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.

Maryz a paedophile is someone who finds prepubescent girls sexually attractive.

This is incorrect. A paedophile is some who finds certain prepubescent children sexually attractive. They will fancy a certain type of child i.e. gender, looks, just as adults fancy a type.

They do not fancy all pre teenage girls.

well obviously i get it it seemed that mary and others didn't consider him to be a peadophile which is disturbing. I think some people need to take a reality check on this kind, neighbourly peadophile idea they have and realise what peadophiles are capable of doing without remorse. He is one example.

it's primarily their age they are attracted to.

Everybody realises what paedophiles are capable of doing

The point of the thread being shouldn't we be doing a better job of helping them NOT to offend and harm children

yes ideally we should, but where would the funding come from - is my concern.

my other concern is would it be effective.

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

Please answer this ^ from MaryZ, MySordidCakeSecret

I did gottaget let me retrieve it for you.

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?

Funding? Depends what one's priorities are.

Effective? I don't know how you'd propose it's measured.

Have you read the link I posted?

I crossposted with people mentioning the seven year old. The point still stands that paedophile refers to prepubescents, hebephile refers to pubescent children, and ephebophile refers to later adolescence. I expect some people don't see any need for a distinction, but to my mind they are clearly not all precisely the same thing.

Do we have any evidence to support the statement that paedophiles are undiscerning in their tastes? I can only offer personal experience of one paedophile, who had access to girls and boys of varying ages, all the same ethnicity, varying colouring. He targeted red-haired preschool girls. I'm not convinced a darkhaired eight year old boy would have held any interest for him. So is it just the age he liked?

MySordidCakeSecret

The Government finds money for anything it is really interested in dealing with. ( Usually anything that benefits them)
I can only assume that they do not think funding research or treatment for Paedophiles to be one of their priorities.
Under this Government I doubt we will get any spending on this issue or many other important issues for various reasons.

I missed it sooty. Well that's the problem it couldn't really be measured could it? they could easily go home and spent hours viewing child abuse images online, and nobody would know unless they gave the police cause to search their home and pc.

Under this Government I doubt we will get any spending on this issue or many other important issues for various reasons.

No sadly, the situation is dire atm for people suffering mental health problems or even just needing to see a gp in my area anyway.

Fingles an important distinction to make. I suspect the % population affected by each significantly increases across the differing types.

Corrective behaviour therapy can only be given to those who volunteer the information. For example if a paedophile went to the GP and admitted these intrusive thoughts but had never acted upon them, would automatically be set up to receive the services available.

I believe that those who do act upon them should also receive help.

Chronic child abusers, of which there are many, are different. They rarely volunteer to seek help, and the deviousness of their behaviour makes it difficult to treat.

If you did read the link you'd have idea about the help out there - albeit privately funded.

And I agree that the government could find funding if it wanted to.

I can only assume that they do not think funding research or treatment for Paedophiles to be one of their priorities.

You can see their [a UK government's] point though. This would just give certain elements of the media a huge stick to beat the government with whenever it was convenient.

Also, imagine there being a study programme and a subject on the programme went on to abuse a child. In the face of the uproar professionals involved in the programme might have to move home or even change identity.

It is an utterly poisonous issue.

Maryz, there is help out there available, someone also lined to an organisation upthread. There is also the Lucy Faithful Foundation.

The problem here is that you run the risk of playing into the hands of predatory sex offenders. Parole officers working with convicted paedophiles describe them as having psychopathic tendencies and also being highly manipulative. They will attempt to manipulate both probation officers and prison officers/legal professionals into believing that they are either 'cured' or that they couldn't help themselves. These sex offenders courses are like a get out of jail free card for them - they can say they 'want' to get better - and if they then re-offend - they can say that they wanted to get better.

I'm afraid I think the paedophiles with a risk of actual offending, who genuinely 'struggle' with it, are few and far between. Most are highly manipulative and secretive, and will actively seek out ways to offend against children - either through positions of power, or through befriending and grooming family/friends.

There is also zero real evidence that treatment is effective.

I would be interested to know how the cost of treating a paedophile compares to the cost of trying and imprisoning them - or maybe they come out of separate pots so nobody cares.

I agree with the OP though - nobody chooses to be attracted to children any more than they do to the same/opposite sex or specific hair colours.

Paedophiles can commit horrific sexually motivated crimes but not all do and one is not a pre-requisite for the other.

Every one has a duty to manage their sexuality and paedophiles are no exception - it's just that the stakes are generally higher in their case.

excuse me being cynical, but I'm not sure the government dares find money for better investigations into active or potential paedophiles. Given what happened to all the copies of the Dickens report.

What I find terrifying is the hysteria and paranoia and the lack of any sort of rationality around this subject - because it has tragic consequences for people who seem to be quite innocent eg www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10421076/Police-suspended-after-innocent-man-accused-of-paedophilia-burned-to-death.html

I really believe that someone like lily would have been all in favour of this, which is a very poor reflection on UK society.

This is a crime with desperately destructive consequences and I think the money should be made available for effective measures to tackle it, which would mean a massive investment. Given the utter waste in other areas, it's a crime all on its own that the money isn't available.

I dealt with someone who does in depth years - long therapy with people convicted of child sexual offences. She was one hell of a tough lady. She reckoned that many did go back to it, but some did not. That's a lot of children who are not being hurt and damaged.

The money should be made available and more than that, a program of training appropriate therapists and also of monitoring should be implemented.

Hamiltoes I suspect the same. If it were possible to accurately and honestly survey the population, the number of ephebophiles would be enormous. Because our culture holds up the late teenage girl as the most attractive and sexually appealing thing (and I choose that word deliberately) in the world. Fancying seventeen year olds, our culture tells us, is just normal. It's just what men do. As a society we roll our eyes and say they can't help themselves, they're simple creatures just following their urges, and those girls are fertile now so it's just natural and besides they shouldn't in public showing skin if they don't want to attract male attention blah blah so much bollocks blah. You'll still get funny looks if you're forty and going on about how sexy a sixteen year old is, because most of us recognise it as inappropriate because of the unequal power and possible grooming and so on, but as a society we are pretty accepting of the fact that grown men are sexually attracted to sixteen year old girls.

Back when I was sixteen, I was quite good at guessing whether my peers were fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen. Now I'm thirty, I struggle, because they're not my peers. I'm better at differentiating between a twenty eight year old and a thirty two year old by looks alone now than I was then though. Logical extension of that is: can the average adult man tell the difference, purely on looks, between a girl who's underage and a girl who's just barely overage? I doubt it very much. They look the same, in a culture that tells men that the ones on this side of an arbitrary age line are sexually attractive objects and the ones on that side are only sexually attractive if you're a monster and a criminal and a peeeedo. It's fucked up. And I don't mean that in a 'pity the poor accidental abusers' way. More 'it's not surprising underage girls are treated this way in a society that also treats adult women this way'.

Thankyou, Fingles and Maryz (in particular) for your thoughtful posts, I'm glad this thread has (mostly) gone back to interesting discussion.

"That has been the problem throughout the thread, the deluded belief that there are paedophiles out there that don't want to abuse. "

Itsmine, can you listen to this radio story (the section called Help Wanted) and tell me what you think? www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered

(there's also a more in-depth written version linked from the page but be aware that the written version has some graphic and upsetting details of severe child abuse)

I mean, obviously there's a possibility that the teenager in question is actually a manipulative sociopath, but there's also a possibility that he's telling the truth and that he wants help. I'm not sure why people are "deluded" for believing him.