Pattaya Daily News

I should also probably reiterate that, by UK law at least, "indecent images" are not necessarily pornographic, do not have to feature nudity, do not even have to feature real children, nor do they have to be produced in an abusive situation, and may be considered either "decent" or "indecent" depending on circumstance. We are certainly not exclusively talking about clearly "sick" images.

Mr Annoyed: You seem to be implying that I am suggesting indecent images should be intentionally produced for the purpose of consumption by paedophiles. Dilemma: whose children do we pick?! Don't be silly. This isn't a matter of conscription. You are simply describing an abusive process, by suggesting some sort of assignment of minors to a role regardless of the individual person's desire to fulfill it. Secondly, your use of the phrase "little children" is inappropriate. "Minors" may be up to the age of 17, and as big as they come.
--------------------
What I am actually saying is that there are several perpetual sources of indecent images, both abusive and non-abusive. The fact that we are punishing paedophiles so harshly who manage to obatain some of these images is, for the reasons I have already explained below (and others) contributing at least as many problems to society as it is solving. I know it's a bit counter intuitive, but if you stand back and accept the paradigm shift as a whole, it makes perfect sense. Far from making the problems better, current legislation and attitudes are only distracting our attention from the heart of the real problems by amplifying apparently severity. In the process we are outcasting and prosecuting thousands of harmless individuals. By being sensible, and punishing inherently harmful behaviour, as opposed to merely offensive behaviour, we could find more effective solutions to all of these problems at once.

And which little children are going to appear in these sick photographs for your own strange gratification?????.

Vitiatorman: "What normally sane man has photographs of other peoples children? " So what? This is an ad hominem argument. This is an argument that just because something is abnormal, it is wrong. This is an arbitrary, prejudiced moral judgment, the very thing we should not be basing legislation on. If we replaced "wrong" with "harmful" this is even more clearly invalid.
------------------------
"This is the reason the law finds photos of children ‘indecent’ even though they may be fully dressed. It is the circumstances surrounding the possession." It's a valid point, but the problem is I am not arguing that the law does not have any sort of justification, but more that the justifications offered can be easily offet by other variables which also require optimisation. Just because something is indecent that does not mean it is inherently harmful. As I have said previously, in order to be fair, we have to accept some element of risk. Punishment just because you find something offensive is not only predjudiced but, as we can clearly see from the state of the world today, also very dangerous. I agree that this is not so easy to come to terms with as simply punishing anybody who merely offends sensibilities, but unfortuantely this is the real world and the real world is not black and white.
--------------------
As an analogous example, we might, for example, make the recent leaked photographs of disney actress vanessa hudgens illegal. Just like many indecent images of children, they were taken by a legal aged adult. Just like many indecent images of children, they somehow got into the "wrong hands" and were distributed online. Just like many indecent images of children, their distribution is now out of control of the subject of the photograph. They are more erotic than many indecent images of children. They represented significant embarrassment for hudgens, and could potentially have cost her a career. They have had millions of downloads, orders of magnitude more than most child porngoraphy must ever get. But nevertheless possession of these photos is entirely legal. I am certain that anybody who downloaded these photos does not consider themselves worthy of the label "sex offender", even though they may ultimately feel sorry for hudgens, or even have used them personally for gratification.
--------------------
What is more, as I have previously argued, I personally am of the opinion that relaxing these laws and allowing paedophiles access to a certain number of photos will actually improve quality of life for paedophiles and decrease the likelihood of abuse, by opening up a sexual outlet. This is actually not mere speculation; the criminologist Berl Kutchinsky found that rates of child sexual abuse in denmark actually dropped in 1970, after the legalization of hardcore pornography. (Interestingly, Kutchinsky subsequently helped to ban child pornography in Denmark, although this does not counter my argument - pornographic images are a subset of indecent ones).
--------------------
Indeed, forcing people to reconsider their opinions by saying, sorry, you may be offended but you'll just have to deal with it, we are opening up the path for reform whereby we can concentrate on the *real* offenders, rather than wasting time and resources on every last paeophile who has done something mildly offensive in private.

