Sex Quote – The Tragedy of Sexual Intercourse Is the Perpetual Virginity of the Soul

Virginity of the soul in this context means the level of innocence within us, which strongly includes our taste and ability to crave or long after some things or substances which may not really be considered as socially okay. This is a sex quote from William B. Yeate. What does he mean by this? Let’s find out.

Actually, this is so deep and inspiring and for a clearer picture and better understanding of this sex quote, we will have to critically analyze it in two sides, the side which considers the situation before sexual intercourse and the side after having sex.

A person who never had sex in his or her Life is not just a virgin in sexual status but also in the soul. What this means is that, the person has no experience and no sense of adventure. This may not be entirely true and some virgins may have watched some pornography, gone through illicit materials, engaged in pervert chats or discussions with friends. Nevertheless, it is not as adventurous as tasting the “forbidden fruit”.

Now, this virgin gets set to experience it for the first time in his or her life and then goes into it with some level of uncertainty despite how well they have known it through the factors earlier mentioned. But once the forbidden fruit has been tasted or even eaten, our Human nature then comes into play which is-we want to eat and taste more of it. A lady has confessed that ever since she had her first sex at the age of 15, she never looked back. A guy who was a virgin and in a relationship for about 4 years experienced his first sex with his girl at the age of 22. Not up to 6 months after this, he broke up with her-why? “She is not really good in bed”-his reason. There are millions of people who are in similar situations, especially teenagers and young adults.

After having an intercourse, we want to have it again and we hoped and wish the next time should be better, more adventurous and pleasurable than the previous. We do not just stop on the basis of wishes and hopes but rather work towards ensuring the next would be better. All these actions bring down the level of innocence we possess within us and hence eat up the virginity of the soul. The more we crave or try to make the next better, the more we make the soul wild (for the married) or corrupt (for the singles). And no wonder, sexual intercourse in our present generation has been abused. People do not find satisfaction in having sex with the opposite gender anymore. They have gone far to have it with same gender and to some this is not even enough. They have craved for pleasure from animals-having sex with dogs and horses, all in the quest to find the zenith of pleasure and hence corrupting the soul.

Well, in order to clear all possible subjects of arguments, such an attribute affecting the soul is a tragedy to both the married and single. The main factor of any variable here should be the individuals. Well, a married man may be tired of the satisfaction he gets from his wife and begin sleeping with his next door neighbor’s wife to get the satisfaction he feels he has not enjoyed. His wife on the other hand can go for an animal. So, no one is exempted in this. But even as the soul gets more and more wild after every sexual intercourse, we should do our best not to make it a tragedy but rather channel it to better enjoy sex the way it ought to be enjoyed.

For a more elaborate information about any of the subject matter discussed here, ranging from medicine to relationships, christianity, sexuality and even politics, you can visit my website.


Did you know that the future of porn is vr porn? To find out more please see vr porn tube.

Visit to find out more regarding escorts in hertfordshire
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Bad Sex Scenes

First let me reveal my bias, I write for an adult audience. My sex scenes are hot and explicit. To me, sex is a normal, healthy part of adult relationships. I can’t imagine leaving that part out of the story, or not allowing the reader to experience it fully and completely. I leave the bedroom door wide open so readers can grab a box of popcorn, pick a seat, sit back, and enjoy the entire show.

Although I candidly tell folks that I write erotic romance or urban fantasy with erotic elements. I don’t think I write erotica. Why? Because the sex isn’t primary, it’s not the focus of or the reason for the story. Rather it’s something that naturally unfolds as the desire and emotional connection between my cotagonists deepens.

I’ve seen and read lots of books and articles over the years about how to write a good sex scene, some focusing on the “dos”, other on the “don’ts”. Today I’m writing about something that I haven’t seen a lot of other authors discuss, the importance of a bad sex scene. Now, I’m not talking about poorly written sex, or a specific type of sex that I have judgments about. I’m simply talking about a sex scene in which the outcome is far from ideal.

Personally, I love it when an author inserts a well crafted and strategically placed scene in which the characters fumble, struggle, strike out, or somehow “misfire”. I think it makes characters more real, more vulnerable, and most importantly, more relatable. This is particularly the case when the author is able to show that the hero/heroine can get through the situation with finesse and that, as a result, they experience a more profound sense of intimacy.

There are some important key elements to making this sort of scene work for you.

Regardless of the failure, your hero/heroine must stay in character. You don’t want the reader to suddenly feel as if two entirely different characters are introduced.
Remember that you are striving for vulnerability and reality. The situation should be believable. You don’t want it to come off as comical and you don’t want to make the reader too anxious or afraid. Be subtle.
Use humor carefully. No one wants to be laughed at or feel like they are being ridiculed when they’re naked. Remember that your characters are bare not only physically during an intimate scene, but emotionally as well.
Keep the sexual tension high and the pacing steady. Lead both your characters and the reader down the garden path and then surprise them by inserting an obstacle.
Acknowledge the obstacle. It’s better when one of the characters is able to do this rather than relying merely on narrative.
Have the characters talk through the obstacle to normalize it. This will show the reader that they have the strength to get through those mundane relationship issues that are necessary to conquer if they’re going to have a long-lasting relationship.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Sex Offenders Revealed

In this article, I refer to sex offenders in the masculine he, him, his. This is for two reasons; most sex offenders, by a very large margin, are male; and it makes the writing of the article easier. The reader needs to know that everything I am writing applies also to female sex offenders, who make up approximately two per cent of the sex offender population in America.

