15 votes

Group of Psychologists Pushing to Decriminalize Pedophilia

There’s a new push by some in the psychological community to change the definition of pedophilia. The group of mental health professionals, called B4U-ACT, argues that pedophiles are misunderstood. Critics believe this could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”



With the outing of Jimmy Savile as a pedophile and procurer of children for Europe's elite, this kind of news has been getting more and more exposure. Although so much of it like this article is aimed at de-sensitizing the public to child abuse. We must continue to expose the child abuse scandals existing in the upper echelons of societies.

Many of these pedophiles are satanists and child-killers as well. The only way to stop it is to give it as much exposure as is possible.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So you would create the incentive for them to kill their victim?

That's all the death penalty would do. Give them the incentive to rape and kill as many as possible because they'd just be getting the death penalty anyway.

Why is the majority of the population completely unable to tackle this subject with any sort of reason and instead approaches it with the most ridiculous form of hysteria ever to be seen?

Pedophiles are hated by the

Pedophiles are hated by the prison population as much as they are by us here on the outside. They are punished severely by the prisoners themselves. They are instant targets once they hit the inside. LOL We don't have to sentence them to death. Just give them a few years in the general population in a prison and chances are real good they aren't coming out any time soon.

Blessings )o(

They may be hated, but since

They may be hated, but since they are psychopaths and masters of manipulation, they usually don't have anything done to them because they can just talk someone down. They're the ones who really run the prisons and they don't suffer in there. They should just be publicly hanged.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Not ALL psychopathic child molesters are masters of

manipulation. Thats a misconsception. Some psychopathic child molesters have NO social skills.

To say that all are masters of manipulation is like saying all black people can tap dance.

So in your view, if the child rapist kills the child and

completely and effectively disposes of the body and can only be charged with MURDER and not child rape, he DOESN'T get the death penalty?


If your view ever catches on there will be a 0% chance we will even see a sexually assaulted child alive again (or even find the body) after the assault.

Now, this is a real problem... murder of children.

In the current (in)justice system, when a child is murdered, especially by a parent or the parents, the charge is usually, "Injury to a child, under the age of___ (fill in the blank)". Or, it's called, "Child-abuse".
The current max sentence runs at about 12 years. And the country accepts this.
So if people want to fight something that's really problematic, go after this portion of the courts: Family Court. Do not turn your eyes toward another of fox-newz rumors, and instead look at the problematic charging and sentencing of those who actually do murder children. Yes, rape of a child is also (for now) carrying lesser-sentences than would rape of an adult carry (which is also not enough). But, murder of a child is where the bigger problems of our justice system lie.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

He can die for that too.

Let's just make it any physical crimes against children. A murder would require them being harmed physically.

But if the guy kills and disposes of the body leaving no

evidence he gets off scott free if you can't pin a murder rap on him?

Again, he will have incentive to KILL the victim (so the kid can't talk) because he will get the death penalty.

And he will have incentive to dispose of the body so he can't get the death penalty for murder.

So how would you feel, if you had a daughter who had been raped - and her rapist knows that the ONLY way to escape the death penalty is to kill her and dispose of her body?

Wouldn't you want you daughter back alive even after she has been raped? Or is she no good to you after she was violated? If you still want her back, maybe you shouldn't set up the punishments in a way that there is NO WAY you will get her back?

How about a REDUCED sentence if he returns her alive - instead of guaranteeing that she is dead?

+ 1

Thanks for posting.

Soon murder will be OK because murderers are misunderstood and stereotyped.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

yeah right....

The psychologists aren't even saying sexual abuse should be allowed, they are saying the hysteria is counter productive to tackling and dealing with the problem when someone can't even admit they have such attractions without having their lives ruined by some emotional person such as yourself who is unable to act upon reason.

Stigmatizing those who have not harmed children and simply are unfortunate enough to have this attraction does no one any good, and the hysteria pushed by types like you hurts both children and the mentally ill alike.

Not only the Dutch, but all

Not only the Dutch, but all the aristocratic blood lines have interest in keeping their pedophile activity under wraps.

George H.W. Bush comes from one of these blood lines. He's been accused of raping, torturing, and killing children by at least one author. You can sue for that kind of accusation, yet Bush hasn't said a word because the accusations are true.

I think it IS a mental illness, just as homosexuality is. Both

are unnaturual sexual practices. And to those who argue that there are some homosexual giraffes observed occasionally, I would argue "Sure, and male lions sometimes kill all the cubs, for the attention of the female. Would that be okay for humans too?"

The probelm with classifying a mental illness as a crime akin to the worst kind of murder - is that it tends to be fatal for our children.

Okay, suppose a mentally defective sexual deviant does something awful to a child. If you can assume for one second that it is a mental illness you can see what's happening here. He gives in to his mental illness - he does something terrible. Now what?

The deed is already done. Now he fears the consequences. If the child talks - he stands to go to prison for the rest of his life. In some states he stands to be executed. Nobody wants that.

There is only one sure way he knows of to make SURE the child doesn't talk, and that is to kill the child. So he does.

In certain types of sexual assault, the child stands a better than 95% of being killed, just because the deviant can't risk the child talking.

Personally, if I had a young daughter and she was raped, I would still want her back. I would want the laws written in such a way that the deviant would let the child live in return for a reduced sentence - and not to try and force his hand into killing her. make him see that there is an AVANTAGE to keeping the child alive. Becuase the way the law is written now, there is no avantage. Only disadvantage to the deviant. And that results in killed victims.

The way I see it, laws that punish sexual assualt of a child identically to the ways murderers ae punished, MUST be written by people who think a sexually assaulted child is worthless and better off dead. And THATS sick.

Homosexuality is natural

You could argue murderous impulses are also natural. Whatever. Killing a man and having sex with a man you love (if that's your sort of thing) are not comparable acts. Your counterargument doesn't address the fact of homosexuality as naturally-occurring (as if it would be "unnatural" if ONLY humans did it.. we're part of nature, too).

jrd3820's picture

How is homosexuality a mental illnes?

Two consenting adults in a happy relationship is a mental illness?

So, following your example, if a pedafile and his victim enjoy

what they consider a "happy relationship" its not a mental illness either?

I noticed you threw a qualifier in about consenting adults, but thats just an obstacle to a comparison you don't want made.

"Consent" in the way you are using it is a legal definition. A child can very easily be consenting, just not LEGALLY consenting. And can only adults feel happy? Children are not allowed to be happy?

You try to confuse the issue with legal qualifiers, but in and of itself that disqualifies your argument.

If ALL that is required for something to be NONmental illness is that the people be happy, then pedafile and victim are fine, as well as sado masochists, and enthusiasts of a lot of sexual practices that this forum is not a place to mention, which would be considered perverse by most in society.

jrd3820's picture


not at all, because the child cannot legally consent to the relationship.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is a weak comparison.

This is what I am talking about. You try to hide behind a LEGAL

definition. Under the law a child can not LEGALLY give consent, nor enter into most contracts (only something called "infant contracts"). But that is just a LEGAL construct - not a psychological one. A child certainly CAN mentally agree to a relationship. A child chooses his friends from those on the playground. That is a relationship that a child can either agree or disagree to enter into. A child can also mentally agree to enter a sexual relationship even if the law forbids it.

If the law similarly outlawed homosexual relationships as it has in some countries - then consent of course cannot be given legally in those countries to have a homosexual relationship (because it is illegal). Would you argue then that homosexuals ARE mentally ill in countries where their relationships are illegal - just as pedophiles ARE mentally ill because their relationships here are illegal?

jrd3820's picture

Also Wondering

why you care so much what is going on in someone else relationship and bedroom if there are no victims. I never understood people who say they want "small government" but want to dictate who is allowed to be in a relationship with who.

I don't care what goes on in your bedroom from a legal

standpoint. I am not against homosexuality from a legal standpoint. You can have a relationship with whomever you want. Just as I would not care from a legal standpoint - if you and your lover (either sex) chose to drive nails from a nailgun into your bodies for your sexual gratification. Under the law - hey, go for it.

But I certainly DO consider those who drive nails from a nailgun into their bodies to be mentally ill, just like homosexuals.

You have the RIGHT to be mentally ill. I will not stop you. But I will still recognize mental illness for what it is.

jrd3820's picture

So, if you are saying homosexuals are mentally ill

You can at least acknowledge that straight people can be just as perverse as homosexuals such as ideas gratification from pain as you described? So, then it is not just homosexuals or pedophiles, it is anyone with a sexual attraction or that participates in sexual acts that is not what you deem normal or acceptable?

Where exactly did I say that ONLY homosexuals are mentally

ill or perverse?

And lets put the ball in your court - do you think people who would shoot themselves with a nailgun for sexual gratification are NOT mentally ill?

jrd3820's picture

No I would not argue that

Because when it is two adults both consenting parties are old enough to make those decisions. When it is a child they are too young (not just legally emotionally) to understand their decisions even if they are consenting.

Some adults are NEVER old enough to understand the decisions

they are consenting to. Wisdom does NOT come neccessaily with age.

The LAW may say it does, because the law has to set an arbitrary limit as to when one must be resposbible for one's actions. But that means nothing.

Some children understand the consequences of their decisions much more than alcholics, drug addicts, or those who thrive on absuive codependant relationships, just to name a few.

jrd3820's picture

I'll give you that

pulling a number out of thin air does not make some an adult who is wise enough to make good decisions. But when it comes to kids, I think we can all agree a 10 yr old does not understand the decisions they are making when it comes to physical and sexual acts.


has been working to this end for a long time.

Weren't you fearmongering on the other identical thread?

All these psychologists are saying is that it does no one any good if someone who is attracted to minors can't admit he has the attraction without his life being ruined. As long as they have not harmed a child they should not be hated, but rather pitied.

This has nothing to do with NAMBLA!

Instead though, because of the fear mongering pushed by people like you things like this will continue to happen to people who have harmed no one. All the while pedophiles who are an actual danger to children will continue to lurk in the background instead of seeking help or outing their desires in a safe and non-harmful way, such as therapy or masturbation.



Would be interesting to find out who's behind NAMBLA. Seems that every horrible idea forced on America originates with the Rockefellers or someone else closely associated with the PTB.


They are deliberately warping children who grow up to be warped adults. They cycle must be stopped, not "normalized."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

This has nothing to do with normalization...

It's propagandists and fear mongerers such as yourself who are the only ones asserting this.

All these psychologists are saying is that it does no one any good if someone who is attracted to minors can't admit he has the attraction without his life being ruined. As long as they have not harmed a child they should not be hated, but rather pitied.