To turn your attention to this article **Trigger warning: Child abuse. Title edited by MNHQ**

[NedStarksHead]

After a long and stressful debate/argument on FB, I'd like to turn your attention to these articles....

If you're one of the people who say "murder them all, they're all scum, they should be shot" then just read these and re-think.

Use different wording. A child molester is so different to a pedophile.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/imaapedophilebuttnotaa_monster/

http://www.virped.org

Mini - I was being slightly tongue in cheek..! I work with actual offenders not thought offenders and I wouldn't really want them chemically castrated either, truth be told. I do prefer them safe and sound in custody though not out and about cruising for victims.

"Let's just get this straight" that's so irritating. You're saying that like it's proven fact, it's fucking not. How can you be so fucking blind and ignorant?!

ghostspirit

What extraordinary strength you have to not feel hatred towards your abuser. And to not want him to die unhappy.

I hope you are happy and surrounded by loved ones.

Also, to everyone saying that I've never experienced the devastation of sexual abuse as a child, or have never come in contact with anyone who has been devastated by this ... You know nothing Jon snow so learn your lesson and stop assuming things. You know nothing about anyone on this forum don't just assume because someone has the capability for empathy and an attempt at understanding that they've not witnessed the devastation that surrounds child abuse.

Are you fucking mental??? Oh my god I am never ever violent but it's a good job your presenting this to me via anonymous means, for fucks sake.

Ned - if it was an orientation, or people were born with it, it would be fairly random. That is not the case. There are various risk factors and common experiences and pathways shared by those who go on to offend, including sexually. Sex offenders are a heterogenous group, so we can't apply one explanation to all, but there are theories and research available if you were genuinely interested in educating yourself.

I don't think you are though. For some reason you have an axe to grind about this, I'm curious what that is?

Nobody on this entire thread has ever condoned sexual abuse, of children or men or women. We all know perfectly well that any abuse of any kind is despicable and wrong.

What I'm trying to do here is open my mind, in the hope that others will follow and we can put practices and measure into place to allow the non offending pedophiles a chance at some kind of recovery or at the very least life long support to deal with feelings and thoughts they know are so very wrong.

Okay, seventimes, fair enough - but they can't help the abuse and common pathways leading to feeling the way they do. They grow up with it - that to me is still not an active choice, that to me is still not a choice to find children attractive - who would choose that?

What if we had extensive support early on for abuse victims - would it help them avoid abusing themselves?

In any case - people need help and support this is so essential. Pitchforks helps nobody, support helps so many.

My point that I'm trying so vehemently (is that a word? the right word?) to get across is that pedophilia isn't a choice.

Yes, acting on it is - but the thoughts and feelings themselves are not a choice and we must support the non offenders who are desperately seeking help knowing what they feel is wrong.

futti i just cant hes been through and is still going through hell and probably will for the rest of his life.

i saw him last weekend hes just drinking and exsisting. hate to think of any one being that way..

I totally agree with the OP.

I remember that polly. It was very thought provoking and well done, but couldn't help wishing that they'd all done that.

Personally if I ever became attracted to children I'd do the same. I couldn't ever ever live with myself.

Ned - common pathways to offending is very different to being born with it, I think we have some similar views on blame. We should help non offending pedophiles and sexual offenders, in my opinion. If we agree they were not born this way, then there is much greater hope for change. Not all sex offenders were abused, though, and very few victims of sexual abuse will go on to abuse, just to be clear.

Many pedophiles have indulged in their problem though instead of fighting against it, and I do insist on holding them accountable for that. We can empathise but also hold them firmly to account for their actions.

I'm sure what everyone would agree with is that no child should ever be abused. Society need to look at how to prevent child abuse, because nothing is currently working.
If someone who is having sexual thoughts about a child but hasn't acted on it and doesn't want to because they know its wrong then surely it makes sense for them to be able to have somewhere to go to help prevent them from becoming an abuser?
At the moment there is no where and if people found out they would end up being victims of vigilante justice - for saying they dont want to do the wrong thing.
When something isnt working, doesnt it make sense to look at other options to help protect children as much as humanly possible.

I think people are misinterpreting what the "empathisers" are saying

No, they aren't. Would you support non offending paedophiles having their liberty restricted for the safety of children? Or do you think it's a sexual orientation in the same way as being gay is?

Just had a Google.. There are resources available in the UK for non offending (or offending but unconvicted) pedophiles to get help to change:

www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk

get-help.stopitnow.org.uk/introduction/introduction

get-help.stopitnow.org.uk/self-help/self-help-intro

OP

How do you know it's not a sexual orientation?

What exactly do you think you are achieving by framing it as a "sexual orientation"? You claim to care about preventing child abuse. How does this do that?^

^How do you know people are not born with it, when so many say they are? How do you know it's an "active" choice to be attracted to children.

Read your own fucking article. Do you not perceive the nauseating I'm a victim, it's just like homophobia, it's terrible I can't fuck children with impunity, child abuse isn't all that bad, I've suffered so much, it's all about me me me me me me me? He's creating a narrative of victimhood and riding on the coattails of the celebration of identity and sexual freedom , and you've swallowed it whole. He doesn't come across as particularly sympathetic to me.

They grow up with it - that to me is still not an active choice, that to me is still not a choice to find children attractive - who would choose that?

Yet the man in the article who you champion did make a choice to seek out people who would reaffirm these feelings, which as a PP pointed out, made it more likely that he would do it in reality.

Just speaking for myself OP, one of the problems is that there are two parts to your message... one sensible and not offensive (to me), and the other part unnecessary, offensive, and I believe dangerous.

The non-offensive part: raise extra professional support for non/pre-offenders.

Completely agree with this part. One victim less is one victim less, and if there is any way to reverse the predatory feelings and/or likelihood of acting on them, then that would be a great thing.

The offensive/dangerous part:

• Likening paedophilia to a sexual orientation, when all currently accepted sexual orientations involve reasonable expectation for mutual, loving relationships, and paedophilia involves abuse of power and is well-recognised for the short- and long-term harmful effects on it's victims.

• Trying to raise empathy for paedophiles based on the belief that they 'can't help it'.

Beyond any random, initial thoughts that spontaneously enter their head, they certainly do choose to further pursue those thoughts for pleasure or not - by fantasising, downloading images/video, fantasy-sharing with other paedophiles, etc. I can raise empathy for someone who would never progress beyond the very first stage of alarming, intrusive fleeting thoughts. But once they progress one step toward entertaining those thoughts for pleasure, the empathy is gone, and those choices/actions have no place being anything but condemned.

Finally, the first part of your message didn't need to be linked to the second (offensive) part at all, and it is mostly this part that people are responding to, because it is understandably very triggering of painful feelings.

Many of us still suffer the effects of paedophile-'attraction' (which has nothing to do with love), and many of us remember very real physical pain and/or terror.
Saying that a particular paedophile would never carry out that action, but would get off on thinking about it or watching it... it's just so repulsive and painful to hear.

And I think it is understandable that there is considerable anger toward those who would "never touch a child", but still like to think about them being raped, and would get turned on by what for you is one of the most horrendous experiences/memories of your life.

If you are actually serious about trying to reduce numbers of victims, then it would probably help your cause immensely to focus on that, and not on the victimhood of paedophiles who "suffer" because they cannot legally orgasm from a child's suffering.

What I want to know is who the fuck sits at home and thinks 'do you know what, I really empathise with paedophiles, I'm going to post it on mumsnet!'
Am I the only one that thinks empathise is the wrong word to be using anyway, surely empathy is when you know and understand and share the same feelings and what they are going through, wouldn't sympathise be a better word? Where in you feel sorry for them that they have these feelings.
That bothers and worries me greatly.

This is the biggest load of shit I have ever read. Be a sick fuck but don't expect sympathy or empathy from me. FFS.

Venus, I don't think it's a sexual orientation at all. I think it's incredibly dangerous to call it that because that implies that it could become acceptable. I think it's a mental health disorder, in the same way as pschizophrenia, etc.

I would be happy for them to be removed from situations where they could be unsupervised with children. If that means that they need permanent supervision, so be it.

Yes. That's what the OP appears not to get.

Orientation is a tricky word because it can just mean an inclination. And paedophilia is definitely an inclination.

However sexual orientation is usually defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. I think the word proclivity may be better than orientation to describe paedophilia

KeepItDown expresses the issue very well.

One part of the OPs argument is very sensible. And the other part is not, and is stopping many people from engaging with the first part.

Linking to that article was a mistake imo. It's nuances and foul under currents are obviously missed by the OP, or they really agree with that this individual should be allowed to advance a message NOT around accessing treatment prior to offending, but one of victimhood and sneaking in the normalisation of paedophilia.

Excellent post from MiscellaneousAssortment.

And no one, not one person, including those who agree with some or all of the OP's point, has condoned or excused child abuse. Not one. So please, get off your competitive-outrage high horses and engage your critical thinking skills. We all think it's appalling, we all agree offenders should be punished and we all agree victims deserve unlimited empathy and support.