to be pretty terrified that being a child abuser

(336 Posts)
FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 13:08:20

has actually caused some people to rise to positions of power only because Parliament's power has been corrupted absolutely:

spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-dirt-book-how-the-sexual-abuse-of-children-is-used-for-political-gain/

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?

ryanboy Tue 14-May-13 13:24:21

I think there needs to be less of a stigma attached to paedophilia.Being sexually attracted to children isn't something that someonehas a choice over, but if they feel they have not got the strength to control their behaviour and are in danger of abusing, then they need to be able to access the appropriate counselling, therapies etc without being judged.

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:36:16

ryanboy

I think there needs to be less of a stigma attached to paedophilia

NO THERE DOES NOT

As for the rest of your post, I don't think I've seen that much bullshit since I was last in a cow field.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 13:39:08

yy ryanboy

ryanboy Tue 14-May-13 13:41:28

Can you explain your point bumpingfuglies Not so long ago people would have been saying the same thing about homosexuals?

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:42:51

OP

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?

I bloody hope not. But the links suggest otherwise sad

confusteling Tue 14-May-13 13:42:55

Agreed with Ryan. If there was safe, non judgemental help for adults who feel they are at risk of abusing someone then I think things could improve a lot. Offering very little help - as the situation currently is - cant be helping. As it is paedophilia is classed as a paraphilia and a mental disorder I think, so surely it ought to be created in a similar manner to schizophrenia for example..

squeakytoy Tue 14-May-13 13:42:58

how can anyone justify comparing sexual abuse of CHILDREN with homosexuality???

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:44:37

ryanboy - homosexuality is not ILLEGAL. Is it?

Shall we get all understanding and touchy feely with rapists as well? Not judge them? How about murderers?

bubblesinthesky Tue 14-May-13 13:44:38

I THINK what Ryanboy means is that if someone is attracted to children then there needs to be appropriate support available to stop them acting on that attraction.

I THINK he's trying to draw a distinction between a desire and acting on that desire and saying our disdain and hatred should be reserved for those who act rather than those who desire.

If he's not then he's talking bull shit. If he is I do understand his argument.

i do agree with the OP though. Sadly our country's power structures appear to be deeply corrupted sad

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:48:33

Potential Murderer - I want to kill someone
Police - follow me into this nice locked cell.

Potential Paedophile - I want to abuse a child
Sit down and have a cup of tea and tell me all about it

WTF??

Shakirasma Tue 14-May-13 13:48:41

Whatever somebody's desires, the thing about being human and not like other animals is our ability to control our urges.

So pedophiles who haven't got the strength to control themselves (wtf!) sit firmly with the rapists and the stigma is appropriate!

How dare anybody compare them to the unkind stigma once given to 2 consenting homosexual adults!

noblegiraffe Tue 14-May-13 13:49:15

Is this OP genuine information or is it like the Lord McAlpine thing?

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:50:00

How can removing the stigma and therefore making it MORE acceptable help? That's crazy!

Punkatheart Tue 14-May-13 13:50:17

Oh dear. Yes, I understand that the compulsion re paedophilia is a mental disorder. But I am compulsed to do lots of things. I see a sexy young builder and I say 'phwoar' (to myself) but I DO NOT put my hands down his trousers or assault him. No one has to have sex or assault another human being, particularly a vulnerable one.

Homosexuality is NOT comparable. It is between consenting adults generally. It really should not be brought into the equation.

Yes, paedophilia should be dealt with and yes, the hysteria is hard to contain and can sometimes be counter-productive. But there also needs to be a distinction between people who have the thoughts - and should therefore be treated - and people who act upon their impulses.

That said, I can't imagine a more horrendous thing for a person who knows they have those thoughts and who fears what they might do, to seek help rather than go underground and then be abused and called names. So yes, there should be more discussion.

confusteling Tue 14-May-13 13:50:25

There's a very big difference from someone who has the thought that a child is sexually attractive, and someone who chooses to act on that thought. The latter indicates a conscious and wrong choice. The former doesn't suggest any choice.

noblegiraffe Tue 14-May-13 13:50:32

A potential murderer wouldn't be led to a locked cell by the police, there's no such thing a thought crime.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 13:51:09

ryanboy - we tried that during 1980s & 90s under the watchful eye of Ray Wyre who developed therapies for child abusers or child abuse consumers called masturbatian satiation involving him bringing child abuse imagery into his treatment centres like Gracewell. And then it turns out he was a child abuser himself after he died. Quelle Surprise.

Just like the chap responsible for training social workers on working with children in care, vulnerable in being away from home Peter Righton (the one Tom Watson was asking qns about his correspondence and which abusers in parliament it identified) turns out to be a child abuser. Worked for National Childrens Bureau as well.

At the powerful and influential level we are talking about these people feel entitled to be abusing children. They love their ancient greek biblical mythical imagery in jokes, Pan, Spartacus - it links them to feeling noble in their abuse of little boys, like the senators of old (except they don't seem to want to use the word pederast which I thought was the appropriate term?) is an entire subculture, a community the rest of us mere mortals cannot hope to understand, where current choice of children to abuse are referred to as "hobbies" and young boy runaways ensnared on streets near major railway stations are called "chickens" and their pimps are called chickenmasters. It's very difficult not to judge when you realise the world we have allowed them to create for our children, that we have been complicit in creating with them. If I can judge myself I can judge them too.

Bloodybridget Tue 14-May-13 13:51:31

Bumping - homosexuality (sexual acts between consenting adult males) was illegal in England until 1967. So it's not unreasonable to make the comparison, without condoning sexual abuse of children or saying that "prejudice against paedophiles" is wrong. I don't believe people choose to be sexually attracted to children, but they do have a choice re. acting on the attraction.

confusteling Tue 14-May-13 13:52:13

To be fair if you indicate that you want to kill someone you will not be hailed until you make active plans and begin to act on your choice. You would in the first instance be offered some kind of help , probably psychiatric.

BumpingFuglies Tue 14-May-13 13:59:05

It is unreasonable and frankly stupid to make a comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia because homosexuality is CONSENSUAL. Yes it was illegal, but it is not now.

And no you would not be locked up for thinking about murder, but you would be likely to be if you SAID it.

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 14:05:38

There have been cases, thinking Raul Moat and the woman who killed a stranger in the street, after telling police repeatedly that is what they were going to do.

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 14:06:34

I've often thought some of the sentences for child sex crimes are ridiculously lenient (dodgily so)

EllieArroway Tue 14-May-13 14:06:44

And no you would not be locked up for thinking about murder, but you would be likely to be if you SAID it

No. You would if you threatened it - but if you sought help because you were having fantasies about murder & were worried you'd carry it out, you'd be offered support. There was a recent case where exactly this happened.

Also, there is a website (can't remember what it's called) offering support to people who are attracted to children but who have absolutely no intention, under any circumstances, of abusing a child.

The Guardian linked to it once when they had an article about this...and some of the stories on there really gave me food for thought.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:10:10
bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 14:10:44

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.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:12:21

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.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:15:02

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.

confusteling Tue 14-May-13 14:16:24

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..

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:17:55

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.

TentativeWhistleBlower Tue 14-May-13 14:19:15

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.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 14:19:49

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.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:23:03

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?

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 14:35:01

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.

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 14:39:40

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.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 14:40:57

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.

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 14:46:19

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?

babyhammock Tue 14-May-13 14:52:21

Exactly what ballinacup said

hiddenhome Tue 14-May-13 14:54:52

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.

bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 15:00:47

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.

bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 15:02:40

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.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:03:44

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.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 15:10:00

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"

Tanith Tue 14-May-13 15:12:15

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?

bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 15:14:41

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.

musickeepsmesane Tue 14-May-13 15:16:48

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.

bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 15:21:12

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.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 15:21:14

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.

bottleofbeer Tue 14-May-13 15:27:02

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.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 15:27:11

Can a paedophile not be an abuser iyswim?

If you have sex with a child are you not abusing that child?

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:33:33

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....

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:35:48

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.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 15:38:04

yes, someone sexually attracted to children.

But if you act on that attraction, doesn't that make you an abuser?

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 15:38:11

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.

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 15:38:21

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.

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 15:38:26

Intra I mean.

TheseFoolishThings Tue 14-May-13 15:42:49

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.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 14-May-13 15:47:17

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....

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 15:50:15

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.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:51:33

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.

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 15:53:28

Looking at child porn is acting on it though isn't it? There's a victim.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 14-May-13 15:53:28

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 sad

How is so much being covered up?

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 15:53:39

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.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 15:54:31

"Looking at child porn is acting on it though isn't it? There's a victim."

Excellent point, CuntChops

shock

shock

shock

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 15:54:47

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.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 14-May-13 15:55:55

Agree Cuntchops.

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.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:58:05

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.....

Abra1d Tue 14-May-13 15:58:37

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.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 14-May-13 15:58:38

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?

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 15:58:51

I already said that viewing child porn is actively offending.

BollyGood Tue 14-May-13 15:59:51

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.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:01:21

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.

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:01:51

Didn't This Morning do a piece where someone befriended a peadophile to stop him offending?

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:02:32

So not talking about it ever is the answer Gogo? hmm

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 16:02:48

bolly if you read what was said in context you will see that that did NOT happen.

The point being made was that homosexuality used to be considered a 'choice' and hence was illegal. But we got past that and accepted that people are just the way they are and not evil for it. Paedophiles are also not making a 'choice' and are not intrinsically evil - but that is where the comparison ends. Homosexuality can be expressed consensually where as paedophilia cannot.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:04:17

I mean, is there actually any proof that counselling someone is enough to stop them enacting their urges? If we said those found guilty of child abuse were given a mandatory 30 yr sentence I imagine there would be more control of impulses!

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 16:04:37

There are schemes where volunteers work with convicted sex offenders to help support and prevent further offending. This is only beneficial to some offenders.

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 16:07:58

Thing is ICBINEG is that you keep talking about paedophiles as if they are a homogenous group. They aren't. Some have a deviant sexual attraction to children, some know it is wrong, some believe they are right. Some offend inside the family, some outside. Some are violent men who cause harm to a range of victims in different ways etc. there is no one 'solution' to this.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:09:25

I wonder how many filthy deviants would become " counsellors". Getting to discuss the very thing they signed up to eliminating??

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:09:31

I'm no expert, but I always felt peadophiles don't consider what they do as 'wrong' in a moral sense, just that society sees it that way. I think they think 'normal' people just don't understand?
so, to seek help, you would have to consider it wrong in the first place.

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:10:17

X post nelly

Abra1d Tue 14-May-13 16:10:36

There are two issues here, Gogo: the treatment of convicted paedophiles and the treatment of people who admit to urges that they have not yet acted on. The latter category are not (yet) criminals. Surely it is better to stop them from becoming so?

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:11:48

icbineg I think paedophiles are intrinsically evil and are making a choice

AvrilPoisson Tue 14-May-13 16:13:28

i am not sure that having prolonged sexual fantasies about anything is normal/healthy tbh.

I think one of the reasons people who have been abused also perpetrate abuse is not for revenge, power etc, but because their own personal and sexual development was arrested at the time of their abuse, meaning that they may find attraction to children because they see them as peers IYSWIM.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:19:14

Arghh really want to stay on this thread but toddler is having none of it. abra1d I just honestly cannot see how you can help those who have yet to act on their urges. Surely tougher deterrents have to be used? It makes me feel very uneasy the suggestion that paedophillia could be normalised via counselling/we know its not your fault approach. I just think we have to say, as a society "cope and control" or you will be ostracised

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:20:05

That's what we have been doing for years Gogo it's not working.

My life ryanboy jeezus, your post at the very startshock-Yes there should be a bloody stigma attached, after all what normal person has sexual desire for a child?!!!confused

Yes in answer to op, i also find it very disturbing that it comes to light there are so many paedophiles amongst actors that have had access to children throughout their lifes and makes me wonder greatly whether they went into that particular business to gain access to children & teenssad

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:25:19

I agree with ryanboy.

The thing with pedophilia is that it's such an emotive subject most people cannot have a rational debate about it without it becoming an atmosphere of pitchforks at dawn. Case and point this thread.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:26:03

cuntchops we don't give 30 yrs mandatory to paedophiles so we do not have an effective deterrent. In fact there is a lovely chance that after viewing child porn and molesting or raping a child a judge will say 2 years because they got off on the details of the trial.

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:28:00

Locking someone up does not cure them of a mental disorder hmm

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:29:00

* runrabbit* because some of us have differing views you doesn't make us idiots with pitchforks. It's a hugely emotive subject.

discotequewreck Tue 14-May-13 16:29:49

Ryanboy's posts are utter bullshit.

Attraction to children, isn't a sexual preference. It is about power, control and a complete lack of empathy for minors and innocents.

Child abusers are quite often sociopathic and very dangerous individuals

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:29:53

Is paedophillia a mental disorder or a deviant sexual urge?

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:30:47

Which is what started this thread, loads of judges are corrupt child abusers, or have a funny handshake that insists a certain lawyers client gets off regardless.

I don't think big sentences stop child abuse, there are massive sentences for murder in america, it does nothing.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:31:45

So if your DH came home tonight and said they fantasised about having sex with 6 year olds how many would say " I'm glad we've got that out in the open now let's see if we can get you some counselling "

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:34:19

cuntchops I reckon the social profile of Uk paedophiles vs US murderers is very different. Judges, GPS, politicians, entertainers have masses to lose by a 30 yr sentence so it could be more of a deterrent

I think castration would cure them, and i don't mean medically either. If they don't have the equipment, they can't do the harm, that with the tablets aswell should stop them completely.

We should be past caring whether this a mental illness or not and start caring about the children that are affected and protecting them. After all they are the innocents in this.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:35:15

runrabbit??

squeakytoy Tue 14-May-13 16:35:31

The only stigma that needs removing is for the victims, so that they dont feel ashamed to speak out.

SamraLee Tue 14-May-13 16:36:24

But paedophillia doesn't mean you'll sexual abuse children though.

I think it all boils down to whether or not you believe a person with paedophillia is a person with a mental illness, sexual preference, or just a "bad person" for lack of a better word.

If someone has schizophrenia and they murder someone, do you think that prison time is appropriate for them? That person commited a horrible crime because of their mental illness. We should be attempting to cure them.

If someone is born heterosexual, homosexual, or a paedophile then they can't help who they are attracted to because it's the way their brain/genes/whatever works. They are born that way and they can't help it, just like a homosexual person who hides their feelings and dates a person of the opposite sex. The main difference being is it isn't
right for someone to have sexual relationship with someone who didn't/can't consent (like a child). So do we have support groups and talk about ways of coping, much like you would someone who has an incurable disease?

Or are they just horrible people and should be ignored until they act or try to act and then imprison them, kill them, get rid of them because well, they are horrible.

It's hard to say as it's viewed so negatively by society and I don't think there has been enough reasearch into it.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:37:32

pumpkinsweetie and squeakytoy yy

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:37:41

GogoGobo I didn't call anyone an idiot.

Punkatheart Tue 14-May-13 16:38:29

Also, just because you don't have a willy, it doesn't mean you can't abuse. Also - although it's rarer - there are female paedophiles.

This is ultimately a huge, knotty, controversial subject.

Castrating them wouldn't work, they have hands, mouths and other objects to use.

What would stop child sexual abuse? The perpetrator of these crimes has to agree to undergo medical procedures, talking therapies only work for some, CBT only work for some. Longer sentences wouldn't work as a deterrent. Whats the answer?

nellyjelly Tue 14-May-13 16:39:24

There is tons of research.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 16:41:12

runrabbit you said lock someone up for a mental disorder. Is paedophilla a mental disorder?

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:43:00

GogoGobo Not sure which question was directed at me, the DH one or if it's a disorder one.

tb Tue 14-May-13 16:43:03

Rather than removing the prejudice against paedophiles, I'd like to see the complete removal of prejudice against their victims.

As someone who was abused, and then tricked into revealing it at work, I was then forced out of my job.

Thanks Littlewoods

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:44:11

GogoGobo Yes it is. And it is listed in the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (DSM).

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 16:45:15

But surely the misunderstood ones, if they're not 'bad' or 'evil' will never offend?

Those advocating support and gentle hand holding need to decide: paedophiles are either mentally ill, in which case they need treating in a secure facility where they can not hurt their victims, or they are criminals who do not deserve a soft and gentle approach.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 16:50:16

"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."

Bottleofbeer - what if the "sexual orientation" was actually geared to control and power? If you take the "sex" bit out of child abuse it is very clearly about the thrill of corruption - and not corruption in the Mary Whitehouse sense - Graham Ovenden is a point in case on this.

When he painted those pictures , according to the trial reports, he talked of capturing the fall from grace, garden of eden etc loads of waffly wannebe William Blake Miltonesque stuff. What he was actually doing was producing paintings of young girls being corrupted as every time they sat for the painting he abused them (blindfolded telling them it was his thumb they were being forced to perform a taste test on) looking fragile, corruptable, vulnerable, defencesless in their victoriana style chiffonery he had draped them in. So all the garden of eden matephor was actually self-justification for watch me exploit the innocence and trust of childhood and then paint its disintegration.

It is the status of a child, child abusers get off on. The thrill of taking their trust away from them, of exerting power over them, playing mind games to bend them to their will. That is the sexual thrill. That is the sexual orientation. Do we tolerate that?

CuntChops Tue 14-May-13 16:50:26

Gogo The point I was making was long sentences are not a deterrent in general. Judges/politicians/actors they have their whole lives to lose, look at Ken Barlow, finished. Stuart Hall, he won't get a 30 year plus stretch, but his life is beyond ruined.

They think (in some cases they are right) that they are above the law.

Which is why it's great that so many of the old ones, that presumably thought they'd 'got away with it' are being brought down in such a public way.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 16:53:41

tb that is truly awful. Of course stigma against those abused should not exist.

This about protecting children as best we can. I believe that is best done by creating an environment where people can talk and receive support to not offend in the first place.

Let's imagine it is your son...they are 16 and they are realising that their sexual desires are not normal. Wouldn't you want them to come to you and talk? Or would you want them reading day in day out that they and everyone like them are evil scum and should be locked up and the key thrown away?

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 16:56:26

Honestly truly ICBINEG, I would want the latter for my son. I would want him to know that it was so very and deeply wrong and that his life would be miserable because of it in the hope that it would prevent him from acting on it. Some things can not be hugged out.

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 16:56:30

ballinacup It is impossible to know who will offend.

Everything isn't black and white. Who is going to help people, especially pedophiles, when it's easier and cheaper to stick them in jail. There was a clinic in Surrey that was shut down and land sold for millions by the Government.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:00:54

Have we had Tom Watson on webchat yet? Or Mark TW or WT chap who did the ITV exposure program? I want to know how to stay out of the way of these abusers in power

finickypinickity Tue 14-May-13 17:02:56

I was horrified to see that people actually collected Graham Ovendens 'so called' artwork.

It makes you wonder who bought it and what for.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 17:10:06

ballina you would rather your own son thought himself evil,despicable and deserving of punishment for the thoughts and desires that come naturally to him, than spoke to you and got treatment for his condition?

fuck me!

And it doesn't bother you that he might actually be less likely to offend with support and treatment than with fear and isolation?

Just stab the knife straight in....

Tell me you don't actually have children....PLEASE.

RiotsNotDiets Tue 14-May-13 17:10:34

Is pedophilia really a sexual orientation?

I mean, 'rapist' isn't classed as a sexual orientation is it? Rape has nothing to do with sex, it's about exercising power and control over another person.

A pedophile is not forcing sexual activity on a child because they're attracted to them, they are forcing them to be involved in activities they are not ready for, able to consent to and do not want because they can and enjoy the feeling of power and control they get by forcibly taking a child's innocence away from them.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 17:11:18

riots paedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

HTH

giraffacake Tue 14-May-13 17:12:28

I saw a documentary about a guy who felt sexually attracted to children and he felt awful about it. He went to a psychiatrist but it didn't really change his feelings so he asked a doctor to chemically castrate him. After living with this chemical castration (a non permanent procedure) he then decided to be permanently castrated. He never violated any children and always said that he had no control over the "urges" (which went away after the castration).

Was pretty thought provoking.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 17:14:06

remind me...did beating the homosexuality out of children work?

did beating schizophrenia or any other MH disorder out of children work?

did exorcism work?

why is anyone in this day and age under the impression that you can beat a sexual attraction to children out of someone?

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 17:14:36

I agree ryanboy it is a very good point and one that needs to be looked at more

there are many many men and women who are sexually attracted to children who never ever act on it. We need to as a society understand this more so those that do can get the support and help they need

those who choose to abuse we need to understand more about why they do

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 17:16:01

No it isn't Riots

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:16:36

Kinsey collected "data" on child sexuality using a prolific predatory child abuser....seriously, you can't make it up.
spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/kinseys-paedophiles/

We've been groomed, we've been told we've been groomed, we're still being groomed, and we seem to like it that way.That's the depressing conclusion I keep arriving it but is this reality or are we going to decide we don't want to be groomed anymore? Is there still even a choice if the clock can't be rewound and survivors of abuse across 6 generations of children in care (Kincora; N Wales; Islington; Lambeth: Leicestershire (Frank Beck)) still await justice for the powerful high profile abusers. It just defies belief.

If you accept that it the wish to control and have power over certain others is a "sexual orientation" which is S&M directed towards children ok then? Is the addition of children to the sexual fetish mix just where we're at now in UK society? Jeffrey Epstein is just a little 'premature' in his tastes? Like I said, my jaw is pretty much on the ground every day with barristers campaigning for age of consent to be lowered to age 13 and decrying witch hunts against old men as repugnant. Remember - the link to the Cooke, Bailey ring (who were not killing children while loving them - god love Jason Swift and his poor family who had to know what they'd done to their boy). This was not an overenthusiastic hug gone wrong. And it's to them via Peter Righton that that alleged abusers in Parliament are linked. It can't get MUCH worse than that can it?

Is anyone else following this? Op Fernbridge? Elm Guest House?

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:27:03

Riots - what is unknown really is the extent of abuse Savile perpetrated on mental health or SEN victims due to low level of reporting. We do know however that he didn't stop at terminally ill or paraplegic or temporarily anesthestised.

I think the type of child abuse we're looking at with Savile and those he supplied with children to abuse is of the deepest depravity possible and it is not JUST about being a child that causes the attraction it is the status and mental state of being a child or in a trusting or vulnerable position like a child (even where older) that is the object of the attraction and therefore is even broader in its potential.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:32:59

Also there's a whole swathe of male sexual abuse survivors that we're denying exist in the press at the moment and therefore probably don't have great support structures in place. The public school system and the infiltration of certain schools (both religious and non-religious) is going to have had great impact at a certain level of society.

IfNotNowThenWhen Tue 14-May-13 17:37:28

Peadophilia is just not comparable in any way to Homosexuality. Not because one is legal, and the other isn't. But because one is immoral, and the other isn't.
Sexual attraction to children is a sexual disorder (and is considered so in every functioning society in the world) and it is not curable, with any amount of therapy.
The best that can be done is to remove paedophiles from society, so that they cannot cause pain and suffering to others, and also so that they cannot create potential future abusers.
And looking at images of children being abused IS abuse by proxy imo.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 17:38:06

I am shock at some of the responses. Though illegal until recently, homosexuality is between two consenting adults, paedophilia is not. It's a despicable act violating children and shoul severely punished. Thought I feel that those expressing a sexual desire for children need more tan counselling, they need proper psychiatric intervention, and should not be allowed in the community until those desires are gone

MooncupGoddess Tue 14-May-13 17:39:37

The stories that have come out in the last months and years are absolutely horrific and I have no intention of trivialising this enormously important issue.

But I do think that as a society we are slowly (admittedly, too slowly) beginning to grasp the extent of the problem and taking steps to locate and punish perpetrators. Yes there is still a very long way to go, but I don't think one should (for example) take the ridiculous comments of one barrister, immediately disavowed by her chambers, as representing the views of the profession or population as a whole.

IfNotNowThenWhen Tue 14-May-13 17:44:15

And I agree-calling it "a sexual orientation" is repellent.
To want to corrupt, rape and control is way, way beyond the mild term "orientation"
It has more in common with Psychopathy.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 17:46:22

The consequences of abuse are devastating and life changing for the child involved, to trivialise it is unacceptable.

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 17:46:32

IfNot And how do you propose we remove them from society? Stick them all on an island together?

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:50:46

RunRabbit - Isle of Wight is that place....hasn't got the most prison places for sex offenders of anywhere in UK? It's quite a concentration. Would be surprised if Savile doesn't turn out to be a regular round that way too.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 17:51:24

Good idea RunRabbit!

IfNotNowThenWhen Tue 14-May-13 17:52:32

I don't really care how they do it.

Fakebook Tue 14-May-13 17:56:25

This thread is chilling.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 17:57:25

Clegg and Cameron must feel like they've unwrapped the last wrapping on the pass the parcel only to find it contains a crock of shit attached to a timebomb set to go off on their watch.

The party whips must be working overtime.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 17:58:06

Why Fake!

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 17:58:41

Well it's not going to happen. So if we want to protect our children we have to deal with it instead of getting hysterical.

Fakebook Tue 14-May-13 18:00:20

The whole aspect of viewing paedophilia as a sexual preference is chilling.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 18:01:07

Wish it would. I am not worried Run but like many have my views on Paedophiles and I am entitled to it.

pigletmania Tue 14-May-13 18:02:15

Oh right ok, it's not it's about control, domination and violation of a young vulnerable child

farewellfarewell Tue 14-May-13 18:05:45

Fakebook, I agree with you, some of the responses here have left me chilled to the core. I am shock

DioneTheDiabolist Tue 14-May-13 18:06:34

sad

As interesting and insightful as this discussion has become, I can't see that anyone is addressing the main crux of the OP. Our law makers, keepers and protectors are covering up the crimes of sexual predators for political ends.shock

For every paedophile protected there are numerous damaged children and adults whose pain is dismissed. Abused children suffer at the time of the abuse, but this can be heavily mitigated if, when they report the abuse, that they are believed and understood. The victims of these abusers suffer from the abuse and they suffer from being dismissed. In many cases they are called liars and branded trouble makers.

But I think that most people prefer to not to acknowledge this. It's too scary.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 18:14:02

Dione - that's where I'm at. I am fucking terrified. But I can't look away now. I feel I ought to do something but what? My pitchfork is well and truly in B&Q unpurchased I promise you.If it's torches, I'll be bringing some scented candles. It has to be through legitimate democratic means, it has to be in a way that still invests trusts in the system I believe to have been corrupted, if only to re-invest them with some power for those police/judges etc who are not psychopaths.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 18:16:01

Look at Jersey and Haut de la Garenne - they know Savile was operating in Jersey and Edward Paisnel the Beast was operating there until 1973. Yet the investigation was smeared and independent coppers were pulled off the investigation while BBC Jersey failed to note much of a commotion about anything.

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 18:18:49

Actually ICBINEG I have a DS and yes, I would rather he felt reviled than felt he could normalise his urges.

I actually find it worrying that you hold such liberal-in-the-face-of-morality views when you have a young daughter. How would you react if your DP told you he wanted to fuck children like your daughter?

Sorry to be so base but that is the crux of what you're suggesting.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 18:23:15

Charlie Uniform: Me too. Leveson had to happen before Savile could break. It is no coincidende Nick Davies was at forefront of pushing hackgate/operation motorman etc and has also written very detailed well researched articles about UK links to international/Amsterdam child abuse networks. Murdoch, politicians and entirety of press were locked in one big stalemate. Murdoch was willing to trade knowledge of child abusers in power for media megalomania dreams come true. Max Clifford was probably scourge of them so no surprise he's an early public arrest. The celebrity arrests are going to be straightforward compared to arresting a former tory cabinet minister in wake of Thatcher funeral for example. Police must need intelligence permission to go ahead with even investigating - that's what we're being told when Cyril Smith is being protected by Special Branch officers. The Whips Dirt Book promotes a sysmte that promotes those with the dirtiest secret as being the easiest to control.

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 18:27:39

Focault This isn't new information is it though?

Any position where there is power there will be corruption because of things like greed and ruthless ambition.

To think you can stamp issues like these out and have an honest, trustworthy system is a little naive.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 18:31:01

balling but if a man or women were to feel sexually attracted to children is it not better than can actually get some help rather than just quietly hate themselves, this can lead to self destructive behaviour and that could lead to not caring for others too and in turn harming others

no one wants to hear that someone they love is attracted to children it would be devastating but if someone is reaching out for help that is what they need not to be told they are evil when they have done nothing wrong

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 18:33:31

But Freudian, what would you do if your actual DH expressed a desire to have sex with your actual children. How understanding would you be?

Not a theoretical DH or theoretical children. Your own. What then?

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 18:33:59

RunRabbit - no you are right - it is different when child abuse becomes the currency of politics to such a degree though. That's what I've been naive about. That blackmail is the currency of politics is basic Yes Minister BBC 101. That sexually abusing children is so regularly the subject of the blackmail as to be something Edwina Currie can laugh about in her bigoraphy when writing about Peter Morrison MP and his liking for young boys (presumably she reported at the time? She says she did what she was able on twitter) is pretty fucking chilling to me. He was supposed to be running Thatcher's election campaign.

rosepettel Tue 14-May-13 18:35:54

children are not sexual so its not sexual perfrance of course

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 18:38:49

I am not saying I would stay in that relationship I do not think I could but I would try and support them getting help

there are men and women who are sexually attracted to children and do noting but hate themselves, there are others who act on it and hate themselves (rightly so for causing so much pain) the there are those that do not care and abuse children it is not always about sexual attraction to children but power it is complex and we as a society need to understand it better to deal with this terribe problem

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 18:39:16

OK imagine the logic of this: You're in court prosecuting a man for having over a million images of child abuse on his home PC, around 10,000 of them are level 4 - 5 in severity (rape beastiality torture involving children - we are seeing more and more and more of this level) - and in mitigation his defence lawyer argues that AS A PERCENTAGE 10,000 images represents less than (shit my maths is bad and my memory of maths is worse help) 1% so the fact that he ONLY has that many violent child abuse images actually goes in his favour. You point this out to be told it is not considering the evidence IN CONTEXT deep booming patronising voice optional

TheseFoolishThings Tue 14-May-13 19:07:24

Fakebook squeaky piglet and maybe one or two others need applauding. The child sex apologists are so out of order. Any paedophile reading this will be rubbing their hands in glee. THIS is the message they'd love to get 'out there'. It's up to ordinary right-thinking people to make sure it doesn't. And if that means chemical castration or shipping the fuckers off to an island somewhere - so be it.

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 19:14:20

Don't think anyone has defended the sexual abuse of children on this thread hmm

Totally agree these, how can anyone make excuses for these vile specimens, is beyond my comprehension.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 19:21:22

TheseFoolishThings

do you know anyone who is sexually attracted to children chances are you do maybe not someone close and hopefully not and you have no idea and never will as they may not actually act on it

no one on here has defended sexual abusers or claimed that abusers can not help themselves

TheseFoolishThings Tue 14-May-13 19:22:32

Sorry pumpkin - should have acknowledged your input too. Shocked beyond belief at this thread.

SamraLee Tue 14-May-13 19:29:48

How anyone can think that being a paedophile means that you sexually abuse children is what I can't understand. That's like saying just because she's gay it means she wants to have sex with all women. It's just stupid. The definition of paedophile means they find children sexually attractive.

I read a story once about a dad and his son. Dad goes to GP and say I need help I think my son is a paedophile and I want to get him help. GP does nothing. Dad goes again and say I'm worried he will hurt a child I saw on his computer he's looking at images of child sexual abuse, please do something, they put his son on the list to see someone, but really, do nothing. Dad finds out his son captures a girl, but the girl beats him off and gets away, thankfully nothing happened to the girl, she was obviously really shook up though.

Where is in the world is this the right thing to happen? Where you can't turn to anyone for help?

They don't need help, they need to be locked up for life as it's been proven nothing stops their desires for long. And no it wouldn't stop them completely but castration & medication & going behing bars atleast will stop the majority of them looking and harming young kids.

Oh and no i don't know one, and if i did i wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of them, infact i would disown and make people aware of any such person if i ever came across one, regardless of relation

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 19:39:16

Yes pumpkin because that's realistically going to happen.

It's not, but it should happen. Hopefully one day we will have a government that cares more for protecting children.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 19:50:14

Pumpkin the fact is no one knows how many people are paedophiles but many are not acting on it and very very few admit to it

we will all know someone that is and have no idea and they may actually hate how they feel and never do anything to harm a child and sadly some of us will know people who do abuse and again we shall never know

how can we punish people for what they feel and not act on those feelings and not want to as it disgusts them so much

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:03:29

ballina If my DH told me he wanted to fuck children then I would be gutted and despairing.

But I would rather he told me about it than actually did it. By a LONG WAY.

And I would rather live in a society that respected his bravery in owning his abnormality and getting help with it than one that condemned him as evil simply for having the desires he was born with.

What is chilling about that exactly?

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:13:49

God it is SOO easy to take everyone that is different and put them in a box marked evil. How lovely your lives must be that you truly believe the world works like that.

Putting people in a box marked evil was exactly what has been done to any number of segments of society that are actually simply different.

In the case of paedophilia we CANNOT allow those who are different to follow their desires because it would harm children.

That is the only difference between their difference from the norm and those who have say Gerontophilia (sexual attraction to elderly people), Menophilia (sexual attraction to menstruation) or a thousand other known deviations from the human norm of sexual attraction.

Only if they actual involve or in any other way harm children are they in any sense vile, disgusting, criminal or any of the other names being bandied about on this thread.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 20:19:21

I agree that the word "evil" is unhelpful.

But just how many tortured, desperate to ask for help, child-sexual-preference-feelers are there?

And how many fucked-up souls that normalise it and act on it?

Fakebook Tue 14-May-13 20:19:24

What is chilling about that ICBINEG, is that when someone starts talking openly about their immoral and illegal desires, be it cannibalism or paedophilia, the whole idea of it can suddenly become acceptable in society "as long as its openly discussed and the person is getting help". By giving them the platform to do this we will make our children more vulnerable to these type of individuals because the come back to every time a child is abused will be "oh, but he/she was getting help for it".

They can't be cured.

The apologies are rolling in-these people (if you want to call them that) cannot be helped FACT.
A paedophile is a paedophile.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:30:57

Gosh there are a lot of people certain that someone with paedophilia will always offend...and equally certain that there can and never will be an effective treatment.

I have heard otherwise. I have heard that not all those with paedophilia will ever offend and that many paedophiles were treated successfully with CBT combined methods but that 'the public' would prefer to stick 'em in the slammer wearing a big hat marked 'evil' than actually get them well.

A concept that I personally found impossible to believe until I saw this thread.

People on here would actually rather leave criminal paedophiles in a position to re-offend rather than treat them! All for the sake of feeling you have had your revenge.

Is it possible you could see past your collective need to dehumanise these people long enough to allow society to do better at protecting our children than we currently are?

RunRabbit Tue 14-May-13 20:32:41

And how does vilifying them help anyone?

All it does is make them secretive and push things further underground.

How does that help the victims?

At least treating them is doing something. What other realistic options are there?

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:36:39

hully isn't it better to unfuck someone's soul so they don't do it again then to stick them in prison then wait for them to do it all over again when they get out?

I'm not sure how relevant it is how they got to where they are....we need to do what ever works best in stopping them from hurting children.

I can't see how making the whole topic undiscussable, the addmission of suffering from paedophilia a total impossibility, and the rehabilitation of offenders a lower priority than their 'punishment' can possibly be the best way to stop children being harmed.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 20:41:09

I don't know.

I don't know if someone can be "cured" any more than they can of homosexuality/shoe fetishism/bondage etc.

Could you be "cured" of your orientation?

Isn't it odd to think that adult to adult is the norm and any "deviation" can be "cured"?

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 20:44:17

"How anyone can think that being a paedophile means that you sexually abuse children is what I can't understand. That's like saying just because she's gay it means she wants to have sex with all women. It's just stupid. The definition of paedophile means they find children sexually attractive."

This is just wrong.
Inaccurate, dangerous and scary thought process.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 20:46:20

And by the way, SamraLee if a pedophile "only" indulges in imagery/videos/pictures he or she is already participating in child abuse.

babyhammock Tue 14-May-13 20:50:16

That is the only difference between their difference from the norm and those who have say Gerontophilia (sexual attraction to elderly people), Menophilia (sexual attraction to menstruation) or a thousand other known deviations from the human norm of sexual attraction.

The difference is that all those other 'deviations' can likely be satisfied by another fully consenting adult.

If someone is of a particular orientation then it is fair to say that the chances are high that they will act on this in some way or other even if it is just images.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:55:47

poppy the definition of paedophilia IS finding pre-pubescent children sexually attractive.

And it is very far from true that everyone with paedophilia will act on it.

hully I thought the whole point of CBT is to retrain your brain. There are lots of things you can train yourself to like or hate against your initial preference. No doubt you could also 'cure' yourself of heterosexuality if you tried long enough.

And yes it is always going to be difficult to take the full glorious range of human sexual behaviour and split into neat boxes labelled 'fine', 'unusual but fine', and 'needs curing' but sometimes peoples natures are incompatible with allowing others freedom to live their lives free from fear and abuse. So something has to give.

If you give a criminal paedophile the choice of changing their nature or staying in prison for ever then they can choose whichever is the lesser of two evils for them. This is the price of a civilized society...it cannot be equal freedom for all.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 20:57:07

baby Are you repeating me for some reason? I said the difference is we cannot allow them to indulge on the previous line to the one you quote?

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:00:30

Is it reasonable to say that people are generally at the mercy of their sexual desires?

That people in general satisfy them without thought for the consequences?

Do you have a one night stand every time you feel attracted to someone? Or do you give thought to the consequences to your marriage?

Bringing priests into this might not be a good move but the vast majority of celibate priest actually manage it and presumably they still have desire?

In the days when homosexuality was criminalized many many people will have been operating against their desires.

So is it really so obvious that we are slaves to our sexual desires in general?

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 21:03:26

I don't think CBT would cut it, it wouldn't even start it.

Hullygully Tue 14-May-13 21:04:38

And they've made really really sterling efforts to cure people of homosexuality...including electroshock, aversion therapy etc etc

Ain't none of it worked.

Theironfistofarkus Tue 14-May-13 21:05:50

Haven't read all this thread but the Lucy Faithfull foundation offer services to help people who are sexually attracted to children avoid offending. See www.stopitnow.org.uk

babyhammock Tue 14-May-13 21:08:42

No one is saying a paedophile will see all children as a target....

However as I've said, if someone is of a particular orientation then it is fair to say that the chances are high that they will act on this in some way or other even if it is just images.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 21:09:20

I am not sure CBT would work alone to cure someone but it may help those who want to manage their feelings, stop them obsessing so much, understand themselves (along with other therapy) and hopefully not act on their desire. This would be for those who want to change. Of course you will get those who do not want to and will hide behind wanting to but some will and surely we need to treat them as humans not animals

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:11:04

I thought it was widely established and accepted by medical professionals that pedophilia can not be 'cured' so this 'rehabilitation' you are talking about is nonsense.

I remember watching Louis Theroux in an American prison/centre for sex offenders, some where refusing treatment and saw nothing wrong, they were waiting for society to change their views and accept that children had a choice and were able to decide to be in a relationship etc, others who were accepting treatment still ended up excusing away their perversions.
I honestly would put my life on the line and bet that there is no paedophile in the world who hasn't looked at child pornography or committed a crime.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:11:24

hully ahh...but we don't need to cure them of paedophilia only cure them of acting on it.

So maybe you can't 'cure' someone of homosexual desire but millions of people have demonstrated that it is possible to live without gratifying that desire.

There have been trials that demonstrated that criminal paedophiles had been 'cured' of offending even if they hadn't been 'cured' of the desire.

And surely that is what we really want?

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 21:14:54

Perhaps ICBINEG you should read some of the threads on here written by survivors of abuse. Maybe you should ask them what they think of this Hug A Paedophile idea.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:14:54

OTT well if you define paedophile as someone who is so powerfully and exclusively tied to sexual desire in children that they are bound to offend then you are no doubt right...

But what of the spectrum? There must be people without raving libedos who are paedophilic? There must be people who like people of all ages (an equivalent to bisexuality perhaps)? And there are genuine cases of people pleading for help to prevent themselves from hurting anyone.

So I really wouldn't put your life on the line.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:17:05

ballina I should imagine their number one priority would be the prevention of further abuse of children....

So If hug- a paedophile as you call it prevents the most abuse I would hope they would back it.

I wouldn't speak for victims if I were you. They often have a less revenge oriented approach then the professional appalled bystanders.

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:17:31

What trials? Evidence please!

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:18:43

that should read professionally appalled bystanders

Fakebook Tue 14-May-13 21:19:42

I'm finding it absolutely astonishing that there are people out there who think you can "cure" a person of their "preference".

I find it very hard to believe that many paedophiles don't act on their feelings. It's like a crush. When you lust after someone you will try to find as much as possible about that person. Try to find pictures and have sexual fantasies about them. This is all normal in human nature. What's scary is that these people lust after children. If you think it's okay for them to have the desire, then I am sickened. I don't want my children being an object of desire. No parent does.

They often have a less revenge oriented approach

Not me, lock them up throw away the key.

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:22:53

It is one of the most basic human curiosities to indulge in sexual pleasures, be it from imagination, images, video or physical contact.

I would bet my life on it, I am that sure.

ballinacup Tue 14-May-13 21:23:06

But I do speak for victims. For the hundreds of trafficked children I help in my profession. I find your views grossly offensive, as I would imagine each of those children would.

If allowing abusers or potential abusers to normalise their thoughts without condemnation is the answer, you are asking the wrong question.

GogoGobo Tue 14-May-13 21:26:43

Professionaly appalled bystanders? ICBINEG WTAF?!

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:27:11

Argh thanks...looking for trial papers and have discovered that incest doesn't officially count as paedophilia...

I really don't want to be thinking about these things...

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:30:11

ballina honestly if you find the opinion that we do whatever the fuck it takes to stop people offending against children up to an including giving them a gold plated medal then I don't know what to say.

Surely keeping children safe is more important than indulging in labelling and revenge?

FairPhyllis Tue 14-May-13 21:30:13

The columnist Dan Savage has talked about this.

It seems to me that generally we don't have a lot of control over how our sexuality develops in terms of what turns us on sexually - whether that's genetically or environmentally determined (possibly both). The existence of a whole range of paraphilias including paedophilia, which are all life long sexual attractions seems like reasonable evidence for this to me. I can't, for example, decide to develop a foot fetish, or persuade myself to have one by watching lots of foot porn, if there is such a thing.

But we do have control over whether we act on our desires. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that there are people out there who have a sexual attraction to children they didn't ask for AND a moral sense and who never act on their attraction - never look at child porn, never abuse a child. But if they are out there, they are almost certainly doing it with no practical/emotional support whatsoever because the stigma is so great and there aren't any actual treatments in place anyway. For example, in the US, if you went to talk to a psychiatrist about this in good faith, they would (rightly) be obliged to report you if they thought any children were at risk.

Paedophiles who watch child porn and campaign for the age of consent to be lowered, associate with each other or who attempt to normalise their paraphilia are not the good guys. They should be prosecuted if they commit offences and regarded as at risk of offending if they genuinely believe child abuse is OK. Otoh paedophiles who avoid child porn, stay away from other paedophiles so that they don't end up developing group think, don't try to normalise it and avoid situations that would provide opportunities to act on their paedophilia (and that includes having children themselves) deserve, I think, to have some sort of support/accountability structure in place and access to medication if wanted. It's possible that if more of them got that intervention early in their lives it might go some way towards helping the issues discussed in the OP.

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:32:25

Tbh I don't think you have thought about these things enough.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 21:34:25

but ballin if these people were helped before they acted on their desires, if they learned to managed how they felt deal with the often self loathing and if you hate yourself why do you care about others less children might be abused

of course it will stop all abusers but it may stop some how we are dealing with them now is not doing anything. We have another problem now that child abuse pornography is so easily available, contact with other like minded people is easier if we can work with some before they get to that stage it is a start and that will only happen if they know they will get non judgemental support

until we can read everyone's mind we have no idea how many men and women are sexually attracted to children (and going by my psychodynamic tutor who has worked for 30+ years it is many) we can not put people in prison for they way they feel

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 21:36:25

"poppy the definition of paedophilia IS finding pre-pubescent children sexually attractive."

Actually, ICBINEG I think it's widely acknowledged that it's a psychiatric disorder (unlike heterosexuality or homosexuality).

Heebiejeebie Tue 14-May-13 21:38:27

Do you believe in EVIL? That there are devils walking amongst us who should be burned or pitch forked or castrated? I don't. And that makes the whole treatment/incarceration/talking it over issue more nuanced. Shout 'burn the witch' as loud as you like, but it doesn't fix the problem. There is a spectrum of desire and acceptable behaviour, with societal norms Could it be argued that it is less morally reprehensible to fuck an animal than kill and eat it? And pretending that there's an us and them with a million miles between us is a fallacy.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 21:40:27

I agree that the most effective way to address this problem is to understand it as much as possible, but removing this powerful stigma is the first step in normalising the behaviour.

The fact that some groups already feel comfortable enough to lobby for acceptance of this "preference" is scary enough.

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:42:24

What do you think will happen when you start having nationwide pedophile group therapy sessions? More than ever they will be able to form their own like minded communities convincing themselves they suffer from a terrible affliction (self victimisation ) it is only natural to conclude this will result in normalisation at a whole new mind Fuckingly disgusting level of child abuse.
What next? Fun runs by the local primary schools to raise money for finding a paedophile cure?!

If my husband or anyone I know came to me and said they fantasised about fucking children I would hand them a knife and tell them to find a quite field and do the decent thing.

ICBINEG Tue 14-May-13 21:43:07

hmm so the rate is estimated as lower than 1 in 20 people suffer paedophilia....that's not massively reassuring.

Of which around 7% are exclusively attracted to children.

Which to me suggests that the majority of offenders can also find gratification elsewhere. And hence that their offence is more to do with having a malformed brain structure (suspected primary cause of paedophilia - often from damage during childhood/development) than to do with lack of sexual gratification. It also means there is likely a huge number of people who have felt significant attraction to both adults and children who have not acted on the later because their brains actually can process empathy etc.

Anyway I will not bother copying out wikipedia here.

If you want to read papers about successful methods of reducing offending rates using CBT then take a look at the linked articles from the wiki page on paedophilia.

If you just want to rant that 1:20 of the people you know may well be evil fuckers who deserve to die then good luck with that....our children will undoubtedly continue to reap the rewards of our short sightedness as a society.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 21:47:19

I think the wikipedia statistics are little more educated guesses, precisely because as you point out most people wouldn't seek help.

I also think that you are analysing this problem in a very academic/hypothetical way and dismissing the countless wider implications, some of which have been mentioned in this thread.

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 21:47:39

I don't think they are evil fuckers, hmm I think that they are so deformed and dangerous that being unable to be cured and not offend, means the world would be safer and better without them in it.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 14-May-13 21:49:37

would you say that to your own son OTT

It is not normalising it, it is accepting that some people feel this way and they should have the support in place to help manage their feelings

never is society going to accept that attraction and acting upon this by abusing young children acceptable we have moved on in society, sadly we have taken steps back where girls in particular are sexualised but that is a different debate

do we as a society accept that it is ok to have sex with animals no but it has been written about in literature and many rumours abound in the 70's of famous people doing so

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 21:50:46

"If you just want to rant that 1:20 of the people you know may well be evil fuckers who deserve to die then good luck with that...."

Most people on this thread haven't used reductive comments and in general it hasn't descended into the "pitchfork, kill them all" type of discourse, so this comment is unfair.

PoppyAmex Tue 14-May-13 21:53:31

Why are you assuming that a significant percentage of pedophiles would wish to be cured?

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 22:02:31

ICbinerg - are you reading none of the links to the PIE material - how about the PIE manifesto which was supported fully by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality?

They had an understanding political platform in 1975 - 1984 (when National Cuncil for Civil Liberties now Liberty formally disassociated themselves from being affiliated with Paedophile Information Exchange) They used it to identify which ppl in public office had similar procilivites and started a support network in which they normalised sexual abuse of children over 4 to the point that Harriet Harman MP and Patricia Hewitt MP (her boss at the time at NCCL) supported them! They used it to identify one another and network across government departments, social services regions, court circuits, police forces.

Where has it got us all this entertainment of civil liberties for those who wish to explot and abuse children? All this tea and sympathy.

If the top 'expert' therapist (Ry Wyre) for child sex abusers has now shown to be a child sex abuser heavily involved with a group of abusers preying on young boys doesn't this call into question his heavy emphasis on "masturbation satiation" and use of child abuse images?

At one point there was even a planning application made to build a nursery next to the Gracewell clinic (Birmingham I think) so that the child abusers being treated next door could what...have themselves tested every day for resistance? There was a vague reference to intergenerational mingling - will go and dig up where I read this. Anyway, the council entertained it as a proposition. That's how understanding, we as a society are, we will use our own children as experiments to test success of child abusers being treated.

Child protection has to come first in all of this surely?

OTTMummA Tue 14-May-13 22:17:41

Yes, yes I would, it would break me,, but i would.

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 22:27:27

Paedophiles who watch child porn and campaign for the age of consent to be lowered, associate with each other or who attempt to normalise their paraphilia are not the good guys. They should be prosecuted if they commit offences and regarded as at risk of offending if they genuinely believe child abuse is OK. Otoh paedophiles who avoid child porn, stay away from other paedophiles so that they don't end up developing group think, don't try to normalise it and avoid situations that would provide opportunities to act on their paedophilia (and that includes having children themselves) deserve, I think, to have some sort of support/accountability structure in place and access to medication if wanted. It's possible that if more of them got that intervention early in their lives it might go some way towards helping the issues discussed in the OP.

FairPhylis: The non-abusing paedophile could find private support. I doubt he/she would want to go to an advertised group like AlAnon (because of the stigma, true, but then lots of alcoholics wouldn't go to AlAnon for the same reason - PIE was not a self-help let's get cured group it was a let's find more ways to get access to children help group let's be clear) but they could seek private individual counselling and if their inner conflict was finding physical expression in self-harm or depression for example, they could start by seeking help for the symptoms of their misery and work backwards. It's what most people do in any situation where they have an inner conflict between values and behaviour. I'm sure the sruvivors find themselves not wanting to have to seek help either and ashamed but many are brave enough to have to find it for themselves, if it's available.

Also the non-abusing, no-image watching paedophile , this isolated fantasist of a paedophile whose sexual urges find no outer expression, not even an interest in childish things or a tendency to live next to playgrounds, let alone acquiring of images of child abuse won't ever get caught. Because s/he has done nothing wrong. They have effectively safeguarded themselves.

How many people have sexualities "in theory"? How many priests do we think keep the celibacy vow for example? The flip side to accepting the desire to sexually abuse children (even technically where consent is just not legally possible to where consent would not be physically possible - not capable of speech etc that has to form part of any debate) as a "sexual orientation" is ascribing it the civil and human rights such a status attracts. I can see certain human rights lawyers going down that trajectory. But as an essential immutable part of an individual's identity (hence why protected by civil liberties) that we accept ppl can't change we also have to accept that all the therapy in the wrold we sink our money into won't change them or their political beliefs if they subscribe to the PIE sense of entitlement to abuse of children. You only have to read how they ditch these boys once they begin to have facial hair and how heartbreaking it is for them to sometimes be then expected to recruit their younger more innocent unhairy replacement. That's when they realise they weren't looking for an old man lover as a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 year old. They were looking for a dad, a sense of affection, interest in their life, someone to sponge cigarettes off and nag for records like an older brother.

And back to Parliament: Is there a correlation between power, risk-taking (to make big gains you need to take large stakes), control and politics that means there's a psychopathy to the abuser in power that society is not currently equipped to deal with, right through from libel, freedom of press, ie. like the banks were too big to fail and our FS regulation came into question as being out of step with the size and scale of the markets and their players - are we now in a situation where we (joe/jospehine public, ladies of the clapham omnibus) our anachronistic criminal justice system and similarly out of step civil laws (secret courts, libel law though see recent defamation bill) means we have people who are simply too big to prosecute? ie the CPS argument policy for not prosecuting Sir Peter Hayman was look how high prfile they are, they have so far too fall, just the public humiliation is disproportionate as a punishment and therefore we will not pursue prosecutions at all in those kind of circumstances = which is surely just another way of saying "too big to prosecute?"

FocaultOff Tue 14-May-13 22:47:19

Freudian Slipper: "never is society going to accept that attraction and acting upon this by abusing young children acceptable we have moved on in society, sadly we have taken steps back where girls in particular are sexualised but that is a different debate"

I hope you're right on the first part but sexualisation of children has happened in a context so it isn't a different debate. Sir Savile's original boss was Eric Morley at Mecca, who went on to create Miss World. Miss World was once an annual televisual event for some families. Chris Denning, Tam Paton, Brian Epstein, Joe Meek, Jonathon King, were all (however bizarre it seems to me now) influential with young people, now those in their late 30s, 40s/ 50s/ 60s? Some of the people who I talk to about how unbelievable all this is who are in their 60s (I'm 30s) come out with extraordinary utterances like well that explains a lot with Jeremy Thorpe MP or Lord Boothby - and for them it's not such a surprise.

sashh Wed 15-May-13 04:48:15

How can removing the stigma and therefore making it MORE acceptable help? That's crazy!

Because it is not making child abuse any less of a stigma, but making the condition of paedophillia less stigmatised.

If you have mental health problems that mean you want to kill someone you can get help.

There are some excellent programmes used both in prison and out that stop re offending by making the offender look at his/her behaviour, the impact on the victim etc. They have a good record of working.

But these are only available to someone with a conviction.

We know that some people are more likely to abuse than others, abused children often grow into abusive adults. We know this but do we do anything about it?

I know that's slightly off topic but I think that's what ryanboy is meaning.

If you are an alcoholic and you receive treatment and become sober you are judged as having taken responsibility for your problem.

If you are attracted to children, you are deemed a pervert, even if you never act on the urge. If you attempt to receive treatment you are still seen as a pervert. If you try to access treatment you may even be told you cannot access it until you do commit an offence.

For every Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall or any of the others who may yet be found guilty there is a debris trail of victims. All of them will be scared, in many different ways, but if just one of them has become a pedophile as part of that damage, society will not care, that person will just be labelled a pervert.

Unacceptable Wed 15-May-13 05:23:48

It has taken me hours to read this thread and I think it'll take me days to digest it.

That normalising abuse can help to stop it doesn't make any sense to me.
What abuse has ever been normalized leading to a reduction???

I'm not even sure that was the point of the OP

Dawn is breaking and I think I'll leave this thread and come back one day to try and see if I can understand some of the views that are completely alien to me at the moment

Unacceptable Wed 15-May-13 05:34:28

Except to add;

When people talk of mental illness are they describing peadophillia as a mental illness or saying that some mental illness can cause a lack of judgement that then leads to thoughts or acts of abuse?

Is it just easier to label undesirable, unacceptable, immoral, abusive behaviour within a society as a mental illness for some?

Can a person be compos mentis and still want to abuse children?

duchesse Wed 15-May-13 05:52:02

There are people who know themselves to be paedophiles who manage their own behaviour by never being around children or putting themselves into a situation where they might be tempted.

Then there are those who should be strung up by the balls punished in the severest possible way.

I am amazed that no sooner does a thread start about paedophilia than some paedophilia apologists pop up and start defending the poor ickle paedophiles. Paedophiles NEVER get over it. You can't overcome paedophilia with counselling or any amount of therapy.

You just need not to fucking abuse children and wreck their lives. You need not to be so bloody selfish. Whatever that takes. If that involves chucking yourself off a bridge instead of sticking your dick into a small child, then please go for it.

Abra1d Wed 15-May-13 08:04:17

It's a despicable act violating children and shoul severely punished. Thought I feel that those expressing a sexual desire for children need more tan counselling, they need proper psychiatric intervention, and should not be allowed in the community until those desires are gone

I don't think anyone was saying this shouldn't be the case! I certainly didn't mean tea and gentle group sessions. Some paedophiles might even be guided into having hormonal castration. Worth trying, no?

The only other suggestion on this thread seems to be 'putting them on an island'.

But if you feel it's safer to keep potential paedophiles brooding on their unfulfilled fantasies in secret, fine. I happen to prefer to know that they are able to come forward and seek help before offending. Seems safer.

PoppyAmex Wed 15-May-13 08:24:39

I asked this up thread and I am genuinely interested in an answer, if someone can volunteer any studies/stats:

Why do you assume that a significant percentage of pedophiles wants to be "cured" or "helped"?

As far as I know, a sense of morality/shame and a desire to curb those appetites isn't the norm in this pathology?

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 08:53:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 08:54:20

'Why do you assume that a significant percentage of pedophiles wants to be "cured" or "helped"?
As far as I know, a sense of morality/shame and a desire to curb those appetites isn't the norm in this pathology?'

That is because we only ever know of those that go on to offend.

in my experience, paedophiles do not abuse children because they are attracted to them. It's a power thing. They want to control the child. It's not because they think "Oh my, she's so beautiful, I must have her" it's because they want to be in control. Hence the "Don't tell your mom and dad" or "No one will believe you" or "I'm the adult, everyone will agree with me"

I'm sure I read somewhere, or was it told? that getting groups of paedophiles together just makes them encourage each other and live off the stories. I can't see how something like group therapy would work to be honest.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 09:00:40

Indeed ryan there is a huge problem in under-reporting of sexual attraction to children (presumably because of the reactions shown on this thread) so we have no earthly idea what fraction of paedophiles commit abuse.

If wikipedia is correct in ball parking the rate as around 1:20 people then only a tiny tiny fraction are going on to abuse.

There is also a thing with digitally altering images of overage women to make them look childlike. For the purposes child abuse free porn.

Almost all people who view normal porn have utterly failed to follow this up with a criminal act, be it rape or DV or anything else. To assume that anyone viewing abuse free porn made to look like children would automatically offend is spurious.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 09:03:06

frying lots of people abuse others including vulnerable adults. I think that should be viewed as separate to those who abuse children specifically because they are sexually attracted to them.

The definition of paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. But the media would have you believe that practically any one anywhere who ever hurt a child did so on sexual grounds...because it sells more newspapers.....because people are strangely more revolted by sex with a child than murder of a child.

This thread gets even more disturbing, and the apologists are out once again. Hiding thread!

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 09:21:42

* pumpkinsweetie* you do not regard finding ways of preventing abuse of children important?

(PS can I just point out that 'Ryanboy' is a nickname for DS - I am female!!!}

ballinacup Wed 15-May-13 09:22:54

So now we've moved on to digitally altering existing images of women performing sexual acts to make them look like children performing sexual acts?

This is no longer a sensible debate. I simply cannot comprehend that anyone would suggest that this was okay and am, frankly, sickened, that on a parenting website any other parent would agree. I'm hiding this thread as, frankly, it's distressing to read.

Before i leave, that is not what i said. No one knows the answer, but therapy certaintly doesn't work, locking them up for life is the only answer.

Totally agree ballinna, it has reached beyond sick suggestions. I think this thread needs to be pulled tbh.

Fakebook Wed 15-May-13 09:28:16

Ryanboy's post at 08.53 has just turned my stomach. I bet paedophiles reading this are feeling very hopeful. hmm.

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 09:29:34

pumpkinsweetie and ballinacup I am sorry to have offended you, that wasn't my intention.I understand that it is a very sickening topic but I don't think burying your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away is a very constructive attitude.
We need to prioritise prevention of abuses taking place

Hullygully Wed 15-May-13 09:31:50

Going to an end point...any human that wants to hurt any other human (I would add animal/living creature too), be it sexually (and no matter the age), or physically, for whatever urge it satisfies (power/sexual), should be given drugs to make them unable to act on those urges until we create the Brave New World that doesn't have such people in it.

Hullygully Wed 15-May-13 09:32:37

There is no point in finding discussion "sickening" etc. It is discussion and exploration in the hope of leading to answers.

Computer generated images of child abuse? Digitally manipulating images of grown women to make them look like prepubescent children? Who in their right mind is going to agree to draw the images or havetheir image altered in this manner. The porn stars, the pedophilies?

What if manipulated images are not the pedophiles 'thing' what are you going to provide as wank fodder for them?

What if the pedophile wants to go beyond computer generated images cause it just ain't doing to for them anymore?

I seriously doubt you understand anything about pedophilia, child sexual abuse or the effects it has on the victims.

CuntChops Wed 15-May-13 09:38:14

It's debate though pumpkin debate leads to change.

Strange I feel the need to say no one on this thread thinks peadophilia is OK.

However, the 'lock em up and throw away the key' attitude just isn't working we need to know who they are first, to tackle it in any way, digging out the pitchforks just drives them underground.

Having authorities that are unbuyable (not a word I know, I'm tired) would help, but that's about as likely as my toddler sleeping through the night.

CuntChops Wed 15-May-13 09:39:28

FWIW I think medicinal castration is the only answer. Again though, you have to catch them first.

This thread is disgusting.

Cuntchops they also have to agree to undergo the treatment, when you're dealing with someone who believes they have done nothing wrong, they are just misunderstood or not accepted by society just yet, how do you get them to agree?

CuntChops Wed 15-May-13 09:44:12

You don't. If they are caught abusing a child, it's a rehab treatment secure unit, until the effects of the drugs are working and they are no longer a threat to children.

If you remove the stigma attached to having sexual feelings towards children, then why exactly would people volunteer to get help? Why would you need to get help for something that society views as perfectly acceptable. hmm

How exactly is it going to help victims of people who act on their abuse, if they know pedophilia is socially accepted? Do you think that'll help victims come forward?

FreudiansSlipper Wed 15-May-13 09:49:18

but someone who has just felt sexual desire towards children and done nothing but had those thoughts has done nothing wrong we need to work with these people to help them manage this

those that have acted on their feelings need t be punished but also treatment should be there for them, some of them will not want to change but some will and helping them manage their feelings may stop more children being abused

as a society not being open to discuss this and deal with it leads to people hating themselves, what good is that it could lead to more harm. I believe that people are on born good at times what has happened in their life leads them to harm others it is not an excuse but we need to understand the reasons why people do. Someone who has sexual feelings towards children does not make them a horrible person it is their actions that do

If they haven't acted on their desire then that's likely because they know they're wrong. So why remove the stigma attached to it? Why shouldn't there be a stigma attached to something that is fundamentally disgusting.

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 09:52:04

I don't think it is going to be possible to have a reasoned, productive debate about this on a parenting website

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 09:55:14

'If they haven't acted on their desire then that's likely because they know they're wrong. So why remove the stigma attached to it? Why shouldn't there be a stigma attached to something that is fundamentally disgusting.'

Because they are law abiding citizens born with a condition, they did not ask for.Why should they ne stigmatised

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

delboysfileofax Wed 15-May-13 09:55:53

Completely agree with cuntchops. If a debate isn't held about the best way to treat paedophiles then how can we as a society deal with it.

I used to work on the SOTP programme in one the most notorious prisons in the country and have met 100's of paedophiles. Some sex offenders genuinely didn't see anything wrong with the offences they had committed, others had tried to suppress their feelings for years and they believed if they had earlier intervention then they would not have offended.

I know it's an emotive subject but we need a sensible conversation about this

PoppyAmex Wed 15-May-13 09:57:20

Question for ryanboy and ICBIN because I'm trying to understand your point of view, but struggling.

I presume convicted pedophiles are getting psychiatric support in jail (if they're not, they should be) and yet the reoffending stats are quite telling, both in the UK and US, suggesting conventional therapies aren't effective on that particular group of people.

Then you have the ones who haven't been caught but already offend regularly by indulging in imagery/videos etc., which suggests a similar profile to the convicted group.

That leaves us with a group of people who haven't touched a child, never consumed child porn or frequented forums/newsgroups and is willing to seek help. How large is this group of people, do they exist?

Aren't your arguments catering for a non-existing demographic at the cost of something fundamental, which is perhaps the last powerful stigma in modern society?

I believe the majority of those who haven't offended, haven't done so out of fear of consequences, not due to moral constraints.

With that in mind, as far as I'm concerned, the only solution is chemical castration for convicted offenders and a review of our judicial system to increase custodial sentences.

There are different types of pedophilia for a start, situational and preferential. So, no, they're not all 'born with a condition'. But clearly you are on expert on this. I've already given plenty of reasons why it should be stigmatized.

CheerfulYank Wed 15-May-13 10:00:51

Castration (chemical or otherwise) rarely works afaik. The castrated people offend again with objects, etc.

In my state there was a program to "help" people who had sexual desires toward children...there were billboards up with a number you could call. What the success rate was, I don't know.

I remember reading about a man trying to stop his urges toward children. When he was little his father let his friends rape him and his sister on a regular basis. Afterwards his sister would hold him and they would comfort each other. So he grew up equating small girls with sex and comfort. It was an awful story and he went on to molest several little girls. He eventually accepted that he would not be able to stop. He just tried to stay away from children, wouldn't allow himself internet access, went to therapy every week.

People campaigning for pedophile rights make me sick and I'd most likely kill someone who touched my children, but I did feel sad for that man.

Leithlurker Wed 15-May-13 10:01:04

I agree with Ryanboy and think that the children of this country are ill served by those on here who just think that any one who looks at a child "in the wrong way" needs to be locked up or seen as abhorrent.

If only small numbers by which I mean 100 or so per year were being discovered that might be a fair response. Unfortunatly for the last 6 or so months on a weekly basis we have had a very long list of names published, add to that the cases that never make the papers or worse yet are never reported we are talking about thousands, many thousands of active abuse going on TODAY. The numbers mean we need to talk about all kinds of responses not just locking people up, nor thinking that it happens to other people. Those that think this thread should be pulled or hidden are very likely living within a quarter of a mile from an abuser, you will never know if you are untill they are caught IF they are caught. So protecting your child is not thinking it will go away or that you can spot a peodo, or in fact to treat every male, even those closest to you as a pea do. It is to think unthinkable thoughts it is to examine how best we move society along, short and long term. Most of all it is to take action NOW not sit and wait for more names to be released on telly and think thats the job done.

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 10:05:42

So paedophiles have a condition. Their condition MAY lead them to commit criminal acts against children.

Does a rapist have a "condition" or orientation that MAY lead them to commit a criminal act?

I just don't see a difference. Remove the stigma from rape, you will get more rape. Remove the stigma from paedophilia (leading to sexual abuse of children) and you'll get more of it.

Dress it up how you like. Sex offenders, potential sex offenders...

Yeah we can have a sensible conversation, but personally I find it difficult, as do many others who have been affected by this subject. As do many others who HAVEN'T been affected even.

CheerfulYank Wed 15-May-13 10:09:06

And there are some child rapists who aren't pedophiles, as in, if they were able to have any sexual partner they wanted, would choose an adult. In those cases they molest children for reasons of control and power, or simply because the child is "available" and other sexual partners are not. <shudder>

I used to be active making videos on YouTube discussing and debating current issues, I've actually spoken to people who were happy admit that they are pedophiles and went into detail into why it should be legal to sexually abuse children of any age. Their rational is disgusting and terrifying and this debate plays right into their hands. What happens if the stigma is dropped and these people don't want help, what then?

Gingersstuff Wed 15-May-13 10:21:59

I work in clinical research and used to work with a couple of psychiatric nurses who specialised in trying to treat paedophilia. I say "trying" because they were both firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of the people they worked with were absolutely and fundamentally incapable of seeing anything wrong with their actions and thought that the problem lay with society not being able or advanced enough to accept paedophilia as just another sexual preference. One woman left after 7 years because she couldn't stand to see the way that these very clever people manipulated the system into believing that they were "cured" ...the huge majority of them went on to reoffend.
I'm not sure what the answer is..all I know is that if anyone went near any of my kids I would hunt them down and make them pay in the most painful way possible.

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 10:22:32

Well said Fanjo

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 10:29:53

Is it really that complicated to allow there to be stigma for actually hurting children but not for finding children sexually attractive and NEVER acting on it?

That the stigma be attached to the concious choice to indulge the desire and not the desire itself (which as many people have pointed out is usually completely out of the control of the individual)?

Really??

CocacolaMum Wed 15-May-13 10:32:07

was listening to a debate on the radio yesterday and something someone said struck me as very sensible. They were talking about their experiences with the paedophiles they counselled and they said that each one could look at a playground full of kids and would instantly pick out the ones they would target as the loneliest quietest kids - the ones who would never tell.

My children are gobby little buggers and have been taught to be polite to grown ups but never take it as gospel that all grown ups are safe.
I don't know wtf to do about people who hurt children - I don't care what their sexual orientation is. I will just continue to make sure that my kids would always tell and very fucking loudly!!

Hullygully Wed 15-May-13 10:34:49

If finding children sexually attractive is "wrong" then there is a stigma. It is an inevitable correlation.

TheBigJessie Wed 15-May-13 10:43:41

There are some points I want to make. Firstly, pedantry: paedophilia=attraction to children. Presently defined as a psychiatric condition. May or may not lead to sexual abuse of children. We have incomplete data available. Sexual abuse of children: a type of child abuse.

Secondly, who here thinks that child abuse is wrong, and rightly deserving of a prison sentence? Congratulations, this means that you believe in free will.

Because, otherwise, if you think that "paedophiles are incapable of not offending" then that means you believe it's an "irresistible impulse" and thus their acts are entirely not their fault, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_impulse
If someone has irresistible impulses, then we should send them to mental institutions.
In the past, some (American) offenders being prosecuted have tried to claim that they had irresistible impulses, and they failed.

Me, I'm not that liberal. Many people are paedophiles. I believe, until proven otherwise, that people are responsible for their actions.

The flip-side of thinking that sex-offending paedophiles are completely responsible for their decisions, and deserve to go to prison, is that I must then conclude that people are not doomed to offend, as they have free will.

Therefore, there surely are people out there, who are paedophiles, who can still comprehend what the word "consent" means.

You may have different views to me. That's fair enough. Just be consistent in them.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 10:45:22

Oh and those of you determined to find an individual who has never hurt a child (in person or by proxy in the viewing of images) but does find children sexually attractive to be a despicable, evil, disgusting animal, can I ask you to take a look in the mirror?

Because if you consider the desire itself to be a crime, then surely you do NOTHING in your life to promote that desire?

You NEVER dress your prepubescent children in clothes designed to be sexually provocative? (heels, make up, baby gros with porn star in training on them etc etc).

You NEVER alter your own appearance to make it deliberately juvenile with the express purpose of being more sexually attractive? (removing all pubic hair which directly plugs into looking sexy by making yourself look pre-pubescent, wearing lipstick/foundation to make the colour contrast of your face more child like, having bits lopped off your labia, and breasts to - you guessed it - return you to a more pre/ just post pubescent state)

Be very clear - everyone in society should be able to wear /do whatever they want without abuse and no victim is EVER responsible for any abuse they suffer. The abusers themselves carry the full weight of blame for harm they do.

But it is hypocritical in the EXTREME to declare the sexual desire of children itself (*in the absence of any abuse*) to be itself vile and disgusting while promoting the sexualization of the prepubescent form with your own actions.

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 10:49:49

Cocacola I heard that too. Sadly, that doesn't always happen where there is grooming involved - of the parents as well as the child.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 10:51:30

thebig assuming there are other options available (you can turn yourself in before you do harm) then, yes harming children is wrong and a concious choice made by the criminal paedophile. Stigma can very well be attached for the sake of protecting children.

But I cannot see how the sexual desires that one is born with are a matter of free choice.

Are you homophobic if you cannot find members of your own sex sexually attractive? Are you racist if you cannot find member of other races sexually attractive? Are you evil if you find only the elderly sexually attractive...or only menstruating women attractive, or leather boots or any one of millions of deviations from the norm?

Unless you believe that people can choose their sexual desires then it is utterly wrong to blame the paedophile for their desire.

Blame them for acting on it for absolute sure...but not for their desire.

CocacolaMum Wed 15-May-13 10:52:34

This is true BumpingFuglies but what I mean by my comment is that you cannot identify a paedophile, they are an unknown whereas you know your child - at the end of the day you can only do what you can do as a parent.

TheBigJessie Wed 15-May-13 10:53:37

I don't mean paedophilia is a matter of free-will. I mean that one's actions are a matter of free-will. Should have made that more clear.

PoppyAmex Wed 15-May-13 10:54:08

"But it is hypocritical in the EXTREME to declare the sexual desire of children itself (*in the absence of any abuse*) to be itself vile and disgusting while promoting the sexualization of the prepubescent form with your own actions."

I agree, but why the hell are you assuming the people who you are addressing in this forum have done this? I know I haven't.

More importantly, you claim to want to have a "debate" on the issue, but haven't answered most questions, including Schlong's:

What happens if the stigma is dropped and these people don't want help, what then?

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 10:54:31

No ICBINEG I have not done any of those things. Sexual desire of children IS vile and disgusting. I take the point you make, but I think you are going too far now. You are almost suggesting that everyone has the potential to find children sexually attractive.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:04:09

bump really? because most adult women do in fact remove their pubic hair....even if it is leg/armpit hair.

So for you it is evil to find children sexually attractive even though the culprit has no control over this? Or do you believe that people choose their sexual desires?

BollyGood Wed 15-May-13 11:04:39

I don't think it is going to be possible to have a reasoned, productive debate about this on a parenting website

Why? Because parents are blinkered and biased because we have children we want to protect? Or because we can't have an intelligent debate? You forget many people on here are not only parents but 'people' with careers and many of us may work with children who suffer or have suffered at the hand of abusers. Many of us may have also suffered abuse our selves or had to find out we have a partner who abuses children, even our own children. Who is to say if these people had had the opportunity to speak about their 'desires' I prefer to call it a disorder of the most disgusting kind, they wouldn't just charm others into thinking they can get better and not offend yet carry on. They are Masters of grooming innocent, trusting children. Never underestimate this disorder. If you think people can suppress it think again. It is an incurable mental disorder.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:07:49

Poppy I haven't suggested dropping the stigma against those who harm children (in any form including via sexual contact). So those who offend are unaffected by my opinions.

I hence did not realise the question was aimed at me.

To reiterate with all I have in me - ANY HARM OF CHILDREN IS UTTERLY VILE.

But being sexually attracted to children does not harm them unless you act on it.

De-stigmatising the desire itself and making sexual attraction to children something that a son could talk to his mother/father about as a first step to seeking real help in making sure he NEVER offends, can surely only help us prevent harm to children?

polkadotsrock Wed 15-May-13 11:08:03

I was groomed and abused as a child. I'm fine, really truly fine. I cannot stand when other people think they speak for me, no matter who you are, the hospital staff who treated me, the policeman who was my saviour that day or the court system who failed me, you do not speak for me nor can you claim to know how victims feel, regardless of how many you help/know/counsel. We all feel differently as we are all different people, just with one horrible thing in common. Just an aside but it really boils my piss when people 'speak for' others.
I can forgive the man who abused me for his desires. I can and do accept that what's turns you on is what turns you on. I do not accept nor forgive that this man made a sustained and well thought out attempt to groom me (and others) using child members of his own family. The fact that he could do that makes him a shit of the highest order and means I might stab him if I ever meet him again.
I'm not sure how we can 'help' those who wish to never act on impulses, or if it is something better left to the individual, but I do believe that it is unlikely people choose to have peadophilic desires.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:09:37

bolly there are a lot of 'incurable mental disorders' (and many of them can lead to the harm of children in other ways) but the majority of them we no longer treat by locking people up and labelling them as evil.

Why is this one different?

bottleofbeer Wed 15-May-13 11:10:30

Oh my word. Not ONE single person on this thread has said paedophilia is acceptable, not ONE single person has apologised for them.

I'm really sorry but paedophilia is considered a sexual orientation. A deviant one of course but using that definition is NOT apologising for them or being some bleeding heart liberal and I won't be lumped into that category through other's lack of comprehension.

I do realise people have directly spoken to me on this thread but it's moved on so much since I was on it yesterday it feels rather pointless to answer now, so apologies smile

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 11:13:51

If you are suggesting that shaving your legs equates desiring children ICBINEG, frankly you are having a giraffe.

I can only speak for myself - I have never tried to make myself look pre-pubescent.

I have no fixed views on the ability to control sexual desire/orientation. But I do believe that the desire, whether controllable or not, is fundamentally wrong.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:16:41

polka I have no words...particularly that the court system failed you...that is beyond terrible. I really REALLY hope this current coverage marks a real change in the way the courts deal with these cases...I really hope it isn't the patch it up job that it looks like.

polkadotsrock Wed 15-May-13 11:20:34

He was later convicted for multiple offences, just seems sad some may have been prevented if better work was done on my case. I wouldn't really stab him obviously, but I definitely believe that it's the planning and execution of abuse (or watching of child porn etc) that is the crime and is inherently wrong, not the desire.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:21:50

bump it is abnormal...on that much I agree.

I am saying that shaving you legs is an attempt to make yourself look more sexually attractive by making yourself look more child like. Society promotes the prepubescent form as being more desirable than the adult female form. Why else would we be shaving off hair that is natural? Why would we be bombarded with images of supermodels with 'boy like' figures. Why are super pert small boobs more attractive than post childbirth low slung boulders?

Societies whole picture of sexual attractiveness is swung way to far to the prepubescent for comfort.

What I am saying is that if you conform to those ideals you are adding to the problem rather than solving it.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 11:25:13

polka I just can't imagine finding out he had done something more after you had gone to court. Truly dreadful.

Do you think things are genuinely changing for the better at the moment?

It is also a very good point you make that people differ in their responses and opinions even amongst those who have explicitly been abused.

BollyGood Wed 15-May-13 11:26:03

Because ICBINEG it involves sexually violating innocent and vulnerable children?

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 11:27:25

I don't shave my legs to look childlike!
I suspect not many women do.

polkadotsrock Wed 15-May-13 11:32:52

Things are better in that the support given is much better and more focused than when it happened to me. I don't work in the law field so can't really speak with any authority on whether that is improving, but from the outside looking in it does appear so, something is better than nothing, but it'll need tweaking for a long time to come.

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 11:46:57

I don't think it is going to be possible to have a reasoned, productive debate about this on a parenting website

I'd argue that it's difficult for anyone to have a reasoned debate about pedophilia.
The knee jerk reaction of revulsion is very close to the surface and hard to suppress.
I'd also suggest that many people feel as if discussing it in a matter of fact way is somehow tantamount to condoning pedophilia?

As if not express your disgust & horror frequently means you dont feel disgust & horror

I speak as someone who was abused as a small child.

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 11:51:25

They were talking about their experiences with the paedophiles they counselled and they said that each one could look at a playground full of kids and would instantly pick out the ones they would target as the loneliest quietest kids - the ones who would never tell.

Isnt this just the mark of a successful predator? be it a con artist, sexual predator or whatever, the instinct for spotting and exploiting a weakness

Feenie Wed 15-May-13 11:52:31

Re Graham Ovenden - apparently Lord Macalpine possessed a large collection of his Art and sold it in 1996.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 12:06:56

bump then why do you shave them? Assuming you do...

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 12:11:45

polka That sounds better than I was thinking...I am also utterly outside this looking in. I guess it really will be impossible to go back to thinking that children are making a lifestyle choice to be abused....although I can't imagine it being possible to think that in the first place. I just worry that there will be a big flurry and then a slow slide back...or that someone will decide that only asian and not white men behave this way or something equally ridiculous.

Well hopefully this really is moving forward.

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 12:12:05

Because I associate it with hygiene and femininity. So do all the women I know.

FocaultOff Wed 15-May-13 12:15:14

Ryanboy

UK SOCIETY HAS TRIED MASTURBATION SATIATION FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS IN OUR TREATMENT OF PAEDOPHILES. IT TURNS OUT THE MAN WHO ADVISED THAT WAS A PAEDOPHILE AND PROFITED FROM BRINGING CHILD ABUSE IMAGES INTO HIS TREATMENT CENTRES.

In turn, that man, Ray Wyre, encouraged and brought along many child abusers that passed through his doors, sending them back out into the world hyped and justified to rape and abuse many more children between them.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 12:19:12

sand when I see pictures of convicted paedophiles my skin crawls and I feel sick. It is that visceral. But I have been accused of being an apologist aiming to normalise the abuse of children on this thread.

I really would like to know what leads to us thinking someone who molests a child is more evil and disgusting than someone who simply murders a child without sexual motivation. Surely murder is the more serious crime? The courts certainly treat it as such...

Who would you rather have living next door: someone who beat a toddler to death or someone who was jailed for having indecent images of children on their computer?

What is it about the inclusion of sexual desire in the mix that makes it so much more stomach churning?

Certainly the revulsion is disproportionate in the case of paedophiles that have never offended or abused anyone.

PoppyAmex Wed 15-May-13 12:22:24

I think a lot of these arguments come from a place full of good intentions, but ultimately uninformed and very naive.

It's a very complicated pathology, with a wide spectrum and there has been an ongoing effort to treat/support people with this condition. Those efforts have been largely well documented and there's very little cause for optimism when it comes to success rates.

As a society, we need to draw the line at behaviours so heinous that potential offenders will know without a shadow of a doubt that any trespass will be met with the full force of the law, heavy custodial sentences and alienation from society.

babyhammock Wed 15-May-13 12:23:56

leg shaving..because I don't want various random dark thick hairs sticking out anywhere, or rather so i don't look like a man and look feminine.

Most women I know want to look fit and healthy with a nice shape and breasts. I don't know anyone who wants to be shapeless with no tits.

Models are chosen because they are tall and skinny and clothes hang better on them

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 12:26:28

bump yeah but you know that is bollocks don't you? I mean the normal appearance of an adult female includes leg hair...so how can you be MORE feminine if you remove it?

Hygiene? I have never EVER heard anyone say they think leg hair is dirty. That is a new one...I mean obviously it isn't. How would it even GET dirty? That's just mad.

Face it! People remove leg hair because society deems women with hairless legs to be more attractive than women with hairy legs. End of.

Similarly society deems women with hairless armpits to be more attractive than those with hairy, and is well on the way to deeming women with hariless fanjos more attractive than women with hairy fanjos...oh and women with prepubescent looking labia are more attractive then those with classic post pubescent looking labia.

At the end of the day society is deeming that the prepubescent appearance of females is more sexually attractive than the post pubescent appearance.

What do you think you can possibly be doing when you remove your pubic hair but attempting to appear prepubescent? It is sort of the definition.....

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 12:33:33

What is it about the inclusion of sexual desire in the mix that makes it so much more stomach churning?

ICB, I suppose the answer is in the question, for whatever reason, we treat sex as something in a category of it's own.

Perhaps it's that something about sexual desires and urges is especially resistant to reason and rationality, so it seems especially dangerous and in need of control & regulation?

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 12:50:08

Two thirds of people who sexually abuse children are not paedophiles. They sexually abuse children for other reasons.

The issue of paedophilia is that they believe they can have a mutually beneficial relationship with a child. That is clearly a delusion and is treated with CBT. It doesn't cure them of the desire, but it gets rid of the moral justification that exists in their mind for their actions. Public stigma towards paedophilia is no doubt useful in reinforcing to paedophiles that is it a delusion and has no moral justification.

Research has shown that most adult men find fourteen year old females attractive, but the vast majority of them don't act on this because they are aware that it is not possible to have a mutually beneficial sexual relationship with a fourteen year old. We don't sit around sympathising with them or getting them to be open about their 'orientation.' They are expected to act as responsible adults. The same is true for paedophiles (those attracted to pre pubescent children) - get therapy for the delusion that acting on a desire is acceptable, not for the desire itself. The fact somebody is attracted to children does not need to be accepted and discussed in wider society. There's nothing special about believing your desires are more important than somebody else's capability to consent - all sexual predators believe that.

PoppyAmex Wed 15-May-13 12:53:38

Excellent post, Freya.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 12:59:47

yy excellent post freya.

IfNotNowThenWhen Wed 15-May-13 13:08:04

I don't get the thing about " two thirds of people who abuse children are not peadophiles".
How can that be?
In order to do it, wouldn't you have to have that desire??
I like your post though Freya.

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 13:11:14

obviously it is important to specify exactly what is meant by pedophilia.

Freya are you saying that we should distinguish pedophiles from sexual predators, because if I understand you correctly you are saying that the defining feature of pedophilia is not a desire to have sex with pre pubescent children.
Rather it is the belief that there is no moral problem with having a sexual relationship with a child.

So someone who knows he is exploiting the child is a sexual predator, his behavior is rooted in the desire to predate, where as the pedophile's behavior is rooted purely in the desire to have a sexual relationship with a child and does not include a predator element?

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:14:22

Firstly, not all child sex abuse is committed against children who are pre pubescent, so the perpetrators are by definition not paedophiles. Of those who do abuse pre pubescent children, some do it because they enjoy the power, some do it for revenge or punishment of either the child or an adult close to them (revenge against the child's mother by a former partner for example). Some do it because they have a sense of entitlement to sex and can't get an adult partner so use a child as they might use an inanimate object for sexual gratification. Some do it because it is a way of bonding with other adults, a bit like joining a secret society.

And a minority do it because of their romantic and sexual to pre pubescent children.

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:14:52

Sorry, missed the word attraction from the last sentence.

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:18:44

No sand stripe, I am saying that some sexual predators are paedophiles and some are not. Also, some paedophiles are sexual predators and some are not.

Paedophilia is a clinical diagnosis. Child sex offender is a criminal. Some people have both a clinical diagnosis and are criminals. Some have just a diagnosis. Some are just criminals.

Actually, that is true of all crimes.

IfNotNowThenWhen Wed 15-May-13 13:24:14

Oh God I just read this..:
"If there is no cure for paedophilia then perhaps there should be computer generated child porn available to paedophiles.
Before people jump up and down saying that porn is the first step on the road to abusing a child.We only know this is the case where it happens.We do not know how many rapes/abuses are prevented because men have satisfied themselves by wanking with pornography."

Ryanboy, that is the most moraly bankrupt thing I have ever read on MN.
I don't even like adult porn, but at least i can understand it, and I can, if I wish, campaign against images that depict women like myself.
A child can't campaign against degrading images that depict children like themselves.
They have no power in society, legally, socially, physically. None.
Who will generate these images?
Will they get paid? Who will make the profit?
Is it morally acceptable to you that someone would need to invent, create, and then profit from this material?
Or will they do it for, er,well...for what? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
What kind of warped take do you have on this?
I'm out.

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:28:11

I am suspicious of the number of threads there have been on here recently about children's clothing/ nudity and 'sexiness.' Now there are apologist posts for paedophilia. It makes me uncomfortable because I don't recognise the names of a lot of the posters (although I name change a lot myself).

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 13:28:50

Freya, I'm with you and it seems very useful to look at the different motivating factors.

The word peadophilia seems to have different meanings in different contexts, eg as a clinical diagnosis as you've described.
The wider 'popular' use of the term would include anyone who has sex with children.

Thing is, I might say, 'when I was a child I was the victim of a pedophile' if it turned out that he was motivated by a desire to get revenge on my parents, then you might say 'well actually he wasnt a pedophile'
It'd feel as if he was being demoted to a lesser crime, or as if I was over reacting, but the damage to me would be that same as if he had been a pedophile according to your clinical diagnosis?

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:33:19

Yes, I agree with that. The motivation for why a person carries out a crime doesn't make it any better for the victim.

But knowing why people carry out crimes might make us more careful as a society about making remarks that reinforce beliefs different types of offender have.

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 13:39:57

Freya, I think one problem with looking at the motivating factors is that people often mistake explanation for exoneration
...if we delve into the factors that lead a person into an act it can 'feel' as if we are looking to excuse or justify the act.

It can be very difficult to dispassionately examine something as strongly emotive as child sex abuse

FreyaSnow Wed 15-May-13 13:48:55

I don't think anybody should have to think about it or discuss it if it makes them uncomfortable. But I think people who do feel capable of talking about it should do because not doing makes it difficult to catch and prosecute child sex offenders because a. we caricature them so don't recognise offenders or grooming or b. we use the same language abusers do to justify the abuse.

Examples: 'men can't help acting on their desires.' 'Maybe he really thought he loved that 14 year old.' 'It was a mistake - he just got carried away.' 'The girls skirt was too short - she led him on. ' 'The parents' deserved that happening to their kid because they are not responsible people.' 'The kid was no angel.' 'An older partner might be more responsible than a girl having a elationship with another 13 Year old.' etc, etc.

BumpingFuglies Wed 15-May-13 15:05:24

What do you think you can possibly be doing when you remove your pubic hair but attempting to appear prepubescent? It is sort of the definition.....

Newsflash. There are other reasons, but you don't want to hear them, ICBINEG. If I want to shave any body hair off, I'll do so without worrying that I'm actively encouraging sexual desire of children.

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 15:18:44

we dont accuse men who shave facial hair of wanting to look like boys do we?

JJXM Wed 15-May-13 15:24:03

I agree with Freya.

I was abused for over a decade by a family member. It wasn't about sexual attraction. It was about power and dominance and the urge to shame and humiliate me. To him I was just a possesion with which he could do what he wanted. It was about making another human feeling so much fear that he could control them and get off on the power games.

It is easier to do all these things with a child - you have constant access to them and they are not going to shout about it if they don't realise it is wrong.

It's not about attraction and love - I wouldn't think raping someone a good way of getting them to love me?

sandstripe Wed 15-May-13 15:37:10

JJXM, what you relate is in line with my own experiences.
You say you agree with Freya, do you mean that in your view the abuser in your case was a sexual predator, not a peadophile?

JJXM Wed 15-May-13 16:00:26

sandstripe I do not know enough to comment on this subject with any authority and I can only comment on my own experiences, which are coloured by my own abuse.

I would say that the abuser in my case was a predator and that sex was one way in which he could prey on me. In that rape was one of the tools he used to humiliate me. To him rape was a tool like a beating.

sheisaba Wed 15-May-13 16:51:01

Some of the comments on this thread are extremely uncomfortable reading. Equating removing body hair with, what exactly? The 70s & 80s did not have a culture of brazillian hair removal but countless children where systematically abused anyway.

I can accept that GPs should be given resources to direct patients that have inappropriate thoughts to trained psychologists, is there any evidence to suggest that this is not happening? What evidence is there that all these tormented souls even exist?

Why not fix the problems we do know exist? Rather than look for some strawman. It easier to blame women shaving, ffs, rather than trying to untangling the complex power structures within our society that have enabled this?

Thanks Freya for the post regarding labeling, I did not know that.

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 17:16:09

I am not saying that the current societal pressure to look prepubescent is increasing child abuse...how could it? The decision to offend is always that of the abuser alone.

I am saying that it is hypocritical of society as a whole to vilify those who find prepubescent children sexually attractive (and who have never offended) while at the same time holding up the image of the prepubescent girl as being the optimum for sexual attractiveness of women.

If you only view the abuse as a crime and not the sexual desire itself then that hypocrisy is eliminated. Although to be honest I wish we would move the image of the ideal woman towards the real average appearance of adult women (you know with pubic hair, hips boobs and all) ...which would also eliminate the hypocrisy.

FocaultOff Wed 15-May-13 17:57:54

Leithlurker - I agree, we are only seeing tip of the iceberg, there is yet more to come. We do have to think about how we are going to protect children hereon in because without facing up to how the abusers have been able to do this (and it's no good saying it wouldn't happen now, because somewhere it is - CRB checks mean its just more important to not get caught on record). Child protection officers need to be able to spot the vulnerable children just like a child abuser can, and ensure they are supported, monitored, strengthened. We're not thinking like them so we can't block how and who they tend to approach.

They don't fancy all children obviously, but they are excellent readers of body language, playing on insecurities to pick out the most vulnerable children. At heart they will have never emotionally matured themselves so they will harbour some peter pan lost boys romantic notions about their "adventures" as they relate them to one another. I suspect many will have a deep inner self-loathing that their abuse of others is a projection of or re-enactment/vengeance of as some kind of warped salve for their own self-hatred. Doesn't mean they have to have been abused to abuse, Ray Wyre was advising that if you claim you'd been abused in mitigation you would receive a lighter sentence. Self-loathing springs from many sources - a religious downer on one's sexual preferences might be enough.

FocaultOff Wed 15-May-13 18:05:40

Wonder how much the global market for child abuse images is worth? Must be into the billions by now. There will be a lot of people getting very rich off the back of 100,000s of children's pain and suffering.

duchesse Wed 15-May-13 18:15:40

It doesn't matter how "provocatively dressed" a child is, even naked, this is NOT an invitation to be raped or molested. They are children. Almost the definition of a child is that they are people below sexual maturity, although this limit has stretched a little upwards now since modern children do not really become autonomous until far later in age than in traditional societies. If you have any kind of sexual leanings towards children, this IS is a perversion- children cannot give consent on any level because they are not physically or emotionally ready to have sex. So people who abuse children are never going to have that child's consent, not even if they walk around starkers 24 hours a day. Dressing provocatively is a complete red herring and frankly apologist for the abusers. There is NO excuse or defense for child abuse of any kind.

Giving ANY of indication to sexual abusers that their behaviour is in some kind of way accepted by being "treated" is a dangerous and slippy slope imo. The only acceptable kind of treatment would be voluntary detention for life in a place far from children.

I say this as someone who is about to bury her father, whom we strongly suspect was abused by his father. He NEVER recovered from his childhood and was never happy. That is what I mean by wrecking lives- an adult in a position of authority inflicts pain on a child for their own sexual gratification sometimes for years, and nobody stops them- that child will have very good reason never to trust authority.

There is no way to rationalise that or make it in any way acceptable to anything but the twisted minds of abusers, who lack both empathy and sympathy and feel vindicated in forcing their impulses onto others. These people are rightly the biggest pariahs in our society. They do not espouse any of the views that most people feel keep society together and functioning. You can call it a mental illness if you like, but they should be locked up FOR LIFE when found and voluntary detention offered to those who have not (yet) offended but fear they might.

FocaultOff Wed 15-May-13 18:16:07

Maybe we hope for some form of cure that allows pedophiles to take growth/age restricting drugs for 10 - 20 years (which shortens their life considerably) but keeps them in physical form as a child (age stasis of their choice) without growing older so they can have consensual sex amongt themselves for a short but sexually fulfilled lifetime.

But you know what....even in that peculiar sic-fi scenario above I don't think child abusers would be happy with that. Because their fellow child-remainers would not have that innocence, the naivety, the "first time" wonderment of anything, no wide eyed gullibility to exploit. So even in that world (or computer animated child abuse imagery - Japan already provide this) it isn't going to fulfil what it is that a child abuser gets out of abusing a child - it's the status of a child as much as the physical representation of a child. People who ignore the status, power, dominance, aspect of this are disregarding exploitation and what abuse is about. They're focusing on the sex.

ryanboy Wed 15-May-13 23:51:40

freyasnow I see no child abuse4 apologists on this threaD

ICBINEG Wed 15-May-13 23:57:50

foc that is a very interesting point about japan!

The whole anime thing really stretches to the extreme the idea of attractiveness being tied to child like appearance. Big eyes, big heads, high pitched squeaky voices....

urgh.

So do we have data on the relative rates of actual child abuse there and here? Even if we did I doubt it would tell us much...but I still feel it cannot be helpful for societies to idolise the child form.

ICBINEG Thu 16-May-13 00:15:14

duch I have not and neither has any one else suggested that we normalise or destigmatise ABUSE.

But abuse is different from desire. They can happen independently of one another.

People including myself have suggested that destigmatising the desire might help people prevent abuse before it happens.

Similarly with the sexualization of the child form by society...this can never be an excuse for abuse but it is a reasonable excuse for desire.

To move out of the massively emotive area of children, would people agree with the following?

That a woman who dresses in a tight short skirt, with heels, make up a push up bra and a see through top has every right to expect that NO MAN WILL EVER:

a) rape her
b) touch her
c) sexually harass her physically of verbally in ANY way.

But she does not have the right to expect that no man will ever find her sexually attractive.

If she were to hold the opinion that people finding her attractive was disgusting and vile then she would be being hypocritical to dress herself deliberately to inspire the very desire she finds disgusting.

To close the analogy, if society sexualizes children, holds the prepubescent form to be the optimum in attractiveness and encourages women to alter their appearance to become more childlike in order to be found attractive, then society still has every right to expect that NOONE WILL IN ANYWAY ABUSE CHILDREN.

But society cannot expect that noone will find children attractive - not when we have gone out of our way to make them appear so. And it is hypocritical of society to find the desire it works so hard to promote, disgusting and vile.

Punkatheart Thu 16-May-13 08:28:58

I was at a restaurant last night, watching kids outside squealing on a lawn, doing handstands and generally being children. I thought of this thread and how to some people, that innocent is something far more sexualised - and felt really really sad.

JJXM I am so so sorry that you went through that horrific abuse. It makes me shake with anger that you suffered that.

But I do agree in part with the sexualisation of children and the hypocrisy. Picked up a parenting magazine the other day with a lipsticked toddler. Yuck!

Not so sure where I stand on hairy legs (if you know what I mean) - I tend to feel in the summer in particular, like a monkey if I don't shave. I don't think that is about being child-like. Shaving one's pubes though - now that is an odd trend - very old-style art paintings, where hair was considered too much down there!

ryanboy Thu 16-May-13 08:43:19

I think 'the sexualisation of children' is a red herring

PoppyAmex Thu 16-May-13 09:55:34

Oh FFS the sexualisation of children argument is ridiculous; you're talking about a relatively recent phenomena (Victorian children certainly didn't fit this category) and child predators have existed since times imemorial.

"But society cannot expect that noone will find children attractive - not when we have gone out of our way to make them appear so. And it is hypocritical of society to find the desire it works so hard to promote, disgusting and vile."

ICB so do YOU feel attracted to children when you see them wearing a vile babygro sporting the word "sexy"?

Thought not. Neither do I. Neither do most people.

To claim that the sexualisation of children is directly (or even indirectly) responsible for that "desire" is just obtuse.

In fact, part of this pathology (I'm still refusing to call it a sexual preference) is that offenders usually prefer children to look like children, as that's part of the attraction.

To use your analogy, a woman is dressed in tight, revealing clothes will never appeal to a gay man because the "desire" simply isn't there.

sheisaba Thu 16-May-13 10:05:14

The 'sexualisation' of children has a dash of victim blaming peppered in it, toddler wearing lipstick and playing dress up is a tiny minority of the population. Young boys are a large group that are regularly abused. They don't in general go around wearing 'sexy' logo t-shirts that 'makes them attractive' to others. They are just children end of ffs.

Child abuse has nothing to do with looks, it's about power and countless other factors.

JJXM Thu 16-May-13 10:35:34

It has nothing to do with what the child wears - it is about dominance and control. What was 'attractive' about me was my vulnerabilty and fear. I was targeted my a second paedophile in a one off incident after my own abuse had ended. I was 12 and on the bus in my school uniform - not a Britney Spears uniform but a skirt below my knees, white socks and a blazer. The man who sat next to me on the bus put his hand up my skirt and into my underwear. I was so terrified that I couldn't move. It was my terror that was attractive.

Most paedophiles won't go to their GP because they would then be placing a barrier to easy access to children. Although, I firmly believe that there should be funding into prevention of abuse, there should be more money put into helping those who have been abused who face a lifetime of physical and mental health problems.

Unacceptable Thu 16-May-13 10:52:27

Took the words right out of my mouth sheisaba
Of course when people are talking about the clothing and styling as being a factor in abuse they are exclusively talking about the abuse of girls.

Lipstick and the like is never asking to be abused whatever the bloody age!!!

FocaultOff Thu 16-May-13 11:32:53

Pete Saunders from NAPAC on 5live to Nicky Campbell yesterday morning! Didn't hear live y'day just listened to it on iplayer - states a former cabinet minister will be arrested soon. Didn't Daily Mail run a front page saying that in February?

FocaultOff Thu 16-May-13 11:36:10

We are going to see widespread huge scale of sexual abuse of young boys going back 6 decades to Kincora in Belfast through to Islington, Lambeth, North Wales, Jersey, Leicestershire. When Paedophile Information Exchange did a survey of their members for which age of children were their preference sexually boys 10 - 14 were most popular IIRC.

Am hoping our criminal justice system isnt as fucked as our FS regulatory systems (Banks too big to fail) and we haven't got people who are essentially too powerful to prosecute.

bottleofbeer Thu 16-May-13 11:52:19

Paedophiles like children because they are children. All this crap about dressing them so they look older etc..is a big old red herring.

They don't want them to look older. That's the point.

Punkatheart Thu 16-May-13 12:26:44

That's enlightening. Although I still do not like seeing children dolled up - it just looks wrong to me. But I take on board a lot of the observations. It makes it even more depressing, if that's possible.

I will come out now and tell you that when I was 13 and a very gangly goofy pre-teen, I was followed home by a man asking me to try some sweets. He followed me down a shortcut I wasn't supposed to take home and tried to kiss me. Luckily, although I was a gentle child, I kneed him in the groin and ran home. My very tall and very aggressive older sister went out into the (small) town - found him and got the police. Yes, he was a known paedophile and yes, he was arrested.

I would never ever say that sexualising of children with lipstick etc is ever an excuse, an invitation - that would be appalling. I just don't like it very much.

A child is a child and deserves an innocent and happy childhood. I felt incredibly shaken by the man attacking me and it does seem to be the unworldly children they target - which is horrifying. We do have to try and put into perspective that paedophilia is a deviation, not a norm. That said, if it is brought up in conversation, there will often be a number of people who have stories like mine or incidents where it is clear that there was intent.

ICBINEG Thu 16-May-13 14:04:05

hmmm I take the point about sexualization of children not being relevant. I hadn't thought of it like that.

I still think the society wide idea that women are more attractive if they remove evidence of being post puberty might be a thing though.

So do people find they have the same level of revulsion for Gerontophilia (sexual attraction to the elderly)? Obviously the level of revulsion associated with actual sexual activity isn't the same because the elderly can consent (although you only hear about it when they don't sad ) and children can't, but what about the sexual desire itself?

Gerontophilia is far rarer and hence arguably more deviant and abnormal but I am willing to believe that the thought that a friend of your is an utterly non-active paedophile is far more disturbing than the thought that a friend of yours is an utterly non-active gerontophile?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now