Paedophilia and child abuse - time to discuss the issue

[braineclipse]

I don't think sexual preference is ever a choice. I don't think paedophiles can choose differently to having that preference - it's just how their brain is wired. But they must choose to obey society's moral position that enacting it is absolutely unacceptable.

Sexual preference also isn't a categorical either or situation.
Sexual preference is also very different to acting on those preferences.
Sexual preferences are influenced by environmental factors. Environmental factors also influences how your brain ends up being wired.

I don't think it's true or useful to see pedophilia as unavoidable based on what we currently know, while I think it's true that homo- and heterosexuality is unavoidable. Though more needs to be learned about how pedophilia is prevented.

 

[glasgowspur]

Is paedophilia and underange sex the same? Has paedophilia become a catch all term.
It wasn't that long ago that what is now considered under age sex was the norm, and in some cultures still is.

 

[Spursman]

I just find it bizarre that someone can fancy a child! what exactly is the attraction?? people are very strange

 

[Rock Strongo]

If you

I think that's the option I'm leaning towards, but I think a lot of people would not want that to be the case.

We don't have the technology to read people's minds yet, so unless you come out publicly as a paedo there's not much we can do about it. Once you go down the darknet route and begin downloading/buying online abuse for your entertainment, you need to be kept away from people.

 

[Rock Strongo]

But society should have a responsibility to support them, rather than stigmatise them. That aspect IMO is brain programming, rather than a developed behaviour. We need to do better than the treatment of homosexuals by the Victorians and Edwardians. Although being clear there is a firm line between preference and any form of enactment of it.

Perhaps VR might be one solution? A sort of methadone-type approach?

I'm sorry but this world is just better off without some of its ingredients. Basic human rights need to be something we should strive for, VR childporn is not on that list.

 

[7percent]

0.1% of the 63 million UK population is still a large number of people. Tens of thousands of adults meaning it's plenty of people to populate online message boards and give the police plenty to worry about.

I should have added at any one time.

Neither of us have any stats or information to back it up, I just have a horrible feeling in my stomach that the problem of child porn and abuse is far bigger than either of us would expect

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

But society should have a responsibility to support them, rather than stigmatise them. That aspect IMO is brain programming, rather than a developed behaviour. We need to do better than the treatment of homosexuals by the Victorians and Edwardians. Although being clear there is a firm line between preference and any form of enactment of it.

Perhaps VR might be one solution? A sort of methadone-type approach?

I agree with that it can be a psychological issue but history shows victims of abuse can in turn be abusers and this would be part of behaviour pattern.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I just find it bizarre that someone can fancy a child! what exactly is the attraction?? people are very strange

Women wear eye make-up and remove their body hair to make themselves appear more childlike, appealing to 'mainstream' male tastes. It's not black and white

 

[Gutter Boy]

Is paedophilia and underange sex the same? Has paedophilia become a catch all term.
It wasn't that long ago that what is now considered under age sex was the norm, and in some cultures still is.

It's been touched on, but there's a (uncodified in the UK) distinction around age gap. A 15 and 16 year old couple is very different to a 40 yo with a 14 yo etc.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Women wear eye make-up and remove their body hair to make themselves appear more childlike, appealing to 'mainstream' male tastes. It's not black and white

Shaving your bodyhair is not the same as appearing more childlike. Do you think that women, when they're shaving their legs or kittykats, think of how wonderfully smooth those things were when they were 8? Does your mind race to kindergarten when you stick your nose in a shaved kitty?

 

[Spursman]

Women wear eye make-up and remove their body hair to make themselves appear more childlike, appealing to 'mainstream' male tastes. It's not black and white

They dont do it to appear more childlike, they do it to look better. Society has taught us to think that women shouldn't be hairy. Its not attractive for a woman to have hairy arms and legs.

 

[Lemonade Money]

It's been touched on, but there's a (uncodified in the UK) distinction around age gap. A 15 and 16 year old couple is very different to a 40 yo with a 14 yo etc.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If we're getting light-hearted on the subject, I would recommend track 3 down the very bottom here: http://pgyc.co.uk/. Don't do it Philip...

 

[jts1882]

Is paedophilia and underange sex the same? Has paedophilia become a catch all term.
It wasn't that long ago that what is now considered under age sex was the norm, and in some cultures still is.

They are not the same.

Technically, paedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children, but the media seems to use it in a much broader way. Hebephilia and ephebophilia are the correct terms for sexual preference towards pubescent and post-pubescent youths, but I can't remember seeming these terms used in the media. As you say, paedophilia has become the catch-all term.

 

[glasgowspur]

They are not the same.

Technically, paedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children, but the media seems to use it in a much broader way. Hebephilia and ephebophilia are the correct terms for sexual preference towards pubescent and post-pubescent youths, but I can't remember seeming these terms used in the media. As you say, paedophilia has become the catch-all term.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[scaramanga]

We don't have the technology to read people's minds yet, so unless you come out publicly as a paedo there's not much we can do about it. Once you go down the darknet route and begin downloading/buying online abuse for your entertainment, you need to be kept away from people.

At the risk of disappearing down a theoretical rabbit hole, I'd like to take that further along the path - there are few questions to which I would say that I genuinely don't have an answer so things like this intrigue me.

So what's the difference between an "inactive" paedophile that looks something up online which has already been created, and for which they offer no exchange or recompense, and seeing something on the street or in a park and putting it in their toss bank? Assuming that the point of incarceration and/or therapy are to prevent harm, what grounds do we have for locking someone up when no harm has been caused?

As a parent I feel entirely conflicted. I don't believe we should be locking people up for thoughts and preferences, but I also wouldn't want someone like that around my son.

 

[jts1882]

If we make the thought a crime it will just deter the person from seeking help. They often seem to realise it is wrong to act on the thought (hence secrecy) so it would be better that they were encouraged to talk to their doctor and seek help. Otherwise you have a pool of unknown inactive paedophiles, some of whom will eventually act on the impulses.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

As a parent I feel entirely conflicted. I don't believe we should be locking people up for thoughts and preferences, but I also wouldn't want someone like that around my son.

And that is your answer @scaramanga . If you 'heard' even a snippet about someone at your boys nursery or sports club etc...... do you give them some leeway, a chance, the benefit of the doubt. Of course you dont, your little lad is the world to you and that is replicated across the country.
Everyones kids need as much protection as possible, so if it means playing it 'safe', then so be it. Just for a moment think how you would feel if something happened.

 

[scaramanga]

If we make the thought a crime it will just deter the person from seeking help. They often seem to realise it is wrong to act on the thought (hence secrecy) so it would be better that they were encouraged to talk to their doctor and seek help. Otherwise you have a pool of unknown inactive paedophiles, some of whom will eventually act on the impulses.

Yet most parents would quite rightly tell you that they think a person gaining sexual gratification from looking at their child should be a criminal offence.

 

[scaramanga]

And that is your answer @scaramanga . If you 'heard' even a snippet about someone at your boys nursery or sports club etc...... do you give them some leeway, a chance, the benefit of the doubt. Of course you dont, your little lad is the world to you and that is replicated across the country.
Everyones kids need as much protection as possible, so if it means playing it 'safe', then so be it. Just for a moment think how you would feel if something happened.

And we're back into the realms of a thought crime. Punishing someone who quite possibly didn't even have the intent to commit an offence.

Do we mark them out to everyone for public safety? I don't want to invoke Godwin here, but it does call to mind the idea of people bearing yellow stars.