Oof. You guys try and enjoy having to be you. That's all I can say. I wouldn't enjoy being you.
Is that really what that paper is about? It seems like it's just examining the terminology. It's a shitty paper anyway though since it's conflating pedophilia and hebephilia when they are two separate things. Both fall under the umbrella of "child abuse" but from a pathology standpoint they are different : pedophilia being a preferential attraction to pre-pubescent children and hebephilia being one towards pubescent ones. For lay-people the distinction is irrelevant but for psychologists it's an important one. Maybe I am misinterpreting it but it looks to me like it's just trying to determine what the attitudes towards these names are and not trying to change the attitudes themselves.Trying to normalize pedophilia:
Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children - PubMed
The primary label for people who are sexually attracted to children ("pedophile") is conflated with sexual offending behavior and tainted with stigma. In the present pre-registered mixed-method study, we therefore investigated attitudes and preferences regarding "pedophile/hebephile" and other...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
What research papers did you submit, exactly?
And of course we all know anything government-funded is infallible.
I think the important language is right there in the first paragraph.Is that really what that paper is about? It seems like it's just examining the terminology. It's a shitty paper anyway though since it's conflating pedophilia and hebephilia when they are two separate things. Both fall under the umbrella of "child abuse" but from a pathology standpoint they are different : pedophilia being a preferential attraction to pre-pubescent children and hebephilia being one towards pubescent ones. For lay-people the distinction is irrelevant but for psychologists it's an important one. Maybe I am misinterpreting it but it looks to me like it's just trying to determine what the attitudes towards these names are and not trying to change the attitudes themselves.
Shut the fuck up already you fucking retarded pedophile defending sick faggot fuck. Just shut the fuck up already and stay away from the playgrounds. Jesus Christ you're stupid you absolute fucking weirdo.They don't have the capacity for critical thinking, Obam.
But it's not. A person can be diagnosed with that particular paraphilia without ever having acted on their desires. Conversely a person can also abuse children without actually having pedophilic disorder. If you actually knew anything about psychology you would know this.I think the important language is right there in the first paragraph.
The author states that pedophilia "is conflated with sexual offending behaviour". Pedophilia literally is sexual offending behaviour. There is no conflation. The author is attempting to subversively normalize pedophilia with the use of academic language.
You have kids, man? Nieces? Nephews? I'm trying to understand your motivation for supporting the destigmatization of adults wanting to fuck children. I know you like to debate for debate's sake, but that's a fucked up position to hold. I'm curious if you would leave your children in a room with a pedophile who has yet to act on it for the sake of DSM research.But it's not. A person can be diagnosed with that particular paraphilia without ever having acted on their desires. Conversely a person can also abuse children without actually having pedophilic disorder. If you actually knew anything about psychology you would know this.
I hope that my nieces and nephew don't end up as retarded as you.You have kids, man? Nieces? Nephews? I'm trying to understand your motivation for supporting the destigmatization of adults wanting to fuck children. I know you like to debate for debate's sake, but that's a fucked up position to hold. I'm curious if you would leave your children in a room with a pedophile who has yet to act on it for the sake of DSM research.
trashIs that really what that paper is about? It seems like it's just examining the terminology. It's a shitty paper anyway though since it's conflating pedophilia and hebephilia when they are two separate things. Both fall under the umbrella of "child abuse" but from a pathology standpoint they are different : pedophilia being a preferential attraction to pre-pubescent children and hebephilia being one towards pubescent ones. For lay-people the distinction is irrelevant but for psychologists it's an important one. Maybe I am misinterpreting it but it looks to me like it's just trying to determine what the attitudes towards these names are and not trying to change the attitudes themselves.
you don't have any, lmao.I hope that my nieces and nephew don't end up as retarded as you.
as BBoS would say: "faggot"I don't? Huh
Strawmen. I have done no such thing. You didn't even read what I wrote.You have kids, man? Nieces? Nephews? I'm trying to understand your motivation for supporting the destigmatization of adults wanting to fuck children. I know you like to debate for debate's sake, but that's a fucked up position to hold. I'm curious if you would leave your children in a room with a pedophile who has yet to act on it for the sake of DSM research.
Ah, you must be an idiot as well!