The Student Room Group

People are too harsh on paedophiles

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Original post by Bonoahx
Watching child pornography is a crime that doesn't involve contacting children, for example, unless if you would include that as such.

I'm not saying that the police can read minds and go about arresting anyone who has ever thought anything about paedophillia, but the law isn't particularly sympathetic towards paedophiles regardless of the severity of their crime.



I think calling it a sexual orientation is somewhat legitimising it, and saying that it is OK. Being sexually attracted to a child who generally doesn't understand what's going on and can easily be taken advantage of is not the same thing as liking members of the same sex, or both sexes. There is some evidence that CBT helps reduces recidivism in terms of watching child porn, grooming kids, etc, whilst evidence around things like gay conversion therapy says that it doesn't help at all and may lead to psychological problems.

Even if you scientifically speaking it is a sexual orientation it would pave the way to make paedophilia more socially acceptable as it was in the past with figures like Jimmy Saville. Would you consider bestiality a sexual orientation, and would you want it recognised as such?


Lol youre saying it's not an orientation cause it sort of justifies it? That doesn't change what it is
If I had a secure attraction to animals it would still be an orientation
BTW I'm not :rofl:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Seamus123
So what about their victims, then? I'll tell you what, you help them - I would prefer to see them all strung up.


clearly did not read the OP.

The poster clearly stated he was talking about those with a sexual attraction to children not those who have abused a child
Reply 122
Original post by silverbolt
clearly did not read the OP.

The poster clearly stated he was talking about those with a sexual attraction to children not those who have abused a child


Thanks you :yep:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by I am Kira
Lol youre saying it's not an orientation cause it sort of justifies it? That doesn't change what it is
If I had a secure attraction to animals it would still be an orientation
BTW I'm not :rofl:

Posted from TSR Mobile


OK fine, it's semantics. Like I said, perhaps from a scientific point of view paedophilia a sexual orientation, I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the research that has gone into it. But watching pornography of kids or being sexually active with children who usually don't know better shouldn't be put on par with being gay or bisexual.
Reply 124
Original post by Bonoahx
OK fine, it's semantics. Like I said, perhaps from a scientific point of view paedophilia a sexual orientation, I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the research that has gone into it. But watching pornography of kids or being sexually active with children who usually don't know better shouldn't be put on par with being gay or bisexual.


Ofc see between sex between consenting adults is better than paedophilia in all cases

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by I am Kira
Here I'm talking about paedophiles not child molesters, two different groups often put together by people.
Noone controls their sexuality, straight people don't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, gays don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and of course paedophiles don't choose to be attraacted to children.
Loads of people assume that all paedophiles are child molester and all child molesters are paedophiles. While there are no statistics on this, not all paedophiles actually commit crimes on children. Also some child molesters aren't actually attracted to children.
Fear mongering and forming a mob mentality on a group of people who don't control their desires does not help anyone in anyway. Loadfs of research shows that a person is more likeloy to commit a crime when they are stressed.

Rather than directing so much hate on these people we should be openly trying to help them. We should have pschologists and doctors arranging mentoring and therapy for these people without fear of prosecution. If we really are part of a society we should be helping the people who fall not throw them to the ground.


How many view child pornographic images though?
Reply 126
Original post by yudothis
How many view child pornographic images though?


Lol how would I know that
Would u agree that it would be better for them to view child images rather than assaulting actual children

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by I am Kira
Lol how would I know that
Would u agree that it would be better for them to view child images rather than assaulting actual children

Posted from TSR Mobile


"No children were hurt in the making of these images".
Are you basing this thread on Hisoka fom HunterxHunter? TROLL
Reply 129
Original post by shohaib712
Are you basing this thread on Hisoka fom HunterxHunter? TROLL


Omg I love hisoka the creepy bstrd


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by I am Kira
Omg I love hisoka the creepy bstrd


Posted from TSR Mobile


lol me too
Reply 131
Original post by yudothis
"No children were hurt in the making of these images".


Lol wouldn't that be a good thing but really that can't happen
There's no way to ethically produce child pornography
There's no consent, can lead to abuse and may cause psychological damage to a child
And here I'm talking about non sexual pornography if that's a thing
U know what this is too messed up

Posted from TSR Mobile
In my opinion, treating paedophiles harshly and threatening them with death and prison sentences doesn't help solve the issue.

The issue is that there is a group of people who are attracted to children. Some of these people will seek to behave illegally to pursue these desires.

The moral thing to do seems to be that we punish the child molesters and threaten the others as a deterrent right?

So tell me, where do the victims fit into all this? You know, the children.

Do you suggest we scare the **** out of paedophiles so they hide away and end up abusing someone? Or only seek them out when they've already hurt them?

For a victim of child abuse it's too little too late once they've been targeted.

Accepting that paedophilia is an involuntary feeling and offering them ways to cope with it (so they do not seek out children) can only be a good, albeit difficult, thing to do?
As for the child sex dolls/simulated porn, I would need solid evidence from psychologists, doctors and scientists to prove that it had a significant success rate. It's sick and disgusting, but I'd rather a paedophile exhaust himself on inanimate things than real children.

It's easy to get emotional and angry about it but the way we approach it now isn't working is it?
Yes of course the better course of action would be treatment.

But from a philosophical point of view, isn't it good we find bad things bad?

And the flip side of the coin, what about those poor empathy lacking murderers? Shouldn't we start treating them, too?
Reply 134
Original post by yudothis
Yes of course the better course of action would be treatment.

But from a philosophical point of view, isn't it good we find bad things bad?

And the flip side of the coin, what about those poor empathy lacking murderers? Shouldn't we start treating them, too?


I mean how can we prevent murders from being murders before they actually commit the crime
All paedophiles know their paedophiles so we can actually prevent victimisation unlike with murderers

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by I am Kira
I mean how can we prevent murders from being murders before they actually commit the crime
All paedophiles know their paedophiles so we can actually prevent victimisation unlike with murderers

Posted from TSR Mobile


I don't mean murderers out of coincidence. But people without empathy. That can be found out and addressed. And like pedophiles are more likely to hurt children they are more likely to commit violent crimes, it's the same idea, no?
I got to page 4 and stopped reading.

I am an assistant forensic psychologist, I have been on courses in the theory of sex offenders, the interviewing of sex offenders and the treatment of sex offenders. These were held by the highest of forensic psychologists in the field, who work closely with the police and are involved in numerous of interviews with sex offenders (some highly famous ones too). I currently work with young children/teenagers who have committed PSB.
I am also currently taking part in research into a theory of sexual offending in particular pedophilia.

I literally cannot tell you how much of what you guys are saying, goes against all research I have been exposed to and the methods and theories behind forensic psychology and sex offenders. I realise most of it is your own opinion, which is fine. That is what forums are for.

Those who are saying that it isn't ''treatable'', lets hope it is because there are a hell of a lot of people out there in the community who have not committed a crime but are currently seeking psychological help.

Any serious questions, I am willing to answer.
Original post by natalie427

Any serious questions, I am willing to answer.

Hey, I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1. A lot of people say it's not a 'sexuality' and liken it to a 'fetish', TWE do you subscribe to this and what are the implications of this difference (in terms of policy objectives etc)?
2. What does the evidence say about those that seek treatment - how often is it successful, and what are the best ways to end the stigma to encourage more of these people to seek help?
3. What does the evidence say about the effectiveness of virtual child porn as a treatment method?
4. What are the biggest misconceptions about paedophiles that aren't borne out in the research?

Thanks. :smile:
Original post by I am Kira
Here I'm talking about paedophiles not child molesters, two different groups often put together by people.
Noone controls their sexuality, straight people don't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, gays don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and of course paedophiles don't choose to be attraacted to children.
Loads of people assume that all paedophiles are child molester and all child molesters are paedophiles. While there are no statistics on this, not all paedophiles actually commit crimes on children. Also some child molesters aren't actually attracted to children.
Fear mongering and forming a mob mentality on a group of people who don't control their desires does not help anyone in anyway. Loadfs of research shows that a person is more likeloy to commit a crime when they are stressed.

Rather than directing so much hate on these people we should be openly trying to help them. We should have pschologists and doctors arranging mentoring and therapy for these people without fear of prosecution. If we really are part of a society we should be helping the people who fall not throw them to the ground.


I quite understand your POV, and it is a good one, I just cannot see the tabloid newspapers having any sympathy with this. The only help for paedophiles will come after they become abusers. I would suggest that anyone who does agree with you does not read tabloid newspapers, especially a newspaper I never knew existed until I saw someone reading it the other day, the Sun on Sunday, or as most intelligent people would call it the News of the World.
An interesting concept which I've debated before. As expected rather than evaluating what you're saying people have the standard impetuous response which is created due to the probably fair negative stigma of paedophiles in society. First thing I want to quickly touch upon is the age of consent. The law generalises and creates boundaries because it has to. Of course every girl is different, physically and mentally. A 15 year old girl may well have a significantly more mature mental capacity as well as being more physically developed than 17 year olds [though this is not the norm] meaning she is more capable to consent, girls don't automatically gain the capability to consent when they reach 16 years of age however the law still has to draw a line. This is because they can't treat every case by studying the mental capacity of the girl which would not only be inconsistent but would encourage more child molestation therefore boundaries have to be drawn, not because they are correct in assessing consent but because they are necessary.

Secondly, the negative stigma of paedophiles in society creates a culture to dissuade people from paedophilia. By allowing animated child pornography and sex dolls and accepting paedophiles into society may haze the morality of paedophilia giving them more justification to act on an individual level. Also child animation porn and sex dolls may make them crave more action. Ted Bundy the famous serial killer talked about his experience in prison saying every single violent rapist he encountered all began watching mediocre porn and let it transgress into violent pornography which made them crave the real act even more. He talks about his own personal experiences and how he started craving killing and raping more when he watched violent porn. I'm not claiming that violent pornography causes rape but it may influence the mind of the rapist. This may be reflective in paedophiles. If there are any studies on this I'd be interested however objectively I don't think removing the negative stigma of paedophilia will be useful in preventing child molestation.

Quick Reply

Latest