Paedophilia is an area which causes me much distress. Not because I am scared for the safety of children or anything so melodramatic, but rather because of the crazy reactionary opinions it seems to cause. I obviously didn't receive the memo which says that when dealing with paedophilia all of the values you previously held should be abandoned, instead you should on one hand discourage capital punishment, but then on the other promote genital mutilation of convicted paedophiles. I suppose this accounts for the people who watched the Brass eye special of paedophilia and thought it was real.

An important distinction which needs to be made, as it is generally ignored is that there are two definitions of paedophile in use. One, the psychological definition is someone who has a sexual preference to children. The other, the legal definition, which I refer to for clarity as convicted paedophile is someone who has been found guilty of actually sexually abusing a child. Assuming that the two are the same seems ignorant. Moreover, it is dangerous, it is the cause of attacks of those shamed by Megan's law. A lovely little law which has only gone to scare parents and promote attacks on sex offenders.

This brings me conveniently onto my next point. It seems to be assumed that a paedophile would jump at the chance to abuse any child. There is no reason to believe this, so I have to be sceptical. I'm heterosexual, but I don't try to engage in sexual activity with every woman I see, why shouldn't it be the same for paedophiles and children. Moreover, having sex with a child, for obvious reasons, doesn't work very well. I imagine a large number of paedophiles would recognise this and so not act on their desires nor would they encourage the abuse of children indirectly. The same as the majority of heterosexuals would not rape nor promote the rape of someone.

My final worry is how so many people presume to know the law regarding paedophilia. I have been told by wholly unqualified idiots such gems as "It is illegal to take pictures of children", "It is illegal to receive pictures of naked children". The first, is of course completely ridiculous, but the person who told me seemed very adamant, although should couldn't source any legislation or even a news report about it. The second, well, I suppose that would make the courts involved in certain child abuse cases criminal gangs, the irony there is fantastic. The person who told me this, after presumably realising that there was no legal basis for her ridiculous claim, decided instead just to intimidate me and to tell me to ask my lawyer .

I feel I should make things clear here, as it seems people have a habit of making wrong assumptions if I don't completely explain myself. I do not excuse the actions of convicted paedophiles. I see sexual contact with children as incompatible, the children are for obvious reasons, unable to reciprocate the feelings. However, I'm not going to be won over by fear, I'm not going to think that all paedophiles are violent child molesters, nor am I going to think that the pictures my parents took of me in the bath while I was a child are child pornography.

It is time some people started to think, and stopping practising the ridiculous activities of:

• Presuming they know about current legislation, or failing that just make some up to suit themselves.
• Assuming that naked children = child porn (I'm not exactly sure who they think is masturbating to family photo albums and medical and legal records)
• That someone who is sexually attracted to children is definitely a threat to the safety of their, or someone else's children.
• That suppression of images and 'naming and shaming' policies for convicted paedophiles are going to solve the problem or make children any safer.

For those who are interested, Brass eye: Paedogeddon