Evil thoughts?

[historia]

Is it evil, or wrong, for someone to fantasize about molesting children if he never acts on it?

[Miles]

Is it evil, or wrong, for someone to fantasize about molesting children if he never acts on it?

Yes it is ,

Yes it is what? Evil OR wrong?

your actions are heavily influenced by your thought process , exercising self-control starts from the mind meaning that you must choose to actively engage or disengage certain thoughts , also if you are entertaining such thought processes there is a high probability that you will act on it ,

Higher than not? I ask because as much as I wouldn't mind one wit if Donald Trump met with a bullet or two there is zero chance I would ever be involved in such an encounter.

because if a molester left in a room alone with children with no adults around . Why would he not give in to his fantasies since there is no one to stop him and he can also frighten the child not to report it .

Because he has developed good self control. Not everybody is at the mercy of their fantasies, re. my fantasy about Trump.

Instead we should encourage such individuals to receive psychological help , many molesters were victims themselves when they were children . Thats why its important to encourage individuals that have gone through childhood trauma to seek psychological help urgently , to end the cycle of trauma .

One encounter does not a cycle make. "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves,"* and I don't consider 35% to be many, "a large number."

* source

.

[Adonai Yahweh]

Yes it is what? Evil OR wrong?

It is evil to fantasize about molesting children

your actions are heavily influenced by your thought process , exercising self-control starts from the mind meaning that you must choose to actively engage or disengage certain thoughts , also if you are entertaining such thought processes there is a high probability that you will act on it ,

Higher than not? I ask because as much as I wouldn't mind one wit if Donald Trump met with a bullet or two there is zero chance I would ever be involved in such an encounter.

The example of Trump is not even logical . The probability of interacting with a child is much higher than interacting with an ex- head of state .According to the CDC 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse in the US . The cognitive behavioural theory states our thoughts and interpretations of events directly influence our emotions and subsequent actions. By identifying and challenging negative or distorted thoughts, individuals can modify their behaviors and improve their well-being. Another psychological concept is the Thought-Action Fusion states that individuals who experience intrusive or repetitive thoughts may feel a stronger connection between their thoughts and the need to act on them. So the more you repetitive thoughts you have on molesting children then more you feel a stronger connection to act upon them .

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... tfact.html

Because he has developed good self control. Not everybody is at the mercy of their fantasies, re. my fantasy about Trump.

So if one of your mates says that he fantasizes about molesting children but as never acted upon it ... you would be comfortable leaving your children in his care in an room just because he has never acted upon it . How would you determine that he has developed good self control , his first victim can be your child .

Instead we should encourage such individuals to receive psychological help , many molesters were victims themselves when they were children . Thats why its important to encourage individuals that have gone through childhood trauma to seek psychological help urgently , to end the cycle of trauma .

One encounter does not a cycle make. "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves,"* and I don't consider 35% to be many, "a large number."

* source

You're refering to a blog which is not accurate , there no author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources

“ in a study using a 45-year follow-up, Ogloff et al. (2012) found that CSA victims were 1.43 times more likely than non-CSA peers from the general population to have a police contact, were 7.6 times more likely to be charged with a sexual offense, and 8.2 times greater odds of being charged with a different (non-sexual) violent offense. Although 95% of CSA victims did not subsequently have a sexual offense on their criminal record, male victims of CSA were more than eight times more likely than males in the general population to perpetrate a sexual offense.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3419302121

Also victims of child sexual abuse are more likely experience revictimisation in their adulthood .

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 8018823274

[Miles]

Yes it is what? Evil OR wrong?

It is evil to fantasize about molesting children

e·vil
adjective: evil

• profoundly immoral and wicked.

noun: evil

• profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

So where did you get the notion that fantasizing about molesting children is "profoundly immoral and wicked" or a "profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force"? Is this something you read somewhere? If so where? Or did you simply make it up?

your actions are heavily influenced by your thought process , exercising self-control starts from the mind meaning that you must choose to actively engage or disengage certain thoughts , also if you are entertaining such thought processes there is a high probability that you will act on it ,

Higher than not? I ask because as much as I wouldn't mind one wit if Donald Trump met with a bullet or two there is zero chance I would ever be involved in such an encounter.

The example of Trump is not even logical . The probability of interacting with a child is much higher than interacting with an ex- head of state .According to the CDC 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse in the US . The cognitive behavioural theory states our thoughts and interpretations of events directly influence our emotions and subsequent actions. By identifying and challenging negative or distorted thoughts, individuals can modify their behaviors and improve their well-being. Another psychological concept is the Thought-Action Fusion states that individuals who experience intrusive or repetitive thoughts may feel a stronger connection between their thoughts and the need to act on them. So the more you repetitive thoughts you have on molesting children then more you feel a stronger connection to act upon them .

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... tfact.html

So what if my fantasy of Donald Trump meeting with a bullet isn't logical? Fantasies typically aren't. Do you not know what a fantasy is? Here:

fan·ta·sy
noun: fantasy
1. the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

Because he has developed good self control. Not everybody is at the mercy of their fantasies, re. my fantasy about Trump.

So if one of your mates says that he fantasizes about molesting children but as never acted upon it ... you would be comfortable leaving your children in his care in an room just because he has never acted upon it . How would you determine that he has developed good self control , his first victim can be your child .

What I might do in your scenario is irrelevant to your question: "Why would a molester not give in to his fantasies since there is no one to stop him and he can also frighten the child not to report it(?)" AND my answer, "Because he has developed good self control."

Instead we should encourage such individuals to receive psychological help , many molesters were victims themselves when they were children . Thats why its important to encourage individuals that have gone through childhood trauma to seek psychological help urgently , to end the cycle of trauma .

One encounter does not a cycle make. "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves,"* and I don't consider 35% to be many, "a large number."

* source

You're refering to a blog which is not accurate , there no author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources

In as much as you couldn't find "author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources" how did you determine the blog was inaccurate? I'll tell you how, YOU COULDN'T HAVE. You simply wanted it to be so, so you said it was so.

“ in a study using a 45-year follow-up, Ogloff et al. (2012) found that CSA victims were 1.43 times more likely than non-CSA peers from the general population to have a police contact, were 7.6 times more likely to be charged with a sexual offense, and 8.2 times greater odds of being charged with a different (non-sexual) violent offense. Although 95% of CSA victims did not subsequently have a sexual offense on their criminal record, male victims of CSA were more than eight times more likely than males in the general population to perpetrate a sexual offense.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3419302121

Okay, but .

Also victims of child sexual abuse are more likely experience revictimisation in their adulthood .
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 8018823274

Interesting I guess, but wholly immaterial to the discussion.

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #33]

You're refering to a blog which is not accurate , there no author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources

In as much as you couldn't find "author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources" how did you determine the blog was inaccurate? I'll tell you how, YOU COULDN'T HAVE. You simply wanted it to be so, so you said it was so.

It is generally prudent practice not to place too much stock in opinion-blogs which require no citations and/or are written anonymously, although better wording than "not accurate", such as "not overly relevant" could have been used to say so.
35% regarded as "I don't consider 35% to be many, "a large number."" is an opinion and nothing more. Percentage-wise -if it did turn out to be accurate - is still fairly hefty in real terms - while on the other hand way better than anything larger, but significant nonetheless.

Re "opinions":
In general, the discussion is an interesting one between you and Adonai Yahweh with good points coming from both sides.

[William]

[Replying to Adonai Yahweh in post #32]

So if one of your mates says that he fantasizes about molesting children but as never acted upon it ... you would be comfortable leaving your children in his care in an room just because he has never acted upon it . How would you determine that he has developed good self control , his first victim can be your child .

To keep things realistic, if one of my mates confesses to such, there is no determining through the confession given by my mate that good self control has developed, but the signs are promising that it is a positive step toward that eventuality if I interpret the confession as him indirectly asking for help and I can and should use the opportunity afforded to make every effort to ensure that he get the help he needs.
It would be reckless of me to place temptation in his way by asking him to babysit and an irresponsible act against my children re their overall mental and physical well-being being placed in potential jeopardy.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #33]

You're refering to a blog which is not accurate , there no author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources

In as much as you couldn't find "author identification or mention of the qualifications or even a bibliography of the cited sources" how did you determine the blog was inaccurate? I'll tell you how, YOU COULDN'T HAVE. You simply wanted it to be so, so you said it was so.

It is generally prudent practice not to place too much stock in opinion-blogs which require no citations and/or are written anonymously, although better wording than "not accurate", such as "not overly relevant" could have been used to say so.
35% regarded as "I don't consider 35% to be many, "a large number."" is an opinion and nothing more. Percentage-wise -if it did turn out to be accurate - is still fairly hefty in real terms - while on the other hand way better than anything larger, but significant nonetheless.

As is your post here.

And if Adonai Yahweh had bothered to look into the "SOURCES:" posted at the bottom of the link I gave, he would have found PubMed listed twice, and by clicking on the first one he would have found the source of the 35% figure mentioned:

NIH National Library of Medicine

Br J Psychiatry

. 2001 Dec;179:482-94; discussion 495-7.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482.

Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator

M Glasser 1 , I Kolvin, D Campbell, A Glasser, I Leitch, S Farrelly

Affiliations +expand

PMID: 11731348 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #36]

As is your post here.

Indeed. I wasn't attempting to give a contrary impression.
That is why I ended my post with the words:
"Re "opinions":
In general, the discussion is an interesting one between you and Adonai Yahweh with good points coming from both sides."

And if Adonai Yahweh had bothered to look into the "SOURCES:" posted at the bottom of the link I gave, he would have found PubMed listed twice, and by clicking on the first one he would have found the source of the 35% figure mentioned:

NIH National Library of Medicine

Br J Psychiatry

. 2001 Dec;179:482-94; discussion 495-7.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482.

Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator

M Glasser 1 , I Kolvin, D Campbell, A Glasser, I Leitch, S Farrelly

Affiliations +expand

PMID: 11731348 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482

The quote you provide doesn't site a figure. Even so, it would be an interesting exercise to get a percentage of those who practice Psychiatry who don't consider 35% to be many, or a large number against those who practice Psychiatry and do consider the number high.

I dare say that most would probably agree that even that the number was lower than 51% it is still too high and more could be done about reducing the number, but that is just my opinion on what their opinions might work out percentage-wise.

Overall, I would agree that my opinion has it that 35% is too high whereas the author and perhaps your opinion is that the number is not high enough to warrant any particular concern?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #36]

As is your post here.

Indeed. I wasn't attempting to give a contrary impression.
That is why I ended my post with the words:
"Re "opinions":
In general, the discussion is an interesting one between you and Adonai Yahweh with good points coming from both sides."

And if Adonai Yahweh had bothered to look into the "SOURCES:" posted at the bottom of the link I gave, he would have found PubMed listed twice, and by clicking on the first one he would have found the source of the 35% figure mentioned:

NIH National Library of Medicine

Br J Psychiatry

. 2001 Dec;179:482-94; discussion 495-7.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482.

Cycle of child sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator

M Glasser 1 , I Kolvin, D Campbell, A Glasser, I Leitch, S Farrelly

Affiliations +expand

PMID: 11731348 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.179.6.482

The quote you provide doesn't site a figure.

The immediate quote I provided, in the blog, states: "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves"

And the blog got this information from the statement:

"The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators," whose source, if you follow the "Source" links, can be found HERE <-- click on and scroll down to "RESULTS"

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

The immediate quote I provided, in the blog, states: "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves"

And the blog got this information from the statement:

"The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators," whose source, if you follow the "Source" links, can be found HERE <-- click on and scroll down to "RESULTS"

Thanks for that additional information Miles.

So is it that the author of the blog took the statistics and added his/her opinion that he/she considers the percentage low - perhaps too low to show any significance to be drawn from it?

And you - in citing the blog - agree with the opinion of the author of the blog?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #38]

The immediate quote I provided, in the blog, states: "35% of male perpetrators had been victims of sexual abuse themselves"

And the blog got this information from the statement:

"The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators," whose source, if you follow the "Source" links, can be found HERE <-- click on and scroll down to "RESULTS"

Thanks for that additional information Miles.

So is it that the author of the blog took the statistics and added his/her opinion that he/she considers the percentage low - perhaps too low to show any significance to be drawn from it?

Not that I could tell---I only did a cursory read through.

And you - in citing the blog - agree with the opinion of the author of the blog?

Which opinion are you talking about? I was only interested in the Child Sexual Abuse Statistic referencing male perpetrators who had been victims of sexual abuse themselves.

.