Normalizing Pedophiles

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: The American Conservative.

The writer is probably correct: The ODU professor’s work is likely an attempt or will have the effect of normalizing pedophilia. But I note something else in the account given.

It is obvious that the science at hand has no answer to the hard question of pedophilia: What is it; how did it come into existence (in an evolutionary sense); how does it occur in individuals; does it require medical treatment (and how might it be treated)? It is clear that the hard question is at present unanswered because the topics that preoccupy the professor are all of a preliminary, definitional nature. That is to say, the professor’s work lies at the very begriming, the earliest stage, of the scientific process.

For this reason, I’m inclined to applaud his efforts in the name of academic freedom. Since pedophilia occurs all around us, it will be helpful, eventually, to understand it in a scientifically robust way. It will be interesting to know the answer to the hard question.

Until we do, I have (a) no problem with social disapproval of and (b) a big problem with social approval of pedophilia. Like the writer of the article, I expect that the immaturity of the science will be overlooked by many who have social agendas to promote.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

58 thoughts on “Normalizing Pedophiles”

  1. Many states allow marriage of children, some as young as 12, to older men for either religious or other reasons. How come that is not legal pedophilia, church or no church?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. I think it is, First Amendment or no First Amendment.

        Your article says that modern sexual maturity is earlier now, so that is the excuse.

        Ignored, of course, is the societal maturity needed to function in a complex Capitalist society.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. We are a capitalist society, correct?

            Tougher to learn the intricate rules and laws for living and working than a primitive society perhaps. Finances, linguistics, status, political, norms, justice come to mind. Women are a major part of our workforce and higher education.

            Learning the ropes at 12 or 15 while bearing children is a barrier. Accepting early marriage is damaging to the children and their future. And that affects all of us.

            But if the word bothers you that much, then substitute “—(pick one)—“

            Liked by 3 people

          2. My theory is that modern humans possess the same intelligence as their ancestors 200,000 years ago. Consequently the body of knowledge that can be taught, on one hand, or learned, on the other, is of the same scale and complexity it has always been.

            I don’t see society or the social maturity needed to function in it as having progressed in any way throughout history. That’s why I don’t understand your reference to capitalism.

            Like

          3. “Consequently the body of knowledge that can be taught, on one hand, or learned, on the other, is of the same scale and complexity it has always been.”

            That is self-evidently nonsense. Just take this one metric – there are over 170,000 words commonly used in the English language. How many words – IF ANY – do you suppose made up the language of those humans of 200,000 years ago?

            Like

          4. RE: “How many words – IF ANY – do you suppose made up the language of those humans of 200,000 years ago?”

            It is impossible to know since writing only emerged in the Bronze Age. But since the human brain is the same size today as 200,000 years ago, and since mastery of the natural world is at least as complex and subtle as, say, contemporary physics, I stand by the measure of knowledge as being the volume of what can be taught to and learned by a single individual.

            Like

          5. Another silly conversation.

            Your statement that the body of knowledge that can be taught is on the same scale and complexity as it was 200,000 years ago is palpable nonsense.

            You won’t accept the obvious counter-evidence of massive vocabularies for things and concepts that did not exist even a 100 years ago, let alone 200,000. Your rebuttal is that nobody knows how many words were in the earliest languages? And to prove that, you cite yet another modern complexity which a person must master to succeed in our society – written language – introduced LONG after 200,000 years ago.

            Like

          6. RE: “You won’t accept the obvious counter-evidence of massive vocabularies for things and concepts that did not exist even a 100 years ago, let alone 200,000.”

            No. I assert that modern vocabularies may well contain new words and ideas, but that on the whole these are replacements or substitutes for older words and ideas. My theory is that these new words and ideas are not obviously improvements. For example, we can send a man to the Moon, but we can’t build pyramids as well as our neolithic ancestors.

            The point about the origins of writing is that there is no record of human speech before its development. This simple fact undermines your assumption that human vocabularies were simpler in the primitive past. You assert as truth something that no one can show.

            Like

          7. Okay, what was the word for, say, “airplane” in 198,000 BC? Or “coronavirus?” Or “book?”

            I will say this for you, you do not shy away from making laughable claims to support your weird world view. As a reminder, you are pushing this nonsense rather than just admit that forcing little girls into adult lives is wrong and harmful. Why do they need schooling, you say. Life is no more complicated now that it was 200,000 years ago. That is what you are arguing and it is laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “there are over 170,000 words”

            Not all complexity involves words.

            I am a hunter. If you and I took a walk through the woods and passed an opening, there are easily a dozen things I will notice about that spot that you will not. A primitive man might notice a hundred things I do not.

            And remember that the stakes for not noticing such things were much higher for him.

            200,000 years ago, Europe was the habitat of dire wolves, saber tooth cats and massive bears. Our ancestors, fragile and lacking in claws and strength ate them all or made them into rugs. Don’t underestimate our ancestor’s intelligence.

            Like

          9. I said nothing about our ancestors’ intelligence. There is no reason to think they were any less capable than we are. The question being discussed is the assertion by Mr. Roberts that . . .

            “the body of knowledge that can be taught, on one hand, or learned, on the other, is of the same scale and complexity it has always been.”

            Uh, that would be a No. Not even close. To borrow a cliche – It was a simpler time. 200,000 years ago!

            And this nonsense was offered to rebut Len’s simple observation that forced marriage and child bearing at age 14 is harmful to a young girl. Maybe not 200,000 years ago. But it is now.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. RE: “Okay, what was the word for, say, ‘airplane’ in 198,000 BC? Or ‘coronavirus?’ Or ‘book?'”

            Like I said, it is impossible to know. But it is also a stupid question. Even if ancient and modern vocabularies contained the same number of words, the collection of meanings wouldn’t have to be the same.

            I keep repeating the concept over and over because you keep challenging it, foolishly.

            Like

          11. RE: “To borrow a cliche – It was a simpler time. 200,000 years ago!”

            A cliche, but not a demonstrable fact.

            For the record, too. I’m not in favor of pushing modern girls into adult situations, either. I doubt that was ever a normal human behavior, in light of biological puberty.

            Like

          1. He is the Republican darling since 1996 after he was caught running around with underwear on his head.

            Coincidence? I think not.😇

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Is Dick Morris the best you can do? Really? He has not been a Democrat for at least 2 decades, I will add that his sex scandal – a relationship with a prostitute – does not fit the subject – pedophilia. Certainly not as well as, say, the creepy Roy Moore or Matt Gaetz – current darlings of the Trump GOP. I will not even start on Donald Trump’s close association with the mysteriously deceased Jeffrey Epstein. We will have to wait for the testimony or tell all book of Ghislaine Maxwell for that one.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “Moore is a relic no one wants to claim.”

            Uh, except the Republican voters of Alabama who nominated AND supported him for the United States Senate.

            You gonna be defending Matt Gaetz now?

            Gaetz also denies that Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. Of course he denies ANY wrong doing. That does not change the fact that his case is still very active with his fellow pedophile turning states evidence thing are not looking great for this typical Trump Republican creep. As a reminder, the federal sex trafficking case was opened by the DOJ when Bill Barr was AG.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Do you have a cite? I suspect you and Mr. Rothman of using the topic at hand to promote a social agenda, as my post predicts.

            Like

          2. What agenda?

            PS: the Catholic Church is an embarrassment to the world with its long history and huge numbers of abused children and shielded clergy. Toss in an abundance of Christian cults that married off young children.

            And you are worried about some off the wall fringe opinion that suits your agenda?

            Liked by 2 people

          4. So child marriage is a proxy for pedophilia?

            I have already said that it might be. However, the main point I make in the introductory post is that the hard question of pedophilia is as yet unanswered. You and Mr. Rothman are clearly rushing forward as if it had been.

            Using pedophilia to stigmatize Christians reflects an obvious anti-Christian social agenda, and one that science cannot support.

            Like

          5. I stigmatize those who use Christianity to practice and hide the practice of sex with children.

            And those are generally the folks who hold positions of authority, leadership and great trust among the faithful. those attributes allow them to destroy young lives while couched in respectability.

            Other institutions are not immune. Prep schools, sports, schools like Penn State, etc. The general attitude is that the organization is more important than the individuals.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. RE: “I stigmatize those who use Christianity to practice and hide the practice of sex with children.”

            In that case, you can leave Christianity out of it and should.

            Like

          8. Why? By far the largest scandal has been the Catholic Church in its breadth and depth, from the Vatican to the local parishes.

            Unfortunately, it is the poster child for references to all other organizations.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. RE: “By far the largest scandal has been the Catholic Church in its breadth and depth, from the Vatican to the local parishes.”

            Switching gears, eh? First it was child marriages, for which the Catholic Church is not known; now it is pederasty for which you claim it was. Any excuse to criticize Christianity, it would seem

            Like

  2. There is a sharp line to be drawn between other paraphilias and pedophilia.

    The others can be practiced by consenting adults. Pedophilia cannot.

    If someone wants to be tickled with an ostrich feather or wear a bunny mask for sex, that is none of my business, but children must be protected until they are mature enough to make their own choices. We can no more condone pedophilia than we can condone those who desire to commit rape.

    As for as those who claim to be non-practicing for life, sure, and there may be a unicorn hiding deep in the Bavarian woods.

    Remember that child pornography requires the abuse of a child to make it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It is a crime, whether sanctioned by a religious cult in a state that allows it, like CA, or committed by a child rapist. That LDS fringe leader, Jeff I think is his name, was sentenced for forcing 12 year old girls to marry him in Utah.

      Bottom line, it is a fringe movement and I suspect the right is blaming the left. What else is new?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. This a typical lame “culture wars” issue. Dig far and wide to find something to bemoan and blame it – whatever its – on the “left.” The base of the Trumpkin party is stupid enough to buy it. Whatever it is.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    3. RE: “The others [paraphilia] can be practiced by consenting adults. Pedophilia cannot.”

      Looking through the list at Wikipedia, I see the triggers for human sexual arousal can be diverse indeed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

      That’s a real puzzle. The biological utility of sexual arousal is singular or nearly so. You’d think the triggers would be singular or nearly so, as well. But they aren’t.

      Why should it be that way? Is the same true for other animals?

      Like

      Reply

      1. They missed a few.

        Sex happens in the context of life. Religion plays a part, as does evolution.

        But as long as no one is forced and people are happy, let a thousand flowers bloom.

        Like

        Reply

  3. While I dont think either party has a monopoly on sexual or child sexual scandals, Democrats seem to be far less shameful or apologetic of their pedophile conduct, even pretend it’s no big deal and Democrats reelect these perverts time and again. Gerry Studds and Joe Morrissey quickly come to mind. Democrats love their demented perverts as social new age warriors. Voila, normalization of pedophilia….

    Like

    Reply

    1. Amazing! A member of the Trump cult accusing anybody of loving demented perverts.

      Compare the reaction of the Democratic Party to Al Franken and that of the GOP to Roy Moore if you want to understand how far off base you comments are.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Dont you have anything better than Trump, Trump, Trump??? If it wasnt so pathetic it might be funny or an indian dance around a campfire or a new card game or a ….

        Like

        Reply

    3. RE: “I dont think either party has a monopoly on sexual or child sexual scandals…”

      Same here. I can’t even begin to imagine why it is important to some people to attach a political label to pedophilia, especially when, as stated at the top of the thread, the phenomenon itself is so poorly understood.

      You don’t need politics to disapprove of sex with children. Or animals or corpses, for that matter.

      Like

      Reply

      1. ” I can’t even begin to imagine why it is important to some people to attach a political label to pedophilia,”…

        Yes, why indeed do those on the right insist on calling out the left as perverts and problem children while ignoring those in their own caucus who are just as guilty.

        And while slightly off-topic, I seem to recall a big uproar when Maxine Waters called for “assaults” on political foes, but I have heard zero condemnation from anyone on the right, either here or on the news, for Rep. Gosar’s VIOLENT cartoon attack on another sitting member of Congress and The President. Once again, the display of hypocrisy by the GOP and it’s right wing supporters is disgusting.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    4. “I can’t even begin to imagine why it is important to some people to attach a political label to pedophilia . . .”

      Then why in the Hell did this extremist right wing political journal – The American Conservative – bring it up in the way that it did? Here are the authors own words in response to an academic noting that a person can be attracted to children without acting on it.

      ” . . .gosh, it sure seems like the next crusade of the genderqueer brigade is to normalize pederastic desire — exactly as many of us figured would happen.”

      The “genderqueer brigade.” Why would a decent person write like that? Why would a decent person link to it?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. RE: “Then why in the Hell did this extremist right wing political journal – The American Conservative – bring it up in the way that it did?”

        I don’t know. I chose not to follow his lead.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “I don’t know. I chose not to follow his lead.”

          Uh, you dug up this dirt and served to this forum. And you made this slanderous allegation . . .

          “The ODU professor’s work is likely an attempt or will have the effect of normalizing pedophilia.”

          False on both counts. Just more culture war horseshit.

          The professor is making important distinctions between attraction and action. There ARE people who are sexually attracted to children. Some act on those feelings and others do not. Current terminology lumps them together. He thinks it would be useful to make that distinction. And, if you actually listened to him speak he makes it very clear that acting on such feelings is NOT OK.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. You left out this: “But I note something else in the account given.”

            And also this: “I’m inclined to applaud his [the professor’s} efforts in the name of academic freedom.”

            In light of your commentary and the assumptions it is based on, I’d say Brandolini’s Law strikes again on you.

            Like

          2. A slander is a slander not matter how much pretty pink ribbon you wrap around it. With obviously zero understanding of what this professor said very clearly he is NOT attempting to “normalize” pedophilia.

            As for your claim that the knowledge that a person could be taught in 200,000 BC – before there was ANY form of human society beyond family groupings – “is of the same scale and complexity” as it now is an absurd and ignorant claim.

            Like

          4. I was referring to your slander with respect to what the professor was attempting to do.

            You seem not to understand Brandolini’s Law. You should look it up.

            Like

  4. This topic reminds me of the veracity of a phrase a friend of mine uttered after breaking up with a demanding girlfriend.

    “Sex is a lot less complicated when only one person is involved.” 😇

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment