I hope you will listen to the Dr. Lori Handrahan podcast. It's a pretty sobering reality she discusses.
I did listen to it - more than once, and you are right that it is sobering. Lori Handrahan makes a lot of strong points, and I was especially struck by her insight into thinking like a paedophile: establishing secure supply lines. I also thought that the term she has coined, "pedosadist", is apt for a lot of the cases she describes. I have not, though, researched her - shocking - claims beyond the interview, except for this:
I have been doing a
lot of digging into her own case in which her daughter was allegedly left unprotected by the authorities in the hands of an abusive father. Over the past few days, I have read hundreds of pages of court transcripts, rulings, and motions, as well as medical records, expert reports, affidavits, emails, news articles, and advocacy web sites on both sides. I have listened to several hours' worth of recordings of telephone and other conversations. This almost compulsive and full-time research is the main reason why I have taken so long to respond in this thread.
There is still a lot more that I have not read or listened to, but I think that I have seen enough to venture the opinion that, despite that the claims of sexual abuse occurred in the middle of a contentious divorce and custody dispute, and granting that there are some difficult questions which might be raised from the other side:
- Lori Handrahan is credible.
- The authorities have not acted in the best interests of her child.
- The evidence of abuse that she has presented to the authorities has not been accorded the weight that it is due.
- The opposing camp has waged a needlessly vicious campaign of censorship and harassment against her and her supporters.
Lori Handrahan impresses me as a strong, persistent, dogged, and fearless advocate for justice.
Of course, having done all of that research, there is a lot more that I could say, but I do not want to derail this thread - if, though, in any continuing research, I change my opinion, then I may revisit it.
I know that I said that I was not going to respond further re the article that I posted, but given that since then you have attacked it so intensely across several reasonably lengthy posts, I will offer another response after all. Between you and Mishelle, the article has been described as "fictional", a "fabrication", and not "verifiable". I had noticed, though, that there
was a verifiable identity in the article: "Elizabeth Letourneau, founding director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University". I looked up this Center online, and, sure enough,
it exists, and Elizabeth J. Letourneau is its Director. She has given a TEDMED talk in which she both corroborates the non-fictional nature of the article as well as explains her research into preventing child sexual abuse through various clinical/therapeutic interventions. It is worth a watch:
Notice that she corroborates within the first three minutes that:
- She participated in the research for the article, and was interviewed by its author, Luke Malone.
- She met in person the various young men struggling with paedophilic urges in the peer-support group led by the young man going by the pseudonym "Adam".
Having not researched in a serious way this topic (the potential for clinical/therapeutic interventions to prevent child sexual abuse), nor verified any of the claims made in the video, I am not offering an opinion on it - just offering this obviously highly qualified and
well-published academic's presentation for consideration. I want to make it clear that in no way do I condone or endorse acts of paedophilia, whether they be so-called "consensual" or serially sadistic and abusive or anything in-between - I totally agree with you guys that they are an evil that needs to be stamped out, and I think that clearly neither Luke nor Elizabeth condone or endorse them either. I also agree that defining paedophilia as a "disability" which qualifies the paedophile for social welfare payments is outrageous. If the preventative approach works, though, especially for young potential offenders, and even if only to a degree, then I see no reason to reject it.