Research that backs up they aren't attracted and just an addict?
Notifications OFF
I don't think my partner is the P word and I mean this in the technical term not the News or the World term, but I also don't want to blindly accept that it was a escalation thing from porn/sex addiction - He did after all have a conversation about doing sexual things to a child. But at the same time, there was very little else in the evidence to suggest that he had a long standing or even specific sexual interest in children.
Is there any research or resources that might help?
From a professional and support perspective it seems that as soon there anything remotely sexual related to a child, they are a P.
Yet from reading many of our own experiences (mine included) we believe it was an escalation related to porn addiction and just the taboo they were chasing at the time. However I don't think I've seen any evidence to support this ( I mean this in intrigued, wanting to understand, not accusational way).
From the small amount of professional help I've had the narrative seems to be "he was getting off on it, so he must have been sexually aroused, therefore he must be attracted to children, therefore he is a P".
There doesn't seem to be anything or support that accepts the narrative that "he wasn't specifically interested in the child, just the taboo, the taboo was required because he was desensitised from being a sex/porn addict" or "Yes for a very small/ specific time frame, as a result of the escalation he had a specific sexual interest in children, but it is not long standing and its something that has passed and not likely to appear again".
Hope that makes sense and I hope I haven't offended anyone. As I say, it's coming from a place of wanting to understand to help me process and move on. If believe if someone is attracted to children, that requires a different level and type of support around them, to someone that is a porn/sex addict, the driver comes from different places. I clearly want to believe my partner doesn't have a interest in children, but I also want to be responsible and understand more.
Is there any research or resources that might help?
From a professional and support perspective it seems that as soon there anything remotely sexual related to a child, they are a P.
Yet from reading many of our own experiences (mine included) we believe it was an escalation related to porn addiction and just the taboo they were chasing at the time. However I don't think I've seen any evidence to support this ( I mean this in intrigued, wanting to understand, not accusational way).
From the small amount of professional help I've had the narrative seems to be "he was getting off on it, so he must have been sexually aroused, therefore he must be attracted to children, therefore he is a P".
There doesn't seem to be anything or support that accepts the narrative that "he wasn't specifically interested in the child, just the taboo, the taboo was required because he was desensitised from being a sex/porn addict" or "Yes for a very small/ specific time frame, as a result of the escalation he had a specific sexual interest in children, but it is not long standing and its something that has passed and not likely to appear again".
Hope that makes sense and I hope I haven't offended anyone. As I say, it's coming from a place of wanting to understand to help me process and move on. If believe if someone is attracted to children, that requires a different level and type of support around them, to someone that is a porn/sex addict, the driver comes from different places. I clearly want to believe my partner doesn't have a interest in children, but I also want to be responsible and understand more.
Thanks Lee. I'm having therapy with a Stop So (still early days,) therapist but the answer I seem to be getting (or at least hearing) doesn't seem to entertain that my partner could have had a sexual conversation about a child and not have a sexual interest in a child. It's a similar feeling I've had when talking to LF when I've called them. It's why I reached out here for other sources of information as there doesn't seem to be much around this subject - Something that says, just because someone may have engaged in these types of online offences doesn't alway necessarily translate to an attraction. Just like online offences rarely translate to contact offences - I've seen papers and reached mentioned that supports this.
It's like as soon as the chosen sexual path has anything to do with children they are labeled with that term, where as in reality I know that people with porn and sex addiction are likely in their lives to explore many many many different avenues to get their "fix" some of those they will return to many times, some only for a short period, some never again.
From my own life experiences prior to all of this I've been very familiar with sex/porn addiction, so I'm familiar with this. I guess I am looking at something more specific around this subject.
Perhaps it might be worth talking to a different therapist and reaching out to Safer Lives, I haven't spoken to them.
It's like as soon as the chosen sexual path has anything to do with children they are labeled with that term, where as in reality I know that people with porn and sex addiction are likely in their lives to explore many many many different avenues to get their "fix" some of those they will return to many times, some only for a short period, some never again.
From my own life experiences prior to all of this I've been very familiar with sex/porn addiction, so I'm familiar with this. I guess I am looking at something more specific around this subject.
Perhaps it might be worth talking to a different therapist and reaching out to Safer Lives, I haven't spoken to them.
Hi SAL,
I also feel the same as you and find it difficult to understand/support when there are so many unknowns - I often feel like I am looking for a needle in a haystack. From what I understand, there is a lot of supporting material for porn addiction but I'm not really sure how widely accepted it is. I think porn addiction has only really been acknowledged since the 80s so is still very much in it's infancy but the research does provide a great insight and hopefully help to change attitudes in the future.
I also just wanted to say that Stop So are running a course in May for family/friends with regards to these type of crimes. You can find it on their website. The lady leading the course is Julie Newberry, which Lee has recommended so I have no doubt that it will be very informative.
Hope you're doing ok. X
I also feel the same as you and find it difficult to understand/support when there are so many unknowns - I often feel like I am looking for a needle in a haystack. From what I understand, there is a lot of supporting material for porn addiction but I'm not really sure how widely accepted it is. I think porn addiction has only really been acknowledged since the 80s so is still very much in it's infancy but the research does provide a great insight and hopefully help to change attitudes in the future.
I also just wanted to say that Stop So are running a course in May for family/friends with regards to these type of crimes. You can find it on their website. The lady leading the course is Julie Newberry, which Lee has recommended so I have no doubt that it will be very informative.
Hope you're doing ok. X
Thank you both for your responses. My partner is working on himself and for me, understanding more will help me decide if I want to stay.
I'm going to reach out the the charities again - I'd spoken to both Lucy Faithful about their Inform course and StopSo but both said they possibly weren't suited to help me understand my partners offence (His was not images or talking directly to what he believed was a child, but instead a conversation with an adult about a child). I was passed between them and then told something one on one would be more suitable, which is where I'm at currently. Maybe I need to give it more time. I'll also look at specific names provided.
Orchid, thank you for making me not feel alone in struggling to understand.
I'm going to reach out the the charities again - I'd spoken to both Lucy Faithful about their Inform course and StopSo but both said they possibly weren't suited to help me understand my partners offence (His was not images or talking directly to what he believed was a child, but instead a conversation with an adult about a child). I was passed between them and then told something one on one would be more suitable, which is where I'm at currently. Maybe I need to give it more time. I'll also look at specific names provided.
Orchid, thank you for making me not feel alone in struggling to understand.
When I first found out about my partner I looked for peer reviewed papers to make more sense of it. Before this journey I knew little about porn addiction and that there are those who get hooked on taboo content. I will see if I can find the links but I believe the Lucy faithful site has a webpage of such papers.
My partner also had a professional assessment which quoted a few studies and will ask him if I can share later on. I don't have a copy with me to check.
I do remember reading that one study / paper classes offenders under three categories. One was fantasy only, the other is that they would not/do not have urges to act on it (contact) and others who if given the chance would act. The paper opened my eyes that it isn't one size fits all. My partner has been assessed as not displaying an attraction to children but remains a risk for reoffending due to the underlying addiction to taboo imagery. It is horrible to know that there is a side to him that gets a kick out of others suffering but he was in the black hole for years and hard to completely rewire him. But that is why he has had rehabilitation and knows the triggers to avoid getting sucked in again
My partner also had a professional assessment which quoted a few studies and will ask him if I can share later on. I don't have a copy with me to check.
I do remember reading that one study / paper classes offenders under three categories. One was fantasy only, the other is that they would not/do not have urges to act on it (contact) and others who if given the chance would act. The paper opened my eyes that it isn't one size fits all. My partner has been assessed as not displaying an attraction to children but remains a risk for reoffending due to the underlying addiction to taboo imagery. It is horrible to know that there is a side to him that gets a kick out of others suffering but he was in the black hole for years and hard to completely rewire him. But that is why he has had rehabilitation and knows the triggers to avoid getting sucked in again
Post deleted by user
Thank you majestictopaz, I'm going to have a look at paper on LF over the weekend.
The 3 categories you mention make a lot of sense and the risk factors. The way your partner has also been assessed makes a lot of sense too. I think I have my eyes open that this side of him (a draw towards alternative and extreme porn and sex outside of a relationship - As far as I'm aware he hasn't been unfaithful to me) will not go away over night and won't go away long term until he understands the reason why he's attracted to this and recognise triggers. I knew this side of him before we'd become a couple (we were friends for years previous) and have experience of sex and porn addiction prior to this relationship, so when he told me what had happened, it did all very easily slot into place how the offence came to happened, it has certainly made understanding easier. But perhaps because it has been so easy for me to understand and the counselling sessions I've had, I started to wondered if I'd questioned myself and my partner enough about the offence. In reality I may need to accept I'll never 100% know whether it really was a one off conversation or if there is more to it than that (police only took his phone, they found nothing else on it. He has 3 other devices, 4 at the time of the knock, but they never took those) .
How did go about having the assessment?
I think the other thing I struggle with is that the therapy he's having is related to sex and porn addiction and not specifically around the child aspect. He says it was one conversation and doesn't see he has an issue being drawn to that specific taboo because it only happened once - It was the opportunity that presented itself when acting out on a BDSM fetish website and that it could have easily been something else. I worry that because his therapy is through the Laurel Centre who specialises in sex and porn addiction he won't explore how he came to say the things he said in the conversation, on the flip of that, if he doesn't feel he has issue specifically with child being the subject, doing something focused on this could be harmful - Which is sort of what LF said to him. I don't know if it's the truth or him being in denial.
The 3 categories you mention make a lot of sense and the risk factors. The way your partner has also been assessed makes a lot of sense too. I think I have my eyes open that this side of him (a draw towards alternative and extreme porn and sex outside of a relationship - As far as I'm aware he hasn't been unfaithful to me) will not go away over night and won't go away long term until he understands the reason why he's attracted to this and recognise triggers. I knew this side of him before we'd become a couple (we were friends for years previous) and have experience of sex and porn addiction prior to this relationship, so when he told me what had happened, it did all very easily slot into place how the offence came to happened, it has certainly made understanding easier. But perhaps because it has been so easy for me to understand and the counselling sessions I've had, I started to wondered if I'd questioned myself and my partner enough about the offence. In reality I may need to accept I'll never 100% know whether it really was a one off conversation or if there is more to it than that (police only took his phone, they found nothing else on it. He has 3 other devices, 4 at the time of the knock, but they never took those) .
How did go about having the assessment?
I think the other thing I struggle with is that the therapy he's having is related to sex and porn addiction and not specifically around the child aspect. He says it was one conversation and doesn't see he has an issue being drawn to that specific taboo because it only happened once - It was the opportunity that presented itself when acting out on a BDSM fetish website and that it could have easily been something else. I worry that because his therapy is through the Laurel Centre who specialises in sex and porn addiction he won't explore how he came to say the things he said in the conversation, on the flip of that, if he doesn't feel he has issue specifically with child being the subject, doing something focused on this could be harmful - Which is sort of what LF said to him. I don't know if it's the truth or him being in denial.
Bitterbean, even taking into account these were people that had actively looked for these images, it still seems very high, but as you the statistic is different to those that have viewed them. I don't know much about images or how people come about them (may partner offence wasn't images) but I'd imagine the people on the dark web maybe be slightly different in their routes to looking at these images and therefore what they might do after - They are after all going to the effort to be on the dark web and hide themselves.
Its one of the things that gets me, there are probably people doing much much worse and more of a danger to society on the dark web, but the police go for the low hanging fruit. People that cover there tracks, take procautions to not get caught are much more premeditated and therefore I believe riskier than someone that isn't doing that. My partner who is clever and very technically savvy, didn't even use an anonymous messaging app when they moved off the site to talk - He was so naive. Someone that knew what they were doing and had sinister motives are much more likely to have covered their tracks better, I'm sure.
Its one of the things that gets me, there are probably people doing much much worse and more of a danger to society on the dark web, but the police go for the low hanging fruit. People that cover there tracks, take procautions to not get caught are much more premeditated and therefore I believe riskier than someone that isn't doing that. My partner who is clever and very technically savvy, didn't even use an anonymous messaging app when they moved off the site to talk - He was so naive. Someone that knew what they were doing and had sinister motives are much more likely to have covered their tracks better, I'm sure.
Post deleted by user
I'd be interested to know what the police and other agencies are doing to get to the root of this problem i.e. the people actually producing this stuff and putting it out there. Whilst I know that our loved ones have done wrong, my understanding is that there is SO much of it, so readily available. By going after our partners/sons, they're treating the symptoms but not necessarily rooting out the cause.....with something like 850 men arrested each month and a huge backlog in processing these cases, surely it would be better to work with internet providers etc. to get to the heart of the problem. I did a very careful internet search to find out about the Kik app and, even with my safety settings on, some pretty hair-raising stuff came up in the results so it's clearly fairly easy to find, either deliberately or accidentally.
I agree, Bitterbean, that there should be more awareness regarding the law and, in fact, around the dangers and availability of porn generally.
I agree, Bitterbean, that there should be more awareness regarding the law and, in fact, around the dangers and availability of porn generally.
SAL in regard to professional assessment my partner asked his solicitor for contact details of those who can do an assessment. He was given the website details to a company that act a bit like a recruitment agency. They gave him five contacts and their quotes. The prices ranged from 1.7k to 2.5k. unfortunately this was a court ordered assessment and the judge chose the assessor and it was the most expensive...tho I would argue that doesn't always mean the best.
For example the 1.7k offer involved a ten hour assessment either done over two full days or over the weeks. The one my partner had to use it was all done in a day for less than three hours. Tho saying that it was very thorough and he knew what he was doing and clinical and backed up with studies and methodology that is professionally recognised.
If you do go for an assessment you will need to be clear on the scope of what is being assessed. My partner had his done two years after the sentence, he is probably going to do it again in five years time to demonstrate improvement. Maybe sooner since he wants to reduce his SHPO or at least get the no contact with under 16s reviewed/revoked.
And my partner didn't find the sex addiction therapy that helpful because they don't cover iioc. Your partner should consider getting additional help for the child aspect as that is what he is being investigated for.
For example the 1.7k offer involved a ten hour assessment either done over two full days or over the weeks. The one my partner had to use it was all done in a day for less than three hours. Tho saying that it was very thorough and he knew what he was doing and clinical and backed up with studies and methodology that is professionally recognised.
If you do go for an assessment you will need to be clear on the scope of what is being assessed. My partner had his done two years after the sentence, he is probably going to do it again in five years time to demonstrate improvement. Maybe sooner since he wants to reduce his SHPO or at least get the no contact with under 16s reviewed/revoked.
And my partner didn't find the sex addiction therapy that helpful because they don't cover iioc. Your partner should consider getting additional help for the child aspect as that is what he is being investigated for.
I am so pleased to have scone across this thread today. It really resonates. Nothing to add other than that and I will be re-reading when I have a bit more head space to take it all in.
Post deleted by user
Thanks majestictopaz it's interesting to hear that the court ordered it. I guess that shows another potential level of mid understanding in the system. I've engrossed myself into reading a listening and it's clear that people engage in this activity for many reason and not just because of an attraction to children, it seems that even contact offenders may not do it through attraction, but because of the feeling of power. So even having some evidence to say someone isn't attracted to children, doesn't say they aren't a risk. I guess that's where the report you mention breaks down the 2 things separately. Hmmm
Thank you for sharing. Are you able to share the website your partner was given?
I have been encouraging him to talk to someone else, but he doesn't feel its suitable. All I can do is encourage and support him.
