Paedophiles

Hysteria is a dangerous beast. Hysteria removes the ability of rational people to make informed judgements on a particular problem. An example of the corrosive effects of hysteria is the diplomatic violation, gross infringement of freedom of speech and outbreaks of general violence following the publication of ‘blasphemous’ cartoons by a Danish Newspaper. The hysteria in this case enabled fear to dominate the liberal agenda, with the advocating of culls on freedom of speech in the interests of appeasing religious fanaticism, rather than the sturdy, courageous response in defence of free speech that would be more beneficial to us in the long run. A similar example of the dangers of hysteria surrounds the issue of paedophilia.
Hysteria in the case of paedophilia is entirely understandable. Society and the state must be obligated to take all possible measures to protect children. Moreover, a person who is a paedophile who fails to control their urges must be dealt with by the full dispatch of the law; some may even advocate the death penalty. This is all to the good; dangerous persons must be removed from situations where they may be a threat to children.
There is, however, a problem. Hysteria has caused the whole subject to be taboo, immune from discussion with those unfortunate enough to be encumbered with this most evil of sexualities inevitably labelled as perverts and monsters. I propose that this attitude increases the risk to children in society, and diminishes the well being of society as a whole.
I will start with the assumption that a person who is a paedophile has no more control over their sexuality that does a heterosexual or homosexual. Any objections to this assumption can be countered by the question of why anyone would choose to be a paedophile. Following from this assumption is a further one; given that child abuse appears to have occurred throughout history, there will always be a certain percentage of the population that are paedophiles. With this in mind, one can paint a picture of someone born into a life and a sexuality that would be, to put it mildly, a living hell.
Imagine a person who was a paedophile. This person has no control over his or her sexuality. This person is also a decent human being, and knows that his or her sexual urges can never, under any circumstances, be satisfied, as to satisfy them would be to commit a horrific crime. This person exists in a society which teems with children; they go to schools, they are the children of friends, colleagues and neighbours. Wherever the person turned, he or she would be continually confronted by images of that which is forever forbidden. Imagine for a moment knowing that the immensely powerful urges that can dominate a human being can never, ever be satisfied. A third assumption I would make would be that such people exist, and have for all their lives fought their sexuality. It leads me to wonder if there are people who have gone a lifetime suppressing their sexuality in order to avoid a terrible crime. Such people would be worthy of the highest praise; indeed, such moral strength would be inspiring.
Now let us imagine the man or woman who has less moral fibre. A weakness of this sort would be tolerated in people of normal sexuality, perhaps manifesting in minor moral transgressions. For the paedophile of this sort, they may never actually abuse a child, but they may at some time look at child pornography, maybe ignoring the fact that the children in the images are being abused.
Further down the scale would be the weakest person, someone for whom the strength of the urge simply outweighs morality, or someone who has no morals at all. This person would be concerned with simply avoiding capture, and may never abuse a child in their home town or country, but may travel overseas as a so called ‘sex tourist’, where secrecy and the ability to objectify an individual of a different culture weakens moral constraints. Or they might create elaborate plans to ensnare children in their own countries. Such cases form the prevalent popular imagery, monsters whose crimes fuel the hysteria surrounding the issue.
In order to help the first person, restrain the second and control the third, the hysteria generated taboo need to be removed from the subject. Branding all paedophiles as monsters retards progress. The moral first example will forever be surrounded by secrecy, never able to come forward and admit to their sexuality. It is for people like this that I believe a ‘cure’ should be sought for. It is unclear whether the libido of a human being can be chemically or surgically removed, but strenuous attempts should be made with this goal in mind. If such a ‘cure’ were possible, a paedophile could go to their doctor and openly discuss their sexuality. If an effective combination of therapy, drugs and surgery could be available, then the moral person of the first example could find relief from their hell and become a functioning member of society. The same would apply to the person of the second example. The person of the third example, having waived their rights by their actions, could have the treatment enforced on them. In all cases, the benefit to society would be a huge reduction in the threat level to children, and the improvement in the general well being of people of this sexuality.
In summary, restraining the hysteria and breaking the taboo would allow high profile research in a medical cure to be publicly endorsed. If a cure could then be found, and people could come forward to a medical program, a substantial improvement would be made in the well being of society.