Skip to content

Why are CRIMINALS like Thomas O’Carroll allowed to share their views on innocent people? CARL TOM’S BOOK

May 17, 2010

Thomas Victor O’Carroll (aka Carl Tom), a pedophile, born c.1945

The filthy book by Carl Tom (Thomas O’Carroll) “Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons” is still waiting to be released but it is already found on the Internet: http://tinyurl.com/24dd8au

The comments on the book from ’eminent’ professors  at Amazon.com initially made me relax as to the possible dangers of its content:

“No less than five eminent scholars who have been asked to review the book have given it their glowing endorsements, e.g.:

  • “The most engaging, informed, and generous-hearted book we have on the subject or are likely ever to have. I recommend this book strongly to anyone who feels our self-righteous egoism may have gotten in the way of our ability to see what is in front of our eyes and to act with some measure of justice and kindness.” Professor James R Kincaid, University of Southern California
  • “Shows that the only real ‘abuse’ of children that occurred was not from Michael’s bedroom horseplay, but parental manipulation of kids for financial gain. As such, this book gives us a profound cultural critique of received assumptions about childhood innocence, pedophilic ‘power’, and parental goodwill.” Professor Thomas K Hubbard, University of Texas at Austin
  • “A recommended read. Not just another book about ‘Wacko Jacko’. There won’t be anything written quite like it.” Richard Green, founding president, International Academy of Sex Research
  • “His vivid and insightful commentary is a joy to read — DJ West, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Criminology.

I was so terribly misguided by the comments of these professors that at a certain point started thinking it could indeed be some kind of a serious research and proving Michael’s innocence at that.  But now that we see that the text is based only on tabloid trash and books like the one by Victor Gutierrez (who even had to flee the country not to answer for his murderous slander of MJ) I want to ask a question.

Where is the sense of responsibility of all these ‘eminent’ scholars?

If a serial killer writes a book about human behavior and analyses it from his extremely valuable point of view, will they give their ‘glowing endorsements’ to it too? And who will be interested to know the twists of the killer’s perverse mind – unless they are specialists in criminology or psychiatry of course?

Who in his right mind can consider the observations of a criminal so precious that they will admire and recommend them to others as if he were a highly acclaimed authority on the problem of human relations?

Who is MAD here here – the killer or the society which refers to a criminal mind for guidance on crucial human issues?

If you ask me what reasons I have for comparing Thomas O’Carroll with a criminal I’ll answer – he is a criminal all right and a convicted one at that. 

He is a self-confessed paedophile who has been championing the rights of pedophiles and the legalization of sex between adults and children for about 40 years and who says about himself in his book “Paedophilia: the Radical Case” (1981):

  • “I am a paedophile, and have felt it necessary to crash through the barriers of societal disapproval by speaking out. The fact that I have been able to do so owes much to the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group with which I have been closely connected, which has been campaigning since its inception in 1974 for the open discussion of paedophilia, and for abolition of the laws against consensual sexual acts between children and adults.” 

  http://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/biblio.htm

Thomas O’Carroll was not only ‘connected’ with the PIE but he became its chairman in 1977.  The aims of the organization included giving advice and counsel to pedophiles. It held regular meetings in London and also had a ‘Contact Page’, which was a bulletin in which members placed advertisements, gave their membership number, general location and brief details of their sexual and other interests. Replies were handled by PIE through a box number system so that correspondents were unidentifiable unless they chose to exchange details of themselves of their own free will.

The idea behind their activity was to get the highest possible publicity for their ‘movement’. One of its first chairmen, Keith Hose wrote:

  • ‘The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible…. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining P I E… was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization’s name and address and to make pedophilia a real public issue.’

Make it a real public issue?

So can it be that it is for championing their pedophilia cause that they now need a completely innocent but highly popular person like Michael Jackson? The one who cannot answer them now that he is dead and cannot dissociate himself from their filth in the same way he did it when he was alive? What O’Carroll is freely propagating MJ was fighting his whole life!

Since O’Carroll evidently focuses on the 1993 case in Michael’s biography let me remind you that the 2005 trial which acquitted him on all counts looked not only into the nonsense Arvizo case.  Many forget that Michael Jackson’s trial was covering all allegations from earlier cases too. The prosecution did a really fine job then, brought all the evidence from the earlier case but the court found absolutely nothing to prove the allegations with. And I am not even mentioning the numerous new facts of Michael’s innocence in the 1993 case which have been found lately by really serious researchers.

However despite Michael’s complete innocence this Tom O’Carroll guy is evidently trying to use Michael’s good name for his own purposes in a hope to breathe in new life into his pedophilia cause!

His organization has had some setbacks lately. PIE has long been defunct and in January 2006 the 61-year-old Thomas Victor O’Carroll was arrested for keeping and distributing child porn. Also detained was Michael Studdert, 67, a former Anglican minister and school chaplain from Surrey.

During the arrest, a search of Studdert’s extensive country home, and some 17 acres of grounds, uncovered two highly sophisticated hidden compartments. The ‘hides’ contained a massive hoard of indecent images of children, believed to be his lifetime’s collection, with images from the 1950’s to modern day in a variety of formats.

The formats included photographic slides, cine films, photographs, magazines, photographic negatives and videos including those showing 6 year-old boys raped and tortured.  In terms of ‘formats’ it was the widest ranging personal collection of abusive material known to the Metropolitan Police Service ever attributed to one person.

Thomas O’Carroll, who had helped to run the library from his then home in Shildon, Co Durham, admitted two counts of distributing child porn images between January 1995 and 2005.

The BBC reported:

  • “Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured”  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm

Michael Studdert was sentenced to four years. Thomas Victor O’Carroll was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.

And this author is now allowed to share his valuable views on Michael Jackson?  And “pay tribute” to him this way by his hell-of-a-book just on the eve of the first anniversary of Michael’s death? 

And why is this pedophilia opus praised by eminent professors of several universities? How is it possible that a convicted paedophile is getting so much attention at all and is allowed to openly spread his ideas? And the academic community is enthusiastically applauding him too?

Here are some quotes from O’Carroll. Is this what they are applauding? 

  • “As a lover of boys, I find myself tending to write more about relationships between boys and men than other forms of paedophilic encounters, including the apparently far more numerous contacts between girls and men”….
  • “I find it irritating to write about ‘the penis’ and ‘the vagina’, about ‘masturbation’ and ‘sexual intercourse’. To use the four-letter equivalents of these words – providing it is not done in an aggressive, expletive way – enables one to de-medicalise sex, to talk about it in the enthusiastic way that healthy folk think about it. Such words, though robust and ‘earthy’, lie more easily with the softer, more tender, eroticism”…
  • “The key element in PIE’s proposals on the age of consent, as we have seen, is the assertion that children should have some say in what they do with their own bodies. They should be free to decide, as a matter of right, whether or not they want a sexual relationship”….

Freedom to decide?

So first they want to utterly deprave children by seducing them and then put their  “freedom to decide rights” on their banner?  But what can innocent kids know about sex unless some totally depraved adults teach it to them and use the little ones for gratifying their criminal inclinations? Children will never be equal to adults, will always be more vulnerable and dependent and absolutely cannot take decisions on their own in this respect!

Already in the year 1981 the author who wrote “Paedophilia” received enormous help from various academic authorities:

  • “It remains for me to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who have helped me, especially Dr Kenneth Plummer, Lecturer in Sociology at Essex University, Ms Nettie Pollard of the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty), and D. J. West, Professor of Clinical Criminology at Cambridge University, each of whom read the whole text in draft and made many valuable suggestions”

Incidentally Dr.West is the same “scholar” who is now praising new O’Carroll’s book about Michael Jackson.

  • Dr David Nias and Dr Glenn Wilson, both of the Institute of Psychiatry, London, proved to be my most ego-boosting consultants. Close on their heels, in this respect, was Mr David Watson, formerly Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University. Many others read, and commented upon, individual chapters….”

And the very same thing seems to be happening now. Only in 1981 O’Carroll was not yet a convicted criminal and now he is, but even despite this glaring fact various ‘scholars’ think it fit to make positive comments on the views of this proven and self-confessed paedophile and are recommending to us his new book.

By the way isn’t this paedophile supposed to stay silent, non-active and quiet? After all he is still on the Sex Offenders Register and will be there for some 8 years or so! Why is Amazon.com offering his book for sale at all?

HAVE ALL OF THEM GONE MAD OR WHAT?

Or are all these exceptions okay when it comes to the memory of Michael Jackson?

*  *  *

ATTACHMENT UPDATE of February 26, 2014

Here is the full of the BBC News article about the child porn library of Thomas O’Carroll:

Two jailed for child porn library

Last Updated: Wednesday, 20 December 2006, 13:26 GMT

A former vicar and a paedophile rights campaigner have been jailed after a huge child porn library was uncovered at the former vicar’s then Surrey home.

Nearly 50,000 images from magazines, videos and slides, were found in a secret vault in the country house.

Former minister Michael Studdert, 67, was jailed for four years after admitting making indecent images.

Thomas O’Carroll, 61, of Warwickshire, admitted distributing child porn images and was given two and a half years.

Studdert admitted 20 sample counts of making indecent images of youngsters between January 2001 and the beginning of this year. He also admitted one charge of distributing them and one of possession.

O’Carroll, of Leam Street, Leamington Spa, who had helped to run the library from his then home in Shildon, Co Durham, admitted two counts of distributing child porn images between January 1995 and 2005.

The library collection, which took 50 years to put together, was discovered after undercover police infiltrated a group known as the International Paedophile Child Emancipation Group and its subsidiary, Gentlemen with an Interesting Name.

‘Secret society’

Both groups championed the legalisation of sex between adults and children.

According to police O’Carroll saw the groups as a base for an “international secret society” of “academic” child abusers.

The court heard the vault, built in a house on a 17-acre country estate at Hindhead, contained one of the largest child porn collections of its kind.

Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.

At Middlesex Crown Court Judge Roger Chapple told the pair he would do whatever is necessary to make sure children are safe from sexual abuse.

“The law doesn’t require or allow me to sentence people for who they are or for their views, however repugnant I may find them to be, or simply for their sexual inclination or predilection, however distasteful I find that.

“These courts will do whatever lies in their legal power to ensure that children are safe from sexual abuse or harm,” he said.

‘Danger to children’

Speaking outside the court, case officer Det Ch Ins Neil Thompson of the Met’s paedophile unit said he was a little disappointed the pair did not receive indeterminate terms.

“I do understand the judge’s reasons behind it, although I do believe both men are a danger to children.

“However, having said that, I think they are more a danger to youngsters abroad rather than here. Both men have travelled abroad extensively over the years, particular to Eastern Europe, and any contact offending would have been done overseas,” he said.

He described both men as “life-long paedophiles” who made no secret of their sexual orientation and that paedophiles around the world put O’Carroll on a pedestal.

O’Carroll worked as a teacher in Coventry in the 1970s and founded the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange.

Both men have previous convictions for importing pictures of naked children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm

Now that I’ve reread the article almost four years later I see much more in it than at that time. Here is what I see now:

  • the collection of child porn was huge. It wasn’t just one or two accidental photos of naked or half-naked boys on the beach that can be found in almost anyone’s library
  • the collection included videos of young children – mainly boys – raped and tortured. Some as young as six.
  • the collection had photo slides which means that they were made by these people themselves
  • the offending physical conduct was abroad, mainly in Estern Europe where they “extensively travelled”, and this is where the photos and videos were most probably made
  • at home they only “talked” (and secretly watched child porn to relive the experience) knowing that for “just talking” they faced no legal responsibility
  • this is why their organizations were openly championing their ’cause’
  • however physical offense of children was secret which is why police officers had to go undercover to be able to find evidence to prosecute them
  • the idea the organizations were spreading is legalisation of sex between adults and children
  • according to his own words O’Carroll saw these his groups as a base for an international, secret society of “academic” child abusers
  • As of today O’Carroll is 68 years old and is most probably still active.

* * *

Related articles:

54 Comments leave one →
  1. Lucy Williamson permalink
    March 9, 2014 9:14 am

    Both perverts should be shot. It’s as simple as that. To even consider allowing scum like that to be free to abuse or even look at children is ridiculous. I used to have at least a little faith in our judicial system until I read this.

    Like

  2. February 28, 2014 6:06 pm

    The silence about the crime and scandal of pe—lia in the highest academic and political circles + the pervasive slander and victimization of Michael Jackson is no coincidence.The pieces of the puzzle fit beautifully.They also owe gratitude to Victor Guitirrez.

    Like

  3. February 28, 2014 3:24 am

    “I’ve had a bad feeling the past few months that the hard work that the fans have done regarding Michael’s innocence could suddenly be turned against them, and seeing that older entries in this blog were getting more views in the past few days made that feeling re-emerge.” – Amaya

    Amaya, in a way I’m glad you said it. I was thinking of exactly the same. And now that Lynande51 has shared the same apprehensions it becomes clear that if this idea occurred to at least three of us it surely occurred to Wade Robson and all those who are helping him now with the allegations.

    It seems that we should prepare ourselves for THE WORST.

    And the worst is that these people may and will most probably use our own findings proving Michael’s innocence against Michael now.

    Now that I myself have shown how mistaken Jordan Chandler was in describing Michael’s genitalia and even supposed how his private parts must have really looked like, nothing can be easier for Wade Robson, Murray or anyone willing to take part in this terrible scam for USING THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION and making up their FALSE molestation stories on its basis.

    Actually I can very well see how Robson and Murray can cooperate here. Robson breaks on the public what he allegedly “saw” of MJ’s private parts when he was 7-14 and Murray confirms that MJ’s private parts indeed looked that way. You can imagine the effect of it.

    Who will be interested to know that Robson learned about this description from this site? The general public for sure will not.

    And the danger of this happening is absolutely REAL.

    The only way we can probably overcome this danger is to speak OPENLY about it and speak NOW. Warn people of what they might hear in the very near future.

    This way we will at least steal Robson of the pleasure of taking everyone by a horrible surprise.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 11:39 pm

    Amaya I have had the same thoughts as you and think you are right. Not just about the blogs and the information in them but also about the people that write for them and comment on them.
    Let’s take for instance the fact that Tom Mesereau was on the King Jordan show in May the night before Wade had his Today show interview. I spoke with Mr. Mesereau that night about Wade and mentioned that I was a psychiatric nurse. I discussed the stories that were circulating about repressed memory and the fact that Wade Robson’s life did not support repressed memory or him being a victim. I also spoke about a recent Minnesota case where the judges just aren’t accepting repressed memory claims because of the lack of evidence that supports it.
    Well we know what he said the next day. The next day it was no longer repressed and to explain away why he did not show the usual effects in his life of being a victim he said he was “brainwashed” by Michael so of course he would not have been effected by it.
    I sometimes wonder what he would have said the next morning if I would not have called.
    The same thing with the program when I asked about the insurance. I had more than one purpose in that question. One, I wanted it to be answered once and for all. Two, if it wasn’t paid by insurance we as defenders can’t use it as proof of his innocence. Three, the people on the internet that support Wade had already long ago reached out to someone that used to work for the insurance company in question on LinkdIn. That is the kind of people these are. They take it to an extreme that we do not.
    Then some please tell me why if Wade is a victim he would want or need the help or the kind of support that these people give.
    These people all had Twitter accounts started in late 2012 to early 2013 with little or no Tweets until the day the news broke. Then that is all their twitter accounts consist of.They all originally came from Topix. They are all followed by Diane Dimond and Dylan Howard of Radaronline. Stacy Brown is also following them
    People thought right away that his accusation was to detract from the AEG case but there was another entity out there that did not want the negative publicity about Michael to end. The tabloid media. Then consider or remember just how much money that industry has to throw around and you got your answer.

    Like

  5. Amaya permalink
    February 27, 2014 8:08 pm

    The fact that this post along with others on here have gotten more popular recently is quite interesting… and maybe a bit of a scary coincidence considering the recent allegations WR has made against Michael. I’ve had a bad feeling the past few months that the hard work that the fans have done regarding Michael’s innocence could suddenly be turned against them, and seeing that older entries in this blog were getting more views in the past few days made that feeling re-emerge.

    The internet can be a powerful tool for discovering information and using it to better ourselves… whether it’s in a good way or a bad way. Sadly, there’s a possibility people out there may try to twist the information on this blog to fit their agenda *cough* Wade Robson *cough*, or downplay it as “fan propaganda” and say it’s lies. That can’t be allowed to happen! As fans, we have to be proactive and let people know that there is more than one side to the story here, and to not be swayed by media bias and paranoia.

    Like

  6. February 26, 2014 5:38 am

    Goodness gracious, I’ve only just now realized one thing – so they talk in one place but abuse in another, and when their talk results in legalizing it in their place since it “doesn’t do any harm there”, they export it to others.

    So this is how it works!

    Like

  7. February 26, 2014 5:19 am

    “I wrote a post some years ago about a doc. from the Chech-republic or was it still Chechoslovakia then, about young males who prostituted themselve for money.These boys seemed extremely depressed.”- W

    W, isn’t it interesting in metaphysics and mega-hystory terms that these beasts find their little Nemesis in the form of someone from Eastern Europe (like me) who started defending Michael Jackson’s innocence but found that his worst enemies were real pedophiles?

    Though of course ped-lia ‘movement’ is both worldwide and domestic too. It is based on the principle of the powerful preying on those who are much more vulnerable and dependent on them and are either forced to do it or are not protected well enough by their society from the dangers of it.

    And this means that only joint efforts of the whole world will be able to overcome this problem – both within each country and outside it, on the global scope.

    Like

  8. February 26, 2014 4:25 am

    I wrote a post some years ago about a doc. from the Chech-republic or was it still Chechoslovakia then, about young males who prostituted themselve for money. At the time there was much poverty.They must have been over the age of consent for a doc, to be made, but certainly there existed many younger boys who engaged in this out of dire economical needs.These boys seemed extremely depressed.One really felt sad and sorry for them.

    Like

  9. February 26, 2014 3:40 am

    This post was written almost four years ago but all of a sudden it has become one of the most popular ones. To see why I looked it up myself, corrected some poor grammar and added the full of the article on Thomas O’Carroll and his activity.

    And now that I’ve reread it myself its implications became much clearer to me than they were before. I singled out these points into a short list after the article:

    Two jailed for child porn library

    Last Updated: Wednesday, 20 December 2006, 13:26 GMT

    A former vicar and a paedophile rights campaigner have been jailed after a huge child porn library was uncovered at the former vicar’s then Surrey home.

    Nearly 50,000 images from magazines, videos and slides, were found in a secret vault in the country house.

    Former minister Michael Studdert, 67, was jailed for four years after admitting making indecent images.

    Thomas O’Carroll, 61, of Warwickshire, admitted distributing child porn images and was given two and a half years.

    Studdert admitted 20 sample counts of making indecent images of youngsters between January 2001 and the beginning of this year. He also admitted one charge of distributing them and one of possession.

    O’Carroll, of Leam Street, Leamington Spa, who had helped to run the library from his then home in Shildon, Co Durham, admitted two counts of distributing child porn images between January 1995 and 2005.

    The library collection, which took 50 years to put together, was discovered after undercover police infiltrated a group known as the International Paedophile Child Emancipation Group and its subsidiary, Gentlemen with an Interesting Name.

    ‘Secret society’

    Both groups championed the legalisation of sex between adults and children.

    According to police O’Carroll saw the groups as a base for an “international secret society” of “academic” child abusers.

    The court heard the vault, built in a house on a 17-acre country estate at Hindhead, contained one of the largest child porn collections of its kind.

    Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.

    At Middlesex Crown Court Judge Roger Chapple told the pair he would do whatever is necessary to make sure children are safe from sexual abuse.

    “The law doesn’t require or allow me to sentence people for who they are or for their views, however repugnant I may find them to be, or simply for their sexual inclination or predilection, however distasteful I find that.

    “These courts will do whatever lies in their legal power to ensure that children are safe from sexual abuse or harm,” he said.

    ‘Danger to children’

    Speaking outside the court, case officer Det Ch Ins Neil Thompson of the Met’s paedophile unit said he was a little disappointed the pair did not receive indeterminate terms.

    “I do understand the judge’s reasons behind it, although I do believe both men are a danger to children.

    “However, having said that, I think they are more a danger to youngsters abroad rather than here. Both men have travelled abroad extensively over the years, particular to Eastern Europe, and any contact offending would have been done overseas,” he said.

    He described both men as “life-long paedophiles” who made no secret of their sexual orientation and that paedophiles around the world put O’Carroll on a pedestal.

    O’Carroll worked as a teacher in Coventry in the 1970s and founded the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Both men have previous convictions for importing pictures of naked children.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm

    These are the points I would single out for thinking about:

    – the collection of child porn was huge. It wasn’t just one or two accidental photos of naked or half-naked boys on the beach that can be found in almost anyone’s library

    – the library included videos of young children – mainly boys – raped and tortured. Some as young as six

    – the library had photo slides which means that they were made by these people themselves

    physical abuse was only abroad, mainly in Estern Europe where they “extensively travelled”, and this is where the photos and videos were most probably made

    – at home they only “talked” (and secretly watched child porn to relive the experience) knowing that for “just talking” they faced no legal responsibility

    – this is why their organizations were openly championing their ’cause’

    – however physical offense of children was secret which is why police officers had to go undercover to be able to find evidence to prosecute them

    – the idea the organizations were spreading is legalisation of sex between adults and children

    – according to O’Carroll himself he saw those groups as a base for an international, secret society of “academic” child abusers

    – as of today O’Carroll is 68 years old and is most probably still active.

    Like

  10. September 28, 2013 9:08 am

    @Myuu,

    Most who have read or contributed to this site for a while is familiar with the other site you’ve visited. If you continue to read you will find much of what is on that site has been proven false using legal documents. What many do not know or will not accepted is the people here are all of us. We come from many countries, lives, professions and circumstances. Since most are female the average of having been a victim or have a family member who was a victim as well is great. Regardless to how we are portrayed by Media and others we would not defend someone who we believed had given the same kind of pain and shame as some have experienced at the hands of another.

    The information is here. It is up to people to come and decide if you wish to believe it or not. I hope you are well and will find the information that will put your mind at ease about Michael Jackson.

    Like

  11. September 27, 2013 1:25 pm

    “I stumbled upon this site which says that they give objective views on the child allegations that happened in 1993 and 2005. They said, they only present evidence and the truth. But when I look up the articles, I find it one-sided and not entirely objective. Honestly, I felt disturbed. Here’s the site: http://www.mjfacts.info/” – Myuu

    The mjfacts site has never presented an “objective” view of Michael because it is run by the worst Michael’s haters. The principle they follow is the usual one for all of them – the evidence exonerating Michael is completely and thoroughly ignored, but every little molehill of dirt is turned into a mountain of mud there.

    It doesn’t matter to these people that you examined that molehill inside out and found nothing incriminating there – it is simply not in their habit to report the arguments of the other side. So if you want to hear the prosecution side only embellished by a good deal of lies their site is a place to go to.

    I’ve been there myself as it is a convenient source accumulating every lie ever told about Michael, so you don’t have to run about the internet and can get all their ‘arguments’ in a ready-made form.

    My suspicion is that it is run by a sort of a pedophilia lobby whose most cherished dream is pull MJ into their ranks and use him as their poster boy for defending their ’cause’. The reason why I think so is because I clashed with the owners of the site in one principal matter – they think it will be okay to love Michael even if he were a ped-le (at least they wouldn’t mind it), while for me this is absolutely out of the question.

    In fact when I had my own suspicions about Michael I could not even force myself to listen to his music, and it is only when I made sure that he was innocent my love for him and his music started too.

    I touched upon their site in this post https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/rewriting-history-or-michael-jacksons-unpredictable-past/ because since they reject the facts exonerating Michael as a matter of principle, they now claim that the most obvious mistakes of Michael’s accusers simply never took place. In short instead of agreeing that Michael was innocent they prefer to rewrite the past and change the lies of Michael’s accusers into new ones which would look more plausible from the point of view of today.

    This shows them to be Michael’s dedicated haters who are even ready to change the past but never agree with Michael’s innocence.

    I wrote about their new strategy of hatred towards Michael in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/haters-real-agenda-and-new-strategy-against-michael-jacksons-fans/

    Since I haven’t been to their site for a long time now I can easily assume that a whole lot of new lies has been added to it.

    Like

  12. Myuu permalink
    September 27, 2013 8:42 am

    Hi! It’s me again, backtracking on your posts. I just discovered this blog. I preferred following this blog for the details and comparing sources. I find it more credible. To be honest I’ve been looking around for sites that can present sources rather than present one. I for one is a victim of child molestation back when I was six. This subject is quite delicate for me, but I am willing to look into the facts. I stumbled upon this site which says that they give objective views on the child allegations that happened in 1993 and 2005. They said, they only present evidence and the truth. But when I look up the articles, I find it one-sided and not entirely objective. Honestly, I felt disturbed.

    Here’s the site:
    http://www.mjfacts.info/

    Like

  13. ZEROMARCY permalink
    June 10, 2011 2:42 pm

    guys this book is still arouind on amazon.com- the new publisher was alerted(bye other fans) and as far as i know last month stopped to publish this book. BUT IT’S STILL ON AMAZON!!
    I’m really outraged that people like this xxxx are around and can even write books!!!
    what can we do to try to stop this bastard?

    Like

  14. August 31, 2010 6:11 pm

    “The link provided does not show a newly released book. The release was several months ago and its’ printing was discontinued shortly thereafter.”

    Dialdancer, I know about the outrage against the book, took part in it and thought that the book was done away with. To me it meant that no copies would be published at all. And it was a terrible shock to realize that the book was in full display on Amazon.com – with the reviews from readers, and several pages open for reading, and recommendations from those professors for everyone to see (as if it was some respectable survey!).

    Even if only one copy of it was published and its title is now found in the Amazon site, libraries, etc. this alone will do a lot of damage to Michael – just look at the TITLE and the sinister cover of the book!

    I am sure that these guys (p-les) are using a step-by-step method of building gradual tolerance to their ideas. And if they can’t have the whole of it now they’ll print a little bit and make people curious. They know what human nature is like – one day the curious will demand more saying “they have the right to know” and it is then that they offer them the whole thing motivating it by the “public demand”.

    But even one copy of it can do a lot of harm given the possibilities of the internet – people will get the author’s message anyway looking at the title and the cover of the book. Amazon should remove it altogether or our fight against the book is far from bieng finished.

    Like

  15. zeromarcy permalink
    August 30, 2010 11:05 am

    Before I add my opinion on this post, I want to say that it’s wonderfull and that TRUE pedophile like Tjomas O’carrol should be in jail.
    Turning back on my opinion, i can say that, as a person who was abused in the teen years(I have no problem now saying that, after a period of therapy),that I disegree with Sean, basing on the simple fact that the person who abused me, had a normal heterosexual relationship with his wife.
    When that horrible fact happend to me, my mother wanted to directly talk to him, even infront of his wife, and u know what? she did admit that other little girls denunced him, but she did not know what to say.
    At the end, in his house there were not magazines of naked women, and children.
    He had a very credible “polite” life at the eyes of others, but in truth he was a monster.
    So for me, having two sexual orientation, in the case of my monster, is a mental illness.
    Just as for “only” pedophile in general.
    On the other hand as I grow up, i did realize that what happend to me really changed my life and not in a good way, at least not for the society:
    1)I LOVE being with children, and i see nothing bed and sexual in sharing your bed with them
    2)I know that a part of me stopped at that age, so sometimes i act like a child, other times like a girl
    3)I would like to create a neverland for my own, and share my passion for music and arts in general with others,
    And so many other things.
    Plus being a secretary in a legal office, I just saw some cases of REAL child abuse, and some that were totaly bogus, so i started to research on that kind of false accusations, and it came to my eyes that about 10% of the accusations are false, and in some cases, even the pubblic believed the accusations were true just simply for the behaviorS OF THE ACCUSED.
    So, this last point is one of the reason why i believe Mr Jackson was innocent.

    Like

  16. lcpledwards permalink
    August 30, 2010 2:53 am

    @ Lynette
    Maureen Orth’s articles are complete garbage, and her “sources” are fired ex-employees of MJ, Ray Chandler, Sneddon and his goons, and (believe it or not) the National Enquirer! This article describes how she plagiarized material for her articles from this and other tabloids!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109820,00.html

    In this article, Roger Friedman criticizes Orth for plagiarizing his own website! In fact, Orth and Friedman got into a verbal shouting match at the trial! I plan to write a report refuting all of the lies in her articles regarding the allegations (I don’t have enough time to refute all of the other BS she wrote!)
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80136,00.html

    Also, I recently purchased a copy of an episode of ABC’s “Nightline” from June 9th, 2005, and Orth is on the panel along with a National Enquirer editor. So for them to be on a panel discussing the MJ trial (before the verdict), then you know that Orth had to have a close relationship with them, which explains why she felt comfortable plagiarizing them, and why they allowed it! I’m going to post the video here and on other blogs as soon as I get the chance!

    One last thing: I’m gonna email you a copy of a report that I will post in the next few weeks. It’s very long, and I’m trying to get feedback before I post it. It’s about 99.99% finished, and the only changes I’ll make at this point is any critiques that you and the other bloggers give me. I’ll email it to you tonight, and you can review it and let me know what you think! You can take your time, because I won’t post it for a few weeks!

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    August 30, 2010 2:15 am

    I have read all of Maueen Orth’s article on Michael from Vanity fair. My question is : Is it the name of the magazine that somehow make these articles appear credible? I mean who in their right mind would believe that Michael Jackson paid an African Witch Doctor to slaughter cattle so he could put a curse on Steven Spielberg? Where would she get that kind of information? Did she go to Africa and interview that Witch Doctor?Once she wrote that all I could think was why does Vanity Fair pay her for this. I could write something more believable that.

    Like

  18. lcpledwards permalink
    August 29, 2010 10:26 pm

    @ dialdancer & helena

    Thanks for clearing that up for me! I thought that the book wasn’t going to be published at all, and then when I saw it on Amazon I thought that they changed their mind. I didn’t know that it was released, and then they stopped, and Amazon is selling off remaining inventories from those merchants. Sorry for the confusion!

    When I considered reading it, it was only to see what info I could get from it that could clear MJ. I’ve noticed that the best way to get info that will clear MJ is to read the anti-MJ books like “ATG” and “Be Careful Who You Love”. In fact, I typed and saved all of the passages from “ATG” that helps MJ, and that’s why I’m able to just cut and paste them whenever I need to use them to prove what liars the Chandlers were. I’m currently going through “BCWYL” and “Unmasked” to get info on those frivolous lawsuits that were filed against MJ by the “Neverland 5” and the “Havenhurst 5”. They all lost those lawsuits against MJ, and were ordered to pay his legal fees (which were in the millions), and as a result they filed bankruptcy.

    By the way, speaking of buying anti-MJ stuff, I recently purchased a DVD of an episode of ABC’s “Nightline” from June 9th, 2005. It discusses the MJ trial (before the verdict), and Maureen Orth and a National Enquirer editor are two of the three guests. (Wow, that’s really fair and balanced, huh?) It sounds more like a stand-up comedy special! I will try to post the video here and on other blogs so that all of the fans can see firsthand how Orth and her ilk tried to convict MJ in the court of public opinion.

    I also tried to buy those back episodes of “20/20” and “Datelilne NBC” that trashed MJ, but guess what? None of those episodes are available for sale! Their archives consist of hundreds of episodes dating back to the mid-1990’s, but mysteriously none of the MJ episodes are listed. I’m going to try to contact NBC and ABC and see if it’s possible to buy them, but I doubt it!

    Like

  19. Dialdancer permalink
    August 29, 2010 9:45 pm

    <<>>>

    @ lcpledwards,

    This is not an anti-Michael book. It is an assault of basest nature upon him and a most execrable exploitation of his name. It is a book by “P’s” for “P’s” and those who would be fooled by the author’s academic credentials and discourse into believing that the age of consent should be lowered below the age of reasoning.

    The link provided does not show a newly released book. The release was several months ago and its’ printing was discontinued shortly thereafter. I am surprised you weren’t aware of this. What is seen is an attempt to sell off stock by merchants who did not take time to find out what they were purchasing and selling by those who have leanings in this direction themselves.

    @ Helena,

    This book was discovered by the MJ Forum on Amazon where the fight began to have it and its’ author removed from the forum; it is where the support movement started to have its’ printing stopped.

    (((For any who check on this book or write a review do not forget to delete it from your Amazon browsing history))) Or it will become an Amazon book recommendation for you.

    Go to “Accounts”, find “Personalized Content” and open “View and edit your browsing history”

    Like

  20. Suzy permalink
    August 29, 2010 8:29 am

    Shame on the publisher who allowed this pedophile propaganda to be published! In what society are we living?

    Like

  21. August 29, 2010 7:47 am

    “did you guys know that Carl Toms’ book, Dangerous Liaisons, was recently released? It’s available on Amazon. I’m going to try to check it out from the library and thoroughly cross-examine it for the hundreds of discrepancies that I’m sure it contains!”

    David, dear, DON’T please! This book is the work of a pedophile who has a long history of abusing children. Part of the book was written when he was in prison and was using all the tabloid stories available to him at the time. You won’t find anything there except garbage like Maureen Orth’s PLUS his own child abuse experience which will be fused with usual lies about Michael.

    This mix is a potential explosive because he will ADD his own pedophile emotions and feelings to the story and it will look credible.

    It is not an ordinary book of lies – it is something much subtler than that and it is aimed at corrupting all the people around us using the innocent name of Michael as their main weapon to break the wall of resistance to REAL pedophiles.

    This book should have never been published and if it was it means there are very powerful forces behind it.

    THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIGHT THIS BOOK – LEAVE YOUR COMMENT THERE TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT ITS PEDOPHILE AUTHOR and THOSE PROFESSORS who advise it as RECOMMENDED READING!

    Everybody, please use the information contained in all respective posts from this blog:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/carl-toms-book/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/meet-the-guys-who-recommend-carl-toms-book/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/academic-assault-on-michael-jackson-the-guys-who-recommended-carl-toms-book-part-2/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/academic-assault-on-michael-jackson-he-wasnt-one-of-them/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/why-they-harassed-michael-jackson-but-welcome-thomas-ocarroll-is-it-the-answer/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/a-call-to-arms-against-carl-toms-book/

    Pour this information on the Amazon readers so that they know WHOSE revelations they are reading – and let it be the best present to Michael on his birthday!

    Are the memoirs of a pedophile so important that the general public should know his most valuable views on humanity? Would they want to know the inner world of a sadist if someone suggests it as recommended reading too?

    The only ones to whom it may be recommended are psychiatrists!

    P.S. I must be running now. See you in a couple of days, guys. Keep staying with Michael.

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, MICHAEL – AN ANGEL, FIGHTER AND MESSENGER!

    Like

  22. lcpledwards permalink
    August 28, 2010 11:51 pm

    Hey everyone, did you guys know that Carl Toms’ book, Dangerous Liaisons, was recently released? It’s available on Amazon. I’m going to try to check it out from the library and thoroughly cross-examine it for the hundreds of discrepancies that I’m sure it contains!

    As disgusting as this may seem, we have to read all of the anti-MJ stuff in order to disprove them and build upon our knowledge of MJ’s innocence!

    http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jacksons-Dangerous-Liaisons-Carl/dp/1848763409/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

    Like

  23. sean permalink
    June 19, 2010 5:23 am

    hmm, well i can see that the first thing you would do to vindicate somebody of an accusation is make sure you remain completely ignorant of the substance of that accusation. in my eyes it’s less of an accusation than an observation.

    anyway thanks for hearing me. i hope things go well for you.

    Like

  24. June 18, 2010 11:17 pm

    Sean, the post is definitely NOT about your favourite topic – it is about VINDICATING Michael Jackson and protecting him from people like Thomas O’Carroll. It seems I haven’t been very successful in doing it if I allowed this p..lia talk to take so much space here.

    May I ask you to stop talking about this subject once and for all here? This territory is no place for these discussions. If you can control your feelings in ‘other’ situations you will surely be able to meet my request here too. Thank you in advance.

    The only good I see in this experience of ours is the conclusion that people who really have inclinations towards p..lia simply cannot resist talking about it again and again and again and again… It is clearly an obsession.

    The fact the Michael NEVER talked about it and couldn’t bring himself to use any of these WORDS shows once again that he had NOTHING to do with it. This little experiment of ours proves it stronger than ever. Michael’s supporters, however, don’t need any proof – let his detractors see all the DIFFERENCE in the world between the two.

    Like

  25. sean permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:25 pm

    you set up this thread to discuss p..philia and thats what i’m doing. sorry if it’s not making sense.

    also, i should add that altho i’ve been referring to ‘p..philes’, there are no such people. like same and opposite sex attraction, age orientation exists on a continuum. everybody has some capacity to be sexually aroused by their own sex and by children, however indignantly they deny it.

    people who have a primary attraction to children are an extremely diverse group and face divers challenges. everything i say hear is necessarily simplified. however it is substantially complete and correct, and vital to be heard in any discussion relating to p..lia.

    if you have any specific arguments with what i’ve said, i’d like to hear them. as far as i can tell, most of my last post was in agreement with your own sentiments.

    Like

  26. June 18, 2010 10:10 pm

    Darling, I see that my message has been lost on you and I should have never started ‘healing the world’ that way. I am sorry I took away so much time from Michael when writing my address to you and have now learned my lesson – so don’t expect any contributions from me on this issue any longer.

    Your reply shows that you’re actually using this venue for expressing the complexity of p..le feelings and thoughts. As a self-declared admin here I need to protect the innocent minds of Michael’s supporters from the intricacies of this type of mentality, so please don’t take offence if your post is cut into pieces again.

    Like

  27. sean permalink
    June 18, 2010 9:49 pm

    as an aside, on ‘quasi-erotic materials’, i hear you object that this is just the kind of ‘expression’ that should be disallowed.

    i disagree, and i strongly assert that these are questions of judgment and taste, not of ethics and law. i will vigorously defend that position.

    this point approximately reflects the tenor of my entire case in this discussion. ‘the welfare of children’ may be an absolute, but it is also an ideal, and a flimsy one at that. where is the ‘welfare of children’ when the average american goes to gap for a pair of jeans stitched by enslaved child fingers, or for that matter, begrudges any cent of his tax dollar that goes to social services?

    so there aren’t any absolutes, there are just people doing the best they can in the circumstances they are in.

    Like

  28. sean permalink
    June 18, 2010 9:26 pm

    expression? yes. fulfillment? yes. making real children the objects of sexual interest and attention? no. thats how i see it.

    Sorry, sean, this is all I could leave of your post.
    RULE # 2

    Like

  29. June 18, 2010 7:16 pm

    Sean, there are so many things to do for Michael here but I find myself talking practically to you only (guys, please excuse me). On the other hand thinking how keen Michael was on healing the world – whichever way you understand it – I hope that at least something in what I’ll say to you will probably help, though there is a big fat chance that you will throw it away as rubbish or a fairy tale.

    You’ve said: “Ped…les don’t choose to have these feelings, and cannot just switch them off at will”.

    They probably cannot choose feelings but they can choose behavior. And I see “expressing strong feelings and fulfilling emotional needs” as behavior too. The feeling is still sexual, only contained within certain boundaries. Even for an adult p…le this communication is no good as it nurtures his unhealthy instinct, not to mention the children who will be undoubtedly affected too.

    The obvious need is to cool the sexual feeling.

    You should know that every person contains both hell and heaven inside – only the degree of them is different in each of us. You are not the only one who is fighting his dark side. Everyone is fighting his own hell – some fight excessive or deviant sexuality, some fight hatred, rage or desire to kill others physically or verbally, some fight fears, complexes or unwelcome emotions – everyone is fighting at least something. The whole idea of our coming here is to fight our dark side – don’t ask me where I know it from – but this is the idea of life in general as I am told. It is only the extent of the challenge each of us faces which is different, that’s all.

    Why such injustice and why are some challenges small while others are almost unbearable? The system of thought I am describing explains that life is a continuum of fragments (up to a certain moment though) where whatever you got now was earned by you in previous lives – so now each of us is facing the music for what we did before. If someone is born crippled there is no one to blame for it but him alone, as this is the result of his individual development and the choices he made previously. Continue in the same manner in this life and your nightmare will be a never-ending one as you will bring upon your head even more misfortunes than before. This is the way we are taught what is right or wrong and how to make correct choices in life.

    And this is what makes each of us individually responsible for what we do here. If you imagine your dark feelings, temptations and deeds on one side of a scale inside yourself and your best qualities on the other side of it you can shift the scale towards one or the other side by the moral choice you make each moment of your life. The whole big idea of life is in shifting this scale from the hell end to the heaven one as much as it is humanly possible within one life fragment – and if you work hard enough the result will be seen NOW, not in some distant and unknown future.

    No matter how difficult the challenge is it is still possible to fight it and ‘shift the scale’ because everything is possible if the Absolute is on your side. The Absolute could have forced each of us to be ‘good’ without our consent but He wants us to make the right choice voluntarily – not for fear of retribution or because we are coerced into being good or because it is a law we should abide – but because WE want it ourselves and make a choice in favor of His will, not ours.

    It is only then that the Absolute helps – otherwise we will be in the hands of our own dark desires and pleasures sought to satisfy our precious self. The help may be as awesome as the Absolute himself – sick people arise from their death bed, illnesses go away, tragedies are averted, sudden calm settles where violent turbulence was – in short, miracles happen.

    You yourself have said that the welfare of children is an absolute value. This example proves that absolute values do exist though some people doubt it. Every human being has the right to work or not to work for the victory of absolute values. The Absolute has given us free will to choose whatever way we like. We can choose dark pleasures in life if we want them – no one forces us to do otherwise. He wants us to come to Him of our own free will, but remember that until we do that we are solely in the hands of the fate we’ve created for ourselves with our selfish desires and dark thoughts and deeds.

    Your challenge is bigger than with the rest of the people – probably one of the biggest challenges a man can have in life. But it is still within your power to shift the point you are in now in that ‘hell-or-heaven’ scale down one or the other end. The road to the dark side is much easier as it does not require any effort, while the road to the other side is difficult in its utmost – however the reward you get there is ultimate in its value too – you reach nothing less but the fulfilment of the goal of your present life (why you actually came here at all) and in doing so you get the support of the Absolute. If you really try and with Him on your side you cannot lose.

    The system of thought I am talking about says that the loser in life is the one who wasted his time by indulging in his vices. The winner is the one who has beaten his darker self.

    Like

  30. sean permalink
    June 18, 2010 12:53 pm

    vindicate: “Up till now they’ve been thinking of themselves only”

    actually no, that isn’t the usual emphasis in my experience, but thankyou for your forbearance.

    frankly, i’m always suspicious of absolutes, but i understand what you’re saying. it’s fairly close to my own position: that the welfare of children is the absolute priority.

    i know you think paedophilia is incompatible with ethical conduct, but if you take anything from my posts, i would hope it would be this:

    – paedophiles don’t choose to have these feelings, and cannot just switch them off at will.

    – developing the confidence to harbour and express strong feelings and fulfill emotional needs, WITHOUT CAUSING HARM, is the bedrock of any self management strategy for paedophiles.

    you have to find room for this approach. it’s simply wrong not to.

    best

    Like

  31. June 18, 2010 11:57 am

    Sean, thank you for following the rules.

    I hope the people you’re counseling will be healed. I’m sure that the key to their recovery lies in the spiritual sphere and in rearranging their values in favor of ALTRUISM. Up till now they’ve been thinking of themselves only and were looking for excuses to prove (to themselves first) that ‘this way it is better for children’.

    No, this way it is worse for children.

    When you look into their innocent eyes full of wonder at the bright world they have just entered, when they give you their little trusting hand to take them wherever you think it necessary to go, when you see their complete dependence on you, their total inability to live on their own and their striking helplessness – when you notice all that and all the TRUST they put in you together with their little hand you understand that you CANNOT do any harm to them.

    You cannot ruin this innocence. You cannot take this terrible responsibility on your shoulders. You cannot change the course of this little life and ultimately ruin it. You just cannot trigger off the process. You cannot make the first step. YOU JUST CANNOT and that’s it.

    P.S. I won’t touch your posts if you keep to the rules.

    Like

  32. sean permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:45 am

    i don’t find it difficult to act like a decent human being. God bless you Lynette, you seem like you really care, which is more than i can say for most.

    Like

  33. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 9:37 pm

    There are no hypothetical victims in child sexual abuse. There are only pedophiles that seek to justify their actions by insinuating that they are another sexual orientataion. As you said you have more than an academic inteerst in this, and from the theme of your responses I don’t think I would be out of line to suggest that you have the urges tha you are finding so difficult to suppress.You keep attempting to defend the undefendable.

    Like

  34. sean permalink
    June 17, 2010 7:03 pm

    ps:

    vindicate, i think it is fair if you leave my posts intact. i have no wish to hijack your thread, and i can understand why you want to protect MJ from allegations of p…ia, as that word is synonymous with child mo…ing in common usage.

    i responded to this thread because the technical meaning of p…ia is quite different to common usage, and there is a high level of misunderstanding around it. i felt much of the talk here was reinforcing wrong and harmful ideas, both about p…ia and about MJ.

    i hope one day you come to understand the meaning of all this. thankyou for allowing my contributions to stand. i wish you luck in defending MJ from slander because like you, i believe he was a brilliant artist and a good and kind person.

    sean.

    Like

  35. sean permalink
    June 17, 2010 6:23 pm

    vindicate,

    i have no wish to slander Michael Jackson. if you prefer to use a different term for his emotional attraction to and cultivating of friendships with children, i will agree with you.

    in reciprocation, i would expect you to resist your impulse to attach accusations of overt sexual and abusive behaviour to your definition of paedophilia.

    Lynette,

    you say “To solve the problem it must remain a mental disorder to enable the research that could help the people with it to contain it”.

    the problem is that that research is not being carried out. the only people being ‘researched’ are sex offenders, while the vast majority of paedophiles are not in that group. perhaps if paedophilia were less stigmatized, there might be some truth in your comment, but in the current situation, ‘illness’ is simply and explicitly used as a legal preamble to civil commitment. it is the equivalent of a yellow star or pink triangle. research into homosexuality has flourished since it has been removed from the statute books, for the simple reason that the relevant population is no longer in hiding.

    and “Society as a whole sees this behavior as repulsive and criminal and that will never change. Homosexuality is a good example. Society is still not completely accepting of homosexuality.”

    paedophilia isn’t a behaviour, it’s an orientation. it need not be acted on in any way that is repulsive or criminal, but can be expressed in prosocial activities. most paedophiles know how to masturbate. also, some elements in society may not be accepting of homosexuality, but homosexuals themselves are now able to accept themselves as whole people, and that is the issue here. when homosexuality was illegal, same sex attracted people showed the same pathologies that surround paedophilia: secrecy, shame, depression, compulsive, impulsive and harmful acting out and lives of often intolerable misery and difficulty. sociopathic tendencies a paedophile sex offender might exhibit are almost without exception a consequence of his isolated and stigmatized existence.

    and “If they have actually identified that it is difference in their brain this can be solved chemically.”

    sexual orientation is part of the deep structure of personality and identity. i think it’s been demonstrated that attempts at ‘reparative’ therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation are pointless and cruel. i assume you envision an element of coercion aimed at the paedophile population as a whole, and not just sex offenders. that would complete the third reich analogy.

    and “In the meantime remember that they hurt people when they act out on their behaviors”

    i think you mean IF they act out. also, many paedophiles ‘act out’ by devoting their lives to children, with great dedication as teachers, as doctors, caregivers or simply as friends and confidantes. meaningful interaction with children is sufficient to fulfill the emotional needs of paedophiles. like any other adult, they are quite capable of showing sexual restraint when required.

    and finally, “Ask your group this , if they had a medication be it a shot or a pill that could help them would they take it? If they answer no I suggest you think about the victims that they may produce and have some compassion for them as well.”

    again with the victims. can you please remember that these are HYPOTHETICAL victims.

    but this is an excellent question Lynette. believe it or not, “the red pill” is often discussed by paedophiles, in my group and elsewhere. the answers are in no way consistent. some paedophiles would take it in a heart beat, some would resist to their dying breath. i don’t think you can condemn either.

    i think as a general rule, a person who can’t help repeatedly seeking sexual contact with children, and who has a lifetime of trouble associated with that, is more likely to take the pill, while a person who is attracted to minors but is comfortable with who he is and is able to express his feelings in socially acceptable ways is likely to reject it.

    the point is, the pill doesn’t exist. the way ahead is clear, and it involves an end to the moral hysteria and a beginning of openness and acceptance. this in no way implies acceptance of adult sexual conduct with children, simply a recognition that some otherwise ordinary people are attracted to children this way, and that this does not make them monsters.

    Like

  36. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 4:42 pm

    Sean I do see the demoralizing effect of this dosorder probably as often or more than you do. Sex offenders whether they are child sex offenders or adult are ostrized in society. I also see the long term effects that molestation or sexual assault has on a victim as a matter of fact they both suffer in much the same ways with substance abuse and suicide. I unlike you believe that to make this a different sexual orientation would not solve the problem that they and their victims suffer. To solve the problem it must remain a mental disorder to enable the research that could help the people with it to contain it. People don’t care if theysend these people to jail which is not going to solve the problem. Society as a whole sees this behavior as repulsive and criminal and that will never change. Homosexuality is a good example. Society is still not completely accepting of homosexuality. If you question that look at the hate crime statistics regarding homosexuals. It increased tenfold when they became a sexual orientation.They have reached a protected status because their behaviors have no victims, theyare willing participants, children are not. To take away the mental illness from pedophiles sets them all up as criminals of the worst kind. To truly help you should be advocating for reasearch to find a way to help them contain their behaviors. If they have actually identified that it is difference in their brain this can be solved chemically. In the meantime remember that they hurt people when theyact out on their behaviors and I believe that they know this otherwise you wouldn’t have a group. Ask your group this , if they had a medication be it a shot or a pill that could help them would they take it? If they answer no I suggest you think about the victims that they may produce and have some compassion for them as well.

    Like

  37. David permalink
    June 17, 2010 2:48 pm

    Hey Admin: I wanted to point out something about the way the public perceives the sleepovers at Neverland. You made the following statement in your last comment:

    “Any reference to those sleepovers is no good as Michael never invited children into his bed – they crawled in there the way they often do it with parents, nannies and even friends.”

    The media likes to totally spin MJ’s comments in the Bashir documentary to make it seem like complete strangers would just drop off their YOUNG BOYS outside the gates of Neverland, and MJ would pick them up and bring them to his bedroom, and then bribe them into cuddling and spooning with him in his bed. They want you to think he would say “Hey kids, why don’t you come sleep in my bed and I’ll give you some candy! But don’t tell your mommy and daddy, OK? It’s our little secret!!”

    We all know that couldn’t be further from the truth! It wasn’t complete strangers that slept over at Neverland, but MJ’s close friends! And not only was it young children, but teens and adults as well! But the reason the media gets away with this is because of (you guessed it!) Martin Bashir!

    Look at how he phrases the question in the infamous clip from his crock-umentary at the 4:20 mark: “When you actually INVITE children into your bed, you never know what’s going to happen?” Bashir INTENTIONALLY uses the word “invite” in order to give the public the false perception that it was MJ’s idea to sleep in the bed, and to this day they use this against MJ.

    (Also, at the 4:48 mark, Bashir cunningly says to MJ: “The reason that’s been given as to why you DIDN’T GO TO JAIL is because you reached a financial settlement with the family”, thus implying that MJ was guilty of the 1993 accusations but “bought his way out of it” by paying “hush money”. Unfortunately MJ didn’t catch this, and he feel for Bashir’s trap hook, line, and sinker! This is why MJ haters LOVE to use the settlement as a sign of guilt! And MJ made the fatal mistake of comparing himself to OJ Simpson, which haters also love to do to insinuate that MJ “got away with it”. Here’s an article that says that MJ “paid” for OJ’s false acquittal http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/michael-jackson-may-be-paying-for-ojs-acquittal/)

    Bashir’s interview:

    I recently posted these interviews from Macaulay Culkin & Liz Taylor explaining and defending the sleepovers on Larry King Live in other posts. Here they are again:

    Mac Culkin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPew3KZ9HaM&feature=related
    Liz Taylor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxBLx2kbjVY

    Notice how Mac says that MJ “is not very good at explaining himself, and he never really has been, because he’s not a very social person”. Bashir knew this and took advantage of MJ because of it!

    Admin, I have thoroughly researched MJ (as you can tell from my comments, LOL!) and if you email me I can give you some more info to use in future updates. Thanks!

    Like

  38. June 17, 2010 11:36 am

    Sean – you put Michael ‘in a bad class’ claiming that that he was subject to a primary emotional orientation to children with a sexual basis. Where is the EVIDENCE, please? Any reference to those sleepovers is no good as Michael never invited children into his bed – they crawled in there the way they often do it with parents, nannies and even friends.

    If this is ALL you have on the ‘factual’ side I will consider your allegations against Michael as SLANDER and will therefore edit your comments accordingly. If you think I am above it, you are wrong – since Michael cannot defend his good name himself, I as Michael’s supporter see it as my obligation towards him to do it myself.

    Now guys, since the virus of pedophilia activism is quickly spreading in this thread we need to do something to help our immunity system to fight it. This is why I am introducing some sanitary measures now – I mean rules – which I ask everyone to please adhere to:

    RULE 1:

    Everyone is very much requested to NEVER (or minimally) use words like ‘pedophile’ and ‘molester’ in combination with the name of MJ. Please avoid these words as best as you can – at least in their full version.

    Reason behind it:

    Human perception is structured in such a way that even if you deny the above allegations by using “not” in your statements (‘he was not like that’), this “not” particle will somehow evaporate from human minds leaving a solid association link between the name of the person and the hateful word.

    So with time the phrase ‘he was not like that’ will turn into ‘he was like that’ as the word will automatically pop up in one’s mind each time Michael’s name is used. So the more we use the word the stronger the association is. Unfortunately this association link has already been formed, so now we need to break it. The only way to do it is to form a NEW, positive association – like MICHAEL WAS INNOCENT, for example.

    Since the rule is difficult to follow (I face the same difficulty myself) I suggest abbreviations like mol…r or p..le when there IS an objective need to put these words besides Michael’s name.

    And since the rule naturally does not apply to the ‘sources’ we draw from we cannot change anything in what ‘they’ are writing about Michael. So if this cannot be helped let us refrain from using these word combinations at least ourselves, okay?

    RULE 2:

    Propaganda of pedophilia here is FORBIDDEN in the name of Michael Jackson. This is HIS territory which is FREE from all that dirt.

    Reason behind it:

    Michael lost all his health and partially money fighting for his good name for so many years. He never allowed anyone to link him to the despicable class we are discussing here – he sued, fought in court and in his songs against his detractors and implored us not to believe those allegations against him. Now it is the duty of Michael’s supporters to never allow pedophilia advocates to draw him into their ranks (though they actually think they are doing him a great service by inviting him there).

    There is one more reason for the rule.

    Michael Jackson was genuinely concerned about the fate and future of children. ‘Those’ guys are simply unable to understand that as their interest is purely sexual – children’s well being is the last thing they are concerned about. So protecting children from any kind of abuse is EXACTLY what Michael Jackson would WANT and EXPECT us to do. This automatically makes Michael’s supporters NATURAL DEFENDERS of children’s rights – no matter how strange it may look to his opponents.

    * * *
    Following these rules I will now edit the latest of Sean’s posts and take aways numerous p…le words from around his name. And will feel absolutely happy to do it.

    Like

  39. sean permalink
    June 17, 2010 7:28 am

    hi Lynette,

    i only pointed out that the DSM revision allows for a paraphilia in the absence of a disorder. this supports my position on paedophilia as inherently benign, but i only quote it because of your own apparent faith in that document. Ray Blanchard’s sexological methodology inspires zero confidence and any ‘scientific’ authority the DSM ever had has been absent for decades.

    and i do get angry. i have a right to. i have more than an academic interest in paedophilia, and i’ve seen the negative effects of the sanctimonious moralizing and abandonment of humanitarian principles around this issue. depression, substance abuse and suicide are extremely common among men with this orientation, and few are able to seek help or advice. if you, as a mental health worker, think this is a situation that will help keep children safe from abuse, then there’s no point in my explaining my anger.

    Like

  40. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 1:14 am

    Sean I thought you liked the DSM or at least the still in trial DSM V. Do you only like the one that agrees with you or you can say agrees with you? You sure do get riled easy.

    Like

  41. sean permalink
    June 16, 2010 9:53 pm

    and would you stop spouting DSM incantations at me, Lynette. i have n0 great respect for anything that document has to say. the most accurate single item of nomenclature in the ‘paraphilias’ section is ‘NOS’ (a category that has infamously provided the flexibility for DSM diagnoses to fit whatever their political masters require of them).

    moreover, if you think a child (a human being of a certain age) as sexual object is somehow more analogous to urine, faeces, vomit or car exhaust pipes than he or she is to another human being, then perhaps we should formulate an NOS diagnosis especially for you!

    it certainly doesn’t bode well for your empathic competence.

    Like

  42. sean permalink
    June 16, 2010 9:22 pm

    With comments from vindicatemj:

    if you’re a part time psych nurse Lynette, i think you should take a long hard look at your attitude. for one thing, it is quite unbecoming of your caring role for you to be DARING p-les to come out of the closet (“So I have this to say to all p-les: come out of the closet and go on talk shows to try to bring your case to the public and see how far you get”). Are you not aware of the role of community support in mental health? I’d also love to see those ‘professors’ go on talk shows and say that every person is ‘like that’ as Professor Kincaid claims it. Would be interesting to see the reaction…

    more to the point, if an ascertainment or diagnosis of ‘p-lia’ does not imply any kind of act or behaviour, but can be reached independently of such, what does consent have to do with it? Pure demagogy to say the least – words with no meaning to them.

    … adults get raped and sexually abused. does that make being attracted to adults a crime? Though probably not a crime (if it is only attraction, not deeds) it is still a morbid psychiatric disorder – same as sexual attraction to animals.

    – you’re so determined to think i’m trying to legitimize to child molesting (you are) that you’re choosing to misread what i’m saying, so here it is in black and white. read carefully.

    – paedophilia is an innate sexual orientation, like hetero- and homosexuality. OUTRIGHT LIE. It is not a sexual orientation – it is an ill brain. And if scientists don’t understand that, ask the first passerby in the street and see what he tells you.

    – sexual orientation does not compel a person to act in a certain way. It doesn’t. NOTHING can compel a human being to commit a crime if he doesn’t want to – probably, except mental illness.

    – sexual orientation is not a choice. A MENTAL DISORDER is not a choice and it is something which requires treatment and should never be propagated as a norm. I hope one day an effective remedy is found against this ailment.

    Certain consequences flow from these observations (i.e. more sophisticated lies built on top of the basic ones?):

    – pathologization of paedophilia is subject to the same criticisms as the pathologization of any other variant in sexual orientation or arousal. (homosexuality, masturbation and nymphomania have all appeared in the DSM, and transexualism, transvesticism and sadomasochism are in it now. moral disapproval is not a sufficient condition for a medical diagnosis, and the DSM is historically vulnerable to criticism on this count.)

    – ethical judgements cannot be made against paedophilia (it isn’t a choice). Yes, they can. For a human being ethics is EVERYTHING. It is the essence of being HUMAN. Only ethics differentiate us from animals – otherwise we would be no different from them. When people make the choice in favor of an ethical decision they heal not only themselves – they heal the world around them. If only people remembered about this responsibility of theirs…

    – a person can be a law abiding and ethical paedophile (he has a choice in how he acts). Probably he can, if he is able to control himself. Controlling his instinct may actually heal this person as it strengthens his respect for himself – I CAN do it! Believers in God know and understand it as a victory over the dark side of themselves which brings about lasting happiness incomparable in its joy and strength with the temporary animal pleasure of any sex perversion.

    – my phd is in neuroscience. i work in engineering. i’m also engaged in counseling and rehabilitation of people who have sexually offended against children, and in counseling people who are attracted to children and feel they need help in managing their feelings. The way you are counseling them now is only multiplying their number. Nobody’s temptation is big enough for a human being not to be able to beat it by his will power – people just don’t think it necessary because they are told ‘it is normal’.

    imagine for a moment that you are subject to sexual feelings that you cannot act on, for fear of hurting others, fear of punishment and social exclusion, or simply because you feel a moral compulsion not to. which attitude do you think would make it easier to manage your sexuality:
    – your orientation is wrong and disgusting. however you respond to it, you are intrinsically ‘evil’?
    – you can be a kind, decent, honest person and a paedophile?

    Whether the inner feeling is that of ‘disgust’ or ‘kindness and decency’ – the only thing that matters is whether you respond to your desire or not. Feeling comfortable about it and doing it is much worse than having disgust for oneself and refraining from it. Moral compulsion works miracles on people and can ‘manage’ sexuality like nothing else. The bigger is the STRUGGLE the bigger is the PRIZE.

    what possible motive is there for a person to manage their feelings if the feelings alone have already condemned them? CONSCIENCE and SELF-RESPECT

    there are a great many famous historical figures who although greatly admired, were also paedophiles: T H White, Samuel Clemens, Robert Baden Powell, Charles Dodgeson, JM Barrie, the list goes on. That many of these people were writers is no accident, for they are the people who choose to reveal their inner world, or to express unconventional elements of it in their public personae. DOCTORS might be interested in the inner world of pedophiles, OTHERS are not. Thanks for providing the list of names.

    there is no evidence that any of these people ever acted inappropriately with their child friends, but instead of being allowed to see them as positive role models, paedophiles today are told that their orientation is incompatible with any positive mode of expression. Pedophilia is incompatible not only with MORALS – it is incompatible with the laws of MOTHER NATURE too. If it were, children would be able to give birth – but they can’t.

    Michael Jackson was undoubtedly a ..(NO WAY), in the sense that he was subject to a primary emotional orientation to children, with a sexual basis (EVIDENCE, PLEASE!) the sexual basis of his orientation is perhaps less obvious (OBVIOUS TO WHOM?), but it can be easily inferred from the typology of his other traits (WHICH ONES?): for example, in the absence of these psychosexual characters, adult men do not typically choose to have sleepovers with children and share beds with them (THEY chose him – it was not HIS choice!). Children by the way know the nature of a person whose company they prefer and run like hell from someone who turns out to be an offender.
    I also experienced some kind of molestation in my early childhood and I would never have come up to my offender for all the candies, gifts and gold taken together.

    Like

  43. Lynette permalink
    June 16, 2010 4:40 pm

    For you Sean:
    The clinical literature contains reports of many paraphilias, only some of which receive their own entries in the diagnostic taxonomies of the American Psychiatric Association or the World Health Organization.[18][19] There is disagreement regarding which sexual interests should be deemed paraphilic disorders versus normal variants of sexual interest. For example, as of May 2000, per DSM-IV-TR, “Because some cases of Sexual Sadism may not involve harm to a victim (e.g., inflicting humiliation on a consenting partner), the wording for sexual sadism involves a hybrid of the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV wording (i.e., “the person has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person, or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”)”.[20]

    Paraphilias are defined by DSM-IV-TR as sexual disorders characterized by “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months” (Criterion A), which “cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (Criterion B). DSM-IV-TR describes 8 specific disorders of this type (exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and transvestic fetishism) along with a ninth residual category, paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS).[21] Criterion B differs for exhibitionism, frotteurism, and pedophilia to include acting on these urges, and for sadism, acting on these urges with a nonconsenting person.[7]

    Some paraphilias may interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult partners.[7] According to the DSM, “Paraphilias are almost never diagnosed in females,”[7] but some case studies of females with paraphilias have been published.[22]

    The DSM provides clinical criteria for these paraphilias:

    Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one’s genitals to an unsuspecting person. (Can also be the recurrent urge or behavior to perform sexual acts in a public place, or in view of unsuspecting persons.)
    Fetishism: the use of inanimate objects to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
    Frotteurism: recurrent urges of behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
    Pedophilia: a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children,[23] or has engaged in child sexual abuse.[24][25][26]
    Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer for sexual pleasure.
    Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of a person is sexually exciting.
    Transvestic fetishism: arousal from “clothing associated with members of the opposite sex.”[7][27]
    Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities, or activities which may not be sexual in nature at all.
    Under Paraphilia NOS, the DSM mentions telephone scatalogia (obscene phone calls), necrophilia (corpses), partialism (exclusive focus on one part of the body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine), emetophilia (vomit). The DSM’s Paraphilia NOS is equivalent to the ICD-9’s Sexual Disorder NOS.

    The literature includes single-case studies of exceedingly rare and idiosyncratic paraphilias. These include an adolescent male who had a strong fetishistic interest in the exhaust pipes of cars, a young man with a similar interest in a specific type of car, and a man who had a paraphilic interest in sneezing (both his own and the sneezing of others)

    Like

  44. Lynette permalink
    June 16, 2010 4:26 pm

    Why is pedophilia a crime? The adult in the situation has the psychological power to choose to act or not to act on their sexual desires. It is ASSUMED by a pedophile that children have sexual desire. In order for a child to have consensual sex with an adult they would first have to have the knowledge of what the act is. Most do not. I live in a state where there has recently been a forcible penetrative rape of a 9 month old girl by a 24 year old man. What do you think she KNEW about sex? I would say in order to make your case you would have to ask the child’s parents for permission to have sex with their child because they would know what it was that you were requesting. I dare you to ask a parent of you can have sex with their child Sean. My guess is you wouldn’t be long for this world if you did and you know it that is why you guys hide in the dark and under rocks so the world can’t see you for what you are. Michael Jackson on the other hand was out there speaking publicly about his love for children and how he wanted them treated. By the way, The DSM V just entered its first field trial in May. It is not the tool used and the DSM IV still lists pedophilia as a sexual deviance. My guess is that when all the trials are over the DSM V will list pedophilia as a sexual deviance because the public won’t stand for that particular change. So I have this to say to all pedophiles: come out of the closet and go on talk shows to try to bring your case to the public and see how far you get.

    Like

  45. sean permalink
    June 16, 2010 8:54 am

    i really don’t give a monkey’s what you think about paedophilia vindicate, but it intrigues me that you can ‘love’ Michael so but remain so oblivious to his nature, and that you can judge him so harshly without even realising you’re doing it.

    to demonstrate your incoherent logic, how do you reconcile the statement “Not being able to choose your sexual interests doesn’t mean you can’t choose what you do”, which you appear to support, with your claim that “Child pornography and pedophilia always go hand in hand”?

    if paedophilia =always= leads to using child porn, then a paedophile does =not= have a choice in what he does, does he? so you are apparently a very stupid and ignorant person, and i have no desire to drag on with this pointless argument.

    let me leave you with this thought. if the many teachers and paediatricians who =are= paedophiles but have never molested or otherwise mistreated a child were suddenly revealed to you, on what basis would you condemn them? their feelings? their thoughts? their (lol) “white matter”? what?

    Like

  46. sean permalink
    June 16, 2010 8:27 am

    ..and wit.

    Like

  47. sean permalink
    June 16, 2010 8:15 am

    you’re a funny guy vindicate. also one who has limited resources of insight.

    Like

  48. June 15, 2010 8:18 pm

    Sean has provided us with information which prompts me to report certain success of pedophile activism which is fully in line with my earlier conclusions. Exactly as I warned you earlier pedophilia is now proclaimed:

    a) a sexual orientation (with nothing criminal about it):
    b) not an illness any more – as the DSM-V section on pedophilia has been revised and “now one can be a ‘pedohebehile’ who is not mentally ill” (which thus makes him a completely normal person).
    c) this orientation is innate, not a choice (same as homosexuality)
    d) it is not associated with any psychopathic conditions.

    In support of these views we have Sean’s ‘academic training’, ‘clinical experience’ and ‘informed opinion’ (in contrast to us, poor peasants) as well as lots and lots of complex pseudo-scientific verbiage to substantiate this ‘academic’ claim.

    Guys, I have one important thing to say to you. NEVER allow yourselves be intimidated by any ‘academic’ background and scientific language. Having two Psychology Ph.D.s in my family and being surrounded by university professors and academicians from early childhood I can testify on the Bible that a truly great scientist will be able to explain to you the most difficult scientific data in plain language – so that anyone willing to understand will be able to do it. The simpler the explanation is the greater is the scholar.

    In short in science, as everywhere else, there may be Professors and ‘professors’ (in quotes), same as some people may regard certain things as ‘family values’ (in quotes) and some as Family Values – plain, solid and understandable to all (without any quotes).

    This makes the views of our ‘academic’ opponent about Michael “utterly beyond any doubt” belonging to that orientation NOTHING but a personal opinion of someone who propagates his controversial ideas in the name of scientific thought.

    There are however other schools of thought which doubt it very much that Michael could ever belong to this category of people on the basis of:

    liking the company of children, for example. If love for children is such a determinative feature of people of this ‘orientation’ what are we supposed to do with school teachers then? Or those working in kindergartens? Or pediatricians who, OMG, see naked children every day and evidently chose this profession not out of hatred for children, but out of love for them? Are they ….they… TOO?

    no child porn ever found in Michael’s computers, for example. This is a top important issue as some pedophiles indeed do not engage in any child abuse activities (they just look at others doing it), but if their case is that ‘primary’ they surely need to have something to watch. Child pornography and pedophilia always go hand in hand with each other (see the research saying that “child pornography offending is a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia”:
    http://66.241.140.51/search?q=cache:iFN6NAlulAoJ:www.camh.net/Research/Research_publications/Newsletter/child_pornography_pedophilia.html+pedophilia&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=camhnet2&proxystylesheet=camhnet2&site=default_col

    This is why computers are the FIRST thing which are seized by the police from a home of pedophilia suspect. If EVER a computer had a porn picture or a link to a porn site which was later erased there are many ways to retrieve them. So if FBI could NOT find anything even distantly associated with child porn in Michael’s computers it means only one thing – it was NEVER there.

    – pedophiles may be married but they are so ‘fixed’ on their desires that they cannot resist taking pictures of the genitalia of their own babies, for example. I’ve read outcries of some women who are desperately seeking advice on the internet: “I’ve seen several such photos of our little daughter on his telephone – what am I to do now?”, etc. It would be a complete crime to put my Defendant beside these guys so I will not even mention his name here – just remember what kind of a FATHER he was!

    Now as to pedophilia not being a disease – I have good news for our ‘scholar’. The scientists of CAMH (a Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization Collaborating Centre, fully affiliated with the University of Toronto) have found the strongest evidence is that pedophilia is a result of a problem in a brain development. It turns out that pedophiles have significantly less of a substance called “white matter” which is responsible for wiring the different parts of the brain together.

    This breakthrough “challenges the commonly held belief that pedophilia is brought on by childhood trauma or abuse”.

    “This discovery suggests that much more research attention should be paid to how the brain governs sexual interests. Such information could potentially yield strategies for preventing the development of pedophilia.”

    “There is nothing in this research that says pedophiles shouldn’t be held criminally responsible for their actions,” said Dr. James Cantor, CAMH Psychologist and lead scientist of the study, “Not being able to choose your sexual interests doesn’t mean you can’t choose what you do.”

    Source: http://www.camh.net/News_events/News_releases_and_media_advisories_and_backgrounders/Pedophile_study_cantor.html

    So Sean, THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE for each of us in our life and by writing what you are writing here YOU ARE MAKING YOURS TOO.

    Like

  49. sean permalink
    June 13, 2010 7:42 pm

    …sorry, the word is ‘ascertain’ not ‘determine’.

    “One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder.” [http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186#]

    it isn’t worth my arguing the toss here over MJ’s paedophilia, I will simply state my informed opinion. I reject the DSM concept of a ‘paraphilia’, as do many others in the field. the roots of paedophilia are no different to those of hetero- or homosexuality. they are innate (not a choice) and are not associated with any psychopathic conditions.

    my personal belief is that MJ had a primary paedophilic orientation. I think this is utterly beyond any doubt actually. however, I think the crucial thing which people seem to be missing here is that paedophilia does not imply any kind of behaviour, simply an orientation to kids — always including a sexual aspect, but also likely to be romantic, affectionate, caring and tender.

    I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that MJ ever engaged in sexual acts with his boy friends, and personally I see no reason to judge him or pathologize him for his interest in children. he certainly seems to have been a gentle and loving father.

    so perhaps it’s a question of semantics. I think MJ’s fans, of all people, should be ready to examine their harsh and uninformed judgements of paedophilic people because, as I said, there is really no doubt about MJ’s own orientation.

    also, for the record, I don’t agree with Tom O’Carrol’s stated position on paedophilia and I don’t condone adult sexual activity with children.

    Like

  50. sean permalink
    June 13, 2010 10:28 am

    …also, I think you’ll find that the provisional revised DSM-V section on pedophilia, or should I say pedohebephilia, provides for a ‘determination’ in the absence of a ‘diagnosis’.

    in case that isn’t clear, this means that according to DSM-V one can be a ‘pedohebephile’ who is not mentally ill.

    and what is a pedohebephile? it’s an adult attracted to children or teenagers. an adult attracted to teens?! wow! a truly rare and exotic condition! bring on the civil commitments!

    Like

  51. sean permalink
    June 13, 2010 10:10 am

    thankyou Lynette. you don’t need to provide me with a link to the Wikipedia page on the DSM, because I have less than zero regard for the credibility of either source, especially where they have anything to say on the subject of paedophilia. my academic training and clinical experience is quite adequate for me to make this judgment.

    i don’t believe i said anything about ‘lifestyle choice’ either. that is a phrase from ‘family values’ styled homophobic rhetoric. also, whether or not the term ‘paedophilia’ denotes any specific kind of behaviour is a question of semantics, but in correct usage it does not. paedophilia is a sexual orientation and implies no symptomatic behaviour or associated psychopathology. that is the uncontroversial clinical orthodoxy.

    I’m grateful for your professional concern. I hope you find somebody that needs it.

    Like

  52. Lynette permalink
    June 13, 2010 12:23 am

    First let me say this: Until 1994 when the DSMIV was written the DSM III and the DSMIII-R did classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. I will provide a link to the background of this book so you can further educate yourself on what I am about to write. This manual is used in the US only not worldwide for diagnosing mental disorders. Some of the information written here is written by people from other countries like say Russia for instance which would explain that it may very well still be classified as a mental disorder in that country. The entire world is not as politically correct as we are here nor are they as progressive in their acceptance of homosexuality. It is not prejudice if they do not believe the same as you if they are from a different culture. Secondly pedophilia is still classified as a mental disorder and when a person is diagnosed with it they are classified as mentally ill and sexually dangerous requiring special forensic hospitalization. I know I still do a monthly rotation as a Psychiatric nurse at a state hospital. So Sean if you would like to let me know who you are and where you live I can refer you to a professional that can help you.
    Otherwise do not state on this forum that pedophilia is just a different lifestyle choice it is actually a disease and it involves criminal behavior. Here is the link for the information on the book I was referring to so you can read for yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

    Like

  53. sean permalink
    June 12, 2010 6:39 pm

    == those “professors” ==

    why the quotes? they are professors. perhaps you are simply reluctant to deal in the domain of reasoned debate and prefer ad hominem attacks.

    == Is Thomas O’Carroll a criminal? Absolutely. He is a self-confessed pedophile ==

    newsflash. paedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a criminal act.

    so, are these bus tickets the substance of your dismissal of what seems to me an unsurprising appraisal of MJ’s sexuality? the irony is that your moral outrage does his memory a disservice and reflects an attitude that caused him enormous pain in his lifetime.

    Like

  54. truthseeker permalink
    May 29, 2010 2:26 am

    Outrageously appauling. Put these people in jail where they belong.
    Oh I forgot many judges are pedos and they all protect each other.

    There is NO such thing as consenting children. Only love starved kids, abused and brainwashed by these pervs to think that this is normal love.

    ALL pedophiles victims end up seriously broken and in therapy if they’re lucky. Most of them commit suicide or loose themselves in heavy drugs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: