Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

posted at 5:25 pm on August 24, 2011 by Tina Korbe

When I wrote about an objectionable spread of photographs in Paris Vogue – a spread that featured 10-year-old fashion model Thylane Blondeau styled in provocative ways — I fretted that such a magazine feature might, in some way, normalize the concept of sexual attraction to minors:

It’s often said, but bears repeating, that the TV, magazine and advertising images we absorb train our minds as to what is considered attractive — and, yes, specifically sexually attractive — in our culture. So, what does a magazine feature like this say? That it’s OK, even encouraged, to look at a child in a sexual way. …

But it’s adamantly not OK to look at a child in a sexual way, as harsh laws against pedophilia and child pornography attest. Maybe it seems like a leap of logic to move from provocative pictures to pornography and pedophilia, but again, images train the mind’s eye. The more readers and viewers see children in adult poses and in adult clothes, the less jarring it will be to those readers and viewers to see children in adult roles. It’s all highly inappropriate — and in territory better avoided entirely.

What’s crazy is, at the time, I thought we were still years away from any sane person seriously suggesting such a distorted disposition of attraction to minors — i.e. pedophilia — should be repackaged as less a problem and more a disorder to be understood and, yes, tolerated. But one group of psychologists is calling for such a redefinition even now. Megyn Kelly and Shannon Bream were just talking about this appalling push on “America Live.”

B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.

Perhaps that sounds innocent enough (although I don’t think so). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a second: What’s wrong with psychiatrists seeking to help those attracted to children better understand why they have that tendency? Perhaps those psychiatrists could even be an instrument of crime prevention or of after-the-fact justice. But no. Consider: At least one psychiatrist in the bunch has been known to treat child molesters without reporting them, Bream said.

Last week, the group hosted a scientific symposium to discuss a proposed new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia, Bream said.

As all too often happens with any kind of push for political correctness, with a twist of language, the blameless are forgotten. Let’s remember whom both the social stigma against “minor-attracted persons” and the outlawing of sexual activity between an adult and a minor aim to protect. Yes, I’m talking about children, whose innocence deserves to be preserved, whose minds and bodies haven’t fully developed yet, who depend upon adults for their moral formation. Advocacy on this issue must be on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves — not on behalf of those who, however troubled and however tempted, still bear ultimate responsibility for their actions.

Update: At least one reader wondered my justification for the assertion that the B4U-Act movement appears to be headed in the direction of pushing to decriminalize pedophilia. According to Shannon Bream’s report on Fox News, some — although not all — of the presenters at the symposium expressed the view that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. That sounds like the decriminalization of pedophilia to me.

Update: B4U-Act is not alone in the effort to normalize pedophilia. Big Hollywood’s John Nolte has reported on the entertainment industry’s attempt to glamorize sex with children, as well.

Update: Here’s the video from the “America Live” segment that tipped me off:


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Wow; with all of the normalizing of sexual deviancy in the last years, who ever would’ve seen this coming?

Oh yeah – everyone.

Midas on August 25, 2011 at 12:32 AM

This is not really a surprise. In the 1970′s(’73, I believe) homosexual groups forced the psychiatric organizations to redefine homosexuality as “not a mental disorder”. Was this change due to any new research or scientific findings? Nope, just pressure from the burgeoning homosexual lobby. Don’t believe me, look it up.

Do you see where this kind of thing is headed?.

Just as homosexual groups try to distance themselves from pedophilia(well, at least, they did at one time), which is a lie in itself, as homosexuals exalt “youth” as a desired trait in their sexual conquests, I fail to see why there is such a disconnect, other than PR. Now, I am not saying that all homosexuals have a desire to have sex with children, but there should be a more clear definition, as there obviously are many ones that do. Homosexuals like “diversity” you know.

Simply put, if you are a male and you molest a male child, you obviously are a homosexual pedophile. They never try to divert blame from a male’s heterosexuality when he molests a female child, why is it so different for homosexuals? You don’t have to answer that, because I already know the answer.
Don’t agree with my stance? Why? What is the definition of homosexuality? It is sexual attraction to members of your own gender. Old people are included in that definition, why not young children.

And if you understand it like that you will see that those priests who molest young boys are homosexual pedophiles, who joined the priesthood either with good intentions of attempting to get away from their homosexual lusts, but failed. Or more disturbingly, joined because they knew they could get close to young boys. Just as the heterosexual pedophile priests may have joined for the same reasons, only for a different gender.

Sterling Holobyte on August 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM

What is the definition of homosexuality? It is sexual attraction to members of your own gender.
Sterling Holobyte on August 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM

I’d say the best clear and concise definition is “someone who chooses to engage in sodomy with someone of his/her own gender”. (“Sodomy” legally defined as unnatural sexual relations.)

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:00 AM

…If the answer to this is “swift incarceration” and “prolific restraining orders around school property” then I’m all for this law. If it is not, I vehemently oppose…

BKennedy on August 24, 2011 at 9:02 PM

But what if a therapist is presented with a patient who describes experiencing pedophillic urges, but has not committed a crime? Would you rather the professional treat that person, and give them the tools they need to either change their urges or to at least restrain themselves from committing a crime, or would you rather they throw their patient out of their office? The individual can’t be arrested for fantasies, but at least some of them certainly might worsen to the point where they do commit crimes.

As I mentioned before, people are failing to differentiate between individuals with pedophillic urges and those who engage in pedophillic acts. They are not ethically equivalent.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM

As I mentioned before, people are failing to differentiate between individuals with pedophillic urges and those who engage in pedophillic acts. They are not ethically equivalent.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Nor are they morally or legally equivalent.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM

You are positing that pedophilia is the result of “something” happening to someone, like the trauma of molestation, etc.

But just take the word “pedophilia” out of your post and replace it with “homosexual” and one could put that forth as a posit….

Opposite Day on August 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM

The problem with you’re “slippery slope” is that it is rather well-established that pedophilia is in indisputable fact linked to childhood sexual trauma. There are pedophiles convicted of sex crimes, and they’re available for interview and study. Many of them are cooperative, and many even receive therapy. They discuss their backgrounds. It’s not an unknown quantity. There is an obvious (and if you think about it, understandble) correlation. Pedophiles are products of childhood sexual trauma (though other dysfunctions, like addiction, can also manifest as the result of childhood sexual trauma).

There is no equivalent degree of evidence associating homosexuality with any consistent sort of experiential background. I do know that some victims of male pedophiles have grown up to be gay. I am certainly open to the possibility that their trauma played a role there. I’m also aware that some children appear to have interests antithetical to those traditionally shared by their gender, from a rather early age, and they also grow up to be gay. This doesn’t appear to be the result of environment at all.

I have never heard of an individual with pedophillic urges, or who has committed pedophillic crimes, who did not experience some sort of childhood sexual trauma. Ever. There very well may be other factors at play, but certainly this seems necessary.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Nor are they morally or legally equivalent.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM

And yet most of those responding to this thread seem to discard the possibility that the mental health professionals in question wish to help those who are merely trauma survivors who experience such urges themselves, rather than absolve or otherwise excuse criminals of the consequences of their actions.

I also question whether or not the mere urges are considered morally equivalent. If a friend were to divulge that he A) fantasizes about raping a famous model, B) fantasizes about killing a prominent politician, or C) fantasizes about manipulating a child actress into sexual activity, I do not believe most people would respond similarly in each case. All these fantasies equally suggest the individual in question should seek professional help. But I submit that C) would lead to greater ostracization far more quickly than A) or B) (even though, for all one knows, those experiencing fantasies A) or B) are just as likely to actually “graduate” to criminal action as one experiencing fantasy C)). I suspect this social bias (which I’m confident is widespread) does indeed make those with fantasy C) less likely to seek professional help, as they’re more likely to fear rejection even from a therapist.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Sigh, the comments on this site can be pretty ridiculous…

Hot Air is a political news site. Allahpundit’s posts are excellent. He does include his own commentary, but with a lot of links. Links and citations are critical, or else you can’t check the facts.

Someone pointed out that I didn’t include links. Duh. I’m not writing a post that’s going up on the main site, this is JUST a comment, so I’m being lazy. If I was a green room blogger I’d hold myself to a much higher standard. As it is, I consider Korbe’s post to be demagoguery. I don’t think she is being lazy, I think she left out the basis for her rant primarily because it would expose her opinion as an irrational overreaction. The notion that people who actually victimized children will ever be given something other than a harsh punishment is just ridiculous for anyone who knows anything about the criminal justice system. In California anyone who does this is essentially given life in prison, but often they give sentences with those absurd, symbolic numbers, like 175 years to life.

For those rare individuals who may have molested or raped someone in the 1970s and are just getting out of prison now, they are almost always immediately arrested and put through involuntary civil commitment proceedings to put them into mental hospitals for the rest of their lives. Constitution be damned, these people are never allowed to go free.

I think it is absurd for anyone to think that any sexual contact whatsoever with a pre-pubescent will EVER be legal and accepted. Such contact is one of the fundamental natural law evils like rape, murder, robbery, mayhem, and so on. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong, even the people who have done it.

Personally, I think the best solution for society in regard to moderate to high risk pedophiles, would be to essentially make “pedophile reservations” like indian reservations, where they would live together more or less segregated from society, yet be free to work, pay taxes, and pursue happiness. Without any kids around, there would be no issues of criminality. This would be pennies on the dollar compared to prison, and unlike prison, the men would be able to actually work and pay taxes. I use the term “reservation” because there would be no need for security like an internment camp, just a regular police station with some very bored police who would be there for general society’s peace of mind. Living there would be voluntary for some, a condition of lengthy probation for others, and not an option for those who actually victimized children, who would rot in prison regardless. It would be a cheaper alternative to prison for those who haven’t actually hurt anyone.

It is difficult to talk about this subject because the emotional people who demagogue it are simply too ignorant. They don’t know basic statistics like that in nearly every case, molesters are family members or close family friends. The idea of some stranger boogeyman luring kids into the back of his van with a trail of candy is extremely rare. People don’t know that, for sex criminals, the recidivism rate is actually quite low, and is significantly lower than for other crimes.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 1:49 AM

tolerated

Oh hell no.

Kenosha Kid on August 25, 2011 at 1:59 AM

For people telling me to use google to research what Korbe is on about: that is her job not mine. As it stands, her post is little more than demagoguery, and it is beneath the dignity of hotair.com.

catmman: If you don’t like it, I would suggest you don’t read it or go to another site to be spoonfed your pre-conceived pablum.

Well, same goes for you, if you don’t like it, take your own advice and don’t read / comment on my posts?

hawkdriver: You would allow these people near your children?

Of course I wouldn’t feel comfortable with a pedophile being near my children, and would never knowingly allow one to be ALONE with my children. Now here is the tricky part: who is a pedophile? Good luck finding an answer to that one. The people who actually get caught are a tiny fraction of all the ones out there. Again, since most of them don’t act on it, no one ever knows. That makes it impossible to protect children using the typical “lock em up” approach. It is like trying to protect yourself from rats or roaches by stomping on 1 you might catch violently. Everyone knows that doesn’t work. at. all. The only lesson being taught to pedos in the current system is “don’t get caught, and stay in the shadows”. Most pedos would be willing to seek help and treatment, but they don’t because they are afraid that doing so will expose them and destroy their lives, and the lives of their families.

astonerii: Listen to what Kaltes is saying, do you really think that person is in a heterosexual relationship remotely capable of producing offspring?

That is one reason why homosexuality as a lifestyle is not to be tolerated.

Wow. So anyone who disagrees with you is a homosexual, and you’d like to lock up the gays, too, eh? It is bigots like you that allow liberals to demonize conservatives. You are truly a disgusting individual.

Massvictim: Homosexuality is now not only tolerated, it’s celebrated. And that’s the ultimate goal here.

In the 80s, NAMBLA tried to latch onto the gay rights movement, but the liberals, and these were HARD CORE liberals, threw them out. So your fear is nothing to worry about. The fact is, pedos are different from homos because it is impossible for a pre-pubescent child to give an adult consent to a sexual relationship. Pedos cannot get sexual contact out of a child without victimizing them. Pre-pubescent children have no sexual desire, by definition. SO I disagree, I don’t think that pedophiles will ever be able to follow in the footsteps of homosexuals. Child porn laws may be relaxed at some point because the punishments are so absurd and costly, but actual victimization of children will always be reviled.

whatcat: Yeah! Darn those anti-science emotional rube parents who won’t let the caring, thoughtful experts thrust pedophiles at their kids! How could they dare even suggest child predators be kept at arm’s length?!! Much less be punished or locked up?! Scandalous!!!

Nice straw man. So you are suggesting that men who have committed no crime be locked up because they happen to be pedophiles? Awesome.

JannyMae: I look at a 14 year old boy and see a CHILD.

Technically we are all children: we all have parents. As far as human development, though, a 14 year old is an adolescent. 14 year olds already have the desire to have sex, and some of them have acted on it by that age. Their bodies have changed to exhibit adult sexual traits, so it is psychologically not deviant for an adult to find them physically attractive. This is why, in most of the world, the age of consent for sex is 14, not 18. In europe, the age of consent is 14-16, with a few being even lower (spain is 13 I think). Note that the scandal with the Italian PM sexing a 17 year old was not that he sexed her, it was that he PAID her for it, which was the only thing making it illegal. The United States is an aberration in the world, putting aside muslim countries, in that we have some of the strictest, harshest sex laws in the developed world. Everyone else in the world accepts that teenagers have sex.

JannyMae: If it isn’t “deviant” then why is it illegal?

Because we have a democracy and the majority can make anything illegal regardless of the morality or deviancy of it. In California, a 17 year old girl who has a 20 year old boyfriend, as long as they are a day more than 3 years apart in age, results in a felony. I know of a recent case where an 18 year old senior dated a 15 year old freshman (who had a huge crush on him and gushed about him in her journal) and he got 2 years in prison for it. Once he got out and was on parole, he screwed up on his lifetime sex offender registration and got re-arrested for failure to register, another 2-3 years +1 year for having a prior sex offense. He fell in love with a woman his age, got married, and got his new wife pregnant in the year he was free before he was re-arrested. He is going to have to spend the rest of his life as a sex offender, not being able to ever make something of himself, which will make his family suffer, all because some girl threw herself at him in high school. This is what people tend to refer to as “unintended consequences”.

JannyMae:I want all children protected from pedophiles. If that means spending a lot of money to hunt down and prosecute child pornographers I will gladly donate to the cause out of my own bank account.

Emotional? Screw you.

People like you are the reason that sex offenses are demagogued in this country. Politicians who want to single out pedos and use them as a boogeyman to scare voters like you, much like how the nazis used the jews, or southern racists used blacks. Pedos are a serious problem that society has to deal with, but society is failing right now. Prosecutions and imprisonment has risen dramatically over the last decade with no impact at all. Because people like you see them ALL as the same, the current system is making no effort to distinguish low and minimal risk individuals from the few who are actually dangerous, which is actually causing more children to be victimized. Perversely, your emotional overreaction is preventing people who are actual experts from reforming the system to maximize protection for children.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 AM

I can tell you what it IS for an adult to be attracted to my 14-17 year old – most likely fatal.

peski on August 24, 2011 at 9:48 PM

That would make you a murderer, and an idiot. If your 14-17 year old is attractive, most men will be ATTRACTED to her, though most wouldn’t act on it. I’m calling you an idiot because, unless your daughter was ugly, you’d have just threatened to kill billions of people. heh

Now let’s say she pursues and initiates with an older man? Not him chasing her, her chasing him and trying to get in HIS pants. Would you murder him anyway, or would you murder HER in the muslim “honor killing” style for dishonoring you, eh?

At the end of the day, we know you’re all talk, but if you weren’t, then you’d be a murderer and that would make you far worse than any adult who gave in to the advances of your teenage daughter.

People who are in a position of trust and responsibility, like teachers, coaches, babysitters, and so on, should be punished a lot worse than others, but the way the law is written now, there is virtually no distinction.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Okay I read some of the b4u act stuff and I understand where they are coming from:

The primary problem in dealing with pedos is that nearly all of them hide in the shadows for fear of being exposed. Because of this, the only people who get exposed and ANY treatment are those who have already broken laws and been prosecuted. In other words, there is no effort made whatsoever at PREVENTING the victimization of children.

In order to protect children and prevent victims, it would be necessary to get pedos to voluntarily seek treatment on their own. Therapists could then help the pedo by using the same approaches that are already being researched and used to help prevent recidivism among the “already did it and got caught” population.

However, in trying to protect kids and do their jobs as doctors, these psychs keep hitting an insurmountable wall: pedos are simply too scared, given the hysterical anti-pedo climate, to trust ANYONE, including a psych, with their terrible secret. Therefore these psychs are (apparently, if you take them at their word) attempting to promote a system in which pedos voluntarily seek treatment BEFORE they create victims, instead of afterward. This would arguably protect children far better than the current system does. However, it would not work unless the pedos trusted the psychs.

If you truly care about protecting children, instead of simply burning pedos at the stake because they creep you out (and yes, they creep me out, too) then this approach seems like it is worth looking into.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:40 AM

But what if a therapist is presented with a patient who describes experiencing pedophillic urges, but has not committed a crime? Would you rather the professional treat that person, and give them the tools they need to either change their urges or to at least restrain themselves from committing a crime, or would you rather they throw their patient out of their office? The individual can’t be arrested for fantasies, but at least some of them certainly might worsen to the point where they do commit crimes.

As I mentioned before, people are failing to differentiate between individuals with pedophillic urges and those who engage in pedophillic acts. They are not ethically equivalent.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM

There’s no “tool” use can use to stop base attraction. Pedophiles have an almost total proclivity to recidivism. If they have already acted on their predatory urge, statistically they are no longer fit for integration in civil society. They will offend again, and will cause more damage.

What I mean is simply if someone comes to a therapist’s office who is having difficulty with pedophilic urges, the therapist should remind them specifically that their urges, if acted upon, will result in swift incarceration, and recommend they put a restraining order out on themselves if such a reminder is even warranted. Having another human speak back to them the obvious, just thing should be sufficient to break them out of such a funk. Even in states like here in Massachusetts where we routinely coddle criminals and view them as some kind of super-victim, instead of supporting the actual victims of their crimes.

Every man has seen an attractive teenage-looking woman, but most men have the sense and decency not to be predatory about it once they hit the age of say, 24. People who seriously entertain urges surrounding just-developing girls or boys need to be set straight quickly. Again – once the act is completed, there is almost no hope of reform. You cannot cure a pedophile, you can only restrain them.

BKennedy on August 25, 2011 at 4:40 AM

That group of pseudo-doctors has got to be the most disgusting collection of humanity outside of Congress’s Democratic caucuses and the White House.

The answer for them should be not just “NO!” but “FARKING HELL NO!”
{+_+}

herself on August 25, 2011 at 5:01 AM

The use of the term “minor attracted persons” is wrong, and factually inaccurate. Pedos are not attracted to minors under 18, they’re attracted to children, generally under 10.

This is the actual documentation from the conference this group held. Speaker presentation abstracts.

