So now the sick academics want to reclassify pedophilia and call it "inter-generational sexual intimacy".
Euphemistic horse manure is what it is!
Honestly, their quest to make child rape and theft of childhood along with perversion and sick sexual behavior is pretty incredible... and they are doing this through our education system.
it was only a decade ago that a parallel movement had begun on some college campuses to redefine pedophilia as the more innocuous “intergenerational sexual intimacy.”
The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”
This redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed—an historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university-affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.
Furthermore the article reveals some pretty appalling notions:
Ken Plummer, one of the contributors, writes that “we can no longer assume that childhood is a time of innocence simply because of the chronological age of the child.” In fact, “a child of seven may have built an elaborate set of sexual understandings and codes which would baffle many adults.”
Claiming to draw upon the theoretical work of the social historians, the socialist-feminists, the Foucauldians, and the constructionist sociologists, Plummer promised to build a “new and fruitful approach to sexuality and children.” Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition.
Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.”
Now if that's not a load of sick garbage, dressed up to seem palatable I don't know what is.
This my friends is what the sick liberal academia is now placing before us.
And while I am not a religious person, nor would I force my views on anyone else, I know it is wrong to exploit children, or to harm them, or to take away their innocence.
To even attempt to justify pedophilia or make it seem socially acceptable is absolutely sick and morally corrupt.
Is this what the Social Sciences have come to?
How incredibly sad and tragic for society at large.
...and if you read this you will see how well this worked for the progressive Germans in the 1960's
Beware "sex education" in your government schools.
Look where it could be headed now, steered by these sicko liberal academics.
Kind of puts a new spin on "No Child Left Behind" - maybe it will be reclassified as "No Child's Behind Left Behind"