Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Clearly it's not something that any sane or logical person would do, so why are we not allowed to think that they were genetically predisposed to it?"<< It seems that many (most?) child predators were abused themselves as children. I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but it's often the result of their own abuse that they develop into molesters themselves as adults.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "It seems that many (most?) child predators were abused themselves as children. I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but it's often the result of their own abuse that they develop into molesters themselves as adults." But couldn't that also be said that since a lot of the people are molested by family members, they are predisposed to it genetically? Plenty of people are abused as children and grow up to never do it as adults.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance If being abused brings something out of you that makes you want to do it to others, that's still something you were innately born with, right? Because not everyone that is abused will have that same urge to do it to others. The seed was already planted in there somewhere.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Think of it this way, adult sex offenders who legitamitely molest are largely male. But more female children are abused than males. So a large part of it has gotta be genetic, wouldn't it?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Plenty of people are abused as children and grow up to never do it as adults.<< That's true. >>But couldn't that also be said that since a lot of the people are molested by family members, they are predisposed to it genetically?<< I have no idea. Since I can't wrap my head around being sexually attracted to children, it seems completely out of the realm of possibility to me that anyone sane would have such an attraction. But in the wide, wide spectrum of human sexuality, I suppose someone could be born attracted to children genetically. I'm just saying that a very common thread in abuse cases are that the abuser was also once abused. It wouldn't surprise me if it were 100% of the time as it's such a very damaging crime.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If being abused brings something out of you that makes you want to do it to others, that's still something you were innately born with, right?<< I don't believe that. I think intruding on a child's natural development by introducing them to sexuality at an inappropriate age interrupts a person's normal pattern, and even could trump genetics. In other words, whatever they might have been becomes damaged and altered by the abuse, and causes them to pattern and model their behavior based on a their abuser. But I'm no geneticist, so perhaps it's possible people are born predators. I'd guess that it would be a small percentage indeed, but I am just guessing.
Originally Posted By mele I also have a hard time caring about this issue as I believe, in most cases, an offender who was truly NOT looking to re-offend would not visit WDW. They try to avoid temptation, not immerse themselves in it. It could be said that Disney is doing them a favor by keeping them out. However, I am disturbed by the idea of mistaken identities, etc, but, as much as I love Disney, I do not find it tragic if someone cannot visit. If someone is NOT the offender in question, they can go through proper channels to gain access. Might not be easy but if going is important, then they'll do it.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros But if Disney isn't alerting these people until after they've arrived, assuming there's a mistaken identity, it would be very difficult for most people to prove they were wrong. Most guests who are arriving in WDW have already turned their brain off for vacation; the last thing they want to do is spend a significant amount of time, energy, and/or money trying to prove that they are not a sex offender. It shouldn't be a challenge to get into the park; the price is bad enough
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 However, I am disturbed by the idea of mistaken identities, etc, but, as much as I love Disney, I do not find it tragic if someone cannot visit. If someone is NOT the offender in question, they can go through proper channels to gain access. Might not be easy but if going is important, then they'll do it.<< Everyone has this line of reasoning until they get stopped and inconvenienced. 3 years ago, my 4 year old was refused entry onto an airplane as he was born in Germany and had a US passport which has never been used. We ended up missing our flight and on our own dime, had to get a hotel and stay in Amsterdam, then we had to jump through hoops and contact the US embassy and have my military unit send documentation that I have been stationed in Germany for 4 years. 2 days later we finally got to go to go on the plane, but it's OK because we America is safer because of the hassle we had to go through right? Tired of those who think it's OK to inconvenience others because it'll make you safer... It's a false security and no evidence exists that it indeed makes you safer. If someone really wanted to harm a child they can do it in Downtown Disney or at the hotel....
Originally Posted By mele Not everyone is only worried about themselves...I am often fine with being inconvenienced for the greater good. You assume others think as you think. You somehow seem to think that everything should be easy and fair. Would I be pissed if I was screwed over? Yeah, but I would never expect all rules to be thrown out so that I wouldn't be inconvenienced again. That attitude is what's wrong with our society...me first, screw everybody else. That said, I do think that people should be alerted before they travel but I'm not sure how easy that would be, either. The situation is a mess. Disney is kind of screwed if they do and kinda screwed if they don't.
Originally Posted By mele If Disney loses customers over this policy, it's their right to do so. They might get sued by those being treated unfairly...again, their choice. Going to Disney isn't a protected right, if Disney screws with their customers, they'll lose money. If people sue them, they'll lose money. Their choice.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "If someone really wanted to harm a child they can do it in Downtown Disney or at the hotel...." Kind of the same reasoning as why make any drug laws since people will always be able to get drugs one way or another, right? Since we're not able to completely cut off access of every single child in the universe why bother restricting anything? Let molesters teach school, lead Girl Scout and Cub Scout troups, etc, etc, etc, because what's the use? They can get to kids one way or another, right?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Not that I'm necessarily for all drug laws, just thought that was a fun example to use at this point in time.
Originally Posted By TP2000 If Disney is combing through their AP files to match names to registered sex offenders, and then revoking the APs of those convicted criminals, then that's fine with me! Smart move, really. And if its 75 people thus far, that's only about one full trip on the Fantasyland Merry Go Round, and a tiny drop in the ocean of the 20+ Million people a year who go to WDW. The real trick is to try this at Disneyland with the 1 Million Annual Passholders and California's far more liberal laws. I doubt they could get away with it in California, but maybe they could? I think its a good idea. The less riff-raff in the parks, the better.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Hey, I like being a 10+ year, Magna Cum Laude Laughingplace troll. You should see my cool wooden club.
Originally Posted By AuroraRose "Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, once a person has served their prison term and any required probation, shouldn't they be allowed to do something as simple as enjoy a theme park? Some end up on the list when they had a consensual romantic relationship when the girl was too young... even when they later get married. Should a person's life be permanently restricted because a 20-year-old fell in love with a 16-year old? Do they also ban people who have been convicted of murder, aggravated assault, etc. once their sentence has been served? On the other hand, child sexual predators repeat their crimes at an alarming rate, so maybe it is OK to single them out for banning. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer. Certainly ban repeat offenders. A first time offender? I'm just not sure. It would depend on the situation." I'm with you on this RT, I'm not sure how i feel, the first thought that came to m ind for me as well were those may december romances..not all people on the sex offender list are child molesters. there are many instances where they may be. the second thought i had was sex offenders are everywhere, not just disney parks. My sister lives in a gated community, and there are two registered sex offenders in her development. should she move? NO..why, because they are everywhere! The next thought that popped into my head was that people need to watch and protect their own children, not rely on disney to weed out whom they consider criminals. Supermarkets are public places, Shopping Malls are public places, should they ban their shoppers for being sex offenders how would they tell? What's next, a scarlet letter?
Originally Posted By AuroraRose I figured out whats been bothering me about this whole thing..i keep seeing the words sex offender used interchangeably here with child molester, the people we have a problem with are child molesters, which falls under the broader category of a sex offender, a sexual offense for example could be prostitution, sexting, indecent exposure, etc. adult to child sex is considered molestation. I absolutely think child molesters should be kept out of the parks, but a person convicted of a sexual offense other than molestation, not so much. there needs to be a way to differentiate, if disney is putting that much time into matching names, they need to read a little further and see what the charge was!
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "there needs to be a way to differentiate, if disney is putting that much time into matching names, they need to read a little further and see what the charge was!" Considering they have only told 76 people they are not welcome in the park for this, they obviously are being pretty selective. Considering the number of people on the sex offender registry, and the number of people who book vacations and/or by APs for WDW each year, it is a pretty safe bet that more than 76 WDW guests are on the registry. There is no way they are excluding everyone.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Lost in the discussion here is that there are more than a few ways a person can end up as a registered sex offender. For example, an 18 year old male who has consensual sex with a 16 year old can end up being one if the 16 year old's parents press charges. For that matter, who here had sex as a minor with another minor? We're not just talking child sex predators here, or whack jobs who hang out at elementary schools. It's semi-abnormal behavior, but a guy who is caught pleasuring himself in his locked car can also end up on the list. People who frequent prostitutes can end up on the list. Heck, so can prostitutes. It is indeed a slippery slope, no pun intended.
