• Paradachshund@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is unfortunately not that uncommon. Pedos often work in child focused jobs. Very disturbing, and that’s why background checks are important in those fields.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only pedos, in general sadistic people tend to try and get jobs which would give them the feeling of power over someone, and not all of them can be dictators, warlords, just politicians, even lowly prison guards or policemen, also cowardice is a factor. So - child-related jobs.

      But, to be frank, I’m not sure background checks are going to do that much good. People of this kind tend to bunch together, help each other, and can either get past the radar rather easy or utilize these checks to discredit anybody who’d be a threat to them.

      It’s a complex matter.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which makes you wonder why religious groups can get around the requirements. I am actually not against say the Church of LDS spending money to provide free therapy for children I just want those therapists held to the same standards we hold regular therapists too. Which includes sexual background screenings.

    • jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is it honestly that surprising? Just because they are sexually attracted to kids does not mean they cannot love kids on an emotional level. I don’t think it’s impossible that there would be pedophiles who both love children and recognize that sexual and intimate contact is reprehensible.

      Put differently, I would much rather hear “child psychiatrist caught with computer-generated CSAM modeled after his patients” than “child psychiatrist caught with nude photos of his patients” or “child psychiatrist charged with sexual assault of a minor”. Comparatively speaking, the first is really just computer-assisted thoughtcrime, while the others mean there was actual direct harm to a child.

      Although in this particular instance, child psychiatrist is a bit too close to the child, in my opinion.