So much for promoting safety for gay youth. It turns out that GLSEN’s reading list has some unexpected supporters, and by unexpected I mean just what I and others have predicted.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, my relationship with “anti” blogs like Absolute Zero United and groups like Pagans Against Child Abuse has made me privy to a little known world that many readers are blissfully unaware of – the online pro-pedophile movement.  There are a series of forums populated by both anonymous pedophiles and registered sex offenders that promote the idea that adults should be able to molest children and collect child porn. It is, to them, the fascism of people like me that “oppresses” pedophiles who they claim are a sexual minority like homosexuals.

One of the most repellent of these sites is a forum called Annabelleigh.net which is often referred to as “girl chat” because it is a forum dedicated to men who want to have sex with little girls. There is a brother site for it known as “boy chat” that is known to have been the online stomping grounds for several pedophiles that were later arrested. Of interest to any person who has fallen for their self-pitying claptrap about pedophiles being born with an unpopular orientation is that both sites share many members, including some of the most vile and dangerous child predators you could imagine. At one time the webmaster of  “boy chat” was fugitive Jon Schillaci whose activities there, under the name Dylan Thomas, led to his arrest by authorities.

GLSEN’s portrayal of the sexual exploitation of children by adults as at worst benign but in many cases an integral part of the coming of age of gay men has, as you can imagine, garnered much empathy from these online degenerates. I was sent a link to an older conversation on Annabelleigh.net in which several pedophiles discuss their support for GLSEN:

As readers can see this thread is from two months ago, when the “girl chat” perverts were passing around a GLSEN school survey which put forward the idea that gay youth were victimized and needed help and support. The Annabelleigh.net community were eager to drum up support including sending it’s online army of rapists directly to GLSEN to donate:

I would suspect that no gay youth needs the kind of help and support people known to rape children would give. The pedophile who was passing around this study was Russell Thomas Kinkade who is a “boy lover” as well as a “girl chat” member. The stereotypical dirty old man, Kinkade tries hard to present his depravity as a sexual orientation but his writings, and his criminal record, clearly show that his interest is not so much a homosexual attraction to young males as a desire to indulge in perversions with any available child. He has gone on record as saying he finds infants sexually attractive.

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation and men who wish to have sex with male children are not homosexuals. GLSEN presents adults who prey on children as “gay” and part of the gay experience. This is dangerous.

GLSEN has been defended by many groups, most notably Media Matters, who claim that anyone’s concern with this group’s vision of child sexuality is merely homophobia or prudishness. But GLSEN is not representing homosexuality any more than Annabelleigh.net is representative of heterosexuality. One need not be a prude to find GLSEN’s programs disturbing (as the comments on this Media Matters posts prove) but you have to be willfully blind or tremendously naive to not see the danger in GLSEN’s hyper-sexualized promotions of unsafe sex and child exploitation by supposedly gay adults.

And I say “supposedly gay” because the truth is that gay men are attracted to men, not children. The idea that children as young as 12 or 13 are attractive to the average homosexual is like saying heterosexuals are attracted to little girls. No education program would dare claim that adult men having sexual encounters with 13-year-old girls who were cruising bathrooms was acceptable or empowering, but GLSEN’s reading list promotes just that idea for young gay males. Why?

Who benefits from children being told that part of being gay is having unprotected sex with random men? I put forward that you only need to look at what pedophiles are saying about GLSEN to know who are the real beneficiaries of their “degenerate’s blueprint” of teen sexuality.

Like De Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom, GLSEN’s reading list is defended by those who intellectualize the material but don’t truly understand it. It is Russell Kinkade and his ilk who truly understand the message GLSEN is giving to children and thus support the organization and the educational program GLSEN has developed. Media Matters and the other defenders of GLSEN are happily unaware of the danger their perfidy puts children in, or at least that is what we hope.

So I ask those who support GLSEN one simple question: Why do pedophiles support GLSEN? I think the answer is obvious.