The Paedophile Next Door

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 01:21AM

ALiasEX wrote: »

You are. Child (sexual) abuse is often committed by non-pedophiles.

Maybe you are ........ I am not

bb1234567 · 06-12-2014 01:46AM

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

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

Is there anyway of treating these people that works?

I dont think that we need to treat them , if theyre not committing any crimes then its none of your business. We used to think that it was wrong for people to be attracted to the same gender, and so we 'treated' and even killed gay people. Obviously we see that thats wrong now. Its what hes attracted to, he cant help it, as long as he doesnt act on it then nobody has any right to treat him

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 02:04AM

bb1234567 wrote: »

I dont think that we need to treat them , if theyre not committing any crimes then its none of your business. We used to think that it was wrong for people to be attracted to the same gender, and so we 'treated' and even killed gay people. Obviously we see that thats wrong now. Its what hes attracted to, he cant help it, as long as he doesnt act on it then nobody has any right to treat him

I would agree with this ......... if a paedophile doesn't act out his attractions (although I'm not sure if this is possible?) then he doesn't need any treatment.

As it happens the paedophile (Eddie) who featured in the documentary has in fact given in to his urges and is now facing criminal prosecution ........

Piliger · 06-12-2014 02:21AM

porsche959 wrote: »

A moment's consideration shows that this is not a reasonable comparison.

Under the criminal law, all acts (as opposed to inclinations, fantasies, etc) of peadophilia are de facto criminal, however, clearly all acts of male sexuality are not rape, in fact only a comparatively small subset (one hopes) of them are.

But all paedophiles are not completely limited to sexual acts with children. Some live normal lives with active sexual relations with their wives or partners.

It may not be a direct and parallel comparison, but I think it is a reasonable one. It is seeking to study only those that commit a crime, and not those who have the emotions but do nothing.

Piliger · 06-12-2014 02:24AM

bb1234567 wrote: »

I dont think that we need to treat them , if theyre not committing any crimes then its none of your business. We used to think that it was wrong for people to be attracted to the same gender, and so we 'treated' and even killed gay people. Obviously we see that thats wrong now. Its what hes attracted to, he cant help it, as long as he doesnt act on it then nobody has any right to treat him

I disagree. We do need to offer them treatment if we can develop it.

And the main point was, I think, was that only by studying them can we learn the origins and real nature of paedophilia.

I have no direct knowledge naturally, but I suspect that a great number of people with those feelings would like to get rid of them or suppress them or modify them in some way.

porsche959 · 06-12-2014 02:24AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

As it happens the paedophile (Eddie) who featured in the documentary has in fact given in to his urges and is now facing criminal prosecution ........

Just to point out, my understanding is that Eddie was reported for statements he made during the programme itself.

Piliger · 06-12-2014 02:25AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I find it distasteful that you would attempt to put paedophiles in the same category as "every single person in the world" ......... they are not the same as the rest of society, they are (potentially) dangerous to children in particular ......... please don't try to say that I am potentially dangerous to children, I'm not.
If you feel that you are then that's your issue, I am definitely not.

So you say. But how is society to know ? That is the point surely.

ALiasEX · 06-12-2014 02:40AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Maybe you are ........ I am not

You have said you would abuse a person for your own needs if necessary, what if you were stranded on an island with only a child?

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 03:41AM

ALiasEX wrote: »

You have said you would abuse a person for your own needs if necessary, what if you were stranded on an island with only a child?

Have I said that???
Please feel free to quote the non-existent post where I said "I would abuse a person for my own needs if necessary" ......... or just admit you're lying, whichever is easier for you :rolleyes:

Shep_Dog · 06-12-2014 08:31AM

porsche959 wrote: »

Under the criminal law, all acts (as opposed to inclinations, fantasies, etc) of peadophilia are de facto criminal,

Inclinations will be too, as under the new Sexual Offenses Bill, an attempt to do something is just as criminal as the potential act. So, clicking on a web page link to 'Hot 17-year-olds' will be an offense (of attempting to gain access to child pornography), punishable by up to 5 years in prison...even if the next page is actually 'jaded 30-year-olds' or the 'Irish Times'.

As to expressing fantasy, in a recent court case in Ireland a man was convicted of distributing child pornography when he used an instant messaging service to discuss a (very) sick fantasy concerning a child. Oddly, if he had said the same things verbally it would not have been an offense. But if he had said these things to a health professional, the practitioner would have been obliged to report him to the authorities who would have raided his house to find evidence to use against him.

The unfortunate subject of the documentary has been reported to police for admitting viewing indecent images of children. In the UK, that is classified as 'making' such images. If the police seize his computers and find forensic traces of any images, no matter how long ago deleted, they could charge him.

up for anything · 06-12-2014 08:44AM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The unfortunate subject of the documentary has been reported to police for admitting viewing indecent images of children. In the UK, that is classified as 'making' such images. If the police seize his computers and find forensic traces of any images, no matter how long ago deleted, they could charge him.

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 10:33AM

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

ALiasEX · 06-12-2014 11:37AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Have I said that???
Please feel free to quote the non-existent post where I said "I would abuse a person for my own needs if necessary" ......... or just admit you're lying, whichever is easier for you :rolleyes:

Reading back, you are right, you didn't say that. I assumed that's what you meant from your reply to my question

ALiasEX wrote: »

Is masturbation not relief enough when the alternative is hurting someone? As soon as you couldn't have consensual sex ever again with your attractions you would resort to unconsensual sex?

MadDog76 wrote: »

As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 11:54AM

ALiasEX wrote: »

Reading back, you are right, you didn't say that. I assumed that's what you meant from your reply to my question

Well you know what they say about people who assume things ........ thank you for at least admitting that what you posted wasn't true

Holsten · 06-12-2014 12:58PM

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

How do the people who create these know someone has viewed them?

You really think if people didn't view this stuff children would stop being abused?

Did child abuse start with the internet?

Grayson · 06-12-2014 01:14PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

depends on the images. there was a study done where cartoon children were shown to paedophiles. many reported that they could use those pictures to "relieve" themselves. I think we all realise that watching a cartoon doesn't actually hurt anyone.

We're actually at the stage where it would be possible to make CG images of non existent children. The ethics of making non existent child porn to aid in the treatment of paedophiles is probably one of the most ethically confusing (or just plain fcuked up) issues I can think of.

Don't get me wrong, I feel a revulsion when i think about it. But i also know that realistically nobody would be hurt in the production of it and it may actually help someone.

Grayson · 06-12-2014 01:31PM

porsche959 wrote: »

A moment's consideration shows that this is not a reasonable comparison.

Under the criminal law, all acts (as opposed to inclinations, fantasies, etc) of peadophilia are de facto criminal, however, clearly all acts of male sexuality are not rape, in fact only a comparatively small subset (one hopes) of them are.

That's under the law though. And that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Unfortunately we don't know if paedophilia leads to child abuse.

Like I mentioned before there are many abusers who would describe themselves at straight males. Being a paedophile isn't even a necessary component of being an abuser so it's hard to say paedophile = abuser or abuser = paedophile.

ALiasEX · 06-12-2014 01:44PM

I am sure pedophiles also use material of real children that is not child porn. It may sound horrible but no one gets hurt. (e.g. children in films/tv, family photos posted on the internet)

I mostly use non-pornographic material of adults.

floggg · 06-12-2014 03:21PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

I dont think that we need to treat them , if theyre not committing any crimes then its none of your business. We used to think that it was wrong for people to be attracted to the same gender, and so we 'treated' and even killed gay people. Obviously we see that thats wrong now. Its what hes attracted to, he cant help it, as long as he doesnt act on it then nobody has any right to treat him

Thats a rather naive view.

How do you distinguish between those who will and will not offend - unless you wait until they do offend before trying to offer help and treatment. Thats hardly a sensible approach and will do little to help protect children.

The only way to make an appreciable difference is to offer easily accessible, confidential and non-judgmental treatment to all people with these attractions, - hope to help as many as possible and reduce their risk of offending.

floggg · 06-12-2014 03:27PM

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

I don't think anybody here has ever said that viewing child porn is in any way accetpable or tolerable, or that peadophiles who offend shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law.

Helping peodophiles to ensure they don't offend is very much a child-welfare cause.

Shep_Dog · 06-12-2014 04:14PM

Holsten wrote: »

How do the people who create these know someone has viewed them?

Web server log files record who views what. When a server is seized, in the USA the police notify the victims when their images have been viewed and by who. The victims have the right to sue the viewers, potentially, for everything they own.

You really think if people didn't view this stuff children would stop being abused?

Most children are abused by family members or friends and not by online grooming.

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 04:30PM

Grayson wrote: »

depends on the images. there was a study done where cartoon children were shown to paedophiles. many reported that they could use those pictures to "relieve" themselves. I think we all realise that watching a cartoon doesn't actually hurt anyone.

We're actually at the stage where it would be possible to make CG images of non existent children. The ethics of making non existent child porn to aid in the treatment of paedophiles is probably one of the most ethically confusing (or just plain fcuked up) issues I can think of.

Don't get me wrong, I feel a revulsion when i think about it. But i also know that realistically nobody would be hurt in the production of it and it may actually help someone.

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The CGI porn is a difficult one ......... my main issue is actual harm coming to a real small child which obviously doesn't happen with CGI porn so maybe it's a good thing??
Then on the other-hand some would say that CGI child porn is only encouraging child abuse and maybe sending the paedophile viewer into a heightened sexual state of arousal to the point where he will need "real" child porn or (even worse) a real child ........... I don't know .............. what do you think?

ceadaoin. · 06-12-2014 05:01PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The unfortunate subject of the documentary has been reported to police for admitting viewing indecent images of children. In the UK, that is classified as 'making' such images. If the police seize his computers and find forensic traces of any images, no matter how long ago deleted, they could charge him.

Unfortunate would be best used to describe the children who are abused to produce these images. Are we supposed to feel sorry for someone who has contributed to the abuse of children?

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Web server log files record who views what. When a server is seized, in the USA the police notify the victims when their images have been viewed and by who. The victims have the right to sue the viewers, potentially, for everything they own.

Most children are abused by family members or friends and not by online grooming.

It's coming across that you think it is unfair for people who view these images to be punished?

looking_around · 06-12-2014 05:27PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The CGI porn is a difficult one ......... my main issue is actual harm coming to a real small child which obviously doesn't happen with CGI porn so maybe it's a good thing??
Then on the other-hand some would say that CGI child porn is only encouraging child abuse and maybe sending the paedophile viewer into a heightened sexual state of arousal to the point where he will need "real" child porn or (even worse) a real child ........... I don't know .............. what do you think?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

"Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted."

Piliger · 06-12-2014 05:28PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Unfortunate would be best used to describe the children who are abused to produce these images. Are we supposed to feel sorry for someone who has contributed to the abuse of children?

It's coming across that you think it is unfair for people who view these images to be punished?

I don't agree that that is how it is coming across at all. It is clear to me that he was simply referring to the fact that a man came forward to contribute to a program that was worthwhile making in an effort to encourage the study of this condition instead of the usual kneejerk lashing out - and that he ended up in the court system.

He, like me, believe that the way to tackle this abuse of children effectively should include the long term study of people who have these emotional feelings instead of just the usual short term response.

Shep_Dog · 06-12-2014 06:50PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The present law would disagree. It includes images where no adult is present in the image. In order to get a child to pose for such images, it can be assumed that they have been coerced and abused off camera.

The new definition will include any image which depicts the genital or anal region of a person who is a child or is depicted as being a child, in a sexual way. US precedents indicate that this can also include pictures of clothed children, if there is a sexual aspect.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

Piliger · 06-12-2014 06:56PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The present law would disagree.

So what ? He didn't say that that was the law. What he said was that "When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) ........." So what the law says is irrelevant.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

Which is totally obvious.

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 07:03PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The present law would disagree. It includes images where no adult is present in the image. In order to get a child to pose for such images, it can be assumed that they have been coerced and abused off camera.

The new definition will include any image which depicts the genital or anal region of a person who is a child or is depicted as being a child, in a sexual way. US precedents indicate that this can also include pictures of clothed children, if there is a sexual aspect.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

I'm aware of that and I agree with the definition ............ when I gave my definition of what child porn means to me it was in response to a poster to be clear what I personally see as child porn at it's most repulsive.

ps Just saw Piliger's post which also explains what I meant ..........

Shep_Dog · 06-12-2014 07:38PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm aware of that and I agree with the definition ............ when I gave my definition of what child porn means to me it was in response to a poster to be clear what I personally see as child porn at it's most repulsive.

ps Just saw Piliger's post which also explains what I meant ..........

it's best that there is no confusion about what is, or will be: illegal.

Piliger · 07-12-2014 01:55AM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

it's best that there is no confusion about what is, or will be: illegal.

That has been well established over the last 38 pages.

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments