ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
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?
bottle but in that case the guy had actually offended and had actually harmed children! I don't think that stigmatism against convicted paedophiles is necessarily useful but it is certainly very very understandable.
I am primarily against the concept of thought crimes! We cannot and should not stigmatise the desire. Only acting on it.
And I don't accept at all that every person who has ever felt sexual attraction to someone under the age of 16 is a likely future offender. The more we talk about these things and the freer conversation is, the more likely it is that we catch the rare few people that begin the slide into actually offending before they do so.
The less pitch forky we are the more common sense can be applied. Is someone really evil for having sex with a sexually aware, sexually active girl the night before her 16th birthday? Is it magically different once that one day passes?
If a woman is still married to the father of her 3 children 10 years down the line, then is it helpful to lock him up once you realise that their first was born when she was only 3 months past 16?
Abuse is abuse - and most people outside the dark maze of personal desire can see when an act will fall into that category very clearly. Imagine if someone could come onto AIBU and ask if dating a 15 year old was okay and get actual sensible advice on how and where to draw the lines rather than being rounded on by everyone concerned as a piece of shit....
hully I thought the definition was someone sexually attracted to children.
No abuse is necessary....
I personally am exceedingly sexually attracted to David Tennant and yet have not only utterly failed to act on this desire, but even given the chance I wouldn't.
yes, someone sexually attracted to children.
But if you act on that attraction, doesn't that make you an abuser?
There are degrees, it is a spectrum. Child sex offenders vary from text book paedophiles, with abnormal pathologies who believe sex with children is OK through to those who are opportunistic sex offenders, with perhaps tendencies to sexually abuse adults too. Very complex area.
What is so terrifying about it all, is the entrenched and wide ranging sexual abuse of children across all societies. The stuff we hear about is surely the tip of the iceberg. Until the 1980s it was rare to hear about it in the UK, especially if it was inter familial.
But we SHOULD stigmatise the desire ICBINEG, because if we don't, we say it's okay to feel like that, it's 'normal'.
If normalise the thoughts, we're one step closer to normalising the behaviour. If someone has a fleeting thought that is gone seconds after they think it, they are not a paedophile and they do not need help. The kind of people who would seek help would be those that feel they can not control deep, primal urges. Not those who have had a fleeting thought. I have had fleeting thoughts about stepping out in front of a train. It was a passing thought, I don't know where it came from and I have not sought help for suicidal thoughts.
You ideas seem jumbled; you are advocating a treatment system for a demographic that does not exist. Having prolonged sexual fantasies about children is NOT normal and it is NOT okay, and we should not encourage people to think that it is.
So there are such individuals are there? Those whom the rest of use would call paedophiles but some (here) would call nice peace loving harmless mixed up victims. And these poor creatures - they just sit at home nursing their desires do they? Or do they go out and act on them? Do they access child pornography? No? They just sit there and have a nice cup of tea do they?
Just trying to understand.
We should "remove the stigma" ???
Isn't that exactly how people like saville abused for so long? Because "that's just how it was" ???
I'm pretty sure that a person who is sexually abusing a child couldn't give a shit about the Stigma that may be directed their way....
That is a good point above. The stigma is there. Now. Not so long ago there was less stigma. Children used for sexual purposes is not new, just we view it differently now.
ballina Having prolonged sexual fantasies about children is not normal. This much I agree with. Actually I also agree it is not okay, as it hurts the paedophile to live with unfulfillable sexual desires. But it is NOT evil.
Having schizophrenia is also not normal. It is also not okay in that it hurts the sufferer. But it is also NOT evil.
Neither schizophrenia nor paedophilia can be assisted more by stigmatism than by awareness and control of symptoms.
The reduction in stigmatism of schizophrenia undoubtedly helps more people access the help they need to deal with the problem. In particular those in society who have it but can pass for 'normal' most of the time, may be far more likely to seek help now that people view it with much less fear and suspicion.
I want people who are worried about their paedophilic tendencies to seek help and to feel they can talk about it with friends and family who can support them.
This won't happen if they fear they will be drummed out of their community.
Looking at child porn is acting on it though isn't it? There's a victim.
Sometimes I think if I knew then what I do now about the people in power and the people who are charged with looking after and protecting society I'd never have had my children.
It's not just the child abuse stuff. It just seems that recently I've had the bubble burst and what I can see about society is scaring the shit out of me
How is so much being covered up?
Re Saville and others from that era.......attraction to young girls was accepted for instance right up until the 1980s/ 1990s. Jokes about 'jailbait', teenage 'groupies' seen as fairgame by rock bands. I even remember the 'sexy schoolgirl' outfits which were worn to fancy dress parties! Bet they are not so popular now! Luckily we have moved on from there and that kind of world view is not acceptable.
"Looking at child porn is acting on it though isn't it? There's a victim."
Excellent point, CuntChops
I would agree with an amnesty on peadophiles too, but don't think anyone in power would admit to it, they would be finished, sentence or not.
If you are looking at it you are creating a need for it and prompting the abuse of yet more children - watching it makes you very much a part of it.
The problem in the past was not that it was normal (it has never been normal) but that it was acceptable.
Something can be unacceptable to society without those that desire to do such things being stigmatised and chased out of communities.
I still find it strange that we find child abuse worse than child murder. Obviously society finds murder unacceptable but you can talk about how close to the edge you are, you can start a thread about how you would like to kill someone. You could talk to friends about how your anger gets out of control, you could go to a GP etc.
Society also finds child abuse unacceptable but there is no way you could talk about your feelings in the same way.....
I entirely agree that the most dangerous thing we can do is make potential paedophiles (people who have not enacted their fantasies) run for cover. The safest thing for everyone is for them to feel safe to come and get help so that they do not attack children.
No it's not likely is it?
Admitting it for the good of abuse victims would mean admitting to themselves that they are in the wrong and very few abusers seem to lack the capacity for that. The perfect the art of justifying it to themselves don't they?
I already said that viewing child porn is actively offending.
How on EARTH in this day and age can people liken the desire to abuse children to homosexuality??????? I can't believe this opinion is still wheeled out and openly displayed.
I'm sorry, but some of the posts on this thread are fucking worrying. Child porn is disgusting. A child has been violated to produce it and one is likely to be violated as a consequence of watching it. I appreciate the efforts to have a debate about this but we shouldn't. We should, as a fucking forum of mothers say that if you are fantasising about having sex with a child then you are dangerous and not normal. You a deviant.
Didn't This Morning do a piece where someone befriended a peadophile to stop him offending?
So not talking about it ever is the answer Gogo?
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.