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.
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
Why didnt you put all this stuff three pages ago
i posted a thread stating ...paedophile in my family ...what would you do?
someone else started a new thread imediately about putting it in perspective. it could have been discussed in the thread i started where i was asking ...what would you do?
but no ...a complete rant and rave that he still clings to ...
who is over reacting here?
and now kermit kermit ...who proudly titles himself ...
Neo-fascist Hitler pervert scumbag ...has started a third thread about paedos! says it all i think.
relevance being?
BeckyBoo criticises me for starting a new thread, you think I should have stuck to the old one. What is a man to do?
For your information I started a new thread because your thread about your family was not the appropriate place to have this discussion. Or would you have preferred me to say it right underneath where you said about the ending of your daughters marriage?
Im deciding whether or not I can be arsed to explain the joke behind my title, which was given to me by Dom. On balance, Ive decided that I cant.
But get a sense of humour, Becky for instance says her location is in the confessional box, and that shes a *norty nun*. Do you ACTUALLY think thats where she is?
I did try:p
I don't beleive that Kermit by started this thread, was implying that 'you' over reacted - you have had a personal experience involving a peadophille and it is quite understandable the way you have reacted.
I think he was trying to point out that in general people over react to the 'threat' of peadophilles when in fact they have a very small chance of getting into a situation like yours.
But surely this is a different discussion?
We did!
I dont know wether I managed to explain myself on this bit but I will try again anyway.
When Mr roll first posted about his problem you have to understand it was a tough time for him, you did kind of start another thread straight away. My feelings were for Mr Roll as I knew exactly how he would be feeling.
My main concern was him and I just felt discussing peadophiles and comparing them with crashes etc would be more or less saying his problem was nothing major.
It was all to do with the timing of the thread.
hope that clears that up
First off, I'd like to say that sexually abusing children is vile and unforgivable. Totally unacceptable. I sympathise deeply for MR and the suffering it has caused to his family.
But, I don't think people should be punished for getting turned on by looking at pictures of children, even sexually explicit ones. So yes, I am saying that I think looking at child porn should be legal. Or at least, not illegal. My point is that by simply looking at the picture you are not hurting anyone. If you paid a subscription to a child porn site, that would be another matter, as then you would be an accessory to child abuse.
I don't think it's right to punish someone for their thoughts, no matter how disgusting we may find them. As long as no-one is getting hurt, I believe people should be allowed to say, do and think whatever they like. If that includes masturbating while looking at Mothercare catalogues, so be it.
To put this in perspective, consider homosexuality. A lot of people used to think that this practise was disgusting (many still do), and it should therefore be illegal. But I hope most of us will agree that as long as it takes place between consenting adults, it would be wrong to punish the participants. Now, obviously children cannot be consenting, so having sex with a child is always wrong. But if we are talking about a person getting turned on by images of children, nobody is getting hurt.
Suppose, through no fault of your own, you start having sexual feelings about children one day. Not being a paedophile myself, I don't know if that's how it happens. But I don't imagine that anyone chooses to be a pervert, I think it's probably just they way they're wired up. What should you then do? Turn yourself into the police for your thoughtcrimes?
Indulge me in a little thought experiment. Suppose child porn could be made using computer animation, so no children were ever actually harmed. Would this be wrong? I'm inclined to think not, although it would surely be disgusting to most well-adjusted people. Before you answer, consider this: I think we can all agree murder is wrong. Yet we watch countless simulations of murder in movies and on TV, for entertainment. Just how different is this?
I'm not 100% sure about all this; it sort of worries me that these are the conclusions I've come to through being as logical as I can. I guess I'm kinda playing devil's advocate. So I'd be interested to hear others' views.
This thread was triggered by, but is not about a personal experience, because as I said before we cannot presume to know.
No one is trying to belittle the seriousness of this crime, just discuss its context and implications to society as a whole. If we cannot talk about something that so many people take very seriously then we do have a problem.
Being turned on by looking at children swimming or playing in the school playground or modelling clothes in a catalogue is distasteful, but I think most steps that could be taken to prevent it are actually worse than the original "crime". Like not being allowed to film a school nativity play or a school sports day, or not being allowed to take pictures of your own daughter in the bath.
Sexually explicit pictures are different though. Pictures of nude children would excite pedos, sure, but, really, I doubt much harm does come of it. It is when children are forced to commit acts, either to each other or with an adult, that a child does not have the mental or physical capacity to commit, that the problems start. Especially given how much of the child porn industry is controlled by the Mafia in Eastern Europe or SE Asia, and that children are kidnapped to either become "stars" of some horrific pornography, or to become prostitutes in places like Thailand and Cambodia. To say child porn is victimless is plain wrong, IMHO.
I think thats pretty reasonable really, many people denounced as pedos would do little more than this. When downloading sexually explicit pictures of children the lines become more blurred, as they are, in a way, an accessory to the abuse of children; but if you just like wanking over the swimwear models in the Littlewoods catalogue then its distasteful but nothing more. So long as thats all it is.
The Japanese have a whole cartoon-porn culture called Hentai, and this does sometimes depict young teenagers and pre-teens committing sexual acts because the Japanese, as a culture, seem obsessed by youth.
The trouble is that if you DARE say that the threat of paedophilia is overrated, then you get flamed by all and sundry, with statements that verge on the libellous being put on this discussion and certainly on the flamewar that was started on Anything Goes against me for DARING to ask a perfectly reasonable question.
Im glad someone understands.
I think the whole `stranger danger` paranoia is possibly more harmful than anything else as statistically, the biggest risk from paedophiles is from members of your own family or family friends. The stranger danger mentality can make children scared of completely harmless people whilst thinking its normal that granddad does things they dont like.
No quite the opposite, im thinking about the victim. I certainly would not put a child in a catalogue if I knew that someone, somewhere was getting off seeing her in knickers and vest. Its down to the parents of the child and how they feel tbh.
As I also said if they didnt get it out of catalogues they would find it somewhere else anyway.
I'm afraid you might have to end up wrapping your daughter in a blanket before leaving the house, or simply don't allow her out at all. For there is always going to be the chance that a paedophile will see her, be on the street, playing in the park, on a beach or anywhere else, and masturbate over her later that night.
That is why the decision to ban parents from filming children in a nativity play was the most stupid one in the history of mankind. We now only need someone to be caught wanking over a children's catalogue for them to be discontinued. Or a pervert wanking over photos of children playing on a beach for children to be banned from attending beaches.
Actually, that's not such bad thing...
Of course it is not hurting her. The problem arises when someone is caught like this fella kermit was talking about and the police land at the door telling us a perv was getting off at seeing her half clothed or whatever.
She is not physically harmed, its *me* who would feel bad about it because she would know nothing about it.
everyone believing they can do anything they want! we are above animals surely? human societies have been built on rules.
if i can do anything i want as long as it hurts nobody ...then i can drive through red lights ...drive the wrong way down the motorway ...scream racist words ...until someone gets hurt? if i believe i can pull these things off without hurting anyone then it's my right to try?
And I suppose thats the crux of the whole debate. Paedophilia is awful, and it is rightly seen as awful, so parents will believe all the hysteria and make stranger danger seem like a huge huge threat in order to protect their children from this awfulness.
And then they dont buy a smoke alarm *shrug*
I know what you mean Becky, I personally wouldnt want my child to be the wanking object of some pedo, and not allowing them to be a model is one simple way of preventing it. Though the cotton wool mentality can go too far because of this well-meaning attitude- a pedo is just as likely to get off on seeing a girl do a handstand wearing a skirt, but you shouldnt stop children playing outside, and a lot of the obesity problems in this country are caused by children not playing outside anymore.
I suppose what I mean is that as a parent I wouldnt intentionally put my child in a position to be the object of pedo desires, but I wouldnt rise to the hysteria and wrap them up in cotton wool and never let them outside. Many parents seem to lap up the hysteria, when really they dont need to be anything other than cautious.
By the way, you are arguing, but I've got nothing against that, because I am too. 'Argument', as a noun, just means viewpoint (probably something to do with Argus, the many eyed mythical figure) and you're entitled to your own views, as am I. When we engage in argument, though, the possibility of a shift in viewpoint arises, on both sides. No bad thing, that
Not a key point, just something I though I'd mention :chin:
I think so, wouldn't they ?
mmm I dunno now, I thought if they found stuff out like that then they let the parents know. Slightly different but a doctor from where I live was recently accused of indecent behaviour to a few of his patients but everyone who may have seen him were sent a letter explaining that he was being looked into.
Whats the doctor got to do with the price of fish?
Wanking off over a catalogue is not a criminal offence Becky, so the police wouldnt do anything unless the guy knocking one out was doing more than that. Viewing pictures of children, even naked ones, and being aroused by it is not illegal, nor is creating these pictures, unless the child is engaged in a sexual act.
And that is the way it should stay.
It would be for the parent to decide whether or not that the child's pictures should be released for public consumption or not, and to be aware of any possible consequences. But what, really, is the difference between a kid in a catalogue wearing a cossie and a kid at the beach wearing a cossie?
Paedophilia is not a crime, sexually abusing children is. Please try to understand that.
I know what I mean and I did say slightly different. Yes i used a wrong example but thats the only one i could think of.
I think I might just shut up