Jump to content
IGNORED

Content Warning: Don’t call predators paedophiles


Ron Swanson

Recommended Posts

But what about for people who are not yet offenders? Does it not make sense to treat them with more care and concern so that they feel able to seek help not to offend?


We can certainly strengthen laws against perpetrators and focus on care for victims while still providing services for those seeking not to offend.

 

I get what you're saying, and agree with rehabilitation in theory for a lot of things. But.

I recall a talk given by someone who treated pedophiles as part of their work and honestly, the stats of people seeking help are almost 100% for court ordered treatment and very very few self-directed treatment seekers. I think in all their decades of work they had 1 person seek help before offending. And I recall them saying the biggest hurdle to successful avoidance of re-offending is the mindset of those with pedophilila - they tend to believe the children consented, and/or have very very low levels of empathy. Also, many don't view consuming child pornography as offending.


So yeah, in theory, helping people with urges who don't want to offend is ideal. But, the opportunistic nature that seems to go hand in hand with the disorder sounds like it prevents true rehabilitation for a great percentage of them.

 


Yeah, I hear you. But is it possible that more people would seek help if the mental illness wasn't so stigmatised? Worth a try surely?


Look, I'm not saying it's going to work. I'm not defending offenders in any way at all either. All I'm saying is that if the people who deal with this stuff on a regular basis think this might make a difference then where's the harm in trying it?

Edited by Bad Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Bad Cat

    8

  • MintyBiscuit

    5

  • Lucrezia Borgia

    5

  • Crombek

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Because it's a mental illness and needs treatment. If you're afraid to admit you have an illness you never get treated for it. It's not about normalising it. It's about understanding it and offering help so that people understand it's an illness and seek treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MintyBiscuit

Why would anyone want to remove the stigma of being sexually attracted to children??

This should not be normalised

 

No one is saying it should be normalised, but the urge itself shouldn’t be stigmatised to the point that it will stop people experiencing it from seeking help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they've been told to stop using the term paedophile when talking about child s ex offenders because they are NOT interchangeable. If journalists are using clinical terms then surely they have an obligation to use them correctly?


Pedophilia is a mental healh condition under the DSM. The vast, vast majority of child s ex offenders do NOT have a mental illness, in the same way that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators do not have a mental illness. Additionally, paedophilia specifically refers to experiencing sexual arousal towards prepubescent children. So (for example) the piece of trash high school teacher that takes advantage of his gr 10 students is not a paedophile. Just a piece of trash.


*edited to get around the filter. Which is ridiculous because child s ex offender is their actual legal term *eyeroll*

 

Do you have any links to back up your claim that the vast majority of child s ex offenders don’t have a mental illness (including paedophilia)? What term would you use for your example of a teacher abusing his teenage students?

 

I would call them a child s ex offender? Like I said at least twice in my post. I don't have my DSM or my peer reviewed journals with me, sorry, given its a Sunday evening and I'm at home. Would you accept Google links?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Sybil Vimes

It's worth keeping in mind that most paedophile research is done with convicted criminals. Paedophiles who haven't been convicted are difficult to research because they don't tend to disclose for obvious reasons. So saying "paedophiles would seek treatment if x occurred" or "paedophiles would feel a certain way if y occurred" is often an educated guess at best or, at worst, internet bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The snark is really not needed in here, this is a seriously triggering and emotive topic for me and many others.

That might make me biased but to be honest I don’t GAF, victims feelings are more important to me than protecting paedophiles from feeling marginalised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree in that I prefer clarity in language.

Paedophiles are not all predators. And even more importantly, predators are not all pedophiles.


While we conflate the two, people could look at people like Jimmy Saville behaving sleazily and go "oh he's only into women, he's not a pedophile" until his abuses against children are uncovered. But a bunch of perpetrators will abuse anybody vulnerable, irrespective of age and sex. And a bunch of paedophiles will never directly harm a child. There is no usefulness to conflating the two. Predators are predators and have a reckless disregard for the welfare of others, regardless of whether they particularly focus on children or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucrezia Borgia

is “sexual predators” any better or worse than “pedophile?” - i agree that using correct terminology is important - particularly to an oppressed class, trying to name their oppressor. I’m not sure if this fits the bill....but sexual predator, if that’s more accurate, works for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oriental lily

I am a bit confused . So what would you call a paedophile who rapes a child ? Is he not only a paedophile (which is considered a mental illness ) but also a predator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucrezia Borgia

Why would anyone want to remove the stigma of being sexually attracted to children??

This should not be normalised

 

No one is saying it should be normalised, but the urge itself shouldn’t be stigmatised to the point that it will stop people experiencing it from seeking help

 

i disagree. they should seek help, absolutely. but it absolutely should be stigmatised. it’s not within the bounds of decent, legal, healthy behaviour - if it’s not stigmatised then - what is it? accepted as a disability? catered for? the urge is wrong - it offends every notion of human decency. children must be protected at all costs. they are so vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is “sexual predators” any better or worse than “pedophile?” - i agree that using correct terminology is important - particularly to an oppressed class, trying to name their oppressor. I’m not sure if this fits the bill....but sexual predator, if that’s more accurate, works for me.

 

I would argue that sexual predator is a more accurate term. But it probably conflates those who perpetrate against children and those who perpetrate against adults. And is one offence worse than the other?


Further to [mention]CallMeAl[/mention]'s point, referring to all child s ex offenders as paedophiles also reinforces unhelpful negative stereotypes about mental health issues in general. There are lots of given motives for abuse against minors. Often it boils down to some form of 'I'm a shitty human being and no reasonable adult woman wants to put up with me but I'm horny.' It's often about the power, not the sex (as for adult rape). And they're often convenient. And aren't likely to have them charged with assault.


Human beings can be completely sane and completely despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MintyBiscuit

I am a bit confused . So what would you call a paedophile who rapes a child ? Is he not only a paedophile (which is considered a mental illness ) but also a predator?

 

A perpetrator of child sexual assault. A child rapist. A child molester. A child abuser. Any number of terms are technically more correct than calling them just a paedophile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MintyBiscuit

Why would anyone want to remove the stigma of being sexually attracted to children??

This should not be normalised

 

No one is saying it should be normalised, but the urge itself shouldn’t be stigmatised to the point that it will stop people experiencing it from seeking help

 

i disagree. they should seek help, absolutely. but it absolutely should be stigmatised. it’s not within the bounds of decent, legal, healthy behaviour - if it’s not stigmatised then - what is it? accepted as a disability? catered for? the urge is wrong - it offends every notion of human decency. children must be protected at all costs. they are so vulnerable.

 

Which is why I didn’t say it shouldn’t be stigmatised, I said it shouldn’t be stigmatised to the point of putting people off seeking help. If paedophilia itself was properly seen as a totally inappropriate sexual urge that needs help, people could seek that help. But it would still carry the stigma that to act on those impulses is abhorrent behaviour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Sybil Vimes

Yes, paedophile isn't always the correct term - not everyone who offends against children has a specific attraction to children - but how much does that matter? Maybe it's something where the victims of these crimes can get to choose the term that feels right to them, even if sex researchers and psychiatrists might use another word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blueskies12

This is absolutely appalling and I feel angry about this email being sent. I don't give a f'c'k about these offenders. Wrong is wrong and it's up to them alone to never ever harm a child.

More and more I worry that there is this undercurrent message in society and it really scares me.


ETA- Please don't quote, as I may delete. This has surprisingly triggered me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think now is absolutely not the time to tiptoe around the grooming and abuse of children and switch the spotlight to the other side of the equation. I'm wondering about the timing of this to be honest, when I still have Grace Tame's words from the other day echoing in my head.


The priority conversation right now, in the current climate, is how to protect children from being groomed for sexual abuse. That's the conversation we need to be having and the content we need in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is saying they care more about the offenders than the victims. Everyone agrees that no child should be raped or sexually assaulted. However, since it is happening, maybe we need to look at better ways of preventing it.


Honestly, it's not at all about "won't someone think of the poor paedophiles". It's about needing to do better for victims, about preventing new victims from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article I read, its not particularly easily treatable anyway. One of the more successful programs uses the same techniques as gay conversion therapy which is controversial for obvious reasons.


I'd imagine those who don't offend just simply don't do it in the same way I don't do it with every man I'm attracted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually tired of hearing people called pedophiles when they are really ephebophiles, but other than that, I don't see any reason not to call a pedophile a pedophile, acting or not. I don't really care about their feelings.


I know a good number of people who sexually assault children are opportunists rather than pedophiles, but they still sexually assaulted a minor (and you can't do anything except sexually assault a minor). I am glad some people don't act on their feelings but I still don't care if they're offended that they're lumped in with acting pedophiles. If you call the acting ones 'child sexual predators' it's not like you won't be thinking of pedophiles in general anyway. They'd just end up being called child sexual predators instead. Saying 'look, I'm a pedophile but don't worry I don't touch children, only fantasise' is going to go down like a lead balloon anyway.


Hmm. I guess it doesn't matter if they're called child sexual predators or child abusers etc rather than pedophiles, but I don't think it's going to help pedophiles as much as they think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think now is absolutely not the time to tiptoe around the grooming and abuse of children and switch the spotlight to the other side of the equation. I'm wondering about the timing of this to be honest, when I still have Grace Tame's words from the other day echoing in my head.


The priority conversation right now, in the current climate, is how to protect children from being groomed for sexual abuse. That's the conversation we need to be having and the content we need in the media.

 

This makes sense to me.

I'll admit, my compassion generally switches off more easily around this topic than most others. The day a pedophile stands up and advocates for the protection of children with no other agenda, might be the day I consider the impact of words on their plight. I guess this is because I doubt the stigma attached to abusing children is really that much of a deterrent. Children were abused long before the stigma was there, Idk, it is a hard topic in which to tease out what is a purely emotive response.

There are a bunch of sexual proclivities that are surely less destructive to others -where the identified person with such proclivity seeks help - that deserves more de-stigmatisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertisement

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...