Pantomime villain for a Whitehall farce

Not since the glory days of Whitehall farce has there been such a long-running theatrical success in London for unsophisticated comedy as we have been getting lately from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
The  plays famously staged by actor-manager Brian Rix half a century ago had them rolling in the aisles with comedy based on the embarrassment of silly characters being caught with their pants down in compromising situations. Much like that, IICSA was been caught playing a very silly game of musical chairpersons, in which a chair was snatched from under the bottoms of three successive lady judges, leaving them humiliatingly dumped on their judicial posteriors and out of the proceedings. Oh, how we laughed! See Heretic TOC’s “review” of the “show”: “The chair is dead, long live the chair!”
And then there was the barrister who dropped his briefs. Allegedly. The QC appointed as counsel to the inquiry suddenly found himself suspended from his job after being accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a lift – not very elevating! He was later cleared in a separate inquiry of any wrongdoing but then – what a rib-tickler this was – yet another inquiry decided the earlier inquiry had failed to inquire sufficiently, or in the right way.
The big difference between those original Whitehall farces and IICSA’s comedy of errors, of course, is that the latter laughs are an entirely unintended aspect of what are supposed to be deeply serious proceedings.
But the worlds of London theatre in the 1950s and the public inquiry theatricals now in progress have another major feature in common apart from the laughs. Those Brian Rix plays were performed at the Whitehall Theatre, close to the old Palace of Whitehall and hence right at the heart of the UK’s government and political complex, as summed up in the words “Whitehall” and “Westminster” – parliament being housed, of course, in the nearby Palace of Westminster.
Which is where the pantomime villain of my headline makes his timely entry, just as the panto season is coming up. And who should that villain be but – wait for it – ME!
Boo! Hiss!
Let me explain. Among the dozen or so separate strands of investigation on IICSA’s packed agenda is the Westminster one, which is probing “child sexual abuse” (CSA) and exploitation “involving people of public prominence associated with Westminster”. This strand will look into “evidence of conspiracy, cover-up, interference or tolerance” of CSA  committed by Westminster V.I.P.s, and whether “governmental, political and law enforcement institutions were aware of and took appropriate  steps; and whether there are adequate safeguarding and child protection policies in place within political parties, government departments and agencies”.
About a month ago I received an official communication from IICSA’s chief solicitor requesting me to submit evidence to the inquiry specifically in relation to this Westminster strand. Why? To respond to utterly farcical, laughably ridiculous conspiracy theory allegations to the effect that back in the day, in the 1970s and 80s, the government was being run by a secret paedophile elite with links to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an organisation I led for a number of years.
Boo! Hiss!
Blimey, I thought, in my old-fashioned way, you’re  ’avin’ a laugh, gov, ain’t ya? What’s a small-time villain like me, an ’umble felon just like Fagin, hanging about with his little gang of boy pick-pockets,  gonna be doin’ a-mingling with proper gentlemen like that? We might nick their fancy silk handkerchiefs, if we’re lucky, but that’s as close as it gets.
But public inquiries do not Have A Laugh. Distinctly challenged in the sense of humour department, they tend to be In Deadly Earnest. So when IICSA solicitor Martin Smith posted me a list of 10 specific questions about PIE’s alleged Westminster connections, I knew it was not to be taken lightly.
I could have ignored the letter. It was only a request for a response, after all, not a command. There was no suggestion – not at this stage at least – that I might be subpoenaed to appear in person and interrogated under oath. Nor was I in any sort of trouble, having been jailed long ago for my supposed misdeeds: this time they had bigger fish to fry, or so the conspiracy theorists wildly imagined.
Anyway, I decided there would be no harm in addressing these questions soberly and seriously, just as IISCA must have hoped. At the same time, though, I decided, this was a fantastic opportunity to give the inquiry a piece of my mind. So, after a lot of hard work in recent weeks, some of it spent digging out old PIE documents and going through them, a few days ago I submitted 10,000 words of evidence. Roughly the first third was taken up with answering Mr Smith’s questions. The rest ranged more widely, attacking the absurdity of the conspiracy theorists’ wider allegations, especially as regards PIE, the insanity of the “believe the victims” dogma, the deranged narcissism of extremists within the victim lobby, the rising tide of toxic victim feminism over several decades and the appalling waste of time and money going into IICSA’s utterly bogus, vulgar, populist activities.
Have I missed anything? Probably, but you get the drift.
The key questions on PIE were on whether we had members who were MPs, lords, or other “persons of public prominence” associated with Westminster, and on whether the organisation ever received government funding.
My answers are very full and forthcoming. Names are named! Secrets are revealed! But if you think I am going to blurt it all out here and now you can think again. I shan’t do that because I feel it is more important here to focus not on the questions the inquiry were asking but on the ones they are desperate to avoid. Not to worry, though, because I have posted my entire evidence here. Enjoy!
So, what is IICSA trying to avoid? Essentially, yet more embarrassment. Or, rather, embarrassment of a selective kind. The inquiry is perfectly happy to expose past institutional shortcomings. That is at the heart of its declared purpose, and fulfilling that purpose is bound to embarrass those who were in charge at the time.
That’s the good embarrassment, if you will, but there is also a bad sort: IICSA doesn’t want to see itself become nothing more than a laughing stock; nor does it want to dwell on police chiefs, politicians and others who have become an embarrassment to its own aims lately – people who have made fools of themselves or worse either by taking the “believe the victims” credo too far, or by generating baseless conspiracy theories that have come unstuck.
For instance, IICSA has decided not to talk about the collapse of Operation Midland, set up by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in 2014 to investigate lurid and very far-fetched allegations of sexual assault, brutality and murder by paedophiles in high places. The operation was closed in 2016 when it was eventually concluded that the star witness, a supposed victim named publicly only as “Nick”, was just a fantasist who had led the police up the garden path.
One good reason for IICSA to avoid this issue at the moment is that it is presently before the courts: “Nick” has been charged with perverting the course of justice and is due to stand trial in March. But the inquiry could easily wait until after the trial. In its preliminary hearing on the Westminster strand IICSA gave other reasons, too, the decisive one being “that possible failings in these police investigations are remote from the central purpose of this inquiry”.
To me this sounds like an excuse. It enables IICSA to dodge the key issue – very much central to its inquiries – of the basis on which you decide that “victims” really are victims. At once time, and quite properly, accused persons were deemed innocent until proven guilty in court, and those making allegations of a crime against themselves were called “complainants” not “victims”, right up until the court verdict. This presumption of innocence was grievously undermined when the MPS proclaimed in a joint report with the NSPCC that those who had made complaints against the late TV star Jimmy Savile should be called victims rather than complainants even though no case had ever been brought to trial and Savile was no longer around to defend himself.
This “believe the victim” tendency reached it apogee when Supt Kenny McDonald, the head of Operation Midland, said the police believed the accuser “Nick” and declared that his claims were “credible and true”. They were neither. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen that the claims were ridiculous. While it would have been wrong simply to laugh “Nick” out of the police station when he first made his complaint – some investigation was in order – the unforgiveable folly was to put dogma above evidence by declaring the claims to be true when that could only properly have been a matter for a court to decide.
It may also be significant – in terms of IICSA avoiding embarrassment – that missing from the 10 questions put to me by the inquiry was anything about the fanciful allegations trumpeted by tabloid journalist Don Hale, although these claims had been mentioned in the preliminary hearings.
Sunday Times journalist James Gillespie asked me about Hale’s claims in an interview I gave him by email in 2015. He wrote:

The journalist Don Hale, who claims [1970s politician] Barbara Castle gave him a “dossier” alleging a number of politicians were active supporters of PIE, says [former prime minister] Ted Heath regularly attended meetings. He also says that the late Tory MP Rhodes Boyson would distribute [PIE’s] Magpie magazine and organise speakers in support of PIE. Further, he claims that PIE had an office in Westminster staffed by two people. Is any of this true?

Most of it was so ridiculous that, as I replied to Gillespie, it hardly seemed to require any rebuttal from me. I added that “I will do my best to spell out why these claims are such nonsense, although the conspiracy addicts cannot be expected to listen.”
The only half-true bit is that my successor as chair of PIE, Steve Smith (now Freeman) did indeed have an office in Westminster, in the basement of the Home Office no less, where he worked with another PIE member! But it was most definitely the government’s office, not PIE’s, and the PIE members were not PIE staff: they were paid to do work there for the government. Yes, it sounds odd and so it was. Some heretics may recall that I blogged about it.
As regards the preposterous claim that Edward Heath, Conservative prime minister in the early 1970s, had attended PIE meetings, it ignored the fact that our leanings and contacts were clearly on the Left of British politics, far away from Ted’s Tories on the Right. The same flaw in Hale’s claims applies to an even greater extent in the case of Rhodes Boyson, who was a hard-liner on the Right of his party, a former headmaster who had been very keen on stern discipline and favoured caning as a punishment. In PIE we were utterly against that, as shown by a magazine we had that was devoted to children’s rights, where we took an explicit stance against such corporal punishment.
The fact that so many of the allegations made by the likes of Don Hale, “Nick” and others have remained unsubstantiated and have rightly been judged fake news, ought to be a massive embarrassment to IICSA. One would think so, given that the inquiry appears to be taking such “news” mighty seriously, rather than exercising healthy scepticism.
By the time the IICSA has digested my extensive witness statement, they may well conclude it would be unwise to call me to give evidence in person at the public hearing scheduled for March (fixture clash here with the trial of “Nick”!) on the Westminster strand precisely because I might give voice to unwelcome scepticism. In comments made here at Heretic TOC a few days ago (27 Nov @ 14:02), I mentioned the possibility of finding myself in “hand-to-hand combat” with Prof. Alexis Jay, who handled the famous inquiry into street grooming in Rotherham. She is now in charge of IICSA as the inquiry’s fourth chair, so we could certainly come face-to-face in the proceedings.
Once the barrister dealing with the Westminster strand, who appears to be Andrew O’Connor QC, has read my evidence, he will be aware that my scepticism extends to the work of Prof. Jay herself. In my submission I noted she had “conducted what became a very high-profile report on Rotherham, concluding that at least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation there between 1997 and 2013”. She won’t like what I said, including several paragraphs casting doubt on the claim that all of those 1,400 “victims” were really victims. Among them, I said, were those who, far from wanting to be rescued from their “abusers”, saw Prof. Jay’s work as an unwelcome interference with their private lives. Come to think of it, I can’t see anyone at IICSA’s theatre of fantastical abuse nightmares wanting me to turn up and get them “woke”.
Boo! Hiss!
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

[…] finding myself cast as the pantomime villain for the Whitehall farce known as the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), last […]

Debauch

I got a petition with a link that I will certainly NOT be signing!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/paedophiles-grooming-children-live-on-youtube-3fv8gt730

A.

