ALAN M. writes:

Here is an interesting article on the disturbing claim that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation.” The piece is interesting for several reasons:

1. The focus is on normalizing pedophilia. Those darn slippery slope arguments keep on being proven by reality. This is coming and there is no rational argument against it given our culture’s prevailing presuppositions.

2. The fallacy of concluding something is morally good or at least neutral if it is genetic (same link to your article above) is just assumed as true because that is what has been argued with homosexuality.

3.  A man with the disorder who has stopped himself from expressing it is interviewed.  That alone is surprising, However, if you use the argument that pedophilia is like homosexuality, then it would seem that people could stop the expression of that disorder too.

— Comments —

Alex writes:

Normalizing homosexualism demands eventually normalizing pedophilia, because virtually all homosexuals are pedophiles:

“[Evolutionary psychologist Gordon] Gallup then suggests that man-boy contact is not uncommon. He refers to another study which found that 80 percent of homosexuals admit to having sex with minors (Goode and Troiden 1980) and that homosexual pedophiles average many more victims (150) than heterosexual pedophiles (20) (Abel et al., 1987). Another study (Cameron, 1985) estimated that homosexuals are 90 to 100 times more likely to become sexually involved with their students than are heterosexuals (I know mainstream researchers hate Cameron). The rate of recidivism among convicted homosexual pedophiles is also approximately twice that of their heterosexual counterparts (American Psychiatric Association 1994).

Gallup then reports on his own study (unpublished) of adult homosexuals. One out of four gay men had their first homosexual experience (which typically occurs during early adolescence) with a stranger who on average was 15.7 years older than they were.”

Also, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, it cannot be less legitimate than other sexual orientations, because liberalism holds all wills and desires to be equal and equally valid.

Most of all, though, it’s the fact that they are now beginning to discuss these matters openly that should tell us what the final result will be.

Laura writes:

Our culture already openly caters to pedophiles by sexualizing children in a hundred ways and by encouraging parents to leave children and teenagers unsupervised. I’ll never forget the story more than 10 years ago of a teenager in New Jersey who was approached by a predator online and then was abused by him while his parents were off doing other things. Then one day, when his mother was on a casino trip (this was in a suburban development) a boy showed up to sell wrapping paper for a school fundraiser. The teenager invited him in and killed him after attempting to sodomize him.

Dr. Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

The language of reporter Laura Kane’s article on pedophilia conforms entirely to the grammar of liberal-modern nominalism.  Here is an example, in the form of two paragraphs where Kane paraphrases the “discoveries” of researcher Dr. James Cantor of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health:

Cantor’s team has found that pedophiles share a number of physical characteristics, including differences in brain wiring. It’s now thought that about 1 to 5 per cent of men are pedophiles, meaning they are primarily attracted to children.

These findings have been widely accepted among scientists, but have had little impact on social attitudes or law. However, we are left with the alarming question: if some men are born pedophiles, what should society do with them?

The first sentence of the first paragraph employs an active verb, but the second sentence of the same paragraph falls back on a passive construction: “It’s now thought.”  The first sentence of the second paragraph also uses a passive construction: “The findings have been widely accepted.”  I call attention to the completely vagueness and impersonality of the phrase, “it’s now thought.”  Who does the thinking?  What is “it”?  Kane writes as though a thought might think itself whereas in the real world people do the thinking and every thought has a subject-author to whom a responsible reporter can attribute it.  Again, the phrase, “the findings have been widely accepted,” avoids attribution and (awkwardly, as though in an essay by a college sophomore) asserts verification and acceptance without divulging a single detail.

The second sentence of the first of the two paragraphs demonstrates another tendency of liberal-modern nominalism.  It takes a normative assertion and neutralizes it.  Consider the following two constructions:

(1) Law-enforcement personnel who specialize in sex-crimes say that about 1 to 5 per cent of men are pedophiliac predators – that is, criminals who stalk and assault children.

(2) It’s now thought that about 1 to 5 per cent of men are pedophiles, meaning they are primarily attracted to children.

Construction (1) makes its assertion forthrightly within a moral framework, but construction (2) deletes the moral framework and reduces the content of the utterance to a pure formality, as though all facts were equal.  Later, Kane paraphrases one Michael Seto (another “researcher”), who, she writes, “has argued forcefully for pedophilia to be thought of as a sexual orientation –  an idea he acknowledges is controversial, but hopes will actually help prevent child abuse.” Notice the reliance again on a passive construction, “to be thought of as,” in reference to criminal behavior.  Notice also that, adjusting for context and for rhetorical legerdemain, what Seto “argues” is that criminal behavior should be thought of as… an orientation.  That is, it should be thought of as morally equal to, and only indifferently different from, society’s protection of children from pornographic abuse and exploitation.

Buck writes:

I’ve had three sickening encounters. I was targeted by an older males when I was under age ten. The first at around age six was a stranger his twenties who was either visiting or somehow related to the family of a friend whose house I was in. He asked three of us, one at a time, to come to the basement where he exposed himself and asked us to “touch it”. It was so repulsive and bizarre to the three of us that the revulsion put it out of our minds and we never spoke of it to anyone. We were so young, naïve and ignorant that it never occurred to us to tell someone. It was just gone.

Pedophiles must know that. That experience based knowledge must be their most valued insight into young boys thinking, the way we disconnected it as unreal and unfathomable. That shields them from detection.

The other encounter was a knarly old barber on the edge of our neighborhood. He was intense. He came out to me while I was on the street in front of his shop. Instantly creeped me out and made my skin crawl. He told me that he wanted to help me to rid my face of black-heads by giving me a massage. I saw him weeks later near to home and pointed him out to friends. One friend knew him as a creep by reputation. The third was another male around thirty. He followed me for several blocks, making comments and asking questions about my body. I finally ran.

I never told my father, mother or any adult about these encounters, not even my own brother. They were so creepy, so unreal that it never occurred to me to talk about them. I’m lucky that I didn’t think that there was something wrong with me. I just put them out of my head.

Now, I remember; I had an encounter when I was twenty one. Six new Marines drinking at our sergeant’s neighbors house, who invited us to his open bar. Early in the morning, I was awakened on the couch by groping. I reflexively hit him, hard. I woke the others and told about it on the ride back to Camp. We howled laughing because we were equipped to deal with it.

Anecdotes are not scientific proof, they’re just real.

Please follow and like us: