Reposting something I wrote on Twitter: Thread: disgust + conversational style + the function of shame Since posting our interview with James Cantor from 2022, there’s been much activity on twitter about our conversation. The nature of such posts seem to revolve around 2 main themes: 1. The tone in which James spoke, especially moments where he jumped in and interrupted. 2. The disgust and discomfort people felt while listening to our discussion about p@dphilic propensities in individuals and how to actually reduce the associated offending behaviors. I want to address both briefly (or maybe not so briefly) 1. James and I have met in person. We spent considerable time together and we get along very well. Being around James, it’s obvious he is not one to hold his tongue: his conversational style is quick, witty, and bold. He’s also hilarious and really fun to be around. Some people have pointed out that Stella and I are two women who were interrupted by James, a man, at a few moments in the discussion. Frankly, I find it aggravating that others (with good intentions) have somehow framed us as damsels-in-distress who were disrespected when a man passionately jumped in and interrupted us at times. I want people to engage with me as an EQUAL: in ways that are natural to them. I want people to spontaneously react to whatever we are discussing, and to freely and vigorously debate with me. I would HATE for someone to come on the program and tip toe around me because he thinks I’m too sensitive or fragile to handle a robust and organic conversation. That would be such an insult. Furthermore, on many occasions, James said things like “yes, that’s a completely natural reaction” or “yes it’s totally understandable that people feel that way”. Stella and I had lots of space to talk and share our thoughts and James agreed with many of our points. At no point did I feel James was disrespectful or insulting. I rather LIKE when people drop the social conventions and just speak freely. Here’s the way I interpreted the interruptions, specifically: James had been claiming that people’s reactions to p@dphilia are often based on emotional reflexes (a disgust response) rather than dispassionately thinking through the ACTUAL ways to prevent p@dphilic offending. In a few moments when Stella and I had responses and questions, James quickly jumped in to make the point: “THERE! Right there! What you said JUST NOW: you’re doing that emotional response thing I was just talking about”. 2. Disgust is natural indeed. Stigma and shame may serve a valuable role in the mediation of people’s behaviors. Perhaps taboo behaviors will be less common. I’m open to this being true. If this were true, then societies which frame p@dphilia as the MOST taboo behavior would have zero instances of offending. Do we have any evidence of this? However, it’s also entirely plausible (and sadly many survivors of abuse know this), that shame and stigma can push people’s offending behaviors underground, into secrecy, and the people being hurt most by this are their victims. James’ point, in my view, is that if we truly want to stop children from being hurt, we have to think about ways to get offending p@dphiles to seek out treatment. Those who want to stop should be able to get help. That’s what the German model seems to be concerned with. I would still like to see the data and outcomes of that German model. Does it, indeed, lead to p@dphilic individuals to seek help? To reduce their offending? Does it, indeed, protect would-be victims in the long run? The conceptual framework for the program was laid out, but we didn’t really clarify what the data show. As you all know, I do believe that p@rn can impact IRL behaviors for some. I don’t want to start addressing that point here. This entire experience has given me lots to think about. The way audiences perceive our conversation was really interesting. I hope listeners can continue to discuss, debate, and consider our conversation w James Cantor.
@SashaLPC I take your points, and I agree. I'd add, though -- in this situation, comportment matters over conversational style. It's a legitimate critique. Reasoning: the harder the sell, *especially* with data-gathering and thesis-building around controversial and volatile topics, the more clear and consistent the presentation style should be. If you alienate a potentially receptive audience through communication habits, they'll tune out your evidence, however stellar. You've sunk your own argument. Cantor has some historical issues with this, particularly via social media. Pretty basic stuff, but it bears repeating. Also unfair (the data should stand on its own merits), but we're in the agora here, not sitting on an editorial board.
@@-Stella-Maris- Yes I can see your point. Communication styles, especially with controversial matters, have the potential to really improve or diminish the listener's receptivity.
I loved his tone and style. To me it was obvious that he respected you BECAUSE he wasn’t letting you get away with any slips/ generalisations/ leaps to conclusions. He is clearly passionate about remaining dispassionate- a true scientist! We must protect this rare creature!
That's an awesome level of awareness & response; thanks, Stella & Sasha! I just got back for BILLBOARDING at San Diego's pride festival in Balboa Park. Following the model of Stanley Green, the famous PASSION PROTEIN MAN of downtown London, (not mentioning any other currently active billboarders!) my billboard said: "KIDS CAN NOT CONSENT TO PEDOPHILIA" and on the back, LGBTP/p"(Greek PI/pi, and crossed out.) Having spoken in public on pedophilia for some years now, and reciting poetry from Ancient Greece with strong BL themes, I am often tempted to PULL UP A CHAIR, so that the "pedo-toileting" (my name for the involuntary negative emotionality that comes up) can have its own space in the discussion. It's a HUGE need that people have, in proportion as the "Overton Window" has historically been closed on this topic, at least in the Anglo-Sphere. The thing is, the "pedo-toileting" is dirty work--a job for a professional engineer of emotional sewage, someone who has professionalized in this field to the point of not talking the 2nd Person-to-1st Person dynamics personally. (People really need to have an intense 2->1 pipeline going, before they can do their pedo-toileting: "I'm not a pedo! YOU ARE!" On the other hand, the normal male-role modeling, the functional male role-modeling, only happens when a man & boy expose the best, sweetest, more delicate parts of their soul to each other. (It goes without saying that boundaries are necessary for this, and that the responsibility for that falls to the man . . . not the boy, not to external busy-bodies.) The good MAN/boy relationships can only happen in a CLEAN, SAFE space, WELL AWAY, WELL SEPARATED from the pedo-toileting, which has an emotional tonality that is very RUDE, HARSH, ABRASIVE, NEGATIVE. Both are extremely important processes . . . but GOD SEND YOU DON'T MAKE THEM IN THE ONE POT, MOTHER GROGAN! m.joyceproject.com/notes/010134mothergrogan.html
For people complaining that Dr. Cantor "doesn't let them speak", I believe it's because given the nature of this subject, it is absolutely important that he concludes his line of thought before answering another parallel discussion. This is one of these subjects where any sentence out of context or unfinished line of thought can be disastrous. He seems to be committed to reporting his findings no matter how offensive or fantasy-shattering those findings are... and I respect him for it. And also lots of respect for Sasha and Stella for engaging and probing and pushing back as well - you ladies are really not afraid of going deep. Thank you for this talk!
100% of this. As a long-time "academic fan" of his work, he wants to fully flesh out the nuances of his work before allowing engagement. And one thing that I really love, especially as someone in the sciences, is that he emphasizes the importance of removing oneself from their findings. I notice how my colleagues viscerally react to what they find and then *assume* it's wrong. We do assign interpretations to what tests, such as radiographs, tell us, but it's so important that we go into our research with "an open mind." What I mean by that, and what Dr. Cantor is getting at, is the the ability to ask questions without immediately dismissing the data because of social norms. He does that state, and highlights, how awful abuse is, but he is trying to distinguish between a paraphilia and the act of abuse. That's hard for people to distinguish between. The pushback is also how academic discourse is supposed to work, and I appreciate that all involved engage in it.
Then you can politely ask the interviewer to slow down. Shouting over someone to get your point across, because you think what you have to say is more important or relevant than someone else, is just rude.
This is one of the most important interviews you’ve ever done. His razor sharp scientific, non emotional discourse process obviously challenged and stimulated you both (and us). Wow - I can see why you kept it back but ultimately felt it needed to be heard. This guy needs to be heard more and protected from the simpleton detractors.
Your work is so important. Ignore the children online that lack the emotional stability and intellectual capacity to actually have a conversation. I think we can understand that this is the result of stunting the moral, emotional and intellectual development that comes from having their puberty blocked as children.
This podcast, called "Earthly Delights" characterized Dr. James Cantor, PhD, thusly: Feb 2, 2021 - In this episode, Dr James Cantor articulately and eloquently dismantles many of the incorrect and unhelpful beliefs surrounding Pedophilia ...
I am so glad that you have released this interview, thank you Stella and Sasha! I have worked with abusive (mostly male) people for twenty years of all types, including the specific people Dr Cantor is talking about. So I agree with a great deal of what he says, based on my training and experience. Eg. most of these types of offenders are not in the P category because those are very rare and most CSA offenders have a normal attraction to adults and don't necessarily pose a risk all of the time. Situational vs preferential. However, I personally disagree on a few areas. MRI scans are only part of the picture, not the full explanation. MRI scans can also identify psychopaths but don't explain how they became so and there is a lot of research to suggest that while some may have been born that way, many are made so by environment and early developmental experiences. I also very much disagree with Dr Cantor's views on mandatory reporting. I have to say before I elaborate that I have had a couple of encounters with Dr Cantor on Twitter and found him both defensive and arrogant in his responses. I notice the same in his "ah ah ah" chiding response to you both in this interview. He could have just said "hang on just let me finish" but he didn't. I have met several highly experienced practitioners such Dr Briggs, Dr Sullivan, Dr Clark Baim, Dr Finkelhor and Roger Kennington and they always listened, were always gracious, patient and very generous with their time. Perhaps if Dr Cantor was less lecturing, prickly and abrasive, he might find that clients would in fact disclose over time, in the full knowledge that they would be reported and experience the consequences, because that is in fact what a skilled practitioner can achieve with this client group. Dr Cantor seems to hold the view that a few should suffer 'for the greater good' which as we know is also a common response to dentrasitioners too and deeply harmful in the long run. I am not aware of anyone in this field who would encourage this group to actively engage in their fantasies, like Dr Cantor does so he is an outlier in this respect. It is also telling that he said "I don't know what 'normal' is" which to me sounds a bit like some form of leakage even within the context. Finally, I would add that to my knowledge no-one in my profession has ever mentioned or recommended Dr Cantor's research or publications here in the UK. Apologies for the length of my comment and I haven't even addressed everything I wanted to say but I do hope that you have the patience to read it!
When Cantor said, “The stigma belongs to the crime, not the fantasy… the stigma belongs to the part that’s harmful; the part that’s harmful is the overt behavior, NOT the fantasy,” what came into my mind was Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, where he raises the bar for moral stigma: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28). To the degree that any of us retain Christian moral intuitions (with or without the dogmas), the claim that “fantasy is harmless” rings pretty hollow. To quote Louise Perry, “Some desires are bad,” even if they’re innate, and even if you haven’t acted on them, because the moral bar is genuine charity - willing the Good of the other - not just NOT traumatizing them. I wholeheartedly agree with his aim of wanting to PREVENT child sex abuse rather than merely punish offenders after the fact, but why he thinks de-stigmatizing pedophilic fantasies will help potential offenders NOT offend is beyond me. I don’t think fantasies are for “letting off steam” (libido is not mechanical and we are not hydraulic machines under pressure: desire is organic and trainable and subject to habituation). Fantasies shape us and give us a trajectory: they’re not “no big deal.” They’re not “nothing.” We may not generate the things that pop into our heads, but once those images are there, we are responsible for how long we linger over them.
Really appreciate Dr. Cantor's research. His scientific literature on paraphilia is probably some of the best in neuroscience. I don't write on paraphilia, but I do write on agency and brain, and Dr. Cantor has influenced how I think about the brain in my own academic work.
As a lesbian, I almost tore out my hair at that part of the conversation where Dr. Cantor said "born this way" narratives don't appeal to lesbians and that it's a "male framing." WTF? Are the only lesbians that Dr. Cantor met political lesbians? Most lesbians I've encountered have no problem saying we are innately homosexual, and that there is a distinction between us and bisexual women and straight women. There is nothing male about that. Also, how is emphasizing the "emotional" over the "physical" aspect of female sexuality any different from what TRAs say, about how lesbians should be taught to be sexually attracted to transwomen (since bodies don't *really* matter)? The truth is that biological attraction is *extremely* important to us lesbians. Look, I don't deny sexual fluidity is a thing for some women (just like it is for some men), but to frame that as a male vs. a female thing is badly oversimplifying what's going out. argh.
I'm very sure I was born bisexual too. My attraction to women arose first i think, and I couldn't get rid of it no matter what I did. My primary romantic attractions are to women, it's just a shame day-to-day I find men easier to relate to.
I wonder if it's actually got to do with the way women are socialised to be diplomatic and inclusive that they maybe appear to be more fluid in their attractions than men.
Now that I have 45 trans widow responses to my survey, 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow, I clarify here that the survey is about experiences, not "feelings" of we ex-wives. I am specifically focused on women who left. Some of us stayed for a time, the sexologists assumed they are part of "keeping families together" but they practice a long term 35 year long policy of not following up with longitudinal studies of these men or their wives and children. The most shocking result I have so far is the 2 hospitalizations of trans orphans for suicide attempts and the 2 additional trans orphans who expressed serious suicidal ideation such that therapy was mandated. This is much too high, in a cohort of about 30 families with children where the father "transitioned." I am not researching "feelings" or thoughts. I am not even asking how much treatment the ex wives got for PTSD. My questions are recording events. All of these women have been thoroughly vetted and are credible. Of 45 trans widows so far, 18 of us report living below the poverty line or requiring family/govt financial assistance. That attests to our honesty. We all could have claimed that. The most shocking is the 13 of us who were coerced/cajoled/suggested that we must pretend to be a man, using a "strap on" in bed. Many of us refused. One woman who acquiesced had damage from the implement to her C-section scar. This is not the results of my sexual assault question. 17 women were assaulted, 3 raped by the lingerie-wearing husband. None reported to law enforcement.. One woman in Scandinavia was pimped out by her mob-affiliated crossdressing partner. Sorry James Cantor. You don't know our side of the story. YT channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow, participant, documentary Behind the Looking Glass (18 trans widows) now 2 trailers at Lime Soda Films TH-cam channel. My survey results so far will also appear in the film. We are talking events and experiences. Not "identity" and feelings. Ute Heggen
This is a topic that needs to be explored because of the animosity that links pedophilia to homosexuality but boy, is it hard to entertain! The repulsion towards people who harm children makes us lean away and want to rid ourselves of this scourge without exception and Dr. Cantor goes against the grain. I can appreciate his willingness to swim upstream in the name of science.
Just because something is lumped arbitrarily in a group doesn’t mean these things are in any way actually related. We still don’t have any definite answers, we still don’t know… one can be born a psychopath or with scoliosis - besides being born with it, there’s no other relation between the two… people are too reductive and emotional about this stuff. Your sexuality shouldn’t define you and there’s nothing to be proud of either way …
Read Plato's Phaedrus. You'll get a FULL TOUR of the good side of BL, the bad side of BL, the need to separate them . . . and the impossibility of separating them. And yet we must constantly be involved in the process of separating them, maximizing the good side, and minimizing the good side. While being aware that the putative separation is never a final victory.
@@daveldma Excellent question; indeed, the only question really worth discussing. In the Phaedrus, Plato goes into visionary mode, lays out all the cultural patterns known and accepted by the Greeks (under the figures of the Greek gods) and describes man & boy drawn together in pursuit of those various cultural visions, in an absence of sex. Baden-Powell held up the cultural patterns (Christianity! Empire-Building! Queen Victoria! the Great Outdoors! Beating up Boers! No sex!) that he saw as being most relevant to his day. As far as what values Boy-Centered leaders hold up in the 21st C, well, we'll see. I assure you, anyone with a heart for boys is looking at all of this TRANS talk about cutting up boys' bodies and saying to himself, "THINGS HAVE GOT TO BE DIFFERENT. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY OUT OF THE TRANS MADNESS, FOR BOYS WHO WANT TO BE BOYS AND GROW UP TO BE MEN!"
Thank you. It was extremely interesting to hear Dr. Cantor explain his research and conclusions in person. My negative opinion has dissipated. I cannot wait to hear more from him - especially the eitology of transsexualism versus transgenderism. So much food for thought. Excellent!
@@jamescantor8031 I found your comments about lesbians not being as convinced that they were born that way in comparison to homosexual men believing so, quite surprising. Especially as women over all, are often perceived to all be potential lesbians or bisexual. Much more so than for men.
Oh god that was a tough one! The way he refused to be interrupted and the way he sounded a bit too much like a politician at times really rubbed me the wrong way… but… he’s got a damn good point. My abuser was low of IQ (didn’t make it past elementary school) and extremely childish, which even as a kid made me think: “he just never grew up, his development stopped somewhere”… my mom had a knack at attracting them. They looked to her as a motherly figure while abusing me …
Aww friend I'm so sorry. But you are a good person to even justify why your abuser hurt you and why your protector (mom) brought in monsters that she was trying herself to love and help. YOU tragically were the one who it effected. Sending you a virtual snug.
I really also had that a bit, it was like he was 'mansplaining' to Stella and Sasha, but I think that's just the way it came across in the audio. Ofc it's really a diametrically opposing field of business, science and psychology, and he just wanted to make his point I tihnk without having to redirect to another question. I also think that if given the chance mr. Cantor would have talked for 4 hours :D
Came for that comment (the interrupting part)! I felt the same way, also about his point. It is acutally hard to take a step back from judging and the emotions. Especially when one had some bad experience. But I can agree with his point. Maybe bc I'm from Germany and read about the "Dunkelfeld" stuff years ago. I do not have (mainly, see emotions) a problem with the deviant sexuality/interests itself but with the acting on it when it harms others. This includes heterosexual people, too. But this is exactly why I have a problem with the actual trans movement: Men forcing you to take part in their sexual fantasy/pleasure without your consent like AGP: Men in womenface as their kink gear going around demanding to be called "she" and forcing themselves into womens spaces. For their sexual pleasure. There is no difference to exhibitionists. I have no problem with nudity itself but I have a problem with someone forcing his nudity on you to get off. I would have loved if they had adressed the totally different prevalence of deviant/predatory sexualities in men and women which is probably nowadays also a taboo.
Fascinating. I'll definitely have to listen to that again and have a think about what he has to say. I do have a fear that sexual predators are lying to their therapists and researchers and saying that they are "virtuous pedophiles" when they are in fact active child molesters, because people lie to their therapists about the things that they are ashamed of all the time, and it is an obvious thing to do if you are a child molester. The idea about whether or not to make child porn that is cartoon/drawings/animated (and child sex dolls) available is such a dilemma to me. Does it satisfy the urge of pedophiles enough to make them less likely to offend against real life children, or does it strengthen the desire to act out with actual children? And if this stuff is openly available, how would we stop teenage boys coming across it during the vulnerable time in their development and developing pedophilia as a kink/fetish, leading to more suffering and harm. Given how predatory and manipulative and ever on the lookout for opportunities to offend child molesters are (as is any man who serially offends sexually), I do wonder how well his ideas will work out in "the real world". My emotional reaction is that they are dangerous to children and dangerous to women. The history of the western world is a history of male predation against women and children, and of women and children being expected to accommodate (ie be abused by) abusive and Un reciprocal male desires. Personally, at this point in time, I do not feel even slightly interested in extending compassion towards or making space for men to put women and children in further harm.
PS - having now looked at Dr Cantor's blog, and read the really quite disturbing comments in his comments section from the numerous pedophiles using pseudoscience to try to justify their preference as evolutionarily adaptive (and some of the comments in this comments section from obviously woman hating, sexually attracted to children men), my sense of concern about the real world harms to women and children from these idea's has increased astronomically. Also, pedophiles who get caught and convicted are such a small group of men who molest children that it is simply not likely that they are representative of the majority of child molesters. (In my 20+ years as a mental health nurse/alcohol and drug counsellor/psychotherapist around half my female patients were victims of child sexual abuse, but only one ONE had the perpetrator be found guilty in a court of law). I can well believe that the ones who get caught and punished are disproportionately low IQ, and short (meaning neglected as a child), but that is unlikely to be true of the majority of my patients fathers, brothers, uncles and neighbors who molested them. I think the dumb ones who can't afford a lawyer are the ones who are getting caught and punished.
On the drawing/dolls, there's little concrete evidence either way. Fictional imagery has been accessible since the internet, so it's more of not yet finding evidence of it affecting rates of csa. Causality is difficult to confirm, but the research on csem/csa suggests any effects from fiction may vary depending on the person(this is largely consistent with adult p0rn suggested affects). Higher risk/those with previous contact offenses might be escalated by it, csem-only offenders seem low risk to move to contact offenses, and the few populations studies have found less contact offenses with previous availability. Thompson(2019) Contact Offending (summary of the csem risk research applied to fiction) Harper et al(2022) Exploring the Ownership (first study on dolls) Lower IQ does just seem to be a limitation of convicted samples, and some other studies don't find differences in IQ when comparing with non-pedophilic molesters. Some studies looking at contact/non-contact offenders find non-contact offenders comparable IQ to normal controls. Kargel et al(2017) Evidence for superior neurobiological Shortened some of the source titles. Still first links when searching.
Two really good points: (1) yes people do lie about things they’re ashamed of (or know are totally unacceptable to the listener) and (2) yes the question about whether this stuff being openly available would affect boys during their development as (apparently) sissy porn, or violent porn, or other forms of porn are warping boys now. It seems like the _last_ thing we need is more porn of any type. The wide availability of porn (and the increase in disordered / misdirected / compulsive sexuality / “kink”) seems analogous to the wide availability of junk food and the increase in disordered / misdirected / compulsive eating. And it seems like the availability of porn, or junk food. Is more harmful than helpful. Saying we need more porn for pedophiles is like saying obese people need more videos of people eating Cheetos and ice cream.
Of course their lying, cantor taking them at their word just shows how naive he is. Also if pedo were able to not offended at all why are they pushing for any child sexual abuse content in whatever form to be available, I thought these men could control it so much they didn't have to offend. So saying they need a "legal" avenue, show they are offending and a danger to kids. So this research seem like massive BS
I am excited for this. I think James Cantor is much more objective and precise than Blanchard and Bailey. I have really enjoyed listening to him. Thank you for this, and all your work. 💜
i can see why you delayed this one. his questioning of why not add the P to LGBT sounds a lot like queer theory/post modern deconstructing everything to the point of insanity
Ugh i loooove what he just said at 43 min. If we immediately label evil and dont look for the actual root cause of sexual abuse- rejection, past trauma, etc, we will NEVER find healing, societal solutions, prevention, etc. Anytime i express this concept aloud (rather than just label someone toxic, narcessistic, a predators, etc, and immediately dispense exile as the punishment), the gatekeepers throw the term abuser excuser at me and cut me out of the conversation. What a relief to hear this conversation being had, and to hear his scientific process for discovering actual reasons behind abuse. Shadow exploration in particular is deeply important to me ❤ I am a woman who was raised in a violent home with a long history of several forms of abuse, with no interest in writing off abusers or taking the victim role. Since the "unintentional groomer" via abuse subject was mentioned, i can see how immediate exile and shaming from gatekeepers is another instance of unintentional grooming. Darkness grows in darkness. True healing takes more nuanced exploration, such as what is happening in this discussion. If we don't find the root cause, how can we heal?? Which of course also applies to gender disphoria...
25 minutes in now, wow, the guy really grabs the attention and been hanging on his lips ever since. He's like one of those eccentric eloquently speaking tony stark like not quite evil guys from the movies. thx for releasing this vid after a year :). 26 minutes in and I'm thinking about the immune system of my mother. Fascinating.
Right? My brother is gay and I never had kids. Not by choice. But now I wonder if you inherit that immune sister from your mother. Could I have had gay children. Fascinating and wow sort of life changing.
This relates to my own question on his evidence around utilizing fantasy as a harmless-to-neutral outlet. Neuroscience offers some interesting models that would challenge the claim of safety in that practice.
Cite some sources for this please. It sounds quite made up. It is not possible for a researcher to know how many people have whatever fantasy of anything and do *not* engage in whatever behavior. We only see the cases that do. This is an error in logic called "survivorship bias."
@@-Stella-Maris- I would say that our entertainment industry is the most potent mind-control and attitude-influencing device ever created. Our ancient brains have no real defense against it. The glut of violent (and dystopian) films are guided by the profit motive, as "driving humans to the bottom of the brain stem" is the easiest way to manipulate people by getting them to spend money in addictive ways. I would say violence is a misuse of -- and a failure of -- the creative imagination. / Peter Joseph is very insightful about our system -- systemic influences on human behavior.
Our charity supporting those affected by p@edophilia, CSA or Incest. We must get our heads round empathy of prevention so we can care more about preventing victimhood than we do about hating pa@edophilia & child offenders. Thank you so much for this conversation & being brave enough to platform it ❤
I think as a society we are deathly afraid of discussing where sexuality or gender identity comes from and trends or changes societally. I can understand that for many it is a raw personal subject or ppl had to fight for recognition or rights. But I do look forward to a time where we are mature enough to discuss the science objectively without worrying about offending anyone. We've given up too much in an effort to not cause offence. Intellectual curiosity shouldn't be curtailed especially when it's not trying to push a narrative and simply aims to look at the information available and then explain it. I'd trade better understanding for offending a few ppl.
Oh how I agree. I am distressed every day that my "progressive curiosity" that helped me become more empathetic and wiser is going to get me called "transphobic or homophobic or that stupid TERF. It sucks.
@@hnybee113 I think that's a good point that by understanding these things better surely that makes it easier to have empathy. Half of the ppl I see labelled as TERFS or transphobes are ppl who for me have a great capacity for empathy and tend to understand the other views very well which is why they're so compelling. I feel a great deal of frustration when ppl ask me, "Why do you care?" It's like we're being asked to turn off integral parts of being human in order to promote "acceptance". It feels entirely counterproductive to me.
This is another fantastic podcast. No book is perfect, no journal article is beyond critique, no interview is flawless. Whatever criticisms people have they are entitiled to. For me, this was another really well done interiew. I learnt a few things. Thank you.
Dr. Cantor, in my opinion, has correctly identified that many individuals claiming gender dysphoria or any of its other terms are actually affected by borderline personality disorder. I worked in psych for about 10 years and saw during the last 5 years a progression from a diagnosis of BPD to BPD with gender dysphoria/identity issues. I am not surprised as a person with BPD will often blame others for there unacceptable behaviour. Now, with their broken faulty defence mechanisms they have a condition to blame and latch onto also.
You two are changing my whole direction as an RBT. I wish I could touch base with Sasha. My work now has a different goal. I'm struggling here existential wise. Alot of convictions here.
This was a tough one - didn't like how he sushed you up a couple of times Stella - his findings when he got to them were interesting. Still not convinced that "born that way" is enough it is a tiny part. Context, experience and culture are really powerful cultivators.
I thought his argument about the acronym was odd.. to me it's extremely obvious who "fits in" and who doesn't. It's for minority sexual orientations. Sexual orientation has to do with the sex one's romantic and sexual interest is oriented towards-same sex, opposite sex, both. Simple. Paraphilia is distinct from orientation because it involves interest that is unethical (nonconsensual situations, children, animals) and/ or orientation towards something or some characteristic outside of sex. Paraphilia does not belong in the same category as orientation, full stop.
You can generate any criteria you want for the acronym. (Which is my usual point.) Yours leaves out Intersex and asexual, for example. There are many paraphilia's that do *not* involve nonconsensual or other unethical behaviors, such as sexual masochism, transvestism, diaperism, object fetishes, ... The problem with "full stop" is that it stops only your own thinking and openness to new ideas you haven't yet encountered.
@@jamescantor8031 thank you for your reply! That's fun. Yes I do not see any reason for people with DSDs to be lumped in with minority sexual orientations-our experiences are very different and our political interests are also pretty different. With asexuality it might be less clear cut-I could be convinced that, as a minority sexual orientation, they do fit. That said I think the struggle to be seen as legitimate for not wanting a partner is pretty different from the struggle against discrimination of same sex attracted individuals. On your second point you'll find that I did not, would not, say all paraphilia is unethical. I said it's _either_ unethical and/OR involves attraction to something other than the sex of ones partner-like pain, ones self as a woman, diapers, or whathaveyou. I'm well aware of these things and, in most cases, they're absolutely fine. I just don't see any good reason to say the struggles of those people are meaningfully similar to the struggle of LGB people, or that all these different proclivities have a unifying political interest the way that the LGB does when we group together. LBG says (to straight society) we love just like you, our unions are just like yours, give our unions the same rights an respect.
I understand the acronym as a civil rights movement that may have jumped the shark, so to speak - the movement has done well for homosexuals and transsexuals in the past , but might be going a little off the rails at the moment. So, to my mind, although pedophilia is a condition that may need attention and treatment, it does not need a civil rights movement. So I also was baffled by the assertion that pedophilia should be added to the acronym 🤷♀️
And usually it’s exciting to them BECAUSE it’s unethical. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain likes it for the fact it is morally abhorrent, they feel nothing if it isn’t that. A lot of overriding of the victim’s consent and boundaries. It is about violation.
@@ebert8756 yes! exactly my point! Why does the acronym exist? Where did it come from? All of us banding together, forming a political alliance to fight for the right to have the relationships that we see fit for ourselves, and for those relationships to be legal, free of discrimination, and to carry the same benefits as hetero unions. When somebody, _anybody,_ says: >"oh maybe adults attracted to CHILDREN should be part of that movement, why not, hey, how does anyone decide anyway?" We MUST oppose them. No matter how they dress it up or sneakily throw it in with other paraphilia or how they try to obfuscate the reason we are banded together... Suggesting that we have LGBetc plus *P* is a suggestion that "P" deserves legal recognition of the "relationships" (in truth, SA) that they see fit for themselves. NO. I was trying to be nice, give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that maybe hes just lost in the intellectual weeds where he has forgotten the _reality_ of what he is suggesting... But it appears he won't be responding again, so I want to say the truth very clearly. What he said is revolting. LGBs are NOT open to "P," we do NOT have solidarity with them, our fight is NOT theirs and never will be. I do believe that there should be interventions available for people with harmful desires and we shouldn't shame/isolate those people who have never actually hurt anyone... But that's because I want offenders stopped before they get a single victim. Isolated, miserable people are more likely to act out. That issue, however, has nothing to do with legal rights and certainly has nothing to do with us/the LGB struggle.
I appreciate all that Blanchard says, but he seems to be woefully naïve as to what extend individuals who harm children would lie about their offending and practices. I am sure they can have an emotional range - so did Ted Bundy- that's not the reason to be crying salty tears what poor dears they are. I don't care what lies in somebody's phantasies, I just care they tend to come out in the world and actually hurt people, the more they are encouraged, which Cantor seems to support. Secondly, the German approach doesn't fill me with hope. The Germans used to think putting children who were wards of the state with paedophiles was a great idea (the Kentler experiment)- with predictable results. Thirdly, I am sick to my back teeth with kink legitimising. It's abnormal for a reason- it harms society.
I was so glad to hear Stella hold her ground (as much as he would let her!) He absolutely is legitimizing ... I found him a bit reductive when he asked what she meant by that. Like, duh, dude. Not everything is related to gay issues or you growing up gay. Even if some of it is based prenatally, that doesn't mean we endorse epileptics to have seizures.
@@mkyriacopolous He was very dismissive of other factors at play than innate ones when dealing with paedophiles. It seems instinctively wrong as most of them have been subjected to either sex abuse in childhood or they've shown abnormal psychopathic responses from an early age. My theory is, paedophilia is not "born that way" but a response to both environmental factors in combination with psychopathic features and/ or emotional immaturity. Saying that, that's no excuse. These people are dangerous and should be separated from the general public. Also, both Stella and Sasha tried to point things to him (of similar nature I have pointed out above), but he just talked over them and was coolly dismissive.
@@adlernewman Good point. Either way, I just don't see why prevention and treatment can't be on the same page. Even if there are some predilection factors (and obviously that can't apply to all) his borderline almost endorsement of psychopathology worries me. We've all seen where endorsing "gender-affirming care" has gotten us. Legitimizing indeed, good call Stella! She interjected best she was able. I seriously wonder if he isn't taking too much Adderall.
@adlernewman I wasn't abused as a child, nor do I have antisocial personality disorder. I'm perfectly capable of feeling/reciprocating empathy, thank you very much. 🤨
As a society, we have dealt with the topic of pedophilia (not CSA) from an emotional standpoint ever since age of consent laws were created and made many mistakes. We taught “stranger danger” when 93% of child abuse was caused by someone the child knew well. We stigmatize every fantasy outlet from cartoons to plastic dolls without realizing that may be the one thing keeping someone from acting upon their attractions. Recently Arizona joined a handful of states in banning dolls and even made it a 4th degree felony offense to own one. Do you know what that says to someone who is attracted to minors? It says that real children are really not much more important than a lump of plastic. if you are going to get a felony for humping the plastic, you may as well go for the real thing and commit CSA. Same thing goes for places like Canada where they equate cartoons with CSAM. Stigma never has and never will prevent a single child from abuse, but legal sexual outlets can and do prevent abuse. We can either get serious about prevention or continue with the moral grandstanding and do nothing until a crime has occurred. Ask yourself if you really care more about the prevention of “nOrMaLiZiNg pEdOfEeLya” or the prevention of child sexual abuse.
That's great for those who don't want to offend. They should be able to come forward, uncensured, for professional help. Age-of-consent law is a separate issue and there is absolutely a several-decades-long push to "normalize" it in a broader sense, add it to the (ever-expanding) Pride rainbow, etc. There are more than two things going on here.
@@-Stella-Maris- I haven't seen any push to lower or alter age of consent laws in any shape or form, so I guess you are talking about general acceptance of the attraction. Some folks in the LGBTQ crowd may not like it, but minor attractions do tick all the check boxes as a legitimate sexuality that has been evident since the 1st records of history. The only rebuttal they can say is that minor attractions are not a sexuality because they can't be physically enacted without breaking the law.. Well it wasn't very long ago that homosexual acts were illegal in many states, and still are in some countries. By removing the stigma, you are not removing AOC laws. All the removal of stigma does is allow people to stop living completely in the shadows. Here is a hypothetical question for you: Let's pretend your child had an aunt (female pedophiles do exist) or uncle that you were totally cool with letting your child spend time alone with, and you have absolutely no idea this person has a minor attraction. Would a society where you and this other family member, could openly talk about that without their entire lives being socially (and sometimes physically) destroyed, be better than what we have today?
@@starfield1874 I am not speaking about general acceptance of the attraction, so I'll leave the hypotheticals. I am speaking of specific material actions by Foucault, Hocquenghem, Danet, Rubin, Califia, Butler, NAMBLA (goes without saying), and associated supporters in the U.S., including some of Foucault's previous petitioning in France before relocating to the U.S. in 1980. I reject the characterization of P as a sexual orientation commensurate with sex-attraction; I hold with the APA that it's a psychiatric disorder based on its antisocial characteristics. None of this is to say that clinical support and outreach for P shouldn't be advanced.
@@-Stella-Maris-but surely the way you are describing paedophilia is exactly how homosexuality was described in clinical diagnosis only 50 years ago? I agree the P is not appropriate in LGBTQ, but the stigma (for attraction not abusive actions) should be reduced as much as humanly possible imho.
@@dan7972-k9m It was a prejudice-driven mistake to have ever clinically described homosexuality/bisexuality that way. They're inborn and prosocial (the pain they accrue is related to unreasonable social stigma; they do no harm through natural experience and expression). P and other paraphilias are a completely different issue. They can't be rationally or accurately compared with homosexuality/bisexuality as orientations, and I believe it's intellectually dishonest to do so. I agree that P should be destigmatized as other mental illnesses have been destigmatized, and afforded outreach and treatment. This is very different to considering it a sexual orientation.
Not always easy to listen to for a number of reasons, but an amazing conversation. I'm very glad there are places in the public sphere where we can actually discuss things like this openly.
You need to interview Ute Heggen, Trans Widow, author of "In The Curated Woods, Tales of a Trans Widow." She is helping to identify patterns of trauma and behavior.
Are you referring to Jon Uhler? He is certainly an interesting one to listen to. His experience with offenders has given him a lot to say. Ive listened to him quite a bit since first coming across him and I have... Concerns. He is one of those extremely irritating people who say morality comes from God/religion _exclusively._ He has also made some alarming comments about homosexuality. I think that his work has given him real insight when it comes to offenders, but since hearing more of his views Im not sure if he can be taken as a.. "reliable narrator." His inner worldview has a strong bias towards this idea that one has to be christian (and rather fundamentalist at that) and straight in order to be a good person.
I listened with interest, and then watched a short video on here where James Cantor speaks about paedophilia. I do accept that it is something innate, but why would having mandatory reporting prevent paedophiles from seeking therapy or help if they are (as he states) mostly only accessing drawn child pornography that didn't hurt any actual children? If no children are being abused and they genuinely want help then mandatory reporting may not be what is preventing them seeking help.
Because an ensuing investigation (interviewing his wife, their children, neighbours, their children, etc.) is quite sufficient for destroying his life. After such an investigation, his community are unlikely to conclude "Ok, nothing wrong after all" to provide the benefit of the doubt.
Question: if you were an adult who was abused as a child, how would you feel to discover your abuser was going to therapy every week to tell about their actions, but no one was helping you escape the abuse?
I do believe this is a reasonable question. When someone still has a victim under their thumb I certainly don’t believe they should be given help over the victim. That’s absurd
@@HerWanderlust The victim still being under the abuser's thumb wasn't being asked about. It ask how you would feel about a past childhood abuser receiving therapy.. I certainly hope that person would, provided they can find any support at all. No one is giving preference over the victim. As for cases of ongoing abuse, mandatory reporting laws prevent anyone who may want help to stop causing abuse from seeking it out. Thus our current laws enable abuse to continue.
I was so irritated by his demeanor that at points I lost the conversation thread. Had to walk away a few time. You are very good hosts to not have snapped back at the shushing. But I realize that it is an important topic and will attempt another listen.
Did he really just shut Stella down like a child at 1:08:39 and 1:21:44? While I respect the man's work and opinions, staying open to discussion is a fundamental component of any conversation. And I completely disagree with his assertion that every marginalized group is somehow intrinsically linked with every other marginalized group...LGB issues are not synonymous with T. As well, his thoughts that AI fabricated child pornography is harmless strikes me as simply enabling a progress. He's saying you have to encourage harmful behavior to decrease actual offending? A goal of psychotherapeutic work with pedophiles should never cease fighting for treatment and discouragement of that aberration, in my opinion. Similar to WPATH endorsing men with castration fetishes and saying they have a 'gender identity' of 'eunuchs' that requires surgical "affirmation", versus saying what they actually are, males with castration fetish desires that need serious psychotherapeutic help.
There is a tradition of overly-involved female social workers giving the child's point of view, as the female social worker perceived it. Cantor is skilled at cutting through those intellectually loose, but emotionally powerful chains of association.
His stopping is rude. I understand he wants to get his full idea and context out before offering a response, but there are better ways that ahh-ing. He's responded to that tweet a few times over the years and which have more examples to give a bit more context. He specifically called out the issue with LGB being in conflict with the T to clarify that. His point was there wasn't a clear unifying element for many of the letters(other than popularity/social acceptance), and that they could be included/excluded depending on specific issues. P could be added to fight against the stigma for just having the attraction(not offending), matching other letters, but asexuals could be excluded because there is nothing they need to fight for, and B can often be in conflict with L and G for not being homosexual enough. AI has a myriad of issues(real imagery in reference pool, difficulty in differentiating AI/real), but there's been some suggestions fictional outlets can function as an indirect substitute for real imagery/contact offending. Those assumptions are based on research on real csem consumption not having a clear relationship with contact offending, with psychopathy seeming the factor for escalation.
@@mrminer071166 Stella O'Malley is hardly an overinvolved social worker. Rudeness shouldn't be called a skill and further, with all the time he spent repeating himself again and again ('Im gay, I experienced this because I was gay, yada yada over and over', let's face it, the man likes to hear himself speak), he could have instead stood to listen a little and let others speak. Not only would it have been more polite but he might actually have learned something extra, which could even have helped him in his own research. Missed opportunity, in my opinion, to have people of such a level of intelligence in front of you and instead of engaging properly with them, you shut them down.
AI fabricated images, by definition, are harmless, since no actual kids are involved. If you want to argue that SOME pedophiles should abstain, due to it potentially escalating into self-destructive behaviors, then that's a fine and fair point to make. However, the notion that all pedophiles/hebephiles lack self control, and therefore should avoid AI generated material is laughably absurd. On another note, repressing one's sexuality pretty much never ends well. That type of advise tends to result in individuals with crippling depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, and a variety of other mental health issues.
@@mrminer071166 Your point being: let's over involve ourselves with a poor molester who lost his candy. Because caring about children is so passe and hysterical, right?
Minute 55:00 "What are the principles upon which 'the rest of LGBT' can claim our rights?" Cantor seems to believe that pedophilia is innate and homosexuality is also innate, so therefore the P belongs with the LGBT. It doesn't, because there is more than one principle. Principle 1: sexuality is innate. Principle 2: homosexuality can be expressed between 2 consenting adults. Pedophilia may meet Principle 1, but it does NOT meet Principle 2. I believe that pedophilia and autogynephilia should both be treated like a tendency toward addiction. It is very important to avoid encouraging these tendencies because to do so is unhealthy and particularly in the case of pedophilia, DANGEROUS!
Since when was the requirement to legally act upon a sexually a prerequisite? Homosexuality was illegal in many states until very recently. Is a lesbian not allowed to be a lesbian unless she is actively engaged with another woman?
@@starfield1874 I'm not implying that at all. My point is that homosexual behavior can be expressed between consenting adults. Pedophilia (which to me, is a disorder, while homosexuality is not) cannot be acted upon without abusing a child. Rights are only relevant in the realm of behavior. Any tendencies that aren't acted upon don't require rights because they are simply unexpressed thoughts and desires.
In the book The Dawn Of Everything by David Graeber, you get a view of various ways ancient civilized societies were organized and that different rules and norms of behavior were chosen by the citizens or group members. Different groups had sometimes opposite values.
Thank you all. I have been curious Dr Cantor’s research for several years. I ran across him somewhere when i was trying to figure out how Pizza Gate happened. His voice is important!!!!!!
At the risk of "finding what I'm looking for" I'll post this here. Results sent hard copy for the first 39 trans widows. These questions are based on reports and observations. When a woman, trying to please her husband by wearing a "strap on" and it physically damaged her C-section scar, that dude is a psycho. It happened. We can't "prevent him from looking for a victim." We protect our children by safeguarding. We protect women from sexual abuse and mental cruelty by focusing on women, not on the perps. Trans Widow Survey: 1. Was his crossdressing a revelation or your discovery? 2. Did he then tell you it is under control, not frequent, and then it escalated out of control? 3. Did he select a therapist? Did that therapist or he claim the marriage is now a "lesbian relationship?" 4. Did he put money in a secret account or other venue and spend it on wardrobe, make-up, electrolysis, etc? Did he incur credit card debt for this spending? 5. Did he wear your clothing or make-up? 6. Did he suggest/coerce/cajole you into "sex role play" whereby you are to use a "strap on" or other sex toy and play a "male" part in bed? Answer that it was suggested even if you flat out refused and tell what happened if you were coerced and did it. I can handle all the details. The fact that one woman was physically damaged at the site of her C-section scar is important. 7. Did a therapist suggest any of the above as in #6? I am combining the answers of these two in the data but it's important for data to know whether mental health professionals were participating in this sexual harassment. 8. Did he defame/vilify you in affidavits submitted to court in the divorce/custody process or defame/vilify you on social media? Please, if both happened, do indicate. 9. Did he claim to any therapist or a group of friends that you abused him verbally or physically? 10. Did he attack you physically? Please indicate whether it was choking, shoving, punching, etc and if there were any bruises, scars and evidence. Also if the police were called. 11. Did he force unwanted sex with you? Did that happen more than once? Were the police called, were any charges filed? 12. Did you live below the poverty line or require governmental or family financial assistance at any time after the end of the relationship? Were you unable to leave because of money? 13. Did any members of the clergy (priests, rabbis, ministers) suggest that you have to give in to his requests to keep your family/marriage together? 14. Did anyone, therapist, friend, husband, or family suggest you now are obligated to "share Mother's Day?" 15. In your own individual therapy, or in the process of interviewing a therapist for yourself, did any mental health professionals tell you that he's to be referred to as female, with female pronouns in therapy supposedly centered around your recovery? 16. Did you lose a set of friends after he came out or after the relationship ended? 17. Did he start self-identifying as "mother" of the children he fathered or was step-father of? 18. Did he suggest/insist that the children call him "Mama-Something" or some other similar version of Mum? 19. Did a therapist or husband or any friends/relatives tell you that your rejection of and ending the relationshiop "caused him to decide to live as a female full-time?" 20. Did he co-opt your experience of childbirth, using the details of your labor to convince new friends of his "female status" and role as "mother?"
@@widerlenspod They were generated based on the experiences of 35 of us, as well as the three suicides we know of, by trans widows. Thanks for the response. I'm sure you'll present women who have left disturbing, manipulative marriages, instead of women who forced themselves to stay.
When gay sex was legalised the law did not except it from age of consent laws. Age of consent laws would seem to be there for not only the physical but also the developmental health of young people. Even lesbian sex between an adult woman and an young girl can and most likely will damage the girls ability to draw boundaries and normalise sexual relationships with a power imbalance.
Btw, if you guys are interested in stories of sex offenders and victims, their history etc, the youtube channel soft white underbelly has a bunch of those stories.
@@widerlenspod I am hoping that Genspect will have a convention in Indiana where we might do some public facing event in front of the statue of Alfred Kinsey. Just a thought.
Why would the use of scientific research to prevent the occurrence of CSA be nauseating? Sounds a lot better than the status quo of doing absolutely nothing to support people with these attractions and simply waiting for a crime to be committed.
What a spectacular episode! I'm pretty bummed, though, that you chose to delay posting it. I understand your reasons, but I think courage is more important now than ever.
The client-therapist confidentiality topic reminded me of the Sopranos. Gangster Godfather Tony Soprano reveals his activities to his therapist - but she cannot report him to the police for fear she would be murdered.
Thank you for posting this. One of the better interviews with Dr Cantor. I only wished you would have had more time. Your dialogue (trialogue? lol) was really thought provoking. I would love a mini-series with you and Dr Cantor, one hour (ish) episodes on different themes you touched on here: straight vs everyone else (this framework is quite interesting in itself, and good to get articulated in a dispassionate way), fantasy vs reality wrt sex - can a fetish exist only in fantasy, or does the definition preclude that?, women! (far too little research I feel, I'd like to hear Cantor expound on why this is), his point about civil rights and the alphabet soup - I hadn't quite understood it before, and now I am really intrigued and want to hear more (it follows on from "straight vs everyone else"), which parafilias cause the most problems, and how do we know this?, the thorny question of normalisation, pornography, is there fluidity in orientations (in men), which are fluid, which are not? (his take on age being but one axis is quite interesting, ie are there things that change over time?). And of course the pedofilia sub-subjects... of which there are many (age of consent vs nature, women, can pedofiles sustain platonic relationships?, who are the non-pedofile offenders and why do they offend? and many more.) Please have him back, or maybe even better start a new podcast series with him! The contrast in your cognitive styles makes for really good conversation.
Thank you for your comment. We didn't even get to talk to him about youth gender dysphoria! He's an expert in this data and we'd love to have him on to discuss it some time.
Very interesting, thank you for releasing this. I’m open to what he’s saying, though I agree with your pushback. But the “dat dat dat” was so incredibly rude and made me dislike him instantly 😂
57:03 Stella, you use an odd phrase here: 'a sexuality'. What do you mean? I've heard this phrase around the web a few times over the last year or so, and it puzzles me. You say that you're not convinced that paedophilia is 'a sexuality', and contrast it with a 'developmental disorder'. But paedophilia is about sexual attraction. Isn't the label 'a sexuality' appropriate, whether it's disordered or not? I get the impression that 'a sexuality' has a lot of unspoken concepts and judgments built into it, e.g. 'legitimate', 'inborn', and so on - but I'm not quite sure what they are. I'm also curious if there's a source for the phrase. Quite a few people seem to be using it nowadays in the sense that you're using it. (Edit: Since this interview was conducted a year ago, I should also ask if you would still use the phrase nowadays.)
I took it to mean that p*edophilia is a maladaptive, "developed disorder," one that overshadows the natural orientation/sexual development of the individual, via p*rn etc. I disagree with Cantor that it should be considered a natural orientation on par with being lesbian/straight/bi/gay. As he stated, not every individual with pedophilic tendencies is exclusively attracted to children, indicating that there is a gray area where they have developed an adult sexuality to an extent, but it has been perverted nonetheless. He does not consider them p*dos. I do, whether they are solely fantasizing or offending. I hope that made some sense.
@@rebeccapenders5050 OK, but what did Stella mean by the phrase 'a sexuality'? I've seen people on Twitter say the same of things like autogynephilia, or furry fetishism, or whatever: that it's "not a sexuality". It's that particular word that baffles me. How is a sexual thing not a sexuality? What is a 'sexuality', then? Does it mean 'sexual orientation'? I've never heard a sexologist use the phrase, as far as I recall. By 'not a sexuality', people seem to mean 'not a *legitimate* sexuality', or 'not a true inborn sexuality'. But it's strange shorthand and I don't know where it came from.
Fascinating talk. I really struggled to work through what James was saying. It's such a complicated subject isn't it. The only solution I've come up with, is chemical castration at the first sign of a pedophelic inclination. Otherwise we are doomed to a fate of abuse/victimization cycle.
I find it puzzling that the assessment of IQ is actually part of his argument, as if IQ were some objective and agreed upon thing. Also wondering about actual numbers of people who have been subjects of this research.
Many left handed people have it trained out of them by social and environmental pressures. This would increase the level of strong mindedness in lefties?
Objective criteria might include; 1. Whether there is a danger that acceptance of a proclivity causes physical harm or psychological trauma and B. That harm/trauma will damage the 'victim's' ability to reproduce or function in society From the point of view of people who do not find that form of sex attractive. This cleves LGBH from TQP that damages a child's ability to form reproductive long term reciprocal relationships in adult life. This is the case with -pædophilia, -sado-masocism, -trans - affirmation ideology
I loved this interview and i really like how Cantor looks at things in such a strictly logical and objective way. He really draws attention to the fact that nobody ever wonders what the cause is of homosexuality is. He really drew attention to the fact that there's a lot of apathy around it. All of us in the gender critical space are guilty of this too. Whether we realize it or not, we have been socially conditioned to accept homosexuality in the same way that most of society has been socially conditioned to accept the trans ideology. We sit here and break down all the various causes of a trans identity but we don't do the same thing with homosexuality. This is because only one of them invloves irreversible medical procedures. And so we really have a very apathetic approach to the causes of homosexuality and that leads us to assume that its causes are not the same as the causes for being trans when we really don't know if thats true. When Stella pushed back against James and told him that she didn't think that the cause of homosexuality was in the brain, that was a really good example of just how apathetic we've become to the causes of homosexuality. And on the topic of pedophilia, i do not agree with James that we need to destigmatize it and animated child porn even if its not threatening to anyone. Because that's a very slippery societal slope that we dont want to go down. Many MAPs online are already trying to piggy back off of the gay rights movement and use its justifications for destigmatization to justify destigmatizing pedophilia and make it LEGAL. Destigmatizing things really does help to keep it from becoming socially acceptable. And the same goes for pedophilia. Destigmatize it, and you risk making sex with a minor legal under the guise of consent which is what many MAPs are already trying to do with support from some liberals. We don't want this to become the left's next social justice frontier. I would have liked it if you guys had asked James why some child molesters were also molested as children themselves. Hopefully you guys will interview him again and ask him.
I think we used to be *very* interested in what causes homosexuality. It was often argued about in the 1990s. It was politically important for deciding whether gay and lesbian people couldn't help being the way they were ... or whether they could change, or be cured, or prevented from becoming gay in the first place. There's a good book from that era called 'A Separate Creation' by Chandler Burr. A bit out of date in terms of the science, but it has a solid discussion of the politics, from a US perspective. It points out that the political Left has never really been comfortable with the idea that homosexuality is innate, or at least fixed and unchangeable. The Left prefers to believe that we're all conditioned by society--including our sexuality. (This comes up a fair bit in feminist thought, and especially in queer theory.) Meanwhile, the Right usually argues that traits like intelligence, masculinity/femininity, talent and so on are inherent rather than learned. Trying to artificially change or deny these built-in traits is seen as unnatural. Yet when it comes to homosexuality, the Right does a 180-degree turn and insists that being gay is a choice, or that young people are 'corrupted' into being gay. Weird. The book also observes that the general public thinks: "If being gay is genetic, it means it's not a choice." But researchers think of it the other way around: "Hmm, the evidence suggests that being gay isn't a choice. That means it might be genetic!" Or caused by hormones in utero, or the mother's immune system, or whatever. The trait that nobody much cares about is handedness. Why are some people left-handed? Shrug. Who cares? Other than specialist researchers, in the modern West, not many people care. Yet we do know it's not a choice, and is very hard or impossible to change. A left-hander can fake being right-handed with practice, but he's still left-handed underneath. Similar to a gay guy marrying a woman to pretend he's straight, in fact. And there are more left-handed men than women, just as there are more gay men than lesbians. Nowadays it's a non-issue for most people which hand they're dominant with. But the cause of left-handedness might have been a much hotter topic 100 years ago. (I don't know if it was, but it was definitely not much fun to be a leftie in those days.) Unfortunately the trans activists have insisted that being trans is like being gay or left-handed, when it's really something else entirely. All you have to do with gay or left-handed people is leave them be--instead of socially and medically meddling in an effort to change them. But with trans, meddling is encouraged and you're a hateful bigot if you don't want to ... (I'm a layperson and not an expert so if Dr Cantor is reading this he should feel free to correct any silly bits.)
@@SchrodingersTransCat The conservative outlook on the issue at that time does not seem hypocritical to me. Because they are operating under the assumption that all of those traits you mentioned are natural traits. They are very reliable traits that will naturally replicate themselves into most humans. They saw gay in the way that they did because its unusual. And it is a very logical sentiment to assume that anything unusual is not natural. We apply this same sentiment towards most things in life without even realizing it. And it's true that the trans activists do assume that being trans is the same as being gay. It's obviously not the same but that doesn't mean that the causes for both aren't the same. It's highly possible that the explosion in people identifying as gay and the explosion of people identifying as trans are related. It's possible that both are caused by the exact same social contagion. But we only look at the trans one because it's the harmful one. And we don't even bother to wonder if the causes for being gay are related because it's not a harmful lifestyle and so we become very apathetic towards it and don't even bother to look into it. At least in these modern times.
@@IAmAster1996 But plenty of unusual things are natural--like left-handedness or red hair. So are rare diseases, for that matter. To be fair, I can see how people would have trouble with the idea that gayness is inherited. They assume it has to be passed down in the genes--a gay man is less likely to reproduce than a straight man. It seems as if it ought to disappear from the population. But there are lots of other ways for it to be reproductively unhelpful, yet keep recurring in each generation. For instance, it could be a side effect of something else that *is* useful. (One of the reasons it's hard to research the causes of being gay is that we can't really do the experiments that would answer the questions. It would be unethical to muck around with the hormones of 100 unborn children and compare how they turn out to 100 other unborn children in the control group.) A cold and clinical scientist might call homosexuality a 'defect' because it makes you less likely to reproduce. Well, plenty of defects are naturally occurring--like being born deaf. It would have made more sense for conservatives to say that homosexuality is an inborn defect. It would be just as offensive to many people, of course--but at least it would be closer to the reality that it's inherent and can't change, and would take the blame off older gay people for supposedly seducing youth to the Dark Side of the Force. I think you're right that we--or at least the progressive side of the general public--nowadays don't really look for the cause of being gay. But we're not just apathetic. We actively avoid it. We're worried that if we find out what the cause is, some people will try to cure gayness. (Even though some gay people might actually welcome a cure, since being gay made their lives difficult.) Has there been an explosion in people identifying as gay? I thought it had stayed pretty much the same since the early 20th century. 2-4% of males and 1-2% of females according to the Kinsey Institute. There's probably been an increase in people identifying as bisexual, though. Women may ID as bi because it makes them trendier and more appealing to men ... while men may ID as bi because they're actually gay, but having trouble admitting it to themselves. There has also probably been an increase in people identifying as 'queer', to score social points and feel special. Otherwise known as spicy straights. 😇
Here is the problem with supporting stigma: It never has and never will prevent a single child from being abused. I don’t know about others, but I am more concerned with with preventing CSA than bashing cartoons and AI. Society has dealt with this issue in an emotional manner for decades and look where we are. Time for a change.
Left/right handed. I think this has an affwct on your big five trait "Openess". You begin to notice your minority status and the fact all tools are for eight handed people. You need to transpose information (guitar chord finger positioning for example). Spatial comprehension and underlying causes all tend to develop both higher Openess and lower Agreableness. More creative, questionung and strong minded. More questioning of the status quo than you might have been.
1:12:35 "Fine-tuning what is stigmatised" - I guess what I wonder is, if you made it as commonplace to discuss going home after work to w* off to your legal CP (e.g. a drawing or fiction in which no real child is harmed) - if you made that as commonplace as a man joking about his s* life with his adult male partner, e.g. "Oh, this weekend I hope me and him will x y z" - is the argument REALLY that rates of offences against children decrease by these men being able to openly discuss the "surrogate" or stand-in methods they can legally indulge in? Not simply they can discuss it, but in fact, all of society views it as on a par with the adult same-s* relationship? Taking shame out of the equation is the desired outcome, so that a man who likes CP drawings/fiction is no different to an adult man who likes other adult men. The argument is that doing this ultimately lowers the rate of these men acting out on real kids, and it is also more humane, as according to Dr Cantor it's a sort of unfair "popularity contest" in terms of what s* proclivities people are and are not punished for socially. My argument would be - surely shaming serves a major function in stopping a great many men attracted to this from acting on it in real life? So that, if you take away that shame mechanism, the proportion of men attracted to [minors] who DO act on it INCREASES. Surely until you can prove that's not the case, this is not an experiment you can try out? "Let's make it men can freely talk about doing the 'harmless' version of this, drawings/fiction, and not get any shame or pushback for it, and then HOPEFULLY this will bring down the proportion of this group who act on it IRL" That's quite a gamble! And it's asking society to not attach a taboo/disgust reaction to men looking at drawings/fiction of this kind, which I think is a completely unrealistic expectation, probably from an evolutionary perspective, it's for good reason we have a disgust reaction to the idea of a man "enjoying" drawings/fiction of kids. Because it is a fantasy and fixation that is about destroying the next generation in the most violating and cruel fashion for our own pleasure. And a final point: just going by "trends" in p /awn and how there appears to be a social contagion type of aspect to that (e.g. the trends in p /awn videos playing out IRL, e.g. facials that women are now confronted with by a whole generation of men who assume it's normal) - if a bunch of that material is on the p /awn sites, isn't there a danger it could make a whole load more men into it as their "thing", compared to the present situation where that material is not allowed. Basically: if it becomes as neutral and non-stigmatised as same-s* videos on p /awn sites, then who is to say it won't make a bunch of men into it, who before would not have been into it. Thus increasing the total number of men who will end up acting on it, because the total number of men INTO IT has now increased owing to how available and normalised it is. The project to make such a fantasy/fixation no different to a man fantasising about another adult man seems totally doomed to fail at best (because there is not the evolutionary taboo around destroying and soul-destroying the next generation/the future when we're talking about same-s* attracted adults), but could very well INCREASE the rate of offending at worst. Again, if it could be demonstrated that somehow managing to remove this disgust reaction meant fewer kids IRL got harmed, then that would be one thing, but it is impossible to try this out as an experiment ethically speaking, because what if the exact reverse happens as I mentioned? It doesn't even seem like a "reach" to connect "everyone is fine when I talk about these drawings/fiction" to "I'm going to cross that boundary and do this in real life". It follows pretty intuitively. Haven't finished listening, perhaps this will get addressed.
His objectivity is refreshing, but I'm not completely sold on the claim that p@dophilia is an inborn trait. From everything I know about p@dophiles, it seems much closer to a sex addiction. The average person can control sexual thoughts and urges. These people seem unable to do so. Think of the convicted p@dos who have molested _multiple_ children on a _daily_ basis. That is not just an "attraction" Many environmental factors affect brain developement and it seems that early childhood experiences have a huge impact on the formation of sexual inclinations. I view p@dophilia as a paraphilia, not a sexuality. I also agree with Stella and Sasha that we shouldn't be destigmatizing attraction to children. Encouraging someone to indulge in fantasies and view materials where "no one gets hurt" don't seem like neutral acts. Don't sexual paraphilias tend to escalate? And people who indulge in frequent repeated fantasies often act those out eventually? Shouldn't the goal be to distract their attention into other outlets instead of focusing on their temptation? It seems more like treating an addict in that separation from the vice is needed in order to control/overcome it.
That is a common impression among the public due to the vast majority of what the public consume from the media when it comes to this topic being child abusers. I think cantor said that maybe 2% of makes could be paedophiles. They would suggest that the vast majority do not abuse children, or at least don’t get caught. You’d probably find the majority of adult rapists (of other adults) are also sexually preoccupied.
@@dan7972-k9m He said 2% of the population could be pedophiles? I would think the majority of pedophiles don't get caught as rape and sexual abuse are extremely underreported crimes. I also disagree that the majority of child molesters aren't pedophiles and are just using children "as a surrogate". Often children are abused by family members who explicitly seek out children, and it's often not just one child (boyfriends who go after single moms, uncles who abuse multiple children in the family, etc.) I'm curious what makes him assume the cases of family members abusing children don't experience any attraction for those children. Surely there must be some sort of attraction there. You wouldn't see too many gay men raping women or straight men trying to sleep with their male roommates when they have a girlfriend.
@@Joy-kc5xzI’ve read some of his work and similar studies and basically when an offender is caught they are forced to undergo phallometric testing to measure their level of attraction to both children and adults. The results show the majority of child molesters are not highly attracted to children and do not meet the threshold for a diagnosis of paedophilia. But they have other psychological or mental issues that lead to the behaviour. The 2% figure is backed up by a number of studies of random large samples of the populations of various countries. When anonymity is guaranteed, about 1-2% of males admit to being highly attracted to pre pubescent children.
Tough one.I had issue with what he defines "real pedos". Also, what role does their own abuse play. Does he look at where its prevalent vs not. Tough questions.
Cantor isn't he the bloke who thinks pedophila should be a recognised sexual orientation? Nah no thanks....as a lesbian I've fought men like him all my adult life and one of the reasons I never wanted to align Lesbians with gay men. Oh and just because you can doesn't mean you should. Yours a Lesbian who has been deeply impacted by csa.
Why would you say "I never wanted to align Lesbians with gay men" instead of "I never wanted to align Lesbians with men"? You think there are more guys not attracted to females abusing boys than guys attracted to females abusing kids? You're wrong. And Cantor never said adults should harm children. I don't want gays to align with gayphobes like yourself.
I'm sorry to hear of your experience and its impact on you. However, treating whole groups people by their demographics and judging people *before* hearing what they have to say, is to perpetrate the intolerant thinking lesbians fight against. If one is anti-prejudice only for one's own group, one is not anti-prejudice at all.
Prejudice is necessary. It's how we distinguish good and bad . (And i still believe there are better and worse things) The acronymn LGBT is part of a Civil rights movement, because society was making life miserable for gay people and transsexuals, and I think it served a good purpose , at least originally. In this context expanding the acronym to include pedophilia makes no sense to me. Pedophilia may need attention and treatment, but not a civil rights movement
Its becoming clear the more interviews that go on, how much - to be frank - Stella really doesnt seem to grasp 'sexuality'. Or quite frankly, care to engage with the research. This is not the first time she has dismissed sexual research due to her own already made up position. She accuses researchers of having a bias towards males, which is ironic as she is only doing the same; dismissing the research which is pretty conclusive (as it can be with current technology) in regards to male sexual response because of her own framework of how she views female sexuality. There is a reason why male sexuality has been the sort of 'blueprint' and not just in terms of researchers being mostly men. Firstly; men are easier to measure sexual response, men have been more either victimises in terms of their deviant sexuality (MALE homosexuality was usually criminalised, not female) and lastly mens sexuality does seem to be more black and white than females. Its why men have paraphillic interests in things like clothing and women dont etc I am a fan, and appreciate the work and am totally OK with you pushing back at guests and ideas but this particular line has become tedious. As I said, this isnt the first time she has dismissed much of sex research work, without it appearing as though she has really looked into the ideas she has dismissed, or offered up a better system other than 'well thats male centric and its more complicated than that'........Ok......... How, and why, is it more complicated than that? From my own experience as a gay man it really isnt. I have pretty strong and particular interests, there are even whole groups of men I dont find sexually arousing. Its pretty black and white for me. I dont think im unique. What specifics might be maybe, but the way in which I experience sexual arousal and desire is not. Keep up the good work.
Medical, psychiatric, and pharmacological research and practice have long and established histories of male bias (to be clear, I'm speaking of extrapolations from male anatomy and physiology, and interventional processes and procedures designed with data from male patients). Gynecology and obstetrics are the obvious exceptions, which were also, until quite recently, poorly understood. Given that more than half the population of the planet has been directly affected by those biases and frank knowledge gaps, Stella's in good company with her research skepticism.
Yes. And gynecology and obstetrics were built by experimenting on women’s generalist without their consent and without anesthetic. While these two areas are focused on females,, they are coming from an inherent assumption of women’s bodies needing management by doctors- pregnancy, birth, and all functions of our female anatomy are essentially still mysterious to the medical profession, (see Jessica Pins work and research about the cascade of interventions in pregnancy/both for a start), yet they behave as if they know how to help us and have an understanding of our inner workings.
PRO-TIP: Watch the introduction; watch the interview (or listen to it, anyways, I would have loved to have seen the facial expressions!) and then WATCH THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN. Because processing.
What? At 29m30s in I'm hearing the Hetero/Homo/Bi classifications don't appeal the women? As a transwoman, if I may, the average person is going to be bisexual to *some* degree? And if I may, the Three Brain Theory of Masc Consciousness appeals to me! You know, the one upstairs and the other two so vulnerable to insult AND injury? yeah that. I've got three too, but my other brains have gone missing somewhere in the near vicinity of my ass! - Annette
I have tried to read what you've written but don't really understand. I think he was talking about a difference between female and male sexuality not women and men in terms of gender? I have never heard of this three brain theory so I don't understand how it relates or what you were trying to say.
As a trans woman, you are a man, your sexuality is that of a man, so whether or not you find the straight/bi/gay categorization useful to you is irrelevant to whether or not it is useful as a way of looking at female sexuality.
Being a true woman, bisexual, I find that very few people are bisexual to any extent (they do not feel sexual attraction to their same sex). It is not a common trait. As for brains! We all have many centers of consciousness (my opinion)
@@HerWanderlust - as a transwoman who shows you the honor of being a "just plain female" by noting A TRANS WOMAN IS *NOT* PRECISELY A WOMAN AND THAT IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM I bring no falsehoods, and will now depart his field of dishonor. "False Woman" - feh - what does your house look like? - BYE. Annette
Reposting something I wrote on Twitter:
Thread: disgust + conversational style + the function of shame
Since posting our interview with James Cantor from 2022, there’s been much activity on twitter about our conversation. The nature of such posts seem to revolve around 2 main themes:
1. The tone in which James spoke, especially moments where he jumped in and interrupted.
2. The disgust and discomfort people felt while listening to our discussion about p@dphilic propensities in individuals and how to actually reduce the associated offending behaviors.
I want to address both briefly (or maybe not so briefly)
1. James and I have met in person. We spent considerable time together and we get along very well. Being around James, it’s obvious he is not one to hold his tongue: his conversational style is quick, witty, and bold. He’s also hilarious and really fun to be around.
Some people have pointed out that Stella and I are two women who were interrupted by James, a man, at a few moments in the discussion. Frankly, I find it aggravating that others (with good intentions) have somehow framed us as damsels-in-distress who were disrespected when a man passionately jumped in and interrupted us at times.
I want people to engage with me as an EQUAL: in ways that are natural to them. I want people to spontaneously react to whatever we are discussing, and to freely and vigorously debate with me.
I would HATE for someone to come on the program and tip toe around me because he thinks I’m too sensitive or fragile to handle a robust and organic conversation. That would be such an insult.
Furthermore, on many occasions, James said things like “yes, that’s a completely natural reaction” or “yes it’s totally understandable that people feel that way”. Stella and I had lots of space to talk and share our thoughts and James agreed with many of our points. At no point did I feel James was disrespectful or insulting. I rather LIKE when people drop the social conventions and just speak freely.
Here’s the way I interpreted the interruptions, specifically: James had been claiming that people’s reactions to p@dphilia are often based on emotional reflexes (a disgust response) rather than dispassionately thinking through the ACTUAL ways to prevent p@dphilic offending. In a few moments when Stella and I had responses and questions, James quickly jumped in to make the point: “THERE! Right there! What you said JUST NOW: you’re doing that emotional response thing I was just talking about”.
2. Disgust is natural indeed. Stigma and shame may serve a valuable role in the mediation of people’s behaviors. Perhaps taboo behaviors will be less common. I’m open to this being true. If this were true, then societies which frame p@dphilia as the MOST taboo behavior would have zero instances of offending. Do we have any evidence of this?
However, it’s also entirely plausible (and sadly many survivors of abuse know this), that shame and stigma can push people’s offending behaviors underground, into secrecy, and the people being hurt most by this are their victims. James’ point, in my view, is that if we truly want to stop children from being hurt, we have to think about ways to get offending p@dphiles to seek out treatment. Those who want to stop should be able to get help. That’s what the German model seems to be concerned with.
I would still like to see the data and outcomes of that German model. Does it, indeed, lead to p@dphilic individuals to seek help? To reduce their offending? Does it, indeed, protect would-be victims in the long run? The conceptual framework for the program was laid out, but we didn’t really clarify what the data show.
As you all know, I do believe that p@rn can impact IRL behaviors for some. I don’t want to start addressing that point here.
This entire experience has given me lots to think about. The way audiences perceive our conversation was really interesting. I hope listeners can continue to discuss, debate, and consider our conversation w James Cantor.
Way to set the bar for the comments thread. Don’t let this get lost!
@SashaLPC I take your points, and I agree. I'd add, though -- in this situation, comportment matters over conversational style. It's a legitimate critique.
Reasoning: the harder the sell, *especially* with data-gathering and thesis-building around controversial and volatile topics, the more clear and consistent the presentation style should be. If you alienate a potentially receptive audience through communication habits, they'll tune out your evidence, however stellar. You've sunk your own argument. Cantor has some historical issues with this, particularly via social media.
Pretty basic stuff, but it bears repeating. Also unfair (the data should stand on its own merits), but we're in the agora here, not sitting on an editorial board.
@@-Stella-Maris- Yes I can see your point. Communication styles, especially with controversial matters, have the potential to really improve or diminish the listener's receptivity.
I loved his tone and style. To me it was obvious that he respected you BECAUSE he wasn’t letting you get away with any slips/ generalisations/ leaps to conclusions. He is clearly passionate about remaining dispassionate- a true scientist! We must protect this rare creature!
That's an awesome level of awareness & response; thanks, Stella & Sasha!
I just got back for BILLBOARDING at San Diego's pride festival in Balboa Park. Following the model of Stanley Green, the famous PASSION PROTEIN MAN of downtown London, (not mentioning any other currently active billboarders!) my billboard said: "KIDS CAN NOT CONSENT TO PEDOPHILIA" and on the back, LGBTP/p"(Greek PI/pi, and crossed out.)
Having spoken in public on pedophilia for some years now, and reciting poetry from Ancient Greece with strong BL themes, I am often tempted to PULL UP A CHAIR, so that the "pedo-toileting" (my name for the involuntary negative emotionality that comes up) can have its own space in the discussion. It's a HUGE need that people have, in proportion as the "Overton Window" has historically been closed on this topic, at least in the Anglo-Sphere. The thing is, the "pedo-toileting" is dirty work--a job for a professional engineer of emotional sewage, someone who has professionalized in this field to the point of not talking the 2nd Person-to-1st Person dynamics personally. (People really need to have an intense 2->1 pipeline going, before they can do their pedo-toileting: "I'm not a pedo! YOU ARE!"
On the other hand, the normal male-role modeling, the functional male role-modeling, only happens when a man & boy expose the best, sweetest, more delicate parts of their soul to each other. (It goes without saying that boundaries are necessary for this, and that the responsibility for that falls to the man . . . not the boy, not to external busy-bodies.) The good MAN/boy relationships can only happen in a CLEAN, SAFE space, WELL AWAY, WELL SEPARATED from the pedo-toileting, which has an emotional tonality that is very RUDE, HARSH, ABRASIVE, NEGATIVE. Both are extremely important processes . . . but GOD SEND YOU DON'T MAKE THEM IN THE ONE POT, MOTHER GROGAN!
m.joyceproject.com/notes/010134mothergrogan.html
For people complaining that Dr. Cantor "doesn't let them speak", I believe it's because given the nature of this subject, it is absolutely important that he concludes his line of thought before answering another parallel discussion. This is one of these subjects where any sentence out of context or unfinished line of thought can be disastrous.
He seems to be committed to reporting his findings no matter how offensive or fantasy-shattering those findings are... and I respect him for it. And also lots of respect for Sasha and Stella for engaging and probing and pushing back as well - you ladies are really not afraid of going deep. Thank you for this talk!
100% of this. As a long-time "academic fan" of his work, he wants to fully flesh out the nuances of his work before allowing engagement. And one thing that I really love, especially as someone in the sciences, is that he emphasizes the importance of removing oneself from their findings. I notice how my colleagues viscerally react to what they find and then *assume* it's wrong. We do assign interpretations to what tests, such as radiographs, tell us, but it's so important that we go into our research with "an open mind." What I mean by that, and what Dr. Cantor is getting at, is the the ability to ask questions without immediately dismissing the data because of social norms. He does that state, and highlights, how awful abuse is, but he is trying to distinguish between a paraphilia and the act of abuse. That's hard for people to distinguish between. The pushback is also how academic discourse is supposed to work, and I appreciate that all involved engage in it.
Then you can politely ask the interviewer to slow down. Shouting over someone to get your point across, because you think what you have to say is more important or relevant than someone else, is just rude.
This is one of the most important interviews you’ve ever done. His razor sharp scientific, non emotional discourse process obviously challenged and stimulated you both (and us). Wow - I can see why you kept it back but ultimately felt it needed to be heard. This guy needs to be heard more and protected from the simpleton detractors.
Thanks Becky!
Your work is so important. Ignore the children online that lack the emotional stability and intellectual capacity to actually have a conversation. I think we can understand that this is the result of stunting the moral, emotional and intellectual development that comes from having their puberty blocked as children.
This podcast, called "Earthly Delights" characterized Dr. James Cantor, PhD, thusly:
Feb 2, 2021 - In this episode, Dr James Cantor articulately and eloquently dismantles many of the incorrect and unhelpful beliefs surrounding Pedophilia ...
I am so glad that you have released this interview, thank you Stella and Sasha! I have worked with abusive (mostly male) people for twenty years of all types, including the specific people Dr Cantor is talking about. So I agree with a great deal of what he says, based on my training and experience. Eg. most of these types of offenders are not in the P category because those are very rare and most CSA offenders have a normal attraction to adults and don't necessarily pose a risk all of the time. Situational vs preferential. However, I personally disagree on a few areas. MRI scans are only part of the picture, not the full explanation. MRI scans can also identify psychopaths but don't explain how they became so and there is a lot of research to suggest that while some may have been born that way, many are made so by environment and early developmental experiences. I also very much disagree with Dr Cantor's views on mandatory reporting. I have to say before I elaborate that I have had a couple of encounters with Dr Cantor on Twitter and found him both defensive and arrogant in his responses. I notice the same in his "ah ah ah" chiding response to you both in this interview. He could have just said "hang on just let me finish" but he didn't. I have met several highly experienced practitioners such Dr Briggs, Dr Sullivan, Dr Clark Baim, Dr Finkelhor and Roger Kennington and they always listened, were always gracious, patient and very generous with their time. Perhaps if Dr Cantor was less lecturing, prickly and abrasive, he might find that clients would in fact disclose over time, in the full knowledge that they would be reported and experience the consequences, because that is in fact what a skilled practitioner can achieve with this client group. Dr Cantor seems to hold the view that a few should suffer 'for the greater good' which as we know is also a common response to dentrasitioners too and deeply harmful in the long run. I am not aware of anyone in this field who would encourage this group to actively engage in their fantasies, like Dr Cantor does so he is an outlier in this respect. It is also telling that he said "I don't know what 'normal' is" which to me sounds a bit like some form of leakage even within the context. Finally, I would add that to my knowledge no-one in my profession has ever mentioned or recommended Dr Cantor's research or publications here in the UK. Apologies for the length of my comment and I haven't even addressed everything I wanted to say but I do hope that you have the patience to read it!
When Cantor said, “The stigma belongs to the crime, not the fantasy… the stigma belongs to the part that’s harmful; the part that’s harmful is the overt behavior, NOT the fantasy,” what came into my mind was Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, where he raises the bar for moral stigma:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28).
To the degree that any of us retain Christian moral intuitions (with or without the dogmas), the claim that “fantasy is harmless” rings pretty hollow. To quote Louise Perry, “Some desires are bad,” even if they’re innate, and even if you haven’t acted on them, because the moral bar is genuine charity - willing the Good of the other - not just NOT traumatizing them.
I wholeheartedly agree with his aim of wanting to PREVENT child sex abuse rather than merely punish offenders after the fact, but why he thinks de-stigmatizing pedophilic fantasies will help potential offenders NOT offend is beyond me. I don’t think fantasies are for “letting off steam” (libido is not mechanical and we are not hydraulic machines under pressure: desire is organic and trainable and subject to habituation).
Fantasies shape us and give us a trajectory: they’re not “no big deal.” They’re not “nothing.” We may not generate the things that pop into our heads, but once those images are there, we are responsible for how long we linger over them.
This is a very thoughtful comment. Thank you so much for shining a Christian lense on this.
Well put! I 100% agree.
Agreed. On a neuroplastic level, repeated fantasies are absolutely not "no big deal."
Iron Age morals
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for this thoughtful insight!
Really appreciate Dr. Cantor's research. His scientific literature on paraphilia is probably some of the best in neuroscience. I don't write on paraphilia, but I do write on agency and brain, and Dr. Cantor has influenced how I think about the brain in my own academic work.
As a lesbian, I almost tore out my hair at that part of the conversation where Dr. Cantor said "born this way" narratives don't appeal to lesbians and that it's a "male framing." WTF? Are the only lesbians that Dr. Cantor met political lesbians? Most lesbians I've encountered have no problem saying we are innately homosexual, and that there is a distinction between us and bisexual women and straight women. There is nothing male about that.
Also, how is emphasizing the "emotional" over the "physical" aspect of female sexuality any different from what TRAs say, about how lesbians should be taught to be sexually attracted to transwomen (since bodies don't *really* matter)? The truth is that biological attraction is *extremely* important to us lesbians.
Look, I don't deny sexual fluidity is a thing for some women (just like it is for some men), but to frame that as a male vs. a female thing is badly oversimplifying what's going out. argh.
The sexism in old school sexologists is incredible.
I'm very sure I was born bisexual too. My attraction to women arose first i think, and I couldn't get rid of it no matter what I did. My primary romantic attractions are to women, it's just a shame day-to-day I find men easier to relate to.
I wonder if it's actually got to do with the way women are socialised to be diplomatic and inclusive that they maybe appear to be more fluid in their attractions than men.
@@bogdiworksV2 Good point. Women are socialized to have weaker boundaries.
the hosts literally said the same thing, and how bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual are "male framing" of course you have no criticism for them
Now that I have 45 trans widow responses to my survey, 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow, I clarify here that the survey is about experiences, not "feelings" of we ex-wives. I am specifically focused on women who left. Some of us stayed for a time, the sexologists assumed they are part of "keeping families together" but they practice a long term 35 year long policy of not following up with longitudinal studies of these men or their wives and children. The most shocking result I have so far is the 2 hospitalizations of trans orphans for suicide attempts and the 2 additional trans orphans who expressed serious suicidal ideation such that therapy was mandated. This is much too high, in a cohort of about 30 families with children where the father "transitioned." I am not researching "feelings" or thoughts. I am not even asking how much treatment the ex wives got for PTSD. My questions are recording events. All of these women have been thoroughly vetted and are credible. Of 45 trans widows so far, 18 of us report living below the poverty line or requiring family/govt financial assistance. That attests to our honesty. We all could have claimed that. The most shocking is the 13 of us who were coerced/cajoled/suggested that we must pretend to be a man, using a "strap on" in bed. Many of us refused. One woman who acquiesced had damage from the implement to her C-section scar. This is not the results of my sexual assault question. 17 women were assaulted, 3 raped by the lingerie-wearing husband. None reported to law enforcement.. One woman in Scandinavia was pimped out by her mob-affiliated crossdressing partner. Sorry James Cantor. You don't know our side of the story.
YT channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow, participant, documentary Behind the Looking Glass (18 trans widows) now 2 trailers at Lime Soda Films TH-cam channel. My survey results so far will also appear in the film. We are talking events and experiences. Not "identity" and feelings. Ute Heggen
Good God how horrible 😢
This is a topic that needs to be explored because of the animosity that links pedophilia to homosexuality but boy, is it hard to entertain! The repulsion towards people who harm children makes us lean away and want to rid ourselves of this scourge without exception and Dr. Cantor goes against the grain. I can appreciate his willingness to swim upstream in the name of science.
Just because something is lumped arbitrarily in a group doesn’t mean these things are in any way actually related. We still don’t have any definite answers, we still don’t know… one can be born a psychopath or with scoliosis - besides being born with it, there’s no other relation between the two… people are too reductive and emotional about this stuff. Your sexuality shouldn’t define you and there’s nothing to be proud of either way …
I'm glad this 'condition?' is being researched, hopefully a cure can be found, surely that's the hope. Fascinating conversation
Read Plato's Phaedrus. You'll get a FULL TOUR of the good side of BL, the bad side of BL, the need to separate them . . . and the impossibility of separating them. And yet we must constantly be involved in the process of separating them, maximizing the good side, and minimizing the good side. While being aware that the putative separation is never a final victory.
@@mrminer071166 What is good BL?
@@daveldma Excellent question; indeed, the only question really worth discussing. In the Phaedrus, Plato goes into visionary mode, lays out all the cultural patterns known and accepted by the Greeks (under the figures of the Greek gods) and describes man & boy drawn together in pursuit of those various cultural visions, in an absence of sex. Baden-Powell held up the cultural patterns (Christianity! Empire-Building! Queen Victoria! the Great Outdoors! Beating up Boers! No sex!) that he saw as being most relevant to his day. As far as what values Boy-Centered leaders hold up in the 21st C, well, we'll see. I assure you, anyone with a heart for boys is looking at all of this TRANS talk about cutting up boys' bodies and saying to himself, "THINGS HAVE GOT TO BE DIFFERENT. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY OUT OF THE TRANS MADNESS, FOR BOYS WHO WANT TO BE BOYS AND GROW UP TO BE MEN!"
Thank you. It was extremely interesting to hear Dr. Cantor explain his research and conclusions in person. My negative opinion has dissipated. I cannot wait to hear more from him - especially the eitology of transsexualism versus transgenderism. So much food for thought. Excellent!
I can have no greater respect than for people who can change their minds when they see the evidence.
@@jamescantor8031 I found your comments about lesbians not being as convinced that they were born that way in comparison to homosexual men believing so, quite surprising. Especially as women over all, are often perceived to all be potential lesbians or bisexual. Much more so than for men.
Oh god that was a tough one! The way he refused to be interrupted and the way he sounded a bit too much like a politician at times really rubbed me the wrong way… but… he’s got a damn good point.
My abuser was low of IQ (didn’t make it past elementary school) and extremely childish, which even as a kid made me think: “he just never grew up, his development stopped somewhere”… my mom had a knack at attracting them. They looked to her as a motherly figure while abusing me …
Aww friend I'm so sorry. But you are a good person to even justify why your abuser hurt you and why your protector (mom) brought in monsters that she was trying herself to love and help. YOU tragically were the one who it effected. Sending you a virtual snug.
I really also had that a bit, it was like he was 'mansplaining' to Stella and Sasha, but I think that's just the way it came across in the audio. Ofc it's really a diametrically opposing field of business, science and psychology, and he just wanted to make his point I tihnk without having to redirect to another question. I also think that if given the chance mr. Cantor would have talked for 4 hours :D
That's awful. I'm sorry that happened to you, and i hope you have been able to find peace and have a rewarding and good quality life as an adult.
Came for that comment (the interrupting part)! I felt the same way, also about his point. It is acutally hard to take a step back from judging and the emotions. Especially when one had some bad experience. But I can agree with his point. Maybe bc I'm from Germany and read about the "Dunkelfeld" stuff years ago. I do not have (mainly, see emotions) a problem with the deviant sexuality/interests itself but with the acting on it when it harms others. This includes heterosexual people, too. But this is exactly why I have a problem with the actual trans movement: Men forcing you to take part in their sexual fantasy/pleasure without your consent like AGP: Men in womenface as their kink gear going around demanding to be called "she" and forcing themselves into womens spaces. For their sexual pleasure. There is no difference to exhibitionists. I have no problem with nudity itself but I have a problem with someone forcing his nudity on you to get off.
I would have loved if they had adressed the totally different prevalence of deviant/predatory sexualities in men and women which is probably nowadays also a taboo.
Fascinating. I'll definitely have to listen to that again and have a think about what he has to say.
I do have a fear that sexual predators are lying to their therapists and researchers and saying that they are "virtuous pedophiles" when they are in fact active child molesters, because people lie to their therapists about the things that they are ashamed of all the time, and it is an obvious thing to do if you are a child molester.
The idea about whether or not to make child porn that is cartoon/drawings/animated (and child sex dolls) available is such a dilemma to me. Does it satisfy the urge of pedophiles enough to make them less likely to offend against real life children, or does it strengthen the desire to act out with actual children? And if this stuff is openly available, how would we stop teenage boys coming across it during the vulnerable time in their development and developing pedophilia as a kink/fetish, leading to more suffering and harm.
Given how predatory and manipulative and ever on the lookout for opportunities to offend child molesters are (as is any man who serially offends sexually), I do wonder how well his ideas will work out in "the real world". My emotional reaction is that they are dangerous to children and dangerous to women.
The history of the western world is a history of male predation against women and children, and of women and children being expected to accommodate (ie be abused by) abusive and Un reciprocal male desires. Personally, at this point in time, I do not feel even slightly interested in extending compassion towards or making space for men to put women and children in further harm.
PS - having now looked at Dr Cantor's blog, and read the really quite disturbing comments in his comments section from the numerous pedophiles using pseudoscience to try to justify their preference as evolutionarily adaptive (and some of the comments in this comments section from obviously woman hating, sexually attracted to children men), my sense of concern about the real world harms to women and children from these idea's has increased astronomically.
Also, pedophiles who get caught and convicted are such a small group of men who molest children that it is simply not likely that they are representative of the majority of child molesters. (In my 20+ years as a mental health nurse/alcohol and drug counsellor/psychotherapist around half my female patients were victims of child sexual abuse, but only one ONE had the perpetrator be found guilty in a court of law). I can well believe that the ones who get caught and punished are disproportionately low IQ, and short (meaning neglected as a child), but that is unlikely to be true of the majority of my patients fathers, brothers, uncles and neighbors who molested them. I think the dumb ones who can't afford a lawyer are the ones who are getting caught and punished.
On the drawing/dolls, there's little concrete evidence either way. Fictional imagery has been accessible since the internet, so it's more of not yet finding evidence of it affecting rates of csa.
Causality is difficult to confirm, but the research on csem/csa suggests any effects from fiction may vary depending on the person(this is largely consistent with adult p0rn suggested affects). Higher risk/those with previous contact offenses might be escalated by it, csem-only offenders seem low risk to move to contact offenses, and the few populations studies have found less contact offenses with previous availability.
Thompson(2019) Contact Offending (summary of the csem risk research applied to fiction)
Harper et al(2022) Exploring the Ownership (first study on dolls)
Lower IQ does just seem to be a limitation of convicted samples, and some other studies don't find differences in IQ when comparing with non-pedophilic molesters. Some studies looking at contact/non-contact offenders find non-contact offenders comparable IQ to normal controls.
Kargel et al(2017) Evidence for superior neurobiological
Shortened some of the source titles. Still first links when searching.
Two really good points: (1) yes people do lie about things they’re ashamed of (or know are totally unacceptable to the listener) and (2) yes the question about whether this stuff being openly available would affect boys during their development as (apparently) sissy porn, or violent porn, or other forms of porn are warping boys now.
It seems like the _last_ thing we need is more porn of any type.
The wide availability of porn (and the increase in disordered / misdirected / compulsive sexuality / “kink”) seems analogous to the wide availability of junk food and the increase in disordered / misdirected / compulsive eating.
And it seems like the availability of porn, or junk food. Is more harmful than helpful. Saying we need more porn for pedophiles is like saying obese people need more videos of people eating Cheetos and ice cream.
Well said. I agree completely.
Of course their lying, cantor taking them at their word just shows how naive he is. Also if pedo were able to not offended at all why are they pushing for any child sexual abuse content in whatever form to be available, I thought these men could control it so much they didn't have to offend. So saying they need a "legal" avenue, show they are offending and a danger to kids. So this research seem like massive BS
I am excited for this. I think James Cantor is much more objective and precise than Blanchard and Bailey. I have really enjoyed listening to him. Thank you for this, and all your work. 💜
i can see why you delayed this one. his questioning of why not add the P to LGBT sounds a lot like queer theory/post modern deconstructing everything to the point of insanity
You should check out the interview he did with mrgirl.
Ugh i loooove what he just said at 43 min. If we immediately label evil and dont look for the actual root cause of sexual abuse- rejection, past trauma, etc, we will NEVER find healing, societal solutions, prevention, etc. Anytime i express this concept aloud (rather than just label someone toxic, narcessistic, a predators, etc, and immediately dispense exile as the punishment), the gatekeepers throw the term abuser excuser at me and cut me out of the conversation. What a relief to hear this conversation being had, and to hear his scientific process for discovering actual reasons behind abuse. Shadow exploration in particular is deeply important to me ❤ I am a woman who was raised in a violent home with a long history of several forms of abuse, with no interest in writing off abusers or taking the victim role. Since the "unintentional groomer" via abuse subject was mentioned, i can see how immediate exile and shaming from gatekeepers is another instance of unintentional grooming. Darkness grows in darkness. True healing takes more nuanced exploration, such as what is happening in this discussion. If we don't find the root cause, how can we heal?? Which of course also applies to gender disphoria...
Thank you very much for this candid and honest comment. We appreciate your sincerity
25 minutes in now, wow, the guy really grabs the attention and been hanging on his lips ever since. He's like one of those eccentric eloquently speaking tony stark like not quite evil guys from the movies. thx for releasing this vid after a year :). 26 minutes in and I'm thinking about the immune system of my mother. Fascinating.
Right? My brother is gay and I never had kids. Not by choice. But now I wonder if you inherit that immune sister from your mother. Could I have had gay children. Fascinating and wow sort of life changing.
He wants to "destigmatize the fantasy" but engagement in fantasy has been shown to precede and prepare criminals for other crimes.
This relates to my own question on his evidence around utilizing fantasy as a harmless-to-neutral outlet. Neuroscience offers some interesting models that would challenge the claim of safety in that practice.
Cite some sources for this please. It sounds quite made up.
It is not possible for a researcher to know how many people have whatever fantasy of anything and do *not* engage in whatever behavior. We only see the cases that do. This is an error in logic called "survivorship bias."
@@-Stella-Maris- What about violent video games?
@@James-ip1tc Excellent question. Would you say that violence is an inborn human tendency, or an aberrant expression?
@@-Stella-Maris- I would say that our entertainment industry is the most potent mind-control and attitude-influencing device ever created. Our ancient brains have no real defense against it. The glut of violent (and dystopian) films are guided by the profit motive, as "driving humans to the bottom of the brain stem" is the easiest way to manipulate people by getting them to spend money in addictive ways. I would say violence is a misuse of -- and a failure of -- the creative imagination. / Peter Joseph is very insightful about our system -- systemic influences on human behavior.
Our charity supporting those affected by p@edophilia, CSA or Incest.
We must get our heads round empathy of prevention so we can care more about preventing victimhood than we do about hating pa@edophilia & child offenders.
Thank you so much for this conversation & being brave enough to platform it ❤
I think as a society we are deathly afraid of discussing where sexuality or gender identity comes from and trends or changes societally.
I can understand that for many it is a raw personal subject or ppl had to fight for recognition or rights. But I do look forward to a time where we are mature enough to discuss the science objectively without worrying about offending anyone. We've given up too much in an effort to not cause offence. Intellectual curiosity shouldn't be curtailed especially when it's not trying to push a narrative and simply aims to look at the information available and then explain it. I'd trade better understanding for offending a few ppl.
Oh how I agree. I am distressed every day that my "progressive curiosity" that helped me become more empathetic and wiser is going to get me called "transphobic or homophobic or that stupid TERF. It sucks.
@@hnybee113 I think that's a good point that by understanding these things better surely that makes it easier to have empathy. Half of the ppl I see labelled as TERFS or transphobes are ppl who for me have a great capacity for empathy and tend to understand the other views very well which is why they're so compelling.
I feel a great deal of frustration when ppl ask me, "Why do you care?" It's like we're being asked to turn off integral parts of being human in order to promote "acceptance". It feels entirely counterproductive to me.
This is another fantastic podcast. No book is perfect, no journal article is beyond critique, no interview is flawless. Whatever criticisms people have they are entitiled to. For me, this was another really well done interiew. I learnt a few things. Thank you.
Dr. Cantor, in my opinion, has correctly identified that many individuals claiming gender dysphoria or any of its other terms are actually affected by borderline personality disorder. I worked in psych for about 10 years and saw during the last 5 years a progression from a diagnosis of BPD to BPD with gender dysphoria/identity issues. I am not surprised as a person with BPD will often blame others for there unacceptable behaviour. Now, with their broken faulty defence mechanisms they have a condition to blame and latch onto also.
You two are changing my whole direction as an RBT. I wish I could touch base with Sasha. My work now has a different goal. I'm struggling here existential wise. Alot of convictions here.
This was a tough one - didn't like how he sushed you up a couple of times Stella - his findings when he got to them were interesting. Still not convinced that "born that way" is enough it is a tiny part. Context, experience and culture are really powerful cultivators.
Same with the sushing! That was incredibly rude.
I thought his argument about the acronym was odd.. to me it's extremely obvious who "fits in" and who doesn't. It's for minority sexual orientations. Sexual orientation has to do with the sex one's romantic and sexual interest is oriented towards-same sex, opposite sex, both. Simple. Paraphilia is distinct from orientation because it involves interest that is unethical (nonconsensual situations, children, animals) and/ or orientation towards something or some characteristic outside of sex. Paraphilia does not belong in the same category as orientation, full stop.
You can generate any criteria you want for the acronym. (Which is my usual point.) Yours leaves out Intersex and asexual, for example.
There are many paraphilia's that do *not* involve nonconsensual or other unethical behaviors, such as sexual masochism, transvestism, diaperism, object fetishes, ...
The problem with "full stop" is that it stops only your own thinking and openness to new ideas you haven't yet encountered.
@@jamescantor8031 thank you for your reply! That's fun. Yes I do not see any reason for people with DSDs to be lumped in with minority sexual orientations-our experiences are very different and our political interests are also pretty different. With asexuality it might be less clear cut-I could be convinced that, as a minority sexual orientation, they do fit. That said I think the struggle to be seen as legitimate for not wanting a partner is pretty different from the struggle against discrimination of same sex attracted individuals.
On your second point you'll find that I did not, would not, say all paraphilia is unethical. I said it's _either_ unethical and/OR involves attraction to something other than the sex of ones partner-like pain, ones self as a woman, diapers, or whathaveyou. I'm well aware of these things and, in most cases, they're absolutely fine. I just don't see any good reason to say the struggles of those people are meaningfully similar to the struggle of LGB people, or that all these different proclivities have a unifying political interest the way that the LGB does when we group together. LBG says (to straight society) we love just like you, our unions are just like yours, give our unions the same rights an respect.
I understand the acronym as a civil rights movement that may have jumped the shark, so to speak - the movement has done well for homosexuals and transsexuals in the past , but might be going a little off the rails at the moment.
So, to my mind, although pedophilia is a condition that may need attention and treatment, it does not need a civil rights movement. So I also was baffled by the assertion that pedophilia should be added to the acronym 🤷♀️
And usually it’s exciting to them BECAUSE it’s unethical. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain likes it for the fact it is morally abhorrent, they feel nothing if it isn’t that. A lot of overriding of the victim’s consent and boundaries. It is about violation.
@@ebert8756 yes! exactly my point! Why does the acronym exist? Where did it come from? All of us banding together, forming a political alliance to fight for the right to have the relationships that we see fit for ourselves, and for those relationships to be legal, free of discrimination, and to carry the same benefits as hetero unions.
When somebody, _anybody,_ says:
>"oh maybe adults attracted to CHILDREN should be part of that movement, why not, hey, how does anyone decide anyway?"
We MUST oppose them. No matter how they dress it up or sneakily throw it in with other paraphilia or how they try to obfuscate the reason we are banded together... Suggesting that we have LGBetc plus *P* is a suggestion that "P" deserves legal recognition of the "relationships" (in truth, SA) that they see fit for themselves. NO.
I was trying to be nice, give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that maybe hes just lost in the intellectual weeds where he has forgotten the _reality_ of what he is suggesting... But it appears he won't be responding again, so I want to say the truth very clearly. What he said is revolting. LGBs are NOT open to "P," we do NOT have solidarity with them, our fight is NOT theirs and never will be.
I do believe that there should be interventions available for people with harmful desires and we shouldn't shame/isolate those people who have never actually hurt anyone... But that's because I want offenders stopped before they get a single victim. Isolated, miserable people are more likely to act out. That issue, however, has nothing to do with legal rights and certainly has nothing to do with us/the LGB struggle.
I appreciate all that Blanchard says, but he seems to be woefully naïve as to what extend individuals who harm children would lie about their offending and practices. I am sure they can have an emotional range - so did Ted Bundy- that's not the reason to be crying salty tears what poor dears they are. I don't care what lies in somebody's phantasies, I just care they tend to come out in the world and actually hurt people, the more they are encouraged, which Cantor seems to support.
Secondly, the German approach doesn't fill me with hope. The Germans used to think putting children who were wards of the state with paedophiles was a great idea (the Kentler experiment)- with predictable results.
Thirdly, I am sick to my back teeth with kink legitimising. It's abnormal for a reason- it harms society.
I was so glad to hear Stella hold her ground (as much as he would let her!) He absolutely is legitimizing ... I found him a bit reductive when he asked what she meant by that. Like, duh, dude. Not everything is related to gay issues or you growing up gay. Even if some of it is based prenatally, that doesn't mean we endorse epileptics to have seizures.
@@mkyriacopolous He was very dismissive of other factors at play than innate ones when dealing with paedophiles. It seems instinctively wrong as most of them have been subjected to either sex abuse in childhood or they've shown abnormal psychopathic responses from an early age. My theory is, paedophilia is not "born that way" but a response to both environmental factors in combination with psychopathic features and/ or emotional immaturity.
Saying that, that's no excuse. These people are dangerous and should be separated from the general public.
Also, both Stella and Sasha tried to point things to him (of similar nature I have pointed out above), but he just talked over them and was coolly dismissive.
Judge much?
@@adlernewman Good point. Either way, I just don't see why prevention and treatment can't be on the same page.
Even if there are some predilection factors (and obviously that can't apply to all) his borderline almost endorsement of psychopathology worries me. We've all seen where endorsing "gender-affirming care" has gotten us. Legitimizing indeed, good call Stella! She interjected best she was able. I seriously wonder if he isn't taking too much Adderall.
@adlernewman I wasn't abused as a child, nor do I have antisocial personality disorder.
I'm perfectly capable of feeling/reciprocating empathy, thank you very much. 🤨
As a society, we have dealt with the topic of pedophilia (not CSA) from an emotional standpoint ever since age of consent laws were created and made many mistakes. We taught “stranger danger” when 93% of child abuse was caused by someone the child knew well. We stigmatize every fantasy outlet from cartoons to plastic dolls without realizing that may be the one thing keeping someone from acting upon their attractions. Recently Arizona joined a handful of states in banning dolls and even made it a 4th degree felony offense to own one. Do you know what that says to someone who is attracted to minors? It says that real children are really not much more important than a lump of plastic. if you are going to get a felony for humping the plastic, you may as well go for the real thing and commit CSA. Same thing goes for places like Canada where they equate cartoons with CSAM. Stigma never has and never will prevent a single child from abuse, but legal sexual outlets can and do prevent abuse. We can either get serious about prevention or continue with the moral grandstanding and do nothing until a crime has occurred. Ask yourself if you really care more about the prevention of “nOrMaLiZiNg pEdOfEeLya” or the prevention of child sexual abuse.
That's great for those who don't want to offend. They should be able to come forward, uncensured, for professional help.
Age-of-consent law is a separate issue and there is absolutely a several-decades-long push to "normalize" it in a broader sense, add it to the (ever-expanding) Pride rainbow, etc. There are more than two things going on here.
@@-Stella-Maris- I haven't seen any push to lower or alter age of consent laws in any shape or form, so I guess you are talking about general acceptance of the attraction. Some folks in the LGBTQ crowd may not like it, but minor attractions do tick all the check boxes as a legitimate sexuality that has been evident since the 1st records of history. The only rebuttal they can say is that minor attractions are not a sexuality because they can't be physically enacted without breaking the law.. Well it wasn't very long ago that homosexual acts were illegal in many states, and still are in some countries. By removing the stigma, you are not removing AOC laws. All the removal of stigma does is allow people to stop living completely in the shadows. Here is a hypothetical question for you: Let's pretend your child had an aunt (female pedophiles do exist) or uncle that you were totally cool with letting your child spend time alone with, and you have absolutely no idea this person has a minor attraction. Would a society where you and this other family member, could openly talk about that without their entire lives being socially (and sometimes physically) destroyed, be better than what we have today?
@@starfield1874 I am not speaking about general acceptance of the attraction, so I'll leave the hypotheticals. I am speaking of specific material actions by Foucault, Hocquenghem, Danet, Rubin, Califia, Butler, NAMBLA (goes without saying), and associated supporters in the U.S., including some of Foucault's previous petitioning in France before relocating to the U.S. in 1980. I reject the characterization of P as a sexual orientation commensurate with sex-attraction; I hold with the APA that it's a psychiatric disorder based on its antisocial characteristics. None of this is to say that clinical support and outreach for P shouldn't be advanced.
@@-Stella-Maris-but surely the way you are describing paedophilia is exactly how homosexuality was described in clinical diagnosis only 50 years ago? I agree the P is not appropriate in LGBTQ, but the stigma (for attraction not abusive actions) should be reduced as much as humanly possible imho.
@@dan7972-k9m It was a prejudice-driven mistake to have ever clinically described homosexuality/bisexuality that way. They're inborn and prosocial (the pain they accrue is related to unreasonable social stigma; they do no harm through natural experience and expression).
P and other paraphilias are a completely different issue. They can't be rationally or accurately compared with homosexuality/bisexuality as orientations, and I believe it's intellectually dishonest to do so.
I agree that P should be destigmatized as other mental illnesses have been destigmatized, and afforded outreach and treatment. This is very different to considering it a sexual orientation.
I think Dr. Cantor is used to being the smartest person in a given room or grew up that way, perhaps.
I agree. And is accustomed to always having to defend himself.
Or perceived himself as such.
He comes across as pompous at times.
Not always easy to listen to for a number of reasons, but an amazing conversation. I'm very glad there are places in the public sphere where we can actually discuss things like this openly.
You need to interview Ute Heggen, Trans Widow, author of "In The Curated Woods, Tales of a Trans Widow." She is helping to identify patterns of trauma and behavior.
Meghan Murphy had the most fascinating interview with a prison psychologist. He said psychosis, sexual predators, etc. never change or outgrow it.
Psychosis or psychopathology?
Are you referring to Jon Uhler? He is certainly an interesting one to listen to. His experience with offenders has given him a lot to say. Ive listened to him quite a bit since first coming across him and I have... Concerns. He is one of those extremely irritating people who say morality comes from God/religion _exclusively._ He has also made some alarming comments about homosexuality. I think that his work has given him real insight when it comes to offenders, but since hearing more of his views Im not sure if he can be taken as a.. "reliable narrator." His inner worldview has a strong bias towards this idea that one has to be christian (and rather fundamentalist at that) and straight in order to be a good person.
Which is the exact opposite of what the research says. Yes there are some that continue to reoffend but the majority do not.
I listened with interest, and then watched a short video on here where James Cantor speaks about paedophilia. I do accept that it is something innate, but why would having mandatory reporting prevent paedophiles from seeking therapy or help if they are (as he states) mostly only accessing drawn child pornography that didn't hurt any actual children? If no children are being abused and they genuinely want help then mandatory reporting may not be what is preventing them seeking help.
Because an ensuing investigation (interviewing his wife, their children, neighbours, their children, etc.) is quite sufficient for destroying his life. After such an investigation, his community are unlikely to conclude "Ok, nothing wrong after all" to provide the benefit of the doubt.
Question: if you were an adult who was abused as a child, how would you feel to discover your abuser was going to therapy every week to tell about their actions, but no one was helping you escape the abuse?
That question makes no sense. There are tons of resources for victims, very little to none for abusers.
I do believe this is a reasonable question. When someone still has a victim under their thumb I certainly don’t believe they should be given help over the victim. That’s absurd
@@HerWanderlust The victim still being under the abuser's thumb wasn't being asked about. It ask how you would feel about a past childhood abuser receiving therapy.. I certainly hope that person would, provided they can find any support at all. No one is giving preference over the victim. As for cases of ongoing abuse, mandatory reporting laws prevent anyone who may want help to stop causing abuse from seeking it out. Thus our current laws enable abuse to continue.
I was so irritated by his demeanor that at points I lost the conversation thread. Had to walk away a few time. You are very good hosts to not have snapped back at the shushing. But I realize that it is an important topic and will attempt another listen.
Did he really just shut Stella down like a child at 1:08:39 and 1:21:44? While I respect the man's work and opinions, staying open to discussion is a fundamental component of any conversation. And I completely disagree with his assertion that every marginalized group is somehow intrinsically linked with every other marginalized group...LGB issues are not synonymous with T. As well, his thoughts that AI fabricated child pornography is harmless strikes me as simply enabling a progress. He's saying you have to encourage harmful behavior to decrease actual offending? A goal of psychotherapeutic work with pedophiles should never cease fighting for treatment and discouragement of that aberration, in my opinion. Similar to WPATH endorsing men with castration fetishes and saying they have a 'gender identity' of 'eunuchs' that requires surgical "affirmation", versus saying what they actually are, males with castration fetish desires that need serious psychotherapeutic help.
There is a tradition of overly-involved female social workers giving the child's point of view, as the female social worker perceived it. Cantor is skilled at cutting through those intellectually loose, but emotionally powerful chains of association.
His stopping is rude. I understand he wants to get his full idea and context out before offering a response, but there are better ways that ahh-ing.
He's responded to that tweet a few times over the years and which have more examples to give a bit more context.
He specifically called out the issue with LGB being in conflict with the T to clarify that. His point was there wasn't a clear unifying element for many of the letters(other than popularity/social acceptance), and that they could be included/excluded depending on specific issues. P could be added to fight against the stigma for just having the attraction(not offending), matching other letters, but asexuals could be excluded because there is nothing they need to fight for, and B can often be in conflict with L and G for not being homosexual enough.
AI has a myriad of issues(real imagery in reference pool, difficulty in differentiating AI/real), but there's been some suggestions fictional outlets can function as an indirect substitute for real imagery/contact offending.
Those assumptions are based on research on real csem consumption not having a clear relationship with contact offending, with psychopathy seeming the factor for escalation.
@@mrminer071166 Stella O'Malley is hardly an overinvolved social worker. Rudeness shouldn't be called a skill and further, with all the time he spent repeating himself again and again ('Im gay, I experienced this because I was gay, yada yada over and over', let's face it, the man likes to hear himself speak), he could have instead stood to listen a little and let others speak. Not only would it have been more polite but he might actually have learned something extra, which could even have helped him in his own research. Missed opportunity, in my opinion, to have people of such a level of intelligence in front of you and instead of engaging properly with them, you shut them down.
AI fabricated images, by definition, are harmless, since no actual kids are involved. If you want to argue that SOME pedophiles should abstain, due to it potentially escalating into self-destructive behaviors, then that's a fine and fair point to make. However, the notion that all pedophiles/hebephiles lack self control, and therefore should avoid AI generated material is laughably absurd.
On another note, repressing one's sexuality pretty much never ends well. That type of advise tends to result in individuals with crippling depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, and a variety of other mental health issues.
@@mrminer071166 Your point being: let's over involve ourselves with a poor molester who lost his candy. Because caring about children is so passe and hysterical, right?
Minute 55:00 "What are the principles upon which 'the rest of LGBT' can claim our rights?" Cantor seems to believe that pedophilia is innate and homosexuality is also innate, so therefore the P belongs with the LGBT. It doesn't, because there is more than one principle. Principle 1: sexuality is innate. Principle 2: homosexuality can be expressed between 2 consenting adults.
Pedophilia may meet Principle 1, but it does NOT meet Principle 2. I believe that pedophilia and autogynephilia should both be treated like a tendency toward addiction. It is very important to avoid encouraging these tendencies because to do so is unhealthy and particularly in the case of pedophilia, DANGEROUS!
Since when was the requirement to legally act upon a sexually a prerequisite? Homosexuality was illegal in many states until very recently. Is a lesbian not allowed to be a lesbian unless she is actively engaged with another woman?
@@starfield1874 I'm not implying that at all. My point is that homosexual behavior can be expressed between consenting adults. Pedophilia (which to me, is a disorder, while homosexuality is not) cannot be acted upon without abusing a child. Rights are only relevant in the realm of behavior. Any tendencies that aren't acted upon don't require rights because they are simply unexpressed thoughts and desires.
That's the most sensible thing I've read in years.
This guy is amazing in the way he cuts through the BS. And it’s admirable how he genuinely does not give a F what people think 😮
In the book The Dawn Of Everything by David Graeber, you get a view of various ways ancient civilized societies were organized and that different rules and norms of behavior were chosen by the citizens or group members. Different groups had sometimes opposite values.
Thank you for the book reccomendation
So when are you going to have him on again? There is so much more I want to hear from you both asking him questions that I wouldn’t know to ask.
I finished listening to your Pioneers Series yesterday! This is an unexpected treat! 🤩❤✨
Thank you all. I have been curious Dr Cantor’s research for several years. I ran across him somewhere when i was trying to figure out how Pizza Gate happened.
His voice is important!!!!!!
Wish you would interview him on trans
Great episode!!
At the risk of "finding what I'm looking for" I'll post this here. Results sent hard copy for the first 39 trans widows. These questions are based on reports and observations. When a woman, trying to please her husband by wearing a "strap on" and it physically damaged her C-section scar, that dude is a psycho. It happened. We can't "prevent him from looking for a victim." We protect our children by safeguarding. We protect women from sexual abuse and mental cruelty by focusing on women, not on the perps.
Trans Widow Survey:
1. Was his crossdressing a revelation or your discovery?
2. Did he then tell you it is under control, not frequent, and then it escalated out of control?
3. Did he select a therapist? Did that therapist or he claim the marriage is now a "lesbian relationship?"
4. Did he put money in a secret account or other venue and spend it on wardrobe, make-up, electrolysis, etc? Did he incur credit card debt for this spending?
5. Did he wear your clothing or make-up?
6. Did he suggest/coerce/cajole you into "sex role play" whereby you are to use a "strap on" or other sex toy and play a "male" part in bed? Answer that it was suggested even if you flat out refused and tell what happened if you were coerced and did it. I can handle all the details. The fact that one woman was physically damaged at the site of her C-section scar is important.
7. Did a therapist suggest any of the above as in #6? I am combining the answers of these two in the data but it's important for data to know whether mental health professionals were participating in this sexual harassment.
8. Did he defame/vilify you in affidavits submitted to court in the divorce/custody process or defame/vilify you on social media? Please, if both happened, do indicate.
9. Did he claim to any therapist or a group of friends that you abused him verbally or physically?
10. Did he attack you physically? Please indicate whether it was choking, shoving, punching, etc and if there were any bruises, scars and evidence. Also if the police were called.
11. Did he force unwanted sex with you? Did that happen more than once? Were the police called, were any charges filed?
12. Did you live below the poverty line or require governmental or family financial assistance at any time after the end of the relationship? Were you unable to leave because of money?
13. Did any members of the clergy (priests, rabbis, ministers) suggest that you have to give in to his requests to keep your family/marriage together?
14. Did anyone, therapist, friend, husband, or family suggest you now are obligated to "share Mother's Day?"
15. In your own individual therapy, or in the process of interviewing a therapist for yourself, did any mental health professionals tell you that he's to be referred to as female, with female pronouns in therapy supposedly centered around your recovery?
16. Did you lose a set of friends after he came out or after the relationship ended?
17. Did he start self-identifying as "mother" of the children he fathered or was step-father of?
18. Did he suggest/insist that the children call him "Mama-Something" or some other similar version of Mum?
19. Did a therapist or husband or any friends/relatives tell you that your rejection of and ending the relationshiop "caused him to decide to live as a female full-time?"
20. Did he co-opt your experience of childbirth, using the details of your labor to convince new friends of his "female status" and role as "mother?"
These are intense and disturbing questions. Thanks for sharing
@@widerlenspod They were generated based on the experiences of 35 of us, as well as the three suicides we know of, by trans widows. Thanks for the response. I'm sure you'll present women who have left disturbing, manipulative marriages, instead of women who forced themselves to stay.
@@widerlenspodFor context -- this is the project Cantor dismissed as "market research" in the comments.
When gay sex was legalised the law did not except it from age of consent laws.
Age of consent laws would seem to be there for not only the physical but also the developmental health of young people.
Even lesbian sex between an adult woman and an young girl can and most likely will damage the girls ability to draw boundaries and normalise sexual relationships with a power imbalance.
Please have him on again. I’m dying to hear his views on trans.
Btw, if you guys are interested in stories of sex offenders and victims, their history etc, the youtube channel soft white underbelly has a bunch of those stories.
Yes, we're familiar with it. It's very hard to watch sometimes, but fascinating
Thanks!
thanks very much for your generosity!
@@widerlenspod I am hoping that Genspect will have a convention in Indiana where we might do some public facing event in front of the statue of Alfred Kinsey. Just a thought.
As a gay man survivor of child abuse this makes me want to vomit.
Why would the use of scientific research to prevent the occurrence of CSA be nauseating? Sounds a lot better than the status quo of doing absolutely nothing to support people with these attractions and simply waiting for a crime to be committed.
What a spectacular episode! I'm pretty bummed, though, that you chose to delay posting it. I understand your reasons, but I think courage is more important now than ever.
The client-therapist confidentiality topic reminded me of the Sopranos.
Gangster Godfather Tony Soprano reveals his activities to his therapist - but she cannot report him to the police for fear she would be murdered.
While this ended up having nothing to do with gender (which is rather a pity), a highly interesting conversation and a fascinating episode.
I love how he refuses to be interrupted with the ‘ah!’
It was rude.
Thank you for posting this. One of the better interviews with Dr Cantor. I only wished you would have had more time. Your dialogue (trialogue? lol) was really thought provoking.
I would love a mini-series with you and Dr Cantor, one hour (ish) episodes on different themes you touched on here: straight vs everyone else (this framework is quite interesting in itself, and good to get articulated in a dispassionate way), fantasy vs reality wrt sex - can a fetish exist only in fantasy, or does the definition preclude that?, women! (far too little research I feel, I'd like to hear Cantor expound on why this is), his point about civil rights and the alphabet soup - I hadn't quite understood it before, and now I am really intrigued and want to hear more (it follows on from "straight vs everyone else"), which parafilias cause the most problems, and how do we know this?, the thorny question of normalisation, pornography, is there fluidity in orientations (in men), which are fluid, which are not? (his take on age being but one axis is quite interesting, ie are there things that change over time?). And of course the pedofilia sub-subjects... of which there are many (age of consent vs nature, women, can pedofiles sustain platonic relationships?, who are the non-pedofile offenders and why do they offend? and many more.)
Please have him back, or maybe even better start a new podcast series with him! The contrast in your cognitive styles makes for really good conversation.
Thank you for your comment. We didn't even get to talk to him about youth gender dysphoria! He's an expert in this data and we'd love to have him on to discuss it some time.
What was this 1:08:52
Very interesting, thank you for releasing this. I’m open to what he’s saying, though I agree with your pushback.
But the “dat dat dat” was so incredibly rude and made me dislike him instantly 😂
It's a personality quirk rather common, in my experience, amongst some ppl in academia.
57:03 Stella, you use an odd phrase here: 'a sexuality'. What do you mean? I've heard this phrase around the web a few times over the last year or so, and it puzzles me.
You say that you're not convinced that paedophilia is 'a sexuality', and contrast it with a 'developmental disorder'. But paedophilia is about sexual attraction. Isn't the label 'a sexuality' appropriate, whether it's disordered or not?
I get the impression that 'a sexuality' has a lot of unspoken concepts and judgments built into it, e.g. 'legitimate', 'inborn', and so on - but I'm not quite sure what they are.
I'm also curious if there's a source for the phrase. Quite a few people seem to be using it nowadays in the sense that you're using it.
(Edit: Since this interview was conducted a year ago, I should also ask if you would still use the phrase nowadays.)
I took it to mean that p*edophilia is a maladaptive, "developed disorder," one that overshadows the natural orientation/sexual development of the individual, via p*rn etc.
I disagree with Cantor that it should be considered a natural orientation on par with being lesbian/straight/bi/gay. As he stated, not every individual with pedophilic tendencies is exclusively attracted to children, indicating that there is a gray area where they have developed an adult sexuality to an extent, but it has been perverted nonetheless. He does not consider them p*dos. I do, whether they are solely fantasizing or offending. I hope that made some sense.
@@rebeccapenders5050 OK, but what did Stella mean by the phrase 'a sexuality'?
I've seen people on Twitter say the same of things like autogynephilia, or furry fetishism, or whatever: that it's "not a sexuality".
It's that particular word that baffles me. How is a sexual thing not a sexuality? What is a 'sexuality', then? Does it mean 'sexual orientation'? I've never heard a sexologist use the phrase, as far as I recall.
By 'not a sexuality', people seem to mean 'not a *legitimate* sexuality', or 'not a true inborn sexuality'. But it's strange shorthand and I don't know where it came from.
Fascinating talk. I really struggled to work through what James was saying. It's such a complicated subject isn't it. The only solution I've come up with, is chemical castration at the first sign of a pedophelic inclination. Otherwise we are doomed to a fate of abuse/victimization cycle.
Thanks for listening, we know it was a challenging conversation.
Good discussion. It wasn't that bad. I have disagreements but I'll keep studying.
I find it puzzling that the assessment of IQ is actually part of his argument, as if IQ were some objective and agreed upon thing. Also wondering about actual numbers of people who have been subjects of this research.
Interesting point
Same. I also thought the hemispheric dominance/lateralizarían model has come under some question.
Many left handed people have it trained out of them by social and environmental pressures.
This would increase the level of strong mindedness in lefties?
what book is sasha referring to at 52:00 ?
It's Not Always Depression: bit.ly/434OdnC
It's always so funny when a woman steps 👠 on a man's toes. Hetero or Homo, start shouting over the top of the ladies
Buckling in
Objective criteria might include;
1. Whether there is a danger that acceptance of a proclivity causes physical harm or psychological trauma and
B. That harm/trauma will damage the 'victim's' ability to reproduce or function in society
From the point of view of people who do not find that form of sex attractive.
This cleves LGBH from TQP that damages a child's ability to form reproductive long term reciprocal relationships in adult life.
This is the case with -pædophilia, -sado-masocism,
-trans - affirmation ideology
Undefendable... Cantor is a shame for the gay male community (my community).
Why is there a list?
what do you mean with a list?
I loved this interview and i really like how Cantor looks at things in such a strictly logical and objective way. He really draws attention to the fact that nobody ever wonders what the cause is of homosexuality is. He really drew attention to the fact that there's a lot of apathy around it. All of us in the gender critical space are guilty of this too. Whether we realize it or not, we have been socially conditioned to accept homosexuality in the same way that most of society has been socially conditioned to accept the trans ideology. We sit here and break down all the various causes of a trans identity but we don't do the same thing with homosexuality. This is because only one of them invloves irreversible medical procedures. And so we really have a very apathetic approach to the causes of homosexuality and that leads us to assume that its causes are not the same as the causes for being trans when we really don't know if thats true. When Stella pushed back against James and told him that she didn't think that the cause of homosexuality was in the brain, that was a really good example of just how apathetic we've become to the causes of homosexuality.
And on the topic of pedophilia, i do not agree with James that we need to destigmatize it and animated child porn even if its not threatening to anyone. Because that's a very slippery societal slope that we dont want to go down. Many MAPs online are already trying to piggy back off of the gay rights movement and use its justifications for destigmatization to justify destigmatizing pedophilia and make it LEGAL. Destigmatizing things really does help to keep it from becoming socially acceptable. And the same goes for pedophilia. Destigmatize it, and you risk making sex with a minor legal under the guise of consent which is what many MAPs are already trying to do with support from some liberals. We don't want this to become the left's next social justice frontier.
I would have liked it if you guys had asked James why some child molesters were also molested as children themselves. Hopefully you guys will interview him again and ask him.
I think we used to be *very* interested in what causes homosexuality. It was often argued about in the 1990s. It was politically important for deciding whether gay and lesbian people couldn't help being the way they were ... or whether they could change, or be cured, or prevented from becoming gay in the first place.
There's a good book from that era called 'A Separate Creation' by Chandler Burr. A bit out of date in terms of the science, but it has a solid discussion of the politics, from a US perspective.
It points out that the political Left has never really been comfortable with the idea that homosexuality is innate, or at least fixed and unchangeable. The Left prefers to believe that we're all conditioned by society--including our sexuality. (This comes up a fair bit in feminist thought, and especially in queer theory.)
Meanwhile, the Right usually argues that traits like intelligence, masculinity/femininity, talent and so on are inherent rather than learned. Trying to artificially change or deny these built-in traits is seen as unnatural. Yet when it comes to homosexuality, the Right does a 180-degree turn and insists that being gay is a choice, or that young people are 'corrupted' into being gay. Weird.
The book also observes that the general public thinks: "If being gay is genetic, it means it's not a choice." But researchers think of it the other way around: "Hmm, the evidence suggests that being gay isn't a choice. That means it might be genetic!" Or caused by hormones in utero, or the mother's immune system, or whatever.
The trait that nobody much cares about is handedness. Why are some people left-handed? Shrug. Who cares? Other than specialist researchers, in the modern West, not many people care. Yet we do know it's not a choice, and is very hard or impossible to change. A left-hander can fake being right-handed with practice, but he's still left-handed underneath. Similar to a gay guy marrying a woman to pretend he's straight, in fact. And there are more left-handed men than women, just as there are more gay men than lesbians.
Nowadays it's a non-issue for most people which hand they're dominant with. But the cause of left-handedness might have been a much hotter topic 100 years ago. (I don't know if it was, but it was definitely not much fun to be a leftie in those days.)
Unfortunately the trans activists have insisted that being trans is like being gay or left-handed, when it's really something else entirely. All you have to do with gay or left-handed people is leave them be--instead of socially and medically meddling in an effort to change them. But with trans, meddling is encouraged and you're a hateful bigot if you don't want to ...
(I'm a layperson and not an expert so if Dr Cantor is reading this he should feel free to correct any silly bits.)
@@SchrodingersTransCat The conservative outlook on the issue at that time does not seem hypocritical to me. Because they are operating under the assumption that all of those traits you mentioned are natural traits. They are very reliable traits that will naturally replicate themselves into most humans. They saw gay in the way that they did because its unusual. And it is a very logical sentiment to assume that anything unusual is not natural. We apply this same sentiment towards most things in life without even realizing it.
And it's true that the trans activists do assume that being trans is the same as being gay. It's obviously not the same but that doesn't mean that the causes for both aren't the same. It's highly possible that the explosion in people identifying as gay and the explosion of people identifying as trans are related. It's possible that both are caused by the exact same social contagion. But we only look at the trans one because it's the harmful one. And we don't even bother to wonder if the causes for being gay are related because it's not a harmful lifestyle and so we become very apathetic towards it and don't even bother to look into it. At least in these modern times.
@@IAmAster1996 But plenty of unusual things are natural--like left-handedness or red hair. So are rare diseases, for that matter.
To be fair, I can see how people would have trouble with the idea that gayness is inherited. They assume it has to be passed down in the genes--a gay man is less likely to reproduce than a straight man. It seems as if it ought to disappear from the population.
But there are lots of other ways for it to be reproductively unhelpful, yet keep recurring in each generation. For instance, it could be a side effect of something else that *is* useful.
(One of the reasons it's hard to research the causes of being gay is that we can't really do the experiments that would answer the questions. It would be unethical to muck around with the hormones of 100 unborn children and compare how they turn out to 100 other unborn children in the control group.)
A cold and clinical scientist might call homosexuality a 'defect' because it makes you less likely to reproduce. Well, plenty of defects are naturally occurring--like being born deaf. It would have made more sense for conservatives to say that homosexuality is an inborn defect. It would be just as offensive to many people, of course--but at least it would be closer to the reality that it's inherent and can't change, and would take the blame off older gay people for supposedly seducing youth to the Dark Side of the Force.
I think you're right that we--or at least the progressive side of the general public--nowadays don't really look for the cause of being gay. But we're not just apathetic. We actively avoid it. We're worried that if we find out what the cause is, some people will try to cure gayness. (Even though some gay people might actually welcome a cure, since being gay made their lives difficult.)
Has there been an explosion in people identifying as gay? I thought it had stayed pretty much the same since the early 20th century. 2-4% of males and 1-2% of females according to the Kinsey Institute.
There's probably been an increase in people identifying as bisexual, though. Women may ID as bi because it makes them trendier and more appealing to men ... while men may ID as bi because they're actually gay, but having trouble admitting it to themselves.
There has also probably been an increase in people identifying as 'queer', to score social points and feel special. Otherwise known as spicy straights. 😇
Here is the problem with supporting stigma: It never has and never will prevent a single child from being abused. I don’t know about others, but I am more concerned with with preventing CSA than bashing cartoons and AI. Society has dealt with this issue in an emotional manner for decades and look where we are. Time for a change.
Little late to the show but I love this guy. Just no nonsense get out of the way of the FACTS
Left/right handed. I think this has an affwct on your big five trait "Openess".
You begin to notice your minority status and the fact all tools are for eight handed people. You need to transpose information (guitar chord finger positioning for example).
Spatial comprehension and underlying causes all tend to develop both higher Openess and lower Agreableness.
More creative, questionung and strong minded. More questioning of the status quo than you might have been.
1:12:35 "Fine-tuning what is stigmatised" - I guess what I wonder is, if you made it as commonplace to discuss going home after work to w* off to your legal CP (e.g. a drawing or fiction in which no real child is harmed) - if you made that as commonplace as a man joking about his s* life with his adult male partner, e.g. "Oh, this weekend I hope me and him will x y z" - is the argument REALLY that rates of offences against children decrease by these men being able to openly discuss the "surrogate" or stand-in methods they can legally indulge in? Not simply they can discuss it, but in fact, all of society views it as on a par with the adult same-s* relationship?
Taking shame out of the equation is the desired outcome, so that a man who likes CP drawings/fiction is no different to an adult man who likes other adult men. The argument is that doing this ultimately lowers the rate of these men acting out on real kids, and it is also more humane, as according to Dr Cantor it's a sort of unfair "popularity contest" in terms of what s* proclivities people are and are not punished for socially.
My argument would be - surely shaming serves a major function in stopping a great many men attracted to this from acting on it in real life? So that, if you take away that shame mechanism, the proportion of men attracted to [minors] who DO act on it INCREASES.
Surely until you can prove that's not the case, this is not an experiment you can try out? "Let's make it men can freely talk about doing the 'harmless' version of this, drawings/fiction, and not get any shame or pushback for it, and then HOPEFULLY this will bring down the proportion of this group who act on it IRL" That's quite a gamble!
And it's asking society to not attach a taboo/disgust reaction to men looking at drawings/fiction of this kind, which I think is a completely unrealistic expectation, probably from an evolutionary perspective, it's for good reason we have a disgust reaction to the idea of a man "enjoying" drawings/fiction of kids. Because it is a fantasy and fixation that is about destroying the next generation in the most violating and cruel fashion for our own pleasure.
And a final point: just going by "trends" in p /awn and how there appears to be a social contagion type of aspect to that (e.g. the trends in p /awn videos playing out IRL, e.g. facials that women are now confronted with by a whole generation of men who assume it's normal) - if a bunch of that material is on the p /awn sites, isn't there a danger it could make a whole load more men into it as their "thing", compared to the present situation where that material is not allowed. Basically: if it becomes as neutral and non-stigmatised as same-s* videos on p /awn sites, then who is to say it won't make a bunch of men into it, who before would not have been into it. Thus increasing the total number of men who will end up acting on it, because the total number of men INTO IT has now increased owing to how available and normalised it is.
The project to make such a fantasy/fixation no different to a man fantasising about another adult man seems totally doomed to fail at best (because there is not the evolutionary taboo around destroying and soul-destroying the next generation/the future when we're talking about same-s* attracted adults), but could very well INCREASE the rate of offending at worst.
Again, if it could be demonstrated that somehow managing to remove this disgust reaction meant fewer kids IRL got harmed, then that would be one thing, but it is impossible to try this out as an experiment ethically speaking, because what if the exact reverse happens as I mentioned? It doesn't even seem like a "reach" to connect "everyone is fine when I talk about these drawings/fiction" to "I'm going to cross that boundary and do this in real life". It follows pretty intuitively.
Haven't finished listening, perhaps this will get addressed.
Thanks for taking the time to craft these careful arguments.
Stigma never has and never will prevent real abuse. Fantasy sexual outlets can and do prevent abuse.
I read LG kicked p out to work towards acceptance
🤯
He's so rude, Stella could barely get a question in.
Ick. This guy.
His objectivity is refreshing, but I'm not completely sold on the claim that p@dophilia is an inborn trait. From everything I know about p@dophiles, it seems much closer to a sex addiction. The average person can control sexual thoughts and urges. These people seem unable to do so. Think of the convicted p@dos who have molested _multiple_ children on a _daily_ basis. That is not just an "attraction"
Many environmental factors affect brain developement and it seems that early childhood experiences have a huge impact on the formation of sexual inclinations. I view p@dophilia as a paraphilia, not a sexuality.
I also agree with Stella and Sasha that we shouldn't be destigmatizing attraction to children. Encouraging someone to indulge in fantasies and view materials where "no one gets hurt" don't seem like neutral acts. Don't sexual paraphilias tend to escalate? And people who indulge in frequent repeated fantasies often act those out eventually? Shouldn't the goal be to distract their attention into other outlets instead of focusing on their temptation? It seems more like treating an addict in that separation from the vice is needed in order to control/overcome it.
That is a common impression among the public due to the vast majority of what the public consume from the media when it comes to this topic being child abusers. I think cantor said that maybe 2% of makes could be paedophiles. They would suggest that the vast majority do not abuse children, or at least don’t get caught. You’d probably find the majority of adult rapists (of other adults) are also sexually preoccupied.
@@dan7972-k9m He said 2% of the population could be pedophiles?
I would think the majority of pedophiles don't get caught as rape and sexual abuse are extremely underreported crimes. I also disagree that the majority of child molesters aren't pedophiles and are just using children "as a surrogate". Often children are abused by family members who explicitly seek out children, and it's often not just one child (boyfriends who go after single moms, uncles who abuse multiple children in the family, etc.)
I'm curious what makes him assume the cases of family members abusing children don't experience any attraction for those children. Surely there must be some sort of attraction there. You wouldn't see too many gay men raping women or straight men trying to sleep with their male roommates when they have a girlfriend.
@@Joy-kc5xzI’ve read some of his work and similar studies and basically when an offender is caught they are forced to undergo phallometric testing to measure their level of attraction to both children and adults. The results show the majority of child molesters are not highly attracted to children and do not meet the threshold for a diagnosis of paedophilia. But they have other psychological or mental issues that lead to the behaviour.
The 2% figure is backed up by a number of studies of random large samples of the populations of various countries. When anonymity is guaranteed, about 1-2% of males admit to being highly attracted to pre pubescent children.
Tough one.I had issue with what he defines "real pedos". Also, what role does their own abuse play. Does he look at where its prevalent vs not. Tough questions.
Yes, a very difficult and complex subject. Thanks for watching
Cantor isn't he the bloke who thinks pedophila should be a recognised sexual orientation? Nah no thanks....as a lesbian I've fought men like him all my adult life and one of the reasons I never wanted to align Lesbians with gay men. Oh and just because you can doesn't mean you should. Yours a Lesbian who has been deeply impacted by csa.
Why would you say "I never wanted to align Lesbians with gay men" instead of "I never wanted to align Lesbians with men"? You think there are more guys not attracted to females abusing boys than guys attracted to females abusing kids? You're wrong. And Cantor never said adults should harm children. I don't want gays to align with gayphobes like yourself.
I'm sorry to hear of your experience and its impact on you.
However, treating whole groups people by their demographics and judging people *before* hearing what they have to say, is to perpetrate the intolerant thinking lesbians fight against. If one is anti-prejudice only for one's own group, one is not anti-prejudice at all.
Prejudice is necessary. It's how we distinguish good and bad . (And i still believe there are better and worse things)
The acronymn LGBT is part of a Civil rights movement, because society was making life miserable for gay people and transsexuals, and I think it served a good purpose , at least originally. In this context expanding the acronym to include pedophilia makes no sense to me. Pedophilia may need attention and treatment, but not a civil rights movement
Its becoming clear the more interviews that go on, how much - to be frank - Stella really doesnt seem to grasp 'sexuality'. Or quite frankly, care to engage with the research. This is not the first time she has dismissed sexual research due to her own already made up position. She accuses researchers of having a bias towards males, which is ironic as she is only doing the same; dismissing the research which is pretty conclusive (as it can be with current technology) in regards to male sexual response because of her own framework of how she views female sexuality. There is a reason why male sexuality has been the sort of 'blueprint' and not just in terms of researchers being mostly men. Firstly; men are easier to measure sexual response, men have been more either victimises in terms of their deviant sexuality (MALE homosexuality was usually criminalised, not female) and lastly mens sexuality does seem to be more black and white than females. Its why men have paraphillic interests in things like clothing and women dont etc
I am a fan, and appreciate the work and am totally OK with you pushing back at guests and ideas but this particular line has become tedious. As I said, this isnt the first time she has dismissed much of sex research work, without it appearing as though she has really looked into the ideas she has dismissed, or offered up a better system other than 'well thats male centric and its more complicated than that'........Ok......... How, and why, is it more complicated than that? From my own experience as a gay man it really isnt. I have pretty strong and particular interests, there are even whole groups of men I dont find sexually arousing. Its pretty black and white for me. I dont think im unique. What specifics might be maybe, but the way in which I experience sexual arousal and desire is not.
Keep up the good work.
Medical, psychiatric, and pharmacological research and practice have long and established histories of male bias (to be clear, I'm speaking of extrapolations from male anatomy and physiology, and interventional processes and procedures designed with data from male patients). Gynecology and obstetrics are the obvious exceptions, which were also, until quite recently, poorly understood.
Given that more than half the population of the planet has been directly affected by those biases and frank knowledge gaps, Stella's in good company with her research skepticism.
Yes. And gynecology and obstetrics were built by experimenting on women’s generalist without their consent and without anesthetic. While these two areas are focused on females,, they are coming from an inherent assumption of women’s bodies needing management by doctors- pregnancy, birth, and all functions of our female anatomy are essentially still mysterious to the medical profession, (see Jessica Pins work and research about the cascade of interventions in pregnancy/both for a start), yet they behave as if they know how to help us and have an understanding of our inner workings.
@@HerWanderlust Yes! Well-said.
PRO-TIP: Watch the introduction; watch the interview (or listen to it, anyways, I would have loved to have seen the facial expressions!) and then WATCH THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN.
Because processing.
What? At 29m30s in I'm hearing the Hetero/Homo/Bi classifications don't appeal the women?
As a transwoman, if I may, the average person is going to be bisexual to *some* degree? And if I may, the Three Brain Theory of Masc Consciousness appeals to me! You know, the one upstairs and the other two so vulnerable to insult AND injury?
yeah that. I've got three too, but my other brains have gone missing somewhere in the near vicinity of my ass! - Annette
I have tried to read what you've written but don't really understand.
I think he was talking about a difference between female and male sexuality not women and men in terms of gender?
I have never heard of this three brain theory so I don't understand how it relates or what you were trying to say.
As a trans woman, you are a man, your sexuality is that of a man, so whether or not you find the straight/bi/gay categorization useful to you is irrelevant to whether or not it is useful as a way of looking at female sexuality.
Being a true woman, bisexual, I find that very few people are bisexual to any extent (they do not feel sexual attraction to their same sex). It is not a common trait.
As for brains! We all have many centers of consciousness (my opinion)
@@HerWanderlust - as a transwoman who shows you the honor of being a "just plain female" by noting A TRANS WOMAN IS *NOT* PRECISELY A WOMAN AND THAT IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM I bring no falsehoods, and will now depart his field of dishonor.
"False Woman" - feh - what does your house look like? - BYE. Annette