As the backlash against the “Groomer” phenomenon intensifies, the groomers are angrily denying that they are, in fact, groomers. Parents and politicians are vocally rejecting what they see as the dangerously inappropriate sexualisation of children and children’s material, especially the phenomena of “drag for kids” and “kids should be exposed to kink at Pride”. The activists and academics pushing the material deny angrily that there is an agenda to normalise paedophilia — and then go right on trying to normalise paedophilia.
Including a Norwegian academic claiming that paedophilia is an “innate sexuality” and that “adult-child sex is not categorically very harmful”.
This is nothing new, of course. Four years ago, I wrote about the left normalising paedophilia (again). This is not a fringe movement, either: mainstream outlets from Salon to the New York Times and the BBC have published material on “virtuous paedophiles”, that paedophilia is “another sexuality”, and “age appropriate porn for kids”.
More often, though, the agenda is more subtle and sneaky than that. Under the guise of “anti-bullying”, activists are promoting heavily sexualised material to kids as young as four. Some of the academics behind such programs have a long history of pro-paedophilia material. The “drag for kids” movement is more and more openly pushing sexualised material for children.
This is textbook grooming: exposing children to material which at first can be excused as innocent, but progressively becomes more overtly sexualised, with the aim of persuading them that such material is normal and enjoyable.
Even before my own 2018 article, David Robertson (whom I quoted) wrote that the grooming agenda was just the next step on the slippery slope from gay marriage:
“After SSM, it would be Transgender and then the removal of gender altogether (this is all classic Queer Theory) and that this would then be followed by polyamory, polygamy, incest and then paedophilia. People think the latter especially is unlikely. I don’t agree. The way it will happen is for paedophilia first of all to be defined as an illness and a sexuality.”
The only part that Robertson got wrong is that they’ve pretty much skipped polygamy and incest and gone straight to paedophilia.
The latest proof of his prediction is Norwegian academic Ole Martin Moen.
A professor of Ethics at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway has called to legalize AI-generated child pornography, claiming that pedophilia should be seen as an innate sexuality that requires destigmatization.
Ole Martin Moen, a gay man who identifies as “queer,” currently serves as a member of the advisory board on Norway’s Patient Organization for Gender-Incongruence (PKI), a social and political lobby group for trans rights.
Moen appears to be cut from much the same cloth as Owen Jones: a nasty little bully with a misogynist streak a mile wide. Moen has targeted Norwegian feminist Christina Ellingsen for, believe it or not, stating that men cannot be lesbians. Ellingsen faces three years in prison.
But Moen has quite some ideas of his own.
His paper “The Ethics of Pedophilia” argues that “pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children”. He further argues that “adult-child sex is not categorically very harmful”. He outright denies that children cannot consent to sex from adults.
This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that his argument is that paedophilia is “morally all right”.
I wish I was making this up.
Moen is far from the only academic making such arguments. His paper cites, for instance, Stephen Kershnar’s The moral status of harmless adult-child sex. He also refers to Robert R. Ehman, who, as he says “defends adult-child sex”. Another of his sources, David Benatar, “argues that if we accept casual sex, it is hard to reject pedophilia”.
Once again, I wish I was making this up.
One of Moen’s more bizarre pretzel twists of logic is to conflate age-appropriate childhood feelings with adult sexuality.
“When you were 11, it is not unlikely that you were sexually attracted to prepubertal children… the mental state of finding children sexually attractive is very common,” he says.
That’s right: according to this loon, if you had a crush on another girl or boy when you were in Grade 5, you were a paedophile.
But perhaps most disturbingly, Moen has called for information on pedophilia to be taught in schools, suggesting “a certain percentage” of high school students have an innate pedophilic sexual identity.
It’s this argument that paedophilia is a “sexual identity” where the rock really meets the spider.
Goes on to make statements that defend pedophilia as an innate sexual orientation, comparing the desire to sexually abuse children to homosexuality.
“We must appreciate that sexual attraction towards children is often a deep and integral part of pedophiles’ personalities,” he writes.
Reduxx
Note that this is the same route that was followed (correctly in that instance) to first legalise and then normalise homosexuality. If you argue that paedophilia is a “sexual orientation” just the same as homosexuality, normalisation and then legalisation is the next logical step. Indeed, human rights legislation explicitly outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If you don’t think that a great many people on the left would actually defend paedophilia, you’re not paying attention. Consider, for instance, the outrage hurled against women who complained about a biological male deliberately exposing and fondling himself in front of little girls in a Los Angeles spa. Feminist Anita Sarkeesian screeched in response that “I will always and forever and forever stand with trans women and all trans people to live fully realised, respected, and safe lives”.
That’s how it will play out.
Watch now for “paedophobia” to become the left’s new buzzword.
