I know, in this day and age, tolerance and understanding is
seen as a virtue above all else. There’s a line that can be crossed with this
kind of thing.
That’s a quote from conservative video blogger Roaming Millennial, from a post about the recent movement to normalize
pedophilia. Is that happening? Yes. She shares a video from Salon from a year ago, featuring a man
who refers to himself as a “virtuous” pedophile—a person with a sexual
preference, or orientation toward children who knows acting on it would be
wrong, so he is a non-offending pedophile.
 |
| Roaming Millennial video blog post, screen shot |
Then, more recently, there was another step: rebranding, she
calls it. They prefer the term Minor Attracted Persons, or MAPs, instead of
pedophiles, since pedophile is an emotionally charged word.
Meanwhile, I also came across a TedX video from a month ago that attempts to
normalize pedophilia as just another sexual preference that wasn’t chosen. The
student at the University of Würzbrug, Mirjam Heine, who gave the talk received
so much negative response that she asked to have it removed, for her safety, although
others have resurrected it to make
sure it can’t be hidden.
 |
| Mirjam Heine, controversial TedX talk at the Univeristy of Würzbrug attempting to normalize pedophilia, screen shot |
Here’s the transcript from a minute-long segment:
It is in our responsibility to reflect and overcome our
negative feelings about pedophiles, and to treat them with the same respect we
treat other people with. We should accept that pedophiles are people who have
not chosen their sexuality, and who, unlike most of us, will never be able to
live it out freely, if they want to live an upright life. We should accept that
pedophilia is a sexual preference, a thought, a feeling, and not an act. We
should differentiate between child sexual abuse and pedophilia. We shouldn’t
increase the suffering of pedophiles by excluding them, by blaming and mocking
them. By doing that, we increase their isolation, and we increase the chance of child sexual abuse.
Roaming Millennial refers to the movement, rather than this
particular talk or the uproar it caused. But she says some useful things in her
post. Offering the point of view of those who want to normalize, she says,
Some people argued that by destigmatizing pedophilia as a
condition, we could encourage those who suffer from it to seek help without the
fear of being immediately shamed and ostracized for an attraction they don’t
have control over. It was posited that by bringing pedophilia out of the
shadows, so to speak, in a way we would have a better chance of controlling and
monitoring it.
Which she says she wouldn’t argue with, except that, then
they do the rebranding thing—using words that mean the same vile thing, but
trying to make it sound like pedophilia is not inherently a bad thing. The
non-supportive side (which she is on) has this point of view:
A lot of people were critical of Salon’s interest in this individual, since they believed it was an
attempt to normalize pedophilia, to make it mainstream, to paint it as just
this quirky preference that some people happen to have, instead of what it
really is: a serious mental illness that could cripple lives and increase a
person’s likelihood of being a child abuser. That was, I think, the overall
consensus for most of us.
There are those who think only actions matter, not thoughts.
I want to look at this a little closer later on. But she says,
Your thoughts do matter. And yes, even thinking about
molesting a child, whether or not you go through with it, is something to be
worried about, something you should really be getting help for. Think of it
this way: if you’re someone who commits serial murders, that’s bad. We can all
agree. But if you’re someone who merely fantasizes about mutilating and
murdering people on a regular basis, that’s still not good. Sexualizing
children, fantasizing about them in a sexual way—that is an immoral act in and
of itself, something that you do need help with, that you should work on
treating.
She has a good point, and I agree.
But there’s something that I look at differently from a
millennial, because of my age and experience. It has to do with that line that
we all agree shouldn’t and won’t be
crossed. Because, as we’ve seen before, those lines do get crossed. And the
movement she’s seeing in the past couple of years has been well underway since
the 1990s,[i]
and has been part of the “Gay Rights Platform” since 1972.[ii]
Because of her millennial perspective, she makes a point of
separating the pedophilia normalization movement from the LGBT “community.” She
says,
And, just to make sure everyone understands this, because
this is important, this move by pedophiles to leach onto the LGBT community and
their movement for equality and acceptance has not been well received by the
LGBT community themselves. A lot of gay or trans activists want to make sure
people know that pedophilia is not the same as a mutual consensual attraction
between two adults, nor does it have anything to do with gender dysphoria or
gender identity.
This all comes before the “there’s tolerance, but there’s a
line” idea. So, repeating the quote I used at the top, this is how she ends the
segment:
And, I know, in this day and age, tolerance and understanding
is seen as a virtue above all else. There’s a line that can be crossed with
this kind of thing. And I think it’s safe to say that that line is about a
thousand miles down the road of actual literal pedophilia. Pedophilia
acceptance isn’t going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.
I’m not disagreeing with her about the difference. I’m
trying to understand something broader. She believes that the LGBT “community”
is made up of wholesome,[iii]
regular people who just happen to have a different orientation. Probably most
millennials believe that. But a generation ago that wasn’t a common belief.
There’s been a change in society’s perspective about orientation.
Is sexual orientation a thing you’re born with and can’t
change? That is the general agreement. But there is zero scientific evidence
that sexual orientation is genetically caused. While there may be some genetic
component contributing to sexual orientation, if it were genetic, then all
identical twins would have the same orientation, and that is not the case.[iv]
Also, the other question is, is it immutable? That is yet
another bit of “common knowledge” that is not based on fact. While it is common
for a person with same-sex attraction to maintain that orientation throughout
life, thousands have changed. Not just one or two, but thousands. In the range
of 20-30% or those who seek change therapy.[v]
And then there are additional many who leave the lifestyle, or avoid the
lifestyle completely. There are yet others who, while still feeling same-sex
attraction, are also able to develop a heterosexual relationship and even have
a happy marriage.
It is so politically incorrect to state these facts that it
feels illegal. Persecution can be fierce and cruel. While my obscurity mostly
keeps me safe, even in church circles where I assume most people agree with me,
I have received vitriolic responses.
For the person who doesn’t want to suffer with same-sex
attraction, there isn’t much opportunity for change therapy. Most of what is
available comes from religious organizations and help groups of people who have
faced the challenge with some success. But, after the political decision around
1970 to declare homosexuality to be just another healthy alternative, most
research stopped, most therapy stopped, and therapists who offer help are
threatened and risk losing their licenses.[vi]
So, here’s a question I have: Even though we all (we decent
people) agree that pedophilia is a bad thing and should not be normalized or
accepted, and activists should stop trying to make it so, I’ve lived long
enough to know that Roaming Millennial might be wrong when she says, “pedophilia
acceptance isn’t going to happen.” What happens if it is normalized? What if we are persuaded to believe it is simply an
inborn, unchosen orientation, and those who have it might be just as healthy
and normal as the rest of us (maybe still provided they don’t act on it, but no
guarantees there), and those of us who nevertheless worry about them being
around our children are punished and ostracized by society for our intolerance?
And we’re forced to send our children to schools where they are indoctrinated
with this new belief?
I have more questions. It’s going to take another post to
try to explore them. So we’ll continue this discussion in a Part II.
[i]
“A North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) representative stated: “The
ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual
freedom for all—not just equal rights for lesbians and gay men, but also
freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.” David Thorstand, “an/Boy
Love and the America Gay Movement,” in “Male Intergenerational Intimacy:
Historical, Socio-psychological and Legal Perspectives,” Journal of
Homosexuality 20, 1-2 (1990): 255. This note comes from United Families International Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation, 2013, p. 32.
[ii]
“The 1972 conference of National Coalition of Gay Organizations released a ‘Gay
Rights Platform’ which had as a plank ‘Repeal of all laws governing the age of
consent.’ The goal has not changed. www.rslevinson.com/haylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
. See also www.ageofconsent.com
(Warning: sexually explicit)"
[iii]
“The homosexual activist strategy outlined in the book After the Ball (1989) included: 1) begin portraying homosexuals as ‘victims
in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the
role of protector,’ 2) present homosexuals in the media as ‘wholesome and
admirable by straight standards, and…indistinguishable from the straights we’d
like to reach,’ 3) desensitize people to homosexual issues by inundating the
media with GLBT messages, 4) convert people to the belief that ‘gayness’ is
good. ‘…conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through
a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via
the media.’ Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in
the 90’s (Doubleday, 1989).” This note comes from United Families International Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation, 2013, page 31.
[iv]
See, e.g., N.E. Whitehead, “The Importance of Twin Studies” available at www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
. For additional articles, see www.narth.com/menus/born.html.
[v]
See, e.g., Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts, “Retrospective
Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy
Clients,” 86 Psychological Reports 1071, 1083 (June 2000). Study concludes that “20%-30% of the
participants [in voluntary conversion therapy] said they shifted from a
homosexual orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual
orientation,” belying any assertion that homosexual orientation is “immutable.”
No comments:
Post a Comment