How the system fails pedophiles

[Aragarthiel]

I came across this article online, and it made several valid points:

One, there are pedophiles out there who abstain, because they know it's wrong.

Two, that there is no help for them.

And three, that letting someone know they want help is almost as bad as saying they molested a child.

I can't get this out of my head. Nobody thinks about the pedophiles that go through life wanting to act but never actually doing it, and that's probably why there are so few resources out there for them. I think we can all agree that there should be more. AA-type classes, therapy, maybe even hospitalization for those who think they might become dangerous.

[Greenday]

Everybody wants to protect the kids, no one wants to actually help the people with these urges manage themselves better. God forbid they slip up once and become a sex offender. Due to sex offender registries and the strict rules post-prison time, there is no possibility for them to be a contributing member of society. So at that point, why should they even give a crap? Society already shuns them so why would they continue to follow society's rules?

[Gravekeeper]

Well, the underlying problem to this ( and a lot of things really ) is that having an attraction, sexual or otherwise, and being unable to restrain acting on said desire/impulse/attraction are two completely different problems. But when it comes to pedophilia ( and to some people basically anything outside of heterosexuality including homosexuality ) its treated as being one in the same.

I mean, if someone tells you they're attracted to short brunettes in sandals you don't automatically go "This guy is going to rape a short brunette in sandals unless we stop him".

But that's how it works with pedophilia or really any philia/sexuality outside of what society views as the "right" one ( hetero ). An alarming number of people for example will even do this with homosexuality. ie "This guy admitted being gay so clearly he's going to try and bang EVERY guy he interacts with" or "These people are gay so clearly they're going to force being gay on everyone else".

[Aragarthiel]

There is a difference, however, we all know that if you want something you can't have, that want either grows, or snuffs out. For pedophiles, if it snuffs out, that's all fine and dandy. But if it doesn't, the pedophile may want to ask for help knowing that what they want is dangerous.

[Gravekeeper]

There is a difference, however, we all know that if you want something you can't have, that want either grows, or snuffs out. For pedophiles, if it snuffs out, that's all fine and dandy. But if it doesn't, the pedophile may want to ask for help knowing that what they want is dangerous.

No, there is no difference. We're still talking about impulse/desire control or a lack there of. Someone with a lack of impulse control ( especially sexual ) is probably going to be dangerous. But impulse control and attraction are two different problems. Which are treated as one in the same the more morally repugnant we find object of attraction. A moral repugnance that changes and evolves along with society while our understanding and ability to address the issue leading to our repugnance has not.

As Greenday said, the greater good is not actually served by taking a 100% punitive approach to issues this complicated. It, in fact, worsens the problem by trying to make it go away rather than fixing it and in the process, only heightens the risk of offense/re-offense. No other crime is treated this way.

You can't go down to the police station and try to turn yourself in because you think you might steal something or kill somebody. They'll hand you a card for a internet support group and send you back out the door. Try it with anything sex crime related though and see what happens.

You'd be in a cell and on the national news by the weekend.

[Aragarthiel]

No, there is no difference.

I should have clarified- I was agreeing with your previous statement. I blame the interwebz for that misunderstanding.

Either way you go, you're trying to make the problem go away, but jail is really only a temporary solution. There are better, more permanent ways. I, personally, would love to see some sort of "Pedophiles Anonymous" group implemented, where those who are struggling can go for support without judgement. If better resources are needed, they could be pointed in the right direction from there.

[s_stabeler]

The problem is that it is difficult to draw the line between protecting kids ( who cannot necessarily protect themselves) and not punishing someone who is seeking help for their problems. For example, I doubt someone who is an admitted pedophile should be able to work in schools. But does that mean an admitted pedophile should lose any kids they have? ( I'd say probably not, since that would require incestual feelings as well)

It IS true that it should be dealt with outside of the court system, though.

[Aragarthiel]

Part of the issue is that no research (that I know of) has been done to show whether pedophilia is a sexuality or a mental illness. If it's a sexuality, that shows that the person has more self-control and should be able to keep their kids in most cases. However, mental illness can inhibit self-control, though it also means that pedophilia can be treated and possibly cured.

I know some cases of pedophilia can result from being sexually abused as a child, which would technically classify it closer to mental illness than sexuality. However, any alternate sexuality can, on rare occasions, stem from abuse. In my opinion, it should be a case-by-case basis as to whether a pedophile can keep his own kids, including a psychological evaluation and interviews with the kids. It seems a bit drastic, but I don't see pedophilia as EVER becoming socially acceptable, and there are going to be costs to it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Part of the issue is that no research (that I know of) has been done to show whether pedophilia is a sexuality or a mental illness. If it's a sexuality, that shows that the person has more self-control and should be able to keep their kids in most cases. However, mental illness can inhibit self-control, though it also means that pedophilia can be treated and possibly cured.

That's not how either of those things work.

For one, a 'Sexuality' is not a psychological classification the way that mental illness is. It's an identification imposed by the outside world.

Secondly, a 'Mental Illness' is not necessarily a 'Compulsion, ' and it can't necessarily be cured. For something to be a mental illness, it has to be deviant, disturbed, and dysfunctional and/or dangerous, though those last ones are a bit mix-and-match. Pedophiles ARE mentally ill, because they fit that.

No matter what part of society a pedophile lives in, their urges are considered deviant. It's not 'Okay' and 'Normal' to be attracted to kids. So they are deviant. For most pedophiles, the ones who don't offend, it's not a pleasant experience. That covers "Disturbed," as well. Even for those who do, they can't go around being honest and open about their sexual proclivities, probably a part of why many do end up pushed towards offending. So even then, that's an unpleasant situation. As for dysfunctional/dangerous, pedophiles are prevented from having healthy sexual relationships, not (LIke asexuals) because they don't particularly want to, but because they do with people who they can't. And while not all pedophiles are likely to offend, or become suicidal, and thus "Danger" isn't necessarily met, not every disorder does.

Pedophiles are psychologically unwell. The question isn't up for debate. The question is how do we treat it. Quite honestly, the "Any admission of it is something that will get you attacked or killed" approach is not working. We need to find another way.

[Aragarthiel]

We can't determine if pedophiles are born that way, though, in which case it would fit more easily into "sexuality." A deviant one, yes, but sexualities cannot be cured by any humane method. As for mental illness, I said it CAN result in compulsions. For example, OCD, ADD, and bipolar disorder. It doesn't fit smoothly into either category but there are differences and not enough research has been done to determine which it actually is.

As for the "deviant" and "disturbed" parts, "deviant" depends on the society. Extreme body modification (neck stretching, foot wrapping, etc.) is still popular in some parts of the world, but we would consider it deviant even though it's not considered a mental illness. "Disturbed"comes from the fact that pedophiles might not know why they are the way they are. If it's their natural sexuality, they are disturbed by it only because it's deviant, which, as I mentioned, is subject to point of view.

Now, I'm not saying that society should accept pedophiles doing what they want, but it's society's point of view against them that blurs the lines. It very well may be a mental illness, but if it is, there should be more research into what causes it and how it can be treated.

[Hyena Dandy]

As for the "deviant" and "disturbed" parts, "deviant" depends on the society.

Yes. This is true. That's definitely true. For example, there is a society where people do not bathe frequently, and it is traditional in greeting to rub mucus on someone. That in our society would be deviant, and a sign that someone is antisocial. Adapting to societal standards, to a certain extent, is part of a healthy psychology. Not simply going with everyone, there's always room to question.

Extreme body modification (neck stretching, foot wrapping, etc.) is still popular in some parts of the world, but we would consider it deviant even though it's not considered a mental illness.

That's another perfect example. Even here, though, that would not likely be considered a mental illness. But it would indeed be "Deviant." Deviance as a PART of the mental illness clarification (Not ALL of it) is important to separate something common to a society, from something that arises despite a society.

Most pedophiles are aware enough of the fact that an 8 year old cannot intelligently consent to sexual intercourse, that THAT is what is disturbing and unpleasant. Those who aren't offending KNOW that there's something wrong.

Again, "Sexuality" is not a psychological term. Whether or not something is a "Sexuality" is a sociological term. "Mental Illness" is a psychological one. And "Mental Illness" is not necessary a term of condemnation. I have a mental illness, lots of people on here do. It doesn't make it a problem, it basically means that something's wrong with you, mentally, that is unpleasant and/or dangerous to you and/or others.

I really don't know why you're arguing that we shouldn't try to determine of pedophiles are mentally ill using the psychological community's definition of mental illness, and I don't know what your alternative definition is.

[Aragarthiel]

The definition you gave gives too much leeway, is all. Mental illness, per my definition, is something wrong with the way your brain is wired, or a chemical imbalance. There's a physical explanation for it, even if we don't understand it yet. Pedophilia may not have a physical cause, like how someone's personality does not have a physical cause.

I'm just trying to see this objectively, which is hard considering the topic.

[TheHuckster]

Mental illness, per my definition, is something wrong with the way your brain is wired, or a chemical imbalance.

That might be your definition, but it's not the definition as described by the medical community. If pedophilia is not physiological in nature, it doesn't mean it isn't an illness. What Hyena has described is pretty much equal to the clinical definition of mental illness.

When you start stating that in order for one to have to get diagnosed as mentally ill or treated as such, they need some physiological evidence to support it, that's when people begin to state if pedophilia has no physical evidence to support mental illness for that reason, anyone who succumbs to their urges made that conscious decision very deliberately and with a sound mind, and that therefore they don't deserve any kind of treatment.

I reject that notion outright.

[Aragarthiel]

My problem isn't with what Hyena pointed out, it's with the medical definition of "mental illness" itself. It allows for cultural traditions to be considered mental illnesses, when they are simply traditions, often spurred by religious beliefs (and nobody wants their religion considered a mental illness). While I know I have no say in what the medical community agrees on, I can't agree with that definition, and therefore can't immediately agree with pedophilia being classified as a mental illness on those grounds alone. It's why I pointed out that more research needs to be done.

[the_std]

My problem isn't with what Hyena pointed out, it's with the medical definition of "mental illness" itself.

While I agree with you on how it theoretically should be defined, the issue is that we simply lack the science/research/tools/knowledge to see physiological indicators of all mental illnesses. Even the most common ones, such as depression, do not present the same physiological changes in all of its sufferers. So to follow your rules, suddenly we would have very few mental illnesses, and a bunch of people with problems we would have no way to categorize. The current method of diagnosis is simply the best we have until our technology and knowledge improve by a vast degree.