If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Not just that... also the ovrcrowding. Have to make way for people who haven't paid TV licenses.
not if still saddled with even bigger fines they wouldnt
erm yes and no
a sex attacker, ie someone that has committed a sex attack, on a child, is evil, when convicted, they should be castrated and have the key thrown away
but you dont have to have done anything to be a paedo, it might be morally wrong, but doesnt become evil until somthing is actually done
First off, I absolutely don't agree with paedophilia or the people who practice it but I don't think it's evil per se. Evil is an awfully strong tag to attach to people. So I will try to present it as I can best.
To start with, I would recomment that everyone buy a copy (and preferrably read a copy) or Vladimir Nabukov's book Lolita. I know that name is kinda pandered around for being a dirty smutty book but it really isn't. Written in English (Nabukov went to Cambridge after leaving Russia), it is a cracking book and actually makes a reasonable case for paedophiles. Again, I'm not advocating it or promoting it but I understand where he's coming from. Vlad himself wasn't one but the main character, Humbert Humbert (sic) makes a pretty good case for it that goes, if my memory serves me correctly, vaguely like this.
Sex between a man and a woman (that is to say, consenting, above-age-of-consent adults) is base and carnal. Why is it so base and carnal? Because it is solely, or at least in basic terms, for reproduction purposes only. Man has been doing the exact same action for millenia and in the act itself, there is nothing to show that we as a race and as a species have progressed any further than animals as the way in which the act takes place amongst both human beings and animals (not together obviously - that's another argument) is virtually identical. We mate, at least subconsciously, as dictated by centuries of a priori knowledge, to procreate, to reproduce and create offspring.
Now the humble paedophile does it for another reason. I should stop hear and point out that this is Nabukov's, or rather, Humbert's justification for it. I'd wager that the average paedophile doesn't think like this but it's an interesting and valid argument all the same. The paedophile, we might assume does it for another reason. As there is no reproduction involved or at least possible (when the child is below the age of puberty), Humbert Humbert does it for aesthetic value. Now this is where opinion and taste comes in to it obviously as each person has different tastes but for him, it is something artistic. He is not just having sex with her, he is possessing her artistically and aesthetically. It is not sex for reproduction. It is sex for a love of and quest for beauty.
I guess that won't exactly hold up in court but it's also the reasons the ancient Greeks used to have sex with young boys. For them, and they were a pretty damn smart lot (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc. etc), sex between man and a woman, as already mentioned, is base and for reproduction purposes only. Pleasure was derived from something that was not intended for reproduction ie. men and boys. It was, or so they thought, the thing which set us apart from the animals which is pretty much what man has been trying to do since the dawn of time. Conduct oneself in a manner befitting to that of the superior species on the planet.
I will state again that I do not agree with paedophilia but I do not agree that it is evil. It is wrong but there are arguments for both sides.
People of middle England, grasp your copies of the Daily Mail and let the flaming begin.
I think a lot of them become so because theyve been abused them selves, or course a lot who have been abused dont. Maybe a good idea would be to tackle those kids who have been abused before they become abusers them selves. I dont think all peodophiles were abused, but I very much doubt if any of them had happy loving sensible upbringings.
For the record, my gay friends say that they were born gay.
nevertheless, despite it seeming to be a natural phenomenon, what should be of concern in such relationships (as well as with every relationship, in my opinion) is dominance and submission. we can always argue when a person is sexually ready physically and mentally, although our conclusions will always be sbujective. even if the young person is physically mature and he/she believes him/herself to be psychologically mature, the older person will still have more experience to dominate. from this, we can see clearly how such power can be easily abused.
Well, exactly.
I find paedophilia a very difficult subject to form a cognizant opinion/argument about, both because of my personal feelings about it and also because of the many layers of paedophilia which are all lumped together by the reactionaries whose voices often play a huge role in the opinions joe public forms. As johnnny said, it's all well and good to debate the true nature of a paedophile and whether or not they are "evil", misunderstood or any of these things. Maybe they do have a genuine and all-encompassing love of children that they would be wont to express in a way that is far removed from the way we would express that love. Maybe that's not an utterly fucked up and "evil" desire, who am I to judge? But, granting a potential or active paedophile that kind of open-mindedness then potentially ruins the life of a child who I'm sure didn't have those skewed views on sexuality and sexual "perversion". So then there is HUGE potential for either essentially ruining an innocent child's life (I hate to use that phrase, as it sounds so Daily Mail, but anyway) or at least seriously disrupting it. Or even - if trends are to be believed - potentially create another person who may go on to prey on children themselves. I, for one, would not be willing to take that leap of faith on psychology and understanding. When you are able to look at it from the victim's side, it seems like a viewpoint as close to "evil" as I can imagine to say that the paedophile is deserving of our understanding and moral leniency. I would never go to the lengths that some people would seemingly stretch to, I don't think anyone should be strung up or anything of the like. Argh, it's a very difficult topic.
As for drawing comparisons with - and explanations from - Lolita, there is no doubt that the book is one of the most lyrically beautiful ever (and my favourite opening lines in literature). But I don't think even Nabakov was making a case for paedophilia, at least that wasn't the way I perceived it. It is undoubtedly dealt with as honestly and self-deprecatingly as possible but I felt like you're always aware of how utterly messed-up Humbert is, and his actions are. I guess that's entirely open to interpretation, though, as with all literature.
because you cant havew a reasoned debate with a parent of a victim
a couple of peeds phoned in.
one had been in prison and is now free and on the sex offenders register forever ...the other was done for downloading images ...he didn't go to jail and will i think be registered for ten years.
they spoke of their fears about the public being informed of their addresses.
both say that even though they haven't reoffended for quite a while and feel certain they won't again ...this publicly acsessable database which may happen ...is scaring the shit out of them.
to the extent they will probably have to live in caravans and have very mobile lives.
it does worry me that the general public will have acsess to such information.
i'm sure everyone has heard of the thick gits who attacked a pediatrician a couple of years back!
i can hear the screams now.
surely it would be a bad move?
If people can be born with a a natural attraction to the same sex why can't people be born with a natural attraction to children?
I think so too. I don't think he was advocating it but he was at least trying to understand where they were coming from and not taking the 'Burn the Witch' attitude that most people take. It is a phenomenally beautiful work. The irony being that having sought to control her, it is him that is controlled by her at the end. Storming read.
That would be a fucking dumb idea because I doubt they are likely to be impartial or open to the suggestion that these 'creatures' as you so rhetorically put it are not so different from you or I. In the same vein I wouldn't argue that Stalin was actually quite a good bloke (something which I do honestly believe) to someone whose loved ones were sent off to the gulag.
I was trying to not so much make a case for them but to at least make them out to not be such monsters as the ghastly swathes of middle England have branded them. As we see throughout history, paedophilia (such a horrible word) has existed for millenia and it is just society's attitude that has changed.
The thing is, in the majority of cases the proclivities of the minority aren't ever going to be understandable to the minority. Just as with many other sexual deviances and crimes. Even if we did [as a public, in addition to the behavioural psychologists etc who already do] seek to better understand them rather than judge immediately and harshly I can't help feeling that is giving the abuser (regardless of the underage/grooming/kidnap factor, it still comes down to being under the generic "abuse" spectrum I presume) claim to being a victim themself which in the light of their abuse of a child is a pretty reprehensible claim. For them to make on their own behalf, or you or I to make. I see [and wholeheartedly agree with] your point in that understanding (or the attempt) is really, truly important. As long as we understand without excusing it, if that makes sense.
I think society's attitude has changed a lot, young people are [in theory] protected at every turn. Children are someone's baby, their innocent until they are 16 at least. I guess in the past kids grew up a lot faster and became "adults" at a much younger age; or maybe age restrictions and what you did at a certain point in your life weren't so rigid. It's very difficult to know why things have changed in the way they have, and hard to get your head around; but I won't pretend to think it's a fully bad thing.
The root problem really is a base human compunction that fear is bred by the unknown and not-understood. Granted, in some case the perpetrator is just a plain and simple sick fuck but I don't believe, unlike the Daily Mail, that we should tar everyone with the same brush. Every case is different just as every person is different. I'm sure, as you pointed out, that some people would try and find a way round it but with the psychologies and things we have these days, I'm sure we could find out if they're genuine claims of whatever or not.
So the lesson for all of you is that paedophiles are people too.
As to Briggi's point - understanding isn't the same thing as being condoning behaviour. Looking at why people are peadophiles is very important, because if can help understand why such a personality break can occur then it can help prevent it - after all locking up someone who has abused a child doesn't prevent the abuse that's already occured - whereas preventing peadophilia occuring would stop that abuse.
Of course, as others have mentioned, the single most important place to look to stop abuse is within families - as it is parents, close relatives or family friends who commit the vast majority (80%) of child sexual abuse. Chemical castration may deal with an offender - but what on earth is going wrong with our society that this level of abuse by supposed loved ones, against their own loved ones, is taking place.
That is as may be, and I'm definitely aware of the necessity of understanding such behaviour if we're to move forward. But to a victim it could seem very, very much like condoning in a way what they have done - even if that is not the case. It's a subject where it's very hard to strike a balance between the importance of justice being done for the child, and hopefully the rehabilitation of the offender. I think that as sentient human beings we have to be sensitive to both parties and accept that there are factors in child abuse past that we don't know about etc. But the paedophile is still the wrong-doer, that's a fact in my mind, though I'm aware some people are of the opinion that they are socially conditioned to be that way. Or that some people obviously lean to thinking it is actually normal behavior and it is the proletariat - and this day and age - that has the skewed outlook. Intellectualising about paedophilia would be a real stretch for me, but like you said it's an interesting thread and there are some... interesting views.
I am all for better understanding why paedophiles (just for one example, we could cast a far wider net for this kind of discussion) are as such; and yes prevention is better than papering over the cracks with justice being done and being seen to be done. But it doesn't negate the fact that people who abuse children should be locked up, whether their behaviour is "understandable" to some specialist somewhere. It never going to be understandable to someone who has experienced it, this I know.
Exactly. I really, really don't know.
And I'm not saying for one second people shouldn't be locked up, of course they should be and for a lot longer than a possible 3 years - I'm just saying that during the time they are locked up there should be efforts made to understand their problems, rather than simply shove them into isolation cells and ignore them.
There was a reason why police, doctors, psychiatrists, prison officers, probabtion officers tried to understand people in jail; rather than the rest of the public. It isn't the responsibility of the person who has been abused to understand why someone behaved the way they did, unless they feel this would help them cope with it, understanding should be the job of the people who have to make the hard decisions about policies that may make a difference in the future. That's why those jobs are so horrible (the suicide rate for social workers make you wonder if they are farmers on their day off).
Which comes back to the 'evil' thing, the idea that something is simply inhierently bad, as opposed to made bad, excuses everyone else's guilt it what may lead to the creation of a peadophile, it allows us to turn our backs on the problem and simply think - well that's just an evil person. As opposed to thinking what's gone wrong with the society will all make, that such a person would behave that way.
sometimes you wanna strangle someone, that's acceptable, going through with it isn't
chemical castration doesn't stop someone getting pleasure still, it just stops them having penatrative sex - if its possible for people in strip clubs to enjoy the show with minimal contact, its possible for anyone
a good idea would be what was done across europe lastyear, where they advertised for people to seek help anonymously if they think they get aroused by pre-pubescent children, and they will get councelling etc for it in learning not to act upon their instincts
helping kids who are/were abused more in this country would help more as a disproportionate amount become convicted paedophiles, id poke a guess at it being because they never learnt how to form healthy adult relationships
imo it is a mental illness and should be dealt with as such
what really annoys me is the tabloids are effectively going on about the stranger danger, not the fact most abuse is done by people the family or kids knows
To me this doesn't sound like the mind of a sane person. So I think they should be offered treatment.
Giving a community a chance to protect their children from sick beats or have a few peeds hurt (IF they even would be), I'd go for having the information.
how will it protect them? all it will do is scaremonger and isolate the ex-convict increasing the chances of him re-offending
but i just want to say:
:mad:
how the hell can that question even be asked?
try being on the recieving end and then try and justify that paedos are not evil.
of course they are fucking evil.
even if its done in the most seductive way, they wreck their victims lives forever.
end of.