Talk:MAAs

From Campaigns Wikia

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)!

Contents 1 Tabs 2 Previously unsectioned comments 3 Studies and sources 4 Con section 5 Title 6 Pedo Pride Parade

[edit] Tabs

If Pro & Con are not appropriate for the tabs on this article, or you have different ideas, please post them here. Chadlupkes 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previously unsectioned comments

Why is this listed under Civil Rights? Why is it in the Campaign Wiki at all? The author needs to say at the top what the Civil Rights Issue is which is related to "MAA's" , and what the Campaign-related implications of that issue are. -user:Dan robinson

• We demand the basic civil right of not being treated as child molesters

• Our goal is to explain the difference between a child molester and a person who is attracted to minors.

• If you don't agree with what we say, then we welcome your opinion, but this article deserves its place as a civil rights issue. BLueRibbon 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We also need case law to determine whether we are legally protected as a 'sexual orientation.' If not, we need to campaign to have existing laws read 'sexuality' instead (or another less controversial word). This page will probably seem more relevant when it's finished. Jillium 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, were not legally protected as a sexual orientation yet. I personally feel that we should stick to our current goals in this project, but that's only my opinion. BLueRibbon 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The other probably wouldn't be attainable this way, anyway. Jillium 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this MAA campaign misses the point slightly. Even if you can gain a tiny bit of respect from non-pedophiles, so what? Any expression of your sexuality is still illegal in most countries, and is legally termed "abuse" or "molestation" - deliberately emotive terms that you even fall into the trap of using yourselves.

The real issue is the legal AOC itself and, on a deeper level, the FALSE but immensely popular idea that a "minor" (a classification which varies depending on AOC in different countries) cannot enjoy any sexual contact with an adult without it being "abuse".

As somebody sexually "abused" (see the loaded term?) in my own childhood, I KNOW this to be utterly false. My sexual experiences did not damage me in the slightest, although the aftermath did, once various witch-hunting adults became involved. I practically had to withstand a form of brainwashing that I'd been the victim of a hideous assault, when in fact everything had been consensual.

Until the assumption of harm is removed, until children are emancipated to explore sexual experiences with whoever they choose, and until AOC laws are abolished, there is no real hope for either children or pedophiles with regards to these issues.

And until all these issues are properly addressed/resolved, there is no real prospect that pedophiles will be "accepted" either. You're just viewed as "potential abusers" rather than youth-lovers or child-lovers..... -195.93.21.70 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your perspective to the table. It's important to hear all sides. Chadlupkes 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any expression? I disagree. Just the sexual part... On the AoC, that's just mislabeled... it should be "Age of being Allowed"... and no, children won;t be emancipated soon.

The only thing we can do is show that the current line of laws is basically leading to a totalitarian government based on and fueled by fear and that is something that goes beyond the mere MAA thing. --LeBonhomme 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• The issue of MAAs is a socially and politically relevant topic, since, as BLueRibbon says, there are rights (and responsibilities) to be discussed, and moral questions to be addressed. Therefore, I believe that it is completely valid to have an article about MAAs in Campaigns Wikia, as it can promote an informed debate over future legislation concerning them. --Waldsen 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studies and sources

The claims made by "Mytreazurz" are from an anti-paedophile propaganda book, not a scientific study. They were posted by internet troll Marina H. (Stitches77) who runs a blog which discusses methods for killing paedophiles frequently in the comments sections. BLueRibbon 14:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The other studies which they added are based on studies of child molesters, not MAAs and are not relevant to this article. Maybe there could be an article which fights against child molestation for this material? BLueRibbon 14:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the studies they added are biased. However, the clarifications Mytreazurz gives in the Quotes sections are completely valid, and address the topic at hand. I will not add those interpretations until we have some sort of consensus, as I don't want an edit war, but the article cannot supress opinions that offer a serious and respectful critique of your posture. -- Waldsen 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

These studies aren't biased at all. Gene Abel is quoted by pedophiles also. They merely choose the sections they want the most and ignore the parts that aren't in their favor. These results are the latest and by THE most respected of all sex researchers. The other quotes they have are misleading and in some instances complete lies. Trying to imply that pedophiles aren't child molesters goes completely against the current literature when it has been proven that 95% of all molestations are committed by MAA's in other words pedophiles with a milder name. Furthermore mytreasurz doesn't run any blog at all let alone a 'hate group'. Is this entry to promote propoganda or TRUTH? User:Mytreasurz

Mytreasurz, you run the blog Absolute Zero as "Stitches77". Abel's research was based on child molesters not paedophiles. Her intention was to prevent child molestation and she started with the idea that paedophiles=child molesters. You state on your blog (in the archives) that the Wikia article should be trolled (or similar words) because you disagree with it. What you have quoted comes directly from the Absolute Zero blog (and the Google cache has evidence of that).

An unbiased study was conducted by Lanning, a highly respected FBI agent, in which he made it clear that most sex crimes against children were committed by non-MAAs, especially parents. Why don't you start a page fighting child molestation instead of MAAs, if you want to protect children from abuse. I would happily help you. BLueRibbon 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the in favor position also quotes Abel. I believe erasing Mytreazurz's addition was counter-productive. BLueRibbon, although this article has an extensive defense of paedophilia, there is always space for critisism. If you believe a section is biased, maybe you should try to improve it, not simply delete it. -- Waldsen 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

First let me say that I am not Stitches. Second Stitches did once edit this entry at which time Blueribbon posted her personal information he obtained from the post, onto his blog. Now about this entry, Blueribbon is making statement as fact which in fact are not facts at all but a contortion of what someone once wrote which has since been challenged and disproven anyway. Secondly, Ken Lanning of the FBI NEVER quoted that 90% figure. It was written by the journalist DiLorenzo who IMPLIED that Lanning said this. It's in none of his writings and in fact goes against everything he said. As for Abel's figures, they were from a study of over 16,000 men and concluded that over 95% of ALL child molestations are commited by pedophiles (or MAA's to use your word) The PURPOSE of the study was to determine how to STOP child molestations. The solution was to identify pedophiles BEFORE they offend and give them treatment. The other studies quoted from the NWT and Canada Correctional did NOT say what this entry says they did. The Hall, Freund, Briere and other studies quoted here did NOT say that 25-33% of men had pedophilic attractions, what they SAID was that the use of phallometry indicated that these men had a higher arousability than other men. In other words, they might be the type to become aroused by the sight of a stick laying on the side of the road. And I believe that one way to STOP molestations Blueribbon, might be to have a talk with your Dad who is trying to stop you from molesting that poor 12 year old boy before it's too late.

Hmm, what we have posted is there for everyone to read. I encourage people to read what we posted so they can see that you are being dishonest. As far as my personal issues go, when I leave home I will become a teacher or something similar, so I will get to spend plenty of time with the people I love. I think you know that spending time alone with a boy is not child molestation. Speaking of child molestation, are you going to start a page fighting against it or do you simply not care? BLueRibbon 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I* don't have to start a page fighting against child molestation. Absolute Zero is carrying on that fight. I may take up your suggestion though and join them. I* have not been dishonest at all. I have told the exact truth with references that say EXACTLY what I said they say. YOU, on the other hand are being dishonest. YOUR references DO NOT SAY what you say they say. Your goal, you say, is to educate people about MAA's and increase awareness and tolerance and yet you deceive in order to try to achieve that. That will not increase tolerance. Liars generally have a lot to hide. Abel's BOOK says everything you need to know. I suggest you go buy it and educate yourself. You will only become a teacher so that you can molest young children if you keep yourself under the radar and go undetected. I* am here to make sure that you don't.

Absolute Zero is not fighting child molesters. It is just discussing methods of how to kill paedophiles. Maybe you could read the blog I once owned.

I also don't see how a school could refuse to allow me to teach. They're only allowed to prevent sex offenders from teaching. Even if they know I'm a paedophile, it would officially be discrimination against a mental illness, and therefore illegal to prevent me from teaching. Why do you think that I want to molest young boys. Where have I even suggested that I want to do that and why do you think that I want to harm someone I love? You're not making any sense.

I do not deceive. I post studies which you can read for yourself, many of which were conducted when I was younger than my YF currently is. Hmm, I can't really have influenced those, can I? Please use your brain rather than repeat everything from AZ. Most of what they say is untrue; they always use semi-quotes. BLueRibbon 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one using semi-quotes. I have read the studies you refer to and they don't say what you say they say. The studies I refer to DO. Also the fact that they were conducted "when I was younger than my YF currently is" should be telling you something. I used the MOST current data available and you are attempting to use wikia to further your own personal agenda.

I have read Absolute Zero, they are indeed fighting child molesters. They do not support killing pedophiles and state so explicitly. They are attempting to educate people about the lies pedophiles are spreading around the internet.

If a school refused to allow you to be around children that they are held responsible for, it would be discrimination AGAINST A MENTAL ILLNESS??? Exactly, you have a mental illness. Just because your therapy didn't work the first time you were in it, doesn't mean that you don't need it. I'm not repeating anything FROM AZ, I'm repeating the same studies they are. Use your brain.

And why don't YOU try to fight child molestation? After all, its YOU who LOVE children, right? One thing you should know, there's a big difference in lust and love. Most people DO love children, they don't however LUST after them and then try to convince people that they aren't dangerous.

They may explicitly state that they don't support killing paedophiles. I could also explicitly state that I live on the Moon. If you read comments section, you will see that they do support killing paedophiles.

You seem to think that when I say "when I was younger than my YF currently is", I am referring to ancient studies. Do you have any idea how old I am now? I'm still a minor myself. You should also be aware that modern studies are often dripping with bias because researchers are terrified of being labelled "pro-paedo".

Yes, paedophilia is officially a mental illness; in reality it isn't. If I were refused as a teacher, however, I would be able to argue a very strong legal case in court and the school would lose.

I've started a page on Child molestation here. The question is, are you going to help, or are you just going to stay on this page and argue with me all day? BLueRibbon 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Blueribbon "I am not going to get into an edit war with you, but you should respect what Walsden says when he asks that we wait for a consensus. You're making yourself look like an idiot" As I recall and as noted in the history, YOU WENT AND EDITED IT AFTER HE SAID TO WAIT. And YES I do indeed know how old you are. I know lots of things.

You should also know that there is a lobby now for phallometry testing of men who will be working closely with children. Which is one of the reasons they are trying to get more reliable results with it. They will be using it in conjunction with psychological testing and lie detector tests. Probably should be in effect by the time you get through college. That is if you can resist killing your father and going to prison. Why, you'll have lots of things to look forward to.

Well, I've calmed down, thanks. You can read why in my latest blog post if you wish. In which country are they lobbying for that kind of testing? In the US maybe, but not here. Sorry to disappoint you.

How is you work with the Child molestation page going? BLueRibbon 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dear. I know where you live. But then, in your great vast of knowledge, you should where they are trying to enact this, shouldn't you?

OMG! You have the IP address of a proxy server! I feel threatened.... BLueRibbon 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly boy. I'm not one of these bloggers you keep running into. Haven't you figured that out by now?

I know you've said that, but I don't believe you. I also know that I have never posted anything which can locate me to a certain area other than English speaking countries and I always use a proxy, so you are not being truthful with that claim either. You're a very dishonest person, you're.... Stitches77. BLueRibbon 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT Stitches, but thank you for the compliment. Do you believe the best way to locate someone and reveal their true identity is through posts they make? Did I say that's how I knew who you were? Furthermore, you will NEVER find me telling a LIE about ANYTHING. I have character. Something you obviously know nothing about.

There are two ways to locate someone. One is from reading their profiles and posts. The other is to get a general location by using IP addresses. Since you don't have an IP and you claim that you haven't used my posts, your claim is very difficult to believe. BLueRibbon 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"There are two ways to locate someone." That just proves how little you know.

You act as if you know everything about me, but you haven't even mentioned a general area of a country. BLueRibbon 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have protected the article due to the edit war. A Wiki article must be the result of reaching a common ground, and not for one point of view to be imposed over the other. Remember that in a heated discussion, we might feel tempted to insult each other. Let's continue avoiding that. Finally, the article was protected at a random state, and will be released in a few days. -- Waldsen 22:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Con section

I'd like to know whether those people in the Con section deciding all by themselves what a number of German studies say or don't say do speak German so they could actually tell at all?

Also I wonder in what way Krafft-Ebing and Kinsey have "long been debunked" if the model in question has been empirically evidenced by eight scientific studies between 1981 and 1999? Furthermore, if they have "long been debunked", why are they used as authoritative sources in the English Wikipedia article on Pedophilia?

"Of 13 studies, only one found that paedosexuality is the most prevalent cause of child molestation: None of these studies found the results stated here." Exactly. They *didn't* find what they were looking for, and those were evidences for the theory that all or at least *most* of legally detected adult-child interactions are neither based upon sadism nor had been committed by people preferring adult partners. That's exactly what the bold statement says in the Pro section, they *didn't* find these evidences they were looking for, while the bold statement doesn't say they found any actual counter-evidences either, however that's not what they were looking for, after all.

The only study on sex prevalence quoted in the Con section is Abel 2001 claiming that "1% of females" are physically attracted to minors and that "less than 1% of all men" are. In what way does that support the statement "the majority of paedosexuals are male"?

"Studies by Hall, Briere, Quinsey and others did not prove the percentage of the general population's attraction to minors." That's not what Quinsey et al. 1975 or Hall et al 1995 are supposed to say in the Pro section either where it reads "Of 13 studies, only one found that paedosexuality is the most prevalent cause of child molestation". No study by Briere is mentioned there at all.

I do consider though that the frequency issue of MAAs has always been at least partially controversial within the international MAA movement for half a century, however the issue was mostly about whether the issue matters at all or not, *not* about how many there really are, and even the view that it *does* matter was always held only by a very small minority of supporters within the MAA movement. Hence, I'll be removing that part below the "Studies" section.

Finally, when I wrote "a collective neurotical repression based upon legal oppression and public as well as physical discrimination mostly yielding socially demanded personality types in analogy of similar socio-psychological conditions especially during earlier times based upon homophobia" in the Pro section, I didn't really mean that everybody with such a resulting "socially demanded personality type" would be inherently paedosexual. What I was referring to was Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's concept of the traditional Indo-European in-group vs. out-group conflict based upon partly factual, partly imaginary stereotypes mostly coined and defined by the in-group in order to exclude what they define as the out-group and thereby maintain their own social in-group existence, identity, and integrity (mostly referred to as "values" in the public discourse within the US). In light of this concept (which Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg pronouncedly applies upon the two sexual minorities of homosexuals and paedosexuals as lecherousness and fornication have traditionally been the most outrageous stereotypical aspect of the out-group status since the beginning of the Iron Age), the stereotypical "child molester" out-group image mostly functions as symbolically representing anything prohibited in our cultural Western domain in order to maintain the socially demanded socio-psychological norm by psychological repression so that this out-group image is used in an authoritarian, socially oppressive way upon any individual in society and about anything prohibited, not only adult-child sex interactions and not only upon those actually desiring such. How could the sentence "However, most paedosexuals in Western nations are closeted, perhaps even to themselves" somebody else wrote be re-phrased in order to reflect that in a short, easily comprehensible way? Maybe as "Socio-psychologically demanded social identity and personality in the Western world are based fundamentally upon denouncing adult-child sex interactions and desire for them, to a degree that anybody holding differing opinions are increasingly considered no part of the human community and race, at least not a "healthy" one"? In case you wonder about the "no part of the human race" aspect, traditional chaste in-group propaganda and values have always been based upon dehumanizing society's alleged opponents, i. e. denouncing them as inherently not human but as either demonic fiends (later "morally mad" as by pseudo-scientific ideologies since the dawn of modern science during the Age of Enlightenment which clearly echo in the modern paraphilia concept, John Money only coined a new name with that and definitely not any new attitude or approach towards the very same phenomena) or brute animals instead. --TlatoSMD 07:20, 18 August 2006 (CEST)

Though I added the data to the con section, User:Mytreasurz is the original author, and I merely copied the submissions from a reverted version. I do not condone the information and I do not know the answers to your questions, given that I am no expert in this issue. Feel free to contact Mytreasurz about this.

Also, please add new topics on talk pages to the end. It will still get noticed, have no fear. This is just to keep the topics in chronological order. Jfingers88 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)!

Since my criticism was neither responded to nor any more convincing sources have been added for 12 days, I'll hereby delete those sentences partly unsourced, partly conflicting with at least 10 times as much other authoritative sources each in the Con section. --TlatoSMD 15:59, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Title

I've always wondered why this is called "MAAs" and not "Minor-attracted adults" or something of that ilk. Is it more commonly known by its abbreviation? I think that the full names should at least be redirects here. Jfingers88 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "MAA" is inclusive of minor attracted adults and adolescents attracted to significantly younger minors. MAA is more frequently used than minor-attracted adult or minor-attracted adolescent. Your idea of redirects from the longer titles would work well. BLueRibbon 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I'll be bold! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, not so easy to move, huh? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be. Maybe just create a new set of pages, and link to the histories of this set on the talk pages? I don't really know these tab things too well. Jfingers88 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedo Pride Parade

Black people have reclaimed the word 'black', which was once seen as derogatory.

Gay people have reclaimed the word 'queer', which was once seen as derogatory.

MAAs should reclaim the word 'pedo'. It's short, snappy, and it can be used affirmatively to demonstrate acceptance of oneself as an MAA.

A 'Pedo Pride Movement' would gain more media attention than an 'MAA Pride Movement'. 'MAA' is only in common usage amongst MAAs, whereas 'Pedo' is a popular derogatory term used around the English-speaking world to refer to MAAs of all shapes and sizes.

In 1972, 700 lesbians and gays marched through London, from Trafalgar Square to Hyde Park, on the first British gay pride parade. I dream of a day when 700 MAAs will do the same thing, and spread the word that it is okay to be an MAA.

I don't know how radical the parade should be. Perhaps we should campaign for the acceptance of sexual contact betwen adults and minors. Or perhaps many of us do not think this should be accepted. Even if we do, perhaps it would be best to take baby steps: spread awareness that attraction to minors is not something we choose to have, and therefore is not soemthing we can be blamed for. We could also make people aware that there is no necessary connection between attraction to minors and violence towards minors, just as there is no necessary connection between attraction to adults and violence towards adults. These fairly obvious truths are not widely accepted, and a 'Pedo Pride Parade' may help to change this.

82.7.72.107 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)