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.

Fair enough Rax, I personally could not do that, I would have to see him outside the home when my children were not present. I would feel very uncomfortable.

Petertavy...

Thank you for your post, it chilled me to the bone, how right you are to be angry and sickened. There is no such think as a 'respectable' paedophile, and if nothing else the last few years must have taught us that.

Bit late to this (depressing) thread.

Paedophilia is absolutely, 100%, NOT a "sexual orientation".

It is a paraphelia.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

Paraphelias cover sexual preferences or "perversions" as they used to be known, that don't include consensual adult. Eg someone with a shoe fetish has a paraphelia. Some paraphelias include vomit, bloodshed, or excretion.

Describing paedophilia as a sexual orientation is normalizing it. It is potentially very harmful and should never be seen in the same category as consensual adult sexuality.

How about addressing the issue that "paedophilia" is not - and cannot - be a crime ?

Of course it is a crime. What about men/women who look at abuse images online? Are they a paedophile or abuser?

Lily, he doesn't live with me, he lives alone, and he is choosing to stay that way. There are strict regimes in place, but he is in a different country. When I visit, and have done with children, he isn't in the house overnight. For goodness sake, a cup of tea, a meal and a chat. What is wrong with that?

He's not some sadistic nut who loves showing himself beheading people on videos.

God knows where sensible boundaries lie, it'd be awful to try to figure that out. But if the legal definition of a 'child' is anyone under 18 and technically anyone over 18 who views an image is a paedophile, that strikes me as being quite dangerous.

Well, we already have a 14 year old lad on the SRO ....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388

with even more bizarre cases being reported stateside.

Bear in mind the Bible is quite relaxed about underage sex, if we're talking religion. Mind you, it's also quite relaxed about slavery, so probably not the best place to look for common sense.

"It was on that basis i thought that if they were serious about treatment, they may voluntarily come forward for castration or fund it themselves."

Did you not read the bits about how hard it apparently is to get treatment for paedophilia if you haven't already committed a serious offence? It's not like you can just wander in to a doctors and demand hormone injections (which may or may not be effective). I thought one of the actually salient points of this discussion was about how to stop these people from ever abusing children in the first place.

I'm sure there are paedophiles who aren't disturbed by their feelings and have convinced themselves they're a-ok. I'm sure there are some who are disturbed by them and don't want to act on them, as discussed here. I'm also pretty sure there are a lot of child abusers who aren't paedophiles and just want to control/hurt someone weaker than them or get off on doing the "wrongest" thing possible (I think that vile Lostprophets guy is in this category) and to be honest I think they freak me out even more.

Excellent opening post OP - and something that I think should be discussed sensibly as I think that a better understanding of the issues will lead to a far fewer lives being ruined. With you 100%

"What about men/women who look at abuse images online? Are they a paedophile or abuser?"

They are colluding in child abuse. That's the crime there.

But the actual sexual urges that might lead them to look at the images, repellent/weird though we might find them, are not a crime. That being the point of the original poster, I thought.

The sympathy has to lie with the victims.

But there aren't victims of paedophilia because it's a thought process...

There are victims of Child Abuse, but that's different.

Squidzin you might be late into the thread, but luckily for you you missed the worst of it.

It makes for some heaving, chilling reading almost certainly a few pro lobby posters spearheading a mission to soften our approach to paedophiles by choosing to remind us that 'oral sex and masturbation' with our children would not damage or injure them, and that we as a society cause the damage to the child by reacting the way we do. I think the word they used was 'hysterics', the label given to caring parents choosing not to feel compassionate about a paedophile. How kind of them to be so thoughtful and post all of this c* on a parenting website.

Elendon

How about addressing the issue that "paedophilia" is not - and cannot - be a crime ?

Because that's not the issue that was being discussed.

It's the issue I was discussing. Admittedly it's a hard one to decipher from the thread title, but then comprehension was never really my strong point (looks at qualifications, career, and life) - oh, sorry, it turns out comprehension is my strong point. Whoops !

Of course it is a crime. What about men/women who look at abuse images online? Are they a paedophile or abuser?

Possibly both. But given their crime(s) will be "possession of indecent images contrary to , it's irrelevant. However they are paedophiles who have broken the law.

There's no crime (yet) you can charge a paedophile with, who hasn't broken the law.

DSM-IV Places pedophilia as a paraphelia, and mental disorder.

Discuss away Lurking, but please don't drag me into it.

spearheading a mission to soften our approach to paedophiles by choosing to remind us that 'oral sex and masturbation' with our children would not damage or injure them

For. Fuck's. Sake. That's. Not. What. He/she. Said.

They said that most paedophiles who abuse children (as opposed to some of the other sick fuck variety of child abusers) would have oral sex and masturbation as their sex acts because it would not PHYSICALLY injure the child, as their deluded belief would be that they were in a romantic/consensual relationship with the child. Key word: PHYSICALLY. Nothing about whether it would psychologically damage them, or whether it was child abuse, or whether it was wrong, ALL OF WHICH THE POSTER ADMITTED WAS THE CASE.

If I was the original poster there I'd be absolutely livid.

It is a crime to look at sexual abuse images of children.

A. Crime.

To think about such things is not a crime, err, obviously.

To openly admit thinking about it? That's a grey area and obviously whoever has done this seeks help (or is forced to by friends and relatives).

Leedy..

I disagree.

I think having oral sex with a child would damage the child 'physically' it would make them violently sick for one.

Do you know what? I can't even talk about this without feeling ill...How are you still on this thread Leedy? It is so sick and twisted.

The poster as we all well know was minimising the effects of child abuse with his post, I am not too worried if he is livid or otherwise, he should not be on MN.

Actually I think it is a terrible thing to think of a small child sexually. The thought process is damaging because that child can TELL there is something not quite right, the way you look at them, their hackles and defences will rise, there is something quite identifiable about many paedophiles, just something not quite right about them, and children are the first to pick up on this. They may feel threatened by your roaming eyes.*

No. Children actually often trust the abuser. It's usually someone well known to their family and friends. The bogeyman is who kids run away from, kind uncle/aunty pedo who plies them with gifts and sweets and is trusted by the parents is the more typical child abuser. Because children do what that person tells them.

Leedy Of course oral and manual stimulation by an adult on a child physically damages them. What will it do to their future sex life for example?

Everyone can tell the pervy uncle, the weird grandad that always wants you to sit on his lap. It is often not obvious agreed, look at Rolf Harris, but often it is obvious. Gut reaction. The paedophiles I have met in my line of work have always had this 'look' about them on the segregation wing.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TAKE DOWN THIS DISCUSSION.

How is it that Leedy is able to post this?