Pedophilia: A disorder..not a crime

THINK back to your first childhood crush. Maybe it was a classmate or a friend next door. Most likely, through school and into adulthood, your affections continued to focus on others in your approximate age group. But imagine if they did not.

By some estimates, 1 percent of the male population continues, long after puberty, to find themselves attracted to prepubescent children. These people are living with pedophilia, a sexual attraction to prepubescents that often constitutes a mental illness. Unfortunately, our laws are failing them and, consequently, ignoring opportunities to prevent child abuse.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines pedophilia as an intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children, and a disorder if it causes a person “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty” or if the person acts on his interests. Yet our laws ignore pedophilia until after the commission of a sexual offense, emphasizing punishment, not prevention.

Part of this failure stems from the misconception that pedophilia is the same as child molestation. One can live with pedophilia and not act on it. Sites like Virtuous Pedophiles provide support for pedophiles who do not molest children and believe that sex with children is wrong. It is not that these individuals are “inactive” or “nonpracticing” pedophiles, but rather that pedophilia is a status and not an act. In fact, research shows, about half of all child molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims.

A second misconception is that pedophilia is a choice. Recent research, while often limited to sex offenders — because of the stigma of pedophilia — suggests that the disorder may have neurological origins. Pedophilia could result from a failure in the brain to identify which environmental stimuli should provoke a sexual response. M.R.I.s of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains. Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause. Some findings also suggest that disturbances in neurodevelopment in utero or early childhood increase the risk of pedophilia. Studies have also shown that men with pedophilia have, on average, lower scores on tests of visual-spatial ability and verbal memory.

The Virtuous Pedophiles website is full of testimonials of people who vow never to touch a child and yet live in terror. They must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence. Many feel isolated; some contemplate suicide. The psychologist Jesse Bering, author of “Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us,” writes that people with pedophilia “aren’t living their lives in the closet; they’re eternally hunkered down in a panic room.”

While treatment cannot eliminate a pedophile’s sexual interests, a combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and medication can help him to manage urges and avoid committing crimes.

But the reason we don’t know enough about effective treatment is because research has usually been limited to those who have committed crimes.

Our current law is inconsistent and irrational. For example, federal law and 20 states allow courts to issue a civil order committing a sex offender, particularly one with a diagnosis of pedophilia, to a mental health facility immediately after the completion of his sentence — under standards that are much more lax than for ordinary “civil commitment” for people with mental illness. And yet, when it comes to public policies that might help people with pedophilia to come forward and seek treatment before they offend, the law omits pedophilia from protection.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.

It’s time to revisit these categorical exclusions. Without legal protection, a pedophile cannot risk seeking treatment or disclosing his status to anyone for support. He could lose his job, and future job prospects, if he is seen at a group-therapy session, asks for a reasonable accommodation to take medication or see a psychiatrist, or requests a limit in his interaction with children. Isolating individuals from appropriate employment and treatment only increases their risk of committing a crime.

There’s no question that the extension of civil rights protections to people with pedophilia must be weighed against the health and safety needs of others, especially kids. It stands to reason that a pedophile should not be hired as a grade-school teacher. But both the A.D.A. and the Rehabilitation Act contain exemptions for people who are “not otherwise qualified” for a job or who pose “a direct threat to the health and safety of others” that can’t be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation. (This is why employers don’t have to hire blind bus drivers or mentally unstable security guards.)

The direct-threat analysis rejects the idea that employers can rely on generalizations; they must assess the specific case and rely on evidence, not presuppositions. Those who worry that employers would be compelled to hire dangerous pedophiles should look to H.I.V. case law, where for years courts were highly conservative, erring on the side of finding a direct threat, even into the late 1990s, when medical authorities were in agreement that people with H.I.V. could work safely in, for example, food services.

Removing the pedophilia exclusion would not undermine criminal justice or its role in responding to child abuse. It would not make it easier, for example, for someone accused of child molestation to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction. Arguing for the rights of scorned and misunderstood groups is never popular, particularly when they are associated with real harm. But the fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive. Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.

Margo Kaplan. (Photo courtesy of Rutgers Camden)

Margo Kaplan


its not a crime eh?

kaplan comes from harvard and but i dont know her (((genealogy))) but i have a fair idea..

im sure lots of pedos will be happy to hear this..they day will come when they will be legal and protected by the law and the ages of consent will be lowered and lowered..this will happen over the next few happens bit by bit over time..

i dont care what rationale you use to justify molestation of underage children..there is NO excuse..EVER..

“Part of this failure stems from the misconception that pedophilia is the same as child molestation. One can live with pedophilia and not act on it.”

if you act on it its a crime..if you think about it you will one day do it imo..


~ by seeker401 on November 15, 2016.

69 Responses to “Pedophilia: A disorder..not a crime”

  1. Keep on eating Pizzas

  2. Child porn and pedophilia to be legal soon

  3. This shit will never be legal. And it is a psychological disorder. If you desire a child you are fucked up. If you act on it, you’re a fucking criminal virtually everywhere.

  4. I know, let’s take a consensus, ask the survivors what they think, wtf. If that bleeding heart is not “criminally insane” who is?

  5. Sodom and Gomorrah redux….

  6. First they pushed for homosexuals and transvestites to be considered “normal”…they are not.
    Now, as predicted, they are pushing to have pedophilia diagnosed as an illness instead of a crime…they want people to openly say they are sexually attracted to children as a prelude to saying it, too, is “normal.”
    Bestiality follows, along with every form of degenerate perversion a sick mind can concoct.

    So what should be considered normal when it comes to the age of a participant? Certainly the age of consent should not be determined by the old adage, “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” as the female would still not be of age to legally commit themselves to a contract, much less a relationship.
    And should that age limit be applied to a male? I don’t know about you, but when I was barely into my teens I would have gratefully jumped on any of my female teachers that offered and, in the case of many of them, I was wishing they would. Would it have warped my delicate little mind? Or would I simply have been grateful for the happy memories? Somehow, I think it would have been the latter…

    This is not entirely a biological question (although in some cases it clearly is), it is a question of societal order. It was not that long ago that a 13 year old girl could legally marry in the U.S. with her parent’s permission, and in some states that statute still stands.
    And it must take into consideration the mental capabilities of a young person to be able to make a decision agreeing to such a union.

    In any case, it is discipline that rules these actions. Even if you are attracted to a minor, you…as an adult…are expected to have the discipline to not act on these impulses, just as you are expected to deny an alcoholic drink you may desire if you are about to be driving.
    The law must be upheld in these cases, and it is up to society to define what is acceptable and what isn’t. Alcoholics may have a physical neurological disorder, too…but they are still going to be arrested for drunk driving, aren’t they?

    • In any case, it is discipline that rules these actions. Even if you are attracted to a minor, you…as an adult…are expected to have the discipline to not act on these impulses, just as you are expected to deny an alcoholic drink you may desire if you are about to be driving.

  7. Do you know how to interpret James 1:14-15?

    This bible verse is being used in at least one Christian denomination at the moment to spread the false interpretation of this passage that lust is not sin. Those involved are falsely interpreting this passage that way. The passage really reads that lust is sin. They are reading it to say lust is simply temptation. Notice though it reads that temptation is when one is “enticed” by lust, but the lust itself is sin. If one does not know how to interpret this passage rightly, then the darkness will only grow into their lives. At the very least, aside from only God can give people the understanding of this holy book, is the person does not know how to read. That is alarming in and of itself.

    This is the same tactic that was used to spread homosexuality in the Mainline Churches. I am not sure if the Mainline Churches use this verse to support ‘homosexuality if not acted upon’. Yet I know of a recent case, as mentioned above, arising in another U.S. denomination that a pastor is using this verse to support a license who says he is a homosexual in lust, but they argue not in sin. He has this lust, but does not act upon it. It is a similar tactic that has wormed its way into people’s lives before.

    If you look over those church records that currently do accept homosexuality you will see they first started with (a) they can be homosexual but not married (celibate), and (b) they do not act upon it so it is not a sin. Now those churches that currently accept homosexuality allow marriage but of course see their act also is not a sin. Notice the progression of darkness and corruption that comes with accepting sin.

