Honest answers to your questions:

Quote:


Though rarely encountered, if asked, it is almost certainly intended as a "shock control" question. The Secret Service is notorious for employing a "control" question about sex with animals.

Quote:


Whether one passes or fails a polygraph has little to do with whether or not one tells the truth to any particular question. Rather, it depends on whether reactions to the "control" questions or the relevant questions are larger.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 8:52pm:


Sergeant,

I fully agree that policeHopeful, like all applicants for positions of public trust, should be truthful in his/her background investigation. I also agree that lying to get a job is a horrible way to start one's career. And yet agencies that use pre-employment polygraph screening assume that people they want to hire will lie when answering the "control" questions. Those who answer all questions truthfully (including the "control" questions), and as a consequence feel less stress when answering them, are perversely at greater risk of wrongly "failing" this invalid test.

I strongly suspect that policeHopeful's encounter with a dog, as personally embarrassing as it may be, 1) would not be disqualifying if disclosed and 2) is not going to be the subject of any relevant question asked during a pre-employment polygraph examination. However, there is an off chance that he/she may be asked a control question regarding this topic, in which case complete honesty would be disadvantageous.

Dragon Lady,

I don't know whether policeHopeful belongs in law enforcement, but I don't think his/her regrettable incident with a dog at the age of 15 is necessarily a disqualifier. It certainly doesn't mean that he/she is unfit for law enforcement. And as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Secret Service, whose employees have responsibility for the physical safety of the President of the United States and other dignitaries, uses a question about sex with animals as a control question, not a relevant one.

Your question "How many other sex offenders have been helped by this site?" implies that policeHopeful is a sex offender--a criminal. But the available evidence leads to no such conclusion.

Dragon_Lady wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 10:02pm:

It would not bother me at all to find out that any of the men or women I work with had, at the age of 15, permitted a dog to lick their genitals.

If that's the worst thing they've done in their lives it's hardly worth mentioning.

If they did it at age 25 I think it shows the possibility of some sort of problem.  At age 15 I believe it means nothing.

OK Serge, what if the cohort was 17? 18? 20? ----where do you draw the distinction between natural male adolescent mischief and deviant behavior?  What if the dog were a horse? ----or worse yet, what if the dog were a 5 year old girl, and the applicant were just trying a shocking distraction (which is very common.) What if the 15 yr old boy penally penetrated the animal----is that just silliness, or narcissistic paraphilia behavior?

In war, people come to the defense of percieved victims in order to increase their forces----often times at the peril of credibility. In other words, you defend someone who you haven't the foggiest idea what sort of individual you defend. When it comes to sex addicts, sexual fixations, and the sexually violent, no background check or conversations with old schoolmates will do. Your hatred for the polygraph seems to have blinded you to this fact. Polygraph, although both weak and strong, has strengths in areas where nothing else measures up. Much to the embarrassment of law enforcement officers everwhere, the same personality attributes that make for great officers is also unfortunately, the same psycho-dynamics as those of many rapists. Type A personality. You would do well to be extremely cautious in defending sexual activities that you may or may not have criminological expertise in. Dragon Lady is quite correct in her comments regarding profiles of sexual paraphilia indicators.

regards, Paradiddle

policeHopeful wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 7:41pm:



I am a sick F? Why don't you tell the truth about what real sorts of things you did when you were "younger"----besides victimizing a defensless dog. If you did that to my dog, you'd decide to start licking your own genitals as I would break your back in half. The more you write, the more you remind me of a sex offender. Per your criminal-genic behavior, you are probably a sex addict in denial----that is a person who cannot pass up a sexual opportunity by will-power alone. Sex addicts usually will have a run in with the law as they typically either have sex with the wrong person, or animal or child----and usually do so when in a position of authority. When I was 15, I had a crush on my Spanish teacher, not my beagle. 

speechless,huh?

policeHopeful,  the concern I have about you is 

first you participate in bestiality.

Second, you want to deceive the entity that may hire you.

Third, you go to an ANTI site to find information on polygraphs rather than calling up a polygraph examiner in in your area and asking the source OR calling up the LE agency you want to work for and asking them annonymously.

Fourth, you have an anger management issues. 

If you keep writing we will start seeing more of you that you want to hide.  BTW, I am also a polygraph examiner....and will be looking for you.