'Fear of prejudice' let gay carers abuse boys

Link: 'Fear of prejudice' let gay carers abuse boys - Telegraph.

Those of us who complain about it have misunderstood the significance of political correctness. It is not a fad, but a fundamental change in our society. Social conventions have always been much more important than laws in controlling behaviours. Many a man would break the law with pride, but not willingly do anything that would make his peers laugh at or look down on him. He cares more about his social circle than he does about "society" in the abstract.

Before their political and economic projects failed, by means of their iron grip on our educational institutions, the Left in Britain managed to socialise two or three generations to defer to certain allegedly oppressed groups. Just as our ancestors would have instinctively have tugged their forelocks at the aristocrats of old, so now do we at these new ones.

I do not give a damn what people do to each other sexually, provided that it is consensual. I am libertarian enough to defend the right of weird Germans to eat each other (and consent to be eaten) for sexual gratification. I simply don't care and I don't think I have ever cared. I even feel sorry for paedophiles, who have no more control over their sexual preferences than other sexual minorities, but who cannot be tolerated because their desires - by definition- can never be acted on consensually. I think that VR and computer graphics may help them find a way to act out without harming children and condemn the attempts of others to deny them that outlet.

But in accepting others, I demand acceptance in return. I ask no favours; none must be asked of me.

Today's linked story in the Telegraph highlights the same issue that I blogged about here. My story dates back 25 years.  This has not happened overnight and it will not be solved in a hurry. Terrible social damage has been done and resentments engengered even where none existed before. The members of the new aristocracies are - in effect- above criticism. Even the most hopeless cretins have been indoctrinated. It is dangerous to cross the new aristos. One word from one of them and you are a social outcast.

I suspect many decent citizens now avoid members of minority groups for fear of being falsely denounced if they fall out with them. The rest of us, if we are honest, choose our words more carefully around them. Such is the power this gives the new aristocrats that there is a stampede to acquire such status. This is encouraged by politicians who - having alienated their former mass memberships by political triangulation- must now build political support minority by minority, sectional interest by sectional interest. Every man and his dog now wants to be part  of an "oppressed" minority, even if only for part of their lives.

Perhaps that is the way forward? If we can all become members of a favoured minority, our privileges will cancel each other out. Political and social equality will finally have been achieved. Sadly, it is not that easy. Based on experience to date, we are more likely to end up with a game of trumps in which one "oppressed minority" outranks another; rather - to continue my analogy- as a Duke outranked a mere Earl. In any event, what are the prospects of success for a society in which being an officially-recognised victim is the best way to win?

You do not right the wrongs of ages with countervailing wrongs. If you object to a wrong; do right. It is time that these communities rejected their privileges and insisted on no more than equal treatment. And it is time that we showed the courage to stand up to would-be "aristocrats" who refuse to do so.

Comments

[TDK]

I even feel sorry for paedophiles, who have no more control over their sexual preferences than other sexual minorities, but who cannot be tolerated because their desires - by definition- can never be acted on consensually. I think that VR and computer graphics may help them find a way to act out without harming children

I hesitated to comment on the above previously because it wasn't central to your point. However, I note that someone else now has.

Your contention relies upon the assumption that a paedophile has a fixed amount of desire which can be sated by the use of VR. Let me suggest two counter propositions:
1. Might desire increase through the use of such stimulants?
2. I'm a great believer that civil society is achieved more by the use of social norms such as disapproval, stigma and shame than by legal means. Might giving signals of acceptability in VR have a deleterious impact?

[Paulus]

I agree with you about political correctness. It is used by society to stigmatize and force conformity. It is particularly horrible because official bodies – police, social services and even the health service – participate enthusiastically.
But it is nothing new. Only the name has been changed to protect the prejudiced. In earlier days, conformity enforcers (including the do-gooders) fretted about sex before marriage, illegitimacy, homosexuality, independent women, men with long hair and women in mini-skirts.
Now that the range of unacceptable behaviour has changed, “the behave as we want you to behave” mill is still grinding away. People who want to be different, or are dragging their feet, or can’t help themselves, are being forced by society and its strong-arm men and women to toe the line.
Let’s all grow up and be compassionate and tolerant. We have achieved much, let’s not stop now.
Thank you for the insights on your excellent blog.
I have recently started to write on similar topics. Try this article for a flavour
http://www.thinkhard.org/2007/07/what-is-the-pan.html

[Kinderling]

I even feel sorry for paedophiles, who have no more control over their sexual preferences than other sexual minorities, but who cannot be tolerated because their desires - by definition- can never be acted on consensually. I think that VR and computer graphics may help them find a way to act out without harming children and condemn the attempts of others to deny them that outlet.
Ah the mastery of self over the stress of increasingly compact lives. Methinks Tom you have, without evidence, believed the Sexhound. Is sexual minority one with small parts or small hearts? To use others, consenting or not, is a dehumanisation every manic depressive has sought out. I have not seen happiness therin, nor of the drug taker. You may feel sorry for these people. When they are knocking at your door, in overwhelming numbers, it will not be pity they seek. They know what taste they have acquired as it once found them. We have witnessed the fathers removed, now it is the children exposed. And you feel sorry for the wolf.

[jameshigham]

You don't know how it makes me feel when it seemed I was playing a lone hand on this sort of thing and I see you post along the same lines but better. It's a great relief.

[Tom]

Kevyn, I didn't mean to conflate paedophiles with any other group. I was merely making the point, in passing, that they can no more change their sexuality than can anyone else and that while they cannot be allowed to act on their sexual urges, I can feel sorry for them. Theirs is a terrible fate.

[Kevyn Bodman]

Tom,,
An outstandingly good post here.Thank you.
I would like to reinforce your point that we don't care what adult homosexuals do with each other consensually in private, but predatory paedophiles cannot be tolerated. The groups are different.

You end by saying 'It is time that these communities rejected their privileges...'

That's very unlikely. People tend not to choose to give up privileges .
However when you say 'it is time that we showed the courage to stand up to [them].'

you are absolutely right.

ONE law, ONE standard, NO special status.

[Ellee]

Too true, we need more brave people like you to stand up with conviction to anyone who abuses their position and the privileges it brings.

[Welshcakes Limoncello]

You're absolutely right, Tom. It's gone too far. Equality, as you point out, does not mean having "privileges".