Jump to content
IGNORED

Content Warning: Don’t call predators paedophiles


Ron Swanson

Recommended Posts

Ron Swanson

Do you agree or disagree?


"ABC reporters in Tasmania have been told to “avoid” referring to child s ex abusers as pedophiIes, to avoid marginalising people with pedophiIia. An email sent to all news staff this week advises against the use of the term “pedophiIe”, even to describe those who have serially abused children over many years"


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/dont-call-paedophiles-paedophiles-abc-tells-reporters-in-leaked-email/news-story/8ccdb9c003e79f9d3fa6fb9a567aa3a4


https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-call-predators-pedophiles%E2%80%99-abc-tells-reporters-leaked-email


eb doesn't like the word pedophile, so I had to insert a space to have it post.

nope, it's the word "s e x" it didn't like

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

That is a crock of shite. We're marginalising lions if paedophiles have appropriated the term 'predator.' I don't think paedophilia will ever be acceptable and thus it can stay in the margins as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm no.


I recall reading an article once on rehabilitation of pedophiles, and one of the challenges is that theres such a stigma, that they wont seek help and also that no one wants to treat them either, which isn't great from a preventative perspective. But I don't know if distancing non-offenders from offenders will lead to anything positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to an interview years ago that shifted my perspective on this a bit. It was with a young man who identified he had feelings of paedophilia when he was a teen. He was aware it was wrong but struggled with it so started a support group, with the aim to help each other resist their urges. It was pretty difficult listening since I had young kids at the time but it made me think about what it must be like for them or what it would be like if this young man's efforts just resulted in disgust and rejection. The ultimate goal is to prevent these crimes from happening and if marginalisation causes individuals to have no connections that stop them from offending then we do need to do something about that.


That said, I'm not sure that removing a negative association to the word paedophile will have the desired effect. The man I heard interviewed needed to be aware that the behaviour is wrong before wanting to do something about it. If it just becomes "different" then surely that opens up room for acceptance of the behaviour, when it is definitely not acceptable.


I don't know, it's a challenging topic and we need to focus on desired outcomes (no offenders) rather than our emotional reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much what I was going to say Mumpteen.


We have to figure out how best to allow people with such desires to recognise that they can't act on them and seek help without shame. The attraction is not their fault. Whether or not they act on it is something society needs to help them with.


I don't know whether changing the terminology like this will help, but I'm willing to look at the evidence of people who study this behaviour and be guided by current best practice advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sick reading this. I do not give a fuck about marginalising sick twisted perverts who destroy kids lives. If they offend and destroy a persons life, they have no rights as far as I'm concerned. That goes for people who are "pre-offenders" as a PP has used the term. Wouldn't they be seeking out that type of disgusting material and therefore supporting/condoning the crime?!


Sorry I really can't bring myself to read the link. The replies above have been enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't give a flying fuck if pedophiles feel marginalised especially those who act on their urges. I have way more sympathy for some murderers than I do pedophiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to an interview years ago that shifted my perspective on this a bit. It was with a young man who identified he had feelings of paedophilia when he was a teen. He was aware it was wrong but struggled with it so started a support group, with the aim to help each other resist their urges. It was pretty difficult listening since I had young kids at the time but it made me think about what it must be like for them or what it would be like if this young man's efforts just resulted in disgust and rejection. The ultimate goal is to prevent these crimes from happening and if marginalisation causes individuals to have no connections that stop them from offending then we do need to do something about that.


That said, I'm not sure that removing a negative association to the word paedophile will have the desired effect. The man I heard interviewed needed to be aware that the behaviour is wrong before wanting to do something about it. If it just becomes "different" then surely that opens up room for acceptance of the behaviour, when it is definitely not acceptable.


I don't know, it's a challenging topic and we need to focus on desired outcomes (no offenders) rather than our emotional reactions.

 

Well, unlike [mention]Bad Cat[/mention] I had no ability to put into words what you've said, and was concerned that it would sound like I was on the side of the perpetrators.


Whatever it takes to reduce crime. We might get great satisfaction out of drawing and quartering criminals, but does it really reduce the crime rate? If anyone had targeted my daughter, I'd probably have been capable of taking them apart limb by limb with a rusty razor blade, but that's revenge, and it's why we don't allow members of the family on the jury. It might make me feel better, but does it make anyone safer in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MintyBiscuit

I’ve read a fair bit over the years around the struggle for people who have recognised those urges within themselves, recognised that it is not something they should ever act on, and then tried to find help to overcome those urges or strategies to ignore them. It’s not as simple as just they’re perverts and sickos. Offenders are a different thing, that is sexual abuse and obviously needs to be dealt with, but there is a risk of people feeling those urges being further pushed to the margins and therefore more likely to end up offending.


In terms of the use of the word paedophile in reporting, I don’t know that it’s going to make a huge amount of difference, but I can see what the thought process is. Children are still sadly being groomed and abused and I don’t think our current approach of purely punitive measures is stopping that. If more open conversations were being had around recognising those urges and being able to find help to avoid acting on them, fewer offenses would occur and fewer children would be abused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucrezia Borgia

i think we have to stop worrying so much about how the perpetuators of these crimes feel and focus a bit more on how the victims feel. the criminal justice system serves both a punitive purpose and a rehabilitation purpose - i accept that and broadly support that. we can work within that framework while still saying, very clear.y, to those who commit crimes against children - this is not within the bounds of normal decent legal acceptable social behaviour, you have offended against our societal norms, you are a criminal, you will be punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucrezia Borgia

not sure what you mean? i think we have to have very clear boundaries and be very very clear about what is, and what isn’t acceptable. children should always be told - in any situation - that they can say Stop! and challenge anyone, no matter how they are presenting - if it feels off to them. they should trust their instincts, and always err on the side of caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course.


But people who have these urges should be able to seek help to avoid acting on them. If the result of admitting their urges is being shamed and pelted with metaphorical rocks, they're not going to seek help and they will be far more likely to offend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you think not using the word paedophile for people that have sexually abused children, helps anyone that has those desires? I do think there should be therapy available for those people but I am not on board with anything that tries to normalise it.


These people know it’s wrong. They know they shouldn’t act on it. When they do, it’s not because society shamed them. It’s because they don’t care about the damage their actions cause, and they know there is rarely consequences for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Sybil Vimes

Paraphiliac disorders (paedophilia is one of them - the others are fetishism, sadism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, frotteurism, transvestism and autogynephilia) are very complex. There's a mixture of biology, early life experiences and family dynamics, mixed in with reinforcement through using fantasy and pornography as masturbation aid. It takes long-term therapy and medication to address but I don't think avoiding the term paedophilia is helpful. Whatever name we call it, there will be stigma and public loathing of paedophiles and for good reason.


I think whoever sent that email around the ABC was foolish and should have consulted widely before even thinking about making that kind of change in language. It was always going to lead to outrage.

Edited by Lady Sybil Vimes
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*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MintyBiscuit

I keep getting a 403 error but basically agree with a couple of the above posts. Paedophilia as a definition means sexual feelings directed towards children. It is not synonymous with child rapist yet that is how it is commonly used.


If we actually want to prevent these crimes we need to do a better job of helping people with those urges before they act upon them. Conflating their feelings with those of child abusers is not conducive to that help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you think not using the word paedophile for people that have sexually abused children, helps anyone that has those desires? I do think there should be therapy available for those people but I am not on board with anything that tries to normalise it.


These people know it’s wrong. They know they shouldn’t act on it. When they do, it’s not because society shamed them. It’s because they don’t care about the damage their actions cause, and they know there is rarely consequences for it.

 

 

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*

 

Thanks you Crombek. That's the answer I was looking for.


Calling a sexual predator who happens to enjoy hurting children a paedophile is often inaccurate and it makes it hard for those with genuine mental illness to seek help because they're being lumped in with predators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucrezia Borgia

what is the name for a sexual predator who happens to enjoy hurting children then? I will use that name instead , and will urge the journalists at my work to do the same.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the name for a sexual predator who happens to enjoy hurting children then? I will use that name instead , and will urge the journalists at my work to do the same.

 

Sexual predator.


They're only paedophiles if they have paedophilia.

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...