Paedophiles

T2daK

Shane St. wrote: »

seriously!!! who the fk is attracted to pre pubescent children and cant help it. dont buy it

agreed. Go get help is the answer

jive

Shane St. wrote: »

what a weird thread??op do u like pre pubescent children urself

No I'm fortunate enough to be attracted to adult women! Thanks for the inquiry though.

Shane St. wrote: »

seriously!!! who the fk is attracted to pre pubescent children and cant help it. dont buy it

Paedophiles.

T2daK wrote: »

agreed. Go get help is the answer

Help from who, exactly? The general public? If I was a paedophile I'd much rather keep it entirely to myself because if word gets out you will not be able to live in peace due to people like Shane St. and RachaelVO. You would probably have to move away from your own home and I'd imagine that the paedophile tag would follow you to wherever you moved meaning that you'd effectively have to live in an extremely isolated area and remain relatively anonymous throughout the rest of your life, which is a pretty sad reflection on todays society given they are, for the most part, accepting of all other sexual preferences. Also I'm sure they don't choose to like children. Sexual preference isn't exactly a choice and I'm not sure it can be 'helped'.

I wonder if there was actually a confidential support for paedophiles consisting of health professionals would there be a drop in those convicted? If they could be 'trained' to suppress their urges or curb them in some way? Pity that there are too many thick people in the world to consider the plight that others might have, let alone try to understand them.

Dudess

In fairness, I doubt anyone's suggesting a person with paedophilic tendencies seek help from the general public - but to do so from professionals would seem a correct course of action to take. The problem is though, as you say, there doesn't seem to be such a service.

Denerick

I think people are deliberately choosing to see the tag 'paedophile' and assume we are talking about people who act on their thoughts, and then get all huffy and self righteous in response.

'You're sick, twisted and disgusting' is not a response unfortunately, at least not one befitting the humanities forum. We need to understand paraphilias if we hope to help people, and I'm sure we can agree, tabloid readers alike, that treating people with paedophilic tendancies, or at least helping them to control their urges, is a positive thing.



... Or, of course, we could round up a mob and get a bonfire started... which seems to be the majority sentiment.

Dudess

Yeah, the ones who are predatory are predatory, the ones who are organised are organised, the ones who are evil are evil... but the fact that there may be those who would never, ever act on their urges and are none of the above seems to be getting lost...

Chuck Stone

The OP (and responders) are confusing consensual behaviour with deviant thought.

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The OP (and responders) are confusing consensual behaviour with deviant thought.

Well I'd say it's deviant thought but as long as they don't act on the thoughts, there is nothing to consent too, consensual behaviour doesn't come into the OP's point?

Chuck Stone

Op is suggesting that general public acceptance of homosexuality is at odds with general public revulsion for adults desiring sexual relations with children.


His assumptions are at odds because you can't be against people's thoughts. Thoughts are private and behaviour is not.

Shield

This is such an important issue that needs to be researched and understood, and I think it's good to have a serious discussion about it.

Louis Theroux did a special called "A Place For Paedophiles" in 2009, where he was allowed unprecedented access to a secure hospital which houses 500 offenders.

He candidly interviewed offenders who give a valuable insight into how their minds work or worked when creating situations to gain access to their young victims.

This won Louis the RTS award for Best Presenter, and it's well worth a look.

For anyone who's interested, here are all 6 bits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYPh4b-eRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-GKQkQ0vr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6gsGCUIZz4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS83Sk9DEAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltEppd-fcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58uN6YJMPUE

Dudess

It's important to have an understanding of what the hell it's about in order to treat the cause rather than just the symptoms. Unfortunately some confuse - or want to confuse - that with celebrating/excusing paedophilia. It's nothing of the sort - its aim is to stop paedophiles from carrying out abuse.

jive

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Op is suggesting that general public acceptance of homosexuality is at odds with general public revulsion for adults desiring sexual relations with children.


His assumptions are at odds because you can't be against people's thoughts. Thoughts are private and behaviour is not.

No because if they express their thoughts they become public. Because there is no understanding of paedophilia by the general public there is just a burn them at the stake attitude not unlike to gay people years ago.

diddlybit

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The OP (and responders) are confusing consensual behaviour with deviant thought.

I don't believe that they are. Behaviour can be policed, thoughts cannot. Many people on this thread are simply attempting to unpick the ethical problems surrounding the fact that paedophilia exists. Noone is advocating any form of non-consenual relationship.

There has been a spate of censorship in the last couple of years in which, artistic works are been censored because they were interpreted as being somehat titallating to paedophiles. The majority of people that view this art see it as art, those that are attracted to children, see it as the portrayl of their preferred object. But how can one differenciate between the former and the latter?

This form of policing thoughts has extended into other environments and there has been multiple individuals charged and on occasion, prosecuted for taking pictures of their children in the bath or in swimsuits. again how does one differenciate between people who are taking pictures for titillation and those that are simply recording family life. If we follow this logic, most people's houses contain child pornography.

This attmept to police devient thought has created a self-policing of behavior in which people are increasingly worried about how they behave around children, and how they respond to children's action. The majority of these people are not paedophiles, but the culture has created an atmosphere in which any form of behavior, no matter how innocous, could be interpreted as an outward manifestation of devient thought.

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

I think people are deliberately choosing to see the tag 'paedophile' and assume we are talking about people who act on their thoughts, and then get all huffy and self righteous in response.

'You're sick, twisted and disgusting' is not a response unfortunately, at least not one befitting the humanities forum. We need to understand paraphilias if we hope to help people, and I'm sure we can agree, tabloid readers alike, that treating people with paedophilic tendancies, or at least helping them to control their urges, is a positive thing.



... Or, of course, we could round up a mob and get a bonfire started... which seems to be the majority sentiment.

sometimes its just better to get certain people out of the way , the alternative offers little more than an opportunity for bleeding heart liberals to set up various QUANGO,s and talking shops and while thier is usually a decent salary for theese kind of professional hand ringers , bar making the paedo professors feel smug and pious , i doubt thier would be little benefit to society , the country has enough problems and cant afford such social programmes

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

If the person is a good person and does not act on their sexual urges then why is there an issue? They cannot help being attracted to children even though they know it's wrong. How come, as a society, we can accept gay/bi people but not paedophiles?

They are not the same - Homosexuality is consensual. Please stop comparing the public perception of homosexuality to peadophila - they are totally different.

I understand that children cannot consent etc. etc. but if the person who is attracted to them doesn't act on it then why would it be an issue? It seems a bit unfair that a paedophile would be discriminated against over something that he/she cannot change.

You make no sense. Why would someone want to tell people they have deviant thoughts - they'd just be percieved as being a risk.

Do you think people should be accepted if they went around saying 'I fantasize about raping children but it's okay, don't worry, I won't do it.'

You want people to be okay with this? WTF is going on here?

Obviously there would be issues in leaving that person alone with your children but even ignoring that I am of the understanding that the person would in fact be perceived as a freak?

No, a risk to children.

While obviously the acts of paedophiles should be condemned and severely punished do you think it is fair that they are discriminated against over something they cannot change?

If they act upon it yes - if they go around telling people 'I fantasize about raping children - but don't worry I won't do it' they'd probably be ostracised (and might get a good kicking too).

I think this is an interesting topic and hope it will be allowed to be discussed.

I think you're not really making any sense.

jive

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They are not the same - Homosexuality is consensual. Please stop comparing the public perception of homosexuality to peadophila - they are totally different.



You make no sense. Why would someone want to tell people they have deviant thoughts - they'd just be percieved as being a risk.

Do you think people should be accepted if they went around saying 'I fantasize about raping children but it's okay, don't worry, I won't do it.'

You want people to be okay with this? WTF is going on here?



No, a risk to children.



If they act upon it yes - if they go around telling people 'I fantasize about raping children - but don't worry I won't do it' they'd probably be ostracised (and might get a good kicking too).



I think you're not really making any sense.

I'm not comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. They are both sexual preferences. I'm compare the publics perception of homosexuality as a mental illness years ago is a similar view people take when observing paedophiles today. So don't try to twist my words, thanks.

No I don't want people to be ok with paedophilia. But I don't think it's right that paedophiles are discriminated against because they have a different sexual preference to other people. They may be perceived as being a risk to children and that's understandable but the fact of the matter is they are more of a risk because they are unable to speak about their plight to anyone. If there was a support group of health professionals who would work with paedophiles and help them curb their urges there would probably be less incidence of child rape in this country. There are support groups for the stupidest **** in the world but a major issue that is obviously prevalent in todays society goes without any support? A victim of paedophilia goes on to lead a life of mental torture. It's a serious issue and there's nowhere for a paedophile to get any kind of support which only worsens the issue.

I never said people should be OK with it I said that they should try to understand it. That's what's going on here. The public perception of paedophiles is that they are old men frothing at the mouth lurching around playgrounds - this is simply not the case. I'm sure the majority of paedophiles never act on their urges but we don't have any form of data because of the publics perception of paedophiles which doesn't allow them to reach out for help of any kind.

Also stop being so extreme. Nobody will say "I fantasize about raping children". I don't see what the big deal is. If these people could get support from health professionals it would curb a major problem that is very prevalent in the country whether we like to believe it or not.

If you don't think I'm making sense then perhaps what I'm saying is going over your head because everyone else in this thread has understood and discussed my point of view, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. IMO the majority of responses have been decent and informative with the occasional bigot chiming in with tabloid worthy additions to the thread.

Denerick

irishh_bob wrote: »

sometimes its just better to get certain people out of the way , the alternative offers little more than an opportunity for bleeding heart liberals to set up various QUANGO,s and talking shops and while thier is usually a decent salary for theese kind of professional hand ringers , bar making the paedo professors feel smug and pious , i doubt thier would be little benefit to society , the country has enough problems and cant afford such social programmes

Vox populi, vox dei... Not.

Dudess

irishh_bob wrote: »

sometimes its just better to get certain people out of the way , the alternative offers little more than an opportunity for bleeding heart liberals to set up various QUANGO,s and talking shops and while thier is usually a decent salary for theese kind of professional hand ringers , bar making the paedo professors feel smug and pious , i doubt thier would be little benefit to society , the country has enough problems and cant afford such social programmes

Good lord, you just seem as if you're taking the piss. Mere rambling of soundbites and blatant fallacies. And you haven't even responded to points put to you. You believe the symptoms should be dealt with, the "bleeding heart" whatevers (derp) believe the cause should be dealt with - and the latter would be far more beneficial in the long run in eradicating the serious problem of child sexual abuse.

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

I'm not comparing homosexuality to paedophilia.

Yes you are.

They are both sexual preferences.

Yes. If my sexual desire is to rape children then should it be equal to other sexual desires?'

I'm compare the publics perception of homosexuality as a mental illness years ago is a similar view people take when observing paedophiles today. So don't try to twist my words, thanks.

No. What the ****? Sexual relations between consenting adults is nobodys business.

Some predator trying to rape a child is a destructive pervert who only cares about self-satisfaction.

FFS please stop trying to normalise child rape - it is not normal.

Why do you seek to make child rape normal?

joseywhales

He, we, a lot of people are trying to understand it.
It happens, it is part of nature, we don't control nature but we want to understand it, how is that so difficult to understand?

If freedom of speech is a human right then freedom of thought would supercede human rights. I believe it's a fundamental right for a human not to feel guilty about any thought. What they say and their actions are the only things that society has a right to influence.

What defines a peadophile, someone with peadophilic thoughts or someone who has acted on those thoughts?

Morally speaking(my morals), if you physically or emotionally abuse someone who is attracted to children but has not acted on that attraction then you should face the law and not the deviant thinker.

I think that the comparison of peadophillia and homosexuality is a good one and i don't understand why people keep saying it's ludicrous since homosexuality is consensual. The OP established that difference at the beginning and its been re-affirmed over and over.

Peoples aversion to it is similar to homosexuality 50 years ago, probably worse even.

If people feel that they pose a risk to their children, do women feel that extremely ugly men pose a risk to all women?

Would you react the same to a pedo who said that sometimes he feels like he'd love to rape a child as you would to a man who said that sometimes he feels like he'd love to rape some woman?

Obviously both are terrible things to say but would you react differently?
Which one would you take less seriously?

jive

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes you are.



Yes. If my sexual desire is to rape children then should it be equal to other sexual desires?'



No. What the ****? Sexual relations between consenting adults is nobodys business.

Some predator trying to rape a child is a destructive pervert who only cares about self-satisfaction.

FFS please stop trying to normalise child rape - it is not normal.

Why do you seek to make child rape normal?

Homosexuality and paedophilia are both sexual preferences so they are not completely different in that sense. Although, I'm not comparing them as I've already stated so you can put that 'point' to bed.

What do you mean 'equal to other sexual desires'? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Just like homosexual people like people of the same gender, paedophiles like prepubescent people. That is my point. It is what they are attracted to. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what it is. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp for you.

"No. What the ****? Sexual relations between consenting adults is nobodys business." Years ago (refer to above post) homosexuality was seen in the same light as paedophilia is today. Therefore, 'sexual relations between consenting adults is nobodys business' was not always the case.

I have never tried to normalise child rape nor do I seek to normalise it. If you would like to point out an example where I said the raping of children is normal then I'll stand corrected but I'd never say that. It is not normal for obvious reasons.

"Some predator trying to rape a child is a destructive pervert who only cares about self-satisfaction."
That's not the case though is it. Nobody knows how many people have paedophilic tendencies, we only know about the few who have been convicted. There are probably many more paedophiles who are able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong and thus do not act on their desires. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who are attracted to children don't act on those urges but the problem is we will never know or help to curb the problem because people, much like yourself, have to take the high road in saying raping children isn't normal and paedophiles are predators. If you read this thread with an open mind and didn't come in just to bash paedophiles you would probably understand the viewpoint of many open minded individuals in here. Absolutely nobody in this thread has condoned the raping of children or anything of the sort so don't try to twist words in an attempt to make it seem like that.

jive

joseywhales wrote: »

I think that the comparison of peadophillia and homosexuality is a good one and i don't understand why people keep saying it's ludicrous since homosexuality is consensual. The OP established that difference at the beginning and its been re-affirmed over and over.

Thank Christ some body understood what I was on about. I've had to repeat myself about 40 times and still get accused of comparing it to homosexuality. I thought it was clear enough in the OP :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

So 50 years ago people thought about homosexuals what they think now about peadophiles.

Okay so let's just assume that's true for the moment.

So what?

Do you think that in 50 years time people might accept adult-child sexual relationships as normal?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Try to distill it.

seamus

Again you're confusing the concept of deviant thought -v- deviant actions. Let's get off the homosexual example.

50 years ago if you suffered from depression, you were either told to cop on to yourself, or you were considered weak-willed or possessed or whatever.

People suffering from depression would have nowhere to turn to, nothing they could do about it, and would be left with two options;
1. Struggle on and figure it out yourself
2. Act out, either by suicide or alcoholism or whatever other physical way it may manifest itself

Now, however, we have given (or rather are giving) people a third option by encouraging them to get help for it and realising that it is not necessarily something you have to hide, but it is not something which you should physically act upon.

And so too should paedophilia be treated. The difference is that people having such urges or thoughts have nowhere to turn to. They're back to the two basic options of "live with it and shut up" or "act on it".

Failing to recognise this problem by calling for the ritual execution of anyone with deviant thoughts actually increases the incidence of child abuse because you are not providing a "release valve" whereby people with these thoughts can do something to work them out without hurting themselves or someone else.

The aim is not that in 50 years that adult/child relationships are OK, but that people who have these feelings feel safe going to a counsellor or doctor to discuss it or get medication or whatever it is may be useful.

The problem is that if a counsellor came out offering paedophilia counselling services, The Sun and it's ilk would be camped outside taking photos on the basis of child protection, oblivious to the fact that they're actually putting more children at risk by discouraging people who are attempting to seek help.

jive

^ great post, explained it better than I ever could!

Chuck Stone

seamus wrote: »

Again you're confusing the concept of deviant thought -v- deviant actions. Let's get off the homosexual example.

Yes, I've been trying to tell OP to get off the homosexual comparison issue but he refuses.

50 years ago if you suffered from depression, you were either told to cop on to yourself, or you were considered weak-willed or possessed or whatever.

Not exactly - see 'Melancholia'

And so too should paedophilia be treated.

This is problematic. How do you 'treat' sexual compulsion. I'm sexually attracted to women - I don't think any amount of 'treatment' would stop me from being attracted to women.

The difference is that people having such urges or thoughts have nowhere to turn to. They're back to the two basic options of "live with it and shut up" or "act on it".

Why can they not seek counselling like everyone else? What's the problem?

Failing to recognise this problem by calling for the ritual execution of anyone with deviant thoughts actually increases the incidence of child abuse because you are not providing a "release valve" whereby people with these thoughts can do something to work them out without hurting themselves or someone else.

How the hell can people be executed for having deviant thoughts - you can't see thoughts. Having deviant thoughts is pretty normal - ever thought 'I'd like to shoot that bastard'? That's a deviant thought right there - it only become a problem when you act on it.

Also you're pressure vavle hypothesis - did you make that up or do you have some study on it?

The aim is not that in 50 years that adult/child relationships are OK, but that people who have these feelings feel safe going to a counsellor or doctor to discuss it or get medication or whatever it is may be useful.

This is being done now. Counsellors and doctors are bound by privacy legislation. There is absolutely nothing stopping people with peadophillic (is that a word?) tendencies going to see a doctor, counsellor or psychotherapist.

The problem is that if a counsellor came out offering paedophilia counselling services, The Sun and it's ilk would be camped outside taking photos on the basis of child protection, oblivious to the fact that they're actually putting more children at risk by discouraging people who are attempting to seek help.

It's not as if a counsellor would have 'PEADO-COUNSELLOR' written on the clinic door. What they could do is have all accredited counsellors and psychotherapists trained to deal with peadophiles who are seeking help.

Regardless, it seems as the OP wants the wider public to accept peadophiles much as they do with say.. depressed people.

I would say he is very niave if he thinks that is ever going to happen.

diddlybit

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not as if a counsellor would have 'PEADO-COUNSELLOR' written on the clinic door. What they could do is have all accredited counsellors and psychotherapists trained to deal with peadophiles who are seeking help.

It is a therapist's choice as to who they treat and many feel uncomfortable treating sex offenders, especially if they treat people who have been victims of abuse or sexual crimes. It's often seen has a conflict of interest.

Nobody needs to advertise these things, there are plenty of vigilante groups out there that will discover this information, regardless of what is on the door. If they can find and post the idenitites and addresses of convicted sex offenders online, finding out where they treated is easy. They may think that they are doing a service to society, but they really aren't. There have been many cases of mistaken identity in which people have been attacked because they resembled released photos and cases of vandalism to their houses or work places.

seamus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not exactly - see 'Melancholia'

Meh. Still wasn't taken seriously.

This is problematic. How do you 'treat' sexual compulsion. I'm sexually attracted to women - I don't think any amount of 'treatment' would stop me from being attracted to women.

Well that gets back to the original point. Is it a sexuality or an "ish", like being in love with a car? We don't know, it needs to be extensively and openly studied.

Why can they not seek counselling like everyone else? What's the problem?

See earlier posts. Stigmatism. If they told a doctor or consellor that they had thoughts of having sex with children, would the doctor report them? Then it becomes public knowledge and the guy's life is destroyed even though he was trying to get help.

How the hell can people be executed for having deviant thoughts - you can't see thoughts.

Ask a parent what they think should happen to paedophiles, even those who haven't actually acted on it - let's say someone who went to a counsellor for help, "outing" themselves as it were.
You'll get mostly responses saying, "Lock him up and throw away the key" or "hanging's too good" or "chop his balls off" - even if the guy hasn't actually done anything.

Also you're pressure vavle hypothesis - did you make that up or do you have some study on it?

It's as good as any other without more information on the condition of being a paedophile.

This is being done now. Counsellors and doctors are bound by privacy legislation. There is absolutely nothing stopping people with peadophillic (is that a word?) tendencies going to see a doctor, counsellor or psychotherapist.

Would you trust privacy legislation if you were a paedophile? There may also be certain cases where privacy legislation is overruled, such as where someone's safety is in danger. What if the guy admitted to having feelings about raping a child and it turns out that he has 3 of his own? Do you think a doctor or psychotherapist will say nothing to anyone?

It is actually the biggest taboo in society at the moment. You may as well tell people that you put babies in a shredder and bathe in their remains, such is the public hatred of paedophiles.

If I had these kinds of thoughts, I would be wary of discussing it with anyone, regardless of who they were and how much legislation backs them up. Many doctors and psychotherapists routinely breach this legislation by discussing cases with spouses or in an anonymised format with friends and family. It would be little comfort to someone who'd been outed that "Well your life is now destroyed, but you know that doctor broke the law".

Molzer2

As a parent of 2 I would like to thank the OP and all contributors to this thread especially to the person who put up Louis Theroux's documentary (which I had not seen).

jive

seamus wrote: »

Would you trust privacy legislation if you were a paedophile? There may also be certain cases where privacy legislation is overruled, such as where someone's safety is in danger. What if the guy admitted to having feelings about raping a child and it turns out that he has 3 of his own? Do you think a doctor or psychotherapist will say nothing to anyone?

It is actually the biggest taboo in society at the moment. You may as well tell people that you put babies in a shredder and bathe in their remains, such is the public hatred of paedophiles.

If I had these kinds of thoughts, I would be wary of discussing it with anyone, regardless of who they were and how much legislation backs them up. Many doctors and psychotherapists routinely breach this legislation by discussing cases with spouses or in an anonymised format with friends and family. It would be little comfort to someone who'd been outed that "Well your life is now destroyed, but you know that doctor broke the law".

THIS exactly. There is nowhere they can go for help because the risk of being outed is just too large. The result of being outed would, as you said, destroy their lives. The attitude of the general public towards them (even though they are innocent - deviant thoughts aren't against the law) would be so OTT because of what is written in the papers and how the public perceives these 'predators'.

"It is actually the biggest taboo in society at the moment. You may as well tell people that you put babies in a shredder and bathe in their remains, such is the public hatred of paedophiles."
Hahah that's putting it lightly. People's overreaction towards paedophiles is almost necessary at this point because if they don't say something really extreme it would actually be odd. The word paedophile is usually followed by a whole bunch of profanities and threats no matter what the case.

Chuck Stone

seamus wrote: »

Well that gets back to the original point. Is it a sexuality or an "ish", like being in love with a car? We don't know, it needs to be extensively and openly studied

Well seeing as a lot of pedophiles don't accept that they've anything wrong with them that would be difficult (AFAIK there's quite a difference between a sex offender and a pedophile) I think you might be getting the two mixed up.

See earlier posts. Stigmatism. If they told a doctor or consellor that they had thoughts of having sex with children, would the doctor report them? Then it becomes public knowledge and the guy's life is destroyed even though he was trying to get help.

No. You keep comparing the seeking of help by someone with pedophillic thoughts to someone who is feeling the compulsion to rape a child. A doctor cannot report people for having deviant thoughts.

Also, pedophiles are already involved with services, Probation Officers and Guards are privvy to information on pedophiles. Do you think doctors and counsellors are incapable of adhereing to privacy laws but Gaurds and probation officers are? Again your argument is without weight.

Ask a parent what they think should happen to paedophiles, even those who haven't actually acted on it - let's say someone who went to a counsellor for help, "outing" themselves as it were.

You'll get mostly responses saying, "Lock him up and throw away the key" or "hanging's too good" or "chop his balls off" - even if the guy hasn't actually done anything.

Utterly irrelevant. Nobody is asking that parents say 'poor chap' - stay on track.

It's as good as any other without more information on the condition of being a paedophile.

[On your self-created 'Pressure valve' hypothesis]

Again, I urge you to stop creating arbitrary hypothesis which you have no basis for.

I too have a hypothesis - pedophiles are possessed by the devil - It's as good as any other disprovable hypothesis. [absurd]

Would you trust privacy legislation if you were a paedophile? There may also be certain cases where privacy legislation is overruled, such as where someone's safety is in danger.

Yes, we need to protect children from rapists what's wrong with that. I don't care if it's bad for pedophiles - it's good for children and is ethically preferable to silence.

What if the guy admitted to having feelings about raping a child and it turns out that he has 3 of his own? Do you think a doctor or psychotherapist will say nothing to anyone?

The children are at risk - you're primary concern should be his children not the anonymity of a pedophile. To answer the question, The Doctor or psychologist should make a report to social services so the family children can be assessed for abuse and the father assessed for risk. This would still be bound by confidentiality.

[Pedophilia] is actually the biggest taboo in society at the moment.

For a good reason.

Many doctors and psychotherapists routinely breach this legislation by discussing cases with spouses or in an anonymised format with friends and family.

Evidence? How much is many? Is this your opinion or another one of your self-created hypothesis'?

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Actually it hasn't been proven. Not by a long shot. We've seen that in some cases, they are highly organised. So too can burglars, car thieves and terrorists be highly organised. And just like those types of criminals, we have also seen paedophiles who have acted alone and without any organisation.

But you fail to address the possibility of closet paedophiles who do not act on their feelings.

You use the term "evil" like it's a technical fact. It's an emotive term which fails to recognise that all morality is relative and few people are so morally skewed as to be completely without redemption.

In fact yourself and irish_bob have pretty much proven my point that any attempt to have a rational discussion about the problem of paedophilia gets shot down as an attempt to somehow legitimise it.
You've taken to the media spin that all paedophiles turn into inhumane monsters, drooling at the sight of children and getting involved in paedophile rings at the first chance they get.

Yet it's highly, highly likely that some (most?) paedophiles never act on their feelings. The problem is that any attempt to study it is met with the kind of rabid stonewalling that yourself and irish_bob display here.

A rational discussion? About a fully-grown adult - abusing young children (maybe even babies)? WTF?

This is not media spin. This is a parent talking about the biggest threat to our children on this planet. Personally, if one of my children had been abused when growing up, I would have cut the perpetrators balls off - and done the time. No two ways about it.

No-one's accusing you of 'trying to legitimise it' as you put it. You are entitled to your viewpoint - obscene as it appears from my perspective. You say it 'hasn't been proven' that they are highly organised and then go on to say it has been. Which is it?

You seem more intent on trying to paint everyday parents as some kind of closet paedophiles, rather than dealing with the (very serious) issue at hand. My daughter is 23, and still lives at home. I would still check on her every night before going to bed. She has always felt secure (something which I am extremely proud of) with me in her presence.

If she hears my footsteps on the stairs she feels secure and loved. Can you only IMAGINE what it must be like to dread the sound of your father, or a male relative, coming up the stairs or entering your room.

There is NO rationalising this. It is evil of the very worst kind. 'Morality is relative' my hole. A betrayal of a sacred bond of trust between parent and child.

And as for proving 'your point', what, pray tell, point are you exactly trying to make? Because it looks very like you're condoning it.

Freddie59

Denerick wrote: »

the majority sentiment.

Something which you fail to grasp at every turn. Do you honestly think - because you are in the minority - that it automatically makes you right? While attempting to interpret, maybe even defend, paedophilia?

diddlybit

...

diddlybit

Freddie59 wrote: »

And as for proving 'your point', what, pray tell, point are you exactly trying to make? Because it looks very like you're condoning it.

You answered this youself. Seamus and other particpants on this thread are attemting to have a "rational discussion" on paedophilia and your reply to him was both infammatory and accusative. You seem to interpreted what was said as Seamus is implying all parents are paedophiliac, which is ridiculous because that would be a ridiculous statement to make.

You also accuse him with not dealing with the issue at hand? What issue is that exactly? The stranger on the street corner? You may want to "cut their balls off" but frankly I don't see how that is dealing with " the biggest threat to our children on this planet".

Before the mob runs off to burn effigies of tall men in dark trenchcoats, could some please tell me exactly why attempting to discuss a subject that is both deeply distressing and highly emotive in a rational manner is so offensive? And possibly offer a solution to this paraphilia?

Is it so difficult to imagine that scientific or ethical studies on the matter might possibly offer a solution, rather than immersing ourselves in this moral panic?

Dudess

There it is: suspicion that there is condoning/defence of paedophilia on this thread...

Where?!

Some of us are considering the possibility that there may be individuals who have innate paedophilic desires (not something they have chosen) and who rightly do not act on them, do not want to feel that way, and we are wondering whether there is any possibility of them having these desires quelled. We are not talking about those who have paedophilic desires and who act upon them - such people should of course face consequences for abusing children.

RandolphEsq

Freddie59 wrote: »

A rational discussion? About a fully-grown adult - abusing young children (maybe even babies)? WTF?

This is not media spin. This is a parent talking about the biggest threat to our children on this planet. Personally, if one of my children had been abused when growing up, I would have cut the perpetrators balls off - and done the time. No two ways about it.

No-one's accusing you of 'trying to legitimise it' as you put it. You are entitled to your viewpoint - obscene as it appears from my perspective. You say it 'hasn't been proven' that they are highly organised and then go on to say it has been. Which is it?

You seem more intent on trying to paint everyday parents as some kind of closet paedophiles, rather than dealing with the (very serious) issue at hand. My daughter is 23, and still lives at home. I would still check on her every night before going to bed. She has always felt secure (something which I am extremely proud of) with me in her presence.

If she hears my footsteps on the stairs she feels secure and loved. Can you only IMAGINE what it must be like to dread the sound of your father, or a male relative, coming up the stairs or entering your room.

There is NO rationalising this. It is evil of the very worst kind. 'Morality is relative' my hole. A betrayal of a sacred bond of trust between parent and child.

And as for proving 'your point', what, pray tell, point are you exactly trying to make? Because it looks very like you're condoning it.

If it were possible to define a fault in a person's DNA so they could be identified as finding children sexually attractive, would you support measures to cure (a)those who have not acted on their urges and (b)those that have committed crimes? If not then what is your solution?

diddlybit

RandolphEsq wrote: »

If not then what is your solution?

A witch-hunt. What else? :pac:

Chuck Stone

In fairness nobody here is calling for a 'pedophile pride' movement. In fact I think the thread was started for dubious reasons personally.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

This is not media spin. This is a parent talking about the biggest threat to our children on this planet.

Of course it's media spin. The biggest threat to children is their parents. Children are umpteen times more likely to be abused or murdered by a parent or close family member than by anyone else on the planet. So by definition, if you are looking after your children then they are very, very safe.

But the media would have you believe that the most danger comes from without and paedos are lurking around every corner. That doesn't mean that you should be complacent, but we've gone too far the other way now.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, we've gotten to the point now where men are often scared or worried about seeing a child naked (at the beach for example), lest they look at the child and be branded a paedo. People have been attacked in public parks while taking photos of children's football games.
Will we get to the point where people start insisting on having "changing cubicles" rather than changing facilities, lest some depraved paedo sees them changing a nappy?

I'm really confused as to how anyone could infer that people are condoning paedophilia on this thread. The point is that it is not something that will just "go away". It's not new, it's not a modern problem, and thus far we have no solutions. McCarthyism-style witch hunts, the currently favoured solution, do not solve anything and only serve to make everyone wary of everyone else.

What we're talking about is what to do with people who have not committed offences, but recognise that they are in possession of urges towards children. What's your solution there?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's media spin. The biggest threat to children is their parents. Children are umpteen times more likely to be abused or murdered by a parent or close family member than by anyone else on the planet. So by definition, if you are looking after your children then they are very, very safe.

But the media would have you believe that the most danger comes from without and paedos are lurking around every corner. That doesn't mean that you should be complacent, but we've gone too far the other way now.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, we've gotten to the point now where men are often scared or worried about seeing a child naked (at the beach for example), lest they look at the child and be branded a paedo. People have been attacked in public parks while taking photos of children's football games.
Will we get to the point where people start insisting on having "changing cubicles" rather than changing facilities, lest some depraved paedo sees them changing a nappy?

I'm really confused as to how anyone could infer that people are condoning paedophilia on this thread. The point is that it is not something that will just "go away". It's not new, it's not a modern problem, and thus far we have no solutions. McCarthyism-style witch hunts, the currently favoured solution, do not solve anything and only serve to make everyone wary of everyone else.

What we're talking about is what to do with people who have not committed offences, but recognise that they are in possession of urges towards children. What's your solution there?

I have already given my solution, as you put it, and have been infracted for it. Might I ask - are YOU a parent?

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

Some of us are considering the possibility

And thisis the core of your argument - a 'possibility', as you put it??!! As oposed to the REALITY that is organised paedphilia. A huge difference.

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's media spin.

How so?

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

I have already given my solution, as you put it, and have been infracted for it.

No you haven't, or at least I can't see it. Your solution is to "cut the perpetrators balls off". We're not talking about perpetrators. We're talking about trying to catch* people before they become perpetrators.

Might I ask - are YOU a parent?

That's not really relevant. I'm not a parent at the moment, but there are children in my life that I love beyond words, so my judgement is just as clouded as anyone else's.

In any case, you and others seem to think that we can't/shouldn't do anything about paedophiles until they commit a crime. Can you not see that taking this stance will result in more crimes against children because potential paedophiles are not identified before they become offenders?

How so?

How often does The Sun warn parents of the dangers that their children face from themselves? When is the last time The Daily Mail carried a headline saying that, "You are your child's biggest enemy"?
Danger from the unfamiliar sells more papers, so the media slant child abuse to appear as though it's committed by evil loners hiding the bushes as football games, rather than the reality that it's mostly committed by the friendly neighbour who's just like you.


* I use "catch" in the sense of "Identify and help" rather than "Arrest and lock up".

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

No you haven't, or at least I can't see it. Your solution is to "cut the perpetrators balls off". We're not talking about perpetrators. We're talking about trying to catch* people before they become perpetrators.

So you want to *catch* people before they commit they offence. You've watched Minority Report too often my friend.

seamus wrote: »

That's not really relevant. I'm not a parent at the moment, but there are children in my life that I love beyond words, so my judgement is just as clouded as anyone else's..

Actually, no. And totally relevant. Believe me - when you become a parent nothing (and believe me when I say it) NOTHING matters more than your children. You will do anything to protect them. You cannot compare children that are not your own. It will give you a whole different perspective.

seamus wrote: »

In any case, you and others seem to think that we can't/shouldn't do anything about paedophiles until they commit a crime. Can you not see that taking this stance will result in more crimes against children because potential paedophiles are not identified before they become offenders?]

How do you intend to apprehend these people in advance? Minority Report again?

seamus wrote: »

How often does The Sun warn parents of the dangers that their children face from themselves? When is the last time The Daily Mail carried a headline saying that, "You are your child's biggest enemy"?
Danger from the unfamiliar sells more papers, so the media slant child abuse to appear as though it's committed by evil loners hiding the bushes as football games, rather than the reality that it's mostly committed by the friendly neighbour who's just like you.


* I use "catch" in the sense of "Identify and help" rather than "Arrest and lock up".

I actually don't read the Sun or the Mail, so I can't comment on their articles. Yes they are sensationalist claptrap of the worst order, but, equally, the same could be said about the arguments being put forward by some here in the 'let's try to analyse paedophiles' camp.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What is there to understand? It is, as already explained, a sexualy preference (shudder). Evil of the worst kind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

So we shouldn't try anything to try and help them if they are willing to seek help? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

I've a child myself, fantastic thing, but it can make people very irrational and emotional on this topic. Not always a good thing.