nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Paedophile Next Door

Mr.McLovin

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-have-got-a-problem-i-need-help-paedophile-to-out-himself-in-new-channel-4-documentary-30769200.html

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

floggg

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I don't know if it is a sexual orientation, a fetish or a mental illness but I would rather see people be helped instead of waiting to do something about it before trying to stop them.

Unfortunately that's the General attitude of society towards crime - punish crime but do nothing constructive to stop it.

The "tough on crime" crowd love to call for castration, lengthy jail sentences and execution, but seem to care little that those approaches are ineffective to prevent or deter crime and cost way more than so called softer methods (education, early intervention, rehabilitation, restorative justice etc) which are proven to reduce crime and save in the long run.

Who needs lower crime rates, when draconian state sanctioned punishment of other human beings makes you feel so good about yourself.

Galwayguy35

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

If you're a man you should already know the effects of men having low testosterone so you can know what to lookout for yourself just in case you ever needed to go for medical help, but it can cause depression, decrease in motivation, decreased sense of well being, negative effects on memory and concentration, fragile bones. With no testosterone production I'd imagine these and the rest of the possible efects would be even worse.

Is it not worth the risk if it gets rid of the sexual feelings towards young kids?

jamesbere

Is this the sequel to a girl next door

twowheelsonly

Personally I believe that it's a 'state of mind' much the same as Hetero/Homosexuality, even bestiality!! Some people would find bondage/bdsm/swinging etc a turn on while others think it's depraved. Some people would find them a turn on but never act on them. Both men and women can have rape fantasies but never act on them.
I peronally think that the amount of paedophiles out there is huge but thankfully most never act on their urges and rape anybody. I also don't believe that their is a 'solution', no more than there is for homo or hetero sexuality.

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.

Even more so, where many paedophiles homosexuals who have been caught try to argue that their "relationships" with the children their partner are loving or consensual, that to me only strengthens the idea of it being a mental illness, such is the level of delusion some of them experience.

It's still a tough one though. Can it be treated? Who knows. Voluntary chemical (or actual) castration hasn't been proven effective in any case. I'm sure there are drugs that can suppress libido, but then we know so little about about it, they may not work either. It may not be a purely sexual thing.

As you say, this is a really difficult one for society to deal with......

As you say, it's a hard one to judge. Go back a short few years and your 'corrected' statement above would have been in vogue.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

People often mistake paedophiles and child abusers. I am attracted to women but people don't assume I'm going to sexualy assault them outside of a few crazys on tumblr. Of course you have to account I can have a consensual relationship with my attraction but I am able to control my urges.

I don't know if it is a sexual orientation, a fetish or a mental illness but I would rather see people be helped instead of waiting to do something about it before trying to stop them.

This is it exactly - in reality every man is a potential rapist, thankfully most don't actually act on that threat.

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Its in the DSM and the ICD as a mental disorder so yes.

Somebody said so so therefore it is?

Not conforming to the norm in every circumstance shouldn't mean classification as a mental illness. What's the criteria that they use? Abnormal behaviour or abnormal thoughts?

SparkySpitfire

Somebody said so so therefore it is?

Not conforming to the norm in every circumstance shouldn't mean classification as a mental illness. What's the criteria that they use? Abnormal behaviour or abnormal thoughts?

A lot of medical and psychiatric professionals with more knowledge of the subject than you or I.

EuropeanSon

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

A lot of medical and psychiatric professionals with more knowledge of the subject than you or I.

The same argument was very likely used when homosexuality was labeled a mental illness.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the explanation above is insufficient.

twowheelsonly

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

A lot of medical and psychiatric professionals with more knowledge of the subject than you or I.

That's very true, but the same people will readily explain that they don't actually understand how the mind works and that it's not an exact science. They can't for instance explain why you should be hetero-sexual and your brother be homo-sexual.
My point is that classing something as a Mental Illness or a disease because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it actually is!!

floggg

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

TBH I have no answer for that.

Shows how under-developed unsound your thinking is if you can't even begin to fathom how it would be applied to a woman in the same position.

Laura Palmer

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

So what about the urges of women? Male paedophiles get their balls cut and female paedophiles get...?

Chemical castration = balls being cut off? (Not that I agree with either).

I think (being idealistic) help should be offered to those who make the unenviable discovery that they're sexually attracted to children. They'd probably have to be "secret" clinics though.

Semele

EuropeanSon wrote: »

The same argument was very likely used when homosexuality was labeled a mental illness.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the explanation above is insufficient.

Exactly. I'm not rabidly anti-psychiatry or anything, but if you ever look more fully into how diagnoses are arrived at it is in a large part through consensus. Admittedly the consensus of people experienced in the field, but heavily based also in the social norms of their culture. A lot of diagnoses either implicitly or explicitly reference ignorance of, or breaking, social norms as one of their criteria.

Back on topic, I remember a few years ago reading about an initiative (somewhere in Europe I can't remember) to provide therapy to people with paedophiliac urges before they reached the point of acting on them. It was phone based and anonymous in order to get around the stigma and fear people would have of coming forward and admitting to illegal acts, and it apparently had a huge uptake, much higher than they expected. It seems that many more people have those feelings than ever act upon them and for the vast majority those feelings are terribly unwanted.

I don't condone abuse of any sort, but it must be a lonely and terrifying thing to have feelings that disgust you and to feel that you would be shunned if anyone knew, and that this could stop you getting help.

As far as I recall, the adverts for the counselling service had said something like "Your thoughts are not your responsibility. Your actions are. If you are troubled by etc etc etc contact us in strict confidentiality". It was a great scheme and it should be rolled out more widely.

CrazyRabbit

What most people here seem to be forgetting is that we're not just talking about adults. Generally speaking, I'd say that paedophiles develop their 'attraction' when they themselves are just young teens or even younger.

So we're actually talking about children being able to get help before they get older and act on those feelings.

Imagine being 12/13 years old and realising that you are attracted to much younger boys/girls? Puberty is hard enough as it is, but can you imagine just how much worse it would be in that case? And there's currently no safe way to talk to anyone who can help you without judging or punishing you. Nightmare.

I strongly believe that those who advocate exceptionally hard punishments for paedophiles actually cause harm to children by making it terrifying for paedophiles to seek help before they offend.

ALiasEX

Not All Pedophiles Have Mental Disorder, American Psychiatric Association Says In New DSM

Galwayguy35

floggg wrote: »

Shows how under-developed unsound your thinking is if you can't even begin to fathom how it would be applied to a woman in the same position.

You are a great man for the personal insults aren't ya, ironic seeing as you added nothing to the thread since you started posting on it. other than have a go at me.

RobertKK

I think it is no different in terms of chemical reactions in the the body to that of a person loving the opposites sex, same sex, an older person and then we come to the younger person.
But the only difference is it is unacceptable because the person they are attracted to is too young, not fully developed, not strong enough in many ways to stop it and that is what makes it so wrong. We have an age of consent for a reason.

Though in the past it seems to have been acceptable given the most famous example is of the the Prophet Mohammed who married a 9 year old after dating her since the age of 6.

seamus

twowheelsonly wrote: »

As you say, it's a hard one to judge. Go back a short few years and your 'corrected' statement above would have been in vogue.

Yes, absolutely. But there is a more definite line now in terms of consent and the ability to do so.

It's a very different barrier which suggests that children are capable of providing consent (for anything), and also opens a whole can of worms where a severely drunk or disabled person is equally capable of "consenting".

I guess my "mental illness" comment was directed more at active paedophiles. We all get urges every now and again to hurt people, which we manage to control and suppress until we've calmed down. That doesn't make us mentally ill.
However, consistently struggling with urges to hurt people and/or failing to keep them in check may indicate a mental illness that the individual needs help dealing with.

floggg

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You are a great man for the personal insults aren't ya, ironic seeing as you added nothing to the thread since you started posting on it. other than have a go at me.

That's not a personal insult. It's commenting on your half formed idea which I find morally repugnant.

kjl

I would consider myself to be a straight male, but I do get turned on by watching transexual porn. There are plenty of transexual escorts in Ireland that I could live out this fantasy with but I never do. I know deep down I would not enjoy it and the only reason I enjoy the porn is because it's taboo.

I think it can be possible for someone to watch the child porn but never consider acting on it, but obviously the making of the porn is where the serious problem lies. However I pose a moral question for you. Would it be ok to watch CP if it was made digitally and no child was involved in the act? Snuff movies are illegal but a movie where you pretend to kill someone isn't, where do you draw the line?

Everyone loves Game of Thrones but in the books Daenerys was only 11 years old when she was raped by Drogo and it's pretty graphic. Is this considered child porn being that it depicts sex with an underage girl.

Also what defines pedofile? Is someone who is attracted to teenage girls considered the same as someone who is attracted to 4 year olds. 100 years ago it would be considered normal enough for a man in his 30 to marry a young girl of 14 or 15.

The One Doctor

RobertKK wrote: »

I think it is no different in terms of chemical reactions in the the body to that of a person loving the opposites sex, same sex, an older person and then we come to the younger person.
But the only difference is it is unacceptable because the person they are attracted to is too young, not fully developed, not strong enough in many ways to stop it and that is what makes it so wrong. We have an age of consent for a reason.

Though in the past it seems to have been acceptable given the most famous example is of the the Prophet Mohammed who married a 9 year old after dating her since the age of 6.

It was accepted for thousand of years. The Romans pimped out child prostitutes, as did the ancient Greeks. One of the reasons was that there was no legal structure in place to class pedophilia as a crime as it was so accepted - equivalent to classing drinking alcohol as a crime here. 'A crime to have a drink? Sure everyone does it!'

It's only really in the last 100 years or less the pedophilia has become an actual crime, mainly due to the increased public awareness of the plight of children, especially those who were orphaned. This coincided with the rise of children's charities like Barnardo's (a bad example due to Doctor Barnardo's impulse to kidnap children, rip their clothes, take photos and use them as an advertising campaign for more funds. He was accused of 84 counts of kidnap but was never convicted. He also sold plenty of children to Canadian farms for child labour, ironically).

Gradually children became protected by law, which got rid of child labour, that backbone of the British Empire. Eventually, the age of consent law was brought in, but that still varies by country to this day with Spain having an AOC of 13 with most of the rest choosing 16. However, Spain's low AOC only applies to teenagers, i.e, an adult having sex with a 13 year old would still be charged with sexual abuse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

Is there anyway of treating these people that works?

Hard to say to be honest. I am not sure if we have anyone on boards.ie who is actively working in the field with such people who could inform us better than I can.

I did read some reference, that I did not since follow up, in another thread that it has been shown that Child Pornography made by artists (cartoon, painted, whatever) has a negative effect on the desire of pedophiles to actually actively engage in pedophilia.

I can imagine, were this shown to be true, that a massive ethical and moral debate will ensue related to this that will be highly divisive. Currently in some country laws the text on Child Pornography, if I recall correctly, includes even representations of children in sexual acts. So cartoon or porn of that nature would fall under this as child pornography. So if cartoon child porn or other representations of it artificially, WERE shown to be an effective treatment, much discussion would ensue.

René Descartes had a deep passion for cross-eyed women which he reports having lost entirely when he traced the root of it and I have heard many similar stories. If that was shown to be true then tracing the roots of pedophilia with pedophiles may be beneficial. No idea if this is actively done now. But other therapies and rehabilitation have not been a total failure either.

The main issue for treatment is diagnosis of causes. The common Joe on the street when reading about a person who molested a child has a single reaction to it. But the reality is that is just the result, while the causes are diverse. Some people are sexual attracted to children. Some people are not but get off on the dominance and power. Others get off on the taboo. Others just want to destroy innocence, cause pain, or watch the world burn.

And clearly one can not treat a condition without knowing the cause, and if three people present with the same symptom.... such as having molested a child sexually.... that in no way informs us of the cause..... in much the same way as if you present to your doctor with symptoms of fainting.... you might LACK something (such as a nutrient or vitamin) or HAVE something (such as an infection or parasite) and clearly the treatment will vary wildly depending on the diagnosis.

The same is true of pedophilia. HOW we treat a pedophile and how successful that treatment will be, will clearly hang from what condition it is they actually _have_ and the treatment of one group of them will not transfer to another. There will be no one catch all "treatment" for pedophilia quite likely.

That said however we need to separate in our minds the vast difference between someone actively attracted to children.... and someone who acts on those feelings.

Because now most people, I fear, also evidenced by some of the posts on this thread, will respond and react to either category pretty much the same..... while I feel our society would be a better one if people with such an attraction were openly able to admit it and seek assistance with that.... rather than hide in fear or loathing and retribution.... with such feelings simmering and growing over time.

Eden Beautiful Butcher wrote: »

Do most people even realise that not all pedophiles are child abusers? The former isn't illegal, the latter is.

Indeed and I wonder, given the social and other stigma from admitting it, just how many people in the world HAVE such an attraction but never act on it and never express it. It might be not just more than we think or suspect, but massively so. Hard to construct a comprehensive study on this with good results in the current environment though.

The One Doctor

floggg wrote: »

That's not a personal insult. It's commenting on your half formed idea which I find morally repugnant.

But do you think chemical castration of males is morally repugnant? If so, how would you suggest doing the same to a female who has sexually abused children? They do exist, you know. About one third of child sexual abuse is carried out by women.

So how would you stop female sexual abusers from committing abuse crimes? Or do you believe that women are not capable of such obscenities and think we should turn a blind eye? The poster suggested a way that you might find disturbing, but he has a valid point.

floggg

The One Doctor wrote: »

But do you think chemical castration of males is morally repugnant? If so, how would you suggest doing the same to a female who has sexually abused children? They do exist, you know. About one third of child sexual abuse is carried out by women.

So how would you stop female sexual abusers from committing abuse crimes? Or do you believe that women are not capable of such obscenities and think we should turn a blind eye? The poster suggested a way that you might find disturbing, but he has a valid point.

Firstly, my point was that castrating somebody who has never committed any crime whatsoever and seeks help to ensure that they won't is morally repugnant. You should never punish somebody unless they actively attempt to do something wrong.

But I yes I do find chemical castration - or any other form of state sanctioned assault, murder or non-consensual invasive procedures - to be morally repugnant. if somebody refuses to rehabilitate, I would rather they be locked away for life without parole.

That means I am AGAINST them.
So on that basis I wouldn't advocate any similar punishment for female offenders either.

However, if you are going to advocate for such a thing, then you should at least be able to argue for a punishment that is capable of being applied on an objectively equivalent basis to male and female offenders.

At least give it the gloss of being a principled position, rather than just being a naked attempt to make the lynch mob feel better about themselves seeing another person suffer.

ALiasEX

If we castrate people for fantasizing about sex with children what should we do to the people that fantasize about killing people who fantasize about sex with children?

kjl

ALiasEX wrote: »

If we castrate people for fantasizing about sex with children what should we do to the people that fantasize about killing people who fantasize about sex with children?

quite the paradox.

ScumLord

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Its in the DSM and the ICD as a mental disorder so yes.

I wouldn't see that as fact just because they list it as such. We've seen with the likes of Professor David Nutt that classification boards are susceptible to political pressure on taboo subjects. If a doctor was to stand up and make the suggestion it wasn't a mental disorder he'd probably be labeled a peadophile and have his/her career ruined.

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.

Even more so, where many paedophiles who have been caught try to argue that their "relationships" with the children are loving or consensual, that to me only strengthens the idea of it being a mental illness, such is the level of delusion some of them experience.

I think that's a separate issue though. Someone arguing their relationship is consensual is trying to justify their urges and actions. They are delusional. It;s one thing to have the urges and not act on them, it's another to give in to those urges and maybe feel guilty for it. It's quite another to justify those urges and argue there's nothing wrong with it. Many men have to deal with that moral dilemma from time to time. A 16 year old girl can look adult but we know that mentally she's susceptible to being taken advantage of and that she more than likely is too naive to give consent to an adult man.

I guess it all goes back to what motivates the peadphiles urges. Is it a sexual orientation? Is it a compulsion to take advantage of weaker people? The peadophile is probably the last great monster that's still in societies closet, we've brought so much out into the open but the peadophile is one that we find it hard to deal with without anger taking over.

The One Doctor wrote: »

It was accepted for thousand of years. The Romans pimped out child prostitutes, as did the ancient Greeks.

The greeks and that whole area had very different views of sex. The greeks/spartans used to have a tradition of an adult man taking a young boy under their wings and becoming a sort of sexual partner until the boy became a man. It wasn't as such a homosexual relationship either because when the boy became a man he was expected to break it off and raise a family. Continuing the relationship was taboo.

Plenty of men could have homosexual relationships but were always expected to contribute children to the community which meant they had to have a wife.

The only constant was that a husband wife relationship was essential for continuing the society, it was a legal requirement a lot of the time. Sex for fun could be with anyone.

Porkpie

Personally I think the age of consent in this country should be lowered, say to 14 or 15. I mean for God's sake, most teenagers nowadays are losing their virginity around this age anyway, are they all breaking the law? How do you define a paedophile anyway, is it purely on the basis of someone who's attracted to those under the age of consent? If an 18 year old fella has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is he a paedophile? Does he deserve to be criminalised? Maybe this couple should head across the water to England where this would be perfectly legal (AOC is 16 there). AOC is 13 in Spain, same in Japan I think. Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

I really think there's a world of difference between someone who's attracted to, say a 15 year old and someone who fancies infants. I mean for God's sake, I remember when I was in school there was this 15 year old girl who looked around 20, she used to get in to the pubs and clubs, all the lads fancied her, she was a stunner. I guess we were all paedos, were we? I guess I just draw a distinction between those who fancy teens and others who are in to toddlers.

Honestly I feel sorry for people like the guy in this programme tonight who are tormented by these desires yet have no intentions of acting them out. We should try and empathise with them rather than threatening to castrate them or hang them by a nappy. As another poster rightly pointed out, our desires are not our actions.

TwoShedsJackson

Porkpie wrote: »

How do you define a paedophile anyway, is it purely on the basis of someone who's attracted to those under the age of consent?

Someone who is attracted to a child who hasn't reached puberty i.e. usually 11 or less.

After that you're an ephebophile.

looking_around

Porkpie wrote: »

Personally I think the age of consent in this country should be lowered, say to 14 or 15. I mean for God's sake, most teenagers nowadays are losing their virginity around this age anyway, are they all breaking the law? How do you define a paedophile anyway, is it purely on the basis of someone who's attracted to those under the age of consent? If an 18 year old fella has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is he a paedophile? Does he deserve to be criminalised? Maybe this couple should head across the water to England where this would be perfectly legal (AOC is 16 there). AOC is 13 in Spain, same in Japan I think. Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds?

I really think there's a world of difference between someone who's attracted to, say a 15 year old and someone who fancies infants. I mean for God's sake, I remember when I was in school there was this 15 year old girl who looked around 20, she used to get in to the pubs and clubs, all the lads fancied her, she was a stunner. I guess we were all paedos, were we? I guess I just draw a distinction between those who fancy teens and others who are in to toddlers.

Honestly I feel sorry for people like the guy in this programme tonight who are tormented by these desires yet have no intentions of acting them out. We should try and empathise with them rather than threatening to castrate them or hang them by a nappy. As another poster rightly pointed out, our desires are not our actions.

The age of consent shouldn't b dropped. Its not there to prevent youngsters from having sex, it's there to protect them from adults who would use them.

I do think we need a Juliets Law of some sort.

New suggested criteria, is paedophile = attraction to prepubescent kids, and hebephile to 11-15 yrs, ephebophilia 15-19yrs

FYI, Spain did have one of the lowest ages of consent, but recently agreed to raise this to 16.

Also, what difference does it make, fancying a teen or a toddler, so long as both no it's wrong and have intention of acting on it? what makes teen attraction more acceptable?

ScumLord

Porkpie wrote: »

Personally I think the age of consent in this country should be lowered, say to 14 or 15. I mean for God's sake, most teenagers nowadays are losing their virginity around this age anyway, are they all breaking the law?

I don't think the age of consent should be lowered. If it was you could have 40 year olds preying on 13 year olds. But there should be some concession for young people of around the same age so they don't get labeled as sex offenders. Even so an 18 year old is at a different stage in their life from a 16 year old. An 18 year old lad could be heading off to college and a 16 year old girl madly in love could throw her education away following him and then end up pregnant without ever seriously considering the consequences of her actions.

The age of consent can be a left over from older times. In the past it made some sense to marry young girls off as childbirth was very risky and younger girls probably had a better chance of surviving any complications. It may have been born out of a necessity that doesn't apply to people today. Now we have the benefit of being able to make laws that protect the vulnerable and give equal rights to all.

Roquentin

The age of consent shouldn't b dropped. Its not there to prevent youngsters from having sex, it's there to protect them from adults who would use them.

thats the thing. It is there to protect adolescents who would be taken advantage of by adults. That alone says something very fundamental about the law abiding sect of society.

New suggested criteria, is paedophile = attraction to prepubescent kids, and hebephile to 11-15 yrs, ephebophilia 15-19yrs

by that criteria, every single bloke would be a ephebophile. Every single bloke is attracted to an 18 year old girl. Now society deems it morally wrong for an older man to chase one, but the attraction is there, but ignored.

Also, what difference does it make, fancying a teen or a toddler, so long as both no it's wrong and have intention of acting on it? what makes teen attraction more acceptable?

as of now attraction to a teen is normal(17/18/19). Now its considered wrong and men repress it, but teen porn is the biggest porn in the internet. maybe in 300 years time 24 could be the new 18.

Roquentin

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think the age of consent should be lowered. If it was you could have 40 year olds preying on 13 year olds. But there should be some concession for young people of around the same age so they don't get labeled as sex offenders. Even so an 18 year old is at a different stage in their life from a 16 year old. An 18 year old lad could be heading off to college and a 16 year old girl madly in love could throw her education away following him and then end up pregnant without ever seriously considering the consequences of her actions.

The age of consent can be a left over from older times. In the past it made some sense to marry young girls off as childbirth was very risky and younger girls probably had a better chance of surviving any complications. It may have been born out of a necessity that doesn't apply to people today. Now we have the benefit of being able to make laws that protect the vulnerable and give equal rights to all.

in the future it will go up because people are maturing at a later date. maybe 100 years time it will be 18 id say