LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM – WTF?

… localism instead of convergence, identitarianism instead of universalism, short-sighted egotism instead of collaboration, and the calamitous idea of focusing on those considered to be similar while shunning “the other”. I fear the way that so many people hope to defend themselves from the malaise of life, from existential confusion, by choosing a group identity and sticking to it.  – Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist, former radical student activist, historian of the philosophy of science
The politics of identity is narcissistic and needy…. It’s all inherently censorious. Because if your political activism is indistinguishable from your natural characteristics or cultural identity, then any criticism of your political activism will inevitably feel like an assault on *you*. This is why student politicos in particular are so insanely cagey about open debate, forever hiding themselves in “safe spaces” and trying to ward off campus anyone who criticises them in the same way monks might once have wielded crucifixes to chase away witches. – Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked! in The Spectator

Are identity politics intrinsically as disastrous as Rovelli and O’Neill claim? After all, there could be no politics at all without groups of like-minded people rallying together against others who think differently. These opposing groups have always thought in “Us and Them” terms, if not along lines of gender and sexuality then of social class and wealth. In Britain and elsewhere these differences have been the lifeblood of democracy. Marx urged the working class to unite. This could be considered identity politics because the workers first had to identify themselves as part of the “working class”, a separate entity set against the exploitative “bourgeoisie”. But at least Marx envisioned a society beyond class warfare, based on equality and justice for all. His thinking was grounded in a universal concept of justice, with fairness for everyone, not winner-takes-all. This ideal was betrayed in those countries that took the revolutionary road; but democratic socialism has been more honourably successful.
Like democratic socialism, our vision for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in the 1970s was grounded in a universalist ethic. We believed in sexual liberation for all, not just for paedophiles. That is why we supported women’s liberation and children’s rights – the right to sexual expression, of course, but much more as well. It is why we supported GLs not just the BLs who were always by far the largest part of our membership. Even sociologist Frank Furedi has conceded that “PIE and its sympathisers did not simply express a form of liberationist identity politics”. Yes, we initially rallied together around our shared sexuality, as the “working class” once rallied around their labouring status, and as women and gays rallied around their gender and sexual desire; but shared identity was just an organising tactic in the service of a vision – as we saw it – for everyone, not just our own narrow group.
There were those in the gay movement who thought in a similarly constructive, inclusive way. It is thanks to them, and to those who began to identify and organise as other sexual minorities, that the male homosexual identity (gay) made common cause with the female one (lesbian) and those of bisexuals and transgender people, giving us the combined LGBT movement. This is now sometimes expanded to include Q for Queer, the last of which is potentially a capacious vessel for those who don’t fit in anywhere else and don’t quite feel able to come out as anything definite. Wonder who that could let in? 🙂
It hasn’t stopped there, either. We now have a rich alphabet soup, even extending in one formulation to LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexural (WTF?), asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism”. At first blush it all looks like a wonderfully comprehensive celebration of sexual diversity, a huge range of sexual identities assembled in a great conclave, bringing people together in an identity politics of the best sort, based on solidarity, not division.
But we know different, don’t we? For instance, one elephant most definitely not in the (bed)room is sexual attraction to animals, which could be designated by Z, for zoophilia. Not that I know anyone who fancies sex with elephants, but then I’ve never heard a mahout talking candidly. Anyway, you won’t find Z on the list and P is conspicuously absent from the party too. So are N. and H; and E. Indeed, none of the controversial chronophilias named by Michael Seto and discussed recently here in The seven ages of sexual attractiveness make it to the recognised lists of initials: paedophilia, nepiophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia all go unmentioned, as does the umbrella term MAP and even the unthreatening Kind. Maybe that’s our fault. Maybe Kind activists should be pushing harder. But to blame ourselves is a bit like blaming Jews for failing to stop the Holocaust: swimming against a flood tide of hatred is sometimes just too hard.
Interestingly, though, a couple of lonely voices – openly gay ones, and not closet Kinds as far as I can tell – have been pressing for greater inclusivity. Putting to shame the “respectable” gays who have climbed the ladder of social acceptability and kicked it down to stop others following, are two brave guys: psychologist Jesse Bering and gay history expert Gert Hekma. Bering, author of Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us, pointed out in an article last month that “LGB people arguably share more in common with the Zs and Ps than they do the Ts, since being transgender isn’t about who (or what) you’re sexually attracted to, but the gender you identify with. Unlike those representing the other letters in this character soup, trans people say their sexuality plays no role at all. Why then are Ts included while other, more unspeakable, sexual minorities aren’t?”
Hekma, for his part, noted in a conference presentation this summer that the proliferation of initials moves our understanding of sexuality away from sexual behaviour towards a terminology of identity and orientation. As such, it echoes a change noted by Foucault from “doing” to “being”: a century or so ago, the sodomite became the homosexual, moving from a legally defined act to a medical concept of an identity. A main idea of sexologists at that time was that the identity of the homosexual should be accepted but the behaviour should be prevented. It was a variant on the Christian theme: accept the sinner but not the sin.
Homosexuality has long since moved on from that limitation, but a proliferation of marginalised variations are candidates for moving into the space thus vacated. Hekma mentions a whole range of fetishes. “The list is endless,” he says, “Have a look on grindr and tumblr for the dozens of sexual fetishisms.” He points out that in its most accepted variation the continuously expanding list of initials as yet excludes “the major classical perversions” (BDSM, fetishism, paedo-, necro-, copro-, zoophilia). He argues in favour of taking them into the fold, including paedophilia. Such an inclusion could hardly occur without legitimising paedophilic fantasy at least. As Hekma says:

The point many people miss on questions of sexual variation is that fantasies are central and most desires need not be enacted in immediate reality but they often happen in indirect and imaginary ways. Sexual preferences can be staged.

This politics, emphasising identity over behaviour, and especially over behaviour in the real, non-fantasy, world, arguably offers an advance worth having. It may be that the Virtuous Pedophiles could succeed in having “virtuous”, or not-acted-upon, paedophilia accepted as VP on the initials list if they chose to go down that road. It could be a staging post to greater acceptability, as it was for homosexuals. But, in order to succeed, this form of identity politics would seem to depend for its success on denouncing us Kinds – we who do not agree with “virtue” but have it thrust upon us anyway, through draconian laws and policing. As we know, the VPs appear all too keen on this divisive style, and it pays off for them. It is no accident that Jesse Bering has expressed his support for the VPs but not for the Kind views espoused by more radical activists.
Divisive identity politics has featured strongly here at Heretic TOC recently too, at least in the comments. One contributor, under a bewildering variety of names (Why? It just looks schizophrenic), has been not only virulently anti-feminist but also militantly pro-hebephilic and just as aggressively against every other kind of sexual minority and even those in the “normal” mainstream. For him, even heterosexual teleiophiles – adult men attracted to adult women and vice versa – are just perverts because adults’ “natural” preference (for males at least) is for the freshly nubile girl, at the very start of her reproductive potential.
I prefer not to dismiss ideas merely because they seem strange. That would be very much at odds with Heretic TOC’s heretical mission. So, I will concede there is a case to be made that throughout most of human pre-history it might well have made sense for girls to start having babies as soon as they physically could, and that a man’s preferred choice of sexual partner would reflect this. Infant mortality was likely to have been very high, and a whole range of perils including disease, attacks by predatory animals and occasional famine would have made it impossible to sustain or grow the population without full use of every year in the female reproductive cycle. Evolution must have favoured early reproduction or we would not be here to ponder the ways of our ancestors. So, it seems inevitable that for hundreds of thousands of years what we now call hebephilia would have been, along with ephebophilia, the most natural of sexual orientations for males. Having said that, our culture and social needs are very different today. Civilised society has moved on from pre-history in many ways that are a great improvement. None of us, of whatever orientation, can justify our sexuality solely by reference to a long gone past.
A bigger problem with this contributor’s ideas than the mere logical weakness of his argument, however, is the divisiveness of his hebephilic identity politics. According to this way of looking at things,  hebephilia is the only good and virtuous way of loving. Paedophiles and ephebophiles, even bog standard teleiophiles, are perverted in this account, driven solely by selfish lust.  It is a peculiarly nihilistic “politics” because it systematically trashes every possibility of political alliance, which is the way real politics gets done. It gratuitously makes enemies of everyone. In any case, there is no clear  taxonomic split between hebephilia and paedophilia, nor between hebephilia and ephebophilia: the overlap between these categories is considerable, as discussed here recently. Just as there is no “pure” race, such as the Aryans, on which the Nazis based their delusions of racial superiority, there are no pure unalloyed sexual orientations either. We may identify as solely hebephile, or whatever, but the majority in any orientation category are mongrels with a range of tastes.
Again, though, the weak logic behind the contributor’s truculence is less significant than the attitude itself. It is divisive, as already noted, and it is also self-centred, expressing not so much a group identity as an individual one: it is a politics of one person against the world, which is not a practical politics at all, but more a cry for help or a scream of rage against everything being so complicated and confusing these days. As such, it echoes O’Neill’s view, above, of those censorious modern students who are so “narcissistic and needy”.
As for why things have taken such a turn, and what might be done about it, those are perhaps stories for another day.
 
KING OF THE STING IS STUNG
Yo! Great news! The bastard has got his come-uppance at last! Mazher Mahmood, aka the Fake Sheikh, former star undercover reporter for Rupert Murdoch’s UK newspapers, especially the Sun and the now defunct News of the World, is facing jail for tampering with evidence in the collapsed drugs trial of pop star Tulisa Contostavlos two years ago. Following a two-week trial at the Old Bailey, a jury today found the 53-year-old “King of the Sting” and his driver guilty of plotting to pervert the course of justice.
It’s all over the news, including this Daily Telegraph report, and nobody could be more delighted than me, not least because I was a victim of his lies myself, a story told in When Heretic TOC met the Fake Sheikh, written in July 2014 soon after Judge Alistair McCreath publicly concluded that Mahmood had attempted to persuade a witness to change his evidence and then lied about it under oath.
In my case, Mahmood tracked me down to a naturist resort in France, where he pretended to be not a sheikh but a sheikh’s aide, tasked with the role of checking out the resort to see whether it would be possible for his boss to take a discreet naturist holiday there. His real mission, though, using a very “underage” looking female reporter as an accomplice, was to tempt me into some sort of indiscretion. Maybe they hoped I would proposition her. When that failed they simply made up lies and another accomplice took a photo with a long lens that made it look (falsely) as though I was standing naked with a young boy and chatting him up. Mahmood even had the gall to write up the story in his autobiography, claiming it as one of his successes. See also my follow-up story, The strange case of the brilliant ‘bimbo’.
 
HEWSON HAMMERS ‘ABUSE FUNDAMENTALISTS’
I guess most heretics here will be aware by now that yet another fiasco has struck the bloated, unmanageable “independent inquiry into historical child sexual abuse”. After losing no fewer than three chairpersons, the inquiry now has to deal with the departure of a key figure who had been holding the wreckage together – counsel to the inquiry Ben Emmerson QC, who resigned at the end of last month.
Fewer readers, though, may be aware that the excellent barrister and commentator Barbara Hewson penned a stinging piece on the subject for the Daily Mail under the headline “This fiasco of a sex abuse inquiry is totally out of control…and has to end NOW”.
The most stunning aspect of her analysis is that unlike the politicians, or most of the media, she has dared to criticise the so-called “survivors”. The inquiry, she says, “has always been dogged by rancorous in-fighting between different camps of ‘survivors’ of historic sexual abuse.” She says prime minister Theresa May did not anticipate when she decided to set up the inquiry two years ago in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, “just how extreme many of the campaigners demanding an inquiry were.” Not pulling any punches, she writes:

I call them ‘abuse fundamentalists’. Some of them are avid conspiracy theorists, recycling tall tales from the Eighties era, when panic about alleged Satanic ritual abuse was at its height….They have all been traumatised, they claim, and everything that is wrong with their lives today is somebody else’s fault. [There is] a vocal lobby who seem as impervious to reason as religious fundamentalists. Unless you submit to their world view — a fixation on the idea that society is riddled with shadowy VIP paedophile ‘rings’ shielded by an evil Establishment omerta — they will viciously condemn you as an apologist for paedophiles.

And there is more! Well worth reading in full.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
137 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cyril

The LGBT movement is not so popular in Russia, so I’ve translated this blog into Ukrainian: https://ia801507.us.archive.org/0/items/toconlgbt/TOC_on_LGBT.txt

[…] acceptable diversity brought together in the alphabet soup beginning LGBT. I wrote about this in LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM – WTF?, when my emphasis was on the malignantly divisive side of identity politics. Nor are we going to be […]

thoughtsofadeviantdissident

Zoophilia was mentioned in this article. It’s interesting as there’s quite a few zoosexuals in the community whom try to maintain a low profile because of the hatred towards them.
If you get a chance, try to read Mark Matthew’s Then Horseman, Obsessions of a Zoophilia. It’s available as a free ebook. ??
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.animalzoofrance.net/images/a/a1/Horseman.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwirr8GJotvRAhWOHsAKHUErDYwQFggfMAI&usg=AFQjCNGyy_Q1vg5sbYxvD1mNdHVBwEO6hQ

Order

Placed here to avoid anorexic effect. Well Tom, I not want to be a bit tiresome to readers and simply change “people in same-age relationship” to “parent”, but I really mean these people in same-age relationship, i.e. the adult who needs other adults to live [shivers].
>”Forgive me for stating the obvious, but where would we be without them?”
The millions of children who end up in some trash can, can do not count, of course.
>”The sociologist Frank Furedi has claimed that we in PIE tried to use the concept of children’s rights in order to undermine parents. […]”
A pubescent is not more an child. of course that I support good parenting but with childs, not young adults!! I have nothing against what you say, in fact your position is ok. but again: with childs, not young adults !! my goal is not to lower the age of consent (someone who thinks that type of thing has not understood anything about my philosophy) but the age of majority, to fit puberty. a pubescent in my civilization would be like today one of 18 or 21, without no difference, but NONE in any aspect known and unknown. of course also say goodbye to the concept of “adolescence” except for private sexual arousal.
Here the problem: pubescents need to be free. And to be free is need to be an adult, sexually and morally. If this is not achieved, it is the total obliteration of the person, all these people in same-age relationship (adults-adults, teens-teens) are only the poor remains of their former lost humanity. When a person believes that his opponents are literally mentally ill, the conclusion is brief, right?
By the same token these people (since they just want people their own age because of his mental aberration) talk about just being children up to 18, 21 or any arbitrary number, perhaps in the case of MAPs with the right to sexual agency, but the young under 18 remaining “minor” (or child, is the same) and under supervision of the their “caring” parents “that will do the best for them” including sexual agency and marriage. This is garbage. They are adults, do not have to obey anyone. (except common natural law).

Libertine

On the subject of youths being seen and treated as children (UN definition of child 18 and below) We have in the News that people are questioning whether the young people who have been granted asylum are actually ‘kids’..to me, a 14 -17yo is not a child anyhow!
They said checking their dental records is unethical, and its hard to tell the exact age (whether they’re 18)…Though, Would they show a man the same nuance when going through his hard drive — If she looks under 18, That is good enough for them to ruin his life, I am aware you are not a great fan of porn, But two wrongs do not make a right!

NarcissisticNaziHebephile

This is true??? I did not know this, explain me it what is true or not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O%27Carroll
In December 2015 O’Carroll faced charges of indecent assault and gross indecency against two brothers aged 9 and 10. At Caernarfon Crown Court on the second day of his trial, O’Carroll pleaded guilty to one count of indecently assaulting one boy and one of gross indecency with the other. He was formally acquitted of the remaining counts. He was given a two-year prison sentence suspended for two years, placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years and made the subject of an indefinite sexual harm prevention order.[24]

sugarboy

What kind of delight is an “indefinite sexual harm prevention order”? They let you in peace for thirty years, and now, without harming anyone, you have suddenly evolved into a public threat?

NarcissisticNaziHebephile

I’ve already read, but when I saw that the sentence was on “indecents” acts, I figured it was something stupid based on “magical abuse”, and confirmed now.

For The Children

Sadly, the childlike ingenuous naïevete of Right wing mass media mind raped VICTIMS, like NNH. Proves once more that past or present KindPed/KindAdulto sexual aMusements which are ALWAYS POSITIVE.
Are always promptly and FALSELY assumed ALL NEGATIVE by Right wing mass media mind raped VICTIMS.
Forget small minority sub-Lefty left overs like a few Grauniad FemiNazis, also now VICTIMS of c.90% Right wing UK/U$ mass media mind rapists.
Nowt will improve until, unlikely, ALL Anglowbrow mass media is legally required, under threat of CP/Criminal Punishment to “Report Not Distort”. To the highest Criminal Court standard, “The WHOLE Truth And Nothing But.” A fine banner for all oxymoron?/unassuming media might be the Anglo/ancien Francaise lofty line above all UK democratic law courts, daily fascist trashed, “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense”/”Evil Be To Those Who Evil Think”.
Meanwhile, re-quote late great Lefty True Brit ‘Home Truths’ broadcaster KindPed John Peel’s last interview last lines, Indie On Sunday 29 Aug 2004, (FTC’s CP/CapitalPunishment), “Rupert Murdoch has DESTROYED most of what was good about this country.”

For The Children

Chomsky anti Kind? Quel Surprize!
Re-quote Der Fascist Fuhrer’s masterly media monster Geobbells’ dictum which mass mind raped into submission even the HIGHEST of Deutschland’s intellects, “Said LOUD and often – ANYTHING will be believed!”
And for some still childishly naïeve about real politik in supposed ‘Liberal Free Democracies’ since the fall of JFK and the rise of Right wing mass mind raping media, with the Left now indistinguishable from the Right, re-check Fearless Peerless Pilger and other TRUE liberals (small ‘l’).
http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1&type=xdds_5338_CRW_BE&p=youtube+the+speech+that+killed+JFK

StupidLeftists!

Surprised how nobody on this blog has ever mentioned the film UTOPIA, where we are shown by John Pilger how the lie of endemic child-abuse was used as a pretext to interfere with some community of Aboriginals there. I don’t recall the full story, but it reminded me also of what happened to the Amish.
The LEFT HATES family, fatherhood, motherhood, tradition, beauty– you name it they hate it!

Libertine

To be fair though, mate, aboriginals don’t represent the nuclear family that feminists detest so much!

NarcissisticNaziHebephile

They do not hate degeneration, promiscuity, gayness, racial genocide (white, of course lol) culture of death, hatred of human spirituality, etc.

Dissident

Tom, I’m going to respond up here to your questions about Hillary Clinton, and how I can justify saying she is every bit as bad as Trump, to avoid the spaghetti effect going on down there any further. I’ll also provide a lot of evidence via video links that confirm what I say.
Hillary “knows” nothing. She and her husband put far more effort into morphing what was left of the American liberals by the end of the 1980s decade into “centrists” than any Republican could have hoped. This is why these centrists are often called “Clintonite liberals.” They became the chief architects of the neo-liberal global agenda that the U.S. has gone out of its way to impose on every nation in sight over the past 25 years.
During the Clintons’ eight years in office, they passed the highly conservative 1996 Welfare Reform Act that all but eliminated that social program for the American labor class while basically creating legalized slave labor in the corresponding “workfare” program, something the Republicans long dreamed of doing but never could. During this same general period, they passed the Crime Act of 1994 that resulted in the massively increased incarceration rate for particularly young black men in America, often for petty crimes like smoking marijuana and other non-violent drug-related crimes, rather than just the “gang-related” activity she and her husband claimed.
The War On Drugs escalated dramatically under the Clintons, and the bombing of the Middle East began in earnest under them. Hillary, as First Lady, had a lot to do with all of this, and often loudly campaigned for her husband’s deleterious, anti-liberal programs in the name of liberalism. This included the infamous free trade deals like NAFTA that went quite far in impoverishing Americans. Most of the new jobs created under their administration were low-paying customer service oriented jobs, and the American de-regulation trend also went a long way under the Clintons, far more than it did under Reagan or Bush the elder.
Hillary became governor of New York and later Secretary of State with no experience other than being “First Lady” for eight years. She voted for and supported every war in the Middle East that was proposed, and as Secretary she oversaw the devastation of Libya, which ended with a U.S.-government supported coup and the brutal public execution of its leader, Mutassi Gaddafi, by literally having him beaten by a mob of the rebels the U.S. government supported, which ended with him being sodomized by a spear.
Hillary was recorded on camera joking about this, saying, “We came, we saw, he died”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U
Here is footage of what happened to Gaddaffi after he was turned over to the rebels by NATO-backed terrorists, all the handiwork of Hillary (and all entirely legal to view, since nothing that may possibly gratify MAPs appears within!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ZhiAU43nk
Here is a compilation of Hillary’s complicity in all the destructive wars in the Middle East during the past decade–including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria in addition to Libya–as well as how deep she is in the pockets of American war profiteers and support for U.S. business-friendly Middle East terrorist-supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM58wAig0PY
As proof she is a serial liar, here is a 13-minute compilation of recorded news clips to clearly display her constant lies and contradictions on camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Here is Hillary confronted by a professor where she first used the racially loaded term “super-predator”, which displays how she uses racism in code, to justify her husband’s incarceration legislation, followed by her run-in with young activist Ashley Williams who confronted her about this by paying a large fee to see her speak in person. This went a long way towards demonizing youths in general since the 1990s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYhohpfBk8Q
Then let’s not forget her ongoing serious e-mail scandal, where she was revealed to have lied about even more things, and admitted to using the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU5Hp5JuUTE
A lot of people use this excuse to claim Hillary is a better candidate than Trump, as opposed to being just as bad: “Well, at least Hillary has a brain in her head.” True, she is not the clueless buffoon Trump us, but I think all of the above proves this: it doesn’t matter how much smarts you have if your agenda constantly compels you to do stupid and destructive things, and if those smarts are usually focused into becoming the best liar and swindler in the world. Many sociopaths are smart, yet their anti-social behavior and extremely selfish agenda result in their intelligence being used in extremely destructive ways once they gain a measure of power over others. Like many politicians, Hillary has always displayed a lot of traits characteristic of a sociopath.

Dissident

Also, Tom, lest I forget, you should check out this 10-minute video where American journalist Glenn Greenwald discusses the Clintons on a Democracy Now! video interview, including addressing the matter of whether she is any better than Trump. I actually respect Greenwald more than Chomsky under general principles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za0qvXR5Eog

stephen6000

Dissy, are you willing to say if you are going to vote and if so who for?

Dissident

I will definitely be going Green, Stephen.

stephen6000

I suspected as much! 🙂

Christian

Dissy, the Libyan strongman was Muammar Gaddafi, while Mutassim was one of his sons. You are confusing them.
It has also been said the Hillary was behind the constitutional coup that ousted President Zelaya in Honduras.
Bill Clinton’s presidency introduced “three-strike laws” under which people convicted for a third time, whatever their offence, can get a life sentence.
Trump’s candidacy is an opportunity for “lesser-evil-ism”, you show the wolf in order to push people into the arms of the fox.

Dissident

The three-strike war predated that, but the Clintons are well known for having pushed a 1994 crime bill that escalated all of this, and it really hurt young black American men by incarcerating a historically large number of them for non-violent crimes. Please listen to this video as well, which includes some commentary by Bill Clinton where he rationalizes it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FF3fFURSbE
Then note this video from MSNBC, where some of the more progressive Democrats denounce the 1994 Clinton crime bill. Note how the BlackLivesMatter group in America are major detractors of the Clintons for that bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIMFDMzfP28
If one does the research on the Clintons and their respective conduct in office since the early 1990s, and even before that, it becomes clear that Hillary is NOT a lesser evil than Trump, but a comparable one. The “lesser evil” trope has succeeded in the emotional extortion of a mass number of American liberals and progressives, using fear-mongering tactics to prevent them from voting for actual, fundamental change, and causing them to feel they have no choice but to continually stick with the Democrats, who are as compromised by corporate lobbyists as the Republican Party.

Dissident

My bad, Christian. Here is video footage of the execution of Muammar Gaddafi, the ousted leader of Libya whose brutal and insanely cruel execution at the hands of U.S.-backed rebels Hillary was truly laughing and boasting about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tlwhUAHXEI

bjmuirhead

Well, I have to say that I couldn’t agree with you more. The following from John Pilger (https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/) about America:

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.
No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

And of Hilary Clinton, he says:

She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

And, yes, sadly, Australia is becoming more American every day.

StupidLeftists!

Clintonism is ditch-born of Saul Alinsky and Noam Chomsky.
I have already put up my TRUMP/PENCE poster. I had my doubts after I found out he’d signed a pledge against CP.
Now, following all the sanctimonious attacks by women’s groups á la pussygate, I’m more sure of my choice, even though in my country I could get arrested. There are a LOT of tourists who come by my house, you see, as someone famous used to live next door to me over a hundred years ago.
TRUMP is the ONLY choice for child-lovers, who know that feminism is the cause of all our problems.
BARRON TRUMP is another reason: god bless TRUMP!
Trump has also been attacked for his loving relationship with his daughter. FASCIST leftists who think that cuddling one’s daughter is incest. We should have solidarity with him.

HaterOfHillary

She’s a boy-shaming feminist, which is enough reason not to vote for her.
And as for Gaddafi, well, I have very little respect for the Libyans who are now saying how they wished they had never opposed him. They are traitor-dogs. I hope they enjoy their new hell, they who would sell out their entire family and culture for a Kentucky Fried Chicken Mega Bucket. Libya had the highest living standards in Africa, and it was when Gaddafi suggested a pan-African economic system that his shores were looted and his gold stolen.

Libertine

I hear in the News that people viewing ‘child abuse images’ is getting out of control, and the guesstimate at 100,000 is a conservative one.
Hope the overload breaks their backs!
The problem with child porn is — Sexy/beautiful kids!

feinmann0

Yes Libertine, sexy beautiful kids indeed, and to think that so much continues to be sourced by the kids themselves for the benefit of their same-age friends, means there is no shortage of material for the connoisseurs to enjoy. I have never seen the logic in outlawing images of willing underage boys and girls doing what comes naturally, and simultaneously condoning the publication of images of violent criminal acts that turn one’s stomach. The absence of logic in all of this is curious.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” Noam Chomsky.

Dissident

I have never seen the logic in outlawing images of willing underage boys and girls doing what comes naturally, and simultaneously condoning the publication of images of violent criminal acts that turn one’s stomach. The absence of logic in all of this is curious.
As has often been noted, logic tends to take a back seat to emotion. The idea of adults admiring girls (or boys) beneath a certain age “in that way” violates the emotional sensibilities of modern Western sensibilities. More specifically, it violates these sensibilities in a way that images of real murder and violence do not. So it would seem that according to the present day cultural mindset, the violation of “innocence” via sexual admiration of someone who is “too young” to be connected to sexuality by society’s standards is considerably more disturbing and heinous than beating, shooting, beheading, or blowing someone up with a salvo of cluster bombs. This includes the acceptability of viewing war violence directed at the same kids it’s considered so abominable to admire the beauty of “in that way.”

Elron

Dissident and others: if only one person on earth thought that way so wicked, sick and paranoid like an Anti’s, him would have a mental problem or a perversion, yes or no? and if are in the world now 50.000.000 million like him, then this 50.000.000 are equally deranged or not? mental diseases are not cured just for being part of millions. Hysteria, ignorance and hyperemotionalism do not are the cause, is a mass mental illness. No, The Mass Psychology of Fascism NO pls!

Jonathan

I used to admire Noam Chomsky as someone speaking truth to power, but after finding out that he wants nothing to do with childlovers, this curious minority that is just too politically incorrect, even for Noam, I now hold a much lower opinion of him.

Jonathan

Someone with whom i have online conversations said that they have met Noam and had queried him about this. I cannot divulge nicks since this exchange took place in private chat.

Dissident

Tom, I also have no idea if Chomsky actually went on record with anti-Kind statements (and I’m an avid reader of his work), but sadly, I will not be surprised if his views on the matter are as ignorant and willfully close-minded as Jonathan says he was told they are. The negative, hysterical, nuance-free position against has been extremely popular and heavily ingrained for a few decades now, and as such, it’s unfortunately not realistic to expect even our most cherished and courageous voices of reason to go against the mainstream view. It’s just too unpopular to do so, and few individuals have the fortitude for that in the current climate, no matter how boldly they may talk “truth to power” when it comes to other vital albeit less emotionally charged matters (e.g., war profiteering, Western imperialist hegemony, corporate control of the media). Chomsky was around and politically active during the pre-hysteria era, but it’s not uncommon to change position drastically as required since the onset of the 1980s, just as the British group now called Liberty did (as readers of this blog are all too aware of!).
On a related topic, I’ve also recently lost some respect for Chomsky when he began supporting the “lesser evil” mindset by encouraging U.S. citizens to vote for Hillary Clinton, who is every bit as bad as Donald Trump, and every bit as psychotic as Margaret Thatcher ever was. The only major difference is that unlike Thatcher, Hillary cloaks herself in the clothing of a “centrist.”

LA

I have a vague memory that the late Tom Reeves (founder member of NAMBLA, and an effective campaigner in many causes) reported challenging Chomsky on this. He said that Chomsky refused to consider the issue — apparently for emotional reasons connected to being a father.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I saw or heard it. It may have been in a published source, but I’m not sure.

something123

“Maybe this will jog memories here. More detail, anyone?”
Noam Chomsky answers most emails people write him.
I asked him some months ago “What is your opinion about the discrimination against minor attracted people?” linking some sources.
He answered back “Don’t know enough about it to comment”.
Someone should really make an interview with Chomsky about this or invite him to a debate or something. Perhaps there’ll be a MAP at one of the next talks the he gives who could ask him?

StupidLeftists!

WHY must you pursue this? It is CLEAR he knows NOTHING about it!
Furthermore, it is rather untoward FORCING him to comment on something which, if he were to express ANY sympathy, would open him up to insane criticism.
I’ll tell you what he will say:
1) I regard it as a power imbalance, and really think it is better if young people are free to experience their sexuality with each other and to the degree they are comfortable.
2) What if an adult has no sexual interest in a child. What if they don’t find a child ‘attractive’, will they then just palm he or she off to a social worker. I would find this morally reprehensible.
Chomsky is an American who supports Western values of democracy, feminism and egalitarianism. Pederasty or corerasty flies in the face of these values. The reason he is hated by power is BECAUSE he stands up for these values and wants them applied. He wants to send medicine to Afghanistan, not bombs. I honestly don’t see how anyone can square a belief in these principles with any support for minor attraction.
I just think it is wrong to pester an old man for comments.

Elron

Once I read something in BC about that Chomsky did not want to have anything to do with childlovers, the same you mention, but I not know if was you or other. You could at least say the reasons he used to reject childlovers, no? and about teenlovers he has never said anything?

StupidLeftists!

Of course, I frequently quote Chomsky for his analysis of relations between states and the way they behave when they go to war. But on other matters he is a libertarian socialist, so it is NO surprise that he is opposed to boylove and especially girl-love.
Like all socialists he is against tradition and regards patriarchy as something which needs to be gotten rid of.
He has gone on records praising gay rights ( gay rights only exist because minor-attraction is persecuted ) and has said that pornography is exploitation, and that he wants nothing to do with it.
It is IMPOSSIBLE that ped/cororasty will be permitted in a modern left-liberal or anarchist society.
The only societies that would allow it are those which believe in knowledge being transferred from adults to younger people like in the old economy of apprenticeship prior to the industrial revolution.
I think the SURPRISE and DISAPPOINTMENT of contributors of this blog speak volumes. You are STILL as yet unable to admit to yourselves that you have MORE in common with an AFGHAN warlord, spiritually, morally and aesthetically, than the likes of Western ‘dissidents’ like Chomsky.
WAKE UP! Minor-attracted people: you are ALONE! There is NOBODY in authority who will defend you. You are everything which is sick and wrong with the world, according to the most MORAL people alive.
It will take a THOUSAND years, and the replacement of this egalitarian democratic age with a new Patriarchy and feudal system ( though with high technological advancement ) before there is any kind of ‘liberation’. This will take a thousand years, and even then I think it will probably NEVER happen. Stop WASTING time on activism etc ! lol!
Anyway, like I said, I read him for his analysis of states, but he is a pro-feminist egalitarian. There is a CULT around him, which is pathetic. I guess it is natural for human beings to want someone to look up to, like a hero, who is well-respected and given the time of day. Well, guess what, there are NONE for minor-attracted people. In this era YOU ARE FINISHED!
Now STOP trying to ATTACH your belief in boylove and girllove to other issues. Stop thinking that because you are good marxists or good anti-war people or good anarchists that somehow OUR time will come. It shan’t! Do some travelling and, if you are under thirty, try and get a young friend.

NarcissisticNaziHebephile

I do not know if you also read my comments below in reply to Marxists and pro-LGTB’ers, but I’m the other anti-leftist this blog. What I can say? many of you say is the truth, unfortunately, some things are not clear to me.
Conservatism is a plague, and the enemy of the MAPs, and indeed they are really allies with feminist for many aspects. Both hate boylove and especially the girlove, both are a disgusting beings who seek only the control of the state over the individual, and parental over children.
Parents are the worst parasite ever seen on earth, I do not understand the MAPs good words and thoughts with parents, they themselves are the first who would destroy you by having their child as young friend. They treat adolescents as little children, override them as full people, they, the conservatives under the auspices of the father-parasites implanted the age of consent, feminists only increased it. The father as the parasite by nature who is, need to suck the energy of their host, who is his child, hence adolescence as second “childhood”, as a second stage of vampirism.
And pornography degenerated us and makes us insensitive to sex, I HATE IT!
I not think an Afghan warlord looks like me, their society is a type of disgusting misogynist, brutal, religious fundamentalist society I do not want, however I have more in common with an Bund Deutscher Madel nubile girl I NEED FRESH NUBILE GIRLS TO LIVE! I like to be one lol!
But what you say about a techno-feudal and traditional gender-role society is wonderful, look here this is better than the average conservacuck and alt-right meme moron. We need a revolutionary reaction to this degenerate civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

NarcissisticNaziHebephile

What the hell is cororasty ????

HeydrichOfSpelling

Sorry, “corErasty”

eqfoundation

If only objectivity ruled the day…
…LGBT-Etc, might actually find itself embarrassed to celebrate S&M [which is primarily about the merging of sex with violence], in the face of ostracizing [even attacking] something tame in comparison, like pedophilia.
Oh, I get it…”we” are the boogeyman…and they don’t want our taint…And after a generation or two under this influence, many of them believe the stories…
…It’s just staggering, what all indoctrination can pull off.
At times I wonder…It’s not that I think indoctrination is the most ethical path…But what if it is the most effective “holy grail” of social change?
What if this is the mechanism we need to seize and control, to cause change?…And how would that change or compromise us, in the process?
It’s a paradox in my mind…because I really don’t like that kind of power even existing…and I detest, that anyone holds it.
I don’t like “winner takes all” politics, either…But what does one do, when that is what’s ruling the day?…You either have to figure out a way to destroy the system…or to successfully play it to your advantage…The former creates more variables.
I think…as I’ve thought for many years…humans are much too emotionally complicated, for their own good…We create conflicts and problems, that are not objectively there.

Libertine

At least these guys use the correct dictionary definition of what a paedophile is!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMVmV1xa0dU

Winston Smith

That Daily Mail article which mentioned the bogus so-called ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ panic of the 1980’s in the UK and USA was surprisingly candid. Thank you for bringing it to our attention Tom.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanic_Panic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ix6MWi7Gk
SAFF – Sub-cultures Alternatives Freedom Foundation response to the infamous Roger Cook TV report “The Devil’s Work”:
http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37FlWtg0Kzo

Elron

Those who say that pedophilia is an aberration are talking at the same time to brainwash children and teenagers, this is not child grooming?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Activities
“Anglin explained that “The Daily Stormer was designed to appeal to teenagers, but I have long thought that we needed to get pre-teens involved in the movement. At that age, you can really brainwash someone easily. Anyone who accepts Nazism at the age of 10 or 11 is going to be a Nazi for life.”[13]”
This type of child grooming is disgusting. And this is the people who say they oppose globalism, except when it is against alleged ‘child sex laws’. The Alt-Right is a farce.
“Rapp had angered gamers by allegedly removing “provocative content” from localizations of Japanese games, and activists including The Daily Stormer circulated her 2012 essay in which she argued for foreign bodies not to impose laws against child pornography in Japan. She was dismissed soon afterward, with Nintendo stating that it was unrelated to the controversy.[30]”

Elron

It fascinates me as being attracted to a legal concept like minors can be a sexual orientation. Also as one can be lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual at the same time? The strange thing is that you, TOC, even admitting that pedophilia is a modern creation, you still use pedophilia as battle standard.
The 4 Cs: This maybe is not anything new (But still on the subject of post) but I still do not understand that has to do be attracted to young adults to be to children, there can be no moral universalism, your attraction is of a different nature, we can not judge all races, genders and sexual attractions equal, everyone are different, something that one can understand at being in the right, especially the hard right.
During 7 years of my life, take each of them to defend pedophilia to just finally realize me that my own pedophilia prevented me from having a girlfriend, or have a relatively full life, but not because of others as now, but because my own fault. When I saw this post, I did not become angry, I said for myself: I’ve earned this for being an sincere imbecile. Do not forget that here all of you are pro-child sexual contact, and I am opposed to it (and argumented in previous posts) I know that the acceptance of pedophilia can lead to the acceptance of sex with children, this has already happened with gays and gay sex, you have to understand this.

Elron

Where? in another entry of the blog or here?

Libertine

I myself am guilty of trolling the ‘pink’ crowd, Only the other day on one of their websites said something along the lines of, ‘pederasty is more pure then homosexuality’, and the ‘pink’ crowd, did more to kill off homosexuality then most of the anti-homosexual laws in many universities across Britain — I wasn’t serious (at least about the first bit), But since most stick the knife in and ‘pushed the ladder away’..why not!
All this talk of justice for all prompted to share these veterans of Metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NEP0GE0SY0

Christian

You say: “Marx urged the working class to unite. This could be considered identity politics because the workers first had to identify themselves as part of the “working class”, a separate entity set against the exploitative “bourgeoisie”. But at least Marx envisioned a society beyond class warfare, based on equality and justice for all. His thinking was grounded in a universal concept of justice, with fairness for everyone, not winner-takes-all.
There is another reason why Marxism is not identity politics: the functioning of Marxist parties and internationals. Although they all considered that wage workers are the driving force for revolution, all those supporting their aims could join, irrespective of their social origin. Many of their members, and a large part of their leaders, were middle class intellectuals; Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Lenin did not work in a factory, they studied at university. Of course you can deform Marxism into “workerism”, as in some Maoist sects of the late sixties and early seventies, were at cell meetings intellectuals were told to shut up in order to let workers speak.
The same distinction can be made for women’s rights organizations. You have extreme identity politics with the so-called “radfems” making conferences reserved to “wymyn born wymyn”, thus excluding transgender people (and even forbidding mothers to bring male children aged above 8). On the other hand I have seen campaigns defending women’s reproductive rights (for instance, for a university speciality of medical gynaecology separate from obstetrics), were organizers of actions wrote explicitly “men welcome”.

Elron

Kill unborn children is not a right. Shoddy Child lovers and Young advocates too ? Marxism deny human spirituality, is pseudoscience converted in democide.
The 4 Cs: Concise, Courteous, Coherent and Content-rich.

Dissident

Let us also consider that Marxism doesn’t deny anyone access to the better world it wants to create on the basis of arbitrary biological factors, e.g., race, gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or even age. It doesn’t target any specific biologically natural group as being the “problem,” or suggest that any one or the other is more deserving of being on the top rung of any particular hierarchy. It instead targets a specific economic system and socio-economic ideology as being the problem. Its goals are for all people to benefit from the system of cooperation and equality of abundance that modern production makes possible. Identifying with an ideology that is so inclusive and non-targeting of any natural biological group solely on the basis of their biological status is markedly different than one like the “radfems” (read: misandrists), who target men as the problem, particularly those who are heterosexual; or those who target Jews, Arabs, homosexuals, etc.

Libertine

Check out this pseudo-science:https://sophia222smith.wordpress.com/

Elron

Oh hot Sophia [NOT] Loren. Thank you, thank you, this shit is high in Anti’s fiber! It’s great material to change, dissect and digest, soon you will see this everywhere with a few but funny changes!
But there is some reason (stupid, but sexy reason) about pedophilia, today I talked with a guy who wants to molest little girls and their corpses !! finally, I’ll be soon banished of this blog Sorry TOC but is the truth Ha Ha

Elron

Now seriously, I’d rather not comment about adult/chid sex issue because both sides accuse me of being a Blanchard sorry.. bastard.
However on the pathetic commentator who does not distinguish prepubertal children with young adult (laughs) and says that marriage with 12yo old girls can never be good (more laughters) Well… These Child(-18) Advocate$ freaks still do not understand that sex and relationships are necessary at puberty or can cause serious sexual and emotional harm for life as happened to me, where are my own freaks advocates?
And Libertine, I think in the same way that the MRA’s about (although I do not agree with the general masculinist tone) of why these feminists (and conservacucks) with pathological jealousy hate that we prefer marry 12yo old nubile women that these State-subsidized old hags:
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/pedophile-witch-hunt-solutions
“increase age of consent to eliminate competition by very young attractive women (age of consent used to be 12, is now 18 everywhere and there seem to be plans to increase it to 21 worldwide).”

Libertine

Indeed Elron…We forget about these implicit evolutionary traits, A better world (for men at least) would be where there were twice as many women as men, less competition for the males — Plus more women eager to please, knowing that there is an abundance of girls of ‘high mate value’ to choose from.
and I don’t blame those who get their kids in the best schools, to the detriment of kids who live closer to that school, But will call them out if they’re hypocritical on the subject. A colleague of mine once said, If there was a disaster, and we had to fend for ourselves, I would happily kill you to make sure my family don’t starve!
He was a salesman of all people, As long as he knew that if he ripped me off, I am a bit of a nihilist, and may well take revenge, if all legal avenues fail, violence is the last resort.

Elron

Libertine I like to read you, but I do not understand almost anything about you say in the last comments, your English is not broken, it has disintegrated!

Libertine

Thankyou Elron…I’m sorry you had trouble understanding my comment, Was off on a slight tangent last night. If a non-English blogger has to criticise my use of English, Then that is not encouraging to say the least, But, I have dark humour, and can laugh at myself! Us British are rather lazy when it comes to language, We just talk louder in English, and hope they understand. I did buy a French book the other day, So hopefully I can get familiar at a basic level, Rather then struggling on, Or just waiting till I find someone that speaks English.

cartographmap

Wasn’t the T in GLBT originally Transexual? As in, the majority were attracted to the opposite gender but the same sex. In this way, it fits within the gay pride movement, to my reckoning.
Organizing under an identity is one thing. A collective of individuals attempting to enact political change can be beneficial, especially if it’s towards greater freedom. When the identity becomes more important than the change, that’s where problems begin. I don’t think that the LGBT banner is worth fighting to get under. They’ve achieved most of their aims, with marriage equality becoming more and more common, and with understanding of Transgender people reaching wide audiences. While the last remaining inequalities are sorted, the movement should start losing speed. However, I fear they’re starting to absorb smaller groups in order to remain relevant. It’s more important to be LGBT than to advocate for understanding and acceptance, or in some cases the opposite extreme, advocating for acceptance to the detriment of free expression and thought.
I think it might be better to band together under the banner of Youth Advocacy, or maybe with the MRM, given that men are sometimes denied access to their own kids due to false allegations of pedophilia, suggesting that pedophilia itself is bad. I don’t know, this is off the top of my head.
-Cart

Dissident

Well said, Cart. And btw, you’ve been greatly missed! I’m glad you’re okay, and I look forward to your next videos! Myself and another member of the Kind community were just discussing our concern for you about 45 minutes ago, in fact.

Peace

Transsexual has never meant “attracted to the opposite gender but the same sex,” it has always referred to those whose body and gender don’t match and so get sex reassignment surgery to fix that. It was changed to transgender or just trans so to include those who can’t or don’t want to undergo surgery. There are definitely plenty of gay trans people, but also plenty of straight trans people, therefore “trans” being included in a list of sexual minorities is still a point of contention. Like you said, it’s more to do with the advancement of trans rights rather than having much in common with gay, bi, or lesbian people. Many people are still “wary” of trans people and so such a community would very much not be able to gain traction on their own, which is why keeping the T in LGBT+ is still important. The LGBT community is definitely still fighting for rights and respect, especially in more homophobic and transphobic countries. Just because they’re able to get married in many countries doesn’t mean their fight is anywhere near over.
There’s still large amounts of transphobia within the gay community. Just like many gay people are happy to throw pedophiles under the bus, there are also many gay people who are happy to throw trans people under the bus in order to advance their own cause. If the P was still included in LGBT, we’d be in the same situation.

Elron

IMHO The LGBT community does not fight for their rights, fight to destroy what is the human civilization, of course they believe fighting for their rights, but perhaps is a right to destroy marriage? destroy the family? destroy our sexuality aimed to the survival of our species?
Transsexuals have a problem, a minor quibble perhaps, are not humble, because not satisfied with the sex and gender (who is the same) that nature has given them, then we are creating a civilization of selfish, should we let invade by selfish people who think before them that the whole species?
It may be good take into consideration that transexuality MAY BE just a disorder, trans believe that they are the other sex, and for example people that believe than him is a dog, is obviously a disorder. Phobia? hell not.
And as I say the LGBT is nothing more than a front of feminism, whose ultimate goal is to destroy human sexuality (man-girl, man-boy etc.,) legalize gay marriage? at the same time they have banned teen marriage. Whenever the LGTB Sturmabteilung advance, MAPs retreat more.
Also marriage has always been between a man with a VERY young girl and so should be. The boy lovers do not need it, because his relationship is about mentoring as in ancient Greece, the old feminist hags hate it, think about it. Feminists and their LGTB’ers Hiwis lie, is a fact.

Explorer

Hello, Cart O’Graph,
I have something to say for you and Tom – about your YouTube channel and Tom’s link to it.
The main page of your channel have nothing on it:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKjntJ7dHxUY7B61QEsB1Dw/feed
While a “Videos” section is full of useful stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKjntJ7dHxUY7B61QEsB1Dw/videos
Yet a link from the Tom’s “Blogroll” section of his blog to your channel is leading to the empty main page. I’m afraid some people who will click the link and found – apparently – nothing, simply won’t move further to the “Videos” section, where all the materials actually are.
So, I think that either you should move your videos to the main page of your channel, or Tom should change the link to the “Videos” section of it – so that anyone who is interested will certainly found the content!
P.S. And, BTW, what about the “Antipedophobe Aktion” channel?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqpGPc4NSxMIJRPP9fmXm1Q/feed
Once I mentioned it here as a candidate for “Blogroll” linking, and I think it won’t harm to do so again. It contains a lot of good video works, and, it seems to me, deserve to be linked from here…

cartographmap

That sounds like a good idea. I’ll be honest, I’m not even sure how to change my channel homepage. I’m sure I’ll figure it out eventually, but for now it might be better to go straight to videos.

feinmann0

Unlike the LGBT sexuality and gender identity-based communities, the Male Rights Movement (I take it that COG’s MRM acronym refers to this, and not Mechanically Recovered Meat or Modified Radical Mastectomy), has lost, so it would be rather pointless too to fight to ‘get under their banner’. NAMBLA attempted to ‘get under the banner’ of a gay pride march once but found only hostility, see: youtube.com/watch?v=k4H2LChs5Nw. A choice comment in the link reads: “Gays do not associate themselves with these freaks and pedophiles. That’s why they are banned from events about gay rights and are routinely rejected, and rightfully so. Any gay organization that dares to allow these disgusting pigs be a part of their movements ought to be shamed.”

Elron

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/what-is-a-pedophile-hebephile-ephebophile-teleiophile-infantophile#comment-805931
This is the kind of guy (and the webmaster/commentarists of the blog) who TOC refers to the post, anti-feminist, anti-pedosexual, which says that the hebephilia is good only for “reproductive reasons,” says that pedophilia is a disorder for being abnormal (I’m abnormal in all, never use it as a reason), he also uses the word adolescent that I do not use, also I do not use the word ‘normal’. Anti-feminists of that type advocate hebephilia and ephebophilia because pubescents and teens are adult women, like +18 legal adults, I do not use that argument, I advocate hebephilia for other reasons explained ad nauseum. I am against feminism, as well as against socialism, globalism, marxism, egalitarianism, in short: The left. They (anti-fem) are pro-porn and only oppose feminists for be against sex with minors.
https://www.cblf.org/messages/66881.htm
This is me (Erich was a WWII German general) here to defend pedosexuals from intolerants, I do not hate them or attacked an acceptable sexual minority, and as you see I consider young girls as capable women and NOT as walking birthing rooms.

For The Children

Tom O’Carroll >…Rovelli is a scientist. He is not dissing science per se.
‘Dissing’ ? Surely ‘discussing’ not ‘disrespecting’.
While both he from the non-Anglo outside and O’Neill from the inside, are in fact ‘describing’, once more, a largely phoney Anglophone post 1970s, post-modern P.C./Puritan Cowards’ phenomenon.
Of classic post-Reformation Anglo-Saxon cheap psychology delivered by a repetitive dominant discourse with subliminal subtext ‘Divide, Rule, BLOCK,’ into ever smaller groups.
Allowing no dissent from increasingly perceived ‘outsiders’.
To which the unwary lowbrow (SUN readers), and even the most intelligent (OxCam students) are easily susceptible. Also noted en passant by non-Anglo outsider made insider ex-Hungarian Frank Furedi in his, 1997, ‘Culture of Fear: Risk Taking & the Morality of Low Expectation’,
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1&type=xdds_5338_CRW_BE&p=Culture+of+Fear%3A+Risk+Taking+and+the+Morality+of+Low+Expectation%2C
And, always worth ‘repetitively’ recalling Der Fascist Fuhrer’s masterful media monster Goebbells’ dictum, which mass mind-raped into submission even the highest of Deutschland’s intellects, “Said LOUD and often – ANYTHING will be believed!”

Elron

I do NOT hate pedosexuals, I criticize them because I think their attraction has bad things, but I do not hate them, I do not use those psychobabble terms but I am Ephebophile too I like older girls as 16 and 17 even more (if they seems like pubescents) but I think at that age most are wicked people like adults, at that age have the ultimate record in killing their own offspring, but I’m also very sexually attracted to some of them, It has nothing to do with it. and I like older 10/11 prepubescent girls also, i’m not a sexual racial purist ok?
And now me and another guy who is also ephebohebephile we’re treating a guy who is a sociopath pedosadist and he really (in their fantasies) WANT to hurt girls, he is in psychiatric treatment, and I assure that junk science is not going to help him. (their shrink told him to erase ‘all his photos’ such as the shrink assume that pedosexuals have to see CP, who is false)) that guy told me that (unlike him) I’m a real pedosexual, what I love girls and I never wanted to harm them, and I say publicly what I think, I do not make taqiyya as the Muslims or pedosexuals do, all of you speak here but not in real life or real identities (except TOC and bjmuirhead) please not Be hypocrites.

feinmann0

Some snippets from: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/fake-sheikh-panorama-injunction-bid/5045060.fullarticle a few years back: “After his Leveson evidence, Mahmood’s carefully constructed façade began to crumble: his evidence of securing 253 convictions was challenged and News International was forced to concede that it could only find 94”, and: “The court was told that his identity should not be exposed, unlike those he exposed during the course of his long career, because it posed a threat to the safety of him and his family.”
Let us hope that the “critical evidence” supplied by Mazher Mahmood to convict people historically is forensically examined, found wanting and results in a raft of appeals so that he samples something of the hell that he has subjected others to.

sean

“Oscar Wilde was gay”
I’m not sure he’d agree there.
Wilde was at pains not to confound his sexual interest in men with his nature or to identify himself with it as if it were some essential quality. In fact he strove to do the precise opposite and consciously maintained an aesthetic rebellion against nature. In many respects he was an ‘ex-straight’.
Further reading:
“À rebours” by Joris-Karl Huysmans.
“Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault” by Jonathan Dollimore
😉

sean

Go Barb!
“It is concerned only with sexual abuse, not with other forms of neglect or cruelty.”
Having been beaten as a child until my legs would no longer carry me and my clothes stuck to my skin with my blood, and having been told to my face by a state support agency that this did not constitute abuse because it wasn’t sexual, I can only agree.

sean

Actually I made a concerted effort quite recently to get financial assistance for some counseling and was given exactly the same message. No sexual abuse, no help.
I’m a pretty strong person but the maltreatment left some scarring that causes problems at times. I don’t respond well to authority and I’m not a big fan of ‘smacking’…

For The Children

Sorry for the inevitable LOUD & often repeated phrases.
But, brave Sean’s sad non-sex serious abuse, again and again says it all.
About the centuries ongoing historically sex craZed phoney Anglophone, for careers, ratings, profit, power and control. Crudely masked by Mass Deception as so called ‘Public Protection’.
World travelled FTC can confirm that almost all aMused non-Anglos instantly know of, and often laugh at ‘The Anglo Disease!’
Sadly though, some non-Anglo mainland EU aMusing KindPeds are not now laughing when banged-up in HMP Monster Mansions (their loving families and friends left devastated and aBused co-victims). Having unwittingly chatted online to (not ‘groomed’) under-cover bent Brit cops aBusively entrapping them into a cheap weekend UK hotel for face-to-face boychat, with or sans boy-bait, plus mild Speedo/pedo pics.
“EU, ‘ere U – Ur FUCKIN’ nicked! Speedo – peDOH!!”

Dissident

Which makes me wonder, Tom (and Sean): Is there even a precedence of historic cases of simply physical abuse brought against parents, teachers, coaches, and other adult authority figures? Presently, in the U.S. (I’m not sure how the situation in the U.K. compares) the idea that emotional abuse is even real when inflicted by an adult against a child under their authority is just beginning to be recognized as a legitimate issue. Emotional abuse is by far the most pervasive and potentially psychologically damaging form of abuse routinely inflicted on children by adults, yet until just very recently in the U.S. any degree of emotional abuse was rationalized as “discipline” or as a legitimate form of “tough love” parenting or teaching methodology that individual parents, teachers, coaches, etc., were seen as fully entitled to at their discretion.
Did a parent, teacher, coach, etc., frequently tell you that you were worthless and “good for nothing” as a human being? Well, maybe you acted like you were worthless and good for nothing, and thus totally deserved being told “the facts,” then! It was often rationalized as simply as that. I still suffer from PTSD over the emotional abuse I constantly endured from adult family and teachers (in addition to peers).
As for physical abuse, unless it got so extreme that it was leaving visible bruises, since the 1980s when the sex abuse hysteria took over, it completely took a back seat to the government’s fanatical obsession with strictly sexual abuse. Did your parents physically smack you, shove you into the wall, pull your hair, or knock you to the floor on a regular basis if you so much as looked at them in a way they disliked? “Well, at least they’re not touching you in an ‘inappropriate’ way, right? It could be far worse, so stop complaining!” I too greatly sympathize and empathize with you, Sean.

Dissident

Such laws most certainly can be abused with kids making false claims, which is why an “always believe the younger person with no requirement to conduct a legitimate investigation” must never be incorporated into official policy (like certain other laws that give full power to the complainant, no matter how outrageous or lacking in evidence, right?). For instance, in my opinion, what draws the line between simple sternness and bullying abuse on the part of a parent, teacher, etc.? I would want to ask this question first: does the sternness of the parent or teacher in question have an “off” button? Or is that individual constantly in a miserable state of mind that causes them to get unnecessarily upset over relatively small things? Having to endure an individual like that as an authority figure can indeed get abusive over the long haul.
Of course, not all legitimate complaints need to be dealt with via the arrest and prosecution of the adults in question. Separation of the individuals, with the child complainant going to stay elsewhere–either permanently or temporarily–can be an ideal situation to solve such problems in the case of a parent; in the case of a teacher, the simple option to change classes can be the ideal solution. Sometimes emotional abuse can be relatively mild but persistent enough that the child is unhappy and needs to escape from living there for a while. The same can be true if the parent or teacher etc., are not emotionally abusive per se but simply have personalities that do not “mix” well with a child under their authority, thus causing emotional distress to the child or both, but mainly to the child since the adult has the upper hand. Forcing a child to stay in a house or classroom, etc., with an adult they simply do not get a long with on a persistent basis can be emotionally damaging to the child. The solution, however, does not and should not require the adult to be imprisoned and/or outright lose their job in many if not most cases.
Yes, I know that learning to work with people whom you may not get along with or agree with is a life skill that must be acquired, but the fact remains that some of these situations are instances where the “bad mix” and disagreements are too great and frequent to be reconciled, and are thus a danger to the emotional health of both individuals. If these separations are not allowed under any circumstances, or if one or both individuals are expected to “just deal with it,” then the system is failing to meet the psychological needs of part of its population, and reform is needed.

Elron

Dissident, I take the point, but you can not compare the free act of a fully developed person like an adult against an undeveloped being like a child. Take into consideration that undeveloped being before the necessities and free will of an developed adult person is just a moralistic discourse that you try to dress like a legal one. In addition why should we punish and take action against an personal and voluntary act that has been legally carried by an authorized person?

Dissident

I think calling even pre-pubescents aged 6 and older “underdeveloped” may be incorrect and biased, Elron. The same thing was claimed about blacks and women in the past, and the same thing has been claimed for adolescents for the past several decades, though some recent good peer-reviewed scientific research has been heavily refuting that (read Epstein and Moshman in particular). In past eras, 6-year-olds could enter apprenticeships, and perform quite well in them. In the rare instances this is allowed today, kids even younger than 6 have excelled in them, and there is nothing to indicate these kids are prodigies. For example, check out this 5-year-old mechanic, and this one (also aged 5), and this one (aged 8), and this one (just turned 9 at the time the video was made, who was said in the video to have started learning how to drive tractors competently at age 3). All four of these examples are learning very much, and enjoying it quite a bit, under the able apprenticeship of their fathers and other relatives. How different would it be for most kids in that age group if all of them were allowed to develop their full potential skills, and work in the labor force as part of accomplished apprenticeships in various fields, under fun and safe conditions, if they lived in a society that didn’t legally prohibit most of them from doing so?
This seems to indicate, combined with past history, that despite some real differences children may have from adults, they have considerably greater potential than we currently allow them to display, and the way they are raised has as much to do with how much competence they routinely display as anything connected to any biological limitation that is inerrant. Let us also consider the scientific evidence that the brain changes in response to the environment, and it’s quite possible that certain biological disadvantages can be a result of nurture rather than nature. Look how those above examples developed under atypical situations where their full potential was nurtured rather than stifled, however. The frequency of it suggests these particular kids are not prodigies. Now consider how many other things, including various social activities that are both fun and desired, younger kids could possibly learn to participate in competently if educated properly and knowing they will have the proper guidance to navigate such things rather than being subject to a stringently imposed blanket prohibition.
I do not believe toddlers can make the most informed decisions, but this doesn’t mean they are incapable of displaying what psychologists refer to as simple consent in many instances, and it also doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have rights that adults and older children or adolescents providing guidance rather than attempts to control them or mold them to fit into any particular societal paradigm cannot help maintain for them. This includes seeing to it they are not forced to attend church services if they do not want to, or are not forced to attend any political rally they do not want, or are not forced to avoid playing with children of a different race, or engaging in certain pleasurable activities that are not proven to have any demonstrable harm to younger children for reasons based entirely in moralism, particular religious beliefs, etc. This advocacy has also been suggested to avoid putting infants and toddlers through any form of genital alteration (such as circumcision) before they able to give consent, simply because the parents wish it for any of the above reasons; or of forcing kids not to receive potentially life-saving medical treatment they may want for a serious ailment, but which the parents object to for religious reasons.

Elron

It is absurd to think that before this stupidity of feminism and psychobabble, sexual agency was OK with young adults (now adolescents.. meh) and now we must put back on the heads of ignorants and dements this reality.
And… is evident that my other comment was a sarcasm.

Elron

Well, Dissident has taken it seriously I see.

Elron

I have not mocked Dissident or other, I just used almost the same words he used in a comment in the previous post, then hence my reaction on his serious answer. There is nothing wrong with me and the other people here.

Dissident

“Ignorants” and “dements” is hardly respectful terminology to use for anyone. The fact that mainstream thinkers have so little respect for groups they profess to be advocating for the well-being of may be one of the reasons the prevailing ideology does them no favors. One thing I’ll credit you for, Elron: you call groups like you really see them, without using the typical feel-good euphemisms of most native English-speakers whom we regularly engage with on this topic.

Elron

Dissident, sorry if this is hard but I consider people who affirm that are wrong have sex or being attracted to teens and tweens are riffraff, human wastes, are neither human beings, I support euthanasia for them, am merciful, they are doing a holocaust with us. They kill us. Sex from puberty is a natural right, animals and even flowers have them, we have an absolute and irrevocable right to have sex, get married and make sexual images of anything that has reached puberty. period. Prohibit this is sexual abuse. I’m like the radical feminists that people mention here, yes, nobody is going to sexually abuse me.. I advocate war and dictatorship to protect my natural rights. I am not a intolerant, not a Nazi, I do what is in my nature. Our opponents deserve nothing but hatred and contempt. I do not want their acceptance. I do not do politics, I not believe in such thing.

sean

I didn’t describe the emotional/psychological abuse that accompanied the physical but, by most measures, it was worse and has had more serious repercussions for me. I can’t describe it in detail, except to say that this and the physical abuse occurred over three years in an institutional setting, and that the psychological abuse included ongoing attempts (by adults) to manipulate my peers into excluding me. I was painted to them as a ‘filthy’, ‘disgusting little beast’, unworthy of their respect or trust.
I had no one to turn to for help, but two details made these episodes less harmful for me than they might have been.
One is that my closest friends ignored the attacks on my character and continued to support me as an ally. It’s often assumed that boys in these prison like environments turn on each other, but I remember some of those kids as loyal and caring and, for that, they’ve earned my enduring love.
The other thing to mention was a male staff member whose warmth and tenderness intensified in step with the viciousness of the attacks from the other adults. He was eventually asked to leave after some life drawings of boys (who’d posed for him on sunday afternoons) were discovered in his rooms.
So, the villains of the piece, the rebellious ten year old and the paedophile, struggle on against the tide, while the man who beat one of them savagely, and did his best to destroy both their lives, has a building named after him..

sean

…’posed’ is the wrong word, they sat for him, and occasionally modeled. The drawings were of a good amateur standard and I had one at the time. I really wish I’d kept it.

Elron

Of course it is a weak logic, as neither I do not believe in that crap. I’ve always said that adults should be with young people mainly for sentimental reasons, not just sexual and reproductive health, which they are also good reasons. Not only for men, for women.
People are not perverts for liking people who are not at their best reproductive stage, but because they are sexual egotist who do not feel intelectual love and eagerness to share and and being a good mentor what can be in almost cases achieved with the first and crucial phase of adulthood – Pubescency.
But mainly because they are mere slaves of attractions inherited of their ancestors and uncivilized beings like cavermans. His love is a farce, they do not love, just looking for a another bittered adult like them to procreate or satisfy their selfish desires (what in their mind they believe is love).
I love in a intellectually way and by altruistic desires about teach and love, I am superior, is a fact. Pedosexuals are superior as well. really everything is superior to infanticide teleiophiles. pedosexuality is really the second best sexuality because at least many pedosexuals had in importance and make care of children.
As for sadomasochistic, bestialists, promiscuous, pornographers they are just a bunch of human scum, no more. Not sexual diversity, is sexual imbecility.
You (text) falsely accuse me of supporting that ridiculous antifem [fuck nubile girls like in past better times!] argument. How will I use this? if I condemn meat eating and promiscuity as aberrations inherited of our ancestors, for the love of god, I have not written that type of antifeminist stupidity in my life.
I’m not making politics, I’m doing science, real science, no psychology, no packaged garbage and served to masses by skilled charlatans in white robe and doctorate in psychobabble, whose best contribution is treat young adults like children (see Seto’s chart and Adolescence) to normalize each aberration in the aberrations catalog, which is all that is about the LGBT[random words here] lobby and gender ideology and create those so cute words like pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia (see Seto’s chart again and Blanchard’s new invention of ‘Hebephilia’ to make attraction to pubescents a disorder, a bunch of ‘evolutionary misfits’), which they really mean nothing, creation of twisted minds like those who created the alleged human equality or the same adolescence, in order to medicalized what it is natural and proper in each one.
And of course I reprove and condemn those who oppose my sexuality. I want to live in a safe space, my sexuality is the beginning of my life and the last, is my RELIGION. I am a religious person and I will fight those who oppose my Love. I am not a Nazi, I do not seek sexual purity and your thinly disguised Ad Hitlerum comparison has no effect other than for mediocre leftists.

bjmuirhead

>>>>>>…”and create those so cute words like pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia (see Seto’s chart again and Blanchard’s new invention of ‘Hebephilia’ to make attraction to pubescents a disorder…”
What is at issue here, I suspect, are questions of complexity of description, levels of explanation, ethical models, and conceptual outlooks.
What I mean is something like this: human beings seem incapable of existing without some form of explanation of life, and an explanation of life which provides certainty. Since the “death of God”, i.e., since (western) culture commenced secularisation some 120 years ago, science, philosophy and ethics (at the very least) have been used as a means of providing certainty. Psychology, which I regard as a cultural and ethical discipline, therefore looks for absolutes about human nature, and treats human cultural products, (especially American cultural products) as absolutes, even as they recognise that this is not and cannot be the case. Our discussion of human sexuality and sexual practices, as a result, necessarily are refined, recategorised, and honed into ever finer, and hence misleading, detail.
It is not enough that people like sex, and that they may take every opportunity to enjoy it with others, nor is it enough that some people like sex with this or that type of person.On the contemporary view, people’s sexual preferences necessarily must be categorised and evaluated against a normativity based on an idealisation of majority heterosexuality. Hence the much discussed heteronormativity of queer and feminist theory. (The feministas did not get everything wrong. And, more importantly, whiy isn’t paedophilia discussed in queer theory? It perfectly fits the original goals ofthat particular approach.)
As should be clear to anyone who has read my comments here, I tend to believe, with the help of Occam, that the simpler model of human sexuality is best, and, furthermore, along with Kinsey, that all sex is “normal” sex. But the more we complicate, the more levels we bring into the discussion, the less easy it is to see this as the case.
Hope my attempts to emphasis have worked. WordPress help assured me that they would. We shall see.

Elron

> “On the contemporary view, people’s sexual preferences necessarily must be categorised and evaluated against a normativity based on an idealisation of majority heterosexuality.”
That explains why Blanchard coined “ephebophilia” as attraction to boys aged 15 and 17, but … It is that hebephilia and ephebophilia are the majority heterosexual man and woman! even you are one, at least with horny late teens, I even like adult women like you (but not interest me at all)because I’m attracted to adults in general, pubertal are young adults, it is a fact. Blanchard, Seto to name two (Even if they are homos, ephebophilia is the natural expression of homosexuality, not gayness) have to be to about 90% like all male an female humans, hebephiles or at least ephebophiles, then we must assume that this “hebephilia is about a 2% of humans” is an act of insincerity of Seto, and the fact that Blanchard tried put hebephilia as disorder, is an act of concealment of his own (and latent) hebephilia.

Elron

I read that Blanchard used it before (at least 2013):
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Ephebophilia#Etymology
“The term was additionally revived by Ray Blanchard to describe adult, especially adult male, sexual attraction to 15 to 19-year-olds. [9] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. [9] [10]”

Elron

You can tell me who invented the term ‘hebephilia’? or at least who used first the term or if existed in the 19th and 20th century as ephebophilia?

bjmuirhead

It is that hebephilia and ephebophilia are the majority heterosexual man and woman!
The reason I don’t talk about this very much is because I believe you are correct. In fact I believe that all adults, potentially, are sexually attracted to all humans, of any age, taking into account personal preferences, attitudes and canalization (as Heinlein called it). There is a clear and obvious preference for youth over age, which I don’t think needs explanation, but there also are those who seek out, or are at least open to sexual relations with someone much older. (This, along with a preference for pre-pubertal children, are the ones which most do not understand.)
What is not clear is whether or not there is an optimal age, so to speak, which is the most sexually attractive. I suspect that there isn’t, but I haven’t really thought about this, because it seems a nonsensical waste of time: we each have our age, personality, body preferences, which may or not change throughout our lives.
Adult-child sexual relations fit into my general view in the following way. Even if a person isn’t sexually attracted to children, a situation could occur in which an adult is sexually aroused by a child, and (non-abusive, non-damaging) sexual activity may occur—or may not. (Such situational moments, unfortunately, also often result, or so it seems, in violent and abusive sex.)
It is fairly clear from what I’ve said that I simply regard humanity as being sexual and inherently open to all forms of sexuality. But, humanity also is well trained socially and culturally, and how far any one of us steps outside of our cultural training always is a moot question. For example, an adult woman/man with no sexual desire for children, with a girl/boy on his lap, who reacts sexually to the behaviour, is likely to be horrified by the response. Similarly, many men (and women) I have met react with horror about an older man with 16 year old women (age of sexual consent here).
Enough. All I really wanted to do was agree with you, and now I have rambled on explaining why I agree with you.

bjmuirhead

I have never regarded Kincaid as a queer theorist, rather I have seen him as a cultural theorist. It’s quite a few years since I have read him, but I remember agreeing with much of what he said, and disagreeing with much also. As for Angelidies, yes, I have read much of his work. I even thought of studying with him at one stage, when I entertained fantasies about doing this research at that level.
As for the “oblique and coded – or, if you prefer, so deliberately disruptive of categories such as “paedophilia”, the legitimacy of which it contests” work in queer theory—I’ve obviously missed most of it. Any references you may feel like posting or sending me would be appreciated.

bjmuirhead

Although I haven’t finished reading this article (and thanks for the reference), I do have some immediate difficulties:
The first, and to me most damning, is her inclusion, under the term MAPs, of people attracted to legal minors (under 18) to those prior to puberty. I think this necessarily confuses the issues the authors claim to discuss (unless they actually confine their discussion about attraction to pre-pubescent children).
Secondly, I am bothered by the authors’ description of queer theory and the notion that “using a queer lens” may be contentious.
I am, therefore, deeply bothered by their assertion that ” Due to MAPs’ existence outside of the realm of sexual normalcy and the sociopolitical mainstream, they may be easily regarded as queer.”
What bothers me about this is the very notion of “normalcy”, i.e., the very notion that queer theory has been challenging. How can one adequately question sexual identity on the basis of a normativity which the queer theoretical approach itself challenges? (You cannot, which is why muchf queer theory has become intellectual wank.) Even if “minor attraction” is regarded as normative—competitions between normativities seems a little sillly.
I should shut-up now, cease displaying me prejudices, and go and finish reading the paper. So I will.

bjmuirhead

Despite my reservations on the basis of theory, mentioned above, I have now finished the paper, and am actually quite impressed with Walker and Panfil’s views, and especially with their criticism of the manner in which Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD) stigmatises all paedophiles as potential (probable) offenders:

Research and programming focusing on improving outcomes for children is undoubt edly crucial and advantageous both for children and for many MAPs who seek out programs like PPD. However, while this work makes many positive contributions, its impact on promoting suspicion and formal control of MAPs in the general public should not be overlooked.

Overall, a very good paper, preparing the way for further research in criminology.

bjmuirhead

>>>>>>”However, there are also a number of queer theorists who use obscure language so they can keep their supposedly subversive thoughts within their own little club where they will be safe from attack. That really is just an intellectual wank.”
I suspect I have read far too many of these.

For The Children

For Italian born expressive Rovelli with much experience in the repressive phoney Anglophone/U$A, the source of conflict is not the pretense of science to give answers about the universe. Which for Rovelli, is full of mystery, and a source of awe and emotion.
On the contrary, the source of conflict is the honest acceptance of our ignorance at the very root of science, which clashes with pompous religions’ pretense to be depositories of certain knowledge.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1&type=xdds_5338_CRW_BE&p=Carlo+Rovelli%2C

bjmuirhead

>>>>>>None of us, of whatever orientation, can justify our sexuality solely by reference to a long gone past.
Whilst this may be true, and I’m not entirely certain that it is, history (and anthropology) can entertain us nosologically and, perhaps more importantly, in terms of understanding “normal” sexuality as it appears to exist within humanity as we now are.
Not that many years ago (about ten), I accepted and believed the standard nosology and morality, i.e., adult-child sexual relationships are the result of a psychological illness in the adult, viz., paedophilia (how the term is used, as in the DSM, rather than any other meaning), and always is morally heinous.
It was the intrusion of these types of ideas into the discussion of art, both old and new, which prompted my historical, anthropological and psychological researches which, in tern, led to my change in belief. And it is this which leads me to query your statement.
The primary result of my research has been that I now believe that there is no “normal” sexuality which excludes any sexual object or act. Virtually everything has been regarded as “normal” at one time or another, in one place or another. The best candidate for an “abnormal” sexual act/desire appears to be bestiality/zoophilia, but this also has been common throughout human existence, or so it seems.
What this suggests to me, first and foremost, is that what always has been, and continues to be, at issue is a question of what particular societies are willing to accept morally as being “normal”. From this point of view, it seems that your statement is correct: what has been acceptable in the past is not and cannot be a justification of any particular sexual desire or proclivity in the now (whenever that happens to be). But, what has happened in the past, what sexual activities we know have been acceptable, what sexual activities we know have been common throughout humanity, can inform discussion and criticism of contemporary morality and how it sits with what people, humans, actually do and want to do. In this respect, and perhaps only in this respect, history and anthropology can be used to justify **the questioning of any moral stance against any particular sexual activity, desire, or proclivity.** Morality, after all, is little more than an imposition on social and individual behaviour and, in terms of sexual behaviour, it seems to be always based on a somewhat restrictive notion of what is sexually “normal”. (Of course paedophilia is regarded as “abnormal” because of the belief that only a few sexually desire children and, more importantly, because sex is for procreation, not pleasure. God told us so, and even if we don’t believe God exists any more, we still believe what the prophets claimed he said. Sarcasm intended.)
I realise that this comment does not address the main point of the post, but I instantly felt that the distinction I have made needed to be made, if only because I rely heavily on such knowledge for my own views.
And, lastly, who says the most primitive of humanity didn’t also want sex with oldies and youngies? And actively get on with it? Suppositions about what early humans did and or wanted based on an assumed evolutionary necessity seem rather spurious, to say the least, and certainly stands against the commenter you mentioned in the post. But I won’t bang on (bad pun intended) about that…

bjmuirhead

Yes, I remember your discussing this. Unfortunately the Ford book is out of print, and second hand copies are outrageously priced. As for evolution… I just don’t believe that people didn’t behave just as they do now, and take every opportunity. And I don’t mean this as a means of avoiding specific desires which don’t change in people, i.e., gay people usually don’t turn hetero, and so on.
Anyway, mustn’t clatter on. I’ll just have to wait until you talk about evolution, I’ll be very interested to read your thoughts.

Elron

> “And, lastly, who says the most primitive of humanity didn’t also want sex with oldies and youngies? And actively get on with it? Suppositions about what early humans did and or wanted based on an assumed evolutionary necessity seem rather spurious, to say the least, and certainly stands against the commenter you mentioned in the post.”
That’s a lie, a total lie, I have never used in my arguments stupidities like that, and my arguments are based on seeing continuous dishonesty of people with your attraction (I have nothing against you, is against the attraction itself) equal that Lensman with Islam, today I read that a woman had become pregnant only to avoid further jail time, I find using a new life for selfish motives repulsive and something insane, and so every day, no day that an adult kill their partner or their children, teleiophiles (maybe not you) are really horrible. Lensman knows what horrible and wicked that is Islam, the same is with me about teleiophilia, sorry if there are some decent people, but at the moment I do not see it.

bjmuirhead

>>>>>>That’s a lie, a total lie, I have never used in my arguments stupidities like that, and my arguments are based on seeing continuous dishonesty of people with your attraction
I’m perfectly happy to accept that I may have mis-interpreted the implications of your argument. As for people with “my attraction”, firstly, I have no idea what dishonesty you may be talking about; secondly, as a non paedophile, my dishonesties will be a matter of…other things…
No, that wasn’t an invitation to discuss dishonesties in general or in specific.

Elron

Attraction to adults, is what I meant.
And we will not discuss anything, but it would have been fun to copypaste the rants of LSM and change some keywords, it is what has all hate (right or not) which looks much like!

bjmuirhead

O, that’s amusing. I’m sorry, I’m having a quiet laugh with myself. I am accustomed to being abused and accused by the prejudiced because of my research interests. In fact my ex-wife has tantrums about it all over town and accuses me of making up research, tells everyone she doesn’t know where I get this stuff on paedophilia (academic journals and books, mostly, and some paedophiles on the net, I tell her, and offer to let her read them, fully expecting her refusal); but I have never been accused of liking adults. But I do, sorry about that, but I love a fully ripened breast, and the heft of experience going down and coming up. Mmmmm….
But I suspect that this *may* be the wrong place to talk about the odor of fully ripened pleasure. Mmmmm, again…
As for LSM, I think he is wrong about a number of matters, but overall I find his views very interesting and informative, and I agree more than disagree with his views. Besides, you could take anything, written by anyone, and change keywords to amuse, parody, and so on. (I don’t mean to offend by saying this.)

Christian

The acronym ‘LGBT…’ designates a a formatted and standardized version of sexual minorities, I prefer to avoid it. William Percy III rejects it (http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Homosexuality/gay/queer/LGBTQQWXYZ), and he rightly prefers ‘homosexualities’ in the plural to denote the variety and diversity of ‘queer’ history and culture. Note his ‘8 P’s’ (http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bad_Billy), which includes ‘Pederasts’, but also ‘Les Poètes Maudits’. Indeed, Oscar Wilde was gay, Ernest Dowson was a girl-lover, and ‘Uranians’ poets such as Fabian Strachan Woodley were boy-lovers, etc.

137
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top