!: "All I see here are paedo's trying to justify their behaviour." Oh dear. Are you trying to play a non-existant trump card? And what if the justification is valid? What are you afraid of? :) Obviously I am not trying to justify the actions of child molestors, or anybody who puts children at significant risk of harm. I am trying to have paedophiles, as people, accepted into society, regardless of whether sexual relations or images remain illegal. I believe very strongly that this will not only be of significant benefit to child safety, but also to thousands of paedophiles currently under social oppression. You may also like to check out the recent book "Understanding and Adressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children" by Sarah D. Goode.
--------------------
I was going to make a list of sources for you, but then I found the following page which seems to have done a much better job than I could do within this comment space! http://newgon.com/wiki/Research. Of particular relevence is the section on the right, headed "Harm to and abuse of children: Prevalence and correlates..." and particularly http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:_Prevalence_of_Harm_and_Negative_Outcomes.

Mr Annoyed: whatever. I have told you a balanced account of the way things are, with a certain numbers of sources (although I could provide many more if asked). Sorry that you are obviously too weak an individual to come to terms with that, and instead are quite happy following your own, biological gut instinct on this matter just because there isn't a sufficiently large group of people to exert a potential social penalty if you didn't. I found this article on google news, I am not specifically interested in thailand, although I know there are terrible problems with sex tourism over there which obviously I do not support.

Nathan you are a really fucked up individual. You talk like a politician avoiding the issue and dancing round it like the nonse you are. If you sleep with, take pictures of etc of a child you are 100% abusing this child be it physically or mentally.I have refrained from swearing however my blood is now boiling at your stuborn ignorance by trying to justify your feelings and actions. YOU NEED HELP. I suggest you seek it before you get more urges to ruin lives. What worries me is you are in the UK and are interested in Thailand, this makes me wonder about your interests in the country or should I say its poor residents with children. I hope the authorities dont let you near this country however I bet you and your paedo mates have already organised a nice little ring of abuse. BURN IN HELL

All I see here are paedo's trying to justify their behaviour. This one quote makes me sick to my stomach.... "It is interesting to note that there are multiple sources of varying degree's of credibility which proclaim that many adult/child sexual relationships are not detrimental to the child.".... Please give links to these multiple sources because I don't believe a word of it.

Social interaction between male and female leads to sexual interaction which in return leads back into social interaction, this is the only way a healthy relationship can survive and prosper. If a man does not have the required ability to carry on a meaningful rapport, verbal or otherwise, there is something amiss in his make-up and to compensate for this lack he engages in relationships closer to his mental age (prepubescent children) this can lead to a similar effect on the child and thus turning him into an odd sexual pervert when grown up.
His inability to intermingle with his peers and his eventual search for alternatives (a ‘Catch 22’ effect)

This is a direct quote from ‘Medical Library: Fact Sheet, 1997 APA’.
The characteristics of a pedophile are very hard to notice but if one were to examine it closely it is evident that they are not your average Joe. Personality characteristics vary amongst pedophiles but usually seem to be very similar once they are directly analyzed. Paedophiles usually display unusual interest in children along with a failed marriage due to dissimilar sexual interest with their spouse. Their hobbies and interest sometimes include collecting any kinds of items that revolve around children such as models of cars and airplanes. Even a pedophile’s room decorations frequently resemble that of a child (Paedophiles and Child Molesters-The Slaughter of Innocence-Online).

An argument suggesting a sexually healthy person would have in his possession
photographs of children that are not of his immediate family, frankly astound me
What normally sane man has photographs of other peoples children?
This is the reason the law finds photos of children ‘indecent’ even though they may be fully dressed. It is the circumstances surrounding the possession.

TheRationalPaeophilde: "It is interesting to note that there are multiple sources of varying degree's of credibility which proclaim that many adult/child sexual relationships are not detrimental to the child." Yes, and it is even more interesting to note that examination of sources which claim universal abusive do not base their definition of abuse on harm, but more on personal ethical principles. This is why I am always very careful to insist that we distinguish between "abusive" and "offensive" - often, "abuse" in this scientific context does not imply harm, or even the gross likelihood of harm.--------------------This leads to extremely bad science, involving the use of arbitrary legal definitions and ethical principles to present conclusions that, to the uninformed reader, seems to present clear evidence of intense, pervasive harm. Very commonly, more of the misleading or bad science you see used includes circular logic, selectivity of evidence ("all odd numbers are prime" - 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, all prime numbers - all good supporting evidence of this hypothesis :), biased assimilation, lack of adequate (or any) control data, definition of "symptoms of abuse" which include symptoms that clearly may be caused by other things than abuse, a small number of anecdotal reports (interviews), unfounded dismissal of data that clearly challenges viewpoints, and even rhetorical, baseless arguments that the authors nevertheless treat as conclusive.--------------------In the meantime, there is little ability to present resistance to the moral steamroller. From past experiences (e.g. that of Rind et al, and more recently Yuill) scientists who publish results contrary to those expected can expect to see their reputations and careers vanish and be subject to physical abuse from the public. Funding for this research can also be very difficult to find.

oh, also just to add an example I forgot to the list: images of fully clothed children in mildly or accidentally provocative positions may also be prosecuted as indecent. --------------------Even worse, see here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978

"Images which are below the threshold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing"
--------------------
In other words, virtually any image of a child can be counted as indecent - even non-indecent images can be counted as indecent if the judge wants them to be! :) The very use of the term "indecent" is indicative of a prejudiced, moral judgment, essentially saying: well, even though there's no harm in these images, I'm still going to label you as a sex offender because they're personally offensive to me. :) -------------------- Of course, many indecent images are harmful and unequivocally abusive in their method of production. I'm not denying that. What I am saying though is, when you read a media report on this subject, try to stop and think - are they telling me all the details here? What am I be assuming that actually might not be true?

Mr Annoyed: Maybe you should realise that "indecent images" are another extremely grey area, both legally and morally.--------------------Firstly, most of the "indecent images" seized and prosecuted over are not abusive or pornographic. Here in the UK for example, cartoons depicting children may be considered indecent, photographs of children in legitimate situations in e.g. a child at a swimming pool or at a nudist beach are prosecuted as indecent, and the indecent image laws also apply for photos of individuals over the age of 18 who nevertheless appear to be under 18. Many "indecent images" are ignored in the hands of a non-paedophile. Also, images need only be displayed on a screen, and not even stored, to be considered made. To give you a more concrete idea about this, recent trials of a "full body scanner" at an airport were banned for use with individuals under the age of 18, when the hazy outline produced by the scanner was deemed to be illegal. The exact nature of sezed images is often left vague in media and police reporting. It is often left up to the imagination of the reader to surmise which terrible, abusive photos the defendant in question has obtained. Also, watch out for the use of the word "making", which to all intents and purposes means "possession". The actual creation of indecent images is referred to as "production".--------------------Secondly, a point of debateable value, but still something worth mentioning: despite what we are often told by authorities, the production of a good percentage of even pornographic indecent images does not always take place with an adult forcing their will on a helpless child. Many indecent images are taken and passed around by minors themselves (up to the age of 18), as is evident from the recent crazes of "sexting". Spending not too long on a teen dating/relationships website will also be enough to convince you that many "indecent images" are voluntarily created and uploaded into the public domain quite knowingly by the subjects of the images themselves. The law turns a complete blind eye to these incidents, despite the fact that technically in producing and distributing child pornography these minors are committing crimes far more serious in magnitude than many "sex offenders" who may have merely accrued a web browser cache of a few non-pornographic indecent images.--------------------The third thing to realise is that given the circumstances, you *cannot* treat mere possession of pornography as an indication of character. I mentioned this in a comment below. I can however expand slightly on this by introducing the concept "ignorance is bliss". I think that the reason many paedophiles feel able to download indecent images while remaining morally sound is that, despite what we are continually told by authorities, it does not contribute to the abuse of a child (except in one particular circumstance that I will return to in a minute). Abuse is created due to the creation and distribution of certain images - the subject of the photos knows that their images are in circulation outside their own control. Nevertheless, it does not matter if there are 0 downloads or 10,000 downloads, the level of abuse remains the same. It is the manufacturing of the photos that is abusive, everything thereafter is, practically speaking, benign.--------------------Of course, it may make us uncomfortable that people are gratuitously using these images for their own pleasure, and also we may still wish to keep these images illegal for the purposes of discouraging their production in the first place. (Although supply and demand does not really apply in this instance). But I will reiterate, for practical purposes we must bear in mind the difference between "offensive" and "abusive". We must keep things in perspective by thinking of the practical issues: does the fact that somebody obtained these images actually contribute to the suffering of a child? The answer is an unequivocal: most likely not one bit. Therefore as I mentioned before, in the circumstances of today's society, whereby many paedophiles are driven to download indecent images for lack of any other sexual outlet, we cannot use this as a judge of character.--------------------Again, I suggest that more access to children in real life would put some sort of damper on this resulting need to seek out online images.--------------------The circumstance I was talking a bout above are circumstances in which images are used to blackmail or threaten children. Nevertheless, this behaviour is adequately provided for under laws dealing with, well, blackmail and threatening behavior, not to mention that it is a minority behaviour. This is therefore not an argument for banning the possession of indecent images to begin with.

Believe me I have read your posts and feel you have a very real problem that you clearly cannot see. The very reason that paedophiles are classed as a mental health issue tells you it is an illness.

You say you do not commit however in your first post you said you had been to prison because of sick porn. This is ruining children by people like yourself sharing this filth and creating a market for this abuse. It is a very serious mental health problem and you need help. Please admit this to yourself at least.

@ Mr.Annoyed. It appears you haven't read my posts at all. I will say that, yes, I believe that "thoughts" are generally alright. Like most paedophiles, I am a non-offender, therefore, I will also say I "do no wrong." It is the actions which are not OK. Thank goodness we are still free to have our own private thoughts or people like you would have enyone who had thoughts different than yours hanged. No where did I say any illegal behavior was "alright", in fact I specifically said it was NOT alright. I only stressed that there are differences between offenses, and a slightly more tolerant view than 'TORTURE THEM ALL TO DEATH" should be considered for certain non-violent, consensual acts, which make up the vast majority of offenses. I am in no way saying that that makes those offenses ok. I repeatedly advise those that may be attracted to under age girls, or boys, against offending. My points, which you have missed, was that the authors idea of a peadophile is way way off the mark. She talks of a sadistic psychopathic rapist which describes neither me nor the vast, vast majority (over 99% as I said) of people suffering from paedophilia. The points I made, which you probably took as me claiming paedophiles "do no wrong" are simply facts I provided as context to the discussion. In fact here is another fact to consider: The mental health care community have held discussions on whether or not to remove paedophilia from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and instead classify it more as a sexual preference, just as they did with homosexuality in 1986. They point out that this should not be interpreted to mean acts of peadophilia should be decriminalized.
source: http:// www.narth.com/docs /debatecontinues. html (no spaces)

The replies of this clearly sick man is in itself the very reason paedos should be locked up at any little bit of evidence of this sickness.

He is talking like there is nothing wrong with his thoughts however we all know he is in need of psychoatric help.

This is the problem, these freaks think they are doing no wrong.

Pauly, In reference to your comment about peadophiles not being able to use paragraphs, FYI, it is PattayDailyNews' website which won't allow paragraphs. I had about 6 or 7 when I submitted my comment. They get merged into one upon submission. But just for you... ----------
Some good points are made here, especially by Nathan. However, be careful using the "A course of action on the part of the parent often "creates" abuse in itself." as a rationalization for offending. (I don't think you were Nathan, but others might, and do) Offenders or potential offenders must realize the current climate we live in in terms of sexual relations with those under the age of consent. It is the offenders actions which put the victim in a situation where actions of parents or law enforcement can cause further, or even greater, suffering to the victim. This is still the fault and responsibility of the offender, as the adult, he or she presumably understands the consequences of his or her actions. It would certianly be better for the individual victim if there wasn't such an irrational fear stricken impassioned response. ---------- Speaking of which, thank you gary for again illustrating the level of passion involved in this debate. There continues to be, and probably always will be, the misconception that peadophiles wish to harm children, which for over 99% is completely untrue. Unfortunately it is the less than 1% which makes the headlines which results in the legislation we have today. Those are the guys that scare me, not the 23 year old who has no predilection towards children but thinks he falls in love with the 13, or even developed 12 year old neighbor and engages in consensual sexual activity with her, or the hot female school teacher that thinks she falls in love with a 13 or 14 year old student and does the same. No, of course that's not good either, but it's eons away from Mrs. Browns idea of what is a peadophile. ----------
@GaryB I would argue that an attraction to the post-pubescent girl (breast development, curved hips, pubic hair) in a school uniform as being peadophilic. The mental health field defines peadophilia as a primary and unnatural attraction to PRE-pubescent children. In fact, in no other time in history, and no other place but in westernized societies is that attraction to post-pubscent girls considered unnatural or wrong. In fact, one could say that there is nothing MORE natural than a mans physical attraction to a girl which has recently "bloomed." and, in medical terms, become fertile. On an evolutionary scale, the life expectancy was less than 30 until very very recently. So who are we to argue with hundreds of thousands of years of successful evolution? Now, by no means should this be construed to mean that one should pursue sexual relations with such a girl even if the age of consent is 12-15 in your country, which it is in many. This should only help serve to understand why these attactions exist in men in the first place. Psychologists, while acknowledging this normal attraction the vast majority of men have to towards this age group, will still obviously advocate pursuing a relationship with a person defined as being from within your own "peer group." ------- It is interesting to note that there are multiple sources of varying degree's of credibility which proclaim that many adult/child sexual relationships are not detrimental to the child. I personally believe that in this day an age, with the vilification of sex and crusades against sex offenders, this is very rarely the situation. I only mention this to exemplify the contrast between the varying beliefs there are on this issue. Just like Galileo's claim the world wasn't the center of the universe, these studies should not be thrown out on their face bases solely on the fact that they are contrary to some very closely held beliefs. ------And as an example of how some society's address this issue, it is also relevant to note that possession of child pornography is still legal in many countries, including more than one G8 country. A whole cottage industry has sprung up in Japan around "Junior Idols", girls as young as 6, but usually between 12 and 17 being photographed and videoed frolicking in school girl uniforms, skimpy bathing suits and lingerie posing, at times very provocatively. Does this fuel a peadophile craze? Or does provide a healthy outlet for a country obsessed with a "Lolita complex"? The may still be out on that one, but Japan does have one of the lowest reported crime rates in the world, including a very low rate of child molestation and rape.--------@Alan Donaldson just FYI, chemical, or physical castration for that matter, has shown to do little for the most serious offenders, the less than 1% I speak of, who, for them, it is less of a sexual nature than it is about anger, control, domination or that they are just plain lunatics, which you would have to be really. You have to admit that what you are really taking about is revenge, it's not out of any care or concern for the public's safety. Also @ gary, I'm not failing to understand there is a certain logic behind your potential anger at finding out someone older has had sexual relations with your daughter. I'd be angry too, but lets not blow things out of proportion. I don't know how old your theoretical kid is, but if she is, say, a teeneager, (since someone mentioned under 16, so lets use that) then I would say your emotions, and your eagerness to spend months if necessary torturing to death the offender, are not commensurate with the offense. A punishment and even psychological help is a good idea. But torture to death? That's a bit extreme. Remember, with you as the girls father, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of YOU being the offender. So go lock yourself in a closet for the rest of your life, ok?---------- But even with the more serious of offenses, again, it's unfortunate that these anger stricken parents (and rightly so) are the ones that make the emotionally passionate pleas to the public, the media, and to law makers to name some bit of legislation ofter their deceased child in the name of saving children in the future. How doubly sad is it when it's discovered that said legislation actually does nothing to protect anyone, actually causes more unnecessary pain for families, and wastes valuable resources which could have gone to something that actually worked. Well, as long as they got re-elected, I guess that's all that matters. ------------
@Silver. What I am saying is that the description given by the author of the opinion piece described the most heinous of criminals which represents the tiniest of fraction of men that would fall under the category of paedophile. So yes, maybe 1% are committing crimes, but it's 1% of 1% that feel and or act as Ms. Brown has described in quite disgusting detail. If she were actually in the mental health field she would know that. By definition peadophiles love children and the small percent that act out genuinely don't believe they are hurting children, rather sharing something special and mutually enjoyable. Granted they are usually fairly self absorbed, creating layers of thought distortions which allow them to convince themselves it is OK. Silver, in terms of your question about how do you know who is an offender...remember that statistics show a relative or close family friend with no record is 1000% times more likely to be the one found molesting your daughter than a person who is a registered sex offender. As I mentioned, recidivism rates among sex offenders is relatively low when compared to other criminals. Obviously we can't eliminate all men from interacting with all children forever, but unfortunately that is the only solution to your question. Of course then there is the question of the offenders which are female and children themselves. Better I mend that to not allowing ANYONE having contact with children, ever. Even other children. That way they are sure to be "safe"

Unfortunately (I say that a lot) gary's sentiments "DEATH 2 YOU ALL", as well as the opinion of the author of this opinion piece who is supposedly, but doubtfully, a health care professional, and Polands Prime Minister's call to castorate all peadophiles is not an uncommon position taken by otherwise rational people. It is very difficult to get any constructive debate on the subject with such an emotion. Laws need to be conceived of and written by rational, unbiased, educated people, not enraged parents out for revenge. How ironic that this kind of scare tactic used by the PM of Poland is of the same design as that used by Hitler and The Third Riecht against the Jews. The world has run out of religions to persecute, the war waged by the homophobs is coming to end. We are the next scapegoats. Sadly I don't see this changing for some time.

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Club_Z: Paedophiles: Are They Curable? http://bit.ly/b3I1pZ...

Hmm, I meant to say in the second paragraph, this ability to legally indulge in revenge is something that needs to be constrained, for in many cases it represents an innate, biological reaction, that may not be shared by the child in question, at least in magnitude. A course of action on the part of the parents often "creates" abuse in itself, in itself taking advantage of the malleability of the mind of a child. I don't care how petulent a "mum" might get about what I say. Even if that "mum" has been the unfortunate receiving end of abuse either to herself or to her child (for which I have great sympathy), that gives her no free pass to extrapolate the situation to other people. Sara Payne is the quintessential example of such a mum, abusing her situation and your emotions to get her way. It amounts to nothing more than an irrational, biological reaction.

gary, if it were any other subject I wouldn't bother replying to you. Nevertheless, maybe this can serve as a reply to you, and others who think as you do.--------------------Firstly, in my experience a lot of people do actually care, but people like you stop them from speaking out. Secondly, reactions like yours are cultivated by this society we live in. That parents are allowed to indulge in revenge every time something happens that they merely don't like (regardless of whether the actions in question were in fact harmless) only encourages this hatred you so openly display.
--------------------
For various reasons, adult/child sex is not a topic I will get into here. But needless to say, it is an integral part of my arguments, since regardless of the moral values an individual chooses to maintain, the empirical evidence paints the picture of a reality directly contrasting that in the minds of many. With this in mind, I know I can speak about things such as letting paedophiles have *more* access to children while confident of minimal risk of harm. (As apposed to minimal risk of breaching moral values). Trust me, if I thought somebody over 16 touching "one hair" of somebody under 16 was always indicative of intense, pervasive harm then my thoughts would be quite different.
--------------------
Like everything else to do with this topic, the reality of the situation with adult/child sex is entirely grey, not the black and white good/bad, harmful/harmless ideal that is so easy for any idiot to grasp hold of, and for the authorities to drive home. Attitudes like yours, force fitting reality to match your black and white picture of the world is not only harmful to paedophiles like me but is in many cases also demonstrably harmful to children and families who get wrapped up in these cases.
-------------------- You could do yourself and everyone else a favour by engaging your brain.

Just to clarify my position.
I have no sexual desire for people under the age of my own children 22/24.

I wonder though how many of the posters advocating violent solutions to this problem find school uniforms sexy? .
Please don't try to dismiss this as un related as it is a fact that the sexual attraction of the school uniform is related to the perceived age group it represents. If schoolgirls excite you. You are to some degree a pedophile.

any body with kids would kill any sick paedophile that touched 1 hair on there body.i would have weeks ,maybe months of slowly putting him out of the life.. i would not like to say what i would do. i think a mum would do a better job , and thats saying something.. stop writing your sad and sick!! NO BODY GIVES A FUCK.. DEATH 2 YOU ALL..

It seems there is a link between paedophilia and the inability to use paragraphs.

Just read an article about it in Playboy. Fascinating stuff!

To Pauly: Im not a Paedophile but as I, you as well have a choice to read or not to read. If this subject doesnt fuel your interest then just read on at your Playboy Magazine.

Are all paedophiles boring bastards?reading these posts is like watching paint dry

TheRationalPaeophile - good comment :D for the record, I am also a paedophile. Probably the only thing I disagree with is your point on why people become paedophiles in the first place. to me it's just a sexuality...
--------------------
silver: the answer to your point is that, we don't. This is how criminal justice works - you have to wait for people to demonstrate themselves a danger before we lock them away! This is the real reason that child abuse will never be eliminated entirely. Yes, this involves some element of risk, but this is the real world, and it is the only way to act fairly. (Besides, I think actually that the risk mitigated by a large chunk of current legislation is so small as to be negligible - those who do not mind causing real harm to children will do so regardless of how strict the legislation becomes).
--------------------
Everybody has the capacity to break and enter, but we do not impose a general curfew to prevent it happening. Similarly, most men have the potential to rape a woman, but we do not lock up every man who jokes about raping a woman "just in case". In order to be fair on the majority, we have to accept some element of risk. Does it not seem selfish to have somebody else lock away every paedophile, just because you personally want to live with your head in the clouds that your daughter is "safe"? Children are not the only demographic who need protecting.
--------------------
What we urgently need to do is get over the difference between "offensive" and "abusive", and "immoral" and "harmful". Even if something is against the morals of 99.9% of the general population, if it is unlikely to represent a practical problem then the best thing to do is say - tough luck, get over it. This way we can focus our resources better on the real offenders, such as those talked about in this article.
--------------------
The problem with current legislation is that it is so sensitive that any slight deviation from ordinary behaviour is punished as if it is indicative of great risk. What people are capable of is only determinable once they act. In general, we should not be using trivial acts to demonstrate the potential for harmful ones. This leads to many more convictions, which are all reported in the media as incidents of the most heinous crime, which drives up demand for even tougher legislation etc, which results in tougher legislation, which drives up demand for legislation etc. Laws pertaining to 'indecent images' are typical of this - many 'indecent images' are the sort of thing that could be found in an ordinary family album, and would be ignored in the hands of a non-paedophile. Yet these cases are prosecuted and reported as if all images are intensely abusive etc.
--------------------
I would also like to make the point that IMHO the way society acts with respect to paedophilia is only the root cause of the 'severity' of many of the problems. Society contrains every last inch of a paedophile's sexuality, tells paedophiles from birth that they are intrinsically evil. Meanwhile, everybody is told that their sexuality is nothing to be afraid of, that they have a right to their sexuality, that they have a right to be happy and to be in a relationship. Society offers support and condolense for those who are unhappy being gay, yet creates the notion of "paedophiles rings" when paedophiles try contact in support of one another. It is to me not hard to imagine that all of this will only lead to sexual frustration, *increasing* the risk of abuse. Also it makes it particularly obvious to me why many, in an attempt to engage in some sort of sexual expression, may resort to downloading child porngoraphy. While I do not condone the possession of abusive images, neither does it *necessarily* say anything to me about character.
-------------------
I am very firmly of the belief that the solution to many problems is to alter our own attitudes, rather than to introduce ever harsher punishments. The reason this is difficult is that it involves effort from the general population, rather than the government just issuing a new bill. Nevertheless, I am sure many paedophiles would be very happy to be open about their sexuality, if only they could feel safe in doing so. If society could embrace and support paedophilia as a sexuality then maybe we could collectively mitigate the risk to children. If had *more* access to children then maybe it would increase hapiness rather than forcing people into loneliness and depression.
--------------------
There is a lot more to say on this, I am under no illusions that there are no objections to the stuff I said above. Please be aware though that this is only the tip of the iceberg!

I think this article is blsht because written not by Psychology Dr.

good write-up.
yes, asian socities developed and developing ones- do have many paedophiles. proposals here worth considering.

Forget about chemical castration. We should go the whole way. If a pedophile wants to be release, he should have a complete castration. That would solve he problem of re-offending.

To the RationalPaedophile.
I have read your point of view with interest. You are saying that there are actually only 1% of all Paedophiles which are actually commiting a crime and abusing children Physically. Well the problem is, how do we identify this 1% unless they are convicted of the crime? The answer? We dont know until after it happened. And exactly this reason makes EVERY Paedophile a danger to the Public. And then i have to agree with Mr. Taylor. If somebody would rape my daughter i would as well devote all my time,my money and my heart to hunt him down. I would make sure he would never harm another human beeing again.

NO!!!! they are not.. killing them is to easy aswell.. what i would suggest is cut off there thumbs & cock!!!. then they can go through life knowing what they done everytime they go to pick something up!!

When I saw the heading, I was looking forward to reading an enlightening, rational and informative article on the reality of peadophilia. I was disappointed to see an emotion filled vigilantly call to arms.
The short answer is no, they cannot be cured no more than a homosexual can be cured. They can only be managed.
This article is filled with misconceptions about peadophiles. The reason I know this is not solely because my degrees are in criminal justice and psychology, it's also because I am a peadophile.
Unfortunately the anger, irrationality, and inaccuracies shown in this highly emotional, subjective, one-sided opinion piece is what is currently fueling and corrupting today's public opinion, legislative and judicial processes. How to handle peadophiles is serious issue, no doubt. It's an emotional issue which no politician is willing to commit political suicide in order to bring some rational discussion to the debate. It is surprising to me that someone that supposedly worked in mental health care would have such an alarmist and uninformed view. Usually members of the mental health are a little bit more enlightened. It’s even more alarming to hear such talk coming from a Prime Minister.
Firstly, the description Ms. Brown gives of a typical peadophile in the first paragraph represents a very very small percent of offenders, less than 1% in fact. It certainly doesn't describe me or any of the peadophiles I have chatted with online or met in group therapy. I have struggled with a porn addiction since I was about 9. I have been through the system, having been arrested for possession of child pornography. I went to prison, I went through years of therapy, which was very helpful, (but as I said, does not "cure".) I met a lot of other peadophiles, and none of them were convicted of or were accused of behaving in a manner in which Ms. Brown describes in the first paragraph. Peadophile chat rooms and forums are filled with peadophiles discussing their likes and dislikes. And as disgusting as that still may seem to many, I never met anyone that found physically harming a child appealing. I realize that this still sounds bad, but the truth is these were child lovers, not child killers. The vast majority understanding that their attractions can only be expressed in fantasy, not reality. That is an important distinction.
I will agree that the 1% of peadophiles, i.e. the child abductors, child (or adult) rapists, and child murderers are the lowest life form, and I am not opposed to long prison terms, and when/if released, lifetime sex offender registration, housing restrictions, GPS monitoring, community notification, chemical castration, and mandatory counseling. Those are all good things for the 1% of serious offenders. And the other 99% of peadophiles would agree with me. The problem is when legislators, responding to emotion filled pleas (like the one Ms. Brown is making) enact laws in a knee jerk response usually due to a single emotional high profile case. Laws that are fiscally irresponsible, logistically impossible, completely ineffective, and/or cruel and unusual which apply to all offenders, even the 18 year old caught having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, which I had in one of my sex offender groups. He has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. These laws are not only incredibly expensive, (such as GPS) but have shown to only increase the likelihood of re-offending due to destabilizing the offender’s support system. Some of them are forced to be homeless. How does kicking sex offenders out on the street improve the safety of our children? There is a finite amount of money available to be put towards protecting our children. We should support policy and programs that work, not ones that give the public a false sense of security and gets our legislators re-elected for being "tough on crime".
Secondly, I question the parts of this article which are presented as factual. It's more likely that "Patty Brown" has no experience treating or dealing with victims or offenders at all. No one has ever used the term "ex-peadophile", and sex offender halfway houses are NEVER located with a view of a junior high school.
Ms.Brown barely attempts to answer her own question which she poses in the heading, a heading which should more accurately read "Peadophiles: We should execute them all" She says merely having an attraction is enough to castrate, lobotomize, or outright kill, even if a pedophile never acts out, they deserve to die based purely on their thoughts and sexual attractions, something they have no control over.
Peadophiles are often people that were sexually abused themselves. Or like me, had an early sexual experiences which "locked" them to a certain age range. (It doesn't help that young women and girls are being sexualized and exploited for money by mass mainstream media) Paedophiles are sometimes, but not always, socially inept. They practice thought distortions and rationalize their attractions and behavior as normal. They don't realize the trust they are violating. They fool themselves into believing they are not harming the child since the child often seems a willing participant, maybe even seeming to enjoy the sexual interaction. The peadophile finds comfort in the unquestioning affection the child offers, something he can’t get from an adult. He wishes and give that affection in return. Many have preferred age groups and sexes. I consider myself lucky in this regard as I am attracted to post-pubescent girls as well as adult women, which technically doesn't make me a paedophile, as the delineation is usually defined at puberty, but the the law doesn't recognize that, so even though I have never inappropriately touched a girl under 18, (well, not since I was a teenager anyway) I, and so many others, get lumped in with the 1% and are subjected to the laws pertaining to them.
Remember, very few cases of child molestation are committed by a person who is a stranger to the child. The vast majority are committed by a close family member or close friend of the family. And despite Ms. Brown saying "Needless to say, he not only tried sexually abusing one of the other tenants, but he also attacked one of the children..," Sex offenders have a very low recidivism rate when compared to other criminals.
Legislator’s need to learn there is a huge difference between the dangerous kidnapping, raping, (forcable rape, not consensual statutory rape) and murdering paedophile (a very small percent) and those which would never consider or condone violence against a child, and those that have an attraction to post-pubescent girls (some would say that is a normal attraction) and those that don't act on their attractions at all, and create laws accordingly. Our current systems don’t do that.

Yes, some of them are monsters as the article suggests. However there are many men out there attracted to younger females because of their beauty and would never harm them in any way. So should they all be castrated or executed? Ridiculas society we live in. We as adults always want to deny preteens their sexual freedoms because of our own paranoia and morals. I think predator should be defined very carefully here.

test

Mr Tusk would get my vote.
If one of these beasts came after my daughter he would be killed.I would devote all my time to making this happen.