Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Pedophile Activist on BBC Radio 4 Behind The Crime

222 replies

BitMuch · 17/08/2022 22:10

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?

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/08/2022 15:03

In the late sixties, educators in more than thirty German cities and towns began establishing experimental day-care centers, where children were encouraged to be naked and to explore one another’s bodies.

This article scrutinises some of that disturbing period.

Pantomiming Intercourse

The educators' notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.

According to the records, a "sex exercise" was conducted on Dec. 11 and a "fucking hour" on Jan. 14. An entry made on Nov. 26 reads: "In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us."
…
But the adults were soon divided over the issue of sex. Some were determined to encourage their children to show and touch their genitalia, while the others were horrified by the idea.

"It was never addressed quite that directly, but it was clear that in the end, sex with the two female teachers was considered," says Schuller. "I found it incredibly difficult to take a stance. I felt that what we were trying to do was fundamentally correct, but when it came to this issue, I thought: This is crazy, it just isn't right. But then I felt ashamed of thinking that way. I think many were in the same position."

After a year of grueling discussion, the more prudish group prevailed, and the parents decided that there would be no sex in the Kinderladen.

www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

Tyrantosaurus · 18/08/2022 15:03

He doesn’t argue to reduce the stigma of the crime but says if there was more psychological support at the time he may have been able to stop.

Good he sought help. This isn't an excuse for anything, though. If you're a grown up who is a peadophile , stop being a whiny dick and seek psychiatric help rather than sacrifice children's futures because your too embarrassed.

Mental health and psychological issues are embarrassing for most people, mental health or other professionals aren't going to lynch you.

ResisterRex · 18/08/2022 15:08

Where does removing a taboo stop? Why only for child sex offences? Why not rape of adults? Why not child abuse and neglect?

Yes men should seek help not to act on their urges but to think about this as in "if we don't, they'll do X" terms is to centre to offender/criminal and put the victim to one side.

Removing a taboo has a real Foucauldian feel to it. Dismantling barriers and boundaries kind of thing. Some barriers are needed. Some crimes are truly awful. Help people not to offend or reoffend, sure, but embarking on a "removing the taboo" kind of path is unlikely to lead anywhere good.

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:09

Again, the only comments about ‘removing the taboo’ are on here, not on the programme.

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:11

I think there is a purposeful effort by the very rich and those who own our media outlets to normalise paedophilia. I think it's because many of them themselves are paedophiles.

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:13

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:11

I think there is a purposeful effort by the very rich and those who own our media outlets to normalise paedophilia. I think it's because many of them themselves are paedophiles.

Really? I’m not allowed to call this hard of thinking? We’ve gone straight past the Daily Mail comments territory and into the land of US conspiracy theories.

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:16

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:13

Really? I’m not allowed to call this hard of thinking? We’ve gone straight past the Daily Mail comments territory and into the land of US conspiracy theories.

It is a conspiracy theory.

People in power do conspire.

There were multiple people who mentioned the Jimmy Savile thing throughout on television, and the media outlets limited their TV appearances for a good while, namely Jerry Sadowitz, and Johnny Rotten.

The Gislaine Maxwell trial went on around the same time as the Depp Heard trial, but only the latter was televised. Why?

The very rich have been socialising intimately with a known paedophile who owned an island specifically for the purpose of bringing young victims to sexually abuse.

All these things are the result of the people who own our media conspiring to make them occur.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:17

Does this have something to do with Hilary Clinton and pizza?

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:18

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:17

Does this have something to do with Hilary Clinton and pizza?

No.

What do you think the purpose is of airing this programme? What is the motive of the decision makers?

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:19

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:13

Really? I’m not allowed to call this hard of thinking? We’ve gone straight past the Daily Mail comments territory and into the land of US conspiracy theories.

You can call it whatever you like but it would be more useful to engage in the discussion and address the facts raised with a counter argument.

None of us here agree with airing a programme that normalises paedophilia, yet the media outlet does - why do you think that is?

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:21

What do you think the purpose is of airing this programme? What is the motive of the decision makers?

I haven't listened to it so I could not comment.

I am not, however, automatically assuming that it is all about normalising paedophilia and that this is all because of some paedophile ring amongst the rich and powerful.

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:21

People saying Jimmy Saville was raping children were called conspiracy theorists.

If you came across that online before it was aired as truth, would you have called that person a conspiracy theorist and dismissed them on that basis?

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:22

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:21

What do you think the purpose is of airing this programme? What is the motive of the decision makers?

I haven't listened to it so I could not comment.

I am not, however, automatically assuming that it is all about normalising paedophilia and that this is all because of some paedophile ring amongst the rich and powerful.

Do you think it's possible that paedophilia is endemic amongst rich and powerful men?

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:24

’None of us here agree with airing a programme that normalises paedophilia, yet the media outlet does - why do you think that is?’

How on earth is it ‘normalising paedophilia’ to have forensic psychologists talking to an ofender? We’re they ‘normalising’ other crimes in the first two episodes of the series???

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/08/2022 15:24

Where does removing a taboo stop? Why only for child sex offences? Why not rape of adults? Why not child abuse and neglect?

My impression is there is a nuance that emphasises the taboo surrounding the acknowledgement of such impulses and drives and how that taboo acts as a barrier to approaching a charity/GP for help.

Removing the taboo in this instance is not the Foucauldian exercise to normalise offences, the abuse of children or the drive to lower the age of consent.

This doesn't relate to Ian but there have been successful defence mitigations around men with no (known) previous history of sexual interest in children who developed that interest after a brain tumour (and/or surgery to correct it).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311728/Judge-spares-paedophile-jail-brain-tumour-download-child-porn.html

However, it seems that that wasn't helpful, judging by more recent updates for that offender.

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/camberley-paedophile-stephen-pantlin-caught-17182341

Different man here for whom neurologists make the point about the importance of "no previous history" and emphasise the need to research why this might be a driver (eg, brain damage v. associated hormone changes).

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2345971.stm

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/a-40yearold-developed-an-obsession-with-child-pornography-then-doctors-discovered-why-a6893756.html

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:24

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:24

’None of us here agree with airing a programme that normalises paedophilia, yet the media outlet does - why do you think that is?’

How on earth is it ‘normalising paedophilia’ to have forensic psychologists talking to an ofender? We’re they ‘normalising’ other crimes in the first two episodes of the series???

Do you think there are any other aspects of our media which work (perhaps unintentionally) to normalise attraction to younger people?

to children even?

Or to desensitise young people to male sexuality?

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:27

You accused this specific programme of normalising paedophilia. Not the media as a whole, this programme. Explain that to me.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:27

Rejectshampoo - you ask a lot of questions many of which are quite leading. Why don't you try answering ones that have been asked here instead?

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:28

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:27

You accused this specific programme of normalising paedophilia. Not the media as a whole, this programme. Explain that to me.

I did not.

I said "I think there is a purposeful effort by the very rich and those who own our media outlets"

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:29

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/08/2022 15:27

Rejectshampoo - you ask a lot of questions many of which are quite leading. Why don't you try answering ones that have been asked here instead?

I have. Share the ones I've missed with me.

I think you find them leading because you don't like the answers brought up when you read them.

the answer could just be "no".

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:30

You said ’None of us here agree with airing a programme that normalises paedophilia, yet the media outlet does’

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:31

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:30

You said ’None of us here agree with airing a programme that normalises paedophilia, yet the media outlet does’

I think even if the intrinsic aim of the programme is not to normalise paedophilia, I think it will have that impact on the whole.

Do you not think so?

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:32

How exactly does it have that impact?

rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo · 18/08/2022 15:34

FlorettaB · 18/08/2022 15:32

How exactly does it have that impact?

Framing paedophiles as victims who just need help.

Desensitising society bit by bit to the fact that paedophilia is just some kind of illness.

I think over time if that continues it will become more normal.

It has already happened to the degree that this programme has aired - rightly or wrongly perhaps. But it's the case that the view of paedophilia has already switched for many towards a more sympathetic view.

Datun · 18/08/2022 15:35

I've always seen this framed as an issue with these offenders being able to access treatment. And them saying it's difficult.

So surely that's a problem of the NHS, or a charity? Certainly not a problem that is stemming from the paedophile themself.

Paedophilia being stigmatised is not a barrier to accessing help. The very people who are offering the help would be those in society who are the most understanding of it.

If there is a helpline, or an institution to help them, then it's just a matter of picking up the phone. You don't even have to go anywhere, you can have a session by zoom.

Yet, every time this issue is raised (and it's been raised every few years for as long as I can remember), I see the paedophiles themselves complaining about access to treatment, and if only someone understood, they could stop offending.

So pick up the phone? Am I missing something?