Are Paedos 'evil'?

[clementine_the_tangerine]

Are paedophiles 'evil' and can they be 'cured'?

Erm..that's the question :p

Paedophillia in itself is attraction to children and in itself is definitely not 'evil' but I guess morally to most people it is wrong. I think it should be treated as an illness. When I think about it and after seeing the film Happiness..Not sure if anyone else has seen it?

Anyway, to sum it up briefly the psychiatrist molests the friends of his pre-teen son. The film basically makes him to be a pretty sympathetic character but there is one especially touching scene which I couldnt possibly ruin by telling anyone it :p

Anyway looking at paedophiles themselves. Do you think any of them know that there is something wrong with being attracted to children? Do some WANT to get help? If a paedophile went to the doctor's one day and told them their anxieties how would they be greeted?

This is my rambly ramblings by the way. I hope it made sense. My trail of thought is kinda umm..sporadic.

[Mist]

The word sounds evil to me. But the only way to be sure is to use the ducking stool.

[morrocan roll]

chemical castration is painless.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

are you serious?

[Indrid Cold]

I think paedophilia is just as "evil" as homosexuality etc. The difference is that the latter has to do with adults so it's not morally wrong (in our time at least) but the former is wrong because it has to do with kids.
When some guy kidnaps a 3 year old kid to molest, the evil deeds are: 1)The kidnapping and 2)the molestation. Him wanting to do that isn't evil, just something he should have ignored as best as possible.
So yes, I believe they should be offered psychiatric help.

[Teh_Gerbil]

It is a kindof mental condition I beleive... and some can't resist the urges.

Shoot 'em, put them out of their misery, and save the chance they could ever do anything to children again.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

I think paedophilia is just as "evil" as homosexuality etc. The difference is that the latter has to do with adults so it's not morally wrong (in our time at least) but the former is wrong because it has to do with kids.
When some guy kidnaps a 3 year old kid to molest, the evil deeds are: 1)The kidnapping and 2)the molestation. Him wanting to do that isn't evil, just something he should have ignored as best as possible.
So yes, I believe they should be offered psychiatric help.

I agreeee. You worded it much better!

[morrocan roll]

I think paedophilia is just as "evil" as homosexuality etc. .
are you serious?

[morrocan roll]

are you serious?
second or third time evn ...they should be locked away forever ...but with an immediate release from jail if they agree to be castrated ...all urges gone.

[Skive]

People who fantasize about sex with kids arn't evil they're just wrong'uns.
Those who make those fantasies reality are!

My take on it anyway.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

I think the urges are unacceptable but definitely not evil. What if a perfectly 'normal' person wakes up one day and has an attraction to children? Does that automatically make them 'evil'?

Acting on those urges is a different thing.

[stargalaxy]

Am I correct in assuming that this thread was prompted by me repeatedly using the phrase "evil paedophiles"? If it was, I stand by what I said entirely. Yes, I believe paedophiles are evil scumbags, and no, I don't think they can be cured of such sick urges. Personally, I think anyone who is prepared to sexually abuse a child should be put to death, but since that is not possible in this country, I think they need to be locked up, far away from any children, and never released.

[Schnap me Baby]

are you serious?

no i know what he means by that. He doesn't mean that they are both just as bad as each other but that having sexual thought about children is not necesserily wrong as such. I have thought about this issue before and I guess as sick at peodophila is you can not help your feelings and what you are attracted to just like you can not help being gay if that is really how you feel. Don't get me wrong I do not condone (sp?) this behaviour in the slightest but you can not help what your mind is telling you which is why it could be seen as a mental health issue

[clementine_the_tangerine]

second or third time evn ...they should be locked away forever ...but with an immediate release from jail if they agree to be castrated ...all urges gone.

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the rug? There are ALWAYS going to be people attracted to children. Being attracted to a child doesn't automatically mean that you are a threat. How do we know that there aren't people fighting the urges? If there are I'm guessing it's without medical help because think of the consequences if they did come out so to speak.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Personally, I think anyone who is prepared to sexually abuse a child should be put to death.

Same as I said above. Simply because it is the most logical conclusion. Many Paedophiles themselves have said they'd rather be dead.

[stargalaxy]

Same as I said above. Simply because it is the most logical conclusion. Many Paedophiles themselves have said they'd rather be dead. Having low self-esteem can never be an excuse for commiting such evil deeds.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Having low self-esteem can never be an excuse for commiting such evil deeds.

Well, not so much that... they said they will offend again if let out... because they can't control the urges and they see nothing wrong with it. So they'd rather die.

[Indrid Cold]

are you serious?
Some people are turned on by feet. There's nothing morally wrong about that, so no complaints. Some people are turned on by people of their own sex. The same.
Some people are turned on by kids. That's not something they can control, any more than the two examples above can.

If someone kidnaps a grown woman to do stuff to her feet, his evil deed is the kidnapping and that he did the stuff without her consent.
If some guy kidnaps another guy to rape, his evil deed is the kidnapping and the fact that he forced the other one into sex without his consent.
But in these two examples, the correct thing to do would have been for the person in question to find someone who would agree to these things being done, and who'd be legally able to agree (i.e. mentally grown-up).

If some guy kidnaps another a kid to molest, his evil deed is the kidnapping and the fact that he did it without the kid's consent.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS: Kids don't have the legal ability to give consent. Unlike the other two who could find someone to do what they want with legally, this one can't. So the only moral solution is to not do it. If they need help with that, a psychiatrist/ologist/analyst/whatever could help, I think. But their urges aren't wrong in themselves.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

Having low self-esteem can never be an excuse for commiting such evil deeds.

I dont think that was his point. The paedophiles can't help that they are attracted to children and hate themselves for it so would rather be dead? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Schnap me Baby]

Some people are turned on by feet. There's nothing morally wrong about that, so no complaints. Some people are turned on by people of their own sex. The same.
Some people are turned on by kids. That's not something they can control, any more than the two examples above can.

If someone kidnaps a grown woman to do stuff to her feet, his evil deed is the kidnapping and that he did the stuff without her consent.
If some guy kidnaps another guy to rape, his evil deed is the kidnapping and the fact that he forced the other one into sex without his consent.
But in these two examples, the correct thing to do would have been for the person in question to find someone who would agree to these things being done, and who'd be legally able to agree (i.e. mentally grown-up).

If some guy kidnaps another a kid to molest, his evil deed is the kidnapping and the fact that he did it without the kid's consent.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS: Kids don't have the legal ability to give consent. Unlike the other two who could find someone to do what they want with legally, this one can't. So the only moral solution is to not do it. If they need help with that, a psychiatrist/ologist/analyst/whatever could help, I think. But their urges aren't wrong in themselves.

That's what I was trying to say but you worded it better :p

[morrocan roll]

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the rug? There are ALWAYS going to be people attracted to children. Being attracted to a child doesn't automatically mean that you are a threat. How do we know that there aren't people fighting the urges? If there are I'm guessing it's without medical help because think of the consequences if they did come out so to speak.
if a guy has offended in such a manner against children and genuinely feels remorse and he gets whatever help is available ...and he goes on to offend again ...then he should accept it's jail forever or ...instant freedom if he has his nuts cut off.
chemical castration is apparently painless and the guy won't just have his freedom ...he'll also have some dignity knowing he has done the right thing having his nuts undone.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

if a guy has offended in such a manner against children and genuinely feels remorse and he gets whatever help is available ...and he goes on to offend again ...then he should accept it's jail forever or ...instant freedom if he has his nuts cut off.
chemical castration is apparently painless and the guy won't just have his freedom ...he'll also have some dignity knowing he has done the right thing having his nuts undone.

Surely it doesn't all revolve around his bollocks

[Schnap me Baby]

Surely it doesn't all revolve around his bollocks

exactly. Also women can be peodophiles too, what would be done to them as I don't think an op would stop any urges a woman may have? I may be wrong tho

[Indrid Cold]

That's what I was trying to say but you worded it better :p
That's a rare thing... Usually I struggle to find words to say something and end up writing about 50 of them without anyone understanding what I meant, and someone else comes and says the exact same thing in 6 words. :p

[Schnap me Baby]

That's a rare thing... Usually I struggle to find words to say something and end up writing about 50 of them without anyone understanding what I meant, and someone else comes and says the exact same thing in 6 words. :p

haha, na I thought that put the point across well

[morrocan roll]

Surely it doesn't all revolve around his bollocks
remove his hands as well then.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

remove his hands as well then.

Unfortunately time machines arent available.

edit: what about his mouth?

[Schnap me Baby]

remove his hands as well then.

lol

[Yerascrote]

Yes, I believe paedophiles are evil scumbags.

Why? Some people, through bad luck I guess are attracted to children, can't blame them for that, can't blame homosexuals fancying members of the same sex. However they have a moral obligation not to act their fantasies.

[morrocan roll]

Unfortunately time machines arent available.

edit: what about his mouth?
i'm not talking about the hands on his watch ...:chin:

[clementine_the_tangerine]

i'm not talking about the hands on his watch ...:chin:

I know

[Indrid Cold]

Why? Some people, through bad luck I guess are attracted to children, can't blame them for that, can't blame homosexuals fancying members of the same sex. However they have a moral obligation not to act their fantasies.
Exactly what I was talking about: The same thing, much fewer words. :D

[morrocan roll]

Why? Some people, through bad luck I guess are attracted to children, can't blame them for that, can't blame homosexuals fancying members of the same sex. However they have a moral obligation not to act their fantasies.
how the friggin fuck have people managed to bring being gay into the same eqaution as being a child sex attacker?

[Indrid Cold]

how the friggin fuck have people managed to bring being gay into the same eqaution as being a child sex attacker?
Nobody is comparing being gay to being a child sex attacker.

[morrocan roll]

Nobody is comparing being gay to being a child sex attacker.
well it's funny that the gay crowd keep getting a mention ...what about the hetros ...don't see them getting a mention.

[Schnap me Baby]

how the friggin fuck have people managed to bring being gay into the same eqaution as being a child sex attacker?

they just want to show that your sexual preferences or turn ons can not always be controlled or chosen. For them it would be like me saying to you "right I know you fancy women but that is wrong and evil and if you do it you will be sent to prison". As much as you could take that on board it would still be hard to resist temptation if thats what turns you on

Edit : There you go, hetros have a mention now :p

[clementine_the_tangerine]

how the friggin fuck have people managed to bring being gay into the same eqaution as being a child sex attacker?

Some people class being gay as morally wrong and disgusting and you've just changed the debate from paedophile to child sex attacker.

I think it is even more important to try to understand these people rather than condemn them as evil or perverse. You arent going to stamp it out by cutting off their hands, bollocks, mouth or any other body part you can think of. Nor is locking up every single paedo going to work. It's hardly enforcable.

[Indrid Cold]

well it's funny that the gay crowd keep getting a mention ...what about the hetros ...don't see them getting a mention.
Certainly. A hetero guy who kidnaps a woman to rape her is evil too.
But "paedophile" does not mean "child sex attacker" any more than "hetero guy" means "rapist".

[morrocan roll]

But "paedophile" does not mean "child sex attacker" ".
how doesn't it?

[Indrid Cold]

how doesn't it?
Because being sexually aroused by kids does not mean that you'll do anything about it! That much is obvious.

[morrocan roll]

Because being sexually aroused by kids does not mean that you'll do anything about it! That much is obvious.
those who only think about it aren't realy a problem then are they. i often think about having securicor over but refrain.
those who do act on their urges ...we do what with exactly?

[clementine_the_tangerine]

Chop off their bollocks apparently.

[Yerascrote]

those who only think about it aren't realy a problem then are they. i often think about having securicor over but refrain.
those who do act on their urges ...we do what with exactly?

No one has ever excused their actions, we're just saying you can't help being who you are. Those that do act, prison for a long time. Castration? Well doesn't exactly work as an attacker will find other ways to abuse the child.

[morrocan roll]

Chop off their bollocks apparently.
well come up with something that hasn't already been tried ...and mostly failed ...and i'm all ears.

[Teh_Gerbil]

well come up with something that hasn't already been tried ...and mostly failed ...and i'm all ears.

12 Gauge.

[clementine_the_tangerine]

Well I welcome professionals to try and figure out the behaviour.

Another question is..is it a medical condition or a sexuality like any other? Well not like any other but you get what I mean.

[morrocan roll]

12 Gauge.
:eek:
seriously ...some of you are verging on excusing these people.
we aint realy talking about a few innocent thoughts here or the debate is pointless.
there are some very nasty coniving bastards out there who prey on children ...do everything they can for opportunities to arise.
they need dealing with.

of course we can go down the road that persistent burglars just need a nice holiday and some rest and understanding and all will be well.

[Teh_Gerbil]

:eek:
seriously ...some of you are verging on excusing these people.
we aint realy talking about a few innocent thoughts here or the debate is pointless.
there are some very nasty coniving bastards out there who prey on children ...do everything they can for opportunities to arise.
they need dealing with.

of course we can go down the road that persistent gurglars just need a nice holiday and some rest and understanding and all will be well.


Thats why I say use a 12 gauge... it sure stops them reoffending!

I dunno... let's import Sheriff John Bunnell and let him sort the situation out... I bet he has a few good ideas!

[morrocan roll]

Well I welcome professionals to try and figure out the behaviour.

Another question is..is it a medical condition or a sexuality like any other? Well not like any other but you get what I mean.
pros have been dealing with these problems for many many years ...it aint new.
the sucsess rate is apparently minimal.
so ...a bunk and a bowl of porridge for a long time seems all we're left with realy.

[Jamie L]

People who fantasize about sex with kids arn't evil they're just wrong'uns.
Those who make those fantasies reality are!

My take on it anyway.

I generally don't like indulging in political debate... however I totally agree with Skive on this. Fantasy and reality are totally different. If someone makes that fantasy real which harms an underaged child (and in the case afore-mentioned about the 3 year old) then they should be strung up and shot.

Also previously mentioned about the evilness of paedophilia and the reference to homosexuality is just not a comparison whatsoever. Sadly paedophiles have been thrown into the same "pool" as gay men for far too long. I disagree

:mad:

[morrocan roll]

Sadly paedophiles have been thrown into the same "pool" as gay men for far too long.
:mad:
yes ...it keeps popping its head up in here ...how wrong can a debate go!

[Teh_Gerbil]

yes ...it keeps popping its head up in here ...how wrong can a debate go!

Quite. I fail to see how being gay in any way relates to paedophilia.

[Jamie L]

No one has ever excused their actions, we're just saying you can't help being who you are. Those that do act, prison for a long time. Castration? Well doesn't exactly work as an attacker will find other ways to abuse the child.

And the UK justice system defines a long time as parole after 5 years. A joke.

Castration is only ensuring inabilty to procreate. Total supervision and monitoring of action is what I think is required.

I came to this country thinking justice was fair and reasonable. I was misled in that thought apparently. Any form of behaviour where it influences a minor in my opinion is wrong and unjust and should be dealt with with the full and absolute penalty available. If its unlawful sexual connection, rape, child pornography... its irrelevant. I think perpertrators should feel the effect of their actions.... fully and wholly. None of this "if you're good we'll let you go".

My £0.02

[Teh_Gerbil]

And the UK justice system defines a long time as parole after 5 years. A joke.

I came to this country thinking justice was fair and reasonable. I was misled in that thought apparently. Any form of behaviour where it influences a minor in my opinion is wrong and unjust and should be dealt with with the full and absolute penalty available. If its unlawful sexual connection, rape, child pornography... its irrelevant. I think perpertrators should feel the effect of their actions.... fully and wholly. None of this "if you're good we'll let you go".

My £0.02

True words.

The UK justice system is probably currently misnamed. It's hardly just. They need to clean it off and start from scratch again tbh.

[morrocan roll]

My £0.02
:thumb: you've been here a while!

[stargalaxy]

I came to this country thinking justice was fair and reasonable. I was misled in that thought apparently. Any form of behaviour where it influences a minor in my opinion is wrong and unjust and should be dealt with with the full and absolute penalty available. If its unlawful sexual connection, rape, child pornography... its irrelevant. I think perpertrators should feel the effect of their actions.... fully and wholly. None of this "if you're good we'll let you go". Music to my ears, I love it. I agree with every word. Shame our politicians don't.

[Yerascrote]

But no one wants people in prison for long periods of time. Costs too much to the tax payer.

[morrocan roll]

But no one wants people in prison for long periods of time. Costs too much to the tax payer.nobody gives a fuck about the cost ...so long as they is keeping the right people in there.

[Jamie L]

Music to my ears, I love it. I agree with every word. Shame our politicians don't.

Politicians somehow think they understand the real world. I come from New Zealand where we have a so called democracy... it's been known that despite the shortcomings in population, a certain MP has held the country to ransom. This certain MP has also just become the ambassador of NZ (foreign affairs at least) and is renowned for his anti-immigration stance and diatribe.

Back to the subject, I totally believe that any justice system of any country should be completely and totally impartial. Sadly Judges often have political influence here and abroad, and more oft than not have the goal of royal recognition via knightings or peerages or whatever. It seems quite corrupt.

Jamie

[Jamie L]

nobody gives a fuck about the cost ...so long as they is keeping the right people in there.

:yippe: word!

[Yerascrote]

nobody gives a fuck about the cost ...so long as they is keeping the right people in there.

Apparently the government and the prison heads themselves do...no wonder people are eligble for parole so early.

[morrocan roll]

Apparently the government and the prison heads themselves do...no wonder people are eligble for parole so early.
don't listen to the morons ...listen to the site.org.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Apparently the government and the prison heads themselves do...no wonder people are eligble for parole so early.

Not just that... also the ovrcrowding. Have to make way for people who haven't paid TV licenses.

[stargalaxy]

Not just that... also the ovrcrowding. Have to make way for people who haven't paid TV licenses. Imagine the fuss the BBC would make if, suddenly, the thousands of people who hadn't paid their licence fees were told by the prison governors, "you're free to go". Aunty would suddenly get very angry!:p

[MrG]

Imagine the fuss the BBC would make if, suddenly, the thousands of people who hadn't paid their licence fees were told by the prison governors, "you're free to go". Aunty would suddenly get very angry!:p

not if still saddled with even bigger fines they wouldnt

[johnnny]

I ve just logged into this thread and have'nt read every post as there are so many.My thoughts on the matter are simple.The protection of children is paramount.My feelings on how to deal with these monsters can be as reactionary as some other contributors, but these things aint going to happen.In almost every case i've read over the years(quite a few in my case) these people have had a pattern of escalating offending.They have usually been through the whole penal system and been allowed to go on and offend again,even living in our neighbourhoods without our knowledge.(Got to protect their human rights.Have'nt we ? ) So i believe the only solution is to remove these paedophiles from society for good.It was done with Brady and Hindley 40 years ago but how many others over the years ,for equally evil acts have been released over years because todays newspapers are tomorrows chip wrappers.(Or used to be) Well that's my rant for today.Emotive subject. John

[MrG]

Are Paedos 'evil'?

erm yes and no

a sex attacker, ie someone that has committed a sex attack, on a child, is evil, when convicted, they should be castrated and have the key thrown away

but you dont have to have done anything to be a paedo, it might be morally wrong, but doesnt become evil until somthing is actually done

[Thunderstruck]

Ok, I know I'm gonna get completely flamed for this but surely debate is formed on the idea that opposing opinions should be allowed to be aired so here is mine. So please, at least hear me out.

First off, I absolutely don't agree with paedophilia or the people who practice it but I don't think it's evil per se. Evil is an awfully strong tag to attach to people. So I will try to present it as I can best.

To start with, I would recomment that everyone buy a copy (and preferrably read a copy) or Vladimir Nabukov's book Lolita. I know that name is kinda pandered around for being a dirty smutty book but it really isn't. Written in English (Nabukov went to Cambridge after leaving Russia), it is a cracking book and actually makes a reasonable case for paedophiles. Again, I'm not advocating it or promoting it but I understand where he's coming from. Vlad himself wasn't one but the main character, Humbert Humbert (sic) makes a pretty good case for it that goes, if my memory serves me correctly, vaguely like this.

Sex between a man and a woman (that is to say, consenting, above-age-of-consent adults) is base and carnal. Why is it so base and carnal? Because it is solely, or at least in basic terms, for reproduction purposes only. Man has been doing the exact same action for millenia and in the act itself, there is nothing to show that we as a race and as a species have progressed any further than animals as the way in which the act takes place amongst both human beings and animals (not together obviously - that's another argument) is virtually identical. We mate, at least subconsciously, as dictated by centuries of a priori knowledge, to procreate, to reproduce and create offspring.

Now the humble paedophile does it for another reason. I should stop hear and point out that this is Nabukov's, or rather, Humbert's justification for it. I'd wager that the average paedophile doesn't think like this but it's an interesting and valid argument all the same. The paedophile, we might assume does it for another reason. As there is no reproduction involved or at least possible (when the child is below the age of puberty), Humbert Humbert does it for aesthetic value. Now this is where opinion and taste comes in to it obviously as each person has different tastes but for him, it is something artistic. He is not just having sex with her, he is possessing her artistically and aesthetically. It is not sex for reproduction. It is sex for a love of and quest for beauty.

I guess that won't exactly hold up in court but it's also the reasons the ancient Greeks used to have sex with young boys. For them, and they were a pretty damn smart lot (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc. etc), sex between man and a woman, as already mentioned, is base and for reproduction purposes only. Pleasure was derived from something that was not intended for reproduction ie. men and boys. It was, or so they thought, the thing which set us apart from the animals which is pretty much what man has been trying to do since the dawn of time. Conduct oneself in a manner befitting to that of the superior species on the planet.

I will state again that I do not agree with paedophilia but I do not agree that it is evil. It is wrong but there are arguments for both sides.

People of middle England, grasp your copies of the Daily Mail and let the flaming begin.

[Iknowyourmum]

You all seem to be assuming that people are peodophiles cause their just born with it, like people are born gay or straight.

I think a lot of them become so because theyve been abused them selves, or course a lot who have been abused dont. Maybe a good idea would be to tackle those kids who have been abused before they become abusers them selves. I dont think all peodophiles were abused, but I very much doubt if any of them had happy loving sensible upbringings.

[Thunderstruck]

I don't believe I said or implied that but if I did, I didn't mean to. I was merely trying to examine one of the reasons that some paedophiles do what they do. Naturally every person has their reasons.

For the record, my gay friends say that they were born gay.

[Iron Nic]

is peadophilia is wrong because our society today says it is wrong. however, as is mentioned here, the phenomenon is not new in human history. the greeks and roman men had sexual relations with younger as well as older males. this intimacy is what the ancients would refer as love. a mans relation with a woman, ie the wife, is more of an institution to procreate.

nevertheless, despite it seeming to be a natural phenomenon, what should be of concern in such relationships (as well as with every relationship, in my opinion) is dominance and submission. we can always argue when a person is sexually ready physically and mentally, although our conclusions will always be sbujective. even if the young person is physically mature and he/she believes him/herself to be psychologically mature, the older person will still have more experience to dominate. from this, we can see clearly how such power can be easily abused.

[johnnny]

You are right about getting flamed for your post.Why don't you try intellectuallising about paedophillia (face to face) with a victim ,or parent of a victim of these creatures. John

[_guest]

You are right about getting flamed for your post.Why don't you try intellectuallising about paedophillia (face to face) with a victim ,or parent of a victim of these creatures. John

Well, exactly.

I find paedophilia a very difficult subject to form a cognizant opinion/argument about, both because of my personal feelings about it and also because of the many layers of paedophilia which are all lumped together by the reactionaries whose voices often play a huge role in the opinions joe public forms. As johnnny said, it's all well and good to debate the true nature of a paedophile and whether or not they are "evil", misunderstood or any of these things. Maybe they do have a genuine and all-encompassing love of children that they would be wont to express in a way that is far removed from the way we would express that love. Maybe that's not an utterly fucked up and "evil" desire, who am I to judge? But, granting a potential or active paedophile that kind of open-mindedness then potentially ruins the life of a child who I'm sure didn't have those skewed views on sexuality and sexual "perversion". So then there is HUGE potential for either essentially ruining an innocent child's life (I hate to use that phrase, as it sounds so Daily Mail, but anyway) or at least seriously disrupting it. Or even - if trends are to be believed - potentially create another person who may go on to prey on children themselves. I, for one, would not be willing to take that leap of faith on psychology and understanding. When you are able to look at it from the victim's side, it seems like a viewpoint as close to "evil" as I can imagine to say that the paedophile is deserving of our understanding and moral leniency. I would never go to the lengths that some people would seemingly stretch to, I don't think anyone should be strung up or anything of the like. Argh, it's a very difficult topic.

As for drawing comparisons with - and explanations from - Lolita, there is no doubt that the book is one of the most lyrically beautiful ever (and my favourite opening lines in literature). But I don't think even Nabakov was making a case for paedophilia, at least that wasn't the way I perceived it. It is undoubtedly dealt with as honestly and self-deprecatingly as possible but I felt like you're always aware of how utterly messed-up Humbert is, and his actions are. I guess that's entirely open to interpretation, though, as with all literature.

[MrG]

You are right about getting flamed for your post.Why don't you try intellectuallising about paedophillia (face to face) with a victim ,or parent of a victim of these creatures. John

because you cant havew a reasoned debate with a parent of a victim

[morrocan roll]

the topic of informing the public where a peodo lives came up on the vine show radio 2 today.
a couple of peeds phoned in.
one had been in prison and is now free and on the sex offenders register forever ...the other was done for downloading images ...he didn't go to jail and will i think be registered for ten years.
they spoke of their fears about the public being informed of their addresses.
both say that even though they haven't reoffended for quite a while and feel certain they won't again ...this publicly acsessable database which may happen ...is scaring the shit out of them.
to the extent they will probably have to live in caravans and have very mobile lives.
it does worry me that the general public will have acsess to such information.
i'm sure everyone has heard of the thick gits who attacked a pediatrician a couple of years back!
i can hear the screams now.
surely it would be a bad move?

[johnnny]

because you cant havew a reasoned debate with a parent of a victim
The debate would be reasoned alright.Maybe just not the psychobabble some people have been posting.I emphasise again that I realise this is a very difficult subject for discussion, so all i would ask is to keep in mind the real issue. THE PROTECTION OF THE INNOCENTS. John

[Skive]

You all seem to be assuming that people are peodophiles cause their just born with it, like people are born gay or straight.

If people can be born with a a natural attraction to the same sex why can't people be born with a natural attraction to children?

[I'm With Stupid]

If people can be born with a a natural attraction to the same sex why can't people be born with a natural attraction to children?
Possibly. However, it has been touted by some studies that being gay has certain evolutionary benefits (sister of gay men on average have more children, for example, the idea being that the evolutionary purpose of gay men is to assist with looking after the rest of the family, and not contributing to the violence that obviously occurs between straight males). Whether such research into paedophiles would even be funded is debatable though. However, there is a fairly well established link between people being abused as children, and going on to abuse others when they are older, which suggests a more environmental cause. It would be stupid to rule anything out, but if it is genetic I would expect it to be considered more of a disorder, since there doesn't appear to be any evolutionary benefit to having certain people attracted to children.

[Thunderstruck]

But I don't think even Nabakov was making a case for paedophilia, at least that wasn't the way I perceived it. It is undoubtedly dealt with as honestly and self-deprecatingly as possible but I felt like you're always aware of how utterly messed-up Humbert is, and his actions are. I guess that's entirely open to interpretation, though, as with all literature.

I think so too. I don't think he was advocating it but he was at least trying to understand where they were coming from and not taking the 'Burn the Witch' attitude that most people take. It is a phenomenally beautiful work. The irony being that having sought to control her, it is him that is controlled by her at the end. Storming read.


You are right about getting flamed for your post.Why don't you try intellectuallising about paedophillia (face to face) with a victim ,or parent of a victim of these creatures.

That would be a fucking dumb idea because I doubt they are likely to be impartial or open to the suggestion that these 'creatures' as you so rhetorically put it are not so different from you or I. In the same vein I wouldn't argue that Stalin was actually quite a good bloke (something which I do honestly believe) to someone whose loved ones were sent off to the gulag.

I was trying to not so much make a case for them but to at least make them out to not be such monsters as the ghastly swathes of middle England have branded them. As we see throughout history, paedophilia (such a horrible word) has existed for millenia and it is just society's attitude that has changed.

[_guest]

I think so too. I don't think he was advocating it but he was at least trying to understand where they were coming from and not taking the 'Burn the Witch' attitude that most people take. It is a phenomenally beautiful work. The irony being that having sought to control her, it is him that is controlled by her at the end. Storming read.

........................

I was trying to not so much make a case for them but to at least make them out to not be such monsters as the ghastly swathes of middle England have branded them. As we see throughout history, paedophilia (such a horrible word) has existed for millenia and it is just society's attitude that has changed.

The thing is, in the majority of cases the proclivities of the minority aren't ever going to be understandable to the minority. Just as with many other sexual deviances and crimes. Even if we did [as a public, in addition to the behavioural psychologists etc who already do] seek to better understand them rather than judge immediately and harshly I can't help feeling that is giving the abuser (regardless of the underage/grooming/kidnap factor, it still comes down to being under the generic "abuse" spectrum I presume) claim to being a victim themself which in the light of their abuse of a child is a pretty reprehensible claim. For them to make on their own behalf, or you or I to make. I see [and wholeheartedly agree with] your point in that understanding (or the attempt) is really, truly important. As long as we understand without excusing it, if that makes sense.

I think society's attitude has changed a lot, young people are [in theory] protected at every turn. Children are someone's baby, their innocent until they are 16 at least. I guess in the past kids grew up a lot faster and became "adults" at a much younger age; or maybe age restrictions and what you did at a certain point in your life weren't so rigid. It's very difficult to know why things have changed in the way they have, and hard to get your head around; but I won't pretend to think it's a fully bad thing.

[Thunderstruck]

Some might argue that sexual deviancies and fetishes are the sign of civilisation. Hence the Japanese - they are a weird people.

The root problem really is a base human compunction that fear is bred by the unknown and not-understood. Granted, in some case the perpetrator is just a plain and simple sick fuck but I don't believe, unlike the Daily Mail, that we should tar everyone with the same brush. Every case is different just as every person is different. I'm sure, as you pointed out, that some people would try and find a way round it but with the psychologies and things we have these days, I'm sure we could find out if they're genuine claims of whatever or not.

So the lesson for all of you is that paedophiles are people too.

[johnnny]

I think you should read your own signature.

[Jim V]

I think people have no place calling each other fools because they are saying something they disagree with. This has been an interesting thread and isn't going to be helped by descending into insults that have no value.

As to Briggi's point - understanding isn't the same thing as being condoning behaviour. Looking at why people are peadophiles is very important, because if can help understand why such a personality break can occur then it can help prevent it - after all locking up someone who has abused a child doesn't prevent the abuse that's already occured - whereas preventing peadophilia occuring would stop that abuse.

Of course, as others have mentioned, the single most important place to look to stop abuse is within families - as it is parents, close relatives or family friends who commit the vast majority (80%) of child sexual abuse. Chemical castration may deal with an offender - but what on earth is going wrong with our society that this level of abuse by supposed loved ones, against their own loved ones, is taking place.

[I'm With Stupid]

Of course, as others have mentioned, the single most important place to look to stop abuse is within families - as it is parents, close relatives or family friends who commit the vast majority (80%) of child sexual abuse. Chemical castration may deal with an offender - but what on earth is going wrong with our society that this level of abuse by supposed loved ones, against their own loved ones, is taking place.
What was worrying was the number of people who were reported to have rang that child abuse line worried that they were becoming attracted towards their own family members. I don't know how much of this is genuine, and how much is paranoia instigated by the current hysteria surrounding such cases, but it's worrying either way.

[_guest]

As to Briggi's point - understanding isn't the same thing as being condoning behaviour. Looking at why people are peadophiles is very important, because if can help understand why such a personality break can occur then it can help prevent it - after all locking up someone who has abused a child doesn't prevent the abuse that's already occured - whereas preventing peadophilia occuring would stop that abuse.

That is as may be, and I'm definitely aware of the necessity of understanding such behaviour if we're to move forward. But to a victim it could seem very, very much like condoning in a way what they have done - even if that is not the case. It's a subject where it's very hard to strike a balance between the importance of justice being done for the child, and hopefully the rehabilitation of the offender. I think that as sentient human beings we have to be sensitive to both parties and accept that there are factors in child abuse past that we don't know about etc. But the paedophile is still the wrong-doer, that's a fact in my mind, though I'm aware some people are of the opinion that they are socially conditioned to be that way. Or that some people obviously lean to thinking it is actually normal behavior and it is the proletariat - and this day and age - that has the skewed outlook. Intellectualising about paedophilia would be a real stretch for me, but like you said it's an interesting thread and there are some... interesting views.

I am all for better understanding why paedophiles (just for one example, we could cast a far wider net for this kind of discussion) are as such; and yes prevention is better than papering over the cracks with justice being done and being seen to be done. But it doesn't negate the fact that people who abuse children should be locked up, whether their behaviour is "understandable" to some specialist somewhere. It never going to be understandable to someone who has experienced it, this I know.

Chemical castration may deal with an offender - but what on earth is going wrong with our society that this level of abuse by supposed loved ones, against their own loved ones, is taking place.

Exactly. I really, really don't know.

[Jim V]

As an aside I didn't think chemical castration resolved the problem, I thought it often led to the expression of the problems using violence rather than abuse, certainly from what I read about the use in the 90s.

And I'm not saying for one second people shouldn't be locked up, of course they should be and for a lot longer than a possible 3 years - I'm just saying that during the time they are locked up there should be efforts made to understand their problems, rather than simply shove them into isolation cells and ignore them.

There was a reason why police, doctors, psychiatrists, prison officers, probabtion officers tried to understand people in jail; rather than the rest of the public. It isn't the responsibility of the person who has been abused to understand why someone behaved the way they did, unless they feel this would help them cope with it, understanding should be the job of the people who have to make the hard decisions about policies that may make a difference in the future. That's why those jobs are so horrible (the suicide rate for social workers make you wonder if they are farmers on their day off).

Which comes back to the 'evil' thing, the idea that something is simply inhierently bad, as opposed to made bad, excuses everyone else's guilt it what may lead to the creation of a peadophile, it allows us to turn our backs on the problem and simply think - well that's just an evil person. As opposed to thinking what's gone wrong with the society will all make, that such a person would behave that way.

[wheresmyplacebo]

if they get urges, well thats their problem and not a legal matter, what is the matter is if they act upon those urges

sometimes you wanna strangle someone, that's acceptable, going through with it isn't

chemical castration doesn't stop someone getting pleasure still, it just stops them having penatrative sex - if its possible for people in strip clubs to enjoy the show with minimal contact, its possible for anyone

a good idea would be what was done across europe lastyear, where they advertised for people to seek help anonymously if they think they get aroused by pre-pubescent children, and they will get councelling etc for it in learning not to act upon their instincts

helping kids who are/were abused more in this country would help more as a disproportionate amount become convicted paedophiles, id poke a guess at it being because they never learnt how to form healthy adult relationships

imo it is a mental illness and should be dealt with as such

what really annoys me is the tabloids are effectively going on about the stranger danger, not the fact most abuse is done by people the family or kids knows

[ShyBoy]

On another forum I go there is a special PC there who spoke about peadophiles once. They said that in the majority of situations it's an addiction, and they don't see it as wrong necessarily. They don't go out to hurt children, they just think it's normal in their mind.

To me this doesn't sound like the mind of a sane person. So I think they should be offered treatment.

[Makoto]

the topic of informing the public where a peodo lives came up on the vine show radio 2 today.
a couple of peeds phoned in.
one had been in prison and is now free and on the sex offenders register forever ...the other was done for downloading images ...he didn't go to jail and will i think be registered for ten years.
they spoke of their fears about the public being informed of their addresses.
both say that even though they haven't reoffended for quite a while and feel certain they won't again ...this publicly acsessable database which may happen ...is scaring the shit out of them.
to the extent they will probably have to live in caravans and have very mobile lives.
it does worry me that the general public will have acsess to such information.
i'm sure everyone has heard of the thick gits who attacked a pediatrician a couple of years back!
i can hear the screams now.
surely it would be a bad move?

Giving a community a chance to protect their children from sick beats or have a few peeds hurt (IF they even would be), I'd go for having the information.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Giving a community a chance to protect their children from sick beats or have a few peeds hurt (IF they even would be), I'd go for having the information.


how will it protect them? all it will do is scaremonger and isolate the ex-convict increasing the chances of him re-offending

[otter]

i'm not reading the whole thread because i rekon it would be very triggering.
but i just want to say:
:mad:
how the hell can that question even be asked?
try being on the recieving end and then try and justify that paedos are not evil.
of course they are fucking evil.
even if its done in the most seductive way, they wreck their victims lives forever.
end of.

[Indrid Cold]

i'm not reading the whole thread because i rekon it would be very triggering.
but i just want to say:
:mad:
how the hell can that question even be asked?
try being on the recieving end and then try and justify that paedos are not evil.
of course they are fucking evil.
even if its done in the most seductive way, they wreck their victims lives forever.
end of.
Maybe you should read the whole thread. Or a dictionary. "Paedophile" doesn't mean "attacker".
BTW, my tone might seem attacking, but it's not. Simply explaining.

[otter]

doesn't matter.
nobody grabs a dictionary when that term is used.
they associate it with only one thing.
i can't read the whole thread. but the question is 'are paedos evil' not is our understanding of the word correct and what do we think of them.
i don't mean to sound aggressive either. but... :(

[Indrid Cold]

When there's a mistake, any mistake, including the misuse of a word, people need to correct it.

[Makoto]

how will it protect them? all it will do is scaremonger and isolate the ex-convict increasing the chances of him re-offending

You could move into a new area and get friendly with the people next door and one day leave your kids with your new neighbours while you go out and that man/woman ends up fiddling with them. If you had done a check first and that person was on the SOR you could of prevented ruin a child's life.

It would be useful for many things such as checking out baby sitters, people who reside in your local community, check to see if there is any beasts near schools or nursery's etc.

[_guest]

i'm not reading the whole thread because i rekon it would be very triggering.
but i just want to say:
:mad:
how the hell can that question even be asked?
try being on the recieving end and then try and justify that paedos are not evil.
of course they are fucking evil.
even if its done in the most seductive way, they wreck their victims lives forever.
end of.

I can honestly empathise with your gut reaction. But with the toughest of subjects often come the most interesting insights, and no one is disputing the terrible nature of a paedophile's inclinations. That said, it's such an emotive subject I can imagine why you don't want to read such opinions. That's fair enough.

However, I guess what is up for discussion and debate are the factors that possibly contribute to a person having those inclinations. That does include "what we think of them" and all the inherent questions that come with sharing those thoughts. Whether some people believe they are born with those desires, and some others believe the way they are is sometimes [also or entirely] a result of things that have happened in their life.

[johnnny]

[QUOTE=Jim V]I think people have no place calling each other fools because they are saying something they disagree with. This has been an interesting thread and isn't going to be helped by descending into insults that have no value.

I can't win with you Jim can I! However you make some valid points, as have other contributors that I may not entirely agree with on other points.I have already said I recognise the difficult nature of the subject.I think the most valid point made recently is the level of abuse that takes place within the family.The paedophile we have been taught to fear is the 'bogeyman' hanging around the swingpark,when the real 'bogeyman' is usually much closer to home unfortunately.I think another contributory factor is the breakup of families,and a succession of 'new dads' being brought into childrens lives.I know that some of the most appalling cases of violence against children that i have read about have been committed by 'stepdads'.I am not so sure about the level of sexual abuse in such circumstances,but i'm sure someone may be able to quote statistics.I have tried in this debate to keep to the middle ground between ''cut their balls off'' and ''lets sit down and try to understand them'' ,whilst trying to be true to my own views.Not easy! Thoughts please.

[migpilot]

Are Peadophiles evil?

No one can answer that.
Are murderers evil?

If someone sexually abuses a child, firstly they are a criminal and need to be tried for the offence and locked up for a number of years. When they get into prison then it should be investigated why they have commited that crime and possibly help them if they can be helped.

We can't be reactive though.
The real question is how can we protect our children better from any sort of abuse including sexual abuse.
How many times do you see a mum in a supermarket smacking a kid and shouting at them? Is that abuse? I bet you the kid will remember it.

If we were more proactive in protecting kids, we wouldn't spend so much time labelling and judging.

[wheresmyplacebo]

You could move into a new area and get friendly with the people next door and one day leave your kids with your new neighbours while you go out and that man/woman ends up fiddling with them. If you had done a check first and that person was on the SOR you could of prevented ruin a child's life.

It would be useful for many things such as checking out baby sitters, people who reside in your local community, check to see if there is any beasts near schools or nursery's etc.

the other 'problem' in this country is that our education system means that almost every area has a school nearby, so unless you want them carted off into the middle of nowhere, or milton keynes your kind of stuck

if you aren't going to lock them up indefinetly, you release them when they're longer a threat - isolating them makes them more likely to reoffend than if you

frankly the public in this country can't be trusted with such delicate information, remember what happened last time a tabloid published the names of released paedophiles :rolleyes:

also in this country, virtually every released paedophile williningly tells police and probation people when they move - in america it's only like 80% as opposed to 97% here, this has been attributed to their publishing of paedophiles names/addresses

and if you're really that concerned , you would be pushing for more help for abused children, so they don't become inable to form adult relationships in the future and you'd focus less on the 'stranger danger' and on catching people who abuse members of their family and family friends

[Thunderstruck]

On another forum I go there is a special PC there who spoke about peadophiles once. They said that in the majority of situations it's an addiction, and they don't see it as wrong necessarily. They don't go out to hurt children, they just think it's normal in their mind.

To me this doesn't sound like the mind of a sane person. So I think they should be offered treatment.

Very interesting indeed. Kind of goes to reinforce my point that the vast majority are not 'evil creatures' or 'sub-human scum' and should be helped as their perception of what they're doing seems perfectly right to them. Sadly I guess perception and point of view and what we ourselved perceive to be right and things like that won't hold up in court.

[Jim V]

That's where the problem comes in your arguement - you seem to be implying that it's a bad thing that a court wouldn't take into account that it's right to them. That seems to imply you're ignoring the terrible and possibily life destroying affect that child abuse can have - they could have ended someone's future life and relationships and you think it's a shame that the courts don't just treat it as someone just behaving naturally.

After all if a serial killer is driven to kill a large group of people, are the courts supposed to give them a lesser sentence than they would to someone who killed someone accidentally?

[Thunderstruck]

No that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that for them, they're not doing it out of some milicious desire to inflict pain but simply because they don't see anything wrong with it. I'm not trying to deny the possible damage on someone's life that said actions may have but that's not a reason to completely rule out the fact that they might not be fully aware of what they're doing. Perhaps the courts should take into effect thó altered mental state of the perpetrator if indeed it is determined that they were either not fully aware of what they were doing or fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

[Iron Nic]

perhaps we should genetically modify pigs to look like children and give it to peados as designer pets. or vice versa. whichever is easier.

[piccolo]

I think paedophilia is just as "evil" as homosexuality etc.
I'm sorry, I just read that and can't let it slide, it's a deeply offensive comparison please don't make it!

(Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm supposed to be working so haven't waded through all 7 pages.)

ETA: I now have read all 7 pages (procrastination is an art form) and the link is constantly repeated. I do understand the point that's being made but I'd appreciate it if it weren't done that way.

[Indrid Cold]

I'm sorry, I just read that and can't let it slide, it's a deeply offensive comparison please don't make it!

(Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm supposed to be working so haven't waded through all 7 pages.)

ETA: I now have read all 7 pages (procrastination is an art form) and the link is constantly repeated. I do understand the point that's being made but I'd appreciate it if it weren't done that way.
I said that in the sense of "It's a sexual desire that's different than what is considered the "norm" "; the difference is one is acceptable, while the other isn't. Absolutely no offense meant at all. :)

[morrocan roll]

perhaps we should genetically modify pigs to look like children and give it to peados as designer pets. or vice versa. whichever is easier.
:thumb: