Yesterday we saw Breitbart and Salon’s attempt at mainstreaming Satanism (each side argued for different sects). Today, a brief look at the mainstreaming of pedophilia.
The images are the top results in a search of the term “pedophile” on Salon’s site (click here to try it yourself). My particular favorite is “Meet pedophiles who mean well”, with “Redefining pedophilia with pedophiles’ help” running a close second. Yours?
Well, that’s Salon, you say, and their soul was long since lost; show me something new. Okay, something new. The Independent published “Not all paedophiles are bad people – we need to have a sense of proportion.”
Of course all pedophiles are bad people, because the desire to have sex with prepubescent children is evil. In the same way, the desire to commit any sin is evil, and so, since each of us has sinful desires, each of us are bad people, too. (if you quail at the word sin swap in crime). But there are degrees of badness, stemming from differences in evil. The desire to swipe a grape from a grocer’s shelf is less evil than the desire of grooming a six-year-old for your perverse pleasures. Likewise, a person who eats that grape is less bad than the one who despoils the child.
It’s only us enlightened moderns who believe the myth that people are “basically good”. A society built on that myth must fail when actual human nature meets reality—but that’s a story for another time. The temptation is not the sin, but the fantasy based on that temptation often is; and the act is always wrong. There is good reason (as I have pointed out before) the Lord’s prayer says lead us not into temptation, and that good reason is the knowledge we are bad people apt to act on temptation.
So much for the theology, which works, as I say, even without religion if you think in terms of crime and actual human nature. Now to practicalities.
You’re a drunk but have been off the bottle for some time. You need a new job; where do you apply? (A) A brewery, (B) A tavern, (C) As a wine taster, or (D) Any place far from booze.
If you said (D), you’ve failed the test, because a hidden assumption is that all people are “basically good.” Indeed, it’s best, say mainstreamers, if you surrounded yourself with the sauce so that you could turn your attitude into a “social good.”
Don’t believe it? According to The Independent’s author:
In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.
The old way of thinking equated putting pedophiles in charge of children with placing pyromaniacs in fireworks factories. But we now see this as cruel, because that way of thinking assumes people tend to act on their strong desires. Not all people and not at all times, true; but, well, all it takes is one lit match.
And then there’s this:
If not all paedophiles molest children, much child abuse (perhaps 80 per cent) is perpetrated by non-paedophiles, often family or friends. The UK legal age of consent of 16 is arbitrary. Many men admit attraction to underage girls, even if they would not consider taking advantage.
This strange paragraph combines the No True Pedophile fallacy (variants are common in all sexual activities which do not accord with actual reproduction) because of the notion that since pedophiles are often family members they are not true pedophiles, with the advocacy of pedophilia because of the hint the age of consent is too old, with the false notion that pedophilia is as common as apple pie.
This, then, is mainstreaming.
Incidentally, a useful service provided by The Independent is to call pedophilia a sexual “orientation”, a definition worth pondering when considering whether to support laws banning “discrimination” based on “orientation.”