While it is true that a wide-ranging report into the child abuse sex scandal was largely perpetrated by homosexual-acting predators on adolescent boys (ephebophilia) – a fact which is really not highlighed in recent press reports (for obviously politically correct reasons) – the study in question makes a bizarre distinction between (presumably heterosexual) men who commit homosexual acts on children on the one hand, and men who specifically identify themselves as homosexual as a sexual identity on the other hand.
The sexual czars of our age, you see, have insisted that identity does not necessarily identify with actions. So, in other words, you may committ exclusively homosexual acts, but you might not be a homosexual per se. That particular demographic is determined by how you identify yourself on a sex-survey. What, I wonder, do we call a man who identifies himself as a heterosexual but actually engages in homosexual sex only? Have the sex researchers come up with a name for this particular identity yet? I’m not sure if it fits any of the available sex categories. (You’ll notice, too, that those inventing these categories can’t really pin down what they mean either).
The homosexualists are very upset that people might not accept these distinctions and simply label predators with how they behave. Then again, if we are not offending the homosexuals, are we not offending heterosexuals who committ homosexual acts? Don’t they deserve to be protected from such harsh judgement? Should heterosexuals-who-commit-exclusively-homosexual-acts be the only unprotected group in our society? Maybe it’s time that that these heteromosexuals (for lack of a better term) have a militant lobby group as well and defend these unfair caricatures? Or maybe, it’s not all heteromosexuals who should be condemned but only some of them who are to blame. But if that is the case, then what is the point of making any kind of generalization? These crimes, of course, just happened for no apparent reason, except for individual failure. Apparently, there was no – and cannot be any – kind of sexual disorder going on whatsoever. It’s just the way “we are.”
You see, then, how every group can be protected — except the children.