The Next - But Not The Last - Frontier Of The Sexual Revolution

[Loran Blood]

It has become clear, and indeed, been clear for a very long time, that the homosexual sub-culture and its various cultural sexual-subcategories have been long instrumental in the ongoing movement toward the sexualization of children and the legitimization of sexual contact between adults and ever younger objects of desire over the last several decades. The heterosexual component of the ongoing "sexual revolution" is in no way exempted from complicity in this cultural movement, but the homosexual subculture has been particularly acute in this area with regard to a prevalent fetish among a substantial component of that subculture for young, and indeed, very young boys ("Chicken").

In the first instance here, I should like to defend myself against a few of the rather disingenuous attacks on a particular point I made in the previous thread regarding the publication in the EU of a particularly alarming couple of booklets known as Love, Body, and Playing Doctor, published by the German Federal Health Education Center, which is a sub-agency within the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs. A couple of our resident partisans of erotic liberation ran screaming from both the text of these booklets, as well as their implications (as they should), but not for exactly the same reasons that I or other LDS would have done so. While not "advocating" for adult/child sex, Nack found, for some reason, my claims regarding them to be suspect based upon, nothing in the actual damning text of the books, which were summarily dismissed with sufficient sophistry (see below) and lack of substantive analysis such that it was apparently assumed the question had been closed, but due to the source I used in the my initial report of their existence and content.

Now, having no concept of the ATS website or its larger agenda/ideology, I happened to come across it first, and hence, used it (and, as the books actually exist and appear to say what the report there claimed, I say no reason not to). I can accept that this site is, for whatever reason, untrustworthy on various issues. Fine. However, the story is all over the Internet, primarily among conservative and Christian websites, but not at all limited to them. A major article can be seen here, one of the leading leftist popular magazines on the Continent. Now, as to the claim of sophistry, Nack claims to have read the "Google translation," which, after my own exhaustive Google search, does not seem to exist (if anyone can link me to it, I'd be appreciative) Secondly, the initial reports of the books did not originate at the ATS site at all. Thirdly, I never directly supported the contention that the German government is supporting pedophilia. What they clearly are supporting, as will be shown below, and which is not at all at variance with the efforts of the already described movement to push the age of developed, self conscious sexual desire to ever younger ages, is a Kinseyesque erotocization of childhood and erotocization of the developmental processes of maturation - precisely the kind of ideology-as-social-science promoted by the sexual revolutionaries of America since the late sixties (really, long before that, but with little effect until the last third of the century).

As the last thread was locked due to straying out of gospel relevant perimeters, I want to keep this discussion centered in the the conflict between the sexual revolution per se (regardless of the "orientation" of its partisans as individuals or special interest groups) and the gospel and its principles relative to this. Now, on to the specific arguments, I'd like to respond to the specific criticisms made regarding my posts on the now locked thread (and I'm not berating the mods for closing it, which is why I've mentioned keeping the discussion oriented to the confrontation between gospel values and secular (Babylonian, if you will) values as represented by the ongoing "sexual revolution" and its inexorable and irreconcilable conflict with Zion.

Now, on the specific criticisms. Daniel2 said:

Loran, after your comment that homosexuality is "a form of deep seated sexual fetishism," I don't think Nack's the one who isn't "up to date" on his "sexual revolution ideology."

That statement belies a profound misunderstanding of thousands of loving same-sex relationships--and households--that are based on far more profound foundations than "sexual fetishism." Just as heterosexual relationships include an important component of sexual compatibility, but are not based merely on sexual behaviors, so, too, are homosexual relationships based on a variety of emotional, care-giving, financial, spiritual, and sexual compatibilities between the two people involved in making that commitment.

The overwhelmingly dysfunctional, hyperpromiscuous (my own term, but I'm fairly certain that its been used before by others to describe the standard atmosphere that envelops most homosexual men withing the Gay subculture), tempestuous, and unstable nature of the vast majority of homosexual relationships (mirroring, it should be mentioned, in highly concentrated form, the same kinds of relationships among heterosexuals that mass acceptance of the ideology of sexual "liberation" since the late sixties has produced among much of the general heterosexual population) is well understood and has been for a very long time, among both those who have studied the homosexual subculture and by those within it. There are a plethora of studies, going well back into the 1960s, showing the acutely dysfunctional nature of the typical male homosexual relationship (lesbians appear to fair a bit better overall regarding longevity of relationships and their general tumultuousness) and the rampant sexual fetishism (pederasty is a predominant theme, as well as BDSM) within this demographic.

There may or may not be "thousands" of "loving same-sex" relationships. At some 3% or less of the general population, those who identify as exclusively homosexual would come in at about 10 million people at the most, amongst which, it would probably be likely to find some thousands who have, depending upon the origin and particular developmental path a particular person's homosexuality has taken, some who have been able to create lasting relationships. This is rare - very rare - however, among male homosexuals (and less so among lesbians) and is the very thing that has long eluded homosexuals - when it has even been desired - within the "gay" community and its "cruising" and bathhouse culture (not to mention the "chickenhawks" and their particular contribution).

Some cohabiting and adulterous relationships probably can be found, in the thousands, that have somehow worked out as well, but this, from either a gospel or general framework of optimum sociocultural stability and viability, cannot be used to justify such practices, on their own (just because, in other words, certain individuals have become "settled" within them and feel comfortable within that moral and psychological milieu).

Nack:

My review of the B4U-ACT site leads me to believe the purpose is to help those with the attraction to minors live in society, rather than a) making them societal lepers always in hiding, or b) acting out on those emotions, causing physical, emotional, and legal harm.

It acknowledges that a) people really do have that struggle, and b) to simply ignore, hate or cage those with real emotional difficulties is not productive, as it tends to create more crises situations than prevent them.

I get the impression that it's purposes are for crises prevention, not for advocation of or acceptance of pedosexual activity.

The problem here is that, while this is an aspect of the philosophy the site claims animates its concerns, there is a clear and central subtext to that philosophy that places pedophilia, in classic politically correct "social science" fashion, squarely within the realm of both genetic/biological determinism and the classic sexual revolution revolt against the "stigma" and "ignorance" of the majority culture against those given to such desires and appetites. For the LDS (and for most traditional Christians/Jews of any denomination or sect), this is tantamount (and is meant to be, I think it is clear) to the effective domestication of pedophilia/pederasty accomplished without direct advocacy for its normatization. However, as should be clear, as with the initial attack upon traditional marriage, family, and sexual norms forty years ago, one need not directly advocate premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality to effect its domestication and normalization. One need only pooh pooh existing moral boundaries and remove the "stigma" attached to certain behaviors and lifestyles. Advocacy, by any other name, in other words, is still a form of advocacy (and in the sixties and early seventies, all of these things were, in point of fact, directly and aggressively advocated as domestication and stigma removal gave way to a Nietzschean revaluation of all values in the sexual realm).

Nack:

I'm trying to find a legitimate news source reporting on this as something that actually happened (your link is from 2009). The EU Times is known to be a rumor-monging politically charged rag, generally filled with racist rhetoric, and not a legitimate news source. All other references to this story have come back to this one unsubstantiated rabble-rousing post. It looks more like an internet chain letter than anything (Stop the Gay Jesus movie!!!). again, any other references? It seems something this big would have been all over the place.

Here, you claim that the books do not exist. When you find that they do, you wiggle through the text utilizing sophistry such as the following

The pamphlet is about helping children grow up without shame for their bodies, and as part of that notes that it might be unwise when playfully touching the other parts of an infant's body for stimulating tactile response, that the genital area need not be sharply avoided.

Here are the actual words used in the text, sans Nack's linguistic domestication of them for the purposes of his own argument (whatever that may actually be:

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex...”"

From this, Nack derives the statement that "the genital area need not be sharply avoided." There is a deep and fundamental disconnect here, between Nack's filtering of this statement and the original text. But there are further statements to explore:

"The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him."

Really? What kinds of fathers would this be? Is this a normal, healthy relationship to develop between a father and baby daughter? What Nack does not seem to understand (or wishes to run away from, for whatever reason) is that, for Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues, and many of his later disciples who have been instrumental in setting the default position of the culture to that of the counterculture, the answer is, in point of fact, yes. Nack, for whatever reason, failed to mention that the same booklets approve of the teaching of "unlimited masturbation" to young children, and a similar songbook for children ages 4 and older known as Nose, belly and bum that includes the charming lyrics:

When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a vagina, because I am a girl. Vagina is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle.

The Der Spiegel articel goes into more detail. For many concerned German parents, the sexual rubbing espoused by the booklets, unlike Nack sanitized "need not be sharply avoided" version, was percieved as " a hidden request, parents should contact the daughter between her legs." Precisely.

The Ministry responded to the outburst of criticism, and please take notice of the core nature of their defensive posture:

The sexual development of infants and young children should no longer be taboo.

This is pure, unalloyed Kinsey (or Levine, or Elders, or Calvin Klein etc.) and a philosophy that has been developing and deeply influencing Western culture since the middle of the 20th century. It's formed the basis for the mainstream core of sex ed as practiced in the public schools since the seventies and - and here's the rub - is now making a reinvigorated claim on scientific and ideological grounds to serioius acceptance upon the ideological "coattails" of the homosexual marriage movement and its associated depriveledgeing of normative marriage and family as a concept and the concomitant elevation of both homosexual and "transgender" sexual "orientation" to a level of equivalence with heterosexual union and family structure.

If both ancient and recent social history and, most importantly, the Book of Mormon and the experience of the Nephites teaches us anything, it's that nothing - nothing - is outside the possibilities of cultural acceptance if provided sufficient time and the proper conditions upon which such social transformations can be effected.

It also notes that, if in a bath or shower, and a child innocently reaches up and brushed one's genitalia, it is not wise to smack the hand away, or yell at them. In connection with this, I've found nothing advocating any sort of pedophilia or explcit dedicated sexualized genital fondling so far (in either direction), and in fact, just read a selection from the pdf explicitly condmening the use or thoughts of children for purposes of sexual gratification whatsoever, that if one does feel any such inclinations they should not place themselves in such positions.

And this is supposed to justify and pour sugar upon the thematic subtext running throughout both books and the songbook, of encouraging adult-child sexual stimulation, masturbation, and sexual "pride?"

Other notes where the article summarized the pamphlet as encouraging mutual masturbation and encouraging sexual arousal between parents and children are ridiculously inaccurate in their presentation and context.

How? Again, a link to the English version, which, after over an hour of searching, I have been unable to aquire, would be helpful.

Again: fearmongering rhetoric in opposition to fact.

What I see here is, in point of fact, a rather facile attempt to sanitize and douse sweet perfume upon a really ghastly movement that has been long gestating among an influential cohort of the western intelligentsia in academia and government, that has, as of yet, not met the kind of effective resistance it deserves to have encountered at this late date.

I also noted Nack's cherry picking of specific statements at the KidsHealth site, while conveniently ignoring the clearly alarming claims in some of its other cubby holes.

Though sexual development is typically associated with the teen years, in reality young kids develop an emotional and physical foundation for sexuality in many subtle ways from infancy.

To parents of infants and toddlers, their children's sexual development may seem a long way off. But actually, sexual development begins in a child's very first years. Infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and young school-aged kids develop an emotional and physical foundation for sexuality in many subtle ways as they grow.

I kind of hope the debunking of Loran's conspiracy based on those articles would be viewed with a sigh of relief, that there aren't large legitimate organizations and full allied nations out there actively campaigning for the legalization and normalization of adult-child sex seeping into our society.

Calling this a "conspiracy theory" is pretty much the last refuge. That the secular Left must continually run away from the effects and implications of its own theories, values, and policies, while at the same time continuing to support the underlying assumptions and axioms that have produced bizarre and, in some cases, depraved social policies and attitudes, is a fascinating contradiction that can only be understood when one understands that secular humanism, as a core philosophy and metaphysical template regarding the human condition, is fundamentally a construction of the "natural man" and his perceptions of that human condition. It is wholly unrelated to the gospel and indeed, at its very center, hostile to the fundamental conception of the nature and purpose of mortal existence within that gospel across the entire spectrum of social and cultural phenomena. There is, as so many of the Prophets have stated, no real communication between Babylon and Zion. The two weltanschauung's are in irreconcilable opposition.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there are some who want this horrible conspiratorial idea to be true for the sole purpose of it leading credence (guilt by association) to their arguments and anger against Gay Marriage.

What does seem to be apparent is that you are keen on establishing as a legitimate position that the legitimization of homosexuality and the inherent moral/cultural neutralizing of heterosexual marriage/family with respect to homosexual couplings has no relation to the ongoing movement within the pop culture, the pornography industry (Judith Reisman has done definitive work showing how even Playboy, the most mainstream of all American pornographic magazines, has long been in the forefront of the incremental sexualization of ever younger objects of male desire), public education, and the welfare state, to legitimize, over decades, and in incremental segments of social subversion and the endless pressure of indoctrination and propaganda, the progressive eroticization of all of human life, from the cradle.

With that, I disagree, as one properly would surveying what has already happened since the late sixties across a plethora of sexual practices and attitudes who's mass acceptance ultimately pose, at some critical mass of a culture's moral "carrying capacity," so to speak, a profound threat to that cultures' continuance as a free, ordered, civil society. The vast social pathology spawned by the first four decades of the "sexual revolution" are now well understood, chronicled, and analyzed, but the worst is, I'm afraid, yet to be.

I don't deny that there's probably some isolated whackos out there who want to legalize and protect such actions. Just as you can find isolated whackos out there who want to advocate for (insert ridiculously harmful and inhmanely dangerous and illegal activity here). That doesn't mean they have any sway or credence with any significant percentage of society.

Kinsey's theories have never been isolated or "fringe," Indeed, they came to define the study of human sexuality for an entire generation of social scientists and public school educrats. Nor has the cult of eroticism that is the generalized effect of the broad acceptance of those theories been remiss in gradually moving the age of consent, and the very notion of at what age actual sex becomes a legitimate pursuit, back toward, first pubescence, and then beyond.

Or have anything to do with gay marriage.

Homosexuality was once, just forty to fifty years ago, as avant garde and antinomian, with respect to overall attitudes in the West, as Pedophilia is today. Cultural evolution is slow and blurry, and each generation, unless well grounded in and engaged in the lessons of history, only sees snapshots of the overall developmental path. The sheer degree to which "hardcore" pornography has infiltrated and begun to pervade American notions of human sexuality (even in a number of mainstream Hollywood product over the last twenty years or so), including the many subcultural fetishes and obsessions that are the effects of the pervasive boredom with conventional sexuality as eroticism displaces authentic, healthy sexuality, has paralleled the rise of the homosexual marriage movement, and that movement will be neither the last nor the least of the polymorphous perversity to follow.

I and others will be challenging and interrogating those developments. Others, like Nack, will be domesticating the wild beast; housebreaking, brushing, and neutering something that can never, ever be tamed and which will end by devouring its owner.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Loran Blood