Friday, 10 August 2007

Is Pedophilia The Next 'Sexual Orientation' To Be Normalized?

by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC - The "Sexual Orientation" lobbyists are at it again. In mid-May, 2003, members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met in San Francisco and listened to a psychiatrist argue for the declassification of pedophilia, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).

Rev Lou Sheldon

Dr. Charles Moser with San Francisco's Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz with the University of Ottawa, presented a paper entitled: "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." (Moser's IASHS is a Kinsey-based sexologist training group that approves of homosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, and other deviant sexual practices.)

Moser and Kleinplatz argued that these various sexual interests are culturally or religiously forbidden-and thus should not be considered mental illnesses. They claimed that because psychiatry has no baseline to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, these sexual behaviors should no longer be stigmatized.

Over the past few years, the APA has done several flip flops on its position on pedophilia as a mental disorder. According to Linda Ames Nicolosi with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the APA's DSM-III maintained that merely acting upon sexual urges against children is sufficient to earn a diagnosis of pedophilia. However, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed the definition. It claimed that only if a person experienced significant stress or social impairment, would his sexual attraction to children be considered pedophilia. In other words, if the person felt no remorse for molesting kids, he wasn't really a pedophile.

Is this really how the APA wants to define what is and isn't a mental disorder? If a person doesn't feel bad about his behavior, then he's normal. Using this definition, one could say that a person who feels no emotional discomfort from having sex with dead people or animals is perfectly normal. Would APA psychiatrists argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person because he felt no remorse or social impairment for cannibalizing his sex victims?

Has the psychiatric community gone insane? After bad publicity over this watered-down definition of pedophilia, the APA again flip flopped and issued a statement saying that pedophilia was morally wrong.

The debate, however, continues within the APA with the Sexual Orientation lobbyists working feverishly to normalize what most rational humans would consider serious mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions.

The leaders of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the Christian Boy-Love Forum, Girl Love Garden, and Philia (all pedophile web sites) must be pleased with the debate going on within the APA.

But will children?


Video about pedophile activist

26 minute video interview with pedophile activist

Jemdude's Comments:
I sincerely believe that this will someday be a "sexual orientation" of the future that will be given public acceptance someday. This doesn't mean that I want that to happen. I actually don't. But with the way political correctness works, it's only a matter of time.

Pedophile activists are even "coming out" now. These guys are sick!


Michael MacKay said...

They are sick and unfortunately they'll get their way if things keep going the way they are.

Jemdude said...

Lindsay Ashford runs a giant pro-pedophile website. I won't link it here, but it is very disturbing.

JOHN said...

In so far as pyschiatry is (supposedly) the treatment of mental illness, and in so far as so-called paedophiles/pedophiles are not mentally ill (no more than homosexuals, bi-sexuals or transexuals) then I cannot see why it should not be 'normalized' (by which I merely mean it is no longer classed as a psychiatric illness unless it causes distress to the individual or impairs their social functioning in some way - a position which I do believe is currently the one actually endorsed by the DSM-IV)

The pyschiatric profession, if it is to maintain it's credibility and status as a 'proper' social science (by which I mean it adheres as strictly as possible to the 'scientific method' of free enquiry based on disinterested observation and experiment, backed up by independent peer review) it should not be used as a tool of social control or as a weapon directed against people who merely break social taboos and/or the criminal law but who are otherwise still sane.

We would be wise to remember the history of psychiatry in the old Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Jemdude said...

Hello John,

It seems that you endorse pedophilia as some kind of "okay thing". Well, it definitely is not. God's laws on sexual morality are not arbitrary rules but are there for a reason. Having sex with children, especially those who are not yet physically mature to do so, is disgusting as well as unhealthy.

Homosexuality was removed from the APA list of official mental illnesses because of political correctness; not for scientific reasons. This is especially true when you consider the inherent health problems associated with male to male sex.

JOHN said...

Hello Jemdude, and thank you for replying to my post.

To clear matters up: -

I DO NOT endorse pedophilia.

Rather, my argument is not with the issue of pedophilia as such as with pyschiatry being used as a tool of social control rather than its ostensible purpose as one of treating the sick (i.e. those suffering from a clearly defined and categorizable mental illness).

To me, saying someone is mad just because they are thought to be bad doesn't make much sense. It's a bit like saying all murderers are criminally insane just because they commit a heinous crime.

The social and life sciences (of which psychiatry and psychology are part) work according to what is usually called the 'scientific method'. That is, they try to engage in dispassionate enquiry, using the principles of observation and experiment, the results then being subject to review by a competent body of their peers who are trained in the same field and who try to repeat the original experiment and thereby confirm (or refute) the original hypothesis proposed. This is how all science is supposed to work. Just because one finds something morally repugnant doesn't make it any less true.

In answer to your belief that homosexuality was removed from the category of paraphilias because of 'political correctness' all I can say is that the people who voted for it were themselves psychiatrists and not the general public (who presumably had no say in the matter). Who are you to say that the psychiatric community are wrong any you yourself (who I assume are trained neither in the field of pschiatry or psychology) are right. People can get things wrong you know - even psychiatrists. No one is infallible.

You must also consider the history of pyschiatry and the time in which it was created (a time of great sexual repression and ignorance).


Jemdude said...

Hello John,

It is true that I am not an expert in psychiatry, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. The scientific method was not meant to determine what is right and wrong, but to know whether or not something works in a certain way. I understand this when it comes to physics or chemistry but I don't think it can be fully implemented with human behaviour.

I know that homosexuality is wrong; not just because the Bible says so, but also because it is very disease prone. In fact, the FDA and similar organizations in Canada and Europe do not allow gay men to donate blood because of the high disease rate among them. Why does the APA ignore this kind of evidence and declare that homosexuality is okay? There is more to homosexuality than just the feelings in the head; there are also the health consequences to consider.

There are also many traditional psychiatrists who disagree with the APA on homosexuality. Here's a good site to check out:

The same goes for pedophilia. Having sexual intercourse with children will harm their organs and emotionally mess them up.

Keep in mind that I am a pro-life pro-family activist; not an expert in psychiatry. The only time I took psychiatry was in high school. I recall one of the chapters describing the experiment of a dog , food and saliva. Using the psychiatric field to claim that bad behaviours are okay is definitely an abuse of the field.