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.

Elendon

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships

The graph above shows a general trend for the male being older, although I admit it does only show husband and wife and so cannot be used as an example of "Biologically, men are attracted to younger women"

However, that statement does make sense if we're talking straight up survival of the species. I remember the midwife telling me that most women are generally at their physical best for childbirth and most fertile between 17-24, so it would make sense that around these years are what would be deemed as most attractive to the male species.

But, quite clearly there are "blips" and not everything reverts back to primal instinct. Otherwise homosexuality/ bisexuality, and things like beastiallity and paedophillia would not exsist. And obviously people will have a general type and personal preferance too!

"Firstly calling it 'child porn' not 'child abuse', which always seems to normalise it for the paedophiles."

I think that's a fairly common term (even though it's inaccurate), though, rather than that everyone who says it is some kind of child abuse apologist trying to normalize it - I think it will take time for the more accurate but less common term to filter into mainstream media. I mean, the tabloids will often refer to "kiddie porn" and they're hardly trying to normalize child abuse or make it sound nicer. AFAIR the term is used by the programme maker as well in the piece and if you read his article there is no disguising or sugarcoating at all how revolting and horrible some of this media is. It is genuinely very upsetting, it made me cry.

I don't think his recognizing that if he wants to continue to resist his urges it's probably a bad idea for him to be around children is an indication that he's in denial and is going to be a child abuser, more that he realizes he will be struggling against these urges for the rest of his life. And I don't think at any point do they suggest that his support group or any treatment he gets is going to turn paedophiles into not-paedophiles, just that it will help stop them actually doing anything about it, be it viewing images or actual abuse.

Also in my understanding of the piece he previously didn't think that child abuse pictures were wrong, just illegal, but then on seeing a particularly unpleasant child abuse image had a realization that no, they were wrong, it was abusing the child - rather than that he still doesn't think there's anything wrong with it but only wants to stop because of the legal aspect. Also by "never do anything" I understood him to mean actual RL interaction with children, but he clearly in the piece recognizes that the images are wrong as well. At the moment as per the piece he is neither abusing children nor viewing child abuse images. He's still a paedophile, but isn't that better than the alternative?

no we want them to find a way to help manage their feelings

like those we hope to help mange eating disorders, drug taking, alcoholism just to name a few

No. The onus is on the paedophile to do what lots of people do and not break the law.

but that isn't working as they are abusing children and irrespective of how much we all hate paedophiles we need as a society to do something to try to prevent the children becoming the victims.

And if anyone else wants to call me a child-abuser-sympathiser, they can just go and fuck off. If you have read my posts on here, I have said over and over I have no sympathy for abusers

MaryZ The posters who keep saying you are a sympathiser are NOT reading your posts - they are picking out bits that feed their prejudice and fear. Perhaps we should be calling for more help and support for people who cannot read and digest a post!

JJXM I'm so sorry for what happened to you, and to others on this thread.

I wish, I really really wish, there was the real will by government (of whatever persuasion) to minimize the number of victims right down to 0, and to put their money and efforts into it.

Maryz it's quite insulting to keep referring to banging your head against a brick wall. It indicates that people should just agree with you
And stop debating.

You don't know much about pedophila. I don't know much. The experts don't know "much"- although far more than you or I. You keep referring to pedophiles (NOT CHILD ABUSERS) needing help, support and treatment. The experts have found there is no evidence that any of that is effective. Why do you keep insisting that it's something we should be doing?

Gotta: but responding to posts about men being attracted to younger women and women being attracted to older men

No one was discussing women being attracted to older men.

The subject was not about people over the age of consent, that was simply, your interpretation of it.

'I do, however, have sympathy for anyone who has urges to to illegal and immoral acts, and struggles to stop themselves'

But why? why do you feel sorry for people who can't control their 'urges'?

Probably because I personally don't believe anyone is born completey normal and then chooses to be sexually attracted to children. I believe some are born with it and some just do not develop correctly, possibly due to abuses they have faced themselves. I also think dealing with this daily struggle would make life extremely difficult, and I doubt it is one I would want to live myself. Infact, that kind of life would likely be unbearable for many.

That said, I have no sympathy for child abusers who act out these urges, and I don't think anyone does. Its an unfortune situation for all involved, obviously moreso the victim.

I'm all for counselling, mental hea!th support and pnd treatment

Including for paedophiles?

"The experts have found there is no evidence that any of that is effective. Why do you keep insisting that it's something we should be doing?"

Which experts? AFAIK most/any research has been done on convicted sex offenders, who are clearly already child abusers, I don't think (as per the article I read) there's been much on paedophiles who haven't committed a serious offence yet.

Also if you think help, support, and treatment are useless for paedophiles who haven't offended yet, what do you do if someone presents to, say, a therapist saying "I'm having these terrible urges to do something really wrong"? Lock them up indefinitely? Tell them to go away?

No. The onus is on the paedophile to do what lots of people do and not break the law.
Why are we to view them as hapless folk who just can't help themselves, rather than the devious manipulators they are

So,..bearing in mind no one has proved yet whether this is something that can or cannot be controlled, what if he cannot 'help' himself.
YOU have decided he can, others are saying they do not know if this is possible.
What qualifications do you have to arrive at the conclusion the paedophile CAN in all cases control himself and make a rational decision not to break the law?

Normalising any deviant behaviour is very worrying. Pre-internet a paedophile would have thought they were a lone and disgusting person. Some may have managed to hook up with others of their persuasion, but this was rare and by and large any tendencies would have to be suppressed. Now, with the internet, people can access images, videos and can interact and discuss with others in order to excuse and even validate their behaviour. Does "Getting things out in the open" serve any purpose other than making a deviant believe that they are not alone and just have the misfortune to be persecuted by current society?

Hamiltoes

It's well known, world wide, that the optimum age for a woman to have a baby is 25-29, to avoid complications at birth.

The average age for a woman to first give birth is now 30 in this country and was previously 29 for half a century. Her partner is overwhelmingly within five years of her age.

but many paedophiles do control their urges and do not abuse should they not be supported in that

and those that have that want to change should they also not be supported

and as for experts not being able to any effective treatment that is not the case as all are individual and treatments have to be treated in such a way but there is not cure

and why the onus was on society not on the rather pathetic individual.

because it's the children in society who are the victims. They can't help themselves. If the person with paedophile or child abuse urges won't or can't help themselves - society has to take that onus.

The alternative is turning your back and the current state of things shows how well that works at reducing offenses.