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

@Kanaloa

Feminism doesn’t need to have a solution to help predators not offend. Appealing to female socialisation to fix males who are violent isn’t going to work on a feminist board.

Feminism would say it’s men’s responsibility to fix violent and predatory men. Feminism would focus on having strong boundaries to protect women and girls, hearing and amplifying women’s voices about our experience at the hands of men, robust safeguards to protect us.

(I’m beginning to think I should just repeat this on every post i make. What should be the obvious on a feminist board doesn’t seem to be to some posters)

@Megan1992xx

The idea that peadophilia is some sort of internalised conflict within the male mind is wrong it is a deeply damaging affliction that has real victims. It seems clear that therapy does not cure it so I am afraid that chemical castration is the only safe option. I believe that Kazhakstan actually does this to their peados.

And guess what drugs are commonly used to chemically castrate sex offenders? That’s right folks, GnRH agonists, most commonly known as….puberty blockers!

But kids don’t have their future sexual function affected apparently .

Gender ideology is about breaking down boundaries, taking away language that is used to speak up about our experience, and removing safeguards.

As is rebranding peadophiles as map.

And both stem from Queer theory, as do many other questionable doctrines.

@Athenajm80

Being ‘attracted’ to children is not a sexuality.

SEXuality is which SEX a person is attracted to. Children are not a sex are they??

Conflating ‘map’ with sexual orientation is highly homophobic and is exactly the redefinition and obfuscation of language that gender ideology is pushing that removes safeguards.

This is why the equality act only have sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Because the word means what SEX people are attracted to, and humans only have two sexes. Which is why we need to retain clear use of language, pansexual, asexual or demisexual are not sexual orientations in law or in reality, they are sexual preferences, as is ‘map’.

If you conflate preferences with orientation then you open the floodgates for any preference to be included, including map or zooists (bestiality) or bdsm including rape and strangulation fetishises.

Then it quickly becomes bigoted for anyone to judge someone’s ‘sexuality’ and those reporting very valid concerns about peadophiles.

So stop speaking like ‘map’ is a sexuality that they can’t help. Peadophiles can help it the same way rapist and murderers can.

*those reporting very valid concerns about peadophiles will be silenced by shouts of bigotry and discrimination and prejudice and ‘most oppressed group ever’.

Duno how I forgot to finish a sentence there.

@verymiddleaged

This is the area I've worked in for years. I'm not interested in pitchforks and public lynchings.

However serious and ongoing harm is caused to children through their abuse and the recording of their abuse on screens.

It is not stigmatizing to highlight the significant harm this abuse creates, it is merely factual.

Boundaries are protective by their nature . Being crystal clear about the unacceptability of child sex abuse is all it's forms is one way of trying to minimize escalation of abuse patterns.
It won't remove the issue by itself because those driven to abuse will work hard to overcome internal and external barriers to their abusive behavior.

I have chosen to work in this field I'm okay with sitting through days of training about how to build rapport with sex offenders when interviewing them.
But I don't expect members of the general public to have any interest in doing anything other than state their disgust.

Thank you for doing what you do.

@CheeseMmmm apologies if I've picked you up wrong, but are you advocating that as long as paedophiles don't rape, then it's all ok?
*So why is it a given that a man sexually attracted to prepubescent children WILL rape them? That doesn't make sense. With this whole topic there seems to be a universal assumption that these men will groom rape. Why?

Surely it should be. Are you a rapist? No? Well then don't sexually abuse anyone.
That yes, it's OK to be sexually attracted to babies, infants, young children as long as you don't rape?

Is that not the whole basis of PIE? Its not rape as consent can be given from any age?

Bold fail. @CheeseMmmmapologies if I've picked you up wrong, but are you advocating that as long as paedophiles don't rape, then it's all ok?

*So why is it a given that a man sexually attracted to prepubescent children WILL rape them? That doesn't make sense. With this whole topic there seems to be a universal assumption that these men will groom rape. Why?

Surely it should be. Are you a rapist? No? Well then don't sexually abuse anyone.*

Then That yes, it's OK to be sexually attracted to babies, infants, young children as long as you don't rape?
Is that not the whole basis of PIE? Its not rape as consent can be given from any age?

I haven't looked at the book but I have just skim read the thesis and I can't see anything in it that advocates the use of CP/images of child sexual abuse.

I'd have been surprised if I had, frankly, because theses are marked by senior academics and experts in the field who understand the literature, the evidence and who judge whether any conclusions follow from this. They also rigorously examine the ethical procedures the research followed - and are concerned for their own reputations.

The thesis notes what the literature has said about the use of these materials. As a marker, (and this isn't my field) I'd have been concerned there to have made sure that the literature review was fully inclusive and reported on any studies that showed that users of ICSA did go on to abuse (if any exist). I'd also have drawn attention to any wider literature that does show that use of pornography does lead to an escalation of undesirable behaviours or fetishes (I believe this exists but I have not read it). I'm surprised this was not picked up on.

Also, AW (who wrote the thesis as Allyson which was I believe the name originally given by her parents ...) didn't invent the term MAP - it is used more widely than just this thesis.

[quote BloodinGutters]@Athenajm80

Being ‘attracted’ to children is not a sexuality.

SEXuality is which SEX a person is attracted to. Children are not a sex are they??

Conflating ‘map’ with sexual orientation is highly homophobic and is exactly the redefinition and obfuscation of language that gender ideology is pushing that removes safeguards.

This is why the equality act only have sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Because the word means what SEX people are attracted to, and humans only have two sexes. Which is why we need to retain clear use of language, pansexual, asexual or demisexual are not sexual orientations in law or in reality, they are sexual preferences, as is ‘map’.

If you conflate preferences with orientation then you open the floodgates for any preference to be included, including map or zooists (bestiality) or bdsm including rape and strangulation fetishises.

Then it quickly becomes bigoted for anyone to judge someone’s ‘sexuality’ and those reporting very valid concerns about peadophiles.

So stop speaking like ‘map’ is a sexuality that they can’t help. Peadophiles can help it the same way rapist and murderers can.[/quote]
I agree which is why I put it in speech marks. What we don't know however is what causes this and whether we can treat it or cure it.

Various things have been tried but as there is little funding for paedophilia to be properly studied as opposed to just looking at punishment, we will not be able to fully understand it and therefore work in a more proactive way to prevent more victims and more offending.

It is easy to say just to castrate them, but that is not always effective as it deals with the physical but not the psychological causes.

We also do not know how many people (men) are non-offending Vs abusive rapists, due to the stigma and shame felt, which is totally understandable as it is a horrible "condition". From my reading, there seems to be a high percentage where the attraction is more the power and superiority against the vulnerability of the victim, so psychological rather than physical. This is much like zoophilia Vs bestiality. People who have zoophilia are about the love and attraction to animals (therefore need help to look at causation and remedy) but bestiality is all about domination, power, humiliation etc.

I DO NOT think any of the above are sexualities, but I strongly believe we need proper research into philias like the above in order to understand and successfully treat them, thereby preventing more offending and saving future victims.

I agree with your last comment, Athena.

Perhaps the term 'inappropriate sexual attractions' could be used to explain attractions to children, animals, etc.

One other thing. AW makes the point that there are three 'philias' often used interchangeably; paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, referring to different age groups.

My guess is that if people do a search for popular phrases used when finding porn to consume (and obvs this is NSFW) then 'teen porn' or 'teen girls' or similar will score high on the list and my bet is also that the main searchers for this will be adult men - hebephilia is quite mainstream, unfortunately.

@CheeseMmmm

Jac I don't think you can accuse them of paedophilia!

This is and has been a thing getting more and more discussed for a few years.

Which is grim. But there it is.

I think Twitter has a bunch of accounts for 'MAPs' unless they got round to deleting them...

I saw "map lives matter" yesterday. Thought it was a parody account, but no, it really is someone going around defending them/self.

Also, in the thesis, interview subjects talked about their feelings of shame and self-loathing. Where porn use was considered, many reported that they were ambivalent or repulsed by it and ethically conflicted.

I'm not defending AW or that individual's views, but I do think that any criticism should be on the basis of facts or at least a reading of the thesis to judge it on its own merits.

@verymiddleaged

Who the hell uses the phrase "child pornography" nowadays? Advocating that men should be allowed to view images of child sexual abuse for the purpose of sexual gratification is beyond disrespectful to the victims of that abuse.

Where in that is there any understanding of the impact of these images being made and used has on the child victims.

In addition to creating an increased market for the abuse victim images making it likely more will be created causing more suffering.

There is sometimes the odd idea that viewing images is a victimless crime. But the victim is on the screen and it does ongoing damage to know the images are being circulated and used.

That is before getting started on the concept that abuse is likely to escalate over time and while some offenders remain abusers at one step removed others will become contact offenders. So abusing in more than one sphere.

Yes, and the idea that viewing more images will somehow help?? How about getting away from sexual images completely and focusing on other things in life - sports, outdoors, nature, hobbies? Not "higher quality pornography"

[quote BloodinGutters]@Athenajm80

Being ‘attracted’ to children is not a sexuality.

SEXuality is which SEX a person is attracted to. Children are not a sex are they??

Conflating ‘map’ with sexual orientation is highly homophobic and is exactly the redefinition and obfuscation of language that gender ideology is pushing that removes safeguards.

This is why the equality act only have sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Because the word means what SEX people are attracted to, and humans only have two sexes. Which is why we need to retain clear use of language, pansexual, asexual or demisexual are not sexual orientations in law or in reality, they are sexual preferences, as is ‘map’.

If you conflate preferences with orientation then you open the floodgates for any preference to be included, including map or zooists (bestiality) or bdsm including rape and strangulation fetishises.

Then it quickly becomes bigoted for anyone to judge someone’s ‘sexuality’ and those reporting very valid concerns about peadophiles.

So stop speaking like ‘map’ is a sexuality that they can’t help. Peadophiles can help it the same way rapist and murderers can.[/quote]
This. It is not a sexuality. It doesn't need protecting.
If being a homosexual meant that I was damaging other people I would abstain from sex for life. It doesn't hurt anyone, of course, because there's nothing wrong with forming a relationship with someone of the same sex.

You can't say the same for paedophiles or zoophiles or rapists.

And the attraction must have the power imbalance as part of it. Children are vulnerable, easily manipulated and physically weak. That must be part of the attraction, we can't pretend that isn't there.

I have read that the number one indicator of a high risk of child sex abuse in the home is actually overcrowding. When a young girl has to share a room or a bed with a man or older boy. So there is a massive element of opportunism.

That to me suggests that it isn't an intrinsic state of being, or something that the man can't help. Men are humans, they have free will. There is nothing about the male sex drive that exempts men from having to respect others or the law. "He couldn't help it" is utter bollocks. He always can. Men choose to do what they do.

With the exception of someone with severe developmental problems or traumatic brain injury, all men choose what they do to others. I don't buy this "compulsion" bullshit.

And therapy just makes these men more articulate in their manipulation. Lundy Bancroft points this out. The main problem is that these men think what they want is more important than what anyone else thinks or feels. Medicalising sex crime is not going to help anything.

I can't find where AW said anything about 'higher quality porn'. I've seen allegations in secondary sources but nothing in AW's own words.

Mind you, although I've skim-read AW's thesis and read a couple of interviews I haven't done an exhaustive search.

Can someone who has found it please post the link?

I have not read the book, but by looking at Google Books was able to click on a link that showed the first chapter , “Am I a Monster”
This was about paedophiles who know they feel sexually and romantically attracted to children but know it is wrong and do not act on it. The author is reporting what the people they have interviewed thinks about themselves and how they came to be that way.

Apart from the author using the word MAP, which the people describing themselves did not, I did find this chapter interesting and the experiences of those discussed worth learning about.

That part available to read though did not come to conclusions such as that sex dolls or images of child sexual abuse/pornography would be a solution. So I don’t know how the other sections of this book are like.

books.google.com/books/about/A_Long_Dark_Shadow.html?id=mn78zQEACAAJ
books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=mn78zQEACAAJ&q=

Yes, thanks, I read that. It pretty much mirrors AW's thesis.

"Among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims,' Walker wrote.

This is a quote from this - a different publication (Wolak et al 2008).

www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-632111.pdf

AW discusses it on p. 28 of AW's thesis as part of the literature review. AW does not appear to endorse it.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

"Among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims,' Walker wrote.

This is a quote from this - a different publication (Wolak et al 2008).

www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-632111.pdf

AW discusses it on p. 28 of AW's thesis as part of the literature review. AW does not appear to endorse it.

Did AW reject the term ‘predisposed individuals’

Because if not that’s fucking disgusting.

No one is predisposed to being a peadophile. No ones brain is just ‘wired that way’. Any more that rapists are predisposed to being a rapist or a murderer can’t help their brain being wired to get off on murdering people.

It’s all just softening up language to imply that these people can’t help that they are this way, which is bs. And very very dangerous and harmful bs to children who will be their victims.

There’s no element of any sort that means these people can not help their ‘attraction’ to children.

They are 100% in control of that ‘attraction’. Not just that they are 100% in control of acting on it, through images of abuse or other pornographic images - like bare legal porn etc- but they are completely in control of feeling that attraction in the first place. Because that attraction is based on children being powerless, being unable to have boundaries, unable to speak up. A person is attracted to people who are this vulnerable when they want to harm, when they get off on the power they have and the harm is causes. The attraction is to the power imbalance and the unlimited access to that bought by the silence of their victim, which is because of the victims age.

Men who are attracted to the woman they beat and abuse are 100% responsible for that attraction that’s based on the power imbalance, the pain and fear of their victim. Those attracted to even greater power over child victims are every bit as responsible for that attraction. They are attracted to the fact children can not consent. So attracted to rape. That is not an attraction that is ‘predetermined’ because they are ‘wired that way’.

The only part about why peadophiles offend we need to understand is this, so that we focus solely on ensuring very very robust safeguards and boundaries.

I wonder what material the esteemed professor "had to" examine for research for the thesis

It was a literature review. AW was reviewing the literature to see what it said about the topic. Literature reviews are meant to be neutral.

My point is that what AW said has been wildly twisted.

I've skim-read the thesis and whereas there are elements of it I disagree with I also think that the reporting of it has been really skewed.

I wonder what material the esteemed professor "had to" examine for research for the thesis

It was interview-based. It's publicly available on the net.

If we are going to rebrand the term peadophile let’s be honest in that rebranding.

These people (almost always men) are RAPE Attracted Persons.

Because that’s what the attraction is. An attraction to children is an attraction to someone who can not consent, to the power they have over that victim bought by their silence, that comes from being too young to understand where boundaries should be or how to speak up to get protection.

That’s what these men are attracted to, RAPE. Let’s be honest about that if there’s any intention to help protect victims or potential victims in this rebranding.

Do we seek to understand why other RAPE attracted men are ‘predisposed’ or ‘wired that way’. Or do we let men be responsible for male violence and seek to have clear, strong boundaries to help those who are victims? Services to help those victims and laws to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent harm?