Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

Reality Orlando

Verified Aquaculturalist
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
26
How can crimes against children no longer be crimes?

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

"...What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred?” Kramer wrote in a March 14, 2009 blog entry on the website ReformSexOffenderLaws.org. “How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”

What purpose does it serve? How about the purpose of IDing perverts who prey on children. Ugh.


http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
 
B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Wow. So I guess if you're attracted to a minor (as an adult) then it isn't a crime, you're only a pedophile. Only if you ACT upon the feeling it's a crime so we have to specify between being sexually attracted to a child and the crime of acting on it????
The poor law abiding pedophiles are getting a bad rap! Sigh....
 
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Wow. So I guess if you're attracted to a minor (as an adult) then it isn't a crime, you're only a pedophile. Only if you ACT upon the feeling it's a crime so we have to specify between being sexually attracted to a child and the crime of acting on it????
The poor law abiding pedophiles are getting a bad rap! Sigh....

And to complicate things even further, all 'persons' who have raped, molested and/or exploited children for their own personal gain or sexual pleasure deny they have done so, and only claim they just innocently "love" children (though usually they specify "love little girls" or "love little boys".


Most will take it one step further. They would never "hurt" a child. Only love them. If there is evidence that rape occured, the child "wanted" it.

I know under the free speech this kind of assembly has to be allowed. But it just burns my b_tt. I hope that LE of some type will be there undercover taking names and pictures of these guys!
 
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Wow. So I guess if you're attracted to a minor (as an adult) then it isn't a crime, you're only a pedophile. Only if you ACT upon the feeling it's a crime so we have to specify between being sexually attracted to a child and the crime of acting on it????
The poor law abiding pedophiles are getting a bad rap! Sigh....

Isn't that a good thing? Don't we want pedophiles to restrain themselves?

I don't know the blog cited, but if they have to go to Jerry Falwell's university to find an "expert" to incite panic, I question the standards of journalism.

So I'm not sure what this group hopes to accomplish. Defining attraction to any minor as "pedophilia" may be good law (for the protection of kids), but it's bad psychology. A 19-year-old who dates a 16-year-old isn't the same as a 50-year-old who molests 8-year-olds, even if both acts should be illegal.
 
Very true, Nova. There's a big difference in mentality between a 20 year old interested in teenage girls, and a 50 year old interested in 6 year olds.

And ultimately, don't we want people to resist those urges? Ideally, we will eventually develop some way of treating this as a mental illness, so that those who want to get help can, and thus prevent anything from occurring.

We had a client who had been abused and molested himself as a child. He had been in therapy for over twenty years, trying to not act on his urges. He eventually downloaded movies and was caught and is now in prison. This man loathed himself. I couldn't help but feel bad for him, because he had done everything he could - inpatient treatment, therapists, drugs, etc. and nothing had gotten rid of those urges. He hated himself so completely, but couldn't help himself.

The whole thing reeks of bad journalism, but I think it's thought provoking. As a whole, society would benefit more by finding ways to treat these types of deviant urges, rather than acting after the fact. The judicial system must balance the competing interests of rehabilitation and deterrence, but jail or registration isn't going to deter someone who's wired wrong. It would be a good thing if we were able to find a way to treat this.
 
After seeing the articles about this when they first came out, I made the mistake of looking up the organization's website. It trashed my blood pressure.
 
Nothing normal about a pedophile!
 
If someone is hardwired to be sexually attracted to children, then they need tools to make sure they dont act on it. If. This is the part I struggle with. I can see the evolutionary value of someone being attracted to the same sex and I can see that it is reasonable that people, for example, might choose to retreat to their own sex occasionally for a number of reasons.

I dont get how humans would evolve to be hardwired to be attracted to children. It doesnt make any sense to me, and it is hard for me to buy it. It *feels* to me like it is really about control and domination and access.

But I am a layperson.
 
If someone is hardwired to be sexually attracted to children, then they need tools to make sure they dont act on it. If. This is the part I struggle with. I can see the evolutionary value of someone being attracted to the same sex and I can see that it is reasonable that people, for example, might choose to retreat to their own sex occasionally for a number of reasons.

I dont get how humans would evolve to be hardwired to be attracted to children. It doesnt make any sense to me, and it is hard for me to buy it. It *feels* to me like it is really about control and domination and access.

But I am a layperson.

believe09, if we could avoid bringing us gay people into discussions of pedophilia, I would really appreciate it. I know you were contrasting the two and had nothing but good intentions, but it's taken us decades to live down the stereotype that we are somehow akin to child molesters. :)

I think it makes perfect evolutionary sense to be attracted to the young: they are stronger and healthier and physically better suited to survive childbirth. If heterosexual men were honest, most would admit their sexual ideal is a 16-year-old. Modern society recognizes reasons why teenagers aren't really prepared to be sexually active with adults and has rightly raised the age of consent, but that doesn't change the underlying biological urge.

True pedophilia--attraction to the pre-pubescent--makes less if any evolutionary sense, so I think that has to be considered paraphilia.

But the distinction between the two is yet another reason why using the word pedophilia to describe all attraction to minors of any age is bad medicine. (Again, I'm not arguing that we should abolish ages of consent, just that we shouldn't confuse science and law.)
 
I wonder if it's not necessarily being hardwired for something, but that something goes wrong, like when low serotonin levels prompt depression?

I'm not a psychologist or scientist, so who knows? I think for some, like believe said, it is about power and control. With others, it truly seems to be a matter of wiring or hormones or something, because they try to have normative urges, and can't. I've seen both types with my job.
 
Oh, please God, that real normal people are there to document & take pictures, video, names, license tags with car descriptions...anything available. This group and their activities should be watched CLOSELY.

Miss Izzy is not going to be happy, jmo
 
So I'm not sure what this group hopes to accomplish. Defining attraction to any minor as "pedophilia" may be good law (for the protection of kids), but it's bad psychology. A 19-year-old who dates a 16-year-old isn't the same as a 50-year-old who molests 8-year-olds, even if both acts should be illegal.

Respectfully snipped by me.

Charlie, Nova is pointing out that defining attraction to a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18), while good law, is not "pedophilia." Pedophilia, by definition, is characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.

As Nova points out, a 19 year old involved with a 16 year old is NOT a pedophile - although his/her act certainly is illegal, and rightly so. It's a different kettle of fish than a 50 year old interested in an 8 year old. The first is not pedophilia, and the latter is.
 
I also just realized I was referring to Nova as "she", without knowing his/her gender. Sorry if I'm incorrect - no insult intended!
 
believe09, if we could avoid bringing us gay people into discussions of pedophilia, I would really appreciate it. I know you were contrasting the two and had nothing but good intentions, but it's taken us decades to live down the stereotype that we are somehow akin to child molesters. :)

I think it makes perfect evolutionary sense to be attracted to the young: they are stronger and healthier and physically better suited to survive childbirth. If heterosexual men were honest, most would admit their sexual ideal is a 16-year-old. Modern society recognizes reasons why teenagers aren't really prepared to be sexually active with adults and has rightly raised the age of consent, but that doesn't change the underlying biological urge.

True pedophilia--attraction to the pre-pubescent--makes less if any evolutionary sense, so I think that has to be considered paraphilia.

But the distinction between the two is yet another reason why using the word pedophilia to describe all attraction to minors of any age is bad medicine. (Again, I'm not arguing that we should abolish ages of consent, just that we shouldn't confuse science and law.)

Homosexuality was brought into it by Dr. Fred Berlin;

Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

I found that disgusting. There is nothing similar between pedophilia and homosexuality. Two adults being attracted to each other isn't the same as a man to a child.

As a raving heterosexual I'd have to say that 30 is my ideal age for a woman. 16 year olds are pretty but they also talk. I couldn't be aroused by a 16 year old, no matter how pretty, for any amount of time if she was talking.

A 30 year old woman is at her peak physically and is sophisticated enough to carry on a real conversation. JMO

As far as the article states about wanting to change the mindset of men attracted to children as being a psychological defect I say gross. It should be considered a psychological defect. I also think serial killing is a psychological defect. JMO
 
I wonder if it's not necessarily being hardwired for something, but that something goes wrong, like when low serotonin levels prompt depression?

I'm not a psychologist or scientist, so who knows? I think for some, like believe said, it is about power and control. With others, it truly seems to be a matter of wiring or hormones or something, because they try to have normative urges, and can't. I've seen both types with my job.

This is totally my non-scientific, layperson's opinion, but I have long thought that pedophilia stems from arrested social development. The pedophile is attracted to children because they are on his level, or at least a level where he feels he has control; adults are too powerful and, to oversimplify, scare the pedophile on some fundamental level.

Anyone who knows better should feel free to contradict me. As I said, this is just non-professional speculation.
 
Homosexuality was brought into it by Dr. Fred Berlin;

Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

I found that disgusting. There is nothing similar between pedophilia and homosexuality. Two adults being attracted to each other isn't the same as a man to a child.

As a raving heterosexual I'd have to say that 30 is my ideal age for a woman. 16 year olds are pretty but they also talk. I couldn't be aroused by a 16 year old, no matter how pretty, for any amount of time if she was talking.

A 30 year old woman is at her peak physically and is sophisticated enough to carry on a real conversation. JMO

As far as the article states about wanting to change the mindset of men attracted to children as being a psychological defect I say gross. It should be considered a psychological defect. I also think serial killing is a psychological defect. JMO

Pedophilia has exactly as much (and no more) to do with homosexuality as it does with heterosexuality. The only point of comparison is political: once upon a time gays and pedophiles were treated much the same by LE. But since one involves only consensual partners and the other involves a child who cannot consent, the comparison ends there, practically before it has begun.

I agree with you about age and taste, Dan. I wasn't interested in teenagers when I was a teen myself. I think men don't become interesting until their 30s (and my husband is still very attractive in his late 60s).

But I was talking on the whole. We've had threads about this before and most of the male posters admitted 16 was their dream age, even while agreeing that sex with girl that age is always wrong.

***

NOTE TO EVERYONE: Psychiatric definitions may require some tweeking, but pedophilia is NEVER going to be accepted as a "normal" impulse, regardless of the findings of this committee. It's true gays finally overturned the DSM definition of homosexuality as a mental illness, but to so, we had to specifically demonstrate we were NOT a threat to children. The almost universal protective impulse toward children will prevent pedophiles from ever being recognized as "normal." MOO, of course.
 
I also just realized I was referring to Nova as "she", without knowing his/her gender. Sorry if I'm incorrect - no insult intended!

I am a he, Ana. And gay, as you can tell from my use of "we" in references to gay people.

But the overwhelming majority of posters at WS seem to be female. It's a natural assumption and doesn't offend me in the slightest.

So I accept your very gracious apology, but it wasn't necessary.
 
Now Nova, you know I was discussing wiring. Substitute "aversion to hot sauce" then.

I see children differently-I dont see them as healthier and stronger. They are infintely more vulnerable, imo, than a grown person.

That is why my feeling is that it is some kind of domination. And grooming children seems like such classic manipulation, except it puts ME in mind of a cat playing with a creature it has captured before the cat kills it.
 
Now Nova, you know I was discussing wiring. Substitute "aversion to hot sauce" then.

I see children differently-I dont see them as healthier and stronger. They are infintely more vulnerable, imo, than a grown person.

That is why my feeling is that it is some kind of domination. And grooming children seems like such classic manipulation, except it puts ME in mind of a cat playing with a creature it has captured before the cat kills it.

With regard to my evolutionary argument, I actually used the phrase "the young," not "children." As I'm sure you know, the teen years were considered prime childbearing years until the modern era (when the complexities of modern jobs began to require a labor force to spend longer in school). I certainly wasn't talking about pre-pubescent children and I wasn't advocating that teens should be having children.

Regardless of what worked or didn't work 200 years ago, today teenagers need to be in school, not at home nursing babies.

I think you're right about domination being a large part of the appeal. But it's obviously more complicated than that because there are adults willing to be "dominated" (legally) if that is all that is required.

***

Yes, of course, I know you meant no harm in your brief comparison to gay people, nor was I in anyway offended by what you posted. But we still have people like Rick Santorum who talking about slippery slopes and casually link homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy together as if they have anything to do with one another. I just don't want to help that sort of propaganda, even inadvertently.
 
Don't see why the people who have any particular mental disorder should have direct input or influence into the scientific definition of their disorder. Also, people who are biased because the definition might directly impact their lives, should definitely not have input -- I'm including both pedophiles and people who make their living campaigning against pedophiles in that group. I hope that any changes made in the DSM should be based on scientific evidence about the disorder, without regard to politics.

Also, I'm confused. If pedophilia is "normalized" to a certain extent (what the pedophiles themselves are lobbying for), wouldn't that make the consequences of committing the crime of child molestation worse for the perpetrator, with less focus on rehabilitation and treatment and more on punishment and sequestration? And, on the other hand, if pedophilia is described as more abnormal psychologically (as the anti-conference spokespeople seem to advocate), wouldn't that tend to turn the child molester into a victim in need of understanding and treatment? I don't understand the sides being taken in this fight.

Child molesters are criminals who inflict severe injury to their victims; their sentences should reflect the magnitude of their crimes, and I'm all for removing the concept of illness and treatment from their sentences. It doesn't seem to have any effect anyway.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
814
Total visitors
915

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,758
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top