US professor wants to "rebrand" pedophilia

I've got to ask - is he convicted? Do people know? Why is he not treated worse

I know this wasnt aimed at me. But in my case, yes hes convicted, got several years, his victims got a lifetime.
He is celebrated cos no one believes he did it. Hes a conman, a "pillar of the community "
All the victims were lying bitches.

Same as Jimmy savile.

@MauraandLaura

Ty, will watch later.

[quote BloodinGutters]@MauraandLaura

Do you have links re pie & snp? I’d like to read info about a connection between the two.[/quote]
I will try and find some info later when I've had more coffee and a bit more time. Have a read about Ian Dunn. His partner is still alive and uses his address for the 'dubious' charities registered at his address.

Here is a video from YouTube []

But crazy that it actually needs argued on a parenting forum, especially on the feminism board.

twitter.com/mike_salter/status/1460801111464443909?s=21

100% this.

[quote ImUninsultable]@BloodinGutters

It's called disease branding. Go look it up.

Give things more palatable names and people seek treatment. Or, make the disease more known, more "normal" and people seek treatment.

A good one is incontinence, what was called urge incontinence. People didnt seek help for that. The name gives it an association with weakness, the elderly. People didnt want to talk about that. A pharmaceutical company rebranding it as an overactive bladder. A more dynamic word, association with being young and active. Following marketing campaigns with that as the name and showing the symptoms, people started coming forward. What was previously something people felt ashamed of because something that they called up their GP and got help for.[/quote]
Again, it’s not a disease any more than being a rapist or a murderer is a disease, including the prior stages where these men are just tugging one out to snuff films or violent porn.

[quote ImUninsultable]@Bordois

They have nothing to do with each other. Can you not read? We were talking about the act of rebranding to encourage treatment. Someone said that it never works. It does. Only talking about rebranding, that was an example. Just like they want to rebrand periodontal disease to encourage more treatment. Just like companies rebrand after a scandal.

There is no link. I didnt draw a link. I was very clear in saying these are entirely different things. It was purely discharging rebranding as a tactic to change opinions on seeking treatment.

You're the one trying to draw a link between the examples. I did not.

I know mumsnet has gone downhill and reading comprehension is lacking but this is getting ridiculous.[/quote]
@ImUninsultable

Can you quote which comment of mine you are actually responding to here..?

It's called disease branding.

The issue I see with disease rebranding men who are sexually attracted to children is that it is that cultural barriers including the societal disgust are a key reason for them not to actively abuse.

With each barrier that is overcome the likelihood of abuse becomes more likely. So removing societal shame is removing a major safety protection for children.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't fund decent therapeutic support for these men.
We should also look at what prevents reoffending.

There are really good examples of projects designed to support young people who have an attraction towards younger children but they are very patchy.

And we should offer therapeutic support for abused children in a consistent manner.

But all of that requires political will and money. Just rebranding not so much.

Agree

Starts with this. Then it will be that using child sex dolls is harmless (already being argued). Then so will viewing images of child abuse, especially if they are realistic fakes. Why are you judging these people because of their sexual orientation, you evil harpies etc etc. The fact is, indulging this disorder makes it worse and stuff like that absolutely will increase the risk of children being abused. I suppose in that case it will be framed as a slip up that the poor minor attracted person had no control over. They are working on it, engaging in therapy blah blah blah. This is nothing but a way to try and legitimize child abuse. I seem to remember some 'plan' floating around a few years ago from whatever the modern equivalent of PIE is to try and do just that and all the steps towards the goal of lowering or abolishing the age of consent. Pretty sure getting it rebranded as just another orientation was one of them

KimokosNightmare
The claim that most abusers were themselves abused is, as others have posted out, patently untrue given the fact that female children are at least as likely to be abused but female adult abusers do not make up 50 % of adult abusers.

This doesn't necessarily follow, logically.
It could be true that most paedophiles have been abused themselves (I'm not claiming it is; I don't know), if there was some reason why male victims would be more likely to go on to become abusers whilst female victims do not.
It does show that being a victim of abuse is no excuse for becoming an abuser, if female victims don't do this.

Rebranding won't stop abusers though. If a decent person found themselves having these urges surely they'd be so disgusted and frightened that they'd seek help? Perhaps making the channels to do this more obvious would be a good idea.
I mean, if you found yourself having urges to murder someone or something, wouldn't you be scared and seek help, rather than just go on a killing spree?
Men need to learn to control their penises and sexual urges, and stop being so fucking entitled to everything.

Reform the justice system. You get caught with choke abuse images right now and you dont even go to prison. There needs to be consistent, firm punishment with no mitigation in court. Once you do it; look at an image, commission an image, any physical act, then that's it for you. Combined with a robust campaign for men to admit themselves for treatment if they ever find themselves thinking of looking for those images or touching a child. And it just feels like there needs to be a distinction between those who have offended and those who seek out therapy before.

But as I said in my first post, there is a very fine line between destigmatising the seeking of treatment and acceptance. And that's a line that cant be crossed.

If a 'rebranding' genuine was necessary, then it would need to be something clear and non euphemistic. 'Person sexually attracted to children' perhaps. 'Minor attracted person', conveniently reduced to MAP, is far too minimising.

@ImUninsultable all these comparable examples of rebranding and destigmatising miss a huge point. How do you address the fact that unlike incontinence, unlike aids, pedophiles harm others, in fact those who should be protected above all, being children? You must appreciate the moral conflict here- how would you rebrand to something less shameful without ever losing one iota of the concept that sexual abuse of children is absolutely beyond the pale? Incontinence is embarrassing, for the sufferer. No one else is actively harmed- rebranding and destigmatising is an obvious goal. But you cannot open this topic without making clear every step of the way that child abuse including images of any kind is absolutely unacceptable.

It can be negative too. Things like just being shy can suddenly be branded and advertised as an anxiety disorder and people feel they should be medicated just because they dont like talking in big groups.

It's a very effective strategy used by drugs companies the world over. Disease branding is a multi billion dollar industry.

@BloodinGutters

It's called disease branding. Go look it up.

Give things more palatable names and people seek treatment. Or, make the disease more known, more "normal" and people seek treatment.

A good one is incontinence, what was called urge incontinence. People didnt seek help for that. The name gives it an association with weakness, the elderly. People didnt want to talk about that. A pharmaceutical company rebranding it as an overactive bladder. A more dynamic word, association with being young and active. Following marketing campaigns with that as the name and showing the symptoms, people started coming forward. What was previously something people felt ashamed of because something that they called up their GP and got help for.

[quote ImUninsultable]@Bordois

They have nothing to do with each other. Can you not read? We were talking about the act of rebranding to encourage treatment. Someone said that it never works. It does. Only talking about rebranding, that was an example. Just like they want to rebrand periodontal disease to encourage more treatment. Just like companies rebrand after a scandal.

There is no link. I didnt draw a link. I was very clear in saying these are entirely different things. It was purely discharging rebranding as a tactic to change opinions on seeking treatment.

You're the one trying to draw a link between the examples. I did not.

I know mumsnet has gone downhill and reading comprehension is lacking but this is getting ridiculous.[/quote]
Where’s the sources it works? Please link them.

@Bordois

They have nothing to do with each other. Can you not read? We were talking about the act of rebranding to encourage treatment. Someone said that it never works. It does. Only talking about rebranding, that was an example. Just like they want to rebrand periodontal disease to encourage more treatment. Just like companies rebrand after a scandal.

There is no link. I didnt draw a link. I was very clear in saying these are entirely different things. It was purely discharging rebranding as a tactic to change opinions on seeking treatment.

You're the one trying to draw a link between the examples. I did not.

I know mumsnet has gone downhill and reading comprehension is lacking but this is getting ridiculous.

But hasn't this been the end goal this entire time? Isn't this behind the whole 'queer theory'?

Quite so. Demolishing all boundaries one by one. It’s a libertarian movement to remove all barriers for penis. If someone wants something because of their penis, society should remove all barriers for it.

There is no evidence that “destigmatisation” encourages anybody to seek help to not do that thing, and there is no evidence of any kind of “therapy” that helps men not abuse children, directly or by watching others do it.

I think the direction of travel in society at the moment, towards mollycoddling and accepting more and more abusive male proclivities is making matters worse, not better. Just think about how somebody not being into sex that doesn’t involve anything abusive is now labelled “vanilla”, and is often used to signify that someone is sexually boring.

It is this context that allows men who are turned on by child sexual abuse to push for “destigmatisation”.

It is already destigmatised compared with earlier times. Does anyone remember an article about a year ago about more younger men starting to watch child rape online because their porn habits caused them to need more and more extreme abuse to get them off?

What we need is more resources for the police to find these fuckers, and better prioritising so the police will dedicate the time and resources required.

If any ‘therapy’ is to be considered, perhaps our research should start with “A Clockwork Orange”

there isn’t enough stigmatisation

You have to wonder who thinks there's any stigma at all, when paedophiles are publicly posting on the biggest social media platform in the world, discussing with each other the ages of children they are attracted to.

As stigmatised as saying "my star sign is Sagittarius. What's yours?"

@MauraandLaura

Do you have links re pie & snp? I’d like to read info about a connection between the two.

The problem is that there is a fine line between destignmatising and accepting. We cannot let it cross that line

This x 100%

But hasn't this been the end goal this entire time? Isn't this behind the whole 'queer theory'?

They have been using the term MAPS for a while now - remember seeing disgusting thread on twitter about 18 months ago.

We can never sympathise with adults who want to have sex with children - ever. Rebranding the name pedophile as a catchy acromyn will not encourage people to see help - it will only encourage these people to feel its an accepted and recognised sexual preference - as we are seeing already on twitter.

Why the fuck isn't this man being cancelled at his uni? WTF? a women can't talk about sex based rights but a man can want to discuss fluffing out a name for child predators.

They are all sitting to resurface ...PIE still have links in the SNP, they are still floating about ..thinly vailed but they are still there.

[quote ImUninsultable]@NewlyGranny

Rebranding medical conditions actually does make a difference to people seeking help. Tale HIV for example. Used to be called GRID. People didnt want to seek help when they had the symptoms for that. Same goes for other diseases.

I'll admit this is different as it isnt a disease you catch which really shouldn't have any sort of negative thought connected to it in the first place. This is something entirely different. But the argument that rebranding to a less emotive name could help people come forward for help is quite solid.[/quote]
Haven't read the full thread. Was enraged by this.

What the actual fuck. Men contracting a deadly virus that (at the time) we didn't know was linked to sex or bodily fluids versus being a paedophile. A paedophile who abuses children and claims his revolting preferences are some kind of compulsion.
AIDS and paedophilia! Gay men and paedophilia? What is your link here?

The claim that most abusers were themselves abused is, as others have posted out, patently untrue given the fact that female children are at least as likely to be abused but female adult abusers do not make up 50 % of adult abusers.

[quote ImUninsultable]@Clymene

I think I was quite clear in my initial post that I was talking about those who have not offended but feel that they possibly could because of their... urges. At that point, they are not beyond help. They should be able to access treatment before offending, without the stigma attached to those who have crossed the line into committing abuse.[/quote]
I would listen to suggestions about improving their access to and use of help, but I don’t accept renaming it to something less offensive as the first option. There must be other ways. Rapists should get therapy, but we are not going to rename rape arousal through forceful sexual activity just to make them feel better about themselves. If people are serious about helping pedophiles (acknowledging there is very limited data that it’s possible) then find an acceptable way that does NOT normalise child sexual abuse.