As mothers can we talk about raising pedophiles? How not to??

[hotmom]

Or sociopaths, murderes ppl without consciences. How are these ppl created?

I do NOT believe that ppl are born with a propensity toward sexual domination or sexual appetite for babies. Is it just counter to our design, isn't it? We are wired to procreate right? And aren't we wired to adore children and protect them (hence their cuteness? and our inborn maternal instincts?)

So what do I need to do? what do we need to do?

I tend to think that children nowadays are exposed to sex way too early. Speaking to a few ppl that experineced some sexual things as a young child, I have heard that they felt like it "stirred things up within them".It turned them on when they were not interested before.

I am just wondering. Thanks.

[NYCVeg]

To my knowledge, a huge percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as children. So, I think one good way to prevent your child from becoming a pedophile is to protect him/her, as much as possible, from potential predators (not that I think this is always possible). You might discuss inappropriate touching/trusting feelings of discomfort around adults, so that your child can be open with you about anyone who makes him/her feel uncomfortable. Be careful about who you leave your child with. Etc.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are usually born rather than made--at least from what I know (please correct me those who are more knowledgeable). But I also think there are certain signs of dysfunctional behavior that you can definitely look for--torturing or killing animals, inflicting what seems to be abnormal amounts of pain on a sibling w/o showing empathy, or acting inappropriately sexual at a young age, etc. And in these cases, I think getting a child who seems disturbed into therapy IMMEDIATELY is crucial. A lot of parents brush off some of this stuff as "boys will be boys" behavior, but I think mamas need to trust their instincts--if something feels off, it probably is.

[canadianchick]

:yeah: I had an 18 yr old client a few yrs ago who had been molested for many years by his father. He often talked about having such a strong desire and attraction towards children. He also said that he would kill himself before he would ever harm a child in the way his was harmed. It was very sad. :(

[Charles Baudelaire]

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are usually born rather than made--at least from what I know (please correct me those who are more knowledgeable). But I also think there are certain signs of dysfunctional behavior that you can definitely look for--torturing or killing animals, inflicting what seems to be abnormal amounts of pain on a sibling w/o showing empathy, or acting inappropriately sexual at a young age, etc. And in these cases, I think getting a child who seems disturbed into therapy IMMEDIATELY is crucial. A lot of parents brush off some of this stuff as "boys will be boys" behavior, but I think mamas need to trust their instincts--if something feels off, it probably is.


But one of the worst problems about sociopathy is that it doesn't "look" like what you're describing. In only a few cases are sociopaths violent. Most of the time, they're not.

Oh, and one out of every 25 people is a sociopath, statistically speaking, or 4% of the population. That means that for every classroom your kid sits in, there's one other kid in there who will be what psychoanalyst Hervey Cleckley called "a superbly constructed reflex machine."

Most of the time, they're really super people. Charming. Delightful. Very considerate. That is, until you get to know them and realize that "surface" is all they are: they are a mask.

There's some validity to the idea that sociopaths are genetically "born," but there's also no question that lack of empathy is a tendency that can be exacerbated seriously by many factors in the environment -- nonresponsive or under-responsive parents being a biggie. Thank god for AP, actually.

Hope that helps.

[newmainer]

I tend to think that children nowadays are exposed to sex way too early. Speaking to a few ppl that experineced some sexual things as a young child, I have heard that they felt like it "stirred things up within them".It turned them on when they were not interested before.


There are children who have a far more active and developed sexuality than others. My dd has been fascinated by her genitals (and ours) ever since she noticed them. if she doesnt' have clothes on, her fingers are on her yoni. she has done/said several things that have surprised me. given that my dh and my BIL both *also* have extremely high sex drives, imo, i think it could be a genetic thing in their family. I know tons of other toddlers of similar age who have maybe 1/4 of the sexual awareness that she does at the same age. I'm not drawing any conclusions here, it's just an observation.

i guess my point is that i think sexuality in children is varied and not necessarily tied to an abusive event(s). Nor am i implying that a strong sense of sexuality in children means a propensity toward later pedophilia- not at all! your comment just struck me and wanted to share what i've observed.

[Slabobbin]

I think that sociopaths are born...I guess certain types of parenting could "foster" it more but I still think it is a mental condition that one is born with. Just like we can't prevent or cause sctizophrenia I don't think we can cause or prevent that.

[kalisis]

This isn't scientific or anything, but own plan is to protect my son (and any and all future children) as much as is humanly possible and within my control from any kind of predators. I firmly believe that life is much easier if you haven't been abused as a child and you're so much less likely to want others to feel your pain that you end up inflicting it on them.

I also believe that empathy is one of the most important things we can instill in our children. I think that it is the utmost supreme thing missing from the majority of the deviants in any given society. From a logical stand, it seems that if you can understand why another is hurting and feel that hurt with them, you'll be less likely to cause it. So, if my child can grow up in a home/life surrounded by empathetic people who then teach him empathy, he will be less likely to hurt anyone in the future.

I don't know - just my 0.02 and this is something I seriously worry about. On some of my darker days I've even voiced it to my DH (who thinks I'm crazy as a loon to even entertain such an idea - he always says, "Look at our beautiful little angel; he's never going to hurt anyone.")

[Tigerchild]

I think the problem is not quite as simple as what you're outlining. And you may be focusing on the wrong things.

First, it's absolutely untrue that children nowadays are exposed to sexuality earlier than they were in the past. That is patently *false* (with a brief exception for the upper class in Victorian society). For much of the last thousand years, and particularly in the last few hundred, people have been crowded together (in cities) where children had no choice but to be exposed to their parents' sexual intercourse and in rural areas often people had similar crowding within their family OR they were exposed to mating by other species. Even in our own 'puritan' times, many families shared the same bed. That's *everyone*.

And even in the more 'genteel' periods like the Victorian era, young girls were often hired out to families at 10 or 11 (or earlier), and you had better believe that they were exposed (or warned about) the potential sexual predations of employers. And we don't know if there were as many predators (my guess would be yes), because it wasn't something talked about or really even that cared about, unless the predator decided to go after a prime piece of property (like an upper class wife or daughter).

So, I reject the notion that exposure to sexuality at an early age creates rapists and pedophiles. If that were the case, then most people in this country would have turned out that way until our country grew a little more in its wealth and the luxury of innocence could be afforded to more families (like what started to happen from WWII on). It would also mean that the vast majority of predators would be poor and minorities (because these are the people who were used as the labor that made those 'above' them be able to afford the luxury of a sheltered life). Statistically, we know it's exactly the opposite (for the real monstrous predators anyway).

I also reject the notion that it is solely the parents' nuturing (or lack thereof) that produces people with mental illness or detachment. Should we also go back to the prevailing opinion (even in the relatively recent past) that autism was caused only by 'refridgerator mothers'? Yes, family and societal environments can exacerbate things. But there are even more children who survive horrific abuse and go on to be relatively normal people than those who become pedophiles or psychopath. I think it is dangerous to assume just because most psychopaths and pedophiles were abused that it means that most abused people will go on to become psychopaths and pedophiles. VERY big difference in those two assumptions.

I am not sure that there is anything you can do to 100 percent prevent your children from thinking about doing horrible things one day, because I believe you can do most things right and (especially in the case of certain kinds of mental illness that get lumped in with 'psychopathic') your child may still have that internal separation from the rest of humanity. I think that you can be vigilant and be prepared to get outside help if you notice your child doing things that are 'red flags'. I think that by creating a gentle, positive, non-abusive home environment where you are deeply attached to your children you may be able to get early intervention for kids who might show some kind of inborn propensity for it (and you will prevent the environment where that becomes a survival mechanism).

I do believe that our kids are exposed to a lot more 'throwaway' and 'objectification' sexual media these days--but to be honest with you I balance this with the fact that less than 60 years ago in this country married women could not buy a house or a car without their husband's co-signature, there were no laws protecting them from their husband's beatings or rapes, and it was considered common sense that women were second class citizens and inferior in just about every way to men. And women who were not part of the 'ruling' culture (that is--non-white or poor) were invisible, and even more of a non-person than a white middle-to-upper class woman was.

And less than 40 years ago, we didn't have any laws specifically to prevent child abuse. There were no support services. And it was never, ever to be talked about.

Those things being what they are, I am not sure that our current culture is all that more dangerous or demeaning towards women and children than it was back then. To be frank.

[DoubleOven]

:tiphat:

[Soundhunter]

edited, so as not to offend, and because I don't feel I can get my point across on this without being clear about the kind of sexual behavior that I feel can encourage violent and unempathetic sexuality in those who are still developing their own sense of sexuality (young kids) without detailing what I mean.

On with your regulalry scheduled programming.

[NaomiLorelie]

I agree with the PP that said that our culture's view of a sociopath is far from reality. As the daughter of one, I know that this is true. They are not all violent criminals, although most do engage in some sort of crime or fruad. Tax fruad is very common. My father didn't pay taxes for many years. they just don't believe that normal rules apply to them. Here is a list of the "symptoms". I can guarantee almost all of you know someone like this.

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

While I do believe that there is a genetic componant, certain environmental factors usually come into play for a person to completely lack the ability to empathise. Dysfunctional or abusive parents, not recieving love and empathy as a young child, and the lack of a father figure are frequently present in the making of a sociopath. This isn't to say that the upbringing is always at fault, but I have to argue that in our age of disconnected parenting, and cio, it is a big cause.

[Dechen]

I'm really not that worried about chulden being exposed to sex itself, it's the *edited out graphic words* that seems to find it's way into my 10 yr old nephew's hotmail account (I login and monitor it regularly, his mother asked me to, he knows that I do it and trusts that I won't read his personal email)


I have a hard time placing consenual adult activities in the same category as bestiality and pedophilia. No, that's an understatement. :lol I object to classifying consensual adult activities in the same category as bestiality and pedophilia.

Apples and arsenic.

I completely agree that I don't want my daughter exposed to graphic sexual content. And I hate getting those emails in MY inbox. As well as the one's offering to enlarge an apendage that I as a female do not possess.

I think it is tricky to talk casually about how we are wired. Wired to procreate? Does that mean certain oral activities are deviant? Homosexuality is deviant? Some people think so, but I'm not one of them.

Wired to protect babies? Yes, there are instincts, but even in animals not all mamas/papas have the same degree of parental instinct. And, even in animals, how one is parented impacts how that individual will parent.

I tend to think that humans (or animals) are born with a certain range of possibility that differs for each individual. The environment will impact behavior, but it can only work on the potential that exists. How is that for a vague and fluffy answer?

[DebraBaker]

Without going into detail, one of my sons did something that involved inappropriate touching and personal space that set off red flags.

I took him to councilling immediately.

It has been one of the most harrowing experiences in my life.

What the councilor said is, first, he is not a pediphile, that he was honest and felt genuine guilt which isn't something that these people seem to do.

Second, almost all pediphiles have endured abuse in their own childhood (ds, to the best of our knowledge, has never been molested.) and,

Three, most families try to hide this, iow, it is more common to sweep it under the carpet instead of getting help.

As it turned out, dh has ADD (without the "H" which has made a diagnosis difficult.) and he has poor impulse control. At the same time (last year), he was doing poorly in school (had a bad transition from elementary to middle school.) and was having trouble within the family dynamic.

He has been doing much better getting some therapy. His impulse issues have decreased tremendously and he was on the honor rool last quarter.

I still do not completely know what makes a monster but, I can assure, thinking your own child could be a monster in the making is the absolute worst experience a mother can endure. I had this happen generally at the same time my older child was deployed to Iraq. This experience was worse.

It's hard for me to write about this even though it had a pretty positive outcome so please be gentle.

Debra Baker

[Soundhunter]

edited, so as not to offend, and because I don't feel I can get my point across on this without being clear about the kind of sexual behavior that I feel can encourage violent and unempathetic sexuality without detailing what I mean.

On with your regulalry scheduled programming

[Tigerchild]

Can someone show me a definitive study that suggests that most pedophiles or psychopaths have sexual fetishes?

The types of 'bizarre' fetishes being described don't really seem relevant to me. As long as there has been culture and society, there have been "weird" sexual fetishes. Look at foot binding, for example. That was primarily an attraction/sexual practice and NOT one to restrict women's movements (though it certainly had that effect). And that one's been around for quite awhile. I'm sure in just about every culture you can find something similar--I can think of quite a few in ours.

I guess you could classify pedophilia as a fetish, but I think it is a bit more complex than that for most people.

And I still have trouble with the theory that exposure to what we think of as 'deviant' sexuality will 'create' it in our kids. I don't think that's accurate.

There are many reasons for shielding your children from predatory commercial sexuality, but I don't think fear of turning them into serial rapists and mass murders rates the highest on the list. In fact, it might well lead to complacency in homes where there is strict control of media, and I think that is dangerous.

Also, I still have very strong objections to the implication that any mental illness (especially of the 'worst' predatory kind) is by default the fault of the parents' parenting ability. If parenting alone created psychopaths, then I dare say (from what I have read over the years of being at this site) then MOST of the people on this board should fall into that category. I include myself in that assesment, as I endured quite a bit of chaotic emotional and verbal abuse and witnessed some very frightening things during my childhood (and even on into adulthood). Yet I am not a psychopath, or a pedophile, and I do not abuse my children. I was denied any sort of help or counselling about family issues until I was well into my 20s, so I didn't have any intervention either. Would life have been easier for me if I'd lived in a loving, calm home? I'd like to think so. But I don't know. I guess some people can survive just about anything and turn out to be decent, moral, kind people (I've met several). So it seems logical to me that the reverse could also be true--one can come from a calm, loving home and become a monster. I am pretty sure this has happened once or twice.

