Paedophiles

Zombrex

liah wrote: »

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?

I read a while back that the majority have been sexually abused (the opposite seems to be not the case, most abuse victims don't go on to abuse).

I think like a lot of sexual orientation it is a combination of factors, genetics and development up to puberty. A lot of the development of sexuality seems hormone controlled, so it makes more sense that this is something that can developed abnormally based on environmental factors, more than other development which is purely based on genetics.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Don't have an indepth knowledge of genetics but wonder is there any possiblity it could be like the genetics of cystic fibrosis. With that carrying one copy of the recessive gene can be beneficial, but two copies is a very debilitating disease.

What if one copy of a paedo gene made you attracted to young fertile women, but two copies caused attraction to prepubescents.

Also in the case of many abusers having been abused themselves, is the link that being abused gives them "unnatural" desires, or does it damage their sense of empathy so they find it easier to go through with their already there desires?

diddlybit

The "cycle of abuse" theory was very popular in the moral panics surrounding paedophilia in the eighties in America, when many people believed that Satantic cults were abusing children. The hysteria focused on growing numbers of peadophiles as abuse was rampant and therefore those that were abused would go on the abuse the next generation.

This obviously didn't happen and didn't explain why there are less femlae abusers than males. I do think that abuse could skew an individual's perception of their own sexuality and of their interpretation of sexual ethics, but obviously this is going to happen in all cases.

In the BBC report, the percentage is about 11.6% of the sample go on to abuse. I'm not sure if that is high or not.

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What if one copy of a paedo gene made you attracted to young fertile women, but two copies caused attraction to prepubescents.

I'm not sure if it could be that simple. They are recognised as two different types of attraction. Attraction to adolescent people has a specific name (which escapes me now) and is recognised as being entirely different to paedophilia. The dividing line really is outward sexuality.

So while peadophiles usually display an attraction to children (who have no outward sexuality) with little or no attraction to others (and often no distinction in gender), people attracted to adolescent humans usually only display a preference for them, but still retain sexual attraction to a specific gender and towards people their own age.

So I would say that an attraction to adolescent humans is something of a skewing of preference - most probably down to some adolescent experience. Whereas paedophilia is much harder to nail down.

Also in the case of many abusers having been abused themselves, is the link that being abused gives them "unnatural" desires, or does it damage their sense of empathy so they find it easier to go through with their already there desires?

Well, to go back to the genetic component, if a large number of child sex abusers were abused themselves, and equally 80% of abuse is carried out by someone know to the victim, then it's reasonable to say that most child sexual abuse occurs within family lines rather than in a random and scattered manner. This would give cause to investigate if there is a genetic component to it.

But sexuality is such a complex beast. It manifests from the moment that we emerge from the womb (yes, young boys do play with their willies) and continually develops and grows and adapts to stimuli and one's environment in ways that we're only beginning to understand.

In terms of a minority of abused people going on to abuse, I imagine this works along the same lines that domestic violence does. The vast majority of those who are subject to it, recognise that it was wrong when it happened to them, they remember the pain and the suffering and they would never inflict that on another human being.
But then you have a small subset of people who, for whatever reason think that it's normal, or think that it's the way things should be, or do it themselves as some way of "getting back" at the world for being abused.

I think in a way, finding a genetic component could be a mixed blessing. While some would use it as justification for mass culling and genetic profiling, it would allow us to recognise individuals at risk, possibly from childhood and develop a therapy or drug to reverse or reduce whatever it is this gene causes in the brain.

liah

seamus wrote: »

Attraction to adolescent people has a specific name (which escapes me now)

Ephebophilia afaik.

seamus

And also Hebephilia

Bottle_of_Smoke

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure if it could be that simple. They are recognised as two different types of attraction. Attraction to adolescent people has a specific name (which escapes me now) and is recognised as being entirely different to paedophilia. The dividing line really is outward sexuality.
So while peadophiles usually display an attraction to children (who have no outward sexuality) with little or no attraction to others (and often no distinction in gender), people attracted to adolescent humans usually only display a preference for them, but still retain sexual attraction to a specific gender and towards people their own age.

So I would say that an attraction to adolescent humans is something of a skewing of preference - most probably down to some adolescent experience. Whereas paedophilia is much harder to nail down.

I think its ephibophelia. In America they call them Pederests.
Haven't looked into it much but I think it is possibly debatable to say if this is really any different to preferences such as women with large breasts or a slim figure. Their attraction is a lot more "normal" because the people they're attracted to are capable of reproduction, which is advertised by outward sexuality. Though of course still morally wrong as it takes advantage of a person too young to properly consent.

The thing that got me about the genetidc component is that one secondary feature that attracts men to women is smooth clear skin, as it signals youth and fertility. So if there was a recessive gene for this, perhaps 2 copies could kick it into overdrive

diddlybit

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think its ephibophelia. In America they call them Pederests.
Haven't looked into it much but I think it is possibly debatable to say if this is really any different to preferences such as women with large breasts or a slim figure. Their attraction is a lot more "normal" because the people they're attracted to are capable of reproduction, which is advertised by outward sexuality. Though of course still morally wrong as it takes advantage of a person too young to properly consent.

The thing that got me about the genetidc component is that one secondary feature that attracts men to women is smooth clear skin, as it signals youth and fertility. So if there was a recessive gene for this, perhaps 2 copies could kick it into overdrive

The diffrence between Ephebophilia and Pederasty is that the former describes an attraction to both genders, whereas the latter is only young men. Pederasty is quite archaic and while used on occassion, today is utilised to describe "Greek Love".

I don't know if the attarction to female teenagers could be rooted in the desire for biological reproduction in an ideal mate. I'm not sure what the "ideal" age is for reproduction in a woman is, but many young teenagers that give birth have problems due to their stature. Also wouldn't maturity levels come into the process of looking for an ideal reproductive mate? I also think that t an extent, women that are slightly larger would be perceived as more physically able to produce healthy children rather than a scrawny teenager.

I agree with you that the attraction seems less taboo than attraction to a pre-pubescent child. In pornography, it is an oft repeated motif, i.e the schoolgirl, but I'm not sure how much of that sttraction is motivated by innate libidinal urges and much is socially constructed by the images we see everyday.

Coeurdepirate

Homosexuality and paedophilia are not comparable.

Paedophilia is disgusting.

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

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.

In YOUR opinion - because they disagree with you. And rightly so.

Sheesh! Just reading that again. Do I see a teensy-weeny bit of arrogance creeping in there D?

AudreyHepburn

Personally I would want nothing to do with any friend who told me they had a sexual attraction to children. Certainly I could no longer be friends with them and I would never fully trust that they would act on their urges.

I also don't like the idea that they 'can't help it' or that 'sure wasn't he/she abused themselves' because it is justfying something that imo should not be justified.

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I also don't like the idea that they 'can't help it' or that 'sure wasn't he/she abused themselves' because it is justfying something that imo should not be justified.

It's not supposed to be justifying anything though. You are confusing attempts to try and 'explain' something with attempts to 'excuse' it. They're not the same.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

It's not supposed to be justifying anything though. You are confusing attempts to try and 'explain' something with attempts to 'excuse' it. They're not the same.

Excuse may have been the wrong word but saying things like the above does come across as trying lessen the crime or make it understandable when to me it anything but.

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Excuse may have been the wrong word but saying things like the above does come across as trying lessen the crime or make it understandable when to me it anything but.

Well 'justifying' was the word, not excusing, but the point was people aren't trying to do either. Anything is understandable, surely. Again understanding something does not mean you are approving it, or excusing it, or saying it is acceptable. It just means trying to comprehend why something happens. Understanding why something happened doesn't 'lessen the crime'.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

Well 'justifying' was the word, not excusing, but the point was people aren't trying to do either. Anything is understandable, surely. Again understanding something does not mean you are approving it, or excusing it, or saying it is acceptable. It just means trying to comprehend why something happens. Understanding why something happened doesn't 'lessen the crime'.

I'm sorry but fantasising about raping and abusing children is not understandable to me, nor would I want it to be.

Saying things like' I understand why they do it' 'they can't help it' 'it's an illness' or 'some of them were abused themselves' just seems like excuses or making less of it to me.

Ms.Odgeynist

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Homosexuality and paedophilia are not comparable.

Paedophilia is disgusting.

How scientific of you!

Ms.Odgeynist

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Excuse may have been the wrong word but saying things like the above does come across as trying lessen the crime or make it understandable when to me it anything but.

I don't mean to be cruel, but perhaps there are many, many, many things that are not understandable to 'you'.
Some people attempt to understand everything, at least to some extent.
The assertion that someone cannot help something is a fairly basic concept, and if you do not understand it, things do not bode well for you.

