Talk:Sexual predator

Pejorative?

Delete?

It'd be more useful to say that this is a perjorative term for a serial rapist... define it a bit more... one that is often used in tabloid newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.243.169 (talk • contribs)

The designation has been used largely to politicize the issue, as a pretext for various forms of Megan's law which in some cases, like in Kansas, had even been used to criminalize sodomy and bring the people convicted of this into registries (before the Supreme Court struck down statutes against sodomy). In one case, even a married couple has been targeted, because one spouse was under age, according to the standard of the state (either Kansas or Nebraska).

The inherent slippery slope nature of the term which allows its extension to wider and wider reaches (for who would dare oppose its usage and application?) and the analogy to the situation in the 1930's in Nazi Germany with the emergence of registries, initially against behaviors considered deviant, but gradually extended to wider and wider scopes, should be noted. For these kinds of designations are always nothing less than the insidious pretext by which fascism creeps into through the false guise of protecting against "deviants".

It's used as a perjorative for a serial rapist, as you noted. But as time has progressed, as the article noted, its usage has been extended to wider and wider reaches, bearing out the slippery slope nature of the demonization behind the prejudicial language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.145.127 (talk • contribs)

I think the reasons given above are reasons a "sexual predator" article should exist. If a definition can be formulated, it can be used to draw distinctions between actual predatory behavior, such as tracking down children online so you can molest them, and acts between consenting adults in the (constitutionally protected) privacy of their homes. If you've found research indicating that "sexual predators" is a term that was created solely for political purposes, please include it in the article. Otherwise, your opinions stated above, no matter how well put, are original research and not NPOV.

Also, if for my sake only, please lay off the Nazi comparisons. I can't stand how any time anyone doesn't like something, they compare it to Nazism. I feel doing so demeans the gravity of the Holocaust. Furthermore, I think it’s pathetically weak rhetoric. It’s a crutch people lean on to vilify just about any idea they don’t like, which, ironically, in itself could be compared to Nazism. One could compare people who don't smoke, drink alcohol, cheat on their spouses, or eat meat to Adolf Hitler. One could equate labor unions, FDR’s New Deal, and even Amtrak with Nazism. Calling Megan’s Law or whatever else offends you unfair, unconstitutional, creepy, or stupid is great. (It’d be great if you could back it up with facts, but I don’t mind if you just say something’s dumb and then call it a day). But until someone starts shoving people into internment camps or gassing people by the dozens, likening ideas you don’t like to Nazism is just lazy. -Jim Campbell 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion secounded

This isn't an encyclopedia style article. The whole consept of sexual predator is ideological, politically motivated and biased. I propose that the article be deleted and 'sexual predator' redirected to human sexuality. Mlk2k6 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of my response in the section above for my opposition to deletion. If the article isn't encyclopedia style, you can amend it to be so. “Sexual predator” is phrase used in our society. If you can find research that it’s “ideological, politically motivated and biased,” put it in the article so people seeking to learn about sexual predators will know that. If you can’t find independent evidence to that effect, then your opposition is solely due to your own opinions and biases and that is not encyclopedic. -Jim Campbell 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note

A woman convicted of statutory rape would not be considered a "violent" sexual predator unless she actually used violence in the commission of that rape... This whole article seems emotive and poorly defined. I'm not familiar with U.S. law, but is 'sexual predator' actually a term used to classify offenders? If so, that should be the focus of this article. Otherwise it should simply be an explanation of the term.

Discussion of what different people consider a 'sexual predator' also seems rather pointless.

Rupert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)

References

The in-text citations need to be referenced in a notes section at the bottom of the article.

I also agree that the legal usage of the term should be clarified. I believe it has been used in a legal sense, but this article doesn't cover that very well. --DanielCD 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Predator Definition

Please take note of the various federal/Supreme decisions in cases such as Kansas v. Crane, Kansas v. Hendricks, and others, along with 2003 Iowa Supreme decisions in Italic textBarnesItalic textand Italic textGonzalesItalic text, in regard to specific definition and qualification to be classified a "sexually violent predator" by law, based upon extensive clinical work by national experts in the Mssachusetts Treatment Center and other civil commitment centers across North America. A sex offender, specifically, is a person who has committed sexual abuse, whether recidivist or not. A predator is a person who lures another person into his environment (or, conversely, assimilates into the other) for the purpose of sexual abuse. By definition, then, incest offenders (the least dangerous for recidivism once caught and punished) cannot be predators. A predator is further defined as one who is remorseless for his actions, is unamenable to treatment, and suffers from a "mental abnormality" coupled with a specific sexual proclivity that renders him unable to control his dangerous sexual behavior. Predators by definition qualify for civil commitment, not release to the community. Rarepearl1 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So "predator" is actually a legal term in the USA? I find this unbelievable. Call me prejudiced, but I think European countries are more reluctant to refer to human beings as animals in their legislation. Since the victory over fascism, that is.

"Most offenders against children are considered sexual predators no matter how many offenses they have". Um, by whom?, who says so?, some portions of wikipedia may be able to function without a citation for a while if generally eccepted but only if there a NPOV, it shouldn't be that hard to find a citation saying basicly that and until someone does I'm removing it.Colin 8 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that California, and most other States in the US, define "predator" specifically as someone whose victims or targets are strangers to him/her or his/her family and circle of friends. Thus, a person committing a crime against his own child or other relative, no matter how many times, is not considered a predator. Ref.: CA W&I Code 6600 et seq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickledpuppy (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

The most ridiculous thing is.../women not sexual predators

The most ridiculous thing about this article is the idea that 'sexual predators' are not exclusively male. I'd like to be challenged on this point and I am 99.99% confident I can accurately refute any opposing views, but there's no such thing as a woman 'sexual predator'.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Made-up stories like this are the exception which prove the rule.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a made-up story. Better sources have also reported on that. And I don't know how you are defining 'predator.' Whether you mean these women do not seek out sexual partners in predatory ways, or whether you mean they just happen to be labeled sexual predators because they had sex with an underage male once, for example. But either way, you are wrong. Enough female teachers have been caught pursuing underage male students. And if you mean women are not rapists, you are also wrong there...because plenty of women rape other women in prison, and look to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but be reminded of the famous movie line "Let him rave on, that men shall know him mad."Legitimus (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Legitimus. Thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2012

I do not believe this article represents a worldwide view of the subject and would like to begin a discussion on that point. To that end I request that the {{globalize/USA}} tag is added to the article. 2.98.186.128 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I agree that the tag is appropriate and have added it on behalf of the requesting IP user. I have done this only as a maintenance action and have no intention of participating in such discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words

" no matter the nature of the crime (violent versus statutory, a young child versus a teenager, etc."

This statement is incorrect, it is implying that having sex with a teenager is illegal, which is not the case as 19 and 18 year olds are legal in all states. 16 and 17 year olds are legal in many states.

This statement is a smear as the most recent DSM states that an attraction to pubescent females by older males is not a disorder. Therefore the statement should read

" no matter the nature of the crime (violent versus statutory, a young child versus an older prepubescent girl, etc."

I would have edited it myself but the article is locked.

24.239.124.140 (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does the DSM-5 (the most recent DSM) state that "an attraction to pubescent females by older males is not a disorder."? And by "attraction," I take it you mean "sexual attraction." Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Children who are sexual predators

What I find lacking is the discussion of children that are sexual predators. As a public school teacher, I see students trying to burn their teachers anyway they can so that they have "power" over them. I've known very mature looking students who lured unsuspecting older men into sex because it did seem to give them "power." Considering that it is a crime to have sex with children, it's sad that there are children that know they can set up adults of their acquaintance. 2602:301:7720:9970:54C6:2C1C:6707:CAB8 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)abhaille

Yes, child-on-child sexual abuse is a serious concern to have. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But what you are discussing is not well-documented. First off, how are you defining "children"? I assume you mean teenagers because I don't see any rational thought in stating that little children are sexually preying on adults. When a little child seeks out an adult in such a way, it is usually because the child has been sexually abused by either another child or adolescent (meaning a teenager), or an adult. As for teenagers seeking to have sex with their teachers, that is not classified as being a sexual predator, not usually anyway; it is the teacher's job to say "no." Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose to flag this article for deletion

This whole article should be flagged for delation as it only represents an American perspective on the socially constructed idea of a 'sexual predator' that appeals to an emotional audience for entertainment value and is not a scholarly term or subject. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AfD then and see how that pans out. Going by this search on Google Books and this search on Google Scholar, I'm sure no one will agree with you that sexual predator "is not a scholarly term or subject." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

Change "parties" to "partners" (confusing language) 173.63.177.86 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)