QUOTE:
I think Glitter's problems wouldn't be so bad if he didn't look so fucking dodgy. he looks like some kind of mastermind from a 50's comic strip

Why is it that all paedophiles have a beard and glasses? What is it about that look that kids find so sexy?

[/Frankie Boyle]

QUOTE:
I don't think counselling is the answer. Whilst I am sure it has a place, it probably won't be structured and confrontational enough. I thnk he deserves a chance at rehabilitation and my suggestion was that he go through a very tough supervised course that other abusers have to go through.

Before programmes are designed for that purpose, there must be some clarity about why paedophiles abuse children (and draw some clear lines between paedophilia and pederastry).

A growing body of opinion regards paedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. If it is so, it cannot be "cured", just as homosexuality or heterosexuality cannot be "cured" (unless you are a fundamentalist Christian, apparently). Sexual attraction to children would not be a question of subjective preference, though of course the decision to commit sexual acts with children (or usually against children) would still be a question of choice. But because having sex with children feels natural, there often is no remorse attached to their action.

If the sexual orientation theory holds, programmes, counselling and therapy must acknowledge that there is no "cure" or rehabilitation.

But that's the easy part of it. The more difficult part would concern our reaction to paedophiles: would we be able to muster pity for them, and to what extent could such pity be offered?

I think "known but unrelated", rather than "family member", is the most common category of abuser. Making teachers' jobs all the harder: it's not just a matter of "Her Dad looks dodgy."

Anyway, GG should be re-admitted to the UK, and subjected to the usual Sex Offenders Register controls, and the government should assist in making this happen anonymously, and sod the Daily Mail.

QUOTE:
Do you honestly believe that the hysteria around Glitter is fuelled by the rational and considered fear that he might reoffend, as opposed to "Urgh, he's a fucking pervert, let's get him"?

That's where the discussion on here is coming from though. What's hysteria in the broader media got to do with anything?

Chippy, why do you think that these courses won't be confrontational enough? The Sexual Offender Treatment Programme at Grenden Prison a while ago was so intense it made the instructors sick.

QUOTE:
[/Frankie Boyle]

Haha, yeah. Hallowe'en, ladies and gentlemen. Hallowe'en. A wonderful time of year for the agoraphobic paedophile. "They're being delivered to the door! In little costumes!"

I love Frankie Boyle. I really fancy him too.

have to admit to feeling a tad sorry for GG when I saw the shots of him on the plane surrounded by horrible fucking tabloid snappers..the same tabloids that delight in printing photos of 16 year old girls getting their tits out etc etc

What evolutionary purpose might such a sexual orientation serve? Providing a scapegoat so the wider community binds more closely together?

As for Glitter, I assume that he will be secretly spirited back to the UK at some future point after this fuss has died down. The press will chunter on about taxpayers' money being spent on protecting a vile pervert, and no-one will say "Well, if your papers didn't deliberately whip up fevered outrage, and if some readers didn't uncritically swallow every word, he might not need protection."

Regarding resettlement and new identities, I don't know how effective they are. Maxine Carr was initially resettled in my girlfriend's home village - a strange decision considering it's a small place in rural north Scotland where an incomer with an English accent would be somewhat conspicuous. As indeed it proved.

delicatemoth wrote:

QUOTE:
What evolutionary purpose might such a sexual orientation serve?

The same could be asked of homosexuality. Evolution does not need everybody to reproduce.

QUOTE:
As for Glitter, I assume that he will be secretly spirited back to the UK at some future point after this fuss has died down. The press will chunter on about taxpayers' money being spent on protecting a vile pervert, and no-one will say "Well, if your papers didn't deliberately whip up fevered outrage, and if some readers didn't uncritically swallow every word, he might not need protection."

Well, yes and no, at the end of the day, he has been convicted of raping children aged 10, 11 and 12. Media or no media, it's an emotive subject.

delicatemoth wrote:

QUOTE:
Before programmes are designed for that purpose, there must be some clarity about why paedophiles abuse children (and draw some clear lines between paedophilia and pederastry).

I'd agree with what is said above, about the feeling that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, in the same way that heterosexuality and homosexuality are. With that in mind, perhaps the question isn't "why do paedophiles abuse children", but "why do rapists rape"? Is is a power thing, rather than a sexual one? Is the difference being that their target is underage as well as vulnerable?

But they can't not rape, can they, if they have sex with children.

delicatemoth wrote:

QUOTE:
What evolutionary purpose might such a sexual orientation serve? Providing a scapegoat so the wider community binds more closely together?

Certainly not that.

Lyra wrote:

QUOTE:
But they can't not rape, can they, if they have sex with children.

But not all paedophiles have sex with children, do they?

I would almost be prepared to think that Thailand would let in any Brit on the run right now, with a view to leverage it in negotiations for Mr Thaksin.

Sorry Phoebe I don't understand this then: "perhaps the question isn't "why do paedophiles abuse children", but "why do rapists rape"? "

If paedophilia is an orientation in the same way as homosexuality, then it might not be fair to equate them to rapists? In that it, for them, would be 'normal' and 'reciprocal' etc (I believe that people have said that they genuinely believe the children want to have sex with them). So it wouldn't have anything to do with rape, except for the fact that obviously it is rape because it's children.

Tubby - I have no real evidence on the effectiveness of offender management programmes. But I worry that they could be manipulated by devious people.

The later discussion seems to be moving towards 'they can't help doing it'. I think the only hope in these circumstances is to train paedophiles that their urges are wrong and that they have to resist them. I mean most adults who are not in a sexual relationship don't need to rape or pay a prostitute.

Sorry if this sounds judgmental, but this thread seems to have turned into a bit of a muck.
First, we know why rapists rape. And most importantly, we know that rape is not a sexual crime. It is a violent crime with a sexual manifestation. It is not committed by people who cannot get laid otherwise.
We also know why paedophiles abuse children. And we know that they know it's 'wrong', 'unacceptable' and 'illegal'. To try to address their issues by 'educating' them is a mug's game.
The analogy that's both awful and fairly good at the same time, though, is indeed homosexuality - but with a twist. Yes, paedophilia is a sort of orientation. The twist is that it is one which is, by nature, unaddressable in a legal manner. That is to say, you can consummate a homosexual desire without breaking laws. Implicit (but not causative) in paedophilia is that it is, by nature, illegal. You simply cannot address your desire without knowingly breaking the law.
Now, discussion has taken place regarding paedophilic literature and art as a way of attempting to satisfy desires without actually committing an illegal act, but this is unpalatable (to say the least) to most people and apparently hasn't gone anywhere but back underground.
Of course, Wyatt's response is the most sane and sober. The man's a UK citizen and should be subjected to the same laws as anyone else. Good luck to him, though. Er...GG, not WE.
But I think I got derek's intent the first go-round. I'm proudly liberal about most things, but feel my 'hang 'em high' urges coming to the fore in such matters. And, usually, just such matters.