"Paedophilia is a sexual orientation" taught in California schools

[Lamaha]

Tell me it isn't true.

freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1077-pedophilia-being-taught-as-sexual-orientation-in-california-schools

Horrified, the mother turned activist expressed shock at Torres' admission. “So sex between a man and a boy is a sexual orientation?” she asked. Torres did not deny it. “It's something that occurred in history, and so this is really important for us to include,” the assistant superintendent said, implying that yes, sexual relations between a man and a boy — properly considered rape under the laws of every state — is a “sexual orientation.”

I will even discuss women’s issues with non-feminists when I’m in a particularly generous mood. But for me personally it’s not worth getting involved with people who agree with me about outcomes but not about reasons.

I mean that is so wonderfully generous you just brought a little tear to my eye!

‘The answer to that is not teaching young children that babies are assigned a sex / gender at birth’

So argue that. Don’t pick up on something that’s been twisted by the Christian Right and makes gender critical feminists who do have a point look like loons.

@KatterinaBallerina The idea that paedophilia is being taught as a sexual orientation is ludicrous. It is a wilful misinterpretation of fact.

Sexual orientation is defined as who the person is primarily attracted to. So paedophilia is a sexual orientation.

In PSHCE students are taught about drug misuse. It doesn’t mean that it is condoned.

That’s what I am arguing - I’m not giving credence to this paedophilia stuff without more substantive / less biased information.

I'll take that LassOfFyvie - you can call me a prat, that's fine. My username is a something I say instead of FFS. It's not meant as an insult to others but I can see how it can be taken that way.

I find Feminazi as a username offensive (haven't seen them around in a while) but I'll still listen to their opinion, I may not agree but I'll read their comments.

Anyway, apologies for the repeated misspelling of paedophilia in my posts.

Going back to the thread topic - I've been thinking about sexual preference, along with sexual orientation and fetish. I myself can find the lines blurred, but consent is a line you should not cross. If consent cannot be understood or given it doesn't count as consent. I hope the parents can withdraw consent to these lessons, they may be homophobic or not, that's another issue really, it doesn't take away from what they want their children being exposed to.

Regardless of the religious motives of the publication and of PPs the video shows what the assistant superintendent states as her answer for why they are teaching this to kids. Unless it has been cleverly edited to misrepresent (in which case I will withdraw my comments) I don't agree with their reasoning.

I don't think teaching paedophilic as a sexual orientation is accurate or helpful Unflushable do you?

Why is it not accurate?

At what age do you think it's appropriate to teach children about paedophilia, unflushable? And what do you think they should be taught, exactly? Which other 'orientations' should they be taught about?

Teaching it solely as a sexual orientation and without noting that it is a crime is an inaccurate way to teach historical incidents of rape of minors.

It centres the teaching on the sexual preference of the adult and not on the abuse of the child.

It confuses what sexual orientation is. Gay, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Hererosexuals have a sexual preference/orientation that when practiced respectfully obtains consent. A child cannot consent to sex so it is not a sexual practice but abuse.

If we are to teach children about paedophilia then why not furries and having sex with animals.l? There really is not end to the number of sexual fetishes available to teach children.

I would be fine for an older child (I'm talking 16/17/18) to be taught about how rape of women and children has been used as a weapon of war throughout the ages but I would not want a teacher to make a reference to it that it was the soldier's/kinapper's sexual preference or sexual orientation. To me saying it is sexual orientation confuses it with LGB and makes it sound as though it should be more socially acceptable and I'm really wary of the P following the T and being added to LGB.

This is why I harp on about language and semantics.

I mean that is so wonderfully generous you just brought a little tear to my eye!

Awww. I’m not that generous very often; I’m resolutely Not Nice.

I suppose that’s why I can’t find it in me to worry about what American evangelical Protestants are saying, and I wouldn’t put it past this particular group to misrepresent things: they seem to be the home education wing of the John Birch Society, who believe the Civil Rights Movement was a communist plot.

There has been debate in Australia about where paedophilia sits in hate crime legislation Four issues of significance emerge: whether the provisions apply to individual forms of hatred; whether intra-group conflict is covered; whether criminal conduct influenced by racial stereotypes comes within the ambit of the applicable motive test; and the question of which groups should be protected under the legislation. In terms of the last issue, the article argues that the recent decision of the NSWCCA in Dunn v R to include paedophiles as a protected group under s21A(2)(h) does little to further the social justice goals of hate crime laws.
This article seems a fairly neutral look at US.
www.federaljack.com/pedophilia-is-a-sexual-orientation-under-ca-bill/
This video is stunning
I really don't think we should shoot the messenger, there are real issues here.

Absolutely agree there are real issues here.

Will have a proper read of that later but on first sight it's clear it's I'm going to need a wine later before reading.

Teaching it solely as a sexual orientation and without noting that it is a crime is an inaccurate way to teach historical incidents of rape of minors.

As I already explained multiple times in this thread, describing something as a "sexual orientation" has no bearing on the morality or immorality of it.

Calling paedophilia a sexual orientation is not incompatible with teaching that it's a crime, or teaching that it's immoral.

It centres the teaching on the sexual preference of the adult and not on the abuse of the child.

This could be one of the reasons why sexual abuse of children continues to happen; because no one wants to have a discussion as to why the adults are that way in the first place, and how to stop them from offending.

A child cannot consent to sex so it is not a sexual practice but abuse.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with consent, or the absence thereof.

To me saying it is sexual orientation confuses it with LGB and makes it sound as though it should be more socially acceptable and I'm really wary of the P following the T and being added to LGB.

You're making an inference that's not there.

I’m resolutely Not Nice

You must be sometimes!

I've never heard of the John Birch Society and don't know if these people have anything to do with them - do you have evidence? My point is this - given the balance of probabilities with everything that is going on at the moment - including

-the use of young children in drag acts
-the attempts to introduce men in demonic drag costumes into children's story time in libraries
-the work done in Scotland regarding the erosion of safeguarding in schools consequent on the reform of sex and relationship education in schools
-the many bizarre legal decisions including the denial of the right of women to refuse to endure the gaze of men in changing spaces
-the bizzare training, including by mermaids, that the government is allowing in schools and other public organisations

and so on and so on

given all of this, what is the balance of probabilities that these parents may have uncovered something real?

I'm not saying that we should accept what these people have to say at face value but that their reports should be borne in mind and used to illuminate this ideology. Who really knows why the government is so keen to push this and where is it all really leading? None of us.

If the only people reporting these moves are tainted with the whiff of right-wing Christianity then so be it. If someone tells me that my house is burning down, I'm not going to enquire after their political credentials before I act. The only people who may really find themselves on the wrong side of history may be those who chose their precious political principles over the welfare of children And I don't mean that in a snarky way - it is just as I see it.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with consent, or the absence thereof

You are being deliberately disingenuous by presenting this as an uncontroversial issue. It is highly controversial as this quote from Snopes highlights after a speaker in a Tedx talk precisely called paedophilia an unchangeable sexual orientation:

"Pedophilia is not defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a sexual orientation: it is classified as a disorder in the fifth and most current revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5). Discussions that attempt to equate pedophilia with sexual orientation have been contentious, primarily because of the false belief that members of the LGBT community are predisposed to child molestation. Those who argue against civil rights for the LGBT community often cast those rights as a slippery slope to legalizing child sexual abuse or bestiality."

It is far from being widely accepted that paedophilia is a sexual "orientation". By use of custom and practice "orientation" has come to be commonly understood as the sexual attraction between consenting adults. It may not technically mean this but people are now rightly cautious about characterising paedophilia inoffensively as "orientation." This is no different to saying that my sexual orientation is towards non-consenting women who are begging for their lives. This is not an "orientation" it is an aberration.

You're making an inference that's not there.

Am I though? I was only a kid when gay men were fighting against the association with paedophiles but I've read about how far we have come from that point to accept gay men and lesbians, rightly so, into wider society. Gay men were demonised and now they are not, at least not where I live and I can only speak from my experience. I don't live in Saudi Arabia were you can be killed for it.

I appreciate Clitheto pointing out that is is recognised as a disorder and not an orientation. I think this is the point I was trying to make and I think I was clear that a sexual orientation has been the label for gay, lesbian and more recently bi, to add P to the list as an orientation is beyond anything I can understand really. It's deeply insulting to those who fought against the association and who continue to do so and it's dangerous to teach children to accept adults who want to have sex with them as a 'this is who they are, they can't help who they fancy' situation.

How do you see it Unflushable? I deleted my earlier post as I misunderstood your last point. Do you think we (us on this thread and the wider society) should accept, without question, that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, whether morally right or wrong?

You must be sometimes!

I tried it once. Didn’t end well.

I take your point about no smoke without fire and the rather bizarre and worrying things that are happening that we want to protect our children from.

The John Birch Society really is out there though. The connection with Freedom Project can be found via their CEO, Arthur Thompson (he’s CEO of both; you can google him). Many of the links in that Freedom Project website are concerned with home ed and the dangers of letting the State determine the curriculum. They find Jair Bolsonaro a bit too liberal: that should tell you something.

So although there may be things to be alarmed about in American education, I won’t get too agitated until I see them reported in legitimate sources. And until then I’ll keep ranting about Creationism, intelligent design and sports scholarships, which will keep me busy. But I absolutely respect your right to see it differently than I do.

Also, I totally agree with you that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

You are being deliberately disingenuous by presenting this as an uncontroversial issue.

It's only controversial if they say something that's controversial. If they state something as a matter of fact (eg. it's a sexual orientation) without any comment on the morality or immorality of the issue, that shouldn't be controversial per se.

Discussions that attempt to equate pedophilia with sexual orientation have been contentious, primarily because of the false belief that members of the LGBT community are predisposed to child molestation.

You know being straight is a "sexual orientation" too, right... ... ...?

It is far from being widely accepted that paedophilia is a sexual "orientation". By use of custom and practice "orientation" has come to be commonly understood as the sexual attraction between consenting adults.

You are making up definitions now. There is nothing in the definition for "sexual orientation" that says anything about consent, or the absence thereof.

This is no different to saying that my sexual orientation is towards non-consenting women who are begging for their lives. This is not an "orientation" it is an aberration.

The absence of consent wouldn't change the fact that your sexual orientation is towards women, in that scenario.

I appreciate Clitheto pointing out that is is recognised as a disorder and not an orientation.

What makes you think those words are mutually exclusive?

How do you see it Unflushable? I deleted my earlier post as I misunderstood your last point. Do you think we (us on this thread and the wider society) should accept, without question, that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, whether morally right or wrong?

Do you think being sexually attracted to kids and wanting to have sex with a child who cannot consent as a sexual orientation @unflushable ?

@unflushable do you think a sexual orientation such as being attracted to the same sex is a disorder?

The language in this is important you see - your responses appear provoking to a point that I'm not sure whether you are defending a personal belief.

The problem I have with teaching children that paedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than an illegal perversion or disorder is that prior to homosexuality being legalised homosexuality was viewed as an illegal perversion or disorder.

Of course in the vast majority of countries homosexuality is now, quite correctly, simply an orientation, subject to it being practiced in accordance with the law relating to age, consent, public decency.

What is the point in redefining paedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than as a perversion or a disorder, if it is an orientation which all decency and legal systems (currently and correctly) prohibit being acted upon?

should accept, without question, that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, whether morally right or wrong?

Why load the question? I never said anything about accepting "without question" so why put that in there?

With regards to paedophilia being a sexual orientation, from what I understand about the disorder, that appears to be the case.

do you think a sexual orientation such as being attracted to the same sex is a disorder?

What? I never suggested or implied that being attracted to the same sex is a disorder. Even if it was a disorder, it's definitely not a disorder that would need to be treated because it's harmless from what I can see.

I said "disorder" and "sexual orientation" are not mutually exclusive. A sexual orientation can be a disorder, but this does not mean that all sexual orientations are disorders (obviously!) and it does not mean all disorders are sexual orientations.

The language in this is important you see

Yes, and reading that language correctly also helps.

I never said that being attracted to the same sex is a disorder. I said that "disorder" and "sexual orientation" are not mutually exclusive.

This does NOT mean that calling something a "sexual orientation" automatically means it's a "disorder" too; this would make no sense because it would imply that being heterosexual is a disorder too.

Asking me the question "do you think a sexual orientation such as being attracted to the same sex is a disorder?" shows that you are reading things in my posts which simply are not there.

The problem I have with teaching children that paedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than an illegal perversion or disorder is that prior to homosexuality being legalised homosexuality was viewed as an illegal perversion or disorder.

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality was viewed as both a sexual orientation and an illegal perversion/disorder prior to its legalisation.

What is the point in redefining paedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than as a perversion or a disorder,

Can't it be both?

The reason for labeling it as a "sexual orientation" is because it may change how the problem is viewed and dealt with. There is a painful lack of discussion and discourse around the offenders themselves, which is why paedophilia is so ineffectively dealt with. No one wants to ask the question of "why are paedophiles the way they are," and fewer people want to answer that question, yet, these are questions that will need to be answered if we ever want to stop such people from offending.

At the moment, the way this country deals with paedophilia is for a group of English yobs to get together as a group of volunteers, lure offenders to a public place, say to them "yer here to see a thurteen year old girl aren't yah, yah nonce?" and then the self-labeled "nonce hunter" group phones the police, and the police take the offender away. Is this really the best solution we have to this problem?

unflushable
It's only controversial if they say something that's controversial. If they state something as a matter of fact (eg. it's a sexual orientation) without any comment on the morality or immorality of the issue, that shouldn't be controversial per se.
The whole point of this kind of sex education is to teach tolerance and understanding of different sexual orientations stressing their equal status and social acceptability.
Calling paedophilia a sexual orientation is introducing an orange into a bowl of apples, they are intrinsically different.
You are being deliberately disingenuous.