To think that "Rehabilitation" is a joke, because you can't change who someone is sexually attracted to!

[BeachBlondey]

Inspired by the Gary Glitter latest story.

Why as a society, can't we accept, that you cannot fundamentally change who someone is sexually attracted to?

For example - no amount of "rehabilitation" will stop paedophiles being attracted to children.

We know that conversion therapy does not work (barbaric!)

Furthermore, you can't read people mind's, and of course they will say that they feel rehabilitated, because they know that this is their key to being released.

Further still, what happens when you ban someone from indulging in their sexual fantasies for years on end? Surely, the amount of sexual frustration and desire will build and build and build.

If a rapist has not had sex with a woman for 10 years, when he is released from prison, isn't he far more likely to be sexually frustrated and thus more likely to attack quite quickly?

If a paedophile hasn't been around children for 10 years, surely the first time he is around children, his sexual urges will go in to overdrive, probably to far more dangerous levels than ever before, because he will have an appetite that has not been sated for decades.

I am a female heterosexual woman, and no amount of "rehabilitation" forced upon me, would make me stop wanting sex with men. Nor would it magically make me fancy women. But, if I was in prison for having sex with a man, of course, I would tell the parole board that I was cured. And I'm sure that having been celibate for 10 years, the first thing I would want to do upon release would be to have sex with a man.

I'm so sick of sex offenders being released, who very quickly go on to reoffend, resulting in some poor innocent person being attacked or killed. We are constantly risking the safety of the public, under the guise of people having been rehabilitated, despite us seeing evidence to the contrary all the time.

When released prisoners reoffend, I would like to see the members of that Parole board penalised, either with being fired from their jobs, or being given monetary fines.

I realise that a big issue is space in prison. We either build more prisons, or consider medical castration maybe? We cannot keep placing the public at risk.

I work within the criminal justice field. The whole idea rehabilitation of this type of offending is to stop people acting on their urges/impulses. To use your analogy of it being a sexual orientation, a heterosexual man is sexually attracted to a female. They may not have an opportunity to act on this or engage in any sexual activity but remain sexually attracted to adult females nonetheless. The idea is to try and move those convicted of these offences to a position of empathy and understanding of how to manage their risks/urges. What I would say is that the vast majority of this offending group have a very low reoffending rate. However, there are some so prolific that no amount of intervention will work. For those, it is all about restrict and monitor. Prison forever for those individuals- yes in my opinion.

I will jut answer one more question, as it seems a sensible one

I don't know - people on the verge of suicide tend to tell the truth.

I probably speak to 30 or so self confessed child abusers ( probably less than 50% of those have been caught) for every 2-3 who tell me they are paedophiles, but have never acted on their feelings

No, anyone of us could not be in that situation, because no one wakes up one day and fancies kids out of nowhere, but guess what, some of us have been victims of these predators and you can’t spare even a seconds thought for us. How strange that you prioritise perverts over victims.

She's not wrong.

Not all who sexually abuse children are paedophiles.

Some will do it because it causes pain and is degrading. Some will do it for money. There was a rather distressing article on the BBC earlier this year about mothers sexually abusing their children on camera for money. There is no suggestion the mothers had paedophilia.

Are you saying lock them up forever? Are you suggesting lethal injection?

For the worst offenders, the child killers and abusers? And those who enable it?

I'm with you OP.
Unpopular and 'complicated' as it is ... i'm for it.

It's not clear whether you mean you see 30 a week, or 30 a month, or whatever?

In any case :

You speak to 30 men who admit they are child abusers :

13 of them have been caught (just less than 50%)

15 have not been caught (even though they have attacked children)

2 of them tell you they are paedophiles, but have never offended.

So, as a percentage, around 7% of paedophiles never attack children. And that's if you believe the 2 out of 30 in the first place, that told you this.

Even giving them (the 2 out of 30), the benefit of the doubt, you're not really making a case for paedophiles being safe to be in society, if 93% DO attack children.

I see what you're getting at, but this is where the issue of 'desire' is paramount. A desire is not a need, a right nor an entitlement and by nature of it being a desire, it can go unfulfilled with no real cost to the person.
Whereas having 'desires' which are illegal and can never, ever be fulfilled without causing harm to another person means that you should go through life without having those desires fulfilled.
Of course you can suppress it and should be expected to. For life. And if not, then you take the consequences.
Which comes back to the point some other posters were making. Many, many paedophiles as in, someone with a singular or primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children never act on it and never would.
Many child sex abusers are not by definition paedophiles.
Some paedophiles can be rehabilitated in that they stop abusing children even if the desire is still there.
The desire to have sex with children is not the issue and not what requires rehabilitation.
The acting on it with the full knowledge that it causes serious harm is the issue.
Not sure where you're going with the point about incels or religious groups.

The desire to have sex with children, once it's been acted on, should absolutely be the reason for never being let out.

Which comes back to the point some other posters were making. Many, many paedophiles as in, someone with a singular or primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children never act on it and never would

Only 7%, according to Nimbostratus100, who works with them.

Meaning that 93% do act on it. And if they are currently in jail (so you know they were never in the 7%), why would you ever risk releasing them?

Once it’s been acted on, lives have been destroyed, although I agree, there’s not really an alternative. I wish there was more focus on helping those kids instead of these so called innocent paedos.

Im lucky in how it impacted me because others have it much worse, but it’s still fucked me up to the point I will never have a healthy enjoyable sex life. I struggle massively with hospitals, dentists and doctors, especially gynae related, I have CPTSD, I’ve been close to killing myself a few times, I have no family, I’ve never had children, I struggle to trust people and create lasting friendships. I feel like I’m damaged goods, like it was my fault. Why did he abuse me but not my sister? What did I do to make him pick me? But I’ve been left to deal with that myself, no support, no one wringing their hands over it and as an adult, some people even seem irritated that you’re not over it yet.

The focus should be on victims, not perverts.

Paedophiles get a sexual charge from the mere presence of children, and as far as I am aware, children still exist and are being born everyday. So there cannot be such a thing as an "inactive" paedophile, or are you so stupid that I have to take the risk of being banned and explain what your so called "inactive" paedophiles probably do in the comfort of their own homes when thinking of children?

This is why those that believe the theory of the "never done anything to a kid" paedophile are nothing more than narcissistic supply for paedophiles that just haven't been caught. I think that a paedophile who was truly sorry that they are one and would kill themselves.

They are the definition of anti creation. Hence the repulsion against them by the overwhelming majority. Also why the sane, critical thinking lay person would shy away from using pro "inactive" paedophile narratives as a conduit for "empathy" and "intelligence".

I think that those who are simpatico with "non active/dormant" paedophiles should keep their ramblings to themselves or amonsgt their progressive until their brains have done a runner compadres. I also think that coming amongst the "frauen" of a parental website would be too bourgeois, for that type, much less to feign shock at the pushback that paedophiles get on such a website.

I didn't think that I would witness the COMPLETE and flagrant inverse of "Think of the children!!!!" on Mumsnet and I've seen some stuff on here over the near decades.

That takes a lot of narcissism.

Paedophiles are amongst the top two worst type of humans in the world and they are all somebody's relative; so playing the"what if they were kin to you?" card doesn't fly, especially in a world where people go no contact with their own children for far less corrosive transgressions and with reason EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of everyday.

@Naunet

and

@Bookworm20 hear bloody hear!
So sick of these ''oh lets feel sorry for them, they couldn't help it'' bleeding fucking hearts.

''I think that a paedophile who was truly sorry that they are one and would kill themselves.''

and do the world a favour.

I don't think it's about attraction I think it's about wanting to dominate and hurt a child which is what they are attracted to, not children. It's about wanting to hurt a child, it's not even as sexual as it is about power like all rape.

Which is why chemical castration doesn't (always) work.

In other words a chemically castrated paedophile isn't 'safe'.

Yep. The only 'safe' paedophile is a dead one.

Thank you.

I can’t understand this recent trend of sympathising with these men - although I guess people like that have always existed. I’ve heard people push to remove the stigma, under the guise of it reducing offending and making it easier for paedos to get help. I can’t think of any other crime where we’ve removed the stigma in the hope it’ll reduce offending, and I can’t think of any examples where it’s worked in other areas - I mean it’s not how we’ve tackled things like smoking for example, so where do they get this belief? Do they really even believe it? I just feel like there’s a huge push to normalise it all.

We'll be accused of waving pitch forks soon.

Nimbostratus100 has done that already!

Haven't read the full thread but I couldn't get past the rape analogy. Rape isn't about sexual attraction or sexual preference, it's about power and control.

So if you don't want to make it easier to get help by reducing the stigma, what IS the solution?

There is no known cure for paedophilia. It's a very poorly understood disorder - in no small part because it's difficult to study due to lack of subjects willing to admit to it.

Realistically, the law is not going to change to execute child sex offenders (and as has been pointed out, paedophiles and child sex offenders are not a perfect circle on a Venn diagram). Nor is it going to change to allow people to murder them.

We simply don't have the means to lock them up in facilities for life, and in any case there is a strong argument to be made that locking up non-offenders for life would be illegal and in violation of various international laws. We also don't have thought crimes in this country and we can't punish someone for having disgusting thoughts.

If either of the above (capital punishment or life incarceration) were in force, paedophiles would obviously be very reluctant to come forward.

However, if it was easy to access help to prevent offending in future without fear of reprisal, do you not think that would be better? Why would you not want to get at these boys and men early and stop them offending?

They don't come with a birthmark or a giant flashing light above their heads. The only way we can identify them is if they offend, by which point it's too late and someone has been hurt, or if they come forward voluntarily. And if we want them to come forward voluntarily, we need to provide safe channels to do so.