Sunday, January 6, 2013
The logic of expressive individualism and sexual revolutionary ideology relentlessly plays itself out. Is it 1967 for pedophilia? From the British newspaper The Guardian:
It's worth reading the whole thing, but here are some key quotations:
"There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm."
"In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. 'Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,' it read, 'result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage'."
"There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that 'one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children'."
"A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are 'nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes'."
"But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researcher testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore 'unlikely to change'."
"Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. 'It is the quality of the relationship that matters,' O'Carroll insists. 'If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm'."
"For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. 'Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate,' she says. 'If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us'."
"'We can help keep children safe,' Goode argues, 'by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else', and by 'respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint'. Only then will men tempted to abuse children 'be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed'."