How society needs to approach paedophilia (Mod warning post #12)

WindSock

A lot of tl;dr for the last few pages but from what I can gather:

Paedophila = Wrong, I think everyone is agreed
Studying Paedophilia = Also wrong and doesn't address the victim and their needs?

I don't understand that bit. Studying how child abusers operate invalidates a victim, so they should just be locked up forever and never talked about again?

Ickle Magoo

WindSock wrote: »

A lot of tl;dr for the last few pages but from what I can gather:

Paedophila = Wrong, I think everyone is agreed
Studying Paedophilia = Also wrong and doesn't address the victim and their needs?

I don't understand that bit. Studying how child abusers operate invalidates a victim, so they should just be locked up forever and never talked about again?

See, that's the problem with not reading the last few pages... :P

Red Marauder suggested victims of abuse were irrelevant to the study of paedophiles and paedophile abusers, several posters disagreed.

And yes, many people would be delighted if paedophiles that were convicted of abusing children were locked up for life, I don't think that necessarily equates to never talking to or about them again though.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And then you say exactly the opposite:
Either it's a potential aid, or a potential solution. I've already agreed it could be an aid, I absolutely disagree it is a solution, potential or otherwise.

I didn't say the solution - I said solutions plural. Read the post. There are a number of potential solutions to the high incidence of child abuse, I'm not saying that any one of them is 100% effective. You're dealing in pedantics here, it's pointless.

No, your argument doesn't make sense. You've gone from claiming "society" should "de-stigmatise" and "engage with" paedophiles for the sake of child safety in general, to suggesting that if only one child is saved then dialogue is worthwhile.

Actually, neither statement is in conflict with the other.

I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Society cannot warn children that such people exist & what their MO may be, without automatically stigmatising paedophilia & paedophiles.

Personally I think a strong line needs to be drawn in the proverbial cement between paedophilia and child abuse.
I have already said I think that de-stigmatising inactive paedophilia if it were to be found that it is a biologically derived behaviour largely or wholly out of the control of the subject, could help us deal very effectively with people who are troubled by paedophilic thoughts. I think that's a fair position to take. So I think you're probably quite wrong.

For as long as there are paedophiles, abusers who try to evade detection and those deliberately grooming children to secretly fulfil their desires then paedophiles will be stigmatised.

This is at the crux of the issue.

What benefit does stigma draw?

I am afraid that it probably heightens an individual's fear in coming forward, and in turn, leaves a paedophile alone to deal with psychologically troubling thought patterns - and that is not to anyone's benefit.
Just because we say "you can't help these thoughts" to a paedophile, wouldn't make child abuse okay - but it could help us fight abuse.

I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

I think you should stop looking at society and blaming them for not wanting to understand or support people who fantasise about or actually hurt them/their children.

In my opinion, their discomfort with paedophiles, or their refusal to examine the issue in the clear light of day, is not helping children and may be doing future generations in this country a great dis-service.

I think professional engagement is a rather obvious approach. Are you suggesting that no-one is currently involved in professional engagement with paedophiles? That there are no studies of paedophiles currently being conducted? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Read through the thread.

The point is that for a country with a history of such scandalous approach to child welfare, and such an inexcusable attitude to dealing with the issue, we still have no national plan to tackle abuse that engages with paedophiles/ abusers or examines those who are detained in our prison system. They're just sitting there waiting for release when they could be providing researchers with valuable data.

Piecing together pieces of international studies is something, but we need a serious look at paedophilia in this society, which is what the thread is about.

You asked how society approaches paedophilia, the vast majority of society pray that no child they know ever falls foul of one of the hundreds of thousands of predatory paedophiles that exist among us.

I get the impression this is a big part of the reason people are uncomfortable with this issue. They are afraid of who could be paedophilic - we are fine with the image of the dark, disfigured loner, but the idea that a paedophile could be a normal-seeming individual like a dad or a gym buddy is too unpalatable, because it might force us to engage with the fact that paedophiles on the surface may just be like you or I.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Red Marauder suggested victims of abuse were irrelevant to the study of paedophiles and paedophile abusers, several posters disagreed.

They are irrelevant to studies like histopatholigical examinations of deceased convicts of child abuse, and irrelevant to genetics tests that are carried out in research laboratories. That was my point. They're not irrelevant to the overall issue.

If you feel the need to summarise, get it right.

WindSock

I can see where Red Marauder is coming from.

We know of the impact on the victims
We know there can be long term implications
We know they were in the wrong company at the wrong time and it is never their fault for it.
We know it is an absolutely horrific and unfathomable act perpetrated on a child.

If there is more we need to know about the victims then there of course should be more studies.

However this thread is about perpetraitors. They need separate studies. I don't see how they can be lumped in with the same study as a victim as they are two opposing ends.

I don't want to come across as dismissive to victims by the way, I don't think anyone here does.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Where did I say that. You can point at the numerous times I've repeated that I actively encourage the study of paedophiles - if you are going to ignore me and keep churning out the same crap to serve your own interests while ignoring what people are actually posting, then it's pointless debating with you.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Personally I think a strong line needs to be drawn in the proverbial cement between paedophilia and child abuse.
I have already said I think that de-stigmatising inactive paedophilia if it were to be found that it is a biologically derived behaviour largely of the control of the subject, could help us deal very effectively with people who are troubled by paedophilic thoughts. I think that's a fair position to take. So I think you're probably quite wrong.

And I'll say again, there are far too many if's and maybes in your position. You cannot seriously expect society to de-stigmatise paedophilia based on a vague hope that that may improve matters. Someone who fantasises about having sex with a child is always going to be at risk of carrying out that fantasy, in this society - that is unacceptable and there for stigmatised. I cannot envisage a day that someone wanting to and fantasising about having sex with a child is deemed societally acceptable and so de-stigmatised.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

What benefit does stigma draw?

It's not about benefits. You cannot just wipe out the stigma that people sexually attracted to children carry for as long as any paedophile is abusing a child. There will always be an associated stigma to being a potential risk to children or fantasising about sex with children - I'm not sure how you can't see that.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am afraid that it probably heightens an individual's fear in coming forward, and in turn, leaves a paedophile alone to deal with psychologically troubling thought patterns - and that is not to anyone's benefit.
Just because we say "you can't help these thoughts" to a paedophile, wouldn't make child abuse okay - but it could help us fight abuse.

I don't know anything about how Ireland deals specifically with paedophilia and what support is there for those who want it, I suspect it's seriously lacking for both victim and perpetrator. At no point did you specify you were only discussing Irish society; there should certainly be all the help and support available to paedophiles who don't want to abuse, I said that in my first post.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

What's wrong is someone abusing children. There is nothing wrong with stigmatising someone who chooses to abuse children or dreams of abusing children, the alternative is to normalise it. I think your logic is on it's head.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I get the impression this is a big part of the reason people are uncomfortable with this issue. They are afraid of who could be paedophilic - we are fine with the image of the dark, disfigured loner, but the idea that a paedophile could be a normal-seeming individual like a dad or a gym buddy is too unpalatable, because it might force us to engage with the fact that paedophiles on the surface may just be like you or I.

I disagree, how brilliant at ingratiating themselves with families and children & their deliberate efforts to evade detection to give them the power and opportunity to abuse is what makes paedophiles so terrifying. If it was just the odd weirdo loner that could be spotted a mile away then I suspect there would be a great deal less fear and anger.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

They are irrelevant to studies like histopatholigical examinations of deceased convicts of child abuse, and irrelevant to genetics tests that are carried out in research laboratories. That was my point. They're not irrelevant to the overall issue.

If you feel the need to summarise, get it right.

And if you'd stated the above instead of the rather woolly;

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The perspective of the victim as a victim is not really going to provide any answers as to how we understand the origins of paedophilia.

Then I doubt you would have had the reaction you did.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And if you'd stated the above instead of the rather woolly;

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
The perspective of the victim as a victim is not really going to provide any answers as to how we understand the origins of paedophilia.

Then I doubt you would have had the reaction you did.

I seriously suspect you didn't read the original posts or were not really following the discussion, because that particular quotation is about clinical examination.
I still think that the victim has no real relevance to the clinical work-up on the abuser, and I'm sure no victim would want to have any either.

Red_Marauder

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Where did I say that.

Read this:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suspect "society", which is what you specifically wanted debate on, has no intention of de-stigmatising or offering mass support and understanding of paedophilia for the sake of saving "one or a handful of children" when doing that could place thousands of others in danger.

Now if your argument is that society believes it could put thousands in danger, fair enough, it's poorly worded. But it comes across in that quotation that it has been established that thousands would be put in danger.

You cannot seriously expect society to de-stigmatise paedophilia based on a vague hope that that may improve matters.

Despite what my personal instincts might tell me - or might tell most of us - I haven't actually said that paedophilia cannot be controlled by the paedophile personally. All I'm asking is that we first examine that issue, and if it is found that these individuals cannot control their thought patterns as they relate to assaults on minors, then we lay off a bit on the stigma for the non-active paedophiles. I think that's fair.

Someone who fantasises about having sex with a child is always going to be at risk of carrying out that fantasy

Sure. All I'm saying is we need to do our best to find those who fantasise about assaults on minors and if possible, encourage them to come forward for their own good and for the good of us all.

I cannot envisage a day that someone wanting to and fantasising about having sex with a child is deemed societally acceptable and so de-stigmatised.

Well, we don't know enough about paedophilia yet, even at an international level. We just haven't established enough about its nature to say they deserve stigma, or not.

I don't know anything about how Ireland deals specifically with paedophilia and what support is there for those who want it, I suspect it's seriously lacking for both victim and perpetrator. At no point did you specify you were only discussing Irish society;

I have repeatedly referred to this society, Irish sexual abuse history, the church and things like The Murphy Report. It's not my fault if you're reading something else into my posts or arguing based on assumptions.
I'm not ruling out the international aspect, i just think we need our own research efforts on this topic.

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

What's wrong is someone abusing children. There is nothing wrong with stigmatising someone who chooses to abuse children or dreams of abusing children, the alternative is to normalise it. I think your logic is on it's head.

Read the post. I am saying it is wrong that someone who has paedophilic behavioural or thought patterns only comes to Garda and psychiatric attention when it is too late. I don't think you disagree, I just think you're pointlessly arguing it.

seahorse

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined.

I had hoped to be able to step out of this discussion but I have to point out to you and bring to the attention of anyone else reading this thread that your comment above is blatantly false.

Anyone who has read your responses to me will see this very plainly. You spent numerous posts arguing in detail your position for ruling out potential solutions to problems before they've been examined. There is a single criterion you use to do this, and that is that full and detailed analysis of the abuse as experience by the victim should be ignored.

Midlandmissus pointed out recently in the thread that depersonalisation of victims is classic paedophile behaviour. This is a well-documented fact in criminology and is true for perpetrators of all sorts of violence, from handbag snatchers to gang-rapists. I think that you need to examine your position here because I believe it is exactly that attitude (relegating the abuse victims experience to the realms of the irrelevant) that drew the observation from another poster which you received as offensive.

To conclude, you certainly are in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined, given that those potential solutions should require focusing on the relevance of the abuse experience. Framing the victims experience as irrelevant is an illogical and unnatural stance and I think you need to deeply consider and examine that. I do not believe that any in-depth analysis of paedophilia is anything approaching complete without a thorough dissection of their behaviour, and a thorough dissection of their behaviour is not complete without the repercussions of it. All of this is very clear and very obvious and your determination to ignore it smacks of a stance that refuses to acknowledge the reality and the relevance of child sexual abuse.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

I....

For the benefit of everyone else in the thread I'm going to try not destroy their sanity by going over it again.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64269850&postcount=155

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seahorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No such insinuation was made by me. That assumption is personal conjecture on your part. I think it says a lot about your own attitude that you are willing to hand out infractions like confetti on this thread yet you ignored the biggest and deepest personal insult of all, which was when an abuse survivor was told by the OP that her experience had no relevance.

ChocolateSauce

seahorse wrote: »

No such insinuation was made by me. That assumption is personal conjecture on your part. I think it says a lot about your own attitude that you are willing to hand out infractions like confetti on this thread yet you ignored the biggest and deepest personal insult of all, which was when an abuse survivor was told by the OP that her experience had no relevance.

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances. Ergo, saying that victim impact has no place in a scientific study of the biology of a person is 100% correct. Take testimonial evidence to court, not to the lab.

Furthermore, RM stated that these testimonials do have relevance when the whole picture is looked at. This rules out the possibility that he has dismissed the victims overall. This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fighting_Irish

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Okay I can see where this is going. How about putting it this way first. Take the non-abusive paedophile who doesn't wish to engage in abuse or have anything to do with the child abuse industry but nevertheless has this paedophilic tendancy.

How do we as a society approach that situation? Is it possible that he does not choose this tendency, and can he (typically, we assume the subject to be male) be helped?

by law being attracted to anyone under 18 is pretty much making you a paedophile, when i was 15 i knew plenty of girls in school that were hot, me being 25 now doesn't mean these 15/16 yo girls aren't hot anymore

by law, i'd say 99% of men have a paedophilic tendancy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

(which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science)

Well actually you can, but I don't think whether you can or can't detracts from your point about personal testimony.

Fighting_Irish

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By law there isn't

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Read this:

Now if your argument is that society believes it could put thousands in danger, fair enough, it's poorly worded. But it comes across in that quotation that it has been established that thousands would be put in danger.

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that. You cannot have the risk recognised & such people highlighted and also remove the stigma, it's one or the other.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Despite what my personal instincts might tell me - or might tell most of us - I haven't actually said that paedophilia cannot be controlled by the paedophile personally. All I'm asking is that we first examine that issue, and if it is found that these individuals cannot control their thought patterns as they relate to assaults on minors, then we lay off a bit on the stigma for the non-active paedophiles. I think that's fair.

There is nothing about downplaying the threat that such people permanently pose to some of the most vulnerable members of society that is fair. I'm all for more study, greater analysis, all the help and support anyone in society needs not to commit violent crime - but I think to suggest that society "lays off a bit on the stigma" for people who get turned on by, masturbate over, and fantasise about committing child abuse and child rape is, frankly, ridiculous.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Sure. All I'm saying is we need to do our best to find those who fantasise about assaults on minors and if possible, encourage them to come forward for their own good and for the good of us all.

Absolutely, encourage away but I think you have to be realistic. There are a not insignificant number of paedophiles who clearly do not want help, they do not fight whatever urges they have - some even deliberately choose to work with children or get in closer contact with children so that they may groom and abuse. Encouraging paedophiles to seek help is fine in theory, I can't imagine anyone who would argue otherwise - the trouble is that even with all the help and support you could ever imagine at their disposal, some paedophiles will still choose to abuse or rape children.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well, we don't know enough about paedophilia yet, even at an international level. We just haven't established enough about its nature to say they deserve stigma, or not.
I have repeatedly referred to this society, Irish sexual abuse history, the church and things like The Murphy Report. It's not my fault if you're reading something else into my posts or arguing based on assumptions.
I'm not ruling out the international aspect, i just think we need our own research efforts on this topic.

We know enough about paedophilia to recognise it goes against societal norms. Do you understand what stigma means? It's a marked disapproval of an aspect of a person, often one which is deemed to be against societal norms. Tell me how someone who fantasises about or who has sexual relations with a child doesn't "deserve" to be stigmatised? Or are you actually proposing that wanting to or having sex with children should be made a societal norm?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Read the post. I am saying it is wrong that someone who has paedophilic behavioural or thought patterns only comes to Garda and psychiatric attention when it is too late. I don't think you disagree, I just think you're pointlessly arguing it.

I don't disagree, the difference is that I don't see the fact that paedophiles are not seeking help or requesting psychiatric attention until it is too late as being the fault of society.

metrovelvet

RM -Lay a bit off the stigma? You are starting to sound like an advocate? Would you like them to have their own parade too?

Red_Marauder

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances. Ergo, saying that victim impact has no place in a scientific study of the biology of a person is 100% correct. Take testimonial evidence to court, not to the lab.

Furthermore, RM stated that these testimonials do have relevance when the whole picture is looked at. This rules out the possibility that he has dismissed the victims overall. This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

I am afraid Chocolate Sauce has summed up my position more sucinctly than I probably could have; I really think this is a position that would be shared by plenty of people whose only interest on this topic is how to tackle it most effectively.

Fighting_Irish wrote:

by law being attracted to anyone under 18 is pretty much making you a paedophile, when i was 15 i knew plenty of girls in school that were hot, me being 25 now doesn't mean these 15/16 yo girls aren't hot anymore

As donegalfella said, this isn't really the case, and the situation relates to those who have not reached their seventeenth birthdays so not quite all under eighteens.
Of course we do still have problems to face up to with regard to consent between say, seventeen and sixteen year olds.
I think I would be in favour of a situation where a defense of similarity of age within a reasonable threshold can be taken into account for 17 year olds, but I'm still dubious about legal provisions for these people to have sex when they can't legally buy a bottle of beer.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger

Maybe we have different ideas about what de-stigmatising it involves. When I say it I mean that if it is established that paedophilic thoughts are due to some biological or inherent psychiatric deviation out of their control, then I would see these people no differently than I would see a woman born with spina bifida or a man born with a severe intellectual disability.

Would I let them babysit my kids if I had kids? No way. I wouldn't ask a guy with a severe intellectual disability to babysit either. It doesn't mean s/he doesn't have the right to basic humanity or respect, or the right to seek help without being stigmatised.

To remind everyone again before the righteous indignation, that particular example is about paedophiles as opposed to active abusers.

common sense would dictate that. You cannot have the risk recognised & such people highlighted and also remove the stigma, it's one or the other.

Do you believe in stigmatisting people with sever psychiatric disturbances who suffer from Pyromania?

Absolutely, encourage away but I think you have to be realistic. There are a not insignificant number of paedophiles who clearly do not want help

In reality, if someone told me they were having paedophilic thoughts, I really wouldn't know where to take them. To the GP? I'd be willing to bet she wouldn't really know either. A&E? The Gardai? A psychiatric clinic?

So often we hear in the defense of abuse cover ups from the past "well, we didn't know what to do about it" or "it wasn't understood back then". the problem is that it still isn't understood, we still don't really know what to do with them. That hasn't changed.

they do not fight whatever urges they have

How do you know this?

metrovelvet wrote:

RM -Lay a bit off the stigma? You are starting to sound like an advocate? Would you like them to have their own parade too?

Compared to everyone else in the discussion all you've contributed to this thread are cheap one-liners as far as I can see, i don't see the point in getting into it with you.
edit: I'm not being offensive, but I just cannot imagine how anyone could possibly get the idea that this thread is about celebrating paedophilia, there's just no making sense of such a bizarre, unsubstantiated notion.

seahorse

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances.

You can embolden your personal opinions all you like - it won't make them any more factual.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

You've just made it very clear that you are unable to grasp the concept of scientific research. As I have already said, for all anyone knows there may well be distinctive correlations between specific behaviour patterns and genetic and/or neurological make-up. Reports of specific abusive behaviour patterns are going to come from the victims, regardless how passionately you or Red Marauder or anyone else would dearly love to negate their relevance to nothing.

I won't be visiting this thread again. I simply haven’t got the stomach for it.

Turtwig

seahorse wrote: »

Reports of specific abusive behaviour patterns are going to come from the victims

These kind of "reports" carry with them too many kinds of risks. Yes the victims will probably be interviewed but, most probably, every statement they make will be taken with a pinch of salt. Personal Testimonies just aren't that reliable.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Maybe we have different ideas about what de-stigmatising it involves. When I say it I mean that if it is established that paedophilic thoughts are due to some biological or inherent psychiatric deviation out of their control, then I would see these people no differently than I would see a woman born with spina bifida or a man born with a severe intellectual disability.

The stigmatisation stems from the disapproval of a societal abnormality - there is no societal disapproval with regards to the physical or mental disabilities you mention. They pose no risk to society.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Would I let them babysit my kids if I had kids? No way. I wouldn't ask a guy with a severe intellectual disability to babysit either. It doesn't mean s/he doesn't have the right to basic humanity or respect, or the right to seek help without being stigmatised.

Someone with a severe intellectual disability would make a poor choice for babysitter because they have not the mental capacity to look after a child. Why do think a paedophile is a poor choice for babysitter?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

To remind everyone again before the righteous indignation, that particular example is about paedophiles as opposed to active abusers.

Paedophiles may well become active abusers, at any time, for whatever reason. I don't know why you are in such a rush or so confident that there is a clear line to be drawn. Surely if paedophiles regularly fantasises about child abuse and child rape then inevitably some will want to take that fantasy and make it a reality.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Do you believe in stigmatisting people with sever psychiatric disturbances who suffer from Pyromania?

For the n'th time, it's not about believing in who should or should not be stigmatised - anyone who exhibits behaviours that deviate from the societal norms to the detriment/disapproval of society are stigmatised, by definition.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

In reality, if someone told me they were having paedophilic thoughts, I really wouldn't know where to take them. To the GP? I'd be willing to bet she wouldn't really know either. A&E? The Gardai? A psychiatric clinic? So often we hear in the defense of abuse cover ups from the past "well, we didn't know what to do about it" or "it wasn't understood back then". the problem is that it still isn't understood, we still don't really know what to do with them. That hasn't changed.

Surely one or even all of the above suggestions are preferable to do nothing at all in lieu of specific paedophile in crises walk in centres. Neither systemic cover-ups nor general ignorance equate to a paedophile actively seeking help rather than abusing, btw.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

How do you know this?

The numbers of convicted paedophiles who have been found to work in nurseries, with child groups, in schools or other positions where interaction with and power over children is inevitable would lead me to believe that rather than doing everything in their power to ensure no child would be harmed at their hand, they deliberately put themselves in a position so as to make abusing easier and detection harder. If a paedophile is feeling that they are a risk to children and rather than seek help from whomever they can, be it a GP referral or psychiatric clinic and prefer to keep quiet and set about abusing, then a clear choice has been made.

BobbitoDigital

the best way to deal with a pedophile is to torture and kill them! enough said

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The stigmatisation stems from the disapproval of a societal abnormality - there is no societal disapproval with regards to the physical or mental disabilities you mention. They pose no risk to society.

Of course they can. I mentioned pyromania. You said this:

de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people... would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that.

So do you then think potentially harmful psyciatric disorders should be stigmatised?

Someone with a severe intellectual disability would make a poor choice for babysitter because they have not the mental capacity to look after a child. Why do think a paedophile is a poor choice for babysitter?

What's your point? I wouldn't have a paedophile babysit because a paedophile might abuse. the chances might be 5/1 or they might be 25,000/1 but I wouldnt take that chance with a paedophile.

The chances of an intellectually disabled person allowing my children to come to some harm may have similiar odds, but I still wouldn't allow it.

None of this means they have automatically deserve stigma, or don't deserve the same basic human rights or respect as the rest of us

I don't know why you are in such a rush or so confident that there is a clear line to be drawn. Surely if paedophiles regularly fantasises about child abuse and child rape then inevitably some will want to take that fantasy and make it a reality.

But you just do not know that, you cannot. There has to be a line drawn between paedophilia and active child abuse.

For the n'th time, it's not about believing in who should or should not be stigmatised - anyone who exhibits behaviours that deviate from the societal norms to the detriment/disapproval of society are stigmatised, by definition.

To re-cap, you don't seem to have a problem with this stigma

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that.

Surely one or even all of the above suggestions are preferable to do nothing at all in lieu of specific paedophile in crises walk in centres.

Who said do nothing? Are you even reading these posts?

The numbers of convicted paedophiles who have been found to work in nurseries, with child groups, in schools or other positions where interaction with and power over children is inevitable would lead me to believe that rather than doing everything in their power to ensure no child would be harmed at their hand, they deliberately put themselves in a position...

Utter hearsay, no credible statistics, that paragraph has nothing to offer apart from you own pre-formed opinions as far as I can see.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

You've just made it very clear that you are unable to grasp the concept of scientific research.

With respect I think it has you who has the problem with understanding the clinical, cellular or genetic research methods we are referring to.

Imagine you are the director of this study at Yale. You are employing post doctoral fellows and graduates in psychiatry, neurophysiology and functional imaging to understand more about the nature of paedophiles. Where do you assess victims in this study?

Victims do have a role to play, but there is no clear, universal role for them in clinical or biological examinations of paedophiles. Most of them would probably prefer not to have a role to play in them anyway.

Diabhal_Glas

Voltwad wrote: »

Now who among us can claim that we haven't had extremely strange dreams or desires that if found out, would make us a social outcast?

Your statement reminds me of a book

My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday