‘Paedophile’ soccer star did fuck all

Adam Johnson did fuck all. He didn’t fuck at all; nor did he have oral sex with an underaged girl as was alleged; and he certainly didn’t rape her. He merely sent flirtatious messages, which she welcomed, then kissed the very willing 15-year-old and copped a bit of a grope in her pants.
She was totally up for it, bursting to brag to her pals that she was scoring with a glamorous Premiership and England international footballer.
But that hasn’t stopped the zealots of victim feminism from cranking up their mendacious hate speech, deliberately obscuring the consensual nature of the activity under a blizzard of blather about “rape culture” – hate speech aided and abetted by incendiary media references to “paedophile” Johnson, as though the girl had been 15 months old rather than 15 years.
The madness of the reaction to Johnson’s “crimes” has been so extreme, so egregious, it takes a hard-boiled professional controversialist to do it justice. Take a bow, Katie Hopkins. Describing the Twitter mob’s version of lynch lunacy, she wrote in the Daily Mail, “Look around at these people. They are no different to the nutters of ISIS gathering to watch gay men thrown from buildings.”
As for the “victim”, kudos to Hopkins for daring to tell it like it was:

She looked way older than 15 and acted way older than 15, something “everyone told her” all the time.
But in Italy and Germany, where the age of consent is 14, they clearly define our young persons’ march into adulthood a lot more progressively then we do here in the UK.
She waited to meet him, willingly handed over her number, recorded their meetings to brag to mates, and was perfectly aware of what he wanted when she clambered into his car.
Not only that, but she was the one going back for more.
Funnily enough, daddy darling wasn’t bothered about his daughter’s “attacker” until she had let things get out of hand. She got drunk and gossiped to the wrong people. (Remind me of the legal drinking age again?) Adam stood her up, her name was dirt at school, and suddenly she needed an out.
From would-be WAG to slag, then suddenly she needed a more demure label: victim.

Those of us who take issue with WEIRD sexual values will reject the “slag” put-down. We don’t mind a girl who likes a frolic, or the excitement of having a famous boyfriend, or even bragging about it. And, yes, there should be every sympathy for youngsters panicking when they find they are out of their depth. By all means chuck them a life jacket, as parents find themselves doing wearyingly often when their kids get into all sorts of scrapes. Making mistakes and learning from them are a necessary part of growing up.
But the lifejacket marked “victim” serves only to strip young people – and adults too, increasingly – of all responsibility for their own actions. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and 8 in Scotland. These ages may be on the low side but they suggest we definitely feel a 15-year-old should be accountable for their own behaviour.
So, what is particularly unedifying in this case is not that the girl is a “slag” but that she and those around her would seek to offload all the blame for what happened onto Johnson. Ideally there would be no criminal liability on either side because both were willing participants, but that is another issue. The point here is that by casting the teenager as the mere victim of an exploitative adult, a grave injustice has been done. Johnson’s fall has been vertiginously tragic, not only losing a glittering career and depriving his club and fans of a great talent, but he is also threatened with a long prison term for no more than what would usually be called “petting” or “foreplay”.
Another aspect of the case is worth noting too, namely what an article in The Independent called Johnson’s “worryingly feminist” defence. Siobhan Fenton wrote:

In many ways the story is a familiar tragedy of an older, powerful man abusing his position to seek sexual gratification from a vulnerable person. However, what is particularly striking is the extent to which Johnson has not only failed to deny these wider social issues surrounding abuse, but almost embraced them. Indeed, in a bid to deflect responsibility for the suffering he has caused, his defence in court represented an almost feminist logic…

Johnson, she said, claimed his early rise to fame and success as a gifted teenage footballer made him arrogant and retarded his development. His defence, as she put it, “echoes feminist arguments about rape culture whilst inverting them to scapegoat [sic; just means escape?] personal responsibility”. She thought that Johnson’s expensive barrister, Orlando Pownall QC, had deliberately drawn on the “feminist” perception that culture is all-important in forming our ideas of what is sexually acceptable and unacceptable, and that his client had unfortunately been brought up in a particularly Neanderthal atmosphere: that of professional football.
Note that expression, “rape culture”. Fenton uses it no fewer than six times in an article of not much more than 600 words! Johnson was acquitted of consensual but illegal oral sex. What we get from Fenton is rape, rape, rape, rammed down our throats in her own act of oral rape, on a totally spurious basis.
Johnson might have been expected to use the traditional mitigation that the complainant had been a willing participant, thereby “blaming the victim”. Of course, that would have outraged the anti-sexual zealots. Logically, then, the “feminist” defence he actually adopted should be seen by the victimhood promoters as a great improvement. After all, Johnson, was humbling himself, admitting he had done “wrong” and saying he was sorry.
But that just seems to have incensed the indignados even more! How dare he be humble! What right has he to be sorry!  As for seeking to understand where he had gone wrong, by trying to see his behaviour from a feminist point of view, there could be no more cynical and appalling crime! Doing that, after all, allowed him to argue for a punishment short of castration followed by execution! Why should he be permitted to do that? What right could any man possibly have to any so-called “defence” when accused by a woman? The arrogance of it! The chauvinistic sense of entitlement!
It is clear there can be no appeasing feminists of Fenton’s sort. They are unreasonable. They are implacable. They must be met not with grovelling submission but with contemptuous ridicule.
Easy for us to say, looking on. Not so easy when you are in a courtroom and desperate for any sort of get-out-of-jail card. Judge Jonathan Rose said the range under consideration was between four and 10 years. A prison sentence was “almost inevitable”, he said, telling Johnson he was being granted bail to “say goodbye to your daughter” before sentence is passed.
The CPS sentencing guidelines actually point to rather less draconian possibilities. The starting point for “grooming” (the flirtatious messages), where the child is over 13, is 18 months. For “sexual activity with a child” of this age (the groping) it is only 12 months, albeit that is for touching the child’s genitals without penetration. But this rises to four years if a finger finds its way into a vagina.
Sentencing is now expected to be next week. If it were up to Ms Fenton, one supposes the footballer’s one-year-old daughter would spend her entire childhood with no daddy in her life at all.
Mr Pownall’s defence strategy is aimed not at vicious viragos, though, but at the judge. It may yet work. His Honour has strongly flagged the likelihood of a long sentence but there is a faint ray of hope in his “almost inevitable”. He may yet relent and be merciful. But that would be a very brave course to take, putting his own head on the block, never mind Johnson’s. So, if you are inclined to bet on clemency make sure you get decent odds.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

37 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fluechtling.net

German women are game for groping, forced kissing, with virtual impunity! Groping German police officers’ boobs:  400 Euro fine. Just got forcibly kissed in subway? Police don’t care.   
40 sex assaults by refugees (rapefugees) in Germany: 40 rape and sexual assault reports from January 2016 and August/September 2015

Fluechtling.net

Unfortunately he is not a refugee, or at least a Muslim.
Then it would be racist to even persecute him for forcible rape.
Compare Rotherham, or Cologne.
And sex with children, that is in Muslim culture, the prophet, the most perfect man of all times, has done it himself.

[…] money would be no object. I discussed Johnson’s case recently, before he was sentenced, in ‘Paedophile’ soccer star did fuck all. I said his “crime” was trivial and that despite a great clamour for a draconian sentence, […]

leonard sisyphus mann

Victoria Coren has posted a mad rant at the Guardian on the subject of Adam Johnson – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/20/adam-johnson-no-grey-area-over-child-abuse
A couple of quotes should be sufficient to convey the tenor of her views:

“If your victim is 15 and you get the same punishment as someone who abused an eight-year-old, I don’t care. If this child performed the dance of the seven veils, beckoning and pouting, and you get the same punishment as someone who jumped out of the bushes, I don’t care. Unlucky. Let God make those moral distinctions. It’s too subtle for humans; we’ve failed to make it work.”

Interesting reference to ‘god’ there – very reminiscent of the advice the monk Arnaud Amalric gave to the crusading soldiers, on capturing Béziers, a stronghold of heretical Cathars in the south of France.
Faced with a population that consisted of both orthodox Catholics and heretics and no easy way of identifying which was which, he told the soldiers words to the effect of:
“Kill them all. God will know those who are his own”.
The soldiers proceeded to kill every man, woman, child and animal in that town regardless of any protestations that they were catholic.
It does not strike me as a good idea to base one’s law or morality on dark ages warriors and war-lords bent on conquest and destruction.
It seems that even when murder is concerned ‘proportionality’ is a principal that is wise and essential – after all if the tarif for both stealing a crust of bread (why always ‘a crust’? Why not the middle of the bread too?) and stealing a diamond necklace are the same – it makes sense to commit the more serious and profitable crime.
Another quote:
“The fact that Adam Johnson might not be “a monster”, but actually sort of normal, is the very point. It’s the “sort of normal” people who can modify their behaviour. Our concept of normality has caused so much misery and pain”
It strikes me that the girl’s ‘misery and pain’ all kicked off when people with Victoria Coren’s attitudes got involved – and they have since done their best to keep the hysteria going – the girl seemed happy and positively proud about her conquest before the prudes and moral crusaders intervened.

jpmeadows

Hi Leonard,
I was deeply disappointed to see VCM offer such a vehement condemnation of AJ (and by implication; anyone else in similar circumstances). A big fan of ‘Only Connect’, let’s just say I’m also deeply envious of a certain Mr David Mitchell.
I understand her hypothesis about zero tolerance legislation (like drink-driving/smoking in public places/wearing seatbelts) becoming “normalised” and something that would be endured by the vast majority. Only problem, of course, is sexual and emotional “urges” are not like driving a vehicle or delaying a fag-break, and I’m surprised at VCM’s uncharacteristic lack of understanding in this respect. Perhaps we can put it down to the stresses of parenthood?
This may also be the reason she seems to be contradicting an earlier article (that was linked to by a Twitter reply to her promotional tweet) that advocated a more reasoned analysis of what was undoubtedly a much more serious offence: the drugging and rape of Samantha Geimer by the film director Roman Polanski.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/29/roman-polanski-samantha-geimer
Maybe becoming a parent has hardened Mrs Coren-Mitchell’s stance. However, I would also not be surprised if, as a teenager, she had (what I shall euphemistically call) “physically unsofisticated” displays of affection from older men.

leonard sisyphus mann

Hi JP,
I’d forgotten about the Polanski article.
I didn’t analyze why I should have been disappointed in her attitude towards the Johnson case, but maybe having read her Polanski article three years ago had left me with the impression that she had a more reasoned and nuanced approach to these issues.
I agree, what Polanski is alleged to have done is much, much less ethical that what Johnson did – As you suggest, motherhood may have changed her feelings about such matters.
>”I’m also deeply envious of a certain Mr David Mitchell.”
Despite being a paedo, I do like a decent set of tits on a woman (I bet you won’t read that very often on this blog!) – add to that a pretty face (but not ‘glamour’ pretty), wit and intelligence and, yes, I consider David Mitchell has done well for himself.
I’d be interested to find out what he thinks about Johnson and paedophilia in general – I can’t put my finger on it, but I kind of suspect that he may be sceptical about the hysteria – he’s done some jokes, sketches and rants that have left the impression that he’s thought more deeply about the issues than the hegemony would think it seemly to do.
About zero tolerance. Whilst reading through the comments some pro-Johnsonians said words to the effect:
‘you don’t penalise someone who drove at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone as harshly as you would someone who drove at 80 mph’
to which an anti-Johnsonians replied something like:
‘but if you kill someone whilst speeding it doesn’t matter whether it was at 35mph or at 80mph’.
This seemed to me reasonable – till a few minutes later it occurred to me the correct response to this would be:
‘someone driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone is 1/ much more likely to hit someone, and 2/ much more likely to kill anyone they hit than someone driving 35 mph’
So I rushed back to my computer, went to the article and, lo and behold, the posting of comments had been closed. Story of my life.
The ‘but if you kill someone whilst speeding it doesn’t matter whether it was at 35mph or at 80mph’ position makes an implied equation between all and any sexual interactions between an adult and a child (regardless of age or circumstances) and Death – any nuances that might differentiate a consensual relationship between a young adult and a 15 year old, and, say, the rape of a 4 year old have been removed: both, like Death, are absolute.

jpmeadows

Thanks for the reply LSM.
I also contemplated the possibility that her husband may have been included in with the more liberally minded friends that she alluded to in her article. I know that I often identified with his character Mark on “Peep Show”. (Not that this is fundamentally relevant, mildly intriguing perhaps.)
In the speeding “analogy”, I think the “but IF” response is irrelevant. The discussion was centred around the sentencing of Johnson for what he did, not any other tragedy that may, or may not, have befallen the “victim”.
You may (or may not) be aware of my response to Victoria’s promotional tweet. In which I proposed that it is unfortunate that a 15 year old ([or for that matter; any age] – though I didn’t think it prudent to put that) is condemned by law and the wider society if she/he appreciates sexual intimacy [with a person of their choosing]. Unlikely I’ll get a reply I suppose. If I ever do; it would be nice if it was a reasoned response.
Oddly I’ve never been a fan of large tits, and I would be reticent about referring to myself as a paedophile. Although that is partly because I believe the term to be etymologically unsound in describing any kind of sexual attraction anyway. I might consider *hebesexual* if pushed, but to me it’s more about the person than their age. I so much prefer attractive young(ish) lasses who knows their own minds. Hence why so disaffected with Victoria Coren-Mitchell’s article.

Sapphocidaire

Who cares WHAT some CHEAP COMIC ENTERTAINERS of the English MIDDLE CLASSES say about anything!
Have you gone mad?
ANYONE who refuses to condemn the hysteria is a BASTARD hooligan!
The people on this and other blogs MAKE ME SICK.

A.

“Those of us who take issue with WEIRD sexual values will reject the ‘slag’ put-down. We don’t mind a girl who likes a frolic, or the excitement of having a famous boyfriend, or even bragging about it. And, yes, there should be every sympathy for youngsters panicking when they find they are out of their depth. By all means chuck them a life jacket, as parents find themselves doing wearyingly often when their kids get into all sorts of scrapes. Making mistakes and learning from them are a necessary part of growing up.”
I like this paragraph very much.
For some reason I am thinking today of a case I read about in the francophone papers a few years ago. A woman in her early 30s who was a teacher of English at a collège (roughly, middle school: the very oldest pupils are 16 and the very youngest 10, but generally they are 11-14) in northern France started a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy pupil. They had been together for 18 months –a lot longer than most early-teen relationships last! — when one day the boy’s mother read his text messages and the game was up. Both partners maintained that their involvement was consensual and loving. She got an 18-month sentence and was not banned from teaching.

Christian

in France, since there have been affairs with teachers who sexually assaulted pupils or even raped them, there has been a small moral panic about “pedophilia” in the National Education, so the Education Minister made a cleanup, and all teachers having been caught with CP or in an sex affair with underages (even if outside school) are to be revoked, so 27 teachers were recently revoked.

A.

I’d missed that. Thanks.
Here’s an article about the events Christian mentions, for all who can read it: http://www.lemonde.fr/education/article/2016/03/16/en-2015-vingt-sept-radiations-dans-l-education-nationale-pour-pedophilie_4883693_1473685.html

Salem21

Banned from teaching, but not thrown in Jail is the more liberal ideal to me!

Explorer

My childhood and adolescence took place in 1990s and early 2000s Russia, and this was the time of virtually unrestricted freedom, especially for children – Wild Kids of 1990s. The level of permissiveness with which kids were treated was akin to late 1960s and early 1970s in the West. There was no curfews, so children were outdoors even after dark. No age ratings of content of any kind, so kids were watching and reading mostly the same stuff as adults, including violent and erotic one. There was no security guards and check-points at schools; adults who were former pupils of the schools used to pay visits to their former teachers without any prior notice, and no one objected to the presence of adult strangers in school. And there was exceptional tolerance towards sexual expression in childhood.
Let me provide you with two specific examples – events in which my schoolmates participated, when I was a schoolboy myself.
The first case is the story of free bold and active girls from our school. All of them were 10 years old, and they were highly interested in boys – both socially and sexually. So, they took an initiative in their own hands: they found a rather timid boy of their own age and invited him to the utility rooms… Later all of them bragged about it to many other children, including me. I won’t describe in detail what happened – the retelling of their story could easily qualify as “kiddie porn” in literary form, and I don’t want to become a source of legal problems for Tom! I’ll just say that there were no penetration, but there was nearly everything else; and girls were almost commanding the boy (who was, as I said, quite shy). Soon this event became known to our teacher, who told about it to the parents of all the participants. And… nothing bad happened. Teacher and all parents decided that it was just a harmless play; that it is normal for children to try to explore their sexuality; and that it would be foolish to act repressively. So, none of the kids was punished; there was only a friendly, non-scholding lecture about behaving responsively at school.
The second case is about a boy, 9 years of age, a friend of mine, who were visiting a female private tutor in her flat. The tutor had a daughter, who was even younger than the boy – maybe 7 or so; they were occasional playmates. Since the boy was a son of tutor’s old friends, the atmosphere was quite informal; once she left the boy with her daughter in flat alone and left for a short time. Boy start talking to a girl, asking her different things, and soon the topic of “the things that adults do” appeared. Let’s skip another episode which may be classified as “kiddie porn”… Then the tutor returned, she caught the children during a sexual play. And, again, no negative consequences for anyone – the tutor and boy’s parents decided that nothing bad has happened, and there is no reason to blame and punish kids. Later the boy told about this event with pride.
So, during the freedom of the 1990s, when nearly nothing was hidden from the Russian kids and adults were very tolerant towards them. Their sexuality was largely unrepressed, and easily manifested itself during the pre-pubescent age period; girls manifested it no less actively (sometimes even more actively!) as boys.
But, in mid-2000s, everything changed so quickly and radically that I was shocked. The Paedophile Panic arrived in Russia, accompanied by Paranoid Parenting. So, nowadays we have strict age-based curfews, absurd age rating system, security checkpoints and guards at schools, programs to supervise kids’ Web surfing and hysterical slanderous anti-paedophile media campaign – as any “child-protecting” country should… Compared to me and other Wild Kids from the previous era, modern children are treated like prisoners, if not like slaves. I cannot think about this situation without a mixture of pity (towards kids) and fury (towards adult idiots who deprive their children of freedom for the sake of illusive “protection”).

Explorer

This change probably has its roots in the general feeling of bitter disappointment and dissatisfaction towards Western culture, which became widespread in the late 1990s annd early 2000s among Russians. It was the result of many severe economic, political and social problems which Russia suffered during its period of change – problem which was shocking for the Russian population, which initially perceived Western democracy in a very naive and idealised way, and thought the opening Russia to the Western influence would nearly immidiately turn it into a paradise. But, when the pretty dreams of democratic heaven-on-earth were shattered as easily as the previous projects of a communist heaven-on-earth, Russians turned from the idealisation of the West to its demonisation.
The disappointment I described above was happily (ab)used by the loose network of post-Soviet reactionaries at the top of society. Soon after Putin’s entrance into the halls of power, these types became the producers and promoters of the new ideology, which is usually referred to in Russia as “anti-Westernism” (by its critics, since its proponents prefer to call it “patriotism”). According to it, we Russians are culturally exalted nation, chosen by higher forces to preserve “eternal moral values” and to defend from the corruption and defilement – which is coming from the fallen and “morally insane” West.
And, of course, the “moral decline” of the West must have been symolised somehow; it should have been concentrated in an specific narrative. And such a narrative is the one of “Western sexual perversion”. So, in the innumerable messages constantly flowing from most Russian media sources, the following ideas are presented: Western society is ruled by a cliques of Satanic perverts, whose legalisation of homosexuality is just a first step to in the covert plan to legalise paedophilia as well (it is already covertly enjoyed by the Western rulers), and, ultimately, destroy Russia as the last bastion of Divine Light standing in the way of Demonic Darkness. The Darkness which is manifested by the Cunning Paedofiles who are everywhere, who are always waiting in the shadows to lure and catch Russian kids – since their desires were implanted into them by the amoral Western culture and the Satanic forces lurking behind it.
Such as the common picture of the world, actively promoted by authorities and shared, to some degree, by the overwhelming majority of Russians.

Dissident

Thank you for sharing this, Explorer. I think the end result of this hysteria is quite clear: not so much the “protection” of kids but the near-complete control over them, fully sanctioned and backed up by both state power and general cultural mores. This is why bogeymen like the media version of “pedophiles” in all of “his” (it’s almost always a “him”) manifestations – everything from devil-worshiping Satanists to entirely secular forms such as international sex traffickers, to cabals of lecherous homicidal V.P. politicians (according to the U.K. media) to huge numbers of big-shot producers and directors in Hollywood (according to former child actor Corey Feldman) to providers of “hurtcore” on the Darknet, to popular and chill-inducing memes such as Slender man – serves a major useful purpose for both law-makers and helicopter parents.
It was only a matter of time before the usefulness of the pedo-hysteria caught on in Russia. I have heard that the U.S. and the U.K. did much to impose the paranoia in Russia just as they did in other parts of the world between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s.

Alan Vaughn

Hello Tom – Congratulations on your great post. It’s always a pleasure and a welcome relief to read anything like that anywhere. Such sentiments are rarely ever published and obviously, for reasons you and the other 4 commentators (above) have just discussed.
I Hope you and your readers will also visit our two sites:
The Antifeminist and Holocaust 21 to read and comment (please feel free to), on our likeminded views about this ridiculously controversial case and many other ‘paedohysteria’ related matters that we, like yourselves, also vehemently oppose…
You mentioned the comments following Katie Hopkins’ article. I actually tried in vain, to leave about 15 comments there and out of them only 3 were published. All 3 of them were simply replies to hysterical feminized women who asked something along the lines of, “Would she still have such views if it were HER daughter”?
I replied to them, pointing out that if they’d bothered to actually READ the (short, 2 mins worth of reading) article, before blindly posting their hysterical and stupid questions, they would know exactly what her views are. And would then have been even MORE hysterical and angry! 😀
All my other comments that discussed things like paedohysteria were not published, as well as a couple where I’d challenged a couple of very vocal male commentators, who obviously felt they had something to hide (we call them ‘paedocrites’ at The Antifeminist), because they are blatant hypocrites, who point their accusing fingers at other men (and chant “hang em” etc.), in a childish effort to deflect any suspicion away from their own (normal) interests in attractive, nubile and fertile young females. (I.e. NOT children under 10 – which is what paedophilia is all about), but as you all discussed here: they feel this needless guilt about their perfectly normal sexuality, thus attraction to sexy young girls; no thanks to the hysteria generated by feminists and their wicked (anti-families and ANTI-CHILDREN) ideologies.
So called ‘Gay bashers’ of earlier decades were the same: You could easily spot the homosexuals – they were always the ones making the most noise about how they love to bash senseless, or even murder (other) homosexual men. They did so believing they were fooling onlookers or other people generally, to see them as hating homosexuals, when in fact they feared their OWN similar homosexual tendencies might be revealed. People who were not gay had nothing to hide, thus were indifferent to homosexuality and therefore, had no desire or reason to hate, let alone wish to harm gay men and had little or nothing to say against them…
I.e. read this classic comment by Jonathan King.
I think we have now reached the point where normal male sexuality, is illegal, at least in the UK… If they continue with the success they’ve been having and the legislative creep continues at the rate it has over the past decade, the age of consent will soon reach 25 or 30 and any female below that age will be considered (like the 15 year old in this case): a helpless, immature and innocent little child and the victim of a predatory, ‘grooming’ (I HATE that stupid meme), ‘paedophile’ if she has any kind of sexual liaison with any adult male.

jkjkjkjk

So, “but what if she was your daughter” is a comment from ‘femininized’ individuals? How many men say they would kill another man for sleeping with his young daughter? It’s actually a reflection of a well-entrenched sexist system. A system that is maintained by both men and women, and the understanding of and opposition to which is much more complex than two or three antisexual-feminist or MRA trigger-narratives.
The reason the age of consent should be abolished is that young people should have sexual rights and that there should be no restriction of free expressions of sexuality, but not all these theories about men’s interest in “young girls” being natural. It doesn’t matter whether men have this interest nor whether it is natural. I myself know many female pedophiles and boy-loving male pedophiles. And men who prefer older women are counted in the billions. The picture you paint here of an asymmetrical generalized interest in young girls from exclusively male individuals is repulsive to the degree that this is presented in a gendered and asymmetrical way and unrealistic. In real life there are all kinds of expressions of variance which are wildly in divergence with prevailing moral standards, social expectations and gender roles. What we see as the result of women being “known not to be pedophiles” is them being much more likely to engage in illegal sex because they know they won’t get caught, not the opposite. Reality tells a different story compared to the fairytales of the modern Western world, created to best fit its bourgeois capitalist system.
While antisexual feminists are wrong, I don’t think I agree with your position that male sexuality is “oppressed”. Male sexuality, by far, still is much more freely expressed than female one, even if males are unproportionally over-targeted by criminal justice mechanisms. Women’s sexual development is still limited by society. But antisexual feminists have been one of the classic examples of the enemies of female sexuality, when they labelled sexuality in general as “the use of the female object by the male subject” (and thus perpetuating this; instead of criticizing the expressions of sexuality which are actually like this). Meanwhile you and other “anti-feminists” or MRAs (excuse me for the bluntness) decide to take up the role of the “male” within this debate and decide to play the strawman that antisexual feminists like to paint, feeding their narrative. So I can’t agree with you or at least the way you choose to present a narrative for your positions.

A.

I always object to “but what if she was your daughter/mother/sister” because it is, as you say, “actually a reflection of a well-entrenched sexist system”. The question that should be asked instead is: what if it was you? And in this case — what if it was? You’d be fine, unless anyone massively overreacted just like this.
Agree v. much with the rest of what you have said.

Dissident

I always object to “but what if she was your daughter/mother/sister”
As do I, A, since it’s basically saying, “You can’t blame people for losing all sense of rationality when it comes to something as emotionally personal as this, since you and everyone else would do exactly the same thing if faced with that situation.” As if it’s some type of biologically ingrained reflex action that no one can resist if such circumstances present themselves. That is very much rationalizing overwrought and illogical behavior, not to mention presumptuous and just plain incorrect, because some of the most courageous and fervent individuals to speak out against this nonsense – including Debbie Nathan and Lenore Skenazy – are parents who have raised girls.

A.

I also dislike it because it keeps the male person being spoken to at one remove: as well as encouraging possessiveness, even violence, it discourages empathising directly with the suffering of the victim (supposing there is a real one). Plus it indirectly perpetuates the myth that these things don’t happen to men, which doesn’t help male victims any.

Salem21

That’s why I seem to upset allot of men’s rights activists, ‘boys are often victims of predatory women’ (and even raped)! I simply point out that we don’t know what the quality of the relationship was like — Or the fact that us males are programmed to seek multiple sexual partners: Those that accuse men of exploiting women who sell their bodies in prostitution, One could just flip that and accuse them of exploiting man’s need for multiple sexual partners, They accuse people like me of attacking anyone who tries to expose what the ‘establishment’ have been trying to cover up, when in reality I’m just highlighting the complications in their black-and-white reasoning.

Dissident

Hi, quadruple-jk 🙂
While antisexual feminists are wrong, I don’t think I agree with your position that male sexuality is “oppressed”. Male sexuality, by far, still is much more freely expressed than female one, even if males are unproportionally over-targeted by criminal justice mechanisms. Women’s sexual development is still limited by society.
I don’t disagree with the above. The way I see it, male sexuality isn’t so much “oppressed” as demonized, while male aggressiveness in the sexual arena is simultaneously presented as normal, expected, and “masculine.” This is just one of several contradictions in society when it comes to dealing with sexuality, a topic that Western and Northern culture simultaneously considers emotionally healthy yet simultaneously “dirty.” Men are simultaneously rewarded and derided for being aggressive as society conditions them to be, often depending upon what crowd they happen to be in at the time.
As for women, they too are subject to these strange contradictions: these days they are told that it’s emotionally healthy for them to have a sex drive just like men, yet they are simultaneously “slut-shamed” if they express it… once again, depending on what crowd they may be with at the time. As for children and young adolescents, they are simultaneously told that mutually consensual sexual activity is normal and healthy for anyone who is adult, yet somehow a sign of emotional problems (such as desperation for attention) for anyone who is not a legal adult. Society’s contradictory feelings regarding sexuality have negative effects on both genders (and certainly trans and inter-sexed people) and and all age groups, albeit in different ways.

A.

I would add: how are kids supposed to grow up feeling good about their bodies when they are not only seeing airbrushed porn from very early on — nothing wrong with that, *provided* realistic images are given to them as well — but also being told that nobody should touch them in the area normally covered by a bathing suit?

Sapphocidaire

Well, they SEEM to be managing without your, err, ‘help’, A.

jkjkjkjk

> Society’s contradictory feelings regarding sexuality have negative effects on both genders (and certainly trans and inter-sexed people) and and all age groups, albeit in different ways.
I agree 100%. It harms everyone. Sexism harms everyone. And both adults and children are harmed by the current stances on sexuality.

leonard sisyphus mann

Is Katie Hopkins the only media commentary or report that at all questions the evident lunacy of this case? I expected spiked-online to at least take a questioning stance but have been disappointed.
Of course Katie Hopkins is (probably) not pro-paedophile (although would even she dare say so if she were?) but her article clearly articulates things that are considered unsayable in the mainstream media – and reading the comments below the article her readers seem to split roughly equally between those who feel that she has overstepped the mark, and those who seem relieved to read someone articulating thoughts and doubts they’d been secretly harbouring.
I know it’s a perverse and masochistic thought but sometimes it feels as if the only hope for paedophiles (and for children who get caught up in the hysteria) is in things actually getting worse.
Maybe only once the injustices reach a point of such grotesqueness, the hysteria and persecution becomes so virulent, and the thinking so warped and irrational that independent thinkers and people of conscience will feel obliged to question the unquestionable, and maybe even speak out.
The question is how grotesque the injustices, how hysterical the persecution, how warped the thinking before people wake up? I had wondered whether the case of Bijan Ebrahimi (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10409326/Man-accused-of-being-paedophile-and-murdered-for-photographing-garden-vandals.html) might provoke some sober reflection and feelings of shame in the minds of those eager – but apparently not…
On the other hand I actually believe that scepticism vis-a-vis paedo-hysteria is immensely under-reported – it really can’t be otherwise since there is such a taboo against the least questioning of the popular narrative and such grave risks involved that anyone who has any doubts about the hysteria will choose to remain discrete and silent.
Moreover how many adults have not found themselves eyeing up 15-year-old girls and/or boys?
Ironically it’s probably only exclusive paedos who will have little interest in an attractive 15-year-old – hebes, ephebes and teleios will all have the capacity to find a 15-year-old attractive.
So I suspect there must be a hell of a lot of men and women out there who recognise something of their desires (if not their deeds) in what Adam Johnson did, but who either dare not admit it to themselves, or harbour secret doubts about paedohysteria, or who feel terribly guilty, fearful and confused.

leonard sisyphus mann

>”Congratulations on going through those comments..”
Yes, reading the comments beneath stories involving paedophilia often feels like a descent into hell. It can be sobering, if maybe also salutary, to be reminded of how much hate and ignorance there is out there.
As, you point out, most moderators will censor comments which are at all questioning of the hegemonic narrative – so one finds oneself reading through dozens of ignorant and ill-informed comments knowing that one will be unable to correct or challenge them. It can be frustrating.
>”it is hard to know where sexually liberal readers in the UK would go these days to see their views reflected in the mainstream media.”
Spiked-online used to be ok – with, amongst the usual commenters, quite a few open paedos, paedo-sympathetic norms and hysteria-skeptics. This was probably partly because the comments section is unmoderated and partly because they’d frequently feature paedo-hysteria-sceptic stories by Frank Furedi, Barbara Hewson and Brendan O’Neill.
But this seems to be much less the case recently.
I think it developed a reputation as being paedo-friendly and I’m guessing that the editorial team or the share-holders decided they had to address this, and the only way of doing so was to have fewer stories that might appeal to paedophiles – hence maybe Luke Gittos’s odd and luke-warm article which uses the Johnson case as a stick to beat ‘feminists’ with, rather than addressing the evident hysteria and idiocy that underly the prosecution in the first place (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/rape-culture-made-me-do-it/18111#.Vupsv0JyhZ5).
They should have got Barbara Hewson to write about this case – that they haven’t speaks volumes.
In the old days Spiked-online would have wiped the floor with this story. And cleaned round the back of the toilet with it, as well.

Dissident

That, my esteemed galactic lawman, is among the pitfalls of having corporate sponsored media outlets. No matter how “radical” they claim to be, all of their articles must first and foremost be palatable to the readers whom the sponsors want to see their ads.
However, even the radical media outlets that do not use corporate sponsors, such as CounterPunch, will display a great deal of ambiguity and ideological variance when it comes to the topic of pedophilia due to the extremely emotionally charged nature and widespread ignorance surrounding this topic. Too many people, including journalist, simply do not want to know anything about the subject outside of the common narrative.

Sugarboy

Somewhat cynically, we should at least be quietly pleased that the main victims of this insanity seem to be ordinary heterosexual people, and in no way pedophiles. This may be due to the fact that pedophiles have long learnt to be careful and avert risks, whereas ordinary people have grown up blindly believing that they live in a world full of freedom and justice, where monsters are “the others”. And that’s one of the reasons why it won’t be long before critical mass will be achieved.

gordonk

It just keeps on getting worse out there. Thought and logic just keep on losing value in our society. Growing up, we had all sorts of fun adventures, some of which didn’t turn out so well and others that are now treasured memories. Kids today are being denied those experiences and I suspect we will all be poorer for it.
At least here in the Midwest, I’m seeing strange things. People are now far more accepting of authority, even as authority shows itself not to be trustworthy. As as example, I see people standing at intersections waiting for the “Walk” sign to come on, even with no traffic in sight. I walked and someone actually shouted, “Hey!”, stunned that I would flaunt the law so boldly.
People are more afraid now than ever. Not so much about the economy, which has some serious warning signs, but about evil Muslims, ISIS, illegal immigrants, child rapists and black people in general. Every article about some teacher and a fully consensual tryst brings out the most vile and hateful comments and like at a Trump rally, they just seem to egg each other on and most moderators don’t see a problem with it, which just drags the whole thing down.
Donald Trump is now a serious candidate and only a decade ago, he’d have been a parody. I wonder if there is something in the water.

Sapphocidaire

People are fed up of liberal bigots who have been forcing identity-politics down their throats for thirty years.
I hold out hope that a nasty regime of revenge will root itself in the West and drive all the gays, feminists and liberals to destruction.
Of course, paedos will suffer too, but that is a small price to pay for the satisfaction of witnessing the persecution of LGBT activists and feminists and other shrill devils of this era,
In other news:
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14346384.A_feisty_teenage_Belle_in_school_production_of_Beauty_and_the_Beast/?ref=mr&lp=14
Feminist indoctrination and male shaming is still underway in British schools. ‘The 15-year-old said: “I really like playing this character – she’s the first Disney princess to say ‘no’ to a man and the part is very interesting to play.”‘ I would call such a girl a cruel bitch, but there you go.

Dissident

People are fed up of liberal bigots who have been forcing identity-politics down their throats for thirty years.
This much, I can agree with, Sappho. Over the last 30 years the Left has produced a pernicious sect (or sects) that pushes identity politics masquerading as social justice, and revenge politics that treats any group of people perceived to have “privilege” (most often anyone who is male, white, heterosexual, who doesn’t also happen to be Jewish) as being inherently despotic, advantaged, and oppressive, no matter their individual economic situation, individual community standing, or ideology. They’ve twisted essentially noble platform like feminism into something akin to a Bizarro version of the movement. These twisted versions of progressive movements and principles are not seeking to eliminate unjust hegemony, but simply to create a new form of it.
I hold out hope that a nasty regime of revenge will root itself in the West and drive all the gays, feminists and liberals to destruction.
I do not blame the gays, feminists and liberals in general for these problems, but rather the self-serving and hate-mongering individuals who have hijacked the names of the above three movements and produced distorted versions of them for their own gain. I do, of course, put a good deal of blame on the multitude of individuals operating under the rubric of mainstream liberalism which cowered and capitulated with the conservative elements that took over the politics of the West over the past three decades, emerging as the ideologically housebroken “centrists” of today.
Of course, paedos will suffer too, but that is a small price to pay for the satisfaction of witnessing the persecution of LGBT activists and feminists and other shrill devils of this era,
Personally, I most certainly do not want to see LGBT people as a whole being persecuted for the actions of the more ignorant and less scrupulous among their number. That just comes off to me as fighting revenge politics with another sort of revenge politics which likewise targets an entire group as being representative of the most vocal bad eggs among them. I also do not want to see genuine egalitarian feminism demonized due to the politically organized misandrists and victimology proponents who have disingenuously co-opted that movement’s name for themselves. These latter individuals may refer to themselves as “radical feminists”, but in actuality they are in no way “radical,” but are instead regressive and reactionary.
Feminist indoctrination and male shaming is still underway in British schools. ‘The 15-year-old said: “I really like playing this character – she’s the first Disney princess to say ‘no’ to a man and the part is very interesting to play.”‘ I would call such a girl a cruel bitch, but there you go.
The misandrists and victimologists who masquerade as “feminists” do indeed teach girls that male sexuality is inherently predatory, and that all male attention–no matter how polite and genuine–is to be treated as a hostile act.
Lenore Skenazy, the proprietor of the excellent Free-Range Kids blog, routinely lampoons and calls out the idiocy of this and other aspects of the ongoing hysteria, and deftly points out the connection between the demonization of males and the “stranger danger” phenomenon, as she does here: http://www.freerangekids.com/category/eek-a-male-and-stranger-danger/

37
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top