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

I don't really know where I stand on this. I have agreed on some level with every post. It's very confusing for me. The human decency in me says that we should offer support to those who ask for it but the mother in me wouldn't be able to control my anger and muma bear instincts if I was around a known paedophile.

Ned I think you're getting a hard time and I've worked in mental health for 20 years so I have seen the devastation that sexual abuse causes. As a PP said, there was a similar thread a while back and the responses were far more measured - there was probably a majority agreeing with the OP.
Do people think that there is no distinction between somebody who has these thoughts but never acts on them and somebody who does?
It is very common for women with severe PND to fantasise about killing their baby. Are these mothers monsters for having those thoughts?

There definitely needs to be more support and preventative work. There are children showing signs of becoming abusers. I know of one that raped a 4 year old when he was 14. At 11 it was evident he was a very troubled child and he should have been getting a lot of therapy. Maybe if he had then that poor 4 year old child would never have been raped.

toptoe has it.

There are many people who have sexual proclivities that are illegal or immoral or both.

Of course acting on those proclivities is appalling and should be condemned outright.

But I don't see why someone having them and not acting on them is not deserving of empathy and support.

toptoe spot on.

If it is indeed a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness then the desire will never be fixed, any more than you can "cure the gay".
In this case I think it would be humane to offer physical castration alongside a lot of counselling to paedophiles who want to do all they can to ensure that they don't become abusers. That way they don't have the constant frustration of struggling with their desires and they are probably less likely to "break" and abuse. (I don't know though- is voluntary physical castration available and has it been shown to reduce the likelihood of becoming an abuser?).

The tone of the article is unpleasant and dwelt rather to longingly on the incidences that the author felt shaped his preference.

But on the whole at least in principal I agree with the OP - no one can prevent their thoughts they can only prevent themselves acting upon them. It's uncomfortable territory: clearly no right minded person wants to do or say anything that might legitimise abuse but I agree there is a discussion to be had and disagree that MN is not the place - although given recent dumbing down here it's probably an exercise in futility

it's not a sexual orientation for fucks sake. it's an aberration. this tired old bollocks is touted on Reddit all the time and it's indefensible.

yes abuse can be cyclical. but children must be protected, not used as fodder for people who have convinced themselves that wanting to have sex with a child is ok as it's no different to being gay or straight.

But I don't see why someone having them and not acting on them is not deserving of empathy and support.

Because you can't guarantee they have never acted on them. Or haven't blurred the lines. A photo on the Internet. They didn't take it, they aren't harming a child so it's ok. They are in a relationship with a child. It doesn't count because they love them and the child initiated it. They are 15. It doesn't count because it's almost legal.

Also wanted to add that yet again it seems an adult's rights have trumped the rights of a child to be unmolested. As a society I feel very strongly that children's rights need to be improved significantly. They have a right to know that someone who wants to hurt them (not 'have sex' or a 'relationship' but hurt them) is restricted from doing that in order to protect the child who is innocent.

Therapy is very unlikely to work (see my above post) so the abuser needs to be restricted. Put it this way, you wouldn't want a violent psychopath walking about the streets because it was their right to do so. They need to be restricted in some way to protect the people who are highly likely to be harmed by them.

I also think that being a paedophile means that that person has acted on their need to harm children at some point, be it viewing images to physically touching a child. I don't believe for one second paedophiles care in slightest about restraining this urge to harm children.

mini

Curious, how would you react if it was your child?

Would you congratulate them for being open and not wanting to act on their desire? Would you make them feel like it's just a sexual preference, but a wrong one? Would you put them in therapy for a few hours a week and let them live their life around children normally? Would you not encourage them to inform the police knowing they would never get arrested unless they acted upon it?

The 'man' in the article said he can't talk in therapy as the police would be informed. I actually find it bloody worrying as hell that he doesn't want the police to know, what is he hiding? Just incase he changes his mind on a lonely evening and downloads some child pornography?

Also wanted to add that yet again it seems an adult's rights have trumped the rights of a child to be unmolested

Add in there a mans right to do what he wants over the rights of every one else

Well, you can't be absolutely sure a man has never raped anyone either........

Oh Norfolk - perhaps you'll get the ODFOD too?

This thread should go - it's disgusting.

People on here are not defending a mans right to rape are they?

They are defending a paedophiles right to feel sexually turned on by children and it being socially acceptable as long as they don't act on it

Because paedophilia comes from a place of wanting to control someone and get sexual gratification from that, the choice of a child is secondary. The child is the obvious choice because they are easy to control, are going to want to please and have a lack of knowledge and experience. So the paeodophile is someone who likes to hurt people, get sexual gratification from it and children are the easy targets.

All the paedophiles I met enjoyed humiliating children in other ways too - be it being sarcastic to making them do scary things unrelated to sex or physically hurting them in other ways. So it is clear to me the whole angle of the paedophile is to want to control a person and so the child is the easy target.

mini/OP

If my son told me he had an argument with his wife and really Wanted to beat the shit out of her but didn't because he knows it's wrong.

I would not sympathize with him having these thoughts and pat him on the back for not acting on it knowing it's wrong. I would be ashamed, disgusted and would encourage him to separate from his wife and seek help until he no longer has these urges.

Because it's wrong, immoral and dangerous to even have the thoughts and be around someone who triggers them.

Bert

No you can't, but you can Be sure that EVERY pedophile is attracted to children.

Don't really get your point

Just also want to add not all paedophiles are male with penises. They can be female, but less likely to be. And their form of paedophilia is different accordingly and can be even more confusing for children. It is more 'relationship' based but basically comes from the same place: the want to control someone and harm them, dressed up as 'fun' or a 'relationship'.

Children are wonderful because they are so wanting to give love and receive love. Someone who enjoys hurting another person uses this quality to their own ends.

"People on here are not defending a mans right to rape are they?

They are defending a paedophiles right to feel sexually turned on by children and it being socially acceptable as long as they don't act on it"

You said that a paedophile had no right to support or empathy because you could never be sure they hadn't acted on their desires. I pointed out that the same could be said about anyone.

A lot of people have sexual desires that are illegal or immoral and do not act on them. Why should paedophilia not be the same?

toptoe, yes, that makes complete sense. Especially relating to the power imbalance. And especially to their desires not always being sexual in orientation. But what you rightly said was that they get some sort of 'kick' from targeting the child.

OP, I think you were brave, rather than stupid to start this thread.

EXCELLENT post by yorkshapudding

It is not just another 'orientation'. The very position it starts from is one of abuse of power (as pp have said, very eloquently), and I think it is dangerous ground indeed to begin to frame it in this manner.

The amount of times I have seen people make an association between homosexuality and child abuse, confusing the thoughts and actions of consenting adults with the obsession of a minority with a group who by definition cannot consent. No one would dispute that association is wrong. Making that association in the reverse is equally wrong and damaging.

I don't think as a society we are lacking in empathy. I think we are approaching a situation where there is a reluctance to draw a line anywhere. Any kind of moral issue seems now to be a grey area, where everything is judged relatively to worse things going on. Some things are black and white.

So what should someone who is aware that they are sexually attracted to children do?

Because it is obvious that many people are, and always have been.