Tag Archives: Homosexuality

Male Physical Intimacy

In their continuing efforts to destroy itself, Cracked has an article up on being in the closet while in other countries. It’s a low effort post consisting of 5 “facts” that are mostly blindingly obvious (Some geographic spaces have people more accepting of homosexuality than people from other geographic spaces! Surprising!) and a complete absence of humour. But there was one thing in it I wanted to comment on (aside from it being just another note on Cracked’s continued decline).

In Botswana, it’s customary for men to hold hands while chatting and walking. (No, the irony of such a homophobic country being filled with men skipping down the street holding hands was not lost on me.)

This is not irony. It is in fact the definitional opposite of irony, it is exactly what you’d expect.

These men are friends, engaging in male bonding. Touch is and always has been and important part of bonding and there is absolutely nothing implicitly homoerotic about men engaging in physical male bonding. In past, intimate physical contact between men was normal, and in other parts of the world that have not been homoeroticized it still is.

Take a look at this picture (one of a hundred similar ones from Art of Manliness):

Are these guys gay? Probably not. Yet it probably looks gay to you. In a healthy culture, intimate physical contact between men is normal and healthy. There would be nothing untoward or sexual about this, it’s just some friends hanging out. In our homoeroticized culture, this  kind of intimate contact between males is gay. We can see this difference from the Cracked article:

I didn’t even have to hide my boyfriend, whom I met at the gay underground party. He came to visit me for a weekend in my tiny village, and no one seemed to notice or suspect anything unusual about two dudes quietly holing up in a house together and sweating a lot. They must be great friends who love to work out!

As was pointed out in the Way of Men, men want to be recognized as masculine, as men within their gang who have attained the masculine virtues. Gays are effeminate, not masculine, and exist outside the gang. Normal men don’t want to be seen as effeminate or gay as this represents a failure to attain manhood and puts one outside of the gang.

In a “homophobic” society were homosexuality is proscribed, men can be physically and emotionally intimate with each other without being gay, because this intimacy is simply a normal, close friendship. So King David can say of his best friend:

“Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.

And it’s not gay, because it isn’t gay. A man can have and signal intimacy with other men without it signalling gayness, because homosexuality doesn’t exist outside the occasional condemnation in a religious sermon. Male intimacy is normalized.

But, in a society where homosexuality is normalized as an accepted alternative lifestyle, and homosexuals publicly display their sexual proclivities through displays of intimacy, you can no longer safely display intimacy. If you do, there is a significant chance that other men around you will think you are signalling gayness, you will lose your masculinity. Through this, homoeroticism colonizes male intimacy. When homosexuality becomes normalized, male intimacy becomes denormalized.

In a gay society, you can not be homosocially intimate without being gay.

There are some modern attempts to bring non-sexual male intimacy back into normalcy. Both bromance and no homo try to explicitly counter-signal hetorosexuality and masculinity while engaging in male intimacy. But even then, our society is so gay that bromance is seen as “an increasing openness of society in the twenty-first century to reconsider gender, sexuality, and exclusivity constraints” rather than an attempt by young men to close the gaping spiritual and emotional wound that the lack of intimate male friendship has left in their hearts. These attempts have mostly failed.

In a non-gay society, you could slap your friend on the ass after the game, and walk to the showers with your arms around him. In our gay society, this sounds gay to you (and to me) because male intimacy has been colonized by homosexuality. This is one vague, virtually invisible, unquantifiable harm the homosexual movement has done to the majority.

Normalization

You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.

Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.

So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.

The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.

Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.

Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 80–90’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.

Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.

Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.

What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.

Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.

You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.

The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.

If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.

****

Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.

On Homosexuals

I had a conversation with Anissimov, Bayne, and Mandrake on homosexuals. So I thought I’d write some.

Obviously, homosexuality is a sin and a perversion. That’s clear in the Bible. A man committing homosexual acts or lusts should stop, repent, and fall on the mercy of Christ.

On a societal level, ideally, homosexuality would be illegal, but the social mores and laws would make the privacy of individuals and the ability of police intrusion into the home and workplace so constrained that unless men were riding each other on the side of the street, nobody would get arrested for it. In fact, this is my position on most degeneracies, be it drugs, pornography, drunkenness, masturbation, gambling, prostitution, etc. Technically illegal, but as long as you keep it private there’s no way you could get charged..

This is not because I hate homosexuals (or johns or druggies or gamblers, etc.), but because it is what it best for society as a whole and for homosexuals. For society, these sorts of degeneracies tear at the edges of civilization: civilization is the family and sexuality is meant to bring husband and wife together to produce families and civilization.

For homosexuals, this behaviour is self-destructive. I don’t really have to explain the prevalence of AID’s and STD’s. But even just beyond the physical problems, the acceptance of this behaviour is psychologically destructive. I wrote on identity recently, when homosexuality is publicly accepted, as it is now, a homosexual can’t just be a guy who privately has sex other men, he must be out of the closet displaying his pride. It’s not that disconcerting, at least on a societal level, that some men like sticking their dicks in other men’s anuses, but what is is that these men base their identity, their sense of self, their spiritual sense of place, around the fact that they take hedonic pleasure is sticking their dicks in other men’s anuses. This is the true personal horror of the homosexual movement, that it pushes men into reducing themselves to their base hedonic tastes rather than identifying themselves with something more valuable.

(As for those who argue homosexual “marriage” will tame these effects, most don’t get married and most homosexual “marriages” are open. So, the impact is minimal, if it even exists.)

On a personal level, as I’ve written of clinical pedophiles, being predisposed to a particular sin is just a predisposition, and I don’t judge people for thought crime. As for friendships with homosexuals, I’ve answered this on Ask.fm before, it depends on their beliefs and how they go about it. If they are non-Christian I wouldn’t care as long as they kept it to themselves and weren’t annoyingly ‘flamboyant’ or creepy about it; Christ hung-out with degenerates. If they were Christian it would depend on their position: if they accepted it was sinful and were struggling with temptation I would support them and nothing would change. If they started to accept it as non-sinful I would cut Christian fellowship with them (after requisite admonitions). Although, I may still hang out with them in secular contexts (given the earlier caveats on flamboyancy), although, I’m not sure on this.

This is not entirely theoretical. When I was younger, I had a Christian friend come out as gay. At first, nothing really changed; he accepted that gay sex was sinful. Sadly, he slowly went down the dark path of acceptance. He let his whole identity get wrapped up in his homosexuality, to the point it was probably his main identity and he was alienating himself from others. He then started saying it wasn’t the sin. It got to the point where the friendship ended more or less mutually (he lost a number of other friends around the same time). He is the only gay I’ve ever really known.

In regards to (neo)reaction, I have no problems with a person who has predisposition and resists it being a part of, or even a leader in, (neo)reaction (assuming they didn’t act effeminate). Someone who is acting on a predisposition it can not be a leader, but as long as they aren’t promoting it, aren’t letting it taint their work, aren’t causing other troubles, and are keeping it private, I wouldn’t necessarily boot or shun them. For example, I read and respect Jack Donovan, despite his homosexuality, because he mostly keeps it to himself. I didn’t even know he was gay until some time after I had already read his work. I still wouldn’t follow him though.

Anybody who is trying to turn (neo)reaction pro-gay or is trying to normalize homosexuality should be immediately booted. There is a difference between tolerating or over-looking a personal degeneracy and accepting or promoting said degeneracy. The line can not be crossed.

As for working with those outside (neo)reaction I am willing to make limited alliances with useful homosexuals, just as I am willing to make limited alliances with anybody useful. An example mentioned was Milo. He’s not a close ally and I wouldn’t trust him elsewhere, I would consider him a loose ally on the issues of Gamergate and Sad Puppies, which may include linking to or retweeting him on that issue and trying to avoid attacking him unnecessarily.

So, there it is. My current thoughts on homosexuality.

Broken Identity

At this point you’re probably aware of the alphabet soup that sexual identity has become. LGBT has been replaced by LGBTQIA, while others are rolling in even deeper distinction, such as the unintentionally hilarious acronym, LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM being used by Wesleyan University. Facebook has 56 different gender identity options, but even FB’s heroic attempts at inclusivity doesn’t include an array of other identities covering every possible combination of sexuality possible and ignores that special magic known as otherkin. Then of course there’s an slew of other identities that aren’t even sexual, (I think), such transable, transfat, and the hilarious transnigger.

