Professor Removed from Campus for Writing and Talking About People Who Have Sexual Attraction to Minors

Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty) has the story:

Old Dominion University put a professor who studies pedophilia on administrative leave this week …. "Reactions to Dr. Walker's research and book have led to concerns for their safety and that of the campus," the university said in a statement announcing that Allyn Walker is on leave. "Furthermore, the controversy over Dr. Walker's research has disrupted the campus and community environment and is interfering with the institution's mission of teaching and learning."

Walker, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, was recently interviewed by the Prostasia Foundation about their book, A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity. The foundation describes itself as a "child protection organization combining an evidence-based approach to child sexual abuse prevention with its commitment to human rights and sex positivity." Walker was asked a series of questions about their research on "non-offenders," or adults who are sexually attracted to minors but do not act on those attractions.

In the interview, Walker advocated calling those who are attracted to minors "MAPs," or "minor-attracted people," because that is a term that non-offender advocacy and support groups prefer over "pedophile" or other terms.

"A lot of people, when they hear the term 'pedophile,' they automatically assume that means a sex offender, and that isn't true, and that can lead to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors," Walker told Prostasia.

Walker also recommended affirming therapies, as opposed to conversion therapies, for people who need help navigating their attractions, and made a clear moral distinction between those who are attracted to children and those who act on those impulses. The latter severely harms children, whereas the former does not, they said.

"Having an attraction to minors, as long as it isn't acted on, doesn't mean that the person who has those attractions is doing something wrong," Walker said in the interview. "From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone, because no one can control who they're attracted to at all. In other words, it's not who we're attracted to that is either OK or not OK, it's our behaviors in responding to that attraction that is either OK or not OK."

Ultimately, Walker said, help for those who need it "is not widely available, and it should be more widely available."

The interview, posted to YouTube last week, quickly proved controversial on campus and off. Several petitions call on Old Dominion to "release" or otherwise act against Walker, suggesting that they are a pedophilia apologist and that their comments make the campus less safe….

The university statement about Walker quotes President Brian O. Hemphill as saying, "I want to state in the strongest terms possible that child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society. This is a challenging time for our university, but I am confident that we will come together and move forward as a Monarch family."

In a separate statement, Hemphill said, "Many individuals have shared with me the view that the phrase 'minor-attracted people' is inappropriate and should not be utilized as a euphemism for behavior that is illegal, morally unacceptable and profoundly damaging. It is important to call pedophilia what it is. As a father, I am troubled by this narrative and its potential consequences for my children and that of future generations."

Hemphill continued, "Ideally, we would be able to debate even the most challenging issues without disruption or threats of violence, but that is not the world we live in today. Our campus has recently become the target of threats and other unacceptable disruption."

Further addressing academic freedom, Hemphill said that "sensitive topics and the expression of new or controversial views lie at the heart of academic research. Old Dominion University remains committed to providing an environment in which our faculty can and will engage in rigorous research. At the same time, this freedom carries with it the obligation to speak and write with care and precision, particularly on a subject that has caused pain in so many lives."

He added, "I am confident that our Monarch family will rise to the occasion in our continuing campus dialogue, and I am equally confident that we share a common starting point for the discussion: rejection of any form of sexual abuse of children." …

Adam B. Steinbaugh, a program director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that FIRE is "concerned by the deteriorating situation at ODU."

"We should be concerned whenever protected expression—and Professor Walker's speech falls well within the protection of the First Amendment and academic freedom—is met with threats of violence, regardless of viewpoint. And we should be alarmed when universities take action against faculty members in response to alleged threats or protest targeting the speaker."

The appropriate response to credible threats of violence made in response to "unpopular, controversial or dissenting speech" is to "punish those who are attempting to silence a speaker through threats, not silence the speaker on the threateners' behalf," Steinbaugh said. "By doing the latter, ODU is effectuating a classic heckler's veto."

Steinbaugh called on ODU to immediately and "transparently explain why it has removed a professor from the classroom and why less drastic measures were not taken."

Another appropriate response to offensive speech is "more speech," not less, Steinbaugh said, adding that FIRE is also concerned by some student social media reports that messages written on campus in chalk calling for Walker to be fired have been removed.

Beyond academic freedom hawks, some academics who study sexuality have defended Walker's views as being well within the realm of the disciplines….

If you're interested, you should read the whole Inside Higher Ed piece. My view is the same as Steinbaugh's: Studying people who are attracted to minors is clearly protected by academic freedom principles, and is indeed important to figuring out ways to prevent them from acting on these impulses. It seems likely that there are many millions of people like that; whether we want to change their attraction (if that's even possible) or just to get them not to act on that attraction, we need to study them and to study what allows some of them to resist their impulses.

Many adults, after all, resist their sexual impulses; adults who might prefer having multiple sexual partners, or who fantasize about multiple sexual partners, nonetheless remain faithful to their spouses. Many adults who are deeply attracted to someone with whom they know they shouldn't be sexually involved resist such temptations. Many priests or monks or nuns who have normal sexual interests in others resist that attraction because they believe that abstinence from sex is part of their religious calling.

Perhaps this is possible for adults who are attracted to children (I certainly hope it is). Perhaps it's not. But only being open to seriously studying this, including in ways that morally condemn only people who act on their attraction and not those who merely feel the attraction, can help us figure that out.

Indeed, I think that has long been understood by many in the great religions of the world: Temptation is everywhere. The goal is to acquire and strengthen tools for resisting temptation. Acknowledging the existence of temptation can help us avoid giving into it; it doesn't by itself make giving into it more acceptable. And that's so even as to temptations that afflict only a small subset of people (as opposed to temptation generally, which is universal).

And while I understand why some bristle at euphemisms such as "minor-attracted persons," I think Prof. Walker's has at least a plausible point that "pedophile" is often used to refer to child molesters and not just to people who experience an unacted-upon attraction—and that a different term is useful to stress the attraction rather than the action.

I should note that even advocacy of legalizing such sex is likewise protected by academic freedom principles. But from what I have seen, Prof. Walker does not advocate this.

Comments

[Ben of Houston]

I am of mixed feelings.

So these people have a mental illness that compels them to perform harmful acts. Why should we not study them to try to help them control or remove these urges?

On the other hand, I am very concerned about any attempt to normalize pedophilia. While trying to encourage people to get help should be lauded, the idea of "MAP" seems like they want to incorporate themselves into the LGBTQ acronym, which is something no one wants.

[Lee Moore]

Hold on a minute there, Butch.

Being sexually attracted to minors might be :

pedophilia - attraction to the pre pubescent
hebephilia - attraction to the pubescent
ephebophilia - attraction to post pubescent teenagers

(a) and (b) might perhaps be described as some kind of mental illness, since pursuit of those targets can have no reproductive dividend. But so far as mental illness is concerned, the best psychological description of (c ) is "perfectly normal."

There is no conceivable reason to label sexual attraction to reproductively mature humans as "mental illness."

It may be frowned upon socially, and may within a certain age range be illegal, in certain places, but mentally ill it's not.

And since humans are undoubtedly a neotenous species, it's pretty likely that attraction to people who are post puberty but under the age of consent is very widespread. Nuts it's not.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, 'actually, ephebophilia' is a libertarian cliche, you know that?

[ThomasD]

Euphemising a psycho sexual disorder pretty much is progressive cliche...

[Brett Bellmore]

"(a) and (b) might perhaps be described as some kind of mental illness, since pursuit of those targets can have no reproductive dividend."

From an evolutionary standpoint, it can be understood as an effort to lock down future mating opportunities before the competition begins.

[SykesFive]

I am not especially familiar with the particular research being discussed here, but I am familiar with research finding the following that most people in the United States convicted of sexual offenses against minors do not have deep-seated sexual attraction to minors.

Wright seems to be studying the other side of that coin, so to speak: people who admit they are sexually attracted to minors but don't act on that attraction. As Professor Volokh points out, many people feel sexual attractions and don't act on them.

[QuantumBoxCat]

The excerpt of Walker's book, which is available at the link Eugene posted, actually touches on the last claim you make. Based on the excerpt, Walker seeks to merge the medical terms pedophila, hebephilia, and ephebophila, into a single non-medical term, which he calls "Minor Attracted Persons." As such, persons in that category could be attracted to individuals of any age, so long as they are minors, as opposed to adults.

After explaining his key term, he then (on my reading) argues for a shift away from thinking of MAPs as having a "sexual illness" and instead as having a "sexual orientation." This shift would then bring with it a change in how people feel towards MAPs, which Walker argues will be beneficial to them and society.

The argument is interesting, and I would have no problem listening to Walker speak on the topic (regardless of my own views). When Hemphill writes, "Many individuals have shared with me the view that the phrase 'minor-attracted people' is inappropriate and should not be utilized as a euphemism for behavior that is illegal, morally unacceptable and profoundly damaging," it is clear that he does not grasp the attraction / behavior distinction that Walker makes. His additional statement, that "Ideally, we would be able to debate even the most challenging issues without disruption or threats of violence, but that is not the world we live in today," is perhaps telling of why he does not see a difference in attraction (or feeling) and behavior. In an ideal world, debates and discussions of challenging issues could occur, because listeners who felt appalled, disgusted, or upset at the topic would regulate their behavior dispute their feelings, or at least channel it into further debate. But, in the real world, people are often incapable self-control when they have intense feelings, and thus the onus is on others to not evoke those feelings.

There is an irony in this given Walker's attempts to discuss a population that has a specific attraction, but seeks to regulate their behavior so as to not act on that attraction.

[Snorkle]

> and thus the onus is on others to not evoke those feelings

In other words, he's defending the heckler's veto.

[fafalone]

In this disturbing new categorization of calling sexual attraction to toddlers and older teens equivalent, what's the definition of minor? Simply under 18, or under the age of sexual consent? Is the 20yo who wakes up in NJ attracted to 16yos a perfectly normal person, until he takes the train into the city where the age of consent changes to 17, so he's now a pervert MAP in need of therapy for the sick urge?

I don't see how any researcher in this field thinks it's even remotely reasonable to treat 7 and 17 the same. They're just not the same, especially one being legal in the large majority of the US and world. That's why there was so much pushback when the DSM-V committee explored changing pedophilia to pedohebephilic disorder. There's a fundamental difference between what's wrong with someone who's attracted to a small child and someone who's attracted to someone with secondary sexual characteristics indicating reproduction is now possible, and between both of those and someone attracted to 16 and 17, which is outright normal and usually legal, even if inappropriate to act on once you're sufficiently older. The last last one isn't an illness or orientation, it's the normal standard for humans, as far as physical attraction existing, if not the propriety of acting on it.

[Davedave]

There's a difference between an attraction to sexual activity with those that can consent, and attraction to those who cannot consent; the latter is a desire to rape.

[Lee Moore]

There's also a difference between consent and "consent", and rape and "rape." The items in quotes being legal concepts.

Thus being attracted to a 17 year old in California, and being attracted to a 17 year old in Texas do not betoken different psychological pathologies. They merely betoken different conclusions by different legislatures about what the statutory age of consent ought to be.

It is very unlikely that a 17 year old Californian who flies to Texas on vacation, suddenly becomes psychologically mature enough to consent on arrival in Texas, then suddenly reverting to psychologically immaturity on return to California.

[FourteenFour]

So this means instead adding a P they will add an M

I am surprised he thought it was a safe area to discuss, do they believe that social media woke folk would come to their rescue?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I am surprised he thought it was a safe area to discuss, do they believe that social media woke folk would come to their rescue?

Looks like someone else is also confused by pronoun warriors.

[Lee Moore]

Reactions to Dr. Walker's research and book have led to concerns for their safety and that of the campus

Really ? Are there a lot of minors on the Old Dominion campus ?

I should have thought high school might be a more fruitful prowling zone for MAPs.

[Krychek_2]

That occurred to me too. I once had a client who was a proud pedophile. He struck me as a strange individual, and certainly not one I would care to socialize with. But given that I was in my 30s at the time, I never felt my own personal safety was in danger by being in the same room with him.

[santamonica811]

Interesting to read. I've had about 50 clients who were pedophiles (and spoke to another 200 or so on cases where I represented the minor(s) or another party). I've never met one who was actually proud of his or her orientation or attraction. I guess it does happen sometimes, statistically-speaking. But most seemed, to me, to range from absolute self-loathing, to "Well, I'm attracted to what I'm attracted to; and nothing's gonna change that." I think your guy was really an outlier.

(Like other posters; I am really puzzled by the attitude of the university. You'd think that the conventional approach would be, "We really want to eliminate or reduce the incidents of actual abuse. Therefore, we should be more than happy to study different ways of accomplishing this. We will, of course, never support advocacy for anyone who engages in *acting* on these sexual desires or impulses."

[Brett Bellmore]

"In the interview, Walker advocated calling those who are attracted to minors "MAPs," or "minor-attracted people," because that is a term that non-offender advocacy and support groups prefer over "pedophile" or other terms."

Yeah, sounds like the anthropologist got sucked into the tribe, so to speak. Who cares that they'd like to use a euphemism, instead of the technically accurate term?

[TK-421]

Having a less emotionally-loaded term is useful both for therapy and research. It's going to be harder to help someone learn to resist acting on their attractions if they feel like they're being insulted every time they hear the term.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't obtain "less emotionally-loaded" terms for things that are widely despised. The new term rapidly picks up the connotations of the old, because it's the thing that's despised, not the word. That's the euphemism treadmill, and the best way to deal with it is to just stay off of it to begin with.

"It's going to be harder to help someone learn to resist acting on their attractions if they feel like they're being insulted every time they hear the term."

Or maybe it's going to be harder to help somebody learn to resist acting on their attractions if you make efforts to shield them from just how wrong most people regard those attractions as being.

[Squirrelloid]

also, 'pedophile' in modern discourse isn't technically accurate, since 'pedophile' technically only means attraction to pre-pubescents. Minors covers a much larger age range.

[Sarcastr0]

Another 'technically it's ephebophilia' guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of unclear about why you object to making rational distinctions between things that are different.

[Lee Moore]

I don't think its an objection as such, it's more a verbal tic.

[SykesFive]

The terminological dilemma made me think of some context in which another term is preferred to "homosexuality."

Since homosexuality is typically considered a sexual orientation or identity, how do we describe sexual activity between members of the same sex who do not identify such activity as their preferred or primary sexual outlet and decouple it from their romantic urges? E.g., men in homosocial environments or some other cultural contexts who engage in sexual activity with each other but don't participate in (and indeed may despise) "gay culture," don't describe themselves as "falling in love" with other men, and classify such behavior as sexual only. Some researchers use terms like "men who have sex with men" or "MSM." This term became somewhat more exposed when it was used to talk about the spread of HIV via MSM.

I also think of some conservative Christians' rejection of "homosexuality," again since it's an orientation or identity. They will refer to "same-sex attraction" since that seems more like a transitory feature of personality that might be resisted or eliminated entirely. For example, conservative Catholics might refer to "homosexual acts" committed by "persons with same-sex attraction" in an effort to avoid defining those persons by their actions.

[shawn_dude]

There are a raft of terms one might use, but I'll point out that I'm not a sociologist or anything remotely related so all of the terms I've heard used may or may not have underpinnings in science.

"Bisexual" is the first that comes to mind.
There are also "ex-gays" that choose heterosexual relationships intentionally despite their innate sexual orientation.
Internalized homophobia leads some gay men to be "anti-scene," which they proudly include in their gay hookup app profiles.

The social pressures on men to be masculine and heterosexual aren't easily shaken off.

[santamonica811]

anti-scene????

Never heard of this before. (Of course; what I know about male-male sexual practices you could fit in a thimble.)

[Lee Moore]

DON'T use a thimble !

[Snorkle]

Terminology changes over time, a concept many self-styled conservatives seem to have trouble with. For a different example on the opposite side of this issue, 'child porn' is now commonly referred to as 'CSAM', Child Sexual Abuse Material. The change reflects an attempt to both be more accurate and to focus on the issue.

But in the round, I always think it's just the bee's knees when cats start whinging about language evolution.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Terminology changes over time, a concept many self-styled conservatives seem to have trouble with.

Very few people...including conservatives...have any trouble at all with the evolution of language as a natural result of discoveries, desire to increase accuracy, etc. What most have a problem with is disingenuous manipulation of language in service to sociopolitical agendas. But you knew that.

[Lee Moore]

What most have a problem with is disingenuous manipulation of language in service to sociopolitical agendas

Just so.

'child porn' is now commonly referred to as 'CSAM'

instantly provokes the question "how commonly ?"

Take a random sample of 1,000 American adults, how many know what "child porn" means ? And how many know what "CSAM" means ?

[Larvell Blanks]

What is the actual mechanism by which his comments make someone "less safe"? Or is that not important anymore?

[ReaderY]

Well, people who said that black people were more similar to white people than apes sure made John Calhoun feel less sage. He said abolitionist literature is nothing but an incitement to violence, and a violation of his safety.

That’s why he persuaded Congress to prohibit sending it through the mails.

We’ve been through this before.

[ReaderY]

Less safe.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Wanna join the crusade to have a timed edit option like some comment systems, where you can edit or at least delete a post before it is commented on to correct it to what you meant to say?

Phones with autocorrect are really bad to substitute their words for yours.

[Lee Moore]

Black people are 100% similar to apes. White people exactly equally so. Though, as the lady said, let us hope that this does not become widely known.

[Carl_N_Brown]

The text book at the heart of the Scopes Monkey Trial (George William Hunter, "A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems", New York, 1914), stated:

Excepts pp. 193-196, 253-254, 261-263.

Evolution of Man. - Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants. If we follow the early history of man upon the earth, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals. He was a nomad, wandering from place to place, feeding upon whatever living things he could kill with his hands. Gradually he must have learned to use weapons, and thus kill his prey, first using rough stone implements for this purpose. As man became more civilized, implements of bronze and of iron were used. About this time the subjugation and domestication of animals began to take place. Man then began to cultivate the fields, and to have a fixed place of abode other than a cave. The beginnings of civilization were long ago, but even to-day the earth is not entirely civilized.

The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

Charles Darwin and Natural Selection. - The great Englishman Charles Darwin was one of the first scientists to realize how this great force of heredity applied to the development or evolution of plants and animals. He knew that although animals and plants were like their ancestors, they also tended to vary. In nature, the variations which best fitted a plant or animal for life in its own environment were the ones which were handed down because those having variations which were not fitted for life in that particular environment would die. Thus nature seized upon favorable variations and after a time, as the descendants of each of these individuals also tended to vary, a new species of plant or animal, fitted for the place it had to live in, would be gradually evolved?.

Artificial Selection. - Darwin reasoned that if nature seized upon favorable variants, then man by selecting the variants he wanted could form new varieties of plants or animals much more quickly than nature. And so to-day plant or animal breeders select the forms having the characters they wish to perpetuate and breed them together. This method used by plant and animal breeders is known as selection?.

Improvement of Man. - If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment?.

Eugenics. - When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

The Jukes. - Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The "Jukes" family is a notorious example. The first mother is known as "Margaret, the mother of criminals." In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter dollars, besides giving over to the care of prisons and asylums considerably over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons. Another case recently studied is the "Kallikak" family. This family has been traced back to the War of the Revolution, when a young soldier named Martin Kallikak seduced a feeble-minded girl. She had a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants. Of these 33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded. The man who started this terrible line of immorality and feeble-mindedness later married a normal Quaker girl. From this couple a line of 496 descendants have come, with no cases of feeble-mindedness. The evidence and the moral speak for themselves!

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. - Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.

[shawn_dude]

I'd imagine, given today's political environment, that "less safe" is how school boards would describe angry parents screaming at them for teaching racial equality in schools leading to death threats, and the nearly inevitable protests by armed citizens, some in military gear.

The risk may not be from people who are avoiding a sexual interest feeling supported but rather from the tinfoil hat crowd getting riled up and eventually leading to a "VAP," or "Violence Attracted Person," going after academics and bystanders with a semi-automatic rifle.

See: Jared Lee Loughner

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'd imagine, given today's political environment, that "less safe" is how school boards would describe angry parents screaming at them for teaching racial equality in schools"

You'd have to imagine it, since that's not actually what the parents are angry about.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'd imagine

With the word "imagine" doing all of the work.

[ReaderY]

And so we come to it. If your research inflames popular passions, out it must go.

Suggest the earth goes around the sun, suggest humans might be descended from apes, suggest diseases might have a more prosaic immediate cause than Divine punishment, suggest black people might be more similar to white people than apes, and it’s out the door you go.

We have to uphold our values. We can’t handle ideas inconsistent with them.

In an ideal world, perhaps our university community wouldn’t consist of violent thugs who can be expected to whack anyone who disagrees with them. But of course we don’t live in such a world. As we abhore violence, we must to ensure the miscreants who provoke violence upon themselves get ridden out of town before the violent people whack them.

[Bob from Ohio]

I am perfectly ok with a pedophile exception to the 1A.

We ban child poor, banning advocacy of the reason for child porn is no stretch.

[Bob from Ohio]

porn, not poor

[Rossami]

We ban child porn because it harms the child. Full stop.

Studying the things that lead to a desire for child porn does not equal advocacy. On the contrary, actually studying it could lead us to develop treatments that lessen the desire to harm children. Keeping us in intentional ignorance, however, will only perpetuate the failings of the status quo.

[TK-421]

This is completely backwards reasoning. If you want to prevent X, then research into X is *more* important, not less.

[Bob from Ohio]

Best to keep a firm norm against any possible "normalizing" under a claim of research.

[Krychek_2]

Funny, that’s exactly the analysis gun grabbers use for the Second Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

The gun grabbers were quite explicit that the goal of the research was abnormalizing what was already normal.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Funny, that’s exactly the analysis gun grabbers use for the Second Amendment.

Your propensity for getting things exactly ass-backwards rears its head again.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We ban child poor, banning advocacy of the reason for child porn is no stretch.

I'm not sure I follow you here Bob. How is studying the cause(s) of something "advocating" for it? Are cancer researchers advocating for cancer?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Walker was asked a series of questions about their research

The latter severely harms children, whereas the former does not, they said.

act against Walker, suggesting that they are a pedophilia apologist and that their comments make the campus less safe….

How anyone can think this plural pronoun shit makes language clearer is beyond me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I know. English has a perfectly good gender-neutral singular pronoun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From The Closer:

Man on the street: Careful, Dave! They're after you!

Dave Chapelle: What? One they, or many theys?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, yet another reason Dave had to go.

[CommentMonkey]

The issue isn't whether he's right about MAP being a preferable term but whether he ought to face professional sanctions for expressing the opinion. Of course not. There's nothing in the piece suggesting he advocates leniency toward sex offenders or has any motive other than devising the best strategy for preventing people tempted to engage in a particularly odious form of sexual violence from acting on such temptations.

And what a pathetic "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" statement by the University president. He could use his position to help people understand the real issue and instead stabs his faculty member in the back with some blather about the guy failing to "speak and write with precision." Lack of precision is not the problem. The problem is he said something a bunch of people disagreed with and the institution lacks the guts to stand by him.

[swood1000]

A few thoughts:

• Where do the people Allyn Walker talks about stand on the depravity hierarchy vis-à-vis those who resist urges to commit other criminal, immoral or violent acts?

• Walker’s book is listed among the top ten in several categories on Amazon. All this publicity has been very profitable.

• To the extent that Walker’s argument is accepted, does consistency require one to accept that child pornography in which the images are virtual (therefore not involving any live minor) must also be permitted?

[SykesFive]

Doesn't the decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) answer the third bullet, at least as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law? The federal Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 purported to ban, among many other things, all types of images that appeared to portray minors engaging in sexual acts, also known as "virtual child pornography." The statute contained no exceptions.

The Supreme Court struck down that portion of the law. So "virtual child pornography" is generally legal if no children are actually involved in its production or victimized by it.

[swood1000]

But there is a difference between accepting that such images must be permitted (a) because the supreme court mandates it, and (b) because it flows irresistably from something else that one does believes.

[SykesFive]

What is Walker's relevant argument?

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh....appreciate the nuance - between what people think and feel versus what they do - in your post. That is a critical point that I think gets lost because it is such a charged issue.

From a legal perspective, if a researcher is told of specific acts by pedophiles with children who can be identified during the course of research, are they legally bound to report that to law enforcement? How can you research pedophilia without running into this issue - a lot?

If you really want to understand the ideation and motivation behind what people do, as researchers you're going to hear some interesting things....which may be illegal interesting things. That is what I have moral qualms about.

[SykesFive]

Researchers are generally no more bound than anybody else to report knowledge of past crimes.

Most research on pedophilia is based on study of people convicted of sexual offenses against minors.

This research seems to focus on people who say they have experienced sexual attraction to minors but have not acted on that attraction. That's not a crime. Also imagine the dilemma faced by such people if they want to receive therapy.

[Commenter_XY]

Right, I agree: there is nothing illegal wrt regard to feeling attraction to a minor child. It is the action that matters.

My question is what happens when a researcher hears about an action (not just a verbal description of a feeling of attraction to minor children) the person stated they actually did with a minor child. Is there an obligation to report, as a legal matter? You're saying there is no legal obligation to report. Wow. I would have thought the opposite.

Look, I get the dilemma aspect. And it is a very tough situation. I mean, what do you tell the person who wants 'not' to be that way and has not acted on that attraction? Too bad, no therapy or treatment for you because those feelings and attractions are completely abhorrent and immoral? I don't think we can do that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

appreciate the nuance - between what people think and feel versus what they do

While I recognize that there are many (far too many, in fact) people who fail to make the distinction, is the rather obvious and very significant difference between thinking about a thing and actually doing a thing really "nuance"?

[Seamus]

I hope FIRE is all over this. This is no better than cancelling faculty members for being insufficiently enthusiastic about BLM or the institution's Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity program.

[shawn_dude]

FIRE tends to emphasize its support for conservative speech more than liberal. A quick look at their list of issues makes this clear. They aren't neutral and they aren't liberal. But, in fairness, they do occasionally support non-conservative campus speech.

[Toranth]

Or maybe it's just that Leftist-controlled universities vastly outnumber conservative controlled ones, and therefore there are numerically more Leftists cracking down on conservatives than the reverse?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

FIRE tends to emphasize its support for conservative speech more than liberal. A quick look at their list of issues makes this clear.

Given the overwhelmingly left-leaning makeup of U.S. college administrations and faculty, the above is akin to observing that those who receive traffic citations tend to be people who violate traffic laws.

[Eugene Volokh]

Well, the excerpt from the Inside Higher Ed article did quote Adam Steinbaugh at FIRE. I expect FIRE will put out a statement of its own along those lines as well.

[subpatre]

IIRC Pres Hemphill wasn't entirely clear if Dr. Walker had been suspended pending dismissal, or just until the furor died down. His statement said the issue was interfering with classrooms and teaching on campus, a practical and legitimate concern.

[Pavel Petrovich]

Jews undermining society with their desire to rape children. Subtle form of perversion using view of academic study. Jews exposed again. Children are not safe from the deviant jews.

[MollyGodiva]

Hmmm. I think I recall the Catholics having a multi-decade international child abuse scandal. It seems children are not safe from Catholics either.

[jdgalt1]

I would have to hold my nose and vote not to destroy this prof's career, but it's not an easy choice. But I would refuse to use "MAP" or other language to help him normalize pedos.

What lit me up, though, was Eugene's statement "Many priests or monks or nuns who have normal sexual interests in others resist that attraction because they believe that abstinence from sex is part of their religious calling."

I believe it's well established by now that there is a huge number of pedos among the clergy, both because it's the logical place for them to find victims and because even when caught in the act, churches nearly always prefer to cover up the crime (and relocate the offender to someplace he can get away with it again) rather than accept the embarassment to themselves of expelling him.

[Eugene Volokh]

jdgalt1: True, and there are apparently even more who have sexual relationships with adults -- not criminal under secular law, but not what they promised to the church and to others. But there are some who resist the temptation, and that is in fact what the Church and its parishioners generally hope for.

[Greta]

LOL to Eugene, you always reveal that you actually know nothing about what religious, or at least devout Christian, people truly believe in their hearts and in their theology. We don't believe that it's fine to have a temptation as long as you don't act on it. Being tempted, as well as acting on a temptation, are both sin. That's literally why we pray to not be led into temptation at all, since temptation itself is a sin. Sin starts in the mind and heart, it isn't somehow a nebulously disconnected oopsies uh-oh action that happens once in a while. The thought of having sex with a child, or touching a child's genitals, or imagining a child as a sex object at all ARE ALL SIN. They are all morally wrong.

"Minor attracted person" is 100%, without a doubt, normalization of pedophilia. The fact that so many people are deciding it's ok because free speech, or convincing themselves that it's actually compassionate or will somehow advance research, makes me so freaking sad. Considering the removal of a professor who wants to normalize pedophilia on a campus that has both teenage children in the form of 17 year olds (as I was as a freshman), and young children who are the children of faculty and students themselves, is perfectly acceptable, and considering it isn't some undue violation of academic freedom.

Lastly, to those who constantly pretend like ephebophilia is not pedophilia, you are completely wrong and you are also what's wrong with the world. Being attracted to children isn't just being attracted to a child's body; it's always been being attracted to the child as a whole person, and always will be. Pedophiles are attracted to the characteristics, physically and emotionally, of children, whether that's innocence, carefree-ness, silly behavior, inexperience, ignorance, vulnerability, and so on. The pedophiles themselves say this every single time that they talk. And guess what? A 16 year old possesses all those child characteristics, even if she has breasts and pubic hair. And the physical measuring stick for child attraction is also so facially, obviously the wrong measuring stick. A lot of women don't complete their full biological physical growth until their 20s, even if they have the beginnings of breasts in high school, and a lot of girls complete their biological physical growth when they are 12 or 13 (I did: full breasts, public hair, the works at 12: is it "ok" to have or want to have sex with me then?). Many girls start their period at 9 and 10, and lots of girls don't start until 15 or 16. STOP THE NORMALIZATION OF ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH TEENAGERS, WHICH IS PEDOPHILIA.

