Dr James Cantor - anti-transing children, pro-paedophilia as valid sexuality

Even if a pedophile never crosses the line into forms of sexual abuse of the kind that are in theory able to be prosecuted I'd argue that the grooming behavior they exhibit is a harm in itself. Both in terms of any children unfortunate enough to be around them and of the adults that they may groom into displaying the sort of attitudes that Cantor is showing here.

Or c. this bloke doesn't know what 'sexual orientation' means.

He mentions "using causes-no-harm to distinguish right from wrong."

And who gets to determine whether harm has been caused? Will it be the child victims who are taught that their abuser's sexuality is healthy and valid? Thought not.

Compulsory heterosexuality training causes harm. Normalising and celebrating paedophiles causes harm.

Breaking the taboos around sexual activity with children causes harm.

Cantor could do to look at his own behaviour here. He's causing harm by championing the rights of males who have a sexual interest in prepubescent females. Which means his behaviour is wrong.

So be the change you want to see

Excellent point. Thank you.

This is from a 2018 Commons Select Committee paper on the future of Policing.
I have just c and p this relevant bit-will try and link to doc.

83.The distribution, dissemination and downloading of indecent images of children (IIOC) accounts for a significant proportion of the police and NCA workload from CSA, and has been described by the NPSCC as a “social emergency”.126 The UK is reportedly the third-largest global consumer of child abuse images, behind the USA and Canada,127 and Chief Constable Bailey told us that the police are “arresting getting on towards 450 men every month and safeguarding almost 700 children” in relation to IIOC alone.128 Between December 2010 and 2017, there was an 1,239% increase in the total number of industry referrals received by the NCA (for example, IIOC found by internet companies on their platforms), and a 102% increase in the number of public reports. This includes criminal behaviour online, as well as indecent images.129

84.As part of our data collection exercise, we asked forces for figures on the number of IIOC incidents recorded locally in the year ending March 2018, as well as the four years previously. When City of London Police’s nominal figures were eliminated, the other forces reported an average increase of 508% between 2013–14 and 2017–18, including notable increases of 1,544% in Durham, 1,954% in Northamptonshire (increasing from 13 to 267), and 916% in Cleveland. Across all forces, the total number of recorded IIOC incidents increased by 424%.

85.Very little is known about the characteristics of online CSA offenders—or about child sex offenders more broadly—but research suggests that between 16% and 50% will go on to commit contact offences,130,131 raising serious questions about the risk to children if CSA offenders continue to have contact with children, either in the family, at work, or as a result of roles within the community. Even these figures may not be reliable, however: Cassandra Harrison told us that research on the relationship between IIOC and contact offending had been contested.132 Regardless of subsequent offending behaviour, it is clear that IIOC offences are serious forms of child abuse in their own right.

Police units who are charged with catching abusers take prosecuting them pretty seriously AFAIK. Don't forget, the police see this shit first hand. They are under no illusions about who these scumbags are.

Possibilities here seems to be either a. pedos are feeling a lot bolder in terms of showing themselves online or b. this is a case of someone being taken in by sob stories in much the same way many people are with TRA stuff.

Esp as most peadophile are opposite sex oriented.

What the hell?

I'm pretty sure increased acceptance of homosexuality was done on the basis that gay people are not perverts or a danger to children.

Is he actually trying to increase anti-gay sentiment amongst the general populace? Because this seems a bloody good way of going about it.

Poster upthread said

'Our prisons are at absolute bursting point right now. This is partly due to the thousands and thousands of males currently inside for viewing images of child abuse. Digital crimes are quite easy to catch, and the Police have been making a concerted effort to do so.'

Is there a link or stats? My understanding was the police courts etc couldn't really be bothered as they feel it's low level and going after upstanding lovely men etc

Re the above
Almost all child molesters are men and majority victims female
Straight men who like kids
How does that fit in lgb

The idea its a ' minority' sexuality has something a bit not chiming right tbh. Gay does not =pervert. Lots of perverts are straight...

Is lgb+ just having everyhing shoehorned into it, to legitimise?

"Our ethical principles mean we should group paedophiles with gays and lesbians" is what he's saying, Goose. It's in the tweet in the OP.

You can sit around wondering what benign meaning we could possibly all be missing here, or you could use your brain a bit.

He's saying that either a) homosexuality is deviant or b) sexual attraction to small children is not deviant.

He's grouping gays and paedophiles together and saying this is necessary for ethical reasons.

You can draw whatever conclusions you like about it. I'm of the opinion that this man has nailed his colours to the meninist flag and doesn't give a shit about enabling child molestation.

Goose you seem to be saying “well, perhaps the P should be added to the LGB in some way - we need more info to say.”

Not really. What I am not sure about is why Cantor seems to be saying that, or what he really means by it. Does he mean they should be supported by groups like Stonewall or included in Pride? Does he think that they should be protected from discrimination by law if they haven't committed a crime? Does he mean we should understand that people are stuck being born that way and so we should feel a social responsibility to try and help them deal with that, maybe by researching medical avenues or other ways to support such people in living in society in a safe way? Or maybe he just means it's a good idea to understand how people come to be that way rather than embracing myths around it?

I'd have quite different responses to all of those ideas, but I'm not really sure if he's saying any of them, or all of them.

It is no stretch to surmise that the increasing tendency of men to access child rape porn will have a direct impact on children's safety.
Yes.
A man I trust was actually the one who made the connection between extreme porn and child abuse to me.
So even "regular" blokes, some of them, are starting to go-hang on..and I think that may be partly because they hear the things other men say in all male company and they are, rightly, scared by it.
I wish we could put it back in the box.
The more I think, the more convinced I am that extreme online porn is a stepping stone to actual abuse, of women and maybe children.
But how the Hell do you police the Internet, quite aside from the fact that nobody seems to want to. Free unfettered abuse of young flesh is, apparently, a civil liberty.

Goose how do you propose we condition children to not feel remotely distressed about being molested by adult males? Because that's the logical next step here, and you're refusing to look at it.

I have no idea how you remotely came to that conclusion. You might consider that you are reading something - maybe even quite a lot - into what I've said.

And that's why the push to encourage children to explore touch that feels nice, that talks about abuse as painful is opening up a massive window of opportunity to paedophiles.

It's a desperate attempt to mitigate the symptom without treating the cause.

Kids being exposed to hardcore pornography is desensitising and conditioning them to expect and find pleasure in the sort of sex they're seeing on-screen.

The shit about encouraging self-touch is a misguided attempt to get in there and establish the self as an agent before burgeoning sexuality gets warped around porn exposure.

It's not going to be terribly successful, because it leaves children less able to identify stealthy abuse, and the safeguarding implications are grimmer than grim.

It wouldn't be necessary if porn access was removed and children were explicitly taught that sex is a lesser consideration and doesn't need exploring or prioritising until much later. Girls are already taught this - boys not so much - and the porn access issue only worsens.

But what the hell do we do when the main demand for porn is from those in power and with a massive sense of entitlement to the stuff - men?

On a societal level, it seems insurmountable. So be the change you want to see. Establish a prospective partner's view on porn before ever having sex. Make it known that porn use is a deal-breaker. And then stick to it. The more of us do this, the fewer options the porn-sick will have to shrug and move on. And teach your sons (as well as your daughters) that porn is bad for them and bad for girls and bad for society.

You are making perfect sense blakes. A very depressing but informative post. I agree that it's a rabbit hole to depravity, the harm of which we are only just discovering. It's not just a tiny minority with some sort of genetically hardwired paedophilia but being inculcated in many others by what they are viewing online. There is research into the addictive nature of pornography and how people can end up viewing increasingly extreme stuff to get the same strong dopamine hit they got in the beginning. It's like heroin addiction.

yes tyro there is something deeply traumatising about experiencing something awful but having your suffering ignored, downplayed or invalidated by others. The injustice is another harm in and of itself. Researchers and others need to be very careful not to act as apologists for paedophilia, even unwittingly.

I feel society current completely invalidates my concerns about pornography. We are being gaslit en masse about how it's all fine and dandy. This serves the vested interests of those who want to continue to access and use it. The removal of shame around hardcore pornography and child sex abuse images is enabling all sorts of horrors for women and children.

But what the hell do we do when the main demand for porn is from those in power and with a massive sense of entitlement to the stuff - men? I feel despairing that as a society we will ever put these worms back in the can when it involves denying men porn. They'll never give it up voluntarily and never legislate against what they themselves want to maintain access to.

some moral centre has to be missing

Agreed - the moral conditioning stories they were given clearly weren't adequate.

for even the most hardened porn hound to step over that line in the first place.

But listen to what men say about their porn use. It's not a single giant leap from normal to abnormal behaviour. It's a slippery slope, and justifying one step justifies the next.

They divide it up into hebephilia, ephebephilia, and paedophilia, dependent on the age of the child, so that they can say "oh, forty year old men lusting after fifteen year olds is normal because of basic reproductive instincts," and down the slippery slope they go.

I'm actually not convinced that anyone is ever destined to be attracted solely to small children. It's a disorder that emerges. If it's a type of inborn sexual orientation then the implications for the LGB & H are awkward, to say the least.

I think we just call someone a "true" paedophile when they display no indication of also being attracted to adults of whichever sex they're orientated towards.

Personal experience angle: there were plenty of small children available to the one who abused me, he had equal access to children of both sexes - but it was only girls he abused. And he was excused on the grounds of, effectively, claiming a developmental disorder meant he did not understand basic morality. So they let him live in the community, and restricted his access to his own grandchildren, but not to anyone else's children.

(my opinion is even viewing images of children being abused, is taking part in that abuse or opening up other children for more abuse because people are looking at these images)

It absolutely is taking part in abuse, and yes, creating the demand as well.

tyro I see your point about disordered desires. I think that (to sort of contradict myself) some moral centre has to be missing for even the most hardened porn hound to step over that line in the first place.
But then, from young teenagerhood boys are exposed to terrible things. Something is very sick in what is being allowed in order to satisfy men's orgasms. I mean, hardcore porn used to be illegal in the UK. It was actually quite hard to get and you had to go to a sex shop in a seedy area to find it. Now the most extreme sexual acts are all over the Internet in the UK for literally anyone to access with a click.

If we as a society are saying that a girl being gang banged or strangled is "sex" and "entertainment" and is legal to show then the wheels have pretty much come off haven't they?
I'm not making sense. I just know child abuse is about more than paedophilia.

So, not a class of men with a disorder nessecarily, or even a compulsion.

The thing with disorders is, they're often not baked in at the start. They emerge over time.

An obsessive-compulsive disorder centred on porn and the male orgasm is a pretty widespread and worsening social problem at the moment.

At what point does watching bodies performing sex acts for your own internal mental gratification stop being normal and start being "disordered"?

Nonny I spent a very long time trying to find a way to believe the professionals who say that severe punishment is inhumane. It almost broke me. I'm back to where you are now. I wouldn't necessarily execute a man for viewing an image - but the man who made and distributed it? If we're not willing to execute then permanent quarantine is the only option.

And, from the perspective of an adult whose life has been so severely affected by paedophilic abuse and male entitlement to my body and mind - there needs to be reparation.

Because as it stands, the fact that they get away with a slap on the wrists has such a severe psychological impact on victims that some of us never even get as far as the "survivor" identity, let alone truly putting it behind us.

Because if what happened was bad, and they're not punished, then where does the "bad" come from? (I know it comes from social dynamics, but no one's telling victims that, are they?) And our bodies show the strain of trying to resolve the conundrum in a way that makes us feel we're not the source of the bad.

I think the death penalty is too far for reasons stated by previous poster. I’m all for a community they can live in amongst others like themselves though. I wouldn’t say it’s inhumane, if you’re already convicted for either viewing images of child sexual assault etc then clearly you’re already slipping and a child is being harmed because of your actions (my opinion is even viewing images of children being abused, is taking part in that abuse or opening up other children for more abuse because people are looking at these images) so being kept away makes sense. We already have pedo hostels etc so why not just move them away from any children or other people really. I don’t think they will be missed.

Studies have shown that when the death penalty is the penalty for child abuse or rape, the perpetrator is more likely to kill their victim so as not to leave a witness.
There is also the risk of wrongful conviction, which is not as rare as you might think, even with so called cut and dried cases.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/use-of-the-death-penalty-for-killing-a-child-victim

Have you got a plan for ensuring paedophiles are adequately punished, Nonny?

Hi Tyro, sorry only just catching up with all the latest posts in this thread.

Wanted to reply to your question so you didn't think I was ignoring you.

My own plan (or rather, desire) for punishing pedophiles would involve the death penalty or chemical castration with being sent to live in a separate community away from society - I think there's a town in America like that, but that might be considered by others in political power as unreasonable and inhumane and unlikely to be enforced. So I'm open to hearing from the professionals involved in studying and researching such people what would be ways to prevent offending in the first place, if such traits could be caught in the younger years of life etc. Because right now, there's not enough being done about child sexual abuse anyway.

Off to read the rest.

Yes, ultimately this is a male entitlement issue. Raise boys in a society that tells them that their orgasm is vitally important and something that ought to be facilitated and you will produce at least a certain percentage of men who think that any means is justified in achieving that end. Porn really isn't helping, given the dopamine hit and diminishing returns on such process going on there.