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?

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?

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.

Sorry, missed the word attraction from the last sentence.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

freyasnow I see no child abuse4 apologists on this threaD

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.

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.

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!