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

[OrchidInTheSun]

Cantor is a psychologist who specialises in paraphilias. He is fiercely against transing children and has co- authored with Blanchard. So far so good.

However, he also believes that paedophilia is caused by a neurological developmental disorder and that it is unethical if we don't add the P to the LGBT as a valid sexuality.

I think this is a deeply dodgy strategy for dealing with paedophiles as a society because any attempt to frame it within the bounds of normal sexual development legitimises it. It will be leveraged by queer theorists who want to teach children that sex between children and adults is fine and dandy.

This is his tweet from earlier today

However, he also believes that paedophilia is caused by a neurological developmental disorder and that it is unethical if we don't add the P to the LGBT as a valid sexuality.

Maybe a tendency to paedophilia can be caused in that way. Maybe tendencies to being a serial killer or rapist are too. That doesn't mean acting on those tendencies can ever be legal.

Children can't give consent. So whether the P 'sexuality' is deemed 'valid' by a few academics, it's never going to be legal or acceptable.

A deeply dodgy strategy indeed.

Fucking fuck off. Growing up knowing I was sexually attracted to other females was damned hard in a society that is based around male/female pairings. It's made me aware that what we call 'normal' is not a face value thing.

But we understand the power differential between adult and child is nothing like the balance between two consenting adults, be they the same or different sexes. It is always abuse, and I will never, ever, ever consider paedophilia as anything other than the most disgusting perversion, and I don't care how 'anti trans ideology' a pro-paedophile campaigner is, that is my fucking red line. Big fat fucking no way.

I studied paedophilia many years ago. Iirc there is some truth in it having similarities to the other sexual orientations, and I'm not sure it's something that they have much choice over. This IN NO WAY means it should be accepted as legal or permissible in any way whatsoever.

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?

Yuk, disgusting. He should be struck off.

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...

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.

Sorry, contradict your second.

Is there a statistical link with trans?

Well yes it does @Endofthedays. I am quoting from Cantor's website though. It is very confused/confusing

Softly softly catches the monkey!

Absolutely no way.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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'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.

*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.

having sex with children is a neurological disorder?

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

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.

*by definition