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
I blame the French.
The language was added back in.
. . . and then removed again.
The whole effort was pushed by a trans-legislator. Which doesn’t look good for those who want us to think that transies are just reg’lar folks.
You got there before me. I don’t deny the role of progressive women in this madness – they are currently a destructive force to women in this world – but I find liberal-moderate-conservative women to be vehemently opposed to this, and are the ones who are speaking out at school board meetings, social media etc.
Isn’t the word “children” problematic? Implying, as it does, some kind of natural state or natural progression that would seem violative of the basic principle of self-identification in the same way that limiting late-term abortion implies personhood in the choice-infringing cell mass. Being pretty enlightened, I think Minnesota may need to ban “children” and require “persons who identify as minors.” That way, the inference of chosen identity will make it much easier to pretend that sexually violated children chose to be so and thus not cramp the style of perverts which is the ultimate value in our society.
But not in Connecticut, where a majority of Republicans in the House supported this abomination.
https://catholicvote.org/ct-passes-bill-discrimination-minor-attracted-persons/
I was just reading about that bill, and I was curious how many Republicans jumped aboard.
Unsurprisingly . . . “A significant majority of the state’s 53 House Republicans voted in favor of the bill.”
Maybe so, but since women vote more Democrat overall, isn’t it fair to conclude that most women are not on our side?
I don’t think the problem is the average Democratic lady. It’s white woke ladies with aberrant mommy brain. Aberrant mommy brain is a perversion of the decent purposes of mommy brain.
Women naturally like babies more than men and want to care and protect them more than men. Chalk it up to either G-d’s will or evolution. When society discourages the proper outlets for feminine impulses those impulses end up channeled into whatever fashionable minority is popular among current leftist ideology. Transgender people are now the current hip victims so irrational women will go along pornography in schools and public schools transing the kids.
We have seen this before. Helen Roy so accurately writes,
Before my time, one out of two lefty college girl dated a black guy because they were the victim group that was cool. Then those girls became bicurious and now some of then identify as genderfluid.
…
…
The correct response is to mention that children are legitimately vulnerable and are worthy of extra consideration and protection. It is entirely appropriate for women to fulfill their natural role and worry about children but like all feelings it needs to be refined through critical thought and empirical observations.
There is a very narrow category of pedophiles who deserve some sympathy – those who recognize that they are monsters in the making and seek treatment. They should be provided with aggressive confidential therapy, possibly including hormonal or other extreme treatment.
Anyone who actually harmed kids should be given the Gary Plauche treatment.
It’s a shame that it takes an extreme issue to bring people of different ideologies together. None-the-less, we should welcome and work with those on the left who recognize the trans movement for what it really is . . .
Indeed.