Jacqueline Laing

Normalizing pedophilia: Abolishing the age of consent

Jacqueline Laing
By Jacqueline Laing
Image

November 7, 2013 (MercatorNet) - After certain press criticism and a productive online backlash in the blogosphere, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is performing a gratifying volte-face in its use of the term sexual "orientation" for paedophilia.

In its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the APA has distinguished between paedophilic disorder and paedophilic orientation. Paedophilia-advocacy groups, like B4U-ACT, a grassroots lobby group, have long seen the declassification of paedophilia to the status of an "orientation" for “minor-attracted persons" (MAPs) to be a necessary means to their ends. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (and numerous international affiliates advocating sex between men and boys) see these and other developments as an important step towards their continuing objective of legalising and normalising paedophile activity.

In response to the online critique, the APA has confirmed in the last few days that the DSM will be altered and that "it stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents."

Whatever the recent anxieties that have caused editors of the DSM to have a sudden rethink, efforts to abolish the age of consent have a long, though not so venerable, history. In 1977 around 70 French intellectuals signed a petition seeking the abolition of all age of consent laws. Michel Foucault in his History of Sexuality reports that these included himself and Helene Althusser, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, Roland Barthes, Guy Hocquenghem, the jurist Jean Danet, filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet, writer Philippe Sollers, pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and many others.

Alfred Kinsey and his eponymous institute are hailed respectively as father and foundation of the sexual revolution. He is known for his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research spawned a new and lucrative field of academic endeavour both propping up and benefiting from the porn industry.

Be that as it may, few realise that Kinsey's highly acclaimed evidence on the normality of child sex was won by timing sexual acts performed on babies and small children. It took Judith Reisman, a lone researcher and concerned mother, to unearth the abhorrent and criminal truth about the evidence on which the pornographic revolution was founded. Much of the Kinsey research purported to show that desires hitherto regarded as morally unacceptable were in fact widespread and thus normal.

Reisman demonstrated that the evidence was gleaned from people imprisoned for sex crimes, a far from random sample. 1,400 criminals and sex offenders were classified as "normal" and the "human male" category therefore included incarcerated pedophiles, pederasts, homosexual males, boy prostitutes and miscellaneous sexual predators. Despite her admirable exposé, Reisman is widely regarded among sexual progressives as a 'narrow-minded bigot', a term used routinely now to terrorise those whose thought and work threaten an increasingly lethal, liberal zeitgeist.

To normalise the abnormal, there should be a ready supply of 'useful idiots'. These are the journalists and quasi-intellectuals that can be relied on to give their blessing to the destruction of innocence perpetrated by decaying predators. That these ever-ready dim-wits exist should be obvious by the complicity of the press and broadcasting media that for decades suppressed complaints about the old pervert Jimmy Savile.

Savile's earthly span passed in a spirit of fearless predatory, necrophilic and paedophilic bliss. Those who challenged his revolting reign were ridiculed as, guess what, narrow-minded bigots. The alleged bigots  were, needless to say, swiftly silenced. Police were fobbed off. Journalists, entertainers and managers lauded his antics as progressive. Giggling alongside the old abuser were police officers, judges, administrators and a catalogue of professionals who would have been on notice about the complaints levelled against him.

That there is a superabundance of willing (if ignorant) colluders should not be doubted. There are so many it is difficult to know where to begin. But one who has recently emerged is journalist Miranda Sawyer. Miranda, it seems, regards age of consent laws as "laughably unrealistic" (so too are laws against contract killing but that does not justify abandoning laws against contract killing).

She argues that the 'Government, by banning all sex for everyone under 16, is turning what's natural and normal into something dirty and wrong'. Er ... yes, Miranda, laws are meant to do that and dirty old men preying on youngsters whether in institutions or online ought to have their collars felt.

As if paedophilia were not enough, bestiality now has cachet in familiar philosophical circles. Peter Singer, the Princeton prima donna whose texts I've elsewhere analysed, aside from promoting a sickening infanticide ethic also recommends bestiality on utilitarian grounds of human preference maximisation. His 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, argues in favour of a new harm principle: only sexual activities between humans and animals that cause injury to the animal should be criminalised.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But, it is pointed out, "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty". Singer carefully elaborates his view that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may well take place between humans and animals. Singer, a recipient of the prestigious Companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia is Australia's most famous gift to the world of philosophy.

Part of the problem with speaking to the sexual revolutionary is that he does not classify harm to a child as any harm to a full person at all. Children barely figure in his ethical universe of persons. He does not understand abuse of power. He sees a child as an opportunity for personal gratification. Family breakdown is not regarded as harmful, whether to the child or the adult he becomes. Vulnerability is prized as an occasion for exploitation.

Sexual activity with those the powerful refuse to protect is seen as a source of profit. Children and animals are viewed ruthlessly as fair game because autonomy of 'persons' trumps the protection of the vulnerable whose rights are predicated on the work or Lockean shared labour of 'full persons'. Human trafficking is a mere logical extension of these principles licensing abuse.

Just when a child should be engaged in innocent pursuits, supposedly avant-garde thinkers, their intellects and consciences mutilated by widespread error, endemic feeble-mindedness and the drip-drip effects of the sexual revolution, appear with paedophiles in tow. These latter are all too ready to damage the lives of young children, whole families and floundering secular societies.

The normalisation of paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and other human perversions threaten the defenceless and corrupt the perpetrator. Any furious back-pedalling by the APA is warmly to be welcomed. Those professionals who would deny the grief and destructive social implications  of psychological disorders are, to be sure, part of the problem.

Jacqueline Laing teaches Jurisprudence, Criminal Law and Law and Religion at London Metropolitan University. This article has been republished with permission from her website, Jurisprudence and Applied Philosophy

USEFUL READING

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Judith Reisman et al.; Huntington House; Lafayette, LA (1990)

Reisman, Judith."Soft Porn" Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family. Huntington House; Lafayette, LA (1991)

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme. The Institute for Media Education; Crestwood, KY (1998)

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World. Cumberland House Publishing (2006)

Reisman, Judith. Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America. WND Books (2010)

Reprinted with permission from MercatorNet

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook