Pedophile Activist on BBC Radio 4 Behind The Crime

[BitMuch]

A convicted pedophile describes his crimes against girls with great self-pity, says his victims did not have negative reactions and if they had he would have stopped before he got caught and argues to reduce stigma for pedophiles. The presenters psychologists Sally Tilt and Dr Kerensa Hocken do not challenge him and repeatedly call for viewers to sympathise with what they call his 'compulsion', comparing his 'attraction' to our desire to eat unhealthy food. Is this the next target for 'just be kind you judgy bigot' propaganda?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001b43m

It was produced in partnership with the Prison Radio Association. Does that mean this episode is being played to prisoners?

That should be "banning porn".

Sexual deviant centered care my fecking arse.

There is a stigma attached to pedophiles for a reason ffs. It's to make it so abhorrent they never want to act on their urges.
If we remove the stigma we remove another reason not to do it.
I have worked with pedophiles, not exclusively but in my role they are sometimes part of the job, they spend a lot of time and energy justifying what they have done. They have a fucking choice not to destroy a child's life for their own sexual gratification they mostly choose their own sexual gratification. Fact.

I hate this programme. I don’t know why these psychologists are taking his word for it that he was confused etc, they’re not mentioning that he took pleasure in the behaviour. It’s almost like they’re talking about something completely non sexual.

Wow. Just wow. Next they are going to rename serial killers and racists something that sounds pleasant and ask us to feel bad for them.

Rapists* Auto corrected. lol but guess I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened too. Lol 😂

Agreed. So far being kind has been a very slippery slope. I’m not willing to throw myself down that slope for pedophiles.

There aren't actually good statistics about how many paedophiles there are who do not ever act on their attractions.

But I think that your sense that it's easy for people to avoid crossing sexual boundaries is a little unrealistic. It's true that most people do not engage in violent rape. But sexual assaults against minors are often not violent and I suspect don't create the same very obvious sense of doing something unwanted. It's psychologically different.

And as far as other sexual boundaries, people cross them all the time. How many people have affairs, have sexual relationships with people at work when they aren't supposed to, have unwise sex when they know they really shouldn't, have a ONS when they believe that's not safe or ethical, how many kids actually don't have the father they think they do? In a lifetime, there are a heck of a lot of people who once or twice do something they know they probably shouldn't, and some of them justify it to themselves.

I think maintaining a strong taboo is important because it does help keep that boundary stronger, the more difficult it is for people to justify their actions, the better, but at the same time, it will make it harder for people to get support before they act.

Well the MAP bandwagon has been rolling a while.

I’m on an insomnia roll so I might as well be brave and give it a listen.

I've tried to be open minded about the claim that stigmatising sexual offences against children makes it harder for paedophiles to get help with their "compulsion" but I'm just not convinced.

It would have been helpful for the psychologists to discuss valid reasons for scepticism when listening to personal accounts given by paedophiles, they come across as gullible for failing to address this issue.

I think the program was part of the ongoing attempt to desensitise us to paedophile behaviour, right at the start the producer makes the distinction of "no contact" offending. There is no definition of what "no contact" offending includes. We are told "Ian" was found guilty but there were no details about the conviction. Was his conviction for indecent exposure only or was evidence of additional "no contact" crimes found at his home. Is it usual to be put on the SOR for life for indecent exposure?

As the interview progressed the psychologists referred to sexual offending or sexual offences as if the were trying to get us to think about SO against children in the same way as SO against adults. I think the distinction is important.

The most glaring omission of all is right at the beginning when, aged 7, "Ian", for reasons unknown found himself in a classroom with his genitals exposed to his classmates. He claims the "positive" responses of his classmates was a major factor in the start of his compulsion but there is no exploration about how or why he was exposed at that time in the first place.

I find it interesting that we treat research in this area as credible when all of the qualitative data we have is gathered from liars.

All in all it felt like pro paedo propaganda. Fuck off BBC, did you learn nothing from Saville?

Because it’s easier to control and manipulate a child. They aren’t sexually attracted to them because it’s their orientation. It’s because they like how easy it is to get a naive inexperienced person to do their sexual bidding for them. They’re master manipulators.

This is nothing new, it’s being going in for years.
I remember when I was younger there was a tv programme with the ‘paedophile next door’ or something, all about how they couldn’t help it, and how nobody would help them.

That was probably the BBC too, they don’t learn

Don't we need to understand this type of behaviour so we can stop it? I have not listened to this but listened to another podcast that talked about psychologists and similar professionals getting a hard time for working in this field. I for one want them to look at it, to understand the reasons why and to find treatments that stop these people from acting on their dysfunctional thinking. I want kids protected from it.

Not sure if there is a need for a podcast though. I don't think I will listen because as a non professional I would find it too disturbing and upsetting.

I agree. The issue isn't that some people are sexually attracted to children. The issue is that some people are rapists and abusers. And some of those rapists happen to be attracted to children rather than adults.

When it comes to men who rape adult women, the only people who try to argue that it wasn't the man's fault, and that they need kindness and understanding because of the stigma of being heterosexual, are INCELS.

Wasn't there a course that sex offenders were sent on that actually led to an increase in offending but an attempt to whistle blow was covered up? This sounds like more of the same.

I completely fail to understand how reducing societies disapproval of people who rape and abuse children, or think about doing so, would do anything but increase the number of children harmed.

The biggest problem with this approach is that I've heard of researchers suggesting the use of "child porn" (images of CSA) for these men as though that's entirely benign and victimless.

Apologies that I can't provide any links. I'm sure I read it on here though, so I'm sure someone else will know more than me.

How about reducing the stigma of attraction to children, but highlighting children can't consent have never and will never consent and increasing the stigma around lack of consent?

There's a town in USA somewhere a bit off the beaten track that is supposed to be a safe space for non offending pedophiles. It allows them to live in community, without exposure to children, so the risk of offending is low and the support to stop offending is high.

I don't know how it's going, I read about it a few years ago.

@MangyInseam I'm not sure if its just because I'm only just awake but really?.
But I think that your sense that it's easy for people to avoid crossing sexual boundaries is a little unrealistic. It's true that most people do not engage in violent rape. But sexual assaults against minors are often not violent and I suspect don't create the same very obvious sense of doing something unwanted. It's psychologically different.??

'Ah well Katy, your sexual assault at 4 wasn't violent so move on' what's the next step- they didn't stop it so no harm? (Actually feel ill writing that).

And equating paedophilia with a ONS or affair??
And as far as other sexual boundaries, people cross them all the time. How many people have affairs, have sexual relationships with people at work when they aren't supposed to, have unwise sex when they know they really shouldn't, have a ONS when they believe that's not safe or ethical, how many kids actually don't have the father they think they do? In a lifetime, there are a heck of a lot of people who once or twice do something they know they probably shouldn't, and some of them justify it to themselves.

I seriously hope you don't work with children.

It's just queer theory isn't it? It doesn't matter how Ernest these professionals present it. 'Reducing stigma' is just another way of saying 'destroying societal norms'.

So pickle when the men in your practically all male town in America step away from the town, where they reinforce to each other that it is normal and fine to think of children as sexual objects, do you think convincing themselves that this child consented would be difficult? Or consent doesn't apply because they are only watching child porn so not actually doing anything? And it is not like society minds they think about children this way so why is the act itself no OK too?

Yes @Lovelyricepudding I vaguely remember hearing about this. Wasn't it some sort of group therapy? All it did was 1) turn them on, hearing about the abuse the other offenders had committed, 2) give them tips for the future and 3) give them a network of like-minded offenders.

I used to listen to this podcast but there was an episode a while back on an issue I know a lot about all I could see was the glaring omissions, errors and outright falsehoods and i decided not to bother with it again. How can I trust a source I know can get it so wrong?

IIRC the Mail on Sunday did a few articles on this. I thought it went back further than the one I just found though:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4635876/Scandal-100million-sex-crime-cure-hubs.html

If I remember correctly @Lovelyricepudding, they choose to go there because they know it's not ok. It's not reinforced that it's fine, because if it were fine they wouldn't be there.

I have no idea what happens if they choose to move away. As men who have committed no crime, they can choose where they live.

It's a creative solution, I'd be interested to know if it worked.

I think it's right to think creatively about solutions. If you aren't going to lock people up for having appalling thoughts, then you have to manage the population that has appalling thoughts.

Not by giving them an outlet for their fantasy in the form of child sex dolls or images of any kind.

Make going to your GP for sex drive reducing treatment easier. No need to say why. Could be a range of paraphilias you don't want to indulge.

If it's publicised that that's possible, maybe that would help.

Thing is these people exist. How do we manage them?

I endorse this post. The programme was very clear that it was not in any way minimising the effects of his crime - indecent exposure. And the man himself said that he now understood how damaging his actions were and that he had no way of changing that or offering an apology.

If there is to be a way of reducing these crimes then understanding what the psychological make up of perpetrators is is important. Why do some men feel a compulsion to do this?

The man on the programme had a strict only-child upbringing, and was bullied at school and had no friends. An occasion of him being exposed as a child resulted in the attention he craved - a positive reward for a negative behaviour. He knew that what he was doing was wrong but it became a strong compulsion which he found hard to resist.

He said that if he had been able to find counselling and help to resist he would have welcomed this. He deliberately got himself caught in the hope that this would get him the counselling he needed. But it resulted in group sessions with strangers where he felt unable to open up, He sought help in many places but none was to be had until he found a voluntary organisation who helped him to stop his compulsion.

Any other compulsion would be treated with counselling and it is in everyone's interests for this to be available for sexual offences - they are in the grip of a compulsion and this needs treating - unless we are to say that all sex offenders are inherently evil and there is nothing to be done except lock them all up.

Because we are all so horrified by these crimes we must not stop efforts at prevention.

Thing is these people exist. How do we manage them?

One of the way society manages this behaviour is through stigma and cultural barriers.

I can see that living away from children may seem an easier way to live. The problem is without the stigma within that society (the town) what may start off as a reasonable position may slide into group think justification.

Ok, I misremembered. It's interesting, none the less.

They say "they do not accept violent offenders or serial offenders, nor minister to pedophiles, which they define as "someone who can only become sexually aroused by a child""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiracleVillagee_(community)