(Bailey said that while he also found the notion “disturbing”, he was forced to recognise that “persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist”.)
I beg to differ. Just ask the ten percent of the population that is homosexual if they were sexually abuse as a child.
This attitude is disgusting. Does he really think Pedophiles are going to out themselves so they can be held accountable? Hope he’s not holding his breath on that one.
I beg to differ. Just ask the ten percent of the population that is homosexual if they were sexually abuse as a child.
That's the trick though. If you redefine the effects as being equal and harmless, then presto, there are no harmful effects.
“Just ask the ten percent of the population that is homosexual “
I heard between 1 and 3 percent.
10% of the population is NOT homosexual. It’s more like 2%. And, yes, many are because of pedophiles.
About two and a half percent of men are homosexual. Women are a little more malleable in their sexuality, so the percentage changes with the fashion of the times and circumstances.
Homosexuals do not comprise 10 percent of the population. I don’t know where people get that crazy statistic. It’s probably 1-2% and I even have doubts about that.
Homosexuals are at the most 2% of the population; and most of them were molested when young. The 10% is a lie they made up. They even admitted it was a lie years ago, but it was worth lying to support their cause.
I don’t agree with it not being harmful either. It may not bother the child when they’re young, but as they get older...
For proof of the damage pedophiles do, I’d recommend the book “Kinsey: Crime and Consequences”. Their data on the innate sexuality of children was derived mostly by pedophiles - used to legitimize the sexual revolution, and now to justify pedophilia.