A friend of mine alerted me to an article published last month in the Christian Messenger called Pedophiles are here, and they want ‘equal rights’ too! The article, written by Robin Sam, mentions me and my first Salon piece. Needless to say, it was not particularly friendly; it was just more of the usual fear-mongering typical of right-wing media. Let’s examine it piece by piece.
Friends, do you know pedophiles in the US have started calling themselves as ‘minor-attracted people’?
As if this were some kind of alarming development. Yes, we sometimes call ourselves minor-attracted persons (MAPs) because a) it’s actually more accurate than the word ‘pedophile’ since ‘pedophile’ literally translates to ‘child lover’ and the fact is, not all people who are attracted to children actually love them (though many do), and b) in case you haven’t noticed, the word ‘pedophile’ has become synonymous with ‘child molester’ in our society. It is a tainted word. Nevertheless, I still use it by-and-large in all of my media appearances because it’s the term familiar to most people, even though I generally cringe a wee bit internally every time I use it in reference to myself, knowing what most people think it means. But I decided that I would try to redeem it anyway. A tall order, I know, but I think it can be done. The piece continues:
Do you know they have started using the same tactics that homosexuals used years ago in the US and in the west to gain legitimacy to their sinful and repugnant behavior? They have picked up the same tools that worked so well for gays.
I love this all-encompassing ‘they’ the right-wing media always uses in reference to anyone who does something they disapprove of. And who is this ‘they’ the author is talking about? The only person they actually quote or refer to in the article is me. Am I then to infer that I am the one using “the same tactics that homosexuals used years ago” to justify my “sinful and repugnant behavior”? In which case I must ask, what sinful and repugnant behavior am I guilty of? I don’t act on my attractions at all, nor do I advocate for changing the laws to allow people to legally have sex with children. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Of course, it doesn’t matter to people like Sam. All he sees is a future where pedophiles are allowed to rape children with impunity, something that would horrify me just as much as it would anyone else if it were to happen. And Sam is smart enough to know what I said and what I meant, which just means he is lying about me. I thought Christians were supposed to be honest, Mr. Sam.
Like homosexuals, pedophiles also started demanding equal rights sometime ago. To buttress their demand, they are claiming equal standing with homosexuals and gays. They claim their sexual behavior is simply an ‘alternative lifestyle’. Sometime ago, the world threw out morals to accommodate LGBTs. Now, in some more time it will accept pedophiles also.
Yeah, I really don’t know where he’s getting this. There are some pedophiles who want age of consent laws lowered or dropped, but as far as I can tell no reputable media outlet, no matter its political affiliation, is giving them a forum. I defy Mr. Sam or anyone else to find a single example from a legitimate news site where a pedophile has ever referred to sex with children as an “alternative lifestyle.” It just hasn’t happened. Oh, I suspect Mr. Sam would love for that to happen, because then his doomsaying might actually have some gravity behind it. But it isn’t. Not that that’s going to stop him from proclaiming it, hallelujah, can I get an amen?
He goes on to point out how the slippery slope supposedly ushered in by LGBT rights will lead to rights for pedophiles too, by which he means, of course, that the government will eventually give it’s stamp of approval to the wholesale sexual abuse of children. It’s such an absurd suggestion as to be barely worth addressing, but alas, this is the general level of criticism aimed at me.
Of course, believers saw this coming. Jesus said the last days will be like the days of Lot (Luke 17:28-30).
Of course they did. Never mind the fact that historically governments have allowed all kinds of child abuse, and that children had few if any rights up until about the mid-1800s. In case you aren’t aware of it, Mr. Sam, age of consent laws are a relatively recent thing, and they have generally only been raised incrementally, usually in response to some moral panic or other like the publication of W.T. Stead’s muckraking masterpiece The Maiden Tribute to Modern Babylon. You see, child prostitution used to be so rampant in England and other western countries that it actually had an impact on age of consent in Britain. If there was ever a time when there was rampant sexual abuse such that it might warrant the second coming, it would be the WHOLE HISTORY OF HUMANITY UP UNTIL THE 20TH CENTURY. Seriously, Mr. Sam, you are woefully ignorant if you think this is the time when children are most in danger of being sexually abused. Seriously, read pretty much any history book on childhood.
Might I also point out that the Bible doesn’t once address the issue of sex with children. The closest it comes is Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) 8:8-9, which, I might point out, is just one long exchange between lovers. Context is relevant. Anyway, it says:
We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for? If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.
So, it’s basically saying, hey, I have a little sister who hasn’t yet hit puberty. What happens on the day she’s supposed to marry and she still hasn’t developed yet? Well, we’ll just gussy her up so she looks older. And why do you suppose that might’ve happened in biblical times? It’s because girls at that era usually got married around age 12 or 13. Did God ever condemn this practice? Nope, even though He specifically set out rules against incest, homosexual acts and even bestiality. Could it perhaps be that sex with children simply wasn’t recognized as a sin by the ancient Hebrews (or their God)? In fact, one only has to read the Talmud to know that this is true. I won’t even get into that, but look it up.
And let’s not forget Numbers 31:7-18, where God gives his okay for military conquerors led by Moses to kill everyone but the young girls of the city they conquered, and what do you think they saved the girls for, praytell? Let’s find out:
They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Hmm, seems pretty clear to me. Obviously none of this is intended to justify sex with children. The only reason I even bring it up is because any Christian who knows the Bible and attacks pedophiles while simultaneously failing to address their own religion’s history of overlooking and even condoning sexual abuse for the majority of its existence is being utterly disingenuous. If God intended to bring the hammer down on civilization over the issue of pedophilia (or rather, sex with children), He clearly would’ve done so long before now. Let’s continue.
In such a scenario, what can we do? Well, all’s not lost. We can pray! We can sensitize churches, ministry leaders, thinkers, writers, journalists, doctors, teachers and our own children about the need to be aware of the danger and act swiftly even as prayer groups will have to pray with a greater zeal against these abhorrent trends.
What abhorrent trends is he talking about, I wonder? There are no trends. There is me, and I wrote exactly two articles for Salon and have done a few radio interviews. There are occasionally articles written by non-pedophiles that are somewhat sympathetic to those who are stuck with this unfortunate sexuality, and a few pedophiles who have done interviews with journalists, but just in terms of self-identified pedophiles who are out there actively working through major media outlets to change things (and the change is for better treatment of pedophiles at that, not for legalized sex with kids), I am pretty much it. I am one person, and I’ve written two articles. All other media appearances were not initiated by me. I’d hardly call that a trend, would you? But by all means, pray if you like. I certainly have nothing against the idea of keeping kids safe from sexual abuse. Have at it, true believers.
However, be aware that if you genuinely oppose what I’m actually fighting for—to stop the persecution of people who are attracted to children but don’t want to act on it and to destigmatize the attraction itself so that pedophiles can come out and seek treatment without fear—then you are hardly the representative of Christian love and charity you present yourself as. Not that I’m surprised. Christianity has long been a refuge of bigots and hateful jackasses and it only seems to be getting worse. Are you among those who would like to torture and kill me simply for existing, Mr. Sam? Love thy neighbor as thyself? Puh-lease. Jesus hung out with criminals and misfits, and I don’t even abuse kids yet somehow I am the Anti-Christ for simply admitting I am attracted to children and asking society to be more understanding towards folks like me. Better that I shouldn’t mention it at all, right? So where’s that Christian admiration for honesty you’re supposed to have, huh? What a joke. I’m a better Christian than you and I don’t even believe in it.
Let’s skip ahead a bit. The next couple of paragraphs mention my first Salon piece and quote me, but then we get this little gem:
I wonder what would Nickerson choose to do if pedophilia suddenly became an accepted form of behavior, an ‘alternative lifestyle’ as they’re happy to call it? If pedophilia is not a taboo any more, all these ‘molesters’ out there (yes, even the non-offending pedophile!) would turn into ‘monsters’ and pounce on the first child they find in their path. The sexual predators would come out of the woodwork and devour children. The pedophiles are lying low because child molestation is still taboo. Once the restraint is gone, heaven knows what will happen to our children!
Again with the alternative lifestyle? You really love that phrase, don’t you, Mr. Sam? So, this guy pretty much insinuates that if it were perfectly legal to have sex with children, then I would be engaging it. Of course, conveniently for Mr. Sam, there’s absolutely no way to prove otherwise since such a society doesn’t exist and almost certainly never will, but no, I wouldn’t. Some pedophiles certainly would, but to be fair, if it were to become perfectly legal, wouldn’t the issue have been morally vetted by society at that point? Let’s see. Even though homosexual sex is legal, there are still lots of people who believe it’s immoral. So, we still don’t live in a society where even homosexual sex is fully accepted. We’re a long, long way from a society where there are no age of consent laws.
And by the way, Mr. Sam, pedophilia is not a behavior any more than homosexuality is a behavior. These are baseline sexualities, and sexualities are conditions, as in states of being, not behaviors. Both pedophiles and homosexuals can be either celibate or sexually active, and neither behavior changes who they find sexually attractive, which is what makes them a pedophile or a homosexual in the first place.
The rest of that paragraph is so laughably hyperbolic that I have a hard time taking it seriously. I mean, pedophiles would pounce on the first child they saw? They would devour children? Wow. Just . . . wow. And that leads into this:
While I was reading the Salon article, another thought came to my mind. It was about how a deviant behavior grains ground and acceptability. The practitioners begin approaching media houses with a ‘Please, hear us out’ appeal. The idea is an innocuous sounding ‘We’re only airing our views.’ The media is also willing to play out this game because they think they ought to be fair to a ‘minority’ community. Slowly, an article or an interview ostensibly planned to put a viewpoint across deftly gives room to many such well-worded and well thought-out pieces to gain public sympathy. In time, more such orchestrated campaigns get what they want and lead to public approval of the repulsive behavior. This is how LGBTs began too, if you remember.
Again, here he goes with the slippery slope nonsense, bringing it right back to the gays and how they are ultimately responsible for bringing about Pedogeddon. But I’m glad he did because it underscores something important that gays and lesbians need to understand. They won public acceptance partly by distancing themselves from pedophiles . . . or did they? In fact, I don’t think they did. I think they won acceptance by making their case with the public and by proving their humanity, because the people who hate and fear gays were never going to accept them anyway. So the fact that LGBTQs have been condemned as pedophile allies has been an ideological false flag operation all along. These people who keep saying that acceptance of homosexuals will lead to acceptance of pedophiles really don’t care whether gays distance themselves from pedos and they never did. They are always going to condemn homosexuals regardless. The guilt-by-association argument is just one convenient facet for them.
So I ask the LGBTQ community (and I do so with the utmost respect and admiration for your struggle), why do you care what these people think? Don’t let them manipulate you like that. Pedophiles are part of the sexual rainbow—we’re just a little different from the other parts in that we can’t ethically actualize our attractions with our desired partners, but we still deserve to be recognized as part of the great sexual tapestry of humanity and to be treated fairly. We no more chose to be attracted to children than you chose to be attracted to those of the same sex. In that sense we are alike. But we are also different. This is not a simple dichotomy. You guys and gals, of all people, should know that these things are multifaceted and not binary. Just remember: we are stronger together than apart, and there are a lot of us too.