US professor wants to "rebrand" pedophilia

[andyoldlabour]

Allyn Walker, an assistant professor at Old Dominion University, wishes to see pedophiles "rebranded" as "Minor Attracted Persons" - MAP's.
I doubt this will come as a surprise for many of us on this board, having seen the Challenor case (and others) unfurl.

thefederalist.com/2021/11/15/transgender-professor-at-old-dominion-university-rebrands-pedophiles-as-minor-attracted-persons/

I think P have entitlement and a desire to control like many other men. I think some men fixate on children, as it is easier for them to manipulate and control them than adults, I also think this is why many adult men want to date teenagers. Some men abuse children in their own family, but don’t abuse children outside the family, as they look at them as their property or because it is convenient for them to abuse them, similar to how some men rape their female partners but not women who are strangers.

There are several psychologists/sexologists who are arguing for men’s harmful sexual behaviours to be de-stigmatised, there is Blanchard arguing that AGP should be de-stigmatised, and Cantor arguing virtuous P should be de-stigmatised, both are arguing that these sexual desires are innate. Interestedly, Cantor trained under Blanchard. Cantor thinks the P should be added to the alphabet. mobile.twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1459968722366574601

A notorious member of PIE gave an interview to a Youtuber a few years ago, in it he argued that MRI scans show P have the same brains as mothers, that a P has a similar love for a child as a mother has for her child. The P boasts in that interview about convincing psychologists/sexologists that P should be de-stigmatised.

P often claim that children can consent, that they can have mutually beneficial relationships with adults.

They also often claim that children only come to think they have been traumatised because people tell them they have been traumatised.

Sometimes because children are manipulated by their abuser in this way, they do not recognise it as abuse, as they have been manipulated and groomed. This is why I find the arguments of people like this man very disturbing.

PIE used the word P as it was not stigmatised then, they wanted to be thought of differently than child molesters, which is why the want to use another word now.

I think some underestimate how manipulative some men can be when they want to legitimise their harmful sexual desires. They will invent anything to justify their behaviour including pseudo-science and other ideologies.

Stopthisnow

Very comprehensive, thank you.

Disease branding is not comparable. If you rebrand a disease, whatever happens, no one is hurt. If you rebrand paedophilia to something that destigmatises and normalises it, that gives paedophiles the green light, supports their warped beliefs that we already know exist (the child wants it, the child isn’t harmed by it, there is nothing wrong with it, it’s natural etc) they will be emboldened by this. Look at what’s already happening with ‘MAP’ - these men are not shamefacedly seeking therapy or contacting the authorities - they are posting proudly online about their proclivities and specific preferences down to age zero, trying to get LGBT to accept the P. Is there a shred of evidence that links ‘MAP’ or similar fluffy ‘rebranding’ to a greater number of paedophiles seeking help and treatment?

How many paedophiles do we actually think make up this category of handwringing not-yet-offenders? And how many are part of the vast numbers of men we KNOW share images and videos, set up abuse rings, groom children around them in their families, at work, organisations they have access to, go on trips to locations where it’s easier to get access to trafficked children and teens?

Paedophiles, like other sex offenders, escalate. All this will do is bolster the far higher numbers of active paedophiles and make it easier for them to contact each other, abuse children and share their abuse. Look at what’s happened on Twitter. Give them a loophole and some leeway they are there announcing themselves proudly, connecting with others. What do we think is the likely impact of this, at a time when single sex spaces and organisations have been captured, are being encroached?

No destigmatisation, tighter boundaries around single sex spaces and organisations, more safeguarding, stronger sentences. They are already showing us what will happen with ‘MAP’ or anything similar. It’s a narrative they have been pushing for decades.

Rebranding to lower barriers to seek assistance involves increasing the tolerance for the act itself.

Rebranding a disease should never be used as an analogy to increase the tolerance to abuse.

Rebranding a disease means destigmatising an issue that is harmful to no one outside of that person unless it is contagious. In which case, it will also require an equally powerful message about protection against infection.

Rebranding a paraphilia that involves unwilling people is in no way comparable. There is also absolutely no way to educate children appropriately to protect themselves that is reliable when the abuser is someone known and trusted. There is also no way to protect children when the abuse can be done at a distance with a camera.

To use rebranding of disease as an example negates the very fabric of the abuse being done or the potential for it to be done. It is a very superficial, an overly simplistic, way to view it.

To use rebranding of disease as an example negates the very fabric of the abuse being done or the potential for it to be done.

To use rebranding of disease as an example negates the very fabric of the abuse being done or the potential for it to be done by rebranding this sexual abuse.

Sorry.

Not sure if I have the emotional energy to weigh in on this thread, but:

It can be entirely true to both say:

• Most paedophiles were abused

and

• Most people who were abused don’t become paedophiles

The two don’t contradict eachother. I’m not saying that either are true or not true, I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone will ever know. But logically or statistically they don’t contradict eachother.

As soon as you frame this as some poor adult managing a condition or challenge that isn't their fault, that needs understanding and compassion, that they need help to control...

quite apart from sounding like a bad sit com caricature of a 1980s hip social worker, you have just re framed that adult abusing a child and wrecking the child's life as a 'set back' for the adult, no different to an alcoholic under stress resorting to a drink.

This is absolute bloody madness, people's boundaries have become fucked beyond belief.

The limits of anyone's personal freedoms are someone else's body and personal rights and freedoms. Nothing should ever frame one person as more important than another to the point that making use of their body for personal purposes is considered justifiable. This is insane, ffs. This is at root basic nursery manners most people have pinned down by the age of four. People need to stop being useful idiots to others out of a self serving sense of sentiment and virtue.

As soon as you frame this as some poor adult managing a condition or challenge that isn't their fault

Another reason why it lacks any depth of thought to ‘rebrand’ in the way that incontinence was rebranded. Or AIDS.

• Most paedophiles robbers were abused mugged

and

• Most people who were abused mugged don’t become paedophiles armed robbers

So we should rebrand robbery and theft to remove the stigma so that thieves can seek help bla bla bla. Cleptomaniacs might be suffering from their condition but they are still thieves! And maybe we should congratulate the thief who only stole when people were away from home? Honestly who comes up with this stuff?

A paedophile is a paedophile. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, what caused it or how much damage they did or didn't inflict. A child was still hurt in the process.

Boohoo I want to inflict pain on someone and I know it's wrong. please applaud me encourage my effort to not hurt or kill your child. Wtaf.

@Artichokeleaves

As soon as you frame this as some poor adult managing a condition or challenge that isn't their fault, that needs understanding and compassion, that they need help to control...

quite apart from sounding like a bad sit com caricature of a 1980s hip social worker, you have just re framed that adult abusing a child and wrecking the child's life as a 'set back' for the adult, no different to an alcoholic under stress resorting to a drink.

This is absolute bloody madness, people's boundaries have become fucked beyond belief.

The limits of anyone's personal freedoms are someone else's body and personal rights and freedoms. Nothing should ever frame one person as more important than another to the point that making use of their body for personal purposes is considered justifiable. This is insane, ffs. This is at root basic nursery manners most people have pinned down by the age of four. People need to stop being useful idiots to others out of a self serving sense of sentiment and virtue.

This.

And there is no compulsion. It's an active choice. We accept too much nonsense around male sexuality. Rape isn't caused by compulsive feelings, neither is paedophilia.

Men make a decision to commit rape or paedophilia. An active choice. I will never accept the "he couldn't help it" nonsense.

Framing their behaviour as something that isn't their fault means that nothing is really ever their fault. If a man abuses a child, it is 100% his fault. He decided to do it, and then he did it. In many cases after lots of preplanning. There is no way on earth I will accept that it somehow wasn't his fault.

Well said Flying Oink and Artichoke Leaves. How much time is spent talking on this board about safeguarding children and then the minute a man turns up bleating about his fee fees we have to give him space to discuss how its a problem for him?

Give me a break. These paraphilias are stigmatized for a reason, paedophiles are the last people you need to be providing loopholes for.

This statement from the article sums up what I think about this whole mess. We know that social norms based on what is and what is not acceptable are being pushed, particularly by certain groups - drag acts performing for children, "puppy walks", again involving children, "rainbow families". Where once, MAP's used to skulk online, they now have the front to share their perversions in public.

"Any word, framing, or action that chips away at this stigma inevitably breaks down the guardrails against such evil actions."

LaetitiaASD yes found guilty not jailed as elderly . Read tiny mention in local paper. Many many people read about it in the paper but they are too ‘middle class polite’ to mention it so carry on as they did before in talking to him. I don’t, I feel revulsion every time I see him.

@Bellendejour

Disease branding is not comparable. If you rebrand a disease, whatever happens, no one is hurt. If you rebrand paedophilia to something that destigmatises and normalises it, that gives paedophiles the green light, supports their warped beliefs that we already know exist (the child wants it, the child isn’t harmed by it, there is nothing wrong with it, it’s natural etc) they will be emboldened by this. Look at what’s already happening with ‘MAP’ - these men are not shamefacedly seeking therapy or contacting the authorities - they are posting proudly online about their proclivities and specific preferences down to age zero, trying to get LGBT to accept the P. Is there a shred of evidence that links ‘MAP’ or similar fluffy ‘rebranding’ to a greater number of paedophiles seeking help and treatment?

How many paedophiles do we actually think make up this category of handwringing not-yet-offenders? And how many are part of the vast numbers of men we KNOW share images and videos, set up abuse rings, groom children around them in their families, at work, organisations they have access to, go on trips to locations where it’s easier to get access to trafficked children and teens?

Paedophiles, like other sex offenders, escalate. All this will do is bolster the far higher numbers of active paedophiles and make it easier for them to contact each other, abuse children and share their abuse. Look at what’s happened on Twitter. Give them a loophole and some leeway they are there announcing themselves proudly, connecting with others. What do we think is the likely impact of this, at a time when single sex spaces and organisations have been captured, are being encroached?

No destigmatisation, tighter boundaries around single sex spaces and organisations, more safeguarding, stronger sentences. They are already showing us what will happen with ‘MAP’ or anything similar. It’s a narrative they have been pushing for decades.

This ^^

More articulate than me

Sorry, just catching up...

I agree that a thought crime, isn't a crime, of course.

That's the poblem isn't it? Women, and Harry the Owl, have actually been arrested for WrongThink, Harry was told to check his thinking, by a police officer!

The same cohort of people pushed for that as pushed for the further additions of fetishes, kinks and MAPs to the Stonewall umbrellaa and Pride marches. As unbelievable as that might sound there are any number of threads here including screenshots of what was being asked for... including people whose Twitter account is openly, proudly MAP/NOMAP!

Another normalising activity now is strangulation. Since when did we, as a society, as women, allow this mainly male behaviour to be classed as normal.

The queer theory is the same. Library reading to children, men wearing dog muzzles at pride parades with kids around, anything goes now seems to be acceptable.

I fear for young girls.

Of course a thought isn’t a crime. But those who use these thoughts of children as wank fodder don’t stop there. Since when have men who can easily access perverted pornography stopped at thoughts in any other perversion. It at least escalates to porn and with ‘map’ that means images of child abuse.

No way should that ever have less of a stigma. It needs more stigma.

@Feelingoktoday

Another normalising activity now is strangulation. Since when did we, as a society, as women, allow this mainly male behaviour to be classed as normal.

The queer theory is the same. Library reading to children, men wearing dog muzzles at pride parades with kids around, anything goes now seems to be acceptable.

I fear for young girls.

This was made a separate crime equal to rape a couple of years ago now, yet it’s still seen socially to be ‘just’ a kink or ‘sex game’.

Even when serious laws make it illegal, with harsher sentences than previously, it’s still has minimal stigma.

Of course a thought isn’t a crime. Sadly the newish 'hate crime' - the police taking note of a non criminal act reported by someone who considered something to be a hate crime - makes that less likely these day, as a numberof court proceedings have shown.

If pedophilia gets rebranded, becomes a sexuality, MAP/NOMAP, then we could be in for some truly 'interesting times'

www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

This criminal bill includes the gem There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

So 'thought crime' does actually exist in the UK!

Many of the GC debates here have been about this subject. Some clear sighted souls actually predicted this would be next.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html

Suspended. Good

Ah so all posters going on about how the ‘map’ who have urges, but never act on them through using images of abuse- read this article.

This person advocating for them to have access to ‘child porn’ as ‘therapy’.

This is the pov you are arguing for.

Walker's PhD thesis, titled 'Understanding Resilience Strategies among Minor-Attracted Individuals' takes another shocking stance on the treatment of pedophilia, arguing that pedophiles should be permitted to view child pornography as a 'harm reduction technique' or 'form of therapy' to help pedophiles 'maintain abstinence from sexual contact with children.'

'Among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims,' Walker wrote.

What the ever loving fuck? Engrossing and high quality child sexual abuse???

And the bloody university refused to do anything about it to start with.

This is normalisation of child sexual abuse.

I hope ImUninsultable is reading all this and gets it now.

@Datun

Can you show me where I have agreed with using child abuse images or sex dolls to allow these people to act out their urges?

I've advocated for firmer punishment with no mitigation for offenders, and chemical castration (although I haven't researched that to know all about it). I've advocated for intensive therapy and again, medication, for those who come forward before offending. And they should be able to do that without fear of a mob forming outside their home, which is what happens here.

That is a far cry from saying give them child themed sex dolls and images of child abuse to enjoy.

@ImUninsultable but you are advocating for destigmatising child abuse. And the therapy you advocate for would, if said Professor's views become more acceptable, include just that.

That article articulates what many here have been talking about - changing the meaning of words, reducing the social stigma of pedophilia - leads to that kind of thinking.

Many here have been trying to explain the importance of words for years. MNHQ has permanantly banned a few longstadning posters for refusing to stop shouting about it. And then that article arrives and long standing posters say "THAT is precisely what LangCleg warned would happen!"

So I am saying it @MNHQ - THIS is what LangCleg, and others, were warning us all about! See it, loud and clear!