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

your, damn auto correct

^"This means that paedophiles feel unable to ask for help and are therefore more likely to offend."

^ this

OR you could potentially normalize something horrific and disgusting, so when your lovely pedophile friend decided he's suppressed his desires long enough, is in a state of depression and despair (like man in article) and decides to abuse a child, they spout some shit about it being a sexual preference and compare it to being gay, oh woe is me I've been so supressed I know it's wrong I'm so sorry I just can't help it blah blah.

Can you honestly not see how normalizing this and making it in to some sort of sexual preference is so bloody dangerous? Would you be happy to be friends with someone who classed themselves as a pedophile but didn't want to act on it? Would you bring them in front of your children? Come one now, let's not be silly.

Sympathise with a disgusting peadophiles. Erm yeah. That'll happen. I think I'll save my sympathies for the poor children they abused and their families. Because if it were my child or my nephew. There's no telling what I'd do to the bastard/s.

I don't think anyone chooses to be gay, straight - or a paedophile.
I think it's possible to feel concern about someone who is a paedophile because they didn't choose their DNA (if that IS the cause) that made them prefer children, any more than a gay man chose to prefer other men.

It's possible- or ought to be in a civilised society- to distinguish between how someone is born, biologically, over which they have no control, and the acts they carry out.

There was an interesting drama on mainstream TV about this last year when a paedophile willingly went into therapy, including medication, to try to control his urges. In the end (if I recall it correctly) he committed suicide because the treatment didn't work 100% and he couldn't live with himself and the potential risks he posed to society.

Paedophilia is wrong because it hurts vulnerable children. But who would choose it as a sexual preference? No one.

No.

It's not just an 'alternate sexuality'.

That legitimises damaging children in a way that will never be legitimate.

Do not try and slip past on the coat tails of tolerance something completely and utterly indefensible.

I think there should be some kind of specialist intervention that aims to keep children safe by keeping paedophiles from acting out their fantasies. And I think that the witch hunts with violent crowds is not the best way to handle it.

But that's it.

No liberal welcome with open arms for the person who gets off on abusing, damaging and injuring children.

That's a slippery slope towards an agenda that must not be allowed to whitewash abuse of the most vulnerable.

I suspect this thread will be deleted anyway. I don't think Mumsnet is the right forum to drum up support. Aa parents, why on earth should we be called upon to sympathise with people that fantasise about hurting our children. We try and keep our children safe at all costs. And legitimising the fantasies of hurting children is not comparable with the first and foremost responsibility to our children.

Suggesting we need to 'take tea with the enemy' only benefits one person in that scenario. And it's not the children. Or the parents.

Just the paedophile.

right, so you have empathy with them for having all these thoughts and impulses that disgust most of the population - but they fail to control them and slip up just once, and suddenly all your understanding disappears and you condemn them?

sorry, not being goady, just being truthful - this is why the empathy sounds to me as if you're just keen to paint yourself as the most liberal understanding open minded kid on the block.

that's what I was thinking Ned and I suppose I (rightly or wrongly) assumed that if it were a mental illness, rather than a perversion, they are more likely to be disgusted with their thoughts & less likely to act on them. It's interesting that he said he has never been interested in child porn, as to me, that would be the epitome of being a paedophile.

Anyway, like I said, I need to properly read the link. As mentioned, I was abused as a child but, putting that aside, this topic does need to be spoken about, with the understanding that this will generate a lot of negative feelings. And, rightly so.

And to PP's asking if every gay man is attracted to all men in the world etc..so why should pedos be attracted to every child.

If you look at families who view homosexuality as wrong for culture or religious purposes and they spend their lives suppressing these urges, they are more likely to crack and act upon their desire. I've seen it happen.

These 'men' are a danger to society and should not be allowed near any child, don't care if they're only attracted to children with blonde flowing hair like the sicko in the article was, keep them away from ALL children. Being attracted to one in the world is one too many.

How do you know the poster has never done anything?

What he thinks is socially unacceptable could be different from us.

For example he could have a photo of a child on his computer. Fully clothed so nothing indecent and still find it erotic and have a wanking session over it.

Is that ok because he hasn't hurt anyone and the picture is ok because no child has been harmed in the process?

No

No liberal welcome with open arms for the person who gets off on abusing, damaging and injuring children

But some of them don't "get off on it" and are disgusted and ashamed by their thoughts. How should we treat them?

I'm not trying to normalise it. I've said there will always be a stigma attached to it and I think there always should be.

My initial intention on starting this thread was to make people think about how they use the term 'pedophile' and 'child molester' interchangeably, because they aren't the same thing.

It is not a sexual orientation. The vast majority of men who sexually abuse children, have sex with adults. These kind of articles are written by men who are trying to get people to feel sorry for them. It is propaganda.

" Because if it were my child or my nephew."

What about if it was your child or nephew who was having these thoughts at the age of 12/13 or later adolescence. Would you tell them they are vile and that they would be better off dead/locked up forever?

The problem is OP that while I understand your motivations, I don't think sexual abuse of minors will ever be seen as acceptable, even in thought rather than deed.

Some things are better kept underground.

Also as a child being looked at in a sexual way is harmful. You don't have to be touched. And believe you me as a child you know if an adult is looking at you with sexual thoughts. You may not be able to articulate it, but you will feel uncomfortable and unhappy with it.

Op. You are trying to normalise it by calling it a sexual orientation. Is it fuck!! It's abuse.

"needaclever*, yes, you are right. I had never thought of it that way.

I've also never once said I think they should be allowed access to any and all children they want, like a lot of you are suggesting.

I just think there should be more help, more support and more something to prevent children getting hurt by pedophiles.

And I don't think pitchforks and vitriol is the right way, that is all I am saying.

Lifelong support? Lifelong supervising to lessen the chances of them doing something sinister? I don't know, I don't know what's financially viable I just know that "killing them all" and "locking them up for life" isn't a feasible solution.

OP

as to make people think about how they use the term 'pedophile' and 'child molester' interchangeably, because they aren't the same thing.

You cannot MAKE people think anything

It's your view

Everyone is not going to read the article and change their opinions

Me personally, if I knew someone was a pedophile I would not let them anywhere near my child. Regardless of any help they were getting

And sexual orientation is gay or straight not children

Using the language the author does to describe a child as 'almost ancient' is unacceptable, and horrifying to me. This type of description holds the first steps towards legitimising the abuse of children. Children aren't actually ageless or full of ancient wisdom beyond their years. They are children. Full stop.

I also don't want the sexual abuse of minors to be seen as acceptable - I never said that or even implied it?

But keeping it underground pushes more people to be secretive and alone and it lets their thoughts fester and become darker.

I just wonder how different someone would be if they had lifelong access to help, the ability to talk to someone about it.

I can't get my head round paedophilia simply being a sexual orientation, there's such an imbalance of power.
Isn't there also evidence that there is often child abuse in a paedophile's background? (May be wrong here, but it's something I've read)
Which would point more towards mental illness, and maybe indicates that abuse victims need far more support and intervention than they are already getting?

SIL was a teacher of a boy who showed paedophile tendencies, he was labelled a monster, couldn't be left alone at all with other DC (he was 10 at that point), and was punished.
Turned out he had been horrifically abused from the age of 2, this was all he knew.
He is now an adult in a secure prison, he is a paedophile.
I wonder if 15 years ago, had he been seen as a child who desperately needed help, rather than being branded a monster, would his future prospects be different?

If someone admits to these feelings, they must be helped, not because lefty liberalism, but because surely learning more about this will help to protect our children in the long run?

It's not reducing offending because you get too many empathic and forgiving people in authority who are willing to try and "reform" an abuser and put them back into society, there is no cure for this disease so best just lock them up or lethal injection (wishful thinking).

As for those who have not acted on their thoughts, well, leave your child alone with them to see how strong their will power is. Ooh no you say, it's fine as the peadophile has had therapy and talked through his/her feelings, little Jamie will be fine
That's my view, you have yours.

Thoughts become words, words become actions.

I don't want to be in a society where men can talk about being attracted to children without acting on it in their local pub

"Your attracted to kids but never acted on it? Good on you mate. You can't help who you love. Long as you don't act it on it right"