You know that notorious slippery slope that sexual anarchists mockingly dismiss as a figment of conservatives’ hysterical imaginations? Surely, you remember when conservatives argued that public approval of homoeroticism would lead ineluctably to public approval of other forms of sexual deviance. Well, here we are slip-slidin’ down that phantasmagorical slope all greased up with deviant sexuality.

“Trans”-cultism is ubiquitous, poisoning our professional medical and mental health communities; our public libraries; our schools, and children’s bodies.

Public school teachers in metaphorical trench coats eye five-year-old children with bad intent and throw hissy fits if they can’t teach children that sodomy is making America great.

Polyamory—known euphemistically as “consensual non-monogamy”—is spreading like gangrene on the necrotic tissues of a dying marriage ethos.

Sensing the softened ground, seeded and watered by boundary-free sexual libertines, creeps who feast on the flesh of minors and call it “intergenerational love” or “Minor Attraction,” are poking their ugly heads up in dark alleys, TED Talks, and cartoons. Diverse incarnations of “Minor Attraction,” including pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), hebephilia (sexual attraction to pubescent children ages 11-14), and ephebophilia (sexual attraction to mid to late adolescents, ages 15-19), will be showing up more and more, just as hebephilia did in the original version of The Vagina Monologues.

Incest is not far behind. What’s my evidence, you ask? My evidence is that the left has given it a name: “Genetic Sexual Attraction.” For now, this phenomenon is defined as a strong sexual attraction between relatives who meet for the first time as adults, but how long will it be before relatives raised together will start ruminating on whether they would like to have sex with their siblings or parents? Remember, “love is love,” and ideas have consequences.

And the next nightmare we see on our careering hurtle down the slope is bestiality, renamed “zoophilia” and “zoosexuality.” Kathy Rudy, Duke University Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies authored a scholarly essay titled “LGBTQ … Z,” for which she provides this abstract:

In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism.

In a trenchant critique of the dangerous ideas of Rudy, Dr. Devin Jane Buckley, points out that Rudy “seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs.”

Rudy writes,

Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I’m having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?

Leftists no longer know how to define “woman” or “sex.” And these are the people who want to teach the nation’s children about sexuality.

Rudy explains how queer theory has advanced social acceptance of bestiality:

Put differently, both animal rights and psychosocial perspectives [which view desire for animals as mental illness] do not believe that borders can be crossed. Queer theory, on the other hand, tells us that few of us have stable identities anymore, that borders are always crossed. We’re all changing, shifting, splitting ourselves up this way and that. It labels these processes ‘hailing,’ ‘suturing,’ and ‘interpolation’; where once we saw ourselves affiliated in one way, a new interpretive community emerges to capture our passions and move us differently. I am asking the reader to entertain the possibility that the same kinds of shifts and disruptions happen with categories like ‘human,’ ‘rabbit,’ ‘ape,’ or ‘dog.’

There you have it: bestiality, the new transgressive identity slowly emerging from the slimy goo pooling at the bottom of the fictitious slope.

Alexis Tsoulis-Reay, writer for New York Magazine’s The Cut, has twice written about a married man who has a “zoosexual” relationship with his horse. Her first article was “What’s it Like to Date a Horse?” In her follow-up article, “About That Interview I Did with a Zoophile,” just published a month ago, Tsoulis-Reay described her anger when a friend characterized the man into bestiality as having a “horse fetish”:

When one of my friends, an attorney who is married and straight, asked me how my “horse fetish” reporting was going, my first thought was, STFU, you normative bitch! I was genuinely annoyed that she’d described his entire sexual identity as a kink. “It’s a sexuality, not a fetish!” I earnestly texted back to her in all caps.

Leftists invented the idea of “authentic identity,” conflating all phenomena that are associated with or affirmed by an individual as integral parts of authentic identity and beyond moral judgment. Fetishes will become “authentic identities.” Moral disapproval of fetishistic “identities” will become hate speech. Fetishistic “identities” will develop political lobbies that will insist that their fetishes are “sexual orientations,” and voilà, fetishes will become protected under existing anti-discrimination laws.

Here are two of the leftist claims that applied consistently helped create the non-fallacious slippery slope:

1.) Marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential, thereby nullifying the requirement that marriage be limited to two people or to people not closely related by blood.

2.) “Love is love,” thereby nullifying any restrictions, taboos, or prohibitions related to erotic relationships. If love is love, then who’s to say the love between adult siblings or men and horses is wrong. Some leftists argue that it’s wrong to have sex with animals because animals can’t consent. But that hardly seems a rational justification for prohibiting sex with, for example, cows since cows can’t consent to be caged, owned, branded, or eaten, which seem far more onerous than being sexually penetrated, and humans perform all of those acts.

While conservatives have been gullibly playing Candyland, sexual anarchists have been playing chess. Sexual anarchists have strategy; conservatives have strategery. The strategery of Christians in America is notable for its lack of discernment, lack of spine, and a bloated desire to be both in and of the world. Pallid, neutered “niceness,” severed from an understanding of sin has supplanted the love of Christ.

The slippery slope exists all right, but it’s not surprising that the “love is love” crowd can’t see it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Its-All-Downhill-When-Fetish-Becomes-Identity.mp3

---

During Holy week, a manifestly unholy thing was revealed about actress Charlize Theron. It was revealed that she’s pretending along with her 7-year-old son Jackson that he is a girl. Theron permits him to dress in distinctly female clothes, wear his hair in long braids, and refers to him as “her,” declaring he is “every bit as much a girl as her three-year-old sister.” Well, except for those pesky scientific realities like his penis and every cell of his body which declares his male DNA.

Theron made this astoundingly foolish statement:

Yes, I thought she was a boy…. Until she looked at me when she was three years old and said: “I am not a boy!”

A fatherless 3-year-old boy says he’s not a boy, Theron believes him or pretends to believe him, and the state doesn’t remove him from her home?

The government conducts extensive background checks, home inspections, and interviews to determine parental fitness, because the government has a role in protecting both the rights of individuals as well as the public good. Today we have a government that not only allows parents to facilitate the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of their children but mandates that adoption agencies place children only in homes that will permit such grotesque abuse.

Theron doesn’t explain exactly how she knows her son’s perception that he’s not a boy proves he’s a not boy, nor does she explain why he dresses in pink tutus since the Left tells us pink tutus have nothing to do with femaleness. Isn’t Theron reinforcing arbitrary and destructive stereotypes through his clothing and hairstyle requests?

How did we get to this cultural low point in which both elected leaders and unaccountable government bureaucrats have concluded children have neither a need to accept their biological reality or the right to be raised by parents who will help them accept and love their biological reality?

The factors and forces are many, but the primary two are that we “have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,” and that “progressives” have gained control of all the large cultural institutions that shape public life. Now that they’ve achieved dominion over our large cultural institutions, they are moving on to the greener pastures of our mediating cultural institutions. Mediating institutions are,

“those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life.” They help bridge the gap between each of us and the overarching society that we live in.

The two mediating structures over which “progressives” have not yet gained total control are the family and the church, but they’re working like the devil to control those. Nothing delights “progressives” quite like the prospect of using power to quash parental rights, intellectual diversity, and the First Amendment.

The arrogance and ignorance of Leftists who control one of our large cultural institutions—the one by which “progressives” will capture the mediating institutions of family and church, thereby securing  their iron-grip on the larger institutions—is exposed in a short video of Kerrie Torres, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services in the Brea Olinda Unified School District in California who was recently asked why the school is teaching high school freshmen about pedophilia and pederasty.

Torres answers,

This is done because we are discussing historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history. This is something that’s occurred in history, so this is really important to include.

Astonishing. She unashamedly admits teaching other people’s children about pederasty on the public dime, and in the process tacitly admits her belief that pederasty is a “sexual orientation.” Do Torres and her colleagues—you know, the people parents entrust to train up their children in the way they should go—really think it’s “important” for 14-year-olds or any other adolescent to learn about pederasty, which is anal intercourse between an adult man and a younger boy, usually an adolescent boy who serves as the “passive” partner?

Many believe pederasty is a form of pedophilia. Those people are unaware of the finer distinctions the sexually perverse among us make between different forms of perversion. “Chronophilias” are age-related sexual attractions, such as pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia—terms that signify the age of children that arouse the sexual interest of adults. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children as their victims. Hebephiles like their victims to have reached puberty but not be too old, so 11-14 is their target group. Ephebophiles are fond of minors in later adolescence, preying on 15-19-year-olds.

Many “progressives” claim that “sexual orientation” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) is limited to sexual attraction between adult humans, which is how they get away with saying, for example, that men who prey exclusively on young teen boys are not homosexual. They assert that if an adult is not sexually attracted to adults, he has no sexual orientation, therefore, men who like only boys are not homosexual because homosexuality is a sexual orientation—which they don’t have. Got it?

But there are already some who believe “chronophilias” should be considered “sexual orientations,” which is what Torres seems to think. In the service of slowly normalizing yet another form of sexual deviance, they’ve renamed pedophilia “minor attraction,” and view it as a natural “sexual orientation” that ought not be stigmatized.

A 2013 article in the LA Times reports that

pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition—limited almost entirely to men—that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Who believes the current exclusion of hebephilia and ephebophilia from the list of sexual orientations will endure, and why should it? If, as the Left claims, “love is love,” isn’t age an arbitrary, socially-constructed, exclusionary limitation?

To conceal from scrutiny the next phase of the sexual devolution, Leftists huff indignantly that they would never sanction “minor attraction” because minors can’t offer consent. But how long will it be before “progressives” argue that 14-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and even 12-year-olds are, indeed, capable of offering meaningful consent. After all, if they are old enough to consent to an abortion or to be euthanized (as they are in Belgium where a 9- and 11-year-old chose to be euthanized), aren’t they old enough to consent to sex?

Moreover, many homosexuals believe not all sexual encounters between adults and minors are abusive. Many argue they’re even beneficial. Milo Yiannopoulis got himself into hot water for admitting what many homosexuals believe, which is that he was not harmed by his sexual interactions as a young teen with an adult man. Eve Ensler, lesbian and author of the infamous Vagina Monologues, wrote a scene about “sexual healing” between a 13-year-old girl and an adult woman—a scene she was forced to change due to public opposition. She changed the teen’s age to 16. Can’t have the public learning the unsavory truth about the homosexual community—yet.

In every society throughout history and across cultures that has accepted homosexuality, the dominant form it assumes is between an adult male and a pubescent boy. As more Americans become blinded to the wickedness of homosexuality or unwilling to accept the persecution that will come to those who speak truth about it, expect to see the Left clamoring to lower the age of consent.

Researcher Michael Seto, Forensic Research Director at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, calls  chronophilias “sexual orientations for age.” He explains that “up to 1 percent of men” experience pedophilia, which makes it perhaps twice as common as “transgenderism.” Pedophilic men say their enduring attraction began very early in life, and research suggests brain differences between pedophilic men’s brains and non-pedophilic men’s brains.

Aren’t these the same factors (i.e., age of emergence of attraction, intractability of attraction, and brain chemistry) that Leftists use to justify cultural approval of homosexuality?

Interestingly, Seto thinks that chronophilic sexual orientations are developmental errors:

I think chronophilias are the result of errors in age detection, where heterosexual male preferences for youth cues… are not offset by sexual maturity cues…. For pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, the youthfulness cues dominate.

This raises the question, why is no one permitted to examine whether a homosexual orientation—long known to be fluid—could be the result of some type of cue errors perhaps resulting from environmental factors?

Another question arises: Why should Torres stop at chronicling the chronophilia of pederasty for students. Since zoophilia has existed throughout history and since some view it as a sexual orientation, isn’t it equally important to have students study it?

In a study published in 2005 titled “Is zoophilia a sexual orientation,” researcher Hani Miletski wrote,

It was found that some people  (the majority of the participants in the current study) have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to animals—three components that describe sexual orientation. The current study further reveals that the majority of its participants reported being happy and not wanting to stop having sex with animals.

Why should speciesism—that is, “prejudice or discrimination based on species especially discrimination against animals”—be allowed to limit love and the definition of “sexual orientation”? There are people who identify as zoophiles. They not only enjoy sex with animals but feel affection for them. They too have existed throughout history. Torres should be chomping at the bit to teach teens about the love of man for horses.

The danger of including “sexual orientation” to antidiscrimination policies and laws should by now be obvious to all.

Two worldviews are colliding with cataclysmic results. The worldview shaped by historical Christianity views the world as a place purposefully created by God with a physical and moral reality, both of which are corrupted by the Fall. We need guidance to live rightly, and we rebel against God’s created order and guidance at our own temporal and eternal peril.

The alternative worldview shaped by worship of fallen man views the world as a place of randomness and purposelessness that self-creation and satiation of temporal desires provides the only meaning we can hope to find.

Theron expressed that vitiated and attenuated view when she said this about her children:

They were born who they are, and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up and who they want to be, is not for me to decide. My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be.

Neither Theron nor other “progressives” have a clue about the job of parents or the needs of children.

As America descends into spiritual, moral, and intellectual chaos, the first victims are children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/When-Worlds-Collide-3.mp3

---

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Anyone who missed our introductory article in this series click here. The full series is found here.

What the heck is hebephilia? At times it can be difficult to keep over 500 paraphilias straight, since so many of them run together. Heaven forbid that we confuse any of this — the spelling and/or the age brackets.

A recent post at BarbWire included this line:

Pedophilia…also spelled paedophilia; often confused with hebephilia, ephebophilia, and pederasty.

The efforts to break down common sense moral barriers is being chronicled on this website, and in an article published at BarbWire, “Promoting Pedophilia,” contributor Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Andrew Gilligan has written an important piece looking very closely at the attempt to make paedophilia fully normal and acceptable. He begins:

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Was this statement from some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties era of abusive celebrities or the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Was it made by an anonymous commenter on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made last July. It was made as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organizers, to key experts at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Muehlenberg also notes this:

Says Gilligan, “After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated.”

That sure sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Let’s get to our paraphilias for today — today we’re lopping a few together for the sake of time.

These definitions are from our old friends at Wikipedia*:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents who are 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19), and differs from pedophilia,which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria).

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys.

Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) “love of boys”, a compound derived from παῖς (pais) “child, boy” and ἐραστής (erastēs) “lover”.

It’s who they are, right? It’s about love, isn’t it?

That’s enough for today. As promised, click here to read through our important list of questions. Just fill in the blanks with today’s paraphilias and put on your thinking cap.

In the meantime, join us next when we’ll take a look at another paraphilia. If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

* Author’s note: The above definitions are now 3 years old — if you’d like to compare the 2013 versions with the 2017, I encourage you to do so. Wikipedia, with its Leftist bent, is always trying to refine and lessen the ridiculousness of all of the paraphilia’s definitions.

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

---

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-