Who Is Distorted?

March 2006, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 5

Do child molesters hold distorted beliefs? What does their memory recall tell us?

"Abstract

Do child molesters hold distorted beliefs (or cognitive distortions) that support their sexual offending? To test this hypothesis, we asked 28 child molesters and 20 inmate controls to read a description of child molestation. Within this vignette, we planted 10 ambiguous descriptions. If child molesters’ information processing were driven by cognitive distortions, we hypothesized that they would use this knowledge to disambiguate and cognitively distort each description.

This was tested by examining participants’ free recall of the vignette. Chi-square tests of association showed that both child molesters and inmate controls had various memory distortions for the vignette, but could not be differentiated based on the numbers of cognitive distortions in their recall classifications.

In other words, our findings did not support the widely held cognitive distortion hypothesis a finding which could promote substantial revision of both how we view child molesters’ ‘‘cognitive distortions’’, and how we treat them."

Journal of Sexual Aggression"

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Do_Child_Molesters_Hold_Distorted_Beliefs__What_Does_Their_Memory_Recall_Tell_Us.pdf

*****

Wednesday, 1 January, 2014

Cognitive ‘distortions’ and dissonance

"Such dangerously heretical thoughts nowhere find overt expression in the paper, but the exercise must have sown confusion. While it demonstrated that MAPs were not shown to think in a cognitively distorted way, it also indicates that the researchers were suffering from another interesting mental condition, cognitive dissonance i.e. psychological conflict when presented with data at odds with one’s beliefs. Given the conservative nature of their starting point, this offers the hope that they may actually be moving forwards a little, as they struggle, perhaps painfully, to accommodate the new information and make a new beginning."

http://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/cognitive-distortions-and-dissonance/comment-page-1/#comment-2620

29/7/2013

Content Analysis of Cognitive Distortions in Pedophiles' [sic] Online Forum Posts 

"Historically, sexual encounters between adults and children were rarely reported to authorities, and thus considered a rare problem. However, as many as 33% of girls and 14% of boys experience sexual encounters with adults and as a result may experience consequences such as aversive feelings regarding the act of sex, substance abuse, and self-mutilation. Such consequences lead research to examine pedophile’s cognitive distortions.

This exploratory study examined pedophiles’ website forum posts to determine if any posters demonstrated cognitive distortions. Four independent raters used content analysis to determine which cognitive distortions were demonstrated by the examined pedophiles.

Results suggested that cognitive distortions were not prominently demonstrated by those posting on the examined forum. Results may also suggest that cognitive distortions are not evident in a supportive environment. Results cannot be generalized to the entire pedophilic population and future research could analyze posters’ cognitive distortions over a period of time and examine which cognitive distortions have altered over time."

http://dspace.rowan.edu/handle/10927/869

No, Many More Are, Depending On What You Mean By 'Children'

November 18, 2013 3:28 pm

Are One In Ten Men Sexually Attracted To Children?

"So say Colorado-based researchers Sandy K. Wurtele and collegues in a new paper in the journal Sexual Abuse:

"Nearly 10% of males and 4% of females reported some likelihood of having sex with children or viewing child pornography."

"The study is an interesting attempt to probe the darkest depths [sic] of human nature, and raises questions about self-awareness.

"Wurtele et al recruited 435 participants who completed a fully anonymous online survey. They were either undergraduate psychology students or came via Amazon’s MTurk."

Wurtele SK, Simons D, & Moreno T (2013). Sexual Interest in Children Among an Online Sample of Men and Women: Prevalence and Correlates. Sexual Abuse PMID: 24215791

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24215791

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/11/18/one-ten-men-sexually-attracted-children

Good comments on my post "Are 1 in 10 Men Sexually Attracted To Children?" http://t.co/cbDoEcADS0 aka "Google Might Block Me For This"
— Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) November 19, 2013

(Embedded Tweet - click date).

*****

There Are, At The Very Least, 372 Million People, Sexually-Attracted To 'Kids', In The World - Are You One Of 'Them'?

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/atsa-conference-chicago-il-nov-3-2013.html

There Are, At The Very Least, 372 Million People, Sexually-Attracted To 'Kids', In The World - Are You One Of 'Them'?

 

ATSA Conference - Chicago, IL - Nov 3, 2013

Self-reported Sexual Interest in Children among the General Population

Wurtele SK, Simons D, & Moreno T (2013). Sexual Interest in Children Among an Online Sample of Men and Women: Prevalence and Correlates. Sexual Abuse PMID: 24215791

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24215791

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/26/6/546.abstract

 Are One In Ten Men Sexually Attracted To Children? 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/11/18/one-ten-men-sexually-attracted-children

*****

Sandy K. Wurtele, Ph.D.

http://www.uccs.edu/psych/people/faculty/sandy-wurtele.html

Dominique Simons (UCCS MA Alumnus)

http://www.uccs.edu/psych/archived-news/april-2012.html

*****

Here we go ...

Population of the Earth = 7,162,119,434

Adult Population of the Earth (child = equal to or less than 14 (26%)) = 74% = 5,299,968,381

Given an approximate ratio ...

Men (50.4%) = 2,671,184,064

Women (49.6%)  = 2,628,784,316

*****

10% of Men =  267,118,406 (>267 million)

4% of Women = 105,151,372 (>105 million)

Estimated Total of Minor (equal to or less than 14) -Attracted Adults (MAAs) on the Earth  = 372,269,778 (>372 million)

*****

.... and that is based on self-reporting ...

We expect, that some children (MAMs) will be sexually-attracted to children too ;)

Then, drop in the 14-17.999999999 years olds.

Makes you think, eh?

(happy to correct any maths errors etc - just let us know :) ).

*****

also ...

Nov 21, 2009
 
Pedophile, Minor-Attracted Adult or Merely Human?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iEKadpaKQ

(00:47 - ca. 396,000,000), from Brett Kahr, F is for fantasy.

*****

Spring 2011 Survey Results: B4U-ACT conducted an online survey of minor-attracted people over a six-week period in March to April, 2011

http://b4uact.org/science/survey/01.htm

Thank you Andrew Gilligan And The Telegraph - Paedophilia Is Not 'Normal' (As Though That Matters), But, Being A Minor-Attracted Person, Certainly Is

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/thank-you-andrew-gilligan-paedophilia.html

"Well Over 20% Of Normal Men Are Probably Pedophiles; The Majority Of Men Are Probably Pedophiles And Hebophiles"

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/well-over-20-of-normal-men-are-probably.html

September 24 , 2014

Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic

Abstract

"A meta-analysis of all seven relevant phallometric studies reveals that 22% of normal men show greater or equal sexual arousal to child stimuli (individuals up to 13 years old) than to adult stimuli.

Combined results of two of these studies reveal male prevalence rates of about 3% for pedophilia (mostly s exually aroused by prepubescents) and about 16% for hebephilia (mostly sexually aroused by pubescents).

Details of these studies are described, and implications of the results for sexual science and society are discussed."

https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

*****

30 July 2014 Last updated at 00:34

How many men are paedophiles?

"It's very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group," says Cantor.

He thinks that if we say that a paedophile is someone attracted to children aged 14 or less, then he estimates that you could reach the 2% figure.

"If we use a very strict definition and say paedophilia refers only to the attraction to pre-pubescent children [then it] is probably much lower than 1%," he says.

The term is often applied to a person who sexually abuses someone below the age of 16, but given that in some countries - and even some US states - you can marry below the age of 16 this definition would clearly not be universally accepted.

There is consensus on the clinical definition. Michael Seto and his colleagues agree that a paedophile is someone who has a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, so typically those under the ages of 11 or 12.

But whether the prevalence using this definition is 0.5%, as James Cantor says or 1%, as Michael Seto says, you can be assured than in any large group of people - whether they be politicians, entertainers, or Catholic clergy - you are likely to find some paedophiles."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28526106

*****

http://web.archive.org/web/20150217085819/http://www.ilovechildren.net

http://www.virped.website

*****

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2nh1nb/science_ama_series_we_are_alan_sanders_michael/cmds0hy

*****

21 Apr 2015

Adaptive value of (some) paedophilic attraction? 

"Sorry in advance if this post offends anyone but I just want to look at the issue objectively. Paedophilic attraction is seen in all societies and its existence requires an explanation.

Paedophilic attraction is normally considered abnormal and maladaptive. The conventional argument runs something like "Girls under age X are infertile and incapable of reproducing. Therefore, any sexual attraction to girls under age X has no biological function and must be the result of brain abnormality, etc". The big problem with this argument is that it only considers a girl's CURRENT fertility but what would have mattered most to a man in ancestral times was a girl's FUTURE fertility.

In all societies most reproduction happens within marriages and long term relationships and we can presume it was the same for ancestral humans. Men must therefore have evolved to choose females on the basis of their ability to give them a supply of offspring over the long term. The females capable of giving men the most offspring would have been those who are at or just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan i.e. teenage girls. The overwhelming popularity of teenage girls in the sex industries confirms this prediction.

Girls before puberty wouldn't have been the best wife material since a man would have to wait some years before they could start providing him offspring, during which either partner may die. Reproduction at a later age (for the man) also contributes less to the future population.

Although girls who haven't reached puberty wouldn't have been ideal wives they would still have been better than older females who have already used up some of their fertile years. A 30 year old woman, for example, would have been half way through her reproductive lifespan, whereas an 8 year old would still have had all of her fertile years ahead of her. Even if the "reproductive penalty" of waiting for the 8 year old to reach reproductive age reduced her expected reproductive contribution by 50% (which is a big over-estimate) she would still have given a man just as many offspring as a 30 year old wife. It would have made more biological sense for prehistoric men to chase after 8 year olds than 30 year olds.

Having some sexual attraction to girls before puberty would have been adaptive because it would have motivated men to acquire them as wives. It doesn't matter that having sex with them wouldn't have got them pregnant. As long as any sexual activity they did together didn't reduce a man's reproductive success there would have been no need for evolution to select these behaviours out. Forcible intercourse that injured a girl and compromised her ability to bear offspring would have clearly reduced a man's reproductive success and would have been strongly selected against. Minor sexual acts like kissing and touching wouldn't done any damage to a girl's reproductive ability and so there would have been no reason for evolution to select them out.

It's likely that all men have some paedophilic interest as it would have been adaptive in prehistoric societies. The men that identify as paedophiles probably just have more interest than normal, maybe due to random variations in brain wiring in the population.

Edit:

Instead of asking:

“What would have been the adaptive value in men mating with females before puberty?”

What should be asked is:

“What would have been the adaptive value in men being attracted to females before puberty?”

Then the answer’s simple. Girls before puberty have a high future fertility and being attracted to them would have motivated men to acquire them as wives."

http://www.reddit.com/r/evopsych/comments/33co5z/adaptive_value_of_some_paedophilic_attraction/

Interpretation Is All

Vanilla sex is OUT, porn addiction is IN: Disturbing survey reveals how porn is damaging our relationships

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2264419/Vanilla-sex-OUT-porn-addiction-IN-Disturbing-results-Cosmo-survey-reveal-porn-damaging-relationships.html

Online porn 'addiction' isn't causing relationship break-ups

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9809091/Online-porn-addiction-isnt-causing-relationship-break-ups.html

Experts Report 90% Rise In Relationship Problems Due To Pornography

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/18/experts-see-relationship-problems-increase-porn_n_2501974.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-lifestyle?ncid=GEP

Does porn hurt relationships?

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/does_porn_hurt_relationships/