http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/n ... paedophile

In that scenario I find it hard to disagree with what he's advocating. It's just that major funding will be needed to accommodate all the priests and former BBC staff...

As distasteful as it is, it's about time we handled this subject in a sensible manner, without the daily mail knee-jerkers butting in.

It's a curious thing but I imagine it is not too dissimilar to any other form of sexual attraction - you can't turn off what turns you on, after all, but you can choose whether or not to act on your impulses. I might be taken by a particularly attractive women walking down the street, but I choose not to run up and molest her. The difference here is what is considered taboo, socially unacceptable, repulsive and obviously illegal. Most of those things are abstract constructs insofar as they aren't instinctual but borne of an evolved (wrong word? maybe enlightened?) aversion to darker base desires, driven by society.

I find it (oddly) refreshing that he can stand up and open up a new angle on the subject. How can you begin deal with it if you don't fully understand it?

I've always considered this to be a paraphilia - akin to attraction to same gender, animals, inanimate objects etc. Homosexuality was once seen in a similar way - as a taboo. Even before then, Greek men slept with young boys. The age of consent is 16 but I could easily see that being lowered to 13 - certainly kids are not prosecuted for having underage sex.

Agree with Spreadie - having thoughts is one thing. Acting on them is completely another.