PDA

View Full Version : Academic conference seeks to normalize pedophilia



Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 08:39 PM
by Jeremy Kryn
Tue Aug 16, 2011 16:28 EST




BALTIMORE, MD, August 16, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Researchers from several prominent U.S. universities will participate tomorrow in a Baltimore conference reportedly aiming to normalize pedophilia. According to the sponsoring organization’s website, the event will examine ways in which “minor-attracted persons” can be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.

B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois.

B4U-ACT science director Howard Kline has criticized the definition of pedophilia by the American Psychological Association, describing its treatment of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading.”

“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” Kline said in a July 25 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”

“The Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Disorders (DSM) should meet a higher standard than that,” he added. “We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.”

On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.

In their press release B4U-ACT announced a letter the group has sent to the APA criticizing its classification of the mental illness.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN), Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, an expert on sexual ethics and pornography, criticized the Baltimore conference, saying, “This has been on the agenda for decades.”

“I first met up with what I had come to call ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby’ in 1977 at The British Psychological Society Conference on Love and Attraction, Swansea, Wales,” she said. “I delivered a research paper on child pornography in Playboy 1954-1977.”

“Other conference academicians, some hired by pornographers, presented ‘scientific’ papers advocating the legalization of child pornography, prostitution and an end to age of consent,” she said. “They promoted their ‘scientific’ claims for early childhood sexuality to lawmakers and fellow academicians via both legitimate and pornographic media.”

“The DSM is typical of this degeneracy since they already had lightened the diagnosis of pedophilia as to make it almost meaningless, requiring that the pedophile be ‘bothered’ by his and her abuse of children and so on,” Reisman said. “We now have women and children sexually violating children as well as men. This will continue to spiral down into, well, we’d have to say the abyss of hell, unless we retrieve our laws, our mass media and our schools.”

As previously reported by LSN, similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM. As a result of the DSM declassification, debate regarding homosexuality and the many documented harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle has been all but shut down in academic psychological circles.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/
:tank:

Novaheart
08-16-2011, 09:21 PM
"In an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN), Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, an expert on sexual ethics and pornography, criticized the Baltimore conference, saying, “This has been on the agenda for decades.”"

Totally aside from this ridiculous article, I love it when they trot out Judith Reisman. She isn't an expert on anything, except perhaps reading soft porn and porno magazines for her "studies". It really speaks well for LIberty that she is billed as a visiting professor of law, when she doesn't have a law degree and has never practiced law. Judith Reisman is a scam artist who makes her living selling BS to conservative groups and the religious fringe. Quality source there folks.

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 09:26 PM
"In an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN), Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, an expert on sexual ethics and pornography, criticized the Baltimore conference, saying, “This has been on the agenda for decades.”"

Totally aside from this ridiculous article, I love it when they trot out Judith Reisman. She isn't an expert on anything, except perhaps reading soft porn and porno magazines for her "studies". It really speaks well for LIberty that she is billed as a visiting professor of law, when she doesn't have a law degree and has never practiced law. Judith Reisman is a scam artist who makes her living selling BS to conservative groups and the religious fringe. Quality source there folks.

Not a word from you about the conference, only your disdain for those who opposed it.

megimoo
08-16-2011, 09:30 PM
Not a word from you about the conference, only your disdain for those who opposed it.
What else would you expect from that one ?

Novaheart
08-16-2011, 11:32 PM
Not a word from you about the conference, only your disdain for those who opposed it.

I read this part and decided the article must be a steaming pile of Wprldnet type doo-doo:

Researchers from several prominent U.S. universities will participate tomorrow in a Baltimore conference reportedly aiming to normalize pedophilia.

Now come on , seriously, do you believe the bolded statement on its face? It's as silly as a thread that begins with "respected world scientists agree hat global warming will kill us all by 2050".

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 11:35 PM
I read this part and decided the article must be a steaming pile of Wprldnet type doo-doo:

Researchers from several prominent U.S. universities will participate tomorrow in a Baltimore conference reportedly aiming to normalize pedophilia.

Now come on , seriously, do you believe the bolded statement on its face? It's as silly as a thread that begins with "respected world scientists agree hat global warming will kill us all by 2050".

I heard about it elseware and googled to find the article.

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 11:36 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 11:38 PM
http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/08/16/conference-speakers-lobby-apa-to-change-language-on-pedophilia/

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 11:44 PM
http://b4uact.org/



Do you need any more proof Nova?

Novaheart
08-16-2011, 11:46 PM
I heard about it elseware and googled to find the article.

The actual program doesn't support the headline,

http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/program.htm

The perceived goals of B4u-act are not to be attributed to the academics in attendance. It appears that part of what they are going to discuss has been discussed here, ie the inconsistencies of laws which permit persons as young as 12 to marry while criminalizing similar behavior outside of marriage. It would seem that many of the academics are intending to discuss boundaries and definitions.

Rockntractor
08-16-2011, 11:51 PM
The actual program doesn't support the headline,

http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/program.htm

The perceived goals of B4u-act are not to be attributed to the academics in attendance. It appears that part of what they are going to discuss has been discussed here, ie the inconsistencies of laws which permit persons as young as 12 to marry while criminalizing similar behavior outside of marriage. It would seem that many of the academics are intending to discuss boundaries and definitions.

Yep, legalizing pedophilia.
A turd is a turd no matter what fancy name you give it!

Novaheart
08-17-2011, 12:25 AM
http://b4uact.org/



Do you need any more proof Nova?

I still haven't seen the support for the thread headline. Everything I read about the actual conference was about definitions, proper treatment, and the situation of the person attracted to children or physically mature minors (which are clinically two quite different things) who has not committed a crime and seeks treatment and functional life.

It seems to me that you might have wanted an "Oh God that is awful, those darned (liberals?)!" choir. Kind of like claiming that the workshop at Tufts was promoting fisting?

Rockntractor
08-17-2011, 12:27 AM
I still haven't seen the support for the thread headline. Everything I read about the actual conference was about definitions, proper treatment, and the situation of the person attracted to children or physically mature minors (which are clinically two quite different things) who has not committed a crime and seeks treatment and functional life.

It seems to me that you might have wanted an "Oh God that is awful, those darned (liberals?)!" choir. Kind of like claiming that the workshop at Tufts was promoting fisting?

Nope no fisting, just talk about normalizing sex with children.

Odysseus
08-17-2011, 08:37 AM
The actual program doesn't support the headline,

http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/program.htm

The perceived goals of B4u-act are not to be attributed to the academics in attendance. It appears that part of what they are going to discuss has been discussed here, ie the inconsistencies of laws which permit persons as young as 12 to marry while criminalizing similar behavior outside of marriage. It would seem that many of the academics are intending to discuss boundaries and definitions.

The issue, as you've described above, is that in some states, persons as young as 12 years old may marry and therefore consummate their marriages with the consent of a parent, while those who do not have that consent, and are legally incapable of providing it themselves, cannot.

This is a trifecta for radical academics. They get to weaken parental authority over the most intimate and personal aspects of the lives of children, further extend marriage benefits to the unmarried (thus further eroding marriage as a societal norm), and normalize sexual behavior among an ever decreasing age group.

txradioguy
08-17-2011, 08:55 AM
I still haven't seen the support for the thread headline. Everything I read about the actual conference was about definitions, proper treatment, and the situation of the person attracted to children or physically mature minors (which are clinically two quite different things) who has not committed a crime and seeks treatment and functional life.

It seems to me that you might have wanted an "Oh God that is awful, those darned (liberals?)!" choir. Kind of like claiming that the workshop at Tufts was promoting fisting?

They are attempting to dumb down the definition of what pedophillia is. Hell even the redefinition of what they are calling these people "minor-attracted" persons is a pathetic and vile attempt to soften what these people rerally are.

And yet there you are defending the attempts to normalize deviancy.

Oh and a "physically mature minor" is still just that a minor. Someone looks at my 14 y/o daughter in the manor you seem to think is ok is going to get another kind of physicality from me.

noonwitch
08-17-2011, 09:25 AM
They are attempting to dumb down the definition of what pedophillia is. Hell even the redefinition of what they are calling these people "minor-attracted" persons is a pathetic and vile attempt to soften what these people rerally are.

And yet there you are defending the attempts to normalize deviancy.

Oh and a "physically mature minor" is still just that a minor. Someone looks at my 14 y/o daughter in the manor you seem to think is ok is going to get another kind of physicality from me.


1. This group is not part of the APA. They are seeking to influence the APA's upcoming version of it's diagnostic tool.
2. Lifenews got one major thing wrong in it's article-the DSM is not published by the American Psychological
Association, it is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologists are not.


I have read a little about the upcoming DSM V. One of the major changes they are making is removing most personality disorders. I have an old DSM, the DSM III-R, which was published in the late 80s (when I started my career). The DSM is a useful tool for diagnosing some conditions, but really it exists to give those conditions what are called V codes, which are used for billing insurance companies for treatment. It also helps people like me figure out what the shrinks are saying about our clients. All editions of the DSM have one glaring omission to begin with-they do not have a category for sociopaths or psychopaths. They have "anti-social personality disorder", which really minimizes the pathology of those two categories.

IMO, pedophilia shouldn't have a separate category, it should be listed as a defining symptom of sociopathology(meaning no other symptoms are necessary if the patient presents only the desire to have sex with children and has acted on it) . It certainly doesn't need a V code, because I don't know of too many insurance companies that would pay for treatment, considering there is no known treatment that works for adult/teen pedophiles (pre-adolescents are a different matter).

The only kind of treatment I could ever see working with pedophiles is the Clockwork Orange treatment-strap the bastard to a chair, tape his eyelids open, inject him with a bunch of drugs that make him sick and make him watch kiddie porn until he has the conditioned response to throw up whenever he thinks about abusing a child. But we can't do that, because no practioner is going to want to have anything to do with kiddie porn.

Novaheart
08-17-2011, 10:20 AM
The issue, as you've described above, is that in some states, persons as young as 12 years old may marry and therefore consummate their marriages with the consent of a parent, while those who do not have that consent, and are legally incapable of providing it themselves, cannot.