Dissident’s remarks about mesophilia have sent my thoughts down an interesting path, regarding the portrayal of childhood attraction to adults or older adolescents in children’s fiction. There is a lot of it!
We’re probably all more or less familiar with Harry Potter, in the second instalment of which (Chamber of Secrets, 1998) twelve-year-old brainbox Hermione becomes infatuated with handsome Professor Lockhart, outlining his lessons in hearts on her timetable, sleeping with a Get Well card he sends her under her pillow. He turns out to be a bit of an empty-headed cad, and as Hermione gets older she moves on to dating age peers. She may be the most famous example of a ‘mesophilic’ child character in kid-lit, but there are plenty more. Most often, they’re girls, in children’s fiction written by women, who become infatuated with adult men, and I think their prevalence provides some indication of how common the phenomenon is in real life.
Virginia Euwer Wolff, who was a teacher for many years, published The Mozart Season in 1991. It’s a thoughtful and distinctively written novel about gifted twelve-year-old violinist named Allegra, her music and her various relationships: with her (male) music teacher; with an adult female friend of the family, to whom Allegra is close and who has a troubled past; with her parents, who freak out when Allegra starts taking midnight bike rides by herself; and so on. Bits of romance are slipped in here and there: one of Allegra’s two best friends is a girl the same age who’s very dedicated to ballet and forever engaged in some (heterosexual) romantic drama or other in her ballet classes, whereas Allegra feels a bit embarrassed that the only boyfriend she’s ever had is a little lad she held hands with in kindergarten, when they were five. She crushes hard on a photo of a handsome male professional violinist, who’s obviously an adult, and notices that a sixteen-year-old boy in her youth orchestra is very handsome, but also “a jerk”. At the very end of the book there’s a suggestion of budding romance between Allegra and a fourteen-year-old boy, a geeky, kind fellow violinist.
The prolific Phyllis Reynolds Naylor churned out twenty-five books in the Alice series between the mid-80s and the early 2000s, and they attracted legions of devoted girl fans. Alice is an ordinary girl growing up, being raised by a single father; she and her two best friends together deal with first bras, first periods, first dances, first kisses, first parties with no adult supervision, first jobs, sexual harassment and so on. Alice doesn’t start having sex – realistically depicted mutual masturbation – till she’s seventeen, but she kisses several different boys before then, and the series gets fairly directly sexual when she’s thirteen: there is, for instance, a bit of talk about Alice’s tingly feelings when she kisses her boyfriend, which make her realise that she is, as her older brother puts it, “a sexual being”, and around the same time, a friend of Alice’s develops a giant crush on their handsome young male teacher, and tells her friends she thinks about him all the time, even about what he looks like “in the shower”. “It’s love and it hurts”, she says. Eventually, when he snaps at her for talking in class, the crush fades.
Some writers for kids seem to have a particular affinity for the crush-on-an-older-person theme. Katherine Paterson has won the Newbery Medal for best American children’s book twice, one of those times being for Bridge to Terabithia (1977). Our hero, ten-year-old Jesse, feels lonely being the only brother among four sisters. His father doesn’t appreciate his talent for drawing; the only person who seems to is his pretty, hippyish, feminist young music teacher, Miss Edwards, whom he’s been in love with at least since he was nine. “This was too real and too deep to talk about, or even to think about much…Lord, she was gorgeous. She made Jess squish inside.” The bulk of the book is about Jesse’s best friendship with tomboy Leslie, but Miss Edwards is a significant positive influence, for instance taking Jesse to see art museums in Washington DC. In Paterson’s Jip: His Story (1996), an eleven-year-old boy is growing up on the town ‘poor farm’ in 1850s Vermont, and discovers some astounding things about his previously unknown parentage. He, too, nurses a crush on a good-looking, strong-willed young female teacher, who introduces him to Oliver Twist. And in Paterson’s other Newbery Medal winner, Jacob Have I Loved (1980), there’s an episode in which our heroine, a young girl growing up on a remote island under the shadow of her sister, falls hard though briefly for a kindly neighbour: “Just thinking of his smell, his feel, his hands, made my body go hot all over…The Captain had to be seventy or more. I was fourteen, for mercy’s sake. Fourteen from seventy was fifty-six. Fifty-six. But then my mind would go to the curve of his perfect thumbnail, and my body would flame up like pine pitch.”
Cynthia Voigt is perhaps best known for her Tillerman family cycle. The first, Homecoming (1981), shows us tough, resourceful thirteen-year-old tomboy Dicey leading her siblings, ages ten, nine and six, on foot down through several states, on the way earning change to buy food by carrying people’s groceries to their cars for them, so they can find their grandmother after their mother has had a mental breakdown. In the next, Newbery Medal winner Dicey’s Song (1982), Dicey, still thirteen, is adjusting to her new town and having, to her annoyance, to deal with her first bra, though she doesn’t have her period yet and isn’t yet interested in sex. A sixteen-year-old boy, Jeff, takes a friendly and romantic interest in her and this is depicted as a wholly positive thing: he’s a sensitive “one-woman man” who loves Dicey for herself, prickly nature, boys’ clothes and all. Eight years later, in Seventeen Against the Dealer (1989), Dicey is running her own boat-building business and is engaged to Jeff, who “necks” with her but doesn’t want to have sex with her yet because he thinks it should be something special. A spinoff of the series, Come a Stranger (1986), is about Dicey’s friend Mina, who has to deal with racism and with a somewhat early puberty – she starts developing breasts at ten and starts menstruating at eleven. Mina falls hard for an adult man, the inspirational married summer minister who’s a chaste friend and mentor to her, but her secret lovesickness isn’t about to stop her from excelling at school and pursuing a career as a high-flying lawyer. Voigt’s On Fortune’s Wheel (1990) is set in one of those fantasy medieval kingdoms. Fourteen-year-old Berle, engaged to a man she can’t stand, runs away, and falls in love at first sight with nineteen-year-old Orien. After a couple of years and some trials and tribulations, the two marry and have a daughter. And recently, Voigt’s shifted gears a bit with the Bad Girls series, fast-paced books about two chalk-and-cheese girls who become best friends at ten. When they’re thirteen (Bad Girls in Love, 2002) tomboy Mikey gets a crush on a boy her own age and is embarrassingly public about it, while Margalo secretly crushes on a male teacher.
What happens if we go back in time? Less explicit sexuality, but, arguably, more acceptance of actual intergenerational relationships, at least if the older party is male and the younger female. Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books, autobiographical accounts of growing up homesteading on the American frontier, have been beloved, sometimes to the point of obsession, by several generations of girls, and are pretty popular with some boys too, especially Farmer’s Boy (1933), the only one with a boy protagonist. Said boy is Laura’s future husband, Almanzo, in childhood. Laura and Almanzo met and started ‘courting’ when she was fifteen, and already working as a schoolteacher, and he was twenty-five, and they married three years later; all this is depicted in These Happy Golden Years (1943). Their daughter, Rose, was one of the founders of American libertarianism! Sydney Taylor’s All-Of-A-Kind family series, likewise lastingly popular, is about a family of Jewish sisters growing up in turn-of-the-twentieth-century New York City. In the first book, All-Of-A-Kind Family (1951), they’re all very taken with handsome grown-up gentile family friend Charlie, especially the eldest, twelve-year-old Ella, who “lately [has] begun to gaze at him with bright and shiny eyes and hang on his every word” and is overjoyed when he holds her hands and compliments her singing. When he is reunited with his lost love, an adult woman, she is grief-stricken, and her grief is treated respectfully.
Since we’re going back in time, there’s something else I should mention, for a spot of contrast. Everyone knows about L. M. Montgomery’s massively popular Anne series. Mark Twain, a hebephilic girl-lover (see John Cooley’s fascinating Mark Twain’s Aquarium: The Samuel Clemens-Angelfish Correspondence, 1905-1910) adored the first book, Anne of Green Gables (1908). Montgomery’s Emily trilogy (1923-1927) is less widely known but greatly beloved by a certain type of girl. It’s about an aspiring writer growing up in about the same time and place as Anne. In the first book, Emily, recently bereaved of her beloved father, is still a child, ‘playing pretend’ with her friends. At twelve, she almost falls off a cliff and is rescued by Dean Priest, a cultivated and well-travelled but somewhat bitter and lonely man. He’s keen on Emily at once, and decides to wait for her to grow up. He even says aloud that that’s what he’ll do, though she doesn’t understand what he means. In the second book Emily’s growing up all right: it begins when she’s fourteen and a half, shooting up in height and consequently getting her first long skirts, and a short way in her friend Teddy, a boy of the same age, puts his arm around her and they almost kiss. Dean’s more interested than ever, strongly sexually attracted in fact, but still hangs back waiting. In the third book, Dean becomes slightly sinister. Emily has, until his death, another adult male mentor, a crusty old fellow with a heart of gold who encourages her writing, giving her praise when she’s earned it and criticism when she’s earned that. He’s depicted as a wholly positive influence on her life. Dean isn’t. He refers to her writing as “pretty cobwebs” and “a little hobby” and later, in a moment of intense jealousy of anything in her life that isn’t him, he tells her that her draft first novel is terrible, which it isn’t. She believes him, and in her distress burns the novel, falls downstairs, hurts her foot, becomes very ill, almost dies – no antibiotics, remember. Dean, guilt-stricken, nurses her devotedly, and soon enough they’re engaged. Emily loves Dean “in a way”, but her Aunt Laura is concerned that isn’t enough: “Emily…was not yet twenty, while Dean Priest was forty-two. In fifteen years – but Laura would not think of it…There had been happy marriages with just as much disparity of age.” Soon enough, however, Emily realises that she’s really in love with Teddy; Dean then does the right thing, telling her that her book was good after all, and eventually, after years have passed and she’s a successful writer, gives her and Teddy the house he owns to live in. Dean’s not a monster, far from it: he’s a tragic character for whose loneliness we’re supposed to have some sympathy, and he has a sizeable fanbase among readers. But he’s an interesting early literary example of a fairly familiar figure from twenty-first-century demonology: an older man trying, from possessive love, to knock a talented young woman’s self-esteem so she’ll be content with him.

A.

Oh, there has got to be more out there that’s passed me by!

daniel

CARRY ON DOING THINGS YOUR OWN WAY AND DON’T GIVE A FUK IF OTHERS DON’T LIKE IT COS GUESS WAT IF THEY DON’T LIKE U NOW THEY NEVER WILL SO U MIGHT AS WELL CARRY ON DOING THINGS YOUR OWN WAY.

stephen6000

Actually, I think one day people will like Tom – as one reviewer of his first book said, one day people will be naming schools after him!

warbling j turpitude

if any proof was needed that We Have Met the Paedophiles and THEY ARE US (ALL OF US) you probably need look no further than this !!! https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/17/facebook-censoring-images-starving-children-yemen-sexual-content-8255741/

DO NOT USE PROTONMAIL

Here is the proof that Protonmail is garbage THAT SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY OF US!! a son of a b*tch and other idiots denouncing Amos Yee and those of PROTONMAIL HAS OBEYED THEM.
https://twitter.com/ProtonMail/status/1072070502548758531

Protonmail is not garbage. Even if the account is taken down, the inbox cannot be read because it is supposed to be a zero-knowledge system. Regarding Amos’s email account being deleted, I don’t see why other email providers couldn’t take down Amos’s other email accounts. If those providers receive enough reports, those accounts would likely be taken down as well.

A.

Drat, I posted a long comment yesterday but the spam filter appears to have swallowed it. Tom, don’t put yourself out trying to resurrect it: I’ll reconstruct it, avoiding what I think may be the spam filter triggers.
Firstly I congratulated TOC on the evidence, which is an excellent and impressive read and must have taken a lot of labour. Then I expressed dismay that front-line workers involved with the girls in the care home ‘grooming’ cases actually used terms like “asking for it” sexually. How antediluvian.
These front-line workers are often simply concerned with harm reduction, because they have to be, and it’s important to remember that some kids who come into the care of the state are very vulnerable for reasons that don’t often occur in the normal population. They may have been so neglected during the crucial first two years of life that they can’t form good relationships with other people: the buzzword for this is having problems with ‘attachment’, and a classic sign in a little child would be being indiscriminately affectionate with strangers rather than reserving special affection for a few adult caregivers. They may have been brain-damaged by alcohol in utero (this is common) and so have serious problems with cause and effect thinking and impulse control, or they may have inherited problems with that sort of thing from their parents — people abuse and neglect their kids for a reason, after all. Some are out to have a baby as soon as possible, well before they’re ready to parent, in a bid to get some positive attention or bring some love into their lives…and the resultant child also ends up in the care of the state. Long-acting reversible contraception — put the rod in the girl’s arm — certainly helps as a last resort, but it isn’t ideal, because of the side effects of all hormonal contraception. Teach boys to use condoms! I smiled to read, in Lautmann’s Attraction to Children, this account by a man of his sexual encounter with a boy, which occurred on a family visit: “The whole first night there was no sleep to be had. He kept shining the flashlight under the bedspread, exploring me. Shined it everywhere, in every orifice, just so he could find out. He wanted to know what is that down there, moving the foreskin back and forth. Then came the next thing — he very quickly wanted me to touch him also. On the first night he wanted to find out things. By the second night his interest had already waned. By the way, he also wanted condoms; which he tried out on me; but that was enough — he’d already seen it once.”
So some young teen girls seeking out sexual involvement with men may indeed be extra vulnerable; but then there are girls of a different kind, fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds who are old for their age and practically and relationally capable, who are specifically interested in older boys and adult men rather than in boys their own age, who deal competently with contraception, who can in short bounce through even rather unsavoury encounters quite unscathed. Terry Leahy’s valuable, unjustly neglected Navigating Stigma: New Approaches to Intergenerational Sex includes several examples of this, shall we say, adolescent subgroup. Many girls (and boys) that age aren’t remotely like this, but some are; everyone’s different. And while early initiation of intercourse is often something a young adolescent has to be extra level-headed and resilient to handle, if only because of the risks, it isn’t absolutely always so, as in this account I found elsewhere: “I had a friend who lost her virginity at 13, with a boy the same age. Funnily enough she saw it as entirely innocent and separate to any overly sexual taboo stuff that gets told to you later. And she’d said she explored early precisely because her (divorced) parents were great, loving, she had a great home life and great friends including this boy. She wanted to explore and didn’t see any taboo to it — I was quite jealous when she told me, because I’d been to Catholic school and made to feel dirty at the thought of anything sexual and basically never had much fun.”
And on that note, and since we’re on the subject of the long arm of the law, I recently stumbled across, and have been enjoying, a blog called Pink Tape, by a female family law barrister who seems to take moderate, reasonable positions on various hot-button topics, here for instance on #metoo: http://www.pinktape.co.uk/rants/me-too-judicial-bullying/ Through Pink Tape I discovered the study ‘Taking a Longer View of Contact: The perspectives of young adults who experienced parental separation in their youth’, here: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=nuffield-foundation-final-report-16nov2012.pdf&site=28 The authors conclude that, hearteningly, contact with non-resident parents often works well; that we need to be more flexible about it and listen more to the views of the kids; and that different children in different circumstances will react differently, because…everyone’s different. I once heard of a lesbian couple who had a baby using sperm from a good friend of theirs, a man who lived fairly nearby. The idea had been for the resultant child to see its father and his family for a day out once every few months and no more, but the little girl turned out to be much more attached to her daddy than anyone had thought she would be, and by the time she entered school she was spending every weekend with him, because that’s what she wanted. That’s not the same as parental separation of course, but it’s an admirable example of three parents in a potentially difficult situation putting their child first.

A.

Phew, I think that got through the spam filter! Certain links seem to set it off, so I left some out, but I’ve got my heart set on linking to Leahy’s Negotiating Stigma, which needs more love (I see I called it New Approaches but it’s just Approaches): https://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/NegotiatingStigma.pdf

A.

…and also of course we are negotiating, not navigating — Navigating is Carin Friemond’s valuable study, here: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/13798 I always get the two Stigma titles mixed up!

gantier99

Thankyou A, for the link to Negotiating Stigma. Extremely interesting, not least the bits about the the role of parents/family in the examples covered by the paper.

A.

It’s a fantastic book — long to be sure, but absolutely worth the time, and as far as I know, the only one to cover all four potential adult-child pairings (man-boy, man-girl, woman-girl, woman-boy). Need more love, as I say!

Dissident

Welcome back, A! And thank you for returning with a vengeance, providing many good links, as usual!
The girls (and boys) you referred to as the “adolescent sub-group” and “old for their age” are quite often, specifically, mesophiles, a term officially coined by Michael Seto in a 2016 essay/study (Tom discussed it & linked to it here on a previous blog) to describe younger people who have a sexual/romantic preference for much older men (though not necessarily elderly) and, likely, older boys; or at least a significant attraction to them on a regular basis that equals what they may have for peers (as with MAPs, not all mesophiles are exclusive in their attractions, but may lean towards the pansexual, at least in regards to age preferences if not also gender). They are likely not as uncommon as society at large or the anti-contact MAPs allege, and Dr. Seto’s study makes this quite clear. Their preferences are obviously suppressed and kept under strict control, as is their sexuality in general. This keeps mesophiles, particularly those who are underage, effectively “invisible,” much as the LGBT community was prior to the 1970s. And much to the convenience of society at large–and to the anti-choice camp in our own community. For the record, Seto is not pro-choice, but he does seem to sit on the fence with most of the issues, and he does maintain his scientific objectivity in many cases, to his credit.
As for girls in the type of situation you mentioned being particularly vulnerable. Yes, they are, but largely because our current gerontocentric, non-youth liberated system puts them under the virtually unquestioned authority of adults, rather than seeking to empower them socially, politically, and economically, and providing them with the proper education and non-judgmental support required to help them learn to effectively navigate any potential situations. By keeping them deliberately ignorant of the world and forcing them to be in the position of, hopefully, having the “right” adults looking after them in an authoritarian manner, this has the ironic effect of often causing the very problems that the anti-contact camp and society at large say they want to prevent. They ignore all of this evidence because their main concern is maintaining the system more or less as-is, supporting only the most superficial tweeks unless it has to do with disempowering specifically men as much as possible. The anti-male bias is a major component of the AoC laws as we know them, and you will often see the anti-contact camp heavily married to the regressive left attitude that demonizes men, often suggesting they be denied what amounts to due process to “protect” every other group in society from them by ensuring any single accusation against a man will get one put away, evidence be damned.
As for teaching boys to wear a condom, I think this can go hand-in-hand with teaching adolescent girls to insist boys they want to interact with sexually use them–as well as men in a hypothetical youth-liberated society. In fact, as someone who dates much younger women of legal age, I have refrained from intercourse at times when I didn’t have a condom handy–only for some of my partners to tell me, “no problem, I always carry a few with me” and then reach into their purse and hand one to me. Condoms can and should be freely disbursed to people of both genders, so both have them on hand in situations like that. As my situation also makes clear, men are not inherently irresponsible, so the common bigoted attitude that men typically insist that intercourse occur sans a condom is simply ridiculous.
Contrary to popular regressive liberal belief, young women are not the only ones who have to bear the potential burden of an unwanted pregnancy. In fact, men can easily find it far more difficult to opt out of a parenthood they do not want or are unprepared for than a young woman. Women and girls have the option for putting a child up for adoption, or participate in a program of mutually raising the child with a couple who are financially stable, or going on public assistance to help them financially; or even legally abandoning a baby so long as they anonymously leave them at a hospital or police station. On the other hand, men will be compelled to reimburse the government for any funds they allot to a women who decides to keep a child, but that the man may not also want or be ready for. For the record, I do believe the system should help take care of children in these instances But forcing the man to reimburse the government when the latter can afford the payments whereas he may not be able to, and then calling him a “deadbeat dad” by incorrectly implying the child would not receive the financial assistance at all if the man wasn’t paying it is absurd This is especially true considering the single mother in question is not currently held accountable for where she spends the money, i.e., if it’s actually spent on the child or not. At least, this is the case in America; I cannot speak for other nations.
Things become more nuanced when you put the PC attitudes aside and look at a situation in its entirety, without putting the blame on one specific group over another. I am not suggesting that you did that, A, at least not deliberately, but I thought it important to make these things clear lest others read into the matter incorrectly and thus come to the wrong conclusions.

A.

Broadly agree with what you say, D., as usual :).
I’m not sure that being competent at managing your life at 14-15 overlaps entirely with being into older people — some girls or boys that age nurse a massive dreamy crush on a teacher but wouldn’t last five minutes on the mean streets, so to speak, while others who would are into age-peers as partners — but I can well believe there is a tendency.for kids who are old for their age, as I put it, to seek out older partners because these kids feel, often correctly, that they are in a different headspace to their classmates, and want someone more mature. And I can well believe that this overlaps to a large extent with plain old attraction to the older male phenotype, which seems to be fairly common among gay boys as well as among straight girls. Here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866104/ “Orlando too reported that he started looking for older men on the Internet when he was 13 or 14 because he ‘didn’t want anyone my age’.” Calls a spade a spade, does our Orlando…
When I mentioned particularly vulnerable girls, I was thinking of kids who actually are disabled — things like foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as they’re calling it these days, can make it difficult fully to empower people because they lack certain mental capabilities. And why was the mother drinking so much? Often because she was trying to self-medicate for something like mental illness, or just Shit Life Syndrome caused, perhaps, by her having floundered through school with undiagnosed learning difficulties and left with bleak prospects. Mental illness and learning difficulties are highly heritable. Severe neglect in very early life can mess kids up so much that they permanently lack normal relational abilities. What I’m saying is that kids in care can be a special case because many of them aren’t entirely neurologically typical, and so the usual assumptions don’t apply. Of course, these days we are (in theory) all about empowering and respecting the disabled, which is as it should be. And if we’re talking specifically sufferers of sexual abuse, genuine sexual abuse, I do think that we likely don’t empower kids enough to work through their trauma the way they need to. Some adults who’ve been raped go through a period of seeking out anonymous sex in order to feel back in control sexually. A child who’s suffered sexual abuse and is suddenly displaying ‘sexualised behaviour’, reenacting the scenes of the abuse in a safe context, may be doing something similar, and may have a better outcome if s/he’s left to get on with it rather than being stopped, which is what happens now.
Of course girls and women aren’t the only ones to get hit hard by accidental pregnancy, though they are the ones to carry its physical burdens, which can be considerable. The American adoption market is a Wild West about which I know a fair bit and have many remarks to make, none complimentary; suffice it to say that I don’t think offering adoption as the solution is a good idea in our culture, because it just isn’t as simple or, at least as currently practiced in the US, as benign as it may seem. My point about the condoms arises from my irritation at the common view that sticking girls on hormonal contraception early on and keeping them on it is the best way to prevent the unwanted-teen-pregnancy problem. Sometimes it’s the only way, sometimes it’s the perfect solution for an individual, but it’s never going to be ideal on a population level, because of the side effects. Condoms have no such side effects but require (slightly!) more effort to use, so their use, I think, needs to be taught and pushed more systematically than it is now. Of course they do, these days, make ‘female condoms’ that go inside the vagina rather than over the penis.
Incidentally, there’s a teen novel by one Berlie Doherty called Dear Nobody, published in 1991, told mainly from the point of view of an eighteen-year-old young man who’s head over heels in love with his girlfriend and has to work out what to do when she falls pregnant. Beautifully written and thoughtful — I recommend it. I also recommend the more recent Irish short film Frankie, about a fifteen-year-old from a disadvantaged background whose girlfriend has fallen pregnant and who really wants to be a good daddy even though everything seems to be against him. Search for it on Short of the Week and it’ll come up.

Explorer

>>is it any surprises?<<
No, no surprise here… Just compassion to the kids who are forcibly deprived of the freedom to roam and explore the world that I – along with other children of the 1990s Russia – once had. Then, children walking the streets and playing on them, completely unsupervised by adults, was the most common sight.
But when Paedo-Perma-Panic (PPP) entered Russia in 2000s, it finished. Now Russian kids are semi-prisioners, much like the Western ones.
What is especially crazy, there was much more real danger on the streets during the de-facto anarchy of the Russian 1990s than in the modern authoritarian Russia. Yet children enjoyed notably more freedom, since there were so less imaginary dangers within adults' minds…
I was always surprised how more hysterical and wild over-reaction an imaginary threat could produce, being compared with a real one. Many people seem to be much more inclined to perpetually – as well as destructively and even devastatively – figting against the creations of their own imagination, such as PPP, rather than finding effective solutions to actual problems.
Anyone has an idea why it is so?

Dissident

I think the answer to your query may be quite simple, Explorer: emotion, along with the need to believe in the worst in order to justify/rationalize extreme “protective” measures.
Real dangers do not tend to pack the same emotional gut punch as mostly imagined ones, that can happen for real but do so far less commonly than others. In other words, the possibility of losing your child by they’re getting caught in the crossfire of a street gang shoot out, ending up as “collateral damage” in a war zone, having bombs dropped on them from a drone plane due to they’re being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being struck by an automobile, struck by lightning (scientific fact: lightning kills more people every year than hurricanes and tornadoes), drowning in a swimming pool, running away on their own volition due to being unhappy at home, etc., as the idea of being molested or kidnapped by a stranger.

stephen6000

This is an appealing video, made all the more amusing, in a weird sort of way, by the Russian language dubbing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO3swht812U&t=110s
But I’m blowed if I can figure out what film it is. Dirk Bogarde is in it and it’s supposed to be from the sixties. You’d think that would be enough information to track it down, but I came up with nothing. Any ideas, anyone?

stephen6000

Yes, that must be it. Deuhh! (or however you spell that.) I looked at that one, but didn’t notice the reference to ‘“I Am the Monarch of the Sea” (Judy Garland and Boys) from H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan. Thanks.

A.

You may enjoy this, stephen: Jacques Imbrailo of the Drakensberg Boys’ Choir in South Africa (the model for the choir in Mark Behr’s sprawling BL novel Embrace) sings more G & S: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSGen6LtBY8

stephen6000

Thanks, A., but it’s a bit ‘precious’ for me. I usually prefer something a bit earthier, something that suggests at least a faint possibility of bad behaviour. I can’t think why…

A.

I’m intrigued: give me an example!

stephen6000

Well, I’m simplifying a lot. I find that when it comes to music (and usually enjoyment of the music itself is just as important as any erotic component) relatively small things can affect my appreciation a good deal. But here are a couple of very different examples. The first does illustrate what I was talking about in a very explicit way and the singer is pretty gorgeous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEA5ByEhX6g
The very short bit I have in mind is from about 53:15 to 53:50. Of course, if you’ve got the time to watch the whole thing, that really helps!
The second is religious, which I’m not usually keen on, but you can’t fault it for sheer beauty. I love the exquisite sadness of the trumpet as well as the perfect expressiveness of the treble’s singing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cS92hHbs9w

A.

Thanks! I’ve always enjoyed both of those too 🙂

Explorer
daniel

Explorer
is it any surprises?
>This is SCARY. And utterly insane.
https://qz.com/1482833/parents-are-putting-gps-ankle-monitors-on-their-teenage-kids/

Amos’s Protonmail account was also suspended. Apparently, paid customers of Protonmail were complaining that pedophiles were using their email service.
We are still with Amos on Discord, but after many account cycles, we are looking for a new place to continue our organization. There are many options available these days, so it will be easy.
I also have Omnipolitics16 on Skype. Yes, he is still alive. He posted a comment on Tom O’Carroll’s blog a few months ago stating that his suicide was just a rumor started up by a friend.
In similar news, Melissa Chen, an activist who helped Amos Yee get asylum in the US now wants him deported from the US:
https://mothership.sg/2018/12/amos-yee-melissa-chen-deport/
Also, here is Amos’s mother’s response to Melissa Chen:
https://www.facebook.com/marytohab/posts/1082500165260563

Dissident

Mary Toh’s response to Chen is interesting in a few ways.
For one thing, while she is entitled to her views on pedophilia, going out of her way to call it “reprehensible” and engage in all the usual disclaimer statements (“yeah, I know it’s awful and disgusting and harmful to kids, but…”) is not helping her son’s situation. Yes, her views are to be expected in this day and age, and I understand that and give her some leeway for her ignorance in that regard. And yes, I know she is likely scrambling to have her arse covered lest anyone accuse her of being a “pedophile sympathizer” (goddess forbid!). But she could simply say she disagrees with his views and leave it at that. Considering her son’s situation, she can also elect to go out of her way a bit to do research on the topic and see that there are a good number of prominent researchers who do not share the mainstream view. I think it’s likely her son has offered her such research material, and I think out of respect for him, she should try reading it, as she is obviously a thoughtful and intelligent person. She should be willing to at least differentiate how she feels about something and what the established scientific data says about it.
On the other hand, Mary is to be commended for her unwavering commitment to free speech… something Chen is rightly criticized and called a pandering hypocrite for not doing. It’s amazing we live in a world where a committed free speech advocate can argue in favor of allowing thoroughly unpopular speech like white supremacy and direct advocacy for violence yet be against allowing free discussion of the pedophilia issue. I believe that the latter has considerably more nuance to it, and has good research to back up Amos’s views, however unpopular. The same cannot be said for blanket hatred of any particular group of people, nor the use of widespread violence to solve any type of political issue.
What it comes down to is this: As rightfully loathed as white supremacy is, and as rightfully opposed as many people are to pre-emptive violence on others (including the unpopular), these matters still do not pack the same type of emotional wallop to the gut as does the idea of adults sharing gentle romantic/sexual relationships with younger people, which is connected to the broader sacrosanct banning of youth sexual expression in general in order to preserve their “proper” place in contemporary WEIRD, gerontocentric society. The paradigm of the Innocent Child and the histrionic savior complex that arises around the related paradigm of the Exploited Child have the powerful emotional resonance of a secular religion.
Hence, is it any wonder why committed social activists like Chen engage in such bizarre yet popularly widespread hypocritical standards of exceptionalism when it comes to free speech/discussion about this matter? Is it any wonder, not to mention thoroughly amazing, that Neo-Nazis, racists, and violence advocates can make the cut but pedophilia cannot? Is it any wonder these hypocritical exceptions are actually written into law without argument or widespread public opposition? And finally, is it any wonder that committed, intelligent members of our own community are sometimes likewise seduced by the emotional power of these paradigms, and give up the role of critically thinking social activist for that of the more emotionally gratifying savior complex?

Debauch

“The same cannot be said for blanket hatred of any particular group of people, nor the use of widespread violence to solve any type of political issue”
True…I just watched an interview by a woman who, as many women and girls were, spoils of war by ISIS. They have been through serious trauma.
I wonder what they make of the “me too”crowd keyboard warriors!

Dissident

Or how the keyboard warriors you referred to often care far less about war and poverty than they do about the possibility of some women being offended or “harassed” by a man using “colorful” language around them in the workplace.

warbling j turpitude

two things if you will – one, that the whole designation and propagation of the term “white supremacist” tends to mostly obscure the fact that within it lies a truth, if not the truth, that none of us can afford to ignore – and that is the truth that every last one of the vital liberties we DO enjoy are ultimately the product of ethical conceptions that can only be comprehended as products of the West ..and yes even the most virulent ‘anti” Western sentiment cannot be said to have come from anywhere but from within the countless ‘tools’ and discourse of the West itself, and this reference to “white supremacy” I feel can only serve to further ‘disguise’ that all too awesome reality..once again, so-called “extremism” is only countering what is really the more insidious extremism’, that which would happily ontribute wholesale to the West’s intellectual disintegration in favour of massive lip service to “the Other “- who,to the degree that he he is scenically pertinent at all (who cares about Mongolians or Aleutians?), is obviously now no more than an other (small o), along with the rest of our goddamned pesky neighbours!
The other thing I thought was in!ter!est!ing! is the word reprehensible. Which word, if you take it down to its etymons (and etymons always have to be closest to that event in which the sign’ ‘reprehensible’ must first have been uttered and imitated), we get ‘re (repeated) pre-(prior to) hensible (graspable)’. So what we have there perhaps my friends is a situation in which the object is repeatedly reached for, but failing to be grasped. The mother of Amos always felt that her child was quite unbelievably squirmsome….

daniel

Amos Yee’s mum
I wish my mother was as open and supportive of me like Amos mum is with him, and she never has been another reason why i think my family is a waste of space.

Debauch

Chen obviously doesn’t believe in free speech. Free speech is all about accepting the most hideous opinions; Holocaust deniers, Or even Neo Nazis etc. As for human rights, Maybe she should look for another career, You can’t really be selective in this area. The fact that she couldn’t care less if he is imprisoned speaks volumes and proves that she is not truly principled in this area.

bjmuirhead

For what itis worth, does anyone have a pdf of Kincaid’s “Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex”?
I just cannot afford to buy a copy, though there may not even be a pdf.

warbling j turpitude

Kincaid’s? Kincaid’s?? Hold the pickles, BJ, you’ve got the wrong end of the author-stick altogether there, haven’t you?

bjmuirhead

Ah fuck, that’s what I get for not proofing the posts. Indeed, the wrong end of . authorial responsibility. I did in fact intend to write:
“Child-loving: the erotic child and Victorian culture”
And now, I shall write out 100 times: “I must remember to proof read what I write; I must remember…”

bjmuirhead

…especially when I copy and paste…

daniel

Bruce
im just as bad wen it comes to proof reading.

propedofront
bjmuirhead

Huge big grin of thanks, and a touch of wonderment that I didn’t find it on that very website when searching on that very website over the past few days. Must have been a moment of temporary blindness.

Amos Yee is in the news again:
https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-suspends-amos-yee-account-044752127.html
I also have some terrible news for WordPress. Amos Yee’s WordPress blog was also suspended.
https://amosyee.wordpress.com/

daniel

i didnt even know amos had a wordpress blog

Explorer

This will add another layer of constant stress in my life: from now on, each time when I open your blog, or any other (pro-)MAP blog on WordPress, I will hope that I would not see only the message that the blog is suspended… and fear that I would. 🙁

Dissident

What I would like to know, Tom (and I have not yet done enough research into Amos’s situation to know), is what he did on WordPress with his blog that you didn’t do with yours. From what I have heard, however, like you, Amos has never outright advocated for illegal behavior or violence; like you, he has simply advocated for dialogue and questioning of laws that pertain to a very unpopular, emotionally charged, but nevertheless important topic. I would also argue that you are certainly not necessarily more “low key” than Amos, as both of you are rather well known in the larger scheme of things for advocating views and discussion of these issues, and you are at least as well known in the general media as he is for this.
That is why I am both concerned for your and your quality blog, while simultaneously being puzzled over Amos’s banning from WordPress. This may very well merit a future blog from you, with the usual insightful commentary from your blog’s followers.

