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.

Totally agree OP and have been saying the same for years. Of course no-one is likening it to being gay, just saying that just as people can't help being straight, gay or attracted to zebra's that some are attracted to children. We all have all manner of sexual fantasies - private to our minds that we would never act out in a million years. The crime is the sexual abuse of children, and I think some people may do this on a cruel and violent level but that others are sexually attracted, there are differences whether those feelings are acted upon or not.

My post was full of grammatic errors, just ignore it completely and I will post when I am more coherent!

I think there are a couple of problems with this line of thinking.

1. We live in a world in which it is a widely held assumption that if you have a desire then you should have the right to act on it. You see that all the time in discussions of BDSM sex. It's like an extension into the bedroom of the way that capitalism works -- which is to make us all into consumers with endless desires that have to be met. So, it's one thing to say 'well having the desire is one thing, but acting on it is completely wrong'. I can see why people with paedophile desires find that hard when it seems like everyone else is being told 'you should have what you want - because you're worth it.'

1. I don't think it's quite sorted out that sexual orientation is inborn and genetic. For some that is how it feels, but for others it feels more like a continuum. There's even slang for it - a 'hasbian', for example, or LICSA (lesbian in college, straight after). What about people who take up BDSM in mid-life, or who suddenly discover how much their libido is reignited by a much younger partner? Sexuality is actually rather fluid, and responds to opportunity, to new ideas (see the widespread popularity of anal sex since it became mainstream in porn), to culture, to all sorts of things.

I'm absolutely not saying that sexual abuse of children is ok. It isn't. I don't know if I'm even saying having the desire is ok. I'm not sure if I'm saying that it's ok to act on your desire as long as it isn't to abuse a child.

I am saying that the issues are complicated, and there might not be any easy answers .

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to think that being attracted to children automatically makes someone lack self control. I don't know whether that is true, but I don't think it should be assumed.

You have to consider that many paedophiles who haven't acted will have done so out of a sense of shame and because they know that their will be huge societal repercussions if they do.

And that would remain the case even if you accept that having those feelings and not acting upon them is not a crime.

Another question is: Is it desire or is a fantasy?

Lost of people fantasize about having rough sex, been tied up or whatever. Actually a lot of women fantasize about rape too. That doesn't mean that any of them want to be raped though.
So when we say 'oh a lot of men have these feeling of being attracted by children' do they mean a fantasy they sometimes think about? Or do they mean a very strong urge?

And then you have the issue that we all have some sexual urges from one type or the other. We might have the 'feeling' or the urge to have sex with our colleague even though we are married. And we well most of us don't. As it has been said again and again, sex isn't a need such that it HAS TO be relieved whatever way. IT's just a need that most of us manage to control. You can do without too.

Which then takes me to another question, if most of us have some 'sexual inclination' of some sort but the person isn't agreeing to it, we all seem to be able to not then jump on that person anyway. So why is it that 'being a paedophile' (as having that 'sexual orientation') should mean that they need help more than the others?

The underlying message is that
1- you can't change someone who is a paedophile. This is who he is and always will be
2- the 'urge' coming form that sexual orientation is so strong that it is very hard to be resisted therefore they need some special support
3- and therefore, it's not they are not fully responsible for not being able to control themselves.

A murderer isn't a murderer until s/he murders someone. But they might be living with a murderous instinct.
A paedophile isn't a child abuser until s/he abuses a child.

But do I want either of those mental/emotional positions to be socially acceptable? I don't think so. But if people are like that, isn't it better for them to be able to be open about it and get help? Yes, it must be.

If the non-practising paedophile is acceptable in society, is it 'the thin end of the wedge'? How far can s/he go without becoming an abuser? Stroking? Hugging? Kissing? Is it still innocent if the adult is getting a kick out of it?

I want to be 'nice', tolerant and inclusive. But I don't want people who are excited by children to be near them.

Have thought this myself and discussed with friends and family many times.

It makes me feel extremely uncomfortable to say this but my gut feeling is that paedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children, they just are for whatever reason - born that way, genes, childhood experiences, who knows?

However, it is every paedophile's choice to decide whether to act on their attraction or not. And clearly they must not. It is abhorrent to think that anybody could hurt a child in this disgusting way. All right-minded individuals will understand and accept that.

The bottom line is, while you may not choose to be attracted to children, if you EVER choose to act on that in any way at all then you are wrong and there is no justification whatsoever. There is no understanding or sympathy for you then.

So, while I would never want to live in a society where it was 'normal' to be attracted to children, I do think understanding the difference between a paedophile and a child abuser is useful to get our heads around what is going on.

Perhaps one day clever scientists will discover the paedophile gene and be able to deactivate it. Future generations will look back in horror that it ever occurred.

This kind of post is designed to make us feel sorry for paedophiles. Instead of recognising that our natural disgust is what we should be feeling.

If a person does reach out for help in dealing with their paedophilia it is important to engage with that. It is frightening that there doesn't seem to be any effective 'treatment' at the moment.
Sleeponeday , I agree, it probably will come to be defined as a mental illness or personality disorder. I wonder if there might even be a genetic cause or predisposition.

Also: in a world where choosing to be celibate is regarded as a completely weird choice, a choice that isn't admired or culturally validated, again I can see that the cultural pressure on people with paedophile desires is to act on them.

Lots of people have an attraction to various people that they can't have sex with. You don't need treatment, you just need to bloody control yourself

OK then, what about an adult women with an intellectual disability who could not consent?

Then no I wouldn't leave them alone with someone I thought was a potential risk. But most adult males would not think it OK to abuse her. Most paedophiles on the other hand think that the abuse of children is acceptable, if they didn't they wouldn't even fantasise about it.

I can't agree with you.

Saying its a sexual orientation is an insult to consenting adults. It's about control, submission. Even if thoughts aren't acted on, they are still a danger.
Rape isn't a sexual orientation, neither is being "attracted" to kids.

I can't emphasise enough how much I feel the grouping of the term "sexual orientation" with paedophiles is wrong. It normalises what should never be normalised.

It also minimises the suffering millions of children go through.

I do agree that thought isn't the same as act but truthfully, would you be happy with a "thinker" round your kids?

If it should be a valid sexual orientation to be attracted to someone incapable of consenting to any sort of sex, or even making a vaguely informed choice about whether they might like sex with you, is it then a valid sexual orientation to ONLY be attracted to unconscious (unconsenting) people - because if the first's ok then the second has to be and that by itself is horrific enough in my book.

Agree with the point about how difficult it is to get help for paedophilia but that doesn't mean you start condoning it just to make it easier to provide help! Tackle people who are violent to paedophiles by all means, provide more specialist help, but that's a separate issue entirely.

CorbynsTopButton - but given the severity of the potential outcome I think it's best to err on the side of safety. I think a lot of people on this thread are assuming that paedophilia is more akin to ordinary sexual attraction than to mental illness - which I don't really see any evidence for.

cleaty the post isn't designed to make us feel sorry for paedophiles!

I think that if a proper study were done to find out how many people have paedophilic tendencies that they don't act on (assuming there would be a way to get honest answers) the numbers would come as a huge shock.

It would lead to incredible outrage. But there would be nowhere for that outrage to go.

For this reason hardly anyone wants to touch this. An expert investigating this area could easily lose their career, or worse.

You are right to say being a paedophile isn't a crime as it isn't always synonymous with sexual abuse of children but it is absolutely not a sexual orientation and to compare it to homosexuality is extremely offensive.

Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and a type of paraphilia (finding something sexually arousing that is not the norm), like necrophilia for example.

Comparing homosexuality to a psychiatric disorder is ridiculous and close to the mindset 50 years ago that everyone has tried so hard to challenge.

cleaty I think we have to be a little more detatched about it rather than just reacting on an emotional level. Child abuse causes massive problems in our society and being disgusted isn't going to make it just go away.
No one on this thread is buying the 'paedophilia is just another orientation' line anyway so I don't think you need to worry.

Any man who is sexually attracted to children will be looking at children in a sexual way. That is child abuse. So a paedophile.