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/

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.

Why are you talking like you're advocating for this help because it should be available but isn't?

It is. It's nuts to think that renaming the whole disgusting proclivity something cutesy will encourage more of them to engage with this help.

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

THIS

@LaetitiaASD

#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.

No, it’s like saying go read all the forensic literature on how the experts in this field think fantasies fuel sexual violence and escalate it.

This isn’t an area that needs comparison to others. Someone talking drugs isn’t directly preying on anyone else by doing so, no matter the indirect links to other crime.

Wanking to thinking about raping a little kid develops the neurological connections that mean the brain requires more extreme stimulation to get the same release, which means they progress to images of children, followed by images of abuse (which in itself is abuse) followed by hands of abuse.

It matters not a fuck whether drug use progresses the same, what matters is that forensic psychology experts say it does with sex offences, and with peadophilia more than any other iirc.

Thank you
HoardingsamphireSaurus
Bloodingutters
SickAndTiredAgain

The PIE information is alarming! The fact this was/is a movement that didn't have to remain underground is shocking to me.
I think there is already so much problematic language around paedophilia which doesn't help and probably contributes to these movements being emboldened.
For example, the term Child porn totally diminishes what it actually is, the filming of the rape or sexual abuse of a child.
As does any language which talks about sex with an underage person. There's no such thing, it's rape!

This thread has made me really think critically and I agree very much with what others have said about the dangers of destigmatizing the term. Whether or not paedophilia is seen as a sexual orientation or not, the bottom line is it is never (or it seems incredibly rarely) victimless. With that in mind it is those at risk and those affected who need the support and protection, not the perpetrators. It makes more sense to invest energy into the former, when rehabilitation in the latter is slim to none and therefore do not justify the resources.

Didn't Peter Tatchell write letters in support of the PIE back in the day, I vaguely recall?

@GreyhoundG1rl

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.

Why are you talking like you're advocating for this help because it should be available but isn't?

It is. It's nuts to think that renaming the whole disgusting proclivity something cutesy will encourage more of them to engage with this help.

It seems self evident to me that people who seek help before they commit heinous crimes should be stigmatised less than child rapists.

It seems self-evident to me that if people can be helped and victims prevented then that is a good thing.

It seems self-evident to me that one of the conditions of someone receiving help and less stigma would be "stay the fuck away from children", and that they would be stigmatised for failing to follow the help that they were being given if they stepped out of line and hung around with kids even if they didn;t actually abuse them.

I understand the concerns, and obviosuly don;t want paedophiles anywhere near me or mine, even if I had evidence that they had never committed a crime and we responding well to support.

I just note that having half the population stating openly that they'd string up any paedophile they found, whilst most of the rest were happy to crowd around and cheer, is probably not the best environment to encourage people to come forward and seek help.

@gluteustothemaximus

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

THIS

How do you perpetrate a desire?

How about you ditch the word destigmatise?

Would you like it if society found a way that men with abhorrent desires came forward for help before committing actual sexual abuse?

@Whateverfuckingnext

Thank you HoardingsamphireSaurus Bloodingutters SickAndTiredAgain

The PIE information is alarming! The fact this was/is a movement that didn't have to remain underground is shocking to me.
I think there is already so much problematic language around paedophilia which doesn't help and probably contributes to these movements being emboldened.
For example, the term Child porn totally diminishes what it actually is, the filming of the rape or sexual abuse of a child.
As does any language which talks about sex with an underage person. There's no such thing, it's rape!

This thread has made me really think critically and I agree very much with what others have said about the dangers of destigmatizing the term. Whether or not paedophilia is seen as a sexual orientation or not, the bottom line is it is never (or it seems incredibly rarely) victimless. With that in mind it is those at risk and those affected who need the support and protection, not the perpetrators. It makes more sense to invest energy into the former, when rehabilitation in the latter is slim to none and therefore do not justify the resources.

Child porn and images of abuse are both limiting in their own way.

Images of children being abused are child abuse and shouldn’t be sanitised by being called child porn.

But at the same time there escalation of fantasies to pornography to images of abuse to hands on child abuse isn’t served by only using the term images of abuse.

There’s a huge in between section between images of children being abused and the prior fantasies using nothing but imagination. Things like ‘barely legal’ porn, or children’s faces transposed onto adult bodies in porn (reportedly retrieved from Michael Jackson’s house after death, although I should say allegedly I guess) or things like some creep taking photos of kids on the beach in their underwear. None of which are images of child abuse, but do feed the fantasies that drive the projectory towards images of child abuse. Because it’s all being used for pornorgraphic reasons, same as other porn is.

So neither term works on their own. Although I think it’s hugely important when talking about any images of child abuse to call it that, because it shouldn’t be removed from the reality that there’s a child being abused to make it. Or that the viewer is abusing that child by watching it.

They can have Minor Abusing Predators or Child Attacking paedophiles. None of this ‘attracted’ bullshit which sounds like a dating profile.

Also if a certain organisation can redefine ‘attraction’ on the basis of gender rather than sex and expect everyone to just get on with it, I think that shows that ‘attraction’ is yet another word that can be redefined and used for emotional blackmail.

And again, being abused as a child is no excuse for becoming an abuser as an adult. I don’t think many any women who have been raped go on to become rapists.

@gluteustothemaximus

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

THIS

Yep. This in spades.

Whateverfuckingnext
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

@LaetitiaASD

This is the feminist board. Feminism doesn’t seek to appeal to female socialisation to fix male sexual violence, feminism says that’s the job of men. The feminist approach would be to keep women and children safe.

So it doesn’t matter what makes some hypothetical paedophile who hasn’t been doing what every forensics psych will tell you they have been doing to fuel their fantasies -which is use images of child abuse for pornography- because the feminist approach would be to let men deal with fixing men and for women to focus on keeping women and girls safe by having firm boundaries, single sex spaces, by hearing and amplifying women’s voices of their experience of male sexual violence and by having the language to express shared experience.

So this is the wrong board to fall over backwards worrying about what would make said hypothetical no offending non porn watching peadophile come forward.

You’re misunderstanding feminism and forensic psychology here.

Bloodingutters

No, it’s like saying go read all the forensic literature on how the experts in this field think fantasies fuel sexual violence and escalate it.

This isn’t an area that needs comparison to others. Someone talking drugs isn’t directly preying on anyone else by doing so, no matter the indirect links to other crime.

Wanking to thinking about raping a little kid develops the neurological connections that mean the brain requires more extreme stimulation to get the same release, which means they progress to images of children, followed by images of abuse (which in itself is abuse) followed by hands of abuse.

It matters not a fuck whether drug use progresses the same, what matters is that forensic psychology experts say it does with sex offences, and with peadophilia more than any other iirc.

-------------------

But surely all the evidence is that people who have committed the serious crimes have had the fantasies first. just like all crack smokes puffed weed first?

Where is the evidence about what percentage of people who have the fantasies actually go on to commit the crimes? ie what percentage of people who smoke weed go on to smoke crack?

I don't believe that there is huge amounts of data out there on paedophiles who have never acted on their urges, not least as getting data would be damn hard, but it seems to me extremely likely that it is a significant percent? 5%, 25%? 50%? 90%? I have absolutely no idea, but however small it is surely it would be great if we could prevent victims by getting to the men before they get to kids, and given the crime thus far is a thought one, we need to get them to come forward.

Forget the word destigmatise, how can we persuade men to come forward and get help?

And to be absolutely clear - to come forward is to be innocent of crime, it is not to be safe. Men who came forward would surely have to stay away from kids and other paedophiles as part of their life-long rehabilitation. A man who had committed no crime, but was tempted, would become a man that the state had their eye on, who wasn't allowed anywhere near kids, and was getting help.

And one more thing... admitting your paedophile tendencies on social media is something that should never be acceptable... if destimatisation were to happen it should be about educating the public about the difference between an offender and someone actively seeking help, not making the thoughts themselves acceptable.

[quote BloodinGutters]@LaetitiaASD

This is the feminist board. Feminism doesn’t seek to appeal to female socialisation to fix male sexual violence, feminism says that’s the job of men. The feminist approach would be to keep women and children safe.

So it doesn’t matter what makes some hypothetical paedophile who hasn’t been doing what every forensics psych will tell you they have been doing to fuel their fantasies -which is use images of child abuse for pornography- because the feminist approach would be to let men deal with fixing men and for women to focus on keeping women and girls safe by having firm boundaries, single sex spaces, by hearing and amplifying women’s voices of their experience of male sexual violence and by having the language to express shared experience.

So this is the wrong board to fall over backwards worrying about what would make said hypothetical no offending non porn watching peadophile come forward.

You’re misunderstanding feminism and forensic psychology here.[/quote]
And your opinion is that demonising paedophiles no matter that their thoughts remain thoughts is the best way of protecting women and children. You may well be right.

I am open to the possibility that some women and children can be protected by helping those men who might be persuaded to come forward and seek help.

How many forensic psychs have conducted extensive studies on paedophiles before they first watch child sex abuse images or commit their first real life crime? What percentage of those go on to commit crimes, and what percentage go on to commit crimes in person?

How do we know that the studied group is representative of all paedophiles who have never committed an offence?

I do not believe you nor anyone else knows much about what stops one potential offender whilst another goes on to abuse. I do not believe that everyone who has sick thoughts becomes an offender.

I do believe that society should make it absolutely clear that we hate all paedophiles, but the ones who don't watch child abuse imagery or abuse kids are definitely the best kind. Definitely nothing to be proud of or discuss with others (ther than in therapy) or have on your twitter handle. Anyone advertising that they are MAP is clearly fucked and probably looking for like-minded sickos.

many people, before too long, would come to a justification of 'this is who I am' - more 'diversity' to be 'celebrated' - and seek to make it just another identity, with those expressing any disagreement with it being labelled as phobic bigots.

I am certain of this. The easy availabilty of child sex-abuse images on the Internet has already weakened the stigma. These predators are relentless, and terrifyingly persistent. Every little step eases the way for them.

So just throwing it out there -

Is there any proof that pedos want to be helped? Please provide references

Is there any evidence that they can be stopped? Please provide references

My personal view, which i will continue to hold until I see convincing evidence otherwise, and based on a pedo I know and how he is treated by others is there isn’t enough stigmatisation

@LaetitiaASD

‘I do believe that society should make it absolutely clear that we hate all paedophiles, but that the ones who don’t watch images of abuse or abuse children are the best kind.’

Hahahahahahahahaha

Are you trying to trend on Twitter for the most utter bollocks ever said on MN FWR??

@WitchButNotTheFunKind

So just throwing it out there -

Is there any proof that pedos want to be helped? Please provide references

Is there any evidence that they can be stopped? Please provide references

My personal view, which i will continue to hold until I see convincing evidence otherwise, and based on a pedo I know and how he is treated by others is there isn’t enough stigmatisation

I've got to ask - is he convicted? Do people know? Why is he not treated worse?

[quote BloodinGutters]@LaetitiaASD

‘I do believe that society should make it absolutely clear that we hate all paedophiles, but that the ones who don’t watch images of abuse or abuse children are the best kind.’

Hahahahahahahahaha

Are you trying to trend on Twitter for the most utter bollocks ever said on MN FWR??[/quote]
Are you saying that if you saw two men, one who had nasty thoughts which he had resisted the urge to act on, and one who had a string of the most serious convictions, you think of them the same?

I'm not talking about intrusive thoughts. Intrusive thoughts can be a symptom of OCD and they're horrible and in no way the same as someone wanting to sexually abuse a child.

And sure, if someone actually wants to abuse a child and needs help to not do that then I think phoning the police and shopping themselves is an action that should be encouraged, because the main help for everyone would be them officially flagged up as a safeguarding risk.

Not even sorry lads, won't be congratulating you on your brave decision to not rape a child, everyone else manages to not do it, it's pretty goddamned basic. Definitely, more stigma, and robust safeguarding is the answer to paedophiles. Not less threatening names and soothing tones.

The problem with there being a line between destigmatisation and acceptance is everyone is going to have a different line which shouldn't be crossed.
And we will all have a different idea of what help looks like.
By all means they should seek help but the stigma should also remain without moving boundaries.
This is not the topic which needs grey areas or people arguing what is an urge and what is an act.
Honestly any topic between adults argue away but when minors are involved, my line is no grey areas.

@FloralBunting

I'm not talking about intrusive thoughts. Intrusive thoughts can be a symptom of OCD and they're horrible and in no way the same as someone wanting to sexually abuse a child.

And sure, if someone actually wants to abuse a child and needs help to not do that then I think phoning the police and shopping themselves is an action that should be encouraged, because the main help for everyone would be them officially flagged up as a safeguarding risk.

Not even sorry lads, won't be congratulating you on your brave decision to not rape a child, everyone else manages to not do it, it's pretty goddamned basic. Definitely, more stigma, and robust safeguarding is the answer to paedophiles. Not less threatening names and soothing tones.

Intrusive thoughts are the direct opposite of fantasies that drive use of images of child abuse for pornography.

Intrusive images are a neurological dysfunction that happen to everyone, like a brain sneeze, where someone our brain has a second snap shot of the most ridiculous thing in the moment -like someone bends over to tie a shoe & we walk past & our brain goes to kicking his butt. Even though we never would, even though it’s the last thing we would ever want to do in the moment.

If people have mh problems these can get stuck on these intrusive thoughts, they can trigger voices or ocd rituals or ptsd episodes and so on. But the mechanics by which they occur happen in all brains, whether we focus on it or not.

Fantasies require intentional focus, returning to the ritual to build the fantasy, to add more and more layers to it, to build it in a way people can carry it with them. It requires intentional thoughts, not intrusive ones.

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.

Again, you are reading all kinds of things into what people are saying tha t are not there.

You are so focused on this idea of excusing which no one has said, except you. Understanding why people do things, what personality profiles, personality disorders, and neurology feeds into that is not excusing anything. Even with psychopaths we can try to understand why people are like that, what makes some dangerous, and others not. If there are things we could do to identify them for better outcomes, or prevent people being that way.

We have no idea whether there are people who suffer from pedophilia who never offend. They are not exactaly coming for ward in numbers to give their stories. The kinds of studies you are talking about are almost all of offenders, which is a real limitation, one entirely acknowledged by people doing these studies. Attempts have been made to collect more information but it's not easy. That could be one benefit of having people come forward.

Saying that people with impulse control are more likely to commit crimes isn't "excusing" them either, and the fact that you or anyone else with such problems hasn't is really totally irrelevant. It is the case that people who commit ant-social crimes are much more likely to have impulse control disorders. Looking at this in prison populations is quite shocking and it's suggestive of some ways we might go about preventing crime and ant-social behavior.

Most posters have been somewhat skeptical of this doctor's idea, and no one seems to have been wholly convinced. There's no need to accuse people of looking to make excuses, or being rape apologists, or any of the other ridiculous statements made by various people in the thread. No one has given any indication that they think sexual assaults against children are ok, on the contrary their goal seems to be to ask how they could be prevented by things like early intervention or better understanding of what makes offenders the way they are.

[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 would listen to suggestions about improving their access to and use of help, but I don’t accept renaming it to something less offensive as the first option. There must be other ways. Rapists should get therapy, but we are not going to rename rape arousal through forceful sexual activity just to make them feel better about themselves. If people are serious about helping pedophiles (acknowledging there is very limited data that it’s possible) then find an acceptable way that does NOT normalise child sexual abuse.

@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….????

Possibly the reading comprehension wasn't helped by the poorly framed post.

The claim that most abusers were themselves abused is, as others have posted out, patently untrue given the fact that female children are at least as likely to be abused but female adult abusers do not make up 50 % of adult abusers.