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/

@Whataday198

www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/child-sex-abuse-doesnt-create-paedophiles-60373

This article debunks the "mostly abuse victims" theory but does also say that actually there is very little that is clearly understood about pedophilia, partly because of the intense stigma which means that there is no data either on offenders who don't get caught/imprisoned (suspected to be the majority) OR on the pedophiles who don't offend as they basically never feel able to admit these urges and without any kind of information on those two groups there will always be very little known which makes it much harder to apply treatment/prevention.

Ray Wires gracewell program had success from its limited run (forever ago). But it was very cost ineffective. And just those who were convicted/made to attend by the courts. I think he was very clear that 99.9% of peadophiles reoffend.

I don’t think there is any way of ‘treating’ peadophiles successfully ever.

The feminist approach would be not to seek to ‘fix’ male sexual violence, but to keep women and children safe from it.

With the likes of single sex spaces.

@ErrolTheDragon

Some miscommunication here...lPP said 'People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves.' Which is not the same thing as 'most survivors of childhood abuse grow up to be abusers' (cf all rapists are men, doesn't mean all men are rapists).

So putting that aside.... of course there's no need to 'rebrand' paedophilia in order for people to seek help. Take the analogy of alcoholism - there's a stigma to being an alcoholic, but it seems well recognised that a first step in getting help is to accept that's what you are. The best known help org is Alcoholics Anonymous. There's the model to follow.

I agree, I don’t think that most people who were abused grow up to be abusers. Quite the opposite, as pp on this thread say.

My point was that I don’t however believe that most paedophiles were abused as children. I believe that most paedophiles abuse kids because they want to, it turns them on and they can. Focusing on the minority who are damaged from abuse simply provides a nice loophole to pathologise all. Fuck that.

It’s nasty male sexuality - power, abuse, control, getting off on the power as much as the acts.

It’s a massive problem in our society and goes all the way from violent porn involving adults being overpowered, to teenagers, all the way to children. It’s just fucking nasty men, LIKE ALWAYS.

@DryHeave

It always starts with language.

Just because not every paedophile becomes a child molester, doesn’t mean padeophilia should be destigmatised. It should be stigmatised and it should be shameful.

I think every peadophile is a child abuser.

Those that don’t lay their hands on children still use images of children being abused, that’s still committing child abuse.

I’m saying the vast majority of us don’t grow up to be abusers so there’s no fucking excuse for those who do, just because they might have been abused themselves.

Providing a reason, or an explanation, for why someone does something is a million miles away from excusing it.

We know a small cohort of people abuse children. We know this.

There is usually a (perhaps deep-seated) reason for why they do it.

That reason in absolutely no way excuses them.

I’ve no idea whether Imuninsultable’s statement was correct but “most paedophiles were abused” is not the same thing at all as “most abuse victims become paedophiles”.

Neither statement is true, though!

ImUninsultable makes some good points about the need for a different, most rpobably medical, pathway for pedophiles who have not acted to be helped. But only because GPs are everyones first point of call for all things that require intervention. NOT because pedophilia needs rebranding. As has been explained here already, that opens up a huge new can of worms.

Minor. A word meaning colloquially, not important, smaller, insignificant, not really worth worrying about. A minor transgression. A minor traffic accident. A minor case of touching. A minor injury. A minor chord to elicit sadness.

Words have power. So much power.

So, PIE's back. Well, they never went away did they, they've squatted in other places and awaited their chance.

Didn't South Park do a mock piece on NAMBLA?

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I’ve no idea whether Imuninsultable’s statement was correct but “most paedophiles were abused” is not the same thing at all as “most abuse victims become paedophiles”.

Neither statement is true, though!

ImUninsultable makes some good points about the need for a different, most rpobably medical, pathway for pedophiles who have not acted to be helped. But only because GPs are everyones first point of call for all things that require intervention. NOT because pedophilia needs rebranding. As has been explained here already, that opens up a huge new can of worms.

Fine, as I said I didn’t know if it was true.

But she only said one of the statements. Critique her argument based on what she actually said, not what was misread as “most victims become paedophiles”. One poster told her to fuck off for saying that. But she did not actually say that.

As HoardingSamphireSaurus says most paedophiles were NOT abused as children so this statement IS completely wrong:

They should feel completely secure seeking help for their urges. People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves.”

If this is all about ensuring that people who are sexually attracted to children (pre pubescent children, let's not forget) can seek treatment and therefore be less likely to offend, can anyone explain why Prostasia, for example, puts itself forward as a child protection organisation?

It looks a leetle bit like that's an effort to misdirect and hide your real motives under more benevolent ones?

I mean, obviously pedos wouldn't do that, with them being such fine, open, honest chaps. But it does look a bit like that

@LoveGrooveDanceParty

I’m saying the vast majority of us don’t grow up to be abusers so there’s no fucking excuse for those who do, just because they might have been abused themselves.

Providing a reason, or an explanation, for why someone does something is a million miles away from excusing it.

We know a small cohort of people abuse children. We know this.

There is usually a (perhaps deep-seated) reason for why they do it.

That reason in absolutely no way excuses them.

I disagree.

Claiming men who have ptsd from war have beaten women because their ptsd made them ‘see red’ seeks to garner sympathy and excuse it.

Claiming men who rape women after being raped in prison seeks to ‘understand’ and excuse it.

With in a society inherent with misogyny and victim blaming seeking to link any male offending patterns to their prior victimisation most definitely is a way of excusing it. And it most definitely would be used to do so by solicitors and social rhetoric.

I imagine some of the more intelligent TRAs are going to be cursing at this. Yet another example of not such a great look

Funny how that keeps happening!

@RedDogsBeg

That's not what that says. Perhaps take some reading comprehension lessons before telling me I cant read because that isnt what that says.

@LoveGrooveDanceParty

Goodness, the reading comprehension of some on this thread is very poor.

Saying ‘most people who abuse children were abused themselves’ is NOT the same as saying ‘most people who were abused go on to abuse’.

Why are people conflating the two….????

I get that. But I’m a victim of child abuse and I really can’t bear the idea that I should in some way feel sorry for my abuser in case it happened to them too (which implicitly is what this line of reasoning encourages victims to do). I feel enough guilt as it is- I’m worried that he went on to reoffend because I didn’t tell anyone.

I do agree pedophiles should be entitled to help, but I would prefer it if they got help before they started molesting eight year olds, quite frankly. I certainly don’t want pedophiles rebranding as MAPs, that’s pure minimisation.

[quote ImUninsultable]@RedDogsBeg

That's not what that says. Perhaps take some reading comprehension lessons before telling me I cant read because that isnt what that says.[/quote]
I can't see what else it says though

Your original 2 sentences, way back upthread were:

People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves.”

So taken separately

People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. True. That makes sense. It is social anathema and a biological dead end.

Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves.”

That says most people who are [attracted to children] were sexually abused a children themselves doesn't it?

Which is what Red myself and others were reacting to.

It is a factually incorrect statement, one I personally think needs to be robustly challenged every time it is seen as it totally changes/obfuscates the true facts of pedophilia.

And we have seen where that gets us!

I think it's a legitimate idea if it means people (well mostly men) seek help and take treatment to prevent illegal activities. It only is paedephillia when acted upon

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

No. Red dog and everyone else is accusing me if saying that most survivors of child abuse grow up to be abusers.

I didnt say anything like that. It is simply very very poor reading comprehension on your part, and theirs. If you dont understand something then dont say anything. But to tell me to fuck off for saying that most abuse victims grow up to be abusers when I said nothing even remotely similarly to that is our of order.

Right, can someone help me unpick this a bit. For one, I don't even know what peadophile means. Could someone sexually attracted to children but has never acted on it,
never looked at child porn etc, could they be described as a peadophile? Or is it only people who have acted on their urges? I actually think it would be fair to describe the first group as a minor attracted person but the second is a child abuser and a criminal, fair to call them a peadophile.
I could also easily imagine that there are as many women as men in the first group and many, many more men than women in the second group, just because women are conditioned to put the needs of others above there own and men the other way around.
Anyway, help me make sense of this.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

No. Red dog and everyone else is accusing me if saying that most survivors of child abuse grow up to be abusers.

I didnt say anything like that. It is simply very very poor reading comprehension on your part, and theirs. If you dont understand something then dont say anything. But to tell me to fuck off for saying that most abuse victims grow up to be abusers when I said nothing even remotely similarly to that is our of order.[/quote]
That’s not what I said, despite your accusations I did.

I said most of us victims don’t grow up to abuse children, so it’s no fucking excuse for the tiny % who are victims and grow up to abuse other children.

You said just because some deal with trauma fine (like shy of us fucking do) we can’t judge those who end up abusers by that.

Which is inflammatory bs that obfuscates why some abuse children, which is male entitlement and power over their victim.

Men who are sexually attracted to children are unlikely not to realise that being attracted to children and not acting on that attraction does not make you guilty of any criminal offence. It is safe for those men to get help via counselling etc. and it is highly likely that they know this already. I don't see that giving them a new name (which would be shared by those who act on their attraction to children) would be likely to help, and it would be a step towards de-stigmatising crimes against children.
If you are attracted to children but do not act on that in any criminal way, it's asking a lot to expect to be able to accounce that fact with everyone around you then believing that you have not acted on your attraction and are blameless. No doubt some men are in fact blameless. But pornography is so freely available and men aren't famous for their self control where sex is concerned... Making that announcement is bound to make people suspicious of you.

But it's not true that most paedophiles were sexually abused as children either, is it?

@gogohm

I think it's a legitimate idea if it means people (well mostly men) seek help and take treatment to prevent illegal activities. It only is paedephillia when acted upon

Those who don’t ‘act on it’ use images of child abuse to get off on.

These images are abuse of actual children, myself included. So all paedophiles do act on it.

Unless you can find one who never uses any sort of images of abuse or makes a child feel uncomfortable while watching them at the beach/swimming/sits them on their knee or whatever to wank to later. You really think there’s such a thing as someone who goes their entire life being ‘attracted’ to children and never getting off on it??

[quote ImUninsultable]@PingedPotato

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

The problem is that there is a fine line between destignmatising and accepting. We cannot let it cross that line.

They should feel completely secure seeking help for their urges. People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves. They shouldn't feel stigmatised because it prevents them seeking help.

The problem starts when it starts to be seen as acceptable, or just an alternative lifestyle or whatever phrases people come out with. There needs to be a strong, firmly held line that any acting in their urges (physical acts or viewing images) will come with heavy penalties. But being able to identify yourself as having this issue and seeking help should not come with stigma.[/quote]
Look. I didn't tell you to fuck off. I don't know who did. All I am going by is this post, and I agree with most of it.

The ONLY part I don't agree with are the 2 sentences, which I quoted in my last post. You have become really defensive abut it, if you made an error just say so. But those two lines do read as I have outlined

They should feel completely secure seeking help for their urges. People, mostly, dont choose to be sexually attracted to children. Most people who are were sexually abused as children themselves. They shouldn't feel stigmatised because it prevents them seeking help.

That does say Most people who are [sexually attracted to children] were sexually abused as children themselves. doesn't it?

If you miss typed just say so!

Could someone explain the PIE acronym please? I've googled but non the wiser.
This thread is very interesting as I find myself agreeing with conflicting points made.