Canadian Experts: Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation

[Sunflower]

Tried to search and see if this was already posted. Sorry if it was and I could not find it.

The normalization of pedophilia continues.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html

“But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever. Yet we are despised for having a sexual attraction that we did not choose, cannot change, and successfully resist.”

But what about those who don't "successfully resist"?

“Not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are sex offenders,” says Dr. Michael Seto, a pedophilia expert and forensic researcher with the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group"

What?!?

"Sitting inside his office at the College St. research hospital, Cantor is surrounded by books on sexology and eccentric decor — a framed sign that reads “Data Is My Porn,” a throw pillow that spells “penis” in Braille."


This is highly disturbing, to say the least.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Tried to search and see if this was already posted. Sorry if it was and I could not find it.

The normalization of pedophilia continues.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html

“But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever. Yet we are despised for having a sexual attraction that we did not choose, cannot change, and successfully resist.”

But what about those who don't "successfully resist"?

While not the same article, the topic was discussed on Sott: http://www.sott.net/article/268244-Children-on-the-menu-Predators-seek-to-normalize-pedophilia (check out the comments)

You may also want to listen to the SOTT Talk Radio interview with Dr. Anna Salter: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sottnet/2013/12/08/predators-among-us-interview-with-dr-anna-salter

Dr. Salter commented briefly on the issue.

“Not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are sex offenders,” says Dr. Michael Seto, a pedophilia expert and forensic researcher with the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group"

What?!?

I don't see a problem with that statement. A pedophile is someone who is exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. A sex offender is a person who sexually abuses children. Many who sexually abuse children are NOT exclusively attracted to children. And an unknown number of pedophiles do not sexually abuse children, although they are sexually attracted to them.

 

[Carl]

“Not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are sex offenders,” says Dr. Michael Seto, a pedophilia expert and forensic researcher with the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group"

What?!?

I don't see a problem with that statement. A pedophile is someone who is exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. A sex offender is a person who sexually abuses children. Many who sexually abuse children are NOT exclusively attracted to children. And an unknown number of pedophiles do not sexually abuse children, although they are sexually attracted to them.

This being true, there are more factors here that a mature society would eventually need to consider. For instance, our thoughts seem to extend beyond our bodies in some very subtle way, and children are often especially sensitive to psychic phenomena. Even if there was 0% risk of any predation of your children from such a self-controlled paedophile, would you really not mind them looking at your children and thinking such thoughts?

Non-offending paedophiles may not be truly evil at the core, and for many it may be a product of childhood trauma, terrible culture, the ease of availability of addictive, escalating porn (I've read accounts of people ending up in the cyber realms realm of bestiality and worse), or spirit attachments, but somebody with such an affliction should be in therapy and in not in a position of responsibility.

I still think there is something inherently evil about pedophilia itself, basically boiling down to the desire to destroy innocence, which many of these people rationalize as a "love" for children. It's probably not all as black and white as some people believe, but, to me at least, a desire to interfere sexually in the life of a growing child is just really dark, and close to the ultimate manifestation of service to self.

 

[Gloria54]

My ex-husband was a psychopath and a pedophile. He has passed now but before he died he went into an isolated life and only allowed our grown children and me in. I asked him why he never went anywhere or at least get on the internet. He said that he did not want to be tempted. So he never went anywhere or got a computer or smartphone and never connected to the internet. He died of cancer at the age of 57..

 

[Sunflower]

I've read the article on 'Children on the Menu' and all the responses. It was very eye opening, to say the least. I have not heard the Radio show with Salter, yet. We are having a computer usage issue right now, and are trying to figure that out.

I agree that this is all inherently evil. No matter if you think it or act on it.

 

[Yas]

There's a good sott focus about this, it is in French and Spanish. I don't know if it has been translated into English:

http://fr.sott.net/article/13076-Briser-le-tabou-de-la-pedophilie-le-pretexte-des-psychopathes-pour-continuer-a-violer-des-enfants-en-toute-impunite

http://es.sott.net/article/20477-Romper-el-tabu-de-la-pedofilia-el-pretexto-de-los-psicopatas-para-seguir-violando-impunemente-a-los-ninos

Just in case someone can read in those languages. The article goes through some of the arguments given to normalize pedophilia and talks about ponerization, etc... very good focus!

 

[Gwenllian]

“Not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are sex offenders,” says Dr. Michael Seto, a pedophilia expert and forensic researcher with the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group"

What?!?

I don't see a problem with that statement. A pedophile is someone who is exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. A sex offender is a person who sexually abuses children. Many who sexually abuse children are NOT exclusively attracted to children. And an unknown number of pedophiles do not sexually abuse children, although they are sexually attracted to them.

