Legitimizing Pedophilia?

The phenomenon should be studied and understood so criminal behavior can better be treated and controlled, and in doing so using an objective term such as “minor attracted people” isn’t out of bounds. But the professor muddies the waters by veering into the language of inclusion and being nonjudgmental, justified by making a distinction between sexual attraction and behavior when, as gay people know, the two are hard to distinguish in the real world. Some stigmas remain necessary, and sexual attraction to children is a prime example.

One Comment for “Legitimizing Pedophilia?”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “UPDATE 11/16/21: According to a statement just released by Old Dominion University President Brian O. Hemphill, Allyn Walker has been placed on administrative leave.

    In a newly-issued email to the ODU community, Hemphill states that “many individuals have shared with me the view that the phrase ‘minor attracted people’ is inappropriate and should not be utilized as a euphamism for behaviour that is illegal, morally unacceptable, and profoundly damaging. It is important to call pedophilia what it is. As a father, I am troubled by this narrative and its postential consequences to my children and that of future generations.”

    He goes on to note that his responsibility is the “safety of everyone associated with the campus,” and that he has placed Allyn Walker on leave as a result. Hemphill notes that the campus has come under seige by “disruption” and “threats” in recent days due to Walker’s interview going viral.”

    That sounds like cancel culture gone wild. Was the article really that bad? I think going to the original source would be rather necessary.


    A lot of people argue that attraction to minors should be very strongly stigmatized in order to prevent people from acting on them and abusing children. But you’re arguing for less stigma. Could you talk about why? What’s wrong with using stigma to sort of prevent sexual violence in this way? And why would you rather see stigma reduced?

    I think we believe societally, that stigma against MAPs serves to protect children because we don’t fully understand the differences between MAPs and sex offenders. Again, we have this confusion between the attraction and a criminal behavior.

    Stigma against MAPs is a problem, in part because it makes MAPs think that they’re monsters. That’s really problematic in terms of MAP well being. It’s really hard to cope when you think you’re a terrible person, because you have attractions that you can’t change.

    But it’s also hugely problematic because when MAPs get the impression that they’re destined to commit an offense against a child, they might not realize that it’s a choice that they have, and that there’s help out there if they feel some kind of temptation to commit an offense.

    Not only is this a problem because it affects how maps understand themselves, but in the event that a MAP does decide to reach out for help, their stigma has huge consequences for the kind of help that’s available to them. For instance, if a MAP sought out one on one therapy with a counselor, they might not know whether the counselor fully understands the difference between someone who has an attraction to minors and someone who has committed an offense against a child because of that stigma. Counselors are just like anyone else they might know that they might not.

    If they end up in therapy with a counselor who mistakenly believes all MAPs have committed an offense or will do so at some point, their therapist might end up making a report against them that they shouldn’t be making. Unfortunately, some MAPs have had that exact type of experience, which discourages others from help seeking, even when they might really need that help as a non-offending strategy. So the stigma that we have against MAPs throughout society can not only affect well-being, but it can actually lead to harm against children.

    Wow, way to miss the point! I can find nothing objectionable in this interview.

    I thought universities prized academic freedom (no I’m too cynical to really think that). That means you’re going to have some researchers who have bizarre, even “dangerous” interests. Do you know how many years Cornell West has been teaching? What about that nutso wacko of the 1619 Project? Who are those yahoos who came up with Critical Race Theory? Why hasn’t someone burned their academic careers to the ground? Because their so-called dangerous ideas are chic, they bat their eyelashes in just the right way so as to appear politically correct. But their ideas have, in fact, caused more harm, destruction, and death than even the worst caricature of an advocacy to study pedophiles in a clinical manner and promote the well being of pedophiles who do not engage in criminal conduct.

    “I have kids.” You have a gigantic pair of testicles that you are pulling your pants down and flashing, and you’ve got the nerve to whine that it hurts when you fall on the bathtub.

Comments are closed.