- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Making Pedophilia Respectable

I hope you’re sitting down for this. Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted British pedophile, has published an essay in a peer-reviewed academic quarterly arguing for legalized pedophilia. Justin Lee writes about the situation in his Arc Digital column. [1] Excerpts:

At 73 years old, O’Carroll has long been a bogeyman for both the left and the right — not to mention the children he has violated. To the right, he’s the perfect condensed symbol for the Sexual Revolution’s true telos — the nihilistic destructuring of human relations. To the left, he’s an albatross, a useful idiot for conservatives intent on establishing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. He’s also a testament to the degraded standards of interdisciplinary scholarship.

His Sexuality & Culture article, which reads like the senior thesis of a bright-enough undergraduate edgelord majoring in philosophy, attempts to make the case that virtue ethics fails to provide a convincing justification for rejecting sex between adults and children. Moreover, he argues that in an ideal world, virtue would be understood in such a way as to include such practices and even celebrate them.

Lee pulls this quote from O’Carroll’s paper. Remember, this is O’Carroll writing, not Lee. Lee has highlighted a part of the passage:

The assertion that children are incapable of reciprocal sexual relations is empirically unfounded. Where is the evidence? A comparison with animals is again suggested. Dogs appear to be perfectly capable of reciprocity in loving relationships with human beings, often to the extent of being every bit as devoted and loyal in their affections towards their owners as their owners are towards them, and perhaps even more so. Again, even the personhood-restricting Scruton has acknowledged this (Scruton 2013 [2]2014 [3]). Dogs may lack a sophisticated appreciation of the other’s “intentionality”, on which Scruton sets so much store as a qualifying criterion of moral agency within sexual relations, but this appears to be no barrier to reciprocity in what many would consider to be its morally essential features. There should be mutual affection and attention to the other’s wishes. What else is needed, really? It may be thought this analogy is insufficiently close because dogs are not sexual partners of their human masters. But they can be. Dogs are not shy about expressing sexual interest in humans, and when their owner reciprocates that interest a sexual (and loving) relationship may develop, as has been attested in Dearest Pet, a book by Dutch controversialist (and children’s writer!) Midas Dekkers, and endorsed in a review by philosopher Peter Singer (Dekkers 2000 [4]; Singer 2001 [5]). (emphasis mine)

Got that? O’Carroll says that because bestiality is permissible, so too is pedophilia. Lee summarizes:

This question-begging dismissal of intentionality serves a dark purpose: the banishment of “consent” as a relevant category of concern. Consent, after all, is predicated upon intentionality. This is much too reminiscent of Peter Singer’s argument for bestiality, which can be summarized thusly: We eat animals without their consent, so why not screw them? Children, especially young children, consent to little of what we subject them to, so why shouldn’t we let O’Carroll bugger babies?

Lee, who is a professor, attacks the O’Carroll paper from a philosophical perspective, but finally says that it’s too filthy to carry on dissecting. “Wading through this feculence has been morally exhausting,” he writes. “Stare too long into the abyss and you’ll need to take a shower.”

change_me

Here, though, is how his column ends:

But I have to give credit where it’s due: O’Carroll is right that, in order to be logically compelling, the case against pedophilia must be grounded in an anthropology that sees human sexuality as sacred. Any ethic premised in liberal individualism will inevitably leave room for the acceptance of adult-child sex. How could it be otherwise, when the arbitrary exuberance of the human will is held to be the highest good? We’re left with only the will-to-power of the individual or the intersubjective will-to-power of the collective. Either way, we’re left with nihilism.

“At the heart of liberty,” wrote Anthony Kennedy, that arch-sophist, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

For Thomas O’Carroll, for all of us, that “mystery” covers a multitude of sins.

Trust me, you need to read the whole thing.  [1] Try to wrap your mind around the fact that a peer-reviewed academic quarterly has just published this convicted pedophile’s philosophical argument for legalizing the rape of children.

The reader who sent me Lee’s column added:

There’s apparently a whole community of pedophiles on Twitter. They call themselves “MAPs” (minor-attracted persons). Many of them euphemistically refer to themselves as protectors of children and anti-abuse activists. Some like to use the label “NOMAP” (NO=”non-offending). The same people will also note their “aoa” (age of attraction) in their profile. It’s utterly surreal that the great and good at Twitter are scouring the platform of anti-trans content but are perfectly content with tolerating pedophile community-building.

Here’s a horrifying thread on a handful of these accounts. If you read it, you’ll notice that many (most?) of these people also identify as trans, queer, or gay.

The thread begins with this tweet. To be clear: CherryGuts is not endorsing them; he/she is exposing them:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [7]

There is nothing NSFW about the thread — it’s just screenshots of these users’ profiles. Such as:

You get the idea. Twitter is kicking off anyone who “deadnames” or “misgenders” a trans person, but allows stuff like this. The reader who sent me the Lee column adds, with regard to my post about Tumblr ending porn and thereby outraging Social Justice Pervs [8]:

An element of this story you might not be aware of is that a score of tumblr perverts are already migrating to Twitter—which, of course, is more than happy to host porn. This is sure to make Twitter even more toxic. Just think of all the “activists” who also lurk on tumblr interacting with this stuff on their regular Twitter accounts (assuming they don’t make secondary, anonymous accounts).

The normalization of pedophilia is coming. The destructuring of human relations under the guise of liberating desire is the goal of these people, whether they realize it or not. Without God, or some other binding source of sacred order, there is only nihilism. If you will not have God, prepare to make room for Tom O’Carroll and his celebration of diversity.

UPDATE: Reader kgasmart comments:

The normalization of pedophilia is coming.

I agree, but when it does it will come under the ruse of “marginalized communities” because really, who’s more marginalized than a pedophile?

The concept of “consent” will be the biggest hurdle to get over. The left has fetishized consent; so long as consent is involved, any and all sexual practices are permitted – indeed, to be celebrated! But who can give consent?

How is it the LGBT left holds that pre-teens can consent to, say, taking hormones or binding their breasts, or whatever measures precede transition surgery – but those pre-teens can’t consent to sex? How can they consent to one but not the other; how can they have full agency regarding the first – but not the second?

That’s the slippery slope we’ll slide down here.

UPDATE.2: Reader Xenie:

Lee lays out perfectly why “consent” ethics will be inadequate to stop this: children are already given medical treatments, personal hygiene care, etc, that they cannot consent to. Either the powers that be will reverse engineer things to claim they can give consent after all (as is happening with the transing of very young children) or they will shrug consent off as not always mattering so much, or for certain important things. If consent is all you’ve got, then, it’s game over either way, and evil wins the day.

I cannot overstate just how much the rhetoric of the transgender movement is working to soften society up for this horrific pedo revolution to come. If you can believe, as many well-meaning liberals now do, that a 4 year old boy can meaningfully declare himself a girl and “consent” to a name change, social status change, and then, at age 12 or so, the first medical interventions to transform him into a “real girl,” then how will they defend themselves against the idea that he could also “consent” to a “mentoring” relationship of a sexual nature with some “caring” adult?

199 Comments (Open | Close)

199 Comments To "Making Pedophilia Respectable"

#1 Comment By VikingLS On December 6, 2018 @ 8:39 pm

“There’s a lot of merit in that analysis, and Viking fell flat trying to make out that a conservative straw man was a liberal talking point.

@Siarlys,

How exactly, and no emotive arguments Siarlys.

Also please explain to me where I differ from our host, or did he fall flat too? I was after all supporting his point. Is Rod wrong too?

If he isn’t wrong where do we differ?

#2 Comment By VikingLS On December 6, 2018 @ 9:01 pm

It really is important to be consistent in your arguments. You can’t just say “bad people aren’t allowed to use our arguments for bad causes.”

Or what? You’ll beat them up? That’s where a lot of you are on this now. You laid the groundwork for pedophilia and now you’re saying “Yeah, but if any pedophiles try to use these arguments, we’ll beat them up!”

No you won’t. That’s illegal.

#3 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 6, 2018 @ 9:11 pm

So has the older man/younger girl thing. It’s almost like it’s an old man thing, and not a gay thing.

Maybe its two or three different things? Or even five? Maybe all of them evil? Maybe some more so or less so and some not at all?

The Bible is also ambiguous on polygamy

The Torah, and the Old Testament generally, are not the least ambiguous — polygamy is perfectly acceptable, polyandry is not. European Jews adopted monogamy to get along with their Romanized Christian neighbors. middle eastern and north African Jews did not.

#4 Comment By Sheila On December 6, 2018 @ 9:12 pm

Milo Yiannopoulos is a provacateur, or perhaps an unfunny comedian whose sole bit is skewering liberal values. He appears to have no deep beliefs and few if any principles beyond craving attention. He often claims to be kidding about the gross things he says and then suggests he wasn’t totally genuine when he said he was kidding. You really can’t take anything he says seriously.

#5 Comment By EngineerScotty On December 6, 2018 @ 9:23 pm

Empirical evidence to the contrary?

Well, we presently have laws on the books that a) restrain pedophilia, and b) do so without recourse to the Bible or any other metaphysical source.

So, it is being done already.

You may not care for the intellectual or metaphysical basis for our system of laws, at least in this instance, and view it as a grave injustice that the law permits X but not Y whereas your faith condemns X as well. But the law, in general, doesn’t require a metaphysical grounding–in fact, the First Amendment specifically forecloses many such metaphysical arguments, which is why y’all keep losing in the courts. The prime foundation of our laws is, and remains, “we the people”.

(And more specific tenets of our system of constitutional governance tend to place a heavier burden on banning of private conduct; and legal precedent has long proclaimed that banning pedophilia is OK, banning adult homosexuality is not).

#6 Comment By Cavin On December 6, 2018 @ 10:47 pm

Rob G,

I’m familiar with MacIntyre, and generally believe that some variant of virtue ethics is desirable for human flourishing. But I do not believe that virtue ethics does an effective job at resolving disputes in a pluralistic society with 300 million people engaged in a wide array of different activities. In our current situation, I believe that some combination of pragmatism and utilitarianism centered around notions of harm gets it to a reasonable place most of the time. Therefore, I practice virtue ethics within the bounds of various voluntary groups, such as in my church, my triathlon club, my Japanese conversation club, etc., but am fine with a public square whose rules focus on harm prevention. So, perhaps we may agree on what kinds of ethical precepts lead to human flourishing. I just don’t believe that such precepts work well for institutions having any more than a few hundred people, and certain,y not in a society of 300 million. Never mind that our centuries-old common law system rests on notions that align well with pragmatism and utilitarianism. So, I’m happy to let Anscombe govern the ethics by which I participate in voluntary societies and Mill govern the ethics by which I engage with the wider swath of human society.

That said, I’m not convinced that you’re entirely on board with virtue ethics. You still seem to have a soft spot for deontology. If theonomy was once attractive to you, I’d guess that you likely lean that way.

Also, as I noted in response to Franklin, there is more than a thin legal rule standing in the way of our country’s embrace of pedophilia. Opposition to pedophilia is particularly solid in our culture, especially among policy-making elites. By contrast, that same class of elites had already reached a consensus in the 1950s that decriminalizing consensual gay sex was appropriate. And that same class of elites had reached a consensus in favor of same-sex marriage by the mid-1990s. It took time for that elite consensus to make its way to the masses. But it did eventually. Even so, there is nothing analogous underway with respect to normalizing pedophilia. So, while it was quite easy to see by the 1990s that homosexuality would be normalized within a matter of decades, I can’t see anything similar regarding pedophilia.

#7 Comment By madge On December 6, 2018 @ 11:21 pm

“. It simply doesn’t exist. In fact, if you were a NAMBLA supporter, you’d likely have trouble even finding a job at any halfway respectable law firm.”

Or, you know, a job as a janitor at a McDonald’s serving the law firm’s janitorial staff.

#8 Comment By madge On December 6, 2018 @ 11:42 pm

“So has the older man/younger girl thing. It’s almost like it’s an old man thing, and not a gay thing.”

I mean.. just today, Rod wrote a paean to the author of Lolita…

#9 Comment By Cavin On December 7, 2018 @ 12:11 am

Kurt Gayle,

With all due respect, you’re making libelous statements about an entire class of people whom you clearly don’t know.

A disproportionately large number of gay men are NOT pedophiles. FRC publishes a study that makes such a claim, but they arrived at those results by counting all male androphilic pedophiles as gay. This skewed the results because most make adrophilic pedophiles actually claim to be erotically attracted to adult women. Once that error is corrected, the data on which FRC relied generally showed that the rate of androphilic pedophilia may be slightly higher among gay men than among straight men, but is extremely low for both gay and straight men. Most studies give inconclusive results because most pedophiles do not show significant sexual interest in adults. In other words, androphilic and gynephilic pedophiles are more similar to each other than either is to any class of teleiophiles (adults attracted to adults). In fact, we typically use the terms straight and gay to refer to teleiophilia. Because pedophiles experience little teleiophilia, I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to say that any straight or gay people are pedophiles. They are really a class unto themselves.

And, yes, while Scotty’s comment may have been a bit flippant, I think it was legitimate. Teleiophilic people, whether gay or straight, do not typically experience sexual attraction to children. So, it is no less reasonable to suggest that a straight guy may be a gynephilic pedophile than to suggest that a gay guy may be an androphilic pedophile. But how many straight men have ever had to endure an unwarranted comparison to pedophiles? Probably never. But most gay guys have endured it dozens of times over, despite the fact that, with respect to this issue, they are similarly situated to straight guys.

#10 Comment By Josep On December 7, 2018 @ 1:44 am

Let’s not forget guys such as “Human-Stupidity” who somehow defend pedophilia ( [9]). This guy/gal apparently has a thing against laws that criminalize child porn as well.

