A professor defends child porn

In an editorial in "The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law" says that viewing child porn is not a good indicator of whether or not someone is at risk of molesting children.

"Under current circumstances, a diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder can infer a risk of hands-on offending with children. If the diagnosis is made largely on the basis of the use of child pornography, the inference may be inaccurate, with potentially unwarranted negative consequences for the individual."

This is of course insane.  Anyone who views any sort of porn for pleasure is "at risk" of trying to engage in the type of sex they're viewing.  Now the chances of them acting on their desires vary but no reasonable person is going to argue that someone who views porn is less likely to act out than someone who does not view porn.

This is part of an on-going attempt to declare that lusting after children is ok so long as the person doesn't do anything with a real child.

But child porn is illegal not only because to produce it a child must be horribly abused but because the desire to have sex with a child is a monstrous disorder.  From a purely evolutionary secular perspective it's wrong because children can't produce offspring.  But from a Christian perspective it's an abomination because it is the most vile sort of attack on a child and Christians know that all of us, especially innocent children, are of infinite worth because God loves us.

This is not a surprising development.  We've seen over the last 70 years a constant pattern of the elites in our society justifying progressively more hedonistic and selfish sexual lifestyles.  It started with justifying casual sex outside of marriage, to prostitution,  to adultery, to homosexuality, and is now moving to normalize polygamy and child molestation.

For years the elites have been bemoaning the fact that Roman Polanski--who was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl--was being persecuted and should be allowed to return to the US without serving the prison time he was sentenced to.

Democrats tolerated Epstein's actions with little girls for years and today are desperately trying to avoid revealing Bill Clinton's associations with Epstein.

The reality is that the elites in America are pushing hedonism and the reduction of people to objects to be used for sexual gratification.  Because lust can never replace love and because the more people engage in uncaring sex the more extreme their sexual tastes become it's inevitable that our post Christian elites will work tirelessly until any form of "sex" is not only legal but protected.

The professor who wrote the editorial probably doesn't support child molestation but by trying to say that someone who looks at child porn isn't necessarily a risk for actually molesting a child he's paving the way for legalization of synthetic child porn--using computer generated images not real children.  If that occurs it's the first step along the path to eventually legalizing child molestation if the child is "willing".

I've often wondered why God allowed gay priests to molest children--80% of the accusations against Catholic priests are for actions with post pubescent teenage boys.  One possible reason is that right now our elites are faced with a quandary.  If they push for normalizing sex with children then they can no longer bash the Church over the head with the sins of the 4% of priests who have been accused of violating the Church's teaching.  After all they can't bash the Church today when gay priests have consensual sex with adult gays. That tension is a significant part of why our elites are slow rolling the whole pedophilia campaign.

Another part is that the vast majority of Americans know that children can never ever be "willing" and that hence every sexual act with a child is rape; and in the case of children there is no possibility of "she wanted" it.

We have to fight this incrementalist approach to normalizing the rape of children.  On Twitter I recently saw an ad for an organization which loudly condemned sex with children but which apparently was also eager to see synthetic child porn legalized. They didn't really come out and say it openly but they wanted society to believe that lusting after kids is ok so long as people don't act out their desires.

That misses the point. We all know that anyone who is sexually attracted to a child is either very evil or mentally ill.  Even if we could show that there was no chance that an individual who lusts after children would act out--something that is of course impossible--their desires are clearly disordered; far more so than someone who has this or that neuroses.

Clearly people who are attracted to children but who work to fight that attraction are people who need our help. They need to be strengthened in their battle against their desires by the knowledge that society condemns any thought of molesting children.  If society says to them that it's ok to think but not to act they'll be far more likely to think and given human nature the more they think the more likely it will be that they will act.

We need to draw a line in the sand today to prevent the normalization of child molestation in the future.  After all who would have thought in 1950 that in less than 100 years America would be actively defending the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle?