Paedophile

sig <3

Im tolerant of those who do not act upon. Acting upon it severely ruins peoples lives. Infact, Id go as far as to say I respect those who do not act upon it.

Interesting. You're saying people are bullying and attacking (verbally and mentally) someone who 10 times out of 10, isn't even in their sub-conscience let alone their conscience. Your argument is the equivalent dividing by zero.

People who attack paedophilia are attacking the individuals who actually molest children and download images. NOT the Invisible Paedophile which you and and the others are supporting and referring to. This is the point I'm trying to make. Paedophile and child molesters are terms bandied about by people trying to be smart arses. Let's just take this subject at face value.

The stigma is paramount for the moral function of our society and the safety of our children. We have no problem with Invisible Paedophiles. They do not need defending as there nothing to defend them against

Im sure alot of people are aroused by hardcore pornography.. but would never do it themselves :P

That might be the way you think, but it certainly isn't the way everyone thinks. Just because you don't see a problem with what you call 'invisible paedophiles', that doesn't mean that others don't. For instance, look at the amount of abuse directed at the OP in this thread:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1151993
(He wasn't entirely innocent, having watched child porn a couple of years ago, but as you ought to have noticed in this thread, even if he hadn't done anything, he would still have been condemned by a significant number of people purely for having the attraction.)

You realise that with that stigma in place there is child abuse happening, I'm not saying removing the stigma will get rid of it, just make it easier to help those people and in turn that will help our society. I obviously agree that child abuse is a bad thing, but I want it to go down rather than stay at the same levels.

I think you know there are people that attack these "invisible paedophiles", there was even someone on this thread talking about it.

If people knew where people who were attracted to children lived they would attack and abuse them.

Except, as brilliantly shown by Sakura_Chan, people treat what you call "Invisible Paedophiles" as child molestors, without giving them a chance. So the distinction has to be made and vocally so that people learn there is a big difference. Hell, many child molestors don't even have a sexual attraction to children, or so some studies have shown.

Your case study is not of an Invisible Paedophile getting persecuted. He's given himself away so he's proven himself a threat to children.

In that thread, people have more of a problem with the fact he's actually viewed child porn, rather than his mere attraction to them and is comming up with weak excuses as to why he won't get help. If he really wanted help getting over his naturally aquired perversion, he'd just do it.

Are you saying that the act of admitting you're a paedophile (even anonymously on the internet) stops you from being an invisible one and automatically proves you're a threat to children? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say there.

And he said he was planning to see a professional in his other posts in that thread. Even in the first, he said he knew it would be the best thing to do.

An Invisible Paedophile is someone who has an attraction to children but has never acted on it. I'm saying he no longer qualifies as a "safe" paedophile anymore. He can spin the sob story & excuses but we all have a responsibility to help ourselves. Check out the site below;

Paedophile Helpline website and phone number

I found that site within five minutes of typing "Paedophile Helpline" into google. Why did he choose to search for child porn to fap over rather than that website? How badly did he really want help? Was he just saying that to draw sympathy to alleviate his guilt and nothing more?

I will neither support nor chastise the responses in that thread.

When you hear this word, what exactly is the first thing you think of?

A) Someone who merely has a natural sexual attraction to children but does not act on it?

Or

B) Someone who engages in illegal acts with a minor or downloads images relating to such?


I ask that question because there seems to be a few people here who incorrectly assume when someone demonises paedophilia, we are referring to (and attacking) the former option and not JUST the second option. I want to establish this is not the case.

For those who don't wish to take psychological/tolerant view of men who only have the attraction to children, but do not act on them;

•

A) Has this type of paedophile ever crossed your mind?

B) Do you have a problem with them?

C) Should we be more tolerant of their feelings and stop demonising paedophiles as a whole?

D) Would you attack or want to attack someone like this?

E) Have you ever verbally or physically attacked someone who's had this natural attraction to children but has NEVER corresponded with a minor or acted on their perversion?

F) Is this form of "invisible" paedo even worthy of debate?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I welcome all responses. For this particular thread, I will remain inpartial (for now). This has been discussed a lot recently but I want to uncross a few wires and get more of a general consensus because I've only seen responses from those who take the term too literally and/or attack those who don't mirror their empathetic views.

Have you ever met a paedophile? (this is a genuine question i'm not trying to annoy you)

He said he was looking for help. If you choose not to believe him, fine. Anyway, this is completely irrelevant. I was just saying that there are plenty of people who would condemn those you call "invisible paedophiles", whatever you personally think of them. That thread came to mind as an example. Address the point rather than picking fault with the example.

Thank you for your post, I've shortened it for aesthetic reasons. No I haven't met one, however a lot of people here are really confused as to why I'm so against being more tolerant of the general term "paedophile". Hopefully your post will enlighten them



I have addressed the point. Several times. You all collectively have repeated the same sententious verbose of "stop condemming paedophiles so they stop feeling sad and get help". No one else has made or attempted to make a second point against stigmatising paedophilia.

I maintain people are only condeming those who have commited acts against children, not the silently repressed. I've yet to see proof to the contrary. But if you lot wish to feel offended on behalf of people that the general public are not referring to, be my guest.

We do give Invisible Paedophiles a chance. We do this by not persecuting them. She was only reffering to them because their presence was brought to her attention in this very thread. Sakura_Chan actually made brilliant and valid points which people frankly failed to find a soild counter argument against. Again, we're not attacking IP's, you're taking it upon yourselfs to get offended on their behalf.

I've yet to see a good reason to lose the stigma for paedophilia. These Invisible Paedophiles are grown men. If they really WANT to change, they should go out and get help, rather than waiting for someone to hold their hand, give them a lolly, tell them it's ok to want to shag children and there's nothing wrong with them.

Mollycoddling is NOT the answer. Especially not for more relaxed attitudes towards paedophilia in general.

No matter what you do there will be a proportion of the society that is paedophilic, the only time it didn't exist is when we didn't classify or care about it.

This isn't a personal choice, as much as it was your choice to be male or female or aroused by certain things and not others.

Am I mistaken or is pedophilia not present in the animal kingdom?

Regardless, anyone who is tolerant of it is a horrible, horrible person. Honestly, being tolerant of something suggests you see nothing wrong with it. It is not a healthy state of mind, and treatment should be sought. Saying 'oh it's finnnneee, they aren't hurting anyone, leave them be!' is just completely ridiculous.