A popular online magazine ran an editorial today which is getting a lot of attention. The article was published on Gawker under the science category, titled “Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children”.
The article seeks to look at pedophilia objectively, asking the philosophical and scientific question — is pedophilia an act of evil or merely a sexual orientation and preference? Shockingly, the article makes the case for the latter. It presents pedophilia as benign and uncontrollable as liking brunettes, tall men or athletic builds. It also makes the highly controversial and perhaps, highly dangerous suggestion that pedophilia and pedophiles are unfairly persecuted.
For many years, pedophile advocates have organized in such a way that they have their own unique lobbyist groups who work to minimize pedophilic behavior as benign while organizing public relations campaigns to mitigate the seriousness of prepubescent attraction.
From the Gawker article:
“Imagine a world in which admitting your attraction to busty women or tall men led to alienation, jail time, or your murder. Older gay men can probably remember such an era, but nowadays most sexual appetites have been mainstreamed to the point of banality. Pedophiles, for obvious reasons, don’t enjoy the same kind of tolerance, and thus it seems as if they may be locked forever in a sexual prison from the moment they’re born.”
The article goes on to validate pedophilia as a sort of physical or mental disability, much like early onset dementia. Much of this research has been done in Canada, where researchers are trying to to pinpoint its origin, pathology and potential treatment of symptoms. Gawker cites Dr. James Cantor, Head of Research in the Sexual Behaviours Clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada, whom they say has been trying to better “understand” pedophiles for the last 12 years.
Cantor’s research so far has led him to believe that pedophilia is a brain disorder, affecting the frontol temporal lobes. Also of note, a much higher amount of pedophiles are left handed compared to the general population. Cantor says, ”The only other groups that have rates of non-right-handedness that are that high are schizophrenics, people with bipolar disorder, people with autism.”
Again, the information provided in the article has a gentle persuasion towards sympathy instead of what most Americans think of pedophilia, as something completely awful, heinous and WRONG.
Further illustrations of a pedophiles trials and tribulations in life, Gawker quotes Dan Savage, a sex advice columnists who tells the story of a pedophile who never acted on his urges and how lonely of a place that is for people (mostly men) who can’t help but be attracted to children. One such pedophile said while people always say to other people, there is somebody out there for you — for the pedophile, “I walk around every awful day of my life knowing that there is no one out there for me.”
The author, Cord Jefferson, claims to be a progressive looking to welcome pedophiles into the ranks and protections of other minorities.
“The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-professed “progressive,” when I think of the world I’d like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I’d be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children.”
Terry was a gentlemen Cord started out saying was a meth head who initiated sexual contact with his young 7-year-old niece, played porn videos for her and masturbated in front of her but apparently was a good guy because he chose not to have intercourse with her or something like that.
While Cord has responded to comments saying that nobody is saying that pedophiles should be allowed to have sex with children, it’s hard to argue that the editorial piece doesn’t have an agenda — to normalize and legitmize pedophilia as a sexual orientation and disability rather than a perversion and crime.
Pedophiles are on a mission to normalize their behavior, decriminalize it and get the word out that they are not monsters but burdened with a no-fault preference they were born with, similar to any other sexual orientation. They want you to believe its just like being gay or straight, only they like babies, toddler and children. They believe the more they say it, the more Americans will become desensitized to such a suggestion and the tide will turn in their favor. Pedophiles systematically try to get into positions of authority and spread the word through pop culture and gentle propaganda, to get Americans to view them differently.
Where will your compassion lie? Will it be at the hands of grown man who wants to have sex with an innocent child or the children themselves?
Who are the real victims here?
A civilized society should be ashamed to have to ask the question. We are only as good of a society as how we treat our children.
You can go here to read the piece for yourself.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that therapy or drugs help to curb child sex predatory behavior.
This piece needs to be taken down. They won’t offend anybody by doing so, except pedophiles, or should I say, those with pedophilia desires? We wouldn’t want those who dig “pedophilia” to feel bad, right?
It seems that Amazon.com has taken a position on pro-pedophilia literature and that would be — their money is just as green as anybody else.
When it comes to selling pro-pedophile, child erotica and child exploitative books and DVDs, Amazon.com is the place to whip out your Mastercard and revel in all the free speech child molesters can muster. Brought to my attention by the folks at care2.com, Amazon has continued to hide behind a shameful “free speech” and anti-censorship “principle” in order to sell books that doing nothing short of supporting incest and crimes against children. continue reading…
Years ago we moved into a new neighborhood in Chicago, and as it was the first floor apartment of a two flat as Halloween approached we stocked up on candy in anticipation of trick-or-treaters. We thought we had a pretty good handle on the ratio of kids in the area, but unfortunately we did not anticipate all the carpetbaggers that would show up. I didn’t even bother to leave the doorway the stream of children was so steady.
As you can guess, our candy supply quickly ran out. I didn’t feel like playing the whole “turn the lights off and pretend we’re not home” game, so I cut to the chase and put a “NO CANDY, SORRY” sign on the door. (The fact we were renters quelled any pissed off kid retaliation paranoia.) Well, if the same thing happens this year I’ll have to rethink my strategy or the neighbors might assume I like to diddle little boys. continue reading…
John Couey, a formally convicted sex offender who abducted a 9 year old girl in Florida in 2005 was sentenced to death today. Couey raped Jessica Lunsford over several days and then buried her alive.
Jessica was found bound by speaker wire and with evidence of a desperate attempt to save her life as two holes were poked in the plastic bags he put her in. Blood from the continous raping was found in Couey’s home — she was buried in his his yard. It has been reported that Couey asked the child to get into the grave he dug for her and that all she asked was if she could take her stuffed animal dolphin with her.
So, I must ask, how can anyone oppose the death penalty in a cases such as these? How??
Being hailed as a saint on one side and a “punisher of thought crimes” on the other, a California judge recently issued a restraining order against self-proclaimed pedophile Jack McClellen ordering him to keep at least 30 feet away from any child or be arrested.
This article names a few people who believe the restraining order violated McClellen’s first amendment rights and assert that until he actually molests a child (or is caught — it wouldn’t surprise me if he already has), that his taking pictures of toddler girls, posting them on his website, and explaining to other pedophiles where to find them and observe little girls (which they refer to as “LGs”) for sexual gratification is all perfectly legal.
As a result, his case has stirred debate, particularly since his arrest on Monday, over whether attempting to restrict unseemly behavior that isn’t criminal violates a person’s constitutional rights.
“There is no law against someone making you feel uncomfortable,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and a Loyola Law School professor. “There’s a line to cross and I don’t think he has yet. He’s tiptoeing around the law.”
My question is…what about the rights of a toddler or a child? Don’t they have any privacy rights? Don’t they deserve to be protected from sexual depravity and exploitation?
Why isn’t this behavior illegal??
Why do pedophiles have more rights than small children? What makes a pedophile more important than a baby or child? I just don’t get it.
I mean, why should a 3 year old, or a 4, 5, 6 year old, or any child be aware that there are creepy men that lust after them and if they want to take their picture, put it up on the internet and/or sit next to them and sexually fantasize about them, then they just have to deal. If a man wants to sit underneath a playground set and look up a small child’s skirt, is society obligated to protect that right???
That should be unacceptable to any human being with any decency.
We need law makers to act. Unfortunately, our laws are not adequate for this new internet threat. Our founding fathers could not have had the foresight to imagine a loophole would exist to make the exploitation of children legal.
This is not okay. It should never be okay.
All original content © 2002 - 2013 Imperfect Parent®. Imperfect Parent and Mominatrix are registered trademarks.
The views, opinions and information expressed in articles and blog posts published on imperfectparent.com and all subdomains are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of The Imperfect Parent or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of any entity of, or affiliated with, Imperfect Parent. The Imperfect Parent is designed for entertainment purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for medical, health, legal, or financial advice from a professional.
Reproduction of material from any of Imperfect Parent's pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.