to be pretty terrified that being a child abuser(336 Posts)
has actually caused some people to rise to positions of power only because Parliament's power has been corrupted absolutely:
Following the developments of Savile, I continue to be shocked, saddened and horirified on a daily basis - I just cannot get over the depths of this and how far up and nationally this goes. WTF is going on? It took Portugal 7 years to sort out the Casa Pia orphanages abuse network with their very own Savile TV type figure involved. I cannot give a shiny shit about EU referendums and Nigel Horsey Mirage while we now know all this....2015 election has no other issues surely? So long as any party is protecting alleged child abusers within their ranks and preventing due process of criminal justice system being applied to them for a court to find innocent or guilty, as with all other subjects of the law, none shall be above it, then they cannot have be entrusted with power.... how do we know child abusers aren't influencing sentencing guidelines for child sex abuse offences for example? spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-sentencing-council-and-other-legal-panels-took-advice-from-convicted-paedophiles-about-sentencing-for-paedophile-offences/
Am I being crazy to think people would be shouting from rooftops about this if they knew, or does everyone already know and just accept this is the way it is? Not paedo hating public hysteria....I'm a pacificst and I want to see democracy fixed so more like a very severe public Paxmanesque probing on National TV for some of those in charge of the various child abuse inquiries that have thus far been unable to provide proper resolution over the question of abusers in power and children in care being trafficked round the country to be sexually exploited? Why is at the very least this not happening?
This is a really, really tough one. It's said paedophilia is a sexual preference just like being straight/gay is, the obvious issue being that it's reprehensible to act on it because the other party isn't consenting and well, it's abusive.
So yes, I can see a need for people to be able to come forward, admit they find children sexually attractive (my stomach lurched just typing that) and that they need help to ensure they don't act upon it.
And it's not just about thoughts or fantasies - on that basis the chap in the states (british?) who was planning to cannibalise his wife should not be convicted despite purchasing weapons, building a dungeon etc because he only wrote that he wanted to cannibalise her and writing to other people about this was just 'fantasy'. We seem to be able to do a double think when we lock up these kind of people as threats to society but the child abusers who write to another fantasising about abducting children and torturing them sexually, sometimes to death is being hounded by the thought police should society act to protect its most vulnerable members.
Would the majority of mumsnet support an amnesty on child abusers in power stepping forward (and down from power) but having immunity from prosecution? Some survivors are now arguing for this in the absence of seeing any real justice - they just want to stop them using their power to support other child abusers. I used to think not, but I have recently started to think that there's no way forward out of the political blackmail stalemate otherwise.
There was a man near me who violated a few dogs. Seriously. He was banned from keeping animals, and given a curfew, not allowed out alone and given long term psychiatric care. Perhaps this is how paedophilia (not assault or abuse, just thoughts) ought to be treated..
Cuntchops - did you read that link about who the sentencing guidelines / legal panels responsible for that kind of things have been taking advice from? Dodgily so is spot on. number of barristers have been convicted Colin Peters was one, there will be judges who are protected too.
The only therapy they need is chemical castration. If they truly have an issue and want to own up to it then they should be willing participants.
There's absolutely no acceptable comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia, however tenuous - homosexuality is consensual between two adults.
It's also not a "sexual preference", unless you class Rape as "preference" too.
If they are willing to campaign for age of consent to be lowered to 4 and call it childrens rights to sex that we prudes are oppressing they're not really of the mindset to be full of self-loathing enough to want to stop are they? They feel justified enough to be lobbying the Home office, politically agitating for children's rights to sex so I can't see that the immense mountain of self-delusion one has to create to allow oneself to do that can be 'therapised' into realising one's condcut towards children is entirely wrong and predatory?
PoppyAmex - well said.
Cameron's attempt to steer this into a "gay witch hunt" hasn't really worked.
There is a grey area where pursuing child abusers on historical allegations could slip into a gay hunt but it is relatively narrow, and that is where the age of consent was unequal 16 - 18 - 21 for gay men. I'll hold my breath on Nigel Evans recent arrest and wait to see where that goes for precisely that reason.
That does have to be guarded against but the reality is that gay people are part of families with children, were children once, have children, are part of society and will be equally disgusted if and when this all comes out. They're not chartering yachts and having children bought to them to abuse. The people who are child abusers who also happen to be gay in their orientation won't be embraced this time around. I'm hoping the gay rights agenda has progressed to feel secure enough for that divide and rule tactic to not work anymore.
If someone has the self awareness to recognise that their sexual attraction towards children is wrong, they're, I would imagine, very unlikely to offend.
And if they don't believe that it's wrong, or that it's only wrong in the eyes of society, then they will find a way to offend regardless.
I don't think 'removing the stigma' will help, as it may make those that currently fall into the first camp, believe that it would be okay to move into the second.
Experiencing a desire to have sex with children is not evil and a person should not be stigmatised for it.
Acting on that desire is evil.
Not seeking help to either change or eliminate the desire when feeling that you cannot keep from indulging it otherwise, is also evil.
Not seeking help to change or eliminate the desire when you are in control of it and would never indulge it, is reasonable IMO.
ICBINEG, I believe you may not fully understand how all consuming forbidden sexual desires may be.
I wouldn't imagine they fancy having sex with children in the same way you or I may fancy a biscuit with our cuppa. Normal, healthy sexual urges can be fulfilled, imagine how it must be to know you can never fulfil your sexual urges.
A paedophile is a violent sexual offender waiting to happen. It would be very likely that a man that confessed to violent fantasies of rape or torture would be sectioned until he was considered to no longer pose a danger to other members of society. What makes you think that paedophiles would respond to a nice chat?
Exactly what ballinacup said
It is a sexual preference. Some people are attracted to consenting adults and some people are attracted to animals, inanimate objects, sex with violence etc. etc. etc. Others are attracted to children. People find it sickening, but human sexuality is complicated and, at times, distasteful - it can also lead to breaking the law, but laws change according to society's values.
Of course it should be a crime to download child porn or abuse children, but their sexual orientation is just that, an orientation.
It is a sexual preference, sorry.
I think it must be an awful one to live with. I also think they convince themselves it's ok and the child wants it in the same way anybody can believe a lie if they tell it often enough.
As a paedophile you can never have a normal sexual relationship because to fulfill those desires you have to harm, abuse and break the law. And that's not sympathy for the psycho stuff, it just is what it is. If a peadophile is self aware enough to seek help then great but there will always be the predators that convince themselves they're doing nothing wrong.
Rape is more about power and control than a sexual preference. You might well have violent sexual desires and go on to rape but that's not the same as sexual orientation.
The point is that there can be no benefit in stigmatising a desire. It isn't useful to make people believe they are evil.
There needs to be a very clear line: Threaten to indulge your desire and society will act to protect it's children by locking you away. You are not evil but we will not allow you to indulge your desire.
The problem with stigmatising is that it can compound the issue...and the offence. The recent coverage of the Tia murder shows that actually people are MORE disgusted about the sex than the murder. Doesn't that miss match of crime with stigma make it more likely for people to kill the children they abuse?
Similarly one might have a sexual thought about a child as a random intrusive thought, with no intent or even the slightest likelihood of acting on it. It could actually push someone the wrong way to immediately feel that the presence of the thought makes them corrupt or evil....it could make them dwell on what should have been transient, normal, etc.
You can easily imagine someone being attracted to a teenager who they later find out is actually a lot younger than they look. There is no problem there, so long as nothing happens as a result. If you attach massive stigma to the thought itself you are making a paedophile where there wasn't one. This is totally counter productive.
Most paedophiles have been abused as children themselves, there is an acting out of their own powerlessness and pain on others in an attempt to rid themselves of their feelings of rage and shame.
It is more complicated than a "preference"
The trouble is, there is no treatment or therapy at all for paedophiles until they have been convicted. That makes it very difficult to seek help if they cannot control their desires. Some paedophilia is also learned behaviour.
I don't think we should necessarily remove the stigma: offences against children should always be abhorrent.
Wouldn't it be good, though, if these people could seek treatment before they ruined young lives?
I agree with all you say there ICBINEG. I'd love to think that I wouldn't at least mentally stigmatise somebody who admits they're attracted to children (I certainly wouldn't on the surface, you'll never catch me with my pitchfork outside a paedo's home) but I would, inside I would. It'd make my skin crawl and I know that. A bloke who was on the fringes of my group of friends was great, really nice guy and I got on well with him. He'd actually even tell me his preference was for young lads (but stressed they had to be legal). Then I saw his name in the paper - he'd gone down for having thousands of child porn images, of the worst category on his computer, distributing them and posing as different people to get close to single mum's with sons. It absolutely definitely was him btw, not just someone with the same name.
I'd known and liked him very much and then he must have been released (he could only have been inside for about a year) and I saw him queuing behind me in a shop. I went cold, it was a reaction beyond my control. So, I don't think it could ever lose it's stigma.
Of course there is help for those attracted to children. Anyone can go for help with any issue they are struggling with. You go to your GP and get referred. You are not telling your GP you have assaulted a child. You are telling the GP you are struggling with your thoughts. The way you would if you were struggling with, for example, suicide. It is rubbish to say you cannot ask for help. If you groom and sexually abuse a child, that child is not consenting and anyone who says different is talking crap.
I know a lot of abusers have been abused but I've never, ever read any statistic which says most paedophiles were also abused. The key word being "most", for me.
I believe the "stigma" attached to this crime may well be the last frontier, for some potential offenders.
Knowing that offense is considered so heinous that they would struggle to survive in prison, that their entire families would disown them, that they would never truly benefit from a "second chance" if convicted...
Our society has become so desensitised that these factors aren't even at play in some violent crimes anymore, but paedophilia still invoques powerful reactions... and that's the way it should be.
No, I agree, there will always and should always be a stigma attached to paedophilia and as was said upthread as a society we're more shocked and outraged by sexual abuse than we are by murder. I'm bloody sick of seeing so and so has also been arrested in relation to operation yewtree but tbh hearing of some gang related shooting and I am kind of desensitised to it. Suppose I'm kind of, of the opinion that if grown ups want to play gangsters and shoot each other then knock yourselves out (until of course innocents like Rhys Jones are caught in the crossfire) but yeah, acts of abuse against defenceless kids make me bloody angry.
Can a paedophile not be an abuser iyswim?
If you have sex with a child are you not abusing that child?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.