These Psychiatrists Want Your Child Raped By Their Patients (updated)

(***Second Update: Addendum added at bottom as rebuttal to homosexuality argument*** 9/15/2011)

(***Update at bottom of article***)

In the event this atrocity has slipped by you, the pedophiles and their buddies in the medical community are at it again. I’m speaking, of course, about their pathetic attempt to list pedophilia as simply a misunderstood sexual orientation, liking it to homosexuality and comparing the public’s view of pedophiles as has been the intolerance suffered by the gay and lesbian community (This should outrage GLAAD as much as the rest of us). There is a conference aiming at normalizing pedophilia. This time, however, this sadistic movement is getting much wider coverage and won’t be some secret mission hidden from the normal people in society who can and will stand up against it.

I would normally only post a few clippings here and have my readers follow the link to the full story; however, this is far too important to have you skipping back and forth. Here is what was planned for August 17, 2011:

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

By John Rossomando – The Daily Caller Published: 10:00 AM 08/15/2011 | Updated: 4:38 PM 08/15/2011

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013.  Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists.  According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.

B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”

The press release announced a letter the group sent to the APA criticizing its approach, and inviting its leaders to participate in the August 17 conference. “The DSM should meet a higher standard than that,” Kline continued. “We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.”

APA spokeswoman Erin Connors told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement that her organization was not participating in the conference and would not comment on its aims.

Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

According to Reisman, empirical data show that pedophiles typically molest many children before finally being caught.

“The data on paroled pedophiles confirms these predators repeat their crimes against children and are known to have escalated them even to murder,” Reisman said.

Several speakers at the August 17 conference, including B4U-ACT director of operations Dr. Richard Kramer and conference keynote speaker Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins University, have actively opposed sex offender notification laws.

“What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred?” Kramer wrote in a March 14, 2009 blog entry on the website ReformSexOffenderLaws.org. “How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”

Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

B4U-ACT’s own website puts Berlin’s views front and center. “Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality,” he writes, “society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.”

Berlin’s opposition to, and even noncompliance with, Maryland’s sex offender notification law drew scrutiny from former Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran in the early 1990s.

In 1990 The Baltimore Sun reported that Berlin refused to report pedophiles under his care who were actively molesting children.

In an emailed statement to TheDC, Berlin distanced himself Monday afternoon from other B4U-ACT conference participants’ stated aims, saying that he opposes removing pedophilia from the DSM and that he hopes to stop pedophiles before they act.

Berlin also disputed Reisman’s contention that he wants to decriminalize pedophilia, noting that “society’s interests can best be served by supporting both criminal justice interventions and public health initiatives.”

Reisman remains unconvinced. “His empathy was with the pedophile and the pederast, not with the child victim,” she told TheDC. “He refused to report the criminal to law enforcement because he said they were in treatment.

“Taxpayers pay for treatment and they are molesting kids. They go out to Berlin, and he gets paid by us [the taxpayers] for therapy.”

Reisman also claims that mental health practitioners like Berlin want to place pedophilia on a par with neuroses or clinical depression, and counsel pedophiles rather than incarcerate them.

“The scientific defense of pedophiles follows on the natural outgrowth of … [Alfred Kinsey’s] 1948 book ‘Sexual Behavior of the Human Male’ where he describes the rapes of infants and children, as would any pedophile, as ‘orgasmic,’” Reisman said.

Reisman warns that declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness could result in the repeal of child-protection statutes because the law always follows the input of psychiatry. She points to psychiatry’s normalization of sadomasochism, exhibitionism, and homosexuality as precedents.

“[I]t has been carried from the university to the law, going back to Kinsey,” Reisman said.

And other conference panelists such as Jacob Breslow, a graduate student in gender research at the London School of Economics, plan to discuss how political activists can exploit removing pedophilia from the next edition of the DSM for their own ends.

“Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can better understand Minor Attracted Persons,” Breslow writes in a summary of his upcoming August 17 presentation.

“This understanding may displace the stigma, fear and objection that is naturalized as being attached to Minor Attracted Persons and may alter the terms by which non-normative sexualities are known.

I don’t call my site “The Ultimate Evil” for nothing, the same as Andrew Vachss who called his child sex slavery novel  the name first.

This is what we know to be “Grooming.” Yes, pedophiles groom society the same way they groom children, though with a different desired outcome. They groom children to be complacant in their sexual abuse and to be too afraid to tell. They groom parents to accept their steadily increasing interest in their child. They groom society to accept their sexual abuse of children by first desensitizing the public (via jokes about child rape, images mocking child rape, mocking the fight against predators, demonizing television shows and news specials aimed at taking down predators, etc..), then by introducing themselves as sick or past victims who need help, until finally the only victim in their crime is the abuser him/herself.

I have had many pedophiles try to groom me and other visitors with their “oh, woe is me” comments. It has never worked. Now that this conference has taken place, I’m seeing an even slicker crowd come forth.

I just received a comment on an earlier post exposing pedophile codes and symbols by this … interesting … individual. I find it interesting that it comes on the heels of the current push to normalize pedophilia, beginning with the grooming by the pedophile community of society to show “compassion and understanding” for the abusers rather than the victims. Isn’t that what the multi-million dollar state of the art rehab centers for baby rapers are for? I can’t help but to ask yet again when victims are going to get such compassion and understanding. You know, because logic and reason dictate that in order to effectively stop the cycle of abuse, the victim must receive help as soon as possible to cope and to heal. Wouldn’t the only reason to give so much coddling to a criminal who has already created many victims, thus ensuring the continuation and expansion of the cycle of abuse, be to simply help them avoid prison?

But my intelligence and I digress…. where were we? Ah, yes. A comment by a pedophile sympathizer:

Ambrose Chrysis
ambrosechrysis@**********.com
190.132.248.***

Submitted on 2011/08/26 at 5:59 pm 

Whoa, that’s a lot of misplaced hatred.

Should people who rape children be sent to prison? Personally I’m more in favor of execution in instances in which guilt can be established without doubt. Why risk repeat offense?

But listen, pedophiles are not necessarily child rapists.

I knew a pedophile I respected immensely because he understood that his desires were wrong, and vowed to never, ever act on them. A tortured life to lead, but a noble one.

We may never be able to eliminate pedophilia in the sense of sexual attraction to children, but we can eliminate sexual abuse of children by teaching these people to control their urges.

Hatred for them will not help them. When they do offend, they must be permanently removed from society, and either used as slave labor, for medical experimentation, or put to death.

Not out of hatred, but necessity. If anything, compassion for them and others.

The reason some of those lines are in bold is to help you read between the lines and see the true intent of this comment. It is quite obvious this author is only after convincing me to “care about” and “understand” pedophiles. He even goes so far as to call them respectable and noble!

Let me explain something in the event you don’t already know: Pedophiles NEVER avoid children! That is an outright lie. And by the time an abuser is caught, he or she has already abused many others he groomed into silence. There has never been a case of which I am aware that a pedophile was caught the very first time he raped or molested a child. I have heard of young pedophiles being afraid of their feelings and telling someone before acting upon them. By the time a pedophile is actually caught for sexual abuse, though, they already have a history of doing so.

Pedophile sympathizers like Ambrose want us to care instead of hate. Honestly, do you really need any more proof as to the state of someone’s mind when they chastise people for hating those who rape children?

To be honest, though, I see what he is saying. In closing, let me share the wisdom of his suggestions:

Teaching pedophiles to control their urges:

The naked pedophile would be placed into the chair so that the thorns would stick into their body at the slightest movement. If necessary, the chair could be incandesced, a fire lit beneath the seat, and accessory instruments like finger and toe tongs could be attached. The rehabilitation could last from a few hours to several weeks.

Another teaching device that involves knee crushing and whatever other lessons the pedophile may need.

Why, I can almost guarantee any thought of sex with children would suddenly become such a terror, most pedophiles would be cured! Ambrose and the pedophile loving psychos may be on to something.

And for those who are too ill for compassion and deterrants to work, there is always

The Cure

Barrett 82A1 .50 cal sniper rifle

For those extra tough cases involving groups of poor lost pedophiles, such as NAMBLA, there’s a

Community Rehabilitation Plan

Because rescuing the innocent and bringing down terrorists is what they do best.

———————————–UPDATE———————————-

There was an excellent show on B.A.C.A. Nation Radio last night featuring guest Dr. Judith Reisman, “scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,” an “international expert witness on human sexuality,” and an attendee at the above pro-pedophilia conference. Upon looking through information about pedophile supporter and keynote speaker at the conference, Dr. Fred Berlin (founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic), I found an article which outlined some of the remarks made on pamphlets, by pedophile attendees, and by speakers like Berlin:

• Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
• There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
• “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
• “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
• “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
• “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.”
• An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
• Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
• “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
• “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
• 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.
• Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
• Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.” 
• The DSM ignores those pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.
• “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
• 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.”
• Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. [I strongly urge GLAAD to place as much distance as possible between them and this “self-descrived gay activist”, and I remind everyone that sexual abusers in certain religious cults claim their god or their prophet tells them to marry and fornicate with children.]

The author of the article, Nathan Tabor, attempted to call Johns Hopkins Hospital Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and inquire as to their knowledge of their professor’s favoritism for sexually abusing children. Although the person on the other end claimed not to know anything about it, they didn’t seem to take the call seriously. Mr. Tabor published the contact information for Berlin’s boss, Dr. J. Raymond DePaulo- director of the Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences department at John’s Hopkins, in the event those of us intellectually superior to pedophiles would like to share their opinions and concerns:

J. Raymond DePaulo, Jr., M.D.
Henry Phipps Professor and Director
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Phone: 410-955-3130
Psychchair@jhmi.edu

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients

according to my ability and my judgment

and never do harm to anyone.”

–Hippocratic Oath

***Addendum – 9-15-2011***

I received a comment by a pedophile last week that I sent directly to spam due to my refusal to participate in useless repetitive arguing. However, the comment caused me to re-read my article and the conversation with the previous pedophile sympathizer in the comments below. I came to realize that I left this post open to speculation regarding the connection with pedophilia and homosexuality. I would like to correct that unintentional oversight and express my feelings more clearly on the matter.

Pedophiles and their ilk frequently attempt to compare pedophilia with homosexuality. They want people to see them as victims of bigotry, ostracized by a small-minded public that is trying to force its ethical or religious will upon everyone. The so-called psychiatrists that are the subjects of this post lead their pedophile brethren in this attempt to psychologically manipulate society.

Never forget that these people have been trained to garner emotions and control how we feel and respond to any given situation. They know they are logically and academically incorrect in the comparison of pedophilia with homosexuality, but they realize not all of society has a medical degree, particularly in psychiatry, and the easily manipulated media certainly doesn’t take the time to research such things from a scientific point of view.

These people are counting on our gullibility and outright stupidity. Our children and generations to come are counting on us to use intelligence, rational thinking, and good old fashioned common sense.

Here is what we know to be fact:

Homosexuality is a mistake of nature, but it is, none-the-less, part of nature.

The primary purpose for intercourse is to breed and continue on the population of a species. The sensation of pleasure exists to ensure the species finds the activity acceptable enough to perform, thereby ensuring the survival of the species. If you don’t like something, you usually don’t do it, particularly if it is painful or unpleasant. For a species to continue thriving, breeding must occur.

In nature, some species rely upon forced copulation. Humans, however, have evolved beyond such primitive behavior. We can communicate with words, we can create with tools and electricity, we understand reason, and we understand that violence against another for selfish reasons is counterproductive to our evolution. We reason, theorize, experiment, and conclude based upon science instead of simply behaving as instinct in the wild dictates.  This is why consensual sex is part of our ever evolving species, and heterosexual relations are necessary and normal for our kind. It is true, then, that homosexuality is not normal and it is not as nature intended us to be because it interrupts our species progression.

How, then, do we handle homosexuals and homosexuality?

Being part of a species that has evolved as I stated previously includes understanding that those born with this infliction should not be punished for that which they had no opportunity or ability to oppose. Regardless of a person’s opinion about sexual orientation, we can all agree that everyone deserves human contact in the form of affection, and human interactions that include love.

One can argue in defense of their disapproval with homosexuality, but any argument they present should be formed after they have learned the facts of homosexuality. Any effective argument in their favor must include facts and not opinion. The truth of the matter is, arguments against homosexuals do not treat the individuals as separate entities from the orientation.  Furthermore, arguments against homosexuals and homosexuality have been driven by religious leanings rather than science and academic findings. We cannot impose our religious beliefs onto others. Religion is not a necessary item in our species’ growth and evolution. It is purely for spiritual growth and the presumed impact such growth has on the growth of humanity (which is another experiment altogether, and although fascinating to me, does not pertain to this article).

Judging homosexuals and homosexuality, then, from strictly a scientific perception, we see that same-sex intercourse may not be beneficial to the evolutionary cycle of mankind or the promotion of the species’ population, but consensual relations between humans at a stage in their physical and mental growth that can accept such a relationship and its consequences does no harm to the species as it cannot encourage the genes that would normally be passed on through heterosexual intercourse.

When we discuss consensual sexual relations and the affect consent vs. force has upon the human race, then associate the discussion with those who have sex with children, we see that pedophilia is quite different from homosexuality in that only pedophilia truly harms the species with a much greater impact.

Taking the identical points made in the paragraphs pertaining to homosexuality, we know based upon scientific study through psychological testing and physical examinations that pedophilia does harm the human race and attempts to halt its intellectual evolution, which will in turn begin to erode the population.

Sexual abuse on children results in a psychological break down of a child’s intellect. Common knowledge is that a child generally stops or dramatically slows down their mental maturity at the time they are abused. If a 25 year old was sexually assaulted at 6, that 25 year old will show signs of behaving as a 6 year old. The severity of exhibiting such behavior will depend upon how often the person was abused and for how long it lasted. Let us say this 25 year old becomes pregnant by another 25 year old who was beaten every day from the time he could walk until puberty. Both parents will not only lack proper parenting skills, they will, also, pass on genes that include a slowed mental development. Perhaps during the young woman’s sexual abuse, she developed a sexually transmitted disease or other physical traumas. These can affect the pregnancy, growth of the fetus, birth, and perhaps even life of the child if these things were passed on to him while inside of the womb.

Most pedophiles were sexually abused as children. They encourage the cycle of abuse by not fighting any psychological defect that compels them to have sexual relations with a child. This cycle grows to include other children, more and more over time as each child grows into a possible pedophile and creates their own family tree of victims.

The damage here is twofold: Since female children are not yet fertile, and since a male child cannot get a woman pregnant, sexual relations with children hurts the population growth. Additionally, each child that is coerced or physically forced into sexual relations with an adult will develop severe psychological problems that will be counterproductive to the species’ social growth.

Children are, also, not mentally prepared to accept the emotional weight of a sexual relationship or intellectually developed enough to understand sex. Adults get into relationships with other adults sometimes with a mutual understanding that it is only a sexual relationship. They are both responsible for their actions and decision to engage in such a situation. Adults who prey upon children expect us to believe that a child can 1. make an informed decision to agree to such a relationship, and 2. are capable of understanding and being in control of any emotional involvement, such as the love a pedophile claims to have for the child he or she is sexually abusing.

Physically speaking, children are not developed to accept sexual intercourse with an adult. For an adult to accomplish this, there must be force of some kind – be it physical or psychological manipulation. (And here we see that since both physical and psychological force are illegal, this leaves no possible defense of pedophilia.)

Although a child is not responsible for what an adult does, an adult is responsible for their actions when they become old enough to understand the consequences of those actions. Whereas homosexuality is not a choice and does not greatly impact the evolution of the species because it does not create more non-productive homosexuals, pedophilia is always a choice when acted upon and causes great damage to the species’ in numerous ways.

I hope this clears up the factual side of this argument as I will no longer entertain those intolerant of the truth.

On a more opinionated note, though still factual in its sense, the comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia infuriates me because, for one, it compares consensual sex between adults to forced sex between adults and children. Next, I have seen the harm anti-gay activism can do to the war on child sexual abuse.

There is an alarming number of people who insist upon indicating that pedophilia pertains to men raping boys, claiming it is a gay crime. They like to cite groups such as North American Man Boy Love Association, even though there are more groups designed for men who desire little girls and even women who desire little boys. This hurts our cause tremendously because the truth is, there are more cases of opposite-gender assaults than same-sex. By the argument of these anti-gay groups, all heterosexuals must then be child molesters based upon the statistics placing heterosexual child abuse cases above homosexual ones.  Since the number of children who suffer abuse by an adult of the opposite sex outnumber those who suffer by an adult of the same gender, the majority of victims are being forgotten and ignored. Personally, I have no doubt that this is one of the many reasons these pedophile psychiatrists are trying to compare their movement to homosexuality. It creates more anti-gay followers and puts the emphasis on homosexuality rather than child sexual assault.