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 5 6 7 8

Damn, you’re whiny. And going months back just to find instances of me saying f**k…kinda creepy. Maybe you and Jim Carrey should talk. MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Most are from today, genius. Searching for madisonconservative f**k yields a rich target environment.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Your hunch is wrong, and you’re f**kin’ crazy.
MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM

So you’re just as classy in real life. At least you’re a consistent jackass.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

From the ‘Principles’ page of B4U-Act:

3. HUMANITY. We believe that persons who are sexually attracted to children can be contributing members of their communities and that they deserve to be treated with respect. All clients should be treated in a caring, non-judgmental, and respectful manner. We see minor-attracted people as whole human beings, not as dangerous criminals or “deviants.” Therefore, we advocate the use of supportive therapeutic goals, assumptions, and approaches. Clients voluntarily seeking treatment should not be pressured or coerced to accept treatment modalities that they find objectionable.

6. STIGMA. We recognize the severe stigma directed against minor-attracted people by the media, politicians, law enforcement officials, and some mental health professionals. We oppose the perpetuation of false stereotypes and the use of language that instills fear in the public, fails to promote understanding, and ignores the humanity of minor-attracted people. We realize that stigma and stereotypes force minor-attracted people to remain in hiding and prevent those who could benefit from mental health services from receiving them. We do not believe this serves the interests of children, minor-attracted people, or society in general. Therefore, providers have an obligation within their profession and community to speak up and confront stereotype-perpetuating statements made by professional colleagues, family members, friends, and the media. Providers need to educate professionals and the larger community regarding persons sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

7. EDUCATION. Providers have an obligation to offer and engage in continuing education and professional growth activities on an ongoing basis in order to promote and develop a more accurate understanding of individuals who are sexually attracted to minors and to improve services for them. Such activities should challenge popular stereotypes rather than reinforce them, and portray the full humanity of minor-attracted people.

Such language hardly seems to not show that this organization is at the very least attempting to lay the groundwork for the very thing the post is about: promoting tolerance and (possibly) the future decriminalization of pedophilia.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 3:03 PM

You guys can side issue all you want. The fact remains that there seems to be a lot of folks “already” and openly petitioning to lower the age of consent right here on Hot Air. I can post a ton of comments from this very thread advocating puberty as an appropriate age for someone to be attracted to.

What other proof do you need to see it’s already headed in this direction?

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Psychologically healthy people commit crimes all the time. Psychologists are not cops and judges and legislators, they don’t define right and wrong, only mental illness.

Generally speaking, attraction to under-14 is a psychological issue, but 14+ is not. However, that doesn’t mean anyone in this topic is calling for an age of consent of “puberty” or even 14. The laws are based on politics and culture, and they are not going to change, because the politics and culture aren’t going to change. If anything, the trend has been to make the laws harsher every few years, and they always name the new law after some little girl who was murdered, like jessica’s law, chelsea’s law, meagan’s law, etc.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 PM

So you’re just as classy in real life. At least you’re a consistent jackass.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Nah, that’s me… I’m a consistent Jackass. I’m sure MC is a perfect Gentlemen in his normal life.

Your hunch is wrong, and you’re f**kin’ crazy.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Can’t you just hear the sarcasm?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Show me ONE example where anyone defended a pedophile. Then apologize.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Read Kaltes’ posts without your blinders on. Then STFU.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Translation: Can’t do it.

Just show me one example of kaltes defending a child molester and I’ll be properly chastised. Surely, with the wealth of posts in this thread, doing so wouldn’t be difficult.

Or you could just apologoze and STFU.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Oops….apologize….properly chastised by the spelling police….

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:08 PM

The whole point of the b4u-act group is to convince pedos to come out of the shadows and get into treatment BEFORE they act. Get it? b4u-act? its the reason for the name.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

If a person were not aware of the group an Orwellian handle might be more impressive. Seriously, they’re not going to try running “Pervz-R-Us” as a moniker.

The psychologists are arguing that because of the extremely hatred, fear, vilification, etc of pedophiles, they are too scared to come in to get help because they might get turned in to the police or have their reputations destroyed.

