This article contains obscene quoted material.
It has become increasingly apparent that LGBT activists want to sexualize children. Just when you think that such attempts couldn’t be any more bold, there’s always a left-wing academic, children’s TV show, or public figure eager to push for the needle towards the acceptance of pedophilia.
The latest example comes from Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel, who shamelessly came out in favor of exposing children to public sex acts in his gut-wrenching article titled “Keep Pride Nude” in the Boston Review.
Fischel, who proclaims in his Twitter bio that he is “gay for pay,” attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat “racism and homophobia.”
Fischel researches the “regulation of sex” through the lens of “queer studies” and “critical race theory,” which he uses to build his case during one of the opening paragraphs, commenting on the presence of various different deviant activities at pride parades. He writes that “anti-sex, anti-kink complaints are not only wrong but also racist and bad for children.”
Fischel then launches into a lengthy academic and philosophical conversation about public sex in which he compares his feelings of disgust when he sees Tucker Carlson or the Confederate flag with the revulsion many feel when witnessing public displays of kink, which eventually leads him to asking the question “Why might some ‘sex’ in ‘public’ be right and good?”
The short answer is because refusing to embrace public sex is racist, of course. According to Fischel, “Bodies of color, simply by existing, were tantamount to sex in public.” Adding that “Blacks were white folks’ sex public [sic],” capitalizing “Black” while leaving “white” lowercase throughout the article.
This Guy Really Wants Kids to Watch Sex
Then suddenly, the heart of the matter resurfaces, with Fischel writing “My argument, all along really, has been for the children.” With surprising honesty, he notes that the legal jargon, citations of supposed intellectuals, and bizarre invocations of racism simply serve as pretexts, pseudo-intellectual backings for his underlying, wretched desire to expose children to sexual acts.
Here Fischel really takes off the mask, writing what are perhaps the most telling lines of the entire article when he inquires “What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?”
If neither conventional wisdom nor basic decency make it clear that children should have no involvement with adult nudity or sexuality, the law has established indecent exposure as a crime. Involving children in this crime makes it all the more perverted. Using one’s position as an academic at a top university to advocate for it is similarly heinous.
But Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be “as likely to respond with curiosity?”
It’s worth noting that exploiting children’s sexual curiosity is a recognized tactic employed by groomers and pedophiles. The National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Abuse notes that children make “ideal victims” for groomers because they are “naturally curious” and “easily led.” A law firm that defends molestation victims made a similar point.
Fischel: Pride Is All About Indecent Exposure
Fischel also writes that “leather chaps and nipple clamps” serve to “model modes of living and loving that many kids… have never seen,” adding that “the more models of queerness the better.”
He even bashes parents who seek to shield their children from public sex acts, writing “When parents … oppose public indecency at Pride on the grounds that it may upset children, the opposite is more likely the case.” He continues, “their children might like it, and that upsets the parents, not the children.”
The assertion that “children might like it,” with “it” referring to adult nudity and kink, blatantly contradicts the common moral understanding that children should be entirely removed from adult sexuality. Through this statement and the entire article, it becomes apparent that this understanding is one Fischel is actively working to undermine.
Parents Are Bad Because They Protect Kids
Fischel attacks the family even more blatantly in his concluding paragraph when he writes “we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for those kids whose opportunities and curiosities are stifled by racist violence, economic inequality, or their heterosexual nuclear family.”
Although this critique is disgusting, it is not surprising. The family is a child’s primary defense against danger, including against sex acts and indecent exposure. In Fischel’s words, that means that opportunity is “stifled.”
Yet again, Fischel is employing a common strategy of pedophile groomers while wrapping it in the jargon of social justice. Not only does he note that sex acts could be used to invoke curiosity among children, but that strong families “stifle” the sexual opportunity of children. Pedophiles and groomers know this well, with Dr. Phil warning that “A big portion of these pedophiles will pick a family that is distressed” when identifying potential victims, while the National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Abuse notes that “Children from broken homes and troubled families are easy targets.”
These perspectives are perfectly on brand for Fischel, who authored a book titled “Sex and Harm in the Age of Consent” in which he expressed his belief that we should enact laws that would include the “decriminalization of sex….between some minors and adults,” while adding those ages 12-19 should belong to “a separate sex class under the law.”
Fischel: It’s Anti-Gay to Prevent Pedophilia
Fischel continuously frames this outright sexual endangerment of children as a weapon of revolution against “racism and homophobia,” thereby encoding his predatory proclivities in the language of tolerance and anti-racism, the reigning secular religions of our time, in an attempt to make them beyond reproach, hoping that the right will be too spineless to fight back and will instead cower at the possibility of being called racist or homophobic, even if it means allowing the endangerment of children.
His response to The Federalist’s request for comment was similarly telling. When asked for the second time if he believed “that bringing ‘curious’ children into close proximity with naked adults who are performing sex acts could possibly lead to the endangerment of children?” Fischel responded, “I would think it depends on a number of factors? It seems generally like a very bad idea for adults to have sex purposively in front of children,” before asking if I was citing or had studies that indicated that such an environment would endanger children.
He also attempted to take the focus off of his belief that children should be exposed to public sex acts when he responds “I don’t think this is a real social problem, but one that is being fabricated out of my article. I am far more troubled by the damage phobic parents and families do to their queer kids. And I think we should be far more concerned with the ways fathers, uncles, and mother’s boyfriends sexually abuse children, especially girls.”
Child Sexualization Rampant Today
Fischel’s attempt to normalize the sexualization of children and subsequent deflection when met with questions on the matter isn’t an isolated incident. Previous examples are abundant, with Netflix’s “Cuties” peddling child porn, the Washington Post running a heinous article that argued we should hope children at pride parades will “encounter kink,” and big money from San Francisco bankrolling the Drag Queen Story Hour Program that’s brought multiple convicted pedophiles to gather with children.
There’s also Desmond is Amazing, a child who dresses in drag and danced for money in a gay New York night club when he was only 11 years old. He was also trotted out on “Good Morning America“ where he was greeted by three older drag queens who came bearing gifts in what resembled a perverted rendition of the arrival of the wise men.
More recently, the San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir has come under fire for a now-deleted video in which they sang a song that included the line “We’ll convert your children. Happens bit by bit.” Although their identities remain unconfirmed, an investigation from The Western Journal has found that several of the names on the SFGMC’s now also-deleted roster yielded results when cross-referenced with California’s registered sex offender database.
The LGBT movement’s ongoing campaign to sexualize children and normalize pedophilia is real and undeniable. Any attempt to label the recognition of this obvious fact as “homophobic,” let alone “racist,” is a dishonest maneuveur to run cover for people like Fischel who want to expose children to sexual acts and turn them into victims of indecent exposure, thereby making them easy targets for predators.
If the right aims to conserve anything whatsoever, the innocence and purity of children must be at the top of the list. As long as there are academics, members of the media, and institutions that use the banners of tolerance, anti-racism, or acceptance to threaten the safety of children, conservatives must be willing to pierce through their obfuscation and endure the inevitable mudslinging in order to successfully defend the children, whose innocence is otherwise yet another casualty in an ongoing culture war.