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 6 7 8

A bit of research about some of the players and history regarding b4u-act.

Factual? If so, then there are a number of posts here that need to be rethought.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/b4u-acts-rogues-gallery/3/

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM

LMAO!
IDK. But I know he was at least 18. I think he was like 8 yrs older.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 8:47 PM

What’s wrong with caging people via social stigma?

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Check your local ‘sexual predator’ website.
Doesn’t seem to be working….at all. When I look at the one in my county, it makes me fear going to the store..
Your ‘cage of social stigma’ doesn’t matter to psychotic people.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM

I would even say that if these psyches were on the up & up & really sincere, it wouldn’t matter. Bcs how many times have we seen stuff like this railroaded to hell to push something that is just wrong?
Communism comes to mind.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I do find it interesting how when a problem like alcoholism, homosexuality, etc. is referred to as a disease, just how many jump on the I have a problem & it’s not really my fault wagon.
Instead of perhaps a pedo being called out for their disgusting behavior, they are victimized in some way.
We’ve seen this happen before with other things.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Btw, bridgetown, I know all sorts of people that use their “therapists” explanations for their bad behavior as some sort of excuse for continuing their bad behavior. I’m sure you’ve seen this as well.

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:57 PM

I know a woman who claimed her ex abused her. And that was why she left him.
She wrote a book about her ‘abuse’, self published it on Amazon, & shopped for counselors to take her kids to so they would confess of the sexual abuse etc they were experiencing somehow under their dad.
She ended up finding a nutbag therapist who indulged her sick fantasies & put the kids through psychological hell.
Nothing ever came of it, regarding the husband. Bcs he was & is innocent.
But the woman keeps repeating her fantastic lies to people. Getting more outrageous as time goes on.
She has even alienated one of her children. Probably the others will follow when they leave home.
I don’t take stock in this therapist crap.
For some it might work. But how many are really not just another crank with a grudge.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM

blink on August 25, 2011 at 8:57 PM

No, I have not seen this. I haven’t known many people that have therapists, admittedly, but I have never seen this.
Everything that I have seen personally is real and good therapists working with people and not letting them have/make excuses for psychosis.
:)
Maybe that’s where my trust comes from…for the psyche field…

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Ah-h-h-h, yep. They’re out in the back forty, running brands.

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM

running brands.

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Which reminds me.
Do you know freaking easy it would be to be a cattle rustler here in ND?
A lot of these farmers don’t brand their calves!
And none of them works cows from a horse.
If I was a dishonest woman, boy could I make a lotta money….

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM

That woman should be taken to the bank with her lies.
This reminds me of that Strauss-Kahn guy. That woman that had sexual relations with him, only to get money from him (I believe 100% that this was her goal when she called ‘rape’) should be put away “caged”. Makes me so angry.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 9:09 PM

That woman should be taken to the bank with her lies.
This reminds me of that Strauss-Kahn guy. That woman that had sexual relations with him, only to get money from him (I believe 100% that this was her goal when she called ‘rape’) should be put away “caged”. Makes me so angry.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Bcs of our culture, it allows people to get away with it. Everyone cries about how they want to protect children, but they don’t. Children get victimized like this a lot.
It is suspected that 1/2 the complaints filed with CPS agencies across the US are FALSIFIED intentionally.
This woman tried using CPS to get back at her ex.
It backfired bcs the case workers at CPS think she’s nuts.
Which she is.
But yet, nothing has happened to her.
And then there’s that woman who ruined the reputations & lives of those sports players from that university a while back (I forget which one).
She lied.
And ruined people.
Happens all the time.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Your ‘cage of social stigma’ doesn’t matter to psychotic people.

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Stigma only functions when there are real potential consequences. We no longer allow our citizens to police the culture. It is a shame that people no longer understand the meaning of shame.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 9:37 PM

blink on August 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I keep my rope coiled on the dresser. Staring at it everyday.
That’s what my therapist told me to do.
Face my temptations.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:38 PM

. We no longer allow our citizens to police the culture. It is a shame that people no longer understand the meaning of shame.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 9:37 PM

YES

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:40 PM

And then every now & then I uncoil the rope.
And rope my bottle calf.
Just to practice of course.
Like how pedos look at porn.
They’re not hurting anyone.
Just practicing.
For later.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:41 PM

My stepson is beginning his senior year at University of Mary Washington as a psych major. It occurred to me to ask him at dinner this evening if abnormal psych no longer includes homosexuality.

Of course not.

I wonder what is included in abnormal psych anymore.

disa on August 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM

After all the millions, is this going to apply retroactively for Catholic priests too?

So suddenly, rank and file pedophiles just need a super liberal dose of “understanding”? Who knew it could all be so simple?

This psychological whitewash is nothing but a bunch of malarky.

marybel on August 25, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I wonder what is included in abnormal psych anymore.

disa on August 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Knowing Academia, probably TEA Party studies…

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Pseudo-science running amok. This is why I keep loaded firearms in my house and on my person.

Send_Me on August 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

And then every now & then I uncoil the rope.
And rope my bottle calf.
Just to practice of course.
Like how pedos look at porn.
They’re not hurting anyone.
Just practicing.
For later.

Badger40 on August 25, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Put down that rope. Back away from that running iron in the fire. Show your empty hands. Remember, you’ll never make the border with that herd. Rywall will be waiting for you.

