So many Child Molestation stories.

Absoluvely · 27-11-2013 01:45AM

DMR1861 wrote: »

Don't we have some mad 'Romeo and Juliet' law here where an underage boy can go to prison for having consensual sex with an underage girl?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes, if two 15 year olds have consensual sex with one another, the boy is held for statutory rape of the girl, but it does not work the other way around as that could cause girls to not come forward with actual sexual assault cases. That is why I really think there is a flaw in the system. If a 19yo boy sleeps with a 17yo girl he is a rapist, but what is odd about a relationship with 2 years between people?

No, 17 is the age of consent. 19 & 17 is legally fine.

And no, a Romeo and Juliet law is when it's legally okay for two similarly-aged youths to have consensual sex. We don't have that. And it's even worse than that - our statutory rape laws are sex (gender)-dependent. They don't allow prosecution of females for underage sex on the principle that the potential for her to get pregnant is punishment enough.

Have I got that wrong about what 'Romeo & Juliet law' means? I just looked it up and an article disagreed with me.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 01:51AM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes, if two 15 year olds have consensual sex with one another, the boy is held for statutory rape of the girl, but it does not work the other way around as that could cause girls to not come forward with actual sexual assault cases. That is why I really think there is a flaw in the system. If a 19yo boy sleeps with a 17yo girl he is a rapist, but what is odd about a relationship with 2 years between people?

That is not the case in law actually at all.
"Statutory rape

The term statutory rape is not used in the legislation but it is the term that is commonly used for unlawful sexual contact with a person aged under 17 years. Until June 2006, charges for this offence were brought under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. In the case of CC v Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Supreme Court held that Section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 Act was unconstitutional. Read more about what happens when law is found to be unconstitutional here. View the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CC v Ireland here.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision is that Section 1 of the 1935 Act is no longer a part of the Act. The rest of the Act was not affected. A new Act, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) was passed to replace the unconstitutional provisions in the 1935 Act. It also repealed and replaced Section 2 of the 1935 Act. The original 1935 Act has now been amended many times."

Neither the ICD nor the DSM diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth for a diagnosis. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon. On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis. Acting on sexual urges is not limited to overt sex acts for purposes of this diagnosis, and can sometimes include indecent exposure, voyeuristic or frotteuristic behaviors, or masturbating to child pornography.

The prognosis for people with such a diagnosis is not good. These are not happy healthy people.

Just to say the law does not actually punish people for bad thoughts so i don't know what people are complaining about. It is about child pornography and offenses.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 02:01AM

Absoluvely wrote: »

No, 17 is the age of consent. 19 & 17 is legally fine.

And no, a Romeo and Juliet law is when it's legally okay for two similarly-aged youths to have consensual sex. We don't have that. And it's even worse than that - our statutory rape laws are sex (gender)-dependent. They don't allow prosecution of females for underage sex on the principle that the potential for her to get pregnant is punishment enough.

Have I got that wrong about what 'Romeo & Juliet law' means? I just looked it up and an article disagreed with me.

You have got it totally wrong. The age of consent is 17.

Defilement of a child under the age of 17 is an offense a defilement of a child under 15 is a worse offense.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 provides for the restoration of the crime of statutory rape of children under 15. However it will allow the defence of an honest mistake over a victim's age.

It is a fair law.

StompToWork · 27-11-2013 02:34AM

catallus wrote: »

I remember reading a meta-study about 10 years ago which went back over 70 years studying sexual attraction and it concluded that males at the extreme end of the study went as young as 9 years of age before they began to feel abnormal. It helped if the picture was of a foreign girl. Must look for links.

Holy ****, be careful looking for links!!! I don't mean to be funny, but god only knows what you might find. T'internet is one effed up place.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-11-2013 02:34AM

StompToWork wrote: »

So, this is probably sooooo the wrong forum to post this in, but I simply cannot see a better one to put it in. Mods, feel free to move (or to be honest, close, if you think it is too contentious)

The thing is, there are new stories almost every day now, of child sexual molestation/abuse (and I admit this thread has been prompted by the Lostprophets lead singer story thread).

At this stage, I think we can probably say that there is a quantifiable percentage (albeit extremely small, thankfully) of the human population who appear to have pedophile tendencies.

The fact of the matter is that these people seem uncontrollably predisposed to find children sexually attractive. At the risk of being too contentious, I have to wonder if, instead of the revulsion which we understandably feel and express towards this deviants (and I use the word deviant as a term to describe someone who deviates from psychological and social norms), we should start considering whether or not there is an observable psychological/physiological reason for this?

