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.

How many of you would be happy to leave your young children alone with a person who professed such an interest? People with this disorder are attracted to children unable to protect themselves. Comparing this to the historical way the gay and lesbian community has been treated is disingenuous.

I'm sure there was an article in one of the mainstream papers saying exactly the same thing recently.

He was a paedophile but not a child abuser and felt shame at his attraction to children.

He had also been abused as a child, which is why he never acted on his desires. It was quite a chilling article, but does highlight the difference.

However, acting upon such an attraction is repulsive and obviously damaging to the most vulnerable members of society, and feelings will always run high when children are at risk.

I'm not sure I agree that it's always an inherent sexual orientation decided by biology/genetics.

Is it ok for necrophiliacs to want to have sex with corpses as long as they don't actually do it?

Zoophiles?

And I agree with previous poster that it's very dangerous to normalise paedophilia by classing it alongside straight/gay/bi.

I'm struggling with understanding your point OP.

If somebody doesn't act on their socially unacceptable desires, why should be all be fretting about it?

I see the point you're making completely but even the thought of someone sexualising my child even just in their head makes me want to stab them in the eye with a fork.

I think that only a very small percentage of paedophiles actually act on it

Given the horrifyingly high numbers of those who do that is very little comfort.

Technically yes you are right, its not a crime, it doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with the fact that someone could be looking at my child in that way, thinking they are sexually attractive.
Or just accept that these things happen if one of them happened to abuse my child because "well, they can't help it, just as you can't help being gay". They can help becoming an abuser, as has been said. They don't have to act on those feelings.

where can you go to get help if you feel this way?

I agree with you op, but I don't feel comfortable agreeing with you!! I don't want it normalised, I don't want it acceptable. But I do agree there should be more done to help people that don't act on these feelings but want help

So we should feel sorry for the likes of Jimmy Salville then who abused hundreds of children?

I can see what you are saying but I also don't agree that it is a sexual orientation that you can compare to being gay. I'm not gay but I would find this insulting. It's absolutely not the same as saying years ago being given gay wasn't acceptable. Being gay is never abhorrent. Being attracted to children is abhorrent.

I don't really care if they can help it or not. It makes me feel sick to think there are people attracted to children in a sexual way, whether they act on it or not.

You're technically correct but being a paedophile is so morally reprehensible I think many people find it difficult to draw a distinction, or don't care about the distinction, and see it on the same level as committing a crime.

Being straight or gay is a sexual orientation, but either inherently encompasses the idea the other person/partner could consent to a relationship/sex (and obviously should if you act on the attraction, otherwise it's abuse).

Paedophilia is unequivocally based on a principle that the object of the attraction could never consent so is not similar at all - any fantasy a paedophile has is based on committing rape so it's not just that it's not socially acceptable yet, it's that it could (I hope) never be socially acceptable because it's based on abusing someone else.

I totally agree with Scobber.

Normalising it is not the way to do this. And we are on VERY shaky ground if we're going to start comparing it to being gay.

Very small numbers of peadophiles act on it?!

To deny indulging in your sexual orientation, even through viewing images and masturbating, I would have thought is actually quite rare.

And all peado images have victims.

... and wonkywheel. You're both much more articulate than me today!

I completely agree with you. It must be such a scary thing to come to terms with, and so isolating as you literally can't tell anyone about it. I genuinely feel sorry for them.

Scobber, they aren't doing anything wrong if they don't act on their feelings. Imagine if it was against the law to have sexual activity with anyone or view images of sexual activity. You wouldn't be breaking the law if you were attracted to an adult, but would if you acted on it. This was the case with homosexuality until relatively recently (it still is in some countries).

OP, if a paedophile never abused a child his or herself, but viewed images of child abuse, you do agree that that should continue to be a crime, I assume.

Yes comparing consenting adults to an adult who sexually abuses children, is totally reprehensible. It is not the same.

YANBU - people seem to think all child abusers are paedophiles- which really isn't the case - even on this thread people are confusing the issue
Not all paedophiles abuse children and the vast majority or child abusers are not paedophiles

It is not a sexual orientation - it is an act of cruelty. It is far more complex. These are people that enjoy the power and control that it gives them. They like being involved in something that the rest of society abhor. I do not believe they are sexually attracted to pre- pubescent children.

There's no pill you can take, unfortunately

There are treatments availible to treat sexual desire or ability. I believe One of the femail injectable contraceptives when used with men effectively chemically castrates
Granted when used on a active sex offender it tends to mean they don't stop abusing they just don't use their body to do it,but they can be very effective at helping a male Paedophile who wants assistance to Remove sexual desire and who is actively engaged with not turning into a child molester

I don't believe that the men who abuse children are all necessarily "paedophiles" in the sense of being people who "people who (sexually) love children". I believe that they are using their positions of power, whether as a paretn, family member or other role of authority in the community to satisfy sexual urges and that the inability of their victims to protect themselves or seek recourse is a turn on. I think it's about sexual thrills and/or abuse of power, and nothing more "sensitive" than that.

I suspect that this is very much the case with images of abuse - it might start with "normal" pornography, then get kinkier and then at the point that most men hit "peak kink" (for want of a better term!) there are some men who keep looking for something more and more taboo, even if they would never have quite anticipated this in the beginning. I would be surprised if the very first porn a man googled was "child sex", but I am lucky enough not to be an expert in this area, so I could be wrong.

There may well be a very tiny number of men who have an orientation (although this I doubt), but I don't think that masturbating to a video of a child being raped quite defines "orientation" in the way that two adults falling in love and enjoying a mutual and equal sexual relationship does. Nor do I think that wanting to masturbate to a video of a child being raped, but not actually doing it, is necessarily a state of mind that warrants sensitivity and protection.

YANBU.

I think it must be awful for people who are attracted to children. People don't get to choose this.

The problem is that there is no clear line where "action" starts. What is the status of a person who is attracted to children who sits and looks out of his/her window at children in the park, unseen? Is it different if that person is seen? What about if it makes someone feel uncomfortable? Whose problem is that? How about downloading pictures which didn't actually do any damage to the children in them? And so on. Few people would argue that actually abusing a child is horrific. But the shades of grey up to that point are very complex.

I think there's a power element and a disconnect for the 'victim'. An adult and a child cannot be sexual 'partners', the child will always be a victim. Therefore it can't be seen as a legitimate sexual orientation.
There is a need for research though, and therefore more open communication. It's all very well handing out heavier sentencing but at that point at least one child has already been hurt. We need to set the goal of no children being abused, ever. Anything less is unacceptable in a decent society.

I agree with you, but I don't think it's a sexual orientation - I think it's a form of mental illness, and a fetishistic need some people have, due to damage. I think the innocence and the lack of power is the appeal, and I think that inherent level of control and lack of equality would only appeal to someone with a lot of issues. Most of us want more than that in our sexual relationships - I mean, great as kids are, they are never going to afford a relationship of real intellectual equality, let alone equality of experience and understanding, and that's usually what most of us want from a partner, isn't it? Certainly long-term. I think it's a fetish - gender preference doesn't involve a certain sort of limit to the emotional and intellectual relationship. It's also been a socially sanctioned thing in some cultures as a status symbol, which again implies to me that it is indeed about power. Interestingly, cultures that allow paedophilia are ones where women have almost no power, either. Go figure, as they say in the States.

I remember reading a report a long time ago that said demonising paedophilia, as opposed to accepting that it is a form of mental deragement that needs treatment, is to increase the risk to children. Paedophiles who might be treatable, in that they might be helped to restrain themselves from ever harming a child by reinforcing that sexual abuse always does harm a child, instead won't tell anyone... other than those sharing that attraction. And that must make abuse more likely.

But yes it no crime is commited then they have no label, like someone fantasising about killing prostitutes for example.