"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.”

unflushable
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.
Absolute rubbish. There is no cure or effective treatment after many, many years of searching. In fact the programmes run in sex offender units until recently, only succeeded in increasing offending. You seem to be viewing paedophiles as the real victims. They are not. I'm all for treating people humanely but I'm a realist. Research is crucial, normalizing most definitely isn't.

The World Health Organisation classes it as a sexual preference disorder.

I agree with Imnobody4 it is naive and disingenuous to ignore the fact "orientation" has positive connotations.

The reason for labeling it as a "sexual orientation" is because it may change how the problem is viewed and dealt with -

Well that can have alternative meanings can't it? Just look at how sex before marriage, children outwith marriage, divorce, homosexuality are viewed now compared to even 50 year's ago.

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.

Was that said in the class in relation to paedophilia? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Calling paedophilia a sexual orientation is introducing an orange into a bowl of apples, they are intrinsically different.

No they're not.

Absolute rubbish. There is no cure or effective treatment after many, many years of searching.

Sure, and people once said there's no effective way to get blocks of metal to fly through the sky.

In fact the programmes run in sex offender units until recently, only succeeded in increasing offending.

So that just means those treatments are ineffective.

You seem to be viewing paedophiles as the real victims. They are not.

I have some very left-wing views on crime and justice (most of the time). I have a tendency to view criminals as victims of their circumstances. It's easy for you and I to grandstand about how wrong paedophilia is; but I think both of us should just be thankful that we don't have whatever it is they have.

I find this idea that paedophilia could not be a sexual orientation because it is immoral kind of odd - I've never understood "sexual orientation" to mean that - I've heard it used in a way that presents itself, at least on the surface, as being almost a medical claim.

In fact I think the root of the problem is that it's actually a pretty fuzzy term if you dig down into it. All it could really mean is a tendency, be it biologically or socially founded, to be sexually attracted to a certain thing or type of person. I've never heard it very clearly linked to concrete brain function, it's could be a lot of things, and there seems to be some variety of opinion. And as to whether it's disordered or an illness to be a pedophile - well, that seems to be based on an ethical stance, and while I am quite happy to make moral judgements I am not so sure about using them as the basis for what is supposed to be a scientific or medical description.

What makes this seem difficult for people is that it's been used for years by many people as an argument for the idea that it's ok to be gay - the implication being that because it's not a choice, it's an orientation, it is not something you can judge people for/legislate against. There are serious gaps in that line of argument clearly the fact that a certain type of behaviour is determined biologically doesn't tell us much one way or the other about whether the thing is a good practice or not.

People who can form an argument have always known this and don't talk that way, but it's common enough that to a lot of people, "sexual orientation" sounds like it must mean something that is ok. If beastiality is an orientation, (which actually I'd doubt) that still would not make it a good thing.

From a scientific perspective my understanding is that not all child molesters are in fact paedophiles, but of those that are, it is something that seems to be very basic and outside of the control of the person - an orientation. Is it a disease - I don't know, it seems to show up in a certain number of people across cultures and times.

I think it's becoming less and less clear that it's possible to teach about things like sexuality at public schools in a diverse population. Which in some ways is a funny position for a lot of liberals to find themselves in - advocating increasing cultural diversity while also wanting to enforce a certain set of cultural norms.

I've never heard it very clearly linked to concrete brain function

Take a few seconds to Google and you'll see dozens of articles on studies (from reputable sources) of paedophile brain differences.

As I understand it, these are paedophiles who are exclusively attracted to and seek sex/"relationships" with children.

Most sex offenders against children do not fall under this category however, they are merely exploitative, predatory individuals who will offend against children while also entering into relationships and having sex with adults.

Incidentally, psychopaths also have brain differences. Should we consider it a helpless orientation while they do everything from wrecking economies and starting major conflicts to violently murdering people.

It's easy for you and I to grandstand about how wrong paedophilia is; but I think both of us should just be thankful that we don't have whatever it is that they have.

I don't feel thankful that I don't have what they have, I tend to focus on the victim and feel awful for the horror they have been forced to endure. I'm thankful I have never been a paedophile's victim.

Sexual orientation has been defined as what gender (not gender identity) you are attracted to, nothing about age or whether your particular kink is sex without consent. I don't consider being attracted to a type (tall, blue eyes etc) or preferring an older man or a younger woman as a sexual preference or orientation.

I understand that a high number of paedophiles and sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves and I feel sorry for anyone who has been a victim of sexual abuse, especially someone who has experienced this as a child. However as many, many adults who have experienced SA or CSA do not go on to abuse others, as they understand it is morally wrong to do so, I do not feel sorry for paedophiles who abuse children. I also do not feel sorry for paedophiles who don't offend. I don't think they have a disease or feel sad for the poor dears whose brains are wired differently. I've seen NOMAP accounts on Twitter and this is an attempt to normalise their 'sexual orientation' and make it socially acceptable.

The original point of this thread was noting how US high schoolers are to be taught (or have been taught) how paedophilia is a sexual orientation as part of historical teaching of 'gender relations'. I haven't seen the lesson plan, I don't think I need to.

The original point of this thread was noting how US high schoolers are to be taught (or have been taught) how paedophilia is a sexual orientation as part of historical teaching of 'gender relations'. I haven't seen the lesson plan, I don't think I need to.

Exactly. Whilst we don't know that this is the case for sure, people are twitchy about this for good reasons.

The battle over language is the battle for popular consciousness and you would have to be a particular kind of blind not to realise that "orientation" has come to mean a "gentle" natural inclination towards - there is no violence or coercion implied in the word. That this is a normalising word is shown most clearly by the fact that the people who most want their desires classified as an "orientation" are paedophiles themselves. They try to draw a distinction between paedophilia and child molestation.

The following clip contains the infamous interview with members of PIE carried out in the 1970s. I couldn't find the clip by itself and I don't know who the gentleman is who is commenting on the clip, neither have I had time to watch the whole thing - but the snippet of the interview speaks for itself. I am sure many people have already seen it. The interview starts around 1:36

I am not unsympathetic to people who suffer from aberrant desires but we must be very wary of the paedophile's tendency to portray themselves as the victim - this is very much part of their "condition". They also like to enter into pseudo-intellectual rationalisations of their desires and theories of childhood sexuality. This is presumably what Harriet Harman and the NCCL brought into in the late 70s and early 80s. here is an article on the academics who are attempting or who have attempted to justify paedophilia.

www.madintheuk.com/2018/12/sanitizing-academics-and-damaged-lives/

Another thing that we need to pit against their claim to victimhood is the actual tenacity of the war of attrition that they have fought for decades to have their rights take precedence over those of children.

There is plenty of information here just covering the period 1976-1980

bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/1976-80/

In addition, we must be aware that this is a strand of thought that runs through the whole of the British state apparatus. PIE's offices were in the Home Office, some of their senior members were civil servants and they seem to have been the recipient of government grants. This is not a left/right issue - this is a part of the dominant liberal ideology that has very little to do with party politics.Is it any wonder that we have civil servants posting on these boards that they are being forced to accept an erosion of their boundaries and to say that men are women when they clearly are not.

spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/more-evidence-that-the-home-office-funded-the-paedophile-information-exchange/

spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/paedophile-information-exchange-hq/

The main point that I am making is that these people will not stop and will use any tactic to gain a foothold in popular consciousness and, increasingly, to force their appetites on a largely ignorant general public. I also think that women and female consciousness are being particularly targetted as we are seen as the major barrier to these people achieving their aims.

I understand that a high number of paedophiles and sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves

A high number of paedophiles and sex offenders say they are victims of sexual abuse themselves.

Fixed that for you.

clitherow
I totally agree, here's another recent article.
Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted British pedophile, has published an essay in a peer-reviewed academic quarterly arguing for legalized pedophilia. Dec 2018

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/thomas-ocarroll-mainstreaming-pedophilia/

unflushable
It's easy for you and I to grandstand about how wrong paedophilia is; but I think both of us should just be thankful that we don't have whatever it is they have.
Well that's pretty smug and self satisfied. Now how do you prevent the harm caused by paedophiles, enlighten us. (Without placing blame and responsibility on children and parents)

"Take a few seconds to Google and you'll see dozens of articles on studies (from reputable sources) of paedophile brain differences."

No, I mean the concept of sexual orientation has no clear biological or medical basis or definition. To talk about sexual orientation meaning only an "orientation" whatever that is, to a particular sex is just not a very technical or exact way to think about it. We can use it easily enough in a pretty generalised way, but that's just because we know how people usually use it.

But then if we get to trying to say, well is attraction to other things, like children or elephants or whatever, also an orientation in the same way or a similar way - really who knows? We don't even know that all people with an orientation to male or female persons are that way for the same reasons. And I doubt we'd say, if we found it could be caused by brain differences, that no, we should not call that an orientation.
With a word that is so undefined, it's difficult to say, it only means this. But I do think it's used in a way that seems like it clearly could be about more than attraction to sex categories - it seems like it is supposed to describe something broader than just heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Whether they are correct or not many people simply use it to describe an interior experience of ongoing attraction to a certain type of object or person, that doesn't seem to come from some sort of clear experience or external cause.

@goosefoot

I thought you were referring to paedophilia because you continued your sentence referring to paedophilia, now if seems that you were referring to orientation when you said; "I've never heard it very clearly linked toconcrete brain function".

I haven't a notion about orientation and brain etc. I believe homosexuality is a marker/genetic. Must have a look..

"Sexual orientation" just means what a person is sexually attracted to.
It's not a moral judgement on whether something is ethical or unethical.

To not take a moral stance on pedophilia, is in and of itself a moral position. One which places an adult's sexual desire/orientation above a child's right to live free from sexual abuse.

Is rape also a sexual orientation?

@Imnobody4

One of the most disturbing things I've ever read online, later removed from website, was a heartfelt, earnest article written by a paedophile imploring parents to let children make their own decisions about entering into a relationship with him of other adult men. That they were denying them agency, rights, respect etc by not doing so. He also waxed lyrical about how much he had to offer a child in a relationship with him, how much the child would benefit from the relationship, having another adult on their side to support and teach them. He talked about how long he and his previous child "partner" were together before her parents cruelly misguidedly separated them.

I wish I could link it but as I said it was taken down.

It is a mental illness of terrifying proportions and self righteousness.

"I thought you were referring to paedophilia because you continued your sentence referring to paedophilia, now if seems that you were referring to orientation when you said; "I've never heard it very clearly linked to concrete brain function".

Yes, I can see why you thought that, I wasn't very clear.

I just don't think sexual orientation, as a concept, could even be linked easily to some specific physical thing, because the term itself is very fuzzy. It could be that sometimes it's mainly genetic, or hormonal. In other individuals, there could be some other set of explanations.

Sexual orientation, in my experience, is mostly used to describe a person's observed or reported sexual behaviours or interests. In particular with relation to the sex they are attracted to, but not exclusively - a lot of people will talk about kink that way now, as well. Why they have that orientation, be it about sex of their partner or something else, is not really questioned for the most part, and it might even be considered inappropriate to question it. It's not supposed to matter why.
I suppose part of it is the word "sexual" which means both sexed differences, but also sexual things more generally. So is "sexual orientation" about things you are interested in sexually, or actual male/female sex? Both seem to work grammatically.
Reading this discussion, I'm wondering if maybe there needs to be a better word, or a more scientific approach. I understand why people wanted to be loose about it, and easy the reasons don't matter, but then it does seem to open the language to other uses quite easily. It almost seems to harden a kind of essentialist thinking about all kinds of sexual preferences.

I can see, up to a point, where the idea of ‘sexual orientation’ comes from. Our sexual turnons are innate and similarly for .

I've said it before and I'll say it as many times as necessary. Pedophiles don't love children- they hate children. It's not an orientation of love/attraction towards an unsuitable partner. It's an aggressive, sexualized, dominating hatred. They aren't attracted to children, they're attracted to hurting children. It's an obsessive, violent fetish, not an orientation.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that well meaning people are buying this love/orientation lie. My friends, who are CSA survivors, can describe for you the smug hatred in the faces of their abusers.

I am a survivor of CSA. I don’t think it’s true that all paedophiles love children, or that all paedophiles hate children, and I don’t actually believe that everyone who abuses a child is a paedophile. I think there are those who simply want to abuse, and children are more easily groomed, manipulated and silenced than adults. I believe my experience of abuse was at the hands of one of these opportunists who actually had no specific attraction to children but certainly enjoyed abusing women in as many ways as possible.

I believe there are people who are inappropriately attracted to children, but that doesn’t mean they will abuse children - in fact there were a few articles a few years ago about a support group for young men who were attracted to children but who did abuse children, supported by a psychiatrist who specialised in this area.

My only concern is preventing the sexual abuse of children - if some offending can be prevented by offering support and treatment to young men who feel this way but do not want to act on it, it’s worthwhile in my view.

Thanks for that article Clitherow I have seen similar NOMAP accounts on Twitter and reading the profiles still gives me chills, I think it always will, esp the 16 year old trans boy who likes kids aged between 2-7.

The last para stood - It encapsulates my fears (also the point about how a child receives medical treatment without consent brings it into sharp focus).

I cannot overstate just how much the rhetoric of the transgender movement is working to soften society up for this horrific pedo revolution to come. If you can believe, as many well-meaning liberals now do, that a 4 year old boy can meaningfully declare himself a girl and “consent” to a name change, social status change, and then, at age 12 or so, the first medical interventions to transform him into a “real girl,” then how will they defend themselves against the idea that he could also “consent” to a “mentoring” relationship of a sexual nature with some “caring” adult?

I know what you mean ohHoly - I think that article was actually posted by Imnobody4. I was meaning to post to thank you Im. I have not come across that article before. I was going to highlight exactly the same point OhHoly because that specific one had not actually occurred to me. It makes sense doesn't it if young children are being given the agency to "change" sex they will also, by implication, have sufficient agency to consent to sex. It is absolutely chilling and images of poor young Desmond (Desmond is Amazing) come to mind.

I've just checked the education boards website. It says
Concerns brought forward at our meeting earlier today;
Pederasty
-Teachers discuss how homosexuality has existed in history-historical perspectives
-We do not teach paedophilia.
Pederasty is the actual heading.
What I guessed, how men /boy, intergenerational relationships existed in ancient Greece , Japan etc Doesn't say anything else.

Relationship suggests consent on both sides. Those boys in antiquity/history couldn't consent; if teaching it doesn't include that, they're in danger of presenting it as a valid model of a relationship/sexual relationship.

The headmaster of a primary school in my area was caught having sex with barely of age boys. His relationships with th involved a lot of buying presents etc.

Much sympathy was given to him in the community, it was reported that he was gay but struggled so hard with his sexuality and coming out, that was why it was all secretive etc.

Funny how he chose to struggle with his homosexuality with barely of age boys, rather than fully grown mature adult men.

I don’t actually believe that everyone who abuses a child is a paedophile. I think there are those who simply want to abuse, and children are more easily groomed, manipulated and silenced than adults

This.

Most abusers of children are not true paedophiles.

Not that that makes paedophiles any less dangerous in my view.