On Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles slammed a TedTalk where a presenter explained why society needs to be more welcoming to pedophiles. Knowles follows the trail of logic and debunks the very idea of allowing predators into communities. Video and partial transcript below:
Mirjam Heine, a medical student from Germany, is presenting her controversial paper on the subject of "Why our perception of pedophilia has to change."
Mirjam Heine: According to current research pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation just like for example heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile. No one can cease being one. The difference between pedophilia and other sexual orientations is that living out this sexual orientation will end in a disaster. Right now most of us feel discomfort when we think about the scenario and most of us feel discomfort when we think about pedophiles. But just like pedophiles, we are not responsible for our feelings. We do not choose them. But we are responsible for our actions and we must make a decision. It is in our responsibility to reflect and to overcome our negative feelings about pedophiles and to treat them with the same respect we treat other people with. We should accept that pedophiles are people who have not chosen their sexuality and who unlike most of us will never be able to live it out freely if they want to lead an upright life.
We have to overcome our negative feelings toward pedophiles. I will say if I had to cast anybody in the world to present the argument for normalizing pedophilia, I would normalize that woman who sounds exactly like a Bond villain.
Her argument, if you begin with the premises that the Cultural Revolution, the sexual revolution, that the Left has embraced. If you begin with those premises that we can't judge sexual orientation and sexual preferences and that there is no normative good and normative bad when it comes to sexual preference. If you begin with that premise, her argument is exactly correct.
Pedophiles as far as we can tell are born that way. They don't choose to be attracted to children. Who would choose to be attracted to children? Nobody. It's a horrible life — it puts you at risk of committing a lot of crimes, it socially isolates you and it makes you in almost all cases incapable of sexual gratification or fulfillment.
If consent is the big issue, then why on earth would we judge pedophiles. She says pedophiles will never be able to act on their sexual urges if they want to lead an upright life. What if they don't want to lead an upright life then they can act on it? No. We have laws against that — we must have laws against that. This is sexual autonomy taken to its logical conclusion and it's funny that this is making the rounds again during Pride Month, which celebrates not just homosexuality, not just bisexuality, but it celebrates all sorts of sexuality and asexuality and no-sexual and everything. The premise being you cannot judge somebody's sexual preferences as good or bad, and that includes pedophiles.
The only alternative to this conclusion is, of course, you can judge sexual preferences. It's the alternative to "pride," which is shame. Everybody has some weird sexual preferences, and you can either say that those preferences are wrong in and of themselves, like pedophilia, or you can say no sexual preference can be right or wrong. Take child abuse out of it, we''re just talking about the preferences.
I bet if you talk to a lot of leftists today and you said, let's say there's a pedophile, and he's never abused a child and he's never going to abuse a child, but he is really attracted to children. He doesn't download child pornography, and he just has an artist draw him child pornography, so no children are ever hurt in the production of it. Should the pedophile be allowed to look at drawn images of children having sex or being sexually abused? There are sex robots now, so should the pedophile be allowed to have sex with a sex robot that looks like a child, if he's never gonna abuse an actual child?
And if you ask the Left that question their gut reaction would say of course not, of course, he shouldn't be allowed to do that. But the logical end of their arguments I think would say, yeah, of course, he should — it doesn't hurt anybody. He's indulging his own fantasies, that's fine.
Are we going to indulge these sorts of preferences in these sorts of fantasies or not? Are we allowed to have a more sophisticated discourse about sexual morality and say well this is bad, maybe this isn't so bad, it's not great, this is a little weird maybe you shouldn't do that? Are we allowed to have the discussions we've had about sexual morality for all of human history or are we in a world in which you are called a bigot if you raise objections even to a pedophile orientation?
That's the question we're having and I think the culture is clearly moving in the direction of this bond villain from Germany.