Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

[Nova]

There are people who are hoping that pedophilia is less stigmatized. That should be an issue to everyone. But somehow posts such as the above are insisting that it is only a problem for gay people. Even though repeatedly it's been acknowledged that it's a heterosexual problem as well. No one ever indicates that the only sexual molestation that happens is same sex molestation. So it's either intentional dishonesty in posting, or trying to obscure the real issue that there was a one day conference on this.

Why should it matter who reported on it, it's a bigger issue that more people didn't report on it. Why didn't the Baltimore Sun send a reporter? If it's as innocuous as some posters think, why didn't more (any?) reporters show up?

Harry Hay and Allen Ginsburg may have thought the age of consent was too high. In many states it used to be much higher for gay sex than for straight sex. I think reasonable people can disagree as to where the age of consent should be set; personally it's not my problem and I don't really care.

(It's true there was a brief period after Stonewall when some activists opposed all laws restricting sexual activity. It was one of those overreactions that often happen during revolutions. NAMBLA was even allowed to march in a few parades (much to the chagrin of some of us). But more reasonable heads quickly prevailed and nowadays I think you'll find that attitudes toward pedophilia are pretty much the same among gays and straights.)

But the ACLU defends the constitution whenever and wherever it is under attack. What is the evidence that the ACLU has some special interest in assisting child molesters?

This conference is only an issue for gay people because of the co-opting of the language of gay liberation on both sides. Otherwise, as you point out, it has nothing to do with the sexuality of consenting adults.

What makes you think a one-day conference was worthy of greater media attention? All we have is one hysterical quote from a questionable source. Yes, B4U-act claims to be trying to explore treatment options for those who do not act on their impulses; but we have no idea how many people participate in their activities and no evidence that the group is attempting to change child molestation laws. On the contrary, they specifically state that is not their purpose.

Since when are reporters drawn to the innocuous? I'm sure you know better than that.

 

[Nova]

Their mission is to lessen the stigma of being attracted to children.

You are oversimplifying, much as your friend from Liberty U.

The mission of B4U-act is to lessen the stigma of pedophiliac fantasies in a therapeutic context. Now I don't know the principals, so perhaps they have some secret agenda, but their stated goals do not include lessening the stigma of actual child molestation.

But it's a basic tenant of psychotherapy that the therapeutic setting be relatively judgment free. B4U-act wants to create a place where people with non-actualized pedophiliac thoughts can seek treatment.

Will they be successful in helping pedophiles adjust to their urges without visiting them on children? I don't know, but surely we all hope so.

But it's a long, long way from treating pedophile fantasies in a therapy room to pedophilia being accepted as just another harmless sexuality. The fact remains that the aim of pedophiles is not consensual sex; that will never be socially acceptable without a wholesale reversion to ancient concepts of childhood.

 

[Charlie09]

You are oversimplifying, much as your friend from Liberty U.

The mission of B4U-act is to lessen the stigma of pedophiliac fantasies in a therapeutic context. Now I don't know the principals, so perhaps they have some secret agenda, but their stated goals do not include lessening the stigma of actual child molestation.

But it's a basic tenant of psychotherapy that the therapeutic setting be relatively judgment free. B4U-act wants to create a place where people with non-actualized pedophiliac thoughts can seek treatment.

Will they be successful in helping pedophiles adjust to their urges without visiting them on children? I don't know, but surely we all hope so.

But it's a long, long way from treating pedophile fantasies in a therapy room to pedophilia being accepted as just another harmless sexuality. The fact remains that the aim of pedophiles is not consensual sex; that will never be socially acceptable without a wholesale reversion to ancient concepts of childhood.

If you feel comfortable advocating for a group that wants to lessen the stigma of pedophilia for whatever reason, feel free.

 

[Charlie09]

Harry Hay and Allen Ginsburg may have thought the age of consent was too high. In many states it used to be much higher for gay sex than for straight sex. I think reasonable people can disagree as to where the age of consent should be set; personally it's not my problem and I don't really care.

(It's true there was a brief period after Stonewall when some activists opposed all laws restricting sexual activity. It was one of those overreactions that often happen during revolutions. NAMBLA was even allowed to march in a few parades (much to the chagrin of some of us). But more reasonable heads quickly prevailed and nowadays I think you'll find that attitudes toward pedophilia are pretty much the same among gays and straights.)

But the ACLU defends the constitution whenever and wherever it is under attack. What is the evidence that the ACLU has some special interest in assisting child molesters?

This conference is only an issue for gay people because of the co-opting of the language of gay liberation on both sides. Otherwise, as you point out, it has nothing to do with the sexuality of consenting adults.

What makes you think a one-day conference was worthy of greater media attention? All we have is one hysterical quote from a questionable source. Yes, B4U-act claims to be trying to explore treatment options for those who do not act on their impulses; but we have no idea how many people participate in their activities and no evidence that the group is attempting to change child molestation laws. On the contrary, they specifically state that is not their purpose.

Since when are reporters drawn to the innocuous? I'm sure you know better than that.

You can backtrack and justify all you want, there have been several notable names in the gay rights movement that have been in support of Nambla in their 33 years of existence.

I realize your reporters drawn to the innocuous question is sarcastic with the statement following it - I would suggest you review some of Sarah Palin's dealings with reporters as a starter, we can go from there.

The reports that came out of the conference sound very similar to another group that was brought up earlier. If it's consensual, and no coercion is involved, it's not really molestation. An organization can have a stated goal, but the fringe look on it as something they can use to their ends....I think this is one of those times. Again, if you feel comfortable defending them, great. I feel just as comfortable not defending them as individuals or as a group trying to take away the stigma of sexual attraction to children.

 

[Nova]

If you feel comfortable advocating for a group that wants to lessen the stigma of pedophilia for whatever reason, feel free.

I'm not advocating for them, just trying to quote them accurately. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

 

[Nova]

You can backtrack and justify all you want, there have been several notable names in the gay rights movement that have been in support of Nambla in their 33 years of existence.

I realize your reporters drawn to the innocuous question is sarcastic with the statement following it - I would suggest you review some of Sarah Palin's dealings with reporters as a starter, we can go from there.

The reports that came out of the conference sound very similar to another group that was brought up earlier. If it's consensual, and no coercion is involved, it's not really molestation. An organization can have a stated goal, but the fringe look on it as something they can use to their ends....I think this is one of those times. Again, if you feel comfortable defending them, great. I feel just as comfortable not defending them as individuals or as a group trying to take away the stigma of sexual attraction to children.

As usual, you don't actually respond to my point. Yes, there has been support for NAMBLA among both gays and straights. Harry Hays hasn't been a major figure in the gay rights movement for 30 years; ditto Allen Ginsburg. I think the fact that you have to go back so far to find famous NAMBLA supporters rather proves my point. There was a brief convergence between movements in the 1970s, after which gay rights activists quickly repudiated NAMBLA.

I don't understand your point about Sarah Palin. I wish she were innocuous, but alas, she is not.

What reports from the conference are you talking about? There is NOTHING in the materials on B4U-act that I've seen that says anything about sex with children being consensual. If you're going to make that claim, I think you need to cite it.

As I'm sure you know, the actual membership and influence of NAMBLA was always very small. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate B4U-act is any different.

Pedophiles represent a tiny fraction of the population. (Still too large, but tiny in relative terms.) The sex they prefer is not consensual and will never be accepted by the population (gay or straight) at large.

On a personal note, it gets really boring being accused of "defending" something simply because I discuss it in a rational manner. If posters want to vent hysterically here, the TOS allows it, as far as I know. But just because I can read B4U-act's literature and discuss it doesn't mean I am defending child molesters. The fact is B4U-act supposedly only deals with those who do not act on their urges. And whether Kimberly likes it or not, such people are still protected by law.

 

[Trident]

I'm not advocating for them, just trying to quote them accurately. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

I'm sure she can, and so can I. I read the post the same way she did.

 

[Trident]

As usual, you don't actually respond to my point. Yes, there has been support for NAMBLA among both gays and straights. Harry Hays hasn't been a major figure in the gay rights movement for 30 years; ditto Allen Ginsburg. I think the fact that you have to go back so far to find famous NAMBLA supporters rather proves my point. There was a brief convergence between movements in the 1970s, after which gay rights activists quickly repudiated NAMBLA.

I don't understand your point about Sarah Palin. I wish she were innocuous, but alas, she is not.

What reports from the conference are you talking about? There is NOTHING in the materials on B4U-act that I've seen that says anything about sex with children being consensual. If you're going to make that claim, I think you need to cite it.

As I'm sure you know, the actual membership and influence of NAMBLA was always very small. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate B4U-act is any different.

Pedophiles represent a tiny fraction of the population. (Still too large, but tiny in relative terms.) The sex they prefer is not consensual and will never be accepted by the population (gay or straight) at large.

On a personal note, it gets really boring being accused of "defending" something simply because I discuss it in a rational manner. If posters want to vent hysterically here, the TOS allows it, as far as I know. But just because I can read B4U-act's literature and discuss it doesn't mean I am defending child molesters. The fact is B4U-act supposedly only deals with those who do not act on their urges. And whether Kimberly likes it or not, such people are still protected by law.

BBM I haven't seen Charlie vent HYSTERICALLY. I often disagree with her, but so far I've seen nothing but intelligent debate.

 

[Reality Orlando]

I'm all for people with psychiatric problems getting help. I am not for allowing any slack what-so-ever for people who even think about hurting children. The purpose of the article was to make people aware that there is a group that is trying to take the stigma away from adults being sexually attracted to children. How is removing that from the psychiatric journals going to help? I'd rather we keep tough safeguards in place because the welfare of innocent children is by far the most important aspect of this whole discussion.

 

[Trident]

I'm all for people with psychiatric problems getting help. I am not for allowing any slack what-so-ever for people who even think about hurting children. The purpose of the article was to make people aware that there is a group that is trying to take the stigma away from adults being sexually attracted to children. How is removing that from the psychiatric journals going to help? I'd rather we keep tough safeguards in place because the welfare of innocent children is by far the most important aspect of this whole discussion.

BBM, Once the "stigma", God forbid anyone should think badly of those wired differently, we move on to the next step, perhaps the one below legitimizing raping our children. Seems to me that's how gays gained acceptance, a good way to do it. One grain of sand can bring down the cliff. However, sex between consenting adults, as in homosexuality/gay sex, is a world apart from baby rapers.

Nope, there is a stigma attached to pedophiles, and we NEED to keep it there for the sake of our children, not remove it for the convenience of those pedophiles who would rape and murder them.

I say, give NO quarter to them, and once they act on "who they are", put them down like a mad dog.

 

[Reality Orlando]

To me this comes down to the fact that those in the psychiatric field work with all types of people, including rapists, murderers, serial killers, etc. I don't see what difference this change B4u-act is advocating will make to the psychiatric community in getting them help. It's obvious there is an agenda...the first part of which is moving away from Pedophile and instead using the term "minor-attracted". So, in other words it's okay...these folks just lust after young children. But that's all fine as long as they've not followed through. Ugh...yet how many times have we seen here that once someone is caught that they've been preying on children in the past as well.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm all for people with psychiatric problems getting help. I am not for allowing any slack what-so-ever for people who even think about hurting children. The purpose of the article was to make people aware that there is a group that is trying to take the stigma away from adults being sexually attracted to children. How is removing that from the psychiatric journals going to help? I'd rather we keep tough safeguards in place because the welfare of innocent children is by far the most important aspect of this whole discussion.

BBM

ITA!!!!
I think when it comes to our children, it's much better to be safe than sorry!
They deserve it.

 

[Nova]

BBM I haveneet seen Charlie vent HYSTERICALLY. I often disagree with her, but so far I've seen nothing but intelligent debate.

That remark wasn't directed at Charlie personally.

Just look at the ensuing posts in this thread.

It's all well and good to say that pedophiles should be scorned. But in the case of those who have never acted on their pedophiliac fantasies, precisely how are they to be identified and discouraged?

On the other hand, if we make no distinction between those who act and those who do not act, what incentive do pedophiles have to control their urges?

 

[Charlie09]

As usual, you don't actually respond to my point. Yes, there has been support for NAMBLA among both gays and straights. Harry Hays hasn't been a major figure in the gay rights movement for 30 years; ditto Allen Ginsburg. I think the fact that you have to go back so far to find famous NAMBLA supporters rather proves my point. There was a brief convergence between movements in the 1970s, after which gay rights activists quickly repudiated NAMBLA.
I wouldn't even have known who Harry Hays was if you hadn't brought him up on the California Gay History thread as someone of importance that should be taught about to our kids. So obviously he has historical value if you think that he is historically valuable to California children.

I don't understand your point about Sarah Palin. I wish she were innocuous, but alas, she is not.

What reports from the conference are you talking about? There is NOTHING in the materials on B4U-act that I've seen that says anything about sex with children being consensual. If you're going to make that claim, I think you need to cite it.

As I'm sure you know, the actual membership and influence of NAMBLA was always very small. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate B4U-act is any different. Does a small membership mean no harm is done because it's just a few people?

Pedophiles represent a tiny fraction of the population. (Still too large, but tiny in relative terms.) The sex they prefer is not consensual and will never be accepted by the population (gay or straight) at large. This remains to be seen. I would never imagine a conference whether in a broom closet, or a large auditorium, where there was a sought after approach to lessen the stigma of sexually desiring children, yet it happened this month.

On a personal note, it gets really boring being accused of "defending" something simply because I discuss it in a rational manner. If posters want to vent hysterically here, the TOS allows it, as far as I know. But just because I can read B4U-act's literature and discuss it doesn't mean I am defending child molesters. The fact is B4U-act supposedly only deals with those who do not act on their urges. And whether Kimberly likes it or not, such people are still protected by law.

I'm not getting personal you're the one who seems to twist things because an uncomfortable comparison is made or because as you see it, the gay right's verbiage is being hijacked; yet with the same fingers and thumbs are pretty shrill against anyone associated with Liberty University.

Supposedly is a great qualifier - but since neither you or I were at the meeting. We have to base our opinions on something - you have the agenda seekers website to base your opinions on, and I googled and found a report by the visiting professor and legal counsel from Liberty. You wouldn't give their report a fair shake anyway, which brings me back to my other post earlier - this conference was certainly on the radar, and I find it disconcerting that either - no main stream press members attended, or they found it so corrupt they couldn't report on it.

The fact is, you are free by right of the Constitution (and the TOS) to defend whomever you choose to, and I am free by right of the Constitution (and the TOS) to have my opinion and speak it freely. We obviously will not have a meeting of the minds on this subject. So I encourage you to be free with your defense without having to rationalize it behind bogus qualifiers of what is supposedly the purpose of the group without having attended a meeting or speaking with anyone there personally.

I will take with more than a grain of salt the reports of the people who were actually present, and continue to believe there is no purpose in lessening the stigma of being sexually attracted to children.

 

[Charlie09]

BBM I haven't seen Charlie vent HYSTERICALLY. I often disagree with her, but so far I've seen nothing but intelligent debate.

This has made me chuckle for a while now.

 

[Nova]

I'm not getting personal you're the one who seems to twist things because an uncomfortable comparison is made or because as you see it, the gay right's verbiage is being hijacked; yet with the same fingers and thumbs are pretty shrill against anyone associated with Liberty University.

Supposedly is a great qualifier - but since neither you or I were at the meeting. We have to base our opinions on something - you have the agenda seekers website to base your opinions on, and I googled and found a report by the visiting professor and legal counsel from Liberty. You wouldn't give their report a fair shake anyway, which brings me back to my other post earlier - this conference was certainly on the radar, and I find it disconcerting that either - no main stream press members attended, or they found it so corrupt they couldn't report on it.

The fact is, you are free by right of the Constitution (and the TOS) to defend whomever you choose to, and I am free by right of the Constitution (and the TOS) to have my opinion and speak it freely. We obviously will not have a meeting of the minds on this subject. So I encourage you to be free with your defense without having to rationalize it behind bogus qualifiers of what is supposedly the purpose of the group without having attended a meeting or speaking with anyone there personally.

I will take with more than a grain of salt the reports of the people who were actually present, and continue to believe there is no purpose in lessening the stigma of being sexually attracted to children.

Harry Hays can be both important historically and wrong about legalizing sex with adolescents.

An inability to see that distinction would be the hysteria to which I referred.

Representatives from Liberty U. have in the past used every excuse to cry that the sky is falling, that there is a widespread plot to subvert "normal" sexuality and destroy the family (whatever that means).

Maybe this professor is different, but lie down with the dog...

But of course your decision to ignore the remarks of anyone who actually attended the event makes perfect sense.

 

[Knot4u2no]

Who cares about pedophiles’ incentives to control their urges!? ... WE/society should provide the incentives for them ... WE/society should stop “them,” cut them off, ISOLATE their thoughts as soon as expressed, make them pay dearly for any acting-out ... do them in – one way or another, the sooner-the better, early in their chain of conditioning.

I have no sympathy or interest in the agendas of pedophiles, but if I were in active practice, I would be more than happy to address their “treatment” needs (seriously), and protect society at the same time. I have no problem with habilitation or rehabilitation for pedophiles, but I do have a problem with any suggestion that they are “victims,” in any sense of the term.

Russell

 

[Charlie09]

Harry Hays can be both important historically and wrong about legalizing sex with adolescents.

An inability to see that distinction would be the hysteria to which I referred.

Representatives from Liberty U. have in the past used every excuse to cry that the sky is falling, that there is a widespread plot to subvert "normal" sexuality and destroy the family (whatever that means).

Maybe this professor is different, but lie down with the dog...

But of course your decision to ignore the remarks of anyone who actually attended the event makes perfect sense.

you slam any and everyone associated with Liberty and say they "lie down with the dog"

yet - justify only showing part of the story of Harry Hays. He's important to teach to children ..we'll just ignore that he didn't mind advocating having sex with them.

So blinded by hatred of all things Liberty related you just don't see the hypocrisy.

I think you misread or misunderstood my point. I'll take the word of the people who were there and actually reported on it, what happened and what the gist of the meeting was. You're welcome to google the information and decide for yourself.

 

[Reality Orlando]

That remark wasn't directed at Charlie personally.

Just look at the ensuing posts in this thread.

It's all well and good to say that pedophiles should be scorned. But in the case of those who have never acted on their pedophiliac fantasies, precisely how are they to be identified and discouraged?

On the other hand, if we make no distinction between those who act and those who do not act, what incentive do pedophiles have to control their urges?

You're kidding right? How about right from wrong and if that doesn't work how about much longer more severe jail terms? Life, death penalty? Sooner or later something will sink in.

 

[Reality Orlando]

It's time to separate the victims from the perpetrators. Children are the victims, the good guys while perverts (ie pedophiles) are the bad guys. We need to protect the good guys and punish the bad guys. Those in the psychiatric community are there to make money. Thanks to our over-generous government there are LOTS of free psychiatric help centers and many more with subsidized sliding scale fee services. I don't know one single person in the psychiatric realm who would turn down working with pedophiles. If someone has urges to have sexual contact with children and they don't, on their own, seek help, that's their problem.