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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipulledhermione)
    sig :coma: <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.
    exactly -

    to those who never act upon it i truly feel need help but those who do who make the concious decision to abuse to child - i have no sympathy for
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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
    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/show....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.)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Im sure alot of people are aroused by hardcore pornography.. but would never do it themselves :P
    Watching child porn is supporting and encouraging it - kids do actually get abused in the making of them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad someone's bringing this up, it does seem people are quick to chatise paedophiles. One who acts upon it is intolerable, but I honestly believe if someone realises their problems and seeks help, it should be given. There shouldn't be such a stigma about it, so that those suffering from it can get help. If they're never given help, they may get fustrated and act upon it.

    A) Has this type of paedophile ever crossed your mind?
    I've considered these types, as detailed above.

    B) Do you have a problem with them?
    No, not at all, they can't help it. I'd just keep an eye on them.

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

    D) Would you attack or want to attack someone like this?
    No, that's terrible.

    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?
    Never, I don't see a problem with someone who knows their perversion but sticks clear of it.

    F) Is this form of "invisible" paedo even worthy of debate?
    Of course, if they're not talked about, they fall into the other catagory which can pose problems.

    Again, anyone who acts upon these impulses is surely evil, but if they're unwanted attractions, they should have help to get over it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meliae)
    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/show....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.)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ......?)
    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.
    Have you considered that removing the stigma will, besides helping repressed Invisible Paedophiles talk to a professional, actually help other Invisible Paedophiles to lose the guilt they have over their perversion, convince themselves that because thinking about it is ok, it can't be that bad to do it and download child porn or kidnap and rape a 3 year old?

    It's naive to believe telling these people it's ok to want to have sex with children will only make them want to seek help. They are just as likely, if not more, to rationalise & justify the thought of carrying molestation and downloading CP even more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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.

    To be fair, I didn't look back at the thread before posting. I just remembered seeing it recently, found it, and linked to it. Most of the abusive posts have been deleted, on the first page anyway. I clicked onto a page in the middle though and saw this:
    You are a disgusting, vile inferior person and even worse for making everyone read that disgusting self-justifying passage.

    Stop comparing yourself to normal people, having jacked off to children already means you cant control your urge at all, what if next time ur urge gets stronger, and their just happens to be a young child around. If i knew who you were i would run you out of town and never let you near any kids.

    its a pity your inferior genes werent detected and aborted. And you're too dangerous and sick to ever have kids or be near one.
    What if ur around them 24/7.

    This is **** scray knowing there r people likey ou around who think themselves to be normal whilst having these tendencies. Do the decent thing and stay away from normal people
    The thread was filled with posts like that when I saw it. I didn't look through the other pages again, but if you do, there's probably more on the later pages that the mods missed.

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meliae)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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)


    I have, I almost went to court becuase of it (he pleaded guilty to following a group of my friends to London). That in itself doesn't seem too bad does it? Stalking a few 14 years olds conversations on myspace, following them around a bit...


    (before you think we're idiots we didnt speak to him at all and didn't even have a clue he was looking at our conversations - the way he found us was a single comment saying 'so you coming on the trip to .... tomorrow?' - our profiles were on private and he'd added a lot of people in our year at school using a fake profile picture)



    ...well in his flat there was so much pornography, including child pornography of the worst type (apparently the police grade it 1 - 5 and this was the worst) that the police couldn't open the door. He'd been following many other groups of girls on myspace.
    He was clearly mentally ill from all his behaviour (cba to go into it here but i can if you want). I think paedophiles should be locked up in mental institutions for their own sake.


    He hadn't acted on his wishes at all yet - no assaults or anything- but ,seriously, imagine how disgusting and dangerous this person comes accross as. Imagine how terryfying the whole experience was - and this was just being followed around in a public place, with a big group of friends.

    So no i do not 'tolerate' someone even if they've never acted on their wishes, never intend to, and their paedo activity is limited to looking at schoolgirls on social networks and following them around london.


    oh and by the way, a few months after he got out from his 6 month (!!!! ) sentence, he was found in a school changing rooms after posing as like a parent or caretaker or something to attend a breakfast club.


    so yeah... don't tolerate! lock them up for their own good!

    and be ridiculously careful on the internet!!!!!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amyalisa)
    Have you ever met a paedophile? (this is a genuine question i'm not trying to annoy you)
    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

    (Original post by Meliae)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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.
    Actually no, I wasn't trying to say anything along the lines of "stop condemning paedophiles". My objection was solely to your ignorance of the fact that some people (perhaps even most) do object to what you call "invisible paedophiles". Did you really read my posts or just assume that you knew what they said? The specific sentences I was disagreeing with from the post I initially quoted are below. The way you presumed to speak, incorrectly, for everyone pissed me off so I replied. For instance, note that the person you quoted (amyalisa) was actually disagreeing with your first post . You seem to have divided everyone into one of two arbitrary categories and then assigned people opinions they don't have or haven't expressed based on your own narrow views.

    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.

    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.

    We have no problem with Invisible Paedophiles. They do not need defending as there nothing to defend them against
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    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.
    There is nothing wrong with paedophilia, though. Sakura-Chan had no decent arguments, I just didn't respond cause she asked me not to. Her argument was that paedophiles have desires and thus are likely to act on them at some point by raping a child. The counter-argument to this is non-paedophiles have desires for adults, but no one treats them as potential rapists. It's crap logic. "Oh, he's a paedo, he must want to **** my kid! Get him away from my children!" You would never say: "oh, he fancies women, he must want to rape me! Get him away from me!"

    People like Sakura-Chan also ignore the fact that many child abuse cases are committed by people who fancy adults as well. There is even a significant proportion of cases committed by people who don't have a sexual attraction to women.

    Telling them there's nothing wrong with their feelings as long as they don't act on them isn't moddycoddling, it's just the truth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ......?)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever you think, just kill them. KILL THEM WITH FIRE!!!

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sickens me. To my very core.

    To abuse something so innocent is beyond tolerance. Most Children don't even understand what's happening when they're abused.

    I hate talking/thinking about it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Good post.

    The demonising culture is far too overblown. It's thought-policing essentially and dangerous for this reason alone. There are a lot of pretty heinous harmful sexual perversions out there and a huge amount of illegal trafficking of young women. But in the minds of the public these violations seem to pale in comparison to some sorry old bloke sat in a park.

    Paedophiles should, theoretically at least, be allowed to watch child porn - as long as it could be guaranteed that no child was involved :L obviously not possible so computer simulated is probably the best option.

    It may make the rest of us feel sick but then think of the Ancient Greek pederasts in sexual relations with young boys - in fact I think it was Plato who was considered a bit odd for not engaging in such acts!

    It's not something which is going to go away and I think demonising people for it who have not acted on their desires (in the form of actual sexual abuse) is disgusting.

    EDIT:- To add to my post I can't see us allowing paedophiles to watch animated child porn even if I think it's theoretically the correct route. Obviously in this time and culture we consider it a mental illness and I think one of the definitions of insanity is a failure to understand or conform within reason to the current reality (something along those lines!) so by this definition they are mentally ill. If that's the stance we wish to take then demonising is still not the answer, if there wasn't this kneejerk bandwagon reaction I think rather more might be then encouraged to speak out and seek some sort of therapy to suppress their natural urges so they can lead a more normal life.

    Also, as someone mentioned earlier paedophilia is nothing new it's just gained notoriety in the media. The hysteria has done little more than make normal adult males paranoid around young children.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's complicated. The sexual desire for children has been argued to be a natural thing but it can be harmful to children so must be frowned upon.

    There are people who molest children who aren't paedophiles. They do it for other reasons such as control or mental illness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    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.
    I don't know if there is any evidence of there being no paedophilia in the animal kingdom, which we are part of and I'm not sure how society would increase paedophilia if it wasn't already something that happened naturally.

    I am not being tolerant of it, if someone commits child abuse they should be punished and analysed and rehabilitated. But I don't think you can punish people for a crime they haven't committed, no matter what that crime is.

    I think that to solve the problem of paedophilia, which has been around for presumably millions of years, we need to approach it from a logical viewpoint, if we find out that certain policies work and others don't then we should use the ones that work. What I don't want us to do is be reactionary and emotional and as a result not do anything about the problem.

    I haven't said 'oh it's finnnneee, they aren't hurting anyone, leave them be!', I want to see it eradicated, but I don't see you offering any solutions, just the same answers they've used since paedophilia was outlawed, and as you can see, it still happens.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: January 23, 2010
  • 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?
    Useful resources
  • 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.