Paedophiles

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's media spin. The biggest threat to children is their parents. Children are umpteen times more likely to be abused or murdered by a parent or close family member than by anyone else on the planet. So by definition, if you are looking after your children then they are very, very safe.

But the media would have you believe that the most danger comes from without and paedos are lurking around every corner. That doesn't mean that you should be complacent, but we've gone too far the other way now.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, we've gotten to the point now where men are often scared or worried about seeing a child naked (at the beach for example), lest they look at the child and be branded a paedo. People have been attacked in public parks while taking photos of children's football games.
Will we get to the point where people start insisting on having "changing cubicles" rather than changing facilities, lest some depraved paedo sees them changing a nappy?

I'm really confused as to how anyone could infer that people are condoning paedophilia on this thread. The point is that it is not something that will just "go away". It's not new, it's not a modern problem, and thus far we have no solutions. McCarthyism-style witch hunts, the currently favoured solution, do not solve anything and only serve to make everyone wary of everyone else.

What we're talking about is what to do with people who have not committed offences, but recognise that they are in possession of urges towards children. What's your solution there?

I have already given my solution, as you put it, and have been infracted for it. Might I ask - are YOU a parent?

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

Some of us are considering the possibility

And thisis the core of your argument - a 'possibility', as you put it??!! As oposed to the REALITY that is organised paedphilia. A huge difference.

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's media spin.

How so?

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

I have already given my solution, as you put it, and have been infracted for it.

No you haven't, or at least I can't see it. Your solution is to "cut the perpetrators balls off". We're not talking about perpetrators. We're talking about trying to catch* people before they become perpetrators.

Might I ask - are YOU a parent?

That's not really relevant. I'm not a parent at the moment, but there are children in my life that I love beyond words, so my judgement is just as clouded as anyone else's.

In any case, you and others seem to think that we can't/shouldn't do anything about paedophiles until they commit a crime. Can you not see that taking this stance will result in more crimes against children because potential paedophiles are not identified before they become offenders?

How so?

How often does The Sun warn parents of the dangers that their children face from themselves? When is the last time The Daily Mail carried a headline saying that, "You are your child's biggest enemy"?
Danger from the unfamiliar sells more papers, so the media slant child abuse to appear as though it's committed by evil loners hiding the bushes as football games, rather than the reality that it's mostly committed by the friendly neighbour who's just like you.


* I use "catch" in the sense of "Identify and help" rather than "Arrest and lock up".

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

No you haven't, or at least I can't see it. Your solution is to "cut the perpetrators balls off". We're not talking about perpetrators. We're talking about trying to catch* people before they become perpetrators.

So you want to *catch* people before they commit they offence. You've watched Minority Report too often my friend.

seamus wrote: »

That's not really relevant. I'm not a parent at the moment, but there are children in my life that I love beyond words, so my judgement is just as clouded as anyone else's..

Actually, no. And totally relevant. Believe me - when you become a parent nothing (and believe me when I say it) NOTHING matters more than your children. You will do anything to protect them. You cannot compare children that are not your own. It will give you a whole different perspective.

seamus wrote: »

In any case, you and others seem to think that we can't/shouldn't do anything about paedophiles until they commit a crime. Can you not see that taking this stance will result in more crimes against children because potential paedophiles are not identified before they become offenders?]

How do you intend to apprehend these people in advance? Minority Report again?

seamus wrote: »

How often does The Sun warn parents of the dangers that their children face from themselves? When is the last time The Daily Mail carried a headline saying that, "You are your child's biggest enemy"?
Danger from the unfamiliar sells more papers, so the media slant child abuse to appear as though it's committed by evil loners hiding the bushes as football games, rather than the reality that it's mostly committed by the friendly neighbour who's just like you.


* I use "catch" in the sense of "Identify and help" rather than "Arrest and lock up".

I actually don't read the Sun or the Mail, so I can't comment on their articles. Yes they are sensationalist claptrap of the worst order, but, equally, the same could be said about the arguments being put forward by some here in the 'let's try to analyse paedophiles' camp.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What is there to understand? It is, as already explained, a sexualy preference (shudder). Evil of the worst kind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

So we shouldn't try anything to try and help them if they are willing to seek help? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

I've a child myself, fantastic thing, but it can make people very irrational and emotional on this topic. Not always a good thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

Freddie59 wrote: »

I have already given my solution, as you put it, and have been infracted for it.

Seemed you were infracted for stooping to the level of saying you suspect there is defence/condoning of paedophiles on this thread, which you're obviously intelligent to not really believe. And you don't have to be a parent to understand the damage child abuse causes.

Freddie59 wrote: »

And thisis the core of your argument - a 'possibility', as you put it??!! As oposed to the REALITY that is organised paedphilia. A huge difference.

And those who are paedophiles and have perpetrated paedophilic crimes should be punished - the possibility I and others speak of is one which would be worth addressing in order to prevent child abuse, prevent people having those feelings for children. It really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes they are sensationalist claptrap of the worst order, but, equally, the same could be said about the arguments being put forward by some here in the 'let's try to analyse paedophiles' camp.

Yes, how terrible that the problem be addressed before the acts are committed. Instead, LET the abuse go on and then sort it out. Your Minority Report stuff is disingenuous and obtuse - what we're considering is: a possibility for those who have these feelings to get help, then no child will be abused. Is it that hard to grasp?

Freddie59 wrote: »

What is there to understand? It is, as already explained, a sexualy preference (shudder). Evil of the worst kind.

It's "evil" to abuse children - but how is it evil to have these feelings for them that you haven't chosen, and to want to be rid of these feelings?

diddlybit

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's media spin. The biggest threat to children is their parents. Children are umpteen times more likely to be abused or murdered by a parent or close family member than by anyone else on the planet. So by definition, if you are looking after your children then they are very, very safe.

But the media would have you believe that the most danger comes from without and paedos are lurking around every corner. That doesn't mean that you should be complacent, but we've gone too far the other way now.

These stats were posted earlier on the thread but, I'll repost them for clarication. Once again from the SAVI report, catologuing the prevelence of abuse and the demographic of the perpetrators. In consideration of common child sex abuse and the fact that four-fifths of children are abused by somebody that they know, that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends that the concerned parents on this thread should also possibly look out for.

Child Sexual Abuse (defined as sexual abuse of children and adolescents under age 17 years)
• Girls: One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In over a quarter of cases of contact abuse (i.e. 5.6 per cent of all girls), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either vaginal, anal or oral sex.
• Boys: One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in four-teen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In one
of every six cases of contact abuse (i.e. 2.7 per cent of all boys), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either anal or oral sex.

Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.
• Boys: Fewer family members were involved in child sexual abuse of boys. One in seven perpetrators (14 per cent) was a family member with two-thirds (66 per cent) non-family but known to the abused boy. One in five (20 per cent) were strangers.
• In sum, in four-fifths of cases of child sexual abuse, the perpe-trator was known to the abused person.
• The perpetrator was another child or adolescent (17 years old or younger) in one out of every four cases.

Freddie59

diddlybit wrote: »

These stats were posted earlier on the thread but, I'll repost them for clarication. Once again from the SAVI report, catologuing the prevelence of abuse and the demographic of the perpetrators. In consideration of common child sex abuse and the fact that four-fifths of children are abused by somebody that they know, that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends that the concerned parents on this thread should also possibly look out for.

[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

So the argument is that parents are the biggest threat to their children. Yet from the above stats:

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.

So 76 per cent were not parents. And parents are being vilified by others on this thread as the biggest threat?

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

Seemed you were infracted for stooping to the level of saying you suspect there is defence/condoning of paedophiles on this thread, which you're obviously intelligent to not really believe. And you don't have to be a parent to understand the damage child abuse causes.

1. It is not 'stooping' as you put it - merely from YOUR perspective.

2. Yes you do have to be a parent. Full stop.

Dudess wrote: »

And those who are paedophiles and have perpetrated paedophilic crimes should be punished - the possibility I and others speak of is one which would be worth addressing in order to prevent child abuse, prevent people having those feelings for children. It really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

How about grasping this: if they don't come forward - how do you identify them; apart from the obvious computer stuff?

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, how terrible that the problem be addressed before the acts are committed. Instead, LET the abuse go on and then sort it out. Your Minority Report stuff is disingenuous and obtuse - what we're considering is: a possibility for those who have these feelings to get help, then no child will be abused. Is it that hard to grasp?

It's "evil" to abuse children - but how is it evil to have these feelings for them that you haven't chosen, and to want to be rid of these feelings?

I would agree to a small degree. But how many of these 'self-professed' people have come forward? Like others in life, they only show remorse when caught. And not until then - when the damage is done.

It is the territory of Minority Report. No two ways about it.

It wasn't me!

So, because there's no way to predict criminal behaviour, your solution is to anticipate it by forced mutilation? Riiight... Nothing about that sounds barbaric at all, no sir.

diddlybit

Freddie59 wrote: »

So the argument is that parents are the biggest threat to their children. Yet from the above stats:

• Girls: A quarter (24 per cent) of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52 per cent) were non-family but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24 per cent) were strangers.

So 76 per cent were not parents. And parents are being vilified by others on this thread as the biggest threat?

Not what I said. I said

that is a lot of mothers, fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbours and family friends

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CorkMan

Would it be a case of "any man" can become a pedophile if he doesn't get sex from a woman? We have seen in jail that men become homosexuals on the inside, but when they come out the prison they supposedly are straight again.

Could it be a response to not having sex with a women, like men having sex with each other in prison?

seamus

Freddie59 wrote: »

So you want to *catch* people before they commit they offence. You've watched Minority Report too often my friend.

How do you intend to apprehend these people in advance? Minority Report again?

How do we get to people with depression before they commit suicide?

By having open services available to people who want to find it. I find it funny that you agree that the urges are in someone's head and therefore largely outside of their control, but in the same breath call it "evil". If something is outside someone's control, how can it be "evil". "Evil" refers to deliberate actions, not uncontrollable thoughts.

Can you see the logic that if, as you seem to claim, we should just ignore paedophiles until they become offenders, then you are going to create more abused children? However, if you make some form of psychological services available to those people who recognise that they have these urges and wish to find help, then you will reduce the number of abused children.

diddlybit

CorkMan wrote: »

Would it be a case of "any man" can become a pedophile if he doesn't get sex from a woman? We have seen in jail that men become homosexuals on the inside, but when they come out the prison they supposedly are straight again.

Could it be a response to not having sex with a women, like men having sex with each other in prison?

I wouldn't say "any man", but there are indivduals that fit this description. On the whole, these would not be considered "pure" paedophiles as they have other objects than children. In general, most would be within the family and the female figure would be absent and this absence would be utilised to commit child sex abuse.

IamtheWalrus

I made a similar point under a different guise some time ago. Apparently, I'm sick.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055094653

Tayla

Freddie59 wrote: »

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.

It's not really the same though is it, I have no idea how many people who are attracted to children actually go on to abuse them but it seems to be a hell of a lot of them. Yes there are some i'm sure who never allow themselves to do anything about it but what about the others who actually abuse children, that is not just acting on their sexuality, that is evil.

If a straight person, male or female, hasn't had sex with someone in years they don't*normally* go out and rape or abuse someone.
Same with gay people, they don't go out and rape people because they want to fulfill a sexual desire, in fact *usually* in the case of rape against adults it is for reasons of control/power rather than sexual desire.

Paedophiles who abuse do so knowing how traumatic it would be to their victims. It is evil pure and simple.

diddlybit

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I made a similar point under a different guise some time ago. Apparently, I'm sick.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055094653

Good post. Posting it in AH was brave.

Tayla

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is very interesting, in particular about the lower IQS and having suffered head injuries as children.

I have often heard that the reason that there were so many paedophile priests was because years ago if someone in someones family was a bit 'funny' that they would send them off to be priests. Is there truth to this?

Corkman, I think that people are either born paedophiles or in some other cases were abused themselves and therefore the abused becomes the abuser, I don't think a straight or gay male or female could ever become sexually attracted to pre pubescent children as a result of not getting sex.

JohnK

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting. From a potentially similar angle I remember reading an article on BBC News a good few years back about a man who, out of the blue, began collecting child porn and molesting children but it turned out he was suffering from a brain tumour. Especially interesting about that though was after getting treatment for the tumour those tendencies went away but after a resurgence a while later it was found the tumour was also back.

Dudess

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. It is not 'stooping' as you put it - merely from YOUR perspective.

It was a cheap shot - and something only a person of the "Dey don't want paedophiles to be sliced up, dey support paedos!" persuasion would actually believe.

2. Yes you do have to be a parent. Full stop.

No you don't have to be a parent to recognise the damage caused by child abuse, the danger posed by predators. Full stop. "I'm a parent so my view is more valid" stuff is silly. Anyone with empathy will understand the damage and the dangers. What about survivors of abuse who aren't parents? They, arguably, have the greatest understanding of all. Sure, being a parent gives you more of an insight into the fear parents have, but it's not a requirement for recognition of how devastating it is to a child.

if they don't come forward - how do you identify them

Well this is it. A person who has these feelings is hardly going to want to tell people - that's why we don't hear about them, only about those who have acted on their feelings. If there could be some sort of service to have the former evaluated and "cured" though...

Like others in life, they only show remorse when caught. And not until then - when the damage is done.

You're talking again about those who act on their desires. That's not what I and others are referring to.

It is the territory of Minority Report. No two ways about it.

There are two ways about it - where has anyone suggested technology to look into the future and prevent crimes before they happen? We're talking here about people who won't act upon their paedophilic desires at all, and want rid of them.

Chuck Stone

jive wrote: »

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?

Short answer? Yes.

If my brother confided in me that he was experiencing strong urges to rape children I would immediately tell other family members with children not to leave them alone with him ever. I would then tell him to go to a doctor and ask for a referral to an expert.

Pedophiles must be discriminated against to protect children.

And for that reason; I'm out.

Freddie59

diddlybit wrote: »

Not what I said.

No. It was what you posted.;)

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

How do we get to people with depression before they commit suicide?

Short answer - people with depression will admit they have it. People with urges to rape children won't.