I don't think we can be all self-congratulatory that AP parenting is going to be the panacea cure-all for children with mental disorders. I think the only sure way to prevent problems, from a parenting sense, is to be willing to go to that dark place a previous poster mentioned, to be willing to see and respond to a red flag we see in our own children. And I'm sure that even for many parents who ARE willing to do that, sometimes help and resources are very meager and miserly given. And even if, in the end, it turns out that the red-flag behavior was indeed more innocent and preventable than it first appeared--I can't imagine it would make the pain and anguish during the process of discovering that any less! I am positive that there are some perfectly nice, loving AP parents that would in fact bury their heads in the sand in the case of coming to terms that their child might need some intervention in this area. And I'm positive that there are some strict disciplinarian parents that would act immediately to get outside help.

THAT to me seems to be the only real way to 'prevent' harm to others. I agree that a nuturing environment can help along the way more than a cold, distant one. But I think that an observant and proactive parent of any stripe is going to do the better job of containing that kind of behavior earliest.

*edited out details of footbinding, to be blunt that's the only graphic reference to any practice that I've seen in this thread, I guess naming stuff is graphic? Edited out what I could find, at any rate*

[QueenOfThePride]

Can the people who posted some graphic sexual words please censor their posts? Just a friendly reminder this is a family website.

[RiverSky]

Without going into detail, one of my sons did something that involved inappropriate touching and personal space that set off red flags.

I took him to councilling immediately.

Well, good for you, Debra. It sounds as if you are a wonderful parent, taking care of your son and doing your best for him. I'm sure he'll be fine.

I think that so many parents are embarrassed by their children's behavior and don't want to let anyone know, so they hide it, hoping it will go away, instead of actually helping the child to get over it. I wish more parents did what you have done. :thumb

[annakiss]

Can the people who posted some graphic sexual words please censor their posts? Just a friendly reminder this is a family website.
Excellent point. I'm nak or I'd try to say it better, though I'm not certain I could. :D

[Soundhunter]

I edited my post, can't edit the quote though.

[NaomiLorelie]

[QUOTE=Tigerchild]

Also, I still have very strong objections to the implication that any mental illness (especially of the 'worst' predatory kind) is by default the fault of the parents' parenting ability. If parenting alone created psychopaths, then I dare say (from what I have read over the years of being at this site) then MOST of the people on this board should fall into that category. I include myself in that assesment, as I endured quite a bit of chaotic emotional and verbal abuse and witnessed some very frightening things during my childhood (and even on into adulthood). Yet I am not a psychopath, or a pedophile, and I do not abuse my children. I was denied any sort of help or counselling about family issues until I was well into my 20s, so I didn't have any intervention either. Would life have been easier for me if I'd lived in a loving, calm home? I'd like to think so. But I don't know. I guess some people can survive just about anything and turn out to be decent, moral, kind people (I've met several). So it seems logical to me that the reverse could also be true--one can come from a calm, loving home and become a monster. I am pretty sure this has happened once or twice.

QUOTE]

I don't think that anyone ever said that parenting and parenting alone causes mental illnesses. I am sure that there are many sociopaths that came from gentle loving homes. However, as a general rule, it is pretty well known that a combination of nature and nurture usually plays a part in the formation of such disorders. Of course if you come from a crappy home environment you aren't going to instantly become a sociopath. I GREW UP with one as a father, and my childhood was my own personal version of hell much of the time. However I am not a sociopath. I have very strong emotions actually, but it wasn't because I was nutured and taught because trust me. I was not. It's because genetically I was not predisposed to being a sociopath.It seems to me that everyone wants to be so PC as to not hurt peoples feelings, but a little honesty might go further in preventing these things from happening to people.

[DebraBaker]

Don't you think some people are wired to be vulnerable to being twisted and the environment will guid that person toward or away from the twisted state?

Some people suffer under terrible abuse but, because they weren't wired to react to suffering by becoming twisted, somehow survive their abuse and learn how to love and nurture.

I just cannot accept that people are born to molest children and there's nothing their parents or society can do to prevent it.

I don't blame the parents exclusively because people come to this earth with their own unique temperments but parents are responsible to take that personality and guide him or her in a good direction.

Debra Baker

[Tigerchild]

However, as a general rule, it is pretty well known that a combination of nature and nurture usually plays a part in the formation of such disorders. Of course if you come from a crappy home environment you aren't going to instantly become a sociopath.

Yes, but when people start implying that shielding your kids from sexy unsolicited emails is the most important step in ensuring their future mental health (esp. from a predator standpoint), I think that goes beyond PC and into the kind of dangerous assumption category. One of the reasons that some people don't solicit help for their kids (even those with somewhat benign problems, say depression, not even approaching the problems that involve things that make other folks freak out) is because they "know" that it will be placed at their feet because they weren't protective enough/protected too much/yadda yadda. Even if all "weird" non-mainstream sexual stuff went away and no child was ever exposed to it, I don't think it would really put a dent in crimes of that nature.

I think the prevention comes more in parents being able to be honest about a problem (or a potential problem) and willing to risk societal censure to get it evaluated and get help. I think it would also help if we as a society agreed to lighten up on the parental blame aspect and make it LESS of a social crime to have your kid evaluated/get therapy. Of course, it would also help if we could channel some resources so that anyone who needed that help could get it too.

I just can't stay silent when the idea that it's all that outside sexuality that's the problem. Well, I can buy that it creates problems of its own. But seriously, making someone into a pedophile or psychopath, with the examples given? I don't think so. I don't think it's that simple at all. It always disturbs me in these types of discussions where there is precious little devoted to ideas that "we" can do (because of course all AP parents would notice something like that and it wouldn't happen anyway because OUR families are so attached) and all the emphasis is placed on "them" (those irresponsible people that don't filter things in the same way we do, those mainstream people that create psychopaths by CIO, ect.) And even though we may be gentle people at heart, WE are contributing to the stereotype that only bad families have those problems by categorizing things in that way.

I don't like to think of my kids having those tendancies. And honestly, I have no idea if they will or not because I have NO family history available to me. None. I do the best I can parenting wise, but I don't parent because I don't want to raise murderers--I parent this way because I love my kids and it's a great fit for our family, and it seems natural to me. At the same time, I know that if there's some hint of a problem, I can't bury my head in the sand over it. But do I live in fear of raising a kid like that? No, not really. I was raised in a pretty twisted environment and turned out okay (though it's taken a lot of work as an adult to get to that point). But, on the off chance that there are things that are red flags that happen? I hope that I'm prepared to just roll with it and get that help, instead of just looking the other way because I figure I've done everything "right" and it must be somethine else.

I'm a definite believer in nature AND nuture. Which is why I don't buy the "if only kids didn't get exposed to weird sexual stuff" they might not turn out that way argument. Sorry, but I don't. I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Soundhunter]

Yes, but when people start implying that shielding your kids from sexy unsolicited emails is the most important step in ensuring their future mental health (esp. from a predator standpoint), I think that goes beyond PC and into the kind of dangerous assumption category. One of the reasons that some people don't solicit help for their kids (even those with somewhat benign problems, say depression, not even approaching the problems that involve things that make other folks freak out) is because they "know" that it will be placed at their feet because they weren't protective enough/protected too much/yadda yadda. Even if all "weird" non-mainstream sexual stuff went away and no child was ever exposed to it, I don't think it would really put a dent in crimes of that nature.

I'm assuming you are referring to my posts that I deleted, but I did not say "that shielding your kids from sexy unsolicited emails is the most important step in ensuring their future mental health". In fact, I clearly stated, repeatedly that I didn't think shielding children from sexuality was necessary, I agreed that in many cultures old and new people live in more condensed housing where separate bedrooms don't happen, and that it's not sexuality itself that does any damage.

I tried to clearly say that in my opinion, exposing children to sadistic, humiliating or pain-centered porn, or objectification porn, in my opinion only, can influence their developing sexuaity, when it is believed sexual inclinations often develop. There has been ongoing debate for decades on the role of porn on sadistic criminals, I'm hardly original for making this "dangerous assumption" (this debate is easy to find info on, there IS a link between sadistic criminals and a taste for violent or S&M focused porn). And, I never said it was the most important step, you read plenty into my posts that wasn't there. I just brought it up as something I think that I can do, hardly the most important thing. Coming from a family of bipolars I'm aware that not all mental illness are caused by childhood exeriences, but not all violent criminals that get off on harming people where born with mental illnesses that explain their behavior. Only time will tell if my theory holds any water or not, as for whether exposing kids to a lot of this stuff will affect how violent/objectifying their sexual tastes may become as a result of having extremely easy access to forms of sexuality that until recently where in the underground for a long time. In the meantime, I think protecting kids from it while their own sexuality is developing is *something* that we can do, not everything, not the most important thing, just something.