Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Argus

Are we being too hard on Pedophiles?

Recommended Posts

So there wasn't much on as I was eating dinner. And as I was surfing I came across this documentary on the CBC called I, Pedophile. It was quite a fascinating look at pedophiles, and some treatment programs, especially one in Germany, where non-offending pedophiles can go for treatment without being reported to the government. This is apparently not possible here.

The doctors point out a number of things wrong with the way society deals with pedophiles. First, they point out that the attraction is not one the pedophile has any control over, nor can it be cured. Given that, judging them immoral is illogical.

Second, just because they have a sexual desire for children does not mean they are going to act on it. Most do not, and lead tortured, celibate lives making sure they stay away from situations which could lead to child abuse. As one of the people featured said, just because you have a sexual desire for a woman at work that does not mean you're going to molest her.

Probably no group in the world is as reviled as pedophiles, regardless of whether they have ever molested any children. The mere fact of them being aroused by children is considered sufficient cause to commit violence against these individuals. So society has never much bothered about harsh punishments meted out to them, whether or not they have ever molested a child.

I've always thought the child porn laws were kind of stupid, and the doctor in charge of the program in Germany points out that pedophilia can't be given to anyone, increased or decreased. So to him, what pedophiles need is a harmless outlet. He suggested written porn (the possession of which is illegal in Canada), computer created images (also illegal) and perhaps child sized sex dolls.

I don't know what the answer is but that it seems unjust to harshly punish people for that which they can't control, and foolish not to provide the preventive treatment which will help ensure they do not act out on children. it was very easy, believe it or not, to feel a sense of empathy for the plight of the people depicted on the show.

http://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/features/four-misconceptions-about-pedophiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with them as they as they don't act on it via creating or exploiting victims. I feel bad for them too but they shouldn't have possession of child porn, that's disgusting. I wouldn't have a problem with drawings/paintings or CG art based on 100% imagined people, that's pretty victimless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure how it's possible to argue that they can't control it, unless they can claim to not understand why it's wrong because of some sort of mental deficiency they simply have no excuse. I guess it could be argued that many men have the urge to rape women, maybe it could be argued that it's many more than who are pedophiles, but no one would claim that they can't help it. Maybe its it's completely different, idk.

Edited by poochy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there wasn't much on as I was eating dinner. And as I was surfing I came across this documentary on the CBC called I, Pedophile. It was quite a fascinating look at pedophiles, and some treatment programs, especially one in Germany, where non-offending pedophiles can go for treatment without being reported to the government. This is apparently not possible here.

Dead wrong.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with them as they as they don't act on it via creating or exploiting victims. I feel bad for them too but they shouldn't have possession of child porn, that's disgusting. I wouldn't have a problem with drawings/paintings or CG art based on 100% imagined people, that's pretty victimless.

Currently anything which remotely resembles a child is illegal, as are text stories. Even adults pretending they are underage in porn is illegal. The problem with this, if the doctors are right, is that we have banned all this for fear it might 'incite' pedophiles to lust after children, or to attack children, yet it doesn't. Instead it could actually be an outlet, a relief valve, so to speak. So we might actually be making things worse. Further, the term 'disgusting' should not play any part in laws which put people away for years. I don't care if what someone does is disgusting. I care if what they do is harmful to others.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure how it's possible to argue that they can't control it, unless they can claim to not understand why it's wrong because of some sort of mental deficiency they simply have no excuse. I guess it could be argued that many men have the urge to rape women, maybe it could be argued that it's many more than who are pedophiles, but no one would claim that they can't help it. Maybe its it's completely different, idk.

The point was not that they can't control it but that they can. That is to say, they can't control who and what they are attracted to, but they can control their own actions. So most of them, while attracted to children, never have any kind of sexual contact with children. Programs like the ones in Germany help those who have never offended to stay celibate, to stay away from children. But such programs don't exist here because the moment you tell a doctor you feel attracted to children he has to tell the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was not that they can't control it but that they can. That is to say, they can't control who and what they are attracted to, but they can control their own actions.

Bravo. Great topic.

Question though. I think you are equating kiddie lit with methadone. Addicts eventually get off methadone. Is there an off ramp to all this?

Does a psych professional have to tell authorities if they learn a patient has feelings? Never heard of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo. Great topic.

Question though. I think you are equating kiddie lit with methadone. Addicts eventually get off methadone. Is there an off ramp to all this?

Is there an off-ramp to any sexual preference? Perhaps age and the lowering of sexual interest. According to the documentary and the doctors quoted therein there is no 'cure'. If you are a pedophile you are always going to be attracted to/aroused by children. Thus the purpose of treatment is much like that of treating an alcoholic. My understanding is that an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, even after years without drinking. In fact, one of the people in the documentary even compared it to that in saying "If I tell you that no, I can't have a drink with you because I'm an alcoholic and can't drink, you'll respect me for that, but if I tell you that no, I can't babysit your little boy because I'm a pedophile our friendship will come to an end."

The idea, then, is treatment much like AA, where there is mutual support, where a therapist provides guidance on things like empathy, and on not reading normal childish friendliness as anything sexual. These have apparently proven quite effective in preventing actual child sexual abuse. A program in Canada, defunded in 2014, lowered reoffence rates for convicted sex offenders by 70%

Does a psych professional have to tell authorities if they learn a patient has feelings? Never heard of that.

Mandatory reporting laws vary from one jurisdiction to the next. And sometimes it is a matter of interpretation. But if a man tells a psychiatrist he's feeling very lustful thoughts towards a specific child, for example, or perhaps even towards children in his neighborhood, that would be taken as that child being in danger and require reporting. Or if a pedophile told his psychiatrist he had downloaded child porn from the internet that would be confessing to a crime which might have to be reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an off-ramp to any sexual preference? Perhaps age and the lowering of sexual interest. According to the documentary an the doctors quoted therein thereis no 'cure'.

Yes no cure but is there an end to "treatment"? Do pedophiles need a sponsor after treatment? Its a very progressive idea....if we can ascertain the risk to offend this is promising.

In fact, one of the people in the documentary even compared it to that in saying "If I tell you that no, I can't have a drink with you because I'm an alcoholic and can't drink, you'll respect me for that, but if I tell you that no, I can't babysit your little boy because I'm a pedophile our friendship will come to an end."

I bet if that person said I can't go into that bar because I will assault that bartender, psychologically crippling him for life, just to get that drink that friendship may come to an end. Kind of a false equivalency.

I wouldn't equate this to alcoholism but no less deserving of treatment and understanding if no one has been assaulted/exploited from their behaviour.

Edited by Bob Macadoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes no cure but is there an end to "treatment"? Do pedophiles need a sponsor after treatment? Its a very progressive idea....if we can ascertain the risk to offend this is promising.

The treatments that were discussed were ongoing, both in Germany and in Canada (before ours was cancelled).

I bet if that person said I can't go into that bar because I will assault that bartender, psychologically crippling him for life, just to get that drink that friendship may come to an end. Kind of a false equivalency.

Granted, but the comparison was cited as an indication of how reviled this group is, and how they dare not tell anyone about what they are, as well as the fact that they need ongoing treatment and support similar to alcoholics. And I bet if you asked victims they would vote to have treatment for these people, as opposed to them just sitting alone trying to resist their urges without any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC is dead wrong.

About what specifically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with them as they as they don't act on it via creating or exploiting victims. I feel bad for them too but they shouldn't have possession of child porn, that's disgusting. I wouldn't have a problem with drawings/paintings or CG art based on 100% imagined people, that's pretty victimless.

I suggest that your opinion will depend on how you perceive pedophelia.

If you believe it is a mental/emotional disorder than a person "suffers from" pedophelia and you accept psychiatric diagnosis and possible treatment.

If you believe that it is a conscious decision by an individual then a pedophile is a normal person who chooses to attack children sexually, is a criminal and should be treated as such.

If you believe that it is a disease that can be triggered by an incident then you accept possible treatments.

Most of those who have been identified as pedophilia have themselves been sexually abused as children. Do we then identify all victims, create a data base and monitor these folks as they mature?

I think that there are many people in our society who have an "unhealthy" attraction to children. I also believe that many understand that these feelings are wrong, seek assistance (good for them) and do not allow their feelings to dictate their actions and never do molest children.

I also believe that there are evil people or people who are not wired properly who use that excuse to hurt, maim and kill children. These folks need to be removed for any situation where they could become successful predators and treated like the criminals which they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of those who have been identified as pedophilia have themselves been sexually abused as children.

cite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC is dead wrong.

You mean the doctors who have spent their lives treating pedophiles know less about it than you do? What are these doctors wrong about?

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of those who have been identified as pedophilia have themselves been sexually abused as children.

From your 1980s NY Times link:

16 percent of men had been molested when they were children.

So you are redefining "most" to mean "a few"?

Why would you even cite a link that says the exact opposite of what you claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen similar documentaries and have known of people/neighbors in my town investigated for it. Just the act of investigating someone for it is enough to destroy their lives, charge or no charge. When in prison, they don't do much better as the stereotype there is met with hostility among other inmates.

Personally, I think there are several flaws with the classification. As mentioned, just because people have the desire, doesn't mean they will act on it - the people I have known who were investigated never lured a child in to their homes and molested them. As suggested, there a huge, criminal difference between undressing a co-worker with your eyes and actually raping them.

Then there are "degrees" of pedophilia I can't help but consider: There are the physical acts vs. the mental ones mentioned above. There are also imaginative ones vs. actual ones (pretending to role play, write stories, etc. vs. performing the acts on a child)

There is also an age factor: In the US and Canada, the age of consent ranges from 14-18, yet images of anyone under 18 is considered child porn. How does that even come close to making sense?

There is another factor on age to consider and that is the historic one. Having any sort of "age of consent" is a relatively modern concept. People in the pioneer days were married as young as 14 or 15. In Medieval times, a person was married as soon as they could breed; age wasn't a factor. Why do we now suddenly draw an arbitrary line at a certain number like 18?

As any pubescent teenager can tell you; when you look at the opposite sex, you're not looking at their age. Two 18 year olds can engaged in sexual relations, but a 17 year old and an 18 year old legally can't. A 40 year old can engage in relations with a 19 year old and not be charged with a crime, but if a 38 year old did so with a 17 year old, people scream "Pedophile!".

However, there is something about a grown person being attracted to an 8 year old that seems... off. That's the level I'd consider it to be a sickness of sorts. An 8 year old boy can't functionally perform with a 30 year old woman; that's just not a natural physical compatibility. Now, a 15 year old and a 30 year old is a different story. But there's that arbitrary 3 year "waiting period" they have to engage in.

I'd say, I didn't actually mature into a mature person until I reached about 30; I made up my mind abut most things and had a hefty dose of "life" to base my decisions around at that point. So, if consent laws are made to reflect the average age of maturity among people, 18 is ,much, much , much too young. They should raise it up to about 25-30. It sounds ridiculous, but then, so does saying a number like 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of ISIS don't seem to have a problem with it.

If you lack compassion for the vunerable then I guess Pedophiles are able to justify there actions.

What's in the brain that makes you want to destoy the innocence of a child is hard to understand.

Society needs to have rules to protect the vunerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but a 17 year old and an 18 year old legally can't. A 40 year old can engage in relations with a 19 year old and not be charged with a crime, but if a 38 year old did so with a 17 year old, people scream "Pedophile!".

It depends on the age of consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our scientists continue to work on genetic, DNA and RNA research with new discoveries every day. At this time, they have not been focusing on the effects of DNA on libido although theories abound about gay, straight preferences.

I believe that we are all born with the potential genes to develop any sexual preference, male, female, child or ... Somewhere in the early development, a gene (or a combination of genes) is triggered by an external influence - environment or chemical - which dictates which genes become dominant and the focus of the libido is established.

All studies seem to indicate that there is a genetic AND environmental components that will dictate sexual preferences.

I have no doubt that we will soon be able to re-program those genes to alter sexual drives and human sexual behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...