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

Again, on the issue of grouping the P with the LGB. I am the B. What does the sexuality of pedophiles have in common with mine that it does not have in common with that of someone heterosexual such that it would make sense to group the pedophile with me and not with straight people?

I'm just going to draw this one out a little further, for Goose's edification. It may be enlightening to others too.

From puberty onwards, every time my brain's pattern-recognition software noted behavioural cues from adult males that tripped its incoming sexual interest alarm, it triggered physical sensations which my brain-software linked straight back to my early experiences and caused me distress.

My conscious self immediately dissociates as my brain tried to find a new behavioural protocol that would allow the trigger to be interpreted by the body/brain/mind trinity as a positive rather than a negative.

Each failure to reframe men's behavioural cues of sexual interest as a positive resulted in increased distress (and three further rapes) driving increased dissociation.

My body appeases as my mind withdraws further and further in an attempt to find an escape.

This is the reality of compulsory heterosexuality. Paedophilia by adult males is the very sharp end of that particular stick. It trains little girls to accept and accommodate dick, to submit instead of giving the clear vocal "no" we are taught ought to be enough. It trains us to be broken again and again so that we become the meekly prostituted other that lets other women feel better about their own relative safety.

Tyrotoxicity I've found your posts enlightening and very helpful, thank you.

You're welcome, Inebriati - but I have to deflect the thanks on to all the women whose bravery allowed me to find my own voice.

Especially the detransitioners who will not be cowed into silence about the gendered conditioning they've worked so tirelessly to smash apart before it destroys them. Had I been born twenty years later I would be one of them.

As it was, the dominant males in my life made it clear without words that "born in the wrong body" would categorically not be accepted as an excuse for my difficulties, and neither would liberal feminist talking points. So I had to go full radfem and break all the conditioning. It was worth it.

I can't speak for Goose, but I didn't think she was saying the P should be grouped with the LGBT.

It was more to do with an academic / scientific understanding of what gives rise to inclinations like pedophilia compared to other orientations. If there are some similar mechanisms in how they are formed, except it turns out wrong or develops abnormally in pedophilies, then it might aide treatment and prevention, in addition to punishment.

Psychopath killers are also a field of study but nobody says that because there might be some worth in studying what causes psychopathic inclinations it automatically means you are endorsing them to be accepted in society and that you don't care about their victims!

I know she wasn't saying that, Nonny - but it's the unintended consequences I'm trying to bring her attention to. If we ignore them we fail the next generation of little girls.

I could write you an essay on how paedophilia develops and emerges, because I could write you an essay on how sexuality develops and emerges - because I have a lot of insider knowledge of what happens when it goes wrong.

When it goes wrong, men are excused and little girls are lost.

it might aide treatment and prevention, in addition to punishment.

I wish I lived in your world, where paedophiles get punished. Mine admitted to some of the lesser offences I had detailed extensively to the police. He used developmental disorder as an excuse and got three years' community rehabilitation. I got seventeen more years of breaking apart (in body as well as mind) as everyone told me to pull myself together and stop being such an arse about it all.

Have you got a plan for ensuring paedophiles are adequately punished, Nonny?

Psychopath killers are also a field of study but nobody says that because there might be some worth in studying what causes psychopathic inclinations it automatically means you are endorsing them to be accepted in society and that you don't care about their victims!

James Cantor seems to be saying exactly that. Why should pedophilia be classed as an orientation or grouped with homosexuality?

Pedophilia is already known to have multiple causes and most importantly, victims. Its also more common in one sex than the other. It doesn't look like Cantor has any intention of investigating that, he's already made his mind up.

Cantor's just looking at it from an academic perspective. No doubt it is interesting, when you're not the one at the sharp end.

What he fails to note is that there's a very good reason some forms of human sexual expression are categorised as deviant.

You break the taboo, you give the broken girls no legitimate means to kick back against the horrors they've experienced.

My view is that pedophilia isn’t a choice. So in that regard yes, it is like other sexualities however, adding it to the rest of the letters seems risky for some reason, I don’t think it would ever be campaigned for to be legalised etc because kids, and the laws surrounding that and it always being abuse etc but I wonder if recognising it as something out of ones control, those people may get help instead of feeling shame and having a higher risk of acting on it.

Relevant current thread about:

1. Warwickshire "teaching school kids how to masturbate" Jonny Hunt "All About Me" schools programme as covered in the Daily Mail

PLUS

2. DfE "Keeping children safe in education - Statutory guidance for schools and colleges"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3700556-Safeguarding-in-UK-Schools-new-Statutory-Guidance-existing-classroom-programme-teaching-6yr-olds-to-masturbate

Then again, is it the shame that stops some from committing the crime? I don’t know, but I don’t think it should be added to the other letters. People may take that the wrong way and it’s a slippery slope. More research into how they think etc could be interesting. But again, kids and consent laws and everything surrounding that should not change. Kids cannot consent and anyone doing anything sexual to them is abusing them and that’s where my limited sympathy stops. If you don’t act on your attraction, fair enough, if you do then get what’s coming and I won’t hold back my disgust.

mobile.twitter.com/virpeds/status/1071498974962638848

This is a tweet from the 'Virtuous paedophiles' having a little dig at the gay and lesbian people being exclusionary about nonces. The first reply is Dr James Cantor saying that the P is acceptable as far as he's concerned, for the same logical reasons that the LGB have freedom.

This is not an intellectual exercise to 'understand the cause of paedophilia' for the purpose of prevention or treatment. This is Cantor arguing that P belongs in the string of letters describing things which need advocacy and acceptance and people should be proud to 'identify' with.

There is no spin that makes this ok.

Then again, is it the shame that stops some from committing the crime?

Yes, Aaarrrggghhh, the fear of major social disapproval does stop many men from performing deviant sexual behaviours.

Removal of social disapproval for those behaviours increases the incidence of those behaviours. Which increases the incidence of already-traumatised people compulsively recreating their trauma.

I can't believe someone could seriously wonder whether shame has any effect on curbing dangerous behaviours. What on earth do you think the feelingconcept "shame" evolved for?

Thanks for the update, BeMoreMagdalen. Somehow I'm unsurprised.

Fucking hell that Twitter link...

To put this in perspective, the guy who runs that Virtuous Pedophiles forum I mentioned earlier has been caught waxing lyrical about how if only it wasn't illegal then he might act on his desires, but oh you see the law just doesn't understand. Note that this is the one who calls himself virtuous for not offending now and runs a forum designed for other pedophiles to do the same and pat each other on the back. He's also written media pieces that suggest that he feels he's being seduced by little girls and oh, it's all so tragic but you see he knows society won't allow him to act on it so he doesn't but he swears that child really was flirting with him (because she wanted a hug, and apparently in his mind that is a seductive action when coming from a child of under 5).

So, yeah, if you think the purpose of all this isn't to normalize pedophilia and create enough public sympathy to make offending easier then you're very naive.

Also another thing I have to point out that's part of what was bothering me about Goosefoot's posts in particular. One of the most basic radfem insights from back in the day was that society treats male desire and male sexuality as if it's incredibly important, so important that it must be accommodated and a way for it to be fulfilled must be found because if a cock ever goes unsucked it's a tragedy of epic proportions. Observe the poor tragic man who nobody wants to fuck - this is a crisis, and society must intervene! Or even if he's getting sex but not in precisely the ways he wants - again, a tragedy and a matter of public concern! The logical conclusion of this is the incel movement, but it's not just them that's the problem. That idea that male sexuality is of supreme importance and that a way must be found for it to be fulfilled is the Big Bad of patriarchy and is responsible for everything from widespread pedophilia being tolerated and pedos getting off with slap on the wrist sentences to girls being trafficked into prostitution to rape being legal in marriage to...do you see where I'm going with this? That culturally held, deeply embedded idea that a man's penis must be serviced is either directly behind or strongly associated with a lot of the biggest problems that women face. Tyro has been trying to point this out in reference to child abuse, but apparently it needs to be stated more explicitly.

And this is why when someone frames discussions of pedophilia in a "well maybe it's not entirely their fault because genetics or something" angle those of us for whom the reality of what cock uber alles really means for women hit us like a ton of bricks at some point start giving them extreme side eye.

I have been trying to get my head around why any other letters at all have been or should be added to "LGB" and, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think Cantor is making a simple category error.

All the other additions to "LGB" can be framed as category errors. "Error" does not mean that they were accidental; it could be argued that they are faults introduced for political reasons.

By Cantor's logic it would make as much sense to add "P for Pyromania" (really) as "P for Paedophilia".

LGB and H (Heterosexuality) are equal and different to any other erotic attraction or expression because they are the basic categories of sexual attraction to same and/or opposite biological sex - and there only two sexes.

That is the starting point. There could have been other starting points and there might be others in an imagined future but that is irrelevant.

LGB and H are all mutually exclusive:

There are six options:

a) Lesbian
b) Gay Man
c) Bisexual Woman
d) Bisexual Man
e) Heterosexual Woman
f) Heterosexual Man

("Pansexual" is only needed if you want to add in all the Gender Identity options too - I am just keeping it as simple as possible.)

Anything else is a "modifier", whether it has got a "special name" for it (eg. "Transgender", "Gerontophilic") or not.

I could go on but this is much less important than the personal issues being discussed.

There no more needs to be a "P for Paedophile" than an "I for Intersex" a "Q for Queer" an "A for Asexual" or any of the rest of the alphabet soup.

There is LGB and there is H. Full stop.

Yes. And, as some of us keep pointing out, the only reason to expand the category in the way that's been done is if you're framing things as "normal" (hetero and gender conforming) versus "abnormal/all the other freaks and deviants". You can slap a pride label on the latter if you like but it remains fundamentally a very messed up way of looking at things that's not nearly as progressive as it would like you to think.

he swears that child really was flirting with him (because she wanted a hug, and apparently in his mind that is a seductive action

The grim thing is I reckon he actually does believe this.

Little boys get their capacity to differentiate and express emotions crippled by harsh fathers and a harsh world. Puberty happens, and the feelings that are being strangled get interpreted as sexual feelings, and then they're told that their sexual desire is naturally uncontrollable.

And the converse for girls is we're taught that we're supposed to establish a primary pair-bond with sex at the heart of it, and that intellectual and emotional intimate-connection needs can be met elsewhere. So all our needs for intimate connection, we're told to interpret as a potential sexual need.

Of course, what that means for P is that they're fucking dangerous and need quarantining pending the reprogramming no-one will agree to undertake properly. Because they've learnt to interpret somebody liking their company as invitation to sex. But once we collectively admit that, one has to wonder about how the average heterosexual male has built up his internal software systems over time to interpret body cues as sexual.

I do like your posts, Kittens, you give me much to think about. Compulsory sexuality fucks us all up, doesn't it? And the girls bear the brunt of it while the boys get the sympathy, every time.

Cantor's error, I think, is that he's trying to attach P to LGB, when really, it belongs with H.

Cantor's error, I think, is that he's trying to attach P to LGB, when really, it belongs with H.

Most of the P may be H but not all. It doesn't 'belong' with any of those, any more than 'R' (men with a predilection for rape) or 'A' (people with a predilection to abuse) .

Some great posts on this grim subject, esp tyro and kittens.

Tyro has been trying to point this out in reference to child abuse, but apparently it needs to be stated more explicitly.

I love it when people can see what I'm trying to do even when I'm not sure myself.

My very early experiences were an attempt by patriarchal society to condition me into becoming what The Other Side call "cis het woman."

They were just too bloody heavy-handed with it. And my prime sister, my blood sister, my big sister - she role-modelled saying "no" to the paedophile. She ended up het and comfortable with feminine accoutrements, but I couldn't be her, so I went the other way.

Most of the P may be H but not all. It doesn't 'belong' with any of those, any more than 'R' (men with a predilection for rape) or 'A' (people with a predilection to abuse)

You don't have to be straight to be a rapist or a paedophile, it's true.

But you do have to have been conditioned to believe that a) the male sexual urge must be accommodated, and b) the human need for intimate connections must be routed through the sexual urge, and c) that the self is god and the other is there to be exploited.

And that's why arguments that start from the assumption that we all agree that the male sexual urge should be accommodated and that therefore if that isn't happening the man in question is "virtuous" are running into a wall of nope here. Because this is a feminist forum. It's interesting to see which people realize why that's happening and which don't.

Yes.
I'd be inclined to add 'J' for 'johns' to the list which P belongs to,