Читать книгу Predators Live Among us - Diane Roblin Lee - Страница 19

Aberrant thoughts that would never before have dared to form themselves into spoken words, much less public discussion, have now grown into foundational philosophies for a sector of groups that openly preach that sexual activity with children is wholesome. They use slogans like, “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.” Styling themselves a “sexual minority,” they dare to demand civil rights to legitimize their sexual preference (which is, of course, criminal behavior).

No matter how decent human beings may rant about the ridiculousness of such ideas, internet child pornography traffic indicates that this perspective is growing at an alarming rate.

Some are calling it “pedophilia chic.” I can barely write this, it is so nauseating.

Until recently, the taboo against using young boys to satisfy adult sex appetites was no less controversial than bestiality. It was “wrong” right across the board. Anyone who thought otherwise was regarded as the lowest of the low.

However, things are changing. In certain circles where sex with little boys is considered to be the new frontier, it’s regarded as being edgy.

Amazingly, this criminal activity is showing up for discussion by so-called “respected” academicians and physicians in academic and literary circles as well as mainstream journals and magazines.

For instance, the Journal of American Medical Association published a paper in 2002 by Peter J. Fagan, Ph.D., et al. titled “Pedophilia.” Consider the following quote from the article:

“During psychosexual development, no one decides whether to be attracted to women, men, girls or boys. Rather, individuals discover the types of persons they are sexually attracted to, i.e., their sexual orientation.” (italics added)

While I have not found any evidence to suggest that there is any more relation between homosexuality and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophilia, the move towards legitimization of pedophilia as a sexual preference bears similarities to the homosexual movement in the late 1960s.

While this writing is not a commentary on homosexuality, this new movement to view pedophiles as a legitimate minority is alarming, considering the success of the same tactics which resulted in the explosion of homosexual acceptance. Homosexuals have turned society upside-down regarding a behavior that was once viewed just as perverse as pedophilia by the majority. Now, the term “sexual orientation” in relation to pedophilia is being used more and more. The same arguments that gay activists used to gain acceptance for their behavior are no doubt the same arguments that will be used to try to justify pedophilia as normal.

While we might have hoped the underlying current was just for temporary shock value, there appears to be more to the issue.

It appears that the more the gay rights movement moves into the mainstream, the more the discussion is raised. The attempts to legitimize sex with children never seems to be about little girls. It’s always about little boys. There’s no adult/child “love association” for little girls: only the adult/child “love association” for little boys.

It goes without saying that many gay men are disgusted by the idea and want nothing but consensual adult sex – however, others in the movement differ, a situation mirrored in the heterosexual community.

The gay rights movement boasts some of the most successful lobbyists / activists since the Cold War. Their unrelenting determination has turned what was regarded 20 years ago as a societal aberration, into a legitimized segment of society. As their movement grew dramatically, several national gay rights groups tried to gain respectability by denouncing the groups advocating sex with children. However, the attitude was not across the board. In 1996, J. Gallagher and C. Bull came out with a pro-movement book, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, in which they attempted to explain the difficulty of denouncing these groups because,

“many thoughtful activists who opposed ------’s goals could not escape the suspicion that to denounce the organization would be to mimic society’s condemnation of their own sexual orientation.”

Portrayals of “inter-generational sex” here and there in gay literature doesn’t help the movement in their attempts to be regarded as respectable. It sets them back, because respectable, character-oriented society will never tolerate the exploitation of precious children for sexual purposes. That’s where the line is drawn. For whatever the reasons, instead of standing firmly against child sexual abuse with the rest of society, the gay rights movement seems to be divided.

The slide towards tolerance of child sex abuse appears to be methodically designed to filter into mainstream thought.

There was an article in the Psychological Bulletin (1998) called, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” coauthored by Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Philip Tromovitch. Full of polished professional jargon, the point was that the ideas about negative effects of child sexual abuse were overblown, particularly with male children. Further, they suggested that the terms, “victim” and “perpetrator” be dropped in situations of consensual sexual activity between men and boys and that those encounters would simply be referred to as “adult-child sex.”

Another manipulative thrust of the article was the comparison of pedophilia to things like masturbation, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity “which were codified as pathological in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (1952) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” and are no longer codified—suggesting that pedophilia should be the next behavior to be decodified.

One molester pointed out that, “the taboo against sex with children is Victorian-age hysteria whipped up by feminists who don’t understand male sexuality.” He states, “all the harm is done by the taboo. If nobody is getting hurt, there is nothing to worry about.”²⁶

While the Rind article was essentially a rehashing of the previous twenty years of efforts to vindicate homosexual pedophilia, it gained notoriety and wider legitimacy (in certain circles) simply through its degree of exposure.