'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. Why do you ask?

Because the law doesn't.

New York cop's conviction in cannibal case overturned - CNN.com

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Evidently you know nothing about the law. One is a unproven cannibal and the other possessed child pornography. Pick 2 cases where they are both breaking the law by harming children and maybe I would get your weird point that no one asked you about.

The first is not an unproven cannibal, it is fantasy. The second did not posses child pornography because no children were involved in making the movies. That, according to SCOTUS, makes the images legal fantasy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

 

[Silhouette]

some are saying, who didn't see this coming...
a video and pictures of the (academics) at the site with the rest of the lovely article

SNIP:
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences


Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”


Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.


The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”


Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”


ALL of it here
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - Telegraph

The American Psychological Association [APA] publication was actually officially-censured by the US Congress once because after the gays took that outfit over, they were taking a position of ambivalence about pedophiles at one meeting. They refused to rebuke pedophilia if memory serves. And so, Congress censured them.

I think it's one of the few if not the only "professional" institutions of its kind to be actually officially censured.

Way to go neo-APA [post 1973]! What a distinction for your outfit.

And as to this thread, yeah, color me "not suprised at all". Read my signature.

 

[Silhouette]

Here it is:

In July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives took an historic step toward censorship of scientific findings when it voted 355 to 0 to condemn and censure a scientific publication because the members disagreed with the findings and believed that they would have a negative effect upon citizens' thoughts and actions.

The paper, published a year earlier in the American Psychological Association's journal Psychological Bulletin (July 1998), by Bruce Rind of Temple University, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman was titled, "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples." This paper was basically a review and analysis of fifty-nine previous research studies of the consequences of sexual molestation of children.

The congressional members found some of the findings personally repugnant, particularly the conclusion that some molested children grow up to be normal and a small portion are seemingly little affected by this experience. The members, especially Rep. Salmon (an Arizona Republican and a sponsor of H. Con.Res.107) believed that the findings would not only encourage pedophilia among United States citizens, but the findings could not be true Congressional censure

This article is written by people APOLOGIZING for the paper and saying Congress was wrong. As to children allegedly not being harmed by sexual abuse [implied: it was "good for them"], they said this at the end after a long pitch comparing Congress' "meanness" to medevil times:

Throughout the history of science, scientists themselves have been the harshest critics of research, but their denouncement of specific studies is usually based upon the strength or weakness of the methodology, rather than their personal values and emotions about the findings.

The Evangelical Christian groups appear to have "discovered" the behavioral sciences and may likely wield their power against unpopular research findings to a greater extent in the future. It seems likely that their next targets may be gender studies, research on sexuality, and research into parenting roles.

We have taken the first large and frightening step away from scientific freedom and toward totalitarianism in control of scientific endeavours.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION]
If the Republicans want to prove that Reparative Therapy works
and has a place and a purpose -- here's as good a place as any to apply it.

Take the spiritual healing and deliverance therapy process
reported to cure people of sexual addictions and abuses,
and apply it to all these people reporting pedophile attractions.

If this is unnatural and some spiritual disorder, it should be resolved.
If their conditions are truly natural and just how they are by birth,
they would not be affected by deep spiritual therapy that normally identifies
and roots out the causes of unnatural attractions, when applied properly.

So why not use these groups as a test case, and show that it causes
no harm if people are naturally attracted that way; but on cases of
unnatural attractions or addictions, reparative/healing therapy can prove effective.

some are saying, who didn't see this coming...
a video and pictures of the (academics) at the site with the rest of the lovely article

SNIP:
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences


Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”


Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.


The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”


Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”


ALL of it here
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males' - Telegraph

 

[Asclepias]

Because the law doesn't.

New York cop's conviction in cannibal case overturned - CNN.com

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Evidently you know nothing about the law. One is a unproven cannibal and the other possessed child pornography. Pick 2 cases where they are both breaking the law by harming children and maybe I would get your weird point that no one asked you about.

The first is not an unproven cannibal, it is fantasy. The second did not posses child pornography because no children were involved in making the movies. That, according to SCOTUS, makes the images legal fantasy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

In the first case they failed to make the case they guy had intent to kidnap and cannibalize a grown woman.

The second case the guy possessed child pornography images not movies. The 2 are not related in anyway. You must be drunk right now. From your link.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

ALBANY, N.Y. — A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the child-pornography conviction of a New York man who superimposed the faces of teenage girls onto sexually explicit photographs of nude adults in his computer.

From the Dept of Justice

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

You argue about the most random crap for no reason only to be wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evidently you know nothing about the law. One is a unproven cannibal and the other possessed child pornography. Pick 2 cases where they are both breaking the law by harming children and maybe I would get your weird point that no one asked you about.

The first is not an unproven cannibal, it is fantasy. The second did not posses child pornography because no children were involved in making the movies. That, according to SCOTUS, makes the images legal fantasy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

In the first case they failed to make the case they guy had intent to kidnap and cannibalize a grown woman.

The second case the guy possessed child pornography images not movies. The 2 are not related in anyway. You must be drunk right now. From your link.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

ALBANY, N.Y. — A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the child-pornography conviction of a New York man who superimposed the faces of teenage girls onto sexually explicit photographs of nude adults in his computer.

From the Dept of Justice

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

You argue about the most random crap for no reason only to be wrong.

I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.

Good job.

 

[Noomi]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

 

[emilynghiem]

I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.

Good job.

Dear [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]
even if the "virtual porn" did not physically involve underaged subjects in the sex acts
it still caused damaged by taking identifiable faces of real girls
and using their images/ID without consent in ways that affected their reputations.

so it was still a form of ABUSE

even if it was not the crime charged, it was something else

I understand that the law does not catch every wrong or crime by the letter

but by the spirit of the law, there was abuse going on
these cases are better addressed on the level of spiritual sickness and abuse
and treated that way, where therapy methods have been shown to work effectively
to diagnose, treat and/or cure people instead of only addressing crimes after the fact.

clearly the legal level is not sensitive enough to catch all the types of abuses

so I would take a different approach, which the state is not equipped or authorized
to delve into, in order not to have these nitpicky conflicts over the letter of law
being violated per case.

if we address the spiritual root cause of abusive or addictive behavior
that's what is going to solve the root problem anyway
the state can only address it after a crime is committed
clearly, the abuse is happening on a personal level before that point of violating laws
so that is why this isn't working to wait until a crime happens for the state to step in

 

[Indofred]

The first thing we must do is define child sex vs. perversion.
In my humble opinion, any girl, post puberty, is sexually mature, thus sex would not be perverted, but still wrong for a number of reasons.

Again, in my opinion:

Young girls are unable to look after any resulting children - they can't earn money and don't have reasonable life experience.

Such girls may well have serious medical conditions if they have sex/kids at too young an age

Girls (And boys) should have a childhood, carefree teenage years and have the chance of a full education

Young girls are of little interest to me anyway. Sex is all well and good, but I want to be able to hold a life outside bed with partners; young girls can't do that. That, in my mind, isn't attractive or interesting.

There are kids at my school that look a lot older than they are, one in particular looks about 20 or so, perfect body, big tits and flaunts them around - I could easily see some bloke taking her to bed, and her enjoying it, but I would not.
Not because I think it would be a perverted act, or even that I would lose my job and go to prison, ruining my life - just that I have absolutely no interest in a girl that age. They just don't turn me on.

Now, if I wasn't married, one of the kindergarten teachers is a seriously sexy lady who could have me any time she wanted.
Lovely body, beautiful and intelligent. Sexy as hell.

However, away from my wet, maybe even whet, dreams, I don't really understand men that mess around with kids - seems a bit crappy, even if the girls are sexually mature.
It makes me think the men are a bit floppy in in the trousers, or the brain.

 

[Indofred]

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

One has to ask, whilst this is clearly a cartoon, who is it aimed at?
I'm going for perverts wanking themselves of to it.

 

[Politico]

If thats true then a "sizable" number of Males should be run through a wood chipper.

Hey now. I saw some guy run through a chipper once. It was ugly.

 

[Peach]

The first is not an unproven cannibal, it is fantasy. The second did not posses child pornography because no children were involved in making the movies. That, according to SCOTUS, makes the images legal fantasy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

In the first case they failed to make the case they guy had intent to kidnap and cannibalize a grown woman.

The second case the guy possessed child pornography images not movies. The 2 are not related in anyway. You must be drunk right now. From your link.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

From the Dept of Justice

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

You argue about the most random crap for no reason only to be wrong.

I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.

Good job.

One, and only "academic" stated what you posted, he was discredited by all others.

 

[theHawk]

The first thing we must do is define child sex vs. perversion.
In my humble opinion, any girl, post puberty, is sexually mature, thus sex would not be perverted, but still wrong for a number of reasons.

Again, in my opinion:

Young girls are unable to look after any resulting children - they can't earn money and don't have reasonable life experience.

Such girls may well have serious medical conditions if they have sex/kids at too young an age

Girls (And boys) should have a childhood, carefree teenage years and have the chance of a full education

Young girls are of little interest to me anyway. Sex is all well and good, but I want to be able to hold a life outside bed with partners; young girls can't do that. That, in my mind, isn't attractive or interesting.

There are kids at my school that look a lot older than they are, one in particular looks about 20 or so, perfect body, big tits and flaunts them around - I could easily see some bloke taking her to bed, and her enjoying it, but I would not.
Not because I think it would be a perverted act, or even that I would lose my job and go to prison, ruining my life - just that I have absolutely no interest in a girl that age. They just don't turn me on.

Now, if I wasn't married, one of the kindergarten teachers is a seriously sexy lady who could have me any time she wanted.
Lovely body, beautiful and intelligent. Sexy as hell.

However, away from my wet, maybe even whet, dreams, I don't really understand men that mess around with kids - seems a bit crappy, even if the girls are sexually mature.
It makes me think the men are a bit floppy in in the trousers, or the brain.

....and the resident pedophile worshiper speaks.

 

[Indofred]

The first thing we must do is define child sex vs. perversion.
In my humble opinion, any girl, post puberty, is sexually mature, thus sex would not be perverted, but still wrong for a number of reasons.

Again, in my opinion:

Young girls are unable to look after any resulting children - they can't earn money and don't have reasonable life experience.

Such girls may well have serious medical conditions if they have sex/kids at too young an age

Girls (And boys) should have a childhood, carefree teenage years and have the chance of a full education

Young girls are of little interest to me anyway. Sex is all well and good, but I want to be able to hold a life outside bed with partners; young girls can't do that. That, in my mind, isn't attractive or interesting.

There are kids at my school that look a lot older than they are, one in particular looks about 20 or so, perfect body, big tits and flaunts them around - I could easily see some bloke taking her to bed, and her enjoying it, but I would not.
Not because I think it would be a perverted act, or even that I would lose my job and go to prison, ruining my life - just that I have absolutely no interest in a girl that age. They just don't turn me on.

Now, if I wasn't married, one of the kindergarten teachers is a seriously sexy lady who could have me any time she wanted.
Lovely body, beautiful and intelligent. Sexy as hell.

However, away from my wet, maybe even whet, dreams, I don't really understand men that mess around with kids - seems a bit crappy, even if the girls are sexually mature.
It makes me think the men are a bit floppy in in the trousers, or the brain.

....and the resident pedophile worshiper speaks.

Allah liked sex with children?
Wow, either I have made a mistake in who I pray to ... or you're a daft fucker without a clue.

I think it's more than possible you're the silly bastard here.

 

[Asclepias]

The first is not an unproven cannibal, it is fantasy. The second did not posses child pornography because no children were involved in making the movies. That, according to SCOTUS, makes the images legal fantasy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

In the first case they failed to make the case they guy had intent to kidnap and cannibalize a grown woman.

The second case the guy possessed child pornography images not movies. The 2 are not related in anyway. You must be drunk right now. From your link.

2nd Circuit upholds conviction in virtual child-porn case | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

From the Dept of Justice

USDOJ: CRM: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

You argue about the most random crap for no reason only to be wrong.

I posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that virtual porn passes Constitutional muster and you respond with the fact that the DOJ ignores Supreme Court rulings.

Good job.

You posted a link to the Supreme Court ruling that had no relevance to the case you linked to. There were actual childrens pictures in the pornography the guy had. Did you read your own link?

Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law : Silha Center : University of Minnesota

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed that for speech to be banned as child pornography, real children must have been involved.

The DoJ and the SCOTUS agree.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/2nd-circuit-upholds-conviction-in-virtual-child-porn-case

While there was no evidence Hotaling distributed the images, the unanimous three-judge panel said the pictures showed the faces of six identifiable girls, who were “at risk” of damage to their reputations and psychological harm from knowing their images were exploited by a trusted adult.

What bothers you about this? I dont see where the DOJ ignored the SCOTUS. Can you point it out for me?

 

[Silhouette]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

No, not quite "exactly"...

The Mayo Clinic begs to differ:

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Links to 300+ more studies supporting the above can be found in the OP here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[whitehall]

Let's see, if the academics tell us that "normal" males aroused by children doesn't it vindicate the BSA's discrimination against homosexuals when academics tell us that "normal" homosexual males are attracted to boys?

 

[NLT]

hey a cut and paste

Hey a complete waste.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Many 'natural and normal' behaviours are also unethical or immoral and kept in check by way of laws. In other primates like bonobo chimpanzees, pedophilic relationships have been observed thus it is indeed normal and natural. But that doesn't translate to 'a good idea.'

In cultures where sexuality is repressed like Western culture, no sexual experience no matter how pleasant will remain a pleasant memory (and not cause some psychological trauma or condition in later life) if you have to keep such experiences secret. Sex is indeed pleasant, normal, and good. But children notice immediately if they're being told this is good and fine, but you can't tell anyone about it. If it's so good and fine why do they have to keep it secret? That catch-22 is the doorway where the harm comes in.

In societies and cultures where sex isn't repressed, and adult-child sexual relationships occured and thought well of such relationships didn't translate into psychological trauma. Ancient Hawaiian (prior to Christian missionaries showing up,) ancient Greece and Rome, some Native Nations tribes, etc. had adult-child sexual relationships represented and without stigma.

Thus, in the modern age, in cultures where such relationships are taboo and illegal, they're universally traumatic for the children involved no matter how pleased they may seem at the time. Fact remains, they still have to grow up and keep it a secret in a culture which makes its displeasure about such relationships very public. If the overwhelming majority of people condemn something, no matter how pleasant first-hand experience may have experienced it, over time the opinion will change to that of the majority.

 

[Katzndogz]

People are born pedophiles just like they are born gay. They can't help the fact that they are attracted to whom they are attracted to.

Exactly. Except that having sex with a minor is illegal as they cannot consent, so they have to learn how to control their urges.

Having sex with a minor is illegal the same way sodomy used to be illegal. Until Lawrence v Texas, gay sex was just as illegal as sex with a minor.