Now you can disagree with whether their approach has merit, but I think for the media to claim they are trying to legalize molestation is just ridiculous.

I think what most folks here are noting is it is a step in the acceptance and normalization of pedophilia, as was done by the APA re:homosexuality in 1973. The playbook is identical.

I suspect you are familiar with the “Overton Window” methodology to affect change. It’s a sure bet that if you had told most people some 40 years ago that homosexuality and “gay marriage” would be ever considered legal, much less normal, they would have thought you crazy.

Something has to first be accepted and normalized before it becomes legal. There are a lot of other steps along the way.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Can’t you just hear the sarcasm? E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Judicious sarcasm can be a useful rhetorical tool, but in his case, well, when the only tool you have is a hammer…

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 PM

If an adult was flirting with my daughter while she was still in school, I would consider that being a sexual predator. I don’t care if she was already 18 and a senior, God help the man.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Judicious sarcasm can be a useful rhetorical tool, but in his case, well, when the only tool you have is a f**kin’ hammer…

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Fixed it For Ya :)

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Such language hardly seems to not show that this organization is at the very least attempting to lay the groundwork for the very thing the post is about: promoting tolerance and (possibly) the future decriminalization of pedophilia.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I read all that language you linked and all I see is rational psychs who are trying to separate pedos from molesters, and encourage pedos to get help so that they never cross the line and become molesters.

There is nothing in there that says that there should be acceptance of molestation itself. You need to look at this critical language: “Clients voluntarily seeking treatment“.

Why is that language critical? Because molesters don’t VOLUNTARILY seek treatment, they are court-ordered to seek treatment whether they like it or not. Therefore, to be a pedo voluntarily seeking treatment, it means they haven’t actually necessarily acted on it at all.

Notice there there is no language in any of those paragraphs urging any tolerance and respect for criminals who have abused children. That is a logical leap you and others are making that doesn’t exist in the text.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

However, that doesn’t mean anyone in this topic is calling for an age of consent of “puberty” or even 14. The laws are based on politics and culture, and they are not going to change, because the politics and culture aren’t going to change. If anything, the trend has been to make the laws harsher every few years, and they always name the new law after some little girl who was murdered, like jessica’s law, chelsea’s law, meagan’s law, etc.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Laws of mankind are always screwed up. E.g. a seventeen year old boy goes to prison for the Statutory Rape of his sixteen year old girlfriend.

Sex laws need to be corrected to reflect Natural Law, and puberty should be a major consideration in determining an age for natural sex, e.g. Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child’s body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction.

Or, we could make it a law that girls can’t have sex until they are 65, and must wear burkas (full body type) before and after…though some males may require them to wear the burkas during sex (they are 65 year old girls after all).

You were saying?

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 7:37 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

If an adult was flirting with my daughter while she was still in school, I would consider that being a sexual predator. I don’t care if she was already 18 and a senior, God help the man.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I agree with you on that one… I’m not a big fan of that guy from lost either…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

And the only tool you ever have in an argument is “you said f**k, ergo propter hoc.”

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Unless you trying to justify thought crime, a Pedophile is some who has been *caught* doing something. Like collecting child-porn or acting on their deviant urges.

After all, if they haven’t been caught, how do we know about it? Unless your a psychological professional treating someone who hasn’t committed a crime, or if your going to a local support group, I don’t know why you would have reason to know.

E L Frederick (Sniper One)

Wow, it’s like dumb and dumber all in one person. Does this mean a gay person isn’t gay unless he’s been caught being gay? I guess it’s safe to say that when asked the question “if a tree falls in the forest but no one is around, does it make a sound”, your answer is no, it doesn’t, lol.

And what’s this thought crime nonsense? Being attracted to prepubescent children isn’t illegal. Acting on that attraction, however, is.

xblade on August 25, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Removing the stigma of such a thing is necessary to begin promoting it. “What were once vices are now habits” does not happen overnight.

Removing the stigma so pedos “can come out of the shadows and get treatment” is ridiculous, since anyone can go to any shrink for anything short of serial murder without being dimed out.

If there’s no stigma to pedophilia, and a man can be imprisoned for hospitalizing the man who rapes his son, then NAMBLA wins.

So long as there’s a stigma attached to it, people will say, “Well, what did you expect” when a man loses his teeth and freedom for being caught in bed with a minor.

I can guarandamnty you that a man who is horsewhipped for a certain offense has never seen a man horsewhipped for that offense.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:20 PM

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:18 PM

So are you advocating pedophilia here or not? I can’t tell.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

You are making sense to me, for what that’s worth.

The freaky deaky thing about this is that there are actually people that ‘get turned on’ by young children. It’s also freaky that some people go to animals. Totally freaks me out. There are crazy people all over this planet. I just wonder, do the psych’s think that they can ‘cure’ these people?? Or do they just want case studies?
Just wow.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

xblade on August 25, 2011 at 3:19 PM

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it will only emit sound waves. With no receptors to perceive it, there is no “sound”.

I know this has been troubling folks for some time now. I guess this was as good a time as any to clear it all up.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

And what’s this thought crime nonsense? Being attracted to prepubescent children isn’t illegal. Acting on that attraction, however, is.

xblade on August 25, 2011 at 3:19 PM

You’ll need to read the past page for it to make sense.

The idiotic question was if a pedophile is someone who just was sexually attracted to a minor, or if it was someone who had acted on it.

Does this mean a gay person isn’t gay unless he’s been caught being gay?

I’m trying to find a reason why the two don’t equate. I guess it’s becasue a pedophile is someone who makes the sex-offender list, while a homosexual does not. You can be same sex attracted without acting on it, you can be minor-person-attracted without acting on; but your a (label) Pedophile if you act on it?

Maybe that doesn’t make sense; but you don’t see people who haven’t acted on it on the sex offender list.

I will admit you have a point.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:24 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

But that’s the point Kaltes you are refusing to see or acknowledge. Of course they aren’t saying anything about legalizing it – yet. They know the public wouldn’t go for it. But once their education campaigns take hold, once they are able to get a percentage of the APA or other professionals to acknowledge their position? This is a first step. This is how they get the door cracked in the mind of the general populace.

You honestly don’t believe that the next step for these people, were they to get this initial initiative off the ground, wouldn’t be to take it further? To take it the next step? Or for a more radical group to use their progress as precedent for more radical action?

If you believe that, then you’re fooling only yourself.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I agree with you on that one… I’m not a big fan of that guy from lost either…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, I don’t get it.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Yo, did you read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell? I think that’s what I’m thinking of, unless it’s This is Your Brain on Music, by Daniel Levitin.

He (one of them) spends a good bit of time describing this phenom and I’ve never seen anyone else discuss it at all. Very interesting.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

kaltes? Did you catch my comment?

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

You were saying?

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 7:37 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

I stand corrected. I did not see that post.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

So are you advocating pedophilia here or not? I can’t tell.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

I see you’re in good company, though this kind of thing no longer surprises me from you. Since you’re fond of greatest hits, how about a couple of relevant ones?

Do you want your child porn collection protected by the 1st Amendment?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM

I would suggest however, that immaterial thoughts lead to material evils, so you should really watch what you think. The police will watch what materializes in your possession, and rightly so.

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Hmmm…and this one from today:

I don’t think anyone here wants to criminalize thoughts.

Akzed on August 24, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Hm. You know what would be a great response from you? Any combination of whining about me using profanity, or just striking out the latter part of my username.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Nope, my own TM theory. (I’m still waiting for Morgan Freeman to call me back about a spot on Wormhole)

Oh right, I forgot. He’s getting busy with his granddaughter!

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it will only emit sound waves. With no receptors to perceive it, there is no “sound”.

I know this has been troubling folks for some time now. I guess this was as good a time as any to clear it all up.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Ah, but have you cleared it up sir? I submit that the sound waves, aka the energy that we perceive as sound, does still exist. This is the case whether anyone’s around to hear it or not.

Oh, and your daughter will not be troubled by me sir. I promise. Really!

