Why do Queer-phobic people tend to be accepting of pedophilia, statutory rape, and general SA?
Why do Queer-phobic people tend to be accepting of pedophilia, statutory rape, and general SA?
Even when they’re not doing it/projecting, they’ll still support an environment for it.
I mean, look at like how in the 90s-00s, you see teens getting sexualized 24/7, but having a consensual same-sex relationship in media crosses the line.
Look at all those drama films and subplots that romanticize adults grooming teenagers.
Or for another thing, look at how Rowling in the Harry Potter series acts like rape and sexual assault are harmless jokes, even as far as painting Merope as an innocent victim.
Not to mention, even when Trump is exposed for the inappropriate behavior and allegations, people still voted for him, and it gets gross and disturbing when you realize people find him relatable…
Even when you take out the gender double standard, at the end of the day a poor kid is getting molested and raped by an older predator, whether it be a girl getting picked up by a older creepy dude or a “lucky” boy getting it from a creepy older woman.
And before you bring up the 70's French excuse (they saw them as the same thing), just remember that they’ll still immediately go to pedophilia first.
Only a few days ago, a member of the Heritage foundation came out as transgender. Their collegues at the Heritage Foundation congratulated her - which would be a non-event if the Heritage Foundation wasn't the one think tank which pushes queerphobic and transphobic propaganda like no other.
That makes no sense, right? Why would the employees of one of the most transphobic propaganda machines out there accept the gender transition of anyone?
As paradoxical as it may seem on the surface, it's because queer-/transphobia is not principle by itself. It is only a piece of a larger puzzle that ultimately follows Wilhoit's law:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
The in-group cannot do wrong. Period.
So who belongs to the in-group? Of course, the loyalists of the right-wing and whoever they consider to be one of their own (that may be subject to change, if you aren't loyal enough to the cause). Loyalty to the cause represents moral righteousness.A trans employee at a transphobic propaganda machine? In-group! So it's fine. A rapist in the White House? In-group! No problem.
Sexual abusers in the police? In-group! No biggie!But everybody who doesn't belong to the in-group (however vaguely it may be defined) needs to be controlled and oppressed by the harshest of laws. They are disloyal, therefore they cannot be moral and righteous, they have to be immoral and therefore deserve punishment.
Queer-/Transphobia is one way how that conviction manifests: It is the accusation that the behavior of queer people (outside the in-group) is inherently immoral because these people cannot be moral. If they were, they would belong to the in-group after all, but they don't, so whatever hatred one shows them is justified.