How society needs to approach paedophilia (Mod warning post #12)

Red_Marauder

Yes, I think that is a very valuable differentiation.

A big part of the problem here is that people just tend to assume that everybody who has paedophilic thoughts is inevitably going to abuse a child or support child abuse as an industry, which I don't think is a safe assumption.

ChocolateSauce

WindSock wrote: »

Would it be easier to understand if the language was changed from Paedophile to a person who acts on their urges is a 'child molester' and a person who has an attraction to children (but won't act) as just a 'paedophile'

What ever happened to the term child molester any way? It seems to have been done away with.

I think it is a good distinction, one which I'm going to adopt.

Sleepy

Why do we automatically assume a child molestor will be male? Any studies I've seen quoted have shown women to be just as culpable in this respect.

If we wish to protect ourselves against something, our best course of action is to learn all we can about it and formulate a strategy based on the knowledge acquired. This is true of anything from a foreign invading army to the physics of a car crash. If we wish to protect our children from child molestors isn't the best means of doing so to learn all we can about their nature? By extension to this train of thought, wouldn't accomodating those with the attraction towards children (however perverse and stomach churning we may find it) with psychological help and support to both help them resist their attractions and learn more about the roots of the disorder?

By very basic logic, not every abuser has been abused themselves (somewhere along the line, someone had to be first).

WindSock

That's one argument of defence I never understood that abusers use.

'Well it happened to me...'

Then surely you of all people would know how wrong it is?

metrovelvet

WindSock wrote: »

That's one argument of defence I never understood that abusers use.

'Well it happened to me...'

Then surely you of all people would know how wrong it is?

Knowing something is wrong and feeling something is wrong dont always meet. That, compounded with compulsivity makes it harder.

miec

So you fully understand the disastrous effects that it has on people, and yet you don't think people should interact with abusers to try and understand them?
You don't think that abusers have any role to play in understanding how their minds work?

I was sexually abused and I did my best to, believe it or not, try and understand them, and do you know what I discovered, it didn't make a jolt of difference. They were unable to say why and I have since learned that the why doesn't matter. What I do know having experienced being the abused, and then as one trying to understand the abuser in a fashion advocated on this thread, is that it doesn't matter. That person is sick, they have a sickness, anyone who gets off on children has a sickness. One can theorise all they want, the actuality of the situation is that to act upon a desire to **** a child, and let me be frank I was forced to give hand jobs from the age of five, oral jobs and ****ing by the age of nine and worried about pregnancy by the time I was 12 (I started getting periods). That is the reality of child abuse and if my comments are uncomfortable and if I get banned for saying these things, that is the reality for the child that is a victim of sexual abuse. Theory I am sorry to say does not cut it. Yes I spent years intellectualising my experience but none it cut. The reality was that the abuse affected and wounded my spirit and it affected every relationship I had thereafter, my sexuality was horribly distorted and I am still disentangling it. I, however, consider myself one of the lucky ones because I am coming out the other end, I am a survivor now, but when you are banging on about considering the rights of a paedophile and trying to reason it, I feel the arguement needs balance from those who have been directly affected by it because of the shameful and secretive nature of sexual abuse, very few people talk about in its totality.

Red_Marauder

miec wrote: »

I was sexually abused and I did my best to, believe it or not, try and understand them, and do you know what I discovered, it didn't make a jolt of difference.

In fairness we are not talking here about making a difference for the victim.

Redress for the victim in itself has nothing to do with understanding the effects of their behaviour, it is simply to understand their actual behaviour from a clinical perspective.

The debate about engaging with paedophiles, as far as I can see it, relates largely to introducing preventative measures, not reconciliatory measures. It's about child welfare.

They were unable to say why and I have since learned that the why doesn't matter.

It may not matter to you but it can realistically be argued that sifting through the origins of paedophilia in an individual can be valuable to how society addresses the problem in future.
It seems the best method to tell us why paedophilia occours, whether it is a complex post traumatic stress reaction, a genetic deviation, or a mixture of both - whatever.

That person is sick, they have a sickness, anyone who gets off on children has a sickness.

leaving aside molesters for a minute, yes I think paedophiles do have a 'sickness' of sorts, and personally I don't see any evidence to suggest it is of their choosing. People might not care, or want to hear that, but some people like myself find it difficult to reconcile the vigilante-approach as is widely condoned with approaching someone who cannot control their personal sexual feelings. I find that a very questionable position - I should clarify - when the individual in questions hasn't acted upon those urges in a way that harms children.

miec

and yet you don't think people should interact with abusers to try and understand them?

Here you call those who act on their impulses as abusers, and you think we should engage with those who have actively abused a child for their own sexual gratification.

leaving aside molesters for a minute, yes I think paedophiles do have a 'sickness' of sorts, and personally I don't see any evidence to suggest it is of their choosing.

That may be the case and I said in my first post that those people who have those feelings but do not act upon them, should be offered help if they want.

People might not care, or want to hear that, but some people like myself find it difficult to reconcile the vigilante-approach as is widely condoned with approaching someone who cannot control their personal sexual feelings. I find that a very questionable position - I should clarify - when the individual in questions hasn't acted upon those urges in a way that harms children.

Can you give me a specific example of a person who has suffered the vigilante approach and are known to be innocent. This is at odds with your statment that why shouldn't we engage with the abuser / child molester / paedophile in order to understand them. You need to clear up your arguement here. Have you a problem with people witch hunting those who are attracted to children but don't act upon it, or does your need to understand the processes of paedophiles include those who have acted upon their urges.

In fairness we are not talking here about making a difference for the victim. Redress for the victim in itself has nothing to do with understanding the effects of their behaviour, it is simply to understand their actual behaviour from a clinical perspective.

Well when you are discussing abusers, ie:; those that **** innocent children and force the child to do sexual acts that they cannot understand or comprehend, you have to take into account of the victim in your theorising. The two are inseperable, you cannot have a paedophile without the desired child or the child that has been sexually abused by that person. People get upset about this issue because they cannot bear their children to be tainted or sodomised by a man or woman who gets off on children.

When you consider a sexual act between two consenting adults, there is choice. When one adult rapes another there is no choice. This lack of choice is compounded when it is an adult who forces a child to do sexual acts or forces themselves on the child. The ramifications of that abuse is so corrisive and widespread, one only has to look at what is happening in our society today with the priests sexually abusing so many children. The actions of the abuser, molester, paedophile not only affects the individual, it affects our entire society. There are scores and scores of wounded adults who are deeply affected by the trauma. This is a result of those who could not or would not control their sexuality. Wasting efforts on trying to understand them is futile, whereas offering support and understanding to those whose virginity, childhood and sanity was robbed of them is in my opinion is what is important.

Do I agree with witch hunts on those who have abused children, well I don't know to be honest, I could say it is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, but lock them up, keep them away from society, oh yes, very much so. I don't care what happens to those people who abuse children. You need to make your arguement clearer as to which type of behaviour you are defending, those that desire children but do nothing, or those that act on it because they cannot help it according to you, and if you say both or the latter, then your moral compass is way of kilter, irrespective of whether this is a clinical perspective or not because their actions have a deadly impact on the individual and society as a whole, so do please bare that in mind and don't you dare tell me or anyone else who has suffered at the hands of abusers that what happened to us doesn't matter.

metrovelvet

Well, would you keep a gun in the house with a small child?

The potential is enough for me not to even if it has never been fired.

I think that sociopathic value is endemic to this disorder and that would tell me there is an inevitable harm.

OP, why dont you check out forums for peados where they talk to each other? I did that when I was looking into sociopathy and it was chilling, but gave me great insight.

Red_Marauder

miec wrote: »

Here you call those who act on their impulses as abusers, and you think we should engage with those who have actively abused a child for their own sexual gratification.

Absolutely. I would go so far as to say it may even be more important to interact with them than paedophiles who have never abused.

Can you give me a specific example of a person who has suffered the vigilante approach and are known to be innocent.

I'm talking about people who condone the vigilante approach. Personally I don't know any vigilante groups.
I think people who talk vigilanteism rarely actually do anything about it.

This is at odds with your statment that why shouldn't we engage with the abuser / child molester / paedophile in order to understand them. You need to clear up your arguement here. Have you a problem with people witch hunting those who are attracted to children but don't act upon it, or does your need to understand the processes of paedophiles include those who have acted upon their urges.

There should be no confusion. I don't believe in hunting down child abusers or non abusive paedophiles. I think that where a child has been abused, it is the legal concern of the law enforcement agencies, not residents and neighbours.
I think both abusers and non active paedophiles should be engaged with, analysed, and offered psychological help. With individuals convicted of abuse, this should obviously be within the terms of their prison sentance.

Well when you are discussing abusers, ie:; those that **** innocent children and force the child to do sexual acts that they cannot understand or comprehend, you have to take into account of the victim in your theorising.

I don't think so actually.

This has nothing to do with victim redress - it's about saving future potential victims by addressing paedophilia at its clincial roots.

Wasting efforts on trying to understand them is futile, whereas offering support and understanding to those whose virginity, childhood and sanity was robbed of them is in my opinion is what is important.

They are two completely different issues. Clinical assessments and genetic studies of predisposition to paedophilia, as well as psychiatric studies of abusive or non abysive paedophiles has nothing to do with victim support. The people working on such studies would typically have no role to play in victim support within their professional careers.

You need to make your arguement clearer as to which type of behaviour you are defending, those that desire children but do nothing, or those that act on it because they cannot help it according to you

Where are you getting this from? Have you misread the entire thread? Nobody at all is "defending" child abuse or paedophilia.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, would you keep a gun in the house with a small child?

Personally? Yes.
I don't think I would leave a paedophile in a house with a child, if that's what you mean though.

I think that sociopathic value is endemic to this disorder and that would tell me there is an inevitable harm.

The verbs are telling here. You "think" something and this "tells" you what conclusion you reach.

Surely you have the horse behind the cart - that one is meant to be informed by facts and "think" or believe the conclusion.

OP, why dont you check out forums for peados where they talk to each other? I did that when I was looking into sociopathy and it was chilling, but gave me great insight.

I didn;t start the thread to inform a personal curiosity per se, though I do find it interesting. My initial question is to how we approach the subject as a society, and whether we can all gain a better insight into protecting children by understanding paedophilia. Maybe society at large needs to read those forums, I'm not sure.

Morlar

I think society's approach should be irreversible chemical castration for 100% of offenders.

Anyone who considers themselves a risk of offending and approaches the authorities about it should be given immediate extensive counselling and simultaneously added to any relevant registers/watch lists etc.

metrovelvet

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Personally? Yes.
I don't think I would leave a paedophile in a house with a child, if that's what you mean though.

The verbs are telling here. You "think" something and this "tells" you what conclusion you reach.

Surely you have the horse behind the cart - that one is meant to be informed by facts and "think" or believe the conclusion.
I didn;t start the thread to inform a personal curiosity per se, though I do find it interesting. My initial question is to how we approach the subject as a society, and whether we can all gain a better insight into protecting children by understanding paedophilia. Maybe society at large needs to read those forums, I'm not sure.

If you want professional, informed opinions, the humanities board is not the place to fish. Why dont you go on a peado board and ask them? I'm not being flippant. If you have the stomach for it.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you want professional, informed opinions, the humanities board is not the place to fish

I'm not sure that's for you to decide metrovelvet

Why dont you go on a peado board and ask them? I'm not being flippant. If you have the stomach for it.

This is an issue that requires the input of more than just paedophiles, quite frankly.

Red_Marauder

Morlar wrote: »

I think society's approach should be irreversible chemical castration for 100% of offenders.

I have no faith in that method,.

1. it's not a guarantee the abuser won't re-offend
2. wrongfully convicted individuals would have their life altered in a fundamental, irreversible way and be unable to father children - sure even a life behind bars is better than castration for this reason (and also reason number 1)
3. it doesn't do a thing to prevent someone new engaging is abusive behaviour. if anything it's probably a driver to make them even more careful about how their hide their actions and avoid detainment.

Morlar

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have no faith in that method,.

1. it's not a guarantee the abuser won't re-offend
2. wrongfully convicted individuals would have their life altered in a fundamental, irreversible way and be unable to father children - sure even a life behind bars is better than castration for this reason (and also reason number 1)
3. it doesn't do a thing to prevent someone new engaging is abusive behaviour. if anything it's probably a driver to make them even more careful about how their hide their actions and avoid detainment.

There is no guarantee with anything. This is the next best thing and nowhere did I say that they should not also serve lengthy /life sentences in prison too.

The good old 'what if an innocent person' excuse. You could apply that piss poor argument to any punishment for any crime, ever.

Your argument that chemical castration would cause paedophiles to 'try harder not to get caught' is not convincing either.

metrovelvet

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not sure that's for you to decide metrovelvet

This is an issue that requires the input of more than just paedophiles, quite frankly.

It was merely a suggestion. Guess you don't want those either. You dont want the perspective of the deviant. You dont want the perspective of the victim. You dont want the perspective of the layman.
Well, what do you want?

Red_Marauder

Morlar wrote: »

There is no guarantee with anything. This is the next best thing and nowhere did I say that they should not also serve lengthy /life sentences in prison too.

So if they're going to be behind bars for their lives, why would you castrate them if it doesn't actually guarantee a stop re-offending in itself, and is thus a weaker solution?

The good old 'what if an innocent person' excuse. You could apply that piss poor argument to any punishment for any crime, ever.

No, the difference is it is irreversible.
I don't know of any other punitive medical measure this state can enforce on a criminal which is irreversible, so no, it cannot be applied elsewhere.

Your argument that chemical castration would cause paedophiles to 'try harder not to get caught' is not convincing either.

It's not an argument, I think it's a fact that it would motivate them to avoid detection to a greater extent. Now if we have a better method (life behind bars) I don't see why you would invoke a method that isn't as proven to work and would be disastrous and unprecedented in modern criminal law for cases of wrongful conviction. Seems pretty illogical to me.

metrovelvet

Because the sentences are too lenient.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was merely a suggestion. Guess you don't want those either. You dont want the perspective of the deviant. You dont want the perspective of the victim. You dont want the perspective of the layman.
Well, what do you want?

I would like for you to be able to infer a rational conclusion from posts.

I am not saying I don't want the perspective of the deviant, read the post. I think that perspective would be valuable, but not the sole origin of any conclusion.

The perspective of the victim as a victim is not really going to provide any answers as to how we understand the origins of paedophilia.

And the perspective of the layman is also important, after all this thread relates to how society engages with paedophilia, ideally based on our knowledge of clinical and psychaitric case studies if possible.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because the sentences are too lenient.

we are referring to a life behind bars, not 'life imprisonment' as it is understood in the criminal law context.

metrovelvet

Well I would like for you to do the same, and even if posts dont meet your criteria, at least have the grace to over look them, rather than tell a sex child abuse victim her experience and opinion is insignificant, which I don't think it is. So even though you started the thread,that doesn't give you tge privaledge if setting the parameters of the dialogue.

Morlar

Red_Marauder wrote: »

So if they're going to be behind bars for their lives, why would you castrate them if it doesn't actually guarantee a stop re-offending in itself, and is thus a weaker solution?

As stated nothing is guaranteed except the death penalty. Your argument that because something is not guaranteed it should not be an option does not stand up no matter how many ways you re-word it. Nor is chemical castration a weaker solution.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No, the difference is it is irreversible.
I don't know of any other punitive medical measure this state can enforce on a criminal which is irreversible, so no, it cannot be applied elsewhere.

Murderers, rapists etc in some jurisdictions get lengthy sentences.

A 40 yr jail sentence is not reversible either if the person has served it should we therefore rule out lengthy sentences also ?

Again your argument 'what if an innocent person' is piss poor. It is the sort of argument made in a disengenous manner which attempts to shadow the overwhelming benefits to society as a whole on the basis of a concievable circumstance where a nano percentage may be wrongly affected.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It's not an argument, I think it's a fact that it would motivate them to avoid detection to a greater extent. Now if we have a better method (life behind bars) I don't see why you would invoke a method that isn't as proven to work and would be disastrous and unprecedented in modern criminal law for cases of wrongful conviction. Seems pretty illogical to me.

It is an argument you made in the post above. Chemical castration would cause paedophiles to 'try harder' not to get caught. This is a nonsense reason for not introducing it.

No matter how lengthy the sentence there is always the possibility of release. Given the recidivism levels among paedophiles it's a small price to pay for as 'close to certainty' as possible.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

rather than tell a sex child abuse victim her experience and opinion is insignificant

Okay metrovelvet,
please explain the role of victim support in bringing about a clinical or genetic understanding as to how paedophilia arises in the individual from birth through young adult to maturity.

They are two totally different issues. Everbody knows what child abuse is and that it happens, what we don't know is why it arises in the paedophile and therefore, how to prevent it from arising if possible. This is in the best interests of child welfare.

morlar wrote:

Your argument that because something is not guaranteed it should not be an option

That's not the argument.
It's the fact that when you combine our scientific inability to depend on castration as well as the fact that there is a better method (a life behind bars) as well as the fact that one must bear wrongful convictions in mind and that the irreversible nature of such a medical intervention would be unprecedented, as well as the fact that it's only guaranteed role would be to encourage paedophiles to work harder to avoid detainment, as well as the fact that the prisoner is incarcerated and not in the community, it is illogical.

One argument alone isn't enough in my opinion, but the combination of arguments against castration means it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

A 40 yr jail sentence is not reversible either if the person has served it should we therefore rule out lengthy sentences also ?

No but at least you can release the prisoner after that time, and at least you are allowing the prisoner legal challenge to his or her detainment. You can't offer legal challenge to chemical castration after the short procedure.

miec

They are two completely different issues. Clinical assessments and genetic studies of predisposition to paedophilia, as well as psychiatric studies of abusive or non abysive paedophiles has nothing to do with victim support. The people working on such studies would typically have no role to play in victim support within their professional careers.

No they are not, because without the person to carry the act out upon, the abuser cannot abuse until they get a victim. So you cannot seperate the two in reality.

The scientist that seeks to understand why a person wants and acts out their desires on children has to be aware that the person they are analysising has committed this act, which is thankfully a crime.

You advocate therapy to help the abuser as if they are genetically disposed to carry out the act. The chilling way you see it is that the abuser is at the mercy of their desires. That they are not morally responsible for their actions and that their actions are pre-determined. This is a gross over simplification of a complex issue. The input from all sections of society are invaluable in this debate, espicially the victim since they are one half of the issue. You cannot seperate the two and that is a fact.

And this is my belief as to why some people choose to have sex with children is to do with power. A child is small, not fully formed, they are vulnerable, they are smaller than the abuser, both in terms of physicallity and emotions, the adult has power over the child in every way and they get off on the ability to exerices that power in the most destructive manner. They seek to penetrate that child, not out of love or caring, because if they were loving people, they would know that their actions are destructive and they would be horrified. No they do it to destroy the child, this is applicable to male or female abusers and there are both sorts. Their actions are evil and of course every abuser shrouds their act in secret because that adds to their power.

It is for this reason that people react or feel so violently towards those who use children for their own sexual gratification.

midlandsmissus

miec wrote: »

I was sexually abused and I did my best to, believe it or not, try and understand them, and do you know what I discovered, it didn't make a jolt of difference. They were unable to say why and I have since learned that the why doesn't matter. What I do know having experienced being the abused, and then as one trying to understand the abuser in a fashion advocated on this thread, is that it doesn't matter. That person is sick, they have a sickness, anyone who gets off on children has a sickness. One can theorise all they want, the actuality of the situation is that to act upon a desire to **** a child, and let me be frank I was forced to give hand jobs from the age of five, oral jobs and ****ing by the age of nine and worried about pregnancy by the time I was 12 (I started getting periods). That is the reality of child abuse and if my comments are uncomfortable and if I get banned for saying these things, that is the reality for the child that is a victim of sexual abuse. Theory I am sorry to say does not cut it. Yes I spent years intellectualising my experience but none it cut. The reality was that the abuse affected and wounded my spirit and it affected every relationship I had thereafter, my sexuality was horribly distorted and I am still disentangling it. I, however, consider myself one of the lucky ones because I am coming out the other end, I am a survivor now, but when you are banging on about considering the rights of a paedophile and trying to reason it, I feel the arguement needs balance from those who have been directly affected by it because of the shameful and secretive nature of sexual abuse, very few people talk about in its totality.

Hi Miec, thanks for a brilliant and brave post. I myself was abused and I know how hard it is to talk about it, even to admit to it on an anonymous forum like this.

I am frustrated reading this thread aswell as it is basically about how to understand and help a person who CHOOSES to commit an evil act. What you said about it not making a jolt of difference, I agree. I don't think anyone's born a paedophile. I think we all have good and bad in us, you either give in to the bad and hurt another, or you think about your actions and dont do it. There doesnt need to be all this namby pamby, 'understanding paedophiles'. It all boils down what you would do in the moment - would you put your desire over another's pain? Would you commit an action that you know has been documented to completely destroy another person's life? It's down to each individual. I know I could never ever do it.

Where you said the abuse affected and wounded your spirit really stuck a chord with me. I am still afraid of men to this day, which affects my relationships and all aspects of my life. But Miec what goes around comes around and I think these people will get it coming to them for choosing to destroy another's life.

I've sent you a pm hun.

miec

Thank you very much for your support midlandmissus and yes it felt weird and scary admitting it here on a public forum but I felt it was imperative to speak up.

Whilst this point I shall make is slightly off topic it relates to the whole thread and it is this: there is more help and assistance for those in jails (sorry I don't have the statistics or a reference) than there is for victims of justice because a large section of society who forms our laws and culture are more concerned with the offender than the victim. It, in my opinion, has come from the whole determinism arguement, whereby someone's background, genetics, etc has caused them to be that way, well the last time I checked I had a consciousness and a will of my own to determine my own life and as such I exercise it. I believe we each have an autonomy and some of us want to do good and create, some want to destroy and degrade, those that abuse want to degrade and destroy.

Sadly people like Red Marauder want to understand them, which okay fair enough, but they do not want to listen to or take into account the other side of the equation, and that is those that have been at the receiving end of the degredation, hence why I spoke up.

ChocolateSauce

Chemical castration is badly named; it is simply hormone treatment that totally supresses sex drive, the logic being if a pedophile doesn't want to have sex, he won't. It's usually given in regular injection every few weeks (and so can be monitored by the law, if the castration is for an offender), and if treatment stops, the drive returns, ie. it is reversible 100%.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I don't think anyone's born a paedophile.

With all due respect, they either are or they aren't, and the evidence suggests quite strongly that they are. People are born pedophiles, it's how they're wired and it happened before birth. That isn't to say that people who aren't attracted to children couldn't abuse one though.

There doesnt need to be all this namby pamby, 'understanding paedophiles'. It all boils down what you would do in the moment - would you put your desire over another's pain? Would you commit an action that you know has been documented to completely destroy another person's life? It's down to each individual. I know I could never ever do it.

Without understanding something we can never properly address it. I fail to see how striving for a complete and balanced picture of the topic is something to ridicule. You obviously feel that people who try to do this are attempting to minimise crime; we're not (I feel sexual assault against children is so obviously bad I shouldn't need to state it), we're simply trying not to go on a witch hunt.

miec wrote:

Sadly people like Red Marauder want to understand them, which okay fair enough, but they do not want to listen to or take into account the other side of the equation, and that is those that have been at the receiving end of the degredation, hence why I spoke up.

I feel the arguement needs balance from those who have been directly affected by it because of the shameful and secretive nature of sexual abuse, very few people talk about in its totality.

Taking into account the other side is what is needed when trying to punish them or to determine how bad a person is, not when looking for causal factors. I can appreciate that you have trouble trying to see both sides, and I think you have more than a right to, but psychologists need to see their side, and judges need to see both. This subject should be talked about in its totality (I think it disgraceful that any society should make a victim afraid to speak up), and this thread is talking openly about one side, just not yours.

Red_Marauder

miec wrote: »

No they are not, because without the person to carry the act out upon, the abuser cannot abuse until they get a victim. So you cannot seperate the two in reality.

The scientist that seeks to understand why a person wants and acts out their desires on children has to be aware that the person they are analysising has committed this act, which is thankfully a crime.

?
I said that victim support and clinical analysis are two different issues - I'm not sure what point you are making or what relevant role a victim would have in collaboration with the investigating clinician or geneticist.

You advocate therapy to help the abuser as if they are genetically disposed to carry out the act.

Yes I am completely in favour of psychological intervention with an abuser - be it from a therapeutic perspective or a research one; preferably both.

The chilling way you see it is that the abuser is at the mercy of their desires. That they are not morally responsible for their actions and that their actions are pre-determined.

This is total garbage.
It's telling that you don't actually quote me on that, it's a completely inaccurate portrayal of what I have been saying in this thread from the start.
I'm saying we should examine genetic predisposition to paedophilic behaviour within populations as well as examine psychiatric histories of the individual concerns.
Nobody said anything about them being at the mercy of their desires or that they are not responsible, if you think that I suggest that, then I think you should maybe re-read the thread from scratch.

The input from all sections of society are invaluable in this debate, espicially the victim since they are one half of the issue. You cannot seperate the two and that is a fact.

Look,. it's not particularly relevant, but if you do feel this way, can you explain what role you think a victim impact statement has for a geneticist or a medical psychiatrist investigating the clinical history of the paedophile?

Do you not see any benefit in the medical community and wider society understanding how paedophiles come to exhibit paedophilic behaviour? Do you not see how that could have huge ramifications for preventing paedophilic behaviours into the future?

midlandsmissus

Red_Marauder wrote: »

?

Look,. it's not particularly relevant, but if you do feel this way, can you explain what role you think a victim impact statement has for a geneticist or a medical psychiatrist investigating the clinical history of the paedophile?

'It's not particularly relevant', do you mean to come across as hardhearted and clinical as you sound? You couldn't have been more dismissive of an abuse victim's very relevant post. To be honest I'm starting to question your own reasons for posting on this thread.

Of course it's important to hear the effects on the victim. How would we understand what paedophilia is if we didn't understand the effects of the actual act.

How would we know what rape is if we didn't know how a rape victim feels?

To understand the crime you need to understand cause AND effect, surely you should know this.

Or are you just interested in the paedophile side?