This cry for greater understanding and tolerance might appeal to some here.

Needless to say, I'm not one of them.

Group of Psychologists Pushing to Change Definition of Pedophilia

There’s a new push by some in the psychological community to change the definition of pedophilia. The group of mental health professionals, called B4U-ACT, argues that pedophiles are misunderstood. Critics believe this could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”

In reporting on the story, Shannon Bream said the group’s goal is to create tolerance for and a better understanding of people who have an attraction to children.

There's a vid on the link.

foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/group-of-p...ation-of-pedophilia/

Yeah, well, here is my understanding for/of them

Problem solved (for both male and female)

Gilly wrote:
Are you saying there are paedophiles that are members of this site?

Who?

martg wrote:
No. Not at all to the best of my knowledge.

Purely that some people, whilst expressly not condoning the actions of such deviants, have argued for an empathetic approach to everybody across the board. I think I was the only one arguing that some people (imo) aren't deserving of empathy.

And whilst I can see the good intentions behind that argument, and even the sense of trying to understand what causes people's behaviour, so that maybe it could be controlled / managed, my concern is more with the victims.

The suggestion of changing the accepted attitude towards paedophilia / rape from viewing it as criminal, to it being a mental health issue is a prime example of what I see as providing excuses for people who are not deserving of excuses being made for them.

There must have been some reason for that opening comment, you obviously had someone in mind.

This agenda to get paedophilia accepted isn't really a surprise they've been pushing this shit for years
personally I'm glad that these paedo's seem happy to identify themselves by proposing these changes, makes rounding them up much easier.

martg wrote:
I posted the 'no' as quick as I could, to make it clear that that wasn't what I was saying, then went back to elaborate via editing.

StarsChildren wrote:
looks like you could get a good swing and cave in a skull with em.

Paedophiles who trade child porn will not be sent to prison: New sentencing laws suggest community punishments
The Sentencing Council suggested 'high level community orders' for those convicted of trading or possessing child pornography
The current benchmark jail sentence for those with a small number of images is three months
Only those with pictures of children posing alone or small quantities of images of children engaged in sex acts, but not with adults are not jailed
Criminologist Dr David Green said it was 'sending the wrong message'
By STEVE DOUGHTY
PUBLISHED: 00:33, 6 December 2012 | UPDATED: 12:56, 6 December 2012


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243739...s.html#ixzz2EVx8l2M2

Yet there's no mention of what exactly these 'community punishments' are.

I don't want these people in my community.

I don't really see how empathy applies to people who molest torture and kill kids, nobody in their right mind can suggest leniency or understanding for that

I think what they are attempting to say is that attraction to minors is not what is criminal - acting on that attraction is. I have often pondered whether the revulsion people quite rightly feel towards those who express an attraction to children and the fact that those who are are utterly alienated and shunned means that they are driven to others who are also attracted to children and encourage them to act on those urges. Particularly in the technological age where the internet allows people to find like minded people relatively easily.

I would never condone paedophilia - nor would I live in a society that accepts it as a legitimate. I would however like there to be more help available to people struggling with such attractions before anything has happened without that person being on the receiving end of a lynch mob. Thinking and doing are two different things - and I would rather prevent abuse through some form of therapy than have to pick up the pieces after any crime is committed or reacting against someone who has not committed any crime and who may never commit a crime.

I could agree with a lot of what you say, Thoreau, except that few currently end up in the hands of the lynch mobs you describe - they supposedly are dealt with by the judiciary system. Which won't happen, if they end up decriminalising it.

If there's therapy that can stop these people before they strike - or afterwards, come to that, to ensure they don't repeat offend - then I'd like to know about it.

They're specifically talking about 'destigmatizing minor-attracted people'. 'Destigmatising'. So, presumably making it acceptable. How dangerous is that!!!

And they're even claiming that the stigma 'inflames the fears of (amongst others) mental health officials'! Talk about gobbledy-gook. They want it treated as a mental health issue rather than crime, yet are distrustful of mental health officials dealing with them correctly under present circumstances because of everybody's perceptions (including, apparently, those mental health officials).

We will never eliminate paedophilia if we never understand it. However the same goes for murder, that doesn't mean it should be decriminalised.

Gilly wrote:
It isn't happening now
shows the priorities of judges and politicians and the clubs they like to join

Well I'm certainly a long way from being convinced that freemasonary is the root of all evil.

But there's something going horribly wrong somewhere along the line, with ranks being closed to protect people. Which also makes me extremely wary of any attempts at destigmatization.

Thats the thing - being attracted to children is not a criminal offence - just as being attracted to animals is not of itself a criminal offence. Acting on those attractions is what is criminal.

You could meet hundreds of paedophiles in your lifetime and never know it - they may never act on their attraction - never lay one finger on a child or look at child pornography and yet they are by definition a paedophile - and that is what I believe they are saying. Not that I think it will matter if you call someone a paedophile, a minor attracted person, or appropriately aged challenged - or whatever label they come up with - it will remain as someone who is attracted to children. and that rightly brings out very strong feelings in people.

I feel strongly about free speech and the prosecution of 'thought' crime - and however distasteful and disgusting I may find the idea of someone being attracted to children if they have done nothing at all wrong is it right to lump them in with those who have acted on their attraction?

Not sure I have any real answers to it but it does open up an ethical and moral can of worms.

Personally i think if you are attracted to and prepare to act on pre pubescents, you are sick. You are ill in the head. That should not be seen as any form of get out though.

I would never claim that Freemasonry was the root of all evil.
The division and corruption of the lodges by the illuminati that George Washington wrote about still goes on to this day. not all high level freemasons are part of the agenda.
Manly P hall was also quite clear on this, both sides want a new world order but there is a lot of division over what that should mean.

There are a few different definitions, some including the attraction, and some just outlining the actual crimes of molestation etc.. I agree that it's not the 'attraction' element that's a crime, but then, I'm not actually aware of anyone who's been prosecuted for just experiencing attraction that they haven't acted on.

dubmeup wrote:
Thing is though plenty of people who are attracted to and act on pre-pubescents also believe themselves to be sick. Yet when they turn to society for help is any forthcoming?

oioioi wrote:
That's a good point. Society as a whole isn't equipped to help them. I'd anticipate that there are health authorities who should help in the same way that I'd expect there to be some facility to help if I turned to them with a problem about experiencing the urge to murder people. I can't claim to know though.