This Paedophile Business

(Picture Credit - Rolf Harris Guilty by Pickeringpost com)

Jimmy Saville and now Rolf Harris. Hundreds of people arrested for viewing child pornography online. Paedophilia is very much in the news.

Whenever Paedophilia is mentioned anywhere, the cries go out: “They want castrating! Jail them for life!” And so on. This “topic” is often in the news and debated hotly.

But let’s try to analyse this phenomenon coolly and rationally. My take on a paedophile is that it is someone who is turned on sexually by “children”. Well that’s the start of it anyway. How weird. I mean, what makes a woman attractive is that she is at least going through puberty, to develop breasts etc. And men would be attractive once their shoulders broaden etc. I guess.

I do not see anything sexually stimulating about pre-pubescent kids. They can be a good laugh and they can be brats, but that’s all. So I have to say I cannot relate to paedophilia at all. As I say, weird.

While I’m at it I cannot relate to homosexuality either. However, I understand that’s essentially something between consenting adults. Good luck to them. Whatever turns you on, as they say.

However, I hear that some paedophile activity incorporates (pardon the pun) sadism, bondage and who knows what else. At best there seems to be nothing in it for the kids. Hard to see how children can be consenting partners in these activities.

So paedophilia ranges from plain wrong to horrific. However, I am rather puzzled about all this fuss about computer images. I get the impression that a nosy journalist seeking a headline story might get arrested for chancing on some picture. A teacher I knew got jailed for having images on his computer or something. He was so caring of his pupils so this was hard to swallow at the time.

Okay so images getting views keeps that “industry” going. But the odd view to see what all the fuss is about? I will not risk it myself. I have an imagination. But others might.

The other thing that troubles me is that grey area where teenagers are the “victims”. I know of a 28 year old girl who gave in to the advances of a 15 year old lad in her charge (as a teacher’s aide). She is now in jail I believe. She was slagged off by the judge as being a predatory paedophile with evil intent etc. I just saw her as immature and confused.

One girl at 12 can be a mother, another at 20 can still be very much a child. That’s why I think the law is an ass with this 16 year “childhood” limit. When is a child not a child? When is he or she an adult? Sorry but 16 does not cut it. Maturity (enough to be able to consent to sex “effectively”) may be achieved at almost any time. Wonder how many adults consent to sex and then wish they hadn’t. Interesting that you can marry at 16 with the permission of your parents.

I know a couple who “got together” as teacher and pupil and married at the “right time”. All worked out well. But was their initial liaison an act of paedophilia? (Still can’t spell the damn word lol).  

Chuck Berry and other celebrities have of course got into hot water over relationships with “minors”. Say no more.

So, proper paedophilia (fancying and having sexual relations with pre-pubescents) is both weird and gross. It no doubt damages many young lives. To me, relationships with teenagers are more of a grey area. Are they all children? Is it condescending to label them all children under 16?

Six hundred and odd words cannot do this subject justice of course. It is a complex issue. I hope I’ve got you thinking. Even if it’s only a start.

Paul Butters

© PB 18\7\2014 in Yorkshire.