Now in the UK there have been adverts on TV for an upcoming programme titled "The Pedophile Next Door". In summary a man is going to disclose his pedophilia on TV in a documentary to raise awareness of the issue. More info here: The Paedophile Next Door - Channel 4 - Info - Press Whilst to be honest the idea of this programme worries me, and seems little more than "freak show" style TV designed to shock people (only one step more professional than "To Catch a Predator"), I do think it raises some quite important questions. I think in the Western world the outrage over pedophilia is so strong that the problem is pushed underground and worsened. Whilst apparently there is no cure for this condition (it is almost a "sexuality" in that respect - just obviously harmful), there are obviously libido-suppressants that people affected could be taking to suppress their urges which would obviously be in everyones interest (both their own and the public at large). The problem is it seems to be so much of a taboo and so shamed that these men and women affected don't come forward. I think personally we need to view those simply suffering with this mental disorder separately from those who act on their urges and offend. What actually really saddens me, and is something I'd never even imagined before this programme came up, is that there are probably young teenagers out there (maybe as young as 10 or 11) afflicted with this horrendous mental disorder who have no-one to discuss it with or no non-judgmental avenues for help or treatment. Thats whats really upsetting. Now on the man in the documentary, he is certainly brave for "coming out" about this and I think it might open up a brief window of discussion - I would just worry for his physical safety moving forward. We've already seen on this same television channel a documentary series about "Pedophile Hunters" (vigilante groups who hunt down suspected pedophiles and publicly shame them, almost like a bloodsport). Anyway, your thoughts on the programme and the actual situation?
The programme is, as you quite aptly say, a freak show for the purpose of shock-value. They want to make money off paedophilia, not genuinely address the problem of child abuse. The commercialisation and trivialisation of it is horrendous; this isn't like an investigative report like the ones looking into child abuse in the Catholic clergy, for example. It's a clear indication of twisted priorities. As for paedophilia itself, I think that we risk a lot by demonising it in its theoretical sense as you mention, but many of us are to quick to defend sexual predators, such as the Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris trials, where the presumption of innocence (a courtroom notion that should be understood in the context of the government's inability to use its legal heft wrongly, not for the general public to refuse to view a case more reasonably) given caused a big backlash against people speaking out against the horrible abuse they faced, and further making life a Hell for those brave enough to come forward. Those inclined to attraction to children should be treated with compassion, but I don't think the majority of paedophiles are inherently attracted to children. Those who do naturally have that inclination ought to be given respect and allowed to come forward; if they're moral, they will know there's no way to satisfy their urges without ruining lives. However, I think that the vast majority of them (essentially the ones who engage in it) are after the desire for power, the satisfaction of tainting and having control over a vulnerable person. And they deserve no compassion.
I wholeheartedly agree. It must be very distressing to have those unwanted urges, and it certainly doesn't make them terrible people.
I guess these things are to be expected from Channel 4 though. To go off topic for a second it reminds me of this comedy sketch. I think the change would be viewing paedophiles and actual sex offenders who go out and commit abuse differently. I think we do as a society automatically presume "sex offender" when we hear the word paedophile, when in fact a person may have refused to act on their urges. Thats just reminded me of a drama/thriller series currently showing on the BBC called The Missing. In it there is a young man who voluntarily elects to undergo hormone therapy to supress his sex drive and pedophilia. His treatment nurse/doctor is shown to treat him very coldly and dismissively (its really quite painful to watch). I think given how frequently "regular patients" experience a lack of compassion in our healthcare service, it would not surprise me one bit if these pedophiles are treated callously and that is seriously messed up. Firstly, because we should be ensuring their experience is pleasant to encourage more to come forward and people to continue on their treatment (we shouldn't be scaring them off). Secondly, because I think we should be recognising that these people are being brave and making a sacrifice for the good of others. The type of drugs these people are prescribed are strong with a lot of side effects - particularly for the men they are essentially undergoing a non-surgical sex change. As in there might be two types of pedophile? Those "born that way" and those who pick it up? I think that does sound plausible - it would certainly explain the statistics suggesting many pedophiles were themselves abused as children (you would assume those would account for the latter cases who developed pedophilia). Unfortunately it sounds like its one of those things that is "cemented" in place once its there. To be honest though I think those who do engage in the behaviour could come from either group. Those who do should be certainly punished under the law, but I don't think I'd have zero compassion for them - at the end of the day there is probably a good chance they acted the way they did due to society failing them (either when they were children, or failing to provide support/treatment).
I think anyone who specifically seeks out a minor for sex(whether by chat or in person) deserves jail time. No exceptions. I support repeat offenders getting executed. There is a difference between having urges and acting on them. I support the stings done. I've never seen any of these people who want help, they bounce around from child to child. It's really quite disgusting.
I think the difference between a boy and a girl is bigger than between an adult and a child. That is to say a paedophile could probably get gratification from sex with an adult of the gender they prefer in a way that nobody could from the a gender they are not attracted to. So I don't think paedophilia is in any way a legitimate sexuality in the same way hetero or homo sexuality are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRw1ERj2Gc
Well clearly the man in this programme does, as probably the pedophiles who don't act on their urges do. It would not surprise me if even those who do commit these horrific acts feel some degree of shame or disgust at themselves and would want help too. These are really disgusting acts, we can all agree on that. However I think perhaps we view these people who do try their hardest quite unfairly in that regard. How many straight people, or how many of us bi or gay people can say we've never acted on our sexual urges (even in using pornography or in fantasizing) - yet we expect these people to do so without any support, encouragement, or therapy. I think its an issue of us as a society brushing the issue under the carpet and hoping it will go away, then not taking any responsibility when things do go wrong. ---------- Post added 24th Nov 2014 at 09:31 AM ---------- No its not, its a paraphillia. However it appears that many treatments attempting to cure pedophilia are unsuccessful meaning only the symptoms (sex drive) can be managed - that suggests some degree of innateness or it being hardwired. So whilst definitely not a valid sexuality (as it is so damaging and harmful to the person and others), it can in someways be viewed as almost parallel to a sexuality. Although perhaps like Aussie said there may be different types out there - so different people may respond differently to treatment? Also, +1 for the Brasseye. I've just remembered Rolf Harris was on one of them, perhaps some irony there.
Yeah I can accept that the attraction is innate, just not that the struggle of not being able to act on it is the same as the struggle of not being able to act on being gay, for example. Ha yeah brasseye is perfect Chris Morris the boy [YOUTUBE]kFNs2mOkKzc[/YOUTUBE]
Not necessarily, at least not for an 'exclusive pedophile'. I mean, different genders can be kind of similar too; like for example, a gay man could date a butch woman and only engage in anal sex/pegging with her and never touch her vagina. But it wouldn't be the same as an actual man to him, just like an adult who has 'childish' physical features and pretends to roleplay out innocence or submission is not the same kind of gratification for an exclusive pedophile; It's still an adult regardless and attraction to adults is not there. So that's why It's more of a sickness and a disease. The difference doesn't make it right to act on hurting children of course, but they're still going to be sexually frustrated with an adult if the attraction isn't there. That's why of course they should seek out help.
I would argue that's more of a by-product of the type of society we live in. After all, for what reason would you really have to see a 'paedophile' asking for help? It doesn't fit the moral mould that the press likes to measure these types of issues by when deciding to report it, nor is it a particular admission somebody is going to make unless you're in a very particular type of profession, at which point you'd be bound by confidentiality anyway. I've got very mixed feelings on the documentary itself. On the one hand, I do think it's important that we see the whole picture on this issue, rather than only fixating on the more insidious side of it. Having worked in statutory services, it becomes worryingly easy to see the worst in people when your day is spent managing risks of abuse, and I think discussions like the documentary could (if tackled properly) keep the issue focused so that discussion isn't isolated to the extreme elements that invoke understandable hysteria and impassioned responses. On the other hand, I question society's willingness and ability to actually be receptive to any dialogue related to paedophilia that isn't about hearing the horror stories and demands for them to be hanged from the nearest tree. In a way, it's become a bit of a sick fascination for the media to report on child abuse, and it has created this widespread misconception that paedophilia is only ever about a criminal act. As a result, our response to handling paedophilia is to be reactive within our safeguarding approach, which automatically requires a potential victim before justice occurs. Unfortunately, to take a preventative approach will require society to acknowledge that the identity isn't automatically synonymous with an actual criminal act. At present we're lumped somewhere between treating them as being one and the same, or acknowledging the difference but fixating on a perpetrator whilst ignoring the non-criminal who needs help but lacks access to resources. Whether that documentary helps kick start that discussion, I dunno. It will depend on the editorial of it, as well as viewers willingness to keep a somewhat open-mind and not automatically assume the guy is a serial child abuser, despite his own admissions that he's never abused a child.
