Why doesn't it get attention that liberalism has promoted pedophilia as "good" for decades?
Theo Sandfort - 1984 study on ACTUAL pedophile relationships in the Netherlands. Found them to be "positive" and "not harmful." The abstract is on the internet.
Bruce Rind - his study published by the APA in late 1990's found "adult-child" relationships were often positive.
Harris Mirkin - wrote about pedophilia and said he doesn't support it, but claims he isn't sure that children can't consent to sex since they can refuse to do their chores.
Judith Levine -wrote a book, Harmful to Minors, supporting pedophilia and child sexuality (even included Sandfort's "research," but just called him a researcher. Said "yes conceivably absolutely" a sexual relationship between a priest and a boy could be "positive." Also supports a Netherlands law where children as young as 12 can have sexual relations with adults if the child and the child's parents "don't think they're being exploited."
All these people were criticized by the public and DEFENDED by liberals. Levine's book won a prestigious Los Angeles Times book award. See also Pedophilia Chic for many more examples of liberals promoting pedophilia as normal.
Overgeneralizing? Please. Liberals seek to make Christianity = pedophilia, and that's not "overgeneralizing"? How many liberals object to that? On the other hand, there are liberal "scholars" and "researchers" who support pedophilia and that isn't publicized. "Beat poet" Allen Ginsburg was a member of NAMBLA but does that effect his legacy with liberals?
This is from the abstract of Sandfort's study:
"The experiences and perceptions of 25 boys in on-going relationships with pedophiles in the Netherlands were studied using a semi-structured interview technique. Areas of personal significance or value to the boys, including the pedophile relationship, the pedophile himself, and the sexual contact, were investigated for their emotional meaning and salience. The older partner and pedophile relationship were found to be significant but not overly important aspects of the boys' experiences. The partner and re
And from Levine, defending Rind and Sandfort:
Do you believe that Catholics support pedophilia by being Catholics? Before you say that liberalism doesn't support pedophilia, why don't you read up on all these people and all the examples in a series of articles on "Pedophilia Chic," just as a start. There is more.
And on the worth of women, it was Christianity that brought equality to women. Even in societies like ancient Greece women were not thought of as equal.
@ Placebo allergic,
From Alternet, 2002:
>>>Levine has taken considerable heat for holding up as a "good model" the Netherlands' age of consent law, under which young people ages 12-16 can legally consent to sex with older people who are not parents or authority figures, but under which charges ca
"Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered," Pts 1 and 2
And what about all the sexualizing of children in the media, so that younger and younger children are sexualized? Where has that come from?
Your definition of consent isn't the question which is being debated. Definitely many children "go along with" their abusers without objecting or resisting. There is no question about that.
And before deciding that liberalism doesn't promote pedophilia, you should read about all these people and the Pedophilia Chic series, for starters.
Of course Levine makes less controversial claims, but she makes others that are offensive. She supports getting rid of age-of-consent laws, she said a sexual relationship between a priest and boy could be "positive," she also approves of sexual exploration among kindergarteners with parents just ignoring it.
On generalizing about people, what about liberals generalizing that Christianity = pedophilia? And what about liberals condemning attempts to make pedophilia legitimate? Whenever these controversies come up the only liberal voices heard suppo