Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Academic conference seeks to normalize paedophilia - opinions

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Ljiljan, Aug 23, 2011.

  1. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/08/...hilia-firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference/

    Press Release Contact: jmattbarber@comcast.net
    DATE: August 22, 2011

    Lynchburg, VA – On Wednesday, August 17, child advocates Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, attended a Baltimore, MD conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT.

    Around 50 individuals were in attendance including a number of admitted pedophiles-–or “Minor-Attracted Persons” as they prefer to be identified (MAP “sexual orientation”)-–as well as several supportive mental health professionals.

    World renowned “sexologist,” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, saying: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

    Highlights of the conference:

    Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
    There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
    “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
    “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
    “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
    “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
    An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
    Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
    “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
    “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
    A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
    Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
    Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, 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.”
    The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.
    “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
    The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
    Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that 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. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.
  2. ...that last part makes me feel disgusted and angry.
  3. a well placed Rocket of mass destruction fired at that conference should get rid of the problem once and for all.
  4. I am absolutely dumbstruck.

    At the very least, these two statements appear contradictory...

    If we ignore them will they go away? I doubt it.
  5. its raping children - what more can be said ? Shoot every paedophile square in the head.
  6. So where were the decent, ordinary, sane people who should have nailed the doors shut and set fire to the building?
  7. Sounds like more of an advocacy group's meeting than an academic conference.
  8. yep that would be great and the victims of peadophilia will be normal too. what a bunch of crap.
  9. +1

    Where's a terrorist when you need one?
  10. I think 99% of everything about it is wrong, these are obviously the worst kind of child sex offender. I do think though that there is a very strong over-reaction to some things, to the point where people are terrified to admit even someone as old as say 16 or 17 is attractive or good looking. So many people think they're gonna get party vanned just for thinking it, and I bet that leads to a lot of mental issues for a lot of people. That said, I'll reiterate that these people in the article are obviously sick freaks and not at all what I'm talking about
  11. Just for a second let's put the power imbalance, clear dangers and damaging sexual abuse related to peadophiles to one side. There's no two ways about it, this is an abhorrent situation.

    But there are young teenagers who are giving consent and who are sexually active. So then, what are your thoughts about these two scenarios:
    • Scenario 1: Two fifteen year high school kids, going steady for a few months, steal away at lunch time to play hookie and have sex.
    • Scenario 2: A fifteen year old high school kid has an ongoing relationship with an older/adult person, the relationship turns sexual.
    No one is forced or coerced to act against their will in either scenario.

    I believe scenario1 is legal, while scenario2 is illegal on a strict liability basis (AFAIK) and gets the adult labelled as a sex offender.

  12. Well an older adult having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old is not pedophilia.
    That said, is it morally right or not?
    What age gap are were talking about?
    Difference in maturity?

    Scenario 1: If they are sensible, mature and use protection I don't really see a huge issue with it.

    Scenario 2:
    Although the law does not allow it, I wouldn't see anything wrong with an 18 year old male having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old female under your specified conditions if the maturity levels were about the same. A 15 year old and a 30 year old on the other hand would be a bit weird and morally questionable.
  13. Children are not knowledgeable enough about sex to make an informed/rational decision to consent and they rely on the advice of adults and this advice should not be biased because the adult in question wants to f*** you.

    Age of consent should stand. Peds can go to jail and have their arse turned into the object of bubba's affection. Bubba has needs too.
  14. That needs to be addressed - paedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. When its applied to physically/sexually developed teenagers, that trivialises what paedophilia means.

    As for all the calls for violence death and destruction.....really?

    My biggest concern is violence and abuse perpetuates more of itself. Theres an every increasing body of knowledge about people with sexual dysfunction often being victims of abuse themselves. For example theres growing evidence of convicted r@pists being sexually abused by females in their life. There are also those who have paedophilic attraction but do not act, should they be lined up and shot?

    ...and when or if they get out of jail theyre worse r@pists then they were before.
  15. Both scenarios are illegal in all states of Australia AFAIK. The lowest age of consent is 16 and in some states it's still 18 for boys.

    The first however is generally morally acceptable in Australia.

    The reason the second comes into question is the authoritarian advantage the older person may have over the younger. So a years difference may not be frowned upon, but a few years becomes morally questionable.
  16. In the above scenarios I think it comes down to harm. Is there any harm being done. If so, then the offender should be punished. If not, what's the problem?

    If however the scenario is varied slightly in that the younger person is coerced or forced to have sex than that is blatantly wrong.
  17. These are a bunch of fruit cakes with a metal disorder that puts children at risk. But saying that, the militant kill all pedophiles, they are evil scum, attitude which we all feel toward them is aout the worst thing that can be done to increase the likelihood of kids getting harmed.

    We all know what it's like to lust. If you noticed you started feeling lust toward children, what would you do? Seek help? Or live with the secret shame. The more hatred we show toward pedophiles the less likely they will seek help and more likely they will eventually act upon their urges.

    It is a mental disorder, it can be treated, unfortunately being sexually attracted to children is so shameful that not many people will admit it to a psychiatrist or friends and family that can help them.
  18. Did anybody read the responses on the Dakota voice website? Sometimes I think the US isn't that bad, then I read things like that. A country of farking morons.
  19. Correct - just because some academics attended doesn't make it an "academic" conference.
  20. And the winner is..................=D>

    By the way, the age/s of consent vary depending on situtaion and the age gap between the parties.

    Eg: 2 x 14 year old children can have lawfull sex, but a 17 year old male and a 14 year old female cannot.

    Below a certain age a female or male cannot give consent at all.