locate registered sex offenders in your neighborhood!

Hi,


If you go to https://www.familywatchdog.us/ and type your address you will get a map with the addresses of registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. I located 124!!! (Sebastopol) beware!!


Varda

>... registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. ...


Cool! Can I get a really cute one?

Interesting to look at a few of these guys (and one gal I’ve seen so far). So far I haven’t seen any names or faces I recognize.
It occurs to me that some of these guys are probably harmless folks who got busted for skinny dipping or caught having sex in the park and were forced by our prudish patriarchal society to register as “sex offenders”. Some are listed as “indecent exposure”, which even at its “worst” is surely not a menace to society. Others are more vaguely listed as “other offense”, whatever that may mean. I’d be interested to know what some of these legal terms refer to. Does the general category of “Offense Against Children” include somebody who’s going nude and happens to be seen by kids whose parents freak out and call the cops, or just people who have really abused kids, or what? Of course, some of the categories, such as “rape” and “sexual battery” are more straightforward. I don’t have any sympathy for those guys who are truly guilty of hurting someone, but can only wonder what percentage of these faces were wrongly convicted (as we’ve seen with so many death row inmates) and are now having to live with their names, faces, and addresses on the Internet, identified as child molesters or whatever.
Dixon

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

Hi,
If you go to https://www.familywatchdog.us/ and type your address you will get a map with the addresses of registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. I located 124!!! (Sebastopol) beware!!
Varda

---

I am not sure where the information is coming from, or how dated it might be, for the familywatchdog site. California's offender registry is at https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov. The California site is more complete and includes information on distinguishing marks, tattoos, and the code section for the offense(s).

This is a good tool to simply be safe. SO's can't be run out of your neighborhood, as distasteful as it might be to know that they are there. Respectfully use the information to keep your distance and teach your children. Any harassment of these people makes the harrasser subject to criminal penalties themselves. It's a good database to use when contemplating a new roommate or significant other that you don't know very well.

Be safe,
Laura

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Varda:

Hi,


If you go to https://www.familywatchdog.us/ and type your address you will get a map with the addresses of registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. I located 124!!! (Sebastopol) beware!!


Varda

---

I didn't recognize any of these guys/gals either. Wonder if they hang at the Greenhouse?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Interesting to look at a few of these guys (and one gal I’ve seen so far). So far I haven’t seen any names or faces I recognize.
It occurs to me that some of these guys are probably harmless folks who got busted for skinny dipping or caught having sex in the park and were forced by our prudish patriarchal society to register as “sex offenders”. Some are listed as “indecent exposure”, which even at its “worst” is surely not a menace to society. Others are more vaguely listed as “other offense”, whatever that may mean. I’d be interested to know what some of these legal terms refer to. Does the general category of “Offense Against Children” include somebody who’s going nude and happens to be seen by kids whose parents freak out and call the cops, or just people who have really abused kids, or what? Of course, some of the categories, such as “rape” and “sexual battery” are more straightforward. I don’t have any sympathy for those guys who are truly guilty of hurting someone, but can only wonder what percentage of these faces were wrongly convicted (as we’ve seen with so many death row inmates) and are now having to live with their names, faces, and addresses on the Internet, identified as child molesters or whatever.
Dixon

---

There are other factors which are not included in the online list of registered sex offenders.
Some of the more important ones may be:
How long ago was the last (or possibly the only) offense committed ?
Have any of these people accepted accountability for their crime/behavior.
Have they sought and received appropriate treatment (if treatment was needed, and or available).
Questions which often come to my mind are:
What are these people doing today now that their 'debt to society' has been 'paid'.
Can that debt ever be paid ?
If you discover that someone among you is a sex offender.... how are you going to view that person in the light of your new discovery ?
Is (in the mind of society) redemption even thinkable ?
If so why not.
Babaruss

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Interesting to look at a few of these guys (and one gal I’ve seen so far). So far I haven’t seen any names or faces I recognize.
It occurs to me that some of these guys are probably harmless folks who got busted for skinny dipping or caught having sex in the park and were forced by our prudish patriarchal society to register as “sex offenders”. Some are listed as “indecent exposure”, which even at its “worst” is surely not a menace to society. Others are more vaguely listed as “other offense”, whatever that may mean. I’d be interested to know what some of these legal terms refer to. Does the general category of “Offense Against Children” include somebody who’s going nude and happens to be seen by kids whose parents freak out and call the cops, or just people who have really abused kids, or what? Of course, some of the categories, such as “rape” and “sexual battery” are more straightforward. I don’t have any sympathy for those guys who are truly guilty of hurting someone, but can only wonder what percentage of these faces were wrongly convicted (as we’ve seen with so many death row inmates) and are now having to live with their names, faces, and addresses on the Internet, identified as child molesters or whatever.
Dixon

---

The sex offender web site is kept up to date, I know because a former tenant I had moved & they had his new address in a couple of weeks.

The problem with registered sex offender listings is that it gives us, society, a false sense of knowing where the danger to children and other vulnerable people is located. We think it is the stranger at the address listed. The tragic truth is that 90% of all child sexual abuse happens with in the family or is perpetrated by people known and trusted by the family. If you aren't abusing your children, they are probably safe. The best way to protect your children is to allow them to say "no" to adults, to keep your communication line open, to allow them to tell you anything without getting angry after they tell you. Parenting is very hard work and dealing with your own emotions as your kids bring up difficult topics is one of the more difficult aspects of being a parent. If your kids have your attention and trust, they are much less likely to fall victim to someone who might befriend them for the wrong reasons.

Barrie

If it is anything other than indecent exposure, then it is for more than being caught nude. No one is going to prosecute for someone accidently being caught nude, in any case, the DA has much more important things to do. If anything, it is hard to get someone charged, there has to be a pretty strong case. And yes, I have had experience with this. If someone has been tried and found guilty of offences against children, you need to watch out for them and protect your children. I dont think this is something to be made light of or doubted.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pjpete:

I didn't recognize any of these guys/gals either. Wonder if they hang at the Greenhouse?

---

Baba, if you think a pedophile can be cured, then you also must think homosexuality is a disease.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:

There are other factors which are not included in the online list of registered sex offenders.
Some of the more important ones may be:
How long ago was the last (or possibly the only) offense committed ?
Have any of these people accepted accountability for their crime/behavior.
Have they sought and received appropriate treatment (if treatment was needed, and or available).
Questions which often come to my mind are:
What are these people doing today now that their 'debt to society' has been 'paid'.
Can that debt ever be paid ?
If you discover that someone among you is a sex offender.... how are you going to view that person in the light of your new discovery ?
Is (in the mind of society) redemption even thinkable ?
If so why not.
Babaruss

---

On the site, if you look at the individual picture, there is a tab above it for "convictions"..

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by debibaker:

If it is anything other than indecent exposure, then it is for more than being caught nude. No one is going to prosecute for someone accidently being caught nude, in any case, the DA has much more important things to do. If anything, it is hard to get someone charged, there has to be a pretty strong case. And yes, I have had experience with this. If someone has been tried and found guilty of offences against children, you need to watch out for them and protect your children. I don't think this is something to be made light of or doubted.

---

Where or where dear Ms. Terry did you read that I said anything about pedophiles being cured...or for that matter specifically mentioned pedophilia ?
But just to be contrary..there is no behavior known to human kind which cannot be altered, or changed (cured ?) should the 'offender' chose to do so.
What we learn we can unlearn.
Unfortunately what we do we cannot undo. But then that's a whole different post isn't it.
Babaruss

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Baba, if you think a pedophile can be cured, then you also must think homosexuality is a disease.

---

Yeah, you're right, you didn't mention pedophilia.
But the whole idea behind this National Sex Offender Registry is to keep your kids safe since most of the sexoffenders on the list are pedophiles.
I was worried that you thought that pedophiles can be "cured".
They don't use lobotomy anymore, or do they?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by baba:

..there is no behavior known to human kind which cannot be altered, or changed (cured ?) should the 'offender' chose to do so.

---

They used to say this about homosexuals, some still do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:

Where or where dear Ms. Terry did you read that I said anything about pedophiles being cured...or for that matter specifically mentioned pedophilia ?
But just to be contrary..there is no behavior known to human kind which cannot be altered, or changed (cured ?) should the 'offender' chose to do so.
What we learn we can unlearn.
Unfortunately what we do we cannot undo. But then that's a whole different post isn't it.
Babaruss

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Yeah, you're right, you didn't mention pedophilia.
But the whole idea behind this National Sex Offender Registry is to keep your kids safe since most of the sexoffenders on the list are pedophiles.
I was worried that you thought that pedophiles can be "cured".
They don't use lobotomy anymore, or do they? quote].


Several of the southern states still opt for lobotomy.
Problem is that the person being lobotomized rarely experiences sufficient changes to call that kind of radical surgery successful let alone meaningful.
Lots of drug treatments are available for people locked in to predatory sexual behavior (which seem to work a whole lot better than a lobotomy).
However not everyone responds to (even the harshest) chemical, or surgical 'treatments'.
Also I have never done a head count on sex offenders listed online to see what the ratio of pedophiles is to other crimes, so I'll have to take your word for that.
I'd go for the old saying that I'd prefer "a bottle in front of me to a frontal lobotomy", but my past experience with the bottle has made the ugliest of women appear beautiful, and created all manner of awkward situations for me to deal with come hang over morning.

quote[They used to say this about homosexuals, some still do.

---

Many Christian Evangelicals today continue insisting that homosexuality is curable.
The only person who can decide if homosexuality can be 'cured' is the one who is homosexual. And from what I've heard those odds are not indicative that much in the way of change will be forth coming.

Babaruss

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:

The only person who can decide if homosexuality can be 'cured' is the one who is homosexual. And from what I've heard those odds are not indicative that much in the way of change will be forth coming.

---

Hey Babaruss--

I'm unclear on what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that homosexuals can be "cured" of their homosexuality if they decide to be? Or are you saying that homosexuals tell us that their sexual orientation is not "curable" and we should believe them because they're the de facto experts on that? Or...?

Dixon

I'm saying that the idea of a 'cure' for homosexuality is a crock.
Cure was word Ms. Terry tossed into the mix and I just went with it.
I'm pretty much leaving it to homosexuals to decide that issue for themselves.....mighty big of me ain't it ??
It is as you put it in your question. ".... that homosexuals tell us that their sexual orientation is not "curable" and we should believe them because they're the de facto experts on that ?"
Babaruss

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Hey Babaruss--

I'm unclear on what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that homosexuals can be "cured" of their homosexuality if they decide to be? Or are you saying that homosexuals tell us that their sexual orientation is not "curable" and we should believe them because they're the de facto experts on that? Or...?

Dixon

---

It's troubling that a thread that's begun to alert people to ways to locate sex offenders in their neighborhood has somehow devolved into a discussion about whether homosexuality can be cured. Homosexuality has nothing to do with sex offenders, and it's pretty well established that most sex offenders are heterosexual.

Why is there no talk of curing heterosexuality and all the ills that come with it? Because, sexual orientation is a not a disease and therefore needn't be cured. Therefore, neither can homosexuality be cured. Certainly homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder, and was listed in the psychiatric profession's diagnostic manual as such, along with pedophilia and several other conditions that are still considered both criminal and mental illness.

Society has an interest in squashing some of those interests, for example pedophilia, because they involve situations of an adult taking advantage of children who cannot legally give consent to a relationship, or because they may implicate physical or mental harm to one of the participants, such as in sadism or rape. But, as has been established in numerous court cases recently, the state has no compelling interest in controlling the relationship between two consenting adults.

I think it has devovled this way because of an earlier misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that it came up because someone mentioned that some pedaphiles may not be a danger anymore because of receiving treatment. Thus implying that a sexual orientation could be treatable. When Ms Terry replied, it is obvious from the context that she does not think sexual orientation is treatable and used a parallel of a different sexual orientation, homosexuality, as an example of general exceptance that sexual orientation is not treatable. There was no equating of the two in terms of morallity or social exceptability. Rather, where the logic would lead would be that if sexual orientation is not changable, the sexual orientation of being a pedaphile is not curable, the pedaphile will always have sexual attractions for children. The most that can happen is for them to not act on these urges, to decide basically to never have a sex life.

But, we cannot rely on someones promise of abstinence, not only of intercourse but of all sight and touch stimulation, when the result of their actions will harm innocent lives. Those that can see what devastation this could lead to and who are able to be totally abstinant are never known or prosecuted and are not in the public eye or on these lists. Those who have acted on their pedaphile sexuality, in any degree, can no longer be trusted. That's the point with sharing the information about these lists. And while they do no replace due dilligence on the part of the parents, you can at least know when to take extra precautions. We just had an 8 year old girl grabbed and killed in the Tracy area this week. This stuff is serious and I agree that it would be more helpful if the thread stayed on topic or if people maybe thouroughly read what was written before going off in some totally seperate direction.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bakerchic:

It's troubling that a thread that's begun to alert people to ways to locate sex offenders in their neighborhood has somehow devolved into a discussion about whether homosexuality can be cured. Homosexuality has nothing to do with sex offenders, and it's pretty well established that most sex offenders are heterosexual.

Why is there no talk of curing heterosexuality and all the ills that come with it? Because, sexual orientation is a not a disease and therefore needn't be cured. Therefore, neither can homosexuality be cured. Certainly homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder, and was listed in the psychiatric profession's diagnostic manual as such, along with pedophilia and several other conditions that are still considered both criminal and mental illness.

Society has an interest in squashing some of those interests, for example pedophilia, because they involve situations of an adult taking advantage of children who cannot legally give consent to a relationship, or because they may implicate physical or mental harm to one of the participants, such as in sadism or rape. But, as has been established in numerous court cases recently, the state has no compelling interest in controlling the relationship between two consenting adults.

---

Why is Homosexuality even being brought up? What does the Gay community have to do with a bunch of registered sex offenders? Seems to me, that the registered sex offender list is full of a bunch of incurable heterosexuals who cant control their sexual desires for minors of the opposite sex.....!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:

I'm saying that the idea of a 'cure' for homosexuality is a crock.
Cure was word Ms. Terry tossed into the mix and I just went with it.
I'm pretty much leaving it to homosexuals to decide that issue for themselves.....mighty big of me ain't it ??
It is as you put it in your question. ".... that homosexuals tell us that their sexual orientation is not "curable" and we should believe them because they're the de facto experts on that ?"
Babaruss

---

Very well written and thorough post.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by debibaker:

I think it has devovled this way because of an earlier misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that it came up because someone mentioned that some pedaphiles may not be a danger anymore because of receiving treatment. Thus implying that a sexual orientation could be treatable. When Ms Terry replied, it is obvious from the context that she does not think sexual orientation is treatable and used a parallel of a different sexual orientation, homosexuality, as an example of general exceptance that sexual orientation is not treatable. There was no equating of the two in terms of morallity or social exceptability. Rather, where the logic would lead would be that if sexual orientation is not changable, the sexual orientation of being a pedaphile is not curable, the pedaphile will always have sexual attractions for children. The most that can happen is for them to not act on these urges, to decide basically to never have a sex life.

But, we cannot rely on someones promise of abstinence, not only of intercourse but of all sight and touch stimulation, when the result of their actions will harm innocent lives. Those that can see what devastation this could lead to and who are able to be totally abstinant are never known or prosecuted and are not in the public eye or on these lists. Those who have acted on their pedaphile sexuality, in any degree, can no longer be trusted. That's the point with sharing the information about these lists. And while they do no replace due dilligence on the part of the parents, you can at least know when to take extra precautions. We just had an 8 year old girl grabbed and killed in the Tracy area this week. This stuff is serious and I agree that it would be more helpful if the thread stayed on topic or if people maybe thouroughly read what was written before going off in some totally seperate direction.

---

I agree in general with everything you said, except for your statement that there was "no equating of the two in terms of morallity or social exceptability." In fact there was a subtle and significant choice of language that did essentially equate the two. The "If . . . then" construct in the sentence. In addition, the fact that the choice of that particular group (homosexuals), as opposed to some other group (heterosexuals), was in fact a comparison. One does not have to expressly state that they are comparing groups in order for a comparison to take place. Surely, you're familiar with the connotation of words in contrast to their denotation.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by debibaker:

I think it has devovled this way because of an earlier misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that it came up because someone mentioned that some pedaphiles may not be a danger anymore because of receiving treatment. Thus implying that a sexual orientation could be treatable. When Ms Terry replied, it is obvious from the context that she does not think sexual orientation is treatable and used a parallel of a different sexual orientation, homosexuality, as an example of general exceptance that sexual orientation is not treatable. There was no equating of the two in terms of morallity or social exceptability. Rather, where the logic would lead would be that if sexual orientation is not changable, the sexual orientation of being a pedaphile is not curable, the pedaphile will always have sexual attractions for children. The most that can happen is for them to not act on these urges, to decide basically to never have a sex life.

But, we cannot rely on someones promise of abstinence, not only of intercourse but of all sight and touch stimulation, when the result of their actions will harm innocent lives. Those that can see what devastation this could lead to and who are able to be totally abstinant are never known or prosecuted and are not in the public eye or on these lists. Those who have acted on their pedaphile sexuality, in any degree, can no longer be trusted. That's the point with sharing the information about these lists. And while they do no replace due dilligence on the part of the parents, you can at least know when to take extra precautions. We just had an 8 year old girl grabbed and killed in the Tracy area this week. This stuff is serious and I agree that it would be more helpful if the thread stayed on topic or if people maybe thouroughly read what was written before going off in some totally seperate direction.

---

Several thoughts on this thread.

As far as I know, it's not against the law to be a pedophile, a heterosexual with rape fantasies, a kleptomaniac, an alcoholic, anything. It's against the law to act on those things.

Can any of those things, or homosexuality for that matter, be "cured"? What is a cure? I believe it's an axiom of AA that an alcoholic can never be cured of his urge or his chemical balance, but that the behavior can change. Given the stats on drunk driving, not to mention the vast familial trauma that alcoholism causes, I would venture to say that far more damage is done by this "orientation" than by pedophilia. A dear friend of mine back East is destroying himself and his family by his drinking, but if he manages to turn it around I don't think he'll be on a national registry with INCURABLE stamped on his house, and in fact his employer & wife & friends are trying to be supportive.

I just heard about another long-ago friend from the theatre community in Lancaster, PA, where we lived a long time, who'd been arrested when child pornography was found on his work computer — violent sex, not just nudes. He received a relatively light jail sentence, long probation, but of course lost his job and probably his marriage and will be branded for the rest of his life. Co-workers & friends who offered character-witness testimony at his trial were vilified in the newspapers.

Now, that's not a victimless crime — he was a customer for these children's violation — and punishment was necessary. But somehow the public attitude toward these two addictions, and their potential for "cure," is vastly different.

One writer expressed the idea that a pedophile was especially dangerous because his only alternative would be to have no sex life. Not so: I believe the vast majority of pedophiles are married Uncle Alberts. Whether it's sex partners or cars or cuisine, for most of us (not all, of course) if we don't get what's at the top of our menu we'll settle for something farther down.

I distrust all generalities about "orientation." I would guess that there as many varieties of pedophilia as there are of any other orientation. There are heterosexuals who are mainly attracted to adult women or to teenagers or to very fat women or to other races; who hate women violently; who are intensely attracted but can't act on it; who feel that her most attractive feature is her shoe; who feel intense guilt about the whole business; who can relate to them only through BD or SM; who never have sex; who have sex with men instead because it's more available or less fearsome; who love the chase but find the schtupping a drag; who would rape if they could manage it; who fantasize being lesbians; etc etc. One inflatable doll does not fit all.

So my only point here is to sow distrust of any generality about -philias or -phobias, what's "curable" or "incurable," though I realize that to make laws one must make generalizations. In a law-ridden society we're all guests of Procrustes.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

Hey, bakerchic--

Of course what you say is true, but do you think it's news to any of us who've posted on this thread? Those of us who've even used the word "cure" or "curable" have put it in quotes, which should be a strong signal to you that we don't believe curing has anything to do with homosexuality, as it's not a disease.

If you go back and read carefully, you'll see that what you characterize as "...a discussion about whether homosexuality can be cured" was in fact just a brief digression about whether certain groups of people, specifically Christian Evangelicals and homosexuals, THINK it can be "cured". No one on this thread has taken the position that homosexuality is a disorder that needs "curing".

That brief digression was triggered by an apt comparison of people's assumptions about the curability of pedophilia to their assumptions about the "curability" of homosexuality. That comparison did NOT equate homosexuality with pedophilia, nor did it imply any correlation between the two. And, contrary to your suggestion, comparing the "curability" of heterosexuality to that of pedophilia would not have been nearly as apt because there isn't any substantial faction of society that pathologizes heterosexuality.

I admire your positions on the issue of homosexuality; they're my positions too! A more careful reading of the discussion could have saved you unnecessary distress and tilting at windmills based on drawing inferences that weren't really implied.

Blessings on ya;

Dixon

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bakerchic:

It's troubling that a thread that's begun to alert people to ways to locate sex offenders in their neighborhood has somehow devolved into a discussion about whether homosexuality can be cured. Homosexuality has nothing to do with sex offenders, and it's pretty well established that most sex offenders are heterosexual.

Why is there no talk of curing heterosexuality and all the ills that come with it? Because, sexual orientation is a not a disease and therefore needn't be cured. Therefore, neither can homosexuality be cured. Certainly homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder, and was listed in the psychiatric profession's diagnostic manual as such, along with pedophilia and several other conditions that are still considered both criminal and mental illness.

Society has an interest in squashing some of those interests, for example pedophilia, because they involve situations of an adult taking advantage of children who cannot legally give consent to a relationship, or because they may implicate physical or mental harm to one of the participants, such as in sadism or rape. But, as has been established in numerous court cases recently, the state has no compelling interest in controlling the relationship between two consenting adults.

---

I have tried to respond to your post within the quotation. I hope it worked.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Hey, bakerchic--

Of course what you say is true, but do you think it's news to any of us who've posted on this thread? Does it have to be "news" to be posted? Those of us who've even used the word "cure" or "curable" have put it in quotes, which should be a strong signal to you that we don't believe curing has anything to do with homosexuality, as it's not a disease. My issue is not with whether or not anyone actually believes it can be cured.

If you go back and read carefully, you'll see that what you characterize as "...a discussion about whether homosexuality can be cured" was in fact just a brief digression about whether certain groups of people, specifically Christian Evangelicals and homosexuals, THINK it can be "cured". I did go back and "read carefully." Of the fifteen posts before mine a full third were on the "brief digression." We clearly disagree about what constitutes a discussion as opposed to a digression. No one on this thread has taken the position that homosexuality is a disorder that needs "curing". Again, my issue is not with whether or not anyone actually believes it can be cured.

That brief digression was triggered by an apt comparison of people's assumptions about the curability of pedophilia to their assumptions about the "curability" of homosexuality. That comparison did NOT equate homosexuality with pedophilia, nor did it imply any correlation between the two. And, contrary to your suggestion, comparing the "curability" of heterosexuality to that of pedophilia would not have been nearly as apt because there isn't any substantial faction of society that pathologizes heterosexuality. I disagree with you that the comparison was "apt." If the point was to simply express that pedophilia cannot be cured, there were other ways to say it. For example, "if you think pedophilia can be cured, then you must believe water isn't wet," or "if you think pedophilia can be cured, then you must think the moon is made of cheese." A more offensive way of doing it is to drag a historically maligned and oppressed group into the "apt comparison," and thereby subtly perpetuate the stereotype. Because homosexuals have always been pathologized they shall always be so? A comparison to heterosexuals wasn't as "apt" because they have not be pathologized? And so they shall never be.

I admire your positions on the issue of homosexuality; they're my positions too! Yay! A more careful reading of the discussion could have saved you unnecessary distress - no worries- I'm fine and tilting at windmills based on drawing inferences that weren't really implied. Hey, I'm just voicing my opinion about what was posted. Surely, everyone one can take one more opinion can't they?

Blessings on ya; Thanks for the "blessings" and same to you.

Dixon

---

When Dixon put his mind to it, there is no one who can express himself more clearly than the Deity.
I did compare pedophilia and homosexuality, as a reference, since it was not that long ago that a majority thought Homosexuality was curable.
People still think that Pedophiles can be cured.
But both sexual orientations come from within rather than being the result of a fantasy upon which one would act. They can be repressed and/or drugged, but they won't go away.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bakerchic:

I have tried to respond to your post within the quotation. I hope it worked.

---

Maybe you are right Ms. Terry, but as far as I can understand it (and regardless of where they arise from) sexually inappropriate behaviors can be faced, confronted, and dealt with.
I lump sexual disorders into the arena of addiction, and as an ex addict, I know addictions can be brought under control... even if never completely dissolved from ones consciousness.
It would seem to me that contrary to what you suggest sexual addictions based on fantasy can easily lead to pedophilia.
The range of human sexual behavior cannot easily, or readily, be lumped into such simple statements as what you are offering.
Anything which involves the human mind/psyche..can be terribly complicated.

Fantasy can lead to sexual acting out, and fantasy/imagery (at least in the area of positive self feed back ) may undo that acting out.
The mind can't take a joke...garbage in garbage out.
New and better information in..coupled with some kind of feeling (emotion) locks a thought in as a belief.
What the mind can consciously do, it can consciously undo, if there is sufficient motivation and resolve.
These are my opinions and they are based only on my own personal experience. There are not, at least as far as I know..any studies to verify my current belief. So we're at take or reject my word for it o.k. ?
Russ

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

When Dixon put his mind to it, there is no one who can express himself more clearly than the Deity.
I did compare pedophilia and homosexuality, as a reference, since it was not that long ago that a majority thought Homosexuality was curable.
People still think that Pedophiles can be cured.
But both sexual orientations come from within rather than being the result of a fantasy upon which one would act. They can be repressed and/or drugged, but they won't go away.

---

I'm reposting Barrie's post from a different thread, in case you didn't catch it
Of course there is a some gray area, or crossover, but I think he put down an accurate range of (mis)behavior.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

There is a spectrum of people who commit sexual crimes against children. They range from "incestors" on one end to "pedophiles" on the other. Incestors tend to be be people with self esteem issues, who might be drunk, who have an opportunity to rub up against a tender young body and so take advantage of the situation. Sex with a peer might be too threatening, maybe just at that point in their life, so they take advantage of a child. They are actually more attracted to adults, but a child is easier at the moment. They don't go after children or cultivate relationships with children.
People in this end of the spectrum often feel great remorse and are treatable.

People towards the middle might include individuals who were victims of child sexual abuse in the past, maybe they are drinking or especially lonely, and have an opportunity to take advantage of a child. Again, they might also be attracted to adults. People who have experienced trauma in childhood can have what psychologists call "repetition compulsion" which causes them to act out what was done to them. They are considered quite treatable. They usually feel remorse unless they are also sociopaths.

Pedophiles at the other end of the spectrum are sexually attracted to children, less or not at all to adults. They cultivate relationships with children, they seek out vulnerable children. They can have many victims over many years. They don't need to be drunk, lonely, etc., they just are attracted to children. Many psychologists doubt if they are treatable, however, probably no one knows for sure.

Most sexually abused children are victimized by incestors, the most treatable perpetrators. However pedophiles individually have many more victims.

Generation Five in San Francisco is a non-profit whose goal is to end child sexual abuse in five generations. They do a lot of work with male victims of child sexual abuse.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by babaruss:

Maybe you are right Ms. Terry, but as far as I can understand it (and regardless of where they arise from) sexually inappropriate behaviors can be faced, confronted, and dealt with.
I lump sexual disorders into the arena of addiction, and as an ex addict, I know addictions can be brought under control... even if never completely dissolved from ones consciousness.
It would seem to me that contrary to what you suggest sexual addictions based on fantasy can easily lead to pedophilia.
The range of human sexual behavior cannot easily, or readily, be lumped into such simple statements as what you are offering.
Anything which involves the human mind/psyche..can be terribly complicated.

Fantasy can lead to sexual acting out, and fantasy/imagery (at least in the area of positive self feed back ) may undo that acting out.
The mind can't take a joke...garbage in garbage out.
New and better information in..coupled with some kind of feeling (emotion) locks a thought in as a belief.
What the mind can consciously do, it can consciously undo, if there is sufficient motivation and resolve.
These are my opinions and they are based only on my own personal experience. There are not, at least as far as I know..any studies to verify my current belief. So we're at take or reject my word for it o.k. ?
Russ

---

Thanks for that information Ms. Terry
Looks like there are some methods for possible change available after all.
I went to Generation Five S.F. via Google, and read most of what was there.
Later will take another look at what I may have missed.
So far I like the ideas proposed.
Can't say whether, or not their process works, but it does seem to
improve upon my limited idea about ended child sexual abuse (at the level of an abuser).
Thanks
Babaruss

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

I'm reposting Barrie's post from a different thread, in case you didn't catch it
Of course there is a some gray area, or crossover, but I think he put down an accurate range of (mis)behavior.

---