Heartless Bastards!

From the mouth of Zman!

"This was not good before, and by forcing a woman to live there is asking for problems. Is the state going to be blamed if she is raped by someone? I doubt it, but they are the HEARTLESS BASTARDS that are doing this. WHERE ARE THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS? Hell, do they even exist anymore? So what's next? Are you going to also be sending child sex offenders to live under the bridge as well?"


I was under the impression from reading that article that she was offered a place to stay and didn't have to go under the bridge. She's a sex offender who TWICE failed to follow registration laws and now refuses to go anywhere else to stay because it doesn't "suit her". While I don't particularly care to have sex offenders living under a bridge I can't help but wonder why Zman would be worried that she would be raped living with all those other sex offenders but he can't grasp why parents would be concerned about them living next door to their children.

Maybe it's his "thinking disorder" that's at fault. He claims sex offenders are judged guilty before being tried and you can't believe the media because they lie. He also claims:

HEARSAY ALONE IS LITERALLY NAILING THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO THE WALL

And:

Well, that is the problem, the media has force fed you lies, so has the media, John Walsh (who is an admitted sex addict), Mark Lunsford (who had child porn on his machine when Jessica went missing, and his son has since been busted for molesting a child, but walked free), and politicians. The sheeple believe anything that is force fed to them, even if it's a lie.

And:

Shut the hell up Mark! You were out of the house at some skanks house that night instead of taking care of Jessica like a REAL father would do. I wish someone one look into the child porn you had on your machine, and put you in prison where you belong

And:

Maybe they should read this article, which shows CHILD PORN was on Mark Lunsfords machine when Jessica went missing. It seems everyone is trying to bury that, but, I won't let it be buried.

And:

We need to stop letting rage filled idiots like John Walsh, Mark Lunsford or Marc Klass make laws. People not thinking clearly created idiotic laws, that has been proven by history.

Seemingly oblivious to the fact that none of those men MADE laws. They didn't sign them into effect, they didn't vote them into effect, they didn't enact any laws. They merely lobbied for their beliefs. The same way this idiot with a big mouth does.

John Couey constantly asked for help! Did he ever receive it? No, why not? If you would've got him treatment a long time ago when he asked for it, Jessica would still be here.

Seemingly obvious to the fact that Mark Lunsford didn't even know John Couey before he abducted, raped and buried his daughter alive.

This man is another John Walsh who is, IMO, exploiting his daughters death for fame and money. He was nothing before all this occurred. It's about torturing as many people as possible, when you need to accept some blame as well for leaving your daughter at home that night while you went out to a bar/girl friends home, AND LEFT THE DOORS UNLOCKED!!!

Seemingly oblivious to the fact that Jessica was not left alone and it is not uncommon for a single man to leave his child with her grandparents while he stays at his girlfriends.

Because those people are not informed, and will believe anything this idiot says. But, you have to question his motives, and also what about the child porn he had when Jessica went missing?

And:

If this is about accountability, then why don't they further investigate the child porn Mark had on his machine when Jessica went missing? Mark is trying to be another John Walsh and exploit his daughters death to make some quick easy money, IMO.

And:

And why hasn't anybody brought up the issue that Mark had CHILD PORN on his machine when they checked it, yet it magically vanished?

And:

There was also child porn on his machine when Jessica went missing, which magically vanished. Why was he not investigated for that?

And:

I DEMAND "JUSTICE!" IF THIS MAN MUST FACE PRISON, THEN GO ARREST MARK LUNSFORD AND GIVE HIM A PRISON CELL RIGHT NEXT TO THIS MAN!

And:

Your whole family is a basket case!! You are just looking for a scapegoat to blame, when you are responsible for taking care of your children, not the police.

But the strangest one of all:

Why must people always find a SCAPEGOAT to blame instead of taking responsibility for their negligence and irresponsibility? Why? STOP PUSHING THE BLAME OFF TO OTHER PEOPLE FOR YOUR STUPIDITY!

Zman the king of blame gaming accusing other people of scapegoating? Now those are but a few of the examples, I could point you to well over 500 instances where he has said things like this. It is now rampant amongst the blame-gaming sex offender activists who no longer report it as "once there was a news story that said this" no, now it has become a cold hard 'FACTOID'.

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

And yet, way back when......Zman knew that it wasn't true.