This is a trifecta for radical academics. They get to weaken parental authority over the most intimate and personal aspects of the lives of children, further extend marriage benefits to the unmarried (thus further eroding marriage as a societal norm), and normalize sexual behavior among an ever decreasing age group.

Or it could simply be that the law is designed to give fathers a right and reason to hold the shotgun and decide what's going to happen after the cow has already escaped from the barn. The law should be consistent, not contingent on the opinion of a father whether he approves of his daughter's choice of boyfriend.

Novaheart
08-17-2011, 10:36 AM
They are attempting to dumb down the definition of what pedophillia is. Hell even the redefinition of what they are calling these people "minor-attracted" persons is a pathetic and vile attempt to soften what these people rerally are.


If you will read the program, the "they" you are referring to is a group of people who do indeed want to treat pedophilia differently than it is currently regarded. "They", however, are not the academics referred to in the headline, which was my first point of disagreement in this thread. To clarify this, if a "green group" calls some automotive industry folks in for a chat on the elimination of the automobile in future society, this does not mean that the automotive people are supporting this, merely that they find it interesting and are willing to discuss it from their expert perspective.


Hell even the redefinition of what they are calling these people "minor-attracted" persons is a pathetic and vile attempt to soften what these people rerally are.

Again, if you will read the available articles related to the thread article, you will see that while "minor attracted persons" sounds like one of those ridiculous new terms (differently abled, sanitation technician, ....) in the academic sense, it does refer to a range of quite different situations or conditions which are commonly blurred by people who want to appear to be on the righteous side of pedophilia. A pedophile is a fairly specific thing, an adult (a blurry term in law and society itself between age 14 and 18+ in this context) who is attracted to children, ie humans in the physical stage of development in which they are not sexually mature. They are also using "minor attracted" to refer to people who are attracted to what we call in a cultural term "adolescents", and another group once commonly referred to as "jailbait" ie teens who are physically, legally, and often emotionally ready for relationships but to whom certain laws apply with loopholes.




And yet there you are defending the attempts to normalize deviancy.

Actually, I'm nitpicking a sloppy article and how people react to it.

Rockntractor
08-17-2011, 11:56 AM
Actually, I'm nitpicking a sloppy article and how people react to it.

Yes you are picking apart how it is written ,creating straw men and disregarding the fact that these people are trying to make it acceptable to molest children.

Odysseus
08-17-2011, 11:59 AM
Or it could simply be that the law is designed to give fathers a right and reason to hold the shotgun and decide what's going to happen after the cow has already escaped from the barn. The law should be consistent, not contingent on the opinion of a father whether he approves of his daughter's choice of boyfriend.
On the contrary, a father is a better judge of his daughter's boyfriend (and her level of maturity in dealing with him) than some stranger. Ican't be with my children 24/7, so in the case of my daughters, I want the law to protect them from predatory boys when I'm not around, and when I am around, I'll do it myself, and use the law to do it.

If you will read the program, the "they" you are referring to is a group of people who do indeed want to treat pedophilia differently than it is currently regarded. "They", however, are not the academics referred to in the headline, which was my first point of disagreement in this thread. To clarify this, if a "green group" calls some automotive industry folks in for a chat on the elimination of the automobile in future society, this does not mean that the automotive people are supporting this, merely that they find it interesting and are willing to discuss it from their expert perspective.
In academia, an "expert" is someone who, having been certified by other experts, now claims to know more about a given subject than the people who actually work in that area, despite a complete lack of practical knowledge. It would be harmless if those academics didn't repeatedly attempt to impose their ignorance on the rest of us, but they do, and it invariably causes all manner of grief, but since the only thing that matters is their standing among other experts, they rarely bear the brunt of their own ineptitude. In the case of sexuality, I'd rather have a dozen parents of pre-pubescent children decide the issue than a dozen academics.


Again, if you will read the available articles related to the thread article, you will see that while "minor attracted persons" sounds like one of those ridiculous new terms (differently abled, sanitation technician, ....) in the academic sense, it does refer to a range of quite different situations or conditions which are commonly blurred by people who want to appear to be on the righteous side of pedophilia. A pedophile is a fairly specific thing, an adult (a blurry term in law and society itself between age 14 and 18+ in this context) who is attracted to children, ie humans in the physical stage of development in which they are not sexually mature. They are also using "minor attracted" to refer to people who are attracted to what we call in a cultural term "adolescents", and another group once commonly referred to as "jailbait" ie teens who are physically, legally, and often emotionally ready for relationships but to whom certain laws apply with loopholes.

So, we're making a distinction between people who are attracted to children, people who are attracted to adolescents (who are also not sexually mature) and people who target teens below the age of consent, who believe themselves to be ready for adult sexual relationships, but who are barred by moral and legal codes from indulging? Why? The law should treat the child molester and the teen molester severely. The last group is only problematical if the adult in the situation is not aware of the minor's age, and believes them to be above the age of consent, but otherwise, an adult who seeks out younger people who lack the legal standing to give consent is simply another predator.