Paedophiles

jive

How do people feel about paedophiles?

There used to be a stigma associated with gay people (this is now gone for the most part but is still present). The majority now understand that people are who they are and that they cannot help if they like the same sex. It is now acceptable.

But if someone was to come up to you and say "I fancy pre-pubescent children but I know it's wrong" you would think they are a weirdo - correct? I find this a bit hypocritical. If the person is a good person and does not act on their sexual urges then why is there an issue? They cannot help being attracted to children even though they know it's wrong. How come, as a society, we can accept gay/bi people but not paedophiles? I understand that children cannot consent etc. etc. but if the person who is attracted to them doesn't act on it then why would it be an issue? It seems a bit unfair that a paedophile would be discriminated against over something that he/she cannot change.

Obviously there would be issues in leaving that person alone with your children but even ignoring that I am of the understanding that the person would in fact be perceived as a freak?

While obviously the acts of paedophiles should be condemned and severely punished do you think it is fair that they are discriminated against over something they cannot change? I think this is an interesting topic and hope it will be allowed to be discussed.

Discuss.

Please don't turn into a meaningless discussion as to why pedophiles and gays are different. It is obviously down to the consent of their sexual partner and the fact that a child is not mentally mature enough to consent. I was simply using gays as an example as they used to be outcasts in society years ago for their sexual preference. Pedophiles have now taken that throne and I'm wondering why should they be different as long as they don't act on their urges.

This brings me to my next point. Zoophilia. The consent problem arises here again because the animal cannot consent. What if you present yourself to an animal and he/she is DTF. If you then proceed to have intercourse with them should it be ok? I mean they have instigated it which could be considered consent (but is it because they don't have the mental capacity to consent? I'm not sure). Cows are often impregnated artificially and they don't consent to that so it seems hypocritical. This is only a minor sub-discussion though as I think paedophilia is more common and interesting.

Waking-Dreams

As you mentioned, the reason people do not feel comfortable with paedophiles is because when they do act on their impulses it can have devastating effects on innocent children. It's really that simple.

I’ve watched some documentaries on the subject where old men seemingly went no further than just chatting to small children in public or would put them on their knee and be friendly like a man in a Santa Claus outfit might do so (which from the child’s point of view may not have been perceived as weird to them) but the intent was clear: the paedophile was getting pleasure from the interaction and it could lead to far worse things. The reason some of them went no further was because of the fear of getting caught, not necessarily because they knew it was wrong and couldn’t help themselves.

I really don’t see any double standard concerning the shifting attitude towards gay/bi people because as you surely know, people who are gay/bi tend to engage in consensual acts where no one is being harmed. The same can’t be said for people who happen to fancy children.

I hear you when you say, if the person doesn’t act on it, it shouldn’t be an issue, but how many paedophiles do we know who don’t act on their thoughts at some point? Is there any data which would support the assertion that paedophiles can abstain from all forms of their particular type of gratification? Even if they stayed at home and looked at kiddie porn, someone is still getting hurt – as the children who are featured in the explicit material are being targeted by predators and it also allows the paedophile to indulge in their fantasy further.

“As long as they don’t act on those urges…”

How sure can we be that that will always be the case? Looking at how many gay/bi people coped with their urges in solitude, where the alternative was to become scorned by their contemporary society, many of them still found an outlet and risked condemnation because abstaining from their urges was just too difficult.

Denerick

I think most rational people accept that Paedophiles cannot control either their sexual preferences or their thoughts. What they can control is their actions, and whether they act on their impulses.

What matters is that two gay men are engaged in a consensual act between adults. A child by his/her nature cannot offer consent, as they have not developed either the emotional or the physical maturity to do so. Paedophiles seem to have all kinds of strange justifications for their behaviour, but nothing quite defeats the argument of 'For God's sake, they're children'.

I'd like to think that if a friend approached me in confidence that he was attracted to children but would never dream of acting on it, that I would be generally sympathetic to this persons plight and recommend they see a counsellor. Unfortunately I am as human as the next guy, and doubtless I would be thoroughly repulsed by any such confession, and could not promise to have a sympathetic reaction. It is the human condition.

Denerick

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Is there any data which would support the assertion that paedophiles can abstain from all forms of their particular type of gratification? Even if they stayed at home and looked at kiddie porn, someone is still getting hurt – as the children who are featured in the explicit material are being targeted by predators and it also allows the paedophile to indulge in their fantasy further.

“As long as they don’t act on those urges…”

You're trying to affirm a false negative. The reason why we don't have data on 'closet' paedophiles is because they don't act on their urges and/or admit to it.

And if they're viewing kiddy porn they are indulging in their urges, and are as complicit in child abuse as the adult 'on camera', as it where.

jive

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I hear you when you say, if the person doesn’t act on it, it shouldn’t be an issue, but how many paedophiles do we know who don’t act on their thoughts at some point? Is there any data which would support the assertion that paedophiles can abstain from all forms of their particular type of gratification? Even if they stayed at home and looked at kiddie porn, someone is still getting hurt – as the children who are featured in the explicit material are being targeted by predators and it also allows the paedophile to indulge in their fantasy further.

“As long as they don’t act on those urges…”

How sure can we be that that will always be the case? Looking at how many gay/bi people coped with their urges in solitude, where the alternative was to become scorned by their contemporary society, many of them still found an outlet and risked condemnation because abstaining from their urges was just too difficult.

That's the problem though. Paedophiles can't openly come out and say "look it I want a piece of young meat" because it's a taboo. I understand the fear of a paedophile acting on his urges because we all know hormones make you do bad things (especially coupled with alcohol, people wake up next to fat rotten ones due to the hormonal/alcohol combo). But there is literally nowhere for a paedophile to turn - if he/she tells anybody word will get out and he/she will be abused to high heavens and it is likely they would receive death threats from locals.

Denerick wrote: »

I'd like to think that if a friend approached me in confidence that he was attracted to children but would never dream of acting on it, that I would be generally sympathetic to this persons plight and recommend they see a counsellor. Unfortunately I am as human as the next guy, and doubtless I would be thoroughly repulsed by any such confession, and could not promise to have a sympathetic reaction. It is the human condition.