Is anyone aware of any studies which have been done on this?

Believe me, when I hear these stories, I feel as sickened and angered as everyone else, but I just wonder that in order to move forward in our development of society, if we need to address this problem in a more enlightened way rather than spitting on these scum and hiding them away in prison.

Again, AH might not be the right place for this, so Mods, please help here. It's something that I would like there to be a conversation on, however.

Bit of an exaggeration to say "new stories every day". It's usually old stories, like a priest or a celebrity getting caught having done something many hears ago and then reprinted once or twice a week with virtually no new updates.

How many DIFFERENT child abuse stories have you read, where the abuse has happened in the last five years or so?

I'd say the percentage of people who actually have these tendencies is much higher than most people think, but the perscentage of those people who actually act on them is extremly low.

wolfpawnat · 27-11-2013 02:38AM

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

In my own personal experience I have found the pedophillia breeds pedophillia, the abused becomes the abuser.

Odd, I have to say I don't agree with that. I am sure there are a few, but not many.

Motivator · 27-11-2013 02:55AM

Probably not the right thread to be posting this on but the way things are gone in today's world it's gone beyond a joke. About 18 months ago a neighbour of mine was threatened with a complaint by a parent of a child he taught piano lessons to. Long story short this young man, I think he was 25 at the time, finished up teaching piano to 6th class students. Some students gave him cakes, cards etc. & some chose to give him a hug. One child was particularly shy & adored him so she gave him a thank you card & put an x at the end of what she wrote. She gave him a hug & off she popped into her mothers car. About a week later he got a call from the school informing him that a complaint had gone in against him for inappropriate behaviour with a student. It turns out the mother had seen the card she wrote, saw the hug she gave the young lad. Put 2 + 2 together & got 25. This woman was convinced something sinister was going on & threatened to have him fully questioned about what went on in the room where he thought 11 & 12 year old boys & girls piano lessons.

Thankfully nothing came of it & the young lad thankfully didn't have his name blackened. He spent a year of his life teaching children & that was the thanks he got. Is this what Ireland has come to? A 25 year old country lad with a girlfriend & a bright future ahead of him shares an innocent hug with someone he would class as a friend & someone cries peadophile? That story sickened me, it still does & it still affects him. He is petrified to come in contact with children anymore & won't put himself in a position where he can be targeted like that again.

StompToWork · 27-11-2013 02:58AM

In no way wanting to make this an "equality" issue, as a rational person, I would like to propose the following (extremely dissimilar - but hopefully point-making and true) scenario.

I like to pick my nose! I take great pleasure in pulling boogers out and it feels good. I do it at home, I do it in my car, travelling at speed down the road when no one can notice, but I don't do it stuck in traffic, and I don't do it in public where I could be seen. I do think about it, and I try the auld sly pick when I think no one is looking. Now, if picking your nose was illegal -under punishment of imprisonment- , I think I would still take that chance (of doing it where I could be detected doing it), just to clear my nasal cavity. I am really sorry for using such a crude analogy against such a serious subject, but it's all my frame of reference will allow

There have been clinical studies performed on people with a compulsion to pick their nose. It even has a name and it has several proven methods for providing a resolution to the issue.

Now, if I was born with such a compulsion - or even if I developed it through my upbringing - and was now denied that compulsive pleasure because of decent and social conventions under pain of custodial repercussions, I would think that I would feel a little hard done by. That "hard done by" feeling would be at odds with my sense of right and wrong, but it would still be block to the existence I firmly believe I deserve. Then I see that alcoholics have groups, drug users have programs, psychopathy has been recognised and dealt with extensively over the years, and TLC have an entire series of programs dedicated to people with weird habits. However, my nose picking is seen as a offence which gets me sent to prison and shanked.

I'm not saying we should feel sorry for these "people", but maybe we should start opening our minds, and allowing a safe context for these people to come forward in the face of such punishments, and have the issue proactively dealt with.

Jesus, it's hard to make a coherent thought about this!!!

StompToWork · 27-11-2013 03:01AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bit of an exaggeration to say "new stories every day". It's usually old stories, like a priest or a celebrity getting caught having done something many hears ago and then reprinted once or twice a week with virtually no new updates.

How many DIFFERENT child abuse stories have you read, where the abuse has happened in the last five years or so?

I'd say the percentage of people who actually have these tendencies is much higher than most people think, but the perscentage of those people who actually act on them is extremly low.

All this tells me is that there is a huge delay between the offence and the report. It is usually when the victim is old enough and confident enough to report it. My feeling is that, unfortunately, this will be in the news for the foreseeable future, albeit offset by quite a number of years.

catallus · 27-11-2013 03:10AM

Motivator wrote: »

Probably not the right thread to be posting this on but the way things are gone in today's world it's gone beyond a joke. About 18 months ago a neighbour of mine was threatened with a complaint by a parent of a child he taught piano lessons to. Long story.......He is petrified to come in contact with children anymore & won't put himself in a position where he can be targeted like that again.

The situation, as it stands, as far as I'm concerned is if you are going to work with children under 18, clearance or not, be under CCTV protection at all times, no exceptions whatsoever.

StompToWork wrote: »

In no way wanting to make this an "equality" issue, as a rational person, I would like to propose the following (extremely dissimilar - but hopefully point-making and true) scenario.

I like to pick my nose! I take great pleasure in pulling boogers out and it feels good. I do it at home

I'm not saying we should feel sorry for these "people", but maybe we should start opening our minds, and allowing a safe context for these people to come forward in the face of such punishments, and have the issue proactively dealt with.

Jesus, it's hard to make a coherent thought about this!!!

We should be careful when opening our minds. You'll never know what you might let in.

StompToWork wrote: »

All this tells me is that there is a huge delay between the offence and the report. It is usually when the victim is old enough and confident enough to report it. My feeling is that, unfortunately, this will be in the news for the foreseeable future, albeit offset by quite a number of years.

If the state concentrated more on being pro-active on family discord then maybe this might be a runner. But in our current legal system the offender is the Goliath.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-11-2013 03:24AM

StompToWork wrote: »

All this tells me is that there is a huge delay between the offence and the report. It is usually when the victim is old enough and confident enough to report it. My feeling is that, unfortunately, this will be in the news for the foreseeable future, albeit offset by quite a number of years.

My point was that there are relatively few new cases of child abuse in the media, compare to the OP's inferance that there were new cases every few days.

Kids these days are better educated and we live in a society that is more willing to listen: I'd imagine it would be much harder to abuse a child now that it was 20 or 30 years ago.

KyussBishop · 27-11-2013 03:28AM

Controversial or not, it's a sexual attraction, which functions like any other sexual attraction (same way as a man being attracted to women, does not mean the man will rape women, a peadophile being attracted to children, does not mean they will rape children), and is probably not a mental illness, but is defined that way because it is (rightly) judged as an attraction that is unacceptable to act on.

It's one of those things that blurs the lines of what a mental illness is, what the purpose of diagnosing something a mental illness is supposed to be, and why some things are labelled mental illnesses.

This is labelled a mental illness because it is something society does not want, and deems repugnant - not because there is objectively something mentally wrong with the person.

Just to clarify, in case people will misinterpret this and jump on it: I absolutely think acting on this should be illegal, and that people should be provided as much help as is needed/possible in order to make sure it is never acted out on.

I just don't think it needs to be labelled a mental illness in order to do this; I think that helps place an unhealthy stigma on other mental illness, and makes the labelling of mental illness too subjective/arbitrary, and open to political abuse. Maybe it would better fit a 'social illness' type label/classification.

The first step to actually solving this problem, is to remove the aura of thoughtcrime surrounding it, and actually get people with this attraction speaking to psychs safely, free from legal action and the threat of their professional/personal life ending if the information leaked out, in order to actually discover people at risk of acting out on it, and preventing that.

In my opinion, for someone to act out on it, they would need to have a mindset similar to that of a (non-peadophile) rapist, and that peadophilia itself doesn't automatically mean this is present.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 05:57AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Controversial or not, it's a sexual attraction, which functions like any other sexual attraction (same way as a man being attracted to women, does not mean the man will rape women, a peadophile being attracted to children, does not mean they will rape children), and is probably not a mental illness, but is defined that way because it is (rightly) judged as an attraction that is unacceptable to act on.

It's one of those things that blurs the lines of what a mental illness is, what the purpose of diagnosing something a mental illness is supposed to be, and why some things are labelled mental illnesses.

This is labelled a mental illness because it is something society does not want, and deems repugnant - not because there is objectively something mentally wrong with the person.

Just to clarify, in case people will misinterpret this and jump on it: I absolutely think acting on this should be illegal, and that people should be provided as much help as is needed/possible in order to make sure it is never acted out on.

I just don't think it needs to be labelled a mental illness in order to do this; I think that helps place an unhealthy stigma on other mental illness, and makes the labelling of mental illness too subjective/arbitrary, and open to political abuse. Maybe it would better fit a 'social illness' type label/classification.

The first step to actually solving this problem, is to remove the aura of thoughtcrime surrounding it, and actually get people with this attraction speaking to psychs safely, free from legal action and the threat of their professional/personal life ending if the information leaked out, in order to actually discover people at risk of acting out on it, and preventing that.

In my opinion, for someone to act out on it, they would need to have a mindset similar to that of a (non-peadophile) rapist, and that peadophilia itself doesn't automatically mean this is present.

Castration has been shown to lower incidents of re-offense dramatically.

According to a number of European studies, the procedure has shown reductions in male libido while also decreasing recidivism rates.

Recidivism rates of sex offenders castrated in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland and Norway ranged from 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent.

One German study found that 3 percent of men had been involved in sex offenses after castration while 46 percent of noncastrated men had been involved in sex offenses.

Many psychologists agree that if a pedophile has the surgery, he must also enroll in intensive treatment while being monitored closely.

"Sex-offending behavior is not solely driven by hormones. If you get rid of or reduce hormones, the problems aren't solved," said Dr. Karen Lawson, director of the sexual abuse treatment program in the Menninger Department of Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 06:40AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Controversial or not, it's a sexual attraction, which functions like any other sexual attraction (same way as a man being attracted to women, does not mean the man will rape women, a peadophile being attracted to children, does not mean they will rape children), and is probably not a mental illness, but is defined that way because it is (rightly) judged as an attraction that is unacceptable to act on.

It's one of those things that blurs the lines of what a mental illness is, what the purpose of diagnosing something a mental illness is supposed to be, and why some things are labelled mental illnesses.

This is labelled a mental illness because it is something society does not want, and deems repugnant - not because there is objectively something mentally wrong with the person.

Just to clarify, in case people will misinterpret this and jump on it: I absolutely think acting on this should be illegal, and that people should be provided as much help as is needed/possible in order to make sure it is never acted out on.

I just don't think it needs to be labelled a mental illness in order to do this; I think that helps place an unhealthy stigma on other mental illness, and makes the labelling of mental illness too subjective/arbitrary, and open to political abuse. Maybe it would better fit a 'social illness' type label/classification.

The first step to actually solving this problem, is to remove the aura of thoughtcrime surrounding it, and actually get people with this attraction speaking to psychs safely, free from legal action and the threat of their professional/personal life ending if the information leaked out, in order to actually discover people at risk of acting out on it, and preventing that.

In my opinion, for someone to act out on it, they would need to have a mindset similar to that of a (non-peadophile) rapist, and that peadophilia itself doesn't automatically mean this is present.

I find your reasoning completely baffling. You say it is not a mental illness because it is a sexual attraction.

But what if sexual attraction to children is a mental illness? Some sexual attractions are a mental illness. Ones where the object of attraction would be harmed are.

Most experts would say the chances of a pedophile going through life with never harming a child would be slim without treatment.

I would suspect that people who say a pedophile can go through life without being monitored and not offend do not know about the disorder. It is a very disordered mind.

I have read accounts of men who have said they are "non offending pedophiles" and who said they were going to be teachers and felt they were ok doing so because the children were 'not in their age range'. They do not have the mental ability to think rationally about this. It is disordered thinking because it IS a disorder.

A rapist should not be working with women in a place of trust etc.

Suppose for a moment the children knew an adult felt that way around them how would you think they would feel? Children can sense a lot more than people know. I hated being around some men as a kid I could tell. I just could.
I find your post worrying. It is Reddit worthy.

It is a paraphilia.

They are not a persecuted poet, they do not love children, and they are straight up predators. They want to hang out with others who will tell them there thoughts are ok and be told this with society. They have not committed crimes yet.

The first step in rehabilitation is admitting that those thoughts are NOT OK and are part of a wider mental illness. Not a madness but it is emotionally unhealthy.

And getting them to admit that is the first part of therapy. They need to be supervised by the law will in therapy.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia.

And don't go there with homosexuality used to be considered a paraphernalia because studies showed that it was very dissimilar from paraphernalia even apart from the morality issue.

There's no reasoning with pedophiles they do not want to be 'helped'. They often simply want to be told they are not all that bad and to get on with their lives even if they don't want to actually offend.

If a man had a primary sexual interest in rape and solely rape I would imagine experts would be concerned with him rightly so. If a man did not want any other type of sexual contact other than to rape women. As a woman I would fear this man.

A child cannot consent to sex therefore any sexual attraction is to the rape of a child.
Think of it that way if it helps.

