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/

OK, I have been looking into the connections between PIE and MAP and have found a few articles.

www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20200628/281827171035633

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html

What happens when good people like Jacqui Dillon speaks out about it.

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/easy-pie-rebranding-paedophilia

The context here is a poster supporting the 'destigmatization' of those (mostly men) who are sexually attracted to children. Ostensibly for the purposes of enabling them to 'seek treatment'. There are a whole lot of assumptions and blank spaces in such a batshit suggestion, but to couple that with the unevidenced idea that 'most abusers were abused themselves' is quite likely to be responded to with much vehement disagreement.

It's a horrible, questionable statement to begin with that CSA survivors often take issue with. To yoke it to some hare-brained pro-paedophile soft soap is so stunningly idiotic, I think the poster complaining of a 'pile-on' got off quite lightly.

Can I suggest not going into bat for paedophile destignatization on a fucking parenting website as a way to avoid this in future? Jesus.

@Clymene

I think I was quite clear in my initial post that I was talking about those who have not offended but feel that they possibly could because of their... urges. At that point, they are not beyond help. They should be able to access treatment before offending, without the stigma attached to those who have crossed the line into committing abuse.

Men who want help go and seek counselling, and get help

Yes, if they know what they feel is wrong then what use is "destigmatising" going to be? Surely one of the first steps is to name and accept what you are.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

An Australian study put it at 4.5%. A study in 2007 put it at 58%. A study in Cambridge put it at 35%.[/quote]
So only one study puts it at more than half, that's not in anyone's book enough to declare so confidently that most paedophiles were abused as children.

[quote ImUninsultable]@Clymene

I think I was quite clear in my initial post that I was talking about those who have not offended but feel that they possibly could because of their... urges. At that point, they are not beyond help. They should be able to access treatment before offending, without the stigma attached to those who have crossed the line into committing abuse.[/quote]
I don't want to talk to you thanks. You're a child rape apologist and you're not worthy of my time.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Posed too soon.

And there are a hundred other studies in between. There is certainly a positive correlation between abusing children and having been an abused child.

Those people who do grow up and have those urges should receive medical treatment to prevent offending. Until the moment they actually commit a crime, they are not a criminal or a sex offender. So they shouldn't be labelled as such.

Treatment should be available and accessible. People coming forward saying they have these urges and want treatment shouldn't have to face the sorts of comments coming up on here. I believe one comment said they should get a bullet in the brain instead of access to treatment.

Its ab emotive topic. But the posts on here, like above, are absolutely disgusting.[/quote]
So how does rebranding help?

@Bordois

Men who want help go and seek counselling, and get help

Yes, if they know what they feel is wrong then what use is "destigmatising" going to be? Surely one of the first steps is to name and accept what you are.

Hence my analogy somewhere buried upthread with 'alcoholic'.

I wasn’t claiming that’s what was said. 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.

I'm sorry, no one said that, any more than they said that most abused people grow up to be abusers.

It has nothing to do with excuses, or even someone who has abused someone.

The point being made is that if people have desires to do sexual things that are immoral, and they are struggling with that, they should be able to seek psychiatric or psychological help.

Most people will not do that if they think they will go to prison, be outed to others, that the doctor or therapist will despise them, whatever.

There are no gains to be had from making such people less likely to try and get help. It only makes it more likely they will go on to act on their disordered desires.

I don't think changing the same is necessarily the right approach to this, but the fat is that most people don't get medical attention for this until they have acted, and been caught, in prison. By which time chances of making a difference are not great.

@PingedPotato

I don't get why they need destigmatising

100%. Saying that there is a massive difference between a "paedophile" (someone who the public perceives as committing some of the most heinous crimes imaginable), and a "paedophile" (someone who is attracted to children, knows it is wrong, has never acted on their urges, deliberately avoids anywhere that children might be and is actively seeking help from professionals).

It really doesn't help that the word literally means "attracted to pre-pubescent kids", yet is used to mean attracted to pre-pubescent kids, and/or attracted to minors, and/or attracted to under age teens (who might be well past puberty), and / or have committed relatively trivial sex offences (I know, bad choice of words) against teens and / or have committed the most heinous crimes against babies.

[quote ImUninsultable]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Posed too soon.

And there are a hundred other studies in between. There is certainly a positive correlation between abusing children and having been an abused child.

Those people who do grow up and have those urges should receive medical treatment to prevent offending. Until the moment they actually commit a crime, they are not a criminal or a sex offender. So they shouldn't be labelled as such.

Treatment should be available and accessible. People coming forward saying they have these urges and want treatment shouldn't have to face the sorts of comments coming up on here. I believe one comment said they should get a bullet in the brain instead of access to treatment.

Its ab emotive topic. But the posts on here, like above, are absolutely disgusting.[/quote]
Those who are going to abuse children by the time they’ve grown up they’ve already have been abusing children.

The same way those who get off on violent pornography will be well on their way to watching this as young teens the same is true of those who get off on images of child abuse.

And those images of children being abused ARE a crime. Those children being raped are real children in those images, like I was.

There’s no such thing as a paedophile who trots off to their gp as an adult and says eh I think I’m having urges to abuse kids, but i want help before I act on them, because they will have already have been using images of children being abused to fuel their fantasies by that point. Which is a crime, it is harming children. And it’s a behaviour that escalates, almost always.

Here is the Meriam-Webster dictionary definition - it covers fantasies, not just criminal acts. Note that it relates to pre-pubescent children:
Definition of pedophilia
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.
So it looks as though this aims to be another attempt at changing a dictionary definition, so pedophiles who have not committed a criminal act have a different name?

@RedDogsBeg

Couple it with all the studies which have looked into the theory that men are less likely to reveal past childhood abuse.

Anyway, it is one part of what I said. And you can argue about percentages, or about influencing factors on those percentages but it doesnt really change anything.

My actual point that medical treatment should be easily accessible for anyone who comes forward before they offend stands. And they shouldn't be called child rapists and I shouldn't be called a child rapists apologist for saying so.

What else can we do? Tell them they're disgusting rapists, deviants or whatever other horrible word. If they haven't offended then they are not. And treatment should be accessible without stigma.

If destigmatisation helps potential perpetrators to get help before they offend, why aren't we destigmatising murder? Or rape? Or burglary?

Can we think of any examples of crimes that actually should be crimes (so not counting the criminalisation of homosexuality) whereby destigmatisation has led to a reduction in offences?

He wants to destigmitize so people get help before they offend. Pedophiles are either child sex offenders or are on the path to become & have viewed images etc. But MAP would be those who have urges / might develop urges but not acted them out in any way. Realistically most MAPs would probably be victims of child sex abuse themselves.

But it’s tricky because modern society wants us to view female minors as attractive - it’s why 13-15 year old girls are described as ‘sexy’ and so most men would identify as MAPs at some point and destigmatising to that extent is just wrong.

The "stigma" is what protects children from predators.

Removal of the stigma is EXACTLY what these people want - so they can commit the crimes they want to commit, without society's rightful judgment.

Keep the stigma. We have it for good reason.

@LobsterNapkin

I wasn’t claiming that’s what was said. 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.

I'm sorry, no one said that, any more than they said that most abused people grow up to be abusers.

It has nothing to do with excuses, or even someone who has abused someone.

The point being made is that if people have desires to do sexual things that are immoral, and they are struggling with that, they should be able to seek psychiatric or psychological help.

Most people will not do that if they think they will go to prison, be outed to others, that the doctor or therapist will despise them, whatever.

There are no gains to be had from making such people less likely to try and get help. It only makes it more likely they will go on to act on their disordered desires.

I don't think changing the same is necessarily the right approach to this, but the fat is that most people don't get medical attention for this until they have acted, and been caught, in prison. By which time chances of making a difference are not great.

The poster said no one asks to be attracted to children and that those who are were always abused themselves.

Being a peadophile isn’t about being ‘attracted’ to children. It’s about getting off on power over them, same as any male sexual violence is. Putting together the idea that no one can help their attraction to children with they were all abused as children themselves anyways absolutely is a form of excusing it.

I worked with children who committed sexual violence, boys always like any of the rest of sexual crimes are committed by males, they begin fantasy about it young. There’s no such thing as a peadophile who starts having urges and isn’t already using images of child abuse to fuel those fantasies. And those images are a crime, that’s real children, like I was, being raped in the pornography they will start using to masterbate to.

There’s no such thing as a paedophile who doesn’t abuse children because even the ones who don’t put their hands on kids pay for ones like me to be raped and filmed.

So no such thing as peadophile who goes to get help before acting on urges because they’ll already be using images of child abuse to get off to.

Anyone who specialises in providing therapy or treatment to paedophiles knows what their patient is, and presumably has no problem with helping them, so there's no need to destigmatise it

@Ozanj

He wants to destigmitize so people get help before they offend. Pedophiles are either child sex offenders or are on the path to become & have viewed images etc. But MAP would be those who have urges / might develop urges but not acted them out in any way. Realistically most MAPs would probably be victims of child sex abuse themselves.

But it’s tricky because modern society wants us to view female minors as attractive - it’s why 13-15 year old girls are described as ‘sexy’ and so most men would identify as MAPs at some point and destigmatising to that extent is just wrong.

Viewing images of child abuse is acting on those urges. It is a crime. It is real children being abused by it.

@PicsInRed

The "stigma" is what protects children from predators.

Removal of the stigma is EXACTLY what these people want - so they can commit the crimes they want to commit, without society's rightful judgment.

Keep the stigma. We have it for good reason.

Millions of children are abused. It isnt doing a very good job of protecting them.

Maybe getting people to come forward before they cross that line may serve children better.

Once they've crossed that line, it's over. Rehabilitation just doesnt do much. Chemical castration should be mandatory. But that wont happen in this country.

Before they cross the line, maybe they can be helped. Its finding a way to make them come forward that's the problem.

There is certainly a positive correlation between abusing children and having been an abused child. I am not sure there is. Correlation coefficients with a magnitude between 0.3 and 0.5 are variables which have a low/weak correlation.

I've worked with people in post prison rehabilitation groups - woodwork, painting and decorating, art, craft and discussion groups. One man was a repeat offender and I was surprised he was allowed on the scheme. He led some of the craft based classes, was an educated man and was adament he would not reoffend. He had a lot of support and took a vow of celibacy as part of his therapy. he refoffende. He said he didn't know of any other pedophile who had not. But he tried. And a child was hurt because he and the system failed to change his proclivity.

That's why many have the gut reaction they do.

Many of us are old enough to remember at least one large ish scale attempt at therapy, chemical castration etc, being discussed on national news. I have half a memory of a serialised piece, 1970s/early 80s, might have only been 10 minute installments. The men were remarkably honest and open abut how they felt uring the therapy. Some didn;t want thre pills, it made them feel less themselves, others expected to be 'fine for a while' but to offend again.

Things like that stick with you. Reading modern day therapy outlines and opinions for both offenders and non offenders I am not sure I have changed my mind about the rate of recidivism - it is high! BACP therpaists don't report good long term outcomes, they usually report good interventions and, for anyone who knows anything about such therapies, that's not a good thing!

I am open to robust research that shows otherwise!

And once again this all buys into the trope that men absolutely can't control themselves when it comes to sex.

Its a male problem. Why do men rape and abuse children . No it should not be destigmatised in any circumstance. Can you imagine if it was, we would have men identifying as children and then demanding access to schools and nurseries because they really are children or it helps them overcome their urges and all the supporters would he saying be kind , as they are the most victimised of society.

[quote ImUninsultable]@RedDogsBeg

Couple it with all the studies which have looked into the theory that men are less likely to reveal past childhood abuse.

Anyway, it is one part of what I said. And you can argue about percentages, or about influencing factors on those percentages but it doesnt really change anything.

My actual point that medical treatment should be easily accessible for anyone who comes forward before they offend stands. And they shouldn't be called child rapists and I shouldn't be called a child rapists apologist for saying so.

What else can we do? Tell them they're disgusting rapists, deviants or whatever other horrible word. If they haven't offended then they are not. And treatment should be accessible without stigma.[/quote]
I dunno if your on Twitter but an awful lot of Twitter profiles actually have MAP or NOMAP in their profile (NOMAP stands for non offending minor attracted person) pretty sure non of them are even thinking about treatment. They share stuff on Twitter itself about their ideal age being 4years or 11years or 3 months, they share what sex child, how they would do it, they insinuate about their sisters daughter, their neighbours new baby etc. No shame in them at all. And no therapy. They are happy being peadophile.
I have no idea if rapists are given any treatment at all but I bet a bloody good start would be to admit they were in fact a rapist. Nothing much can come after that if you wont admit wrongdoing.

@Clymene

Let's try not to let *@ImUninsultable* dominate this potentially interesting thread.

Dr Graham Hill thinks that their is no possibility of rehabilitation: Paedophiles: can they be rehabilitated? www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39115842

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation disagrees but doesn't have any stats to back that up.

We know that persistent porn users become desensitised over time. They seek out ever more extreme porn and suffer from death grip. I cannot see how men who view child rape don't go the same way.

Ray Wire always was clear that 99.9% of peadophiles reoffend.

Having worked with boys who were convicted of sex offences it was definitely true of those we worked with and the common view of forensic psychologists we worked with.