Trans professor is placed on leave after interview defending pedophiles

[PandorasMailbox]

Oh dear, how very sad.

Don't let them back in!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html#comments

I agree @FlyingOink there are definite similarities between child sex offenders and adult abusers. The misuse of power to gain gratification being a key one.

The evidence for therapy being useful for adult sex offenders seems patchy at best, the circles south east project I linked earlier seems more effective.

The impact of therapy on younger offenders seems stronger, I wonder if that is because the neural pathways are less developed? I really don't know but it would be interesting to see the current thinking on that.

Putting sex offenders in groups together for therapy seems a particularly unsuccessful strategy that seems to be reducing thankfully.

The impact of therapy on younger offenders seems stronger, I wonder if that is because the neural pathways are less developed? I really don't know but it would be interesting to see the current thinking on that.

They can't get more studies approved on porn because the damage to participants is so obvious it won't pass ethics. I remember reading about one where "heavy use" was described as six hours of hardcore porn. Many young men watch that much every week. I'm not sure that being (for example) under 25 with an undeveloped prefrontal cortex is the key differential if boys are accessing porn from age nine.

A nineteen year old paedophile could look like a sad little soul if you paint it right, but he might have watched more (legal) porn and more child sex abuse in ten years than the "dirty old man" who he's been sharing images on Telegram with.

BloodinGutters: Humbert Humbert is the character in Lolita who basically kidnaps a child and routinely rapes her over a long period, isn't he? I fail to see a close similarity with a man who admitted, with a sense of guilt, to sometimes fantasising about children (which he said involved remembering a time when he saw a girl wearing a t-shirt which revealed that she was starting puberty).
I don't think that treating all men who feel any attraction to children as psychopathic monsters is helpful.

Putting sex offenders in groups together for therapy seems a particularly unsuccessful strategy that seems to be reducing thankfully.

Yes, it was very clear many were getting off on swapping stories.
It's also likely some will get off on shocking or trying to shock their therapist. Or they might get off on thinking they've fooled him/her.

I'm not sure I've ever heard of a form of therapy or treatment that stops paedophiles offending, tbh. Even Jon Venables, who must have been therapied half to death, and who had a whole new existence dreamt up for him for his own safety, still got recalled to prison for images of child sex abuse. He probably had the biggest motivation ever to not reoffend (half the country wants him dead, he had a fresh start, he had access to support, he could be open and honest about it, etc) and he still did it.

He could just be monumentally stupid, I don't know.

“Clymene

Walker book is entitled: 'A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity'

A. Walker uses the term MAP, not paedophile. B. That seems like a very sympathetic title to me.

I cannot comment on Walker's thesis. But the title of the book seems a clear attempt to rebrand and destigmatise. Do you disagree @YetAnotherSpartacus and @ScrollingLeaves“

@Clymene
No, I don’t disagree with you, Clymene, that
the title rebrands paedophilia. I hate the term MAP too.

I know from reading chapter 1 in Google Books though, that the interviews with people attracted to children do add to more understanding about them.

These particular people in that chapter do not want to put their feelings into action. I don’t know what happens next in the book.

Could that opening, as well as the title, be a cynical stepping stone put in the reader’s path by the author in order to lead the reader towards leniency and tolerance of paedophiles as the book goes on? Possibly, but I have not read it so don’t know the answer.

Are paedophiles born with their sexual orientation towards children? Or become that way through experiences in their life? Or both? There are plenty of them it would seem and probably quite a few who never act on their feelings and are terrified they might I like those in Chapter 1.

On the other hand all these modern ideas of intersectionality, no boundaries, ideas that morality is artificial and relative, no shame kinks, etc has to stop.

Constantly making morality relative seems dangerous imo. Paedophilia can’t be allowed to be added to Q just through a logical extrapolation.

There just has to be a line drawn. So in the end whatever the reason for paedophiles’ orientation there can be no tolerance for it. That doesn’t mean no light should be shone on how they think though. I think that is more dangerous.

For example, I now know that some feel they have never grown up and are frozen at a certain age like Peter Pan. Some said the first thing they noticed was that, as they grew up, they still found themselves wanting to play children’s games. They found, before they knew that they had any sexual feelings towards children, that they gravitated towards them and wanted to spend more time with them. I expect such a person could seem rather friendly and charming and put one off one’s guard as a parent - if they were young and didn’t look like a dirty old man. I for one now know to be on guard on behalf of a child in the presence of that sort of Peter Pan charm, even if that person resolutely never wants to harm a child.

Imagine if violent transphobes were encouraged to view footage of trans people being assaulted in order to 'manage' their uncontrollable urges to abuse.
Perhaps some sort of dolls they could take their violent urges out on?
Yes I see how that would go down.

@user7377

BloodinGutters: Humbert Humbert is the character in Lolita who basically kidnaps a child and routinely rapes her over a long period, isn't he? I fail to see a close similarity with a man who admitted, with a sense of guilt, to sometimes fantasising about children (which he said involved remembering a time when he saw a girl wearing a t-shirt which revealed that she was starting puberty). I don't think that treating all men who feel any attraction to children as psychopathic monsters is helpful.

Because the back story you used here is the same one he uses. That his attraction to kids started at the same point his sexual awakening began, and that it just never resolved.

So it feels like fake phoney bs.

For example, I now know that some feel they have never grown up and are frozen at a certain age like Peter Pan. Some said the first thing they noticed was that, as they grew up, they still found themselves wanting to play children’s games. They found, before they knew that they had any sexual feelings towards children, that they gravitated towards them and wanted to spend more time with them. I expect such a person could seem rather friendly and charming and put one off one’s guard as a parent - if they were young and didn’t look like a dirty old man. I for one now know to be on guard on behalf of a child in the presence of that sort of Peter Pan charm, even if that person resolutely never wants to harm a child.

See, I have also read these ideas and I just assume they are lying to gain sympathy.

In the same way that certain men with a certain fetish who have very gender-conforming boyhoods make up childhood gender non-conformity as an "alternative truth".

@ScrollingLeaves

“Clymene

Walker book is entitled: 'A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity'

A. Walker uses the term MAP, not paedophile. B. That seems like a very sympathetic title to me.

I cannot comment on Walker's thesis. But the title of the book seems a clear attempt to rebrand and destigmatise. Do you disagree @YetAnotherSpartacus and @ScrollingLeaves“

@Clymene
No, I don’t disagree with you, Clymene, that
the title rebrands paedophilia. I hate the term MAP too.

I know from reading chapter 1 in Google Books though, that the interviews with people attracted to children do add to more understanding about them.

These particular people in that chapter do not want to put their feelings into action. I don’t know what happens next in the book.

Could that opening, as well as the title, be a cynical stepping stone put in the reader’s path by the author in order to lead the reader towards leniency and tolerance of paedophiles as the book goes on? Possibly, but I have not read it so don’t know the answer.

Are paedophiles born with their sexual orientation towards children? Or become that way through experiences in their life? Or both? There are plenty of them it would seem and probably quite a few who never act on their feelings and are terrified they might I like those in Chapter 1.

On the other hand all these modern ideas of intersectionality, no boundaries, ideas that morality is artificial and relative, no shame kinks, etc has to stop.

Constantly making morality relative seems dangerous imo. Paedophilia can’t be allowed to be added to Q just through a logical extrapolation.

There just has to be a line drawn. So in the end whatever the reason for paedophiles’ orientation there can be no tolerance for it. That doesn’t mean no light should be shone on how they think though. I think that is more dangerous.

For example, I now know that some feel they have never grown up and are frozen at a certain age like Peter Pan. Some said the first thing they noticed was that, as they grew up, they still found themselves wanting to play children’s games. They found, before they knew that they had any sexual feelings towards children, that they gravitated towards them and wanted to spend more time with them. I expect such a person could seem rather friendly and charming and put one off one’s guard as a parent - if they were young and didn’t look like a dirty old man. I for one now know to be on guard on behalf of a child in the presence of that sort of Peter Pan charm, even if that person resolutely never wants to harm a child.

Again, sexual orientation is what sex a person is attracted to. Children are not a sex so ‘map’ is not an orientation and it’s homophobic to suggest it is. As well as hugely fucking insulting to those of us who are survivors.

You appear to be accepting the interviews of these peadophiles at face value. Because there’s no reason for them to lie, to con the reader into believing they have never used images of child abuse or touched a child themselves? Nothing to gain by getting a rebranding of peadophila? And it’s not like those with other paraphillias routinely lie or diminish or justify their fetish do they?

@MondayYogurt

Imagine if violent transphobes were encouraged to view footage of trans people being assaulted in order to 'manage' their uncontrollable urges to abuse. Perhaps some sort of dolls they could take their violent urges out on? Yes I see how that would go down.

Or if TRA’s were given gender critical feminist dolls to use to get their rage released.

Because most TRA’s only talk about raping and killing and burning us. Not all of those TRA’s who feel this way act on those feelings.

Do we think that will make it less likely they will act out their violent fantasies or more likely?

Rebranding horror sanitises and legitimises it. It’s opening a door and cheering them on.

@FlyingOink

For example, I now know that some feel they have never grown up and are frozen at a certain age like Peter Pan. Some said the first thing they noticed was that, as they grew up, they still found themselves wanting to play children’s games. They found, before they knew that they had any sexual feelings towards children, that they gravitated towards them and wanted to spend more time with them. I expect such a person could seem rather friendly and charming and put one off one’s guard as a parent - if they were young and didn’t look like a dirty old man. I for one now know to be on guard on behalf of a child in the presence of that sort of Peter Pan charm, even if that person resolutely never wants to harm a child.

See, I have also read these ideas and I just assume they are lying to gain sympathy.

In the same way that certain men with a certain fetish who have very gender-conforming boyhoods make up childhood gender non-conformity as an "alternative truth".

The same way rapists say she was teasing him and asking for it.

It’s as if people think those who fantasise about harming people tell the truth.

BloodinGutters - I can only tell you what that young man told me at the time. I had no reason not to believe him. I thought it might be useful to provide the limited personal knowledge I have about this.

I had no reason not to believe him.

He had no reason to tell you. Why do you think he did?

Child sex offenders aren't all going to be identical, although there may well be similarities or sub-groupings within the wider group.

There is also going to be a continuum of severity and frequency of offending.

@verymiddleaged

Child sex offenders aren't all going to be identical, although there may well be similarities or sub-groupings within the wider group.

There is also going to be a continuum of severity and frequency of offending.

But the definition includes getting off on the idea of raping children.

So everyone within the group of peadophile to whom that definition all belongs will at minimum pose a very serious devastating risk to children.

And have you met a man who doesn’t masterbate in your life? How they do that these days involves porn. Generations that have grown up with access to online porn of all sorts will have already been routinely using that from young ages, and it is very easy to get the images of abuse kind.

I don't disagree with any of that bloodingutters.

@verymiddleaged

I don't disagree with any of that bloodingutters.

So you acknowledge that there’s no such thing as a non offending peadophile then?

Because that’s what using images of abuse means, it means they are already offending, so this hypothetical non offending ‘map’ who is too stigmatised to get help before they do that doesn’t exist.

Bloodingutters
“ And have you met a man who doesn’t masterbate in your life? How they do that these days involves porn. Generations that have grown up with access to online porn of all sorts will have already been routinely using that from young ages, and it is very easy to get the images of abuse kind.”

I can see what you are saying here in that in practice these people will be harming children

Posted too soon:
Re reply to bloodingutters
I can see what you mean about how easy access to porn (that is child sexual abuse) now makes active, enacted paedophilia inevitable.

But mightn’t there be some people who stay away from porn?

At one time some men were brought up to believe in sublimation and self control. Sports and cold showers. Who would beccalled puritanical and repressed now. Some men like them
might still have such moral misgivings that they do desist.

Just realised anther huge issue with MAP.

Minors has different definitions in different countries. Age of consent differs. 14, 16, 18.

Paedophilia means attracted to pre pubescent children.

Under the new term it's ANOTHER blurring of boundaries and what things mean.

In a country with 18 age of consent/ 18 is age seen as adult generally then having sex with a 17yo means you're a MAP surely.

Loads of men fancy girls once through puberty. Are they under MAP?

18yo fancy 16yo. In some countries are they a MAP?

no. This is not about underage sex its about being attracted to children who are pre pubescent.

This ties in with the use of 'young people' when it's about children, used a lot when talking about gender treatments. Young people obfuscates.

See also all the orgs offering group meetings, remember that swimming thing 13- twenty- something for trans people?

Hmmmmmmmn.

There's a lot here that is coming from somewhere and pointing in the same direction. And I'm sure lots of the people organising etc are not doing because dodgy but because this blurring of words for children and young people at various stages of physical (and obv psychological maturity) has somehow become the way it's done...

Ok I wish I hadn't realised that.

This is going to be long, for which I apologise but I wanted to deal with the assertion that my POV was less valid because I hadn't read AW's thesis. I have now but haven't change my POV.

I'm going to refer to Walker as AW throughout as the thesis was published under the name Allyson but also cites another paper that Walters wrote under their current name Allyn (more on that later).

For the thesis, AW interviewed 41 paedophiles who say they have never acted on their impulses. AW posits that there is no benefit to them lying so they must be telling the truth.

AW asserts in their video for Protasia that they they use the term Minor Attracted Persons or MAPs because it is the term the men she spoke to prefer (they're all men bar one). AW says it's also a useful way to distinguish between paedophiles who physically abuse children and those who merely think about it/look at images of children/CSA. In the thesis though, only 13 of the men used MAP to refer to themselves and 21 used paedophile.

Conclusion: MAP is a term that AW prefers because it is less stigmatising. It is not preferred by her interviewees.

AW describes MAP as a sexuality, refers to child porn and contact offences (rather than CSA). AW also talks about how sad it is that MAPs are now excluded from the LGBT community. AW cites the link between PIE and the GLF as positive. Note that in this context, AW is not using MAP as a way of distinguishing between paedophiles who commit CSA and those who don't.

Conclusion: AW is very keen to embrace paedophiles as part of the queer/LGBT community. See image which is the concluding paragraph of the thesis.

AW theorises that labelling leads to offending behaviour ie let's make a distinction between men who want to rape children and those who actually do. To back this up, AW cites two sources. One of which was written by AW.

AW also references the Dunkerfeld programme in Germany where paedophiles who have offended can go and get therapy with no danger of sanctions. Despite this programme running since 2005, there is apparently still not available research on the impact of the programme.

In fact, when AW asks why the men she is talking to don't offend, most of them say they don't because they are worried about social stigma for the children, not because they think it's wrong. That is is possible for consensual relationships between adults and children if it weren't for that stigma. Many* interviewees who are pro-contact said they would pursue relationships if they could get away without legal sanctions.

Conclusion: AW's own research demonstrates that the social and legal stigma against CSA acts as a powerful deterrent to paedophiles. AW did not draw this conclusion.

• I noticed that when AW wants to make a point about a number which supports their argument, they cite an actual figure but otherwise, they are very fond of the terms many or most.

So, while I agree that the reporting in the Daily Mail was sensationalist (but that's what the DM does) and erroneously attributed source materials to AW, I'm still glad AW has been kicked off campus and I still think AW is a child rape apologist.

Some of the men she spoke to choose to work with children as a way of trying to manage their paraphilia. Some of them have children. I very much believe that this research demonstrates the very antithesis of what AW is trying to prove: that if we remove the stigma around CSA, more men will feel emboldened to act on it.

Images of CSA are RAPE PORN.

end of story. Rape porn exists with male female adult and child victims.

No not all men use porn to masturbate which is obvious with a bit of thought.

And while mainstream het porn is dodgy as fuck plenty of men don't enjoy watching acted rape and would not seek out real rape content. (Although the 'acted' can be real but let's not get into that plenty to say but will derail).

The fact is most men do not enjoy watching real rape of women (or men).

And so the assumption that men who are attracted to children will obviously seek out rape content is.. ?

Either all men are rapists or they aren't. Surely. Irrespective of sexuality/ preferences.

The acceptance that all paedophiles are rapists seems contrary to everything else we say know and think.

Is the idea that attraction to pre pubescent children always means rapist? If so, which it seems to be.

Where is the research into WHY? is there any?

Here's one of AW's blameless, lets welcome them into the LGBT fold, talking about how unfair it is that the porn he likes is illegal

Just googling

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/16/how-germany-treats-paedophiles-before-they-offend

'“I recognised that this had the potential to get very dangerous when I was in my early 20s, particularly after one encounter I had with a girl on a beach. I recognised I was drawn towards doing something sexual with the girl, at the same time as not wanting to do it at all because I knew it was wrong.”'

I just don't get it.

Loads of men and women in their 20s must see people on the beach and fancy them.

But they don't go and assault them. (Usually).

With this topic we have-

• the fact it's almost entirely a male thing
• the fact that it seems to be totally accepted that they WILL harm a child and it's really hard for them not to

This is a 'men can't control their urges' belief surely. Which feeds right back into the views of a lot of people, everywhere and is a common rape myth.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this..

Ok so turn it around.

Time and time again paedophiles who say they would never hurt a child turn out to have done just that. Paedophiles are well known for being extremely manipulative. Winning trust. Charming/ sincere. Lovely men. Etc.

Most people are just not that good at acting or natural manipulators.

So turn it around.

Instead of men who are sexually attracted to young children somehow all being rapists by definition.

How about some rapists find young children their main or total preference because of things like. Innocent- way easy to groom if you know how. Vulnerable. Can be abused on long term basis more easily. Can be manipulated into thinking that the abuser loves them. Feeling of power and superiority from being able often to pull the wool over eyes of those who want to protect them , parents etc.

If that makes sense then it starts to sound like a personality disorder and a particularly terrible one.

Any thoughts on that?