Not sure if 'treatable' but an excellent idea!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10149 ... lness.html

This is a UK newspaper article I came across recently, I'm not personally a paedophile but have suffered at the hands of an offending one

I think it'd be an excellent idea and it is good to hear that the UK National health service can in fact offer free help to paedophiles .. Although I'm sure they do need to adhere to guidelines and that most likely would lead to some not opening up properly during therapy/ counselling etc?
It's stating such an obvious fact. Peadophilia is considered a mental illness under the WHO... So why aren't we treating it?? Is it a mental illness? And can it be "cured" or perhaps the mind can just be trained to think alternatively? Who knows.. Has anyone heard of proper psychiatric / medical support and non-judgemental help being given before?
Food for thought, if anything!

Sorry, but as a pedophile I find this article extremely offensive.

This article is also judgemental, not expressing a neutral point of view.
"I want to see help offered to these people before they seek out child pornography – or, even worse, act out their sick fantasies." it's the word sick I find so judgemental. I understand how my fantasies can be considered sick by most of people, sometimes I consider my own fantasies sick, but while I am allowed to call myself sick, I don't want anyone else to do that. Also, I don't mean to call myself sick in an offensive way.

As ALWAYS, pedophiles and child molesters are being put into the same exact category. Pedophiles are not always child molesters. I am not a child molester, nor a child-porn watcher. I respect children and would never hurt one. I should not put in jail just because of my attraction.

Then, pedophilia is seen as a mental illness. I find this very insulting that my sexuality is called an "illness" that can be "treated".
You know what? I've tried to redirect my fantasies and arousal, it doesn't work, it only hurts!

The comments section below is as scary as the article itself.

Paedophilia is not a mental illness according to the DSM-V.

It's stating such an obvious fact. Peadophilia is considered a mental illness under the WHO... So why aren't we treating it?? Is it a mental illness? And can it be "cured" or perhaps the mind can just be trained to think alternatively?

What exactly do you mean by "think alternatively"?

The comments section below is as scary as the article itself.

Yeah. With each one I read I become a bit more depressed.

(*Sigh* I know there is something I want to say here, but I can't think of what to say. Maybe when my mind clears up I'll be able to come up with a proper response to this topic.)

Agreed on the comments sections. I hate them. I try to avoid them for my own health. They used to trigger really bad guilt trips for me.

ElKahn wrote:
The comments section below is as scary as the article itself.

Apart from the usual tolerated fantasies of gratuitous violence that's allowed to be expressed towards "the paedophile", there were some good comments there. I totally agree with what you said though. I know I harp on about it, but remember this comes from a society that's complicit in barbaric abuse of boys (circumcision), and the NHS themselves participate in it. I won't have them calling paedophiles "ill" when society itself accepts a horrid form of sexual oppression. It's odd that paedophiles are so demonised, when most are likely NOT to have abused any children, let alone take a knife to their private parts. I stick two fingers up to the media that can't distinguish between a paedophile and a child abuser, and who can't have rational debate over the meaning of pornography. When was the last time you saw one of them ask the question: "When does beauty/art become pornography?" It such an important issue but nobody wants to discuss it.

"It is here where the really horrific pornography is traded and where most paedophiles congregate. These groups are more likely to be perpetrators of abuse. "

They are saying "most paedophiles abuse", yet have not a shred of evidence to prove their claim. How can they possibly know what "most are" or what "most do", when they are treated like criminals from their first moment of realization? Awful stereo-typing and presumptions. They contradicted themselves anyway, by earlier saying "The vast majority are not directly involved in sexually abusing children but, of course, what they are doing is illegal and repugnant.".

Terrible article, but very typical of the kind of media that would rather exploit the topic for money, than to get to the core of the matter and find the answers.