When opponents of legalized same sex marriage and socially normalizing homosexuality ask the question: what’s next? proponents scoff at their warnings of a slippery slope into doing the same for bestiality and pedophilia. However, the claims of the slippery slope were vindicated when psychologists argued that pedophilia was a sexual orientation, and activists began to lobby for “equal rights” (sound familiar) for zoophiles. Now academics at a conference at Cambridge are arguing that it’s perfectly normal — and natural — for men to be sexually attracted to and aroused by children.
(Telegraph) — “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.
In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.
After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.
Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.
Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.
But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.
Once you’ve used activist vocabulary to defend same sex marriage and the normalcy of homosexuality, you’ve essentially argued in favor of any sexual desire. LGBT activists have argued that homosexuality is something you’re born with; something you can’t change; feels natural and have always felt that way and that disapproval is degrading, dehumanizing, and makes you a second-class citizen. But anyone can apply these qualifiers to any sexual desire.
LGBT activists have argued their case in a very particular way. They’ve opened the door to any group of people who claim their sexual niche is similar in biological nature to the LGBT community. They can now use of their line of reasoning of normal, natural, and inborn. If the reasons to accept and embrace homosexuality are legitimate, then the same reasons must also be legitimate for pedophilia and zoophilia, especially now that academics and psychological professionals are on their side.