    If you do not know how to interpret James 1:14-15, then common sense, rationality, and any type of mystic emotive feel will not stop this recent escalation of corruption and darkness in the world.

    It is not that a person has to know how to interpret this passage in James strictly. But what it does evidence is that if people do not know how to interpret this passage rightly, or have no desire to do so, then that is a sign that God is not with them. Of course people may not have the time, etc…, but ultimately to have no desire to see this passage interpreted rightly and to care less if other people interpret it wrongly that surely does mean God is not with them.

    Could people not know how to interpret this passage because they need to spend more time with the LORD in His written Word and prayer? Yes. I know some people find offense to going to Church, but people who have faith worship Christ Jesus. That is what they do. Now it could be a case that there is not a sound doctrine church in ones area. That is something else that could be discussed later.

    Eventually a person could understand how to interpret this passage rightly. There are teachers and centuries of church history that have had men God has raised to know the scriptures. Not infallibly knowing them, but at least knowing the gospel. That is the key. If one does not know the gospel, then God is not with them.

    God is sovereign. Man is responsible for his wickedness for God is not the author of sin. Yet God is in control and there is the scriptural understanding of the wheat and the tares.

    We need to be gentle about this. Love is needed. Being uncompromised is also needed for God of the Scriptures must not be forgotten.

    I understand others have their own religion or spirituality or whatever they call it. I urge others to though take the time to know our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Ya never know what light may come of it.

    Praise the LORD

    • I need to add for those needing to hear this. When I commented that ‘they may not be able to read which is alarming’, what is meant is complicated for these are the things of God. It is not that some read and some do not read:

      Isaiah 29:11-12 ,”11 The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” 12 Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.”

      I suggest reading all of chapter 29 for context, but notice something here. Do not get caught up in the word ‘seal’ or ‘vision’. There is a context to this. The idea to understand is that whether somebody can read or cannot read the scriptures the literate will have excuses ‘it is sealed’ when they do not understand. The illiterate will have excuses ‘I cannot read’. What God is saying here is it does not matter if a person is able to read or not. The problem is sin and being rebellious against God and all His ways.

      I know that is a lot to digest. I have so much learn myself still and I tend to write a lot at times. I pray that my writing will become more concise, but to jump into other people’s lives on such a large matter without some context as to what I mean or you mean, at first, it may take some context building and then precision and shorter responses could follow because we understand each other more.

    • thanks for the post..

      • From an article written by a Pastor in the denomination about a month ago:

        “And even more disconcerting for the PCA as a whole was that the Presbytery of the senior pastor in question set a dangerous precedence for the rest of the denomination by voting largely to absolve the pastor and support his efforts to openly teach homosexual ideology. I believe the Presbytery intentionally ignored most of the charges that were brought against this pastor in accordance with the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO). The Presbytery rendered a highly distorted interpretation of James 1 to accommodate the pastor’s teaching, and to execute highly corrupt efforts to suppress objections of those in the Presbytery and even encouraged reprisal against a fellow PCA minister who filed the charges.”

        Notice James 1. The PCA split from the PC(USA) maybe 50-60 years ago. The PCA saw the PC(USA) wheels coming off as the PC(USA) stopped subscribing to the Church confessions. Also supporting and allowing numerous anti-Christ heresies to run amuck in the Church. Also at that time the PC(USA) allowed women to be ordained which the PCA objected to also when those members continued without involvement in the PC(USA) anymore. Now the cultural infiltration of homosexuality is being embraced in at least one PCA presbytery. They are infiltrating through a false interpretation of James 1. This is how the culture at large went astray. It started in the Church. When God no longer dwells in a Church known to be present by a clear preaching of the gospel, then that means God’s judgement of wrath in that particular place. On a large scale that means God’s judgement of wrath is happening on a large scale. Read Romans 1 on God giving over to what people desire which is man with man and woman with woman.

        I know a lot of people pedal the scriptures around and think they have the answers and know the bible. I do not think I know them that well. I have met a lot of godly men who have been blessed by God to know His Word way more than I.

        Article link here:

        • I apologize. The article above is from about 2 months ago, not 1. I had this article on my mind when I wrote it. Anyways it is happening now for these things are a process and it will eventually have to be dealt with at the larger overarching presbytery called “General Assembly” in the PCA. The Mainline Churches have already for the most part have been corrupted, and the PCA is considered a strong, orthodox church so to see something like this happening within their denomination is a cry out to God for grace and mercy.

          Here is that article I was thinking about that was only 1 month ago:

          • mainstream churches got a 4-8 year reprieve imo..they would have been under sustained attack with a clinton presidency..and that could be a good or bad thing..

            • You make an interesting point. But I am not sure about that just yet. There is a federal district judge in our congregation who did a write up of the current laws on the book that involved a recent Supreme Court non-decision on a case that was before it. The Supreme Court put it on hold due to the lack of justice. But the laws are there already through Obamacare that brought the case before the Supreme Court. In effect this case was lost at all the lower courts but has now been on hold by the Supreme Courts non-decision (I do not know the legal jargon). If this case is lost at the Supreme Court which it will have to go before it they only made a non-decision because they wanted clarification on some the legal issues that both sides were arguing. But if this case is lost, then the precedent is set that all religious institutions will either fold, have to compromise, or pay thousands and thousands of dollars each year in legal penalties for not complying.

              The problem is not so much in the presidency, though that undoubtedly holds sway, but it is the culture. The culture is embedded with the changing tide for the worse. If churches no longer read scripture they way they had been on some issues since – well the beginning – then that is a reflection of were the masses are going with this. Trump has announced he will not change any laws on homosexuality in America. It is not a point of love. Of course people should love each other, we are all sinners, but we should all know our sin and repent and believe in God so that God will sanctify. There is justification by faith alone, and then since a person is in Christ – that is who they are – then they will obey God.

              So you make an interesting point, but the culture is heading in a direction as seen in that particular denomination. That is only the external signs. Those external signs, such as homosexuality, women elders, etc…. are just that. When one sees those external signs what that means is their doctrine of God is wrong. They are worshipping a different god. That usually comes to light after some discussion in the presbytery process. That first article discusses some of that.

              I know you used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist. Do you go to church now seeker?

              • i was never a 7th day adventist..i was brought up lutheran so i already had a deep suspicion of the RCC and the vatican via Martin Luther! 🙂

                i go to church once a year at xmas with all my extended family..but up until i was 17-18 it was every sunday..

                you are correct that signs define which denominations are moving away from strict biblical interpretation..i see a lot of organized religion these days as being sort of tricked or fooled and now under the hammer of political correctness..but its not for me to judge..i just present information as i see it..

                • I apologize. I thought you were, but obviously I did not remember correctly. That was years ago when I thought you told me you used to be a 7th day when you were younger. I was wrong.

                  You are insightful on the matter. Many organized religions at least at the top are anti-Christ. At the congregational, local level I know some Christians are present, but even that is fading in some denominations. Of course some may grow up in a Roman Catholic church and have the gospel presented to them because God sent somebody to that person to know and be given faith from God in Christ Jesus. At that point, if they are believers, then they would have to leave the Roman Catholic church. That is how God works out His salvation in His people. He draws them near to the means of grace that He has established in order to work out salvation in their life. Of course these ‘means of grace’ are not how they are saved. God works using ordinary means to exhibit and work out the salvation that Christ merited and now applies through the Spirit to His Church (those that God calls out of the world to gather in His name to worship Him and no longer the ways of the world).

                  Good talking with you seeker. It has been awhile.

                  • appreciate the comments..what name did u go under back in the day?..were u involved with wiredpirates or reinhardt or just on the blog?

                    • I remember wiredpirates and Reinhardt, but was not there. I think I may have visited wiredpirates back then, but that was it if I remember (meaning no posts there). I can not remember the name I had back then either. I thought it may have been ‘adirondack’, but maybe not. I remember Isabel. She is still here I see. I remember intrigued also. I remember XXX.

                      Back in those days, I was big on Ron Paul, but not anymore though he does not seem to say anything wrong. Just do not follow what he has to say anymore. I think I suggested the Mises Institute at that time which you added as a link here.

                      If I remember correctly it was around when you first set up this sight. You gave me space to write my own pieces. I did not write that much, but I remember writing out some on the Freemasons and I had some pictures with explanations. That was a while ago.

                    • been 8 years so my memory fades a bit but you have jogged it a little..i wonder if we can find that post?

                      can you remember the title?

                    • might have been on the forum i had for a while as well..

      • It was on the forum I think. I remember the forum. I have no idea of what the title was. I remember the picture was the usual two pillars with the checkboard, that freemason stuff. I wrote lengthy on something, whether it was a picture like that or something else. I may have met you in an online chatroom. I have not done those in awhile and do not even remember what they are called. It was through some special feature that I installed into the computer maybe. Like a ‘reddit’ feature. I don’t know. It was during those ‘revolution radio online’ days. I do not know if they are still around. Those online radio shows that had chatrooms.

    • I don’t know too many people that harbor lust in their heart that do not eventually attempt to act on it.
      That being said, I am not Christian. As far as I’m concerned, if you do not act on your degenerate impulses, that’s enough for me.
      You may be breaking one of the ten commandments by lusting after your neighbor’s wife, but if you keep it to yourself, never try to act on it, and leave their marriage alone, that’s the right move, in my book. Under those circumstances, the marriage is safe and society remains unaffected.
      I have a vested interest in seeing society run smoothly, without the degeneracy that causes constant conflict…but I have no need or right to go messing around in the minds of others, that is their own personal domain and their own personal responsibility.
      Keep it to yourself and no one will ever know nor will anyone be affected by it.

      • The way you put it I agree. You called them “degenerate impulses”. That is awesome! They are degenerate impulses.

        That is the right move to not act on them. When a person keeps it to himself and does not “act on it”, it is the “right move”. I completely agree.

        What you are saying by definition has to do with temptation. (1) There is a temptation that originated from their own lust or an outside source to go and do something. At that point involves discernment. (2) Will the person act upon their temptation that their own lust is tempting them into (or an outside source is tempting them into which eventually is their lust as well as a relationship has developed, anyways…)? In other words, do they discern whether the temptation of the lust is good or bad? If they say as you say that it is a “degenerate impulse”, then they were tempted but did not entertain the thought (or did but eventually stopped) and did not act upon it. It would be just as dangerous to entertain the thought, but such impulses entertained, against better judgement, will only strengthen. The temptation will only grow stronger to act upon it with further entertainment.

        What the pastor and now that whole presbytery is arguing is something different. They are arguing that it is not degenerate to have those impulses. That is not my words. That is what the pastor preached at an exam of a potential pastor (a license). The presbytery agreed with him. Now the larger process that involves numerous presbyteries is happening. Will the little leaven, leaven the whole loaf? The presbytery in question does say they will not act on those lusts – great, wonderful – but they also are arguing that the lusting is good. In fact they are arguing it is good and it should be encouraged and supported.

        This is the same move other denominations pulled a few decades ago. First, it is good, and second, it is not harming anybody else for they are celibate only. Then it became, it is good and when two people consent it is still good. That is not only the argument for homosexuality, but for pedophilia.

  8. Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..


    • Life sentence here…

      “In that interview, Roseanne claimed that she suffered intense trauma in her childhood, which lead to her having multiple personalities and being manipulated by CIA-lead psychiatric experiments (MK ULTRA)”.

    • This from the thread at Corbett. Amber Alert involvement is not surprising. Lots of children missing the numbers are too too large, not surprising:

      “And if you’re still not distinguishing the pattern, did you know that Laura Silsby (Gayler), the woman caught trying to smuggle thirty-three children out of Haiti (a country where the Clinton Foundation isn’t without controversy), whose release from jail became a personal matter for Ms Clinton, thereafter became an associate of MyStateUSA, which changed its name to AlertSense, and which is the one providing the technology to issue Amber Alerts?
      Enough already. If anything I have proven the legitimacy of the following question:
      Is there a systemic pedophilia problem in Washington DC, as we already suspect there is one in Hollywood?
      In terms of national systemicity, the statistics are eloquent. The International Centre for Missing Children (ICMEC) estimates that 8 million children are reported missing each year around the world. Of that number, according to U.S. Department of Justice research, an estimated 800,000 children will go missing in the United States alone — a rate of over 2’000 missing children each day — with 466,949 of those cases entered into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database in 2014. With a current child population (aged 0 – 17) of around 74 million in the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice figures equate to around 1 child in every 92 going missing in the United States each year.
      This looks like a systemic problem indeed. Childhood disappearances outnumber cancer deaths in the United States by one third.”

    • This below is loosely related to Laura Silsby (jailed for child trafficking, Hillary Clinton involvement in her defense, and who now is involved in Amber Alert through an outside agency)

      Article title: “Dominican Authorities Unable to Bring Indictments in Child Trafficking and Organ Harvesting Conspiracy Even as Witness Repents from Jail”

      Quote from Article: “The organ transplant society of the Caribbean nation, famous for being next to Haiti and for its golf resorts which are regularly frequented by Bill Clinton and other members of the democratic elite…”


    “SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.
    This terribly destructive legislation was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California’s state government with a two-thirds “supermajority.””

    • the age of consent is whittled away at inch by inch..

    • sigh. people are completely misinterpreting this change in california law. i blame californiaphobia.

      there is no such thing as a “child prostitute.” a child who is being prostituted is a child abuse/molestation victim.

      the change in law makes it so that a child in such a situation is not arrested and charged with a crime. instead, they can be taken into protective custody and away from the pimps and the johns that are the actual criminals.

      note that the ridiculous right-wing, californiaphobic websites conveniently leave out the part about protective custody, likely because they’re fantasizing about coming to california to fuck children themselves.

      • xxx, “there is no such thing as a “child prostitute.” a child who is being prostituted is a child abuse/molestation victim.”

        As long as this legislation sustains this understanding, which according to you it does, then that is wonderful. Thanks xxx

        This ‘fog of war’ is discomforting. Self-examination is vital.

        • check out the latimes article on the new law… or the text of the law itself…

          • I agree with you. What I quoted of you is more exact than the article I had posted. It was my ‘fog’ that ‘discomforted’ me. I think you already cleared it up and I thank you. If anything else comes up, like legislators or judges using this law to erode what is commonly understood, I am sure we will hear about it. Until then I definitely think ‘child prostitution’ is the wrong word to use, which makes me think less of the article. It should be, and I think it is in our nation, that any type of child prostitution by definition is child abuse/molestation victim.

            I say this understanding there is a growing consensus that would like to bring the age of consent lower. That time is not here yet, and I think the legislation reflects that, that time is not yet here yet. There is a push for it though. The NYT article above attests to that for one. That was more my concern and I think what I did was conflate my concern into a reality in the law that is not yet.

  11. The “Finders”. I had never heard of them before. Geographically located near Comet Ping Pong. Chronologically distant, but eerily similarly patterned. The “Finders” was dug into more in the mainstream and under the public’s eye of scrutiny until the CIA stopped the DC police from investigating any further.


    “[I cannot] condemn  [mild pedophilia in my childhood] by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” —Richard Dawkins, interview

    “Paedophilia is natural and normal for human males.”—Philip Tromovitch, a professor at 2013 University of Cambridge conference

    “There is incest (aren’t siblings free to love?). There is bestiality (aren’t animals people too?). There is robot love (aren’t computers capable of relationships?).
    This is no joke. Go to the links. These are mainstream websites.

    “In 2011 a 60-year old Italian social worker was found guilty of pedophilia. In 2013 the Italian Supreme Court “ordered a retrial because the verdict did not fully account for the ‘consensus,’ the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the [eleven-year-old] girl’s feelings of love.

    “Back in 1973, Hillary Clinton offered a way to expand children’s rights. Writing in the Harvard Educational Review, she offered (among other approaches) that the state could “abolish the status of minority” and assume competence of children unless “proven otherwise”.

    “Don’t laugh. Similar reasoning is now offered on an international scale by the IPPF. In fact, the same organization baldly declared:

    “Sexual rights are human rights and apply to everyone no matter what age.”

    The history, politics, and legal decisions over the issue of homosexuality, polygamy, and pedophile covered in the article. [Reference links in the original article]

  13. Article dated: Feb. 20, 2017

    “The arguments made by Milo Yiannouplos (in a recently released and quite graphic video), that pedophilia is not what you think it is, that sexual contact between men and under-age teen-age boys is not wrong but a safe way to help young homosexuals come of age, are nothing new.

    “All that remains is to manufacture consent by re-defining it and that process is under way. This is, if you will, child’s play. Any moderately creative undergraduate freshman can deconstruct consent: “Consent is a social construct that is understood variously in different cultures. New studies suggest that children are capable of signally consent at an earlier stage than we hitherto thought” and so on. We are witnessing this process and trajectory with pedophilia.

    The trajectory has been something like this:
    1. X is a sin
    2. X is unnatural
    3. X is a crime
    4. We no longer know if X is sin but it should not be a crime
    5. X is neither sin nor crime but disorder
    6. X is innate
    7. No one would willingly choose X
    8. We must remove the stigma to treat X
    9. X is not that bad
    10. X is consensual
    11. X is perfectly normal and the scaremongers need to be quiet
    12. X is a legitimate choice
    13. X legal and you must support it or face social/legal consequences

    The push is on to normalize pedophilia. The leading edge of the movement in Europe is at stage 10.

    The article covers the intellectual historical pattern, starting mainly in the mid-twentieth century, in the normalization of homosexuality and its’ early twentieth analogy by the scientific community with alcoholism, and the intellectual and social pattern comparison with pedophilia.

    When people appeal to man’s free will as foundational to our being right with God the blur and lack of discernment starts.

    Christ alone is the foundation. By His obedience, blood and resurrection alone. We do not save ourselves. He saves those that repent and believe in Him, so that we worship Him alone the way He instructs in Scripture.

    • i was going to say 9-10..

      • 9-10 – that is a solid knowledgeable answer.
        As you probably know, the 10 comes from:
        ““In 2011 a 60-year old Italian social worker was found guilty of pedophilia. In 2013 the Italian Supreme Court “ordered a retrial because the verdict did not fully account for the ‘consensus,’ the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the [eleven-year-old] girl’s feelings of love.” [This may be mentioned in both articles]

        There must be a strong public opinion of support for this court case verdict. I wonder if other court cases in Europe have supported “consent”.

  14. the subtle narrative of the liberal lefty

  15. In the news today, with all the other sexual allegations being mud thrown toward anybody and everybody, Kevin Spacey’s struck me as the day went on as odd. I read another article that caught it also. In the news, what I read was he has been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior, so Spacey came out as gay, but then other gay people said it was bad timing because somebody was hurt by his actions. So some slapped him on the wrist and told Spacey his coming out as ill-timed. What about the elephant in the room! Pedophile.
    “In essence, Spacey didn’t just come out as a gay: he came out as a forgetful drunk who can’t remember if he sexually preys on minors.”

    • he played it perfectly..he was told he was brave for coming out..not that he was an alleged pedophile..bait and wont hear much more as he is to close to the top..the matrix broke a bit..

  16. I know how some view the Holocaust as not happening the way history has been told. That may well be, and some of the arguments are good. So even though the holocaust is mentioned in the quote (article) below, it is not about the holocaust per se. Nazi’s were bad, even if the holocaust did not happen the way history books now a days portray it. The point of the article I think is spot on. When government exceeds the rule of public law, then the government is administering in accord with its’ own rule of private law. Private meaning, it is not public, and not legislated. Fraud and perversions of the current law is what is really happening. Anyways, the article was interesting:

    “Consider the legacies of slavery and the Holocaust. Rank-and-file slave owners and Nazis were ordinary people with families, pets, hobbies, neighbors, and jobs. Yet they did horrible things to fellow human beings when given the power and the opportunity, just like the famous psychological tests showing ordinary people will administer homicidal electric shocks to innocent fellow men at the direction of an authority figure.
    Humans cannot be trusted with power. We all abuse whatever power we have in some way or another, and the more we get, the bigger the temptation to abuse it. This is why we need the rule of law: to restrain our inherent tendencies to abuse others, even with benign intentions. The rule of law under a system of self-government forces people with power to justify their actions to those they are supposed to serve. It keeps them honest. Destroying it, with which Whitaker’s lawsuit assists, will lead to real abuses of our fellow Americans far beyond letting a girl hang around urinals.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: