REPOST:  The Looming Horror Of Normalizing Pedophilia

Terrifying, but wholly predictable given recent events.  The real question is, how does one combat this movement?  It’s one thing to understand the science behind sexual perversion of all stripes, it’s something entirely different to embrace said behavior as non-criminal. 

But of course, they were all born this way, so it must be allright.

KTF!...mrb

Tomorrow, pedophilia. The next thing after that - declaring that rape is not a crime? Bestiality?  Running nekkid in the streets?

In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder from the DSM.  In 1970 and 1971, the gay activists disrupted the APA convention.  They reportedly forged APA credentials, gained access to the exhibit area, and threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuality could be cured.  The next year, they were permitted a display booth and invited to participate on a panel.
After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

Most people are disgusted with pedophiliacs, and have no problem with tossing them into jail or psychiatric hospitals where they belong, and I am one of those people.

“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,”

Uh oh, studies show that impulses can be denied and subjugated to a higher law.
That banner won’t fly well over the next ____Pride Parade.

Such a scientific conclusion is in conflict with the pervailing world view that most sexual desires are natural and must be acted upon in order for people to be self fulfilled and truly happy.

Undergroundpewster:

That banner won’t fly well over the next ____Pride Parade.

BWA-HA-HA!

Yeah, the Progressive Church might have to switch tactics and borrow a page from Richard III.

“Pride?  Oh, no!  The go-go boys and the drag queens are just here to thank God for their humility.”

And this is shocking? If you have not been following NAMBLA and the homosexual movement, I guess you would. Not to mention the material being mainstreamed into the public schools at the Federal level in k-12 that promotes pedophilia!

And this on the eve of a massive strengthening of the “age of consent” laws in Louisiana this legislative session.  Now the age of consent here is 17.  Anyone 17 or over having sex with someone 2.5 years their junior and less than 17, even consensual, is guilty of felony carnal knowledge, which requires them to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives (among other punishments including jail time, etc). 

Talk about confusing messages to the kids…..

KTF!...mrb

This is total crap.  Do you have ANY IDEA what incredible damage pedophiles do to young children?  It “fractures” their personality for the rest of their lives…they have to develop 2 personalities - one that deals with the abuse, another for everything else.

...and to anyone coming near to any of MY kids or future grandkids - no “law” will stop me from defending them…

“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”

Ah, I see. If only pedophilia weren’t classified as a crime, then pedophiles would be upstanding, law abiding citizens. People like this who are so callous that their sexual perversion is more important than the people they harm are psychopaths. It’s horrible that they should be given any credibility at all.

The push to normalize pedophilia is not new.  Some years ago protests were raised over the suggestion that intergenarational sex could be consensual and even benefecial for the minor involved.  Desptie the protests by outsider the premise did find acceptance amongst some so called experts.

I also figured this day was coming when it became a requirement for those entering 7th grade to have a hepatitis B vaccination.  The excuse given was that the majority of children are sexually active by 14 years of age so giving it at 12-13 years of age was one way of making sure they were protected by that age.  I did not then and do not now believe there are that many 14 year olds who engage in behavior or professions that put them at risk for hepatitis B.  So there was in the advocation for this the underlying understanding that people at risk (mostly older teens and adults) would be having sex with these middle school students.  Once the normal accepted age for sexual activity is 14 you can darn well be certain a push to lower that will be seen in the future.

You can also tell a push to normalize pedophilia is going to increase by reading any of the sexual education materials distributed and supported by Planned Parenthood and their allies.

I’m reposting this Mark Shea quote from “How Pedophilia Might Regain Its Cool” because it’s a real zinger:

The amazing thing will be when the day comes that our Chattering Classes and Manufacturers of Culture simultaneously celebrate pedophiles, condemn the Church for not protecting children from pedophiles, *and* condemn the Church for condemning pedophilia. The Church, actually having a body of moral teaching its members can betray, can always be arraigned because its members are sinners. That’s easy peasy. The really amazing thing is how the world, having no principles beyond expedience, can simultaneously celebrate and condemn moral acts depending on how useful it is in attacking the Church

The hidebound reactionaries who now make up the New Right Wing of the Episcopal Church may need to stop clamoring for gay people to marry each other and open up the listening process to some folks who’ve really been given the cold shoulder.

If anything goes wrong in the eyes of the world, they can always be thrown under the bus until it’s safe to let them climb out and try again later.

Certainly. 

Provided that the Law looks the other way when it comes to parents acting on behalf of their children.

I don’t even know where to begin on this one, and the fact that such a conference is being held speaks to abysmal depths of sin-sickness that our culture has descended into. 
These individuals seem to have a convenient omission here, that being that when played out, pedophilia requires the participation of one who has not consented, or one lacking the developmental ability to truly concent to the acts.  What they seem to be proposing is the emancipation of the predator and further victimization (and dehumanization) of the child victim.

OK - here’s a minority report!  We have a friend - a strong Christian - who struggles with feelings of sttraction to children. He loathes his feelings, he has repented of them, he has never acted on them - although he has shared with us that sometimes the temptation is very strong. He knows that Jesus is helping him change.

IF - and only IF - this story is about helping people acknowledge and deal with these types of feelings, then I would say fine. IF however if its about normalizing such feelings, then its abominable - and the first person to agree with me would be my friend.

Here’s the question - are people on this forum saying that ANY acknowledgment of the feelings of “minor attracted persons” (what a ghastly term!) is equivalent to “normalizing” behaviour?

I can only speak from myself, but historically it seems that we swiftly move from “understanding feelings and behavior” to “accepting feelings and behavior” to “normalizing feelings and behavior” to “de-criminalizing feelings and behavior”.  There are some very recent examples of this process.

Having issued this warning, I would never, ever want to deter anyone from seeking treatment for these feelings.  But if we follow the same path same-sex sex followed, eventually the person doesn’t have anything to be sorry for.  That’s when I get crazy.

KTF!...mrb

The Greeks going back thousands of years knew what would happen once Pandora’s Box was opened.  The GLBT+P lobby has no clue…nor do they care.

If I ever find that any of my grandchildren have been approached by a pedophile, and if they can furnish me with proof of his or her identification and describe his or her attempts to persuade them to accept their advances, I swear that I will use every legal means at my disposal to see that they are brought before a court of law and punished.

Comment on # 8 above: .... whatever the negative or adaptive personality effects, this experience ruins the life of the child even into adulthood, and then everyone who gets close to them. Much study after personal experience… badly broken, took years to heal.

#15

IF - and only IF - this story is about helping people acknowledge and deal with these types of feelings, then I would say fine. IF however if its about normalizing such feelings, then its abominable - and the first person to agree with me would be my friend.

They tip their hand in at least two ways that they are angling for the latter: i) they want to remove pedophilia from the DSM. But what possible purpose could that serve, other than trying to normalize the behavior? Your friend should be treated with compassion and sympathy, but he’d still admit that it’s undesirable and horrible that he has these feelings. As such, it should be classified as a mental illness. Saying that it is not an illness will certainly not encourage people to acknowledge and deal with such feelings, if they think there is nothing “wrong” with them. ii) They are against sex offender notification laws. Again, what possible purpose does this serve, other than to de-stigmatize and soften the consequences for the act of pedophilia. It has nothing to do with helping people get treatment or deal with the problem.

#18, delete the word pedophile, go back in time 40 years, insert the word homosexual, and then repeat what you said.

Today that would get you nowhere in the court system with the homosexual you are mad at and possibly you might be charged with a hate crime.  And your grandchild might be totally confused at your behavior based on what he/she has been taught in the public school (indoctrination) system

This is the exploitation of a child for the gratification of craven lust and it is straight from the pit of hell. 

There are only two kingdoms.  Jesus said we are either with Him or against Him, gathering with Him or scattering and destroying.

These people, like the GBLT pride crowd, obviously do not want to surrender their desires to follow the way, word and will of GOD.  They live for the kingdom of the world, flesh and devil that opposes God.  They are slaves to sin which fractures, divides, separates, distorts, disorients, scatters and destroys human souls.

This is what will happen to them: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

Then there is: “It would be better for him that a millsotne were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” (Luke 17:2)

So much for the sweet, permissive Jesus.

If a group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from [DSM-5]

But that isn’t going to happen. It’s not on the APA agenda, it’s not even being discussed. So this article seems to be unnecessary scare-mongering.

The new edition of DSM is being produced with some transparency. Proposed changes are are published online, as are the rationales for them, and anyone can contact the editors to express an opinion.

So if you look at the page concerning pedophilia on their web-site (here), you can see the current version, the proposed revision and the rationale for the changes. There’s a general change to distinguish between the ascertainment of a paraphilia and the diagnosis of paraphilic disorder. Second, they’re going to make a distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia (making them both sub-types of a new category of Pedohebephilic Disorder). And they want to introduce the use of child pornography as a diagnostic criterion.

As they say:

It should be noted that the proposed specifier, “Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children,” would reflect the classical definition of pedophilia. Thus, this change would produce little disruption in on-going clinical or epidemiological research.

So pedophilia is going to remain in DSM-5.

This statement by a speaker at this conference reveals the mindset and intentions of this organization:

““Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.”

None of those present objected to this statement.  Evidently they agreed with him.

21.  Lotsa luck trying to teach that in our schools here….especially the elementary schools, because there would be more than one or two parents up on charges if they found their children were being exposed to this.  We have a large Hispanic community here, and they don’t take kindly to that kind of thing.  They have a little thing called ‘family honor,’ and they have a habit of handling things outside of the courts.  It’s usually kept quiet, but perpetrators ‘get the point.’

#25, here is a brief summary of what is going to be taught in your schools in California;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=7653

If the political activists “mainstream” pedophilia, you think that won’t be the next wave?

Read the article carefully.  Groups “with experience” in identifying “hate” environments will be contracted by your state.  In MA they teach 14 year olds the proper techniques for homosexual sex.

Remember: never say never…........

But that isn’t going to happen. It’s not on the APA agenda, it’s not even being discussed. So this article seems to be unnecessary scare-mongering.

  Wow.  What a relief.  Because nothing like thishas ever happened before, right?
http://pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html

I am immediately contacting our Tea Party Coordinator with this news.  Thanks for the info.

Lots of icky age-related philias out there (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual), all waiting for recognition and affirmation.

Paedophilia: before puberty.
Hebephilia: during puberty.
Ephebophilia: after puberty, before adulthood.
Gerontophilia: the elderly.

40 years ago, I wouldn’t have thought that homosexual practice would ever be decriminalized, and taken out of the list of mental disorders (DSM-II, I think). I certainly wouldn’t have thought that any state would allow homosexuals to marry each other. God forbid that any church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization would be performing weddings of homosexuals, or the blessing of homosexual practice.

In the big picture of things, 40 years isn’t a very long time at all.

Many of the same arguments supporting homosexual practice are being used for the chronophilias. One exception, perhaps - I don’t know off hand what the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures say about sexual relationships and marriage before and during puberty. And, I don’t have time or desire to do THAT Bible study.

Wow.  What a relief.  Because nothing like this has ever happened before, right?

That doesn’t mean it’s happening now, Sweets.

I always thought incest and polygamy would go first in the “defining deviancy down” sweepstakes.  Talk about a late surge from a dark-horse. 

Especially incest.  Marriage within families was quite common in royal houses in the levant and those cranky Hebrews took such a dim view on it.

Sweets,
If memory serves, the APA did not have removing homosexuality from the DSM on their radar screen in the 70’s either.  It may also be of interest to you that one of the leaders of the movement to remove homosexuality, Dr. Richard Green, is a proponent of removing pedophilia from the DSM.  As Ralph states above, the real danger is in thinking this could not happen.

Remember that the governing criteria for liberal sexual morality is consent.  Liberals do not accept that pre-pubescent children can consent to sexual behavior, so it is unlikely in the extreme that any change to the DSM is forthcoming.  Said change would be inconsistent with a liberal world view.  It would also be essentially meaningless in legal terms.  Every lawmaker in the country would race to the nearest microphone to denounce the APA for its change.  The only practical implication for such a move would be to discredit the APA - which is why all right-thinking people everywhere should earnestly pray that this change would be enacted.  It’s not often a mortal enemy contemplates shooting himself in the head (metaphorically speaking, that is.) 

carl

>Remember that the governing criteria for liberal sexual morality is consent.  Liberals do not accept that pre-pubescent children can consent to sexual behavior, so it is unlikely in the extreme that any change to the DSM is forthcoming. 

I disagree.  Remember that today’s liberals are not yesterday’s liberals.  Bear in mind that the mindset of the West (The UK is the most advanced on this) is that meaning of life is sex.  To deny ANYONE sex is a denial of their most fundamental right.  Deny sex to child is to deny them the meaning of life.  Long have a predicted paedophilia being noramlised in the West. In fact, I’m surprised it’s taken this long for the lobbiests to move on this.

Consent…?  If consent was key why ban the opposing POV on matters of abstinence in schools, abortion and even religious belief?  Today’s liberals are highly coercive.  The talk of consent is just a cover.

>.Every lawmaker in the country would race to the nearest microphone to denounce the APA for its change.

Yes, of course.  At the moment.  But we have been here before.  This is only the first step.  The lobbiests know it will led to outrage.  To start with… Then you get the voices of dissent which the media portray sympathetically, then they cunningly set up court cases, documentaries then follow, more opposing voices played even more sympathetically, the voices of the old order are portrayed as unthinking zealots…. and slowly orthodoxy shifts.  We have been here before.  Watch TEC get behind this as well.

>The only practical implication for such a move would be to discredit the APA - which is why all right-thinking people everywhere should earnestly pray that this change would be enacted.  It’s not often a mortal enemy contemplates shooting himself in the head (metaphorically speaking, that is.)

That would be true if the APA was acting alone.  Doubt very much that that is the case.  Watch fo rthe media!!  The homosexual revolution owes its success in a major way to the liberal (and rather homosexual) media.  The states on paedophile and homosexual desire speak for themselves.  So the gay lobbiests REALLY want our children - in every possible way.

So the media are going to try their best to shift public opinion.  The APS declaration I doubt is meant to change anything in its own right. It is meant to give the media something to “facilitate discussion.”

If the media get behind the APA and NAMBLA (and I think they will) then all bets are off.

So, how did that event go?  Does anyone have anything to relate, beyond the pre-conference news release? 
Should pedophilia no longer be considered an aberrant psychological condition, then any associated molestation would be recognized as wholly criminal, an intentional criminal assault without extenuation.  The perpetrator would not be afforded mental treatment leading to eventual release, albeit supervised.  He/She would be ordered to punitive confinement, extended for the protection of the public.
Which approach would be the preferred one?  Is one “liberal” and the other “conservative”?  We would pray for those afflicted wherever they would find themselves.
SkyFox

#33,#34 very interesting. As an analogy, or a canary in the cave, I think Obama’s mistake is that he has moved too quickly and revealed too clearly where he wants to go. So if Obama is rejected in 2012, I’d say there is hope that people are still capable of waking up - to the pedophilia as well as other issues. If he’s re-elected, then it’s “game over, man, game over”.

There are not so many things in this life that cannot be forgiven, but stealing innocence from a child surely is one of them. It denies the most basic of our human instincts - to care for and protect the young. Consequently we look not just at a crime, or an assault, or an abuse, but at an expression of inhumanity.
The mounting evidence is that ordinary human society and its machinery has no answer to this.

Chris Baker - Durham UK

[34] jedinovice

You must represent your opponent accurately. 

Bear in mind that the mindset of the West (The UK is the most advanced on this) is that meaning of life is sex

Liberalism is founded upon autonomy and the presumed goodness of man.  A liberal does not find the ‘meaning of life in sex.’  He finds meaning through the instantiation of autonomy as expressed by the authentic will.  At the center of his moral universe is the idea of consent, for consent is the acknowlegement of the primacy of human will.  A liberal considers evil to be the imposition of burden in the absence of consent.  He defines injustice as that which frustrates the fulfillment of authentic desires that originate in the authentic will.

A liberal may struggle with incest, and polyamory, and and many other deviant proclivities because each can be justified on the basis of legitimate consent.  But he isn’t going to justify the sexualization of prepubescent children.  A child cannot give legitimate consent in the liberal moral universe.  You might as well accuse a liberal of justifying rape.  It might eventually happen, for I would never underestimate the depraved nature of man.  But it would require that the dominant liberal worldview first be replaced. 

If consent was key why ban the opposing POV on matters of abstinence in schools, abortion and even religious belief?

Liberals oppose any instruction that would serve to delegitimize certain sexual choices on the basis of any criteria other than consent.  They also understand that sex is a powerful lever by which children may be pulled away from their parents.  Most sex education isn’t about sex.  It’s about ethical re-orientation.  The educator says “I will give you permission to have sex.  Your parents are wrong about it.”  He trusts the child will infer that his parents are wrong about everything else as well, and so shift his alliegence to the permissive replacement. 

carl

>You must represent your opponent accurately.

I completely agree!  I am trying to do that.  But we know that what liberals say with their mouths does not reflect their true thought a lot of the time.  See Williams and Schori!  Alas, we cannot take liberals at their word.

>Liberalism is founded upon autonomy and the presumed goodness of man.

Classical liberalism - yes!!  Today’s liberals are not the same breed.

Example:  Old style liberals would be horrified by today’s censorship under the guise of ‘political correctness.’  They would uphold the famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Attributed to Voltaire but I gather mistakenly.)  But today’s liberals are the fastest to impose ‘hate speech’ legislation, media censorship and shouting down of opponents. 

If you are speaking of true liberals then I agree with you and there is nothing more to say.  But I do not believe today’s liberals - the ones who are in charge anyway, are such.  Obama is supposed to be a liberal.  You see him defending notions of liberty to the death?  Oh no.

>  A liberal does not find the ‘meaning of life in sex.’  He finds meaning through the instantiation of autonomy as expressed by the authentic will.

Classical liberalism, yes.  Today’s ‘liberalism’ is much more a form of Darwinism in which the sexual impulse is seen as the meaning of life.  I will say that there may be a difference between the liberals of the US and the UK.  The ‘liberals’ here are very much followers of Dawkins who has at the top of *his* commandments…

1. Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

That’s his number one commandment.  Today’s liberals in the UK are a very atheistic bunch and hold that the closest we have to a spiritual experience is sex.  The ultimate expression of being is sex.  To restrict sex for anyone is to deny them the greatest experience known to man.  I expect a justification of paedophilia to come with an argument in the form of “How dare we deny children sexual experience?!  How can we restrict their rights to sex?”  In the UK sexual experience is becoming it’s own justification.

>At the center of his moral universe is the idea of consent, for consent is the acknowlegement of the primacy of human will.  A liberal considers evil to be the imposition of burden in the absence of consent.  He defines injustice as that which frustrates the fulfillment of authentic desires that originate in the authentic will.

Which when mixed into strong Darwinian notions hods that the sexual impulse should not be restrained in anyway.  Not that our ‘liberal’ judges are incredibly lax in prosecuting rape cases.  This notion is becoming corrupted to orbit around sexual activity.  Come to the UK to see a culture and people that live around the belief that free sex is the meaning of life!

>A liberal may struggle with incest, and polyamory, and and many other deviant proclivities because each can be justified on the basis of legitimate consent.  But he isn’t going to justify the sexualization of prepubescent children. 

Personally I did not say it did.

>A child cannot give legitimate consent in the liberal moral universe. 

I expect a number of liberals to start arguing that a child CAN give such consent.  NAMBLA argues they can…

>You might as well accuse a liberal of justifying rape. 

Actually, I have liberals struggle to claim that rape is always wrong (if only because it blows their moral relativity to pieces!) 

>It might eventually happen, for I would never underestimate the depraved nature of man.  But it would require that the dominant liberal worldview first be replaced.

Quite!  That is exactly MY point!  I think you are living in the past (or maybe the present in the US.  As I say, the UK is far more advanced in the decline than the US.)  I argue that classic liberalism is largely dead and been replaced by a neo-atheistic, strongly Darwinian position in terms of sex in which anything goes!  I know plenty of liberals who appeal to Darwin and Richard Dawkins but know nothing of Voltaire or the Enlightenment.

>  If consent was key why ban the opposing POV on matters of abstinence in schools, abortion and even religious belief?

>Liberals oppose any instruction that would serve to de-legitimize certain sexual choices on the basis of any criteria other than consent.  They also understand that sex is a powerful lever by which children may be pulled away from their parents.  Most sex education isn’t about sex.  It’s about ethical re-orientation.  The educator says “I will give you permission to have sex.  Your parents are wrong about it.”  He trusts the child will infer that his parents are wrong about everything else as well, and so shift his alliegence to the permissive replacement.

On that I completely agree with you!  Except, I would argue that a lot of liberals in the UK are using sex education as a means of softening up our kids to future advances.

Maybe I am wrong.  But I have been predicting the normalisation of paedophilia for a while now.  So far I have been horribly, terribly right about the march of the anti-Christian, pro-free sex agenda here in the UK.  I wish, for once, I were wrong.

I do hope you are right about US liberals.  UK ones… I wouldn’t put money on them not advancing this.  The UK is completely beholden to the various Homosexual lobbies and we know they want children!  Given the power the lobbies have here, I would not want to bet against the normalisation of paedophilia.  I mean, you should see our TV!

If it’s any help…

Talking politically, there are liberals lift in the Uk.  The old liberal party in the UK creased to exist a long time ago.  It’s successor, the “Liberal Democrats” are more an splinter group from the old, hard left labour party.  OK, the SDP party that split from Labour was less crazed than the Communist Labour party under Michael Foot.  But the Labour party and the SDP, to become the Lib-Dems re-aligned and it’s impossible to tell their policies apart now!

Both parties drink heavily from Marx, not Voltaire (Not the Voltaire was much good.)

So the liberalism you describe is old school liberalism which in the UK no longer exists - politically speaking.

In relation to the US one has to ask, does old school liberalism still exist?  (Could be from what you say.)

I then ask, who is in charge, however?  The old liberals or the neo-‘liberals’ (Read Marxists with another name.)  At which point I ask who is the current President?

I would also way that while pushing outright paedophilia in the UK is hard for a number of reasons not least that it is too good a stock to beat the Catholic Church into submission with) the encouragement of underage sex among children is well underway and no-one prosecutes.  It is not a long walk from saying, “Well, we allow children to give their consent to each other so why not adults?”)  Bingo!

A civilization that doesn’t protect children, that in fact passes laws that allows and even encourages children to be abused, is a “civilization” that is but a generation from complete anarchy.

^^^
Quite!

You see why I am predicting the end of Western civilisation (within just a few years actually) and am jumping out to South East Asia.
You catch the riots in the UK?

BTW, if the Uk cared about the consent of children or their wellbeing the country would take into account children’s wishes to ban divroce due to the pain it has brough them and, based on every darn study on the sun on marriage and fmaily life and it’s benefits to children, we would enshrine the institution of the family.

Instead, the UK has systematically wiped out the family and thrown the children out to the dogs so the adults could carry on sleeping around.

So when it comes to normalising paedophilia in the Uk at least, don’t expect the needs of children to carry any weight.  They haven’t for several generations now.

A liberal may struggle with incest, and polyamory, and and many other deviant proclivities because each can be justified on the basis of legitimate consent.  But he isn’t going to justify the sexualization of prepubescent children. 

Are you really certain of that, Carl?

On one hand, we have some folks taking the RCC to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, we have other folks trying to normalize the same sins that many wicked priests committed.

Anyone confused?

It’s not a Vast Left Wing Consipiracy—there are many different groups and individuals, sometimes working together, sometimes at cross-purposes.  Reality is very very complicated.

Carl, I agree that “consent” is a big deal for lots of my liberal friends & colleagues—“everybody consents, nobody’s getting forced into anything or hurt”.  (And yes, some of them see no particular problem with plural marriages, so long as everything is noncoercive).

We, at least legally, have formal ages of consent, but this is being blurred.  If 15-year olds can consent to having sex with each other (the premise of many sex-ed programs, no?), why can’t they consent with 18-year olds?  19-year olds?  25-year olds?  40?  If they are old enough to consent, why should the age of the person with whom they consent matter?  If gender no longer matters in sexual relations. why should age matter either?  It seems like any firm line drawn here must be arbitrary.  If 15-year olds can consent, why not 14-year olds?  And so on.

[45] Via Mead (Rob Kirby)

If they are old enough to consent, why should the age of the person with whom they consent matter?  If gender no longer matters in sexual relations. why should age matter either?

The reason given is that age difference creates a power imbalance that makes true consent impossible.  Liberals allow sex between peers because of this lack of presumed power imbalance.  Too much age difference creates the power imbalance that obviates consent.  The differentiation is arbitrary as you say.  What exactly is a ‘peer?’  But then all determinations of ‘age of consent’ must be arbitrary.  The very idea of legal adulthood at 18 is arbitrary.  It is something we cannot escape. 

I certainly do believe that men are depraved enough to turn prepubescent children into objects of sexual desire.  I just don’t believe modern liberalism will go that far for the reasons I have expressed.  I do think it could push ‘age of consent’ laws to ridiculously low levels, but it will place the lower limit at puberty.  To claim that liberals will justify a 30 year-old man playing sex games with a seven year-old girl is simply fantasy to me.  It would not be consistent with their worldview. 

carl

The ‘liberals’ here are very much followers of Dawkins who has at the top of *his* commandments…

1. Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

That’s his number one commandment. 

How telling.

I just don’t believe modern liberalism will go that far for the reasons I have expressed.  I do think it could push ‘age of consent’ laws to ridiculously low levels, but it will place the lower limit at puberty.  To claim that liberals will justify a 30 year-old man playing sex games with a seven year-old girl is simply fantasy to me.  It would not be consistent with their worldview.

The only consistency in liberal think is that you can always count on it to serve their desires first although they have well-learned how to bide their time.  Thinking any other way poses too great a threat to our children.

The basic inequality of any two people in a given context and the issues of greater strength/authority/age/knowledge/etc of one person over another person with lesser of those things is a story of dominance and submission.  Beyond ‘being created equal’ in law and the constitutional sense, inequality quickly happens—and that takes us directly to fiduciary relationships and fiduciary ethics.

And those inequalities quickly switch with our differing roles and professions.  For example, the Priest has the strong lead at church and on Monday goes to the parishioner Dentist or auto mechanic—quick switch of roles and authority/expertise.

To this discussion of age and sexuality, laws protect those below an arbitrary age from the dominance of those above the age.  The age is arbitrary and varies from one jurisdiction to another, but all such boundaries are arbitrary.

To the age of consent issue: beyond defining the boundary age, there is no definition to define the meaning of the size of the age difference.  Yes there might need to be one, but who would define it?  And how would it be enforced?

Fiduciary violations of all kinds do suffer from this mismatch between relative ease of identifying them and the imprecision of measuring the extent of violation.  And that is the problem at hand.

All of the “Safeguarding God’s Children” and similar required trainings in TEC are about fiduciary violations, although it never gets said that way. 

Imagine the training situation in which TEC needs to retrain all the clergy and leaders from one protective model to a replacing permissive model!

Here’s an article about the conference - http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=336741

“But he isn’t going to justify the sexualization of prepubescent children.”

I wish I was as sanguine about that, carl.

If, for the sake of mere monetary profit, there were clothing manufacturers and retailers perfectly happy to sell trashy gear to 6-12 year olds, then I fear I don’t see someone with a genuine (if wrong) conviction that children are being denied their human rights to happiness by expressing their sexuality sitting back and saying “Okay, children should not be thought of in sexual terms”.

Just in time to get it on the agenda of the 2015 GC.

Like Gnu Ordure, I would be very surprised if pedophilia is removed from DSM-V.  To do so, would in effect remove psychiatrists from involvement in treating it. 

The psychiatrist and psychologist types among us would know best about this, but I understand that some types of pedophiles have virtually no prospects of rehabilitation, but others do actually have significant prospects (a 19-year old caught in consensual sexual activity with his 15-year old girlfriend, for example).  The tragedy at least in my country is that treatment is very rarely made available in prisons and parole programs, even to those who could most benefit from it.