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.

But, unpalatable or not, something on these lines might be the safest/sanest direction to head in, might it not?

Further to that, it sort of gets into the debate about age of consent. At what age is a person 'able' (in the critical faculty sense) to decide with whom to share their body? Is it different for straights and gays? Should there be age brackets so that teens can explore with one another, but so that adults cannot explore teens? Tough area. Sort of 'in flux', too, it seems.

QUOTE:
The point they don't seem to like addressing is that it's a judgment that's more rooted in sane, sober reason regarding the ability of the other party to be complicit in the encounter that it is with regard to puritanism/religion/sexism/etc.

And then there's past societies where it was OK to marry a girl of 12, and so on. It's not nice to think about, but it may be useful to differentiate between men who like young teenagers, or girls who at least in theory could have childen of their own*, and men who like, I don't know, five year olds or eight year olds.

*After all, childhood is a Victorian construct, etc.

A de C: I agree. But it seems to run up against the 'normalizing' and 'it just emboldens them' arguments. And I guess there's a case to be made there. It's apparently been found that the proclivity to be sexually abusive/sexually demanding increases with the increased consumption of pornography. So it's possible that one feeds the other, and this could translate to the paedophile's experience, as well. I dunno. I hate the argument when it's made with regard to safe injection sites, so I should probably hate it here as well. It's a suggestion that's been made by the paedophiles themselves, though. So it's either incredibly self-serving or incredibly insightful.

Lyra wrote:

QUOTE:

And then there's past societies where it was OK to marry a girl of 12, and so on. It's not nice to think about, but it may be useful to differentiate between men who like young teenagers, or girls who at least in theory could have childen of their own*, and men who like, I don't know, five year olds or eight year olds.

*After all, childhood is a Victorian construct, etc.

There is a distinction - a paedophile is attracted to children, i.e. those without secondary sexual characteristics. If you're attracted to adolescent or pubescent (rather than pre-pubescent) kids, you're not a paedophile, you're something else (I forget the word right now). Most people choose to ignore this distinction, for various reasons.

Lyra wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

I'm not equating paedophiles to rapists. Quite the opposite. Some paedophiles are rapists, some aren't, because they conrol their urges and don't have sex with children.

From the very small sample of people I know who have been raped as children, and have talked about it, there was no pretence of 'reciprocal' about it.

WornOldMotorbike wrote:

QUOTE:
Sorry, I wasn't holding you up to defend the statement.
It's one I've read before and actually agree is a valid statement. It is, indeed, a societal value judgment that's being made with regard to with whom it's legal/moral to have sexual relations. The point they don't seem to like addressing is that it's a judgment that's more rooted in sane, sober reason regarding the ability of the other party to be complicit in the encounter that it is with regard to puritanism/religion/sexism/etc.

The point they don't like addressing is that homosexual acts (like heterosexual ones) are only legal if both parties are consenting.

QUOTE:
the same tabloids that delight in printing photos of 16 year old girls getting their tits out etc etc

If they do that, they'll get on the sex offender register themselves, I should think.

Chippy, I'm still not clear on where you're coming from here. Probation officers constantly have to take a view on whether an inmate is sincere in the rehab work they do. They refuse parole in those circumstances. Sex offenders get early release less often than other criminals. The courses don't guarantee release.

Lyra, funnily enough paedophiles quite often like to make distinctions between themselves and the "really bad people". Whatever age they fancy (say 10) they construe as adulthood.

It's apparently been found that the proclivity to be sexually abusive/sexually demanding increases with the increased consumption of pornography. So it's possible that one feeds the other, and this could translate to the paedophile's experience, as well. I dunno. I hate the argument when it's made with regard to safe injection sites, so I should probably hate it here as well. It's a suggestion that's been made by the paedophiles themselves, though. So it's either incredibly self-serving or incredibly insightful.

Perhaps, I'd guess it's hard to generalise across the paedophile "community" however. Fantasy images may satisfy some but not others. There might also be a "I'd prefer the real thing, but a picture will do at a pinch" factor too, I really don't know. If protecting children from sexual exploitation is something that we desire though, it seems a fairly modest proposal. Otherwise you're looking at incarceration or medical intervention, including I suppose chemical castration.

Before that though, as Lyra's pointed out, more seems to be needed on establishing sexual maturity and consent. It's obviously not just an age, or physiology issue either. Should anyone object to two 13 year olds having sexual relations? What about 13 and 18? Or 15 and 24? If not calendar years then what other, non-intrusive, basis could be used?

Yes, that's what I was getting at earlier. I know there exists some parameters that allow for sexual exploration amongst own-ages, but which hopefully excludes predation from adults. Perhaps a rolling window of 2 or 3 years would be safe/sane (increasing in breadth as the person ages), but who am I to say?

QUOTE:
If not calendar years then what other, non-intrusive, basis could be used?

Phrenology.

QUOTE:
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."

You were right to call me on this, WE, as I had been lazy and not tracked down the statistics. I now have, after a bit of time, but it is probably best if I give you the link rather than me just quoting bits and pieces from them but some are surprising.

The breakdown of who children are abused by when it isn't someone they know is an eye-opener and defintely contradicts the media "predatory peado" cartoon hate figure

QUOTE:
A section of paedophiles, the ones who are completely upfront and unrepentant about the whole thing, see themselves as "the homosexuals of the 21st century", in that they feel they are doing something that is totally natural and right, and they just have to wait for society's currently-backward norms to catch up with them.

I read a book recently by a bloke who created his own therapy technique and then self-published two books about the way he treats people. The books were written in the 80s before paedomania took hold, so I assume he didn’t realise how dodgy his remarks look.

Anyway, he presents a couple of his case studies, where women who were traumatised by childhood sexual abuse were found by him not to have been abused at all, but instigated the sex themselves and then felt guilty about it. Usually he concludes that their subconscious didn’t like the fact that they were doing something wrong themselves, so made them believe they’d been abused. I’m not intending to accuse this fellow of anything, but I think these quotes shows how ready some people are to excuse abuse by arguing that it’s really quite harmless and that the children actually enjoy it – it’s just society that creates the problem.

QUOTE:
Genuine abuse of children, whether sexual or not, is one of the most repulsive things of which I can conceive but the current publicity is making people believe, genuinely believe, there has been abuse when none really exists. Is it really worse for a child to be sexually touched, without threats or violence, than to pull a pan of boiling water off the stove and scald themselves? Is it worse, if no pain or threats of any sort are involved, for a child to touch another person sexually than to be mangled in a car accident or to be savaged by a dog?

Of course it is not. A child has natural curiosity and experiences sexual feelings even though these feelings may be immature. These things are a part of normal life – the abnormality comes from the reactions of others. The guilt, shame, embarrassment or other emotion with which these experiences are overlaid is not natural to children but “educated” into them…

Of course sexual abuse of children takes place. It is done by males and females of all ages to both boys and girls. But if it takes place without any physical hurt or threat of harm then any problems that are caused by it are created by the attitude of society and the adults who influence the child.

70% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse outside of the family were by a boyfriend/girlfriend

One does wonder how many of those acts were perpetrated by a sixteen or seventeen year-old on a fourteen or fifteen year-old.

QUOTE:
38% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse in the family were by a brother/stepbrother

I'd really like to see that stat broken out rather than lumped together.