Women are apt to chastise us guys for being ruled by our dicks, and there is no shortage of high-profile cases that would seem to prove them right. Time and again, prominent figures such as Bill Clinton have fallen from grace thanks to sexual indiscretions of a crazily risky kind, temptations to which they could only have succumbed if their brains were being bypassed at the time.
When a Kind man finds himself in trouble over an illicit relationship, no matter how consensual, the outcome is of course much more serious than for a politician, whose job and reputation may be at stake but not his liberty. Likewise the politician’s femme fatale may well find herself rocketed to fame, fortune and a great social life by the “scandal” in question, as did Monica Lewinsky, whereas the child partners in paedophilic relationships are all too often traumatised by their “rescue”.
Occasionally we encounter an interesting hybrid category where comedy and tragedy meet in equal measure. Did you hear the latest about Simon Danczuk? He is the MP, it will be recalled, who made his name by damning a deceased fellow MP as a paedophile and then setting off a false alarm about an allegedly widespread Westminster VIP paedophilia scandal. He was recently suspended from the Labour Party following allegations of sending sexually explicit text messages to a 17-year-old girl. He reportedly admitted “inappropriate” behaviour, saying that younger women were his “Achilles heel” and that he needed therapy for sex addiction. And a week or so ago he ended up being arrested and put in a Spanish jail cell after an altercation with his ex-wife that saw her reportedly suffering cuts and bruises leading to hospital treatment.
Just the sort of person to lead a moral crusade against sexual transgression, eh? In rueful mood, the 49-year-old politician apparently said of himself “No fool like an old fool”. To which Heretic TOC would add, no hypocrite like a morally fulminating, anti-Kind hypocrite! Methinks it be not too un-Kindly to savour a modicum of schadenfreude over his downfall!
Most of us Kinds, fortunately, have our sexuality under control, unlike Danczuk and his ilk. I like to think we keep our ethical standards and our public stance on sexual morality under scrutiny as well, especially here at Heretic TOC, so that our private and public attitudes are kept in harmony. It is called integrity: as the dictionary puts it, “The quality of being honest (my emphasis) and having strong moral principles” and also “The state of being whole and undivided”. The private and public standards of the hypocrite, by contrast, are sharply divided. They are neither honest nor moral; and they lack integrity.
But we must beware of complacent self-satisfaction. Yes, our private beliefs and our public stance may fit well together as an honest and coherent whole. But how have we arrived at them? Are our beliefs just rationalisations of our desires, making our stance just as false as that of the hypocrites?
Ernest Jones introduced the term “rationalisation” to psychoanalysis in 1908, defining it as “the inventing of a reason for an attitude or action the motive of which is not recognised”. It was an explanation which (though false) could seem plausible. The term has generally been used ever since by psychologists and psychiatrists to refer to false beliefs. However, when someone’s beliefs appear to be self-serving it is all too easy to accuse them of rationalising even when their beliefs are true.
It is one of the many sticks our opponents use to beat us. In their hands it is a rhetorical device to discredit any arguments and evidence we might bring to bear in support of our position, without having to go to the trouble of refuting the arguments or probing the evidence. As such, it is an ad hominem argument: it plays the man not the ball.
As the admirable Leonard Sisyphus Mann pointed out in his Consenting Humans blog:
Even proving conclusively that an opponent has a personal stake in the arguments he’s making does not invalidate, or even weaken, the position they are arguing for: it is perfectly possible to argue something out of self-interest and be correct: many English slave owners actually supported the 1833 Abolition of Slavery Act because domestic manufacturing was becoming more lucrative than their plantations, and the huge compensation that parliament was proposing to pay slave owners for loss of their property would allow them to cash in a failing resource and invest in that increasingly lucrative domestic industry – indeed the mills of the North of England were built on the proceeds of this compensation.
Mann cites Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert H. Thouless, who wrote that we must not make “the foolish mistake of supposing that we can settle controversies by… labelling their arguments ‘rationalisation’… A true opinion as well as a false one may owe much of its strength to irrational motives.” The main value of an alertness to rationalisation, says Mann, is a reflexive one: “An alertness to rationalisation is primarily a tool for sorting out our own thinking rather than that of others.”
Having said that, being Kind in our society may afford us a degree of immunity against self-serving rationalisation that is not afforded to those with mainstream sexual tastes. Clinton was apparently able to convince himself (and for a while fool others) by rationalising that he did not have sex with Lewinsky, based on sex being defined as coitus not oral sex: she gave him head but they did not screw. Can you imagine Kind people making that argument, even in the privacy of our own heads, to deceive only ourselves? I don’t think so, not when oral sex with a minor counts as rape and we have constantly dinned into us that even looking at pictures of naked kids is somehow horrific. We can and do reject such characterisations, but society is on our case so much that we cannot get away with superficial excuses: we are forced to think much more deeply than Clinton ever needed to.
Even so, we are not totally immune. There are those among us, for instance, who take a cynical view of morality in general, like Red, the BL hero of Rod Downey’s novel The Moralist. Our reasoned choices, Red insists, are just “a second-generation copy of desire”: everyone, not just Kinds, makes up their morality to suit themselves. Everyone rationalises.
In essence Red is a Nietzschean. Friedrich Nietzsche, in On the Genealogy of Morality, made his famous distinction between master morality and slave morality. Stripped to its basics, it amounts to an assertion that being “good” is a mug’s game. That’s just for losers, notably those without power, such as slaves, including the early Christians when they were being persecuted and martyred by the pagan Romans. Instead of doing whatever they wanted, which was the philosophy of the winners, or the ruling masters of society, the Christians had to settle for “good” behaviour and hoping their reward would come not in this life but the next, in heaven.
The master morality, by contrast, is seen as noble. Instead of abasing himself before God, and repenting his sins in the Christian manner, the moral aristocrat has a keen sense of his own self-worth, such that “good” is whatever seems good to him, not to some censorious authority, whether divine or secular. “The noble type of man,” Nietzsche wrote, “experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, ‘what is harmful to me is harmful in itself’; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating.” The strong-willed man values such things as good, because they aid him in a lifelong process of self-actualisation through what Nietzsche called “the will to power”.
It is a philosophy that seems very plausible as developed in Downey’s novel, on account of Red being a very appealing character. He is a romantic figure, a revolutionary. He is glamorous. He has style. He cuts a dash. And, most important of all, the boy he loves admires and loves him too.
But what if the hero were a little more flawed? It’s a point I took up in my review of the book some years ago:
Let’s imagine Hannibal Lekter saying to himself “What I want is good.” What he famously wants is to eat people. So why can’t we accept this as morally acceptable? Is it just because we happen to have different wants? Is it because most of us (presumably) do not wish to eat people? No, it is because we do not wish to be eaten. Hannibal’s wants are inconsistent with ours, so we need some system – some reasoned, principled system we can agree on – to arbitrate between competing wants. This engages law as well as morality, but both systems of restrictions on behaviour ultimately derive their authority from beliefs as to what is harmful.
Downey goes some way to tackle the Lekter factor. His hero’s morality is thus based not just on any old whimsical desires a body might have, but on love. It is right and good to follow our hearts, to be guided by our desires. But the major and highly disputable premise is that we will all wish to act with love. Well, that’s still no problem for Hannibal Lekter. He just loves eating people!
According to Red, “The moral struggle is not between good and evil, right and wrong, but self and society.” But “society” is not just government, it is not just authority telling us what to do. It is us, as well as them. It speaks volumes about our alienation in modern society that we lose sight of this. Other people – friends, family, lovers, colleagues – all want subjective “good” things that differ both subtly and drastically from one person to another. The way out of the problems this creates is the mutually advantageous resort to reason and, yes, moral principle. This need not result in the tightly defined codes and rules that are the authoritarian’s paradise. It does not imply God-given fundamental truths as to what is good, but rather a consensus of shared feelings between all the interested parties – a consensus that is easier to achieve in small communities, albeit less universal and more questionable on that account as well.
So the Nietschzean “will to power” is not enough. And we all know how disastrous the philosophy of “will” was to become in the hands of the Nazis, when it was extended from individual self- actualisation to the collective will of the “Aryan race” and the glorification of the German Reich. Compared to Hitler, Hannibal Lekter is just a lovable eccentric!
Rather than stepping onto the slippery slope that begins with the “will to power” and ends with Triumph of the Will, world war and genocide, we should admit that moral discipline is necessary. That doesn’t mean we cannot aspire to a triumph of the willy (and fanny!) It just means we must be vigilant in challenging our own rationalisations.
LOTTERY-LEVEL WIN FOR COMPO KID
The Los Angeles Times reports that a former student who impregnated a California high-school teacher at the age of 17 has received a $6 million compensation settlement from the school district.
But compensation for what? For being a teenager over the age of consent (over the British AOC at least) who was lucky enough to have a consensual relationship with a young woman who is now 29?