Oh, and tell that cowboy of yours to never turn his butt back on you with a hot iron in your hand. ;-)

Yoop on August 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM

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

- Korbe

That’s the first thing I found, I linked it in an earlier post of mine. Nothing in that segment indicates any facts that support that b4u-act wants molestation legalized. The furthest they go is to say “critics believe” by which they mean 1 critic: a crazy old lady culture warrior who thinks porn is evil and causes neurological damage to your brain, who thinks there is a vast gay conspiracy to recruit and brainwash children, who thinks playboy is full of child porn, and so on.

People need to retract and apologize for these stories.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Nothing in that segment indicates any facts that support that b4u-act wants molestation legalized.

Ah, and here we see the entertaining twisting of words, just as the gay and lesbian community and its international organization ILGA did when they were supporting and endorsing NAMBLA and its goals.

You see, according to them, these people are not molesting children. They just want to have sex with them and help them, quote, “regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality”. Indeed, in that very citation, NAMBLA makes it clear that it supposedly opposes child molestation while simultaneously advocating sex with underage children — and that the gay and lesbian community saw no contradiction at all with this.

Those are facts, kaltes. You are in denial because you don’t have the capability to condemn sexual activity with children. Indeed, you are making it clear that you prioritize the sexual promiscuity of adults with children over the safety of children.

Furthermore, you don’t deal with the basic contradiction. The gay and lesbian community insists that the object of one’s sexual attraction is genetic, biological, and unchanging, has nothing to do with any sort of thought, and cannot be in any way altered by any type of therapy.

Thus, there is no changing pedophiles. To claim that there is is a repudiation of all approved psychology and psychiatric research, which states flatly that one’s sexual attractions are completely fixed and unchanging and that attempting to do so is unethical and wrong.

This is why this group is arguing for decriminalization and social acceptance of pedophilia and sex with underage children.

northdallasthirty on August 26, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Mebbe. I’ve checked out the link to your site before. Do you think you’re making any headway up there?

hawkdriver on August 24, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Massachusetts? Our conservative base is still fired up, and even though we’ve had immense difficulty with constitutional offices, we’re slowly clawing back the MA House of Reps.

Believe me when I say that even though Massachusetts is a blue state, we have won some very difficult races on the local level and if we remain diligent and keep it up, we’ll have a deep bench for years to come. John Kerry’s term comes up in 2014. I don’t know if it will happen, but I sincerely hope you all start seeing “Shaunna O’Connell for US Senate.” If she can win her 2012 re-election race for the MA House, she’ll be in great shape for it, though I don’t know if she actually wants to run. She’s simply awesome. We have same incredible conservative stock here, make no mistake. We’re the original home of Samuel Adams, after all.

Actually, I myself am running for School Committee in town.

I’ll be nagging on kattes again once I find the response to my other posts.

BKennedy on August 26, 2011 at 4:39 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.

Sex offenders =/= pedophiles. Pedophiles are eminently more dangerous, and even going by the idea their recidivism rate is only 15-25%, that’s still far too high a percentage. At a bare minimum it means that a pedophile is more likely to reoffend that a random person is likely to run into a black person in America (13% of the population). The fact many pedophiles are rightly locked away for a good long time also helps reduce recidivism. If it’s 15-25% total recidivism, try applying that number to the ones who actually get released. Even if it is not 100% or even anywhere near it, it is still too large a risk for society to bear. Russian Roulette with a single bullet bears a 16.67% chance of being killed. Pedophilic re-offending has a higher rate than that. All semantics aside, for every five pedophiles you release, one will reoffend. That is insane.

Pedophiles do not need therapy. Their urges are vile and if they have not acted they should indeed voluntarily restrain themselves. Once they have crossed that line, the gamble to reintroduce them into society is too great.

BKennedy on August 26, 2011 at 4:54 AM

BKennedy on August 26, 2011 at 4:54 AM

1. If a pedo “re-offends” it doesn’t mean he molested another child, it means he committed ANY crime. So your assumption is that 1 in 5 pedos victimizes another child, and that is an exaggeration. Unfortunately the criminal justice statistics don’t break down what exact crimes constitute re-offense. HOWEVER I wouldn’t doubt that “failure to register” as a sex offender when they move and such, is a very high proportion of the offenses. Considering about 20% failed to register, I’d bet it explains a lot of it.

2. The sex offender recidivism rate was 2.8% to 4.3% in the study I linked. That is far lower than other types of criminals. That is, also, all crimes, it doesn’t mean a kid was the target.

3. With sex offenders, there are very low risk individuals, and very high risk ones. Not enough is being done to figure out who is who, and this is a terrible oversight. High risk individuals should stay locked up, or at least under intense supervision. Low risk individuals pose no significant danger to society so wasting taxpayer resources on them just means fewer resources are available to focus on the moderate and high risk offenders.

Part of the problem is that it focuses on protecting people from repeat offenders, but 90 percent of sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders, he said. In addition, only 10 percent of sex crimes are committed by people who are strangers to the victim.
LINK

4. ^ This.

5. What I’ve been talking about, and what the psychs have been talking about, is preventive therapy to ensure that they can more effectively “voluntarily restrain themselves” and not “cross that line”. People can disagree on the effectiveness of that solution, but the fact of the matter is, the status quo is a miserable failure when it comes to protecting or preventing crimes against nearly all victims.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Presumably this definition would not include christian clergy?

This is NAMBLA again. “minor attraction”, when practiced is a life-style, an abiding decision to violate children for a perverted selfish impulse.

And it’s tough for Harvey Milk types to separate themselves from this.

We know it’s wrong. They know it’s wrong. They want society’s absolution and they are not going to get it.

On a side note, further evidence, if it were needed, that psychology is not a serious profession. All those years in college, all that practice, all that fine talk and writing … so that dirty old men (that’s the demographic) can sexually exploit children. We have an “advanced western civilization” to get away from this kind of savagery.

virgo on August 26, 2011 at 10:23 AM

the furthest they go is to say “critics believe” by which they mean 1 critic: a crazy old lady culture warrior who thinks porn is evil and causes neurological damage to your brain, who thinks there is a vast gay conspiracy to recruit and brainwash children, who thinks playboy is full of child porn, and so on.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Who has quotes

Axeman on August 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Sexual attraction to children is horrible. Sexual attraction to some minors is perfectly normal.

Why do I say this? Because while all children are minors, not all minors are children.

Britney Spears became famous at the age of 17. She became famous not because she was a talented singer, but because she was a talented singer who looked the way she did. The same was true of Christina Aguilera who was 16 or so when she became famous.

Both were examples of jail-bait; a girl who was physically grown, but still legally underage.

A girl that age is off limits for good reason, not least of all because she is, short of some endocrine disorder, physically attractive. Her physical maturity creates a conflict in men between what the primitive instinctual parts of our brain encourage us to do, and what our conscience demands that we refrain from doing. Most men choose the right course even without the threat of law, but not all of them. This is why we have laws that forbid older men from having sex with girls under a certain age, usually 18.

This is an important point, and not for the reason that some people might wrongly assume. I’m not arguing that 17 year old girls should be fair game for sexual pursuit. I believe that the age of consent laws are there for good reason and should be strictly enforced.

The point I want to make is that by conflating the terms “minor” and “child,” you artificially create millions of “pedophiles” out of normal men.

You also hand actual pedophiles a ready-made argument.

The pedophile will claim that sexually molesting a 10 year old is no different from having sex with a 17 year old because both are “children.” While both acts are wrong, most people would not categorize them as being equally wrong. Conflating these two terms helps pedophiles create lies that they then try to hide behind. Pedophiles are evil. Lying is to a pedophile like swimming is to a fish. There is no reason to help them do it. Words mean what they mean. Using them in a way that their meaning is confused just helps people who want to create that confusion.

Using such confused terminology also encourages those who irrationally want to cast normal romantic relationships between two minors as being sick.

How would you like to be a 16 year old guy and be told that kissing your 16 year old girlfriend meant you were now a sex offender? Such insanity is already happening.

Children need to be protected from pedophiles. The laws against statutory rape need to be enforced. But confusing these issues helps no one, least of all the children and teens who need our protection.

leereyno on August 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Who has quotes…

Axeman on August 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I meant quotes coming from a news organization, which would imply that the reporter heard the statements directly and took notes, or recorded them. So-called “quotes” from activists with an axe to grind are too unreliable. The claims made by Matt Barber and Judith Reisman are not credible. The reasons these claims are not credible are:

1. These are hard-core activist evangelical culture warriors. Taking their word for it is like taking the word of Michael Moore for what was said at a meeting of corporate fat cats. They are not reliable sources because they are partisans.

2. Barber and Reisman have made numerous ridiculous comments about other topics in the past, which show they are extremists, and quite frankly, the vast majority of Republicans would consider them to be nuts.

3. The accusations are very serious, and there is no corroboration. No one else who attended has come forward and substantiated their claims. There is clear evidence contradicting their claims, in particular, the abstracts of the speeches themselves. Because attendance was open to the public, Barber and Reisman could have easily recorded what was said, but they apparently did not. If speakers really did endorse molestation, such a recording would completely destroy the credibility of all involved, which is clearly the goal of Barber and Reisman. Why is there no recording or other corroboration? The most obvious answer is that Barber and Reisman are lying.

4. Their press release is suspicious because it does not identify the speakers of the various “quotes”, when they were spoken, or the context. For all we know, even if they aren’t making it up or exaggerating, the quotes could have come from the audience instead of the speakers.

5. Barber and Reisman clearly have a personal issue with Dr. Berlin, probably because he is a prominent and respected professional. Here is an interview with Dr. Berlin I googled up. Look at what he says in the interview:

In treatment, when we confront these folks and force them to look objectively to see that they’ve betrayed trust, that they’ve caused pain and suffering, that they’ve asked children to keep secrets from their families, that families have been deceived and injured, we see, in many cases but not all, tremendous guilt and remorse and an actual horror about themselves and the kinds of problems that they have caused.

So Dr. Berlin calls out the molester patients he has had and rubs their face in the harm they’ve done until they accept it and take responsibility for it. Does that sound like a man who is going to call for legalization of molestation? Does that sound like a man who is a cheerleader for people who molest children? Here’s more:

Priest abusers justify it just as other abusers do, in a variety of ways. They know that they’re feeling pleasure and they convince themselves that the youngster is too. They tell themselves that on the whole the child is better off. They have a difficult time appreciating that children are not miniature adults, that they cannot really consent, that there is a tremendous disparity between the child and the priest who is in a position of authority that affects how the priest is perceived by the child. It’s often only with proper professional help that they begin to realize the extent to which they have been deceiving themselves.

Dr. Berlin flat out says children can’t consent. Yet we are supposed to believe that he is saying the opposite in a public academic conference? I will conclude with this bit from his interview:

We have a responsibility — all of us — to protect children. That responsibility is even heavier for those who are held in special positions of esteem, such as priests.

6. They didn’t infiltrate a secret meeting. This was an academic conference open to the public. It is simply foolish to believe that, even if there were some secret pedophile conspiracy, that the pedos would speak openly about it in from of evangelical culture warriors.

7. It is beyond hilarious for notorious gay-haters like Barber and Reisman to attack Dr. Berlin for supposedly saying “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.” What else should Dr. Berlin do? Say “tough! you’d better just suck it up and learn to take it in the butt like the homo you are”?

8. The comments Barber and Reisman attributed to Breslow are beyond ridiculous, even for a nut like Breslow. They claim he said:

pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child.

I call BS. Even though their press release is full of “quotes”, Breslow is not being quoted here. It appears that Barber and Reisman have either fabricated, twisted, or grossly exaggerated his words.

My point remains the same. At best, this is tabloid journalism. No self respecting media outlet would dare run a story based on Barber and Reisman as the sole sources. Shame on Fox News for dragging these academics and professionals through the gutter, and shame on hotair.com for further repeating their lies.

One final point: Nowhere in the press release is there any quote which substantiates the ultimate claim being made here: “that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be [legally] permissible”. Corrections should be issues and apologies made, including right here at hotair.com.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Just out of curiosity, why are you pushing this so hard? Is this your field?

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

leereyno on August 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM

It is a tragedy that statutory rape laws, which criminalize all adolescent relationships*, even healthy, positive ones, where both people involved are happy and there is no victim, get lumped in criminally with actual child sexual abuse.

I do happen to disagree with setting the age of consent at 18. In most of the United States, the age is 16. In most of the world, it is 14. At 16, we allow teenagers to drive cars. If we can trust a person to drive a car, I think we can trust them to be able to decide for themselves who they can have relationships with.

*[In California, it is a crime for anyone under 18 to have sex. If the age difference is less than 3 years, it is a misdemeanor, but it is still a crime. Any teens who have done oral, anal, or fingering are subject to lifetime sex offender registration, even on a misdemeanor.]

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM

So, we are trying to lower the age of consent?

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Just out of curiosity, why are you pushing this so hard? Is this your field?

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

The main reason is that it pissed me off because I immediately recognized it as total garbage. I happen to like HotAir, even though I mainly just read AllahPundit, and I couldn’t believe a story like this would show up on this site.

I actually didn’t really get invested in the topic early on, I threw out a couple half-a$$ed comments, but then two things happened: (1) a lot of people started responding to me, and (2) I have been doing some hard core procrastination. Combine the two and this is what you get.

Sex crime sentencing is a hot topic in legal circles because of the very high punishments, all the new laws, all the litigation fighting over the constitutionality of those laws. The most controversial issue within the topic is probably federal child pornography sentencing, because of the mandatory minimums and the disputes regarding whether a person with child porn is really a danger to the community or not (so far, research seems to say no, contrary to popular belief).

Normally I’d be reading news to procrastinate or doing something else, but it has been a slow news week. I rarely post comments, this topic just ended up becoming a monster.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM

So, we are trying to lower the age of consent?

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM

No, I’m not doing anything to lower the age of consent, I just happen to have a policy preference. I also happen to think that a national sales tax and a balanced budget would be a good idea, too, but I’m not doing anything to promote those policy objectives, either.

The age of consent laws are outside the scope of the topic here, and 16 is not outside the current political mainstream, so there is nothing controversial here. I doubt it will ever happen, though. Age of consent laws are a 1 way ratchet.

The American political culture is currently, in part, based on sex offender demagoguery. This demagoguery has begun to result in backlashes from the professionals who are actually in the trenches dealing with these issues, specifically psychs and judges. The topic we are discussing is one in which psych professionals who attempted to combat the demagoguery in a relatively minor way got savagely attacked and demagogued for it. That pisses me off.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Yeah, I remember your first comment. I didn’t know whether you just had a beef with Korbe’s article/style whatever or whether you were at some level emotionally invested in the topic.

You make some pretty passionate debate on the subject. One thing, you seem to dismiss a lot of what was provided to you in the way of links and quotes by folks addressing your comments as misquotes and grossly exaggerating one doctors assertions. I get the impression you’ve studied the subject quite closely.

Anyways, it would seem that you’re actually with the folks who would push to lower the age of consent by one of your last comments.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 3:28 PM

That pisses me off.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Well, like bridgetown and Zekecorlain, rather than just saying you want to lower the age of consent you do seem to hint at it with things you cite.

I do happen to disagree with setting the age of consent at 18. In most of the United States, the age is 16. In most of the world, it is 14. At 16, we allow teenagers to drive cars. If we can trust a person to drive a car, I think we can trust them to be able to decide for themselves who they can have relationships with.

I let my daughter shoot my AR15 when she was 12. It didn’t mean I thought she was ready to join the military.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM

*[In California, it is a crime for anyone under 18 to have sex. If the age difference is less than 3 years, it is a misdemeanor, but it is still a crime. Any teens who have done oral, anal, or fingering are subject to lifetime sex offender registration, even on a misdemeanor.]

This is the criminalization of youth itself.

When I was a kid we had a name for sex and fingering and all that other stuff. We called it High School.

Making normal teenagers into designated criminals helps actual sexual predators by burgeoning the rolls of convicted sex offenders with people who have done nothing wrong. When anyone and everyone could potentially be put on the list for what they did in high school, being on the list will lose its significance and actual predators will start getting a pass.

Worse yet it undermines the rule of law as a legitimate social institution by making the law itself seem capricious and arbitrary, the same effect that the prohibition of Alcohol achieved. Teaching a kid that the state and its laws are out to get him is not the kind of lesson we should be teaching.

Societies where the law is seen as the enemy are easy to find, they’re called ghettoes and they are not good places to live.

leereyno on August 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM

You don’t know that these efforts for treatment will result in fewer actions of compulsions.

You don’t know that they won’t. We’re talking about preventing this kind of child abuse, and we’re talking about people who haven’t commited such crimes YET. Isn’t that a noble goal? Why would you resist it? Now, once they cross that line, like I said before, fry ‘em.

You can’t deny that the disincentive created by the perception of absolute disgust by society might be more effective at preventing actions than treatment (treatment which includes the acceptance of the impulses).

Again, you don’t know that treatment will prevent more victimizations. Therefore, your entire comment is moot.

blink on August 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM

If the impulses are accepted, why would treatment be required? In other words, your entire comment is moot.

You don’t know that treatment won’t work, and due to the stigma (which is a perfectly understandable reaction, by the way) someone may choose not to even try to get treatment. These shrinks are trying to prevent child molestation. I say give it your best shot doc.

runawayyyy on August 26, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I have a feeling that if this was the 1930′s you’d be saying, “After extensive review of Hilter’s published political material, I found nothing to support the notion that he wants to invade other countries or exterminate other ethnicities.

People need to retract and apologize for the mean things they’ve said about Hilter – especially that Churchill guy. “

blink on August 26, 2011 at 1:43 AM

There were people saying that exact thing at that time. That didn’t make Churchill wrong, but what the hell does that have to do with the current conversation? Godwin much? I’ve come to expect so much more from you.

runawayyyy on August 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM

You are in denial because you don’t have the capability to condemn sexual activity with children.

northdallasthirty on August 26, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Here we go again.

Kaltes has condemned sexual activity with children repeatedly in this thread. You just lied in a horrid way about a fellow poster.

Why are the mods letting this happen? Hello!

runawayyyy on August 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Why are the mods letting this happen? Hello!

runawayyyy on August 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Sent them an email. They might also be interested in seeing to what extent Hot Air is being used as an advocacy site to lower the age of consent.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Why are the mods letting this happen? Hello!

runawayyyy on August 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

OMG, someone interpreted another person’s advocacy for something as an inability to condemn that something. kaltes point blank does not think pedophilia should be prosecuted as a crime. It costs too much money to lock them up. Instead, we should treat it as a medical issue.

astonerii on August 26, 2011 at 5:39 PM

They might also be interested in seeing to what extent Hot Air is being used as an advocacy site to lower the age of consent.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

You are crossing a line there. You seem to be VERY SENSITIVE about this issue for some reason, but no one else here really cares much about it. You dug through the topic and found a guy who posted that age of consent should be based on biology, and so I accepted your earlier point, but don’t try to blow it up into something it’s not.

I don’t see anyone here who even really wants to talk about age of consent except for you. However, if they DID voice an opinion on it that was opposed to yours, that would not be any basis for moderation.

People generally do not argue for lower age of consent laws because they are dirty old men who want to date high schoolers. Instead, the objections to the laws are generally based on the criminalization of relationships involving teenagers with other teenagers. Parents do not want to see their son thrown in jail because he hit his 18th birthday and his girlfriend’s parents went and screamed bloody murder to the police.

That’s all I have to say on the subject. Going on about it would be a hijack, and the topic here is whether this psych conference was about the legalization of molestation or not, not age of consent laws for teenagers.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 6:12 PM

kaltes point blank does not think pedophilia should be prosecuted as a crime. It costs too much money to lock them up. Instead, we should treat it as a medical issue.

astonerii on August 26, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Well pedophilia is not a crime, and no, I don’t think it should be prosecuted because that would be some kind of unconstitutional Orwellian thought crime. As for child molestation, I have written more than once that I support the death penalty for the worst offenders.

I discussed treatment as something done prior to any crime, in order to prevent crimes. I never said “let’s put people in treatment instead of punishing them, because they are sick and not responsible for their actions”.

If you want to claim that I argued that child molestation should be legal, then you had better have a quote from one of my posts to back that ridiculous (but also very serious) claim up. This is like the 3rd time I’ve set you straight though, so I don’t think you really care if I said it or not, you just want to sling mud.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 6:24 PM

If you want to claim that I argued that child molestation should be legal, then you had better have a quote from one of my posts to back that ridiculous (but also very serious) claim up. This is like the 3rd time I’ve set you straight though, so I don’t think you really care if I said it or not, you just want to sling mud.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 6:24 PM

You just do not want to put them in jail. It costs too much money. I can figure out the rest.

astonerii on August 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 6:12 PM

I crossed no line.

My only point for this entire thread was that there are elements of our society that are trying to lower the age of consent. Quite a few commenters here provided ample evidence even here on Hot Air that our fears, are not unfounded.

I am VERY SENISITIVE (for whatever you inferred by the way you wrote that) that our society moves ever closer to trying to normalize something that I consider about as reprehensible a behavior as an adult can demonstrate. You and others like you argue strongly that we should try to understand these people. For the live of me, I cannot understand or feel empathy for someone who exhibits a behavior or predisposition for a behavior I consider evil.

I’m glad that was all you had to say on the subject too. I don’t think I could handle much more pandering to those people.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Well pedophilia is not a crime, and no, I don’t think it should be prosecuted because that would be some kind of unconstitutional Orwellian thought crime. As for child molestation, I have written more than once that I support the death penalty for the worst offenders.

The inclination may not be a crime, but its very existence in a person indicates a predatory nature. It is – just like homosexuality when acted out – objectively disordered. The difference is that unlike acted out homosexuality, this particular sexual deviancy is still known by most people for the disgusting proclivity that it is. Most people have given up trying to convince practitioners of homosexuality the obvious health issues (both mental and physical) they inflict on themselves through practice, but the attraction to undeveloped minors is thankfully restricted to NAMBLA and apparently these fools as a lobby.

Ultimately society is tolerant of people who consent to harm themselves, but the predatory nature of pedophilic tendencies removes even that figleaf. The tendency itself is to cause harm to minors in the pursuit of sexual gratification. No amount of therapy is going to make this a normal, natural tendency.

BKennedy on August 26, 2011 at 10:03 PM

My stepson is beginning his senior year at University of Mary Washington as a psych major. It occurred to me to ask him at dinner this evening if abnormal psych no longer includes homosexuality.

Of course not.

I wonder what is included in abnormal psych anymore.

disa on August 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM

I know of psychiatrists that don’t want mass murders or any murderers put to death for their crimes. They want to study them.

Homosexuality has nothing, nothing to do with this issue. Age of consent between adults and minors should not be lowered. If need be make the age of consent between homosexuals higher. Frankly, I can’t understand why heterosexuals seem to over sexualize pre-teen females such as in the Vogue magazine photo shoot.

SC.Charlie on August 26, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Frankly, I can’t understand why heterosexuals seem to over sexualize pre-teen females such as in the Vogue magazine photo shoot.

SC.Charlie on August 26, 2011 at 10:12 PM

There is an assumption you made there. One that likely would not stand the scrutiny of observation. See if you can figure out what it is.

astonerii on August 26, 2011 at 11:13 PM

A bit of research about some of the players and history regarding b4u-act.

Factual? If so, then there are a number of posts here that need to be rethought.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/b4u-acts-rogues-gallery/

Yoop on August 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Crickets chirping. Why?

Why are all those who are expressing concern about this subject and this post by Tina and demanding apologies for it appearing on Hot Air seem to be avoiding this information on PM?

Is it a factual post or not? If not, what are the details that prove these “histories” as being portrayed inaccurately?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/b4u-acts-rogues-gallery/

One entry from the blog post at the above link:

“Melsheimer appeared nowhere in public without Dr. Fred Berlin, who as it turned out was Melsheimer’s therapist. Berlin continues to be affiliated with Melsheimer’s group and was featured at this most recent conference. The Daily Caller points out that in the 1990s Berlin was in trouble with the Maryland authorities because he refused to alert law enforcement when child molesters under his care were actively abusing children. He is also a well-known and vocal opponent of sex offender notification laws. What is less well known about Fred Berlin is that he was, for decades, the expert the Catholic Church relied on for advice on how to deal with pedophile priests.

In a 2008 deposition by Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland we learn that Berlin counseled the Church to not defrock pedophile priests. He claimed it would be better to keep the priest around for the Church to monitor, something he claimed society at large wouldn’t do. Odd, since thirty years later he is lobbying against monitoring sex offenders.”

Yoop on August 26, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Kaltes has condemned sexual activity with children repeatedly in this thread.

Where? Show us. Show us where kaltes said that sexual activity with children is wrong.

What kaltes has done is tried to claim that molestation of children is wrong — which, as I pointed out above, is identical to what NAMBLA says.

Kaltes is trying to normalize sex with children and claim that sex with children is not molestation, just as NAMBLA does. To that end, kaltes is trying to eliminate age-of-consent laws, just as is NAMBLA.

And this was hilarious.

People generally do not argue for lower age of consent laws because they are dirty old men who want to date high schoolers. Instead, the objections to the laws are generally based on the criminalization of relationships involving teenagers with other teenagers. Parents do not want to see their son thrown in jail because he hit his 18th birthday and his girlfriend’s parents went and screamed bloody murder to the police.

And yet, it is so incredibly convenient that laws to “protect teenagers” enable dirty old men and women who want to have sex with children to do so without fear of penalty.

Furthermore, isn’t it entertaining how kaltes, who supposedly is all about protecting children, is smearing the girlfriend whose parents went to the police? Why should she not have the right of legal recourse and protection? Why does the 18-year-old who made the dumb and illegal decision get off scot-free?

Kaltes is doing nothing more than abortion pushers do when they scream about rape and incest as a justification for unlimited abortion: they cloak what is not acceptable to the vast majority of people, such as unlimited abortion, by using a tiny, tiny wedge of something else to garner sympathy.

northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 2:54 AM

You just do not want to put them in jail.

astonerii on August 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

You are a liar who has been called upon to produce quotes from my posts on numerous occasions to back your comments up, and you haven’t been able to.

You and others like you argue strongly that we should try to understand these people.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I did no such thing. You “and others like you” need to stop lying about what I’ve written.

The difference is that unlike acted out homosexuality, this particular sexual deviancy is still known by most people for the disgusting proclivity that it is.

BKennedy on August 26, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Since you’re outing yourself as a bigot, I could care less about the rest of your opinions. Homosexuals are consenting adults, and what they do with one another is none of your business.

Crickets chirping. Why?

Yoop on August 26, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I wrote a comment directly responding to that link a while back when the link first appeared. Whoever this “Melsheimer” person is, he is not part of b4u-act, so I could care less what kind of ridiculous allegations are made about him from years back, before he apparently died. You want to sling mud, but you have no mud to sling at anyone currently involved, so you are trying guilt by association.

As far as Dr. Berlin goes, he is a respected professional and noted expert in this field, and from the interview of him I linked and quoted earlier, he seems like an impressive guy who says a lot of smart things about this subject. He has a bunch of interviews up online where he says what his beliefs and opinions are. Instead of taking what some activist says about him as fact, why don’t you look at his interviews and quote the parts you find to be so objectionable. Of course, you can’t do that, because his interviews directly contradict the ridiculous things being said about him by a couple of evangelical anti-gay activist nut jobs with no credentials or credibility to speak of.

Show us where kaltes said that sexual activity with children is wrong.

What kaltes has done is tried to claim that molestation of children is wrong
northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 2:54 AM

All sexual activity with children is molestation. It is ridiculous for you to attempt to distinguish between the two.

Kaltes is trying to normalize sex with children and claim that sex with children is not molestation, just as NAMBLA does. To that end, kaltes is trying to eliminate age-of-consent laws, just as is NAMBLA.

northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 2:54 AM

This is actionable defamation. You have made 2 clear factual claims that are provable as lies simply by reading the comments here. Your lies are some of the most vile things that anyone could possibly say about another person.

You are saying that I said that “sex with children is not molestation” and that I called for the elimination of age of consent laws. Unless you can produce a quote of me saying that, you deserve to be banned from the comments. I have never advocated banning so far in this topic, but in your case it would be appropriate. Lying about what someone has said in the disgusting, vile manner that you have is unforgivable.

kaltes on August 27, 2011 at 4:18 AM

Now that these comments have degenerated into a handful of people who have reduced themselves about lying about what I have written because they can’t deal with what I’ve actually written, I think there really isn’t anything left to say.

My original point about Korbe and the women at Fox News who misreported the conference based on a pair of nut job partisans who lack any credibility owe the conference speakers, a retraction, and an apology.

They should not have moved forward with a story like this without checking the facts. Of course, this was, as AllahPundit says, “too good (or bad) to check” so Fox News and this web site went ahead and punished a news story with a reckless disregard for the truth, because it fit neatly in an alarmist, culture war narrative. I am disgusted by the whole thing. These psychologists are in the trenches trying to protect children, and they’ve done far, far more to help protect children than any of their critics, and this is what they get to thank for it: vicious lies peddled by some cranks.

For shame.

kaltes on August 27, 2011 at 4:37 AM

I wrote a comment directly responding to that link a while back when the link first appeared. Whoever this “Melsheimer” person is, he is not part of b4u-act, so I could care less what kind of ridiculous allegations are made about him from years back, before he apparently died. You want to sling mud, but you have no mud to sling at anyone currently involved, so you are trying guilt by association.

kaltes on August 27, 2011 at 4:18 AM

Could you please supply the time of your response regarding said link. For some reason I can’t find it. Must be scrolling right past it.

Obviously you did not read the entire post at the link or you would have discovered that Melsheimer was the founder of B4U-act.

From the link:

“The late Mike Melsheimer who started B4U-Act was a convicted child molester, first caught in 1984 when he was the director of Pennsylvania YMCA. He befriended the two young sons of a Nicaraguan immigrant and began producing child pornography using the boys. In 2002 Melsheimer made the news in Maryland by publicly demanding the state provide him lists of comprehensive mental health services for his pedophilia. At the same time, he was a frequent poster on pro-child rape forums using his own name or sometimes the handle “Lek” where he spoke at length of the time he spent in Thailand. In one 2009 discussion on a forum called Boychat, Melsheimer is taken to task by other child molesters for B4U-ACT’s claim they want to help stop “minor attracted adults” from offending.”

Yoop on August 27, 2011 at 4:41 AM

The vast majority of men who are in this position are good men who do not want to hurt anyone, and who never, in fact, do. Many of these men end up getting caught with child porn and sent to federal prison for years because of the public perception that they are molesters just waiting to happen, even though actual SCIENCE shows that they aren’t.

These men wanting and having child porn creates the demand for the most vile form of evil published. Yet you call them “Good Men”. You want us to understand them.

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs

You are arguing that they do not need to be fined or incarcerated for having child porn. You would have no reprecussion. I take it then that the act of making that porn should also not be fined of the people incarcerated?

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.

Why would we all to all of this trouble for just one behavioral crime? Why should they get the red carpet treatment?

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).

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.

Interesting in that you quickly tied sex offenders to examples of real bigotry. Civil rights references next?

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

This entire comment is too big to add to this already large comment, but it is filled with references to where the age of consent is as low as 13.

I would not try to represent what you said in any other way than what you did. A lawyer calling me a liar, is a hoot. I have a lot of lawyers as friends and they call it the last tool in the bag. Like a lawyer, you argue the broadest enterpretation of points you’re trying to make and execute a standard impossible to achieve for anyone else providing comment or citing a quote. You instructed folks to not think you’d give any creedence to personal anecdotes for their claims, in comments where you gave personal anecdotes to your claims.

I did not say anything along the lines as others here. I did not say you want to decriminalize pedophelia. I said you hint at lowering the age of consent. I also said that you want us to understand these people. I stand by that. What else would you call trying to make me discern between the urge and the crime and the fact that you don’t think it should be a crime to have child pornography. Arguing passionately to convince it is a mental illness that we knuckledraggers are using as boogeymen like Jews and Blacks.

And yes, a lot of people here have countered your points with passion and emotion. But at least these people are not stabbing around what they think. They are telling us in no uncertain terms what their beliefs are. I give them credit for that over someone who tries to fog the battlefield for an enemy we already understand quite well.

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 8:48 AM

kaltes on August 27, 2011 at 4:37 AM

Closing statements. Why are they not held to the same procedural scrutiny as information offered in the rest of open court?

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 9:09 AM

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 8:48 AM

There is a reason that the links below are being avoided. Note that both pre-date the post regarding this subject by Tina Korbe on Hot Air (posted at 5:25 pm on August 24, 2011).

Details offered on those blogs, with supporting links and footnotes, are quite damming, but not discussed by kaltes. Why aren’t apologies being demanded of those blogs?

B4U-Act’s Rogue’s Gallery

on Pajamas Media, August 22, 2011 – 12:00 am – by Rob Taylor

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/b4u-acts-rogues-gallery/

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

on The Daily Caller, By John Rossomando – The Daily Caller Published: 10:00 AM 08/15/2011 | Updated: 4:38 PM 08/15/2011

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Yoop on August 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Let me remind everyone that in 1993 International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), the largest homosexual organization in the world, gained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) but that status was suspended in 1994 by a vote of 214-30. That was because, of its very close association with NAMBLA, MARTIJN and Project Trujth, ALL pedophile organizations and all were active members in ILGA.
NAMBLA Replies to ILGA Secretariat (LETTER):

…NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice…

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla.replies.to.ilga.secretariat

PARENTS BEWARE!

sinsing on August 27, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Yoop on August 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Lawyers typically dismiss information that does not support their case.

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Lawyers typically dismiss information that does not support their case.

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Exactly. I can see why you suspect an advocacy by an attorney.

My problem is that I see arguments being presented with such passion as to suggest some other agenda than being “pissed off” at Tina. Interesting.

Yoop on August 27, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Their intentions might be good, but the consequences could are be terrible.

blink on August 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM

astonerii on August 27, 2011 at 12:29 PM

All sexual activity with children is molestation. It is ridiculous for you to attempt to distinguish between the two.

You say that, kaltes, and yet you do try to distinguish and have been trying to distinguish throughout this thread with your arguments that those who have sex with children should not be “stigmatized” as molesters.

This is actionable defamation. You have made 2 clear factual claims that are provable as lies simply by reading the comments here.

And, as is usual for liberal lawyers, they start throwing tantrums about “defamation” when they have no arguments left, just like their fellow Obama Party members start screaming “racist”.

Furthermore, the blatant hypocrisy of someone who is trying to insist that it is defamatory to call pedophiles and child molesters exactly that while screaming that the people who do call them that are bigots is even more obvious with that threat.

You brook no criticism or punishment of child molesters, kaltes. You openly state that society needs to become more lax, tolerant, and accepting of those who wish to have sex with children.

If you consider those statements defamatory, then you need to reread the comments and see for what you have argued and for what you have called.

northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 1:16 PM

northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Well said.

hawkdriver on August 27, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Since you’re outing yourself as a bigot, I could care less about the rest of your opinions. Homosexuals are consenting adults, and what they do with one another is none of your business.

Stuff it kattes, routine practice of homosexual activity for gay men is more damaging to the body than smoking cigarettes. There are real and valid health concerns and I’m surprised as someone who seems so keen to argue coddling child predators by taking seriously their attraction as some morally neutral inclination was so fast to pull out the bigot card.

Homosexual sex is not biologically neutral. This is a plainly observable phenomenon.

In fact I said nothing about whether it was my business that they cause harm to themselves. I am not a leftist busybody who feels the need to alternatively regulate or promote any given behavior under the auspices of tolerance and acceptance. It appears you glossed over that since you know it to be the case, and it’s much easier to take a fake moral high ground than to debate the actualities of homosexual self-damage.

Pedophilia is no different in the damaging, degrading nature of its substance, except that – as I previously stated – Americans remain unconvinced that pedophilia is as morally neutral as homosexuality has erroneously become.

BKennedy on August 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM

In fact I said nothing about whether it was my business that they cause harm to themselves. I am not a leftist busybody who feels the need to alternatively regulate or promote any given behavior under the auspices of tolerance and acceptance.

And kaltes inadvertently revealed the underlying issue with her argument that, since you were against pedophilia, you were a homophobe.

That’s what makes this interesting; kaltes and the other gay-sex liberals here insist that there is no connection between homosexuality and sexual activity with children, but insist that if you oppose sexual activity with children, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

What is becoming more and more clear is that kaltes and her ilk are trying to push acceptance of sexual activity with children under the rubric of homosexuality. As we see above with the other equivocation that sexual activity with children can somehow be linked to the civil rights movement, they’re even insisting that their need to have sex with children is a “right” equivalent to freedom from discrimination based on skin color.

northdallasthirty on August 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8