Normalising Paedophilia - the Chinese Way

Chinese Child Sex Doll

 

DHGate

 

"Sex dolls look a bit creepy at the best of times, but this is just plain wrong.

A Chinese website is under fire for selling disturbingly life-like child-size, sex dolls.
The disturbing advert, spotted by an advocacy group on Facebook, called Dining for Dignity shows the model of a girl, who does not look much older than 9 or 10.
Described as a “beautiful young girl sex doll for men,” the item costs $178 and is available to ship worldwide.
Worryingly 57 of them have been sold so far to customers in the US, UK, Japan, Germany, and more, the advert shows.
The product listing boasts that it is highly flexible, and that "all three holes can be used."

"Wrong" is the biggest understatement I can think of at this monstrosity. What the hell is anyone anywhere doing openly promoting and selling items like this on their site? The ONLY reason that such a disgusting thing is on their site, can only be to attract paedophile buyers for them to use them and imagine themselves having sex with a real child in any way, disgusting as this sounds. That is of course, until the novelty wears off and they go the next step.....

Surely this cannot be legal?

Surely it cannot be legal to have these shipped anywhere in the world, including the UK? Are there not laws that prevent this type of product/material being sent here?

Personally I have never heard of DHGate before reading the story in the Huffington Post, linked above. Now that I have, I would urge all readers to do two things.

1) Share either the link, or this post, and ask everyone to BOYCOTT DHGate if they use it, or if they come across this site and are tempted to use it. DHGate cannot be allowed to sell items aimed at normalising paedophilia in this blatant way. They cannot be allowed to do this. This is morally and ethically WRONG.

2) Contact DHGate on this link - Message DHGate and make your feelings known. Tell them you will be boycotting their site, and that you will be recommending to everyone you know that they too boycott it. Word will get around - 'The more the merrier' as the well known saying goes. (Unfortunately, unless you have an account with DHGate, you cannot directly message the seller, and I am not doing that).

With the ever increasing global fight against child sexual exploitation and child abuse, it makes no sense whatsoever that with a couple of clicks, paedophiles can be buying themselves a sex doll that appears to be of a pre-pubescent child. We should be standing up against child sexual abuse, not normalising and encouraging it in this disgusting way.

Whopping Pedophilia 'Sexual Orientation' Error Sparks Common Sense Freakout

So, further to my previous posting, it looks like (unfortunately to all the paedophiles and their supporters - unlucky!!), LGBT is to stay as LGTB and not with the added "P" in it.

Paedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation

 

 

"In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviours in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called paedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.

The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how paedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'paedophilia' to 'paedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.""

So common sense prevails, this makes complete sense - orientation being "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" (Wiki). Thus meaning you can (quite obviously I would have thought) have paedophiles of any orientation - whether they be LGB or T.

So, if it doesn't sit as an orientation, where does it sit within the DSM / APA? Quite rightly now in DSM-5 it is listed in their "Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet". For those who are not sure what exactly this means, according to the Free Online Dictionary, paraphilia  is described as a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner

One of the key words here being "nonconsenting". Nonconsenting in layman's language being rape. And rape being illegal. Thus no longer being "normalised", no longer being legitimised by DSM-5 or APA. The way it should be now, and the way it should always be going forward. Instead of over-analysing the cause of paedophilia and trying to find excuses for those who sexually abuse children, we should be accepting that some people are sexually inclined this way, and be concentrating more on both catching offenders who actively practise it, getting sentencing and future deterrence correct, and be providing proper, non-prejudicial justice and support for it's victims.

APA and DSM-V Confirm Paedophilia as a "Sexual Orientation"

Pedophilia: Orientation or Crime?

 

 

"Modern Western society views the expression of sexuality as a primary component of human identity. As each autonomous individual can form his own happiness and welfare, sex is an essential component of human flourishing. 

As sex leads to the creation of life, it is indeed an essential human act. Yet the West is currently trying to isolate sex as a pleasurable, inconsequential form of recreation. The paradox rests in the very fact that it becomes banal, while also life-affirming and essential to our identities.
The issue rears its head in the latest definition of “pedophila” in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V). In it: 

the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality. 

Now, “unconsummated pedophila” is just an orientation. As Father Z clarifies, when a society changes the language, they are also affecting the definition. It is now imperative that we tolerate “pedophilia.”
The reason we must accept such perversion is that “people must be allowed to celebrate sex and sexuality, ‘one of the few freely-given pleasures in life,’” as spokesperson Paul Christiano of B4U-ACT said to NeonTommy.com, a university news site for the USC Annenberg School of Communications. The group advocates for “‘minor-attracted persons’ to be open about their sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere.”
Christiano insisted that the group doesn’t advocate illegal activity. I’d certainly hope not. 
Yet if being attracted toward minors is only an orientation now, how soon until we must accept the practice of pedophilia as a right to define oneself? After all, sex is one of the “few freely-given” pleasures in life. 
For now, the law of the land stands. But how long until statutory rape becomes another form of institutional oppression by the majority against a vulnerable minority?"

Now, tell me I am being paranoid, but I find this a very alarming prospect going forward.

Think about this for one minute.  Paedophilia as a sexual orientation.

Sexual Orientation, as highlighted here is defined as "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" We all know this better as "LGBT" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender) - these are the four different sexual orientations there are (you can be straight, gay, bi or trans - there are no other that I am aware of).

I presume then - please feel free to correct my ignorance - that there is no such thing as a gay or straight paedophile? Assuming for one moment, that it is actually an orientation, people fall into one type of sexual orientation. You cannot be both heterosexual and homosexual for example. It doesn't work.

How the hell does paedophilia fall into a "sexual orientation" - does this mean then, disgusting as it sounds, that paedophiles have no preference between male and female children? (I look forward to see if anyone chooses to comment and answer this - being as quite a few of my posts are picked apart on other blogs including OSC for example. Leave a comment, I'd be interested to see). How has the DSM/APA reached this (quite bizarre) conclusion? Children as a whole do not fall onto a single gender, so how has this happened? Does this mean that every sexual preference, every sexual attraction, no matter what, can from now on be referred to as a specific "orientation"? What about an attraction to overweight people, to tall, short, skinny, black, white, big bums, the elderly, blondes - the list goes on. None of these can really be called a "sexual orientation", yet using the method that the APA / DSM have used, they could all be classified as separate sexual orientations. What's the difference, for example, between a 30 year old being sexually attracted to a child, and a 30 year old being attracted to an 80 year old? One is now classified as a "sexual orientation" (according to APA), and one is not.

Does this mean then, disgusting as it sounds, that paedophiles have no preference between male and female children? I look forward to see if anyone chooses to comment and answer this - being as quite a few of my posts are picked apart on other blogs including OSC for example. Leave a comment, I'd be interested to see.

So, what else does this mean, what can we expect next?

Well, of course, as this has now officially been reclassified (in the US at least), can we now assume that as well as being LGBTP), that the same Human Rights concerned with sexual orientation that all people quite rightly have, will now be used by paedophiles as well? Can we assume, going forward, that there will one day be no discrimination against paedophiles, who for example, apply to be teachers? Can we assume, for example, that there will one day be no discrimination against paedophiles, who apply to work in any profession with children?

No I hear you say?

Want a bet?

Read the link again "Human Rights" and in particular this part:

"The right to work is the most affected among the economic rights, many lesbians, gays and bisexuals being fired because of their sexual orientation or discriminated in employment policies and practices."

Once upon a time in the
There are rules and regulations against discriminating against specific sexual orientations. You can bet your bottom dollar that such organisations as B4U-ACT and similar will be pushing all the way to make sure that paedophilia will enjoy exactly the same rights as any other sexual orientation in this way.

The Continued Attempted Grooming of Society to Normalise Paedophilia.

A good and interesting piece article in one of the US papers last week, and one that highlights precisely just how paedophiles are trying to groom us into accepting their vile actions.

pro-pedophilia groups are grooming the public to accept adult/child sex

 

 

Some of the article I have highlighted below - please take a few minutes to read the piece in it's entirety & follow some of the links in it.

"Pedophilia advocacy groups, including the tax-exempt B4U-ACT founded by a convicted sex offender, are trying to “groom the public” into accepting adult-child sexual relationships, child trauma expert Dr. Joyanna Silberg told CNSNews.com.
B4U-ACT, a nonprofit organization established in 2003 to support “minor-attracted” clients, recently volunteered “to serve as a research gateway” for members of the DSM-V committee that develops and updates APA standards for classifying mental disorders, according to spokesperson Paul Christiano, who is a registered sex offender,
He criticized the studies used by the APA to determine diagnostic criteria because they “were conducted on people under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, many of whom boasted aggressive offense histories,” rather than highlighting “private citizens who responsibly manage such attractions.”
Christiano, whose personal website features essays arguing for the “sexual autonomy" of children that would allow them to "embrace sensual pleasure as a birthright," says his organization is “invested in dispelling the vitriol which serves only to prevent minor-attracted people from coming to terms with that challenging aspect of themselves and responsibly integrating it into everyday life."

So .. Paul Christiano, spokesman for B4U-ACT, who is he? A quick Google reveals the enclosed Blog from 2005 -

Paul Christiano

 

which briefly details his "challenges", his crimes and his views. That a registered sex offender like Paul Christiano, together with the views he has is also a spokesperson for B4U-ACT says it all really about this organisation and it's stance on "minor attracted adults" (paedophiles to you and me).

Recently in the news as well, is a conference given by Dr James Kincaid on the subject of "Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life". According to this article, "Kincaid is an American academic whose studies into the sexualization of children have led him to the conclusion that all adults are secretly sexually attracted to children but use revulsion at the actions of overt pedophiles to hide their inner feelings"

"All adults are attracted to children"? Is he serious? Can anyone really hold such views as this and be expected to be taken seriously?

Two questions here.

As a supposed "educated" society in the 21st century, more-so especially following the revelations of the previous few years (Saville, Hall and the whole Yewtree investigation, Operations Fernbridge & Fairbank, Haut de la Garenne & the continued Jersey HDLG farce/disaster, etc etc etc), why are we allowing a platform - such a public platform - for pro-paedophiles and their supporters to air their perverted views? Why are we so "anti child abuse" on one hand, and on the other hand, allowing perverts, pro-paedophiles and their supporters such a public voice for them to spread their perverse ideology? If we were really serious in protecting children from sexual abuse, why are we not stopping this public grooming of us as a whole, in permitting those who hold such these disgusting views to freely flaunt them in our faces?

Why also, are these views being allowed to be aired in public, by those who are known sex offenders? People like Paul Christiano, spokesperson for B4U-ACT and known sex offender. Known sex offenders who are allowed to share their distorted views on public platforms like Blogs, Facebook and Twitter. Sex offenders who try to legitimise what they do. Sex offenders who try to justify, for example, that IIOC is a victimless crime. Sex offenders who are more than happy to try to groom us into believing that everyone has an element of paedophilia in them. Sex offenders who promote all the above, knowing that it is a criminal offence to abuse children. Should sex offenders who try to normalise crimes like this, who try to justify crimes like this by trying to decriminalise their acts, be allowed to speak so freely like this?

Would we allow for example, adult rapists to organise conferences to try to justify and legitimise their acts? Would we let them have a free speech on public platforms like Blogger, Facebook & Twitter to spread their views and argue that they have some sort of mental disorder or that what they have is a sexual orientation that makes them unable to control what they do.. (aaah poor rapists, it's not their fault, it's just the way they are, they can't help it) ?

Of course we wouldn't, so why exactly are we allowing paedophiles and child sex offenders such a public platform?

Isn't it about time that we stopped allowing paedophiles and child sex offenders to have this free-reign public voice to make pathetic excuse after excuse about why they do what they do? After all, no-one puts a gun to their head and tells them to abuse a child, or to download/distribute IIOC, they have self-control like everyone else does. Free speech is one thing, but when it is making up excuses to promote or justify the sexual abuse of children and the actions of the people who abuse them, (either physically or by IIOC), this goes too far

"Mild" Paedophilia?

Mild Paedophilia

 

From the above article -

"I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”
and
"The mention of paedophilia inevitably brings us to the recent run of arrests of old white men accused of child sex abuse, starting with Jimmy Savile. Has the moral zeitgeist been shifting at their expense? “I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”

So is there a risk of a metaphorical lynching of well-known people as soon as they’re accused? “I think there is a risk of that.”

What about the child sex abuse scandals that have led to anguished soul-searching and multibillion-dollar payouts in various outposts of Christianity? “Same thing,” he says. “Although I’m no friend of the Church, I think they have become victims of our shifting standards and we do need to apply the conventions of the good historian in dealing with cases which are many decades old.”

In the book, Dawkins mentions one occasion when a teacher put a hand down his trousers at a prep school in Salisbury, and four others at Oundle, when he “had to fend off nocturnal visits to my bed from senior boys much larger and stronger than I was”. The Oundle incidents don’t seem to have bothered him"

Now, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is "mild" paedophilia?

Surely paedophilia is paedophilia, full stop, no?

Of course, there are paedophiles who go the "whole hog", and rape children. There are also paedophiles who don't necessarily physically rape, but abuse in other ways. Similarly there are ones who go online, and download and/or share indecent images of children for their own gratification, and the gratification of other paedophiles. The courts deal with all these crimes as paedophile crimes - as they should - any abuse against children should be taken with equal importance.

So why the differentiation - why the word "mild" - why the comparison between crimes committed today, and ones committed decades ago? Are any other crimes described as "mild"? "Mild robbery, Mild murder? Mild arson? Should such crimes as Dawkins describes - paedophile teachers putting their disgusting mitts down boys pants - be dismissed like this? Should they be taken less seriously purely on the fact that full on rape had not been committed? What do other victims of abuse ("mild paedophilia" in Dawkins words) think - should they shrug this off as only an insignificant crime? What do other victims of child abuse in the past think - should they just forget about it due to the fact it may have occurred 2, 3, 5 decades ago?

Is Dawkins just making excuses for paedophiles? Does he not think that paedophiles, who may engage in "mild paedophilia" could not progress to more full on abuse and rape, if they are seen to get away with their "mild" abuse? What would he feel, if supposing, the teacher had "graduated" from stuffing his grubby fingers down boys pants, to rape? Would there be any regret in not informing TPTB? There is no excuse for paedophilia, either "mild", full on rape, or online IIOC. There is, in the same way, no excuse for it occurring either today, yesterday, or 50 years ago. Period.

"Paedophilia Is A Treatable Illness"

Paedophilia is a treatable illness

 

 

Telegraph, 1 July 2003

 

"These people need help, and they should be offered it before they seek out child pornography – or, even worse, act out their sick fantasies "

 

Ignoring the highly offensive language that this article contains, (again with the CP term!), this article I feel really needs a posting about it. There are some statements in here and the easiest way for me to write a post about it is to raise them individually - all points and views being my own of course, I speak here based on my own thoughts.

 

The first statement I would question, is the  ''incidental viewers". In the article, Max Pemberton quotes that research shows that they access indecent images through conventional search engines and that they may "harbour underlying paedophiliac fantasies that have been repressed or ignored".

 

Unfortunately, although this statement has been made, Max does not include in the article, the source of the research. It would have been far easier for the public to have been able to have seen the "research" and judge for themselves, instead of accepting this as matter of fact.

 

Whilst some of the paragraph may be true, and a lot of adult pornography may portray adults posing as teenagers, I would imagine that most adult sites found via major search engines have certain controls and would prohibit under eighteens appearing on them. Also, I would imagine, the vast majority of adults who view adult pornography would know if there were illegal images or films on these sites and would avoid them like the proverbial plague - and would (hopefully) report any that were on there.

 

Am I being naïve? Possibly, but I would hope that most people are good people who would do the right thing.

 

And "harbouring paedophiliac fantasies that have been ignored or oppressed"? What on earth does that mean? I'm pretty sure that most adults know what "turns them on" far before they ever searched for porn online, and would look specifically for these things. I find it hard to believe that adults would suddenly discover that by looking for adult porn, that they find out that actually they are attracted to children and are some sort of paedophile? My own opinion of course, but one I am guessing would apply to most people.

 

Now the crux of this post.

 

"Is Paedophile a treatable illness"

 

 

The million dollar question.

 

One that I personally believe, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly, but hey, what do I know..) is a resounding NO.

 

In my naïve mind, I figure out that paedophilia is just another form of sexual choice - another "fetish" for want of a better mind, that is adults who are attracted to children.

 

Simple as that.

 

What paedophiles decide to do with these thoughts are what makes their actions so despicable - so disgusting. They may not have a choice in having this sexual preference - but they DO have a choice in acting on it.

 

Which is where I disagree with the article According to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, paedophilia is a mental illness . By my reckoning above if paedophilia is another sexual preference, another sexual "fetish", then shouldn't any fetish be included as a "mental illness". What about people who have These? What about people who are attracted to legs, feet, leather, PVC - the list is endless? Is every adult with a specific fetish "mentally ill"? Personally I think not. Personally I think this as an excuse to make them look overly harshly treated by society - to make us feel sorry for them, to accept it - "it's not my fault m'lud, I have this mental condition you see.....".

 

More and more, paedophilia is being classified as either a mental illness (DSM5 state this as a "mental disorder", UK Mental Health Act 2007 now classify this as a mental illness since 2007, and Greece have this classified as a disability).

 

How long before your taxes are being paid to these "poor" paedophiles who are afflicted with their "disability / mental illness" by way of benefits? How long before LGBT has another letter added to it - P? The more that society tries to reclassify this crime as a "disorder", the more that society accepts this as an "illness", the nearer this day will come. Mark my words.

 

Apologies for going off tangent towards the end and detracting from the article, but it is time we stop making excuses for paedophiles and their crimes. They alone are responsible for their actions, and thus they alone should pay the price for their actions. No-one has a gun to their head telling them to abuse children or download indecent images.

 

They choose.

 

 

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”

Eleanor Roosevelt