Telegraph Doctor writes up Paedophilia as a treatable illness

#1
Dr Max Pemberton, one of the medical journalists for the Telegraph, has written a bizarre article link below

Paedophilia is a treatable illness - Telegraph

I've picked a small part of his summary - "Yet if we view this as a medical condition that needs our understanding and, yes, compassion, then encouraging sufferers to come forward and be treated means we will also be helping their potential victims. "

I've refrained from putting this into the NAAFI Bar. However, I can't accept that someone's unhealthy - sexual - fixation on children requires any sort of 'understanding'. From a personal perspective, if I was to discover that my nephew or niece had been messed up in any way then compassion would be the last thing on my mind for the perpetrator.

Feelings of personal disgust aside, is there really a large core of medicos who think this or is Dr Pemberton in a minority of one?
 
#2
It's an illness that needs treating with a hacksaw to the ballbag, the dirty child touching scum. Compassion my arse. Burning at the stake is too good for them.
 
#3
He's quite right. I approached the British medical council some years ago with my own therapy ideas. The short sighted twats wouldn't let me trial it:

 
#5
He's quite right. I approached the British medical council some years ago with my own therapy ideas. The short sighted twats wouldn't let me trial it:

Yes, I quite liked the response in the comments section saying something along the lines of "the only proven permanent cure to this condition is 9mm and administered to the back of the head".

What worried me is that Max Pemberton's approach is less about the victim and more about the paedophile. If doctors are going to apply their academic/medical expertise to this area, then surely the funding/research should be focussed on the treatment of victims?
 
#7
Yes, I quite liked the response in the comments section saying something along the lines of "the only proven permanent cure to this condition is 9mm and administered to the back of the head".

What worried me is that Max Pemberton's approach is less about the victim and more about the paedophile. If doctors are going to apply their academic/medical expertise to this area, then surely the funding/research should be focussed on the treatment of victims?
Sensible head on - have you considered that if the paedophile is treated early enough, that there won't be any victims?
 
#8
Sensible head on - have you considered that if the paedophile is treated early enough, that there won't be any victims?
Sensible head on - yes. But if someone is that preconditioned to fixate on young children, then the only 'cure' is some form of castration - chemical or otherwise. Has anyone seen any case studies of paedophiles being DEFINITIVELY 'cured'?
 
#9
Has anyone really bothered to try and cure them? Especially pre-offending, which is what this article seems to be about.
 
#10
Dr Pemberton is not alone in his approach to the matter. A few years ago the well known and respected Charite in Berlin put a series of ads on early evening TV offering help, in whatever form, to paedos. The ads did not run for long, presumably lack of response.
 
#11
I suspect that part of the problem might well be the taboo related to the subject.


If you woke up tomorrow and found that you had a compunction to violently assault passers by for no reason, you'd probably go and see a shrink. How many people would do the same if they woke up and realised that they found 5 year olds sexually arousing?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
Seeking treatment surely depends on someone feeling or thinking or knowing that it is wrong, and that it is an 'illness' that should be treated. If pederasts do not see it as an illness, but instead part of their personality, then they are hardly going to seek treatment, are they?

Presumably some may feel that their particular sexual needs will in time come to be seen as 'normal', or at least acceptable, in the same way that homosexuality has become widely (not generally) accepted over the last fifty years. They probably feel that they are being persecuted in the same way that Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, etc, were in the past, and that their turn will come.
 
#13
Possibly - but I reckon that there will be a fair few who accept that it's wrong but can't help themselves. Or even those who think it's OK but realise that society doesn't, and don't want to end up in prison.


It's probably worth looking in to, at the very least.
 
#14
I read about a similar wheeze in America. Paedos serve their sentence in prison. After, they go in to a sort of secure mental hospital until they are certified "cured". If the doctors aren't willing to sign off, the pervs stay locked up for the rest of their lives, same as a dangerous psychopath or schizophrenic.

There's a very interesting documentary on YouTube called The Hunt for Britain's Paedophiles. I think it was originally made by Channel 4.

The show follows the work of the Met Police Paedophile Unit over an extended period. It shows quite clearly that not all paedos are the same. At one extreme, they got a call from a builder who was working in a blokes house. The builder had been perusing the bloke's video collection and found a kiddie porn vid. The bloke was prosecuted and convicted. His life is ruined. Chances of re-offending are practically zero.

At the other extreme are people like Gary Glitter. Those with an unnatural attraction to children and who can't control their urges are truly dangerous and need to be locked up indefinitely. In the documentary, one of them killed himself rather than spend any more time in prison. The footage from his spunk stained **** lair on a council estate was truly disturbing.

Another paedo agreed to be interviewed at length. Despite being an obviously intelligent and well educated man, he was utterly unable to grasp the fact that having sex with little girls is wrong. Fortunately he was banged up but I think he'll be out now and no doubt unable to rein in his perversion.

What to do? Cut their goolies off? Jail them for ever? Hang 'em?
 
#15
Until it has been determined what causes people to fancy little children, it will be very hard to 'cure' them of their desires, though you may be able to 'cure' them of the behaviour through drug therapy, or through teaching them to resist their desires.

The matter isn't helped by the media and sundry bar-room vigilantes wilfully or ignorantly confusing under-age sex with paedophilia - the latter being a desire for pre-pubescent children and therefore 'unnatural' as they are not capable of bearing children. If people aren't capable of recognising the difference, any discussion gets bogged down on 'age of consent' issues and just goes round in circles.

It's also worth pointing out that the more savage and drastic the punishments for paedophilia, the less the malefactor has to lose by murdering his or her victim to shut their mouth for good.
 
#16
I read about a similar wheeze in America. Paedos serve their sentence in prison. After, they go in to a sort of secure mental hospital until they are certified "cured". If the doctors aren't willing to sign off, the pervs stay locked up for the rest of their lives, same as a dangerous psychopath or schizophrenic.

There's a very interesting documentary on YouTube called The Hunt for Britain's Paedophiles. I think it was originally made by Channel 4.

The show follows the work of the Met Police Paedophile Unit over an extended period. It shows quite clearly that not all paedos are the same. At one extreme, they got a call from a builder who was working in a blokes house. The builder had been perusing the bloke's video collection and found a kiddie porn vid. The bloke was prosecuted and convicted. His life is ruined. Chances of re-offending are practically zero.

At the other extreme are people like Gary Glitter. Those with an unnatural attraction to children and who can't control their urges are truly dangerous and need to be locked up indefinitely. In the documentary, one of them killed himself rather than spend any more time in prison. The footage from his spunk stained **** lair on a council estate was truly disturbing.

Another paedo agreed to be interviewed at length. Despite being an obviously intelligent and well educated man, he was utterly unable to grasp the fact that having sex with little girls is wrong. Fortunately he was banged up but I think he'll be out now and no doubt unable to rein in his perversion.

What to do? Cut their goolies off? Jail them for ever? Hang 'em?
I recall this doc too. The main point that disturbed me, which you touch on (Ooh matron!) is the lack of comprehension of their doings. The fact that they feel that 'love' kids and all kids loved 'to be loved', made it captivating watching.

It made sanse of why paedo's re-offend time after time as to them, there's nothing un-natural or immoral in their sexual undertakings, physical or otherwise.

It would be a brave doctor to pronounce he's 'cured' someone of their desires, rather than the offender just surpressing them for his/her own agenda
 
#17
Sensible head on - have you considered that if the paedophile is treated early enough, that there won't be any victims?
It amuses me that in this country people would seemingly prefer children be raped than see paedophiles treated for their illness.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using ARRSE mobile app
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#18
Until it has been determined what causes people to fancy little children, it will be very hard to 'cure' them of their desires, though you may be able to 'cure' them of the behaviour through drug therapy, or through teaching them to resist their desires.
What makes anybody have 'unnatural' tendencies? In some cases they are just wired wrong and the only thing doable is to make them understand that it's wrong. In may other cases it may be learned behavior. Most abusers have themselves been abused and could probably be 'treated'. They are no per se paedophiles but are reacting inappropriately to their circumstances.

The matter isn't helped by the media and sundry bar-room vigilantes wilfully or ignorantly confusing under-age sex with paedophilia - the latter being a desire for pre-pubescent children and therefore 'unnatural' as they are not capable of bearing children. If people aren't capable of recognising the difference, any discussion gets bogged down on 'age of consent' issues and just goes round in circles.
Hands up anyone who didn't fancy 15 year old Emma Watson.... Of course most of us would still say no because we recognise the inability of a youngster to consent.

It's also worth pointing out that the more savage and drastic the punishments for paedophilia, the less the malefactor has to lose by murdering his or her victim to shut their mouth for good.
I think we need a carrot and stick approach. Help for those that recognize that they need help but savage punishment for those that transgress. Society needs to send out a message about what it finds unacceptable.
 
#20
Hands up anyone who didn't fancy 15 year old Emma Watson.... Of course most of us would still say no because we recognise the inability of a youngster to consent.
Unless she was French, or Spanish, or some other country with a different age of consent.

That's what I mean about not confusing paedophilia and fancying teenagers. The latter may be unlawful (depending on where you live) but it's not actually unnatural, so confusing the two leads straight into a relativist mire.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top