Remember the Pro-Pedophile Movement That Liberals Pretend Doesn’t Exist?

Posted on Comments

Considering how often we’re told that there is no such movement, the ongoing effort to legalize sex with kids sure keeps busy:

The [British] prime minister has rejected a call from a leading expert on public health to lower the age of consent to 15.
Faculty of Public Health president Prof John Ashton said society had to accept that about a third of all boys and girls were having sex at 14 or 15.
He said the move would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS.
Downing Street said the current age of 16 was in place to protect children and there were “no plans to change it”.
Official figures suggest up to a third of teenagers have sex before the age of consent.
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could “draw a line in the sand” against sex at 14 or younger.
He said: “We need a debate here. It’s time the adults started talking about the situation to take these enormous pressures off children and young people from becoming sexually active too early.

Notice that this push for lowering the age of consent is coming from academia, which is where the pro-pedophile movement was observable as a distinct phenomenon more than a decade ago.

My prior awareness of this intellectual trend — a movement that is deliberately ignored by mainstream media — was why I hastened to defend Rush Limbaugh in January:

Rush Limbaugh Is Right: The Academic
Pro-Pedophile Movement Is a Real Danger

The origins and history of this movement, which can be clearly traced to Professor Alfred Kinsey’s bogus sex studies in the 1940s, which emerged as political advocacy in the 1960s and ’70s in the wake of the Sexual Revolution, has been documented by Dr. Judith Reisman and others. You can read my 2002 article about Lawrence Stanley, a pedophile lawyer who was once widely cited as an authority about the supposed non-danger of child pornography.

You should also be aware that the academic pro-pedophile movement for many years was most vocal in Europe. Theo Sandfort, a Dutch academic, was a member of the editorial board of the notorious pedophile journal Paidika. Sandfort authored the 2001 book Childhood Sexuality and co-edited the 1990 book Male Intergenerational Intimacy with fellow Paidika contributor Edward Brongersma, who was convicted for having sex with a 16-year-old boy. Theo Sandfort is now on the faculty of Columbia University, demonstrating how American academia has imported European perversion.

However, liberal journalists have actively sought to suppress public awareness of the pro-pedophile movement. Why is this? Because liberals don’t want to admit that this evil deviancy originated with their ideological comrades of the radical Left.

“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”
— Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981

The media don’t want you to know the truth about this, nor will they confront the “ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists” in Europe, the influence of which has spilled over into the academic elite everywhere.

Only if you are aware that this movement exists would you have shared my alarm at the “Free Kate” arguments on behalf of a Florida lesbian sex offender: “Kaitlyn Hunt Is Guilty and, Yes, There Is a Movement to ‘Normalize Pedophilia’.”

That story wasn’t just about a couple of teenagers in Florida. We never would have heard of Kate Hunt if she had taken the original plea deal offered by prosecutors, as most such offenders do. But because Hunt and her family believed they could portray her as a victim of homophobia, and thought they would gain support by presenting gay activists with a photogenic victim, there arose a movement which — had it been successful — might have set a legal precedent that could undermine age-of-consent laws nationwide.

And this is what the pro-pedophile movement has always wanted: To eliminate “arbitrary” age-based limits on sexual activity.

Of course, any age limit is in some sense “arbitrary,” and no matter where the law establishes the legal age of consent, there will always be some borderline cases where criminal punishment could be seen as unfair or overly harsh. Yet if the law sets 16 as the age of consent, and an 18-year-old has sex with a 14-year-old, how can anyone argue that punishment for the offense violates the 18-year-old’s “rights” (as Kaitlyn Hunt’s defenders argued) without effectively exposing all 14-year-olds to legalized sexual exploitation?

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

There is an attitude of antinomian lawlessness and moral relativism that I have called “The Intellectual Astroglide of the Elite,” which seeks to steadily erode our instinctive horror at such perversity.

Professor John Ashton, presented as Britain’s “leading expert on public health,” may not think of himself this way and, if accused of advocating pedophilia, would almost certainly deny it. At some point, however, common sense requires that we ask if the effect of policy is not also the intent of policy, no matter what the advocates of that policy may tell us to the contrary.

One need not accuse Professor John Ashton of being the clandestine agent of a secretive pedophile conspiracy in order to say that pedophiles would welcome a law lowering the age of consent to 15. And if the age of consent were lowered to 15 — common sense tells us, if we have paid attention long enough — then at some point in the future we will hear an argument for lowering the age of consent to 14.

The more “normal” the intellectuals can make this seem, the more acceptable it will become and the more we will be told that opponents of pedophilia are hysterical hateful bigots. Therefore, if opponents of this movement do not speak up now, they will eventually find they are marginalized and stigmatized as “extremists.”

People need to wake the hell up.




 

 

UPDATE: “Pedophile problem? What pedophile problem?”

A sweeping child pornography investigation has led to the rescue of 386 children around the world and the arrest of 348 people, Canadian police said Thursday. . . .
Police said 108 people were arrested in Canada and 76 in the U.S. Others were arrested in other countries.
Australian Federal Police commander Glen McEwen on Friday confirmed that 65 men had been arrested in Australia as a result of the Canadian investigation, and six Australian children had been removed from harm.
Police said the children were “rescued from child exploitation” but did not give more details.

(Via Conservative Hideout.)

RECENTLY:

 


124 comments

  1. Forgive a minor but important edit:

    “However, liberal journalists have actively sought to suppress public awareness of the pro-pedophile movement. Why is this? Because liberals don’t [YET] want to admit that this evil deviancy originated with their ideological comrades of the radical Left.”

  2. I can hear it now from the Love is Love crowd we are all haters because we don’t thinks adults should have access to kids

  5. One thing that troubles me about conservatives is Moral Pronouncements From On High.

    The whole extended childhood/teenage this is a post WWII Western phenomenon. Until you put pedophilia in some sort of historical context and give a reason why it is wrong other than “Because I Said So,” you’ve lost the battle before you begin.

    You’re fighting biology here, and some of the strongest drives in humanity.

    I grew up next to the Navajo reservation and saw over and over again how devastating teenage single motherhood can be. I don’t think that sex between minors and adults is healthy for either.

    But you need something other than a moral reason.

  6. At this risk of repeating myself when this topic appears, the intended “unintended” consequence of such a change in the law would be to prevent parents from protecting their children against predators. That is, if a 13 or 14 year old can “consent,” then parents cannot legally act “in defense of others,” which is a subset of “self-defense” in most states. Beat the crap out of some pervert pursuing your kid? Go to jail. You have no more control, because we’ve granted the status of “adult” to your child, even though you as a parent are responsible for all the expense of medical and psychological treatment after its over with.

  8. You’ve not been paying attention. Proscribing conduct based upon detrimental effects to humans who cannot appreciate the ramifications of that conduct or those effects is, in fact, a moral judgment. It is not based solely upon “because I said so,” but because the results are horrific for all concerned.

  9. If the government will require you to provide medical coverage until age 26, then parental rights must follow that regulation and extend to age 26 the rights of a parent. Age of majority laws must also follow suit. If the federal government through the ACA determines that the end of minor status is age 26, that then would force these changes.
    Unintended consequences.
    One section of the body of federal law cannot state A and another state B, in direct contravention of the legislation saying it is A.

  12. I’m not sure I agree that the left lacks a moral compass. I am pretty sure they have one; it’s just not necessarily pointing to the magnetic poles.

  14. For all of its disparate policies, its inherent contradictions, its logical fallacies, its perversions and debaucheries and its schisms, the overall agenda of the left, when taken as a whole, makes a very scary kind of sense.

  16. Right, because “For Your Own Good” was such a rousing success with Prohibition, explicit song lyrics, university speech codes, global warming, and Obamacare.

Comments are closed.