Not sure if this is relevant, but I’ve seen people, religious or otherwise, justify racism, consumption of pornography, or any other sin on the grounds of some animal instinct that’s often seen among other animal species such as wolves. Some go as far as to even compare humans to said animal species.
This view of man as an animal that needs to express his animal instincts is a level of Darwinian thought that is completely at odds with the Word of God. This animal nature in man is what the Scriptures call the Flesh. Per Romans 8:4-13, the Flesh and the mind of Flesh is Death. Colossians 3:5 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 make it clear that we should not live according to the passions. In a nutshell, we as humans are protected through faith in Christ, not by channeling our “inner wolf”.
I doubt anyone need to believe in Christ to see that mankind is exceptional; even from a secular perspective, the fact that we Homo sapiens wear clothes, read, write, speak, and use technology is a sure sign that we’re not like cats, dogs, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.

One can also argue that the Bible condemns sex before marriage, especially when the minor is under the legal marriage age.

#11 Comment By Rob G On December 7, 2018 @ 8:01 am

“the Bible does not denounce pedophilia”

I never even mentioned the Bible, so moving right along….

“So has the older man/younger girl thing. It’s almost like it’s an old man thing, and not a gay thing.”

Yeah, except that there’s an actual evolutionary component there…species continuation and such. To use one of the homosexuals’ favorite words, it’s “natural” for an older man to be attracted to nubile younger women.

But funny thing….traditional morality puts limits on this type of thing as well. Fancy that!

“I’m not convinced that you’re entirely on board with virtue ethics. You still seem to have a soft spot for deontology.”

I once heard the great scholar of world religions Huston Smith say that he found much of contemporary Western religion suspect because it was almost entirely apophatic and had no cataphatic backup. That’s exactly my feeling about pragmatic/consequentialist ethics. They’re fine as far as they go, but where’s the foundational beef? It seems to me that some sort of deontological (loose sense) backup is needed to prevent them from being completely elastic and arbitrary, and thus subvertible.

To paraphrase Dostoevsky, if there are no eternal verities, all ethics are fungible.

“If theonomy was once attractive to you, I’d guess that you likely lean that way.”

Theonomy attracted me due to the strictness of its foundational hermeneutic, not because of anything in theonomy itself. That was 30+ plus years ago, and I’ve long since abandoned that propositional, exclusively text-based approach to hermeneutics.

“there is nothing analogous underway with respect to normalizing pedophilia. So, while it was quite easy to see by the 1990s that homosexuality would be normalized within a matter of decades, I can’t see anything similar regarding pedophilia.”

What about by the 70’s? Foresight over a 20-year period is one thing, but if it takes longer?

In other words, if you can’t say that normalization of homosexuality is the omega point of the sexual revolution, then you can’t say it won’t serve as something of an alpha point for the normalization of other perversions. The door is open, and there is nothing inherent in the logic of the SexRev to shut it in the face of pederasts,
or puppy-lovers and poop-eaters, for that matter. That you currently “can’t see it happening” is immaterial. Very few people in the 70’s saw SSM “happening.” Yet here we are.

#12 Comment By JonF On December 7, 2018 @ 9:41 am

RibG, “harm and consent” are hardly the only principles involved in the question. Maturity and adult competence, which are empirical facts not metaphysical postulates, are also in play. As I noted we did not extend the franchise to children nor abolish alcohol sale-to-minor laws even when we liberalized those laws and it’s precisely because of considerations of maturity that we have not. On alcohol sales, nearly all states raised their age for purchase when it was found that boozing by older teens was causing unacceptable problems. This is what you discount: the practical and empirical aspects of law making. Metaphysics alone is actually quite secondary to legislation. If the public sees an ill result following from certain legal actions, the laws will he changed to combat that and metaphysical consistency be damned. So we’re back to my point that the general public is not about to approve laws that allow “dirty old men” or whoever to start seducing their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Note Franklin Evan’s comment above. Any attempt to permit open sexual season on kids would be met with vehement push back and an actual repeal of age of consent laws would see the legislators responsible promptly dumped from office and laws reinstated by public referenda which would pass with well over 90% of the vote. Now you’re going to say “but look at what happened with sodomy laws!”. But those laws were only supported by a smallish minority of people and rather few people cared about what Adam and Steve or Ava and Eve were up to in privacy of their own bedrooms, since it neither picked their pockets nor broke their legs- nor involved their kids.

#13 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 7, 2018 @ 10:12 am

Cavin,

Thank you for your deeper dive into the issues here. Your argument is nuanced — a bit on the esoteric side, as there are few people of any stripe who follow the “elite” discussions as closely as you do — and I wish to point out one possible discrepancy.

In short, citing same-sex relationships is a bit dangerous unless you clarify how the changes you cite were in the context of legal, consenting adults. I can say anecdotally, having a higher number of LGBTQ friends and close acquaintances than their proportion in the general population (theater community), that same-sex pedophilia is very much a hot-button topic with them. My gay and lesbian friends talk about consent in detail.

My view of the social dynamics matches yours reasonably well. I’m old enough (b. 1956) to have personal knowledge of the shifts since WWII. My parents were immigrants from Europe, spoke with Slavic accents, and I grew up in an ethnically focused community (immigrants and first- and second-generation Irish and Italian Catholics; a significant area of Greeks). I noticed things from witnessing and hearing about my parents’ treatment by others. I observed further shifts in the post-Vietnam War era.

I do have one caveat. The dynamics of change are moving away from a “protective elite”, as you seem to describe the ABA for example, towards popularistic pressures. Trump’s election is a good example of that. Cult of personality, noticeable in my lifetime starting with JFK, moved from a superficial level to a deeply abiding control point.

Conservatives are still feeling the sting of popularist pressures. Decriminalizing same-sex behavior, giving same-sex marriage equal treatment under the law, and the social (and trend towards legal) criminalization of personal opposition to values and morals issues are under their skin and not likely to heal in any generation soon.

I am a social liberal. The label fits me. I’m also a close observer of values and morals, and (after a steep learning curve) I’ve come to be a strong supporter of positions most strongly held and defended by social conservatives. The malaise of our culture is the fallacy that more is always better. It informs what I call the cult of entitlement. It comes down to a single point in my view: no change, no apparent improvement, can be morally justified if it harms others. Pedophilia is an extreme example. Political correctness — the subset notion that “hate” is a valid qualifier of “crime” — is a festering stain on our society. Orwell and Huxley were prophets. So, too, was Ayn Rand… and I cite them as negatives, as authors who described certain things accurately, but whose relevance is being ignored, overlooked or just flying over the heads of people.

#14 Comment By Kurt Gayle On December 7, 2018 @ 10:25 am

Cavin says (Dec 7, 12:11 am): “Kurt Gayle, With all due respect, you’re making libelous statements about an entire class of people whom you clearly don’t know. A disproportionately large number of gay men are NOT pedophiles.”

What I, Kurt Gayle, said (Dec 6, 2:54 pm): “Although a disproportionately large percentage of homosexual males are pedophiles, no one is saying that, if there were no homosexual males, pedophilia would disappear. It would not disappear. And I agree with commenters who make that valid point.”

To repeat: “A disproportionately large PERCENTAGE of homosexual males are pedophiles.”

#15 Comment By J On December 7, 2018 @ 11:54 am

Cavin, you really think the elites have no interest in sexualizing children? What rock have you been hiding under? This has been increasing in our society. Bit by bit. This is a part of the homosexual subculture. Homosexuals need to face up to that fact. It may take awhile, but our transgressive culture will destroy all sexual boundaries.

#16 Comment By J On December 7, 2018 @ 11:59 am

I would suggest looking at the book Harmful to Minors by Levin. Published by a “respectable” press. It attempted to say that relationships between adults and children were not always harmful. These little trial balloons keep going up. Brick by brick, they tear down all walls.

#17 Comment By Lee On December 7, 2018 @ 12:00 pm

I don’t see pedophilia ever being legal or accepted or normalized because there are parents and most of those parents do not want their children to be prey. It might be possible to convince some fathers, perhaps, but most adult women experienced being sexual prey before they got their first bra and know what it feels like even if they did not experience full on harassment or assault. Sure, there are extremists out there wanting it but there are also extremists who think rape should be legal and accepted but that does not mean it will be so. The momentum is certainly in the opposite direction with people finally realizing how pervasive and damaging sexual predation is and with predators finally experiencing consequences for their actions.

#18 Comment By Toño Bungay On December 7, 2018 @ 12:23 pm

I don’t see why sexual relations cannot be regarded similarly to making contracts or driving a car or buying alcoholic drinks. Without bringing God into it, it seems to me that people can reasonably — and easily — determine that children should be off-limits to adults’ sexual desires.

#19 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 7, 2018 @ 2:04 pm

Kurt,

I agree that Cavin’s usage of “libelous” was unwarranted. I will however suggest that statistics is a poor standard for just about everything, and the usual reason is correlation is not causation.

My usual rebuttal goes like this: when a person whose driving I criticize tries to cite traffic fatality statistics being “low” to justify their driving behavior, I respond that while I may have a low percentage probability of being in a fatal incident, when it happens I’ll be 100% dead.

Details matter.

#20 Comment By J On December 7, 2018 @ 2:36 pm

Tono, yet we say that 8 yo kids can choose their gender and make life changing medical decisions that are irreversible…without parental consent/contract. If you disagree you are a “hater.” So, if we are willing to do that, and yes some mothers are, then why not accept they can give consent to other things? After all, it’s just your “opinion” that it’s bad and there is no objective truth that says otherwise. Right? Love wins eh.

#21 Comment By EngineerScotty On December 7, 2018 @ 2:42 pm

Cavin, you really think the elites have no interest in sexualizing children? What rock have you been hiding under? This has been increasing in our society. Bit by bit. This is a part of the homosexual subculture. Homosexuals need to face up to that fact. It may take awhile, but our transgressive culture will destroy all sexual boundaries.

Actually, there are plenty of elites who love to “sexualize” children; Madison Avenue has been doing so for a very long time.

But the sort of “sexualization” they’ve been engaged is a far cry from supporting or legalizing pedophilia; instead, it’s been involved in promoting the idea that kids (particularly girls) need to engage in forms of behavior and dress and such that make them “hot”; even when being done by children well before puberty.

And this is, FTMP, a “heterosexual” project, if it can be called anything (given that girls and not boys are usually the targets of this sort of marketing). And like many instances where sex or sex appeal makes an appearance in commerce, money is the ultimate goal, and the sex is merely the product being traded.

TL;DR: It ain’t NAMBLA’s fault that many of our daughters feel immense pressure to dress like hookers. If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s the fault of tie-wearing executives who go home at night to their own families, and who would never dream of touching a child themselves, but who need to juice that Q4 revenue stream.

#22 Comment By cka2nd On December 7, 2018 @ 3:29 pm

Rob G says: “Very few people in the 70’s saw SSM ‘happening.'”

Maybe not specifically SSM, but local civil rights ordinances were being amended to include gays and lesbians all over the country, which led to the Anita Bryant backlash. That fight continued into the 1980’s, when domestic partnerships started to be written into union contracts. So there were practical, on the ground precedents for SSM 20+ years before states and localities started passing laws allowing for SSM, and 30 years before the Supreme Court finally gave SSM its OK. There is no comparable, actually existing on the ground campaign for “pedophile rights” at this time. As a number of posters here have noted, the exact opposite is the case, with age of consent laws being raised not lowered, and with the related issue of child marriage coming under increased legislative scrutiny. Going by the timeline for gay rights, we’re looking at 40 years or more from now before pedophiles reach the point which LGBT folk have gotten to so far, and I still wouldn’t give you very good odds for that happening.

#23 Comment By cka2nd On December 7, 2018 @ 3:37 pm

J says: “I would suggest looking at the book Harmful to Minors by Levin. Published by a ‘respectable’ press. It attempted to say that relationships between adults and children were not always harmful. These little trial balloons keep going up. Brick by brick, they tear down all walls.”

An academic press, to be precise, but heaven forbid books presenting contrary evidence and cogent, logical arguments be allowed to be published on controversial topics. I had to check, and I haven’t seen too many walls torn down for pedophiles in the 16 years since this book was published.

#24 Comment By JonF On December 7, 2018 @ 4:00 pm

Kurt Gayle, please do not make unsupported generalized factual assertions. Telling a specific anecdote about a gay male pedophile would be fine or offering an opinion that there are many gay pedophiles. But you give us zero reason to accept your umbrella claim, and you come off as a mere bigot.

J, there are certainly specific elite individuals with a taste for “spring chicken”- Roy Moore. Roman Polansky or Kevin Spacey come to mind. But as a whole the elite are about one thing: money, and secondarily, power in order to get and keep it.

#25 Comment By J On December 7, 2018 @ 5:21 pm

Scotty, one only need look at some of the films from Hollywood and books like Levin’s to see how wrong you are. I am not fooled. I see what’s in front of me.

cka, very blithe of you to pass over these signs of the times. You seem fine with the idea of books being published that advocate this horror. That’s a brick down. Another step to normalize it. To use the frog metaphor you don’t heat the water up fast. I prefer not to wait until some new version of Obergefell comes down from on high.

JonF, sure they like power and money. And sex. I’m sure they have a variety of tastes, but this is one of them. One they seem to tolerate in just enough small doses to begin to make it acceptable. These folks are transgressive, there can be no boundaries.

#26 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 7, 2018 @ 5:27 pm

Also please explain to me where I differ from our host, or did he fall flat too? I was after all supporting his point. Is Rod wrong too?

Perhaps you fell flat in trying to support our host’s point, and failing to do so effectively, or doing his point unintentional damage, or, most likely, wandering off on a tangent into the wilderness and drawing cross-fire.

Going by the timeline for gay rights, we’re looking at 40 years or more from now before pedophiles reach the point which LGBT folk have gotten to so far, and I still wouldn’t give you very good odds for that happening.

I wouldn’t either. Pedophiles aren’t going to manage the “my cousin and my neighbor and my co-worker are gay and they’re nice people” imagery. Too many adults are protective of children, and pedophiles are a severe hazard.

But, pedophiles HOPE to join the parade of each new “marginalized” group following each other down the avenue to Acceptance, and this does highlight the infirmity of that parade. Gays have legitimate grievances, but its not because “the blacks get their rights, now we want ours.” Each grievance needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and they are not all equally valid.

“A disproportionately large PERCENTAGE of homosexual males are pedophiles.”

Would that be ten percent vs. three percent among heterosexuals? Or what? It sounds like the fallacy in citing that Americans of African descent have a higher propensity to commit crimes… even if true, all stats I’ve seen leave 80-90 percent of African Americans as non-criminal, and therefore provides no basis for routine discrimination in, e.g., police conduct.

There is much to criticize the LGBTQWERTY faction for — but let’s stick to facts and legitimate criticisms.

#27 Comment By Cavin On December 7, 2018 @ 8:31 pm

Kurt,

I’m not sure that “number” versus “percentage” makes much difference here. As I noted, any such analysis is inherently suspect, as pedophilic men and teleiophilic men generally constitute distinct classes with almost no overlap. So, it makes no justifiable sense to create a category that lumps teleiophilic gay men together with androphilic pedophiles, and then to impute the sins of androphilic pedophiles to teleiophilic gay men. Doing so is libelous indeed.

Again, this illustrates why social conservatives failed in their curious quest to prevent the normalization of teleiophilic homosexuality. If your strongest argument against it requires one to take the dubious leap of imputing the sins of androphilic pedophiles to otherwise innocent teleiophilic gay men, then it’s reasonable for people to conclude that you have no good arguments in your favor. People who offer these kinds of arguments are simply lying for the purpose of misleading the unwary. Fortunately, most people these days have gay friends and relatives, and can easily see that such accusations are wholesale fabrications.

#28 Comment By Cavin On December 7, 2018 @ 8:48 pm

Rob G,

I hate to disappoint you, but virtue ethics is not foundationalist in nature. You seem to be operating with a deontological rubric that’s augmented somewhat with certain insights gleaned from Ancombe and others.

Also, pragmatic ethical systems are not necessarily lacking in foundation. Sure, there are antirealist variants, such as those promoted by Rorty, that are fairly elastic. But the type that predominates in our culture is largely realist in its metaphysics. So, it is inherently bounded by the empirical restraints of the created order. As a Christian, this is fine with me. The same God who spoke through the apostles and prophets is the same God who speaks through the created order. So, as long as we preserve a culture that feeds from metaphysical realism and epistemic realism, I trust that we’ll generally stay the course. Foundationalism is often overrated because, as fallen creatures, we’re too prone to confuse our craven desires (such as a craven desire for epistemic certainty) for the will of God.

I generally find that foundationalism leads people away from faith. After all, I can’t remember ever meeting a theonomist who wasn’t a wholly unlikeable person. The two theonomists that I knew 20 years ago have now both abandoned the Christian faith and have become white supremacists. Then, again, I guess that’s better than the course that Ken Gentry took.

#29 Comment By MichaelGC On December 7, 2018 @ 8:48 pm

Toño Bungay says December 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm:

I don’t see why sexual relations cannot be regarded similarly to making contracts or driving a car or buying alcoholic drinks. Without bringing God into it, it seems to me that people can reasonably — and easily — determine that children should be off-limits to adults’ sexual desires.

Children are certainly not off-limits to medical experimentation; that is, off label use of hormone blockers and/or cross hormones as young as age 10, mastectomies for girls at age 13, castration for boys as young as 16.

That is what is being done to children in this country, now, even though it is legally impossible for them to consent to such life-altering and irreversible procedures, procedures that not only sterilize them but render them incapable of having any adult sexual function. As people have been saying repeatedly since this thread started, if this is being done to the underage now, why is it such a stretch to think that they can also be sexually exploited?

#30 Comment By Kurt Gayle On December 7, 2018 @ 11:34 pm

Cavin says (Dec 7, 8:31 pm): “It makes no justifiable sense to create a category that lumps teleiophilic gay men [gay men who are sexually attracted to adults] together with androphilic pedophiles [pedophiles who are sexually attracted to boys], and then to impute the sins of androphilic pedophiles to teleiophilic gay men.”

The sub-category of gay men who are primarily (or exclusively) sexually attracted to adults and the sub-category of gay men who are primarily (or exclusively) sexually attracted to boys—the two categories may overlap—together constitute the total category of gay men.

Cavin wants to lessen the disproportionately large percentage of gay males who are pedophiles by deleting the sub-category of gay men who are primarily (or exclusively) sexually attracted to boys from the total category of all gay men.

He then wants to hide the sub-category of gay men who are primarily (or exclusively) sexually attracted to boys in a new category he wants to call androphilic pedophiles [pedophiles who are sexually attracted to boys].

Via such a shell game Cavin wants to hide the gay pedophile pea.

#31 Comment By Cavin On December 8, 2018 @ 1:52 am

Kurt,

You’re the one engaging in a shell game here. Teleiophilic attraction operates very differently from pedophilic attraction. In fact, the overwhelming majority of male androphilic pedophiles who report having teleiophilic attractions actually report being attracted to adults of the opposite sex. There is absolutely no empirical reason to lump male androgenic pedophiles into the same class as gay male teleiophiles. Any conclusions that one drew from an analysis resting on such a grouping would be inherently suspect, or have such a large margin for error that the conclusions would be meaningless.

I’ve only ever encountered this grouping in one context: It is often made by social conservatives who are searching in vain for some reason why teleiophilic gay people pose a societal threat. And because social conservatives can’t come up with any empirical data to support their proposed policies, they redefine “gay” in a way that departs from the accepted definition so that it now includes male androphilic pedophiles. Then, they impute the sins of male androphilic pedophiles to otherwise innocent teleiophilic gay men, and argue that these teleiophilic gay men pose a threat to society. But this is circular logic.

It’s as though I had four groups: A, B, C, and D. Then, I created another group, E, that consists of members of groups A and B. And then I draw the conclusion that members of group E are more likely than members of groups C to have characteristics of group B. But that’s a meaningless conclusion because the result is dictated entirely by the way that I defined group E.

This illustrates precisely why the general public has come to distrust what social conservatives say about homosexuality. You claim that no one listened to your well-reasoned arguments concerning the dangers of normalizing teleiophilic homosexuality, and that emotivism won the day. That’s BS. The casuistry that you’ve proffered is fairly representative of what we heard from social conservatives for decades. But such arguments fall apart once subjected to any degree of empirical scrutiny, and the lie eventually is revealed as a lie. You’re the one who’s operative on emotivism. You’re asking people to accept that teleiophilic homosexuality poses some sort of societal threat, despite the fact that you have no empirical evidence of this alleged threat. The best that you can offer is casuistry. Perhaps such casuistry provides some solace to others who share your emotivist aversion to teleiophilic homosexuality.

That said, I do recognize that certain people have religious objections to teleiophilic homosexuality that do not easily translate into empirical justifications. And I believe firmly that our culture ought to provide reasonable protections of the rights of those who possess such religious objections in good faith. But when religious conservatives engage in the kinds of casuistry that you’ve engaged in here, you don’t come off as someone who’s operating in good faith. There is no justifiable basis for imputing the sins of androphilic child rapists to the class of teleiophilic gay males. Repeating such falsehoods constitutes a malicious form of defamation against otherwise innocent people. It’s the kind of thing that bigots do, not the kind of thing that good-faith Christians do. Religious exceptions are a form of equity. And those who seek to benefit from equity must come with clean hands. Otherwise, they will be denied.

#32 Comment By cka2nd On December 8, 2018 @ 10:55 am

J says: “cka, very blithe of you to pass over these signs of the times.”

I listed contrary signs of the times in my very first comment on this post, and compared the signs that you see – all theoretical, none of them actually real when it comes to pedophilia – to the signs marking the fight for gay rights. Nothing blithe about it.

J says: “You seem fine with the idea of books being published that advocate this horror.”

Well, yes, because I support free speech. Which is why I am also uncomfortable with efforts to get internet payment services to drop both neo-Nazis and sex workers from their platforms, or for Google to remove left-wing sites (Black Agenda Report) and right-wing ones from their search results. I also support evidence-based public policy and morality, to which Ms. Levine’s book made a fine contribution.

#33 Comment By Kurt Gayle On December 8, 2018 @ 11:18 am

Cavin,

From “CHILD MOLESTATION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT” by Steve Baldwin, Regent University Law Review, 267 2001-2002:

“Most pedophiles consider themselves to be gay. In a 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” 18

18 W.D. Erickson et al., Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIvEs SEXUAL BEHAV. 77, 83 (1988).

“In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that “around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.” 48

48 R. Blanchard et al., Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles, 29 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. 463, 464 (2000).

[10]

From “Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases”, American Family Association of Michigan, June 7, 2005, afamich

“Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.

“A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.

[Extensive citation/notes provided at afamichigan.org link below.]…

• “Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses…

“The Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

• “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men.”

(ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al., 1993; Fay et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1992);

“In contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys.”

(Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964).

“Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”

Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles, Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.

• “The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestations was confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: “152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only). In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.”

Ibid.

[11]

#34 Comment By Rob G On December 8, 2018 @ 1:30 pm

“This is what you discount: the practical and empirical aspects of law making. Metaphysics alone is actually quite secondary to legislation. If the public sees an ill result following from certain legal actions, the laws will he changed to combat that and metaphysical consistency be damned.”

That “alone” there is doing a lot of work. I never said or implied that it was metaphysics alone that created the problems. Once the legal door is opened philosophically, it becomes difficult to close it again. Again, note the 9000+ instances in the UK where polyamorists are pushing for legal and cultural recognition. It would be foolish to argue that this is totally unconnected to philosophy, legal or otherwise. I think you are far too sanguine about the effects that culture can have on law.

“Going by the timeline for gay rights, we’re looking at 40 years or more from now before pedophiles reach the point which LGBT folk have gotten to so far, and I still wouldn’t give you very good odds for that happening.”

You forget that the 1970’s were the immediate aftermath of the Sexual Revolution. Since then resistance has waned, and the movement has far more “elite” support than it did 40 years ago. The elites were decidedly pro gay lib, and do not seem to be particularly averse to the sexualization of children in general. In short, your prediction isn’t exactly comforting.

“I hate to disappoint you, but virtue ethics is not foundationalist in nature.”

I was not using the term in its technical sense, but as a synonym for “fundamental” or “basic.”

“But the type that predominates in our culture is largely realist in its metaphysics. So, it is inherently bounded by the empirical restraints of the created order.”

Sorry, but I simply do not believe that. Numerous critics, both right and left, Christian and not, have written on modernity’s problem with limits and the various tolls that it’s taking. At root we are nominalists; any “realist” lingerings are due to either cultural sentiment or neo-Gnostic overreach (i.e., we’ve tried to create our own “realism”).

Kurt, I think Cavin’s shell game doesn’t so much “hide the gay pedophile pea” as it does provide a false binary of pedophilia and teleiophilia, without consideration of ephebophilia.

To put it another way, it’s not that the gay pedophile pea is hidden, it’s that the ephebophile pea has disappeared altogether. It’s the same tactic by which the homosexual element of the RCC scandal has been marginalized/ignored, and by which gay groups manage to eat their cake and have it too vis-a-vis NAMBLA and similar groups.

#35 Comment By EngineerScotty On December 8, 2018 @ 2:28 pm

Here’s an interesting question:

Consider infamous pedophiles Jerry Sandusky and Dennis Hastert.

Are they gay?

Both married women, and fathered children with their respective wives. Both remain married to their wives (although Sandusky is unlikely to ever see his wife again outside of prison visits), and there is no indication that either has had a sexual relationship of any sort with an adult man. (Not to say it’s never happened, just there’s no record of it).

But both were rapists of young boys; the youngest known victim of the former Speaker was 14, whereas Sandusky was caught sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in a locker room at Penn State. And both predators conducted their abuses in the context of youth sports they coached–football for Sandusky, wrestling for Hastert. (As a dad whose kids are involved in youth sports, I make sure to watch the coaches like hawks; fortunately the club they are int has a zero-tolerance policy towards child abuse and appears to take it VERY seriously; when I was team manager a few years ago I had to pass a background check even though that job is mainly paperwork and logistics, so the coach can focus on coaching).

It seems that much as the “one drop rule” decrees that anyone with known or obvious African ancestry is “black”; there is a “one cock rule” being employed here–any man who has ever had sexual contact with another male (possibly excluding juvenile horsing around) is “gay”, even if he’s married and has a healthy sex life with his wife.

(To be fair, some in the gay community help promulgate this rubbish with the “there’s no such thing as a bisexual” nonsense. While some claiming to be “bi” might indeed not have any real attraction to the opposite sex, and only engage in such relations for social cover; there are many people I know who indeed are genuinely attracted to both genders. People are complex, after all).

But the arguments being made by some here seem to think that they consider Sandusky to be in the same camp as Anderson Cooper: both have had sexual intercourse with other males, so the sins of one can be imputed onto the other, and vice versa.

#36 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 8, 2018 @ 9:24 pm

I’m trying to envision how most working class voting constituencies of any race, creed, color or national origin are going to relate to political screeds based on cavin and Kurt Gayle’s discussion of Teleiophilic and Androphilic attraction.

Reminds me of the Farley cartoon where a beefy Texas deputy said “Heterosexual? Are you calling ME a prevert boy?” Or the old line about how to beat an opponent in a southern primary election by telling everyone that his sister at a northern liberal college matriculates with Thespians.

#37 Comment By Kurt Gayle On December 8, 2018 @ 11:24 pm

Siarlys Jenkins (Dec 8, 9:24 pm) makes a good point: “I’m trying to envision how most [ordinary people]…are going to relate to political screeds based on…discussion of Teleiophilic and Androphilic attraction.”

I agree that whenever possible we should all use plain language. If someone has a good reason to introduce into the discussion a 75-cent word that most of us ordinary Americans would not likely have ever heard, then that same someone should provide a parentheses containing a simple, clear definition of the 75-cent word. However, Mr. Jenkins is right (if I read him correctly) that it’s best to avoid all unnecessary use of unfamiliar technical jargon.

#38 Comment By Cavin On December 9, 2018 @ 1:07 am

Kurt/Rob,

Thanks, Kurt, for the list of citations. The list actually bolsters my point. Of the studies you cite that appeared in respectable journals, the studies are decades old, even as many as five decades old. And, in at least one case, you’ve excerpted quotes that are favorable to your point, but have excluded qualifications that don’t favor your point. And even that publication is nearly two de adds old, and is summarizing much older studies. The majority of the “studies” you cite are from pamphlets published by Religious Right groups, including publications by a group that believes that the First Amendment only applies to Christians.

Meanwhile, you’ve conveniently ignored more recent studies that demonstrate that teleiophilia and pedophilia are fairly distinct, at least when measured by physiological response as opposed to self-reporting. Self-reporting is unreliable because some androphilic pedophiles tended to identify as teleiophilic gay men (as that was more respectable than identifying as a pedophile), and a number of teleiophilic gay men tended to identify as straight. After all, professional men didn’t start coming out of the closet to any degree until about 2010. And only in the past 3-4 years has it been common for professional gay men to be openly gay. And, in certain places and industries, it is still common for teleiophilic gay men to stay in the closet and date and marry people of the opposite sex.

It’s probably a waste of my time to bring this to your attention. After all, anyone who would cite publications of the American Family Association is the kind of person who’s looking to confirm biases, not the kind of person who is actually interested in the truth. And this illustrates perfectly well why social conservatives lost the battle over normalizing teleiophilic homosexuality. That’s not to say that people were poring over research articles on these issues. But as the stigma against homosexuality has gradually subsided, most people have come to recognize that there is a fairly distinct class of “normal” gay people whose lives differ little from those of similarly situated straight people. These days, most people have multiple openly gay friends, colleagues, and family members, and they know these people well enough to know that they’re not pedophiles. And current research generally supports people’s anecdotal experiences, and shows that there is almost no likelihood that a teleiophilic gay man suffers from pedophilic urges.

I say this because, as a Christian, I want to believe what’s true. What you’re saying is a flat-out lie. And when such lies come from people who profess the Christian faith, it brings disrepute to the name of Christ. Further, as a Christian, I believe that it is important for our culture to provide us with the liberty to practice our faith without external intrusion. But our culture generally only permits such liberties when those seeking them are acting in good faith. When we maliciously defame others through lies and deceit, we should expect such liberties to be withheld (as was the case with those who sought to engage in racial discrimination on the alleged basis of their Christian faith). I, like you, question whether something like same-sex marriage is necessarily the wisest option for gay people. Even so, I see no empirical evidence that normalizing teleiophilic homosexuality or permitting same-sex marriage imposes any more burdens onto our culture than the normalization of premarital sex, recreational sex, and the like, and the redefining of heterosexual marriage as a celebration of heterosexual sexual fulfillment. As conservative theologian Carl Trueman remarked a few years back, the redefinition of marriage occurred about 5-6 decades ago. The acceptance of same-sex marriage is largely consistent with a logic that we had already become deeply ingrained in our culture.

#39 Comment By Kurt Gayle On December 9, 2018 @ 3:37 pm

In line with the important discussion on this thread, I would like to call attention to a May, 2005 research article “Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals” by Brian W. Clowes, Ph D, David L. Sonnier and published by Ignatius Press. In calling attention to the clergy sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church the authors say:

“During the current crisis, homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church.”

The authors go on to say: “It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny…Anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is instantly and reflexively labeled a ‘homophobe’ and a ‘gay basher.’ The powerful homosexual lobby reacts instinctively to negative publicity and information by, as researcher Laird Wilcox calls it, ‘ritually defaming’ those who dare raise their voices.2 Organized homosexual groups first attempt to completely ignore the evidence, or, if it simply cannot be ignored, they smear and discredit those who produced it.

“Such casual dismissal of documented facts, and the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but also to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the homosexual rights movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom ‘the best defense is a good [and loud] offense,’ and remain in a permanent attack mode.”

In response to the claim by Dignity USA that “All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality”3 the authors answer that “in fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century — many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers— have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation. This is not ‘homophobia’ or ‘hatred,’ this is simple scientific fact” and the authors give list TEN EXAMPLES of such studies.

Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I find very persuasive the argument presented by the authors:

“Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population—about ten percent. Using the figures given in Table 3.5.4, we find that a homosexual priest is

“(85.3%/10.0%)/(14.7%190.0%) = 52

“times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

“If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual ‘ (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is

“(85.3%/5.0%)1(14.7%/95.0%) = 110

“times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.”

[12]

#40 Comment By TR On December 9, 2018 @ 5:45 pm

I will let others define “disproportionate,” since I have no faith that we have reliable enough statistics to prove or disprove anything on the subject, but it seems to me that most child abuse cases that make it to the courts involve victims who are underage females being raped/assaulted by male family members or mother’s girlfriends. We’d be better off hearing firsthand experiences from a wide assortment of sexual abuse caseworkers.

But, to be perverse and risk being accused of being in favor of child sex, I would point out that when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year-old cousin, he was famous enough for her to be interviewed a few times before the wrath of a nation descended upon him. Frankly, Myra sounded a lot more mature than her “adult” cousin/husband.

#41 Comment By Rob G On December 10, 2018 @ 7:20 am

Cavin, you are again posing the hard binary between adult sex and pedophilia in the male homosexual culture without reference to ephebophilia. Recall that the majority of offenses among the RC priesthood were with pubescent or post-pubescent minors, not pre-pubescent children.

“I see no empirical evidence that normalizing teleiophilic homosexuality or permitting same-sex marriage imposes any more burdens onto our culture than the normalization of premarital sex, recreational sex, and the like, and the redefining of heterosexual marriage as a celebration of heterosexual sexual fulfillment. As conservative theologian Carl Trueman remarked a few years back, the redefinition of marriage occurred about 5-6 decades ago. The acceptance of same-sex marriage is largely consistent with a logic that we had already become deeply ingrained in our culture.”

Some of us have been saying this for years. Yet I’d argue, and I’m sure Dr. Trueman would as well, that broad acceptance of premarital sex/cohabitation, the recasting of sex as a primarily recreational activity, etc., has been a cultural negative, not a boon. Your libertarianism seems to be causing you to over-compartmentalize in various ways politics, culture, and faith.

#42 Comment By Cavin On December 10, 2018 @ 1:00 pm

Rob,

I don’t know that I’m a libertarian. That said, I do not believe that the government is entitled to impose legal burdens onto a class of people primarily based on the fact that such people are held in disrepute by our country’s majority religion. Unless the government can come up with some solid empirical basis for imposing legal disabilities onto such a class of people, then I believe that the state has overreached its legitimate authority. There may be instances where religious justifications and empirical justifications exist in tandem. But I don’t see where this is one of those cases. The empirical justifications for imposing legal disabilities onto teleiophilic gay people is scant, which explains why social conservatives keep raising the specter of pedophilia. As specious as that argument may be, it does seem to be all that you’ve got. And if that’s all you’ve got (and it likely is), then it’s hard for me to accept that this is the legitimate province of the government.

I agree that there may be some blurring of the lines between teleiophilia and ephebophilia. But that does not imply that there is necessarily a blurring of the lines with pedophilia. Moreover, ephebophilia is no more prevalent among gay men than it is among gay men. There’s a reason why the beer cart at the country club is often driven by attractive, scantily clad girls who probably don’t even have a driver’s license. At my last job, we had to fire two men—both white evangelical Christians in their early 60s—for making sexual advances towards a 16-year-old we’d hired as a summer intern. By my observation, ephebophilia seems to correlate more strongly with age. It is common among both straight and gay men over 50. It is relatively uncommon among straight and gay men under 40. Gen Xers fall somewhere in the middle.

Even so, that’s all irrelevant. We’re talking about empirically quantifiable risks that teleiophilic gay men pose to society that are particularly unique to that class, so as to justify imposing unequal treatment before the law onto them relative to teleiophilic straight men. The risk of pedophilia is not such a risk, given the dichotomous nature of pedophilic and teleiophilic desire. The risk of ephebophilia exists, but not in any way that is unique to teleiophilic gay men relative to teleiophilic straight men. So, I’m unpersuaded that there’s any empirical justification for the government to impose legal disabilities onto teleiophilic gay men (or onto any teleiophilic gay people) as a class.

Never mind that gay men are often key to many of our societies essential enterprises. I worked in investment banking after college. Then, I went to law school, and after law school, worked in the corporate finance groups of several large law firms. I’m now a consultant that helps structure deals between tech-based startups and venture capital investors. All of these spheres are disproportionately inhabited by teleiophilic gay men, at least of a certain type. We neither attend pride parades nor hang out in flamboyant dress (I’m wearing a hoodie, skinny jeans, and Air Pegasus running shoes right now), and we don’t don Speedos except to swim laps at the gym. And very few os us are HIV+. At the firm, we were consistently stuck with the crappy travel assignments. I once went to China three times in a month, each trip on less than 24 hours’ notice. Without an army of highly functional and intelligent gay guys, every major investment bank, law firm, hedge fund, and VC group would fall flat. And a disproportionate number of executive positions at fast-moving tech companies like Google and Amazon are filled by gay men and women. Without us, you’d be the one stuck on an overnight flight to Beijing instead of going home to your wife and kids. And, if you do get stuck going on such a trip, we’re the ones who know enough Mandarin to get you to a cool dinner spot or bar. So, you should be thankful for us. Instead, the thanks we get is that you want to take rights away from us. Go figure.

#43 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 10, 2018 @ 1:13 pm

Kurt,

Your two citations are clear examples of data mining. American Family Association of Michigan in particular is a clearly defined religious organization, and the “values” they promote are all defined from their religious beliefs. I would be no more willing to trust them than to trust an oil drilling company executive citing his own company’s internal “analysis” that fracking is benign, and surface and underground pipelines are totally safe.

I’ve seen discussion of a control point — a requirement of any study and data gathering is the control, a point of data which is consistent across all members of the studied cohort — concerning the sexual experience of the pedophile starting in childhood. Strongly supported anecdotal reports point to the majority of pedophiles having been sexually molested during childhood. A study would examine whether transference or projection is a key motivator for pedophiles, in common terms whether they are acting out of a need to take revenge on their molesters.

In the case of the Roman Catholic priests, another control point not yet fully examined is that they are having sex with minors because they are the only sexual partners of opportunity available to them, not because they are necessarily pedophiles or due to their sexual orientation.

Ignoring those points is a good support for Cavin’s calling afamich liars. Correlation is not causation. It can be, but to assume that it is without doing the work to show it is not lying, but it is deception.

#44 Comment By J On December 10, 2018 @ 2:27 pm

cka,

Books, articles, public figures, movies, academics…all providing a pretext for this horror. Using the same tactics that led to Obergefell.

I like free speech. But that doesn’t cover snuff films or child porn. From your remark on Levin’s book, which does precisely what I have indicated, you reveal yourself. Please stay away from children. I find this repulsive. The fact that you do not is repulsive. Shame.

#45 Comment By Rob G On December 11, 2018 @ 6:45 am

Cavin, no offense, but you guys don’t sound very “oppressed” to me. I work for a Fortune 500 company, and my local office employs around 1,600 people. Without exception every one of the gay men that I’ve worked with has been middle management or higher.

Let’s assume that gay men between 25 and 40 make up, say, 1% of the population. This is the same percentage that we Eastern Orthodox make up. Considering your cultural clout I can only wish that the EOC was equally oppressed!

I do not want to take your rights away. I just don’t want to be compelled, legally, politically, or culturally, to call what you do “good.” As I heard someone put it recently, there’s an unbridgeable gap between “have it your way!” and “there is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death.”

#46 Comment By JonF On December 11, 2018 @ 9:28 am

Rob G, my most significant point, yet the one that seems to be totally ignored by my critics, is that people are unlikely to approve of pedophiles coming after their kids, period. That’s an immense barrier to legalizing pedophilia and no amount of philosphizing will remove it- It’s
an emotional argument, not a rational one and as such not vulnerable to reasoned argument. One might as well posit that incels making arguments in favor of rape that are superficially similar to arguments for gay rights will carry the day.

#47 Comment By Cavin On December 11, 2018 @ 10:18 am

Franklin,

Well noted. What’s also missing from Kurt’s studies are any studies that contained a relevant samples of both non-pedophilic teleiophilic gay and straight men. Moreover, a number of the studies are examining ephebophilia, not pedophilia. It is well established that teleiophilia and ephebophilia overlap, and that most teleiophilic men experience ephebophilia desires in line with their teleiophilic desires. But this is about equally true of both gay men and straight men.

Moreover, some of these studies were clearly designed to arrive at a particular conclusion. One involved measuring responses to faces, where the set of faces included boys who were 15-17. But the boys whose faces were included in the study typically looked older than their actual age. Another study found that people generally judged most of the underage boys to be 18-20.

#48 Comment By J On December 11, 2018 @ 3:02 pm

JonF, read Levin’s book. This was not some fringe thing. And if a child can change gender without parents consent…connect the dots. Cue heart breaking story of 13 yo in love with 20 yo. “Children don’t belong to you…they have rights…etc.” Love wins, right?

Cavin, you are a fine apologist for the pedos. Yes, just lull us into sleep until the new day arrives and…love wins. Then we will all be bigots and you will be arguing accordingly. I am not buying it because I have eyes to see. You confirm what we most fear. Leave our children alone. Shame on you.

#49 Comment By Cavin On December 12, 2018 @ 9:11 am

J,

It’s unclear to me where I’ve been an apologist for pedophilia. If anyone is guilty of downplaying the dangers of pedophilia, it’s conservative Christians. Again, if you operate with an ethical framework that sees no material difference between Anderson Cooper and Jerry Sandusky,