Channel 4's The Paedophile Next Door will feature 39-year-old Eddie admitting openly on camera that he has been sexually attracted to girls as young as four since he was in his 20s, but insisting has never committed a crime. The programme looks at so-called "virtuous paedophiles" and suggests radical changes are needed to child protection that include treatment and therapy for those who come forward despite never having committed any sex offences.
Is there anyway of treating these people that works?
The One Doctor wrote: » Pedophilia is a mental illness,
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Chemical castration for those that seek help, might help stop the unnatural urges they have. As for those that do abuse kids, lock em up for good, society doesn't need scum like that out and about.
January wrote: » And what about those that view/distribute child porn? Are they not doing anything wrong? Chemical castration won't stop them doing that.
wretcheddomain wrote: » Public hanging, through use of a nappy.
AnonoBoy wrote: » I don't see how you could think he was saying that people who distribute child porn aren't doing anything wrong.
January wrote: » I didn't actually, he only touched on the subject of paedophiles acting on their urges, which I presumed to mean abusing children physically. I was asking what he thought about people who didn't specifically 'act' on their urges but still viewed child porn or distributed it.
ScumLord wrote: » Is it a mental illness? Or is it just an abnormal sexual orientation? It may be something as fundamentally ingrained in their psyche as being hetero or homosexual.
wprathead wrote: » The lengths one must go through to attain child porn can most definitely be categorised as "acting on their urges"
Buona Fortuna wrote: » And for female child abusers?
Fuhrer wrote: » How does that work?
Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: » Cement their vaginas shut.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » TBH I have no answer for that.
ScumLord wrote: » Is it a mental illness? Or is it just an abnormal sexual orientation? It may be something as fundamentally ingrained in their psyche as being hetero or homosexual. I don't know either way though. Calling it an illness implies it can be treated and possibly cured, if it's like the sexuality of hetero or homosexual then maybe it's not something that can be cured and is just a fundamental part of who they are, meaning they'll always be a danger no matter how much treatment they get. I don't know how society can deal with a problem like that. Peadophiles won't want to put themselves forward for persecution, especially if treatment won't do anything but put them under constant scrutiny. But some form of ongoing treatment must surely be better than trying to control urges without some form of treatment.
Buona Fortuna wrote: » That's creative but I don't think it would have any positive effects. Trouble is the chemical castration thing is inequitous. You have a penis - bingo. Its almost the way laws work and maybe that penis wasn't material in the abuse. Unfortunately there are all sorts of things you can do without one,or without a functioning one. I'm not making a plea for child abusers, I just think it needs more thought.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Well it could kill the urges in men, I'm not saying people should have it done against their will but if someone was serious about getting help they might consider it.
DoYouEvenLift wrote: » So what about the urges of women? Male paedophiles get their balls cut and female paedophiles get...? And what happens when the males experience all the negative side effects of having no testosterone?
Buona Fortuna wrote: » OK, but it wouldn't stop the people that just produce the images, and all the other stuff that doesn't involve a penis. Also I'm quite uncomfortable with the whole chemical castration thing - I don't know much about other than what I've read about Alan Turing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing Another poorly framed thought:o. Ever had too much to drink and not been able to ..... you've still had the urge to.
seamus wrote: » Possibly, though in my view I would argue that any state of mind where one would willingly harm oneself or another could/should be classed as a mental illness. .
floggg wrote: » Ignorant ridiculous nonsense. Somebody who has never offended and voluntarily seeks help to ensure they never do shouldn't be punished in anyway. Ignorant attitudes like this only serve to increase the risk of people offending, as they are too scared to come forward and seek help. I don't know much about them but I believe there are treatments available which can be effective. It's probably a very under developed area due to the lack of willing participants.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » As I said in post 18 I don't know about female paedophiles, also I wasn't suggesting people have it done against their will. What negative affects?