MovieChat Forums > Politics > A Lot of Child Molesters are Physically ...

A Lot of Child Molesters are Physically Repulsive

posted 2 years ago by HarveyManFredSin (4877)
8 replies | jump to latest

I don't subscribe to the simplistic and frankly offensive 'science' of physiognomy. I've long argued against demonising the 'ugly' and the 'homely, particularly in popular culture. It's an issue I feel very strongly about, even though I am not that bad-looking, if I do say so myself.

But it's striking how many child molesters are physically repulsive, which makes me wonder if such people were not in fact 'born evil', but turned to such disgusting abuse of the most vulnerable people in society, because they had no pride in themselves. They had been told so often "You're ugly" that they began to believe that was all they are, and as a consequence, they gave up all sense of human decency and morality, and started to live by the 'ugly' tag by *behaving* in the ugliest way possible (i.e. raping children).

Of course, there is NO excuse for abusing children. And many of us here would NEVER harm a child, especially not sexually, NO MATTER how low and self-loathing we were and felt.

BUT I am staunchly of the belief that human evil is a combination of nature and nurture. I don't believe anyone is born evil per se. Some people are *more inclined* to become evil than others, for sure, but everyone, if raised with kindness, compassion, self-respect and a healthy but balanced sense of pride, not arrogance or conceit, has the capacity to be GOOD.

This isn't a plea to 'be kind to abusive monsters'; far from it. But it is a plea to be nice to everyone else, because as a society, our individual actions have consequences, and who knows what we wrought upon the world anytime we mock a person for being 'ugly' or 'fat' etc.

We need to encourage people to make the best of themselves, and to feel pride in themselves, and to thus hold themselves up to a decent moral standard, not *just* for their own benefit, but for the benefit of *EVERYONE* especially the most vulnerable.

I hope my plea makes sense.

[–] CaptainCrozier (607) 2 years ago

It does.

And incidentally, when I first saw the headline of your post, I thought you were going to argue that physically repulsive people cannot get laid and thus are so desperate for sex that they would be willing to force themselves on a child if it means getting some.

But what you said also follows.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"And incidentally, when I first saw the headline of your post, I thought you were going to argue that physically repulsive people cannot get laid and thus are so desperate for sex that they would be willing to force themselves on a child if it means getting some."

No, and even if that were the case, that would certainly NEVER be an excuse for any sort of abuse.

As an aside, I do think a lot of predators go after children, not necessarily because they're attracted to them (i.e. pedophiles), but because they're 'easy' to manipulate and abuse, without anyone finding out/fighting back. That's why I always make a distinction between pedophiles (people who have an illness/a sick attraction to children), particularly ones who *don't* submit to their sick attraction, and child molesters (who can often be pedophiles, but aren't necessarily). It's the same way that a lot of prison rapes aren't committed by homosexual men, but simply opportunistic predators. I also suspect that a lot of priests who abuse children aren't in fact pedophiles and/or gay, but simply abuse young boys, because they're the ones in their care, and are also relatively vulnerable.

But back to my OP. Obviously, I'm not saying "Be nice to molesters." But I *am* saying "Be nice to everyone, because our actions can have unforeseen consequences, some of which might be quite monstrous" (which is not to say that molesters have anyone to blame but themselves for their heinous actions).

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 2 years ago

Until relatively recently, a career in the Priesthood was something parents pushed sons who were not interested in girls into, hoping that working directly for God would "keep them out of trouble". Naturally, a lot of them were interested in other things, like other men and small children.

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 2 years ago

I am certain that aspect plays into it as well.

[–] aliensalmon (5604) 2 years ago

I think it has more to do with a lack of empathy and conscience of the part of the child molester. I'd be inclined to believe that a lot of "ugly" or even "bullied" people don't turn out to be child molesters.

[–] chilidoggg (14265) 2 years ago

Seinfeld said that 4-6% of people are good looking. I'd say more than half of people are physically repulsive. But half of people aren't child molesters.

[–] Gd5150 (11747) 2 years ago

Most I have seen documentaries on look pretty normal. Like serial killers.

The ugly gene seems to inspire more lesbianism than pedophilia.

Look at those in the Catholic Church who did it, they were pretty normal looking.

Look at the Democrat party leadership. Look at Biden. Or Hollywood. They all look fairly normal and yet it’s 100s of trips to Epstein island etc…

It’s seems more to be a product of one’s upbringing and if they were molested as kids and thus repeat the process.

[–] WandererFromYs (2308) 2 years ago

Seems like every female teacher that sleeps with a student is hot. But those stories are probably cherry picked by the media.

It would be nice if we could spot them just by looking at them, but I don’t think so. Some look like the stereotype, some don’t.

You can look up the sex offender registry in your area to get an idea. It’s public information.