Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Delaware “Family Values” Candidate Busted on Child Molestation Charges

Jim Burroway

November 1st, 2012

Eric Bodwnweiser, 53, was running for Delaware State Senate in a conservative-leaning district near Rehoboth Beach. He boasted of being a member of the anti-gay Delaware Family Policy Council, which is an official state policy council of Focus On the Family. He was endorsed by former 2010 GOP Senate Candidate, tea party darling and not a witch, Christine O’Donnell. And today, he stands indicted of multuple counts of child molestation:

The indictment includes 113 felony sex charges, including 39 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse — first-degree and 74 counts of unlawful sexual contact — second-degree. Although the indictment doesn’t identify the gender of the victim, the Gape Gazette identified the victim as a boy who allegedly was sexually abused by Bodenweiser between Oct. 1, 1987 and Aug. 31, 1990 when he was between the ages of 10 and 13.

Jason Miller, a spokesperson for the Delaware Attorney General’s office, which is prosecuting the case, said the victim, who is now in his 30s, has spoken to the media and revealed details not disclosed in the indictment but which are expected to surface at a trial.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Ben in Oakland
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

So, another family values type is busted. Yesterday, we had a family values attorney general being caught with his pants aroind his adulterous ankles. Why is it just as shocking to me that today is Thursday?

More and more, I have to wonder about those who make it their public personas to be as antigay and as anti sex as possible? xactly what are they hiding?

Well, we know what they’re hiding, all ofthe The real question is, why do those who prefer sex with children look down on those who have sex with adults who have sex with other adults? Why are those who defend the sanctity of marriage always trashing it?

And when will the mark an public figure it out?

ZRAinSWVA
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

I feel so sorry for the child or children who suffered at his hands! What an awful, terrible thing he’s done.

And what an awful, terrible human being he is to scapegoat us who simply want the same rights as others while doing things that no one, straight, gay, lesbian or otherwise would condone.

Snowman
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

That guy looks creepy.

jpeckjr
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

@Ben in Oakland. Who is the attorney general?

Ben in Oakland
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

His name is Tom Horne. Definitely a defender of the sanctity of marriage– as long it’s not his own.

Arizona has a law making adultery a crime. I wonder if he’s going to be prosecuted.

Manheart
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

I never trust anyone who is “oh-so-motivated” to work with kids. I assume they’re all pederasts–if not actually and actively, then potentially, in their subconsciouses. This intense motivation comes from SOMEWHERE after all. While I probably paint a lot of good, kind people with this brush, I don’t think it hurts to keep a suspicious eye on all of ‘em.

Robert
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

Manheart,

You use exactly the same rhetoric and arguments that are used every day against gay people. Pretty shocking. You damn every single teacher youth counselor, lgbt youth advisors and many many good men and women with this kind of rhetoric.

Shameful.

Regan DuCasse
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

Here’s the problem I’ve mentioned time and time again: a man who sexually abuses boys in this way, is actually an alpha male asserting dominance. If a straight man perceives a boy as weak (i.e. possibly he suspects as gay), he’ll target that boy for particular abuse and humiliation. Adolescent boys learn to do this early, and get away with it. Once they are adults, it still manifests in other ways just like this.
Horne is not gay, but every anti gay head case will mistakenly see it that way and abandon this man at the crux of how he got that way to begin with.

Straight males spend an inordinate amount of time in the public arena as politicians, clergy, sports figures and so on, obsessing about masculinity and heightened ideals about it.
Hence, why so much hazing, initiate rituals and other abuses, have sexual overtones.
And hence, why they are going through a lot of expense and socio/political extremes to assert their status over gay males in particular.

And this treatment of the weakest and more vulnerable, has the desired affect. The victims ARE dominated, weakened further, humiliated and demoralized.
It creates a passive aggressive form of social behavior that may or may not become extremely self destructive, if not threatening to others. Because such young people might in turn, do the same thing to someone else.
Notice how FEMALE victims of males like this, are hardly considered a problem. Because females don’t essentially grow into a PHYSICAL threat to grown men, the way another male would.
I am so beyond disgusted with the gender/orientation bias that permeates this extremely serious and dangerous behavior among STRAIGHT men and women.
Women who have sex with young boys and teens, are barely seen as criminals.
Although that male may not have any initial trauma, there are very serious after affects even so.

Same sex assault of this type, it cannot be emphasized enough, is NOT attraction.
Rape is NOT attraction, sexual abuse is NOT attraction in the way gender attraction of someone of the same age is.
Sexual assault is always about power, control, dominance and humiliation. And no other males are as invested in treating gay or weak males this way, as the straight males who like to believe they have literally a divine right to do it.

Soren456
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

I think it has to be said that most pedophiles never touch children.

I suspect that many of the best teachers, coaches, mentors, scout leaders and the like are pedophiles who take great joy in being among children, and would never violate any child’s right to be left alone.

Pedophiles are as capable of ethical behavior as anyone else. It is ironic that gay persons, who are constantly accused of sexual incontinence, should participate, without evidence, in accusing others.

Ben in Oakland
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

As always. Regan, bang on.

Regan DuCasse
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

Soren-WHAT THE HELL?!

You’re lucky you’re not in the same room with me. I’d blow your damn hair back!
Pedophiles ARE harmful because they have objectified children in an inappropriate manner. There is no such thing as a ‘safe pedophile’. It’s a paraphilia to have such interests in a child for the form of gratification that is NON MUTUAL and obsessive, thank you very much!

The judgement on adults who are that way, is correct.
Pedophilia has some VERY distinct characteristics, such as having an inviting, and enticing environment for the young. Gaining trust with families that have a parental void in some way.
Most importantly, there is a need, compunction really to spend a LOT of time with children, overnight away from a parent, without a spouse or co parent close by to chaperone.
And your statement about irony among gay people for judging pedophiles harshly is disgusting and wrong.
Pedophiles have NOTHING in common with gay people, not even as outsiders.
Why?
Because the sole aim of a pedophile IS to objectify children, and gay adults DON’T behave that way.
Pedophiles DO touch children, there are NONE who don’t want to, or don’t try to at some point when an opportunity arises.
Theirs is a COMPUNCTION and predation, there is no safety among pedophiles. They like being among children, the way an alcoholic likes drinking.
They feel a certain way being with children and get off on it.
Pedophiles don’t have normal responses to children, or other adults. And can’t.
I can’t BELIEVE you said something so WRONG and STUPID!!

And you better think again, what you just said might be actionable.

Marcus
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

Regan, you obviously have a different definition of “pedophile” from Soren, as well as most dictionaries.

Soren456
November 1st, 2012 | LINK

@ DuCasse:

First, never again call me stupid.

Second, never again describe the harm you would do to me physically, or threaten me with “action” (or whatever your absurd final sentence means).

Third, never again put words and thoughts into my mouth while you are clearly incompetent to read accurately what I did write, or calmly to consider what I did say.

Not a single word in your tirade convinces me. I will stick with everything I said. I would not change a word of it.

But I will emphasize a couple things.

First, I have zero doubt that pedophiles are capable of ethical behavior. You write as if every pedophile is actively plotting sexual encounters with kids, and imply that it’s only a matter of time before it happens (“There is no such thing as a ‘safe pedophile'”). You have no basis for such an irresponsible statement. None.

Which brings me to the most appalling and disgusting aspect of your rant: Demonizing.

You should be ashamed of yourself. My reference to irony is a reference to this very thing–the ignoramus insistence that another whole category of persons is so sexually out of control as to form a clear and constant social danger just by their presence.

As a gay man, I am well aware of the effects of demonizing on myself and on those around me, and I surely know demonizing when I see it. And I see it in every line that you wrote to me.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

@Soren:
1. I didn’t call YOU stupid, I called what you said stupid and wrong. And inaccurate for that matter.

2. I didn’t threaten you. I told you I’d blow your hair back, guess you don’t know what that means either. And I told you to think about your defense of pedophiles, someone may rightly think that’s what you’re doing, and just as there are trolls who can find out about statements made such as yours. It might come back to bite you.

3. I know what you meant, as if the ‘philia’ aspect, is neutral and harmless like an Anglophile, or a cocoaphile, or bibliophile. There is a dictionary definition, which is essentially quite clinical and somewhat sterile, and then there is the definition of pedophilia at another level. Don’t parse words about this.

4. And I just said, this is very different from being an outsider the way gay people are outsiders.

5. Oh yes, and I DO have a VERY good basis for what I KNOW and for my statement. And why your comment set me off.

6. It’s not about an UNFAIR judgement or assessment of pedophiles. The better question is just how would you qualify them for their restraint around children?

7. So, if I understand you: you EMPATHIZE with a group you think are unfairly smeared as dangerous just by their presence? Because this is what happens to gay men in particular.

8. I ask again: in what way would YOU qualify the restraint of a pedophile?

I have already respected you before Soren. I have never responded to anyone on the BTB comment threads in this way before.
And I was shocked by your comment, I’m sure I read right. I just couldn’t believe it.
And I am a person who has spent a great deal of my life in the protection and care of children.
And I am trusted with them and in articulating the problems with different forms of abuse.
In my professional capacity, I’ve already spent a great deal of time on distinguishing what’s harmful and how to asses all kinds of situations concerning children and false or inaccurate accusations or ‘demonizing’.
And I have no reason to be ashamed of what I said, or what I know.

So how about this, Soren: I’d like for you to tell the class here, exactly how to tell who is or isn’t a pedophile, who hasn’t already been diagnosed and what a clinician recommends by way of being around children?

After all these years of commenting in BTB, I can be reasonable. And I’ve asked to be corrected when I’m wrong.
But this one was a doozy, Soren.
So, I’d appreciate answers to my questions.
Fair?

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Oh and: I’m pretty sure I’m reading the incident of this Bodwnweiser character right. As I know of how such abuse works and how people with certain biases in gender and orientation don’t want to make the proper distinctions.

And my capacity and understanding of pedophilia works the same way.
You’re not a woman, but I am. Personal experience rightly makes me cautious around men.
There is good reason to be that way. Even if a man doesn’t actively assault women, there is tacit approval from other men and indirect abuses of women in OTHER capacities. Consider the outrageous statements on rape and abortion powerful politicians in positions to effect women’s lives have said.
That’s not demonizing men, that’s a reasonable conclusion based on facts and experience with them.
So don’t call ME incompetent. Not ever again.
And I have no reason to be ashamed, or apologize for my empathy going to those on the receiving end of abuse.
Pedophiles, can take care of themselves.

Priya Lynn
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

I think Soren is right that some pedophiles can be ethical and refrain from touching children just as some heterosexuals and some gays choose to refrain from sexual activity. But Soren said “I think it has to be said that most pedophiles never touch children.”. Soren, you have no basis on which to claim this is true about most pedophiles, that is merely your opinion and one in my opinion you’re very likely wrong about that.

Soren said “I suspect that many of the best teachers, coaches, mentors, scout leaders and the like are pedophiles who take great joy in being among children, and would never violate any child’s right to be left alone.”.

I think that’s incredibly naieve. While I’m sure there are some ethical pedophiles I’m also sure all of them avoid children in order to avoid temptation. I’m with Regan on this part, those pedophiles who seek involvement with children are all a danger and the only reason they’d seek involvement with children is because they are looking for an opportunity for a sexual encounter or at the very least they are open to engaging in a sexual encounter if they are not actively pursuing it. No ethical pedophile would willingly be around children and that temptation.

Robert
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Reagn and Soren both have points, and Priya Lynn did a good job of pointing that out.

But Reagan, I have to call you out on a BLATANT lie. You said: I have never responded to anyone on the BTB comment threads in this way before.

And I say you are full of Bullshit. I still recall your comments to me, in which you attacked my family and said utterly nasty things about my aunt in particular, simply because she is religous in nature. You attack people on this site all the time. It’s one thing to attack an individuals arguments and ideas, it’s another to attack people individually, and slander and attack their families when you dislike their ideas.

Be honest, you DO respond to people exactly that way. And your other comment had me rolling on the floor, laughing harder than I have in years:

After all these years of commenting in BTB, I can be reasonable.

I’m sorry, you were extremely unreasonable the very first day I posted here. In fact we got warned about the conversation continuing…lie when it suits you, but some of us remember the truth. You can not hide from the facts.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Okay, Robert…refresh my memory. If I don’t remember, or I’m mistaken, that’s one thing. That’s different from being a liar.
So walk me through it, by all means then.
It must have been a LONG time ago, if I have forgotten it.
And if you’re still carrying that around, then I’m not forgiven. Is your aunt still carrying it around too?
Because I think I’ve been open to being corrected when I’m wrong, or make a mistake too.

I had no idea you felt that way. So now I know. Anything else? And then will you feel better?

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

And Robert: don’t YOU generalize and say that I lie when it suits me.

And I’m not hiding from any facts or truth.

I haven’t even denied you might be right, have I? You can remember and I didn’t.
So get that right.

I have other things on my mind, as I would assume YOU do too.

You have a choice here, Robert.
Bring it up, or let it go. Because, I don’t know what you think you can accomplish with the former.
Fair?

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

@Soren: I did ask, in what way you’d qualify restraint or ethical behavior on the part of a pedophile?

I’d appreciate an answer, since I struck a nerve. I’m open to a reasoned explanation on what YOU know and how you came to your conclusions.

Because a pedophile isn’t especially identified or detected until AFTER some abuse has occurred. And as I also asked: what do you think a clinician would say about such a person in the presence of or seeking out children?
How do you contradict what every psychiatric, legal and criminal expert on child abuse says on the subject?

These are fair questions that are germane to the subject of this man’s arrest.

Robert
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Reagan,

When I make a mistake, I apologize. I am apologizing now, as I confused your name with Rowan. I am truly sorry to have made a false claim about you. You have indeed been civil at all times. I retract the assertions and apologize.

I am sorry.

Robert

Soren456
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Pretend that I am a marriage counselor.

Pretend that after 25 years in the profession, I decide to write my book about marriage.

And to write it, I turn to my files, and from my files (and my files alone) I extract the material for my book.

If I do it this way, what logically must I conclude about marriage?

I’d have to conclude that marriage is an awful institution; that those engaged in it are miserable, trapped, unappreciated, unloved, unfulfilled.

And don’t think that you could argue with me. I’m the professional; I have 25 years of files and experience. What else could there be? Who could form a different conclusion?

If you’re gay, this should be sounding familiar. That’s because it was “from the files” that we were always written about.

Until the appearance of persons like Evelyn Hooker and Kinsey, the public knew us only through police reports, psychiatric records, smirking news stories — and gigglers like Liberace.

Those were the files. What else could there be? Who could form a different conclusion?

Now comes Regan DuCasse with her files on pedophilia. She is a professional; she has years of experience; she knows what she’s talking about.

And what she’s saying is this: There’s no such thing as a “safe” pedophile. That’s because EVERY pedophile is just waiting, just calculating the opportunity to pounce on a child.

And here it gets worse: because EVERY pedophile is just waiting to touch a child, this makes their presence, their very existence a clear and constant danger to society.

In her view, it’s not possible that any pedophile behaves ethically and with restraint. She knows otherwise. She’s a professional. She has files.

I’m no professional, but I’ve heard all this tripe before. And I stand with everything I’ve said, in both my posts. Not only is the conclusion drawn from her “files” simply foolish and utterly incomplete, it moves almost casually into demonization. It renders a whole group of persons, by their simple existence, a threat to society, a sexually incontinent menace to its children.

DuCasse may not be gay, but I am. And as a gay man aware of his history, I repeat: I’ve seen this nonsense before. It is aimed at me on a daily basis; it was aimed even more forcefully at my forebears.

No one who is gay has any business ignorantly demonizing another group. I refuse to participate.

Michael C
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

What is an “ethical pedophile”?! Does simply refraining from physically abusing children somehow make a pedophile ethical? If I spent most of my time fantasizing about murdering everyone I know, would I be considered “ethical” for not acting on my fantasies? …until I couldn’t any longer?

If I was to define an ethical pedophile, it would be as following; A) In therapy. B) No contact with children. None. Even your own. C)No viewing images of children or even watching movies centered around children. D) No thinking about children or entertaining sexual thoughts. E) Chemical castration.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Soren,
The essential questions remain: By WHAT means do YOU qualify a pedophile as ethical or restrained?

In what way would a CLINICIAN recommend how an ethical or restrained pedophile should be able to involve themselves with children?

Well?

Soren, these are not about files, or demonizing for unfounded prejudices. Such as in the case of homosexual people and homosexuality. I’m making a clear distinction between what is ANTI SOCIAL behavior and what is not.
All YOU keep harping on is that you think it’s prejudice against pedophiles, for the SAME reasons as against gay males.

There are specific COMMON acts, behaviors and social interactions that pedophiles commit.
Just as rapists have patterns, reasons and methods as to their behavior, so do pedophiles.
There is no prejudice, or unfounded caution or misreading on the method of abuse of children here, or what leads up to it.
Pedophiles and ephebophiles are a separate category.
Yet, you keep insisting it’s the SAME prejudice.

I know exactly how E. Hooker’s research changed the way homosexuality was examined and how the conclusions were reached.
She did case studies on homosexuals who’d never been institutionalized and who were well adjusted. And the difference WAS not being institutionalized, and having some form of strong social and familial support.
It’s environmental bigotry and discrimination that demonstrably damages gay people and their independence and social stability.
There is no such methodology that’s found any pedophilia or pedophiles that’s DEFENSIBLE.
Pedophiles are not damaged by prejudice or discrimination. Indeed, they tend to find exceptional acceptance and support for the attention they give children. Depending on what their job is.
See the difference?

You are being extremely irresponsible here, Soren. For reasons you should have picked up on by now.
You’re a gay man, identifying VERY strongly with pedophiles and defending them as misunderstood.
Keep on being adamant in your defense of pedophiles, Soren.
I’m only trying to help you out of the hole you’re digging.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Good points Michael C. You seem to understand the subject very well.

And thank you, Robert for correcting your mistake.
No worries.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Oh, and Soren, what Michael is pointing out, are not typically voluntary for pedophiles.
These are conditions of probation or parole after convictions.
These people are forcibly restrained by the law. These are not ‘ethics’. But disincentives to re offend.

And as factual stats show, child abusers are the highest recidivism class, before drug addicts and behind thieves.

As Priya Lynn and Michael are pointing out: a pedophile is required to have absolutely NO contact with children, no exceptions.
And you seem to think this is wrong to do, and it prejudices the public against pedophiles for no good reason or fair one.
So for YOU, it’s enough to trust them, when they WANT to be around children?

Yep, Soren…that’s a DOOZY.

Priya Lynn
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Michael, to me an ethical pedophile is one that never has any contact with children and who does everything he can to avoid temptation. Desiring something criminal doesn’t make a person unethical, only acting on it does. So, yes you would be ethical if you spent all your time fantasizing about murdering everyone and refrained from doing so and at the point where you could no longer refrain you’d no longer be ethical – this isn’t a fuzzy dividing line.

Timothy Kincaid
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

The problem with this debate is that it’s not really possible at this time to know. The “ethical pedophile” – whether defined by Michael or Priya Lynn – is one that would not molest a child and thus would never be identified. So how could we know? They aren’t likely to so identify.

And there is one other problem. A HUGE one.

I suspect there were people who thought that they were avoiding children and temptation by going into the priesthood. And that didn’t turn out so well.

It turns out that the institutions that are supposed to be the barrier between temptation and kids choose to protect the pedophiles instead of the kids. We see it in the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts and Penn State. Who knows how much more this goes on.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

I think I have to say something on one of your points, Tim.
I think going into the priesthood was a way of avoiding homosexuality, not children.
Everyone EXPECTS priests to protect and advocate for children, most of all.
“Suffering the little children unto them”, so to speak.
It’s part of their service, is to be around children all the time.

As I said, those who seemingly have tireless and dedicated interaction with children, have full access.
Men suspected of being GAY, is what gets the wholesale ban, BEFORE the fact.
In fact, the Pope suggested banning gay men from the priesthood would solve the problem of pedophilia, once the scandal of priest abuse broke.
But FEMALE victims of priests, have barely entered the conversation or concern regarding abuse.

If the priesthood attracts gay men, it’s already and certainly the proscribed life a gay man is supported in having.
One of celibacy, with no romantic involvement with anyone else of his own ilk. Even adults.
In life outside of the priesthood, this is what is expected of living ex gay, too.
Except with none of the sort of socially unconditional acceptance and support, the collar gives gay men.

However, a pedophile, is literally the wolf in sheep’s clothing. No one would suspect and usually doesn’t, and he’s given an exceptional amount of children to be with.
Pedophiles aren’t nearly so suspect, as gay men are.
Which further contradicts Soren’s assertion.

Priya Lynn
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

I agree we can’t likely know who is an ethical pedophile but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, I’m certain some do.

Priya Lynn
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

The implication of Michael’s statement is what bother’s me, it suggests that mere thought should be criminalized or considered unethical, I strongly disagree.

Timothy Kincaid
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

Regan,

I think that while there would be expected SOME contact with children, a minister or priest mostly deals with adults and then in a structured setting. (A protestant pastor seldom has any one-on-one contact with children outside of a church function with their parents right there.)

And I think they might have gone in with some expectancy that the brotherhood would discourage that behavior. Sort of a desperate hope that if only they were in a sexless environment, they would be less tempted.

But, as it turns out, the Catholic priesthood is neither a sexless environment nor particularly discouraging of kiddie diddling. And that is a huge betrayal not only of the children and the expectations of the parents but also, I suspect, of the expectations of the priest. When they first went to their superior with confessions of inappropriate contact only to find it would be covered up, that must have been both a relief and a tragic disappointment.

But, I’m not Catholic or a priest so that’s only a guess.

Soren456
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

DuCasse, you don’t possess the simple capacity to consider the things I’ve actually said, and then respond to those things as they were written. You skew, you misstate, you insert, and then you demand answers.

I’m not so poor a writer that I’m not making myself clear. And I’m not in a hole, and I most surely do not need your help getting out of one.

Before I sign off, let me point out that pedophiles involved in crime are not the ONLY pedophiles who exist. Nor are pedophiles pedophiles only after they are identified; that’s like saying that I was gay only after I came out. Nonsense.

Being a pedophile is an ethically neutral thing. It’s what you do with it that makes problems.

If you believe, as I do, that a (hidden) majority of pedophiles remains uninvolved with criminal activity, then you also accept that they behave ethically and with restraint. This means that while they may be among children (as teachers and mentors), they don’t use the children. What happens in their minds–if anything happens–is neither your business nor mine.

But you appear incapable of considering any of this, and it is tiresome to read your skewed fantasies about what I’ve written. I’ve had enough.

Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2012 | LINK

I did consider what you said, Soren. And I don’t have to skew anything. All I did was point out the distinct differences between pedophilia and homosexuality.
And the definition of those differences.
I also understand that a person can be gay, regardless of having a sex life or coming out publicly with it.

I also understand a person is a pedophile whether they act on it or not, and don’t require acting on it to be identified as such.
I DO get it.
Just because I didn’t say it, doesn’t mean I don’t KNOW it.
But there is a difference between objectifying an adult, or mutual attraction between adults.
And objectifying, non mutual attraction to children.
The former, doesn’t especially have any negative or harmful result or risks to the other person.

And the latter, certainly does.
There are distinct patterns to the behavior of pedophiles and children, different from the behavior of gay adults, between each other.
I also know, better than you, that not all pedophiles have become criminals, but sad to say, that’s NOT a majority.
Which is why, no clinician, nor expert on child abuse, would encourage the RISK to children because of having that tendency.
Just as addicts are more at risk of using, when exposed to drugs, then when they are not.
Pedophilia is a COMPUNCTION like that. It’s a very serious and difficult one TO restrain. That is a fact of life, whether you want to believe it or not.

Whether or not ethical or disciplined pedophiles exist, is hardly what’s important here. The point is not tempting fate on the innocent who depend on adults for their welfare.

What would be more efficient and sensible, is to have a system of testing ALL adults who care for kids and MONITORING when adults are around children.
If there are other adults there to oversee the care, then it would go a long way in preventing problems and keeping pedophiles from having an opportunity in the first place.
I have considered what you’ve said, and you don’t know much about pedophiles at all.
You’re assuming they are otherwise normal, and what’s in their heads is something they have a handle on, it’s just a matter of acting on it. So therefore their heads are no one’s business.
That’s not only naive, that’s extremely ignorant about how such minds work.
I repeat, this is a manner of compulsion exceptionally difficult TO restrain. There is a great deal of organization around gaining access to children, over and above what normal, ethical and restrained people do.

You’re also assuming that because it can be hidden, there is an ethical and restrained manner that can be achieved over the long term, regardless of the kind of exposure to children.
I’m very good at my job, and regardless of your contempt, I’ve HAD to consider what pedophilia is and who pedophiles are.
Insulting me, is cheap and easy. And, you insult those of us in the trenches actually doing the work needed to keep young people safe.

Of course you don’t want to deal with it, or me any more. So class dismissed.

If you’re still reading, and to the rest of the group: Soren, why don’t YOU consider this.
Gay men are constantly and inaccurately indicted as supportive of pedophiles and pedophilia. Therefore deserving of suspicion and hostility as a threat to the young.
And here you are, rationalizing how unfair it is to see pedophiles as suspect, and how empathetic you feel about it.
You are doing more damage to the credibility of gay men with what you have said, than I ever could.

Michael C
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Hi Priya Lynn, I don’t think that thoughts should be criminalized. I DO think that thoughts can be considered unethical. I believe an ethical person is one who does his/her damnedest to avoid doing bad things. The way to avoid doing bad things is to refrain from thinking about doing bad things.

Re-reading my own comment, I agree that I vilified people who struggle against their own evil thoughts. If we’re talking about adults who have sexual attraction to children, and choose to surround themselves with kids (as in scout leaders, school teachers etc etc) to fulfill whatever emotional needs they may have, I stand by my statement.

Priya Lynn
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

I don’t think we’re too far apart on this Michael. I don’t think thoughts are unethical, only actions are but I agree that an ethical person tries to refrain from fantasies that might increase the temptation to act in real life.

I agree for adults sexually attracted to children its unethical for them to be around children at all regardless of what “emotional” needs they want to fulfill. I think Soren is way out to lunch to think the majority of pedophiles are ethical. I know a significant number of children are sexually molested and so pedophelia seems pretty common and that being the case it seems highly likely that the majority of pedophiles are assaulting children.

I believe that while there must be at least a few pedophiles who don’t touch children the majority are either actively seeking to have sexual encounters with children or if not actively pursuing their fantasies are open to acting on them if an opportunity should present itself.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Reagan,

I may have apologized, but only for my mistake of the past statements.

Now I see that you do speak meanly and disrespectfully to others. You really have been politely hateful to Soren. Decrying his ideas because they conflict with yours. Telling him he does damage to gay men because of his ideas, while telling him not to demonize you. That’s pretty rich.

On the topic of pedophiles. I believe anyone who suffers from anything they don’t want to suffer from is in a bad place, but that does not mean that they have committed a crime or are in danger of committing that crime. There are MILLIONS of people around the world that do not act on their sexual urges. To criminalize people with their feelings, instead of their actions, is immoral.

You, woefully, ignore the real life issues that Soren talks about in regards to the history of gay men and women. Yes, there was a period in which we were suspect of all things vile towards children. I remember well the Briggs Inititave in California, and the vitriol and slanderous accusations made against GAY MEN as teachers. Much of that was exactly the stuff YOU mention. To damn someone because of their FEELINGS, and NOT their actions is reprehensible. Plain and simple.

To demean others because they believe that individuals should be innocent until proven guilty is anti-american. All individuals deserve the presumption of innocence. Just because one struggles with (and note he IS talking about those who have NOT acted on their feelings) a set of feelings does not mean one is going to act on them. Many people don’t act on all of their feelings. Some people KNOW what is right and wrong and are able to control their ACTIONS so as to not do damage to others.

You would do damage to people who have commited no act worthy of the damage you would inflict. Your entire argument seems like a plot to a new Minority Report movie.

You seem to wish to live in a world where your ideas, your thoughts, your feelings are something that can get you punished. I beleive that we should live in a world where YOUR ACTIONS are punished.

Everyone has thoughts and feelings they do not act upon. Why do you believe one thought is worse than another when no action arises from it?

And I would rethink the argument of calling an individual harmful to his community because he defends those who have comitted no crime other than a thought. You sound like Orwell and 1984 with all this talk of condmening people for feelings rather than actions. Not to mention the tactics you are using are exactly the tactics used against gay people and the “gonna be taught gay marriage in school” crowd.

You assume that all individuals act on every thought and feeling. I think that says more about YOUR control, not theirs.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I think your assumptions based on the number of victims discerning the number of perpatrators is flawed.

Most pedophiles, who act on their feelings, have a tendency to molest multiple children. Sometimes in the hundreds according to reports.

The number of victims is not indicitive of the number of perpatrators.

I am sure there are more out there who contro their feelings than don’t. But the ones who do, do so in large numbers, not just a single victim.

Just saying one needs to look at the facts, not just make assumptions that because there are x number of victims there are x number of pedophiles.

(and a note, so no one interpruts my views as something salacious-If and when a person assaults a child they schould go directly to jail upon conviction and should be locked up for as long as possible. And if they repeat offend should be put away for good. I was a abused as a child, and i understand the issue first hand. But I also do not think everyone with a thought is a risk.)

Priya Lynn
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Robert, I agree my opinion that most pedophiles are pursuing, or open to sex with children is just that, an opinion, and I have no real evidence to back it up.

But recognize that the same is true of you and Soren. So when you say “I am sure there are more out there who contro their feelings than don’t.” that is also just an opinion and you have no more evidence to back up your opinion than I do.

We can play this “I believe this.” and “No, I believe that.” game all day but unless we come up with real evidence no one should assume either of us is right no matter how sure of ourselves we may be. Neither of us has such evidence, you, me, and Soren are just speculating.

Priya Lynn
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

I didn’t mean to imply that a lot of children having been sexually molested (one in five if I remember correctly) is a sound basis on which to assume most pedophiles are seeking or open to sex with children, I just meant to give a reason (even if not a good one )why I believe that.

I am also well aware that one cannot assume there is one molester for every child molested but by the same token Robert you cannot assume that because statistically one molester assaults several children this means there are significant numbers of pedophiles who restrain themselves.

There is no equivalency between the injustice of assuming gays are bad people and assuming pedophiles are bad people. Gays desire sex that harms no one, pedophiles desire sex that harms people. It is fair to assume a pedophile is a potential danger to children and it is fair to want to know if a person is a pedophile before one allows them near children. It is fair to err on the side of caution.

Regan DuCasse
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

@Robert:
1. Actually, it’s Soren who has been demeaning, and disrespectful. He gave more than he got from me.
And his screeds on my background and my experience regarding pedophiles, is not only wrong, but also disrespectful. I made specific and factual statements concerning pedophilia as OPPOSED to homosexuality. I also made sure, so say that it’s a separate issue regarding the pathology in pedophilia, where he continues, as you do, to harp on and wrongly, that pedophiles are as PERSECUTED for the wrong reasons as gay people are.

2. In all my years and advocacy for gay men, women, and young people, for him to accuse me of not understanding the persecution of gay people, is patently ridiculous and false.

3. I see now, that it means SO much to you and Soren, to see victimization in my comments, how can anyone continue see you as rational on this?

4. And he’s tried to discredit me here, professionally as well as the content of my comments and their demeanor.

Now that you’ve vented your spleen, for all the wrong reasons, and without merit. Do you feel better?

Now WHAT was the point in doing so? We, are on the subject of a man, an anti gay politico, now accused of sexually abusing a boy.
It was appropriate for me to offer professional expertise on the subject, of abuses of that category where Soren only offered an opinion in which he felt that pedophiles are wrongly or hastily judged for no reason, the SAME WAY he FEELS that gay people are.
His DEFENSE in that regard was alarming to me, with good reason.
And I explained to him WHY.
If it’s STILL not clear to you, that I have distinctly pointed out, why pedophiles and their pathology are VERY different, and why they are responded to the way they are, then I’d really like to see you convince parents, or institutions in charge of children, to be more open, and accepting of pedophiles, because they are just SO misunderstood and WRONGLY persecuted the way gay people are.

I wonder then, Robert…and Soren: what those people would think of YOU.
Not ME.

As much as you’re trying to think I’m prejudiced here, or incapable of understanding you.
You will find at some point down the line, you will find that you’ve exacerbated exactly what you’re pinning on me.
And all over again, YOU won’t be trusted. But I surely will.
Not just among straight people, but gay people too.

Regan DuCasse
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Oh, and Robert: I WORKED AGAINST the Briggs Initiative when I was a newly minted voter in CA. I have worked and worked and worked more than half of my life against any and all discriminatory legislation and laws against gays and lesbians. From Prop. 22 to Prop. 8
I have been a member of PFLAG, I currently work on a committed with GLAAD, and also volunteer with the Museum of Tolerance, having worked with the aforementioned groups to implement the Museum’s programs for gay and lesbian studies and programs.
I mentor gay teens, through several sources.
And I also do media outreach for several transgender support groups.

Don’t you even THINK I haven’t earned by stripes and street cred for the gay community by NOT knowing full well EXACTLY the history and significance of anti gay prejudice here and elsewhere.
I AM the one,through all kinds of media writes on the damage done by conflating homosexuals with pedophiles.

So don’t YOU get all up in my hair, because I ALSO know significantly, professionally and criminally, WHAT the pathology of pedophilia is and it’s distinction from homosexuality.

It’s SOREN who is on the wrong track here, who has allowed his solidarity with persecution, that he’s lost reason about those differences.
I would be derelict in my credentials and experience TO agree with Soren.
So now you’re projecting onto ME, being wrong and misunderstanding of GAY PEOPLE?!
Because you think I don’t understand that persecution is wrong, but a PATHOLOGY isn’t?!

That’s really twisted, Robert. Seriously and disturbingly twisted.
Don’t like what I said, Robert?
Tough. DEAL with it.
Because at the end of the day, as I said, I will be the one who will be more trusted in the greater sense, and you won’t.
And that, will NOT be MY fault, but YOURS.

Priya Lynn
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Regan has been a far more involved and diligent activist on behalf of the LGBT community than the vast majority of LGBTs. She is correct in that she’s earned the respect of this community and should be treated with such.

Michael C
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

I would like to make one more comment concerning the victims of pedophilia. Physical child abuse is not the only crime a pedophile can commit. Viewing child pornography is not a victimless crime. How many “under-age” websites exist? Even if they are not explicit, they are causing harm.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Regan, because I have an opinion that not all people with pedophelia urges aree a risk, that somehow makes me suspect? WOW. Now neither Soren or I are to be trusted because we dared to offer up our view that not EVERY person with pedophillia impulses acts on them, we are somehow now suspect as pedophiles? That is EXACTLY what you imply. I don’t see the world as BLACK AND WHITE as you do. I know there are people who don’t act on the urges they have. Compulsive behavior, whatever type it may be, is able to be controlled.

I don’t agree with Soren 100 percent. I do agree with his premise that not everyone with feelings act on them and can control them. I don’t believe in brushing EVERYONE with the same wide brush you would.

I pointed out Briggs specificly because pedophilia was associated with gay men specificly in that battle. Good for you to have worked against it.

I can’t possibly know your background, since it wasn’t listed here during these comments, so it’s irrelevant to me what it is. I go from what you wrote on these posts. Apologies if I took you at what you wrote, rather than what you meant or assumed everyone knew. You even went so far as to tell Soren that “Of Course” you “knew” something, even though nowhere prior to that did you say you knew it. You assume that everyone knows everything about your past. Sorry, I don’t.

If you leave things out, don’t blame me or others for not knowing what you do or do not know.

And I still believe that you are wrong to paint everyone with the same broad brush. Every Human being is an individual, with their own issues and internal struggles. Some win the battle, some do not. But your line of thinking seems to say, some types of people can deal with their attractions and some just can’t. Sorta like saying they just can’t help themselves. I disagree with that ype of thinking. I prefer to believe that anyone who struggles to be a good person can indeed be a good person.

Try again, please, to paint me as somehow suspect because I believe people can overcome their issues if they try hard enough. I have faith in people, you seem to not.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

What information you may know of Regan is information not everyone has. I address all individuals with the information in front of me. Maybe your knowledge of her feats is true, but I don’t know the name from any other on the site. And I discuss my views, as do others, without regard to how well known someone is, nor did I question her support or her comittment to our community. I just believe the view is wrong.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Also, Reagan, I never ONCE questioned your standing or comittment to LGBT issues. You do seem god at twisting things and saying people did this and that, however.

Good for your political and social activism. It is to be commended. But to assume that everyone should KNOW your history, certainly assumes a LOT.

And then to try to cast asspersions as to the INTENT of what I write, as if I am somehow a closet pedophile for having an opinion on if some people can control their behavior, is reprehensible. For such a great activist, you certainly seem willing to smear people with conjecture, much like the campaigns you say you worked against.

My entire points were about people being able to control their action and how you say they can’t.

Priya Lynn
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Robert, I know you are relatively new to BTB but if you have been to other LGBT web-sites it is a surprise to me that you are not familiar with Regan. She has been a much more fierce and dedicated advocate for LGBT causes than the vast majority of LGBTs. I don’t know you but if I had to bet on it I’d say she’s done far more for the LGBT community than you or Soren have.

I don’t think Regan was disputing that there may be some pedophiles who don’t seek sex with children, but both you and Soren asserted that MOST do not and certainly both her and I disagree with you two on that.

Soren has expressed that he thinks many pedophiles are amongst the best teachers, scout leaders, coaches, and mentors. While you haven’t explicitely agreed with that you’ve stated that you don’t believe that someone who is a pedophile is in danger of committing that crime and it is in these statements that Regan and I both strongly disagree with you. I think its a very bad idea to assume without any evidence that you and/or Soren are correct, I think the only responsible and safe thing to do with pedophiles is to assume they are potentially a danger and whenever possible prevent them from having any contact with children.

Another reason why I think its highly unlikely that most pedophiles are uninvolved in criminal activities or not open to taking advantage of an opportunity to abuse a child is that the sex drive in men is so very strong. I remember very well what it was like to have normal male levels of testosterone and for me to be honest sex was by far the most prominent thing on my mind. I just don’t believe that many men can suppress their sex drive to the point where they not only don’t seek to fulfill their fantasies but that they would refuse an opportunity to fulfill those fantasies should an opportunity independently present itself. I know certainly for me at that time if I was around a beautiful married woman I’d have been doing what I could to have sex with her and I certainly wouldn’t have turned down an opportunity to do so if she initiated it. I think the idea that most pedophiles are ethical and not a danger to children is nonsense given the nature of most men and their sex drives.
I think there is a great deal more potential harm in assuming most pedophiles are safe around children then there is in assuming all pedophiles are a potential threat.

And I’m with Regan in that I think its very odd that any gay man would try to convince others that its just as unjust to suspect pedophiles of harm as it is to suspect gay men of harm. Gay men desire sex that harms no one, pedophiles desire sex that harms people. There is no equivalency between gays being looked down upon and pedophiles being looked down upon.

I’m done here.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I do visit a number of LGBT sites, and no, I have never seen the name Regan DuCasse (and when I ggogle the name, all that comes up is a bunch of commenting in blogs. Nothing of any note other than what you tell me now). I visit Joe.my.God, PHB since it was hers and on it’s own, and a variety of others, but the named one’s most often. I came here via JMG.

You are correct that you do not know me, nor the amount of work and efforts I have done on behalf of the LGBT Community. I have been a volunteer at numerous LGBT Centers (San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Miami) I have been a guest speaker at Colleges in the Human Sexuality Department during the 80’s, a Care Provider for the Shanti Project, a STOP AIDS and Project Lifeguard out reach specialist, and I worked on both of the marriage equality campaigns in a local capacity in both San Francisco and the Santa Rosa Areas. I am also an AIDS Activist with very little aclaim (funny how not all of us make it to famous). So, I’m unsure how to compare the two histories. I usually don’t think they CAN be compared, social service is social service, I didn’t know that living an out proud life was somehow less than becomming a “renowned” activist.

But where you get it ALL wrong is your assetion that I think MOST pedophiles are safe. I never ONCE made or asserted that claim. You seem to pin it on me without my having made the claim.

My issue, as I have said, is that one cannot label every person in a group as the same. And one can NOT punish people for feelings if they have broken no laws. This example is about pedophiles, but I’d have the same answer on any issue that wished to punish someone who has committed NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY simply because they have thoughts you (and I) don’t approve of. I think it is un-american, and I think it is wrong. My bringing up Briggs was to point out that others have used similar tactics against us, painting us as worthy of punishment without having commited a crime (and Briggs did have a corelation with the pedophile issue and gay men through their assertions tha NAMBLA somehow represented all of our community).

I NEVER claimed all pedophiles are safe, or even MOST pedophiles are safe. I did say that we can not condemn people if they have comitted no crime. You seem to believe punishment of thought is fine. I don’t.

I also believe that the argument you and Reagan present, punishment without criminal activity, lends itself to our foes. They claim, in hate crimes legislation that we wish to criminalize THOUGHTS. We don’t, we wish to criminalize BEHAVIOR, based on those thoughts and feelings.

I never thought in my life that two people in one day would liken me to, and insinuate about me that I must have pedophilic impulses to be defending the right to be innocent until one commits a CRIME.

That is the Red Menace and McCarthyism at it’s greatest. He defends them so he must be one. (and you think I sound suspect? That argument sounds like NOM and AFA to me).

tristram
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Time to get a life, folks. Just sayin’.

Regan DuCasse
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Robert: let me explain something then, to TRY and help you here. To understand my reasoning (not prejudice or assumptions), but to also understand the reason why pedophiles CAN and ARE detected in a very specific, effective and accurate way.

I already said, that there are PATTERNS of behavior that are indicative of how pedophiles attract their prey. Behavior that is distinctive from what NORMAL people do, gay or not.
It INITIALLY seems harmless, because of not only the need for people who are dedicated to children, but because pedophiles are exceptionally organized in how they obtain access to them.
There is a pattern to the types of children they prey on, as well as that child’s situation. Only a few of which, I did mention.

Professionals DO know WHAT to look for, and pros can’t harbor any prejudice or mistake such a philia with a sexual orientation either.
This is NOT a matter of ‘thought police’, but tracking a line of behavior that distinguishes pedophiles. Similarly to the way thieves case their targets.
Michael has an excellent point about child porn. There is also stalking children, taken pictures or video without their knowledge or asking the child to pose for inappropriate reasons.
It does NOT matter, if they’ve acted on those urges…yet.
But that the urge to do the aforementioned, is SYMPTOMATIC of an unhealthy fixation already. One that typically is intense and overwhelming in the nature of a pedophile.
A compulsion they DON’T or CAN’T control in the long term.

I will reiterate: this is LEGIT cause for concern in ways YOU don’t understand and what sex abuse experts DO.
It is NOT prejudice against pedophiles, it’s being able to detect the symptoms of it in a person, the way a diagnosis is made in any other way.
Homosexuality is a matter of mutual attraction, and bears no harm between gay adults.
A pedophile, has a non mutual attraction to a child. Children are NOT attracted to adults in that way.
But a pedophile will and does convince himself that child IS. Even to the point of saying the child seduced them or has seductive qualities.
I sat in with agents who track pedophiles online, as part of my class and work, and THAT was one of THE most hair raising aspects of the DELUSIONS of pedophiles.
That is why suspicion of them, prior to actually touching a child, is VALID.

And it’s detectable to those who know what to look for. If anything, you and Soren’s reaction, especially to these things as I pointed them out, WAS inappropriate.
And I DID try to tell you in what way it was which could bring suspicion on yourselves.
A NOW you’re offended? It was all going over your head, until I had to be more graphic about it.
Your offense is misplaced, as was your indictment of what I KNOW about pedophiles, not just what YOU feel.

You’re in NO place to take offense. Because I am also very good at making the more important distinctions and articulating it elsewhere in ways YOU’D fail to.

So, to Michael’s point: that is why there is no presumption of guilt, or prejudice based solely on whether or not a pedophile HAS touched a child. Prevailing sense would be to NOT give them the opportunity, because of their patterns of behavior PRIOR to that.
For Soren or Robert, or anyone to think it’s unfair or there are no warning signs no one can detect, to know if a person is a pedophile or not, is extreme ignorance and naivete on their part.
Making them still, a part of the problem why pedophiles will get away with it.
There is no compassion in ‘understanding’ this kind of behavior.
It IS dangerous. There ARE pre existing symptoms of this behavior.
And shame on YOU, for denouncing one of the few people on this thread who can educate other people out it in ways YOU can’t.

Regan DuCasse
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

cont: and Robert, I’m calling YOU out on some bullshit of your own, I have NEVER said a thing about PUNISHMENT of pedophiles, nor having any motive to.

I have only talked about how they are different from NORMAL people. And how they are detected.
That is VERY different from making an accusation a person is a pedophile for either simply being gay, or with NONE of the specific symptoms or markers that confirm it prior to harming a child.

The Red Scare saw Communists in the most innocent of things people did. Or in legitimate work to do with Civil Rights.
My uncle was hounded by HUAC for being a racial equality activist.

Those who track pedophiles DON’T see them in everyone, nor innocent things people do all the time. There is nothing paranoid in this form of knowing the symptoms of pedophilia, as opposed to seeing symptoms where NONE exist.

You are SO off base, you really need to stop now. Your comments are all emotion, without ANY evidence of what I’ve said to back YOURSELF up.
So THINK before you say another thing.

Robert
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

Regan, keeping someone from anything, banning or limiting their prospects for an attraction or a behavior they have not actd on, nor have been convicted of, is punishment.

I do understand child abuse. I was, and I mentioned this, a victim of such child abuse. And I spent many years in therapy learning how to deal with that abuse. I do understand what it does to children. But I went through abuse that was criminal in nature, and that, to me, is different than a persons thoughts without those actions.

The discussion did start before you joined in, you know. And there was discussion of punishment. And you yourself made the claim there is no such thing as a safe pedophile.

I happen to disagree with your assesment on the safe aspect of ALL individuals with this issue ( and everything you later discuss is about BEHAVIOR not about those who don’t act on it) , and the assesment of others that those who have not acted on these inclinations face punishment just for having the inclination. I find all of that terribly frightening in a society that demands equal treatment under the law. If one has not commited a crime, one should not face punishment for having feelings that MIGHT lead to a crime in others.

I believe we are having two different discussions here. Yours is soley about pedophilia, mine is about punishing someone who has comitted no crime, and my outrage at the suggestion of it here. I had the same type of feelings on the thread about the Diversity Officer at the College for the Deaf, and calls for her to be fired for doing something LEGAL. Different cases entirly, but related in the issue of how we treat our fellow citizens in regards to their LEGAL behavior.

I don’t want to live in a society that allows people to be punished BEFORE they do anything to be punished for, you mostly speak about identifying behavior, that to me is acting on the thoughts, and as such would raise concern. I’m talking about the ones who do nothing, take no actions.

Believe me, I am not a supporter of criminal activity, or abuse against minors. I think the actions are reprehensible, but I don’t think we should punish their thoughts.

That is dangerous thinking. When we punish the thoughts of, rather than the deeds of others, soon enough others will punish the thoughts we have.

Regan DuCasse
November 3rd, 2012 | LINK

What PART of reading the BEHAVIOR, indicative of pedophilia did you NOT understand?!
What PART of how those who KNOW what that BEHAVIOR is, the activity and it’s indicators did you NOT read here?

I just said, it’s NOT about ‘thought’ policing, but seeing WHAT behavior, sets apart pedophiles from normal people.
No one can read minds. But monitoring how pedophiles go about their METHODS to be with children. They distinguish themselves in that way, not how they THINK.

I listed some of those behaviors chapter and verse. No, we’re not having two DIFFERENT conversations, you don’t WANT to know the truth.
And don’t WANT to listen to someone who DOES understand the situation PROPERLY.
No professional can WAIT until a person is actually attacked or the crime is committed when PREVENTIVE measures or THWARTING a crime, is not only legal, but an obligation.
Michael also touched on some of the activities of child molesters that makes them high risk.
And so did I.
Possessing, downloading child porn, is a crime, whether the person who has done so, has touched a child yet.
A person who stalks a child, or takes pictures or videotapes them, before actually touching them, is a crime.
Contacting them online, setting up dates or speaking to them in an adult an inappropriate manner, is a crime, whether they’ve actually touched that child has happened yet.
These are specific activities that pedophiles engage in, that are actionable as crimes, whether PHYSICAL contact has been established.
These are called ACTING ON THEIR IMPULSE enough to consider them a threat.
The POINT is to PREVENT that next level of contact, WHEN POSSIBLE.
What is unfortunate, is sometimes some pedophiles DON’T display this behavior in ways that some people might know about or observe, and that’s when they cannot be kept from harming a young person.
And they DO physically assault a child before anyone knows of their proclivities.
Which means, that they HAVE escaped the necessary radar.
And I have NOT, I repeat NOT said that there are ways to know what their thoughts are, or what their intentions are WITHOUT other things that ARE actions.

I have never said, that a pedophiles THOUGHTS should get them restricted or punished.
And they deserve it.
I’ve never said that it was right to treat them that way.
You’re putting words in my mouth to say I have.
And my assessment was NOT that there is or should be punishment, even for the prerequisite behaviors, I said there should be CAUTION.

More importantly I suggested a preventive solution that involved testing and MONITORS for ALL adults with children in their care.
Not punishing or suspecting anyone out of hand, ESPECIALLY for what they ‘think’.
Just because YOU think such caution, or oversight IS punishment, than that’s YOUR definition and your problem, not mine.
And it’s your means of making up something in your head that doesn’t exist in my comments.
Not something I said outright, or even any legal or criminal definition at that I’ve EVER suggested.
These are fantastic INTERPRETATIONS YOU made up, and I don’t appreciate it.
I deserve better. I’m a solid pro at what I do, there IS no room for the kinds of prejudice you accuse me of supporting, and there isn’t any such thing as an active police state that EVER punishes or presses charges on pedophiles without SOME form of activity and behavior that shows they are a risk factor.
You want to believe whatever you WANT to, not what’s true, or what I said.

That is defamatory, and unworthy of you. Unworthy of such a serious topic that means a lot to me.
In a short time, you’ve turned me into the bad guy here.
So, if you were abused as a youngster yourself, who do YOU know who is an ‘ethical’ pedophile?
In fact, given such a disclosure, you haven’t brought up ONE person, or persons, or ANY information on how YOU would know an ethical pedophile, yourself.
And you clearly know nothing about real police procedures on that. And don’t WANT to hear about it from someone who DOES know.
Instead of throwing shade at me, you have some explaining to do.

Marcus
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Regan, if people keep misunderstanding what you say, maybe there’s a problem with how you’re saying it. Just something to think about.

Robert
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Reagan, you write as if you were the only other individual in the conversation. I started conversing on the conversation prior to having any interaction with YOU, in fact my first comment was to someone who was suspicious of ALL individuals who have anything to do with children.

You really do think you are the bomb, don’t you? I’ve never read such a series of posts in which the individual thinks they are the greatest and smartest person in the room, who thinks that any opinion differing from theirs is wrong, because no one else could possibly be as great as you.

You complain I have no reading comprehension, but fail to comprehend yourself, that this conversation involved other people than just the illustrious Regan DuCasse.

Not to mention that you go by a differing definition of the word than others. You even denigrated the definition in the dictionary because somehow you think it isn’t severe enough. And you take everything personally, as an attack on YOU, rather than a discussion of an issue. You claim I react emotionally, yet every response you post is full of emotional reaction to being challenged. Then you begin to throw aspersions that I and Soren must be somehow suspect as pedophiles because we deign to defend the individuals who have commited no act. YOU classify all pedophiles of being hopeless of cure or change. YOU
are the one who is actting the fool. When you began to make assertions that your opponent in a conversation is somehow a secret closet pedophile because they have a different opinion than you do, you obviously went off the deep end. It’s like the rule in debate, the first one to compare to Hitler obviously lost the argument.

You go ahead and act all indignent and offended. No one attacked YOU as an individual because of your views. And you NEED someone to throw you some shade. Having read all your comments, your self importance has shown itself to need a vacation.

The whole, I know more than anyone about this, and I’ve been more active than you in LGBT issues is always a sign that one thinks just a bit too highly of themselves and is starting to believe their own self-promotion.

I do believe this conversation is over, at least for me. But what does it say about you, Regan Ducasse, that you have to call your opponent a pedophile to win your argument. It certainly tells me all I need to know about your “ethics” and who you really are.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Marcus, it’s not ‘people’, it’s Soren and Robert.
No one else had a problem.

And I was pointing out facts and information on how pedophiles are detected and dealt with, because the subject is about someone arrested for it, and that I am sensitive to how gay people are conflated with abusers and why that’s wrong.

Soren and Robert completely misinterpreted my comments, by complaining that I condone or have an UNFOUNDED prejudice against pedophiles whether they touch a child or not.

And that’s when the conversation, pitched to this level, not because I was uninformed or prejudiced, but Soren and Robert took offense and got defensive on behalf of a demographic even THEY have no proof is UNFAIRLY maligned.
Or the public shouldn’t be cautious about.
Are we clear?

Robert
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Regan, the record of the conversation is above. I’m sure Marcus read it before commenting. Or do you think you’re smarter than him too?

Seems no one can have an opinion without you correcting their views.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

You’re right, Robert. You did start this conversation with a comment to someone else.
I also didn’t address anyone directly, until YOU accused me of something you eventually had to retract.
You were wrong then.
And still, I was offering general INFORMATION, not an opinion on the subject of pedophiles and pedophilia, UNTIL you took offense at something you didn’t have to.
YOU chose to escalate the conversation where it didn’t have to go.
It seemed appropriate to offer some professional information, considering the subject is a criminal case.
I’m the only one I know of, of BTB regulars who works in that area.
So when a criminal subject comes up, I’ll offer up what I know.
The same way someone who is a legal expert will do so, on some of the discriminatory court cases that have come up.
The same with someone who might have attended seminary or is very Bible literate.
We do that all the time here.
And suddenly MY knowledge of this, is illegitimate?

I didn’t make it about ME, you did.

Because you chose to argue on BEHALF of pedophiles you think are getting a raw deal.
Which WOULD seem odd and suspicious too.
I didn’t even WANT to go there. I warned you what it would look like for you if you kept pressing that side of it. But you stormed ahead anyway.
And now you’re mad at me.
Inappropriate again. At the end of the day, I’m better at what I do, and why, than you are at what you interpreted of my comments or the subject at hand.

WHATEVER.
If next time there is something else I might UNWITTINGLY offend you with, even something I didn’t say or you mistook for me saying, it’ll help in future to wait a bit.
It’ll save yourself another round of seriously misplaced hostility.

Robert
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Regan, too bad you can’t delete the record above. It proves your lie about you not addressing anyone until I addressed you. In your second post on this thread you attacked Soren with your Blow your hair back comment, and how dare he write something so stupid. YOU, Regan Ducasse started a fight before I even postd to you, and that fight was why I posted to you in the first place.

I never defended anyone who has actually comitted any act against anyone. I was, and am offended at the idea that we would punish individuals for thoughts and not actions, as others on the thread suggested we should.

My defense is that of those who commit NO CRIME, and you are so obtuse that you ignore what my argument is about and then try to frame my ideas as supporting something I do not.

Yes, you learned a lot in your legal related field, and what you learned to do best is twist peoples words into what you would like them to be to make your case, regardless of the facts.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Robert, then read the thread.
I DIDN’T say that’s how pedophiles have EVER been treated.
Nor did I say I agreed that’s how they SHOULD be.
I was emphatic that it’s impossible TO punish a pedophile prior to any inappropriate contact with children, and I NEVER said that I think they should be.

I know you’re OFFENDED by someone being punished for not committing a crime against children.
But where has that HAPPENED and where have I said it HAS or agreed it should?

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Okay yeah, I was appalled at what Soren said. I’ve never seen anyone have that kind of reaction with regard to such a case.
I was alarmed at what Soren said.
So?
So, if you’re referring to my comments, then YOU tell me WHERE I’ve agreed or said that pedophiles ARE punished prior to NO CRIME being committed.

I pointed out to you, what criteria is used to DETECT pedophiles and what ARE considered crimes prior to the next level of PHYSICAL contact.
Michael touched on it too.

And I tried to warn you what your interpretation of what an appropriate response to pedophilia would look like to outsiders who ARE prejudiced against gay men as pedophiles.

So, the balls in YOUR court on THESE facts. Go for it.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

I wouldn’t WANT to delete my comments, even if I could. I have nothing to hide, and I prefer proof or some kind of reference so that I and others can be clear.

Right there, you’re making a dig that I would try to hide any evidence of what I said.

Robert
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Regan, you really are dense. I never claimed that YOU said someone should be punished. I clearly have stated that others suggested it. And those statements were what I originally replied to. YOU made this about YOU, not me. You seem to believe that everything on this page was directed to you personally and not a conversation involving at least three other people. Talk about self-importance. You discount every person in the discussion except yourself. You do understand, right, that there were other people in this conversation? You even acknowledged that I began my posts in a reply to someone else, and I didn’t address you til you got nasty to Soren.

Blame it on me if you wish, and keep trying to say I think things I don’t. Your mask has slipped, good day.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Your last paragraph is an unfounded insult at my professionalism and standards. You have no reason to believe that based on this thread, nor evidence to make such a claim.

Does this make the issue better? Or do you just want to pile on?
What are you trying to prove? You still haven’t given any reason what your criteria is for defending a ‘pre crime’ pedophile.
Where ARE such people that YOU know so much about?
Who are they, and in what way have they been able to defend themselves?

I asked you before, and you decided you weren’t obligated to answer.
Since you’ve opened the door that there is a demographic of pedophiles out there, who haven’t committed a crime.
Then what is YOUR criteria for what those crimes have to be?
So far, all you’ve repeated is that you don’t think it’s fair to punish a pedophile prior to a crime.
You haven’t explained, how a pedophile CAN be, unless other BEHAVIORAL aspects have been detected.
Please explain that to the class here. It means enough for you to go off about it.
Go right ahead.

Robert
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

And Regan, just so you know what exactly made me respond about punishment, it was this post by Michael:

“What is an “ethical pedophile”?! Does simply refraining from physically abusing children somehow make a pedophile ethical? If I spent most of my time fantasizing about murdering everyone I know, would I be considered “ethical” for not acting on my fantasies? …until I couldn’t any longer?

If I was to define an ethical pedophile, it would be as following; A) In therapy. B) No contact with children. None. Even your own. C)No viewing images of children or even watching movies centered around children. D) No thinking about children or entertaining sexual thoughts. E) Chemical castration.”

ANd I say I had good reason to respond in the way I did. B and D on Michaels post were pretty severe for a person who committed no crime. Please, read all this again to see when and where I began talking about punishment.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

Well that was MICHAEL’s opinion, not MINE and I didn’t AGREE with him, I only said he’d touched on something that is part of the criteria for pedophile behavior.

I ELABORATED on it, and it’s the correct criteria in order to keep a pedophile from PHYSICAL contact with children.

I’ll elaborate again:
1. Buying, downloading, exchanging or having child pornography.

2 Stalking, inappropriate videotaping, taking or exchanging pictures of children. Especially in inappropriate poses, or enticing a child to engage in them.

3. Unsupervised PROLONGED visitation contact, especially with non related children.

4. Online internet contact with children involving inappropriate language, enticement, demands and setting up unsupervised meetings with minors.

All these are criminal, and all these are non physical contact. All these require registration as a sex offender, non contact with ANY child for any reason and staying a certain distance from them. And restrictions in certain jobs and housing.

What you’re reiterating doesn’t make SENSE, Robert.
When a pedophile hasn’t been detected, that still doesn’t mean they aren’t a HIGH RISK.
I said, it’s because pedophilia in and of itself, is an intense and typically VERY difficult thing to restrain. It’s not a NORMAL reaction to have by any means.

It has similar properties to ADDICTION. There ARE behaviors and actions that are detectable that don’t necessarily have to reach what I’ve listed, but they ARE guidelines.
Caution, isn’t PUNISHMENT.
Preventive measures, which would be prudent for ALL adults, such as monitoring, isn’t PUNISHMENT.
Please define what YOU think is punishment.
This is why, your comments about punishment and what defines a crime, really DOESN’T make sense and would seem suspicious.
It was a reasonable speculation to make. And it WAS a speculation I made out loud and ONLY that.

Regan DuCasse
November 4th, 2012 | LINK

con’t: I also was clear that because pedophiles are highly organized, that doesn’t mean they aren’t a threat. It only means they are able to escape detection.
This is not an ethical or restrained pedophile, it’s the behavior of one that is of the highest risk to others.
Much the way sociopaths are. Sociopaths are highly organized, and their behavior may not reach the level of criminality, but they are still dangerous because they can and do things to other people for completely and utterly selfish reasons to the point of making another person SUFFER.
Sociopaths aren’t easy to detect either, but they are able to be very attractive and charismatic.

The incidence of sociopaths is 1 in 25. Pedophiles are an even narrower demographic.
See what I’m trying to tell you?
Just legitimate expertise, not MY OPINION.
What Michael said, is what HE said. Not me, and it was wrong of you to take his opinion and project it onto any of my comments as agreeing with him at all.

Regan DuCasse
November 5th, 2012 | LINK

Yep, I knew you wouldn’t have an answer to my questions, Robert.
Figures.

You had no idea what I was talking about, because you had no idea what YOU were talking about.

Regan DuCasse
November 5th, 2012 | LINK

Robert, just so we’re clear: your definitions of an ethical pedophile: therapy, no contact with children, no materials that involve children, or chemical castration, isn’t exactly something that can be construed as ‘ethical’.
Restrained, perhaps. Which still requires the unsuspecting public to put a lot of faith in that restraint.
Which they are NOT required to do.
The fact remains they are still a risk. Period.
And there is no reason to think them otherwise.
Don’t call me dense.
Don’t think you have a lot of luxury to insult an ally. You don’t.
Not even me. Perhaps ESPECIALLY not me.

Robert
November 5th, 2012 | LINK

Regan,

That isn’t My definition. You took Michael’s words and attributed them to me. That was the exact post that got me talking about punishment without criminal activity.

If you had not become unhinged, you might have noticed the quote marks I put around this after mentioning this was Michael’s post.

For someone with such mad legal skills, you have very little ability to read and comprehend what you do read.

I’m done with you. Don’t post to me, and I won’t post to you. I’m sure the whole of BTB will be the happier for it.

Have A Nice Day.

Michael C
November 5th, 2012 | LINK

May I respond to Robert’s concern about my post? I do not believe people should be punished if they have committed no crime. The list of things I came up with was not a list of punishments to be enforced by the State, it was a list of things that I think an “ethical pedophile” should do voluntarily.

Ben in Oakland
November 6th, 2012 | LINK

I’m mostly staying out of the rest of this conversation, because my own experience in the world of child sexual abuse says that fixed pedophiles are probably the minority of pedophiles, and as Timothy points out, we’re probably never going to know how many of those are “ethical” because they keep themselves out of our purview. I’m fairly sure that regressed pedophiles are far more common, and far more dangerous to children.

But Timothy, you nailed it about the priesthood. 35 years ago, I dated a lovely man who had been in seminary. He went in to please his family and not coincidentally, escape his homosexuality. He found there was far more fucking going on inside the seminary than he had encountered outside. And why? Because a bunch of other men had also entered the seminary with that as their intention, and with a boslutely no support or tools for realizing it.

I suspect that much he same is true for sexual predators. They know who they are.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.