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/

In that article, the writer asserts:

“In an interview on November 8 with the San Francisco-based child protection organization Prostasia Foundation”

Clearly the journalist didn’t look too hard at what the Foundation actually does.

@DaisiesandButtercups

I think we should drop the term paedophile. It means lover of children and is just as inappropriate as Minor Attracted Person. I agree with Julie Bindel that child rapist is the more accurate term or child abuser if the abuse doesn’t include penetration with a penis.

Paedophilia is a tightly defined term pre pubescent children. MAP, child abuser, both lose the specificity it's pre pubescent children. Babies. Toddlers. Little kids.

It's widely used for years and years in all sorts of medical, psychological etc things.

If it's no good because philia, then paraphilias also need new name, all medical etc texts changed also with any changes new term needs to be universally understood used. Will press etc change? But until after New term embedded.

What about PIE, old news reports etc. In couple generations time will what PIE etc were about be obvious?

I also don't think having levels of child sex offender depending on if they rape or not is of use at all. Sexual abuse of pre pubescent children is appalling full stop. Introducing severities can be left to courts. IMO.

Plus child sex abusers and paedophiles are not always the same groups. Loads of child molesters aren't actually paedophiles, in the medical sense. They are just scum.

Wiki

Paraphilias are sexual interests in objects, situations, or individuals that are atypical.

... distinction between paraphilias (which it describes as atypical sexual interests) and paraphilic disorders (which additionally require the experience of distress or impairment in functioning).

In his 2008 book on sexual pathologies, Anil Aggrawal compiled a list of 547 terms describing paraphilic sexual interests. He cautioned, however, that "not all these paraphilias have necessarily been seen in clinical setups. This may not be because they do not exist, but because they are so innocuous they are never brought to the notice of clinicians or dismissed by them. Like allergies, sexual arousal may occur from anything under the sun, including the sun.

Paedophilia is one of a massive number.

I don't see the benefit in changing it for one. Especially when it means new definition loses really vital info.

Allyn Walker is still professor at ODU.

Allyn has published a paper this February:

www.researchgate.net/publication/358590513_Similar_Past_Different_Future_How_Feminist_and_Queer_Criminological_Pedagogy_and_Qualitative_Methods_Intersect_and_Diverge

But language is powerful and changing 'paedophilia' to 'minor person attracted' takes the sting out of it so to speak, rationalizes it, in at the least the mind of the perpetrator, 'I have a condition', ie taking out the personal responsibility.

Even the perps or would-be perps know what the word means in term of stigma, morality and consequence and I'm sure this has an effect on limiting behaviour in some people. By all means refer to it that way to a therapist, but not broadly.

I think changing this language can only have a negative knock on effect to children.

If it is destigmatised then people are more likely to seek help.

That's what I thought when I heard about the Paedophile Information Exchange back in the 1970s. I thought it was like Alcoholics Anonymous, people trying to control a destructive urge. Far from it! They wanted better and more open access to children.

And as I learned over the years, paedophiles are relentless. They never give up. They've seen an opening and they're going to push as hard as they can.

Another child abuser.

It's the question of whether an abhorrent, damaging and illegal activity should be stigmatised or not, I suppose. How would it help the children for it to be 'destigmatised'? Or is it only a benefit for the abuser?

Perhaps the question is if it is possible to destigmatise the desire but keep the acts very much stigmatised and criminal? I doubt that this is possible.

If it is destigmatised then people are more likely to seek help.

This is as naive as could be. What we need is less (ideally zero) male violence in society. Not patting child rapists on the head and asking how we can make things better for them.

Word salad hiding an agenda:

"We also highlight sex-positive criminological approaches situated within queer criminology, which advocate broadly for decriminalization and harm reduction, compared to second-wave feminist approaches that view considerations of sex and sexuality differently."

Sex-positive criminological approaches? Letting sex offenders off, that must mean.

Second wave feminists view it differently? View crime as crime, I assume. Because crimes like rape with a penis is a crime - a male one - and shouldn't be changed, yes?

I'm not even sure of the rationale, there. Murder is taboo. Do we destigmatise the desire to murder people? No, we don't. It's wrong.

I'm not even sure of the rationale, there. Murder is taboo. Do we destigmatise the desire to murder people? No, we don't. It's wrong.

Yes. I assume that the validity of that argument depends on the availability of medical treatment for pedophiles. If an effective treatment for them existed, then it would make sense to destigmatise the condition itself so as to encourage everyone affected to seek that treatment.

But I don't think there is an effective treatment. Or is there?

As long as there isn't one, destigmatisation would be the wrong thing to do.

It's just a load of bullshit to me. I'm attracted to Brad Pitt, but guess what I wouldn't force myself on him or coerce him into sex. You can be attracted to someone and not have to have sex with them. I'm also attracted to women - but I've never had sex with one as I've been married to a man for 20 + years - it's perfectly possible to do and I didn't need 'help' not to do it or to control my 'urges'. It's a choice at the end of the day and bad people are going to make bad choices and good people will do the right thing whatever their 'urges'.

Men that don't chose to control themselves are a danger and getting them to talk about it isn't going to make that any less of the case. I think medical castration or something along those lines would be a much better option.

In housing we call them MAPPA cases..
What is MAPPA? MAPPA stands for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and it is the process through which various agencies such as the police, the Prison Service and Probation work together to protect the public by managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community.

I'm sorry but paedophilia is paedophilia. You can polish a turd, it's still a turd, just a smooth and shiny turd.

I don't know about you, but every single person who says things like this, about de-stigmatising paedophilia and about it being a valid sexuality and should have inclusivity with LGBT goes straight on my nonce list. It's written on a red flag and comes with a 50 metre exclusion zone from my children at all times.

Funnily enough, the only people in real life I've heard bang on about this are the "trans women" who are only identifying as this so they can boss women and children around and so that people feel that they can't call them out without being hounded to death by the other "MAP" faux trans women and their supporters. I feel so sad for all the actual trans women who aren't criminally minded and are just quietly getting on with their lives, because they're not making a scene and getting the huge amounts of attention these overt paedos are getting and so the bad guys have become the de facto representatives of an entire community.

The thing about padeophilia and virtually all sexual paraphilias is that they operate on the basis of non consent being the attractor.

I suppose someone with these paraphilias chooses a group as the object of their attraction because they are able to involve them non consensually.

It's not an orientation, in that case, any more than 'wanting to rape people' is an orientation.

I am no expert, but it seems to me that this isn't about someone finding any specific quality of the person they're attracted to attractive; the whole attraction is that they are unable to consent. I don't know if I'm explaining this well ...

Really agree with this, ‘Minor Attractive Person’ seems to place the onus on the child being abused rather than the one abusing.

Also think that the poster who said ‘we don’t destigmatise murder’ is spot on.

We could rebrand necrophilia as those attracted by the life limited, cannibals as animal vegetarians and rapists as those who self define the word no as positive consent. We could keep going for ever, destigmatise every crime available and reduce the crime rates by 100%. Or stick with the current system and call a pervert a pervert.

Destigmatise, condon, accept, normalise, decriminalise.
Just the start of a process to break down all boundaries.