Paranoid parenting and the “protective” coddling of cotton wool kids are rightly being challenged these days even from such a professionally risk-averse source as Britain’s Health and Safety Executive. Over-protection has made children prisoners in their own homes and led to an epidemic of obesity. It renders them timid and fragile as well: even mild criticism is enough for the snowflake generation to fall to pieces, and the intolerance of robust debate among students of this mindset has become so debilitating as to present a grave threat to free speech.
In the face of these alarming trends there is increasingly a consensus that a bit of adventure in childhood is healthy, and is needed in order to grow towards real maturity. But where are the limits to be set? And on what basis?
A glance at the above photo of what has been dubbed the world’s scariest school run, in China, is enough to remind us that too much is sometimes demanded of children, rather than too little. In this case children as young as six from Atuler village in Sichuan province have to scale a sheer rockface over 2000-feet high to get home from school, using rickety ladders. But this isn’t even the most dangerous part, which is an exposed path on the cliff without a vine ladder. A number of kids have slipped. And, yes, fallen to their deaths. But this is a poor part of the country; without an education and job prospects the future of every pupil would be bleak: just as the cliff punishes error without mercy, there is even now in this modern “Communist” country no universal welfare safety net to break their fall into hunger and malnutrition, which afflicts up to 15% of the population. Life may have been more secure for many in the days of “cradle to grave” workplace support in state enterprises, before the reforms of the late 1970s.
So, horrific as this climbing ordeal is, the risk-taking is rational in the circumstances. It is simply a harsh necessity for the villagers, not unlike the fierce training and initiation rites of young warriors in tribal societies constantly at war with each other. In those societies, where the warriors depend for their lives on the strength, skill, endurance and courage of their comrades, the apprenticeship often seems more gruelling than the warfare itself, featuring rituals than can involve being beaten, slashed and scarred, circumcised, sub-incised (don’t ask: it’s hideous), brutally raped, and made to leap over pits full of sharpened stakes. So, not only must children face danger bravely but these ordeals also have the effect of weeding out the weak. It is an education system in which failing your exams means death – and in many places, such as ancient Sparta, the weeding out started at birth, when puny-looking babies were simply left on a mountainside to die.
But if exposing children to danger is inevitable in societies with fewer viable options than our own, what are we to make of embracing serious risk when it is not necessary? Spain, for instance, is a wealthy modern country. There is high unemployment right now but people are materially quite secure and well-fed. Their last war was generations ago, in the 1930s; they do not need to train children for physical courage. Yet they have some very lively traditions that do make such demands, including the “castells” of Catalonia, these being human towers up to more than 30ft high, typically topped by a child, who may be only five years old, or even four. This crowning glory of the castell, or castle, is called the enxaneta. The origin of the name is lost in obscurity but one suggestion is that it comes from a regional word meaning “little arrow”, or the tip of an arrow.
What is far more certain is that the child enxaneta who daringly climbs so high and so precariously invariably shoots an arrow of pride into the heart of his – or her – community. It is pride that belongs to them all, for it takes a takes a whole village or town to provide the manpower, organisation, cooperation, skill, community spirit, determination and sheer courage out of which these towers are built. Both the pride and the courage are supremely symbolised in the enxaneta’s triumphant final act at the summit, which is to raise one hand aloft with all fingers spread, a gesture evoking the stripes of the Catalan flag.
Make no mistake, these towers are dangerous. The Catalonia Department of Culture has sponsored a FAQ claiming serious injuries are rare, based on an estimated collapse rate of the towers of only 3%; but you don’t need to know much about gravity to understand that bodies tumbling down on top of each other from a great height will do so with fearsome force. The words promoting a documentary film on the towers gives a more realistic impression:
Human towers are medicine for the soul. You risk your life for a moment of sublime camaraderie and community. Trust is paramount. All it takes is one shaky foot and the entire tower falls, sending you and hundreds of others tumbling into the air, onto each other and then onto the pavement.
You risk your life. The life of a child enxaneta is at risk. This is no exaggeration. A child died in 1983. More recently, Mariona Galindo, aged twelve, died of head injuries after falling from a nine-storey human tower at her home town of Mataró, north-east Spain in 2006. As for broken bones, they must surely be a more common occurrence.
But this level of risk is apparently fine by the Spanish authorities. And the United Nations, committed to upholding children’s rights (Article 6, right to “survive and develop healthily”; Article 19, right to be protected “from being hurt and mistreated”; Article 36, right to be protected from any activity that “could harm their welfare”) has explicitly said the human towers are A-OK: the UN cultural agency UNESCO has declared the castells to be part of the “intangible cultural heritage of humanity”, no less.
Quite right too, in my view, although I am sure I would be struggling with the idea as a parent. I would die of anxiety if a kid of mine were taking part, in fact I am pretty sure I would be too scared to let it happen. The first word that came into my mind when I saw that word enxaneta was anxiety: surely it had to mean “the anxious one”, or else the one whose parents were worried sick, praying on the sidelines, unable to watch.
Tough one, isn’t it? But a quick calculation based on the festival schedules shows that if you make allowance for practice runs there must be thousands of castells built each year, and my estimate from this is that in terms of the death rate, at least, they are only slightly more dangerous, if at all, than children’s exposure to road traffic accidents. Every death on the roads is tragic, of course, but going back to a society with no motor traffic would inevitably entail leaving behind many benefits of the modern world as well as its perils.
We could do without castells more easily, but just look at their positive side. Just think what it must be like for the successful enxaneta, basking in the glow of parental and communal pride! Just imagine the excitement, the sense of having really lived that day, and the confidence they would take from such a magnificent achievement. They will take away a belief that “I can do it”, a mindset of huge benefit when brought to all sorts of new challenges, be it learning how to cook, or swim, or even playing a musical instrument and mastering tough maths. Such self-belief is priceless, and it may last a lifetime. That is surely a prize worth having.
Is there a message for (or about) Kind people in this? I think there is, because children’s abilities and confidence on their journey towards maturity will be enhanced or held back depending on the degree to which they are allowed to explore and discover things for themselves, both in their geographical environment – breaking out of the domestic prison into their town and country surroundings – and their social environment, meeting and engaging with new people, including Kind ones.
As Lenore Skenaze, founder of Free-Range Kids, has pointed out, parents who allow this are not irresponsibly taking risks. The risks in reality are vanishingly low, while the attempt by helicopter parents to eliminate all hazards from their kids’ lives can actually leave them more vulnerable to harm because such parenting leaves children helpless as babies. Even the most vigilant “helicopter” cannot be airborne constantly, so where’s the protection in the downtime?
Skenaze was dubbed The World’s Worst Parent after allowing her nine-year-old son to ride the New York subway on his own in 2009. But then she wrote a book Free-Range Kids: How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children (Without Going Nuts with Worry) explaining why allowing kids some independence makes sense. And now there is a burgeoning Free-Range Parenting movement.
“A lot of parents today,” Skenazy says on her website, “see no difference between letting their kids walk to school and letting them walk through a firing range. Any risk is seen as too much risk. But if you try to prevent every possible danger or difficulty in your child’s everyday life, that child never gets a chance to grow up. We parents have to realize that the greatest risk of all just might be trying to raise a child who never encounters choice or independence.”
She has a lot of sensible things to say about how Stranger Danger has been over-hyped, and she has even had the courage to point out that very few strangers, even when they are registered as sex offenders, are dangerous types of the kind who might kidnap and rape a child. Also, as she says in her website FAQ, the confident, independent youngster who is used to talking to strangers, will be much better equipped to smell a rat if some guy is trying to lure them into the back of a van. For one thing, they won’t be afraid to yell out and appeal for help to another stranger, knowing full well that most people are OK and would be keen to stop an abduction – and that goes for Kind people too.
*****
Enxaneta: This documentary produced by Televisió de Catalunya is not in English but the spectacular tower-building action speaks for itself, and the emphasis is on the highest climbers: the kids who reach the top.
Forces of Nature Taster This brief trailer related to the BBC’s Forces of Nature programmes features seven-year-old enxaneta Carla. The cinematography is superb, as might be expected from a prestigious BBC science documentary series.
Forces of Nature with Brian Cox – 1. The Universe in a Snowflake This is the full one-hour programme in which renowned physicist Dr Brian Cox uncovers how the diversity of shapes in the natural world reflect the rules that govern the universe. In Spain he shows how an attempt by hundreds of people to build the highest human tower reveals the force of gravity and how human bodies can be organised to counteract it, briefly but in fine style. The entire programme is well worth watching but the human towers sequence starts around five minutes in and lasts about seven minutes.
according to a new study on “Risky play in children”, when “Motivated by the thrilling emotions involved in risky play, one matures in competency and masters new and more complex psychosocial settings. Play with emotional, social, and physical risk may have evolved to increase the child’s psychosocial competency here-and-now, but also train them for future adult contexts.”
only 8.8% of suspected “victims” of “CSA” have STI:
Only? That is a very high and worrying figure. It should be borne in mind, though, as ever, that research of this sort includes the victims of indisputable rape and coercion.
I can tell you that ~34.1% of the world child population have some airborne-transmitted infection, nevertheless, verbal communication is not forbidden for children —but the anti-sexual prolubition is justified by GEquality because of 8.8% of STI children, and that’s weird.
Persuasive? No to me. And quantity of links does not make up for low quality of argument.
“HIV transmission is more likely through coercive than consensual sex (Ghosh et al., 2013).”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jts.22959
The idea is that risks (of adult-child sex, f.i.) must not be ALAPA (as low as practically achievable), the risk must be ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP
[…] whose thoughtful comments have graced Heretic TOC this year. See for instance what he says here about the ideas of biochemist and controversial parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake. In another […]
For Tom and BJ Muirhead:
Wikipedia article about Sheldrake is nothing but slander, written by a bunch of angry skeptical Wiki-editors, who, unfortunately, are not above dirty defamation tactics against scientists who depart from the academic mainstream.
There is a lot of heretical people, organisations and topics who suffered from the Wiki-libels, but Sheldrake is special in that regard: while he always was a target of skeptics’ ire, after his (in)famous banned (and, later, released again)public talk at TEDx, he turned into a very special object of hatred to them.
For more information about TEDx scandal, Sheldrake wiki article and problems with Wikipedia in general, you may read Craig Weiler’s “Psi Wars”, which describe the events in detail and analyse them in depth. It is available as free PDF here:
https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjxiM6ewLzOAhUoOJoKHTp6D2YQFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweilerpsiblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fpsi-wars_tedwikipedia-and-the-battle-for-the-internet.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGhi4e3oHcHhTSO5ADVafCQDXySIg&bvm=bv.129422649,d.bGs&cad=rjt
(If you have no intent to read the whole 300-page book, read just Chapter 13, “The Wikipedia Problem”).
It is also good to look at Sheldrake’s own reaction to the defamatory Wiki article, which he expresses on his blog:
http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/post/63184238054/wikipedia-under-threat
It is important to notice that parapsycholosts are not the only ones who suffered from Wiki-slandering: virtually all non-mainstream groups did, and they all are vocal about it. Proponents of consensual child-adult sex are among them, BTW; read this two Wiki-critical articles from now-defunct (but still available via Internet Archive Wayback Machine) Newgon wiki:
http://web.archive.org/web/20131230224858/http://www.newgon.com/wiki/Wikipedia
http://web.archive.org/web/20111119012937/http://newgon.com/wiki/Wikipedia_censorship
There is, in fact, a lot of mainsream criticism of Wikipedia unreliability; Wiki-related chapter from the Weiler’s book contain many links.
Knowing the negative side of Wikipedia quite good, I do not use it as a valid source for *controversial* topics: severe bias and resulting distortion will always certainly be there. The only way to learn about such topics are long and meticulous inquiry into original sources of controversy participants, comparison and analysis.
Thanks for this very informative post, Explorer. Actually, I was well aware of what Sheldrake calls “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” but I had no idea it had gone so far.
The entry about me on Wikipedia has been edited in a very hostile fashion, but I thought that was just because of the extreme hostility towards paedophilia. It had not occurred to me that the same ferocity and unfairness had also been used against Sheldrake and, it seems, many others. This is indeed alarming.
I also agree with Christian, though (see his post of Aug 12 below: search term “scarab” gets you there quickly), that an awful lot of truly bad pseudo-science is published. The trouble is, as Christian himself indicates, sorting the wheat from the chaff is no easy business.
Perhaps in general we need to be thoughtfully sceptical but not sweepingly dismissive. Especially where the work of particular individuals is concerned, damning judgments should be avoided unless we have first taken the trouble to scrutinise the work carefully.
I have found this discussion interesting and useful, so many thanks to those who have contributed.
It will perhaps also be agreed by all participants that the subject is somewhat off-topic, so no more comments on this theme, please, unless you are absolutely bursting to say something.
Not busting to say something, but for some reason I wasn’t able to post this last night, so here is what I wanted to say, if it’s ok with you Tom. I not, then that’s ok also.
Hi Explorer, yes, I am aware of this controversy, and find Sheldrakes’s ideas very convincing. By going back into the history of biology, and re-invigorating some theories which were pushed aside, he has answered many problems not otherwise answerable.
I suspect that I sounded more skeptical of his work than I in fact am. Indeed, the ideas he has explored have answered some questions for me about the work I used to do as a healer using Traditional Chinese Medical anatomy. And there are some French scientists (reference not to hand unfortunately, but stashed away somewhere), whose work has been rigorously duplicated, which confirms the existence of meridians, and so forth, which also fits nicely into Sheldrake’s theories.
I could ramble on for ages, but won’t. I self-published a book called “Health without a magic wand” which explains some of what I actually believe in this area. The book was originally commissioned by a company in New Mexico, to be sold with their products, but they reneged on the contract, hence it is a little different to how I would have written it for myself, and all mention of their products have been removed, for obvious reasons, but it does represent my actual ideas and beliefs fairly adequately.
I, certainly, never forget that “science” is a set of suppositions constantly subject to review and re-theorising as more information is discovered.
>Not busting to say something, but for some reason I wasn’t able to post this last night, so here is what I wanted to say
OK, BJ, thanks for this. Based on what you say it would be unreasonable to block this comment. I must now hope that no one is bursting to insist that Chinese traditional medicine is rubbish! I see that the Wikipedia entries “Meridian (Chinese medicine)” and “Acupuncture” are highly sceptical in tone but, as Explorer has indicated, we need to be quite sceptical about Wikipedia too. If it’s any consolation my mother underwent acupuncture treatment for her arthritis and she swore by it!
haha, no worries,I’m not going there either.
I would like to comment that there is no forum or chat for hebephiles or efebophiles, I am very frustrated that I can not talk about my attraction, hence my old comments full of hate and more hate
pedophiles really do not know how hard it is that you like adolescents. Most people are neardenthal and just want adult women and hate me and maps generally are almost all pedophiles and only like very young children
also many things that people speak in maps sites about sexual things with little children are really horrifying, I just tell why some people is hostile about this, not going with the intention of offend
That’s why my old behavior was so horrible (many map people also were same horrible with me), there are many forums to people attracted to girls and boys but not to adolescents, I just want to be with people like me and about thing i like, just that
being a pedophile is hard but also hebephile or efebophile and more when nobody understands you, I’m not even like” I’m hebe not pedo because I like girls about 11 10 9 etc” I like much girls aged even 15 or 16, and that nobody likes that or matter it seems at least in maps sites or groups
people hate efebophilia is not that true of “all people like teenagers” if they like teens anyway hate it, they hate me for liking a 13 or 15 just like you for like a little girl o boy and what all of you forget this issue, I have nowhere to go,there is nothing for me?
>I would like to comment that there is no forum or chat for hebephiles or efebophiles, I am very frustrated that I can not talk about my attraction, hence my old comments full of hate and more hate
Talk away, no problem! I don’t think it helps to divide paedophiles against ephebophiles, hebephiles, nepiophiles or whomsoever, on the basis of age of attraction, but by all means let’s discuss the frustrations.
MAPs generally not separated themselves by age, but are separated by gender, or someone explain to me why there is a separated “girl” chat and a “boy” chat? I am not saying that it can not be in a chat that people do not have my own preferences, I was formerly in boychat and I do not even like males !! but you have to understand that MAPs forums are pedo-dominated (sounds like a feminist word, point it, will be the new fashion !!).
To get an idea, in Visions of Alice, for example, there is a sub-forum for hebephilia but is closed to new users until you are an active member, and if they do not want to you become an active member, deal with it. But pedophilia has no sub -forum, it is the entire forum !! You see what I mean? if there was a “teenchat” or something just go and all done.
Just I want a little more of Lolita than of Alice, perhaps?
“I would like to comment that there is no forum or chat for hebephiles or efebophiles, I am very frustrated that I can not talk about my attraction, hence my old comments full of hate and more hate.”
Why not start a forum then?
I was under the impression that this blog catered for all minor-attracted people, where minor means someone below the age of consent. I am particularly sexually attracted to kids up to 14 years old, and for me, Heretic TOC has been resolutely on-topic for me since day one.
Well, is not so easy to make a forum and more with all security stuff for MAPs (important!), and my comment was not about Tom’s blog, because Tom is an English gentleman and no problem while you trolling not much, but I mean the forums and other sites.
And about that to call “kids” to young or teens to me it is uncomfortable, because they are very different to real kids, at least with girls, just compare a 14 yrs with 8 yrs old is obvious, but I’m not a SJW, I do not say no you use it, just that term seems strange to me (?!).
I fully agree with Tom on this, Efebophile. I’m a hebephile, and I’ve always favored solidarity with pedophiles. I don’t think any sub-group of Kind people should be divided along partisan lines, not by age and not based on gender of preference. I’ve experienced your frustrations at times, and I know it’s not easy to be an adolescent-attracted adult by any means.
I mean that is not the same the age of preference that sex, a girlover and a boylover are both pedophiles, yes, but a hebe/ephebophile and a pedophile not are attracted to the same, one likes prepubescent children, and the other likes adolescents who really are young adults.
(I sometimes think that if adolescents would be considered just ‘young adults’ would be best to our interests, but I am a fetishist of the word “adolescent” that cruel and delicious is born with certain tastes, right?)
You say that I am a Kind too, but a male boylover is not a ‘gay’ although both are homosexual, the only thing (sexuality wise) I have in common with a pedophile is that both are minor-attracted, a law-only non-biological concept..
but no, really I do not say all of this for discriminate, but I say this from a scientific point of view and to be honest with the truth, I am (we are all here) very tired of people, even self-proclaimed professionals classify and label us as we are not..
just copy from my other comment:
‘To get an idea, in Visions of Alice, for example, there is a sub-forum for hebephilia but is closed to new users until you are an active member, and if they do not want to you become an active member, deal with it. But pedophilia has no sub -forum, it is the entire forum !! You see what I mean? if there was a “teenchat” or something just go and all done.’
I think it is self-explanatory, but a person like you which is mainly engaged in the (important !) debate and public enlightenment maybe does not matter, but for those who want to talk about our attraction from a more intimate view (Because we are tired of arguing and not getting anything in return) is really frustrating.
>for those who want to talk about our attraction from a more intimate view (Because we are tired of arguing and not getting anything in return) is really frustrating.
Yes, this is very understandable.
I too do not like how child-lovers and adolescent-lovers have been mixed together under the same category, and often under the term “pedophile,” by the media and law enforcement simply due to the technicality that children and young adolescents share the legal status of “child.” This does indeed lead to scientific inaccuracies when any serious researcher, or even the common layperson, is seeking to understand either or both groups. Child love and adolescent love have different dynamics in most cases, and understanding the differences is essential to understanding each group as people.
For instance, you often hear MAPs asked, “I’ve heard that MAPs often first learn of their attractions in early adolescence, so was that true for you?” That is one of the main areas where confusion comes in. Pedophiles do indeed often begin noticing their preferences for children once they become adolescent, i.e., young adults, so this is a valid question for pedophiles on the road to understanding. However, that question is not valid for a hebephile, since we do not tend to fully realize our attraction base until our mid-to-late 20s for obvious reasons. It’s possible for an adolescent to be a pedophile, but not possible for an adolescent to be a hebephile, and this is the confusion wrought when umbrella terms are used to describe “adolescent MAPs” or “adolescent Kind people,” etc. There are circumstances when acknowledging the distinctions are apt, and attempting to sweep them under the rug for what amounts to political expediency impedes accurate understanding of either group.
But here is the way I see it, regarding my support for solidarity: due to the same technicality that children and young adolescents share a legal status, and have thus been absorbed into the same paradigm in the societal zeitgeist, pedophiles and hebephiles (as well as nepiophiles, etc.) do share a political status and situation. Fate has united us due to this series of legal and political entanglements, and as a result, this should be a wake-up call to hebephiles that turning against pedophiles to gain our own support, as the mainstream LGBT community eventually did to the BLer’s among them, is a form of political dirty pool. The same lesson should be observed by BLer’s in the MAP community who refuse to see any political parallels between themselves and GLer’s, and insist they cannot work together politically; and vice versa, of course. I’m not saying that you are thinking along these divisive political lines, Efebophile, as I understand that you simply want a place to discuss issues that are unique to hebephiles, but I do think mentioning this does give some important food for thought.
Hence, while I agree with you in lamenting the frequent failure to see the scientific differences between pedophilia and hebephilia due to the legal and cultural entanglements, I do applaud the political unity that can be gained from the same entanglements.
Yes, solidarity is essential. The single homosexual rights movement historically comprised all homophiles, including those promoting cross-generational love. Once gays were awarded dignity and human rights however, they treacherously threw the boy-lovers among them under a bus, having nothing more to do with them, and the chasm that divides us has been maintained ever since.
Certain countries do allow ephebophiles to enjoy the same legal rights as gays. One can be sure though that were the age of consent to be reduced to say post-pubescent age, both the now-respectable hebephiles and ephebophiles would likewise instantly have nothing more to do with those left behind … namely the paedophiles that still have no dignity and no human rights.
Sure, and why make any secret about it?
MY INTEREST IS NOT IN GAY RIGHTS. I DESPISE THESE QUEERS. SOLIDARITY? ha ! NO SUCH THING! When people are IN THE SHIT, they share something in common with each other, THAT IS ALL!
HA! HA !
SOLIDARITY? WHAT A JOKE!
One day it is MY HOPE that ALL QUEERS are systematically genocided against and tortured.
How can anything ever be achieved (in any field of human activity, actually) if everyone is determined to despise each other? Mutual contempt/loathing really is a vicious circle that has to be broken somewhere.
This is what happens, Tom, when someone – let alone an entire group of people – operate entirely by knee-jerk emotional reaction to anything they do not understand, rather than using logic and reason to study the lessons of history.
But it IS precisely the lesson of history that MIGHT IS RIGHT!
I don’t pretend to care about adultophile queers. I would happily oppress them as they oppress me. I am just BEING HONEST.
I ask you, no offense, but in my sincere respect, perhaps is that sex is meant to be practiced only since puberty? perhaps it is because the attraction to pubescents is natural and healthy and not the attraction to children is not so good?
Because I know for sure that the hebephilia and sex at puberty is naturally good, but given my lack of sexuality in childhood can not say for sure if pedophilia is good or not, so I urge you to try everyday here and everywere that you’re right and I’m wrong in this issue.
Because for me support pedophilia now is a bit like believing in a god, I have explained many times the reasons, indeed I once had strong pedophilic interests (maybe I’m really a pedophile and just repress myself) and I know you attraction, your frustrations and your ideas about relationships with children, but I was not able to have a (non-sexual) emotional relationship with a little girl, most kids not understand almost nothing about romance (and sex), is normal, I do not know how to explain it …but I understand a adolescent without problems !! Maybe for once is because nature and not by society?
If I have to defend pedophilia, hebephilia, homosexuality, heterosexuality.. whatever it, is because I know for sure is right and correct (at least in my philosophy, of course, you’ll have yours) not because it has a duty to defend every person and attraction on Earth, not even my own !!
Note: And I remind everyone that my native language is not English, it is VERY difficult to write each sentence correctly, and I spending a lot of time for it, please remember it and appreciate what I write, that is made with the best intentions.
“I ask you, no offense, but in my sincere respect, perhaps is that sex is meant to be practiced only since puberty? perhaps it is because the attraction to pubescents is natural and healthy and not the attraction to children is not so good?”
No offense taken, your first paragraph started with a sincere question. My response: that depends on how you define the term “sex.” If you’re talking about strictly intercourse, or maybe sodomy, then yes, due to the physically undeveloped nature of the pre-pubescent body, such activity can be injurious to them, and I do not think the average pre-pubescent seeks out that type of sexual contact. However, children are sexual beings who can be interested in less intense forms of sexual activity – maybe limited to kissing, touching, showing, etc. – with both peers and some adults they trust. The average pedophile has sexual desires on the level of a child, and can meet them on a level that is comfortable to them. I’ve even known many pedophiles who have a broad attraction which includes adults, and they have noted that their desired sexual interactions with children – if it was legally allowed – would be different and much less intense than their desired interactions with adults. As a hebephile, even my sexual desires are much more “vanilla” than that of the average teleiophile adult, and I’ve had to learn to adapt to the more intense desires of adult women. It’s possible (you could answer this better than me) that the average ephebophile, in contrast, has sexual desires more or less commensurate with that of adults.
“Because I know for sure that the hebephilia and sex at puberty is naturally good, but given my lack of sexuality in childhood can not say for sure if pedophilia is good or not, so I urge you to try everyday here and everywere that you’re right and I’m wrong in this issue.”
There have been many studies conducted, including the Rind Report, where the subject groups have attested that their sexual interactions as pre-pubescents with adults, if mutual consent and respect were present, tended to be positive, at least until iatrogenic and/or sociogenic factors later enter the equation, and a reconceptualization occurs as a result. Further, I’ve dated several younger women of legal age in the past who were gerontophiles, and even a few who weren’t, who described having positive mutually consensual interactions with adults as pre-pubescents. Hence, I think pedophilia, like all other forms of sexuality, is neither “good” nor “bad,” but neutral albeit natural, and can be quite beautiful if practiced in an environment where mutual respect, mutual consent, and civil rights for all ages were extant.
Because for me support pedophilia now is a bit like believing in a god, I have explained many times the reasons, indeed I once had strong pedophilic interests (maybe I’m really a pedophile and just repress myself) and I know you attraction, “your frustrations and your ideas about relationships with children, but I was not able to have a (non-sexual) emotional relationship with a little girl, most kids not understand almost nothing about romance (and sex), is normal, I do not know how to explain it …but I understand a adolescent without problems !! Maybe for once is because nature and not by society?”
I think the reason most kids fail to understand romance is because they are forcibly prevented from learning about it, and from engaging in romantic relationships.
“If I have to defend pedophilia, hebephilia, homosexuality, heterosexuality.. whatever it, is because I know for sure is right and correct (at least in my philosophy, of course, you’ll have yours) not because it has a duty to defend every person and attraction on Earth, not even my own !!”
I believe that any attraction which operates on the basis of mutual desire and mutual respect, and where no demonstrable harm can be proven or even readily inferred from the act itself, is legitimate and should be respected and defended. I think even fetishes which would be harmful if acted out in reality are fine as long as the fetishists act it out only via fantasy simulation with a willing partner who has similar interests, or keep it entirely within the real of one’s thoughts or watching actors simulate the act on a movie.
That’s very important, when I had pedophilic interests, which frustrated me a lot is do not understand the sexuality of children and I did not have the same sexual level of a child, or simply patience to deal with a child, although I have nothing against kids it is just not my thing. But the people really that I cannot deal and having a relationship of any type are adults of any age, even if I’m a bit sexually attracted, sorry but I am the definitive adultophobe.
My desires as hebephebophile- are also “vanilla”, in truth I would like to do the same thing you can with a woman but only with a young girl, nothing special. The truth is that I have a ‘voracious desire’ for young girls hehe but I detest the animalistic way to people make sex, so is not about the age of girls or not, is that is just me.
I think females at 12 are already enough for intercourse, please correct me if I’m wrong, so when they are less than 12 but older tan 9 even in a “vanilla” type of desire is logically more intense than a child but less than a teenager, I do not know really, so I think girls is not than ‘enjoyable’ desire for me than a teenager.
I guess my most dangerous fetish is my religious and militarist crazy things, but I have no partners to play in a safe environment !!
And I’ll tell you one more thing, no matter what the age of consent is, teens are still minors, are the property of their parents and the state, people still hate relationships with minors over the local AoC, still trying to get you in jail, still call an “aberration” having sex with a 13, 16 etc although legal, are still insulting you on the street, still consider “child porn” all images of all under 18, in most countries still not permit marry with a teen even if is above the local AoC, the ‘AoC’ is just a miscalculation, they only holds the AoC less than 18 for older teens can have relations between them more easily and not going with adults, because an adult-teen love would be the worst case for them. Ephebophilia is not socially accepted and respected and even less Hebephilia, that is considered just “Pedophilia” by almost of population.
Hi E, your English is just fine!
Just to add that the age of the onset of puberty in children across Anglophile countries appears to be getting earlier. The average age of Menarche in girls is now eight years old, and in boys puberty begins slightly later. Reasons for this are believed to be a more sedentary lifestyle plus overfeeding producing more sexual hormones that then trigger puberty. So, if a hebephile is primarily attracted to adolescents who have at least started puberty and have signs of adult sexual maturation, but are still young and developing both mentally and physically, then it follows that their age of attraction would commence at about 10 years old for girls and between 11 and 12 for boys.
That explains why I recently mysteriously liked girls aged ten, well, now we know why.
Hebephilia the ultimate sexuality that fits to new times !! in Soviet Russia pubescents likes Hebephiles !! hehe ok I stop..
What i find interesting about this is…
I don’t know how to put it. Hmm.
I have often looked at women on the street or in shops, well dressed, looking beautiful, and made appreciative comments to those around me. On several occasions I have been met with outrage because the woman in question as only 14 or 15, but certainly did not look to be that age.
What can I say? My first wife was 15 when I met her, and 18 when I married her, and I was just under twice her age. Not being an idiot I wasn’t surprised when after some ten or eleven years together she wandered off to enjoy other men and ways of living. But Damn, we had a good time!
I would love to have a relationship with someone her age again (as long as they also possessed her intelligence!), although I suspect I would be much happier with someone closer to my own, now somewhat elevated, age.
Shameless self promotion, if TOC permits: do a search for “Unsent Letters” by BJ Muirhead. It encompasses the experience of at least three people who have told me about their love for and relationships with teens.
I think, and believe, that love and desire for teens is very very common, it’s just something that most prefer to deny they feel.
>Shameless self promotion, if TOC permits: do a search for “Unsent Letters” by BJ Muirhead. It encompasses the experience of at least three people who have told me about their love for and relationships with teens.
Unsent Letters is promoted on the publisher website as a novel rather than factual accounts. If the accounts truly were fictional, a work of the imagination entirely, it would certainly obviate any potential legal problems that could arise if real people disclosed illegal acts — i.e. problems for those people. If the accounts are factual then the extent of any legal problem would depend on such issues as plausible deniability, identification, traceability and witness availability.
My guess is that the book is loosely based on things you have been told but with fictional elements, and that no individuals in the book are identifiable. But there is no need to clarify, BJ. There is a strong case here for “constructive ambiguity”!
Not that an adult’s “love for and relationships with teens” is necessarily illegal. 16 is teen and is legal in many jurisdictions. Also, “relationships” may or may not involve sexual activity.
No problem with the self-promotion, in fact I was about to order the book myself but saw it is an e-book only. I prefer paper as I have far too much screen time already.
Yes, you are correct, the book is based on many stories told to me, although I did, of course, also draw on my experiences with my first wife—and on my knowledge of girls around 13, resulting from talking to my children’s friends when they were visiting. Interestingly, my second wife attempted to use the first draft to prove that I am a “paedophile” and therefore an unsafe parent for my children. (The magistrate in the court case actually smiled as she dismissed both the book and the accusation.) As a result my lawyer required me to go through it and mark those bits which were factual events. I admit that even I was astounded at how little fact was in the book. I shouldn’t have been surprised by this, in as much as the majority of the book deals with emotions and ideas which I could find no satisfactory way of expressing in essay form.
I have to admit that I am well pleased that you considered purchasing a copy. Hence I feel that I must admit that I dislike ebooks, and only made it available in that form at the request of some who contacted me.
What this means is that there is a paperback available:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-j-muirhead/unsent-letters/paperback/product-22327094.html
I suppose that searching brings up the ebook for its own reasons.
Very interesting! And thanks for the paperback information: I have now ordered a copy. May not be able to read it for a while, though, as I like to read sequentially and I have just started Steven Pinker’s enormous The Better Angels of Our Nature, which runs to 1026 pages in the Penguin edition, plus 30 pages of Roman numeral pages at the start!
What can I say, but thank you. Everyone loves their work to be read.
In fact, it would be wonderful if you made Radical Case available via this type of publication. I have the pdf, but would much prefer a printed version.
>In fact, it would be wonderful if you made Radical Case available via this type of publication.
This is one of those things I’ve been meaning to get around to for ages. I started about 15 years ago by writing a new preface, but it began to morph into a whole new book, revisiting everything in the light of the huge social changes seen in the course of two decades. But then the whole project was put on the back burner when Michael Jackson’s boy troubles were back in the news and I turned my attention to writing a book about him.
Probably the best thing now would be to just publish the original text with a short new introductory preface. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement!
I’m sure you know, Tom, that I too would love to see a fully updated version of your original book, with perhaps a few new chapters added to account for the many things that have happened since 1980, particularly the unanticipated conservative backlash which occurred immediately after the original publication. That was a hugely significant series of events which created a major setback in realizing the many things you wanted to see accomplished in your book. Despite how everything you said in the tome remains equally valid today, adding those extra chapters in addition to a new preface would make your important work look more like an update to an ongoing topic of scientific interest rather than simply a relic of a bygone era with “loony liberal views”, if that makes sense. Also, you may want to modify some of your words in the existing chapters if you feel in retrospect there may be a better way of saying certain things.
Additionally, you may want to consider including edited excerpts from the comments section of the TOC Heretic blog in addition to a few new chapters added by yourself, to provide extra intellectual gravitas to the book. Hence, you could combine the update of your book with the “best of TOC Heretic comments section” project you’ve discussed as being a consideration before. Since the original text of your book is available for reading online for free, I think these additions would make it more commercial than simply adding a new preface alone.
Also, as a final bit of advice, PLEASE do not consider making this update a print publication only. I know there are many sticklers for staying with print, and I would probably agree with most of what you said about the beauty of the print medium. The fact remains, though, that many in the contemporary information age – including myself – greatly prefer the e-book medium because like it or not, it’s considerably more convenient than print books, it saves an immense amount of valuable physical space in one’s household, it entails less cutting down of trees for those of us who are ecologically conscious, it can be provided to readers quicker (I’m sorry, but this factor is important despite the “good things come to those who wait” adage), it favors long-term sales rather than the fast sales expected of print publications, it affords more privacy (it’s easier to keep controversial books in your personal library away from prying eyes if they are sequestered on your reading tablet rather than a physical copy laying around your house), and there is also the matter of you’re being able to keep an e-book in print for perpetuity rather than having it pulled out of print by a nervous publisher; in fact, you could make an e-book version purchasable via download from this blog if no publisher wanted to handle it. Just some things to consider as to why e-publication in the modern era is important, no matter the loyalty one may have to traditional print publishing.
Thanks, Diss. Basically I agree with your ideas but it’s just a matter of finding time.
>PLEASE do not consider making this update a print publication only
You have put the case very persuasively. Yes, you are 100% right. Anything I put out will, absolutely, be available electronically.
Agree with what has been said, but please, just one hard copy, for me. (Smiling winningly?)
Of course! I’ll want a hard copy for my own shelves too!
I guess I should add that the second wife took it to be my story, both because of my first wife and because she also was much younger than me. In reality, I tried to make it the potential story of anyone caught in a situation of extreme emotional stress.
Well, I’ll just say one more thing and then I’m gone: I HOPE TO HELL that Donald J Trump wins the election in November, because if he doesn’t we’ll have the coronation thirty years in the planning of an evil tyrant bitch, introducing a THOUSAND YEARS of Pax Femicunta.
It seems to be quiet, here – no new comments for days! I, meanwhile, is trying to introduce – in a cautious and not-too-pushy way – pro-paedophilia research into some Web-places of anomalistics community: this is, people intersted with the scientific research of anomalous (or “paranormal”, as they also called) phenomena – psychic ones first and foremost, but not only them. Whether you like the psychic research or not (a few of commenters here appear to be hardcore materialists), anomalists’ Web community is quite serious – one should not confuse them with some kinds of softie New Agers, most of them are quite informed about science in general, and intersted in it; many are either active or retired academicians themselves. What is important, they are the people who combine such serious approach with remarkable open-mindedness – there is hardly a controversial topic which is refused the right to be discusseed among them.
So, here is my comment, on the blog of anthropologist and dedicated anomalist Eric Wargo (under the nick-name of Vortex, which I use on the anomalist websites, blogs and forums):
http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3874#comment-163002
Tom and everyone else here, i would like to learn your ideas about this long comment of of mine…
I will certainly be interested to see what other responses you get on the Nightshirt site.
>It seems to be quiet, here – no new comments for days!
Everyone on holiday? Glued to the Olympics? The big issue that has so far gone without discussion, apart from by me in the blog itself, is to just what degree it is necessary and desirable for kids to be exposed to some level of risk. Did I answer my own question too well? Doesn’t anyone have a different opinion? Is it too hard to answer without appearing to be careless of kids’ safety? Like you, Explorer, I am a bit puzzled.
You have made some excellent points based on the strength of the Rind et al. meta-analysis.
As for your philosophy, it is certainly interesting. I guess I am pretty much a simplistic materialist monist but I hope I am not too closed-minded about it. In any case, telepathy is not necessarily incompatible with straight-out materialism, although it may be in your version. Fascinated to see Roger Penrose is a trinitarian.
Thanks, Tom – I specifically concentrated on Rind et al. meta-analysis, since it was an analytic summary of child-adult sex consequences in general, not just a single study. It has many other advantanges as a quick example – its endurance to criticism, the confirmation of its quality by scientific organisations that examined it, its subsequent replication, etc.
As for you being a materialistic monist – well, there are a few psychic researchers who are materialists as well, such as physicist Edwin May, philosopher Hoyt Edge or neuroscientist Michael Persinger; they accept empirical evidence for psychc phenomena, but still insist that a physical explanation for them will be found one day. They are an exception, of course: most people intersted in parapsychological research – including myself – are explicit non-materialists (usually dualists, neutral monists or idealists).
As for Roger Penrose, his view is generally inspired by famous Karl Popper’s “Three Worlds” model, with an addition of some (neo-)Platonism.
I think you are overly generous in your acceptance that one can mount a moral argument against child-adult sex irrespective of the evidence that shows it is not harmful.If it is overwhelmingly non-harmful, I can see no acceptable reason to declare it morally reprehensible. Finklehor’s attempts to do so would be an amusement of high value, had he not succeeded. Mind you, I believe it all goes back to the christian rejection of sex, a rejection which is intensely pursued in the culturally and socially schizophrenic united states of amerika, and which infects the majority of the world. (Please note: I am aware that I am expressing an extreme bias against christianity and amerika, though that does not invalidate my main point.)
I, personally, agree with you, Bjmuirhead – if child-adult sex is neither forceful nor distressful, there is simply no valid reason to prohibit it. My passage about the purely moral defense of prohibition was made for two reasons. First, out of caution: I had no intent to proclaim myself, immediately, a proponent of intergenerational sexuality on a site not related specifically to this topic. Second, because of the understanding that for most people, unfortunately, there seems to be a moral “argument” for prohibition – their deeply ingrained sex-negativity, with a background of general body-hatred… which is promoted by our apparently secular, yet still covertly clerical, morality. And clericalism, for me, is a perversion – in a most literal, not moralistic, sense – of an innate human spirituality, combined with overall social repressiveness.
Understood, but with the caveat that I have become extremely intolerant of myself, specifically the ease with which I slip into moral talk which I believe to be completely erroneous.
Any area of human behaviour where morality is regarded as more important that what actually happens is an area in which an ongoing argument against morality itself is necessary. Homosexuality would still be illegal and punished if the morality which supported the laws and the prejudice had not been attacked and undermined.
This is where people like Todd Nickerson, whom I have been reading lately, fail. He correctly rejects violent, physically and emotionally abusive incidents, but he also rejects other, happier, consensual incidents… on purely moral grounds. (If he doesn’t take this same approach in some of his writings, then all I can say is that I have not read them.)
I suspect that what I am saying is that the morality, as such, is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, to the “judgement” made on any particular incident of adult-child sexual adventure.
Now, in order to make this, possibly, more understandable in terms of why I think this way, some personal shite:
I have talked about this on my own blog, but you may not be aware of it, so firstly: when I was four I had a lovely sexual relationship with another four year old. We were discovered after some months out in the fields (yes, free range kids, as now thought of), and her father abused me, threatened me, and blah blah.
Much later, around age ten, I had a sexual instance with an older male. In this case, I wasn’t that interested, but I gave my consent (I even said the word “yes”).
Where does morality fit into either of these instances? I wasn’t hurt in either instance, nor was the other person; nor did I ever think my unpleasant male-male sex was harmful, nor did it hurt… I just simply didn’t enjoy it.
Hence, whenever I hear people talk about morality and adult-child or child-child sex, I can only think about my own experiences, and reject the attempt to apply a general morality. (I should point out that many people many years later, tried to convince me that my consensual but not enjoyed sex was the cause of so many problems in my life, because he was adult and I was child. Absolute fucking crap. Any harm done to my was by the four year old girl’s father whose threats and verbal abuse and anger was extremely potent, and has haunted me for much of my life, in ways which I will not describe.)
In many ways I think I am just personally confirming the results of the Rind, et al., meta-analysis. But it also is the personal, rather than theoretical, basis on which I reject totally the application of “morality” to any matter sexual, with the obvious exceptions of non-consensual sexual violence, rape, and blah. We do have to have some rules, let us merely keep them minimal. Indeed, in terms of sex and morality, I am pretty much on the same page as Camille Paglia: there should be “no law in the arena”. Recommendation: read Paglia’s essay of the same name. She is one of the very few feminists who seems to talk sense much of the time.
Ok, this is entirely too long a post, but I trust that it explains at least some reason why I think even admitting the possibility of a morality that is justified to non-harmful adult-child sex is a mistake, always.
While I think if it, have you read Stephen Kershnar’s work? I haven’t read his book yet, but can recommend his essay “the moral status of harmless adult-child sex”, (Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 15,Number 2, April 2001)
for an entirely moral view of why is isn’t immoral.
>…this is entirely too long a post
Not excessive, as it is very information-rich, with good discussion.
>While I think if it, have you read Stephen Kershnar’s work? I haven’t read his book yet, but can recommend his essay “the moral status of harmless adult-child sex”, (Public Affairs Quarterly, Volume 15,Number 2, April 2001)
for an entirely moral view of why is isn’t immoral.
I endorse this recommendation. Kershnar is a rigorous academic philosopher. As for his book, it is not exactly light reading but it is good to see paedophilia taken seriously as a topic for a full-length ethical investigation.
While I am at it, I might mention that another philosopher, David Benatar, recently had a very good (wonderfully concise) piece, “Pedophilia”, published in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette, Blackwell, 2013.
DOI: 10.1002/ 9781444367072.wbiee237.
The print version is pages 3829–3831 but it is also online.
By way of my own shameless self-promotion, I might mention that Benatar lists only 12 references, most of them by academic philosophers, and my book Paedophilia: The Radical Case is recommended as further reading.
Your book was the first deep analysis I read about paedophilia. It benefited from your personal story, and the manner in which you related it to theory. It continues to be one of the better books on the subject, and I am not at all surprised that he recommended it. I continue to dip into it for ideas and information.
When you write about you had experienced positive child-adult sexuality, it is very noticeable your inner rage and pain, like me, I live in hell of pain and rage, and sometimes is than painful that I not even like to want to talk about it.
That even teenagers personally told me they enjoyed a relationship with an adult in the past, who would like to love and make love with an adult and not with other person of his age, who want to show their beautiful body freely and have a life without any Neanderthal until 18 or other biased stupid age, force them to the contrary.. and you do not want to know what I suffered every time I know that human wastes have destroyed someone’s life, both an adult and a teenager (even child) just by love between them or share in pictures their beutiful body!!
I do not read and care about to people (MAPs or not) who hate relationships with minors, I hate them with all my guts, even when someone speaks only against sexuality with children but not teens, because I’m sick of this fascist people who are posing like a liberal, so liberal that sex is free as long as ONLY between adults, and is them who decide who is adult or not, of course.
I wouldn’t say my experience with an adult was positive, but it wasn’t painful or damaging.
My anger comes from the absurdity of the morality, as yours appears to do. From the knowledge that even an unpleasant experience can be no problem. As others have noted, the problem often comes from the reaction of parents and others. That it causes you much pain and anger, more than me I suspect, is regrettable, and I hope you can ease that pain and anger away.
I did not examine your comment there (very philosophical), but looked at that site. It is typical pseudo-science. It proposes that the brain unconsciously perceives events of the future, and that this explains the freudian “unconscious”, precognition/premonition and also Jungian “synchronicity” (meaningful coincidence between an external event and an internal psychic process). It proposes bogus justifications by invoking quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. It looks more like “Sci-Fi” films than anything approaching science.
There have been already a lot of quackery and delusion in standard psychology and psychotherapy (there are numerous references for that: Dawes, Ofshe & Watters, Dineen, …), so for paranormal psychology it can only be worse.
(Sigh)
That’s exactly the uncritically negative reaction I was sadly expecting – well, here it is! And, Christian, it was exactly you from whom I was expecting it, since your previous comments demonstrated your highly skeptical attitude towards any non-mainstream scientific research.
I will state it clearly and unambigously: parapsychology (as well as transpersonal psychology, near-death studies, etc.) is NOT “pseudo-science”; research performed in this controversial interdisciplinary field is as methodologically valid as in any accepted scientific discipline. One could agree or disagree whether it indeed confirmed what it claims to confirm (existence of psychic phenomena), but even well-informed skeptics agree that it is scientific. If you want some further learning, the best place to start is probably the site of the Parapsychological Association (the AAAS member, just FYI). Dean Radin’s evidence page will provide you with a selection of actual studies to scrutinise:
http://www.parapsych.org/
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
If you decide to go deeper there, that’s good for you. if you do not, that’s your choice. I just want to add that I won’t reply to general negative comments – if you want to criticise, please be more specific and do your homework first.
P.S. Anyway, I’m not entirely sure whether Tom’s blog is a proper place for a detailed discussion of such matters. Tom, what do you think – is it appropriate theme for this comment section, or it will be a bit too off-topic? This is for you to decide…
>I’m not entirely sure whether Tom’s blog is a proper place for a detailed discussion of such matters. Tom, what do you think
If there is an off-topic discussion I happen to find interesting, such as this one, I am relaxed about running it, for a short time at least: moderator’s privilege! 🙂
Actually, I’d like to make my own modest contribution. Christian has a science background and may have reasons for his “pseudo-science” accusation that will stand up to scrutiny, but I do feel a basis for investigation could exist of which mainstream scientists need not be dismissive.
Christian says the website in question “proposes that the brain unconsciously perceives events of the future” and “proposes bogus justifications by invoking quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.”
Perception of the future has always been a much desired and conspicuously absent superpower and I am not sure what it means to “unconsciously perceive” something. This would appear to be a contradiction in terms. The online Oxford dictionary defines “perceive” as “Become aware or conscious of (something)”. We cannot become unconsciously conscious of something.
So, if Christian has correctly represented what the website says, he would seem to have a strong point on that issue.
But what about the quantum physics aspect? Explorer, you mentioned Roger Penrose. As I said earlier, I did not know he was a trinitarian (philosophical not theological), but I was aware that this leading Oxford maths professor, who is described on Wikipedia as a “mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science”, has attempted to explain consciousness in physical terms by reference to quantum physics, saying it is ” the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules”.
I gather there was scepticism on the grounds that such effects were too delicate to survive the relatively high bodily temperatures involved.
However, an online commentator [ https://www.familytreeforum.com/entry.php/90-19-Telepathy-and-Quantum-Effects ] pointed to what appears to be respectable experimental evidence reviving the idea in a way that offers the physical possibility of thought transfer at a distance:
…recent research on individual nerve cells suggests that there might be a loophole in these arguments against the quantum effect. A team led by Dr Rita Pizzi of the University of Milan created two small arrays of human nerve cells and monitored the effects of stimulating them.. The arrays were first connected together then separated. One array was subjected to pulses of laser light. Despite being isolated from its partner, the second array still responded as if it had been struck by the laser light.
Reporting their findings in the journal Quantum Information and Computation, the team suggested that the apparent connection between the two arrays may be due to the kind of quantum effects proposed by Penrose. If that is the case, some believe it may explain the binding together of brain activity “thought” to underpin consciousness.
If quantum effects are at work, they might explain the reports of telepathy (“distant intentionality”) detected elsewhere under laboratory conditions. Many of the studies have been carried out in sealed, electrically screened rooms to rule out conventional forms of communications and yet still have produced positive results. The answer may lie in the quantum phenomenon of “entanglement” in which particles stay in intimate and instantaneous communication with each other, even when separated by vast distances.
T.O’C. AGAIN:
It is the last sentence above that I find particularly intriguing. As I remember it (or misremember it!) there are particles that do indeed appear to influence each other from a great distance.
Ah, just looked up Quantum Entanglement. This gives rise to what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”. Put another way:
It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement ]
Bearing this phenomenon in mind, is it wise to rule out a physical basis for telepathy? Admittedly, a lot of the investigation done by telepathy enthusiasts may be faulty, and properly described as pseudo-science, but the engagement of such a significant figure as Penrose in “quantum consciousness” suggests to me that real science either is involved, or ought to be involved, in this area.
There also is the work of Rupert Sheldrake,which has branched into some very interesting directions, and the work of Henry P Stapp, especially “Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics”, which is freely available on the net as a .tex file. (You can read it with all the markup, or run tex and produce a pdf.)
In his abstract he says:
“a detailed argument given here shows why, in a scientific
approach to this problem, it is necessary to use the more basic princi-
ples of quantum physics, which bring the observer into the dynamics,
rather than to accept classical precepts that are profoundly incorrect
precisely at the crucial point of the role of human consciousness in
the dynamics of human brains. Adherence to the quantum principles
yields a dynamical theory of the mind/brain/body system that is in
close accord with our intuitive idea of what we are. In particular,
need for a self-observing quantum system to pose certain questions cre-
ates a causal opening that allows mind/brain dynamics to have three
distinguishable but interlocked causal processes, one micro-local, one
stochastic, and the third experiential.”
The paper is fascinating, and deals with soem of the issues of quantum physics and mind. Worth a read for those who are interested
Oh, Stapp also has written another piece, “Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics”, which is available at
http://www.alchemylab.com/Quantum_Will.htm
He is from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California,so, even if his loops are fruity, he is well credentialled. (Not a word, but hey…)
The trouble is, we can be so open minded that our brains fall out.
I find the entry for Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia a bit worrying. It is said (correctly?) that there is no evidence to support Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance”. The Wiki entry as a whole suggests that Sheldrake has slipped onto a slippery slope that slides right down to the depths of New Age nonsense, which encompasses not just less than rigorous science but also the obscurantist mumbo jumbo of the New Agers.
Yes, many people dislike Sheldrake’s theories, and I suspected that they were nonsense until I read his first book. His theory of morphic resonance has more scientific backing and research than wikipedia admits. It is in fact his contemporary re-interpretation of an older theory, and it aims to explain all that cannot be explained by current genetic/dna theories. He deals with the failures of current theory quite cogently in his first book.
It needs to be remembered that he is an extremely well trained and respected scientist, who has brought troubles on himself by announcing his theory, and investigating it in a variety of fashions.
This isn’t to say that I necessarily believe his theories, but his early work is well worth the read.
>It needs to be remembered that he is an extremely well trained and respected scientist
Good point, and there is nothing wrong with theory. But what about evidence? My post about Penrose referred to experimental evidence.
It seems Sheldrake has suggested lots of experiments and invited people to do DIY experiments. But what about rigorously tested findings?
If enough people take it up, the rigorous testing will follow, perhaps after pulling together such information from other areas, which he has been doing.
I did not say that a truly scientific investigation of parapsychology is excluded, but that in this site thenightshirt.com there is no science, only pseudo-science or “science-fiction”. The author, to a great extent inspired by the S-F writer Philip K. Dick, invokes theoretical physics in the same way as in S-F series. All my studies and all my professional career have been devoted to mathematics and science, so I have acquired a non-negligible “flair” for detecting junk.
For Tom: when I write “unconscious perception of future”, I mean that the author says that the brain receives information from the future, but that this information remains stored at the unconscious level. So if Jung’s patient tells him of her dream of a scarab and at that moment a scarabaeid knocks on the window, it is because her brain had detected unconsciously that the scarabeid would knock on the window on her next meeting, and this unconscious knowledge provoked the dream. Don’t ask how the information from the future comes, where the unconscious knowledge is stored, and how it could be measured, you would spoil the story.
A large part of 20th century psychology has been junk science: Freudian (or Jungian) psychoanalysis, repressed (then recovered) memories, victimology, addictology, etc. According to Dawes, both APA’s are not really scientific, that is why he founded the APS. Reputable scientists have produced junk. Prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals have published junk. If trained scientists with a Ph.D. can be fooled, untrained people can more easily be fooled by scientific sounding hocus pocus.
Many researchers in life sciences and psychology do not master correctly statistics, this problem is well-known in neurosciences, you can do a search on Google scholar about “Why most published research findings are false” !
Concerning Radin, he has a MSc in Electrical Engineering and a PhD in Educational Psychology; in his CV he boasts many scientific publications, but does not say in which discipline. I too have a Ph.D. and a long list of articles in peer-reviewed journals, but none in psychology, either para or standard (so I restrict my claims of expertise to those that are proved). I see also that skeptics are dubious of his claims and his handling of statistics.
I do not intend to do the “homework” of scrutinizing the papers on Radin’s “evidence” page, because I would have to study these papers in depths, do the same for opponent papers not on his list, and check the quality of the journals where they are published (there are many bogus science journals, you just pay and get published). This would take years, and my life is not long enough (only amateurs imagine that they can master a subject in a few months). I have other projects, more fruitful in my opinion.
Thanks, Christian. I recognise everything you are saying here. See also the 12 August post from Explorer above, and my reply.
“Every death on the roads is tragic, of course, but going back to a society with no motor traffic would inevitably entail leaving behind many benefits of the modern world as well as its perils.”
Let us not forget, the destruction of public transport was deliberate and takes us back to the early twentieth century when The United States of America, a constitutional republic by design, was being secretly taken over by socialists and feminists who called themselves ‘progressives’ and who highly supported democracy. These disgusting traitors A la Saul Alinsky culminated in the figure of Hilary Clinton! Anyway, we KNOW that socialism and big business been going hand in glove from way back when: Owenism, Engelism, Leninism and Clintonism!
The facts are clear: feminists are more interested in driving to cheap stores to purchase their ’empowering’ clothes than actually caring about kids getting hit by cars.
Of course, trams and so on are far better transportation, but that would leave cars as for the more affluent, so I suppose this is against the rules on equality. Even though every chav could still own one anyway, if they so wished. Cars should be a luxury; to be driven at weekends. Now, of course, it is well known that only ‘losers’ travel by bus, but just fifty years ago it was quite different. In the film THE GOOD SHEPHERD, the MATT DAMON character is upper-middle class and owns a car for weekends and so on, but travels by bus every morning in his job as presumably some kind of civil servant, ostensibly, because he is in fact a senior spy.
Also, trams are much more elegant as well as being less likely to hit boys and girls because they go in pre-planned places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
“Is there a message for (or about) Kind people in this? I think there is, because children’s abilities and confidence on their journey towards maturity will be enhanced or held back depending on the degree to which they are allowed to explore and discover things for themselves, both in their geographical environment – breaking out of the domestic prison into their town and country surroundings – and their social environment, meeting and engaging with new people, including Kind ones.”
Devil’s Advocate mode: To what extent should society allow kids to engage with minor-attracted people? What mechanism needs to be established to safeguard the child if ever that engagement were to become intimate?
Many just nostalgic for a previous age of boyhood.
But why should boys be out and about playing games and speaking to adults?
The future economy is going to be closer to a computer game and social media than playing conkers outside and climbing over hay bails in old barns or having adventures like in Enid Blyton books. I know there are parents out there who deliberately limit their virtual life of kids to encourage reading novels, but who actually be retarding their ability to get a job come the future.
“As yet, south-east Asian parents do not imprison their children through fear of stranger danger though.”
This will happen soon. The best system of control is Americanism in its current form: a large consumerist middle-class administered to by identity politics, a baying feminist movement to keep male creativity and freedom in check and make sure that boys never fulfil their academic potential. The demotic celebrated in the name of a false veneer of democracy; an Orwellian notion of strength through ‘diversity’. Soft-shoe totalitarianism. Already China has been studying how Britain avoided a revolution of the working class during the nineteenth century, according to supranational-socialist insider Tariq Ali, the “Street Fighting Man” as he was made famous by the privately educated English rock-band “The Rolling Stoned”.
Maybe look at the P I E proposals for that answer; This new blog is fitting for me, Because where I have been, Kids are often pickpockets, And bloody good at it! Though, They are often treated like dirt, I went somewhere where kids were selling semi-precious stones; When they surrounded me, My just shoved them out of my way — But did not faze them, They were determined to sell their stones, Lets just say the pretty boys got most sales, Including one with the same name as me, But one determined girl chased our vehicle down the road and forced a sale, However, I got that one half price!
Are you suggesting that customers generally favor the prettiest ? Or that you did?
ARe the boys aware of their beauty? Why didn’t you invite them to your house?
jHow lucky you are living in a country with beautiful boys and not shithole england?!
This CUNTry is a shiteden!
In answer to your question, I don’t live there, wish I did though; But would soon miss some of the creature comforts we have in the west; A decent cup of Tea for a start!
ARe the boys aware of their beauty?….Probably not! Maybe the girls were
Are you suggesting that customers generally favor the prettiest ? Or that you did?…..People generally favour those they find most attractive; Like why many ‘pedos’ are nice to kids.
On the subject of overprotective parenting, I am eagerly awaiting the release next month of Philippa Lowthorpe’s film version of Arthur Ransome’s ‘Swallows and Amazons’ – an idyllic portrait of children left to run wild if ever there was one. This, of course, is the book in which a concerned mother telegraphs her absent husband seeking advice on whether to allow her children to go sailing their dingy unsupervised, only to receive the lapidary response: “Better drowned than duffers, if not duffers won’t drown.” Which I thought very funny as a child, but now officially disapprove of as a parenting ethos.
Trailers can mislead, but this got my interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/06/16/swallows-and-amazons-trailer-adventure-meets-danger-in-first-tea/
“Over-protection has made children prisoners in their own homes and led to an epidemic of obesity. It renders them timid and fragile as well: even mild criticism is enough for the snowflake generation to fall to pieces, and the intolerance of robust debate among students of this mindset has become so debilitating as to present a grave threat to free speech.”
One of the most common sources of sadness for me, as an anarchist, is the incursion of the worst “snowflake generation” types in the anti-state movements. These are the types who want feel themselves “liberated” and “radical”, “revolutionary” even, yet cannot even face a simple debate – any sign of disagreement can easily turn them into an unresponsive hysterical state. Such “politically correct” anarchists are the searing pain and darkest shame for the ones who stand against statism.
Here they are, in action…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU
What about the silence of those wrongly accused once these survivors use raw emotion to bully anyone who may be so “heartless” as to ask for evidence to back up accusations (particularly the more outlandish ones), and character info on the accuser to see if they have a history of making such accusations? And what happens to “quaint” and “oppressive” concepts like due process, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and the right to question what happens when any particular group of people gain sufficient power to actually enact pressure lawmakers into enacting legal policies to prohibit law enforcement officials to always operate under the conceit that the accuser is telling the truth?
Also, since when has anyone attempted to actually silence individuals reporting sexual abuse? It seems their emotional, histrionic screams of “no one will silence us!” actually translates as “no one will question us… at least not if they want to continue teaching at any university!” It seems like they are the ones out to silence voices, while pretending they are fighting against the reverse. They aren’t exhibiting courage, but rather manipulating emotion to bully others into taking a very legitimate concern to serve a specific political agenda that is more tied to identity politics and power structures than it is to alleviate actual sexual abuse. Proof of this can be found when you observe how rarely these people ever attack the source of most actual cases of sexual abuse: the insulated nuclear family home, or other institutions that mirror its hierarchical structure (e.g., boarding schools). Instead, they attack specific groups of people who they perceive as symbolically representing their pain: most often men or Kinds. This is all about revenge politics, not a call for justice.
What I’m wondering is when a group of individuals who have been falsely accused of such crimes will pool their collective pain and anger into forming vocal support groups which routinely challenge this type of chicanery.
Attacking the family and “hierarchy” again!
You are full of the stuff that rimes with ‘hunt’.
Anger is fine, Anonangry, but lay off the personal abuse please.
Thank you for stepping in, Tom. For what it’s worth, though, I find Anonangry’s personal, emotionalistic attacks much more amusing than upsetting.
>I find Anonangry’s personal, emotionalistic attacks much more amusing than upsetting.
As I expected. Seasoned contributors to public discourse such as yourself, Diss, know better than to take personal attacks personally, especially when they come from people who don’t actually know anything about you as a person.
Well, it’s a shame that I was attacked by DISSIDENT, as I actually was intending to write some serious criticisms. I’ve forgotten now what I was actually going to write .
[T. O’C. adds: This follows a whole bunch of intemperate comments this morning by Anonangry, which I have now been asked (by Anonangry) to ignore.]
Also, I should say I did not intend to attack Anonangry. I feel I was subject to personal attacks, not him. If he does have some intelligent refutations of my points, I’d like to hear them, and if so, I’ll respond both cogently and politely.
Yes, Anonangry, I am indeed attacking “the family” – i.e., the nuclear family unit – and hierarchy (no quotations marks required), because both are among the most direct sources of actual abuse of every sort to children, and in many cases, adults as well. Power in the hands of some people over others in a rigid top-down structure, and a family unit based upon that foundation, are bound to corrupt many of the individuals at the “top.” If these institutions were so great as they are now structured to merit your heavy emotionally-based defense of them, then they wouldn’t be causing these problems. They need to be restructured along democratic, egalitarian lines. Personal attacks do not refute any of the points which I and others along these lines make, and will continue to make. They only express that you are, yes, angry, and have nothing beyond emotion to offer to the discourse.
“What I’m wondering is when a group of individuals who have been falsely accused of such crimes will pool their collective pain and anger into forming vocal support groups which routinely challenge this type of chicanery.”
Well in the UK at least yes, when indeed. In the total absence of a fair and just judicial process – a process that is utterly subservient to the CPS (Crown Persecution Service) and a fundamentally corrupt police force (dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3728478/A-law-unto-pay-thousands-police-chiefs-household-bills-private-healthcare-64-days-holiday.html), agencies that could be termed satanic – one can imagine many hundreds of falsely-accused men languishing inside prison right now. The following case is emblematic of how ‘innocence is dispensed with until guilt is proven’: inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=422.
Trouble is Dissident once one has been falsely accused, and I would include in that group any Kind people accused of enjoying so-called ‘obscene’ images of children, having been chewed up and spat out by the child sexual abuse industry only to face social death, no appetite remains to once more engage with so-called due process.
We face essentially the same problem here in the U.S. The growth of identity politics as a force to be reckoned with here has led to professional Victims (note how I capitalize the word) who manipulate emotions to bully others into being terrified of questioning them. The anti-choice Kinds in our community jump on this as much as any social worker, politician, or talk show host to attempt to beat any side that recognizes any degree of nuance into silence.
Thank you for your comment, Dissident.
As much as you, strongly support anti-hierarchical, non-discriminative egalitarian liberartarianism, expressed in the ideals of mid-20th-century cultural revolution – and share your sadness looking on its later degradation into hysterical, censorious victimological spectacle. Its a pain for me, for example, to look like feminism, once radical in a genuine, liberatory way, turned into a pseudo-“radical” neo-puritan, sex-negative, child-opressing male-bashing. Like the idea of social justice, valid in its roots, falled into an obsessive check-your-priveledge rituals, creating a new “affirmative” group-indentity racism under the guise of combating its old “opressive” version.
To put it short and sharp, past revolutionary tendencies was recuperated by the System to serve its reactionary ends. But it does not mean that they couldn’t be re-recuperated back by further radicals. Nowadays, when world appear to be entering the state of chaos more and more every day, it is the best time to recall the good old habit of revolution.
I live in the Great Midwest where the kids are certainly overprotected. My friends all drive their kids to events where we would have taken our bikes. Hell, we wouldn’t have had “events”, we’d have all just gotten together and done something. Our folks barely knew where we were all summer long. They worked, we played.
Now, they track their location by cell phone and plan their day for them. Kids have a hard time even getting into trouble and they have no expectations of privacy at home or at school.
I’m seeing some disturbing things now from the twenty somethings. I work near a very large university and young people cannot even cross a street anymore. They watch the walk – don’t walk signs only. There may not be a car for many blocks, but they stubbornly sit on their side of the street, eyes focused grimly waiting for the white “walk” to appear. When I start across early, I’ve actually heard gasps of shock at my actions.
If these kids, actually young adults are so unable to assess risk, or are so used to authoritarian rule where they are told when and where, we are in a great deal of trouble going forward.
Starting a small business takes risk assessment. Protesting the actions of your government entails some risk. Will these hothouse flowers be up to the task? We are in the middle of a big social experiment and the only good news as far as I can see is that global warming might render this one moot long before the results are fully in.
“Over-protection has made children prisoners in their own homes and led to an epidemic of obesity.”
Ironic is it not, that parents in their supreme effort to protect their little darlings, have all the while put their kids lives at risk from health issues related to poor diet and insufficient exercise. US stats: childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years. UK stats: of children between 2 and 15 years old, 16% are obese. A diabetes tsunami guaranteed to break on health provider’s shores in due course.
>UK stats: of children between 2 and 15 years old, 16% are obese.
Yes, and “obese” means seriously overweight, so the figure must be much higher for those who are just plain overweight.
Checking out “obese versus overweight” as an online search, the first site to catch my eye a moment ago (referring to kids in the U.S., I think, but that doesn’t matter for the point being illustrated) said this:
“Around 5% of the 22 million overweight children under five are clinically obese.”
[ http://www.diffen.com/difference/Obesity_vs_Overweight ]
So, in the under-5 range at least, there are 95 overweight kids for every five who are seriously overweight. And as there are about 65 million children under 15 in the US, around one third of all American children are overweight!
I’d say it’s almost as bad in the UK: maybe a quarter here, not a third.
We tend to think that this obesity problem in young people is restricted to Anglophile countries. But this is not the case. The days when Thai and Malay kids were without exception, willowy and lean seem to be over, sadly, with nearly 10% now classified as obese in the former country. The advent and abundance of Tesco and 7 to 11 convenience stores, KFC and McDonalds, plus low priority for physical education at schools, all underpin the ever-inflating Thai obesity statistic. As yet, south-east Asian parents do not imprison their children through fear of stranger danger though.