nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scholar Calls Pedophilia 'An Unchangeable Sexual Orientation' that Should Be Accepted

sexmag

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society

Ehhhhhhh? We should accept diddlers now?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fann Linn

2 week old baby raped in the north. There should be no mercy shown to paedophiles.

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

Is it a fact that there's no more of a compulsion in them, than there is in an average sex-drive person of a normal sexual orientation?

That’s about the sum of it really. In that sense they’re no different to anyone else in terms of their sex drive or their compulsion to act on their thoughts. There have been studies that people with paedophilia have lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy than the general population, but the major criticism of those studies are selection bias, correlation as opposed to causation, and small numbers. Lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy are not in and of themselves inherently harmful, but in individuals with conditions such as paedophilia, they can present as a danger to themselves or others.

Same thing with having either a high, low or no sex drive whatsoever - in and of itself it’s not harmful to anyone, just ask anyone who is asexual or aromatic (or both), they lead perfectly normal lives. People who refer to themselves as “non-offending paedophiles” or “virtuous paedophiles”, may well be asexual as well as being attracted to children. They may be homosexual, asexual paedophiles, bisexual asexual paedophiles, or heterosexual asexual paedophiles. The fact is they’re still paedophiles, they still present as a danger to children, like any other harm we strive to protect children from and prevent them from being exposed to anything which may cause them harm. That includes people who would attempt to hold society to ransom if their behaviours and attitudes aren’t accepted.

I remember last year there was a similar thread about child sex dolls and it was argued that they should be legalised as they may prevent paedophiles from exhibiting the effects of their condition and causing harm to children. The evidence again that this methodology is effective is based upon selection bias and small numbers. The reality however is quite different -

Arrest over distribution of 'child sex dolls' as gardaí raid 32 premises

Rather than reducing their behaviour as it had been argued, the reality is that the existence of such child sex dolls not only enables, but exacerbates their attitudes and behaviours, and in their own communities online where they are accepted and accommodated, there has been a rise in incidents and extremes of child sexual exploitation, as opposed to any argument that it would allieviate or decrease such behaviours and attitudes -

Report shows 40% rise in online child abuse

In the most crude terms, it would be analogous to expecting a person who has a compulsion to commit rape to be able to satisfy themselves with masturbation. We wouldn’t accept any argument that suggests society should be more accepting of people who have a compulsion to commit rape in the hope that they wouldn’t commit rape. If it were ever acceptable to commit rape, then people would continue to commit rape and more visibly so, causing harm to other people who have an objection to being used as sex objects to sate anyone else’s maladjusted attitudes and behaviours. For people who regard children as sex objects, that kind of thinking should never be deemed socially acceptable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think PB you might be unintentionally misinterpreting what I said. In Ireland, currently, under the mental health act, people who present as a danger to themselves or others can be committed to institutions where they will receive rehabilitative treatment. How to determine who to commit is quite easy - they present as either a danger to themselves or to other people.

They don’t have to have committed any crime. Having thoughts of causing harm to themselves, or to other people is not a crime in and of itself. It’s when due to their condition, those thoughts can be harmful to the individual, and can render the individual in such a position that they not only present as a danger to themselves, but they present a danger to other people.

.... except that's not happening. And part of the problem is fear of insolation and ostracisation. Part of the problem is also that a lot of pedophiles don't see themselves as dangerous because they don't feel under pressure to act and probably think they're safe around kids. Remember: Tim Allen raised three kids before he was outed, and look how that turned out.

The vast majority of people who are known to be pedophiles are known to be so for the sole reason they got caught abusing. That's not going to change under the self-commitment theory. Or if it is, please tell me how.

We hold individuals responsible for their behaviours and attitudes towards others, as we should, rather than allowing them to suggest that if we do not accept their behaviours and attitudes, they will continue to exhibit those behaviours and attitudes to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society who are in no position to be able to protect themselves from those adults, without adult intervention.

Not sure I follow: you want to hold them responsible for an act before they carry out an act...? How do you know they'll commit an act?

How many pedophiles do you think go through entire lifetimes without every abusing, or without ever getting caught abusing?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

I think PB you might be unintentionally misinterpreting what I said. In Ireland, currently, under the mental health act, people who present as a danger to themselves or others can be committed to institutions where they will receive rehabilitative treatment. How to determine who to commit is quite easy - they present as either a danger to themselves or to other people.

They don’t have to have committed any crime. Having thoughts of causing harm to themselves, or to other people is not a crime in and of itself. It’s when due to their condition, those thoughts can be harmful to the individual, and can render the individual in such a position that they not only present as a danger to themselves, but they present a danger to other people.

@wexie People may also commit themselves voluntarily, but the only people who tend to commit themselves voluntarily are people who acknowledge that their condition presents as either a danger to themselves or to other people. The fact that there is a shortage of State facilities is a funding issue, and private treatment can present an affordability issue that the individual must bear, not the State.

The second point, I see your point. But again, if someone is abusing and does NOT seek help or is persuaded not to seek help, the abuse will still continue.

Yes, it will, obviously, which is why charging society with responsibility for individuals attitudes and behaviours towards others is not only misguided, but it’s ineffective. Arguing that society should accept paedophilia or anyone who would cause harm to a child, if they want to prevent children from being subjected to sexual abuse, is literally holding society to ransom. We don’t allow any group in society to hold the rest of society to ransom.

We hold individuals responsible for their behaviours and attitudes towards others, as we should, rather than allowing them to suggest that if we do not accept their behaviours and attitudes, they will continue to exhibit those behaviours and attitudes to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society who are in no position to be able to protect themselves from those adults, without adult intervention.

wexie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

And, while I'm not entirely sure how things work here, I'd imagine it would be next to (if not completely) impossible to get into these institutions voluntarily without having committed a crime, even if one wanted to be committed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Our current MO is certainly not to wait until anyone abuses a child, but rather preventing children from being abused. We commit people to institutions who present a danger to themselves or others and that’s where they receive help in coping with their condition. People don’t wait until someone abuses a child if they are aware there is the potential risk of anyone doing so.

That’s not a problem with therapy, it’s a problem with the person who commits a crime, and covering it up is doubling down on the harm that is done. It’s exactly why there is and absolutely should be mandatory reporting when children are at risk. It’s not mandatory reporting of someone who has committed a crime, it’s mandatory reporting of any potential risk to children. Mandatory reporting is something which many organisations have fought against for their own gain, and something which I would fully support them being forced by law to do, as opposed to being aware that children are in danger and choosing not to do anything about it to protect either the individual, or themselves.

The stigma that exists is due to the potential harm that may be caused to children. It’s impossible to destigmatise harming children, and I wouldn’t want to. People don’t seek help if they feel there isn’t any reason for them to seek help which is generally the attitude of people who refer to their condition as an orientation which should be accepted. Even if you wanted to frame their condition as an orientation (which Is a paradigm I do not accept), then any form of therapy to address their condition would be analogous to gay conversion therapy, and such therapies are generally regarded as ineffective and arguably cause individuals more harm than any benefits they claim are provided by such attempts to address an orientation which in and of itself does not cause people to harm other people, let alone allow them to imagine that harming other people should be acceptable and accepted by society.

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

The second point, I see your point. But again, if someone is abusing and does NOT seek help or is persuaded not to seek help, the abuse will still continue.

Widdershins

Is it a fact that there's no more of a compulsion in them, than there is in an average sex-drive person of a normal sexual orientation?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

Our current MO is certainly not to wait until anyone abuses a child, but rather preventing children from being abused. We commit people to institutions who present a danger to themselves or others and that’s where they receive help in coping with their condition. People don’t wait until someone abuses a child if they are aware there is the potential risk of anyone doing so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The other problem with therapy is that if any crimes are disclosed, the counsellor is legally required to report them to the police, which automatically creates a barrier to getting help.

That’s not a problem with therapy, it’s a problem with the person who commits a crime, and covering it up is doubling down on the harm that is done. It’s exactly why there is and absolutely should be mandatory reporting when children are at risk. It’s not mandatory reporting of someone who has committed a crime, it’s mandatory reporting of any potential risk to children. Mandatory reporting is something which many organisations have fought against for their own gain, and something which I would fully support them being forced by law to do, as opposed to being aware that children are in danger and choosing not to do anything about it to protect either the individual, or themselves.

Shenshen wrote: »

In order for people with such an orientation to feel in a position to seek help, that stigma needs to be addressed first.

The stigma that exists is due to the potential harm that may be caused to children. It’s impossible to destigmatise harming children, and I wouldn’t want to. People don’t seek help if they feel there isn’t any reason for them to seek help which is generally the attitude of people who refer to their condition as an orientation which should be accepted. Even if you wanted to frame their condition as an orientation (which Is a paradigm I do not accept), then any form of therapy to address their condition would be analogous to gay conversion therapy, and such therapies are generally regarded as ineffective and arguably cause individuals more harm than any benefits they claim are provided by such attempts to address an orientation which in and of itself does not cause people to harm other people, let alone allow them to imagine that harming other people should be acceptable and accepted by society.

AllForIt

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

https://dublingazette.com/news/south-dublin-news/sallynoggin-residents-celebrate-after-alleged-sex-offender-clinic-booted-out/

The above is what 'the community' think of such therapy.

Shenshen

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

I agree with the poster a few posts above and I think there are issues around socially enforced acceptance of things that run counter to instinct, especially for children and women. ''Acceptance without exception'' is a really problematic motto used by the UK charity Stonewall.

Because if you advertised that a particular group was to meet at a certain time in a certain place - what do you think would happen?
The concerned public would be highly likely to show up and physically express their feelings towards these people. If I was in that situation, I would not feel safe in any way attending something as public as this.

In order for people with such an orientation to feel in a position to seek help, that stigma needs to be addressed first.

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think your possibly overestimating peoples compassion - they may well applaud you but you can be damn sure they'd then distance themselves.

There's no way I'm spending my time with someone I know is struggling to not stab me.

Sure - fair play to you for seeking help, but it's also very likely that we are done now buddy!

Fair point

But still - sympathetic. I'm going to avoid provoking you, but I can empathise that you're struggling, and if I can help, let me know.

You fancy kids? I'm going to keep my children away from you, and if I see you crossing the road, I may not slow down.

Ultimately both are people struggling with something that isn't their fault, but one person will be hated for it, the other will be treated with compassion. So it's understandable that the former is never going to stick their hand up and go, "Yeah, that's me".

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

It would be one thing to say, "I'm feeling really angry, I keep feeling the urge to punch and stab people, and I'm afraid I'll lose control". People would be sympathetic and applaud you for having the courage to come forward.
.

I think your possibly overestimating peoples compassion - they may well applaud you but you can be damn sure they'd then distance themselves.

There's no way I'm spending my time with someone I know is struggling to not stab me.

Sure - fair play to you for seeking help, but it's also very likely that we are done now buddy!

seamus

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

It's a fraught issue.

Aside from, as mentioned above, a desire to not be associated with criminals, there may be statutory reporting obligations imposed on those running the therapy. That is, someone arrives in and says they are attracted to children, and the therapist may then be obliged to report that to Tusla and an investigation initiated.

So given the choice between voluntarily "outing" oneself and being instantly ostracised and investigated, or just trying to keep control of it yourself, it's understandable why people wouldn't come forward and seek help.

It would be one thing to say, "I'm feeling really angry, I keep feeling the urge to punch and stab people, and I'm afraid I'll lose control". People would be sympathetic and applaud you for having the courage to come forward.

Come out and say, "I feel attracted to children. I'm deeply ashamed, I hate myself. I would never do anything to harm a child, but I cannot make this go away. I need help coping", and you'll be lucky if someone doesn't corner you in an alley and beat you to death.

wexie

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

I'd imagine that those people out there that do have the compulsion but don't act on it don't want to be associated with the actual convicted offenders anymore than most of us do.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

The only one I know of - and I'm open to correction on this - was that you had to be convicted of an offence before you were legible to attend. There was also the Grenada Institute that provided counselling but Alan Shatter in his ultimate wisdom decided to shut down.

The other problem with therapy is that if any crimes are disclosed, the counsellor is legally required to report them to the police, which automatically creates a barrier to getting help.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, normalisng wasn't the word - accepting is. And while I accept even that puts people off (bearing in mind: I'm assuming we're talking about people with the attraction but who have never acted on it) you have to wonder: how else are you going to make it a safer place?

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

I agree with the poster a few posts above and I think there are issues around socially enforced acceptance of things that run counter to instinct, especially for children and women. ''Acceptance without exception'' is a really problematic motto used by the UK charity Stonewall.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

I would be very wary of any attempt to normalise it.

Well, normalisng wasn't the word - accepting is. And while I accept even that puts people off (bearing in mind: I'm assuming we're talking about people with the attraction but who have never acted on it) you have to wonder: how else are you going to make it a safer place?

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

Widdershins

I would be very wary of any attempt to normalise it.

sbsquarepants

piplip87 wrote: »

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

What do you mean by those terms? I have never even heard the phrase demisexual used before?

farmchoice

piplip87 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

what is pedosexual in relation to a 12 year old? finding another 12 year old attractive?

Grayson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know. I think there's a definite push lately in the online world to a) push paedophilia as just another sexual orientation ie: normalisation b) downplay possession of images of child abuse c) portray it as safe and ok to indulge urges to abuse children through child sex dolls or animated porn

Read the comments on any article about child abuse and you'll see these themes constantly. Its like a playbook. Coupled with the movement to push the boundaries around children and consent when it comes to life changing medical interventions , it's not a stretch to think that we are seeing a resurgence of nambla like ideas in a different guise and using slightly more subtle methods.

I think it really is a stretch. I don't think it's possible to make it acceptable.

Edit: when you see stuff like people talking about animated porn or sex dolls it's seen as a method to help someone to control their urges. Plus neither actually involve real children. That's the red line for everyone on this thread. If a real child is involved at all, including in images, then it's a very big no.

As for the rest, I think people are trying to understand what's happening in the brain of a paedophile. We know some are actually made because if you are abused you are more likely to be an abuser. However we also know that the reasons and motivations for that are different to someone who's sexually attracted to kids.

Personally I've expressed sympathy for someone who has an attraction but never acts on it. It must be a horrible existence. There's zero chance of ever finding a relationship plus if you ever mentioned, even to your closest friend, you'd be shunned. I do think there are probably good people out there who have this affliction and need help. However if anyone ever acts on it, as I said that's a big red line.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

It's not like we've seen a resurgence in Nambla recently.

I don't know. I think there's a definite push lately in the online world to a) push paedophilia as just another sexual orientation ie: normalisation b) downplay possession of images of child abuse c) portray it as safe and ok to indulge urges to abuse children through child sex dolls or animated porn

Read the comments on any article about child abuse and you'll see these themes constantly. Its like a playbook. Coupled with the movement to push the boundaries around children and consent when it comes to life changing medical interventions , it's not a stretch to think that we are seeing a resurgence of nambla like ideas in a different guise and using slightly more subtle methods.

pickarooney

gozunda wrote: »

Wow that's was quite a rapid response- unfortunately more of the same...

My previous points stand ...

That is a dog-ignorant thing to do. By all means disagree with a poster but just drawing lines through someone else's civilly written post is a dick move.

Grayson

piplip87 wrote: »

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

Not really though. All other sexualities etc only affect the person who's actually dealing with them and a potential consensual partner. That can't happen in this case. In all the other cases people attitudes are "well it doesn't hurt anyone so whatever rocks your boat". I'm fine with that. I think a lot of people are. That doesn't mean that you'd be ok with kids being abused.

It's not like we've seen a resurgence in Nambla recently.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

piplip87 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

This is probably because there is still no adequate sexual education in Irish schools. Teenagers (and pre-teens, apparently) have to go online to find out more about their sexuality and we wind up here.

piplip87

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

No not at all. I am saying the pedosexual movement is following the same trends that some of the other 50 or so sexualities are following.

A few Instagram influencers start mentioning it.
A few if Thier followers start advocating for it.
A few of Thier youngers followers start talking about it. Then what do you know there's kids already confused because of the pressures to chose a sexuality and gender by the age of 13 think it's the one that suits them best.

In my work I deal with alot if social media profiles and it's the trends I see. 12 and 13 year olds advocating for pansexual, demisexual and the like. I have already seen a trend towards the pedosexual movement. It's sinister and needs to be stopped

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Scary thing is, and I'm not being like a typical Sun article "PAEDO ON THE LOSE" sensationalizing here - but I do think there are lot more pedophiles out there then we'd like to believe.

Part of that problem though is the hysteria around it; the assumption that someone with these urges will eventually succumb.

If you think about it logically it's like saying that your wife is in danger of being raped by the heterosexual man next door, and you should therefore be wary of ever letting him near her.

If the vast majority of human beings are capable of interacting with other human beings and not spontaneously raping them, then it stands to reason that the same holds true for paedophiles.

However disturbing it feels that someone could be looking at your kids and not just seeing them as kids, we can't nor should we police what's going on in peoples' heads.

Over the last few years I have seen lots of men taking photos of kids in beaches/parks - and they've been so fecking brazen about it too ...

Probably their own kids tbh.

Grayson

piplip87 wrote: »

In my job I deal with alot of this gender/sexuality stuff. There's like 47 different genders and as many sexualities now.

It's all a load of bollocks. The pedosexual movement is emerging from all of this while I don't think it will ever be accepted by the mainstream it has to be said that alot of this pansexual, demisexual crap is been picked up by 12-16 year olds and it may not take to much for this age group to start identifying as pedosexual and we could see an increase in 14 year olds in relationships with 6 or 7 year olds.

So you're saying that teenagers are being encouraged in some ways to be paedophiles?

Grayson

Blaze Lemon Industry wrote: »

If you replace pedophilia with homosexual and read the comments, it's eerily similar to what people thought 30+ years ago.

Before you get up on your high horse, I am not saying that they are the same thing.

I remember as an early teem my dad saying something about gay people along the lines of "you wouldn't leave one alone with your children". It was assumed by many people that gay people were paedophiles. It probably still is assumed by some. I know a lot of the stuff I see coming out of places like Russia or Uganda alludes to it.

piplip87

In my job I deal with alot of this gender/sexuality stuff. There's like 47 different genders and as many sexualities now.

It's all a load of bollocks. The pedosexual movement is emerging from all of this while I don't think it will ever be accepted by the mainstream it has to be said that alot of this pansexual, demisexual crap is been picked up by 12-16 year olds and it may not take to much for this age group to start identifying as pedosexual and we could see an increase in 14 year olds in relationships with 6 or 7 year olds.