Pedophilia in Pashtun society

[Badlun]

One of the issue in Pashtun society is pedophilia which is termed as "dark reality of a society living in denial." Please read the following

Set mainly in Peshawar, the film shows homeless boys of different ages recalling their experiences of sexual exploitation.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1129614/pakistans-hidden-shame-documentary-reveals-horrors-of-pedophilia-in-k-p

I think this is because of the segregation of the male and female in Pashtun society and that is why we have sexual abuse of especially male children.

[jankhan]

segregation is not the root cause otherwise there would be no such thing in Europe.

[tripledouble]

Sad.......this is unIslamic but the Arabs and other middle easterners do it too

[HalloIsBack]

europe have pedophilia too but this ppl just travel to asia and rape the children

[Karachi]

Where I lived (saudi arabia) this is very common too. I just dont understand why they think it is ok to have sex with boys. This is a hallmark of a jahil society.

I would rather have men having relations with girls normally then this complete haraam thing

I think this is obviously a result of a sexually frustrated society.

Also since sex is a such a big taboo, no religious leaders are willing to do anything about this issue

[Karachi]

segregation is not the root cause otherwise there would be no such thing in Europe.

Sexual frustration is the main cause. Muslim societies are very frustrated. There should be a program in all muslim countries to get people married early as possible. Then these horrible things will be less

[DaZahroJaam.]

it all begun on 7th BC in ancient greece which was then known as athens. man was perfect by nature and woman secondary if not less. the new era wisdom of the time surfaced which was believed to be that for the man to accomplish perfection in all forms of life was to loved by another perfect soul. they had wives to make sure that their linage continued but their love and compassion was reserved for someone of their own equal. it was a sign of great amount of wisdom, culture and class amongst the elites to be involved in such relationships with boys of preadolescence.. it was quite acceptable by the society because every one could not afford it and who was going to question the rich..
macedonians brought this trash along with them when alexander the great conquered the land of bones which was then known as khurasan. (speaking of which, did you guys know that around that time, it was a shame for an afghan man to die of old age and not in a battle field or not some other form of a violent death..)
times changed, customs changed... europeans learned new wonders to indulge in and entertain themselves by, muslims or rather middle eastern are still stuck with the same filth they were dwelling in all those centuries ago.
and how typical of you people to be so fascinated by this issue as to open 20 threads regarding the matter, but not once bother to do any research on the topic. you are just like your forefathers..
so yeah, it has nothing to do with the segregation of women or the sexual frustration of men but the egocentricsm of those who lust for power. and we all know that egocentism is a disease that not many pashtuns can escape from.
every single one of you has a little devil inside of you. instead of constantly obsessing over this subject, find something else to do.

[KGODB]

it all begun on 7th BC in ancient greece which was then known as athens. man was perfect by nature and woman secondary if not less. the new era wisdom of the time surfaced which was believed to be that for the man to accomplish perfection in all forms of life was to loved by another perfect soul. they had wives to make sure that their linage continued but their love and compassion was reserved for someone of their own equal. it was a sign of great amount of wisdom, culture and class amongst the elites to be involved in such relationships with boys of preadolescence.. it was quite acceptable by the society because every one could not afford it and who was going to question the rich..
macedonians brought this trash along with them when alexander the great conquered the land of bones which was then known as khurasan. (speaking of which, did you guys know that around that time, it was a shame for an afghan man to die of old age and not in a battle field or not some other form of a violent death..)
times changed, customs changed... europeans learned new wonders to indulge in and entertain themselves by, muslims or rather middle eastern are still stuck with the same filth they were dwelling in all those centuries ago.
and how typical of you people to be so fascinated by this issue as to open 20 threads regarding the matter, but not once bother to do any research on the topic. you are just like your forefathers..
so yeah, it has nothing to do with the segregation of women or the sexual frustration of men but the egocentricsm of those who lust for power. and we all know that egocentism is a disease that not many pashtuns can escape from.
every single one of you has a little devil inside of you. instead of constantly obsessing over this subject, find something else to do.

homosexuality and pedophillia are engrained in society and pretty much always have been, but sexual segregation to me at least, is the biggest factor in Afghanistan

[DaZahroJaam.]

Okay. And for the betterment of the society, how do you intend on fixing this problem?? Find a bunch of others with the same belief, Hold up a party, gather your women and start mingling?? What are you waiting for??
Men who can not resist sexually abusing children will be no better with individuals of opposite gender, either.

[torkham]

homosexuality and pedophillia are engrained in society and pretty much always have been, but sexual segregation to me at least, is the biggest factor in Afghanistan

How are? Long time.

I totally disagree man. Its not segregation, pedo. is deviant behaviour. It's found even in sexually mixed permissive societies, from belgium to atlanta, from egypt to lahore but not accepted as was with Greeks (and Spartans?)

It is seen acceptable or even 'normal' because the deviancy is unchallenged for reasons that need exploring, but inherent in the social group.

[Pakwatan]

There are two kinds of people on this Earth. Children ****ers and not children ****ers. We the vast majority don't belive in children ****ing. The people that do should meet the fate of killer mujrams. And they should be sentenced to death.

