The Paedophile Next Door

Irishcrx

I guess you can't bar all paedophile's with the same brush , by definition are all men/women who are attracted to under age children paedophiles or is it just those that act upon those urges.

It's something that people will always struggle to understand , I don't understand how someone could hurt a child or be attracted to them but obviously there are a large amount of people who are, there are a large amount who also probably are and hate themselves for it. I'd imagine it contributes to a lot of suicides every year, I mean as said here it's hardly something you can go around saying to people , talking about and there is no help really out there for it, people will brand you straight away.

I honestly don't think it's something they can control, similar to those who have alternated sexual orientation it's probably something they are born with and cannot help or be fixed and at the same time it is something that can not and will not ever be tolerated.

nozzferrahhtoo

Irishcrx wrote: »

I guess you can't bar all paedophile's with the same brush , by definition are all men/women who are attracted to under age children paedophiles or is it just those that act upon those urges.

I think "pedophile" is the person who has the attraction. All of them.

"Rapists" "Abusers" and so forth are the people who act on them.

But "pedophile" refers to the attraction not the action I think.

Irishcrx wrote: »

It's something that people will always struggle to understand , I don't understand how someone could hurt a child or be attracted to them

True. I also do not know how guys can be attracted to other guys, because I simply do not have that attraction myself. But that exists too. Not having an attraction to something, makes it very hard to put yourself into the head space of people who do. But it helps to try.

The Corinthian

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is my point: are Africa coutries right if they define homosexuality as a mental illness?

Are we right when we don't? In the case of a lot of mental illnesses, they appear to be defined on one's psychology being in line with society's expectations. There's nothing terribly 'insane' about sociopaths, for example - they're not particularly delusional per say, but they are 'anti-social'.

The question isn't so much what happened, the question is why? And again, why is pedophilia a mental illness now, but it wasn't back then? It either is or it isn't.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I cannot say. However I would be of the opinion that everyone is subject to paraphilias (in essence abnormal or unusual sexual interests). In the vast majority of cases these are considered acceptable by society, and thus viewed as kinks, fetishes or orientations, in some they are deemed anti-social or taboo and thus mental illnesses.

Possibly so, but you want to solve this problem? At least define it first. Treating it as a mental illness when/if it isn't helps no one.

I suspect, and have been told, that the whole field is too riddled with politics to get an objective solution or even definition.

Irishcrx

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think "pedophile" is the person who has the attraction. All of them.

"Rapists" "Abusers" and so forth are the people who act on them.

But "pedophile" refers to the attraction not the action I think.



True. I also do not know how guys can be attracted to other guys, because I simply do not have that attraction myself. But that exists too. Not having an attraction to something, makes it very hard to put yourself into the head space of people who do. But it helps to try.

Indeed, I agree I believe in always trying to look at the others persons side of things and put yourself in their shoes etc but asking anyone to put themselves in the shoes or mind of a paedophile is difficult.

It's akin to asking someone to stand in the middle of 4 walls with huge spikes closing in on them , it's not a place I want to see.

nozzferrahhtoo

Irishcrx wrote: »

Indeed, I agree I believe in always trying to look at the others persons side of things and put yourself in their shoes etc but asking anyone to put themselves in the shoes or mind of a paedophile is difficult.

It's akin to asking someone to stand in the middle of 4 walls with huge spikes closing in on them , it's not a place I want to see.

I guess I relish challenges. It being difficult is not something that puts me off doing it, but making me MORE inclined to do so.

Grayson

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not a mental health professional, so I cannot say. However I would be of the opinion that everyone is subject to paraphilias (in essence abnormal or unusual sexual interests). In the vast majority of cases these are considered acceptable by society, and thus viewed as kinks, fetishes or orientations, in some they are deemed anti-social or taboo and thus mental illnesses.

Atually there's a chance that paedophilia is just an extension of a normal human attraction through a process called Neoteny.

The basic idea is that through out our evolution we have retained the traits that are common in juvenile apes and ditched the ones that are present in adults. That's how humans can live in such close proximity. If you stuck a million gorillas or chimps into an area the size of Dublin, there'd be a slaughter. However you could do the same with juvenile apes and there would be no violence.

Likewise, our gentleness, hairlessness loyality etc are traits that you find in juveniles.

We also find those traits attractive in mates. Women who are young, have big eyes, ruddy cheeks etc are considered attractive. Studies have concluded that neotenized faces in women are more attractive.

We are literally designed to find youth attractive. A side effect this is probably that some people find it too attractive or rather they find too much youth to be attractive.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nuns, other priests, members of the congregation, prostitutes and of course children ..........

so you're saying nuns and priests Are incapable of being celibate. I sincerely doubt that they are all at it.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........

So you would turn to rape if you coils by get any consensually then?

I wouldn't. I know how to control my urges. I have no doubts about that.

Holsten

porsche959 wrote: »

Didn't see the programme, but I have a problem with these kinds of shows on principle. In my view they run the risk of normalising child abuse, even it unintentionally.

What the hell are you on about?

This show is pretty much the polar opposite of that. It is having people look at the situation from a logical point of view instead of an emotional one. The way these people are dealt with currently is not working and does nothing for child protection.

By actually have the discussion in a calm, logical manner people want to try and find the best way to deal with it. It makes complete sense. There is nothing at all about this which is normalizing child abuse, the end game here is to completely eradicate all child sexual abuse.

Refusing to talk about it is completely stupid, ignorance and down right dangerous. Same goes for any issue.

The Corinthian

Grayson wrote: »

We are literally designed to find youth attractive.

There's plenty of theories surrounding it and other paraphilias. Amongst them is that early sexual experiences (some very innocent and perhaps not even immediately identifiable as sexual) can imprint certain attractions or orientations. I went to an all boys boarding school after my Intercert and I can tell you that the number of classmates (who had bordered from first year) who came out was a multiple of the the supposed average of homosexual incidence (9 out of a year of 50 at last count, another school I know had 9 out of 30) - it's a major reason I am very skeptical of claims that genetics are the primary factor involved.

Anyway, overall, I believe it close to pointless to try to discuss this topic rationally in today's World. The mental health profession appears highly politicized on these subjects and such is the public hysteria and, frankly, stupidity surrounding pedophilia that there's little chance of mature discourse.

Look at some of some of the 'hang them all' comments even in this thread - reading them I thought society could benefit from their authors' chemical castration too, lest they pass on their intellectually inferior genes to the next generation.

sbsquarepants

I think in a way paedophiles are actually victims themselves - I doubt anybody actually wants to be attracted to kids but if you just happen to be wired that way, then what can you do? If you didn't choose it, you can't un-choose it! It's like any other sexual preference, it is out of your control. Personally I have a thing for redheads - if for some reason that was socially unacceptable, illegal, punishable by death even I know I would still have it, I didn't choose it or decide upon it. I don't think it would be possible to somehow "cure" me of it. In a way I'm just lucky that society doesn't give a flying fúck about my likes and dislikes and has turned a blind eye to my sleazy pursuits! Most of us are in that same boat. We are who we are by luck rather than by design.
I'm not in any way excusing child abusers, they are scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned, as are adult abusers. There is only 1 perversion in this world and that is absence of consent. I'm just saying I don't see how they could ever be "fixed". We're in "pray the gay away" territory here - it just doesn't work, that shít is ingrained. These people are dangerous and will always remain dangerous - whether it's their fault or not is completely immaterial.
It wasn't Jeffrey Dahmers fault he was the way he was, he was probably as much a victim as his actual victims were. That doesn't negate what he done in any way shape or form.

grizzly

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Its in the DSM and the ICD as a mental disorder so yes.

So was homosexuality.

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

These people are dangerous and will always remain dangerous - whether it's their fault or not is completely immaterial.
It wasn't Jeffrey Dahmers fault he was the way he was, he was probably as much a victim as his actual victims were. That doesn't negate what he done in any way shape or form.

Interesting you bring up Jeffrey Dahmer. He wasn't a pedophile, he has a homosexual. Does that mean that all homosexuals are dangerous by the same logic?

All sexual humans are potentially dangerous abusers or rapists, regardless of their orientation or paraphilia. Are pedophiles any more-so? Maybe, but I'm not sure you can judge by comparing the re-offence rates of convicted child abusers and decide from that, any more than you could look at the re-offence rates of convicted straight rapists and conclude that straight people 'remain dangerous' either.

Of course, we can talk about "would you risk your child's safety", but then again most would sacrifice the child of another to save their own, when you come to it (we don't like to admit it, but we would), so it's hardly a good measure to go by.

jimgoose

The Corinthian wrote: »

Interesting you bring up Jeffrey Dahmer...

I believe Dahmer had quite a collection of personality disorders, as well as great difficulty coming to terms with his own sexuality, which some put down at least partly to his mother, who it seems was rather difficult to get along with to put it mildly.

The Corinthian

jimgoose wrote: »

I believe Dahmer had quite a collection of personality disorders, as well as great difficulty coming to terms with his own sexuality, which some put down at least partly to his mother, who it seems was rather difficult to get along with to put it mildly.

I believe so, but I was questioning his conclusion that a pedophile is "dangerous and will always remain dangerous"; if like Dahmer they come with a collection of other colourful personality disorders that could well be the case, but then it's because of these and not the pedophilia. Wasn't so long ago that parents would keep their sons away from gay men because they represented a threat. Just to be on the safe side, mind you...

jimgoose

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe so, but I was questioning his conclusion that a pedophile is "dangerous and will always remain dangerous"; if like Dahmer they come with a collection of other colourful personality disorders that could well be the case, but then it's because of these and not the pedophilia. Wasn't so long ago that parents would keep their sons away from gay men because they represented a threat. Just to be on the safe side, mind you...

Just in case it isn't clear, I 'm agreeing with you. Dahmer's sexual orientation didn't make him dangerous, what made him dangerous was that his brain had more and stranger electrical poltergeists than a Jaguar with a bad battery! :pac:

Cee-Jay-Cee

The One Doctor wrote: »

Pedophilia is a mental illness, so yes there is. However, the stigma is so huge (justifiably so) that they'll probably never get the treatment and therapy they need.

A vicious circle.

So does that mean homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexual and heterosexuality are all mental illnesses too??

The Corinthian

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

So does that mean homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexual and heterosexuality are all mental illnesses too??

The former three used to be, but are no longer seen as such in the West. How this came about historically says a lot about the 'science' of psychology rather than anything about homosexuality, lesbianism or bi-sexuality, TBH.

Isn't there a new orientation called bi-curiosity too, nowadays? A bit like bi-sexuality for people who read books like 50 Shades of Grey?

CdeC

Can we stop comparing paedophilia to homosexuality. They are not related.
Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual preference.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is only 1 perversion in this world and that is absence of consent. I'm just saying I don't see how they could ever be "fixed". We're in "pray the gay away" territory here - it just doesn't work, that shít is ingrained. These people are dangerous and will always remain dangerous - whether it's their fault or not is completely immaterial.

I agree 100% with the first statement but not the second. Your sexual orientation is ingrained yes but how you grow shapes that orientation. People are not born abusers they have had a series of experiences at a certain important developmental stage in their lives that has somehow caused them to be attracted to kids. I don't like paedophilia being compared to homosexuality at all. Changing someones sexual orientation has not proved successful but we must try to treat someone who is an abuser or has committed crimes as these are learned rather than natural.

Neyite

The Corinthian wrote: »

The former three used to be, but are no longer seen as such in the West. How this came about historically says a lot about the 'science' of psychology rather than anything about homosexuality, lesbianism or bi-sexuality, TBH.

Isn't there a new orientation called bi-curiosity too, nowadays? A bit like bi-sexuality for people who read books like 50 Shades of Grey?

So that's what they call appalling taste in books these days. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo you make interesting points but I do have to disagree with you when you say you would have no problem with a pedophile around your children. Aside from the risks already pointed out, I would think it almost cruel to that person as well as a massive risk to take on behalf of your child.
If its a compulsion, or an addiction surely then we assist in support for people, by minimising the temptations. Its like asking an alcoholic to mind your whiskey, or asking a gambler to go to a bookies for you, or a drug addict to mind your pharmacy unattended. You may trust them, and they may trust themselves to an extent, but surely its kinder not to put them into direct contact with the very demons they fight daily.

I've seen the carnage child sexual assault can have right through to adulthood resulting from a couple of times a paedophile has stepped over the line impulsively. I might continue to love and support someone in my family who had those compulsions but no way would I leave them alone for any length of time with my child. It's not fair to them or to the child involved.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are we right when we don't? In the case of a lot of mental illnesses, they appear to be defined on one's psychology being in line with society's expectations. There's nothing terribly 'insane' about sociopaths, for example - they're not particularly delusional per say, but they are 'anti-social'.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I cannot say. However I would be of the opinion that everyone is subject to paraphilias (in essence abnormal or unusual sexual interests). In the vast majority of cases these are considered acceptable by society, and thus viewed as kinks, fetishes or orientations, in some they are deemed anti-social or taboo and thus mental illnesses.

I suspect, and have been told, that the whole field is too riddled with politics to get an objective solution or even definition.

1 - Who said you have to be "insane" to have a mental illness? And you haven't answered my question: how can something be a mental illness one place but not in another?

2 - If your statement about paraphilias is correct, and pedophilia is a paraphilia, then it seems, be extention, that everyone is mentally ill? Why is pedophilia, from a mental health point of view, set asaide?

Grayson

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's plenty of theories surrounding it and other paraphilias. Amongst them is that early sexual experiences (some very innocent and perhaps not even immediately identifiable as sexual) can imprint certain attractions or orientations. I went to an all boys boarding school after my Intercert and I can tell you that the number of classmates (who had bordered from first year) who came out was a multiple of the the supposed average of homosexual incidence (9 out of a year of 50 at last count, another school I know had 9 out of 30) - it's a major reason I am very skeptical of claims that genetics are the primary factor involved.

Anyway, overall, I believe it close to pointless to try to discuss this topic rationally in today's World. The mental health profession appears highly politicized on these subjects and such is the public hysteria and, frankly, stupidity surrounding pedophilia that there's little chance of mature discourse.

Look at some of some of the 'hang them all' comments even in this thread - reading them I thought society could benefit from their authors' chemical castration too, lest they pass on their intellectually inferior genes to the next generation.

I went to a boarding school and was there for my intercert (I think we've given away our ages). there weren't any gay guys in my class of about fifty (or atleast i haven't heard of any). there were a couple the year below me.

I think (and this is completely based on nothing but my own musings) that attraction doesn't have to be related to environment. I think people have preferences which aren't as black and white as we normally say but will generally align with what we would consider a normal disposition.

Think of it as a line graph. Very straight/gay people at either ends and bi people in the middle. Most people probably have a natural disposition for somewhere that isn't at the very end. However the society they grew up in automatically pigeon holes them into a particular classification and they end up in a society that only recognises straight/bi/gay.

The subject at hand, child abuse, is more complicated. There are many examples of child abusers not having any attraction to children at all. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that many of those who abuse were once abused themselves. And i don't know if I've ever seen any figures which show how many abusers are actually paedophiles. In fact, because we only ever hear of a paedophile when abuse is involved, it's always possible that there are many out there who are paedophiles and don't abuse. Lets face it, they're not about to advertise it.

sbsquarepants

The Corinthian wrote: »

Interesting you bring up Jeffrey Dahmer. He wasn't a pedophile, he has a homosexual. Does that mean that all homosexuals are dangerous by the same logic?
.

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clear. I wasn't talking about his sexuality. I meant the fact he was psychopathic - he didn't choose to be a stone cold killer, he just happened to be. Given the choice, he would likely have chosen differently. The fact he was homosexual never even occurred to me.

CdeC wrote: »

Can we stop comparing paedophilia to homosexuality. They are not related.
Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual preference. .

I'm not sure that distinction is in any way important, or what difference it makes.
To use myself as an example, I'm straight with a preference for redheads. Upshot is I like redheaded women. Breaking that into 2 components is pretty pointless, the end result doesn't change.

CdeC wrote: »

I agree 100% with the first statement but not the second. Your sexual orientation is ingrained yes but how you grow shapes that orientation. People are not born abusers they have had a series of experiences at a certain important developmental stage in their lives that has somehow caused them to be attracted to kids. I don't like paedophilia being compared to homosexuality at all. Changing someones sexual orientation has not proved successful but we must try to treat someone who is an abuser or has committed crimes as these are learned rather than natural.

Whether you like it or not doesn't really matter. All sexual likes or dislikes are similar in nature if you ask me. You're into whatever the hell it is you're into, be that what it may.
Mr X getting turned on by Kim Kardashians ass is no different from Mr Y getting turned on by Kanye Wests shoes. (They're both freaks:D)
Mr Z getting turned on by their kid, is basically the same thing. It's abhorrent for most of us, but it simply is what it is for Mr Z.

The Corinthian

CdeC wrote: »

Can we stop comparing paedophilia to homosexuality. They are not related.

I was wondering how long before someone was going to come out and say this.

Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual preference.

Can you explain the difference?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was wondering how long before someone was going to come out and say this.

Can you explain the difference?

I have explained the difference: oreientation spcifically relates to gender. Pedophiles can be gay, straight or bisexual. Saying that pedophila is an orientation is as inaccurate as saying gender is seperate, and that you can be a man, a woman or a pedophile.

The comparison to homosexuality is always goign to be there because of the historical status of homosexuality as being mis-diagnosed as a mental illness and pedophila now being mis-diagnosed as a mental illness. (sorry to harp on about that but that IS part of the problem )

The Corinthian

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - Who said you have to be "insane" to have a mental illness? And you haven't answered my question: how can something be a mental illness one place but not in another?

I did; it's based on social norms.

2 - If your statement about paraphilias is correct, and pedophilia is a paraphilia, then it seems, be extention, that everyone is mentally ill? Why is pedophilia, from a mental health point of view, set asaide?

I'd imagine because there's a lot of political lobbying taking place in the mental health spheres to have it redefined.

Grayson wrote: »

I went to a boarding school and was there for my intercert (I think we've given away our ages). there weren't any gay guys in my class of about fifty (or atleast i haven't heard of any). there were a couple the year below me.

There were none in my class either. They all came out long after graduation.

There are many examples of child abusers not having any attraction to children at all.

Then they're not pedophiles, which is the subject of this thread. However, you raise a valid point in that the two need not be synonymous, which is often assumed.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clear. I wasn't talking about his sexuality. I meant the fact he was psychopathic - he didn't choose to be a stone cold killer, he just happened to be. Given the choice, he would likely have chosen differently. The fact he was homosexual never even occurred to me.

He was apparently borderline, not sociopathic.

You made a claim that pedophiles "are dangerous and will always remain dangerous" and then backed it up with an example of someone who was not a pedophile but homosexual. Or are you saying that all pedophiles are sociopaths too and this is why they're dangerous?

nozzferrahhtoo

Neyite wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo you make interesting points but I do have to disagree with you when you say you would have no problem with a pedophile around your children.

As would I so thankfully that is not _Quite_ what I am saying. I would not be ok with just any pedophile around my children. What I AM saying is that there are a select few people in my life who I trust for a number of reasons and those reason outweigh pedophilia, were they to admit to me they have such feelings. Though thus far no one has made such an admission in my current circle of friends.

Since this, rather than my points, appears to be an issue for some people let me expand on it somewhat. And I will do so at first without reference to the emotive topic of pedophilia.

I have one friend who is, to say the least, a horn. He is sex and woman obsessed. He LOVES sex. Inordinately. He talks about it a lot, he has his porn collection, he is ooogling women on nights out, and he chats them up all the time hoping for some sex.

However there have been occasions where he has had sure thing sex laid before him, with women well "up his street" and he has turned it down. The reasons for this vary. On one occasion he deemed the girl too drunk to consent meaningfully even though she protested she was. Another girl admitted, as they were back in her apartment and well into proceedings, that she had a boyfriend, so he backed off. In another case he was offered sex with a very attractive woman by her boyfriend. Swingers of a sort, though the BF himself was not to be present. But he did not consent to that either.

So this is the kind of guy I would trust implicitly in sexual situations. Despite being the biggest horn there is known to man or beast, his integrity, morals and ethic outweighs this by far. The kind of guy who despite his horniness if for some reason I had to leave SOMEONE alone with my scantily clad, out of her head drunk partner (partner is not a drinker, this is hypothetical) for a few hours it would be him I would choose with NO fear of ANY sort that he would consider anything..... ungentlemanly.

All I am saying essentially when I make the comments I did, is that there are people in my life, like him, a small number of them, who if I found out they had sexual attraction towards children.... that I would trust everything ELSE about them as a person as a whole... their morality, integrity, ethic, self discipline and control and love for my children.... to know that my trust for _them_ with my children would not be shaken by this revelation.

But that is NOT me saying, as you sort of implied above, that I am perfectly happy to leave my children alone with pedophiles in general. I would not say that, and have not said that. But for me pedophilia is irrelevant in this because pedophilia or not, there are few people I trust leaving my children alone with ANYWAY.

Neyite wrote: »

If its a compulsion, or an addiction surely then we assist in support for people, by minimising the temptations.

I do not assume it to be a compulsion or an addiction in general. Sure there are some people with that. But there are rapists of adults too that have it. Having an attraction.... and having such compulsions and addictions.... are not synonymous. They are different things.

And merely having an attraction to children does not mean you are a risk, a compulsion or an addict. As I said in a previous post there used to be an "asses against the wall lads" reaction to homosexuals. As if by simply having same sex attraction you are automatically a full on deviant, and if we take the risk of turning your back on them, youll be bent over with your pants down before you know it.

I think we have evolved and matured enough as a society to understand why that is ridiculous. Homosexuality is not any more seen with an automatic compulsion to shag any and all males that you get the chance to, regardless of consent. And I do not think pedophilia should be viewed as that either, automatically or out of hand.

And that distinction can be explored and assimilated into our thinking on the subject without EVER losing sight of the goals and concerns that you and I both likely have in entirely equal measure.

Neyite wrote: »

Its like asking an alcoholic to mind your whiskey

But is it though? I hope what I said above makes you question this but I repeat it here for force. The attraction is not automatically analogous to addiction or compulsion. At all. It is our horror and lack of true understanding of the subject that leads many to conflate them, but they are not to be conflated.

Just like for every man in our society who rapes a woman, there are innumerable others who are attracted to women and conduct themselves perfectly well. For every man who would find a passed out drunk girl at a part in a short skirt and unguarded.... who would send his hands uninvited up that skirts.... there are 1000s of others who would roll her properly into the bed, cover her up with the blanket, and stand outside the door until such time as he can identify someone who can take her home or take guardianship of her.

For every person who abuses or rapes children, there is quite likely to be NUMEROUS others who have the attraction who do not act on it. More than we imagine is my suspicion and we would likely be shocked were we to have true figures on it.

So really my only point on this thread, distilled down into a sound-bite, is that attraction is distinct from action, and desire is distinct from intent.

And if we do want to foster a society where pedophiles come forward and seek assistance dealing with or even merely understanding their feelings..... we will not get there by implementing the kinds of responses that have been suggested on this thread. Which have ranged from several curtailing methods of their freedoms and liberties.... to the more extreme poster who said he would remove them entirely from society upon identification.

My concerns there, which have not really been addressed, are two fold. A) Such a thing would stop them coming forward anyway so it would be pointless and The kinds of people we wish to target BY implementing such nonsense are not likely to be the ones who came forward in the first place.

floggg

Neyite wrote: »

So that's what they call appalling taste in books these days. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo you make interesting points but I do have to disagree with you when you say you would have no problem with a pedophile around your children. Aside from the risks already pointed out, I would think it almost cruel to that person as well as a massive risk to take on behalf of your child.
If its a compulsion, or an addiction surely then we assist in support for people, by minimising the temptations. Its like asking an alcoholic to mind your whiskey, or asking a gambler to go to a bookies for you, or a drug addict to mind your pharmacy unattended. You may trust them, and they may trust themselves to an extent, but surely its kinder not to put them into direct contact with the very demons they fight daily.

I've seen the carnage child sexual assault can have right through to adulthood resulting from a couple of times a paedophile has stepped over the line impulsively. I might continue to love and support someone in my family who had those compulsions but no way would I leave them alone for any length of time with my child. It's not fair to them or to the child involved.

Who said it was a compulsion or addiction - or that it was for every paedophile at least.

I am attracted to men, but that attraction doesn't take the form of a compulsion or addiction. I can exercise control over my attractions and urges.

While I can tell speak for every paedophile (or any paedophile for that matter), it seems reasonable to me that a person could be attracted to children or whatever and yet still exercise control over themselves.

In fact, I would imagine the majority do, but we never hear from them due to the stigma associated.

The Corinthian

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I have explained the difference: oreientation spcifically relates to gender. Pedophiles can be gay, straight or bisexual. Saying that pedophila is an orientation is as inaccurate as saying gender is seperate, and that you can be a man, a woman or a pedophile.

So orientation is for gender only? I see, then attraction to a particular gender is one thing, but any other type of attraction is totally different, to the point that you have to stress this in case people get confused. Right.

The comparison to homosexuality is always goign to be there because of the historical status of homosexuality as being mis-diagnosed as a mental illness and pedophila now being mis-diagnosed as a mental illness. (sorry to harp on about that but that IS part of the problem )

So it can't be a mental illness if it involves attraction to a specific gender, but if not involving attraction to a specific gender then it shouldn't be a mental illness either - there seems to be some problem with your reasoning here as it makes no sense or is there some other way that orientation/preference comes into your polemic?

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

In fact, I would imagine the majority do, but we never hear from them due to the stigma associated.

In fairness, we can't say that - well we can if we say we're speculating. It's entirely possible that it is a far more compulsive [INSERT LABEL THAT DOES NOT UPSET THE PC BRIGADE] than, say, homo/heterosexuality.

Or not. Just saying.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Corinthian wrote: »

So orientation is for gender only? I see, then attraction to a particular gender is one thing, but any other type of attraction is totally different, to the point that you have to stress this in case people get confused. Right.

That's pretty much it, yes. I don't make the defintions. Rest of it;s a bit of an ad homeinum in fairness?

So it can't be a mental illness if it involves attraction to a specific gender, but if not involving attraction to a specific gender then it shouldn't be a mental illness either - there seems to be some problem with your reasoning here as it makes no sense or is there some other way that orientation/preference comes into your polemic?

I'm saying that attractions and fertishes are not mental disorders, full stop. An inability to surpress them, you could have a point with, but that's a seperate issue as has been highlighted many times alrready - but just the basic attractions is not.

sbsquarepants

The Corinthian wrote: »

He was apparently borderline, not sociopathic.

You made a claim that pedophiles "are dangerous and will always remain dangerous" and then backed it up with an example of someone who was not a pedophile but homosexual. Or are you saying that all pedophiles are sociopaths too and this is why they're dangerous?

Are you able to read? Do you understand analogy? Or do you just prefer to invent what you would like others to have said and get outraged by that?

He wasn't a paedophile, correct - I never said he was or wasn't, as that wasn't my point at all.
He was a homosexual, correct - Again I never said he was or wasn't, as that also wasn't my point.
He was American, was I saying all Americans are dangers to our kids? No.
He was quite intelligent, was I saying we should round up all smart people cos they're likely kiddie fiddlers? No
Instead of me pointing out all the things I wasn't talking about maybe you could just constrain yourself to the 1 thing I've said I was. Be quicker in the long run!

Neyite

floggg wrote: »

Who said it was a compulsion or addiction - or that it was for every paedophile at least.

I am attracted to men, but that attraction doesn't take the form of a compulsion or addiction. I can exercise control over my attractions and urges.

While I can tell speak for every paedophile (or any paedophile for that matter), it seems reasonable to me that a person could be attracted to children or whatever and yet still exercise control over themselves.

In fact, I would imagine the majority do, but we never hear from them due to the stigma associated.

I suppose I'm taking the 'compulsion' notion from the offenders themselves- their defence is usually that they cannot help themselves, that they struggle to control it, that they cannot change it. Mind though, that is the ones that were defending themselves in court and had already crossed that line long ago. For every one of those, there is someone who would never do it despite having the same urges.

I believe that we can master our addictions and compulsions just as I believe that there are many who could but choose not to. So I do agree that there are some that would never act on their fantasies, but plenty more do, so how, as a parent can you know for sure. You don't. But equally as a parent, you don't have to go around the neighbourhood with pitchforks daubing offensive slogans on some poor sod's door. Some of the media frenzy whipped up in the likes of the Daily Mail is downright dangerous.

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are you able to read? Do you understand analogy? Or do you just prefer to invent what you would like others to have said and get outraged by that?

He wasn't a paedophile, correct - I never said he was or wasn't, as that wasn't my point at all.
He was a homosexual, correct - Again I never said he was or wasn't, as that also wasn't my point.
He was American, was I saying all Americans are dangers to our kids? No.
He was quite intelligent, was I saying we should round up all smart people cos they're likely kiddie fiddlers? No
Instead of me pointing out all the things I wasn't talking about maybe you could just constrain yourself to the 1 thing I've said I was. Be quicker in the long run!

So are you saying that your example was just really stupid?

nozzferrahhtoo

Neyite wrote: »

I suppose I'm taking the 'compulsion' notion from the offenders themselves

And you are not alone in this at all I feel. People are extrapolating the actions AND opinions of offenders into a generalization as a whole.

But I think we would recognize how ridiculous this would be in other contexts. Would you extrapolate opinions on heterosexual male sexuality by interviewing only convicted rapists? Would you expect an accurate picture of male sexuality by limiting yourself to that group alone?

And when you realize why that is ridiculous, simply transfer that to this topic. Is it truly useful to build an image of pedophile compunction by compiling the testimony of child sexual offenders?

That is why, as the documentary that started this thread says, we NEED to talk to pedophiles. We NEED them to come forward and to have discourse with us. Because their testimony is as relevant, if not more so, than those we have from people in prisons for abuse of children.

Neyite wrote: »

For every one of those, there is someone who would never do it despite having the same urges.

I agree, but I think your ratio is not enough. 1:1 I think is WAY too small. I suspect, deep down, that for every one that would not do it, there are probably 100... 100s.... even 1000s who have the attraction but never once consider actually implementing them.

Of course this is just my feeling and suspicion, driven by a few key data drivers that make me think that, and I look forward to the day we have real figures on this and not just my gut feelings and impressions. The documentary in various ways also attempts to get across just how many people we are talking about here. Worth the watch. I am nearly through it now as we speak.

sbsquarepants

The Corinthian wrote: »

So are you saying that your example was just really stupid?

I'm saying something is

CdeC

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clear. I wasn't talking about his sexuality. I meant the fact he was psychopathic - he didn't choose to be a stone cold killer, he just happened to be. Given the choice, he would likely have chosen differently. The fact he was homosexual never even occurred to me.



I'm not sure that distinction is in any way important, or what difference it makes.
To use myself as an example, I'm straight with a preference for redheads. Upshot is I like redheaded women. Breaking that into 2 components is pretty pointless, the end result doesn't change.




Whether you like it or not doesn't really matter. All sexual likes or dislikes are similar in nature if you ask me. You're into whatever the hell it is you're into, be that what it may.
Mr X getting turned on by Kim Kardashians ass is no different from Mr Y getting turned on by Kanye Wests shoes. (They're both freaks:D)
Mr Z getting turned on by their kid, is basically the same thing. It's abhorrent for most of us, but it simply is what it is for Mr Z.

People are not just into abusing children. comparing that to your taste for redheads is a little glib and over simplified.

An orientation is your degree of attraction to a gender. A sexual preference would be what attracts you specifically. eg: red hair. The first one is something that is innate the second is something that you experienced. Perhaps a red headed woman was kind to you or in your life at a specific developmental stage and now you associate red hair with something good.

By your logic, a paedophile is attracted to kids and thats it, it cant be helped. Therefore a rapist could argue the same case. I am what I am and it couldn't be helped.

renegademaster

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-have-got-a-problem-i-need-help-paedophile-to-out-himself-in-new-channel-4-documentary-30769200.html



Is there anyway of treating these people that works?

chemical or physical castration?

Shiraz 4.99

We call our one Michael, a nice chap, except when he's staring at the kids on the green, naughty naughty Michael

Grayson

CdeC wrote: »

People are not just into abusing children. comparing that to your taste for redheads is a little glib and over simplified.

An orientation is your degree of attraction to a gender. A sexual preference would be what attracts you specifically. eg: red hair. The first one is something that is innate the second is something that you experienced. Perhaps a red headed woman was kind to you or in your life at a specific developmental stage and now you associate red hair with something good.

By your logic, a paedophile is attracted to kids and thats it, it cant be helped. Therefore a rapist could argue the same case. I am what I am and it couldn't be helped.

It is interesting to bring up rapists. there were studies that found a lot of rapists got off on the violence and intimidation, not the actual sex itself. likewise I'd imagine abusers are the same. That's why a lot of the time it's got nothing to do with sex. Most men who abuse young boys are straight.

I'd say that abuse is related to paedophilia but not necessarily caused by it a lot of the time.

sbsquarepants

CdeC wrote: »

By your logic, a paedophile is attracted to kids and thats it, it cant be helped. Therefore a rapist could argue the same case. I am what I am and it couldn't be helped.

That is pretty much my logic and I haven't seen much from yourself, or anyone else that contradicts it. That is why I say they paedophiles are dangerous people and will always remain dangerous people.
Rapists the same, if you are the sort of person who is willing to rape someone you don't just sit down and have an aul yap with a psychiatrist and see the error of your ways - this sort of stuff is not skin deep, it goes all the way to the bone.

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That is pretty much my logic and I haven't seen much from yourself, or anyone else that contradicts it. That is why I say they paedophiles are dangerous people and will always remain dangerous people.
Rapists the same, if you are the sort of person who is willing to rape someone you don't just sit down and have an aul yap with a psychiatrist and see the error of your ways - this sort of stuff is not skin deep, it goes all the way to the bone.

rapists don't have a type.

think of it this way

hetro does not equal rapist
paedo does not equal abuser.

Like i said above a lot of abusers are straight males. It actually has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Likewise rapists get off on the violence. It's not like they have a particular type.

That's what rapists and abusers have in common, they are actually more into the violent acts than they are attracted to the victims.

I have no idea how likely a paedophile is to be an abuser. I think most people don't. The simple fact is that if someone was attracted to children, they wouldn't tell anyone. therefore we have no way of working out what percentage of paedophiles are abusers.
It could actually be the same percentage of paedophiles abuse children as the percentage of men who assault women.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

How sexually frustrated would you be if you'd never had sex with the object of your desires?

As a sadist, I have many desires that aren't fulfilled. I'm only sexually frustrated if I have no sex at all.
Pedophilia is considered a fetish for most people and not a singular attraction.
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/paraphilias-overview

A fetish does not require active participation to be enjoyed, this is where cgi and fantasy stories, role playing, obviously with an adult etc, comes into play.

You're assuming a pedophile has no sexual release whatsoever, this is incorrect.

Most people's fear of pedophiles is because they equate pedophilia with child abuse. They are not the same. And one does not necessarily lead to the other.

MadDog76

obplayer wrote: »

Does this mean that without it being offered by someone able, both legally and morally, that you would resort to rape?

No, it means I would be left unsatisfied :rolleyes:

MadDog76

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think in a way paedophiles are actually victims themselves - I doubt anybody actually wants to be attracted to kids but if you just happen to be wired that way, then what can you do? If you didn't choose it, you can't un-choose it! It's like any other sexual preference, it is out of your control. Personally I have a thing for redheads - if for some reason that was socially unacceptable, illegal, punishable by death even I know I would still have it, I didn't choose it or decide upon it. I don't think it would be possible to somehow "cure" me of it. In a way I'm just lucky that society doesn't give a flying fúck about my likes and dislikes and has turned a blind eye to my sleazy pursuits! Most of us are in that same boat. We are who we are by luck rather than by design.
I'm not in any way excusing child abusers, they are scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned, as are adult abusers. There is only 1 perversion in this world and that is absence of consent. I'm just saying I don't see how they could ever be "fixed". We're in "pray the gay away" territory here - it just doesn't work, that shít is ingrained. These people are dangerous and will always remain dangerous - whether it's their fault or not is completely immaterial.
It wasn't Jeffrey Dahmers fault he was the way he was, he was probably as much a victim as his actual victims were. That doesn't negate what he done in any way shape or form.

One of the best posts I've read on this thread ............ no bulls**t, just straight to the core of this issue.

MadDog76

CdeC wrote: »

Can we stop comparing paedophilia to homosexuality. They are not related.
Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual preference.





I agree 100% with the first statement but not the second. Your sexual orientation is ingrained yes but how you grow shapes that orientation. People are not born abusers they have had a series of experiences at a certain important developmental stage in their lives that has somehow caused them to be attracted to kids. I don't like paedophilia being compared to homosexuality at all. Changing someones sexual orientation has not proved successful but we must try to treat someone who is an abuser or has committed crimes as these are learned rather than natural.

Paedophilia is not a sexual preference ......... it's something you are born with and cannot be changed ....... just like homosexuality.

MadDog76

Grayson wrote: »

I went to a boarding school and was there for my intercert (I think we've given away our ages). there weren't any gay guys in my class of about fifty (or atleast i haven't heard of any). there were a couple the year below me.

I think (and this is completely based on nothing but my own musings) that attraction doesn't have to be related to environment. I think people have preferences which aren't as black and white as we normally say but will generally align with what we would consider a normal disposition.

Think of it as a line graph. Very straight/gay people at either ends and bi people in the middle. Most people probably have a natural disposition for somewhere that isn't at the very end. However the society they grew up in automatically pigeon holes them into a particular classification and they end up in a society that only recognises straight/bi/gay.

The subject at hand, child abuse, is more complicated. There are many examples of child abusers not having any attraction to children at all. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that many of those who abuse were once abused themselves. And i don't know if I've ever seen any figures which show how many abusers are actually paedophiles. In fact, because we only ever hear of a paedophile when abuse is involved, it's always possible that there are many out there who are paedophiles and don't abuse. Lets face it, they're not about to advertise it.

Not all child abusers are paedophiles .......... but all paedophiles are potential child abusers ....... there's no getting away from that fact.

Roquentin

out of curiosity has anyone ever lived next door or a few doors down from a sex offender?

bodice ripper

MadDog76 wrote: »

Not all child abusers are paedophiles .......... but all paedophiles are potential child abusers ....... there's no getting away from that fact.

same way all men are potential rapists yeah? **** me, the feminists were right!

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As would I so thankfully that is not _Quite_ what I am saying. I would not be ok with just any pedophile around my children. What I AM saying is that there are a select few people in my life who I trust for a number of reasons and those reason outweigh pedophilia, were they to admit to me they have such feelings. Though thus far no one has made such an admission in my current circle of friends.

Since this, rather than my points, appears to be an issue for some people let me expand on it somewhat. And I will do so at first without reference to the emotive topic of pedophilia.

I have one friend who is, to say the least, a horn. He is sex and woman obsessed. He LOVES sex. Inordinately. He talks about it a lot, he has his porn collection, he is ooogling women on nights out, and he chats them up all the time hoping for some sex.

However there have been occasions where he has had sure thing sex laid before him, with women well "up his street" and he has turned it down. The reasons for this vary. On one occasion he deemed the girl too drunk to consent meaningfully even though she protested she was. Another girl admitted, as they were back in her apartment and well into proceedings, that she had a boyfriend, so he backed off. In another case he was offered sex with a very attractive woman by her boyfriend. Swingers of a sort, though the BF himself was not to be present. But he did not consent to that either.

So this is the kind of guy I would trust implicitly in sexual situations. Despite being the biggest horn there is known to man or beast, his integrity, morals and ethic outweighs this by far. The kind of guy who despite his horniness if for some reason I had to leave SOMEONE alone with my scantily clad, out of her head drunk partner (partner is not a drinker, this is hypothetical) for a few hours it would be him I would choose with NO fear of ANY sort that he would consider anything..... ungentlemanly.

All I am saying essentially when I make the comments I did, is that there are people in my life, like him, a small number of them, who if I found out they had sexual attraction towards children.... that I would trust everything ELSE about them as a person as a whole... their morality, integrity, ethic, self discipline and control and love for my children.... to know that my trust for _them_ with my children would not be shaken by this revelation.

But that is NOT me saying, as you sort of implied above, that I am perfectly happy to leave my children alone with pedophiles in general. I would not say that, and have not said that. But for me pedophilia is irrelevant in this because pedophilia or not, there are few people I trust leaving my children alone with ANYWAY.



I do not assume it to be a compulsion or an addiction in general. Sure there are some people with that. But there are rapists of adults too that have it. Having an attraction.... and having such compulsions and addictions.... are not synonymous. They are different things.

And merely having an attraction to children does not mean you are a risk, a compulsion or an addict. As I said in a previous post there used to be an "asses against the wall lads" reaction to homosexuals. As if by simply having same sex attraction you are automatically a full on deviant, and if we take the risk of turning your back on them, youll be bent over with your pants down before you know it.

I think we have evolved and matured enough as a society to understand why that is ridiculous. Homosexuality is not any more seen with an automatic compulsion to shag any and all males that you get the chance to, regardless of consent. And I do not think pedophilia should be viewed as that either, automatically or out of hand.

And that distinction can be explored and assimilated into our thinking on the subject without EVER losing sight of the goals and concerns that you and I both likely have in entirely equal measure.



But is it though? I hope what I said above makes you question this but I repeat it here for force. The attraction is not automatically analogous to addiction or compulsion. At all. It is our horror and lack of true understanding of the subject that leads many to conflate them, but they are not to be conflated.

Just like for every man in our society who rapes a woman, there are innumerable others who are attracted to women and conduct themselves perfectly well. For every man who would find a passed out drunk girl at a part in a short skirt and unguarded.... who would send his hands uninvited up that skirts.... there are 1000s of others who would roll her properly into the bed, cover her up with the blanket, and stand outside the door until such time as he can identify someone who can take her home or take guardianship of her.

For every person who abuses or rapes children, there is quite likely to be NUMEROUS others who have the attraction who do not act on it. More than we imagine is my suspicion and we would likely be shocked were we to have true figures on it.

So really my only point on this thread, distilled down into a sound-bite, is that attraction is distinct from action, and desire is distinct from intent.

And if we do want to foster a society where pedophiles come forward and seek assistance dealing with or even merely understanding their feelings..... we will not get there by implementing the kinds of responses that have been suggested on this thread. Which have ranged from several curtailing methods of their freedoms and liberties.... to the more extreme poster who said he would remove them entirely from society upon identification.

My concerns there, which have not really been addressed, are two fold. A) Such a thing would stop them coming forward anyway so it would be pointless and The kinds of people we wish to target BY implementing such nonsense are not likely to be the ones who came forward in the first place.

I have many friends I trust implicitly and they many flaws which don't effect that trust ............ however being a paedophile is not something I could say wouldn't alter my opinion of them.

Your friend might like to play the field and have consensual sex with as many adult women as he can .......... but if he said "It's not the sex I'm attracted to, what turn's me on is being able to dominate a woman and force her to have sex with me that excites me ....... not that I've ever done it of course"??

You can't compare "normal" sexual urges and behaviour with the urges and behaviour (or potential behaviour) of an adult who is sexually attracted to children.