Defence pedosex equates to gay cause
Defence Pedosex Equates to Gay Cause - Pro Pedo Plea
Original Dutch title: Verdediging pedoseks is homozaak
Translated by: Jean-Baptiste le Bonhomme
Proofread and corrected by: 28
Copyright © 1994 Anonymous
In the last two editions of ZIZO the pros and cons around pedosexuality were covered. The connection between the pedophile cause and the gay cause is being neglected too much, 'Anonymous' thinks. His analysis of this connection brings him to a defense of pedosexuality.
This is the first step in my pro-pedo plea: the gay movement does not have a single serious argument with which to judge pedosexuality. Just as the suppression of homosexuality cannot be defended rationally, neither can the prohibition of pedosexuality. The arguments used are prejudices, and as such, will not hold up or be proven in any case. At the most people will point to difficult and important problems (like the inequality of power) that happen in all relationships between a child and an adult (like nurture and education) but that will still not be sufficient reason for repression. I will not give a summation or rebuttal of things to the contrary here because that has already been stated by Staf Laenen in ZIZO (May-June '94). Besides, it is necessary to approach the pedo cause in a more fundamental manner.
This is the second step in my pro pedo plea: homosexuals cannot cite a serious argument against paedosexuality, but beyond that, homosexuals have good reasons to resist joining in the attack. Paedo-sexuality is being rejected for the same reason homosexuality was being rejected.
In our Western society all sexual experience is viewed through the institution of family. The family is a union of two adults, of either sex, who engage in a monogamous, sexual relationship, in order to reproduce, while at the same time providing economic resources needed to provide for the children. Every sexual experience that does not answer to this sexual ground rule (heterosexual, monogamous, directed at reproduction, and legal), is being repressed.
This rule is the result of an historical dominance by a religion hostile to sexuality (Christianity), and by the dominance of the female gender by the male gender; e.g., the patriarchal structure of western society. The economic system of capitalism, and the resulting class structure in our Western society, has reinforced this rule.
During the last decade this traditional context for sexual expression has been questioned. Some deviations are more or less tolerated, and less firmly sanctioned. Things like masturbation, premarital sex, conscious childless marriages, the unwedded living together of heterosexuals, one-parent families and even homosexuality have now reached at least some level of acceptance. In spite of this, the familial pretext is still being maintained, and none of the deviations from it are completely accepted. There still remains legal discrimination, and/or disapproval from society.
What lesbians and gays have in common with pedos is, in this light, not just similarity of oppression, but an objective connection between groups who undergo the same oppression. This makes solidarity all the more urgent. A plea for equal rights for homosexuality loses all credibility, if another sexuality within that same context, is being suppressed for the same reasons that these equal rights are being demanded. What right to equality do homosexuals have if they themselves are prepared to accept the discrimination of another sexual minority? It is obvious that those who are being repressed for the same reason, have an interest in fighting this battle together. This, however, is being denied by a large number within the homosexual movement (Rita De Caluwé, ZIZO 6, September '94).
Even a lot of lesbians and gays, who agree with my analysis, still refuse solidarity with pedos for so-called strategic reasons. Pedos and homosexuals surely have the same enemies, but the level of suppression is entirely different. Homosexuality is more or less accepted but their partial liberation would be jeopardized if the homosexual movement would associate itself with the pedos, who of course, are still not accepted at all. This reasoning is all wrong!
This is the third step in my pro pedo plea: lesbians and gays do not have just a good reason to declare themselves in solidarity with pedosexuals, but that solidarity is even necessary for their own survival. For the strategic reasons of maintaining, and perhaps enlarging, the homosexual rights they have already achieved, the gay movement has to commit itself to demanding freedom for pedosexuality. This argument is supported by the social evolution of the rightwing tendencies we see in society today.
At the same time the consequences of the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's continue to spread, and in some places the tolerance towards homosexuality is increasing, there are once again groups who want to revert back to the strict family way of life, including a total prohibition on homosexuality. They realize that a condemnation of homosexuality at this point, still has little meaning because of the high tolerance in the larger part of the community. Therefore, they use a different tactic; the slow erosion of freedom. We all know this tactic as 'divide and conquer'.
The people who fight for the freedom of sexuality, have been divided into multiple groups. For instance, groups like the pedophiles, homosexuals who want promiscuous sex, homosexuals who want to imitate the family way of life, and all kinds of heterosexual groups that don't follow the family way of life, such as unwedded people living together and one-parent-families.
When this has been done the weakest group can be attacked, while the other groups are being buttered up with promises, in order to ensure that they don't stand up for the attacked group. If the weakest group is eliminated, then the attacks on the next group can begin. This is no hypothetical scenario. Already it can be proven that these domino-tactics are being used.
The first step, the attack on pedophiles, is occurring in full force. This is an easy battle, because there is still little or no acceptance towards them. All that is left is to explicitly have pedosexuality forbidden, and condemned in such a way that no one dares to object to it. The people who actually dare to fight this are going to be muzzled, and presented as inhuman monsters, who deserve no respect. This has, consequently, caused homosexuals and lesbians who still feel for the pedophiles, to decide to stop being positive towards them in order not to damage the own cause. By doing this, those who oppose pedosexuality will silence the most important source of resistance. Yet, there are still doubts whether or not the homosexuals will be left alone. The war against the relatively small group of pedosexuals is being fought with such intensity that we can be certain that there is more than meets the eye. The shift from going after strictly pedophiles towards, unapologetic, promiscuous homosexuals, is indeed already present.
The second group, the promiscuous homosexuals, are attacked by associating them with pedophiles, who are considered repulsive by society. In some TV-reports the Spartacus-guide is being displayed as a cover for a pedophile network, even though this guide has nothing to do with pedosexuality. It just sums up the places where homosexuals can meet each other. The reasoning behind this is as grotesque as the next reasoning: The Streekkrant is a cover up for a heterosexual prostitution ring, because this paper contains advertisements for video stores that deal in porn. Right beside this psychological warfare, try actual repression of homo-meeting places in Belgium, with raids in the Macho saunas in Brussels, and in Kortrijk, in the dancing Le Delire, often under the cover of the battle against drugs (portrayed as evil as pedosexuality). With this, they try to break the solidarity among the homosexual groups themselves.
Another means of silencing a part of the homosexual movement, are the proposals for homosexual marriage. Those who advocate the right to marry, cannot defend either pedophiles or promiscuous homosexuals out of fear that defending either of these groups will result in this law not passing.
A report in VTM Telefacts about Aids dealt mainly about homosexuals with multiple sexual contacts and contained a lot of homophobe elements. On the other side, the BRTN-report in the program, "Zonder Voorschrift" (aired early January '94), showed a positive image of two young homosexuals, but spoke nothing of their sexual behaviour. This was no coincidence. After the portrayal, Professor Burggraeve spoke and declared that the same rule goes for homosexuality as heterosexuality, namely a requirement for exclusivity and sustainability. He also said that one may not speak about sexuality as a need, but that the heart of the matter should be love. In other words, homosexual sex is only allowed in the context of the imitation of the homophobe family way of life.
Homosexuals who acknowledge this, whether or not for strategic reasons, can of course hardly protest against the closing of a gaybar. This is the way the opposers of promiscuous gaysex can silence their most important source of resistance. Still, there remains some doubts, that even after this, the safe and monogamous homosexual couples will be left alone. What will happen when the promiscuous homosexuals are repressed?
It takes little imagination to suppose, that in a third step, the group of nice and easy homosexuals will also be dealt with. Proving this theoretically is very hard, but concrete examples make it very probable.
Under the influence of the right wing and the Moral Majority, Clinton demanded that the ILGA (sort of an umbrella for homosexual groups and organizations) exclude pedogroups. This has happened in the last congress, because most groups fear the repercussions, namely loss of the UNO-status of ILGA. This is just plain short-sighted, because after a successful attack against pedosexual groups, the Right Wing will demand that Clinton throw ILGA itself out of the UNO. Whoever has read the agenda of those groups can have no doubt as to what their thoughts are. And anyone who has seen Clinton waver when it was about homosexuals in the army, has little hope he will say “no” to the homophobe movements. The stick to beat the dogs with has already been found: a German ring connected to the ILGA has been said to harbour a pedogroup. Openly backing off of the pedogroups will not stop the Right Wing battle against ILGA.
Another example: At this moment the Vlaams Blok proclaims to have nothing against homosexuals. Please understand, that that is supposed to say they have everything against homosexuals, but are not yet fighting against the homosexual practice. Anyone who knows their attacks on homosexual militants, and knows their thoughts on family values, realizes immediately that they will suppress every practice of homosexuality with all force as soon as they will have the power to do so (read the leaflet of '1000 x neen aan het Vlaams Blok').
What will be the result of this closing argument? The homosexual movement will not be able to fight well as a thinned and weakened movement. From the other side, the traditional values (the rule of family) will be reinforced in such an extreme, that little help can be expected from society. The future is quite rose-scented. If something can be done, it needs to be done now.
This tactic of divide and conquest can only be fought by standing side by side from the beginning. This is the inevitable conclusion of my pro pedo plea: resisting the attacks on pedosexuality is paramount, in order to prevent an attack on homosexuality. If the homosexuals ditch the pedosexuals all Hell breaks loose, and the return of traditional values will wipe us away. The only way out is the constant defending of everybody's right to sexual freedom, as long as nobody involved is hurt (that is to say as long there is no misuse of power involved). This also means defending the right to be pedosexual, and the condemnation of all sexual misuse or violence. The gay movement cannot, for their own sake, exclude pedogroups, and must include the right to pedosexuality in their demands.
source: 'Defence Pedosex Equates to Gay Cause - Pro Pedo Plea' by 'Anonymous'; ZiZo, no. 7; 1994