Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
This is an article on the Beeb website. Very interesting but the heading is deeply insensitive and the main article makes some very dubious assertions IMO. I'm not calling for a lynch mob but think that someone needs to explain the purpose and content.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/3216b48d-3195-4f67-8149-54586689ae3c
From the article: "I went to the university GP the next day. I said, “I’m a paedophile. Can this be cured?” The conventional view of paedophilia is that it’s an incurable condition. But this doctor laughed - he laughed! And he said, “Of course it’s curable.”
Is this true?
"...Paedophilia is not understood. People think paedophilia is synonymous with child sexual abuse."
I'm no expert but as far as I was aware: Paedophilia = sexual attraction to children. Children cannot give consent to sex, ergo an adult who has sex with a child has abused them. I've had a few beers but am I over-analysing this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/3216b48d-3195-4f67-8149-54586689ae3c
From the article: "I went to the university GP the next day. I said, “I’m a paedophile. Can this be cured?” The conventional view of paedophilia is that it’s an incurable condition. But this doctor laughed - he laughed! And he said, “Of course it’s curable.”
Is this true?
"...Paedophilia is not understood. People think paedophilia is synonymous with child sexual abuse."
I'm no expert but as far as I was aware: Paedophilia = sexual attraction to children. Children cannot give consent to sex, ergo an adult who has sex with a child has abused them. I've had a few beers but am I over-analysing this?