Paedophile network uncovered…WARNING: VERY SHOCKING

[Monkey1976]

Age of consent laws are well-tested, a bedrock of the legal system, and going nowhere.

One could have said the same thing about marriage laws in 1998. The UK is already discussing the idea under the banner of “protecting teenagers”

 

[Abba]

Seriously, a third hand account of one psychiatric conference in 2011 is your evidence of this? You can claim anything and everything will become legal by this standard, because someone, somewhere, will advocate for something outlandish, no matter how outrageous. You can get 5% of the U.S. population to believe any crazy thing. That does not give it any wider consequence. Age of consent laws are well-tested, a bedrock of the legal system, and going nowhere.

It actually went through in the publication of the DSM-5 last year. Outrageous! Pedophilia was changed to a Sexual Orientation in the DSM-5. It could be the case, at least I would hope so, that some psychiatrists volunteered to return their certificates to the APA. At any rate, It has been changed in the online DSM-5 and there was a news release by APA where they retract:

dsm5.org/Documents/13-67-DSM-Correction-103113.pdf

 

[mjwise]

One could have said the same thing about marriage laws in 1998. The UK is already discussing the idea under the banner of “protecting teenagers”

Many U.S. states already have prosecution exceptions or limitations of charges for two teenagers within a certain age being sexually involved with each other. That has nothing to do with promoting or protecting pedophilia.

The gender restrictions on marriage laws were always pretty arbitrary, legally speaking. Courts ducked ruling substantively on challenges to them for at least 40 years. Age of consent is a much more tested and fleshed out area of the law. Age of or ability to give consent in a variety of forms is as elemental in judicial thought as the idea of a judiciary or judicial review, period. I repeat: It is not going anywhere.

Abba:

It actually went through in the publication of the DSM-5 last year. Outrageous! Pedophilia was changed to a Sexual Orientation in the DSM-5. It could be the case, at least I would hope so, that some psychiatrists volunteered to return their certificates to the APA. At any rate, It has been changed in the online DSM-5 and there was a news release by APA where they retract:

…and this misprint, which you actually printed the correction notice of, still had nothing to do with pedophilia being legalized or not.

 

[josie_L]

Seriously, a third hand account of one psychiatric conference in 2011 is your evidence of this? You can claim anything and everything will become legal by this standard, because someone, somewhere, will advocate for something outlandish, no matter how outrageous. You can get 5% of the U.S. population to believe any crazy thing. That does not give it any wider consequence. Age of consent laws are well-tested, a bedrock of the legal system, and going nowhere.

There was a conference on pedophilia held in Baltimore by the organization B4U-Act, if you don’t wish to believe what I’ve posted than please do visit the B4U-Act website.

P.S. If you still wish not to believe it than that’s you’re prerogative.

 

[mjwise]

There was a conference on pedophilia held in Baltimore by the organization B4U-Act, if you don’t wish to believe what I’ve posted than please do visit the B4U-Act website.

P.S. If you still wish not to believe it than that’s you’re prerogative.

I glanced through the site. They appear to promote the treatment of people with pedophilic desires before they act out and hurt someone. I would much rather they get psychiatric treatment than be shunned by doctors. Pretending that something we really don’t like doesn’t exist won’t solve anything.

 

[josie_L]

I glanced through the site. They appear to promote the treatment of people with pedophilic desires before they act out and hurt someone. I would much rather they get psychiatric treatment than be shunned by doctors. Pretending that something we really don’t like doesn’t exist won’t solve anything.

From their website:

If you’re a minor-attracted person:

You may be looking for mental health services to deal with anxiety, depression, anger, or other factors either unrelated to your sexuality or resulting from society’s stereotypes and reactions to your sexual feelings. Or you may be wondering how to live life fully and stay within the law. But you may feel you can’t trust therapists because they don’t understand you, they’ll judge you, or they’ll report your feelings to others. We work toward the day when minor-attracted people can find mental health professionals they can trust. That way those in need will be able to find help developing ways of coping with their situation or society’s attitudes about them, and learn to consider the effects of their actions on themselves and others before they react.

b4uact.org/

So you have no issues with the way this paragraph has been worded from B4U-Act?

 

[mjwise]

From their website:

b4uact.org/

So you have no issues with the way this paragraph has been worded from B4U-Act?

Not particularly. They are trying to reach people with those feelings who might be persuaded or counseled into not acting. I realize it is gratifying to throw the Jerry Sanduskys of the world into prison, but I’d prefer there be fewer Jerry Sanduskys (and especially fewer sex abuse victims) to begin with.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s scary.

I remember when a local gay man that everyone knew, he wanted to chat to everybody, when he was arrested for having thousands of pictures of boys (the illegal kind), everybody’s response went like this…

1# Did you hear about X? He was arrested for child porn on his computer?

2# But he’s gay!?!

And everyone responded the same. People always think man/girl never man/boy, people make out that all gay men are shrinking violets who couldn’t harm a fly.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three examples of a homosexual that was extremely dangerous: Jim Jones, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy. Of course, I’m not saying that every homosexual person is dangerous. I’m only saying that people are wrong to assume that there are none that are dangerous. Gacy was the one that used to lure boys by dressing up like a clown.

 

[mjwise]

Off the top of my head, I can think of three examples of a homosexual that was extremely dangerous: Jim Jones, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy. Of course, I’m not saying that every homosexual person is dangerous. I’m only saying that people are wrong to assume that there are none that are dangerous. Gacy was the one that used to lure boys by dressing up like a clown.

I’d be hard-pressed to describe Jim Jones as homosexual, certainly not in the typical sense of the word. He did have a wife and several biological kids via different women. If you’re looking for a modern version of what the latter half of Romans 1 was about, I actually think Jim Jones is not a bad example.

Dahmer and Gacy are outliers to the very meaning of the word extreme. They’re representative of nothing as far as I can tell.

 

[josie_L]

Not particularly. They are trying to reach people with those feelings who might be persuaded or counseled into not acting. I realize it is gratifying to throw the Jerry Sanduskys of the world into prison, but I’d prefer there be fewer Jerry Sanduskys (and especially fewer sex abuse victims) to begin with.

Here are the actual proceedings from the symposium I mentioned, just click on the pdf to read the report:

b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/proceedings.htm

I’d also like you to visit this site if you can that refers to the proceedings and as such the organization:

I. THE NATURE AND MISSION OF B4U-ACT

B4U-Act was founded in 2003. Michael Melsheimer, who served a three-year prison sentence in New Jersey for sexually assaulting a teen-age boy, co-founded B4U-Act with Chairman Russell A. Dick. Russell A. Dick is a licensed social worker with thirty-eight years of experience working with “people who are attracted to minors.” Richard Kramer, the Director of Operations, established the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center (MHAMIC). MHAMIC promotes the theory that “boys are not always severely harmed by sexual activity with adults." Howard Kline, the Science Director, claims B4U- Act’s efforts "can help them [pedophiles], because we are the people they are writing about.”

B4U-Act has held various workshops toward these ends, including one workshop devoted to the topic of de-stigmatizing language regarding pedophiles and pedophilia entitled, “How Do We Talk About It? Developing a Language for Discussing Attraction to
Minors.” At that workshop it proposed that “Minor Attracted Persons accept themselves, reclaim words, and become involved in changing the discourse” in a way that does not
“pathologize the attraction to minors.”

drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/06/b4u-acts_2011_s.html

 

[Monkey1976]

I glanced through the site. They appear to promote the treatment of people with pedophilic desires before they act out and hurt someone. I would much rather they get psychiatric treatment than be shunned by doctors. Pretending that something we really don’t like doesn’t exist won’t solve anything.

But I thought it was not only futile but actively cruel to try and change the object of a person’s sexual attraction…

 

[mjwise]

Here are the actual proceedings from the symposium I mentioned, just click on the pdf to read the report:

b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/proceedings.htm

Still not sure what reaction you’re fishing for from me, or why. I think there should be medical treatment available to people who are attracted to children. It’s probably not best for them to be collectively shunned from treatment. Is that controversial?

I’d also like you to visit this site if you can that refers to the proceedings and as such the organization:

drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/06/b4u-acts_2011_s.html

Yeah, Judith Reisman is big fan of Scott Lively. I’m not going to read some diffuse 40-page article she published in a marginal law journal.

 

[mjwise]

But I thought it was not only futile but actively cruel to try and change the object of a person’s sexual attraction…

Who said the object of attraction was being changed in therapy?

 

[Monkey1976]

Who said the object of attraction was being changed in therapy?

What, then, is the goal of therapy directed toward pedophiles?

 

[josie_L]

Still not sure what reaction you’re fishing for from me, or why. I think there should be medical treatment available to people who are attracted to children. It’s probably not best for them to be collectively shunned from treatment. Is that controversial?

Well, if you were to read the proceedings, maybe you would understand what that is, i.e., it is not just about treating people who are pedophiles, it’s about changing the terminology surrounding pedophilia, and changing how we view pedophilia!

Yeah, Judith Reisman is big fan of Scott Lively. I’m not going to read some diffuse 40-page article she published in a marginal law journal.

So you won’t read Dr. Judith Reisman and George Strickland’s article in the Ave Maria International Law Journal? Fine. But what do you think of the fact that Richard Kramer, a founder of B4U-ACT, stating that “boys are not always severely harmed by sexual activity with adults.”? 10

1. Myths and Facts: Boys are always severely harmed by sexual activity with adults, MHAMIC, mhamic.org/myths/harm.html (last visited Feb. 29, 2012).

 

[josie_L]

What, then, is the goal of therapy directed toward pedophiles?

To accept themselves as they are.

 

[Monkey1976]

To accept themselves as they are.

What form does this acceptance take?

 

[mikekle]

Yeah, except that the age of consent has slowly but surely crept upwards over time almost universally in western countries with children generally being considered less and less to be able to give any sort of consent for sex or much of anything else under any circumstances. The whole idea that it’s going to be legal and/or socially acceptable for a 40 year old to molest a 6 year old at any foreseeable point of time is just way, way out there. I can’t figure out how it’s going to occur.

It depends on the state. Most people think 18 is the true age of sexual consent, but in many states, it is 15, 16. I learned this on the news reporting on a statutory rape case. Im not sure how many states this applies to though.

 

[mikekle]

Still not sure what reaction you’re fishing for from me, or why. I think there should be medical treatment available to people who are attracted to children. It’s probably not best for them to be collectively shunned from treatment. Is that controversial?

Yeah, Judith Reisman is big fan of Scott Lively. I’m not going to read some diffuse 40-page article she published in a marginal law journal.

The problem is, there is NO ‘cure’ for pedophilia. When an adult is attracted to a child, they will ALWAYS be attracted to them, no matter how many hours of counseling they get.

I think this will be a major argument to make it legal, they will claim they were born this way and CANNOT BE CURED OR CHANGED…does this sound familiar? its exactly what the experts and society wanted done with the gays years ago…look how well that turned out!! It was common (and still is to some degree) to see treatment centers for gay people, in an effort to convert them, we have the same kind of treatment centers for pedophiles today!!!

The mainstream has pretty much proven homosexuality cannot be cured by going to a treatment center, I find it strange they are so willing to try the same exact thing for pedophilia, they already know treatment does nothing for sexual preferences, its amazing they try the same thing over and over and expect different results…is that not the literal definition of insanity?

 

[mikekle]

Many U.S. states already have prosecution exceptions or limitations of charges for two teenagers within a certain age being sexually involved with each other. That has nothing to do with promoting or protecting pedophilia.

The gender restrictions on marriage laws were always pretty arbitrary, legally speaking. Courts ducked ruling substantively on challenges to them for at least 40 years. Age of consent is a much more tested and fleshed out area of the law. Age of or ability to give consent in a variety of forms is as elemental in judicial thought as the idea of a judiciary or judicial review, period. I repeat: It is not going anywhere.

…and this misprint, which you actually printed the correction notice of, still had nothing to do with pedophilia being legalized or not.

Yes, but WHEN the homosexual community gets the law changed to include sexual orientation, then the pedophiles will sneak thru with this change, it will then be a crime to discriminate against them for ANY sexual orientation.