As I sit here watching a certain newsrag program on a certain cable news channel, I hear an obnoxious woman start quoting statistics about sex offenders that are appalling! It makes me think to myself, “If they are so dangerous, why do we let them back on the streets? Why don’t we just lock them up for life? If it is true that almost all sex offenders re-offend, we should never let them out of prison again.” And this line of thought led me to my favorite question: Why are we doing it?

When the woman on the news show started spouting her statistics, I wrote them down to verify them. Here were the claims that were made: 90% of sex offenders will re-offend. 90% of sex offenders will commit a new sex crime within 3 years. Sex offenders cannot be treated. All child molesters are pedophiles. The only treatment that works for sex offenders is execution.

I immediately suspected there was some sort of conspiracy here. I thought for sure that the government was hiding something from us and releasing sex offenders back into the population for some nefarious purpose. I was determined to get to the bottom of it and report this information to you, the public.

Surprisingly, I did find a conspiracy after all. But it isn’t the one you think. The conspirators turned out to be news media. Newspapers, cable networks, magazines and even public networks. It seems that it is more expedient to MAKE UP the news than report on the truth. The media is responsible in a very large part for the myths and misconceptions surrounding these individuals. By misreporting information over the years, the media has been able to instill enough fear into our society that the mere mention of the term sex offender on their network increases ratings. Increased ratings mean more advertising dollars. Since we are willing and actually desire to hate sex offenders, we are also responsible for perpetuating these myths.

Sex offenders are amongst the worst of the worst of our society. We love to hate them. I will not make any excuse for them such as “they are misunderstood individuals,” or they are a “product of their society.” They aren’t. They are perverts with mental deficiencies who have chosen to commit crimes of the most despicable nature. They are sick people who need treatment, but not in the way a cancer patient is sick. Rather, they are sick in the way a drug addict or alcoholic is sick.

The myths and misconceptions surrounding sex offenders usually result in a stereotype of a grizzled old man hiding behind a bush and drooling over children in a park and offering a pocketful of candy (as in, “I have some candy in my pocket little girl, just reach in and grab some.”) The truth is, this kind of offender is very rare; most child victims will be molested in their own home or in the home of a trusted friend or relative. Most rape victims will be assaulted by a spouse or trusted friend. But, by perpetuating the myths, the media and general public can make themselves feel better about demanding the worst types of vengeance. It is easier to punish the stranger than the person we know and love. In doing this, according to the Hindman Foundation, a nationally recognized leader in the treatment of sex abuse victims, “many problems emerge with the detection, prosecution and management of sex offenders.”

So, let’s discuss the FACTS about sex offenders.

According to the Bureau of Justice, “Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense: 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.” Remember, the loud-mouthed news reporter said it was 90%. Where did she get this fact? The truth is, she made it up. I found absolutely no corroborating evidence anywhere to support her claim. In fact, the most reputable agencies who track these statistics don’t even support the claim that “most” sex offenders will re-offend.

The Bureau of Justice further reports that, “Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape.” Additionally, when it comes to child victimizers, they report that “An estimated 3.3%… were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.”

I came across one website of a fear monger who claimed that 25% of sex offenders will commit another sex offense within 15 years. When I contacted the owner of that site requesting that he tell me how he came up with that information he sent me back a reply which basically said that he made the number up after he read some reports and didn’t like their results.

Remember, the Bureau of Justice numbers are based on actual arrests, convictions, releases, re-arrests and new convictions in all 50 States.

Another reputable agency, the Center for Sex Offender Management, reports a bit differently, though they do not disclose how they arrived at their numbers. According to them, “child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period” and “rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.”

Additionally they report, “Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).” It should be noted that these numbers are based on a considerably smaller control number than the BoJ. It doesn’t make their results any less valid, but it is important to put the information in perspective.

If the CSOM studies are based on a sampling of records, then they have to face the possibility that the records that were handed over to them were not random but rather, designed to meet some person?s political ambitions. Further, if they are based on local records, then those results are only good for a small area of the country. Since they did not disclose how they arrived at their results, we have no way of knowing how to understand their study. But it should be noted that they report on their website that sexually based offenses are typically underreported which could explain why their numbers are a bit higher than the BoJ’s. Also, the BoJ statistics are based on actual convictions and do not take into consideration charges dropped due to plea bargains and such. This may also contribute to the slightly higher numbers from CSOM.

Regardless of which numbers you believe, the fact still remains that sex offenders are vastly less likely to re-offend than any other criminal. Myth: the recidivism rate amongst sex offenders is 90%… BUSTED! (Myth: certain loud mouthed newsrag hosts make up statistics in order to increase ratings?CONFIRMED!)

Next we need to examine the claim that sex offenders cannot be successfully treated. I was recently watching an episode of Law and Order, Special Victim’s Unit where Ice T’s character stated that sex offenders could not be treated because they cannot learn to control their urges. (Please don’t hold it against Ice T. He is only an actor who was reciting lines that writers provided him. You can hold it against the writers for not verifying their facts.) Again, the statement made by that character and the statement made by Ms. Blonde Ambition are not supported by the facts. CSOM reports:

“Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.” Again, it is important to read what was really said here. I highlighted those words for a reason. The offender must be compliant with treatment conditions in order for the treatment to be effective. If the offender is non-cooperative, the risk of re-offense increases by as much as eight per cent as will be discussed below.

CSOM, when discussing treatment options for offenders, tells us that: “The majority of sex offender treatment programs in the United States and Canada now use a combination of cognitive-behavioral treatment and relapse prevention (designed to help sex offenders maintain behavioral changes by anticipating and coping with the problem of relapse). Offense specific treatment modalities generally involve group and/or individual therapy focused on victimization awareness and empathy training, cognitive restructuring, learning about the sexual abuse cycle, relapse prevention planning, anger management and assertiveness training, social and interpersonal skills development, and changing deviant sexual arousal patterns.”

A unique form of treatment that has yielded tremendous results over the past couple of decades is called ?restitution therapy? which requires the perpetrator to take responsibility for his actions and to, for lack of a better term, ?submit? to the victim. In doing this, the perpetrator relinquishes power and returns it to the victim. As will be discussed briefly later, this is very good for the victim?s treatment and recovery process.

They go on to say, “Different types of offenders typically respond to different treatment methods with varying rates of success. Treatment effectiveness is often related to multiple factors, including:

1- the type of sexual offender (e.g., incest offender or rapist);

2- the treatment model being used (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention, psycho-educational, psycho-dynamic, or pharmacological);

3- the treatment modalities being used; and

4- related interventions involved in probation and parole community supervision.

Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998).”

In other words, sex offenders are less likely to re-offend than other criminals and if they are amenable to treatment they are even less likely than non-treated sex offenders to re-offend. Myth: Sex offender treatment does not work. The only treatment for sex offenders is execution: BUSTED! But in fairness, I must say it is busted with caveats.

Not all sex offenders are willing to undergo treatment. Reasons for this range from just plain denial that they have a problem to the fact that it is incredibly uncomfortable and difficult to discuss the root causes of the criminal behavior. Since it appears that over 98% of sex offenders are male, it makes sense that they would be unwilling to discuss these issues. In our culture and society, we tend to raise our boys in a manner that reinforces this behavior. With our understanding of human psychology increasing yearly, this cultural behavior is slowly changing.

We are finally beginning to understand that it is okay to let our boys cry and it is okay to discuss emotions and sex. This is a recent development and the more conservative elements in our society are still against such things. Sex is at the root of their anxieties. We have made sex such a taboo subject for so long, we can no longer bear to discuss this with our children. Ironically, these same people who will not discuss sex with their children are also at the forefront of the battle to keep sexual education out of our public schools. It seems that they just don’t want anyone to know about sex. It seems that conservative elements are trying to push their ideal that sex is somehow evil or solely for the purpose of reproduction and should not, under any circumstances, be enjoyed by those participating in such activity. And then we wonder why people are developing sexually deviant behavior.

Sex offenders have the ability to cross taboo boundaries that ordinary people seem to be unable to cross. It is the opinion of many sex offender treatment providers that the reason this is possible is because of the fact that we don’t discuss emotions, sexual respect and such with our young children. It seems that most sex offenders come from these kinds of conservative households. Again, from the category of irony, most sex offenders report that they were NOT molested as a child which is commonly thought by the general public. It also seems that most children who are sexually molested do not grow up to be sexual predators or sexual criminals as is also commonly thought by the general public.

So why are they able to cross those taboo boundaries that ordinary (notice that I do not use the word “normal”) people don’t? Theories abound about this. For some, it is to satisfy their need for power. Others get a thrill out of crossing those boundaries in the same way that a person gets a thrill from jumping out of an airplane. Still, others believe they have a religious right to engage in certain activities, such as incest. There are a host of other reasons, but I list these three as examples of the workings of the sex offender mind.

Sex offenders come in a variety of flavors. They are typically classified in the following categories: power rapists, indiscriminate child molesters, pedophiles, all others (this includes incest related crimes, prostitution, pimping, voyeurism/exhibitionism, etc.) It is interesting to note that the power rapists and the indiscriminate child molesters have the lowest recidivism rates (according to the BoJ website, it is 2.5% for rapists and 3.3% for child victimizers) leaving one to question the conventional wisdom about incarceration vs. treatment. With those statistics in mind, it means that the bulk of the sex offenders who re-offend are the pimps and prostitutes! With everyone up in arms about sex offense incarceration terms not being long enough for repeat offenders, why, then, are these offenders not receiving longer prison sentences?

Additionally, the question of registration must be revisited. It is obvious by the statistics that it is not the sex offenders we need to worry about. Once they are caught and undergo treatment, it is highly unlikely they are going to re-offend. However, other criminals, who are much more likely to re-offend, should be the ones registering. The other side of the coin is that as long as the sex offender’s whereabouts is known, it helps his neighbors and the supervision officials to keep tabs on him increasing the chances of his successful rehabilitation.

Pedophiles are a unique subset of sex offenders. Most people believe that any child molester is a pedophile. That is not the case. A pedophile is one who has a mental disorder that causes him to become sexually aroused ONLY to primary sexual characteristics. Primary sexual characteristics are those of a young child or (in the case of a hebophile) a pubescent child. This means they display the undeveloped or developing sexual characteristics such as lack of body hair, undeveloped penis, vagina or breasts, or, in the case of the developing adolescent, very little in the way of pubic hair, developing breasts, vagina or penis. Myth: All child molesters are pedophiles?BUSTED.

An indiscriminate child molester is different from the pedophile in that the child molester is aroused by both the secondary sexual characteristics of an adult, that is, developed sexual organs and mature body, as well as the primary sexual characteristics of the child or pubescent adolescent.

The reason that the distinction is important is that indiscriminate child molesters can be treated successfully and, as yet, there is no means of effective treatment for pedophiles. Unfortunately, there is no known method for increasing sexual arousal to secondary sexual characteristics. The best that can be done for the pedophile is to decrease his sexual arousal to children through the use of negative behavioral modification. This means that they expose the pedophile to audio and visual stimulation and allow him to become aroused. When he becomes aroused they cause some sort of negative thing to happen to cause his mind to associate the arousal with a negative action. For example, they may shoot a blast of ammonia up his nose at the moment he begins to become aroused. This is an extremely unpleasant experience, so the brain begins, over time, to associate deviant arousal to children with the negative experience of ammonia being forced up his nose. This will lead to a decrease in arousal to children.

Once this has been achieved, cognitive modification and restitution therapy can then take place allowing the pedophile to learn to control his impulses to react to children. The combination is usually sufficient to give the pedophile all the tools he needs to prevent himself from acting out on the deviant behavior again. It should be noted that pedophilia is an extremely rare condition. It occurs in less than 1% of all child molesters. The popular media use of the word to describe all child molesters is a deliberate misuse of the term.

Child molesters and power rapists can be treated effectively through the use of cognitive restructuring, negative behavior modification, intensive self therapy, and, of course, by being made to take responsibility for their actions, also known as restitution therapy.

There is a pervasive fear amongst the population that the convicted sex offender may move in next door. This irrational fear is based upon the popular myths perpetrated by the media. The truth is that the known sex offender is not the one of whom you need be afraid; you need to be afraid of the one you don’t know about. So who are they?

Typically, the sex offender works in a construction or industrial related job in a blue collar capacity. He is someone whom you know well, say a family member, neighbor or close friend. Usually it will be said of him that he was the last person one would have suspected of such behavior. He will be a church-goer, model citizen and pillar of the community.

This is not the case with all sex offenders, just the vast majority of them. Just because you know of a construction worker or factory worker who happens to be a nice guy and attends church and PTA meetings doesn’t mean he is a sex offender. Remember, most people are exactly what they seem to be. The difference is that the sex offender has to pretend to be like everyone else because he knows he is not.

That guy lurking behind the bushes with a pocketful of candy drooling over children should also be suspected. Don’t think that just because it is unlikely that he is a sex offender that he isn’t. What I am telling you is that you are very unlikely to come across someone of that type. If you fear for the safety of a child, err on the side of caution and call the police. I usually don’t advocate the calling of authorities before you have taken preventative measures of your own first, but in this case, you could be preventing a child from being molested. You could be forcing a sex offender to receive the treatment he needs to be a productive and law abiding citizen. In this case, I support using the authorities.

The next question is, how should they be punished? Many say that since they are sentencing their victims to a lifetime of pain and misery, the offender should spend their life without their freedom. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But when we dig deeper, we see that the reasoning is not valid. In most cases of rape or molestation, it usually takes the between three and five years of therapy and hard work to overcome the feelings of powerlessness and emptiness they experience. If they are motivated to recover from their experience, and they are willing to confront their victimizer, they can usually fully recover. (Yes, I said, face their victimizer. Therapists universally agree that this is an integral step, usually toward the end of their therapy, which should be taken under very controlled circumstances. Maybe I will write an article about this later as it is a fascinating subject. In essence, the victimizer has the power taken from him by the victim thus placing the power back where it belongs.)

I know that it sounds like I am minimizing the ability of the victim to recover. I do not intend it to seem that way. I know that there is a lot of pain and suffering involved in the recovery process. The reason I only touch on it here rather than go into depth about it is because this article is about the offenders, not the victims. I will write an article about victims another time as my research into their condition concludes. I am still gathering data.

I also know that there are people who will never recover from their trauma because trauma affects everyone differently. These cases are in the extreme minority. I understand their situation and my heart goes out to them. But the facts are still the facts. Most people recover.

With this being the case, is it right to keep the sex offender behind bars forever? If we remove our emotions from the argument and listen solely to the facts, the only answer can be “no,” not at all. This is a hard argument for me to make since the specter of this vile crime has touched my life as it has so many others. It is not easy to let go of the hurt that the perpetrator caused his victim and those of us who trusted him. But, once I do let go of the anger and pain, I can see clearly that the facts do not support my emotional status.

This is not to say that my emotions are wrong, they are not. I have the right to feel betrayed, angry and hurt. But I, like so many others, will get over it.

Back on topic, what then, becomes a fair punishment? Execution? Well, for the fear mongers, this seems to be their punishment of choice. Castration? This option makes absolutely no sense at all. Removing the testicles of a sex offender will NOT reduce the impulse. Sexual offending takes place in the brain, not the penis or the testicles. If the intention is to remove the offender’s DNA from the gene pool, then we will also have to kill any children the offender may have had, which also makes no sense, not to mention is barbaric to even consider. Chemical castration, which uses Depo-Provera to reduce the sexual urge also makes no sense for the same reason. So it seems that incarceration is the only viable alternative.

So how long should a sex offender be incarcerated?

There was a study done some 20 years ago (unfortunately, I have been unable to find it on the internet and I admit I am working solely from memory about this study) that suggested that after three years of incarceration, an inmate will either have learned his lesson or he will never learn his lesson. During the original three years, the inmate is usually in denial of his crime or is railing against the system or is involved in the appeals process. So it makes sense, then, that if it is going to take the offender that long to come to the realization that he needs to take responsibility for crime, the punishment then should be, after three years of incarceration, the real prison term should begin. If it takes an average of five years for the victim to overcome their pain and suffering, then let the perpetrator serve eight years. Three years to get the nonsense out of his system and five years for his victim.

Now, I admit that the argument is made with some emotion. Again, the facts don’t support my emotional argument. It costs far less to have a sex offender undergo treatment than it does to incarcerate him. It typically costs between $5000 and $15,000 per year to put a sex offender on an intensive supervision plan WITH treatment. Conversely, to incarcerate WITHOUT treatment, averages $22,000 per year. After the incarceration, the taxpayers then have to cough up the money for the supervision and treatment. The offender has to pick up much of this cost himself by paying a fee for supervision and by being required to pay for his treatment. But the taxpayer still has to cover some of the burden.

If the treatment option is working, why are we not discussing using that option first? Or at the very least why not be treating them while they are incarcerated?

One would think that in a country that has 20% of the worlds criminal element incarcerated, we would be trying to come up with ways to stop the cycle of violence! For example, what is being done to prevent the situation from happening in the first place? I personally know of a situation where the parents of a child were concerned that their child’s behavior put him at risk to become a sex offender. They approached a therapist about it and the therapist said that the law prohibited him from doing anything about it until AFTER the child had committed a crime!

Yes, the problem is a complex one because it raises so many issues about the right to privacy, invasion of privacy by the government, unreasonable search and seizure issues, and a host of other Constitutional issues. But, at the same time, if we can prevent one child from becoming a monster, that means that we can prevent approximately 115 victims. That’s right, 115. It has been determined that each sex offender creates an average of 115 victims before he is caught.

This subject is so full of myths and misconceptions that I could continue on for many more pages and still only scratch the surface. If this topic stirs up enough debate, maybe I will write another. For example, I have only barely touched on the fact that the media deliberately misrepresents this issue for the purpose of obtaining higher ratings. In fact, I learned that one year, not to long ago, television stations and cable stations ALL used the sex offender issue to gain ratings during Sweeps week! In some cases it worked, and in others it did not. In fact, the only program of all the ones I watch on a regular basis, that did NOT use that issue to gain ratings was Star Trek; Voyager. (That probably gives away how long ago it was that this happened.)

I cannot put the issue more succinctly than the late Jan Hindman, when she said:

“It is not enough to shed tears for those who suffer the tragedy of sexual abuse, nor will much be accomplished nurturing hatred and devising punishments for those who sexually abuse. Only by sharing knowledge, providing training, exchanging ideas, and challenging traditional beliefs and biases can we respond effectively to sexual victimization.”

I have obviously not touched on ALL the issues involved with sex offenders. My primary goal was to dispel some of the myths surrounding sex offenders. If we can begin to understand the true nature of these people, maybe we can stop living in fear. If we can learn to educate our children to be on guard for these individuals without being afraid of them, maybe we can prevent more children from becoming victims. If we can learn more about how we can help these people become responsible citizens they will stop being a drain on our society’s resources.

A new voice has arisen on the internet. A voice determined to expose the truth and reality about various events and myths that are affecting the United States and the world. His name is Iacchos Deru (pronounced YAH-kose De-ROO). Iacchos is the pseudonym of a writer, philosopher and observer who has noticed the unfortunate turn of events in the United States and around the world that threaten sanity, security and Freedom.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Sex Offender Treatment – What Works?


One of the most heinous crimes committed in society is a sexual offence against a child. Sexual predators, monsters, pure evil, are often words used by society (through the media, etc.) to describe those who molest children and often these groups of individuals are categorised by one word which encompasses any and every description available – Paedophile. However, not all offenders are “paedophiles” in the strictest interpretation. In a few cases there have been instances where offenders against children have been rehabilitated. Of course, there are many more who do not alter their views and feelings and are still released (due to limits on sentencing) back into society. Since this is so, why do we continue to attempt to treat and rehabilitate those offenders; also, as we do not know which will offender be successfully rehabilitated, should we not just refuse all treatment and keep them indefinitely in prison?


Historically, men often married much younger women, some of whom were in their very early teens, possibly to ensure compliance, health and an ability to conceive. In 1860, the agent of consent was twelve years old. This meant that anyone of twelve or over could (legally) consent to having sexual intercourse. Fifteen years later, the age was raised to thirteen by the House of Commons after much campaigning by Josephine Butler (a social reformer). This was still believed to be too low and the campaign continued for some years until 1885, when Parliament passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act which raised the age of consent to sixteen .

Laws on consent are now sixteen in the United Kingdom and America has many states which have a similar or higher threshold. Unfortunately, this is not world-wide. In Albania, Bulgaria, Canada and China the age is fourteen. In Chile and Panama it is twelve years of age, whilst in South Korea, Spain and Japan, the age is thirteen. . However, according to ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism), a “child” is anyone under the age of 18, in line with the European Convention of Human Rights . This is at odds with many countries who state that anyone in the mid-teens should be able (and is able) to consent to sexual relations.

Child sexual abuse was thrust into the public domain in the UK through the incidents in Cleveland, in the 1980s. There, over one hundred children were removed from their homes due to the belief by social services that they were subjected to [ritualistic] sexual abuse (though many of these accusations were never substantiated). The outcry which followed the horrendous treatment of both parents and children in this case resulted in an inquiry into the matter (and the Children’s Act 1989 being brought into UK legislation). Various bodies, such as the NSPCC, Social Services and other agencies dealing with vulnerable children, undertook research into the matter of sexual abuse of children and theories arose as to what type of person committed such an act. These included brain deficiencies, psychopathy, mental illness and the “cycle of abuse”. Many cases continued to highlight the deficiencies in the system including that of Sidney Cooke, a known paedophile was released and offended again (resulting in the death of Jason Swift, a male teenage prostitute).


The most apparent way forward was to rehabilitate those who offended against children since many sentences given by the courts were less than ten years. Prison could not hold these people forever, not least since many were segregated for their own safety. Following a survey into sex offending and offenders, which showed that 63 establishments had some form of specialist programmes, the Prison Service adopted the “Sex Offender Treatment Programme” (also known as SOTP) in 1991. The SOTP was, at the time of Iain Crow’s book, in place for approximately eight years. He states, although the early indications of the SOTP are good (in that attitudes of offenders have been successfully altered) that “…at the time of writing, it is too early to say whether it is successful in reducing reconviction”.

One of the main problems with therapy (of any form) is that unless the target of therapy accepts therapy, there is a small likelihood of success. With paedophiles, their actions are not perceived [by themselves] as wrong and thus cannot be “cured” of any wrongdoing. They see society as being mistaken in the view that children are not sexually aware and that morally, if not legally, they are in the right. The core principle in treatment must be acceptance of wrongdoing as, if this is lacking, empathy is also missing.

Many paedophiles lack the understanding for their victims’ emotional trauma and often justify their actions by placing blame on the victim for instigating any abuse. If a prison term costs the State (in the United Kingdom) an estimated £22,000 per inmate per year, the cost of prison therapy must make this figure even higher. Can the State really justify the cost of such treatment when, at best, only a small minority of convicted abusers will not return to their offending behaviour upon release.

Victims of child molestation have such trauma that their lives are altered completely and forever. Given that this is so, the need for punishment of offenders and justice for victims, both in the eyes of the victim(s) and society in general is quite stark. The principle of due process and just deserts means that each offender can only be tried and sentenced for the crime for which they are before the court (though sentencing does consider any potential future risk and any past offences). So what do we do with those offenders who freely admit that their impulses to offend [against children] are so uncontrollable they cannot guarantee they will stop? With prisons so overcrowded now, can we justify keeping all child molesters in prison, not least because of the financial cost?

The public seem to believe that “locking them up and throwing away the key” is the answer; place all child molesters on an island with no way out and castrating those who do offend, even once, is the only way to deal with child abusers. Can we justify, financially or morally, keeping any offender who has not killed, in prison indeterminately until we (or the public?) decide they are no longer a threat? What about constant and overt surveillance of all released child abusers (the cost of which would be enormous)?

Some treatment programmes are known to work. There are instances where reoffending has been reduced, though this only applies to reconviction rates. Should we allow ourselves to focus on such a small number in the hope that this may lead to larger numbers of successes? If we can (and do) seem able to reduce the offending behaviour in child abusers on a small scale, why can we not make this small number even larger? The answer is we can, though not, unfortunately, eradicate abuse altogether. If numbers of rehabilitated child offenders are increasing, then surely those numbers are likely to continue increasing the more we encourage and provide treatment programmes on a sustained basis.

To ignore those (albeit small) successes would be foolish indeed as some offenders are not predatory and are more likely to be situational offenders (which will be defined in more detail below). This means that their offending behaviour can be successfully addressed and altered with treatment. The one component which many experts believe will reduce the success of any treatment programme is the introduction of laws enabling the public access to offenders’ details. This problem arose due to the rape and murder of Megan Kanka in the United States. Megan Kanka was a seven year old girl who lived with her parents, opposite a convicted paedophile – but they did not know this fact. Megan was killed after being raped by Jesse Timmendequas in 1994 and the repercussions of this event led to the American judiciary invoking “Megan’s Law”. This law has, at its basic premise, the right for every parent to view whether or not any convicted child molester is in their surrounding area (and they can obtain this information even on the Internet by simply inserting one’s zip code (the US equivalent of a postcode)).

A similar premise was called for by the parents of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne in July 2000. Roy Whiting (the man eventually found guilty for her murder) had a prior conviction for kidnapping and child molestation of a nine year old in 1995; it was his registering with the Sex Offenders’ Register which enabled police to arrest him so expeditiously. The Sex Offenders’ Register is partly a success of Megan’s Law in America. Due to the realisation of problems with paedophiles and other sex offenders in the United Kingdom, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was introduced, requiring any person convicted of a sexual offence to register with police their whereabouts.

One of the main problems with such a register is that, invariably, it may fall (in whole or part) into the wrong hands. After Sarah Payne’s murder, the tabloid newspaper “The Sun/News of the World” purported to have the names of over one hundred convicted paedophiles and published their names and addresses “to protect the public and our children”. However, on several occasions, information was found to be faulty when people were attacked who looked similar to the pictures in the paper. Vigilantes walked the streets determined to “oust” paedophiles in their communities and chaos ensued. The newspaper, and the parents of Sarah Payne, publicly condemned the violence and vigilante acts but this did little to quell the fear already spread. The paper has even published a website claiming to assist parents to identify potential paedophiles and tell-tale signs of a child being abused.

As we enter 2002, there has not been any implementation of Sarah’s Law and the Government has so far refused to do so. They believe, along with experts, that the public knowledge of paedophiles’ whereabouts should be limited if not avoided altogether.


Many people, including the media, are guilty of labelling criminals by general descriptions and this is no less true in cases of child molestation.

A situational child molester often operates within a familial sphere, molests a child who they have unlimited and guaranteed access and, perhaps more importantly, is able to sustain relationships with adults as well as children. One of the key differences is that child molesters (as opposed to paedophiles) often realise and acknowledge that their actions are wrong. They often use manipulation, along with targeting and isolating potential victims, to ensure compliance and secrecy. Some situational molesters are married and/or living with an adult partner and may even have children of their own. It is this type of offender who is more likely to succeed in treatment therapy to address their offending behaviour as they are fully aware that their actions are both morally and legally wrong.

Paedophiles, on the other hand, do not appear to have a sustained ability to associate with other adults and so are often loners. They tend only to have associated with other paedophiles and/or children and thus have little adult contact. Their preference (both socially and sexually) for children further isolates them and many feel that their perception of children is not immoral.

Many may place themselves in positions of trust with children, such as working in a children’s home or scout leaders whereby such positions are mostly associated with children, not adults.
According to the Massachusetts Treatment Center, there are four distinct paedophile “types”: (i) fixated, (ii) regressed, (iii) exploitative and (iv) aggressive/sadistic. The basic explanation for these is that the first demonstrates long standing and exclusive preference for children and is most comfortable around children. The regressed typology is an offender who had “a fairly normal adolescence” and later develops masculine inadequacy and self-doubt. The exploitative offender is one which seeks a child to satisfy his sexual needs as a primary aim and uses manipulation to gain such satisfaction. The last typology is one which has a sexual and aggressive need for a child .

One of the main points to note here is that all these levels of paedophilia as described in Bartol’s book somewhat cross over the definitions given by Howells (in 1998) . He claimed there were two types, the preferential offender and the situational (non-preferential) offender. The former is easily identified as the fixated whilst the second is identified as the regressed.

However, it is clear that typologies are only effective in a certain number of cases as closeting an offender in a “typology” may result in focus being misplaced. For instance, paedophiles are known to be fairly manipulative (or else they would be discovered on a more regular basis) and can state their preferences to be “limited” to fit one type when this, in fact, may not be the reality. Even Bartol agrees with limiting focus by using offender typologies: “There is no such thing as a common ‘molester profile’.”


Chapter eight of “What Works: Reducing Reoffending” deals with treatment of sex offenders. It states that, of the 129 men released from the Massachusetts Treatment Center between 1960 and 1985, 25% re-offended compared to 40% of those who had not received treatment. Similarly, figures in the United Kingdom have also been encouraging: HMP Grendon is the only prison in the UK which has therapeutic methods at its core. One of the key points in Research Finding No. 115 from the Home Office found that there were lower reconviction rates for prisoners who had been at Grendon than for those who had been selected for Grendon but who did not attend.

A further study conducted by Carol Hedderman and Darren Sugg (commissioned by the Home Office) found eleven (8%) of the 133 offenders referred to a community based treatment programme were re-convicted within a two year period and of those, only six were convicted of another sexual offence (with the other five being convicted of a non-sexual/violent offence). One warning is given; the offenders may have responded more due to their levels of deviancy than any real quality in their treatment. Nonetheless, the figures are startling and can give rise to a feeling that treatment programmes can work. Their conclusion is simple: whilst the sample size is small, the results are encouraging and do imply that treatment, again, can be successful in treating the sex offender.

Yet another study conducted by A Beech, D Fisher, R Beckett and A Scott-Fordham indicates again that treatment has beneficial affects. One of the key points here states that child abusers’ levels of admitting offending behaviour were up and also found that there was significant changes in the social competence of offenders. This, according to Conte, is one of five dimensions which can lead to cognitive distortions which the molester may apply to his behaviour; both Marshall and Segal appear to agree as their findings show that molesters have lower social skills than non-molesters.

This means that they may use child abuse as an alternative sexual objective since they lack the ability to gain such an objective with adults. If social skills can be greatly enhanced, then perhaps, along with the other factors which may provide the psychological “profile” of a child molester being addressed, we may reduce offending behaviour of this type.


All the above information and the vast papers which state that some offenders do react well to treatment does not answer the primary question. Simply, should the State (i.e. taxpayers) pay for treatment of offenders committing such a terrible crime? An interesting quote by Donald West states that: “The notion of treatment for sex offenders, unless it is by castration, is unacceptable to many people, since it suggests evasion of just deserts.”

Since Sarah Payne’s murder, the public in the United Kingdom appear to believe that all paedophiles (or molesters) should be castrated, given life sentences, or even the death penalty where a child is murdered. This may not seem to comply with “due process” but, to a parent (or even a non-parent), it seems fair to punish so severely for the abuse and traumatisation of a child.

One point to note is that, as the dark figure for child abuse (in any form) is likely to be so great, are we really stumbling around in the dark ourselves as criminologists? Do we truly believe we can “cure” paedophiles or other types of molesters by psychological and/or pharmaceutical methods? The argument for not spending high levels of taxpayers’ money on treatment facilities is great. If, as is generally accepted, many abusers are within the home environment, are we really likely to stop offenders if they are rarely caught as is believed?

Only a small percentage (possibly as low as one percent) of child molesters are incarcerated and thus treatment is limited to those within the prison system. Whilst most of those in prison may be deemed the most dangerous (by multiple offences and/or murder) it still does not detract from the thousands of abusers who are not in prison and thus not likely to be subject to any form of treatment. This can be justified by the belief that those offenders who do wish to attend treatment (subject to the prison service rules) only do so in order to reduce their sentence and/or to gain privileges not afford with Rule 43 prisoners .

The ties in with the rationale that, generally, not all treatment works for all offenders and, unfortunately, it only takes reconviction (or reoffending) rates to give a true picture as to whether or not treatment has been effective. Again, since many may reoffend but not be arrested and convicted for such reoffending behaviour, how are we to know whether any treatment provided was effective. The small numbers, many may argue, do not justify the vast sums of public money being spent on treatment for offenders who may or may not find it useful. Other arguments are more emotional in that no amount of rehabilitation justifies the sympathetic treatment of offenders against children. The public demands (almost literally) the blood of offenders against children and are not satisfied when they see anything less metered out. Indeed, many accuse governments and/or prison service officials of being as guilty as offenders they release knowing that they are [potentially] dangerous.

However, what cannot be ignored, from a scientific and/or studious point of view is that treatment has been effective for (albeit small) numbers of offenders. What is also accepted here is that, unless an offender wishes to address his [offending] behaviour and believes he can change, any treatment will be limited in success. We cannot, it seems to me, leave any offender who recognises his behaviour as wrong and wishes to change that behaviour (or at least try to change) without some form of treatment. This is almost akin to leaving a sick person without medication. Since that person has already recognised their problem and wishes to rectify that problem, surely we have a duty, as a civilised society. to accept and attempt to help.

Whilst it may not be effective for all offenders we must try to support those who are capable of such change. We do not expect a limited number of cancer patients to die just because treatment is not effective for all cancers, so why should we change principles on the basis that the “patients” are offenders?


The question of whether or not the State should attempt to treat the child molester may not have been definitely answered either way here. Indeed, whatever the answer, objections are bound to appear. The argument against treatment is no less compelling than the argument for and both sides will continue to provide evidence that the other is at fault. It is hard not to see the reasoning behind the refusal to spend money on offenders against children because we all (generally) have sympathy for those victims and their families and have a desperate desire not to have our children become victims. Just as compelling is the want and need we have for those offenders to be “cured”; to be stopped so they do not offend again.

Whatever option we choose, we will be offending someone’s belief and principles and the argument may never end with regard to offenders against children. However, we must see that some treatment, if it is recognised as being useful by the offender himself, should be available for those seeking it. Anything less would make us, as society, just as abhorrent as the offenders we condemn.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Missing Persons Investigations of a New Age

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published in 1949. You’d have thought that his vision would no longer be up-to-date 65 years later. The world he described was a world where Big Brother was watching people, constantly seeking information about crime think or any other kind of offence against the glorious super state of Oceania.

Edward Snowden showed us, that what Big Brothers these days are doing is not all that different from what Orwell described. Sure, the technology is quite different from what he had envisioned, but Orwell’s novel is not about science and technology, but about the horrible world where governments might monitor our every move, observe us in our most intimate moments and know about everything we do. Modern day supercomputers, satellites and all sorts of technology make that easily possible for various government agencies.

Yet there is so much information out there that is easily accessible without any spying satellites, supercomputers or without bugging mobile phones. It’s the information millions of users are putting online every day of their own free will, just to get some likes, re-tweets or shares. People tell themselves that they are doing this to stay in touch with each other, but they fail to realize how much of their personal information they are giving away every moment of every day.

With more than half of Australians being active on Facebook, it seems like this would be the most promising social network to start an investigation. The information found on Facebook is truly varied. There are photographs, comments as well as check-ins that give away a person’s current location. Furthermore there is a time stamp on everything, which makes it easy to create a collage of events a person went through at a certain time. No special equipment is needed for all of this with much of it capable of being performed with a simple smart phone.

Of course people tend to forget, that social media doesn’t mean just Facebook and Twitter. Apart from other household names like LinkedIn, Google+ or Pinterest, there are dozens of other smaller, niche websites that cater to all sorts of profiles. Finding information across all of these platforms can turn into a large investigation on its own.

Investigating social media is not only about snooping either. People tend to forget, that Facebook is first and foremost a platform for communication. As many people from the younger generations no longer even have a landline and choose not to publicly reveal their mobile number, Facebook and other social media may be an easy way of tracking them down for communication or to even serve court documents.

Being a private investigator and not knowing anything about social media is something that has become unimaginable in this day and age. While traditional methods such as surveillance are still very effective, they are considerably supplemented with comprehensive desktop investigation based on extensive social media profiling and as the next generation moves more of their life onto the internet the value of this brand of profiling is only going to increase.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Ecommerce – The Importance of Having a Privacy Policy

A privacy policy, also known as an information management policy, is an agreement between a website operator and a website user that determines how the operator intends to use, collect, store, share, and protect the data that the user shares through interactions with the website. Even a little more than a decade ago, some commercial websites did not have privacy policies, but now, virtually all websites have one. These policies, which should be separate from the website’s terms of use agreement, are a necessity for several different reasons.

The Policy Can Foster Transparency and Trust between Operators and Users

In connection with privacy policies, website users usually want to know two things: what information the website collects and how that information is used. Best business practices dictate that website operators let users know the answers to those two questions and let them know how to control that use.

Some websites inform users that they simply collect information for their own use, and other websites disclose that they provide that information to third parties under certain circumstances. eBay’s privacy policy, for instance, tells users that it does not “disclose your personal information to third parties for their marketing and advertising purposes” without the user’s explicit consent. The policy says eBay may share personal information to third parties when it is necessary to prevent fraud or use the eBay website’s core functions. The extended version of eBay’s reader-friendly policy could be improved by specifically informing users at what points of service the information is collected and how it is shared at each point.

A website should also update users whenever the privacy policy changes. It should let the users know when the new policy will go into effect, and it may allow users to agree to the changes, explicitly through a dialogue box or implicitly through continued use of the website.

The Policy Can Help Shield You from Legal Liability

Although there is no general federal law outlining privacy policy requirements for websites that collect information from adults, several state laws and minor-specific federal laws exist. For instance, the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA) requires that website privacy policies must contain certain information, including: “personally identifying information collected, the categories of parties with whom this personally identifying information may be shared, and the process for notifying users of material changes to the applicable privacy policy.” The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires operators to maintain a privacy policy if the website is directed to children under the age of 13 or knowingly collects information from children under the age of 13.

Read for more for additional information regarding privacy policies, terms of use agreements, internet business, and eCommerce.

Darin M. Klemchuk is an intellectual property (IP) trial lawyer located in Dallas, Texas with significant experience enforcing patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret rights. He is a founding partner of Klemchuk LLP. He was selected to be included in the Internet Lawyer Leadership Summit, a group of lawyers in the US focused on Internet law issues. He also practices commercial litigation and business law, social media law, and ecommerce and IP licensing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off