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.

Comment viewing options

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

"As long as they have not harmed a child."

I agree. Trouble is, many are saying that molestation does not harm a child.
And you have me all wrong, I am the one who posted about "love the sinner, hate the sin" when this came up before. We are ALL broken humans, but that does not mean we get to justify our failings and indulge them, we are to overcome when we can and find help when we can't.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Rape is the Crime, not Pedophilia

If a pedophile is coercing a child into sexual activity - which in most cases, they often are, as "children" do not understand and/or are repulsed by sex - then pedophilia is an immoral as an invasion of the child's property rights in his/her own person. If the "child" is not being coerced, then there is no crime, as no invasion of anyone's rights has occurred.

Rape is the crime, not pedophilia. Plenty of men are convicted of "statutory rape" and unfairly labeled "perverts" all for having consensual sex with minors who hardly look or act like children.

No, I am not pro-pedophilia or anything. I am just against ruining innocent people's lives because they had consensual sex with someone whom the government arbitrarily declares may not be touched. Think about statutory rape from the perspective of the "victim:" the government is, in a sense, abridging your right to self-ownership, for if you use your body in ways of which it disapproves, your partner will be thrown in a rape cage. In other words, the government is basically holding the "victim" hostage with threats of imprisoning others.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors, but today we kneel only to truth." - Kahlil Gibran

Young children can not make that decision

And if I saw an older guy trying to give my child candy and being flirtatious with my child, he will wish he hadn't. If I spend a couple nights in jail for threatening a persons life for trying to have sex with my child, because he thinks she wanted him, then so be it. I'm the parent, I'm going to protect my child no matter what.

I was fondled by a 15 year old girl when I was 6

And I honestly cannot say it was coercive. Was what she did, right? Definitely not. But should she be treated the same as some guy who wanted to stick it in my pooper and wouldn't take "no" for an answer? The answer is again definitely not.

Honestly my parent's and other's over reaction to the whole thing is what left me traumatized, and not much else.

I have a couple good friends

I have a couple good friends who were sexually abused as children by adults. Basically they would say you are full of shit.

That's funny...

A 15 year old girl used to fondle me when I was 6, and I still don't think she should have been jailed as I honestly can't say it was coercive...

Was what she did, right? Definitely not. However, it certainly is not the same as if some guy had tried to stick it in my pooper and wouldn't take "no" for an answer, and they should not be treated the same.

Likewise someone who is mentally ill and does not harm a child, but simply has the attraction should be pitied, and not scorned. It does no one any good when someone can't even admit they have a problem because they are afraid society will destroy them before they even have the chance to prove themselves are moral individuals.

Also, almost all of the trauma surrounding the incidents were due to the overreactions of my parents and others and not the fondling itself.

Allow me to ask you: Is it a

Allow me to ask you:

Is it a good decision for a child who can't see over the steering wheel to drive a car?

Is it a good decision for a child to play with matches? Or play with a gun?

Obviously there are many cases in which it is not in the best interest of the child or the child's parents to perform some action; on the basis of a simple lack of information. A child does not know how to use a gun and therefore could hurt himself or others with it. A child does not know how to have sexual relations (nor do they even know which gender they are attracted to at early ages) and therefore should not be making decisions about who they let molest them.

This isn't a matter of "government restricting property rights"...it's about children and the parents of those children who are the ones that look out for their childrens' well-being until they are capable of making decisions for themselves.

Dangerous Precedent

What you are saying is that the government should invade our liberties in order to preempt potential threats. That rationale leads to tyranny, as the government usurps increasing amounts of liberty - and, in the process, consolidates more money and power for itself - under the guise of "security." As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty deserve neither."

The distinction is between non-consensual and consensual sex. If sex is consensual, then there is no harm, and thus no crime. If sex is non-consensual (as it often is involving a child incapable of thinking for himself/herself), then there is harm, and thus a crime. Criminalizing rape is the only just deterrent against pedophilia. Criminalizing pedophilia itself (which is not always a crime, as "minors" are certainly old enough to desire and engage in consensual sex) runs the risk of punishing innocent people.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors, but today we kneel only to truth." - Kahlil Gibran

You can't argue with people who base their opinions on emotion

Feed them logic and they'll keep spitting back an emotional and circular argument which leads nowhere. It's one of the reasons I rarely bother to visit this site anymore. Most people will downvote you without even trying to form a rebuttal to your argument, and if they do respond it is likely to be nothing more than emotional drivel which is completely devoid of any logic or reason.

The government shouldn't be

The government shouldn't be in the business of safety, whatsoever. It's OUR duty to provide safety, not police, not the feds, and not the military. It would be society punishing pedophiles through either shunning or by death. You shouldn't even give those sickos a chance to live after they're found out.

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

So someone who is mentally ill and has never hurt a child...

Should be put to death? And you're talking about "safety"? Really?

I think some lines have been blurred i nthis area

in the 60's and 70's if an adult had sex with a consenting teen it was called statutory rape. No one went to jail.

Fact is I met my first husband when I was 15 and he was 22. Yes we slept together. At seventeen I got pregnant and we got married. The marriage lasted for 15 years. I was not molested, or sexually abused.

Today he would be in prison and would be in a sex offenders registry for the rest of his life.

Sorry, but they have taken these molestation laws too far.

Thanks Peggy R and Unreconstructed

for injecting some sanity into the discussion.

Obviously, there is such a thing as predatory
pedophilia that society has an interest in preventing.

Apparently not as obvious is the fact that having consensual
sex with someone a week under 18 years old does not
by itself mean that someone is a dangerous sociopath and
should be labeled as such for life.

In much of America, in the 19th and early 20th centuries it
was common for women to marry at 15 or 16 years old or even

Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13 year old second cousin
in the 50's was quite legal, even if it didn't do much for his
career (at age 76 he said he'd do it all over again).

Edgar Allen Poe married his 13 year old cousin (claiming she
was 21 on the marriage documents).

"Virginia and Poe were by all accounts a happy and devoted couple. Poe's one-time employer George Rex Graham wrote of their relationship: "His love for his wife was a sort of rapturous worship of the spirit of beauty."[35] Poe once wrote to a friend, "I see no one among the living as beautiful as my little wife."[36] She, in turn, by many contemporary accounts, nearly idolized her husband..."


Predatory pedophiles or just people?

I am not at all. And I am not

I am not at all.

And I am not sure why you think "government" has anything to do with the issue of child abuse.

You would allow your 8 year old child to have relations with some stranger...well good for you.

The rest of us will stay over here with the other sane parents who would never subject their child to molestation.

No Straw Men, Please

I would not allow my child to have sex with anyone, at any age. So long as my child is living under my roof - i.e. on my property - he/she must obey my rules. Please refrain from creating a caricature of my argument.

I am saying that pedophilia is not inherently criminal, because it is not inherently rape. Rape is a violation of one's property rights in their own person; consensual sex between two partners which the government has declared may not have sex violates nothing.

For instance, say a man goes to a bar, and meets a nubile young woman who flirts with him. The young woman happens to be a minor, but she looks and acts like an adult, and does not disclose her age. Say that this sexually precocious young woman voluntarily accompanies the man home, where she engages in consensual sexual intercourse with him. Technically, at this point, that man is a "pedophile," guilty as sin according to the law. Say that young woman's parents later discover what their daughter did, and report that man to the police. Say that man is sentenced to serve many years in prison, where he is repeatedly raped for being a "pedophile." Say when that man is finally set free from the rape cage to which he was condemned, he is now legally obligated to publicize his "pedophilia" for the rest of his life, thus living with a shameful stigma which ostracizes him from society. That man's life was ruined all because he made the mistake of having consensual sex with a minor. Is that just?

I am really not sure why I am having to defend myself here. I am saying that rape is a crime, but that consensual sex should not be criminalized. Who could object to that?

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors, but today we kneel only to truth." - Kahlil Gibran

First off, that's the bar's

First off, that's the bar's fault for letting in a minor. 18 should not be the line. There should be no line. There are 13 year old people that are capable of adulthood, and there are 30 year old people who are more immature than most 13 year old people. The whole thing about pedophiles is that they go after naive children, not just any minor, and especially not ones who are mature for their age. They chase innocence and naivete. Pedos are not so simple themselves, they are just manipulative to make you believe that they are immature or naive. They are predatory psychopaths, and they can not be rehabilitated. Money shouldn't even be wasted on figuring out if we can. They should just be sentenced to death. The behavior, even if they haven't physically done anything, should be shunned and they should still be killed.

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

emotion will always trump logic

perhaps you should have started with a song.

I understand what you are

I understand what you are saying. However, be aware that the term "pedophilia" refers to persons 16 years or older who are attracted to prepubescent children usually under the age of 13.

It is no wonder why pedophiles would like the term changed.

If they can make people think pedophilia is simply sexual attraction to someone under legal age, as the conversation above just demonstrated, it will make it easier to garner support for the tolerance that is being sought for pedophilia.


Um..no, it IS understood, hence the outrage.

Tolerance is not owed for a kleptomaniac's thieving.

Tolerance is not owed for a pyromaniac's arson.

Tolerance is certainly not owed for a pedophile's sexual abuse/exploitation of children.


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.

No, that's not all these psychologists are saying.

They're suggesting a name change of something where the change would blur that which they purport to want "understanding" of.

Pedophilia isn't simply being attracted to an under age person. It has to do with sexual interest and urges for prepubescent children.
(see Straight Sativa's post above http://www.dailypaul.com/265746/group-of-psychologists-pushi...
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html )

If these psychologists were really seeking "understanding" regarding the disorder, they certainly wouldn't be trying to blur the meaning with some watered down term that would also encompass others who are not pedophiles.

As for your assertion of hysteria...

The article stated "..the group’s goal is to create tolerance for and a better understanding of people who have an attraction to children."

Why is society beiing asked to tolerate inappropriate things? There is something to be said for self-control and personal responsibility. If someone is having inappropriate, irresistable urges, I do not need to tolerate it and would prefer avoidance.

Call it hysteria if you want. I call it good sense.

Well put!

Couldn't have said it better my self.

Humans are being desensitized

and alienated from their own inner awareness about what is right and wrong. This kind of thinking that makes child sex abuse just a "sexual orientation" and therefore acceptable? is more of the elite of the world setting the stage to pursue their lusts for children. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Mind Control Out Of Control MK ULTRA Cathy O'Brien PT 1
Long introduction. Start at 1:34

nothing is inherently bad or

nothing is inherently bad or good. this is different if you're religious, however. but for the objective viewpoint, morality is what humans say it is.

Yes, morality is what humans decide to label

acceptable and unacceptable. BUT, it usually stems from a common feeling within most humans.

Most of us would be shattered and appalled to think of our OWN child being sexually violated.

But I guess the person that rapes his/her own child would think it is OK. Pedophiles think it is OK to have sex with a child. They might even be proud of it.

Only pedophiles think child sex is acceptable. Most humans feel very protective of children and find child molestation and rape unacceptable.


It was socially exceptable at one point in history to watch people get torn apart by lions and tigers in an arena, Christians being among them.

It's not about morality

The question is if it violates the rights of another person. Child abuse does. Therefore, it is bad. Murder does, and it's bad. You don't have to bring religion into the equation at all. If something you do violates the rights of another person, you have done something bad. I'm not a religious in the traditional sense, but I'm tired of hearing everyone using their disdain for religion to justify everything they want to do. Want to steal something? Well, that's only bad if you look at it from a religious perspective, right? Wrong! If it's mine, and you take it, you are violating my right to keep my property. I don't need the bible to tell me I have a right to be mad about it, and not being religious doesn't give anyone the excuse to go around doing whatever he wants to do.

of course i do not condone

of course i do not condone abuse or violence, it IS wrong to me and in today's society. my point is, society determines what is right or wrong, and there could come a day when society says it's okay to murder somebody else without punishment. is that right or wrong? if everyone labels you crazy for saying murder is wrong, are you actually crazy?

Our senses tell us that it's wrong

Not society. The problem is that society and it's controllers work constantly at DULLING people's senses so that they go along with this stuff.