Any mother****er preying on children should be executed. Very simple.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One of the issue in Pashtun society is pedophilia which is termed as "dark reality of a society living in denial." Please read the following

Set mainly in Peshawar, the film shows homeless boys of different ages recalling their experiences of sexual exploitation.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1129614/pakistans-hidden-shame-documentary-reveals-horrors-of-pedophilia-in-k-p

I think this is because of the segregation of the male and female in Pashtun society and that is why we have sexual abuse of especially male children.

I am not sure how one is to interpret your statement. Allow me to delineate:

1) Are you saying that its more a of problem in Pashtun society than in others?

2) Or are you saying that it simply occurs in Pashtun societies with reckless abandon and no justice for the victim irrespective of magnitude?

If you are alleging 1) that is an unsubstantiated assertion since we have no data on recorded number of crimes and as a scientist, even a social scientist, one would have to consider confounding factors. For instance, in a more open society a crime might be reported and due to how often it is reported people might infer it is of a great magnitude. As an example, in the US, violent crime rates are actually lower than ever - but due to media reporting of sample crimes, the public perception is that crime is on the rise.

So a confounding factor might be that the magnitude of a rare crime in Pashtun society makes it more of a hotbed issue to discuss (at least amongst men) and that this then amplifies the perception that it occurs more often.

I can actually myself tell you that just about every person I run into these days has seen Najib Quereshi's work and just about every cousin or relative has spoken out about this crime (though each time I ask about specifics no one can cite a local case). So this is not to underwrite the magnitude of how often it occurs, as it may be occurring at a higher magnitude than in the US or at a lower magnitude, but we simply lack the numbers of a molester database to compare various nations

If you are talking about 2) then we have to once again provide perspective. There are many crimes: Warlordism, killing, thievery, land theft, army excesses, governmental bribing, rape, etc that are all going unpunished in many of these nation states. Therefore, i would say that it is not simply molestation or pedophilia that is going unpunished but that a systemic lack of a viable justice system and strong government is the problem.

So in summary we cannot, without scientific facts, evidences, proofs make the allegations that

A) Pashtuns are more likely to molest or molest more than other nations
B) That pedophilia as a special crime is given free passes as compared with other serious crimes

Finally,

regarding men and women segregation - its a fair theory I admit, but once again we would have to tie this to an evidence basis. We would need to show that segregation specifically is a risk factor. One example might be the military which has seen a spike in sex crimes toward females as they have been introduced into the war theater since the ratios are still higher in terms of male to female presence. But at least on a cursory search I have not found any observations or retrospective pieces investigating this. The only example coming up again and again is the Catholic clergy.

So its a hypothesis, and it may be a valid one, but it requires retrospective and international analysis to be considered as gospel truth.

Others have pointed out the reason why its dangerous to simply accept it as a reason since intermixed nations also have pedophilia and many of the criminals caught doing it are not sex segregated or sex starved and have access routes to women.

Therefore, I would posit that no crime needs to be ignored but that this discussion repeatedly coming up misses the forest from the trees. Effective governance would handle and implement justice regarding a multitude of crimes and ills and rehabilitate society.

To put in another perspective, one Afghan in a village near Jalalabad told me that such discussions regarding those people that the West sees as disadvantaged members of society (minorities, children, women, invalids, orphans, etc) provide him with dark humor. I asked why and he said that in this case, who is the strong one? If the strong one is the male head of the household or the village elder etc then even the supposedly strongest members of society are the victims of egregious crimes and misery so how does one expect progress?

Thinking about his statement I realized how smart he actually was. Even in the US the progression of human rights went like this:

Pruitan White man secures religious freedom via immigration (1600s)---> 1800s the Black Man is given the theoretical right to be free and to vote but it is still not enforced ---> early 1900s white woman is given the right to vote ---> Early 1900s child labor laws are beginning to be passed and considered important ----> 1970s in the context of unrest blacks are finally given enforced rights in the Lyndon Johnson era ----> Crimes against American Native Indians are beginning to be acknowledged after 400 years of sweeping them to the West and reservations are given some real budgetary support

So his point was extremely valid. It means that if a full grown, tough Afghan man in the village, who feeds his livestock and tills his soil with his sons has injustices inflicted upon him on nearly a daily basis by either his tarboor, or a person wanting his land, or someone confusing him for an enemy and breaking down his door, or just for the erratic reasons of day to day life in a war zone... then these discussions are premature and sort of ignore the underlying pathology because the equivalent of the puritan white man in our society still has no rights in and of himself.

[Badlun]

I am not sure how one is to interpret your statement. Allow me to delineate:

1) Are you saying that its more a of problem in Pashtun society than in others?

2) Or are you saying that it simply occurs in Pashtun societies with reckless abandon and no justice for the victim irrespective of magnitude?

If you are alleging 1) that is an unsubstantiated assertion since we have no data on recorded number of crimes and as a scientist, even a social scientist, one would have to consider confounding factors. For instance, in a more open society a crime might be reported and due to how often it is reported people might infer it is of a great magnitude. As an example, in the US, violent crime rates are actually lower than ever - but due to media reporting of sample crimes, the public perception is that crime is on the rise.

So a confounding factor might be that the magnitude of a rare crime in Pashtun society makes it more of a hotbed issue to discuss (at least amongst men) and that this then amplifies the perception that it occurs more often.

