Skip to comments.Why Are We Surprised With the Push for 'Pedophile Rights'
Posted on 08/26/2011 3:31:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
Many Americans have been shocked by reports about a recent pro-pedophilia conference in Baltimore in which psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, representing institutions like Harvard and Johns Hopkins, sought to present pedophilia in a sympathetic and even positive light. But why should this surprise us?
Academic articles in scholarly journals have been presenting pedophilia in a sympathetic light for years, and, as Matthew Cullinan Hoffman noted, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a report in 1998 claiming that the negative potential of adult sex with children was overstated and that the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences. It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were positive, and suggested that the phrase child sex abuse be replaced with adult-child sex. Others have coined the more disgusting term intergenerational intimacy.
The APAs report was so disturbing that it drew an official rebuke from Congress, yet the pro-pedophile (or, pro-pederast) push continues. In fact, some psychiatric leaders, like Dr. Richard Green, who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the APAs list of mental disorders in 1973, have been fighting to remove pedophilia as well.
Consider, for example, this statement from the late John Hopkins professor John Money: Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in natures overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.
Now, go back and reread that paragraph, substituting the word homosexuality for pedophilia and ephebophilia. How interesting!
To help flesh this out, lets picture a homosexual man making his case to a heterosexual man:
1) My homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your heterosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.
2) My homosexuality is just as normal as your heterosexuality.
3) Since my behavior is genetically determined and is not a choice, it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that it is wrong. And to call my sexual behavior illegal or immoral, or to refuse to legitimize same-sex relationships, is to be a moral bigot of the highest order.
4) I deeply resent your attempts to identify areas of my upbringing and environment as alleged causes for my homosexuality.
5) I categorically reject the myth that someone can change his or her sexual orientation. Rather, such statements only add to the anguish and suffering of gays and lesbians, and attempts to change us often lead to catastrophic consequences, including depression and suicide.
Now, lets turn this around and have a pederast making his case to a homosexual, substituting the words accordingly (thus, My pederasty is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.)
In point of fact, all the principle arguments commonly used to normalize homosexuality have been used to normalize pedophilia and pederasty, as I documented in painstaking (and painful) detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America, where I also made clear that I was not equating homosexuality with pedophilia but was instead comparing the arguments used to normalize both.
Here are the eight principle arguments, all of which (in modified form) are commonly used in support of homosexuality:
1) Pedophilia is innate and immutable.
2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
8) This is all about love and equality and liberation.
But none of these arguments should surprise us. After all, the age of increasing sexual anarchy in which we live is a fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and the seeds of sexual anarchy were sown already by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940s, as Prof. Judith Reisman has tirelessly documented. And it was Kinsey, after all, who relied on the research of pedophiles to document the sexual responses of infants and children.
All this, to be sure, is utterly unspeakable. But it should certainly come as no surprise. In fact, we should expect this and more.
This has been going on for a long time.
You can trace this back to Kinsey, who was enormously influential among progressives back in the 40s and 50s, and was even a great favorite of Paul Tillich and other academic theologians.
This is what happens when a society embraces moral relativism. When there are no agreed upon moral absolutes and boundaries, then there are no real barriers to any type of behavior. Depravity can no longer be defined. Good and evil have no meaning - it is simply a matter of personal choice and taste (like ice cream).
This is what is happening (or rather, “has happened”) with the same sex marriage argument. If marriage is in the eye of the beholder, then it can be defined in any way one desires. If same-sex marriage is “ok”, then what possible argument can one make against polygamy or man/boy marriage?
People will say that pedophillia or bestiallity cannot be allowed because the young or animals cannot “choose” to participate and are therefore forced victims. It is not a very large step to make to crossover these qualms about pedophillia when you have doctors and phyciatric associations all making “scientific” decisions about these types of behaviors being “normal”. Then you get lawyers and “progressive” judges agreeing that these behaviors should be legally protected.
Only Heaven-sent spiritual revival can save our nation. Only God’s mercy keeps us from being destroyed. Pretty soon God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah if He doesn’t do something about the once great nation of the United States of America (then again, maybe His judgement has already begun). I pray it’s not too late.
we told em about suicide, homos and pedophiles now not considered a mental disease... this is the kool aid moment we kept talking about, and Zero is all behind it.
"Do What Thou Wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
Dr Judith Reisman has been writing and speaking about this for many, many years. I recall her holding up a magazine pubished by university elites that supported adult/child relationships as being normal. That was back in the 80’s. Prophetic? You bet.. Read her books. Have her speak. POWERFUL ..
Shoot. Shovel. Shut up. Don't forget the shut up part.
Once the liberals succeed in legalizing gay “marriage” (and virtually criminalizing opposition to it), the only question is whether their next push will be for legalizing polygamy, legalizing sex with minors, or legalizing some other kind of perversion.
Polygamy seems to have the inside track on normalization with TV shows like “Big Love” and “Sister Wives.” But on the other hand, there are lots of hot teenage girls and boys the perverts are dying to get a shot at.
In any case, almost all of the arguments made in favor of same-sex “marriage” could be made in favor of “plural marriage” or “intergenerational sex” so the libs won’t have to memorize a new set of talking points.
And of course the liberals will assure us that all of it will be completely consenual.
You are quite right of course, but that is no serious obstacle. I’m sure the “progressives” can chip away at those definitions with as much success as they did with the homosexuality argument. It just takes time. A steady drip drip drip of argument, accusation, “redefinition” of terms and laws...given enough time and effort they could eventually legislate that black is white, white is black and purple is bright yellow with pink spots.
From what I understand, the APA completely distanced itself from this conference. I’m not defending the APA, I’m just saying that they were not a participant in this particular deviancy.
And it wont stop there. After this fight the next move will be legalisation and "normalisation" of incest, then bestiality, then necrophilia. In fifty years time it might theoretically be legally possible to marry your wallpaper ( I say theoretically because in practice less morally bankrupt cultures will have made the legal niceties of the US largely irrelevant).
Got a kid to donate? Algorejr won’t mind. All the queers in Hollywood won’t mind. The U.S. military won’t mind now.
If memory serves correctly, some time back the annual APA convention did, in fact, have a paper presented on the “normalization” of bestiality.
I was helped by talking with a psychiatrist when I went through a rough divorce in the mid-1970s. However, given the degraded state the profession has fallen to, there is no way I would ever submit to or cooperate with being assessed, measured, or counseled by one of the profession today.
“From what I understand, the APA completely distanced itself from this conference. Im not defending the APA, Im just saying that they were not a participant in this particular deviancy.”
I’m sure the APA initially distanced itself from efforts to have homosexuality no longer classified as a mental illness. The pedophiles and their enablers have learned the lesson from this precedent and are proceeding accordingly.
Human sacrifice *and* cannibalism.
re: “Do What Thou Wilt” shall be the whole of the law.
You got that right. Totally agree.
Good. I wilt shoot pedophiles. :)
Diddo that and probably about 50 million others too. This will cut across all demographics and party leanings. I do not think they understand the Henry Bowman sized can of whoopass they are opening here.
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.