Once a paedo....always a paedo?

[Pete]

The outrage towards those has who have dared to somehow "explain" Craig Thomsons behaviour has prompted me to post this. The vitriol and abuse has been bang out of order in my opinion, especially that directed towards McIntosh.

I'm fascinated by the subject. By that I mean peadophilia and innapropriatte sexual conduct towards youngsters. This is simply because I have no tendencies whatsover in that area...it just doesn't register...and the fact that it is one of the most hurtful crimes as far as the victims are concerned. It's also the case because the abusers have such a wide range of reasons explaining why they perpetrate such crimes. To solve the problem would be the holy grail.

I simply don't believe in the philosophy of "once a beast, always a beast".

Some people have said that sexual preferences can't be changed and they are hard wired but I don't believe that. I know people who wouldn't go near black women but changed once they were educated and people who wouldn't go near black or white men and it changed for the same reasons. I also know of gay men who didn't "realise" they were gay before they were exposed to the scene. They might have had slight tendencies but they never screamed from ten year old that they were gay and proud.

The point is that any sexual preference isn't hard wired from birth I believe. They can change over time.


I also believe that mental maturity has a part to play as well, especially in the case of Thomson. Any normal person in his position has the world at their feet and can fulfill their sexual desires as a football player. All you have to do is go into George Street and show your face. Now try and imagine you were a footballer with leanings towards young girls...what would you do? You couldn't do anything because you are instantly recognisable to those who you know have the power to kill your career, disgrace you and your family.
So what sort of force actually makes you go ahead knowing all of this? You have to be have something not right in the head department.

This guy had Scotland at his feet and something went wrong in the "right/wrong" department. I fancy my girlfriends sister and her best mate but I would never go there only because the consequences would be dire and I probably couldn't get away with it. These are real constraints and consequences so therefore I don't do anything.

This boy has been told he's the business since he was a kid so maybe he lives by his own rules. He knows nothing about real constraints. If he did
he wouldn't have done what he had done.

Forgive me because I've had wine and I don't think I've constructed this post correctly but there is definately a counter-argument to the "hang him" brigade.

...and a real question that I don't think anyone has answered yet.

If paedophilia is incurable then why is everyone convicted not locked up or monitored indefinately?

[AgentDaleCooper]

The outrage towards those has who have dared to somehow "explain" Craig Thomsons behaviour has prompted me to post this. The vitriol and abuse has been bang out of order in my opinion, especially that directed towards McIntosh.

I'm fascinated by the subject. By that I mean peadophilia and innapropriatte sexual conduct towards youngsters. This is simply because I have no tendencies whatsover in that area...it just doesn't register...and the fact that it is one of the most hurtful crimes as far as the victims are concerned. It's also the case because the abusers have such a wide range of reasons explaining why they perpetrate such crimes. To solve the problem would be the holy grail.

I simply don't believe in the philosophy of "once a beast, always a beast".

Some people have said that sexual preferences can't be changed and they are hard wired but I don't believe that. I know people who wouldn't go near black women but changed once they were educated and people who wouldn't go near black or white men and it changed for the same reasons. I also know of gay men who didn't "realise" they were gay before they were exposed to the scene. They might have had slight tendencies but they never screamed from ten year old that they were gay and proud.

The point is that any sexual preference isn't hard wired from birth I believe. They can change over time.


I also believe that mental maturity has a part to play as well, especially in the case of Thomson. Any normal person in his position has the world at their feet and can fulfill their sexual desires as a football player. All you have to do is go into George Street and show your face. Now try and imagine you were a footballer with leanings towards young girls...what would you do? You couldn't do anything because you are instantly recognisable to those who you know have the power to kill your career, disgrace you and your family.
So what sort of force actually makes you go ahead knowing all of this? You have to be have something not right in the head department.

This guy had Scotland at his feet and something went wrong in the "right/wrong" department. I fancy my girlfriends sister and her best mate but I would never go there only because the consequences would be dire and I probably couldn't get away with it. These are real constraints and consequences so therefore I don't do anything.

This boy has been told he's the business since he was a kid so maybe he lives by his own rules. He knows nothing about real constraints. If he did
he wouldn't have done what he had done.

Forgive me because I've had wine and I don't think I've constructed this post correctly but there is definately a counter-argument to the "hang him" brigade.

...and a real question that I don't think anyone has answered yet.

If paedophilia is incurable then why is everyone convicted not locked up or monitored indefinately?

anyone who says "once a beast, always a beast" etc. clearly has absolutely no clue about psychology, which is what this question is down to.

if by beast they mean someone who they look upon as a beast then fair enough, but that's not really the same as them always being attracted to children, and thus not really the point.

[Beefster]

I read something a while back where a psychologist, who treated paedophiles in prison, said that they can't be 'cured' but that it's about control. I'm fairly sure that they compared it to an ex-smoker or recovering alcoholic - you may no longer do it but it will always be there and a slip can happen at any point. There are also psychologists who think that it's impossible to treat paedophiles in any way but physically (i.e. chemical castration) but I presume that they are in the minority.

So, in that sense, once a paedo, always a paedo.

If folk think paedophiles can be 'cured', I assume that they think that heterosexuality, homosexuality and so on could be 'cured' too? Sexual preference is all the same, no?


anyone who says "once a beast, always a beast" etc. clearly has absolutely no clue about psychology, which is what this question is down to.

if by beast they mean someone who they look upon as a beast then fair enough, but that's not really the same as them always being attracted to children, and thus not really the point.

I presume that a psychologist will know about psychology.

[Jay]

If paedophilia is incurable then why is everyone convicted not locked up or monitored indefinately?

Many of us believe they should be - just because it doesnt happen doesnt mean it shouldnt.

Personally, because it is such an awful crime, one that ruins young lives permanantly, I dont think we should take the risk of whether they can be 'changed' or not.

[Steve-O]

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/87021/kia-marama-effective-those-willing

Here's a (brief) article about a treatment programme for this very affliction here in New Zealand. It is apparently world leading and does have success in some cases.

Here's a fact sheet as well. It must work in a lot of cases or else a lot of people wouldn't be wasting their time.

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about-us/fact-sheets/managing-offenders/specialist_units/kia-marama-special-treatment-unit.html

I know that after people have completed it successfully they are often considered ready for parole and generally released at that stage.

As stated above, it's not a 'cure' as such, but it teaches these people to avoid high risk situations, and how to get out of such situations if they find themselves in such a situation. I believe the course also has a large chunk involving trying to get the offenders to put themselves in the victims place through role play etc (there was a documentary on over here about it).

[Betty Boop]

anyone who says "once a beast, always a beast" etc. clearly has absolutely no clue about psychology, which is what this question is down to.

if by beast they mean someone who they look upon as a beast then fair enough, but that's not really the same as them always being attracted to children, and thus not really the point.

We are all born with a blank slate, or tabula rasa. I suppose it comes down to what side you favour in the nature v nurture debate.

[Twa Cairpets]

The outrage towards those has who have dared to somehow "explain" Craig Thomsons behaviour has prompted me to post this. The vitriol and abuse has been bang out of order in my opinion, especially that directed towards McIntosh.

Most of the hard-time McIntosh got was because he answered in soundbites, made ludicrous comparisions which were irrelevant and threatened/promised, rather pathetically, legal action for defamation. (I'm guessing that didn't happen).


...Some people have said that sexual preferences can't be changed and they are hard wired but I don't believe that. I know people who wouldn't go near black women but changed once they were educated and people who wouldn't go near black or white men and it changed for the same reasons. I also know of gay men who didn't "realise" they were gay before they were exposed to the scene. They might have had slight tendencies but they never screamed from ten year old that they were gay and proud.

The point is that any sexual preference isn't hard wired from birth I believe. They can change over time...


The issue for me that there is a difference between adult sexuality (all the things you mention above - black/white/gay/straight) and paedophilia.

In terms of hard wiring, we are I believe hard wired to be protective and defensive of young things. From an evolutionary persepctive, it makes sense for us to be protective of all children and not find them sexually attractive, and to follow on from Betty Boop's point, both nature and nurture have a fairly hard-line stance.

Whether or not the hard wiring has gone awry in paedophiles, I don't know. It (predatory paedophilia with malice aforethought) is a relatively infrequent activity though (as opposed to underage sex involving a 15 and 16 year old). I think the opportunity to re-educate, as you put it, is limited as it is a biological urge that is unacceptable as it involves coercian, control and ultimately damage.

[lapsedhibee]

From an evolutionary persepctive, it makes sense for us to be protective of all children and not find them sexually attractive.

From an evolutionary perspective it might also make sense for the age of consent to be lowered to match the age at which people can reproduce.

And I must remember I'm going against evolution the next time I'm attracted to a post-menopausal wumman. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

From an evolutionary perspective it might also make sense for the age of consent to be lowered to match the age at which people can reproduce.

And I must remember I'm going against evolution the next time I'm attracted to a post-menopausal wumman. :wink:

Honestly, I wasn't going down a "science is king" route here

I was using it specifically with reference to the "hard wire" point, which I take to mean biological restrictions on sexual attraction rather than societal.

When I was 14 I fancied 14 year old girls. I don't now, and didnt pretty much after I was 15 I suppose, as far as I can remember - it's a long time ago. How much of that was cultural conditioning as opposed to biological direction I don't know, but it was certainly the case.

And you can argue that your now publicly declared passion for GILF's is very evolutionary, as you dont want to leave children scattered around who can't be cared for... :greengrin

[.Sean.]

Once a paedo, always a paedo indeed. They don't change and in my opinion deserve everything they get.

[lapsedhibee]

Honestly, I wasn't going down a "science is king" route here.
As if.

And you can argue that your now publicly declared passion for GILF's is very evolutionary, as you dont want to leave children scattered around who can't be cared for... :greengrin
Interest in GILFs is waning, and being replaced, age-appropriately, with same for GGILFs. Still very slightly on topic, if a youngster is well attracted to xILFs, what kind of beast/Beast does that make him? Or not a Beast at all? :dunno:

[Woody1985]

I think it comes down to older people understanding their own actions.

A 20 year old man and 40 year old women understand the sexual relationship and are consensual.

A 12 year old girl or boy and a 20 year old doesn't fit that same mould Imo.

I think I'll stay out of this though. I don't want comments affecting my pending trial.:greengrin

[heretoday]

I blame the internet for encouraging types like Thompson.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I blame the internet for encouraging types like Thompson.

Why ?, millions use the net and millions are not like him

[1two]

I blame the internet for encouraging types like Thompson.

Totally disagree, We all use the Internet but you would have to go out your way and know exactly what your doing.
The Internet maybe makes it easier for people like him to go about his sick crimes but it definitely doesn't encourage it.

[Dashing Bob S]

Most of the hard-time McIntosh got was because he answered in soundbites, made ludicrous comparisions which were irrelevant and threatened/promised, rather pathetically, legal action for defamation. (I'm guessing that didn't happen).



The issue for me that there is a difference between adult sexuality (all the things you mention above - black/white/gay/straight) and paedophilia.

In terms of hard wiring, we are I believe hard wired to be protective and defensive of young things. From an evolutionary persepctive, it makes sense for us to be protective of all children and not find them sexually attractive, and to follow on from Betty Boop's point, both nature and nurture have a fairly hard-line stance.

Whether or not the hard wiring has gone awry in paedophiles, I don't know. It (predatory paedophilia with malice aforethought) is a relatively infrequent activity though (as opposed to underage sex involving a 15 and 16 year old). I think the opportunity to re-educate, as you put it, is limited as it is a biological urge that is unacceptable as it involves coercian, control and ultimately damage.

I think this is the crux of the matter. As you've also said in a subsequent post, when we're 14, or 13 or 12 even, we are sexually attracted to people of the same age. Those of us who have normal social development, realise, as we get older, that it's inappropriate to see younger people in a sexual way. Paedophilles don't do this. For them, sex is about control and coercion, either through an in-built psychotic arrogance, (nature), or because they have been damaged in some way by other paedophilles, ('nurture' is a strange word to use in this context) through inappropriate sexual contact and have come to see sex as primarily about the exercise of power and control over others.

The empathy training/therapy Steve-O talks about, has had some success, but more, I believe, in the case of the second category of paedophille, rather than the first, ie: the 'made' rather than 'natural' paedos. This treatment generally forces the offender in question to see themselves as victims, and disclose about their previous personal abuse suffered, thus empathising with the people who have suffered at their hands.

The success of such treatment involves the paedo facing up to what he's done, and his own personal journey. This is sometimes very deeply repressed, as it often involves abuse at the hands of a family/authority figure, who may, in other spheres of their life, be a trusted role model. It's generally likely to have been those figures who have been taught them the bully arrogance and acceptability of dominating and manipulating younger/weaker people in this manner.

So, in summary, for the first type of paedophille, I doubt if there is any kind of suitable treatment, and society needs a policy of containment to protect young people from them - they literally are the 'beasts' of common urban folklore. The second category are an often wretched, pathetic bunch, and the extent to which they can be 'saved' and turn their lives around and stop being danger to young people, depends on the level of acknowledgement and acceptance of their crime and its impact on others they subsequently demonstrate.

The real worrying thing for me about the Thomson case, is that he isn't demonstrating that empathy or awareness, and that his employers are utterly clueless on this issue, to the point of being mentally ******ed, and obviously way, way out of their depth.