Seeing more and more articles like this about paedophiles.

[Miffer]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41213657

This is the first mainstream UK one I have come across but there have been a few US ones.

I am not okay with it. If you fancy kids it's not okay, it should not be accepted, it should be shunned, you shouldn't be able to talk about it, your friends should disown you, you shouldn't be able to Google this without ramifications.

From a utilitarian POV I think it's bullshit anyway. The few paedophiles that would commit less harm from support and a more accepting society will be vastly outnumbered by the harm caused by a more permissive attitude towards this.

Better to get help to deal with it so no children are harmed.

I thought there was no cure, though?

I'm no expert so I don't know, TheSparrowhawk. Regardless, if therapy works to reduce offending we should be doing it and it should be possible for anybody with paedophilic tendencies to access that therapy.

It's the job of the therapist to unpick the exact reasons any particular paedophile might offend and to minimise the chances of that happening. Whatever those therapists are paid, it isn't enough.

I don't know why you think it's 'disturbing' that there's such a thing as childhood sexuality gentlemanjohn - of course there is. Biologically the child has sensations that they enjoy and they may play out ideas of love and relationships with other children - that's totally normal. Only in a situation in which these feelings are seen as 'dirty' and 'wrong' does it become disturbing. Of course there are situations where children who have been subjected to abuse play that abuse out on others and that needs to be dealt with, but there's no need to hand-wring about or pathologise normal exploration and curiosity.

Porn is a separate issue - a child being exposed to porn is considered a form of abuse and can lead to abusive behaviour in a child. That's an issue for wider society, definitely.

But the idea that children were once so safe and carefree is utter nonsense. Children were raped by adults in their thousands while everyone turned a blind eye. At least these days it's recognised as abuse at the very least.

It can't be a bad thing to seek more understanding of any potentially destructive human behaviour. Merely seeking understanding doesn't have to "normalise" anything.

Maybe the chemical castration may help with some (voluntarily perhaps) , but there are multiple pathologies at work here, and I have heard that for the trully psychopathic rapists for whom this is a power thing a castration could tip them into murder to start to excercise their power once sex is taken away.

The thing we need to come down hard on are attempts to pass off pederasty as another sexual orentation. Anything that violates the non-aggression principle by definition MUST be illegal. Homosexuality is not a problem as its consensual. If we're going to make allowances because a behaviour is in someone's nature then we may as well have no laws or restrictions of any kind. It's in a kleptomaniacs nature to steal, a serial killers to murder and so on.

People who have these urges who don't act on them have my sympathy. Same as that kid recently who went into school with a shotgun and many many shells, and just before he was about to start murdering people, phoned the police and handed himself in. It doesn't mean that boy shouldn't be separated from the rest of us to make sure the unthinkable doesn't then go on to happen.

Personally anyone who seeks psychiatric/psychological help to control urges that would lead them to criminal acts should be assisted in every way possible, and if they haven't committed any actual crime we shouldn't treat them as criminals. Any loss of Liberty as a protective measure is not the same as a loss of Liberty as a punitive one. If my brain goes doolally and I start hearing voices telling me to kill people I would want to be treated as a patient who was dangerous as opposed to a criminal who was dangerous iyswim?

Same way as if by ill fortune I bumped into a person who had contracted Ebola and caught it myself I would want to be seperated from others, treated if possible but above all not be able to infect anyone else! If I knew I was infected, didn't seek medical help and went around knowingly infecting dozens of people I'd be acting criminally and certainly morally culpable. I may not be guilty of getting the disease in the first place, but it is my moral responsibility to seek quarantine.

There are further complications concerning the way the modern world is impacting on childhood sexuality....and I'm sorry, disturbing as this might sound, there is such a thing as childhood sexuality. This is what was so scandalous about Freudianism. That does not mean children should be legitimated as objects of adults sexual desire, because that's clearly repugnant. It just means that they are sexual beings

I got reported to MNHQ for saying that once so I was loathe to say it here too. But it seesm to be supported by the research - i.e. even small children get pleasure from fondling their genitals. There is a massive leap across a canyon here to saying that children can (or should) consent to sex with adults (or other children), though.

No, no no - I didn't mean to suggest there was anything per se wrong with childhood sexuality, or that there was ever a time when children were not molested - only that children are now abusing other children to a degree they never did, and raising the further issue of what sort of adults these children might grow into.

In effect, we have a culture that is creating future sexually deviant adults. Possibly.

I don't know if you meant to suggest that sexting etc should be regarded as 'normal exploration and curiosity', but I'm not so sure.

Suppose a boy of 10 asks a girl of the same age to send him a sexual picture or video of himself. Is that a sexually deviant act or normal curiosity? Should we place him on a register to make sure he doesn't continue to do this into adulthood? Should he get therapy?

I don't know.

If a paedophile feels they are about to commit a crime, they could go to the police, couldn't they?

Who would do what? Not sniping, genuine question.

Hopefully, lock them up, the same way as we do with anyone who poses a threat to others.

I think the point is that the police couldn't lock someone up until after they've done something wrong.

Hopefully, lock them up, the same way as we do with anyone who poses a threat to others.

Not a lot of incentive to to come forward. If you're going to be locked up anyway you might as well commit the crime.

MH support in general is pathetic in this country so I can't see there being many funds set aside to help a bunch of people actually stick to the principles of right and wrong that they learned when they were 3.

Suppose a boy of 10 asks a girl of the same age to send him a sexual picture or video of himself. Is that a sexually deviant act or normal curiosity? Should we place him on a register to make sure he doesn't continue to do this into adulthood? Should he get therapy

It shows that sexuality is to some degree socially constructed. There are arguments that sexting is 'normal', when it is in fact a product of our times. I find it problematic because from a very young age girls are taught that pleasing boys is expected and it is my view that boys have power over girls as part of patriarchy from a very young age.

The main issue here to me is to tell boys this is not on, to advise girls against sending anything, to supervise use of electronic devices and to provide a sex education that challenges patriachial sexuality.

But, I thought they wanted to be seen as people with a mental illness they can't prevent? If that's so, then it should be covered under the MHA, and we lock people up under the auspices of the MHA every day in order to protect others.

That's what I was wondering earlier Xeno - generally if you're seen as being a danger to yourself or others you can be detained or monitored. If a paedophile feels that they can't control themselves, will that happen?

Well, I don't know Sparrow. There seems to be some belief that they are a special group who shouldn't be detained, even when they come forward to tell people they will harm others.

Sparrow; if a peadophile thinks he's about to commit a crime and reports it to the police, then what. He's not committed a crime. Maybe they'd keep him in for a day or two and scratch their heads but ultimately he will be released.

Also we don't know wether therapy works because it's not really done, so we may as well try. It doesn't even need a good success rate, 1/1000 would save a kid.

But not the 999 others.

Pedophillia is by its very nature abusive. Even if a pedophile does not act on his/her impulses, their desires are for sonething that necessitates an abuse of power. The normalisation of pedophellia is the equivalent of the acceptance and normalisation of rape fetishes.

Maybe people are unaware that the Police are a first port of call for people experiencing distress from their mental health condition and that the police have powers to detain people under the MHA. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they go straight to prison part from the people who are saying that it shouldn't happen.

How do you propose they have access to the therapy you want them to have if not through MH services?

Interesting article about treatment programme in Germany: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-paedophilia-clinic-university-hospital-treatment-berlin-a7384356.html

As Xeno said, browsing, a person who is considered a danger to others can be detained.

I would still argue that the paedophilia isn't really the problem - having thoughts is fine. The problem is when a person feels unable to control their own actions in which case there seems to be something else wrong - personality disorder? schizophrenia?

I think the people who want help should be able to get it. I dont see them in the same group as the people who want to normalise it as an attraction and attach it to LGBT.
However, I wonder how treatable it is. We know gay conversion therapy does not exist. To the point where in the UK its considered abuse and illegal.
I also wonder if its preventable to a certain extent. Babies need to imprint on adults not other children, and I'm not sure we know enough about this process.

By who, and why? I'm not sure the BBC are looking to normalise it. Perhaps looking to open debate and look at things differently as pariah status hasn't worked so far.

Im not sure one way or the other but I am surprised that anyone could see the BBC as not having an agenda when it comes to child sex offenses.

So people are happy for paedophiles to access treatment via the police and a compulsory section but not through requesting treatment on a voluntary basis?