Although it is difficult to dispute the story's central message that individuals who have a sexual attraction to children 'need help,' attempting to label pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' crossed the red line for many readers.
In a recent BBC article entitled, 'Paedophiles need help, not condemnation - I should know,' we are 'introduced' to an anonymous 60-something male who opens this teary-eyed treatise by proclaiming, "It’s a long time since I’ve described myself as a paedophile. Paedophilia is a disorder, a deeply distressing sexual orientation. For me, it's triggered by traumatic experiences in childhood."
Did you catch it? If you blinked you missed it. Like one of those clunky bills rammed through Congress on Christmas Eve that is 'sweetened' with all sorts of hidden 'riders,' the opening line of the article declares that pedophilia now ranks - alongside hetereosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality - as a "sexual orientation." A "distressing" one for the pedophile, no doubt, but a sexual orientation nevertheless. But that is simply wrong.
Unlike homosexuality, pedophilia is ranked by the World Health Organization among its "disorders of sexual preference." It's not a "sexual orientation" by any stretch of the imagination; it's a psychological problem.
For those who were triggered by the article's barbeque-scented bait, as many social media users obviously were, caveat lector, reader beware.
The article is rigged like a trap to ensnare the dreaded 'haters' out there who would fail to sympathize with the plight of an individual who once fantasized about sexual relations with minors as opposed to his overgrown, mature peers.
Here is where the rusty trap is hidden amongst the weeds for the unsuspecting reader. The author, who comes across as an intelligent, albeit misguided fellow, informs us he "never even contemplated abusing a child," which sounds about as plausible as a recovering alcoholic saying he has never pressed his lips against a whiskey glass. In any case, we are forced to take Mr. Anonymous 60-something for his word.
So now the stage is set for a radical role reversal, where the real victim of pedophilia - the vulnerable child - is no longer the central character of the drama. Instead, we are asked to feel pity for the mental suffering that accompanies those grown adults who, thanks to a soundly functioning legal system, are prevented from engaging in sexual relations with minors. In other words, the victim is the poor, misunderstood pedophile who, we are told, desperately wants to change. And to be honest, I found myself sympathizing with the author, although he tossed around facts and figures with wanton abandon.
"People think paedophilia is synonymous with child sexual abuse. But I would never have abused a child," he writes. "Most paedophiles have two warring drives within them: the urge to offend, and the urge to be normal. Most paedophiles are desperate for those desires to go away."
Somehow I doubt the author - who confesses he was "sexually interfered with" by his mother at the age of 15, knows what "most pedophiles" really want, since so many people - not least of all pedophiles - barely understand what is going on inside of their own heads.
Pedophile PC?
The irony of the BBC promoting this puff piece on pedophiles is a bit rich considering its former relationship with Jimmy Savile, the long-term host of a popular BBC music program, who has been described, postmortem, as a "predatory sexual offender," possibly Britain's worst of all time.
Savile, who died at the ripe old age of 84, was reported to have sexually abused hundreds of girls and boys over the duration of his career. The full extent of Savile's sex crimes makes it difficult to believe he was not protected by some very influential people.
In any event, my cynicism has more to do with the content of this particular pedophilia piece. First, it must be admitted that the unknown narrator has done some admirable things: 1. He has admitted he has a problem, which is the most difficult part; 2. He has actively sought out therapy; and 3. He claims he has never laid his hands on a child.
A stunning performance chart, to be sure, but it is exactly these charming 'qualifications' (which I suspect are not typical for pedophiles) that allows our ghost narrator, like a respectable-sounding snake-oil salesman, to peddle a defective product in the public square. Once again, that 'defective product' is the article's repeated claim that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation," a glaring misconception that places it on the road to social acceptance.
In fact, the expression "orientation" is used not once in the article, but on four separate occasions, making me suspect the entire purpose of this piece is to break ground for an entirely new social-engineering revolution in sexual mores, which will be, naturally, actively promoted by every (Western) media outlet on Planet Perversity.
It won't happen tomorrow, of course, and probably not even the day after, but if this BBC piece is any indication, then there are definite plans in the works to 'normalize' pedophilia in some not-so-distant dystopic future. In fact, pedophilia movements on both sides of the Atlantic have been attempting to go mainstream for many years now (For those who argue that such a social transformation could never succeed, ask yourself how many people just 10 years ago could have guessed there would be ‘After School Satan’ clubs popping up around God’s Country today?).
However, even more telling than the author describing pedophilia in terms of “sexual orientation” was the reference to the Liberal left's favorite term - "identification" - which really said it all for me.
Here is the author describing his trip to the “University GP” where he sought out treatment.
“The conventional view of paedophilia is that it’s an incurable condition. But this doctor laughed - he laughed! And he said, “Of course it’s curable.”
“It was an absolutely huge relief. The doctor didn’t challenge my identification with paedophilia, he just accepted it and said: “No problem, we’ll sort it.”
Let that comment sink in for a moment: “The doctor didn’t challenge my identification with paedophilia, he just accepted it and said: “No problem, we’ll sort it.”
Remember the last time we heard “identification” mentioned with relation to sexual matters? It was in May 2015, and the Obama administration had just passed legislation directing schools across the nation “to allow transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that match their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.”
In other words, any male (or female) could wake up one morning and (Eureka!) “self-identify” with the opposite sex, and that same afternoon they would be legally permitted to change their clothes in the ladies (or men’s) locker room. Just like that! Who cares what my assigned-at-birth XX-XY chromosomes might say. Biology will not dictate to me my sexual identity! I identify, therefore I am!
Do you see where this whole 'identification-orientation' business is leading us?
Although one of Donald Trump’s first sweeps of his executive pen was to eradicate this absolute insanity, the ball was already put in motion and now there may be no stopping it.
Today, we see the terms "orientation" and "identification" being casually kicked around in an article on pedophilia, as a way to tenderize the mind of the masses, as it were, for what seems to be coming down the road.
Be forewarned, the ‘social justice warriors’ will not rest until every single cultural and social norm has been turned on its head. Every sacred institution will be challenged on the basis of an individual or group's perceived right to "identify and orientate" himself, herself or themselves to the lifestyle of their choice - deranged, degenerate or otherwise - even if it means breaking society's darkest taboos.
Those courageous enough to serve as the voice of reason in this age of ignorance will be chastised as intolerant ‘haters’ that don’t respect the lifestyle choices of the ‘victims,’ who will no longer be the minors and children, but those who would abuse them.
Judging by the torrent of condemnation hurled at this lamentable BBC piece, at least we know many people still have their wits and scruples about them. There is hope.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.