Daily Mail article on “Minor attracted persons”

[Siablue]

This was in the Mail today. I wonder if the journalist reads this board.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html

Someone in comments mentioned that they got banned on Twitter for challenging someone about posting about being attracted to children

I find it so weird that people are not realising what is going on with this, because the wider public would be horrified if the realised. But the idea that talking about it s calling gay men paedophiles has become a powerful tool to keep it quiet.

As far as the business of the age of consent being variable. Yes, they are within a fairly narrow set of ages, and even outside of Europe in many places where people are really living as adults at a somewhat younger age, many still recognising the divide between pre-pubescent kids and teenagers. From a psychiatric POV sexual attraction to a person with adult secondary sexual characteristics is normal even if they are a teenager - we ask people to restrain sexual attraction in these situations because we think it's right to do so. So the range relates to the narrow set of ages where teens are seen to begin to function more like adults in a society.

MAP is probably purposefully vague because it conflates someone who is 17 years old heading off to work with someone who is 7, and they are so different as to be non-comparable. People at the age of consent in Europe are very much comparable.

It's the same old story. Predatory abusive men muscling and taking over a minority group that's faced discrimination in order to further their own misogyny and entitlement.

They have a handy shield to hide behind when people try to call out their abusive and deviant behaviour.

Yes this is how I feel too. They are using the LGBT community as a human shield. When this all comes out it is not hard to see who will be scapegoated.

It is incredible that Twitter is allowing this to happen. I can only assume that someone high up in Twitter is a pedophile.

The Twitter exchange posted above is a serious concern. How come people posting such alarming comments on social media are not investigated by their regulatory bodies? At best, this is bringing their profession into disrepute. At worst, well ...

On the point of the doctors' exchange, to bring an element of race into this issue with the suggestion that strictures on sexual exploitation of minors is somehow the result of colonial oppression is a particularly loathsome move in the light of sensitive issues in today's media. How thoroughly distasteful.

PIE definitely had such a negative affect on the gay rights movement.

I remember that too. I didn't realise at the time. But looking back, it could explain why so many people linked homosexuality with paedophilia. It would be foolish to imagine PIE cared about gay rights, when they certainly didn't care about the rights of their child victims.

I've never been sexually assaulted or harassed by another woman, but frequently by men, starting when I was a child. I think that's the norm. I'm pretty sure far more of my female friends were sexually harassed by men when they were young, but none of my male friends that I know of. (They may of course keep quiet about it, feeling even more shame than we did.)

I have a vague memory men earnestly discussing distant cultures in which adults routinely had happy children as willing sex partners ... supposedly. Always supposedly researched and written up in anthropological journals, which I don't remember anyone providing a link to. And I'm pretty sure some studies that did suggest it have since been found badly researched.

Whereas child marriage is a miserable everyday occurrence in societies where women have low status and children can be sold for cash. Not progress in anyone's eyes except paedophiles'.

@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble

What I find murkies the waters(and I'm guilty of it myself) is dragging teens ,especially older ones in a discussion about pedophiles.

By definition pedophiles abuse children that are too young in nearly every country to consent to anything. We're talking babies to 11/12 yos max. There's no misunderstandings or confusion there.

I've just finished watching the Epstein doc, Filthy Rich (Netflix). There is a lot of conflation of language in that.

It's a horrifying watch for many reasons but I think pedophilia is the wrong angle because in this case even though some girls were below the age of consent in their state it's more about power, coercion and sex trafficking.

There was a young woman talking about her (dreadful) experiences on Epstein's 'pedophile island' however she was 22 at the time and most of the young girls were upwards of 16 with a few at 14/15. There are allegations of two 12 yr olds being abused but I don't think they have came forward so it's not wholly substantiated.

I can't decide whether it matters or not to have all adult sex with under 18's branded as pedophilia. It's a powerful word and may make men think twice about severely power imbalanced relationships.

On the other hand we are then losing a word to accurately describe deviant attraction to and horrific acts of sexual violence against very small children and even babies.

I agree that using words incorrectly really does matter.
Conflating meanings really does matter.
This has been said over and over again on MN.
Paedophilia is a very specific term and refers to pre-pubescent children.
Abuse of young, but post-pubescent children is also horrific, but different.
It is so important to get words right because any errors or loopholes give clever, manipulative men wiggle room.

We all have to be extremely cautious and vigilant not to get caught up in a pendulum swing that takes us into supporting conspiracy theories and mass hysteria IMO.

The Mail article is great however I am concerned that it includes the following text:

"Child sex abuse survivor Jacqui Dillon, who runs the Beck Road Alliance online support network, said: ‘This is absurd and dangerous. Twitter and other corporations are now providing paedophiles with access to children online.’"

For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing against Jacqui Dillon whatsoever. It is evident that she is an extremely vulnerable person who hears voices and who believes that she has recovered repressed memories of satanic ritual abuse.

While I would never claim that SRA never exists and I am painfully aware of the most horrific sexual abuse inflicted on vulnerable people by cults, Jacqui Dillon's descriptions of her recovered "memories" are identical to the recovered "memories" of countless other people who claim to have been abused by satanic cults, some of whom have gone on to recant their claims.

Dillon describes in the below video how the "memories" of abuse "came flooding back" (via an "alter" - she has DID) the first time she saw a psychiatrist.

At the time she was hospitalised with a serious mental illness and the psychiatrist said to her that she was mentally ill, suffering from delusions (these kind of delusions are common and are called "delusions of persecution"

It is not uncommon for people with dellusions of persecution to believe that their family are harming them, conspiring against them or are satanists or even the devil

These delusions can be treated, usually with anti-psychotic meds, however sometimes vulnerable people act out based on their delusions and the results cna be tragic

for example:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/devoted-mum-who-killed-son-12106845

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1462738/Devil-man-killed-wife-and-two-sons-over-her-smoking.html

There are many such tragedies reported in the news

There are also situations in which vulnerable people with delusions of presecution are encouraged by mental health professionals who promote SRA conspiracy theories that their delusions are real memories.

This is what happened in the follwing appalling cases

Carol Felstead (aka Carol Myers)
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200629113309/www.theguardian.com/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200629113309/www.theguardian.com/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse

The Murder of Jude Michael Mirra
www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7am3a/satanists-call-for-investigation-into-satanic-panic-killing-of-8-year-old-boy

I do not know what happened to Jacqui Dillon. I know that she is a vulnerable person and I suspec that she has been used and abused by one or more mental health professionals who are SRA "true believers".

There has been no police investigation into her claims, she says so 5 minutes in to the video where she claims that a police officer who investigated her claims advised her not to go to the police.

Also Dillon has a page on her website devoted to resources for "ritual abuse" survivors

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200520091147/www.jacquidillon.org/resources/ritual-abuse/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200520091147/www.jacquidillon.org/resources/ritual-abuse/

on the page are many horrible organisations that exploit vulnerale people and promote conspiracy theories about SRA

I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, linked to the idea that all people who claim to have been abused should be believed, however we have to be aware that sinister forces are using vulnerable people to undermine democracy and conspiracy theories about organised SRA are central to this.

apologies for the rant and the diversion

Why only the Daily Mail? I wish some other media outlets would pick this up.

The Mail is reflecting the views of its readership, which is what most of the small-c conservative press does -- not preaching to its readers as the Guardian does.

But the current fashion is TWAW and QT+, so those who want to keep on the right side of fashion (eg the Guardian, Independent, many magazines etc) will virtuously recite those mantras and condemn anyone who refuses to.

In both cases, it's it's about talking to the readership they have or want to have.

Feminism usually challenges conventional views. But on a few current issues eg on single-sex spaces, sports, safeguarding etc conventional views support women and children. They're the views of the ordinary sane majority.

Hence the Sunday Times and the Spectator (for example) speaking up for women's rights to safety and privacy, because they can't see any reason why these long-standing rights should be overturned. They're not frightened of TRA rage because it doesn't threaten them. Their readership thinks the same way.

The Guardian got away with talking at its readers while it was preaching generally decent liberalish ideas which no one objected to. Even as the 'social-justice warriors' took control it just became a bit silly, not harmful. But it made a lot of us jump when it suddenly bared unexpectedly misogynist teeth. It's now full-on TWAW, with a few heroic exceptions. And its readership is leaving it.

For the record

I was diagnised with dellusional disorder and dellusions of persecution when I attempted to draw the attention of my local NHS mental health trust to the fact that they employed staff who were involved in sex cults and pro paedophile activist groups.

I can understand why I was diagnosed. The horrible reality is like a paranoid delusion.

What I cannot understand is why my reports were not properly investigated and I received a diagnosis of dellusional disorder when, at the same time, people claiming that the heads of MI5 and MI6 and war heroes and all manner of other innocent people were baby eating cannibal satanists are given credence, funding, media coverage and all manner of goodies.

Mental health is often used as a weapon against women, both in terms of gaslighting women who try to report abuse, and in terms of psychiatrists manipulating women into believing in “recovered memories.” It’s two sides of the same coin.

A friend of mine was groomed and flashed by a porter while Sectioned and they used the fact she was Sectioned to claim she was an unreliable witness and not investigate. Some random porter flashing a female patient is hardly some really out there and far-fetched story, but they still weaponised her own MH problems against her.

Have any tech & media journalists written about the MAP phenomenon? They can't all be Peter Brights.

Ova I think it matters (and I've only recently given it serious thought) because if we don't, discussions get diluted massively by whataboutery . What about two teens of similar ages, what about age of consent, what about other countries, what about genuine relationships, etc ? It gives a certain sense of confusion, grey area and even when considered immoral, legitimacy and legality.

There are still words that covey the seriousness of preying on teens hebephilia, sexual abuse, rape, trafficking.

@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble

Ova I think it matters (and I've only recently given it serious thought) because if we don't, discussions get diluted massively by whataboutery . What about two teens of similar ages, what about age of consent, what about other countries, what about genuine relationships, etc ? It gives a certain sense of confusion, grey area and even when considered immoral, legitimacy and legality.

There are still words that covey the seriousness of preying on teens hebephilia, sexual abuse, rape, trafficking.

Yes, I just don't think it does us any favours to avoid using accurate language, and indeed to understand the differences in these different issues.

I've seen for example discussions about western countries pressuring other nations about raising the age for marriage from 16 to 18 or 19. Well, sure, that is worth a discussion but it's also the case that the circumstances of life in those places are not necessarily the same as in a place like the UK, where the age of consent is after all 16. There is a discussion to be had is the point. Sixteen year olds are biologically fertile and if they are self-supporting quite capable of being good parents, there is nothing particularly perverse about the idea. It's not that uncommon for them to become parents even when we encourage them not to.

That's an altogether different thing than child-marriages, and conflating them completely eclipses the problems of the latter.

@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble

Ova I think it matters (and I've only recently given it serious thought) because if we don't, discussions get diluted massively by whataboutery . What about two teens of similar ages, what about age of consent, what about other countries, what about genuine relationships, etc ? It gives a certain sense of confusion, grey area and even when considered immoral, legitimacy and legality.

There are still words that covey the seriousness of preying on teens hebephilia, sexual abuse, rape, trafficking.

Yes I think you are right but I'm definitely seeing it used out of context more.