Paedophiles deserve sympathy...(Gawker)

[The Comrade]

oh wow you have memory recall?

totally not a sociopath.

[The Dharma Bum]

All humans have f**k up urges nearly constantly. Don't deny.

[Boris Johnson]

[Thundertaker]

There is a subtle difference between sociopaths and psychopaths, even though the two terms are often erroneously regarded as interchangeable. A sociopath, unlike a psychopath, is not entirely incapable of empathy and forming emotional attachments to other human beings, they just tend not to care about people they have no attachment to. Think of the corporate boss who loves his wife and kids, but has no moral qualms about dumping toxic waste in ways that poison other people's kids.

Psychopaths on the other hand, are completely unable to comprehend the idea of empathising for others on an instinctual, human level, and can only comprehend it on a learned, intellectual level, which gives them just enough information to be able to pretend to care about other people in order to manipulate them.

Some psychiatrists and neurologists believe that sociopathy is chiefly down to environmental and social factors, whereas psychopathy is almost entirely down to brain chemistry and function (or lack thereof).

The good news for Mathurin is that he probably isn't a psychopath, as they tend to lack impulse control which can cause problems if they have violent impulses (which not all psychopaths have). You might still be a sociopath though, I don't know. I'm not an expert, I've just been reading around on the topic a bit...

[dontworrybehappy]

It gives me a bit of a stomachache talking about this, but here goes.

I spoke at length with a psychologist about this. Not just any psyc, one trained and specialized in dealing with the child vicims of sexual crimes with adults.

She pointed out that we are the only species that basically does not reproduce as soon as physically able. For every other species on earth, the younger the mom the more viable she is to raise offspring successfully and thus ensure the genes of the dad are passed on. I mean, this is on the raw, primitive level. But for humans, a person is labeled a hebephile or pedophile if they are attracted to young children, especially pubescent children. (For example, a 12 year old girl who is entering puberty.....that's not a child in the eyes of nature, maybe the law, but not raw nature.) That goes directly against nature, and not that long ago, even society was ok with that. My grandma got married at 13 to my grandpa who was 18. Now, he would be in prison, then he was a happily married new groom. Now he would be labeled for life, 100 years ago, he would be treated like any other young married groom. Society might be able to change 180 degrees in 100 years, but mother nature takes a bit longer. My grandpa raised a beautiful family of 4 children and had a very successful insurance business. He even had a major road in a nearby city named after him. To think of him as a "sex offender" is a little wild.

I just think people throw around these labels because it makes them feel better. As the bible say, "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged." Its basically not up to you to judge someone, it's their own business between them and god. Does this mean children shouldn't be protected? No of course not, but just like you can't protect children from every bad thing in the world, you can't possibly protect them all from every bad person. I mean people that you think you should be able to trust around kids, teachers, are getting busted left and right having sex with kids. A little bit of that is probably the taboo of the whole thing, but undoubtedly, some of it is just instinct. Humans are animals too. Sex offenders have the second lowest re-offense rate of any group of criminals except murderers, and their reoffense rate is low for obvious reasons. The public is led to believe otherwise, sadly. So true risks to children are ignored while "phantom" risks are focused on. It's sad for the kids, really.

I don't know, it's hard to talk about this without feeling icky but it does need to be said. In some other countries the age of consent is as young as 12. Ours is an unrealistic 18 in most states, 17 in a handful and I believe 16 in one. I know that by 12 I was a very sexual being ready to have sex with any girl or even woman that would say yes. To think that people were saying I couldn't consent was nuts, good god I was begging for it.

About giving them sympathy, I don't know about that, but maybe just have understanding.

[The Comrade]

it's because we've added a special phase in human growth, adolescence, that causes so much trouble. 100 years ago you were a child then you were pretty much an adult one day. there weren't 4-6 years of "growing up" that had to be done beforehand. more traditional cultures don't have that phase. you simply become an adult one day and it is expected of you to act like it. there is no "teenager" phase for them.


it's really a modern construction.

[Thundertaker]

A 12-13 year old age of consent is ridiculous. Quite apart from the psychological ramifications, most 12-13 year old girl's bodies aren't capable of handling a pregnancy without serious health risks. 16 is a reasonable age of consent, 15 the bare minimum.

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

[Thundertaker]

Most girls have not stopped growing and developing when they first start menstruating. Getting pregnant in the earliest stage of adolescence is physically dangerous, this is not a cultural perception, it is an obstetric fact.