We Need Sexual Taboos

Advocates of homosexuality had assured the public that accepting homosexuality would not provide a slippery slope into wholesale sexual deviance. On the other side of the debate, it was argued that this rationale could be used to justify almost anything, and it has – pedophilia, polyamory, and sex-change surgery.

Unsurprisingly, the rationale for the homosexual agenda, as a hard-wired, unchangeable sexual orientation, has quickly expanded into “choice.” Anyone has the right to “love” whomever they want. Consequently, one motherexplains:

• “Vertasha and I knew we were attracted to each other when she was sixteen,” Mary Carter said. “But we decided to wait to have sex until she was eighteen, legally of age. We are now going public with our relationship to help others who might be in gay mother/daughter relationship feel confident and okay about coming out. We want the world to know we love each other as mother and daughter and romantically… we’re not hurting anyone. We’re a new minority and just want acceptance.”

Carter pleads that they “just want acceptance,” and why not? Who wants to be regarded as “haters” or “familio-phobic?” And don’t they have a right to enjoy sexual “love” wherever it might take us by surprise?

There are costs, significant ones. Homosexuals bear tremendous physical, spiritual, and psychological costs. The intra-family costs are even more ghastly. Can a daughter or a son sit on a parents lap without wondering whether or not they are being groomed as a sexual object? Can they wrestle, play, and remain affectionate with their parents (or even siblings) once the taboo is removed, and their school informs them that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sexual relations with their parents?

The trust arising from our unconditional, “taboo-ridden” parent child relationships is the foundation of family and the minimal condition that children require for a stable and secure childhood. What will happen when the wife can no longer trust the husband to keep his hands off the children? Will not sexual jealousies tear apart the family!

Our progressive society blindly jumps into sexual experimentation because it yields pleasurable but very temporary benefits. It then becomes politically correct and beyond the pale of any serious discussion.

Sex-change surgery is now financed by tax dollars despite the lack of evidential support. In a “review of more than 100 studies,” the University of Birmingham found that “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.” (Salvo, Fall 2014, 33)

Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital reports on two studies which tracked children claiming to have transgender feelings.

• Among children who received no medical or surgical treatment, 70 to 80 percent spontaneously lost those feelings. (32)

Clearly, the scalpel should not be used to address mental disorders. However, the “right to choose” has become a conversation stopper. If parents want to sex their children, well isn’t it their right, even if they have to wait until their child becomes “legal?”

And why shouldn’t we take seriously the little girl who says she wants to marry “daddy?” We don’t, at least for now. But why shouldn’t we if that’s her orientation! Shouldn’t we honor it?

Vertasha is no less naïve and myopic:

• “My mom is still my mom. She does normal mom stuff: buys me clothes, pays for food, tells me to make our bed. We just happen to enjoy sex with each other too.”

Vertasha assumes that mom will always be mom. However, if other lesbian relationships are any indication of their future, the inevitable challenges presented by jealousy, bitterness, guilt, and the many other forms of disappointment will bred alienation, and mom will be history along with dad.

They want acceptance for their sexual experimentation, but should they receive anything other than censure? Should they be allowed to open a door to the inevitable demise of society? Acceptance would be the death-knell of an already imperiled but necessary institution of the family.

Pedophiles have now become “Minor-Attracted People”

 

Everyone has a sexual orientation. Why then should one sexual orientation be favored over others? Doesn’t this constitute a violation of our unalienable human rights as Hilary Clinton had argued? B4U-ACT.Org also argues that pedophiles, “minor-attracted people,” have been given a bad rap and that their orientation also has to be respected as are other orientations:

• Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals…

But perhaps it might be best to leave the stigma in place in view of the horrific damage done to minors by pedophiles. However, this stigma is gradually dissolving through the acid of political correctness. The Diagnostic Manuel (V) of the American Psychological Association has gone a long way to soften the stigma.

• The American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.

In other words, pedophilia is no longer classified as a mental illness, just the criminal act. If it doesn’t lead to a crime, then it’s perfectly okay! A safe but superficial and misleading definition! To demonstrate just how problematic this definition is, take the homicidal maniac. Would the APA say that all of his murderous and sadistic ideation is okay as long as he doesn’t act it out? Certainly not! Behavior can no more be divorced from mental life than can sexual acting-out be divorced from its motivators – pornography, for example.

However, B4U-ACT insists that this is the very thing that pedophiles should do – fantasize without acting-out:

• [Paul] Christiano [its spokesman] answered that while B4U-ACT encouraged minor-attracted persons within the organization to openly acknowledge their feelings and desires, such sexual preferences must remain purely a mental exercise and therefore entirely unconsummated. In other words, pedophiles must be allowed to fantasize about minors, as long as such acts are never consummated.

Is Christiano serious or is this just a political ploy? In a grad school paper, he wrote in favor of the “sexual autonomy” of children, adding that children “should not be left in the dark about their own sexuality.”

Clearly, he is not in favor of parents depriving their children of their “sexual autonomy.”

• According to Christiano, people must be allowed to celebrate sex and sexuality, “one of the few freely-given pleasures in life.”

However, does pedophilia represent the healthy celebration of sex or a destructive perversion? Also, let’s make no mistake about “sexual autonomy!” A child is not autonomous! That’s why they have a family. However, these two little words are used as a crowbar to wrench the child away from the protection of his/her parents and cast into the permissive State cauldron.

Historically, State-raised children do not fare any better than factory-raised chickens. All of the State utopian schemes – Hitler Youth, communist-indoctrinated youth – have had an attenuated run, where the cost has been borne by both children and parents.

Our children have become the new laboratory monkeys. While the media has protested the cruelty to monkeys, our children’s sexual experimentation might prove to be an acceptable narrative.