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.

MySordidCakeSecret, since you are so convinced that doing anything is a waste of time and money, what is your suggestion as to how we deal with paedophiles who have not yet offended?*

I don't think sordid accepts they might exist? I think she's unable to seperate the idea of an abuser and a someone who is a pedophile but hasn't offended

The trouble with the "burn the witch" is that it makes proper discussion virtually impossible. And obviously this is an issue which we need to talk about as a society. I also think that we need to accept and address the very uncomfortable fact that there is a padophilic sensibility to much mainstream society - the photographs in the red tops of celebrities' young daughters "all grown up", the expectation that women will be hairless to name but two. And the sort of pornography that is only one click away from us all this very second has girls dressed in school clothes.

And of course therapists trained by Stopso practise privately.

However it's a start but I'd like to see funding in place so that help could be accessed by those on limited incomes.

what is your suggestion as to how we deal with paedophiles who have not yet offended?

One. Deny they exist.

Two. Block anyone who attempts to investigate the matter. But if that fails publicly denounce them as being part of the paedophile lobby.

*there is a difference between a paedophile (as in someone who finds children sexually attractive) and a child abuser (as in someone who abuses a child).

Mary there are a vast number of peadophiles who due to their sexual attraction abuse children both directly and indirectly through child porn which is just as bad.*

Bangs head against wall

Yes they can be one or the other, yes they can be both. What is so difficult about that?

Have you decided if rolf harris is or not yet or is still "probably not"..

I havn't said it's a waste of time and money whatsoever, it would be wonderful if we had the provisions to offer treatment to peadophiles and effectively rehabilitate and monitor sex offenders.

I was just pointing out that unfortunately we are quite cash strapped when it comes to public services, and the nhs is very stretched as it is. So if we're talking about real life and not fantasy, then it's a question that needs to be asked, where would the money come from?

So Itsmine what about those who can't afford private therapy? Or those who can but can't find an appropriately trained therapist in their area?

I was under the impression Rolf Harris abused teenagers, and so was not a paedophile.

Absolutely Maryz

one of his victms was 7 yrs old.

If some paedophiles are simply attracted to children, but would genuinely never act on that attraction - then we don't need to worry about them offending, do we? But can we ever be totally sure they wouldn't act on it given the opportunity.

So, are you talking about treatment for paedophiles that would offend, given the opportunity and those that seek gratification online, or are you talking about this (possibly mythical) group of paedophiles who would never ever offend because they wouldn't ever hurt children?

If it's the latter - the only treatment you're talking about is treatment for any mental health issues that are caused by their unfulfilled sexual needs - as if they would never offend anyway, they are not a risk to society.

Mysordid

I will clarify for you: it HAS been accepted that for what Rolf Harris was convicted of he is a child Abuser. We don't know if he is a pedophile, any more than we know if Larry from the off liscence is one, only that what he was convicted of doesn't mean he is one as it was teenage girls not pre-pubescent girls

If he had been convicted of abusing pre pubescent children we could be fairly sure he was a child abusing pedophile

If he simply was attracted to children sexually but had never abused one we would be correct in labelling him a paedophile only

so where would the money come from? which services?

And his convictions relate to sexually assaulting girls as young as 7, being a peadophile means you are sexually attracted to children, i think i'm seeing a link there..

Mary there are a vast number of peadophiles who due to their sexual attraction abuse children both directly and indirectly through child porn which is just as bad.

then they have become child abusers and we were not discussing them. The discussion was about helping people before they get to that stage, to help prevent them abusing any child in any manner in the first place.

Let me try an anology, I quite fancy a cream scone but realising I want it and actually getting one isn't instant, now I know I shouldn't have a scone because I am on a diet but it's calling to me, if I can find the will power somehow I can resist it and retrain myself to not desire it however if I eat the scone then my diet is ruined and it changes the dynamic and the work I would need to do to resist in future. Therefore having something in place between thought and deed is better and easier and more effective.

People do not jump instantly from thought to action everyone who has ever abused a child sexually has had a time in their life however short between thought and deed and if we could encourage people to seek help on the thought alone just think of the children that could save. It doesn't matter if 100% of peadophiles would go on to abuse children if they didn't seek treatment what matters is how many would not go on to abuse if they did feel free to get help.

hairbrushed one of his victims was a 7yr old autograph hunter, his main victim it began when she was 11, i think this is evidence he is a peadophile.

Rolf would be a hebephile, or possibly an ephebophile. Strictly speaking paedophilia refers to prepubescent children.

Sordid go back to the definitions a minute. Paedophile = attracted to children. That is the literal definition of the word. A paedophile is a paedophile whether or not he has committed any acts of abuse. A child abuser = has abused a child. This could be motivated by many things. A child abuser is only a child abuser if he has abused a child (whether directly or indirectly). That's it. That's the sum total of the necessary conditions for being a child abuser: you have to abuse a child. Whether you're sexually attracted to that child doesn't affect your status as an abuser, but it does affect whether you're a paedophile or not.

is 7 and 11 not pre-pubescant?

If he had pre-pubescent victims then yes he's both a paedophile and a child abusing pedophile at that.

How are you not getting this???

there was also child porn