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/

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 it can be a crime to merely dislike somebody now? Even if not Big Brother? Talk about a 'make up your own crime' kit. Wow.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I am advocating to remove stigma from those who seek help. Not from those who abuse.

There is a difference between a young man who realises he is attracted to children on a beach and then signs himself into a clinic for therapy and men who view images or physically abuse. The latter should receive a much firmer hand from the justice system. The former should be able to attend therapy without fear of being lynched or run out of his town.

I can hold the opinion that therapy without fear should be readily available and advertised with a robust campaign without agreeing with a man who says they should be given child sex dolls.

Where’s the info on the first group?

How many therapist have ever had any of the former group you refer to @ImUninsultable?

Ones who have never used any images of child abuse ever?

And in what way does rebranding this as ‘map’ help that group seek support that will prevent them using images of abuse?

And what about the risk to those of us who were or are victims of ‘map’ by this rebranding?

@ImUninsultable I don't think you are listening. I understand that is what you have said. I agree with much of it. But I don't think you have yet followed, understood the discussion about how that could, and probably would, develop.

The article just posted, and there is a whole thread about it, is the kind of development many here have been talking about. We have the same argument about the word women, cis etc. Words do a lot more than many think. Changing them, de stigmatising something, change how it i voiewd and opens up all sorts of possibilities. As that article shows!

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

So all change should be prevented because some people on the extreme side will want to push it even further?

I don't subscribe to that.

And I dont think it is impossible to allow small shifts to make preventative treatment more palatable and accessible without that leading to decriminalisation of child abuse.

Every issue always has extremists on the outside. Doesnt mean anyone would ever let it get that far and with child abuse, it just isnt ever going to become acceptable or tolerated.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

So all change should be prevented because some people on the extreme side will want to push it even further?

I don't subscribe to that.

And I dont think it is impossible to allow small shifts to make preventative treatment more palatable and accessible without that leading to decriminalisation of child abuse.

Every issue always has extremists on the outside. Doesnt mean anyone would ever let it get that far and with child abuse, it just isnt ever going to become acceptable or tolerated.[/quote]
‘Some people on the extreme end of it’

Stop minimising the harm peadophiles cause.

They all cause this extreme harm.

If a decent person found themselves having these urges surely they'd be so disgusted and frightened that they'd seek help? Perhaps
making the channels to do this more obvious would be a good idea

I do not think peadophiles are decent people. Btw being scared to be caught is part of the thrill for some.
I think that if a decent person if one exists (in this sphere, not generally) can be bothered to find images of child abuse which I hope aren't easy to find , they could easier find therapists. It's not difficult to Google ( I'm not googling for it, I dont want that kind of search on my phone)

The channels to find what one requires are easier than ever before in history.

So yes anyway here on the fwr board, this is not our problem to solve. My two pronged way of solving it would get me deleted but most decent people would agree with me.

@BloodinGutters

Jesus christ. Learn to read.

I didnt say anything about extreme paedophiles or non-extreme pedophiles. I haven't minimised anything.

I am talking about campaigners, like the person being discussed on this thread. He is at a very extreme end of a campaign to change the approach. He wants to allow viewing of images and use of child sex dolls. That is an extremist view on a campaign which others have said should be limited to better and easier access to therapy without fear of being identified or targeted.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

So all change should be prevented because some people on the extreme side will want to push it even further?

I don't subscribe to that.

And I dont think it is impossible to allow small shifts to make preventative treatment more palatable and accessible without that leading to decriminalisation of child abuse.

Every issue always has extremists on the outside. Doesnt mean anyone would ever let it get that far and with child abuse, it just isnt ever going to become acceptable or tolerated.[/quote]
I doubt there are words that I could use that would explain to you why that is so far from anything I have thought or typed. Or that your continued inability to parse what has been written is just a little bit annoying.

This is a board for women who are discussing the rights of women and children. Like many of the other women here I have long since stopped wanting to help fix men. Men themselves need to step up and do that. As a woman I will continue to shout "No! Stop and think" every time I see something that is ill thought out, mispresented or an out and out lie!

I spent decades working in community support, including with some sex offenders. I still work part time in community support but no longer in the same area. I know some of my current clients are sex offenders but no longer have to deal with them and their offences. I can't do that any more. Mentally I can't! But, given the work I do, I know who they are, I am part of the wider safeguarding team and have to know - because many of our clients offer to volunteer with us.

I've lost my thread there, sorry. In short, what you are advocating has some far reaching consequences. In real life it isn't as simple as trusting that he baddest of people won't be allowed to take advantage. Nothing about being palateable or tlerable. Just what is possible, controllable and meaningful.

@ImUninsultable
Someone who has only thought of molesting children will not be in the justice system. There is no firm hand to compare to.

They should feel the full stigma of dreaming of hurting a child. And still get help. Their therapy sessions are already protected private data. There has been no lynchig for speaking to a therapist in the UK or are you solving a problem that doesn't exist?

Anyone who doesn't feel the shame of wanting to molest a child is most likely a psychopath and more broken than the fix a rebranding can enable.

We should not advocate for thinking of hurting people to get a "nice" or less shameful name.

If we want to rebrand, then call it what it is - dohc - dreaming of hurting children.

Don't hide the fact that children are involved behind the word minor.
And don't hide the fact that the dream involves pain and shame for the other party in the dream.

MAP centers the feeling of the person dreaming. Let's center the dreamed up child instead. MAP also implies that an actual minor is the focus of the thought, not a dreamt up one. Yeah, nah.

I didnt say anything about extreme paedophiles or non-extreme pedophiles. I haven't minimised anything.

STOP IT! Again you have made a statement and are immediately denying the words you used! You said, just a couple of posts up

So all change should be prevented because some people on the extreme side will want to push it even further?

And in that post again I am talking about campaigners, like the person being discussed on this thread. He is at a very extreme end of a campaign to change the approach.

If you didn't mean what you said, again, then type what you DO mean!

[quote ImUninsultable]@BloodinGutters

Jesus christ. Learn to read.

I didnt say anything about extreme paedophiles or non-extreme pedophiles. I haven't minimised anything.

I am talking about campaigners, like the person being discussed on this thread. He is at a very extreme end of a campaign to change the approach. He wants to allow viewing of images and use of child sex dolls. That is an extremist view on a campaign which others have said should be limited to better and easier access to therapy without fear of being identified or targeted.[/quote]
Bollocks it is.

It’s the central map and nomap argument, always has been.

And there’s a reason people id as map.

Have a think about it and then you’ll get why all peadophiles are the ‘extreme end of it’.

Then go look in the mirror and read out what you just said to me.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

In real life it’s exactly like assuming the baddest people will take advantage. Safeguarding relies on assuming the worst and working from there to prevent harm. It is that simple, or should be that simple, to have robust safeguards.

Yep @BloodinGutters It really should be. Safeguarding is designed and implemented to protect against the one! The abnormal one, not the normal many!

Something that gets forgotten by some who are trying to be equitable and undertsanding. Maybe safeguarding works too well - not enough people are getting badly hurt by the baddest of people, so many who have never met a truly bad person have forgotten they do actually exist outsde of books!

The help already exists @ImUninsultable as several people have pointed out. Look at https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/

As Mike Salter, professor of criminology who I quoted earlier says:

"You can't "de-stigmatise" the compulsion to sexually abuse children without normalising the sexual abuse of children.

This is a distinction without a difference, advanced by paedophiles and their allies, and by appallingly naive theoretical hair-splitters."

Which one are you?

Hi, @ImUninsultable any chance you could answer my question from earlier?

[quote ImUninsultable]@Bordois

They have nothing to do with each other. Can you not read? We were talking about the act of rebranding to encourage treatment. Someone said that it never works. It does. Only talking about rebranding, that was an example. Just like they want to rebrand periodontal disease to encourage more treatment. Just like companies rebrand after a scandal.

There is no link. I didnt draw a link. I was very clear in saying these are entirely different things. It was purely discharging rebranding as a tactic to change opinions on seeking treatment.

You're the one trying to draw a link between the examples. I did not.

I know mumsnet has gone downhill and reading comprehension is lacking but this is getting ridiculous.[/quote]
Just to save you scrolling back @ImUninsultable

Which post of mine were you responding to here? I cant see which of my posts the response you have given has any relation to.

If we allow the madness of the trans lobby to deny biological reality it is inevitable that paedos will be flying in the slipstream!

A decade or so back a friend was part of a multidisciplinary team in a residential unit trying to rehabilitate men convicted of serious sexual offences against children.

She eventually became convinced that nothing would - or could - change these men. Despite their claims of sincerity these men used to get off on what they shared in group therapy. They enjoyed discussing their offending with counsellors, and dealing with them in a group made matters worse.

The team obviously talked a lot, and my friend found out that it's considered likely that paedophiles can't be rehabilitated. While rapists and other sex offenders are mostly youngish men, and stop as they get older, paedophiles go on offending well into old age. Nothing recorded in this unit gave any grounds for optimism. By the time the project ended they hadn't identified a single participant they could feel confident about.

My friend isn't the idealistic type, but this experience really drained and depressed her. She knew the offenders she worked with were obsessed with offending, that it was a constant preoccupation and this revolted her.

The notion of a man tortured by his fantasies or his compulsions is just bollocks, frankly.

It also equates paedophilia with homosexuality. The inability to be attracted to the opposite sex is not the same as having a fetish for abusing children, or even finding children sexually attractive.
There is nobody who is wired that way, who has an intrinsic sexuality of paedophilia. None. There are no heroic men fighting a wave of urges. That is a myth.
Men are not compelled by their sex drive. They might argue that they are, but they are not. They have free will.

The poor upset paedophile, ashamed of his desires and fighting the urge to abuse children, does not exist. He doesn't.

A fetish, a sexual proclivity, a liking for something is not compelling anyone to act on it. It's reinforcement with orgasms that cements a fetish. Nobody died from not being able to practice a fetish. Nobody died from not having sex.
Fetishes are learned behaviour. Researchers managed to give a bunch of volunteer men a foot fetish in one study. They didn't have that fetish beforehand.

And these things can be unlearned. Being attracted to children is not a valid sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality. It's a series of visual and behavioural fetishes grouped around abuse.
All the men who claim to be non-offending use some form of child porn. Maybe it's just written porn. Maybe it's hentai porn. But there is not one of them sat on his hands, gritting his teeth and saying a hundred Hail Mary's to rid himself of his unwanted thoughts.

That whole notion just reinforces the idea that men have "needs" instead of wants, and that the male sex drive is this terrible yet awe-inspiring thing that poor brave men have to battle with. It. Is. Bullshit.

And this academic is such a try-hard, currying favour with men by agreeing that their sexual compulsions are so enormous they can't be expected to act like rational humans. Sad.

Conversion therapy has been in the news - would a ban prevent paedophiles (including those doing their best to control themselves) getting treatment to help them change?