Ancient Greece will have become even more ancient by the time I get around to my promised blog about it, unfortunately, as my time is being taken up in pursuit of some hot new developments on the transgender front, which is another topic in the pipeline. The good news, though, is that an excellent anonymous guest blog has come in, offered to Heretic TOC through Filip Schuster. Filip is a friend of the author and can vouch for his authenticity. I would remind everyone that Filip has contributed some excellent comments here, especially in response to “The seven ages of sexual attractiveness” in September. In my view, his friend’s article below captures extremely well the doctrinaire flight from reality imposed these days in the name of therapy on those convicted of even the mildest offences of a sexual nature relating to minors. Note that this account comes not from the Anglosphere, as might be expected, but from an unnamed country of continental Europe.
Deferred prosecution for softcore child porn
In the early 2010s, I was one of many targets of a national police raid against child pornography, in a Western European country. The reason they paid me a visit was that I had saved a few softcore images of young girls in a private web album. The photos had been screened by a webmaster and assessed as being “possibly illegal”. For this reason, the webmaster had closed my account and contacted the police who simply added me to the long list of addresses for their raid. A prosecutor decided to offer me deferred prosecution because the pictures I had uploaded were “not that serious”. During the raid, the police confirmed that the material in question was all in the softcore category. It mainly consisted of so-called non-nude images and a few nudes. There were no pictures of sexual acts (other than modelling), no close-ups of genitals, and nothing sadistic, creepy or tragic. In fact, most of the models were smiling and looked amused or happy, and the police told me that this was the type of material that was produced voluntarily, to the extent that most of the girls probably even liked the modelling. They conceded that this category used to be completely legal in our country. Things had changed a lot, which in their interpretation even implied that portrait photos of clothed beautiful young girls with make-up, and legal pictures of young but adult petite erotic models, should all be seen as kiddie porn now.
They confiscated my PC and several dozen CDs or DVDs, but felt no need to arrest me or search my whole house. Two months later, I had to sign a contract which mainly meant that I agreed to undergo a psychiatric, polyclinic “treatment” at a forensic clinic, as an outpatient. I was not allowed to choose an external therapist or sexologist of my own liking, but I simply had to accept whatever they would impose on me.
I decided to agree, because the alternative would be a public court case that could easily affect my whole life.
At the clinic, it soon became clear that anyone with paedophilic feelings was automatically seen as a psychiatric patient. In my particular case, these feelings were linked with a presumed arrested emotional, social and sexual development, thought to be the result of an autistic disorder, namely Asperger Syndrome. I had to complete long and tedious tests which did not confirm these diagnostic assumptions, but I was still given the label “autistic”. The irony was that during the group sessions I proved that this diagnosis could not be true, because I showed more (rather than less) than average social intelligence and empathy towards my fellow patients. In the end, this was explicitly acknowledged by my therapists, but they did not adjust their diagnosis. To be more precise, I lacked all the typical defining characteristics of Asperger’s, such as developmental problems during childhood, high sensitivity to sensory stimuli, an obsessive aversion to chaos, poor social insight, deficient emotional intelligence, a limited emotional life, problems with change, or strange obsessions with unusual interests. The characteristics that I did show, such as relatively high intelligence, introversion, or limited motor skills, were not defining and also applied to many gifted persons without any autistic disorder. (After my “treatment”, I read that many intellectually gifted patients are routinely given a “false positive” diagnosis within the autism spectrum, and it even appears to be something of a fad within psychiatric clinics.).
They even seemed really disappointed when I demonstrated that their argumentation did not make sense. Also, they ignored the highly intimidating context and denied that this clearly affected my overall performance. They did not accept the truism that many patients will typically under-achieve in such an environment and that minor errors could be seen as the result of stress, rather than as clear signs that there had to be something wrong with me (i.e. on top of my paedophilic “disorder”).
It was as if they had assessed me before they had met me, and tried to interpret their findings as conclusively confirming their prejudiced diagnosis, even though there was every reason to see them as conclusively refuting it.
This was rather shocking, because it gave me the impression that my self-image did not matter to them. They did not even care that the Asperger’s diagnosis did not match what I considered one of my best developed psychological traits, my empathic ability. Rather than trying to empower me, they were really determined to force their prejudiced views onto me. It was only because I tried to stay calm and polite that I was not forced to follow so-called psycho-education sessions for autistic patients.
With my sexual offence, what particularly gave them reason to believe I had to be autistic was the fact that I thought that voluntary softcore material was ethically acceptable. In their view, I had to realize that children and youngsters below the age of 23 (when their brains would be fully developed) obviously lacked the capacity to understand the long-term consequences of their participation.
I protested that they had the right to blame me for underestimating society’s condemnation of any type of child erotica and thereby underestimating the outrage that could affect the children involved, in the long run, but that this did not imply a lack of empathy. I had simply believed that society was still a bit more tolerant about such material and agreed that if the public perception of softcore images had become so extremely negative, this implied that it could also undermine the self-perception of the young models.
I concluded that softcore images should become legal again, as soon as society becomes more open to this. This time, it should happen under strict conditions and be monitored by the government, to prevent any type of abuse or exploitation more effectively .
The clinic clearly had a hard time dealing with me. I did not fit into their standard typologies, because I did not have any important social, financial, compulsive or post-traumatic symptoms and my offence had remained strictly limited to what I had considered morally acceptable. The only real reason I was going to their sessions was that it was part of my contract. Nevertheless, they kept looking for anything that would prove I was severely disturbed.
They did not even distinguish a diagnostic category of “paedophilia without a severe psychiatric background” and they ultimately admitted that the stricter legislation would probably make it necessary to do so, because from now on many average paedophiles with a moderate interest in (exclusively) softcore erotica would suddenly be considered real criminals who really needed therapy.
Predictably, all this was quite humiliating, dehumanising and alienating for me. I went through a lot of fears, worries and insecurity, and had gloomy nightmares.
Within my group, I was the only one who did not have to undergo a second therapy after the group sessions were completed, but they only told me so at the very last moment.
The other members of my group were generally treated even more harshly and I often felt really bad for them, which I expressed in critical remarks and supportive statements. This made me quite popular among the other group members and in the long run, even the therapists admitted that a lot I had been saying really made sense.
There was a pervasive ambivalence within the clinic’s attitude towards its patients. Everyone, including the therapists, was addressed by his or her personal name. There seemed to be lots of room for personal confessions and unfiltered responses. However, this atmosphere was merely apparent. Anything you said could and often would be used to increase the pathologising of your particular case.
This included positive traits and experiences, which were reinterpreted as signs of a selfish or criminal personality. The therapists were hardly interested in personal backgrounds of offences and tried to reduce them to standard models. They even forced us to stop using positive or neutral terms, such as “curiosity” or “models” and replaced them by negative ones.
Some therapists were kind and supportive by nature, but anything the patients told a therapist would typically become common knowledge of the whole team. This could be particularly upsetting if a therapist had been sloppy or even incorrect in his or her report.
Also, a therapist who was nice at one occasion, could suddenly become harsh and distant during another session.
For me, all this meant that I basically felt lost, confused and threatened from day one, and that it was difficult for me to conceal my real, mostly negative, feelings.
Another thing that was confusing concerned our main therapist’s attitude to erotica and relationships. She did accept the fact that erotic modelling and even paedophile relationships could be voluntary from the minor’s perspective, but remained convinced that even these were by definition very harmful anyway. She claimed that this was even true for minors above the legal age of 16. Anyone interested in such adolescents clearly had a severe psychiatric disorder, and any minor interested in an adult needed treatment as well!
In general, the analyses of personal backgrounds remained very stereotypical and superficial and they were more interested in confirming their prejudices than in understanding the individual group member. Also, they pretended to show empathy for us, by imagining what they would do in a specific situation themselves, even though none of the therapists showed any signs of a paedophilic preference… We were sick if we reacted differently than they would do.
In terms of the severity of offences, the therapists acted as if it should be absolutely clear that watching soft erotica was not essentially different from watching hardcore child porn and that it was indirectly linked to raping children. They also wanted us to believe that there was a very high percentage of recidivism, whereas this is completely incorrect.
We were stimulated to give a detailed description of our “crimes”, but the therapists got almost hysterical if we mentioned specific photographers such as Hamilton, because this would probably lead our fellow group members into temptation.
According to the forensic workers I met, all child erotica had become illegal in our country because we now knew that children were not able to deal with sexuality in a responsible, harmless way, not even in the context of softcore erotic modelling. Therefore, they had to be protected against any kind of sexuality, especially in relation to adults.
This general ideology was even shared by really kind professionals, and doubting it was regarded as a clear sign of a psychiatric disorder. All of them acted as if the debate on paedophilia is closed for good, and that anything paedo-erotic involving real children could never be innocent or harmless, let alone positive.
My main therapist believed that softcore erotic modelling was never really voluntary and that there was always some type of coercion involved. On this, even the police officers who had confiscated my PC had a less extreme opinion.
Any type of erotic attraction to children would in itself be pathological and this was also true for a child’s attraction to an adult.
If they accepted the existence of exhibitionism in children, they exclusively regarded it as a psychiatric symptom. Normal, psychologically healthy children would never get involved in erotica.
This also meant that anyone who justified softcore porn had to do so through rather transparent rationalisations and was basically driven by ruthless lust.
We were not allowed to correct such prejudices, and we had to become convinced that any type of paedo-eroticism involving real children was by definition immoral. Anyone who engaged in such things would therefore be really selfish or lacking a basic capacity for empathy.
there is a new study on the therapy against adults suspected with “childhood” illegal sexual experiences where the patients referred to therapy with symptoms unrelated to their sexual experiences (“I didn’t know what was wrong with me”) call the therapists “abusive”, “autocratic, authoritarian.” The “client’s feelings of transferential anger and powerlessness” during therapy are tried to be hidden by patients for they don’t want therapists to intrude on their personal memoirs or they have no illegal sexual experience at all —though therapists explain it as if sex offenders “are often skilled manipulators” or threateners (said by tyrannic therapists who have made manipulation their profession!)
It seems therapists try to see “child sexual abuse trauma” in any case they’re working with and try to impose this vision to their patients and to make them admit they were sexually abused. Such confession is considered as “an indicator of positive therapeutic progress”. No wonder that patients think their therapists “just weren’t qualified or educated”. (Must be noticed, the author is inclined to support memory recovering, claimes some members of the FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME FOUNDATION were “publicly sanctioning paedophilia”, that “perpetrators are given the benefit of the doubt and may escape appropriate punishment” because of anti-cryptomnemonic critics.)
As a result, therapists “re-traumatize” their patients.
a new study on MAPs’ motivation to participate in therapy:
medical students’, general practitioners’ and psychiatrists’ attitudes to “pedophiles”: “would view patients who had sexually abused children or who would deny pedophilia as a problem more negatively than those who voluntarily sought help. The general practitioners tended to use stronger negative words than the psychiatrists, while the medical students were the most positive and felt interested and almost excited about encountering patients with pedophilia in the future.”
>the medical students were the most positive and felt interested and almost excited about encountering patients with pedophilia
Interesting. Unfortunately, this is only a Master’s thesis based on a very small sample if interviewees.
a new review of studies on the effectiveness of anti-MAP treatment:
anonymous treatment of CP-watching through the Internet is proved to be effective:
a new review of anti-MAP therapies:
in a new study psychologists “perceived aspects of (mandatory reporting) as having significant detrimental consequences for victims of abuse”:
a new text advertising neurofeedback as a means to treat sex offenders:
Interesting. Would appear to have very sinister implications, depending on how the feedback is used.
a new text on harmlessness of conversion therapy:
[…] Prejudice masquerading as therapy […]
I was starting to have a small amount of respect for Piers Morgan lately, With his attacking of the ‘rabid feminists’, protesting against Trump, with their wallowing in victimhood, and their contempt for the democratic process. piers soon resorts to the ignorance of pedo-hysteria to attack his opponent.
Surely one-shrink-fits-all, is mentally disordered with World AOCs 12 – 21?
I.E. one state’s UnkindPed, is another’s not-unkind-at-all!
Now that I think about it, Seto and co use this type of this child erotica material but do not take any of them into therapy.
Not sure what your point is here. Do you mean that Seto “and co” (which could be taken to include a lot of people BTW, doing a wide range of research and therapy) do not use child erotica as a therapeutic aid? That would certainly be an interesting idea! Are you criticising them for not doing so?
Please leave a rational reply.
Kind thought fer the day.
Wot if reinstated War Hero, Mentally Disordered CRIMINAL, now Highly Honored Homophile Turing – had bin a KINDERphile?!
Please leave a rational reply.
Which isn’t to say that I think you are a reptilian, Tom. I think you are one of the good aliens. But, seriously, this convergence of the Anonymous group with David Ike, and now David Wilcock and others re: paedophiles in high places, their secret cabals, their connection with the Illuminati, etc. seems like a re-emergence of the Satanic Panic. I think it might be good to take a serious look at what is happening here. Once again, it looks like a collective psychosis.
>convergence of the Anonymous group with David Ike, and now David Wilcock
You’re ahead of me on this one, Jim. I haven’t been keeping up with this stuff. Is this the Wilcock you mean: divinecosmos.com ? Looks like there isn’t even a Wikipedia entry on him. If you sense there is something big brewing with this convergence and have already read quite a bit about it, it would be great if you could find the time to do a guest blog here. It would take me more time to get up to speed.
I would love to discuss all of this further, and would be happy to do a guest blog, except I don’t feel that I know enough yet. Only in the last week or so have certain bits and pieces that I have picked up in a variety of places begun to converge into a new gestalt in my mind. It’s all very tentative – something I am just beginning to explore more systematically. In general what I am seeing is this: a new mythology, that in a number of ways is very similar to the mythology behind the old Satanic Panic, has been be emerging in a number of places. The Satanic scare that focused on the day care centers etc. in the 80s and into the 90s has been largely discredited for its giving too much credence to recovered memories, and for its putting forward some very absurd claims. See Interpreting the Satanic Legend
http://tinyurl.com/hvg6476. However, it appears that this mythology — or something very similar to it — has not ceased to maintain it hold on the minds of a great many people. It has, rather, just gone underground, only to emerge in a new form. This mythology seems to be an organizing gestalt for an number of groups that are concerned with the fact that our planet is being ruled by a very small number of incredibly wealthy people – bankers, CEO of multinational corporations etc. (the .0001%). I am sympathetic to their concerns, but find myself more than a little appalled at their irrationality. (Psychosis is mythology taken literally.) May God deliver me from my allies! Icke and Wilcock seem to be examples. Also, maybe the “Prison Nation” people. Possibly the Anonymous hackers. A part of this mythology seems to identify the .0001% as a big demonic pedophile ring. As you can imagine, that does concern me. I definitely want to explore this, but at this point I could hardly do more that state some of my suspicions.
(If we keep our mouths shut, Tom, maybe they won’t notice our reptilian tongues.)
>A part of this mythology seems to identify the .0001% as a big demonic pedophile ring.
Oh, right. I didn’t realise it goes beyond David Icke. Definitely worth watching and writing about.
Looks like there’s another link missing here, too, where you write “very absurd claims. See .”
Hi — Your program removed the links I put in. Perhaps it was because I used “tiny links.” Here is the full link for the “Hard Problem” article: and here is the one on the Satanic Panic: . Hope that works.
Still not getting them. Strange, WordPress is usually OK with links. By all means email them to me if you have time at firstname.lastname@example.org and I’ll cut/paste them in.
Links now received by email from Jim and added by me to the original posts. It is possible the WordPress software has a problem dealing with links generated using Linux. Does anyone else use it? Anyone else used it to post links and had problems, or maybe no problem?
Using BunsenLabs Linux, I usually have to insert the link on a new page, or it leaves it as plain text. But this is not a problem which always occurs on your or any other site. WordPress are probably using suse, or RLE, and just don’t like debian based distros. (Huge wink)
>just don’t like debian based distros.
Well, if I could understand the joke, I might well laugh! Thanks, BJ.
Ah, Tom, ’twas a bad joke anyway, especially as it is probably something to do with the CSS (the style); or it is related to specific browsers… or who knows, I’m insufficiently trained in such matters.
Thank you for your insights here, Jim. I made similar observations in a 2-part guest blog I did here a while back, talking about the mythology that has sprung up around the “dark web,” which alleges that it’s a horrific playground for sites of actual pics of real kids having been abused and murdered in the most grotesque manners, and that there is allegedly a large number of “bad pedophiles” who pay a fortune to see this “hurtcore.” Sound familiar? There are some members of our community who believe there just has to be some truth to that, which shows how strong an emotional chord such stories strike in the collective cultural zeitgeist. To me it sounds like a new version of the longtime “realm of danger” myth, which once placed this unknown frontier of terror on the then sparsely populated wilderness (remember the short story Young Goodman Brown?), but which now uses cyberspace as its modern choice.
I also noted that this mythology can take on entirely secular forms, which manifests today as the “VIP pedophile rings” of the British government (mentioned here in many of Tom’s blogs) and the sex trafficking paranoia (which has been similarly discredited but still widely believed by many, including, unfortunately, many in this community). The “stranger danger” phenomenon is another secular version of this constantly recurring hysteria that appeared alongside the Satanic Ritual Abuse myths that proliferated in the 1980s. The Slenderman mythos of the current decade is a fantastical meme that reflects this paranoia, as this entity is a classic archetypal bogeyman with all the usual features of both old and new incarnations of stranger danger: association with both the forest and cyberspace, preys upon kids, etc.
Very interesting post, Dissident. Social phenomena are driven by a number of factors – and one of them has to do with the power of archetypal myths. I have downloaded Hawthorn’s story for another reading. Right at this moment I am too busy with some other things to respond to you as fully as I would like. But the issue of how myths function in society, and their relevance for our concerns, seems very much worth pursuing. I will clear some time to begin to pursue this more intensely in the next few weeks. In the meantime, just in passing, let me mention the “snuff” films, and the stories that circulated during the middle ages about how Jews tortured and ate infants, as elements of mythological narratives that are relevant to our concerns.
Yes, the infamous “blood libel” myths, which continue to manifest in various forms. Also, note how the modern secular sexual trafficking paranoia is an updated version of the white slavery panic from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I covered these in my aforementioned 2-part guest blog, Part 1 of which is here: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/apple-bites-man-from-the-government/; and Part 2 of which is here: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/freedom-strangled-by-macabre-fantasies/
Note the excellent response to Part 1 in the comments section by A, as she provides some links to good info about the “blood libel” mythology of the past that corresponds to that of today. I certainly do mention the “snuff film” nonsense that accompanied the Satanic ritual abuse allegations during the 1980s. Thank you for your response and your very informative essays (I enjoyed reading the one on your blog dealing with the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria), I look forward to talking with you more in the future!
Jim, a possible explanation that appealed to me, appeared here: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/the-laws-against-abuse-images-are-abusive/#comments. Just search for: “Why does Society wallow in the fictional narrative of evil predators and defenceless children?”
A thoughtful and well stated point. (The description of the English system of law was quite funny.) What is the address of your blog?
It came from here: http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/catid,2/id,156560/#156632
Jim, may I ask you: is “Jay Edson” your literary pseudonym? Or Jay Edson is another person?
I read some of his writings, available via your website, that’s why I’m interested.
Yes, Jim H = Jay Edson. If the authorities come to question you about this, you must swallow your computer immediately.
I have been following this interesting discussion without commenting, because I have been too busy. But I feel impelled to respond on two points. First, I am sure there are good apples and bad apples in any profession, Tom, but I think you are naive re: psychiatry. As you may know, psychiatry enthusiastically supported and helped administer the Hitler’s plan to purify the race by killing Jews, the mentally ill, the retarded, gays and gypsies. Since then they have tried a number of other damaging procedures, including lobotomies, shock therapies and drugs that are known to damage the brain. In fact, every cure they have come up with works by either killing the patient, or by damaging the patient’s brain. Throughout all of this they fail to acknowledge the patient as having any real agency. Of course there are well meaning and kind people working in the mental health system, but as a whole it is a destructive movement. The refusal of most to engage in real dialog with the MAP “patients, is only a more extreme example of what they do elsewhere. I’ll catch the other point in another post.
Psychiatry, like religion, can be used oppressively. Personally, I would abandon religion for that reason, along with its irrationality; and I could say to believers like yourself that your faith is naive. Would that be helpful?
I don’t think it would, would it? It would imply that you are unaware of all the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion: the bloody crusades, the burnings at the stake, the tortures of the inquisition, the Isis beheadings… But you are aware, just as I am aware of the dark history of psychiatry. Accordingly, more has to be brought to the argument.
In my case against religion, I would focus as Dawkins did, on the irrationality of religion rather than its misuse, appalling as that has been.
So, bearing in mind that people really do suffer from terrible mental conditions such as psychosis, depression, schizophrenia and severe autism, what extra argument would you use against psychiatry?
Why would you want to disown and abandon science and medicine that brings the serious prospect of alleviating suffering? Admittedly progress has been much slower than the spectacular progress of medicine in tackling physical ailments such as infectious diseases, but that is because mental conditions are typically very complex. So is cancer, but the long battle of science against it is at last paying dividends. The history of scientific progress provides a sound basis for sticking with it: patience and persistence tend to pay off handsomely.
Note that I am not arguing here in favour of using psychiatry to “cure” paedophilia. Nor do I wish to deny that problems faced by paedophiles in our society, such as depression and suicidality, are largely the result of stigma and oppression. What I would say, though, is that there are many paeophiles and other MAPs who need help. The best way, where it is available, is through the social support offered by friends.
But psychotherapy can play its part too, especially — call this a bit cynical if you like — when you are paying for it. The paid-for therapist has a great reason to be on your side: he who pays the piper calls the tune! I also entirely accept that this recourse is not available to many, and that it is far more common for the state to be paying the piper, often via prison-based offender treatment programmes. And the tune they call is definitely not music to the ears of many in the audience!
I have to say, as a person who practised Traditional Chinese Medicine for a decade or two, that there are various formulas which can be of great use with depression and stress, without the need to discuss what actually is bothering you. In many places in the world these formulas can be purchased without even consulting a practitioner, and the appropriate formulas can be researched online. Psychiatry and psychology can be of use, but so can various forms of “alternative” medicine, and many needing help would be well rewarded by investigating TCM. And infinitely better than biomedical drugs: no side effects (unless you take the wrong formula for several months. Nothing is totally safe, after all, if used incorrectly). I offer this as a suggestion to those who may be depressed and stressed, but do not want to go the psychiatric route.
You make a number of good points – especially regarding the “dark side” of most human institutions. I think that our real differences are philosophical, and are related to how each of us deals with the “hard problem” (as it has been called) in philosophy – which has to do with the relationship between “mind” and “matter.” These issues may be more than what we want to get into in the forum here. Would love to spend an evening or two in an English pub discussing it with you. (For anyone interested, here is a fairly objective description of the “hard problem:” The Hard Problem
But before moving on, let me just make two observations. First, most educated people in the modern world are materialists. Dawkins, whom you cite, is an example. I suspect that you lean in this direction. I believe that the pan-psychic position has greater explanatory power and that it provides a better starting point for dealing with the “hard problem” than does either materialism or dualism.
My second point concerns the dark side of various movements. Here we may not be so far apart. I would agree that organized religion, taken as a whole, is more of a curse than a blessing for humanity. I believe that the same is true of the mental health establishment, taken as a whole. This second point may be something that merits further discussion as it does directly impact how MAPs are treated. Not sure where we want to go from here. Let me respond to your note on David Wilcock et al in another post.
>Would love to spend an evening or two in an English pub discussing it with you.
Would love such a discussion, and getting me into a pub is always very easy!
>(For anyone interested, here is a fairly objective description of the “hard problem:” )
Looks like there is a link missing here, Jim.
Would love such a discussion, and getting me into a pub is always very easy!
But how could I help contribute to such a pub-based discussion if I were present, considering I’m a teetotaler? :-\ In the past, I’ve been subjected to all types of criticisms in a pub setting (or bars, as we call them here) due to sitting there and imbibing 7-Up or ginger ale rather than alcoholic beverages.
>In the past, I’ve been subjected to all types of criticisms in a pub setting (or bars, as we call them here) due to sitting there and imbibing 7-Up or ginger ale
You can drink what you like as far as I am concerned, Dissy, just so long as I can too! As with sex, I am all in favour of self-determination! 🙂
Was it that obvious that I planned to insist on picking what you drink, including forbidding you to drink salt water? 😛
>including forbidding you to drink salt water
Well, I’m definitely happy to let you boss me around on that one! 🙂
In reference to your first observation, have you read the work of Dean Radin and Henry Stapp? Both of them should be easily found online, if you haven’t, though some of Stapp’s work is only available as a TeX file, and requires compliation.
Well.. No one finds that the Blogo resembles the illuminati symbol.. In the end David Icke was right! Tom, will not you be a reptilian who comes to dominate the world?
>Tom, will not you be a reptilian who comes to dominate the world?
Love the world domination idea; not so sure about the reptilian bit! As for David Icke, strangely enough we were colleagues back in the early 1970s: both of us were journalists on the Leicester Mercury newspaper.
Regarding the Asperger’s diagnosis, I wonder if they got the idea in part from Tony Attwood, widely regarded as an Asperger’s guru? I’ve had several autistic people in my life, so I ploughed through his Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome, and there is a brief comment near the end that as Asperger’s adolescents often lack “the usual social, sexual and sensual experiences of typical adolescents”, they may “develop sexually arousing fantasies involving objects, clothing, children or animals. The technical term is paraphilia. Acting out some paraphilias is illegal.”
Whether this is true or not I have absolutely no idea. But people with Asperger’s can be no more than a small minority of all MAPs, as of the general population. There are in fact many examples of MAPs who had/have superb social skills.
If we want to know how some little girls feel about soft-core, clothed erotic modelling of the type mentioned here, it doesn’t hurt to take a look at Toddlers and Tiaras (or is that going to land any possible MAP in a clinic now?). It’s a US reality-TV show about child beauty pageant contestants, specifically those in ‘glitz’ pageants, where the focus is on heavy makeup, spray tans, huge hair and bikinis, as opposed to ‘natural’ pageants, where dresses are simple no makeup is allowed for under-13s and there’s an interview component designed to showcase the child’s ‘personality’. Of course, the main point of the show is to allow people to get a kick, in whatever way they’re going to, from watching little girls dance in their skimpies, but to enjoy that kick guilt-free, because they get to look down on the parents who are putting their kids into glitz pageants and telling them to “flirt with the judges”. The show is clearly constructed for maximum tut-at-parents factor.
However, in the few episodes I’ve caught on TV at various times, some of the older girls have made interesting comments. I recall one self-possessed ten-year-old explaining that she had started doing pageants a year ago because she wanted to: it was all her own idea, not her mother’s. In another episode, a similarly self-possessed eleven-year-old, who arrived at the pageant hand in hand with her boyfriend, also eleven, said she’d done pageants as a small child, then quit to do dirt biking — but shortly before the programme was filmed, she’d sold her bikes to get back into pageants. A BBC programme called Baby Beauty Queens featured a somewhat feminine eight-year-old boy who had his heart set on being a model: again, his idea. His parents, who came across as loving and level-headed (though of course you can’t wholly trust this kind of heavily edited documentary), fulfilled his dream by taking him to a modelling session for, if I recall correctly, a kids’ clothes catalogue. He seemed pleased on the whole, if a little taken aback that modelling was harder, more boring work than he’d imagined.
There’s also — since the subject of transgender people has been raised — an interesting documentary on YouTube called My Transgender Summer Camp, about a, well, summer camp in the US for male-to-female kids. For many of the kids, the highlight of the whole week-long camp appears to be the final night, when they dress up fancy, put on makeup and model for their families. This kind of thing really appeals to a certain subset of kids. They get to show off and be the centre of attention and be admired and important. So I reacted with very mixed feelings to France’s 2013 ban on beauty pageants for under-16s. There has to be a way, short of a complete ban, to rein in the potentially harmful excesses of these things while leaving room for harmless exhibitionistic fun.
Actually, the ban is for girls aged less than 13. The excuse is “sexism” or “hyper-sexualization of girls”. In fact, contrarily to the USA, in France there are no pageants for boys, they exist only for girls. Many girls who participate in such contests come from lower social classes, while children of the elite are trained by their parents to get good marks at school and thus to prepare their later admission to the “Grandes Ecoles”.
First off, glad to see you active here again, A! I have seen Toddlers and Tiaras, and in my estimation the answer to whether or not such pageants are “good” or “bad” for the kids involved is clearly this: it all depends on the individual child in question. Some of them, who are merely little toddlers, seem almost born to strut on a stage, as they obviously thoroughly love the attention they are getting and love performing to a crowd. Others are not cut out for it, and clearly have to be “pushed” by their parents, and this is wrong. The same thing counts for older models. There is no intrinsic right or wrong with this sort of thing; there are many kids who are naturally shy in a way that makes them unsuited for such public scrutiny, whereas others are natural exhibitionists and show-boaters who live for being on the stage while scrutinized by an audience and a set of judges. How gracefully the models take the winning or losing factor of these pageants (which I agree should be controversial) also varies among the individual kids. If the winning or losing factor were taken out of the equation, I personally think these pageants are great ways to introduce some kids to the world of the entertainment industry, and to gain confidence in this manner.
Also of note is how many of the toddlers on this show appear very strong-willed and not easy to coerce or be talked into doing anything they do not want to do, often forcing their parents to cater to many of their wishes. I don’t think parents should be controlled by their kids anymore than the reverse, of course, but since the kids are putting themselves on the line, so to speak, I do think some of what they want should be listened to, as they actually do the main part of the work. Yes, parents do spend the money for the expensive dresses and training sessions, and are often very active in the whole thing, but it’s still not them doing the actual performance. And since children aren’t allowed to earn their own money (or have any control over it under the rare circumstances when they do), this aspect of the pageants currently has to be on the parents, grandparents, etc.
Thanks D. 🙂 ! And I agree with all your points!
I’m a bit biased because I did a lot of music as a kid and loved it, but one of the things I like about church choirs with boy or girl choristers is that the kids are often paid a small yearly stipend, increasing with increasing seniority, in recognition of their hard work and semi-professional contribution. It’ll buy them a few nice treats, but it’s nowhere near enough for significant savings, so it’s likely to stay in their hands, whereas kids who make a fair amount of money through modelling often don’t see any of it for years because their parents put it into a savings account for them to use when they’re older, to pay for college for instance — not that that’s a bad thing.
I enjoyed reading Alex Ko’s book From Iowa to Broadway: My Billy Elliot Story. It’s the autobiography of a child performer and valuable, I think, because it was written when he was only sixteen and it was all still fresh, rather than years later looking back. Doesn’t hurt that Alex was a gorgeous kid and a great dancer!
In the UK, jailed sex offenders may not read what they want, there is a list of banned materials, including Lewis Carroll’s nudes, and your “Paedophilia, the radical case”: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/451956/100048A0Chapter11InappropriateMaterialsGuidance2009.pdf
> including Lewis Carroll’s nudes
Nice to know I’m in good company! 🙂
Interestingly, I’m aware of cases, in the USA and Canada, when militant anarchists, being imprisoned for their militancy, continued to argue for their “extremist” views, via books and blogs, from prisons.
And, if they were allowed to propagate their “extremism” while being locked away by the state, it is quite probable they were allowed to read texts defending such views as well.
So, the UK imprisonment conditions are stricter than the ones of the USA and Canada? Or are they, actually? After all, this document seems to be a recommendation, rather then an obligatory directive. Maybe not all prisons follow it? Or they follow it, but just formally and without great enthusiasm?
I think Tom, with his two imprisonments (because of idiotic accusations), can speak from lived experience here. Tom, were your reading and other information access restricted while you were behind bars? If yes, how exactly?
Of course, memories of being in jail are not pleasant… but they can be informative for all of us!
>Tom, were your reading and other information access restricted while you were behind bars? If yes, how exactly?
Things change. I remember visiting a BL in prison, back in the early 1970s it would have been, and taking as a present for him a copy of a coffee-table volume called The Boy, subtitled a photographic essay on boyhood, or it may have been “the joys of boyhood”. He was allowed to have it in his cell. That same book was condemned as child-porn by the prosecution at Michael Jackson’s trial in 2005 after a copy was found at Neverland.
By the time I was first incarcerated, in 1981, things were somewhat more restricted than in the 70s. I was not allowed to keep a copy of my own book, Paedophilia: the Radical Case, in my cell, but I was permitted to have non-nude photos of attractive kids (not my own or related to me) pinned up on the wall! This did not go down at all well with some non-paedo cellmates, but so what? They had pix on display that suited their tastes.
These days (I was last inside in 2007) the reading etc. regime is much tighter. Not long ago the government tried to restrict prisoners’ access even to bona fide educational books being sent in — book about economics, physics, you name it. That didn’t last long. There was a big outcry; but there continues to be tight control on what sex offenders are allowed to read.
There is doubtless some local variation on how tight the restrictions are, but in general I doubt there is a great deal of latitude anywhere in the system.
I have reason to believe, BTW, that my Michael Jackson book is circulating quite a bit in US prisons but not in British ones.
Feminists, libertarians (whether anti-feminist or not) anti-fascists, anarchists, socialists, communists, marxists, democrats, greeners, liberals and all unequivocally pro-LGBT. The MAP movement has been taken irretrievably by the political left. Or maybe there’s no one on the right who supports MAPs? Think about it.
>Or maybe there’s no one on the right who supports MAPs? Think about it.
There were definitely prominent MAPs among the Nazis. Would that be a good reason for supporting the Nazis?
Admittedly, supporting the centre-right British Conservatives or US Republicans or German Christian Democrats would be a more acceptable way of turning to the right for many people, but is that where heretics might expect to find support? Hardly, not even if we count Trump as “sex positive” based on his personal enthusiasms!
I guess you mean alt.right, huh? In other words variations of the far-right that come with a lot of dangerous baggage.
Hardly, not even if we count Trump as “sex positive” based on his personal enthusiasms!
Here’s a conservative intellectual on GC:
The Donald is by far the Republican presidential candidate (never mind general election nominee, never mind President) with the most liberal positions on sexual issues ever. In some of them he is more liberal than Hellary. The only reasons I can think for you all to dislike him on these, sorry to say so, is either that he is a pedo (probably only a hebe, but same difference in the minds of most) although that isn’t your case, or that unlike Hellary he is a male…
The political Left attacked Trump for the horrible crime of finding young girls or women attractive. Does that indicate a friendly disposition to MAPs?
Well, my “ordered” friend-of-many-names, there seem to be a few right-wingers who support MAP movement – authors of ChildWiki, for example, who defend a right-wing free-market libertarianism.
As for the general right-versus-left classification, it should be noted that liberal (pro-freedom, yet also pro-state), libertarian (pro-freedom yet not entirely anti-state) and anarchist (pro-freedom and fully anti-state) movements are not, in themselves, “left” or “right”; all of them have their own “left-wingers” and “right-wingers” within.
For example, anarchism, while is commonly associated with leftism, contains some right-wing currents like anarcho-capitalism – free market without state regulation as an ideal. Or national-anarchism – “tribal anarchism”, as it might be more adequately called – a project to divide society into multitude of small, separate communities, segregated from other communities by some traits desired by community members – usually racial or ethnic ones, but not necessarily so.
Just to notice: neither anarcho-capitalism nor national-anarchism are anarchist currents which I support. The former will inevitably turn into triumph of succeed-or-die Social Darwinism – in its most merciless and inhuman version, since there would be no organised social support which – one need to admit it – somehow mitigates the perils of capitalism in modern Western states. The second, being simply “identity politics” absolutised, will result in re-tribalisation of society, a disruption of overarching social network into isolated, mutually hostile groupings with opressive ideocratic (or theocratic, or ethnicist/racialist) rule within each one of them – a rule which may result in even worse cruelty than current statist rule, since their would be no alternative social force to stand the opressed.
The particularities of my own anarchist preferences are pretty complex, so I will left them for some future time…
This is a far more sophisticated tour of the possibilities than mine was. Thanks, Explorer!
(answer to the question of bjmuirhead from below:)
Bjmuirhead the website Google Scholar shows 26 publications that cited the study “Gender differences in first sexual fantasies”. But I am not aware of any replicating studies.
Some other interesting studies about that topic are: Kenrick et al. (1996): Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies – Antfolk et al. (2015): Women’s and men’s sexual preferences and activities with respect to the partner’s age: evidence for female choice – Tikoo (1996): Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors of School Students (Grades 6-12) in India.
Bruce Rind described some important studies about that topic: “A notable feature of research into the gay male experience has been the documentation of the development of same-sex sexual attractions and desires (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1997, 2006). As discussed previously, these emerge on average at age 10. Importantly, such attractions and desires are frequently directed at significantly older youths or adults, rather than just peers (e.g., McClintock&Herdt, 1996; Savin-Williams, 1997). For example, Trachtenberg (2005) compiled anecdotes of first same-sex attractions in a sample of gay men, who had achieved celebrity status in their profession. From the 20 cases providing enough information, 18 were directed at adult men. Among these 18 cases, in the 15 where their ages could be determined, the mean age of onset of the age-gap attractions was 9.73 years (SD=2.81). In his study of 129 gay and bisexual young men, Savin-Williams (1997) noted how frequently initial attractions were directed at significantly older males rather than peers. Spada (1979) found that 35% of his participants developed homoerotic desires and crushes before age 10, with an additional 41% by age 14. In the 18 illustrative examples he provided, these initial attractions were directed at older youths and men, as opposed to peers, by a margin of 4:1. In Jay and Young’s (1977) 33 illustrative examples, 61% of initial erotic attractions were directed at men or much older youths, while only 27% were directed at peer-aged boys. In The National Lesbian and Gay Survey (1993), 17 (68%) of 25 illustrations of early boyhood crushes and homoerotic desires were directed at men.” (Rind, Bruce (2013): Homosexual Orientation – From Nature, Not Abuse: A Critique of Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42 (8) 1653-1664.)
A mine of information. Superb!
Thanks for that, I now have all of them bar the first reference on gender difference in first sexual fantasies. There seems to be something wrong with the doi…
This is a good film, ‘Vinyan’, About a couple who go searching for their son, who just may be alive. But they encounter an island full of mostly boys, with devastating consequences:http://www.film4.com/reviews/2008/vinyan
Tom, after you included anti-feminist Eivind Berge’s blog in your blogroll, you – I think – should include a sex-positive, child-liberationist feminist blog for the sake of balance. Visitors should see that both (non-misogynist) anti-feminist and (sex-positive) feminist perspectives are welcome on your blog, and (polite) debate is appreciated.
Judith Levine’s blog is a good candidate for blogroll inclusion:
We should recognise all positions that may work for societal acceptance of intergenerational sexuality!
>Judith Levine’s blog is a good candidate for blogroll inclusion
Excellent idea! Thanks, Explorer!
And, Tom – did you notice (you probably did) that you have two links to the Eivind Berge’s blog, one of them with the web address itself instead of name? Two links to one blog is a bit too much, I suppose – one with a name would be enough! 😉
Shit! OK, I’ll fix it. Thanks!
For me, the fundamental question, and the primary choice one have to made, is not between psychiatry and anti-psychiatry, or psychology or anti-psychology, but between coercion and anti-coercion – between initiation of violence against other people “for their own good” and acceptance of everyone’s freedom of choice.
There are a lot of mutually contradictory medical schools and approaches; there are some good evidence that each of them does work beyond placebo, at least sometimes, to someone, in some cases and with some conditions. Does one prefer mainstream allopathic medicine, or any of alternative approaches like homeopathy, acupuncture, holistic medicine, or even psychic healing? Or just one reject any treatment? It is one’s choice, one’s opinion, which may be agreed with or disagreed with by others. But others have no right to force people out of their views, and to prevent them forcibly from making their medical choices.
With everyone concerning minds, the situation is the same: one has freedom to believe or disbelieve in psychoanalysis, of any school, be it classical Freudian one, or Adlerian individual psychology, or Jungian depth psychology, or Lacanian semiotic approach, or even Reichian orgonomy, and make one’s choice according to one’s preference. The same goes for cognitive-behavioral therapies. For spiritual approaches like ones of Esalen Insitute and IONS. It’s one choice, which cannot be forcibly cancelled by others.
And the only way to prevent coercion is deinsitutionalisation. And the only way of real deinsitutionalisation, in my opinion, is creation of non-state, post-state free society – as long as there would be a state, there would be selective institutionalisation of some theurapetic approaches and dismissal of others.
And as for today, we can at least learn to “agree to disagree” and accept that we can never convince everyone that we are right – especially since there is always a chance that we might be wrong. Debate is neccessary, of course, but sometimes it’s better to search for the points of agreement (and potential cooperation) rather spending time arguing about differences in worldviews. For example, we here agree that violent suppression of children’s sexuality, paedosexuality and intergenerational sexuality is wrong – and this is what keeps us here together, despite strong disagreements in other areas (such as BJ Muirhead’s and my support of parapsychology and alternative medicine and Christian’s and LSM’s rejection of it). This common cause is primary here, whil other issues are secondary (even if they sometimes can also provoke an interesting off-topic discussion, as once happened).
So, my position summarised: no coercion, never. Everything else is debatable and subject to one’s personal preference.
>…the only way of real deinsitutionalisation, in my opinion, is creation of non-state, post-state free society
I have yet to see a plausible model of such a society, still less an actual example of one. That apart, I find much to agree with in what you say.
“With everyone concerning minds, the situation is the same: one has freedom to believe or disbelieve in psychoanalysis, of any school, be it classical Freudian one, or Adlerian individual psychology, or Jungian depth psychology, or Lacanian semiotic approach, or even Reichian orgonomy, and make one’s choice according to one’s preference. The same goes for cognitive-behavioral therapies.”
Maybe one’s preference should be predicated on having first discerned the strength of scientific evidence underpinning any single school. I am thinking particularly of ‘the dominant force within applied psychology’: cognitive behavioural therapies here. This link: melbournelacanian.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/a-critique-of-cbt-as-ideology-part-1/ evidences CBT’s harmfulness, including its application in torture. Where was it pioneered? None other than the USAxis of evil.
An example here of the misuse of psychotherapies, on this occasion RMT (recovered memory therapy) applied to Thomas Quick (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall), Sweden’s Hannibal Lecter, who confessed to 30 murders whilst incarcerated in a mental institution for 23 years. “The handling of the Quick cases has been described as the ‘most scandalous’ chapter of Scandinavian crime history, branding it as glaring incompetence, naiveté, and opportunism within the police and judicial system.”
“In the world of ward 36, everything worked backwards. The more murders Bergwall confessed to, his therapists reasoned, the better person he became. By confronting these violent acts as his repressed memories returned, it became less likely that he would reoffend.
‘I would see their faces light up. I just wanted them to be happy. I told them stories and they repaid me in the things I craved: benzodiazepam and love.’
They offered him incentives to ‘remember’ more vividly. Taking long walks around the nearby lake would, his therapists reasoned, help him with his recollections. Whenever he told them how he had raped, killed and dismembered a child he was told how brave he was to face up to these difficult memories.
‘I often wished my stories were true’, he says, his face contorting into an embarrassed grimace. ‘I felt there was an expectation for more, and I didn’t want to let them down. And lying is easy when you’re saying the things people want to hear.’”
This case really beggared belief didn’t it? It’s worth mentioning that he was convicted for 8 of the “confessed” murders. All those convictions have now been quashed. But even after this it was not that easy to have him released from “care”. “Molestations of boys” was on his previous record, which may provide a clue to his scandalous treatment by mental health professionals and the legal system.
Everyone who likes a “child” under 18 (then the final limit will be at 21 even 23 or more) is a pedophile that is the current real definition and the only one that matters
Just read and then decide if is correct or not:
“My belief is that using the civil law is now the best bet. I do not want to say too much about it at the moment but I am currently engaged in the initial stages of one myself.”
Excellent Tom, I for one will keep fingers crossed for a successful outcome.
There have been two recent studies done that discuss the fact that “therapy” for pedophiles often attempts to change them and their views in ways which would be deemed unacceptable for any other population (you can them here: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/45135 and here: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1007/s10612-016-9342-7). As one study wrote: “who is this therapy truly meant to serve, the patient or society?” Now, how to get through to the mental health profession that such therapy is unacceptable may prove to be difficult – newer studies will likely not be part of the curriculum for any mental health profession, and so they will be fed the same “harm prevention” model that plagues us. Therapists who reach out to see pedophile-positive research very well may be the same therapists who wouldn’t buy into ineffective prevention and therapeutic measures in the first place.
At the current moment, the only things I can think of are mass protests of such forced therapies (via letter-writing campaigns, repeated phone calls to congressmen and legislatures, canvassing, etc.) or more pedophiles actually getting themselves involved as mental health professionals or workers within the criminal justice system. I’m personally involved in the latter, as somebody who is now studying in the field of social work.
And, since several commenters have shared their experiences, I’ll share mine – a positive one, for a change. When I first restarted therapy after a few years, I made sure to e-mail several different therapists in my area armed with questions regarding how they viewed pedophilia and whether they would make any attempts to “treat” it. I, of course, got several answers about how they’d be interested in seeing “what made me become a pedophile” or “help me change my sexuality,” but I also got one from a therapist who told me that she would make no attempt to change me or change my views. I have been seeing her for about a year now, and she has told me several times that through talking with me she has learned a whole lot about pedophilia and the community – at one point she even talked about NAMBLA in a positive light. She’s repeatedly told me that it’s a great idea for me to get into social work and the mental health field because she believes that I can then help those who want humane treatment that doesn’t attempt to mold them into different people.
>I also got one from a therapist who told me that she would make no attempt to change me or change my views
That’s very good news. I’m not going to ask in public, as it were, who she is, because it might very well lead to her being denounced. I hope those in need can be discreetly made aware of her work though, and how to contact her.
“There have been two recent studies done that discuss the fact that “therapy” for pedophiles often attempts (…)”
It is a different topic but I am deeply convinced that “pedophiles” and “pedophilia” do not exist in reality. They are mental constructs in our heads. It would be the same mistake to believe sporties (sporty people) and non-sporties (not sporty people) exist, although of course for example people who are very sporty exist. It seems there are three studies about the latent structure of “pedophilia” and two of these studies say it is dimensional and not discrete. Generally psychological constructs are far more often dimensional than discrete. The basic concept of “pedophiles” and “pedophilia” was invented by Richard von Kraft-Ebing and he was kind of mad, just read his other texts. Science learned in the last about 70 years that human beings can not be divided into “races” in the way some scientists believed and science will hopefully learn in the future that the current concept of “pedophilia” is wrong too. It would be better and much less stigmatizing to use the word pedosexuality for a sexual interest in children. Children, juveniles and adults can be pedosexual and most of the people are pedosexual at least sometimes in their life. Minor-attraction is normal, although someone with a sexual preference for prepubescents is not the norm.
Hebephilia and epebophilia are also artificial creations of psychiatry so would you name and consider those attractions in a way that does not stigmatize those who have them?
One idea for the future of science to use words that do not stigmatize would be this: Children, juveniles and adults can be pedosexual, hebesexual and ephebosexual (and teleiosexual and so on). A pedosexual person (a child, a juvenile or an adult) has a sexual interest in prepubescents, a hebesexual person has a sexual interest in pubescents and an ephebosexual person has a sexual interest in juveniles (and so on). According to these definitions most 11-year olds would probably be pedosexual, hebesexual and ephebopsexual (and often teleiosexual and so on), some 11-year olds might have for example an ephebosexual or a teleiosexual preference. Science knows that homosexual feelings often start in childhood and often labels children as homosexual. And some children for example on Youtube say they are gay. It is partly similar with pedosexual, hebesexual and ephebosexual feelings, so it makes sense to label prepubescents and pubescents with such words too. It would be totally normal for example to be hebesexual because it is normal that pubescents have sexual feelings for persons of their own age. From my point of view our movement should prefer the term minor-attraction and minor-attracted-persons.
It makes sense but maybe there would be some problems with minor-attracted concept: If I think it is wrong for non-children to be “minors”? Would not I be saying that I am attracted to something that I do not even recognize its validity? Besides the fact that they considered me a minor when I was under 18 but no longer biologicaly a child (and that they consider minors the capable beings that I am attracted to) is the most humiliating thing that has happened to me in life. That’s stigma.
“l because it is normal that pubescents have sexual feelings for persons of their own age”
Maybe in our current sociological climate; What about previous societies, tribes etc, where there is not nuclear family; I think you will find, say, young girls being attracted to young and older men; Not just to those that are their closest peers, where the close-in-age peers is their only option?
I totally agree Libertine. As I wrote it is normal that pubescents desire pubescents but it is of course also totally normal that pubescents desire adults. There is one very interesting and important study from 1991 where 127 male US-students where asked about the content of their two first sexual fantasies that they remembered. Mean age at first remembered sexual fantasy was 11,5 years. The content described was most often older persons (43 x), group sex (21x), cinema heroes (13x), foreigners (4x) and getting caught/watched (1x). The 138 female students also fantasized about older persons most often (older persons 14x, cinema heroes 14x, foreigners 8x, getting caught/watched 6x, group sex 7x – mean age at first remembered fantasies was 12,9 years for females). This study shows clearly that it is totally normal that children and juveniles often desire older persons. Source: Gold et al. (1991): Gender differences in first sexual fantasies. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 17 (3) 207-216.
Important data. Thanks, Filip!
Filip, do you know if there were any follow up articles or replicating studies? I’ve done a search, and turned up nothing. (But I’m also fairly useless at this type of search. Usually get my kids to do it for me because they’re better at searching than I am.)
Well, I am glad someone else has finally said something close to what I believe. What I believe, based on my research (though I haven’t yet written about it—I’m still trying to work out how to write it clearly), is that paedosexuality is absolutely normal (normative, if you prefer). In other words,
I also do not think “paedophilia”, as currently conceived, exists (though, I use the term a lot, and nearly always regret using it.)
My reasons for this belief are several, but these are the most important:
Firstly, there is the nature of sex, which we in the west define very narrowly, but which I think needs to be broader.
Secondly, there is the anthropological and archaeological evidence that paedosexuality has been practised throughout human history.
Thirdly, there is the fact that non-paedophiles can become sexually aroused by children in appropriate situations. (Hasn’t happened to me, but I’ve heard about it.)
Perhaps the only time when the term paedophilia might be used accurately is when a person is solely attracted to children.
As I said, I’m still working out my thoughts on this, so I would appreciate references to the articles you mentioned in your post.
Damn, sorry, I believe I already ahve the references. My bad.
>Perhaps the only time when the term paedophilia might be used accurately is when a person is solely attracted to children.
Well, that certainly applies to me; and, like Descartes, I do rather like to think I exist.
However, I take Filip’s point that orientations are on a continuum, not taxonomically separate. This could be politically important in a positive way but it can also be flipped over and used to our great disadvantage. The gay movement benefited enormously, especially in the US, from insisting that gay men are “born that way”, with a distinct orientation. It enabled them to combat the conservative claim that their gayness was just a trivial hedonistic lifestyle choice.
If you go the other way with paedophilia, saying it doesn’t exist as a separate entity because everyone has sexual feelings towards kids, that would (a) not be true because most really do not, or at least most men do not have a strong measured sexual response to kids, though I’m sure Filip can point to data that challenge this at the margins, possibly taking those with a significant sexual response to kids up to a little over 50%; and (b) it will be argued that if most people have these feelings but keep them in check, not openly expressing them, then it shows that restraint is possible and there is no excuse for anyone to be actively paedophilic. It will empower people like Paul Fedoroff, who claim to be able to shift people’s sexual “interests” (not orientation) away from minors.
The strange thing is that I both agree, and disagree with you. This is one of the reasons why I haven’t yet successfully written about this.
Perhaps what I should say, or have said, is that every human is potentially paedophilic in their sexuality. But culture and upbringing (canalisation, as Robert Heinlein called it), ensure that paedosexuality is unlikely to be experienced by the majority of people. Something I have been thinking about, e.g., is whether or not a person without any paedosexual inclinations could be encouraged to feel them. This, after all, is the type of claim made by people such as Australia’s Hetty Johnston. (I won’t link to her. Look her up if you wish to be offended yet again.)
Do I think that some people simply are “born that way”, that their paedosexuality exists without choice? Of course there are. I cannot change my sexuality, the type and age of women I prefer. Why should I believe that this isn’t the case for others, e.g., you, and others here?
Perhaps one way of approaching whatever it is in my head that’s trying to find expression refers to heterosexual men who have no opportunity for heterosexual activity. Some of them are capable of homosex, others are not. Those who do engage in homosex revert to pure heterosex when they can.
I admit, if it isn’t obvious, that I am not quite making sense, even to myself. And yet I cannot help but believe that all forms of sexual behaviour are potentially available to all of us, even if we cannot actually choose to change our sexuality.
You understand now, I am sure, why I am experiencing great difficulty in presenting what I suspect to be true; it always is difficult to say both that a is true, and that a is not true: trying to include the middle in western thought is problematic, even though the middle usually is where truth (of some type) is discovered.
“Well, that certainly applies to me; and, like Descartes, I do rather like to think I exist.”
I also think that you Tom exist. You and your feelings are real (if life is not just a dream what some philosophers say). Of course persons with a preference for prepubescents (another mental construct) exist and yes most adults don´t have any strong interest in prepubescents and lots of adults have no interest at all in prepubescents. Sexual interest in children is probably a continuum as described by Kinsey for “homosexuals”. And the sexual age preferences of men probably show a normal distribution. The peak preference is according to studies probably about 19 years and the younger and the older the age is apart from that peak age the less frequent are the sexual age preferences for that age. That shows that no objective “pedophilia” exists in reality. “Pedophilia” is a mental construct we use when we think about the reality.
“”If you go the other way with paedophilia, saying it doesn’t exist as a separate entity because everyone has sexual feelings towards kids”
From my point of view it doesn´t matter if 85 % or 25 % of men have sometimes in their adult life a sexual feeling for a child or children – “pedophilia” is still a continuum.
“Well, I am glad someone else has finally said something close to what I believe.”
Actually Edward Brongersma already described “pedophilia” as a continuum in the 1970is/80is.
(German sources: Brongersma, Edward (1977): Pädophilie und “Kinderschänder”. Unterschiedlichkeit der Begriffe. Sexualpädagogik, 5 (1) 17-25. – Föhrding, Peter (1980): Die pädophile Beziehung. Peter Föhrding sprach mit dem niederländischen Juristen und Politiker Dr. Edward Brongersma. In: Hohmann, Joachim S. (Hrsg.) (1980): Pädophilie Heute. Berichte, Meinungen und Interviews zur sexuellen Befreiung des Kindes. Frankfurt, Berlin: Foerster Verlag, S. 137-147.)
I hope you really write your article!
At some stage my view will be coherently worked out, and written out. Right now I am working on the idea of paedophilic behaviour. Unfortunately it is proving difficult to find work which discusses, analyses, and defines paedophilic behaviour which extends beyond actual physical contact, which is necessary because, looking at children in public places is counted as paedophilic behaviour, and as indicative of a person being a “paedophile” if they are observed looking.
Fair enough, in the sense that any human can get sexual jollies merely looking at someone they desire. But if merely looking is enough… then is someone who watches the next door neighbour’s kids play in their yard a paedophile? Does merely looking define a sexual desire? I don’t believe that it does, and I certainly don’t think that looking in itself is enough to define or prove paedosexuality.
The exception may be if someone is looking at photographs of children engaged in sexual behaviour, with other children, or with adults. But I doubt even that. I’ve looked at gay porn at various stages of my life, but am not gay or attracted to men except in a purely aesthetic way. What I mean is, I’ve photographed and drawn men, with my artist’s cap on, without any sexual desire, but a thorough appreciation of how those en looked physically. If we extend the idea that merely looking at children, naked or otherwise, is paedophilic behaviour and that you therefore are a paedophile, then I believe we begin to get into real conceptual and legal difficulty. For example:
In Queensland it is illegal to take a photograph of a “child” under the age of 18, without their parent’s written consent, and the photograph, if the “child” is naked, must not show their genitals. This effectively renders many baby photographs, taken by parents, illegal, it makes them “child exploitation material”. At the same time, it is perfectly legal for an adult of any age to engage in sex with someone 16 or older. (With the exception of anal penetration, which is illegal until age 18 for both males and females.)
This type of legal situation is common to many countries, and in respect of photography, it makes looking illegal. How long before it becomes illegal to look as one walks down the street? How long before the police will be called because a man is watching the kids next door? I am sure it has happened already; I just don’t know about it.
I should point out that nothing I have said here denies that paedosexuals (that is nicer than paedophile, isn’t it?) look because of their sexual interest. I merely deny that looking is definitive of paedosexuality, and can define someone as paedosexual. At best, looking is suggestive, but not definitive, simply because one can look, with pleasure, at people in whom one has no sexual interest at all.
On the other hand, if merely looking is indicative of paedosexuality, then the majority of humanity… well, the conclusion is absurd.
Sorry, big comment, but this is where my thinking is going at the moment, and I think it will help me work out the more difficult areas I’m thinking about.
If someone clarifies or at least gives me a clue why sex is legal (although limited in a thousand ways possible) with people over 16 if sex with “children” under 18 is always considered an aberration, I will be eternally grateful.
I wouldn’t even try to explain that. I think it is inexplicable, in any sensible manner.
Actually, Filip, if you have any english references for paedophilia being a continuum, I would appreciate it. Searching google scholar without great success.
Here we go bjmuirhead:
Mackaronis et al. (2011): The Latent Structure of Multiphasic Sex Inventory–Assessed Pedophilic Interest. Psychological Assessment, 23 (4) 1017–1022.
In the next article which is currently online for free another study is mentioned on page 4 of 6:
Seto, Michael C. (2017): The Puzzle of Male Chronophilias: Response to Commentaries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, published online January 5th 2017. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1007/s10508-016-0922-0?author_access_token=rdOD_0zkZbfZAkY08SPXsve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY63Upn0jvPjZRNRG6fMb_nT8rOT1XpnHPTX0OO76NJ-wH4QX0OmFwdqYZ-3heqXKu0Nk8MKBGo7fuxAaS02pdo5auIfCVqaHxUAiRb-rC3TDA%3D%3D
Thanks. The Mackaronis paper is available on researchGate. Reading now.
“As one study wrote: “who is this therapy truly meant to serve, the patient or society?””
Does anybody know the title of that study? Thanx in advance.
Sorry, I should’ve specified. The study that quote came from is the first one I linked, titled “Self-Identifications, Sexual Development, And Wellbeing In Minor-Attracted People: An Exploratory Study” (https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/45135).
I survived two years of intensive ‘therapy’ at my local Perveratorium (CSOGP), courtesy of the local Court Order. The brainwashing techniques didn’t work on me either and this left them very frustrated! I challenged everything!
I also got visits from the local Pervert Squad (Offender Management Unit) of the cops.
Having completed nearly 300 hours of Communist Service with real Criminal Scum, I told them that us uncommon criminals shouldn’t be made to mix with the usual thugs and paedo haters!
To be honest, the whole thing has left me bitter, angry and far more militant than I ever was before!
>The brainwashing techniques didn’t work on me either and this left them very frustrated! I challenged everything!
Excellent! Great to hear it!
Some of the ‘Programme Delivery Team’ aka Criminal Justice Socialist Workers wanted to change jobs afterwards. LOL.
They weren’t Therapists or anything like that. I called the whole thing ‘psychobabble’! The difference between a therapist and the rapist is a space!
The scheme they now run is called Moving Forward Making Changes.
Hello, thoughtsofadeviantdissident, my name is Stephen and I have been collecting stories of MAPs with poor experiences of the mental health profession in the UK with a view to making representations of some sort to the relevant authorities (or for any other purpose that will advance the interests of MAPs). Would you be interested in contacting me to provide me with more information about your case? Tom can vouch for me. My email address is email@example.com.
>Tom can vouch for me.
Very good and very important idea and project Stephen. Maybe it would be a good idea if you, me or someone else would post a short message about your project at http://www.boychat.org so people from there can get in contact with you, too.
Yes, that would be a good idea, Filip. I will probably elaborate a bit on what I said above and then post the resulting message on Boychat and Girlchat. If you can think of any other suitable forums, let me know.
All are under 23, they can not consent to cowardly kill an alleged pedophile, do not have the brain fully developed to know the consequences of their actions, pray for these kids victims of paedophilia
These teens are the biggest fucking morons ever, sadly I am part of that generation of teens… Fuck me.
Hey Tom, what happened to your website ‘Dangerous Books’?
Good question. It must have only just disappeared. Did I forget to pay the webhosting fee? I’ll look into it.
In the meantime, Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons is available online from SafeSend here:
[TOC: THE FOLLOWING, FROM A READER IN AUSTRALIA, IS AN ACCOUNT OF HIS APPALLING EXPERIENCE OF “THERAPY” THERE. HE PREFERS NOT TO POST TO H-TOC DIRECTLY.]
I wonder what the author of “Prejudice masquerading as therapy” would think of the two unqualified females who oversaw the ‘course’ that I endured!
His amazingly detailed analysis would probably have to be shrunk to a few angry lines.
When one guy — who was later was fired from the group — asked what their qualifications were, one mumbled something about a ‘certificate of counselling’; the other was equally vague about working towards a ‘diploma’…
The latter was the lead feminazi and she once held forth at great length about our sexual orientation being ‘learned behaviour’! She also had to have it pointed out to her that one of her citations of female ‘victimhood’ — who had herself been molested as a child — was suffering from Munchausen’s Syndrome as a result, when actually it was Munchausen’s-by-proxy that she was describing… The ‘victim’ had been poisoning and physically harming her own child in order to create attention for herself.
The guy who later got himself fired, asked if ‘that mad bitch was sent to prison for her crimes’ — and after that, he was on his way out of the group and therefore, no parole…
Apart from small technicalities like that, neither of these women seemed even slightly overawed by the fact that three of the people they were so tirelessly patronising, were themselves university educated.
The written course materials were really the final nail on the coffin. They held printed references to papers written in Australia and elsewhere, even before consenting adult homosexuality was legal!
Using such antediluvian material, and in such and an ignorant and patronising manner, had the desired effect, though. Even though several of our members did not aspire to high levels of education, they were none of them fools.
Tacitly, we all resolved to agree with every bit of nonsense these two women spouted. We nodded and smiled, ticked the boxes and passed the course!
Just prejuice??? #notallpsychologist??? Damn you be Tom, you and all those who do not condemn psychiatry without remedy, cursed are those who believe in them and damn all their creations, psychiatry is the devil the most perverse creation of humanity, the psychiatrist is to be smarter Liar of history, where they settle down reduce everything to misery, thieves and corruptors of minds and young people, are an anti-science a destructive sect dedicated to the slavery of humanity .. damn them and all who do not seek their Absolute destruction, and if you do not approve this comment I do not care I will not waste my time with addicts to psychiatry this disgusting aberration is the only one that goes to the trash bin and their adolescence hebephilia , ephebophilia.. and its lies and inventions, ban psychiatry now!!!!
>ban psychiatry now!!!!
I’m afraid you’re barking (if you’ll excuse the expression) slightly up the wrong tree on this one, APO. It’s mainly the cognitive-behavioural psychologists who are behind the worst “offender” therapy these days, not the psychiatrists. Psychiatry continues to have its own bad practices, for sure; but there are also plenty of very humane, non-judgemental practitioners — especially if you have the money to be a private client and actually want their services, as opposed to having them thrust unwillingly upon you.
There has of course been a significant anti-psychiatry movement. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry
I would point out that a psychiatrist, Richard Green, made a bold if unsuccessful bid in 2002 to have paedophilia de-listed as a mental disorder. This followed his earlier, more successful work towards getting homosexuality de-listed.
“It’s mainly the cognitive-behavioural psychologists who are behind the worst “offender” therapy these days, not the psychiatrists. Psychiatry continues to have its own bad practices, for sure; but there are also plenty of very humane, non-judgemental practitioners — especially if you have the money to be a private client and actually want their services, as opposed to having them thrust unwillingly upon you.”
Well I am afraid that is not a very helpful observation for a MAP who visits a mental health practice, either because he was recommended to do so by his doctor or because he was forced to do so by the inquisition. Once inside the building, how does one know who the good guys and who the bad guys are; how does one know what to say and what not to say? Such an observation is useless when lunatics are in control of asylums.
I went to an NHS mental health practice – so all at nil cost – on the recommendation of and introduction by my NHS family doctor of very many years. Staff included both psychiatrists and psychoanalysts. It was only after four interviews that I discovered the truth about the treachery endemic within the UK mental health care system. They rated me as being at significant risk from suicide or self-harm at the very first meeting. The Hippocratic Oath concerning patient confidentiality became irrelevant once I confided the nature of my sexuality in the interim. From that point on, I immediately assumed the stereotypical guise of Leper, Jew, Black, Gay in their estimation and thenceforth had my human right to being treated humanely, rendered void. At the fourth meeting they advised me they had alerted the police: “There is a MAP at large”. This action on their part triggered my suicide attempt on the same day. The obligation of the State to protect the right to life was swept aside by State mental health professionals in my case.
Bottom line: no MAP should ever confide in any mental health professional anywhere so long as discriminatory mental health guidance (wherever it is lodged), for example: that contained within the APA’s DSM5, categorises paedosexuality as a mental disorder and directs mental health professionals to ignore confidentiality even if the consequences could be fatal for the patient.
But was not a “mental disorder” only being an active pedophile seeking sex with children? Or is still considered all pedophilic attraction a disorder? Please clarify me the point if you can.
People often talk about the DSM definition (i.e. the American psychiatric manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5) but there is a simpler one more often used by medical professionals. This is the The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which defines paedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. The ICD-10 diagnostic criteria do not require actual sexual activity. The diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon.
Tom, you almost make the ICD10 sound like a must-read. But even the ICD10 lists Paedophilia as a mental disorder here: icd10data.com/ICD10CM/DRG/887.
ICD is short for International Statistical Disease and Related Health Problems and DSM is short for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as far as I can tell. The overwhelming impression I get from these titles, which include the words DISEASE, MENTAL DISORDER and MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, is that they promote the idea that minor-attracted individuals have something significantly wrong with them. This empowers mental health professionals (the Mengeles as I call them), to either recommend prosecution of such individuals or to suppress the invalid sexuality of the individual through mental abuse (therapy) or physical abuse (medication). Society is not slow to pick up on this legalised discrimination. In the absence of any law forbidding discrimination on the basis of a minor-attracted sexual orientation as far as I can see, society has free reign to persecute that invalidity aided and abetted all the while by increasingly discriminatory laws.
Basically I agree with you on the substantive point that the medical manuals are damaging and need to be changed. That is the most important thing but I do not think your criticism of my post was well founded. You wrote:
>Tom, you almost make the ICD10 sound like a must-read. But even the ICD10 lists Paedophilia as a mental disorder
Feinmann, I was simply answering a factual question with a factual answer. Is it helpful to insist that every contribution here should be an emotional rant? There are times for anger but also times for calm reflection based on trying to make fair and accurate view of the available information rather than distorting it through the prism of zealotry.
>ICD is short for International Statistical Disease and Related Health Problems
As the initials suggest, it is short for International Classification of Diseases (ICD), as I said. There is a longer title, as you say, but the correct version is The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
The shorter version is the one most commonly used, including by mental health professionals and by the World Health Organisation itself, which publishes the book. The word “disease” is in the title, which I quoted. That was a sufficient clue, I suggest, to alert readers to the fact that this manual assesses paedophilia as a disease, or mental disorder.
Whether that makes it a “must-read” depends on the reader. It will not be a must-read for heretics here who wish merely to be entertained or comforted. But that does not stop it being an important read for anyone who wants to know what the medical profession thinks. They, after all, make lots of key decisions about our lives. We cannot hope to challenge their thinking without first understanding it.
I’ll try to find time to answer your other comment separately. I could dash something off quickly but there is at least one point you raised that demands some thought.
I will say this though: in an earlier comment not addressed to me you put forward the idea of a class-action lawsuit of some kind. That is a great idea if we can find the right case – one that lots of us can rally around and where there is a good chance of winning.
Tom, the must-read comment was tongue-in-cheek – I do have a sense of humour too, and yes, I am guilty of ranting about the psychiatric profession for the reasons I have already mentioned. No way will I apologise for that. The way our minority group seems to roll over and do virtually nothing as a group to stem the tide of the discrimination meted out by professionals, may go some way to explaining why we are where we are – nowhere and powerless – and have been for what, for more than sixty years now, ever since DSM2 classified paedophilia as a sexual deviation. Even the Wikipedia entry for Paedophilia today describes the phenomena as a psychiatric disorder.
>The way our minority group seems to roll over and do virtually nothing as a group
Feinmann, you are not a young man but you are writing like one at this point. That would be good if it simply indicated fire in the belly and a determination to get things done. But it is also a young man’s comment in that it appears to be made in ignorance of efforts that have been made by activists around the world since the 1970s, especially in those countries most affected by the onslaught against minor attraction: in addition to the Anglosphere, there have been attempts to generate and mobilise a sense of Kind community in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Spain and elsewhere.
Some of them started with a bang but all have been ineffective in the long-term. Why? I could reel off a string of reasons because I have given it plenty of thought: unlike gay people we do not naturally congregate together in physical locations such as pubs and clubs that can become a springboard for revolt, like Stonewall; even more problematic is that our most obvious allies, children, are hampered by their inexperience and dependence on others from speaking up for us and with us; with their voices largely unheard, we are easy prey to attacks on our self-belief, so that we internalise society’s insistence that we are monstrous; also, some of society’s concerns for the protection of children do have real traction, making it hard to make headway in our rhetoric against the stock criticism that children cannot give valid consent.
There is more, much more, that might be said on these points and others. But this is enough. The point is that if there were easy answers to these enormously difficult problems do you really suppose they would not have been tried?
You speak of “our” minority group and say “we” are powerless. Quite so. You have been around, like a number of others here, for a long time. Where have you been until recent years? If you were not spending decades “rolling over”, what were you doing? Don’t get me wrong, I welcome your lively contributions here in the last year or two and hope there will be much more, plus maybe participation in a major legal class-action. But I don’t think it helps to disparage the efforts that others have made, or even the silence of those who have never joined the fight, for reasons just outlined.
If you think that by giving Kind people a verbal kick up the backside you will provoke them to join an impending great revolt you are going to be disappointed. If you are just venting rage and despair I don’t think that will do much good either. You might find it momentarily therapeutic but at the cost of making other people (not just the “rolling over” ones but also the activists here, including me, who can honestly say we did our damndest but can only look back on failure) just feel even more frustrated and bad about themselves without offering a clear course of action that could be widely agreed upon.
“You have been around, like a number of others here, for a long time. Where have you been until recent years? If you were not spending decades “rolling over”, what were you doing?”
I stated: “The way our minority group seems to roll over and do virtually nothing as a group”. I do not criticise individuals. The gay movement was fortunate in many ways in not having access to an internet; it forced them to meet face to face and that in turn promoted trust, loyalty, friendship, and a common cause to fight for. No such dynamic exists in our minority group now. No one gets to meet anyone else, so mistrust and misunderstanding trumps trust and understanding. This virtual ‘fellowship’ is a hollow paper tiger, especially when online contributions tend to be forgotten in a trice, and nothing gets done. That is my conclusion after more than twenty years of online contribution. A further conclusion is that: acquaintances are two-a-penny; friends are as rare as hens teeth.
I am unlikely to divulge online everything I have done in the intervening years, simply because that would put me at risk; you of all people Tom should know this … or are you being a tad ironic? Suffice it to say I have done my bit, and probably a good deal more than most, primarily travelling to meet other minor-attracted people around the world, most importantly being there for them.
What was it Brongersma wrote: “… there are some traits which are inherent in the specific condition of being a boy-lover. … Casimir Dukahz remarks: ‘Boy-lovers are not remarkable for their longevity … indeed, because of their youthful elan vital even beyond eighty, most who have passed away can be said to have died young.’ De Brethmas likewise affirms that the boy-lover is more childlike. ‘He retains his youth longer than other men.’ (Wilson & Cox)”
So yes, it is just too bad; you will just have to put up with my youthful temperament!
>So yes, it is just too bad; you will just have to put up with my youthful temperament!
It’s not a matter of me putting up with it. It’s more a need to put it to good use.
>This virtual ‘fellowship’ is a hollow paper tiger, especially when online contributions tend to be forgotten in a trice, and nothing gets done.
A sense of community one of the few things we have: belittle it and you belittle us all.
As for nothing getting done, you are right, although that is not directly the role of a blog such at this. Actionable ideas are presented here from time to time but the doing has to be elsewhere. My belief is that using the civil law is now the best bet, which is why I think your idea for a class-action is a good one. I do not want to say too much about it at the moment but I am currently engaged in the initial stages of one myself.
An interesting article here which highlights the cold, unemotional attitude of NHS mental health staff towards its patients in the UK: telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/want-kill-nhs-wont-stop-kinder-system-could-save-lives … “If you want to kill yourself, the NHS won’t stop you. A kinder system could save lives” and, “too many people are dying under its care: indeed, three times as many as in psychiatric hospitals, according to a national inquiry.”
>An interesting article here which highlights the cold, unemotional attitude of NHS mental health staff towards its patients in the UK
My impression is that the NHS is under so much pressure at the moment that half the staff are suicidal themselves. It is pretty much impossible to be compassionate and take time to be considerate of other people’s emotional needs when you are under massive time pressure and being increasingly demoralised because you are unable to do a good job.
Very upsetting. The basic background fact of “any image a pedophile might like” now being considered illegal is highly alarming.
Is it really necessary to withhold the name of the European country in question? It seems that unless it’s Andorra or Liechtenstein the person in question would not be remotely identifiable. Perhaps the country as a distinguishing characteristic among Filip’s contacts would risk identifying him, and if so I understand. But it is nonetheless frustrating that this information is lacking.
At least some information about whether this country is an exception or typical would be welcome.
>Is it really necessary to withhold the name of the European country in question?
The author of the blog preferred not to mention the country. I do not know why, but I did not feel comfortable with the idea of twisting his arm to release a detail that might have security implications for him.
As for whether the country in question is typical, I would be surprised if the methods described had not become quite common — more so in northern and western Europe, perhaps, where attempts at reforming sex offenders have been more high-profile than elsewhere? It would be interesting to hear from any other readers on the continent who may have been subjected to various therapy regimes.
“It would be interesting to hear from any other readers on the continent who may have been subjected to various therapy regimes.”
I can report one important experience from Germany. The most famous “pedophilia”-“expert” of Germany is Klaus Michael Beier who has published a range of articles and books and is cited a lot by scientists like Michael C. Seto and others. And he is the chief of the German “therapy”-“network” “Kein Täter werden”. Klaus Michael Beier said 2103 in an interview (my translation): “It is wishful thinking if a pedophilic man concludes that children or juveniles exist, that think his touches are ok.” (“Es handelt sich um Wunschdenken, wenn ein pädophiler Mann zu dem Schluss kommt, dass es Kinder oder Jugendliche gibt, die seine Berührungen in Ordnung finden.” – source: Haas-Rietschel, Helga (2013): „Kein Täter werden“. Erziehung & Wissenschaft, issue 1, 2013, pages 12-13). This is a clear lie. It is one of several lies of Klaus Michael Beier about that subject (see the German article https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/schuster_perfide_frame.htm). In another interview from 2007 Klaus Michael Beier said (my translation): “No child wants to have sex with an adult.” (“Kein Kind möchte Sex mit Erwachsenen haben.” – source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/gefaehrliche-erregung-ist-paedophilie-wirklich-therapierbar-1436481.html). But if you Tom would ask for example Michael C. Seto or James M. Cantor in public if the cited sentences from Klaus Michael Beier are lies I wouldn´t expect them to be honest – because in the last months I asked several famous German “scientists”/”pedophilia”-“experts” in emails that question and not one admitted that Klaus Michael Beier said wrong things. NOT ONE. “Science” and “therapy” – these are the wrong words for these evil crimes. Someone who is dishonest is no scientist and no therapist. Pedophobia is not better than racism or anti-Semitism.
>>>> “No child wants to have sex with an adult.”
I have written elsewhere (badly) about my experiences at 4 years old, with a girl in my class, also 4 (maybe 5). Now, to continue the story, when I was in grade three, I most definitely wanted sex with an adult. Yes, it was a teacher, but don’t dismiss it on that account. I wanted that particular lady for several years, until she married, and became even more unavailable. I know I wanted sex, because I wanted the same naked touching and experience that I had previously experienced with someone my own age. (I never thought of marrying her, or anything like that. Such thoughts as I did have, were entirely more physical.)
These desires in children of various pre-pubertal ages are, of course, dismissed as a crush,/em> of no importance. And perhaps it was a crush, if you mean by that a sexual desire.
Now, that bit of information may just explain to some why I am certain that children have sexual desires, irrespective of how effectively they may be crushed by the forcing of the asexual narrative, among others, on them.
Since puberty I needed to have sex and not with people my age, but with adults and not only sex, more a relationship even a marriage, every day I suffer the consequences of not being able to do it. I liked pubescents girls like now but I did not want a relationship with them, when you are very young you need an adult who loves you and teaches life, I do not understand sex without love anyway. I have come to the conclusion that it is adolescence, it is not a social construct, nor an invention of psychiatry (at least the true one) nor a undesirable phase. Adolescence is the stage where you as an young adult need intimacy with an mature adult to develop in a healthy way, not parents as children need. Animals can not be adolescents, it is a thing for only for humans, animals do not need the affection, intimacy and guidance of an adult of their own species (apart of their parents) . Now it’s just a phase to deny sex, intimacy and freedom and infantilize them what they now call “teen age” is not adolescence this is a second childhood. This is because I can love a 14 years-old and not a 24 years-old, its simple.
>>Very upsetting. The basic background fact of “any image a pedophile might like” now being considered illegal is highly alarming.
It seems that the possession and/or making of such images (the nature of which remains largely undefinable, unless it includes explicitly sexual behaviour such as masturbating, sex, and so on) is sufficient to be declared paedophilic behaviour, which is sufficient to declare a person to be a paedophile.
On that basis, however, there are thousands upon thousands of people who are paedophiles, simply because they enjoy work by people such as David Hamilton, Sally Mann, Bill Henson, and more, including photos of their own children, which often are technically illegal, in Australia at least. And there are many more engage in rather boring behaviour such as going to a park where children play, or being polite and friendly to children. (“Grooming” is defined in such a manner that it includes nearly all adult-child interactions.)
There needs to be a serious investigation into paedophilic behaviour and its relation to images of children, naked or otherwise, and it needs to be borne in mind that sometimes there can be a win., e.g., Bill Henson:
In any event, the manner in which paedophilic behaviour and child pronography (child abuse material) is defined legally and promoted in the media, will, unfortunately, create more victims who will have an experience such as this one, and this it seems it is likely happen whether or not the person in question is a paedophile.
Matters are even worse in Norway. The new Penal Code there which was introduced in October 2015, does not distinguish between photos, videos or text when it comes to child pornographic depictions. A month ago, a policeman was accused of reading illegal fictional short stories on his ipad.
The heroic Eivind Berge comments on this case: “It is so batshit insane that it boggles the mind and fills my heart with seething hatred against the state too profound for words. And yet, there is virtually no resistance to it besides from myself. The propaganda about ‘protecting children’ through criminal law has captured the minds of the entire population so successfully that the feminist police state can make the sex laws as draconian as it wants. Notice that neither the journalist, lawyer, the accused man or anyone else has anything negative to say about the law in that news story, and there is no indication that the antisexual mission creep might ever get reversed. The law does exactly what it is supposed to do: put men in prison.”
What I forgot to do in my comment above was to include a link to Eivind’s blog where he focuses on the implications of draconian Norwegian child pornography laws, and puts into words far better than I ever could, his utter contempt for society and its feminist-inspired sex laws: eivindberge.blogspot.com/2016/12/my-soul-is-criminal.html. He and I are most definitely on the same page!
>He and I are most definitely on the same page!
And Heretic TOC is on his page! – on his Home Page Blogroll to be exact.
Maybe I should add his site to Heretic TOC’s Blogroll. He is clearly smart and writes well and his aims are on the right lines: “Resisting the sex-hostility of our times”. He says he is a “libertarian and an antifeminist (not to be confused with misogynist)”. The bit in brackets is important.
Yes, I think you should link to Eivind. Especially when linking to your blog leads to the inevitable bat shit insane pitchfork wielding ‘conspiracy theorists’ dumping threatening comments on to our men’s rights sites.
Further, if you continue to maintain that the only people you’re willing to see as ‘on your side’ are vegetarian transgender rights obsessed left-wing pro-Islamization open borders feminists, then good luck with changing anything in the next 200 years.
While I’m here, I find it interesting that the historical fact that the age of consent in the UK of 16 (and by extension all the other Anglo nations and even now, Spain etc) was set by Victorian feminists in the very same Criminal Amendment Act that re-criminalized homosexuality, is completely ignored even by homosexual activists such as yourselves when debating the aoc and surrounding issues. I guess it relates to the fact that you’d likely sooner be burnt at the stake by a gaggle of feminist hags screaming ‘paedo’ than actually give up your narrative and commit the greater heresy of criticizing feminism as the root culprit of paedohysteria. Thankfully, despite the undeniable eloquence of your blog, if there is any hope it lies in anti-feminists such as Eivind Berge, seething with hatred and contempt.
I doubt if I will comment here again, because of the baggage your name entails and the above mentioned paedocrite pitchfork wielders it attracts.
Feinmann, again you present anti-MAP witch-hunt as “feminism” and “put men in prison”. I remind first that regularly some women (in particular teachers) are arrested or jailed for underage sex, second that among “feminists” (I always write this word in quotes, you can have anything and its contrary under this word), there are sex-positive women who oppose anti-MAP hunt, for instance Judith Levine and Gayle Rubin, and others who support the agency of children, for instance R. Danielle Egan and Gail Hawkes. “Victim feminism” stands to women’s liberation in the same relation as New Labour to socialism.
Concerning the new Norwegian law, a consequence is that it will be dangerous for Norwegians to have an account on WP: several WP blogs have published erotic fantasies centred about adult sex with children and youth. In particular a very hot fantasy of an aunt with her 7yo niece is visible since 2008!
It will be time for erotic writers to use the “Trobar Clus” (closed composition) style of medieval troubadours: how to express ideas understandable by initiates, while escaping the clutches of inquisition. I also use it in some way.
I agree Christian, there are still a few good apples in a barrel brim-full of rotten ones.
Feinmann, again you present anti-MAP witch-hunt as “feminism” and “put
men in prison”.
He quotes Berge, a known friend of pedophiles and critic of the extremely excessive feminism seen in places, like the US or Norway.
I remind first that regularly some women (in particular teachers) are arrested or jailed for underage sex
Compared with men, how common is it that women are even arrested, much less convicted, of sexual crimes involving children?
there are sex-positive women who oppose anti-MAP hunt, for instance Judith Levine
Has Levine, whom you claim is sex-positive, defended the sexual rights of pedophiles, in particular men, not underage would-be liberal darling lesbians?
>Has Levine, whom you claim is sex-positive, defended the sexual rights of pedophiles, in particular men
Yes she has, actually, although she wisely focused in her book on males rather than men, mainly defending youths accused of offences against children.
Is there really a published sentence where Judith Levine writes that “pedophiles” should have the right to have sex with children? Do you have a source for that Tom? I don´t remember that she wrote that in her book Harmful to Minors.
>Is there really a published sentence where Judith Levine writes that “pedophiles” should have the right to have sex with children?
No, I’m pretty certain she has not, and I’m happy to clarify that. In my initial sentence in response to Nada I should perhaps have written something like “Yes she is, actually”, [sex positive, including towards alleged paedophiles, especially young ones] rather than “Yes she has, actually” [defended the sexual rights of paedophiles].
In the deeply hostile political climate of the US, where she lives and works, I think she was extremely brave to go as far as she did. My guess is that her sympathies extend even further than she has said in her published work. Like your thinking, though, hers is underpinned by theory (in her case of a more social-constructionist type) that ultimately aims to write “paedophilia” out of the script rather than use the label as a banner under which to fight for rights.
mainly defending youths accused of offences against children.
A vastly different claim from that made by Christian, for which I can find virtually no supportive evidence. In fact,
the review, found on https://www.nambla.org/levine.html , quotes Levine as saying “No sane person would advocate pedophilia,”
Levine might grudgingly accept 16-year-olds having slightly younger girlfriends or defend the likes of Durham from slight criticism from alleged sexual conservatives, whose sex-negativity is probably more consistent than Levine’s. Still, it’s far from a defense of MAPs.
>Levine might grudgingly accept
Not grudgingly at all. In a couple of email exchanges with her she has not shown the slightest hostility towards me or my views, quite the contrary. On Sexnet, too, within the last year or so, she has come across as very radical.
You quote a single sentence from a NAMBLA article in supposed support of your interpretation while ignoring the all-important context in which it was made. That same article says this:
“Several conservative media commentators and activists have accused Levine of condoning child abuse. / The furor over Harmful to Minors began when conservative radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger denounced the book on air. An associate of Schlessinger’s, Judith Reisman [claimed] that Levine was another in a long line of ‘academic pedophiles,’ who were trying to make pedophilia more acceptable.”
Faced with that sort of media hostility, Levine faced a huge hurdle just to get a fair hearing for her positive message on children’s own sexuality. If she had not distanced herself from paedophilia at that point she and her book would have been blasted to hell and lost all credibility.
Failure to understand this and make allowance for it is simply politically naive.
Neither the email exchanges nor those on Sexnet are public. You accuse me of ignoring context: I’m sorry, I assumed your readers, if not you personally, were aware of the relatively mild, and dated, criticism Levine was subjected to. I also assumed NAMBLA was likely less hostile towards MAPs than the media outlets usually publishing Levine’s articles.
Feel free to read her blog for any mention of actual pedophiles and public evidence “sex positive” includes pedophiles, as a class.
As for being politically naive, I’m more interested in science and logic and their practical application than compromising both playing political games. That being said, I think it’s a huge mistake to focus on relatively mild criticism from the right, while ignoring not only the attacks on MAPs, but on science itself coming from the Left.
Nada: I did not say that Judith Levine advocates paedophilia or supports child-adult sex. I said that she opposes anti-MAP witch-hunt, which is not the same. Now read her book instead of reviews. She has a whole second chapter about “manhunt”.
To say that the Norwegian law is batshit insane, as Berge does, strikes me as an understatement. I read the newspaper article he referred to, in google translate, and it seems to me that, if pursued with rigour, it would include writers from Shakespeare and his contemporaries, to people such as Garcia Marquez (Memories of my melancholy whores, and Of love and other demons—both favourites of mine), Nabakov, and many more.
This law would, needless to say, also capture my novel and at least one story.
Shameless self promotion, because I like my stories to be read:
I have to admit that I also wonder if such a law would capture academic work. If the Rind controversy had occurred with this type of law in place, would he and his co-authors have been arrested, etc, as a result of their views? Or would Egan and Haekes, Angelides, Kershnar, Oellerich, and more, be jailed for their views on childhood sexuality and agency?
A law such as this can go anywhere and criminalise anything talking about or advocating for childhood sexual agency.
It is frightening.
BJM, thanks. There is a kind of parallel theme to the one you present in your short story in Jay Edson’s A Galaxy of No-stars: http://uryourstory.org/images/Downloads/galaxy.pdf … Briefly an apocalyptic world event effectively extinguishes governments, and thus removes the shackles that previously prevented children from having equivalent status to that of adults. The small communities that have somehow managed to survive the plague consequently benefit from this equivalence. A good read IMHO.
Thanks feinmann0, I’ve downloaded it and will read a little later. I do love the epigraph to Part One: God is infinitely careless with his sperm
I’m just going to assume that you liked the little story I wrote.
Yes, I think your story neatly portrays the dilemma many heterosexual men face when they are in close proximity to girls of a certain age who ‘turn their attention’ towards them. I suspect family men are more likely to be confronted with this dilemma, especially those with daughters – natural instinct of child and adult attracted to one another versus the law of the land (aka societal abhorrence, fear and prosecution of child sexuality).
Very sad about Norway. At one time I looked at the Scandinavian countries with hope — not just on this issue, but with re: to their rational approach to so many things.
Psychiatry, especially forensic one, is truly the modern Inquisition, as Thomas Szasz said. I would rather go to court then to jail, facing cops, judges and screws, rather than being compelled to deal with psychiatrists ans social workers. There is no worse enemy than the one who poses as a friend and pretends to help you.
First, I can identify with what the guest blogger has been through, as the process was similar to the excoriating one I endured not so many years ago.
Second, the dynamic is in so many ways equivalent to the mental cruelty imposed on the Jews in Nazi Germany, on the blacks via apartheid, and on homosexual men in Anglophile countries in the middle of the last century – a mental cruelty engineered by societies that even today still have the freedom to discriminate without fear of retribution and where they have the power to show a total contempt for an individual’s human rights.
Third, I believe the field of psychiatry, which is not a science, and the mental health professional proponents that infest it, are equivalent to the Alsatian dogs trained to bite the flesh of captives at the command of their Nazi handlers; in the 21st Century the rabid dog handlers are essentially governments and the judiciary.
Fourth, I for one do not intend to stand idly by and let this dystopian system triumph. I am trying to do all I can to hold those mental health professionals to account who very nearly ended my life because of the discrimination they meted out to me when I was at my lowest ebb.
Isn’t it about time we as a group bombarded Human Rights Courts with a class action?
I agree with much of what you say, But without passing judgement on certain types of violence (driving a truck into Israeli soldiers) what alternative is there?
The driver of the truck probably thought similar; The soldiers are agents of the state, therefore fair game ti kill.
[TOC adds: JUST IN CASE ANYONE GETS THE WRONG IDEA, FEINMANN ADVOCATED LEGAL ACTION NOT VIOLENT ACTION. HE PROPOSED A “CLASS ACTION” I.E. A LEGAL CASE BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MANY PEOPLE TO GET A LEGAL RULING ON A COMMON POINT AFFECTING THEM ALL.]
Class action of MAPS will not help anything. The society will think it immoral “predators”
Instead, We may find and contact who have “positive memories”, and then encourage them to join the crusade. Class action is the next step.
There should be plenty of cases in Europe and America. The higher AoC, the more victims of AoC.
I think this is THE SHORTEST WAY that we can go. Also, this could help not only MAPS, but also all humans who are being struggling with the society’s view on their positive memories.
Everyone who likes guys or girls under 18, is our potential ally, the local AoC are irrelevant, where I live people aggressively shuns anyone who likes ppl under 18 is almost impossible to live whether legal or not
Also have to be warned people that the age will rise to 21 even more as 23 the criminal group called UNESCO has championed for raising the universal age to 21 even normies who like young adults are in danger !!
Per example in my country if you have 30 or so and you go to girls of 19, 20 or so you are considered a pedophile and a freak pervert and even if it is legal if I would be a woman of 40, looking for many college boys of 20 I Would be afraid of being even physically attacked
This has nothing to do with real children is about to love young people in general who is good and natural and now it is a struggle against the NWO degenerates who want to destroy the human species, this is who I see it
Trouble is anonymous033gfn those positive memory subjects who I think you imply are not immoral predators, form part of society, so many of them I suspect, are at this very minute filling out compensation claim forms for having suffered devastating child sexual abuse at the hands of immoral predators. So much more lucrative and exciting than telling the truth via a voluntary survey organised by immoral predators, don’t you think?
Some really good points and observations raised and unfortunately this is the way things are heading at least for the foreseeable future.