There really isn’t much I can say about this.
In an interview with Prostasia‘s Noah Berlatsky, Old Dominion professor Allyn Walker justified feelings of pedophilia and the people who have them. Walker wants to destigmatize feelings of pedophilia, digs into the idea that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation that a person should not act upon, and claims that trying to get pedophiles to not be pedophiles would be akin to “conversion therapy,” which they say is “not at all effective.”
I can’t say that I am surprised by this. BTW, MAP is the new shortcut for minor attracted person – or nonce. Walker looks just as I would expect (a woman who thinks she is a man – and the rainbow glasses, give me strength – Ed) for someone trying to justify the unjustifiable. The whole thing is an exercise in semantics and sophistry.
“I think we believe societally, that stigma against MAPs serves to protect children because we don’t fully understand the differences between MAPs and sex offenders. Again, we have this confusion between the attraction and a criminal behavior.” https://t.co/62YZGg9tbY pic.twitter.com/pPwEOjJUCo
— Prostasia Foundation (@ProstasiaInc) November 9, 2021
Actually, I said more than I expected. Oh, well, over to you…
From the article:
“there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all. In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either okay or not, okay. It’s our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either okay or not okay.”
That sounds reasonable to me; the deed is the crime, not the thought.
I’d like to be able to agree with you on this. However, this is classic toe in the door stuff. Sure, you can’t help what you feel or whom you desire, but there are times when we know instinctively that those desires are wrong or immoral. This sense of shame is a good thing as it holds people back. The desire to somehow make it okay is not a step in the right direction. These feelings should carry a stigma.
I have no opposition for people with these desires to get help, and in frowning upon those desires, I’m not making it a thought crime as I’m not suggesting that people be locked up for how they feel, only how they act.
In looking at this person’s desire to make the feelings okay, I am reminded of Harriet Harperson.
As I said over at David Thompson’s the other day, it’s certainly a more subtle argument than the headlines suggest. The trouble is that it wouldn’t work. So, alright, you tell them to come forward because they won’t be persecuted for their feelings. But they will be kept away from kids, and more certainly than if they just kept their mouths shut, because we’ll be watching.
What’s going to happen? I don’t doubt that there are a few who know their attraction to kids is wrong and are ashamed of it, and they might find themselves better integrated into society, but the worst offenders, the ones who want to molest children, would just keep schtum. And, as you say, the toe is in the door.
As I also said at David’s, it’s basically the same argument as the legalisation of homosexuality in the ’60s: it’s futile to try to alter what’s going on in someone’s head, so the question is whether what they do is harming anyone. In that case, what consenting adults get up to in private is nobody else’s business. BUT (capital letters, italics… is there a “giant flashing neon sign” HTML tag>?), by definition, in this instance, one party isn’t a consenting adult. The argument’s the same, but it’s being applied to a totally different situation.
It’s interesting though that different societies view paedophilia with different degrees of revulsion. In ancient Greek society pederasty was de rigueur. I suppose psychologists might lay the real damage done by child sexual abuse at the door of the emotional abuse which it entails which is underpinned by the stigma.
“no one can control who they’re attracted to at all”
That’s a sweeping statement that paedophilia supporters should be obliged to prove before it’s accepted as fact.
Given that some people have reformed from being homosexual, and others claim to have chosen homosexuality, the claim seems dubious at best.
A paedophile can certainly control his “attraction”, by recognising he’s sick and seeking professional help.
If he went into our local looking like that, opening his mouth about his perversion would simply seal his fate.
I agree with Frank and have often been lambasted by people who think all paedos should be locked up / shot etc.
They can’t help how they feel or who they are attracted to. They must understand, at the end of a bayonet if required, that acting upon those feelings is unacceptable.
The problem with stigma is that it deters people from seeking the help they need to deal with their emotions and stay on the right path. By ostracising them we only guarantee that a minority will give in to their temptation and commit the most awful of crimes. I think a far more effective solution would be for society to accept this flaw in some people and encourage them to seek support. Fat chance!
While I’d like to agree with you and Frank, I can’t. I simply do not trust these people. This is a first step to normalisation.
The problem with all of this is that it’s trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Pedos are essentially people with broken brains. They can’t be fixed or change to any meaningful degree and while they are out-and-about they remain a danger to children. In days gone by we’d have thrown the buggers into prisons (for the prisoners to deal with) or long-term mental health units.
That we are no longer doing this seems to have led to an outbreak of the buggers. Perhaps it is time for “Ecksian solutions” such as a Soviet style short walk down a long corridor and a bullet in the back of the head?
So you cant control who you are attracted to, fair enough. It is the vulnerability of the victim which is the governing factor.Whether it is physical frailty or just inexperience, to take advantage of a young child is unforgiveable. The same sort of thing applies when young men beat up old ladies to steal, it is the disparity between victim and assailant that counts most.
His wife exasperates him so much he beats her until she sees sense.
His wife exasperates him so much he goes into a different room so that he doesn’t beat her.
Some of you would treat those two actions as the same.
Thinking is not a crime. Yet.
I never said it was.
A very emotive subject much wider than kids. I do understand that lots of people have fetishes or can be attracted to things that other people find repulsive yet they have that attraction. They just don’t talk about it if they do and everyone is happy with that. Who cares? If it is illegal then they will get punished if they get caught, if not then it’s just -ve thought and repulsion.
Not that long ago here and even now in other cultures age is not an issue. I can remember everyone drooling over Charlotte Church and she was only 13. She was one of many underage at that time. Nowadays we have clamped down on it and have simply stuck a stake in the group at what we think is an acceptable age. Personally having brought up girls I’d make the age of consent 18 and align everything around that.
So, imo, being able to state your opinion isn’t a crime. So if you fancy 6 year old or a particular pet then so be it. If you say so then expect some feedback and imo as long as you don’t act on it, where illigal, then who cares. Act on it when it is illegal and the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks, as long as you aren’t connected, and imo not as severely as they should do.
This is the point. Opprobrium is perfectly reasonable. What makes me uncomfortable is the steps being taken to destigmatise. There should be a stigma, people should feel ashamed and yes, they should be able to seek help. Nowhere have I suggested that thoughts be a crime.
A civilised society is one where the strong protect the weak. A pre-pubescent child is, by physical and emotional standards, a weak person. They don’t have sexual knowledge or needs, so don’t understand what is happening or how to deal with the actions of the paedophile. Their size will, naturally, make any sexual encounter painful and can cause permanent physical injury. The offence then constitutes rape as no more-pubescent child can consent to sex. This is why many paedophiles kill their victims, because that is what the child is, to prevent from being identified. I spent several years in a Police Child Protection Unit, and had to request a transfer as I was being tempted, more and more, to step outside lawful procedures in dealing with offenders. What the answer is, I have no idea, especially when the elected(?) President of the USA shows all the signs of paedophilia or ephebophilia (sexual attraction to a post-pubescent child). Perhaps one should check eBay for piano wire and old lampposts?