When will they think of the children ?

Sliver said:
lol

Louis Theroux made a documentary called A Place For Paedophiles. It was in America and was basically a detention centre for paedophiles. The aim was rehabilitation. If I remember rightly, something like 2% got out. In other words, once a paedophile always a paedophile. This is the problem with them, it's hard wired in them, it's their nature to be sexually attracted to children.

I'd like to see something similar to that in the UK. Basically a facility built to house paedophiles indefinitely or till they are deemed fit for release, which would be never for the majority.
Click to expand...

It's like being able to say you can cure homosexuality. It's almost certainly not going to happen for most. That said just because they are sexually attracted to children doesn't mean they are a danger to society. It's whether they follow through with their urges that is the problem.
 
Amp34 said:
That said just because they are sexually attracted to children doesn't mean they are a danger to society. It's whether they follow through with their urges that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Even if they don't physically assault children they are a problem, because they actively search for child porn online which creates a demand for child porn which means more children are ultimately abused in order to satisfy that demand.
 
Amp34 said:
So now we're getting to the crux, you think a specific subset of sex offenders should be castrated.

Do you also thing thief should have their hands cut off? Reoffending rates for petty criminals is also high.

I totally agree with the castration of sex offenders. That 16 year old guy who was sent an indecent picture by his 16 year old GF should definitely have his testicles chopped off...
Click to expand...

Context,

petty theft-no life ruined or substantially affected.

picture message, no life ruined or substantially affected.

pedophile who has abused children, so much damage it beggars belief.

On the subject of castration, it could be offered as a choice to a pedophile, not forced but offered. Taking the choice could be seen as part of a greater effort to reform themselves, along with the usual work I presume they have done with them. Castration alone cannot reduce the libido or sexual ability of all candidates. Forced castration could create murderers looking for revenge for the castration or those who abuse seeking to evade being caught and castrated. It's a very difficult and divisive subject, how do we punish these individuals and protect our children other than whole life incarceration.
 
Sliver said:
Even if they don't physically assault children they are a problem, because they actively search for child porn online which creates a demand for child porn which means more children are ultimately abused in order to satisfy that demand.
Click to expand...

But that's also a crime. I was talking about those that are attracted to children but do not act on any of their urges. I'm sure there are plenty out there, give something like 1 in 20 adults would be classed as paedophiles (being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children). In the same way you don't go and rape that attractive woman you saw walking down the street most people who are attracted to children probably don't act on the attraction.

EDIT: Actually it appears to be much lower than that, potentially only 1:100, which would make more sense. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28526106

Hitman_Leon said:
Context,

petty theft-no life ruined or substantially affected.

picture message, no life ruined or substantially affected.

pedophile who has abused children, so much damage it beggars belief.

On the subject of castration, it could be offered as a choice to a pedophile, not forced but offered. Taking the choice could be seen as part of a greater effort to reform themselves, along with the usual work I presume they have done with them. Castration alone cannot reduce the libido or sexual ability of all candidates. Forced castration could create murderers looking for revenge for the castration or those who abuse seeking to evade being caught and castrated. It's a very difficult and divisive subject, how do we punish these individuals and protect our children other than whole life incarceration.
Click to expand...

You appear to have missed the context. He was suggesting the only way to stop reoffending of (all) sex offenders was castration, because their reoffending rate is apparently so high. The examples I gave were of another crime with a high reoffending rate and an example of why someone can be put on the sex offenders list. As you say both are ridiculous notions and neither should occur, which was the point.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
But that's also a crime. I was talking about those that are attracted to children but do not act on any of their urges.
Click to expand...

Source for this ? The sexual urge is inherent in all of us. Everyone acts on it whether physically with someone or solo masturbation


Amp34 said:
In the same way you don't go and rape that attractive woman you saw walking down the street most people who are attracted to children probably don't act on the attraction.
Click to expand...

Rapists rape. Normal people attracted to women don't. Paedophiles jerk off to child porn and some go further and attack children. Can you find me a paedophile who doesn't masturbate and lives a life of celibacy ? Even celibate catholic priests molest children.
 
Amp34 said:
But that's also a crime. I was talking about those that are attracted to children but do not act on any of their urges. I'm sure there are plenty out there, give something like 1 in 20 adults would be classed as paedophiles (being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children). In the same way you don't go and rape that attractive woman you saw walking down the street most people who are attracted to children probably don't act on the attraction.

EDIT: Actually it appears to be much lower than that, potentially only 1:100, which would make more sense. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28526106



You appear to have missed the context. He was suggesting the only way to stop reoffending of (all) sex offenders was castration, because their reoffending rate is apparently so high. The examples I gave were of another crime with a high reoffending rate and an example of why someone can be put on the sex offenders list. As you say both are ridiculous notions and neither should occur, which was the point.
Click to expand...


I was simply following on from what you said, I could see the angle you took in your response to his post, I did not miss the context, I should have been clearer.
 
Sliver said:
Source for this ? The sexual urge is inherent in all of us. Everyone acts on it whether physically with someone or solo masturbation




Rapists rape. Normal people attracted to women don't. Paedophiles jerk off to child porn and some go further and attack children. Can you find me a paedophile who doesn't masturbate and lives a life of celibacy ? Even celibate catholic priests molest children.
Click to expand...

What about paedophiles that are also attracted to adults? Or the ones that don't look at child porn. Perhaps they get their sexual satisfaction from adults, or they masturbate over thoughts of the little kid they saw on the bus on the way home. Yes the latter is "wrong" but I doubt it's any more illegal than you masturbating over that hot woman you saw in the club the other night, or on the beach a few hours ago.

I think your post and attitude is part of the problem, not being able to separate those that commit a crime and those that are paedophiles (which isn't a crime in itself). If people are so worried about being strung up by vigilantes the don't come forward and get treatment/support then they may eventually go on to commit a crime, which could have been prevented by help and support.

How about this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33464970

Some men who are sexually attracted to children would like help to change their condition but fear doctors will tell the police. In Germany, though, a campaign is under way to persuade them to sign up for confidential treatment, even if they have abused a child - and doctors are hailing it as a big success.

Max is a science graduate, in his early thirties. Articulate, with a ready smile and an infectious laugh. He could be your neighbour, your work colleague or your sister's new boyfriend. A nice guy. An average bloke. Except he's also a paedophile.

Max is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls — typically between the ages of six and 11. It's an urge that for years filled him with self-loathing and despair.
"I would see a girl, and I would undress the girl in my mind, and it was just disgusting, and I'd say to myself: 'Stop this.' And it just wouldn't stop. I had feelings of disgust and fear," he says.

Max has never abused a child sexually, nor does he consume child pornography — itself a form of indirect abuse, because children are usually involved in its production. In fact Max is just one of many people who feel an attraction to children, but who are determined not to act on it.

They are sometimes called celibate or "virtuous" paedophiles. The word "paedophilia" describes the sexual attraction, not the abuse itself, so not all paedophiles are child abusers - and not all child abusers are paedophiles, experts say, since abuse sometimes has other root causes.

Celibate paedophiles are a hidden segment of the population. They have never committed an offence, so are unknown to the police. And because of the taboo - and the fear of violence from people who think they are child abusers - they usually keep their attraction secret.

It's a much bigger group than you might think. Recent research suggests that between 3% and 5% of men, from all social and economic backgrounds, could be sexually attracted to children. Some are attracted only to girls. Others only to boys. Others to both. And some are also attracted to adults.
Click to expand...

Another interesting article http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light - Lots of interersting stuff but the final bit is most pertinent

Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."

For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".
Click to expand...

So perhaps if we stopped demonising people and actually provided help there may not be so many crimes committed (or recommitted)...

Hitman_Leon said:
I was simply following on from what you said, I could see the angle you took in your response to his post, I did not miss the context, I should have been clearer.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, my apologies, misunderstood. :)
 
Amp34 said:
I think your post and attitude is part of the problem, not being able to separate those that commit a crime and those that are paedophiles (which isn't a crime in itself
Click to expand...

My attitude isn't a problem. Yours however.... Still waiting for evidence that there are paedophiles who have never once masturbated while thinking about children. No need to google yourself to death as I can save you the trouble. There aren't any. When we are hungry we eat, thirsty we drink, tired we sleep, horny seek sexual relief. It's human nature and the fact you seem to be arguing against this tells me that you're not being honest here.
 
Well that's a straw an I ever I saw one. If you can go back and tell me where I said that then you're welcome to prove me wrong.

You're still missing the point, confligating being a paedophile with breaking the law. As much as its in bad taste, as far as I know (and you can correct me here if I'm wrong), someone masturbating while thinking of children is not breaking the law (as opposed to someone looking at child porn). That's the whole point of those links and quotes I provided you with, which you seem to have deleted from your quote above.

How about you read the links and quotes, realise that being a paedophiles isn't in itself illegal, and realise that rather than bunching them all together you need to separate those out that have committed a crime and those that have not committed a crime. There is plenty of evidence in those links to point to many (most?) paedophiles not being criminals.

Demonising a whole subsection of society, which looks to be a significant minority (anything from 1 in 100 to 1 in 20 men) for the actions of a few is not the way to go, as again pointed out in both those links I posted. You want to reduce child abuse? Well it looks like one way of doing that is to allow people to come forward and get help, before they do it a crime.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, just as many of us may have felt the compulsion to go postal at some point in our lives it dose not make us mass murderers.

As in the German idea, there does seem to be a need to create a confidential service to those who seek help instead of acting on their thoughts/desires.

As wrong as sexual thoughts about children are (wrong beyond comprehension) we cannot simply sweep away the after effects of what these people do. We have to do all we can to stop these events happening in the first instance. Men and women with these thoughts/mental problems or whatever way anyone chooses to describe them should have this facility.

I do however understand the reasons of the current law which in this country compels medical staff or others in the area to inform authorities if people express such tendencies about themselves.
 
That is a difficult one, do you report people to the police if they admit to a crime while in therapy, and face many needing treatment not coming forward (and potentially committing another offence) or do you ignore the crime and help make sure it doesn't happen again? Its a horrible catch 22.

On the other hand those that have been caught and can admit their crimes should be given more support so they don't reoffend. It looks like there are several organisations trying to help and it does look like they are having significant success.
 
The line could be drawn at admitted tendencies but crossed at admitted guilt.

That said it would create a huge dilemma, person 'A' working with children admits tendencies. How could this be handled? common sense tells me this person has made an error of judgment, putting themselves around the temptation they fight is not logical. Always primary concern should be directed towards the protection of children. As part of he management process person 'A' should voluntarily resign but be given help in finding alternate employment.

A 2nd list to be checked could be created when handing background checks, admitted non offending pedophiles could be barred from applying to work with children. May seem harsh to some libertarians but primary concern always has to rest with child protection.
 
Amp34 said:
You're still missing the point, confligating being a paedophile with breaking the law. As much as its in bad taste, as far as I know (and you can correct me here if I'm wrong), someone masturbating while thinking of children is not breaking the law.
Click to expand...

True but I guarantee that at some point they will have viewed child porn and that is breaking the law. Why deny the obvious, you're arguments are weak and ill founded.
 
Sliver said:
True but I guarantee that at some point they will have viewed child porn and that is breaking the law.
Click to expand...

It might seem obvious and I would theorise in that direction but you can't guarantee that it is a fact, I am sure there are out-there some pedophiles who have never viewed such materials.

The only fact in what you say is that viewing such materials is criminal an deserving of incarceration.
 
Sliver said:
True but I guarantee that at some point they will have viewed child porn and that is breaking the law. Why deny the obvious, you're arguments are weak and ill founded.
Click to expand...

So...you are claiming to be omniscient. Genuinely omniscient, as you claim to know everything about everyone all the time. Which means you are claiming to be a really major god. I don't find your claim compelling, given the lack of evidence of your divinity.

Personally, I'd rather have a system which at least tried to find out what's true and used that knowledge to at least try to prevent children being abused.

But it's much easier to just want an excuse for fantasies of torture, mutilation and death (or in some cases acting on those fantasies), so many people do that instead and pretend it's righteous. It puts more children at more risk, of course.
 
Angilion said:
So...you are claiming to be omniscient. Genuinely omniscient, as you claim to know everything about everyone all the time. Which means you are claiming to be a really major god. I don't find your claim compelling, given the lack of evidence of your divinity.

Personally, I'd rather have a system which at least tried to find out what's true and used that knowledge to at least try to prevent children being abused.

But it's much easier to just want an excuse for fantasies of torture, mutilation and death (or in some cases acting on those fantasies), so many people do that instead and pretend it's righteous. It puts more children at more risk, of course.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river fallacy boy. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom