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

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.

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

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.

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.

It's not a sexuality, it's a perversion of sexuality. Harmful, destructive, and unlike real sexualities, which are reciprocal, its a one-sided, one-way attraction. A perversion enjoyed by one and reviled by all. May as well include all rapists under that dreadful umbrella.

So, here's the thing. I don't care what causes pedophilia. It doesn't really matter, because a. all evidence to date suggests that it can't be cured and b. having it makes a person a danger to any children who're around them. Yeah, I know, there's that "virtuous pedophile" site (boak - as if not molesting children is something you should get praised for), but the reality remains that pedophilia is something that can never be acted on in a non harmful way, and that makes it fundamentally different to homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality. So it's more like having a deep seated urge to murder people - sorry, you just can't act on those urges, and if you do then you should be punished.

Trying to "include" pedophilia in the gay community is nauseatingly homophobic.

As someone who would have happily transed as a child, as a result of the paedophile next door, all I can say is: what the actual FUCK?

I know paedophiles are messed up. Some of them are evil, some of them are damaged, NONE of them should EVER be excused - because that fucks their victims right up.

Mine tried to pull this one in court. Then he went round looking all pathetic while his wife gave my mother shit about how terribly sad he felt.

Nope, I'm not having it. We are not legitimising paedophilia. Anyone who fits the definition needs quarantining or setting on fire

Child sexual abuse is a far more complex issue than people want to consider.

It is thought there are a significant number of paedophiles who never act on their sexual interest in children. This proportion would be even higher if they felt able to seek professional help at a younger age.

But the thing that most people really don’t want to consider is that most child abuse is not perpetrated by paedophiles - it’s perpetrated by opportunistic abusers who don’t have any exclusive sexual interest in children, but who have relationships and sexual interest in adults. This was the case for me and a huge number of other survivors I’ve spoken to, and is one of the main reasons abusers go undetected.

I’d never say that it should be legitimised. But my main concern is preventing abuse from occurring. If accepting that paedophilia is a preference that’s outside of someone’s control enables more of them to seek help before offending, I’m onboard.

I guess I would want to know what he means by adding it to the others.

If he is saying that it is in fact the same or a similar kind of thing, in terms of human development, and he can back that up with reasonable research, I think we need to follow the research. I've never thought that just because something wasn't a choice, it is ok, but some people do, and so this sort of claim seems dangerous to them. But if it's true, it's true.

But as for what he intends by adding it to the others - does he mean understanding it as similar? Does he mean not discriminating just on the basis of the fact, as long as the law isn't broken? Something else? I'd have different thoughts and questions in each case.

I wouldn't want to assume any of those without more information. Researchers in this area can sometimes be vilified because they are thought to be saying something they aren't. But I think good research into these behaviours is a good thing.

Well quite, yetanothersurvivor. That's true. Most child molesters are not paedophiles, they do it because they can.

For people with a sexual orientation to pre pubescant children, to act on that is rape, abuse. Most people manage to navigate their lives without raping the people they fancy.

The idea that it's 'virtuous' not to rape a child is ludicrous.

This whole dialogue re valid sexuality etc feels v dangerous. Tbh.

If accepting that paedophilia is a preference that’s outside of someone’s control enables more of them to seek help before offending, I’m onboard.

Fair point that people should be able to seek help.

But what of the young victims struggling to come to terms with what was taken from us? When we seek help for our traumas, and are met with the knowledge that it's just a sexuality like any other, and so cannot even begin to process the trauma - what then?

What happens to the girls who are already mired in guilt and shame and not being helped to properly understand their experiences? How does this help them?

Even if one were to argue that there's a neurological basis for pedophilia that would not in any way mean that pedophiles need to be included in the gay umbrella. Unless of course you're one of those people who think "gay" means "deviant".

As a lesbian my ethical principals require me to safeguard children and to fight against the normalisation of paedophilia. Shit like this just reinforces my longing for that LGB alliance, or for the L to break free from the alphabet sludge.

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 penalties.
Trying to push it in alongside the sexual orientations of consenting adults is reprehensible and should be fiercely opposed.

I wholeheartedly agree.

It's not a sexuality, it's a criminal abuse of power. I don't want paedophiles to feel pride in their "orientation", I don't want society to feel sorry for them. I want them to feel deeply afraid of what will happen if they act on their perverted desires, to keep their thoughts to themselves in well justified shame, and to never, ever act on their vile impulses.

I think that as a society we've forgotten a. that there are some things people should be ashamed of and b. sometimes that shame can be a useful tool in controlling dangerous behavior.

When we seek help for our traumas, and are met with the knowledge that it's just a sexuality like any other, and so cannot even begin to process the trauma - what then?

Why do you feel that would make it impossible to process trauma? I wouldn't say that resonates much with my own experience.

If it does for Tyro then it does. Why does she owe you an explanation?

The idea that it's 'virtuous' not to rape a child is ludicrous.

Virtuous is kind of a funny word. It depends on how you frame things. Is it virtuous to exercise self control over a lifetime when you don't really see any hope of ever having relief? I'd say so. It's true that most people manage not to rape anyone. But on the other hand, how many people occasionally, maybe even once, do something sexually that they believe to be immoral or even just unwise? That's pretty common, maybe more people than not. I'd take from that that many or most people struggle at times with self-control around sex. It would be mentally difficult to have a type of attraction that meant one slip like many people have made on occasion was a very big deal.
It's also the case that people who are gay often will talk about growing up in a situation where they thought their attraction was wrong, or that they could never have a partner, and how demoralised, sad, and even scared, and self-hating that made them feel. I don't see how that would be different with an attraction where that was actually the case that it was wrong. Would it be virtuous to try and live a good, positive, celibate life, despite all that?

I think it would be good to have some way of identifying pedophiles before they offend so that they can be properly medicated / otherwise treated in order to prevent children being assaulted.

Several medications, including even just antidepressants, can strongly inhibit sexual urges.

If my choices are as follows...

1. Try to be more understanding towards nonces, interrogate their victims and ask them to explain their trauma and how they're processing it in detail sufficient to meet my expectation, muse about how hard it must be to control one's urges not to rape children and how this is somehow similar to being gay

1. Support the victims of child abuse, not require them to publicly rehash their trauma as if this was a purely intellectual exercise and great fun for all

I'm going to pick 2. Sorry not sorry.

(BTW good to see you back, Tyro. I'll probably be gone soon but glad you haven't left.)

If it does for Tyro then it does. Why does she owe you an explanation?

I generally think if people don't want to talk about something at all, it's unwise to bring it into a general discussion. I haven't said she "owes" me anything, though.

I'm interested in why she thinks of it that way. The fact is that if more research is done, and we come to find that it is in fact analogous to other forms of sexuality, abuse victims will still have to try and heal from their abuse - the developmental paths won't change to make things harder or easier for victims.

I also happen to think that there are other ways to process abuse besides that particular path, and maybe it was worthwhile to suggest that could be the case.

I generally think if people don't want to talk about something at all, it's unwise to bring it into a general discussion.

Given the context that's a genuinely creepy, awful thing to say.

This is terrifying and part of an agenda to normalize paedophelia. It's horrifying.

Agreed, MissLadyM. It's like the 70s all over again.

Okay, you know what disturbs me about all this? LGB acceptance was about who you love, yes who you're sexually attracted to but also romantically. It was about how consenting adults who fall in love is not hurting anyone.

Pedophiles don't love children. They love hurting children. They hate children. The attraction isn't a loving one that respects the child's personhood. The attraction is a sadism, a desire to hurt, damage, wield power.

It's not the same, and I don't care what anyone says. I'll listen to victims who tell me it's absolutely smug hatred in their abusers eyes.

Given the context that's a genuinely creepy, awful thing to say

This is a discussion about something said by a researcher. So contributions people make are, at least unless they say something else, related to thinking, as a group, about what has been said about the topic.

It's considered entirely normal, even expected, for there to be back and forth in a conversation like that. Asking someone why they think or feel a certain way that they have brought up is not confrontational or threatening. It's just asking for more isight into something they thought was useful to add to the discussion.

If anyone doesn't want to answer something, they feel it's too personal to say more, they can just say so. (Though is that her preference, I don't know, you seem to have appointed yourself to speak for her.)

But it's not an emotional support thread, it's not wrong to have asked. And it's not creepy to say that in a discussion thread, it's probably not a good idea to talk about personal things you don't want anyone to ask about or comment on, at least unless you flag them.