to think being a paedophile isn't a crime?

[KissingFish]

I see posts from people both on here and other places (Facebook) about how paedophiles should all be killed and confusing the terms paedophile and child molester / child abuser.

They're not the same thing and honestly I don't think being a paedophile is a crime. It is a sexual orientation that nobody chooses to be born with. The same way people are born straight or gay.

Just because someone is a paedophile it doesn't mean they have acted on it and so it doesn't mean they are a child molester.

Surely if we all accepted that paedophilia is a sexual orientation we could help these people before they commit a crime. Before they act on it. I bet there are a LOT more paedophiles out there than we know about. They just don't act on it because they know it's wrong to act on it.

I am of course not saying being sexually attracted to children is a good thing or that it should ever be OK to act on it. No way. Just that I don't think people choose to be a paedophile and it must be pretty scary to realise you are attracted to children. Much the same way it used to be about being gay. And I don't imagine you can just ask friends, family or many people actually for help and advice.

I think in order to deal with a problem you need to understand it first.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though if anyone has a good argument?

Disclaimer: I am not a paedophile, I just don't believe they are all evil.

help stop it? that's funny because when i spoke to the nspcc about a historic case they didn't suggest that sympathy would help protect children.. they strongly uged me to do a police report and notify all agencies he was involved in and local safeguarding... funny that.

Leedy

Let me just say very clearly, that I can not condone posts like this. The discussion is going to draw an emotive response from mothers with babies and children. I don't think you have any right to discuss with me about survival of rape.

We are definitely being infiltrated with child abuse sympathisers who simply wish to peddle their twisted views. There is no real discussion, there are no real solutions, this is completely out of order.

Most people feel a sense of repulsion when they hear a story on the news where a child suffers neglect or even is killed as a result of post natal depression yet it's still possible to feel sympathy and a sense of failure by the mental health services for the woman who does it as well as the repulsion of the crime and desire for justice for the child involved.

It is possible to feel both repulsion and sympathy even for paedophiles

Does anyone actually know the figures for how many paedohphiles have not either physically abused a child or accessed child abuse images online?

I thought not. And until we know that, everyones opinion on this topic is equally as invalid as it is valid.

I'm with you Maryz. I think a few posters here need to put their pitchforks down and do a bit of reading and research.

FWIW chemical castration isn't the gold standard for treatment; it can be used with good effect but it certainly isn't 100% effective and would be used with intensive psychiatric treatment. Given that your biggest sex organ is your brain, just switching off your testicles isn't going to guarantee that children aren't abused.

And if you think that counsellors that offer therapy for depression and PND will be doing work with sexual offenders you need to give your head a wobble. They are distinctively different fields. You're more likely to find a forensic psychiatrist working with paedophiles. It wouldn't impact on provision of therapy for PND and other mental health problems found in the general population.

Good point Pig. Until they actually do either, it's not evident they are a paedophile, only to themselves.

sorry no.. not seeing the comparison between the horrific condition of postnatal pyschosis which can come out of nowhere and a peadophile that kills a child no...

"Treatment for what though? Can we all agree that this is deviant behaviour?

That should be the starting point to a sensible discussion on how to start treatment and understanding."

One of the things that seemed to help (though not the only treatment discussed) as per that article was peer support - having a place (virtual or RL) for people to go when struggling with the urge to watch abuse images or follow obsessive thoughts about children, people who have dealt with the same issues to talk you down and encourage you. Kind of like AA or similar. But it's very difficult to provide in an environment where people think even having those urges is just as bad as acting on them.

Sidge given the estimated number or pedophiles in this country, you think it wouldnt have an impact on other services (already spread so thin due to funding) if the nhs had to suddenly pay out for intensive therapy for all wh requested it?

Nothing will ever be resolved by closed minded people who refuse to consider any theories or reasons for paedophilia
Fear & blind hatred are not ways to solve anything. In fact, it is dangerous.

People who are trying to understand it are not sympathisers - they are not condoning child abuse, so to accuse them of this shows your complete lack of understanding of this issue.

To those who asked if I would invite a paedophile round for dinner...

I am friends with a paedophile. We see him for dinner, he comes round on Christmas day, my children are encouraged to be as respectful towards him as they would towards any other adult.

He is a paedophile. He is not a bad man. He is funny, bright, professional, well respected and kind.

I try not to be closeminded in general, I watched the c4 doc on the peadophile next door, and read the open letter circulated in the news, my reaction to both was the same, repulsion.

"The discussion is going to draw an emotive response from mothers with babies and children."

I am a mother with babies and children, as I presume are many of the posters on this thread. You don't know anything about me, or my history. Are you suggesting that if I don't think the previous poster is "a child abuse sympathizer" that I'm somehow less maternal, or less sympathetic to abuse victims?

Having suggested on another thread that a practical approach is best to handling people who hurt children sexually, and been accused of being a sympathiser, I can honestly say that I don't think any rational discussion is possible on Mumsnet.

I say that as someone who's had to help deal with the survivors of abuse that have had policemen in tears and have distorted the survivor's lives beyond full or sometimes even partial repair. I've put my own money, not a small amount, into tracking down one particular one via a private detective when the information I gave to the police wasn't enough.

Driving something underground doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

there is no desire to actually help people to NOT abuse. Society at large would much rather wait until they abuse, and then chuck them in jail and throw away the key. In my view that doesn't help many abusers, and it certainly doesn't help the many children who have been abused.

Fwiw, completely agree with maryz on this.

He is a paedophile. He is not a bad man. He is funny, bright, professional, well respected and kind.

...and he may have sexual thoughts and fantasies about your children.. that ok?

lily i too have heard such theroies and suggestions.

She also makes an excellent point about turning paedophiles into bogeymen, and lynchmobbing them. I have experience of seeing this happen and it is so important that we start trying to see the difference between them and child abusers.

I once read an "ask me anything" thread on reddit about a young man who just didn't make the change into being attracted to teenagers, and by god did he hate himself for it. It was utterly eye opening.

MySordidCakeSecret

Even those of us who are trying to understand the subject feel repulsion when confronted or thinking about child abuse.
It is not just the 'kill them, castrate them or throw them in jail brigade' who feel that.
Being open minded means you try to understand the subject despite your revulsion.

But Maryz, how can we know abusers exist until they abuse?

If say, my child loved my cat and stroked it, would I think, 'sexual deviancy!'

If say, my child went all gooey at a toddler, would I think, 'sexual deviancy!'

If say, my child put posters of dead celebrities on their wall, would I think, 'sexual deviancy!'

No. So the only recourse is treatment. And the treatments should be along the lines that this is deviant behaviour. That should be the starting point.

there can also be child abusers who are funny, bright, professional, well respected and outwardly kind.

I don't see much difference whatever the cause there should be prevention methods in place aiming to prevent Children being harmed.

I don't buy it that anyone with a normal life and upbringing just happens to have sexual attraction to children. Something has gone dreadfully wrong in their mind by the time they arrive there. I don't advocate killing them but helping them undo the awful thoughts

I'm still repulsed by the concept of paedophiles yet have sympathy for someone who experiences the desire and fights themselves from acting upon it

I've just done some googling, and it would appear that even the "experts" cannot free on whether paedophilia is a learned behaviour (and can be changed) or a sexual orientation (that cannot be changed).

This is quite an interesting read www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.html

I think there was an earlier question about use of child abuse images, and also about paraphilia.?

"Smallbone and Wortley’s (2001) own research on child sex offenders found, for example:

a late onset of offending behaviour (37% were aged 31 to 40 years);
a low incidence of chronic sexual offending (less than one-quarter had previous convictions for sexual offences);
a high incidence of previous non-sexual offending (approximately 60% had convictions for non-sexual offences);
a low incidence of stranger abuse (94% abused their own child or a child they already knew);
a low incidence of networking among offenders (only about 8% had talked to other offenders);
a low incidence of child pornography use (approximately 10% had used child pornography); and
a low incidence of paraphilic interests (very small proportions could have been diagnosed with other sexually deviant interests such as voyeurism or sexual sadism; Wortley & Smallbone 2006)."

This is just one of the first that came up in Google, I have no idea of the robustness of the quoted study.

lily, that post is actually unhinged.