Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Normalizing Pedophilia
After studying the trend toward corrupting our children with transgender propaganda, I didn’t think there was a way to intensify my outrage about the distortions of gender and sexuality in this country.
I was wrong.
We have a queer (his own label) human being, Allyn Walker, who is an assistant professor at Old Dominion University, who has decided to reduce the incriminations against people who “like children,” but have shown restraint in their own behavior. He is proposing that pedophiles not be labeled so negatively, and that the term, “minor attracting persons” (MAPS) be used instead:
Walker is the author of the book ‘A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,’ which challenges ‘widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors—often referred to as ‘pedophiles’—are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs).’
I find this effort unconscionable. And yet in these days where every norm is subject to distortions, condemnation, and irreverence, we shouldn’t be surprised. Our world of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral has been turned upside down, and too many people now believe that any people who are “oppressed” are entitled to special treatment.
But they are not.
Spencer Lindquist who wrote the linked article in the Federalist made this powerful point:
Yet again we witness an instance of the left siding with the oppressor while pretending to advocate for the victim, this time under the guise of academic inquiry. One has to wonder if Walker has ever considered that our sympathies should lie not with pedophiles who don’t appreciate being called what they are but instead with their victims. Walker’s book intends to help pedophiles pursue dignity. How does a child robbed of his or her innocence pursue his or her sense of dignity?
The magnitude of the problem is not well understood. In addition, the long-term effects on children are staggering. And then there are the international organizations that have been openly supporting child sexual abuse.
There has been a petition posted, protesting this professor’s actions and calling for him to be fired. Given the times, I’m not hopeful for dismissal; to date, 1,500 people have signed.
Old Dominion University released the following statement regarding Walker:
An academic community plays a valuable role in the quest for knowledge. A vital part of this is being willing to consider scientific and other empirical data that may involve controversial issues and perspectives. Following a recent interview that gained national attention, Dr. Allyn Walker has released the following statement.
‘I want to be clear: child sexual abuse is an inexcusable crime. As an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, the goal of my research is to prevent crime. My work is informed by my past experience and advocacy as a social worker counseling victims. I embarked on this research in hopes of gaining understanding of a group that, previously, has not been studied in order to identify ways to protect children.’
Following recent social media activity and direct outreach to the institution, it is important to share that Old Dominion, as a caring and inclusive community, does not endorse or promote crimes against children or any form of criminal activity.
I expect that everyone will be reassured by the ODU statement.
The ongoing efforts to ruin the lives of our children are exhausting, and I see no end in sight. The effort to normalize pedophilia in any way is repugnant. We can only hope that someday, some time, wisdom prevails.
Published in Culture
I yield.
Pedaphiles. We have several here on Ricochet. Down with pedals, up with pedals, down with pedals. What could be problematic with that?
I think there is 100% agreement here on that point.
That used to apply to homosexuality too.
How the mighty have fallen.
And black people marrying white people, too.
This is a difference in our sense of values, I guess, and everyone is entitled to their own values. For my part, I have no objection to same-sex relations between consenting adults, and I’m perfectly okay with it being legal and not stigmatized. I feel the same about people of different skin colors and ethnicities being together. I don’t see any victims in the participants in such relationships. The same is not true of pedophiles, and so I vehemently oppose that.
Again, apples and oranges.
This is such a cheap argument. Sexual proclivities are in no way reflected in normal heterosexual relations between races. That those sensibilities have changed for the better is not an argument for normalizing homosexuality.
Let’s be honest. He’s partially talking about himself here, and trying to justify his thoughts.
Apology for being glum, but is there any doubt that, at the very least, the “minimum age” for what is considered pedophilia in society will be “lowered”? The only question is how low.
I really think this a great opportunity for gays–that is “responsible” gays–to speak up. Gays have gone to great lengths to assure us that pedophiles are a different breed. Time to take a stand on this MAP stuff.
I’m sorry we seem to have lost touch with @catorand.
No, you’re right. The only similarity is that both homosexual couples and mixed-race couples were often stigmatized, outlawed, and/or persecuted because they violated socially acceptable convention, despite the fact that they were consenting adults harming no one by their actions.
The Archdiocese of Boston and almost the entirety of the rest of the Catholic church misdiagnosed the problem in the “child sexual abuse” crisis. It was almost entirely a homosexual predation problem.
And until we can start telling the truth and using correct terminology, the situation will only worsen. See Susan’s post above. [this is not a criticism of you OB, but of the Church and its ongoing attempt to coverup the homosexual problem in the priesthood.]
Have to agree with this. Because homosexual males tend to have typically male sexual drives (i.e., are interested in having many sexual partners rather than one), men who are in positions of authority over boys often have an opportunity to abuse that authority should they be so inclined. Because pedophiles are almost exclusively male, it’s easy to confuse homosexual predation with pedophilia when the victim is a boy of 14, 15, or 16.
What about the possibility that normalizing sexual relations between races doesn’t harm society, but normalizing homosexual relations does?
There’s another apple/orange problem in there. Biology quite clearly rewards one of the type of relationships in your OK column, and just as clearly does not reward the other. Regardless of acceptability, these are clearly not the same thing. You accurately categorize them together in a subjective framework — but this does not imply an identity between the two. The reason I bring it up is that the shopworn fallacious criticism (attack) about people opposing SSM because of an equivalent to racial bigotry is based on this subjective categorization.
I will simply stipulate that we all agree — race is guaranteed to be zero percent learned behavior.
I also find all this “biology versus environment” discussion unfruitful (ahem). Clearly it’s both. Homosexual men tend to have both some prenatal influences (born to mothers who previously in the near term gave birth to a daughter) AND have been groomed or molested. The homosexual (and bi-) women I’ve known were almost 100% molested or otherwise had toxic relationships with men.
I believe there’s only one appropriate mediating institution to counsel people suffering with sexual disorders — the Church. Specifically the teachings of John Paul II in Theology of the Body (which not enough Catholic parishes emphasize).
People have agency. Even people with sexual disorders. They need the wisdom tradition of the Church at least as much as the rest of us. And they need to know they’ll be held to account for their behavior.
My hard limit is 16. I’d prefer 17. But I’m more persuadable if we are ok with them having sex in their own age group – because I don’t see a difference there at all.
Which is why I question our permissive attitudes to uncommitted teen sex.
It will be framed as an issue of children’s rights. “some bigoted Christians won’t let their 13-year-old son sleep with a 35-year-old man because they are homophobic . . . This is 21st Century, we can’t allow parents to get away that anymore.”
Laws regarding statutory rape have pretty much only recently come to recognize that a 17-year-old high-school boy with a 16-year-old girlfriend doesn’t automatically become a predator/criminal by turning 18 before she does.
But there are other issues too, that I would suggest have larger social costs. For example, where I lived in Phoenix, teenage girls were having babies left and right, usually fathered by teenage boys who had neither the ability nor the desire to support them. (Sometimes the fathers were older men, but seemingly because they were Hispanic it wasn’t considered a big problem. “Normal in Mexico” or something.) I’m still baffled by why that should be at least informally “acceptable” yet if those same girls/young women had children with men who were older and able to support them and the children, suddenly it’s time for the pearl-clutching and the fainting couches. And, of course, the police, prosecutors, etc.
The difference here is that race has nothing to do with the nature of sex or procreation. Black women are just as female as white women and white men are just as male as black men. There has been stigma against interracial marriage throughout much of history, not just here but globally. Heck, my nephew had a hard time convincing his wife’s Chinese parents that a non-Chinese might marry their daughter. But the stigma against interracial marriage is social and cultural, whereas the stigma against homosexuality has been understood to be a matter much more fundamental, a sin “against nature.”
I’m sure there are people who made (and probably still make) the same argument — that it harms society — about miscegenation.
As I said, it’s a values thing. I happen to think it’s preferable to let homosexuals live free and unoppressed lives. I was opposed to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, but I’ve never been opposed to same-sex couples. That’s just me; I know others have different opinions, and that’s fine.
Of course, there’s a big difference about differing views regarding “the good of society” and the impact on that of various relationships between consenting adults, on the one hand, and allowing pedophiles to prey on children, on the other. I’m content to differ on the first point, while recognizing that we all agree on the latter.
That depends on how you interpret “harm.” The wisdom tradition says sodomy is harmful to both parties, even if they’re “consenting.” The harm is also in the deprivation of the normal sexual and reproductive faculties of the partners (complementarity). It simply isn’t true that homosexuality is victimless. Both parties are harmed at minimum by the opportunity cost of their relations. And often much more than that (high rates of promiscuity among gay men and domestic abuse among lesbians). Immoral behavior always, always has a cost. Even if heterosexuals are the ones doing it (adultery, fornication, etc.)
This exactly. It is so inconsistent and dysfunctional. Either teens will be teens and they are ready for loads of consensual sex or they are not. I don’t understand why the age boundaries on sexual partners rather than the age boundary on sexual activity.
There would be a point about “taking advantage” but that assumes an 18 year old can’t take advantage of a 17 year old. And I think that’s a huge assumption when most girls report to feeling coerced into their first sexual encounters (I.e. they weren’t ready themselves, but they did it for their boyfriends).
Yes, I understand the difference. But I also understand the similarities.
You mention that global stigma against interracial marriage. One opposed to interracial marriage (and that isn’t me) might cite that as evidence that there’s probably some reason why cultures have evolved to oppose it. I’ve made a similar argument against same-sex “marriage,” which differs from interracial marriage by, among other things, being recognized as marriage, even if it’s illegal. In contrast, “marriage” of same-sex couples has been extraordinarily rare throughout history.
We had a word for interracial marriage, even when it was illegal. In contrast, I’m not aware of any word for same-sex marriage — until the Courts imposed one on us just recently.
But anyway. The damage-to-society argument isn’t persuasive to me regarding homosexuality, and so I’ll remain in favor of its legality and absence of significant social stigma.
I’m just so confused by turn this discussion took early on. Why are we even talking about science in regard to pedophilia? What is the actual extant science including any scientifically supported models of the intersection of pedophilia (which is the subject of this article), homosexuality, and “pan-genderism”?
What biochemical circumstances are even hinted at as the cause of desiring sexual acts with children?
And convenient for the media.
Most of the abuse was of seminarians — even older than you mention, but under the authority of some pervert priests, it’s true.
I have extraordinarily little interest in arguments that attempt to restrict people’s liberty for their own good.
If both adult parties to a relationship are consenting, I’m disinclined to tell them that they can’t be together because they might do sex in a way that isn’t good for them, or that they might be happier and more fulfilled with a different partner.
Again, our values may differ. I’m pretty strongly in the leave-people-alone camp when it comes to sex and relationships.
This is in recognition of the predation aspect of grown men scooping up naive girls. I find the distinction right and good.
I don’t really care what is moral according to Henry Racette. The only one who worships at that altar is you.
I think you could have left off this sentence, Stina. Wandering into questionable territory.
We wouldn’t have to be so inconsistent if sex was confined to marriage.
There is this verse that feminists claim is the Bible forcing girls to marry their rapists, but it is no such thing. It is forcing seducers to take responsibility for seducing naive girls.
If the seducer is expected to marry the one he is seducing, there’d be less predatory behavior. From 18 year olds AND 30 year olds.