Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Paedophile Next Door
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Only by illiterates. Problem is that such is the hysteria surrounding this topic that there seems to be little understanding of even basic definitions. So the Greeks would have practiced sexual relations with post-pubescent boy, which cannot be pedophilia by definition, but may be popularly regarded as such by the uneducated, hysterical masses. You may not think this a big deal, but such ignorance can lead to very negative consequences too.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Fair point, but what was practiced and (in the states that adovcated it) would certainly be classed as pedophilia and result in child abuse cases today.
Actually, I'm surprised no one has brought this guy into the discussion:
Doesn't work like that in the World of psychology and psychiatry though. The whole field is social science that seems rife with political and social influences rather than scientific ones determining diagnosis. Look at how the diagnosis of homosexuality has changed over the decades; from mental illness, to paraphilia to orientation. It was ultimately societal changes (and lobbying) that brought this about.My point though, is: in order for it to be a mental illness, if needs a medical diagnosis, not a societal one.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Only by illiterates. Problem is that such is the hysteria surrounding this topic that there seems to be little understanding of even basic definitions. So the Greeks would have practiced sexual relations with post-pubescent boy, which cannot be pedophilia by definition, but may be popularly regarded as such by the uneducated, hysterical masses. You may not think this a big deal, but such ignorance can lead to very negative consequences too.
Actually, I'm surprised no one has brought this guy into the discussion:
Doesn't work like that in the World of psychology and psychiatry though. The whole field is social science that seems rife with political and social influences rather than scientific ones determining diagnosis. Look at how the diagnosis of homosexuality has changed over the decades; from mental illness, to paraphilia to orientation. It was ultimately societal changes (and lobbying) that brought this about.
Again, I'm not saying it was a psoitive factor of the society.
I;d also argue that, in the case you mention above, it was society that labeled homosexuality a mental illness in the first place; and that more understanding and research led to it being caterogised more corerctly.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yeah this is a particularly difficult topic to know what to do with.
Basically paedophilia, as far as I can tell, is seen as being in terms of acts, the lowest of the low in modern-day society. Even worse than rape, murder or animal abuse.
If I were to reveal to my family and friends that I was an alcoholic, had a gambling problem or suffered from extreme depression, I am fairly sure that other than perhaps one or two, the vast majority would be extremely supportive and offer to help me in many different ways.
Were I to reveal like Eddie that I was attracted to 4 and 5 year old children on the other hand, I can imagine the predominant reaction being one of pure disgust. I could see nearly all my friends shunning me and indeed a large part of my family would do the same. Even the ones that did not would find it hugely difficult to know what to do and it would be a serious trauma for them.
And still, as far as I know, all of the aforementioned issues are to do with chemical imbalances in the brain, which determine who exactly you are attracted to, what your weaknesses are and so on. So why is paedophilia so shocking to most?
I suppose in the case of alcoholism, gambling and depression, they are all extreme situations of emotions/desires we are all likely to have from time to time, many people like to drink and gamble, most people get depressed occasionally. But how many people are attracted to children? Not many you would think.
Mind you, it appears from this and other surveys I have read that the number of people who have paedophiliac tendencies is a lot higher than one might imagine. Essentially people are terrified of opening up about something like this through the fear of being completely ostracised from society. Which is why someone like Eddie should be applauded, he knows he has thse feelings which are wrong and potentially very damaging and wants to seek help for them. Although I like others was surprised that he agreed to be filmed without a disguise, the general public's view on something like this is still fairly neanderthal/limited and he could risk serious injury or worse if caught, especially in this age where the internet and technology means very little is secret for long.
The boundaries are blurred further again when we look at the exact definition of a paedophile. Is it someone who is sexually attracted to 'actual' children, I use actual here to mean those under the age of 10-12, when puberty has not been reached and no secondary sexual characteristics are present? Or rather should we include an attraction to those from say 13-16/17? Those in this category should correctly be termed ephebophiles rather than paedophiles of course. From my recollection of common law, the charges were much worse for those who committed offences on under 12s, but I'm sure there are many who argue that they are both as bad as each other.
Then of course we have the evolution of society. In the Middle Ages, lower life expectations meant that girls marrying grown men at 12 was perfectly acceptable, as was to get pregnant shortly afterwards. In comparatively recent times, we had Bill Wyman having a sexual relationship with Mandy Smith at 14 and Page 3 girls being seen as sexual objects to lust after from their 16th birthdays onwards. These would of course not be considered acceptable any more, but it is interesting to look back how things have changed.
Then of course, as many others have said, there is the paedophile/child abuser distinction. I for instance am very much attracted to two female friends who are in relationships. But much to my frustration sometimes
I cannot go for them under normal circumstances because they are off bounds to me. But of course I attempt to go out with one of the countless adult single women out there. A paedophile, by the very definition of his attraction, has no situations where some of their fancies are unavailable and others are not, no, ALL are unavailable under law. And to go against this would make him or her a child abuser plain and simple. You cannot even compare it to someone with a disability or who has severe difficulty with the opposite sex, because there are always options, such as legal prostitution. Without wanting to fall into the trap of feeling sympathy for child abusers, (I have no children but I think that if I had and I found out that they were being abused in some way, I would be absolutely seething with rage), but it must be a strange situation for them.
I did read keenly the reactions to the programme and I was glad to see that most people did seem to be fairly positive about Eddie and others like him. This gives me some hope that society is changing slightly from the mob mentality of 10-15 years ago and that quite possibly in the future the best way to protect our children is to learn as much as we can about it and attempt to treat it as best we can. This is especially relevant to those who are willing to have the courage to admit they have a problem in this area but do not want this to harm innocent children.0 -
Seriously? What has that hypothetical got to do with not locking somebody up unless they actually commit a crime?
Bit of a non-sense red herring argument/Extraordinary leap in logic.
It's also one which can't be answered in a vacuum.
You also seem to be assuming that all people with an attraction to child are rapists. Many aren't I would imagine - in the same way just because other men are attracted to adult women they won't go out and rape them the first opportunity you got.
Ultimately the risk will depend on the persons involved. But in the same way you would probably trust your best friend not to rape your wife or 18 year old daughter if left alone with them, in sure there are pedophiles (are whatever other term is most appropriate) who can be trusted to exercise self control.
I'm not sure if that's a yes or a no?
Seriously? What has that hypothetical got to do with not locking somebody up unless they actually commit a crime?
Well if you had answered no based solely on the fact that the proposed babysitter had admitted to you that he/she was a paedophile but had never and would never actually act out on his/her urges then you would in essence be punishing him/her for something he/she hasn't done ........ yet.
Or would you (hypothetically) take the risk???
You also seem to be assuming that all people with an attraction to child are rapists. Many aren't I would imagine - in the same way just because other men are attracted to adult women they won't go out and rape them the first opportunity you got.
If an individual is sexually attracted to children there is a high risk of that individual raping a child in order to relieve sexual frustration ......... whereas men who are attracted to adult women have a much higher chance of relieving themselves sexually with an adult woman without resorting to anything illegal.
Ultimately the risk will depend on the persons involved. But in the same way you would probably trust your best friend not to rape your wife or 18 year old daughter if left alone with them, in sure there are pedophiles (are whatever other term is most appropriate) who can be trusted to exercise self control.
That's my question .......... would you consider the risk to be higher of your child being raped by an individual who is sexually attracted to children (even though said individual has never acted out on his/her desires) than somebody who is only attracted to other adults?
If my best friend told me that he had fantasies of raping women then no I would not trust him to be alone with my wife or daughter ........ obviously.
Are you sure enough that a paedophile can be trusted to exercise self control that you would leave him/her alone with your child???
It's all very well people saying "give them a chance" and "help them rather than punish them" etc. but would any of these same people be willing to put their own child in harm's way???
I doubt it .......... it's total hypocrisy.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure if that's a yes or a no?
Seriously? What has that hypothetical got to do with not locking somebody up unless they actually commit a crime?
Well if you had answered no based solely on the fact that the proposed babysitter had admitted to you that he/she was a paedophile but had never and would never actually act out on his/her urges then you would in essence be punishing him/her for something he/she hasn't done ........ yet.
Or would you (hypothetically) take the risk???
Dear god, no its not. Nobody has a right to be a baby sitter. You wouldn't be taken anything away from them by choosing another baby sitter. and you have no obligation to let anybody mind your kids.
are you punishing the homeless heroin addict who begs around the corner by not leaving your kids with him for the day?
You also seem to be assuming that all people with an attraction to child are rapists. Many aren't I would imagine - in the same way just because other men are attracted to adult women they won't go out and rape them the first opportunity you got.
If an individual is sexually attracted to children there is a high risk of that individual raping a child in order to relieve sexual frustration ......... whereas men who are attracted to adult women have a much higher chance of relieving themselves sexually with an adult woman without resorting to anything illegal.
Really? Please show me the statistics on this? I am sure you will be able to point to statistics showing the number of people who have attractions to children, and what percentage of that group offends.
Ultimately the risk will depend on the persons involved. But in the same way you would probably trust your best friend not to rape your wife or 18 year old daughter if left alone with them, in sure there are pedophiles (are whatever other term is most appropriate) who can be trusted to exercise self control.
That's my question .......... would you consider the risk to be higher of your child being raped by an individual who is sexually attracted to children (even though said individual has never acted out on his/her desires) than somebody who is only attracted to other adults?
If my best friend told me that he had fantasies of raping women then no I would not trust him to be alone with my wife or daughter ........ obviously.
Are you sure enough that a paedophile can be trusted to exercise self control that you would leave him/her alone with your child???
It's all very well people saying "give them a chance" and "help them rather than punish them" etc. but would any of these same people be willing to put their own child in harm's way???
I doubt it .......... it's total hypocrisy.
I am not sure that all peadophiles can be trusted - but i wanted leave my kids with every self professed peadophile i meet. some definitely can't, some probably can. I would only leave my kids with somebody i knew and trusted. how can i say if i would ever trust somebody without meeting them or knowing them?
But in any event, there is no hypocrisy in my position. i am saying somebody with these attractions who hasnt offended and seeks help should not be punished or criminalised for merely having these attractions and should be offered whatever treatment can be given to help them deal with their attractions and ensure they don't offend.
there is nothing in that position which says we should hand them out free babies or give them childcare jobs.
i believe that we are better giving a drug addict treatment instead of jail. that doesn't mean i think we should hand them jobs in a pharmacy.
this really is a ridiculous straw man argument.0 -
-
-
a paedophile saying "I promise I'll never rape a child" is just not good enough for me.
I can not see why not. They merely have an attraction. That says nothing about what actions they may ever commit. Attraction is not some uncontrollable urge you can do nothing about.
Think of every day relationships. Do you think men and women suddenly just STOP being attracted to other people? By magic? No. They still have attraction and in entering a relationship they say "I promise I will never sleep with another person but you". And we trust that. And most people, by far, stick to it.
I think what is happening here is people are conflating mere attraction with some kind of uncontrollable lust rage and merely by having that attraction they are somehow liable to engage in rape and horror, or more likely to do so than anyone else with any other kind of attraction. I am attracted to women myself. Sometimes heavily and powerfully so. Am I a rape risk merely for having attraction to them?? No, I am a happily dedicated man in a relationship and I practice full and constant fidelity to that person. My attractions are real but that is it. No more.
There is a chasm between having an attraction and acting on it, let alone acting on it against ones better judgement, morals, laws and more in a way that actively and horrifically harms another human being. Hell even most of the people who get off on rape or the idea of rape or stories of rape are not people who would actively ever even consider actually engaging in one. The idea of in any way constraining the freedoms of ANYONE who stands up and says "Yeah I have this attraction, I do not want it, can I be helped?" is ridiculous because A) It is simply going to prevent them from ever coming forward and
They kind of person you hope to stop by implementing such a ludicrous proposition are not even going to be the ones honest enough to come forward anyway. 0 -
I am not sure that all peadophiles can be trusted - but i wanted leave my kids with every self professed peadophile i meet. some definitely can't, some probably can. I would only leave my kids with somebody i knew and trusted. how can i say if i would ever trust somebody without meeting them or knowing them?
But in any event, there is no hypocrisy in my position. i am saying somebody with these attractions who hasnt offended and seeks help should not be punished or criminalised for merely having these attractions and should be offered whatever treatment can be given to help them deal with their attractions and ensure they don't offend.
there is nothing in that position which says we should hand them out free babies or give them childcare jobs.
i believe that we are better giving a drug addict treatment instead of jail. that doesn't mean i think we should hand them jobs in a pharmacy.
this really is a ridiculous straw man argument.
Dear god, no its not. Nobody has a right to be a baby sitter. You wouldn't be taken anything away from them by choosing another baby sitter. and you have no obligation to let anybody mind your kids.
are you punishing the homeless heroin addict who begs around the corner by not leaving your kids with him for the day?
If you were to reject them based solely on the fact they are a paedophile then you are indeed punishing them for admitting to being a paedophile .........
Just like I would be punishing the homeless heroin addict by refusing to allow him have my kids for the day ........ I'm saying "you might be a nice person and you may not harm my children but I'm judging you on the fact that you use heroin so I do not trust you!"
Really? Please show me the statistics on this? I am sure you will be able to point to statistics showing the number of people who have attractions to children, and what percentage of that group offends.
No I can't .... be bothered .... I just use common sense :rolleyes:
If Interpol and the FBI can only guess at how many active paedophiles there are preying on children throughout the world then how the f*** am I supposed to know!!!
0 -
looking_around wrote: »I won't answer your question as I have no children and I think can't answer it without that bias..
but tbf, people here aren't saying not to be careful, they're saying that pedophiles attraction doesn't make them bad people.
If a friend tells you they're attracted to children, you don't have to hate them or punish them, you can simply say " I understand you feel you won't hurt my child, but you understand that I can't take that risk?".. You don't have to ban them from your life..or treat them differently. I know plenty of people I would not consider safe to mind kids. (not for abuse, but likely hood of neglect). But that doesn't mean they can't have contact with them.
A person with borderline personality disorder can become etremely violent, and anyone dealing with them, knows you have to watch them carefully, if they get into a rage, you could get hurt.
That doesn't mean it's likely, but if you work with them, you keep a watch for it, just in case.
50% of schizophrenics, never believe they are schizophrenic, does that make them bad people? no.... would you be able to trust them? not really. (not necessarily for danger, but simply as will they take their meds daily..etc)
Point of all this is, not trusting someone, and taking precautions, ie..preventing a pedophile from being a teacher/childminder, is not the same, as wanting to lob their balls off.
(I'm not getting into the fact, that I'm sure there are MANY pedophiles who are teachers/childminders/is around kids alot, because they have a great love for children, they may get on very well with children..but that love, also means not wanting to hurt them. And if they are emphatic human beings they will never take advantage of children..but this is a slightly different argument from what I've wrote above.)
I want to add actually, that I don't think someone who has attraction to children is immediately a danger to children. I think someone who believes a child can consent or a child can reciprocate love or not be harmed by the activity..to be a danger.
The former is simply attracted, but know it can never and will never be reciprocated. the latter, thinks that in some cases it may be, the latter is clearly a danger. The former, I feel pity for.
I agree with most of this post ........... however I want to clarify something .......... are you saying that some paedophiles take jobs as teachers/childminders etc. because they have a great "love" of children and want to be around them but would never dream of hurting a child???
Or am I reading that wrong 0 -
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I can not see why not. They merely have an attraction. That says nothing about what actions they may ever commit. Attraction is not some uncontrollable urge you can do nothing about.
Think of every day relationships. Do you think men and women suddenly just STOP being attracted to other people? By magic? No. They still have attraction and in entering a relationship they say "I promise I will never sleep with another person but you". And we trust that. And most people, by far, stick to it.
I think what is happening here is people are conflating mere attraction with some kind of uncontrollable lust rage and merely by having that attraction they are somehow liable to engage in rape and horror, or more likely to do so than anyone else with any other kind of attraction. I am attracted to women myself. Sometimes heavily and powerfully so. Am I a rape risk merely for having attraction to them?? No, I am a happily dedicated man in a relationship and I practice full and constant fidelity to that person. My attractions are real but that is it. No more.
There is a chasm between having an attraction and acting on it, let alone acting on it against ones better judgement, morals, laws and more in a way that actively and horrifically harms another human being. Hell even most of the people who get off on rape or the idea of rape or stories of rape are not people who would actively ever even consider actually engaging in one. The idea of in any way constraining the freedoms of ANYONE who stands up and says "Yeah I have this attraction, I do not want it, can I be helped?" is ridiculous because A) It is simply going to prevent them from ever coming forward and They kind of person you hope to stop by implementing such a ludicrous proposition are not even going to be the ones honest enough to come forward anyway.
I said it's not good enough for me .......... so you'd happily trust a paedophile alone with your child if he promises you he won't rape your child???
I don't think we can realistically compare grown men and women who are sexually attracted to each other to paedophiles ........ can we?
I can't imagine how sexually frustrated I would get if I could never ever relieve my sexual urges with another person ......... for the rest of my life!!! :eek:0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am strongly attracted to women myself. Should I consent to being monitored and have restricted freedoms just in case I ever have a moment of weakness and temptation? A safeguard you know, just in case?
And I'm sure you've had plenty of consensual sex with women throughout your adult life and are probably looking forward to the next time you have sex?
You dirty divil!!
Don't think you're a danger to women ......... unless you're coming forward seeking help because you think you might be????0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I agree with most of this post ........... however I want to clarify something .......... are you saying that some paedophiles take jobs as teachers/childminders etc. because they have a great "love" of children and want to be around them but would never dream of hurting a child???
Or am I reading that wrong
The thing about your question is that to a massive degree we don't know. We only know about the criminal paedophiles, men and women, who do these things as a means to a criminal end. But we have no idea about non criminal paedophile people.0 -
-
-
-
Well then we'll we have to agree to disagree
I would have thought that clear already without needing to make it explicitOut of interest do you have children yourself?
Did I not indicate as much in my last two posts? I have two. And as I said I view the whole package of a person and not just what their attractions may be. Simple fact is, in a society where these people CANT come forward.... people probably HAVE left their children with them and simply not known it.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I would have thought that clear already without needing to make it explicit
Did I not indicate as much in my last two posts? I have two. And as I said I view the whole package of a person and not just what their attractions may be. Simple fact is, in a society where these people CANT come forward.... people probably HAVE left their children with them and simply not known it.
I am genuinely shocked to know that you have children of your own and would allow them to be knowingly left alone with a "trusted" paedophile ........ we are miles apart on our thoughts regarding the safety of our children.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts-NTTeEoA0
Advertisement