SICK: He had 47,000 photos of children being abused.

[Kaylee]

Every friend of mine that was raped or abused when she was little was done so by a person the family trusted.

And thats fairly common in a lot of cases.

AFAIK it is in fact the norm.

I cant belive theres even all these posts, its like we look at things o finely, just use some common sense.

It'd be a bit dull if everyone just said "oh I agree", wouldn't it? I had thoughts on issues with bearing on it so I thought we'd talk about them.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

no your right, sorry. im a bit hung-over

[Scraplet]

The part of me that believes in justice and a workable society says that if he served his time and has been reabilitated, then society has an obligation to offer a second chance.

I think in almost every circumstance I would support this point of view.

However, as a father, I would not let this person get close enough to my children to even glimpse them. There are some things where you only get one chance, and after that society has to apply the precautionary principle, IMO. He should not be allowed to work with kids.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yes serving your time on a crime like this is a thing of logic.

40k of images = 2 years to be rehablitated and then = no threat to societys children.

so does 80k of images = 4 years?

what about 20k is that 1 year.

what if u have 40k of child abuse images where they are not as nasty as say 20k of really hardcore child abuse images, do they add up to 2 years aswell?


Daft isnt it, even if u served 10 years insid your still going to have the same feelings and your still a threat to society. sexual urges like feeling the need to abuse children and rape someone are not the same as crimes like gbh and robbery. thisis why the sex offenders list was created to keep an eye on these types of ppl.

the idea that this guy isnt on the list i think is bollox, and i belive the mirror news paper is talking ****. which lets be honest, they do every day.

[sprunkner]

Personally I think that there is spiritual forgiveness: the guy can have a clear conscience, faith in himself to never do it again, willingness to comply with anything asked of him for absolution, and then there are consequences: he has forfeited his right to EVER work with children. These consequences don't take away from the possibility of his complete rehabilitation.

There are some things we do that will always carry permanent, more or less, consequences. Conceiving a child is an example. No matter how your feelings toward the actual conception change over time, you still have the child (or the abortion or adoption).

This guy made a choice that, whether he and society knows it or not, should carry permanent consequences. He should be rehabilitated, very much so, and be reintroduced to society as a normal human being. But should he be allowed to work with kids? No. He forfeited that right forever.

[edit] Of course Karl is right that the article gives no info about why he is now considered normal, and it should. I'm saying, though, that there is no data that could ever convince me that he should be able to work with kids.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

work with kids?

this is my CV


" I like to see kids abused!"

work with kids, lets see, how is that a complex 'NO' thought

hmm hes not really the best guy for the job is he???????????????????

[Kaylee]

no your right, sorry. im a bit hung-over

forget it n_n, still celebrating your entry to Uni i guessed i dont mean to labour points, i just like talking and discussing stuff like this (you know how politics/law goes down here )

Interesting views sprunk- id like to know more about whether you can cure paedophilia. I want to believe, in a similar way, that a person can change- i.e. we're not just like a computer program which runs its course, that we have the power to make decisions and to choose not to do thing.

Assuming you can't, who would support physical means of 'curing' them? As i brought up earlier castration is the obvious example- no testicles, no sex drive, no longer attracted to kids. I'm not sure where I stand on it tbh, is it in a similar vein to capital punishment?

[Professor Smooth]

no your right, sorry. im a bit hung-over

forget it n_n, still celebrating your entry to Uni i guessed i dont mean to labour points, i just like talking and discussing stuff like this (you know how politics/law goes down here )

Interesting views sprunk- id like to know more about whether you can cure paedophilia. I want to believe, in a similar way, that a person can change- i.e. we're not just like a computer program which runs its course, that we have the power to make decisions and to choose not to do thing.

Assuming you can't, who would support physical means of 'curing' them? As i brought up earlier castration is the obvious example- no testicles, no sex drive, no longer attracted to kids. I'm not sure where I stand on it tbh, is it in a similar vein to capital punishment?

Great idea, Karl! We should get our top scientists on this. Then maybe we can work on curing homosexuality. I know I'd want to believe that a person can change.

But assuming they can't, perhaps castration would be a solution? No testicles, no more being attracted to people of the same sex, no more behavior that was considered at one point to be an offense punishable by death.

Obviously, I don't support pedophilia. I'd like to think that it's also obvious that I have nothing against homosexuality. I'm also absolutely certain that people are sick of having the two lumped together. I'm not lumping them together, I'm making a comparison.

Pedophillia-socially unacceptable behavior. Why? Because it can be (and has been extremely) harmful to children.

Homosexuality- socially unacceptable behavior (though, thankfully, this has become less of a problem in recent years) that was, at one time, seen as a reason to be put to death or otherwise harshly punished. (Texas, for example, had anti-sodomy laws that were harsher than kiddy-porn laws.)

Why is one form of sexual abnormality* looked at as an oppressed minority? (Most) members of that group that take offense at the mere insinuation of a treatment or a cure. But this other sexual abnormality is looked at as a treatable (or even curable) disease. A disease for which the "sufferer" should be punished (by castration) for, no less.

I'm NOT advocating pedophillia. Please do not think that I'm defending the act or the people who act on their feelings towards children. I'm just saying that these people are drawn to people that society says adults should not be drawn to. Much in the same way that homosexuals are drawn to people that society suggests they shouldn't be.

The guy in question had over 40,000 picture of children being abused. I find that disgusting. I also realize that it's illegal. But, unfortunately, I also know a lot of people who say the same thing about homosexuals. They find the act disgusting and were quite upset when it was legalized in the south a couple of years ago.

For the record, I'm not using that insane conservative arguement that if homosexuality is allowed, so to should pedophillia and beastiality.

[Kaylee]

no your right, sorry. im a bit hung-over

forget it n_n, still celebrating your entry to Uni i guessed i dont mean to labour points, i just like talking and discussing stuff like this (you know how politics/law goes down here )

Interesting views sprunk- id like to know more about whether you can cure paedophilia. I want to believe, in a similar way, that a person can change- i.e. we're not just like a computer program which runs its course, that we have the power to make decisions and to choose not to do thing.

Assuming you can't, who would support physical means of 'curing' them? As i brought up earlier castration is the obvious example- no testicles, no sex drive, no longer attracted to kids. I'm not sure where I stand on it tbh, is it in a similar vein to capital punishment?

Great idea, Karl! We should get our top scientists on this. Then maybe we can work on curing homosexuality. I know I'd want to believe that a person can change.

But assuming they can't, perhaps castration would be a solution? No testicles, no more being attracted to people of the same sex, no more behavior that was considered at one point to be an offense punishable by death.

Obviously, I don't support pedophilia. I'd like to think that it's also obvious that I have nothing against homosexuality. I'm also absolutely certain that people are sick of having the two lumped together. I'm not lumping them together, I'm making a comparison.

Pedophillia-socially unacceptable behavior. Why? Because it can be (and has been extremely) harmful to children.

Homosexuality- socially unacceptable behavior (though, thankfully, this has become less of a problem in recent years) that was, at one time, seen as a reason to be put to death or otherwise harshly punished. (Texas, for example, had anti-sodomy laws that were harsher than kiddy-porn laws.)

Why is one form of sexual abnormality* looked at as an oppressed minority? (Most) members of that group that take offense at the mere insinuation of a treatment or a cure. But this other sexual abnormality is looked at as a treatable (or even curable) disease. A disease for which the "sufferer" should be punished (by castration) for, no less.

I'm NOT advocating pedophillia. Please do not think that I'm defending the act or the people who act on their feelings towards children. I'm just saying that these people are drawn to people that society says adults should not be drawn to. Much in the same way that homosexuals are drawn to people that society suggests they shouldn't be.

The guy in question had over 40,000 picture of children being abused. I find that disgusting. I also realize that it's illegal. But, unfortunately, I also know a lot of people who say the same thing about homosexuals. They find the act disgusting and were quite upset when it was legalized in the south a couple of years ago.

For the record, I'm not using that insane conservative arguement that if homosexuality is allowed, so to should pedophillia and beastiality.

As I understand it-

Society said/says (respectively) that homosexuality and paedophilia are bad. Therefore the two are comparable (one could make the argument) and it could be offensive to talk of 'curing' paedophilia (I'll put it in quotes again as it was obviously missed last time that I'm dubious about the term and concept myself and was in fact fishing for opinions, rather than personal, condescending rebuttals).

My line of thought reads the act of homosexuality does not harm others and could only be considered rationally a crime against yourself (like masturbation etc) as in theory partners are consenting as anything else would qualify as rape. Acts of child molestation (along with many other child abuses) psychologically damages another (non-consenting) individual. According to modern thinking, in theory we have freedom to do with our bodies what we wish, that is to be respected; your implication is that we respect an individuals rights also concerning another person's body (as that person is by definition non-consenting). Therefore the two are not comparable in practice (by practice I refer to the act of carrying out 'homosexual' behaviour or 'paedophillic' (sp?) behaviour.)

Assuming we are running on from the "it can never be cured and they will seek to reoffend" line, it would therefore be of interest to consider how people could be removed of this tendancy, which has been deemend unacceptable if they will act upon it and commit what society deems to be crimes.

Unless you want to walk down the 'it's only wrong because society says its wrong' scenic route. Well morality is generally determined by society (or both work together I think would be more accurate) in which case we could quite easily begin questioning whether murder is wrong, whether rape is wrong and so forth.

Whilst its an interesting parambulation its of precious little informative help I feel as in the end, lacking in ultimate truth as morality is (i.e. this is wrong because God said so and no argument, or equivalent) we have to try and come up with the best we can on the understanding we may or may not think differently in the future as our perceptions of the world progress or regress. i.e. it's only wrong because we think it's wrong; well that's generally the way the world works anyway imo so it's best to deal with it and accept laws and morality will evolve, change and devolve as time progresses.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I think u missed why pedophilla is bad, its because a child doesnt understand what you are doing and you are taking advantage of them.

the whole homosexuality is bad thing is totaly different.

[Kaylee]

I think u missed why pedophilla is bad, its because a child doesnt understand what you are doing and you are taking advantage of them.

the whole homosexuality is bad thing is totaly different.

definitely, it can be horribly damaging to children.

[Professor Smooth]

I think u missed why pedophilla is bad, its because a child doesnt understand what you are doing and you are taking advantage of them.

the whole homosexuality is bad thing is totaly different.

It's still attempting to "cure" what's an ingrained sexual desire in people.

[Kaylee]

I think u missed why pedophilla is bad, its because a child doesnt understand what you are doing and you are taking advantage of them.

the whole homosexuality is bad thing is totaly different.

It's still attempting to "cure" what's an ingrained sexual desire in people.

Which is 'wrong' because...? Wrong is imo a manifestation of collective opinion for a particular culture/place at a particular point in time. In this case 'curing' (if there is such a thing) someone of a behaviour which is detrimental to those it affects, regardless of whether it is an 'ingrained desire' similar to other things which are not considered wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but playing Devils Advocate is too easy

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I think we are using the wrong words here, cure isnt somthing my shrink used to use with me when i suffered from paranoid delusions.

Someone who enjoys child abuse probably has some deep centered issue that he fuels or calms via child abuse, in image form or actually harm.
the 'cure' would most likely be trying to help the person come to terms.
Unfortuantly in the meentime, with his mind in such a state, hes a threat to societys children.

I dont see these ppl as bad as such, i think they are sick. - unfortuantly they are still a threat.

[Best First]

What is wrong with this country?

That people are easily manipulated by simplistic emotive gutter journalism that ultimatly does nothing but stifle debate and lead us away from meaningful conclusions?

maybe?

edit - Karl

[Kaylee]

What is wrong with this country?

That people are easily manipulated by simplistic emotive gutter journalism that ultimatly does nothing but stifle debate and lead us away from meaningful conclusions?

maybe?

edit - Karl

it takes me pages to say what you can sum up in a sentence

[Jetfire]

What is wrong with this country?

That people are easily manipulated by simplistic emotive gutter journalism that ultimatly does nothing but stifle debate and lead us away from meaningful conclusions?

maybe?

I am not forming opinions about the quality of the journalism and the publication that prints it. Your comments are entirly a different agenda and totally irrevelant to the points raised regardless of the mirror being the worst kind of tabloid publication.

I'm expressing shock at the fact someone who is guilt of being involved in a network that organised things so that children being abused can be enjoyed by as many as possible and kept undercover can still have access to children.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

And I to find that hard belive - more so that I think the paper has got its facts wrong.

If hes not on the sex offenders list when being found guilty of a sexual deviant crime then i dont know what gets you onit.

ergo. I think the paper has it wrong.

[Best First]

What is wrong with this country?

That people are easily manipulated by simplistic emotive gutter journalism that ultimatly does nothing but stifle debate and lead us away from meaningful conclusions?

maybe?

I am not forming opinions about the quality of the journalism and the publication that prints it. [/quopte]

maybe you should....

Your comments are entirly a different agenda

so you have an agenda?

and totally irrevelant to the points raised regardless of the mirror being the worst kind of tabloid publication.

i think i and at least one other person percieve that my point is not irrelvant. The fact you don't seem to like it is by the by. Your topic title itself borders on hysterical.

[Scraplet]

I think u missed why pedophilla is bad, its because a child doesnt understand what you are doing and you are taking advantage of them.

the whole homosexuality is bad thing is totaly different.

It's still attempting to "cure" what's an ingrained sexual desire in people.

I'm not so sure it is an 'ingrained sexual desire'. Most, if not all, pedophiles are a product of abuse themselves. The abused become the abusers.

I feel most of the problem is that pedophilia is so stigmitised by the media that its makes it impossible for someone to seek help for what they themselves may consider a disorder brought on by past sexual abuse.

The guy in question may be collecting these images to satisfy his urges, but may also be very ashamed and actually want help, especially if it is based on self loathing from his own abuse. And I'd be all for giving him whatever help he needs.

If some one who is abused turns their self-hatred to harming themselves, or should develop phychological disorders, everyone feel sympathy. If the same feelings cause them to repeat their experience, we call for their ball to be cut off. This isn't entirely right, is it? They are victims too.

I still wouldn't want him working with my kids though.......

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I agree - the stigma attached makes it almost impossible to talk to anyone - I hear that even if you go into a confession box, the preist will generally call the police now.

So u have someone who is ill, maybe because of abuse themselves. so on one hand u can feel sorry for that, but this doesnt condone the crime's they might or have committed. they add to the cycle.

So I wouldnt allow them near children. they need a doctor.

Unfortuantly some ppl are so dangerous, and perhaps even beyond help they should be locked away for ever - thats threat assesment.

And whilst on the subject on the newpaper in question, I think it is important, that while the dissucsion of the psycholagy of a pedophiles mind is interesting - I think it is worth noting that in this case, the paper reporting is know for talking rubbish and so the story could be rubbish.

[The Last Autobot]

Note: Again some word I dont know the exact term in English. After all I use them most of the time in spanish .

This apply to mental disorders in general:

Well If we speak of "cures" we must adress first that when we deal with a mental disorder the first thing to do is not curing but to find the source of the problem.

Usually when a patient walks in to look for help. He states the sympton. "I do that" "I feel this way" and so on. The sympton is only the visible part or the problem. What a therapist/psychologist/psychiatric do is to by different methods (by drug, therapy, talking, etc) minimize the symptom and find ways to face the problem within.

To cure something you must know what it is. Most importantly you must realize that something is wrong. And be willing to change/ face it

So the first step in rehab is turning the unconscious origin in a conscious way. The therapist/psychologist/psychiatric show the way but is the task of the patient to walk it.

[sprunkner]

As far as I know, pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. It's more of a psychosis, seen that way because it tends to be harmful to others but also because those who do it generally know it is wrong.

This is the thing: We all have weird shadings of our sexual desires. The most obvious one is married people still being sexually attracted to other people. Even further, married men might meet a man they are sexually attracted to, or married women do the same with women. Homosexuals, might, on occasion, meet a member of the opposite sex they are attracted to. Men in their twenties might occasionally think that fourteen-year-olds are hot. Our sex drives don't always work the way we even think they do.

Sexuality isn't defined. Homosexuality is generally approved of in society because it doesn't harm people. I think homosexuality is, in some way, part of all of our sexual desires, but heteros have a ninety or ninety-five percent preference for the opposite sex. But, regardless, we all make constant decisions over how we will handle our sexuality. It is okay for homosexuals to choose to follow their desire, because they are not hurting people.

Pedophilia is another weird shading of sexual desire, but unlike homosexuality, it hurts other people. Not just people but children. So, though we might have aspects of pedophilia in our sexuality, we choose not to follow those. It's very simple. People do it all the time. Because sexuality is so complex and multilayered, our brains have to decide how to satisfy our... thingies.

So if you can't control some aspect of your sexuality, even when it means hurting other people, then society has a right to restrict you.

[The Last Autobot]

...It's more of a psychosis, seen that way because it tends to be harmful to others but also because those who do it generally know it is wrong.

Not right, you are mixing two different things. Besides a psychotic doesnt (in a conscious level, and if its too serious sometimes even in an unconscious level ) think that what he /she does is "wrong". And the harmful part can be also applied to lesser/ and-or less desorganized personality disorders like a simple neurosis.

[Best First]

Unfortuantly some ppl are so dangerous, and perhaps even beyond help they should be locked away for ever - thats threat assesment.

I guess it depends how these people are locked away. Segregating ill people who are a threat is one thing, shunting them into the prison system is another.

But ia gre if people are a threat then it does need to change how things are handled.

I think it is worth noting that in this case, the paper reporting is know for talking rubbish and so the story could be rubbish.

not to mention i am dubious of any debate that kicks of with questions such as 'whats wrong with thsi country?'

[Metal Vendetta]

This is the thing: We all have weird shadings of our sexual desires. The most obvious one is married people still being sexually attracted to other people. Even further, married men might meet a man they are sexually attracted to, or married women do the same with women. Homosexuals, might, on occasion, meet a member of the opposite sex they are attracted to. Men in their twenties might occasionally think that fourteen-year-olds are hot. Our sex drives don't always work the way we even think they do.

While I agree with you in the main I think the problem has more to do with fetishisation, which in iteslf is usually harmless, but in cases such as this can be very damaging indeed.

Say you have a guy who fetishises women wearing custard-filled wellies*. He's seen a few pictures on the internet and he wants to try it for himself. So he asks his wife and she's up for it so she puts them on and all is good. Thing is, in the meantime, all he's thinking about are those custard-filled wellies. And "ordinary" sex with the missus doesn't cut it for him any more, so he finds a mistress (or a professional lady) willing to provide that kick for him. The fetish has become the most important thing, not his relationship.

But human sexuality can be a spiky thing and when someone fetishises age (or lack thereof) above any other factor then they become a problem - when they strive after pictures of (or access to) younger and younger children, then the obsession is unhealthy and needs to be controlled or stopped. What I'm saying is that for a guy in his twenties to fancy a fourteen or fifteen year-old girl is pretty normal - but only if he fancies her because he finds her attractive, not because he knows that she is underage. Once the age of the person becomes more important than the person, that's where the trouble starts, I think. It's the difference between a relationship between two people, one of whom is underage, and a person who sets out to sleep with a child because he can't get himself off any other way.

Sadly, of course, this kind of thing is rife everywhere, has been going on since the dawn of time, and it's only relatively recently that the "rest of society" has started reacting to it. "Childhood" as a concept didn't even exist until the Victorians, and even then laws to protect children were a long time coming.

* Wellington boots, gumboots or rubber waders.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I think thats a good point, and if there is somthing wrong in society I belive its the innocene lost that the rest of us must suffer.

My ex GF hada daughter, shes 13, but has matured well beyond here years, phyiscally that is, shes 6ft, like ana amazon, with huge DD cup size. shes quite stunning to look at. now my ex and I used to just laugh, because men would almost crash cars looks at her walking down the road. kate on the other hand is totaly oblivous to this as shes 13 and more worried about 13 year old things. her friends come round and to me they look completely different.

anyhows, the point is, I was trying to explain this the other day, and the moment I mentioned that she was 13, and I said that she was quite beautifull for her age - and that i said she had a huge breasts, which to be fair show she has matured faster then most her age. im getting funny looks...

The fact I cant say that someone is pretty, due to thier age, make society are a harsh place to exist in - from a fatherly figure point of view I must say I found myself asking Kate to cover herself up, she had recently discovered the boob tube and mini-skirt she wore almostly religously. and even then, I cant even take the girl to the shops for 13 year old things like buying her some sweets or somthing because everyone stares, and 50% of the time its at me... its not nice.

society seems to have lost alot of inocence

[Best First]

Sadly, of course, this kind of thing is rife everywhere, has been going on since the dawn of time, and it's only relatively recently that the "rest of society" has started reacting to it. "Childhood" as a concept didn't even exist until the Victorians, and even then laws to protect children were a long time coming.

Yep, one of teh thigs i hate about this debate, at leats in portions of teh media is the slant that this is an emerging ro growing problem, or that there has been some kind of downfall of society. Which again prevents you from talking about issues such as a potential increase in threat from the internet (easily accessable, hardf to track) and genuine social concerns in a less hysterical manner.

With regard to the innocence thing, i think a lot of it is down to communication - again we have now a global media, its very hard to live in la la land when you now know about what is going on in the entire world ratehr than your own parish. However we also seem to have more people selling things and agendas based on fear and a lot of people complying with that in terms of how they act - in some ways we have let our innocence be taken away, but in others maybe we just have to realise that we have never been that innocent and now we are just less good at buryng our heads in the iraqi desert than we used to be.

[Kaylee]

Definitely true besty. Lots of bad stuff has always happened (and will continue to), we are now able to hear about things previously we would never have heard andit brings such incidents into your own home so to speak.

Some good arguments coming out here- its good to think that problems people might have which could make them dangerous can be changed with therapy.

Re the Internet as a potentisl threat- whilst it certainly is, I think it also offers the authorities new ways to tackle problems. For example, the 'net isn't half as anonymous as many people like to think it is and often allows a great method for monitoring not only paedophile activity but also terrorists.

[sprunkner]

Say you have a guy who fetishises women wearing custard-filled wellies*.

* Wellington boots, gumboots or rubber waders.

I just love the fact that you pulled that random image up... any real-life experience there?

I agree with Emvee (at least I meant to originally)... aspects of sexuality that are harmful to other people need to be controlled, and we need to start controlling them early on. Much the same vein as controlling a need for adrenaline, I would think.