Latest documentary on paedophilia

Probably only available for a limited time.

Any thoughts?

Only that it remains a problem that probably hardly anyone took any notice of it and the word itself is still used to describe anyone who is attracted to 17 yr olds.

Despite the wisdom expressed by Dr Sarah Goode in that documentary, she does say that all sexual activity with persons under 16 is harmful. Probably most people have had some kind of sexual experience under the age of 16. Are we all damaged? Anyway, aside from that I do think the overall message is positive. The tide is turning, my friends. A few years ago this type of documentary would have been considered the radical case and would not have been commissioned. Now we're seeing new documentaries and articles like this in mainstream media at least once a month. The shriller the hysteria, the more likely it is rational heads will feel safe to step forward and label it hysteria.

I can't watch the documentary but how did they determine that the guy who murdered the child was a pedophile?

I listened through. The documentary started and ended with reference to him, literally framing the discussion, but no distinction was made. Still, during the documentary itself it is made clear that not all paedophiles offend, most child molestors do not have a marked sexual interest in children, and less than half of consumers of CP go on to commit a contact offence.

I doubt most consumers of CP go onto commit any offense - especially when a good chunk of "child" pornography is of the 14 - 17 range, thus being neither paedophilia or hebephilia.

And that's a point worth remembering - most underage sex crimes are nothing to do with paedophilia, but the victimology industry would find it hard to justify its bloated existence on strict paedophilia alone. That's why these vigilante groups pretend to be 14 or 15 rather than 9 or 10 because the higher ange range is with normal range. Hebephilia is probably vastly more common than paedophilia.

I was on it and far happier with how it came out after my initial nervousness for how it could go.

I think it did our cause far more good than harm but sadly as it was on BBC4 Radio the figures were probably quite low.

Interesting, which one were you PNL2?

The good thing is it'll reach a middle-class, educated demographic. Change is never going to come from the red-top readers. They'll simply regurgitate whatever opinions are spoon-fed to them.

I was on it in various places due to editing, sadly they did not include one piece that they liked a lot, which was me saying that you would never choose to be a paedophile as nobody would willingly choose to be hated and even fearing for your life because of people mistaking paedophile with child abuser/rapist.

But I mentioned before that I do sound far posher than I actually am and maybe that is why they wanted to use me for the interview.

Both Mathew Hill the presenter and the producer were extremely nice and we talked for a considerably length of time and it got whittled down to 28 minutes with all contributors.

I think they use technology to make contributors sound posher, as Radio 4 listeners won't listen to anyone who doesn't sound like a member of a hunting club. To them, being working class and on the radio is worse than being a paedophile and on the radio.