This being true, there are more factors here that a mature society would eventually need to consider. For instance, our thoughts seem to extend beyond our bodies in some very subtle way, and children are often especially sensitive to psychic phenomena. Even if there was 0% risk of any predation of your children from such a self-controlled paedophile, would you really not mind them looking at your children and thinking such thoughts?

I very much agree. Probably these people will still be looking at kids and who says that they have control over their eyes or their mind? And do we have to take their word for it, when they say they do not sexually abuse kids? How do we know for certain? Is this simply a case of self-reporting, because we know how unreliable that is.
Also, I know that these words are being used by lots of people, but I think it is wrong to speak of a sexual attraction to kids. There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, but if we use it when it comes to children it seems innocuous and only one step away from the phrase 'attraction to minors'. In that way, we become desensitized and we may forget that we are talking about disturbing and pathological behaviour. IMO, it is pedospeak.

Non-offending paedophiles may not be truly evil at the core, and for many it may be a product of childhood trauma, terrible culture, the ease of availability of addictive, escalating porn (I've read accounts of people ending up in the cyber realms realm of bestiality and worse), or spirit attachments, but somebody with such an affliction should be in therapy and in not in a position of responsibility.

There's a good sott focus about this, it is in French and Spanish. I don't know if it has been translated into English:

http://fr.sott.net/article/13076-Briser-le-tabou-de-la-pedophilie-le-pretexte-des-psychopathes-pour-continuer-a-violer-des-enfants-en-toute-impunite

http://es.sott.net/article/20477-Romper-el-tabu-de-la-pedofilia-el-pretexto-de-los-psicopatas-para-seguir-violando-impunemente-a-los-ninos

Just in case someone can read in those languages. The article goes through some of the arguments given to normalize pedophilia and talks about ponerization, etc... very good focus!

That is what mrs. T. writes about in the above mentioned article. She discusses the role of dopamine and how receptors become less sensitive over time, which means that addicts need stronger and stronger fixes, like bestiality or snuff movies where children are tortured and killed.

I still think there is something inherently evil about pedophilia itself, basically boiling down to the desire to destroy innocence, which many of these people rationalize as a "love" for children. It's probably not all as black and white as some people believe, but, to me at least, a desire to interfere sexually in the life of a growing child is just really dark, and close to the ultimate manifestation of service to self.

I couldn't agree more. IMO, it is so evil that it has a hyperdimensional ring to it. Children are being farmed in the worst way possible.

 

[monotonic]

Also, I know that these words are being used by lots of people, but I think it is wrong to speak of a sexual attraction to kids. There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, but if we use it when it comes to children it seems innocuous and only one step away from the phrase 'attraction to minors'. In that way, we become desensitized and we may forget that we are talking about disturbing and pathological behaviour. IMO, it is pedospeak.

I think a sexual attraction that is different from what is normal for the "type and polarity" of the individual is an acquired thing, not instinctive. I think it is a compulsion formed over the top of the real instincts due to abuse, trauma or escalating erotica addiction.

The features of this in regards to pedophilia is a disregard for the child who is obviously harmed by molestation. So what is the word for a compulsion to use a person as an object for self-gratification, at harm to the person? It seems to me there should be a word for that. One could argue that a traumatized individual could feel this way without realizing it would harm the child, but I think such a stupid person would have a very difficult time integrating with with society and having a successful life.

As I understand, normal sexuality is not a compulsion to turn anyone or anything into a sexual object, by denying their being. For this reason I don't think any abnormal sexual attraction can be considered normal. Clearly, this is not merely a "sexual attraction to children".

 

[Buddy]

I think a sexual attraction that is different from what is normal for the "type and polarity" of the individual is an acquired thing, not instinctive. I think it is a compulsion formed over the top of the real instincts due to abuse, trauma or escalating erotica addiction.

I agree and feel like I've been searching for exactly those words to express my felt sense on this issue.

Cantor's argument for a biological basis for this "orientation" is just weak, like an after-the-fact rationalization. I'm really surprised he even expects anyone to believe it. In my mind, to claim a biological basis or unchangable "instinct" for a new sexual orientation is to imply an evolutionary adaptation to environmental circumstance, but what can come of this that aids in upgrading survival chances for anyone in the future? Nothing; It's purely a self-serving sexual gratification cycle backed up with pathetically inept reasoning, IMO.

One can replace the word pedophile with psychopath and a phrase indicating a child victim with "murder" or something like it. The logic is interchangeable and prompts me to think I still have to watch them (a pedophile or a psychopath) to stay sure that someone won't be victimized. Now I might be too busy to maybe notice something else going on.

This idea of liberation from a stigma is particularly confusing. How exactly does an "nonpracticing" pedophile plan to benefit from a non-stigmatized designation? Never mind, I don't think I want to know.

 

[monotonic]

I agree and feel like I've been searching for exactly those words to express my felt sense on this issue.

I think you would find those words easier on a low/no carb diet, based on my experience, as an example for you considering discussion in the other thread.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

I very much agree. Probably these people will still be looking at kids and who says that they have control over their eyes or their mind? And do we have to take their word for it, when they say they do not sexually abuse kids? How do we know for certain? Is this simply a case of self-reporting, because we know how unreliable that is.
Also, I know that these words are being used by lots of people, but I think it is wrong to speak of a sexual attraction to kids. There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, but if we use it when it comes to children it seems innocuous and only one step away from the phrase 'attraction to minors'. In that way, we become desensitized and we may forget that we are talking about disturbing and pathological behaviour. IMO, it is pedospeak.

And there is a short step to say that children "could be provoking", such as certain priests. This one said that in 2007 (note in Spanish):

A bishop justifies pedophilia because children are "provoking"

" If you're not careful , they provoking you." He refers to children from 13 years. The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez , enclosing in this justified the origin of a crime, the sexual abuse of minors. Alvarez considers pedophilia a derivative of homosexuality. " Do not confuse homosexuality with existential need that is practiced as a vice . The person [ the ] practice as he can practice child abuse , "he says . In his view, this offense arises from the search for "new" and therefore becomes "a different form of sexuality."

Relations ' consensual '

In an interview with the daily La Opinión de Tenerife , Bishop extends the idea to replicate the journalist, who previously had said that " the difference between a homosexual relationship and abuse is clear." As if doubts persist , the interviewer reminds the bishop that " abuse is non-consensual relationship." The prelate response leaves no room for doubt .

"There may be minors than other consenting and indeed , there are. There adolescents 13 years are minor and are in close agreement and also forward to it. Even if you're not careful , they provoking you". In the same conversation, the prelate dusts without shades all the prejudices of the Catholic Church against homosexuals. "It's something that harms individuals and society," writes the bishop.

_http://www.publico.es/espana/31531/un-obispo-justifica-la-pederastia-porque-hay-ninos-que-provocan

Very disturbing.

I still think there is something inherently evil about pedophilia itself, basically boiling down to the desire to destroy innocence, which many of these people rationalize as a "love" for children. It's probably not all as black and white as some people believe, but, to me at least, a desire to interfere sexually in the life of a growing child is just really dark, and close to the ultimate manifestation of service to self.

I agree, and are deviations that should trace them back to the time of Plato. Many people may think that talking about pedophiles is something modern, therefore, would be anachronistic in a ancient greece study. But perhaps you can find there how those practices were institutionalized to harm others, and how they gave different names to disguise. I really would like to know more about how the Catholic church followed this pedophile tradition since Plato (Since i was reading HoM, the character of Plato is a bit sinister. And I wonder if there will be purposely distorted the memory of Socrates, as an early Cicero).


Edit: Carity

 

[whitecoast]

[quote author=monotonic]I think a sexual attraction that is different from what is normal for the "type and polarity" of the individual is an acquired thing, not instinctive. I think it is a compulsion formed over the top of the real instincts due to abuse, trauma or escalating erotica addiction.

The features of this in regards to pedophilia is a disregard for the child who is obviously harmed by molestation. So what is the word for a compulsion to use a person as an object for self-gratification, at harm to the person? It seems to me there should be a word for that. One could argue that a traumatized individual could feel this way without realizing it would harm the child, but I think such a stupid person would have a very difficult time integrating with with society and having a successful life.

As I understand, normal sexuality is not a compulsion to turn anyone or anything into a sexual object, by denying their being. For this reason I don't think any abnormal sexual attraction can be considered normal. Clearly, this is not merely a "sexual attraction to children".[/quote]

Very well said, monotonic. What separates a sexual orientation from a sexual mental illness is the fruit it bears, regardless of the genetic or environmental contributions made to imprinting the specific orientation or illness.

This being true, there are more factors here that a mature society would eventually need to consider. For instance, our thoughts seem to extend beyond our bodies in some very subtle way, and children are often especially sensitive to psychic phenomena. Even if there was 0% risk of any predation of your children from such a self-controlled paedophile, would you really not mind them looking at your children and thinking such thoughts?

