Prev
Next

We need a new approach to ‘decimate’ child sex abuse

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

03 May 05:50am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Child Abuse, Child Protection, Paedophilia, Society

107 comments

We will never eradicate paedophilia or child sex abuse.

This admission is implicit in the naming of SA Police’s Operation Decimate, which is the Sexual Crime Investigation Branch’s child sex exploitation investigation.

I fervently hope they are using the term ‘decimate’ in its bastardised but generally accepted definition – to destroy a significant proportion.

The original definition, from the ancient Roman army practice of killing every tenth soldier in a unit as a punishment, would be half hearted to say the least.

Operation Decimate is the one that picked up the Labor MP (He Who Shall Not Be Named) and charged him with child pornography offences.

In Parliament today, SA Premier Mike Rann will make his much-anticipated statement about that MP. News yesterday was that he has been suspended by the Labor Party. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile there is a sense of hopelessness about any of these crackdowns on child pornographers, as there is about the impossibility of eradicating child sex offences anywhere.

Partly because of the internet and mostly because of human nature, the sickness seems here to stay. So we should be doing all we can to minimise it.

Some said the fact the Labor MP was caught showed the system worked. Well, it shows the system in place to catch people acting on their paedophilia works.

What we hear very little about is what’s being done to prevent paedophiles from acting on their impulses. There are several known risk factors.

Previous sexual abuse increases the chances of someone becoming an offender, as do drug, alcohol and mental health issues, and social dysfunction.

This may come as a surprise – but according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, other children or adolescents are responsible for 40 to 90 per cent of sexual abuse against children.

Very few women sexually abuse children. In the ‘real’ world some have speculated that abuse by women is underreported, as there may be decreased suspicion by outsiders, or because victims are less likely to report their female abusers.

That men comprise the vast majority of child sex offenders is proven by the fact that so few women are picked up by the extensive investigations into online child pornography.

So, for example, men who have been abused or abandoned, who have psychological disorders or suffer serious social dysfunction, need particular support and attention – especially when they are young.

It is very hard to stop someone being a paedophile. But you can try to stop them offending.

The problem is that this sort of ‘soft’ approach is far too hard to sell to Australians who mainly tend to be so disgusted they can’t explore the issues, want more hardline sentencing, or would rather form some sort of lynch mob when a paedophile is identified.

Many paedophiles, before they offend, are likely to be keen to stop themselves. Of course there will always be the extreme cases who have no social conscience or self control at all; but a program directed at those who are wavering could be effective.

More effective, say, than waiting for paedophiles to offend then picking them up after the fact.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

107 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:10am | 03/05/11

      “That men comprise the vast majority of child sex offenders is proven by the fact that so few women are picked up by the extensive investigations into online child pornography.”

      No, it just proves that men are more likely to take photos or download visual pornography than women. It’s also important to remember that under many laws, lots of things that aren’t actually child pornography - such as cartoons, and pictures teenagers take of themselves - are considered offences.

      While there has not been as much research into females as perpetrators compared to males, studies “show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.”* This is far from an insignificant amount, or a tiny minority.

      As usual, the main focus is on male perpetrators, while female abuse is minimised and swept under the carpet.

      * Yes, the quote is from Wikipedia. If you don’t like that, check the many other sources.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      06:33am | 03/05/11

      Traditrionally, western society has great trouble even acknowledging deviant female behavior.
      Women , who commit acts that would see a man harshly dealt with, are often seen as the victim, rather than perpetrator,
      Female child rapists are considered confused, vulnerable, searching for love etc., and as the public record shows, recieve custodial sentences much less than male perpetrators.

    • Nemesis says:

      06:49am | 03/05/11

      “No, it just proves that men are more likely to take photos or download visual pornography than women.”

      Evidence to support this statement?

      “It’s also important to remember that under many laws, lots of things that aren’t actually child pornography - such as cartoons, and pictures teenagers take of themselves - are considered offences.”

      They are child pornography, that’s why they are prosecuted.  It may not meet your definition of child pornography, but it certainly meets the legal one.

      On your own ‘reliable’ figures then somewhere between 60% - 76% are men perpertrating crimes against boys and 94% against girls, ‘this is far from an insignificant amount or a tiny minority’

    • Carz says:

      06:56am | 03/05/11

      Erick, are you so anti-women that you can’t accept that the article is about paedophiles, not men?

    • Kevin says:

      07:56am | 03/05/11

      Eric,
      you just can’t help yourself.  Whenever there is any article that raises any “gender issue”, you come out with sort of offensive rubbish seen in your above post.  Grow up.

    • Erick says:

      08:13am | 03/05/11

      @TChong - Indeed. In the United States, if a woman rapes a boy and becomes pregnant, the boy is legally forced to pay her for “child support”. Effectively, the male victim is raped twice.

      Also, a woman can write a whole book about how she loves to ogle twelve-year-old boys, and this is not considered illegal or perverted. There is a huge double standard.

      @Nemesis - I never said that males were an insignificant minority among child sex offenders. I merely pointed out that female offenders are underestimated.

      As for the prosecution of teenagers for taking photos of themselves - that is not child pornography. That’s a case of legal insanity.

      @Carz - Why are you so anti-men that you can’t accept the fact that not all paedophiles are male?

      @Kevin - If you are offended by the existence of different viewpoints, that is your problem, not mine.

    • James1 says:

      08:15am | 03/05/11

      6 in 100 sounds like a tiny minority to me.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:31am | 03/05/11

      “No, it just proves that men are more likely to take photos or download visual pornography than women. It’s also important to remember that under many laws, lots of things that aren’t actually child pornography - such as cartoons, and pictures teenagers take of themselves - are considered offences.”

      That is considered child porn under the legal defination. Therefore, there are more male pedos.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      08:49am | 03/05/11

      Kevin if you are offended that women are discussed as the criminals they can be, alongside the criminals men can be, then you have an issue with perspective. Women are no longer special, they are equal. With that equality comes responsibility; hiding behind ‘female frailty’ is no longer an option. With the cause of women’s rights advanced in the media every day, men’s rights need advocates as well. At least Erick steps up when he sees a need.

    • erick says:

      09:00am | 03/05/11

      @James1 - Nice bit of cherry picking there. If the PhD doesn’t pan out, you could always get a job on a fruit farm. :D

      @Cloud Strife - By your definition, a teenager taking nude photos of him/herself is a “pedo”. With the rise in popularity of sexting, this means that soon the vast majority of “pedos” will be teenage girls.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      09:31am | 03/05/11

      Erick, can you please provide a link to back up your claim that “In the United States, if a woman rapes a boy and becomes pregnant, the boy is legally forced to pay her for “child support”? I’ve had a quick look but can’t find any evidence.
      Which state of the US has this law?

    • Seano says:

      09:45am | 03/05/11

      @TChong - I’ve noticed (i.e. this is completely and admittedly anecdotal) that female teachers that rape children are now starting to get custodial sentences rather than a slap on the wrist. Hopefully this represents a shift in societal attitudes that too often portray men as potential child molesters and women as always safe or as you say the victim.

    • Nemesis says:

      09:54am | 03/05/11

      Erick,

      Laws are sometimes created to protect people from their own stupidity.  I will leave the expertise on insanity to people with far greater experience, such as yourself.

    • James1 says:

      09:57am | 03/05/11

      Rather sensitive today Erick, and very quick to resort to insults.  This is not up to your usual standard of debate.

    • Erick says:

      10:57am | 03/05/11

      @Rover - Here’s one example. There are many others.

      “A man who claims he was seduced and exploited in his early teens by an older, married woman must pay child support to the state for the illegitimate son he gave her” according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The relationship between the two was not revealed until after the statute of limitations for statutory rape had passed, but in any event the appeals court held that the lack of legal (or even actual) consent is irrelevant to the issue of child support. (Chad Halcom, “Man, 14 when he fathered boy, must pay support”, Macomb Daily, Feb. 21)

      Google “underage child support” and sift though the results if you want more.

      @James1 - Who’s being sensitive? A gentle joke (note the smiley) in response to a pretty obvious bit of selective attention.

    • James1 says:

      11:25am | 03/05/11

      Oops - I don’t read emoticons, so I missed that.

    • Bev says:

      11:33am | 03/05/11

      Rover of North Cooma says:09:31am | 03/05/11

      Erick, can you please provide a link to back up your claim that “In the United States, if a woman rapes a boy and becomes pregnant, the boy is legally forced to pay her for “child support”? I’ve had a quick look but can’t find any evidence.
      Which state of the US has this law?

      Try here:
      http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      11:46am | 03/05/11

      Hi, Erick and all!

      I looked at a bunch of stats and reports from the AIC and the AIFS, all of which said overwhelmingly it was men committing child sex offences…

      And then I thought it was probably likely that abuse by women was massively underreported - due to people not being as suspicious of women, and maybe also abused boys being less likely to dob in their mothers, female relatives or female family friends.

      So then I spoke (off the record) to a top child protection expert, who said that this wasn’t the case, that even in cases where women are involved they’re often abusing at the urging of a male partner, and that there’s a very clear link between child pornography access and paedophilia and that there are very VERY few women busted using online child porn.

      One of the biggest problems here is that there really is jackshit good info around. The best studies are old, underreporting is of course a big problem, and statistics are rare and sketchy. So I reckon there’s heaps more to be said on the issue.

    • Carz says:

      02:10pm | 03/05/11

      @ Erick Where did I say that there aren’t female paedophiles?

    • Bev says:

      02:21pm | 03/05/11

      The present hysteria about child sexual abuse (mostly generated by feminists and their fellow travellers) has had the effect of many men minimizing their contact with children.  Miranda Divine wrote an article about men banning boys from their change room at a local pool.  This to protect themselves from sexual molestation accusations.
      The comments were an outpouring from men as to how they felt they had to isolate themselves from children to protect themselves.  Stories of fathers frightened to interact with their children, of men who averted their eyes from childrens amusing antics in supermarkets,  of men who would not go to the aid of a crying lost child in a shopping mall etc. This is a far greater obscenity in my eyes in that it harms and warps society, men and womens views and stunts childrens social development, and their view of men and society.  More damage to our society than any phedophile activity does. This does not condon phedophilia but is the cure worse than the disease?

    • Jan says:

      07:06pm | 03/05/11

      While there may be under-reporting of female abusers, victims also under-report when they’re abused by men for various reasons, including fear. Women do commit sexual crimes no doubt, but the fact is that sexual crimes are overwhelmingly committed by men and women and girls are overwhelmingly the victims. The statistics are not ‘rare and sketchy’. The evidence is there in vast qauntities all over the world. To pretend otherwise is just plain denial and will do little to resolve the widespread crimes of rape, sexual assault and child sexual abuse.

    • Aisha says:

      07:40pm | 03/05/11

      @Bev. Firstly, the impact that child sexual abuse may have on innocent men cannot be compared to the impact that child sexual abuse has on children or adult survivors. It’s very sad that that one of the consequences of child sexual abuse is that people often become suspicious of innocent men, but that’s a secondary issue. Secondly, it’s men themselves who are largely responsible for this unfortunate effect, because it’s mostly men who commit child sexual abuse. What to do?

    • Bev says:

      01:25am | 04/05/11

      Aisha says:07:40pm | 03/05/11

      It’s very sad that that one of the consequences of child sexual abuse is that people often become suspicious of innocent men, but that’s a secondary issue.
      I would not call potentially alienating 50% of the population (males) from children sad or a secondry issue.  I would say it is potentially a society destroying tragedy.

      Secondly, it’s men themselves who are largely responsible for this unfortunate effect, because it’s mostly men who commit child sexual abuse.

      A standard feminist approach projecting what a small number of men do on to all men.  The responsibility of the vast majority of men for pedophilia is the same as the responsibility of a vast majority of women for other forms of child abuse (where women are are the large majority)
      nil.

    • cmcd says:

      06:42am | 03/05/11

      I dont care about the gender issue but the punishment issue.
      Fix the punishment and the numbers will go down.
      If bad behaviour is rewarded by ill-fitting conditions, rather than a clear message that society is disgusted- then men, women, children will all commit
      these crimes.And it’s happening. Boundaries are crossed that Punishment can bring back.
      The Punishment does not ever fit the crime- Public Hanging and Humiliation is the only way.If we all see that paedophillia is rape, rape is serious,and that rape is murder but with he person left alive, to deal with the pain, and a society that empathsises with real victors who survive, not a society that supports ‘criminal justice”- we can fix the problem.
      Endorsing the Human Rights Laws never worked in paedophillia comitted by children themselves-Bulger killers-that’s right there was sex crime and torture before murder. And nothing has worked with all the excuses made.
      I think putting the gender issue is misguided- the fight should be to make clear that any abuses and rape is punishable by death.

      Reply

    • Debbie says:

      08:34am | 03/05/11

      In actual fact careless driving causes far more harm to far more people - should careless driving be punishable by “hanging” .. would this make everyone drive safer ?

    • michael j says:

      09:40am | 03/05/11

      @emed-so what you just said is the two 10 yr old boys that committed the bulger killing ‘’ should have been Hung in public “‘
      Justice is Revenge that has been effected ,,
      As nearly all conditions are Genetic that are triggered by a persons surroundings and experiences and it is unlikely humans are smart enough to change their surroundings ,,
      Genetic screening should be introduced to get rid of traits that we feel are to animal like to be Human,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    • RGG says:

      09:50am | 03/05/11

      Hypothetical: murder and rape both carry the death penalty.

      OK, so then assume that I rape someone. I obviously don’t want to be caught. My victim didn’t see my face, but you can never be too sure - would it not make more sense for me to then kill the victim? I mean, it’s not like the state would be able to kill me twice if I was caught, and this would decrease the chances of their doing so.

      Food for thought.

    • Bev says:

      10:17am | 03/05/11

      If we look back at history people had a very different take on child sexual abuse however it was common for men (not women their heads were shaved publicly to humiliate them. Then they were sent to a nunnery) convicted of adultery or sexual abuse to be executed.  They were first broken on the wheel which meant they were tied to a frame or cartwheel and the executioner would proceed to break all the bones in the mans body with a heavy cudgel.  Then their genitals were cut off and finally they were beheaded. The aim of an experienced and skilled executioner was to keep the man alive and conscious up to the point of beheading. To you I would say here is a cudgel, a knife and an axe proceed. How about a front row position?  You could observe at close quarters and be splattered with the blood. Trouble is people who make these comments don’t want to face what they call for.  Out of sight out of mind so their sensiblities are not offended.

    • Carz says:

      07:04am | 03/05/11

      This article and many like it focus on peadophiles as child sex offenders, which isn’t a bad thing, but it also isn’t the whole story. Not all paedophiles are child sex offenders. Some are able to control their urges. It is only when they offend that they become criminals. And not all child sex offenders are paedophiles. It is time that the media, government and public focused on the offenders, regardless of whether or not they are paedophiles (sexual preference for pre-pubescent children) or even hebephiles (sexual preference for early adolescent children).

      And most of all we need to continually educate our children and remove the public stigmatisation and shaming of those who speak out about their sexual victimisation, regardless of the their age. While we have a court system that allows children to be labeled as sexual agressors, absolving perpetrators of their responsibility, we as a society are not serious enough about combatting child sexual abuse in any form.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      08:56am | 03/05/11

      I broadly agree with your statement Carz but where do you come up with this statement?:
      “While we have a court system that allows children to be labeled as sexual agressors, absolving perpetrators of their responsibility,”

    • Bev says:

      09:22am | 03/05/11

      Tim says:08:56am | 03/05/11

      I broadly agree with your statement Carz but where do you come up with this statement?:
      “While we have a court system that allows children to be labeled as sexual agressors, absolving perpetrators of their responsibility,”

      Lets have a hypothetical two teenagers boy and girl under 16. She sends him a photo of herself.  If he doesn’t destroy (not delete) the picture and it somehow comes to notice he is guilty of pornography. In WA it is mandated he be added to the sexual offenders list. In other states its up to the judge. Who is guilty and is this really pornography?

    • St. Michael says:

      10:51am | 03/05/11

      @ Bev: Actually, about the only problem with that system is that in WA the blockheads don’t leave it up to the judge to decide.  The judge should always have a discretion on this issue; sentencing is a different story.

      I’ve no problem with a 16 or 17 year old kid, holding onto pictures of a naked 15 year old girl, being put on the Sex Offenders’ register if the judge has pasych reports indicating the kid is developing paedophilic tendencies at an early age.  Don’t give me the crap that they “don’t understand” or that they “innocently” have those pictures.  If Gen Y and down is as tech-savvy as it’s reputed to be, they know damn well that it’s illegal.

      Both of them are guilty of an offence.  The girl’s guilty of creating child pornography.  The boy’s guilty of possession, if indeed he didn’t coerce the girl into posing for the pictures.

    • Salec says:

      11:43am | 03/05/11

      @ St Michael

      At 16 you weren’t attracted to other 16 year olds? Really. A guy at 16 or 17 is probably about as physically mature as a 15 year old girl, and you reckon them being interested in each other and sexually involved with each other should be a sex crime? What a twisted world you live in.

    • Markus says:

      12:18pm | 03/05/11

      15 is not paedophilia. Hell, taking into account early development, for some teenagers it could barely even be considered hebephilia.
      As Salec says, that a 16yr old male being attracted to a 15yr old girl can have him registered as a child sex offender is to me just pure insanity.

      “if indeed he didn’t coerce the girl into posing for the pictures.”
      Yep, it’s always his fault…

    • Tim says:

      12:24pm | 03/05/11

      St Michael,
      are you serious?
      what kind of psych report could tell that a 16 year old was a pedo?
      And even then its a different issue from possessing a picture of a 15year old.
      I think you put far too much credence in some health professionals abilities to be psychics.
      I can’t believe that you think that being put on a sex offenders list would be a good outcome in this situation.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:43pm | 03/05/11

      @ Salec: I was attracted to other 16 year olds when I was 16.  On the other hand, I didn’t feel any particular need to get (consensual or otherwise) nude pictures of the generally-agreed hot chick of Year 11 and keep them on my mobile phone for masturbation material.  You had People magazines around for that.  These days, you don’t even have to go down the newspaper shop; as Avenue Q says, the Internet Is For Porn.  Given the free availability of such material you’d have to raise an eyebrow at least regarding the motives of someone who’s willing to go to the trouble of acquiring amateur porn of one’s 15 year old girlfriend.  Or the 15 year old that would agree to taking a lead role in said porn.

      @ Tim: you put too little credence in how early the tendencies are formed.  That’s leaving aside the reports in WA recently of kids as young as 13 or 14 committing sex crimes, both against adults and other children.  I’ve seen a lot of children’s psych reports that turned out a hell of a lot more prophetic than Nostradamus on these subjects.  Not for nothing it is said “The child is the father of the man”; not for nothing did the Jesuits say “Give me a child up until the age of 7 and I will show you the man.”

      For example, to go on a tangent for a minute, the FBI’s got it almost down to a fine art so far as their serial killer profiling is concerned.  Some of their profilers refer to what they call the ‘Homicidal Triad’, which is a combination of the following three behaviours all cropping up in late childhood or adolescence: enjoying lighting fires, torturing small animals, and wetting the bed.  If you get all three behaviours the odds of that person having seriously antisocial tendencies are extremely high.  That is because the behaviours indicate a serious lack of empathy (torturing a defenceless animal), an appetite for destruction (lighting fires), and a lack of impulse control (wetting the bed).

      The sex offender list is a good watch list.  You do sometimes snare a 16 year old girl and a 17 year old guy just playing doctors and nurses, i suppose, which is why you need to leave the discretion open to a judge rather than the stupid WA approach as to whether the person goes on the list.

    • Tim says:

      03:00pm | 03/05/11

      Carz,
      that truly is an extremely strange case.
      Hard to comment on it without the facts as they were heard in court but it does sound off.

    • Carz says:

      03:24pm | 03/05/11

      ”  Lets have a hypothetical two teenagers boy and girl under 16. She sends him a photo of herself.  If he doesn’t destroy (not delete) the picture and it somehow comes to notice he is guilty of pornography. In WA it is mandated he be added to the sexual offenders list. In other states its up to the judge. Who is guilty and is this really pornography?”

