On Wednesday, the New York Post reported that student protests led to a transgender college professor being placed on administrative leave for saying it is not immoral for adults to be sexually attracted to children.
The Old Dominion University professor, a female to male transgender named Allyn Walker who also claims to be binary, had suggested that society refer to people with pedophilic attraction as “minor-attracted persons,” thereby lessening the stigma involved.
Walker, whose social media accounts have now been deleted, claimed that while sex with kids was currently illegal, it was not immoral for an adult to want to have sex with a child saying, “From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all.
“In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either OK or not OK. It’s our behaviors in responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK,” Walker claimed.
After all, if sexual desires are innate and immutable, meaning, you’re born this way and it’s impossible to change, then how can pedophilic desires be judged as wrong?
In fact, if “there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone,” how can any attraction to any person, be it an infant or a corpse, be considered immoral? The very thought of such an argument is sickening.
But this is hardly a new concept, as I documented in painstaking, often painful, detail in a lengthy chapter in A Queer Thing Happened to America. What is new is the suggested term “minor-attracted persons” (MAPS). Yes, let’s come up with an acronym and make it sound as generic as possible. No big deal. The guy just dreams about having sex with children. He’s a MAP!
The Queer Thing book came out in 2011, but the research and viewpoints I cited predated my book by several decades, including this quote from the influential John Hopkins Professor John Money.
He wrote, “Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.”
But can we really put pedophilia in the same class as being left-handed or color-blind? Is there no morality to be attached to sexual desires, even if we were allegedly born that way?
Or consider this from Dr. Theo Sandfort in his article titled, “Constructive Questions Regarding Paedophilia.” Sandfort, a respected professor at Columbia University writes, “If paedophiles are no longer forced to live underground and to be secretive about their relationships, but instead their desires are recognized as legitimate, and they are guided towards a responsible expression of their desires, we might prevent some cases of genuine sexual abuse.”
What? He wrote that we should recognize “their desires . . . as legitimate”? And what would be “a responsible expression of their desires”?
While not sanctioning child abuse, they, among others of like mind, want to soften the stigma surrounding adult-child sexual desires, using the “born that way and can’t change” argument.
How much better it would be for the struggler to say, “This is a repulsive, reprehensible, and utterly shameful desire. I renounce it as unclean and destructive, and I want to get to the root of it with the hope of positive change.”
The more it is recognized as sinful and wrong, the more it can be resisted, especially if God’s help is factored into the equation.
Unfortunately, some advocates have gone even further, arguing for the beauty and importance of “man-boy love,” even calling it “intergenerational intimacy.”
In the words of one of the pioneer gay activists, Harry Hay, and with reference to teen minors, “[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” (He said this at a New York University forum in 1983.)
Obviously, while there is a world of difference between consensual acts between two adults of the same sex and the rape of a child by an adult, it is striking that arguments in favor of destigmatizing homosexuality mirror arguments in favor of destigmatizing pedophilia and pederasty.
I am not comparing consensual, sexual acts between homosexual adults with the sexual abuse of a boy or girl at the hands of an adult (although I do believe that all sex acts between consenting homosexuals are immoral in God’s sight, even if monogamous.)
But it is no surprise that, just as homosexuality was gradually normalized and then celebrated in our society, attempts continue to be made to normalize pedophilia.
The very concept of “minor-attracted people” minimizes the depth of perversion rightly associated with pedophilia, also opening the door to say, “As long as you don’t act on your desires, you’re OK.” And what if the person only watches kiddie porn? Is that wrong?
Prof. Walker may have meant well in writing the book, genuinely wanting to help strugglers and reduce acts of child sex abuse. But the moment Walker labeled them MAPS, lost even people on the left.