Yesterday, I told my story, about what happened to me, in as much detail as I care to use. I used my story to try and understand the difference between pedophiles, child molesters, and predators. The only way I can do this is to be quite cold-blooded. I want to understand the mentality behind the sociopath who basically ruined a good 30 years of my life, and changed its trajectory, entirely. What makes a person do such a thing? I know what it did to me, the effects, of how it changed me from a very outgoing little kid who didn’t know a stranger, into someone who literally hid, indoors, most of my life. It kept me from doing what I would have wanted to do, to be. It has been a life full of nightmares, terrors, and fear of the dark, of people, and even the time of the year. It took decades for me to understand why I would do what I would do. Because of the stalking and the death threats, I was not allowed to have a normal social life, to do things with the other kids, or even to date. I was basically forced to live in a state of siege.
Because of this, I know what some of the future will be for Kate Hunt’s 14-year-old victim. She is going to need years of therapy, if she’s fortunate. It will have already scarred the relationship she has with her parents. She will never be able to look at them the same way, having thought they betrayed her. When she does come to her senses, she will then be dealing with the guilt of having turned on them.
Kaitlyn Hunt is not a pedophile – maybe. She may or may not be a child molester. She is not strictly a lesbian, rather, if anything technical, is bisexual. She is a known predator and has tendencies to stalk. Laws and rules don’t apply to either she or her family. They are basically the scum of the earth. Con artists, apparently, they are using her story to promote themselves as celebrities with a beautiful, blond, lesbian daughter who is being persecuted by evil Christian bigots. They are now trying to promote themselves into an increasingly suspicious LGBT community as “Free Kate” celebrities. That should say it all.
Then again, as we will see on Thursday’s Pink Flamingo, it is entirely possible Kate Hunt is a pedophile in training. If so, there is no hope for her.
“…As noted by Abel, Mittleman, and Becker (1985) and Ward et al. (1995), there are generally large distinctions between the two types of offenders’ characteristics. Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress; have a later onset of offending; have fewer, often familial victims; and have a general preference for adult partners. Pedophilic offenders, however, often start offending at an early age; often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial; are more inwardly driven to offend; and have values or beliefs that strongly support an offense lifestyle. Research suggests that incest offenders recidivate at approximately half the rate of extrafamilial child molesters, and one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims…”
Instead of seeking help for a truly disturbed 18 year old young woman, they are using her to seize their 15 minutes of fame. In doing so, they are truly harming their child. Kate Hunt is dangerous, not only to who ever it is she is fixated on for the moment, but herself. She is prone to violence, acts out, and has language that is more appropriate in a 40-year-old male prison inmate. Her behavior is indicative of someone who has had no discipline as a child, and who was raised with parents who have no self control. When someone her age is prone to violence the way she is, look at her parents. They are the same way. If something is not done to help her, she is going to literally harm someone, seriously, to the point where she will end up in prison. She is that out of control.
First, she is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is described as a psychiatric disorder, and has been so for well over a century. Several months ago Rush Limbaugh went off on one of his increasingly irrational rants and decided that gay marriage is just the beginning, that normalizing pedophilia is next on the liberal agenda. Limbaugh was referring to a fascinating article in the Guardian, about pedophiles, and their attempt to normalize their perversions. Limbaugh went so far as to state that in Canada liberals wanted to make pedophilia a sexual orientation. Evidently the article he read, and the one I just read, are part of an alternative universe.
“…The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is completely unfounded. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Michael Stevenson, Ph.D., a psychologist at Ball State University, explains this statistic by noting that “gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults.” Stevenson observes that cases of pedophilia by adult lesbians are “almost non-existent.” Two other major studies that examined the sexual orientation of convicted child molesters found that less than 1 percent in one study and 0 percent in the other were lesbian or gay. These studies were published in Pediatrics and Archives of Sexual Behavior, respectively, two peer-reviewed, widely respected academic journals. Preventing gay men and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents or foster parents does not protect children from sexual abuse. It simply perpetuates anti-gay prejudice….”
I started listening to Limbaugh in 1992. I turned him off several years ago when it was obvious he was no longer rational. You want case and point? Try this:
“…What is their objective? They want us to all think that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. You know who’s gonna fall right in line is college kids, just like they have on gay marriage, just like they do on all other revolutionary social issues. Their own definition of the cutting edge, civil rights, freedom, understanding, tolerance. So I’m just warning you here. You think it can’t happen. “Impossible! Don’t be nutso and wacko on us, Rush.”
I’m just asking you to remember all of the things that occur normally in our culture now that when you first heard about them you thought, “No way! That’ll never happen; that’ll never be mainstream,” and now they are. Here is another one to add to the list. (interruption) You want more excerpts from this piece? “In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee.
“It caused barely a ripple. ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,’ it read, ‘result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of pedophilia result in lasting damage.’” So you see it’s you who have to reorient your thinking. It’s you who have to get rid of your bigotry. It’s you that have to open up and become more tolerant. It is you judgmental people who think this is child abuse when it isn’t.
You are the ones who are going to have to change. The pedophiles and the children involved, they’re normal, just like you or anybody else. It is your old-fashioned conventions that create the problem. So another excerpt. “It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile [the presenter at BBC] and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim….”
Limbaugh went on to state, to alarm his listeners, that liberals in Canada were trying to simply turn pedophilia into sexual orientation. This is what the author of the article in the Guardian actually wrote:
What was really said?
“… This evaluative research, and I am thinking of some research conducted by my colleague Dr. Quinsey and his team or other research done by my colleague Dr. Hanson, who is also here with his team, has effectively shown that, especially in the case of extra-familial abusers, there is no great improvement in the area of risk of recidivism or dangerousness, regardless of whether or not the individual has had psychotherapy. If there was psychotherapy, the type of therapy matters little.
This leads us to believe that therapy or an order given by a judge for a course of therapy, even though it may be seen as good news by all, cannot be perceived as an alternative to incarceration nor a substitute for punishment.
When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may however remain abstinent.
Now, if we think of psychopaths, who, according to my own samples account for 15% of the sexual offender population, it might be worthwhile to point out that we have been trying for hundreds if not thousands of years to rehabilitate them, all for naught, at least for the time being.
Of course, everything I have just said also points to the fact that there probably are sexual offenders or types of sexual offenders who can be rehabilitated. Which ones? Is it the majority? I am not sure it will be the majority, but because some abusers can certainly not be rehabilitated and others can, it means that sooner or later we will have to come up with a careful differential diagnosis to determine which ones can be rehabilitated.
Is this feasible? Is it too expensive in terms of time, effort, or money? I do not know. There might be something to be done in the area of the presentence report. I have seen many presentence reports and I personally have often remained dissatisfied. Can a country afford far more in-depth and elaborate presentence assessments? That is probably up to you to decide….”
Guess what? There is NOTHING new about this. Yes, pedophilia is a sexual orientation that probably cannot be cured. Pedophiles cannot be cured. We all know this. It is one of the reasons they should not be released any where near children, if they are child molesters. Yes it is a sexual orientation. They aren’t going to change, and they are repeat offenders.
What Rush does get right is the fact that one of the researchers the article hightlights. Sarah Goode, appears to be an apologist for pedophiles. The problem is, Goode’s research is most likely flawed. According to other studies, pedophiles cannot be cured.
What does not help anyone is to link pedophilia with the LGBT lifestyle.
The far right has a huge problem with gays/lesbians. They are absolutely irrational with their fear and almost hatred of them. The only thing that compares to it is the far left and their irrational stupidity when it comes to climate change and global warming. Several months ago, The Pink Flamingo did a multi part series on the left and climate change, showing exactly where they are wrong. Climate change to liberals is what LGBT rights are to conservatives.
It’s also where the far right homophobic society is making a major mistake. Gays and Lesbians are no more likely to be pedophiles or child molesters than heterosexuals. I would no more trust an article, a study by Regent University about gays/lesbians than I would a pro pedophilia article by someone associated with NAMBLA. They are both as biased, just in different directions. In order to link gays and pedophilia, the Family Research Council must thumb its nose at the American Psychological Association and over a century of real, scientific research.
“…According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement. Dailey quotes David Thorstad, a homosexual activist and founding member of NAMBLA, to demonstrate that by 1985, pedophilia had gained acceptance within the homosexual movement, as it was in that year that NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York’s council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations and the International Gay Association. In the words of Jim Kepner, at one time the curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: “A point I’ve been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today, we’d better stop waving the banner of the ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our history unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay.”
The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is rejected by many mainstream research groups, which have even begun to view pedophilia in value-neutral terms. The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994, while in 1999 the American Psychological Association published a report, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” which “claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial,” according to a 1999 WorldNetDaily column by noted researcher Dr. Judith Reisman.
“None of this is news in the sense that this information (the link between pedophilia and homosexuality) was fundamentally proven a long time ago,” Canada Family Action head Brian Rushfeldt told The Interim, “but I’m glad to see the FRC reiterating it, especially at a time when the Catholic church is struggling with the pedophile priest issue.”
Rushfeldt stresses that pedophiles come in both homosexual and heterosexual forms, but there are differences between the two that need to be understood. “Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that’s a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him.”…”
“…An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that’s not the case.
For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.
“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children,” wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic….”
This is all terribly important. We can’t even begin to attempt to understand what is going on in the perverse world of pedophiles and child molesters without being honest about gays, lesbians, and blowing away the biases we all have. I don’t mind admitting, at this point, I think the the average anti-gay homophobic activist is probably the biggest gay in the closet of life. Everyone has a right not to like someone and some things. I don’t like the French. I think they are the scum of humanity. Then again, I’m basically a Brit with a British view of the French. I detest the Oakland A’s even more than I do the Yankees. Yes, it is a bias.
There is a difference between bias and bigotry. For the life of me I don’t understand why a woman would be attracted to another woman. I can see why men would be attracted to men, heck who wouldn’t be attracted to a good looking man. One of my favorite, all time television characters was Delta Burke’s outrageous Suzanne Sugarbaker. Completely outrageous, shallow, selfish, and superficial, her family was shocked when Suzanne became friends with the biggest lipstick lesbian in Atlanta. Did she even realize what her friend was. Of course she did. Her friend was beautiful. By the time the men who hit on her friend realized she wasn’t interested, Suzanne had a chance of attracting their attention. She would end up being the only straight woman in a bar, surrounded by men who didn’t have a chance with the lipstick lesbians.