Not called sinister for nothing

Paedophiles are most likely to be left handed and have attached earlobes, a new study has found.
“Superficial” facial flaws – which might also include malformed ears or a high or steepled palate – are among the indicators that could mark a man out as a child abuser as well as his dominant hand, researchers discovered.
An investigation into the prevalence of physical anomalies among men who are sent for sexological assessment was led by academics at the University of Windsor, in Canada.

All getting rather Victorian, isn’t it? Measuring craniums to see who is of “the criminal type”.

But it’s going to lead to the most lovely conundrum. If paedophilia is set in utero, as with other sexual desires (according to one theory, at least) then it’s a bit difficult to have it as the crime above all others.

42 thoughts on “Not called sinister for nothing”

  1. Well, studying other people for facial abnormalities can be Ironman’s new hobby then.

    I told you all that we’re re-running the Victorian “Progressive Era”, didn’t I? Not long until we start sterilising the feeble minded, and it’s fashionable to suggest gas chambers, again.

  2. Also, considering that if one can possibly conceive of a bizarre sexual taste, somebody in the world will have it for real, so we have to wonder just how much of the genome is consumed by genes devoted to perversions.

    Or maybe- here’s a crazy idea- none of it is, and it’s imprinting.

  3. I have no skin in either game, and this is a bit tangential, but how come it’s possible (supposedly) to cure paedophiles with therapy but not to help gays to go straight with therapy? And if it’s *not* possible to cure paedophiles with therapy, then, given that the sexual urge appears all but irrepressible in many people, why are they ever released from chokey?

  4. Interested-

    The current consensus so far as I’ve kept track is that homos are born that way and incurable, paedos are not born that way (they’re caused by the internet) and incurable, and everything else (preference for blondes, big tits, chubbies, furries, BDSM, pooing, etc) is socially constructed by Teh Patriarchy.

  5. ” then it’s a bit difficult to have it as the crime above all others.” Exactly. PIE didn’t go away. after all, did it? Establish a pseudo-scientific academic basis, then silence dissent – just as the LBGT industry has.

  6. Paedophilia isn’t a “crime above all others”. It’s not a crime at all. Raping children is. It will remain so, even if we discover that the desire to rape children somehow develops in utero.

  7. Whereas, a more reliable indicator – “Pakistani” – was rather ignored, wasn’t it?

  8. Years ago I read a book about the hunt for the Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. In the early years of the hunt the lead investigator had interviewed another predatory paedophile murderer and noted that he had elongated nipples like a woman’s, which he’d never seen before on a man. He asked him why they were like that, and the killer replied his mother used to rub them when he was small to make him sleep, and they eventually became like that. Years later, when Chikatilo was finally arrested, the investigator noticed that he also had elongated nipples like a woman’s. He’d never seen this on any other men, except two serial killers. It probably doesn’t mean much, but it was a funny coincidence.

  9. Philip Scott Thomas

    Didn’t Terry Pratchett have a bit about “reverse phrenology”, where you can alter a person’s character by applying a hammer to their skull?

  10. Of course they are only studying ones who got caught.
    Maybe it is because of bias against left handers that they got caught.

  11. @Interested
    “but how come it’s possible (supposedly) to cure paedophiles with therapy”
    It isn’t, and you can’t ‘cure’ homosexuals either. You can make them feel ashamed of their desires and possibly have them abstain.

    There’s a lot of money to be harvested from the homosexual ‘cure’. Still.

    But that’s about it…

  12. Surreptitious Evil

    Roue,

    I’m sure it was really early on. Unfortunately, I’m in work and all my Pratchett books aren’t.

  13. Paedophilia isn’t a “crime above all others”. It’s not a crime at all. Raping children is. It will remain so, even if we discover that the desire to rape children somehow develops in utero.

    Fair enough, but the vast majority of those caught and labelled as paedo’s aren’t those guilty of raping children, but those bashing off to internet downloaded images of children. Comes back to whether this is an entry-level activity (i.e. inevitably leading to actual abuse of a child) or a substitution activity (i.e. unhealthy desires being curbed by bashing off to internet downloaded images of children)

    I’ve no idea which is true, but the absolute criminalisation of people who get off thinking about having sex with children makes it difficult for them to get any help at all, which in turn makes it self-reinforcing.

    Alcoholics Anonymous works because it provides a step-wise mechanism for reducing dependence on alcohol through a form of talking therapy, but you can’t get that kind of treatment (certainly in the UK) outside of a prison.

  14. SE,
    I stand corrected. It was Men at Arms.

    PST
    Not “reverse phrenology”, but “retrophrenology”.

  15. @dee

    ‘Murderers are more likely to be right handed and male-so what?’

    Are they more likely to be right-handed pro rata? I’m sure I read a study which suggested left handed people were more prone to violence. Probably because they can’t get these fucking scissors to fucking work properly etc.

  16. So Much for Subtlety

    mike power – “Paedophilia isn’t a “crime above all others”. It’s not a crime at all. Raping children is.”

    If you are a Swedish collector of Japanese cartoons, you may beg to differ. It is a crime to possess “sexualised” pictures of children even if they are cartoons. It is also a crime to own a Victorian-era book in Australia if it happens to discuss sex with children. As I suspect a lot of them do.

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    Steve Crook – “It isn’t, and you can’t ‘cure’ homosexuals either. You can make them feel ashamed of their desires and possibly have them abstain.”

    I am not sure that is true. Certainly there have been some grossly immoral experiments but we hardly tried to cure homosexuality. My favorite was implanting electrodes in a gay person’s brain, and zapping him while he got a lap dance and some sex. One thing that seems to work with a lot of unusual sexual preferences turned out to be Prozac. Allegedly.

    “There’s a lot of money to be harvested from the homosexual ‘cure’. Still.”

    No there isn’t. There is career-death.

  18. John Galt–This is the point. Paedophilia is probably an imprint. There are all kinds of imprints–which if pursed with criminal or insane intent could be dangerous. But very rarely are. There are probably many tens of thousands of men who like biting their partners–but very few cannibal killers. There are probably just as many men who like damsels in distress–but very few who develop a career as a burglar so they can tie up attractive housewives. The idea that having a particular desire must lead to carrying it out is not valid. Most of those rousted by Ore had had plenty of time to actually fiddle kids but had not done so, looking at pictures only. The femmi-led abuse industry of course maintains that looking always leads to acting. Real kids being fiddled to provide photos is obviously not acceptable. But drawings and computer fakes are also grounds for arrest. If the condition is genetic (unlikely) or an imprint (we have no idea how these happen just that they do–and no way to extinguish them either) then it is not the fault of the individual–so long as he takes no action to act out his desires–which most don’t. How can such people get help if their problem is being used as the basis for a witch hunt against men..

  19. Presumably why the American Psychiatric Association reversed its decision to classify Paedophilia as a sexual orientation in the latest version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as DSM-5 or DSM-V.

    Given the widespread use of this manual it would put pressure on courts to accept Paedophilia on the same basis as homosexuality, which would make jailing them difficult (as we no longer jail homosexuals).

    I still think paedophile activity not involving physical contact (internet grooming excepted) should result in referral to a psychiatrist rather than imprisonment, at least for first offenders. This seems more appropriate to solving the problem than just criminalising paedophiles for the sake of it.

    But then, this is more about assuaging mob hysteria than dealing with a problem rationally.

  20. Bloke in North Dorset

    mike power
    June 11, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Paedophilia isn’t a “crime above all others”. It’s not a crime at all. Raping children is.

    In the eyes of the law, maybe, but not in the eyes of the mob.

    This American Life did a very moving program about a you lad who realised he was a pedophile as he was growing up when his tastes in girls remained at the same ages as when he was younger.

    Long story short, he ended set up a self help group withe the only proviso that members have not committed a crime.

    http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2014/04/would-you-offer-a-paedophile-your-support-this-teenager-s-story-may-change-your-mind

    Listen to the program, the writeup doesn’t do it justice.

    What do you think would happen to them and those who fit this new profile once the mob get hold of them?

  21. Sexual attraction is chemistry. Signals received via the senses stimulate chemical release within the body, which stimulates the brain, which stimulates other parts of the brain to give desire, arousal, pleasure and also the body to be prepared for sexual encounter..

    Whether how the chemistry will function in an indivudal is an inherited characeristic or some in-utero function, it is not something that can be learnt or be a matter of choice.

    We can all decide whether to eat or not, but nobody ‘learns’ to feel hunger, or chooses it, or somehow developes the sensation because of nurture.

    Given that paedophilia and other unusual sexual practices and still, in many minds and places, homosexuality, are deplored/ridiculed/illegal we must conclude in the absence of genetic or some in-utero cause that such people just do it to piss everybody else off and/or have a death wish and/or like going to gaol, being ostracised from society and generally kicked around.

    Perhaps we can add masochims to their ‘perversion’.

  22. @John Galt

    ‘Presumably why the American Psychiatric Association reversed its decision to classify Paedophilia as a sexual orientation in the latest version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders…
    Given the widespread use of this manual it would put pressure on courts to accept Paedophilia on the same basis as homosexuality, which would make jailing them difficult (as we no longer jail homosexuals).’

    Not really. Children can’t consent, in all sorts of areas of law, whereas adult men can.

    @Mr Ecks

    ‘There are probably many tens of thousands of men who like biting their partners’

    Fucking hell, Ecks.

  23. Given that paedophilia and other unusual sexual practices and still, in many minds and places, homosexuality, are deplored/ridiculed/illegal we must conclude in the absence of genetic or some in-utero cause that such people just do it to piss everybody else off and/or have a death wish and/or like going to gaol, being ostracised from society and generally kicked around.

    As semi-retired faggot I am simultaneously horrified and amused by your analysis.

  24. Not really. Children can’t consent, in all sorts of areas of law, whereas adult men can.

    But my point was essentially about non-practising paedophiles, so child abuse doesn’t come into it, except by rather remote proxy through the original producer of the child pornography.

    In the case of those consumers of Japanese Hentai or computer generated child pornography, even this doesn’t apply (although it is still illegal in the UK).

    Rather than addressing the actual behaviour, the authorities end up wasting vast amount of time and effort criminalising effects and achieving little in the way of actual change / progress.

  25. If you’re a funny looking bloke you will be rejected more frequently by adult sexual partners, making the power aspects in using children sexually more attractive. Just an hypothesis.

  26. This is very interesting. Meanwhile the Rotherham scandal takes another twist. Now that is sinister.

  27. So Much for Subtlety

    John B – “Whether how the chemistry will function in an indivudal is an inherited characeristic or some in-utero function, it is not something that can be learnt or be a matter of choice.”

    I am not sure that is true or that it is relevant. It is a theological statement. We don’t really know what we can or cannot do about other people’s state of attraction. As research in this area is severely restricted. But we do know that the victims of child sex abuse do grow up to be more likely to be perpetrators of child sex abuse. Which suggests that either they were asking for it – which is not, I think we can all agree a likely or popular answer – or it is actually learned behaviour.

    “Given that paedophilia and other unusual sexual practices and still, in many minds and places, homosexuality, are deplored/ridiculed/illegal we must conclude in the absence of genetic or some in-utero cause that such people just do it to piss everybody else off and/or have a death wish and/or like going to gaol, being ostracised from society and generally kicked around.”

    I would hazard a guess that where homosexuality is genuinely illegal, it is not that popular. It is often banned on paper but widely socially tolerated. In the Middle East for instance. Even in Britain they did not actively persecute homosexuals. You had to ask for trouble before you got any. There is some minor evidence that HIV scared some people straight in that they swore off men and dated women exclusively.

  28. So Much for Subtlety

    Ljh – “If you’re a funny looking bloke you will be rejected more frequently by adult sexual partners, making the power aspects in using children sexually more attractive. Just an hypothesis.”

    Most paedophiles appear to be sad losers who are more pathetic than anything else. I can well believe that people who are so socially awkward that they find real women intimidating or threatening come to prefer children.

    Ironman – “Meanwhile the Rotherham scandal takes another twist. Now that is sinister.”

    Let me guess what the twist is …. you have decided that anyone who blames the perpetrators or their culture is a racist? Oh wait. That is what you all were doing 20 years ago. By all means, tell us what the latest twist is?

  29. Surreptitious Evil

    I wouldn’t call it a “twist” but there have been four new arrests.

    None of the men involved are called anything like “John Smith”.

  30. @John Galt

    “But my point was essentially about non-practising paedophiles, so child abuse doesn’t come into it, except by rather remote proxy through the original producer of the child pornography.”

    Ah fair point (though I dispute rather remote proxy).

  31. SMFS

    No twist as far as I’m concerned. The perpetrators are scumbags. They come from one particular ethnic group and that group is in denial about it. I just find it amazing the same police force that didn’t think it was a problem then decided the perpetrator didn’t present a flight risk. So off he goes, taking how many secrets with him, and about whom?

    If there is a twist it is that some members of this parish don’t think he did anything wrong. So there isn’t any race or any other element, he was just having sex.

    So which is it guys; dirty bastards but what do you expect ‘cos their names aren’t John Smith or something decent like that, or male victims of the feminazis?

  32. How far can we go with this ‘reasoning’?

    Are we turning the clocks back again and crawling into some kind of ‘scientific’ determinism?

    If you can’t be considered ‘guilty’ of doing anything because it’s ‘genetic’, then the next logical step is that you can’t consider that thing to be ‘wrong’, whatever it is, because it’s ‘natural’.

    And where does that leave society?

    What bothers me is that it seems that people have decided that homosexuality is genetic and immutable, so there, and now science just has to catch up and get with the program.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *