I discovered a new word this week: ‘louche’. Just in case you hadn’t heard of it before either, according to the online dictionary, it’s an adjective which means to, “be disreputable or sordid in a rakish or appealing way.” What is becoming increasingly clear, though, is that justification for this type of behaviour has already started to find its way into our academic establishments where established moral norms are consistently challenged.
Take for instance this TED Talk by Mirjam Heine, University of Würzburg, arguing that ‘Pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation’.
Heine is by no means alone in her views. Just note the relatively recent conference at none other than the University of Cambridge. According to The Telegraph (UK), the following statement by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, “…was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered … to many of the key experts in the field.” Tromovitch said:
Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males … At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.
Incredibly, this kind of view is also being surreptitiously espoused here in Australia. As Gary Dowsett, Professor/Deputy Director, Chair in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne—the institution that gave us Safe Schools—has written in, Boiled Lollies and Band-Aid’s: Gay Men and Kids:
Many mothers and some fathers will agree that children are sexual and generate sexual responses in their parents. Cuddling, breastfeeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and fondling kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and for us. And it is not uncommon to feel sexually aroused by that closeness, that touch and that love. How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover? From all their accounts and from many academic studies (some worse than others), that kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophile relationship.
It seems unbelievable—especially in the light of the Royal Commission into Institution Responses into Child Sexual Abuse—but it seems that paedophilia is becoming more and more mainstream. Sadly, there was a huge push for its acceptance in the 1970s, but now that marriage has been redefined it seems to have definitely come back on to the agenda and shows no sign of abating. As David Robertson, the UK social commentator argues:
For some reason in the late 1970s when our culture was rapidly heading down the road towards making paedophilia acceptable, it suddenly became the great sin. I have suggested for a few years that after SSM, it would be Transgender and then the removal of gender altogether (this is all classic Queer Theory) and that this would then be followed by polyamory, polygamy, incest and then paedophilia. People think the latter especially is unlikely. I don’t agree. The way it will happen is for paedophilia first of all to be defined as an illness and a sexuality. Then in popular culture we will gradually get ‘Lolita’ stories seeking to make a sympathetic ‘non-judgemental’ case…
The story of ‘Lolita’ might be too much like ‘Godwin’s Law’ for some. But there are many other unambiguous examples of what Robertson is referring to as well. For instance, while I’ve never seen the film myself, isn’t this precisely the kind of situation portrayed by the then twelve-year-old (!) Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby (1978)? If you don’t know what I’m referring to then just read the ‘parent’s guide’ on IMDB. And what’s going on with the whole homoerotic subtext of Foxtel’s latest version of Picnic at Hanging Rock? Especially when it involves a lesbian romance between a schoolgirl and her female teacher…or maybe that was just one of the modules out of the previous ‘Safe Schools’ curriculum?
What’s more, this is all horrifyingly similar to what the daughters of the radically left-leaning feminist Dorothy Hewett, experienced in their family home which they described as being like a “brothel without payment”. Not necessarily between themselves and their parents—as Dowsett encourages—but between the many adult guests and visitors whom their mother, in particular, encouraged to have sex with, even while they were still legally under-age. As The Weekend Australian revealed:
A prominent writer has revealed that playwright and feminist Dorothy Hewett asked him at a 1970s conference: “Aren’t you going to f..k my daughters?”…
Then aged in his 30s, the writer told Hewett: “I’m not interested in f..king children.’’ To which Hewett replied: “You’re the only one around here who isn’t.’’
Finally, after nearly two weeks since the extraordinary acts of decadence by Hewett were revealed, the ABC has now decided that this was a subject that was actually worth reporting. And, significantly, ‘louche’ is precisely the term that Kate Lilley, Hewett’s daughter, uses to describe her experience. As their article states:
Kate Lilley says her mother encouraged the teenagers to have sex with some of those visitors.
“She really believed that she was doing something great for us by involving us in this adult, rather louche world,” she says.
But if you want to have a deeper understanding of the sexual swamp from which a lot of this came, you really need to go back in Australian history, to the 1940s-70s, and in particular, the infamous libertine and left-wing intellectual movement known as ‘The Sydney Push’. Helen Trinca authored a very good analysis in The Weekend Australian, exploring how “the freedom of the sexual revolution” could have become so “deeply distorted in this bohemian household” and asking:
How could this have happened? How to comprehend such awful parenting from an intelligent, middle-class mother, even one who openly touted her love of sex? Could sexual mores have been so different back then that this was seen as unusual but not outlandish? Do we need to put the events in the context of the times?
Part of Trinca’s answer is that due to the invention of the contraceptive pill, feminism had now become weaponised sexually. But the result was, rather than bring women a greater degree of freedom and protection, it meant that some lecherous men often engaged in sexual liaisons with girls below the age of legal consent.
While I realise that those on the right are far from blameless, it seems that those on the Left are especially zealous in redefining traditional sexual and social mores. This can even be traced back to famous socialist luminaries such as John Curtin. And with that in mind, ‘louche’ is a term we should all make ourselves familiar with because it’s precisely where Western Civilisation is heading unless someone stands up and is willing to speak out against it.
Mark Powell is the Associate Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, Strathfield.
Illustration: Seven Arts/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.