2014 - A New Year, New Attitude And New Language.

Sent to all the UK major media outlets. Let's see what we get back.

"Good evening and a Happy New Year to you.

Now that we have a brand new year, please can I ask that we have a brand new attitude to the language that you use to describe child sexual abuse. What I am proposing is as below:

"Child pornography" to be changed to "Child Abuse Images" or "Indecent Images of Children" (the correct legal definition). Reasons are that by definition, children cannot consent to anything sexual under 16 years of age, therefore cannot do "porn". Also, by definition as well, the only people who would refer to images or videos of naked children, or child sex abuse as "porn" are paedophiles - the rest of us would never think this was porn in a million years. Why should we use "paedo talk" to describe such images then?

"Child Prostitutes" to be changed to "Prostituted Children". Reasoning, although it seems that there is very little change, is the way in which the wording of the two relates to the victim of this crime. "Child prostitute" implies consent and a willingness to do this from the child, whereas "Prostituted Child" implies the forcing of this sexual exploitation by a third party (offender) and is therefore the accurate description.

"Child Sex" to be changed to "Child Rape" or "Child Sexual Abuse". Reasoning is the lack of consent between offender and victim. Sex is a natural consensual adult activity - Rape is sexual assault  initiated by someone against the others consent. With the new guidelines coming into force soon, and the removal of ostensible consent, there is no reason to describe the rape of a child as "child sex"

Offenders having "Affairs" with girls (usually when describing teacher-pupil abuse) or "Relationships" to be changed to "sexually abusing". reasoning is similar to the above - affairs are normally described as a romantic and sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other. As both "affair" and "relationship" imply consent, which is by definition not there as one party is a child under sixteen, this can only be described as Sexual Abuse.

I realise that all of you don't all use all the above, but you do use some of them. To stop trivialising these offenses, facilitating offenders,  and offending victims of these crimes, please can you consider my points as above.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know your thoughts - as I said above, "A new year, a new attitude and a new more accurate way of reporting.

Many thanks"

"Paedophilia Is A Treatable Illness"

Paedophilia is a treatable illness

 

 

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