Let’s look at what the speakers actually spoke about.

Berlin, John Hopkins professor: His presentation simply focused on general pedo issues within the profession. Nothing controversial here.

Sadler, UT Southwestern professor: He argues that criminal/moral terms complicate/disrupt the role of the psychologist, so he argues that sexual disorder diagnosis should be set forth in neutral, medical terms, separating the mental disorder from the criminal conduct it is associated with. I don’t see this as “watering down” or trying to say pedos are mentally healthy, I see it as a scientist trying to be a scientist and not be a cop.

Cohen/Galynker, professors/research: They basically say the problem with pedo research is that it is based entirely on criminals, when most pedos aren’t criminals. They want to separate the desire (pedophilia) from actually acting on it (molestation) in research. They presented their research, which showed that criminal pedos: 1. were more likely to have been molested themselves, 2. were more likely to make excuses/justifications for things they knew were wrong, 3. had more sociopaths, 4. no different in impulsivity or social anxiety, and 5. had a clear sexual preference for children over adult females (as opposed to being attracted to both). The researchers then talk about how research is needed to separate what makes someone a pedo from what makes someone actually ACT on it by victimizing someone. Seems like a smart approach to me! After all, if it turns out that pedos who exhibit sociopath traits are very high risk, but those who don’t are very low risk, this could be a huge benefit to actually accurately tailoring government resources to protecting children.

Sorrentino, instructor at Harvard: This is basically a criticism of the proposed inclusion of young pubescent adolescents in the “pedo” pre-pubescent group. Basically with the change, it would be technically pedophilia to be attracted to a girl who had full breasts and other indicators of sexual maturity, simply because she is young and people think thats icky. It results in a very confusing and muddled definition based on an arbitrary age cutoff instead of something substantive like biological changes.

Potter, Professor of Philosophy, University of Louisville: Note that this person is not a mental health professional, its a philosophy prof, so it is full of hippie crap. “Lets LISTEN to pedos and not just hear them.” ehh

Kramer, guy who runs b4u-act: Basically argues, like I said prior, that pedos are afraid to seek treatment, so everyone loses. He uses a Harvard journal article as a source, available online, which has a good discussion of these issues.
Hinderliter & Breslow, grad students: Grad students? In gender studies? who cares.

Conclusion:

I have been giving Korbe a hard time, but I shouldn’t have because she didn’t actually come up with anything, Megyn Kelly and Shannon Bream did. She is just repeating what they said. So her fault isn’t so much in fabricating lies and being a demagogue like Megyn Kelly and Shannon Bream are, she is only repeating what they said recklessly without doing any research and collecting a paycheck for it.

I think Korbe’s portrayal of the conference is reckless, ignorant, and wrong. Instead of looking it up and reading about it, she simply lifted some second-hand media commentary on it and injected her own hysteria. Her conclusion is that “the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia.” Let’s take a second to look at what Korbe is saying here: she is saying that the purpose of the conference is to make it perfectly legal to molest a child. WHAT? No one, not a single person, presenting at the conference said anything remotely like that. The use of the term “minor attracted individuals” is stupid and wrong, but Megyn Kelly perverts its usage into her decriminalization argument, which is a lie.

Shannon Bream uses weasely language to demogogue here, she says “critics of this whole effort to change the definition of pedophilia say the movement is ultimately about one thing, and that’s trying to decriminalize the activity, ultimately”. So Bream is saying the conference was about legalization of child sexual abuse. Not only is that wrong, it is malicious.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 5:24 AM

The APA has been swimming in the sewer for years. By the time they are done there will be no psychological disorders…except for conservatism.

SKYFOX on August 25, 2011 at 5:46 AM

We are talking about people who think that the pedophile enabler Alfred Kinsey was just dandy.

I am talking about the “psychologists,” of course.

For all those unaware, the pervert Alfred Kinsey, and the father of the “sexual revolution” was an enabler of child rape. And he a hero for the likes of the APA.

Just to be clear, Kinsey facilitated child and baby molesters to “prove” his theories.

He’s the grand-daddy of these nut-jobs and frauds who are now pushing to “understand” child molesters.

Let’s also be clear. There is NO stopping these people with “therapy.” That’s a joke.

They are irredeemable.

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:04 AM

Pedophiles have an almost total proclivity to recidivism. If they have already acted on their predatory urge, statistically they are no longer fit for integration in civil society. They will offend again, and will cause more damage.
BKennedy on August 25, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Wrong, statistics on recidivism for pedos are from between 15% to 25% (over 25 years), but these numbers, if anything, over-estimate the risks, because subsequent offenses were not necessarily for molestation of a child. A major problem with sex offender registration is that “failure to register” is a separate, new offense that could be counted as recidivism even though there was no victim. A washington report shows that about 20% of sex offenders in that state failed to register, which is a new felony. However, digging through the report, you find that the recidivism rate for sex offenders who actually registered was 2.8%, and was 4.3% for those who failed to register. Here you are saying that the recidivism rate is 100%, but the facts and the government statistics say otherwise. Sex offense recidivism is actually a lot lower than other types of crime.

Every man has seen an attractive teenage-looking woman,

Aha! Some common sense. Yes, men who are attracted to older teens aren’t pedos. They’ll get locked up anyway and forced into sex offender registration, because the laws are overbroad and boys who have 17 year old girlfriends get lumped in with pedos. In California, the legal system actually says you don’t have to register as a sex offender if you have sex with a 14-17 year old, but you DO have to register if you do oral, anal, or fingering. But if its charged as sex, no registration.

but most men have the sense and decency not to be predatory about it once they hit the age of say, 24.

Well, you don’t have to “be predatory” to get thrown in prison. If the girl is the aggressor, even if you tried to push her off or told her no, you’re going to prison. Nobody cares how predatory you were. Unless the girl literally violently rapes you or drugs you and you have physical evidence of it, it is simply assumed that any contact of any kind is the result of predatory behavior by the male. It is an element of the offenses in any laws that I’m aware of, so it doesn’t need to be proven. Girls usually aren’t the aggressors, but sometimes they are, and those men, who in my opinion are far less responsible, don’t get any less time for it. I’m not talking about crushes here, I’m talking about situations where girls proactively physically aggressively initiate sex and foreplay. Not common, but it happens. Much more common is that girls lie about their ages, which is not always a defense, and is hard to prove, since virtually any guy who gets in trouble is going to say “but she told me she was 18!” and people are skeptical.

In an extreme example, a 23 year old guy met a 13 year old online who lied and said she was 18. There was proof she lied. He didn’t believe her, so she lied more to convince him. The guy then dates her, hooks up with her, gets caught. Since she was under 14, he gets put in the pedo category and faces serious prison time. He represents himself at trial. His defense is simply that she lied about her age. Thing is… that’s not a defense in California. The jury refuses to convict him (they nullified), he is acquitted on 2 of 3 charges, but the jury hangs on the 3rd charge. Then the DA retried the case, and gets a conviction on the 3rd charge. The guy gets 1 year in jail, 3 years probation, and lifetime sex offender registration. The judge went very easy on him. The law calls for 6 years in prison.

People who seriously entertain urges surrounding just-developing girls or boys need to be set straight quickly. Again – once the act is completed, there is almost no hope of reform. You cannot cure a pedophile, you can only restrain them.

In California, pedos who actually molest victims get life in prison. The only times they don’t is when the evidence is weak and they get a plea deal for less time. Life in prison certainly prevents recidivism, but the costs to imprison them are $70,000.00 per year. Multiply that out, assuming they live another 40 years, and you’re looking at $2.8 million in taxpayer dollars per person. Is that really the best solution when many of these people could be identified as low risk and given treatment/probation instead?

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

WRONG. Child molesters cannot be “cured” or stopped. They just get more cunning at it.

Especially when they have “psychologists” helping them.

I find your obsession with defending these people quite disturbing.

Oh yes, you are a molester enabler, whilst seemingly expressing “disgust.” Don’t believe ya pal.

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Oh yes, you are a molester enabler, whilst seemingly expressing “disgust.” Don’t believe ya pal.

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM

I get the feeling it goes deeper than that.

98ZJUSMC on August 25, 2011 at 7:06 AM

@PrezHussein pedophiles are neither gay nor straight but rather people who abuse children for one of two major reasons.

Bullcrap. Pedophiles tend to have a tendency to go after either boys or girls. Also, homosexual means beinb attracted to someone of the same sex. Last time I checked, men and boys are the same sex and are both humans.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 7:12 AM

and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals

Sounds familiar. Didn’t we start hearing this about another group of sexual deviants about 40 years ago? What’s next, pedophile-marriage?

peacenprosperity on August 25, 2011 at 7:26 AM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

First the rinos and squishys came to ha, then the liberals and leftists. Now the pedophile apologists.

peacenprosperity on August 25, 2011 at 7:33 AM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

I don’t usually care what other ppl post, so I don’t say much, but you, you are a freak. Anyone who harms a child should be shot without an apology.

Carry on :)

nwpammy on August 25, 2011 at 7:54 AM

2/3rds of child molesters are married( not ‘ gay married’).

2/3 of child moltesters period or 2/3 of those that molest boys? If the latter, you do know what a “cover” is, don’t you?

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Wait until the fiscal conservatives, who berate and chastise social cons, wake up and find out that the world they created is unliveable.

Don L on August 25, 2011 at 7:59 AM

As for the “born this way” thing regarding gays, it’s not simply black or white.

Are many gays born that way? Sure. Majoirty of them, most likely. However….

Notice that many, MANY gays “discover” they are gay after they’ve been molested/raped. I know gay people who fall into this catagory. Yet don’t ever say to a lib or gay person that there is a possibily that homosexuality can ALSO happen due to tramatic events.

Also, waht about prisoners? Homosexual sex happens in prison all the time. And people you say “Well, there are no women there”, there’s always Mary Palm and her five sisters.

And the you have the people (usually women) who “experiment”. Did they not choose to play for the other team?

So this whole “they’re born that way/they’re not born that way” thing isn’t so black and white.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Despite our failings, we are a nation that strives to be compassionate and dispense justice to transgressors based on what we have learned about crime, punishment, retribution and rehabilitation. Dispassionately, I understand that…and I don’t care. I want pedophiles chopped up and fed to sharks.

Extrafishy on August 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Psychology is the softest of all the soft sciences. There is a reason the Soviets loved it. Psychology can be manipulated because its assumptions and conclusions are all guesswork.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Hinderliter & Breslow, grad students: Grad students? In gender studies? who cares.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Breslow’s paper offers the sentence shown below. No wonder you want to ignore one of the invitees to the symposium. There is the “historically and theoretically” slippery slope to which most of the posters here are referring.

“Furthermore, this paper argues that this distinction is potentially another step towards the complete re-thinking of
paraphilias within the DSM – a step that follows historically and theoretically from the removal of homosexuality.”

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 8:29 AM

…People like you are the reason that sex offenses are demagogued in this country. Politicians who want to single out pedos and use them as a boogeyman to scare voters like you, much like how the nazis used the jews, or southern racists used blacks…

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Any credibility you tried to establish was shot right there. This is an insane argument.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a homosexual, and you’d like to lock up the gays, too, eh?

Nice straw man.

See to your own wounds.

As someone who lives with the scars of pedophilia in my family, your attempts at trying to use semantics to normalize a foul crime that should incur the death penalty is sickening.

If I had the power to ban, I’d ban anyone who even remotely tried to mitigate the horror that perpetrated by pedophiles.

Girls usually aren’t the aggressors, but sometimes they are, and those men, who in my opinion are far less responsible, don’t get any less time for it. I’m not talking about crushes here, I’m talking about situations where girls proactively physically aggressively initiate sex and foreplay. Not common, but it happens. Much more common is that girls lie about their ages, which is not always a defense, and is hard to prove, since virtually any guy who gets in trouble is going to say “but she told me she was 18!” and people are skeptical.

You make me want to vomit.

In an extreme example, a 23 year old guy met a 13 year old online who lied and said she was 18. There was proof she lied. He didn’t believe her, so she lied more to convince him. The guy then dates her, hooks up with her, gets caught. Since she was under 14, he gets put in the pedo category and faces serious prison time.

You assume that leaping into bed is normal (that’s part of our problem as a nation). When I was 18 I met a girl in a college club who turned out to be 13. Since I didn’t even think about touching her or kissing her 5 seconds after I met her, I was able to discover that she was in town for a band competition the university was hosting. I broke off our courtship having never touched her.

If you leap into bed so quickly with anybody, you get what you deserve… no matter what form it takes. Trying to excuse the 23 y.o. in your example (in any way) places you just below the snail darter on the food chain.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Disagree. They are both aberrations of normal sexual behavior.

Sex has a single purpose: t0 procreate. Sex with members of the same sex or with children violates that purpose.

connectthedots on August 24, 2011 at 6:42 PM

So you’re saying that when you have sex it’s a conscious and determined decision to make a baby? I don’t suppose you’ve ever used a condom or any other form of BC? Here’s the curveball… explain hermaphrodites in your normal and overly simple world.

whiskeytango on August 25, 2011 at 8:58 AM

I don’t think anyone here wants to criminalize thoughts. Akzed on August 24, 2011 at 7:45 PM

That’s not at all what I was talking about. If you’re sufficiently interested in what I write that you’re going to comment on it, please do us both the favor of actually reading it. Otherwise, you’re just making noise. Blacklake on August 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Collectively demonizing the emergence of these purely mental phenomenon as if they were as socially contemptible as actual criminal acts only renders it less likely that those who experience the problem will seek out professional help. Blacklake on August 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM

You’re right. You were accusing people of demonizing thoughts, not wanting to criminalize them. Please find it in your heart to forgive me.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 9:24 AM

WTF! Maybe psychiatrists will allow U.S. to refer to their careers. call them psycho

MSGTAS on August 25, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Is that really the best solution when many of these people could be identified as low risk and given treatment/probation instead?

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

I’m Catholic and you sound like one of those treatment centers the diocese sent the priests to in the 1960′s through the 1980′s. The situation in my Church proves that there is no treatment possible and that these people are never “low risk”.

I’m not happy to be paying far more than $1M per victim, or to have my Church labelled as enabling such a crime, but there it is. This is not some victimless crime — it’s a crime which targets children, and has repercussions all the way through their adulthood. You understand this from the moment one of the victims stands up to speak at Mass.

What we have here is a system of justice, and that system of justice exists so that the victims and family of victims can depend on the government to punish the crime — to obtain a measure of justice — so they do not have to take matters into their own hands. In the case of my Church, we are obligated to pay money to try to make the victims as whole as we can possibly make them with money. In the greater society, the money is paid to keep the person from offending again.

The alternative is that we put them to death. That saves money all around, but society has deemed such an act non-proportional.

unclesmrgol on August 25, 2011 at 9:46 AM

As I mentioned before, people are failing to differentiate between individuals with pedophillic urges and those who engage in pedophillic acts. They are not ethically equivalent.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM

But the first is apt to lead to the second. And, according to some ethics systems, they are.

Hence, in the Ten Commandments, we have “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”. Coveting is a state of mind, not an overt act, and yet by a Judeo-Christian system of ethics, it is a major crime.

There’s a grasp of psychology in that Commandment which is totally missing from your comment.

unclesmrgol on August 25, 2011 at 9:53 AM

I am an enemy of demagoguery in all its forms, and any other principled person should be as well. I’m bashing Korbe’s repetition of Kelly’s fox news segment because it is based on lies. It is simply a lie to say that this conference was about somehow establishing “pedo rights” and decriminalizing molestation. The speaker abstracts do not support this characterization at all.

People who molest children ought to be in prison, and in aggravated cases I wouldn’t oppose the death penalty. That said, the current penalties are the same as murder. Some pedos are far worse than others. Some maliciously victimize as many victims as they can, while others were molested themselves, are ridden with guilt and shame, and spend their lives resisting their impulses and hating themselves. Most never victimize anyone, some who DID victimize someone, might not have had they been in treatment.

You people who are calling me names aren’t serious about protecting children. Your cathartic emotional release is more important to you than preventing molestation. You’d probably round all the pedos up, put them in concentration camps, and gas them, even if they never hurt anyone, just because you think they might someday. This is the natural result of demagoguery.

Oh yes, you are a molester enabler, whilst seemingly expressing “disgust.” Don’t believe ya pal.

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM

You got me, I’m calling out Korbe and Kelley on their dishonest mischaracterization of a psych conference to enable molesters… /sarcasm

I get the feeling it goes deeper than that.

98ZJUSMC on August 25, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Ooh, calling me a pedophile. Nice one! I don’t think anyone is going to be able to top this.

Now the pedophile apologists.

peacenprosperity on August 25, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Yawn

I don’t usually care what other ppl post, so I don’t say much, but you, you are a freak. Anyone who harms a child should be shot without an apology.

nwpammy on August 25, 2011 at 7:54 AM

So the person who advocates mass murder (‘harms a child’ is pretty broad isnt it?) is calling me a freak. heh

No wonder you want to ignore one of the invitees to the symposium.

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 8:29 AM

1st, the grad student in gender studies is not a mental health professional, so who cares? 2nd, the student doesn’t speak for the conference as a whole, and the other presenters didn’t share his views, which were openly given from the perspective of “queer youth activism as well as feminist and anti-racist scholarship” and 3rd, you dont even understand his quote properly. The “distinction” he is arguing about, is distinguishing between mere attraction to pre-pubescents versus a “diagnosable, distressing and non-normative disorder that requires psychiatric intervention”. In other words, he is saying that there would still be a pedo boogeyman category, but not ALL people attracted to children would necessarily be in it, which MIGHT cause a rethinking, but probably not, because of “entrenchment in problematic discourses of sexual ontology and deviance”. Basically, all the kid is saying, is that not all pedos are molesters, but realistically trying to separate the two is not going to happen. Big effing deal. THAT is your smoking gun? Pfft.

As someone who lives with the scars of pedophilia in my family, your attempts at trying to use semantics to normalize a foul crime that should incur the death penalty is sickening.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Nice argument, reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. If you actually had to read cases, you’d see that molestation cases differ dramatically. Some cases involve very little conduct from a sick person who suffered molestation, hates themselves and struggles to control their deviant impulses, while other cases involve true monsters who literally sexually torture multiple victims for years. I agree with you that the death penalty is warranted in some cases, but the “kill em all” mentality that you have is barbaric and extreme. What about the cases where a girl’s father touched her, he repented, and she forgave him? How does it serve the victim’s interest to have the state kill her father and let her suffer the rest of her life, instead of move on like she desires? How do you think she will feel knowing that, because she spoke out, her father, who she loved, is now dead. How do you think other children who are conflicted on whether they should speak out would feel? Would they still speak, or would they keep their mouths shut to save their father’s life, only to have him victimize others? These are complicated issues.

Once the criminal justice system gets involved, the victim is completely powerless and her interests are completely ignored, regardless of the lip service that is given to the contrary. Sometimes the victims will recant and say they lied about everything because they hate what the prosecutor and police are doing to their family, and they just want it to end, however the prosecutors will press on and go to trial regardless, impeach the victim with her prior statements, and probably claim the dad manipulated her into lying to boot, to make him look worse. The system doesn’t exist to serve the interests of victims, it exists to lock people up for as long as possible. That is how the prosecutor sees the job.

If I had the power to ban, I’d ban anyone who even remotely tried to mitigate the horror that perpetrated by pedophiles.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM

I’m glad we have the 1st amendment to protect from people like you. Horror is not perpetrated by pedophiles, it it perpetrated by molesters. Draw a venn diagram with a big circle, and a smaller circle inside it. The smaller circle is molesters.

You assume that leaping into bed is normal (that’s part of our problem as a nation). When I was 18 I met a girl in a college club who turned out to be 13. Since I didn’t even think about touching her or kissing her 5 seconds after I met her, I was able to discover that she was in town for a band competition the university was hosting. I broke off our courtship having never touched her.

So you got lucky. You found her out. Other guys in your position, even ones who were skeptical and asked questions, might have been fooled. Had she been hell bent on getting physical with you to take advantage of her limited window of opportunity during the competition, it would have been perfectly normal and natural for you to submit to her advances. However, had you done so, even if it was only a kiss, if you were in California, you’d be looking at lifetime sex offender registration and probably prison. Is that justice? Not at all. I certainly don’t think so. Guys who aren’t being predatory or hurting anyone, as in your example, should not have their lives destroyed. Now… if you had gone to her band competition, sought her out, and seduced her, then that would be a very different story and prison would be appropriate.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 9:59 AM

whatcat: Yeah! Darn those anti-science emotional rube parents who won’t let the caring, thoughtful experts thrust pedophiles at their kids! How could they dare even suggest child predators be kept at arm’s length?!! Much less be punished or locked up?! Scandalous!!!

Nice straw man.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:19 AM

No, not arguing a strawman but rather illustrating an absurdity with more absurdity.

So you are suggesting that men who have committed no crime be locked up because they happen to be pedophiles? Awesome.

You run yourself into a mighty huge catch-22 there. If they haven’t committed a crime – e.g. engaged in exchanging childporn (which you seem to think is no big deal) – then nobody would even know they are perverts in there first place.

So the best you can say is that a parent wasn’t aware their child was being targeted by a pedophile, until it manifests itself as a behavior and the child is victimized. But to knowingly place their children in such danger is both criminal and unforgivable.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Pedophiles: We just want to be loved!

Psychiatrists: Awwwww

Pedophiles: Loved by children that is…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I’m glad we have the 1st amendment to protect from people like you.

FU, this is a private site. You have no “right” here to say whatever you want. Ed and Allah can ban you if they don’t like your username. If you want to promote pedophilia I suggest you start your own site.

So you got lucky.

I didn’t get “lucky.” You seem to have a problem following an argument. Since I didn’t leap into bed with someone at first chance or start molesting her nanoseconds after meeting her, I discovered her age fairly quickly. It ain’t that hard to discover the age of a minor.

Since you are rather familiar with CA law, it would behoove you to know the age of the girl you are molesting before you start, dontcha think? If my life was “ruined” for a sex offense against a minor, it would have been my fault (no matter what she told me). But since I don’t feel it necessary to engage sexually with anyone I meet at a club, the chances of that happening were zero. You argue that girls lie, knowing that, isn’t it then the responsibility of an adult about to engage in sexual activity with anyone to be sure you aren’t being lied to?

I have no sympathy for such an argument. It is weak on its face.

By your standard, all pimps need do is tell their 13 y.o. “employees” to tell the Johns they’re 18. If a 40 y.o. is found with a 12 y.o. she just needs to say “I told him I was 18″ and you want to start a parade for the guy. All the adults are off the hook because a child lied to them? Disgusting reasoning.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Sorry Tina, this is not unbelievalbe.

President Obama himself made a “bullying” video that supports pedophiia notions. In fact, the gay “movement” is almost all about sexualizing children They claim you are “gay” or straight” from birth.

The Obama bullying videos claim that the “victims” are picked on because they are gay….even at 9 years old. This means they are “sexual beings”
A pedophile notion, supported by gay activism

The video also makes the claim that children who calls someone a name are responsible for the suicides. Yes, according to Obama ,, name calling is the source of suicides, not an underlying mental/emotionall issue or a failure of the parents and mental health professional to recognize the symptoms of distress in children.

LeeSeneca on August 25, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I’m glad we have the 1st amendment to protect from people like you.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. You may be able to say something threatening about the President for instance, or say that your ashamed that Bush was from Texas, but that doesn’t preclude people from thinking your an idiot, throwing you in jail, or not buying your music.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Since you are rather familiar with CA law, it would behoove you to know the age of the girl you are molesting before you start, dontcha think? If my life was “ruined” for a sex offense against a minor, it would have been my fault (no matter what she told me). But since I don’t feel it necessary to engage sexually with anyone I meet at a club, the chances of that happening were zero.
mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Exactly. And the core point, germane to the topic here, is that you had no interest in focusing on and targeting a child for exploitation.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM

What about the cases where a girl’s father touched her, he repented, and she forgave him? How does it serve the victim’s interest to have the state kill her father and let her suffer the rest of her life, instead of move on like she desires? How do you think she will feel knowing that, because she spoke out, her father, who she loved, is now dead. How do you think other children who are conflicted on whether they should speak out would feel? Would they still speak, or would they keep their mouths shut to save their father’s life, only to have him victimize others? These are complicated issues.

Your ignorance on the topic is glaring.

If the “touching” is sexual, there will be lifelong scars. Period. Every girl who I have known in that situation who “forgave” the perp did so by being guilted into by family or church members.

These victims are made to feel guilty when they trun in family members. That is what the family/church wants them to feel. If a father truly molested his daughter and truly repented, he’d WANT the punishment coming to him. He would NEVER allow the victim to feel guilty about what happened.

You set up a false scenario. True repentance openly accepts any and all punishment due. If society has told him that molestation of a child meant the death penalty, he would GLADLY accept that punishment and tell his daughter that she ABSOLUTELY did the right thing by turning him in and that he DESERVES to die.

Of course, the scenario you created is fictional. Every single victim we have met in our struggle with this vile crime who has had a family member “repent” has the same story. The “repentance” cropped up when the child finally found the strength to expose the crime and NONE of the perps willingly accepted the punishment due (even if it was simply registering as a sex offender). The “repentance” is used to create guilt in the victim and then the perp plays the victim himself (and the family or church) rallies behind him and the victim is further traumatized.

Touch a child, you die. Knowing that… don’t touch a child.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM

These are complicated issues.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 9:59 AM

As the husband of a woman who was molested by her step-father, I can tell you that it is NOT a complicated issue. The bastard should be labeled as a child-molester and have his life ruined for the rest of his existence on the planet.

It’s only a complicated issue to “touchy-feely” liberals who feel that life isn’t fair and there shouldn’t be consequences for your actions.

You touched a minor in a sexual manner, you deserve to have your life ruined for it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:32 AM

As far as I’m concerned, the bastard should have had a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the Marianas trench.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:38 AM

A group promoting homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle now pushing the normalization of paedophilia. And people are what? Surprised? Huh?

DaMav on August 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Its considered a sport of sorts in the ME. Technology shrinking the world at a exponential and people are shocked. Western society is just one happy, cafe sitting, latte sipping circa 1990 Sarajevo.?

pc on August 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Here’s the playbook:
- “Mental healthcare providers” say that pedophiles are “misunderstood”.
- A TV sitcom has a lovable character “come out” and express his/her love for a child.
- Major movies follow suit.
- Daytime talk shows are flooded with pedophile sob stories and the meanies that are mean to them.
- Legislation is proposed, demanding equal rights for pedophiles, including the “right” to marry.
- Churches in Europe and Canada are banned from preaching against pedophilia.
- California teachers are required to teach the contributions pedophiles have made throughout history.
- Etc, etc.

Get ready.

The Zoo Keeper on August 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM

- California teachers are required to teach the contributions pedophiles have made throughout history.
- Etc, etc.

Get ready.

The Zoo Keeper on August 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM

They already do… they teach Mohammad was awesome.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Wow. So anyone who disagrees with you is a homosexual, and you’d like to lock up the gays, too, eh? It is bigots like you that allow liberals to demonize conservatives. You are truly a disgusting individual.

Funny argument coming from someone who supports pedophiles and pedophilia as a disease, not a crime. Your a far more disgusting individual when your trying to appear normal than I could ever manage to make myself with intent.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia, Bream said.

If they decriminalize pedophilia, they should simultaneously decriminalize shooting pedophiles, and angry fathers will solve this problem toot damn sweet.

Haiku Guy on August 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

kaltes, I for one would like to thank you for at least trying to make sense of this. I like Fox news well enough, but to suggest they weren’t just throwing out red meat here is naive at best.

I’d also like to thank you for standing up to the withering attacks you’ve seen here. No where here have you advocated going easy on molesters, no where have you said pedophiles should be free to do as they please with children, and no where have you suggested anyone should “get along” with people who would behave in such ways. You’ve simply pointed out that the basis for the Fox report was incorrect. You’ve pointed out that a person who is sexually attracted to a child might be better off if they sought out professional help, and we all would likely be better off if they did as well. Can we really all not agree on this? We’re not necessarily talking about someone who has acted, and in our society both a guilty mind and a guilty act are required, whether you like it or not. Once that guilty act happens, fry ‘em (which kaltes agrees with!!!) Before that time, however, shouldn’t we at least try to prevent it?

Some of you folks need to apologize, others need to feel downright ashamed for how you’ve treated this thoughtful poster.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

You touched a minor in a sexual manner, you deserve to have your life ruined for it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:32 AM

I agree (and so does kaltes!!!)