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it will only emit sound waves. With no receptors to perceive it, there is no “sound”.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Um…wrong. Incredibly wrong.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:30 PM

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

Blacklake said that people wanted to demonize thoughts, I said no one in the thread wants to criminalize them, misquoting him. And?

Do you want your child porn collection protected by the 1st Amendment? Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM

And? This was directed at you as I recall.

I would suggest however, that immaterial thoughts lead to material evils, so you should really watch what you think. The police will watch what materializes in your possession, and rightly so. Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM

You should take that advice moron.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:34 PM

If there’s no stigma to pedophilia, and a man can be imprisoned for hospitalizing laying one finger on the man who rapes his son child, then NAMBLA and the rest of the depraved people wins.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:20 PM

The whole crux of the matter in one sentence. They do not want to empower child attracted people to get help, in the end, the final answer is to put moral citizens in jail for protecting their family. I made minor tweaks.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Ah, but have you cleared it up sir? I submit that the sound waves, aka the energy that we perceive as sound, does still exist. This is the case whether anyone’s around to hear it or not.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Yes but if a tree falls in the forest will we get tornadoes in Texas instead of clear skies?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Keep on fighting the good fight through implications of pedophilia on the part of your opponents. It’ll let the non-scum know not to bother with you.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:37 PM

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it will only emit sound waves. With no receptors to perceive it, there is no “sound”.
I know this has been troubling folks for some time now. I guess this was as good a time as any to clear it all up.
hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Ah, but have you cleared it up sir? I submit that the sound waves, aka the energy that we perceive as sound, does still exist. This is the case whether anyone’s around to hear it or not.
runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

And if nobody is around to hear a sound, how can they say there was no sound?
:D

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:38 PM

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Yeah. Bad enough that we live with constant appeals to young people to debauch one another, now this is apparently coming down the pike.

If and when the law is further degraded to protect child rapists, we will see total disrespect for the law save for those who benefit from it.

Psalm 94:20, “Can a wicked ruler be your ally; one who wreaks havoc by means of the law?”

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM

If a person were not aware of the group an Orwellian handle might be more impressive. Seriously, they’re not going to try running “Pervz-R-Us” as a moniker.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Your link

The problems I have with the link’s arguments are:

1. It is an ad hominem attack.

2. All the ‘evidence’ it cites looks sketchy, tied to anti-pedo activists, second-hand, and years old. I don’t see anything in there that indicates that the current members of the organization have any kind of secret pro-abuse agenda.

3. I think Breslow is a nut, he is just some radical leftist grad student, and I’ve already said so, but I think what he writes is so confusing and full of academic jargon BS that his words are getting mistranslated into something worse than they really are. He isn’t part of B4U-ACT, either.

4. Sadler’s paper is getting butchered and perverted. He did not argue for legalization of child sexual abuse, he argued that criminal terms be removed from diagnostic criteria used in diagnoses, which is a perfectly reasonable thing.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM

And if nobody is around to hear a sound, how can they say there was no sound?
:D

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I’m not even sure how there’s an argument. When a tree falls, it makes a sound. If there is a fallen tree, a sound was made. Claiming that it must be heard in order to exist is rather a narcissistic notion.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM

I stand corrected. I did not see that post.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Long thread. It’s all my point ever was since the beginning of this thread yesterday. There are folks who hint at it … (and this was just one of Zekecorlain’s)

@PrezHussein pedophiles are neither gay nor straight but rather people who abuse children for one of two major reasons. Gays on the whole do not advocate for lowering the age of consent, which is in it’s own right a strange and uneven concept even in our country, and has no biblical or religious constraint or guide. There is nothing similar between sex between two consenting adults and the rape and abuse of under age children. Any more than there is a link between straights and parents who sexually abuse their own children or grandchildren.

Zekecorlain on February 23, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Good grief at this thread.
There was a time when people met and married and started having children at 15, puberty.
It’s not that crazy to understand.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

And again, the commenters like Karmi who call for it outright. I’d think it’s fair to say, folks who think we are headed in that direction, well, I just don’t think their fears are unfounded.

I’ve read your posts for some time. I assume you’re in law because of the manner you discuss issues. You can do that pretty pragmatically. The folks in the discussion with you see it from a more emotional point of view. And I get that too.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it will only emit sound waves. With no receptors to perceive it, there is no “sound”.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Um…wrong. Incredibly wrong.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Prove it. I’m talking to Morgan Freeman right now as I type.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Good troll.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Prove it. I’m talking to Morgan Freeman right now as I type.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Ask him what was really in the box in Se7en.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

You know, if you never squealed like a sow I’d never twist your ear.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:46 PM

I’m not saying what comes first though, the twisting or the squealing.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM

You know, if you never squealed like a sow I’d never twist your ear.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Did we really have to go THERE? Now I’m gonna have freaking dueling banjos stuck in my head for hours. I hate you all.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Ask him what was really in the box in Se7en.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

For God’s sake, you can figure it out just by watching the movie. I guess you’re going to tell me you didn’t know what was in the FedEx package in Castaway either.

Dude, I can’t keep carrying this water for you.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM

For God’s sake, you can figure it out just by watching the movie. I guess you’re going to tell me you didn’t know what was in the FedEx package in Castaway either.

Dude, I can’t keep carrying this water for you.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM

AWWW, COME ON, WHAT’S IN THE BOOOOX???

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Which one?

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM

AWWW, COME ON, WHAT’S IN THE BOOOOX???

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I think it was the head of Barry Manilow. They wanted to have a skull keg party while singing, “I write the songs”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Your link

The problems I have with the link’s arguments are:

1. It is an ad hominem attack.

2. All the ‘evidence’ it cites looks sketchy, tied to anti-pedo activists, second-hand, and years old. I don’t see anything in there that indicates that the current members of the organization have any kind of secret pro-abuse agenda.

3. I think Breslow is a nut, he is just some radical leftist grad student, and I’ve already said so, but I think what he writes is so confusing and full of academic jargon BS that his words are getting mistranslated into something worse than they really are. He isn’t part of B4U-ACT, either.

4. Sadler’s paper is getting butchered and perverted. He did not argue for legalization of child sexual abuse, he argued that criminal terms be removed from diagnostic criteria used in diagnoses, which is a perfectly reasonable thing.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Ah, well, my thinking is that the fruit doesn’t fall too far from the tree. So I wouldn’t seriously consider anything that sprung from “boy love” type groups, would be the same to me as accepting David Duke’s “it was a youthful mistake” excuse re: the KKK.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Ask him what was really in the box in Se7en.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM

For God’s sake, you can figure it out just by watching the movie. I guess you’re going to tell me you didn’t know what was in the FedEx package in Castaway either.

Dude, I can’t keep carrying this water for you.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Oy, I’m glad I don’t watch pop-tv. Thanks be to the Mighty Favog for streaming internets.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Ah, well, my thinking is that the fruit doesn’t fall too far from the tree. So I wouldn’t seriously consider anything that sprung from “boy love” type groups, would be the same to me as accepting David Duke’s “it was a youthful mistake” excuse re: the KKK.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Worked for Darth Benedict XVI and the nazi youth.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Which one?

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Ask Morgan Freeman. Also ask him if it was a brain aneurysm or mafia threat that made him do “The Big Bounce”.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Ask Morgan Freeman. Also ask him if it was a brain aneurysm or mafia threat that made him do “The Big Bounce”.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Oh MadCon, Mr. Freeman says if I tell you I lose the Wormhole deal. I can tell you that it’s not the head of Alfredo Garcia. He also asked if I knew your address after I told him about “The Big Bounce” comment. He said some muffled thing like, “I’ll give his ass Mafia.”

I can tell you though that the box in Castaway had a salt water activated combination transponder satellite phone and GPS.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I can tell you though that the box in Castaway had a salt water activated combination transponder satellite phone and GPS.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

So tell me, Mr. Zemeckis, where can I get a hoverboard?

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM

He said some muffled thing like, “I’ll give his ass Mafia.”

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

And tell him to be expeditious about it.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM

So tell me, Mr. Zemeckis, where can I get a hoverboard?

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM

The water grows ever heavier.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 4:15 PM

The water grows ever heavier.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Hawk, you bojo! Those boards don’t work on water! Unless you got POWAH!

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Good grief at this thread.
There was a time when people met and married and started having children at 15, puberty.
It’s not that crazy to understand.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

And again, the commenters like Karmi who call for it outright. I’d think it’s fair to say, folks who think we are headed in that direction, well, I just don’t think their fears are unfounded……

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM

(I cut your post off, forgive me.)
I just want to say that I’m certainly Not calling for it. I’m just saying that biologically we are built to breed at young ages. I guess I should have also noted that the ‘breeders’ lol, would be in the same age range. Not a 50 yr old with a 15 yr old. Of course, back then Few lived to be that old….
I’m not real good at making my points. I’m like Obama…’let me be clear’ and all I spew is mud. My fault.
But I did want to clear up that post that you quoted…which I may not have done. :)

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Good grief at this thread.
There was a time when people met and married and started having children at 15, puberty.
It’s not that crazy to understand.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Isn’t that reverse presentism?

Just because it was a social norm in the past, doesn’t mean it should be today.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Good grief at this thread.
There was a time when people met and married and started having children at 15, puberty.
It’s not that crazy to understand.

bridgetown on August 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Isn’t that reverse presentism?

Just because it was a social norm in the past, doesn’t mean it should be today.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Nevermind…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I totally agree. I was responding to people that seem to FREAK OUT at the thought of high schoolers having sex, basically, and/or calling them children…..

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I totally agree. I was responding to people that seem to FREAK OUT at the thought of high schoolers having sex, basically, and/or calling them children…..

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM

As long as the kids are within a year or two of each other I don’t see an issue (most of the time). But when it’s a 60 year old marrying a 18 year old, it’s just creepy.

I don’t understand why it’s OK for the 60 year old, but not OK for 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. I say they are both WRONG.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM

As long as the kids are within a year or two of each other I don’t see an issue (most of the time). But when it’s a 60 year old marrying a 18 year old, it’s just creepy.

I don’t understand why it’s OK for the 60 year old, but not OK for 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. I say they are both WRONG.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Ok I am not expressing that well. I just totally contradicted myself.

I give up.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 4:37 PM

So, the definition finally meets the ‘Principles’ in this thread:

pe·do·phile   [pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Insert said definition into proper ‘Principle’:

From the ‘Principles’ page of B4U-Act:

3. HUMANITY. We believe that persons who are sexually attracted to children pedophiles can be contributing members of their communities and that they deserve to be treated with respect. All clients should be treated in a caring, non-judgmental, and respectful manner. We see minor-attracted people as whole human beings, not as dangerous criminals or “deviants.” Therefore, we advocate the use of supportive therapeutic goals, assumptions, and approaches. Clients voluntarily seeking treatment should not be pressured or coerced to accept treatment modalities that they find objectionable.

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM

…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…

BKennedy on August 25, 2011 at 4:40 AM

That’s ridiculous. It’s not even what currently would happen, let alone what would happen if some kind of diagnistic guidelines were laid out in the DSM. Considering that pedophilic inclinations are the result of prior trauma, there are a variety of therapeutic tools that can be used effectively to resolve it(EMDR and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy spring readily to mind). Unless a criminal act has actually been committed, there’s no reason to presume the condition is any more dangerous or less treatable than other trauma-induced compulsions, from cutting to drug abuse to bulimia.(And even if a criminal act has been committed the same approaches would still likely work, though the individual would A) actually want to cange, and B) criminal penalties took precedence.)