Dear Mr. Gelman,

This is to confirm my prior representations to you that Mr. Lunsford's computer was seized from his home at the time of the disappearance as part of a routine investigation. The computer was examined by the Citrus County Sheriff's Office. They found no evidence of possession of child pornography on the computer. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Richard D. Ridgway
Assistant State Attorney

Zman has known all along that what he was saying wasn't true, it just suited his purposes to say otherwise. He prefers to point at and blame other people for his predicament rather than himself. In fact, he just doesn't know WHO to blame, he just knows it's someone else not him. Never him. I guess everything that has befallen him is all the fault of the evil vigilante bloggers. Like perhaps Stitches who went to SOA and said "People can relate to Walsh and Lunsford, don't attack them or people will hate you for it" and was subsequently attacked for telling the truth. So then how would you explain this?

This is how you solve problems, all sides should get together, and as adults, talk about all the issues, good and bad, and help solve the problem, instead of passing blame from one side to the other. Maybe when Perverted-Justice, AbsoluteZeroUnited and others see this, then we can help solve the sexual abuse issues.

Hosted by: The Fallen One (ReFORM Radio)

Title: Ep. 8: Barriers to ReFORM Featuring "Valigator"

You can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Valerie told you the same thing regarding the nasty things all the blame gamers say about Walsh and Lunsford. And of course you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that SHE is one of the people trying to force sex offenders out of neighborhoods and under the Bridge. Perhaps you talked to the wrong person after all Zman? Oh and by the way, you left the background out of your "heartless bastards" graphic. No worries, I fixed it for you.

Facts According to Jan

Originally posted on August 20, 2006

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

Does that sound familiar? Jay has an entire list of common factoids and he proceeds to dispel them one by one. So shall we.

Factoid #1:

The "pedophile" is set apart from most men because he finds children or adolescents sexually attractive.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

A study of randomly selected "normal" men at Kent State University (Hall, G. N., Hirschman, R, and Oliver, L. 1995) discovered that "20% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli."

I don't know about you all but I've become rather weary of this continued FACTOID that keeps crawling out of pedovores mouths.

The result of this study WAS NOT that 25% of all men had a pedophilic attraction to children. The result was that these particular subjects had a higher than average arousability level. Meaning they could get turned on at the drop of a hat. In the authors OWN analysis of his study he stated various reasons, some of them being the high attrition rate when men found out about the penis straps they would have to wear all in order to get paid $40, to the fact that the author removed subjects from the study himself due to them not having a high enough arousability level to suit his purposes.

NOW, whether or not this was a valid and reliable study, is completely beside the point. The point is that the pedophiles, misinterpreted the results based upon that one sentence in the abstract and have used it so many times that they all believe it.

In other words Hall's study has become a FACTOID.


Now let us see who has bought into this.

Well we know that BlueRibbon the infamous Dad-beater and perver of his little brother's friends spread this around everywhere totally misinterpreting the data.

And now


WA LA


Jan Kruska of 'I'm not a pedophile' fame is just eating this pro-pedo propaganda up. And even linking to it!


What is wrong with you Jan? Those pesky pedophiles just keep getting in your way, don't they? I, for one, wonder why.

Jan said

"Anyone claiming to be a pedophile or that having a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children is "normal" or "acceptable" or engages in that type of behavior is SICK. I would be the first one to string the bastard up by the balls and cut his throat."

So my question is WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE IT'S NORMAL?

Facts According to Jay Part 6

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID # 6

Minors never feel positive about their relationships with older partners if there is a sexual component in that relationship.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

Heinz Kohut, the founder of "Self Psychology" and one of the most important psychological theorists of the 20th Century reported that "I had this private tutor, who was a very important person in my life. He would take me to musems and swimming and concerts and we had endless intellectual conversations and played complicated intellectual games and played chess together." They also did sexual things together, which they both enjoyed, but Kohut felt the sex was more or less incidental. The important thing for him was the relationship. (Stozier, 2001. "Heinz Kohut: The Making of a Psychoanalyst" pp 95, 96)

Oh dear. First let's look at the way it's written here. There's quotes. There's non-quotes. I'm not going to bore you with the rest of this dribble, but just want to say that it's all like this. Quoting Kohut. Non-quotes with the appearance of quotes anytime sex is mentioned. Typical.

Nevertheless, I suppose we should look at Kohut and see what we find. Let's start with Strozier himself. Some of the things Jay forgot to tell us when he explained how wonderful Kohut's experience was at the hands of his childhood molester.... In addition to the fact that he writes about Kohut's problems with "frequent... addictive masturbation accompanied by masochistic fantasies" Strozier writes:

It may be that Kohut (who minimized the exploitative nature of his tutor's actions) was deluded about the nature of his own victimization and confused about the way tender feelings are often an integral part of exploitation. pp 25-26

And while we're on this topic let's also look at what Dr. Freda Briggs Emeritus Professor and qualified expert in the field of child sexual abuse has to say:

"Men who normalize their own experience of sexual abuse, may be more likely than other victims to perpetuate the abuse".... Ryan (1989) has suggested that repression of the traumatic aspects and acceptance of the pleasurable aspects of sexual abuse often leads to victims defending against the effects of their own abuse...

"...perpetrators who discounted the effects of abuse on their own lives also discounted the damage they did to other children; they rationalized that boys liked and wanted what they did to them"... [pp. 231-232]

Read what Bill Glaser says HERE about the plague of child sexual abuse.

Dr Bruce Perry writes:

Evidence suggests that the negative psychological impact of child sexual abuse persists over time, often into adulthood. Potential long-term effects of child sexual abuse include depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, sexual dysfunction, and substance abuse.
Further, among the female adult outpatient population, individuals with sexual abuse histories as children were twice as likely to attempt suicide than their non-abused counterparts.
Across the lifespan, individuals who were sexually abused as children are four times more likely to be at risk for developing a psychiatric disorder and are about three times more likely to abuse substances than their non-abused counterparts.
It is estimated that approximately one third of child sexual abuse victims experience PTSD as adult survivors.
Among women whose abuse involved penetration, an increased risk associated for the development of PTSD is experienced, resulting in about two thirds of this population developing PTSD at some point during their lifetime.

Now let's jump over to one of the pedovores message boards and see if we can get any insight there. Turtle, who is just a treasure trove of outrageous statements says this:

i was "molested" at age 7 by my babysitter and found it an enjoyable encounter .... i wasnt abused ....

so why do i read posts by angry "christian" women that go on and on about how sick and evil it is and how their lives were ruined? are you that weak minded? do you have to find someone else to blame for your own personal failures? it was one event, it shouldnt ruin your life. kids in other countries live through much worse. stop whining, and put the blame where it belongs: on your own shoulders. sex is a beautiful thing and only becomes perverted when you decide that it is perverted.

i had a young girl ask me once why it is called sexual abuse ... i told her it is because people want to believe that all kids are too stupid to know the difference

And they think we don't know how to educate our children and they do? Right.
But I'm not through with turtle. turtle gets into a discussion abut responsibility, about the true abusers of children

it is possible that some people dont know the right from wrong,but that is rare,and it is used as a defense all the time. if you put your rights and desires above the rights and desires of someone else then you are a harmful person and need to be dealt with. people know what is expected of them from society,regardless if they agree or not. when you harm another person it doesnt matter if the law is there or not. it is wrong,and you know by instinct. when you hear her screaming and crying and then see the blood you should know it is wrong. if you are so sick that you think that is perfectly acceptable then you need to be neutralized with extreme predjudice.....

Well FINALLY, turtle and I agree on something. Unfortunately, he keeps talking

what is the alternative? allow him to keep doing it because his needs are more important than the victims? i think not. and when they do that it just makes it harder for true childlovers. its used as justification for sweeping laws....

He even tells us a 'why' for his attraction

i am attracted to girls because of the way they feel, smell, sound, look, and taste

So princesplaff gets in on the discussion and explains

pedophiles love children, in every sense, so if someone rapes a child they cannot be a pedophile.

Now, what was that again, turtle? Above when you said you weren't abused? And yet now you say:

.... evidence suggests that i was a pedophile from birth, before i was abused

Of course what the pedovores call abuse and what the rest of society calls abuse are two different things. turtle clarifies what should happen to people who abuse 'the innocent'

emotional distress is not an excuse for assualting innocents. either lock them up for life or put them out of their misery if they cant be cured. at least then they would be at peace,and that is good for us and them. the suffering would be over. how can people condone and talk about suicide because they are in so much pain and then in the same breath say it is unfair to put an insane person out of their misery? death is not a punishment,but a release. i have no desire to rape or murder,but if i did have such agonizing compulsions and couldnt stop i would hope and expect someone to stop me,one way or the other....

Have no fear little turtle freakopath. We're gonna be watching out for you.

The Evolution of a Factoid

We've recently been discussing FACTOIDS,

Statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

in our Facts According To Jay series. There's several more to come in this series, but for a nice little intermission, I thought it would be nice to show you the evolution of one.

I recently made this comment

pedophiles quoting Ken Lanning, and Hall and Freund, and even Krafft-Ebing for God's sake .... I could see it maybe if one of them misquoted and took out of context one sentence out of a 160 page document to use in their defense. But when ALL the online pedophile community misquote the EXACT SAME THING, then it most certainly is not an individual mistake, it is a concerted effort to mislead and there has to be ONE person responsible at the heart of it. ONE person who started spreading 'quotes' from academia. And now they all repeat the same thing....with confidence, they say things like 'That's a 'FACT'

Now we're going to get to see it in action. A reporter for The Toronto Star covered the STORY of a newly released research paper regarding Pedophilia Diagnosis. Here's what the reporter had to say:

Much to the surprise of researchers involved, a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Well that seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Here's some of the things the Girl Chat community had to say....

The Walker proudly proclaims....

Much to the surprise of researchers!

Fabri-Chan replies....

I'm tired of feeling that everyone is stupid and I'm the only one with his head screwd on straight.

Ducky says....

Why don't they just go to a local water park and count how many dudes are there? Simple.

MoonDreamer....

The fact that people who don't molest children are more attracted to them is kind of a hint that most of us aren't child molesters, no? This, coupled with the findings that most molesters aren't pedos makes it pretty obvious what the reality is. Who the hell else would view CP??

Arch....

called MoonDreamer's statement an absurd point and said... your statement "who the hell else would view CO?" isn't much different than saying "who the hell else would molest children?" Yet it's well proven that the second contention is false.

Demosthenes, the great orator says (among other things).....

The common assertion out there is that viewing child pornography increases the chances of acting up desires, while in here the common assertion is that it reduces the chance. Here they are saying that their research indicates that those who view the CP have a stronger attraction than those who act on that attraction.

Well, um, no, that's not what it says at all. Let's clarify this quickly shalll we?

This study was written by Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard for The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and University of Toronto. The title is Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia and was published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610–615.

Please notice the title of the article. Let's look at the actual article now.

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Clinicians currently rely on three potential sources of information when considering the diagnosis of pedophilia: selfreport, a history of sexual behavior involving children, and psychophysiological assessment. All of these sources have their limitations. Self-report regarding an individual’s sexual interests is the simplest to obtain, but some individuals will deny having pedophilic interests. An individual’s history of sexual offenses, in terms of the number, gender, age, and relatedness of child victims, is informative, but it only approximates the offender’s interests because it is limited to known victims. Psychophysiological assessment methods such as viewing time provide an objective method of assessing sexual interests, but they also can be vulnerable to response suppression.

Our results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. One possible conclusion being, people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults. Another possible explanation for the difference between child pornography offenders and offenders against children is that the child pornography offenders were less likely to attempt to suppress their responses to stimuli depicting children (or were less successful in suppressing such responses).

Our results have implications for both clinical and theoretical work on pedophilia because they suggest that child pornography offending has diagnostic significance and may be particularly helpful in circumstances in which the person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behavior involving children, or in which phallometric test results are unavailable. Whether child pornography offending is associated with a different prognosis than are other indicators of pedophilic interests, such as its relative ability to predict sexual recidivism, remains to be determined

They end with this question:

individuals who collect pornography depicting only girls might be less likely to commit sexual offenses against boys or to show sexual arousal to boys in the laboratory. Given the positive relationships between sexual arousal to children and having multiple child victims, boy victims, and younger child victims (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001; Seto, Murphy, Page, & Ennis, 2003), and other research demonstrating that these same victim characteristics predict subsequent offending (Seto, Harris, Rice, & Barbaree, 2004), one could predict greater pedophilic arousal—and a greater likelihood of subsequent sexual offenses against children—among individuals who possess more child pornography content, pornography depicting boys, and pornography depicting very young children. We are now beginning a research project designed to test this question.

