You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Incredibly, a group of psychiatrists has held a conference in which they concluded that pedophilia is not an appropriate term for those who sexually abuse children.
Minor-attracted.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/
It appears this "event" took place at Johns Hopkins University. Here is the program.
http://www.b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/program.htm
Below is a statement announcing the symposium.
http://b4uact.org/news/20110817.htm
So now we have a new, politically-correct term trying to enter our lexicon: "Minor-attracted". Pedophilia is too harsh say the psychiatrists, who seem to all come from universities. What a surprise.
All of this leads to other questions. For example, what shall we call Hitler? How about "genocide-attracted"? That has a nice ring to it. We could refer to the Manson gang as "knife-attracted". And it could go on and on.
Why is it that the most extreme forms of idiocy always emanate from our universities? Johns Hopkins should be embarrassed.
Meanwhile, if pedophile is no longer appropriate, my suggestion is...
criminal pervert.
This does not change my opinion of psychiatrists one whit.
ReplyDeleteHow about we call them sweetie. They will be someone's bitch when they get to prison.
ReplyDeleteBunk muffins.
ReplyDeleteLooks like there will be another category placed in the new APA manual. The category is "Politically Correct", PC for short. This category is put in place when obvious cover-up of the true nature of the desease process needs to be cloaked, due to discomfort of the perpetrators.
ReplyDeleteSquid, Ph.D.
Come to think of it, "pedo - phile" literally means "lover of children" in Latin, so they haven't really changed anything in the meaning. The question then arises, why bother to substitute a new term, if it doesn't add any clarity?
ReplyDeleteThe answer, unfortunately, would appear to be exactly what Gary suggested: the word pedophilia has acquired subjective negative connotations... so we want a more neutral term? So we will have more sympathy?
I have a limited sort of sympathy. It appears to be true that most pedophiles (to use the Anglicized Latin) really can't control this urge. Unlike homosexual attraction between consenting adults, being "attracted" to a child who is not physically developed for sexual activity, nor capable of giving informed consent, is a crime whether or not the perpetrator "chose" their predeliction.
In a society that had little surplus and few resources, which could not spare anyone for guard duty or building prisons that served no productive function, we would have to kill them -- not for punishment, not because it is their FAULT, but because it is too dangerous to let them live.
The first guy hanged by Washington State in umpteen years said as much, when he instructed his lawyers to cease filing appeals: "If I ever get out of here, I will kill and rape again and enjoy every minute of it." He wasn't taking pride, just stating a fact.
So, since we are an enlightened people, why don't we put them in special colonies where they could live in modest furnished apartments, work at productive jobs, pay the cost of keeping them there, live fairly normal lives... BUT, if the manage to get over the wall, the perimeter guards can shoot to kill?
At a minimum, the "minor attracted" must be kept totally separate from minors. Blood relatives could come for day visits supervised by adult blood relatives.