Seeing more and more articles like this about paedophiles.

No - it should be considered in the same way as any sort of mental illness liable to cause a person to harm others. Treatment by qualified professionals, absolutely.

Like schizophrenia.

Each year in the UK about 30 murders are committed by people living with schizophrenia.

From www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/

Is this true of all who were abused or just males? Do women have the same response?

As the research concerning female paedophilia is povertous, it's very hard to say. I should think that abuse is just one predisposing factor, and a culture of male sexual entitlement another that might explain the preponderance of male paedophiles.

I would venture however that within the population of female paedophiles (however small), you would probably find a higher number of victims than in the general population.

It is thought there are three pathologies that lead to pedophilia. The most common is that expressed by those who were abused themselves. There exists a major cognitive confusion centred around emotion/sexual development. This is where you have the greatest chance of correcting the problem, but this is best achieved as early as possible with proper support/counseling for survivors. It's much more of a devil to tackle in adulthood

Is this true of all who were abused or just males? Do women have the same response?

I also get the kink / fetish thing, but this isn't how it is spoken of in fetish communities.

'OK, looks like we agree then TheSparrowhawk. It's just earlier you said that if paedophiles sought help to prevent them from offending they should be locked up. I'm wondering if you've revised that position at all.'

I think you misunderstood me. If a paedophile has a genuine fear that they can't control themselves, then yes I think they should be locked up - surely letting them out runs the risk that they'll hurt someone?

If someone goes along to a counsellor and talks about fantasies etc I don't think they should be locked up but I think the counsellor will probably be in a very tough position - how will they know that the person hasn't acted on these fantasies? At what point do they decide the person is a danger?

I agree Dervel. The first has been termed 'the vampire hypothesis'. It's controversial because of the suggestion that all offenders are at risk of abusing themselves; but while most victims do not go on to abuse, the majority of abusers have been victims - if that makes sense.

I think the fantasy plus sociopathy is the true danger zone. To even consider actually abusing a child there has to be a pathological empathy deficit. And unfortunately, that cannot be treated.

It is thought there are three pathologies that lead to pedophilia. The most common is that expressed by those who were abused themselves. There exists a major cognitive confusion centred around emotion/sexual development. This is where you have the greatest chance of correcting the problem, but this is best achieved as early as possible with proper support/counseling for survivors. It's much more of a devil to tackle in adulthood.

The other two types are rarer, there does appear to be a small cohort who despite everything just have this attraction, but there is no guarentee that they will actually abuse. The last type is the psychopath that is on a trajectory of torturing animals, other people (especially partners) and the more they abuse the more they desensitize themselves until eventually they abuse children.

I think it's worth pointing out the difference between a kink and a fetish (in psychological terms rather than common parlance). A kink is a preference that doesn't need to be present to enjoy sex, a fetish is a prequisite. Generally I think kinks are in most cases harmless. Fetishes on the other hand can and do get in the way of a healthy sex life as a fetish becomes more important than the other flesh and blood human being you are engaging in sex with. This at the very least is going to render emotional bonding tertiary if not making it harder entirely.

I'm trying to think of an example....say a boy who gets a girl to send him a sext and sticks it online. That isn't just mucking about.

I think every single paedophile is a danger, including the ones who claim they would never act on it and then in the same breath talk of how they are frightened they might. I think when they say they avoid children because they are afraid they would hurt them what they actually mean is they pretend to avoid children and make a big song and dance about it to support their idea of good and bad paedophiles when in reality they do not avoid children at all.

I'm a bit hmm about the above "concern" about child sexuality, and the supposedly scary path it's heading down... Anyone who has been a child knows that children will explore immature sexual impulses with each other. That's the point. When adults exploit that normal part of development they can only be predators.

Totally...but I'm just saying that there is a difference between doctors and nurses and this immersion in porn/sexting culture. The rise in child on child sexual abuse is not something to be dismissed, because those abusive children will potentially develop into adult sexual predators.

Because the thing is, paedophiles are not just pure as driven snow children and then suddenly wake up on the morning of their 18th birthday as a paedophile.

My point is that a kind of sexual sociopathy has become part of the culture children now inhabit - that is an BOTH an enormous risk to them in the form of predatory adults, and can have a corrupting effect on their development. I'm not even saying they should be punished - in fact I really don't think they should be - just that...we've got a problem.

I agree that it is about impulse control primarily. I see it, where 'it' involves someone attracted to children and unable to control this urge, as closer to alcoholism or gambling addiction in terms of cause. Caveat - I know nothing re what the experts say.

This is a really interesting point actually.
It is about control, by that I mean self control, and not about the desire as such. As has been pointed out, many people have many odd and 'bad' desires, but we don't act on them.

If control is the issue, then I would suggest that there are many therapies which can help, CBT of various sorts which someone could learn.

There is however a serious underlying point that people have to believe that their desire is wrong and be srious about finding a way of control, and I am not convinced that is true of many.

Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children. Simple as that. Attraction to adolescents is a different thing. Most men are at least some way sexually attracted to older teenaged girls (see ref to porn searches earlier), most (i would like to think) would never act on it.
There should be a process by which, if someone goes to the gp and says they have a sexual attraction to children, they can access help of some kind. Ignoring the fact that there are paedophiles doesn't make them dissappear.
Deviant thoughts don't make you a child abuser, actions do. No one wants to think they are close to a paedophiles, but fact is we can't police what goes on in someone's head. We can try and study why people bevome deviant in this way though.
I'm a bit about the above "concern" about child sexuality, and the supposedly scary path it's heading down... Anyone who has been a child knows that children will explore immature sexual impulses with each other. That's the point. When adults exploit that normal part of development they can only be predators.
Children mimicking adult sexuality are one thing. An adult being involved in any part of this is abuse. There are no shades of grey.

They had castrated men like these before and It didn't help so that's when I knew for sure it is about abused of power

And there's no contradiction in saying that predilection itself is an illness - with no moral censure attached to it as such - that we seek to treat. But that the acting upon it is a truly horrible crime.

I suppose while not all of us have sexual fantasies concerning children, we all feel impelled to do things that we don't because we know them to be wrong (smack your boss in the face). All the time in fact. So I suppose the question is one the degree to which the individual is focused on these fantasies, and the extent to which they define his/her sexual character. Are they exclusively, irresistibly focused on children - or is it one guilty fantasy amongst many is kept to the privacy of their minds? At what point do they become a paedophile? I mean, I would say that if you are having sexual thoughts about six year old's you have got a big fucking problem, but what if it's fourteen year old's, sixteen year old's?

I mean, the work of Nancy Friday, Kinsey and others has shown that fantasies which are commonly judged deviant (incest for example) are not as abnormal as we would like to assume. But for most people this isn't a problem because they just shelve them in the back of their minds and know they'll never actually go there.

Just throwing some questions out there again.

I don't think any sensible people are trying to normalise it though (nb. the word 'sensible'. You can always find a nutter or a sicko who supports a viewpoint, particularly with the internet and that).

All (sensible) people are saying is that you can consider the act heinous, but still try to understand the mental state that increases the risk of it happening, hopefully with a view of treating it. This doesn't equate to apologism or 'normalisation' or anything like that. It's really not that nuanced a position at all.

The BBC knowingly ignored reports of Saville and other abuses for twenty years. Sex assaults on BBC staff happened and the victims were told that he was a vip. Even the BBC has had to admit this.

And in this the BBC were not the only institution. Are you actually saying that the BBC of today is actively pursuing an agenda of normalisation of paedophillia?

Pedophillia is by its very nature abusive. Even if a pedophile does not act on his/her impulses, their desires are for sonething that necessitates an abuse of power. The normalisation of pedophellia is the equivalent of the acceptance and normalisation of rape fetishes.
This 👆🏻Exactly this.
A child can never consent and part of the turn on for these people comes down to that.
I find it very disturbing that more frequently people are willing to put this in the public domain- interviews, documentaries, social media groups I think they must feel the response isn't enough to put them off being open therefore is society become more used to it ?- I really hope not the whole concept is completely disgusting and frightening.

OK, looks like we agree then TheSparrowhawk. It's just earlier you said that if paedophiles sought help to prevent them from offending they should be locked up. I'm wondering if you've revised that position at all.

Pedophillia is by its very nature abusive. Even if a pedophile does not act on his/her impulses, their desires are for sonething that necessitates an abuse of power. The normalisation of pedophellia is the equivalent of the acceptance and normalisation of rape fetishes

And there's no contradiction in saying that predilection itself is an illness - with no moral censure attached to it as such - that we seek to treat. But that the acting upon it is a truly horrible crime.

I think it's easy to make a case for that Sparrowhawk. Even were you to take an utterly cynical view and say you don't care about the consequences of the crime, then I can well believe that it would stand up to scrutiny from a public expenditure point of view, at least at for the more serious offences. In other words, it would be cheaper to reduce the number of rapes, murders etc. happening than to investigate and prosecute the crimes.

The fact that paedophilia appears in the DSM as an illness, for example. Does that mean we may eventually have to give paedophiles the same 'they can't help it' consideration that we give to people with autism or depression?

No - it should be considered in the same way as any sort of mental illness liable to cause a person to harm others. Treatment by qualified professionals, absolutely.

The BBC knowingly ignored reports of Saville and other abuses for twenty years. Sex assaults on BBC staff happened and the victims were told that he was a vip. Even the BBC has had to admit this.

No of course not, if it stops someone hurting a child it can only be a good thing. It's arguable that we should have specialist counselling available for everyone who feels they may fall in to crime - it would be great to stop people from robbing/raping/committing fraud before they even start.

If you think about it, paedophilia is the final sexual taboo. Pretty much every other taboo has been smashed - apart from maybe bestiality. BDSM, urophilia, coprophilia, voyeurism, incest, exhibitionism - all of these can be indulged on porn sites, chat rooms, web cams - or you can just go on a Kink dating site and find someone who is into acting out a rape fantasy. So long as you're consenting adults, everything is considered fine, and anyone who has a bad word to say about it is judged an interfering radfem/Christian/moralist/fascist etc etc. But pedophillia has always been exempted as a taboo moral horror.

So perhaps we are seeing the final taboo being slowly chipped away at and brought sphere of sexual identity politics and therapy culture?

Terrifying, but possibly true.

There are loads of counsellors about but very few who have the inclination or specialist expertise to work with this group. I'd say it's probably beyond the remit of counsellors generally. I'd expect those working with these clients to be highly qualified and experienced psychotherapists who've had specialist training.

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation offers help to non-offending paedophiles, accessed via their Stop It Now helpline. Do you think that's a bad thing?