Oh dear, I really have managed to put most of you off: BroadswordWSJ, Kowalski, Amit1207, Dan300, Top-hat … all of you are seriously worried about me and discussing how to punish me. Even Shahanshah is talking about retribution on trespassers. I really am very sorry.

I was hoping the link to my ‘male and female presence’ piece might calm some of your fears -- have any of you read it? What I am trying to say is that to pick up girls in public places, you actually have to be fulfilling your public duties at the same time, and in fact the more you concentrate on the altruistic aspects of your presence there, the more successful you’ll be with the girls. It’s a question of being fully masculine.

Here’s the link again, in case anybody missed it: men in public places.

Not that I condone either, but paedophilia is just the attraction rather than the act, there are upstanding citizens that don't act because they know its wrong. I'm not saying its much better, but you can't punish people for simple being who they are. Now if they act on it, that's a whole different story, I'm with you on that one.

I do not think its our responsibility to ensure that this guy doesn't act on his beliefs that is what the structure of our society has built to ensure through law and order. And since he is quite clearly delusional to the point where he doesn't know when he's being mocked. Normally in this scenario, I would advise (like most others) to seek professional help, but you've already done so, so maybe you have even the slightest inclination to remedy the situation.

From my own perspective, Duncan you are misguided, horribly so, you have a warped perception on society and its causing a deep and bitter resentment. I wish you luck with you therapy.

I completely don't understand what the fuck you just said. The attraction? To kids? So it's ok to be attracted to kids as long as they don't act on it? We can't punish a paedophile because "that's who they are"?

Some people are fucked up, but I guess they can't help it, that's what therapy is for, you can't just punish somebody without trying to address the issue.

No, if someone fancies children then they are clearly, very damaged goods & should be terminated, or locked up forever.

Do you disagree that a child rapist should be locked away forever? Or maybe they deserve a second chance?

You can't rehabilitate sexual predators. The facts & stats prove, not suggest, that most if not all of these monsters re-offend after release & "therapy"

Kill them all.

Your misconstruing what I said.
A child rapist is different from a paedophile.
The former needs shooting, the latter needs therapy.

It's not for me to judge any of these circumstances, I don't have enough facts, , I just stated that there is a difference between somebody who has offended, and somebody who hasn't.

Same thing.

Normal people don't think about kids in such a way.

Only sick people. These sick people will probably eventually act, regardless of intervention.

If your friend came to you & said "mate I think I'm a paedophile, there's this 6 year old who lives across the street & I have sexual feelings for her"

Would you be like "aww that's ok mate, it'll be fine you just need help"

There are lots of sick people who have thoughts that would be dangerous and harmful to others if acted out. If there is genuine reason to believe that a person has or will be harmed because of it legal action needs to be taken.

However, what you are essentially talking about is enforcing a 'thought crime'. If you want to live in a free society you can't punish people simply for having a preference or thinking something. If it is introduced in the case of paedophiles, where do you then draw the line? Say someone has a rape fantasy. If they acted on this and actually committed rape it would be horrible and deserving of legal punishment, but say he finds a willing partner on the BDSM scene to act this fantasy out? Nothing wrong with that. Or say he just does nothing. Obviously there is no way to even simulate a sexual fantasy someone might have about a child without harming someone, but if it's not acted upon it causes no harm. It's repugnant, but if there is no violation of someone's rights, liberty or safety then it it shouldn't be punishable by imprisonment.

No one's saying 'aww, you just need help'. It's a mischaracterisation to say that just because you think that a paedophile who has never acted on it should be helped somehow means that they are sympathetic to the peadophile or don't find the concept of paedophilia disgusting. The relevant factor is personal liberty, not what you do or do not find disgusting.

You can't assume that just because someone has a certain thought or preference they will 'probably eventually act' and use that as grounds to punish them for crimes they haven't committed yet. If you do we are back to the days of witch hunts. Where would the line be drawn? If people can punish antisocial thoughts and preferences without a crime being committed then practically everyone would be a criminal in the eye of someone. There are people out there who consider daygame horrible. They call it 'street harassment' and view it as a very serious problem. So should you be strung up for taking an interest in game even though you've not hurt anyone, just because in their mind you probably will?

Compare fantasizing about child rape, to fantasizing about chatting up a girl on your street & fucking her consentually on your bed an hour later.

One of those is very, very wrong. The other totally fine.

And no it's not fine just because I said so. It's fine because evolution says so. Men fancy women, women fancy men. Not children.

If a person has sexual thoughts about children. They are not normal. Should they be left alone to live their lives because they haven't offended "yet"? That may be the case. But they'll always be a risk.

I would keep them isolated though. Far, FAR away from kids.

Except for when men fancy men. Or women fancy women. Or Gender fluid fancies pansexuals. Or melissophiles who are turned on by bees for example. Or people who are sexually attracted to objects. Or the thousands of other myriad sexual preferences with no evolutionary benefit in terms of gene transfer, but should be tolerated by society provided they do no harm.

Laws and morality are decided by people. Not evolution.

Recommended Reading on this subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Perv-The-Sex.../dp/0374230897