Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ItsJustBanter)
    Secondly, the negative stigma of paedophiles in society creates a culture to dissuade people from paedophilia.
    This assumes that paedophilia is a choice, instead of something that a person has no control over.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    No because most people who play GTA are not ****ed up in the head. Paedophiles are. If you give GTA to a psychopath that would most likely fuel their disorder and encourage them to commit attacks in real life.
    Yet we don't maintain tests and registers of mentally violent people who GTA is not to be sold to, do we?

    Also, you're working on the assumption that such a simulation will serve as encouragement rather than sating, or even addiction-style gradual easing off. Personally I don't know enough about psychology to say which is correct, but I heavily suspect you don't either.

    But as you've already conceded in your reply to I am Kira that you'd oppose non-offending paedophiles being able to access simulated child porn regardless of its effect as a treatment, it would seem this entire post is really just irrelevant posturing, and your only real excuse is a yuck factor fallacy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    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.
    ^This.

    I fully confess I don't know an awful lot about the topic, and have tried to qualify my comments accordingly.

    That said, in this thread there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reaction without real consideration of the topic. Sex with children is illegal because they lack the full capacity to consent, and non-consensual sex is illegal. It is not illegal just because we find the idea of someone under 16 having sex with an adult reactively disgusting and repulsive, despite what many people on this thread seem to believe. Simple widespread disgust is not, in itself, a good enough reason to ban something. Non-consent is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    This assumes that paedophilia is a choice, instead of something that a person has no control over.
    My bad, I meant to say it would perhaps dissuade them from acting out their urges on children because when on an individual level if you are conditioned to see your own urges as a disgusting thing it would perhaps prevent you from committing them however if you create a society which embraces it to some extent, the individual themselves may morally justify it later on in their lives in comparison to someone who has grown up around a negative stigma against it. They will still be paedophiles but they would perhaps refrain from committing sexual assault. Similarly, the rise of HIV in the 1980s was attributed in America was linked to an increase of homosexual acts due to changing social attitudes towards the gay community.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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 hate this thread. Be careful about the repercussions of these sorts of opinions.

    Although through definition a paedophile and a child molester are two different people, it is dangerous to adopt a sympathetic heart to the former. At the end of the day, they pose a risk to children. The mob mentality is RIGHT because NO ONE wants a horrible old man/woman fantasising about their underage child. There ARE victims of paedophilia, and those are the children who's image become a symbol of sexual gratification for an adult which is wrong. I do agree that more psychology-based treatment and research should be invested in, but that's as far as I'll agree.

    And sexuality is the orientation of an individual based on sex. Age isn't a sex, so I guess you can't class Paedophilia as a sexuality.

    And even if a teenager wants to have a sexual relationship with an older person, they cannot be sure that there wouldn't be psychological repercussions for them. They may not understand what that sort of relationship will do to them mentally, thus the reason for them being classed as vulnerable children.

    Sorry, I was going to ignore this, but tbh I couldn't stand reading the arguments in favour of sympathising with paedophiles. It's vile. Real people's lives are ruined by this. It's not just an "interesting" topic to debate on a forum.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophiles reckon they'll be the next sexual liberation movement, which (if true) reinstates my belief in the moral decline of society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ItsJustBanter)
    My bad, I meant to say it would perhaps dissuade them from acting out their urges on children because when on an individual level if you are conditioned to see your own urges as a disgusting thing it would perhaps prevent you from committing them however if you create a society which embraces it to some extent, the individual themselves may morally justify it later on in their lives in comparison to someone who has grown up around a negative stigma against it.
    I understand your argument, but think it is a straw-man of sorts; no one is arguing that we should embrace/condone paedophilia. What some people are saying, however, is that we shouldn't stigmatise non-harmful paedophiles to the extent that they shy away from seeking help.

    I fail to see how acknowledging that certain people have this mental disorder, and encouraging them to seek help (without vilifying them where they have not harmed anyone), leads to paedophiles somehow feeling as though their attraction to children has been legitimised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...e-cured-drugs/

    Further research shows that many child abusers just want a sexual output and that children are easy targets. 'In our research which looked at whether medication was helpful for sexual offenders who struggled with their obsession with sex, we found that while over 90% of them had committed offences against children, most of them had also abused adults'. Also 'approximately 5% of men in the study with paedophilia had offended against children'. Again there needs to be more research and discussion and these close minded responses achieve nothing. Yes paedophilia is strange and sexual relations with children is morally wrong but how we achieve a safer society requires uncomfortable discussion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophile and child molester is the same thing really. No amount of doctors and phycologists is going to help, they need to be locked up. Next you'll be saying people are too harsh on murderers because they aren't right in the head but that's not true, most of them know exactly what they are doing like the Mafia and gang members even serial killers. They can't all be mentally unstable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samzy21)
    Paedophile and child molester is the same thing really. No amount of doctors and phycologists is going to help, they need to be locked up. Next you'll be saying people are too harsh on murderers because they aren't right in the head but that's not true, most of them know exactly what they are doing like the Mafia and gang members even serial killers. They can't all be mentally unstable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They're not the same thing at all
    Some murderers are inclined to commiting crimes due to their genetics and environment. If you could save a few people from being raped or murdered, why wouldn't you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pedophiles should be publically executed. I don't care, they are subhuman scum.

    Can't believe the amount of people defending them on here lately. It's disgusting.

    And yes, OP I have read your posts before you say I haven't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Pedophiles should be publically executed. I don't care, they are subhuman scum.

    Can't believe the amount of people defending them on here lately. It's disgusting.

    And yes, OP I have read your posts before you say I haven't.
    Who's been defending them though, everyone on here finds them wrong and disgusting
    Say all you want but paedophiles are human too
    All we went is less people to become victims of paedophiles
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Kira)
    Who's been defending them though, everyone on here finds them wrong and disgusting
    Say all you want but paedophiles are human too
    All we went is less people to become victims of paedophiles
    Too late for some of us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Kira)
    Who's been defending them though, everyone on here finds them wrong and disgusting
    Say all you want but paedophiles are human too
    All we went is less people to become victims of paedophiles

    "People are too harsh on pedophiles" - that's inadvertently defending them.

    No they're not, they're subhuman scum.

    The best way to do this is to treat them
    As subhuman scum, strip them of all their human "rights", and incur the death penalty for them.

    You don't do this by, wrapping them in bubble wrap and saying "don't be mean to them, they can't help it just like they can't help their skin colour"

    What would you do if a pedophile groomed your daughter or son? If you would say "don't worry, they can't help it, it's their sexuality!", you should be banned from having children and have a forced sterilisation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seamus123)
    Too late for some of us.
    I'm sorry to hear that
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    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.
    In terms of classifying it as a fetish or a sexuality, we wouldn't use either. In fact, if we did I think it would be viewed as unprofessional. These are words that attempt to explain why the behaviour occurs. What I can bring your attention to is some of the things that we as psychologists look for in sex offenders (including child sex offenders), which is also highlighted in the theory. I'm going to try and mention topics that occur across all the theories instead of just the one theory:

    1) Sexual arousal to children
    2) Intimacy/social deficits
    3) cognitive distortions - used to justify committing sexual acts on a child
    4) poor emotional and impulse management
    These are probably due to developmental adversity.

    The following are some of the main theories currently in psychology:
    1) Finkelhor's (1984) four preconditions model
    2) Hall and Hirschmann's quadripartite model
    3) Ward and Siegart (2002) pathways model (this has an interesting aspect regarding 'pure paedophiles'

    So we wouldn't define it as a sexuality or a fetish. I suppose that aspect would be described as a deviant sexual arousal (which is different to a fetish).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    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.
    This is a question I can certainly answer with confidence. Firstly, the key to any form of treatment to ANY offence or offender is an accurate risk assessment. It is important for a psychologist to assess and correctly identify the offenders needs and risks. So a risk assessment involves four key components: actuarial risk prediction, functional analysis of offence, identifying key stable risk factors, monitor acute dynamic risk factors. I can go into this more if you like, I don't want to blow any brains with information that isn't directly answering the question.

    If we look at a recent meta-analysis conducted by Kim et al (2016) , they covered a vast amount of sexual offending treatments. They concluded that some treatments were deemed 'promising' and others were deemed 'proven'. So a meta-analysis (MA) groups all similar studies together to give one concluding grouped result. In these studies, I am presuming it will be the comparison of a treatment group (a group of sex offenders who have participated in treatment) against a group who haven't had any treatment. The MA found that all studies found significant reduction in recidivism (that is a significant change in recidivism between those treated and those not treated). They actually found that sex offender treatments were more successful for adolescences compared to adults, and that surgical castration and hormonal medication had a larger impact on recidivism compared to psychological treatments and that community treatments had a larger impact on recidivism compared to institutional treatments.
    Despite this, they do only record decreases in recidivism of 10%-22%, this could be due to a number of factors however (methodological issues, definition issues) . For example, when they refer to recidivism some studies will count a non-sexual offence as being a form of re-offending. Which it is of course, but isn't relative to the treatment. Incorrect assessment is another, resulting in the wrong form of treatment being offered, or the wrong ordering or type of treatment. Unsuccessful monitoring of treatment of the sex offender is another one which is a concern as this can lead to incorrectly evaluating the offender.

    The stigma that sex offenders in particular child sex offenders have, plays a massive impact on sex offender treatment. As a psychologist, the first thing we would expect to be covered in treatment is breaking down the denial. This has been reported numerous of times to be essential to successful treatment (for example, Levenson and Macgowan, 2004). It also happens to be the hardest thing to achieve from an offender, moreso a sex offender and even moreso a child sex offender. This is due to the stigma attached, they are aware of how they are seen in the public's eye. This strengthens there denial, and probably another reason why some treatment is not successful. In terms of dealing with the stigma, you won't ever end the stigma surrounding sex offenders/child sex offenders. However, we can attempt to reduce the effects of stigmatisation on sex offenders. Research has shown that sex offenders in group treatments provide good social support and understanding (which can help break down the denial, and also and in turn, result in better participation in treatment). We also need to ensure we are doing a good job in supervising registered sex offenders who are in the community, sometimes, stigmatisation can aid in a sex offender to re-offend.


    I'll answer the others later, Im getting to much into this and I have a thesis on terrorism to write up! Sorry in advance for any grammatical and spelling errors, I was doing this pretty speedy.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    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.
    And also I'll have to do a tad bit of research for question 3 as we certainly would not advise on that as a form of treatment (which i will go into as to why later), but I will happily look into it and see what the literature says.

    Number 4, do you mean what misconceptions people have about paedophiles that aren't supported by research? - cause surely all misconceptions won't be supported.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.