[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

In the interest of, well, interest, I figured I'd give a try to something I'd thought about before.

Since we have a lot of people around here with strong views on a variety of things, let's have some debate. I'll try and think of some contentious issue, and then we'll all go at it. In the interests of fairness, and because I've said in the past that I could, I'll play Devil's Advocate* if it's a bit of a one-sided debate, even if it means arguing a point I don't agree with. If anyone else is willing to do that too, then just get on with it - might be an idea to let people know what you're doing if it's something you're vehemently against though, lest you be tarred with a brush you'd rather not be. When one debate dies, I'll start a new one, unless something brilliant and organic happens. It does, sometimes...

Anyway, since Hannah's topic about the Sex Offender's Register appears to have piqud a few people, I figured I'd start there.

So, today's debate is:

Should paedophiles be treated as mentally ill, and dealt with accordingly, or as serious sexual offenders in complete control of their actions?

MoT

* Not the pinball machine.

This post has been edited by HJCotW Spacemonkey: 16 September 2011 - 09:47 PM

[Timothy Goose]

An interesting point Mr Sean, and one that I have thought about before....

The thing is, I don't think all paedophiles are sex offenders. I mean this in the same way that if a man raped a lady, it doesn't mean that all straight men are sex offenders.

The notion of paedophilia is finding children (so prepubescence) sexually attractive.... yeah thats wrong but the person hasn't displayed criminal activity yet. At this point, if they were to go to therapy or a doctor, I'd hope they got all the support possible to help them.

If they then try and sate that attraction, and put a child at risk or in distress... then they need to be treared by the law, and saying you have an illness isn't enough.
But then replace 'child' with 'person' and that sentance stays true. Paedophilia really isn't part of it.

It isn't the paedophile element that is criminal. It is acting on those impulses.

[Poohbah (Gsq)]

I don't love a debate.

But then I'm not everyone.

[Gold Joinee Cooke]

Captain James Amazing, on 18 Mar 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

An interesting point Mr Sean, and one that I have thought about before....

The thing is, I don't think all paedophiles are sex offenders. I mean this in the same way that if a man raped a lady, it doesn't mean that all straight men are sex offenders.

The notion of paedophilia is finding children (so prepubescence) sexually attractive.... yeah thats wrong but the person hasn't displayed criminal activity yet. At this point, if they were to go to therapy or a doctor, I'd hope they got all the support possible to help them.

If they then try and sate that attraction, and put a child at risk or in distress... then they need to be treared by the law, and saying you have an illness isn't enough.
But then replace 'child' with 'person' and that sentance stays true. Paedophilia really isn't part of it.

It isn't the paedophile element that is criminal. It is acting on those impulses.

debate over! Go timmy go!

GJC
CTID

[Lethal Biddle]

Captain James Amazing, on 18 Mar 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

An interesting point Mr Sean, and one that I have thought about before....

The thing is, I don't think all paedophiles are sex offenders. I mean this in the same way that if a man raped a lady, it doesn't mean that all straight men are sex offenders.

The notion of paedophilia is finding children (so prepubescence) sexually attractive.... yeah thats wrong but the person hasn't displayed criminal activity yet. At this point, if they were to go to therapy or a doctor, I'd hope they got all the support possible to help them.

If they then try and sate that attraction, and put a child at risk or in distress... then they need to be treared by the law, and saying you have an illness isn't enough.
But then replace 'child' with 'person' and that sentance stays true. Paedophilia really isn't part of it.

It isn't the paedophile element that is criminal. It is acting on those impulses.

Agreed on all counts.

Ok. I'll play devil's advocate.
..

erm...

... Peadophiles for the win!

This post has been edited by GJ Biddle (ga): 18 March 2009 - 07:32 AM

[joinee tarka]

if it's diagnosable as a mental health problem (DSM-IV)
which i am not too sure about whether it is or isn't, then it should be treated.

are the 'treatments' we have effective?
what other saferguards do we have in place and are they effective?

[Guin]

I'm guessing that perhaps the question is: Is a paedophile dangerous if he's looking at images and fantasising, but not actually harming a child?

I suppose that's where there the problem lies. Do we wait until this man has actually harmed a child, or do we take precautions in order to ensure that he never acts upon his instinct?

And... from there we go to: If we take 'precautions'... in what way do we take them? Simply by putting his name on a register isn't going to stop him from hanging round schools at home time. It won't take away his urge. So do we go a step further and castrate him... either physically, <watches all the men reading, cross their legs> or perhaps control his sexual urge with chemicals?

During wartime, I'm led to believe, that soldiers sexual instincts and urges were controlled with a drug called Bromide. Would an injection of something like this make this paedophile 'safe' to be out in the community?

At what stage should a paedophile be 'stopped from acting'?

If someone has an axe and is stood in the middle of a busy shopping mall swinging it around and around but not hitting anyone with the axe .... do we consider he's a criminal? Do we object to his actions? I mean, he hasn't hurt anyone yet, so surely, we could let him carry on swinging the axe, because after all, he has every right to his 'hobby'?

OK.. so far I've avoided giving my personal opinion, so I guess I should stand up and be counted.
The paedophile who is looking at images, lusting after small children, hanging around schools at home time... but hasn't yet physically touched a child, I think, should be castrated in one way or another. <watches men go green>. I don't feel that we should wait until his urges get the better of him and he acts upon them.

If after 'castration', he still commits a crime against a child.... then that has to be dealt with in a much different manner.

But... that's just my opinion.

[Gaz]

Guinevere, on 18 Mar 2009, 08:26 AM, said:

OK.. so far I've avoided giving my personal opinion, so I guess I should stand up and be counted.
The paedophile who is looking at images, lusting after small children, hanging around schools at home time... but hasn't yet physically touched a child, I think, should be castrated in one way or another. <watches men go green>. I don't feel that we should wait until his urges get the better of him and he acts upon them.

If after 'castration', he still commits a crime against a child.... then that has to be dealt with in a much different manner.

This is quite literally fixing the wrong bit though - the problem is in the brain, not the groin (<insert men have brains in their groin joke here>). After all, you don't consider a murderer "cured" simply by taking away their gun/knife.

Obviously I'm aware that castration drastically shakes up the hormonal balance of the body and almost entirely suppresses sexual desire, so it effectively is a cure in one sense. But then you could also argue by the same token that a cure for depression would be lobotomy that leaves the person a drooling yet happy cabbage. Or if you're going this route, why castrate? Why not simply paralyse them from the waist down? Or blind them?

The brain is just a big bag of chemical soup, and more easily affected than any of us would most likely care to admit. I think it would be far better to aim treatment at making people normal and whole than selectively butchering them simply so they are no threat. Especially if they have committed no actual crime.

[Joinee Simitebrong]

Do you think there's any way to (kind of) de-stigmatise Paedophillia (slightly)? i don't think there is but i wish there was. Just having mass hysteria and tabloids screaming "Bring back hanging!" gets in the way of us taking a grown up view of dealing with the problem.

I've seen a documentary of men who have urges towards children and volunteering for treatment as they want to be cured of it. I think that's an incredibly heroic thing to do.

If we could be more open and less hostile towards the men (and women) who have the urges, many more of them might come forward before those urges get the better of them and seek help.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking

[Platinum Joinee Plub]

Thing is, what do we call 'acting on their impulses'?

Maybe it is bloke sitting at home looking at pictures of children. But while there is a market for pictures of children, there will be people out there who will abuse children in order to get more and more pictures of children for paedophiles to 'enjoy'. So just by looking at pictures they are contributing to the abuse of children.

If you accept it is a mental illness, there should be research done to find the best way to cure them. That doesn't stop you punishing them once people have taken things too far and committed a crime. But there must be a lot of people out there who haven't reached that stage yet who could potentially be cured before a child has to go through any trauma. But then you have the problem of how on earth you identify those people and how you force them to have treatment when they may have not committed any crime.

[Joinee Simitebrong]

didn't the US Supreme Court rule that illustrations of adults having sex with children was NOT illegal? and everyone went bananas? i dont think i just imagined it. Right decision in my eyes.

[Au Joinee Rory]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 18 Mar 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

If we could be more open and less hostile towards the men (and women) who have the urges, many more of them might come forward before those urges get the better of them and seek help.

Nah, we're better off suggesting that people should be mutilated as punishment for thought crimes.

(Does sarcasm count as Devil's advocate?)

[dazza]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 18 Mar 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Do you think there's any way to (kind of) de-stigmatise Paedophillia (slightly)? i don't think there is but i wish there was. Just having mass hysteria and tabloids screaming "Bring back hanging!" gets in the way of us taking a grown up view of dealing with the problem.

I love the really tentative way you've suggested that. Just kind of proves the point of the difficulty of having a grown up discussion on the subject.

[Lethal Biddle]

I think my opinion has been stated by everyone above, maybe in a few different parts. Peadophilia in itself is a mental illness & should be treated as a mental illness, it should not be, in itself criminal, as it is not voluntary. If someone abuses or 'influences' a child as a result of it then that is a crime. Equally I think the production of peadophilic media should be a crime, it's illegal material and encourages illegal activity (child molestation). If you are trafficing in thse materials then you should be prosecuted accordingly, for the trafficing of illegal materials.

I would go so far as to say that if someone is found to be suffering from peadophilia then they should be forced into medical/psychological treatment, whether they want it or not. Failure to comply to this treatment should, again, be charged as it's own criminal act. Each crime legally independant from the condition itself.
I do feel though, that while it is a mental illness it is not necessarily one which flaws ones capacity for decision making. Meaning, if someone is charged with child abuse or trafficing in child porn then insanity or mental illness should not be viable excuse for any kind of reduced sentencing.

[dazza]

Its interesting that everyone seems quite tolerant of paedophiles here (in comparison to NotW readers), most people think its a condition that should be treated if at all possible. Just wondering though, how would people react if they discovered a close friend or family member was a paedophile?

[Joinee Simitebrong]

dazza, on 18 Mar 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Just wondering though, how would people react if they discovered a close friend or family member was a paedophile?

God knows. It happened to one of my closest friends. He came home one day to find the police searching his house and taking away their computers. His dad was convicted of posessing thousands of Level 4 (which is almost as bad as it gets) images.

He's only spoken a few times to his dad in the 5 years since. He changed his surname though and obviously went through a really difficult time. He seems reasonbly sorted now but only rarely talks about it.

I happened to work at the same company as his dad and would hear people saying what a great guy he is and be asked why i didn't seem to like him. I never told anyone but it would have been so easy to.

[Gold Joinee Mhairi]

GJ Biddle (ga), on 18 Mar 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

Peadophilia

is this a sexual attraction to peas?

[Lethal Biddle]

Gold Joinee Mhairi, on 18 Mar 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

is this a sexual attraction to peas?

Yes. They're just so... green.
My pitiful endowment turned out to be a blessing in my love for the squishy green love balls.

[Platinum Joinee West]

also, my interesting "mmmm" I like to bring up in paedohilia discussion, which applies as much to physically harming a paedophile as it does to the death sentence for paedophilia, which is here I usually bring it up...


If a punishment is too severe, it endangers children.

Most perpetrator of paedophilia know their victim, yes? So, imagine if you had the all powerful weapon of consequence on your side when trying to convince your victim to stay quiet. Nobody wants to be responsible for the death or mutilation of their favourite Uncle Sammy, do they? A very powerful bargaining tool to use on children. Also, if punishment is too severe, then what's stopping a paedophile killing the child as well? If the options are: let child go, risk getting caught, suffer mutilation.
Or: kill child, have greatly reduced chance of them telling on me (especially if you hide the body well giving the parents no chance of closure) therefore greatly reduced chance of being horribly punished.

Chemical castration comes with its own monstrous problems. It completely mucks up the finely balanced hormones of the body initially it increases sex drive. And if the person ever comes off of them, again, sex drive can be massively increased initially. And if that sex drive is aimed at young children there will be problems. Managing the problem using therapy and close attention from the police seems a far safer option for all concerned.




I am despairing slightly at the moment regarding the extension of Sarah's law. It has been said by the Police, Childrens charities, previous victims of paedophilia and past perpetrators of these crimes who are now helping the police with understanding how it all works, that naming and shaming is a BAD idea. They'll be driven underground where they can't have a watchful eyes kept on them. Once again, leading to a far more dangerous situation.

I think that people need to stop looking at these situations from a point of anger, disgust, revenge and hate, and instead think about the best way of keeping children safe. Castration, either physical or chemical, is not the way to do that. The death penalty is not the way to do that. Naming paedophiles is not the way to do that.

[G J Katie]

Nature dictates certain aspects of our sexuality but sex offenders are often conditioned by previous sexual encounters that they have had. Most seem to have been abused themselves at some point and many act violently out of frustation at not being able to fulfil their urges.

I'm not sure whether or not this is an arguement for treating peadophiles as people with mental health conditions because they still know that what they're doing causes suffering but I do think that if someone has violent or inappropriate urges it's very difficult for them to seek help because of the stigma attached to their sexuality. It seems that a little understanding could go a long way with those who want to seek help to come to terms with things that have happened to them and the struggle that they have resisting their urges.

[Platinum Joinee West]

Joinee Katie, on 18 Mar 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

I'm not sure whether or not this is an arguement for treating peadophiles as people with mental health conditions because they still know that what they're doing causes suffering b

not necessarily, Depends if they're a sociopath or a psycopath as well, which would admittedly already fall under mental health anyway...

In other words, you could know that it your urges were wrong, and be trying to control them for that reason. If you fail, you'd feel awful.

You could know that your urges were wrong, and have absolutely no empathy and not care at all.

You could not realise your urges were wrong in the slightest.




It depends. Every case is massively different and I suppose you can't really judge the best course of action/treatment without examining every case individually.

Unless you think they should all just hang anyway without a trial, which, admittedly, would make things simpler in the short-term!

[G J Katie]

Gold Joinee Zena Bing, on 18 Mar 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

It depends. Every case is massively different and I suppose you can't really judge the best course of action/treatment without examining every case individually.

Very true. I was speaking in very broad terms and it's hard to put any group of people under one umbrella. I was trying to say that attitudes towards peadophllia should change and that more understanding would enable many to come forward and seek any help or support that they need.

There will always be people who don't feel that they need / want any support or maybe even treatment but if those who did could access it without being stigmatised then that may be a positive step towards keepig kids safe.

This post has been edited by Joinee Katie: 18 March 2009 - 01:52 PM

[Platinum Joinee West]

Joinee Katie, on 18 Mar 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Very true. I was speaking in very broad terms and it's hard to put any group of people under one umbrella. I was trying to say that attitudes towards peadophllia should change and that more understanding would enable many to come forward and seek any help or support that they need.

There will always be people who don't feel that they need / want any support or maybe even treatment but if those who did could access it without being stigmatised then that may be a positive step towards keepig kids safe.

agreed.

[joinee coolio]

With regards to forcing people into treatment for paedophilia, an interesting parallel to this is the forced treatment of TB patients (on the grounds that this is a public health issue and those who dabble with treatments and don't take the full course are actually likely to produce disease resistant forms of the pathogen).

This is a contraversial issue even when it is a purely physical disease.

When you add to this the fact that our attitude to paedophiles today is similar to the attitude of many people to homosexuality a hundred years ago*, you have to worry about wielding such power to 'cure' people of a behavioural trait. I guess that working with these people to help them manage their problem (those that will come forward) is a first step.


*I'm not suggesting that we will all be saying that paedophilia is healthy in the future

[DG Joinee NEMESIS]

Devils advocate time on a related issue:

In the spirit of debate:

Regardless of the cause, mental illness vs. horrific social boundary issues vs. raging sicko, Do we really think that Sarah's Law to be imposed nationwide is a good thing?!
<cut>

This law seems to imply that it is.

EDIT: seems i didn't quite get the full story from the two separate sources i read - meaning the point isn't relevent.

This post has been edited by Silver Joinee 'The Daddy': 18 March 2009 - 03:25 PM

[joinee coolio]

Rich, I don't know whether you saw the other thread, but what is being dubbed 'Sarah's Law' is not an ability to find out where paedophiles live, but a facility whereby if somebody is coming into contact with your kids in a private capacity (i.e. not at school or scouts or anything organised where you must be CRB checked to work/volunteer there) and you are concerned about them then you can make an enquiry to the local police and if there is information that allows parents to protect their children from risk it will be disclosde to them.

Further information here:
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7945364.stm

[DG Joinee NEMESIS]

joinee coolio, on 18 Mar 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Rich, I don't know whether you saw the other thread, but what is being dubbed 'Sarah's Law' is not an ability to find out where paedophiles live, but a facility whereby if somebody is coming into contact with your kids in a private capacity (i.e. not at school or scouts or anything organised where you must be CRB checked to work/volunteer there) and you are concerned about them then you can make an enquiry to the local police and if there is information that allows parents to protect their children from risk it will be disclosde to them.

Further information here:
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7945364.stm

Didn't I'm afraid - but I'll take a look now - thanks for the update!

Silver Joinee'The Daddy', on 18 Mar 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

Didn't I'm afraid - but I'll take a look now - thanks for the update!

Aha!
Read up on it now.......was going to say - the wiki entry does seem somewhat flawed then.
Incidentally - seemingly only 10 check ups registered - though whether *that* can now be trusted i'm unsure too......

[Lethal Biddle]

Silver Joinee'The Daddy', on 18 Mar 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Is it fair that you can find out where the Paedophiles live?

I think no. If they've been 'identified' then they should be in treatment, by necessity & be under the appropriate supervision that that entails. So why reveal them?

If people were purely pragmatic about it then maybe it would be of organisational benefit. But they're not, most people are judgemental and reactionary. Understandably. I'm quite pragmatic & calculated, but if I were a parent & a paedophile was "outed" near me then I'd certainly be concerned & treat them differently, knowing full well that that may be uneccessary, but not caring, in the face of even the slightest risk to my children.

Silver Joinee'The Daddy', on 18 Mar 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Is it fair to say that once an offender always an offender habitual or not?

This law seems to imply that it is.

No. But again, what do you mean by "offender"? As argued above I would say that just being a paedophile isn't an offense, it's a disorder. Acting on it to the detriment of a child's safety is an offense. So if you do molest a child then you suffer criminal prosecution accordingly, be that prison, future monitoring or restriction of movements (if that is considered necessay) etc & you are forced into well monitored treatement. If, somehow, it happens again you are charged more harshly, as a repeat offender.
It's not foolproof (or paedoproof), but it's the most 'complete' method I can think of that avoids governmental injustice.

This post has been edited by GJ Biddle (ga): 18 March 2009 - 03:45 PM

[Hebba Homemaker]

Hmmm Damn you Sean for starting a debate I reallllly want to get involved in but can't!!!

I shall add a possible contraversal view for this debate thou, paedophilia is not necessarily a mental health disorder first and foremost it is a sexual preference... its just the thing that does it for these people... possibly due to abuse in the past but equally it could come from anywhere... does that mean (and I shall pick on sean now) that just because someone has a preference for redheads over all other people that they are mentally ill? of that homosexuals are mental ill? The wonderful thing with most of our society is that from a very very young age social conditioning tells us that paedophilia is wrong wrong wrong and so it is often supressed, yes in the case of those most likely to offend in this manner there is an element of psychosis but not always! PErsonally I think the internet has to get a lot of the blame for the supposed increase in paedophiliac behaviour because there is the materials there if you do want to act on this preference, and in a way it makes it more legitimate and socially acceptable. just my 2p's worth.

In terms of Sarah's law I will merely refer you back to my post in the other thread if you are interested in knowing a bit more about what is actually being done to prevent reoffending and rehabilitate offenders.

Silver Rock Chick Hebba, on 17 Mar 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Ok... I'm not allowed to talk about this so I shall direct you

Here

and

Here

and

Here

The public are protected, thats why there is a register in the first place, EVERYONE on the register is CONSTANTLY monitored by more than one agency and disclosure is made to THOSE WHO NEED TO KNOW WHEN IT IS DEEMED THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW - deemed by a review of lead professionals involved with every offender and know EXACTLY what sort of risk they pose.

/crypticrant


Side not - Chemical castration has actually been proved to be more dangerous as it leads to frustration in not physically being able to act out on fantasies leading to offenders actually posing a HIGHER risk than they would have otherwise. (I'll find the report on this at some point if anyone wants to read it)

[Gold Joinee Cooke]

Just thought I'd share an interesting experience had by a scottish mate who does the same job as me (teacher in junior high school in japan, ages 12-15) a few miles away.

He was at a staff party after the end of year graduation ceremony at his school, and the male teachers were sharing a few jokes about the graduating students. After a few minutes the conversation turned to "which year 10 girl would you most like to go out with?" (remember these are teachers, aged 25-50) and when my friend expressed his distate at that line of conversation, they turned to "ok, who is the hottest?". These are teachers talking about 15 year old girls they've been teaching for three years!

Not entirely sure how much this adds to the debate but I think it's quite interesting how different cultures treat the issue differently. I can appreciate that the biological imperative is there for men to find any potentially fertile female attractive. But how totally messed up is it that teachers are perving on students three times younger than them!!!!

GJC
CTID

[dazza]

Gold Joinee Cooke, on 19 Mar 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

I can appreciate that the biological imperative is there for men to find any potentially fertile female attractive. But how totally messed up is it that teachers are perving on students three times younger than them!!!!

Nothing wrong with that, as a fifteen year old i was perving over teachers three times older than me. Some of them might have been fertile too!

[Lethal Biddle]

dazza, on 19 Mar 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

Nothing wrong with that, as a fifteen year old i was perving over teachers three times older than me. Some of them might have been fertile too!

I think 15 fancying 45 is perfectly acceptable. I think 20 fancying 60 is perfectly acceptable (I cite Harold & Maude!). But I'm 25 & I can't see myself fancying a 75 year old. I wonder at what exact age the love³ effect wears off...

This post has been edited by GJ Biddle (ga): 19 March 2009 - 09:48 AM

[Captain K]

Silver Rock Chick Hebba, on 18 Mar 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

The wonderful thing with most of our society is that from a very very young age social conditioning tells us that paedophilia is wrong wrong wrong

Just musing, but I'm not at all sure that it does. Perhaps these days parents are really explicit with the way they teach kids, and the "don't talk to strangers" warning of our youth has become more graphic.

But in general terms, if a little boy takes a shine to a little girl, it's seen as cute and sweet - a first crush. So in other words the social conditioning is actually saying "yes, go ahead and have some sort of unformed, ill-defined affection for that other child". Nothing wrong with that. But if that (first) child is in some way "broken" and fails to automatically like ever older people as they age themself, then where's the point at which the parents say, "no, she's too young for you"?

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that this needs to happen for the majority of people but I can see it could be a way that the rot sets in for individuals pre-disposed to having a problem. It's not as though there's a solution though, unless we want to start telling kids off for liking each other!

[GJ Dandy David]

I wrote a post about the age of consent last night, but it petered out and it wasn't very well formed so I deleted it.

It expressed some similar views to some above though - a fourteen or fifteen year old will have crushes and form close relationships and probably have underage sex within their peer group. If they're mature and choose to have a sexual relationship with someone older, and no one is hurt (Is that possible?) then surely that's not paedophilia.

Why is someone deemed more responsible at 16 years of age than at 15 years and 364 days old?

[PJ Hannah B-R]

Becasue the cut off has to be somewhere.

[Distant Joinee Mandoran]

Captain K, on 19 Mar 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Just musing, but I'm not at all sure that it does. Perhaps these days parents are really explicit with the way they teach kids, and the "don't talk to strangers" warning of our youth has become more graphic.

But in general terms, if a little boy takes a shine to a little girl, it's seen as cute and sweet - a first crush. So in other words the social conditioning is actually saying "yes, go ahead and have some sort of unformed, ill-defined affection for that other child". Nothing wrong with that. But if that (first) child is in some way "broken" and fails to automatically like ever older people as they age themself, then where's the point at which the parents say, "no, she's too young for you"?

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that this needs to happen for the majority of people but I can see it could be a way that the rot sets in for individuals pre-disposed to having a problem. It's not as though there's a solution though, unless we want to start telling kids off for liking each other!

Along this line, has anyone here really taken a close look at what passes for fashion for very underage girls? The argument that ... big business, or whatever you want to call the people who pull consumer strings, actively sexualize even very small children is not hard to make.

[Joinee Simitebrong]

Distant Joinee Mandoran, on 19 Mar 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

Along this line, has anyone here really taken a close look at what passes for fashion for very underage girls? The argument that ... big business, or whatever you want to call the people who pull consumer strings, actively sexualize even very small children is not hard to make.

my nieces have DEMANDED that they NEED clothers adorned with the playboy logo. Excuse me? that's porn!! yes, my little 9 year old niece will look adorable in that. They also want thongs, push-up bra's and, i swear this is true, a top with "Miss Premiscuous" blazed over the front! all of which is available for their age group (they're 9 and 10)

i'm not a knee-jerk reactionary plum but i can't imagine how on earth these products managed to get from idea, to development, to production and to point of sale without anyone saying "'ang on a jiffy..."

Silver Dandy David, on 19 Mar 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

Why is someone deemed more responsible at 16 years of age than at 15 years and 364 days old?

isn't there a sliding-scale of consent in holland and some parts of scandinavia? it's okay for a 15 year old and 16 year old to have sex but not a 16 year old and someones who's 86 - which is perfectly legal in the UK (yes 86 is extreme! but it is legal)

[GJ Dandy David]

GJ Hannah B-R, on 19 Mar 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Becasue the cut off has to be somewhere.

Why?

Edit:
I should probably elaborate on that.
I think that something like the age of consent is so personal, and likely to vary from person to person that a strict limit is pure idiocy.

Then again (just like democracy) - it's the worst system, apart from all of the others.

This post has been edited by Silver Dandy David: 21 March 2009 - 10:28 PM

[joinee_doug]

Silver Dandy David, on 19 Mar 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

I wrote a post about the age of consent last night, but it petered out and it wasn't very well formed so I deleted it.

It expressed some similar views to some above though - a fourteen or fifteen year old will have crushes and form close relationships and probably have underage sex within their peer group. If they're mature and choose to have a sexual relationship with someone older, and no one is hurt (Is that possible?) then surely that's not paedophilia.

Why is someone deemed more responsible at 16 years of age than at 15 years and 364 days old?

Why is someone deemed more responsible at 16 years of age than at 12 years old? The fact is, they may not be. I knew teenagers that were as mature, if not more so, than people twice their age.

It's up to the State to determine what is considered "mature" and capable of giving consent. A 35-year-old teacher may think her 14-year-old student is "mature" enough to make the decision, but the State may feel that the youngster should be at least 16. A boy of 12 may be capable of driving a car, but the government generally feels people should be 16 or so before they're capable of understanding their responsibilities.

Fourteen and fifteen-year-olds having consensual sex isn't necessarily and probably not pedophilia, but here, anyway, it could be prosecuted as statutory rape, if the children are not of the age considered legally able to give consent. This can happen when a barely 17 year old boy (of age) and his girlfriend who's 16 next week (not of age yet) go for it. Barely a year separates them, but there could be a world of difference legally.

But when you say "If they're mature and choose to have a sexual relationship with someone older, and no one is hurt (Is that possible?) then surely that's not paedophilia", what do you define as "mature" and "someone older". It may be very easy for a 25/30/35 year old man to convince a 15-year old girl that this is what she wants. Especially if she's flattered that this guy who has a car and no curfew is paying more attention to her than her parents do.

[Siobhán]

When I was underage I had sex and though we were both under the age of consent it was statutory rape.

I think a lot of what Doug said is right. I'm still not sure when it stops being acceptable in terms of the age gaps but can think of occassions where I have been quite concerned and not known what to do. But less when I was fourteen and my friend had a thirty year old boyfriend. She just seemed really grown up. I'm not sure if this has added anything.

[joinee_doug]

Siobhán, on 21 Mar 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

I'm still not sure when it stops being acceptable in terms of the age gaps but can think of occassions where I have been quite concerned and not known what to do. But less when I was fourteen and my friend had a thirty year old boyfriend. She just seemed really grown up. I'm not sure if this has added anything.

I don't think there's a magic age gap in terms of years, but in development. In general terms, the 5 or 10-year difference between a 16 yr old and a 21 or 26 year old is pretty big. Ten years between a 30 y.o. and a 40 y.o. is a lot less significant.
A good rhetorical guide I once heard was, "If you were (23), and your (23) year old friend was going out with a (16) year old, what would you think about that friend?"

[Loveday]

To go back to the original question: Should paedophiles be treated as mentally ill, and dealt with accordingly, or as serious sexual offenders in complete control of their actions?

Absolutely they should be treated as serious sex offenders, in the majority of the cases they have seriously "offended" and need to be dealt with accordingly. As far as being in complete control of their actions? Come on, of course they are. If they aren't then I wouldn't think that being a pedophile isn't the only thing they have wrong in their brains now is it?

Being a pedophile means that you have a sexual interest in children, not that you are insane in some way and can't make proper and reasonable decisions. If you like little children, fine, but understand that it is NOT OKAY to act on it and damage an innocent child. It is wrong. They know that, but they do it anyway. You can't tell me that a grown man or woman will abuse a child and think that what they are doing is right. It satisfies their urges, it's selfish. It's damaging. It's wrong. Why do you think it's always kept from others? They don't brag about it to their friends, about how they got some from some cute 6 year old the other day. They keep it to themselves because they know it's wrong.

While in prison, I think that they should definitely get help. There usually is a root to their desires. This needs to be found and faced head on, otherwise I'm afraid that a lot of the time the prison sentence would be served and the crime committed again.

[GJ Dandy David]

Loveday, on 21 Mar 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

It is wrong. They know that, but they do it anyway. You can't tell me that a grown man or woman will abuse a child and think that what they are doing is right.

The problem is - you can be amoral, rather than immoral, and really not know the difference (E: between right and wrong.)

And they DO brag about it to their friends, usually through the internet. It's like discussing a play at a drama group instead of within your general friendship group - just substituting a different social circle. In some ways, it's a good job they do, as the police can use these websites too.

This post has been edited by Silver Dandy David: 22 March 2009 - 01:01 AM

[Joinee Simitebrong]

Siobhán, on 21 Mar 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

When I was underage I had sex and though we were both under the age of consent it was statutory rape.

If you're both underage and consenting... technically, who's raping who? (is that an Aretha Franklin number?) or are both parties the rap-er and the rap-ee?

I was unaware of this, i had a lot of underage sex... (could i still be prosecuted for that??, surely not) and also, i think i learned somewhere that if a female over 16 has sex with a male under 16; that's indecent assault. if the male is the elder then it's statutory rape, which carries a harsher sentence. Which does seem a little inconsistent and unfair to me.

[GJ Dandy David]

It is indecent assault - women can't be charged with rape in the United Kingdom.

[Platinum Joinee West]

Joinee Simitebrong, on 22 Mar 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

If you're both underage and consenting... technically, who's raping who? (is that an Aretha Franklin number?) or are both parties the rap-er and the rap-ee?

I was unaware of this, i had a lot of underage sex... (could i still be prosecuted for that??, surely not) and also, i think i learned somewhere that if a female over 16 has sex with a male under 16; that's indecent assault. if the male is the elder then it's statutory rape, which carries a harsher sentence. Which does seem a little inconsistent and unfair to me.

yes it is indecent assault, but only because the technical definition of rape is the insertion of the penis into an orifice against the will of the orifice owner.

Indecent assault of a woman on a man which results in intercourse (i.e. "rape") can carry the same sentence as male on female rape.

[GJ Dandy David]

Actually, indecent assault by a man on a woman could be tried summarily in a magistrates' court as it's an either way offence and this is the starting point. True rape, on the other hand, must be tried in Crown Court.


Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines, Definitive Guide - I'll give the link later, I'm just running out of the door.
It's part of a pretty hefty PDF.

[GJ Dandy David]

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/gu...ncil/quick.html

[Gaz]

Loveday, on 21 Mar 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

As far as being in complete control of their actions? Come on, of course they are.

Take a piece of paper, write the word "wrong" on it, then study this intensely for it is an excellent description of your above statement and indeed large chunks of the rest of your post.

To simply assume paedophiles are "bad people" who know precisely what they are doing and are in complete control is the mindset of the idiot tabloids who only see in 100% black, 100% white. Mental illness (and here we're talking generally, not just paedophilia) can very easily cause irresistible and irrepressible urges regardless of whether that person knows they are doing right or wrong. Many paedophiles loathe themselves, their actions and their situation, yet still cannot help themselves or control their behaviour. Others simply don't realise their actions are wrong because they are unable to perceive this without medication. And you can quite easily substitute kleptomaniac, self-harmer, paranoid schizophrenic, manic depressive, alcoholic, shopaholic, workaholic etc. into that sentence and it would remain entirely true.

And it is also perfectly possible to have a mental illness and outwardly to all intents and purposes look entirely fine. Depression being an excellent example. Plus many paedophiles do exhibit symptoms of other mental conditions such as obsessive/compulsive disorder, depression and so on, so it's utterly false to suggest that paedophilia cannot be a genuine mental illness because they "don't have anything else wrong with their brain". And even if they didn't, you can't simply classify one mental illness as fake because you don't like the symptoms it produces and would rather just label those people as evil.

[HJCotW Spacemonkey]

So, that debate ended. It was nice and lively and that. Here's a new one:

Should there be a cap on the number of children families can have? If so, what should it be?

I ask due to this story. With the country in the financial state it's in, should people be allowed to just keep spewing out babies without any thought for the consequences?

MoT
HJCotW