Defending pedophilia is the logical conclusion of queer theory
Allyn Walker, a former professor at Old Dominion University who identifies as non-binary, resigned last month following criticism arising from Walker’s views on pedophilia. Walker argued that pedophiles should be destigmatized by identifying them as “persons attracted to minors” (“PAM”) rather than the derogatory term “pedophile”, because the attraction to children is sexual orientation and not immoral.
The pretext is that pedophiles are more likely to seek treatment if their sexual inclinations are destigmatized. Instead of relying on empirical evidence to determine the reasons for these inclinations or strategies that will keep children safe, Walker draws on queer theoretical tools to argue that pedophiles are wrongly oppressed by the power structures of children. society as a group of the most “hated the popular devils of our time. “
What is queer theory?
Walker is a queer sociologist and criminologist which uses the prism of queer theory to explain human society and crime. Like other critical theories, queer theory seeks a collective critical consciousness that will identify and dismantle the structures and dynamics of identity power.
Queer theory seeks to unite oppressed groups that fall outside the favored normative linguistic categories of sex (male or female) and sexuality (straight, gay, bisexual) into one oppressed banner of queer. To do this, it is based on the principle of postmodern knowledge, which rejects objective knowledge and privileges âknowledgeâ resulting from the experience of individuals from certain identity groups.
Application of queer theory to pedophilia
Walker uses theoretical tools problematize the treatment of pedophilia as a sexual perversion to achieve its agenda. She uses the power of language to defend the new acronym “MAP” and blurs the boundaries of sexuality. The emphasis is on the collective oppression of pedophiles.
Using a “deconstructionist” perspective, Walker argues that pedophilia is a “social construct”. She boldly concludes that sexual attraction to minors is not morally offensive, and argues that defamation of pedophilia is more about the control of sexual minorities than the health or safety of children.
Surprisingly, this normalization of pedophilia is not unique to Walker. Another professor at ODU, Vanessa Panfil, has worked extensively with Walker on at least one item advocacy for the destigmatization of pedophilia. Panfil still appears to have a paid job at ODU. In addition, Michel Foucault (whom Walker quotes extensively) petitioned for the abolition of laws on sexual consent in France. Likewise, Gayle Rubin championed pedophilia in his 1984 test âThinking about sexâ.
Absent from Walker’s analysis, and from the analyzes of many who think alike, are the real victims of pedophilia: children. Walker advocates the use of “captivating and high qualityâPornography for pedophiles in order to resist their sexual attraction to children. Sadly, Walker seems to assume that the only victims of child pornography are the people prosecuted for it and does not take into account the trauma inflicted on the children trafficked and used in the creation of this “high quality porn”.
Walker uses the theoretical tools of queer theory to justify a personal opinion that adults should be free to fantasize and sexualize children – as long as they don’t touch them. She used queer theory’s position in the social justice movement to justify what appears to be the logical next step in queer theory dismantling sexual norms. This must be rejected out of hand.
Queer theory in schools
Unfortunately, queer theory’s rejection of “social constructs” designed to protect the most innocent – even the outright rejection of “”the innocence of childhoodâ- has spread to primary school pedagogy. The “unicorn kindÂ»Is taught at small children in schools and books like Gender Queer, which contains pornographic comics, are in public school libraries. Socio-emotional learning surveys vendors like Panorama Education interview children in detail about their sexual preferences.
In the name of “dismantling power structures and dynamics” around sexuality, queer theorists must ensure that things that were once taboo (like the sexualization of children) are no longer taboo. Queer theorists excuse the immorality of pedophilia because it helps them carry out their own agenda.
For example, they would claim that queer pedagogy prevents queer children from being “impaired” in school. Yet this conclusion assumes that children should be sexualized in the first place. Moreover, to reach this conclusion, the benefits of the fact that gay children are not “other” must outweigh the risks of sexualizing children and exposing them to books and information which, of course. less in some states, would violate obscenity laws.
This conclusion is far from established. In fact, given the obscenity laws currently in place in some states, it would appear that our society has determined that the sexualization of children remains off-limits to individuals – and therefore should remain in schools.
Before being swayed by theoretical excuses to change the societal norms that protect children, we must all decide how far our collective moral conscience will allow the social justice movement to go in its exploitation of our borders. I think we let it go pretty far. The sexualization of children has no place in schools or in our society. It is simply a border which should not be exploited.
Jennifer Rawls is a practicing lawyer and single mother. In her spare time, she has spent the last year trying to figure out why children are sexualized and brainwashed by political agendas in school.