      Actually Bev I think you will find that, by the letter of the law, the girl in this case could be charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

    • Salec says:

      03:48pm | 03/05/11

      @ St Michael - now your comparing having a picture of your girlfriend in your phone to the homicidal maniacs? I am well aware of the FBIs work to profile people, and while most homicidal people tend to posses these three characteristics, it is not inversely true that all people with the characteristics are homicidal. There is no study however that shows having pictures of your girlfriend on your phone when you both happen to be under 18, results in you tending towards paedophilia.

      I don’t think at all you’d raise an eyebrow that someone might prefer to have their fantasies about real women that they are in a relationship with than a random in a porn mag, but maybe thats me.

    • Erick says:

      04:31pm | 03/05/11

      Carz: “Actually Bev I think you will find that, by the letter of the law, the girl in this case could be charged with production and distribution of child pornography.”

      And that’s why the letter of the law is insane. This is in fact what has happened in some cases, mostly in the US.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:50pm | 03/05/11

      @ Salec: No, I’m not making the comparison.  You did read the part where I said “tangent”, didn’t you? Did you want to argue whether or not paedophilia develops in early life, or will you just concede that it does?

      Also, this bit:

      “might prefer to have their fantasies about real women that they are in a relationship with than a random in a porn mag, but maybe thats me.”

      Children, Selec.  Not women.  That’s kind of the point.

    • Carz says:

      05:07pm | 03/05/11

      @ St Michael, what you are talking about is the Triad of Sociopathy or Psychopothy, not homicide. It is related to serial killers and some other types of serial criminals.

    • Bev says:

      06:10pm | 03/05/11

      Carz says:03:24pm | 03/05/11

      Actually Bev I think you will find that, by the letter of the law, the girl in this case could be charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

      The catch is you will find in most instances the girl will be treated as victim.  Coerced or something any excuse will do. Allthough it is hard for me to get my head around a girl taking a picture of herself in her bedroom has been coerced. I agree with Erik this is government/legal intrusion into peoples lives on horrendous scale.  Real 1984 stuff.

    • Static says:

      07:24am | 03/05/11

      I cant help but think after seeing child beauty pageants and strolling around the malls and seeing how young girls of 11 and 13 are dressed these days and of course the sexualisation of little girls that in some way we as a society are aiding and abetting .

      Reply

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:04am | 03/05/11

      It’s an interesting one this.  I mean, kids should be allowed to explore their dress how they like - that’s what freedom is - but what is it with the beauty pageants?!

      Can’t we just say that all kids are great and leave it at that?  Why is one prettier than another?  My kid is awesome to me, but not to someone else, but a third person, who presumably spends their lives thinking of such things, is now given a position to tell us which one has more “beauty”?  Really?  Why?  And how?  That’s nonsense.

    • iansand says:

      08:34am | 03/05/11

      Not to mention the almost obscene routines that dance studios put pre-teens through.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:54am | 03/05/11

      @Static, my flatmate used to watch those shows,and one of the mums on there talked about her fear of paedophiles - whilst her daughter paraded and twirled on stage in heavy makeup and hairspray and a revealing outfit.

      I agree - she should stop creating bait for them if she’s so worried about them.

      Those pageants are sick. The ‘natural’ pageants are marginally better (as in, they’re not allowed to wear makeup, fake tan, fake teeth etc), but I still think they create a problem - namely, that I think women are judged on how they look most of the time in their adult life - why does it have to start so early?

      I wouldn’t let my child participate in one.  There are plenty of other things they can take part in that involve pretty costumes, and glitter and hairspray, like dance.  At least they’re learning a discipline and getting some exercise.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:05am | 03/05/11

      Not to mention the pic of that 8yo girl on that Australian-made childrens rehydrating drink being advertised at the moment. She’s clear wearing mascara.

      And yes I do understand that she needs to be “made-up” to appear in on product packaging and in ads but I reckon mascara at that age has crossed the line from presentable to sexual.

      Reply

    • Seanr says:

      10:39am | 03/05/11

      You say ‘lynch mob’ like it’s a bad thing Tory, I think our current policy towards paedophiles seems more of a ‘catch and release’ until they do it again and then go through the same process. Either lock them up for life or kill them…harsh view I know but as long as we are certain of the guilt of those involved I’m comfortable with it.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      11:08am | 03/05/11

      Fair observation. Just look at the hoopla surrounding Denis Ferguson.

      The biggest issue for me is that no amount of so called “punishment” or “treatment” will help. This is a sexual compulsion (it is not like rape which is more of an emotional/power driven act), that can only be controlled by the person (and many can not successfully do that). So putting these people in jail for a small amount of time does nothing. They either need to be permanently removed from society or chemically castrated - but that still won’t stop them looking at images etc etc.

      I think if we as a society are prepared to accept homosexuality as normal we must first recognise that other people’s sexual compulsions are also normal and then determine which are socially acceptable and which are not. From there we have to determine punishment.

      My vote is chemical castration.

    • Tom says:

      12:19pm | 03/05/11

      The problem is also selectivity in the ardour of our processes:

      1. I refer to Franca Arena who was hounded out of parliament when she raised the matter (which turned out to be well founded).

      2. The selective outrage at the clergy for protecting a pedophile does not seem to have been matched by the unblinking acceptance of Nathan Rees’ claim that he was 100% unaware of Orkopolous’ activities when he had been O’s Chief of staff. If an excuse doesn’t ring true for a bishop or a pope it should not ring true for a Labor staffer.

      3. The blatant hypocrisy in demonising Howard and Brough’s intervention into aboriginal communities is further evidence of selectivity (inherent bias) in our society.

      4. The Heiner affair in Qld where investigation was stonewalled despite high level people’s testimony.

      5. The politically taboo subject of religious cultures who take a brides who are under-age.

      6. The examples of women who get off scott free or with a minor penalty when convicted of child molestation.

      But writers keep going with the double standards and keep railing against soft targets.

    • Bev says:

      12:44pm | 03/05/11

      fairsfair says:11:08am | 03/05/11
      My vote is chemical castration.
      Except it doesnt work.  phedophilia is mostly mind set and castration doesn’t change that.  There are many other ways to sexualy abuse children without penetration. History shows eunuchs did engage in sexual activity they just could not induce pregnancy. The real reason for castration.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:41pm | 03/05/11

      Thanks Bev. I haven’t read up on things since I finished uni in 2006, but I do recall there being evidence that it contributed to a reduction in sex drive overall. Surely that in conjunction with existing punishments would have more of an impact than just the current custodial sentencing. We can’t kill them off, it isn’t really feasible to put them in prison for their natural life.

      I do find it interesting that paedophiles are currently as vilified as homosexuals once were. As tough as it is for some people to recognise - our offence to it is a social construction. There are many cultures on this planet that take no issue with it (as Tom posits in point 5).

      In terms of your point 6 Tom - I agree. There are many incidents that appear to demonstrate a blatent double standard on the basis of gender. I would like to think that there are circumstances bringing about the different treatment, but without looking at things on a case by case basis it is difficult to comment.

    • Tom says:

      03:16pm | 03/05/11

      @fairsfair, I think you might have misconstrued my point 5).  I am just saying that our country is disgustingly cowardly and selective in handing out censure. I never said that pedophilia is good in any context.

      If you are influential, rich or have a designated “victim” status for your culture in Australia, then you can get away with pedophilia. If you are not one of these, watch out because the Aussie processes will get you.

      @Bev, how does one chemicall castrate a woman?

    • fairsfair says:

      03:38pm | 03/05/11

      Oh Tom, I am not supporting it in anyway and didn’t think that is what you were getting at. Sorry if I implied that.  It did support what I was getting at though - it is a social construct and if we are to make sure that it is clearly defined as anti-social and illegal behaviour in Australia we must first understand what is causing it and also understand what is generating the rage against it. And I agree with you - that must be uniform. Being secular - no religious or cultural belief should be taken into account when we are developing criminal laws. It is a bit naive of me though isn’t it, never going to happen.

      There have been articles on this website that have been centred on iPhone aps to council people out of being gay. It was absolutely shouted down (and I agree with that), yet this article touches on the fact that we somehow think we can council people out of being paedophiles -  sexual compulsion is the same for all. Just like I can’t be counciled out of being heterosexual, I don’t think you can council someone out of having sexual desires for children.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:55pm | 03/05/11

      Fairsfair, for someone who’s opinion I usually dig, I’m quite surprised to see you subscribe to social constructionism. (Its a concept I profoundly disagree with, and like Dostoevsky, I find it hard not to ridicule it)  While it makes some points, I have often though it is at its heart….nihilism, as it denies the possibility of objective truth.

      Would you agree or disagree that its equatable with nihilism, and if agree, are you happy to maintain it as an epistemology?

    • Slothy says:

      03:56pm | 03/05/11

      And how do you intend to be certain of their guilt Seanr? My abuser will never be brought to justice because it is simply my word against his.  The first incident I can remember was when I was 5 years old and it continued until I was 12. I wasn’t able to tell my parents about it until I was 17. With those kinds of timeframes and that level of repression, I have no way of proving a single word I say.

      Although I am forever grateful that my parents believed me without question and I know I am telling the truth, I also believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I am certainly not comfortable with an impartial court of law sentencing him, let alone to death, on the basis of my testimony alone.

      This is also why I believe in rehabilitation and prevention over punishment. It is simply too hard to prove the majority of sexual abuse cases, and even if I could have gotten a conviction, it wouldn’t change the damage that was done. While there is certainly a need for punishment,  the difficulties in securing a conviction and the lifelong nature of the trauma means I would much rather the focus be on preventing those lives being destroyed in the first place.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:36pm | 03/05/11

      @HTPM - in a sociological context, I guess I partly do. I am reluctant to say that I fullly prescribe to anything, as like you I can have agreement and disagreement with any school of thought. It has been five years now since I thumbed through my sociology textbooks so I am a bit rusty on all the lingo.

      I don’t know much about nihilism as it is more of a philosophical notion - was never in to that nor Dostoevsky. Your question has taken me right back to uni and I have to say has left me wondering how I ever tollerated it enough to complete the degree wink

      I don’t think that you can easily ridicule that notion that our behaviours and sense of right and wrong are partly socially constructed. The whole nature vs nurture thing - I think it is a bit of both.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:58pm | 03/05/11

      Cool, cheers for the answer. Yes, I’m similar in that I find it a useful “blow torch” to apply to some ideas but I could never actually adopt it as my worldview.
      It’s a very uni question, in fact I think one of the reasons its a popular idea at Uni is the fact it sits well with campuses where people will profoundly disagree with one another. Makes it easier to teach without too much upsetting offence being caused.

      I don’t doubt we live in a world where some ideas are socially constructed, the values we culturally hold may not truly be reflective of what is good, but are likely social constructs. For example, one only need to look at celebrity, and the way people can now become famous for being famous to see that celebrity is a social construct. However, in my view we should never go so far as to claim everything is a social construct. Some will argue gender is a social construct, and to be sure some gendered behaviours are social constructs - but all the social constuctionism in the world can’t change the fact people are objectively born with certain biological characteristics.

      If you will forgive the emotive language, the idea of paedophilia being wrong only because its a social constuct doesn’t look too good when your dealing with for example, child injuries becaus they are physically not large enough to go through sex with an adult uninjured. Its just objectively wrong.

      But my main beef with constructionism is my view that, behind the view all is constructed, is the view anything can be constructed as valuable - therefore all things are equally valuable/without value. Therefore nothing means anything….

    • fairsfair says:

      06:24pm | 03/05/11

      I think we are on the same page then as I am talking about it in the context of the article - our collective response to the behaviour that deviates from the norm. I mean how we as “normal society” respond to the idea of paedophiles. I think we’d need more than a few hundred words to discuss the notion of paedophelia and how/when/why it manifests itself.

      I guess your example is the slippery slope. My initial comment was relating to what you have spoken about, but what happens when it is an mentally & emotionally immature 18 year old and a physically mature 14 year old? What happens when it is a 60 year old and a 12 year old? This is where I think our social constructs come into play as we are able to rationalise away the 18/14 scenario to be probably ok, but the 60/12 one is not. 

      It is not something anyone wants to have to deal with - but it is going on, so we need to work out some sort of way to tackle it. I find it a bit of a strange notion though that on one hand the article condones the fact that “a program directed at those who are wavering” would be effective, but the iPhone ap created by a church that was aiming at other sexually wavering people was decried (and again I am talking about our response to that, not the subjectmatter of that ap).

    • Melanie says:

      09:12pm | 03/05/11

      Other cultures may accept child sexual assault, chld sexual assault may have been accepted in other time periods. People also often attempt to justify child sexual abuse on the grounds that the child appeared to be ‘consenting’. This is called trauma bonding and is a sign of significant psychological injury. It’s a survival strategy, not a sign of consent. Please lets stop pontificating about ‘social constructs’. Children who are sexually assaulted and abused in any context are injured and harmed physically and psychologically,  they feel guilt, shame and trauma often for the rest of their lives. Child sexual abuse is wrong - objective fact, end of story. What does culture have to do with it anyway? Who’s culture are we even talking about here? I highly doubt little girls who are forced into arranged marriages or sold into prostitution consider that to be any part of *their* ‘culture’.

    • Tom says:

      08:40am | 04/05/11

      @Melanie, you are quite correct here “Child sexual abuse is wrong - objective fact, end of story. What does culture have to do with it anyway?”

      Now take to the streets and:
      1. Demand Labor re-introduce Howard and Brough’s intervention into aboriginal communities to protect children against molestation whatever “spokesperson” might be offended.
      2. Demand that Labor ban child brides what ever influential (voters) culture might be offended.
      3. Demand that Labor investigates whether Nathan Rees protected Milton Orkopolous.
      4. Demand that full details come out of child sex investigations or reports on the NSW judiciary as per Franca Arena’s allegations.
      5. Demand that the Heiner affair is re-opened.

      Go get’em girl. .... “What?”, I can hear you stammering, “they are not safe targets, people like me prefer to pontificate and take action against politically safe targets.”

    • fairsfair says:

      09:07am | 04/05/11

      Melanie - I took this article to be about the prevention and the “punishment” of paedophiles. Yes, by its very nature that includes abused children, but I was talking about the differences between social/lega/personal responses to a paedophile (not an abused child). I do not condone it or overlooking it in the slightest. That is the point. Nobody was pontificating about anything thank you very much.

      Your culture (I am assuming here - that of a western woman, likely eurasian decent and heterosexual) tells you it is wrong. Some cultures out there don’t agree with you. Yes you are completely right to take offence to it and be horrified (as I am) - but it is your culture that is dictating you respond that way.

      We as a western developed country need to identify what is our own socially constructed culture (as thanks to Multiculturalism we can’t just say we are bonny wee scots) and define what has to happen. That is what Tom is getting at - our collective response to preventing abuse and dealing with perpetrators is not uniform. It is not happening out in the real world and it needs to be.

    • Gladys says:

      10:40am | 03/05/11

      My daughter was having a bit of a game with her father and myself on a Sunday morning. My husband was in his boxers and she saw his doodle. She went to grab it and ran away laughing that she had done so.

      His reaction was to say no and to stand up removing it from view. But it did open an opportunity for us to tell her ‘doodles/penises are private and belong to the person. They’re not to be touched.’

      This is the first step in a long education process - don’t touch other people on the penis or vagina; don’t touch other people even when they say it’s alright; if someone says it’s alright but you’ll get in trouble that’s a lie. (Hopefully she’ll also see that it’s illogical.)

      My own parents told me never to go into any of my friends’ parents’ bedrooms. They did this for two reasons: they wanted me to protect their privacy by keeping my friends out of their bedroom and to ensure no one’s father ever took me aside and into a private place.

      Eventually when my daughter is old enough to be more in control of her body we can teach her about mutual touching - when that is will be entirely up to how she develops, but it’s not for another 8-10 years (I hope).

      In the meantime, I do not take it for granted that there are people out there who are not in control of themselves - there are alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive liars - all of them are out there and can do damage.

      And I hope I don’t kill off childhood in my efforts to protect her. My parents didn’t.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      03:14pm | 03/05/11

      But children are not in control of themselves, and that is precisely the point.
      Whatever they do, think and feel, we as adults can not assign to them an ultimate responsibility for any unpleasant outcomes. Children don’t yet know what is real, let alone what is normal.
      I’ve often maintained that it is not that children are growing up sooner and hormonally developing earlier which causes embarrassing episodes you mentioned above, but that it is in fact our own reactions to ourselves - specifically our changing perceptions of our own adulthood, and what is in fact modern maturity - which is the problem.
      Children, specifically, need a sense of Adulthood in the family.
      This in turn, by distinction, defines, for the young, childishness.
      If adults nowadays are a litte cretinic, silly and obsessed with toys, and don’t like explaining things to their children because they don’t understand some responsibilities of parenthood - their kids will want to take their place, and be more like them, than themselves.

    • Thommo says:

      10:45am | 03/05/11

      Easy Solution - Death Penalty

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      12:47pm | 03/05/11

      Neither easy nor cheap, actually.  Which is why they banned it here.

    • Thommo says:

      01:58pm | 03/05/11

      Not if you make it that the state doesn’t pay for any legal costs no matter what. Make it so that anyone caught with actual hard evidence - i.e video footage of the abuse , has no appeals and is instantly put to death. there’d be planty of volunteers willing to pull teh lever or if givena choice of methods - I’d use a soldering iron, inserted anally off, then turned on and left on. That seems about fair.
      In all other instances, the offender should be castrated. That has the added benefitof sweilling the ranks of the NRL

    • Phil says:

      02:36pm | 03/05/11

      @St. Michael.

      No its surprisingly easy, bullets are plentiful and cheap.
      The criminal is then taken out the back somewhere (or in to the local mall section as a deterrent maybe?) and then dispatched.
      Body recovered, taken to a mass grave and dumped.
      There should be no sympathy, loss felt or rights for the individuals that do these things to kids.
      This then removes one pedo from the world making it a slightly safer place for others.
      Lets face it the current catch and release (if they even see a jail cell) is a complete joke and they are able to re-offend ruining others lives in the process due to how out of touch the law is.

    • stephen says:

      02:44pm | 03/05/11

      Crikey Thommo, I reckon that poor sod with the solder runnin down his leg might not get ter sit down for a week, (dunno if’d kill him though) but I reckon yer made up fer it with the castration biz.
      A man who can sit down
      is relieved of worry, time and frown.

    • Seanr says:

      02:54pm | 03/05/11

      A lot easier and cheapier than you think St M, it’s lawyers and bleeding hearts who complicate it.

    • Seanr says:

      03:28pm | 03/05/11

      St M, I believe that advances in technology will only assist in making sure that only the guilty are executed. However it should certainly only be done in circumstances where it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which would I expect make death sentences a rare occurrence.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:46pm | 03/05/11

      @ Seanr: ...you do realise that every person every wrongly convicted of an offence, originally at least, was “proven” guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”?

      Post-execution vindication is kind of late, wouldn’t you say?

    • Bev says:

      06:39pm | 03/05/11

      Thommo says:01:58pm | 03/05/11

      what. Make it so that anyone caught with actual hard evidence - i.e video footage of the abuse , has no appeals and is instantly put to death. there’d be planty of volunteers willing to pull teh lever or if givena choice of methods - I’d use a soldering iron, inserted anally off, then turned on and left on. That seems about fair

      Apart from fact that we have moved on from barbaric medieval practice (though it would seem some haven’t).  Would you apply the same punishment to a women (even back then they didn’t)?  If not it would suggest three things.  1. you are appling a double standard, 2. (reading between the line) you are of the believe that only men are guilty and 3. you have swallowed the feminist line, women good men bad period, hook line and sinker.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:57am | 03/05/11

      I’ll put my hand up to be the bloke that pushed the button, pulls the lever, pulls the trigger. And I won’t miss a single second of a nights sleep about it.

      I am all for proving confidential help to those that go to health authorities and identify the fact that they feel they might have an issue, or inclination towards children and get them the proper mental health attention they need - free of charge for as long as needed. I agree that some people cannot control their impulses, urges etc but I also acknowledge that we are all the masters of our own destiny and nobody is forced to rape or sexually assault a child. If we can get professional help to these people before they take that step, privately and without public stigma it can only be a good thing in the long term.

      But I do agree that we need to take the punishment side a lot more seriously, as well as the rehabilitation side. As it stands now a convicted paedophile is segregated away from the mainstream prison population. He’s sequestered with fellow like minded criminals where they can sit around and fulfil each others child rape fantasies verbally and get their rocks off, and develop future ideas and yearnings. I wish they would remove protections for these scum but we all know its not going to happen unfortunately.

      So my proposal is unless we can be convinced 100% that a convicted paedophile is ‘rehabilitated’ we keep them locked up until we are sure they will not re-offend, AND we make the parole board and mental health professionals who certify the offender as ‘rehabilitated’ 100% liable if the released offender commits further crimes against children.

      Reply

    • Duff says:

      11:40am | 03/05/11

      “I’ll put my hand up to be the bloke that pushed the button, pulls the lever, pulls the trigger. And I won’t miss a single second of a nights sleep about it.”

      Well, you might, later, when evidence emerges that one of the people you killed was actually innocent.  It happens all the time.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:05am | 03/05/11

      To decimate is to reduce by one tenth. In some cultures, sex within the family is normal. Are we?

      Reply

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:44am | 03/05/11

      Actually Harquebus, thought there are some cultures where this has been common practice, incest is the single most common taboo across cultures.

      An Anthropologist (can’t remember their name sorry) did a huge study on it a few decades back, trying to find out “what is the single most commonly “prohibited” behaviour amongst human beings across cultures” the answer was incest.

      The streak of bioligical mental health issues/birth defects, poor immune systems ect that tends to be present in incestuous bloodlines was probably pretty convincing.

    • Seano says:

      11:52am | 03/05/11

      Then those cultures are wrong. Children are not physically or emotional ready for sex, let alone capable of making that choice. As far as sleeping with adult family members the horrors of inbreeding should be enough to show that those cultures are wrong on that score as well.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:05pm | 03/05/11

      HT. Thanks. Is that taboo cultural or religious?

    • bella starkey says:

      12:27pm | 03/05/11

      It’s biological really, people are hardwired to find those genetically similar to us sexually repulsive.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:47pm | 03/05/11

      Harbeques,

      That’s a very tough question to answer, as culture and religion are so intertwined. Even the most secular cultures have a powerful influence from religion, particularly in the law. I’m sure some cultures would have only adopted the law of “no incest” as a result of the birth defects ect, but the law was often religious rather than secular in many cultures.

    • Chewy says:

      01:02pm | 03/05/11

      @ hot tub Actually incest within family is quite common in one religious group. Marriage of cousins occurs quite frequently and legally in Australia. I have a relative working in childrens hospitals in Sydney constantly dealing with the byproduct of this form of incest.
      But fear of the cries of racism from bleeding hearts (Hi Tory) prevents anyone from doing anything. Meanwhile children are being brought into the world and subjected to a life of disabillity, so long as certain groups sensitivities are respected everything is fine.

    • Mel says:

      09:28pm | 03/05/11

      In some cultures selling 6 year old little girls into prostitution is normal, sewing up their vaginas so that they can be raped multiple times for a high price until they die of infection or hemmorhage is normal, forcing little girls to marry 60 year old men is normal, adult men raping and impregnating little girls and watching them die in childbirth (childbirth is the leading cause of death of girls worldwide) is normal. The problem with appealing to cultural difference to explain away atrocity is that it’s usually approached from the perspective of the perpetrators and ignores the impact that ‘culture’ has on it’s victims, usually women and girls conveniently enough. Cultural relativism isn’t going to mean much to a traumatised, raped and abused little girl, I imagine.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:38am | 03/05/11

      Spot on Tory. We should, you know, listen to what the criminologist tells us would be best practice to prevent paedophiles from offending and you know – do it. But that’s just not how societies work is it? Too bad so sad.

      Reply

    • JB says:

      11:42am | 03/05/11

      A real problem is that children often aren’t believed.  What parent wants to be told that their husband/wife//father or whoever is molesting their child?  It’s quite amazing how people can push aside even the most obvious of clues if they don’t want to see.  Example?  I was molested as a small child during the 1960’s. I was threatened with having my throat cut by the perpetrator, followed by night terrors, bedwetting etc etc. and I told my mother as best I could, with my limited vocabulary at that age.  My family’s solution was to censor my TV watching and cut out anything ‘unsuitable’ from the newspapers (such as the Moors child murders) so that I wouldn’t ‘tell tales’ about family members.  The notion being that I couldn’t have been abused, I must have seen or heard something on the TV.  Any solution must include better ways of identifying and helping the victims.  I know lie detectors aren’t perfect - but how about throwing a sh*tload of money at improving them.  When we reach the point of no false allegations and no false denials, then we may have a chance of identifying the full nature and extent of paedophilia. Until then, we’re working in the dark, with a justice system that simply doesn’t work.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      12:24pm | 03/05/11

      I remember watching this report when it first aired. It was haunting, to say the least, and made me wonder why there is no help available for anyone while they are yet to commit a crime.

    • Bev says:

      11:53am | 03/05/11

      The level of all child abuse in Australia is increasing. A study by the university of SA estimated that one child in three will come to the attention of child abuse agencies by 2012.  15% of children suffer some form of sexual abuse.  85% of abuse is physical or neglect.  Of this abuse 70% is by mothers (largly single mothers) followed by their boyfriends and the rest (about 15%) is by fathers and others. Feminists play down this fact, attempt to hide it and concentrate on sexual abuse because men commit the majority of sexual abuse.  Only 1% of sexual abuse is commited by biological fathers( the rest by strangers or other male relatives). This leads to the conclusion that feminists don’t really care about children but see child abuse as a vehicle to attack and demonize men.  This is not to excuse sexual abuse but any abuse of children in any form harms children often very profoundly regardless of the type of abuse. A fact that feminists down play.

      Reply

    • Vicky says:

      12:39pm | 03/05/11

      I agree with the article that we need to do much more to provide people/programs/services to people who have these tendencies before they act. There needs to be an open and easy way for them to access help. Many people want help but don’t know how and may even know what they are doing is wrong but don’t know who to talk to. Better funding and resourcing of pre actions is important and councelling once people are in prison and more and better programs.

      Reply

    • Lee Enfield says:

      01:03pm | 03/05/11

      All the Child sex abuse will stop with Stephen Conroy’s and the ALP internet filter.

      Reply

    • The Original Oz says:

      01:56pm | 03/05/11

      What world are you living in @Lee Enfield. Conroy’s internet filter is not designed to stop pedos it is designed to give the Government control over what Australians are saying on the internet. Even Conroy has admitted that it will be of virtually no effect ion limiting child porn activities as he stated that these people use different methods (eg P2P file swapping) to distribute their filth. The Internet Filter will really only be effective against browser activity not file sharing and, as such, will put far too much power into the hands of the Government.

    • Tim says:

      03:23pm | 03/05/11

      Whoosh,
      Straight over Oz’s head.

    • Tikobum says:

      02:56pm | 03/05/11

      What’s the difference between a pedophile who likes young boys and a gay man? Only the spelling because their sexual preference is derived from the same distortion. What will Elton John and his partner play with at baby bath time, a rubby duckie? These are serious questions when one considers their unifying elements. Women who like little girls would fit into this same category for the same reasons.

      When the Bible held the consensus in society, human value was firmly placed upon the biblical world view of human beings being personality. Today sciences holds that field in a very dominant way, and it sees human beings in a completely different way to the biblical ideas. Science sees humanity as either accidents of unguided evolution (Single cell explosion/ Common ancestor) or merely some chemicals that make up the DNA template. These ideas have serious repercussions on human thought and life. Stalin Hitler Mao and many others today shared this impersonal view of humanity and so felt there was nothing wrong with a war or two or a mass genocide of ones citizens. We are not as bad as these guys, but we are in the same impersonal reality as they were. One reason we have these gay and abortion euthanasia and so on questions is because we view humanity according to the sciences view without even knowing we do this. We have reasoned in this way since Immanuel Kant shifted human reason without telling anyone. Nobody has the sense to know anything is wrong in human reason.

      Unless there is a unified field of thought in society regarding what human beings are and why, we shall only always advance the questions as we have noticed. In our house, the first question is always, what is a belief, how do I have one, and how can I be sure. In light of our current day and the very important fact the few people are genuinely optimistic about the future, perhaps a return to the biblical method of antithesis in human reason is the real and only answer. Without an absolute context within human reason, ‘yes’ and ‘no’ would carry the same value and we would have a world like we have today.

      Reply

    • Seano says:

      03:35pm | 03/05/11

      “What’s the difference between a pedophile who likes young boys and a gay man? “

      One likes children one likes men. Your logic is patently and ridiculously bigotted. Following your logic you could equally say “What’s the difference between a pedophile who likes young girls and a straight man?”

      There’s no more connection between homosexuality and pedophilia other than the one manufactured by bigots.

      I see no point in pulling apart the rest of your outrageous, crazy and just plain wrong bigotry. I’m surprised you even got through with your comment about Elton John.

    • Bernie Lomax says:

      03:42pm | 03/05/11

      Wow.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:22pm | 03/05/11

      There is a difference between homosexuality and peadophilia, its consent. Child sexual abuse and homosexual rape are equitiable, as in both cases there is no consent (i take the view that children are not capable of understanding sexuality to the same levels of older teens and adults, so therefore cannot give consent). But consensual homosexuality is a different kettle of fish.

      If you’re freaked out about Elton as a Dad, consider his age too! That kid will be what, 12 when Elton dies?

    • Ann says:

      09:51pm | 03/05/11

      The majority of child sexual abusers are heterosexual men.
      Also, re: the idea that pedophilia is an inherent or ‘natural’ sexuality or impulse. I read an article once about pedophile priests which cited research that indicated that a significant proportion of pedophile priests were highly sadistic and gained pleasure not so much from ‘sex’ with children, but from exerting power and control over them. This may also explain their gravitation towards the church, with it’s deeply hierarchical organisational structure giving them a means of exerting that power and control over others. I think it’s an interesting theory. It also gives the lie to the flawed idea that if only priests could marry they would stop abusing children. It appears there’s more to it than just ‘sex’. Happily married, heterosexual men also sexually abuse children after all.

    • stephen says:

      03:38pm | 03/05/11

      It is in fact quite the opposite of your implied conclusion : that Science is not sure of anything anymore.
      Kant invented Reason, and everyone since has tried to shift it.
      It’s development can be now seen in future robotics,( especially in Japan) and Scientists will know have to decide what our mind is.

      You think in colours ; unfortunately, black and white are your only palettes.

      Reply

    • wag says:

      03:54pm | 03/05/11

      Tikobutt, I think you forgot to take your meds!

      Reply

    • Tikobum says:

      09:52pm | 03/05/11

      Too many categories for me fellow single cell organisms. Are you all Christian’s? Certainly sound like one using all the moral categories. You overlook some of the data as well in the true linguistic styles.

    • the whisperer says:

      09:48pm | 03/05/11

      St Michael, you found “People” magazine sufficiently erotic to stir you to masturbation? And you are commenting on the wierdness of child molesters? Have you tried those women’s underwear ads in the K Mart catalogue. What a strange and deceitful person you are. And to think that I once thought you to be normal. The “People” magazine? Goodness gracious me.
      According to your earlier post you state that any 16-year-old boy who has a photo of a naked girl should be put on the sex register. What about someone, (you), who gets his rocks off while leering at a partly dressed female in the fairly inoffensive “People” magazine, previously mentioned. I think that might be an indication of abnormality, (I’m no expert), but it would certainly bar you from my house. I have children, you see.

      Reply

    • deb says:

      07:00am | 04/05/11

      I just read a book by Nevada Barr called Burn. All about pedaphelia,nearly had to put it down.It was well written but sickeningly realistic.
      If even a tenth of it is based in fact we live in a sick sick world.
      I wanted to rip off some heads and the book was only fiction?

      Reply

    • Jolanda says:

      10:49am | 04/05/11

      The difficulty is that you cannot control what other people do so what we need to do is ensure that we empower our children to have the confidence to politely say no if they do not feel comfortable with physical contact, even if it is just when greeting a family member or close friend, for whatever reason, and use a different method of greeting or showing they care like shaking hands.  It is also vital that children be taught to identify the grooming process and know they have the support from the adults around them to politely say no without worrying about consequences.

      To many times I have seen kids being forced to kiss and hug family members/friends, when obviously the child didn’t want to and was not comfortable doing so, and instead of the parent supporting the child and giving the child the option of shaking the family members hand, the child was forced to have to be part of something that they were clearly not comfortable with and this was done not only in front of the parents and onlookers, but with the parents having forced the child.  At times this has even gone so far as the child was being forced to sit on a family members lap when clearly they were not comfortable.  The next time this child is in a position when they don’t feel comfortable with physical attention, the child will not have the confidence to say no because their experience is that the parent has not validated their feelings and have previously forced them to make contact with a person that they didn’t want to make that type of physical contact with – for whatever reason.  The child could also then very easily be made to believe that if they do not co-operate the parent will be angry with them.

      We have to be really careful of the messages we are sending our children.

      Too many children are confused as they are exposed to far too much sex and sex is encouraged as something fun, and good and exciting.  Which is all well and good for adults but it isn’t that for children who are being abused.  Children have been not only desensitized to sexual behaviors, the media saturation of sex is such that it seems often to be aimed at teenagers which are often children.  We need to better protect and care for our children.

      Reply

    • deb says:

      06:46am | 05/05/11

      Well said, i can remember being forced to kiss uncle,hug uncle when a child forty odd years ago.Can remember the old buggar copping a feel too.He was a nasty piece of work.My sisters told me of the same thing happening to them to.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

0

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

0

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

0

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed