Pedophiles Off The Hook?

Pedophileby Leigh Bravo6/5/15
In this day and age of social media and technology, we have all been made more aware of sexual predators and their actions than ever before.  The question remains, do we still believe that sex with children is a crime, or are we now giving a pass to pedophiles in the name of sexual freedom?

Recently, all over the news and social media, ad nauseam, has been the story of the Duggars.  This was a case of sexual abuse of 5 underage victims by Josh Duggar, when he was a teenager.  The press had no issues with the questionable release of information about the victims even though they were under age at the time of the offense.  But what does it matter if the press humiliates a child victim of sexual abuse as long as they get their story and in the process are able to discredit Christians? Who is protecting the rights of the victims?

I guess the real question would be why they celebrate some pedophiles and condemn others?  Does it depend on the political party or the religious affiliation with whom  the offender or the victim identifies?  Is it just an opportunity to trash someone who believes differently or is it really about the atrocity of the crime itself? Has the tragedy of sexual abuse really come down to politics?  Can we so flippantly disregard the privacy, rights and the feelings of victims in lieu of the fame and fortune of the media?  Can we really so flippantly disregard the privacy, rights and feelings of victims for political gain?

Who is Lena Dunham? She is an actress on the show “Girls,” and she just released a new book, which I will not name for fear of promoting anyone who victimizes a child.  Hollywood and the liberal media have celebrated her and her new book. In her own words,

“One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina.”

“Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just ‘relax on me.’ Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”

Does she deserve fame and fortune for her actions of sexual gratification regarding her own sister while the Duggars, have been crucified for their son’s actions? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Duggars are Christians? What has our society come to when people are no longer outraged at the sexual abuse of a child in any and all circumstances?

The Gawker released an article by Noel Shepard titled, “Pedophilia is a Sexual Orientation.” The following headline actually appeared at Gawker: “Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children.”

The first thing we have to notice is his reference to “sex” with children and not classifying it as “rape.” He speaks about research  done, that in his opinion, proves that anyone with a sexual attraction to children is wired to feel that way. He compares pedophilia to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Through this reasoning, he asks the question,

“And if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it’s futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions.”

If I am not mistaken, a prison term for sexually abusing a child is a punishment for your actions.  Rehabilitation occurs while you are serving your time.  Is he reasoning that if pedophilia is actually a sexual orientation that their crimes should not be punished with a prison term? Is he reasoning that because sexual predators are treated so badly in prison for their horrific actions towards children that they should not be sent to prison? If this is his argument, then how do we come to terms with how badly the pedophile treated the child they molested? How do we come to terms that we are supposed to feel bad for the pedophile and ignore the lifetime effects that the child they abused will be forced to endure? Are we supposed to excuse the actions of a pedophile while ignoring the consequences suffered by their victims?

Are we to accept, because science says that a sexual deviant’s behavior is hard wired, that we as a society should accept their actions with open arms and accommodate their behavior regardless of the damage it places on the rest of society?

In April of this year, a California Superior Judge, M. Marc Kelly reduced a 25 year mandatory sentence for a man who sexually assaulted a 3 year old girl to 10 years. Kevin Jones Rojano was playing video games when he decided to sexually assault  3 year old girl and covered her mouth so no one could hear her screams. In response the judge said,

“However, in looking at the facts of Mr. Rojano’s case, the manner in which this offense was committed is not typical of a predatory, violent brutal sodomy of a child case,” Kelly said. “Mr. Roiano did not seek out or stalk (the victim). He was playing video games and she wandered into the garage. He inexplicably became sexually aroused but did not appear to consciously intend to harm (the victim) when he sexually assaulted her.”

“Although serious and despicable, this does not compare to a situation where a pedophilic child predator preys on an innocent child,” Kelly said. “There was no violence or callous disregard for (the victim’s) well-being.”

The judge then pointed to a doctor’s report who said,

“Mr. Rojano was born into and raised in a dysfunctional environment…. “a great deal of family disruption and abuse, making him an insecure, socially withdrawn, timid, and extremely immature young man with limited self-esteem.”

So, we should all excuse the behavior of a pedophile because he had a bad childhood? The judge believes this pedophile did nothing that could be called violent or callous disregard for the child’s well being?  Okay, my response is about to get graphic, but it seems that now a days, the only way to get attention is to be graphic. So here goes……By his reasoning, a pedophile has not hurt a 3 year old child by shoving his erect penis into her small anus all while placing his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming? When did we, as a society lose all our common sense and dignity? When, as a society did we decide that the life of our children is expendable?

In an article by the Huffington Post,  it was cited that Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best known and outspoken atheists, said that he is unable to condemn  “mild pedophilia.” He feels that child abuse scandals have been overblown.

What has happened to our world? When a child’s life and well being is no longer considered a priority, we as a society are doomed to destruction at the hands of a failed morality.  When the sexual attack of a child is viewed as a non violent act then we as a society are doomed to destruction at the hands of a failed morality. When our society starts calling the rape of a child just sex, then we as a society are doomed to destruction at the hands of a failed morality. When the powers at be, decide to protect the rights of pedophiles by slowly but surely convincing the public that it is only a sexual orientation and therefore a natural act, then we as a society  are doomed to destruction at the hands of a failed morality. When the powers at be, decide that the sexual preferences of a minority of individuals supersedes the rights of the majority of Americans, then we as a society are doomed to destruction at the hands of  a failed morality.

Ravi Zacharias said it best when speaking of the progressive, modern man,

“He proclaims the gospel [bible], as the last hoorah of an antiquated outlook, to a generation who is intellectually unkept, morally unzipped and volitionally uncurbed. They reveal their sickness of soul by derogating terms like morality, piety, family, work, patriotism, born again, theology , evangelical and christianity. They dismiss [the bible] as middle class hedonism, declaring it intellectually inadmissible while meanwhile, they espouse a life that neither reason nor conscious nor spirit can support or condone……”

Will we allow this progressive movement to slowly indoctrinate our youth into believing that morality is no longer necessary because our personal feelings and sexual desires must be gratified regardless of the price paid by others? Isn’t it time for us to stop this madness?


Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet.

 • (3450 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Pedophiles Off The Hook?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Sarah Palin (naturally) has pointed out the hypocrisy in liberals who cheered Lena Dunham denouncing the Duggars. But anyone who remembers that the Wicked Witch of the West has always attended local parades of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) will know that liberals only object to pedophila and hebephilia when it can be used as a weapon against people they dislike for other reasons (such as priests, Scoutmasters, or the Duggars). They have no objection to pedophilia by those they like (such as teachers and Lena Dunham).

  2. Rosalys says:

    “Judge” Kelly should be disbarred. But he won’t be. I hope and pray not, but I think America has gone beyond the point of no return. That which is good is called evil and that which is evil is called good. “Has the tragedy of sexual abuse really come down to politics?” I fear it has! Just about everything in our society has come down to politics. The left will give a pass to just about anything if it further degrades culture. The idea is to tear down everything so that they can rebuild their Utopia. They will be in for a big shock because it doesn’t work that way; never has, never will.

    Cloward and Piven and their minions – those sick, evil effanbees!

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In an article by the Huffington Post,  it was cited that Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best known and outspoken atheists, said that he is unable to condemn  “mild pedophilia.” He feels that child abuse scandals have been overblown.
    What has happened to our world?

    I don’t do rhetorical questions, so I’ll attempt to answer that.

    The Leftist worldview is based on opposites. In effect, if the Judeo-Christian ethic condemned it, the Left shall “celebrate” its opposite. Call it Beelzebub at work. I really don’t know. But that paradigm is highly descriptive.

    One of the main tenets of the Left (and libertarians, for that matter) is sexual liberation. Droned into the heads of yutes now (and these yutes eventually grow up…or I should say, they at least get older and become spokesmen for this established Leftist view) is the idea that Christians are abnormally obsessed with sex. The Left believes they have perverted, with superstitious small-mindedness, an act that is inherentlly good and natural and whose only downside is if we don’t believe this to be so and thus get caught up in “sexual morality” which leads to the thing to be avoided most of all (they learned from Freud): sexual repression. They think that Christians, because of their prudish views, have made sex dirty. They’ve made people feel guilty about things that really should be “celebrated.”

    I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with prudish sexual views, or if this describes Christians accurately. I’m saying this is the viewed droned into the heads of yutes today, and for the past several decades. This has left them with a reflexive response to not condemn sexual misconduct because they have so aligned themselves with the worldview that believes that only retrograde prudes and religious fundamentalists obsess over such things.

    That is too say, in short, Richard Dawkins has become yet another programmed and thoughtless reflex of the Leftist culture he was raised in and that he now champions. It may or may not be true that a man sticking his hands down your pants will do no lasting harm. And I do think kids aren’t quite as fragile as commonly portrayed. But it’s the instinct to apologize and try to diminish pedophilia that I think clearly flows from the Left’s contrarian views of sexuality.

    If the standard Western/Judeo-Christian view is that there are only two sexes, we’ll have 47 (or whatever the count is up to now). This opposite or “not that” paradigm is highly explanatory.

    We’re ultimately talking about is a culture that has been corrupted by bad ideas. And it is a culture that is firmly rooted in child-like naivety. These are not mature adults speaking. And, as you said, they are a failed morality.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Dawkins’s comments remind me of Oprah’s distinction between rape and “rape rape” regarding Roman Polanski. Of course, the sole purpose of her distinction was to exculpate Polanski, and it doesn’t seem to have worked.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The Left protects its own. The right would “throw the bum out.” The Left lacks integrity. The Left is a mob. The Left is a reduced tribal mentality. The Left has a reduced mental capacity in that their ethics and goals tend to be of the naive Utopian type and they live and think like children.

        The Left lacks the ability to be objective and honest (I’ve noticed the same thing in libertarians). It’s never about the issue at hand. There is constant deflection and rationalization. The focus is on “how do I save my tribe from any bad PR” rather than regarding what is objectively right or wrong.

        Conservatives would not minimize it (or they should not) if their heroes or favorites behave in an immoral way. They’ll take the PR hit (or should) in order to do that right thing. But, more importantly, this is the standard.

        The Left is a moral mush, a squishy target of prevarication, a quagmire of lies and self-deceit. And yet these fools inhabit the halls of power and people actually listen to the garbage coming out of their mouths.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        I was reminded of the “rape rape” pseudo-distinction also, Tim. (By the way, I think it was Whoopi Goldberg, not Oprah, but I don’t have the time to research this question right now). Polanski’s rape of an underage girl was to be downgraded into some sort of petty offense, and here we see again the attempt to make child rape something less than it is – despicable.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I think you may be right about Whoopi Goldberg (appropriate name, I guess) instead of Oprah. Memory is imperfect. I think she was intending (theoretically) to differentiate between forcible rape and statutory rape, but Polanski’s actions were clearly the former as well as the latter.

  4. ronlsb says:

    A passionate and reasoned condemnation of pedophilia–well done, Leigh. Would that others would take off the gloves and describe the horrific acts done by pedophiles (the vast majority of whom are homosexuals) with such accuracy. Only then do we have any chance to convince the vast majority of Americans, who are buying into the notion that all this aberrant behavior is somehow acceptable, that it is not only unacceptable but ought to be publically ostracized and criminalized.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The Gawker released an article by Noel Shepard titled, “Pedophilia is a Sexual Orientation.” The following headline actually appeared at Gawker: “Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children.”

    It is interesting that these people are openly advertising this fact. Such was not the case just a few years back. So they are not only admitting that it is inborn, but they are now trying to make it seen as normal because some people are born deviants.

    It has long been known that pedophiles such as the Mr. Rojano are, almost to a person, unchangeable and are recidivists who claim further victims if given the chance. The judicial authorities have tried a number of ways to approach this problem, such as so-called chemical castration, but I am not aware of any such approach which has been found to be effective overall. Perhaps this is because the elites of our society are no longer willing to call a spade a spade and admit that some people cannot be changed and are an absolute danger to society.

    Now that the Left admits the condition is congenital, it is my opinion that, Mr. Rojano (and those like him) deserve a bullet to the back of the head and their remains should be left for carrion. If this is too brutal for our enlightened times we could always put him and his like on some militarily cordoned off island far away from land and let them enjoy each other’s company. We cannot under any circumstances allow their behaviors to become tolerated or even the subject of pity.

    Again, this is the left’s attempt to do away with all sexual moral standards by claiming there are no sexual morals. One cannot help but suspect this is due to many if not most of them being sexual perverts of one sort or another, with Mr. Rojano’s tastes representing a pretty substantial percentage of their perversions. Allen Ginsburg is the most famous leftist representative of this deviancy, to date.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Given the existence of NAMBLA, it has been my opinion for some time that — probably within a decade or so — pedophilia will become acceptable to liberals just as homosexuality is today. They might even stop going after Scoutmasters, priests, etc. unless they can figure out why it’s unacceptable for them but not for teachers. (Perhaps they’ll ignore the teachers and say it’s the authority figures aspect that makes it unacceptable — in effect, sexual harassment.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Again, this is the left’s attempt to do away with all sexual moral standards by claiming there are no sexual morals. One cannot help but suspect this is due to many if not most of them being sexual perverts of one sort or another, with Mr. Rojano’s tastes representing a pretty substantial percentage of their perversions.

      Rush Limbaugh has said the Left is populated by those who feel alienated from mainstream society and thus are striving to make themselves the norm. Sell this to the useful idiots as “diversity” or “equality” and you have what has been thus far a winning formula.

      The left is indeed about mainstreaming what heretofore had been considered corrupt, perverse, or broken. My way of stating this is that this is the organized grievance of those who were always chosen last when forming up teams on the playground.

      There’s something wrong with homosexuals. There’s nothing about everyone else’s attitudes that needs to be fixed. There’s something wrong with diddling children. There’s nothing about everyone else’s attitudes that need to be fixed. There’s something wrong about abortion. There’s nothing about everyone else’s attitudes that need to be fixed. There’s something wrong with Bruce Jenner. Etc.

      Compassion requires only that we treat the broken with an amount of respect and suitable aid. We help the handicapped child but we don’t say they are the way things ought to be and thus demonize those not born with severe defects. We help those with same-sex attractions to find a healthier way to live. We shouldn’t normalize it and call our retreat from decency “compassion.”

      And no doubt as you said, many of these advocates of perverse forms of behavior have themselves engaged in it.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another way to look at this is that man is living down to his designation as having evolved from chimps.

  7. Pst4usa says:

    Excellent post Leigh. This is a very bad sign for this country! Brad brushed across this, and it is that this is a two front war. The Libertarian Party agrees with the idea that whatever you want to do is your right! Government should get out of the way. They love the talking point, “you can’t legislate morality”. Well if you can’t, then this is the result, immoral relativity. Since the Libertarians have made big strides into Republican party politics, and drive some conservatives into the arms of establishment RINOs, we get weaker and weaker candidates, and we end up fighting against the left and the so called right, (I do not think that Libertarians qualify as being on the right, but that is the perception).
    I do not remember who said this, a Democrat I think, he used the phrase “defining deviancy down”; it might be more accurate to say defining deviancy up, or at least normalizing it.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      They love the talking point, “you can’t legislate morality”.

      Yes you can. And should.

      It’s about setting and maintaining community standards. We don’t want public drunkenness. We don’t want fighting in the streets. We don’t want beautiful Swedish bikini models walking down the street naked. (Well, I do, but that’s another story.) There are a lot of things we want to proscribe against in order that Mayberry not be downtown Mogadishu. Libertarians don’t understand this or won’t acknowledge this, thus they are cracked and useless as an ally against the Left.

      And we don’t want drug-addled people taking the place of a well-informed citizenry, thus another community standard is to outlaw most drugs.

      When all these standards are kicked aside, you’ll get a society that is a cesspool. We see glimpses of this in Ferguson and Baltimore, for example. Wherever decent and common-sense standards of conduct (for whatever reason, to create a dependent political clientele or because you’re a libertarian kook) are set aside, you’ll get anarchy and violence, not Mayberry.

      Again, Libertarians are willfully naive about this and instead offer one half-baked principle or another, always moving the ball when you show how their principles are unworkable.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Anarchism was as hostile to religion as to government; Hugh Thomas noted in The Spanish Civil War that Bakunin (the inspiration for Spanish anarchism) had said that the world would be free when the last king was strangled in the guts of the last priest. Libertarians have imbibed that attitude.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There’s always the sort who thinks he needs no moral supervision. This is a delusion, a heady conceit. Probably contained with — surely contained within — is the need to see oneself as superior to other people.

          The real argument among thoughtful people is how much and what kind, not if. Libertarians do not tend to be thoughtful people. They are pseudo-thoughtful people.

          • Pst4usa says:

            They are pseudo-thoughtful people. I love that Brad, you might even say they may be pseudo thinkers. We will get into this in the next 10 commandment issue, but for the Libertarians, liberty is one of their false gods and maybe their only god.

  8. Anniel says:

    Leigh: when I first read about Judge Kelly and his decision I was stunned at such stupidity. Now when I read about the poor little guy in his crib hit by whiz-bangs thrown in by DEA agents, that it’s his own fault for being there, all I can do is shake my head and cry as I pray for our country.

    Protecting innocence gets more difficult every day.

    • Leigh says:

      Interestingly enough, protecting our children has almost become impossible. When we abort as many as we do today and so many of them over 4 months of gestation, it is no surprise that there is no respect for our children. So what is next? Using them for adult sexual pleasure and pretending that they like it and chose it. The US has become a sick and twisted place. I can only hope that the majority of Americans are still moderate and are as disgusted with what is happening around us as we all are..

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a fairly good article at American Thinker by Jonathan F. Keller: Our Nightmare of Reason. It relates to the subject at hand in regards to crazy overtaking the culture.

    Long story short, the author says that our culture is inhaling as a mass some insane and irrational ideas. I couldn’t agree more and it is one very big reason I’ve checked out of TV (mostly) and much of the culture. Here are a few crazy points off the top of my head:

    + Scarifying the body with cheap-looking cartoonish illustrations: crazy
    + Chicken little huffing and puffing of fear inculcated by soda-pop fizz: crazy
    + People saying they are this or that “gender” amongst a Heinz 57 varieties: crazy
    + Sanctifying homosexual sex and conduct as marriage: crazy
    + Vilifying Israel while aiding and abetting the murderous Muslims in the Middle East: crazy
    + Electing an America-hating Marxist for president: crazy
    + Dumping billions of gallons of water into the Pacific while farmers go out of business: crazy
    + Heralding as “brave” those freaks and weirdos such as Bruce Jenner who dress up like women: crazy

    And on and on. Surely you can think of many big ones I’ve missed. The promotion of pedophilia as normal (if not commendable) is next. And the Jonah Goldbergs of this world likely will never admit that when the camel poked its head under the tent via homosexual marriage, that the rest of this was a logical and expected outcome.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The crucial step was the rejection of sexual morality as a basis for law or even personal judgment. Once that happens, it becomes easy to accept anything, at least as long as there’s no complaint for whatever reason.

      • Pst4usa says:

        No compliant from the participants Timothy, complaints from the victims cannot be tolerated, (pedophiles are fine). Complaints from anyone that disagrees cannot be tolerated. And if you disagree, you must be ridiculed, marginalized and destroyed.

        • Leigh says:

          I think we all see the slow but sure dissent into total dysfunction. While the left pushes for abortion through 9 months of pregnancy, they slowly devalue our children. It has become a process that will slowly but surely end up allowing “sex” with children. I read an article that began by saying,
          “Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
          “Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
          (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html)

          This was a statement made at an academic presentation. As we have seen our Universities and Colleges become breeding grounds for the liberals, it is no surprise that accepting pedophilia will begin with our academia!
          This country is in big trouble if we do not get the liberal under control.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    He speaks about research  done, that in his opinion, proves that anyone with a sexual attraction to children is wired to feel that way.

    When you’re talking about the 15-year-olds dressed in the latest Kmart hooker collection, he may have a point. But them ain’t children, at least according to looks. I just wanted to make clear the distinction of parents who allow their under-age children to dress up like little hookers (who look 18 or more) and actual children. I’m not going to feel the least guilty if my head turns to look at some 15 (even 14) year old dressed, well, more or less like a hooker. Guys are wired that way.

    But we’re not wired to be sexually aroused by children. I don’t know what’s up with that. But it matters not whether it is “natural” or common. A lot of things are natural that aren’t good. The standard should be that we protect and nurture children. We needn’t pamper them to the point of putting them in plastic bubbles (thus I’m for repealing most of the intrusive laws the forbid children to work). But we ought not to exploit them sexually. And if you’re listening, mom and dad, that means dressing up your little 13-year-old to look like a hooker. You’re blurring the lines. You’re sexualizing your children. You’re aiding and abetting child molesters. And you’re not doing me a hell of a lot of good either. I’d rather it was the 18-year-olds and above who dressed like whores, if that is to be the mode of dress.

    Call me old-fashioned, I guess. We don’t need burkas, but the message feminists are sending out is that women have absolutely no responsibility in regards to their own sexuality. This isn’t just me saying this. Camille Paglia has noted how stupid women have become, expecting to walk down the street at night dressed provocatively and have nothing happen to them. It’s not realistic. Stupid parents are helping to blur these lines that should be more clearly drawn.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Back in the 1970s, the Courier-Journal had a photo of a woman holding her bare-bottomed baby. One man complained about this in a letter, pointing out that he had been sexually aroused by the baby’s bottom. I wondered if he really was serious about admitting to such a desire.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Oh, deadly serious. It makes sense in terms of the libtard idea that nothing is ever my fault. It also is consistent with the idea that we are a corrupt and vulgar people. Anyone who sees a mother nursing her baby and thinks, “Wow, what a slut showing her titties like that” is a corrupt person. And corruption, for whatever reason, is our natural state. We have to be taught to move beyond our base motives and simplistic mindsets.

        Regarding all things sexual, we are a thoroughly corrupt, vulgar, and juvenile culture. And vitally uninformed as well despite all the “sex education” which is nothing more than indoctrination into the LGBT world and the Leftist sex cult world.

    • Pst4usa says:

      All part of the plan Brad. It is OK to make our little girls look and dress like prostitutes and then you can complain that men are pigs for looking. Well you are correct, men are wired that way, we do not see the government issued ID say that this little tart is only 14, we just see a well developed woman, that is advertizing her seed catching ability. That is how God made us. Our task is to overcome that desire and focus on Him, not always easy. If we see a young Shirley Temple type, most of us men anyway, do not have lustful thoughts, we tend to have protective thoughts. Also, if we know the age of the 14 year old girl dressed like a hooker, most of us men also want to cover her up, for her own protection.
      The ultimate goal is to tear down the differences between male and female, make all us men more like women, and this is just another tool in their arsenal against mankind. Remember the unisex outfits worn by the Chinese communist, that is what the left wants. Complete equality for you, as long as I get to be more equal than everybody else, it works for me.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        All part of the plan Brad. It is OK to make our little girls look and dress like prostitutes and then you can complain that men are pigs for looking.

        Oh, it’s so nice to be understood. As my brother said about such things, they’re trying to look older, and then when you notice, you’re suddenly the bad guy.

        Not including you (because you are pure of heart and soul and have a wonderful wife…man, I wish I could have met a woman so honest, wise, smart, courageous, and beautiful, so don’t risk that with any true confessions), most guys might act as if they don’t notice that some 15-year-old is pushing 20, but there is a secret society of lechers that we all belong to. With not even a wink and a nod, we immediately know which girl we want our son to date and sometimes regret the sexual revolution didn’t come earlier for us when we were in high school or middle school or whenever or wherever.

        I could tell you a number of humorous occurrences, but then I’d have to change all the faces and names just to protect the semi-innocent. But, holy cow, I do think many young ladies know exactly what they’re doing in some situations and love it. Either that or their mothers have dressed them like little prostitutes all their lives and they honestly have no idea they have that effect on men (doubtful, I must say).

        Maybe there is a root root cause for why so many boys in school supposedly show attention deficit disorder. My guess is that back in my days when loose sweaters and long skirts were the norm, grade point averages were measurably higher. And, good god, can you imagine being a male high school teacher these days? Oh, tempt me not, oh Lord.

        No wonder teachers are mostly all women now and the lack of men shows…for the worse.

        Yes, I specifically remember the unisex pants suits worn by Hillary. She is a red diaper doper baby through and through.

        Yep, no lustful thoughts when I see Shirley Temple. I just have the enormous urge to tap dance on some stairs.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        When I was subbing in school, it was not uncommon to see these, to my mind, little girls dressed so provocatively. There was one young girl who must have been about fourteen, but was very petite and had a very innocent look, yet she dressing like a street walker.

        I felt someone should tell her that she was doing herself no favors dressing that way, but being a male teacher over 40 years older than she, I thought I couldn’t be the one to tell her.

        I approached a female teacher and told her how I was surprised at the way some of the girls dressed and thought they might not realize how they looked and what message they were sending. The female teacher, also in her 50’s, looked at me and she they knew very well the message they sent and meant to send it.

        Oh well, so much for that.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think another key aspect is liberal hostility to ingenuousness. Hence the desire to sexualize children as early as possible. This probably even contributes to their hostility to infants and thus live births.

  11. Great piece, Leigh. This is something that needs lots of talking about. Not only is this a terrifying trend for our children, but it is frightening every which way. It may be true that homosexuals and pedophiles have some inborn tendencies, but we all have negative leanings — “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23). The problem with this kind of thinking is just that — thieves may well come that way, rapists (of adult women) may find it difficult to deny their anger and lust, serial killers claim to be unable to control their need to kill — so do we just say that those activities are therefore acceptable? Logic requires us to explore the extremes and those extremes are horrifying.

    I suspect that this new push to make pedophilia acceptable is happening now so that the public doesn’t react against the Clintons when more comes out about Slick Willy’s propensities.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I suspect that this new push to make pedophilia acceptable is happening now so that the public doesn’t react against the Clintons when more comes out about Slick Willy’s propensities.

      I think it is more likely that the Left is “flooding the zone” in the Obamanation’s last two years in office. We have already seen many insane and disgusting things taking place, and we will see more. The Left’s philosophy is that even if they don’t get all the perversions accepted, even if the country doesn’t have a race war, they will certainly get some of the things they want accepted. And all their work will not go to waste as even if certain projects fail this time, the slimy residue has been left behind for future use.

  12. Pst4usa says:

    For the women of the group, I was exposed to one example of a comment that worked with one girl, so I am not saying this will work across the board but here goes.
    this occurred several years ago, a young lady, maybe 15, who dressed very provocatively was talking to some of the older men and they were trying to find a way to tell her that the way she dressed was inappropriate. As I am sure as most can imagine, it did not go so well, and worse yet the mother defended the way her daughter dressed. Well one of the women in the church over heard this discussion and she pulled the girl aside and told her point blank, stop dressing like this, she did not want her husband looking at anyone else they way he should be looking at his wife alone. And it worked, she is a beautiful young lady, but she dresses very conservatively now, more so than her mother. Once the girl was made to realize that she played a role in the reaction men had to her and to the way she dressed, she changed. I am not sure this quite fits the original pedophile post, but from the stand point that parents have some responsibility to teach there daughters that actions have consequences, and dressing like a prostitute, just may get them something more than they bargained for.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Great story, Pat. Bravo to that one wise and courageous woman for taking a risk and telling that young girl what she needed to hear. The “sexual revolution” has bamboozled a lot of women and taken away common sense.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the fascinating things about this, and no one has got to the central point of this yet, is that inherent to the Left is the eradication of personal sexual mores — the elimination of boundaries, if you will.

    Those who have undergone either cult programing or sexual or physical abuse (they are all related) typically invade the boundaries of others. And you’ve likely encountered such people many times in your life without knowing the root cause. Not every time is some form of abuse a cause of such behavior. Some people are just obnoxious. But those who have had their boundaries invaded just seem to normalize it and reenact it in their own relationships.

    The Weather Underground was a terrorist group that Obama’s good friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn belonged to. One of the members of this Leftist cult reported that he and another woman (I don’t remember their names) fell in love and paired up. But this was strictly verboten according the the Weather Underground rules (rules typical off Communists and Leftists). For various screwball and insane reasons, pair-bonding such as this was to be avoided, so (if I remember correctly), this couple either did it on the sly or the rules were relaxed a bit for them.

    But here’s the point: Regarding things sexual, the cult of Leftism/Progressivism does not allow private boundaries. You would think children would be an exception, that any sane person would not include them in this gunk. But if your boundaries have been invaded, if your mind, heart, and soul have been abused, the human tendency is to automatically and instinctively try to erase those boundaries in interactions with others.

    Pardon my French, but indoctrination by the Left is mind-fucking at the very least. Kids who come out of university have been ideologically abused by the Left. This kind of boundary-crashing abuse (women are simply NOT allowed to express normal female instincts, nor are men manly instincts) leads to not protecting the boundaries of others. It’s a cult. It’s a creepy cult. It’s a destructive cult.

    There are, of course, other reasons the Left would promote pedophilia. Nothing is ever just one thing. But one of the things that is a core part of this insanity is what I have described. This is why there is much truth when Michael Savage says “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      that inherent to the Left is the eradication of personal sexual mores — the elimination of boundaries, if you will.

      Like most things in life, there are a number of reasons for this desire.

      Perverts and other little monsters such as Abbie Hoffman simply hold themselves above everything and everyone thus reject sexual morals and most importantly wish to have no restrictions on any of their desires. One wonders how much of their actions are also motivated by the desire to bring pain to others.

      But at the political level, free love and no binding relationships makes perfect sense to the totalitarian mind.

      What better way to break up the family, what better way to fracture human relationships than to bring them down to a sexual level in which no permanency is possible? In life, we all need someone whom we can trust. As imperfect as it may be, the family is the place were most of us go to find that trust and to find support when things are difficult. The Church also serves as a repository of trust for mankind. That is one of the reasons it is under assault.

      If you want to see what happens to a society when trust breaks down, look at what happened in the Soviet Union during the days of the Great Purge.

      The Leftists do not wish individuals to have trust in anything. They want obedience and fear of the State.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Perverts and other little monsters such as Abbie Hoffman simply hold themselves above everything and everyone thus reject sexual morals and most importantly wish to have no restrictions on any of their desires. One wonders how much of their actions are also motivated by the desire to bring pain to others.

        All true, I’m sure. But it’s another issues as to why many Leftist adults (even with libertine tastes) would not respect the category of “children.” I’m not talking about pedophiles promoting their cause. One can understand that. I’m talking about those without those inclinations who still will not protect the idea of the innocence of children.

        That, I think, is where the dynamic I described comes into play.

  14. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I’m talking about those without those inclinations who still will not protect the idea of the innocence of children.

    I think you are probably correct that mental illness of some sort lies at the root of this. And moral cowardice.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, I think the cult aspect of this is absolutely central. Remember, it’s one thing to have a disagreement on a subject (a movie, a point of politics, what’s for dinner, or whatever). Many things resolve themselves as mere preference, opinion, or a disagreement about which facts are facts or are the crucial facts. It’s another to not even be able to have a rational disagreement.

      And those programmed by the Left are no longer rational people. I see them as cultists, members of a dogmatic and fundamentalist secular religion. And when I see Christians lost in this garbage too, well, it does dishearten me somewhat. We all long for hope and for eternal truths. But the “social justice” crowd (and the “tolerance” crowd and the “multiculturalist” crowd) weigh me down. Perhaps there is nothing more solid to human life than various creeds and screeds shouted long and loud enough to make them true.

      A part of me, no matter how much excrement flows under the bridge, will not accede to the insanity that is all around us. Perhaps God has given me some kind of inner rock upon which to anchor myself. In some ways, it has always seemed that way. No matter how screwball things get, there always seemed to be a light shining, something that allowed me to compare and contrast and thus to show me what’s what.

      Human beings need not be so stupid. But I would say the dogma of the Left is designed to do that. It tends to make people single-dimensional emotional dogmatic basket cases. Leftism, I believed, is founded upon hatred. Oh, they’ll tell you it’s the hatred of injustice. But it is simply the foul ability to never be satisfied with anything.

      People have sucked down a lot of Freud, feminism, and foolishness and many have lost the ability to parse a subject (such as pedophilia) in a reasonable way. The Left has made them de facto crazy. Garbage in, garbage out. Once committed to their corrupted tenets, one has little choice but to go along. In the shrunken Leftist mind, everyone is either a hero (if you believe as they do) or a villain. And having parsed reality in this very simplistic way, the ability to nuance and reason is lost. The ability to see reality as it really is outside of trendy slogans is lost. Thus to open up the slightest gap in this binary way of viewing the world is to threaten their whole way of thinking. And this is one thing that makes them a cult, for their way of thinking is heavily dependent upon shutting down, as soon as they can, anything or any one who would add a little nuance and open that gap.

      Jonah had it right. These are Nazis with smiley faces. Too bad he gave up the fight.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        And remember, to a great extent Nazis and Fascists are communists (or at least Stalinists) with smiley faces. This is why they were concerned about maintaining popular support, whereas Stalin didn’t care.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I agree, Timothy.

          And in the scheme of things I would say the natural state of mankind is to be corrupt, barbaric, simple-minded, and deluded. We require the expose to good ideas, good ethics, and, many would say, a good Spirit in order to blossom as something other than animals who walk on two legs.

          To me, Stalin doesn’t need to be explained, per se. It’s St. Francis who needs to be explained. Stalin is what you get when human conceits and uninterrupted appetites rule the day.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Call it it sick, or evil. or both, but I still think a basic hostility to childlike innocence is a major aspect of liberalism. It’s what happens when sexuality is your touchstone.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Call it it sick, or evil. or both, but I still think a basic hostility to childlike innocence is a major aspect of liberalism.

        Oh, Timothy, I absolutely agree. What I was talking about is one aspect for why this might be so.

        Evil is uncomfortable around the presence of good. There’s a side and a mindset that automatically wants to be irreverent in the face of reverence. I know this side well because that has described me from time to time. And certainly there’s a place for irreverence. And certainly there is plenty of room in this world for piercing the bombastic bubble of dogmatism.

        And that’s all well and good. But there is still something different bred into people by the Left which makes them uncomfortable around the good, the decent, the reverent, the forgiving, the humble, the ethical. And, frankly, it’s a good practice for me to surround myself with yuze guys because I don’t want to be that way anymore. We all need to grow up sometime.

        But being on the Left means you never need to grow up, you never need to face your demons, you never need self-restraint. And the cult of Leftism does even darker things to one’s soul. And I think part of that I’ve touched on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *