Today’s guest blog is on child pornography, or “abuse images” as the current PC term has it, and is by Feinmann, whose debut as a blogger here was in April this year under the title “War on Kinds disguises one against kids”. Professionally retired, he remains highly active as a field researcher working on the conservation of endangered species. The splendid graphics (not intended for sexual gratification but feel free to enjoy them!) are the author’s own.
WAGING WAR ON CHILD PORN IS OPPRESSIVE AND DUMB
Some definitions
Pornography: derives from the Greek: πορνογραφία, meaning “a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution”.
Child pornography: the term appeared in North America during the 1960s, and is defined thus: “Pornographic material featuring sexually explicit images or descriptions of children”. Child pornography, when back-cast to the original Greek suggests: “a written description or illustration of child prostitutes or child prostitution”. The noun child pornography superseded the noun child erotica, but is now equated with child abuse images.
Inquisition: institutions within a system of government whose aim is to combat heresy, and is characterised by: a lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
COPINE scale: used by UK law enforcement (also known as officious paramilitary social workers) to determine sentencing for possession of child pornography. This ten-point scale was created in the Department of Applied Psychology in Cork in 1997 and adapted for use in UK courts. In 2002, the scale was amended to a five-point SAP (Sentencing Advisory Panel) scale. It then changed again in 2014 to a three-point SOD (Sentencing Offenders Definitive) guideline. The forging of this scalar weapon and its inclusion within the inquisition’s armoury, furnishes law-enforcement agencies with a most terrible servant to deploy … and deploy it they do with rigid absolutism.
Paedophile: a person who is sexually attracted to children, the word appearing in medical dictionaries in 1918, but, with a lack of distinction between paedophilia and homosexuality. From 1960 attempts were made to distinguish “homosexuals” from people then dubbed “paedophiliacs”. In popular usage, the word paedophilia conflates sexual attraction to prepubescent children with “child sexual abuse”.
Indecent Sentences
From Heretic TOC: What Defines Child Pornography?: “In many jurisdictions this is utterly unclear, because mere nakedness may in theory be permissible, but too close a focus on the genitals may constitute an illegal lascivious display or an indecent image. An allegedly suggestive pose can tip the balance from legal to illegal, even if the child is fully clothed.”
In his consultation paper of 2002, Sentencing In Child Pornography Cases, Tom wrote: “The danger lies in the vagueness of the word indecent. As Geoffrey Robertson QC says: ‘Indecency…is assumed to have an ascertainable meaning in law. Jurors and justices who use it as part of their everyday language are trusted to know it when they see it.’ Yet ‘scientific surveys, parliamentary debates and jury verdicts demonstrate no measure of consensus either about community standards or the sort of material which infringes them.’ It seems to me far from self-evident that indecent photographs necessarily involve exploitation in their making, especially as regards those at the lower end of the scale, in COPINE classes 1-6. Indeed, the Sentencing Advisory Panel concedes this point by saying: ‘Images that are relatively less harmful … may still involve … exploitation or degradation …’ They may. Or they may not. Unfortunately, the Sentencing Advisory Panel fails to pursue the logic of this ambivalence. Taking a shotgun approach, the Panel opts to assume the worst and blast away regardless.”
“Shotgun approach” indeed. Fifteen years on, governments still blast away with their indecent bullets to the point where free expression and free speech is critically riddled with holes. In relating the anger expressed over the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, Peter Herman in Heretic TOC highlighted the following bitter irony: “It has come to a point where, in many parts of the English speaking world, any image of youthful sexuality and even written descriptions of it will at the very least ostracize the individual, land him in jail or possibly get him killed.”
Endlösung der Pädophilenfrage – Final Solution to the Paedophile Question
But why is war on minor-attracted individuals waged? Why have those elected to protect the civil liberties of every citizen, failed to do so for members of this group? Why have law-makers labelled every member a sexual predator and treated them as a deformity on the body politic?
Being a paedophile has become a crime of such importance that merely to accuse someone brands them a child sexual abuser. The term crimen exceptum, a mechanism vital to the functioning of inquisitions executing social control via justice systems built on barbarism, describes this process well. The crimen exceptum updates the Magna Carta to read: we are all guilty in a court of law.
As with all inquisitions, the crimen exceptum enables a monstrously corrupt false allegations industry to flourish, enthusiastically stoked by child charities and accusers – the latter in the full knowledge that they will be believed, that their anonymity will be guaranteed even if they are found to lie, and that they can profit from selling their lies to a salaciousness-hungry media. These bounty-hunting allegators doubtless obtain an extra buzz from ruining the lives of the innocents they accuse.
To heighten the moral panic and hysteria, the inquisition classifies an image of a naked child as obscene. Ironically, perversely, and hypocritically, one cannot be arrested for possessing images of terrorist crimes or violent crimes, no matter how sadistic or sickening. Heretic TOC recently discussed additional un-prosecuted “child pornography” in the public domain. It also flagged circumcision and the curious failure to prosecute the genital mutilation of some 10,000 and 1,000,000 male babies in the UK and the US, respectively, annually.
Conclusion: it has nothing to do with the image, and everything to do with the discrimination of those that promote and enjoy child sexuality; that includes the kids themselves.
The estrangement of adults from the lives of children
Frank Furedi in Spiked: “The promotion of paranoia in relation to every aspect of children’s lives accomplishes the very opposite of what it sets out to do.” With nearly one quarter of UK households with dependent children managed by a lone parent, 91% being women, one might envisage such homes to be fertile ground for feeding the paranoia Frank highlights: stranger-danger outside; evil internet inside. Any child daring to display natural sexuality will be instantly hermetically sealed within a bubble of suppression, any adult moving a hand to break the bubble, ostracised.
This from Moor Larkin: “Look after the children, the idea seems to go, and then by the time they see all this filth and perversion, they will be adults and thus impervious to any of its pernicious effects. However at the same time, a legal norm has built up that anyone looking at pictures of children in sexual poses will be likely to want to emulate that imagery in reality, and thus must be treated to remove these pernicious effects, and if they refuse to comply then they must be removed from society.”
Moor’s final comment applies increasingly to children. A primary source of child abuse images rather ironically, is the children themselves. Pediatrics in 2014 states: “That we did not find a link between sexting and risky sexual behavior over time may suggest that sexting is a new ‘normal’ part of adolescent sexual development and not strictly limited to at-risk adolescents.” With the ever-earlier onset of puberty – the term “adolescent” implies a person between 10 and 25 – time perhaps to review age of consent laws.
That youngsters experience fun (kid’s code for excitement) showing off to peers and strangers alike as cameras roll, has been self-evident to child erotica aficionados for decades. Kids, particularly boys, evidently have an interest in sexual imagery. Nothing really new there, but danger lurks on the internet. The inquisition’s Five Eyes will be quick to pounce and arrest young perverts. Oh yes, the inquisition wages a vicious war against youth sexuality too. Heretic TOC highlighted a sad fact that around one in three registered sex offenders in both the UK and the US are themselves minors. Society has totally acquiesced to the implementation of savage lunatic discriminatory laws that, far from protecting children, systematically abuse them, and go on punishing for the remainder of their hellish lives. It is time to STOP IT NOW!
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud seep out
This poisonous lie from those who claim to protect society exposes the dark heart of the inquisition: “The FBI on behalf of the US government, claim that children are re-victimized every time images of their sexual abuse are viewed or transferred. That argument is one of the main rationales for punishing mere possession of child pornography, which under federal law and the laws of some states can be treated more harshly than violent crimes, more harshly even than actual abuse of children. That penalty structure is obviously irrational unless you believe that serious harm is inflicted every time someone looks at the image of a child’s sexual abuse. In that case, a large enough collection of images could equal or even surpass the harm done by a single child rape, so that it could make sense to impose a life sentence on someone who has done nothing but look at pictures.”
Another poisonous US Government lie states: “The commercial enterprise of online child pornography is estimated in 2005 to be approximately $20 billion, and it is an industry on the rise.” The lie is not easy to refute because it is illegal to research the facts, allowing the inquisition to launder statistics with impunity. In 2006, the Wall Street Journal in an investigative article commented: “to track down the number’s source yielded lots of dead ends.” A further source in 2001 concluded that the market in child pornography was actually negligible. Hyped claims that child pornography is a massively profitable industry appear to have been largely abandoned in more recent years, as the continuing lack of supporting evidence makes such claims less and less plausible. Attention is now focused more on estimating viewing figures, with people looking at what are now being called “child abuse images” being presented as a ‘social emergency’ (see also the BBC Child Pornography Epidemic link referenced in the bullet points below). The 2015 annual report of the Internet Watch Foundation claims “21% of the webpages confirmed as containing child sexual abuse imagery were assessed as commercial.”
More poisonous lies are recounted here.
Anglosphere child charity ‘statistics’ can be equally poisonous: “… research has shown that one in four children (27%) will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18.” This is 1,258 times more than the figure given by the Parliamentary Education Committee for England. The treacherous NSPCC is no better.
These poisonous lies oil the vicious circle and empower the inquisition to:
- covertly, extensively and intrusively monitor online activity and void one’s right to privacy in the home
- arrest staggering numbers of people, with no attempt to discover the truth, and no assessment of the risk an individual poses to society
- criminalise children that source and share sexual images of themselves
- place sex offenders at risk of vigilante attack both inside and outside of prison
- dramatically increase crime figures – Figure F2 in Excel download shows a near doubling of sexual offences in England and Wales annually: 2003 to 2013 averaged 55,452 with no year above 61,000, but 2016 projected to be 108,762
- claim a “child pornography” epidemic exists to justify additional resources and funding, when no epidemic exists
- censor artists and their art in the style of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini who outlawed the possession and viewing of pornography
- spread fear across society via the dissemination of toxic propaganda when child sexual abuse is actually relatively rare.
- divert taxpayers money away from the pursuit of significant crime, and into trauma myth, witch hunts, and discrimination
A model for the future
When any item in demand is outlawed, mechanisms arise that circumvent prohibition. Child pornography was legally produced and sold across several European countries thirty years ago, but is now restricted to, but freely available within the dark web. As images can be viewed, downloaded, copied, and distributed to a thousand destinations instantly, the war on pornography (as for drugs) is unlikely to be won despite huge commitment, funding, and, inane declarations of war.
By waging an intelligent, pragmatic, anti-war on drugs, certain countries in Europe ensure the cure costs less than the problem. Portugal decriminalised possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001 by implementing wider health and social policy changes. Results have been remarkable. The fact that Portugal benefited overall from the intelligent reversal of its stance on drugs, should be a wake-up call for governments that pig-headedly persist in waging costly, ineffective wars on items that society clearly wants.
Anglosphere countries should institute an anti-war on child pornography to unstitch manifestly corrupt and repressive laws that discriminate against citizens on the basis of their sexuality, and deny everyone the basic human right to articulate opinions and ideas. Articles 7, 12 and 19 of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration are relevant here; these continue to be breached with impunity. The unstitching process should dismantle dangerously unaccountable law-enforcement agencies (plus their allies) that design and deploy McCarthyesque witch hunts to create immense damage across society. One candidate the author would recommend for retrospective prosecution on the basis of discrimination is this one. If any single institution is guilty of fomenting mass-hysteria, discrimination and misery across the world over many decades in the total absence of any scientific justification, this is it.
We do not want future generations to have insanely fucked-up attitudes towards human sexuality like those that lie within the heads of the fascist moral “protectors” that infest Anglosphere governments today. To this end, society must ensure that every child receives adequate education on: human sexuality and human relationships, and the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It would be instructive to highlight the fact that the animal kingdom is saturated with sexual deviance (for example: casual intergenerational sex play), and that as deviance is widespread in nature, deviance in humans is natural too.
This inquisition has been successful in suppressing free thought and scientific thought on the issue of child sexuality and intergenerational sex. Peter Herman again: “Following surveys in a number of countries, including, Denmark, Germany, Japan and the Czech Republic, a strong association has been demonstrated between the ready availability of pornography and reduced levels of sexual offending, including against children. Research also shows that non-coercive sexual acts with minors, in themselves, do not result in psychological trauma.” ipce summarises similar research findings. It is high time we revisited these findings and conducted additional rigorous scientific research to clarify the full diversity of human sexual needs, regardless of age.
‘In popular usage’ I might add, ‘the word pedophilia’ conflates sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children’ also with sexual attraction to post-pubescent ‘children’ with ‘kidnap’ of consenting teenagers (cf Jeremy Forrest) with pretty much any nuance of interaction between an adult an an under-18 that goes beyond professional or safety-checked. Such is the society we inhabit in the western world, most especially Britain, with the neo-Puritans and Orwellian thought police (or juse plain cretins) who run its sex offence policies.
Conservation of endangered species! Wow, Feinmann, I didn’t know that! And fantastic graphics.
Hello again A! Long time no speak. Yes, I try to do my bit for the planet, but it seems to be a losing battle promoting natural diversity whilst farm subsidies simultaneously destroy vast tracts of ‘unimproved’ land across the EU.
As for the graphics, thank you. For the past five years I have occasionally worn T-shirts and polo-neck tops with the child-lover butterfly logo emblazoned on the chest. No-one has commented on them yet (although one falang feminist got pretty damn close to unmasking me in Thailand last year – she knew she had seen it somewhere before …), not even as I cross the borders of countries that claim to ban such outrageously vile symbols as a pink and blue butterfly. I am minded to increase my activism by having T-shirts created featuring the graphics that appear in this blog.
A Happy New Year to you and to all!
>I am minded to increase my activism by having T-shirts created featuring the graphics that appear in this blog.
Very brave, but be careful. We don’t want to lose you!
Much of the subject matter within my blog plus the comments that followed, centre on society’s fear for the endangered child, and the lengths to which those who keep society safe are prepared to go to protect children from sexual abuse, both real and imaginary. I reproduce here, in my view, insightful comment from Randall and Pete (on the KingOfHits website yesterday), respectively, which hints at how the rule of law, in England at least, seems to have been replaced by the rule of political correctness and all the while at the expense of liberty.
“There is a complete muddle about who can be held responsible for what and at what age. It reflects the wider muddle of English law, which is a mess of ancient common law that has been ‘clarified’ by precedent into utter incomprehensibility and statute law which is often in conflict with itself or other law, internally contradictory or just plain nonsense. An absolute howler, in my opinion, is having an age of criminal responsibility of 10 (a problem in itself) juxtaposed with an age of sexual consent of 16. We see 14/15 year old boys prosecuted for sexual acts that they are legally not responsible for. I think it reveals that such legal processes are aimed at attacking male sexuality, rather than achieving justice. Written legal codes, as in Germany for example, are refreshingly clear and simple by comparison. They simply codify prohibitions and obligations in various areas: criminal, tax, family law etc.
Anonymity for child convicts also raises the issue of social rehabilitation for all convicts. Broadly speaking, isn’t it the idea that completion of the penalty clears the convict’s debt to society? Institutionalising lingering, persistent, post-sentence obstacles to gaining employment and interpersonal relationships is surely counterproductive and demonstrates that the system we have does not serve society in a beneficial way.”
“I wonder why the issues Randall anatomises with such acuity here are never (or rarely) reported in our supposedly ‘free’ media?
I have an additional take on the status of ‘the child’ in law at present. Anyone who thinks that some spectral realm of pure justice hovers above the ruck and mess of human struggle and history, intervening from a position of divine perfection to put matters right here on earth, should really think again.
I’ve come to believe that the rule of law isn’t the rule of judges, cops, and prosecution lawyers. Nor is it the rule of the spiteful victim feminist ideology which has massively contaminated all of these professions. I think of it as a hard-won site of struggle and contestation which has, on occasions, allowed powerless and persecuted people to resist and even overturn ugly dominant assumptions about ‘the natural order’ and ‘the way things ought to be.’ As such, it’s fundamentally wedded to liberty.
The rule of political correctness is radically different. Deeply misanthropic and incurably paranoid, political correctness has no deep roots in society (which is why it’s so relentlessly strident, hysterical, and punitive). It’s simply the belief system of a well-heeled minority, delusionally convinced of its own moral superiority. Peter Hitchens calls these people ‘bourgeois metropolitan bohemians’ who hate ordinary people. I think he’s right.
It seems to me that a legal system based largely on liberty and the rule of law has progressively given way to a politically correct legal system based on incarceration, permanent stigmatisation and victim idolatry.
When victim feminists – the chief architects of political correctness – hijacked the noble (and successful) cause of parity feminism from the late 1970s onwards, their most prolific and voluble exponents were dismayed to find that most ordinary women wholly rejected their bitter, angry, male-despising ideology. Few people can easily warm to snippy neurotics.
But then they hit upon the ideologically brilliant strategy of using children as a proxy for the ‘abused’ women that no sane woman really believed in. I hasten to add that I don’t mean that no one believed that some women had been abused by villainous male thugs; only that they didn’t believe that ALL women had been.
Using the trope of ‘the patriarchy’ (by which they meant ‘males’), they peddled the fiction that children were being sexually abused on an industrial scale by fathers, brothers, male teachers, male nursery workers, youth workers, and so on.
The carefree, happy child (the kind of child I think I and my contemporaries were most of the time) was reconfigured in this ideology as the endangered child, surrounded by rapacious penises hiding beneath a cloak of false respectability.
It played brilliantly into the hands of reactionaries and authoritarians – the betrayers and saboteurs of true conservatism – who always sought to replace democratic governance with punitive, carceral governance, a cause which victim feminists have actively supported from the outset.
In the mindset of this bourgeois metropolitan bohemian elite, with their disdainfully misanthropic view of the rest of us, the fiction of the endangered child has now become an unassailable truth, immune to all the overwhelming evidence that children (in the developed economies at least) have never been safer or healthier in human history.
The ‘endangered child’ has enabled them to smuggle into prevailing orthodoxies groundless and near-psychotic belief systems such as ‘rape culture’.
Children evoke fellow-feeling and compassion in a way that spiteful, eating-disordered neurotics like Andrea Dworkin and cold-blooded authoritarians like Catherine McKinnon could never hope to emulate.
The endangered/abused child, in other worlds, is a trope that’s bringing into being a new order of sexual McCarthyism and politically correct ‘justice’, which is no justice at all.
Children are surely best served by strong, confident parents, who derive their strength and confidence from trusted informal systems of familial support and extra-familial friendships, as they have done for millennia. They are most certainly not served well by earnest, superficially-educated social workers and cops (described brilliantly by Mr Hitchens as ‘officious paramilitary social workers’) who’ve been on a few courses about child protection.”
I don’t usually like long slabs of text dumped here from other sites but I must admit the contributions from Randall and Pete really hit the mark in fine style and are well worth reading.
Feinmann, do you have a URL for these comments? I’ve just been to King of Hits website and can’t see them. It’s just that I’d like to ask Randall to clarify what he means by this:
“An absolute howler, in my opinion, is having an age of criminal responsibility of 10 (a problem in itself) juxtaposed with an age of sexual consent of 16. We see 14/15 year old boys prosecuted for sexual acts that they are legally not responsible for.”
It seems to me that his point is illogical, not the law. Heretics here can and do disagree with the AOC, of course, and perhaps with the age of criminal responsibility as well. But as long as the age of the latter is 10, why would it be inconsistent to prosecute offences (of any sort) committed at 14 or 15?
By comparison, young people are not allowed to buy alcohol until they are 18. On Randall’s logic they could not be prosecuted for shoplifting bottles of whiskey from a supermarket if the were only 17.
Pete writes:
>When victim feminists – the chief architects of political correctness – hijacked the noble (and successful) cause of parity feminism from the late 1970s onwards…
This makes exactly the important distinction between parity feminism and victim feminism that has been aired at H-TOC recently.
>Children are surely best served by strong, confident parents,
Yes, but we should not lose sight of the unfortunate fact that some kids have terrible parents. We cannot wish social workers away.
I read Randall’s comment: “We see 14/15 year old boys prosecuted for sexual acts that they are legally not responsible for” in the light of The Sexual Offences Act 2003, London: Home Office Communications Directorate, 2004: “It is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. However, Home Office guidance is clear that there is no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16 where both mutually agree and where they are of a similar age” … from the FPA website, last updated in 2015.
The link for the original comments is: kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/catid,2/id,157088/
Well, I think we can all agree there are prosecutions where there ought not to be. Thanks for the link.
“All early Christian sources say Mary was 12 years old when she married Joseph the carpenter.”
https://discoverthetruefacts.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/bible-12-year-old-mary-married-90-year-old-joseph-paedophilia/
The link cites the Catholic Encyclopaedia. This is interesting but also controversial and will perhaps be dismissed as internet twaddle in the absence of the authoritative reference. So here it is:
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6476
Use search term “unreliable” to locate the most relevant paragraph. The Church says the stories, from the apocrypha, are unreliable. Nevertheless a marriage age of 12 is entirely consistent with law and practice in the Roman world at that time, of which Mary and Joseph were a part.
DSM
I’ve replied on my own blog as to my feelings towards the site you link to – any anger that communicates itself in what follows is not aimed at you, but at the writer of the blog and the evil ideology which informs it (as an atheist I am reluctant to use the word ‘evil’ – but as a paedophile who cares for the well being, the fate, of little girls I have no hesitation in using that word).
The discoverthetruefacts blog has no credibility – it displays all the clear-thinking, reason, humanity and honesty that one would expect of an islamist.
When I read the post you link to I felt it so disingenuous and flawed. I consider Muhammad’s treatment of little Aisha as much ‘paedophilia’ as a loving and considerate husband would consider the rape of women ‘heterosexuality’.
Islamists are not only keen to justify Mohammed’s deeds towards Aisha, but also advocate the same treatment for little girls nowadays.
“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)”
Daesh, that shop-front for islam, has implemented child-marriage in the territories it infests – the rape of kufr children is advocated as a means of gaining and spawning ‘converts’. For a ‘warrior’ to marry a moslem little girl all is required is the father’s consent and the paying of a ‘dowry’ – easily done if you hold a gun in your hand. The girl need not consent. Intercourse can take place on the child’s ninth birthday – and islam does not recognise marital rape, even when exacted against a nine-year-old girl.
As to ‘kufr’ little girls – well it’s no-holds-barred as far as they are concerned.
Anyway – not surprisingly the admin at discoverthe’truefacts’ has not seen fit to approve my comment – so I’ll reproduce it here.
“Aisha was six when she was sold by her father to mohammed and sometime between the age of six and nine he started non-penetrative sex on her (‘thighing’ – a method in which he would rub his penis between her thighs – and he used a rag to cover the child’s genitals- presumably so she would get no pleasure out of the activity).
She was nine when mohammed first, ahem, ‘penetrated’ her. If you question these numbers (as some moslems have recently started to try to do) then you doubt bukhari – and must therefore also equally doubt the Pillars of Islam, which bukhari repeat).
You claim Mary was twelve when she married Joseph – twice the age of Aisha when mohumed first imposed himself on her sexually.
Mary gave birth to Jesus therefore she must have already passed puberty, and twelve is a reasonably averagel age for a girl to pass puberty.
Nine isn’t.
Especially in an unhealthy, backwards society such as they would have been living in – puberty would probably be much delayed by ignorance, brutality, malnutrition and poor hygiene and superstition (viz the kuran’s failure to anywhere condemn bestiality and the mixed messages in the ahadith regarding bestiality – “Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.” Abu Dawud 38:4450 ).
Is there any evidence that Aisha had passed puberty when mohammed first…’penetrated’ …her? Other than wishful thinking – ‘muhamud would never break his own rules’?
No.
Also mohammud constantly broke his own rules. Then he would tell his followers – ‘oh, alah said it was ok’ – or words to that effect.
Compare the number of wives he permitted others (four) and the number he permitted himself (19 in all, and at one moment probably had eleven at the same time – and god knows how many if you include as ‘wives’ the sex slaves he permitted himself to ‘enjoy’).
This and many other verses and incidents show that mohamed didn’t feel any compunction in breaking the rules he enforced on others with an iron fist.
And why not rape Aisha?
Sharia law stipulates that it requires 4 male eyewitnesses willing to support a girl’s testimony before that testimony is accepted in court. Not surprising marital rape is either not recognised as an offense or almost ‘zero’ in islamic countries.
So really, once married, mohamad could do anything, short of actual violence, to obtain sexual satisfaction against little Aisha. His obsession with sex and his general brutality (“He struck me on the chest which caused me pain” – Aisha) suggests that he probably was willing to use coercion against her.
Do you rate the Apocrypha as authoritative as Bukhari?
Is there any evidence that Aisha at any point in her first nine years consented to anything that happened to her?
Or do you take the line that “Silence is Consent”*? How would that stand in a court of law in a *civilised* legal system?”
*”Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger ( ) as having said: A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the ‘Prophet’ of ‘Allah’ ( ): How her (virgin’s) consent can be solicited? He (the ‘Holy’ ‘Prophet’) said: That she keeps silence.“
Reliably transcribed from LSM’s HOT off the WordPress BIG Blog.
Anger-managed DSM says:
DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT 3:47 PM;
.
Eloquently seXpressed, as ever, Loli-lovin Loquacious Learned Leonard.
But what FAITH is there now in ANY Millenia Olde texts – Talmudic, Biblical, OR Koranic, et al?
Even less reliable than today’s ongoing HOLY unbelieveable TABLOIDIC texts – Pedophobe SUNspeak, et al?
So, how reliable is the linked-line, ““All early Christian sources say Mary was 12 years old when she married Joseph the carpenter.” Could easily be rephrased in anti-Muz, LSMspeak, “Innocent young child Mary was just 12 when against her will, she was forcibly betrothed to VILE Olde Pedo Joe, 80!”
And, Koranic texts could be believably rephrased, “Bright Adultophile Aisha, 6, was so fond of friendly Pedo Mo (magnet to many sex-keen kids), that she happily wed him knowing he was kind and LURVED fine inter-femoral SeX. Tho she longed for full-pen, WAY before he kindly waited ’til she was a 9 y.o. Olde Maid.”
Islam-dunk?
>Even less reliable than today’s ongoing HOLY unbelieveable TABLOIDIC texts
I agree.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”
Khomeini, “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
“It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
These quotations from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini are to be found all over the internet, not just on anti-Islamic websites but on some Islamic ones too, such as ummah.com, where there is a forum discussion here:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?4073-Relevance-of-Ayatollah-Khomeini-in-Islamic-life
Authoritative neutral sites are harder to find, but Wikipedia broadly supports the authenticity of the quotation from the book Tahrir al-Wasilah. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Wasilah#cite_note-bookofmarriage-20
Under a heading titled “Controversies” the entry says: “The book has been the target of some polemics by some critics of Khomeini, owing to certain passages which seem to sanction sexual practices with minors, including toddlers.” A link is given to the original publication, but it leads to a 404 error: “Page not found”.
It seems that Ayatollah Khomenii may have also practised what he preached.
I’m not sure how credible the following account is. But the thought of the Ayatollah (Don’t) Khomenii (Closer) – with his beards, eyebrows, mad hat and angry face – bearing down on a four year old girl gives me the same gut-jolt that antis and haters must get when they think about paedophiles.
“The author of the book ‘For Allah, Then For History’ mentions to us an event that took place before his very eyes, when al-Khomeini was living in Iraq, and was visiting an Iranian individual by the name of Sayyid Sahib.
He says: ‘Sayyid Sahib was joyous with our visit, and we arrived at his house around the time of Dhuhr. So, he prepared for us a lavish dinner, and called some of his relatives, who came to see us, and the house became crowded in celebration of our presence.
Sayyid Sahib then requested that we spend that night at his home, to which the Imam agreed. When it was night time, we were given our supper, and the guests would take the Imam’s hand and kiss it, and they would ask him questions, with him answering their questions.
When it was time to sleep, the guests had all left, except for the inhabitants of the house. Al-Khomeini laid his eyes on a young girl who, despite being only four or five years of age, was very beautiful.
So, the Imam requested from her father, Sayyid Sahib, that he spend the night with her in order to enjoy her. Her father happily agreed, and Imam al-Khomeini spent the night with the girl in his arms, and we could hear her crying and screaming [through the night].’”
An excerpt from ‘Hal Ataaka Hadeeth ur-Raafidah’ by the late Sheikh Abu Mus’abaz-Zarqaawi
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/when-imam-ayatollah-khomeini-raped-a-4-year-old-girl/.
I’m thinking it’s probably just as well that the Ayatollah is no longer alive. As my reason, I was going to say that in English law the dead cannot sue for libel.
However, I think a bigger worry would be a fatwa. After all, this is the guy who famously issued a fatwa calling for the murder of the novelist Salman Rushdie!
DSM has enjoyed many hours as guest of modern Muslim and Christian Asian families, and found their natchrally lovin’ lil Lolis as young as four – proactively HOT for adult male attention, cuddling, kissing, and more!
Anger managed and groomed NON-victim DSM only felt the need to SCREAM, when it was reluctantly time to leave.
I only skimmed the post, as I find the subject depressing, and the righteous indignation tires me out. I agree with you on much of the substance, however. As regards child pornography, I’ve blogged on it a bunch, most of it indexed here: http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2016/01/child-pornography-posts-index.html. My conclusion on civil liberties grounds is that possession of child porn should not be a criminal offense.
That would be a good start, wouldn’t it? Politically my favored strategy is to go part way with shared goals than stake out a position that is far beyond what even the liberal elements of society are willing to entertain. That may not be the predominant spirit behind Heretic, but even TOC himself was willing to collaborate with authorities in suggesting that sex offender treatment should not require people to think adult-child sex is inherently and always wrong.
From your website: http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2014/07/fundamental-beliefs.html: “These are my twin defining sides: Number one, a revulsion towards and total rejection of any adult-child sexual activity — it is called child sex abuse. Number two, a romantic and sexual attraction to small girls.”
Ethan, seems to me you align yourself with the dominant narrative, so little wonder reading this blog was an unsavoury experience for you, as, no doubt, it would appear unsavoury to any member of the child protection lobby.
I seem to recall one of the commentators (Edmund Marlowe?) here on Heretic TOC, suggesting that your penchant for small girls peaking at around 4 years old to be relatively rare across the MAP community – so hardly representative of the MAP community, and hardly empowering you to speak on behalf of the MAP community.
Your revulsion towards any adult-child sexual activity, suggests you consider all such activity harmful to someone younger than the age of consent. Whatever makes this an issue for you does seem to be diametrically opposed to the conclusions of a number of notable anthropologists, biologists and psychiatrists, who found it difficult to think of intergenerational sex as harmful to children.
What I find incredible is that a guy who likes infants represents people who like teenagers like me. If he is a pedophile why he does talking about ephebophile only-issues as if it were a type of pedophilia? if he like adults and little girls why he is talking about the intimal necessities of teenagers? As someone can believe they are children until 18? Believe? This is a religion? This is insane.
I read a text that spoke against the myth of homosexuality in ancient Greece, and I say that I am very pissed off with this scam created by the LGTB lobby, I myself rejected the LGTBer concept man-on-man But before reading the text I believed in the myth of Pederasty, which has turned out to be false too.
It was in my language, not in English and Basically everything was well explained, there is no evidence of pederastic homosexuality or just homosexuality, nor in Plato’s banquet (in fact one of the characters defending homosexuality is presented as a lunatic), nor In Achilles, nor much less in Alexander the Great, nor lesbians in Lesbos etc.
Everything is due to the hot-headed minds of homosexuals (and pederasts in those times before gays stabbing them in the back) mostly delirious and in their own fantasy world as the inducer of everything: J.K Dover.
This gentleman is one who initiates this to justify to the world his sexual tastes, something understandable but has turned out to be false, plays mainly to assumptions, to “seems to be”, for example here:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bFlNv98GSYI/U1vtpZfo6jI/AAAAAAAABOw/xlXer_S83Xg/s1600/200px-Dovergreekhomosexuality%5B1%5D.jpg
According to Dover (and Wikipedia and BoyWiki) is a hidden symbol of pederasty, to a sensible person seems like a boy playing with a hoop and a bird.
It is a matter of normalizing homosexuality (and pederasty) by resorting to the argument that homosexuality (and pederasty) were normal at that time, while many of the most respected philosophers, legislators of that time publicly condemned both in public, can be found in many Writings of Plato, also the same Plato praises a woman called “very wise” for an speech in favor of heterosexual love as the true love for bringing man and woman to immortality – thanks to procreation. In Sparta, the penalty for participating in same-sex (all ages) relationships was suicide or exile (to Greeks something worse than dead), in Rome homosexuality was also condemned and rejected socially, only “accepted” in his most decadent years.
All acepted pederastic relationships are exclusively platonic!
Greek gods and heroes, on the other hand, are always seen in multiple relationships with women, whereas pederastic homosexual relationships always appear as aberrant as the story about Laius is said to abuses a poor boy, and is basically the condemnation of the gods for that act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laius
The author was a European identitarian, ie a neoNazi, and as Hetero Alpha he could not ignore his final corollary of rubbish against Jews, relationships with underage girls and polygamy, On the other hand, all of this is natural for the reproduction of our species, but is normal for an Nazi and Hetero Alpha to hate it, but despite his idiotic ideology, is due to justice because the text was true and well formed, and I think it’s time to end this scam. And I am not against the boylovers in this, but against the lie that has been used to justify it.
I am all in favour of scepticism and good evidence, Elron, but there are so many misconceptions in this post of yours that I hardly know where to begin. Perhaps it is time for me to do a full blog on Ancient Greece, or perhaps someone other than me here with a particular interest in the subject would like to start the ball rolling.
To be a bit Greek about it, keeping people educated on this subject and others is an endless, Sisyphian task: we roll the stone to the top of the hill only to see it roll down again, so we must start once more…
I think you have already covered it on here; Where you cite quotes from Greek scholars who forbid ‘sodomy’, But were fine with the rest!
In response to Elron, I was tempted to share the famous vase; The man and boy embracing. In that blog the comment section was interesting, Because ‘penetration’ seems to be a contentious issue for boylovers today, Let alone from the past. The taker is seen as feminine, So could cause masculinity issues. Yet it seems, That masculine and tough culture had no issues with it; They could be penetrated, yet later become fearsome warriors; Therefore, penetration did not seem to affect masculinity?
Being penetrated and being masculine were not mutually exclusive, It seems.
>I think you have already covered it on here; Where you cite quotes from Greek scholars who forbid ‘sodomy’, But were fine with the rest!
That interpretation was from a guest blogger and was strongly contested. Also this represents only a tiny fraction of the issues raised by Elron.
Fair enough, It was an excellent exchange regarding the ethics of ‘sodomy’
But the fact that scholars were discussing pederasty (don’t penetrate them when making love), and the wealth of vases depicting pederasty, You don’t have to be an expert to realise that it was commonplace. As for homosexuality in Roman times, I suppose the rise of Christianity would’ve played a part.
Did the Spartans not practice homosexuality?
If a man penetrates another man, the latter’s masculinity could perhaps be brought into question, but there is no masculinity in a boy (at least below puberty), so the objections to this practice, if any, should be of a different nature.
But I doubt they had the same sort of retrospective guilt that they have today, especially those that are not homosexual but had a homosexual relationship.
Though you could be glib and just say, If you didn’t like it, You don’t have to repeat it.
Long comment, but fair. If there are more than 700 vases on a wide field, there are only 30 with a homosexual theme, does that make it something “normal and accepted”? If within the 30th century someone finds among the remains of this decadent civilization, more than 700 pornographic videos and of them only 30 or less are child pornography, does that makes “pedophilia” normal and accepted? And they can not be condenatory images? In some cathedrals are several descriptions of sodomy, that makes the Catholic church homosexual?
If homosexuality was so normal, why are all the gods are instead heterosexual (and also womanizers)? Ganymede and Zeus? Come on, please bring a guy to be cupbearer of the gods is homosexual? There is not a single line that talks about Zeus kidnapping Ganymede to make sodomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(mythology)
“Xenophon has Socrates deny that Ganymede was the “catamite” of Zeus, and say the god loved him non-sexually for his psyche, “mind” or “soul,” giving the etymology of his name as ganu-, “taking pleasure,” and med-, “mind.” Ganymede, he points out, was the only one of Zeus’s lovers who was granted immortality.[11]”
Did the great philosophers talk about homosexuality? And if today they talk about pedophilia, does it make it normal? All the sentences I read were condemnatory, only a guy presented (at Plato’s banquets) as an eccentric by Platon says something in favor, and wildly mad about half men and women with many legs and arms.
Like fascist regimes, homosexuality legitimizes itself with a glorious and imperial past, this time by gay professors in their New York apartments. The problem is the leftist, democratic, affeminated prism where it is seen the past today. You need to be a fascism-attracted like me for more than a decade to realize that Sparta was the first racial state in Europe. Fascism (and the Rome’s and Spartan protofascism) are very masculine, today the alt-right fascists love semi-nude strong men, That does not make them homosexual, this is masculinism applicated, the erastes, was what today we call “comradeship”, a misunderstood thing, as everything nowadays.
Why not ask Achilles why he slept in a room separate from his supposed lover and with a woman, he also asks Alexander the Great why he reacted with disgust when a merchant offered his two sons. You can not, they’re dead.
>If there are more than 700 vases on a wide field, there are only 30 with a homosexual theme, does that make it something “normal and accepted”?
Not without further information, no. It’s a matter of overall cultural context; and, to get a good handle on that, it helps to have studied the available information in depth from a range of sources: literature, artefacts, etc. So it does actually matter what professors think, including (but not limited to) gay ones.
On balance, I think it probably will be worth while for me to attempt a blog on this subject in some depth quite soon. It is an important topic and and you raised serious questions. I am not an expert but my reading has been quite extensive and I have spoken at some length with leading scholars.
I was going to show the BBC documentary: Who were the Greeks, By Dr Scott, But the three part film is missing the third part, The part where he gives a warm acclaim of pederasty. But I came across this documentary by ‘Bettany Hughes’, See 108.40 “In Sparta, Homosexuality was compulsory”….Also, She said men who were accustomed to only sex with men (and assuming boys), When looking to marry, They would get the girls to shave their heads, The men would chase them, have sex with them, then return to the company of men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Io27IdufQ
Both Bettany Hughes and Michael Scott are good on Greece.
My main reaction to happy man-boy sex in ancient Greece is that the society was so different that it’s not a lesson that applies. When you have 50% child mortality, slavery all around you, and pestilence, war and famine active possibilities, who’s got time to worry about being a sexual plaything as part of a path to social advancement? We’ve thankfully come to a society with far higher expectations, especially for children and minors. If someone wants to make an argument for adult-child sex, I’d say do it with respect to our modern benchmarks and notions of what’s good for kids.
I apply this criticism to all alleged examples of adult-child sex being a happy and accepted part of other times and places, and await convincing counterarguments.
>My main reaction to happy man-boy sex in ancient Greece is that the society was so different that it’s not a lesson that applies.
I couldn’t agree more. Greece and other cultures need to be studied on their own terms, not for “lessons” that can be stripped out and crudely applied to our own society. Nevertheless, the ancient world, and especially Ancient Greece, gave us the first recorded expression of many things in philosophy and society that we still value today, from drama to democracy, geometry to history, and much more.
The relationship between the rhetoric of the ancients on the one hand and their actual behaviour on the other, is a source of particular fascination and debate for those of us who are interested in sexual mores; that is a particular theme I will consider exploring in a blog: Plato, for instance, can be seen as offering a “virtuous” (and arguably hypocritical) version of pederasty as a politically sensitive response to the very rapid onset of hostile “family values” politics at a time when the expanding empire was in urgent need of more citizens, and hence lots of heterosexual fucking.
The “Ancient Greeks” were an item for over a thousand years, but the rapid change of which I speak occupied just a few brief decades, not unlike the moral revolution of our own times — a revolution which has its good side but which I would argue (along with Steven Pinker) has overshot its target, as tends to happen with various phenomena, including markets and social revolutions.
Tom, what exactly did you mean by ‘the moral revolution of our own times’?
>Tom, what exactly did you mean by ‘the moral revolution of our own times’?
Good question, Stephen. I would refer you back to this blog on H-TOC a couple of months ago: Are we (or they) driving kids crazy? https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/are-we-or-they-driving-kids-crazy/ See especially from “For now, though, let’s stay with the big picture…” to “…of depression and conduct problems for cooped-up kids.” That is a chunky eight-paragraph section, so I’ll try to revisit the theme briefly here in a way that more explicitly addresses your question.
In a nutshell, I am referring to the success of a number of “progressive” movements, each of which has an implicit and sometimes explicit moral basis. Most obviously there are what Pinker calls the “rights revolutions”: ethnic, female, gay, children, animals. Progress has been patchy so far, with the causes of women, black and ethnic minorities, and LGBT movements making far greater advances than children (whose rights, to education etc., have been advanced in some ways but diminished in others: see Feinmann’s comment citing Angelides) or animals.
The fact that animals are on the list at all (perhaps “the planet” should be on it too, as expressed through environmentalist thinking and internationalist attempts to promote world peace) should give some idea that I am not talking just (or even) about various self-interested groups pushing their own cause on an “identity politics” basis. Rather, I refer to what Peter Singer has called the expanding circle of humanity’s moral concern, especially from two or three hundred years ago onwards, since the Enlightenment. Once limited to family and close kin, we are now morally ambitious enough to take a serious (if not always successful) interest in the wellbeing of others who are not at all close to us, or like us, in language, colour, culture, sexuality, or even species.
Currently we are seeing (through Brexit and Trump) a major swell of reaction against these moral advances, in favour of localism and self-interest: charity, etc., begins at home. Progressive internationalist intervention (successful in Sierre Leone and the Balkans) took a massive hit when misused by Bush/Blair in Iraq.
I could go on (and on!), but I think you will be getting my general drift by this point.
Progressive internationalist intervention (successful in …the Balkans)
It must be a joke… I would recommend Diana Johnstone’s book “Fool’s crusade” about the criminal bombing of Serbia by NATO.
Rather a one-side comment, I would say.
Yours was rather blunt. Don’t think you should make this sort of statements in passing about serious and tragic events as it might compromise the otherwise well-informed opinions you may have on other topics. It was the same when you asserted that Trump’s election was a tragedy as if the only alternative was a better choice.
>Don’t think you should make this sort of statements in passing about serious and tragic events
Sorry, Yohann, but life is too short, even for those of us lucky enough to dodge the bombs and bullets of so many conflicts, to find time for detailed, carefully diplomatic explanations of why one sees things in a particular way in respect of all the many topics that arise in discussion here.
Feel free to disagree with me, coming back, if you wish, with more information that might win the support of other readers. Who knows, you might even convince me as well!
As regards the intervention in the Balkans, though, you would need to show some understanding of the nature of the conflict as a whole, including how it arose, rather than just finger-pointing over one particular aspect of what took place, deadly as it doubtless was.
“We’ve thankfully come to a society with far higher expectations, especially for children and minors. If someone wants to make an argument for adult-child sex, I’d say do it with respect to our modern benchmarks and notions of what’s good for kids.”
And our modern benchmarks and notions of what’s good for kids are what exactly? Denying them there right to be sexual creatures, denying them the right to proper sex education, branding them sex offenders from the age of 9 if they are ever found to behaving ‘inappropriately’ with their peers, denying them risk-taking? You ignore history at your peril.
I would like to add a few paragraphs from Feminism, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Erasure of Child Sexuality by Steven Angelides (pdf on ipce website) to illustrate the harm our ‘notions’ are doing.
“I argue that the discourse of child sexual abuse has expanded at the expense of a discourse of child sexuality. Rigorous attempts to expose the reality and dynamics of child sexual abuse have been aided, if not in part made possible, by equally rigorous attempts to conceal, repress, or ignore the reality and dynamics of child sexuality. This placing of child sexuality under erasure has had deleterious consequences at both the level of everyday practice and at the level of theory. First, the desexualization of childhood has damaging psychological and psychotherapeutic consequences for child victims of sexual abuse. Second, with ‘child sexuality’ figured only as an oxymoron in the feminist discourse of child sexual abuse, its erasure ensures that the categories of ‘child’ and ‘adult’ are kept distinct and at a safe epistemological distance.
Backed by the influential Freudian theory of infantile sexuality, various sociological, psychological, anthropological, criminological, and legal discourses began explicitly to acknowledge child sexuality as a normal and natural reality. In fact, prior to the 1980s representations of child sexuality were commonplace, particularly in the context of sexual encounters with adults. For instance, images of flirtatious, precocious, and seductive children were typical in the psychiatric literature.”
Furthermore, it is just not possible ‘to put forward arguments for adult-child sex’ in societies that do their utmost to silence debate and censor objective scientific research into child sexuality and inter-generational intimacy, hence the plea in the final sentence of my blog.
They know this very well, so much do they know that they created the “age of consent” for, in their arrogance (to believe themselves higher being just for being an “adult”) to prevent young people from becoming aware of their body and their feelings , The first weapon for the subjection and enslavement of the young. Up to 18 must obey and not have the elemental rights as sexual agency, Even the most dumb of animals have sex, but there is no slavery, he say. I was not even talking about “adult-child sex” in my comment, “virtuous” people can not understand the difference between a child and a young adult?
Two points.
1) There is still the Third World. For some in that environment, this type of ‘social advancement’ you talk about may still be necessary.
2) You beg the question in your use of the phrase ‘sexual plaything’. In the right cultural context, the young person involved in a physical relationship with an adult need not see themselves in that way.
A benchmark denying the reality of child mortality, pestilence, war, famine and possibly, depending on politics, slavery is useless.
Is it rational to inflate the alleged harm of adult/child sex when compared to such actual sources of harm?
It seems the link to Newgon has every site apart from the original Newgon site!
Thanks for telling me. I have now deleted the Newgon link and aim to check/update the whole Blogroll before long.
Things worsen for the freedom of artists to depict child nudes. JaguarPC, the ISP hosting Pigtails in Paint has decided to remove it from their network. They claim “You’re currently hosting pigtailsinpaint.com (209.140.30.185) which contains images which can be considered child pornography. We cannot allow this content on our network.” But the site has not been very active lately, there has been no nude photograph since several months, so if there was really CP, it would be there since a long time, so cops and prosecutors would have found it already, the site would have been blocked and the editor of the site would have been prosecuted. In fact, it was blocked in Russia, but not in any other European or North American country.
This shows the growing Putin-like mentality concerning the freedom of Internet.
http://web.archive.org/web/20161221110944/http://www.pigtailsinpaint.com/2016/12/end-of-pigtails/
Dreadful. This is cultural vandalism. The mindset is as crude and stupid as the destruction in Palmyra by Isis.
I hope Ron will find a more enlightened and less discriminatory alternative ISP host. The cancer is spreading as cancers tend to do: stealthily with no regard to the damage it does. Who will be next, Naturist websites?
I would have thought naturist websites had to rein in long ago where child pictures are concerned. A bigger worry now is an attack on naturism itself as an all-ages activity.
A quick scan through many of our continental EU neighbour’s naturist websites suggests they have not reigned in a jot. BNF though appears to have received the snip – not a single child in sight. However, maybe the rot is setting in at the very centre of the FKK heartland. Naturists at a club near Meissen were incensed this summer by being told to cover up when they swam in the lake bordering the club – they had skinny-dipped there since 1905. The reason? A shelter housing over one hundred asylum seekers was to be built on the other side of the lake.
Extraordinary. I’d be very surprised if they were seeking asylum from nudity.
When he wrote ‘The site offered […] a feminist perspective’ although he surely ignores it, he has made it clear that his site is down mainly because of the work of the feminists.
Then why do people like feminism so much? I suppose that feminism is just as attractive as National Socialism in the 1930s, with dire consequences, especially to its own followers.
>Then why do people like feminism so much?
It’s not a matter of liking it. It’s a matter of fairness for all, without unjust discrimination based on gender or anything else. “Feminists” who are actually female supremacists go too far. I for one do not support them.
It’s a matter of fairness for all
If so, why embrace feminism, with inherent ageism and sexism? Is it fair that, thanks to feminists, others (including females) have had their freedom and rights restricted?
>If so, why embrace feminism
I embrace fair feminism and reject unfair feminism. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Even assuming a fair feminism can exist, how is it delineated from both general fairness and unfair feminism?
>Even assuming a fair feminism can exist, how is it delineated from both general fairness and unfair feminism?
It’s a good question in the sense that we need to have a clear sense of the answer; on the other hand I rather think you could answer it yourself easily enough with a little mental application.
I don’t think feminist fairness is at all different from general fairness. But feminism has been needed in modern times in order to combat a growing sense, well supported by evidence, that unfairness against women has been built into a range of social and economic institutions and arrangements e.g. no votes for women until the 20th century, plus (still) lower pay for women and restricted employment opportunities.
In earlier eras fairness did not necessarily require equal treatment of the sexes because men and women had such utterly different roles. In modern economies and societies, though, workplace and domestic roles are much less strongly differentiated (less male muscle power needed, plus much greater contribution from women, especially educated ones) and more equal treatment seems fair.
Unfair feminism tends towards the unreasonable denigration of males, notably through aggressive rhetoric based on essentialist assumptions about “male violence” and female victimhood — the latter often asserted in ways that appear to contradict the idea that women should be treated as equal, because these assertions require a view of women as inherently weak and in need of protection.
It seems, The ‘gender pay gap’, Is due to men having different working hours in general, and women ‘breeding’ of course. Remove those issues, There is no gap: It has been illegal to do so since the 70s Apparently ‘Red Pill’ is a good film.
[TOC adds: The Red Pill is a new documentary about men’s rights advocacy. See here for a trailer: http://theredpillmovie.com/ ]
I have just see the trailer for The Red Pill at the link with Libertine’s post.
It does indeed look good. Featured in the trailer is Warren Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, which is an excellent, extremely well researched and documented book, as I know from, my reading of it when it came out in the early 1990s and has now reached its 21st edition.
This is not to say there are no misogynists in the men’s rights movement but I don’t think Farrell is one of them. He does not want men’s rights at the expense of women’s rights. As I said in an earlier post, it is not a zero-sum-game of all-out war between the sexes for supremacy. It is about, or should be about, fairness.
Thanks for your answer and attempts at a productive discussion. My answer need not be yours. I asked, not because an intellectual deficiency on my part, but because those favoring rights etc for selected groups tend to use words in non-standard ways. What’s fair when done by a woman towards a non-woman could be something very different from what’s fair when done to a woman by a non-woman. Compare the claim that blacks cannot be racists.
Given increased sexual restrictions for girls was one of the goals of British feminism in the 19th century, I cannot but consider it as fully rejecting the notation of fairness for all, in favor of supremacy for some.
Hence, I’m very skeptical about X rights movements, however progressive they might be, until such a movement has sufficiently proven rights for X does not entail restrictions in the rights of the non-X.
As for your claims: Paglia, herself a feminist, has addressed the pay gap on multiple occasions. The voting question is more interesting[1], as women seem to have gained the right to vote in general elections at most a few years after men, in general, did, while being able to vote in local elections much earlier, depending on economic status.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Women_in_Sweden
>Hence, I’m very skeptical about X rights movements, however progressive they might be, until such a movement has sufficiently proven…
You are right to be sceptical on the basis that an immense “movement” such as feminism will inevitably include people with a wide range of overlapping aims, and even completely contradictory ones. So a movement, as opposed to a single organisation with a constitution and defined aims, is not in a position to prove anything about its aims, although I suppose history will eventually come to understand a movement through its lasting legacy, which will tend to be a measure of the most powerful currents within it.
>Given increased sexual restrictions for girls was one of the goals of British feminism in the 19th century…
I take your point, although it gets history backwards slightly: organised feminism grew out of the social purity movement rather than social purity growing out of feminism:
“The social purity movement was a late 19th-century social movement that sought to abolish prostitution and other sexual activities that were considered immoral according to Christian morality. Composed primarily of women, the movement was active in English-speaking nations from the late 1860s to about 1910, exerting an important influence on the contemporaneous feminist, eugenics, and birth control movements. The movement helped to shape feminist views on prostitution.
“The roots of the social purity movement lay in early 19th-century moral reform movements, such as radical utopianism, abolitionism, and the temperance movement. In the late 19th century, “social” was a euphemism for “sexual”; the movement first formed in opposition to the legalization and regulation of prostitution, and quickly spread to other sex-related issues such as raising the age of consent, sexually segregating prisons, eliminating abortion, opposing contraception, and censoring pornography.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purity_movement
As for feminism since the late 20th century, its support for “a woman’s right to choose” abortion marked a striking departure from conservative tradition. This certainly advanced the cause of women’s sexual freedom and could theoretically have formed the basis for advancing the wider cause of sexual freedom for all. Many feminists did in fact think along these lines, and sexual libertarianism is still a significant strand within the movement.
I will readily concede, though, that at present it seems to be nowhere near as influential as more conservative elements.
I will wait for the reappearance of “Antipedophobe Aktion” – the brilliant videos that this channel contained are all removed by the host, who refuse to explain his sudden disappearance from YouTube. Does anyone know what the hell happened with the channel?
I wonder if this has anything to do with it.
http://www.dailystormer.com/pedophiles-are-the-new-jews/
I have commented elsewhere here on US ethnicity and the Nazi-style punishment meted out in the state of Florida to Mike Diana for rendering his art. I am all for free speech, but not when it endangers lives through incitement as neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer clearly does. Relatedly, white supremacist Richard Spencer “recently held a white supremacist conference in Washington DC, near the Holocaust Memorial Museum. ‘Hail, Trump! Hail, victory!’ he called out and made the Nazi salute.”(independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/daily-stomer-racist-white-supremacist-troll-montana-whitefish-love-lives-here-jews-target-donald-a7483396.html)
One of the comments [probably a leftard or so] makes it clear that your thinking is dangerous:
“Would we openly allow paedophiles to peddle their filth mainstream, and if not, then why do we allow Nazis who openly peddle their filth of hating Jewish and Black people air space? I am all for freedom of thought and speech in private for these scumbags, but to allow them to air their foul views freely is beyond the pale.”
The leftard, as you put it, is conflating the promotion of child sexuality, including the pictorial representation of it, with vigilantism. If they believe that an image of a naked child is filth, then they must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
It is a shame that Antipedophobe Aktion seems to have bowed to pressure after being flagged by the The Daily Stormer vigilantes. The AA website linked some great interviews conducted by Daniel Tsang with guests Judith Levine, Richard Mohr and Bill Andriette, I recall.
“Aktion seems to have bowed to pressure”
He probably just had his content permanently suspended by the moderator, after it was flagged by these nut-jobs. But I defend their free speech regardless of whether they would defend mine. My account, Like on Twitter is long gone. I could get a new e-mail, But Youtube likes mobile phone verification — So fuck that shit!
But there is plenty of pro-MAP content and comments still on YT so all is not lost….As for me, I maybe silenced, But I’m still lurking in the shadows. People should be more careful on facebook, They’re sitting ducks for these people; However, I have no problem using the same username with sites that are connected through links; As long as my e-mail is encrypted I’m pretty relaxed.
Facebook is at long last getting its come-uppance, and from an unlikely source too :o) … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyLiUdAlwUs
This is appalling.
It is unfortunately in keeping with the way ‘child pornography’ seems to be defined: it no longer matters what the image shows – rather it is ‘any image a paedophile might like looking at’.
That, as we have already seen, can be cartoons, or it can be images from clothing catalogues.
I hope that PiP manages to continue – it not only pays homage to beauty, but also embodies a form of sanity that the world seems to be gradually making illegal.
I fear that we are approaching the day when we will see the public burning of works by Caravaggio, Sally Mann and Lewis Carroll.
Destruction of art is already starting in the UK. Following the dubious conviction of Graham Ovenden for “indecency with a child and indecent assault”, in 2015, District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe ordered that Ovenden’s personal collection of paintings and photographs, created by him and others, be destroyed. These include works by him but also by Pierre Louÿs: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/paedophile-artist-s-photographs-and-paintings-must-be-destroyed-judge-rules-a6692921.html
However,a painting of a paddling, half-naked girl, which he claimed had been “personally commissioned” by Diana, Princess of Wales, to be auctioned for charity, was spared. So the cops are sorting among the “obscene” works those commissioned by royalty. For more information, see:
[ CENSORED: SORRY, CHRISTIAN, BUT THIS WEBSITE IS SUBJECT TO GREAT SCRUTINY AND I DON’T WANT TO GIVE ANYONE AN EASY TARGET.]
Thus the new definition of CP is “any image a paedophile might like looking at, or any image made or owned by an artist convicted of child sexual abuse, unless it has been commissioned by royalty.”
Similarly, one year and a half ago, in a comment I made to a post in that disreputable site (concerning the removal of Twitter accounts), a sentence mentioning “Heretic TOC” was removed by the administrator…
>”…a sentence mentioning “Heretic TOC” was removed by the administrator”
But not on legal grounds, I would have thought. There would be no viable grounds as far as I can see.
Reading the Independent article carefully, it seems clear that only photographs were ordered to be destroyed, and the Diana painting was saved (along with all the others) because it was a painting, not because of the royal connection. Paintings can be condemned by the same procedure, but the criterion higher than indecency and on this occasion none were.
See Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Section 62 for more detail.
Your version makes a better story, but I think there is some merit in being aware of the limits to these legal powers.
I remember they were discussing cartoon CP on Radio2, Back in 2009.
It was strange listening to Jeremy Vine, With his pleasant voice casually discussing something so potentially draconian.
Hi Elron; my response to your question below about whether adolescence is a discrete stage. I will answer you by quoting Alfred Kinsey: “The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.”
I would also add a further quote to that of Kinsey, this time from Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal: “…humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.”
I asked about a biological opinion on the subject but the answer is nice anyway.
Maybe this will assuage your curiosity Elron, at least relating to the onset of puberty: https://www.nap.edu/read/9634/chapter/2#8
Global Village ‘image’, A-Z anti/pro-CP.
Long list ends on a double-whammy ‘PRO’ – Zambia & Zimbabwe. So BIG Bob M. not ALL all bad then?
Column 1: CP specific legislation? Column 2: CP defined in law? Column 3: Computer-facilitated offenses? Column 4: Mere possession? Column 5: ISP reporting? Column 6: Additional notes.
Afghanistan No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Albania No No No No No
Algeria No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Andorra Yes No No Yes No Carries prison sentence up to 4 years
Angola No No No No No
Antigua No No No No No
Argentina Yes No Yes No No
Armenia Yes No Yes No No
Aruba Yes No Yes Yes No
Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Azerbaijan No No No No No
Bahamas Yes Yes No No No Porn, defined as ‘obscene publication’
Bahrain No No No No No General ban on all Porn. Bangladesh No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Barbados Yes No No Yes No
Belarus Yes No No No No
Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Belize No No No No No
Benin No No No No No
Bhutan Yes No Yes No No No CP-specific law but provisions . under several Penal Codes of 2004
Bolivia No No No No No
Bosnia-Hzgvna Yes No Yes Yes No
Botswana No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Brazil Yes Yes Yes Yes No Sentence 1- 4 yrs ‘Reclusion’/Prison
Brunei Yes No Yes No No
Bulgaria Yes No Yes Yes No
Burkina Faso No No No No No
Burundi No No No No No
Cambodia No No No No No
Cameroon No No No No No
Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes No No ISP-specific mandatory reporting . but Canada works closely to facilitate . reporting of offending material, . employing a very broad definition . giving it’s comprehensive set of . offenses additional scope.
Cape Verde Yes No No No No
Cent African R. No No No No No
Chad No No No No No
Chile Yes Yes Yes No No
China Yes No Yes No No No CP-specific law but general ban all . Porn
Colombia Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Comoros No No No No No
Congo Republ No No No No No
CongoDemRep No No No No No
Costa Rica Yes Yes No Yes No
Côte d’Ivoire No No No No No
Croatia Yes No Yes Yes No
Cuba No No No No No General ban on all Porn Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Czech Rep Yes No Yes Yes No
Denmark Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Djibouti No No No No No
Dominica No No No No No
Dominican Rep Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Ecuador Yes No No No No
Egypt Yes No Yes Yes No
El Salvador Yes No Yes Yes No
Equatorial Guin No No No No No
Eritrea No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Estonia Yes No Yes Yes No
Ethiopia No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Fiji No No No No No
Finland Yes Yes Yes Yes No
France Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gabon No No No No No
Gambia Yes No No No No
Georgia Yes Yes No No No
Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes No No legal requirement for ISPs to report . to police or other mandated agency, . in most cases ISPs will file reports with . police. It is a punishable offense for . an ISP knowing of CP on it’s websites . to not delete the illegal content. . Factors include whether it was . possible and reasonable for the ISP to . detect and delete or block the data as . there are many Deutsch ISPs offering . large storage capacities for . commercial and other privately paid . for services. Ghana No No No No No
Greece Yes Yes Yes Yes No Greek Penal Code criminalizes . various CP offenses, including . possession, purchase, transfer, or . sale of CP “in any way”.
Grenada No No No No No
Guatemala Yes No No No No
Guinea No No No No No
Guinea-Bissau No No No No No
Guyana No No No No No
Haiti No No No No No
Holy Vatican No No No No No No CP-specific legislation, such cases . may be delegted to the Italian judicial . system at the request of the Holy See.
Honduras Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Hong Kong Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Iceland Yes No Yes Yes No
India Yes No Yes Yes No Browsing for Web CP can lead to a 10 . yr jail term and 1 million Rupeees fine
Indonesia No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Iran No No No No No General ban on all Porn Iraq No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Israel Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Italy Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Jamaica No No No No No
Japan Yes Yes Yes No No
Jordan No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Kazakhstan Yes No No No No
Kenya No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Korea, North Yes Yes Yes No No
Korea, South Yes Yes Yes No No
Kuwait No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Kyrgyzstan Yes No No No No
Laos No No No No No
Latvia Yes No Yes No No
Lebanon No No No No No
Lesotho No No No No No
Liberia No No No No No
Libya No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Liechtenstein Yes No Yes Yes No
Lithuania Yes No No Yes No
Luxembourg Yes No Yes Yes No
Macedonia Yes No Yes No No
Madagascar Yes No Yes No No
Malawi No No No No No
Malaysia No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Maldives No No No No No
Mali Yes No No No No
Malta Yes No Yes Yes No
Marshall Ilsnds No No No No No
Mauritania No No No No No
Mauritius Yes No Yes No No
Mexico Yes Yes Yes No No
Moldova Yes No No Yes No
Monaco No No No No No
Mongolia No No No No No
Montenegro Yes No Yes No No
Morocco Yes No No Yes No
Mozambique No No No No No
Burma Yes No No No No
Namibia No No No No No
Nauru No No No No No
Nepal Yes No No No No
Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Netherlands Antlls No No No No No
New Zealand Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Nicaragua No No No No No
Niger No No No No No
Nigeria No No No No No General ban on all Porn Norway Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Oman No No No No No General ban on all Porn Pakistan No No No No No General ban on all Porn Panama Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Papua New Gnea Yes No No Yes No
Paraguay Yes No No Yes No
Peru Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Philippines Yes No No No No
Poland Yes No No Yes No
Portugal Yes No Yes Yes No
Qatar Yes No Yes No No
Romania Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Russia Yes No No No No
Rwanda No No No No No
Saint Kitts No No No No No
Saint Lucia No No No No No
St Vincent No No No No No
San Marino Yes No Yes No No
Sao Tome & Principe No No No No No
Saudi Arabia No No No No No Making or possessing any porn is . considered an offence under Sharia . law. Sentence is left to the Judges’ . discretion
Senegal No No No No No
Serbia Yes No Yes No No
Seychelles No No No No No
Sierra Leone No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Singapore No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Slovenia Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Somalia No No No No No General ban on all Porn
South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Spain Yes No Yes Yes No
Sri Lanka Yes No No Yes No
Sudan No No No No No General ban on all Porn Suriname No No No No
Swaziland No No No No No
Sweden Yes No Yes Yes No
Switzerland Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Syria No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Tajikistan Yes No No No No
Tanzania Yes No No No No
Thailand No No No No No General ban on all Porn Timor-Leste No No No No No
Togo No No No No No
Tonga Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Trinidad & Tobago No No No No No
Tunisia Yes No Yes No No Tunisian Penal Code criminalizes . inter alia, the use of “any visual . recordings or photographs” depicting . pornographic images of children.
Turkey Yes No No Yes No
Turkmenistan No No No No No
Uganda No No No No No
Ukraine Yes No Yes No No
United Arab Emirates No No No No No General ban on all Porn
United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Yes No The UK operates a voluntary “notice . and takedown” procedure overseen . by the Internet Watch Foundation/IWF . an independent industry funded body, . endorsed by police and government. . U.K. ISPs “take down” CP images . when notified by the IWF. Failure to . do so could make them liable to . prosecution.
United States Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Uruguay Yes No Yes No No
Uzbekistan No No No No No
Venezuela Yes Yes Yes No No
Vietnam No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Yemen No No No No No General ban on all Porn
Zambia No No No No No
Zimbabwe No No No No No
Source? Link?
Feinmann,
thank you for writing this blog post. It’s intelligent and interesting and I would not have bothered to respond if I’d thought otherwise. I wasn’t going to add anything beyond my last response, but I’d like to explain my position to you in particular.
Unlike some MAPs maybe, I’m bold and shameless in fostering friendships with kids (ie, girls) and I guard their well being and happiness with savage attention.
That may have come across in my response and I’m sorry if it seemed intemperant, but I’m unapologetic. Maybe I have some lioness in me.
I’m also a mountaineer. I sometimes take my little girl friends into this high risk environment. It’s fun and it challenges them and gives them confidence, but I have to be alert to the risks. I want them to feel challenged, but at 7 or 8 years old, I certainly don’t want to put them in harm’s way.
My own childhood was filled with real, not managed, drama. My sexual development was ‘complicated’ by precocious experiences and, while I don’t consider them to have been abusive or negative (or anything to do with my paedophilia), I do think I would have been happier if I’d felt more ‘typical’ (whatever that might be).
Suffice it to say that my ‘mountain sense’ serves me very well in that environment. It’s hard won but it keeps me and my little friends safe. What you’ve seen in this discussion is my ‘sex sense’ performing a similar function. People scoff at the culture of safety, as if it’s a limiting practice, but it’s an enabling one. Mountain safety allows adventures that would be suicidal if conducted with reckless abandon. The seemingly foolhardy is achievable when the necessary precautions are taken. Ask any climber.
In a similar vein, I don’t care what children do sexually, as long as they don’t come to harm.
Very best wishes,
Sean
This is fantastic, Sean, and Feinmann’s lastest is agreeably generous too. As an example of the “season of goodwill” as it should be, this could hardly be bettered. I have never felt prouder to be hosting here!
Thanks Tom, that’s really gratifying.
And I appreciate what you’re doing here. It’s a noble piece of work.
Also, might I add that, although I’ve taken quite different lessons from the life of TH White than you have, I owe you for making me aware of his story. There are many parallels between his life and my own.
Thanks Sean; I think we have much in common actually and would doubtless have plenty to discuss if ever we met. Like you I do mountaineering: Kilimanjaro earlier this year and Nepal before long, plus a bunch of hiking in the interim in a beautiful country. A valuable activity providing much-needed respite from the negativity many of us face. We have to make the best of what we are given. Seasons greetings!
In reply to Feinmann: I did send a strong protest to FSM, but I got no reply. In fact, I don’t know how many people did protest, I am not aware of anyone saying that he did. So if we are not many doing it, if most people just read the blogs but don’t make the effort (or don’t dare) to write, we won’t impress the watchdogs.
About LSM: even for WEIRD people, you confuse “non-MAP” with “anti-MAP”, and “acceptance of childhood sexuality” with “acceptance of inter-generational sex”. There have been several commentators here who said clearly that they are standard teleiophiles, but who have clearly opposed paedophobia and hysteria. There are many people (especially “leftists”) who accept that children have a sexuality, and approve sex play between children, but who consider that inter-generational sex is abuse. In particular Wilhelm Reich, in The Sexual Revolution, spoke in favour of sex play between children, viewing as healthy, and gave examples of the negative effect of its repression; but he was nevertheless very negative about “adults seducing children.”
Concerning CP. For any other type of offence or crime, people have the right to see it and to make their judgement about it. If one says “this book is libellous” or “racist,” nobody will prevent you from reading it and making your own judgement about its nature; if someone allegedly assaults another person, everyone can watch any video recording of the fact and see if it is indeed an assault. But it is not the case with CP, once the State says it is CP, you cannot see it and make your own judgement about whether it is art or porn, whether it is sexually suggestive or not. As said Robert A. Heinlein in “If This Goes On…”:
Whenever any government, or any church, or anyone else for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects: “This book you may not read, this film you may not watch, this image you may not see, this knowledge you may not have,” then the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
Moreover, if one conflates in an amalgam erotic art, teenager sexting and images of raped toddlers, it becomes like in the saying “when everything is forbidden, everything is allowed,” people will reject any boundary when legal boundaries are exaggeratedly tight.
“There have been several commentators here who said clearly that they are standard teleiophiles, but who have clearly opposed paedophobia and hysteria.”
That is totally false, Christian, if someone (especially a man but a woman too) who tells you “I only attracted to adults” (in the sense of legal adults), HE IS LYING. PERIOD. Every hetero / homo / bi-sexual human is attracted to underages by definition, adulthood does not begin at 18 (nor at 25 like now say these phychiatry-adept aberrations), it begins at deep puberty, so that every heterosexual man is attracted to 13-year-old girls an so, because 13 years-old are young adults, but adults. None of these commentators are ‘standard teleiophiles’. The only humans not attracted to underage teenagers are exclusive pedophiles, exclusive gerontophiles, and asexuals. No one on earth is attracted only to adults or minors, that is not biology, that is a social construction to oppress and enslave the young, and you know that. Do not be offended but you are sexually attracted to these supposed “adolescents” as much as me, although most of decadent (not you) humans would only want an (legal) adult as partner per socio-economic motives.
About the annual sales of child porn:
The former German politician Jörg Tauss asked October 2010 the highest German police organisation Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) about their knowledge about the annual sales of child porn. The BKA wrote to Jörg Tauss in a letter from October 26th 2010, that they knew about several national and international investigation procedures about commercial child- and youthporn with sales in the area of “several million euro” (my translation).
(German) Source:
https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/schuster_ki_po_myst_frame.htm
Childpornography: The mysterious 12-billion “estimate” of ECPAT
Filip Schuster, 8.7.2016, creative commons
In April 2016 appeared in the scientific journal Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie of the article Kinderspornografie. Overview and current developments. [* 1] The authors Irina Franke and Marc Graf write in the article:
“It is estimated that global child pornography will be between $ 3 billion and $ 20 billion globally (Ropelato 2006, Bourke and Hernandez 2009, UNICEF 2008).” [* 2]
These statements are unusual in two aspects as part of a scientific article.
First, it is the result of serious scientific and journalistic research that there is no evidence of an alleged billions of children’s child pornography. [* 3]
Secondly, the alleged estimates of 3 billion (“Ropelato 2006”) and 20 billion (“Bourke and Hernandez 2009”) have already been investigated by scientists and journalists and have been dubbed as dubious and not really existent. [* 4]
A scientist summarized her research results on the 20 billion “estimate”:
“In summary, the 20 billion US $ figure was invented by an unknown person / organization, and since then accustomed to the FBI or Unicef, both organizations that said” statistics “were not produced by them in April 2006.” [* 5]
Let us now consider the third source “UNICEF 2008” from the article published in April. This is the 10-page text Destroyed Childhood of Unicef Germany from 2008, which does not distinguish between children and adolescents, but also minors under the age of 18 with the term children. [* 6]
The Unicef article states:
“ECPAT, the work community for the protection of children from sexual exploitation, estimates sales of child prostitution and child pornography to 12 billion US dollars a year.” [* 7]
The author has tried relatively intensively to bring light into the darkness of this alleged 12 billion estimate. Nevertheless, the “estimate” could not be found and therefore also not understand. Whether this estimate has ever been given, if so, by whom and when and on what data base – all this remains unclear. The 12 billion “estimate” of ECPAT is like Nessie: a few want to have seen them, really can not find them.
The Unicef article does not contain a source for the “estimate”. On request Unicef Germany emailed that the number was from publications of ECPAT International and also ECPAT Austria the number published. [*8th]
He did not want to give Unicef the name of the author of the book Broken Childhood, so that he could not be asked for his source. [* 9]
In several emails, the author asked ECPAT International if this organization had made this “estimate” and where it could be read. These emails were not answered for the most part and for a relatively long time. Finally, thanks to a lot of questions, there was still a detailed and serious answer to the subject of child pornography, which, however, contained only this sentence for the alleged 12 billion estimate:
“ECPAT International did not state this estimation in our research.” [* 10]
[I have received a response from our research team and have confirmed that ECPAT International does not use this estimate in our research.]
Apparently, ECPAT International did not make this “estimate”.
Peculiarly, however, ECPAT Austria writes in a press release from 2013:
“ECPAT International estimates sales of child pornography and child prostitution at $ 12 billion a year.” [* 11]
The text does not contain any sources. On request to the details of the “estimate”, ECPAT Austria stated that one could no longer understand “exactly what this estimate was based on” [* 12].
ECPAT Germany did not respond initially to a request on the details of the 12 billion “estimate” from the Unicef brochure. On request, there was still an answer, which was limited to this information:
“Our figures refer to Interpol, which you can find on their website http://www.interpol.int/en.
We start with the term “child” of people under the age of 18, which is why a division of children and adolescents is not foreseen. “[13]
The website of Interpol contains many numbers. After an unsuccessful search the author asked by email at Interpol to which figures from Interpol ECPAT Germany could refer to the estimation of turnover with childpornography. Quick and clear response from Interpol:
“To confirm that INTERPOL has never published such figures.” [* 14]
[We reiterate that INTERPOL has never published such figures].
Faced with this research result, ECPAT Germany has now informed the author in an email with:
“As the UNICEF text of 2008 you referred to, we do not see ourselves in a position to identify to which ECPAT publication UNICEF refers.” [* 15]
ECPAT Austria and ECPAT Germany were not very pleased with the author’s many requests and were increasingly plagued. In the probably last email, which the author received from the two organizations, the cultural formula was finally dispensed with:
“Good afternoon, Mr Schuster,
We would like to return to your estimate of the annual turnover of children’s child prostitution and child pornography.
In the press release, which can be accessed via the following link, you will find a proof that the number is based on an estimate by Interpol.
http://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/en-uk/media/press-details.page?date=11/26/2009&id=1
Daniela Orth
Assistant to the management “[* 16]
In the linked press release of a company, an interpol estimate of $ 12 billion for the trafficking of children and young women is, as always without a source. As described, Interpol, according to his own statement, has not spent billions on sales with child pornography. Furthermore, the term “trafficking” generally refers to the exploitation of humans and not only to the sexual sphere. The author did not receive an answer to the company, which is the result of this alleged Interpol estimate.
Overall, the search was not subject to taxation. In most cases, there were no answers to questions on concrete details of the alleged childpornography estimate, or a lousy, false or spongy. A single line of the alleged ECPAT estimate for sales of child pornography could not be found. In the end only ECPAT Germany’s worst fallacy was that the childpornography “estimate” could be based on Interpol figures, which Interpol described as described.
The former SPD Bundestag delegate Jörg Tauss provides realistic (re) figures on the subject. He writes on his homepage on the topic of annual child pornography in Germany:
“The BKA has confessed to me, once and for all, six million with difficulty and need.” [* 17]
On 14 October 2010, Jörg Tauss asked the Bundeskriminalamt:
“Therefore, I would like to ask whether you have any knowledge about a billion-dollar market (or even a million-market) on the subject of child pornography on the web and would be grateful if you would provide information or appropriate studies, etc.” [* 18]
The written response of the BKA from 26.10.2010:
“To your first question, the Federal Criminal Police Office is providing insights from various national and international investigations concerning the commercial distribution of childrens’ and youthpornography, which include sales of several million euros.” [* 19]
Conclusion:
Trafficking in child pornography is, according to all serious sources, a million and not a billion market.
Before being banned from twitter, I was following: The dark artwork Boiled Angel, By Mike Diana
“Pinellas County has its own identity,” said Stuart Baggish, head prosecutor for the State of Florida, “it doesn’t have to accept what is acceptable in the bath houses of San Francisco. It doesn’t have to accept what is acceptable on crack alleys in New York. This is Pinellas County.”
“If we suppress obscenity, it’s because we as a community, don’t want people behaving like that in public,” says Robert Post, dean of the Yale Law School. The Miller Test, he says, forces a community to draw a line between art and obscenity.
“What sort of things do you want to study, and what sort of things do you want to burn in the street?”
That line changes as time goes on”
http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/2015/01/boiled-angel/
At the risk of being labelled racist, isn’t the highest proportion of a single ethnic group across the US, German? Something like 43 million people or 15% of the whole nation are the figures I have seen. Perhaps it is just coincidence that certain works of art were banned by the Nazis, in cases where they were categorised as degenerate art (“entartete Kunst”) and not conducive to German values. Perhaps it is coincidence too that Avant-garde artists in Nazi Germany were branded both enemies of the state and a threat to German culture, forcing many into exile, and that Mike Diana has similarly been forced into an exile of sorts, with the real possibility of imprisonment if he ever returns to his home state.
And on the topic of banning the publication of cartoons, I see the US already has despicable form on this issue.
The late Christopher Hitchens on the Danish Cartoons: “In a media totally dominated now by image, totally dominated, it was not considered appropriate to tell the American public ‘here’s a story, it’s all about the fight over some pictures, but we’re not going to show you what the pictures are.’ The image-dominated press said ‘no, we’re not going to show you’ neither out of solidarity with our Danish colleagues, which would be a good point, or just to show you what the fuss is about. That’s either out of fear of the religious, or it’s out of fear of offending them, which is more or less the same thing. It’s blackmail. In the United States of America, in 2006, there wasn’t a single member of our profession in a position to make a decision who would stand up for one day to outright blackmail.”
Can one really blame the US press for spinelessly acquiescing in the face of religious blackmail? After all, they have already been thoroughly lobotomised by successive administrations who maintain obsessive control of information, that minimise transparency and that punish journalist’s sources and whistleblowers. Little wonder the US lies 49th in global press freedom rankings.
This figure of 49th in the rankings was so stunningly low for the country with the proud boast that it has freedom of expression as a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution that I thought it worth having a look for myself at the rankings produced by Reporters Without Frontiers.
Sure enough, USA was indeed 49th in the 2015 figures. There was a bit of an improvement in the 2016 figures, which must have been compiled very recently, with USA now at 41st. What I found more important than this slight change, though, was the summary provided for a ranking that is still low in relation to the country’s standing as a major democracy. Feinmann has mentioned the punishment of sources and whistleblowers, and that seems to have been a big element in the assessment. The survey was accompanied by this summary:
Freedom ends where national security begins
US media freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment to the 1787 constitution, has encountered a major obstacle – the government’s war on whistleblowers who leak information about its surveillance activities, spying and foreign operations, especially those linked to counter-terrorism. Furthermore, US journalists are still not protected by a federal “shield law” guaranteeing their right not to reveal their sources and other confidential work-related information.[ https://rsf.org/en/united-states ]
When the subject of child porn is raised, words like ‘horrifying’ and ‘appalling’ tend to get bandied about. But how much of it actually merits the use of such adjectives? These words would seem to be appropriate only where such things as coercion or torture are depicted. But suppose most child porn was not like that but depicted – or recorded – non-coercive ‘vanilla’ sex between children or between adults and children. This might not be everyone’s cup of tea (and it is illegal), but to describe it as ‘horrifying’ would be to lack a sense of proportion. So how much of it is like that as compared with the truly horrifying stuff? The answer is: we don’t know. We don’t know because we’re not allowed to look at it! We’re supposed to trust in our law enforcement authorities who exercise their great courage and selflessness in studying it on our behalf. But what if they’re biased and get it wrong? There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s not exactly democratic accountability, is it?
“We’re supposed to trust in our law enforcement authorities who exercise their great courage and selflessness in studying it on our behalf. But what if they’re biased and get it wrong? There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s not exactly democratic accountability, is it?”
Yes indeed Stephen. And each time law-enforcers look at an image of ‘child pornography’ to rank the severity of its implicit depravity, is the child abused yet again? Should the rankers be allowed to break the law as they evidently do when they rank?
Thanks for that Feinmann0 – you raise and cover many things of interest – and you provide some fascinating links – though it would be optimistic of me to hope that I can find time to do them all justice.
A bit flippant – but when the FBI claim “that children are re-victimized every time images of their sexual abuse are viewed or transferred” – does that mean that, if they enjoyed the ‘abuse’, that every time someone views or transfers the images they re-experience the pleasure.
Does the ‘voodoo’ effect work for pleasure as well as pain?
There are several perspectives by which the criminalisation and stigmatisation of child porn/erotica can be viewed.
The perspective that preoccupies, and interests, me most is to view it as an attempt by Society to suppress inconvenient evidence.
What is child porn? It is photographic or filmic evidence that children are sexual and can enjoy the expression of that sexuality with themselves or others, including adults.
This is a truth that contemporary WEIRD society is desperate, for whatever reasons, to suppress.
The same perspective can be transferred from child porn to paedophiles themselves: if child porn is suppressed because it is a witness to child sexuality, so is the paedophile: s/he is the last adult member of society that does not have some interest in suppressing child sexuality or denying its existence. Indeed, on the contrary, we are more inclined to encourage it – just as a parent is inclined to encourage its child’s first words or first steps (and indeed why shouldn’t a child’s first expressions of sexuality be encouraged rather than suppressed?).
Paedophiles are the only adults who have other than a negative reaction to a child expressing its sexuality. Paedophiles are stigmatised because they acknowledge, and have experience of, a phenomenon that society is desperate to deny and suppress.
Why Society should be so desperate to suppress the notion of child sexuality is another question, of course…
“Paedophiles are the only adults who have other than a negative reaction to a child expressing its sexuality.”
Not completely true LSM. One does not have to look too far in the literature to discover that there are cultures that react positively. ‘Sexually permissive cultures not only allow a less fettered expression of adult sexuality, but may give little attention to the sexual behaviors of children as long as they are not blatantly displayed. Sexually supportive cultures, believing that sex is indispensable to human happiness, encourage early sexual expression as a means of developing adult sexual competency and positive sexual attitudes. The children in sexually permissive and sexually supportive societies display a similar developmental pattern that is not apparent in sexually restrictive and sexually repressive societies.’
I have mentioned before of my experience (I was going to say: first-hand, but maybe I had better not) among south-east Asian cultures where no second thought is given to pacifying (masturbating) youngsters whilst they sit on a parent or a sibling’s lap, regardless of the setting, in public or otherwise.
Yes, you’re right Feinmann0 – what I should have written was “Paedophiles are the only adults who have other than a negative reaction to a child expressing its sexuality in contemporary WEIRD society”.
>”I have mentioned before of my experience (I was going to say: first-hand, but maybe I had better not) among south-east Asian cultures”
I can vouch for what you say, having had similar experiences of some of these cultures.
“Why Society should be so desperate to suppress the notion of child sexuality is another question, of course… “
But a good question LSM! I reproduce here a comment by Pete, off the KingOfHits website, made several days ago. For me it clarified several things, not least: Why does Society wallow in the fictional narrative of evil predators and defenceless children?
“It seems to me that the only discipline able to account for why the UK’s paedophile psychosis has proven so indestructible for so long is psychoanalysis. The Henriques report, the NHS Savile reports and so on can’t kill it because they’re appealing solely to fact and reason. The paedophile psychosis appeals to something totally different: enjoyment.
I’m sorry I keep prattling on about psychoanalysis at such length, but I have yet to find a more perspicuous analysis of why otherwise level-headed people end up eagerly lapping up crazy, hallucinatory accusations of the most lurid kind.
In psychoanalysis, enjoyment most certainly doesn’t mean ‘pleasure.’ Pleasure has limits and a relatively narrow bandwidth: too much of something nice rapidly becomes unpleasurable. Too little is equally unpleasurable because it’s unsatisfying. It’s a kind of Goldilocks phenomenon: the pleasurable ‘something’ has to be just right – not too much, not too little.
Enjoyment (which is the inadequate but only translation of the French term ‘jouissance’) is very different. Whereas pleasure attracts, enjoyment drives. And it can drive people beyond the safety limits of pleasure, which is why Freud titled one of his most important works ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle.’
He’d discovered this drivenness in patients who seemed addicted to their torment, who seemed to actively prefer endless anguish and misery to happiness; patients who not only refused to relinquish their grievances years and years after they’d originally developed, but actively repeated the pain deriving from seminal but long distant events, over and over again. Enlightening them about the origins of their suffering had no ameliorative effects whatsoever.
Freud believed they were getting something hugely important out of being ‘ill,’ something that psychotherapy was overlooking: the deliriously irrational, self-destructive but addictively exhilarating thrill of enjoyment (a condition was most rigorously explored by Freud’s most important and, arguably, most brilliant successor, Jacques Lacan). Enjoyment, when we allow it free reign, shatters the distinctions between pleasure and pain, and leads us to derive a crazy kind of pleasure-in-pain.
Most of us intuitively know there’s something potentially crazy in all of us, and we seek to regulate this inherently excessive enjoyment by observing various laws, customs and conventions so that we don’t allow ourselves to be engulfed by it (Lacan described it very vividly: it ‘begins with a tickle but ends in a blaze of petrol’).
And here’s where the problems begin. A life utterly devoid of jouissance/enjoyment is an empty, joyless drudgery. We try to get close enough to whatever it is that ignites our personal forms of jouissance to feel the thrill, but not so close that it drives us onto a path that we may never get off once we’re on it and can only end in self-destruction. We want the tickle, not the blaze of petrol.
But while we’re following our rules and conventions, we’re on the lookout for people who seem to have avoided the sacrifice of full-on enjoyment what we believe we’ve made. And when we find them, or have them presented to us, we tend to resent them. Deeply.
At the risk of sounding like Basil Fawlty, this is exactly how Nazi Germany started: the Nazis portrayed the Jews as obscene, secretive beings who were deriving limitless enjoyment from their obscure rituals and from subverting and polluting Aryan racial ‘purity’. This ‘Jew’ was an entirely imaginary construct peddled mercilessly by Nazi ideologues.
The relentlessly peddled ‘paedo’ of victim culture occupies, it seems to me, exactly the same structural position: a figure of caliginous evil ruthlessly and rapaciously enjoying the pure bodies of children and youths without a shred of pity or compassion. And because victim culture has so ceaselessly encouraged the mass paedo-obsession our culture is now afflicted by, this imaginary figure appears plausible to many – because deep within themselves, at a disavowed level, they can imagine similar forms of rapacious enjoyment.
‘Get the paedos!’ often means either ‘Let’s pin our unwanted and dangerous desires on a scapegoat!’or ‘Let’s get drunk on the horrific enjoyment we attribute to those we call ‘perverts’ by ruthlessly destroying a scapegoat!’ Any morality based on either of these is malignant; any morality based on both is pure obscenity.
Flamboyantly expressed disgust, from a psychoanalytic point of view, is a deeply implausible alibi because disgust, all too often, bears the imprint of the very desire it appears to be repudiating.
One publicly acceptable way of accessing this dangerous, disavowed paedophilic desire is by lapping up the most lurid and improbable media-fanned child abuse scandal stories, typically purveyed in the absence of any credible corroboratory evidence. I think these stories function as a form of publicly acceptable pornography: misery porn. They permit the extraction of obscene enjoyment beneath a veneer of piety and revulsion.
This dangerous and destructive enjoyment, in short derives from obedience to a dominant (but deeply perverse) ideological narrative about children and paedophilic rape which pits an icon of evil against an icon of imperilled purity and innocence.
The key to any progress, any release from this malignant madness, I believe, resides not only in exposing the more deranged claims of the False Accusations/Child Salvationist industry as bunkum through relentless fact-checking and hard evidence, but in fostering a form of enjoyment that derives from disobeying, or at least remaining sceptical about, sweeping dominant fictions of evil predators and defenceless children.”
The ‘jouissance’ idea, and, if I may say so Feinmann, your brilliant explanation of what it means and why it could be of fundamental importance, is very plausible. You account is especially persuasive because “misery porn” and the victim culture are currently so pervasive. However, if Freud and Lacan had identified a fundamental aspect of human psychology, wouldn’t we expect it to manifest itself to a more or less constant degree in all cultures at all times? The question is thus raised as to whether our own society is peculiarly susceptible to mass irrationality (in sex and perhaps other matters) for reasons that go beyond the purely personal.
However, as you say, Freud’s patients and the existence of scapegoats other than paedophiles (such as Jews in Nazi Germany) do offer a degree of cross-cultural continuity.
Also, I don’t think there has ever been any clear theoretical basis for jouissance that has led to testable (and tested) hypotheses. However, I would be delighted to hear I am wrong, if that is the case, with relevant sources.
One possible predictive hypothesis is that the level of jouissance any individual feels (in relation to attacking CP or defending children’s sexual innocence more generally) will be directly proportionate to the (suppressed) level of their own sexual attraction to children. It would not be easy to conduct a study of this kind in a way likely to get honest answers. However, community volunteers are sometimes invited to take part in research as a notional “normal” control group for purposes of comparison with sex offenders, in various tests of IQ, personality, etc. These tests sometimes also include measurements of arousal to pornography, including CP. So-called “normal” men frequently exhibit a strong penile response to CP. It would be interesting also to question the control volunteers on their attitudes towards paedophilia and CP. On the basis of the jouissance theory, one would expect those with the lowest levels of penile response to CP to have the least punitive attitudes to it and be least obsessed by it, and those with the highest penile response to be the most punitive. Of course, beyond a certain level of strong response to CP it may become impossible for paedophilic inclinations to be repressed, leading to a mental crisis, or catastrophe.
First and foremost Tom, I was not the originator of the account. I was a mere lurker there who thought it relevant to the debate here.
“… wouldn’t we expect it” – jouissance – “to manifest itself to a more or less constant degree in all cultures at all times?”
Well it does, doesn’t it? When I grew up in the UK, underdogs were always ripe for discrimination and mockery, be it in the school playground, within families, and even on TV (Till Death Us Do Part, was a prime example). Homosexuals were pilloried for their sexuality, blacks were appallingly treated in the US and in the UK too … in the Victorian era, it was thought that the Irish might be the elusive missing link. In my lifetime, jouissance has always been apparent in some stripe or other.
On mass irrationality, there are plenty of cases documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria. We live in an age where communication between huge numbers of people has been made possible with the advent of the internet. I would suggest that this mechanism provides a perfect vehicle for inducing and sustaining mass irrationality, and potentially on a huge scale. There are a number of instances where the internet has played a key role in the spread of mass psychogenic illness, for example here: http://theweek.com/articles/459695/facebook-causing-outbreaks-mass-hysteria
Pete goes on to say: “… an example of jouissance-enjoyment that appears to me to be a disturbingly accurate portrayal of our crazy Child Abuse Inquisition that, tellingly, appears to have no limits”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw
Why do you link that stupid cartoon?
It just about shows the brainwashed nature of the commentators on this lousy website: that cartoon doesn’t go to the heart of the genocidal lies.
Go back to your worshipping of the idiot O’Carroll and his failed anti-family ( pro-Clinton let’s demolish the family ) PIE.
One can only hope that future boy and girl lovers find the courage to take up arms against social workers and psychologists, unlike you cowards. LOSERS!
>It just about shows the brainwashed nature of the commentators on this lousy website
Curious, isn’t it, that “this lousy website” keeps attracting you back, again and again. You simply cannot resist commenting here, under a variety of names, even though there are presumably millions of less lousy websites in your estimation, or even good ones. But no, you keep coming here. Wow! the H-TOC site must be something a bit special, a superstar location of lousiness!
[TOC: LOOKS AS THOUGH ELRON HAS POSTED THIS IN THE WRONG PLACE: IT IS CLEARLY MEANT TO BE A REPLY TO FEINMANN.]
Feinmann0, About something you said in your post: Do you really think that adolescence ends now at age 25, and do you really believe that adolescence is real and not a fake stage as I have previously argued in previous comments?
Ah, sorry, yes, by the time I reached the end I must have forgotten you mentioned “Pete” the the beginning, and I must have missed the quote marks in haste. Never mind, it was well worth repeating.
I do believe you are right, though — and this time I think it really is you! — to say the internet cranks up the scale of the possibilities.
The text in the post images are hard to read.
Sorry, that’s down to the WordPress software. The original graphics are fine.
I think some account is required of the ‘child porn’ that really actually is a record of child sexual abuse. There’s plenty of that sort I’m told.
From there I think it’s possible for MAP’s to argue that enjoyment of demonstrably non-abusive genres* are not only a right but also a safety valve (Milton Diamond has researched this question in depth).
The current situation is unacceptable and the human rights questions are absolutely critical, but given current global shenanigans, such as the US oligarchy pissing in the pocket of the Russian oligarchy, the question of our wank fantasies seems somewhat trivial.
I suggest shifting the discourse up a gear. From the concept of ‘child porn’, which is a genre that few are willing to defend (on account of, as so ably demonstrated in this post, it’s lack of any clear definition or concrete grounding) we might focus on the more abstract question of how a rational urge to protect children from harm has become a conduit for the expression of a neurotic fear and hatred of a particular sexual minority. The guts of this is the semantic confusion of paedophilia with child sexual abuse.
What are the social and political dynamics that foster this confusion? And how do we go about dismantling them? Something tells me that this question is not so far removed from global concerns.
*Such as child nudes that dignify the subject, ethically obtained records of normal childhood sexual behaviour, fictional material such as lolicon and other fictional material, etc.
>I suggest shifting the discourse up a gear….What are the social and political dynamics that foster this confusion? And how do we go about dismantling them? Something tells me that this question is not so far removed from global concerns.
Good post, Sean. It’s one thing to analyse the causes of confusion, etc, but a rather bigger task to propose a solution. As regards the former, did you miss the great trio of guest blogs here by Leonard Sisyphus Mann (Lensman)?
See especially Towards the aetiology of paedophobia from last year:
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/towards-the-aetiology-of-paedophobia/
True. The question to ask: cui bono?
“There’s plenty of that sort I’m told.”
What percentage constitutes child abuse? What authentic source reliably informed you? It’s OK; you don’t have to answer these questions.
“… given current global shenanigans, such as the US oligarchy pissing in the pocket of the Russian oligarchy, the question of our wank fantasies seems somewhat trivial.”
Somewhat trivial to who? Some of ‘us’ couldn’t give a flying fuck about global shenanigans – after all, ‘twas ever thus. I would suggest however, that many of ‘us’ are mightily pissed off with those that have all the power continually cauterizing our right to express our sexuality, and discriminating against us on the grounds of our sexual orientation. I would further suggest that inaction on our part – due to our alleged triviality – does us no favours whatsoever.
He’s a feminist shill come to stir up this board. He thinks the genocide of boys is trivial, much like formerly soviet-funded O’Carroll.
>…formerly soviet-funded O’Carroll.
FOF really gets into the post-factual spirit here! Soviet funding (or funding from any government) would have been nice but, no, it didn’t happen.
There is no such thing as “Child Porn”. All pornography is exactly the same.
[TOC: AS MODERATOR, I DELETED A PASSAGE AT THIS POINT FOR LEGAL REASONS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM. PERHAPS I AM BEING OVER-CAUTIOUS. HOWEVER, THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT NEEDS TO BE HANDLED WITH CARE FOR WHAT OUGHT TO BE VERY OBVIOUS REASONS. THE COMMENT HAS BEEN BADLY BUTCHERED AS A RESULT BUT THAT CANNOT BE HELPED.]
Just look at the poor man sent to prison in the U.S.A. for 200 years because of “Child Porn”.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/200-year-sentence-for-teacher-in-child-porn-case-stands-1.642582
or here
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1315314-man-from-south-carolina-jailed-over-illicit-cartoons
Humans are all the same and they do what they do because of desire, ability and intent. Not because of their “class”.
There is a great fear for images.
I posted a link on the Dutch site for MAPs, pedofilie.nl. It was a link from Youtube, posted earlier on Boychat. It contains some (bare-chested) hugging boys. They are really rather adorable, the boys on this video. But very soon after posting, I got an email from the webmaster saying about the video, that “regarding legality it was too doubtful”. And they had removed the link.
See for yourself: [TOC: LINK REMOVED HERE. DAVID, HOW LONG DO YOU SUPPOSE THIS BLOG WOULD LAST IF HERETIC TOC STARTED POSTING LINKS OF DUBIOUS LEGALITY? PLEASE NOTE THAT BEING ON YOUTUBE IS NO GUARANTEE OF LEGALITY, SOMETHING THAT BOYCHAT WOULD ALSO DO WELL TO BEAR IN MIND.]
A German professor, Guido Fuchs, is a specialist on RC liturgy. He is the publisher of a magazine, Liturgie Konkret, dealing with the form and contents of RC liturgy. He has also published about this subject.
Amazingly enough, it was this professor who published a, in the current state of things, remarkable book, “Tadzios Brüder”, with the telling subtitle “Der »schöne Knabe« in der Literatur” (The beautiful boy in literature). There is a nice website about the book: http://tadzios-brueder.guido-fuchs.de/
I wrote the author, to complement him about his book. One of the things he wrote back was: “Unfortunately, the books sells very badly, it is, as a bookseller said, at the moment, a no-go theme.”
I really did like the book. After an introduction about the theme and about the way the book was structured, the rest of the book is filled with extracts in which noticeable boys feature. The extracts are from books from undisputed German writers, from the 19th and 20th century. There is nothing wrong with the book, even the sparse black and white pictures are very tasteful.
But it looks like we are in a stage the even this subject, with images in written words, is repulsive to many people Which is a shame.
Sorry, Tom, do not want to cause any trouble.
But for your information, dear reader: The video is on Youtube from 12 October 2014 and seen by 36.519 viewers, from whom 157 liked it, and 4 didn’t. I have never regarded Youtube as a cesspit of vice. But should I now?
I still think, it’s contents is innocent. But probably everything can be regarded as illicit these days if you look at it with the right state of mind. It does make me sad.
Not your fault at all, David.
The authorities are unlikely to crack down on anything that has been on YouTube for so long without apparent objection (there being little reason to object). However, what would give them an excuse to do so would be a reference on a site such as Heretic TOC to someone else saying they thought the material was legally dubious.
YOU ARE THE AUTHORITIES. YOU ARE A SOVIET AGENT AND A NEW LABOUR SLEEPER CELL
>…A NEW LABOUR SLEEPER CELL
LOL! Love your sense of humour, FOF!
There is not only the censorship of art by authorities, but also the excuse it gives to watchdog organizations to pressure internet providers to remove “offending material” under the threat of prosecution, see for example in Pigtails in Paint, the nude images of one post had to be removed because a German internet watchdog called them “child abuse images”: http://www.pigtailsinpaint.com/2016/06/maiden-voyages-june-2016/
I know very well these images (I am associate editor of the site), there is nothing sexual in them, just the artists know how to highlight the beauty of the girls.
And indeed, as hinted by “Opinion”, there are much worse things happening to children that can be shown, and neither the things nor the images move the CP watchdogs, as shown in my post defending Pigtails in Paint: https://agapeta.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/censorship-of-nude-art/
Not only are tens of thousands of sickeningly severe NON-sex Child Abuse images (Grade 11 of 10) free for sadists online and in all mainstream media.
But far more importantly for HYPOCRITICAL Anglo media mass mind rapists, for their cynical mock sensitive “Ain’t It Awful” headlines for which read, “Ain’t It GREAT – RATINGS & PROFIT!”
Christian, in your second link you write the following: “Private watchdog organizations play a role of moral vigilantism, denouncing artists, harassing and threatening those who display their works (internet sites, art galleries, etc.), in order to impose their own restrictive interpretation of law, based on moral fears. All this under the fraudulent pretext of ‘child protection’, as in fact their zealotry protects no one from any real harm or danger.”
Further down the page, you respond to sexhysteria: “All too often one sees whining protests that do not deter the adversary and fake actions that achieve nothing. Fighting an enemy, one has to be ruthless and uncompromising; and one must tell the truth about inconsistent and weak fighters, even if it is unpleasant.”
I am interested to know whether your protest against censorship of art to the German Internet Watchdog hotline@fsm.de during the summer deterred this particular adversary? What was their response?
Many great thoughts and suggestions, but there isn’t one chance in a million of decriminalizing child porn. Like the war on drugs, it’s more about the money and control of the masses than about social policy. Private prisons, massive police budgets and increasing governmental control and intrusion are much, too, attractive to ever let them slip away.
Here in the US, some states are bucking the trend and at least legalizing pot, but the new head of Homeland Security wants to ramp up the war and “just say no” and Trump is appointing people who are very much into gutting our rights and expanding the governments powers.
Since porn is such a popular thing to use the internet for and since far more people are interested in young girls and boys, expanding the definition is more likely. Now that former kiddie porn stars can sue for damages, the legal industry also has a very good reason to keep those laws on the books.
I only see things going downhill from here, sadly.
The only hope we have is that enough people get caught up in the coming dragnets and it begins to make people wonder about the sanity of it all. But that is a long time off, I fear.
Child ABUSE images??
Increasing MILLIONS of laughing guilt free kids Worldwide webwize WAY beyond all control, now MOCK crap sex laws by SELFIE seXting, AND with adults they fancy – and MUCH more.
While so called ‘adults’ in the kidseX craZed phoney Anglophone scream Child ABUSE Images !!!
Child ABUSE images??
H-E-R-E are Child ABUSE Images FREELY AVAILABLE Worldwide webwize WAY beyond all control, and far too many CAUSED by the kidseX craZed phoney Anglophone not giving a damn about a vast 96% NON-sex serious child abuses creating MILLIONS of TRUE child VICTIMS!
v
v
https://www.google.be/search?q=child+victims+of+British+concentration+camps&rlz=1C1SKPL_enBE421&oq=child+victims+of+British+concentration+camps&aqs=chrome..69i57.20101j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#safe=strict&q=photos+of+child+victims+of+British+concentration+camps
https://www.google.be/search?q=child+victims+of+war+and+famine&rlz=1C1SKPL_enBE421&oq=child+victims+of+war+and+famine&aqs=chrome..69i57.19094j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#safe=strict&q=child+victims+of+war+photos
==Child ABUSE images??==
Agreed, it’s a complex business.
Nevertheless, images of genuine child rape do occur within the broader scope of the ‘child porn’ genre.
True, I question the degree of culpability attached to the consumers of these images, but I do understand the public determination to stamp them out and punish their producers.
Less reactively perhaps, but no less forcefully, I consider the images in question to be a poisonous corruption of what I, for one, know to be a kind of love, not a kind of violence.
In my view, ‘pornography’ in its conventional form is fascist propaganda. This is pretty much the radical feminist perspective, and while it isn’t the most popular one around here, I think it is correct.
What is most sad and distressing about these images is that, for many minor attracted people, they retain a powerful erotic effect. In spite of revulsion at the callousness and cruelty of the acts depicted, they can help the user reach an orgasm.
It’s a soul destroying predicament, to be aroused by the deliberate destruction of a child’s dignity. Especially for a MAP. This isn’t the playful, negotiated pain of BDSM, it’s the real pain of child abuse.
When a MAP appears in the dock charged with possession of images at ‘the most serious end of the scale’, the images might involve substantive abuse or they might not. But this much is certain, everybody will assume that the defendant saw the images as a source of pleasure.
Maybe he did. But if the images included sexual violence against a child, I think MAPs that kept the images, and masturbated to them, probably felt a far more complex set of emotions.
Self aware paedophiles can’t be apologists for child sexual abuse. It isn’t just wrong, it’s a contradiction. Given my Socratic worldview, that’s far worse! 🙂
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, YOU FOOL?
YOU ARE A FEMINIST SHILL COME TO STIR UP THIS COMMENT BOARD.
YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
YOU MAKE ME SICK, AND I ONLY SAY THIS FOR FUTURE HISTORIANS/GENERATIONS READING THIS THAT HIS COMMENT IS A LIE THAT MAKES ME SICK. BET YOU WON’T PUBLISH THIS COMMENT.
Heretic TOC does not favour personally abusive comments. However, Sean’s comment was quite provocative and I don’t think he will be overly sensitive about a provocative response. on this occasion.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Tom. It may be a provocative comment, but I mean every word. Maybe its a GLer thing, but I really am a feminist. I don’t just fall in love with little girls, I get in their corner.
If I had seen child pornography I wouldn’t be admitting to it on a public website.
I have a fairly liberal view of what kinds of images are acceptable. For example, Will McBride’s work in “Show Me” is explicit but also elevating.
On the other hand, a child being penetrated, or photographed covertly, or having intimacies shared online that she thought would be private, is not being dignified by the publication of her image, she’s being betrayed. I don’t think that demonstrates much ‘love’ for children.
So if you have evidence that children are never maltreated in the production of any of the child porn that circulates on the net, let’s see it.
>So if you have evidence that children are never maltreated in the production of any of the child porn that circulates on the net, let’s see it.
Oh, come on, Sean, you must know how unreasonable that is. It would be impossible to show that children are never maltreated in the production of Hollywood movies, but would you ban them on that basis?
The important question is what to do about any abuses, which were all too common in the early days of Hollywood when child actors were sometimes exploited, in a variety of ways. Some directors, for instance, were not above yelling at quite small kids and even slapping them to make them cry when a crying scene was needed.
The answer was to introduce an industry code of practice on child welfare in film production, and there may have been changes to the laws on child labour as well. The more above board and legal and industry becomes, the easier it is to regulate for good practice.
>If I had seen child pornography I wouldn’t be admitting to it on a public website.
You seem to be saying you have not seen any. In that case, why leap to conclusions as to its horrific nature?
I haven’t seen CP anytime recently, but I can tell you from my own personal knowledge of the porn that was available some years ago that police practice includes the most unscrupulously dishonest propaganda you can imagine in terms of distorting and misrepresenting the nature of the images they see and seize: any intercourse with someone over 18 with someone under 18, no matter how consensual, is likely to be called a “rape” image; depiction of a playful spanking will be labelled an image of “sadism”.
Little wonder the public become so incensed. It is all too easy for those with power and influence to whip up anger against minorities based on lies, especially when they are systematically denied any way of presenting their case, and showing evidence that would exonerate them.
Lets just agree that the public discourse on child porn is hampered by the impossibility of criticizing actual examples without risk of prosecution.
I’m confident that specimens of the genre exist that cannot be defended without abandoning any semblance of respect for children. I’m also well aware that law enforcement and other parties have distorted public understanding by representing all child porn as somehow not distinct from these egregious examples.
The reasons for this misrepresentation often have little to do with protecting children and there are many strong parallels with the so called ‘war on drugs’.
But what concerns me is not the ignorance and stupidity of enforcement agencies or the public, its the suggestion that somehow I should accept the sexual mistreatment of girls and boys on the basis that to do otherwise would weaken the principles of free speech and sexual freedom, and generally show a lack of commitment to the ’cause’.
I happen to think the opposite is true. Unless people like us recognise and refuse to give audience to harmful ‘speech’ (ie, publications) the arguments for suppression will only get stronger.
>Lets just agree that the public discourse on child porn is hampered by the impossibility of criticizing actual examples without risk of prosecution.
Then let us also agree that defending actual examples cannot be done without risk of prosecution. This leaves the debate massively unbalanced because the public hear an endless outpouring of official exaggerations from the law enforcement side plus there is a vast range of public forums, including even this one, in which anyone antagonistic to CP is free to add their uninformed two-penn’orth of hostility.
>But what concerns me is not the ignorance and stupidity of enforcement agencies or the public, its the suggestion that somehow I should accept the sexual mistreatment of girls and boys on the basis that to do otherwise would weaken the principles of free speech and sexual freedom, and generally show a lack of commitment to the ’cause’.
Nobody is saying that children must be sacrificed to free speech. However, free expression is undoubtedly an important principle and for that reason it is incumbent upon those who seek to curtail it to show that it is necessary to do so. In the post to which you are replying I proposed that something analogous to the protection of children in Hollywood movies could be looked into. You have brushed this aside without discussion.
If you could show that neither my idea, nor any others, are feasible, you might be able to establish the beginnings of a case for limiting free expression. So far, though, you haven’t even started.
Please refer to my response to feinmann0
>Please refer to my response to feinmann0
In this response you admit that I was right about everything. If you think this is an inaccurate summary of what you said, feel free to specify what points of difference remain between us. 🙂
There are few points of difference between us. Perhaps you are also a radical feminist! 😀
“When a MAP appears in the dock charged with possession of images at ‘the most serious end of the scale’, the images might involve substantive abuse or they might not. But this much is certain, everybody will assume that the defendant saw the images as a source of pleasure.
Maybe he did. But if the images included sexual violence against a child, I think MAPs that kept the images, and masturbated to them, probably felt a far more complex set of emotions.
Self aware paedophiles can’t be apologists for child sexual abuse. It isn’t just wrong, it’s a contradiction.”
And those who promote Live And Let Live should not be apologists for the thought police and tyranny. It isn’t just wrong, it’s a contradiction.
By Live And Let Live in the context of this debate, I mean: having the freedom to read what you want to read, see what you want to see, and know what you want to know, for whatever reason, including deriving personal sexual gratification. Looking at pictures in any free society should not be a crime.
Actually, I agree. I guess I’m talking about a considered personal ethic rather than a grand mal paroxysm of enforcement.
However, I do think some quarter can be given to those who take a more authoritarian line against activities that can be shown to be genuinely harmful, at least to the extent that their motives might be understood as genuine and rational.
It bothers me that an abstract, ideological stance should take precedence over a response to the victimization of vulnerable young people. I’m no prude, but I do question the Pollyanna-ish claim that child porn is, without exception, an innocent celebration of erotic self determination. Unless the self determination of the subject is discounted, this simply isn’t true.
I do think the argument that minor attracted people should be able to access erotic fantasy material without fear of persecution has a lot of merit. In fact I think its a human rights issue and a free speech issue.
However, I don’t think it’s necessary or productive to doggedly defend the indefensible in order to further this argument.
Perhaps your time would be more profitably spent Sean, once you finish tilting at windmills here, apprising yourself of the massive scale of child abuse and child neglect within the family homes across Western nations. That should provide you with plenty to more appropriately fuel your angst.
If somewhere out there is an organized child porn industry that might be regulated in the manner of Hollywood, then I would say the bulk of it is a cottage industry, hence in many cases more or less contiguous with the “massive scale of child abuse and child neglect within the family homes”.
There have been more commercial operations, such as child modeling outfits in Ukraine and Japan, and my understanding is that these were ethically and professionally run. Pressure on these sovereign states to get in line with oppressive US policy and shut such operations down has most likely caused far more harm than good.
There is also child porn produced as a spin off from child prostitution, either by clients or brothels. Perhaps there is a more liberal, more ethical avenue by which the harms of this industry could be ameliorated, but I personally struggle justify the prostituting of children.
Finally, my uninformed suspicion is that the bulk of child porn traded online is produced in domestic environments by amateurs, and people directly involved in children’s lives. The images probably range from the anodyne to the outright cruel. Some may be records of affectionate interactions but, as I’ve already said, there are intrinsic ethical problems with sharing such intimate images of children on the internet.
So how do we account for the experience of child models that have been more widely accepted. David Hamilton has been accused of raping some of his models, but how far can we take such unfounded allegations in demonizing the art produced. Should any entertainment resembling Top of the Pops also be off limits because of Jimmy Savile?
The experience of the models used by artists such as Jock Sturges (who photographed nudist children) and Sally Mann (who photographed her own children) has been, according to their own reports, overwhelmingly positive (if not unalloyed). These are examples where the child has retained some power in the relationship with the photographer and the image. I’d love to know how the kids featured in “Show Me” now feel about their genitals being so widely admired, but I’d be surprised if they weren’t proud of their contribution to sex positive child rearing.
And then there’s Maurice Marlier? What a gentle, loving record he’s left of the innocence, grace and erotic power of little girls. I’ve seldom seen his work criticised for it’s sexual elements, even though it often seems overtly paedophilic. He drew from life, so used nude children as models, but his love and respect for his subjects is almost palpable. I’m inclined to compare him to Graham Ovenden, with the exception that Ovenden lives in England and so is a step closer to the Inquisition. He has paid a heavy price for wearing his heart on his sleeve and civilization is poorer for it.
How does the work of such gentle men come to be identified with ‘child porn’? What exactly we are talking about when we use this term? How is it distinct from the child nude in art? And where does fantasy material such as lolicon and shota fit in the discussion? People are prosecuted for possession of that genre as well (and I think we’d all agree that that is a gross violation of basic human rights).
Perhaps the ethical divide has little to do with nudity or sex and much to do with the attitude taken to the welfare and dignity of real children involved in the process. Beatrice Faust’s book “Women and Pornography” has an excellent discussion of this point.
My final word on this is that I stick to my original point. It is not sensible to pretend ignorance of the fact that harmful varieties of child porn are commonplace. As Tom says, it makes sense to identify and prevent these harms rather than damn the genre as a whole. I agree. I think an open discussion is urgently required.
As we know, there are powerful forces working to prevent any such discussion. Like the ‘war on drugs’ the ‘war on paedophilia’ will rumble on as long as it serves certain agendas, causing misery in the name of morality. … until the mass of public opinion stands up to it.
And if the public are going to stand up in support of the artistic representation of children as sexual beings, they will have to be confident that the people with the most interest in those representations, us, are competent to distinguish respectful celebration from exploitation. For that to happen, we need to voice a more definitive rejection of exploitative practices – alongside our admiration of children as real people with beautiful and sensual aspects.
I find a great deal to agree with here, including the last sentence: we shouldn’t be too defensive.
Good response Sean. In this corrupt and malevolent society we find ourselves in, where a single image of a naked child found in the hands of an adult male renders him a sexual predator for the rest of his life, and where centenarians can be sent down for 13 years on the basis of no evidence other than accusations of abuse having taken place thirty plus years ago, it is difficult to envisage any open discussions being held, let alone any difference being made to the discriminatory status quo. Public platform denied … debate denied … hysteria continues … human rights violated.
Merry Christmas Feinmann! I think we are on the same page. 🙂
“In my view, ‘pornography’ in its conventional form is fascist propaganda. This is pretty much the radical feminist perspective, and while it isn’t the most popular one around here, I think it is correct.”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean ‘in its conventional form’, but overlooking that, the statement seems extraordinarily disproportionate. A great deal of pornography is just people having non-coercive sex with one another. (I’m talking about ADULT porn here – as I explained in an earlier comment, we just can’t say in relation to child porn.) What’s fascist about that?
It’s fascist in the sense that it’s using sex to market a normative power relation. “Oh my god! Oh that’s so good! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!” is just another way of saying “Kraft durch Freude!”
Women, like children, hate to be patronized, and nothing is more patronizing than sexual objectification.
The erotic potential of a whole person is so much greater than the erotic potential of an uninhabited body that its easy to wonder why the latter dominates sexual culture..
But the reason is simple: the recognition of personhood for its own sake is a rebuttal of hierarchy, and hierarchy is the essence of fascism.
“Oh my god! Oh that’s so good! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!”
But that’s what enthusiastic women do sound like during sex (with lots of variations of course!). So if standard porn depicts that, it is just being truthful to that extent.
Yeah, as usual, its complicated.
The thing to keep in mind is that women are a reproductive resource and that men have been selected to exploit this resource. But women are also people, with the same rights as men. Their sexuality is not contingent on men’s approval. It exists on its own terms.
I wouldn’t deny that. We’re probably not very far apart on this issue.