Explorer

I think that it was the live photographic *image* of a legally-minor girl, compared with a comment that, with some work of fantasy, one may interpret as sexual, that was the reason why Amos was purged from a range of platforms.
Yet it may be not the real reason at all: the scariest thing about the platform repressions are their utter unpredictability. For example, once I thought that it was an open usage of the “pro-contact” phrase that lead both Ed Chambers and ProPedoFront to being gagged on Twitter… but after Alain Manes, who characterised himself as “neither pro / anti” and was active on Twitter for years, was silenced as well, I really don’t know what to think. But I know what I feel: disdain and indignation that a few platform owners effectively have a power to decide who is heard and who is not, depending on their own passing whim (and demands of their friends in power structures… or of the angry moralistic mobs).

propedofront

I do know that what definitely got me banned from Twitter, in my case, was because of #OpDeathEater and other jackasses from Anonymous decided it was a good idea to misinterpret the Pro-Contacto label and then mass-report me, leaving me with the wonderful suprise of not being able to use my Twitter.
I actually tried these days to make yet another Twitter (specifically because there was something I saw that I wanted to comment on that sparked me into making an account again. After the first account, I was immediately requested number, and then after the second account was setup, running well and myself preparing to reply to the comment I mentioned, I got locked again, asking for the damn number. It is frustrating.

propedofront

I am still on Facebook (though I have been banned over 30 times, I can’t really recall anymore).
It is somewhat better that such an individual isn’t even a professor in philosophy. There were instances in the article where I just felt like facepalming.
Interesting. Yes, it is sad many folks are quick to point out flaws and use them as a rebuttals but completely ignore the point the article is making. As Omni would tell me sometimes, “flat-earthers science” for when people would just attempt to prove their point while leaving everything open to question them, even their sources (or better yet, the sources contradicting the person).

I don’t recall Amos having pictures of minors on his WordPress blog. That was only on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. The reason why I think Amos’s blog was deleted is that he has a large amount of people reporting him these days. Also, Tom O’Carroll’s blog is not obviously pro-pedophilia at a first glance to many people. Amos’s blog takes the much more in-your-face approach when defending pedophilia.

Actually, I think Amos has surpassed Tom O’Carroll’s level of fame, at least currently. “Amos Yee” returns more results in search engines than “Tom O’Carroll.” If you even look at the news articles, you will find that Amos Yee is getting more news coverage these days.
Amos’s in-your-face method of defending pedophilia on his blog along with the massive amount of reports on his account is likely what got him suspended. I think that Tom O’Carroll’s work looks scholarly, so it is less likely to be censored.

Dissident

You may be quite correct there, Hypersonic. I know I can get aggressive at times with my defense of the pro-choice topic and in trying to encourage others to see more nuance on this topic, but I try not to be, since I know how much that can alienate others.

stephen6000

I think it’s wrong that they have suspended his account, but I think that on the whole, Amos Yee has not been helpful to our movement. He is brash and confrontational and has probably only further intensified the opposition to minor attraction.

Dissident

I concur, Stephen, that being brash, nasty, and prone to calling people names doesn’t do well for a cause that is not popular to begin with. If the cause has widespread emotional appeal, as does the identity politics thing, then yes, you are oftentimes forgiven for that, with some people even admiring you for it. But when it comes to a topic like this, you are not in a position to express that type of demeanor in public dialogue. You have to learn to be firm but also well-mannered. It’s not easy, and most people falter at one time or another when things get particularly heated in a discussion, but I think it’s an attribute that needs to be mastered by those seeking to make a difference in the way Amos is.

stephen6000

Tom, may I post this brief personal message?
Dissy, I recently e-mailed you but got no reply. Maybe I was using the wrong e-mail address. Would you mind contacting me on minormattersmail@gmail.com?

Dissident

Will do!

Explorer

Amos Yee’s Facebook is also gone… predictably:
https://www.facebook.com/amosyeebanana/
It seems that Amos was subjected to an organised simultaneous cross-platform ban, like the one to which Alex Jones was (in)famously subjected some time before.
Yet, unlike Jones, Amos does not have a large and well-known site of his own that people can still keep visiting even after a coordinated de-platforming.
And, unlike Jones, he will not see masses of defenders, coming from the whole political spectrum (opponents included), decrying the suppression of his free speech…

Explorer

Marthijn Uittenbogaard on Amos Yee’s situation (and his own one as well):
https://marthijn.nl/p/164

QUORA, it seems. is no better. A comment I posted in response to a typically ignorant, viciously cavalier remark about “paedophiles” was removed for contravening the “be nice, be respectful” humbug. I then asked what I was supposed to be ‘respectful’ of, exactly, and received from moderators no reply. The pissing-pot of the world. it seems, gets larger not smaller every day, and a million line up to blissfully discharge their ignorance in there every day. What is not to be sad about?

Explorer

Tom, here are some news for you and everyone else here.
Your latest scholarly article, the one on the virtue ethics, supposed (yet in fact illusive) “childhood innocence” and consensual intergenerational sexuality, got some outside (this is, outside of the Paedo-Sphere) attention – that, quite predictably, was as infuriatedly hateful as it was confusedly misguided:
https://arcdigital.media/the-pedophile-apologist-40ee80bf5d58
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/thomas-ocarroll-mainstreaming-pedophilia/
Meanwhile, ProPedoFront came to your defence:
https://propedofront.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/making-pedophilia-respectable-again-right/
I’m interested in your – and anyone other’s here – response to this!

bjmuirhead

Tom, a comment on something I should have noted previously.
If children are incapable of reciprocal sexual relations, we must question whether or not they also are incapable of reciprocal emotional relations.
This is interesting and important because sexual relations often are an extension of emotional relations, as well as being opportunistic (especially at clubs, I gather). If children are not capable of reciprocal emotional relationships, then they clearly are not capable of consensual and reciprocal sexual relationships. Of course, this extends to other areas, i.e., reciprocal intellectual relationships, which always are learning relationships, irrespective of age (though it may not come clearly into focus as such until age 5 or 6 or so).
I’m making this comment on the basis of your statements, and those of many others, who stress the actual relationship, not the “sex” alone. I don’t especially like children as people (although my own children brought me a level of understanding and like for other kids, but not deeply), but I am aware that many people, paedophile and non-paedophile alike, do like children as people. So, the argument that children can have reciprocal emotional relationships (friends, I guess) seems important for the overall question of paedophilic relations, which need not be sexual, as nearly everyone here knows.
As long as children can have reciprocal emotional and intellectual relationships with adults, surely it always is possible to extend that relationship into sexuality.
The problem everyone has about this seems moral, rather than reasoned, in the majority of cases.
Lastly, Scruton: Britain’s greatest living philosopher according to Lee? Bah, humbug. Lee obviously hasn’t read many British philosophers. (But you know that I loathe Scruton’s philosophy.)

daniel

Facebook have temporarily stopped from using it saying my post is not appropriate, all i wrote was that “paedophilia is not harmful ignorance is lets end the discrimination against paedophiles” and they are also say if i continue to post harmful content i will be terminated.

Explorer

What is your Twitter page (which is, hopefully, still active)?

Explorer

Oops, I meant Facebook page, the one about that you have just written. However, if you do have Twitter account as well, I would be greatful if you tell about it!

daniel

Explorer
>Oops, I meant Facebook page, the one about that you have just written. However, if you do have Twitter account as well, I would be greatful if you tell about it!
I dont have twitter or tumblar but https://www.facebook.com/checkpoint/?next

Explorer

Thanks, but the link you provided leads me to the Facebook main page and not to your one…

daniel

Explorer
>Thanks, but the link you provided leads me to the Facebook main page and not to your one…
You may just have to look for it or ask Bruice Murjanhead (sorry about the spelling of you name Brucie)

bjmuirhead

Not a problem Dannie boy.
Explorer, Daniel’s facebook page is:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100025456114613

daniel

Thanx Bruice merry xmas.

daniel

im not allowed to use my fbook account while the messages build up.

bjmuirhead

Don’t know what to say about that Daniel. I always thought my blog posts, linked to on facebook, would get me in trouble with them, and I’m surprised they haven’t. But for you, I guess your only option is to take a break, wait, and see what happens.

daniel

Its not just the crime here that’s the tragedy its also to do with the fact we have so many drivers getting into bad driving habits ie smoking cigarettes, not sticking to the correct speed limits or even sticking to the basics of the high way code.
https://www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/wigan-road-hit-and-run-two-teenagers-arrested-1-9421091

Steve97

I would like to echo sean’s comments above.

daniel

Got a question for all heretics. In an ideal society would you like an exclusive relationship or would it be ok for your younger partner to have a relationship with ie another adult/some of the same age group?

gantier99

That’s an interesting question Daniel. With adult/adult relationships, most people would probably answer that they prefer exclusive relationships. An adult /child relationship might perhaps be able to exist in parallel with a child/child relationship, because they are, in many respects, different sorts of relationship. I think (in this hypothetical situation!) I would be uncomfortable if my younger partner had a relationship with another adult though.
Your question reminded me that I was recently asked a similar question by a young friend of mine. I recommended he read “Fledgling” by Octavia E Butler. It deals with some of these issues, in a fantasy novel context. His verdict, after reading it, gave me much satisfaction: “Best Book Ever” 🙂

daniel

gantier99
>I would be uncomfortable if my younger partner had a relationship with another adult though.
Do u think thats down to social programming that u feel that way?

gantier99

Very likely, but no less real for that! I would try to hide my feelings of intense jealousy behind a civilised mask of protectiveness 🙂

sean

I also meant to say, I think it’s extremely problematic for an adult to constrain a child friend’s relationships with other adult’s in any way (unless, of course, the other relationship is harmful).
For example: is it ok for an adult friend to be jealous of a child’s parent’s and teachers, and feel threatened when they show the child affection?
It’s easy to feel that way (believe me, I know) but it’s bullshit. It’s intolerably selfish.

stephen6000

>I think it’s extremely problematic for an adult to constrain a child friend’s relationships with other adult’s in any way (unless, of course, the other relationship is harmful).
I would generalise this and say that it is extremely problematic for anyone to constrain anyone else’s relationships with a third party in any way unless the other relationship is harmful and one has the ability (and the authority?) to prevent it

sean

Totally!

sean

I don’t think an adult in this situation should be too fixated on a ‘relationship’ to begin with, let alone be concerned with exclusivity. Not that I think there isn’t a relationship, but I think it’s better to downplay this aspect by reifying it.
I’d go further than this and say an adult in such relationship should be very careful about the child’s feelings about loyalty and exclusivity. A lot of children who have invested friendship and love in an attachment to an adult will be upset if they discover that the adult has a friendship with another child.
So I think discussing this issue from the adult’s perspective reveals a certain amount of selfishness. It’s something that need’s to be understood from a child’s perspective, with an emphasis on the child’s feelings.
In my experience, child friends aren’t pleased to find another child competing for an adult friend’s affection. However, once they reach adulthood, they are very pleased to see an adult friend begin a new friendship with another child.

sean

…I mean, “by not reifying it”

daniel

I think its about wat both parties want and would assume that some want exclusive and some dont same with adults and both parties should know wer each other stand.
>I don’t think an adult in this situation should be too fixated on a ‘relationship’ to begin with, let alone be concerned with exclusivity.

sean

Sometimes a child’s relationship with an adult who isn’t a parent or teacher (ie, isn’t an authority figure) is very valuable for a child, but I think an a.f. should always do what they can to support those other relationships.
An a.f. should never be a wedge between a child and other adults, even if those adults aren’t treating the child well. Parents and teachers can be harsh and thoughtless and an a.f. can be caring and generous, so of course a child will choose the friend over the authority figures. An a.f. may even become a surrogate parent.
I still think it is wrong to encourage a child in this. It’s always better to preserve the child’s connection with his family and school. If the child is being abused at home or school, the a.f. should get other people involved, not exploit that situation to force the child into his arms.
That’s what I think anyway.

stephen6000

No, you shouldn’t ‘exploit that situation to force the child into [your] arms’. But it can be so hard to know whether or not that’s what you’re doing. Here’s the child, troubled, misunderstood, maybe even unloved, by the other adults around them. Here are you, who love the child. It could be almost impossible to hold back. (I’m not advocating anything illegal, by the way.) If someone were to say that you were exploiting the situation, their comment would seem little more than an emotive response. Like an existentialist dilemma, this may have no compelling rational solution.

daniel

Sean
younger paedosexuals ie those under the aoc might feel like having multiple partners but it might be a different story for an older paedosexual who might want a more settled and exclusive relationship and im sure that there are also young and older ppl who do want love rather than playing the field.
>I don’t think an adult in this situation should be too fixated on a ‘relationship’ to begin with, let alone be concerned with exclusivity.

gantier99

Tom, your witness statement will presumably be available for all to see, references and all, on the IICSA website? Brilliant move! Well worth the effort!
And your role as pantomime villain must surely be traumatic enough to warrant a visit to the emotional support service, as detailed in the invitation letter?

gantier99

>….as I can see from IICSA’s website, though, witness statements are not published
I had typed in “Witness statement” on the IICSA websites search field, and got 590 results, but on closer investigation only the first couple of pages or so of these seem to actually be witness statements.

gantier99

You had indeed written “as far as I can see”….
My finger wobbled on copy/paste

Sugarboy

Tom, in the “corrupting public morals” trial, why were you convicted while the others were acquitted? Weren’t they able to corrupt to the same extent as you?

daniel

Tom what did they define as a public moral and corrupting it are they talking about free speech?

daniel

Tom
Is “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” an offence today?
>The offence of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” was in effect made up by the law courts, not by parliament, over 300 years ago.

Sugarboy

Tom, if I remember correctly, when you sought polytical asylum in the Netherland, the UK authorities told you that you could return safely and that you would not be prosecuted. But since they prosecuted you anyway, why did you not ask the judge to dismiss the case on that basis?

Yure

The “not very elevating” line, tho. Cracked me up.

Dissident

Another elevator-related pun!!!

Peter Herman

Tom, your 10,000 word response made in 88 separate points is quite the tour de force. Reading all 88 points was quite entertaining as you have quite a talent with words. Perhaps you could start a new career writing and producing your own farces.
Your point 88 though gives me pause. Was this all a futile exercise as you suspect, or do you have a plan for better publicizing the idiocy you have exposed?

sean

“Reading all 88 points was quite entertaining as you have quite a talent with words.”
Here here! A most rewarding read!

Otto

Bravo, Tom! I hope the inquiry reads your statement fully, carefully, and with an open mind, especially the rather devastating conclusion. I hope, too, that your thought-provoking message garners broad attention elsewhere. Thanks, on behalf of us all, for putting all that work in. I think the criminal libel aspect might be a particularly important part of whatever lies in the legalistic future for our kind.

115
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top