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.
Revisiting an Unhappy Topic: Pedophilia and its Defenders
A few days ago, Susan wrote Normalizing Pedophilia, in which she drew attention to efforts by the United Nations to, among other things, promote international guidelines that blur the concept of “age of consent.”
An objection was raised in the comments that “pedophilia” wasn’t the right word for this, since that term apparently refers, clinically, to an attraction to pre-pubescent children, and the UN wasn’t specifically advocating tolerance for such attraction. Of course that’s true. All the UN was doing was removing one more hurdle, one clear line, protecting young people from sexually perverse adults.
Susan’s piece was specifically about the United Nations and its proposals, but we don’t have to look to the busybodies of Turtle Bay to find examples of the enthusiastic sexualization of children by our public schools, of Democrat-controlled states subtly modifying legislation to (1) protect the status of pedophiles and (2) remove corresponding protections from children, and of states artfully attempting to include (by removing excluding language) pedophilia in their lists of protected “sexual orientations.”
If you search the internet, you’ll find countless stories from mainstream media telling us that “sexual orientation” has of course never included sexual attraction to children, so removing that explicit exclusion from the Minnesota law defining protected sexual orientation is perfectly okay. What you won’t find is any reason why removing that language is something that should be done, nor why the fruitcake Minnesota legislator Leigh Finke, a male transvestite posing as a woman, thought it would be good to remove that language.
Up until about 20 minutes ago, there were two sexes and a total of four socially acceptable sexual orientations (because math): attracted to the opposite sex, attracted to the same sex, attracted to both sexes, and attracted to neither sex. Any other attraction was somewhere between an oddity you should probably keep to yourself (attracted to feet, attracted to sheep, etc.), or an oddity you had damned well better keep to yourself. Being attracted to children topped the list of the very bad kinds of attraction.
It is undeniably the case that there is a movement afoot, spearheaded most effectively by the absurdly powerful trans activists, to normalize and destigmatize the attraction to children and minors.
Unfortunately, we have in our highest office a man who, if his daughter’s diary and his Secret Service detail are to be believed, enjoys exposing himself to other people. A man who makes little girls uncomfortable. A man who informs us that our children belong to him too, a man who is oddly enthusiastic about pushing a radical trans agenda into our nation’s schools at the expense of girls’ athletics and girls’ physical safety.
Susan was right, and it’s something about which we should all be aware: as hard as it is to believe, there is a vocal and increasingly influential constituency out there attempting, with varying degrees of subtlety, to destigmatize pedophilia and to move pedophiles into a protected category.
The gender identity movement is at the heart of this. I think that movement will self-destruct because it hurts too many children, threatens too many women, and is an incoherent and self-contradictory mess of lies and nonsense. But at the moment, it’s enjoying far more public support than it deserves, and its proponents are doing a lot of bad things — most notably to children.
Published in Culture
PS
Completely coincidentally, it is Republicans who continue to oppose the sexualization of children, and Democrats who pursue the same with perverse zeal. I say “coincidentally” because I’m told Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable.
Women don’t seem to get all that worked up about things that harm women. Indeed, women seem to be mostly behind the gender stuff to begin with. It seems to be up to men to protect women even from themselves, the poor dears. And if/when men finally do demolish the gender nonsense, it will be – at least for the most part – over the objections of women, not with their support.
Meantime, many children will be damaged. Many will grown up not knowing how to become loving adults capable of raising children to be more loving adults.
KE, in my slowly growing Twitter follower list of 400+ people, more than half are women who identify themselves as liberal and/or feminist but who are outraged by the trans movement and the invasion of women’s spaces it champions.
The most compelling authors on the topic are female as well. The trans movement is so perversely and aggressively destructive that it is drawing fire from left and right, male and female. That’s why I think it will die a well-deserved death.
Just not fast enough.
I hope you’re right, Hank. And thank you for frequent credit to my post. You and I are both passionate about the gender campaign, and about protecting children. Here’s another example of the Left trying to create more potentially destructive legislation.
Normal, natural, and moral are the enemy triumvirate the left is targeting. They want us to be whatever Big Brother says we are. If instead of making him lie about how many fingers he is holding up, O’Brien tells Winston Smith his penis is a vagina it would be the same exercise.
UN peacekeepers and aid workers have a higher incidence of child rape than most marauding armies throughout history. That organization has a vested interest in normalizing perversion.
There are a lot of Republicans who are uninterested in keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms. Uninterested in preventing the kiddie-mutilators from sexually mutilating children.
And there are plenty more who avoid the topic altogether out of fear. There are not enough Republicans addressing these issues head-on.
There may be women on the front lines of opposition too, but they seem to be greatly outnumbered by the women who keep pushing for it. Those women, of course, have little or nothing to lose from what they’re supporting: they’re not high-school or college athletes, etc. Nor are they particularly worried about men wearing dresses demanding access to THEIR bathrooms, showers, etc.
Don’t move the goal posts, Drew. The claim, oft-repeated here by a handful of members, is that there’s no difference between the parties. I’m pointing out the kinds of differences that the miss-no-opportunity-to-trash-the-Republicans folk studiously ignore in their misguided rants.
I’m not saying that all Republicans are wonderful, nor even that all Democrats are terrible. I’m saying that, when it comes down to a policy battle between the factions, the difference is clear: it’s Republicans against Democrats, and I’m consistently on the side of the Republicans. Because the parties really are different.
And if we, as a society, can’t agree that children are worth protecting then it is game over for civilized culture.
Women and children. Yes.
We have to be really careful regarding how we speak of children. Are they “our children”? The Commies would agree — they belong to everyone. Which is why they wish to overrule parents who oppose sexually mutilating children.
So we have to be clear that children do not belong to some nebulous collective like “society,” or “community,” but rather to their parents. The Commies already insist that once a child enters public school, the parents cede all rights to what happens to their children.
How about *some* Republicans differ from *some* Democrats on *some* issues. But I think you have hijacked your own post.
I know what you mean, especially in light of Biden’s creepy comments, but if a parent wants to get a sex change for their 8 year old, or have their kids watch or participate in sex shows, then others need to step in and stop them.
Am I imagining that there is a significant crossover between those trying to normalize pedophilia and homosexuals? The whole grooming thing in schools seems fueled by the LGBT community, especially the transgenders and allies.
Yes, we need to have drag queens in schools but not female “dancers.” Why is that . . . ?
Can someone explain why including pedophilia as a sexual orientation (obviously it is, right?) means that any acts of pedophilia are now legal – or why any acts of pedophilia should not remain illegal. Necrophilia is a sexual orientation. So is bestiality.
I’m attracted to men, for example, but if I drugged @henryracette and sexually assaulted him that would still be assault and still be (properly) against the law.
Heterosexual rapists may be attracted to women (an orientation) – that doesn’t make rape legitimate.
I don’t understand, please explain.
I was the one who raised the objection to Susan’s use of the term “pedophilia” to describe sexual attraction to underage, but post-pubescent, children.
Hank, your post describes this as a “clear line, protecting young people from sexually perverse adults.” I simply don’t find anything “sexually perverse” in attraction to “young people” who are post-pubescent. They are adults, biologically. I find it strange that people would consider sexual attraction to a physically mature adult human of the opposite sex to be “sexually perverse.” There is nothing perverse about it.
Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children is perverse. Sexual attraction to the same sex is perverse. There are other forms of perverse sexual attraction, like the necrophilia and bestiality that Zafar mentioned.
There is a problem presented by sexual attraction to underage but physically mature people, in the common morality of our age which approves of sexual activity on the basis of consent. It is not clear that sexually mature teenagers, say aged 15-17, have the requisite capacity to consent.
I pointed out that this is a flaw in the consent-based system, which traditional morality solved by limiting sexual activity to marriage. Marriage was traditionally — and is still now — permitted at under the age of 18, though the specific age required may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
I also pointed out — not for the first time — the apparent misunderstanding of many people as to the state of the law of consent in our own country. Susan’s objection was to a UN statement advocating allowing minors under the age of 18 to consent to sex. That UN statement, at least as quoted by Susan, did not set forth an alternative age of consent. In the US, the most common age of consent among our states appears to be 16, not 18.
I have not researched this myself on a state-by-state basis. Wikipedia has a graphic showing 12 states at 18, 7 states at 17 ,and 31 states (plus DC) at 16. This HHS report from 2004 shows 11 states at 18, 6 states at 17, 33 states (plus DC) at 16. This demonstrates that there is not some new phenomenon of states lowering the age of consent. If anything, there has been a very slight shift in the opposite direction, but the bulk of the states still set the age of consent at 16.
This is not something of personal importance to me. I’m 55 years old, married to a 56 year old wife, she’s been my only sexual partner (ever), and I’m not planning for that to change.
I just find it very strange when people object to an age of consent that is the majority rule in our own country.
I am not a defender or advocate of pedophilia. I am an advocate of allowing heterosexual sexual activity between people under the age of 18 if, and only if, they are married.
I want to add something else. I agree with you, Hank, in your objection to the “trans” ideology and in your concern about some people who do appear to want to legitimize actual pedophilia involving pre-pubescent children.
On the policy front, I live in a state that sets the age of consent at 18, and has a 3-year safe-harbor (so that, for example, a 19 and 17 year old having sex is not statutory rape). For the time being, I see no reason to change the specific of this law, but I don’t consider other states that have a slightly different rule to be terrible. I am glad to see that the consensus of the states is in the 16-18 range, which seems sensible to me, in our present culture and political reality. I am disappointed by our culture and politics, but there simply aren’t many traditionalists like me.
I can’t say that I know the answer to this one. My guess is that, for the most part, the radicals just keep pushing the envelope. First it was the normalization of premarital sex, then adultery, then heterosexual kinks and fetishes, then homosexuality, and now trans and pedophilia.
That’s kinda funny because I’m usually the one who points that out.
“Pedophile” is becoming like “racist” in that it gets thrown around so much that’s lost meaning. I’ve seen videos etc where people say that a 50-year-old guy with a 25-year-old girlfriend is a “pedophile.”
Whereas really it’s the most traditional relationship ever.
Thanks for that link.
A post can do two things.
Let me try to explain what’s going on here.
The state of Minnesota has in its statutes a legal definition of “Sexual Orientation.” It was very broad, but included at the end a disclaimer that it did not include pedophilia.
That’s important, because the state has come out aggressively in favor of banning all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That would prevent, for example, schools and daycares and anyone else from discriminating against a potential employee based on that orientation.
So when you remove the bit that explicitly excludes pedophilia as a sexual orientation, you’re left with state law that says you can’t refuse to hire a guy just because he experiences pedophilia. If you try, he has a basis for claiming that he’s being excluded based on his sexual orientation.
Of course, no one who is a pedophile would make such a claim, right? It would be like hunting down the one cake-baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and compelling him to do it. I mean, what’s the point?
I don’t know how the matter was resolved, as there was some last-minute wrangling in Minnesota. But one has to wonder why the legislator tried to have the exclusion removed.
One also has to wonder why so many pundits and experts were so quick to jump up and defend the excision, pointing out that well of course no one thinks pedophilia is a sexual orientation so we don’t need to include the language.
But, as you point out, obviously it is a sexual orientation.
I think reasonable people should be asking why these changes are being made.
Jerry, I will accept responsibility for this misunderstanding, since the way you interpreted my comment is understandable, if not what I was intending to communicate.
The legal age-of-consent line is a clear line intended to protect young people from exploitation and abuse. The fact that many people younger than the age of consent may be competent to give their consent is beside the point: the purpose of having a law and drawing a line is to have an unambiguous demarcation.
We do this all the time. We have a legal drinking age. We have speed limits. We have all kinds of thresholds that are established so that we don’t have to re-evaluate every instance of formal transgression and determine if the rules should apply in this case.
Imagine if the traffic laws said, in essence, “when people exceed the speed limit we should take into account whether or not it was really okay in that instance to do so.” I might like that, but it would have the effect of making speed limits arbitrary and unenforceable. Similarly, if we said the drinking age was 21, but if you get caught buying booze for the 16 year olds standing outside the store we should pause to consider whether or not the kids really are pretty good at holding their liquor, the idea that we have some kind of enforceable guideline would become suspect.
What the UN did in its pronouncement was say, basically: In countries that have age-of-consent laws, keep in mind that maybe it’s okay to break them.
We could do that with all laws, I suppose. We could do it with gun laws, drug laws, traffic laws, tax laws, etc.
It’s the zeitgeist to want to do it with sex laws, particularly as they apply to children. I think that’s worthy of our attention.
I rarely post video, but I found this amusing and encouraging. Those who think women aren’t kicking back against the trans movement might enjoy it.
Also, I think this young lady is pretty good.
My Biology Is NOT Your Costume
A valiant effort in pursuit of clear thinking, but probably useless.
Very good; thanks for posting it.
My pleasure. She seems more willing to be gracious to the trans community than I am, but it’s still entertaining.
Opposition to the trans activists makes for strange bedfellows. I know it makes a lot of the TERFs — who are, after all radical feminists — uncomfortable to find themselves allied with conservatives. I find it a little odd myself. But, as is so often the case when confronting powerful and destructive forces, we work with the alliances that, on balance, move us forward.
That’s a degree of pragmatism I’m willing to accept.