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/

"It’s not a fucking medical condition anymore than being a rapist or a murderer are medical conditions." Well said, BloodinGutters

@PingedPotato

I don't get why they need destigmatising

Me neither. I mean seriously WTAF!

Surely it's like saying let's destigmatise murder or the desire to torture people. Let's just destigmatise animal torture while we're at it!!!

There is help already available for people who have any of these urges.

The terms MAP and NOMAP have already done the job of minimising paedophilia. Men on Twitter calling themselves MAPs and NOMAPs are allowed. They even put the age of the children they are interested in, including 0. Do you think they would be allowed to do that if they called themselves paedophiles??

It's always go for the name first. Maps, intergenerational sex, the thing about liking boys.

It doesn't fool anyone.

And yes of course the logic absolutely fails if you're talking about say rapists, because people don't think that rapists want to be cured of the urge to rape. Somehow they do with paedophiles.

And if there's a stigma about seeking help, then surely the focus should be on the therapists who offer their help. It's up to them to destigmatise their services.

There is no stigma to picking up a bloody phone.

@Clymene

15,000 reported cases of child sexual abuse in Germany in 2019.
74,000 reported cases in the UK.

And Germany have 10million more people than us.

And the German reaction to their figure was outrage and the police have been very vocal that the number will be higher as most abuse is committed by relatives and isnt reports. That will also be true for the UK. Our figure will be higher.

There will be lots and lots of factors explaining the difference but one of those is the way Germany handles treatment of those who come forward so they dont offend.

What other men's nasty sexual proclivities shall we destigmatise next?

Gang rape?
Animal abuse?

There's so many that are already considered to be perfectly normal (killing your girlfriend during 'rough sex' for example).

The only people who benefit from destigmatising abhorrent desires are the men who perpetrate them.

@ImUninsultable

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.

Look at the DARVO going on here.

I wonder if it’s ironic that term was coined by Jennifer Freyd, the woman whose father molested her then both parents came up with false memory syndrome to silence her, and I only just mentioned false memory syndrome societies link to NAMBLA up thread.

It’s like the 6 degrees of child abuse.

I bet this was going to be the next thing on the loonies list.

[quote ImUninsultable]@Clymene

15,000 reported cases of child sexual abuse in Germany in 2019.
74,000 reported cases in the UK.

And Germany have 10million more people than us.

And the German reaction to their figure was outrage and the police have been very vocal that the number will be higher as most abuse is committed by relatives and isnt reports. That will also be true for the UK. Our figure will be higher.

There will be lots and lots of factors explaining the difference but one of those is the way Germany handles treatment of those who come forward so they dont offend.[/quote]
Child sex abuse is massively under reported in many countries. There’s no way to assess or evaluate how much in each country.

Hasn't it been proved that sex offender management schemes are failures, anyway? They are used by men to game the system.

@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.

Exactly this.

@fournonblondes

I bet this was going to be the next thing on the loonies list.

The map crowd have been on Twitter supporting trans rights and campaigning to have themselves added to the alphabet since I started out in Twitter trenches a decade ago. And I was v much late to the party then, judging by other Twitter accounts knowledge.

Add in zooist crowd too (beastiality)

I’m sure I saw somewhere that often child abusers claim to have been abused as children as a way of gaining sympathy/avoiding consequences, and it’s actually far less prevalent than is commonly thought.

The age of consent in Germany is 14 which would preclude some instances that would fall under the banner of CSA in the UK anyway.

@EsmaCannonball

Hasn't it been proved that sex offender management schemes are failures, anyway? They are used by men to game the system.

Add that to the fact that paedophiles are the most manipulative and cunning criminal offenders. I agree, I don't see how it could work, and yes. Keep the stigma and shame. Its there for a reason. Just save it for the paedophiles not their prey.

@LobsterNapkin

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.

I have an impulse control disorder, adhd, don’t go excusing this with oh the poor criminals can’t help it.

Go read any forensic psychologist out there, they’ll all say the same thing, that men who commit sexual offences start off by fantasising, and that they use images of child abuse as wank fodder to fuel their fantasies.

Same pattern as there is with every other pattern of sex offenders.

And because brain development is use dependent getting off on these images creates the neural pathways that lead to needing more extreme stimulation to get the same reactions, so behaviours to provide this situation escalate.

[quote poshme]@BloodinGutters I just want to give you some flowers.

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

[/quote]
Ty x

Maybe the problem here is the word destigmatise?

I believe that anyone who has never committed a crime, but who fears that they might because they are drawn to committing the crime, should be helped NOT to commit the crime, especially if the crime is really serious and would have a devastating affect on the victim.

Can we all agree that? Please can we all agree that?

So the next question is about a subset of people who have not committed a crime (or rather no-one has evidence that they have committed a crime). They are drawn to committing a really serious crime, and the only way of identifying them is if they come forward (or if they commit a crime and get caught). We have already established that we need to help them (for the benefit of the victim if no-one else), and we know that the only way we'll help them is if they come forward?

Surely we can all agree these potential sex offenders should come forward?

How do we achieve that? Surely carrot (and I prefer destigimatising people that givign the cash payouts for coming forward and admitting their perverted thoughts) or stick.

Just about the only alternative I can think of to destigmatisation to help acheive very sensible aims would be to have a two-tier sentencing system, whereby paedophiles who were registered as such, and were actively seeking help, received lower sentences than those who had not reached out for help. This could be acheived by using current sentencing guidelines on paedophiles getting help, and having tougher sentences for those who have not come forward.

@LaetitiaASD

Some murderers will watch snuff films or pretend snuff films for their porn.

Some rapists will watch rape porn.

Some of the above, while grosteque, will be faked and so doesn’t make them criminals, however repugnant it makes them.

But peadophiles are abusing children when they watch images of child abuse for their pornography.

And I don’t think any peadophile should get a ‘lower’ sentence, seeing as they get sentenced to so little at the best of times.

@NadiaVulvokov

I’m sure I saw somewhere that often child abusers claim to have been abused as children as a way of gaining sympathy/avoiding consequences, and it’s actually far less prevalent than is commonly thought.

I think the prevalence is something that can never be reliably known. As you say, they have an incentive to lie and say they were a victim. But if you want valid figures then insisting on them providing verifiable proof isn’t useful either, since plenty of people who were victims of CSA cannot provide proof (beyond their own testimony, which you’d believe in other cases, but not in the case of a paedophile with a very clear incentive to lie).

There is no conclusive evidence from Dunkelfeld.

A study I read said that while no physical offenders reoffended, quite a few of the child rape porn ones did. Which suggests that they haven't changed behaviour. And half of them quit the programme.

I wonder - given the promise that they won't report previous offending - how many of the offenders use the group sessions to set up networks.

#BloodinGutters

Go read any forensic psychologist out there, they’ll all say the same thing, that men who commit sexual offences start off by fantasising, and that they use images of child abuse as wank fodder to fuel their fantasies.

Same pattern as there is with every other pattern of sex offenders.

That's just like saying all crack addicts have smoked weed first... of course they have, anyone can get weed easily, but crack involves being a bit deeper into the criminal underworld. You might as well say that milk for babies is a gateway to the sorts of really unhealthy eating that causes extreme obesity - after all can you think of a single morbidly obese person who never had baby milk first?

We are not talking about the people who have progressed from thought to image to real life crime.

We're talking about helping people to stop before they move from mind to image, and if they have made that first despicable leap then we still want to stop them making the next one.

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 agree that a thought crime, isn't a crime, of course. But serial killers typically do fantasise about killing and build up to it, in a similar manner to child sexual abusers. They might not literally be killers till they act on their desires, but they develop their proclivities in similar ways. They also typically use violent pornography, which feeds and normalises their desires.

@BloodinGutters

And I don’t think any peadophile should get a ‘lower’ sentence, seeing as they get sentenced to so little at the best of times.

I made it explicitly clear that I meant lower than the new higher sentences for "normal paedophiles" not getting help. ie if you want the "too low" sentences then get help before offending, if you don;t come forward then you get the new improved harsher sentences.

Equally you could give the ones who seek help life sentences with castration and execute the ones who didn;t eek help. My point was not about the level of punishment.

My point is that if there is an incentive to seek help before committing an offence then they may be fewer offences and it might be easier to catch people too if they;re on a list of potential offenders with their DNA already taken as a condition of help.

Hope this isn't a repeat of another post, or even a slight derail (?), but it made my blood run cold a bit to think that someone could think this was a good idea, not just in and of itself but at a specific moment in time when so many safeguards/spaces have just been thoroughly demolished. Surely this is a time when we should be more vigilant, more critical, more hyperaware even of prospective child rapists rather than removing the stigma which is society's appropriate three fire alarm response to such vicious abuse?

Too much of a bloody coincidence for me..