If not all pedophiles want to molest the first step is admitting that their feelings are wrong. And that they need the law to monitor them for the rest of their lives and that they should never be around children. And they need therapy. And perhaps in some cases drugs.

You are fighting a very uphill battle if you're trying to have others accept it. It is simply not an acceptable thing in our society, and understandably and absolutely rightly so.

It is a paraphilia. Not all paraphilias are harmful. This one is.
Someone who is attracted to a child is a danger to that child simply because of that attraction long before any act.

clairefontaine · 27-11-2013 07:29AM

Not all child molestors are pedophiles. The category has confused the public.

I'd focus on the molestors, personally.

KyussBishop · 27-11-2013 08:45AM

Lou.m wrote: »

I find your reasoning completely baffling. You say it is not a mental illness because it is a sexual attraction.

But what if sexual attraction to children is a mental illness? Some sexual attractions are a mental illness. Ones where the object of attraction would be harmed are.
...

That's a completely arbitrary definition of mental illness - people are harmed by child abuse, not by peadophilia itself. Paraphilia's as a whole, have been a strong point of debate for removal from the DSM altogether, and the DSM is garnering less and less credibility upon each new release.

It's simple: Peadophile does not equal child abuser/rapist. As abhorrent as the thoughts are, you can't make thoughts a crime either, as that sets a very dangerous legal precedent - you do however, want the right conditions to be able to find who is at risk of acting on their urges or not, and preventing that, and that requires a society where people can seek help for their issues without stigma (primarily without legal stigma, as the societal stigma is likely to stay).

I've already made my position clear that it's not something I view as acceptable, so I'm going to get extremely snippy/blunt if words get put in my mouth or implied about that, over a topic this controversial, so make sure to ask instead of assume, when it comes to my views.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 08:59AM

I never said the attraction to a minor could be a crime without an actual offense.

What I said was the attraction to a minor is damaging to the person experiencing the attraction and to the minor. Even without the act. The 'sense' of being an object of desire at a young age does not go unnoticed by kids and it provokes fear and emotional upset. Even if an offense is not carried out.

Being attracted to a minor is damaging to the person experiencing it their families and people they come across. It will affect their social interaction and future lives.

Such a person would constantly be on watch etc ..they would be on guard that is a damaging position to be in. And it is bound to affect social interaction. The stigma is not the problem the problem is the risk. And the stress of monitoring that risk and the problem of having an urge that they must monitor and repress. That causes the problem.

I never said the urge itself could be a crime I said it was damaging and dangerous and it would be better for that person and society if the urge did not exist.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 09:15AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

this controversial, so make sure to ask instead of assume, when it comes to my views.

Grow up, seriously it is a forum unless you want a thread to expand to infinity I am not going to ask for people to expand upon every detail of their opinion.

It is also anon so relax.

I am reading your views and taking on what you are saying. I just do not agree with you.

You can present your views on here clear as day everyone sees what you post. They read what you write.

And we all extrapolate from what posters write.

As I understand you.
You say Pedophilia is not a mental illness. I disagree completely.

You say the urge/thought alone is not wrong in itself. I disagree.

You say the thought/ urge alone is not a crime. I agree. It is not.

I do not believe attraction to children is similar an unusual fantasy life. If a person is around a child and is attracted to that child this is damaging to that person and their understanding of the interaction between adult and child and the chance of forming a a true adult sex life.

I would not expect parents to have to send their child to school where there was a teacher who 'only had an attraction to children' but had never committed an offense. Infact I would say that was crazy.And without monitoring this could happen.

I would not say children were safe with such a person.

The person may not commit an offense but such is their misfortune to have such urges they must be monitored. Just as a person with suicidal ideations must be monitored to prevent them hurting themselves.

And if you hold the experts who create the DNS manuals in such contempt who do you suggest actually treats these people then?

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2013 11:28AM

StompToWork wrote: »

So, this is probably sooooo the wrong forum to post this in, but I simply cannot see a better one to put it in.

Humanities or psychology maybe. Hard to say with a subject that permeates so many levels of the human condition and human society. After Hours is as good a place as any as it is as much a hodge podge mixed bag as the whole subject of Pedophilia is.

StompToWork wrote: »

we should start considering whether or not there is an observable psychological/physiological reason for this?

Is anyone aware of any studies which have been done on this?

Loads. Too many. My reading on the subject has been somewhere between large and extensive. I have learned a lot and what I have learned most if I have much more to learn.

What I can certainly say I have learned is that there is no one single answer to your questions. In fact the causes, motivations and factors behind pedophilia are extensive and varied. Alas, like many things in life, we have one single word for it. "Pedophilia". We see an adult engage in sexual acts with a child and we slap one single word on them and act like we know they are just a monster.

The reality is that there is a whole continuum of causes out there. Some people we call pedophile are not actually attracted to children. They are attracted to sexual power and dominance over the vulnerable. Children just happen to be an obvious target for that.

Still others have a sexual fetish for breaking taboos and while we have things like rape and incest and so forth, pedophilia is and remains one of the greatest of taboos.

Still others are the "just want to watch the world burn" type and it is not children they find sexually attractive per se, but the act of destroying their innocence and, in the words of Ani Di Franco, "taking something from them that they did not even know they had".

And yes still others are genuinely just sexually attracted to children.

There is a lot more to learn in this area in terms of both diagnosis and treatment. A lot. Alas, for obvious reasons, it is an area where our ability to study it is limited for clear moral and ethical reasons.

Yet learn about it we must and even now we can often not agree on whether such people have something wrong with them, or lack something right with them.

Think of an analogy to medicine here. When you go to a doctor with a symptom, that symptom could be shared among many different problems. You might LACK something.... such as a vitamin or mineral.... or you might HAVE something like a bacterial or viral infection. Clearly assessing which it is is paramount. Anti virals will not treat a mineral deficiency any more than taking mineral supplements will treat a bacterial infection.

Understanding on a case by case basis what a patient HAS or LACKS is just as paramount in terms of diagnosing and treating the issue. Pedophilia is as often a symptom of a problem rather than the problem in and of itself and unfortunately as a society the most common "treatment" people call for are things like "Lock them up and throw away the key" or Chemical or Physical Castration.

It is a deep and troubling realm of human behavior that is as close to a black box as things get these days but there are people opening that box and looking inside. And as users above like KyussBishop point out there may even be utility in taking a view of it not as an illness but as one of those many distasteful natural aspects of humanity that we simply want to curtail.

Asa Itchy Mall wrote: »

They`re not in control of their actions? Is there scientific evidence to back this up? You seem to imply that they are incapable of resisting their urges.

Hard to say really. Thankfully I do not have any urges in my life I have to actively resist so it is hard to understand living as such people.

But when we look at relatively tame things like alcoholics trying to resist the urge to drink.... smokers trying not to light up..... fat people trying not to buy that swiss roll on their way past..... and how many of them simply fail. Their urges get the better of them so depressingly often.

I do not think the OP is in any way trying to excuse or explain away or justify the behavior of these people. Nor am I. Quite the opposite in both our cases I think.

But if we are ever to _understand_ such people and _understand_ the issue at hand too I do not think we will get there by simply assuming these people should just have their urges and decide to ignore them as if they are not there either. As if it is some decision such people can make on a whim.

No, what we learn is even relatively minor urges are capable of completely dominating even those of average will let alone weak will.

Many of them are evil, sure. But some of them are genuinely ill and sick and our natural gut reaction to them.... which I assure you I entirely share with you..... is likely not the best Square One to start with in assisting them. Our gut reaction can be moved from fueling hate to fueling a desire to understand, help, even cure such people and I think we are making some progress there, if small.

mrsdewinter · 27-11-2013 11:40AM

Haven't time to read through all the responses but the OP raises a good point: as a society, what do we do with people who are sexually attracted to children?
People who act on those impulses are rightfully jailed... but jail sentences come to an end. No amount of macho posturing by online warriors who swear they'd tear such nonces, limb from limb, changes the fact that the sick/bad guys ultimately have to live among us.
So what are we gonna do about it? Genuinely?

Absoluvely · 27-11-2013 12:10PM

mrsdewinter wrote: »

Haven't time to read through all the responses but the OP raises a good point: as a society, what do we do with people who are sexually attracted to children?
People who act on those impulses are rightfully jailed... but jail sentences come to an end. No amount of macho posturing by online warriors who swear they'd tear such nonces, limb from limb, changes the fact that the sick/bad guys ultimately have to live among us.
So what are we gonna do about it? Genuinely?

In the US, they detain hundreds of offenders in a mental hospital (prison) in California for treatment (indefinitely) after their release from prison. Louis Theroux made a documentary about the place. The treatment is really just for pretend because they know it doesn't work, but they hire lots of expensive mental health professionals anyway.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-11-2013 12:24PM

Sorry, but pretty much every sentence in this post is an assumption and needs to be backed up.

Lou.m wrote: »

I find your reasoning completely baffling. You say it is not a mental illness because it is a sexual attraction.

But what if sexual attraction to children is a mental illness? Some sexual attractions are a mental illness. Ones where the object of attraction would be harmed are.

This is merely opinion. The idea of "causing harm" is not really a fair indication as a lot of sexual practices can cause harm. BDSM causes physical harm - are you implying it's a menal illness?

Most experts would say the chances of a pedophile going through life with never harming a child would be slim without treatment.

This is merely opinion again - who are these experts?

I would suspect that people who say a pedophile can go through life without being monitored and not offend do not know about the disorder. It is a very disordered mind.

I have read accounts of men who have said they are "non offending pedophiles" and who said they were going to be teachers and felt they were ok doing so because the children were 'not in their age range'. They do not have the mental ability to think rationally about this. It is disordered thinking because it IS a disorder.

Men who are "non offending pedophiles" tend to keep this iformation to themselves for obvious reasons. Where are these accounts?

I'd also argue that there is a huge amount of people with a fetish or fantasy that either could casue harm or at least social repulsion if they carried it out - is this "disordered thinking"?

Who are we to even to decide what is "disordered thinking"? In aincent greek, pedophilia was an aspect of socal life - and yet we view it as the first modern democratic society.

It is a paraphilia.

They are not a persecuted poet, they do not love children, and they are straight up predators. They want to hang out with others who will tell them there thoughts are ok and be told this with society. They have not committed crimes yet.

The first step in rehabilitation is admitting that those thoughts are NOT OK and are part of a wider mental illness. Not a madness but it is emotionally unhealthy.

And getting them to admit that is the first part of therapy. They need to be supervised by the law will in therapy.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia.

While your definition is correct, it's a lot wider than that. A paraphilia is simply an unusual sexual: the implication here is to argue that all people with unusual sexual desiries are sick and need treatment is the basis of the fallacy here.

Morality is not decided by defiinition, it's decided by socital reaction to the act or thought.

There's no reasoning with pedophiles they do not want to be 'helped'. They often simply want to be told they are not all that bad and to get on with their lives even if they don't want to actually offend.

How many pedophiles do you know? What are you basing this on?

If a man had a primary sexual interest in rape and solely rape I would imagine experts would be concerned with him rightly so. If a man did not want any other type of sexual contact other than to rape women. As a woman I would fear this man.

A child cannot consent to sex therefore any sexual attraction is to the rape of a child.
Think of it that way if it helps.

If not all pedophiles want to molest the first step is admitting that their feelings are wrong. And that they need the law to monitor them for the rest of their lives and that they should never be around children. And they need therapy. And perhaps in some cases drugs.

You are fighting a very uphill battle if you're trying to have others accept it. It is simply not an acceptable thing in our society, and understandably and absolutely rightly so.

It is a paraphilia. Not all paraphilias are harmful. This one is.
Someone who is attracted to a child is a danger to that child simply because of that attraction long before any act.

This contradicts what you said earlier. And why is this one wrong? Because society says so? Because the media says so?

And I'm not supporting pedophilia either, before someone lables me a PC-liberal-whatever - but if you want to fix a problem, first thing you do is understand the probelm and understand what is NOT the problem. And the problem here is that you have not clearly defined terms and assumed you know more than you think you do.

Fighting Irish · 27-11-2013 01:35PM

El Guapo! wrote: »

Nope. They're scum, plain and simple.
If they have some condition or chemical imbalance that makes them sexually attracted to children, then that's one thing. But the problem is they act on it. That is what seperates them from someone with a different kind of illness.
And if this chemical imbalance, or whatever, creates a compulsion to act upon it then that's still not an excuse. They still know right from wrong and should seek help if they feel this compulsion.

I think they fall into the same category as gay people, but still totally different

MonstaMash · 27-11-2013 02:18PM

StompToWork wrote: »

At this stage, I think we can probably say that there is a quantifiable percentage (albeit extremely small, thankfully) of the human population who appear to have pedophile tendencies.

The fact of the matter is that these people seem uncontrollably predisposed to find children sexually attractive. At the risk of being too contentious, I have to wonder if, instead of the revulsion which we understandably feel and express towards this deviants (and I use the word deviant as a term to describe someone who deviates from psychological and social norms), we should start considering whether or not there is an observable psychological/physiological reason for this?

Is anyone aware of any studies which have been done on this?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

looking_around · 27-11-2013 02:29PM

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

In my own personal experience I have found the pedophillia breeds pedophillia, the abused becomes the abuser. It makes sense when you think about it children especially learn what they live, their experience can normalise it. That is not of course to say everyone who has been abused becomes the abuser, that simply isn't true, but in most the cases I have heard of the a users were in fact abused themselves. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.

There are many peadophiles who were never abused.
And many abused are not peadophiles.

Contrary to popular belief it's NOT a learned behaviour.

Don't confuse correlation with causation.
___

At op, I don't think the attraction itself should be seen as shameful. I've known paedophiles who are disgusted at molesters.
They have an attraction, but they know that doing anything with cause harm to the child and they hate that. Most them will use the likes of lolicon as a "release". And various support forums if they feel there's a chance they'll harm a kid, to keep themselves safe.

I can only speak for the couple I know, but they've never touched a child. And feel talking about to people that won't judge helps keep them away from harming a child.

They are not attracted to doing something illigal. But the body and innocent of a child.

I do think more research needs to be done, rather than just telling people "control yourself". We don't say that to anorexics etc.
With more studies and effective treatment could be found.

I'd particularly like to see neuro studies done on their reaction to a childs body compared to an adults etc.
In some cases it has been possible to train their mind to be attracted to adults instead by slowly triggering the mind to associate adults as attractive.
But it is rare that this works, the same we wouldn't expect to turn a homesexual hetero. I don't believe it's something that can be trained.
Most cases they will admit to using drawings to fulfil their fantasies.

Grayson · 27-11-2013 02:30PM

Asa Itchy Mall wrote: »

They`re not in control of their actions? Is there scientific evidence to back this up? You seem to imply that they are incapable of resisting their urges.

Yes there is evidence. Of course you probably think it's possible for anyone with any mental illness or condition to just snap out of it of their own volition. Why don't you just walk around telling depressed people to cheer up. After all they have complete control over their actions. You could cut suicide down to zero.

You could cure everyone of obsessive compulsive disorder. Simply by telling them they don't have to wash obsessively or count every step or what ever it is they have to do.

You could probably even cure schizophrenia by telling them to just ignore the voices.

There are many psychiatric and psychological conditions that result in people losing control. Sometimes people don't have control of their actions and sometimes this results in them doing horrible things. This is well known and obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

Sometimes people do have control of their actions and sometimes they still do horrible things. Like when you were faced with evidence but still decided to keep the prejudices you love so much.

lazza14 · 27-11-2013 02:35PM

It's strange, where I live (Spain) I rarely hear stories of child abuse in the media , I think its the modern UK/IE Sky News , Daily Mail gutter journalism that is making this seem bigger then it is.

It would be interesting to see the stats on child abuse in Spain v UK/IRL - I'd guess they are pretty much the same.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 03:01PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sorry, but pretty much every sentence in this post is an assumption and needs to be backed up.

This is merely opinion. The idea of "causing harm" is not really a fair indication as a lot of sexual practices can cause harm. BDSM causes physical harm - are you implying it's a menal illness?

This is merely opinion again - who are these experts?

Men who are "non offending pedophiles" tend to keep this iformation to themselves for obvious reasons. Where are these accounts?

I'd also argue that there is a huge amount of people with a fetish or fantasy that either could casue harm or at least social repulsion if they carried it out - is this "disordered thinking"?

Who are we to even to decide what is "disordered thinking"? In aincent greek, pedophilia was an aspect of socal life - and yet we view it as the first modern democratic society.

While your definition is correct, it's a lot wider than that. A paraphilia is simply an unusual sexual: the implication here is to argue that all people with unusual sexual desiries are sick and need treatment is the basis of the fallacy here.

Morality is not decided by defiinition, it's decided by socital reaction to the act or thought.

How many pedophiles do you know? What are you basing this on?

This contradicts what you said earlier. And why is this one wrong? Because society says so? Because the media says so?

And I'm not supporting pedophilia either, before someone lables me a PC-liberal-whatever - but if you want to fix a problem, first thing you do is understand the probelm and understand what is NOT the problem. And the problem here is that you have not clearly defined terms and assumed you know more than you think you do.

BDSM is consensual where the physical damage is done to the extent that it impairs the health of the practitioner to a great permanent extent then yes I would say that person has a compulsion and disordered thinking. If they are risking their lifelong health for a sexual urge there is an issue yes.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 03:04PM

Many of them will report that they are in love with their targets and they are speaking of a child of 7. They do not understand their own minds a lot of the time. It's as if they cannot distinguish between different emotions or something. They cannot realize their own obsession. They have infantile mindsets or something.

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 03:04PM

Anyway I am all for letting the experts deal with it.

So many Child Molestation stories.

Comments