And you thought I was joking.

 

Certain segments of young people tend to take these identities and run with them for all they are worth. Most of us have come across an insane Tumblr profile of someone listing off a half-dozen different identities to which they hold and demanding people address them by the ‘proper’ pronouns. Here’s a sample list of some of them, and, if the rabbit-hole really interests you, here’s a guide to creating your own personalized pronoun.

https://twitter.com/FoolishReporter/status/602933607875780608

It is easy to laugh at all this craziness, but this trend of extreme self-identification points to something much deeper than a few troubled individuals. This letter to Ask Amy illustrates nicely:

However, I was never very open about my sexual orientation. I felt like I always knew, but at the same time I didn’t know how to figure it out.

When I was 17 I went to a party; there was a girl there I liked, but she came with a guy. At some point, she came over and just started kissing me and it was like magic. Then the guy came over. It turns out she wasn’t interested in me, but was doing something he had talked her into.

That was my only experience with another woman — but I know I’m bisexual. I came out at school to some friends, but no one took it seriously. I even came out to my family — but my mom is the only one that took it seriously.

I have been in a relationship now with a man for a year and a half. I love him, but I feel like a part of me is missing. Turning 20 is a wake-up for me. I’m figuring out what I want to do in my life (and friends are getting married). The guy I’m with takes my confession of being bi as, “You’re just bi-curious.”

I’m thinking about asking if we could take a break so that I can try and find myself, but I’m terrified that if I do the door will close entirely. Should I “come out” again and hope I’ll be taken seriously and that he’ll support me?

Here’s a girl whose sole lesbian experience is a single meaningless kiss at a party and who’s in a serious relationship with a man, but still feels compelled to identify as bisexual, even to the point of destroying her relationship to experiment. The key to the whole issue is that she feels a part of her is missing and she wants her identity taken seriously.

A key need of man is identity. His identity informs him as to who he is, but man is a social animal, so who he is almost entirely a function of his social relations. He cannot create his identity in isolation. Once developed, his identity exists as a spiritual sense of place telling him where he belongs in the world and how he relates with the people around them.

A key part of growing up is developing this identity, finding out who you are. A mature adult has discovered and established his identity; he might further develop, refine, or even alter his identity, but he has a secure sense of his place in the world.  (There is a reason listening to 40-year-olds talk about finding themselves is disgusting, it is an aberrant and unhealthy infantalization of themselves).

The proper time for developing this identity is early adulthood, what we now call adolescence. A child’s identity, his spiritual sense of place, is not something that really exists as independent of his parents, he is basically a cypher of his parents. It is early adulthood where his he really begins to form his own independent identity.

In a healthy society, identity formation is a relatively straightforward process. You belong to you family, you adopt the faith, ideology, and history of your thede, to a greater or lesser extent, you become economically productive and contribute to society, you find a spouse get married and have children, you make a few friends, involve yourself in the community, and adopt a leisure activity or two along the way. Your particular quirks, skills, and deficiencies naturally grow out of this process.

It is fairly easy to have a sense of place when you can tell yourself “I am John Yeoman, son of Jack Yeoman, an Englishman of the County of Smallshire. We Yeoman’s have been Anglicans attending Smallshire Church for 5 generations. I am a farmer who works the land my fathers have for more generations than can be counted. I am husband of Jane Yeoman and father of 4 children. At the pub on Fridays, where I am known for losing at cards, I play the fiddle and retell stories about our childhood pranks on Mr. Cooper with my childhood friends.”

That sort of identity writes itself and grows naturally. When you are part of a culture, do things for others, and are socially connected to the community around you, your identity forms on its own and you learn who you are organically. A spiritual sense of place just happens.

In our modern society though, this process doesn’t happen. Think of your average “adolescent”. At the time when a person should be developing his identity, he is stuck in a public school doing nothing productive to anyone else, while learning multiculturalism, how evil his country and people have been to oppressed minorities. He lives with his family in a neighbourhood he moved to just a few years ago when his parents upgraded their house. His family, if he is lucky, consists of an intact nuclear family, maybe a cousin or two, and the occasional visit from his grandparents, if he is not, he lives in a broken home with a single mother, maybe a step-father. He probably has some friends, most of which he will never see again after high school. He probably doesn’t go to church or participate in any social activities with anybody who is not also an adolescent. He is definitely not married and any relations with the opposite sex he has had has assuredly been temporary and known to be so beforehand. Maybe he has a hobby or a sport or two, maybe he doesn’t.

So what is he supposed to base his identity upon? His disconnected family? His Christmas-evening only religion? His oppressive country? His lack of culture (called multiculturalism)? His grades? His sport? It’s all kind of lacking isn’t it?

Look a the letter writer above? She’s 20, she’s been a biological adult for 6-8 years now and she’s just now thinking of “finding herself” possibly by destroying the one thing she has that will let her actually find an identity. What has she accomplished that she can base her identity? What place has she found in her community? Has she been economically productive? Maybe a few part-time jobs. Does she have a family of her own? Just a boyfriend she’s considering leaving. She needs an identity, something that defines her in relation to the world around her, and will make the world take her seriously (ie. will give her a spiritual sense of place). Yet she doesn’t have anything, and it’s not really through any fault of her own.

This is the allure of these weird identities young people have taken too adopting. They do not have the experiences, productivity, community, or social relations to create true identities, so they have to start making up their own. Creating identities usually requires hard work though; you can not become a violinist without practicing or a volunteer without volunteering.

But if you take and magnify a personal quirk, you can easily create a new identity. Like to emotionally bond to people before having sex? You’re a demisexual. Have a low libido? You’re asexual. Like White Fang and think wolves are cool? You’re a wolfkin.

This extend beyond just the weird sexual deviancies though. How many young moderns base their sense of identity on other hedonic pleasures? How many young people have their music consumption as their main identity? How many young people have gamer as one of their main identities? How many young people are identified through their drug use? Their fashion sense? Their sexual conquests? Their television tastes?

Doing these activities may or may not be particularly wrong, but using such as a primary identity indicates something is broken somewhere. Something is missing in their development when a young adult’s primary identity come through shallow pleasures rather than through something true and real.

But this goes beyond just young adults, even our adults are constantly “finding themselves.” Stable social relations, productive economic work, community involvement, friendships, family, all are declining. People are becoming more isolated from each other and more alienated from their work. They need to find something to fill this gap.

This is why a homosexual can’t just be a guy who privately sodomizes other men, he must be out of the closet displaying his pride. He has no other identities to hold onto, for he has no deep social relationships and no spiritual sense of place, so he has to make an identity out of where he enjoys sticking his penis. This is the true horror of the homosexual movement, the abolition of the self until only your identity is your penis.

This is the modern world, a place where people are so empty, their identities so broken, that it has become mainstream for people to base their identities on, to relate to the world through, their hedonic tastes. A healthy society is one where identity creation is a natural process that flows organically from the process of growing up. A person should be able to naturally find and fill productive and healthy social roles, so he can find a spiritual sense of place, so he can belong.

On Pedophiles

SoBL has noted that the NYT have tried to make pedophiles victims. He does not take kindly to this:

I do not care if they are taking their meds. We make alcoholics jump through many hoops to get their driver’s license back, so why should we be helpful to pedophiles at all? That type of attraction is a disorder, and the sign of a broken human being. I looks at pedos as people we should be hanging in the town square when caught. Sure, it is a disorder, and a crime, and I do not want your part of the gene pool to pass on your pedo-ness or be free to roam and molest kids. These are not oppressed victims; these are people who are messed up in the head and should be sequestered.

I’m going to disagree with SoBL here, at least partially.

Before I begin, I should establish some definitions because people tend to use words related to this topic in a very slip-shod manner and I’m trying to establish a nuanced view here. I will also note that there are many problems in researching this particular area of study, so a lot of these numbers have wide variance.

A clinical pedophile is someone with a primary or sole attraction to pre-pubescent children. Of clinical pedophiles, true (or exclusive) pedophiles are attracted solely to children, while non-exclusive pedophiles have normal adult attractions in addition to their pedophilic attractions. Depending on the source, anywhere from 1-7% of men are clinical pedophiles, although, most estimates I’ve seen tend to be on the lower end.  (I have not seen a number breaking down exclusive and non-exclusive pedophiles).

Besides the clinical pedophiles, there are those with pedophilic tendencies. These are men who are primarily attracted to adults, but also have some level of attraction to children. About one in five men have some level of pedophilic tendencies. (I remember reading somewhere that one study found that half of men have some level of attraction to children, but I can not find a source).

Not all clinical pedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are clinical pedophiles. A pedophilic offender is a clinical pedophile who molests children, while an situational molester is someone who is not a clinical pedophile but molests children. An archetypical example of a situational molester is a step-father who has a fight with his wife, gets drunk, then sleeps to his step-daughter because he’s horny and she’s available. The proportion of molesters who are pedophiles varies by source: Some sources say that less than 20% of child molesters are clinical pedophiles, while others put it up to 80%.

Many people also incorrectly use pedophilia to refer to attraction to the legally under-age but pubescent. Attraction to pubescent teenagers is not pedophilic. People attracted young pubescent teenagers are referred to as ephebohpiles and hebephiles.

An ephebophile is someone who is primarily or exclusively attracted to teenagers in their late adolescence (ages 15-19 or so). Given that I recently argued adolescence is an unhealthy, aberrent infantalization of adults, I obviously reject the category of ephebophilia as a pathology (as do psychologists), as attraction to adults is normal as is a strong preference for youth.

Someone who is primarily or exclusively attracted towards young but pubescent girls (ages 11-14 or so) is called a hebephile. There is overlap between pedophiles and hebephiles. I would say that while some level of attraction to young pubescents is normal, especially among men, a primary or exclusive attraction to young pubescents is probably unhealthy and pathological.

Hereafter, pedophile/pedophilia on their own refers to a clinical pedophile/pedophilia.

****

With words clearly defined, I will now explain why I disagree with SoBL. Pedophilia is a disorder, but non-offending pedophiles should not be “hanging in the town square.” A pre-disposition to a particular evil is not the same as committing that evil.

We’ll liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Sodomy is a sin, but those who are biologically pre-disposed to homosexuality can still have a fruitful and happy marriages without sin. Not all (clinical) homosexuals commit sodomy or try to normal homosexuality. Opposing pride parades and homosexual “marriage” does not mean we should condemn the homosexual living a healthy life with a wife and three children.

We can also liken it to rape. I’ve noted before that about one third of males have rape fantasies; a large portion of male population is inclined to this particular sexual crime. Only about one in six of those so inclined actually act on the fantasies (as I’ve noted before, about 6% of men are rapists). We do not imprison those males who merely fantasize about rape, only those who act. As well, it is not a sin to be inclined to rape, only if it the inclination becomes lust or action does it become a sin.

Likewise, just because a man is predisposed to pedophilia does not mean he can not still be a useful and accepted member of society. If he does not commit any evil actions and does not try to normalize pedophilia, he should not be condemned. He has certain inclinations, but he is not acting on them. He is committing no sin and no crime, and should not be punished as if he is.

Not to mention, we need to take into account the practicalities of the situation: Are we really going to jail/kill 2% of men? If we include everybody who has pedophilic tendencies (which SoBL seems to be indicating), then what? What could we possibly do with 20% of the male population?

This is why I disagree with SoBL. A natural inclination towards a particular temptation is not sin and persecuting people for crimethink, even if that crimethink is pedophilic in nature, is unjust.

****

This is not to say that nothing should be done. A known pedophile should not be put into position where he is left alone with children not his own (including step-children) and he should be barred from jobs that require regular interaction with children. We should not put temptation to crime and sin in front of a man with inclinations towards that particular crime/sin. Hence, we should keep pedophiles from situations where he has hidden access to children, just as we do not serve alcoholics wine, we (should) keep college dorms segregated by sex, we disallow men from leading girl guide troops, and we (should) ban homosexuals from leading scout troops.

As well, none of this is to say that a child molester should not be punished. If a man molests a child, he should be punished; in many cases executed. Given that about 25-50% of prosecuted child molesters commit future molestations, molesters who are released back into society should be watched closely to prevent them from interacting from children.