Judge tells teacher sex offender: 'I don't criticise you for being attracted to children'

[Feenie]

Here

Where do they get these people???

?I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children. Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

Wtf?

Lifechanger I take your point. I'd like to add though that I wouldn't consider murdering your neighbours evil .

Maybe it's because I was, hate to use the word, but, a victim, of a paedophile when I was very young - don't want to give too much away, but suffered for years, and think that any abuse towards a child is evil.

I don't think thoughts of murder are necessarily evil - depends on the circumstances.

Oakmaiden - suggest you save your pity for the innocent children, rather than the perpetrators.

There is rarely any point about trying to write about things from the piont of view of those person who have the genes or whatever that makes them do as they do as there is a 99.9% of people in the UK who are not even prepared to discuss that issue. As they are not prepared to perversely we will probably end up with even more children hurt. If instead we do look at the causes we might make good progress in stopping conduct which at this time this society regards as wrong.

Various things are wrongs at various times in history. The question of when is something an objective wrong and always wrong in whatever context is a fascinating one.

Oakmaiden's post is right.

Also all the main religions on this planet rightly talk about forgiveness and understanding. Whilst we would all agree to devote most time and resources to stopping abuse of children that does not mean it is wrong to look into why people are sexually interested in chidlren and work out if it is a genetic cause or something else that might be stoppable. Often those who are abused abuse - that may of course just be because of their environment not genes. The more research we can do on this the better.

I believe the chap in this case had been sexually interested in chidlren for 40 years and not done a single thing to hurt any child ever. Wow - think of the effort he must have gone through to achieve that. How much harder for him that must be than if he were one of us whose only likely sexual interest is the attractive husband of a friend or even our own spouse.

(If no one is hurt I would not prohibit by law line drawings of any kind but I accept our society is very anti anything to do with this kind of thing and chooses to do so.I find it hard to understand sexual interest in chidlren below the age of puberty as do most people. It's not easily explainable at all although it has been part of most cultures always either permitted or forbidden).

Yummyhoney - I wasn't talking about perpetrators. I thought I made that fairly clear? I was talking about those who knew that their thoughts were wrong, and who therefore face a lifetime struggle to suppress those thoughts and to hide how they feel. I was quite clear that my sympathy vanishes for those whose thoughts turn to action.

The point is I think ... not that this man has committed this abuse but that the judge sought to justify it which was unnecessary.

MR%z - I agree. There was no need for the judge to make those comments.

How can anyone know if people struggle with these thoughts and don't act upon them? It's liberalism like that, which IMO sways sympathy towards the peodophiles and away from the innocent.

Oakmaiden - apologies - you did make it clear, but, I'm not convinced that there are peodophiles who have the thoughts and don't act on them, struggling with their consciouns.

It's easy to take a liberal view of these things when one, or one's children, has not been affected by them - as with a lot of things in life.

Also assuming most people with this kind of sexual interest in children 'suffer'. Perhaps some do. Many many I suspect enjoy it and simply keep it under wraps without necessarily breaking the law. Or if they're rich and powerful like Roman Polanski, rape away and get on with their lives.

Perhaps many also hark back to paedophiles golden ages over history when forcing young children into sex was the norm amongst certain groups. Perhaps they think favourable times will swing round again and they will be no longer 'misunderstood.'

Of course research needs to be done into this area but one must have proof before one states paedophiles are born this way. That is massively simplistic and does not help anyone.

Agree winky. I would have thought it more likely that our sexual predilictions are shaped rather than genetic.

Xenia, there's no evidence that paedophilia is genetic. And I doubt very much anyone will ever find 'a gene for...' That type of idea is very outmoded. The very few things that there are single genes for that we know about are a small number of medical conditions. Even eye colour is controlled by several genes.

Of course it is important to study the causes of paedophilia, no-one has said it isn't. But that's not the same as excusing it. What makes you so sure this guy has had these thoughts for 40 years without acting on them? In fact he certainly has acted on them, hence the stash of illegal pornography.

There have been a couple of other recent threads on whether paedophilia is innate. It went round in circles, because there is simply no evidence. No one has ever been able to put together for study a group of non-offending people who admit to paedophilic urges. And I don't see there ever will be.

Even if it were innate, then any manifestation of it will remain illegal. So the judge's remarks strike me as totally unnecessary. He is not there to criticise or otherwise. He is there to sentence the guilty offender.

I agree that the judge's comments were unnecessary and inappropriate.

But I also agree with the point Xenia is making.

A child who is abused can grow up to have abnormal sexual desires as a direct consequence of the abuse.

The important thing is not to act on these desires. It is not the child's fault that he/she has them.

Bloody hell! Xenia Obviously there's a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality as in gay people are attracted to ADULTS! Over the age of consent and able to make a decision on whether they want a sexual relationship or not. Most children (ok young children) don't even know what sexual attraction is. And when young teenagers start to become sexually aware they are still very naive and inexperienced which is why there's an age of consent!

are you now suggesting the perpetrator has these feelings because he was once a victim?

I am not talking about individual cases at all.

I am separating inappropriate desires from inappropriate actions.

I don't think we should blame people for the first. I think we should blame people for the second.

Guildenstern I wasn't talking about individual cases either simply using perpetrator and victim as generic terms.

Nobody is suggesting people are blamed for the first. But it is the first that lead to the second. And those who have the first should not be working with children. Under any circumstances.

Not all children who are abused grow up to be abusers. Many, many children who are abused would never, ever inflict that horror on another human being - being abused does not necessarily equate to growing into an abuser. I accept that some do, but suspect the ones who do, have leant towards evil and don't do it because they can't help themselves.

Just want to add that when I said I thought sexual predilictions are shaped, rather than genetic, I meant evil, sick predilictions and not homosexuality, which, as, I think others have pointed out, is completely irrelevent to this thread, as that is between consenting adults.

There is nothing consensual about paedophilia - it is an evil act carried out on innocent children, which any 'normal' person would view as torture and depravity.

Oakmaiden is bang on, I think.

I don't really get the outrage over Xenia's gay comment. Until very, very recently homosexuality was on a par with pedophilia in terms of unacceptable sexual practices. People are looking at this issue through the lens of our present society, and not really looking at the bigger picture, which is that we can't punish thoughts, only actions.

Bue - we cannot punish thoughts, but that doesn't mean we can't be mightily upset at the thought of our DC being lusted over by people who come into daily contact with them. It is well-known that paedophiles seek employment in jobs which give them access to children - perhaps in the future, adults will have to submit to lie detector tests about their sick fantasies - draconian yes, but children who have been the victims of these evil, sick, sub-humans won't think so.

Yes, I know I'm getting carried away now but, having lived through this horror, this subject upsets me - time to hide this thread.

Yummy, I do understand how upsetting this whole issue must be for someone who has been affected by it. Of course personal experience colours people's views.

I don't really get the outrage over Xenia's gay comment. Until very, very recently homosexuality was on a par with pedophilia in terms of unacceptable sexual practices.

Well, let me try to explain it for you.

Homosexuality should never have been illiegal, since it occurs between loving, consenting adults.
Paedophilia should never become legal, since it involves the coercion of children who are non-consenting, cannot in fact consent and should never, ever happen.

I am staggered that you need that explaining to you.

There was a paedophile on here a week ago, justifying his actions in exactly the same way - using the fact that homosexuality used to be illegal to plead his vile and perverted case. He was swiftly deleted, but his posts made me feel as sick as yours and Xenia's do. You are both ignorant and ill-informed.

IMO Xenia is being misunderstood.

As far as I can see she says that if paedophilia is as innate as any other form of sexual attraction, (such as heterosexual or homosexual - and she also mentions goats) then we shouldn't penalise the feeling (because it can't be helped) but only penalise the action. If it is innate what matters is whether the ACTIONS in fulfilling the desire hurt another human being. So, homosexuality, like herterosexuality, between consenting adults hurts no-one and is therefore acceptable. Sexual abuse of children or acquiring images of sexually abused children is based on harm to children, and any sexual inter-action with a child cannot be consensual, so is wrong.

As for the crime of thinking harmful thoughts about children - I am often shocked by the things that MN-ers say about hating visiting children, really bhorrivle aggresssive malevolent thoughts. Of course they don't ACT on them, but I bet some of us have children who behave in a rather over-excited way or decline spaghetti bolgnaise at someone else's house that arouses really venomous feelings. But the child doesn't know, and the parent doesn't act. Except to post on MN about it, where people agree and also criticise the poor child - or 'little shit'

Nope - still offensive to compare the two. There is no comparison. The fact that homosexuality used to be illega,l and that paedophilia still is, is totally irrelevant.

Xenia said "If the law prohibited gay sex then we would sayfine to have that sexuality God or genes bestowed on you but don't exercise that sexuality. I would view sexual interest in children as exactly the same. Do we really think those people sexually attracted to children choose to have that? It is not their fault at all. However they have to control that and not act on it and if they do then society and the law steps in."

Personally I would disagree with her first point, that if the law was (as it used to be ) against homosexuality then the law should be abided by, because as you say it is of no harm to anyone else, and the law should have been changed (as indeed it was). The ONLY comparison she makes is that both desires - for men, for children, may well be innate. In other posts she refers to other desires as innate. We presume that heterosexual desire is innate.

Xenia does not defend paedophile behaviour as acceptable, or suggest that homosexuality is a perversion or harmful...

I know paedophilia and homosexuality are frequently conflated and that homosexuals are often presumed to be unsafe with young boys and other deeply offensive nonsense, but surely it can't be offensive per se to discuss the origin or basis of paedophilia alongside other sexual attractions?