Exactly my point. You would be repulsed by it but it's not his/her fault. This is why I made the comparison to gay/bi people. Years back there was a taboo associated with gays and bisexuals similar to the way paedophilia is stigmatised today. It seems a bit hypocritical that we accept one group but not the other on their sexual presence - and by accept I mean understand. Paedophiles are just viewed as mentally ill individuals which is a similar outlook to how gay people were viewed; everyone thought they had a mental illness. It just seems weird to me that one sexual preference has become acceptable while the other remains exactly where it was years ago. I'd like to hear a gay person's opinion on the subject.

diddlybit

Token gay here.

In regards to the de-stigmitistaion of homosexuality, I think that it's a little pre-mature to say that we have achieve equality and the opportunity to love whoever we choose as this is largely confined to Western countries. And even so, there are many places that you would not feel comfortable holding your partner's hand walking down the street. (Completely beside the point.)

I think you answered your own question in your first point, the fundamental difference between queer sexualities and paedophilia is the matter of consent. The issue of consent is intergral also to the production of child pornography, which if an individual consumes, is complicit in child sex abuse. There are however, many sexual preferences that remain classified as mental disorders in the APA, such as tranvestism, S and M, urophilia etc.

The patholgoisation of paedophila and the hysteria surrounding child pornography has allowed the definitions of what constitutes paedophilia and child pornography to become an ethical muddle. New laws have just been put in place stating that any pornograhy produced in the EU that features an individual under the age of 18 classifies as child pornography. An individual can have sex at this age, but not take a photo of themselves doing so. (There have been prosecutions under this law already.) Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors" is an excellent book on these issues in America.

What also exists in the social conciosuness is the patholgisation of the gay male as a potential paedophile, which many people have examined in academic work. It is the conflation of various paraphilias into a symbolic figure that represents the monstrous "other", or that which is not normal, even though homosexuality is not paedophilia. The media focus is mainly on the abuses that occured in the church, which feature this figure, however the majority of abuse in this country, is carried out by men that also have heterosexual relationships.

In regards to zoophilia, there is a really interesting documentary called Zoo that aired a couple of years ago at a Canadian film festival. It's worth a look.

CorkMan

I'm confused as to why people become pedophiles. If "not getting female sex" could be a cause I think there would be more pedophile priests, as the overwhelmingly majority never had sex before.

I think it goes against nature itself to molest children, loads of different animals are part-gay, but how many pedophiles? I think for that reason it is a mental illness, or a product of low self-esteem or something.

Mawbish

It is generally accepted by the majority of educated people that homosexuality or bi-sexuality is acceptable as both people in the act can give their consent.

With pedophiles children cannot give their consent.

It really is that simple!

When a pedophile commits a sexual act upon a child it is not just about the sexual act itself. It is about a feeling of control and power similar to rapists. It is not about the pleasure of the act its the fact that this person can do as they like with or indeed without the consent of the other person.

In our society the idea of being attracted to someone who is not of age ie able to give consent it is both illegal and it is considered a reprehensible act.

As for not acting on their desires - this does not work it is not an effective way of dealing with the issue. Intensive thereapy and possibly castration could be two ways of working on the problem.

However if I knew of someone who spoke of such an attraction towards a child even if they've never acted on it - I'd finally find out if I was capable of harming another human being...

RachaelVO

Denerick wrote: »

Unfortunately I am as human as the next guy, and doubtless I would be thoroughly repulsed by any such confession, and could not promise to have a sympathetic reaction. It is the human condition.

I'm pretty sure I'd be the exact same. There is NO way I would let him/her (and it can be a her) near my children. When it comes to this, there is no middle ground. I would walk away and that would be that. I would feel that my children were at risk by this person no matter what, and I'd not be able to take that sort of risk...

To the OP, I understand the comparison you tried to make, but the there really is none. Being Gay, and the acceptance of being gay is more something based on science and the fact the people used to believe that the earth was flat but now they know better, being gay is the same thing. Just because you are gay does not mean you don't have self control. A Paedophile has very little control and they will used position and power to get access to children. Which in turn will pretty much mess up important times of their lives. Not really that comparable!!!!

syklops

CorkMan wrote: »

I'm confused as to why people become pedophiles.

This is probably the source of your confusion. People dont become paedophilic, they just are.

CorkMan wrote: »

I think for that reason it is a mental illness, or a product of low self-esteem or something.

The exact same was said about homosexuality 100 years ago, and by some people still today.

Waking-Dreams

jive wrote: »

That's the problem though. Paedophiles can't openly come out and say "look it I want a piece of young meat" because it's a taboo. I understand the fear of a paedophile acting on his urges because we all know hormones make you do bad things (especially coupled with alcohol, people wake up next to fat rotten ones due to the hormonal/alcohol combo). But there is literally nowhere for a paedophile to turn - if he/she tells anybody word will get out and he/she will be abused to high heavens and it is likely they would receive death threats from locals.

The Samaritans are trained to take calls from paedophiles and to give them emotional support. I've no idea if they find it helpful but a person who has sexual feelings towards minors won't be on the receiving end of threats or abuse in that instance.

I understand there's no data available on the internal thoughts of paedos so we're left wondering just how many people have these urges and how many of them act on it (save for the ones who are caught).

Mawbish

Becoming a pedophile....now there's a question!

Nature Vs Nurture?
Brain injury?
A victim of child abuse themselves?

Serial killers with brain injuries link - http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/9b.html

Something that needs serious further study....

From wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Profile - http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

Its not just "stranger danger" in a lot of cases its the most normal seeming individual that you see every day

diddlybit

Mawbish wrote: »

As for not acting on their desires - this does not work it is not an effective way of dealing with the issue. Intensive thereapy and possibly castration could be two ways of working on the problem.

Personally I think that there are huge ethical issues with castration, unless it is self-elective. And how does one qualify for it? What if following the abuse there are no substanial traumatic effects percievable in the child?

Therapy doesn't work also. I think it is the equivalent of attempting to cure a person of homosexuality. Aversion therpay doesn't, neither does boredom therapy (fascinating one that.) Louis Theroux did a documentary a while back called A Place for Peadophiles. It was a jail that catered to sex offenders. There were not allowed release until they had completed therapy and deemed to be "cured." Great watch. Even though some of them were "cured", to me it appeared that they were confusing "cured" with "acklowedgment of the consequences of their actions."

diddlybit

Mawbish wrote: »

Its not just "stranger danger" in a lot of cases its the most normal seeming individual that you see every day

Generally it's a family member or close friend of the family. The SAVI report published a couple of years ago by the Rape crisis centre has some unsettling statistics in regards to child sex abuse and sexual violence in Ireland.

seamus

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I understand there's no data available on the internal thoughts of paedos

There's very little data available on Paedophilia, full stop.

The nature of sexuality is not something which has been the subject of much study up until recently. For most of human history, sexuality has been a black-and-white separation of "stuff that's good" and "stuff that's evil".

Heterosexuality has always been in the "stuff that's good" camp (though Catholicism tried it's best to make all sex evil), but things like homosexuality, beastiality, paedophilia, etc, have wandered in and out of the two camps depending on the prevailing trends at the time.

Unfortunately we are somewhat blinded at the moment by the vociferous hatred of anything remotely related to paedophilia. This causes all sorts of problems, not least because it makes it very difficult to gather any kind of data and do serious studies in the area with the aim of better understanding what it is and if we can do anything to help people suffering with it. I say "suffering" because I imagine it's a fairly horrific thing to try and live with. A bit like trying to walk around and function normally when your thoughts are consumed with fantasies of murdering or raping people. You know it's wrong, but your baser self is torturing you to do it.

The nature -v- nurture thing is hard to say. I would probably be in the "it's mostly nature" camp, but our sexual preferences are more of a mish-mash than that, they are shaped by early childhood experiences. In much the same way that a seed knows how to grow into a tree, but the environment in which it's placed will determine in what direction the tree grows, etc.

Some people have fetishes, others have an object fixation. These are probably as a result of childhood experiences. There were threads on AH recently about people who were "marrying" their vehicles. They appeared to be sexually aroused by their vehicles much like anyone else is by their preferred gender. But this can't be a "nature" thing, clearly as cars have only been around for a century.

So it's possible that paedophilia is a manifestation of the same "object fixation", just in terms of children rather than vehicles or gas masks or whatever.

That being the case, it could possibly be worked on. But we just don't have the information.

Mawbish

Hi Diddlybit,

I also saw that documentary by Louis Theroux. It was almost two seperate prisons in one - those that attend therapy and take their meds were moved into nicer housing those that 'refused' to attend therapy were left in a jail cell blocks defending their right to refuse therapy as there 'was nothing wrong with them'

We could go back further in history to the acient greeks where seemingly according to histories young boys were encourage to sleep together and to sleep with older men...

If sexual abuse is proven in a court of law - there should be automatic castration not just the chemical side of things as I've seen dogs castrated to curb their nature and therefore stop them from biting but time and time again something else in the body kicks in to replace the lost chemicals ie testosterone.

It is horrifying to imagine a person forcing themselves on someone who is unable to give consent whatever the circumstances and it should be punished far heavily than it is at present

diddlybit

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunately we are somewhat blinded at the moment by the vociferous hatred of anything remotely related to paedophilia.

I think this is a very good point and that society has become so distruaght over the problem that it is impossible to find any working ethical solution to prevent sex offenders from re-offending as the matter is so highly emotive. An objective discussion of the issue is also nearly impossible and I often find that the figure of the paedophile is utilised in political rhetoric to gain brownie points with a public that are concerned with the welfare of their children. Unfortunately much of teh discussions around the subject of paedophilia are directed towards the shady figure of the man in the long trench coat loitering around playgrounds. While these preadtory figures do exist, a child is much more likely to be abused by someone they know. I think the invisibilty of sexual abuse within the family in the media has been replaced by a safer figure, the threat always comes from the outside. Consequently there has been little accomplished in the way of support systems for those that are experiencing sexual abuse and society still does not facilitate the reporting of sex crimes in a safe environment, in which the victim is assured that they will not have to return to the place of abuse i.e. the family home. The statistics on the level of sex crimes reported in ratio to the levels of conviction are pretty horrifying reading, it's no wonder that people are reluctant to go to teh authorities.

Mawbish wrote: »

If sexual abuse is proven in a court of law - there should be automatic castration not just the chemical side of things as I've seen dogs castrated to curb their nature and therefore stop them from biting but time and time again something else in the body kicks in to replace the lost chemicals ie testosterone.

It is horrifying to imagine a person forcing themselves on someone who is unable to give consent whatever the circumstances and it should be punished far heavily than it is at present

I know very little about chemical castration but, I would still be adament that surgical castration is not the answer. Abuse can be proven in a court of law, but convictions are not infallible. I would look at it in the same manner, I would view the death penalty. If there is a wrongful conviction, it is impossible to bring someone back from the dead. Same for people wrongly convicted of a sex offence.

I do agree with you that the sentences at the moment are far too lenient for all manner of sex crimes.

jive

RachaelVO wrote: »

To the OP, I understand the comparison you tried to make, but the there really is none. Being Gay, and the acceptance of being gay is more something based on science and the fact the people used to believe that the earth was flat but now they know better, being gay is the same thing. Just because you are gay does not mean you don't have self control. A Paedophile has very little control and they will used position and power to get access to children. Which in turn will pretty much mess up important times of their lives. Not really that comparable!!!!

Mawbish wrote: »

In our society the idea of being attracted to someone who is not of age ie able to give consent it is both illegal and it is considered a reprehensible act.

As for not acting on their desires - this does not work it is not an effective way of dealing with the issue. Intensive thereapy and possibly castration could be two ways of working on the problem.

However if I knew of someone who spoke of such an attraction towards a child even if they've never acted on it - I'd finally find out if I was capable of harming another human being...

This is the problem I think though. What makes these opinions different to how gay people were looked at years ago? It just seems hypocritical that in a society where we are supposed to accept all sexual preferences that we just pick and choose? It is understandable that we can't ACCEPT paedophilia but the ignorance and hypocrisy imo is mind blowing. How come people can't understand that being a paedophile is similar to being a homosexual in that one does not choose their sexual preference? It amazes me that even people who go to gay pride parades are not understanding of the plight of a paedophile. Surely they of all people should know?

The bolded comment from RachaelVO is just mind blowingly ignorant. I'm not sure how you have decided that gay people have self control but paedophiles do not. Self control is dependent on the person and not their sexuality but because paedophiles have been given such a horrifically bad name in the media. I understand why people who act on it should be prosecuted BUT because of this attitude of "oh he'll get whats coming to him in jail sick ****er" people apply it to paedophiles who haven't even committed a crime.

Suggesting castration is a bit much as well. Why should paedophiles be mutilated just because of their sexual preference? I completely understand there being laws in place to protect children but how can you prosecute someone for their sexual preference? It's no different to me abusing gay or bisexual people. They are innocent citizens and have all the rights that straight/gay people have as long as they don't offend. The opinion towards paedophiles really does blow my mind. I don't know if anyone else understands where I'm coming from but innocent until proven guilty can really be applied here. I'm sure the vast majority of paedophiles didn't choose to be that way just as homosexuals didn't choose to be the way they are.

diddlybit

jive wrote: »

It amazes me that even people who go to gay pride parades are not understanding of the plight of a paedophile. Surely they of all people should know?

I think the majority of gay people would view paedophilia much in the same way as heterosexual people would. To an extent, I think many would be less inclined to see this perspective as for many years the homosexual was conflated with the figure of the paedophile, which led to more prejudice being directed towards members of the gay community.

As a marginalised group of society, it is possible to say that the gay community may have more sympathy for other margnialised groups, but this does not extend to paedophiles. The ethicism of desiring children is far outside of normative values, that it is impossible to envision a time when the desier becomes mainstream. Obviously acting on such desires will never be accepted as it is breaking social taboos and law.

There is a very small paedophiliac emancipation movement, but they prefer the terms "Child Emancipation."

irishh_bob

jive wrote: »

This is the problem I think though. What makes these opinions different to how gay people were looked at years ago? It just seems hypocritical that in a society where we are supposed to accept all sexual preferences that we just pick and choose? It is understandable that we can't ACCEPT paedophilia but the ignorance and hypocrisy imo is mind blowing. How come people can't understand that being a paedophile is similar to being a homosexual in that one does not choose their sexual preference? It amazes me that even people who go to gay pride parades are not understanding of the plight of a paedophile. Surely they of all people should know?

The bolded comment from RachaelVO is just mind blowingly ignorant. I'm not sure how you have decided that gay people have self control but paedophiles do not. Self control is dependent on the person and not their sexuality but because paedophiles have been given such a horrifically bad name in the media. I understand why people who act on it should be prosecuted BUT because of this attitude of "oh he'll get whats coming to him in jail sick ****er" people apply it to paedophiles who haven't even committed a crime.

Suggesting castration is a bit much as well. Why should paedophiles be mutilated just because of their sexual preference? I completely understand there being laws in place to protect children but how can you prosecute someone for their sexual preference? It's no different to me abusing gay or bisexual people. They are innocent citizens and have all the rights that straight/gay people have as long as they don't offend. The opinion towards paedophiles really does blow my mind. I don't know if anyone else understands where I'm coming from but innocent until proven guilty can really be applied here. I'm sure the vast majority of paedophiles didn't choose to be that way just as homosexuals didn't choose to be the way they are.

you liberals and your moral relavatism , whether they cant help it or not is irelevant , they are a danger to kids and need to be removed from society if they show any signs of predatory behaviour , you wouldnt be so progressive and tollerant if one of your kids was at risk

diddlybit

irishh_bob wrote: »

you liberals and your moral relavatism , whether they cant help it or not is irelevant , they are a danger to kids and need to be removed from society if they show any signs of predatory behaviour , you wouldnt be so progressive and tollerant if one of your kids was at risk

And how does one discover the true nature of someone's sexual desires? For example, a man takes a walk in a park every day beside a children's playground. This is predatorybehavior if he is paedophile. If he is not, this is harmless. This would require some form of Thought Police.

RachaelVO

jive wrote: »

The bolded comment from RachaelVO is just mind blowingly ignorant. I'm not sure how you have decided that gay people have self control but paedophiles do not. Self control is dependent on the person and not their sexuality but because paedophiles have been given such a horrifically bad name in the media. I understand why people who act on it should be prosecuted BUT because of this attitude of "oh he'll get whats coming to him in jail sick ****er" people apply it to paedophiles who haven't even committed a crime.

THERE IS NOTHING MINDBLOWINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT IT!!!!!

What I emboldened in your statement is just horse sh1t! YES THEY HAVE A BAD NAME IN THE MEDIA! Rightly bloody so! They have no self control! Where they are prosecuted for 3 cases, betcha there are so many more they know nothing about!

A straight man walks into a bar he does not loose control and start grooming women he finds attractive
A gay man walks into a bar, he does not loose contro and want to start hopping off every bloke in the room
ETC, ETC, ETC
A Paedophile walks into a youth club or a class room, and they are picking out the vulnerable children.

Paedophiles are predators, they do act on it!!!. They seek out vulnerable children, groom them, and as a direct result of a paeophiles action they will fcuk up lives!!!! Simple as. Now I don't care whether you're a a homophobe, nor do I give a rats ass if you're Gay, HOWEVER I do care if you have ANY type of history involving children.

diddlybit

seamus wrote: »

There's very little data available on Paedophilia, full stop....Unfortunately we are somewhat blinded at the moment by the vociferous hatred of anything remotely related to paedophilia. This causes all sorts of problems, not least because it makes it very difficult to gather any kind of data and do serious studies in the area with the aim of better understanding what it is and if we can do anything to help people suffering with it.

I think Seamus's point may have just been proven.

Denerick

RachaelVO wrote: »

THERE IS NOTHING MINDBLOWINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT IT!!!!!

What I emboldened in your statement is just horse sh1t! YES THEY HAVE A BAD NAME IN THE MEDIA! Rightly bloody so! They have no self control! Where they are prosecuted for 3 cases, betcha there are so many more they know nothing about!

A straight man walks into a bar he does not loose control and start grooming women he finds attractive
A gay man walks into a bar, he does not loose contro and want to start hopping off every bloke in the room
ETC, ETC, ETC
A Paedophile walks into a youth club or a class room, and they are picking out the vulnerable children.

