To think paedophilia isn't a daily mail invention?

[kingofshadows]

As the weather gets warmer I have already noticed various threads about where to permit children to be naked and the inevitable answers state that there 'isn't a paedophile around every corner!' (generally with a hearty 'gosh, how silly!' tone), that people who don't let their innocent children remove their clothing are ruining their childhoods and the Daily Mail readers are the ones who don't let their children run round in this state.

I have never bought a copy of the Daily Mail.

However, I do think - know - paedophiles exist.

Aibu to be sick of the insinuation that those of us who are concerned about sexual abuse of our children are hysterical daily mail readers?

Stay at home mum - mum who literally does not go past the front door.

Come on, i'm autistic and i got the inferred meaning of 'in the home' dont create an argument from nothing

grisclair no, the comparison isn't off. I feel that having anyone with nazi or kkk views in my life would be damaging to my family, just the same as I feel that having a paedophile in my life would be damaging to my family. That isn't judging, that's excluding people that I feel would have a pronounced negative effect and it is my absolute moral obligation to protect my family.

If my son turned out to be a paedophile? I'm honest enough to admit that I have no idea what I'd do. If it was anyone else, my husband, parents, whoever i'd cut them out without a second thought, but my son? I don't know.

I do speak German but I'm not prepared to read the articles. I was abused by a paedophile, I've just gone through another round of chemo and I'm not up to it mentally at the minute, I may come back and read them when I'm less I'll, so thank you for posting the links.

*Ill, not I'll

House= the building in which we live.
Home= the abstract idea of house+family+friends+activites +social unit connected to any/all of the above.

My 13 yr old foreign students understand what "home" is. And why you can't (for example) say "I'm going to S's home" because you don't know what "home" is for S.

All of which is mainly irrelevant for the discussion at hand except I'm rather bemused as to how people would categorise that mate of your Dad's who is a paedophile....because he's not part of your home (according to some) and nor is he a stranger.

Which rather proves the point of nitpicking being a bit daft.

There are, quite literally, paedophiles around my corner, as the street contains several houses full of bedsits that are used to accommodate ex-offenders. They have been there for years - but there has never been a case of child abduction or assault or similar in all that time, and I've never seen anyone in the local park but kids and their parents. I think people do generally know to be vigilant round here though.

That said, I had no qualms about letting my dc go naked on the beach when they were smaller.

Stars, for you, I hope you'll feel less ill soon.

I can totally understand why someone who was abused by a paedophile themselves would cut a paedophile out of their circle immediately and feel nothing but disgust for a person with that type of sexual orientation.

Nevertheless, I think it would be really important to offer more support to those paedophiles who don't intend to act on their fantasies and that would have to include less judgement, disgust and hysteria from everyone else.

gris Does that mean that man who watched the child pornography has done nothing wrong? You said he would never hurt a child but he has enjoyed a child being hurt to make that child pornography. Watching an assault occur, in my opinion, is still child abuse. I cannot think of anything worse for a child trying to recover from sexual abuse knowing that there are still images and videos out there of them. I know people who share your view but I cannot get my head around it. I would cut off my daughter/future son if they became a child abuser.

grisclair thank you.
I should probably clarify, the paedophiles themselves don't disgust me, their feelings do. Sounds nitpicky but its an important distinction to make I feel. Yes there are times when I feel like I would happily shoot the lot of them myself, but those thoughts are the last remnants of my PTSD rearing their head. I would not express those views in front of my son, or anyone in rl for instance. I have worked very hard for a lot of years to try to separate the fact that feelings/thoughts and acting on them are very different, but I will be the first to admit that it's easy to fall back into branding them all with the same iron. I suppose to exclude them is judging them,but not from a moral judgement point of view, from a risk assessment point of view. I make judgements on safety issues all the time.

Re support, yes if there was a place they could go to get therapy and where they were excluded from anyone who could be at risk from them, and if they went there voluntarily to stop themselves being a danger to anyone then I would have a great deal of respect for them. Their feelings would still disgust me, but I would admire their personal strength in trying to keep others safe.

My son is, and now always will be an only child. If his siblings hadn't passed away and if he turned out to be a paedophile then I would exclude him from them, in order to protect them. I don't think I could ever turn my back on him myself though, even if it meant taking him off into the wilds somewhere so that he couldn't hurt anyone.

Crumbly further to my last post I would consider watching child pornography as acting on feelings.

My mum works in this field and they are taught that paedophilia is actually a sexual orientation just like being hetero or gay. So yes there is more than 1 paedophilia round the corner IMO

Crumbly, of course I believe that watching child pornography is horribly wrong and I can totally see where you're coming from. Still I think there is a big difference between passively consuming child pornography and actively laying hands on a child yourself. I'm certainly not condoning what he did, but I still have the greatest respect for someone like this guy who wants to stop himself being or become more of a danger despite all the social stigma attached to it.

Stars, you sound like a very strong, lovely, thoughtful person and I really admire your ability to discuss such a hurtful and personal topic the way you do.

I should probably clarify, the paedophiles themselves don't disgust me,
their feelings do. Sounds nitpicky but its an important distinction to make I feel.

That's actually very similar to how I see it. Sorry that I misunderstood your earlier post.

suppose to exclude them is judging them,but not from a moral judgement point of view, from a risk assessment point of view. I make judgements on safety issues all the time.

Again fair enough, I think it's perfectly fine to make a judgement from a risk assessment point of view. I do however think that especially from a risk management point of view, it would make a lot more sense to not exclude paedophiles from society. If coming out with their sexual orientation means becoming a social pariah and being forced to move to a remote island, paedophiles will be less inclined to seek help and remain a danger when things could be done to manage their desires. I'm sure there are many paedophiles who are horrified by their own sexual urges and would consider therapy plus more extreme measures like chemical castration to protect potential victims. If that comes as a package deal with losing your family, neighbours protesting for you to move and never being able to finding a job again, making the right choice will be a lot harder though.

That is not creating an argument from nothing beyondthewall and your attempt at a SAHM comparison is risible. Those trying to claim that 'in the home' actually means outside the home but with people you know from the community, who may never have even visited your home at any point nor you theirs, need to do a better job at telling us why.

Grisclair re chemical castration, I have read that where this happens, the paedophiles who have been subject to the procedure may simply find other ways to assault children, sexually or otherwise. So I don't know how far the risk is being managed with this procedure. Although I suppose if someone is motivated to want chemical castration, as opposed to having it forced on them, that alone might be a protective factor, iyswim.

Please can we use the term " images of child abuse" not " child pornography"? Consuming images of abuse is merely abuse by proxy. The demand for them facilitates the supply.

chemical castration

Aside from the children suffer sexual abuse in ways other than penile penetration what about female child sex abusers?

*paedophiles themselves don't disgust me,'

I agree. And as I have touched upon below I believe our best chance of limiting the harm of individuals who chose to sexually abuse children is to shift our language and attitude. Our best hope is to create an environment where people who experience a desire to sexually assault children are able to seek help. The current climate is not conducive to that. I believe we will not eradicate child sex abuse by perpetually cranking up our disgust levels, we need a more considered and intellectual/progressive approach if we are to make serious changes.

Paedophile does not equal child sex abuser.

A paedophile is simply someone who is only or primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Many paedophiles struggle massively with their feelings, and as a previous poster alluded to, feel unable to seek help. In the same way that all men are not rapists, all paedophiles are not child abusers. Paedophiles can control their sexual urges in the same way that you or I can.

Headinhands, I believe chemical castration leads to a dramatically reduced sex drive and can be used to suppress compulsive sexual fantasies. The result is not like for example having ED with the man's libido remaining the same. Therefore it should not only decrease the risk of abuse through penile penetration but of all kinds of sexual abuse including the use of inappropriate photos or even ogling children at the beach.
Apparently the main problem with chemical castration are the side-effects as it can lead to osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. That means it's unfortunately not a long-term solution for all patients.

I completely agree with your last post, that's exactly what I was trying to say - a lot less eloquently - in my previous posts. Sadly though, paedophilia appears to be a topic that even many highly educated people just can't seem to discuss in a civil and productive manner.

kingofshadows-I couldn't agree with you more.

I have only read your opening post (and I'm commenting so that you know that you are not alone) but Iam purposely not reading the rest of the thread as I know it will upset me too much

I find the people (on here and in RL) who are sneery and scathing over paedophile "hysteria" are the ones who have never been a victim of child abuse so think it is ok to take the piss out of people like me who live a life of fear and are very protective of our DC.

I know that there isn't a paedophile on every corner but unfortunately paedophiles don't wear a big flashing badge to let you know that they have a sexual interest in your DC

I really envy people who are so certain that no harm will ever come to their DC and wish I could be so carefree

I should probably clarify, the paedophiles themselves don't disgust me, their feelings do

I disagree. One thing is to have feelings and another thing entirely is to act on them. I don't think it is an illness or even a particular bent that someone is born with, I think it is when people feel they are entitled to their own gratification at another person's expense. So many paedophile rings involve powerful and wealthy people and I find it hard to believe that they were all born bent, they are just people who believe they can take whatever they want and to hell with the consequences for other people.

But I think the main point of protecting our children from sexual abuse is so that they can enjoy their childhoods and grow up healthily, so I totally agree with the poster who said I am not going to restrict my children's lives because of the threat of child rapists

We have to teach our children to be confident and open with us their parents. That they don't have to kiss granny or uncle if they don't want to and, much as obedient children are a delight, not teach them that they have to blindly obey all adults.

Sexual predators seem to prey on insecure children.

yes that's why using the term paedophile to lable every single abuser of children is lazy and misleading

many people who abuse do so because they can, because they enjoy hurting people because they want to cause misery, pain, humiliation, because they want control

They are not all the same

Atenco I wouldn't agree all abused children are 'insecure' - I wasn't I was just to young to understand

many vulnerable children are targeted but they aren't all lacking in confidence

grisclair thank you, I'm an antisocial git really but thank you, its been a long road. I'm sure I wasn't clear, is an emotive subject for me so I sometimes struggle with writing/speaking with clarity about it. I see your point, and I agree, exclusion would make them less likely to get help, but that it where the line blurs for me and my experiences make it difficult for me to consider it reasonably. No matter how much I try to rein in my emotions, that bias will inevitably show through. That's my failing, so that's where I have to bow out of discussions.

Ifnot there are images of me still out there somewhere. I call it child pornography because that's what it is to me, its not saying that it's not abuse, it is, but calling it by any other name I struggle with. Part of my coming to terms with things was being able to call a spade a spade, and to be able to say in my own words what happened, being able to talk about it without going to pieces, without being shushed and without anyone trying to put words in my mouth or telling me I wasn't using politically (or otherwise) correct phrases.
I'm genuinely sorry if my choice of words bothers you, everyone is affected by different things .

Atenco I wasn't insecure either.

Pony74, in what sense did they say that it is a sexual orientation? I understand if they are saying that the actual feelings can't be helped (although they can and should stop themselves acting on them including child pornography).

Or are they saying it's a sexual orientation as in justifying and excusing their actions?