Views from the Abyss #20: The Paedophile Wall

Q. I see that girl who advocates for paedophiles got fired from Nintendo for her abhorrent disgusting views. Good riddance!

A. This isn’t entirely true. If one were to generously interpret the official statement from Nintendo, it seems they’re not happy—what with their family friendly image and that—having one of their public faces using their official SNS accounts to promote a second line of work which involves removing clothes in front of a camera. When one is a public face of a corporation, and especially a family friendly one, good behaviour and lack of controversy is something one must be especially careful to maintain.

However, her advocacy of paedophilia, based on what she’s actually written, is really not being fairly represented either. Having read her thesis, it appears she holds a libertarian anti-censorship view that while child pornography that directly causes harm to children is indeed abhorrent, the venomous condemnation and subsequent illegality of artistic renderings of even milder instances of sexualisation which harms nobody is little more than morality policing—a virtue signalling competition sport even—more suited to a country that operates under Sharia law. Indeed, not only is there no proof that such materials harm children, but a negative correlation can actually be demonstrated.

Agree with her or not, she makes a solid academic case, which by itself should not be held against her personally. No idea should be beyond discussion.

However, it does bring to light an inevitable certainty—that it is only a matter of time before Western society runs headfirst into the paedophile wall.

Not so very long ago, homosexuality was persecuted. Then it was tolerated. Then it was normalised. Now it’s celebrated. In fact, fuck heterosexuality! You guys suck!

So the obvious next question is what about the paedophiles (who for the sake of this discussion are people who are sexually attracted exclusively to pre-pubescent children, for the fact of their being pre-pubescent children, regardless of whether or not they ever act on this impulse)? They too have no choice in their sexuality, and arguably they have it worse now than the homosexuals ever did, for it was only homosexual acts that were punished; paedophiles do not need to act to have their lives destroyed.

And yet, it remains unthinkable that paedophilia could ever even be tolerated, let alone accepted as a valid sexuality, and eventually be celebrated. This empathy disparity should cause major discomfort for anyone with a “progressive” mindset. When they run into the paedophile wall, they'll find themselves stuck there for a very long time, refusing to choose between two very hard truths—that either their entire philosophy is a farce, or that somewhere down the line they took a very wrong turn.

Indeed, the only way to fairly level the field, to allow paedophiles—the people, not the actions—the same validity and dignity as homosexuals, is to bring the latter back down a few rungs.

"Progressives" need to denormalise homosexuality.

This is not a popular truth, but it is one that needs to be accepted once more. Homosexuality is not a normal healthy alternative to heterosexuality. If you exclusively find members of your own sex sexually attractive, for the fact of them being the same sex, then there is something wrong with you. This is not hatred, nor is it a judgement of character or a display of pity, and you may deal with it in any way you choose, providing it only involves consenting adults.

There's no reason that you should not be afforded dignity.

But to keep up the pretence that it is an equal and valid alternative to heterosexuality is to live in a fantasy world. A fantasy world that proudly proclaims that “All sexualities are equal", while simultaneously parroting the caveat, “Except this one. This one here is sickening and abhorrent."

We do not have to elevate homosexuality to allow the afflicted an otherwise normal life. And when you have paedophiles who are otherwise well adjusted individuals, and have sufficient self-control to never come close to acting on their instincts (which for all we know may be the vast majority), then why can they not be allowed the same. Bring them out of the closet. Provide help and services so they can come to terms with who they are, and deal with it in a way that prevents innocents from being hurt. Show compassion, and afford basic human dignity.

You don’t want to advocate for that? You progressives sure are a bunch of disgusting hypocrites aren’t you!

Q. Well I guess that told me. Out of interest, why do you always say “homosexual” as opposed to the more popular term “gay”?

A. While the two are often used interchangeably, I find it helpful to distinguish between them. For the purposes of my ramblings, a “homosexual” is somebody that is, for all intents and purposes, exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex. “Gay” is an identity many choose to adopt that allows them to frame the circumstances of their existence in a more positive light.

Perhaps it would be helpful if a similar distinction was made between those who are attracted exclusively to children, and child rapists. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Q. I guess we're not as tolerant as I thought we were. How can we change our thinking about paedophiles?

A. Assuming that changing one's thinking is a desirable end goal, I propose beginning by solidifying your current thoughts on the matter.

Picture, if you will, a best case scenario. A test that can be performed on boys and girls when they reach puberty, that can identify with 100% accuracy if they are a paedophile or not. The test is administered nationally, so all the paedophiles can be found very early in their lives. Sadly, there is no cure.

What do you do with the information? Do you have them all killed? Do you have them incarcerated? Do you have them castrated?

Keep in mind that these boys and girls have committed no crime, and any persecution they face is because of the way they were born.

A similar what-if scenario was proposed by the TV show "In the Flesh", where after a zombie apocalypse, a not-quite perfect treatment is found for the "partially deceased" that allows them to regain their humanity and reintegrate into society. Needless to say, this is not a popular move, and there isn't a single right answer.

Update
Having read some of Alison Rapp's comments on SNS, it appears she really is quite incompetent at putting forward her controversial views. When you're limited to 140 characters, your comments will necessarily lack nuance, and this is unwise when nuance is everything.

Another Update
It's worth stating that certain possibilities have not been discussed here, as I specifically wanted to approach the topic from the mindset of an LGBTP advocate, and demonstrate where that mindset starts to break down. Call it a strawman if you will, but be sure to provide the reasons for why this is the case, and why you feel that invalidates any argument put forward.

One specific point of contention is the assumption that paedophilia has the same potential for stability as homosexuality. In other words, one can be homosexual and lead an otherwise normal life. Is this equally possible for paedophiles? Evidence would suggest that it is, but accurate figures are hard to come by.

There are also questions of causes and cures. If there was a cure for paedophilia, would it be morally and ethically sound to require paedophiles to take it? If there was a cure for homosexuality, then what then?