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

If a decent human being felt that way they would simply not abuse or view images because they would be unable to stomach the physical and psychological harm they were causing to a child.

This is what I'm saying. I imagine there are people who feel that way and I'm working on the premise that most probably don't act on it and feel deeply ashamed and upset that they feel that way in the first place. I've never said that there's any form of excuse for acting on it.

I don't know about that @aloadoftwaddle. Strikes me that these people have more in common with psychopaths and sociopaths than any true sexuality. - It's the lack of affective empathy which means they can abuse children without conscience. If a decent human being felt that way they would simply not abuse or view images because they would be unable to stomach the physical and psychological harm they were causing to a child.

There has been a lot of pro -pedophilia campaigning in intellectual circles . Worth finding out about foucault , Simone beauvoir and Jean paul satre campaigning to get rid of the age of consent . Ginsberg a famous poet was a member of nambla the man boy love association- its worrying but this stuff has been a part of western intellectual thought for quite some time . It has ties to Kinsey as well it's a sickening side effect of the sexual revolution

Nope, not the same at all. Does he want us celebrating pedophilia at pride as well?

Makes me feel sick that some people would want to normalise this.

*by definition

having sex with children is a neurological disorder

No, the idea being debated is that wanting to have sex with children is a neurological disorder. I'd say that the mere idea should turn the stomach of a normal person, so someone wanting to be definition must be abnormal.

having sex with children is a neurological disorder?

scummy nonce rat, and, hang it, is, I believe, the correct reply.

*Obviously, acting on it in any way should still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as just because you want to do something doesn't mean you have to, it's still a choice they made and it still has devastating consequences.

I'm not so sure about that. If they were really fighting their attraction to children they wouldn't be sexually assaulting children or watching other people sexually assaulting children

I feel like I've seen some article or other about people who don't act on it but wish they didn't feel the way they do. If you look at the prevalence of people actually acting on it (a scarily large amount), I reckon it's likely that there are many many more who have the urge but don't act on it. Of course we have no numbers because no one would admit to it. If it is a mental illness we should label it and look for treatments for those afflicted.

You know that whole #nodebate thing. I might have actually been swayed by it had it been used solely in response to 'Is paedophilia a valid sexuality?'

As it is, I relish the opportunity to repeatedly underline, firmly and unequivocally that, no, being sexually attracted to children is not valid, reasonable or in any way acceptable. This is a door that must never be wedged open, and if I see one more sick fuck suggest that because we've accepted the lesbians and gays we formerly thought pervs, we really are ethically obliged to accept nonces. How fucking dare you use those who are simply oriented sexually to their own sex as a prop to promote paedophilia. Beyond angry about this.

I actually have no idea what people like this are wanting the word 'valid' to mean nowadays.

If they're trying in this context to imply 'legally or officially acceptable.' then no, never, absolutely not.

I'm not so sure about that. If they were really fighting their attraction to children they wouldn't be sexually assaulting children or watching other people sexually assaulting children. Back to the outdated idea that men are sexually incontinent and incapable of controlling their urges towards women/children/other men/goats

Surely men who are attracted to little girls are 'straight' technically speaking? Why should the LGB community have anything to do with them? Isn't that a problem for the straight community to deal with?

However, he also believes that paedophilia is caused by a neurological developmental disorder

Quite possibly. I'd imagine most paedophiles would choose not to be attracted to children if they could. If so, it could be considered a mental illness and treatments could be sought.

It is unethical if we don't add the P to the LGBT as a valid sexuality.

Now that's codswallop. It shouldn't be legitimised. In the same way as bestiality and any other compulsion that is harmful to either the person with the compulsion or others shouldn't be legitimised.

And i'm equally disturbed that he seems to be saying being LGB is the result of a neurological disorder.

These men can't honestly support lesbian gay and bisexual people if they're determined to lump paedophiles in with them.

It didn't work in the 80s and it won't work now.

Give it five years and we'll be celebrating it. It'll be seen as a normal sexuality like being gay.
I hope this is stupid but five years ago Id not have believed in drugging healthy children to stunt their development.

I have no problem believing that paraphilia such as pedophilia and bestiality have elements of abnormal sexual development and those who find themselves with such inclinations can't always control their thoughts, but we are all responsible for our actions. Since children and animals can never consent to such acts and there is significant power imbalance, it should never be normalised by society and remain a strong taboo with severe penalities.
Trying to push it in alongside the sexual orientations of consenting adults is reprehensible and should be fiercely opposed.

Softly softly catches the monkey!

Absolutely no way.

Is there a statistical link with trans?

Sorry, contradict your second.

Doesn’t your first paragraph contradict your first OP?

If something is a neurological disorder then by definition it is not normal. Disorders are abnormal.

Consent has to be the absolute core and key doesn't it.

It's not a sexuality if it's not about sexual attraction between consenting parties, and children can't consent, people being involved against their will can't/ don't consent, animals can't/ don't consent...

Yuk, disgusting. He should be struck off.

How are developmental disorders sexualities? Lots of neurological and developmental (and neurological developmental) disorders cause affected children and adults to exhibit socially inappropriate sexualised behaviour, which as far as possible the affected individuals are taught to confine to their private alone time, and their parents or carers shield the public from... Masturbating in public or invading the personal space of strangers can be behaviour affected individuals feel no natural inhibition about and incline towards, if they have say the neurological developmental disorder Angelmann syndrome, but this is not a sexuality and as far as possible individuals are taught to behave in an appropriate way...

People who have had strokes or suffer from dementia also sometimes lose sexual inhibition - this is not a sexuality.

Why is this different, in terms of classifying a neurological disorder?