It's quite sad, but hopefully there will be a cure for it someday. I don't know how useful it is to suspect a person's thoughts are harming children though. Short of outright curing them, there's not much you can do about subcriminal pedophiles, short of asking them to identify themselves and then ostracizing them from venues where children could be present (and let's be honest, who's going to come forth and volunteer for that exclusion?)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

As I understand, normal sexuality is not a compulsion to turn anyone or anything into a sexual object, by denying their being. For this reason I don't think any abnormal sexual attraction can be considered normal. Clearly, this is not merely a "sexual attraction to children".

I think there are several issues at play here that need to be taken into account, and definitions. First, there's the nature of sexuality itself. Contrary to the genophiles (sorry, couldn't resist!), I doubt there's a hetero or homosexual gene or genes. From animal studies, it looks like sexuality is probably to a large degree a matter of imprinting (Cs said something similar about the different causal pathways to homosexuality). Presumably this is the case also with pedophilia and paraphilias, although there are most likely some unique factors at play in these cases. Unfortunately, no one KNOWS exactly how such things come about. As Salter said in the SOTT interview regarding pedophiles, all we have are criminal pedophiles' CLAIMS that they were abused as children, but that could simply be a pity ploy, and we don't know if on the whole they are abused more often than non-pedophiles.

So, what is 'normal' sexuality? How does it develop? What factors mess up the process? How does pedophilia develop? How is it distributed in the general population? Do all pedophiles share certain experiences or characteristics? Is it 'comorbid' with other traits or pathologies? For example, are psychopaths more likely to be pedophiles? How many pedophiles are 'neurotic'?

Then there's what Salter said about how pedophiles report their awareness of their own sexuality. As teens, whereas their peers became attracted to other teens or adults, they find themselves sexually aroused by children. If this is accurate, then it does suggest that pedophilia does develop around the same time and in a similar way as normal sexuality. So, again, what are the differentiating factors?

The way scientists study this kind of thing in the lab is to measure physiological responses to visual stimuli. Heterosexuals will 'respond' to attractive images of the opposite sex, but not same sex. Opposite for homosexuals. Pedophiles will not show any sexual arousal in response to adults, but will for children. Call it what you will ('orientation', 'attraction', 'arousal', 'perversion'), it does resemble normal sexuality in that the individual has an automatic sexual response to particular, identifiable class of 'sexual object'.

That leads to another, related issue: Dabrowski's multilevelness. He points out that level I individuals tend to see their sexual partners as just that: objects. Doesn't matter if they're heterosexual, homosexual, or what. Probably the worst type would be the psychopathic pedophile. (As Salter observed, psychopathic pedophiles would be more likely to offend, which might explain the 20% figure she gave.) So another question: is pedophilia strictly a level I phenomenon? In other words, can a pedophile have a conscience? I think Salter implied that some do, which makes the problem much trickier, IMO.

But as for practicalities, I think pedophiles should be permanently segregated from the rest of society, or at least from all interaction with children. Noncriminal pedophiles with a conscience would ideally check themselves in to such a program, kind of a 'closed community' something like some Northern European criminal systems. That won't be easy, though, as whitecoast observes. So what's the solution?

 

[whitecoast]

[quote author=a.i.]
But as for practicalities, I think pedophiles should be permanently segregated from the rest of society, or at least from all interaction with children. Noncriminal pedophiles with a conscience would ideally check themselves in to such a program, kind of a 'closed community' something like some Northern European criminal systems. That won't be easy, though, as whitecoast observes. So what's the solution?
[/quote]

There is some evidence to suggest that increased access to pornography reduces the number of sex crimes. If that is actually true, and if it is the case that sex crimes with minors follows a similar reduction, registering as a pedophile and marking yourself for exclusion from children could be incentivized by granting license for some to access victim-less works created purely from imagination (fiction, drawings, etc). This would simultaneously remove real children from harm, and allow those who admit to their problem to be able to have some sufficiency while giving them CLEAR moral boundaries for their fantasies which they cannot cross. Those who attempt to acquire child porn without a license can be convicted of potentially endangering children by not honoring the exclusion of that illness/orientation necessary to protect children. Ditto for those who have a license but still attend places where children can be present.

Obviously those who don't have consciences will try to have their cake and eat it too, but I think early-on diagnosis and tagging of those ilk for reconditioning should reduce those to a minimum.
This is just one idea I've heard tossed around.

 

[H-KQGE]

As I understand, normal sexuality is not a compulsion to turn anyone or anything into a sexual object, by denying their being. For this reason I don't think any abnormal sexual attraction can be considered normal. Clearly, this is not merely a "sexual attraction to children".

I think there are several issues at play here that need to be taken into account, and definitions. First, there's the nature of sexuality itself. Contrary to the genophiles (sorry, couldn't resist!), I doubt there's a hetero or homosexual gene or genes. From animal studies, it looks like sexuality is probably to a large degree a matter of imprinting (Cs said something similar about the different causal pathways to homosexuality). Presumably this is the case also with pedophilia and paraphilias, although there are most likely some unique factors at play in these cases. Unfortunately, no one KNOWS exactly how such things come about. As Salter said in the SOTT interview regarding pedophiles, all we have are criminal pedophiles' CLAIMS that they were abused as children, but that could simply be a pity ploy, and we don't know if on the whole they are abused more often than non-pedophiles.

So, what is 'normal' sexuality? How does it develop? What factors mess up the process? How does pedophilia develop? How is it distributed in the general population? Do all pedophiles share certain experiences or characteristics? Is it 'comorbid' with other traits or pathologies? For example, are psychopaths more likely to be pedophiles? How many pedophiles are 'neurotic'?

Then there's what Salter said about how pedophiles report their awareness of their own sexuality. As teens, whereas their peers became attracted to other teens or adults, they find themselves sexually aroused by children. If this is accurate, then it does suggest that pedophilia does develop around the same time and in a similar way as normal sexuality. So, again, what are the differentiating factors?

The way scientists study this kind of thing in the lab is to measure physiological responses to visual stimuli. Heterosexuals will 'respond' to attractive images of the opposite sex, but not same sex. Opposite for homosexuals. Pedophiles will not show any sexual arousal in response to adults, but will for children. Call it what you will ('orientation', 'attraction', 'arousal', 'perversion'), it does resemble normal sexuality in that the individual has an automatic sexual response to particular, identifiable class of 'sexual object'.

That leads to another, related issue: Dabrowski's multilevelness. He points out that level I individuals tend to see their sexual partners as just that: objects. Doesn't matter if they're heterosexual, homosexual, or what. Probably the worst type would be the psychopathic pedophile. (As Salter observed, psychopathic pedophiles would be more likely to offend, which might explain the 20% figure she gave.) So another question: is pedophilia strictly a level I phenomenon? In other words, can a pedophile have a conscience? I think Salter implied that some do, which makes the problem much trickier, IMO.

But as for practicalities, I think pedophiles should be permanently segregated from the rest of society, or at least from all interaction with children. Noncriminal pedophiles with a conscience would ideally check themselves in to such a program, kind of a 'closed community' something like some Northern European criminal systems. That won't be easy, though, as whitecoast observes. So what's the solution?

I want to know what type of abuse, trauma, along with a certain imprint, can bring about this 'orientation', 'attraction', 'arousal', or 'perversion' as seen in this article.

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531090/Student-facing-death-sentence-China-hanging-two-prostitutes-having-sex-corpses.html

Student facing death sentence in China for hanging two prostitutes, shipping their bodies to his home and having sex with the corpses

·The Jilin University student told police he'd fantasised about necrophilia
·He said he ordered prostitutes to help relieve the pressure of his studies
·He was found guilty of intentional homicide after hanging them
·He'd had sex with the cadavers and then dismembered them

By TED THORNHILL
PUBLISHED: 11:35, 30 December 2013 | UPDATED: 11:43, 30 December 2013

A 23-year-old university student in China will be executed after hanging two prostitutes and having sex with their corpses.
The student, whose surname is Lee, was studying design at Jilin University in Changchun and told police that he had been failing a lot of classes and called the prostitutes to help relieve the pressure.
He also told detectives that he used to have fantasies about having sex with dead bodies and decided one morning that he could no longer resist carrying it out.

On March 6 this year he hired a 20-year-old prostitute called Cai through the internet, according to iFeng.com.

Lee then hanged her and had her body shipped back to his house in Changping , where he had sex with the corpse. It was then dismembered and the parts buried in Lee’s garden.

On March 23 he carried out the same macabre act on the body of another prostitute that he’d hanged and shipped home.
A forensic psychiatrist determined that Lee wasn’t insane and was criminally responsible for the crimes.
The Second Intermediate People's Court found him guilty of intentional homicide and sentenced him to death.
It also ordered him to pay 80,000 yuan (£8,000) in compensation to the victims’ families.

Sexual objects is what he saw for sure. Definitely more going on in necrophilia cases that boggles the mind. To go to such extremities to "scratch an itch", well that is some serious damage across the board. Sorry to veer slightly off.