Paedophiles should be allowed to adopt?...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think underage sex between two post pubescent teenagers where one is 14,15 and the other 16,17 or 18 should not be classed as statutory rape and the older party whilst facing some kind of punishment this should not result in the application of the term Paedophile and this person should not be put on a sex offenders register.

I think there needs to be more classifications within the existing law because clearly two teenagers having sex where one is 15 and the other 16 does not make the 16 yr a sexual deviant , rapist, Paedophile nor should this person suffer by classed as such by society.

A good example of a well meaning law which is too broad and clearly covers the actions of groups of people who should be dealt with under different legislation.

The thing is, someone having sex with an underage (but post-pubescent) teenager is NOT classed as a paedophile or child molester by law... It's the mainstream media that is quick to scream "Paedo!!!" because it makes a flashy headline. Most of the Yewtree investigations, for example, are not about paedophilia but rather about men using positions of power to abuse underage - but sexually mature - young women. A crime in itself obviously but distinctly different from paedophilia. The headlines just brand it all paedophilia though, and all under age 16 "children" (biologically, most people aren't children past around 13).

I agree though there should be a clear distinction in the offenders registers, or even THREE separate registers. One for minor offenses (consensual underage sex, daft things like someone drunkenly groping people in a club, anything else that obviously doesn't indicate that the person is dangerous or violent), another for serious sexual offenses against adults (rape and violent sexual assaults) and then another completely separate lists of true paedophiles and child molesters who have harmed pre-pubescent children.

Lumping all onto one register is ridiculous, given the vast differences between the most minor offenses and the most severe.

[user17866]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The thing is, someone having sex with an underage (but post-pubescent) teenager is NOT classed as a paedophile or child molester by law... It's the mainstream media that is quick to scream "Paedo!!!" because it makes a flashy headline. Most of the Yewtree investigations, for example, are not about paedophilia but rather about men using positions of power to abuse underage - but sexually mature - young women. A crime in itself obviously but distinctly different from paedophilia. The headlines just brand it all paedophilia though, and all under age 16 "children" (biologically, most people aren't children past around 13).

I agree though there should be a clear distinction in the offenders registers, or even THREE separate registers. One for minor offenses (consensual underage sex, daft things like someone drunkenly groping people in a club, anything else that obviously doesn't indicate that the person is dangerous or violent), another for serious sexual offenses against adults (rape and violent sexual assaults) and then another completely separate lists of true paedophiles and child molesters who have harmed pre-pubescent children.

Lumping all onto one register is ridiculous, given the vast differences between the most minor offenses and the most severe.

..(I think..)..it does normally say on a Disclosure and Barring certificate, what exactly it is...

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think underage sex between two post pubescent teenagers where one is 14,15 and the other 16,17 or 18 should not be classed as statutory rape and the older party whilst facing some kind of punishment this should not result in the application of the term Paedophile and this person should not be put on a sex offenders register.

I think there needs to be more classifications within the existing law because clearly two teenagers having sex where one is 15 and the other 16 does not make the 16 yr a sexual deviant , rapist, Paedophile nor should this person suffer by classed as such by society.

A good example of a well meaning law which is too broad and clearly covers the actions of groups of people who should be dealt with under different legislation.

I think for the most part the law works. we all know teenagers are having sex and 99/100 times the law never gets involved. usually when the law gets involved there are other things going on.

[Munchkins]

The thing is where do people draw the line with what is acceptable.. i definitely agree in the case of someone say 17/18 sleeping with a bf/gf whos 15, that is not rape, but i've seen so many people in real life argue someone shouldn't be classified as a pedophile for sleeping with someone 15 years of age, but where do you draw the line? the age of consent is there for a reason..
If an older guy consistently sleeps with girls who are 14/15, he's not a pedophile in the traditional sense i suppose, but theres still something wrong there.. besides theres such a big disparity between 14/15 year olds too, so there could be some they are sleeping with who are still not fully developed, whilst others are, so theres such a big grey area, and with the age of consent, a line is drawn, even if it does seem unfair on certain cases, it is there for a reason
When people justify say the limit going down to 14/15 and not being classed as a pedophile, how long until people then go well look at this 13 year old shes fully developed etc
Idk

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Munchkins

The thing is where do people draw the line with what is acceptable.. i definitely agree in the case of someone say 17/18 sleeping with a bf/gf whos 15, that is not rape, but i've seen so many people in real life argue someone shouldn't be classified as a pedophile for sleeping with someone 15 years of age, but where do you draw the line? the age of consent is there for a reason..
If an older guy consistently sleeps with girls who are 14/15, he's not a pedophile in the traditional sense i suppose, but theres still something wrong there.. besides theres such a big disparity between 14/15 year olds too, so there could be some they are sleeping with who are still not fully developed, whilst others are, so theres such a big grey area, and with the age of consent, a line is drawn, even if it does seem unfair on certain cases, it is there for a reason
When people justify say the limit going down to 14/15 and not being classed as a pedophile, how long until people then go well look at this 13 year old shes fully developed etc
Idk

I think it's more about the power imbalance. A 15 y/o and a 17 y/o in high school, there isn't a big power imbalance, they are both just students in the school. but if it's a 15 y/o student with a 19 y/o teacher's aide, that is a big power imbalance.

I think it's more about people in positions of power taking advantage of children.

[Kizzy]

The court case that was discussed at the end of last year back that up, blame is shifting from groomer to the victim, however I don't feel the changes will solely concentrate on this one area.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Munchkins

The thing is where do people draw the line with what is acceptable.. i definitely agree in the case of someone say 17/18 sleeping with a bf/gf whos 15, that is not rape, but i've seen so many people in real life argue someone shouldn't be classified as a pedophile for sleeping with someone 15 years of age, but where do you draw the line? the age of consent is there for a reason..
If an older guy consistently sleeps with girls who are 14/15, he's not a pedophile in the traditional sense i suppose, but theres still something wrong there.. besides theres such a big disparity between 14/15 year olds too, so there could be some they are sleeping with who are still not fully developed, whilst others are, so theres such a big grey area, and with the age of consent, a line is drawn, even if it does seem unfair on certain cases, it is there for a reason
When people justify say the limit going down to 14/15 and not being classed as a pedophile, how long until people then go well look at this 13 year old shes fully developed etc
Idk

You draw the line accurately in a case by case basis. Someone who has sexual desires towards pre-pubescent children is a paedophile, someone who has sexual desires towards anyone who has reached sexual maturity is not a paedophile. Paedophilia is "abnormal psychology", it has nothing to do with the law or age of consent, it is what it is. Having sex with an underage teenager is, without a doubt, MORALLY questionable but it's not biologically or instinctually "wrong" - e.g. early humans pre-civilisation would have been mating and having children as soon as they physically developed the ability to do so. The word "paedophile" has a literal meaning, so it should be left as what it is. Theres no need to turn it into a blanket term. Especially as its not even a term in criminality at all - being a paedophile isn't illegal, only acting upon it is, in which case the charge is child molestation (or various charges related to possessing or taking images), not "paedophilia". It's only the media that likes to use it as a buzz term e.g. "convicted paedophile".

The law does make that distinction anyway - hence, statutory rape and child molestation are completely different charges and any punishment would reflect that.

Blurring the line between the two by specifying mandatory age cut-offs isn't helpful to anyone when trying to address the issue overall. As has been said - with statutory rape of teens the issue tends to be abuse of authority or using a position of trust to persuade or "groom" emotionally naive young people. It's obviously still very "wrong", but should certainly not be lumped in with the violent abuse of young children.

[Kizzy]

Well seeing as we are not dragging each other into caves any longer it has been deemed by civilised society that sexual maturity is deemed to be when the maturity is psychological as well as physiological.
I'm thinking the thread is getting bogged down with the age of consent.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well seeing as we are not dragging each other into caves any longer it has been deemed by civilised society that sexual maturity is deemed to be when the maturity is psychological as well as physiological.
I'm thinking the thread is getting bogged down with the age of consent.

they say the human brain hasn't fully matured til about the age of 25 though...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

they say the human brain hasn't fully matured til about the age of 25 though...

well maybe they took the two and found a median?...

[Z]

There is a huge difference between blocking a convicted paedophile and an adult who, at the age of 17, had sex with a 15 year old, from adopting children. The former makes perfect sense, the latter is a very obvious flaw in the law and should be amended. I agree with Toy Soldier's posts. Perhaps having different sex offender registers is the way forward, just to make it clearer.

[Kizzy]

Did you click the link on my post on page one zee?.... nobody else has

[Z]

Yes Kizzy. I don't agree that convicted paedophiles should be allowed to adopt but I do think there's some merit in the argument that if they've served their punishment then in theory why are they still being punished? It depends entirely on whether or not, in each individual case, experts reckon the person in question has reformed and whether they can or can't be trusted around children. My instinct would be that they can't, because paedophilia doesn't seem like something that can be cured any more than any other kind of sexual preference can be 'cured'. It can be managed, but it seems like the ultimate risk to allow someone with paedophilic tendencies to raise a child, it's asking for trouble.

It would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. Even if you hadn't touched a drop in years, would you really want to put that person in an environment where a relapse would be totally devastating, and it would have been totally avoidable if they hadn't put them in that situation? It's not just something you get over, but rather something you learn to manage with self control, and in my mind that's the level that paedophiles can get to at best if they're "reformed". They just learn to manage their impulses.

But as I said, not all sex offenders are dangerous to children so it's not fair to have them all under the same umbrella.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Zee

Yes Kizzy. I don't agree that convicted paedophiles should be allowed to adopt but I do think there's some merit in the argument that if they've served their punishment then in theory why are they still being punished? It depends entirely on whether or not, in each individual case, experts reckon the person in question has reformed and whether they can or can't be trusted around children. My instinct would be that they can't, because paedophilia doesn't seem like something that can be cured any more than any other kind of sexual preference can be 'cured'. It can be managed, but it seems like the ultimate risk to allow someone with paedophilic tendencies to raise a child, it's asking for trouble.

It would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. Even if you hadn't touched a drop in years, would you really want to put that person in an environment where a relapse would be totally devastating, and it would have been totally avoidable if they hadn't put them in that situation? It's not just something you get over, but rather something you learn to manage with self control, and in my mind that's the level that paedophiles can get to at best if they're "reformed". They just learn to manage their impulses.

But as I said, not all sex offenders are dangerous to children so it's not fair to have them all under the same umbrella.

Sorry I meant the second link not the OP.