Paedophiles?

[MilitantAnarchist]

I'm sure this argument has been argued many times on here... but (for the uk people) there is a program on itv about catching paedophiles on there internet, and it has got me thinking....
I've heard people defend peado's here, saying it is a mental problem... but that is somthing i DO NOT believe, not even for a second...
What i beleive, is that we should protect all children, and they are infinatly more important then peadophiles... anyone who has been abused in their life would agree im sure.
Children are our future, and if they are raped and abused, it isnt just somthing of nothing... it will ruin their lives forever, its total destruction of a life that will carry on for the next generations. i have a friend who was abused when she was younger and also another friend of mine, her daughter has been raped and its fucked them up, and people around them to, it is somthing that is wide spread and not a 'rare' thing... their is a big difference from looking at images and commiting them, and their is no excuse for either...

But, also, on a lighter note (i guess) the cops on this have caught a guy, by pretending to be a child... isnt that entrapment?

Anyway, does anyone agree with me? or am i alone in my views on this?

[Manifesto]

Your views for what? Police using entrapment?

[Steve_j]

If its not a mental problem what is it?

[gorillafuck]

You said you do not believe it's a mental problem and then talked about how it can be traumatic when children are sexually abused.

What exactly are we supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing with or talking about?

[MilitantAnarchist]

I dont know, but you cant put everything down to mental problems... what sort of mental problems will the kid have after being abused?

[MilitantAnarchist]

You said you do not believe it's a mental problem and then talked about how it can be traumatic when children are sexually abused.

What exactly are we supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing with or talking about?


Just what i said... do you think its a mental problem?
other questions to that are relevent i guess,

is it forgivable? would you defend the rights of a peadophile?

[gorillafuck]

Just what i said... do you think its a mental problem?
I think it's a mental condition, ya.


is it forgivable? would you defend the rights of a peadophile?That really depends what you mean by the rights of a pedophile.

[Agnapostate]

Protection? They do have a mental illness that seems to be involuntary acquired, but that can't excuse criminal offenders from culpability.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Exactly... it isnt just a 'crime' tho, there is no excuse for rape atall... i've heard stories (as we all have) of girls who 'deserved' to get raped, and if we all think that that is bollocks, then someone abusing a child because they have 'issues' cannot be thought of like 'well, it is a mental condition...'

[Agnapostate]

Well, pedophilia and child sexual abuse are distinct from each other, as not all pedophiles are child sexual abusers and not all child sexual abusers meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia (some might be situational offenders). Pedophilia is merely a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children, but does not necessitate criminal offense for diagnosis or identification.

[mannetje]

I do believe that paedophiles are mentally ill.
I don't believe that somebody chooses to be a paedophile.

But I think that 'active' paedophiles should be chemically castrated though,
Just to stop their sexual hunger.
I also experienced with people I know who were abused. That they are pretty destroyed by it.

[Kukulofori]

I'm going to put on the table that pedophilia is as completely acceptable as any other kind of human sexual attraction, but that the school system retards our emotional development so that pedophilia in a capitalist world is genuinely harmful to the victim (for lack of a better term).

[Agnapostate]

I don't think that's true to any major extent for pedophilia specifically, though you might be referring to attraction to underage persons in general, which is distinct from that. You might have more of a case there.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If the pedo doesn't act upon his sexual urges, and can refrain from diddling children, then leave them be.

[Steve_j]

I'm going to put on the table that pedophilia is as completely acceptable as any other kind of human sexual attraction, but that the school system retards our emotional development so that pedophilia in a capitalist world is genuinely harmful to the victim (for lack of a better term).

I disagree. I would conceed that hebephilia and ephebophilia (attraction to pubescent or mid to late pubescent youth) to be somewhat acceptable (acting on it is another issue). And whilst i would conceed that the hysteria surrounding child abuse only makes the victims situation worse, children are not able to make responsible choices in these matters. They are manipulated and abused and i feel children need protection from this.



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty)

[khad]

Your views for what? Police using entrapment?
A sample log from one of these shows (with the shitty commentary removed):

laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:16:56 PM): you probably find me really creepy
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:17:01 PM): no
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:17:08 PM): ya sure
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:17:11 PM): i am kinda old
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:17:17 PM): i wuld not tak 2 u if i did
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:17:26 PM): true
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:17:38 PM): c
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:17:49 PM): but i don't think we could exactly date
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:18:01 PM): y
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:18:14 PM): don't think your dad would like that so much
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:18:47 PM): muy last bf wuz 20
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:18:52 PM): wow
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:19:17 PM): and he was ok with that
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:19:20 PM): wat
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:19:27 PM): your parentns
laybay343 (3/23/2006 11:19:51 PM): they didn't mind
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:20:50 PM): nope
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:20:56 PM): my mom screwed him
katiedidsings (3/23/2006 11:21:02 PM): dats y i live wit my dad now


The fact is that they totally talk these people into it. The "pedophile" in this case was 19.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=laybay343

[synthesis]

I'm going to put on the table that pedophilia is as completely acceptable as any other kind of human sexual attraction, but that the school system retards our emotional development so that pedophilia in a capitalist world is genuinely harmful to the victim (for lack of a better term).

Bullshit. A child's brain is simply not as developed as that of an adult. No revolution could ever negate the exploitative element of a 40-year-old man fucking a prepubescent child.

How exactly do heterogeneous school systems "retard our emotional development," anyways? What are you basing this on? Emotional development is a function of life experience, which is why pedophilia should always be regarded as unethical no matter what kind of school system we have.

[Luís Henrique]

But I think that 'active' paedophiles should be chemically castrated though, Just to stop their sexual hunger.
Bundy raped his victims with pieces of wood instead of his penis. How would chemical castration work upon this?

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

In the case of people like Bundy and other serial killers the sexual drive behind it is often to do with power issues and not with 'sex' drive in the same way we see it.
I don't thing castration would work either but I do think anybody who commited rape, which is what any act of paedophillia is, should be sent away for a very long time. It is a choice they make not something they are helpless against and a slave to.

It is the worst form of exploitation, of abuse and of selfishness that one human can do to another, and it should be treated as such.

[mannetje]

Bundy raped his victims with pieces of wood instead of his penis. How would chemical castration work upon this?

Luís Henrique There are always exceptions offcourse.

[KarlMarx1989]

No one should do anything sexual with a child, period. It confounds me that this is even debatable.:cursing:

[JJM 777]

No one should do anything sexual with a child, period. It confounds me that this is even debatable.
There are some evidently debatable details:
- How do you define "child", what is the age limit for "child"?
- Medical diagnosis for pedophilia means attraction to prepubescent children -- the age of onset of puberty varies from 9 to 16 or something.
- If two "children" want to play the doctor or do something else sexual with each other, is it OK?


Just what i said... do you think its a mental problem?
other questions to that are relevent i guess,

is it forgivable? would you defend the rights of a peadophile?
I think that the best place for pedophiles would be a "forbidden city", a town with age limit 21 years. It would offer a relatively typical life experience for these persons, without any chance to commit pedophilia because no persons under 21 years could ever enter the area.

There are many types of criminals, not only pedophiles but also rapists and violent thugs, whose release into the society is a huge risk, and unfortunately often leads to repeating the same crime after jail term ends. Keeping them in prison for life is not a very nice option either, because their crimes are not actually worth a life sentence. Some kind of a restricted city environment would be the best option, so these people are kept away from the mainstream population, but they still can live a fuller and more typical life than sitting in a small prison cell.

[willdw79]

I'm sure this argument has been argued many times on here... but (for the uk people) there is a program on itv about catching paedophiles on there internet, and it has got me thinking....
I've heard people defend peado's here, saying it is a mental problem... but that is somthing i DO NOT believe, not even for a second...
What i beleive, is that we should protect all children, and they are infinatly more important then peadophiles... anyone who has been abused in their life would agree im sure.
Children are our future, and if they are raped and abused, it isnt just somthing of nothing... it will ruin their lives forever, its total destruction of a life that will carry on for the next generations. i have a friend who was abused when she was younger and also another friend of mine, her daughter has been raped and its fucked them up, and people around them to, it is somthing that is wide spread and not a 'rare' thing... their is a big difference from looking at images and commiting them, and their is no excuse for either...

But, also, on a lighter note (i guess) the cops on this have caught a guy, by pretending to be a child... isnt that entrapment?

Anyway, does anyone agree with me? or am i alone in my views on this?
Pedophiles make for easy whipping boys. Yeah yeah, we all think they are shit especially those of us with kids like myself. But the weekly witch hunt which we have here in the states, where they trick some child molester into coming to a sting is kinda shitty. It seems like they don't want to rehab or otherwise help those people who are sick in the head of course. They only want to pubicly humiliate them, while its not totally a bad thing, it doesn't help society except inasmuch as it affords us the "five minutes hate" that Orwell describes in 1984. Ultimately it gets us nowhere because the people don't get treated, which if they did could at least help to solve the problem.

[MilitantAnarchist]

With the 'age' of consent, it toatally depends on how mature you are, if you need any sexual grooming whatsoever to go through with it, then you are too young... and if you are doing the grooming to get with a young girl (i'd say anywhere younger then 14 or 15) then it is toatally wrong... but the thing is today alot of girls between 12 and 15 arent children, some of them have kids... I have no problem with relationships with an age difference, but somtimes it is clear that it in the case of an older guy say in his late 40's or 50's, it is clearly an abuse of power.
It becomes clouded at teenage years, and the police being a flirty 14year old isnt fair, because for most males that are still young (18 - late 20's), the guy wont be thinking 'oh yea a child, mmmm'....
When it gets to younger then teenage years, then it is wrong on all levels for anyone older to take advantage. Anything that involves babies deserves... well, i dont think i need to say.

[gorillafuck]

Exactly... it isnt just a 'crime' tho, there is no excuse for rape atall... i've heard stories (as we all have) of girls who 'deserved' to get raped, and if we all think that that is bollocks, then someone abusing a child because they have 'issues' cannot be thought of like 'well, it is a mental condition...'
Pedophilia being recognized as a mental condition =/= Having no repercussions for molesting children

[#FF0000]

what sort of mental problems will the kid have after being abused?

Why, a number of them become abusers themselves. Go figure.

Anyway, send them away for rehabilitation for a long time, nothing cruel or unusual. They are ill, but that doesn't mean they can't be held responsible, and that, unfortunately, doesn't mean they can always be cured.

These pedophile witch hunts though, are ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the recidivism rate for that sort of crime is very low.

[Atrus]

"Naming and shaming" paedophiles helps NOTHING. Hell, sending paedophiles to prison helps nothing.

I agree, our children must be protected from exploitation and abuse as well as is possible. However, paedophiles are mentally ill, they cannot [necessarily] help it, and so I believe this should exempt them from retribution, such as being named and shamed, or the stupid act of sending them to prison, simply in a retributive manner.

They should be treated in a manner akin to a paranoid schizophrenic whom has committed a crime, who would not be sent to prison, but to somewhere secure to get help, so that they cannot harm others while they are ill, and they can work on controlling their illness. They should only be kept as long as it takes for them to get over this, and if this is impossible, sadly they may not be safe to be integrated back in to society on a full level.
To summarise, they should be prosecuted for their crimes, in a discrete manner, and their time should only be for helping them. Locking someone up for an arbitrary amount of time then letting them go doesn't help them or society, and encouraging vigilanteism and blood lust by naming and shaming them doesn't help anyone either, so why should either be applied in a civilised society?


EDIT: I'm against the idea of retribution in any case of "justice", but it is in cases of paedophilia that it seems most prevalent. Apologies for my poor wording.

[willdw79]

"Naming and shaming" paedophiles helps NOTHING. Hell, sending paedophiles to prison helps nothing.

I agree, our children must be protected from exploitation and abuse as well as is possible. However, paedophiles are mentally ill, they cannot [necessarily] help it, and so I believe this should exempt them from retribution, such as being named and shamed, or the stupid act of sending them to prison, simply in a retributive manner.

They should be treated in a manner akin to a paranoid schizophrenic whom has committed a crime, who would not be sent to prison, but to somewhere secure to get help, so that they cannot harm others while they are ill, and they can work on controlling their illness. They should only be kept as long as it takes for them to get over this, and if this is impossible, sadly they may not be safe to be integrated back in to society on a full level.
To summarise, they should be prosecuted for their crimes, in a discrete manner, and their time should only be for helping them. Locking someone up for an arbitrary amount of time then letting them go doesn't help them or society, and encouraging vigilanteism and blood lust by naming and shaming them doesn't help anyone either, so why should either be applied in a civilised society?


EDIT: I'm against the idea of retribution in any case of "justice", but it is in cases of paedophilia that it seems most prevalent. Apologies for my poor wording.
I agree mostly, but shaming is useful for the group to use to get people who disagree with certain rules to follow them even before they agree with them. It is overused in capitalism, thats abundantly clear. But i think with people who committ crimes against the working class, children, old people, they should be ashamed to some degree. I would rather if the people shame them. The media just want ratings, so I cant support them in their efforts, but if the family wants to put molestors, brutal cops, murderers, polluters, drug dealers, racist judges, or burgulars on blast, I'm for it. But I don't support the establishment having a monopoly on shaming which is nearly the case right now in the U.S.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Everyone has an oppinion, and i can agree with most of what you beleive no doubt, but when it comes to this sort of thing, there is no way i can, it doesnt bother me if it is a mental problem or not, that can excuse alot of shit that happens, i do no people with mental health issues (there is an art group in my town that is for people with mental health issues and i know them all, but thats a different thread...) and none of them have done anything like that, nor would they.
I know it is easy to say 'well what if it was your kids' or whatever and i know that is pointless because anything that is personal will not be impartial... But seriously, what if it was your kid? what if it was you? I've said it before but there is no excuse for rape, no matter what. And i will be honest i cant believe anyone who can say that peados dont belong in prison.... If ANYBODY belongs in jail, they do...
But, that is just my oppinion.

[Atrus]

I know it is easy to say 'well what if it was your kids' or whatever and i know that is pointless because anything that is personal will not be impartial... But seriously, what if it was your kid? what if it was you? I've said it before but there is no excuse for rape, no matter what. And i will be honest i cant believe anyone who can say that peados dont belong in prison.... If ANYBODY belongs in jail, they do...
But, that is just my oppinion.
I'm not old enough to have children, sadly, so couldn't really put myself in that place. However, I've been the victim of a few crimes, admittedly none anywhere near so serious, and feel no desire for retribution towards the criminals. In the cases of theft, I'd like the stuff that was taken to be returned, but that's that really.
I'm not saying they have an excuse for rape, but I'm saying that if their reason is something that can be fixed, you'd have to be insane to not fix it, then release them again. That's the reality of what prison does. Whereas my way, they get locked away for a while [which satisfies any remaining bloodlust, although I wish with all my heart that there was none] and it is productive time, everything gets sorted, in they return as a functioning member of society, ideally. I fail to see where prison holds any advantage over that, and so I don't believe that if it were my kid, that I'd want them to go to prison.


would rather if the people shame them. The media just want ratings, so I cant support them in their efforts, but if the family wants to put molestors, brutal cops, murderers, polluters, drug dealers, racist judges, or burgulars on blast, I'm for it. But I don't support the establishment having a monopoly on shaming which is nearly the case right now in the U.S.

The shame should be in the sentence, making them realise what they've done wrong and for their own conscience to bring shame on them, not by others in a method that encourages more than just shame, though. And many people won't forgive even after the person has reformed, which is silly.

[JJM 777]

These pedophile witch hunts though, are ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the recidivism rate for that sort of crime is very low.
Actually the recidivism rate is extremely high, more than 50% during the remaining lifetime of the person after being released from prison.

[Atrus]

Actually the recidivism rate is extremely high, more than 50% during the remaining lifetime of the person after being released from prison.

I think this just goes to show that imprisoning a paedophile is useless. And unless you're for imprisoning them until they die , which to me seems massively excessive, or even, heaven forbid, the death penalty for them, treatment is the best/only option.

[Lyev]

No one should do anything sexual with a child, period. It confounds me that this is even debatable.:cursing:

Totally agree with you man. If paedophiles can't help wanting to have sex with children, so be it. Why should the fact that they 'can't help' enter into it? Although I think criminals, paedophiles or not, that actually have clinically diagnosed mental disorders should be treated differently. However, it seems to me, that paedophiles say they 'can't help it' to justify the things they do they do because, of course, they don't want to be in the wrong. I fail to see how you can justify the paedophilic abuse of innocent children.

[JJM 777]

treatment is the best/only option.
You seem to believe that effective "treatment" exists, and that anyone is able to assess whose treatment has been "successful" and whose not.

The big problem is that nobody knows how to successfully change the minds of people who have mental disorders -- be they normal innocent people, or criminals guilty of some crime.

[KarlMarx1989]

- How do you define "child", what is the age limit for "child"?
If you're under 18, you should not do anything sexual with anyone under 4 years from you. If you are over 18:
-Anyone else over 18
-If over 21 no one under 18 (unless consent from parents of teens at least 16)

- Medical diagnosis for pedophilia means attraction to prepubescent children -- the age of onset of puberty varies from 9 to 16 or something.
People who are attracted to children should be admitted to get therapy

- If two "children" want to play the doctor or do something else sexual with each other, is it OK?
That is up to the parents of the children

There you go, all this seems reasonable.

Oh, and if anyone over 18 does anything with someone too young (especially if it is against the younger one's will) should be spayed or neutered.

[Atrus]

All entirely arbitrary and stupid.
I've just turned 18. The idea that I can do nothing with my [made up] 17 year old girlfriend? Ridiculous. I have a friend, also just turned 18, been with his 16 year old girlfriend for 3 years. You're saying that him having sex with her would have been legal for the past two years, and suddenly just became illegal.
Like I say, arbitrary and thus pointless.

[KarlMarx1989]

I've just turned 18. The idea that I can do nothing with my [made up] 17 year old girlfriend? Ridiculous. I have a friend, also just turned 18, been with his 16 year old girlfriend for 3 years. You're saying that him having sex with her would have been legal for the past two years, and suddenly just became illegal.
Actually, the part that you are talking about is kind of complicated to some. Let me rephrase it...

If you're under 18, you should not do anything sexual with anyone under 4 years from you. If you are over 18:
-Anyone else over 18
-Anyone as young as 16 with parents' consent
-If over 21 no one under 18 (unless consent from parents of teens at least 16)
I apologize, I should have explained it slightly more thoroughly the first time.

[KarlMarx1989]

So, if he has her parent's consent; he wouldn't get in trouble.

However, I do agree with you saying that it is somewhat pointless because people want to support pedophiles for whatever reason...:glare:

[KarlMarx1989]

I don't think anyone will make a law out of what I suggested.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Bollocks to all the different rules that goes to it, we all know what is right and wrong, the idea that we need rules to tell us what to do is stupid... but as i said, we know what is right, and if you do somthing like fucking a new born baby it is clearly wrong... so fuck anyone who breaches what we all know is 'right'...

I know things aint always as clear cut as that, and the 'right' and 'wrong' is more to do with the 'mind and soul' then 'law and order'...

[willdw79]

You seem to believe that effective "treatment" exists, and that anyone is able to assess whose treatment has been "successful" and whose not.

The big problem is that nobody knows how to successfully change the minds of people who have mental disorders -- be they normal innocent people, or criminals guilty of some crime.
The capitalists are not interested in rehabilitating people. Now the recidivists can be permanently part of the private-industry-backed prison industrial complex.

[Tjis]

Has been said before but deserves to be said again.
Not every pedophile is a sexual predator.
Not every sexual predator targetting children is a pedophile.

Programs like To catch a predator really piss me off. Khad posted a log earlier of the tactics of these kind of people. Pedophiles (or more acurately hebephiles actually) get convinced by these people to meet up with what they think is a willing girl, only to meet Chris Hansen smiling smugly, and an armed (and sometimes even masked!) arresting unit later. The majority of "predators" that get arrested because of these kinds of actions are not rapists. Many of them wouldn't even have considered going if the girl in the chat hadn't insisted on it.
Why are these people put in the same category as the guy who drags little girls into his van and then rapes them at an abandoned factory? Isn't the difference between the two obvious?

I think people that are pedophile and feel like they can't deal with their urges in a weak moment should seek help. Even if a cure is not possible, counseling could help them deal with their urges. But really, in today's society how many of them are willing to admit that, even without ever having touched a child? Pedophiles are automatically assumed to be rapists before having even committed any crime.

And slightly more chit-chatty:
hKUkwh8TmM0

Also check the related videos for the actual show to see for yourself.

[KarlMarx1989]

pe⋅do⋅phile –noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

There is only one definition for this. I think this explains it.

[KarlMarx1989]

Not every pedophile is a sexual predator.
True.

Not every sexual predator targetting children is a pedophile.
You mean that not every sexual predator is a pedophile.

A sexual preditor that targets children, by definition, is a pedophile.

[Tjis]

True.

You mean that not every sexual predator is a pedophile.

A sexual preditor that targets children, by definition, is a pedophile.

No. There are many motives to molest someone. Power, sadism... They might be getting off on the panic and fear they're creating, not on the age of the child. so a sexual predator targetting children does not have to be sexually attracted to them and therefore does not have to be a pedophile.

[KarlMarx1989]

That still doesn't make it right.

If anyone who has been through puberty does anything sexual to someone who has not been through puberty, whether or not it is against the will of the prepubescent one, is wrong and should be punishable by spay or neutering (castration) and prision time for what they've done.

[Tjis]

That still doesn't make it right.

If anyone who has been through puberty does anything sexual to someone who has not been through puberty, whether or not it is against the will of the prepubescent one, is wrong and should be punishable by spay or neutering (castration) and prision time for what they've done.

Where do you see me saying it is right?
I'm arguing that a pedophile who has not actually done anything wrong is not the same as a rapist, but this does seem to be common opinion. And because of this, many of these pedophiles are afraid to seek help which probably actually results in MORE children getting molested.

[KarlMarx1989]

OK. What I was saying that if, and only if, a pedophile acts on his / her desires for children; that person should be castrated and punished.

[Kukulofori]

Bullshit. A child's brain is simply not as developed as that of an adult. No revolution could ever negate the exploitative element of a 40-year-old man fucking a prepubescent child.

How exactly do heterogeneous school systems "retard our emotional development," anyways? What are you basing this on? Emotional development is a function of life experience, which is why pedophilia should always be regarded as unethical no matter what kind of school system we have.

People don't have life experience when they're busy taking notes and doing homework.


That is up to the parents of the children

There you go, all this seems reasonable.

Yeah, I agree. Childrens' freedoms should be the whims of their parents. They are property, after all. Nothing unreasonable about that.

Am I at a revolutionary leftist board or an after school special??

[JJM 777]

Well in my opinion, a Socialist state should protect children from unreasonable restrictions set by some parents, to ensure that all children can quite equally enjoy all reasonable joys of life.

Some parents of teenagers assist and fund the teen the get some alcohol and visit discos, and maybe have a girlfriend stay overnight in the bedroom at home. Other parents strictly forbid all of these. Where is the equality?

[synthesis]

People don't have life experience when they're busy taking notes and doing homework.

Your argument is essentially that schools should be preparing children to have sex with adults.

Bullshit. No one goes to school for life experience.

Schools can only ever teach knowledge second-hand. Life experience is learned outside of school, and children simply don't have enough to make that choice.

[KarlMarx1989]

Life experience is learned outside of school, and children simply don't have enough to make that choice.
I agree. The brain develops outside of school--experience--and in school--mental--so child molestation or practices of pedophilia or whatever people call it should not be tolerated. This will give the child a more enriched experience in life along with a quality education.

[JJM 777]

The capitalists are not interested in rehabilitating people. Now the recidivists can be permanently part of the private-industry-backed prison industrial complex.
Even if this claim were true in American politics, it is not true in the politics of most countries in the world, where prisons are state-funded, and higher prison costs mean more need for taxpayer money, which mostly comes from the pockets of the biggest taxpayers, the wealthy elite.

The human mind is the biggest mystery for science. Not only in criminal cases, but in all cases of psychiatric anomalies.

[gorillafuck]

Some parents of teenagers assist and fund the teen the get some alcohol and visit discos, and maybe have a girlfriend stay overnight in the bedroom at home. Other parents strictly forbid all of these. Where is the equality?
I agree that a socialist state needs to support youth rights, but I think actually criminalizing not letting your teenager sleep with her/his partner is pretty unfeasible.

[Manifesto]

A sample log from one of these shows (with the shitty commentary removed):
The fact is that they totally talk these people into it. The "pedophile" in this case was 19.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=laybay343
Yes they do talk some of the people into it but originally I was just wondering what the OP was talking about.

[KarlMarx1989]

It is border line entrapment, but the adult has to initiate it in order for them to make a move. So, it is not really entrapment, by definition of law.

[Kukulofori]

Your argument is essentially that schools should be preparing children to have sex with adults.

Bullshit. No one goes to school for life experience.

Schools can only ever teach knowledge second-hand. Life experience is learned outside of school, and children simply don't have enough to make that choice.

What the fucking fuck? My argument is that schools shouldn't be such authoritarian bullshit where some grownup indoctrinates children with propoganda about what learning is for 7+ hours a day; that they should not exist in their current form whatsoever. What is this shit?

As long as it's relevant, as an anarchist I realise that the state is the only thing giving parents the ridiculous amounts of power they have over "their" offspring. It's not some god-given right.

[Agnapostate]

Then you're not speaking of pedophilia specifically. However pro-pedophile forces might mask it, I suspect that they'd prefer a harem of prepubescent children to prepubescent children who can just as easily refuse them and aren't especially interested in the legitimate issue of age restrictions being poor measurements of competence.

[synthesis]

What the fucking fuck? My argument is that schools shouldn't be such authoritarian bullshit where some grownup indoctrinates children with propoganda about what learning is for 7+ hours a day; that they should not exist in their current form whatsoever. What is this shit?

What the fucking fuck? What does this have to do with pedophilia?



As long as it's relevant, as an anarchist I realise that the state is the only thing giving parents the ridiculous amounts of power they have over "their" offspring. It's not some god-given right.

LOL, parents' power over children has existed long before any human conceptualized the idea of "the state." It's not even unique to humans. What is this shit?

Also, as long as it's relevant, as an anarchist you should realize that power structures can easily exist independently of the state, and that pedophiles could just as easily replace parents as authority figures if circumstances allowed for it... remember ancient Greece?

[KarlMarx1989]

parents' power over children has existed long before any human conceptualized the idea of "the state." It's not even unique to humans.
OK, just a quick statement: I think that if parents have to use excessive physical violence (other than traditional corporal punishment) to get their children to submit should have the children taken away. Otherwise, I agree that the parents should have an amount of authority over the child.

Also, as long as it's relevant, as an anarchist you should realize that power structures can easily exist independently of the state, and that pedophiles could just as easily replace parents as authority figures if circumstances allowed for it
This another good example of how an anarchy would fail to succeed.

[JJM 777]

if parents have to use excessive physical violence (other than traditional corporal punishment) to get their children to submit
An interesting definition, since many humans of any age submit to anyone and anything long before this level of violence is reached.

[KarlMarx1989]

Exactly, so excessive violence is not needed. However, I do know that it is still used a lot.

[Absolut]

This another good example of how an anarchy would fail to succeed.

Right. Because we certainly need a state in order to keep pedophiles from becoming authority figures. :rolleyes:

The point Kun Fana makes though, is very important and I am in no way trying to ridicule it, but Im not sure if this is the place for discussing independent power structures.

[Tjis]

LOL, parents' power over children has existed long before any human conceptualized the idea of "the state." It's not even unique to humans. What is this shit?
LOL sexism has existed long before any human conceptualized the idea of "the state." It's not even unique to humans. So sexism should never ever be criticized!

... Not a very good argument now is it?

[synthesis]

LOL sexism has existed long before any human conceptualized the idea of "the state." It's not even unique to humans. So sexism should never ever be criticized!

... Not a very good argument now is it?

It wasn't an argument.

[MilitantAnarchist]

To be honest, i don’t know how many parents are here, but im sure none of them would let a paedophile baby sit their kids.... so the debate about it being a 'mental issue' or whether they are a 'rapist' or not is irrelevant... the fact is they shouldn’t even get the opportunity to act out any fantasy, and if you can prevent them being in that position, it can only be a good thing surely?

[JJM 777]

Well then, how can you prevent them from being in that position?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Once you've identified a paedo, this probably goes more towards ones that are caught physically abusing, but i think under this type of government you should lock em up without protection of the guards... ones that are caught with child porn should be sent to jail but offered rehabilitation and when released monitored by social workers and the community, and if they are caught doing it again, then stick em back inside without protection....

But im not a politician or law maker, so these are just opinions. I think being 'nice' shouldnt come into it, people need to know what is right or wrong and although right and wrong could be considered a matter of opinion, nobody can deny paedophilia / child abuse is totally wrong and fucked up, and if we want to build a better future we've got to stamp it out.

And it isnt about 'definitions' of paedophilia, we all know what we're talking about, we're talking about people who want to fuck little kids.... 9.9 times out of 10 i DONT think it could be down to a mental illness, my basis for that is not that long ago homosexuality was classed as an illness...

[gorillafuck]

This another good example of how an anarchy would fail to succeed.
I agree that a workers state needs to be established, but I hardly see how anarchism would fail due to pedophiles.

[revolt4thewin]

Pedos should burn they no good for any one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M44m0c4cAwM
2:38-3:32

[debase89]

yeah filthy killers of children. they dont deserve crap

[Q]

I do believe that paedophiles are mentally ill.
While I'm sure this will cause a stir, I think you're quite wrong. Back in the 1950's they thought of gays as "mentally ill" too. Today we accept that to be a backward view. I don't think there is a difference, purely from a biological/mental point of view, between straight, gays or, indeed, pedo's

That is of course not to say we should just accept the lusts of pedo's, given that children are not capable of consensual sex and there is highly likely a chance of coercion by the adult. But it is not a problem that is going away if we just find the right "cure" for it. We need to deal with it for what it is: a sexual preference. Do I have answers on how to deal with them? Well, for starters, keep them away from children, otherwise I'm not entirely sure. But we can't find solutions if we don't accept it for what it is and remain in the 1950's on this.

[Agnapostate]

Actually, I think there's a legitimate basis for classification of pedophilia as a mental illness outside of political influences, though those certainly play a role in the stigmatization of balanced discussion of the topic...and I believe that should apply to nothing, not even to white nationalism or fascism or any such view. If they're so outrageously wrong, they should be easily rejected by logical argument anyway. At any rate, here's what I've said previously:


To first consider the nature of pedophilia's possible status as a neurodevelopmental disorder, an interesting case documented by Burns and Swerdlow in Right Orbitofrontal Tumor With Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign (http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/3/437) may provide appropriate insights. Consider this excerpt:


The patient displayed impulsive sexual behavior with pedophilia, marked constructional apraxia, and agraphia. The behavioral symptoms and constructional deficits, including agraphia, resolved following tumor resection...For patients with acquired sociopathy and paraphilia, an orbitofrontal localization requires consideration. This case further illustrates that constructional apraxia can arise from right prefrontal lobe dysfunction. Agraphia may represent a manifestation of constructional apraxia in the absence of aphasia and ideomotor apraxia.

In layman's terms, the "impulsive sexual behavior with children" was documented after the formation of an orbitofrontal tumor in the patient's brain, and his pedophiliac interests disappeared after the removal of said tumor. Now, a somewhat similar result can be derived from Casanova et al.'s Hippocampal pathology in two mentally ill paraphiliacs (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925492702000264). Consider the abstract:


Paraphilias or disorders of sexual behavior have markedly increased in prevalence during the last decade. Until now no published neuropathological studies on paraphilia have appeared in the medical literature. A computerized search was done on all available medical and autopsy records of a large urban hospital (St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, DC) for any mention of deviant sexual behavior. Cases were then reviewed for presence of a history consistent with DSM-IV diagnoses of paraphilia. Two such cases were identified. Neuropathological examination in both cases revealed simple cell atrophy of pyramidal cells confined to different hippocampal subfields. Reactive astrocytosis was present in the outer strata of the affected regions. The pathological changes in the hippocampus resemble those reported after persistent stress or long-term chronic glucocorticoid administration. The accompanying astrocytosis indicates a reactive, ongoing process. The findings suggest new therapeutic interventions in the treatment of paraphilia.

Tost et al's. Pedophilia: neuropsychological evidence encouraging a brain network perspective (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987704001872) also provides similar credence to a broadly neurodevelopmental hypothesis. Consider the abstract:


Although the vast majority of current pathogenetic theories support a neurobiological understanding of psychiatric disorders, the brain functional correlates of pedophilia are largely unknown. Based on prior behavior genetics research on human sexual orientation and phenomenology as well as the phenotypical intersection of pedophilia with other psychiatric spectrum disorders, we hypothesize the involvement of striato–thalamo–cortical processing loops in the formation of pedophilic urges and behaviors. Data from a current neuropsychological pilot study in four pedophiles encourage our brain functional perspective. As deduced from the network model, all four patients exhibited pronounced and circumscribed deficits in cognitive domains mediated by striato-thalamically controlled areas of the frontal cortex. All patients were especially impaired in neuropsychological functions associated with the prefrontal and motor processing loops (e.g., response inhibition, working memory and cognitive flexibility), with a performance level located up to five standard deviations below the normative data.

I'm inclined to believe that pedophilia's origins as a neurodevelopmental disorder can be traced back to the incidence of head injury in early childhood. As with the broad hypothesis about the neurodevelopmental elements of pedophilia and related paraphilias, there are important empirical sources to consult on this matter.

For instance, it's of considerable relevance to consider the implications of Blanchard et al.'s Retrospective Self-Reports of Childhood Accidents Causing Unconsciousness in Phallometrically Diagnosed Pedophiles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q51l1j12x75832p2/). Consider the abstract:


The present study investigated whether head injuries in childhood might increase the risk of pedophilia in males. The subjects were 1206 patients referred to a clinical sexology service for assessment of their erotic preferences. These were classified, on the basis of phallometric test results, as pedophilic (n = 413) or nonpedophilic (n = 793). Information regarding early head injuries, other signs of possible neurodevelopmental problems, and parental histories of psychiatric treatment were collected with self-administered questionnaires. The results showed that childhood accidents that resulted in unconsciousness were associated with pedophilia and with lower levels of intelligence and education. These associations were statistically significant for accidents that occurred before the age of 6, but not for accidents that occurred between the ages of 6 and 12. These results are compatible with the hypothesis that neurodevelopmental perturbations in early childhood may increase the risk of pedophilia. They are also, however, compatible with the alternative explanation that prior neurodevelopmental problems lead to accident-proneness and head injury, on the one hand, and to pedophilia, on the other, and that head injury has no causal influence on pedophilia.

All in all, I'm inclined to believe that the continued classification of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and related and similar publications as a mental illness is appropriate, since there is significant evidence that indicates that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder with causal origins in head injury or some other condition that creates a greater propensity to sustain head injury.

[KarlMarx1989]

I hardly see how anarchism would fail due to pedophiles.
It wouldn't fail due to the pedophiles, I was just saying that it would not work; period. Besides, in an anarchist society, a pedophile would have the freedom to do as he / she (Yes, women can be pedophiles; too) pleases. Sure, they will be killed by other people, but what about the pedophiles who get away with it without anyone seeing or hearing of that person doing such a thing? And what about people who are fit to survive no matter what, and are still pedophiles who practice what they love to do?!

[Tjis]

It wouldn't fail due to the pedophiles, I was just saying that it would not work; period. Besides, in an anarchist society, a pedophile would have the freedom to do as he / she (Yes, women can be pedophiles; too) pleases. Sure, they will be killed by other people, but what about the pedophiles who get away with it without anyone seeing or hearing of that person doing such a thing? And what about people who are fit to survive no matter what, and are still pedophiles who practice what they love to do?!

So, how would a non-anarchist socialist/communist society get the pedophile who gets away with it without anyone seeing or hearing anything? Magic? This goes for all crime, not just child molesting. Saying anarchism is bad because an anarchist society can't do the impossible is just silly.

[Trystan]

It wouldn't fail due to the pedophiles, I was just saying that it would not work; period. Besides, in an anarchist society, a pedophile would have the freedom to do as he / she (Yes, women can be pedophiles; too) pleases. Sure, they will be killed by other people, but what about the pedophiles who get away with it without anyone seeing or hearing of that person doing such a thing? And what about people who are fit to survive no matter what, and are still pedophiles who practice what they love to do?!

You clearly don't have the first clue about anarchism.

Of course in an anarchist society it would be considered an act of legitimate authority (as exercised by the commune) to keep paedophiles away from kids.

[KarlMarx1989]

So, how would a non-anarchist socialist/communist society get the pedophile who gets away with it without anyone seeing or hearing anything?
Well, OK; I'll give you that. I actually caught that a few minutes after I wrote it and figured that you (plural) would catch it, too.

Of course in an anarchist society it would be considered an act of legitimate authority (as exercised by the commune) to keep paedophiles away from kids.
Hmm. Perhaps I don't. Explain further, how would this work?

[Trystan]

Well, OK; I'll give you that. I actually caught that a few minutes after I wrote it and figured that you (plural) would catch it, too.

Hmm. Perhaps I don't. Explain further, how would this work?

Well, I imagine it would involve something like keeping them detained whilst treating them.

But anyway, I don't see how a State would deal with paepophiles any more effectively than anarchist organisations would. I mean, there's always going to be some sick fucks out there - what can the State do to stop them every time?

[EqualityandFreedom]

Actually, I think there's a legitimate basis for classification of pedophilia as a mental illness outside of political influences, though those certainly play a role in the stigmatization of balanced discussion of the topic...and I believe that should apply to nothing, not even to white nationalism or fascism or any such view. If they're so outrageously wrong, they should be easily rejected by logical argument anyway. At any rate, here's what I've said previously:

You may well be right but is not at least conceivable in the case of the man who started expressing pedophiliac behaviour when he developed a brain tumour that the man in question always had to some extent attraction to children which he may not even have been consciously aware of and at any rate was able to suppress but the brain tumour deprived him of the ability to inhibit these attractions. Now that the brain tumour is removed his inhibitory faculties are restored so he is at no risk of re-offending but may still have an underlying attraction to children which he is if he is even aware of it hardly going to admit to if there is even the remote possibility of having his convictions overturned. In the other case it may be true but correlation does not imply causation (we do not have anyway of knowing that these individuals who sustained brain damage in early childhood would not grow up to be pedophiles if they had not sustained this brain damage, they may well have not become child sex offenders having the ability to inhibit sexual urges towards children but this does not mean they would not have these urges at all) and there are many cases which appear in the news of individuals which appear in all respects to be 'normal' with no signs of neuropathology and of average or above average intellegence who are repeat child sex offenders.

[Outinleftfield]

I dont think pedophilia is something genetic like homosexuality. I think a lot of people make that assumption thinking "if homosexuality isn't a choice then maybe neither is pedophilia".

Maybe but without some evidence there's no reason to think that. You're making a big jump from "A is caused by B" so therefore "C is caused by B" without any evidence in between. I think it's more likely that pedophilia is about power. There's evidence for this. Chemically(or otherwise) castrating child rapists doesn't always work just like it doesn't always work for adult rapists. The pedophile feels a need to overpower someone and consider children easy prey. They most likely feel this need because they don't feel like they have any power anywhere else in their lives. Pedophilia is another evil that would mostly go away without capitalism, which leads to many people lacking power and control over their own lives.

I think child molesters just need to stay in jail forever. Any other solution is inadequate.

[Outinleftfield]

It wouldn't fail due to the pedophiles, I was just saying that it would not work; period. Besides, in an anarchist society, a pedophile would have the freedom to do as he / she (Yes, women can be pedophiles; too) pleases. Sure, they will be killed by other people, but what about the pedophiles who get away with it without anyone seeing or hearing of that person doing such a thing? And what about people who are fit to survive no matter what, and are still pedophiles who practice what they love to do?!

Well, if no one sees or hears of a pedophile doing anything now the pedophile doesn't get caught because there's no evidence. So what's your point?

And in anarchy you could have organizations that would go out, look at evidence, arrest pedophiles and other people, put them on trial, and convict them, and then punish them in some way. It fits into anarchy as long as these organizations don't prohibit other organizations from doing the same thing.

[Tjis]

Maybe but without some evidence there's no reason to think that. You're making a big jump from "A is caused by B" so therefore "C is caused by B" without any evidence in between. I think it's more likely that pedophilia is about power. There's evidence for this. Chemically(or otherwise) castrating child rapists doesn't always work just like it doesn't always work for adult rapists. The pedophile feels a need to overpower someone and consider children easy prey. They most likely feel this need because they don't feel like they have any power anywhere else in their lives. Pedophilia is another evil that would mostly go away without capitalism, which leads to many people lacking power and control over their own lives.

You have a point with child molesters, but not pedophiles. Not every pedophile is a child molester. In fact lots of them hate their urges and would never act on them.



And in anarchy you could have organizations that would go out, look at evidence, arrest pedophiles and other people, put them on trial, and convict them, and then punish them in some way. It fits into anarchy as long as these organizations don't prohibit other organizations from doing the same thing.
No. Unless given that right by a direct decision of the people, no organization should have the right to arrest, let alone punish anyone. We don't want groups running around arresting people for being homosexual for example.

[Outinleftfield]

No. Unless given that right by a direct decision of the people, no organization should have the right to arrest, let alone punish anyone. We don't want groups running around arresting people for being homosexual for example.

So if there's a direct decision of the people to arrest homosexuals you'd find it justified?

By the same action I meant down to the last detail so "arresting somebody for murder" and "arresting somebody for being a homosexual" are not the same act, and there is no hypocrisy in holding that everyone has a right to the first but not the second.

I imagine that wouldn't be a problem thought. Most organizations would consider force used against people for being homosexual to be illegitimate violence and would be arresting people in organizations that try to make and enforce laws against homosexuality for assault, battery, and kidnapping. So organizations even if they believe that its wrong and would arrest people for it would refrain from doing that because the force (all the ability to use it in society) wouldn't be on their side. They'd be free to enforce say laws against murder but not their laws against homosexuality.

If something is right it's right for anyone. It is wrong for anyone period regardless of whether the people approve or not to arrest or imprison people for homosexuality. However, it is absolutely right to arrest and imprison for murder.

If you do anything and then condemn people for doing the same thing as you then that's hypocrisy. There has to be some difference in what the other person is doing that justifies different treatment (i.e. the way they choose to run the trials or the way they sentence).

[KarlMarx1989]

And in anarchy you could have organizations that would go out, look at evidence, arrest pedophiles and other people, put them on trial, and convict them, and then punish them in some way. It fits into anarchy as long as these organizations don't prohibit other organizations from doing the same thing.
That is my problem with anarchy. How many people would actually be willing to volunteer like this. Even if there is a large group who bands together and is fully cooperative to do all this, isn't that government; right there? A small group of people overseeing the protection of their people and arresting and punishing people who've done wrong (even though there are no laws), yeah; that sound pretty close to government, to me.

[tellyontellyon]

I'm a psychotherapist and have worked with a number of sexually abused individuals. It can be devastating.

There are several different types of Paedophile.
Some are clearly suffering from delusions and halucinations.
Some have severe personality disorders and use sex with children to avoid extremely severe disorganising anxiety.
Some don't regret it afterwards.

Many others are lonely, inadequate, infantile men who molest a child while drunk (usually drunk) or on drugs and feel very guilty later on.

Something that has been highlighted lately in the UK is the number of female paedophiles that go undetected. The numbers are believed to be far higher expected as there is a very poor detection rate.

Children must be protected, but any paedophile clearly has psychological problems of one form or another.
I don't believe that some people are just 'evil'. It is possible to have compassion for somebody and even understand them. That doesn't mean we have to agree with their choices or think what they are doing is 'ok'.

Any psychotherapists out there might try reading:
The Mind of the Paedophile, Psychoanalytic Perspectives.
Ed. by Charles W. Socarides with Loretta R. Loeb.

[noway]

what gives, man..

3rd time I have come across this topic... what is going on...

[Il Medico]

OK. What I was saying that if, and only if, a pedophile acts on his / her desires for children; that person should be castrated and punished.
When did "leftist" start advocating an Hammurabi's code like set of laws?? If these people are mentally ill, then they should be treated like people with other mental disorders who commit crimes due to their illness. They should be treated, not castrated.

[Outinleftfield]

That is my problem with anarchy. How many people would actually be willing to volunteer like this. Even if there is a large group who bands together and is fully cooperative to do all this, isn't that government; right there? A small group of people overseeing the protection of their people and arresting and punishing people who've done wrong (even though there are no laws), yeah; that sound pretty close to government, to me.

If it allows identical or more minimal organizations performing the exact same functions or less(only arrests for the same crimes or less, has trials with the same rights for the accused or more, and sentences as harshly or more leniently than the organization) i.e. it does not monopolize then it is not a state.

And why wouldn't people volunteer for this? How do governments start in the first place then if no one is ever going to volunteer to do this? Furthermore its not like there wouldn't be economic incentives to make it worth people's while i.e. police cooperatives would be rewarded for their policing.

[Nightingale27]

I can not belive some people support people who do things I do not even want to start to think about with Children.

Anyone who does should be imprisoned for life, fuck rehab for them. The victim is the one who needs support.

Utter scum every single one of them (and their sympathiser who want to understand them).

[Holden Caulfield]

I can not belive some people support people who do things I do not even want to start to think about with Children.


don't worry right wingers like you and workerist authorotarians like me will always be at the barricades on this issue

[Jazzratt]

don't worry right wingers like you and workerist authorotarians like me will always be at the barricades on this issue

HUR HURRR I CAN MAKE UNTHINKING KNEEJERK DECISIONS JUST LIKE YOU GUYS. :drool:

[Orange Juche]

I'm going to agree that adults who willingly and knowingly engage in sexual activity with children, who exploit them, are mentally ill. It is a form of rape. Just as those who rape adults are mentally ill.

But...

What if someone were attracted to children, but doesn't act on it? Are they mentally ill? And if so, where do we draw that line... where, outside of straight heterosexuality, does a certain sexual preference become an illness? Only when the act of that sexual preference is either immoral, or just "seems weird?" I mean, theres all kinds of fetishes out there that don't involve exploitation or immoral acts, but that people would consider rather weird. Does social acceptability define what desires are and aren't mental illness?

My question is - when does it go from acceptable sexual desire to mental illness?

[Jazzratt]

My question is - when does it go from acceptable sexual desire to mental illness?

While this is obviously a question that requires a more detailed response I'd probably say that the cut off point is when the desire overwhelms self control or "morality". If I had, for example, some sort of rape fantasy but remained content to simulate the experience with a willing partner or watch similarly simulated scenes of the same it would be an acceptable sexual desire. However if, because of this desire, I went out and began raping people there would obviously be something wrong with me. I'm not, obviously, suggesting that my desire has immediatly become a mental illness, but that I am prepared to do something atrocious because of it indicates that I am quite possibly mentally unwell and in possible need of treatment or rehabilitation.

The question does become more complicated when considering abberant desires such as desire for children, animals and so on. Whether or not these are mental illnesses in and of themselves is a thorny question I am unable to answer and reticent to touch.

[Reiner]

Imo, the paedophiles (provided by the really really good arguements and very very good evidence of the crime) must be sterilised. And a tatoo on their cheek - paedophile (spelling?).

[Orange Juche]

Imo, the paedophiles (provided by the really really good arguements and very very good evidence of the crime) must be sterilised. And a tatoo on their cheek - paedophile (spelling?).

It is impossible to set up a system where we can guarantee with 100% certainty that innocent people wont be convicted. Especially in terms of sexual crimes which, depending on the specific act, can go without any physical evidence at all.

[Jazzratt]

Imo, the paedophiles (provided by the really really good arguements and very very good evidence of the crime) must be sterilised.

Why? That's just fucking stupid. The only possible reason for sterilising a paedophile I can possibly think of is to stop them producing children specifically to abuse them which, while it's definately something we should try to prevent, isn't really the modus operandi of your common or garden paedophile. I don't really see how sterilising them works as a reasonable and sane punishment.


And a tatoo on their cheek - paedophile (spelling?).

Are we going to start irreversibly disfiguring other criminals too?

Why is it that the moment anyone mentions paedophiles otherwise rational human beings seem to wave goodbye to their sanity, humanity and common sense in order to propose barbaric and nonsensical solutions to problems that are far from clear-cut. People seem to get as fucking loopy about it as I've seen some get about "the terrorists".

If your "solution" to the problem includes lopping off important and/or intimate bits you've probably failed at being a civilised human being and may well feel more comfortable at stormfront.

[harry roberts]

Let them rot! if paedophilia is a mental disorder like other mental disorders than i would argue it doesn't change the fact that a disgusting crime has occurred (obviously if the paedophile acts on their urges).

The nature of the crime (that's assuming they acted on their urges) is horrendous and punishment is necessary. I'd argue several reasons.



One set an example warning others of the consequences of hurting a child (I acknowledge that perhaps people may ignore the threat of punishment but they cannot argue they have not be warn).


The second reason is the ridiculously high offending rate. Punishment, be it chemical castration (cause lets be honest that's what it is) or imprisonment or whatever will prevent this specific individual (who acted on their urges) from re-offending. The rights of the child must come before the rights of a pedo.

The third reason and people on here will take issue with this...but punishment in this case is justice. you commit a heinous crime you must pay.

On a side note I'm shocked and dismayed how this is even an issue. Im even more shocked by the suggestion that a sexual attraction to children can be an acceptable sexual desire. For me never, and for i hope it never becomes acceptable in society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Let them rot! if paedophilia is a mental disorder like other mental disorders than i would argue it doesn't change the fact that a disgusting crime has occurred (obviously if the paedophile acts on their urges).

No one is saying that it isn't a disgusting crime, but the fact that it is a mental disorder seems to suggest that somone isn't quite right, and should be helped accordingly. Letting them rot is offering no solution.

[harry roberts]

No one is saying that it isn't a disgusting crime, but the fact that it is a mental disorder seems to suggest that somone isn't quite right, and should be helped accordingly. Letting them rot is offering no solution.

what helped can be provided?

Its not my fault guv. I'm mental?
fuck that for a laugh.... people need help I agree with regards to mental health BUT IF we accept that being a pedo is a mental disorder are we providing an excuse for vile people to pry on innocent children?

[Orange Juche]

On a side note I'm shocked and dismayed how this is even an issue. Im even more shocked by the suggestion that a sexual attraction to children can be an acceptable sexual desire. For me never, and for i hope it never becomes acceptable in society.

I think the discussion here isn't really revolving around whether or not a "sexual attraction to children can be an acceptable sexual desire." It's whether or not the desire (without acting on it) is a mental illness, and what constitutes a sexual desire (in and of itself) as a mental illness. Obviously molestation and rape are a product of mental illness, but that's not what I'm talking about. I agree that pedophilia shouldn't be acceptable, but rather than demonizing those who are non-offenders, we should try and help them not be pedophiles. This, based on potential risks, not whether or not it is a "mental illness."

Check this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/703251/top_10_weird_sexual_fetishes_and_paraphilias.html? cat=7

Which of those are and aren't mental illnesses? What constitutes a desire, and a desire alone, as a mental illness?

[harry roberts]

fuck me sideways.....
DAM PERVERTS!

anyway i get what your saying about desire and mental illness.... people can't help being attracted to certain things (hence all the stuff about homosexuality which if am honest i don't think should be linked in anyway with any subject to do with paedophilia because of homophobe arguments of the past but thats beside the point).

IMO i do think that desire and sexual preference has a lot to do with choice. That's why i think homosexuals couples are cool....they choose to live like that and good on them. But on the other hand i also get how biology and psycology related with the freedom to choose creating one fucking complex scenario. I guess that this would realte to attraction to children. I think that the degree of free will that exists in each of us especially with regards to sexuality (e.g. you can choose to force yourself into the closet and deny your sexuality to yourself). This freedom of choice is important if a pedo acts on their desires than i guess we all agree terrible punishments must befall said pedo.

The essence of this whole debate than is what to do to prevent the aforementioned person from acting on there attraction to kids? Here i would have to say that balance between the carrot and the stick must be struck up. Yes support and care must be provided as it is a mental illness but because of how dramatic the consequences are if treatment fails the stick must be ready to protect and punish.


i realy sound like a jackbooted right winger don't i.....:blushing:
need to become more accepting and more understanding methinks

[Stranger Than Paradise]

IMO i do think that desire and sexual preference has a lot to do with choice.

No you are wrong, Sexual preference isn't a choice.

[Il Medico]

While I'm sure this will cause a stir, I think you're quite wrong. Back in the 1950's they thought of gays as "mentally ill" too. Today we accept that to be a backward view. I don't think there is a difference, purely from a biological/mental point of view, between straight, gays or, indeed, pedo's

That is of course not to say we should just accept the lusts of pedo's, given that children are not capable of consensual sex and there is highly likely a chance of coercion by the adult. But it is not a problem that is going away if we just find the right "cure" for it. We need to deal with it for what it is: a sexual preference. Do I have answers on how to deal with them? Well, for starters, keep them away from children, otherwise I'm not entirely sure. But we can't find solutions if we don't accept it for what it is and remain in the 1950's on this.
I am tempted to agree with you on this Q, but what bothers me is I can't see how sexual attraction to someone who is not sexually developed is a natural thing. If it is not some sort of mental illness then surely there is something that causes pedophiles to be attracted sexually to those who shouldn't seem sexually attractive. (due to the fact that they haven't gone through puberty yet.)

[harry roberts]

No you are wrong, Sexual preference isn't a choice.

We don't choose who we are attracted to and who we like? Thats a bit depressing isnt it?

guess im in a minority thinking like that

[Orange Juche]

I am tempted to agree with you on this Q, but what bothers me is I can't see how sexual attraction to someone who is not sexually developed is a natural thing.

Homosexuality could be, and is, argued as not a "natural thing." (I am in no way personally comparing the two or saying homosexuality and pedophilia are related, or have some kind of moral equivalence. I'm saying the same argument is made by some against homosexuality.)

What constitutes "natural?" What makes something "natural" or "unnatural?" Its direct function in falling in line with the purpose of sexuality (to reproduce)? Social acceptability? Sexual preferences, whatever they may be, naturally occur. That has no bearing on their moral acceptability. Based on what you said, I can only infer that the final line of that logic results in homosexuality also being unnatural (attraction to someone whom it is impossible to create offspring with).

I would agree with an assessment that pedophilia is a problem (even just as a desire), and we should do whatever possible to help people with that desire not be that way anymore (being that it is destructive).

But unnatural? Is there any biological or psychological occurrence that is unnatural, regardless of whether it is positive or negative?

[tellyontellyon]

Mmmmm
For me, I think it is wrong to think in terms of any particular sexual preference being natural or not... i.e. male or female or child...
It is more a matter of thinking in terms of ... "Is it abusive or not abusive?"

Clearly a person can have non-abusive, consensual sex with an adult of either sex...
...also you might have non-consensual, abusive, harmful, violent, drugged, rape, etc.... which would be abusive... and wrong.

I cannot see how sex with a child could ever be anything but harmful and abusive. There is a massive power difference between a child and an adult and so a child could never truly give consent.

I know a man who had been abused sexually when he was 4yrs old. He killed himself when he was 40. It was so so sad watching him being lowered into the grave.

[Orange Juche]

I cannot see how sex with a child could ever be anything but harmful and abusive. There is a massive power difference between a child and an adult and so a child could never truly give consent.

I know a man who had been abused sexually when he was 4yrs old. He killed himself when he was 40. It was so so sad watching him being lowered into the grave.

I completely agree that its horrendous. And that people who have that preference, even if they are completely opposed to nor would ever act on it, should receive therapy to help them out of it (simply because of the nature of the actual act).

I just don't know what to think when people throw around "mental illness," because really, I don't know what that means, because there appears to be no clear cut answer to exactly what that is. I fully agree that those who actually exploit and abuse others in such a way are mentally ill, without question. Its the question of desires, and desires alone, and which are and aren't mental illnesses, and what this is based on.

[Il Medico]

Homosexuality could be, and is, argued as not a "natural thing." (I am in no way personally comparing the two or saying homosexuality and pedophilia are related, or have some kind of moral equivalence. I'm saying the same argument is made by some against homosexuality.)

What constitutes "natural?" What makes something "natural" or "unnatural?" Its direct function in falling in line with the purpose of sexuality (to reproduce)? Social acceptability? Sexual preferences, whatever they may be, naturally occur. That has no bearing on their moral acceptability. Based on what you said, I can only infer that the final line of that logic results in homosexuality also being unnatural (attraction to someone whom it is impossible to create offspring with).

I would agree with an assessment that pedophilia is a problem (even just as a desire), and we should do whatever possible to help people with that desire not be that way anymore (being that it is destructive).

But unnatural? Is there any biological or psychological occurrence that is unnatural, regardless of whether it is positive or negative?
I was not intending unnatural to mean attraction to someone who can not reproduce. Unnatural is probably the wrong word, but I can not think of a better one. When a person goes through puberty, a kinda "hey sex sounds good" light goes on and you also start to be attracted others who are also post-pubescent. I must admit that I know little about the biology of puberty and I am asking someone more knowledgeable to help me out here, but whether it is hormones or something else, most people are only attracted to other people who are sexually developed. So my question is, if not some short of mental illness, what causes a small group of people to have feelings toward those are not developed? I am not saying that your not correct(about it being a natural thing), I am just not completely convinced that it is just another sexual preference. (if it is some short of hormonal imbalance, or a mental disease it is still natural but not in the same way as sexual preference.)

[The Red Next Door]

They shouldn't have no rights fuck with a child, if the person is 20, i think it okay to date and fool with someone in their mid and late teens. but a child or a pre teen. NO

[fitz]

Sex with an underage child is by definition rape as a child does not possess the maturity to consent to such an act
Whether paedophilia is a mental illness or not is surely not the issue, a crime has been committed against the most vulnerable and trusting members of our society, if this is not a crime against the people then what is it?
Yes paedophiles need psychiatric help, however if it is 'just the way they are' then as they pose a danger and cannot be rehabilitated then they should not be released, extremely violent psychosis may be a mental problem yet if a person displaying these symptoms is not rehabilitated they would not be released into the community
Is paedophilia any different?
Comparisons with homosexuality are not fitting, homosexuality invloves sexual activity between CONSENTING adults, paedophilia by its nature cannot do this
While the solution of chemical castration may be posed it is doubtful that it would succeed - long term detention may be the only option

[h0m0revolutionary]

Sex with an underage child is by definition rape ...

...Yes paedophiles need psychiatric help

... long term detention may be the only option

Sex with an underage child is legal rape, yes. That's disgusting, a law that has the ability to lock up a 16 year old individual that consents to sex with a 15 yr old individual isn't helping children, it's child abuse!

So no, not all those above the age of consent are peadophiles or lack the ability to make their own informed decisions regarding their own sexual practices.

Furthermore who says peadophiles need medical attention? Because they happen to fancie children, who cares? it's their own resolution.

I fear the sort of society that detains people for their sexual views and practices. Nobosy here is defending young children being subjected to sexual abuse unwillingly, but locking people up for a perfectly innocent sexual fantasy (as long as it remains a fantasy) is despicable.

[Patchd]

I dont know, but you cant put everything down to mental problems... what sort of mental problems will the kid have after being abused?
Point is people should not be persecuted for their sexual orientations no matter what, if a paedophile has a sexual relationship with a pre-pubescent child (because that's what paedophilia is, an attraction to pre-punescent children, which can go into their teens) and the child consents, being fully aware of the situation, then what is to say that the sexual maturity of that child supersedes that of children the same age? You can't go around generalising children like this, they need to be treated as equals, that's my first point.

Second point is that if a paedophile rapes a child, then that is rape, that should be dealt with as rape. This raising of children up to be some sort of future safeguard we need to discipline and take care of by imposing strict rules on them is ridiculous, especially when it comes down to rape. Rape is one of the most oppressive and de-humanising things you can do to a person, to say that one form of rape is worse than another is insulting for one, and it diminishes the sheer destructiveness of what rape can do to a person. In other words, by saying that rape against a child is worse than rape against an adult, you are diminishing the damage that is caused by rape against other sections of society (in this case, adults). Rape against a 12 year old girl is as harmful as rape against a 26 year old woman.

I wonder what people propose we do with paedophiles, lock them up? Rehabilitate them? Isolate them?

[Che a chara]

I don't see paedophilia as some sort of mental illness. A paedophile is smart, crafty and plans his/her attacks or sexual urges with great care. Does that show a sign of "mental illness" ?. Much like a murderer who tries to cover his/her tracks, very hard to claim temporary insanity or something like that.

Surely those with these urges know what they are doing is wrong, so why don't they go and get help before they commit any crime ? They will mostly aways be a danger to the public

Should we have allowances for killers or people involved in hate crime beacuse they might say they have a mental illness ?

You're opening a can of woms if you say that a person who has been abused and goes on to be the abuser has a mental illness and then might have an excuse for going on to abuse.....

What about a child who has grown up in a household that has nazi ideas, e.g. father is a racist and passes his idealogy onto his kid, who grows up hating and attacking ethnic minorities, does this 'kid' have an excuse ? or say that a member of an ethinc minority group robs a home of a white person (or vice-versa), and that has an effect of the victim, does the victim then repress against the attacker's 'group' have an excuse for doing so ?

[Che a chara]

btw, when i speak of peadophilia, i also refer to the other 'philia's' that are connected to toddlers, children, young teens etc.

[synthesis]

btw, when i speak of peadophilia, i also refer to the other 'philia's' that are connected to toddlers, children, young teens etc.

I think those distinctions are useful in some ways and potentially harmful in others. Allowing a predator to say, "Well, I'm not a pedophile, I'm an ephebophile" dilutes the predatory aspects of his behavior - at least rhetorically.

However, there's definitely a line that should be drawn at puberty - before puberty, it's always wrong. After puberty, to me it is a question of utilitarianism.

If it's outlawed, you might have a few genuine relationships that are sabotaged or delayed by legal action, but predation is still out of bounds. If it's legal, those relationships can flourish, but so can the predatory ones. Clearly, fewer people are hurt by keeping it illegal.

However, I'm also of the persuasion that a 55-year-old college professor should face at least a fine for coaxing sex from a student in an implicit or explicit exchange for grades - same goes for cops and anyone in an explicit position of authority over the younger partner. So maybe I'm a little "Puritan" on the subject, but your kids will thank me, one day or another.

[Sov]

If you really want to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse...

Move beyond the irrational and authoritarian delusion that the ability to consent to sex hinges on any arbitrary age. It's useless and extremely counterproductive, except to right wing authoritarians. The ability to consent is not determined by one's age any more than by one's sex, color, or ethnic background. Instead, personal sovereignty ought to be requested and recognized on a case by case basis.

Abolish the age of consent and all age-based censorship (along with all restrictions on free inquiry and expression). All these taboos and stigmas get in the way of free, equal, and open communication which is crucial to knowledge and experience. Make quality sex-positive sex education available for all sentient human beings.

Decriminalize and destigmatize all consensual activities, sexual and otherwise. Stop being hysterical about sexuality. This is very much like the paternalism toward women in which control is justified under the pretext of "protection," to maintain innocence and purity (i.e., dependence and helplessness). It's no coincidence that most of the hysteria over "underage" sex is around girls and young women.

Phase out the patriarchal nuclear family and paternalistic laws and customs. Abolish involuntary relationships between persons even in families. Encourage alternative housing for children with communal child care by inspired volunteers who love children (as opposed to perpetually half-asleep reluctant wage slaves paid at $8/hr).

There's more, but that would be a huge help. Keep young people ignorant and helpless and dependent and they get massively abused. How shocking is that! PROTIP: Most of child sex abuse happens within families and does not involve some trenchcoated loser sneaking around a playground with a van parked nearby...

[counterblast]

If you really want to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse...

Move beyond the irrational and authoritarian delusion that the ability to consent to sex hinges on any arbitrary age. It's useless and extremely counterproductive, except to right wing authoritarians. The ability to consent is not determined by one's age any more than by one's sex, color, or ethnic background. Instead, personal sovereignty ought to be requested and recognized on a case by case basis.

Wonderfully put.