Interview advice please

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I'm a bit lost on this one. Do most counsellors just listen then, or do they offer advice? If they are offering advice do they offer it by putting themselves 'into the shoes' of the patient (client, or whatever) or is the advise based on what they'd do themselves if they were in that position. Or possibly a combination of both? It must be very hard to disassociate from ones own experiences, emotions etc ie to present a blank canvas to each new patient, client etc. Can that really be done day in day out when life's getting in your hair outside of the consultation.

[feral chile]

it can be done. I'm a psychology graduate, and it was drummed into us that we had to be impartial and nonjudgmental even if we had to deal with extreme cases - violent offenders, sex offenders etc.

back in the eighties, there was a pressure group consisting of paedophiles who wanted the law changed so it was no longer an offence to have sex with children, and we had to go through their rationale objectively. We had to study the different types of paedophile there are, and their motivations, which are varied. It was designed so that we saw these people as flawed and damaged individuals rather than monsters. And also to consider that in other countries, adult-child sex is encouraged as part of an initiation into adulthood and seen as a positive coming of age, so we had to consider whether our revulsion of paedophilia was due to cultural bias.

After that, I never had any trouble avoiding passing judgment on others.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

As an aside, I always have thought of paedophilia as an affliction. Nobody would want to be born with that ailment. Presumably one is born with it. Can't see how you could induce it. Then again maybe it is possible via watching too much depraved porn etc. The only problem I have is when they cross the rubicon and actually do something nasty, whether that be directly or indirectly via a website for example. If they don't do that then these desires would just be kept as fantasies which are harmless enough if kept at that. Not palatable to the majority of people but of no harm to children. In fact thinking about it now there must be loads of people out there who fall into that category. That are able to morally fight with their own conscience and not give in.

[feral chile]

As an aside, I always have thought of paedophilia as an affliction. Nobody would want to be born with that ailment. Presumably one is born with it. Can't see how you could induce it. Then again maybe it is possible via watching too much depraved porn etc. The only problem I have is when they cross the rubicon and actually do something nasty, whether that be directly or indirectly via a website for example. If they don't do that then these desires would just be kept as fantasies which are harmless enough if kept at that. Not palatable to the majority of people but of no harm to children. In fact thinking about it now there must be loads of people out there who fall into that category. That are able to morally fight with their own conscience and not give in.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

As an aside, I always have thought of paedophilia as an affliction. Nobody would want to be born with that ailment. Presumably one is born with it. Can't see how you could induce it. Then again maybe it is possible via watching too much depraved porn etc. The only problem I have is when they cross the rubicon and actually do something nasty, whether that be directly or indirectly via a website for example. If they don't do that then these desires would just be kept as fantasies which are harmless enough if kept at that. Not palatable to the majority of people but of no harm to children. In fact thinking about it now there must be loads of people out there who fall into that category. That are able to morally fight with their own conscience and not give in.

[feral chile]

I think it is important to note that paedophilia as a condition was identified in the 19th Century, before many of todays trappings. I remember in the 80's getting hot under the in a child protection seminar over the view that a paedo has always been abused. That just did not ring true to me at the time and it has been shown to be balls. From what I understand there are many "types" of which I main is someone that has healthy relationships but still fantasise. I do think at one time that would be a fairly uncomfortable problem but the increase of child porn could make it really hard for someone. They still would not act but they can help perpetuate abuse. It is quite an interesting subject and I do feel that as a society we need to realise that these troubled souls need support and often are afraid to ask. I read an interesting interview where an offender was trying to describe the moral ambiguities by comparing it to homosexuality in so far that it was seen as unnatural and as a mental illness even into the 80's.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

It's understandable wanting to publicly dissociate yourself from paedophilia because (in our society) it's one of the most vilest of crimes that we can imagine. It brings on a revulsion that the majority of other crimes can't muster.

Going off on a slight tangent, how on earth does chemical castration work? I can understand how it would affect someone physically, but presumably they would still have paedo thoughts and tendencies. If this is the case then presumably there is the potential for them to still indulge in second hand abuse eg watching abuse on the net?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It's understandable wanting to publicly dissociate yourself from paedophilia because (in our society) it's one of the most vilest of crimes that we can imagine. It brings on a revulsion that the majority of other crimes can't muster.

Going off on a slight tangent, how on earth does chemical castration work? I can understand how it would affect someone physically, but presumably they would still have paedo thoughts and tendencies. If this is the case then presumably there is the potential for them to still indulge in second hand abuse eg watching abuse on the net?

[feral chile]

Its not really castration as such. Drugs are given to reduce Testosterone as well as female progesterone contraceptives. Essentially there is an increase of female hornnes in the body and that suppresses libido and sexual thoughts and any sexual desire at all. Apparently arousal is nearly impossible. Without arousal watching porn is a pointless exercise. They used to use it to "treat" homosexuals.

Edited February 6, 2012 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

Is there any evidence that sexuality is genetic?

I'm not saying that people CHOOSE who they're attracted to, but I thought it seemed to be a social product rather than some inherited feature.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It does make me wonder how much society is to blame for turning paedophiles into monsters. if you're unlucky enough to be attracted to kids, what must it be like to know society sees you as a monster? You'd either have to internalise that and see yourself as a monster, and be full of self revulsion, or totally reject societal values.

Either way, it must have a profound effect on your social development. Imagine how much guts it would take for someone to out themselves before they'd actually offended, in order to seek help.

And at the level of attraction, before they act on it, they'd be blameless, as they'd have had no control over their libido.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I was only assuming it was a genetic trait because I couldn't see how it could arrive via any other means. Then I saw your words social product and thought there may be something in that. After all, there may actually be numerous reasons why someone turns to paedophilia. It might not just be about sex. It could be about power. It could even be about misguided love. It could be about them having been abused themselves as a child. Not sure how long the list is. No doubt people have written whole books on the subject.

[grumpyhack]

Not really meaning to lower the tone but... years ago there was a piece of graffiti "My mother made me a homosexual" under which someone else had added "If I get her the wool will she make me one too?"

Seriously it's a fascinating question, to which I don't know the answer, as to how much our inclinations are the consequence of our genes or our upbringing. Nature or nuture - or perhaps life experiences. Add to that the different attitudes that different cultures take to such inclinations and you've got a really complex issue.

I await the thoughts of some of the more profound posters here with interest.

[feral chile]

Is there any evidence that sexuality is genetic?

I'm not saying that people CHOOSE who they're attracted to, but I thought it seemed to be a social product rather than some inherited feature.

[kaosmark2]

I was only assuming it was a genetic trait because I couldn't see how it could arrive via any other means. Then I saw your words social product and thought there may be something in that. After all, there may actually be numerous reasons why someone turns to paedophilia. It might not just be about sex. It could be about power. It could even be about misguided love. It could be about them having been abused themselves as a child. Not sure how long the list is. No doubt people have written whole books on the subject.

[feral chile]

Not really meaning to lower the tone but... years ago there was a piece of graffiti "My mother made me a homosexual" under which someone else had added "If I get her the wool will she make me one too?"

[feral chile]

There's lots of different things. In previous ages, stockier women were more attractive and desirable - they'd be more likely to survive long winters and to help out on the farm, etc., and from historical reports this desire wasn't just based on mental logic, but men were more attracted to them, even wealthier ones who didn't have such concerns. But societies and cultures change quickly, as do desirable traits. I doubt 50 years or so ago when racism was rife that as many white guys were attracted to as many black girls.

And then, beyond what you have as what you're *meant* to find attractive, based on society's ever-changing values, you've got the lure of the forbidden, etc. Was sodomy as rife several decades ago? It seems to adjust too quickly for it to be genetic, with sexuality and attraction constantly changing and twisting.

Watch TV shows from previous decades with various looks and styles glamourised. Sure, people and who they're attracted to are increasingly diverse, but there's still an underlying trend of what society suggests is the most attractive that is constantly redefined. I can't help but think that that's a sign that attraction and desire and 'what type' are a product of someone's upbringing and the cultural trappings that surround them - be it 'blondes' 'other blokes' 'little kiddies', whatever.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Is there any evidence that sexuality is genetic?

I'm not saying that people CHOOSE who they're attracted to, but I thought it seemed to be a social product rather than some inherited feature.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

But stockier women (and presumably men) were desirable by the 'majority' in those days. I've no doubt paedophilia existed in those times too. As for sodomy it's been going on in the heterosexual and homosexual fields since time began. There's probably a greater incidence of it today because society is more accepting of homosexuality and therefore it's easier to 'come out' and be in a male/male relationship. I'm not sure anything else has adjusted there too quickly, so think on that front the genetic argument couldn't be dismissed.

[kaosmark2]

The reason we tend to find blondes and large eyes attractive is meant to be because these features are most commonly found in babies, so we're programmed to find them appealing. So even in non-paedophilic desire, we seem to be attracted to childlike qualities, probably because we need as a species to have a soft spot for children, in order to have an emotional investment in keeping them safe.

Most societies value their young, but this is manifest in different ways. In our society we interpret this as a need to protect them from sex.

[kaosmark2]

I have articles that say there is a genetic link. Now I get really confused over the subject but a valid point of he it was genetic then sexuality may/would be hereditary. To prove that is simple just by family trees but I dont think much comes of studies.

[kaosmark2]

But stockier women (and presumably men) were desirable by the 'majority' in those days. I've no doubt paedophilia existed in those times too. As for sodomy it's been going on in the heterosexual and homosexual fields since time began. There's probably a greater incidence of it today because society is more accepting of homosexuality and therefore it's easier to 'come out' and be in a male/male relationship. I'm not sure anything else has adjusted there too quickly, so think on that front the genetic argument couldn't be dismissed.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Your probably right. It does seem to be a bit fantastical that it could be purely genetic or that it would be the dominant factor. If it was we'd have to change our viewpoint on the afflicted that's for sure. As feral chile said previously there are (or have been) societies where such behaviour was deemed 'normal'. Although I would say they've got it wrong, why is my viewpoint any more valid than there's. This subject is a bit mind bending as there's so many tangents you can go off on and not with a satisfactory conclusion. I think my head hurts and I'm going to have to go to bed. lol

[feral chile]

Are babies blonder? Why don't we find bald girls more attractive? Or pudgy ones?

I got told that theory by my A-level Biology teacher though, it's always seemed weird to me. There's a few inconsistencies (as I just mentioned), and it just seems ODD, even before it gets to paedophilia etc. When looking for a mate you're not looking for someone to take care of, you're looking for someone to supply what you can't (hunter vs gatherer), and to raise a child with you.

Edited February 7, 2012 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

well that's the trouble with these evolutionary theories, you can argue whatever suits. Why do men like mammary glands? What's remotely sexual about a part of the body that produces nourishment for our young? Yet it is, and that seems odd. Though whether it's cultural or not is hard to say. Even as a cultural fetish though, it's pretty strange to think male adult humans lust after something that's meant for babies.