|
ABOUT THIS JOURNAL (READ FIRST)
|
Jul. 20th, 2012 @ 10:13 pm
|
|---|
|
I record my thoughts on living with an attraction to minors, an attraction I did not choose to have and have never acted upon, nor will I. I do NOT condone any illegal or immoral activity. In particular, I STRONGLY discourage and condemn anything that can be construed as child sexual abuse or the sexualisation of children. Comments to this journal are screened for compliance with this. The views I express are my own, and their expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. InsaneJournal hosts my writings on that basis alone, which does not in any way imply that they agree with or condone of my views.
|
|
Changing terms
|
Jun. 21st, 2008 @ 05:06 pm
|
|---|
|
A BoyChat poster pointed out that variations on the "predator" term is becoming more popular at the expense of "pedophile".
I, for one, consider the shift from "pedophile" to "predator" to be a step in the right direction. Unlike "pedophile", "predator" denotes an act instead of a state of mind: if you don't predate, you're not a predator, and it's a conscious choice whether to predate or not, so it's fair to hold you responsible for being one. "Predator" doesn't cover paedophiles who don't predate, while it also covers non-paedophiles who do. When muggles talk about "pedophiles", they almost invariably refer to people who have had sex with someone underage. That's not what defines a paedophile, so if they want to call such people predators instead, at least they're making up their own term instead of abusing an existing one.
Of course, "predator" is a ridiculous power word which makes people think of wild animals when they in most cases really should be thinking of two people who loved each other when the law says it's inappropriate. But at least you can choose not to be one, whereas we as "pedophiles" can not choose to stop having the attraction. |
|
Happy International Boylove Day!
|
Jun. 21st, 2008 @ 01:35 pm
|
|---|
|
It is now ten years since the community got together and established the International Boylove Day. Much of the novelty and excitement has worn off it these days, and there are perhaps fewer of the big gatherings, but it's still widely observed. It's nice to take a few solemn minutes to light a blue candle and remember all the lonely souls out there too afraid to seek out the community, and our lost brethren who opted out of this trying life. And to be hopeful that love is the greater power that wins in the long term. History has certainly demonstrated as much. Happy IBLD, my friends!
|
|
Bonkers down under
|
Jun. 6th, 2008 @ 09:06 pm
|
|---|
|
Australia has been mad for years, but it gets now to the point where the deterioration of their collective mental condition seems to be accelerating. While there is always a stream of news from Australia strongly indicating a hysteric mindset, the recent developments have been particularly telling.
For me, it started when an Aussie woman was offended by the art of Bill Henson, an accomplished photographer. There were photographs of naked young people. This prompted police to shut down the art exhibition and confiscate the works. The images of uniformed men dragging art into trucks are chilling. The police then went on to scour art galleries nation-wide for similar artworks.
It is now clear that Bill Henson will not be charged with a crime. Meanwhile, press is picking up that Perth taxpayers will have to pay for a life-size bronze statue of a nude nine-year-old girl. The model, now 80 years old, denies the statue is pornographic, and has a distaste for the recent crackdown on art in her country.
Attacks on artists and intellectuals is the eleventh of the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.
In a new crackdown on child pornography, so far 90 Australians have been arrested. More than 1500 Australians went to a website described as "a 'legitimate, non-government' portal". But it had been hacked, and child pornography images had been put there. Police acknowledge that some of the visits may have been accidental, and also that they have no way of telling. They warn everyone who saw the images that they were not anonymous and that they each will get a knock on the door and get caught. One person has killed himself so far, and another has tried. Four children have been taken from their families. More than a thousand people, some who just saw the images by accident, must now live in untellable fear.
In the wake of this, Member of Parliament Vaughan Johnson applauds the person who committed suicide for his bravery in doing so, and says he encourages everyone who is paedophile to kill themselves. Let me emphasise that this is not a random hate-blogger or right-wing talk show pundit. Vaughan Johnson is a Member of Parliament of Australia, in the upper echelons of government. And he is encouraging innocent people to kill themselves lest they do something illegal in the future. He describes suicide as a courageous solution. Suicide Prevention Australia says that there is a "huge major national epidemic" of suicide in Australia, and that Johnson's comments are "not helpful". I think that is putting it politely. |
|
Making heads or tails of Tebo
|
Mar. 1st, 2008 @ 07:22 pm
|
|---|
|
One of the major PR opportunists in the Jack McClellan saga has been Ron Tebo, a strange man of undeclared credential who set up an attack site against Jack using the jackmcclellan.com domain name. From there, he accused Jack of many a grave crime, and his crusade was under the guise of avenging his own childhood sexual abuse. In other words, irrational hate (however redundant that may sound) and shots from the hip.
But Tebo is not your average hater. This week, he has engaged the Girl Chat community in an attempt to vindicate himself through a message of peace instead of hate. While Tebo has long been saying that not all minor-attracted adults abuse children, he has now taken down his attack site and replaced it with a message; highlights:
[...] I have done a lot of research of the past year (interviewed pedophiles) and I will tell that approximately 93% would hate to see harm come to a child. Most (if not all that I have interviewed) would use physical force to prevent a child from being abused. In addition, all that I have spoken to (expect one) have NOT abused a child.
We (non pedophiles) find it hard to fathom the thought of have a sexual relationship with a child. IMO, it's not right; however most pedophiles do not act out his/her urges. They keep their urges under control by working, reading a book, doing cross word puzzles and etc. [...]
For the record, I have not solved a crossword puzzle in a decade or more. I also disagree that being attracted to minors means having "urges" (or "impulses", as is sometimes used). It simply means being attracted. It is very uncomplicated.
But if we ignore that, as well as his obvious pathological bias towards childlove, his message is good. He now acknowledges that Jack is not his childhood abuser and that he should not be so consumed with hate. He wants to transform jackmcclellan.com into a blog where "many can write" in a civilised discourse. This is promising, but he is unwilling to let go of "jackmcclellan.com", which ranks high in Google, which makes it clear to me that he's still enjoying the publicity. It nevertheless seems like a big step in the right direction, and I for one will be following this.
Update: His new page is up now, and all the pretense about letting go of the hate is out the window. It even includes gay-hate now. Don't waste your time on this clown. |
| » Free sci-fi story idea |
|---|
Here's an idea I had for a novel, which I'll never write because I'm not a writer. In addition to being about a planet, it also has plot-holes the size of one.
It's way into the future, and scientific progress has placed humanity on the verge of space colonisation. Many distant planets have been identified which can sustain human life.
At the same time, paedophilia hysteria never ceased and reached new proportions over time, especially after the 2015 incident where President Obama was overheard saying he loves his children. Irrational fears over anyone attracted to people under the new world-wide age of consent, 24, has lead the World Government to spend enormous amounts of money to fund research into an effective cure for "paedophilia". Meanwhile, the prison population has exploded and now consists almost exclusively of people caught having so-called "consensual" sex with underage children (though any sane person knows that people under 24 are unable to consent to sex) as well as people caught being sexually or emotionally attracted to such children.
Extensive research produces first a device able to detect minor-attraction in any person without fail, and then a shot that, when given to women, causes a mutation meaning that any children she has will be 100% free from minor-attraction, as will their children and so on. Scientists are celebrated for having devised the end of paedophilia.
The shot becomes mandatory and is given in schools to all girls. The detection device, meanwhile, becomes a quagmire as it reliably detects people in numbers far bigger than expected. The device becomes a household commodity, and hysteria explodes. New prisons are built at record rates, but there is no way to keep up. The public demands proper justice for all the new-found criminals, and, pressured for a solution, top science advisors propose designating an entire planet for this purpose, and to use the attraction-criminals as "pioneers" for the space colonisation program.
Millions of sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, now shunned by their disgusted families, are placed in space shuttles to embark on the long journey to their new planet. After arrival, they gradually learn effective survival in the foreign but fertile environment. They form communities of adoptive families, they trade what they grow and manufacture, and many of them produce children of their own. Children grow up in loving and caring environments, largely provided by those attracted to them. They find no need for laws.
