Cancel Prevent It

CSA prevention
#1

The Prevention Project known as “Prevent It” is run by none other than the blacklisted group Priotab who are responsible for inhumane experiments which almost led to the death of two experimentants who are coerced into the experiments by a punitive establishment in Sweden, among other factors.

Cancel this project. Report all associated twitter pages. Cancel those who promote it. If you must point someone to a prevention project, point them to higher pofile prevention projects who, to my knowledge, have not committed crimes against humanity.

Christoffer would happily sacrifice and stab his “patients” to death, if that was what it took achieve his obsessive goals. Do not give him publicity. Do not give him funding. Provide any research materials, publicity, or funding to groups who have not committed crimes against humanity as a disincentive against doing so in the future. Do not provide publicity, funding, or research materials to any research association Christoffer Rahm or his associates move to in the future. Report him to the board of ethics. Report him to the Swedish authorities. Report him to Twitter. Thank you.

P.S. I am currently investigating if “helpwantedprevention” is associated with Priotab. If it is, and it may be possible with their pretentious and dehumanizing language on the site, it is worth to cancel it immediately, as Christoffer would appear to be grooming minors to willingly live a life of suffering. Edit: False alarm, unassociated, but “Prevent it” is. Iit may be worth looking up names against a list of Priotab employees regardless and any associates.

It may be worth cancelling others who have promoted Prevent It like Bly Rede and Prostasia Foundation (awaiting a formal apology on their blog). Don’t allow yourself to be tricked by these psychopaths and end up on their grooming platforms and brainwashed into putting up with a life of suicidal depression.

Further information (lifted from their site):

Principal Investigator:
Dr. Christoffer Rahm

Co-Investigator:
Dr. Katarina Görts Öberg

Project Coordinator:
Charlotte Sparre
[email protected]
ANOVA, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm, Sweden

These are some of the names of those involved in crimes against humanity. Don’t allow them to fool you by changing their names or hiding behind innocuous looking project names.

1 Like
#2

It’s hard enough researching in this field. I don’t think that calls to dox and harass researchers is helpful. Science works on the basis of open publication and peer review. If there are flaws in Priotab’s work, then the right approach is not to threaten the researchers, but to highlight its flaws.

Beyond that, I would like to see a source for your claim that Priotab’s drug therapy “almost led to the death of two experimentants” because that contradicts everything that I have heard about it, which is that it is a completely voluntary therapy used by those who have trouble controlling their paraphilic symptoms through less invasive methods.

3 Likes
Prostasia promotes blacklisted group Priotab
#3

It said it in the very paper you cited! Also, two thirds of participants had convictions for CP or otherwise! Chances there are unreasonable parole requirements, this is coercive prior restraint! Stop using stigmatizing langauge.

Don’t play dumb with me. This is not a courtroom.

1 Like
#4

You should probably discuss your concerns with Priotab directly then, because these are not the same conclusions that I took away from reading their work and discussing it with their team. On the other hand it’s not for me to defend them against criticism, so if you think that there is evidence that they are working with law enforcement or imposing their treatment on unwilling subjects, I’m not going to stop you from talking about it.

3 Likes
#5

There are other links in places like ATF, but I am not going to trigger myself again, simply to make you happy. Needless to say, the whole thread (and associated threads) was filled with angry people, and even mentions of the Prostasia Foundation supporting such inhumane and disgusting treatment. How about you do your own research, rather than taking the word of the people trying to sell their “treatment”?

In any case, you know very well that these so called “symptoms” are really self-hatred (self-hatred which can be dealt with via many means, including ACT which some studies suggest is more effective than CBT, peer support, or counselling), therefore your arguments of controlling “symptoms” are highly disingenuous.

It is very known too that such treatment can be used as a form of self-harm to inflict pain on yourself to distract from other pain. There are even people who suffer from schizophrenia and are highly confused. Finally, it is very obvious from the onset the whole approach is fundamentally flawed (you can tell from the fact they are treated as objects rather than human beings), are you going to be inviting porn addict experts next with the assumption they’re doing it in good faith?

I spoke to the team. I too can speak to evangelicals to give me an idea of how the web should be and the “research” they have done into it.

1 Like
#6

I believe that they have a patient advocate as part of their team, whom I believe is a MAP (at least, they were interviewing a MAP for the position at one point though I don’t know who they finally hired). The job of this person is to advocate for the interests of those who participate in the research. I completely agree with you that if patients are treated as objects, that isn’t consistent with finding the right outcomes for them. I would like to see an independent evaluation of the Priotab project.

3 Likes
#7

It isn’t just a matter of hiring a MAP, but a MAP who isn’t a child abuse victim. Child abuse victims can sometimes be very zealous about attacking the source of their trauma, or what they interpret as such. I have personally noticed a lot who get “heard” in other areas tend to have that trait, have some other abnormalities, or yet other issues.

It isn’t just finding an agreeable MAP, but someone who is going to put you through the paces of a rigorous adversarial process, like a courtroom even (as you’re a lawyer, you might be familiar with that idea). This might eliminate a bit of the excess. I still feel they’re taking a fundamentally wrong approach, one which has given credence to regimes in Poland and Ukraine.

It is unknown if the mandatory tratment in Poland is limited to depictions of real people, but most likely not, although they already went a fair bit over the line, so this isn’t particularly surprising. Just business as usual. This is still a “MAP Rights” issue as most fetishists could stop using such content perfectly fine without being forced to undergo that treatment.

Quite frankly, fetishizing about child abuse is quite revolting, if you don’t have any sort of orientation or other problem to go with it. Who knows why people do it. If not for concerns about accessibility, privacy, diversity and letting people burn time on pursuits which don’t involve molesting people like drawing, it might be worth going down the route of applying for a license (and getting a confirmed diagnosis of pedophilia / sex addiction / other paraphilia) to access fictional depictions or otherwise.

This might counter some of the “normalization” rhetoric, this is a more realistic approach than calling for the repeal of obscenity law, which will never happen (if only to prevent animals from being abused or corpses from being desecrated), and continues to make people suffer / confused about whether or not they will be arrested for producing / hosting / distributing / possessing content.

1 Like
#8

I’d be wary about making blanket assumptions about child sexual abuse victims. Stopitnow and the Global Prevention Project, both have survivors of child sexual abuse play significant leadership roles and they are doing a pretty damn good job at evidence based means of addressing non-contact offenses and non-offending maps. Being a map in on itself does not make someone less of a person, but it is a sickness of sorts. Probably comparable to pyromania.

2 Likes
#9

Sorry for reopening an old thread but I figured this would be less intrusive than starting a new topic.

After seeing this study I’m inclined to agree with OP at some level. Obviously I wouldn’t advocate for doxxing or harassment, but I think misrepresenting the suppression of libido as the elimination of attractions is intentionally misleading and could be read as an endorsement of conversion therapy by anyone who doesn’t take the time to understand what’s actually being accomplished, which is certainly not what the abstract claims (I can’t comment on the piece as a whole as it’s behind a paywall). There are numerous studies that such treatments do not eliminate attractions and no reason to believe that they would work any differently among the population being researched here. At best, this is an incredibly unfortunate misrepresentation that carries the potential to be used to justify harm, and at worst, it’s a deliberate attempt to advocate for the use of conversion therapy on MAPs.

I also believe there are ethical considerations involved in such work that are being overlooked by whatever ethics review process these researchers are using. If you promoted such a libido-reducing treatment as a cure for homosexuality 40 years ago, you likely would have had no problem finding willing participants, whereas if you did that today, people would be advocating for the research to be shut down and the researchers to be investigated for ethical violations. Promoting a cure while perpetuating the stigma that drives the demand for that cure (by implying that pedophilia needs a cure and therefore is somehow bad or harmful) is manipulative and fraudulent. Of course I believe there should be research into the effects of these drugs, especially for the purposes of understanding whether it would be unethical to force them on those convicted of sexual offences or to promote them to highly stigmatized sexual minorities, but promoting such treatments as cures despite an abundance of research demonstrating that attractions cannot be changed or eliminated, but only suppressed, is a harmful way of characterizing this research.

2 Likes
#10

I’ve done my fair share of research into the use of libido and androgen suppressants, or “chemical castration” and my criticisms of it revolve around the fact that high-risk patients or offenders, should they go off of it or miss a dosage, are believed to be at a much higher risk of recidivism than when they started, and I’m not comfortable relying on chemical drugs to control what are innately human characteristics that can be safely engaged with in a way that does not increase risk.
Not to mention the risks of side effects, like gynecomastia, and damage to the kidneys and liver, as a result of long-term inoculation.

I think @prostasia should consider engaging with arguments about this. We can all look at the admittedly low recividism rates of South Korean and Vietnamese patients who underwent such treatment for a study as a condition for release, which has low external validity, and move forward from that, while also observing the clear and inarguable downsides and side effects of medicating this. Not all things can be medicated away.
Moreover, the lack of reproduction from those studies yields very little in terms of whether chemical castration will be a meaningful way to reduce recidivism.

I’m not against medicating those who are undeniably high-risk, but only under proper medical supervision and should such medication be their own decision to make.
This is a very delicate and complicated area, and I’m afraid the horrors of the 20th century will re-appear should we allow the issue of minor-attraction/pedophilia and some unquantified risk of CSA to serve as a justification. It isn’t.

I believe we should look into effective and ethical means of CSA prevention for high-risk patients that do not involve dehumanizing them or stripping them of their civil liberties.
After all, the pedophilic aspect of it all is not the primary focus, but rather the other more primary factors, like pathology and anti-social emotional disposition.
Pedophilia alone is not a meaningful or primary\ risk factor for CSA perpetration.

4 Likes
#11

Please dont be ableist.

#12

Nope. It doesnt inherently bother the individual, or cause urges to act on it that are difficult to control.

1 Like
#13

Pardon? [filler words]