Telegraph, 1 July 2003
"These people need help, and they should be offered it before they seek out child
pornography – or, even worse, act out their sick fantasies "
Ignoring the highly offensive language that this article contains, (again with the CP term!), this article I feel really needs a posting about it. There are some statements in here and the easiest way for me to write a post about it is to raise them individually - all points and views being my own of course, I speak here based on my own thoughts.
The first statement I would question, is the ''incidental viewers". In the article, Max Pemberton quotes that research shows that they access indecent images through conventional search engines and that they may "harbour underlying paedophiliac fantasies that have been repressed or ignored".
Unfortunately, although this statement has been made, Max does not include in the article, the source of the research. It would have been far easier for the public to have been able to have seen the "research" and judge for themselves, instead of accepting this as matter of fact.
Whilst some of the paragraph may be true, and a lot of adult pornography may portray adults posing as teenagers, I would imagine that most adult sites found via major search engines have certain controls and would prohibit under eighteens appearing on them. Also, I would imagine, the vast majority of adults who view adult pornography would know if there were illegal images or films on these sites and would avoid them like the proverbial plague - and would (hopefully) report any that were on there.
Am I being naïve? Possibly, but I would hope that most people are good people who would do the right thing.
And "harbouring paedophiliac fantasies that have been ignored or oppressed"? What on earth does that mean? I'm pretty sure that most adults know what "turns them on" far before they ever searched for porn online, and would look specifically for these things. I find it hard to believe that adults would suddenly discover that by looking for adult porn, that they find out that actually they are attracted to children and are some sort of paedophile? My own opinion of course, but one I am guessing would apply to most people.
Now the crux of this post.
"Is Paedophile a treatable illness"
The million dollar question.
One that I personally believe, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly, but hey, what do I know..) is a resounding NO.
In my naïve mind, I figure out that paedophilia is just another form of sexual choice - another "fetish" for want of a better mind, that is adults who are attracted to children.
Simple as that.
What paedophiles decide to do with these thoughts are what makes their actions so despicable - so disgusting. They may not have a choice in having this sexual preference - but they DO have a choice in acting on it.
Which is where I disagree with the article According to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, paedophilia is a mental illness . By my reckoning above if paedophilia is another sexual preference, another sexual "fetish", then shouldn't any fetish be included as a "mental illness". What about people who have These? What about people who are attracted to legs, feet, leather, PVC - the list is endless? Is every adult with a specific fetish "mentally ill"? Personally I think not. Personally I think this as an excuse to make them look overly harshly treated by society - to make us feel sorry for them, to accept it - "it's not my fault m'lud, I have this mental condition you see.....".
More and more, paedophilia is being classified as either a mental illness (DSM5 state this as a "mental disorder", UK Mental Health Act 2007 now classify this as a mental illness since 2007, and Greece have this classified as a disability).
How long before your taxes are being paid to these "poor" paedophiles who are afflicted with their "disability / mental illness" by way of benefits? How long before LGBT has another letter added to it - P? The more that society tries to reclassify this crime as a "disorder", the more that society accepts this as an "illness", the nearer this day will come. Mark my words.
Apologies for going off tangent towards the end and detracting from the article, but it is time we stop making excuses for paedophiles and their crimes. They alone are responsible for their actions, and thus they alone should pay the price for their actions. No-one has a gun to their head telling them to abuse children or download indecent images.
They choose.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
Thank you Mr. Bougeard, another good article.
ReplyDeleteA few observations:
I agree that classing paedophilia as a mental illness is nonsensical unless you also similarly class all the other minority fetishes and sexual orientations - in which case are we going to include non-procreational activities such as homosexuality !?????
Like anything, paedophilic offending must come about by a variety of means .......... sexual frustration, sexual boredom, sexual adventure, the excitement of the risk, the taboo ......... or just the male's tendency to f*ck anything with legs - or without legs (if you include vacuum cleaners & swimming pool filter systems -I kid you not) .......
..... to, at an extreme, paedophilia as a 'hard wired' sexual orientation.
Paedophilia as a sexual orientation is probably not treatable by anything other than 24/7 chaperoning/monitoring or chemical or medical castration.
"Sufferers" do indeed need society's understanding and sympathy. Less so for the more opportunistic offenders who were stupid and selfish and offended because they could or because it was easy or novel. It is the more chronic sufferers who have less "choice" and who deserve more sympathy but ALSO the more onerous treatment to ensure they do not damage further victims rights and lives.
There is evidence that career paedophiles regularly notch up many hundreds of victims over their lifetime - most of which remain unreported.
I agree that paedophiles have a "choice". But here is considerable research and debate within psychology as to what extent choice and free will are relevant. Certainly within the context of biological sexual need I would suggest that "choice" periodically or regularly becomes subservient to the urgency of instinct.
People who are attracted to children often choose lives and career paths which bring them into contact with children - even if they have no [initial conscious] intention of acting upon their appetites. Obviously the majority of schoolteachers etc. choose their careers for entirely the right reasons.
How many paedophiles could resist their urges indefinitely when presented with opportunity ? Can they resist, in a cocky moment or in a, weak moment - even the sense of risk could be an excitement in itself, or it could even feel like 'love' ...... which, to be fair could be a relevant claim, depending on the age of the girl (..... boy ..... child !). This 'love' is a lie if it would be extinguished if the individual [sexual-object] were 5, 10, 20 .... years older.
Many paedophiles will not consider themselves predators = time and familiarity doubtless have a way of normalising and rationalising perception of behaviours and appetites.
Paedophilia is as old as the hills and is here to stay- society needs to recognise this as one of the challenges to bringing up children in a safe and healthy environment and must put the rights of children above the rights of perpetrators.