Older people have a DUTY to protect those younger than themselves. I feel like I'm the only person who knows this. Wanting to have sex with a 15 year old is a disturbing disorder and a grievous sin. You help these people not by validating them, but by showing them how their behavior damages and destroys other people, and by getting them away from those people who they don't believe they are seriously destroying unless they put a penis in their actual vaginas or bottoms.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

makes me so freaking sad

How sad does it make you to believe that your creator made you biologically predisposed to urges that he will send you to hell for having?

[Greta]

He didn't create you having any of those urges. You were born into sin because of man's sin. And you create your own urges. You control who you are attracted to, and you can even control your sexual thoughts and feelings. Hate how we pretend humans have no control over their minds or bodies. Hilarious.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Hilarious.

I'd describe your ramblings as more depressingly divorced from demonstrable reality, but...whatever.

[Greta]

As atheists have thought about Christians for a very long time. Say something interesting.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As atheists have thought about Christians for a very long time. Say something interesting.

The fact that you also seem to believe that you personally represent all Christians is mildly interesting...and at least somewhat batshit crazy as well.

[Greta]

Say something interesting..."Alright, I'll say she's [expletive] crazy." Try again.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

OK, you're clearly illiterate as well. Though to be fair, that's more sad than interesting.

[Greta]

Do you know what "illiterate" means? Your purpose of every single comment you've written is to express disdain for me. You've said nothing of value about what I think or even about what you think.

If I was forced to reach real deep to find anything of value discourse-wise in anything you've said, I guess I could respond to your disdainful comment that I think I represent all Christians, so I'll respond to that for you, cuz' I'm nice. Here goes:

Nope, I don't think I represent all Christians, and never said I did anywhere nor insinuated it.

HOWEVER, here's where I'll give you what you want: Any person making a "Christian case for pedophilia" is either not truly born again with real faith in their hearts and the Holy Spirit as their counselor (yes, I expect your disdain for this), or is captive to sexual sin themselves, yet possibly somewhere down deep in said heart still has some sort of faith that has almost completely been obliterated by the devil. Once he repents, he'll tell you with full confidence that pedophilia (and its defense), is a sin, and that he knew it was a sin while sinning, just refused to admit it (so he could go on sinning without guilt). Only God knows the heart, but that's my surmising based on the facts of my very literate and not crazy mind. That being said, today is Friday. In two days is Sunday. I challenge you to walk into any Christian church, liberal or conservative, orthodox or nonorthodox, modern or traditional, and ask the congregants or pastor to make a "Christian case for pedophilia" and they'll tell you there is no such case. Or ask them what they think about the use of "minor attracted persons" and listen to what they tell you.

Your username says you were once young. I hope that when you were young, no one hurt you sexually in the way that so many of us peeps out there have been hurt. And if you were hurt, I'm sorry that I wasn't around to help you.

Goodbye, dude.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You've said nothing of value about what I think or even about what you think.

Yes, I did...in my very first response to you. Your inability to understand it reinforces my charge of illiteracy on your part.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Nobody here is making a "case for pedophilia", Christian or otherwise...you blithering moron.

[Wariat]

Vice and others are already saying the same thing but maybe in a bit less controversial manner like using MAPs or any such terms, so why all the hate and why would this university cave in to some proles or normies or common uneducated folk on social media (controlled platforms where only normie voices are heard and anyone going against status quo gets banned or demonetized)?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3zk55/pedophilia-is-a-mental-health-issue-its-still-not-treated-as-one

Its not that unique of a viewpoint i think so why would a fuking university crumble to pressure form garbage social media platforms?

please explain how thats even possible. how can a university fire someone for speaking up on their opinion as a professor or simply teaching their works or "speaking up" and they knew ahead of time what they hired him for but if its some anti white or anti european professor they hire who spouts theories like all european civilization came from africa (I had this sort of professor called zarate in pasadena city college who is still teaching) then its cool? Read his reviews if you dont believe me yet hes still a professor for teaching anti white history unlike this guy who started a shitstorm just for telling the truth about MAPs?
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=200568