Now, who is responsible for this? Is it the authors of this study? Who said:

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Or could it be the reporter for The Toronto Times who said:

a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Does that statement look anything at all like what the study actually said? No, no it doesn't. But since the unethical journalist reworded it in her own words, it was much more appealing to the pedo community. In fact her rewording completely changed the meaning of it. Be aware in the future of this name ROBYN DOOLITTLE because you'll be seeing the pedofreaks quoting her endlessly in support of their contention that pedophiles don't commit crimes against children.

They're already in the process of developing a new factoid based upon it. Apparently this is how they came to rely on Joanne DiLorenzo. When she reported that Ken Lanning believed that 90% of molestations were committed by non pedophiles, in direct conflict with what he has written and repeated over the years, the freaks latched onto it, and it has become like a mantra for them. Let's don't let this happen with DooLittle. Ethics in Journalism?

Facts According to Jay Part 5

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID # 5

The "pedophile" is a brutish, primitive, self-centered person who is incapable of empathy.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

Who have been some well known pedophiles? Here are a few: Thomas Mann, James Barrie, Lew Carroll, Alan Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, T.E. White, W. H. Auden, and last but not least Shakespeare. Most people who know anything about these people would not see them as brutish and primitive.

Well now, let's just break that down. First, Jay presents us with what he calls a factoid.....a statement presumed as fact because people hear it repeated....repeatedly.

Then for the actual fact he gives us a......factoid.

Statement repeatedly repeated without substantiation. Walt Whitman being one of the most obvious. Yeah we've all heard that said about him...repeatedly. What's not commonly known is that it's never been proven. Someone says it, and everyone just assumes it's so.

And even if it were so, that doesn't disprove his listed factoid. I personally don't believe all pedofreaks are brutish men. I think of them as sneaking, conniving, manipulative individuals, who GROOM children as their modus operandi. Accusing your detractors of believing something about you which they don't believe is just another example of your less than honest methods.

And Shakespeare? Oh Puhlease. Why do you say these things? Does it validate your feelings somehow? Whoever first said it, knows its not true, and even if it were, it can't be proven, and so they say it believing it will somehow elevate their status. It doesn't work. You read interpretive literature and try to determine from the Bard's writing that he was a pedophile. My dear little perverts...... he was writing about his illegitimate son from whom he was estranged.

Facts According to Jay Part 4

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #4

The "pedophile" is unable to control himself and will always "re-offend".

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

One of the most extensive studies on this issue is called "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" It is available from the US Department of Justice. (Lanagan, P, Schmitt, E. and Durose, M., 2003) According to this study,, "Within the first three years following release from prison, 3.3% (141 of 4,296) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.

Well now, before we get to the truly most extensive studies (since pedovores like to use terms like that, as though it adds an air of eminence) let's look at this DOJ report. Number one please keep in mind that this only covered these specific criminals over a 3 year period post release from prison. When you see the figure 3.3% recidivism for child molesters and don't actually read the report, it doesn't sound too bad does it? Well you should read the report. What you don't see (for one thing) in that 3.3% figure is all the prior convictions before THIS ONE.

Furthermore

Within 6 months following their release, 1.4% of the 9,691 men were rearrested for a new sex crime. Within 1 year the cumulative total grew to 2.1% rearrested. By the end of the 3-year followup period, altogether 5.3% had been rearrested for another sex crime.

Which brings me to my next point: Karl Hanson who has authored several major studies on recidivism (1995, 1998, 2002) has some startling information. In his 1995 A Comparison of Child Molesters and Nonsexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-Term Recidivism Hanson writes:

Overall, 83.2% of the nonsexual criminals and 61.8% of the child molesters were reconvicted during the 15 to 30 year follow-up period of this study. The two groups tended to be reconvicted for distinct types of offenses. Almost all the sexual offense recidivism was in the child molester group (35% vs. 1.5% in the nonsexual criminal group) In general, prior offenses of a specific type predicted future offenses of the same type.

Hanson believes that

Child molesters may have different motivations to offend than do other criminals. He also says that in general, the rate of sexual offense recidivism among sexual offenders also tends to be low, about 10%-20% over 4 years, though it gradually increases with longer follow-up periods.

So this study, which included subjects released from prison beginning in 1958 were followed for no less than 15 years, and in some cases up to 30 years.

Further, Hanson found that substantial differences were found between the child molesters and non-sexual criminals included in this study. The child molesters were responsible for almost all (97%) of the sexual offense recidivism, whereas the nonsexual criminals were responsible for almost all (96%) of the nonsexual violent recidivism.

When the specific factors that predicted each type of recidivism were considered, there was a tendency for previous offenses of a given type to predict future offenses of the same type. The present study strongly suggests that child molesters are a distinct type of offender.

In his 1998 Meta-Analysis which provided recidivism information on 28,972 sex offenders followed over a period of 4-5 years, Hanson states that sexual offenders' motivation to change may also be related to recidivism. Those offenders who accept responsibility, express remorse, and comply with treatment should be at lower risk than those who deny any problems and actively resist change. The results of his 2002 study concerned the issue of recidivism as it related to age and followed 4,673 sexual offenders over a period of 30 years. His results were

"Although the observed sexual recidivism rates are only 10% to 15% after 5 years, the rates continue to increase gradually with extended follow-up periods." And asks the question "Do sexual offenders remain at risk throughout their lives, or is there some age limit after which their risks for recidivism is substantially reduced?"

This is the conclusion....

Recidivism risk of rapists steadily declines with age. In contrast the extrafamilial child molesters showed little reduction in recidivism risk until after the age of 50. The recidivism rate of intrafamilial child molesters were the lowest of all sex offender categories except in the 18-24 age group.

"The extent to which the recidivism rates of child molesters decreases with age is unknown. Given that most antisocial behavior declines with age, it is likely that the sexual recidivism rates of child molesters would similarly decline. A strong or exclusive sexual interest in children could contribute to a sustained level of risk until late adulthood."

Child molesters who only target intrafamilial victims (incest offenders) have consistently lower recidivism risk than do any other sexual offenders.

The sexual recidivism rate for the total sample was 17.5%. In the total sample the recidivism rate delined steadily with age. All the groups recidivated at different rates with incest offender recidivating less often (8.4%) than rapists (17.1%) and extrafamilial child molesters (19.5%)

Now for a couple of quick facts..........none of the incest offenders released after age 60 recidivated. The oldest recidivist (non incest sex offender) in the sample was released at age 72 and was reconvicted for a sexual offense the following year. (I guess some folks never learn)

As with other criminal behavior, the rate of sexual offending decreased with age. The rate of decline was rather gradual, however, and there were significant differences between types of sexual offenders.

Extrafamilial child molesters showed little decline in their recidivism risk until after the age of 50

Among the various factors linked to sexual offending, the three broad factors most relevant to this study are deviant sexual interests, opportunity, and low self-control. Deviant sexual interests are more common among extrafamilial child molesters than among incest offenders.

Dr. Jim Hopper believes that official government statistics are only "the tip of the iceberg." Concerning Child Sexual Abuse, he says Most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of government authorities. This is particularly true for neglected and sexually abused children, who may have no physical signs of harm. In the case of sexual abuse, secrecy and intense feelings of shame may prevent children, and adults aware of the abuse, from seeking help.

So how are we to know what to believe? Question, question, question everything! Don't take my word for it and surely not the pedovores. Remember the wise ol' saying....If it walks like a duck............

Facts According to Jay Part 3

Jay Baskins, see HERE, and HERE, and HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #3

The activities of the "pedophile" are always traumatizing and cause great harm to the "victims"

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

In their study "A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse," Rind and Tromovitch (1998) came to the following conclusion: "CSA (child sexual abuse) is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense." This peer reviewed article which appeared in the most prestigious psychological journal in the US was condemned by Congress.

This is what Jay doesn't tell you however:

The Rind study was roundly condemned by many and eventually criticized by the American Psychological Association, publisher of Psychological Bulletin. Paul Fink, M.D., former president of the American Psychiatric Association, pointed out that most of the studies discussed by the authors had never undergone rigorous peer review, and that the results were largely based on one study conducted over 40 years ago.

Hmmm, must've been an oversight on Jay's part.
We will be addressing the Rind et al study shortly. But, it's much too much to include here. So I'll try to summarize a few points as briefly as possible before I get to the TRUE facts.

This was a tremendously (and obviously) flawed study. The authors excluded both those with the most evidence of harm and those which showed the highest incidence of abuse. That's bias. Bias yields unreliable results.... Results which are meant to prove the point you want them to prove. DUH

Consider also the fact that the majority of the incidents of child sexual abuse included in the study consisted of indecent exposure that did not involve physical contact. Thus, in most cases the sexual abuse was either comparatively minor or nonexistent. It is as if a study that purports to examine the effects of being shot in the head contained a majority of cases in which the marksman missed. Such research might demonstrate that being shot in the head generally has no serious or lasting effects. The Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, (1999).

Next let us consider the following: A study by Debra K. Peters and Lillian M. Range found significant differences between contact and non-contact child sexual abuse (distinctions that for statistical purposes the Rind study ignores):

Further, a consistent finding was that women and men whose sexual abuse involved touching were more suicidal, less able to cope, and felt less responsible to their families than nonabused students. The experience of being touched in a sexual way appears to be more damaging than other kinds of unwanted sexual experiences. ..

As far as lasting effects go, there are a multitude of online sources that will break it down for you, but for our purposes today I'm going to go to Bill Glaser for the answer.

Imagine a society afflicted by a scourge which struck down a quarter of its daughters and up to one in eight of its sons. Imagine also that this plague, while not immediately fatal, lurked in the bodies and minds of these young children for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its
disastrous long-term effects. Finally, imagine the nature of these effects: life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment.

The scourge that we are speaking of is child sexual abuse. It has accounted for probably more misery and suffering than any of the great plagues of history, including the bubonic plague, tuberculosis and syphilis. Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those of the modern-day epidemics which currently take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart disease and now AIDS.

The harm caused by child sexual abuse is immeasurable.

And then there's Krafft-Ebing who pedovores love to love:

Even the great sexologist, Krafft-Ebing, who labelled Freud’s observations a “fairy-tale”, nonetheless was well aware of the dangerousness and deviousness of child molesters. In his book on sexual perversions, he pointed out the “inexhaustible” range of types of sexual assault committed by child molesters and also emphasised the “monstrosity” of their deeds.

Facts According to Jay Part 2

Jay Baskins, see HERE, and HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #2

The "pedophile" is a violent man who forces himself on children.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

Baurmann in the largest study of child abuse every carried out discovered that in 80% of all cases of reported illegal sexual contacts "the perpetrator had exhibited something other than threatening or violent behavior."

Well, here we go again. First up, this study, while it may have been one of the largest ever done at that time concerned SPECIFIC aspects of child abuse. Secondly it was done in 1983. Third..... I do not doubt at all that just about any study done would show that the majority of child sexual abuse was non-violent. In fact I wouldn't question it at all.

It's called GROOMING.

Jay Baskins Introduction

Over on the IPCE website they have lots of info for pedophiles

For people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

These relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.

Oh , we should have some really unbiased information here then shouldn't we? I think I'll start with Jay Baskins who wrote a paper titled Factoids and the Sex Abuse Panic.

Jay starts out by saying

The religious right has been deliberately drumming up a moral panic about sex abuse for decades now.

As for AZ, we have politically liberal members as well as conservative members. We have fervently religious members along with 'somewhat' religious, all the way to our agnostic and atheist members.

You see, the child sex abuse issue crosses all political and religious boundaries.

Then Jay says:

By creating an atmosphere of hysteria about sex, the religious right has prevented the intelligent and nuanced discussion of the sexuality of children.

By the creation of a radically disenfranchised group ("Pedophiles") the political right is able to dismantle due process and the machinery of a free society.

OK, again, it is NOT the religious/political right, it is everyday people from all walks of life and opinion. Anyone who is against pedophilia did not create a disenfranchised group --Pedophiles

The only thing preventing intelligent discussion is a lack of intelligence on the part of pedovore child lusters.

Now we here at AZ are going to spend a bit of time analyzing what you have to say Mr. Jay Baskins. One thing I'd seriously like to determine is this.......... do you repeat the the 'factoids' so rampant amongst the pedophile community out of sheer stubborness...that you will hold onto it til death do you part even when proven to be wrong, or is it that you're so intellectually challenged you don't understand, or are you being maliciously deceptive?

Perhaps the answer will turn out to be all three.

Stay tuned for Facts According to Jay.