Seeing more and more articles like this about paedophiles.

Who would do what? Not sniping, genuine question.

If a paedophile feels they are about to commit a crime, they could go to the police, couldn't they?

No, no no - I didn't mean to suggest there was anything per se wrong with childhood sexuality, or that there was ever a time when children were not molested - only that children are now abusing other children to a degree they never did, and raising the further issue of what sort of adults these children might grow into.

In effect, we have a culture that is creating future sexually deviant adults. Possibly.

I don't know if you meant to suggest that sexting etc should be regarded as 'normal exploration and curiosity', but I'm not so sure.

Suppose a boy of 10 asks a girl of the same age to send him a sexual picture or video of himself. Is that a sexually deviant act or normal curiosity? Should we place him on a register to make sure he doesn't continue to do this into adulthood? Should he get therapy?

I don't know.

There are further complications concerning the way the modern world is impacting on childhood sexuality....and I'm sorry, disturbing as this might sound, there is such a thing as childhood sexuality. This is what was so scandalous about Freudianism. That does not mean children should be legitimated as objects of adults sexual desire, because that's clearly repugnant. It just means that they are sexual beings

I got reported to MNHQ for saying that once so I was loathe to say it here too. But it seesm to be supported by the research - i.e. even small children get pleasure from fondling their genitals. There is a massive leap across a canyon here to saying that children can (or should) consent to sex with adults (or other children), though.

It can't be a bad thing to seek more understanding of any potentially destructive human behaviour. Merely seeking understanding doesn't have to "normalise" anything.

Maybe the chemical castration may help with some (voluntarily perhaps) , but there are multiple pathologies at work here, and I have heard that for the trully psychopathic rapists for whom this is a power thing a castration could tip them into murder to start to excercise their power once sex is taken away.

The thing we need to come down hard on are attempts to pass off pederasty as another sexual orentation. Anything that violates the non-aggression principle by definition MUST be illegal. Homosexuality is not a problem as its consensual. If we're going to make allowances because a behaviour is in someone's nature then we may as well have no laws or restrictions of any kind. It's in a kleptomaniacs nature to steal, a serial killers to murder and so on.

People who have these urges who don't act on them have my sympathy. Same as that kid recently who went into school with a shotgun and many many shells, and just before he was about to start murdering people, phoned the police and handed himself in. It doesn't mean that boy shouldn't be separated from the rest of us to make sure the unthinkable doesn't then go on to happen.

Personally anyone who seeks psychiatric/psychological help to control urges that would lead them to criminal acts should be assisted in every way possible, and if they haven't committed any actual crime we shouldn't treat them as criminals. Any loss of Liberty as a protective measure is not the same as a loss of Liberty as a punitive one. If my brain goes doolally and I start hearing voices telling me to kill people I would want to be treated as a patient who was dangerous as opposed to a criminal who was dangerous iyswim?

Same way as if by ill fortune I bumped into a person who had contracted Ebola and caught it myself I would want to be seperated from others, treated if possible but above all not be able to infect anyone else! If I knew I was infected, didn't seek medical help and went around knowingly infecting dozens of people I'd be acting criminally and certainly morally culpable. I may not be guilty of getting the disease in the first place, but it is my moral responsibility to seek quarantine.

I don't know why you think it's 'disturbing' that there's such a thing as childhood sexuality gentlemanjohn - of course there is. Biologically the child has sensations that they enjoy and they may play out ideas of love and relationships with other children - that's totally normal. Only in a situation in which these feelings are seen as 'dirty' and 'wrong' does it become disturbing. Of course there are situations where children who have been subjected to abuse play that abuse out on others and that needs to be dealt with, but there's no need to hand-wring about or pathologise normal exploration and curiosity.

Porn is a separate issue - a child being exposed to porn is considered a form of abuse and can lead to abusive behaviour in a child. That's an issue for wider society, definitely.

But the idea that children were once so safe and carefree is utter nonsense. Children were raped by adults in their thousands while everyone turned a blind eye. At least these days it's recognised as abuse at the very least.

I'm no expert so I don't know, TheSparrowhawk. Regardless, if therapy works to reduce offending we should be doing it and it should be possible for anybody with paedophilic tendencies to access that therapy.

It's the job of the therapist to unpick the exact reasons any particular paedophile might offend and to minimise the chances of that happening. Whatever those therapists are paid, it isn't enough.

Better to get help to deal with it so no children are harmed.

I thought there was no cure, though?

This is really complicated I think, because I partly agree with some posters in that you don't want to simply de-moralise this into a therapeutic issue. But at the same time, if someone like this does seek help, what should we do? Just turn him (or her, occasionally) away?

There are further complications concerning the way the modern world is impacting on childhood sexuality....and I'm sorry, disturbing as this might sound, there is such a thing as childhood sexuality. This is what was so scandalous about Freudianism. That does not mean children should be legitimated as objects of adults sexual desire, because that's clearly repugnant. It just means that they are sexual beings. And it means adult paedophiles were once children. And there are children who are on their way to becoming paedophiles.

The fact is that children are arguably sexually active in all sorts of way that they perhaps they were not in the past. Sexting is a key example. It is now almost normal for children to exchange sexualised photos and videos of themselves. This means children are BOTH becoming the increasing victims and perpetrators of child pornography.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/10/sexting-becoming-the-norm-for-teens-warn-child-protection-experts

Furthermore, child on child sexual assault is sky-rocketing. Allegations of sexual offences perpetrated by children against other children have increased by 78% over the past four years! 78%!!!! Are these children nascent paedophiles? Can a child be a paedophile? Or will it be more likely that such a child grow into a paedophile? What can we do to prevent that happening? Should it be therapy - or something more punative? I

This debate was once very simple in some ways. There were innocent children and evil adults who predated on them . End of. Now it has suddenly become very complicated. Not that adults who predate on children aren't still absolutely abhorrent (that bit is still very black and white)...but we also need to be aware that the increasing participation of children in sexual culture is going to cause big problems. Children have always had their own completely separate sexual culture in the form of 'Doctors and Nurses' etc, and that's fine - but when that becomes mixed up with the world of adult, public sexuality - as it does with the internet - then there is a danger of children becoming BOTH victims of sexual abuse and sexually deviant children/future adults. Furthermore, there is a danger of attraction to other children of their own age (which is of course normal) becoming fixed as they're lost in this cyber world.

I hope this hasn't been misunderstood. Just throwing some troubling questions out there without really knowing any of the answers myself.

There is a subtle underlying narrative that male sexuality, no matter what form it takes, is somehow inevitable - that women have to stay out of the way of men, for example, to avoid being raped, as though rape is somehow and force of nature rather than a choice that is made by a man. I'm concerned that that narrative is extending to paedophilia.

We all want things we can't have. Paedophiles need to just not attack children. Frankly if they need help to do that then I think they should be locked up.

So, if we are going to normalise this as a 'preference', could the same thing happens for rapists? That is a sexual preference, after all.

This has already happened. That's why we talk of "rape culture".

The drive to rape women has been considered men's natural sexual orientation for thousands of years.

Every time a rape apologist says "Oh, the poor man just couldn't resist the temptation", do they mean "could not resist the temptation to have consensual sex"? No, they don't, obviously, as consensual sex was never an option - they mean "could not resist the temptation to rape".

Heterosexuality=Men raping women. That's how a lot of people think, even though they don't ever say it that way, just imply it in thousands of other things they say. Because it is never outright stated, not all people are aware of how widespread that attitude is.

But Pencils, if the person knows it's wrong to have sexual contact with a child, but goes ahead and does it anyway, surely the problem isn't the paedophilia as such but a lack of impulse control?

I think there is an urgent need to stop sweeping this issue under the carpet so that it's possible for paedophiles to get help before they offend (also to actually fund treatment). It's not OK that these men are reliant on anti contact forums to prevent offending. It's just not safe. I'm happy to listen to the experts on this, like those quoted in the BBC article. If treatment can help paedophiles manage their condition without offending and thus help prevent child abuse then we absolutely should be doing that.

At the same time, like JWrecks, I am appalled at the growing efforts of some in the identity politics crowd to normalise paedophilia as just another sexual identity. We've been here before with PIE and must be very careful not to take any steps down that road again.

It's not helpful to conflate these two things. I don't think there is anything wrong with the BBC article, this is an issue that needs talking about sensibly so we can work out what works and then do it, thus reducing the number of children who are abused, which I assume is everybody's first priority. As long as we remain aware of where the paedophilia-as-sexual-identity crowd would like the discussion to lead and avoid that at all costs.

Ah I see. Yes, there is a lack of mental health support on the NHS, for everyone. When someone seeks MH support they're usually assessed for being a danger to themselves or others - I wonder if a paedophile is considered to be a danger to others?

I don't remember the details sparrow, but I think it was a problem due to funding - GP wouldn't do it, and also due to availability, no-one had any expertise, and he was sayign we need to do more research and work out what will help etc.

He wasn't arguing for peadophilia to become mainstream or even acceptable. He was arguing that if men have thoughts towards children they should be able to get help. That's it. No one thinks it's ok to abuse children. Surely if therapy like that stops one child from being abused it's worth it.

Anyone can get counselling though?

I don't see anyone suggesting that should be treated 'normally' as a kind of kink (apart from a few nutjobs/the perpetrators themselves).

Google "heart progress". They are an active lobby group lobbying for and normalising the rights of adults to have sexual contact with children. They are/were very active on Twitter and other social media platforms. They call themselves 'pedosexuals' rather than paedophiles, and absolutely argue that children can give consent to sexual relationships.

And that's just the stuff they're happy to put in the public domain.

Sparrow, I think he wanted counselling to help him work out why he had this attraction, and to see if he could change it.

That in itself raises a whole load sof questions about therapy and sexuality. None of which I have any answers for.

I understand your point steppemum, but I'm not sure what sort of help that man could get? I presume he knows right from wrong in which case, beyond telling him not to attack children what can be done? I doubt he'd be allowed to have chemical castration considering how hard it is to get sterilised.

No, and whatever goes on in someones head the practice will never be normalised or legal, for the same simple and non-negotiable reason. Consent

But consent isn't somehow natural or immutable. It is a human construct and we can change how we view it and whether we agree to it. Not saying we should - just pointing out that it isn't fixed in stone.

Sparrow - except if a they are coming forward and asking for help?

Windy as the person who posted and who actually saw the documentary -

no, he was not putting blame on anyone but himself. He was frightened, and in a place where there was zero help for him.

He had tried to get help and none was available, and, I should point out, he was told that help was only available to paedophiles after they had offended and therefore 'proved' they were genuine

I am not making excuses for him, that was how he felt, terrified to be around children in case he did something.

Now, I agree, the rest of us manage to control oursleves, whatever our sexual orientation. But the point is that at the moment we don't want to see these people as existing. But they do, you can't change that, and so what do we do? Maybe this young man would have been HAPPY to be offered chemical castration as a means of control. But at the time of filming he was not offered ANYTHING. No therapy, no medication, nothing, and he wanted help. What about those who don't want help.

I am not trying to take away his personal responsibility and choice to offend or not offend, but rather ask the questions about how we can improve the situation we have.

Paedophiles who haven't committed any crimes are potential rapists. In general we don't attempt to identify potential rapists - we don't expect men to come forward and say 'I want to rape women' so they can be treated. So what's different about paedophiles?

So, if we are going to normalise this as a 'preference', could the same thing happens for rapists? That is a sexual preference, after all.

did you actually read any of the thread before you posted?

As a society we accept that some people are rapists. We act to contain them and where necessary treat them/punish them.
But at the moment as a society we are not acknowledging the existance of these people who are attracted to children.

By acknowledging their existance, we can plan how to contain them/treat them. If we pretend they don't exist and are them surprised and shocked everytime a case comes to light, then we aren't taking preventative action.