I can remember not too long ago having a conversation with someone about the unthinkable becoming mainstream if we as a society decide that there is no reason to oppose “gay” marriage. I remember the anger and incredulity at the mere suggestion that it gets harder to deny everyone else with different tastes, like polygamy and polyandry, and incest and pedophilia, and beastiality…especially directed at the last three. “Kids and animals can’t consent!” I was furiously admonished. “It simply wouldn’t be acceptable!”
Except that I’ve started to see the arguments in favor of polygamy and polyandry if there is a right to “gay” marriage. Arguments being seriously made and seriously discussed by serious people, who understand that if we accept that “consenting adults” can marry someone of the same sex, than there really is no argument to be made against multiple partners or spouses. But at least we still aren’t going to mainstream incest and pedophilia, right? Right?
First, from a story about David Epstein, a political science professor at Columbia, who slept with his adult daughter for 3 years:
The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.
Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.
Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could ‘best be described as an accomplice’.
He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.
‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.
‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?
‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’
First, Attorney Galluzzo needs to be made to pull a Black’s Law Dictionary off the shelf in the court, and read aloud the definition of “consanguinity”. Then he needs to be told in no uncertain terms by the judge that if he raises that “question” in his pleadings, he’s going to be on the wrong side of a Rule 11 sanction for making a frivolous argument, and as a result, he’s going to make a very generous donation to a fund for abused children. The rest of the article raises a valid point about how the inequity in the relationship, whether between adults or not, should call into question the issue of “consent”, regardless of the protests that the predator and victim might make.
In a society that hasn’t lost its collective mind and decided to make policy decisions based on genitals and gratification, anyone who uttered this aloud would be shamed and or beaten until they were put in the knowledge of the utter unacceptability of the question to begin with, or at least instilled with the firm knowledge that there really are limits to sexual behavior that should not be exceeded. That said, we don’t live in that society, we live in the one where a popular President was allowed to seduce a very young intern and have sex with her in the Oval Office, and people saw nothing wrong with that, rationalizing it both as being a “private” matter, and something that if his wife wasn’t ripping his eyeballs out over, we couldn’t either. We live in the society where self-styled feminists and feminist groups actually defended the man, despite the clear imbalance in power between the furniture and the wood polisher. Because we live in that society, and because I haven’t read about Epstein losing his job, being rejected by friends and neighbors, and ejected from clubs, associations, and professional groups, AND because members of my tribe are daring to utter such things out loud without any obvious fear of sanction, I predict we’re going to hear more of this. And that as we hear more of it, people’s opinions on it will soften, and those who oppose this behavior will be denounced as incestaphobic, or haters.
But that’s not the worst of it. I’ve also been reading stories, first in the foreign press, suggesting that maybe pedophiles should be reconsidered, since shrinks are taking a look at their behavior and concluding that maybe it’s just a “normal” expression of sexuality. At first, I took the ostrich approach, choosing to believe that his was just a manifestation of the europeons growing dhimitude. And then I saw this piece today from the LA Times which talks about pedophilia being a “deep-seated predisposition that doesn’t change”. After reading about the “research” being done, I decided that I did not feel better for having read the article.
Some of the new understanding of pedophilia comes from studies done on convicted sex criminals at the Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto, where researchers use a procedure known as phallometry to identify men whose peak attraction is to children.
A man sits alone in a room viewing a series of images and listening to descriptions of various sexual acts with adults and children, male and female, while wearing a device that monitors blood flow to his penis.
Now, when I read stuff like that, my mind starts racing. “Who the hell comes up with this for a research topic? Do they all sit around in a meeting and ask themselves “What can we study that will really make taxpayers ask ” I gave up a week at the beach to pay for THAT?”?” And then the lawyer in me says “What the hell are these researchers doing with child porn in the first place, and who decided it would be good to show it to pedophiles?”"
But the bigger problem is the way the findings are discussed in the article.
Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.
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 research.
Heh. “Born that way.” It seems like we’ve heard this before. And if it was used to justify one “sexual orientation”, then why not another, right? I know, I know. “Consent”. But as the previous story indicates, some are already making excuses for one taboo. Anyone paying attention over the last 40 years is kidding themselves if they read this and say “We protect children. We make that a priority.” Millions of children who didn’t consent to anything were murdered in the womb, and we allowed “privacy” to be a cloak for it, much as we have allowed “privacy” to be a cloak for institutionalizing the orbit of our genitals. Gratification is king, and if killing a child has to be made subservient to it, then one has no reason to think that “consent” will protect children from being made victims at the hands of those we now make excuses for, any more than the idea that we can see the obvious distinction that marks the difference between someone else’s adult child and our own adult children. Billy Jeff blurred the first line, aided and abetted by those who had the most reason to object, and people like this “professor” will blur the second. Celebrating the commonality of it, and pretending at normalcy virtually guarantees that lust, and the apologetic “tolerance” that goes with it will overcome and eventually erase the squick factor. Don’t even get me started on the apologists for bestiality.