Paedophiles are predators, they do act on it!!!. They seek out vulnerable children, groom them, and as a direct result of a paeophiles action they will fcuk up lives!!!! Simple as. Now I don't care whether you're a a homophobe, nor do I give a rats ass if you're Gay, HOWEVER I do care if you have ANY type of history involving children.

Lookit, keep the high horse to yourself. Nobody here denies that paedophiles who act on their impulses are a threat to society and deserve imprisonment. What I and presumably others are interested in are the ones who don't act on their impulses, the one who reject and repress their 'sexuality', which is the only honourable course of action.

RachaelVO

Denerick wrote: »

Lookit, keep the high horse to yourself. Nobody here denies that paedophiles who act on their impulses are a threat to society and deserve imprisonment. What I and presumably others are interested in are the ones who don't act on their impulses, the one who reject and repress their 'sexuality', which is the only honourable course of action.

I will have as many god dammed high horses as I feel like bloody well having.

There is no proof that any paedophile does not act on their instincts. It's not a bloody sexuality. If saying a 5 year old doing tumbles in the park is a 5 year old giving you the come on is in your book considered "sexuality" that doesn't say too much for your mindset!
There is a study to indicate that paedophiles feel that it is their RIGHT to have sex with children, and that children are sexual creatures. So it's rare a paedophile will NOT act on whatever course of action they have set their mind on.

There is no discussion on how they feel, cos frankly I (and most others) see it that they have no rights!

Thread Unfollowed, due to the fact I actually like my laptop and getting on my high horse!!!!!!!!!!

irishh_bob

diddlybit wrote: »

And how does one discover the true nature of someone's sexual desires? For example, a man takes a walk in a park every day beside a children's playground. This is predatorybehavior if he is paedophile. If he is not, this is harmless. This would require some form of Thought Police.

been hearing spurious arguements like that beit when it comes to paedophiles or those who are not the full schiling for years now , its called common sense and disgression , you dont take pre - emptive action against a man who walks his dog past a creche everyday , you do move against someone who makes inappropriate advances towards minors on an increasingly regular basis , liberals try to shut down debate on issues like this by potraying common sense possitions as broad brush and extreme

diddlybit

irishh_bob wrote: »

been hearing spurious arguements like that beit when it comes to paedophiles or those who are not the full schiling for years now , its called common sense and disgression , you dont take pre - emptive action against a man who walks his dog past a creche everyday , you do move against someone who makes inappropriate advances towards minors on an increasingly regular basis , liberals try to shut down debate on issues like this by potraying common sense possitions as broad brush and extreme

I really can't recall any cases in which pre-emptive actions taken against someone who was suspected of being a paedophile. And yet this is what most people are demanding.. If society decides that it is ethical to castrate them in the future, the problem still is not solved because the chances are their sexual nature would only be discovered following a conviction or accussation. The point of this thread is to objectively discuss what paedophilia is, and possibly more data, or simply an oppurtunity to discuss the subject in society, without hysteria, on the subject could lead to the prevention of child abuse.

What do you mean by inappropriate advances?

irishh_bob

diddlybit wrote: »

I really can't recall any cases in which pre-emptive actions taken against someone who was suspected of being a paedophile. And yet this is what most people are demanding.. If society decides that it is ethical to castrate them in the future, the problem still is not solved because the chances are their sexual nature would only be discovered following a conviction or accussation. The point of this thread is to objectively discuss what paedophilia is, and possibly more data, or simply an oppurtunity to discuss the subject in society, without hysteria, on the subject could lead to the prevention of child abuse.

What do you mean by inappropriate advances?

academics love to blather on about discussing this and discussin that , when theese same ivory tower liberals are allowed dictate policy is when the trouble starts

diddlybit

irishh_bob wrote: »

academics love to blather on about discussing this and discussin that , when theese same ivory tower liberals are allowed dictate policy is when the trouble starts

That's not very productive is it? If you are not interested in a rational dicussion of the topic, don't bother replying. I have no problem with listening to the views of people that differ from my own and this matter, and was genuinely curious in what you meant, but there really is no point in attacking me.

Dudess

RachaelVO wrote: »

THERE IS NOTHING MINDBLOWINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT IT!!!!!

What I emboldened in your statement is just horse sh1t! YES THEY HAVE A BAD NAME IN THE MEDIA! Rightly bloody so! They have no self control! Where they are prosecuted for 3 cases, betcha there are so many more they know nothing about!

A straight man walks into a bar he does not loose control and start grooming women he finds attractive
A gay man walks into a bar, he does not loose contro and want to start hopping off every bloke in the room
ETC, ETC, ETC
A Paedophile walks into a youth club or a class room, and they are picking out the vulnerable children.

Paedophiles are predators, they do act on it!!!. They seek out vulnerable children, groom them, and as a direct result of a paeophiles action they will fcuk up lives!!!! Simple as. Now I don't care whether you're a a homophobe, nor do I give a rats ass if you're Gay, HOWEVER I do care if you have ANY type of history involving children.

RachaelVO wrote: »

I will have as many god dammed high horses as I feel like bloody well having.

There is no proof that any paedophile does not act on their instincts. It's not a bloody sexuality. If saying a 5 year old doing tumbles in the park is a 5 year old giving you the come on is in your book considered "sexuality" that doesn't say too much for your mindset!
There is a study to indicate that paedophiles feel that it is their RIGHT to have sex with children, and that children are sexual creatures. So it's rare a paedophile will NOT act on whatever course of action they have set their mind on.

There is no discussion on how they feel, cos frankly I (and most others) see it that they have no rights!

Ever considered writing for The Sun?

How do you know there aren't adults who fancy children but just don't act upon their feelings (and rightly so) and don't tell anyone (and understandably so)? I just feel sorry for people burdened with this curse and who don't act upon it (sympathy gone if they do) - what a nightmare. I'm sure they'd rather not have those feelings. You've no proof a lack of self control is inherent in paedophiles.

Homosexuality isn't problematic, paedophilic tendencies are, so I think your comparison is moot, OP. And if someone were to say they were a paedophile but never acted on it... well it's highly doubtful they'd say it in the first place. The only ones we know about are those who have acted on their desires, and they certainly deserve to be condemned.

jive

Dudess wrote: »

Homosexuality isn't problematic, paedophilic tendencies are, so I think your comparison is moot, OP. And if someone were to say they were a paedophile but never acted on it... well it's highly doubtful they'd say it in the first place. The only ones we know about are those who have acted on their desires, and they certainly deserve to be condemned.

I'm not comparing there sexual tendencies but more so on how paedophiles are currently viewed in society is comparitive to how homosexuals used to be viewed. Unless you are saying the point is moot because they are only viewed differently due to the differing consequences of the acts, which I'd half agree with and half disagree with. The opinion of society isn't solely formed on the sexual tendencies but it does have some bearing.

RachaelVO wrote: »

They have no self control! Where they are prosecuted for 3 cases, betcha there are so many more they know nothing about!

A straight man walks into a bar he does not loose control and start grooming women he finds attractive
A gay man walks into a bar, he does not loose contro and want to start hopping off every bloke in the room
ETC, ETC, ETC
A Paedophile walks into a youth club or a class room, and they are picking out the vulnerable children.

Paedophiles are predators, they do act on it!!!. They seek out vulnerable children, groom them, and as a direct result of a paeophiles action they will fcuk up lives!!!! Simple as. Now I don't care whether you're a a homophobe, nor do I give a rats ass if you're Gay, HOWEVER I do care if you have ANY type of history involving children.

Huh? I'm not sure you understand paedophilia. You are just comparing paedophiles who have acted and broken the law to straight and homosexual people who are in bars. There's no comparison.

RachaelVO wrote: »

I will have as many god dammed high horses as I feel like bloody well having.

There is no proof that any paedophile does not act on their instincts. It's not a bloody sexuality. If saying a 5 year old doing tumbles in the park is a 5 year old giving you the come on is in your book considered "sexuality" that doesn't say too much for your mindset!
There is a study to indicate that paedophiles feel that it is their RIGHT to have sex with children, and that children are sexual creatures. So it's rare a paedophile will NOT act on whatever course of action they have set their mind on.

There is no discussion on how they feel, cos frankly I (and most others) see it that they have no rights!

Thread Unfollowed, due to the fact I actually like my laptop and getting on my high horse!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, the bolded statement, LMAO. Classic.

Secondly, the underlined statement, I'd love to see that study because I'm pretty sure you made it up or it is completely biased.

You see it that they have no rights? So because they have a sexual preference that is illegal they should have NO rights? Even if they are completely innocent and would never even consider acting on their urges?

This seems to be the typical opinion of Joe Bloggs on the street which is why I started this thread. As soon as anyone mentions the 'P' word people go off on an angry tangent while making absolutely no sense whatsoever. I've tried hard to convey that paedophilia is for the most part just a sexual preference. For some reason people think it is similar to rape (although it is in a way given that sex with a minor is statutory rape, but I think the mind set is different and in the majority of cases I assume it's down to sexual preference and not just to display dominance or whatever else). It's hard to get both sides of the argument because on one side we have normal people who can discuss it but all seem to share the same opinion and on the other side all you get is ridiculous hate filled posts. I'd like to see someone full of hatred just calm themselves down for 5 minutes and write a reply expressing their opinion without words like 'predator'!

Also for people saying that if I had a kid I would think differently. I don't think I would. Would I leave my child alone with someone who has confessed to me that they are attracted to children? Absolutely not. Even if they said they would never even consider touching children in a sexual manner I still wouldn't allow it. If he/she is offended it is better than having a child's life ruined because you simply trusted they wouldn't act on their urges. So my opinion wouldn't change in the slightest but I wouldn't trust a paedophile to look after my child without my supervision. Similarly I wouldn't let a murderer look after my dog for the weekend. It doesn't matter if they are trust worthy or not because the fact is that they have urges for such acts and I for one wouldn't take the risk.

jive

I'd also LOVE to know how many paedophiles there are in comparison to those who have acted on their urges and have been convicted for it. I'm trying to think of an estimate but it's actually impossible because there is just no way of knowing. I'd like to think that there are lots of people who just don't confess they are paedophiles and don't act on it. That is, imo, a really ****ty situation for them.

Mawbish

Wow its getting heated in this discussion!

I agree with those who are saying that there has not been enough indepth study on people who are sexually aroused by children (if the act on it or not)

Found an interesting link on chemical castration if you'd like to have a look go here : - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1778 from Brynmawr no less.

There is indeed a group that wish to remove laws that make their 'Child Love' an illegal act. They are based in the USA and I can't for the life of me think of the name of the group or find them on the internet....then again thats one website I can do without viewing.

Pre-emptive action? Hmm....well there is a theory that a number of those abused as children go on to commit similar abuse themselves which furthers the arguement that its a case of wishing to exert control over another person rather than the sexual act. But how could you possibly say without any reasonable doubt that Subject A is going to offend and Subject B isn't?

In the case of serial killers it has been shown that a number of them have had extremely poor upbringing (I don't mean money - I mean poor parenting) and had shown a disposition as children to kill small animals without remorse ie birds then moving on to cats and dogs and eventually working their way up to human beings.
Again how can you say Subject A is going to offend and Subject B isn't?

We have a lot more to learn about the human brain and the chemicals that drive us.

In society paedophiles are deemed 'sick' or 'unwell' or 'freaks of nature' as we do not hold with the idea of children being sexual objects much less able to give consent to any sexual act. Why would a person who is having such thoughts and being fully aware that society at large is against these thoughts still go on to commit them? How can anyone ignore a crying, screaming child just to satisfy themselves? Do they think they're above the law? Do they think its part of their nature therefore they must be allowed to express it?

If someone were to have such thoughts towards a child they should seek immediate help from a GP - to STOP themselves from commiting abuse on a child

seamus

jive wrote: »

I'd also LOVE to know how many paedophiles there are in comparison to those who have acted on their urges and have been convicted for it. I'm trying to think of an estimate but it's actually impossible because there is just no way of knowing. I'd like to think that there are lots of people who just don't confess they are paedophiles and don't act on it.

Well on the one hand I would like to think that people's humanity wins out in the vast majority of cases and they manage to keep themselves under control. But on the other hand I'm not exactly loving the proposal that lots of people are paedophiles

Mawbish wrote: »

There is indeed a group that wish to remove laws that make their 'Child Love' an illegal act. They are based in the USA and I can't for the life of me think of the name of the group or find them on the internet....then again thats one website I can do without viewing.

Nambla. I think.

It's a rather bizarre organisation, their entire argument being based on the idea that paedophilia can be a consensual act of love and caring. The obvious problem being that asking a child to consent to sexual acts is like asking a dog to consent to being spayed. They are simply incapable of understanding what it is you are asking of them and its ramifications and instead will just go along with you because they trust you.

Why would a person who is having such thoughts and being fully aware that society at large is against these thoughts still go on to commit them?

Because they can't help themselves - and to a certain extent while they acknowledge that society deems it "wrong", they may not consider it wrong, or perhaps not as wrong.
Morality and wrong and right have certain inbuilt components. It's not something which sprung up overnight or which was invented by religion. Humans are naturally moral because being good to other humans ensures that you have a place within in a community and therefore benefit from the ability to procreate and survive.
Hurting other humans causes ostracisation and will result in the person not procreating and therefore being removed from the gene pool.

That's the basis of morality, but it has all sorts of shades and what some people consider right -v- wrong varies between individuals. This thread gives a good example. Most people would say that it's wrong to kill your neighbour because you feel like it. But some would say that if they're a paedophile it's OK to kill them. That's moral relativism and it's part of our nature.
We have built up a much more rigid structure of morals which sets out exactly what is right and wrong - a set of averages, if you will, that society can agree on.

But the individual will still retain their moral relativism; some consider rape a more serious crime than murder, and some will consider that there's not really anything wrong with a little bit of social welfare fraud, the only bad thing about it is getting caught.

This is where paedophilia comes in. Some people will feel, despite it being legally wrong, that it's not actually all that wrong to act on it, for whatever reason. I imagine in most of their heads they feel that it's an act of love and they're not causing any suffering.
Others may simply be sociopaths with the inability to relate to other humans as people, much like serial rapists and so on.

If someone were to have such thoughts towards a child they should seek immediate help from a GP - to STOP themselves from commiting abuse on a child

Well, this is the tough one.

We don't know what the law is here or what the law says here. And if I was one of these people I'm pretty sure I would not be happy telling anyone else, lest it become public knowledge.
Even telling a GP or a Psychologist, patient confidentiality notwithstanding, they may have legal obligations which trump everything else and oblige them to inform the Gardai that Joe Bloggs is a potential sex offender.

I imagine a GP if confronted with this information would be equally conflicted between treating his patient and serving the public's best interests. This would especially be true if the GP himself has kids.

It's a symptom of a lack of information, and the current public thinking is that paedophiles are just animals with no self-control. AIDS went through the same ignorance hysteria when it was discovered to the extent that people were afraid to even speak to someone HIV postive, lest they catch it.
Paedophilia is obviously not new, but as we've all said, we have so little information on it that most people are just insanely hysterical about the whole thing.

irishh_bob

diddlybit wrote: »

That's not very productive is it? If you are not interested in a rational dicussion of the topic, don't bother replying. I have no problem with listening to the views of people that differ from my own and this matter, and was genuinely curious in what you meant, but there really is no point in attacking me.

i wasnt attacking you , i was attacking ivory tower PC wooly liberal do - gooders , the kind of people who dictate social policy on almost every issue behind the scenes theese days

nozzferrahhtoo

This is a notoriously hard condition to study for many obvious reasons from the ethics of the studying to the general hatred and taboos towards people who are attracted to children.

To highlight just how problematic it is, imagine an analogy to medicine. If a doctor receives a patient with a given symptom the first step is to establish if the symptom is caused by the patient having something…. Say a disease, infection etc…. or because the patient is lacking something… a required mineral or vitamin in the diet for example.

Scurvy for example, before it was explained, had people coming up will all kinds of theories, and most of them involved the sick people having caught something. Very few people came up with the idea they were lacking something in the forms of vitamins… before the cure was found to include many lemons in a ships stores (or limes if you were cheapskate British people… hence the name “limeys” for brits).

Clearly both understanding a condition AND treating a condition are massively contingent on knowing if a patient has something, or lacks something.

The issue is that our knowledge of pedophilia has not even reached that level and from what I have read on the subject… the idea of whether pedophiles are sick in that they have something wrong with them that we do not (some mental perversion for just one example), or sick in that they lack something we actually have (certain mental blocks for just one example)… actually divides the community of those with expertise on the issue almost in half.

I tend towards the latter, that they lack something we have, but my reasons for this are not all that strong, but those who lean the other way have similar problems. All we do know is that this is an area we desperately need to know more about.

K-9

irishh_bob wrote: »

i wasnt attacking you , i was attacking ivory tower PC wooly liberal do - gooders , the kind of people who dictate social policy on almost every issue behind the scenes theese days

I don't think anybody is seeking to dictate policy, just posing a tough question that can be easily dismissed by favourite stock phrases like "PC woolly liberal do - gooders" that don't mean anything or actually thought about and analysed.

irishh_bob

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think anybody is seeking to dictate policy, just posing a tough question that can be easily dismissed by favourite stock phrases like "PC woolly liberal do - gooders" that don't mean anything or actually thought about and analysed.

its a way of describing those who wish to grant equality to every section of , society , no matter how twisted or dangerous , some posters in here are attempting to potray the attitude towards paedophiles as being no different to societys attitude to gay people some fifty years ago , talk about blurring the lines of what consitutes common decency

K-9

irishh_bob wrote: »

its a way of describing those who wish to grant equality to every section of , society , no matter how twisted or dangerous , some posters in here are attempting to potray the attitude towards paedophiles as being no different to societys attitude to gay people some fifty years ago , talk about blurring the lines of what consitutes common decency

Jaysus, I don't think anybody has mentioned granting them equality! Discussing the subject isn't dangerous or pc, liberal etc.

jive

I find it funny how people can call them predators and say they should have no rights etc. I'd like to see how long my account would remain unbanned if I said the same thing about other people with a different sexual preference. Double standard comes to mind!! (and before I'm told the difference between paedophiles and other preferences I'm already aware, but that doesn't make them 'predators' and take away their rights).

Freddie59

CorkMan wrote: »

I'm confused as to why people become pedophiles. If "not getting female sex" could be a cause I think there would be more pedophile priests, as the overwhelmingly majority never had sex before.

I think it goes against nature itself to molest children, loads of different animals are part-gay, but how many pedophiles? I think for that reason it is a mental illness, or a product of low self-esteem or something.

Someone pointed out to me one time: it is a sexual preference. Much like woman likes man/man like man/woman likes woman. Which makes it all the more dangerous for children. Rehabilitation? I think not.

Freddie59

jive wrote: »

a different sexual preference. Double standard comes to mind!! (and before I'm told the difference between paedophiles and other preferences I'm already aware, but that doesn't make them 'predators' and take away their rights).

In fairness nothing could be further from the truth. They ARE predators. And highly organised - as has been proven. We are honour-bound as a society to protect the most innocent (our children) from evil. And this is evil of the worst kind. The other sexual preferences you mention are between consenting adults. There is a huge difference.

jive

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness nothing could be further from the truth. They ARE predators. And highly organised - as has been proven. We are honour-bound as a society to protect the most innocent (our children) from evil. And this is evil of the worst kind. The other sexual preferences you mention are between consenting adults. There is a huge difference.

I'm aware of the difference like I already said.

How are they predators? How has this been proven? My understanding is that they are sexually attracted to children instead of how normal people are attracted to adult males / females. Convicted paedophiles breaking the law may be predators and highly organised but you can't tar them all with the one brush. You're dad could be a paedophile and just ignores his sexual tendencies and instead has had a family for the pursuit of a normal life. My point is that not everyone who is a paedophile is a serial rapist like the tabloids make out.

Freddie59

jive wrote: »

I'm aware of the difference like I already said.

How are they predators? How has this been proven? My understanding is that they are sexually attracted to children instead of how normal people are attracted to adult males / females. Convicted paedophiles breaking the law may be predators and highly organised but you can't tar them all with the one brush. You're dad could be a paedophile and just ignores his sexual tendencies and instead has had a family for the pursuit of a normal life. My point is that not everyone who is a paedophile is a serial rapist like the tabloids make out.

I don't understand how you are trying to rationalise this horrific behaviour. Yes, there are probably paedos in some familes (who also act on their behaviour) but these are evil beings, not someone with a 'particular leaning' or sexual preference.

And they are highly organised - through all strata of society.

seenitall

A very interesting thread, thank you, OP.

diddlybit wrote: »

There is a very small paedophiliac emancipation movement, but they prefer the terms "Child Emancipation."

I find this particular little piece of info chilling to the bone!

Dudess

irishh_bob wrote: »

you liberals and your moral relavatism , whether they cant help it or not is irelevant , they are a danger to kids and need to be removed from society if they show any signs of predatory behaviour , you wouldnt be so progressive and tollerant if one of your kids was at risk

Where did anyone say predatory tendencies shouldn't be addressed? One of the points being made is that there could be "closet paedophiles" - those who find children sexually desirable but don't act upon it and certainly don't tell anyone about these feelings. So therefore we don't know about their tendencies. Personally, if someone were to reveal this to me, I'd feel sorry for them as that must be a devastating realisation, but while I don't know for certain whether a lack of self control is inherent in paedophilia, I wouldn't be comfortable with them being near children either.

irishh_bob wrote: »

you dont take pre - emptive action against a man who walks his dog past a creche everyday , you do move against someone who makes inappropriate advances towards minors on an increasingly regular basis

I believe that is exactly the point the poster is making. You're just finding defence of child abuse where there isn't any.

liberals try to shut down debate on issues like this by potraying common sense possitions as broad brush and extreme

No they don't - show me one example of a "liberal" defending child abuse.

irishh_bob wrote: »

i wasnt attacking you , i was attacking ivory tower PC wooly liberal do - gooders , the kind of people who dictate social policy on almost every issue behind the scenes theese days

No they don't - don't be silly. To believe conservatives hold no power is laughable.

irishh_bob wrote: »

its a way of describing those who wish to grant equality to every section of , society , no matter how twisted or dangerous

What? Who?

And that phrase is an extremely hackneyed, ignorant-looking phrase that people use to try and sound clever, or is used as a piss-take of Daily Mail outrage merchants.

jive

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't understand how you are trying to rationalise this horrific behaviour. Yes, there are probably paedos in some familes (who also act on their behaviour) but these are evil beings, not someone with a 'particular leaning' or sexual preference.

And they are highly organised - through all strata of society.

Because having desires for someone isn't horrific behaviour it's just how you are. That's how I can rationalise it. I'm not trying to rationalise child abuse like you are implying. They are not evil; just because they have a sexual preference towards prepubescents doesn't make them evil. If they act on it then you could argue that they are evil but for those that suppress their urges you could argue that they are the exact opposite of evil.

I don't understand why you keep saying that they are organised as if they are a giant group of individuals plotting against children. I'm not talking about convicted paedophiles or paedophile rings here.

Shane St.

what a weird thread??op do u like pre pubescent children urself

Shane St.

seriously!!! who the fk is attracted to pre pubescent children and cant help it. dont buy it

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

And highly organised - as has been proven.

Actually it hasn't been proven. Not by a long shot. We've seen that in some cases, they are highly organised. So too can burglars, car thieves and terrorists be highly organised. And just like those types of criminals, we have also seen paedophiles who have acted alone and without any organisation.

But you fail to address the possibility of closet paedophiles who do not act on their feelings.

You use the term "evil" like it's a technical fact. It's an emotive term which fails to recognise that all morality is relative and few people are so morally skewed as to be completely without redemption.

In fact yourself and irish_bob have pretty much proven my point that any attempt to have a rational discussion about the problem of paedophilia gets shot down as an attempt to somehow legitimise it.
You've taken to the media spin that all paedophiles turn into inhumane monsters, drooling at the sight of children and getting involved in paedophile rings at the first chance they get.

Yet it's highly, highly likely that some (most?) paedophiles never act on their feelings. The problem is that any attempt to study it is met with the kind of rabid stonewalling that yourself and irish_bob display here.

Dudess

Shane St. wrote: »

seriously!!! who the fk is attracted to pre pubescent children and cant help it. dont buy it

Whether you don't buy it or not (translation: you don't like to believe it could be a reality) doesn't make a difference. If there are people who just have that innate attraction, it's just there, then that in itself is not their fault - but obviously acting on it is.