something is very wrong with this woman.

[kristie91]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html

Yeah that is right you read the headlines! This woman has problems.


What about the children's rights you stupid woman?

[Lance]

Castrate them first.

[kristie91]

When you mess with a child you lose your right to raise and care for a child.

[BlakeS5678]

Anyways, is she a pedophile by any chance? :wtf: (But by the way, in most cases the person who sexually abuses the child were pedophiles before and didn't just wake up one day and choose to be.)

It's has been clinically proven that pedophiles can have years of treatment and therapy and most will still become pedophiles again. (This isn't always the case though.) But, this is especially true if they are tempted to sexually abuse a child every single day the're with their adopted child. People are people and can't change that. I think some pedophiles may need to realize they have a problem and refrain from becoming parents, even when they've been treated. For these reasons we CAN NOT risk giving these type of people children, it just wouldn't be fair to the child or even the parent because they know they'll be "tempted". Some people can truly change but we can't take a risk on those who haven't/won't. It's horrible to say but, pedophiles need to learn they just aren't fit for parenting and need to find something else to occupy themselves with. With the Penn State incident the coach obviously shouldn't have been surrounding himself with children. (If he's guilty that is.)

[Lance]

I don't see why a peadophile would want to be a parent in the first place. Except for the chance to fuck their own child, that is.

[BlakeS5678]

Exactly.

[VerDeTerre]

I'm not sure that last part is exactly true. The desire to become a parent is rooted in something other than the impulses that lead to abuse.


I had always heard the thing you had, Blake, about pedophiles not being able to be reformed. But then I read this and it caused me to rethink it: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/ It's not a foregone conclusion either way, but still - so interesting! It gives me hope about the future of reform of some of our most damaged citizens - the ones who cause so much damage to others. I would hope this research could lead to healing of both victim and perpetrator. Of course, even with that, I wouldn't want to see a pedophile given a second chance to hurt another child.

[Oaktree]

Aren't all convicted felons barred from adopting? I imagine that adoption agencies don't want to put children into the hands of felons, partly because, depending on the crime, the child may be in danger and partly because felons are not good role-models. The way our system works is, if you infringe on the rights of another, you lose some of your rights. I think that, to an extent, this is reasonable. Barring felons from adopting is an instance in which I think it is reasonable.

And her quote about "reoffending rates" and "child sex murders" is carefully worded to give one impression while avoiding outright lying to do it. The recidivism rate among sex offenders in general is lower than recidivism for non-sex crimes, but the recidivism rate for child molesters as compared to other sex offenders was found to be higher. [Source (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf)] And "child sex murders" is a very specific term. Many pedophiles are not murderers. Many pedophiles have feelings of love for the children they hurt and do not want to kill those children. So children left in the hands of a pedophile have a low likelihood of being murdered, but that doesn't negate the fact that they will probably be psychologically damaged by rape/molestation.

EDIT: Okay, I read the article a little more carefully. Yes, there are cases where a person is convicted of a sex crime when they sleep with a significant other is under 18, but still old enough that it's reasonable for that person to give consent, even if the law says they can't (though 29 is awfully old to be sleeping with a 15-year-old). I think the study I linked above chooses a good distinction by talking about the percentage of victims 13 and under. I can see maybe doing individual assessment for those who are convicted of a crime for sleeping with someone older than that. That's not even technically pedophilia, but ephebophilia, which is attraction to post-pubescent (physically adult) individuals who are not quite considered adults yet. It's not the same as pedophilia and it's probably best to make a legal distinction about that.

[minimogut]

The woman in this article has problems...

[iSoNerdy]

What a noodle...

[ggdsgirl]

Castrate them first. I agree

[XxRavenblazexX]

wow yeah something is for sure wrong with that lady

[BlakeS5678]

After reading the article more thoroughly this is what I got.

What she says at first sort of makes sense, then it goes downhill from there. She starts with let's give them a second chance through screening and testing. This seems like a good idea but, how often this will actually work I'm skeptical of. She continued with...

"There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them."

She also stated that pedophiles have already served there dues in court and shouldn't have extra punishment. :wtf: Does she NOT realize that pedophiles RUIN childrens' lives and may even mentally scar them for life. My mom is 45 and she is still tramautized from when someone touched her 40 years ago! I must repeat, we just CAN'T take chances!



P.S. This was not meant to be rude. (Could some of us please stop just posting "something's wrong with that chick" and please give a more thoughtful explanation. Thanks! ;))

[VerDeTerre]

I agree with you Blake, on many counts. I would not want to give pedophiles a second chance because the stakes are way too high. Did you look at the article I posted? It offers hope of rehabilitation. But even with that, I wouldn't want to run the risk with anyone who has proven, even by a single incident, of putting anyone else at risk of harm that way. It's not a matter of serving "dues". It's a matter of public safety and security.

[kustirider2]

I only read the headline, but still this should very much be a no-no. Although I did read a story of a couple ending up having sex in a public park, at 11PM in complete darkness and silence, on a whim. Both of those got put on the sex offender's register, even though no one was actually harmed. Then there's cases of people being added to the register after going out to the pub, or whatever, and picking up a girl who claims to be 18, but is later found out to be younger. It's not really the man's fault. So yeah, anyone who has done anything involving children under 12 (I'm sure this is the age, and below, in the law where children cannot consent to anything because they don't understand sex), or involving anything unwillingly and un-consented from 12-[consenting age] should, in my opinion, be jailed for life with no chance of parole.. never mind adopting children! I really cannot see this being any kind of a good idea..

[BlakeS5678]

I believe it said in the article it was 13 and under. I agree with what both of you said. ^ ^ Doing something like that to a child is just too unforgivable.

I have to slightly disagree with the pub thing though, you really shouldn't be picking up random considerably young girls in the first place. :rolleyes: But, yeah, it wasn't their intention to have sex with a minor. Why did that couple get put on the sex offender list? Was one of them/both under 18? It seems they should have been charged with PDA.

I'm just really wondering why this woman is so against no adoption for pedophiles. It makes you wonder what type of person SHE is.

And, I'm looking at the article you posted now. It's quite long though. :)

[kristie91]

Well to explain myself further then just that the woman is messed up. Why is she messed up.. well anyone who thinks its okay for kids to be with someone who is attracted to children obviously need to wake up. Pedophiles don't just stop being attracted to children. Therefore having them raise a child would put the child at extreme risk. To me children should be able to be put in a home that will be good for them. That's why we have an adoption system that does back ground checks. I'm sure a lot of people who die or can't raise their own children don't want them put in a home that endangers the child.

[VerDeTerre]

Yeah, I guess it is :( Read it at your leisure ;)

[5M0K3]

Uh... She's bonkers. She's absolutely nuts. She's insane in the membrane.

[missy harries]

Well if a person has sexual feelings towards children I doubt some jail time is going to change they're urges. They're probably just more likely to suppress it but known pedophiles should not be allowed anywhere near children.
I can see how some sex offenders are marked so unjustly though. So a boy has turned 18, he has sex with his 15 year old girlfreind but he's now on the sex offenders list....... It happens (http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/Romeo_and_Julie.htm) quite frequently.
Adoption for sex offenders should be taken on a case by case basis because there is never a black and white line.
The guy who dry humped a 7 year old should be castrated and never allowed near kids ever again but the boy with the couple year diffrence between him and his girlfriend? I see nothing wrong with that boy adopting/fostering, heck social services need all the help they can get.

[AlexandraSpears]

Instead of having no-go zones for pedophiles, just lock them up permanently...then you KNOW they won't be looking for kids to molest. As it is, I get e-mails from my county sheriff's department notifying me if a sex offender has moved to a residence within a mile of my home. No one's going to mess with MY child if I have anything to say about it!

[VerDeTerre]

I agree missy harries. It's a problem - anything legal is because of all how everything needs to be so cut and dry and spelled out in the law. But really, a couple who is within a couple of years of each other? Couldn't that part be rewritten? And the whole thing about PDA or even public nudity should not be construed at lewdness nor pornography. It is inappropriate, perhaps. I think the justice system could do a better job at hashing out the differences of type and degrees of wrong here.

[AlexandraSpears]

I've heard of guys whipping it out and relieving themselves in public getting labeled as sex offenders. That's plain stupid.

[wickedblue]

Aren't all convicted felons barred from adopting? I imagine that adoption agencies don't want to put children into the hands of felons, partly because, depending on the crime, the child may be in danger and partly because felons are not good role-models. The way our system works is, if you infringe on the rights of another, you lose some of your rights. I think that, to an extent, this is reasonable. Barring felons from adopting is an instance in which I think it is reasonable.

That's a really broad brush you're painting with there. :)

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.

As far as convicted sexual offenders though? Absolutely not. Though, I agree there is a distinction to be made from someone who is on the sexual offender registration because at 18 they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or someone who peed in public (yes, seriously, that will get you on the list) and those who commit rape or child molestation. The whole sexual offender registration thing needs to be overhauled to not even include the first two or other minor offenses while keeping those with the more serious crimes on it. As it is, that list ruins the lives of people who are not sexual predators.

[Saturnfly]

"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’"

I think it's unfair that these assholes take away children’s innocence which will often leave them with severe problems for a very long time.

If I were them, I'd just kill myself and rid the world of filth. Paedophiles and sex offenders won't change. It's like the saying goes, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, all you can do is stay away from your addiction.

I wonder how this mad woman would feel if her own child was the victim of sexual abuse? Maybe she should put herself in someone else’s shoes before she opens her mouth and spew’s this unnecessary garbage into the world.

[VerDeTerre]

Paedophiles and sex offenders won't change. It's like the saying goes, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, all you can do is stay away from your addiction. This is what I've always heard too, but the article I reference above has made me consider that change is possible. It's a fascinating read - please give it a go. As I stated before, even with that possibility, I wouldn't rely on it nor want anyone who had harmed others in that way to have the same chance again.

[Oaktree]

That's a really broad brush you're painting with there. :)

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.

I realize that not all felons are going to repeat whatever crime they committed. I am concerned about the lack of rehabilitation in our prisons, though. When someone is treated like they aren't a real person for years, it tends to screw up the psyche. I realize that that isn't the fault of those sent to jail and I think that our prison system should focus more on rehabilitation, but I think it is risky to allow someone who's spent 20 years in prison to adopt a child. I think it is reasonable that some individuals that can demonstrate that they are capable of raising a child be allowed to adopt, but I think the responsible thing to do would be to take a much stricter look at those who have been convicted of a felony.

[Lance]

Someone's noted about the age of 12-13 when person physically becomes able to feel sexual attraction. I believe this is where the age of consent should be set and people having sex with 12-years old and older shouldn't be considered paedophiles. Because the older side often has no idea how old their partner is - they see fully developed body, and they don't really care about actual age, and the younger side would often lie as sexual desires are new and overwhelming to them and they are not experienced enough to control their physical urges or think it properly through.

VerDeTerre, while some peadophiles have parental instincts - or some remnant of it which has not been changed/perverted by their disorder, they will still have sexual urge for their children. Even if we'll be able to prove that they will never touch a child again, the atraction still remains and even in repressed form - and even in its subconscious state (which is, I believe, often the case for women whose parental instincs usually overrule possible paedophilia thus hiding it from conscioussness) - it will still hurt the child. Child's psyche is developed in response to emotional interactions with parents. When this area is corrupted, the whole proceess goes awry.
The very article you linked says: "For the pedophile, we cannot hope to control whether he is attracted to children. That he never acts on the attraction may be the best we can hope for, especially as a society that respects individual rights and freedom of thought."

[wickedblue]

So because pedophiles just can't help themselves getting all excited over a 12 year old child's body, we should just stop making it a crime for them to have sex with a 12 year old?

You really think it's just acceptable to take away the responsibility of you know, finding out how old your potential partner is and gaining their enthusiastic consent before proceeding with any sexual acts?

I mean we are talking about adults vs. children here. The burden is on the adult. No matter how tempting a 12 year old's body is (and what the fuck?!) I see lots of girls around this age every single day and no matter how they may try to look older, the fact that they are just children is pretty clearly obvious. If in doubt, DO NOT TOUCH. It's not that difficult.

[Lance]

Since the moment you're physically developed enough to have sex and sexual desires you're not a child anymore.

[wickedblue]

Some children enter puberty at around age 9. Are you seriously suggesting that at age 9 because they have undergone some changes in their body that results in sex hormones being created and are therefore able to reproduce that they are no longer children? Or is it only that they have sexual urges that makes them not children? In that case, then I suppose at 5 years old some stop being children. Yes, children that young do develop sexual urges. They do not understand them and have no capacity to consent, which is why we make it a crime to have sex with children.

I can't believe I'm even having to explain this.

[5M0K3]

Who would want to have sex with a child in the first place?!

[Lance]

wickedblue, you're talking of exceptions here. Such childrens should be watched very closely as they often do try to get sex and sometimes force other children to it.

You should also add that some don't enter puberty and don't have sexual urges until they hit 20. In this case having sex with 18 years old who in theory should have capacity to consent would be terribly wrong and sick.

[Oaktree]

My opinion is that it shouldn't be illegal for teenagers to have sex with each other, but it becomes much more grey (not to mention creepy) when adults pursue teenagers. It's too easy for that sort of relationship to become imbalanced and coercive. With the exception of relationships where there is only a difference in age of a couple of years, I think adults should just steer clear of teenagers.

Also, I was one of those who went through puberty at age 9 and I reached my full adult height and close to my adult proportions at 11. I can tell you for a fact that I wasn't ready for sex, no matter how much I may have looked like an adult. Many people aren't ready for sex until years after they hit puberty. Physical appearance isn't the only thing that plays a role in consent.

[wickedblue]

No, I am not talking of exceptions here and your second argument also fails. Once a person becomes a legal adult, at the age of 18, they can give informed consent about their own choices, including the choice to have sex. Whether they have the sexual urges or not is completely irrelevant. If someone has sex with a person that does not give their consent, that person is committing rape.

You are trying so very hard to justify the unjustifiable. You don't just make it legal to have sex with a child because some people just can't control their urges to have sex with children.

And yes, they are children. No matter how hard you try to twist facts to suit your own reality, it doesn't work that way. They are children and in the eyes of the law cannot give informed and enthusiastic consent.

[Lance]

wickedblue, my firm belief that at the age of 13 a person who is psysically and psychically developed adequatly to their age should be able to understand implications of "yes" and "no".
Whether they should say "yes" or "no" is THE WHOLE OTHER MATTER.

Edit: Since in your rage you're obviously ready to admit me a vicious paedophile, I'll tell you something.
I've had my first sex at the next day of my 14th birthday with a girl who was 1,5 week away from her 18th birthday. As a couple of days matters not, I was 13 and she was 18. If we are to follow wickedblue's definitions and those very laws she defends without any thought, then we are to admit the girl is a paedophile and should've been jailed. Actually, according to the laws she should have been jailed.

[wickedblue]

Well, Lance, I am not in a rage at all, and I certainly never said that you were a pedophile, that is a conclusion you have jumped to on all your own. What I did was point out that there was a serious flaw in your argument that we should make it legal to have sex with children because some people just can't control themselves. I will tell you something, I really don't give a damn if a grown person finds a child with a pubescent body to be sexually attractive, I can and will expect that person to control themselves and if they do not I fully expect the law to hold them accountable for their actions.

And yes, she should have been jailed.

[Lance]

Well, Lance, I am not in a rage at all, and I certainly never said that you were a pedophile, that is a conclusion you have jumped to on all your own. What I did was point out that there was a serious flaw in your argument that we should make it legal to have sex with children because some people just can't control themselves. I will tell you something, I really don't give a damn if a grown person finds a child with a pubescent body to be sexually attractive, I can and will expect that person to control themselves and if they do not I fully expect the law to hold them accountable for their actions.My entire point was that teens aren't childs.

[wickedblue]

They are children and I honestly can't fathom why you are trying so hard to erase that fact.

I do not understand your second statement at all. Did you have sex with a child? If so then yes you should be jailed. If you are talking about the incident you have described, you were the child, so why would you be jailed for that?

[wickedblue]

Seriously? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean what I thought you meant but by your reaction that then I suppose the only conclusion here is that you are admitting to having had sex with a child. And now, Lance, I am perfectly clear on why you are so determined to make the children to blame for what is done to them. It's probably the only way you can justify your own actions.

I'm done. This conversation is making me physically ill.

[Lance]

LOL

Mildly put, I was saying I would harm any person who would want to insult my first love.

[wickedblue]

LOL

Mildly put, I was saying I would harm any person who would want to insult my first love.

Even though I find it to be bad form to use quotes to reply to a comment directly above yours, I want to make sure that this is not going to disappear when you decide to edit your comment. I want the mods to see that you just threatened me.

[Lance]

Seriously? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean what I thought you meant but by your reaction that then I suppose the only conclusion here is that you are admitting to having had sex with a child. And now, Lance, I am perfectly clear on why you are so determined to make the children to blame for what is done to them. It's probably the only way you can justify your own actions.
I also want mods to see you were insulting me saying I am a paedophile.

[CinderEmma]

I very much disagree with your view Lance, though I do respect your right to say it as long as you don't take it into action. I can't tell if you have from your statements, though they are worrisome. I'm sorry it has happened to you, though I wish you could understand that it wasn't alright for your "first love" to do that to you. She knew better then to take advantage of you, she could have any of-age person she wanted, yet she picked a 13, almost 14 year old.
I had puberty at age 11, before I knew what sex even was. I just wasn't emotionally ready. Even now, I have only just gotten sexual urges of any kind at the age of 17, despite being being at a mature biological state (boobs, hair down there, pretty much everything sexual that needs to be there) since 13. Even now, I am a virgin because I don't believe I'm emotionally ready for such an encounter.
But I'm 19, able to make that decision. If I were somehow in a sexual encounter at the age of 11-17, despite the fact that I knew that I wasn't even having urges, let alone wanting to lose my virginity, f I were being touched the right way...I wouldn't be able to look at the long-term consequences. And I'm somebody who has a super strict mentality (morels and stuff like that) that is hard to break, even from a super young age, which is abnormal.
There are reasons why you can't drive until 16, because a child, preteen, or young teenager doesn't have the concept of what their actions can do in the long term. Same with alcohol, smoking, and other age restricted activities. They just don't psychically have that piece to their mentality yet, I've read that it doesn't fully develop until mid-20s. And no, I don't think you need to stay a virgin that long, but for older children and younger teenagers, it's impossible to them give proper consent.
I don't think my words will make a difference, as your mind is made up. I'm not wanting to attack you. I just wish to show you my opinion, as you have shown yours.

[Lance]

CinderEmma, no, no, I think it's completely wrong to impose sex on someone who is not yet ready. You're not ready yet being 17 and you know it, I was ready when I was 13 and I knew it. Everyone is different.

[PhenethyaSim]

Alright I think if being 43 makes you an unsuitable adoptive parent(as my aunt was told) The being a Pedophile or any othe kind of felon should definitly bar you from adopting. I do think that sometimes what is considerd a sex offender is inacruate such as peeing in a public fountain infront of kids because your drunk, But real Sex offenders should not be given the chance to harm children. I don't even think pedophiles should be aloud visitation rights to current children because even with supervision those bas-s-pro-shop-terds are crafty and if they want to abuse a child they will.

[CinderEmma]

But were you ready for the consequences of said actions? Did you use protection? If not, were you ready for the chance of having a child, at the age of 13? Those are things that kids and young teens don't think of, but biology doesn't really care if you want a baby, only that the opportunity was available. If you did have protection, were you prepared for the aspects of an STD? At 13, you probably didn't ask if your partner was tested, even if she wasn't sexually active with anybody else but you, she could have had something from previous experiences.

Back on topic, I completely agree that if a 43 year old person or somebody single is unable or struggles to adopt a child, a felon certainly should not. It's not fair for the many people who want to adopt and have followed the law completely (or haven't been caught at breaking it I suppose).

[Lance]

She was a virgin, we used protection and we actually did a lot of research on how to choose it and how to use it properly.

[Oaktree]

Lance, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people are emotionally ready to have sex before the legal age of consent. I agree. That doesn't mean that it's right for a much older person to pursue that minor, though, because an older person typically has a sort of authority by virtue of being older and may abuse that authority. I think there's no problem with two 15-year-olds who both feel ready for sex having sex with each other, but when a 25-year-old pursues a 15-year-old, it can be difficult to determine to what degree the 15-year-old is able to consent vs. feeling coerced into a sexual relationship.

I know it seems weird that the ability to consent can change depending on the partner, but consider an example that applies among two adults: an employer pursuing an employee is walking a fine line of consent when s/he has the power over the employee's job. The employee can be pressured into doing things that s/he doesn't feel comfortable with because s/he wants to ensure job security. In a similar manner, children tend to feel that it is necessary to listen to those who are older than they are and an older partner can take advantage of that.

[CinderEmma]

While that may be, that is the exception, not the rule. So while perhaps your situation worked out, I still feel like the typical 13 year old would not do such actions and susceptible to the situation going completely wrong when they aren't ready for it.
Now I'm going to sleep, hopefully this conversation will go back on topic. Though a new debate board on this subject would definitely be interesting.

[Lance]

Oaktree, finally someone who understood me correctly! :)

[VerDeTerre]

Lance, it sounds like the age difference between you and the girl was closer to 4 years. That's still a little unbalanced, but not as much as the difference between 18 and 12. At 14, I'm sure you were quite precocious. It's still a little bit young, but I see your point in this case. In the case of 12, I'd have to disagree with you. That's a child.

I think what Oaktree said about it makes the most sense. ...when adults pursue teenagers. It's too easy for that sort of relationship to become imbalanced and coercive.

Btw, I wasn't disagreeing with you earlier about the possibility of pedophile parents hurting their own children. I think there is a good chance that they would. I was arguing the motive to become a parent in the first place. Most mentally and emotionally sick people seem like two people at times. The motive to have children is most likely the same for the pedophile as it is for the healthy person. Once the children are there, however, it's another matter. At that point, the sickness would lead to the impulse to harm.

[Lance]

Back on topic, I completely agree that if a 43 year old person or somebody single is unable or struggles to adopt a child, a felon certainly should not. It's not fair for the many people who want to adopt and have followed the law completely (or haven't been caught at breaking it I suppose).Back on topic, I too think it's severely unjust to bar normal people from adopting because they are single or gay or whatever else, while giving kids away to people who just left jail or quit psychiatric treatment or, how it was with this very big trial in my city several weeks ago, to drug addicted. Or, there're also people who adopt dozens of children to get money support from the state.

[AngryBunny.]

Who is this deranged bitch? No. Sex offenders should not be allowed to adopt. Minor sex offenders, maybe, but not pedophiles. There is always a risk of recidivism.

[DrowningFishy]

Sex offenders shouldn't be able to adopt, and repeat offenders should not be able to have kids PERIOD. I would go on but I am the hardest person on pedos (even though I may joke about it from time to time). Anyone who goes after a defensless person should loose their rights. But then where I am coming from is america you can kill someone and be out in 10 to 14 years, and people piss and whine about the death penlty. If I had my way repeat sex offenders would be living in consitration camps where there every move is watched and limited. We don't have to have it gaurded because they can't move out anyways, defently make parol officers life better because when he makes house calls it's allright there. No would with kids would live around such camps, and it would make it a lot easier for parents to know where to avoid them.

The one thing I hate about sexual preditors, expecially pedos is that one can walk up to you and you may never know it.

Another more stomach turning note, I know of one pedo who was charged jailed for multiple accounts with neighbor children (possibly his own step-grandhchildren), disapeared of parol-rejailed, and STILL not regishtered as a preditor.

[Lance]

I also want to note that women don't ever get registered as paedophiles and extremely rare as sex offenders at all.
Yes, they are very rare, but that does not mean they should be put to the Red List.

[G.O.C.]

I also want to note that women don't ever get registered as paedophiles and extremely rare as sex offenders at all.
Yes, they are very rare, but that does not mean they should be put to the Red List.
I'm afraid you are wrong there Lance! Here in the UK, we have many registered Female sex offenders and some are even in Jail!

[Lance]

I was speaking for my country and the ones surrounding it.

[G.O.C.]

Well, imho, your Country and the surrounding ones, need to get with the program!
Women can be just as evil as Men!

[DrowningFishy]

Well, imho, your Country and the surrounding ones, need to get with the program!
Women can be just as evil as Men!

The problem is what guy wants to say a woman raped/molested him? Either that or she is seen as helping someone commit said crimes.

[G.O.C.]

The problem is what guy wants to say a woman raped/molested him?
We are talking about Children here, 6,7,8! they shouldn't have a problem!

[Lance]

I always watch criminal news but so far I've seen only one case of female paedophile being accidentally caught. The trial over her didn't admit her to being a paedophile hence she got only standard child mistreatment charge.
Because she's a woman, you know, and the local psychiatry considers paedophilia to be exclusively male disorder. And it was not proved that putting her sex toys into the boy's anus was sexual in nature.

[DrowningFishy]

Anyone familar with the story of Jaycee Lee Dugard? Or about that mother in 2009 that was accused of molesting her child live internet? It's true that woman are capable of it, but if you google man instead of woman you certianly get more cases. To be honest I think of it as more of a sexism thing rather then it's not happening. Kinda silly when you think about it, were less likely to talk about a woman molester, but were more then fine talking more about woman who end up killing their kids then men killing their kids.

[missy harries]

And it was not proved that putting her sex toys into the boy's anus was sexual in nature.
WTF, that's just screwed with my wellbeing for the afternoon :wtf:

Sexual child molestation is usually done by the male of the species though. It may (or may not, just my speculation) have something to do with our sexual organs. Mens being all external able to derive pleasure from, well..... almost anything that rubs it....... Women tend to like things a bit more substantial that can be inserted..... Children would just seem too inadequately small for women plus when I look at a child a major mothering instinct kicks in, it just seem's less logical that a woman would want to engage with a child in that way.

EDIT: I think I chose the worst wording ever! What I Was trying to say is that its harder for women to derive physical pleasure from the rape of a child compared to men, a women doing something such as sodomy though just seems sadistic rather than sexual.

[Lance]

Somehow I always thought women are very fine with touching, kissing and rubbing...

[AngryBunny.]

I've heard of a lot of cases where female teachers have had sex with their students (usually high school students). I think most people would call such a woman a "slutty cougar". A male under the same circumstances? He would be called a "monster". There's a noticeable difference there. Society treats male sex offenders akin to lepers. How do they treat women offenders? Well, I don't know really because there aren't many out there. But it makes me wonder whether a woman who has committed a sexual offence would still be eligible to adopt under current legislation... They just might.

[DrowningFishy]

I've heard of a lot of cases where female teachers have had sex with their students (usually high school students). I think most people would call such a woman a "slutty cougar". A male under the same circumstances? He would be called a "monster". There's a noticeable difference there. Society treats male sex offenders akin to lepers. How do they treat women offenders? Well, I don't know really because there aren't many out there. But it makes me wonder whether a woman who has committed a sexual offence would still be eligible to adopt under current legislation... They just might.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau) has to be one of the most popular cases here.

[AngryBunny.]

Somehow I always thought women are very fine with touching, kissing and rubbing...

They are. Trust me. But I think male pedophiles revel more in the feeling of dominance. I'm guessing that they like to have control, and the physical pleasure is just a residual bonus. Pedophilia is largely a psychological disorder. Females have an innate maternal instinct to protect children, so it goes against this instinct to cause intentional harm through sexual violation.

[DrowningFishy]

Yes but your own experienced touch would be a lot better. I can imagine it would be very awkward and time consuming for a female to reach that stage with a child plus a lot molestation is done with a sleeping child. It's easier to whip it out and back for a man......
I honestly don't know how it would work for female molesters so I shall not continue since I have no idea what I'm talking about! I can't fathom why a woman would want to do that.

It usually gets filed under sexual acts, but less often it comes with the word sodomy (sp). If you don't want to know, don't think so much. Thing is a child doesn't have to be a sleep, and a child does not have to be a year old to get molested.

[Lance]

*coughs* Don't you think we've got a bit too far into the "how-to"?

I'm thinking now, while they frown on single males to adopt children (as far as I know) how would they feel on single male paedophile adopting a kid.
"We don't know for sure if you will take proper care of the child so we'll give the child away to someone who won't for sure."

[AngryBunny.]

*coughs* Don't you think we've got a bit too far into the "how-to"

Uh, yes. We all seem to know an awful lot about pedophilia. I wonder why that is... *shifty eyes*

My views still remain the same. Pedo no adopto. I do not approve of such shenanigans. It's just asking for trouble.

[VerDeTerre]

It's a cultural myth that women are more nurturing than men. It's such a deep seated belief among some so as to blind them to the facts. Men are just as capable at loving, nurturing, and protecting as women. It's culture that tells them otherwise. Women are just as capable of depraved acts and committing crimes against others as men. There are too many cases of women killing and torturing even their young and others to say otherwise. I think that, for the most part, the differences we see are how each one might go about it.

I'm not enjoying trying to analyse any of this.

[BlakeS5678]

Pedophilism is a mental disorder. For whatever it just occurs more often in men, like color blindness. Except color blindness isn't a sickness that inflicts others and causes emotional trauma to destroy entire lives. Doing certain horrible things such as murder, rape, etc. usually (not always) is a result from a sickness, drug, or disorder. If women are less likely to have this sickness/ abuse this drug/have this disorder, it just makes sense that they would commit these crimes less often, this is (at least) seems to be the case with molestation and rape involving young children. Maybe women just don't get caught or are better at keeping the kid quiet about it. How should we know?

I like to believe that everyone is different so we can have the very nurturing father, and the neglective mother. While on the other hand we can also have the deadbeat dad and the loving, supportive mom. For whatever reason it seems that men choose to be the latter option. That doesn't mean all men are the same. I hate gender specific stereotypes. If we take a poll it may turn out there are actually a lot more nurtiring fathers and less deadbeat dads than we thought, or vice-versa. How should we know?

[kustirider2]

Someone's noted about the age of 12-13 when person physically becomes able to feel sexual attraction. I believe this is where the age of consent should be set and people having sex with 12-years old and older shouldn't be considered paedophiles. Because the older side often has no idea how old their partner is - they see fully developed body, and they don't really care about actual age, and the younger side would often lie as sexual desires are new and overwhelming to them and they are not experienced enough to control their physical urges or think it properly through.

I mentioned this. I very much have to disagree with you there though. I said 12 years old is, in the law, where a child understands sex. Not sexual attraction or 'love'. Understands that penis + vagina = sex.

Anyone who thinks a 12 year old has a 'developed body' is quite frankly sick. Heck, I'm almost 18 years old, and I still don't have proper 'child bearing' hips. Nevermind when I was 12 and had an androgynous body. I'm also pretty sure that most 12 year olds aren't overwhelmed by sexual urges, sure kids experiment but with other kids... not adults. When you're 12 you still play with dolls, barbie dolls and other things like that, you don't go around feeling intense sexual attractions to adults. Any man who either thinks a 12 year old have a proper developed body, or is attracted to them, obviously has a psychological problem.

Since the moment you're physically developed enough to have sex and sexual desires you're not a child anymore.
Are you actually kidding me? A child is in no WAY physically developed to have sex. Let me go all science on you for a minute here; an adults vaginal canal is only 6 inches long at most. Most men have penises that are either close to - or over- this size. Now, a child's will obviously be much shorter, which means probably a lot of pain for her. A lot of children from the age of three have subconscious sexual desires, and therefore do masturbate because 'it feels good' but don't understand why.

I can't even believe I'm having to explain these things...

[Oaktree]

Anyone who thinks a 12 year old has a 'developed body' is quite frankly sick. Heck, I'm almost 18 years old, and I still don't have proper 'child bearing' hips. Nevermind when I was 12 and had an androgynous body. I'm also pretty sure that most 12 year olds aren't overwhelmed by sexual urges, sure kids experiment but with other kids... not adults. When you're 12 you still play with dolls, barbie dolls and other things like that, you don't go around feeling intense sexual attractions to adults. Any man who either thinks a 12 year old have a proper developed body, or is attracted to them, obviously has a psychological problem.


Well, it varies. At 12, I didn't quite have the fullest extent of my hips, but I had hips. Same goes for boobs. And I didn't play with dolls and did have crushes on adults (my first crush on a real person, when I was 13 years old, was on a guy in his 20's). All that said, it doesn't mean I was ready for sex, or that I should have tried to date an adult. Even though I had sexual desires, at the same time, I was pretty weirded out by the concept of having sex. And an adult might have been able to take advantage of the sexual feelings I had, even if I wasn't completely comfortable with sex. Consent is more complex than simply asking, "Do you want to have sex."

[PhenethyaSim]

Pedophilism is a mental disorder. For whatever it just occurs more often in men, like color blindness.

I must point out that All mental disorders are more common in men or at least mental disorders in general there may be some more common in women but not for the most part. Which explains why More pedos are male this does not mean women can't be pedos.

[BlakeS5678]

I agree completely, kustirider2. Just because you have some features, (or even all the "features") of an adult does NOT mean you are ready or even capable for sex. You have to atleast be psycholigically and physically ready. And sometimes not even then should it be okay to have sex. And just that you're no longer considered a child because you have some charactaristics of an adult doesn't mean you should be having sex either! In my opinion you shouldn't even being having sex just because you're 18! Sex is a meaningful, intimate thing that shouldn't be so casual. Especially when the people doing it aren't even two adults.

[PhenethyaSim]

^ I must agree Blake

Also I think that in-order to tell weather or not someone is a pedo not only should we be looking at weather the victim is a child and the ffender an adult but the age diffrence I think that a sixteen year old who is dating a Twenty year old is not a crime even if the relationship is sexual in nature. I think unless the underage person reports/admits unwanted sexual attention there could be a five year buffer zone for people OVER 14. Assuming they are infact ready.

[BlakeS5678]

I agree, well again. :)

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa :rolleyes: Some things just don't make sense.

[PhenethyaSim]

I agree, well again. :)

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa :rolleyes: Some things just don't make sense.

Well like a guy my mother went to high school with was dating a girl two years younger( he was 18 she was 16) and they got caught by her father and because he was black and she was white the father had him arrested. but he was a legal adult so even though the father was clearly racist the guy ended up being convicted as sex offender. So I would not begrudge HIM an adoption but Most sex offenders really arn't cases like this and they should not be aloud children.

[el_flel]

I agree, well again. :)

Technically it's a crime for a 18 year-old-boy to have intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. Or vice-versa :rolleyes: Some things just don't make sense.That depends on where you live. The age of consent is 16 in the UK so the above would be perfectly legal.

[Oaktree]

Does the UK have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? In my experience, it's about as common as 18-year-olds dating 17-year-olds, if not moreso, because 15- and 16-year-olds are pretty much guaranteed to go to the same type of school, where 18-year olds have often moved on to college.

[Phoeberg]

Alright I think if being 43 makes you an unsuitable adoptive parent(as my aunt was told) The being a Pedophile or any othe kind of felon should definitly bar you from adopting. .

Exactly. Why would Theresa May allow sex offenders to adopt children when perfectly suitable couples who have the potential to provide stable and loving homes currently cannot adopt children of different ethnic backgrounds, or are ruled out because of their age etc.?

[PhenethyaSim]

Exactly. Why would Theresa May allow sex offenders to adopt children when perfectly suitable couples who have the potential to provide stable and loving homes currently cannot adopt children of different ethnic backgrounds, or are ruled out because of their age etc.?
Exactly and My Aunt wasn't just an average 43 yearold woman either she is married and very successful she is more than able to provide for a child but normal adoption channels deemed her unsuitable. She was only able to adopt a fertilized frozen embryo because that is less scrutinized than regular adoption. So I agree when perfectly decent parents are being denied then why on earth would we give children to Unsafe homes?

[BlakeS5678]

As I thought about this it made me chuckle, this is how I think the conversation will go.

Woman: Pedophiles are now allowed to adopt!

Pedophile Wanting to Adopt: Hello, I'd like to adopt a child.

Adoption Agency: Oh yes, of course, we'll put you on the waiting list, you'll be able to adopt in approxiamtely 35 years.

35 years later

Pedophile: Yes, I've waited long enough, now it's my turn to adopt!

Adoption Agency: I'm sorry you're now over the age of 50 and are in elidgible to adopt, NEXT!

Pedophile: Nooooooo!

[yilesse]

I always watch criminal news but so far I've seen only one case of female paedophile being accidentally caught. The trial over her didn't admit her to being a paedophile hence she got only standard child mistreatment charge.
Because she's a woman, you know, and the local psychiatry considers paedophilia to be exclusively male disorder. And it was not proved that putting her sex toys into the boy's anus was sexual in nature.

I'm not sure I want an answer to this but what could putting sex toys in anyone's anus be other than sexual in nature?

In the UK (where I am) we just had a huge scandal over three paedophiles using facebook to swap pictures of abuse, they were two women (one of whom was a nursery worker who had been taking pictures of the children at work and they were most definitely children) and a man, so yes women definitely can be sex offenders and definitely can be paedophiles.

Here's an article about them, it might upset people that haven't heard about this before because the kids were really young. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-facebook-paedophile-ring-1796373.html) :(

[PhenethyaSim]

^ I didn't read all of that for it was quite disterbing but I will say I think things like that should have no statute of limitationand be punishable by death. I mean Its been proven that a child abused even at that young of an age can remember and those who can't still suffer from effects of being abused.

[yilesse]

I'd forgotten that they found two other women from photographs on the man's computer and charged them as well, so that's four women swapping vile pictures and engaging in child abuse that were brought together by the same man. I suppose the only good thing about this is because of his computer being seized they were able to track down the women, there is some argument that the first two women only acted on their sick fantasies after meeting and being egged on by him, they still had those thoughts in the first place though and who knows whether they'd have kept them in their heads without him. Sick, sick people and a very good example as to why the 'expert' in the OP's post is an idiot and needs to shut up.

Relax the regulations when it comes to none criminals and minor offenders, they are soewhat ridiculous but never ever should we trust someone that's proven they are a danger to children unless they can categorically prove they can be, the burden should be on them. It's not a human right to work with or adopt children, it's a privilage that needs to be earned. How many children in the care system have been abused either sexually, physically or emotionally? Who in their right mind would want to place those vunerable children with someone that might be tempted to do the same thing all over again, even if they didn't how would that child feel if they found out? Social services in the UK has a terrible record for looking after at risk children, just do a search for Baby P and see how reliable they'd be at making sure no abuse was happening or doing anything about if it was. Crass simile alert but putting a paedophile in charge of a child's wellfare is like making a pyromaniac the manager of a petrol station, ie the risks far outway the (very questionable) benefits.

[Oaktree]

I mean Its been proven that a child abused even at that young of an age can remember and those who can't still suffer from effects of being abused.

Actually, we don't form episodic memory until around the age of 2. Episodic memory is memory of specific events in one's life, as opposed to procedural or linguistic memory. A child younger than 2 cannot form memories of events in his/her life and would not remember that type of abuse. I'm not sure whether or not it's possible for the abuse to have an effect without memory of the event. The fact that these children won't remember what was done to them makes the case more difficult, but it is also probably for the best. The fact that they won't remember it certainly doesn't excuse it, though.

[PhenethyaSim]

actually if a less two year old had myelinated nerves it is possible for them to have memorys its uncommon though for a child to But infact I have memories that predate my third birthday and maybe much younger . And I took a psychology class that focused heavaly on sexual abuse and even if they can't form memories what happens in the early stages of life does have long term affects. I have even read of cases in which children can't remember their personal abuse but could tell they had been. even at that young of an age you are subconciously aware of whats going on.

But yes even if they can't remember It can have long term affects.
this page explanes why and how http://jsassn.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/sexual-abuse-in-infancy-by-bruce-d-perry-m-d-ph-d/

[maxon]

Does the UK have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? In my experience, it's about as common as 18-year-olds dating 17-year-olds, if not moreso, because 15- and 16-year-olds are pretty much guaranteed to go to the same type of school, where 18-year olds have often moved on to college.
In the UK, 15- and 16-year-olds often go to the same school as 17- and 18-year-olds. Not always but it's not uncommon. Why would we have issues with 15- and 16-year-olds dating? Young persons go to university around 18-19.

[Oaktree]

What I meant was that 16 is the age of consent and 15 is under that age. Is it anything like the problem in the US where sometimes an 18-year-old will be charged for having sex with a 17-year-old?

[Mootilda]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform#Canada
In June 2006, the Canadian government proposed a bill to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 (in 1890 it was raised from 12 to 14), while creating a near-age exemption for sex between 14-15 year olds and partners up to 5 years older, and keeping an existing near-age clause for sex between 12-13 year olds and partners up to 2 years older. The initiative also maintains a temporary exception for already existing marriages of 14 and 15 year olds, but forbids new marriages like these in the future.[25] The law took effect 1 May 2008.So, in Canada at least, the age difference is considered in these cases. This seems like a very reasonable solution.

[Lance]

I mentioned this. I very much have to disagree with you there though. I said 12 years old is, in the law, where a child understands sex. Not sexual attraction or 'love'. Understands that penis + vagina = sex.

Anyone who thinks a 12 year old has a 'developed body' is quite frankly sick. <...> When you're 12 you still play with dolls, barbie dolls and other things like that, you don't go around feeling intense sexual attractions to adults. Any man who either thinks a 12 year old have a proper developed body, or is attracted to them, obviously has a psychological problem.

Are you actually kidding me? A child is in no WAY physically developed to have sex. Let me go all science on you for a minute here; an adults vaginal canal is only 6 inches long at most. Most men have penises that are either close to - or over- this size. Now, a child's will obviously be much shorter, which means probably a lot of pain for her.
You've read my posts with the wrong set of eyes.

First off, most children understand penis+vagina=sex since 6. The whole other matter that they don't share their newly found knowledge with their parents (as children warn each other that speaking of such things will have them punished), so most parents honestly believe children don't have any idea about it until parents themselves reveal it.
Second, I was 12 once, you know. I remember it. Yeah, half of the kids were playing "barbies and tankies" still. The other half were not. I had prematurely developed female schoolmate... and she was attracted to adult men since 11 though she was mature enough not to act on the attraction. Instead she was hugging me in dark corners - just little innocent hugs, you know ^^
As for body, my class - which in no way can be considered a good one, mind you - had 13-years old prostitute (yeah, I was shocked then and still am) who easily passed for her clients as 17. She realized implications of her actions fully, though she was notoriously stupid. If she was smarter, she'd sue every single of her clients to guarantee her well-being for life. Which is not fair nor just, by my reckoning.
...yeah, and all other children in the class were still playing childish games and had no idea why we three behave so very different.

Now to the part where you misread my post.

This is my post:
Since the moment you're physically developed enough to have sex and sexual desires you're not a child anymore.
This is your post:
A child is in no WAY physically developed to have sex.

Didn't it occur to you that we mean the same thing? No?

Look, here it is:
Lance: you're developed = you're not a child
Kustirider2: you're child = you're not developed

No?

[AlexandraSpears]

Isn't the definition of a pedophile one that is sexually attracted to PREpubescents? Once the child hits puberty, the pervs aren't interested anymore.

A hundred years ago, you were a child, then you were an adult--no adolescence. Now college is referred to as "extended adolescence."

Interesting, isn't it?

[Oaktree]

There are some physical differences between those in the process of puberty and adults. The different types of age attraction are as follows: pedophilia - attraction to prepubescent children; hebephilia - attraction to children in early pubescence; ephebophilia - attraction to late adolescents; teleiophilia - attraction to adults. Acting out pedophilic or hebephilic urges is definitely wrong. Ephebophilia is a bit of a grey area, with it being generally best to avoid children in this age range if you are a mature adult. Teleiophilia is the only fully acceptable type of age attraction.

Basically what I'm getting at is that, physically, there is a period of adolescence and during that period, a person generally isn't ready for sex. Though I do think that society has some influence on the period of psychological adolescence. If children are treated like children longer, they will probably act like children longer.

[AlexandraSpears]

That too, Oaktree. Hence my statement that college is extended adolescence. 200 years ago you had 16-year-old lads fighting wars. Times have really changed.

[Elyasis]

There should be a licence to sex, imho!

None of these arbitrary age limits. You have to prove you actually understand it and can act responsibly.

[Lance]

There should be a licence to sex, imho!
Yeah, entry tickets.

[maxon]

What I meant was that 16 is the age of consent and 15 is under that age. Is it anything like the problem in the US where sometimes an 18-year-old will be charged for having sex with a 17-year-old?
It's going to be one of those things taken on a case-by-case basis but if you mean if the pair were a couple and were having a sexual relationship or even mutually-agreed casual sex then I think the answer would be, properly, no. If there was evidence of coercion, violence or abuse, then that would generally be covered by the Sexual Offenses Act (in other words, it would be rape). But that's not to say it couldn't happen. I think the issue would become more pressing where the older of the pair was over the age of 18 - the age of majority in the UK. Once the older person is recognised as an adult, having sex with someone under the age of 16 is taken more seriously. Though again, I think it is going to be taken on a case by case basis.

[kustirider2]

In the UK, if anyone over 12 (but under 16) has sex, it is legal only if there is a three year or under difference. So better put, any girl/boy who is aged 12-16 can legally (if both parties consent) have sex with another boy/girl who is aged up to 18/19, depending obviously on the age gap between the two. Still, it's probably more of a problem in society as opposed to the law.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i laughed, until i realized that she was serious.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested* that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

...might you have a record by any chance, miss reece?

and: didnt you just suggest that violating a child is okay as long as they arent also murdered?
what part of "sex offenders dont give a flying fck about personal boundaries, why do you think theyre sex offenders" does she not understand...?
darwin, deliver us from madwomen such as these.

*so she suggested it? she has no actual research to back this claim up? why is anything out of her mouth being taken seriously without the element of fact-checking..?

[Orilon]

I thought the Arizona law was no more than five years difference between the ages of 15 and 19, but when I looked again, it turns out that its not considered statutory rape if a teen between 15 and 19 has consensual sex with someone not older than 19 and it is no more than a 2 year difference. Anything more than that than it is statutory rape and they get the book thrown at them.

Teens under 14 shouldn't be having sex anyway, and even teens older than that is a gray area because of lack of maturity and full understanding.

[unalisaa]

and even teens older than [14] is a gray area because of lack of maturity and full understanding.
I do see where you are coming from, but this blanket statement irks me. Of course maturity levels differ from person to person (and one should always make sure one's potential sexual partner is in a position where they are able to consent!), but there is a point where you just have to say that people are old enough to make their own mistakes. I have come across plenty of immature people well over the age of 20, and even more people who can't reflect enough to see their own clown nose.
We can't go drawing age limits and making readiness tests for everything. If you're spectacularly immature, you're probably going to get some hits from it at some point in life. Instead, why not work to make people more aware of others? "Should I be doing this guy who is clearly not mature enough for this sort of thing?" and so on.

Please don't tell me what to do with my orifices; it is none of your business.

[yilesse]

i laughed, until i realized that she was serious.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested* that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

...might you have a record by any chance, miss reece?

and: didnt you just suggest that violating a child is okay as long as they arent also murdered?
what part of "sex offenders dont give a flying fck about personal boundaries, why do you think theyre sex offenders" does she not understand...?
darwin, deliver us from madwomen such as these.

*so she suggested it? she has no actual research to back this claim up? why is anything out of her mouth being taken seriously without the element of fact-checking..?


I find it disturbing that she only talks about child sexual abuse when linked with murder, I think the numbers are a lot higher and less suitable for her little campaign when you take murder out of the equation so she just omitted them, at least I hope so because otherwise like you say she doesn't see sexual abuse without murder as something to be concerned about. At any rate I always though child sex murders were rare anyway, I don't think it's any less than it's always been. I'm pretty sure the worry for parents isn't that a paedophile 'might' kill their child it's more that a paedophile is someone that wants to have sex with children in general.

I think most people would agree paedophilia is a terrible form of mental illness, in that case we shouldn't be wiping the slate clean when a person with it is released because we don't know how to cure it so it's totally irresponsible and not fair on children and also believe it or not, not fair on the person because we'd be putting temptation in their way and not helping them to stop by limiting their exposure to children. I would have very serious doubts and questions as to why a paedophile would want to live or work with children, they know they have a problem and should want to steer clear to protect themselves unless they're so ill that they don't see it as such, in that case they shouldn't be near children ever.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I find it disturbing that she only talks about child sexual abuse when linked with murder, I think the numbers are a lot higher and less suitable for her little campaign when you take murder out of the equation so she just omitted them, at least I hope so because otherwise like you say she doesn't see sexual abuse without murder as something to be concerned about. At any rate I always though child sex murders were rare anyway, I don't think it's any less than it's always been. I'm pretty sure the worry for parents isn't that a paedophile 'might' kill their child it's more that a paedophile is someone that wants to have sex with children in general.

I think most people would agree paedophilia is a terrible form of mental illness, in that case we shouldn't be wiping the slate clean when a person with it is released because we don't know how to cure it so it's totally irresponsible and not fair on children and also believe it or not, not fair on the person because we'd be putting temptation in their way and not helping them to stop by limiting their exposure to children. I would have very serious doubts and questions as to why a paedophile would want to live or work with children, they know they have a problem and should want to steer clear to protect themselves unless they're so ill that they don't see it as such, in that case they shouldn't be near children ever.

im pretty sure that on the note of more or less permanently hindering a persons' personal growth, sexual abuse (hell, its traumatic for adults, and kids havent had that much time to learn any coping mechanisms like adults usually do) and murder are pretty on-par with each other already. psychological assassination is just as traumatic and disabling as putting a knife in somebody's head. some adult women who endure sexual abuse never leave their home afterward... and a child is supposed to be less phased?

completely agree with the bold part in your first paragraph, though.

as for temptation...people who are tempted will be tempted. you can tempt yourself with a thought, and last i checked, you dont need somebody elses' direct influence to have a thought.
i dont personally have much pity for a person who would lay lands on a smaller, weaker, innocent person of any age, much less pedophiles or rapists, so i'll leave it there.

That's a really broad brush you're painting with there. :)

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.

As far as convicted sexual offenders though? Absolutely not. Though, I agree there is a distinction to be made from someone who is on the sexual offender registration because at 18 they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or someone who peed in public (yes, seriously, that will get you on the list) and those who commit rape or child molestation. The whole sexual offender registration thing needs to be overhauled to not even include the first two or other minor offenses while keeping those with the more serious crimes on it. As it is, that list ruins the lives of people who are not sexual predators.

...since when has anyone ever "accidentally" committed a felony? "whoops, my penis slipped into this 9 year old by accident"? "oh dear, i wasnt looking at what i was doing and knifed my ex, silly me"?? "that's COCAINE? i thought it was bubble gum!" or maybe "i found this credit card on the floor, i know its not MINE, but hell, i could use some new clothes...from Louis Voitton!" "...aw, crap, i think i just chloroformed and kidnapped someone. my bad." i dont care if youre 13, 16, 20 or 90, you know better than to commit a felony, and doing so anyway is far from a "mistake".
thats a little too much leniency, there.
but hey, peachy people pull crap like that all the time, right? shucks.

[yilesse]

im pretty sure that on the note of more or less permanently hindering a persons' personal growth, sexual abuse (hell, its traumatic for adults, and kids havent had that much time to learn any coping mechanisms like adults usually do) and murder are pretty on-par with each other already. psychological assassination is just as traumatic and disabling as putting a knife in somebody's head. some adult women who endure sexual abuse never leave their home afterward... and a child is supposed to be less phased?

completely agree with the bold part in your first paragraph, though.

as for temptation...people who are tempted will be tempted. you can tempt yourself with a thought, and last i checked, you dont need somebody elses' direct influence to have a thought.
i dont personally have much pity for a person who would lay lands on a smaller, weaker, innocent person of any age, much less pedophiles or rapists, so i'll leave it there.



That's what I'm getting at, she seemed to think only sexual abuse linked to murder was the problem, whereas most abuse doesn't end that way and the victim and their family are left in pieces, that's probably the first thing parents think about when they think paedophile, murder is probably a close second but as she herself admits it's not that likely to happen but she did it in a very disingenuous way because I'm sure she's seen the statistics for abuse without murder which aree much higher.

What I was getting at with the don't put temptation in their way was that as a society we have to be responsible and it's up to us to limit contact between people with serious problems, their triggers and those they might hurt. If we don't stop paedophiles from having regular contact with children I'm guessing they're more likely to reoffend and also have an easier oppotunity. A lot of paedophiles were abused themselves as children and hate themselves for what they've become but their disorder is a product of what was done to them, they deserve understanding, not sympathy and letting off responsibility because they still have choices and control over themselves but they were victims once and it's that that turned them into what they are. I was thinking that stopping them having contact with children is a) most importantly for the children's safety and sake and b) for their own good.