They have to be joking don’t they? If this is victimhood, there must be millions of teenage boys (and younger!) who would bust their asses for a part of it.
Yet this is what Vince Finaldi, a lawyer for the unnamed “victim”, reportedly said about the astronomical damages award:
“The size of this settlement represents the gravity of the damage done to this young victim and his family and it also highlights the extreme malfeasance and neglect by school officials who turned a blind eye to the criminal conduct of a teacher and failed to protect a student.”
No evidence as to the “damage” done to the now 21-year-old “victim” is presented in the LA Times story, which is otherwise quite lengthy. Arguably, the baby could be considered collateral “damage” of the relationship. Nothing was said about who will be bearing the cost of the child’s upbringing but the “victim” has joint custody with the mother. This financial burden could account for part of the settlement, but $6 million? The infant could have gold-plated diapers for that sort of money, and more than enough for a decent upbringing through to college graduation.
It’s about time I enter the fray here. This is an answer to the following question by Tom, to avoid furthering the spaghetti effect already quite severe down on the thread in question.
Benatar then says the most promising way to defend the consent argument is by arguing that sex is somehow different to other activities. It may be. But how?
Simple. Those other examples Benatar used are officially approved and generally even encouraged by parents and other adults. They lack the sheer emotional power that sexual activity has on our culture, and they do not run the risk of interfering with a youth’s perceived “innocence.” They are also more or less fully under the control of parents and other authorized adults, as Salem noted (but did he really refer to the male phallus as “cock” in the middle of an academic discussion?). They are activities that children and young teens can engage in as part of a group that are supervised by either parents or other authorized adults. Sexual activity is a personal activity that runs too much risk of a youth learning and growing in a way that adults cannot readily control.
“(but did he really refer to the male phallus as “cock” in the middle of an academic discussion?”
Its the anti-PC in me, anyway, we’re all men here (plus a few females, and they’re probably open minded to get here)!
When it comes to consenting to a new activity that could be (at least physically harmful) Remember my school days, Was around twelve — We went horse riding — The horse I got did not need much encouragement to canter (or gallop) over the jump; It must’ve been tied up for a week!
It bolted off before I was ready, as it went over the jump I was off like a rag-doll
I just walked off and sat in the grass!
Thankfully, the horse had no chance of influencing your emotions, or giving you insights and ideas apart from those of authorized adults, or acting as a catalyst for you to grow or “mature” outside the influence of your parents or any authorized adults. If the worst that could happen to you was being tossed from the horse and killed, but not enlightened or experienced in a way that adults consider “improper” for someone your age, then equestrianism was perfectly permissible! That seems to be how the narrative goes.
Thank you for some great comments with good insights as usual, btw, Salem!
I’m humbled by your words, Though its yourself and TOC that are the real veterans in this game.
Remember both this is just a narrative, a social narrative, because capitalism, marxism, feminism, their mother etc. To let a boy get killed riding a horse but not permit to hang out with a man or women.. I do not see any aberrated behavior here, it is very logical and rational, yes, a sexy and stupid narrative, just that.
[This post is my reply to Tom O’Carroll, posted here to avoid “spaghetting effect” from which replies suffer…]
I understand your point, Tom – that’s why I myself feel a bit uneasy about a project of a multitude of mutually isolated communities which many anarchists profess. Such “multicultural” vision is as problematic as “monocultural” statism which we face nowadays. I bet on a third, “intercultural” way – multitude of open, actively interacting and communicating communities, and individuals which move among them freely, being able to participate in several communities at once, associating with them according to their intentions and disassociating according to their will. Such situation will require a combination of highly developed, individualised, widely available technology; liberated diverse and tolerant society; and strong humanistic, personalistic culture. The leading countries of the world are already pretty close to meeting these criteria – close enough to make the state reactionary, not progressive, force.
Quite soon, I hope, these criteria will be met in full. The growing mainstream acceptance of highly controversial alternative energy sources, such as “cold fusion” (now usually called “low-energy nuclear reaction”, or shortly LENR) provides us with a possibility of obtaining clean, cheap, effective, lasting and (most importantly) individual energy sources. Combination of conventional and alternative forms of medicine (complementary approach) may help us to treat aliments which neither of these forms would be able to effectively treat alone. The increasing social unrest and disappointment with establishment may provide a new chance for reenactment of radical political movements (including anarchism) and reemergence of fringe cultural positions (like child liberation). In short, my outlook is quite optimistic – the current problems are not only threat, but also a possibility for all types of alternative views, contrarian stances, dissident persons and marginalised groups. I genuinely hope that counter-revolutionary forces which took a dominant position during reactionary hysterias of 1980s are close to their miserable end, and a “new 1960s” (or “2020s”?) are fairly close.
And then we would be able to create an “intercultural”, highly-developed, open-community, free-individual anarchy – a society in which people are free to associate and disassociate, and always have a genuine possibility of effective participation in construction of social expectations and demands which affect them. Such society will require an open and exchange and transfer of information, which, combined with communal and organisational transparency, will keep people knowledgeable about the whole specter of possible alliances and groupings with which they can associate themselves. It will also provide them with a treasury of all human-accumulated knowledge, “traditional” and “non-traditional”, which will allow them to learn about mistakes of the past and develop the ways to avoid them in the future.
The obvious question is: but what if some communities will forcibly prevent people from leaving them? Well, in such case there is always the possibility to call for the help from outside the group: one would be certainly able to find some outsiders strong and persuasive enough to intervene in the oppressive situation and preventing the violence – by force, if nothing else works. But, I think, in liberated and humanistic society such situations would be relatively rare, and necessity to use force to prevent violent oppression will arouse only occasionally. The vast majority of conflicts would be probably resolved peacefully, but group members themselves – or, in harder cases, by invited mediators who will help to achieve mutually acceptable resolution.
[This post is my reply to BJ Muirhead, posted here to avoid “spaghetting effect” from which replies suffer…]
Thanks for your long and detailed response, BJ. I think I should provide you with a counter-response, which I would start with a quote from a Robert Anton Wilson’s essay “Natural Law, or Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy”. This essay contains an eloquent and witty critique of the idea of “Natural Law” – this is, the notion of some kind of absolute, pre-human, nature-provided moral norms that humans must always fulfill obediently, and should not dare to question or transform them. Wilson provides the argumentation that the “Natural Law” is simply “Divine Law” in disguise; an attempt to restore religious moralism by appealing to an abstract quasi-deity of “Nature”. Wilson extensively refers to Max Stirner in his essay, as positively so; yet, his reference to Stirner’s ideas ends with the exact quote I like to use. Here it is, between lines:
_______________
Before closing this section, it seems necessary to point out the outstanding error of Max Stirner, the first philosopher to realize fully that, while modern Natural Law theory pretends to be rational, it actually comes as medieval metaphysics hidden in blurry metaphors. Stirner proceeded from this discovery, which he documents beautifully and sometimes hilariously, to a rather extreme non sequitur, and claims (or in the heat of his rhetoric seems to be claiming) that, if morality is a human invention, morality is somehow absurd. At this point I suspect Stirner also was not free of medieval anti-humanism. I would rather say that because morality appears to be a human invention, we should esteem it as we esteem such inventions as language, art and science. This esteem, readers of this essay will realize by now, does not mean uncritical adulation. Rather the reverse: I believe we express our esteem for the great moralists, poets, artists and scientists of the past by imitating their creativity rather than parroting their ideas, and by creating our own unique voices and visions and contributions to humanity’s accumulated wisdom and folly. (I always hope to add to our wisdom, but realize that the probabilities are that I am, just as often, adding to our folly.)
_______________
This view, expressed above by Wilson and defended by me, is known as moral constructivism: the position that morality is man-made, yet still valid. This view on axiology and basic problem of value(s) seems to me to be the most reasonable and critical one, since insisting that “being man-made” means “being absurd” leads to rejecting virtually everything we know, including such apparently natural stuff as “direct” experiences and perceptions (as well as needs and desires), since they are also not as “pure” as one might think: they are dependent on the individual and environment, including social and cultural one. The qualia of our vital experience can never be entirely separated from the values of the social groups and teams in which we participate (or with which we contact) and from the meanings provided by cultural ideas and archetypes we accept (or even by the ones we reject). Even mystics, who deliberately strived to cleanse themselves from any social influence or cultural impact, were never able to complete their quest – even if they claimed they did; they were only able to banish these impacts and influences deep enough into unconscious to make them unnoticeable, yet not inactive – they were still covertly influencing them.
So, proclaiming an axiological nihilism is simply not an answer: as long as one remain a social creature, one simply has to deal with the value systems produced by the social actors (including oneself) during their mutual interactions. But understanding that these values are constructed by the actors themselves, not provided by some supreme being or entity (including “Nature”), makes them open to deconstruction and reconstruction; it makes them challengeable and changeable.