I can actually myself tell you that just about every person I run into these days has seen Najib Quereshi's work and just about every cousin or relative has spoken out about this crime (though each time I ask about specifics no one can cite a local case). So this is not to underwrite the magnitude of how often it occurs, as it may be occurring at a higher magnitude than in the US or at a lower magnitude, but we simply lack the numbers of a molester database to compare various nations

If you are talking about 2) then we have to once again provide perspective. There are many crimes: Warlordism, killing, thievery, land theft, army excesses, governmental bribing, rape, etc that are all going unpunished in many of these nation states. Therefore, i would say that it is not simply molestation or pedophilia that is going unpunished but that a systemic lack of a viable justice system and strong government is the problem.

So in summary we cannot, without scientific facts, evidences, proofs make the allegations that

A) Pashtuns are more likely to molest or molest more than other nations
B) That pedophilia as a special crime is given free passes as compared with other serious crimes

Finally,

regarding men and women segregation - its a fair theory I admit, but once again we would have to tie this to an evidence basis. We would need to show that segregation specifically is a risk factor. One example might be the military which has seen a spike in sex crimes toward females as they have been introduced into the war theater since the ratios are still higher in terms of male to female presence. But at least on a cursory search I have not found any observations or retrospective pieces investigating this. The only example coming up again and again is the Catholic clergy.

So its a hypothesis, and it may be a valid one, but it requires retrospective and international analysis to be considered as gospel truth.

Others have pointed out the reason why its dangerous to simply accept it as a reason since intermixed nations also have pedophilia and many of the criminals caught doing it are not sex segregated or sex starved and have access routes to women.

Therefore, I would posit that no crime needs to be ignored but that this discussion repeatedly coming up misses the forest from the trees. Effective governance would handle and implement justice regarding a multitude of crimes and ills and rehabilitate society.

To put in another perspective, one Afghan in a village near Jalalabad told me that such discussions regarding those people that the West sees as disadvantaged members of society (minorities, children, women, invalids, orphans, etc) provide him with dark humor. I asked why and he said that in this case, who is the strong one? If the strong one is the male head of the household or the village elder etc then even the supposedly strongest members of society are the victims of egregious crimes and misery so how does one expect progress?

Thinking about his statement I realized how smart he actually was. Even in the US the progression of human rights went like this:

Pruitan White man secures religious freedom via immigration (1600s)---> 1800s the Black Man is given the theoretical right to be free and to vote but it is still not enforced ---> early 1900s white woman is given the right to vote ---> Early 1900s child labor laws are beginning to be passed and considered important ----> 1970s in the context of unrest blacks are finally given enforced rights in the Lyndon Johnson era ----> Crimes against American Native Indians are beginning to be acknowledged after 400 years of sweeping them to the West and reservations are given some real budgetary support

So his point was extremely valid. It means that if a full grown, tough Afghan man in the village, who feeds his livestock and tills his soil with his sons has injustices inflicted upon him on nearly a daily basis by either his tarboor, or a person wanting his land, or someone confusing him for an enemy and breaking down his door, or just for the erratic reasons of day to day life in a war zone... then these discussions are premature and sort of ignore the underlying pathology because the equivalent of the puritan white man in our society still has no rights in and of himself.

Great analysis.

The issue at hand is Pashtun society as the link given above is about Pashtuns not others. The problem is pedophilia not other crimes or evils. So if others have pedophilia or Pashtuns have other issues beside pedophilia is not relevant to ponder over here.

I agree that such social evils should be addresses and eradicated gradually but for a journey of thousands miles we have to take the first step . This first step must be focused not waiting that if other evil will be eradicated so we will subsequently focus on this one. Every specialist has its own role and capacity. There may be NGOs or UN body who can focus only on pedophilia not other crime so let them work on it and others will take care of other issues.

1) I am saying that its more a of problem in Pashtun society than in others because I am a Pashtun, I know about Pashtun society and my concern is about Pashtun society not especially other societies. I see it more amongst Pashtuns not in other societies. In Pashtun society it is not considered a crime and I do not know whether pedophilia has legal punishment or not in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

2) I am also saying that it mainly occurs in Pashtun societies with reckless abandon and no justice for the victim irrespective of magnitude. If it occurs somewhere else, no is my headache. My focus is Pashtun society.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Great analysis.

The issue at hand is Pashtun society as the link given above is about Pashtuns not others. The problem is pedophilia not other crimes or evils. So if others have pedophilia or Pashtuns have other issues beside pedophilia is not relevant to ponder over here.

Well, my argument against this rests on the notion of what sort of crime pedophilia is classified as. We have to branch out and think about it as a crime against what we would call a vulnerable population. Logic then moves in the direction of trying to find common trends and understanding if there are other crimes against vulnerable populations and determining if common motifs arise. If we do not do this then we end up treating a symptom and not treating the disease process.

I agree that such social evils should be addresses and eradicated gradually but for a journey of thousands miles we have to take the first step . This first step must be focused not waiting that if other evil will be eradicated so we will subsequently focus on this one. Every specialist has its own role and capacity. There may be NGOs or UN body who can focus only on pedophilia not other crime so let them work on it and others will take care of other issues.

So one of my concerns with NGOs and governmental bodies can be exemplified in Reagan's "War on Drugs." I was young in that era but old enough to remember the massive media blitz and concurrent street campaigns that were the result of millions of dollars of spending to fight a symptom. What has actually happened? The designer drugs have become more complex, meth bakeries abound in states as far as Alaska and Mexico has more dangerous and powerful cartels than ever before. This outcome is because the beurocrats tried to legitimize this pet project by viewing it as a problem in isolation, not understanding that what was going on across the border had a huge impact on any outcome of this nonsensical war. And going even deeper what we find is that Mexico has many of the same governmental and justice ills as our nations where the worth of human life is illustrated clearly by the fact that the cartels send people to brutally murder and make examples out of whole families.

Additionally, the proliferation of NGOs and Think-Tanks laced with agendas also use these "symptoms" to justify their existence and budgets while making transient dents in these problems at high economic costs/inputs.

1) I am saying that its more a of problem in Pashtun society than in others because I am a Pashtun, I know about Pashtun society and my concern is about Pashtun society not especially other societies.

Well I am a Pashtun too and have spent a decent amount of time in our areas, enough to have some profound experiences. Yet as an American, I have encountered a number of convicts being bought to the hospital in chains who were child molesters. But I cannot take my sample size and impose it on all Americans or all Pashtuns to make blanket statements.

So the part of your argument made in red above would perhaps better be presented as: "Pedophilia in our societies has a greater impact on me because I am a Pashtun and it occurs too often in our societies." This then would at least be an opinion... but as I stated before the part in red requires robust proof because otherwise it is labeling the whole society as having a bad trait relative to other societies on a greater level when in fact the rates may be similar or even lower (or higher)... in case until we get a viable numbers breakdown or estimate I have a hard time accepting that Pashtuns per 100 people have more pedophiles than other nations.

I see it more amongst Pashtuns not in other societies.

I've treated hundreds of Afghan patients, and have seen it far more often in the states.. but once again individual sample sizes of mine or yours would not validate a blanket statement that Pashtuns do it more often... we need proof for that and the proof is currently not there. That does diminish the seriousness of the crime as even 1 crime per year in the whole country is still too much since an innocent person is affected... but to be fair and just we have to be careful in making blanket accusations against any society (American or Pashtun or European)

In Pashtun society it is not considered a crime and I do not know whether pedophilia has legal punishment or not in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

On a personal level I can tell you a story of an encounter in a village that provides a view into the complexity of this. A few years ago when I was playing soccer in Afghanistan with some locals after a busy day one of the students told me about his maternal uncle giving him a handgun. This came up because we were talking about Pashtun prowess with weaponry and I told them I had seen more Americans with skilled hunting, crossbow, and firing abilities than what I saw in the villages. I asked the youngish boy why he was given the handgun since he should be getting pencils and pens and not that sort of thing. He said the incident happened months ago and that his maternal uncle gave him the gun and told him to kill his own father in his sleep. I asked him why and his brother who was a little annoyed about this sort of discussion about the family issues being aired in the open said the uncle was lying about their father. Later on some colleagues said the father was a fine, educated, and clean person who worked hard and the maternal uncle claimed he heard the father was doing pedophilic acts.

So this story shows that there is some village style/local retribution that is there for these acts, but that making that accusation is a big deal because it can also be misused. The father had lands and was providing for his wife's family members (including giving money sometimes to his brother in laws_ which can be considered a sharm back there). Whatever the deal was, the root cause may have had more to do with personal grievances than a crime ever being committed.

My friend, justice and experience have shown me that these issues demand deep introspection and thought and calibration otherwise more harm is done than good. Thank God that the boy had enough good sense to tell his brother and whoever else and not just exact random "vigilante justice" on his father who may be innocent of the crime

2) I am also saying that it mainly occurs in Pashtun societies with reckless abandon and no justice for the victim irrespective of magnitude.

This might be the case due to the issues above we outlined regarding the general lack of justice for vulnerable populations. Good governance would and will hopefully implement a justice system that utilizes serious penalties for the crime and publicize safe havens for children to get away from predators and also help reporting occur before it is an issue.

I can tell you here in the states multiple hollywood stars came out years after their childhood events occurred and finally spoke out against their perpetrator (often a family member)... and these are rich, powerful, confident, connected people. Sometimes the emotional and public aspect of this crime results in delayed or no justice in even the most developed societies.

If it occurs somewhere else, no is my headache. My focus is Pashtun society.

I would argue that if it occurs elsewhere then these societies may offer examples of how they dealt with a problem or rehabilitated their young victims... so their examples should not be summarily dismissed. In addition sociologists study these cross cultural phenomena perhaps to find common roots to these problems.

So in summary I would say that we need more panoramic vision to link serious problems in our society and if I were gambling man (which I am not) I would venture to say that there are commonalities underlying crimes between vulnerable populations and also examples of how the progression of human rights depends very much on proper governance and societal stability (a lack of which has been imposed for nearly 300+ years on Pashtuns). Otherwise, 1000 NGOs can try to tackle womens issues, childs issues, warlordism, etc etc etc and we can see that either there is retrogression on their watch, faux progress (e.g. more women starting school but with an equal or higher attrition rate in many provinces), or movement forward at a glacial pace with instability of outcomes.

[khushal]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...-to-pedophilia
The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia
Written by Selwyn Duke






If you had told someone in the 1950s that, in about two generations, homosexuality would largely be normalized and faux (same-sex) marriage would be gaining widespread approval, they’d have called you crazy. Never, ever under the stars and stripes. Why, pugnacious pundit Bill O’Reilly himself opined as recently as 10 to 15 years ago that faux marriage would never be accepted in America. Ah, what a difference a decade makes in the (mis?)information age, where ideas can be transmitted worldwide at a button’s touch.

I can’t tell you exactly when I knew faux marriage would gain traction — not in terms of date and time, anyway — but suffice it to say it was at least as soon as I heard the idea uttered by some obscure academic or activist on society’s fringes. As for homosexuality, there were some sagacious souls who realized decades ago that it would eventually be accepted. How? The same way a few of us knew in high school, almost instinctively, that our education paled in comparison to that of previous generations: trajectory. If you know an asteroid’s trajectory, you can predict not only where it was years ago, but where it will be in the future. And so it is with cultural trajectory.

Terrible Trajectory

Yet if I say that our current cultural trajectory — a bizarre trek that has caused us to boldly go where no American had gone before — has as a point on its arc the acceptance of pedophilia, I’m sure I’ll hear “never, ever under the stars and stripes!” This is a normal human reaction. But the past is a picture of futures man inevitably will paint again, and history hollers its warnings for those with ears to hear.

First consider a simple fact: There is virtually no historical precedent — if any at all — for faux marriage, yet we’re accepting it. But there is great historical precedent for pedophilia, that thing most would currently say we could never accept. And the obvious place to start here is with ancient Greece. The civilization is well-known for its acceptance of homosexuality, yet what actually was most common in this arena was pederasty, sexual relationships between men and boys. It is said that in the mid and late periods of ancient Sparta, the practice was institutionalized in the city-state’s military camps, with a 12-year-old boy being attached to a mature man who would become the child’s mentor and, apparently, molester. And homoerotic ancient Greek art and, more significantly, the casual way prominent Greeks spoke of pederasty attest to its widespread acceptance. As to the latter, historian Plutarch addresses Theban pederasty in Life of Pelopidas and explains that it was an educational device for boys that was designed to “soften, while they were young, their natural fierceness” and “temper the manners and characters of the youth.” The poet Solon gushed about pederasty in his poem “Boys and Sport,” and tradition tells us that the warrior group the Sacred Band of Thebes comprised pederastic man-youth pairings. In fact, the Greeks even had words describing the players in man-boy relationships: An erastes was an adult man who courted or was in a sexual relationship with a boy (this accounts for part of the derivation of “pederast”), who himself was known as an eromenos.

Yet it wasn’t just the “advanced” Greeks. History is littered with examples of primitive peoples that practiced institutionalized pedophilia; the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea does so to this day, and many military personnel will attest to how the abuse of “dancing boys” is widespread in Afghanistan. The reality? When it wasn’t actually prescribing it as a good that created a bond between brothers in arms or served some other end, pagan morality often had little negative to say about pedophilia (and Islamic cultures may tolerate it). Perhaps now we see why philosopher C.S. Lewis once said, “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And since that closet was made with Christian morality, and the faith is now ridiculed and attacked and its closet is being thrown wide open, isn’t it logical to suspect that anything and everything within it could, quite possibly, emerge? Yet how would we get from where we are now — perhaps point G — to a pederastic point X? Well, it’s instructive to explore how we got to G in the first place, and this brings us to the ABCs of social manipulation via the use of media, entertainment, academia, specious science, and philoso-babble.

A book was published in 1989 entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. In it, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen — a marketing man by trade who, take note, once used the pen name “Erastes Pill” — called for a desensitization of Americans to homosexuality through a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Of course, Kirk and Madsen weren’t puppeteers or prophets as much as good trajectory readers, as the movement they encouraged was well under way by the time they penned their book.

In 1977 already, we had the sitcom Soap with its openly homosexual character Jodie, played by comedian Billy Crystal. And while some would argue that the character was created to make the show cutting edge rather than to manipulate hearts (and, of course, both could have been motivations), it certainly made for ingenious propaganda. Take a funny and sympathetic character — and Crystal was most comedic — but make him a homosexual on an entertaining show that is the “thing to watch.” This is effective because whether it’s Soap, La Cage aux Folles, or another work, if you laugh at something enough, you’re no longer outraged by it. Also be sure to have that homosexual character say things such as “I’m a person, just like you,” which Jodie did (or a paraphrase of it), but, most significantly, just show him acting, and interacting with others, just as you would. For a big part of normalizing something is showing those who embody it acting normally.

The next step after normalization and tolerance is engendering sympathy and affection, and entertainment’s role in this is simple to understand. Just as people may condemn the sin but not the sinner, they also have trouble loving the sinner but not the sin. This is why a mother may accept even a son’s heinous crimes and why people will justify the scandalous behavior of a favorite politician or sports figure. Likewise, when people come to like a show — and, more specifically, a character on it — they generally start to accept what that character represents. And just think how successful this entertainment campaign has been. Homosexual characters are now a staple of TV and film and, as in the movie Sling Blade, are sometimes the work’s only compassionate voice of reason.

Enter Entertainment

But then there are the agencies working in concert with entertainment. There is specious science reported — and often twisted — by special-interest media and academia; thus do we hear about things such as the “gay gene,” which not only doesn’t concern the heritability of happiness but also has never been found. Nonetheless, it is used to give weight to the argument that homosexuality is inborn and, well, haven’t you heard, “God doesn’t make mistakes”? The media and academia are also careful to frame the homosexual agenda as a matter of “rights,” “equality,” and “minority” victimhood while avoiding talk of “morality” (they will, however, apply their feelings-derived preferences and call opponents “haters,” “bigots,” and “intolerant”). This is easy to do, too, since they’ve discredited moral reality with the philoso-babble of moral relativism and its refrains, “Who is to judge?” and “All values are equal.” Of course, this credo could be used to justify killing homosexuals as easily as accepting them, but this realization involves understanding an intellectual argument, and manipulating emotion is the name of the game here. And as long as entertainment — an arena so powerful that Plato warned how even just music had the capacity to reshape civilization — pushes people’s emotions in the desired direction, the field will be yours.

But will a day really come that marks the first time entertainment is placed in pedophilia’s service? And when would this be? I can predict this with some precision: in about 20 years ago.

There has long been the “Pedobear” Internet meme, a little comedic cartoon character Web users often associate with news stories about pedophilia. And remember what happens when people start to laugh at something? Then there was the “Chester the Molester” cartoon character in Hustler magazine (the creator of which, Dwaine Tinsley, was once convicted of molesting his 13-year-old daughter). Far more significant than a porno-mag offering, however, was a film made in 1993 called For a Lost Soldier. Based on a true story, the movie somewhat vividly portrays a WWII-era sexual relationship between a Canadian soldier and a 13-year-old European boy. What I’d like to focus on here, however, is a New York Times review of the film written by someone named Stephen Holden. Entitled “Treating a Delicate Story of a Soldier and a Boy Tenderly,” you’d think the paper was reviewing Romeo and Juliet. Holden writes that the story “takes up … a romantic relationship between a grown-up and a child, and invests it with an aching tenderness”; that it is “more than a love story”; that “Walt [the molester] seems almost as innocent as Jeroen [the child]”; and describes the “affection” between the two as “touching.” Moreover, the Times not only takes no issue with the film’s non-judgmental treatment of pederasty, it writes, “One of the strengths of the film is its refusal to load the story with contemporary psychological and social baggage. There is no mention of homosexuality. Nor is there any implied accusation of child abuse.... The film assigns no blame and assesses no damages.” In fact, the paper says the movie’s only failure “is in finding a coherent dramatic frame for the story.” And then there is the kicker: The review describes the “affection” between Walt and Jeroen as “the love that dare not speak its name.” My, where have we heard that one before? And what is the implication here? Should a man-boy sexual relationship be able to speak its name? NAMBLA certainly thinks so.

A more recent film in the same vein is L.I.E. (2001). It portrays pederast Big John, an ex-marine with a penchant for young male prostitutes but who also, you see, has a human side. As Ed Gonzalez wrote at SlantMagazine.com, the film “suggests that a pederast could actually have something useful [to] contribute to society.” And as A.O. Scott of the New York Times put it, compared “with Howie’s [the 15-year-old main character’s] well-meaning but clueless guidance counselor, Big John seems like a benign, common-sensical uncle.”

Of course, neither Big John nor For a Lost Soldier’s Walt is portrayed as particularly sympathetic. But they’re not portrayed as particularly villainous, either. And this non-judgmentalism is in fact a judgment, in that it serves to place, via embodiment representation, morally evil behavior in the morally neutral category. Except for their habit of indulging the ancient Greeks’ “unspeakable vice,” Walt and John are presented as acting, and interacting with others, normally — and often even charitably. After all, they are “people just like you,” right?

That is how it starts.

With entertainment having already broken the ice in whitewashing pedophiles, can the first claims that their desires are just another inborn orientation be far behind?

Scientific Stamp

Actually, they’re already behind us.

On January 14 of this year, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia: Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.” (Emphasis in original.) The piece starts out with a story about one Paul Christiano, who, as a young child, was fascinated by girls and loved “how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics,” wrote the paper. We’re then told that while Christiano grew up, his sexual tastes didn’t: He remained tormented by an attraction to pre-pubescent girls. Christiano is the “sympathetic character,” mind you, the hapless soul meant to put a human face on pedophilia. But now consider what he said about unsuccessful court-ordered therapy he was forced to undergo after being caught with child pornography in 1999. As the Times reported, “‘These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed,’ he said. ‘But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.’”

“As intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality… ” Where have we heard that before? And the paper then does something else that should sound familiar. It gives Christiano’s claim the imprimatur of science, writing:
In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change....

Scientists at the Toronto center [Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto] have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.
The paper then tells us that pedophiles are generally an inch shorter than normal people, have I.Q.s 10 points lower on average and less white matter in their brains, and that the first two of these factors are “consistent with developmental problems, whether before birth or in childhood.” They sure are — and their interpretation is consistent with a cultural problem. The operative phrase here is “whether before birth or in childhood” because, if the latter, it indicates a nurture-oriented cause of pedophilia, not a nature-oriented one (as to nurture’s significance, research has indicated that environment can influence even, amazingly, gene expression). Yet the Times article glosses over the nurture possibility — it doesn’t match the agenda the paper is trying to advance.

There is another fact the Times has to massage. Continuing with the inborn theme, it tells us, “Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth. ‘The only explanation is a physiological one,’ said James Cantor, a leader of the [Toronto] research.” Yet the Times had written earlier in its piece that researchers have basically dispensed with the “popular belief” that childhood sexual abuse is a significant factor in pedophilia because “only about a third of offenders say they were molested” as children. So let’s get this straight: When 30 percent of pedophiles share some sort of inborn characteristic, it’s compelling evidence for the nature thesis. But when (only?) 33 percent share a traumatic life experience, it’s compelling evidence discrediting the nurture one? This clearly is the spinning of data to fit an agenda.

And who are the “experts” cited in the Times article? Many of them, it seems, crawled out of the woodwork to attend a 2011 symposium in Baltimore, Maryland — an event whose focus was the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. WND.com reported at the time that it was “held by the ‘minor-attracted people’ advocacy group B4U-ACT to disseminate ‘accurate information’ on the position that pedophilia is just one more alternative sexual orientation.” As such, the conference speakers contended, the American Psychiatric Association should no longer list pedophilia as a psychological condition in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Drawing an important parallel, Dr. Judith Reisman, a longtime crusader against child sexual abuse who attended the symposium, “explained that the same strategy was used by homosexual activists in the 1970s when same-sex attractions were removed from the APA’s list of disorders. Eventually, the legalization of ‘gay marriage,’ the mandatory homosexuality lessons in public schools and the brand new policy of allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. military resulted,” writes WND. Reporting further on the positions taken at the conference, WND wrote:



Dr. John Sadler (University of Texas) argued that diagnostic criteria for mental disorders should not be based on concepts of vice since such concepts are subject to shifting social attitudes and doing so diverts mental-health professions from their role as healers....

Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins … argued in favor of “acceptance of and compassion for people who are attracted to minors....”

… Richard Kramer, who represented B4U-ACT at the event, contended listing pedophilia as a disorder stigmatizes the “victims” of the lifestyle choice.

… Conference speakers said the Diagnostic Manual should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have “a minimal focus on social control” rather than a focus on the “need to protect children.”

… Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said it is proper for children to be “the object of our attraction.” Breslow said pedophiles shouldn’t need to get consent from a child to have sex any more than they would get consent from a shoe to wear it.

… Andrew Hinderliter of the University of Illinois said the boundary between the helping professions and the criminal justice system can be blurred.
Note that B4U-ACT takes pains to rebrand pedophiles as “minor-attracted people” in the same way activists once strove to ensure the euphemism “gay” would supplant “homosexual.”

Liberty Counsel Action vice president J. Matt Barber, who also attended the conference, summed up its themes thus (quotations are Barber’s, as reported by WND): Adult lust for children is “normative,” people indulging it are unfairly “demonized,” children are capable of consenting to sex, “wrong” as a concept isn’t applicable to “minor-attracted people,” and the DSM “ignores that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ the same way adult heterosexuals have for each other.”

Logically Defending Illicit Lust

Just as significantly, these are far from the only times such views have been expressed. In a 2002 article entitled “Raising Sexually Healthy Youth: Rights. Respect. Responsibility & Parent-Child Communication,” the group Advocates for Youth stressed that children are “sexual from birth.” Ann-Katrin Müller in Der Spiegel reported that German homosexual “rights” organizations and even a sizable number of Green Party politicians have a long history of supporting pro-pedophilia causes. Author Judith Levine penned a 2003 book in which she “suggests the threat of pedophilia and molestation by strangers is exaggerated by adults who want to deny young people the opportunity for positive sexual experiences,” wrote Fox News. Anti-fracking activist Vera Scroggins has advocated that parents initiate young children into sex, writing, “Who better to do it, than the parents first?” And, of course, there is bug researcher turned self-proclaimed sex expert Alfred Kinsey, who we now know was a pedophile using science as a cover for the indulging of his perversion. As I reported in “According to Kinsey, Deviancy Is the New Normal,” in The New American, all the aforementioned ideas — that children are sexual from birth, that relations with adults don’t harm them, etc. — can be traced back to him and his associates. And these ideas are lent credibility even though it has been established that Kinsey was a scientific fraud who misrepresented data for the purposes of legitimizing perversion.

And when you combine this special-interest “science” with specious reasoning, you have a very dangerous one-two punch of prevarication. For example, consider again the Los Angeles Times article. It does contain a grain of truth. That is to say, people generally don’t ask for the feelings they have, and, as C.S. Lewis noted ages ago, sexual problems can be quite intractable. Yet it’s silly — and often just agenda-greasing spin — to confuse intractability with innateness. We all know that influences and events during formative years can have far-reaching consequences and can almost imprint behavior (that is why they’re called formative years); raise a boy in an abusive and criminal ghetto home, for instance, and he may exhibit change-resistant negative behavior patterns the rest of his days. This also places in perspective a claim made by many a homosexual: “I’ve had these feelings for my whole life.” This is either sloppy thinking or a rationalization. Since most everyone has recollections reaching back to only three, four or even five years of age, all virtually anyone can say with assurance is, “I’ve had these feelings for as long as I can remember.” And those lost-in-memory first few years of life are the most significant of all.

Without Morals, Everything Is Normal

The folly of the intractability-equals-innateness thesis is further illustrated by applying it consistently. For example, it’s applied to homosexuality and “gender dysphoria” (feeling you’re a member of one sex stuck in the body of the other), but what about “Body Integrity Identity Disorder” (BIID), which involves persistent and seemingly irremediable feelings that a body part doesn’t belong on your body? Would it justify amputation? Actually, two BIID “patients” found a Scottish doctor willing to do just that and had two healthy legs removed, a testimonial to what can happen when we elevate feelings to ultimate-arbiter status. When beset by anomalous, self-destructive, or perverse impulses, the default assumption should be that the issue is a psychological problem, not a physical or genetically induced one.

But this counsel is now viewed as heresy because the “experts” have transitioned back to the nature side in the nature/nurture debate (at least when political correctness allows it: They certainly won’t attribute different achievement among the races to genetics — yet). It was in fashion during the early 1900s as well, then in the form of the eugenics movement, until the association with Nazi horrors discredited it. We then saw nurture dogma’s ascendancy and heard pap such as, “The sexes will be the same if we raise them identically,” as these pendulum-and-pabulum practitioners swung from one extreme to the other and proved that G.K. Chesterton was right when he called common sense “that forgotten branch of psychology.” But of more concern right now is what is quickly becoming a forgotten branch of philosophy: morality.

While the nature-oriented eugenics movement sought to eliminate what it deemed defects, our nature-oriented movement often holds that if something is natural, it cannot be a defect. This is the “God doesn’t make mistakes” argument, the implication being that if something is inborn, it cannot be wrong. And the greatest danger here isn’t that this is used to justify homosexuality — or even that it could be used to justify pedophilia — but that it could literally justify anything branded “innate.”

First note that whether we believe our world is naturally flawed or demonically fallen, it’s plain we aren’t born perfect. Spina bifida, cleft palates, and Down syndrome attest to this in the physical realm, and the only reason there hasn’t been a powerful movement to normalize such things is that people generally don’t find being deformed or mentally compromised a turn-on. But few things feel better than satisfying sexual desire, and you can’t easily satisfy what is stigmatized — ergo the innateness-equals-legitimacy argument. Consider, however, that the same social scientists claiming that homosexuality, and now pedophilia, is inborn, also tell us sociopaths are born and not made. Now, question: If in addition it’s determined that homicidal feelings are innate, would it be moral for a person of such nature to kill?

The lesson here?

Genetics doesn’t determine morality.

Whether or not feelings are disordered — and whether their corresponding behaviors are moral — has nothing at all to do with whether those feelings were bred not by despotic abuse but the dark workings of DNA. Saying otherwise is to discard morality and replace it with biological determinism. And no idea is more destructive to civilization. No idea should be more quickly rejected by civilized men.

Unfortunately, civilized men are in increasingly short supply, especially among the Left, which seems remarkably untroubled by pedophilia. How can I say this? Well, just observe leftists’ telling contradictions — and what they refuse to tell. If pedophilia were anything but a convenient hammer they use when reporting incessantly on hated targets such as the Catholic Church, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times would not have run articles legitimizing it. The 61 biggest California newspapers would not have published nearly 2,000 articles on the church scandal during the first half of 2002 but, during the same period, only four on the public-school sex scandal, which a government-sponsored Hofstra University study found is 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal and is still ongoing. And the Left would hold pedophile Alfred Kinsey in contempt and reject his fraudulent work; instead, they generally defend him to this day. Hollywood even gave us the film Kinsey (2004), which heroicized the deviant as a maverick pushing back the frontiers of a “repressed” society’s ignorance.

Most significant, however, is the philosophical corruption. Whenever the Left seeks to justify homosexuality or anything else, it invariably peddles moral relativism, the notion that right and wrong are determined by man and therefore change based on time and place. But what this really implies is that right and wrong, morality, don’t exist; only human preference does. Thus, when leftists say “You can’t judge this or that because everything is a matter of perspective,” “this or that” truly fits because you can just fill in the blank. Relativism is a package deal with the Devil: Once accepting that moral boundaries are illusory, the sky — or, I should say, Hades — is the limit. All we are then left with is occultist Aleister Crowley’s formulation, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So how will the Left further legitimize pedophilia? As the ancient Greeks proved, relativism isn’t even necessary. The idea that sexuality has a specific and limited conjugal context is a Judeo-Christian one. And post-Christian America is gradually accepting the notion that consensual sex, whatever the stripe, hurts no one. It’s just pleasure like eating ice cream, you see, except that sexual exploration is far more important. And children have a right to it, to sexual self-determination, to not be placed in a stifling straitjacket woven of outdated Puritan morality. Why, Barack Obama himself has said that having sex education in kindergarten is the “right thing to do.”

The past is a picture of futures man inevitably will paint again, and ancient Greece, and perhaps beyond, is where our cultural trajectory takes us. But there is good news — that is also bad news. Cultural trajectories can change via the explosion of civilizational realignment, and, to paraphrase economist Herbert Stein, “If something can’t go on, it won’t.” Until then, however, the planet of man will continue hurtling away from morality and sanity at light speed, on its journey toward that black hole of civilizations past.