De death of Pasolini, or what do we do with pedophiles?

In one of the most disturbing episodes of the Law & Order tv series, the detectives of a case interrogate a suspect of having sexually abused a child, and during the interrogation, almost at the end of the episode, he tells them, haughtily, before his lawyer took him out of the interrogation room, something like this: "You believe that we are the deviant, the sick, right? You believe that we are a minority. But no, the sick are you, you are the rare ones, you are the minority." The harsh words of that suspect, which leave the detective deeply disturbed, returned to my memory for two news appeared with little time between them. [...]

But, apparently, an issue is to treat the right to free sexuality and to remove the stigmata about their free exercise, and another is to come out in defense of pedophilia, that is to say between carnal treatment between an adult and a child. Among the ancient Romans this issue did not cause major complications. They are documented as they were and should be the relationships between an adult and ephebes, a term used to refer to children who could be subjects of adult sexual desire, and which is recovered by these groups of modern pedophiles. Why then did that civilized way of relating to children get lost? The answer is very simple, and should scandalize us more than we should suppose: for the Judeo-Christian morality, which divided the world in black and white, in good and bad, instead of that broad polyvalent spectrum emerged from Greco-Roman polytheism. [...]

The issue around pedophilia shows, perhaps like no other, the challenge around what the academy calls sexual and reproductive rights, and leads us to reflect on how far we are willing to go in their defense. The rights, may or may not be absolute, unlimited? How far do we want to take them? Are these made for individuals, or individuals for these? If sexual rights are universal, why would pedophilia - and other behaviors that we now consider inappropriate or deviant - not be included in them? [...]

It is crearly [clearly] that both cases [the murders of filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini and poet Guillermo Fernández] has so much similarities that is in both we can se [see] the same rare violence we see in passion crimes. The victim has to be not only killed, it has to be nulled, humiliate for what he is, or what the murderer consider he is. But our Judeo-Christian conscience do not allow us to accept that their behavior contradicts our morality and we preserve tha [the?] sancto-sanctorum image of a beloved poet for whom desire is only a literary subject and not a vital problema [problem?] which consumes his soul and dreams. We see the poet, in both cases, as ephebus, and not as human beigns [beings] with yearns and pains. I think it will not be long before these or other groups of American pedophiles adopt Pier Paolo Pasolini as their main standard bearer, for the moral scandal of poets, readers, editors, journalists, priests, and the general public. What these new movements put on the table of discussion is perhaps the most complex issue, in more than a century, that we have to face as an educated, literate society: What do we do with pedophilia and pederasts? Continue to punish them, or accept them as part of our human nature? That is the size of the challenge.

source: Article 'De death of Pasolini, or what do we do with pedophiles?' by José Manuel Recillas; medium.com/@josmanuelrecillas/de-death-of-pasolini-or-what-do-we-do-with-pedophiles-f4f864d38b0a; medium.com/@josmanuelrecillas; 27 November 2018