Friday, February 11, 2011

The Comment of the Week...

Comes from Diane in reponse to the Haverford vs. Spencer and the "bizarre," "vile" and "warped" question I raised about the definition of "sexual orientation."

Diane writes:
There are already efforts to desensitize us to sex between children and adults. A 2002 book written by Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex? was widely promoted as a book to challenge "widespread anxieties" about pedophilia. Publisher University of Minnesota Press called Levine's book "a radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children's and teens' sexuality." James Kincaid, author of "Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting," called it "a crusading book that is also kind, a very rare phenomenon, and it comes down always on the side of trusting not only our kids and their pleasures but our own." There are indeed other sexual orientations beyond the standard definition "homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality" contained in these ordinances. In the near future there will be an effort to include sadomasochism in these definitions.
Which is to say after the passage of the township's new anti-discrimination ordinance feel free to show up a Haverford diner dressed like this:



UPDATE: Comment of the Week II...

"Logic and Reason" said...
Pediophilia is a crime. Child molestors are criminals. It is not a sexual orientation, it is criminally deviant sexual abuse.
The GLBT community does not embrace or endorse pediophilia or recognize pediophiles as a "sexual orientaion" deserving of equal rights or protection.
Mr. Spencer, you have spun your lurid scenario to sell papers and entice debate. Why? Probably to fan the flames of discrimination against law abiding and productive members of society. Your homophobia is showing.
Mr. Logic is confused.

While child molestation is a crime, pedophilia is not. It is a psycho-sexual disorder as described in the DSM-IV. (On top of this, Mr. Logic confuses pedophila and pediophilia, which is the sexual attraction to dolls.)

People who suffer from pedophilia may be much more likely to commit the crime of child molestation, just as alcoholics are more likely to commit the crime of driving under the influence. But it is no more against the law to be a pedophile than it is to be an alcoholic.

What the GLBT community embraces or doesn't embrace is completely beside the point. If Haverford Township isn't more specific in terms of the sexual orientations it wants to protect, the whole kit and kaboodle can slide in demanding protections and fairly so.

As for my intentions in raising this issue, I have been quite clear. I personally find actual discrimination against gays to be fairly ridiculous and wrong. Most Americans take a live and let live attitude toward gays, although many remain skeptical of, if not downright hostile to, the agenda of the gay left on issues like same-sex marriage and the normalization of some of the more extreme gay lifestyles. (See above.)

In Haverford, gays are not as a matter of routine being denied public accomodation, jobs or places to live. The motive behind passing the ordinance is, in my opinion, purely symbolic, political, unnecessary and unpopular.

UPDATE III: For more on pediophilia... See the film Lars and the Real Girl. It got good reviews.

I got to admit, she's kind of hot!

4 Comments:

Blogger JDC said...

Just because you show up doesn't mean you get served.

February 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Under this ordinance, denying service to anyone based on their expressed "sexual orientation" would give the township cause to fine a restaurant owner $10,000.

February 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Make that "expressed" or "perceived" sexual orientation.

February 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM 
Blogger jake said...

Could the doll get served in Haverford?
I agree, she is hot.

February 11, 2011 at 1:42 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home