In my experience, those who shout the loudest in moral indignation, are very often too frightened to acknowledge their own humanity, with its inevitable dark side.
Those who deny they have a shadow side to their personality are very dangerous creatures, likely as they are to decry anyone who happens to exhibit innate human characteristics like violence, greed, sexuality etc...

Discussing paedophilia does not diminish the hurt that it causes. It does not justify the actions of anyone who hurts another. It does nothing but attempt to further our understanding, at least those of us who want to understand. I can't speak for the 'thats just the way it is' brigade, and I would never want to.

Whether a paedophile can or cannot help it, is fundamental to the issue of punishment, treatment, cure, not to mention the safety of children.

OP makes a very valid point, a point however that was always going to mobilise the ignorant and unthinking.
I have a fetish and have done since about the age of 11. Its harmless to others, but it caused me deep despair as a child, adolescent and as a young adult. I could never understand why I had it, but I did. I considered myself a freak, and have only recently shed that sense of self-hatred.
Having empathy, and displaying humanity towards even those we find most alien to us is what marks us out as enlightened beings. For those who have nothing to say but 'Thats disgusting', or 'they're animals', might I suggest you write your comments in the letter page of The Sun or The Star, you'll find yourself much more at home there.

Tayla

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Whether a paedophile can or cannot help it, is fundamental to the issue of punishment, treatment, cure, not to mention the safety of children.

That is a very important point....there have to be major differences between the paedophiles who abuse and the ones who do not....as I've mentioned before a heterosexual person or homosexual person doesn't usually go out and rape someone because they are having urges so what is it exactly that makes paedophiles do it??

Their shamefully short sentences that judges pass down to me are outrageous and the couple of years that they get must be in relation to how our judicial system sees paedophiles........their short sentences to me indicates that they must think these paedophiles can't help it and cannot control their urges but yet surely that makes them the most dangerous among our society so they should really be locked up for a very very long time.

Why the short sentences? It can only be 2 reasons

1. The judge doesn't consider rape/abuse and lifetimes worth of mental torture to be that traumatic.
2. The judge must think that the paedophile can't help it....

So it has to be the second reason but how does this make sense?
If a man repeatedly raped people just because he couldn't help it then they would presume he had psychiatric problems and a danger to society so how can they justify letting someone who *can't help it* out on the streets again so soon when they clearly still have these urges, the urges that caused them to commit these crimes in the first place?

Personally as a mother if I had to make the choice I would rather live surrounded by murderers rather than paedophiles.

Dudess

Child murderers like?

Freddie59 wrote: »

In YOUR opinion - because they disagree with you. And rightly so.

Good lord, you are such a troll. Now you can pretend to be amused by using the symbol and you can maintain I'm only saying you're a troll because I disagree with you, but we both know perfectly well that's not the case. A troll deliberately ignores points and twists them. And by Jesus do you do that in spades.
It is not my "opinion" that there are people who won't bother actually taking in what's being said because they prefer to misread it as approval of paedophilia, it is a fact. They also don't "disagree with" me seeing as they haven't actually bothered to comprehend my point in the first place. "And rightly so" - what? What's "rightly so"?
I get that you would give your right arm for this thread to simply be one going on about how sick paedophiles are and how they deserve to be tortured to death and you're disappointed that it isn't... but just because it's not fulfilling your fantasy, doesn't mean valid points aren't being made and it doesn't mean (as if it should have to be spelled out) that paedophilia is being approved of. The opposite actually.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm sorry but fantasising about raping and abusing children is not understandable to me, nor would I want it to be.

People aren't saying it should be understood in that sense - people are merely making the point that it's possible for some people to have these feelings through no fault of their own... but no way should they act upon those feelings.

Saying things like' I understand why they do it'

Who said that?
"Do" it? It's been made clear nobody has any sympathy for a paedophile who actually does something about their feelings.

'they can't help it' 'it's an illness' or 'some of them were abused themselves' just seems like excuses or making less of it to me.

Might not be easy to grasp, but many of them can't help how they feel. It's not lessening it at all - I don't see how it is. Unless you think people should just pretend to themselves that paedophiles can help feeling how they feel, that they don't really fancy children, that they just pretend to themselves that they have these feelings? That to me seems to be what would lessen the seriousness of it.

Ms.Odgeynist, well said. Some of the morally outraged brigade strike me as very scary people indeed...

Tayla

Dudess wrote: »

Child murderers like?

I have never really heard about many child murderers (that are not paedophiles) and most murderers would only murder once anyway for a specific reason, not just because they can't help it so yes I would feel safer there with them than beside paedophiles who *can't help it*

Presumably the people who have gone on to murder a few people on seperate occasions are never left out of jail or a mental hospital, you could abuse 100 children in this county and then serve jail time, get out of prison, do it again and go back to jail and be free once again....

Dudess

Paedophiles can't help how they feel, not saying they can't help how they act (if they do so). To suggest paedophiles don't have self control seems to me actually more excusing of them than saying they can't help how they feel but they absolutely should not act upon this.

Tayla

Dudess wrote: »

Paedophiles can't help how they feel, not saying they can't help how they act (if they do so). To suggest paedophiles don't have self control seems to me actually more excusing of them than saying they can't help how they feel but they absolutely should not act upon this.

But if they do have self control then why do they commit such an evil act?......everyone knows that if a child is abused it can ultimately ruin their entire lives.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

But if they do have self control then why do they commit such an evil act?......everyone knows that if a child is abused it can ultimately ruin their entire lives.

And that's the crux of the different views. People assume that the ones who have self control still abuse.

The other view is that maybe some don't.

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

And that's the crux of the different views. People assume that the ones who have self control still abuse.

The other view is that maybe some don't.

If they have no self control then they should be locked up in a prison or psychiatric hospital as they are a danger to all the children around them.

If they do have self control and still abuse then they are nothing short of evil and should therefore be locked up for a long time for knowingly and willingly destroying the lives of innocent people.

Whether they have self control or not surely anyone can see that abusers need to be locked up for a long long time (indefinitely in some cases)

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

If they have no self control then they should be locked up in a prison or psychiatric hospital as they are a danger to all the children around them.

If they do have self control and still abuse then they are nothing short of evil and should therefore be locked up for a long time for knowingly and willingly destroying the lives of innocent people.

Whether they have self control or not surely anyone can see that abusers need to be locked up for a long long time (indefinitely in some cases)

Tbh, you totally missed my point and I don't think you are going to get it but one last try.

1.No self control and abuse, locked up............agreed.

2.Have self control and still abuse......does not compute........means they have no self control so refer to 1 above.

3.Have self control and don't abuse, which you didn't cover above.

Can you comprehend No. 3?

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh, you totally missed my point and I don't think you are going to get it but one last try.

1.No self control and abuse, locked up............agreed.

2.Have self control and still abuse......does not compute........means they have no self control so refer to 1 above.

3.Have self control and don't abuse, which you didn't cover above.

Can you comprehend No. 3?

Yes I can actually :mad: and i've made that point several times in this thread.:mad:

Someone with self control who has never abused should of course get help if they want it and as they are not a threat then they should not be locked up. I actually feel very sad for the decent people who might have been born with that preference but would rather be normal and have never and will never abuse, it must be a terrible life and they must feel terrible about themselves.

I don't agree with your second point either, I think that there are paedophiles who could control their urges if they want to but they just don't, they prefer to put their own needs or wants before others, this is something that many people in the world do anyway, whether gay/straight or other, we hear of people torturing others and all sorts of evil things every day......this horrible flaw that some people have is not necessarily related to being a paedophile as anyone could have this evil streak but put this flaw in a paedophile and the resuts can be particulary devastating because there are children involved.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

Someone with self control who has never abused should of course get help if they want it and as they are not a threat then they should not be locked up. I actually feel very sad for the decent people who might have been born with that preference but would rather be normal and have never and will never abuse, it must be a terrible life and they must feel terrible about themselves.

Well there we are then, common ground found.

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

Well there we are then, common ground found.

It's a very tough subject to deal with I think. The convicted paedophiles get such short sentences for absolutely disgusting crimes, it makes everyone so angry to know that they will be out so quickly after what they have done........ a paedophile could abuse for 10 years and then get a 3 year jail sentence...it's just not right.

It's strange that more isn't known about paedophiles, it's not just a simple case of sexual preference, it's not just having a psychiatric illness so what is it?

This is slightly off topic but relevant I think....

Siblings raised together will never be attracted to each other, I remember reading before about genetic sexual attraction (where siblings who were not brought up together, for example if one had been adopted) when they meet up they can have a huge sexual attraction to each other, it's because your brain feels this huge connection to them which should be sibling love but your brain is confused and thinks it is love because your brain is not equipped to cope with this very odd experience of pretty much instant love to this other person. This can also affect mothers reunited with sons or fathers reunited with daughters....

They also did a study in an Orphanage (I can't remember where) but it was a huge orphanage and out of the whole orphanage where these children lived until they were adults, I think only 2 or 3 couples ended up getting together. Compare that a different group of people, how many couples are likely to be formed? A lot.

It's because our brains are programmed to not be attracted to the people we are brought up with, our siblings, parents etc and I presume nearly every case of brother/sister incest is a result of not being brought up together but meeting up later in life.

Now think of all the paedophiles who abuse their own children, a sexuality somehow manages to override your basic genetic programming? It doesn't make sense.

What is the missing link here?

Ms.Odgeynist

Tayla wrote: »

It's because our brains are programmed to not be attracted to the people we are brought up with, our siblings, parents etc and I presume nearly every case of brother/sister incest is a result of not being brought up together but meeting up later in life.

Now think of all the paedophiles who abuse their own children, a sexuality somehow manages to override your basic genetic programming? It doesn't make sense.

What is the missing link here?

I don't think there is any genetic programming not to be attracted to siblings or other family members. Incest is still a prevalent phenomenon. It is universally abhorred in every society on earth. But all that tells us is that it exists in every society on earth. Society demands that it be eradicated, but at some point in our history it was ubiquitous.
The reason incest is taboo is because of the damage that it causes to us as a race. But along with many other undesirable traits, it has been gradually diminished through civilisation and the repression of drives that do not serve us well.
We are equally not genetically programmed to not kill people. Unfortunately humans are animals, and at some point we were roaming around the place killing the babies of our rivals and raping and pillaging and all that other horrible stuff. Maybe we gradually pass some genetic information that informs beneficial traits but I think its a stretch to assume that we are somehow programmed to be benevolent in any way. Most traits that are passed from generation to generation are simply reflections of traits that served our preceding generations well.

Tayla

Look up the Westermarck effect and GSA.......in the case of siblings they should have lived together before the age of 6......it doesn't even stop at blood siblings but also adopted siblings, it is called reverse sexual imprinting and is a well known phenomenon.

K_user

This is my first time on the Humanities board and the first topic I read is on Paedophiles. Have to admit, that’s a little different. There aren’t many places in the world where such a topic can be discussed without people spitting and showing only one real emotion…

Now I will admit that I don’t have the time to reread all 13 pages of this thread, but I did find the OP post interesting enough to post a comment. And I'm sorry if this has already been said.

I do understand where they are coming from, sort of, in the comparison between paedophiles, homosexuality and the ever changing attitude of society. The constant issue of race is another example. A white person using the “N” word in most situations is unacceptable and on occasion criminal.

In the past, and still in some cultures today, it was normal enough for children to be married off quite young. But in many cases there was a financial, or family ties, reason for doing it. To the best of my knowledge this had little to do with age, or a desire to have sex with a child. However serfdom, slaves, human sacrifices and many other horrible things were also going on. I’d like to think that most of us have moved past all that.

Adults should be allowed to express their sexuality with another consenting adult. Who are we to deny another human being from the right of happiness?

As long as that happiness doesn’t come at a cost.

It’s the same with racial issues. Or Religious issues. A persons sexuality, colour, place of origin, belief system is part of who they are, who we are a species, and should not be held against individuals.

Being a paedophile though is more to do with rape, than sexuality.

Its not a race thing as it has nothing to do with skin type.

It has nothing to do with where a person is born.

Nor is it a belief system.

It has more in common with what makes a psychopath.

Psychopathy is formally defined as a personality disorder which is characterised by an abnormal lack of empathy, but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. Here lies the problem, a paedophile does not empathise with their victims. Its more to do with what they, the assaulter, wants, than what the child wants.

We currently live in a well educated society, that interacts with the wide world on a second by second basis. Our medical and psychological understanding is growing as fast as our technology. We understand both the physical and mental distress that rape can cause. And inflicting such damage on a child wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Dudess

K_user wrote: »

It has more in common with what makes a psychopath.

Psychopathy is formally defined as a personality disorder which is characterised by an abnormal lack of empathy, but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. Here lies the problem, a paedophile does not empathise with their victims. Its more to do with what they, the assaulter, wants, than what the child wants.

We currently live in a well educated society, that interacts with the wide world on a second by second basis. Our medical and psychological understanding is growing as fast as our technology. We understand both the physical and mental distress that rape can cause. And inflicting such damage on a child wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Nobody's disputing that, but what you're talking about only is paedophiles who act on their desires. What about the possibility of those who have the desires, not through choice, but would not act on them? What the OP is suggesting is that it would be wrong to give someone like this abuse - and I agree. Anyone who says they should be killed or assaulted merely for having feelings they cannot help, even if awful, is not very bright and/or not a very nice person. At the same time though, the likelihood of any of us ever encountering a person who fancies children is extremely low, seeing as such a person is very unlikely to admit to having these feelings, even if they would never dream of acting on them (and rightly so). The problem is though, they no doubt want to get rid of such feelings, and there should be services for them to address this.

AudreyHepburn

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I don't mean to be cruel, but perhaps there are many, many, many things that are not understandable to 'you'.
Some people attempt to understand everything, at least to some extent.
The assertion that someone cannot help something is a fairly basic concept, and if you do not understand it, things do not bode well for you.

In my experience, those who shout the loudest in moral indignation, are very often too frightened to acknowledge their own humanity, with its inevitable dark side.
Those who deny they have a shadow side to their personality are very dangerous creatures, likely as they are to decry anyone who happens to exhibit innate human characteristics like violence, greed, sexuality etc...

Discussing paedophilia does not diminish the hurt that it causes. It does not justify the actions of anyone who hurts another. It does nothing but attempt to further our understanding, at least those of us who want to understand. I can't speak for the 'thats just the way it is' brigade, and I would never want to.

Whether a paedophile can or cannot help it, is fundamental to the issue of punishment, treatment, cure, not to mention the safety of children.

OP makes a very valid point, a point however that was always going to mobilise the ignorant and unthinking.
I have a fetish and have done since about the age of 11. Its harmless to others, but it caused me deep despair as a child, adolescent and as a young adult. I could never understand why I had it, but I did. I considered myself a freak, and have only recently shed that sense of self-hatred.
Having empathy, and displaying humanity towards even those we find most alien to us is what marks us out as enlightened beings. For those who have nothing to say but 'Thats disgusting', or 'they're animals', might I suggest you write your comments in the letter page of The Sun or The Star, you'll find yourself much more at home there.

With respect I am not ignorant or unthinking nor am I the type of person who read rags like the 'Sun' much less write to them. I would suggest you don't attempt to make assumptions about me or jump to conclusions about the kind of person I am if you want to engage in a reasonable debate.

I have a close family member who was the victim of child abuse so I know the damage it can. That family member is fine now but it did cause a great deal of suffering for a long time.

And I just cannot understand how anyone could even think about or fantise about putting a child through that. I do understand that isn;t something they can 'help' but that does not make it right.

For me I just could not be comfortable around some-one who I knew had those kinds of thoughts and certainly I would not want them anywhere my own or anyone else's children.

If they expressed remorse.....no that would make no differrence, the risk is still there.

Dudess

No, the fact they cannot help those feelings does not make them right - even if they don't act upon them. And I can understand anyone not wanting them near children.

K_user

Dudess wrote: »

Nobody's disputing that, but what you're talking about only is paedophiles who act on their desires. What about the possibility of those who have the desires, not through choice, but would not act on them? What the OP is suggesting is that it would be wrong to give someone like this abuse - and I agree. Anyone who says they should be killed or assaulted merely for having feelings they cannot help, even if awful, is not very bright and/or not a very nice person. At the same time though, the likelihood of any of us ever encountering a person who fancies children is extremely low, seeing as such a person is very unlikely to admit to having these feelings, even if they would never dream of acting on them (and rightly so). The problem is though, they no doubt want to get rid of such feelings, and there should be services for them to address this.

I understand the OP's point perfectly, the question is about meeting someone who wouldn't act on their "feelings", but who is willing to admit to them. That we as a society have an adverse and instinctive reaction to the mere mention of the word. That we wouldn't take the individual and their actions, or inaction in this case, into the account, just the preconceived notions.

But to be realistic, if a person told you that they fantasised about rape. Or imagined what it would be like to beat up on an old person, how would you react?

This is where, in my opinion, the OP's argument falls down. And why I compared a paedophile to a psychopath, rather than to a "normal" person who differs slightly in their sexuality or skin colour, or religion.

A person can be "normal" for 99% of the time, then do something that really harms, both physically and mentally, another person. The question is, who should we as a society protect and nurture?

Just because a person says they won't do something, doesn't mean they won't. Just because a person hasn't done something so far, doesn't mean they won't.

The OP says:

It seems a bit unfair that a paedophile would be discriminated against over something that he/she cannot change.

And I strongly disagree with this notion. There are many people who have disorders that are dangerous to those around them. A sociopath can be difficult to understand, to deal with, but they aren't necessarily dangerous. In fact they can be extremely successful. However a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies is not someone you want to meet...ever.

Is it their fault? No. Thats the way they were born, conditioned, raised, who knows? They can't help it. They aren't really responsible, its just who they are.

Should they be accepted and not discriminated against?

No, they pose a real threat to others.

But the OP is saying that just because they think slightly differently, well we shouldn't be hypocritical, because we all think a little differently. Except there is different and there is different.

A society needs rules. It needs boundaries. There are certain things that should remain unacceptable.

strobe

K_user wrote: »

A society needs rules. It needs boundaries. There are certain things that should remain unacceptable.

It sure does. But that is the whole point, is it not? A society needs rules in relation to actions, not thoughts. Many actions should always be unacceptable. What about thoughts? Thoughts without actions? Unacceptable?

K_user

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

OP makes a very valid point, a point however that was always going to mobilise the ignorant and unthinking.

Does there come a point when the protection of children is considered ignorant and unthinking?

I think that the discomfort of a few is a fair price to pay for the protection of the most defenseless among us.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I have a fetish and have done since about the age of 11. Its harmless to others, but it caused me deep despair as a child, adolescent and as a young adult. I could never understand why I had it, but I did. I considered myself a freak, and have only recently shed that sense of self-hatred.

Congratulations and I mean that. Self-hatred is probably one of the hardest emotions to deal with.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Having empathy, and displaying humanity towards even those we find most alien to us is what marks us out as enlightened beings.

Unfortunately we aren't really enlightened. For the most part we are educated. And for the most part we all just want to get on with our lives.

But there are people who will take advantage of our "humanity". Who can and will do real harm, without real remorse, apart from being upset about being caught.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

For those who have nothing to say but 'Thats disgusting', or 'they're animals', might I suggest you write your comments in the letter page of The Sun or The Star, you'll find yourself much more at home there.

That statement is dripping with irony!

K_user

strobe wrote: »

It sure does. But that is the whole point, is it not? A society needs rules in relation to actions, not thoughts. Many actions should always be unacceptable. What about thoughts? Thoughts without actions? Unacceptable?

We all have have things running around in our head that we might be embarrassed for others to know about.

We all have thoughts that are illegal, or anti-social, or just plain bad.

However pedophilia is far more complex. And for every child rapist, there are a dozen who would never touch a child. That I understand. Just like there are a dozen people who would consider robbing the 20 hanging out of your back pocket, while there might only be one that would actually do it.

But, in my opinion, it should never be socially acceptable for a person to openly admit that they fancy kids, no matter what their intentions are. The day we, as a society, lose that instinct to protect our young...

Tayla

K_user wrote: »

But, in my opinion, it should never be socially acceptable for a person to openly admit that they fancy kids, no matter what their intentions are. The day we, as a society, lose that instinct to protect our young...

I don't think it could possibly ever be socially acceptable...
However if people who had never abused and weren't likely to abuse kids admitted out in the open that they had those fantasies then parents would know not to let their children near those people.

If parents knew who the paedophiles were then our children would be safer.

Chuck Stone

K_user wrote: »

But, in my opinion, it should never be socially acceptable for a person to openly admit that they fancy kids, no matter what their intentions are. The day we, as a society, lose that instinct to protect our young...

If it ever was socially acceptable for people to openly state that they have sexual desire towards children then that society is not one I'd be happy to be part of.

Actually what kind of just society would ever adopt this stance? People should be whole-heartedly against societies that are comfortble with coercive, abusive people.

Prejudice against oppressors is a good thing.

K-9

Nobody is saying it would be acceptable but carry on all the same.

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody is saying it would be acceptable but carry on all the same.

Actually a few people have stated that paedophiles should be accepted and not discriminated because they can't help it and because some of them may show remorse.

JohnK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Actually a few people have stated that paedophiles should be accepted and not discriminated because they can't help it and because some of them may show remorse.

Eh, no - what people are saying is those who have those desires but do not act on them should not be discriminated against because they can't help it and never chose to have those desires.

Dudess

People on this thread really need to get a grip and stop ****ing saying child abuse is being accepted by some here - much as you'd like that to be the case, you are wrong.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Actually what kind of just society would ever adopt this stance? People should be whole-heartedly against societies that are comfortble with coercive, abusive people.

But you're only talking about paedophiles who actually abuse - and again again, sigh, nobody's advocating acceptance of those who ACT on their feelings, just a society where those who have the feelings but want rid of them can get support. Is it really that difficult to grasp?

I do disagree with the assertion that paedophiles who do not abuse shouldn't be discriminated against - they HAVE to be in some ways in order to protect children.

liah

I wonder if they're railing against the use of the word 'support.' I read it as clinical/psychiatric/therapeutic support, but they could be reading it as societal support (aka approval) of pedophilia. Maybe the source of aggro?

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

People on this thread really need to get a grip and stop ****ing saying child abuse is being accepted by some here - much as you'd like that to be the case, you are wrong.

I do not think any person on this thread has suggested that people who seek to develop an understanding of (I presume you mean) pedophilia advocate its acceptance. I certainly don't.

But you're only talking about paedophiles who actually abuse - and again again, sigh, nobody's advocating acceptance of those who ACT on their feelings, just a society where those who have the feelings but want rid of them can get support. Is it really that difficult to grasp?

I feel that this is not impossible in current society. Anyway, I don't see why anyone who is not getting strong urges to act on their deviancy would seek acceptance by society - seems like a bit of a non-issue.

I do disagree with the assertion that paedophiles who do not abuse shouldn't be discriminated against - they HAVE to be in some ways in order to protect children.

Absolutely.

AudreyHepburn

liah wrote: »

I wonder if they're railing against the use of the word 'support.' I read it as clinical/psychiatric/therapeutic support, but they could be reading it as societal support (aka approval) of pedophilia. Maybe the source of aggro?

Yes part of it certainly. I just read it as saying we should embrace them, feel sympathy for them and try to help them etc. I don't believe paedophilia is something you can 'cure' because I see it has a sexual preference as opposed to an illness.

I agree with Dudess that they have to be marginalised to certain extent to protect children. A paedophile may not have acted before that does not mean they never will and it would only take one moment of madness or one lapse in control to ruin a child's life.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes part of it certainly. I just read it as saying we should embrace them, feel sympathy for them and try to help them etc. I don't believe paedophilia is something you can 'cure' because I see it has a sexual preference as opposed to an illness.

I agree with Dudess that they have to be marginalised to certain extent to protect children. A paedophile may not have acted before that does not mean they never will and it would only take one moment of madness or one lapse in control to ruin a child's life.

I don't know where you got the idea we should embrace them but anyway.

The problem with the second paragraph is a paedophile who has never acted isn't going to tell anybody because of attitudes on this thread and in society. That's a shame as maybe a few could be stopped from committing abuse if helped.

If it is a sexual preference, many hetro and homosexual people choose chastity and abstain from sex. This could well be the case with paedophiles
and maybe something could be learned from how they do that. It's very unlikely we will though given the current climate.

Dudess

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I just read it as saying we should embrace them, feel sympathy for them and try to help them etc.

Agreed with K-9 - don't see anyone saying we should embrace those who have paedophilic desires and would rather desire adults. I don't see anything wrong with feeling sympathy for someone who is afflicted with this and doesn't want it - must be horrible.

I don't believe paedophilia is something you can 'cure' because I see it has a sexual preference as opposed to an illness.

Well the jury's out on it - helping them overcome it, if it's in any way possible, would surely be for the benefit of children in the long-term?

strobe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If it ever was socially acceptable for people to openly state that they have sexual desire towards children then that society is not one I'd be happy to be part of.

Actually what kind of just society would ever adopt this stance? People should be whole-heartedly against societies that are comfortble with coercive, abusive people.

Prejudice against oppressors is a good thing.

Would someone that was sexually attracted to children but never acted on it be coercive or abusive? How, exactly? Who are they coercing or abusing?