The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Atomic Cow on July 06, 2014, 04:57:37 am
-
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.
A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.
With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html
Everyone knew this was coming.
I don't have kids, but if I ever do and some pervert touches them, legal or now, and I'll shove my .45 in their mouth and pull the trigger.
-
I hate to say it - but they have a point.
Think of female shaving. At the risk of being coarse, when I started getting interested in "down there, it wee wild pubs or sometimes trimmed with scissors (lady's, please don't do that. It's like three day beard stubble on something sensitive). Now it's all smooth shaved and totally hairless. Prepubescent, for want of a better word.
-
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
8detect8
If I had my way these academics would sent to a gas chamber
-
This is the opening salvo for the left to justify child marriages of muslims. Nothing else, that is it. As the atomic one said, we all knew it was coming. :soangry:
-
Everyone knew this was coming.
Of course, everyone knew this was coming. Where else is there for them to go now that everything else once understood as perverse is now considered "natural and normal?"
The only reason this won't get so far so fast is that there is still an element of society that wants to protect children.
Though even that number is shrinking.
-
This is the opening salvo for the left to justify child marriages of muslims. Nothing else, that is it. As the atomic one said, we all knew it was coming.
Perhaps, and that's certainly an “outside-the-box” perspective (using religion to PROMOTE a hedonistic practice instead of DETER it, although much of the same can be said of any push for polygamy) but this can be turned against them just as easily.
Public opposition to pædophilia is still very high. If you ask the typical American, they would not hesitate to send a sex offender to death row if they could get away with it—even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that to be unconstitutional. Yet the same principle behind legitimizing pædophilia also underpins the basic argument for homosexual acceptance, that people are born that way and it is allegedly inhumane to force them into a heteronormative society. Of course, this is where the gay rights lobby all of a sudden realizes that you have to draw a line somewhere, and conveniently enough they want to draw the line right AFTER them. “Consenting adults,” they say. (Never mind the threat of venereal disease.)
Perhaps enough talk of this will prompt a serious discussion of where that line should be drawn. I'm not counting on that, though.
-
Of course, this is where the gay rights lobby all of a sudden realizes that you have to draw a line somewhere, and conveniently enough they want to draw the line right AFTER them. “Consenting adults,” they say. (Never mind the threat of venereal disease.)
Perhaps enough talk of this will prompt a serious discussion of where that line should be drawn. I'm not counting on that, though.
The problem is, most homosexuals would not hesitate to have sex with a child. They recruit; they do not reproduce.
-
Everyone knew this was coming.
Absolutely.
The current push for the acceptance of bleep is only opening the door for more perversions.
-
Perhaps, and that's certainly an “outside-the-box” perspective (using religion to PROMOTE a hedonistic practice instead of DETER it, although much of the same can be said of any push for polygamy) but this can be turned against them just as easily.
Public opposition to pædophilia is still very high. If you ask the typical American, they would not hesitate to send a sex offender to death row if they could get away with it—even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that to be unconstitutional. Yet the same principle behind legitimizing pædophilia also underpins the basic argument for homosexual acceptance, that people are born that way and it is allegedly inhumane to force them into a heteronormative society. Of course, this is where the gay rights lobby all of a sudden realizes that you have to draw a line somewhere, and conveniently enough they want to draw the line right AFTER them. “Consenting adults,” they say. (Never mind the threat of venereal disease.)
Perhaps enough talk of this will prompt a serious discussion of where that line should be drawn. I'm not counting on that, though.
The argument for acceptance of homosexuality is that we should not punish people for "who they love." They have not qualified that cute little slogan by saying "unless those you love are children."
I think it will be very difficult to have a serious discussion about the line drawn, because if they are willing to draw the line somewhere, then they must, by logical extension, admit that others can draw the line BEFORE them.
The arguments in support of cultural approval of homosexual relationships leads very naturally to not only pedophilia, but also polygamy and incest.
It's all about "who you love."
There is always loud screeching about "homophobia" when the subject is raised, but it is, as the saying goes "the elephant in the room."
-
Each and every religion, without fail (except for Shinto, I think) condemns deviant sexual practices.
The book(s) condemn them. Therefore it isn't my job to do so.
-
Each and every religion, without fail (except for Shinto, I think) condemns deviant sexual practices.
The book(s) condemn them. Therefore it isn't my job to do so.
Really? I have heard, and read, that under certain circumstances, Islam allows bestiality.
-
Really? I have heard, and read, that under certain circumstances, Islam allows bestiality.
Lots of pedophilia at the madrassas too.