Victims, victims, everywhere. At one time in the dark period before liberal enlightenment, we used to think that the person on the business end of the pistol was the victim. But of course, that’s because, as our liberal friends have shown us over the last thirty years or so, we were some type of “phobe” or suffer from our own evil “ism” or another, both instances blinding us to the fact that we’ve oppressed, abused, cheated, hated and god-forbid, stigmatized those poor unfortunates who couldn’t really control their behaviors and just had no choice but to stick the barrel of their dysfunctions underneath our hateful noses to liberate us from our Nikes and Iphones. How hateful of us to try and marginalize them to the edges of a civil society. But “hate the sin, love the sinner” is no longer good enough. No, now it’s love the sinner and accept the sin as the new normal, lest we offend.

Tell me Ms. Kaplan, which of the 50% is he?...

Tell me Ms. Kaplan, which of the 50% is he?…

There are few stigmas left in society today; you know, stigma, the extreme disapproval of a person or group of persons associated with some characteristic or behavior that the greater society deems is outside of cultural norms. Of course, that would mean that society is being judgmental here; who gets to decide what act or what persons should be stigmatized? What the hell is a cultural norm anyway? And we certainly cannot let society at large make those distinctions anymore; because that of course, produces victims. Maybe we need to let assistant law professors from Rutgers and the ACLU decide for us what acts we need to be repulsed by, whether it makes our skin crawl or not.

Margo Kaplan, of Rutgers wants to be the voice of reason and societal conscience for you. Her op-ed in the New York Times gives a clear and succinct defense of removing outdated concepts such as stigma and societal norms, pointing the crooked finger of blame at a society for the hardships endured by those afflicted with pedophilia. Yes, the new victim class for the left is going to be pedophiles. Bet you never saw that one coming did you?

Although she’ll never admit it openly, Ol’ Margo and her buds at the ACLU would love to continue to move the boundaries of acceptable behavior by pushing the “disenfranchised class” model, that of gaining victimhood status which has worked so well on a genuinely compassionate society. Compassionate or cowardly, I can’t really tell; maybe it’ll be clearer in a few years as the slow progression towards normalizing yet another deviancy marches on, with the general public cowed by charges of “you hate this person” or “you’re bigoted” or probably coming soon, “you’re a Pedo-phobe.”

I’ve read her piece several times and still walk away shaking my head in a “WTF” moment. I had to finally put it down, get a lousy cup of coffee and stew over it for the afternoon. And of course, it just pissed me off more; the hater in me I guess.

Ms. Kaplan wants you to know that “pedophilia is a status and not an act.” Yup, okay. And because it’s a status, people are being discriminated against and live in great fear and trepidation because of that “status.” She’s not talking about child molestation here; she takes great pains to let everyone know that “one can live with pedophilia and not act on it.” Hence, status, as in, “Hi, I’m a non-practicing pedophile.” Love me please. Hold me close; I’m a victim, you see.

Of course, she wants you to know that pedophilia is not a choice. Again, another idiot with a Ph.D. in “friggin’ obvious.” I’m not sure if anyone ever said it was. Choice or no, it’s still pretty damaging to those it’s practiced upon, you know, those with the real “status” of victim. But it’s not about the children; it’s about those who fear loss of their jobs, harassment, and even violence, all because they want to claim their “status.” Whatever the hell that means. Are they standing up in town hall meetings, letting everyone know that they’re the local non-practicing pedophile? Or are people actively searching them out, looking for the pedophile in their midst, whether he has molested or not?

Just exactly what argument is she trying to make if not to normalize the “act”? It looks on the surface like she’s very concerned, wants to be a spokesman and an advocate for the truly afflicted. How sweet. However, it actually comes down to only one line in the whole piece;

“And yet, when it comes to public policies that might help people with pedophilia to come forward and seek treatment before they offend, the law omits pedophilia from protection.”

Another protected class. Another opportunity to define pernicious laws based on imagined rights of possibly less than one percent of the male population who may or may not be suffering for not acting out on their impulses or changing their “status”.

It’s telling that Ms. Kaplan talks about protections not afforded to pedophiles under The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and notes in brief passing the DSMMD definition of pedophilia. Ask yourself; which does she find the most reprehensible? Obviously both. Why else would she state;

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines pedophilia as an intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children, and a disorder if it causes a person “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty” or if the person acts on his interests. Yet our laws ignore pedophilia until after the commission of a sexual offense, emphasizing punishment, not prevention.”

Simple. She disagrees with the definition. The DSMMD has that horrid phrase, “recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children.” Sounds too clinical, unsympathetic; even damning. Of course, it’s not really about sexual attraction at all, as she lets us know farther in the piece;

“In fact, research shows, about half of all child molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims.”

Interesting isn’t it, that those she champions are suffering from “intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children” but when it comes to actually acting out, changing their “status” or as we like to call it, “molesting children,” only half of all molesters are actually looking for sex? Question; what the hell difference does it make to the child or society at large for that matter? Does she wish to protect those who do molest or those who don’t? Because if she wants to protect those who don’t molest, then she needs to come to grips with the fact that fifty percent of child molesters, by her reasoning, were pedophiles who just happened to change their status. Maybe she’s happy saying that only half of all child molesters are pedophiles, but in my book, anyone who molests a child is a pedophile, whether it meets her twisted definitions or not.

Of course, once you change the mindset of the public at large and make these individuals a little less scary, a little more acceptable and sympathetic, your next step is to change the DSMMD so they can fit nicely on the accepted sliding scale of normal sexual behavior. We’ve seen this before actually. I have previously written about B4U-ACT, a group who is working to pressure the APA to change the DSMMD classification of pedophilia from abnormal. They too are looking to make pedophiles much more sympathetic, conferring victim status and trying to remove the “stigma” of pedophilia. This is the group that classifies pedophiles as “minor attracted persons;” “minor attracted person” just happens to be their status.

Like B4U-ACT, Ms. Kalplan is only interested in changing the definition of what is considered a deviant behavior and wants to shape public opinion in order to build another class of victims that she can then protect with spurious legislation. Why must they be protected if they are not acting out, or changing their “status?” Is there a rash of people being fired for their “status?” Not yet, but wait; there will be soon.

How long will it be before some “victim” sues in court over the loss of a job because he blurted out in the company cafeteria that he’s a non-practicing pedophile? Hey, you can’t fire someone with the new “status.” And just how do we deal with these people? If stigma no longer keeps them in the closet, what do we do with our currently normal repulsion to a guy who tells us he likes to diddle with little kids? Did it ever occur to Ms. Kaplan that stigma is much more effective towards them maintaining their status than whatever “prevention” measures she is claiming are inhibited by current law? Maybe she needs to look at John Burbine; John was a practicing pedophile and hey, he still had the wherewithal to run a freakin’ daycare. Makes one wonder what it was that made John flip his “status.” Now let’s see, was he molesting because he was one of the fifty percent that is sexually attracted to his victims or was he not sexually attracted to them? Ms. Kaplan, a little help here; tell me what the difference is.

After all, Ms. Kaplan tells us that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation act contain exemptions for people are not qualified for the job, or may pose a direct threat to and safety of others; the out that keeps us from being forced to hire them as baby sitters if they decide to announce their “status.” So she needs to change the attitudes of the public at large before she ever can hope to change the law in favor of the new victim class.

Maybe what she needs to tell us is what made Mr. Burbine suddenly switch his “status” and why the current law, if it’s so oppressive and discriminatory, was inadequate in keeping all those children from yet another of the left’s protected species of vermin.

Stigma indeed.