Posted on 03/26/2002 3:52:47 PM PST by jgrubbs
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:22 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I sure hope you're right.
One of the things I find disturbing about the article is the idea that rightness or wrongness of pedophilia depends on whether it causes other horrors later in the lives of the affected children. It undoubtedly does cause lasting harm in the lives of many children. But, God willing, other victimized kids grow up into stronger, more moral, adults for having overcome a harrowing childhood. So what. Evil is evil.
He did not specifically say "pre-pubescent" that I remember. He just said that adult-child sex isn't always negative, and that it is in fact sometimes positive. He specifically sited the Rind study.
I am going on recall but I can tell you are blocked to this bit of truth. Anyway, I told you a long time ago I would look for it but I haven't found a good and thorough archive of Sullivan columns. I think it was about a year ago.
The idea that some sexually mature 13 year-olds are also mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship is sound however, there aren't enough people like that to justify a lowering of the age of consent....not by any means. When I say "some" I think we might be talking about .05% of the population....at the most.
On the other hand, I think the article is more talking about "Sex with a child" i.e. someone who is not sexually mature. That's pedophilia, in all circumstances, and it should never be tolerated.
I think that something will actually come of this. The powerful prey on the weak and as the sexually deviant become more politically powerful in this nation their will be done. Watch our yellow-bellied politicians smile into the camera as they announce that they dropped the Age of Consent "for the good of the children". I'm picturing Trent Lott proudly announcing, "If it weren't for the Republicans our 13 year olds would be in danger of sexual predators. We're proud that we held the Age of Consent to 13.5 years old".
>>>>>Those making the case aren't just fringe groups, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, but a handful of academics at mainstream universities.
Given that NAMBLA wouldn't ever release its membership list, one is left wondering how frequently these two groups overlap.
patent
One of the most hopeful factors in favor of the reaction we are looking for is the overthrow of the “gatekeepers.” That is what I call the mainstream media who have, for the past half-century dominated and controlled the flow of information. They were able to define the terms of debate and marginalize the dissident by excluding them from the public forum. The right felt isolated, as the left’s voices were the only ones heard.
Thanks to this magic medium were a using right now – the Internet – the right is no longer unheard and frozen out of the public forum. Look what just a handful of Freepers are doing by communicating, and then going out into the street and demonstrating. Twenty years ago the idea of a conservative demonstration would have been considered an oxymoron. Even I, during the last election went to a street corner with my wife waving a SoreLoserman sign.
Remember, dispair is not just a sin, it is unnecessary.
So much for hoping the moral pendulum was beginning to swing back in the other direction.
This has the potential for a great discussion. First, I will preface my statement by saying I appreciate your positive attitude.
Yes, the Victorian Era was very straight-laced, to the point of absurdity I might add, but do you really think that the evil doers represented a smaller percentage of that society, or were they just less visible?
Well, the larger society already approves of homosexual sex; or, at least, does not dare to voice loud disapproval. I refer you to Dr. Laura as exhibit A.
But here is a hopeful sign: the discussion of the exploitation of boys by Catholic priests. Initially, the media referred to the actions of the priests as “pedophilia.” Now, thanks to the Internet, a few mainstream publications are starting to tell the truth: most of the youngsters that were victimized were not pre-pubescent boys but were teen-agers from 14 to 18 years of age. The term for that is homosexual rape, and the priests in question were not pedophiles but homosexuals preying on young victims.
Of course you will not read that in a Maureen Dowd column. The far chattering classes have their own agenda, and showing homosexual exploitation of teen-agers is not on their view scope. But we are making progress. Like a blade of grass growing through a crack in the pavement, it’s only the beginning.
No doubt! I fear our society will have to face a major downfall before the pendulum swings back.
Dehumanise, rationalize and presto chango, you're not a pervert but a teacher of the art of sexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.