Paedophiles

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

Freddie59 wrote: »

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

Seemed you were infracted for stooping to the level of saying you suspect there is defence/condoning of paedophiles on this thread, which you're obviously intelligent to not really believe. And you don't have to be a parent to understand the damage child abuse causes.

Freddie59 wrote: »

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.

And those who are paedophiles and have perpetrated paedophilic crimes should be punished - the possibility I and others speak of is one which would be worth addressing in order to prevent child abuse, prevent people having those feelings for children. It really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

Freddie59 wrote: »

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.

Yes, how terrible that the problem be addressed before the acts are committed. Instead, LET the abuse go on and then sort it out. Your Minority Report stuff is disingenuous and obtuse - what we're considering is: a possibility for those who have these feelings to get help, then no child will be abused. Is it that hard to grasp?

Freddie59 wrote: »

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

It's "evil" to abuse children - but how is it evil to have these feelings for them that you haven't chosen, and to want to be rid of these feelings?

diddlybit

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.

These stats were posted earlier on the thread but, I'll repost them for clarication. Once again from the SAVI report, catologuing the prevelence of abuse and the demographic of the perpetrators. In consideration of common child sex abuse and the fact that four-fifths of children are abused by somebody that they know, that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends that the concerned parents on this thread should also possibly look out for.

Child Sexual Abuse (defined as sexual abuse of children and adolescents under age 17 years)
• Girls: One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In over a quarter of cases of contact abuse (i.e. 5.6 per cent of all girls), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either vaginal, anal or oral sex.
• Boys: One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in four-teen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In one
of every six cases of contact abuse (i.e. 2.7 per cent of all boys), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either anal or oral sex.

Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.
• Boys: Fewer family members were involved in child sexual abuse of boys. One in seven perpetrators (14 per cent) was a family member with two-thirds (66 per cent) non-family but known to the abused boy. One in five (20 per cent) were strangers.
• In sum, in four-fifths of cases of child sexual abuse, the perpe-trator was known to the abused person.
• The perpetrator was another child or adolescent (17 years old or younger) in one out of every four cases.

Freddie59

diddlybit wrote: »

These stats were posted earlier on the thread but, I'll repost them for clarication. Once again from the SAVI report, catologuing the prevelence of abuse and the demographic of the perpetrators. In consideration of common child sex abuse and the fact that four-fifths of children are abused by somebody that they know, that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends that the concerned parents on this thread should also possibly look out for.

[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

So the argument is that parents are the biggest threat to their children. Yet from the above stats:

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.

So 76 per cent were not parents. And parents are being vilified by others on this thread as the biggest threat?

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

Seemed you were infracted for stooping to the level of saying you suspect there is defence/condoning of paedophiles on this thread, which you're obviously intelligent to not really believe. And you don't have to be a parent to understand the damage child abuse causes.

1. It is not 'stooping' as you put it - merely from YOUR perspective.

2. Yes you do have to be a parent. Full stop.

Dudess wrote: »

And those who are paedophiles and have perpetrated paedophilic crimes should be punished - the possibility I and others speak of is one which would be worth addressing in order to prevent child abuse, prevent people having those feelings for children. It really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

How about grasping this: if they don't come forward - how do you identify them; apart from the obvious computer stuff?

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, how terrible that the problem be addressed before the acts are committed. Instead, LET the abuse go on and then sort it out. Your Minority Report stuff is disingenuous and obtuse - what we're considering is: a possibility for those who have these feelings to get help, then no child will be abused. Is it that hard to grasp?

It's "evil" to abuse children - but how is it evil to have these feelings for them that you haven't chosen, and to want to be rid of these feelings?

I would agree to a small degree. But how many of these 'self-professed' people have come forward? Like others in life, they only show remorse when caught. And not until then - when the damage is done.

It is the territory of Minority Report. No two ways about it.

It wasn't me!

So, because there's no way to predict criminal behaviour, your solution is to anticipate it by forced mutilation? Riiight... Nothing about that sounds barbaric at all, no sir.

diddlybit

Freddie59 wrote: »

So the argument is that parents are the biggest threat to their children. Yet from the above stats:

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.

So 76 per cent were not parents. And parents are being vilified by others on this thread as the biggest threat?

Not what I said. I said

that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CorkMan

Would it be a case of "any man" can become a pedophile if he doesn't get sex from a woman? We have seen in jail that men become homosexuals on the inside, but when they come out the prison they supposedly are straight again.

Could it be a response to not having sex with a women, like men having sex with each other in prison?

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

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

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

How do we get to people with depression before they commit suicide?

By having open services available to people who want to find it. I find it funny that you agree that the urges are in someone's head and therefore largely outside of their control, but in the same breath call it "evil". If something is outside someone's control, how can it be "evil". "Evil" refers to deliberate actions, not uncontrollable thoughts.

Can you see the logic that if, as you seem to claim, we should just ignore paedophiles until they become offenders, then you are going to create more abused children? However, if you make some form of psychological services available to those people who recognise that they have these urges and wish to find help, then you will reduce the number of abused children.

diddlybit

CorkMan wrote: »

Would it be a case of "any man" can become a pedophile if he doesn't get sex from a woman? We have seen in jail that men become homosexuals on the inside, but when they come out the prison they supposedly are straight again.

Could it be a response to not having sex with a women, like men having sex with each other in prison?

I wouldn't say "any man", but there are indivduals that fit this description. On the whole, these would not be considered "pure" paedophiles as they have other objects than children. In general, most would be within the family and the female figure would be absent and this absence would be utilised to commit child sex abuse.

IamtheWalrus

I made a similar point under a different guise some time ago. Apparently, I'm sick.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055094653

Tayla

Freddie59 wrote: »

Someone pointed out to me one time: it is a sexual preference. Much like woman likes man/man like man/woman likes woman. Which makes it all the more dangerous for children. Rehabilitation? I think not.

It's not really the same though is it, I have no idea how many people who are attracted to children actually go on to abuse them but it seems to be a hell of a lot of them. Yes there are some i'm sure who never allow themselves to do anything about it but what about the others who actually abuse children, that is not just acting on their sexuality, that is evil.

If a straight person, male or female, hasn't had sex with someone in years they don't*normally* go out and rape or abuse someone.
Same with gay people, they don't go out and rape people because they want to fulfill a sexual desire, in fact *usually* in the case of rape against adults it is for reasons of control/power rather than sexual desire.

Paedophiles who abuse do so knowing how traumatic it would be to their victims. It is evil pure and simple.

diddlybit

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I made a similar point under a different guise some time ago. Apparently, I'm sick.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055094653

Good post. Posting it in AH was brave.

Tayla

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is very interesting, in particular about the lower IQS and having suffered head injuries as children.

I have often heard that the reason that there were so many paedophile priests was because years ago if someone in someones family was a bit 'funny' that they would send them off to be priests. Is there truth to this?

Corkman, I think that people are either born paedophiles or in some other cases were abused themselves and therefore the abused becomes the abuser, I don't think a straight or gay male or female could ever become sexually attracted to pre pubescent children as a result of not getting sex.

JohnK

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting. From a potentially similar angle I remember reading an article on BBC News a good few years back about a man who, out of the blue, began collecting child porn and molesting children but it turned out he was suffering from a brain tumour. Especially interesting about that though was after getting treatment for the tumour those tendencies went away but after a resurgence a while later it was found the tumour was also back.

Dudess

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. It is not 'stooping' as you put it - merely from YOUR perspective.

It was a cheap shot - and something only a person of the "Dey don't want paedophiles to be sliced up, dey support paedos!" persuasion would actually believe.

2. Yes you do have to be a parent. Full stop.

No you don't have to be a parent to recognise the damage caused by child abuse, the danger posed by predators. Full stop. "I'm a parent so my view is more valid" stuff is silly. Anyone with empathy will understand the damage and the dangers. What about survivors of abuse who aren't parents? They, arguably, have the greatest understanding of all. Sure, being a parent gives you more of an insight into the fear parents have, but it's not a requirement for recognition of how devastating it is to a child.

if they don't come forward - how do you identify them

Well this is it. A person who has these feelings is hardly going to want to tell people - that's why we don't hear about them, only about those who have acted on their feelings. If there could be some sort of service to have the former evaluated and "cured" though...

Like others in life, they only show remorse when caught. And not until then - when the damage is done.

You're talking again about those who act on their desires. That's not what I and others are referring to.

It is the territory of Minority Report. No two ways about it.

There are two ways about it - where has anyone suggested technology to look into the future and prevent crimes before they happen? We're talking here about people who won't act upon their paedophilic desires at all, and want rid of them.

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

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?

Short answer? Yes.

If my brother confided in me that he was experiencing strong urges to rape children I would immediately tell other family members with children not to leave them alone with him ever. I would then tell him to go to a doctor and ask for a referral to an expert.

Pedophiles must be discriminated against to protect children.

And for that reason; I'm out.

Freddie59

diddlybit wrote: »

Not what I said.

No. It was what you posted.;)

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

How do we get to people with depression before they commit suicide?

Short answer - people with depression will admit they have it. People with urges to rape children won't.

Freddie59

Tayla wrote: »

It is evil pure and simple.

+1 to that.

BengaLover

Paedophilia is one of many perversions, the paedophile who openly admits he has a problem is just as dangerous as the 'closet' ones, or the ones in treatment.
IMHO its one of the worst kind of perversions there is, but I seem to remember a documentary on this and the fact that chemical castration does not alter the fact that they are what they are, and the danger is that if they cant use their body parts to perpetrate the act then they will either become violent or use an object to do the act with.
If I thought someone were fantasing using images instead of doing the vile act it wouldnt make a jot of difference. ANYONE who views children in that way, whether they follow through on those desires or not, should be ousted, prosecuted, hung drawn and quartered.

It wasn't me!

Freddie59 wrote: »

Short answer - people with depression will admit they have it. People with urges to rape children won't.

Really? You know that everyone with a depression problem will come forward and talk about it? Or even admit if if confronted?

It wasn't me!

BengaLover wrote: »

ANYONE who views children in that way, whether they follow through on those desires or not, should be ousted, prosecuted, hung drawn and quartered.

There's an argument to be made regarding the use of child pornography and imagery and the harm that causes, but for thinking about it? That's punishing someone for what they are, what they cannot help, as opposed to what they have done, and that's wrong.

JohnK

Freddie59 wrote: »

Short answer - people with depression will admit they have it. People with urges to rape children won't.

Presumably because society would react like this:

BengaLover wrote: »

ANYONE who views children in that way, whether they follow through on those desires or not, should be ousted, prosecuted, hung drawn and quartered.

Why would anyone seek help if this is the response they'll get? Instead they'll continue as quiet ticking timebombs that just might crack resulting in them raping a child. Seems to me that attitude doesn't do anything to protect children, quite the opposite in fact.

Freddie59

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pedophiles must be discriminated against to protect children.

Well said.

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

It was a cheap shot - and something only a person of the "Dey don't want paedophiles to be sliced up, dey support paedos!" persuasion would actually believe.

That type of comment never ceases to amaze me. Are you trying to insinuate that, unless someone communicates with a D4 accent, that they are not articulate or intelligent?

Dudess wrote: »

No you don't have to be a parent to recognise the damage caused by child abuse, the danger posed by predators. Full stop. "I'm a parent so my view is more valid" stuff is silly.

Of course you don't need to be a parent to recognise it. You have to be a parent to fully appreciate it.

Dudess wrote: »

Well this is it. A person who has these feelings is hardly going to want to tell people - that's why we don't hear about them, only about those who have acted on their feelings. If there could be some sort of service to have the former evaluated and "cured" though...

Again, how are you supposed to find these people? No-one is coming up with an answer.

Dudess wrote: »

You're talking again about those who act on their desires. That's not what I and others are referring to.

Minority Report territory again.

Dudess wrote: »

There are two ways about it - where has anyone suggested technology to look into the future and prevent crimes before they happen? We're talking here about people who won't act upon their paedophilic desires at all, and want rid of them.

The word 'possibility' of acting on their paedophiliac 'urges' was mentioned earlier. Now it's 'won't'??

Dudess

Tayla wrote: »

It is evil pure and simple.

That just reduces it to something that can be dismissed rather than something that should be looked into in order to prevent it happening again.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Short answer? Yes.

If my brother confided in me that he was experiencing strong urges to rape children I would immediately tell other family members with children not to leave them alone with him ever. I would then tell him to go to a doctor and ask for a referral to an expert.

Pedophiles must be discriminated against to protect children.

And for that reason; I'm out.

I'd agree with much of that - however, if someone's brother were to make such a revelation, I wouldn't agree with attacking/lynching him, which is the point I think the OP is making. Being concerned about children in his presence and insisting he get help though - different story.

BengaLover wrote: »

If I thought someone were fantasing using images instead of doing the vile act it wouldnt make a jot of difference. ANYONE who views children in that way, whether they follow through on those desires or not, should be ousted, prosecuted, hung drawn and quartered.

I think you're looking for AH - this forum is for reasoned discussion... Btw, not just men can be paedophiles.

Freddie59 wrote: »

That type of comment never ceases to amaze me. Are you trying to insinuate that, unless someone communicates with a D4 accent, that they are not articulate or intelligent?

Er... no? Bizarre leap of logic there. I'm referring to the stupidity of the sentiment, one which is held by people from all walks of life, including D4. The way I wrote it was in reference to a South Park clip. Why would it be specifically a D4 accent I'd prefer? The D4 accent hurts my ears and I'm from Cork.

Of course you don't need to be a parent to recognise it. You have to be a parent to fully appreciate it.

Only those who have suffered at the hands of a paedophile can fully appreciate it. How can a parent whose child has never experienced sexual abuse fully appreciate the effects?

Again, how are you supposed to find these people? No-one is coming up with an answer.

If there were a service they could avail of in confidence though...

Minority Report territory again.

It's a great book/film, but what exactly do you mean when you keep mentioning it? Nobody has suggested the strategy which is central to it. How can the suggestion that those with such desires get help for them in order to hopefully quell them be veering into Minority Report territory?

The word 'possibility' of acting on their paedophiliac 'urges' was mentioned earlier. Now it's 'won't'??

Holy unnecessary dissecting, Batman! Ok, "What we're suggesting is the possibility of there being individuals who have paedophilic desires but won't act on them and want rid of them."

Tayla

Dudess wrote: »

That just reduces it to something that can be dismissed rather than something that should be looked into in order to prevent it happening again.

No it doesn't, a paedophile who does abuse children is dangerous, they do it knowing how damaging it is to a childs life, it is evil, my mind will never be changed on that.

I watched the documentary posted earlier in this thread, now I know that the program to rehabilitate these men did not have a high success rate and therefore a lot of these convicted sex offenders would not see any point in trying to complete the program but 70% of them would not try to get released through the program at all, to me that means that 70% of those men do not want to change. They specified in the documentary that a lot of the non participating men were launching legal appeals instead but why would they not try to do these programs as well?

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

No it doesn't, a paedophile who does abuse children is dangerous, they do it knowing how damaging it is to a childs life, it is evil, my mind will never be changed on that.

I watched the documentary posted earlier in this thread, now I know that the program to rehabilitate these men did not have a high success rate and therefore a lot of these convicted sex offenders would not see any point in trying to complete the program but 70% of them would not try to get released through the program at all, to me that means that 70% of those men do not want to change. They specified in the documentary that a lot of the non participating men were launching legal appeals instead but why would they not try to do these programs as well?

The way I look at is not from the prison side of things but from the point made about a brother coming to you and saying they have paedophile urges. The law can't put that person is prison as it isn't illegal, only when they act on it, including downloading images, so the law has that side covered, it is illegal to act on these urges, it recognises the deviancy.

If somebody could feel they could admit to this thinking, then like the case mentioned earlier, the brother could be helped and aided to seek out treatment. The problem is, with the total disdain that paedophilia is held, I think it is extremely unlikely they will admit it, the brother will not tell you.

So, instead of them getting help and a 30% of success, there is a huge chance they might act on the desire. By pointing to a 70% failure rate, people ignore the 30% success rate.

30%, while not great is, to use the emotional line used here, somebodies daughter/son/niece/neighbour/nephew. Why would people so concerned with children dismiss that?

Because they don't want to think that anybody can be cured or helped cope with it, far easier to condemn.

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

The way I look at is not from the prison side of things but from the point made about a brother coming to you and saying they have paedophile urges. The law can't put that person is prison as it isn't illegal, only when they act on it, including downloading images, so the law has that side covered, it is illegal to act on these urges, it recognises the deviancy.

If somebody could feel they could admit to this thinking, then like the case mentioned earlier, the brother could be helped and aided to seek out treatment. The problem is, with the total disdain that paedophilia is held, I think it is extremely unlikely they will admit it, the brother will not tell you.

I do understand where you are coming from, I reckon there are plenty of people who are attracted to children who won't act on it, to those people it genuinely is just a sexual preference, they have the empathy and consciences that most *normal* people have which will stop them from ever doing something like that.

The paedophiles who do abuse children are not normal, it's not just a sexuality, they don't care about how much they are destroying peoples lives, I don't think any of those ones ever would try to seek help anyway.

In my opinion most of the time it would probably be the ones who would never abuse anyway who would ask for help and they probably would need the help more for their own sanity rather than to prevent them abusing children.

K-9 wrote: »

So, instead of them getting help and a 30% of success, there is a huge chance they might act on the desire. By pointing to a 70% failure rate, people ignore the 30% success rate.

30%, while not great is, to use the emotional line used here, somebodies daughter/son/niece/neighbour/nephew. Why would people so concerned with children dismiss that?

Because they don't want to think that anybody can be cured or helped cope with it, far easier to condemn.

There wasn't actually a 30% success rate, the success rate was actually tiny, 30% of the men in the centre chose to actually go through the program, only 13 had been actually deemed to be cured and one of those had to be physically castrated.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

I do understand where you are coming from, I reckon there are plenty of people who are attracted to children who won't act on it, to those people it genuinely is just a sexual preference, they have the empathy and consciences that most *normal* people have which will stop them from ever doing something like that.

The paedophiles who do abuse children are not normal, it's not just a sexuality, they don't care about how much they are destroying peoples lives, I don't think any of those ones ever would try to seek help anyway.

In my opinion most of the time it would probably be the ones who would never abuse anyway who would ask for help and they probably would need the help more for their own sanity rather than to prevent them abusing children.




There wasn't actually a 30% success rate, the success rate was actually tiny, 30% of the men in the centre chose to actually go through the program, only 13 had been actually deemed to be cured and one of those had to be physically castrated.

Ah right. The problem then is we don't know how many do "cope", why they can do that and others can't.

Maybe it is that they are just evil and can't control urges.

I don't know enough about it. What I'd be worried about is that at some stage, some of those who did act out the depravity, could have seeked out help at some stage.

Again, it might not have been that successful, but if it means 10/20 less victims a year, 10/20 less daughters/sons/nephews/nieces, I think it is worth the effort.

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right. The problem then is we don't know how many do "cope", why they can do that and others can't.

Maybe it is that they are just evil and can't control urges.

I had meant to add in to my last post about that, there are plenty of people in the world who lack the consciences and empathy and normal emotions that others have, there are a lot of sadistic people who definitely do seem to just not give a s**t about other people, people who torture and abuse people for fun, those people are probably sociopaths and are very dangerous people but paedophiles could be perfectly normal most of the time and then decide to abuse children at every oppurtunity they get.
The really dangerous paedophiles are the ones who do not believe they are doing anything wrong, how can that be changed, it's impossible.

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know enough about it. What I'd be worried about is that at some stage, some of those who did act out the depravity, could have seeked out help at some stage.

I don't know enough about it either really, you're right though, if there was some help that could be given and it wasn't then that is a terrible terrible shame for their victims and families etc.

K-9 wrote: »

Again, it might not have been that successful, but if it means 10/20 less victims a year, 10/20 less daughters/sons/nephews/nieces, I think it is worth the effort. .

100% agree with this but they could also save a lot of children from abuse if the garda here alerted us to paedophile presence in the area but we do not have that right unfortunately.

Logical Fallacy

CorkMan wrote: »

I'm confused as to why people become pedophiles.

I don't think people "become" pedophiles...i think they are driven by the same kind or urges that drive you when you see a member of your sexually preferred gender who is attractive to you.

If "not getting female sex" could be a cause I think there would be more pedophile priests, as the overwhelmingly majority never had sex before.

I think it's reasonable apparent that there have been a reasonable number of pedophiles within the Church given the scandals that occurred. However, it would be a more salient argument to imply that the Church gave them a good cover and access to their victims, along with respect within the community and a means of support. People don't question why a priest does not have a pretty lady on his arm, or why he might need to meet with young kids etc...or at least they didn't.

I think it goes against nature itself to molest children, loads of different animals are part-gay, but how many pedophiles?

I think you are simplifying a complex issue. It goes against "human nature" to molest children, i don't even mean as a society taboo...I just mean most people are attracted to obvious sexuality. With regards to animals...different lengths of life need to be considered. As an example a female lion will normally end up having cubs by the time she is four years old.

I think for that reason it is a mental illness, or a product of low self-esteem or something.

Once again i reckon this is oversimplification. It very easy to say things that are different are mental illness, it's actually a nice easy answer that makes everyone feel better as the person becomes deviant to normality.

xxtattyberxx

I'm shocked that this is even a topic

Never mind putting a Paedophile into prison, or housing for 'mental issues', add up the cost of that ,as well as courts, physc anologys, doctor reports, wasted police time and think what its costing the tax payer.
They should be shot on sight, maybe then we'd have decent roads rather then helping these people/things!
In my opinion and only my opinion any male/female who could remotely think of touching a child should do the world and especially that child a favour and tie there own noose.
No child should ever be touched by anybody.
A Paedophile can do his time, walk a way a reformed person, having found religion and the yellow brick road but the person that they affected will never have what was theres back. Their innocence, trust, faith ... GONE all cause someone had urges, desires.... there words Id associate with wanting a sneaky bar of choc, not destroying an innocent childs life, so Im even pissed them words are greatly associated with them

I will never have sympathy for a paedo, I would shoot on site and not shed a tear.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

xxtattyberxx wrote: »

I'm shocked that this is even a topic

Never mind putting a Paedophile into prison, or housing for 'mental issues', add up the cost of that ,as well as courts, physc anologys, doctor reports, wasted police time and think what its costing the tax payer.
They should be shot on sight, maybe then we'd have decent roads rather then helping these people/things!
In my opinion and only my opinion any male/female who could remotely think of touching a child should do the world and especially that child a favour and tie there own noose.
No child should ever be touched by anybody.
A Paedophile can do his time, walk a way a reformed person, having found religion and the yellow brick road but the person that they affected will never have what was theres back. Their innocence, trust, faith ... GONE all cause someone had urges, desires.... there words Id associate with wanting a sneaky bar of choc, not destroying an innocent childs life, so Im even pissed them words are greatly associated with them

I will never have sympathy for a paedo, I would shoot on site and not shed a tear.

Woosh... The point - you missed it. But you did get to indulge in a good auld violence fantasy, so... win, I guess.

xxtattyberxx

Dudess wrote: »

Woosh... The point - you missed it. But you did get to indulge in a good auld violence fantasy, so... win, I guess.

Considering the opening sentence in this topic was
'How do you feel about paedophiles'?
I think I made my feeling very clear and straight forward.
And unless you know someone very well I dont think your in a great position to speculate what is and isn't a 'good auld violence fantasy', ya never know what people like to indulge in.

Dudess

I ain't a fan of paedophiles who abuse children either, however it's been made abundantly clear that what is being referred to on this thread is someone who harbours a desire for children not through choice, and who wants rid of these feelings, and who certainly doesn't want to act on these feelings. Saying someone like that should be shot or "hung, drawn and quartered" is, frankly, idiotic - and displays little to no thought.

Someone like that deserves treatment - they haven't done anything wrong other than have feelings, which are horrible, but not their choice. Fair enough to be cagey about them being in the company of children, but advocating violence against them for feelings/thoughts is messed up (as are their feelings/thoughts before you say it).

xxtattyberxx

No I dont think anybody would be a fan really.
In my opinion and only my opinion, and call me an idiot if it helps you feel better, but anyone who got an inciling of a sexual thought towards a child.... would I help them.... No I wouldn't , and I would have little to no respect for someone who does.
As for being 'cagey bout letting them around kids', no I wouldnt be cagey, Id be livid.
And the sad matter of fact is IF someone was to come forward, look for help and genuinly seek support, there name would be stuck on a waiting list and what happens than. The smaratians have had enourmous training along with RCC and yet the # of victims is rising every year. So even with facilitys there to help support them and help them its still doing no good. I think I read someone in a earlyer post i this thread referring to it as 'ticking time bomb'
Sorry but Id rather protect a child and save the tax payers money rather then 'help' , there isnt a tablet or injection that can help rid the thoughts, even people with depression take yrs of counselling before they start to come put the brighter side.
I know I most certainly wouldnt trust somebody man/woman who's had these thoughts, even if they are in therapy to be anywhere near a child, and I dont mean living in the same street, that in itself would still be to close.

Dudess

xxtattyberxx wrote: »

call me an idiot if it helps you feel better

I'm not saying you are an idiot, but kneejerk violent reactions are idiotic.

but anyone who got an inciling of a sexual thought towards a child.... would I help them.... No I wouldn't , and I would have little to no respect for someone who does.

But you'd acknowledge they can't help it? You'd swear it was something they could control. I repeat, I'm not talking about those who actually act on their feelings - they obviously waive their right to sympathy/respect.

As for being 'cagey bout letting them around kids', no I wouldnt be cagey, Id be livid.

There'd be no need to be livid - you could just be vigilant that they don't be around kids. As long as nothing happens, why be livid?

Shooting wouldn't make paedophilia go away - addressing what causes it though and using that information to try and formulate something that could prevent it happening again seems more to have children's interests at heart, in my opinion.

Zombrex

jive wrote: »

How do people feel about paedophiles?

There used to be a stigma associated with gay people (this is now gone for the most part but is still present). The majority now understand that people are who they are and that they cannot help if they like the same sex. It is now acceptable.

But if someone was to come up to you and say "I fancy pre-pubescent children but I know it's wrong" you would think they are a weirdo - correct?

"Weirdo" is probably the wrong word. Dangerous would be closer to what I would think.

This isn't particularly unreasonable in my view, the person is saying they have a sexual desire to harm children. If they said they had a sexual desire to blow up tube stations I would take the same view.

Granted they may never do anything about it, but they still have impulses to harm, and as such I think they need attention. I think if a paedophile was genuinely concerned about his own desires they would probably agree.

Zombrex

xxtattyberxx wrote: »

They should be shot on sight, maybe then we'd have decent roads rather then helping these people/things!

Yes, because that is why we don't have decent roads. The paedophiles. :P

jim69

its a curse dudess ? what planet are u on,they know full well what their doing,vile animals

Zombrex

jim69 wrote: »

its a curse dudess ? what planet are u on,they know full well what their doing,vile animals

What?

How would it being a curse mean they wouldn't know what they were doing or wanted to do. The example only makes sense if they do understand this.

I don't think you read Dudess' post properly there Jim.

It wasn't me!

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, because that is why we don't have decent roads. The paedophiles. :P

That made me laugh, a lot.

diddlybit

jim69 wrote: »

its a curse dudess ? what planet are u on,they know full well what their doing,vile animals

I have no idea what you mean by a curse, but some of them are nor fully aware of the traumatic consequences of abuse on their victims. Often in a grooming relationship, the abuser focuses on gaining a child's trust, following which, they assume that this implies consent, which obviously a child cannot give. Often following abuse, many victims, especially those those that discuss the abuse as adults, feel guilt and shame, in that they feel that they never actively refused consent. Often the first step of rehabiltating child sex abusers is to convey the fact that the children are victims.

liah

I wonder how much of pedophilia is actually just something they're born with, and how much of it is due to childhood trauma.

Does anyone know of any studies on the origins of pedophilia?

diddlybit

There are multiple theories on the orientations of people who abuse children, yet there is no conclusivly accepted theory. Finkelhor in the late eighties outlined the four main ones as the following:

Emotional Congruence: some theories suggest a "fit" between the emotional needs of the adult and the characteristics of the child. Male socialisation promotes dominance, power and the initiator role in sexual relationships. For men with a pschyological problems such as low self-esteem, relating to a child may provide a sense of power, omnipotence and control. This explanation is similar to some pschyoanalytic theories which see those that abuse children as having arrested psychological development and also to feminsit theories which suggest that power rather than sex is the driving force in abuse.

Sexual arousal to children: some theories foucs on explaining how adults become sexually attracted to children. Learning theories have been evoked to explain this as has the possibility that critical experiences of sexual victimisation during their own childhood. While theories try to explain thsi sexual attraction, the view that paedophilia was not really a sexual orientation was fashionable in the early eighties.

Blockage: these theories seek to explain why some people are blocked in their ability to have their sexual and emotional needs met in adult realtionships. The view is that the preference is to have adult relationships but that the sexual interest in children develops because of a block to this preference. In some cases this may be because of a person's poor social skils or because significant relationships have broken down. This type of reasoning has often been used to explain father-daughter incest, e.g. the father's marital relationship breaks down and for a variety of reasons, he choose to seek sexual gratification inside, rather than outside the family.

Disinhibition: this describes a a set of theroies that seek to explain why conventional inhibitions against having sex with children are overcome or not present in some adults. Factors such as alcohol, bereavment and streess have been outlined in some cases.

Taken from Time To Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Absue by Catholic Clergy in Ireland

Not quite where I would stand on in realtion to these theories, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive either. There are many types of child sex offenders, exclusive and non-exclusive, predatory and grooming, familial and stranger and I don't personally think that one theory can fit all these figures.

Dudess

jim69 wrote: »

its a curse dudess ? what planet are u on,they know full well what their doing,vile animals

Yes it is a curse to come to the realisation that you fancy children and not adults.
You're, in the outrage brigade's tradition on this thread, leaping forward to the point where a paedophile has actually violated a child. I'm talking about those with the desire but who haven't done anything with it and don't want to have such a desire. But you know what: it's a waste of time explaining because people on this thread who either haven't read it properly, aren't the sharpest or are just deliberately being obtuse and disingenuous will use it for kneejerk outrage purposes.

I'm glad it's being discussed though - not discussing it won't make it go away...