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

Bridge, I agree with your post entirely. Well said.

Help or no help, honest or not, I wouldn't let them babysit my children. They're a danger.

Boop, no one has suggested that we should leave them with children, unsupervised.

The majority of people don't want to think about this. They prefer to have a 'hang 'em high' attitude.

Whilst I would not knowingly leave my children in the company of someone like the man in the article. I found it interesting.
I watched a documentary about a man who was like the man here. It made you think. It is a very complicated issue.

What was the documentary called Gotta? I'd be interested in seeing it.

I wish I could remember.. It was a couple of years ago. Must have been BBC1 or 2 - or possibly Ch4.
The guy tried everything to be cured of his feelings. Apparently - there are quite a number like him who seek help.

SpecialAgentFryPie

The Paedophile next door. It was 2014 - Just found it on Google. Channel 4.

Yes and no.

Yes I sympathise with anyone who has thoughts that they simply wish not to have.

However, if you're reading fiction or looking at images you clearly are not that deeply disturbed by your line of thinking.

I do think if you are that worried you will hurt a child there should be funding to have these people in a secure unit / half way house so they can make sure they have no contact with children.

I also think these types should volunteer chemical castration - that way the sexual urges should be greatly reduced.

I would rather know that someone had these thoughts and attractions and who was brave enough to say so.
Apparently most sexual abuse is by family members or close acquaintances who are not solely attracted to children and , not attacks by strangers and from what I have read, is more common than we would think.
We may all know an abuser or a victim. In fact, we probably do.

I agree.

I think a lot of childhood sexual abuse is like rape in that a lot of the motivation is the power, not the sex itself.

But castration would not stop theme thoughts would it?

Smh

What do you actually consider is a pedophile or child abuser?

Someone who:
has one sexual fantasy about children or teenagers?
has regular fantasies about children or teenagers but never acts on them?
looks at sexual pics of children/teenagers but nothing else?
has sex with a 16 yo?
has sex with a 15 yo thinking it was a 16 yo?
has sex with a 15 yo?
has sex with a 14 yo but they are the same age?
has sex with a 14 yo but in a country where it is legal?
has sex with a 12 yo but in a country where it is legal?
has sex with a 9 yo but its was in the past when it was ok?

How do you draw the line?

Ned thank you for this thread. I honestly think this way of thinking is the most hope we have for reducing the devastating harm of child sexual abuse. I differ for you on one point in that I also feel empathy for those who go on (with no coming back from consequences) of acting on their impulses. That does not mean I think its right and nor does it mean that i dont understand the serious long term harm such action causes. I also have empathy for those who commit suicide and all number of internalising rather than externalising forms of serious disturbance. I am quite used to being slated here for such thoughts but make no apology for them.
By the way it's also noticeable how all the posters who dont want to understand anything about the man in the article completely ignore the fact that he was sexually abused himself.

Thank you Gotta!

Personally maths I'd say someone who fantasises about someone under 13 is a paedophile.

A child abuser would be anyone who acts on those fantasies with anyone under the age of consent.

That's my own personal definition though.

As a paedopjile is someone attracted to children, not teens.

Those attracted to teens are called something else beginning with E that I can't quite remember. Still very much illegal.

Anyone who views images of those under 16 of a sexual or proactive nature aren't abusers as they haven't done anything direct but are more likely to than those who do not I feel. Also, they are aiding those who do abuse children by viewing it.

Proactive = provocative.

Out of interest, how do pedophiles rings start? How do they find each other?

Thank you for starting this thread.
In the past I have pondered a similar thought to your op however not wanting to offend or distress anyone I haven't discussed it openly.
Having read the full thread I have things straight in my head and I wholeheartedly disagree with you - and my original musings.
A friend of a friends family member found child abuse images on her partners computer. The children started in their early teens and got younger and younger.
The images of early teens stopped getting him off so he found younger etc.
This suggests to me that it is more fetish than sexual orientation. I can't won't and would not ever want society to accept paedophile as an equal choice and therefore have some level of human right to access that sexual orientation.

What do you actually consider is a pedophile or child abuser

There is a clear definition of a paedophile. It is someone who is mainly or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children.

What constitutes child abuse is more complex in that the definition is driven by societal norms. The age of consent in the UK was 12 from 1275 to 1875 and wasn't raised to 16 until 1885. Tony Blair's government proposed reducing the age of consent to 14 in 1998 but withdrew the proposal in 2003 due to lack of support. This is, of course, for heterosexual activity. The rules for homosexual activity have were different until 2001.

Personally I am happy with the current legal definition in the UK. However, I would not judge the past by today's standards.

Those attracted to teens are called something else beginning with E that I can't quite remember. Still very much illegal

The term I think you are referring to is ephebophilia. That applies to someone who has a sexual preference for mid to late adolescents (age 15-19. Having such a preference is not illegal. Acting on it is only legal if the adolescent is below the age of consent or the adult is in a position of trust with respect to the adolescent.

In terms of legality, I think you've confused ephebophilia with hebephilia. That is a sexual preference for pubescent children. Again, having such a preference is not illegal but acting on it is always illegal.

Boop: "It is not a sexual orientation, it's a preference, a fetish."

What's the difference between a sexual orientation and a fetish?

To me, there's an obvious distinction to be made between having bad thoughts and acting on them. I imagine we've all felt in a bout of rage that we wanted to kill someone. But I don't think that wanting to kill someone is as bad as actually killing them, otherwise we'd all be in gaol.

Quite right pr I do get those two mixed up. But yes acting on it illegal naturally thinking about it, not so much.

A fetid just is probably the wrong word anyway as fetish is often to do with an object or specific element having to be present to gain arousal.

So feet for example or latex.

I'd say pp's may mean a kink instead. But to me it's not as a kink is something you like to do but can gain satisfaction without it.

I think it's very much a mentally twisted reaction to something.

Another point I want to mention - can people please not assume how people who have been abused feel? I have no problem with this discussion and actually think it's quite an important discussion to have.

Can only speak for myself, of course, but really, there is a trigger warning on the title and I can make my own decision as to whether to open the thread.

I agree it's an important discussion (although it's taken over 30 years for me to get to the stage where I can join in!)

Having given this a lot of thought since this thread started, I think for the "true" paedophile (the ones sexually attracted to children to the point of obsession and to the exclusion of sexual relationships with adults) it must be so hard for those who want to seek help and don't want to act on their impulses. I think it is more than a fetish for them, but I still hesitate to call it a sexual orientation, as that normalises it in my head. As a civilised society we should have a way to help them and by doing so protect children from them.

However I stand by what I said earlier in the thread that the vast majority of sexual offences against children are by a familiar and trusted adult who very often has an adult partner too (or had had one before/after). This is where I think the fetish type label is right - it's a power and control thing that gives them the sexual gratification they seek. They are making a choice to do the wrong thing and to keep doing the wrong thing, to keep pushing the boundary if they have the opportunity, to commit more and more severe sexual offences.