Is this a War or What?

Picture this: In an attempt to try to improve the image of boylovers, a few of them got together and set up a charity for less fortunate children, as in boys. The money was used to set up a camp for boys, from which they would receive photographs of the boys….. If any of this is sounding familiar see THIS

After the recent NY Times expose by Kurt Eichenwald, AnemicFairy simply wails:

So much then for improving the image of boylovers. The whole story confirmed what I have noticed before: NOTHING we do will make any difference to how we are viewed.

Well, DUH.

Anemic continues:

It seems more and more like the time for debating is over. What scientific research has been done on the issue is in any event mostly on the side of the evil perverts, but that has not made any difference either.

Well, NO actually NONE of it has been on the pedovore side of things, but your young new members believe it, don’t they? Your older, less intelligent members believe it. And the rest of you simply don’t care….they just repeat it because, hmmmm, maybe because no one challenges them on it? They’re trusting in the rest of the community to tell them the truth perhaps?.

Anemic goes on to say that when visiting ‘anti-pedo’ type sites, you never see attempts at argumentation. Mostly they just post insults, or triumphant messages
We make reasoned, calm arguments. They shout insults.
He/she/it declares.

Well, Anemic, maybe that’s true in some cases. We at AZ make comments like that from time to time too….they are the direct result of the sheer outrageous temerity of anyone who in one breath makes statements like

DOMINATE!

DESTROY!

PARENTS ARE NAZI’S!

ABOLISHMENT OF AOC LAWS!

As well as this statement

Not one of us here would EVER do THAT Spoken two days before a major arrest for child molestation from within the community takes place. Perhaps a few days after yet another member is placed on the Sex Offender Registry

Hey, the things you people say chill our very souls. Despite the wild ravings of your most *outed* lunatic, we love our children more than we love ourselves.

But YOU people seem to think that your love for children is on some elevated plane far above mere mortals. You speak of this love as almost a sacred thing, ignoring the realities of the situation. You STUPID freakopaths even condemn parents for WORKING to support their families as if the only parents who could love their children properly are those who are independently wealthy.

You all say these things and then wonder why no one will take you seriously….except as a threat to our childrens safety.

And so back to Anemic who says:

It apparently never occurs to these enthusiastic child ‘protectors’ that all these laws might be counterproductive. They seem convinced that one can legislate whatever you don’t like out of existence. That it might instead simply go underground where NO further control is possible, does not seem to occur to them.

Ah! I see! It never occured to us non pedofreaks. Right. Gotcha. Alrighty then.

Every single one of your boards have been infiltrated.

As soon as a new one goes up BAM someone’s there. How do I know this you might ask Well actually there’s a lot of different ways I could know it, but you’ll have to figure out the correct answer for yourself.

You see, the number one mistake you people make over and over and over is that you simply underestimate us. You threaten our children. We won’t stop. Got it?

When we first started AZ some of the comments made were

Stitches is a sick bitch

Daydreamer is a Liar

Nah, they’re nothing to be concerned about

They’re good for a laugh

Oh well. Some of you like to post song lyrics to which you attach pedopathic meanings, so here’s one just for you, an old Blondie tune…….

One way
or another,
I’m gonna find ya’
I’m gonna get ya’, get ya’, get ya’, get ya’
One way or another

Now, ask yourself again….Is this a WAR or WHAT?

The Exploitation of Dakota Fanning

Currently, there is a movie being filmed in the Carolinas called Hounddog. The Movie stars Dakota Fanning as a young girl who turns to the music of Elvis to escape the horrors of both physical and sexual abuse. One scene in particular displays a nude Fanning being brutally raped.

Dakota Fanning is 12 years old.

I don’t know if I would go as far as to state this is child pornography, but it is definitely inappropriate at best. Please visit the links below to learn more about the movie, and how Fanning along with two other child stars, were exploited during the making of this movie.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51432
http://wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=5290247

Script exerts from the movie
http://www.bluelineradio.com/dakotafanningscript.html

Now, here is a petition set up to demand stronger enforcement of our child exploitation laws to protect children like Fanning from producers, agents, and parents who do not have a problem with exploiting children for money or for ‘an Oscar’. After reading the stories above and then reading the petition as well as performing some research of your own, you can decide for yourself whether or not to sign the petition. After you make your decision, please come back here and share that decision with us, along with why you arrived at that decision.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755

The Evolution of a Factoid

We’re recently been discussing FACTOIDS,

Statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

in our Facts According To Jay series. There’s several more to come in this series, but for a nice little intermission, I thought it would be nice to show you the evolution of one.

I recently made this comment

pedophiles quoting Ken Lanning, and Hall and Freund, and even Krafft-Ebing for God’s sake …. I could see it maybe if one of them misquoted and took out of context one sentence out of a 160 page document to use in their defense. But when ALL the online pedophile community misquote the EXACT SAME THING, then it most certainly is not an individual mistake, it is a concerted effort to mislead and there has to be ONE person responsible at the heart of it. ONE person who started spreading ‘quotes’ from academia. And now they all repeat the same thing….with confidence, they say things like ‘That’s a ‘FACT’

Now we’re going to get to see it in action. A reporter for The Toronto Star covered the STORY of a newly released research paper regarding Pedophilia Diagnosis. Here’s what the reporter had to say:

Much to the surprise of researchers involved, a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don’t commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Well that seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it? Here’s some of the things the Girl Chat community had to say….

The Walker proudly proclaims….

Much to the surprise of researchers!

Fabri-Chan replies….

I’m tired of feeling that everyone is stupid and I’m the only one with his head screwd on straight.

Ducky says….

Why don’t they just go to a local water park and count how many dudes are there? Simple.

MoonDreamer….

The fact that people who don’t molest children are more attracted to them is kind of a hint that most of us aren’t child molesters, no? This, coupled with the findings that most molesters aren’t pedos makes it pretty obvious what the reality is. Who the hell else would view CP??

Arch….

called MoonDreamer’s statement an absurd point and said… your statement “who the hell else would view CO?” isn’t much different than saying “who the hell else would molest children?” Yet it’s well proven that the second contention is false.

Demosthenes, the great orator says (among other things)…..

The common assertion out there is that viewing child pornography increases the chances of acting up desires, while in here the common assertion is that it reduces the chance. Here they are saying that their research indicates that those who view the CP have a stronger attraction than those who act on that attraction.

Well, um, no, that’s not what it says at all. Let’s clarify this quickly shalll we?

This study was written by Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard for The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and University of Toronto. The title is Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia and was published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610–615.

Please notice the title of the article. Let’s look at the actual article now.

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Clinicians currently rely on three potential sources of information when considering the diagnosis of pedophilia: selfreport, a history of sexual behavior involving children, and psychophysiological assessment. All of these sources have their limitations. Self-report regarding an individual’s sexual interests is the simplest to obtain, but some individuals will deny having pedophilic interests. An individual’s history of sexual offenses, in terms of the number, gender, age, and relatedness of child victims, is informative, but it only approximates the offender’s interests because it is limited to known victims. Psychophysiological assessment methods such as viewing time provide an objective method of assessing sexual interests, but they also can be vulnerable to response suppression.

Our results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. One possible conclusion being, people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults. Another possible explanation for the difference between child pornography offenders and offenders against children is that the child pornography offenders were less likely to attempt to suppress their responses to stimuli depicting children (or were less successful in suppressing such responses).

Our results have implications for both clinical and theoretical work on pedophilia because they suggest that child pornography offending has diagnostic significance and may be particularly helpful in circumstances in which the person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behavior involving children, or in which phallometric test results are unavailable. Whether child pornography offending is associated with a different prognosis than are other indicators of pedophilic interests, such as its relative ability to predict sexual recidivism, remains to be determined

They end with this question:

individuals who collect pornography depicting only girls might be less likely to commit sexual offenses against boys or to show sexual arousal to boys in the laboratory. Given the positive relationships between sexual arousal to children and having multiple child victims, boy victims, and younger child victims (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001; Seto, Murphy, Page, & Ennis, 2003), and other research demonstrating that these same victim characteristics predict subsequent offending (Seto, Harris, Rice, & Barbaree, 2004), one could predict greater pedophilic arousal—and a greater likelihood of subsequent sexual offenses against children—among individuals who possess more child pornography content, pornography depicting boys, and pornography depicting very young children. We are now beginning a research project designed to test this question.

Now, who is responsible for this? Is it the authors of this study? Who said:

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Or could it be the reporter for The Toronto Times who said:

a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don’t commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Does that statement look anything at all like what the study actually said? No, no it doesn’t. But since the unethical journalist reworded it in her own words, it was much more appealing to the pedo community. In fact her rewording completely changed the meaning of it. Be aware in the future of this name ROBYN DOOLITTLE because you’ll be seeing the pedofreaks quoting her endlessly in support of their contention that pedophiles don’t commit crimes against children.

They’re already in the process of developing a new factoid based upon it. Apparently this is how they came to rely on Joanne DiLorenzo. When she reported that Ken Lanning believed that 90% of molestations were committed by non pedophiles, in direct conflict with what he has written and repeated over the years, the freaks latched onto it, and it has become like a mantra for them. Let’s don’t let this happen with DooLittle. Ethics in Journalism?

Facts According to Jay Part 5

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID # 5

The “pedophile” is a brutish, primitive, self-centered person who is incapable of empathy.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

Who have been some well known pedophiles? Here are a few: Thomas Mann, James Barrie, Lew Carroll, Alan Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, T.E. White, W. H. Auden, and last but not least Shakespeare. Most people who know anything about these people would not see them as brutish and primitive.

Well now, let’s just break that down. First, Jay presents us with what he calls a factoid…..a statement presumed as fact because people hear it repeated….repeatedly.

Then for the actual fact he gives us a……factoid.

Statement repeatedly repeated without substantiation. Walt Whitman being one of the most obvious. Yeah we’ve all heard that said about him…repeatedly. What’s not commonly known is that it’s never been proven. Someone says it, and everyone just assumes it’s so.

And even if it were so, that doesn’t disprove his listed factoid. I personally don’t believe all pedofreaks are brutish men. I think of them as sneaking, conniving, manipulative individuals, who GROOM children as their modus operandi. Accusing your detractors of believing something about you which they don’t believe is just another example of your less than honest methods.

And Shakespeare? Oh Puhlease. Why do you say these things? Does it validate your feelings somehow? Whoever first said it, knows its not true, and even if it were, it can’t be proven, and so they say it believing it will somehow elevate their status. It doesn’t work. You read interpretive literature and try to determine from the Bard’s writing that he was a pedophile. My dear little perverts…… he was writing about his illegitimate son from whom he was estranged.

Protect Your Family Photos Online

Anyone unaware of the dangers of publishing your family photos online really should read this thread on the Visions of Alice forum.

The thread involves ‘girl lovers’ giving each other advice on how to gather images on the net, almost exclusively they are searching family photo albums. SweetSmile begins the thread by asking if anyone would like advice on how to enhance their searching capabilities. Amongst the many community members who said yes they do want advice is keepitreal, he responds:

Sweetsmile has some sort of gift for finding images on the net, I personally have quite a lot of pictures and movies, etc. already, but could alwayse use more Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? I think not

When one poster expressed concern that this ‘tip sharing’ could result in direct links to viruses, attackingmoose reassures him:

Family albums almost never have viruses.

SpecialED highlights some of the pesky problems with keywords when searching for images of little girls:

when searching at webshots it doesn’t recognize numbers.example- if you search “13th birthday” it wont use the number and instead search for just “th birthday” and you get a wide variety of ages. one way to get around this is to use www.google.com .. in the space put the following..
“13th birthday” site: webshots.com
you can sub in other ages aswell and you can also use google the same way for other search words.

there are some search words i know that dont necessarily help with a specific age, but taking the time one can go through the results and find some pictures they are looking for. some search words are..
pool party, camp, trampoline, toe touch, scorpion, splits, backbend, backflip, handstand, cartwheel (and other gymnastics and cheerleading moves)

All these handy hints led Zoraya to proclaim that this ‘tip sharing’ is proving so useful that they’ll start an entirely new part of the forum dedicated solely to this topic which can be found here. It’s described as a work in progress.

Child Molestor on the Loose

KNBC-TV
3:22 p.m. PDT August 25, 2006

ROWLAND HEIGHTS, Calif. – Sheriff’s detectives have released a sketch and are asking for the public’s help in locating a suspected child molestor who allegedly attacked a 10-year-old boy in a men’s room at Schabarum Park while his mother waited outside.

The attack occurred Monday at 17250 E. Colima Road at 7:45 p.m.

The suspect, who had apparently been waiting in the bathroom, sexually assaulted the boy, she said. The attack was believed to have been premeditated.

The suspect was described as having dark hair combed forward, 5 feet 7 inches tall, 180 pounds, 25 to 35 years of age, with red patches on his face. Detectives suspect that the man may live in the area because he was seen riding away on a bike.

Anyone with information on the suspect’s identity is asked to call the Sheriff’s Special Victim’s Bureau at 866-247-5877 or the Industry Sheriff’s Station at 626-330-3322.

Source

Shutting Down a LIAR, again…

JohnDoe420, known around these parts as the forgettable JD, has a little problem. (Shhh I don’t think he knows). You see, he falls a little short in the thinking department. Now while we all know he’s a pedovore, AND he likes ‘em young (as in 6 months old)…. everyone may not be aware that he’s practically illiterate. He cannot process and analyze information correctly, though goodness knows he’ll give it his best shot, it’s not really saying much, but what’s even more telling is that he requires the assistance of a ‘friend’ and even when the two of them put their noggins together they STILL can’t get it right.

Let me explain. Pedofreak Autumn used a link to a study …. he analyzed the statistics and concluded that 80% of all child sexual abuse was committed by the parents. He simply misunderstood the results. He applied neglect stats to child sexual abuse stats in the same manner as olive freak did a couple of months ago. So I clarified this particular error on their parts once again. I asked if they deceive on purpose? Or perhaps they are stupid??

I got an answer, oh boy did I. JD rides in to save the day on his high horse. He declares that he’s “Shutting down a liar, again…..” (me) So nevermind the fact that he’s never shut me down for the first time, a second time or any time for that matter. He’s never shut AZ down, or proved me or any one of us team members at AZ to be a liar…. He proceeds within one post to call me personally a LIAR a total of 10 times –while quoting me–as quoting the 2004 report which was quoted by Autumn and instead linking to the ‘99 report himself. Me? Liar?

So let’s reiterate…. he called me a liar 10 times, he claimed that I (and AZ) are trying to protect child abusers, he claimed that I am trying to HIDE FACTS about domestic and intrafamilial sexual assaualt…. all this from the slithering PRO CONTACT PRO ABOLISHMENT OF AGE OF CONSENT LAWS pedofreak activist who is despised by at least 90% of his own community. The pedovore who is sexually attracted to 6 month old babies and insists they can give him permission to do what he does.

Well, alrighty then. All of this because I posted a link to a study that they had already linked to but conveniently left out this particular chart.

So, does stating the published words of someone else in quotes make me a liar? Or does perhaps calling me that simply make JD appear blatantly desperate?

*IF* I made this statement

“Ken Lanning of the FBI says that 90% of all child molestations are committed by non pedophiles”

Then YES I’d be a liar.

If, however I said the

DHHS says that 2.6% of sexual molestations are committed by parents

or

Ken Lanning of the FBI said “Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system”

OR

“Preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children”

OR

Gene Able stated that “pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations.”

Would that also be a lie? Would that support the notion that I’m attempting to HIDE EVIDENCE within the vast expanse of the internet from which I first retrieved it?

Or perhaps I’ve simply been libeled.

JD ends his lunatic rant with this gem of a question

What is her (stitches) personal, vested interest in promoting and protecting the rape of children?

Perhaps her daughter could tell us more.

Well JD you know, this is over the top even for someone as unstable as you are, and I do realize that you felt slighted when I called you forgettable….but just be patient we’ll get to you too. You’ll get the attention you’ve been longing for…………and it will be a sight to behold.

One Happy Ending

I was not at all aware of it when 10 year old Natascha Kampusch vanished on her way to school on March 2, 1998 in the town of Strashoff Austria, but she was missing for 8 years. I can just imagine what her parents went through.

They now know that she was kidnapped and held in fortified basement prison by a real creep named Wolfgang Priklopil.

But this story has appears to have a happy ending. Now 18 years old, she escaped and went to the police.

The creep has been kind enough to dispatch himself.

Lookie @ Rookieeeeeee

At first glance,this appeared to be just another insignificant cognitive distortion of a pedovore

But on closer inspection, it’s something much much worse. It takes on a whole new meaning. It’s not just stupid statements made by a freakopathic creepazoid, no it’s a symptom. We just need to name the disease. Listen with me to Rookieeeeee:

Parents rarely make their children critical thinkers. Teachers on the whole also are guilty of this. Boylovers and girllovers are also guilty of this, especially if they want to get into bed with them.

Oh, but wait….Are you saying the freakopathic creepazoids may have a hidden agenda? I thought that the pedovores stated desires were friendship with children and sex was just a side dish? So, in this instance we were correct in our initial assessment that the pedovore community was attempting to deceive the public. Is that correct? Oh, surely not. Surely Rookieeeeee himself couldn’t give them away so easily. Well let’s see what other gems we can get from him:

You mention “sexual maturity” in your comment. What age do you think the point of sexual maturity is? I assert that it is the onset of puberty. Puberty is when the body is saying, “I’m ready for sex.” Why then is the age of consent (in just about all Western Civ countries) higher than this? Why is the AOC lower in “developing” countries? I personally think that any country where the age of consent is higher is due to society’s inability to deal with sexuality, for whatever reason, whether it be because of economics, politics, culture-of-fear, dog-eat-dog ethics, lack of education, etc.

Head snap

Why is the AOC lower in third world countries? OMG it can only be because we, yeah you and me, here in the civilized world, are unable to deal with S.E.X. because we’re not as educated as the enlightened and advanced specimens from undeveloped countries.
We’re just so unethical and we suffer such extreme levels of economic poverty as compared to the rest of the world. Oh yeah, we live in a society where women and children are valued, not as men’s objects but as individuals, a society where women and young girls aren’t imprisoned or executed if they cry rape, where women don’t have their genitals mutilated by some arbitrary belief of a person who isn’t getting his genitals mutilated! We live in a country where our youth are encouraged to finish their college educations and find their way in life before marriage and children, where one man has one vote (and which empowers us) where there’s opportunities everywhere if one will only open their eyes to see, where we have the freedom to say the unpopular without getting our heads chopped off. But lo and behold here we have Rookieeeeeee, an American dissing his advanced country because we don’t have backwards laws. Here’s you a clue where to start looking Rookieeeeee, the age of marriage for young girls is positively correlated with life expectancy. I’ll give you an opportunity to see if you can work out why.

Facts According to Jay Part 4

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

FACTOID #4

The “pedophile” is unable to control himself and will always “re-offend”.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:

One of the most extensive studies on this issue is called “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994″ It is available from the US Department of Justice. (Lanagan, P, Schmitt, E. and Durose, M., 2003) According to this study,, “Within the first three years following release from prison, 3.3% (141 of 4,296) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.

Well now, before we get to the truly most extensive studies (since pedovores like to use terms like that, as though it adds an air of eminence) let’s look at this DOJ report. Number one please keep in mind that this only covered these specific criminals over a 3 year period post release from prison. When you see the figure 3.3% recidivism for child molesters and don’t actually read the report, it doesn’t sound too bad does it? Well you should read the report. What you don’t see (for one thing) in that 3.3% figure is all the prior convictions before THIS ONE.

Furthermore

Within 6 months following their release, 1.4% of the 9,691 men were rearrested for a new sex crime. Within 1 year the cumulative total grew to 2.1% rearrested. By the end of the 3-year followup period, altogether 5.3% had been rearrested for another sex crime.

Which brings me to my next point: Karl Hanson who has authored several major studies on recidivism (1995, 1998, 2002) has some startling information. In his 1995 A Comparison of Child Molesters and Nonsexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-Term Recidivism Hanson writes:

Overall, 83.2% of the nonsexual criminals and 61.8% of the child molesters were reconvicted during the 15 to 30 year follow-up period of this study. The two groups tended to be reconvicted for distinct types of offenses. Almost all the sexual offense recidivism was in the child molester group (35% vs. 1.5% in the nonsexual criminal group) In general, prior offenses of a specific type predicted future offenses of the same type.

Hanson believes that

Child molesters may have different motivations to offend than do other criminals. He also says that in general, the rate of sexual offense recidivism among sexual offenders also tends to be low, about 10%-20% over 4 years, though it gradually increases with longer follow-up periods.

So this study, which included subjects released from prison beginning in 1958 were followed for no less than 15 years, and in some cases up to 30 years.

Further, Hanson found that substantial differences were found between the child molesters and non-sexual criminals included in this study. The child molesters were responsible for almost all (97%) of the sexual offense recidivism, whereas the nonsexual criminals were responsible for almost all (96%) of the nonsexual violent recidivism.

When the specific factors that predicted each type of recidivism were considered, there was a tendency for previous offenses of a given type to predict future offenses of the same type. The present study strongly suggests that child molesters are a distinct type of offender.

In his 1998 Meta-Analysis which provided recidivism information on 28,972 sex offenders followed over a period of 4-5 years, Hanson states that sexual offenders’ motivation to change may also be related to recidivism. Those offenders who accept responsibility, express remorse, and comply with treatment should be at lower risk than those who deny any problems and actively resist change. The results of his 2002 study concerned the issue of recidivism as it related to age and followed 4,673 sexual offenders over a period of 30 years. His results were

“Although the observed sexual recidivism rates are only 10% to 15% after 5 years, the rates continue to increase gradually with extended follow-up periods.” And asks the question “Do sexual offenders remain at risk throughout their lives, or is there some age limit after which their risks for recidivism is substantially reduced?”

This is the conclusion….

Recidivism risk of rapists steadily declines with age. In contrast the extrafamilial child molesters showed little reduction in recidivism risk until after the age of 50. The recidivism rate of intrafamilial child molesters were the lowest of all sex offender categories except in the 18-24 age group.

“The extent to which the recidivism rates of child molesters decreases with age is unknown. Given that most antisocial behavior declines with age, it is likely that the sexual recidivism rates of child molesters would similarly decline. A strong or exclusive sexual interest in children could contribute to a sustained level of risk until late adulthood.”

Child molesters who only target intrafamilial victims (incest offenders) have consistently lower recidivism risk than do any other sexual offenders.

The sexual recidivism rate for the total sample was 17.5%. In the total sample the recidivism rate delined steadily with age. All the groups recidivated at different rates with incest offender recidivating less often (8.4%) than rapists (17.1%) and extrafamilial child molesters (19.5%)

Now for a couple of quick facts……….none of the incest offenders released after age 60 recidivated. The oldest recidivist (non incest sex offender) in the sample was released at age 72 and was reconvicted for a sexual offense the following year. (I guess some folks never learn)

As with other criminal behavior, the rate of sexual offending decreased with age. The rate of decline was rather gradual, however, and there were significant differences between types of sexual offenders.

Extrafamilial child molesters showed little decline in their recidivism risk until after the age of 50

Among the various factors linked to sexual offending, the three broad factors most relevant to this study are deviant sexual interests, opportunity, and low self-control. Deviant sexual interests are more common among extrafamilial child molesters than among incest offenders.

Dr. Jim Hopper believes that official government statistics are only “the tip of the iceberg.” Concerning Child Sexual Abuse, he says Most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of government authorities. This is particularly true for neglected and sexually abused children, who may have no physical signs of harm. In the case of sexual abuse, secrecy and intense feelings of shame may prevent children, and adults aware of the abuse, from seeking help.

So how are we to know what to believe? Question, question, question everything! Don’t take my word for it and surely not the pedovores. Remember the wise ol’ saying….If it walks like a duck…………