to be pretty terrified that being a child abuser

[FocaultOff]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Well said Fanjo

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??

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!!

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

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?
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?