Academia Normalizing Pedophilia With Minor-Attracted Person: Hebephiles, Ephebophiles and Pedophiles

I’m struggling to believe what my eyes are reading. A conference held in Baltimore on August 17th includes exchanging ideas WITH “minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Health Disorders. The input of “minor-attracted persons” is important to this conference where several major universities are represented.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) says it is most important to have accurate and complete scientific information on pedophilia, and hebephilia and ephebophilia in the DSM (are you learning some new terminology? I am). What pedophiles and hebeophiles and ephebophiles think, makes a difference to the APA. It seems what is learned from this conference can help victims! I would like to know how.

Hebephilias are those who have a sexual preference for children in the early years of puberty, ages 10-14.  Ephebophilias prefer children in the later years of adolescence. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children. At this conference, there will be an effort to establish whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder.  Put them all together and this group is known as paraphilias.

[B4U-ACT website]…it has an enormous impact on the beliefs and practices of mental health professionals, the criminal justice system, the media, and the public. It also has a profound effect on adults and teenagers who are emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents, on the availability of mental health services for them, and on relevant research.

Assuming these three differing preferences are considered a mental disorder, can we correctly assume claiming that disorder in court will send a person to a hospital rather than a prison after they have ruined the life of a child?

On the schedule is Dr. John Z. Sadler: Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts – Pedophilia as an Example. Here is one way the conference will consider the problem of paraphilias (my emphasis):

(2) If Pedophilia and related categories are to be preserved as legitimate, nonmorally value-laden disorders, then they require a preponderance of nonmorally-value-laden diagnostic descriptors in their diagnostic criteria.

LifeNews offers this information about B4U-ACT (my emphasis):

B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois.

On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents

In the LifeNews article, Law Professor Judith Reisman talks about ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby.’ Reisman says the DSM has already lightened their diagnosis of pedophilia to make it almost meaningless, and as a result we have now have women pedophiles as well as men.

I understand research on mental disorders to be important and necessary, but what makes many of us physically ill as we read of these elitists making decisions on things, such as: is pedophilia a ‘legitimate nonmorally value-laden disorder,’ we know we are cruising down the low road to acceptance and normalizing pedophilia paraphilias (scary when my spell checker can correct paraphilias).

Linked by Don Laird at 1389 Blog – thank you! 

Linked by Ole Glory News – Thanks Rebecca!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://faithsunansweredquestions.blogspot.com Carl Middleton

    If it wasn’t for the fact that I talked with the Lord today … I would almost think He has left mankind alone on the earth. How sick can we get?

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Carl, I remember what you wrote this week. “Few are Chosen.” Maybe few seek. Rejection of morality and all responsibility is the way many live today.

  • http://www.Bunkerville.wordpress.com Bunkerville

    More than I needed to know, much much more. The Decline of Western Civilization.. think I have it.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Bunkerville, I didn’t know it was categorized. I thought molesting a child (someone underage) was pedophilia. No, no, these people are picky. Disgusting!

  • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

    Our society is certainly on the decline when we have such a conference, whose sole purpose seems to be the acceptance of such behavior. Truly, what is the world coming to?

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      LD, these professors and the APA look down on people like us. They believe knowing a person’s desires in all things non-traditional makes it okay, and they are determined to cause havoc with it. Arrogance!

  • http://www.conservativepup.com Conservative Pup

    (First of all I’d like to echo what Carl said above.)

    The fabric of society is rotting and ripping, the foundation is crumbling. Decline, decay, destroy. This is the plan of the radical organized left, and at the moment they are succeeding. Sickening.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Conservative Pup, I don’t know how we turn back from here. It started in the mainstream with Clinton and Monica. He tried to hide, but when he couldn’t, he had no shame and I think many, many thought if Clinton can do this and stay in the public eye, nothing will deter me. Then there is the Democrat party that embraces every foul societal trend.

  • http://www.righttruth.typepad.com Debbie Right Truth

    Yes there are new words to me in your article, but I prefer the old standard: “perverts”

    Debbie

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Debbie, pervert fits all three. Thanks for that. Wish I had used it in the article.

  • http://ifyouseekpeace.wordpress.com Ran

    One of such perverts with whom I have the pleasure of acquaintance once tried to argue that it is not abuse of children but actually “intergenerational love.” Ah… “Wuv.” So heartwarming, isn’t it? To destroy the innocence of a child is about as ugly and sick as it gets.

    Tat said, the fabric of society is perhaps better than some think. For starters, perestroika of sorts has destroyed much of pervs’ ability to keep themselves under wraps. The rapidity of news dispersion keeps these parasites on the radar longer. Also, now that we are dealing with the issue publicly, we can deal with it more head-on. That is not to say drop our guard; Rather amp-up the resistance. Push-back, and with force. Louder than ever.

    Shaming, shunning, pushing for stiff laws – let there be real, lasting and painful consequences.

    And may G-d have mercy on the jerk who goes after my kids… for I certainly will not.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Ran, this sounds like the North American Man Boy Love Association. They think themselves a mentor and a comfort to young boys whom they rape. They see it as “taking care” of them. I wonder where the APA places NABMLA in their nonmorally value-laden diagnosis?

      I agree that this is nothing to be taken lightly. I know several judges have caught our wrath, but probably not enough of them. I agree, touch my child, my grandgirls – and you will deal with me in some way.

  • Pingback: Sunday Faith News/Views 8-21-11: Syrian Christian Edition | Maggie's Notebook

  • http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/ findalis

    Who sponsored this abomination? NAMBLA? It must be. Only a very sick mind would even consider this. This animals (of the lowest order) should not only be locked away for a long time, but castrated without any anesthetic. Preferably with the family of the child watching.

  • http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com Jim at Conservatives on Fire

    Remember what leper colonies were? That may be the best solution to this problem. I don’t want them living in the same society with my family!

  • Don Laird

    This was on the horizon and loomed larger each day for the past 50 years. We ignored it. Each and every one of us allowed ourselves to be talked into acceptance, allowed our arguments to be deflected and ignored. Now the time has come to pay the price for our apathetic ignorance.

    This will continue exactly the way homosexuality has become “mainstream” and “acceptable”.

    First, as we see now and as the Homosexual community did in the late 60′s and 70′s, there is an assault on the medical community to remove the crime and demented sexual deviance of “child molester” from the list of mental defectives.

    Then there will been a quiet program of saturation of the public consciousness with a barrage of intrusions into mainstream media in the form of inclusions in entertainment (as the pedo, for comic relief, who really is a loveable but quirky guy or gal, and little Johnny or Suzy is really really happy when he or she visits the pedo’s house).

    This has already happened many times with NAMBLA written into scripts and used as a segway on late night tv. The more often the Public hears it…the greater the immunity..then comes acceptance.

    Then there will be an attempt to vilify those who object to this searing criminal perversion by coming up with buzzwords and catchy labels like : pedo-phobic and pedolove-intolerent. This will be used in conjunction with the attempts to socially isolate objectors by reversing the possession of mental defect and attachment of criminality to the same.

    The academia will swing into action by instituting dozens of encounter groups and programs to illustrate the joys, benefits and “harmless” nature of “child-love”. On campus there will be “Boylove” and “KIddieplay” days and other celebrations.

    Then commences the program of law-fare against objectors combined with vigorous campaigns on Capitol Hill. This will be combined with attacks on corporations a’la Anita Bryant style. The aim is to silence.

    (FYI: you have no idea how many lovers of children and child pornography there are in the hall of government and Hollywood, one needs look no further than the sexualization of children in the world of fashion and beauty pagents…there is not only many groups like NAMBLA across North America and Europe but there are groups for women as well like “Butterfly Kisses” in the UK…you can look them up too.)

    Then there will come an attack on statistics in the form of destruction and ignorance of some and the manipulation of others. Sheer numbers will be used. Such as the homosexual community “10 percent of America is Gay!!”…will become “10 percent of America love the sexual attention of children” Polls and surveys will be introduced with not a whimper from the Public nor scrutiny by government as to the methodology nor soundness of the science.

    Then will come the sanctification of perversion by the Courts as has already happened in Canada and many European countries.(Look up the decision of Justice Duncan Shaw, BCSC, 2002, R V. Sharpe….Justice Shaw in acquitting John Robin Sharpe of many child-crime related charges did so because he found “artistic merit” in the writings of a sado-masochistic pedophile.

    You can read the decision here:

    http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=r+v+sharpe+shaw&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc44/2002bcsc44.html

    Look for language used by our courts such as “sexual orientation”, in adjudicating rights denial cases. This leaves the door open and paves the way for zoophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and many many others. Because, of course, no one really “wants” to sexually molest a dead body or animal…..they just can’t “help it”.

    First came homosexuality and then onto the band wagon every other group of sexual deviants who wanted their “rights” and their own special “victim” status climbed aboard. Now come the destroyers of our children.

    Soon will come the very first “Child Lover Pride Parade”….which, in its first year, will be attacked, mocked and vilified. But will become a great source of advertising revenue from mainstream corporations in its 10th year.

    Then will come the day when, legally, under threat of criminal prosecution and civil action, you must give up your son or daughter to be raped, sodomized and abused because if you don’t your are infringing the “rights” of a child-lover and commiting a criminal offence.

    This love of children goes hand in hand with the sentiments of many muslims from whose community is wrought the crime of child marriage and the islamic sanctification of sexual relations with children.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oyHM7aZ1Ws

    All of this will result in the utter destruction of our children.

    We are not stopping it, we turn away and compromise at every step. We are forging our own shackles and can scarcely be heard to complain about our own demise.

    We deserve everything we get.

    Regards, Don Laird
    Edson, Alberta, Canada

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Don, I’ll follow your links and watch the video. Your scenario is frightening, but we’ve seen the same happen in other situations. I did a post on Dialectic Consensus a couple of days ago. What you are laying out here, is exactly that.

      • Don Laird

        Hello Maggie,

        It has been under way for quite some time.

        For an example read the comment of John Doe below and find therein a reflection of my original post.

        We are in serious trouble….

        • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

          NAMBLA has already marched in some of these parades. The good news is, they were forced underground. The public would not accept them – I don’t think anyone will ever accept them and dittos for other philia cretins. I pray I am right about this. This goes too far. Far, far too far. This is an abomination.

          • Don Laird

            The very existence, of a group like Nambla, even if it were in name only, would be offense enough and scream horrified volumes as to the extent of decay in the West….but this organization, largely underground for reasons of wanting to stay alive, numbers in the thousands….

            How we have arrived here is beyond me….no wait…

            Its called socialist liberalism.

    • http://www.theblogmocracy.com m

      Homosexuality is between consenting adults. There is no comparison.

      (and I’d also add my name to the list of – touch my kid and God help you)

  • Pingback: The Rape and Destruction of Our Children — 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!

  • Pingback: The Slippery Slope of Alternative Sexual Deviance, "Minor Attracted Persons" | Ole Glory News

  • John Doe

    Apparently you’ve all forgotten Christ’s repeated admonitions to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

    If any of you had bothered to go and read what this was actually about, you would see that this group isn’t advocating that it’s “morally okay” to engage in sexual activities with children or anything of the sort. What it’s trying to do is get people to recognize that being sexually attracted to children or teenagers is not synonymous with monster or rapist, and to change prevailing norms in the mental health treatment community so that accurate scientific studies can be conducted on how common this attraction is and how best to teach people to cope with it. As difficult as it is, we need to think about these subjects objectively if we want to move toward child abuse prevention policies that actually *prevent* abuse before it happens rather than just lock up criminals after abuse has taken place.

    Frankly I’m stunned that people are so loony about this. We’re never going to legislate this attraction away. It’s existed for all of recorded history. Most people who feel that way are otherwise “normal” (whatever that means) and want to live socially-acceptable and productive lives. They aren’t demons. They didn’t choose to feel the way they do any more than all of you choose to feel heterosexual. Children naturally trust people until they are taught otherwise. They are also naturally friendly and affectionate. It is impossible for any human being to go through life without feeling affection and acceptance from others. Given these realities, I cannot understand how anyone can can think it’s rational child abuse prevention policy to demonize and ostracize people *who already naturally feel emotionally and sexually attracted to children* to such a degree that they can’t have any normal adult relationships. It may not be right, but where do you think they’re going to turn?

    Would you rather have someone who’s attracted to youth talking to a counselor about it and getting acceptance by others in the same situation; or have them drifting through life desperately searching for *anyone* that will accept them as they are? And spare me the “Just lock them all up!” arguments, because you can’t imprison people until after they’ve committed a crime, which is obviously not preventing anything, it’s just perpetuating the problem and inviting an ever-growing police state.

    As to Mr. Laird with your complaints about Islam, why don’t you read some of the Bible’s stories on protecting children before you blame your social demon of the day on another religion which you obviously know little to nothing about. See, in particular, Deuteronomy 20:16 (commanding the slaughter of anything that breathes in entire cities); Psalm 137:8-9 (celebrating getting revenge on your enemies by bashing their children to death against rocks); Samuel 15:2-4 (commanding and glorifying the killing of tens of thousands of women, children, infants and animals); Numbers 31:17-18 (commanding Moses to kill all men, women, and male children, but to take all virgin girls for himself and his followers).

    And also, Mr. Laird, the dispute in the case you provided was about whether *writings* could be prosecuted under *child pornography* laws. “Artistic merit” is a legal term that is a Canadian analogue to our term “protected speech” used in First Amendment cases. It’s not a determination by the court that the writings in question are somehow socially beneficial or worthy of acceptance like a good painting is. It just means the case can’t be prosecuted because they were just *writings* and are protected by human rights laws. If you want to know why you protect writings and speech that offend society, just look at the reactions of people here; the only thing they want to do is shoot the messenger and kill the message because they think it’s an “evil” message.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      John Doe, don’t accuse me of not reading. I read everything I could find about the conference and the speakers, and if you read what I said, I put it in perfect perspective. The group is attempting to decide whether the molestation and rape of children is a mental disorder. I’m all for the medical field taking care of the problem before a child is criminally assaulted, but you know, doctors don’t generally have that luxury.

      You said “What it’s trying to do is get people to recognize that being sexually attracted to children or teenagers is not synonymous with monster or rapist…”

      Find me a parent who will ever concede to “recognizing” that tidy little statement, and I’ll show you a parent who is a molester. Of course, we will not agree that the medical community should strive for this. They are monsters and certainly, certainly are rapists. See…that’s exactly the problem – normalizing these “philias.”

      I believe a patient’s doctor can determine whether there is a mental disorder with a specific person. Getting together to make these determinations that put all child molesters in one handy category of mental illnes, that will avoid a jail sentence for a patient, and provide a healthy fee for a doctor testifying that the “poor guy can’t help himself,” turns my stomach. Let it be his own child, and I guarantee you the medical professional will quickly change his mind.

      Your are stunned that we are “loony,” about the subject, but you can’t even come close to feeling how we feel, thinking about a degenerate that would harm a child in this way. If you are a NAMBLA supporter, then you don’t feel it is harm, right? Just support and love of a child, right?

      I can tell you this, Jesus expects us to use the good sense and the heart that we have, and He expects us to protect our children in every way. If that means keeping a pedophile away from children, then Jesus will be okay with it. Problem is, we should NEVER, NEVER have to worry about our little ones in this way. If there is ever a category of pariahs on society, this is it.

      Your Biblical verses have nothing to do with the New Covenant. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the New Covenant, so if you are finding comfort in those particular versus, it’s time you started reading the New Testament.

      I won’t spare you the “Lock ‘em all up argument.” You came here, so refrain from telling me what you will accept and won’t accept. I don’t know the statistics, but I’m betting those who start out thinking about rape and molestation, end up doing it more often than not. If I had the opportunity to lock everyone up in that category, I would, because how many children would be saved? That’s the bottom line. How many kids could live a normal life without these people stalking them on their school yards, and neighborhoods?

      The argument that putting someone in prison just exacerbates the problem is just as dumb as saying a fence won’t keep illegals out. The use of the the term “Police State” doesn’t fit in this scenario.

      There is no one here killing he messenger. We’ve been around long enough to know that sooner or later this section of society will be normalized, and it makes us sick and so terribly sad. There should be only one bottom line: don’t touch a child or you will pay the price for the rest of your life.

  • Don Laird

    Dear Mr. Doe,

    Well, well, well, it didn’t take long for a lover of children to crawl out of the woodwork.

    My first paragraph:

    “First, as we see now and as the Homosexual community did in the late 60′s and 70′s, there is an assault on the medical community to remove the crime and demented sexual deviance of “child molester” from the list of mental defectives”.

    is reflected, almost a mirror image, as to what you put forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of your fatuous ramble. Anyone who is familiar with the tactics of child molesters will find their arguments, virtually word for word in these two paragraphs. These are paragraphs cut from the speeches of child molesters and their hand wringing apologists, almost word for word, as they face judges for “monstrous crimes” against children but try to excuse their psychopathy with medical and psychiatric double-talk.

    Everything you advanced, from “they didn’t chose to feel the way they do” to “Frankly, I am stunned that people are so loony about this”. These are classic tactics designed to shift the defect on to the person who objects to the “demon” who sexually molests children. Mr Doe……its not working anymore.

    Further, to quote you again “its existed for all of recorded history”…a classic argument offered by the homosexuals and now the pedophiles….it may have existed, as has cancer and moldy bread, for centuries, but neither sexual perversion, malignant disease nor rotten food stuffs need be made mainstream and provided platforms of celebrity, avocation and promotion in order to assuage the delicate sensibilities of enlightened academia and intelligentsia.

    It can exist as it always has, in the dark fetid corners of society and should it rear its ugly head it suffers a blow so fierce as to not only discourage the owner of the head but its peers as well.

    Now to a quote from your third paragraph:

    “And spare me the “Just lock them all up!” arguments, because you can’t imprison people until after they’ve committed a crime, which is obviously not preventing anything, it’s just perpetuating the problem and inviting an ever-growing police state.”

    Dear Mr. Doe, “Just lock them all up” is exactly what will be done….and, as you are so badly misinformed as to existing law, you can have a man or woman locked up before they’ve committed a crime. Here in Canada its called being declared a “dangerous offender” and once declared that…they rarely see the light of day again.

    As for a “police state” I refer to my original point, fear mongering…pure and simple….if the government decided to take preventative action by locking up pedophiles for life…so much the better.

    Now as to your fourth paragraph.

    Muhammad is the very model of a male to which all muslim men aspire. Muhammad “married” a child, Aisha, at age 6 and “consummated” the “marriage: when the little girl was 9 years old. This is a classic definition of “child molestation” and is largely responsible for the oft recurring problems amongst muslims such as child rape, child marriage and genital mutilation. As for the Bible, I don’t ever recall Christ crawling into bed with a child.

    As for violence I believe the acts of islamic terrorism number just over 17,650 in the last ten years….with the acts of violence and terrorism of all other combined groups somewhere in the area of about ….oh I dunno…10.

    Now to your last paragraph.

    I am reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln when he wrote;

    “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt”

    Here is a link to the case in detail:

    http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=r+v+sharpe&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc423/2002bcsc423.html

    If you refer to the analyses of Sharpe’s writings as provided by Professor’s Weir and Miller…..”literary” or “artistic” merit as in a good or bad painting is exactly what they were looking for. Herein lays my earlier referred to relationship between the academia and the judiciary, almost conspiratorial…..Justice Shaw could have dismissed the ramblings of John Robin Sharpe, as he wrote about the sadomasochistic torture of young boys, as the incoherent rambling dementia of a dangerous, incurable sexual predator. He didn’t.

    As for the “evilness” of John Robin Sharpe’s novellas…..its obvious you are somewhat enamored, borderline titillated by his writings so any argument or opinion I may offer regarding the utter vileness of the same would be moot.

    My closing comments may be dismissed as invective, so be it.

    What you have offered here today is classic, transparent, self serving manipulation of fact, morals, ethics and law designed to further an agenda of seeking entitlement to sexually molest children and to do so at your whim, protected by laws enacted as a result of all the aforementioned destruction and perversion of everything decent which has provided Western civilization stewardship for hundreds of years.

    Your desire for anonymity simply reinforces my point as you and I both know that the very essence of your argument seeks to legitimize, mitigate and excuse a monstrous act. The most elementary of readers can see this and can also see that the argument and the anonymity you seek, speaks volumes to your own criminal sexual tastes.

    There are winds of change blowing across the plains of Western civilization Mr. Doe, your kind will soon be hunted so were I you I would seek the dark fetid corners I spoke of earlier……its the only place you are safe.

    Regards, Don Laird
    Edson, Alberta, Canada

  • http://coward.com Anonymous Coward

    After reading John Doe’s message, and the two responses following it, I’m not sure that everyone is on the same page. I don’t think that John Doe is trying in any way to say that it’s OK to seek out and molest kids. Granted, there are people out there that may be trying to do and justify that, but I didn’t get that impression from him. At least some of the stuff he said seemed straightly put and factual.

    I think the distinction is between people who molest children, versus people who have sexual attraction toward them but do not act upon it. “Molestation and rape of children” is not a mental disorder, it is an action. But, what causes it is what is potentially a mental disorder. If the goal of this to prevent child abuse from happening in the first place, it makes sense that you’d have to address it where it originates, which is a desire inside some people towards children. What is sick and twisted is the “grooming” and carrying out of this desire onto a child, because it involves manipulating and abusing someone, regardless of their humanity or their desire to have a normal life, out of essentially selfish needs.

    There is understandably a lot of emotion surrounding this issue, because it deals with the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, and I completely agree with the intention behind Maggie’s emotion around this. I’ve spoken with people who have been abused as kids, and it is absolutely devestating to them, and they carry it for the rest of their lives. Shows and reports on TV seem to fan the flames of paranoia about this, because it is showing how seemingly regular people are showing up to have sex with minors. It makes you wonder if the football coach, the teacher, or the neighbor is actually eying up your child. Our image of people who have desires toward children is dominated by criminals and actual scary monsters who have in fact committed crimes, because those are the only people who have desire toward children that you find out about. But I can tell you that there *are* other people out there that have sexual desire toward children and will *not* ever do anything to harm or molest a child. You just won’t hear about those people because… let’s just say it’s not the hottest topic of discussion, with just about anyone, really.

    Because there is such a revulsion and stigma towards people who prey on children, it makes it extremely difficult for people who have sexual desire toward them (but wouldn’t do anything about it) to do anything as far as treatment (or even simply *talking* to *anyone* about it). Because it is such a disturbing thing, It’s easy to lump everyone who has sexual desire towards children into the same group (and for some purposes, they *are* in the same group). But I equate “thinking that a person with sexual desire toward children means they will rape a child”, to that, “A ‘normal’ adult male will rape an adult woman because he is sexually attracted to her.” I’ll give that there is a difference in the analogy however because it’s easier for an adult to manipulate a child into rape (which is totally evil). My point is just that having a desire does not necessarily equate to acting on it. In my mind, what separates most child sex offenders from those who don’t actually act, is that the offenders dont’ have a conscience and lack empathy, which really is the case for all kinds of various criminals.

    One part of John Doe’s point that I think is worth underlining is that the fact is that there are people out there who have desires toward children, and that isn’t going to change unless there are real options (besides crawling into a corner and deeply hating yourself) for people who discover they have these feelings. Even then, it will never be perfect, because you are always going to have someone who is going to commit a crime. While I completely disagree with a “lock someone up if you suspect they will do something” approach, it also has a large flaw, namely that there are many people who have desires toward children that will never admit it to you (or sometimes even to themselves). Only locking up the “obvious” pedophiles will take care of about 1% of the issue.

    I’m sure there are people out there that are trying to completely decriminalize having sex with kids, or trying to equate it to homosexuality or heterosexuality as another “orientation”. But, I don’t think that having a straighforward, honest discussion about all the issues surrounding this necessarily means that we’re on the slippery slope to condoning it. I know for a fact that (at least in some cases, but I suspect most cases) that people who have these feelings towards children didn’t choose to have them, and wish they could make them go away. A small minority of them commit crimes, which you then hear about. Another percentage commits crimes that you don’t hear about. The rest live their lives in emotional isolation and self-hatred. (And maybe they *should* be isolated and hate themselves.) But having society approach it this way still doesn’t help prevent child abuse. For every pedophile that acts on his/her urges, how many could have been given some sort of support that would have prevented it? The current conversation in society is almost completely fear-based and reactionary, almost reminiscent of witchhunts. Knowing that doesn’t incline people who could be helped want to seek it out, due to fear of all kinds of things.

    I know it’s easy to label anyone with feelings towards children and discard what they think, and their humanity, or the fact that they have a soul. But at one point in the life of that pedophile, they were the one that we were trying to protect. For the criminal ones, at some point they went from the one being protected to the one being protected from (and sometimes, both at the same time). Not everyone who has sexual attraction towards children defines themselves by that desire, and not everyone is ever going to act on it.

    In summary, there is a huge slice of people that are not being helped, who could be, which in turn would be protecting children more. Having an honest discussion not based in fear and emotion will help this to happen, because it will help remove the layers of stigma that prevent people who suffer from this (and have a conscience) to do anything constructive with it. (The people who don’t have a concience… well… I can’t tell you how to help them).

    Anonymous Coward

  • Don Laird

    Dear A.C

    First, allow me to express my disgust with those who trumpet opinions on the internet and have little in the way of intestinal fortitude to withstand the light of day with respect to both identity and soundness of opinion.

    That said. Read this.

    AC, you would do well to read the entire thread, including the original article as posted by Maggie and my subsequent initial response. This gives context to John Doe’s position and the argument he offered.

    Consider my initial post and the sequence of events the pedophile community will trigger in order to make themselves a safe little niche in society. Then consider that many of those milestones I spoke of have already been reached.

    Moving on………

    To quote you: “At least some of the stuff he said seemed straightly put and factual”….this in and of itself betrays your inability to read and comprehend Doe’s post. Doe’s post is, from start to finish, classic pedophile manipulation of sentiment, fact and reality in order to deflect attention away from the monstrous criminality of both the tendency and the actual committed act of molestation.

    Doe starts with classic references to the Bible as if to warn us that being “intolerant” is a sin. (on a personal note, if it is, so be it.) Doe also finishes with the Bible but with quotations that are completely out of context and irrelevant to the central issue.

    There is Doe’s attempt to fear monger by making references to a “Police State”….his extrapolation that if a pedophile is declared a “Dangerous Offender” and locked up indefinitely that as a result we, the public, should look to that pedophile as a harbinger of the Orwellian madness to come…..that AC, in the parlance of Western Canadians…..is utter horseshit!!!

    (In Canada the Dangerous Offender classification of a criminal is similar to the American “3 Strikes” law)

    Then there is the attempt to shift mental defect on to those who rightfully object to such mental defect and sexual perversion/deviance. (Please read the third paragraph of my response.)

    “FRANKLY I DON’T KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS SO LOONEY ABOUT……..”

    Now to your second paragraph….“Molestation and rape of children” is not a mental disorder, it is an action. But, what causes it is what is potentially a mental disorder”……exactly my point AC…..A man or woman molests and or rapes a child and you mitigate that monstrosity by fence sitting with the qualification that the cause is “potentially” a mental disorder. This is a black and white issue AC….IT IS A SEXUAL PERVERSION, IT IS MONSTROUSLY DEVIANT, THE DAMAGE IT CAUSES IS GROTESQUE AND HORRIFIC,IT IS CRIMINAL AND IT IS THE RESULT OF SIGNIFICANT MENTAL DEFECT……PERIOD…END OF STORY….FULL STOP.

    But AC, you, as does Doe, play games with the margins of criminality and madness, moving them about to suit either the occasion, the argument or the accused. It is a game played by “experts’ and psychologists in courtrooms across North America as victims are trampled in the rush to “understand” and “empathize” with the criminal. It is a vicious game that is fast losing its appeal and shine with the average citizen.

    Next we have this little gem of yours….. “But I equate “thinking that a person with sexual desire toward children means they will rape a child”, to that, “A ‘normal’ adult male will rape an adult woman because he is sexually attracted to her.”……once again AC, an attempt to “normalize” the perversion by comparing sexual deviance with a normal, healthy and balanced heterosexual attraction/relationship …the reality AC is that having a sexual desire towards children IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS MENTAL DEFECT so it is quite safe to assume that, having that significant mental defect, the pedophile cannot be placed in close proximity to children…..EVER.

    A normal man can be trusted far and away above that of a pedophile….your ludicrous comparison of the two is much the same as saying that, with respect to predictability, balance and psychopathy, a rabid dog requires the same level of caution and care of handling as a bunny rabbit…..that AC,is, in two words, bloody irresponsible.

    The remainder of your response are variations on the defects I have already pointed out. You pander to sympathy by talking about the pedophile “crawling into a corner and deeply hating itself”. You talk about “fanning the flames of paranoia” as if we are defective or unjustly “paranoid”…..Ac, you missed by fractions of a millimeter one of my milestones….why didn’t you just say “Pedo-phobic” AC…..why dance around it AC? Then comes the melodramatic with your references to the pedophiles “humanity” and its “soul”.

    I could continue on ad nauseam picking your argument and assertions apart…but then they would be, variations on the same theme to this point….an exercise in futility…so I’ll wrap it up.

    In closing AC, and please forgive my intemperance, but the subject matter inspires rage and indignation, your entire response is classic fatuous drivel designed to mitigate a searing crime. In its entirety, it would make for grist best thrown about in a fancy coffee shop tête-à-tête amongst sneering academia and other “enlightened and educated” intelligentsia as they “tut-tut” and “tsk-tsk” about the narrow minded,low-brow, unwashed, Pedo-Phobic Neanderthals who are devoid of “understanding” and “compassion” for those, self-loathing but deep down inside, very kind and generous souls, who really mean little Johnny and Suzy no harm…besides what harm can a little rape or sodomy do?????

    As I said to Doe…..the winds of change are blowing across North America…no longer will right remain wrong and wrong remain right….decent men and women across this continent are slowly waking up and once fully awake….well, lets just say this…..there will be no place in this world safe for the destroyers of our children……no place.

    Most sincerely….

    Regards, Don Laird
    Edson, Alberta, Canada

  • http://coward.com Anonymous Coward

    Hi Don,

    You’re right that I didn’t read the entire thread, and probably should have. I’m guessing I’m arguing a point that is slightly different than the original (?). I get your frutstration, but I think that you’re letting your emotion around this cloud your judgment. Yes, it’s abhorrent and vile to consider these things as being recognized as “conditions” instead of being reviled, black and white, period. I get that. The only case I’m attempting to make is that not everyone with these attractions is an evil, vicious monster. For real. Those are the only ones you hear about. If I put myself in your perspective, I can see why it’s frustrating for you to have to discuss this stuff with anonymous people. Like, “Why, if you stand behind what you’re saying, can you not do it with your name.” Well, regardless of how compelling I think my argument is be or should be, you have to agree that you would be dumping all kinds of negative things and painting a target on yourself by even partially defending this stuff, due to it’s inflammatory nature (the attraction piece, not the rape piece), which I guess I’m defending. There are all kinds of people waiting to rip you to shreds for even suggesting the smallest thing in defense, right or wrong. Given the reception I’ve gotten from you, would you, in my situation, want to slap your name all over this? It’s just an unusual topic that really doesn’t lend itself to that.

    Based on your response, I think you’re blurring my argument into other ones that I don’t agree with, nor am I trying to defend. But, I will give you the differece in the analogy of potential of rape of a minor versus rape of an adult, that having an attraction to a minor is deviant enough, etc. I guarantee you I would not want my kids to be around a person that I knew was attracted to kids, in any fashion, period. But I’m just trying to make you recognize that there legitimately *are* people who are attracted to people under 18 that aren’t John Wayne Gayce. It’s really true. (Maybe you’ve even eyed one of them up and then turned away in shame from your own judgment?) Maybe those people are screwed in the head, but not every one of them is a vicious, evil raping machine, like the word “pedophile” seems to connote. I really would like you to see that it isn’t as black and white as you think. You think you are right and justified in your perspective on this (and maybe in all reality you are). But, I think I am too. So, who’s got the actual, correct point of view? Why is anyone else’s perspective less valid than yours? Or more? Why does every person think they have a monopoly on “What the correct way to be and think is?” The fact that you’ve encountered enough people that disagree with you about *anything* in this life should be enough to make you question whether you know as much as you think you do. This applies as much to me as to you. Every time you think you know exactly what you’re talking about is a time to question yourself. All you can do in our state of unknowingness is propose things, and time and Truth will sort them out. That’s not ammo for my point; I think that’s good advice, that I would have liked to receive prior to having to figure it out for myself.

    While I get the “This is *classic* pedophile-justifier-talk” thing, that doesn’t *necessarily* mean it’s just complete crap. The point itself is larger than the person saying it. Once you believe something, it’s easy to find confirmatory evidence for it, and classify it into the bucket your mind has already arranged for it. I know, because I do it myself. But, I really think that just because something that someone says falls into one of those buckets, doesn’t mean that you should necessarily completely toss it away. When you take a black and white perspective (on anything), you’re tossing something away that actually may have value, even if some of it doesn’t have value to you, right now. You may find my musings to be “splitting hairs” or “philisophizing around things that are absolutely clear.” Some of that is just the way I think, but there is some value there worth paying attention to. These are things you should consider, if you consider yourself a rational person.

    There is part of me that wants to respond to you in an incendiary way (because you have responded to me as such), but I really don’t think that would be effective in communicating anything that I’m trying to, because it would just confirm how wrong I am (since I would be being so reactionary about it.) I think I’ve been pretty even-handed while still trying to push my point. I would like to reiterate that I am NOT in favor of touching or having sex or anything beyond a “G” rating to do with kids. I’m trying to get people to recognize that the issue actually is larger than just “evil monsters”. There are plenty of people that fantasize about people under 18, and they aren’t all “pedophiles”. As much as I’d like things in this life to be “black and white”, they in truth really aren’t.

    Anonymous Coward

  • Pingback: Freaking at the Freakers Ball with Canadian Senator Larry W. Campbell…..Yeah!!!……(Song at the end!!) — 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!