Philip Pickett sentenced to 11 years imprisonment

[kea]

how should we as a society talk about paedophilia and people who are drawn to it?

Probably not in the way many people here have been talking about it, implying that it's an inherent part of people's psychosexual makeup like a sexual orientation? Because it isn't; people rape, molest or abuse children (or adults) out of a sense of amoral entitlement & a desire to exert power over other people. No one has some kind of internal orientation towards children; most often, they choose children as targets of opportunity because they're small, weak, and easy to groom into submission. If you look at the people who commit paedophilia it's invariably people in positions of hierarchy—whether that's a parent or adult relative towards a child family member, a music teacher towards a student, a priest towards a parishioner, or a billionaire financier towards dozens of impoverished & often homeless teenagers. IOW people who already have power over people in some way, but want even more, & specifically eroticise that power. And there's a reason that whenever someone is outed as a child abuser the instinct and immediate reaction is usually to strip them of any power they might hold—a correct one I think.

Obviously social arrangements that are less hierarchical & allow these less-powerful people (children, students etc) something closer to parity & better options for redress will reduce the incidence of paedophilia. But I think leniency or "medical treatment" is the wrong approach. Deterrence is impossible without a more horizontal arrangement of society that limits the amount of power any one individual can have in any circumstance, and leniency is what paedophiles and rapists have always counted on, with their social power essentially protecting them from consequences. Even prison still permits them to sexually or physically abuse other prisoners. The remaining options are something like long term/indefinite solitary confinement (which would satisfy my desire for vengeance but I can't condone torture in good conscience) or restorative justice & restitution practices, which I've never understood how are supposed to work in cases of sexual abuse & especially with perpetrators being professionally, personally and politically better placed than their victims.

[Richard Barrett]

I think leniency or "medical treatment" is the wrong approach. Deterrence is impossible without a more horizontal arrangement of society that limits the amount of power any one individual can have in any circumstance, and leniency is what paedophiles and rapists have always counted on, with their social power essentially protecting them from consequences. Even prison still permits them to sexually or physically abuse other prisoners. The remaining options are something like long term/indefinite solitary confinement (which would satisfy my desire for vengeance but I can't condone torture in good conscience) or restorative justice & restitution practices, which I've never understood how are supposed to work in cases of sexual abuse & especially with perpetrators being professionally, personally and politically better placed than their victims.

I agree. This is why I was asking the question, because under current social circumstances, that is to say circumstances pervaded by hierarchical power structures in so many different ways, it really isn't clear how "best" to deal with this kind of behaviour, because (as with many crimes) addressing its causes would involve a fundamental reorganisation of social relations away from those power structures. I do believe that such things as paedophilia are made possible by the way our society is organised, but I would also say that every kind of sexual behaviour (apart from reproduction, maybe) has to be a mixture of "inherent" tendencies and the character of the social environment, which encourages some types of expression while stifling others, to the point where it's actually very difficult to say what is and isn't inherent (and whether for present practical purposes it matters one way or the other).

[Dave2002]

Seeing your child suffer because of what you did must be the worst punishment for any parent. If the parent has any humanity at all in him, that is. Yes. Poor, poor child. What a fate to be born in.

One could perhaps not expect that such a parent would have such humanity. In any case, why should his child suffer?

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree. This is why I was asking the question, because under current social circumstances, that is to say circumstances pervaded by hierarchical power structures in so many different ways, it really isn't clear how "best" to deal with this kind of behaviour, because (as with many crimes) addressing its causes would involve a fundamental reorganisation of social relations away from those power structures. I do believe that such things as paedophilia are made possible by the way our society is organised, but I would also say that every kind of sexual behaviour (apart from reproduction, maybe) has to be a mixture of "inherent" tendencies and the character of the social environment, which encourages some types of expression while stifling others, to the point where it's actually very difficult to say what is and isn't inherent (and whether for present practical purposes it matters one way or the other).

That last bit perhaps call for further elaboration, but you've summed the predominating issues up there with brilliant succinctness, as always Richard.

[Stanfordian]

That last bit perhaps call for further elaboration, but you've summed the predominating issues up there with brilliant succinctness, as always Richard.

I worked with male sex offenders on a one to one basis in a prison on a vulnerable prisoners wing for over decade. Most I saw had abused minors and overall it was dispiriting as virtually all admitted to seeing nothing wrong in what they were doing.

[ahinton]

That is exactly right. If I were involved in that area of music making I would not under any circumstances appear on the same stage as such a person. And indeed there are people involved in the same area as me that I would no longer agree to work with for the same reason. (I won't mention their names since they haven't been found guilty of anything in a court.)

Good for you.

As you no doubt know (but some others here might not), Ian Pace has done tireless and laudable work in the cause of victims of such abuse in drawing public attention to these issues.

[Serial_Apologist]

I worked with male sex offenders on a one to one basis in a prison on a vulnerable prisoners wing for over decade. Most I saw had abused minors and overall it was dispiriting as virtually all admitted to seeing nothing wrong in what they were doing.

I hadn't realised that this had been a line of work for you, Stan. I must say, I have enormous respect and admiration for anyone such as yourself working in this area. Someone, as they say, has to do it.

[Richard Barrett]

I worked with male sex offenders on a one to one basis in a prison on a vulnerable prisoners wing for over decade. Most I saw had abused minors and overall it was dispiriting as virtually all admitted to seeing nothing wrong in what they were doing.

This is the part that's really difficult to understand, Stan, and where surely a comparison with psychopathic behaviour might be made, which would imply in turn that there indeed is something "inherent" about these tendencies, since they would seem to involve an inability to empathise with the victims - do you think that's the case?

[doversoul1]

One could perhaps not expect that such a parent would have such humanity. In any case, why should his child suffer?

Imagine yourself being a twelve-year old. You have just come across this article (or similar information)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/i-couldnt-deal-with-it-it-tore-me-apart-surviving-child-sexual-abuse

and realise or have been told that the conductor in the article is your father. If you still don’t see why the child should suffer, I don’t think I can explain to you.

[Conchis]

When I was very young, I worked for an organisation that managed houses where recently released ex-offenders were supposed to be reintegrated into society. Several of the residents were extremely polished, articulate, well-dressed and (it would be fair to say) charming. They didn't match my notion of what ex-criminals might be like and - being an under-strapper -I wasn't meant to know what they'd 'done time' for. When I inadvertently discovered that the 'nice' ones were all sex offenders, I got a bit of a shock - in retrospect, of course, I shouldn't have been shocked at all, as part of the make-up of a 'successful' serial sex offender is the ability to dupe people.

[Serial_Apologist]

When I was very young, I worked for an organisation that managed houses where recently released ex-offenders were supposed to be reintegrated into society. Several of the residents were extremely polished, articulate, well-dressed and (it would be fair to say) charming. They didn't match my notion of what ex-criminals might be like and - being an under-strapper -I wasn't meant to know what they'd 'done time' for. When I inadvertently discovered that the 'nice' ones were all sex offenders, I got a bit of a shock - in retrospect, of course, I shouldn't have been shocked at all, as part of the make-up of a 'successful' serial sex offender is the ability to dupe people.

There was a TV programme on this very subject a few years ago - mainly about Thames Valley Police going about finding child sex offenders and hauling them in. To my mind, they mostly seemed to fit the stereotype of hapless and friendless middle-aged loners lurking around playgrounds and school entrances, or isolated at home in dreary suburban backrooms with computers and enormous databases of online pictures, footages, shelves piled with DVDs and scribbled up VHS videos.

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up my own profile from the externals - apart from being a bit beyond any mitigating middle aged demographic!

[Stanfordian]

This is the part that's really difficult to understand, Stan, and where surely a comparison with psychopathic behaviour might be made, which would imply in turn that there indeed is something "inherent" about these tendencies, since they would seem to involve an inability to empathise with the victims - do you think that's the case?

Yes, a totally lack of empathy! The predators would commonly groom young boys with lavish attention, alcohol, cannabis and other drugs which was common to lower resistance. Then when in prison most offenders elected to join a protection wing for vulnerable prisoners then the lone wolves would realise they weren't the only ones with these drives. I came to believe that if people are wired up that way change is virtually impossible. I don't profess to be an expert this is just a snapshot of my experience.

[kea]

This is the part that's really difficult to understand, Stan, and where surely a comparison with psychopathic behaviour might be made, which would imply in turn that there indeed is something "inherent" about these tendencies, since they would seem to involve an inability to empathise with the victims - do you think that's the case?

I think it's fair to say they have a severe lack of empathy for their victims but I wouldn't conclude that this means an inability to empathise. Suspect lack of empathy comes from privilege & seeing those you have power over as essentially your playthings rather than human beings. Except for sex offenders who do genuinely have a mental health issue (usually ASPD) I don't think they have any trouble empathising with people they see as on an equal footing to themselves, e.g. other abusers with whom they can bond—see the details of the Jeffrey Epstein/Donald Trump relationship for a prominent example.

They, for the most part, don't want to have empathy for their victims or to put in the work to develop it. And obviously we can't make them do it except through means like indefinite solitary confinement that would severely traumatise them. Obviously that does sometimes happen (esp in the States) & most people consider it no great loss but obviously when you give the justice system the discretion to torture people, it's essentially the equivalent of giving your child's music teacher some condoms and a morning after pill.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think it's fair to say they have a severe lack of empathy for their victims but I wouldn't conclude that this means an inability to empathise. Suspect lack of empathy comes from privilege & seeing those you have power over as essentially your playthings rather than human beings. Except for sex offenders who do genuinely have a mental health issue (usually ASPD) I don't think they have any trouble empathising with people they see as on an equal footing to themselves, e.g. other abusers with whom they can bond—see the details of the Jeffrey Epstein/Donald Trump relationship for a prominent example.

They, for the most part, don't want to have empathy for their victims or to put in the work to develop it. And obviously we can't make them do it except through means like indefinite solitary confinement that would severely traumatise them. Obviously that does sometimes happen (esp in the States) & most people consider it no great loss but obviously when you give the justice system the discretion to torture people, it's essentially the equivalent of giving your child's music teacher some condoms and a morning after pill.

If paedophilia is manifested in all cultures, that would contradict my own theory that it emanates from one of the peculiarities of our own culture - namely that of ourselves and any land where broadly Judaeo-Christianity and its after-effects has taken root as a primary social conditioning device. Puritanism in India did not exist prior to British colonialism, and we have to take account of the maleffects of sexual repression on how we see ourselves and each other on sexual expression, especially as the issue has become so confused by the erroneously described sexual liberation that came with the Pill - Hindu culture was not puritanical. Can anyone shed light on this?

Then there are the social circumstances set up for encounters in our culture, for most of which the cattle market description can be extended beyond the parade grounds that still unbelievably exist in certain quarters for judging the worth of women, together with the various mind-bending means legally as well as illegally on offer to subvent the repressed eros, and the clumsy ensuances resulting. All of which provide "excuses" for the hapless person, usually male, who has found it impossible to navigate the protocols or feels inadequate to see the prepubescent "innocent" as within his area of control. The sexual impulse is then channelled into this realm of availability through having control - control being seen as the sine qua non of sexual expression.

[doversoul1]

If paedophilia is manifested in all cultures, that would contradict my own theory that it emanates from one of the peculiarities of our own culture - namely that of ourselves and any land where broadly Judaeo-Christianity and its after-effects has taken root as a primary social conditioning device. Puritanism in India did not exist prior to British colonialism, and we have to take account of the maleffects of sexual repression on how we see ourselves and each other on sexual expression, especially as the issue has become so confused by the erroneously described sexual liberation that came with the Pill - Hindu culture was not puritanical. Can anyone shed light on this?

Paedophilia does exist in Japan. The main difference between here and there is that it has only been acknowledged as a crime recently. This is my guess based on the impression of neologism that the term has. Affection for young boys in a similar sense to that in ancient Greek widely existed in history and sexual involvement in those relationship has never definitely been denied.