December 31, 2016 Comments 9 Pink Panther 3618 Views

The Question About Paedophiles And The LGBT Community

Written by Cisi Eze and originally published on Bellanaija.com

Someone tweeted: “So let me drop a controversial opinion. If LGBT rights are protected because it is their nature, shouldn’t pedophiles also be protected?”

Should we compare paedophilia – an act that infringes on children’s right, to same-sex sexual intercourse – an act between two consenting adults?

Paedophilia is a crime, NOT a sexual orientation. Let me break it down.

The focus of paedophilia is sexual activity with a child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) defines a child as “any human person who has not reached the age of eighteen years.” Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of paedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia , derived from the Greek word for ‘youth,’ is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.

An orientation is a “person’s basic attitudes, beliefs, or feelings in relation to a particular subject or issue.”

What is the issue at hand? Sex. We are talking about sex, not age. Sexual orientation, not age orientation.

Here is another angle:

“A sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of both) to persons of the same sex or gender, opposite sex or gender, or both sexes or more than one gender.

“Sexual orientation is the type of sexual, romantic, emotional/spiritual attraction one has the capacity to feel for some others, generally based on the gender relationship between the person and the people they are attracted to.”

There was nothing like “age” in those definitions. Paedophilia is about the age of one of the sex parties, not the sex. AGE. Ergo, paedophilia is not a sexual orientation because it is about the age, not the sex of one of the participants.

Paedophilia is sexual activity in which one of the participants is below the age of consent. Until we change the age of consent, having sex with someone below the age of consent automatically becomes non-consensual. It is called statutory rape – one of the many types of rape.

For example, changing the age of consent to thirteen years would mean we classify thirteen-year-olds as adults. They can move out if they choose. Heck! We even send them to boarding schools. They can start businesses and get jobs. Sadly, some kids already hawk in traffic. They would have the right to vote. A thirteen-year-old would be able to get married and have kids; who cares about VVF?

Is this what we want? Should our children stop being children because some psychopaths want to have sex with children? No, please, the age of consent should not change. I would be vexed if someone sexualized my fifteen-year-old cousin. Even if the child approaches you, you should be the bigger person!

Guess what! Paedophiles will still be paedophiles even if you reduce the age of consent. They would literally go to cradles and snatch babies to have sex with them. They would groom five-year-olds for marriage. They would fondle kids in dark corners. A pervert would remain a pervert even if you bend the rules to accommodate him/her.

Please, people should not be given rights to have sex with our children. Our children are still our children before anything else. As adults, it is our duty to guide them. If the situation calls for us to protect them, we must.

P.S: Two adults consenting to have sex is not criminal because they are not hurting anyone. It is not rape because the key word is consent. CONSENT!

I heard sodomy is criminal and sinful because it’s against the natural order of things. It prevents procreation. “Sodomy is generally anal or oral sex between people”. Are you heterosexual? Do you have anal or oral sex? Well, you are guilty of sodomy. Stop following people to bash what you are guilty of doing. You do oral and anal like your LGBT “counterparts”. Please, rest. In addition, if your “pull-out” game is strong, you’re guilty of the Sin of Onan (Genesis 38). If you use contraceptives/condoms, but bash LGBT saying they are against the order of nature because they can’t have kids, well, you are also stopping procreation. Mr. Jailer, let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone. Let people be happy if they are not hurting you. Stop chaining and imprisoning people with your prejudice/preconceived notions.

From Alfred Kinsey’s research, human sexuality vacillates on a continuum. “The human psyche is inherently bisexual” – Freud. Society teaches us who to love and how to love whom we love. Some of us “kill” unconventional relationships and feelings because we are scared of what society would think of us. If you dare yourself and let go of your preconceived notions, if you allow yourself to look past labels, you would find out you are capable of loving so many people regardless of their sex. You love people, not their genitals, right? It is possible to love someone without being sexually attracted to them. Homosexuality is not all about sex; it is emotional and romantic too.

Most importantly, “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.” – Dorothy Parker.

Please, if two adults are happy in their relationship without hurting us, let us leave them be. LGBT people are not hurting anyone in anyway. What anyone does dans la boudoir is none of our business. “Oh! The media is replete with LGBT themes; kids would watch and listen to learn stuff.” Well, some people already knew they were not attracted to the opposite sex as early as age four. The media did not influence them. If the media wielded such influence, it would have influenced LGBT people to become heterosexual, right?

Previous WHORE Of BABYLON (Episode 5)

Next “Are You Still Attracted To Men?” James Franco’s New Film ‘I Am Michael’ Seeks To Answer this Question

Category Editor's Desk

About author

Pink Panther 5817 posts

View all posts by this author →

Law

December 31, 15:33 Reply

An extract from a commenter on bella naija.
“Tsk Tsk, poor logic everywhere, the better question is, should incestous relationships then be allowed? They can always abort any offspring they get.

This argument is an imported one, which is why Nigerians always argue it wrongly, if you’re going to argue, read up on utilitarianism and categorical moral reasoning first.

BTW if you’re going to be a categorical imperialist, read @Tobi’s comment and ask yourself if that’s what you really want.

???????????You know what, since I’m already writing.

Okay we know that society is an agglomeration of people with varied interests, likes e.t.c Because of this, we need laws to maintain peace and equity between all. Laws ofcourse flow out of the barrel of a gun?so really a cynical definition of society is disparate groups jostling for power.

So now a group has power, now it has to make laws to guarantee stability. For example, our current laws against the LGBTQI (get with the times they more letters now) is simply because religion has great power here. Now they are two types of laws, utilitarian laws arguing that laws ought to seek the greatest amount of happiness in society and categorical laws, stating that its bullshit, trying to make everyone happy is a waste of a time, laws are not created, they are derived, from a higher power, thus evil is always evil, there is no middle ground. Laws are to be aspirational, to order society, I believe it was John Calvin who said something along the lines of laws on earth reflecting order in the heavens. Utilitarians are hippies, categorical imperators are authoritarian neurotics??? Something all religious fundamentalists have in common, from Anglicans to Zen Buddhists.

So an example differing between the two. A girl or boy is raped, the business done, the rapist saunters away, the victim gathers themself, reaches for their father’s favourite gun and shoots and kills the rapist. A utilitarian would say, she acted under duress and ought be freed. A categoricalist would say, murder is murder. The party’s duress ended when the rape did, anything after was premeditated and should no more be allowed, than cannibalism during a famine, evil is evil.

So the background laid, back to our original topic. I’d like to announce that for the vast majority of humans, we resort to categorical thinking. A true utilitarian would defend pedophilia, afterall they were born that way? Nobody does, because of disgust and socialization (remember your social studies?)

“No, please, the age of consent should not change. I would be vexed if someone sexualised my fifteen-year-old cousin. “-Cisi Eze. *Puts on utilitarian hat* Who are you to infringe on your cousin’s happiness, that is neither your business, nor society’s you paedophobic shitlord!??? Fact, the body reaches sexual maturity starting from puberty, if it bleeds, drill baby, drill! Another fact, for the majority of our time as a species, 15 year olds have been having sex, the average 15 year old is presently having sex, you puritan, is their a difference between 15-18 year old penis and that of older men (veins and grey hair aside), ageist!!

Deliberately exaggerated, but still, my point hovers in the background. Taken to its extreme, I’d argue that paedophilia should be legalised. Our technology has improved to an extent, that a would be paedophile rather than being shamed and tarred by society, should be treated with kindness. So we could grow tube babies, have paedophilic brothels where our sick citizens could get their treatment. Afterwards, the grown children could be brainwashed, given a new identity and allowed to try and assimilate into society, or we could adjust their genetic markers to have them age early, dying off “naturally” just at the point when they cease to be useful to our paedophilic citizens.

But really, everybody has what I like to think of as a disgust-break point, at which they run back to daddy, making shoddy arguments like “its just wrong” (P.S if you can’t say exactly why something is wrong, you’re wrong). At the end of the day, we all end up appealing to categorical imperative, so I would argue, why shift the lines at all??”

9 Comments

Kenny
December 31, 06:53 Reply

Enough said!
Mitch
December 31, 08:29 Reply

???????

This is the summary of it all!
Delle
December 31, 10:40 Reply

“Most importantly, “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.” – Dorothy Parker”

?????
Sinnex
December 31, 11:04 Reply

Impressive
Law
December 31, 15:33 Reply

An extract from a commenter on bella naija.
“Tsk Tsk, poor logic everywhere, the better question is, should incestous relationships then be allowed? They can always abort any offspring they get.

This argument is an imported one, which is why Nigerians always argue it wrongly, if you’re going to argue, read up on utilitarianism and categorical moral reasoning first.

BTW if you’re going to be a categorical imperialist, read @Tobi’s comment and ask yourself if that’s what you really want.

???????????You know what, since I’m already writing.

Okay we know that society is an agglomeration of people with varied interests, likes e.t.c Because of this, we need laws to maintain peace and equity between all. Laws ofcourse flow out of the barrel of a gun?so really a cynical definition of society is disparate groups jostling for power.

So now a group has power, now it has to make laws to guarantee stability. For example, our current laws against the LGBTQI (get with the times they more letters now) is simply because religion has great power here. Now they are two types of laws, utilitarian laws arguing that laws ought to seek the greatest amount of happiness in society and categorical laws, stating that its bullshit, trying to make everyone happy is a waste of a time, laws are not created, they are derived, from a higher power, thus evil is always evil, there is no middle ground. Laws are to be aspirational, to order society, I believe it was John Calvin who said something along the lines of laws on earth reflecting order in the heavens. Utilitarians are hippies, categorical imperators are authoritarian neurotics??? Something all religious fundamentalists have in common, from Anglicans to Zen Buddhists.

So an example differing between the two. A girl or boy is raped, the business done, the rapist saunters away, the victim gathers themself, reaches for their father’s favourite gun and shoots and kills the rapist. A utilitarian would say, she acted under duress and ought be freed. A categoricalist would say, murder is murder. The party’s duress ended when the rape did, anything after was premeditated and should no more be allowed, than cannibalism during a famine, evil is evil.

So the background laid, back to our original topic. I’d like to announce that for the vast majority of humans, we resort to categorical thinking. A true utilitarian would defend pedophilia, afterall they were born that way? Nobody does, because of disgust and socialization (remember your social studies?)

“No, please, the age of consent should not change. I would be vexed if someone sexualised my fifteen-year-old cousin. “-Cisi Eze. *Puts on utilitarian hat* Who are you to infringe on your cousin’s happiness, that is neither your business, nor society’s you paedophobic shitlord!??? Fact, the body reaches sexual maturity starting from puberty, if it bleeds, drill baby, drill! Another fact, for the majority of our time as a species, 15 year olds have been having sex, the average 15 year old is presently having sex, you puritan, is their a difference between 15-18 year old penis and that of older men (veins and grey hair aside), ageist!!

Deliberately exaggerated, but still, my point hovers in the background. Taken to its extreme, I’d argue that paedophilia should be legalised. Our technology has improved to an extent, that a would be paedophile rather than being shamed and tarred by society, should be treated with kindness. So we could grow tube babies, have paedophilic brothels where our sick citizens could get their treatment. Afterwards, the grown children could be brainwashed, given a new identity and allowed to try and assimilate into society, or we could adjust their genetic markers to have them age early, dying off “naturally” just at the point when they cease to be useful to our paedophilic citizens.

But really, everybody has what I like to think of as a disgust-break point, at which they run back to daddy, making shoddy arguments like “its just wrong” (P.S if you can’t say exactly why something is wrong, you’re wrong). At the end of the day, we all end up appealing to categorical imperative, so I would argue, why shift the lines at all??”
- Mitch
  January 01, 09:58 Reply
  
  What nonsense is this person saying?
  
  You see why Nigeria won’t be moving forward anytime soon? Serious issues come up and someone would open his arse (I’d like to believe individuals like this think with their asses not their brains) to spew this type of crap.
  
  Bikonu, not this year! Not this year!
- ambivalentone
  January 01, 13:37 Reply
  
  The argument was hilarious and fundamentally flawed. The true utilitarian realises that it is/should be happiness for individuals involved, not just one party. So if the underaged enjoyed such untoward actions, there’d be no need to brainwash them. So, in the infinitesmal probability that the paths of a paedophiliac and gerontophiliac cross, paedophilia IS a crime
Haiku
January 01, 09:55 Reply

That comment excerpt has me concerned.
Irish...
January 02, 14:51 Reply

i know many LGBT guys that have sex with 14 – 17yr olds. I complain and they’ll say “but him don spoil already na, forget age” , “i like them young and fresh”.. these set of guys are giving us a bad reputation . check Facebook and see old men on 16yr olds Facebook pages thirst trapping. really sad!