Weeks ago, I wrote that the left “has a new crusade: legitimizing child molestation.” That crusade continues apace today in the pages of The Independent (UK), where psychologist Glenn Wilson writes, “in my studies of the activist group Paedophile Information Exchange, many members admitted sexual feelings for children, which they had been able to turn to social good.” This is nothing new, of course. In early October, Salon.com led the way in championing the decency of pedophiles.
But now, the Independent is going further, suggesting that pedophiles may actually provide increased social good. “[W]e need to keep a sense of proportion here,” writes Wilson. “There is a danger of becoming hysterical about paedophilia and seeing it everywhere, like witches at Salem, or ‘Commies’ in Hollywood during McCarthyism. Paedophiles do exist, but there are very few of them and not all are child molesters.”
First off, witches don’t exist. Pedophiles, unfortunately, do. Second, communists in Hollywood did make a significant dent in the filmmaking community for years. But more importantly, pooh-poohing pedophilia as just fine so long as nobody acts on it is sort of like pooh-poohing drug addiction so long as nobody acts on it: it’s fine so far as it goes, but societally destigmatizing desire will make behavioral manifestation significantly more common.
Wilson writes that pedophiles actually turned their sexual attraction toward children “to social good.” What kind of good?
Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.
Sure, this shouldn’t worry anyone. Why wouldn’t we want those who want to have sex with children near the objects of their desire? That would be discrimination!
Whenever advocates for destigmatizing pedophilia get on a roll, they invariably end up justifying pedophilia itself as a legitimate exercise of sexuality. Wilson is no exception. “Many men admit attraction to underage girls, even if they would not consider taking advantage,” he writes in stating that the age of consent in Britain, 16, is arbitrary. The left consistently attempts to lower the age of consent, but even most leftists would acknowledge a marked difference even between a 15-year-old girl and a 3-year-old.
But no: all boundaries must be removed, because some boundaries have been blurred. Wilson writes that female schoolteachers who have sex with students are not termed pedophiles; thus, pedophiles should be let off the hook. But this is an argument for harsher treatment of those who have sex with youngsters, not an argument for more laxity.
In interviews today, Wilson said, “It would not surprise me at all if a lot of heterosexual males had taken up gynaecology beause of their sexual interest in women. That might possibly be true but very few of them would ever overstep the mark.” Comparing male sexuality to pedophilia is patently ridiculous, given that adult women are capable of consent, and also given the fact that gynecologists rarely go into the business of biological examinations of female genitalia for the sexual thrill. But the justification of pedophilia has become a front-burner issue for pedophilia advocates who have seen the door of sexual orientation open wide before them.
Evil always justifies itself. The only question is whether people of decency are willing to draw lines, or whether in defense of already-blurred lines, they seek to destroy behavioral lines altogether.