Thank you for sharing. Are you able to share the website your partner was given?
I have been encouraging him to talk to someone else, but he doesn't feel its suitable. All I can do is encourage and support him.
Post deleted by user
The online world of porn can be so easy to get lost in. Especially when it's digital, it's hard to comprehend and easier to hide the volumes when it doesn't actually take up much space and it's just "another" file.
I agree regarding the suffering partners and family members go through. And I am still shocked hearing, how it seems, everyone convicted is deemed a risk to children and how severely they and their families are punished because of a lack of understanding or even willingness to understand the route that led to the offence, seems a almost blanket approach is applied.
I agree regarding the suffering partners and family members go through. And I am still shocked hearing, how it seems, everyone convicted is deemed a risk to children and how severely they and their families are punished because of a lack of understanding or even willingness to understand the route that led to the offence, seems a almost blanket approach is applied.
Sal
It grieves me that such a wide range of offences are covered by the SOR and some of them seem very much more serious than others.
It grieves me that such a wide range of offences are covered by the SOR and some of them seem very much more serious than others.
The website is Mewa. They find experts for court hearing purposes and might be able to find someone to assess. Not sure they can provide talk therapy tho.
I can understand that the approach from authorities is to prevent the worst case, even when there may no real evidence someone is attracted to children. Unfortunately we can't get inside their heads... For me it is as long as my partner never acts out ever again then I can cope.
What bothers me is the fact the same approach doesn't apply to animals. My partner has a conviction for animal videos too. Not once has he been accused of attraction to animals and he has zero restrictions on being around animals. We even have a cat. My partner thinks it is because the child aspect of his offending trumps the animal side of it. But if someone was caught with just animal images I think most of the time they are banned from having pets (I could be wrong).
I can understand that the approach from authorities is to prevent the worst case, even when there may no real evidence someone is attracted to children. Unfortunately we can't get inside their heads... For me it is as long as my partner never acts out ever again then I can cope.
What bothers me is the fact the same approach doesn't apply to animals. My partner has a conviction for animal videos too. Not once has he been accused of attraction to animals and he has zero restrictions on being around animals. We even have a cat. My partner thinks it is because the child aspect of his offending trumps the animal side of it. But if someone was caught with just animal images I think most of the time they are banned from having pets (I could be wrong).
There's a lot of inconsistencies between how these types of crime are treated compared to others. For example, there is no "violent offenders register". I'm sure those accused of an assault when drunk do not have bail conditions saying they can't go to the pub or mix socially where there might be cohol present in case they pick a fight.
I think many people are happy with the way sex offenders are stgmatised because they are awful crimes, and I expect the authorities like the stigma because it acts as a deterrent to people who might commit them. The trouble is, the term "sex offence" covers a wide range of offences which to my perception vary very considerably in severity (I appreciate others may disagree) and I think it's wrong to put them all in the same box because for lesser offences it feels draconian compared to the seriousness of some other non sex offences. And I don't believe the deterrent effect works as well for Internet based offences because there is a general lack of awareness of where the lines are, and some offenders don't realise they've crossed it, until they get arrested, as I mentioned previously.
I think many people are happy with the way sex offenders are stgmatised because they are awful crimes, and I expect the authorities like the stigma because it acts as a deterrent to people who might commit them. The trouble is, the term "sex offence" covers a wide range of offences which to my perception vary very considerably in severity (I appreciate others may disagree) and I think it's wrong to put them all in the same box because for lesser offences it feels draconian compared to the seriousness of some other non sex offences. And I don't believe the deterrent effect works as well for Internet based offences because there is a general lack of awareness of where the lines are, and some offenders don't realise they've crossed it, until they get arrested, as I mentioned previously.
This is such an important topic. I've read a lot of peer reviewed papers and the biggest problem, is that they do not make a distinction between different types of paedophiles. Sadly even LFF do not make this distinction. Some are what is known as fixated and some are regressed.
Once you understand the difference between the two and realise that 85% of offenders are regressed 'P' and only 12% are fixated 'P', then things start to make sense.
The person who understands this best imho, is Robert Weiss. He is an American sex and relationship therapist, who treats sex and porn addicts, but he also treats offenders too. He has written extensively about this subject. In this article, he explains the many different kinds of offenders that he sees and what their motivations are.
https://sexandrelationshiphealing.com/blog/not-all-sex-offenders-are-the-same/
I would also make a couple of important points about P.
They are only attracted to children aged under 13. If somebody is communicating with a 15 year old, then it is highly unlikely that they are a P. Somebody who is attracted to 14 or 15 year olds is a hebephile, not a P.
Fixated P tend to be exclusively or predominantly attracted to children and they have no interest in forming relationships with adults. They will probably not have had an adult partner. This is very important for all the NOP on this forum, because it means their partners are almost certainly going to be regressed P, not fixated P.
Robert Weiss findings are that regressed P respond very well to treatment, but fixated P do not. Again, this is going to be very important for NOP, who need to know that there is hope out there for their partners.
Once you understand the difference between the two and realise that 85% of offenders are regressed 'P' and only 12% are fixated 'P', then things start to make sense.
The person who understands this best imho, is Robert Weiss. He is an American sex and relationship therapist, who treats sex and porn addicts, but he also treats offenders too. He has written extensively about this subject. In this article, he explains the many different kinds of offenders that he sees and what their motivations are.
https://sexandrelationshiphealing.com/blog/not-all-sex-offenders-are-the-same/
I would also make a couple of important points about P.
They are only attracted to children aged under 13. If somebody is communicating with a 15 year old, then it is highly unlikely that they are a P. Somebody who is attracted to 14 or 15 year olds is a hebephile, not a P.
Fixated P tend to be exclusively or predominantly attracted to children and they have no interest in forming relationships with adults. They will probably not have had an adult partner. This is very important for all the NOP on this forum, because it means their partners are almost certainly going to be regressed P, not fixated P.
Robert Weiss findings are that regressed P respond very well to treatment, but fixated P do not. Again, this is going to be very important for NOP, who need to know that there is hope out there for their partners.
I agree that more needs to be done raise awareness. The whole experience and learning more about online sex offences has made me recall things as a teen I didn't realize was actually illegal. I was quite sheltered and it wasn't until I went to college in late 2000s early 2010s that I was made aware of dodgey we chat rooms. Tho I didn't partake I did date someone who did something that I now know was illegal. At the time I was disgusted in what he did but didn't have the confidence to speak up.
Also I was aware of videos being shared amongst my peers which was seen as funny but was actually abuse. And to think my peers were only in their early teens. All I had in the form of education was to avoid meeting people online, nothing was spoken about the lines that can crossed just sat at home on the computer.
I remember watching a TV show on sex ed that said the average age for boys to first see porn was 12! I recently saw a tik toc of someone pretending to be a teen and trick someone into an embarrassing situation. Tho most of the comments saw it was very immoral, barely anyone said that it was actually illegal and of caught would have been seen as a communication offense. Tik tok is so dangerous! I do use it and try to report what I can but it isn't always so simple to do.
Also I was aware of videos being shared amongst my peers which was seen as funny but was actually abuse. And to think my peers were only in their early teens. All I had in the form of education was to avoid meeting people online, nothing was spoken about the lines that can crossed just sat at home on the computer.
I remember watching a TV show on sex ed that said the average age for boys to first see porn was 12! I recently saw a tik toc of someone pretending to be a teen and trick someone into an embarrassing situation. Tho most of the comments saw it was very immoral, barely anyone said that it was actually illegal and of caught would have been seen as a communication offense. Tik tok is so dangerous! I do use it and try to report what I can but it isn't always so simple to do.
Majestic
Sounds like some unpleasant experiences for you at a young age.
Highlights the need for awareness raising in schools as well as the general public. I think we all have an innate sense of things that are "wrong", or at least we feel them to be "not OK". However many activities, although not nice, are not illegal, and without publicity and education about what the red lines are, some people will not know. Adding to confusion is when new laws come in and what was not illegal now becomes illegal.
I mean, when the law was changed to make using a mobile phone while driving came in, there was loads of publicity about that. I don't recall so much publicity about Internet enabled crimes, especially the "greyer" areas.
Sounds like some unpleasant experiences for you at a young age.
Highlights the need for awareness raising in schools as well as the general public. I think we all have an innate sense of things that are "wrong", or at least we feel them to be "not OK". However many activities, although not nice, are not illegal, and without publicity and education about what the red lines are, some people will not know. Adding to confusion is when new laws come in and what was not illegal now becomes illegal.
I mean, when the law was changed to make using a mobile phone while driving came in, there was loads of publicity about that. I don't recall so much publicity about Internet enabled crimes, especially the "greyer" areas.
I too have thought back over my youth and realise that I and my friends were exposed to these crimes online (we went in chat rooms and I recall being approached and even talking to older men and ones that I now think may have been older men posing and younger men). I look back at how naive and unware I was of the dangers and risks it posed to me, sometimes being flattered or intrigued or perhaps even thinking it was funny. I suspect back then there was much less surveillance or proactive search for offenders. For me it is a reminder that those crimes, regardless of the route to them, can have harmless impacts on children. It's such a large topic and the reasons people engage in these activities are far wider than the offence itself. I don't think the risk of prison and SOR is actually much of a deterrent. The crimes happen in a online world which can feel very far removed from the real world with real world implications.
I remember being in the pub when I was younger and mobile phones being passed around with videos or GIFs showing animal sexual abuse - It was seen as something funny, it wasn't being hidden... Although I actually think it's only relatively recently that, that become illegal.
I remember being in the pub when I was younger and mobile phones being passed around with videos or GIFs showing animal sexual abuse - It was seen as something funny, it wasn't being hidden... Although I actually think it's only relatively recently that, that become illegal.
Dear edel2020,
Thank you for your contribution to the forum. I am sure that your knowledge and balance to this thread will be much appreciated by your fellow users.
We wanted to respond to your comment regarding the lack of distinction between different types of ‘paedophiles’. As I am sure you understand, research highlights that there are various ways to explain an individual’s attraction to children. This is obviously complex and there are lots of different theories and ideas. From our point of view, we tend to avoid using the words paedophile and paedophilia because the meaning of these words is often misunderstood, and there can be a lot of stigma attached to them.
Instead, we explore with our clients their understanding of how they developed a sexual interest in a child or children, and their needs; all the while enabling them to keep children safe. We allow them to describe themselves using the language that makes most sense to them, on a case by case basis. I hope that makes sense.
If you would like to discuss any of these points further, please do not hesitate to contact us on the helpline.
Take care,
The Forum Team
Thank you for your contribution to the forum. I am sure that your knowledge and balance to this thread will be much appreciated by your fellow users.
We wanted to respond to your comment regarding the lack of distinction between different types of ‘paedophiles’. As I am sure you understand, research highlights that there are various ways to explain an individual’s attraction to children. This is obviously complex and there are lots of different theories and ideas. From our point of view, we tend to avoid using the words paedophile and paedophilia because the meaning of these words is often misunderstood, and there can be a lot of stigma attached to them.
Instead, we explore with our clients their understanding of how they developed a sexual interest in a child or children, and their needs; all the while enabling them to keep children safe. We allow them to describe themselves using the language that makes most sense to them, on a case by case basis. I hope that makes sense.
If you would like to discuss any of these points further, please do not hesitate to contact us on the helpline.
Take care,
The Forum Team
Hi lee1969,
I think you might be mixing up the word regressed with repressed?
I'm not suggesting that someone who has an attraction to children has always had that attraction and has been repressing it.
A regressed P on the other hand, is somebody who develops a temporary attraction to children, often in response to a stressful life event, or as a result of watching porn.
The attraction is temporary and it can change. That is why it is a source of hope for NOP.
There is a very good Youtube video here, which explains what fixated and regressed means, in this context. The relevant bit starts at around 30 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ftwq5kSi3U
I think you might be mixing up the word regressed with repressed?
I'm not suggesting that someone who has an attraction to children has always had that attraction and has been repressing it.
A regressed P on the other hand, is somebody who develops a temporary attraction to children, often in response to a stressful life event, or as a result of watching porn.
The attraction is temporary and it can change. That is why it is a source of hope for NOP.
There is a very good Youtube video here, which explains what fixated and regressed means, in this context. The relevant bit starts at around 30 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ftwq5kSi3U
Dear Forum team,
I agree with you that the P word is unhelpful, although this conversation was about how that word is often misinterpreted, and what it actually means, so I wanted to shed some light on that.
The reasons for this attraction are complex, although there seems to be 3 main pathways. Being born with an attraction is one way. Developing an attraction after experiencing trauma is another and developing an attraction through porn escalation is the other.
The porn escalation route often has its origins in stress and early life trauma too, so arguably there are just two pathways.
But I think the conversation about this issue is the most important thing.
I agree with you that the P word is unhelpful, although this conversation was about how that word is often misinterpreted, and what it actually means, so I wanted to shed some light on that.
The reasons for this attraction are complex, although there seems to be 3 main pathways. Being born with an attraction is one way. Developing an attraction after experiencing trauma is another and developing an attraction through porn escalation is the other.
The porn escalation route often has its origins in stress and early life trauma too, so arguably there are just two pathways.
But I think the conversation about this issue is the most important thing.
Hi. I found out that my partner viewed this since he was around 16/17 (he is now 41). His has never been an attraction to chilcdren, although when he was younger and locked up for the issue, he told them he was attracted just because he was under the impression that is what they wanted to hear. I truly believe there is no attraction as he can't even look at children when we are out. However, friends and family (and myself many times) have used the P word - which is very harmful.
My partner has Severe Asperger's and using IIOC has been a way of him coping with rejection and feeling that children cannot say no like adult women can. It is very hard knowing that someone has accessed IIOC but I have read some literature and articles about ASD and IIOC and it has helped me see things in a clearer light.
My partner has Severe Asperger's and using IIOC has been a way of him coping with rejection and feeling that children cannot say no like adult women can. It is very hard knowing that someone has accessed IIOC but I have read some literature and articles about ASD and IIOC and it has helped me see things in a clearer light.
I wanted to discuss the meaning of the word regressed a bit more, to clarify what it means. Sometimes the word situational is used instead.
There are many questions, that friends and family have about their loved ones attraction to children, which go beyond just, why they offended. There are other questions about their attraction to children, which people want answers to. To make things easier, I will not use the P word anymore. Instead I will simply refer to people who have an attraction to children.
The questions that people have are:
1. Where did this attraction come from? Were they born with it?
2. Is the attraction exclusive? In other words, are they only attracted to children, or to adults as well?
3. But most importantly, I think people want to know; If my loved one has this attraction now, will they have it forever, or could it change?
I want to try and answer these questions, but a lot of the available research only talks about one kind of person, who has this attraction. They only discuss the individuals who have an attraction they were born with, and the ones whose attraction never changes.
If we take James Cantor, as an example. He says that the people who are attracted to children, have brains that are wired differently. He gives the impression, that everybody who is attracted to children, is like that.
The problem I have with Cantor's research, is that he does not make it clear, that he is describing only those people who were born with an attraction to children. His research is misleading and has led a lot of family and friends, into thinking that their loved ones are the same as this, when they aren't.
We have to have a conversation, about all the other people, who have an attraction to children, which they were not born with. That is what is missing from the debate. The media coverage also, mostly gives the impression, that everybody with an attraction to children will have that attraction forever. Again, only some people are like this.
The good thing about Robert Weiss, is that he puts some numbers out there, to provide context. If he is right, then only 12% of people with an attraction to children, were born with that attraction. But those 12% are the only ones, that researchers and the media ever talk about.
It is vital for us to discuss the other 85%. That is what I have tried to do. The 12% are the people with an attraction that I referred to as fixated. The other 85%, I would describe as 'regressed', although that word needs some careful explanation.
Robert Weiss defines it like this. Situational/Regressed Child Offenders: These offenders are attracted to adults as well as minors. In fact, many have healthy adult romantic attachments. Their sexual behavior with minors tends to be purely opportunistic rather than planned. For instance, they may stumble across child pornography while surfing for porn in a more general way, and then choose to explore that. Others will offend related to drug or alcohol abuse, job loss, stress, too much free time, etc. These offenders typically respond in positive ways to appropriate treatment, and their risk for reoffending is generally minimal.
There are many questions, that friends and family have about their loved ones attraction to children, which go beyond just, why they offended. There are other questions about their attraction to children, which people want answers to. To make things easier, I will not use the P word anymore. Instead I will simply refer to people who have an attraction to children.
The questions that people have are:
1. Where did this attraction come from? Were they born with it?
2. Is the attraction exclusive? In other words, are they only attracted to children, or to adults as well?
3. But most importantly, I think people want to know; If my loved one has this attraction now, will they have it forever, or could it change?
I want to try and answer these questions, but a lot of the available research only talks about one kind of person, who has this attraction. They only discuss the individuals who have an attraction they were born with, and the ones whose attraction never changes.
If we take James Cantor, as an example. He says that the people who are attracted to children, have brains that are wired differently. He gives the impression, that everybody who is attracted to children, is like that.
The problem I have with Cantor's research, is that he does not make it clear, that he is describing only those people who were born with an attraction to children. His research is misleading and has led a lot of family and friends, into thinking that their loved ones are the same as this, when they aren't.
We have to have a conversation, about all the other people, who have an attraction to children, which they were not born with. That is what is missing from the debate. The media coverage also, mostly gives the impression, that everybody with an attraction to children will have that attraction forever. Again, only some people are like this.
The good thing about Robert Weiss, is that he puts some numbers out there, to provide context. If he is right, then only 12% of people with an attraction to children, were born with that attraction. But those 12% are the only ones, that researchers and the media ever talk about.
It is vital for us to discuss the other 85%. That is what I have tried to do. The 12% are the people with an attraction that I referred to as fixated. The other 85%, I would describe as 'regressed', although that word needs some careful explanation.
Robert Weiss defines it like this. Situational/Regressed Child Offenders: These offenders are attracted to adults as well as minors. In fact, many have healthy adult romantic attachments. Their sexual behavior with minors tends to be purely opportunistic rather than planned. For instance, they may stumble across child pornography while surfing for porn in a more general way, and then choose to explore that. Others will offend related to drug or alcohol abuse, job loss, stress, too much free time, etc. These offenders typically respond in positive ways to appropriate treatment, and their risk for reoffending is generally minimal.
One of the things that hasn't been mentioned in any of this is someone not being attracted to children as such but attracted to traits of a child. For example someone may have a thing for power play and that be part of a healthy consensual adult relationship. Similar I can see how in the relms of porn and sex addition and to get the same buzz, that it could move from a healthy consenting situation to non consenting adults relationships (or talk or fantasy of this) and to children (or talk or fantasy of this) because the power is very much imbalanced in these scenarios.
I struggle with this as I see both can be true - An "attraction" to a element that is common in children, but could equally be common in an adult (naivity, trusting, submissive) and that only coming about through a escalation of porn addictions i.e. They no longer get the same buzz out of someone that is playing up to this role play in a adult consenting relationships, so therefore begin exploring realms where the power is imbalanced.
Is this person attracted to children or not? I hear the arguments regard opportunistic. Guess it's a bit like someone not being a theif that goes out of there way to steal, but when presented with the opportunity/and or under specific circumstances may decided steal.
I bring this up because I heard a stat years ago on a BBC program talking about these offences, I can't remember exactly, but that a high proportion of contact offenders are not actually attracted to children's in the sense of having interest in children but are interested in being powerful.
In this scenario the explanation that someone provided earlier in regards to categorisation that someone may not be attracted to children, but can still be at risk to children makes sense. For example in the situation mentioned above, until they have dealt with the under lying need to feel power, they are at risk of trying to find that feeling through non consensual, manipulative or harmful methods.
There are obviously lots of different routes and reasons to offending, from my perspective it doesn't seem as black and white as having an attraction or not.
I struggle with this as I see both can be true - An "attraction" to a element that is common in children, but could equally be common in an adult (naivity, trusting, submissive) and that only coming about through a escalation of porn addictions i.e. They no longer get the same buzz out of someone that is playing up to this role play in a adult consenting relationships, so therefore begin exploring realms where the power is imbalanced.
Is this person attracted to children or not? I hear the arguments regard opportunistic. Guess it's a bit like someone not being a theif that goes out of there way to steal, but when presented with the opportunity/and or under specific circumstances may decided steal.
I bring this up because I heard a stat years ago on a BBC program talking about these offences, I can't remember exactly, but that a high proportion of contact offenders are not actually attracted to children's in the sense of having interest in children but are interested in being powerful.
In this scenario the explanation that someone provided earlier in regards to categorisation that someone may not be attracted to children, but can still be at risk to children makes sense. For example in the situation mentioned above, until they have dealt with the under lying need to feel power, they are at risk of trying to find that feeling through non consensual, manipulative or harmful methods.
There are obviously lots of different routes and reasons to offending, from my perspective it doesn't seem as black and white as having an attraction or not.
Hi lee,
I think the answer to your question, of whether someone is either a porn addict, or attracted to children, is that they could be both. They could be someone who developed a temporary attraction to children, as a result of their porn addiction.
The porn addiction might not be the only reason for that attraction. There could be other underlying issues, such as childhood trauma, which contributed to both their porn addiction AND their temporary attraction to children.
As for my circumstances, my son was arrested for iioc a few years ago and he has been dealing with the consequences ever since, such as being unable to find a job, seeing a therapist to help with depression etc. He is surviving, by living from day to day, and not thinking too much about the future.
I think the answer to your question, of whether someone is either a porn addict, or attracted to children, is that they could be both. They could be someone who developed a temporary attraction to children, as a result of their porn addiction.
The porn addiction might not be the only reason for that attraction. There could be other underlying issues, such as childhood trauma, which contributed to both their porn addiction AND their temporary attraction to children.
As for my circumstances, my son was arrested for iioc a few years ago and he has been dealing with the consequences ever since, such as being unable to find a job, seeing a therapist to help with depression etc. He is surviving, by living from day to day, and not thinking too much about the future.
Hi Sal,
I just wanted to mention what Robert Weiss has to say, about the reasons why some men talk to children online. I think that it answers some of your questions.
He says that man who behaves like that, is thinking the following thoughts:
"Grooming and ultimately seducing a child/teen fulfills my need for recognition, acceptance, validation, affiliation, mastery and control. It is not the sexual gratification, per se, that offers ultimate satisfaction. It's more that getting a child to have sex with me, is evidence that the child accepts and cares for me. It's a way that I can feel important and wanted. I have a distorted interpretation of my relationship with the child. I am sexually attracted to adults, and have adult sexual and intimate relationships, but when under stress, the influence of substances, or both, I have the capacity to turn to a child/teen relationship."
He also says that the sexual attraction to children is temporary, passing, opportunistic, or a reflection of developmental immaturity and interpersonal insecurity.
I just wanted to mention what Robert Weiss has to say, about the reasons why some men talk to children online. I think that it answers some of your questions.
He says that man who behaves like that, is thinking the following thoughts:
"Grooming and ultimately seducing a child/teen fulfills my need for recognition, acceptance, validation, affiliation, mastery and control. It is not the sexual gratification, per se, that offers ultimate satisfaction. It's more that getting a child to have sex with me, is evidence that the child accepts and cares for me. It's a way that I can feel important and wanted. I have a distorted interpretation of my relationship with the child. I am sexually attracted to adults, and have adult sexual and intimate relationships, but when under stress, the influence of substances, or both, I have the capacity to turn to a child/teen relationship."
He also says that the sexual attraction to children is temporary, passing, opportunistic, or a reflection of developmental immaturity and interpersonal insecurity.
Lee you have hit the nail on the head there, every case is different, every offender has arrived here via different route due to their own personal issues habits and circumstances. And yet they are all thrown into the same basket as "dangerous sex offender" and subjected to humiliating monitoring and tracking for years afterwards. Monitoring and tracking that must be a considerable resource drain on the police and other agencies, resources which perhaps might be more appropriately focused on those presenting the greatest risk of future offending, based on research and evidence.
On the tracking aspect of the sex offenders register, with today's technology including mobile phones, cctv, NI numbers and electronic banking, why on earth is this actually necessary? I read recently that it's virtually impossible for anyone to "disappear" these days for more than a few hours, much less a whole day.
On the tracking aspect of the sex offenders register, with today's technology including mobile phones, cctv, NI numbers and electronic banking, why on earth is this actually necessary? I read recently that it's virtually impossible for anyone to "disappear" these days for more than a few hours, much less a whole day.
bump
Our son is 20 now, was 19 when the police called and they still have not come back to us with their findings over one year later. They said our son has to get on with his life while he waits. He was at secondary school when he viewed the images. Am I wrong in thinking that all I can do right now is encourage him to try to keep his head and continue studying? The future is so uncertain and there is so much unkown we do not even know what we are facing into.
Bitterbean, I totally agree with your comments on your last post on here, & espescially after todays news that over 40% of Met police are undergoing investigation for one cime or another!!!!
My PH says it was mental health and loneliness which drove him to the chat groups. It's still early days and so far there is only one chat thread and a picture sent to him which on the thread he said its disgusting and doesn't want anything to do with this.. he say on there that he finds children sexually attractive. I don't want to be naive but he has never really been interested in porn so then it can't be porn addiction that lead to the taboo that drove him to the chat group. If rhe police find nothing else then can it be mental health? I find it hard to believe. Any comments welcome.
I have just come across this thread one year after 'the knock'. Initially I just wanted to cut my partner out of my life and not even consider what brought us here but recently I have started to try and understand more.
Thank you all so much for your contributions it really helps me to view my choices and marriage differently.
Thank you all so much for your contributions it really helps me to view my choices and marriage differently.