6 ms·

> People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves

> People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves her Maybe. But maybe the story that the abuser doesn't care about the victim isn't actually accurate, even if it is more useful for resolving the problem. I think it's entirely possible that a large class of abuse happens from abusers that do love and care about the victims, but are so screwed up in their own mind that they can't help themselves. That does lead to the interesting question, does continually asserting to the victim that the abuser doesn't care lead to helping the issue faster than asserting that they might care, but by allowing the situation to continue it harms both the victim and the abuser, and the best way to improve both their lives is to be separated? Not that helping the abuser is the main goal, but if it helps to extricate the victim faster, that's a net win, and just because the abuser is not someone most people would find pity for doesn't mean they don't deserve some help fighting their own demons too. Not that I think that's necessarily true, but it would be interesting to know whether this is one more case where the common knowledge "best thing to do" is sub-optimal.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
I flatly disagree - i think the word "love" has connotations of protection and putting their best interests first whatever is going on in the mind of a paedophile it is not love.
- LocalH 8y ago
  Nobody else mentioned pedophilia. There are other forms of abuse that aren't sexual.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    whatever else is going on in the mind of a paedophile / other abuser, it is not love.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 8y ago
      I'm sure we would all sleep much better at night assuming that's the case, but I'm not sure there's much basis to it besides wishful thinking. The fact that some people actually opt for chemical castration because they cannot control their urges leads me to believe that it's fairly deeply psychologically ingrained, and I'm not sure why a compulsion to do something somehow negates any other feeling a person might have. And this isn't a defense of pedophiles (which were not what I was envisioning when I mentioned abusers in my original comment), but it is an attempt at better understanding them. I think that's the best path for everyone involved, as if we understand them, perhaps we can stop them, and help them (preferably prior to any bad behavior), and then everyone is better off. Simply rationalizing that pedophiles do horrible things therefore they are horrible and evil people is a cop-out and will likely never actually fix the problem, as we've seen. I think that results in more victims and more people in prison. If we can prevent the crimes and help the people that would commit them be productive members of society that don't hurt anyone (preferably before they've hurt anyone), should we not do so? Are we not all better off with that outcome?
      - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
        I am not an expert, but I do not believe we have any framework for understanding paedophilia, let alone any category for all other forms of child abuse. There is a framework for understanding say schizophrenia, and so potential for a cure But without such a framework then I cannot see much progress - like downthread i say bank robbers are not bad all the time, abusers are not bad all the time. But the crime is enough to take action. Yes I would like a cure for abusers, just as a cure for robbers. Till then we should treat them all as crimes and prosecute accordingly
        kbenson 8y ago
        > I do not believe we have any framework for understanding paedophilia, let alone any category for all other forms of child abuse. So, I'm saying perhaps there is something to be learned from examining the problem in depth rather than taking a "shoot on sight" sort of stance. Nothing about that required there be some single unifying framework, it's simply calling for an evidence based examination of whether there are methods that have a more beneficial outcome than that. E.g. In the case of trying to reduce crime in general, you can increase criminal punishments or you can try to prevent people from becoming criminals. I suspect the latter is a better return on investment socially, and for the victims and criminals in particular. > There is a framework for understanding say schizophrenia, and so potential for a cure Good! All the more reason to look for additional frameworks that can help in other types of situations. > Till then we should treat them all as crimes and prosecute accordingly I'm not sure anyone here has said they shouldn't be prosecuted. I certainly haven't. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up, since it seems to assume people are arguing against treating sexual child abuse as a crime. Who here is proposing that?
- francisofascii 8y ago
  Sure, loving actions put the child's interests first. But the point was an abuser is not acting against the child's interests 100% of the time. Just like even the best parents are not acting in the child's interests 100% of the time.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    Bank robbers don't rob banks 100% of the time - but the act of bank robbing is so bad we put them in jail even so.
watwut 8y ago
> I think it's entirely possible that a large class of abuse happens from abusers that do love and care about the victims, but are so screwed up in their own mind that they can't help themselves. In that case, the abuse would be visible in public. If abuser is doing what he/she is doing in private only, then it reasonable to assume that abuser is in control.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I'm not sure the public/private distinction is meaningful. That's a pressure on the abuser too. We all do things in private we'd be frozen in shame at attempting to do in public. It doesn't mean we're 'in control'. It just means we're sometimes out of control, in private
- francisofascii 8y ago
  Not really. A person addicted to food, alcohol, porn, etc. is perfectly capable of keeping these addictions at bay in public, but lose control while in private.
tomgp 8y ago
Kind of beside the point though when we're talking about a children's cartoon. A straightforward 'people who hurt other people don't love them' message is probably preferable.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  Quite right - i think you have to accept the limitations of your medium.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

I flatly disagree - i think the word "love" has connotations of protection and putting their best interests first whatever is going on in the mind of a paedophile it is not love.

LocalH 8y ago
Nobody else mentioned pedophilia. There are other forms of abuse that aren't sexual.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  whatever else is going on in the mind of a paedophile / other abuser, it is not love.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I'm sure we would all sleep much better at night assuming that's the case, but I'm not sure there's much basis to it besides wishful thinking. The fact that some people actually opt for chemical castration because they cannot control their urges leads me to believe that it's fairly deeply psychologically ingrained, and I'm not sure why a compulsion to do something somehow negates any other feeling a person might have. And this isn't a defense of pedophiles (which were not what I was envisioning when I mentioned abusers in my original comment), but it is an attempt at better understanding them. I think that's the best path for everyone involved, as if we understand them, perhaps we can stop them, and help them (preferably prior to any bad behavior), and then everyone is better off. Simply rationalizing that pedophiles do horrible things therefore they are horrible and evil people is a cop-out and will likely never actually fix the problem, as we've seen. I think that results in more victims and more people in prison. If we can prevent the crimes and help the people that would commit them be productive members of society that don't hurt anyone (preferably before they've hurt anyone), should we not do so? Are we not all better off with that outcome?
    - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
      I am not an expert, but I do not believe we have any framework for understanding paedophilia, let alone any category for all other forms of child abuse. There is a framework for understanding say schizophrenia, and so potential for a cure But without such a framework then I cannot see much progress - like downthread i say bank robbers are not bad all the time, abusers are not bad all the time. But the crime is enough to take action. Yes I would like a cure for abusers, just as a cure for robbers. Till then we should treat them all as crimes and prosecute accordingly
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > I do not believe we have any framework for understanding paedophilia, let alone any category for all other forms of child abuse. So, I'm saying perhaps there is something to be learned from examining the problem in depth rather than taking a "shoot on sight" sort of stance. Nothing about that required there be some single unifying framework, it's simply calling for an evidence based examination of whether there are methods that have a more beneficial outcome than that. E.g. In the case of trying to reduce crime in general, you can increase criminal punishments or you can try to prevent people from becoming criminals. I suspect the latter is a better return on investment socially, and for the victims and criminals in particular. > There is a framework for understanding say schizophrenia, and so potential for a cure Good! All the more reason to look for additional frameworks that can help in other types of situations. > Till then we should treat them all as crimes and prosecute accordingly I'm not sure anyone here has said they shouldn't be prosecuted. I certainly haven't. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up, since it seems to assume people are arguing against treating sexual child abuse as a crime. Who here is proposing that?
francisofascii 8y ago
Sure, loving actions put the child's interests first. But the point was an abuser is not acting against the child's interests 100% of the time. Just like even the best parents are not acting in the child's interests 100% of the time.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  Bank robbers don't rob banks 100% of the time - but the act of bank robbing is so bad we put them in jail even so.

watwut 8y ago

> I think it's entirely possible that a large class of abuse happens from abusers that do love and care about the victims, but are so screwed up in their own mind that they can't help themselves. In that case, the abuse would be visible in public. If abuser is doing what he/she is doing in private only, then it reasonable to assume that abuser is in control.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I'm not sure the public/private distinction is meaningful. That's a pressure on the abuser too. We all do things in private we'd be frozen in shame at attempting to do in public. It doesn't mean we're 'in control'. It just means we're sometimes out of control, in private
francisofascii 8y ago
Not really. A person addicted to food, alcohol, porn, etc. is perfectly capable of keeping these addictions at bay in public, but lose control while in private.

tomgp 8y ago

Kind of beside the point though when we're talking about a children's cartoon. A straightforward 'people who hurt other people don't love them' message is probably preferable.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
Quite right - i think you have to accept the limitations of your medium.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]