A thousand years pass, and planet Utopia, as it is known to its inhabitants, is a prospering and happy place seething with life, heralding knowledge and compassion and celebrating those who feel naturally inclined to care for the young. The story of their origin is now ancient history, a history studied amongst others by this story's main character, a young Professor in the Science and History Department at UCU (Utopian Central University). He has been obsessed with the tales of Earth since his early childhood, and is now working on locating the planet, assisted by his young friend.
After he finds it, he heads a team to visit Earth, assuming hysteria has blown over. He finds Earth scorched by countless wars, its population dramatically reduced and largely living in caves, desperately fighting off anyone who approaches.
It turns out that eradicating minor-attraction produced a population uncaring for their children and bereft of empathy; selfish and loveless, and with an explosive temperament, always on the defence. Their world had started to collapse only a few generations after "the big paedophile migration" to Utopia.
THE END.
Cross-posted to BoyChat.
Feb. 23rd, 2008 @ 04:03 pm
|
| » Public service hilarity |
|---|
If you can't change underage sex hysteria, you may as well sit back and laugh at its ridiculousness. The public service announcements coming out of it are good material for that. First there was Virginia's "It doesn't feel right when I see them together" campaign urging people to report fathers holding their daughters' hands. Hot on its heels, there is now the "Just because she has the body, doesn't mean she has the brains" campaign (more here and here) informing people that 9-year-olds don't have brains and that while it's true that they have the hot bodies of a twenty-year-old, you shouldn't sleep with them. This campaign may be in response to recent research finding that the leading cause of paedophilia is sexy kids.
Feb. 17th, 2008 @ 01:21 pm
|
| » What in heck does the P-word mean? |
|---|
British tabloids amuse me to little end. If you want to be amused, too, look at this article. Or just read my choice excerpts (emphasis is mine):
MP David Simpson has demanded to know how many paedophiles are living in the Banbridge district. ... The issue was raised recently at a meeting of Banbridge District Policing Partnership when a member of the public asked local police chief Christine McCullough how many paedophiles were living in the district amid growing concerns that more are being moved into the area. ... Experts claim 80 per cent of sexual offences go unreported, meaning it is almost impossible to gauge how many paedophiles are at large in the district. ... Mr Simpson has tabled a question at Westminster asking the Secretary of State to declare exactly how many paedophiles are living in each council area. "These are disturbing findings and made all the more so by the fact that the general public hasn't any idea of where these people are," said Mr Simpson.
It is important to remember that not all sex offenders are paedophiles and indeed not all paedophiles are sex offenders. The correct definition of a paedophile is someone whose sexual fantasies and erotic imagery focus on pre-pubertal children. A child sex offender is an individual who engages in illegal sexual activity with children. So paedophiles only become sex offenders when they commit a crime. It's almost as if the newspaper is mocking poor Simpson, except there is no way they're that smart.
Feb. 5th, 2008 @ 08:07 pm
|
| » Listening In On Boy Talk |
|---|
I found this decade-old TIME article while searching for Boy Talk Radio. It's a short conversation between three 12-year-olds.
They seem to have a sexual interest, which surprised me, because they aren't even 18 yet.
Nov. 12th, 2007 @ 07:08 pm
|
| » If— |
|---|
This 1895 poem by Rudyard Kipling was recently posted on BoyChat. Since such wisdom bears repeating, I'm posting it here. (Legal note: this work is in the public domain because of copyright expiration)
If—
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Nov. 4th, 2007 @ 08:56 pm
|
| » Left, down, rotate 62°, engage rotor |
|---|
Fox News scares their conservative readership by interviewing a futurist on the prospect of using robots as sex partners for humans. "One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," said artificial intelligence researcher David Levy. Free societies do indeed tend towards liberalisation, something scared conservatives know. He also discusses letting those attracted to minors use "child robots" for sex, but we all know that messes up their positronic brains forever. Me, I'd just like a child robot to gaze at the stars with and share in his wonderment. I wonder, would he dream?
Oct. 15th, 2007 @ 06:50 pm
|
| » The case for tolerance |
|---|
The more you marginalize people ... the more likely they are to actually commit crimes. They don't feel associated with the society that rejected them, so why keep society's rules?
I'm quoting Bethan Tuttle, a director with Mothers Against Sex Predators (source). The inverse of the statement follows: the less you marginalise people, the less likely they are to commit crimes. The logical consequence is that the universal, unconditional hatred against all minor-attracted adults is counter-productive in a very dangerous way. People force those attracted to minors to hide that part of themselves, and they do their best to make them feel like despicable, worthless Untermensch just for being what they are, even if they are powerless to change and they have never acted illegally or immorally on it. People force them into this shadowy hell because they think it somehow lessens the probability that they may harm children. But as every psychologist worth their degree will confirm, Bethan Tuttle is exactly right. The well-meaning, but uncontemplated and inhuman condemnation actually has the opposite effect.
If you care about children, you will find that you can tolerate a friend's minor-attraction without tolerating sexual abuse. Those unwilling to accept this, have to ask themselves one very inconvenient question: what is it you care for the most; children, or your hatred? Pick one, and the other will suffer.
Cross-posted to ANU.
Aug. 4th, 2007 @ 09:17 pm
|
| » Tag, you're it |
|---|
The summer is here, and there is no news to report. When there is nothing to report, the media has to come up with something, and a pedophile scare is just the perfect thing. This summer, Jack McClennan is "it". Until June, he had a text-only website where he rated local happenings based on how well he liked the girls there. Creepy, yes. He went on to talk to the media on every occasion he could. Attention whore, yes. Is he attracted to minors? Definitely, yes. It has been over a month since his website disappeared from the net. He seems to have been disowned by his relatives, he fled town, and has been living from hand to mouth in his car in Los Angeles since. And then, after he's apparently completely neutralized, the summer dries up the newsfeeds and the U.S. national media explodes with Jack coverage. Now people are hysterically holding on to their children lest scary Jack appears from thin air and naps them. For 45 years, he has never sexually offended a minor. But now, thanks to the media frenzy, to quote a GirlChat poster, "the prevailing opinion is that he's on the verge of kidnapping or raping a child." The media is in a very real way inciting mob rule, and the police are helping by publishing identifying details on an innocent man while claiming he is a danger they are helpless to deal with.
Newsweek scratches their heads in asking themselves if there could be such a thing as a man who finds minors attractive AND is law-abiding at the same time. I know, absurd, right? This piece in the Post Chronicle notes that "the problem is that McClellan has never been convicted of a sex offense, seemingly leaving police without authority to do anything". I know, right? Like, if only he would rape a child, it would be so simpler, and we wouldn't have to feel like our heads were about to asplode!
"We’ve monitored his website, and at the moment we’re determined that it does not cross into that area where it’s criminal in nature," says a police officer. That's a given, because "at the moment" his website does no longer exists, and hasn't for over a month! None of the coverage notes that his website is far gone, and many claim that he still posts pictures to this non-existing website, a practice which he ceased much earlier.
This spin is giving me serious vertigo. Jack is a creep who is not helping any cause, but the bigger tools are the sheeple who swallow whatever crap is spoon-fed them by the fascist self-serving news conglomerations.
Aug. 1st, 2007 @ 06:30 pm
|
| » Cute backgrounds |
|---|
I spent a good while the other day looking for, and finally finding, a drawing of a very cute fictional boy's face I remembered from a decade passed. It is now my desktop background. But now I realise my screen isn't very big and it's always covered with layers of windows, so I never actually see the desktop background unless I spend some time minimising all the windows. So pointless! Sigh.
Aug. 1st, 2007 @ 12:18 am
|
| » Why are you afraid of me? |
|---|
Is it because I am honest? Is it because you can see how poorly I match your conjured-up fantasy of how "people like me" are?
I think you would rather I match your fantasy. It would be more convenient for you if I groomed random children and abused them. You would prefer it if I ruined them for life in cold blood and not a shred of conscience. It would befit you much better if I were ineloquent, enslaved by obsession, stupid.
But because I am none of those things, I am dangerous to you. You know people will believe in me, because they recognise simple truths and they are compassionate. You know it is the dangerous ideas that change the world; that the dangerous ideas of one generation is the common sense and compassion of the next. It is not about children, it is about your fear of losing society's last blank check to hate blindly, which you so badly need to.
You are afraid people will notice my ideas, and think. So you get my thoughts removed from where I put them, but smart people don't like it when wisdom is kept from them. So wisdom has a way of resurfacing, and when it does, more and more people notice it. And so the proverbial can of worms is emptying before your eyes.
The part of "me" in this act is played by the entire boylove community.
Jul. 25th, 2007 @ 09:14 pm
|
| » It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile |
|---|
Happy International BoyLove Day! For me, this is a day to remember how many of us are out there, everywhere, in untold numbers. Every single day, young males face their attractions to boys in silent desperation, alone and afraid. Some don't make it. And some give in to society's expectations of how they will behave. Today, I remember them.
Every day, there are millions of boys who crave adult attention, but have to cope without, because the boylovers of the world are too afraid to have boys as friends. Today, I remember how broken our society is.
But, most of all, today I remember the vast numbers of us who refuse to let society dictate our feelings. We disarm the haters with a simple smile; we refuse to be anything but proud. And why shouldn't we be proud? In the face of utter, universal condemnation, we live our lives as good and moral people, and we find happiness, acceptance, and love. We are optimists in spite of everything; we have hope for a better future for everybody. To me, this is what the International BoyLove Day is all about.
Jun. 23rd, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
|
| » A lesson in shock value |
|---|
On one of my walks recently, I walked by one of these large trash containers. Inevitably, it had been vandalized by some kids. You almost expect that, at least in many places, but it got me thinking (no, really!). They had written the F-word on it, and drawn a swastika. Now, this is not an English-speaking country, so kids don't usually say the F-word. And I very seriously doubt these kids subscribe to the neo-nazi ideology represented by the swastika (or, for that matter, the ancient Hindu meaning of it). So this is clearly about shock value and not much more. But then, who are really shocked by the sight of a swastika these days? It's so worn out as far as shock value goes that it borders on conformity, which is the last thing they want. So they need something new for their youth rebellion to carry any meaning. So, of course, it hit me: The BLogo! What could possibly be more shocking? There would be red faces and newspaper headlines, I'm sure. That'd show them! They can't do those things, et cetera!
Disclaimer: I'm just being silly. All vandalism of public property is bad; don't do it. Rebel in a productive way instead.
Jun. 10th, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
|
| » On editing Wikipedia |
|---|
Here are some thoughts for all boylovers who are or consider becoming editors of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. I wrote it from a BL perspective, but it is of course every bit as valid for girllovers.
I was a Wikipedia editor for over two years when I was permanently blocked without having made any controversial edits. Most of my edits were strictly about fixing typos, and some were even fixing pro-BL bias.
I thought it was a good idea to disclose what I am, so other editors would be able to police my edits as thoroughly as they might want to. I believe that strongly in the "neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia. However, one day, as I was making cosmetic improvements to an article not even BL-related, I found myself blocked indefinitely. I was pretty upset; I may not have been a big-time editor, but I know I've made my contribution into improving Wikipedia over the years. The thanks I got felt like "we don't take kindly to your type around here, even if you cannot change and you have done only good. Get outta here!" And from the founder of Wikipedia nonetheless, an internet celebrity for whom I have had great respect.
But here is the thing: saying you are a pedophile or a boylover is highly disruptive outside the BL community. Right and wrong don't matter; when you say those words, you stir up trouble. Even if you don't want to, you come off as a troll. In Wikipedia, that means you disrupt their focus on writing an encyclopedia. Time that could be spent improving the content is wasted on arguing whether or not this random guy has or would have sex with children, or whether pure thought can affect children adversely, and so on and so forth. It's disruptive, and that's why I was permanently blocked. No other "solution" would be as effective as that.
Wikipedia really frowns upon anything that could take focus away from the encyclopedic work. Everybody is discouraged from being opinionated on their user pages. Saying "I'm a pedophile" may not be an opinion, but in most people's minds it carries a bunch of opinion with it, and that makes it disruptive.
So what it comes down to is this: you can be a Wikipedia editor even if you are a boylover. You can help keep the BL-related articles bias-free. You can do great work. But you cannot say that you are a boylover. You won't be asked, either. They don't ask, you don't tell.
Frustrated? Well you shouldn't be. If it is that important to you to say what you are when you edit Wikipedia, you should ask yourself why you are doing it in the first place. No part of Wikipedia is a platform for political statement. You may join the rest of the editors in single-mindedly bringing free information to the world, but as soon as you take away from that focus, you get in trouble.
I hope boylovers who want to be Wikipedia editors take this to heart. Boylove activism is good and useful, but that's not what Wikipedia is for.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 @ 09:19 pm
|
| » Watch out for the child pedophilia epidemic! |
|---|
Ever since Alberto Gonzales said "we are at war against child predators and child pedophiles who prey on children on the Internet", it has occurred to me that the lines between "pedophile" and "molester" are becoming completely obscure, to the point that meaningful reasoning becomes hard.
Today I read an article by the published psychiatrist Herbert Wagemaker called "What is Pedophilia and why are child pedophiles such an epidemic?". The piece is a mostly a thinly veiled attempt to instill parents with enough fear to pay for the site's services (so I suppose his last name is spot on), but he is a published psychiatrist, nonetheless. He starts by giving the clinical definition of pedophilia, and then immediately goes on to explain that sex offenders have many victims, and that child molesters are considered to have a disease. At no point is the transition from "pedophile" to "child molester" justified, explained, or even pointed out, despite the clinically correct opening. Why do the correct opening
if you're going to say crazy things like "Most pedophiles are multiple offenders and are involved with a number of kids"? He cannot possibly reconcile that with reality. And the term "child pedophile" is used throughout. The only explanation is that, as soon as he's done quoting the DSM-IV, he throws it out and starts using "pedophile" as if it meant "molester". And then it makes a weird kind of sense; "child pedophile" is another way of saying "child molester".
This is the way Gonzales used it, too. And countless others.
It seems very hard for people to comprehend that a person could be attracted to children in a sexual and emotional way without having sex with them. I guess they only have their own sex-crazed frame of reference, and they see us as they want to see us, not how we are.
And how are we? I am in my thirties and a virgin. You'd call me patehtic for that, because of your frame of reference that always seeks sex, sex, sex at any cost. I'd call me proud and dignified.
Well, I may be a pedophile, but at least I'm not a child pedophile.
Apr. 17th, 2007 @ 08:14 pm
|
| » French outrage: To think we could be born that way |
|---|
French right-wing presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy is taking heat after he speculated that some people may be born pedophiles. Everybody is shocked that someone could dare think something like that. "When Sarkozy goes as far as saying that a baby can be born condemned to perversity ... what kind of society do we live in?" said an opposing
candidate for the upcoming elections. The mighty Archbishop of Paris, said "what seems the most serious to me, is the idea that we cannot change the course of our destiny".
This is silly.
If we were born with an attraction to children, we are not "condemned to perversity," and we are still free to change the course of our destinies. If people could get it out of their heads that sexual orientation is a mandatory step-by-step recipe for how to live a life, the world would be a better place. We are not robots!
I am not up to speed with current science on pedophilia; I only know that there generally is not much science in that field at all. However, I know I had clear pedophile tendencies before my age hit the double digits, and I have heard countless similar accounts from others. So, many of us (and I say "many" because I lack the audacity to say "most," though perhaps I could) had the orientation from we were very young. If we were not born with it, then what is the effective difference?
I know that Sarkozy is not proposing this because he is an open-minded guy who sympathises with minor-attracted people; in fact, he probably wants to push for some kind of genetic profiling to abort fetuses who may be pedophiles. But I think he is right that sexual orientation, including pedophilia, is formed some time between conception and birth. I only wonder what happens the day the technology exists to identify pedophile fetuses.
Apr. 9th, 2007 @ 08:35 pm
|
|
|