New research
Notifications OFFPost deleted by user
Thank you for sharing.
I started copying snippets that I thought others would be interested to hear, but there was so much. As mentioned about there is a lot spoken around offenders not being P and some links between viewing porn and escalating to viewing iioc - I know this is something people had specifically wanted to read in black and white.
I started copying snippets that I thought others would be interested to hear, but there was so much. As mentioned about there is a lot spoken around offenders not being P and some links between viewing porn and escalating to viewing iioc - I know this is something people had specifically wanted to read in black and white.
I'll have a read Bitterbean......Sounds informative, how I hate the P word. I will fight on til my very last gasping breath my son is no P - it's a nasty condemning label, which is just so randomly used in these cases.
People forget that the P word is not a criminal term but a psychological one.
P is a condition the same as necrophillia and it's something people can live with and never act on and only applies to having a sexual interest in children under 11. There is another term for those above that and under 16.
Also most people won't admit to it but intrusive thoughts of thoughts about children can be more common than is thought.
I think unfortunately unless these cases are looked at by forensic psychologists then most are falsely labelled.
being a p and being on sor are not mutually exclusive. It's highly discredited but society doesn't care.
P is a condition the same as necrophillia and it's something people can live with and never act on and only applies to having a sexual interest in children under 11. There is another term for those above that and under 16.
Also most people won't admit to it but intrusive thoughts of thoughts about children can be more common than is thought.
I think unfortunately unless these cases are looked at by forensic psychologists then most are falsely labelled.
being a p and being on sor are not mutually exclusive. It's highly discredited but society doesn't care.
The more I've read on P the more I realise how damaging the stigma is related to the word P for both those that are and are not attracted to children and it doesn't facilitate really making children safer - Which is ultimately what I think everyone wants.
Until genuine, non offending P are viewed more sympathetically the risk to children remains for both P, non Ps, offenders abd those that have not yet offended. Imagine actually being attracted to children and having no support to help you not act on it.
Until genuine, non offending P are viewed more sympathetically the risk to children remains for both P, non Ps, offenders abd those that have not yet offended. Imagine actually being attracted to children and having no support to help you not act on it.
I have found this thread interesting and will look the document which is mentioned. I found what Sal said resonated with me as one of the things our son said when he came home after being released by the police was that nobody could hate him as much as he hated himself, and he had not known that there was any help out there.
I have done a lot of reading around the subject, I felt I needed to to be educated myself on the whole subject and not just that escalation from porn addiction. I do think whatever the route to offending the answer and solution to reducing offending is to be more sympathetic to all routes.
My therapist recommended the below. Dr James Cantor is an expert in the field of P.
The Earthly Delights podcast Episode 38. You can listen to this on Spotify or YouTube.
A Crash Course in Sexology with Dr James Cantor on YouTube.
My therapist recommended the below. Dr James Cantor is an expert in the field of P.
The Earthly Delights podcast Episode 38. You can listen to this on Spotify or YouTube.
A Crash Course in Sexology with Dr James Cantor on YouTube.
I'll see if I can pull up some of the papers we used in uni, a lot of it was really good and we were always taught to not just label people who are p as bad people and that a lot of it people have no control over. That not every case is black and white. It's so detrimental to just dismiss people and their needs because of these societal issues that are generally very ignorant
The review says something really important, about how you define who is a P.
"A common myth depicts IIOC users as paedophilic in nature, meaning that they are expected to have a sexually preferential interest in children"
The important word here is "preferential". If you look at the people who self identify as P, rather than the people that the media accuse of being P, then you will find that they PREFER children to adults. That's the differerence between being a P and not being a P.
I think that the most helpful way of thinking about it is to look at the EXCLUSIVITY of their attraction. Are they only interested in children, interested in adults and children, or interested in adults only. Many of the people who are interested in adults and children, would prefer a relationship with an adult, to a relationship with a child. They are not P, because they prefer adults to children.
The best way to find out if the person you care about is a porn addict or a P, is to look at their porn collection. If it includes lots of pictures of adults and other extreme porn, such as animals, in addition to iioc, then they are much more likely to be a porn addict. Porn addicts may have a sexual 'curiousity' about children, but that is not the same as a sexual 'interest' in children. Whereas P tend to be only interested in pictures of children, or interested in children in real life, but they are not interested in adult porn, or other extreme porn.
The other thing that seperates P from porn addicts, is the amount of romantic attatchment to children, that they feel. Porn addicts almost always see children as sexual objects. They are not romantically attracted to children. Those who self identify as P, often believe they are in love with children, not just sexually attracted to them. A lot of self identifying P have what is known as emotional congruence with children, which means they can relate to children better than they can to adults. That is one reason why P tend not to be in relationships with adults.
It is possible for P to marry adults, just as some gay men marry adult women, often because of societal pressure to conform, but most self identifying P are not sexually, or romantically, attracted to adults. They would prefer a relationship with a child, to a relationship with an adult.
If you are in a relationship with someone, who was talking to 14 year olds on Kik, or in chatrooms, that person is very unlikely to be a P. First of all, P are not attracted to 14 year olds, they are attracted to children under the age of 12. Jeffrey Epstein was not a P, because his victims were all over the age of 12.
What these men are probably looking for, is a feeling of status and power. Andrew Tate said something really interesting on the Piers Morgan show, which was that he would rather go out with 18 or 19 year old women than with 25 year olds, because 18 and 19 year olds have less emotional baggage. "Less for him to clear up" as he put it.
Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Tate at all, because he is blaming women for his own insecurities, he does explain why some men (not all men) are attracted to younger women.
I think that the men who are attracted to 14 year olds, rather than 18 year olds, are attracted to 14 year olds for the exact same reason, that men like Andrew Tate prefer 18 year olds to 25 year olds. They know that young girls are less likely to challenge them.
Insecure men prefer women who will not question their authority, or stand up to them. They prefer younger women and girls, to women of a similar age to themselves, for that reason. It doesn't mean they are P, just that they lack self confidence and have low self esteem.
SAL - One thing to note about James Cantor, is that his work has recently been discredited, due to the fact that he only looked at convicted child molesters, when doing his research. He concluded that all P have brain defects, which make them attracted to children. But when studies were done, using non offending P, then no brain defects were found. So Cantor may well be wrong, when he says that P is caused by having a damaged brain.
"A common myth depicts IIOC users as paedophilic in nature, meaning that they are expected to have a sexually preferential interest in children"
The important word here is "preferential". If you look at the people who self identify as P, rather than the people that the media accuse of being P, then you will find that they PREFER children to adults. That's the differerence between being a P and not being a P.
I think that the most helpful way of thinking about it is to look at the EXCLUSIVITY of their attraction. Are they only interested in children, interested in adults and children, or interested in adults only. Many of the people who are interested in adults and children, would prefer a relationship with an adult, to a relationship with a child. They are not P, because they prefer adults to children.
The best way to find out if the person you care about is a porn addict or a P, is to look at their porn collection. If it includes lots of pictures of adults and other extreme porn, such as animals, in addition to iioc, then they are much more likely to be a porn addict. Porn addicts may have a sexual 'curiousity' about children, but that is not the same as a sexual 'interest' in children. Whereas P tend to be only interested in pictures of children, or interested in children in real life, but they are not interested in adult porn, or other extreme porn.
The other thing that seperates P from porn addicts, is the amount of romantic attatchment to children, that they feel. Porn addicts almost always see children as sexual objects. They are not romantically attracted to children. Those who self identify as P, often believe they are in love with children, not just sexually attracted to them. A lot of self identifying P have what is known as emotional congruence with children, which means they can relate to children better than they can to adults. That is one reason why P tend not to be in relationships with adults.
It is possible for P to marry adults, just as some gay men marry adult women, often because of societal pressure to conform, but most self identifying P are not sexually, or romantically, attracted to adults. They would prefer a relationship with a child, to a relationship with an adult.
If you are in a relationship with someone, who was talking to 14 year olds on Kik, or in chatrooms, that person is very unlikely to be a P. First of all, P are not attracted to 14 year olds, they are attracted to children under the age of 12. Jeffrey Epstein was not a P, because his victims were all over the age of 12.
What these men are probably looking for, is a feeling of status and power. Andrew Tate said something really interesting on the Piers Morgan show, which was that he would rather go out with 18 or 19 year old women than with 25 year olds, because 18 and 19 year olds have less emotional baggage. "Less for him to clear up" as he put it.
Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Tate at all, because he is blaming women for his own insecurities, he does explain why some men (not all men) are attracted to younger women.
I think that the men who are attracted to 14 year olds, rather than 18 year olds, are attracted to 14 year olds for the exact same reason, that men like Andrew Tate prefer 18 year olds to 25 year olds. They know that young girls are less likely to challenge them.
Insecure men prefer women who will not question their authority, or stand up to them. They prefer younger women and girls, to women of a similar age to themselves, for that reason. It doesn't mean they are P, just that they lack self confidence and have low self esteem.
SAL - One thing to note about James Cantor, is that his work has recently been discredited, due to the fact that he only looked at convicted child molesters, when doing his research. He concluded that all P have brain defects, which make them attracted to children. But when studies were done, using non offending P, then no brain defects were found. So Cantor may well be wrong, when he says that P is caused by having a damaged brain.
Edel2020
over 12 is not peadophilia but it is hebephilia (children who are pubescent but not sexually mature)
Andrew Tate and his followers use this to shame women into being not pure or mailable. I don't think there is a reason why men like him are permitted to get away with that either, especially as he has a platform.
over 12 is not peadophilia but it is hebephilia (children who are pubescent but not sexually mature)
Andrew Tate and his followers use this to shame women into being not pure or mailable. I don't think there is a reason why men like him are permitted to get away with that either, especially as he has a platform.