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM

If they decriminalize pedophilia, they should simultaneously decriminalize shooting pedophiles, and angry fathers will solve this problem toot damn sweet.

Haiku Guy on August 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

No bag limit on male FLDS scum!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM

And so it begins. As I was saying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/courtney-stodden-pamerla-anderson_n_927961.html

“This is a forum to expand peoples’ minds about love”. – If, you can gag your way through the video.
On a side note, can you say the word “ding bat”?

The Zoo Keeper on August 25, 2011 at 11:23 AM

We’re not necessarily talking about someone who has acted
runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Again another coat of paint applied into the catch-22 corner. If there is no visible manifestation nobody would even know. Your neighbor might harbor thoughts of murder, but unless he does something (e.g. bragging about his urge to kill) you have zero way of knowing his private thoughts.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Some of you folks need to apologize, others need to feel downright ashamed for how you’ve treated this thoughtful poster.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

HA HA HA ha

Oh, you were serious?

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

However, had you done so, even if it was only a kiss, if you were in California, you’d be looking at lifetime sex offender registration and probably prison. Is that justice? Not at all. I certainly don’t think so.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

rukiddingme on August 25, 2011 at 11:28 AM

some — although not all — of the presenters at the symposium expressed the view that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. That sounds like the decriminalization of pedophilia to me.

Yep.

rukiddingme on August 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Redefining bestiality in 5… 4… 3…

petefrt on August 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Just as homosexual groups try to distance themselves from pedophilia(well, at least, they did at one time), which is a lie in itself, as homosexuals exalt “youth” as a desired trait in their sexual conquests…

Sterling Holobyte on August 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM

A bigger hunk of s**t about gays I’ve never heard. They no more exalt “youth” than the 80-year-olds who marry 20-year-old Playboy playmates do.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Just as homosexual groups try to distance themselves from pedophilia(well, at least, they did at one time), which is a lie in itself, as homosexuals exalt “youth” as a desired trait in their sexual conquests…

Sterling Holobyte on August 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM

A bigger hunk of s**t about gays I’ve never heard. They no more exalt “youth” than the 80-year-olds who marry 20-year-old Playboy playmates do.
MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Two things – Sterling is correct in regard to the post topic here since it’s a gay pedophile group, “B4U-ACT”, that is pushing to have pedophilia normalized.
Second, I believe most people can differentiate between Hef marrying an adult woman from an adult who targets 8 year olds as his/her crime victim. Oranges, apples.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Redefining bestiality in 5… 4… 3…

petefrt on August 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

BAAAAA means NO!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I am an enemy of demagoguery in all its forms, and any other principled person should be as well.

You people who are calling me names aren’t serious about protecting children. Your cathartic emotional release is more important to you than preventing molestation. You’d probably round all the pedos up, put them in concentration camps, and gas them, even if they never hurt anyone, just because you think they might someday. This is the natural result of demagoguery.

I rest my case.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM

But since I don’t feel it necessary to engage sexually with anyone I meet at a club, the chances of that happening were zero.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Okay, so we should throw people into prison because they are willing to hook up with someone they meet at a club. That’s kinda like the argument that people who get AIDS deserve it because, well, that’s what they get for premarital sex. You could care less about whether people get justice if they don’t share your conservative dating philosophy.

By your standard, all pimps need do is tell their 13 y.o. “employees” to tell the Johns they’re 18. If a 40 y.o. is found with a 12 y.o. she just needs to say “I told him I was 18″ and you want to start a parade for the guy. All the adults are off the hook because a child lied to them?

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

If a jury believes the 40 y/o was deceived, then the crime should be for the prostitution, not molestation. However, it is highly unlikely that a jury would believe that a 12-13 year old could reasonably pass for 18, unless she looked significantly older than her age, or she used additional lies to explain away her youthful appearance, and the jury thought the defendant was actually fooled. If the defendant lacks the intent to commit the crime, he shouldn’t be guilty, however, in your scenario mistake of age would not be a defense regardless because the hypothetical girl is under 14. The pimp would face a lengthy prison sentence.

Exactly. And the core point, germane to the topic here, is that you had no interest in focusing on and targeting a child for exploitation.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Like it or not, you are agreeing with me. That is why I used the alternative example of him targeting her, and saying prison would be appropriate in that case. The intent makes all the difference between a predator and a typical, dumb guy who made a mistake and got fooled.

If the “touching” is sexual, there will be lifelong scars. Period. Every girl who I have known in that situation who “forgave” the perp did so by being guilted into by family or church members.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Personal anecdotes shouldn’t be the foundation for public policy. I assume you are arguing that, if the girls you knew weren’t guilted, they would have been happy to see their family member put to death. Even if that were true, and I doubt it, there are plenty of other victims for whom it would not be true, who would have to suffer the additional psychological trauma and guilt of feeling responsible for the death of their father/uncle/etc. I think that should be their choice, but the system doesn’t work that way.

The extent of the damage from what is called CSA (child sexual abuse) is not well understood. There has been limited research which shows victims are at higher risk of drug use, alcohol abuse, depression, and anxiety. However, these are risks, it doesn’t mean it will happen to everyone. In addition, the damage done varies greatly because the extent of the abuse varies greatly. Some victims are literally tortured for many years, and suffer tremendous psychological harm. Others only experience brief over-the-clothes touching and are not significantly affected by it. It is still wrong, but saying it is the same exact thing as the victim who suffered years of torture is just absurd. The severity of the abuse has a huge impact on how much long-term damage is done.

True repentance openly accepts any and all punishment due. If society has told him that molestation of a child meant the death penalty, he would GLADLY accept that punishment and tell his daughter that she ABSOLUTELY did the right thing by turning him in and that he DESERVES to die.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Odds are, that’s exactly how he would feel. Thing is, that doesn’t mean the daughter has to accept it. It doesn’t mean that killing him is in her best interest. It doesn’t mean that his death won’t inflict tremendous harm on her. That’s the problem with people like you: you care so much about sending a bloody message to pedos, that you don’t care one bit about what the victim wants or what is best for the victim. If a victim dared to say something that didn’t fit with your desires, then you’d the child off by saying she must have been manipulated/guilted by the family/church.

As far as I’m concerned, the bastard should have had a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the Marianas trench.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Hey, I agree with you. Some of them do deserve to die. A friend of mine was molested by her father for YEARS as a child, then her father ran off and left her and her mother to rot. I didn’t know this had happened to her until after she was in her 30s, but if I knew before she turned 28 (which is the cutoff for the statute of limitations, 10 years after 18) I would have encouraged her to entrap her father into admitting guilt in an email (for old cases, you need additional evidence like that) and then turn him in and let him rot. I don’t know if she would have done it, though. She hates him, but she doesn’t see the point of inflicting vengeance on him so long afterward. Her experience absolutely did scar her for life and left her with lingering anxiety problems into her 30s. He was a predator, and he never expressed a hint of remorse until something like 20 years later. The fact that this guy was never held accountable burns me up.

The problem is that people are reacting emotionally and are seemingly incapable of having a rational policy discussion of any kind. The truth is that MOST molesters have gotten away with it, in large part because the victims know what will happen to the predator, and the victims do not wish to inflict such overwhelming revenge, so they keep their mouths shut. Victims are afraid that reporting it will destroy their families (and they are right). This, perversely, means that the harsher the punishment is, the more predators will get away with it.

So yes, if your goal is to minimize the number of victims and protect children to the greatest extent possible, then how to deal with pedophiles is a very complicated issue. If some psychologists take the approach that getting pedophiles into therapy BEFORE they victimize anyone is the best approach because it will actually PREVENT molestations instead of merely punishing them, then they ought not be demonized for it. By calling them molester enablers, some of the commenter here are actually enabling molestation themselves, by preventing psychologists from exploring all possible options in researching and treating pedos.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I am an enemy of demagoguery in all its forms, and any other principled person should be as well.

You people who are calling me names aren’t serious about protecting children. Your cathartic emotional release is more important to you than preventing molestation. You’d probably round all the pedos up, put them in concentration camps, and gas them, even if they never hurt anyone, just because you think they might someday. This is the natural result of demagoguery.

I rest my case.
Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I’m guessing you won’t be “apologizing” for lobbing “outrageous accusations”.
:D

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

ere’s the playbook:
- “Mental healthcare providers” say that pedophiles are “misunderstood”.
- A TV sitcom has a lovable character “come out” and express his/her love for a child.
- Major movies follow suit.
- Daytime talk shows are flooded with pedophile sob stories and the meanies that are mean to them.
- Legislation is proposed, demanding equal rights for pedophiles, including the “right” to marry.
- Churches in Europe and Canada are banned from preaching against pedophilia.
- California teachers are required to teach the contributions pedophiles have made throughout history.
- Etc, etc.

Get ready.

The Zoo Keeper on August 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM

There is already a show on ABC family (“A new kind of family”) that revolves around a relationship between a teacher and one of his teenage students. It is called “Pretty Little Liars.” There was also a scene in the show where a girl’s older brother-in-law (obviously post college) was hitting on her. I also believe there is a father who had sex with the girl that died (a teenager). I didn’t pay too much attention, but my wife was watching it for a while.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM

That’s kinda like the argument that people who get AIDS deserve it because, well, that’s what they get for premarital sex. You could care less about whether people get justice if they don’t share your conservative dating philosophy.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Yeah, it’s much more fun to rage against imaginary strawmen than to rationally address actual raised issues. There’s no danger of losing an argument with yourself!

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Okay, so we should throw people into prison because they are willing to hook up with someone they meet at a club. That’s kinda like the argument that people who get AIDS deserve it because, well, that’s what they get for premarital sex. You could care less about whether people get justice if they don’t share your conservative dating philosophy.

You really are incapable of understanding what Mankai said, aren’t you?

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM

No, I will not apologize to the people who are defending pedophiles. I never thought I would see that kind of thing on HotAir, and I never thought that I was going to wake up this morning and see more reams of psychobabble garbage and lies from the same apologist.

Sicko.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM

A bigger hunk of s**t about gays I’ve never heard. They no more exalt “youth” than the 80-year-olds who marry 20-year-old Playboy playmates do.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Google twink and see what you find.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM

WRONG. Child molesters cannot be “cured” or stopped. They just get more cunning at it.

Especially when they have “psychologists” helping them.

I find your obsession with defending these people quite disturbing.

Oh yes, you are a molester enabler, whilst seemingly expressing “disgust.” Don’t believe ya pal.

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Spot-on. Nothing more needs to be said.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM

A friend of mine was molested by her father for YEARS as a child, then her father ran off and left her and her mother to rot. I didn’t know this had happened to her until after she was in her 30s, but if I knew before she turned 28 (which is the cutoff for the statute of limitations, 10 years after 18) I would have encouraged her to entrap her father into admitting guilt in an email (for old cases, you need additional evidence like that) and then turn him in and let him rot. I don’t know if she would have done it, though. She hates him, but she doesn’t see the point of inflicting vengeance on him so long afterward. Her experience absolutely did scar her for life and left her with lingering anxiety problems into her 30s. He was a predator, and he never expressed a hint of remorse until something like 20 years later.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

He was obviously only working on self-esteem issues and couldn’t help himself. He’s the real victim of emotional overreaction by them thar thoughtless uneducated Republican rubes, y’know.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I rest my case.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Look up demagoguery, something like: “appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda” or “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power”.

Claiming that this conference was some kind of “pedo rights”/”molestation legalization” party is demagoguery. It is aimed at inflaming the prejudices and fears of the public regarding child molestation, with propaganda and false claims.

My calling out commenters here on their desire, which they have clearly and repeatedly expressed, to kill pedos, without being picky about whether they’ve actually done anything to hurt anyone, is not. There is no danger of inflaming public passions in support of NOT killing pedos.

So before you rest your case, maybe crack open a dictionary or wiki so you can know what you’re talking about. I know you wanted to call me a hypocrite, but if you knew the words, at best you could accuse me of “hyperbole”, however I think that accusing some commenters here of harboring a desire to gas pedos is, sadly, accurate. Multiple commenters have made it clear that they see no real difference between a pedo and a molester, and that molesters should die. Do the math.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

There is already a show on ABC family (“A new kind of family”) that revolves around a relationship between a teacher and one of his teenage students. It is called “Pretty Little Liars.” There was also a scene in the show where a girl’s older brother-in-law (obviously post college) was hitting on her. I also believe there is a father who had sex with the girl that died (a teenager). I didn’t pay too much attention, but my wife was watching it for a while.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Oh, almost forgot my link. Wouldn’t want to be a demagogue…

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

So yes, if your goal is to minimize the number of victims and protect children to the greatest extent possible, then how to deal with pedophiles is a very complicated issue. If some psychologists take the approach that getting pedophiles into therapy BEFORE they victimize anyone is the best approach because it will actually PREVENT molestations instead of merely punishing them, then they ought not be demonized for it. By calling them molester enablers, some of the commenter here are actually enabling molestation themselves, by preventing psychologists from exploring all possible options in researching and treating pedos.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Oh bullsh!t. How did that work out with the homosexuals. And yes, I would say that some of the exact same motives apply.

I would counter your silly argument with one that includes every time some deviant has said, “It’s not my fault, I was born this way!!!” and refuses any kind of treatment because there is nothing wrong with them and we just have to accept their perverse “lifestyle choice”.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

This is basically a criticism of the proposed inclusion of young pubescent adolescents in the “pedo” pre-pubescent group. Basically with the change, it would be technically pedophilia to be attracted to a girl who had full breasts and other indicators of sexual maturity, simply because she is young and people think thats icky.

(Perv champion) kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Ahh. I get it. Breasts allow consent? What is it about glandular development is it that allows the cognitive act of consent?

Scientific studies have found that judgment centers do not mature until the 20s. That seems to me to be more likely the source of a cognitive capacity. You can take your reductionist sliding scale and cram it.

Are you still confused that consumers of child porn are enjoying the exploitation of a child. That porn cannot take pictures of people’s latent fantasies–but actual acts upon that urge?

I love it when morally wrong gets described as some revulsion common in people belittled as “icky”.

Axeman on August 25, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Google twink and see what you find.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Google “hot teens” and see what you find. Some sites go out of their way to make underage innuendo. It’s not a gay or straight thing. It’s a pedo thing.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Oh yes, you are a molester enabler…

Jack Bauer on August 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Amazing how a discussion related to pedophilia on HA always leads to accusations. I really do wonder how many of these people would have the stones to make the same accusations in person.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM

By calling them molester enablers, some of the commenter here are actually enabling molestation themselves, by preventing psychologists from exploring all possible options in researching and treating pedos.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

/sarcasm

Yeah, I’m sure there is NO research being done to try and find a “cure” for these people now. After all they are demonized as criminals for years.

Now magically, that someone wants to decriminalize it, there will finally be research done into it…

/end-sarcasm

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM

First the rinos and squishys came to ha, then the liberals and leftists. Now the pedophile apologists.

peacenprosperity on August 25, 2011 at 7:33 AM

true

The headline is accurate

Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

what is truth? For this group, truth is what is written in their association book. Change the book, change the truth. Then use the book to win arguments

Christ said to sin in thought is the equivalent to the deed. Psychologically, the more an idea enters the conscious mind the more it will be retrieved in the thought process and the more, in this case, it will seduce the body hormonally towards physical expression. Someone may have a problem with dangerous desires, but their desires become society’s problem considering the force of the sex drive

Lock em up and throw away the key

entagor on August 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Okay, so we should throw people into prison because they are willing to hook up with someone they meet at a club. That’s kinda like the argument that people who get AIDS deserve it because, well, that’s what they get for premarital sex. You could care less about whether people get justice if they don’t share your conservative dating philosophy.

Are you capable of following logic? Doesn’t seem so.

People shouldn’t be thrown into prison because they are willing to hook up at a club. Where did I ever even get close to arguing that they should? You argued that HAD I not found out the girl was 13, I WOULD have been in trouble and I argued that since I don’t leap into bed with people I just met, that would be impossible. The greater argument holds, JUST BECAUSE you have no problem with people meeting and leaping into bed or molesting one another shortly after eye contact, does not eliminate the RESPONSIBILITY of knowing the age of your partner.

If a jury believes the 40 y/o was deceived, then the crime should be for the prostitution, not molestation

So, like I said, you believe that if a 12 y.o. just says the words, “I told him I was 18″ he’s off the hook? First you argue that men can be fooled, then argue that it’s highly unlikely that they are fooled, so we’ll dismiss the problem of the underage girl simply saying she’s old enough.

What if the 40 yo meets a 14 yo online, they meet and he says, “Hey, are you really 18?” You would argue that if she says “yes” he’s off the hook. Carte blanche. No molestation here!

Personal anecdotes shouldn’t be the foundation for public policy.

Why do I get this feeling that your position is borne out of your own experience?

I assume you are arguing that, if the girls you knew weren’t guilted, they would have been happy to see their family member put to death

No, I’m arguing that your example is a fantasy created so you can dismiss millions of cases of pedophilia based on a straw man possibility.

Odds are, that’s exactly how he would feel. Thing is, that doesn’t mean the daughter has to accept it. It doesn’t mean that killing him is in her best interest. It doesn’t mean that his death won’t inflict tremendous harm on her. That’s the problem with people like you: you care so much about sending a bloody message to pedos, that you don’t care one bit about what the victim wants or what is best for the victim. If a victim dared to say something that didn’t fit with your desires, then you’d the child off by saying she must have been manipulated/guilted by the family/church

Odds are you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Societal retribution is partly for the victim, but mostly to punish the crime and deter others from committing the same. Victims don’t get to be the jury and judge for a reason. One reason is the temptation to have sympathy for the perp in the hope that he truly didn’t mean to do what he has done and by thinking so perhaps the pain will go away.

You speak of victims anecdotally after you condemn the use of anecdotal arguments! Which is it? Should we approach this crime as what is best for society or by your hypotheticals? In my case, at least the anecdotes are real and they are universally true.

Your whole argument is made of straw. If one knows that the penalty for molestation is DEATH, then by committing the crime, he has chosen the possible consequence. And if he truly has remorse, he will WILLINGLY accept it.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Google twink and see what you find.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Google “hot teens” and see what you find. Some sites go out of their way to make underage innuendo. It’s not a gay or straight thing. It’s a pedo thing.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I think a denial that there are no “gay” pedophiles is out of touch with both reality and basic common sense.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I think a denial that there are no “gay” pedophiles is out of touch with both reality and basic common sense.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I deny there are either straight or gay pedophiles. Straight people and gay people are attracted to adults. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Whether they’re attracted to male or female children, they’re children. There shouldn’t even be categorization. They’re children. If someone touches my child, I’m not going to ask if they’re straight or gay. I’m going to attempt to restrain myself from killing them, and then report them to the authorities.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

And for the logical record, you’re hung up on the death penalty as a way of skirting your own argument. You want to let perps off the hook if a 14 yo says she’s 18. Regardless of the punishment, that is your position.

The Capital punishment angle is just a red herring.

View all of the examples above and insert “register as a sex offender” in place of the death penalty and your argument remains the same. You want adults to be off the hook for any punishment. You argue that if an adult meets a 14 yo, she says she’s 18, and they leap into bed… he has no culpability.

You’ve avoided that point several times.

mankai on August 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Societal retribution is partly for the victim, but mostly to punish the crime and deter others from committing the same. Victims don’t get to be the jury and judge for a reason. One reason is the temptation to have sympathy for the perp in the hope that he truly didn’t mean to do what he has done and by thinking so perhaps the pain will go away.
mankai on August 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM

True – and we don’t excuse a bank robber even if the bank president were fond of the robber. And even if he were fond, the context raised here is one where emotional duress and/or threat is involved – which actually compounds a crime.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Life in prison certainly prevents recidivism, but the costs to imprison them are $70,000.00 per year. Multiply that out, assuming they live another 40 years, and you’re looking at $2.8 million in taxpayer dollars per person. Is that really the best solution…?

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Nope. Immediate execution is. It’s cheaper and there’s a 0% recidivism rate.

dominigan on August 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I deny there are either straight or gay pedophiles. Straight people and gay people are attracted to adults. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Whether they’re attracted to male or female children, they’re children. There shouldn’t even be categorization. They’re children. If someone touches my child, I’m not going to ask if they’re straight or gay. I’m going to attempt to restrain myself from killing them, and then report them to the authorities.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I would think that common sense would dictate that if you are involved in one form of sexual deviancy; such as homosexuality; then it follows that such a person would be more likely to pick up or evolve another sexual deviancy; such as pedophilia or necrophilia; more often than someone who isn’t a deviant to start with.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:31 AM

That old chestnut?

The guy is a pedo because he was sexually abused as a child.

The guys a thief because he grew up in poverty as a child.

The guys a murderer because he was physically abused as a child.

Nothing anyone does anymore is because they did it. Its because dad was a d-bag, mom didn’t breast feed, they were an only child and didn’t get enough social interaction in the family or they were a middle child and had to deal with the lack of attention from the parents blah, blah, blah…

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I think a denial that there are no “gay” pedophiles is out of touch with both reality and basic common sense.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I deny there are either straight or gay pedophiles. Straight people and gay people are attracted to adults. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Whether they’re attracted to male or female children, they’re children. There shouldn’t even be categorization. They’re children. If someone touches my child, I’m not going to ask if they’re straight or gay. I’m going to attempt to restrain myself from killing them, and then report them to the authorities.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

As I said, that’s not the reality, as evidenced that it is specifically men who “love” boys(same-sex) who are leading the drive for the normalization. To be sure, there are heterosexual men who band together to share and promote a shared interest in little girls. There are lesbian girl “love” groups for the same purpose. It is indeed politically incorrect, albeit factually/reality correct, to note such distinctions – but they exist still, none the less.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 1:31 AM

That old chestnut?

The guy is a pedo because he was sexually abused as a child.

The guys a thief because he grew up in poverty as a child.

The guys a murderer because he was physically abused as a child.

Nothing anyone does anymore is because they did it. Its because dad was a d-bag, mom didn’t breast feed, they were an only child and didn’t get enough social interaction in the family or they were a middle child and had to deal with the lack of attention from the parents blah, blah, blah…

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Indeed. It’s a safe bet that more than a few folks here had a tough childhood, some perhaps experiencing abuse of different sorts. But they don’t use it as an excuse or rationale for criminal activities they might choose to engage in now.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Indeed. It’s a safe bet that more than a few folks here had a tough childhood, some perhaps experiencing abuse of different sorts. But they don’t use it as an excuse or rationale for criminal activities they might choose to engage in now.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Bah, blaming your childhood is so… 1980s… we don’t need to have a reason to blame anything anymore… just claim you were born a criminal, a pedophile, a homosexual, a murderer, and it’s all forgiven. After all, it’s just a feature of your biology or God’s fault… it isn’t the person’s fault… no no no, we can’t blame people, that would be… racist or mean or something…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Are you still confused that consumers of child porn are enjoying the exploitation of a child. That porn cannot take pictures of people’s latent fantasies–but actual acts upon that urge?

Axeman on August 25, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I don’t think I illustrated that point sharply enough. The person consuming child porn is consenting to what is done for his enjoyment, at least after the fact. If I eat bacon, I neither killed the pig or ordered him condemned, but I consent to his death to put bacon in my sandwich. Condoning the act of condoning acts that “cannot be condoned” is refusing to hold a line.

Now, we could say that we’re just “decriminalizing” the act of condoning those acts. But that stands a serious charge from the liberal/libertarian cluster who thinks that if something is not illegal, then that’s their business. So we get on the slippery slope to acceptance, because in a modern society, we always are chastised by the cultural morality to widen and “mainstream” our views to not just be our views.

Having said that, I want to correct the notion that widening my viewpoint is entirely unacceptable to me. It isn’t. It’s just that in order to hold some lines, some lines actually have to be held. Condoning the act of condoning acts while mouthing that they “in no sense can be condoned” is philosophically vacuous.

Axeman on August 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Look up demagoguery, something like: “appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda” or “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power”.

Claiming that this conference was some kind of “pedo rights”/”molestation legalization” party is demagoguery. It is aimed at inflaming the prejudices and fears of the public regarding child molestation, with propaganda and false claims.

My calling out commenters here on their desire, which they have clearly and repeatedly expressed, to kill pedos, without being picky about whether they’ve actually done anything to hurt anyone, is not. There is no danger of inflaming public passions in support of NOT killing pedos.

So before you rest your case, maybe crack open a dictionary or wiki so you can know what you’re talking about. I know you wanted to call me a hypocrite, but if you knew the words, at best you could accuse me of “hyperbole”, however I think that accusing some commenters here of harboring a desire to gas pedos is, sadly, accurate. Multiple commenters have made it clear that they see no real difference between a pedo and a molester, and that molesters should die. Do the math.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Ok, I’ll play your semantics game. You accuse me of being a rube, or lacking erudition, for accusing you of hypocrisy over the term demagogue. I am well aware of the word demagogue and its uses.

You accused people of rounding up others and putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. What does this bring to mind? Nazi Germany. You called those in favor of capital punishment for pedophiles (in popular use it means people who have sexual relations with minors…most here are not using your clinical definition) Nazis. This was clearly an appeal “to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public” that uses “impassioned rhetoric.”

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM

According to Shannon Bream’s report on Fox News, some — although not all — of the presenters at the symposium expressed the view that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. That sounds like the decriminalization of pedophilia to me.

From Korbe’s update

Are you link-phobic?

I watched Bream talk to Kelly, link is here, and she does not say what you claim there. She does say that unnamed “critics” have claimed that the point of the conference was to decriminalize molestation.

There is a article up from Bream which makes the same decriminalization argument, but, again doesn’t base it on any facts. She writes:

According to the group, which said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that “minor-attracted” individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged.

However, the group has not said this, it is not on their web site, and it is nowhere to be found in the documentation of the conference or the abstracts from the presentations. None of the speakers make any reference to decriminalization or directly discuss criminal penalties at all in their abstracts for that matter. Most of the speakers have some pretty impressive credentials.

We don’t have a quote from anyone who attended who says “they said X”, instead we have a quote from Reisman, a 76 year old hard core cultural conservative partisan bomb-thrower, who is literally the last person on earth who would be a reliable source in this situation.

All the facts, which I have dug up with some basic research (which is really your job, and Kelly’s job, and Bream’s job) indicate that there were no presentations advocating decriminalization of any kind. The issue of the criminal justice system and sentencing for molestation is not even within the scope of the conference, which focused on the upcoming DSM-V and controversies regarding the proposed changes to pedophilia.

So I’m calling BS.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Her conclusion is that “the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia.” Let’s take a second to look at what Korbe is saying here: she is saying that the purpose of the conference is to make it perfectly legal to molest a child. WHAT? No one, not a single person, presenting at the conference said anything remotely like that. The use of the term “minor attracted individuals” is stupid and wrong, but Megyn Kelly perverts its usage into her decriminalization argument, which is a lie.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Your entire statement is a attempt at deflection.

You are separating the conference from the B4U organization. This is the same crap others in the thread have been doing since yesterday by trying to make the issue about homosexuals, when the real issue is how Pedos are now using the same strategy and tactics as gay activists to begin to garner tolerance and acceptance of their behavior.

When anyone is beginning to attempt to do just what they are, the first stage is to change the language, change the terminology to make it sound more innocuous. Use a term enough, and people won’t equate the traditional definition anymore.

The term “minor attracted individual” is exactly such a tactic. A Pedophile is a person who has sexually molested children but also someone who is attracted to minor children. But the term pedophile can’t be used because of its negative connotations. So lets change the term. Over time, if it can get told enough and take hold in places such as the APA, then the door begins to open.

The damn organizations website states what they are trying to do: “reduce stereotypes”, “reduce the stigma” get those who are pedos to be able to “come out of hiding”.

You want to argue that those at the conference didn’t come right out and say they wanted to mainline pedo behavior. Of course they aren’t going to say that – yet.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM

All the facts, which I have dug up with some basic research (which is really your job, and Kelly’s job, and Bream’s job) indicate that there were no presentations advocating decriminalization of any kind. The issue of the criminal justice system and sentencing for molestation is not even within the scope of the conference, which focused on the upcoming DSM-V and controversies regarding the proposed changes to pedophilia.

So I’m calling BS.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Funny then that you did call out for the decriminalization.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM

it isn’t the person’s fault…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Unless you’re a heterosexual white male, who has a sense of morality.

Then you are the worst kind of person in the world – and it’s entirely your fault.

Rebar on August 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8