The New York Times' terrific hypocrisy on children's rights
Mollie Hemingway has done a great job pointing out the bold hypocrisy from the New York Times about child abuse. In a preachy, much circulated article entitled "U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies," the Times threw out some red meat to its high-minded and self-righteous Upper-West-Side readers. As Hemingway points out, however, eight years ago was a different story. Back then, probably in total fight-homophobia-in-all-forms mode, the Times worried that something in the West's disapproval of Afghan pederasty smacked of the same kind of judgmental attitudes holding back the paper's sacred cow of gay marriage.
It's somewhat odd for The New York Times to publish this expose of our toleration of the practice considering that in 2007 they published an op-ed critical of the military for not being more culturally relativist. As the 2007 op-ed notes, approvingly, if you can believe it, we turn a blind eye to child rape because our military bought into ideas from academic elites that it would be the right thing to do.
The point of the piece by Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative human development at the University of Chicago, was that we weren't going far enough. The piece criticizes one anthropologist for wearing a uniform and being armed and worries about anthropologists being co-opted by the military to advance military missions.
I'd take it even a bit farther. Why hasn't the New York Times reported with horror the story of President Obama's precious bundler, sixty-something Terry Bean, whose recent escapades in Portland, Ore. include "disappearing" a teenage victim after trying to pay him off $200,000 not to testify against him in a statutory rape case? Has the Times shown any real concern for the rampant, widespread incidence of man-youth exploitation in gay male circles, entangled with elaborate prostitution rings and safely euphemized as "intergenerational intimacy"?
In case you need to refresh your memory, here's an excerpt of a piece I published in American Thinker back in July 2013:
When Tyler Clementi committed suicide at the age of eighteen in September 2010, there was a torrent of sympathetic coverage that blamed homophobia.
Clementi had a sexual affair with "M.B.," a man who was thirty, whom he met over the internet. His 18-year-old roommate video-recorded the tryst with a webcam and then posted it online. The resulting outrage led to the "It Gets Better" campaign and the Tyler Clementi Act.
Only recently, however, did I have a reporter ask for my perspective on Clementi from a different angle. What about "M.B."? Of course, none of us supports driving people to suicide, but why does it seem that Clementi, who had only turned eighteen, viewed it as banal to meet much older men on the internet? And to have sex with them? The reporter who called me asked, "Is it possible that this isn't a symptom of bullying, but rather, of a culture of organized online pederasty?"
Clementi had so much experience with online hookups that he must have started them prior to turning eighteen. When he was a minor, it's probable that he had liaisons with men who were older than eighteen and committing statutory rape. Seen through this lens, society failed not in fostering homophobia, but rather in allowing a culture of abuse to flourish online.
Scandals in recent years are making it harder for gay spokespeople to deny that a culture of sexual predation exists.
Lombard's case was particularly egregious; he was charged with offering his five-year-old adopted son to strangers over the internet for sexual exploitation. At the time, Mike Adams was one of the few courageous writers willing to call out Duke's hypocrisy.
I was waiting for someone to report on the plentiful crises of sexual abuse of boys right here at home, happening under the banner of LGBT liberation, by the same activists who had vituperated against the Vatican for denying the abuse in its own community while denying the abuse in the gay community.
The truth is that we do not have to travel to Afghanistan for lots of male-male child abuse going on. By December 2013, I'd also published this:
Signorile says this is "nurturing" and educational, kind of like being someone's private tutor, only the tutelage involves lubricant, preparatory enemas, and the tearing of the boy's rectal lining, all in the name of initiation. It's also unsanitary, painful, and likely to interfere with whatever development the boy might have toward eventual sex with women.
Two weeks after Signorile's ode to sleaze, the Daily Mail broke yet another story of a homosexual dad sodomizing a boy and sharing him with his male partner. This time, the boy in question was not a teen, but nine, and he was Carl Herold's own son. So in two weeks we go from "it's legal, so why not?" to "oh, darn, it's illegal; I guess I shouldn't be encouraging this."
Then, in May 2014, I published this:
On February 5, 2014, in the very mainstream gay publication Queerty, an article ran celebrating the marvelous fad of "twincest" in the gay community, or anal sex between brothers who, according to Queerty, can enjoy hot sodomy without having to worry about genetic defects, since they cannot get accidentally pregnant and would end up buying another woman's eggs to make children anyway.
Queerty's paragons of twincest are two Brazilian brothers and two Czech brothers who made international headlines by declaring their sexual love for each other. This isn't hypothetical; gay pornographers were sure to capture both sets of brothers in flagrante delicto, and the photographic images have been published for all the world to see.
The fact that Brazil and the Czech Republic are both target countries for exploitative pornographers, due to the countries' high supply of, respectively, bronzed and blond young men kept thin by poverty and desperate for work, does not diminish at all from the prurient thrill that gay men get by watching barely legal identical twins sodomize each other.
And this (May 2014 was busy):
I have to believe that American people, including gays themselves, have social impulses too good to endure indefinitely the parade of scandals: the pederasty cases (see here and here and here, to name but a few), the buying and selling of children, the endless films justifying abuses by people like the beat poets, Harvey Milk, and Liberace. At some point, I anticipate, people will say, "Enough."
But when? Gay, Inc., knows that a backlash could be sweeping and brutal, so they are in perpetual attack mode to keep Americans distracted.
After submitting over fifty "letters to the editor" and opinion editorials to mainstream news outlets in the United States, and getting zero of them published, I received my first phone call from a major national newspaper, last month. The reporter wanted to ask me how I felt about my responsibility for anti-gay violence in Uganda. Having never gone to Africa in my life and having no connection to Uganda whatsoever, I smelled a rat.
Soon it will be the end of 2015, and I won't hold my breath for the New York Times to print an exposé of these problems within the LGBT world. They do that only when it means scandalizing the Catholic Church or the United States military.
Robert Oscar Lopez is president of the International Children's Rights Institute and author of Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for 'Family Equality.' He recently launched a podcast series called "CogWatch."