It usually starts out small, unnoticed; some obscure study or paper, published by a noted (or notorious) academic, supported by the learned bastions of academia like Cambridge or Essex University. Left unnoticed and unchallenged, it soon becomes the basis for further development and support, reaching far beyond the numbers, statistics or density within the population studied to justify a certain behavior or particular point of view. It slowly finds its way into mainstream thinking, reviled at first, but soon determined to be “normal” or “acceptable” because, hey, a study at a major university said so. Who knows, after a few years, it might just start reaching the point of adding to our diversity, demanding tolerance and the enforced, militant acceptance on the larger population. How soon before it becomes settled science that demands deniers be branded as hate mongers or idiots? Call me an idiot; there are some things I will never accept. No, I’ll never tolerate the belief that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. Nope. Not ever.
Last July at a conference at the University of Cambridge, the lead presentation opened the conference by stating, “Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” and “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” This love-fest of perverted thought brought together all manner of experts on the subject of the conference, which was about the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The battle is over the classification, or lack of one, to encompass Hebephilia, the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically eleven to fourteen-year-olds, which is different from Pedophilia, the sexual preference for pre-pubescents.
The argument centers around the legality of the terms used by courts and law enforcement. With puberty starting younger in the last several decades, the definition of Pedophila may not encompass a large number of children who were pubertal; victims who were not covered by the term Pedophile because of their early puberty. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM, sought to classify Hebephilia as a disorder, concerned that the lack of clarification was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”. The proposal was defeated. Another victory for yet another tiny segment of the population who see their predilections as completely normal and looking for the acceptance of the larger population and quite possibly, eventually laws and further studies to support that claim. Settled science as it were.
The attacks on the APA were telling, if not disgusting. Professor Ray Blanchard who headed the APA working group on the subject, was criticized by another learned perv, Professor Patrick Singy of Union College of New York. Professor Singy is concerned that convicted sex offenders might be detained as “mentally ill” and that the diagnosis of Hebephilia would be abused to keep sex offenders incarcerated after their sentence under the US “sexually violent predator” laws. Oh shame on us for protecting the weakest among our society. After all, as Professor Philip Tromovitch from Doshisha University of Japan noted, the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. Maybe in the circles he travels; maybe it’s something in the water at these universities.
A large number of those at the conference are connected to the Pedophile Information Exchange, a group founded to legalize sex with children. Many of the attendees are quite sympathetic to the plight of the Pedophile and the Hebephile, looking for academia to help them convince us all that we need to tolerate and accept their behavior. Apparently, one attendee named Tom O’Carrol who is not only a multiple child convicted sex offender but was once the head of the Pedophile Information Exchange, was positively giddy about the whole conference. He blogged about how “wonderful” the conference was and how “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” Describing a wonderful evening after the conference where he had drinks with the esteemed Professor Tromovitch, O’Carrol stated, “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam.” Yes, I’ll just bet the evening was just ducky; I don’t really want to think about the conversation though, thank you.
I’m not sure why we decided, or even when we decided, that we’d start to sacrifice the greater good for the miscreant few. My sympathy for anyone who considers themselves ill quickly evaporates when it includes the predation of the innocent. My sympathy turns to revulsion, very short of anger when they no longer consider themselves ill but rather a small point on the ever sliding scale of “normal”, but normal nonetheless. An outlier, but just as normal as you and I. The only thing they crave more than acceptance is the young, innocent bodies on which they prey.
If we can’t agree that this is abnormal, that this is repulsive and that this is a sickness, we can agree on nothing. How long before academia instructs us that the science is settled?
It already is for me.