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

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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


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

They ARE stigmatised, by definition of what a stigma is - whether I think that particular disorder should be better understood or shown more sympathy, or whatever, is a different issue.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

The point is they are two completely different issues. Having limited capacity to understand what a child wants or needs is not the same, and is not societally considered the same, as a person of average intelligence who wishes to or deliberately harms a child. I can't believe I have to spell that out to you.

People don't automatically deserve respect by virtue of breathing, you are wrong. Human rights everyone deserves - but they are also dependant on the rights afforded to others and may be forfeited.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

You've hit the nail on the head. The fact you cannot know it, is exactly why no line has been drawn, that's the point I'm making.

No, there doesn't. You have said yourself already in this thread that a paedophile can always be considered a risk to children, there is a clear relationship between the two and therefore you cannot assume that some paedophiles will never abuse children any more than you can assume all paedophiles will abuse.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

I don't, no. I consider paedophiles to be a potential danger to children, full-stop. I think they often show a great deal of cunning and deceit in order to abuse. I see nothing normal in fantasising about or actually abusing children, the stigma paedophilia carries has been well earned.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

You seem to be peddling the idea that the Murphy report and so on, exists because whom a paedophile can go to for help is not obviously clear. I disagree, child abuse exists because people choose to abuse children.

Ditto - you seem to have your heart set on a change of societal opinion on paedophiles & paedophilia and are absolutely resolute that there is no reason why society should consider paedophiles in general with contempt or any degree of negativity. It's a position I just can't begin to fathom, by it's very nature paedophilia is going to be probably the most stigmatised and considered one of the greatest taboos in society.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

The same could be said for this entire thread tbh, from beginning to end. Your entire argument regarding de-stigmatising paedophiles and drawing imaginary lines are based on your own pre-formed opinions and you haven't offered one shred of credible anything why either deserve serious consideration. By suggesting my comment is "utter hearsay" you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse having never approached anyone for help, if that is your true position on this matter then I don't see any point in having any further discussion with you.

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse having never approached anyone for help, if that is your true position on this matter then I don't see any point in having any further discussion with you.

How significant is this proportion when compared to actually population pool of people with paedophile tendencies?

moceri

Ex-Priest, Patrick Hughes (82), of Parkdunne Court, Castleknock, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to four counts of indecent assault against the child, then an altar boy, aged between 11 and 14 years old, on dates between 1979 and 1983.

In mitigating his plea, he told the Judge "I'm NOT a paedophile, I'm Just attracted to Altar Boys" - WTF?http://www.ireland.com/home/Expriest_jailed_abusing_boy/maxi/fast/news/irnews/247603

Must be something about the surplice and the sexy red soutane.

These people should be dragged out into the Streets and Ritually Burned at the Stake as they did to so many un-believers in times past.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

whether I think that particular disorder should be better understood or shown more sympathy, or whatever, is a different issue.

I'll ask again, maybe this time you'll answer; In your opinion, should people who suffer with pyromania, be they children or adults, be stigmatised?

If you can answer that question in relation to paedophilia, then it should be the same for pyromania.

The point is they are two completely different issues. Having limited capacity to understand what a child wants or needs is not the same

The net result is the same. I wouldn't leave someone with an intellectual disability with kids any more than I would leave a paedophile with kids. I probably wouldn't even leave someone in a wheelchair in charge of some kids I know.

as a person of average intelligence who wishes to or deliberately harms a child. I can't believe I have to spell that out to you.

You're not spelling out anything, you're mis-reading posts and I'm not sure if it's deliberate.

I wouldn't leave a paedophile in charge of kids because of the threat of abuse, however faint it may be. I think you're a bit hasty in saying they wish to deliberately ahrm the child - there is no reason to believe that they would inevitably, in reality, wish to do this, regardless of their sexual thoughts... Such a person might never actually commit abuse.

People don't automatically deserve respect by virtue of breathing, you are wrong.

I didn't say that, again you are mis-reading posts, deliberately or not.

To be very honest, if someone I knew in my life came forward and told me s/he was afraid of the paedophilic thought patterns that s/he had come to experience, I would have far, far more respect for that individual than some of those expressing extremely short sighted opinions on this very thread. i.e.

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

The fact you cannot know it, is exactly why no line has been drawn, that's the point I'm making.

This makes no sense. There is a difference between abuse and paedophilia - that is an established fact. I don't see how you can dispute it.
Just because there is a clear link (obviously) between active abuse and paedophilia does not mean they are the same thing or that all paedophiles abuse children. That is why we need to seperate the two categories.

You have said yourself already in this thread that a paedophile can always be considered a risk to children, there is a clear relationship between the two and therefore you cannot assume that some paedophiles will never abuse children any more than you can assume all paedophiles will abuse.

Nobody said you can assume (or presume for that matter) that paedophiles qon't abuse.

Please use quotes when you're going to make such statements or else don't bother making them - you are deliberately mis-interpreting previous posts.

The point is that you can't presume all paedophiles will abuse, read the posts again; that's what I said.

I see nothing normal in fantasising about or actually abusing children, the stigma paedophilia carries has been well earned.

Nobody is saying it is normal; again - if you think so you are mis-reading.

However, I'm not personally convinced that the stigma for having these thoughts is earned, I think there needs to be more conclusive scientific evidence

You seem to be peddling the idea that the Murphy report and so on, exists because whom a paedophile can go to for help is not obviously clear.

This is getting ridiculous - no I am not. Read the post, please.
I am making the point that 35 years ago people in authority didn't understand paedophilia, and today they use that to explain what were often disgracefully inadequate reponses to it.

In that light, decades later, the impetus is on us to understand paedophilia - we can't allow ignorance to be any excuse for poor responses or inadequate child protection measures.

you [...] are absolutely resolute that there is no reason why society should consider paedophiles in general with contempt or any degree of negativity.

I'm getting really fed up of this. Use a quote to back up exactly what you have just said.

I have always maintained that we need to know more about how paedophilia arises in the individual before we make any unhelpful or rash, uniformed judgements like the above.

Your entire argument regarding de-stigmatising paedophiles and drawing imaginary lines are based on your own pre-formed opinions

What pre formed opinions? Some quotes?

I have talked about the potential of introducing new measures, the potential of clinical examination and psychiatric evaluations; potential benefits do not equate to pre-formed opinions.

You are the one who has closed your mind to this by deciding that paedophiles should be stigmatised without seeming to take into account the ramifications that might be having, or the ethical ramifications of stigmatising what has been reported to be a condition with particularly strong biological and psychiatric undertones.

Again I would refer you to other psychiatric conditions that pose a potential threat to children and adults and ask you to explain your position with regard to those.

By suggesting my comment is "utter hearsay" you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse

That is incredibly backwards logic, read what you just said.

Saying that something is hearsay is not a rejection of the proposition, it is a rejection of the evidence for the proposition, whereby the proposition cannot be established.
You made a generalisation about paedophiles, effectively saying that they are deceitful because a "number" of them work in nurseries.

There's no real logic at work there, as is the case in much of your thought process in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

How significant is this proportion when compared to actually population pool of people with paedophile tendencies?

Well, this is the problem Malty - how does one conduct a true census or study of paedophiles and how can one know which are abusing/have abused and which haven't/aren't with any degree of certainty. There are not really any clear figures available, other than via the judicial system.

As some of the children's charities regularly point out, if you compare the numbers of convictions with the numbers of victims of child sex abuse they deal with then there appears to be a significant discrepancy. In 2009, there were an average of 66 child sex offences recorded each day by police forces across England and Wales - and that's just the cases that are reported, which makes for fairly sobering reading. I don't have any stats for Ireland.

Ugh, I'm going to stop there, this whole topic makes me feel a bit nauseous tbh.

Ickle Magoo

Red Marauder, paedophiles are a potential risk to children's safety, paedophiles that have abused are a potential risk to children. You may see a clear distinction, I don't.

It's someone else's turn to go round in circles with you. :cool:

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, this is the problem Malty - how does one conduct a true census or study of paedophiles and how can one know which are abusing/have abused and which haven't/aren't with any degree of certainty. There are not really any clear figures available, other than via the judicial system.

Why isn't there this degree of certainty? It wouldn't perhaps have anything to do with a stigma society has against them? Just asking.
I know it's a sensitive topic, but you've got to remember that there is a tonne of psychopaths out there, some of them need therapy, others don't. The point I want to make though is that there is a great number more of psychopaths out there that live ordinary everyday lives without doing any harm or breaking any laws. I'd like it to be established if there are paedophiles who face the same struggle.
You're argument so far has mentioned mainly the manipulative ones who abused, but honestly Ickle, do you really think that there'd only be that kind on the spectrum? It seems to me like a narrow viewpoint.

metrovelvet

Psychopaths do cause inevitable harm, even if they are clever enough to stay out of prison. Even if they dont want the hassle of murder, which is a deterrent to the psycho or sociopath, they will leave a trail of pain behind them. They can't help it, they are lost. Some of them develop a moral code so they can get by and even succeed in life and get tutuorials in "how to appear normal"so as to not face total rejection or to facilitate exploitation, but they will always do damage, eventually.

I see the ped as similar. I dont think vows of celibacy will work somehow.

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

Why isn't there this degree of certainty? It wouldn't perhaps have anything to do with a stigma society has against them? Just asking.
I know it's a sensitive topic, but you've got to remember that there is a tonne of psychopaths out there, some of them need therapy, others don't. The point I want to make though is that there is a great number more of psychopaths out there that live ordinary everyday lives without doing any harm or breaking any laws. I'd like it to be established if there are paedophiles who face the same struggle.
You're argument so far has mentioned mainly the manipulative ones who abused, but honestly Ickle, do you really think that there'd only be that kind on the spectrum? It seems to me like a narrow viewpoint.

I would think it has more to do with the illegal nature of the actual act that paedophiles desire and therefore the natural secrecy that surrounds it that hampers reliable testament. How do you possibly de-stigmatise people who fantasise about or do have illegal sexual relations with children? I don't think it's possible to remove the stigma that a strictly legislated social taboo invokes.

I absolutely haven't only mentioned the manipulative ones, nearly every post I've made has made reference to the help and support that paedophiles should have and the agreement that paedophilia should be investigated and studied - it would certainly help "grade" paedophiles and help us understand if it is a personality disorder or an illness or a sexual predilection or even if the "condition" develops or alters. What I was sceptical it would do would be to make a huge difference to general child safety or rates of paedophile abuse, which is what was being claimed.

There is no way of knowing which paedophiles are a danger at the moment, nor who will or will not present a danger in the future - so I don't see that a clear distinction can be drawn for the lifetime of a paedophile. I appreciate the parallels you are trying to draw between psychopathy and paedophilia - I made a similar point earlier - I think the risks from psychopaths which (iirc) make up less than 1% of the population as opposed to the 1 in 200 adults that Scotland Yard has suggested are paedophiles (in the UK at least) would make the latter a far greater risk to society and the general concern of society reflects that. I imagine it is the oft unsavoury psychology and particularly harrowing nature of the criminal behaviour that gives both groups such stigmatism.

trevosaur

Lets not get Paedophilia mixed up with love between an old man and a young woman. This is usually men in their later life, grooming and manipulating a young childs naievty and taking their innocence. It is not a sexual orientation but a perverse fetish for them in taking something what is completely forbidden and knowing they have the power to do so.

Its all about the power factor and macho-sadism. There is no love between the villain and the victim but thats just my opinion guys.

Turtwig

metrovelvet wrote: »

Psychopaths do cause inevitable harm, even if they are clever enough to stay out of prison. Even if they dont want the hassle of murder, which is a deterrent to the psycho or sociopath, they will leave a trail of pain behind them. They can't help it, they are lost. Some of them develop a moral code so they can get by and even succeed in life and get tutuorials in "how to appear normal"so as to not face total rejection or to facilitate exploitation, but they will always do damage, eventually.

They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

metrovelvet

Malty_T wrote: »

They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

I'm not going to argue with you but I about this here, but yes they do. I do not have an ill informed view. I have done significant reading on the subject and consulted a specialist about it. And yes, harm is inevitable. It may not end up in bloodshed, but harm nonetheless. It's what happens when empathy is missing.

I dont see how you can have a drive to have sex with kids and also have empathy for them, since its the sickest thing you can do.

WindSock

trevosaur wrote: »

Lets not get Paedophilia mixed up with love between an old man and a young woman. This is usually men in their later life, grooming and manipulating a young childs naievty and taking their innocence. It is not a sexual orientation but a perverse fetish for them in taking something what is completely forbidden and knowing they have the power to do so.

Its all about the power factor and macho-sadism. There is no love between the villain and the victim but thats just my opinion guys.

Men of any age are always going to find a fully formed woman attractive. Is it perverse to do so? Does a young adult woman not have a choice on whom she courts? Very often when you see this group in our society, the man will have a lot of money. You don't see many young women with poor OAPs.

miec

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?

In answer to your question: http://www.granadainstitute.ie/index.html

Research on paedophiles in Ireland: http://www.granadainstitute.ie/research.html

There is clearly help in this country for people who have paedophillic tendencies AND for those who act on it. I mentioned this in an earlier post which was conveniantly ignored.

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

Chocloate sauce, the thread title asks how should society approach paedophillia, if the thread asked how should the scientific community approach paedophillia, then I would not have contributed to this thread. I have never claimed to grasp scientific research, I'm not a scientist, but I am a member of society. The original post was challenging the way society stigmatises the paedophile and it advocates that one should engage with active abusers to get a better understanding of paedophillia. The thread has morphed into the science debate and as Red Marauder has provided a link into a study conducted in Yale regarding the brain patterns of paedophiles, Red Marauder has covered one point already, which is scientists are already conducting these studies. The thread is asking soceity to approach this in a scientific manner and it is impossible to do so. Ickle Magoo has argued far more expertly and objectively on this subject than I have, and Ickle Magoo's arguement is clear, consice and sticks to the premise of the thread.

What I find incredible though is the level of your ignorance on this topic, you state

you can't measure harm done to children with science

please read this , it is a clinical study conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, namely the SAVI report on sex abuse in Ireland, to say that harm done to children cannot be measured by science is ignoring the fields of medicine, forensic science, psychology, statistics, etc would not be appreciated by the people in these fields. All of whom have contributed to the existing study of sex abuse AND paedophillia.

miec

Just to add one more point, this is copied from a report downloaded from the irish prison's website, specifically Arbor Hill prison where most sex offenders are kept. For more info click here again more help for paedophiles, but this section I had to copy and put below:

15.4.1. As Dr. Kennedy told the Committee during his oral presentation, in response to a question form Deputy Brendan Howlin,

“Even in relation to the addictions that most people would see as a disorder, it is more useful and more successful to think of the approaches to prevent relapse in that area as being almost more like coaching rather than treating.

Medicalising a problem can have a bad effect on the concept of responsibility. People will find that very often if strong arguments have been made that their responsibility was impaired in some way and they were not responsible for what they did, this is very anti-therapeutic. The goal of what are termed ‘treatments’ is to encourage somebody to recognise, develop and strengthen their sense of responsibility.”

This about sums it up for me. I have to say this thread has been deeply upsetting for me, and I am not alone, not because of the content per ce, but the way that content has been bandied about with ignorance and a total disrespect for large sections of society. I am all for free speech and a lack of censorship but at times common sense and a sense of decency needs to be used as well.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Originally Posted by Malty_T
They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

I'm not going to argue with you but I about this here, but yes they do. I do not have an ill informed view. I have done significant reading on the subject and consulted a specialist about it. And yes, harm is inevitable.

Harm is inevitable?

Harm by thought?

I'm not sure what kind of a specialist you say you have consulted, or what reading you've been doing, but no, having bad thoughts does not mean that real harm is inevitable.

ChocolateSauce

seahorse wrote:

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

True. The fact that my statement is factual makes it factual. The fact that you said this also proves my point that you don't understand the meaning of scientific research.

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.

Something as subjective as a testimony has no place in science- they're simply too unreliable.

Now, if you could objectively graph a victim impact statement, or give it some measurable units, I'd be with you.

miec wrote:

Chocloate sauce, the thread title asks how should society approach paedophillia

And the particular point I was making was soley to do with the scientific aspect of the biology of a person. Society should approach pedophillia at least in part with objective knowledge of the matter.

please read this , it is a clinical study conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, namely the SAVI report on sex abuse in Ireland, to say that harm done to children cannot be measured by science is ignoring the fields of medicine, forensic science, psychology, statistics, etc would not be appreciated by the people in these fields. All of whom have contributed to the existing study of sex abuse AND paedophillia.

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't. (if you disagree, please show me some objective measures) You can do other kinds of studies, like this one, but it is not scientific, it is social. The original point stands: a victim impact statement has no scientific value to someone studying the brain of the offender.

miec

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't.

That is very true and a good point, I just wish you had said that in the first place, you have made your point a lot clearer to me now, thank you for clarifying it.

ChocolateSauce

miec wrote: »

That is very true and a good point, I just wish you had said that in the first place, you have made your point a lot clearer to me now, thank you for clarifying it.

Maybe next time I'll skip the window dressing?

Turtwig

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't.

Ok, this is tricky territory. Science cannot presently measure love but that's mainly down to our ignorance of understanding what love actually is! Emotions such as joy,anger, fear and surprise can be quantified and measured. Yes you can argue that this system is subjective but that's the same as saying that the measure of the metre is subjective. And yes the systems are still a work in progress (like all science) but there is a system whereby one can measure and, believe it or not, quantify emotions. Whether we'll one day be able to tap the mystery that is love remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.:)

ChocolateSauce

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, this is tricky territory. Science cannot presently measure love but that's mainly down to our ignorance of understanding what love actually is! Emotions such as joy,anger, fear and surprise can be quantified and measured. Yes you can argue that this system is subjective but that's the same as saying that the measure of the metre is subjective.

I'm sure it is hypothetically possible to measure emotions, but we would need a deep, deep understanding of the brain that we won't have for hundreds or maybe even thousands of years (if ever).

And yes the systems are still a work in progress (like all science) but there is a system whereby one can measure and, believe it or not, quantify emotions. Whether we'll one day be able to tap the mystery that is love remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.:)

I'm also optimistic. Although for the purposes of contemporary discussion, I think saying it can't be measured is a fair approximation, you pedant !

HydeRoad

There is a whole different side to this argument which merits far more discussion than it gets. It is the tendency for everyone to be labelled a potential paedophile until proven otherwise, a kind of guilty until proven innocent. Let me give an example.

My father, RIP, came from an old fashioned generation. He loved children, and they loved him. In his old fashioned way, if he encountered a well mannered or polite child, he would give them a few pennies, usually a fifty pence in old money. It goes back to olden days when kids didn't have so much, and would appreciate the price of a few sweets. It's different now, of course. But the habit held for him. I remember myself as a small child always being handed twentypences and fiftypences by ould lads in the pub, and there was nothing wrong with it.

In his later years, he would potter home slowly from the pub on his handstick. On his way, there was a house with a small girl playing in the garden, and over months and years of routine, a habit developed where he gave the child twenty pence or something. Of course the child grew wise to this, and would be waiting for the twenty pence, but he didn't mind, it was a nice, friendly child.

One day, he passed the gate as usual, and the child was there, and she came running for her twenty pence. But her mother came running out, and shouted out loud at my father, in his late seventies, to 'KEEP AWAY FROM MY DAUGHTER.' She did it at the top of her voice, in front of neighbours, and mortified my elderly father on a local road among local people, where he walked to the pub and back every day, bidding everyone the time of day.

A little piece of my father died that day.

What a horrendous, demeaning, devastating thing for that woman to do. I was of a mind, if I knew which house, to go round and roast her ears in fury, but of course, what good would that have done. I'll bet that same concerned mother wouldn't think twice about shouting at or even hitting that child in her frustrations or lack of patience. Who is the abuser, and who is the carer?

I think it is very sad today that we have cameras everywhere, spying to make sure our kids are safe. We drive them to the door of school, creating a monster of a traffic and environmental problem. We collect them again by car. Everywhere they go, they are delivered door to door by car. They barely ever get a breath of fresh air or exercise. It must be a nightmare to be a teacher.

Paedophilia is a horrendous thing. But I think it is very sad that the innocence of a generation of kids has been robbed by the politically correct movement that believes a child is at risk the moment they step outside their door. In fact they are often safer outdoors than they are at home! Who sees what goes on behind closed doors? Public is public. It has become an outlet for people's fear and anger, often about entirely unrelated things. There is too much fear and anger. It is hard to trust people in this modern world, but look at society. It is that very lack of trust that creates the paranoid society we live in. There has to be a balance, where we learn to relax and enjoy our few years on Earth, and stop looking for reasons to build walls and barriers.

All I wish is that when the argument is being made, that the other side of the argument might get a mention too, that we stop being blinded by the politically correct and the fear, and see the negative effect the hysteria has on society, and indeed on the very children we would hope to protect.

Red_Marauder

Firstly of course it is disappointing how a constant question-mark seems to lurk over everything to do with child activities these days. From old people giving kids money like in your example, or an issue I had recently when taking my 5yo niece swimming on the lack of children's changing areas in pools... what do you do? I'm sure Dads face that problem all of the time these days.

It is very easy to look back and remark on how easier things used to be when this atmosphere of vigilence didn't pervade.
But we cannot automatically presume that child molestation is any more prevalent now than it was a half-century ago, when this vigilance was absent.

While we may find a more insulated world for children less ideal than our own childhoods, they may well be far better protected from abuse than we were fifteen, twenty five, maybe fifty years ago.

We don't know the full extent of what went on before this country began to face up to the issue of child abuse, and before people became more aware of the dangers. While I regret the change in culture to what I myself enjoyed even growing up in the 90s, I think the bottom line is child protection, and I do think, in fairness, that child protection has improved quite considerably.

miec

I think it is very sad today that we have cameras everywhere, spying to make sure our kids are safe. We drive them to the door of school, creating a monster of a traffic and environmental problem. We collect them again by car. Everywhere they go, they are delivered door to door by car. They barely ever get a breath of fresh air or exercise. It must be a nightmare to be a teacher.

Paedophilia is a horrendous thing. But I think it is very sad that the innocence of a generation of kids has been robbed by the politically correct movement that believes a child is at risk the moment they step outside their door. In fact they are often safer outdoors than they are at home! Who sees what goes on behind closed doors? Public is public. It has become an outlet for people's fear and anger, often about entirely unrelated things. There is too much fear and anger. It is hard to trust people in this modern world, but look at society. It is that very lack of trust that creates the paranoid society we live in. There has to be a balance, where we learn to relax and enjoy our few years on Earth, and stop looking for reasons to build walls and barriers.

All I wish is that when the argument is being made, that the other side of the argument might get a mention too, that we stop being blinded by the politically correct and the fear, and see the negative effect the hysteria has on society, and indeed on the very children we would hope to protect.

Hi Hyderoad, a very good point. Whilst it is neccesary to be vigiliant I think the paranoia amongst parent's today is excessive and last week there was a brilliant programme on BBC2 called The British Family that highlighted the issue you discussed, but I think it is a whole seperate thread. Kids have lost their freedom and today the focus on security and safety in all areas has created a new set of problems for children which is not always for the best. We have lost the balance of judging safely and refusing children any freedom and according to statistics stated in the programme I mentioned the rates of children molested by paedophiles has not increased since 1972 when most children walked themselves to school.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

miec wrote: »

Hi Hyderoad, a very good point. Whilst it is neccesary to be vigiliant I think the paranoia amongst parent's today is excessive and last week there was a brilliant programme on BBC2 called The British Family that highlighted the issue you discussed, but I think it is a whole seperate thread. Kids have lost their freedom and today the focus on security and safety in all areas has created a new set of problems for children which is not always for the best. We have lost the balance of judging safely and refusing children any freedom and according to statistics stated in the programme I mentioned the rates of children molested by paedophiles has not increased since 1972 when most children walked themselves to school.

These day in Britain unaccompanied men in parks with playgrounds are looked upon with suspicion. This and the point you raised seems to me a dual problem of rampant government interference in the lives of citizens, and hysteria about an issue without regard to actual statistics on the problem.

Ickle Magoo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you really know mothers who actually refuse to let their six year old go "topless"?! That's amazing - in a scary way. I know plenty of parents who want their kids to wear as much as possible in the sun for health reasons but I don't know anyone who considers a 6yr old as going topless...or views their female children as any more at risk than their sons, for that matter! :eek:

I think on a side-note to this there is a noticeable kick-back from the sexualising of young children, bra & knicker sets for five year olds, jogging suits with "SEXY" written across the arse for three year olds - I think sometimes it swings from one side of the ridiculous to the other.

In terms of historic child safety, there was a wee girl my age snatched from just down the road by some strange man & wasn't found until they dug up that truck drivers garden a couple of years ago, so folks round my way were always on their guard. I think the nature of the media now means we hear about it more and that gives the impression that it's happening more.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

She thinks I'm totally unjust for not allowing her to go topless in public when her older brother can.

I'm with the daughter on this one!

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yikes, some of the comments make me cringe- "Having a very smart daughter is a mixed blessing"? Why, because she can think? I'd be thrilled if my 4 year old could reason me into changing my mind about something.