« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

David Frum and the Limits to Deviancy

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 11th, 2010 at 02:12 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

NewsReal Blog has done an investigative piece into one of its former writers. The writer, Alex Knepper, now writes for David Frum.

Alex Knepper is a 20 year old adult who wrote longingly of CHILF’s. You, like I, probably have no idea what that is. If you know what a MILF is (NSFW, but you can google it), substitute the “mother” for “child”.

What makes this relevant, despite its sordid nature, is NewsReal Blog having tipped off Frum to his employee’s behavior and other conservative sites giving this Alex Knepper character a forum. You’d like to think that had they known of his predilections, they would not.

Ironically, when I mentioned this on Twitter, the only people who spoke up in the guy’s defense were some of the more rabid socialists defending the guy’s “refreshingly unconventional conservatism,” which is to say he is not a conservative at all.

Beyond this being a derivative and foreseeably byproduct of sexualizing teens like Mylie Cyrus and the whole Bratz phenomenon, the problem we have here is people like David Frum giving a 20 year old who goes on a gay teen forum to engage in fantasies about sex with underage boys a forum to espouse views that Frum and others characterize as conservative or libertarian, thereby giving him a legitimacy no one should.

Exacerbating it is that Knepper argues in defense of himself that were he a 20 year old guy talking about sex with a 16 year old girl, no one would have a problem. First, he’s wrong. Second, he clearly discussed a desire to engage in sexual behavior with children under the age of sixteen — heck he made jokes about having sex with children under the age of ten. Third, this is what happens when we as a society keep accepting sexual behaviors that deviate from the norm to be considered normal.

Society begins sliding down all sorts of slippery slopes we shouldn’t. What’s not acceptable coming from straight males can’t become acceptable just because it’s coming from a homosexual male instead.

This, however, is a slide too far. (BE FOREWARNED IF YOU CLICK THIS LINK: IT IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK) You need to read this to understand just what we as a society are dealing with as we define deviancy as normal and what we deal with on a regular basis as pseudo-conservatives like David Frum give a forum to non-conservatives writing as conservatives who make jokes about having sex with eight and nine year old boys.

If we are to accept that Alex Knepper is 20 and therefore a kid, we should not treat this kid as any sort of authority on any vein of conservatism. If we accept he is an adult and we should engage on his thoughts, then we must recognize that his behavior is outside the bounds of acceptable conduct and he should not be rewarded while engaging in perverse behavior.

There is no place in normal society for this — no place at all.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://mrnewyorkcity.blogspot.com lifeofthemind

    This is your money quote;
    “What?s not acceptable coming from straight males can?t become acceptable just because it?s coming from a homosexual male instead.”

  • thomasalan

    I had a feeling he’d implode someday. The kid’s just too high strung. I was hoping he learned some humility after he blew up over the Bristol Palin thing, sadly I think he regained his footing a bit too quick on that one.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I’m just not allowed to write them here.

  • http://www.razshafer.com razshafer

    There’s no excuse for association with this kind of pervert.

  • JadedByPolitics

    thoroughly DISGUSTED! I believe anyone who knows me knows I believe that child sexual predators ought to be SHOT ON SIGHT!

  • msctex

    . . .it is easy to assume common sense and common decency would preclude certain attitudes. That there are some things civilized, sane people could not possibly say out loud, in mixed or any other sort of company. But what one quickly realizes, after one genuinely horrifying conversation too many, is that their notion of “wrong” is predicated upon the inviolable sanctity of the feelings of what we would consider the perpetrator, as opposed to anything whatsoever having to do with the victim. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the for-the-moment hypothetical victim, rather than acknowledge the possibility that someone’s feelings or predilections, no matter what they are, could be worth less than absolute respect, and equality with anyone else’s version thereof.

    My own experience with the aforementioned conversation involved a simpering caricature of his own brand of damage informing me that “All children are seductive.”

    I’ve always liked to think I could inherit a certain look of which my Father was capable, which I only saw a handful of times over the years. The person in question never spoke to me again, so I suppose it’s possible. But he said it almost proudly, knowing he was safe amongst his own, before moving away.

  • veritaseequitas

    disgusting, subnormal and immoral. It goes hand in hand with pedophilia. It amazes me that so many people who otherwise think rationally, would be so accepting of this kind of deviant behavior and try to help make it mainstream and acceptable.
    Both Knepper and Frum and people like them need to be pilloried, drawn and quartered, skinned alive – any or all.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    However you feel about it, most Homosexuals are not child molesters, and many heterosexuals are.

    What is wrong here is sexualizing teens, and even worse, pre-teens.

  • renny

    who was ordained by the Church under the mistaken 70s belief that homosexuals would pose no problem with celibacy because they wouldn’t be attracted to WOMEN.

    If it were an RC priest, well, then, the entire Christian religion should be condemned and dismantled and pilloried, yadda.

  • Doc Holliday

    I say we go after him November 4th. Our opponents are attacking us, focusing on the 3rd.

  • Tbone

    I have had the opportunity to work with gays guys because my industry has a lot of them. I have had employees who are gay and I have friends who are gay. I was also raised in a very conservative, fundamental Christian home and glad I was. Consequently, I am well aware of biblical teachings on the matter.

    However, what I have found is that the gays I have known exhibit an organic difference in the biological makeup. I am not talking about “swish” attributes but actual physical traits.

    This awareness has caused me to consider that their homosexuality is no more a choice for them than my heterosexuality was choice for me.

    As a heterosexual, I do consider that it would be disgusting and immoral for me to engage in their behavior. However, I can not bring myself to condemn them for their behavior as long as it is with other consenting adults. As to the this diary, I agree with Kyle8 below.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Ever.

    You will now apologize for doing so.

    Next post.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    in larger numbers in societies that celebrate same.

  • The_Rebel

    “organic difference in the biological makeup”, and how that would make homosexuality not a choice? Physical traits are things like height, weight, hair color, skin tone, birthmarks, nose shape, skin tone, etc. It would be news to the world if homosexuality were based upon these characteristics.

  • Tbone

    Hey, I can’t explain why I really lust for women so I can’t explain why they lust men. As long as they don’t try to change me, I figure I won’t try to change them.

  • rightwingmom52

    how do you explain the lust for children, animals or other deviant behavior? Where do you draw the line as to what is choice and what is not? What about the lust for violence?

    As for me, I believe God drew the line when he created man in his own image, set out specific guidelines in the Bible as to what is sin and what is not, and then left it for us to choose. Further, God punished Sodom & Gomorrah for their sins which included homosexuality and other sexual perversions. He would not have done so if they were innocent.

  • Tbone

    with pedophilia and bestiality. That was my original point.

    As for God and Sodom & Gomorrah, I suggest you review the conditions that God agreed to spare them. You will find that it was their total lack of righteousness and rejection of salvation that was their undoing, not their sins.

    The rejection of penitence is what is unforgivable by definition. This is why Christ referenced them when he was giving his disciples instructions on how to deal with communities where their message of salvation falls on deaf ears.

    Thankfully, God is willing to forgive us of our sins but he can’t forgive us for rejecting his salvation. This is the point of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah.

  • aesthete
  • aesthete

    homosexuality different from the other “urges” you list is that practicing homosexuality does not require injury to another party that has not asked for it, as pedophilia, violence, etc. do. That doesn’t necessarily make it correct behavior (I agree with mainstream biblical teachings on the issue), but it does distinguish it from those acts. To equate the two is to cheapen the evils that are pedophilia, rape, and violent sexual crimes. Not as important, but also not to be dismissed, is the fact that it legitimates the view that government “rescuing” us or “society” from itself is just as valid and moral as government protecting us from actual property or violent crimes (as well as justifying the repulsively condescending myth of false consciousness).

  • aesthete

    This idiot kvetches about conservative “exclusion” now, but when him and his buddies were on the up and up in the Bush administration, he was perfectly willing to exclude conservatives who weren’t 100% on OIF/OEF and the general WOT. Now he hypocritically whinges about conservative buttoned-up morality on an issue where any normal or even abnormal person could see major moral quandries. Can we please spare ourselves the misery of defending/arguing with FrumForum’s excrement by forevermore referring to him as a progressive or state fellator, rather than a “conservative”, “moderate”, “Burkean”, or any variation thereof?

  • radicalamericanpatriot

    when a pervert would be ran out of town on a rail. Or better yet xhe would have been physicall “branded ‘ as a potential child molester. And people wonder why there was so much opposition to rampant pornography of all forms; and back then who else but ACLU strongly supported even child pornography! Just like they NOW support NAMBLA’s publication of child rape instruction manuals.

    Why do Libertarians and Progressive/Marxists both support this pervert? Two distinctly different reasons

    Libertarians believe that ANYTHING an person chooses to do in a sexual nature is perfectly OK, because they are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Essentially Libertarians believe that every person is their own god/goddess. They don’t necessarily promote shoving it down other people’s throats, just that no one has a right to say what is right or wrong. Ckeck out their platform: http://lp.org/platform.

    The ACLU and its sponsoring groups like the Communist Party USA, have a more sinister intent. They are committed to degrading of Society, specifically by destroying our religious and moral values. The intent is to create chaos in our society leading to anarchy. From this anarchy will necessarily rise ‘order’, in the form of a totalitarian order, which of course is necessary for Socialism to be implemented. Don’t believe me? Study the history of Communism in the World!

  • dodiafae

    Do a bit of research, check the statistics. 1 in 6 boys are victims of sexual assault by their 18th birthday, while 1 in 3 girls are victims of sexual assault by their 18th birthday. With the vast majority of pedophiles/child predators being male, your “homosexuality goes hand-in-hand with pedophilia” claim doesn’t jive.

    Most homosexuals are only interested in relationships with other consenting adults. Pedophiles choose to victimize those who are weaker and easily manipulated. They don’t want someone who can fight back, so they go after children. It’s a crime of opportunity. While most pedophiles claim to have a preference for either girls or boys, or for specific age groups, they will deviate from these “preferences” if the opportunity presents itself. Many of them also have relationships with adults, which blows the “it’s a sexual orientation” claim out of the water.

    Not many gay men will have sex with a woman, even if the opportunity presented itself. Not many gay women would have sex with a man, even if the opportunity presented itself. Very few of either would have sex with a child, even if the opportunity presented itself. The ones that would are pedophiles, and it has nothing whatever to do with their being homosexual… not any more than the heterosexual adult’s pedophilia has anything to do with their being heterosexual.

    Think whatever you want about homosexuality, but get your facts straight about pedophilia, because your efforts are backfiring. In other words, if you’re intent is to perpetuate homophobia, it’s not working. When people like you make these unfounded arguments, you’re only helping the pro-pedophile activists to desensitize society to their depravity.