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/

@Flapjak

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.

Actually there is some evidence to suggest female pedophillia is highly under reported and can often even go unrecognised because women manifest in different ways. For example female pedophiles are more likely to read child pornography rather than watch it, which in many countries is still legal.

When I say pills - it's depo injection of Lupron now... like the contarceptive Depo Provera, an injection every 12 weeks. I'd be interested to see a study on take up rates, the voluntary kind, for non offending 'MAPs'.

I might have more of a shufty.

@Kendodd

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.

It doesn't have to be attached to an actual offence. It just means an attraction to a pre-bubescent child. It doesn't apply to teeneagers. It doesn't require that they have acted on it in any way, in person or through media.

There are not really any good statistics on how many people might have this kind of attraction without ever acting on it. Almost all studies are on offenders in prison.

It's also worth knowing that not all sexual child abusers are actually pedophiles, and if I am remembering correctly it might even be that the larger portion aren't. They are instead people who are interested in abuse or sexual abuse more generally and don't care about who the victim is. Children are targeted by these people because they are vulnerable rather than preferred as such.

I'm curious - is the same tactic being tried with men who might be rapists? Destigmatizing rape, so that men who think they have the urge to rape will be able to pop along to the GP, in a safe space, to say "I want to sexually assault a woman, can I get some help to not do that?"
Because the whole point is a child cannot consent. So this 'urge' is an urge to rape. That's nothing to destigmatize.

@Flapjak

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.

And then the next step would be claiming that any attempt to stop someone having these feelings be classed as "conversion therapy"

@Ozanj

Provide sources to back up that claim.

As someone whose mother handed me over to be raped and filmed by her boyfriends, and certainly distributed the films, I think the women do it too accusations need stats to back them up. Because I’ve scored over studies looking for this, worked in related areas, and found very very little that indicates women like my mother and rose west or Myra hindley etc are anything other than the extreme rarity.

And unless you have a fuck tone of robust studies to back that up kindly stop using my experience of being victimised by a woman to spout such bs.

Now, now, @FloralBunting Cease and desist with the logic!

That's one of my problems with this. If taken far enough then every crime that cold possibly be committed could be treated the same way - oh dear, naught thief, arsonist, blackmailer. Let's study the precusrosrs to your urge and promise not to do it again, take a chill pill and be an upstanding citizen.

Next step: Everyone takes a chill pill from birth, to ensure no naughtiness.

Remember, whatever a sci fi/dystopian writer can imagine some scientist somehere will be able to invent the damn thing!

@PicsInRed

All this shite about poor "MAPs" only trying to find a cure is a complete rehash of the drivel spouted by the perverts of PIE in the 70s.

The reality was that they were an active abuse gang, who had zero intention of getting help. Men who want help go and seek counselling, and get help.

Here's a clue: anyone using minimising language like MAP isn't trying to stop being the thing they've created the minimising language to describe.

Only a few years back weren't they trying to rebrand themselves "KIND"? Oh, what a cuddly word, they must simply like kids, lovely.

They can fuck off.

Agree, it sad that on the feminist board of a parenting forum most women can see the harm in treating people like small adults some how want to sympathise with people who want to harm children?

You can use whatever language you like, the behaviour is still the same. The harm to children is the same. All the rebranding does is minimise the abuse of children.

For fucks sake - the ‘line crossed’ is using images of abuse, or child porn- and there is no such fucking thing as peadophiles who don’t use wank fodder.

There are real children in those images. So the line is crossed, the crime committed, when these males are teens still. This is ‘acting on it’. This is being a predator or a criminal or a peadophile.

Stop sterilising it by claiming there’s a line they haven’t crossed or they haven’t acted on it.

@Clymene is 100% right when she says that’s being a rape apologist.

@TheWeeDonkey

More than minimises it. It facilitates it.

In my city a group of imprisoned child sexual abusers were protesting being held in prison as they were more likely to get COVID in close quarters. While this was true for all prisoners, somehow this group felt it was worse for them.

They staged a hunger strike, which didn't last long and garnered almost no sympathy.

A few comments on the newspaper website were, "pedophiles stopped eating and I'm supposed to care?"

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.

This doesn't actually meet the definition. People who are not sexually attracted to children specifically, but get off on power and so choose them as victims, are not pedophiles.

There is no point having words, especially when talking about medical and psychological diagnoses, if we aren't going to bother to use them accurately. It has a specific meaning because it describes a certain type of presentation seen by doctors.

Outcomes and correlation that apply to this group may not apply to other types of abusers. That's a useful distinction for many reasons.

@Bordois

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

Exactly. It is always, always a choice to abuse. I can just about believe that there are some men who are exclusively attracted to minors (though I suspect they are very rare) but, frankly, tough shit. By all means provide them with counselling if there is evidence that it actually reduces offending, but do not dismantle social and legal barriers to their offences.

Contrast the concern for these 'poor' MAP men's sexual expression with society's acceptance that millions of women each year are forced into child marriage and prostitution.

@BloodinGutters

For fucks sake - the ‘line crossed’ is using images of abuse, or child porn- and there is no such fucking thing as peadophiles who don’t use wank fodder.

There are real children in those images. So the line is crossed, the crime committed, when these males are teens still. This is ‘acting on it’. This is being a predator or a criminal or a peadophile.

Stop sterilising it by claiming there’s a line they haven’t crossed or they haven’t acted on it.

@Clymene is 100% right when she says that’s being a rape apologist.

This is just not true. They do not all look at images. Some have not offended in any way.

Go work in the clinics in Germany. And you'll see. They are completely protected from any criminal charges for anything they admit in the treatment, and it is totally voluntary treatment. It makes them honest.
Plenty of awful stories, and it is very very hard to accept that it is totally confidential and cannot be reported to the police. But there are also many young men who haven't viewed images or taken any action. But they have wanted to when seeing children out and about. So they voluntarily went for therapy.

It just isnt true to say every single person with these urges has offended.

@FloralBunting

I'm curious - is the same tactic being tried with men who might be rapists? Destigmatizing rape, so that men who think they have the urge to rape will be able to pop along to the GP, in a safe space, to say "I want to sexually assault a woman, can I get some help to not do that?" Because the whole point is a child cannot consent. So this 'urge' is an urge to rape. That's nothing to destigmatize.

I think the question is, what is being de-stigmatized? Is it the action, or is it what happens when someone goes and said, I am having these intrusive thoughts, what should I do?

The latter should be something people can do. But recognizing the thoughts are a problem depends on the former being stigmatized.

@BloodinGutters I just want to give you some flowers.

I hope you now have a safe place to live, with people who love you.

The latter should be something people can do without being scared theyll be lynched. But I've been called a child rapist apologist by @Clymene just for saying that so imagine what she, and others on this thread, would call the people coming forward and asking for treatment.

@FloralBunting

I'm curious - is the same tactic being tried with men who might be rapists? Destigmatizing rape, so that men who think they have the urge to rape will be able to pop along to the GP, in a safe space, to say "I want to sexually assault a woman, can I get some help to not do that?" Because the whole point is a child cannot consent. So this 'urge' is an urge to rape. That's nothing to destigmatize.

Well there are programmes/charities that do this sort of thing with domestic abuse perpetrators, so would cover sexual abuse. I don’t think they say their aim is to destigmatize, but they often take referrals directly from the perpetrators themselves (some take referrals from other agencies as well). I’m not sure on the effectiveness of them though. Someone more knowledgeable than me may know whether they are of any value.

This is nothing new - I've heard that term bandied around before.

I don't think an official rebrand would achieve anything positive.

I don't know how anyone could know that people in every instance view images anyway? There's no data that could tell us that. Obviously it won't be true in any case where no images are available, which would be increasingly rare, unfortunately.

With regard to people not being able to control themselves - realistically, some people don't. Most people have some experience of doing something they know was immoral, and some times really immoral. And many people struggle with sexual behavior. Our society also exacerbates this constantly, rather than helping people develop continence. Some people are weak, morally speaking. Prisons are full of pepole like this, often related to things like FAS and impulse control disorders.

It's not that there should be no consequences when they fail, but it's unrealistic to think some won't.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

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?

I think the difference is that a murderer only becomes a murderer when their literally kill.

A paedophile (dictionary definition) could be someone who no-one would ever know was a paedophile because he never told anyone nor did anything, and a thought crime isn;t really a crime, however vile that thought might be.

I think you may be right @BloodinGutters

I'm so very sorry for your experiences and for anyone on here who has been victim to CSA, but please bear in mind that there will be people on this thread who will use your testament as their next fantasy fodder so please think carefully about what you disclose.

Its a shame it has to be said, but it is what it is.

I think more stigma and shaming is the way to go. Like it should be totally unacceptable to make a comment about a young girl being "sexy" and sexualised images of girls should be considered completely beyond the pale. A lot of women already live this in practice. But in the wider culture, there's still the "sexy schoolgirl" image, still child porn images in mainstream ads, still widespread sexualisation of girls. I think it needs to be that the vast majority find this sickening and it's just considered unacceptable, way before it gets to any kind of actual behaviour. This would also involve ironclad safeguarding practices.

I don't know what you do about men expressing concerns that they might rape or want to rape children. I think in an environment where it was completely taboo, you'd see a lot less of that. But I do understand the point of view that we have to make it possible for those who feel out of control of their "urges" to seek treatment/restraint. I just don't agree that destigmatisation is the way to do that.

More girls are sexually abused as children than boys. Most adult sex offenders are men. If female victims of childhood sexual abuse can manage to refrain from become sexual abusers then I'm sure the male ones can too. There are many victims of abuse who grow up even more intolerant of cruelty and unfairness than others.

Most sexual abusers of children are not even paedophiles. Predators target vulnerability so these offenders target children not because of attraction but because children are the easiest targets.

Yep, Germany with its liberal laws allowing brothels to offer menus which include shitting and pissing on women and gang raping them is definitely the way to go.

Major child sexual abuse trial begins in Germany www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53813249