And this is precisely what have been happening in the West for the last few centuries: the constant deconstruction and reconstruction of previously “absolute” value judgements. This process have its positive and negative sides – the former was most fully manifested during the short period of child liberation in the middle of 20th century, when children were freed form the old oppression and treated almost as equals; the latter we face nowadays, with the advent of hysterical victimology and protectionism. Yet, despite all its flaws and setbacks, this persistent revaluation is a proper and necessary activity: it makes us question the situations which were previously deemed to be unquestionable. Child-adult and adolescent-adult sex is not an exception: once it was simply a spontaneous activity, now it is both an ethical question and a research field. And, I think, it indeed should be an area for the general and applied ethics, as well as scientific and scholarly inquiry: adults should clearly understand their moral responsibility when participating in sexual relations with children and adolescents, and should rationally analyse the situation to prevent the possible harm for their prepubescent and pubescent sexual partners. Return to the simplistic, pre-moral and pre-rational spontaneity is neither possible nor desirable; putting the undiluted vital activity under refinement of moral reflection and intellectual scrutiny is what helps us to decide what is dangerous and what is beneficial, and intentionally modify our behavior to avoid danger and increase benefit.
Explorer is probably the smartest guy here, but if he had checked my texts would have found that I am the ultimate example of advocate of ‘natural law’, and sure enough my natural law is divine law, my exhibitions are nothing more than pure and simple religious ideas.
So far you’ve traveled to encountering one.. Explorer, and so close that you have one here!
Just a constructive criticism: why I go to learn about ‘adolescent-adult sex responsibility’ if practitioners of adult-adult sex do not? why adult-adult sex is not even questioned or debated? other particular divine law? adolescent-adult sex? exists ‘adolescence’ even?
I was going to discuss “natural law”, “human nature”, and various aspects of these in reply. But, I think it is enough to quote you:
>> as long as one remain a social creature, one simply has to deal with the value systems produced by the social actors (including oneself) during their mutual interactions. But understanding that these values are constructed by the actors themselves, not provided by some supreme being or entity (including “Nature”), makes them open to deconstruction and reconstruction; it makes them challengeable and changeable.
I have no difficulty agreeing with you, this, after all, is exactly what Nietzsche was talking about. The question is: how seriously do we take morality knowing that it is human created?
Permit me to quote from Nietzsche’s “Daybreak: thoughts on the prejudices of morality”, Book II, section 101:
>>>>”To admit to a belief merely because it is a custom—but that means to be dishonest, cowardly, lazy!— And so could dishonesty, cowardice and laziness be the preconditions of morality?”
I’m going to leave my reply at this, primarily because it would take several thousand words to provide a reply that would satisfy me. Perhaps a beginning to my reply would be to refer you to
https://bjmuirhead.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/bread-and-circuses/
I thin it would be rather fun to have a face to face with you about these matters, though that be impossible.
Cheers
Have you seen those imbeciles who complaining in all anime videos saying how they can sexualize 15/16 aged girls?
These people are mental sick, have a psychosexual disorder, they are like a sort type of schizophrenics, sexual impotents and psychopaths at a time, please, I repeat, do not ignore me because I say strange things, these people are CLINICALY SICK, are not people who think differently, or ingnorants, they are clinical sick as a schizoid, although they know it they do, they are deranged but criminally responsible, they have a disorder that I called -Adult-Aberrated Disorder- or -Adult-Aberrated Personality-
Do not think I’m a pseudoscientific crank, I’m tired of this false accusation because just my strange stances. Please let politics, sociology ect. in home, this is CLINICAL, you will realize you have all the components of a personality disorder, especially in the sexual aspect, their behavior is invariable, automatic and instinctive, all act the same, regardless of genre, ideology or particular beliefs. You are all wasting time treating this as a social and political issue
If they oppose all sexuality with young people it is because a personality disorder, attraction to young boys and girls is natural, no one can reject their own natural attraction so easily, not because “feminist officers SS” or anything, even hard for me to reject my primitive attraction to adults, they could not deny themselves their NATURAL attraction to young people, nor could do instinctively, not think is triggered by radical feminism, religion, etc, not by society, not by education, these people have a disorder, yes, triggered by -Adult-Aberrated too- society, but their behavior if it’s a clinical disorder itself
not even be attracted to adults is the same, whether natural or unnatural, one is teliophilia (adultophilia) and other is to have Adult-Aberrated Personality (AAP), and also it has nothing to do with homosexuality, the struggle of the attraction to young people is not the same as homosexuality, if teleio homosexuality it is now accepted by hetero AAP persons, is because the aberrated mind makes believe at the aberrated person that all attraction to adult people is ‘good’ and all attraction to ‘non-adult’ people is bad, this triggered by a neuronal image who is instictive and irrational ,they will never NEVER accept our attraction, as a schizophrenic never accept the reality, but they are fully responsible and they know they are doing evil things, they do not deserve any compassion from us.
Think what you will continue with political, social, gender, class, religion positions, keep playing your game, lie youself, but they do not reject you for being feminist, nor be masculinist, or atheist, or Christian, or western, or eastern , neither capitalist nor socialist, they reject you because they has acquired a sexual and personality disorder, being attracted to young people before full adulthood is natural, we’re programmed that way, and that’s good: Aberration is the behavior out of the natural, therefore oppositors to sexuality with young people are mental aberrated persons, not people with different ideas and stances
Everyone who hates young attracted people, i.e natural and sane people, hates the young itself, hates sexuality with young, hate relationships with young people, they believe that young people are ‘children’, they only support relationships with adults or same-age people.. and do not even know why because they are instinctive and irrational, they behavior is aberrated, it’s nothing about opinions. Help me to returning the world their sanity, and let yourselves baloney of history, politics and moral.
>If they oppose all sexuality with young people it is because a personality disorder,
Can so many people be mentally ill, or have a personality disorder? Your theory reminds me of “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” by Wilhelm Reich, in which Reich explains fascism as a symptom of sexual repression:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism
>f they oppose all sexuality with young people it is because a personality disorder, attraction to young boys and girls is natural,
This is the naturalistic fallacy. The zika virus is natural but that doesn’t make it good. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
However, this view has come under challenge recently from Sam Harris [see link above]:
Sam Harris argues that it is possible to derive “ought” from “is”, and even that it has already been done to some extent. He sees morality as a budding science. The Wiki entry links to a Huff Post article that might be worth reading when I (or anyone) gets a chance:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/moral-confusion-in-the-na_b_517710.html
Just one criticism, HebeOrder. Your post is very repetitious. Please try to keep it brief. I will delete your posts entirely if I start seeing repetition again.
Okay I’ll be concise, but please understands that it is not my native language, it took me almost 2 hours to make that comment, and 45 in this!
>’in which Reich explains fascism as a symptom of sexual repression’
Fascism is nothing like that, was a violent and primitive reaction to a society of cultural, social and sexual degenerates, however I suspect that marxistoid feminism that supported Reich is a product of sexual repression, not repression of fascism, but to be a bunch of impotents, which is what happens when you are passive and you do not use the “member” or use contraceptive pills as m&m’s hahahaha
>’This is the naturalistic fallacy. The zika virus is natural but that doesn’t make it good.’
The zika is good if you are the UN and want an excuse for people to pull down the toilet their own children.
UN sponsors: Eugenics Inc. and $ave the Children.
>Sam Harris argues that […]
Tom, In this article I just read ‘child rape (eg, Catholic Church)’ and a lot of complaints about mahometans marrying girls, says it all. So many words just to sell me the TV + birth control + fag marriage + ‘religious and paedos ‘re vile kiddie rapest’ standard package! Be concise Sam!
Here is an extract from ‘Anti-Oedipus’, If desire is repressed, it is because every position of desire, no matter how small, is capable of calling into question the established order of a society: not that desire is asocial, on the contrary. But it is explosive; there is no desiring-machine capable of being assembled without demolishing entire social sectors. Despite what some revolutionaries think about this, desire is revolutionary in its essence — desire, not left-wing holidays! — and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised.
Here is a brief piece I have written in criticism of Harris:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrpsssfig5flvdc/Harris.pdf?dl=0
Has anyone seen this long video ‘The Child Porn debate’…its around three hours:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJcvk0mIdG8
I stuck with it! It’s lively and unrestrained and quite interesting in places, though all participants would have benefited from more accurate knowledge concerning minor attraction and child erotica. Thanks for the link.
No problem…it was funny at times, One moment they’re talking about ‘kids’ then straight to ‘babies’….I think there would be more positive utilitarianism to be gained by recognising children’s right to sexual freedom then, As Amos said…”less stigma for paedophiles”
Yes, it was all over the place at times. Danny (the Australian or maybe New Zealander) was very articulate and logical, often preventing the thing from falling apart completely. But the trouble was, he was hung up on the idea that children are incapable of giving consent to sex. But this is simplistic. It is pretty cleat that they can give simple consent (straightforward willingness) and as for informed consent (which I guess was his real concern), it should be noted (a) that sometimes this is possible too depending on their age and level of maturity and (b) when it isn’t, it’s not clear that this is necessarily a problem if what is being done is not actually harmful, bearing in mind that in other areas of life we don’t generally insist that children have to be able to give informed consent to participate in things (a point made by David Benatar in the extract quoted by Tom elsewhere in this comment thread). Trouble was, Amos didn’t seem to have thought deeply enough about all this to be able to respond effectively. He was simply taking for granted an uncompromisjng libertarian position.
You should also quoted when I argue that the simple consent is not what matters and informed consent is only possible with age maturity? and when I say that coerce children even in a non-sexual is a form of abuse? and that does not justify what the same is done in a sexual way?
>'[about informed consent] when it isn’t, it’s not clear that this is necessarily a problem if what is being done is not actually harmful, bearing in mind that in other areas of life we don’t generally insist that children have to be able to give informed consent to participate in things’
You’re admitting that it is ok to have sexual activity with a child although do not consent, because that activity (according to your or a certain establishment) is unharmful?
Yes, I know you said ‘maybe’ not ‘is’.
No ‘maybe’ about it. Simple consent is sufficient if the activity is harmless, in my view.
Who decides that activity it’s not harmful? you decide for the child? or a scientific establishment?
I will throw the question back at you. Do YOU think it’s possible ever to know that an activity is harmless (I mean know with reasonable certainty, not perhaps absolute certainty)? To answer ‘no’ would seem absurd. But if you answer ‘yes’ then you should be able to say how you would decide.
in both cases I would still say that you decide for the child, even if you’re right or not, the child simply does not actively opposes the act just because of their ignorance, not because of their knowledge and rational analysis of the act, therefore is considered non-harmful to you, and only for you, not for the not-at-your-same-level person you share intimacy.
I am aware of all other legal, ethical and other issues that would come out of this type of argument, but here I simply refute your particular point.
Let’s take the example of mutual masturbation between an adult and a young child. In most cultures in the present day, this is risky in terms of the child’s interests, as he or she may, either concurrently or later, be affected by the existence of a taboo against such activity, causing psychological damage. And as the young child is not able to give informed consent and therefore take into account such risks, I would say that (apart from being illegal) it is wrong to do this even if the child is willing. But suppose we are talking instead of a culture in which the taboo is not present or greatly reduced and the law allows this activity. Let’s say the parents don’t object either. Then I would say it is essentially harmless and therefore morally acceptable as long as the child gives simple consent. In fact, one might argue that in this case the child also gives informed consent in the sense that they know everything they need to know.
Excuse me, but is it illegal for a mother to masturbate her own daughter? Or son?
In most jurisdictions, surely, yes.
Is that a joke! Where have you been?
@ Explorer: This is a partial response to your post, and a partial response to the post. As such, it addresses the general area of discussion rather than specific comments.
I always have thought that master and slave morality were diagnostic concepts rather than prescriptive , especially when we consider, firstly, that Nietzsche was claiming a genealogy (a technique which Nietzsche was the first to use in this way, having used in in philology) of how morality comes about; and secondly, that he rejected the morality of his time and the manner in which society and religion imposed it. Simplistically, it always seemed to me that he was rejecting and at the same time detailing how those with power force their morality on others. His own answer to this was the “revaluation of all values”, namely, the destruction of the old morality as a necessary prelude to the creation of a new morality. (If I am correct in this interpretation of Nietzsche, then he would not accept any form of collective creation of morality.)
What Nietzsche was attempting, in my view, was the creation of a new epistemology, out of which could arise a new (moral) ontology. Hence his parody of how this could be achieved: “Also sprach Zarathustra”, which remains his primary positive statement concerning the revaluation of values.
Hence, in terms of, say, paedophilia, what is at issue is not merely the revaluation of the values within which paedophilia (vide paedosexual activity) is discussed morally, but also the ontology:does paedophilia/paedosexuality exist?
One answer to this is the history (genealogy) of paedophilia. Not having the space, nor the detailed historical knowledge, to do this, I’ll take a conceptual shortcut.
[1] Did paedophilia exist 1,000 years ago?
The only possible answer is NO—because it was nto a part of human ontology/epistemology at that time.
Of course, this is a distinctly different question to the following:
[2] Did sexually mature people (“adults”) engage in sexual acts with sexually immature people (“children”) 1,000 years ago.
The only possible answer is YES—because common human sexuality then and now.
It’s my view, and I believe it was Nietzsche’s, that al morality has this nature: it doesn’t exist until someone invents it, until our epistemology enables the creation of our moral ontology, which we then discuss as though the ontology is prior to the epistemology. In a more developed fashion, this position is found in Foucault’s work also, and an excellent, recent discussion of this, which addresses the role of rhetoric and the human sciences in this, is:
Daniel M. Gross (2016) Rhetoric and the origins of the human
sciences: A Foucauldian tale untold, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 102:3, 225-244, DOI: 10.1080/00335630.2016.1190858
Seen from the point of view I’ve advanced, there is no morality (nor such a thing as “paedophilia”): our moral ontology, and our morality, is a nonsense.
What there is, rather, are human practices which become the subject of research and thought, and these metapractices (psychology, moral rhetoric, philosophy, and so on), tend to lose contact with the actual practices of humans. An example of how deeply this is the case is, of course, the well known Rind, et al., controversy.
Anyway, apologies for yet another long post. Because of the size, I won’t address the will to power, except to say that it seems to me that it was both a psychological and a metaphysical notion, and therefore deeply difficult to discuss, even with conceptual shortcuts.
A wonderful post, Tom – one which inspired me to write this lengthy comment as an addition to it… Is this post, BTW, itself a form of stating a position in the moral discussion (or, more precisely, discussion of the very relevance and necessity of morality as such), featuring BJ Muirhead, myself and others, in the recent post concerning general safety of children – which was, in turn, inspired by my philosophical ramblings on Eric Wargo’s blog? If it is indeed so, I’m glad to provide you with a topic for further blogging… Or am I just ego-tripping a bit, and you have decided to discuss morality independently from this earlier debate? In such a case, excuse my prideful boldness. 😉
Anyway, I think I have something valid to add to your post.
You were right to bring Nietzsche as a primary advocate of “will to power”, which, for him, was also a “will to life”. Two other such advocates were not mentioned by you, so I will name them: the first one is infamous anarcho-individualist Max Stirner, and second one is notorious mystic Aleister Crowley. Like Nietzsche, those two were social and cultural nihilists who glorified individual love and will, and perceived them as being superior – and irreconcilably opposed – to any communal relationship or intellectual reflection.
In my view, the position of this Nihilistic Trio (let me describe them as such) does contain an important PART of the truth – its “starting point”, to call it so. The mistake that the Trio makes is confusion of the starting point and the final destination –and the whole length of the road between them. What do I mean by this enigmatic formulation? Let me explain…
The Nihilistic Trio starts with the individual being, with the singular person – which, I maintain, is the most valid point to start with. The Trio, however, ends with it as well – it never moves past the individual volition and evaluation, which is the blatantly wrong turn, since the individual does not exist in a state of perpetual loneliness – it coexist with other individuals, whose will-to-evaluation is as real, and as prior, as its one. So, the personal value simply cannot actualise itself without meeting, and mixing, with desires of other persons around. And, in this process, individual simply cannot evade interaction and interchange with other individuals, which always lead to formation of some kind of social structure, a network of contacts and relations. The collective values produced in such network exceed the simple sum of individual values of its participants.
But – and this is my central (meta-)ethical position – this collective values of society cannot separate themselves from their source – individual values of persons. They are only valid and legitimate if participants who formed them agree with them, and accept them as continuation and advancement of their own acts of evaluation. Of course, the formation of collective values does require as least some minor limitation on the actualisation of the personal ones; but the nature and degree of such limitation must be confirmed and accepted by each the network-participating person itself. If collective values of a particular structural unit of society are proclaimed and enforced without the consent of some individuals acting within it, such individuals has a moral right to severe their ties with such a structure, to disassociate themselves with it – and then to seek and to enter another one, which may be in a better agreement with their ethical priorities. And, if the social unit is based on a forcible prevention of such disassociation, or even of proper learning about the alternative social units, persons within it has a moral right to rebel against it and to struggle with it for the moral fulfillment – both of their own one and the one of others suppressed in a similar fashion. In a situation of such prevention, they can form the counter-structures and counter-networks of the oppressed, created in a solidarity against the violence of collective values with are incompatible with their own ones, and their organised resistance would be morally justified, since they are act against the persons who are ready to employ violence to enforce their own judgement on the ones who entirely disagree with it.
The (meta-)ethical stance is the foundation of the anarchist social ideal – which, I hope, will be enacted in a future. According to it, society starts with an individual and its discretion, but does not end with it – a highly diverse, changing and developing network of different informal communities and voluntary organisations will be created by the persons, with ethical limitations on their acts within them being agreed by participants. This diversity would be maintained by a universal right of individuals (as well as groups and teams) to associate and disassociate themselves with specific social structures according to their judgement.
It is quite obvious, however, that states – even “democratic” states of the modern West – are entirely incompatible with such ideal, since they does not take an ethical autonomy of a person as their starting point; in fact, they simply ignore it. The rules states impose on everyone within their range of power – its “laws” – were never consented by anyone; no one gave an agreement to be bound by them; they violate the ethical judgement of individuals, as well as communities and (unofficial) organisations, each and every day; and they use violence against anyone who resist them. So, state-imposed “laws” are NOT legitimate moral demands; they are immoral acts (and threats) of violence. They have no ethical validity whatsoever; they have only brute force with which they are thrown at the face of disagreeing parties. Subsequently, there can be no moral duty to obey them – as there is no moral duty to obey the commands of a bunch of gangsters. In case of both gangsters and state agents, there can be purely pragmatic, non-ethical reasons to obey – no one want to become the victim of a violent repression, and both clearly illegitimate non-state gangs and deceptively pseudo-legitimate state gangs are definitely able to enact it – but such reasons have nothing to do with morality. The moral response here would be an open rebellion and an active struggle, since there is nothing unethical in resistance to the violent threats. Legality and morality are not just non-synonymous; in the end, they are mutually incompatible. One or another should be given up in the course of future human development – and I hope that legality, with its irreconcilable violent confrontation with both individual and communal values, will be entirely eliminated, together with the state structures which produce and enforce it.
I think people should actively search for the ways of peaceful and productive coexistence without the constant threat of the state. With all the difficulties they will inevitably face in this search, it is still morally superior to the passive compliance to the state force – compliance which is suppressive to the their liberty, degrading to the their dignity and corrosive to their integrity.
Thanks for excellent post, Explorer. Unfortunately, l am away until tomorrow evening and cannot respond properly.
Aleister Crowley wrote a poem entitled, “A Ballad of Passive Paederasty” in his book “White Stains” published in 1898, many copies of which were seized and destroyed by British Customs officials.
https://dillsnapcogitation.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/aleister-crowleys-white-stains-seminal-hidden-poetry/
http://www.oto-uk.org/
Ah, another “old” anarchist. Lovely.
“Old” anarchist?! Oh, you’re hurting my tender feelings – I have just celebrated my 30th birthday! 🙂
I put “old” in quotes because it is a political philosophy which seems to have no currency at all these days, and, of course, I didn’t know your age. Perhaps some of the ideals of anarchist theorists will come back into favour, perhaps they already are doing so where you are, but over here I get a blank stare when I dare to mention little things like mutual aid.(Yes, I was/still am (?) a Kropotkonian. Long live the Prince?!!)
>I get a blank stare when I dare to mention little things like mutual aid.
Your mention of mutual aid and allusion to Russian anarchist Prince Peter Kropotkin prompted me to look him up, and more specifically his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, published in 1902.
I’d like to draw attention to a couple of paragraphs (see below) in the Wikipedia entry* which could hardly be more relevant to an intellectual battle (sorry about the military metaphor but the combat is quite fierce) between rival academic tribes of peace lovers, the Pinkerites and the Fry Faction.
Leading the Fry Faction is Douglas B. Fry, who edited a big multi-authored book, War, Peace and Human Nature, which draws on modern archaeo-anthropology and archaeology in effect to revive Kropotkin’s view that resource competition beginning in early agricultural times wrecked an earlier age of peace and cooperation. Fry pushes the time lime back considerably but the idea is the same.
The Pinkerites’ champion is Steven Pinker, whose even bigger book, the Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity, was published a couple of years before Fry’s, in 2012. Pinker is something of a Dr Pangloss. He doesn’t insist we are in the best of all possible worlds but he does use a lot of stats in a bid to prove we are progressively getting better and better, following a past that gets ever more bleakly violent the further back we go, deep into pre-history. Fry’s book came out later, and he challenged Pinker’s data.
Although they oppose each other, I greatly recommend both books.
From Wikipedia on Mutual Aid:
>Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution is a book by Peter Kropotkin on the subject of mutual aid… Kropotkin’s book drew on his experiences in scientific expeditions in Siberia to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation. After examining the evidence of cooperation in nonhuman animals, in pre-feudal societies and medieval cities, and in modern times, he concluded that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of species and the ability to survive.
…
>Kropotkin pointed out the distinction between the direct struggle among individuals for limited resources (generally called competition) and the more metaphorical struggle between organisms and the environment (tending to be cooperative). He therefore did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but argued that the cooperative counterpart has been underemphasized…
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
I’ve watched some talks by Pinker, and seen him on various tv shows, but haven’t looked at him in any detail. And I never have heard of Fry, but I’ll consult my not so very local bookshop and see if I can afford them.
As for Kropotkin, it was his attempts to put his ideas into political form and action which were interesting. More importantly, they were very practical. But it is many years since I have seriously considered anarchist theory and politics, so it is probably best for me to be a bit quiet now.
>I’ll consult my not so very local bookshop and see if I can afford them
Cheaper online, I’d have thought, although I gather there are still a few countries where Amazon and others do not deliver.
It’s the only bookshop for 70kms. She opened a mere year ago, she (the owner) is a total book lover, and she deserves all the support that can be mustered. Definitely cheaper from Bookdepository.com, but without the smile and pleasant chat about books, philosophy, and our mutual rejection of ebooks.
BJM – I have the Douglas P. Fry book as a PDF (27 chapters); I originally downloaded it from a dropbox link provided by Linca here on Heretic TOC about 2.5 years ago. You may be able to find a free copy online if you google the title, plus the words: ‘download’ and pdf.
Sadly, I did not find such a download. I will continue to search. But he is on Research Gate and he has quite a lot of work available there. I haven’t searched through the seven pages of his documents to see if the book is there, but I suspect it isn’t. Of course, feel free to send me a copy, if you so can be bothered.
Back from my wanderings, I am now able to respond to a couple of your points, Explorer.
The blog was not consciously intended as part of the valuable discussion to which you refer but it was no doubt at the back of my mind somewhere.
As for state violence, and the undesirability of being coercively bound by laws to which we have not agreed, the problem is more easily identified than the solution. The 1970s saw many experiments with small communes. Some were libertarian, some highly authoritarian. Either way, not many lasted long or were a great success.
How do we get the state off our backs except by repeating these failures? How do we enjoy the benefits of an increasingly integrated world without large-scale organisation that requires a lots of enforceable law and detailed regulation on everything from food safety standards to carbon emissions?
Nietzsche’s view of the master’s moral as active and positive, and the slave’s as reactive and negative, is arbitrary. One could instead consider the slave as someone who can work to earn his life by himself, who thus does not need his master, while the master cannot maintain his wealthy and idle way of life without the labour of his slaves, so he is utterly dependent on them. In modern slavery (after the discovery of America), slave-owners needed racist prejudice to dehumanise their slaves, and indeed the master’s viewpoint was often full of hatred. On the other hand the conscious slave espoused a conception of human dignity, so was it for the 200 000 blacks who bravely fought for the Union during the US civil war: they did not expect any material reward, they had already escaped from slavery.
The accusation of “rationalisation” against people who defend a point of view which is to their advantage implicitly supposes that to find truth one must be devoid of any material interest, like an angel. In practice, the accusation is levelled against those who do not follow the dominant doctrine; those who follow it are indeed angels. Thus Calvinists have said that Servetus (the heretic sent by Calvin’s followers to burn on the stake) was arrogant and obstinate, while Calvin was a humble and devout Christian. In a previous post, you pointed out that Frank Furedi considers MAPs calling for a change in the legislation and conception of inter-generational relations as “self-serving”, while Furedi himself, who is a parent, defends the “freedom of families”, that is the freedom of parents to choose how to raise their children. He has even justified spanking, giving a silly argument to claim that this is not violence. I have read other serious people writing that paedophiles only look for sexual gratification, not love, and less serious people saying that the paedophile only loves the body of the child, but does not love the child. Ordinary heterosexuals will of course defend their right to live their sexuality fully as they want, without being accused of being selfish or “self-serving”, and will always claim that they are driven by love.
Historically, contemporary freedom of worship would have been attained much later if it had not been for the struggle of people who did not follow the dominant creed. And we would not be very far for gay rights and gender equality without the fight of gays for their freedom, and for the mobilisation of women to point out the inequalities, prejudice and oppression (even subtle ones) that they suffered from.
Personally, I have not been accused of being “self-serving” for having defended contraception and abortion rights (I could just be “a man who wants to fuck women without having to face the consequences”). However when opposing the criminalisation of customers of prostitutes in France, I had to justify myself by stating that I am not a John…
Bravo, Christian. Great stuff. I particularly like your point about Furedi, whom I have often found reason to quote with approval. But we all have our blind spots.
LOAD of Marxist TRIPE!
You clearly haven’t read ANYTHING my predecessor and namesake wrote:
“So when, following the protests by Gays at their conventions, the bastard profession of fuckers known as the psychological establishment suddenly decided that male sexual relations was okay, and the terror techniques were simply shifted to a focus onto the minor attracted. All the therapy and shaming, and so on. Of course, it was also necessary for the snakecharlatan field of Queer theory to reshape all homosexuality in the past as basically egaliGaytarian in nature, and to whitewash individuals like Wilde and Whitman as all right.
As the whirlwind of freedom ( read: tolerance ) that came with revolution subsided into the tyranny of identity politics, with the revolved order asserting itself as the new “command generation” ( a term used back-way-when by hippies who knew the writing on the wall ), homosexual men-loving men actually emasculated themselves before their Lesbian overseers and found their slot in the liberal order as a procrustean sexual identity, their own heavily policed little cell in the panopticon fashioned in keeping with the psychosocial establishment, and known, in this Orwellian age, as “liberation”.”
Why is it that Christian gets his full comments published but mine are just summarily deleted? Whatever. The LAST time I even BOTHER to comment on this blog!
I have read other serious people writing that paedophiles only look
for sexual gratification, not love
Do you fully reject their writings, as you arbitrarily rejected the alleged anti-feminist etc articles of Purdy?
If not, why is outright anti-pedophilia fully justified, while the slightest hint of skepticism regarding feminism etc is not?
What do pedophiles gain from placing arbitrary demands on their would-be supports?
Further, I see no logical reason to assume members of some arbitrary groups, be it gays or women, are necessarily needed to sufficiently free said group. I am not, for instance, aware of gays moblising to gain rights in early 19th century France.
These “serious people” were the editors of the book of Collected Poems by Ernest Dowson. Of course I reject their sentence on paedophiles, but I highly appreciate their editorial work and scholarship, and I love the poems.
As for the right-wing masculinist blog you mention, I did not see there any good science, nor beautiful literature nor art, so I don’t loose my time with it. I have a stack of real science and literature to read, and some painting to search.
Concerning nice poetry by someone with viewpoints I don’t share, I have read yesterday (last night) the book White Stains by Aleister Crowley (http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/library/crowley/stain.html). Beside “A Ballad of Passive Paederasty” I noticed “Rondels”, a nice short poem in two parts, the first for a “Maid of dark eyes”, the second for a “Boy of red lips”.
>>I have read other serious people writing that paedophiles only look for sexual gratification, not love.
Don’t you think this statement is just a tad ridiculous?
Many men and women, of all ages, seek little more than sexual gratification. The vast majority of these men and women treat their sexual partners quite nicely, that is: the vast majority of people who seek only sexual gratification do so without harming their sexual partners. (I should point out that I do not regard after-fuck-regret as harm, as so many feminists do. I’ve experienced it a few times, but it never harmed me. I just learnt a bit more about who to choose as a sex partner.)
What is at issue, even for “an old immoralist” such as me, is whether or not there is violence and abuse. Without violence and abuse, mere sexual gratification usually is just a lot of mutual fun. Surely this can occur between any two (or more) people and not be a psychiatric and/or moral issue?
If there also is love, or if love grows, surely this is a huge bonus for all involved.
Moreover, the idea that seeking sexual gratification alone is a morally reprehensible action, is no more than a moral assertion based on the somewhat strange belief that sex is only valuable or acceptable if it occurs between two people who love each other. As far as I am aware, it has no currency in any but a moral discussion, and even then it has currency only if both people agree on the initial moral premise.
I am completely confident that “paedophiles”, just like any other people, can experience sexual desire and acts without love, and they can have sexual fun, without being violent or abusive, without loving the person they are with, and without harming them. I am also completely confident that many “paedophiles” actively seek love with children, and are ecstatic if they can find it.
I am not sure of the ontological, or even the epistemological status of love, (I haven’t thought about these issues for many years), but one thing I am sure of is that “love” is used often as a moral imperative, and I have to question whether the moral use of the term is valid. It is, after all, a term with a long moral history in western Christian culture, and has often been used to condemn people for their lack of love, especially with sexual partners.
This sentence about “serious people” refers to R.K.R. Thornton and Caroline Dowson, editors of the book of Collected Poems by Ernest Dowson. They write: “Dowson’s love for a young girl has of course its potentially sinister side, which has to be faced.” After discussing the topic, they conclude: “Whilst the paedophile looks to the child for sexual gratification, Dowson looks for eternal love.” This dichotomy between love and paedophilia helps them to reconcile their appreciation of Dowson with their evident loathing of paedophilia.
Understood.It’s all a little clearer now.
Those two academics should be put down for being genocidal maniacs.
They are HUMAN SCUM IN EXCELSIS!
But what a TRASH assertion by a couple of BASTARDS!
Just about SUMS UP how ALL ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS other than the HARD SCIENCES should be SHUT DOWN!
a vote for ME is a VOTE TO SHUT DOWN ALL UNIVERSITIES, STARTING WITH OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
wHO will vote for me?
I will vote for you, specially with shrinks, your anger it’s okay I also have to stand that recurrent bastard who says a ‘teenage’ girl is a ‘child’ and is not for a man, but better just ignore these rabble.
I think seriously all these Antis no are ignorants or hysterics, really most are that thing I name Adult-Aberrated persons, an aberrated behavior of personality and sexuality that makes that aberrated person believe that being attracted to young people is unnatural or perv or that young people are unable to be whole persons, that sex is only for adults or same-age etc. we know alllll their ravings.this loathing is just a product of his dementia.
Without resorting to epistemology, these people cannot know what “pedophiles look for” because they are not pedophiles themselves. Feminists and women in general are welcome to tell us everything about menses or delivery rooms, but when it comes to pedophilia, we are the teachers.
Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that both looking for love and looking for sexual gratification are possible in all humans, irrespective of sexualities.
I agree that only pedophiles can know for sure what pedophiles look for, but of course ‘pedophiles’ includes women pedophiles and this sort of comment is not likely to make them feel very at home here.
If you’d seen me at last night’s soirée hogging the buffet and wolfing away at the crisp bowl you may have thought twice about your use of the word ‘admirable’ to describe me, Tom! The crisp-hangover I had this morning was was worse than any alcohol-induced hangover I’ve ever had. If virtue is its own reward, maybe it’s also true that vice is its own punishment…
I think that what you have written, especially about the contrast between self-indulgent ‘Master Morality’ and a morality based on ‘a consensus of shared feelings between all the interested parties’ raises a whole set of interesting questions about what it means to be an ethical paedophile.
I don’t think it’s an entirely useless thought experiment to try to imagine what the ‘ideal paedophile’ might be like and, from that, to try to get some insight into what makes for moral behaviour.
In fact, much as there is a desperate need at the moment for ‘good’ moslems to distinguish themselves from islamists and jihadists, there is a like need for ethical paedophiles to do their best to establish as much clear blue sky between themselves and the Monster archetype that the media so relentlessly promotes.
There is, of course, a huge problem here – the media reports ALL case of adult/child intimacy as monstrous regardless – the adult who shares a tender, caring, consensual relationship with a child is rendered indistinguishable from the child rapist, and those arguing that child-adult intimate relationships can be conducted ethically will continue to have a silence enforced on them.
If the Kind community is to strive to establish itself as one with strong ethical integrity it has to do so for itself, rather than for the public gaze (I envisage a group called ‘Ethical Pedophiles’ which encourages and helps paedophiles to not break the law – but whilst not pretending to themselves, and the public, that child-adult intimacy is inherently wrong or harmful – I guess B4U-Act is such a group – but, not being involved with them – I’m not sure to what extent they are a ‘community’ or have a philosophy).
Maybe the ethics of paedophilia are defined by the nature of the participants.
Undoubtedly there are imbalances in these natures: physical strength, status, knowledge, experience, social standing, wealth. An ethics of paedophilia would be based on the elimination, within the relationship, of these inequalities – the adult sacrificing his/her strengths and advantages whilst the child is raised up – till the pair achieve equality. I know this can happen as I have experienced it myself in my friendships with certain children – it’s a wonderful kind of relationship to be in and it is, I’m certain, something very good and fulfilling for a child to experience.
I’ve never understood those who say paedophiles are looking for someone over whom they can exert power – I’ve always felt it to be (as so often) the 180° opposite of what the popular narrative claims – ethical paedophilia is the contrary of the Nietschzean “will to power” – it’s a “will to the surrender of power” – the striving for equality of two people to whom society allocates massively unequal status.
Relationships across such imbalances seem to be generally taboo – think of the various degrees of taboo associated with a (for sake of argument) a rich, educated, middle-class white man having a loving relationship with a woman of a stigmatised race, or a physically disabled woman,or a mentally disabled woman, or someone very poor or of low status (such as an ‘untouchable’ in India), or someone profoundly uneducated… yet if one does not assume such relationships to be conducted cynically, because of a fetishistic interest, wouldn’t such relationships represent something more spectacularly loving, more generous than the usual relationships between equals?
In a sense – the adult in a child-adult friendship should be ‘chivalrous’. Chivalry was a code of conduct that regulated the relationship between two people with great power differentials: a knight and a lady (often quite young and a chattel of her father). It may also be, to some extent, a product of Christian values – which are not explicitly disrespectful of women, encourage ‘turning the other cheek’ and the veneration of the mild and humble.
‘Chivalry’ has faded as women have won more and more power in society. Maybe it is possible that one day people will suspect someone of being a paedophile not because he’s a creep who scares children, but because he treats children with uncommon respect and in such a way that allows the child to be at their best, their most fulfilled and most happy.
>ethical paedophilia is the contrary of the Nietschzean “will to power” – it’s a “will to the surrender of power”
Well put! It was never about an obnoxious abuse of power in Rod Downey’s novel either, only about moral independence.
>I envisage a group called ‘Ethical Pedophiles’ which encourages and helps paedophiles to not break the law – but whilst not pretending to themselves, and the public, that child-adult intimacy is inherently wrong or harmful
Cool idea. B4U-Act is in a bit of a bind, I think. They cannot exercise a “community” function because too close an association with Kinds might be thought to compromise their objectivity. That would give them the same problems as PIE and NAMBLA.
>If you’d seen me at last night’s soirée hogging the buffet and wolfing away at the crisp bowl you may have thought twice about your use of the word ‘admirable’ to describe me, Tom!
If that’s your worst vice you’re doing better than most! 🙂
Regarding ‘Ethical Pedophiles’, given the variation of laws, as well as the difference between law and ethics, not to mention the various ethical systems – what positions would such a group take? How would it differ from the extreme anti-pedophiles, who’d proudly aid in the persecution of pedophiles suspected of daring to violate some alleged ethics of anti-pedophiles, such as having sex with, or or marrying, children?
Regarding ‘Ethical Pedophiles’, given the variation of laws, as well as the difference between law and ethics, not to mention the various ethical systems – what positions would such a group take?
Well, I was going to write that the idea of an ‘Ethical Paedophiles’ group was really meant as a thought experiment. But then it occurred to me that it is more than just that because it is an experiment that is indeed being conducted in various places on the internet – boards and communities such as girl/boy chat and Visions of Alice and, yes, Virtuous Pedophiles (!) are engaged in this.
And this is more a question of processes than answers – ethics, unlike morals, are concerned with individual cases, contexts and circumstances – so no answer will be definitive. The fact that I include ‘Virtuous Pedophiles’ shows that this is not about achieving a consensus, but rather about a dialectic between various ideas, positions and world-views.
A lot will depend on one’s ethical assumptions – all ethical systems have to be ultimately based on how one answers questions such as ‘what makes for a good life’, ‘what is the purpose of existing? ‘, ‘what is the point of being alive?’.
The answers we give to these questions will determine our conception of what childhood is and these will determine our ideas of how we, and society, should treat children. A profoundly religious person’s answers will be along the lines of ‘the purpose of life is to do god’s will’ or ‘to attain paradise and avoid hell’ and that will determine how they raise and treat children.
A secular person has a more complicated task – they have to go back to their own ethical foundations and assumptions and build up from that.
But, lest what I’ve written appear to be a way for me to dodge your question – my thoughts about child-adult relationships are based round certain qualities that will serve to correct the various inequalities between the child and adult.
I have nothing against inequalities in relationships provided they are beneficial – no one complains about the inequalities of knowledge between teacher and pupil, or of agency between a parent and a baby. But I think that the adult-child friendship/relationship is a special case, and is particularly valuable because of this: it is virtually the only relationship in which a child can enjoy an absence of a power dynamic with an adult – where the child is an equal agent – where the child can end the relationship. And because of this I think such relationships are not only particularly beneficial to children, but are maybe even necessary for truly healthy individuals and society.
So, in practical terms I’d suggest a list of dispositions and attitudes that an ethical paedophile should cultivate in him/herself, and which I’d suggest as my principals for ethical behaviour for paedophiles – I’ve written about this on my blog https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/some-arguments-for-a-kinder-world/ – and will just quote the relevant section:
– Restraint: because our love should never depend on the child’s willingness to engage in intimacy with us. Nor should we forget that even if s/he does wish for intimacy there are reasons why we should still consider refraining from it;
– Generosity: because an adult is capable of giving more time, attention, resources and means to a child than a child can give the adult;
– Selflessness: because the loved person brings no social status, power or wealth with it;
– Gentleness: because children are smaller and weaker than adults;
– Sensitivity: because children are less emotionally hardened than adults, experiencing emotions on a more extreme scale. All of which means that the adult should be more alert to the child’s needs and responses;
– Attentiveness: because children are less able to assert themselves and are so often discounted or overlooked;
– Responsiveness: because children are less predictable than adults;
– Respectfulness: because respect, which they are unaccustomed to receiving from adults, is the greatest gift an adult can give to a child as it allows them to flourish and be more present in the world;
– Serenity: because children need adults whose presence is reassuring.
>”How would it differ from the extreme anti-pedophiles, who’d proudly aid in the persecution of pedophiles suspected of daring to violate some alleged ethics of anti-pedophiles, such as having sex with, or or marrying, children?”
Well, I think that there would be some similarities with Virpeds (I take it you have them in mind) – I think it hard to argue one is acting ethically if one were to embark on a relationship with a child knowing that that relationship is very likely to bring stigma, secrecy and confusion into that child’s life.
However VirPeds condemns all adult-child intimacy regardless, whether it is harmful or beneficial. EthPeds would be clear that caring consensual intimacy between an adult and child is in itself a good thing. Society has put us all in a metaphorical prison for witchcraft (a crime that does not exist outside the minds of the deluded) – but whereas VP have, under torture, have confessed and believe themselves guilty, and are acting repentant – we refuse to acknowledge the existence of the crime and remain defiant.
As to the question of child marriage – well, personally I’m strongly against it – children’s experience of sexuality should be playful; it should be, like play, non-committal, non-binding – it should not commit the child to a life-time of monogamy, and what may be child-bearing, domestic work, subservience, and an absence of education, a social life and self-realisation. A decision a child makes (or, worse: that is made for her) at the age of 8 or 9 should not bind her to consequences that will last her the rest of her life.
But I also understand that there will be exceptions to this, such as the following appears to be:
You mean instead that I must bear the mental engagement that someone had touched me sexually as a child or even baby?
I could never give my consent as a baby (and as a child nor knew was that), but I must be my whole life with this “burden” in my head but not marriage?
How can you be so shameless?
I asked you to prove me how a little child even a baby can give consent, why will give consent if do not even have reality of the environment around them, an animal and a small child can not give consent, when I a child I never gave mine consent to anything, nor you, but you sleep well at night, right?
“Babies can enjoy a sexual massage too”
I do not enjoy a damn, until 10 or 11 I do not remember anything, just to start.
You are good about ‘rationalizing’, you adapt the world to your own mind.
I do not want any kind of sex or sexuality before puberty.
Perhaps you or someone here would have respected this wish?
No. I had not even formulated, nor had conscience to decide, you’re the only one who had decided for me, justifying in your mind at that moment I was happy or said you “let me do” with body gestures, I would be ashamed if I think so.
You can argue whether a 10 or 11 year old can consent and have a relationship, even just for being almost-pubescent, but not only little children, even babies, you are reading what you write?
The only real consent that exists is the informed consent, period, even if antifeminist dont like me for say this. I will look for a 14years old girl and she says ‘yes’, because pubescent brain (and sexuality) is enough developed, I do not need opinions of Adultophilics idiots, well, you do your see if the non-developed baby is laughing and the go to?
or you’re going into the non-developed 7 years old child and if he allowed (i.e, dont oppose actively) you to go into him? is because he wants, right? if then repents later, bad luck, that trauma is a myth, right?
If at that time he did not know he was doing, it does not matter? does not matter! in your rationalization of the world we all have to see good sexuality in childhood, who will not want to? but marriage is wrong, just play even if you you do not know you are doing. sexuality is not the same that play or explore.
The philosopher David Benatar deals very succinctly with the consent issue in an article on paedophilia in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics (ed. Hugh LaFollette, Blackwell, 2013):
“According to the third main account of what is wrong with pedophilia, sex with children is wrong because children are unable to give proper consent to sex (see sexual consent). This is because of their cognitive and emotional limitations and because of their dependence on adults (Primoratz 1999). The chief challenge to this account is that it could apply also to a range of other activities in which children engage with adults. For example, children are unable to consent (see consent) to sporting activities, education, and religious practices (Ehman 2000; Kershnar 2001). They cannot understand all the relevant information or deliberate about the possible risks and benefits. They are also dependent on the adults who involve them in these activities. Yet, this is not thought to render children’s involvement with adults in these activities impermissible.”
Benatar then says the most promising way to defend the consent argument is by arguing that sex is somehow different to other activities. It may be. But how?
Dare I say it?
Sex is more fun, and is a directly independent activity which encourages individual pleasures. Of course, I am thinking firstly about sex between peers. Unlike HebeOrder, I believe children can give consent, though I may draw the lower age at four, of only because, as you know, that was when I did give and receive consent, though it wasn’t the unrealistic “fully informed consent”.
But, irrespective of that debate, it really does seem to me that the difference is one of individual action, pleasure, desire, and so on. The examples given by those authors all are activities which we are governed into. Sex can be, and usually is, a matter of one’s personal willingness to explore and enjoy.
Another difference, is the fear of consent and activity outside of parental control. But this is a part of the general contemporary hysteria about childhood freedom. When I was four, and older, my parents wouldn’t see or hear me for hours. School, religion, organised sport, all are areas of supervision and control.
Ok, sorry, pushing my own barrow, not answering the question at all.
> I believe children can give consent, though I may draw the lower age at four, of only because, as you know, that was when I did give and receive consent, though it wasn’t the unrealistic “fully informed consent”.
Strangely enough we had a notional lower AOC of 4 in PIE. Those (not me) who drew up our legal proposals put some weight on the fact that by age four most children would be able to put their consent into words. Babies could be enthusiastic participants in sexual intimacy but their lack of verbal power would mean they could not confirm their consent in the event of it being challenged by a third party. All a bit silly, perhaps, but it was a legalistic attempt to address consent-based objections.
How did you ‘Tom’ come to the conclusion that twelve is a good minimum age to allow coitus? Is it because we’ve had hundreds of years in English law set at twelve? Despite the average age of puberty several years older — Is it a developmental rule of thumb that most girls, These days, can handle the average cock? I suppose an age of coitus would be more important than an age of simple oral play and exploration. At least damage can me measurable; But as Lensman and others has pointed out, An ethical child-lover would stop if something hurts, Like most decent people do in other activities.
As for consent — I like the hamburger analogy — With all the crap they put in them!
Puberty do not start more older, in fact age 12 is the most common and natural, if all goes well the girl. Pubescence is not just having menses, is a radical change in their minds and bodies, the real stage of life between child and full adult, not the alleged ‘adolescence’ AKA being an older child.
Nobody has proved that are particularly decent those ‘child lovers’, at least most people are indecent, where you see decency in general today??
I like most the analogy about talk about Anarchism, mutual aid and free association, while my tanks shelling your city.
Hebe…These days many girls start puberty around nine, That’s why In many Muslim countries, They start getting the girls to cover up ( this is also supported by many women, as is honour killings)!
There is evidence that kids are sexual before puberty — a mini-puberty called Adrenarche — Highlighted on this very blog:https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/the-magical-age-of-10/
>How did you ‘Tom’ come to the conclusion that twelve is a good minimum age to allow coitus? Is it because we’ve had hundreds of years in English law set at twelve?
A case could be made on the basis of long tradition going back even to Roman times, when 12 was considered an appropriate age for a girl to marry. Boys were thought ready to assume responsibility for married life at 14. There were marriages at much lower ages too, but those would have been without societal approval of their consummation.
My approach was not historical though. In my Radical Case book I was going by average physical development. I wrote:
“What might such an age be, if it were to be based purely on the physical development of children in general to a stage when they were able to experience such activity as pleasurable rather than painful? (Emotional factors, knowledge of the world, etc., are dealt with elsewhere.) We have seen that in other cultures custom allows children to receive penetrative sex by adults from as young as eight, and it seems improbable that such customs would persist if they proved to be physically damaging, 11 though it is still possible that they may be endured, rather than enjoyed, by some children. I do not want to be dogmatically precise about any particular age: it may even be that the appropriate minimum age for coitus is not the same as that for anal intercourse, but on the basis of the medical opinion I have sounded informally, making allowance for slower developing children, I feel that in both cases twelve would probably be about right.”
https://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/chap06.htm
The fact that such activities are a type of abuse does not mean that sex with children is right or not. That a person force a child to a religion is an abuse, and sadly in many areas too, in fact I only agree to compelling a child only on security grounds, not more. Once to reach puberty should be considered an adult and decide for himself in all matters.
>’is by arguing that sex is somehow different to other activities. It may be. But how?’
Sex is an activity like any other, but not equal, like eating is not like breathing, but they are necessary to live, also does not mean that all sex and ethics is the same, in my case my ethics forbids eating animals, so although I support eating in general, logically, I do not support eat meat. Same with sex.
>’Strangely enough we had a notional lower AOC of 4 in PIE […] but it was a legalistic attempt to address consent-based objections.’
Well, is that the problem of all AoC, is because is always a fixed age, do not a specific time of human life, which is never fixed, and less on sexuality, I am against AoC absolutely even if I only support sex in puberty, is biology who must say that, not the state, not anyone, although I understand what you meant, just a point.
“I could never give my consent as a baby”…Don’t think a baby was mentioned!
Though I will say that in other cultures, mothers would masturbate her infants to get them to sleep — Just this society sees it as ‘bad,’ But why, how is it bad?
Because it is private as it is the relationship between a mother and a child. Now that family has been destroyed as a bedrock of society it is different.
Yes, he mentioned this some time ago, and is mentioned in BC many times, for example. I’ve never heard that really mothers masturbated their children, but that’s irrelevant, that something is done by a society does not mean that this ok, that something was done 50 or 500 years ago does not matter, the world evolves.
And about sexuality with babies, I do not have into account if a researcher found that 20% of men are pedophiles, or the 80% are even hebephiles like me, because the 50% can be sadomasochistic and remains a disorder, the same can say with infantophilia, I agree it is rude to say this in a child attracted blog, but I say just to clarify the main concept: that a X number of people being or practice Y, does not mean that being or practice Y is good or natural.
About your other comentary:
Puberty is not just having the menses, puberty is true stage after childhood, not is the same that just a biological process like menarche. I think all of you believe that puberty is just be able to have children, but no, some girls have their first period with 9, but thinks like girls act like girls and their bodies is like a child, teen girls also said to me that having the frist period at 9 was extremely rare
Everything I think and say is what I’ve lived (as male only) and what ‘teenage’ girls have told me, in fact, they told me they were not ready for sex before age 12, but most they masturbate since was 8, but was told to me that they did mainly out of curiosity, you’re right in a issue, older children can be sexual, but according to them, they were not ready to be with a man or woman.. whatever, before 12, and also they confirmed to me that at 12 was the biggest change for them, at 11 were felt themselves as a child, but at 12 they felt like ‘adults’.
” that something was done 50 or 500 years ago does not matter, the world evolves”
I did not say it was ‘good’…Was just highlighting the cultural context
Is it not so bad because when the mother masturbates her baby, Chances are its not for sexual gratification?
Maybe a case could be made on the damage that could cause to the genitals of on infant; Then again, circumcision!!!
I agree puberty is an important part of sexual development, But research shows that prepubescent kids are also sexual, But I’m with Tom on coitus…only after twelve, Despite the saying “before eight, or its too late”
I know it’s a little late, but in Islamic countries the age of majority for a boy is 15 and puberty is a bit earlier.. then, what is the validity that puberty in girls is at nine just because majority of age for girls in islamic countries is nine too? or only matters what we want?
Puberty is usually later in boys…As for age of majority, They would include both genders: But in the middle-east its, as I’m sure your aware, a highly male dominated society — Have you seen the cartoon ‘American Dad’?…There is an episode where, as a punishment, He gets posted to Saudi Arabia — But then, as a man, Gets rather comfortable with his new lifestyle (such as a second wife etc) So he decides to burn his passport!
Anyone who wants to spend time with a child is frankly suspect of being emotionally deficient.
About Chivalry, yes, it is dead. Women want to be equal, then fine. They can go to hell.
IT is CURIOUS, no?, that Christian is such a Marxist, and yet his aesthetic is entirely old fashioned. Those sweet-looking barefoot girls Bouguereau used to paint, of which Christian is so fond, are all gone now. And yet in those days one could have even approached a girl and spoken with her and stroked her back, joyful moments no girl-lover never gets to experience, unless he travels to a poor country and becomes an “exploiter”.
A lovely anecdote about these awful times concerns the last Emperor of China:
“Zheng, his niece, recalled that Puyi once tried to take a bus, but being chivalrous, let all the women get on first. One of them was the conductor, and the bus left without him.”