On Wednesday, August 17, child advocates Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, attended a Baltimore, MD conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance including a number of admitted pedophiles – or “Minor-Attracted Persons” as they prefer to be identified (MAP “sexual orientation”) .MAPs, really? Not MPPs - Minor Preying Persons? This conference was about how pedophilia needs to be revised in the DSM-IV, the manual of psychological disorders used by the field.
Highlights from the conference!
- Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
- “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
- “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
- “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
- A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
- The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.
- The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
If that is the case, should all those victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church return the money?
And if pedophilia is removed from the DSM-IV, can we see a health insurance company accepting an application from a pedophile, but denying coverage to, say, someone "normal" with bipolar disorder, as is what happens now?