Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Too harshly?
    Hardly, they need to be executed, or at least castrated.

    Oh and maybe someone could explain to the OP that the internet isn't a human right.

    What a ******* moron.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    I strongly disagree with your rational. You're saying sexual attraction to children is not a mental affliction that needs to be treated UNTIL they act on it?
    I'm saying that a man who finds himself sexually attractive to children has committed no offence against anyone. He is not a criminal, he is not an immoral delinquent. He has done nothing, and so there's no reason why he should be treated as if he has.

    If you want to 'treat' paedophiles who have never molested a child, then you're also going to have to 'treat' straight men who have never molested a girl - just in case.

    What you're saying is that men who **** over images of children on the internet are harmless and shouldn't be reviled, as they're not directly harming children.
    No, that's not what I said, and I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying that from. To download child porn is to support an 'industry' that, somewhere down the line, involves the exploitation of children. To have these images is to show support for such actions, and thus, it should be a criminal offence.

    But a paedophile who simply finds children attractive (and that's the only thing that is implied by the word 'paedophile') hasn't done a thing. It's perfectly possible to be a paedophile who has never molested a child or watched child porn, and those that fit this description have no reason to be bothered by the police, or by an angry mob.

    That's a stupid argument and if the law/government thought like you did we'd have a much bigger issue with more paedos running around unwatched and paedo pic markets. I'm glad they don't.
    Like I said, my argument never even MENTIONED child pornography and its market, so I don't know where you're drawing your conclusions from. So allow me to make myself clear, although I thought I already did:

    1) Paedophilia is NOT a problem. It harms nobody, and it should not be dealt with by the police, or by angry mobs.
    2) Child molestation IS a problem. It harms children, and it should be dealt with seriously by the police.
    3) Child pornography IS a problem. It exploits and harms children, and it should be dealt with by the police.

    If you create an attitude towards paedophiles in which they are treated like scum and hunted like foxes, then the following things will result:

    1) Paedophiles who are struggling with their sexuality will not speak out to ask for help, and it is more likely that these people will abuse children or download child pornography. Whereas, if we treated paedophiles as functioning members of society (and they are, for the most part), then we would have appropriate channels for people like this to get help.

    2) The child pornography market will grow.

    3) More children will get abused.

    4) Police resources will be wasted on harmless civilians, rather than on those who are actually out there abusing children.

    5) You'll develop an ignorant society driven by media nonsense, rather than by rational thinking, and your society will become indistinguishable from 400CE when people were hunting and burning witches because of the 'media propaganda' of some well known moron called St. Augustine, and his media organisation, the Church.

    You could, I think, draw a parallel between this and the legalisation of drugs. Because drugs are illegal, it must be sold illegally, usually by dodgy men who are involved with organised crime and/or prostitution. By making drugs illegal, you create this criminal underworld which grows, and grows. So the initial problem which you sought to abolish, i.e. the problem of drugs, has developed tenfold into a problem of drugs, prostitution, murder, organised crime, etc.

    Whereas if you regulated drugs and sold them in shops at a tax rate, you would completely eliminate that criminal underworld.

    Similarly, by treating paedophiles like scum, you drive them into a secret underworld where they can't ask for help, and you increase the problem tenfold.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Your 'honest opinion' was the same 'honest opinion' about homosexuals less than 50 years ago.

    Paedophiles do not need to be treated for anything. They have a sexual attraction to children, but that does not mean they are a threat to children. I have a sexual attraction to women, but I am not a threat to them, and the same is true of a vast majority of paedophiles.

    People who actually molest children should be punished, but the line between child molesters, and paedophiles is as clear cut as the line between straight men, and straight men who rape women.

    Paedophilia is not a problem. Child molestation is. Paedophiles should be left in peace. Child molestors should be dealt with. Paedophiles are treated too harshly. Child molesters are not treated harshly enough. Paedophiles are normal, functioning members of society. Child molesters are delinquents.

    People, please mark the difference between these two very different groups of people in the same way that you mark the difference between men who are attracted to women, and men who rape women.
    i get where you're coming from but you make it sound as though being sexually attracted to children is as normal as being sexually attracted to women..:confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramanda)
    This. Only I have to slightly disagree with the comparison with paedophiles and kids, as straight guys and women. It's definitely okey for a man to flirt with a woman, is it okey for a paedophile to flirt with his/hers nephew/niece for example?
    To be attracted to children is no criminal offence. They can't help it, just like you say. But I will say the "condition" (I know it's not a medical condition, I just dunno what else to call it) is a slightly more threatening one than a guy being straight.
    If I lived with a straight man, I wouldn't be scared of my own safety. If me and my child lived with a paedophile, I would be slightly more aware. This is because we are talking about children, not girls/women who should be able to say no, and know what's happening. Even though no criminal offence is made, it is still stressing for a child who are aware of that there's a grown up who is sexually attracted to it.
    Believe me.
    Again, you are making the assumption that the paedophile has made some sort of action against the child.

    You are assuming he has flirted. You are assuming that the paedophile has made it known to the child that he is attracted to him/her.

    The parallel, I feel, still stands. The innocent paedophile is synonymous with the innocent man who is attracted to a woman from afar but has never approached her. The guilty paedophile is synonymous with the guilty man who has found himself attracted to the women, and gone on to have sex with her without her consent.

    The only difference between the two is that the straight man has some acceptable intermediate steps such as approaching the girl, flirting with her, and so forth, as you said, but there is no reason to assume that a paedophile would engage in these activities, so there is no reason to treat them any differently from the quiet man who hasn't put his attraction to the girl into action.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Again, you are making the assumption that the paedophile has made some sort of action against the child.

    You are assuming he has flirted. You are assuming that the paedophile has made it known to the child that he is attracted to him/her.

    The parallel, I feel, still stands. The innocent paedophile is synonymous with the innocent man who is attracted to a woman from afar but has never approached her. The guilty paedophile is synonymous with the guilty man who has found himself attracted to the women, and gone on to have sex with her without her consent.

    The only difference between the two is that the straight man has some acceptable intermediate steps such as approaching the girl, flirting with her, and so forth, as you said, but there is no reason to assume that a paedophile would engage in these activities, so there is no reason to treat them any differently from the quiet man who hasn't put his attraction to the girl into action.
    I partially agree, although people with paedophilic thoughts should be offered voluntary therapy, without judgement or prejudice. People need to be educated more about it, however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Rouge*)
    i get where you're coming from but you make it sound as though being sexually attracted to children is as normal as being sexually attracted to women..:confused:
    Err, I don't want to use the word 'normal' because I don't know what it means.

    But I think that a sexual attraction to children is as natural and valid as a sexual preference as a sexual attraction to your own gender, a sexual attraction to feet, a sexual attraction to tights, a sexual attraction to whips and chains, a sexual attraction to wearing a nappy and pretending to be a baby.

    You probably wouldn't consider some of these as 'normal', but they're certainly not 'conditions' or 'offences'.

    I ask you, what is the difference, mentally, between somebody who is attracted to children, and somebody who is attracted to, say, feet? Why is it that you feel that one of them has a 'mental condition', and the other one just has a 'strange fetish'? They both exhibit the exact same feelings and emotions, only towards different things.

    If a paedophile does not act on his attractions, then his sexual attraction is no different from any other fetish or philia, and I find it preposterous that you feel you could make a distinction between sexual fetishes that are mental illnesses and sexual fetishes which are not. What sort of criterion could you possibly have to make such a distinction?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Let's just lock them all away on an island of the coast of Scotland, and film a wildlife documentary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    I partially agree, although people with paedophilic thoughts should be offered voluntary therapy, without judgement or prejudice. People need to be educated more about it, too.
    I don't think they should be offered help, as such, because I find it presumptuous to assume that all paedophiles have no self-control. I think a vast majority of people who are attracted to children can deal with it on their own without suffering much upset, just as a vast majority of men who are attracted to women don't need help in not raping them, even if they never successfully manage consensual sex. But there should definitely be a point of call for paedophiles who are struggling to go and request help - something like the Samaritans or Alcoholics Anonymous (without the religious bull).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why not just kill them and all the other criminals. I'm sick of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by micky022)
    Let's just lock them all away on an island of the coast of Scotland, and film a wildlife documentary.
    I think you'd get a rather boring documentary of civilised people going about their lives as normal.

    Put ignorant people like you on that island, however, and tell the lot of you that one of you is a paedophile, but not let on who it is... THAT would be a good wildlife documentary. The catch is, none of you are paedophiles, but the insane mob rule and witch burnings would be fun.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mighty Grandiose Noble Knight)
    Why not just kill them and all the other criminals.
    Err, because paedophiles are not criminals?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ogloom)
    I was having a discussion with my mum about the limits of her love:

    She said she would still love me if I tortured and murdered someone, however she said she wouldn't love me if I raped a little kid... This made me think about the general attitude towards paedophiles relative to other serious offenders..It seems that the general populace (including mainstream media) portray paedophiles as "worse then murderers"...

    in the US they can be held indefinitely in "hospitals" <-- Louis Theroux did a documentary on it

    they can be banned from using the internet <-- a human right.

    when they move, you must introduce yourself as a sex offender. I don't believe murderers have to do the same thing. For all you know, there could be a serial killer living next to you...

    Does anyone agree with me? I think people should ease up on paedos. Sure, they're pretty creepy dudes, but they don't deserve the amount of **** that gets flung at them.
    I think the death penalty for bad offences could be a good step forward. EH?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Err, I don't want to use the word 'normal' because I don't know what it means.

    But I think that a sexual attraction to children is as natural and valid as a sexual preference as a sexual attraction to your own gender, a sexual attraction to feet, a sexual attraction to tights, a sexual attraction to whips and chains, a sexual attraction to wearing a nappy and pretending to be a baby.

    You probably wouldn't consider some of these as 'normal', but they're certainly not 'conditions' or 'offences'.

    I ask you, what is the difference, mentally, between somebody who is attracted to children, and somebody who is attracted to, say, feet? Why is it that you feel that one of them has a 'mental condition', and the other one just has a 'strange fetish'? They both exhibit the exact same feelings and emotions, only towards different things.

    If a paedophile does not act on his attractions, then his sexual attraction is no different from any other fetish or philia, and I find it preposterous that you feel you could make a distinction between sexual fetishes that are mental illnesses and sexual fetishes which are not. What sort of criterion could you possibly have to make such a distinction?
    hmmm...you have a very good point and actually made me think twice..well said... although i still can't get my head around a sexual attraction to children being described as 'natural'...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Rouge*)
    hmmm...you have a very good point and actually made me think twice..well said... although i still can't get my head around a sexual attraction to children being described as 'natural'...
    Well by natural I simply mean it's something that occurs on its own, just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Or, if you prefer, just like some other fetish.

    Perhaps you wouldn't view it as 'normal', and that's fine because everybody has a different perspective on what is 'normal'. But people have to realise that their own perspectives of what is 'normal' is not the be all and end all of the issue, and if somebody thinks in a way that you find abnormal, it doesn't make them a criminal or anything of the sort. If it did, you could have a similar witch hunt for homosexuals and people who love feet.

    But I'm glad I made you think . That's my aim!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Well, the DSM would disagree with you there, as it is clearly defined as a paraphilia. See: DSM-IV 302.2.



    The definition of the mental illness doesn't particularly explain WHY they abuse, but the research into its manifestations (particularly by Abel, Becker, Ward, Bumby, Gannon, Keown and others) has suggested that certain significant cognitive distortions and maladaptive implicit associations do. Subsequently, psychometrics and IATs are capable of differentiating between healthy controls and paraphilics, and others further differentiating between paraphilics and paedophiles.

    I will happily provide you with the research papers into cognitive distortions and implicit associations very commonly displayed by convicted child molesters.
    I would rather that you emerged from the lab, retracted your head from wherever its been, and got yourself some life experience, rather than quoting at me from some text book. If that were the case, if all paedophiles were defined as having a mental illness, they would all be let off any prison sentences/probation orders due to diminished responsibility, and committed to a secure unit for a few months. All I was referring to was the frequent references to personality disorders etc, which are not generally connected to paedophilia. You could have a personality disorder and also be a paedophile, but it isn't necessarily the cause of being a paedophile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shawshank)
    I think the death penalty for bad offences could be a good step forward. EH?
    You could introduce the death penalty all you liked, but it wouldn't make one bit of difference to paedophilia because paedophiles IS NOT A CRIME.

    It's not even punishable by law as it is, let alone worthy of the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The thing that confuses me is when pedophiles get abuse in jail.

    Murderers are respected, yet rapists/pedophiles often get beaten up/killed!

    Surely murder is worse than pedophilia. Besides, couldn't you define "being a pedo" as a mental illness? -v- just a thought
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I think you'd get a rather boring documentary of civilised people going about their lives as normal.

    Put ignorant people like you on that island, however, and tell the lot of you that one of you is a paedophile, but not let on who it is... THAT would be a good wildlife documentary. The catch is, none of you are paedophiles, but the insane mob rule and witch burnings would be fun.
    So you'd prefer normal people tearing each other apart rather than watching some paedophiles show us how to make the perfect omlette? I worry about your mental state :yep:

    (Original post by Phugoid)
    because paedophiles IS NOT A CRIME.
    Grammar police, arrest this man, he talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Err, because paedophiles are not criminals?
    Oh really...have you had the experience?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Well, the DSM would disagree with you there, as it is clearly defined as a paraphilia. See: DSM-IV 302.2.



    The definition of the mental illness doesn't particularly explain WHY they abuse, but the research into its manifestations (particularly by Abel, Becker, Ward, Bumby, Gannon, Keown and others) has suggested that certain significant cognitive distortions and maladaptive implicit associations do. Subsequently, psychometrics and IATs are capable of differentiating between healthy controls and paraphilics, and others further differentiating between paraphilics and paedophiles.

    I will happily provide you with the research papers into cognitive distortions and implicit associations very commonly displayed by convicted child molesters.
    You could provide me all the papers under the sun that draw correlations between cognitive disorder and the molestation of children. But they would all be null and void because this discussion in this thread is about paedophilia, and as I'm sure you'll know from my previous 20 or so posts:

    PAEDOPHILIA IS NOT THE SAME AS CHILD MOLESTATION
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 2, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.