Saturday, December 12, 2009

Gay Paedophiles? Surely not...

You're not a 'male homosexual.' You are a pedophile. Period.



Clearly the statement by rookiee (a rather apt moniker) is ridiculous but this is the standard of logic one expects in the AZU comments. According to rookiee, one is either a paedophile or one is a homosexual; one seemingly can't be both. The problem with this is that the terms 'paedophile' and 'homosexual' refer to different types of orientation and are not mutually exclusive. Homosexual refers to one's gender orientation whereas paedophile refers to one's developmental orientation.

A person can be homosexual (attracted to same gender), heterosexual (attracted to opposite gender), bisexual (attracted to both genders) or asexual (not sexually attracted to either gender). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the gender a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the developmental stage they're most attracted to.

A person can be paedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephile (attracted to pubescent children), ephebophile (attracted to adolescents), teleiophile (attracted to adults) or gerontophile (attracted to the elderly). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the developmental stage a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the gender they're most attracted to.

Therefore, a male who is primarily attracted to prepubescent girls is a heterosexual paedophile whilst a male who is primarily attracted to pubescent boys is a homosexual hebephile etc. This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to think logically about the issue.

So why would rookiee make such a silly comment? Is he just ignorant or is there a hidden agenda in play? Is it limited to AZU or is there a wider agenda? This is an interesting subject as it is indeed wider than AZU and incorporates what is now generally referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as well. The agendas of the two groups are different but manifest themselves in similar language.

To understand the agenda of the LGBT lobby, one needs to be aware of the history of the early days of the homosexual political agenda. In the early 1970's the LGBT lobby was in its infancy and fighting an uphill battle against institutionalised discrimination and persecution. It was during this time that NAMBLA was formed and became active within the LGBT lobby. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's it became clear to the LGBT lobby that its association with NAMBLA was becoming a liability in its attempts to gain mainstream acceptance as the general public falsely associated homosexuals with child molesters. Increasingly NAMBLA was ostracised by the wider LGBT community. NAMBLA remained a member group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993 when they were excluded for political reasons. Today the gay lobby has been known to claim that adult men who are attracted to prepubescent boys are not true homosexuals (hmmm.. where have I heard that?) as they're really attracted to the boy's 'femininity' rather than the 'masculine' characteristics true homosexuals are attracted to. To anyone without a vested interest, the political agenda of the LGBT lobby is clear. By claiming that gay paedophiles are not truly homosexual, they are effectively arguing that there are no paedophiles in the gay community and, by extension, that paedophilia is a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon. How patently ridiculous. Of course, if one is to believe that a homosexual orientation is just as natural and legitimate as a heterosexual orientation, then it follows that their argument should apply equally to heterosexual paedophiles ie. adult males who are attracted to prepubescent girls aren't true heterosexuals. Again, how patently ridiculous. No, the reason for the LGBT lobby to claim paedophiles aren't true homosexuals is purely one of political expedience and completely illegitimate and corrupt.

So what of AZU? Whilst the LGBT agenda is one of self-serving political expedience, the AZU agenda is simply one of old fashioned, down 'n' dirty bigotry as I've previously exposed. As a part of achieving their agenda, they manipulate language in the grand traditions of newspeak. In a previous post I showed how Stitches77 is attempting to limit the definitions of what can be considered sexual intercourse. Similarly, here they try to limit the definitions of what can be considered homosexuality. Remember that the term 'homosexual' refers only to one's gender orientation and conveys no information about the developmental stage one is primarily attacted to, yet the AZU agenda is to limit its definition to adults attracted to same gender adults (ie. teleiophile homosexuals). But why would AZU be so concerned about homosexual paedosexuals being recognised as such? How does it harm their agenda? The answer is that it humanises them and we all know that it's much easier to discriminate and persecute a group that are dehumanised. Anti-Semites through the ages have known this and used it to their advantage. The quote below from Stitches77 (the spiritual, if not intellectual, leader of AZU) betrays their agenda:

I don't call filthy pedophiles who want to fuck children - human.

Stitches


I've previously demonstrated that AZU hate paedosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation; whether they harm a child or not is irrelevant in their warped thinking. Again in this quote, Stitches77 exposes that her hatred isn't limited to those who actually harm a child, but to anyone who is even attracted to a child.

So this brings me back to the original quote from rookiee and my question of whether he is just ignorant or if he's pushing an agenda. To be honest, I'm not sure. In rare moments of honesty, Stitches77 has exposed that she is consciously pushing an agenda of dehumanisation and subversion of language but it is entirely possible that rookiee is simply an ignorant bigot, unaware of the tactics Stitches77 exploits. In either case, it's important that such bigotry is exposed and combatted.

Paedosexuals are human. Paedosexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Fact. Anyone who would claim otherwise is pushing an agenda and should be treated with great caution and scepticism.

4 comments:

Curious Flame said...

I heard about the NAMBLA before and I still can't believe that it even exist. Their ideology about their man-boy love seems twisted in a way. Anyway, the LGBT agenda made sense since they didn't want pedophilia to be part of their movement as the public would make arguments toward that point and make it more feared. There are some people still believe that LGBT movement are still passively linked to pedophilia, even though it is not like that now.

Well, according to the public/media, pedophilia is paedophilia, hebephilia,and ephebophilia together anyway. None of those attractions are good because the target of those attractions are not adults. Of course, anyone who does have sex with children are not human at all; they are much more than that. For those who are paedosexuals, they are in between because their attraction puts them on the fence.

Foucault said...

I've read the blog a few times, and the post. I'd say that you have a good grip of the history, but then again, even Wikipedia doesn't sink to revisionism when it comes to ILGA and NAMBLA.

I think that you are wasting your time on these small cyber-vigilante groups, their agendas, their personalities and politics. Addressing this distraction is not exactly going to help in the reasoning department. You will always be at war.

I'd love to come back here, and see you addressing some of the underlying issues, or at least some of the better known advocates on this issue (automatically gets rid of all the irrelevant, minor agenda/personality driven bullcrap you are answering to).

Things like -

Logic/morality/emotional underpinning of retributional justice model.

Madness as a man made category. Psychiatry, its normalising categories, its holy books.

The participatory rights of youth. Infantilisation of youth in recent centuries, importance to economic model.

The construction of sexuality, sexualities and sex as discreet forms.

The construction, shaping and political manipulation of the child.

Interaction between the above, and use by authority to instil beliefs and practices that normalise behaviour and uphold the social order.

These, I think, are the debates that will be influential in this area. As this blog shows, Absolute Zero are nothing, and will not have any influence on debates concerning the agency or protection of youth in the "sexual" arena, or any other.

Lyra Silvertongue said...

Actually there is more than that when it comes to defining sexual interests. Men can and do imagine many different things when it comes to the things they masturbate to. I think the mind imagery of men when they are masturbating is best indicator of what their sexual interests are. The are many types of fetishes and many sexual acts men fantasies think about when they masturbate.

The saying pedophiles just want to @#$! children isn't even close to true. I won't go into detail but the stereotyped idea of a pedophile's sexual interest being that he wants to stick his too big penis into a child's too small orifice is very inaccurate.

Voice of Reason said...

Not to mention that not all paedophiles have a penis as there are plenty of female paedophiles.