GirlChat #450802
Nit
Posted by Jillium on 2008-September-02 08:30:32 EDT, Tuesday
In reply to a new FAQ for B4U-ACT posted by michaelmelsheimer on 2008-September-02 12:50:46 EDT, Tuesday
> Can you help me with my legal case?
This question implies that there exists a relationship between minor attraction and criminality. You should remove it.
> who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and has either engaged in sexual activity with a child
There's a critical difference between "acted on these urges" and "engaged in sexual activity with a child."
> many minor-attracted people are able to refrain from sexual activity with minors.
How about "do not engage in sexual activity with minors?" Your wording suggests that "restraining" one's sexual feelings is a struggle for MAPs.
> We do not recommend those components of sex offender treatment that are based on an adversarial, law enforcement perspective.
"Sex offender treatment?" Where did that come from? I thought we were talking about MAPs.
And "not support" would be less equivocal than "not recommend." For comparison: "We do not recommend lobotomies."
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- I agree with all of this -nt - Dissident on 2008-September-03 00:27:34 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: Nit - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-02 14:30:54 EDT, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 8)
- Not really - Daniel Lievre on 2008-September-03 12:46:16 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- Re: Not really - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-03 05:14:23 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- I rest my case... - Daniel Lievre on 2008-September-05 12:22:27 EDT, Friday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: Not really - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-03 05:14:23 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- But... - lgsinmyheart on 2008-September-03 07:30:41 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 4)
- Actually.... - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-03 14:36:36 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: Actually.... - lgsinmyheart on 2008-September-03 16:55:46 EDT, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- That defeats the purpose. -nt- - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-04 02:47:11 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: That defeats the purpose. - lgsinmyheart on 2008-September-04 09:14:47 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- That defeats the purpose. -nt- - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-04 02:47:11 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Actually.... - lgsinmyheart on 2008-September-03 16:55:46 EDT, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- Actually.... - Blue Heaven on 2008-September-03 14:36:36 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Not really - Daniel Lievre on 2008-September-03 12:46:16 EDT, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 2)