child porn. Finally, there is little if any societal benefit to letting people whack off to child porn.

If 30-80% of the people who owned a gun used it to murder an innocent victim, do you think we would be allowed to own guns? Do you think the fact that 20% of gun owners could own a gun without murdering someone would counterbalance the fact that the other 80% couldn't?

The level of risk to innocents is simply unacceptable when compared with the tiny advantage of letting people express their perversions freely.

 

[Glurin]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

I'll ask you again. How can you prove this when you can't get a good control group?

If guns were banned, its only natural that the percentage of guns used in a crime would dramatically increase. That doesn't prove that guns cause the crime. Taking action and then doing your studies after the fact to justify that action generally provides you with corrupted data.

Now obviously we can't prove causality because of limitations on testing humans. But correlation we have in plenty. Its clear many if not all molesters view porn, in large amounts. Many molesters say that it stoked their need to molest. While its true that some people can look at child pron and not molest, the studies seem to show the majority cannot. These trends hold for both real and virtual child porn. Finally, there is little if any societal benefit to letting people whack off to child porn.

All cats are animals. Does that mean all, or even most animals are cats? Does that mean that half of the animals are cats? What about 10% of animals? 1%?

Does eating ice cream increase the temperature?

Does a green lawn make it rain?

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Actually, I went back and looked at my link, and this is true. I grabbed the wrong footnote link off of wiki. My bad. -_-

Here are some better ones:

Convicted molesters who view child porn after release more likely to molest again
Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201–210.

30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child
RYAN C. W. HALL; RICHARD C. W. HALL (2007-04). "[http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues]" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-05-09.

A 1987 report by the U.S.A. National Institute of Justice described "a disturbing correlation" between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation.
Remarks of Arnold I Burns Before the Florida Law Enforcement Committee on Obscenity, Organized Crime and Child Pornography". NCJ 109133. National Institute of Justice. 1987-12-03. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=109133.

Now obviously we can't prove causality because of limitations on testing humans. But correlation we have in plenty. Its clear many if not all molesters view porn, in large amounts. Many molesters say that it stoked their need to molest. While its true that some people can look at child pron and not molest, the studies seem to show the majority cannot. These trends hold for both real and virtual child porn. Finally, there is little if any societal benefit to letting people whack off to child porn.

If 30-80% of the people who owned a gun used it to murder an innocent victim, do you think we would be allowed to own guns? Do you think the fact that 20% of gun owners could own a gun without murdering someone would counterbalance the fact that the other 80% couldn't?

The level of risk to innocents is simply unacceptable when compared with the tiny advantage of letting people express their perversions freely.

First, I'm getting file not found from the first two links so I can't actually look at those. The first study though is worthless based on your description because it is drawing from the population of convicted molesters and so cannot be used to draw conclusions about the population of all people.

The third one is an abstract citing a "disturbing correlation" in "recent research." Correlation can mean any of a number of things. Without more information it's impossible to draw any conclusions from that. Furthermore, the "recent research" part suggests to me that they're drawing from other studies which obscures the actual methodology of the research.

The second one sounds as though it actually supports your point, but the mere fact that their numbers cover a range of give-or-take half the population suggests that their research was less than conclusive.

I'm not trying to disprove your point here, I just doubt there's much useful research on the topic, just because of the difficulty of gathering information if nothing else.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

 

[tarnok]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

At first, perusing the contents I couldn't find any treatment of pornography and it's relation to child abuse. After some ctrl-f I found the actual line you were drawing from and the results are from "Studies and case reports." ie, not this study, using unknown methods and producing wildly different results.

Looking further, I'm dumbfounded at the method they use to identify pedophiles. There were two paragraphs describing the available methods. The first paragraph was used describing methods of measuring blood volume in the penis which were deemed of limited use. The second, which they seemed to think was more useful, was a questionnaire followed by a computer program that monitored how long the subject looked at pictures of fully clothed children.

W
T
F

I have serious doubts about the reliability of such a method.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

i'm sure that 100% of all criminals watched the american football super bowl games on tv.

so clearly american football directly creates criminals.....NOT

this discussion is really absurd, why are we continuing to discuss this lunacy and give it false creditability it does not have.......

should we ban american football and especially it's super bowl games ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
err, my bad

i didn't realize and/or forgotten (i have bad memory) this line of arguement against the "scientific studies" referenced had been already made like 4-5 times. so oops my mad. i shouldn't have made this post.

u guys beat me to it.

and saro, i got your sarcasm, i jsut wanted to chime in as well, with my own sarcastic post.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

At first, perusing the contents I couldn't find any treatment of pornography and it's relation to child abuse. After some ctrl-f I found the actual line you were drawing from and the results are from "Studies and case reports." ie, not this study, using unknown methods and producing wildly different results.

Then you need to read closer? From the abstract:

"In this article, we address research that defines the various types and categories of pedophilia, review available federal data on child molestation and pornography, and briefly discuss the theories on what makes an individual develop a sexual orientation toward children."

This isn't a clinical experiment (you will note the lack of a methodology section or a results section) its a topical review. Its trying to review the big picture, not give you some data on a small slice. But you are right, the specific 30-80% comes from this:

Kim C. From fantasy to reality: the link between viewing child pornography and molesting children. Child Sexual Exploitation Update. 2004;1(no. 3). Available at: www.ndaa.org/. Accessed February 19, 2007.

Looking further, I'm dumbfounded at the method they use to identify pedophiles. There were two paragraphs describing the available methods. The first paragraph was used describing methods of measuring blood volume in the penis which were deemed of limited use. The second, which they seemed to think was more useful, was a questionnaire followed by a computer program that monitored how long the subject looked at pictures of fully clothed children.

W
T
F

I have serious doubts about the reliability of such a method.

Looks like they were trying to avoid people lying about it. No shocker there.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

" ...briefly discuss the theories on what makes an individual develop a sexual orientation toward children."

...Looks like they were trying to avoid people lying about it. No shocker there.

Regarding the first bit: yes, they _very_ briefly discuss theories. They do not present compelling evidence.

Regarding the second: then they failed completely; nothing prevents people from lying on the questionnaire and I'm not convinced that the length of time spent looking at a picture can be reliably related to the subject's sexual response to the image.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

I'm reasonably confident they know better than you what works. I'm reasonably confident they have some theory and experiments, too. That beats the hell out of e-speculation.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

I'm reasonably confident they know better than you what works. I'm reasonably confident they have some theory and experiments, too. That beats the hell out of e-speculation.

Appeal to authority.

I would hope we have a better foundation for creating legislation than that.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy, unless used syllogistically. I did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

[stillman]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Garbad, what I still don't get is how any law could actually stop people from 'wacking off' to anime porn. You say people shouldn't be allowed, but how do you stop them? Even if you could, you certainly cound never stop them from thinking about children while masterbating.

Even if you took away every last image and video, people could just draw more in thier homes.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy, unless used syllogistically. I did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Where did I say it was a fallacy?

 

[zrk]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Have you guys never seen a 14-year old girl whom you would like to ****?

 

[PFSS]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Have you guys never seen a 14-year old girl whom you would like to ****?

Way too old.

 

[Galabab]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Have you guys never seen a 14-year old girl whom you would like to ****?

I have. And not only once. So that makes me a pedophile?
I think it is a feign when men say they havent.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

Have you guys never seen a 14-year old girl whom you would like to ****?

Yeah I have.


When I was 14.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

I have. And not only once. So that makes me a pedophile?
I think it is a feign when men say they havent.

IIRC most definitions of pedophilia would not say someone who wants to have sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile, given it is normally used to refer to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Pedophilia POLL!

I'm reasonably confident they know better than you what works. I'm reasonably confident they have some theory and experiments, too. That beats the hell out of e-speculation.

Having seen some badly flawed studies I'm not at all confident that they know better. I'm sure they have some theory and experiments, but I'm not sure either is worth anything.

How large were the groups in the studies? Were they actually randomly selected from people who looked at "quasichildporn?" How did they determine whether or not these people actually did look at this pornography? How can the widely divergent incidences be reconciled? And perhaps most importantly, did the experiment actually test what they think they were testing?