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.

Being sexually attracted to children ie a paedophile I think IS a sexuality - not one that is ever going to be accepted but that doesn't make it a mental illness
Wanting to hurt children is no a sexual orientation- it's abusive behaviour - like rape

The trouble is that you can't get a feeling to go away just by wanting it to. Exploring the feeling and its trigger is a much better way of either coping with the experience of having it (without acting on it) or getting it to go away.

But to explore a feeling you have to acknowledge having it, however terrible it is.

I'm with the OP.

People who suffer from paedophilia are incredibly damaged and have likely suffered abuse, will definitely have suffered mental health issues as they will realise how 'different' they are and how much society hates them.

There are going to be very few mentally healthy, unabused adults who are just 'paedophiles'. There are plenty of gay people who are mentally healthy and who haven't been abused.

There is no treatment apart from chemical castration (still leaves you with the psych effects) so there's little point in trying to re categorise.

I think what people need to think about is their own sons and if they were abused by an adult. At what point do you withdraw sympathy for this damaged young person who has gone on to abuse younger children?

It's just much more complex and much easier to hate our pedestrian view of the dirty rain coated old man instead of our 15 year old boys who were assaulted when younger and are now confused with their sexual orientation as teenagers.

I refuse to withdraw empathy and understanding for people who have been abused, and that includes paedophiles.

Yes, they still need to live away from children and being able to access abusive images of children (there's a town in America who caters for them)

I don't believe paedophillia is a sexual orientation. This is something that paedophiles want people to believe, to minimise what they do.

Necrophilia isn't a sexual orientation, bestiality isn't a sexual orientation. I don't see anyone suggesting we liken those to homosexuality.

Your sexual orientation towards men or women isn't the same as a sexual preference for children.

Many paedophiles are in functioning adult sexual relationships. It's not that they can't fuction unless it's with a child. It's just that they get off on seeing pictures of child abuse, or abusing kids.

Just pondering here but when viewing it as a sexual orentation you get into the same arguement about anger management and DA.

We know DA is a power and control issue not a anger management issue yet we still have people minimising and victim blaming and colluding by connecting it with a real anger issue. A thread a few weeks ago that dragged on and on going round in the same circles with the op doing precisely that was quite an interesting example of the differences between the two stances.

Having a sexual desire is not the same as having a sexual orentation,I know it's not the same thing but many of the offenders I used to work with (I don't do offender work anymore) who in the context of adult sexual relationships utilised unconsential sexual violence and coercion as a tool to exercise power and control yet also had perfectly normal fully consenting sex with no violent element to it they also did not use sexual violence in all their relationships only when they felt it was needed to control the partner. Weirdly being a domestic abuser who utilises that form of control increases the risk of them also sexually abusing a child in the household.

I have no idea what I'm trying to say

I don't think is is a sexual orientation, it is a preference. There are hetero and homo sexual paedophiles. The orientation is male/female, the preference is young.

I think what makes it tricky is that what makes it wrong is society's expectations. And rightly so! Taken across the world, there is a huge grey area of age where it is legal in one place and illegal in others. There appears to be a lower limit of 12/puberty below which it is completely unacceptable (I imagine even societies without a set age of consent would use puberty as a limit).

If your preferences are in line with the laws in a different county, does that make you mentally ill...? Only if you are prepared to act upon them I think. Also, anyone who forces sex on anyone of any age clearly has some kind of psychiatric problem.

"What a load of rubbish. Of course they can, in the same way that people will fantasise or roleplay rape and never actually be a rapist."

You just have to look at the relationship and sex boards to see that people want to act out stuff that they have seen all the time. Seeing things creates new desires in us. That's how advertising works and it's how pornography works.

And when was the last time most of you met someone who had deliberately chosen celibacy? Most of the people who do are considered weird or self-punishing, or missing out on a whole life.

I'd see it as a mental illness/personality disorder rather than a sexual orientation.

I think it's society that has taught people not to have sex with children (and with good reason).

If you think back to caveman days, they most likely were having sex with kids as soon as they grew pubic hair/had periods and that would have been anything from 9yrs old upwards.

I suppose it made sense then, given that they would die of 'old age' in their approximate 30s.

So perhaps paedophiles still have that primeval urge?

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

I can't help feeling that this is one of those discussions that nobody knows the answer to and no conclusion is of any use. Our energy might be better spent discussing how the authorities might better control the access of all individuals to child based pornography (can't remember the mumsnet approved term) considering they know there are hundreds of thousands of unique users of it in the UK. So plenty of pedophiles there supporting the industry of child abuse without actually physically abusing a child.

It depends how you look mellow . People will be looking at you all the time and having sexual thoughts that you're not aware of and that don't harm you in the slightest.
Just a small example, when you go out wearing sandals in the summer there's bound to be the odd foot fetishist (a very common fetish)who gets a secret kick out of seeing your toes. How would you even know if they weren't obvious about it? Are you being violated by that?
Disclaimer - I am not comparing foot fetishists to paedophiles.

Where does their sexual gratification come from then?

I imagine that this is, in part, why there are "sexy schoolgirl" costumes available for adults.

worra that's not paedophilia though.

I also think that it is fine to classify a phenomenon as a mental disorder just because of undesirable mental symptoms. We are happy to treat people as ill if they present only with the symptom of feeling very unhappy or hearing voices - simply because these are outside the bounds of normal mental behaviour and are distressing. They are both symptoms which people have at certain times lived with and which could equally be considered as being on the normal spectrum of human experience - we have taken the decision to medicalise them (rightly, imo, speaking as someone who has been depressed and heard voices in my time!). What is the obstacle to treating the symptom of attraction to children in the same way?

Paedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable, one can involve consensual sex and relationships, the other can't.
Paedophilia is comparable to someone who is sexually aroused by non consensual sex, I.e rape.
Alot of known paedophiles have a history of having suffered sexual abuse in their own childhoods, it is not a sexual orientation in the same way as hetero or homosexuality, its symptomatic of an unhealthy understanding of sexuality.

"I imagine that this is, in part, why there are "sexy schoolgirl" costumes available for adults."

Maybe we should look at ourselves - at child beauty contexts and beautiful baby competitions, at sexy schoolgirl outfits worn by hen parties, at the fetishising of youth, at the fashion for getting rid of pubic hair, at the hatred of older women.

What are the wider currents in our culture that are reinforcing such desires?

Whilst I understand the premise, I have to disagree. Having a sexual attraction to people who cannot give consent is a form of sexual deviancy, such as only having an orgasm if the recipient is dead or an animal.

I found this article extremely interesting.

www.feministcurrent.com/2015/09/28/youve-heard-of-rape-culture-but-have-you-heard-of-pedophile-culture/

Where do we draw the line? Calling people 'monsters' who deal in sexual deviancy is not the answer, but neither is infantilising women to look like children.

I agree worra. Why isn't that paedophilia noeffingidea?

All paedophiles abuse children, if not directly then indirectly through masturbatiing while viewing images which are clearly of abused children.

Not all paedophiles will use child abuse images. Paedophiles love children, they don't want to hurt them/see them be hurt.

Those of you saying it is a sexual orientation, how do you explain that many paedophiles have active and healthy sexual relationships with adults?

As I recall there is primary and secondary paedophilia. Primary = only sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children in a similar way that eg heterosexuals are only attracted to the opposite sex. Secondary = a preference for pre-pubescent children in a similar way that some people might have a preference for eg big breasts but will settle for others.

I don't think it is is that helpful to classify into normal vs psychiatric illness. We are all attracted to whoever we are attracted to for whatever reason. Things of this type are generally categorised as an illness if society as a whole thinks it is wrong eg homosexuality used to be, people are still arguing about transexuals (the whole autogynephilia thing). If people need help with any sexual feelings the should be able to access help without being treated as a criminal. There is a massive difference between thinking and helping. And yes, I imagine paedophiles (esp primary) may benefit from support. It must be incredibly lonely knowing you will never be able to have a fulfilling sexual relationship ever.

noeffingidea - but is anyone able to be sure that their glances will never construed as sexual? I'm not sure how easy it is to control this.

I don't think paedophiles choose to be the way they are and I don't think the majority are like the ones that hit the headlines or are in organised groups who abuse children.
I also saw that documentary about the man who is sexually attracted to children but has never acted on it.He was very honest and it made me rethink the whole thing and realise they are not all seedy vile creatures.

Firstly and most importantly, we have to protect children, but I think we have to try to understood paedophiles too.

I don't know if treating it as a psychiatric condition is a good thing, unless it can be proved it is not a sexual orientation.
I wonder if those men who are married and enjoy a full sex life with their partner but are still attracted to children are bad or ill?

Why isn't that paedophilia noeffingidea?

Because Worra was saying that cavemen would have sex with girls who had hit puberty (pubic hair periods), paedophilia is defined as attraction to pre-pubescent.

Elendon but children can give consent can't they? Can't bloody remember their names, but thinking of Jeremy thingy who is in prison for eloping with the 15 year old. In some cases, it is that our society has imposed an age limit, and in other countries and our past, it would be perfectly acceptable or actively expected, for 13/14/15 year olds to be having sex with older people and giving consent to do,so.

Oh sorry, I thought the word applied to anyone under the age of 16.