The level of moralistic rage you seem to feel towards people who’ve survived the initial trauma and are now merely experiencing (through no choice of their own) resulting fantasies and urges, however, illustrates well why many so afflicted would be afraid to bring up such notions in therapy (let alone seek therapy specifically because of them). This is precisely what makes it more likely such people will simply continue to suffer silently, and in some cases eventually tragically act on their compulsions, rather than seek help to break the abusive cycle. It’s far more valuable to prevent the victimization of a child in the first place than it is to punish someone after the damage has already been done.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 4:52 PM

From the ‘Principles’ page of B4U-Act:

3. HUMANITY. We believe that persons who are sexually attracted to children pedophiles can be contributing members of their communities and that they deserve to be treated with respect. All clients should be treated in a caring, non-judgmental, and respectful manner. We see minor-attracted people as whole human beings, not as dangerous criminals or “deviants.” Therefore, we advocate the use of supportive therapeutic goals, assumptions, and approaches. Clients voluntarily seeking treatment should not be pressured or coerced to accept treatment modalities that they find objectionable.

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM

And, again, the critical distinction is missed. Nowhere does it imply the people in question have actually committed crimes (indeed, the definition of “pedophilia” you provide yourself makes no mention of actions at all, but merely attraction). Indeed, it’s of great benefit to society that people who feel themselves “sexually attracted to children” recognize this as a psychiatric/psychological problem and seek help, rather than closet themselves in self-loathing and a pervasive sense of social anxiety.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM

…indeed, the definition of “pedophilia” you provide yourself makes no mention of actions at all, but merely attraction). Indeed, it’s of great benefit to society that people who feel themselves “sexually attracted to children” recognize this as a psychiatric/psychological problem and seek help, rather than closet themselves in self-loathing and a pervasive sense of social anxiety.

Blacklake on August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM

If you were actually paying attention you would have noted that it was not MY definition, but the one supplied by MadisonConservative.

His supplied definition, inserted into the “Principle’ from the page of B4U-Act, is certainly a change of perspective, is it not?

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I submit to the “conservatives” …..the “christians” here among us…

There was a time when lepers were shunned by society. Who went to be with them??

These psychiatrists are merely looking to help people…with problems. Be them mental, be them physical…get it?

Who are you to so starkly condemn that which you so do not know, that which is alien to you? Do you think you are being “of the word” as you like to Preach??

Really? I suggest you humble yourself and lay your judgements at the door and open your minds and NO I am NOT in ANY WAY saying that raping CHILDREN is okay. I think it is abhorrent, but that is not what this post is about.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Accepting that anyone is “sexually” attracted to children is accepting a lie. Pedophiles want to rape children – rape is not sexual attraction. Rape is about power and violation on the most personal level possible.

Adult to adult sexual attraction is the manifestation of our desire to procreate and form pair bonds. Neither of these things are possible with a pedophile-victim relationship. Pedophiles use rape to permanently dominate their victims.

This group, b4u-act, real agenda is trying to redefine the rape or the fantasizing of rape of children as sex or sexual attraction.

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM

I think it is abhorrent, but that is not what this post is about.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I submit to you, that your opinion is part of what we consider abhorrent. For the life of me I can’t draw another single conclusion from your comments except that you prefer that this behavior become more accepted or at least less judged by some degree. That you continue to assume that every one of these people are only commenting because they’re consumed with some self-righteousness is again, telling. You have you own very serious biases.

With every comment you post, you more prove that these commenter’s fears are real.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:42 PM

blink on August 25, 2011 at 6:38 PM

But, I am. I’m reading everything here and I’m doing it thoughtfully.
You are correct, I do not ‘know’ the ‘agenda’ of these psychiatrists. My bad for taking them at their word on it.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Same to you, bridgetown.

blink on August 25, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I didn’t read to the end before I commented. Sorry.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:46 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:42 PM

assumptions are crazy things.

If I had things MY way, anyone caught anywhere near molesting a child would lose their genitals and their arms, making it impossible for them to ever do it again.

Keep assuming. It always helps conversations, surely..

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Keep assuming. It always helps conversations, surely..

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Oh please bridgetown. You condemn entire groups with your assumptions.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:49 PM

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM

I agree. I like this. This is always my first reaction. They don’t even deserve to live……but then I remember that I’m just one being…
I’ve met people who were pschizo, yes, really diagnosed with the illness…etc…

The more I learn, the more I tend to sit down and try to learn more..

I fully agree that people who take advantage of children have no excuse. It’s very black and white to me.

What I’m saying is that these psychologists are looking at human behavior. We cannot discount that this is not prevalent in our society (all societies, really, look at the child sex slave money machine)

I’m saying that these people are not evil for trying to help with what..to me…seems to be a very Serious Psychological PROBLEM.

What is the future in trying to cage every animal?????????

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Did I? what groups?

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:57 PM

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Did I? what groups?

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Christians. In quotation marks. I guess it’s passe to say “so-called” these days.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM

That was in reference to people referencing ‘the word’. I actually assumed they were christians, but I was confused by the hate coming out of them.
Pardon me for getting confused, but I put things in quotes because….
to me….a christian wouldn’t spat hate like I’ve seen around here…..so, my quotes meant that was not generalizing or condemning any groups. If I wanted to condemn Christians, I wouldn’t have used the quotes……see??

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 7:11 PM

…What I’m saying is that these psychologists are looking at human behavior. We cannot discount that this is not prevalent in our society (all societies, really, look at the child sex slave money machine)

I’m saying that these people are not evil for trying to help with what..to me…seems to be a very Serious Psychological PROBLEM.


bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM

There are already a myriad of free, make that taxpayer supported, treatment programs as well as those treatments being covered by insurance. Psychologists & Psychiatrists often volunteer their time to try to help society by treating all sorts of rapists. It is a disturbing field and they do it at personal sacrifice.

The group b4u-act is not looking at new treatments, their symposium and brochure are about redefining the DSM. They are looking to remove the stigma and criminality. Dr. Berlin has put a great deal of effort into “nudging” the issue on age, level of severity (like rape-rape) and removing the social stigmas etc.

B4u-act is using Alinsky’s rules on you “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”. Your rules are to treat people decently & want to help. They want you to think that way, it benefits their nudging.

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 7:11 PM

And you assume “hate” out of opinion. You’re everything you argue against.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

If all you say is true, then I take back all of my arguments.
God forbid I took a moment and tried to have faith in people…for phuck’s sake.

The sickness is beyond me. The enablers are obviously 10,000 steps ahead of me.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Accepting that anyone is “sexually” attracted to children is accepting a lie. Pedophiles want to rape children – rape is not sexual attraction. Rape is about power and violation on the most personal level possible.

Adult to adult sexual attraction is the manifestation of our desire to procreate and form pair bonds. Neither of these things are possible with a pedophile-victim relationship. Pedophiles use rape to permanently dominate their victims.

This group, b4u-act, real agenda is trying to redefine the rape or the fantasizing of rape of children as sex or sexual attraction.

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Well stated. And those who engage in that type of child abuse/rape justify it by claiming they are “sharing love” with the children. They are sick, sick, individuals, and no amount of twisting by psychological “experts” will change that. I want them to be called what they are, and I don’t want them around my child, or anyone else’s children. And anyone who supports the idea that they can be “reformed” is going to have to A: prove that is possible, and B: accept the consequences when these “cured” individuals go out and rape again.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 7:22 PM

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

You have posted some great comments in this thread.

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 7:24 PM

The caption for this story read “Unbelievable“.

My own feeling is that it should read “Ineveitable

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 25, 2011 at 8:14 PM

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:10 PM

batterup on August 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

If all you say is true, then I take back all of my arguments.
God forbid I took a moment and tried to have faith in people…for phuck’s sake.

The sickness is beyond me. The enablers are obviously 10,000 steps ahead of me.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I’m looking and trying to see. Bear with me, eh?

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Roger. Standing by.

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:16 PM

lol

okay, I’ll be fine with caging people when I get free cable tv like they do.
just kidding….sort of.
We need to redefine or actually define what it means to be incarcerated here in america.
That would be nice. Let’s hold a national vote about what conditions each level of criminal should be housed in. I mean, we are all paying for these things, aren’t we??

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Now if only there was a way to insert Sarah Palin into this thread, a whole new paradigm of trainwreck could be unlocked.

Jeddite on August 25, 2011 at 8:35 PM

My GG-grandmother was 13yo when she married her 1st cousin. I can’t remember how old he was.
OK now I await the fresh slew of comments.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8