tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
I think this has been raised in my mind by the excellent results the police in the UK and Europe have had in smashing an evil ring of men who defiled children for sex. Though I suspect it was not only men. But it lead me to think about the topic of paedophilia. I am using as my definition NOT the age of legal consent, but the biological definition of juvenile body form. Pre puberty. Children.
It strikes my amateur psychologist's brian that there must surely be two broad classes of people who have sex with children.- Those who have not themselves fully matured, who are at an arrested stage of sexual development, and who are still thinking about or acting out their fantasies with the "mind" of a child but the body of an adult.
- Those who have a desire simply to have sex with children, often pretending love, but universally causing pain.
It seems to me that each is harmful, however gentle their acts may be. In fact I want to state categorically that each causes harm by performing any sexual act with a child, even if the child enjoyed the physical or emotional closeness which can sometimes be created.
But I would draw a serious disticntion between class 1 and class 2.
Class 1 has a different agenda from class 2. Class 1 may be seen by anyone capabale of standing back beyond the edge of "I am disgusted" as a person whose body is the wrong age, but who is playing childhood games. At 10 years old there was nothing wrong with paying doctors and nurses. If the older person is even 16 or 17 the game becomes unacceptable. And quite rightly so. But the cause is harder to see. And whiel the chld must be protected, the victim is not just thye child bu tth eolder person too, for they are sexually retarded in some way (which may have been abuse themselves as a child)
Class 2 is very different. Class 2 is not innocent, but has an agenda of pain and abuse, though often pretends love and compassion. While there may be some sort of history that created the need to dominate a child, there can be no excuse of play as in class 1, since the entire "process" is one of beastliness, not of the "fun" I would expect a class 1 person to generate. (Do please note my use of quotation marks to signify tone of voice)
Please be clear. Class 1 and class 2 cause harm. Probably equal amounts of harm. The child sees the end result, not the intent. But surely it is our duty in society to handle each class differently? And that is my point, or my question.
Should all paedophiles be classified as dangerous and confined, or is there a way of differentiating between them and helping the helpable (and this means those who truly desire help), while restraining those who are beyond help and are at best habitual and at worst determined abusers?
Society at present screams "Paedophile, lock him away", but surely this is media hype to sell papers? Surely we can do better than that over simplistic sabre rattling?
By the way it is "fun" to note that I get regular approaches from what I conclude are government agencies seeking to entrap. I say "fun" because these people often masquerade as young kids in trouble. My problem is that I need to treat them each as genuine until they choose to go away. But until we solve the problems of child abuse, which I doubt will be soluble, I am content that such "plants" exist and test us all.
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
