not so glittery

[Obviousman]

Anyway, consent is a grey area IMO. If I have sex with someone who is semi-comatose drunk, even if they say "yes" how informed is their consent? There are all sorts of situations in which the line between consent and coercion is blurred.

Admittedly, the power-structures in a relationship between an adult and a child are generally such that it's difficult to see how there could be consent from a child without any suggestion of coercion, but couldn't the same be said about relationships between men and women in countries where women's rights aren't taken as seriously as they are in the West?

I think you just should put a legal worldwide date on which persons become sexually adult, not too high, not too low. But then it should be in the Children's Rights and IIRC not every country has accepted that one even now.

Consent is a grey area indeed, but adults can put a complaint for raping, a kid can't, in some points it is not a bad thing by definition to patronise them. It is one of the major tasks of a society to let ther siblings grow up to people in a good way and let everything come to them at the right time. And that's a hard thing to do, especially as you have very liberal people on the one hand, who'd allow everything, and very conservatives at the other side who'd allow nothing. Equilibre is never easy, especially not in important matters as a society's future.

I'm totally against death penalty. Period.

Exactly, no matter what the crime was, a more severe punishment equals to putting persons longer away or giving them a bonus work sentence or so...

[boudicca]

Paedophilia provides no benefit to us - it is not a "bond-strengthening" exercise as with some other mammals, on the contrary... with our complex psychology, high intelligence and the length of time it takes for our young to mature mentally as well as physically, it is positively damaging. Therefore we abhor it, instinctively.

I deny that distaste for paedophilia is instinctive. You probably feel that your distaste for cannibalism is instinctive too, but the likelihood is that your great-great-great (etc.) grandpa back in palaeolithic times was a cannibal.

You assume I have a distaste for cannibalism...
If my Easyjet crashes down in the middle of a remote forest, I would sooner resort to cannibalism than die. The only people I would never consider munching, if it came to it, are loved ones. The instinct there is one of self-preservation.
In cases of cannibalism in a tribal context, this could be said to be one group's attempt at preserving their genetic legacy. It's stupid in my opinion, but conflict and war between different societies is nothing bizarre in my book.
Gratuitous cannibalism (say, if I was to kill someone and eat them now for kicks), is - I would guess - evidence of a psychopathic mind, and I think the typical disgust most human beings feel towards someone like this, who poses a genuine threat to them, is fairly easy to understand on an instinctual level.

[Indeed, until only a few hundred years ago, a girl's marriagable age was most likely calculated by that old saying "if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" and any ideas of consent be damned.

Well I'm certainly not going to start arguing in favour of sex without consent (whoever it's with), but there is sound reasoning in the idea that a girl is old enough to have sex when she starts menstruating.
Bit misguided, though, females are not 100% sexually mature at that point, it takes another couple of years for the pelvis to widen so that any child that is conceived can be carried with fewer complications.
But essentially it's a valid point. Boys and girls go through puberty at varying times, this is the real issue, rather than a fixed number laid down by law.

The question should be, is the "victim" pre -pubescent at the time of the offences being committed? If yes, then you are dealing with a paedophile.

You could find someone of the same age who was sexually mature, and could seem to the casual observer to be 5 or 6 years older. I've got to say, if I had had sex with a guy in his 40's when I was 13, it would have been my choice. I could have borne his child, and I can't really say that I would have been a "victim". At least not in a criminal sense.

I must say I react very differently to a story of a man having consenting sex with a physically mature 14 year old, compared with stories of the rape of toddlers. The first guy may well be a bit of a pervert, a pathetic character who can only feel like a big man by deflowering an "innocent" teenager. And the minor in this case could well be a victim in the psychological sense... looking for a father figure or something like that. But the second guy is something else entirely. I could use words but there's a swear filter and no words suffice, anyway.

[boudicca]

I think you just should put a legal worldwide date on which persons become sexually adult, not too high, not too low. But then it should be in the Children's Rights and IIRC not every country has accepted that one even now.

Problem with that is, children are becoming sexually mature at different ages around the globe, largely due to dietary factors.
The diets of British and American children lead to more rapid weight gain and rising body fat, which particularly in girls brings about an earlier onset of puberty. And it's becoming earlier and earlier.
So an age at which the majority of Western teens or pre-teens were post-pubescent could well be an age at which the majority in the developing world were still effectively children.

[emilystrange]

but may still be of marriageable age in some societies

[markfiend]

There you go then. You're agreeing that there are grey areas.

By (English and Welsh) law (I don't know Scottish law, but I assume it's similar) "a man having consenting sex with a physically mature 14 year old" is as much a paedophile as someone raping toddlers.

So calls for all paedophiles to get an automatic life (or even death) sentence have to be balanced with recognition of these grey areas.

*Edit for clarification: this was in response to post #52

[boudicca]

There you go then. You're agreeing that there are grey areas.

By (English and Welsh) law (I don't know Scottish law, but I assume it's similar) "a man having consenting sex with a physically mature 14 year old" is as much a paedophile as someone raping toddlers.

So calls for all paedophiles to get an automatic life (or even death) sentence have to be balanced with recognition of these grey areas.

*Edit for clarification: this was in response to post #52

Oh, I wouldn't argue that there are grey areas. And likewise, I would never suggest the death penalty for 100% of all criminals of any variety.

As for the law, it's long been established that it's an ass, and it sickens me to think that the two examples I mentioned could be treated in even a similar way. I don't think you're dealing with the same kind of person at all.

[Gottdammerung]

It's all getting a little bit like something out of Clockwork Orange here..

So is paedophilia a condition that is acquired or is it inherent?

That is perhaps the crux of this..

if it is something that is inherent and can't be cured, then why do we damn people that have it? They probably didn't want to be born with it..

But if it is acquired through conditioning, experience etc then surely there is a means to reverse it?

It's the old free will/predestiny thing isn't it...

[emilystrange]

that question goes for any sexual prediliction then

[aims]

Permanent, final sentences for anything are daft, since it makes the huge assumption that a person is one and the same as the person who will be feeling the repercussions 20 years down the line. If the government doesn't consider those with degenerative diseases capable of making living wills which will affect their life in 5 or 10 years time, then by what logic do they allow someone to enter a guilty plea which will affect their life 20 to 30 years on? Sentencing in itself is a grey area, never mind sex and paedophilia.

Is a dim but attractive 30-something who is convinced to sleep with an intellectually superior 14 year old guilty of paedophilia? Granted, we do some stupid things at 14, but I don't believe that one's maturity comes far enough in 3 years to go from innocent victim to fair game so quickly. In my experience, any greater maturity that I have now is purely as a result of the mistakes that I was allowed to make as a minor. If I hadn't made them 3 years ago, I'd be making them now. But how can we find legal precedent in anecdotal evidence?

The ideal solution is to assess things case by case, but I doubt that would do much to help the speed of the legal system...

[boudicca]

It's all getting a little bit like something out of Clockwork Orange here..

So is paedophilia a condition that is acquired or is it inherent?

That is perhaps the crux of this..

if it is something that is inherent and can't be cured, then why do we damn people that have it? They probably didn't want to be born with it..

But if it is acquired through conditioning, experience etc then surely there is a means to reverse it?

It's the old free will/predestiny thing isn't it...

I'm almost always on the "nurture over nature" side of this argument. I think there are very few mental conditions or illnesses which anyone is "born with". Certainly in the case of paedophilia, there seems to be nothing to indicate this.

And with this belief comes a strong belief also that most mental conditions can be at least understood by a "normal" person (provided they're reasonably intelligent). I don't know what attempts are being made with paedophiles to do this, but trying to trace their own psychological history would surely be beneficial.
It's essentially the warping of and damage to an instinct - something that underpins most intense human suffering and mental disturbance and it would be very useful to know how it comes about. If that is established - who knows?

Is it 100% impossible to cure... I doubt it. But I imagine it is one of the toughest gigs any shrink could ever have.

[Gottdammerung]

that question goes for any sexual prediliction then

indeed it does..

even being gay was illegal until only recently in Britain..

It is a difficult situation where we impose a legel restraint to impose a set of norms on society when there are elements that for a large number of cannot obey because of their make up. (no not eyeliner..)

What to do then?

re-educate them? hormone treatments? chemical castrations?

I think anything of the above is surely preferable to killing someone for something that they may not have any say in, such as their sexual preference...

remember a lot of those that abuse were abused themselves. I can't think of any justification for taking the life of someone who was f*cked up because of someone else..

[MadameButterfly]

Sorry, but I am back with another confused matter in my mind...

I understand and agree with paedophilia being associated with a sex crime, but when the rape crime comes to discussion, I thought it was associated with a violent crime?

[aims]

To be honest, as a mentality, I find there to be nothing wrong with Paedophilia. Acting upon it, yes, but only because the child is not capable of consenting. If they had full understanding, then there is no more problem than with interracial / homosexual / otherwise "unorthordox" relationships. Hell, if animals could consent, I see no problem with beastiality. I wouldn't do it, but I have no right to interfere with those who wish to. What strikes me as odd is that the same parents who find paedophilia so repulsive, have no problem with letting their 9 year old go out dressed like a call girl. Go figure

[Gottdammerung]

Sorry, but I am back with another confused matter in my mind...

I understand and agree with paedophilia being associated with a sex crime, but when the rape crime comes to discussion, I thought it was associated with a violent crime?

rape is actually both violent and sex crime.. I'm sure theres a third category of violent sex crime..

(I read Home Office newspaper articles at work I should fricking now this..)

[boudicca]

There's a nasty problem with the issue of consent because in a large number of cases of child abuse, there is a consent of sorts, and I remember watching a programme on C4 a while back where one paedophile attempted to justify his actions with this argument.
But the child's awareness of what she/he is doing is limited. And it is virtually impossible to have genuinely consensual sex, both parties getting something out of it, with someone who is sexually immature.

[Obviousman]

About the age thing:
In Belgian law the age you can have sex with mutual consent is 15, but there is a maximum difference of 4 years (all IIRC numbers can be different, I don't read law ). I think this is quite a fair rule, as this way you don't give the kids away to the peadophiles, but you give them a chance to devellop, and above all much fairer then a rule which just lays a strict age on anything.

@Boudicca: Think it the age of maturity does not only differ from country to country but from person to person as well (are we grown up yet? )

[Blondelass]

...the age of maturity does not only differ from country to country but from person to person as well

Yup, I have a book called Studies of Savages & Sex which talks about remote African tribes and the like and says that in some tribes, a girl is married before she's even hit puberty.

[Debaser]

The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

You could easily insert the word paedophilia instead of 'gay', here. I constantly find my opinion of parents who ( perhaps through the above mentioned media) insist upon buying their children make-up, bras, totally inappropriate clothing for their pre-pubescent children. Watching 6 and seven year old girls gyrating and mouthing the words to 'Dirty' byChristina whatshername, was possible one of the most sickeneing moments I have witnessed (and it certainly isn't cute).

Now this neither condones or excuses what GG (or any other paedophile) has done - but to an already 'confused' mind, images like this can hardly help control their urges.

I seriously worry that I may become part of a society that thinks the death penalty is an o.k option.

Just a fleeting thought.....can hypnosis, aversion therapy be a way of 'curing?'

[Debaser]

What strikes me as odd is that the same parents who find paedophilia so repulsive, have no problem with letting their 9 year old go out dressed like a call girl. Go figure

Sorry Motz, hadn't read this before I posted.

[canon docre]

The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

You could easily insert the word paedophilia instead of 'gay', here. I constantly find my opinion of parents who ( perhaps through the above mentioned media) insist upon buying their children make-up, bras, totally inappropriate clothing for their pre-pubescent children. Watching 6 and seven year old girls gyrating and mouthing the words to 'Dirty' byChristina whatshername, was possible one of the most sickeneing moments I have witnessed (and it certainly isn't cute).

Now this neither condones or excuses what GG (or any other paedophile) has done - but to an already 'confused' mind, images like this can hardly help control their urges.

But the thing with paedophiles is rather that they want the kids to look pre-pubescently innocent and child-like. They're detered by any features that could hint the soonish entrance into puberty. When the first pubic hair starts to grow the kids become uninteresting.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

right -where to start? firstly -there is no grey area to "consent" with adults or children.
if you have been forced to have sex with someone -not persuaded against your better judgement and not forced by circumstance etc but actually (physically or mentally) by them against your will- then it's non-consensual sex.
"children" -by my definition in this sense- are people who are as yet not sexually active;and therefore any sex in which they have to participate is non-consensual and is utterly wrong.


when it comes to kids i would gladly bury someone if i knew personally that they were guilty beyond doubt.
if it were my kids then i'ld do the executing myself- and if that meant life in prison then tough.. i wouldn't be able to live the rest of my life outside jail knowing that i hadn't and that they were still alive.

bringing the state into it (unfortunately the masses are unwilling to live beyond their "masters" rule, who would empty the bins?who would tell them what to do?) it has to be life imprisonment as i would hate to see the volume of inevitable miscariages of justice brought about by capital punishment..sex-crimes against anyone are anti-social (i don't know of any culture where it is socially acceptable to go around raping each other) and against children especially who we have a duty to protect.

[Mr. Wah]

i've lived in a situation within the traveller community where

What follows the above sounds like a really bad advert for the traveller community.

It seems to me that the execution took place out of a perceived necessity more than anything else, i.e. what else could they do with the rapist? That's either a reflection on problems specifically related to such a community or problems inherent in the relationship between that community and the world at large.

I personally don't think any of it can be interpreted as an example of the right form of justice.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

my previous post (as quoted by mr wah) has been edited to prevent further misunderstanding. the situation with which i attempted and failed to illustrate a point was not in any way intended to be indicative of ANY travellers' practices,views or social/cultural behaviour/beliefs.
the story being hearsay was probably factually incorrect anyway.

[markfiend]

What with comparisons being made with homosexuality, I happened to be reading a thread elsewhere about the (largely discredited) notion of the "gay gene". (Discredited because studies have shown that heterosexual parents are no less likely to have gay kids than gay parents)

If you consider that to grow up to be 100% unambiguously heterosexual (if that's possible) the following things have to happen:

1. Unambiguous development of sexual organs that match the XX or XY karyotype. (Ignoring aneuploidy of the sex chromosomes)
2. Unambiguous develpment of gender image to match the physical gender.
3. Development of sexual urge (instinct?)
4. This urge is directed at the gender opposite to both the physical and mental-image gender

Any of these steps can go "wrong"* leading to the spectrum of intersex, transsexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, homosexuality and all shades in between. The genetic mechanisms to ensure that all these steps occur "correctly"* are probably not worth the effort (evolutionarily speaking) when in 80% to 90% of cases (or even more when one considers that many homosexual people have children) they are no barrier to successful production of offspring (which is all that evolution "cares about" in the final analysis).

* I'm sure that people are aware of my opinions, but to clarify, the words "wrong" and "correctly" are not intended as any moral judgement whatsoever. I just can't think of a way of saying that development can take other courses than that which is usual, without long circomlocutions

What does this have to do with paedophilia? As I see it, paedophiles could be lumped into three major groupings:

1. People whose sex drive has been diverted or frustrated by extended periods of celibacy, and for whom frustration forces them into seeing paedophilia as a release. I'm (obviously) thinking of paedophile priests here.
2. People who use paedophilia as a power-domination over children (in a similar way that rape is used as a power-domination over women).
3. People whose sexual desires have fixated on pre-pubescent children, perhaps by a similar process by which the sexual desires of gay people fixate on their own gender. Again, I am not trying to compare the morality of homosexuality and paedophilia here.

Now group 1 is largely caused IMO by the unnatural state of celibacy. I very much doubt that anyone goes into the priesthood with the active intention of becoming a paedophile. However I think the problem is largely intractable without some serious changes to Catholic dogma (i.e. it ain't gonna happen) but known paedophiles in this position (once they have "served their time") could be kept away from children by their religious orders relatively easily. (Obviously it's not just Catholic priests in this sort of situation, but parallel cases in other backgrounds can be dealt with similarly.)

Group 2 are probably the most dangerous in that the power / domination / violence aspect is more important than the actual sex. What to do with people like this? Here I believe we have the strongest argument for life imprisonment.

Group 3 I'm stuck with. It's as unlikely that someone whose sexuality is oriented towards children can change this as it is for someone who is gay to change their sexual orientation (again, no moral equivalencies implied or intended).

Actually, I don't know where I'm going with this... *goes away to think*

[Eva]

I think there's a fourth group, MF: those adults who perceive themselves as "still being (like)" children. I think a lot of paedophiles (sp?) belong to this group and I think this self-perception is one reason why unfortunately these people have such an appeal to children. It's not as if children were always forced to follow the evil stranger. Often it's somebody they trust for some reason or other. Example: There's a psychological test callled "Szondi Test", in which you choose photos of people you find trustworthy/nice and others of people you dislike. Children tend to choose the paedophiles as trustworthy and nice among these pictures. So these people must have a certain appeal.

Regarding catholic priests: Partly I agree with you, partly though I think it's at least a "hen and egg situation". And I'd rather tend to think somebody has good reasons to choose a path which involves celibacy (sp?) in the first place, than suddenly being confronted with the concequences after having chosen that path.