It appears that one can be born with a brain predisposed to experience sexual arousal in response to children.Pedophilic men have significantly less white matter, which is the connective tissue that is responsible for communication between different regions in the brain.
Is the doctor presupposing that people's white matter is fixed at birth, not subject to environmental influences (increase/decrease) thereafter — perhaps diminished by abuse? We've known for years that, that happens with brain tissues. His would be a ridiculous position to take without more information to substantiate it. Furthermore, sympathy shouldn't be an issue. Of course prevention is better. What is he really thinking?
Why is he rolling this out now without fleshing it out, even raising other possibilities? Is he being stupid there, or is he part of an agenda to lower standards? Why is CNN letting him?
"Pedophilia" was long used as a synonym for "child molestation," and both were often seen as psychological failures of self-control. Child molesters were thought to be acting out their own histories of abuses,....
That hasn't changed. It still explains plenty. Is James Cantor telling us that it doesn't? I'd like to see him prove it's no longer the case if he is. It doesn't matter if a child was molested? If he thinks that, it doesn't speak very highly of his advanced degree.
To me, there appears to be more going on here than simply advocating for a better approach to treatment. There are homosexualists and pedophiles out to twist the subject for ideological reasons. We should resist that 100%. James Cantor needs to take care not to be misled.
Many homosexuals are homosexual (same-sex attracted) as a direct result of having been homosexually abused, even raped, as non-same-sex attracted children. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with being born that way or with less brain tissue of any type other than perhaps that they were able to be taken advantage of for being less developed and such. Prevention begins with admitting that fact, not living in denial or thinking that someone who is an "associate professor of psychiatry" is immune to poor reasoning, jumping to false conclusions, putting the cart before the horse, or helping to lead in misleading the masses. I'm not saying he is, but I'm not favorably impressed with his work so far.
James Cantor, please go back to the drawing board. Find out whether children are born with more or less white matter, the degree to which white matter can change after birth (in utero would be nice to know about too; also what was the health of the parents at the time of conception), and what can cause any low quantities of tissue and changes of any degree from the mean average for reasonably healthy people. Do that before suggesting what you appear to want others to take away from your article beyond sympathy, which in any case, should not ever morph into tolerance of pedophilia. Make it clear, will you. Be sure not to tiptoe around the homosexualists.
James Cantor, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, is a psychologist and senior scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. He is editor in chief of "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment" and blogs at Sexology Today.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)