Are we making ‘useful idiots’ of ourselves?

When the religious reactionary press in the US launched a tsunami of hateful bile against an academic article of mine last year, they relied almost entirely on distortion and defamation, lies and libels. But one writer made an uncomfortably strong point when he described me as “a useful idiot for conservatives intent on establishing a link between homosexuality and paedophilia”.
It’s true. American conservatives never tire of using boy-love as a stick with which to beat the gay community, and whenever we radical heretics speak out in favour of consensual child-adult sexual relations, we give the reactionaries more ammunition.
Now they have done it again, in spectacular style, weaponising my recent blog Desmond is truly amazing – and hot! They have used it to attack boy drag queen Desmond Napoles and his family, all child drag acts, and gay culture more widely. It all started with a Twitter-storm in the UK and tut-tutting on the influential British social media site Mumsnet. Then it went viral on Facebook in the US, which may have been when the alt-right media there began to notice, with fabled conspiracy theorist Alex Jones  an early entrant to the field on his NewsWars platform in an article headlined Pedophile Author Says 11-Year-Old Drag Queen Desmond is “Hot”. There have been about a dozen such stories on similar media in the last couple of weeks, which raised the profile of Heretic TOC even if nothing else was achieved: in the last three weeks there have been over 60,000 extra hits on the blog over and above the usual level, including nearly 10,000 on the peak day. The previous highest daily total was about 1,600, and that was after I had been on TV in Australia.
A much more important achievement, though, can be chalked up to the alt-right platforms, especially The Daily Caller, a powerful player on the media scene these days, co-founded by Tucker Carlson, the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News. The Caller’s article quoted an Instagram message in which Desmond’s mother, Wendy, took a pop at me for “sexualising” kids’ drag acts. The problem for her, and for all of us who want to see these kids allowed to be themselves and perform as they wish, is that she is so obviously in denial over the sexual element in her own son’s act.
Devastatingly, The Caller was able to nail the point with a very telling photo. Triumphantly, the story ends:

In a photo posted on the same Instagram page back in June, Desmond appears next to an adult individual wearing a shirt that says, “Angels Have No Gender But Lots Of Sex.”

Lots of sex! Precisely. OK, so it wasn’t Desmond wearing the shirt but that is the gay cultural milieu in which he has been circulating for years and years with the approval and support of his parents. Accordingly, it’s a bit rich for Wendy to accuse me of sexualising her son.  The truth is, as I said in my blog, that boys his age are sexual, as Wendy is well aware. They do not need to be “sexualised”.

Drag kid Desmond Napoles, left, in company that looks relaxed with gender fluidity’s sexual side.

I do not blame Wendy for recanting her beliefs under what must be a lot of  pressure from the social media and alt-right platforms. In fact, that is my point. It was my blog that triggered and justified this latest round of pressure, which is now at such a pitch that Desmond’s parents might well decide enough is enough and that he will no longer be allowed to perform in public. That would be terrible and I would bear a heavy burden of responsibility through being too honest and open in my views. Once again, I have been a “useful idiot” doing the conservatives’ work for them.
What then, is to be done? Should we abandon Heretic TOC entirely? Would the world (including kids like Desmond) be better off if we sexual heretics were to do something more obviously useful, like put our energies into environmental activism? It is an issue that comes into even sharper focus with my second item today, which takes us from the wild American alt-right West to the sometimes even wilder European East.
 
TRANSLATOR ARRESTED FOR PRO-PAEDOPHILIA DEMO
Cyril Eugenovich Galaburda, the 32-year-old Ukrainian physics graduate who translated my book Paedophilia: The Radical Case into Russian, and who has been a guest blogger here, was arrested last month soon after he began an extraordinary one-man demonstration outside council buildings in his home city – a demo for which he had been given written permission a week earlier.
At the start of the demo he soon found himself faced with hostility from passersby, one of whom threatened to break his legs.
Officials came out of their workplace to meet Cyril, who handed them a letter to the head of the regional state administration. This was in Dnipro, one of Ukraine’s biggest cities. The letter called for consensual child-adult sexual contacts to be made legal. Cyril said he believed “children have the same right to personal (sexual) life as adults”. He claimed the criminal code of Ukraine is unconstitutional and contradicts the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He also objected to the mooted introduction of a register of paedophiles as unconstitutional.
The police then turned up in considerable numbers after having been alerted by the council, according to press reports. Open TV Media ran the photo you see here. Cyril, holding a poster he designed for the occasion, is seen being confronted by a burly policeman.
Cyril Galaburda, holding a poster he designed for his one-man demo, is confronted by a burly policeman.

The poster was taken from him and he was whisked away to a police station “to draw up a protocol” as the newspapers put it in Google’s translation from Ukrainian. Cyril did not see a lawyer and is unsure what this means, but it sounds as though the police have started a dossier on his “case”, such as it is. He was released without charge, but before being allowed to leave he had to sign to say he would return to the police station if asked to do so. This appears to be a grant of police bail pending further investigation.
In the course of his detention he faced questions about his sexuality and his mental state, including whether he had suffered any trauma “because of seeing my parents in bed”. There were indications he might be referred for psychiatric reports.
Until recently, at least, the police in Ukraine have had a reputation for brutality. Perhaps that is changing since the introduction of reforms by President (until recently) Petro Poroshenko, because Cyril says he was treated in a “rather friendly” way.
He gives a different reason though.

In general, people did not take me seriously,” he says. “I was like Gwynplaine for them, that’s why people were almost forgiving towards me. Maybe it was because I had no family, and they thought I did not know what I was talking about.

It’s a fascinating thought. Gwynplaine, a character in Victor Hugo’s novel The Man Who Laughs, is a classic outsider, grotesquely disfigured in the tradition of the Gothic horror novel. His mouth is locked in a perpetual grin, so nobody can take him seriously, even when what he says is of the utmost importance.
With this response in mind, Cyril now gloomily seems to regret his protest. It was undoubtedly brave, in my view, but what did it achieve? He now fears that the establishment of “paedophile” (or sex offender) registration in Ukraine is more likely following his action, not less.
What should we make of this? Is there something in common between his potentially counterproductive activism and mine? His “achievement” might be the creation of a sex offender register, mine might be the suppression of children’s sexual expression in drag acts. Brilliant! How proud we can be! He is seen as a crazy fool, while I am an idiot. It is possible we could both be seen as useful people, but only to those who want to crush everything we stand for. What an irony!
So, I ask all heretics here: What is to be done? Should we all just shut up?
 
A TALE OF TWO OTHER ACTIVISTS
One activist who could never be shut up in his lifetime was Dave Riegel, whose death in his late eighties earlier this year can now be reported, after a period of some months in which his family and close friends asked for the information not to be released.
I found out Dave was no longer with us a couple of months ago when I emailed to congratulate him on the publication of a new peer-reviewed article in the academic journal Sexuality & Culture. A reply came, not from Dave but from someone who said he was a friend. This friend wrote:

From my understanding, Dave acquired some people who hated him vehemently… and he specified in his will that the news be kept quiet for 3-4 months, so that there’s distance between him, his death, his real life friends and loved ones. He wanted to protect the people who he loved and cared about, and hopefully lessen the chances of them being associated with him.

I responded by saying “Please be assured that I will respect Dave’s wish. I will not say anything on my blog about his passing until at least July.”
No heretic is ever short of enemies who hate them, of course. Being loathed is pretty much part of the definition, or it ought to be if it isn’t. But Dave was beyond question a difficult, abrasive character, quick both to take offence and to dish it out. Anyone who doubts this can check out the gory details here at Newgon, under the extensive “Controversy” section. Biographical notes of a more positive nature are also to be found in this entry, and it is the more constructive side of Dave’s record I wish to focus on today.
David was born in 1931 and came late to boy-love activism after a varied career in which being an airline pilot was perhaps the high point, if you’ll forgive the pun. He was drawn into research and writing in the behavioural sciences when he was approached in 1999 by an editor of the McGraw Hill textbook Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality for an essay on the controversy that was then swirling around the famous 1998 Rind et al. analysis, which gave survey data  showing that children do not typically suffer psychological trauma from sexual contact with adults, contrary to popular opinion.
After that, he became involved in internet-based studies into the psychosexual development of boys and also conducted survey research on boy-lovers’ views and sexuality. In 2005 he gained a degree in psychology. Remarkably, for a newcomer to academic research, and without the benefit of ever having undertaken a supervised Ph.D., he managed to secure the publication of at least 10 of his papers in academic journals. Through his own online SafeHaven Foundation, he published numerous other articles and books. His website was still up and running only a couple of days ago but now appears to have been suspended.
The Dave Riegel I will remember was energetic and determined, driven by a fiercely-held belief in ethical boy-love as a power for good. While he was always more of a partisan activist than an objective scholar, he was entirely sincere, in my view, in seeking truth through scientific enquiry. He was as honest as he was cantankerous, and I will remain in his debt for the support he has given me.

***

It has turned out to be quite a year so far for losing people who have been important to me personally. Last time, I was obliged to report the death of psychiatrist Richard Green. This time, I have to tell you about not one departure for Valhalla, but two. You have just been hearing about Dave. Please now give ear to what I must say about Peter, a very close and dear friend of mine for 40 years.
I refer to David Peter Bremner, sometimes referred to in the press as David Bremner, or identified by his old activist pseudonym Roger Nash, but known to all his friends as Peter.
Peter died last month at the age of 79 after being ill for some years with cancer of the liver.
Born in Argentina in 1939 to Scottish parents, he was educated in the UK, taking a PhD in biochemistry at London University before embarking on his career as a research biochemist, working mainly on attachment to hospitals in the capital.
You will not be surprised to learn that I first met Peter through the Paedophile Information Exchange in the late 1970s. Peter founded PIE’s East London local group; later, as a member of the national executive committee, he succeeded me as PIE’s representative on the gay rights committee of the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty. He appeared on the BBC’s Newsnight TV programme to make the case for consensual child-adult sexual relations. He was also deeply involved in the 1980s with producing the youth rights journal Minor Problems.
The state’s persecution of PIE saw him tried at the Old Bailey in 1984 and jailed for six months, for an infraction of the now defunct Post Office Act. He was acquitted of more serious charges.
By this time, as may be imagined, he had already lost his hospital job, and his career never recovered. Increasingly, he relied on heavy drinking to get him through the day, and he succumbed to cirrhosis of the liver long before he had cancer. Remarkably, though, he eventually gave up alcohol entirely and then survived and even thrived for many years, finding a new lease of life through his enthusiasm for studying Ancient Egypt.
I used to stay at his flat whenever I was in London and we spent many happy hours in agreeable conversation. He will be sorely missed, especially by me and other PIE veterans.
 
A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND SOLIDARITY
A couple of months ago you might have seen a post on Heretic TOC’s About page, in the comments, from a heretic by the name of Sasha Kopot. He introduced himself as a MAP from Russia, saying that “On our forum we made a decision to introduce the Day of Remembrance and Solidarity with the victims of paedophobia.” He invited thoughts as to particular individuals who might be commemorated on such a day. There was some discussion about this in subsequent comments.
A couple of days ago, Sasha emailed me to say a web page has now been set up, in English, where people are being invited to vote on the date of their choice as an annual remembrance day, based on each date’s association with someone whose life and death ought to be commemorated.
Everyone here is invited to go to that page, read the information given, and cast a vote for one of the proposed dates. The place to go is here. In English, the name of this Russsian website, if Google Translate is to be believed, is Right to love: Love for all ages.
 
 
 

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

[…] July, I reported the death of no fewer than three prominent heretical activists with whom I was well acquainted, […]

[…] Sugiro a leitura do texto Are we making “useful idiots” of ourselves?, do Tom O’Carroll para um possível exemplo do que eu quero […]

Dissident

“Great stuff, Dissy!”
Tom, do you share his view that our society is rotten to the core, that all of these issues are related and pedophile issues are just one small part of the need for revolution? I wasn’t sure I’d heard you say that yourself.

I won’t speak for Tom, of course, but as for me–yes, I totally do believe that a system that can produce an abundance for all but forces so many of us to lack access to sufficient amounts of it, that profits off of war & imperialism, that blows kids and/or their families to bits in foreign nations with no sign of remorse as part of that industry, has no problem with so many kids (even in the U.S.) being impoverished and subject to neglect, fosters a cynical dislike for the entire human species among the population, that weaponizes hatred against different groups as a means of preserving its foundation of ruthless competition, has no problem with creating and spreading moral panics to control the populace and justify laws taking democracy apart–before then turning around and preaching “morals” about kids solely on the subject of sexuality and giving pious lip service to democratic principles it only actually supports when it’s convenient–is indeed a system that is rotten to the core and demanding of a revolution to a much better (not “perfect”) world that we are fully capable of achieving.
I think this is one of the major ways our ideology differs and set us on the path of opposition, Ethan. You seem to firmly believe that we are somehow inherently or morally obligated to support the prevailing status quo in which we are born, and to ask for no more than very superficial changes that really change nothing at all in the long run and would be relatively easy to rollback over the course of a generation or so. I suppose I am similar to other heretics in that we believe that we are, to the contrary, morally obligated as citizens to give the system under which we live a strong objective scrutiny, and if we find it to be far less than what could be; and that the current institutions (or at least the current versions thereof) do not live up to the principles our culture claims to hold dearer than life itself–then yes, we will challenge it and demand revolution. And again, I think your feelings of obligation to the basic status quo (yes, I know you will and have asked for reforms regarding various pieces of it) is the crux behind the position you have chosen to align with.
Do I believe the “pedo” part of the revolution is indeed a small component of this? As well as the youth liberation movement, which is both separate and intertwined? You bet your Ph.D. I do. Because they are two prominent manifestations among many others of what happens in a hypocritical, archaic system that falls far short of its stated ideals.
Can you spot a brainstorm when you see it? It’s not a carefully considered analysis of every aspect of the Incel position, but addresses the underlying emotional thrust of some of them.
But you said it in such a way as to imply that all incels feel a certain way. You said “incels,” plain and simple, not “that Reddit group of incels” which represented only a small portion of that group. And you also mentioned a belief supposedly held “by incels” that is actually untrue, but rather a radical distortion of something one of them said exclusively for the purpose of painting the entire group in a horribly bad light.

Peace

At someone else’s comment, I noticed that Riegel’s site is currently online again. I’m not sure who is currently supporting it or if, for example, the Peer Support Exchange infrastructure is still working, but it’s good news for those who wish to archive it.

Explorer

About the drinking age: I think it should be given up, along with the age of consent and all other strict numerical age-based restrictions.
It does not mean that I want kids to be constantly drunk out of their mind. It just means that the consumption of alcohol – as well as as any other currently or potentially legal psychoactive substance, such as, say, cannabis – is not a dichotomous, black-and-white issue. In fact, it is the black-and-white approach to it, common to the Puritanism (in all its forms, old religious ones or novel secular ones), that deals the most damage. Such approach tries to represent the usage of psychoactives as the binary choice between a total abstinence and an uncontrollable addiction. It insists that even the most moderate consumption of the light drugs by the “immature” “underage” people will become a “gateway” to the destructive addiction with catastrophic, most likely lethal, consequences. In the Anglophone world, such Puritan approach is the mainstream one; and, because of the Anglophone dominance in the global culture, it is also quite influential beyond the Anglophone countries as well.
Yet, if the examine the actual evidence and experience, it is clear that moderate, non-addictive and non-destructive usage of the alcohol (and other light psychoactives) is not just possible, but beneficial. For example, in the 1990s Russia, where and when I have grown up, it was common to teach kids the culture of moderate drinking since the age of 10 or 11. They were allowed to drink small amounts of wine during holidays, under the adult supervision, and taught how to enjoy the taste, ritual and company without getting heavily drunk. The school-leaving party was a kind of final initiation ceremony, when 17-olds were allowed to drink as much as they wanted with adults being present but not interfering. Usually everything was perfectly fine.
But nowadays, Puritanism has entered Russia: authorities expressed outrage that the pure, innocent 17-year-old children are allowed to taste the dirt of alcohol – with allowance, and even encouragement, of their sinful parents. Alcohol at the school-leaving parties was strictly forbidden, with (as far as I know) patrols being dispatched to intervene the parties and check that no alcohol is there. So the delightful ritual of leaving the school with the cup of good wine, in which I, myself, participated in the early 2000s, was banned for the sake of puritan absolutism…

Explorer

Answering the main question of your blogpost, Tom: of course you should NOT give up your activism, Tom! You are a rare voice of sanity and evidence-based, rather than passion-based, approach in the field of child and intergenerational sexuality. Your work is an indispensable source of information – not just for us, but for the generations to come. (This is no flattery, but a sincere evaluation of your work.)
And for what end can you refuse to continue? To appease the Alex Jones-like types? But they won’t be appeased; they simply don’t want to. In the absence of real paedosexuals to attack, they would quickly construct imaginary ones and attack them instead; Satanic Panic and Pizzagate demonstrated this quite clearly. So, by disappearing from their radar, one can only make them to seek and find a new target of aggression – some poor type who is not even an actual paedosexual to begin with, yet would be denigrated as the one nevertheless (and, if Alex Jones-like people would become a part of the mainstream – which they did became, for a short time, during the Satanic Panic – this non-paedosexual also faces a very real persecution).
So, by refusing to give up, you are not just bringing the objective truth to the people’s attention, but also direct the fire of hatred on yourself – knowing that, otherwise, this fire would be directed at some entirely uninvolved bystander who was unlucky enough to appear suspicious in the haters’ eyes. I hope this understanding would ease your conscience, Tom!
One should also remember whatever the haters is doing, it is their responsibility, not the guilt of the hated ones. To compare: what would you think of a Jew who tries to persuade other Jewish people to minimize their social activity and visibility, and never try to reach a position of prominence, since by doing that, they can provoke hatred and violence of antisemites? And extreme paedo-hatred is, in fact, comparable to the hardcore antisemitism: Satanic Panic / Pizzagate accusations are frighteningly similar to the antisemitic blood libel ones. I think, many others here also noted this similarity…

ethane72

One specific point: there is one important way that pedophiles are different from gays, lesbians, Jews, African-Americans and other oppressed groups. It is that our status and definition involves a second, totally separate group of people — children. And the pro-legalization pedophile position seeks the ability to engage in sex with that other, distinct class of people. And it is concern for that other class of people that is what worries society at large and why we/you are a separate case. I can’t immediately think of good analogies of other groups — maybe Incel men, who seek the right to have sex with women? I presume we all will have much less sympathy for that case, but you see that it involves a second distinct set of people who society is concerned for.
You simplify things greatly if you argue for the right of children to choose sex with whoever they want, but you would be politically much more effective doing that without your “pedophile” hat on.

bjmuirhead

As a non-paedophile: I have argued that children should be allowed to have sex with whomever they wish, that sexual activity of and by itself does not harm them. The result is that I am accused of being a paedophile, and it is only paedophiles who are willing to discuss it with me (apart from one or two academics), and who do not actually care whether or not I am a paedophile.
Merely taking a view which is against the common view is enough for condemnation (remember Rind et al). And if paedophiles don’t stand up for themselves, there will be precious few, like me, who change their minds; there will be precious few who realise that not all paedophiles bash and rape children.
Which do you prefer: to let the lies about you remain? Or to bring some sense to the conversation?
If it had not been for Tom’s writings, and the people here, I would have continued to condemn all paedophiles, the good, the bad, and the stupid, and I think the “virtuous paedophile” view does little to change people’s minds. In effect, the VP position says: yes, we are nasty, and children having sex is nasty and harmful, so we won’t do it. That isn’t what you mean to say, but it is the upshot—I’ve talked about it with people face to face, and that is the message they received. Again: not a personal attack, but my experience is that few take your position seriously; much better to argue a different position, though I could not say what that would be for you.
Yo end by quoting Ringo: Peace and love.

bjmuirhead

Actually, ethane, I think it also is worth noting that everyone knows that you, a paedophile, would like to engage in some type of sexual contact with children, but few would actually believe that you don’t at least think about “doing it”. In the mind of most people, this always will stand against your position. Most believe that if you want it, you will do it.
Strangely enough, I believe that you mean what you say (you argue passionately for your position), and I believe, therefore, that you don’t and will not engage in any sexual activity with children. But very few will believe that, which makes your position very difficult on all levels.

ethane72

Gallup has not polled people about attitudes towards pedophiles.
“I’ve talked about it with people face to face, and that [VP nasty/nasty] is the message they received”
You should realize that people who like Tom’s blog and basic philosophy are the tiniest margin of anything, so any personal experiences “you all” have in gauging public opinion need to be taken with extreme skepticism. As a non-pedo hanging out with pedos, BJ, you’re even rarer.
“yes, we are nasty, and children having sex is nasty and harmful, so we won’t do it.”
For a great many moderates, that message would be a revelation and could perhaps knock loose some preconceptions and start them thinking more positively about celibate pedophilia. “We won’t do it” is the news to them, the rest fits with their preconceptions, so it makes it more likely they’ll consider that “We won’t do it” might be right. It’s not the VP message, but as misunderstandings go, thinking about people who live in the real world and want to change the minds of real people, it’s not a bad one. There are a lot of members of the VP support group who pretty much do believe that.
Also note that while huge majorities of the public hate pedophiles, there is a significant liberal group, I’d guess a minority but a large one, that thinks all these things are good: children knowing about sex, feeling OK about their bodies, masturbating, playing doctor, and (if not good at least not “nasty”) having sex with their peers as young teens. We would do far more for children’s welfare if we could get that view to be a majority one that guides policy than anything related to pedophiles. I would say that step has to come before a pro-legalization message even getting a hearing.
“everyone knows that you, a paedophile, would like to engage in some type of sexual contact with children, but few would actually believe that you don’t at least think about “doing it”. In the mind of most people, this always will stand against your position.”
“Like to”, “think about”, and “want” are treacherous terms when it comes to us pedophiles. I should blog about it. There are some who think that and some who don’t. But I don’t see any better alternative for a pedophile. Who do you, as Joe Q. Public, think is least likely to engage in sex with kids? Ones who say it ought to be legal, or ones who say it shouldn’t? What else could a pedophile say that would relieve that suspicion?
“Most believe that if you want it, you will do it.”
I tried to address that in my latest blog post:
http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2019/07/credible-pedophile-celibacy.html
One interesting twist is that among people who do believe us are many religious conservatives, whose world view includes sexual restraint as a live possibility for everyone.

bjmuirhead

Yes, “Public Opinion”. I am in the process of working out a doctoral proposal (though I won’t be doing it until I have finished some coursework which is a requirement for the degree), and public opinion is one aspect that i want to look into. Other aspects being childhood sexuality and paedophilia itself.
My comments were solely in relation to the reactions of those to whom I have explained the VP position. As I said, I have no difficulty believing that you will refrain from sexual contact with a child.
As for the liberal group, I suspect that I belong to that group, in as much as I am an old fashioned liberal, but I extend this to children, who I believe to be far more capable (and sexual) than is commonly believed.
As for your blog post on this issue, there are some, perhaps many, for whom the consequences of paedosex will stop them engaging in it. The difficulty revolves around those whom it does not stop, and public belief about those whom it does stop. (Worded badly, but cannot be bothered rewriting it. I think you know what I mean.)
As for preconceptions: there are so many of those, it seems, and I think they will disappear both because of positions like Tom’s, and yours. In so many ways, these positions go hand in hand in terms of changing preconceptions.
Anyway, got to go do some of that coursework now.

ethane72

I wrote ““Like to”, “think about”, and “want” are treacherous terms when it comes to us pedophiles. I should blog about it.”
I did blog about it, here:
http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2019/08/want-would-like-to-think-about.html and posted it on Sexnet, where Tom took issue with “no-sweat celibate pedophilia”, and it’s an interesting point he makes and raises a new set of issues.
I’m thinking of making a poll at VP to see how people there view it. Maybe I could do one at VoA and other forums too and see how different people feel who congregate different places. VP and VoA are the only places where I immediately know how to construct a poll.

bjmuirhead

From your post on Celibate Pedophiles about my comment here:

Now I want to talk about the ambiguity of the language in that comment (which is just one example of a common problem) and how it hurts understanding.

Ambiguity was just my point. As I said in reply to you, I have no doubt that you, and anyone else who wishes to do so, can be celibate and remain celibate in respect of children. Celibacy is not that difficult. But when you face the public, the chances are that many will not find your claims of celibacy genuine. But I have no ideas about how to deal with that ambiguity when paedophiles are presented as uncaring monsters, which is just what Tom and you are both dealing with in your own, different ways.

ethane72

Ambiguity in language is a comparatively straightforward problem. Ambiguity in terms of the substance is a much harder problem. I’m not even sure I’d call the latter “ambiguity”. It is just different assumptions about human nature, what’s possible, who’s credible, etc. But I’m not disagreeing with you fundamentally.

Dissident

All minority groups have differences despite the much greater number of parallels that they all share. In fact, conservative people of color have often touted the differences between racial groups and sexual groups to justify their refusal to support and consider gay emancipation to be morally comparable to the emancipation of people of color.
In fact, it can cogently be argued that the fact our status involves two distinct groups of people makes it all the more important to give it full objective scrutiny, since the oppression of one easily leads to the oppression of another.
And the pro-legalization pedophile position seeks the ability to engage in sex with that other, distinct class of people. And it is concern for that other class of people that is what worries society at large and why we/you are a separate case.
That “concern for the well-being of kids” is largely a cover for concern to maintain the power structures and status quo of a society that gives people of greater age legal control and power across various hierarchies. As I told you before, Ethan, we would take the idea of society’s attitude towards the “safety” of young people far more seriously if they displayed remotely comparable concern for serious matters outside the realm of sexuality/piety: a war machine that results in drones that routinely drops bombs on kids in foreign countries, along with economic embargoes where the kids suffer untold poverty as a result; forces them to attend a schooling system based upon the Prussian military that many kids are not suited for; support of domestic policies that cause poverty in the richest nation in the world; refusal to even consider changing the the status of traffic laws to ameliorate the greatest proven risk to the safety of kids each year; and which mostly ignores the fact that the greatest incidences of all forms of abuse to kids occurs within the insular nature of the present nuclear family unit where kids are at the complete mercy of these adult “guardians.”
I can’t immediately think of good analogies of other groups — maybe Incel men, who seek the right to have sex with women?
Your “SJW” side is betraying you here, Ethan. Typical incels do not believe they have a “right” to the bodies of women who do not want them. Rather, they have argued that women should be allowed to legally and voluntarily choose work as escorts, and that this should be subsidized by the government both for the protection of women and for incels to be able to afford their services. That is far different from what you are claiming here.
And further, this does not in any way resemble what pro-legalization MAPs are asking for. They ask for the right of mutual choice between people of disparate ages to form romantic relationships, and most ask for full emancipation of younger people so they are properly empowered and educated to make the best choices possible for themselves as individuals, and to collectively formulate the rules of society. This type of insult borders on being libelous, and is quite obvious to every reader & researcher who reads what we all say objectively and can keep their emotions under control.
You simplify things greatly if you argue for the right of children to choose sex with whoever they want, but you would be politically much more effective doing that without your “pedophile” hat on.
We have people who do not wear the “pedophile hat” doing so, like Explorer and BJ Muirhead. Further, the idea that teleiophiles are capable of objectivity in this matter is beyond absurd. This is a matter that everyone, including youths, need to sit down and discuss together–no one agency should decide for everyone else.

ethane72

“Great stuff, Dissy!”
Tom, do you share his view that our society is rotten to the core, that all of these issues are related and pedophile issues are just one small part of the need for revolution? I wasn’t sure I’d heard you say that yourself.
Too often I feel “you all” are reading my posts as if there was a war on, there were two sides, I’m the enemy, and anything I say is to be taken as enemy propaganda. We’ve gone over most of the big issues years ago, and I’m not inclined to go into them again. Lately I tend to address specific points, though sometimes once I get going I’ll put in as a footnote my view on some of the old arguments.
Tom thought I was presenting my analogy on the drinking age as a decisive argument against the pro-legalization position, while it was just highlighting one aspect of the situation — and I think I learned that everyone other than Dissy is sympathetic in principle to the idea of restricting rights of individuals when it pertains things like whether they can drink if it’s a win overall. To be clear, I’m NOT addressing whether such a trade-off is in fact a good idea in the case of adult-child sex or in the case of the drinking age, just that such a trade-off is not in itself a deal-breaker.
Similarly, here I was addressing the claim that we have learned from the case of gays and racial minorities that all minorities need to stand up for themselves and that’s the only way to make progress. Notice the opening words “One specific point”. I pointed out a way that we are different from those other groups and so claimed that politically it is a different situation. Read it again assuming I was 100% pro-legalization and it is completely consistent, an argument about how to even begin changing hearts and minds of the public at large.
“When he is being provocative he just sounds ridiculous, to readers of this forum at least.”
Did you think there was anything provocative in this post Dissy was replying to? Read it again, getting rid of the assumption of the war mentality?
Read “seeks the ability to engage in sex with that other, distinct class of people” as public perception and I don’t think it’s at all unrealistic or outrageous. Do you doubt that’s what most of the public thinks?
“I can’t immediately think of good analogies of other groups — maybe Incel men, who seek the right to have sex with women?”
That’s from my post. Can you spot a brainstorm when you see it? It’s not a carefully considered analysis of every aspect of the Incel position, but addresses the underlying emotional thrust of some of them.

Dissident

Great stuff, Dissy!
Thank you.
Your point about incels makes a very good answer to the terrible press they get, although some of their own spokesfolks have to shoulder quite a lot of blame for this.
Indeed. In other words, the “loudest” and most emotionally provocative of the bunch, i.e., that crew (formerly) on Reddit who let hatred consume their souls — particularly that one in Toronto who engaged in a tragic act of spree killing when he went over the deep edge. However, this particular group of incels seduced by hatred are far from representative of the whole (who realize hatred is wrong and self-destructive). They are the equivalent of the right-wing fundamentalist Christians, who tend to be much “louder” than their many liberal brethren, and thus tend to give a bad rap to all Christians that radical atheists are quick to jump on. Similarly, the minority crowd of “loud” incels who once had a foothold on Reddit are routinely used as easy fodder for the SJWs, who tend to loathe men and the very air they breathe. And as I noted, no incel ever suggested that they are “entitled” to a woman’s body in a “rapey” fashion–this distortion was made by SJWs from a suggestion by a few incels (one in particular) that the government should legalize escort work and subsidize it to an extent for both escorts and incels so the latter could find willing sex partners via “girlfriend experience” transactions with willing escorts who are financially compensated for the work.
I’d say the same about Ethan, actually. He can be more measured, reasonable and to some extent credible in private email exchanges. When he is being provocative he just sounds ridiculous, to readers of this forum at least.
I hope to see this side of him on the various forums he posts on someday!

Explorer

Thanks, Dissident! Yes, it is possible for a teleiophile like me or BJ Muirhead to support MAP on evidential and moral grounds – but, in my own case, the support is not that helpful: not being a prominent person (high-level academician or someone like that), I can hardly influence the hearts and minds of other teleiophiles. We need new eminent thinkers, researchers and activists – people like Michel Foucault, Theo Sandfort and Harry Hay – on our side to have some real effect on the attitudes and concepts of the population…

bjmuirhead

Agreed.

Nada

>It is that our status and definition involves a second, totally separate group of people — children
Compare Nuremberg Laws of 1935 with the age of consent reforms and attacks on marriage.

daniel

I’ve just finished watching this video i found interesting by Judith Levine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4r490-CWEA

Explorer

It would be good to leave a kind of a short “redirection note” on the “About” section, so Quana would be able to see that her (his?) comment was accepted and published.
P.S. Am I too late already? Would it make sense for me to comment here further, or is this post going to be given up soon in favour of the new one?

Linca

We must remember the slogan of ‘ACT-UP’ “Silence = Death”.

Dissident

Hi, Tom. I shall answer the important question you asked after the media debacle you discussed here: “What is to be done? Should we all just shut up?”
Here is my advice for whatever you (and others) may feel it’s worth, old friend.
No, we most certainly shouldn’t shut up. That is exactly what they want us to do by using our sincere arguments against us. They know they have the advantage and the ability to play the role of self-righteous bullies. They are the big kids of the playground, and we’re the small “bookwormy” types. And the conservatives have long been aware of the divide-and-conquer tactics to split off those who transcend against their moralizing imperatives into factions who are as antagonistic to each other as they are to the conservatives themselves.
Note how the conservatives have bullied the liberals into pushing policies similar to their own since the ’80’s, and made them feel forced into close-minded capitulation with the moral panics of the past few decades. Notice how mainstream liberals now promote a world order not much different from the one long promoted by the conservatives, so that even if the latter lose an election they still mostly win.
Now, regarding the concern that much of what we say is used as fodder for the conservatives to besmirch the mainstream LGBT community. Note how they have bullied and cajoled the homosexual community into repudiating the MAPs (at least the boy-attracted segment) who spun out of their movement during the great progressive decade of the ’70’s and who they once stood more or less united with. Note how they used this to bully the LGBT community to adopt increasingly conservative and status quo-friendly policies in general over the course of the past few decades: strict monogamy, the institution of marriage, denial of youth rights & particularly youth sexuality, embracing of the neoliberal world order in general, and hostility towards those who are different (as embodied by the extremist SJWs). And the majority of the LGBT community let them gain this victory over their integrity in exchange for perceived “acceptance”.
Note how the conservatives helped twist feminism into blatant organized misandry, which works to the advantage of conservatives on many levels, including (but not limited to) more factioning within the Left.
Finally, note how they made Desmond’s mom Wendy feel compelled to attack you, deny anything to do with her son’s sexual expression, and make her feel forced to embrace the party line despite all the evidence against it simply because a pedophile defended her son’s expression and happened to find him attractive.
In other words, setbacks are going to happen. The conservatives will see to it. They want us to be divided against each other and, ultimately, to seek their approval for anything we discuss or advocate. They already helped turn mainstream liberals into reflections of themselves. If we heretics (i.e., true progressives) let them do the same with us, then what hope for change is there?
The road we’re traveling is a long one, and along the way we are going to make mistakes, initiate miscalculations, and have the conservatives leap on any opportunity and grasp at any possible straw to make us regret opposing them. To make us doubt ourselves and whether our efforts are worth anything. They know that our efforts are going to take time, so they will have plenty of efforts to trip us up, make us feel bad about our mistakes, and attempt to set us against each other and against other minority groups.
What can we do? These things, I think: 1. Try our best to learn from any mistakes and miscalculations we make, and work around them in our future efforts. 2. Never adopt attitudes or policies that mirror their own–including the adoption of hatred, moral overcompensation, expediency before principle, or belief before fact; 3. Never give up on our principles, and never stop trying no matter how many setbacks and casualties we suffer along the way. That is simply the price we must pay for doing what is right, which is the hardest thing one can possibly do.
Let me close this out by giving a more specific and relevant bit of advice that may help us provide less inadvertent ammunition to the antis in the future. It’s been something I’ve been saying on GC for years, with some steadfastly refusing to listen to it. And I think this situation suggests that perhaps I should be listened to on this.
We need to be careful when we choose certain provocative subject lines in our articles/blogs. In this case, “Desmond is truly amazing–and hot!” I understand there is nothing inherently wrong with finding him attractive. I further understand that many such headlines are chosen for their ironic resonance and to be witty. That has always been common for journalists, and there is nothing wrong with it per se. However, in our particular case, such provocative subject lines are just too easy to use against us. They immediately trigger the “disgust” reflex in the general public rather than being taken as witty or grin-inducing, as intended. We need to understand that if we want to appeal to people outside the MAP community, we need to watch not what we say but how we say it. And we need to apply that same consideration to the fact that what some fellow MAPs may find witty and charming etc., many in the public–including the many fence-sitters we hope to reach–may find it revolting and refuse to see the words of the article as anything more than a salacious declaration.

ethane72

I hadn’t read Tom’s base post carefully until now, inspired by Dissident’s reply. I think you know the Virtuous Pedophiles answer. Yes, pro-legalization pedophiles would do better to remain silent. Dissident says it might be better to avoid certain provocative headlines, while suggesting you need to keep pushing your views and expect setbacks. But this seems more like “To the barricades!” emotion than careful thought. As a hated group with no power, any time a pro-legalization pedophile opens his mouth, it has that same effect. It also casts doubt on his political judgment. In my blog I have opened my mouth to say things that don’t serve the VP cause, such as saying that child porn possession should not be illegal. It’s hard to shut up when you have convictions, and I’m sure it’s no easier for pro-legalization pedophiles. We all have a right to say whatever we want, but political wisdom would suggest silence on anything that goes beyond the VP position.
There is another path to acceptance of adult-child sex. Contrary to the conspiracy theories about society silencing children’s sexuality, the kids would speak if it was an important issue — and their grown-up selves would speak on behalf of future children if they felt they had been made to suffer unjustly. They do not. I would suggest waiting until they do. I think you’ll be waiting forever, but if you’re right then they should come around.

Dissident

Regarding your first paragraph: History has shown that it takes a lot of time for minds and hearts to change. It was no different regarding issues like chattel slavery, miscegenation, etc. Setbacks have always been a fact of life for many generations, including rollbacks of previously required gains. Keeping our mouths shut likely has a worse effect that problems resulting from speaking unpopular positions to power: it furthers the illusion that there is no other side to the issue. Only by taking these brave stances and dealing with the fallout do some people hear our voices and consider the other side of the issue.
I have no doubt, Ethan, that if the anti-legalization MAPs were the only voice for MAPs out there, it would benefit you by pushing the illusion that this position was universal among MAPs and researchers (which it most certainly isn’t). But keeping silent for as long as the homosexual community did likely went a long way towards dragging out their situation much longer than if more of them followed the lead of Harry Hay’s Mattachine Society. Eventually, though, the social climate changed, and during the 1970s many from what we today call the LGBT community started speaking out, when they had previously been mostly silent about their situation save for a few brave souls like Harry Hay. There was a good chance during that same decade for youth liberation and the corresponding MAP liberation to go forward too. Had the liberals of that generation opposed rather than acquiesced to the conservative pushback of the ’80’s with the same fervor they had fought for the preceding 15 years, then we may be living in a much different world today. Those of us who pay attention to history know how specific political climates do not last forever, and there will be times when possibilities to move forward at a rapid pace will present themselves. At such times, setbacks can be overcome if enough of us remain diligent and do not back down from the purveyors of a backlash.
If you pay attention to history, political wisdom tells you that acquiescing to those in power rather than taking advantage of the right to freedom of speech that Western democracies are supposed to hold dear only further delays the onset of a political climate conducive to rapid change.
Regarding your second paragraph: It really is like debating a skipping vinyl record with you on this point, Ethan. Like Tom, I and others have already argued numerous times with you about why it’s frankly absurd to suggest that suppression of youth sexuality is a “conspiracy theory” rather than a very visible, very vocal, and very well known (and mostly supported) policy that has become even more pronounced since the most recent slew of moral panics started. This is why we now have the Free Range Kids movement in addition to the youth liberation movement, and not even connected to it. The same with the suggestion that kids at large feel free to speak up on these issues, and that adults who had positive experiences with much older people when they were kids fee; no risk in speaking out (you see, we do not ignore incidents like what happened to a once popular but now career-devastated guy named Milo). Adult mesophiles most definitely fear loss of career and the usual mob attacks on social media if they open their mouths publicly about experiences in their youth.
I think the time will come when the political climate changes to the point that we reach an era where it is very similar to the one we achieved between the late 1960s and ’70’s. It only seems “forever” from today’s vantage point–or to those who hope it will indeed be forever. But history suggests otherwise, and there is no reason to believe that the current status quo is more or less here to stay for eternity. In fact, it shows no signs of long-term stability whatsoever considering the path it’s leading the entire world towards.

ethane72

Tom is annoyed with me that I did not look up where he previously argued about children being unable to talk about their attractions. I have no idea how to do that, short of reading all the replies to all the posts in his blog. I can’t think of any good search terms. I seem to have some specific cognitive deficits these days. Just this morning I was wracking my brains to find where a favorite YouTube video was. I finally found it by Google Search, added a bookmark, and then found I had previously saved 3 bookmarks to it, but my reasoning for where I had put them (I have a lot of bookmarks), while sound in retrospect, was unavailable to me when I was looking. Anyway, with that attitude on Tom’s part I’ll probably be gone from this discussion.

bjmuirhead

As a sort of response, let me quote Section 149 of Nietzsche’s Beyond good and evil.

That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to be good—the atavism of a former ideal.

Whilst perhaps not thought to be good in our past, what we call “adult-child sex” and child alcohol use, were common, and not thought to be overly problematic. Marriages occurred (age of consent in Australia in the late 19th century was 11, promoted to 13 in order to stop those “evil and scheming girls” from trapping older men into marriage) and alcohol was consumed by those who were prebubescent, and by those who are no more than legal minors.
If we are to seriously consider a social argument about these issues, we must firstly be able to say that our contemporary society is worth considering an ideal society which we wish to promote. But: as societies which are profoundly sex-negative, and none more so in the West than the USA, which has deeply schizoid morals and laws surrounding, repressing, and promoting sex in many forms, I would find it difficult to take ethane’s views seriously—but not just his, many many others who say similar things; perhaps all those who do not accept the profound sexuality of children, and promote a deeply twisted notion of children that presents them as non-sensual little robots.
But, with what Nietzsche called both a “yes and a no”, we humans do seem to have turned against our physical, sensual nature, and to be repudiating our very past. This, at least, is what I see ethans’s question/proposal as proposing and (attempting) to promote.
Directly to ethane: I applaud your moral view, that you hold it and argue for it, that it protects you psychologically and legally, but I cannot accept it as a moral rule for all. (Let us finally bury Kant and his “categorical imperative”.) Your moral view is that of a “slave” (thank you Fritz for this bit of psychological observation about morality). Would you not prefer to reject your slavery and think beyond the dictates of the masters controlling your life? But this can be answered only if you see how deeply others are in control of your moral prejudices. (This is not intended to be an insult, merely an observation about your morality, based on your public comments here.)
(Yes, I admit it, I am a Nietzschean through and through.)

ethane72

“Your moral view is that of a “slave” (thank you Fritz for this bit of psychological observation about morality). Would you not prefer to reject your slavery and think beyond the dictates of the masters controlling your life? But this can be answered only if you see how deeply others are in control of your moral prejudices.”
You have a view I’m unfamiliar with. If you referred me to some writing laying out the view succinctly, I’ll take a look. I’ll be interested in learning about the masters who control not just my life but my mind, apparently.
I have what is probably a mundane view about morality. There is the shared variety, the basis of laws in societies with a diversity of viewpoints. There is also the personal variety, which can go quite a bit further and be part of defining how individuals construe the good life. Shared morality extends to state intervention on behalf of children, including in some cases intervening in how parents treat their own children. FGM is a battleground on that front.

bjmuirhead

The easiest reference is Nietzsche’s own writing, specifically section 260 of Beyond good and evil. Beyond that, consider this:
“Slave morality” is the morality devised, developed and presented as universally true, by those without power. The “master’s” behaviour prompts via ressentiment, the development of a morality which condemns those with power. —Not a very eloquent simplification of the idea, but it will do.
Slave morality refers not to the morality as such, but to that which lies behind the morality.Do you understand? I am not going to draw it out for you (too much time and words necessary for that), but some other references, none of which I necessarily agree with, but which will help flesh out the ideas:
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLNSA-2.pdf
https://research.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Leiter_Paper.pdf
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/54/54.2/54.2.1.pdf

ethane72

“Ethan apparently saw his analogy as a knock-down argument, and now finds it hard to understand why it has failed to make much of an impression.”
Heavens, no! I was addressing one aspect of the situation. I wrote, “I oppose adult-child sex on as a pragmatic social policy, and I thought of an analogous case: the drinking age in the US.” Of course an analogy doesn’t clinch any argument. I clarified with, “The relevant question is not whether the US drinking age of 21 is a good idea, it is whether people accept the form of the argument — that it deters bad consequences at the expense of the liberty of 18-20yo people. I believe most people do.”
“Ethan complained two or three times that nobody has addressed his argument. This strikes me as very odd. Christian, Bruce (BJ Muirhead) and Sugarboy all made good points about it. Ethan apparently failed to notice them.”
They all addressed whether a drinking age of 21 was a good idea based on costs and benefits, but not the idea that the rights of 18-year-olds were paramount and being trampled. Perhaps no individual who replied feels that the rights of 18-year-olds (just as much as children) to self-determination dwarf all other considerations, but many others do, including I believe Dissident on GC a few years ago.
“in practice he focuses entirely on costs and ignores benefits. This applies to what he says about drinking just as much as it does to sex. We hear a lot about the dangers of “alcohol” but nothing about the pleasures and civilised side of good wine and good conversation flowing together, including in a family context with children partaking in supervised moderation.”
I’m not by any means a strong proponent of the US drinking age. I think European approaches might be much better. My point was that no one seems to view the 18-year-olds as victims whose liberty needs passionate defense.
“we would be hard put to argue that many nine-year-old girls in modern western culture would have clear views on this subject prior to meeting an actual grown-up and becoming fond of him or (possibly) her… she still might welcome being cuddled, kissed, and touched intimately.”
I am waiting to hear from the grown women who were the actual nine-year-old girls who got into that position with the (legal) cuddling and then were terribly frustrated that intimate touch was denied because it is illegal. There are a great many millions of women in the west, all of whom were once 9-year-old girls. Wouldn’t we expect at least a few thousand such experiences, leading to at least a few dozen public reports? A woman’s contention that the man instigated sexual activity and it was kind of pleasant is a much weaker claim, and we have few enough of those.

ethane72

“Drinking Age As Analogy For Adult-Child Sex Prohibition”
I had an idea. I hope to get some reaction from the HereticTOC community. Tom says just post it as a reply to some post, regardless of relevance, so here I go.
——————-
One hot topic within the pedophile/MAP communities is whether adult-child sex is fundamentally OK (the HereticTOC consensus), or fundamentally problematic (the Virtuous Pedophiles consensus).
My main position is one of recusal — let society figure out the right age of consent, not pedophiles, who seem to have a vested interest in reaching one conclusion.
But recusal aside, I have my own opinion, naturally, which is the VP position. A few years ago I made a bunch of blog posts exploring the issue, indexed here:
http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2017/03/index-considering-pro-legalization-pro.html
As to where I ended up, I agree with skeptics that if adult-child sex is fundamentally immoral or wrong, then child-child sex would have to be as well. I find that an unacceptable conclusion.
I oppose adult-child sex on as a pragmatic social policy, and I thought of an analogous case: the drinking age in the US.
It was 21 in most states for many years. In the early 70s many states lowered it to 18 comment image) , and then they all raised it again to 21, as part of an effort to reduce drunk driving deaths.
People in the US can vote at 18, and for just about every other purpose they are considered full adults at 18. But not for drinking alcohol. Some people think it would be good to lower it again, but it is not any sort of full-blown political movement, and I haven’t heard lowering it described in absolutist moral terms about the 18-year-olds stripped of their God-given right to drink.
No one claims that an 18-year-old is fundamentally incapable of consenting to drink alcohol. The only explanation is as a social policy — to reduce drunk driving deaths on a statistical basis, because it was happening a lot (college binge drinking in the US is a problem too aside from driving).
A social-policy argument is consistent with disallowing adult-child sex while allowing child-child sex.

sugarboy

How many and what kind of deaths do we prevent by allowing child-child sex but not adult-child sex?

ethane72

“How many and what kind of deaths do we prevent by allowing child-child sex but not adult-child sex?”
Surely this is nothing but bad polemics. Judging from what they say, a significant proportion of children who had sex with adults feel (as adults) deeply wounded and damaged. Some say it’s worse than death, and while I think that’s an exaggeration it implies they think it is pretty bad. In contrast, many 18-20yos who drink do not get drunk. Many who get drunk do not drive. The great majority who drive do not get into accidents that harm people.
I do speculate that among children who were at least nominally willing participants in sex, far more feel damaged if the encounter was with an adult than with a child of the same age. That intuition supports the social policy argument.

sugarboy

Some decades ago, before the pedo-paranoia began, you did not hear a single woman say that she had sex with an adult as children and that was worse than death. And in the parts of the world where these relationships are not demonized, you don’t hear such claims even today. I remember a feminist (!) survey made in my country in the 70’ies among women in which they were invited to review all their past sexual experiences: a few ones described some gentle episodes with sexual undertones between them and their children, but not a single one complained of “sexual abuse”.
Likewise, my best friend’s mother was 16 when she gave birth to him (his father was 22). By contrast, I recently read of a woman in the UK that, in connection with a trial for sexual acts between her and a man when she was 15, told the jury that that had left her “traumatized”. For the reasons above I do speculate that among children who were willing participants in sex, far less would feel damaged if the pedo-paranoia would come to an end. That intuition does not preclude the pro-contact argument.

Christian

Concerning alcoholism and binge drinking, one should trust science instead of the bigoted policy of US puritans, which causes problems instead of solving them. I advise to consult the site of the social psychologist Stanton Peele (www.peele.net) on all questions related to addiction, which arises as a problem with personal and social relations, and not because of the evil effect of some molecules.In particular on alcoholism:
https://www.peele.net/lib/truth_2.html
https://www.peele.net/lib/evil.html
Religious and moral culpabilisation, as in Ireland, increases alcoholism. The temperance policy of the US, with its high drinking age and bigoted moral attitude, leads to higher levels of binge drinking than in Southern Europe. Despite their lower drinking age and their high average consumption, Southern European countries have a lower binge drinking problem, because alcohol is consumed in a social context. Same with food: Southern Europe has gastronomy and eating in a social context, while the US has more compulsive eating on an individual basis.
Observant Jews have a very low incidence of alcoholism. Jewish children learn to drink alcohol progressively and moderately within a familial and religious context, and an alcoholic is viewed as someone who escapes adult responsibilities towards family and community.
I would think the same about sexuality and how youth should enter into it: the bigoted anti-youth-sex policies of the US are catastrophic,so stop pandering to common US prejudice.

ethane72

“Concerning alcoholism and binge drinking, one should trust science instead of the bigoted policy of US puritans”
The relevant question is not whether the US drinking age of 21 is a good idea, it is whether people accept the form of the argument — that it deters bad consequences at the expense of the liberty of 18-20yo people. I believe most people do. When I hear pro-legalization pedophiles talk against AoC, it is all about violating the sacred rights of the children to have sex, as an absolute that should trump all other considerations. There’s rarely any talk about costs and benefits or bad behavior deterred. If “you all” are so passionately devoted to the liberty of children, why not to the liberty of the 18-20yos to drink alcohol?
“the bigoted anti-youth-sex policies of the US are catastrophic,so stop pandering to common US prejudice.”
You suggest with the above that there is a package deal that includes withholding information about sex, shaming children for their bodies, forbidding and/or punishing masturbation, “playing doctor”, and sexual activity with peers — along with prohibiting adult-child sex. Yes, some people believe that, but a lot of social liberals are for the more liberal position on all except the last point. Deal with the two things separately, and don’t assume those against adult-child sex hold all those other sex-shaming positions as well.
The “social policy with a good cost-benefit ratio” argument is not a common rationale for AoC, but I think it’s the best one, and you should be prepared to address the best arguments of your opponents, not the worst ones.

bjmuirhead

If “you all” are so passionately devoted to the liberty of children, why not to the liberty of the 18-20yos to drink alcohol?

Perfectly legal for an 18 year old to drink alcohol in Australia. Perfectly legal for a 16 year old to drink alcohol at home if their parents give the alcohol and supervise at home in my part of Australia (at the very least). And I have read that children are served wine with their meals in many parts of Europe (correct me if this is wrong, someone.)
If I lived in the USA I would argue that this should be the same there, and in any event, American laws and morals are not the benchmark for the rest of the world, and that is a good thing.
So, whether or not American laws about alcohol say something, or should say something, about sexual freedom and rights, depends on where on is, perhaps. Should American laws say something about it? Well, I am not entirely sure that the issues can be equated in any sensible manner, if only because you appear to think a law is somehow supervenient, one on another. Therefore, before I would address that matter, I would near to hear more argument from you about why fucking and boozing are equivalent morally for children other than being illegal at 18 in the USA and possibly other parts of the world.
But I do not know enough abut the laws on drinking alcohol in the rest of the world, nor about children and sex, in as much as the legal age of consent varies across the world, and this has not been an area of study for me as yet.

Dissident

If “you all” are so passionately devoted to the liberty of children, why not to the liberty of the 18-20yos to drink alcohol?
That was Ethan’s question, correct? He should well know that many of us are indeed concerned with the biased drinking laws and lack of civil liberties besides the sexual when applied to those above 18. Many of us are youth liberationists who are against all repressive policies against younger people, not just the sexual; and not only those who are under 18. These other matters aren’t discussed here nearly as often as sexual rights simply because the latter are more topical as per the subject matter of this discussion forum. It’s as simple as that, and it should be a no-brainer.

bjmuirhead

Yes, it was Ethan’s question. He seems to think the law in America concerning drinking provides a social argument against “child” sex… But the only sensible definition of “child” is biological, with the appearance of secondary sex characteristics as the marker (not puberty itself, which begins around 7 or 8, according to the texts I have read).

Christian

So the VP will not study the research of social psychologists, but make simple analogies and invoke “common sense”, as long as it agrees with US “public opinion” (shaped by media and politicians).
In France and many other countries, anyone aged 18 can purchase alcohol in a shop or order it in a cafe or restaurant, and people won’t bother if a minor (less than 18) moderately drinks alcohol at home under parental supervision. They will only worry when minors manage to get alcohol and organise binge drinking parties without any adults in charge. And in the past, they were less strict. I got drunk at age 14 or 15 in a cafe in Corsica, drinking cheap wine with buddies of my age, without any adult supervision. So why insist on the US strict drinking ban for those under 21? Is it just because the US is entitled to impose its norms on the whole world? In fact, this does not work, people in the age span 21–24 engage in binge drinking, causing accidents; then some people think that the drinking age should be increased to 24 or 25, which would in fact just shift the ages at which people engage in binge drinking.
The example I gave of observant Jews suggests that rather than by imposing a strict age (everything forbidden before, everything allowed after), responsible drinking is a skill acquired like any other skill, by progressive practice under adult supervision. You could envisage a similar approach to sex and age of consent: progressive emancipation through progressive learning and practice under the supervision of a qualified adult.
Now, you seem to think that the harshness with which the USA represses anything related to intergenerational sexuality, whether viewing images or touching, and the zealotry with which it imposes its norms on other countries (e.g., Japan for lolicon and shotacon), has nothing to do with its history of sexual bigotry: the masturbation scare, the repression of homosexuality and non-vaginal sex, the satanic abuse panic, etc. You invoke “social liberals”, people who will say: above 21, you are free to do what you want with sex, alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, but under 18, we will repress you in the harshest way if you try to enjoy what is reserved to adults. A bunch of hypocrites and swindlers followed by many fools. After demonstrations by some parts of youth for arm controls, the raising of minimum age for weapons from 18 to 21 was presented as a “victory” for these youths. As if being 18 meant that you are more violent and murderous than older people! Any 18-y-o US black man knows that when threatened by neo-Nazi or KKK hoodlums, it is better for him to be armed.
Now in your first post: “let society figure out the right age of consent, not pedophiles, who seem to have a vested interest in reaching one conclusion.” Do you think that other people (parents, educators, social workers, politicians) do not have a “vested interest”? And the same argument would be “let the Swiss decide whether minarets should be banned, not Muslims, who have a vested interest.” And let heterosexuals decide about gay rights. Only the minority has a wrong vested interest, the interest of the majority is good. Or maybe you think that “perverts” have “cognitive distortions”, so their judgment is defective, contrarily to “normal” people?
Fighting paedophilia always means ever more repression and control of youth. I will translate your sentence:
Let adults in position of authority figure out the right age of consent, not minors, who seem to have a vested interest in reaching one conclusion. And neither youth liberationists, who encourage minors’ vested interests against adults in position of authority.

leonard sisyphus mann

I think that your position on ‘recusal’ ignores two facts:
1/ that the groups that make up ‘society’ each have their own interests and prejudices concerning child sexuality? And those interests can conflict with those of the child, or the child’s wishes, or their right to have a safe, increasingly autonomous sexual life.
2/ that paedophiles are part of Society and therefore should have a voice in such matters, ideally a voice proportionate to their presence in society.
I acknowledge that were Society to correct for the above prejudices this would change little: after all we are a quite small minority. But excluding groups that have an interest in a debate is not normally a good way of arriving at a fair decision – interest groups often have a great deal of knowledge and information to bring to a discussion that could certainly enrich any debates and discussions.
If paedophiles are excluded from debates around child sexuality – who else is going to defend children’s positive sexual rights (a child’s right to sexual education, to privacy, to information, to enjoy its own sensuality, to choose with whom s/he enjoys intimacy)? I think paedophiles would be the only group willing to defend what is an important, but wholly neglected, aspect of the consent debate.
Do we exclude farmers from livestock welfare policy consultations? Do we exclude parents from decisions about child welfare? To want to completely exclude paedophiles from discussions and decisions concerning child sexuality is to assume a priori that the interests of ‘the paedophile’ and those of ‘the child’ are necessarily at odds.
Whilst I now doubt radical change can happen in a way that is desirable, I think paedophiles should nevertheless be acknowledged as legitimate voices on certainly their own treatment by society, and also on child sexuality.
It is probably unrealistic for us to expect society to accommodate our desires, but it is not unrealistic that society intergrates us into debates and discussions which we are either at the center of, or concerning which we have special knowledge and insights.

ethane72

My position on recusal is not a moral judgment. It is a political judgment. Sure, we have the right to say anything we want. My analogy is whether it’s helpful to have a bunch of death row inmates lobbying as “death row inmates against the death penalty”. It’s their right, but I would suggest it would not be productive.
Asking “who else is going to defend children’s positive sexual rights (a child’s right to sexual education, to privacy, to information, to enjoy its own sensuality, to choose with whom s/he enjoys intimacy)” seems very parochial and self-centered. Any people who care about children will defend that. Social liberals are all in favor of those except the last one. Those (few) children who had relationships with adults, grew up, and now say they were just fine are in a far better position to pedophiles to make their case.
“I think paedophiles should nevertheless be acknowledged as legitimate voices on certainly their own treatment by society, and also on child sexuality.”
Their own treatment by society — absolutely. Child sexuality — why? If they have any (illegal) experience, ask the child, not the pedophile.
Of course you have focused on one small point and ignored the major thrust of what I wrote, about the rationale of US drinking age laws.

sugarboy

I can’t see anything rational in US age drinking laws – it is not for nothing that only the US has such high age limits and enact them so strictly.
The main reason why the age for drinking alcohol in USA was raised from 18 to 21 is that people, as soon as they had reached the magical age of 18 and were free to do it, began to abuse alcohol. The same is apparently happening now with the 21 years age, so the authorities are considering raising the age even more.
The problem, therefore, may not be the freedom, but the lack of it. For people, when they have become so accustomed to being deprived of freedom, will tend to abuse freedom as soon as they are given it.
By the way, why not allow child/child drinking of alcohol, as long as adults keep appropriate distance from them? After all, it is not a problem of consent…

leonard sisyphus mann

>”My analogy is whether it’s helpful to have a bunch of death row inmates lobbying as “death row inmates against the death penalty”
Homosexuality used to be a crime. Do you think it was wrong that the viewpoints and experiences of homosexuals be considered in the debates and discussions that preceded decriminalisation?
And death row inmates have necessarily committed a crime, paedophiles haven’t necessarily committed a crime nor intend to commit a crime.
>”Asking “who else is going to defend children’s positive sexual rights …seems very parochial and self-centered. Any people who care about children will defend that. ”
That’s simply not true Ethane72 – most people care about children, but none (other than paedophiles) defend a proper conception of positive sexual rights for children. Given the absolute absence of serious research into child sexuality, no-one other that the paedophile can bear full witness to the full potential of child sexuality. Certainly not parents, who even if they are ‘accepting’ of it and may tolerate and witness it in its most moderate forms, are not going to follow it to the extremes of where the child may wish to take it.
>”Those (few) children who had relationships with adults, grew up, and now say they were just fine are in a far better position to pedophiles to make their case.”
Yes, they are in a good position to make the case. But that does not exclude paedophiles also making their case.
>”Of course you have focused on one small point and ignored the major thrust of what I wrote, about the rationale of US drinking age laws.”
Apologies for not addressing your main point. If I don’t address it it’s because talking about the decriminalisation of child-adult intimacy feels to me like discussing angels dancing on the head of a pin.
That’s absolutely not because I think child-adult intimacy is inherently wrong – but because there is no prospect of child-adult intimacy becoming licit (either normatively or legally) other than by means that are wholly undesirable.
I see two possible scenarios:
1/ Society regressing to some kind of neo-feudalism in the aftermath of some major disaster that wipes out ‘modernity’,
2/ some totalitarian ideology imposing ‘paedophilia’-friendly laws on Society (Atwood’s book ‘The Handmaids Tale’ offers us a fictional example, Sharia offers us a real life example).
Yes, our sexual and romantic dreams can come true, but in order for that to happen we would have to accept the child we love forgoing the benefits of modernity – for example, anaesthetics next time they need some kind of surgical intervention, or see them die from some disease modernity has completely defanged or eradicated; or we have to accept the child (little girls especially) being subject to laws that treat them as sexual chattels, laws which deny her the right right to say ‘no’ as surely as our own laws deny her the right to say ‘yes’, and see a child we love sold to the highest bidder – some rich polygynous warrior/slave-trader who can pay her father a bigger dowry than you can.
In this light, discussion of decriminalisation feels off-target from anything that is practical or realistic. However, I certainly do defend the wisdom and the right of the paedophile’s experience, special knowledge and perspective to be integrated into any debates and discussions that touch on paedophilia and child sexuality. That is why I focused on the ‘recusal’ question.

ethane72

As we discovered on VoA (Visions of Alice), we agree about a lot more than I would have expected.
I agree that pedophiles have the right to agitate for children’s rights to choose them as sexual partners, I just don’t think it is politically wise. It sounds like you don’t think it is politically wise either but because it’s not wise for anyone (including children) to advocate for such rights because there’s no way they could be enacted in the world we actually live in in a positive way (and I agree).
Another slant on the “social policy” argument is to assume that out of 100 nine-year-old girls, only 1 is genuinely interested in sex with adult men. Such sex is currently illegal. If you make it legal, there’s a lot of opportunity for bad things to happen to those 99 who aren’t interested. Even if it’s just 2, that’s still double the cost compared to the possible benefit of that 1 girl going from miserable to ecstatic.
No one seems very interested in exploring why denying alcohol consumption to US 18-year-olds doesn’t fill people with outrage.

Dissident

Apologies for not addressing your main point. If I don’t address it it’s because talking about the decriminalisation of child-adult intimacy feels to me like discussing angels dancing on the head of a pin.
That’s absolutely not because I think child-adult intimacy is inherently wrong – but because there is no prospect of child-adult intimacy becoming licit (either normatively or legally) other than by means that are wholly undesirable.
I see two possible scenarios:
[snip…]

If those two nightmarish scenarios are the only way you can possibly see such legalization coming about, Lensman, then you need to push that obviously brilliant mind of yours past the emotional, irrational fears that seem to have occluded your psyche over the past two years (much of it related to the Islam thing) and look to history for an example of how such a thing could come about.
Consider this third, historically common, and non-nightmarish scenario: Younger people themselves continue to exponentially gain a bigger voice despite our adult-controlled society’s resistance to it thanks to social media platforms. More and more of them begin becoming aware of their true potential, and of themselves as a legit minority group deserving of rights. More and more of them begin fighting for their civil rights, and it becomes even more difficult for the adult-controlled political apparatus to stifle them once they gain traction in sizable numbers. They begin acquiring more rights gradually, to the point where greater numbers of adults begin supporting them. Eventually, they win their civil rights and age-based laws that are not repealed are simply not enforced anymore. The anti-pedo hysteria eventually wears out because younger people are no longer forced to suppress their sexuality, and the secrecy and insular nature of the nuclear family unit and control over kids no longer exists to keep them from being a prominent part of the greater community on all levels. The unknown becomes the known over time, and thus can no longer be fueled by fear.
In other words, the same way virtually all minority groups have won their emancipation in steps, over time. And which the youths of the world were moving towards winning during the 1970s before the youth liberation movement and rampant progressivism of that era was struck by the massive setback of the conservative backlash of the ’80s, which we are just beginning to show signs of recovering from now. It started happening before and it has started happening again with the advent of the Internet–only this time it may proceed to full fruition.
This will allow full freedom of choice for youths, without putting us in the position where we have to choose between the “greater or lesser evil” of forcing them into sexual relationships they do not want vs. forcing them to be fully asexual and not pursue relationships they may want on their own volition. This is a trap we need not fall into and pick a “side” over.

leonard sisyphus mann

I’m in the process of completing an essay that covers much of the ground you address, Dissident, which I should be publishing before too long.
In this essay I address what I call ‘third scenarios’ – scenarios in which licit child-adult intimacy is achieved without major damage done to those things we value in contemporary Western society – though maybe not in enough depth for you to feel I have properly addressed the points you make… maybe I will use your comment as an incitement to go into greater depth.
>” irrational fears… (much of it related to the Islam thing)”
1 in 20 little girls alive today have undergone FGM. And about 1 in 4 moslem little girls undergo it.
This is a higher incidence than malaria and typhus (the two commonest diseases in the world) COMBINED.
I love and respect little girls and want the best for them, regardless of their race, their country or their creed. It is not ‘irrational’ to fear an ideology that has ensured that a practice that would have otherwise died out centuries ago is instead flourishing, and spreading ever further afield today.

“And about 1 in 4 moslem little girls undergo it.”
Sorry, I forgot to include a factor when calculating this statistic.
The corrected statistic is about 2 in 11 moslem little girls undergo FGM.

Dissident

I certainly look forward to that essay. Sorry that things have been so strained between us for the past year.
I love and respect little girls and want the best for them, regardless of their race, their country or their creed. It is not ‘irrational’ to fear an ideology that has ensured that a practice that would have otherwise died out centuries ago is instead flourishing, and spreading ever further afield today.
As I told you before, I do not believe this is supported by the majority of Muslims in the world today, and certainly not “spreading.” There are many liberal and moderate Muslims who do not slavishly follow the more outlandish practices in the Koran, a document written long, long ago, especially those who are coming into increasing contact with Western society. Overcompensation for an injustice often ends up greatly exaggerating the incidences of it, and transforms caring social activists into authoritarian moral crusaders. This has been my concern in a nutshell for the past two years regarding the estrangement you have had with some former friends and allies who deeply regret the loss.

Nada

>1 in 20 little girls alive today have undergone FGM. And about 1 in 4 moslem little girls undergo it.
If incidence matters, why aren’t you railing against the common cold?
Unlike ‘FGM’, malaria[1] is a leading cause of death in children.
Is a dead child preferable to a living child, possibly falling short of the standard imposed by Western moralism?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507524/

Zen Thinker

I agree more with the VP position too. I think children are a legitimate fantasy but one has to keep the imagination separate from reality. Plus, there are infinite subtleties in social relations, and maybe that is sufficient, and requiring the leap to sexual relations is deeply problematic. I respect Tom’s position but think it is unworkable practically, although society may very well one day end up embracing the pro-contact position, unless there is some kind of socially conservative retrenchment. The novel Lolita is very instructive, and I draw some of my conclusions from that. Ultimately I just feel more comfortable advocating a VP position, although I read both sides of the argument, and this blog is a good resource in a world that tends to disregard these matters entirely.

Zen Thinker

Thanks for the link – in fact I’ve read this paper once before. I see your point about drawing conclusions from fiction. In effect what I was saying is that I cannot imagine a world currently with a ‘pro-choice’ mentality. I am aware that in the earlier 19th Century in America the age of consent on the Eastern Seaboard was 10, and further West as low as 7. It seems almost impossible that this could have been the case; it is certainly hardly mentioned in official histories. What I was trying to convey is that perhaps I have been conditioned to feel guilt and shame about minor attraction and that in turn has made me uncomfortable about the issue. Looking at the VP website I find some of the FAQ objectionable in tone. If it were possible to safely have a ‘pro-choice’ law and environment then this would obviously be the ideal, it just seems as though society has conditioned us quite cruelly to see this as deeply abnormal and even perverse. Maybe there is a way forward legally and societally, it just seems like a distant prospect.

sugarboy

To quote Robin Sharpe: “Zero tolerance embraces hysteria, caters to our most vindictive urges, turns lack of understanding of what is not to be tolerated into a virtue, rewards deception, conspiracy and cunning, and ultimately undermines law. Zero tolerance is the principle of inquisitions, pogroms, and officially sanctioned persecution. […] Zero tolerance demands gut reactions and blind compliance, not reasoned response. For kids it may be the “yucky” factor. Zero tolerance feeds superstition and hysteria. It means thinking with the blood not the brain. With zero tolerance there are no distinctions so you don’t have to think or use your judgement. For some that’s the nice thing about it.”.

Debauch

Interesting BBC documentary on male circumcision: A Cut too Far.
The only one to compare it to FGM was a Doctor at the end. He was interviewing some Muslim parents about male circumcision with two young girls in the room. I’d have asked, have they been cut? if not, why not.

Interesting. He has made many videos defending pedophilia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS_BlPgBJcM

galileo1439

Age is just a number. And a prison cell is just a room. And advocating removing the age of consent laws for sex, and for societal acceptance of intergenerational intimacy is just activism.

stephen6000

You did very well. Those guys seemed like a couple of playground bullies, based on their remarks before and after the interview. They tried to lay out a number of traps for you, but you didn’t fall into any of them. Well done!

bjmuirhead

There is a strong sense in which it does not get interesting. Hypersonic answered their questions, many of which were loaded, and it was interesting to hear a clearly honest response to the questions.
The interviewers, however, did not take Hypersonic up on his honesty in any genuine fashion, smirking, and putting down the answers given at almost every opportunity.
After Hypersonic had gone, the interviewers degenerated into insults and disbelief, none of which was justified by his answers.
The interviewers? A pair of prats, it would seem.

Thanks. It starts around 15 minutes in. It was my first time ever being on a podcast. They have been trying to get a pedophile on their podcast for months by asking people around Twitter. The Virpeds wouldn’t go on, but then they found me.

Yes, I agree with stephen6000 – I thought you did well. You held your ground well, maintained your dignity and didn’t yield to their attempts to lure you into saying something ‘outrageous’.
But the snide comments of the presenters after the interview, reflected badly on them. Till then I liked the fact that they were politically incorrect – unafraid of committing Thought Crime – and quite admired them for having done what was a quite honest and respectful interview (by the standards we are used to as paedophiles). But they let themselves down by insulting a guest behind his back, whom they had treated quite respectfully to his face.

Thanks. I was annoyed when he described a 5 year old as intelligent as a 10-year-old dog. A 5-year-old human has a vocabulary of several thousand words. These people have no respect for youth intelligence.

sugarboy

He could have replied that a typical 10 years old dog has had sex scores of times in its life…

Baldur

Sad to hear of Dave Riegel’s passing. My condolences to his friends and family.
As for the flap about Desmond – I’ve found it rather amusing. Of course I am not interested in boys anyhow, but perhaps Desmond’s mother can take some solace in the fact that I find Desmond to be severely unattractive in both masculine and feminine forms. But, I suppose it takes all kinds, and I am happy that people I find unattractive can encounter others who find them palatable.
As for the world being ruled by a pedophile elite … we’ve got some first rate people working on it. Just hang tight.

bjmuirhead

ON INTELLIGENCE
Just one quick quote, from the introduction to Cultural Differences in Neuropsychological Abilities Required to Perform Intelligence Tasks 2013 Ahmed F. Fasfous, Natalia Hidalgo-Ruzzante, Raquel Vilar-Lopez,
Andre´s Catena-Marti´nez, Miguel Pe´rez-Garci´
doi:10.1093/arclin/act074

Cultural differences in intelligence tests performance are widely accepted (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Kaufman, Mclean, &
Reynolds, 1988; Neisser et al., 1996), and several studies have shown differences in the intelligence quotient (IQ) among different
cultural groups (i.e., Rushton & Skuy, 2000). It is accepted that the concept of intelligence may differ for various cultures
(Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004; Sternberg & Kaufman 1998) and that to measure intelligence, we must understand it within
its cultural context (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004).

The fact of the matter is that we do not yet know exactly how to define intelligence (we operationalise certain behaviours and test them, but we do not yet know just how those operationalisations can be rendered into another culture so that we can make tests which are equivalent). This is to say that we have different theories as to what intelligence is, and we do not as yet have a GUT of intelligence. Nor does it appear that there will be such a unified theory in the immediate future, despite some limited claims to the contrary.
That, and that alone, should be enough to end this nonsense about the lack of intelligence of various peoples.
And now I am going back to sleep, to tend my wounded body (a little illness, ya know).

Malthe

With respect to making fools of ourselves and the tense political climate, I have a troubling perspective. The races are not equal intellectually. The world’s average IQ is something around 86, making most humans ineducable. We can say that our strongly IQ dependent societies are doomed unless we are willing to separate ourselves from these people.
As activism for child sexuality is historically rooted in left wing groups, I think the reception from your opponents is going to be very cold at a time where their numbers are growing. Elite pedophiles controlling the world is now becoming a mainstream view in America.
Environmental activism will not be effective if it does not promote population management. It saddens me to see advocates of pedophilia ignorant of the dangers of immigration. I see no dilemma in supporting both child sexuality reform and strict immigration controls. They support one another.
Regards

Malthe

>but isn’t the average IQ 100, by definition?
Yes, normalized to the British population. East Asians have a higher average than us, but just about the rest of the world is cognitively depressed while being the most fertile.
>where do you get the idea that people with an IQ of 86 are “ineducable”
They are capable of simple supervised jobs vulnerable to automation and they probably won’t attain English beyond a year 8 or 9 level.
>Who do you think “these people” are?
Europe is experiencing a MENA influx and the U.S. from Latin America, although the problem is so globalized that people from all countries are turning up.
>poor, white Trump supporters themselves are on the whole not well educated and may well have an average IQ of 86
Yes, I would agree.
>The Arabs, remember, gave us algebra
The Arab clerisy made those achievements, and it’s not clear to what extent this subpopulation or social class remains around today.
>it could not possibly be the case that the wider world on average has a lower IQ because most of the world’s population is in Asia.
India would be a good example of a country with poor average intelligence yet with a significant smart fraction comprising the top caste. Indian Americans are the wealthiest racial group in America.
>what is to be done about conspiracists
There is nothing to be done. These are the aforementioned dumb Americans. The best bet is to be separate from them, which is what states are supposed to be for. Unfortunately the American establishment applies full diplomatic pressure on sex morality issues, such as with the Netherlands and lolita magazines decades ago, or so I recall reading.
>Now that Africa is developing rapidly, it may not be too long before population growth begins to tail off there as well.
The predicted date for this African fertility decline keeps getting pushed back. Sub-Saharan Africans have the most severe problems such that we possibly will never see the expected effect of wealth on their fertility.
On another note, a Russian TV channel did a stage interview with women who as girls acted in pornography:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkiEQF1pB9w
The auto subtitles aren’t clear, but it appears that Masha is quite adamant about the producer showing care for the girls and that her trauma was caused instead by terrible mistreatment by adults and her school peers after the studio was busted. I have a great deal of respect for her.
Malthe

Malthe

Compare the appearances of Nikki Haley or Ajit Pai to that of Dravidians who compose the Indian underclass. Indian castes are made up of different racial groups with differing abilities. Because of this it is possible for countries with poor IQ rankings to make significant intellectual achievements if they possess a considerable smart fraction.

Malthe

>Really? That’s news to me. For seven years I worked alongside fellow journalists who were from the Dravidian south of India.
You’re right. Dravidian is an incorrect category for this topic.
>There certainly is an oppressed class of “dalits”
Low IQ is generally prevalent in India:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7720c1bf6e1eca19dd12e416602c969d-c
I think the data is from Richard Lynn’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Malthe

>sources showing that Indians have IQs typically slightly higher than those of Europeans, not lower.
Overseas, yes. This coincides with my mentioning them being the wealthiest U.S. minority. If the entire Indian subcontinent were performing at this level, it would be the world’s intellectual and technological cynosure. Instead, we chose to send our manufacturing to China over India despite political discomfort.
>Congo and elsewhere. I doubt that any country could function
Sub-Saharan Africa is completely dysfunctional. It empirically supports the IQ scores.
>the question of cultural bias in IQ tests
I don’t believe there is serious contention over the cross-cultural validity of the tests given. IQ has a remarkable variety of correlates such that you can estimate a person’s score by a simple reaction time test, or by sorting a set of colored tiles in order of their hue.
>It does indeed appear to be the case that the work of these authors has been very controversial.
Of course. It’s a political war where the most disastrous policies are easily adopted.

I think activism (showing yourself in a demonstration for instance) and speaking out is useful. Doing so will upset people. But the same can be said about the black power activists, the homosexual activists et cetera.
You also get aggressive response from a part of ‘our’ community. They blame you for being radical, for giving the community a bad name and for making the outside world angry.
But bit by bit, in time, people will eventually get what you are saying and see that they were wrong about child sexuality, and about so called pedophiles.
I’m just being honest. I have my own views and I choose to express these views. It’s not that I think: people will get angry so I must hold back (a bit) with sharing all or some of my views. The way society is dealing with us is so terrible, that holding back is not an option for me. I just must speak out and share views on my websites (marthijn.nl & brongersma.info ) to change society for the better.

And by the way. If it was legal and Desmond was in for it, I would fuck amazing Desmond.

galileo1439

Does anyone know what’s happening with Amos Yee these days?

galileo1439

Amos made a big name for himself as a pro pedo advocate then everyone attacked and he was deplatformed by all the big networks. This discussion should include him.

daniel

galileo1439
>Amos made a big name for himself as a pro pedo advocate then everyone attacked and he was deplatformed by all the big networks. This discussion should include him.
My guess and other peoples on here is the same i think is that he will have been dealt some kind of ultimatum in order to buy his silence, I for example have closed my fbook page, but that doesn’t mean that i don’t want to come back on the scene at some point, don’t know how, don’t know when and i don’t know where yet and maybe Amos will do the same at some point in the future.

stephen6000

He always seemed like the type of person who would never give in to such pressure but I guess economic realities may have hit home.

daniel

stephen6000
>I guess economic realities may have hit home.
its a global scandal for heretics, dissidents, whistle blowers, the out spoken like Amos and many other activist not to mention the victims of real sexual coercion who want to stand up for the oppressed in any way shape or form and ultimately were do they eventually end up other than dead, in prison or hospital because society has treated them so inhumanly.

daniel

its all part of the establishment.

Polygon

He is a dunce, and was thoroughly disowned by the MAP community once they saw how toxic he was.

Rianmo

Can anyone recommend a good book about sexuality in primitive peoples? I am very interested in knowing well the sexual customs of the natives and the wild tribes. I want to know how they live sexuality and how they see pedophilia and homosexuality.

Rianmo

Can not anyone recommend a book? I am very interested in the subject.

Zen Thinker

Haven’t read it myself but maybe Freud’s ‘Totem and Taboo’? Only thing I can think of.

Christian

Ford, Clellan S. & Beach, Frank A. 1952, Patterns of Sexual Behaviour, Methuen, London.

Rianmo

Thank you very much! I have already downloaded “Human sexuality around the world” on my Kindle and I have taken good note of the others.
Too bad that these works are not translated into my language. I will have to make an effort to read them.
I’ve been looking for a bibliography on these subjects for some time, but I have not found much.
From what I read in “Pedophilia, The Radical Case”, the data on child sexuality and pedophilia offered by Bronislaw Malinowski in “The Sexual Life of Savages” are not very reliable, so I do not know whether to read the book. I also have some interest in “Coming of age in Samoa” by Margaret Mead, but I also do not know to what extent it is reliable. It is said that Margaret Mead was deceived by the natives in terms of their sexual habits, but I do not know if that is true.
One of the best books I know about pedophilia, “Loving Boys” by Edward Brongersma, also contains some interesting facts about child sexuality and pedophilia in indigenous peoples.
Freud’s ‘Toten and Taboo’ does not interest me much, because Freud recognized child sexuality but did not advocate the free sexual expression of children or defend intergenerational or incestuous relationships, but rather the opposite, postulating the repression of sexuality in children (overcoming the Oedipus complex) and self-repression in adults (avoiding sexual contact with children), and I think ‘Totem and Taboo’ is written in that sense. Although the truth is that I do not know well the thought of Freud on these subjects, and I do not know if my ideas about Freud are correct.

stephen6000
stephen6000

I just looked at your blogroll. The link there currently works.

bjmuirhead

Development of human socio-sexual behaviour – Peter B. Gray & Matthew H. McIntyre, 2017
See especially: Chapter 4 Development of Human Sociosexual Behavior

This paper is in a Springer New York book The arc of life and is chapter 4.
There is a public full text available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312078140_Development_of_Human_Sociosexual_Behavior
Although you may have to be a member of researchgate to access it.

bjmuirhead

I have a PDF of that particular book, if you don’t have but would like a copy.

Zen Thinker

Interesting blog Tom. I love some of the intellectual discussion in the archive of posts, some great resources, thanks. I have a distinct point of view in that I see minor attraction as a mental state or condition rather than something to be acted on or politically agitated for. Admittedly the views of government and public are grossly exaggerated and even persecutory, but I see secular change in that there is a broad drift towards sexual liberalisation in Western society. But most of all I am happy to be able to use your blog to investigate the matter intellectually. I liked a post in your archive that suggested the capitalist system was itself biased against minor attraction, I found that insightful. Ultimately I think it can be fruitful to consider these matters from a detached viewpoint and see if society liberalises of its own accord. My primary interests are reading and culture, and I have a quiet life, so I would say I am happy with my current lot. I do feel attraction for women 18-30 (I have never been in any romantic relationship) but since I developed serious mental illness many years ago, my thoughts radically displaced themselves, and I also developed an attraction to young girls. This puzzles me and leaves me somewhat depressed. Your blog helps me to come to terms with my condition so thanks for that. I think I will make the most of your archive to investigate the matter further. Best wishes.

Zen Thinker

Yes, it was already present in seed form perhaps at the age of 18 (at the back of my mind anyway). And before then I was attracted to my own peer group. But when I experienced my acute mental illness, involving delusions and hallucinations, it became a lot more pronounced in my mind, and seemed to mark a permanent change, even after recovery. The psychiatrists and mental health professionals I viewed with some level of scepticism and mistrust – the best strategy I found was to be compliant. So when they asked me awkward questions I downplayed things, as I view it as a private matter, and nothing to do with them. Minor attraction affects a massive number in the populace (the Daily Mail had a story on this); it’s just that the stigma ensures it is all kept beneath the surface, either repressed or hidden. I don’t think the mainstream psychiatric community have anything to offer on this topic. Maybe in 50 years’ time…

daniel

Zen Thinker
> I don’t think the mainstream psychiatric community have anything to offer on this topic. Maybe in 50 years’ time…
I would like to think that people could evolve before then, cos the world might not even exits in 50 years due to global warming, Ive mentioned this to Tom in the past that i think society is coming round to people with our attraction (very slowly) but i feel it needs to be sooner rather than later, we have enough people in prisons and hospitals as it is, so we need a society that will allow people to be more open about their sexuality because openness i believe will reduce stigma and will also make children safer in the long term.

Zen Thinker

That’s an interesting point Daniel, I agree with you that society will change and probably eventually be accepting, but I can’t say how soon that will be, and I don’t see it on the immediate horizon, with the levels of hostility and ignorance. Child safety is obviously paramount, I think it’s universally accepted that no-one wants any harm to befall children, but I think first needs to come a recognition that minor attraction in the abstract is a valid position. It may be interesting to draw a parallel with Peter Wildeblood’s ‘Against the Law’, a book about homosexuality in 1950s Britain, when five men were charged with homosexual acts, and three of them imprisoned. There is always a tipping point and it will happen, but no-one can predict how events will transpire. Gay rights are certainly an interesting parallel, and now the discourse has turned to gender issues. The Left continues to push at the margins of liberalisation. However the issue of minor attraction is especially sensitive and I do not see change occurring in the immediate future.

Christian

In Frank Beach, ed., Sex and Behavior, Wiley (1965), there is chapter 19, “Situational factors affecting human sexual Behavior,” by Paul H. Gebhard. On p. 491 he describes the case of a woman who, dissatisfied by heterosexuality, had become almost exclusively homosexual. Then she spent an evening with a male friend who was predominantly homosexual, which ended in an unexpected sexual relation, which she enjoyed. Three months later, at the moment of interview, she had become almost exclusively heterosexual.
So you have people who basically are bisexual, but with the two orientations in alternation rather than combined. I read a paper explaining that “conversion therapies” for converting homosexuals to heterosexuality sometimes work for a few people, and the suggested explanation was a hidden bisexuality. I also read the testimony of a man who in his early teens was looking at girls of his age, but after being raped by his sister, he became attracted only by young boys.

Peace

The biggest problem I have, as always, is that it doesn’t seem like Desmond is allowed to voice what he thinks; instead, his mother presumes to speak for him. I don’t mind if Desmond doesn’t like us talking about him that way, but we’ll never know because it seems youth are not allowed to have a voice even when it comes to issues that affect them. That luckily seems to be changing, even if just a little bit, due to the availability of the internet as well as the anonymity it provides, but it’s still a major problem.
I was quite saddened to hear about David Riegel. I believe his site was one of the first few I stumbled across when I was trying to find more info on boylove when I was in my teens, and I’m definitely thankful for that since it seems most of what else I could find was about CSA instead of boylove. I used his site’s Peer Support Exchange to make contact with a few local boylovers, even some that I was lucky to meet and befriend in real life. That, I think, was one of the biggest things that he did: connect boylovers and speak with them himself, something which doesn’t seem to always happen with researchers nowadays.
While I am not too familiar with Peter, I wanted to give my condolences to those affected by his death as well. His publication, Minor Problems, is one that I’ve had in my list of youthlove journals to look for, though like most youthlove publications it is unfortunately rare. A shame that his contributions go ignored.

Bartholomew

I understand your concern, Tom.
A Brazilian YouTuber had once spoken about an idea that I must tell you about. I don’t know if that was entirely his idea, but he told in the video a story of a friend of him who loved to talk about Flat Earth. This friend of him had always criticised Flat Earth. One day, he had seen a friend had became a Flat Earth supporter. And he didn’t understand why that happened, why his friend had became a supporter of this theory that he always criticised.
This YouTuber had called this “Friendly Hate”, that is the idea that sometimes the critiques you made on some subject only increases the “popularity” of that you are criticising. I’m telling you this because you must understand that the conservative media can actually be our “useful idiots”.
That way, we can say maybe the conservative media can enhance our activism, our ideas, since many non-paedophiles will probably read the conservative’s commentary and won’t necessarily agree with them, with what is being said.
I know that this is not actually easy and that doesn’t work in this way necessarily. However, that must be considered. You had written that your blog had been more visited by other people in this time because of the conservative’s critiques. Then, how many non-paedophiles may have the acquaintance of your blog now? And how many of those could actually be supportive to our activism? Perhaps many of them won’t write, won’t post anything, won’t comment, but they are here right now, supporting us.
I hope you don’t give up. I don’t think you will. You are here for so many years, there’s no reason to go away now. Nonetheless, you are an inspiration for others to become activists. I myself had been one of them, who had inspired in you to begin a blog by myself. I know that may be hard to be in this area for so many years and seem sometimes that you have reached nothing, have done any progress, have been stuck in the same place you always had been.
I have accepted the notion that maybe I’ll never see what I have advocated for. Probably I won’t see the acceptance and decriminalisation of intergenerational relationship; however, the satisfaction that I’ll have to know that I had done something at least, that will probably be inmensurable. I want to make the next generation, the future one, have the possibility I hadn’t. I want them to be able to have an intergenerational relationship openly, without fear arrestment, hate, shame, guilt, and other associated feelings. My part I’ll have done. And everyone knows, Tom, your part you have done too.
If you give up, today or futurely, I (and we) will be grateful for everything you have done for all these years. You are an important person to all of us, even to those paedophiles who had not been born yet. The future generation will remember you as who you did have been, clearly one of the most important and famous activist of the beginning of 21th century.

Nimbus

Knowing America is heading for a recession does open some possibility for both an economic and social revolution in North America. However the that rest of the world will be vulnerable to cultural change (sadly I’m not sure if this will be positive or negative). American seems to be itching for a some sort of nationwide conflict and it seems to me that this conflict will be fought by Christian facists and everyone else they blame for their social ills.
I just hope that when the ashes fall there will be something worthwhile waiting for people like Desmond and those who would have them live free.

David Rogers

Nobody can be so naive to thank that what Desmond does is in some way equivalent with the role of a shepherd in the Christmas play at the primary school? Or can his mother be this person? Everyone may know, at least since Elizabethan times, that cross dressing in general, and that of boys too of course, has a homo-erotic component?
Age is of course one of the determining factor in appreciating what someone does. We, of course, know this, but sometimes we are surprised how different appreciation can be for various person. The more we separate groups from each other the more this becomes apparent. So, maybe there are people that only think, or want think, that what Desmond does, is just “cute”.
I should like to know what Desmond thinks.

Yure

I see things like this: we aren’t doing this for ourselves, but for the kids. If we shut up, the climate will get darker for child sexuality too. Kids will still be tortured by the justice system and mental health system. Not even the best doctor can save all of his patients. So, if we, unfortunately, made a mistake regarding Desmond, we should learn from this mistake and not repeat it. We have a great goal. This is a good time to remember what it is.

stephen6000

I agree with you about this. We need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions in particular cases, but this does not mean that pro-paedophile activism is wrong in general terms.

Yure

Thanks, big Stephen.

Rianmo

Hi Tom and heretics!
I prefer send my message in Spanish because my English is horribilis. Yoy can use Google Translate.
Pienso que quizás habría que separar definitivamente el “boylove” o la pedofilia de la “homosexualidad”. Pienso que la pedofilia es una orientación sexual específica y distinta de la “homosexualidad” y que es conveniente que cada una siga su camino. En el pasado los gays apoyaron a los pedófilos, pero hoy ya no. ¿Qué sentido tiene seguir juntos? No cabe esperar que algún día a las siglas LGTBI se añada una P de pedófilos. Por otra parte, hay muchos pedófilos que no se sienten ni se consideran gays y que incluso sienten asco, aversión y rechazo hacia los gays y hacia el movimiento gay. ¿Y acaso los pedófilos son gays? ¿Es lo mismo ser gay que ser homosexual?
Para mí, un pedófilo o un boylover es algo totalmente distinto de un gay, igual que un niño o un adolescente es algo totalmente distinto de un hombre adulto. Se trata de objetos sexuales distintos, de sentimientos distintos, de orientaciones sexuales distintas. Yo hasta diría que la pedofilia está más cerca de la heterosexualidad que de la homosexualidad.

Rianmo

Okay, Tom. Excuse me. I would like know what you think of what I said. Is not pedophilia a different sexual orientation and should it follow its own path?
By the way, do not give up your fight. Keep going. And thank you very much for your work.

Rianmo

Thank you very much for your interesting answers. There are many problems in the struggle for the social acceptance of pedophilia, as we all know. There are also some serious linguistic, semantic problems. Just as boylover does not mean the same as pedophile, gay is not the same as “homosexual”. The right is the first that distinguishes between gay and homosexual. I believe that, at least to this day, gay is not the same as homosexual. Gay would be, so to speak (although it would be necessary to clarify and greatly improve my definition), anyone who adheres or responds to the postulates, policies, opinions and even the aesthetics of the “LGTBI” movement. The right repeats incessantly that you can be homosexual without being gay, and I think that is true. I do not feel or consider myself gay. I do not feel represented by the LGBTI movement or the Gay Pride, I do not share their opinions or their way of seeing things, I do not like their aesthetics, I do not like effeminacy and my sexuality has nothing to do with that of a man He’s fifty years old when he goes to bed or marries another fifty-year-old man. Not only that, but I also dislike everything that has to do with the Gay Pride and I hate to see two men kissing or maintaining relationships. On the other hand, the love mutually consented between young and less young people seems to me something really beautiful and natural, even more natural than homosexual practices between adults, and more similar to heterosexual love than to “gay love”. And I see young people as if they were a separate sex. Am I really gay? Not only do I not feel gay, I do not want to be gay either. I, SIMPLY, IS ANOTHER THING.
Yes, the boylove is by definition homosexual, but within the homosexuality to which it belongs is another very different and differentiated category, a sexual orientation in itself, just as the worm is not the same as the butterfly in which it is transformed , or the child that the adult.
On the other hand, I think that the LGTBI movement is being used by the power to hide or whitewash the repression and the lack of freedoms that exist in general and in relation to certain sexual minorities. They can massacre pedophiles and other groups, reduce freedom to a minimum, censor, imprison anyone for any nonsense, but as the LGBTI movement allows and allow gays to marry, they can always tell anyone who criticizes the repression and the lack of Freedom: “No, you are not right, our society is very free, the proof is that gays can get married and the Gay Pride is celebrated every year.”
I agree that one of the main problems, probably the root and main problem, is the negative view of sex that reigns in society. The sexual freedom and the aperta of mind of which they are presumed are a farce. If sex were seen as something natural and not as something bad, what would be the point of depriving minors of sex?
There is also an identity problem among the pedophiles themselves. Many do not even know they are pedophiles. They may know that they like children, but they do not understand their sexuality or their feelings and are unable to include themselves in the pedophile category. Many even assume negative discourse about pedophilia and consider themselves sick or think that pedophilia is intrinsically “bad”. In countries where there has never been activism in defense of pedophilia, such as in Spanish-speaking countries, pedophiles do not even know that activism exists and the only discourse that comes to them about pedophilia is the official one. Most do not even know the word ‘boylover’!

Peter Herman

I can well enough read Spanish, but not write it to the same extent. So, to respond to your post in English I must admit that I agree with much of what you say. What I find problematic however is the straight jacket need for precise categories. People vary all over the place in their tastes, be they sexual or otherwise. The acronym LGBTQ is silly in the same way that the gay rainbow flag with its six rigid colors is. The actual physical rainbow has no rigid lines between hues, and people too can often exhibit more fluid sexual expressions.

eqfoundation

I think that different sexual minorities can still be respectfully open, and supportive of each other. We don’t need to all be the same.
Sometimes, it’s mostly about shared social ethics.
People who believe that every human has a right to their own sexuality, and to sexual association, have common ground on which to unite. It really does not matter what their personal orientation is.
The same can be said, for people who view sexual experience as a premium [or even just vital] good in life.
For that matter…people can unite against the extreme ruthless aggression, aimed at sexual association and open sexual expression.
Possibly the biggest factor behind the current gaff…is that the “between consenting adults” bunch have successfully maneuvered themselves out from under, most of those same social hostilities they once shared with us…
…So, instead of still needing us to bolster their allied numbers, they’ve latched onto mainstream groups and institutions…and abandoned us, as liabilities.
No…I don’t believe every single person was ever on board, with the idea of having sex with literal children…But there once was a time, when they did not mind having us around, to help make social change.
This is one of the reasons I really dislike gaffs between those of us who are left out in the cold…nepiophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles…It seems, someone out of those closest to “the norm” always wants to break away, and poo poo those “dirty perverts” lower on the ladder.
What they lose sight of…is that nobody [not even themselves] will be honestly free of threat, until we’ve accomplished a radical social change, which no longer sees human sexuality as vile and morally corrupt.
We need to stand for the principle and the truth in it, until the laws and culture respect those principles and truth…Not chase after whatever gets us laid, while playing whatever the current political game is.
There is a dangerous possibility…that the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders who are all the celebrated rage right now, are going to be torn back down to the cruel realities of this world…by the “make America straight again” sorts…the ones who openly push this murderous ideology…and the ones who silently support it.
We aren’t in a war to change words in law books…
…It’s much, much deeper than that.

Yure

I agree with you. I actually think that the only people actually trying to group us in the LGBT movement is the conservative right wing. I try to not mention homosexuality in my own writings, unless it’s necessary and, even so, I try not to use the term “homosexuality” at all.

Yure

I sent you an e-mail with my condolences and some other stuff that feel odd to discuss in public, since this is a very emotional moment for you and I.

celibound

One of my subscribers enlightened me to your outstanding blog. I’d like to extend an invitation to you and everyone else to view my channel dealing with boylove. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDZ67RhaYdSG7jdNePpCMRw
Best Regards

The Valence Issue

Thank you! FYI, I updated my username to match my YouTube channel name: thevalenceissue. Celibound is the old one.

Yure

I knew about you because you were featured in Steve Diamond’s blog, “Our Love Frontier”. You may want to check his blog, which deals with more than just boylove.

bjmuirhead

Tom, I think there are a couple of points you need to seriously consider n giving yourself the answer to whether or not you are a “serious idiot”.
Firstly, take into account the existence of non-paedophiles reading and commenting on this blog without being abusive or overly negative; there are a few of us.
Secondly, take into account that you have radically changed me and my perceptions of paedophilia and adult-child sexual contact. There may be others who are not so ready to comment and expose the change to public view.
But, not only have my views on paedophilia and paedophiles changed, coming here and reading and thinking also has changed my views on children and their sexuality, and I think this made me a better parent in the latter stage of my children’s childhood—at least I didn’t have hysterics when I overheard them talking about sex and various activities they had engaged in. (In the house I was in it was not possible to avoid overhearing private conversations, but it should be avoided whenever possible!)
That there are people who will not read without prejudice and fear, that they will attempt to take pot shots at you, is something shared by many academics researching paedophilia. If nothing else, you are in good company!

Kamil Beylant

In terms of realpolitik, you’ve imposed a heavy burden on Desmond, but only because, in my opinion, he’s been targeted by the Russian bot farms as the number one pedo scare election issue for both the American and Canadian elections. Thus, anything said about a pedophile thinking him sexy will be propagated endlessly by an enormous machine. I did warn about this use of this kid and his fellow drag kids by Putin’s internet monster. The hashtag is #Desmondgate.
Let’s not lose sight of who the real monsters are here — Mr. Putin, this means you.

Christian

The correct YouTube link is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRs5rg0UbcA&t=199
If eqfoundation’s comment did not appear as “awaiting moderation”, then maybe it was mistakenly tagged as spam by Akismet, so check the spam in your comments menu.
If Desmond’s mother decides to end his performance because of the rightist agitation about “paedophilia”, it won’t be your fault. And Cyril is certainly not the reason why Ukraine wants to establish a paedo-register. The only good decision is to continue fighting censorship and prejudice.

eqfoundation

WordPress appears to be simply dumping my comments to this post, as I am getting no confirmation my comments are awaiting approval.
I’ve submitted them three times over.
Wordpress has done this to me in the past…on this blog, in fact.

eqfoundation

I’ve removed a thing or two, to see if this helps.
===
No abandoning:
People are going to talk trash about us, regardless of whether we have a public presence or not…It’s just about all they’ve ever done.
It’s better to stay the course, and keep speaking for ourselves, than to let their endless trash talking stand as the only public representation of us.
You have nothing to apologize for, Tom.
You, being a very public figure, who makes the pearl clutchers squeal, were bound to fall victim to an opportunist “journalist”.
Things wont get better, if “we all just shut up”.
We [who’ve been at it a long time] all get tired of this fight…
…Perhaps, we don’t need to wear it on our sleeves as much as we sometimes do.
I don’t believe any of us should just disappear, though.
Maybe transform…but never disappear.
In part…this is why my own blogging is so wide in diversity…After surpassing 13 years as a BL blogger, my burnout on this issue has reached an almost paralyzing level…My days of writing may be over.
Dave Riegel:
I am heartbroken, about the loss of Dave.
I met him twice, and never had a bad experience with him…He struck me as kind and sincere…if stubborn, where it came to his online work.
It always pained me, to see the way certain others in our community dragged Dave through the mud…
Very few people have stood up for the BoyLove community, like Dave has…and he did so, at great cost to himself.
I just found out about his death, maybe an hour ago…
I had my gut feelings about this, as he’s been crossing my mind as of late…I was just looking at an old e-mail from him, from four or five years back, last night…and I have an uncanny sense that befalls me, sometimes, when I’m about to encounter news of somebody’s death…and “here” it is.
Dave’s SafeHaven Foundation website is no longer online…possibly because it’s no longer being funded.
It is archived at the Wayback Machine.
I urge other archivers to grab a copy, for historical preservation within our community.
In the mentioned e-mail, Dave actually responded to my question, regarding wishes for his work in the aftermath of his inability to maintain it online…He expressed a gratitude, to anyone who thought his work was deserving of continued hosting and preservation.
For those who can put any hard feelings from past clashes with Dave aside [or who never had any]…I think the contents of his website should be considered open, for respectful incorporation and archival into MAP related projects and websites.
Dave’s legacy should absolutely not be abandoned.
I am going to go get a more updated copy of Dave’s website…and I’m going to focus on recreating his IBLD website, in the “IBLD History” section of the EQF IBLD website.
I’ll probably create a SafeHaven archive, as well…eventually…It’s a lot of work.
Very sorry to learn of the loss of Pete…I never knew him, personally.

Peace

It seems some of the links to things were never saved, which is unfortunate. I went ahead and downloaded all of the files I could from his site (plus all of his journal publications) and put them in a folder on my Google Drive (I hope Tom will go ahead and vouch the safety of this link): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OXSLr6AkpRuMtV3tbEW2jIxyNDEP3YT-
The only things I’m missing are the books “We were NOT abused!” (English and Spanish) and “Could they ALL have been wrong?” so I’m hoping somebody has them and can share so that all of David’s publications can be safely archived.

bjmuirhead

I have both of those books, and will send them to Tom later this evening, so he can get them to you.

eqfoundation

Thank you, Peace. 🙂
I’m almost absolutely positive I have electronic copies of Dave’s books, at least the first four, which he converted to PDF and made available for free a few years back.
My issue is figuring out where in the heck I saved them at.
My current process, is centered around trying to find anything new Dave published on his website in the last three or four years…which may not be much at all, other than the Fritz Bernard book that otherwise never got published.
Though, I’m actually grabbing everything I can, once again…and trying to organize it…my previous archive has everything in one folder [I should have used a website downloader]…as far as easily piecing things back together, it’s a mess.
Larger websites [with lots of links] are always difficult.
There’s a strong likelihood, I’ve got most of the stuff missing from the WayBack Machine archive, in my previous archive…which I took from the live website, on it’s paid host…probably four or five years ago.
My type of archiving is a bit more “completionist”. I may ignore the contact page/form, but I otherwise want all the nooks and crannies of a website…anything with relevant content.
Though it’s been a very long time…sometimes, my old hobby is actually rebuilding these websites [fixing links, etc.], and keeping a functional copy of them in a folder on my hard drive [and backed up elsewhere, of course]…They’re available to myself, and can be shared.
If/when I build an archive at my blog for any website, it generally wont be a perfect reproduction of the website [IE: The CLogo Archive], but it will respectfully offer all the substantive content of the original website.

Peace

Thank you for the offer! Someone else was kind enough to get me the two missing books, so the folder I linked should now have all of Riegel’s works in it.
I’m glad to hear that you’re putting in the effort to reconstruct his site! While I love collecting physical things and files, with the way the internet is, it may be high time for me to start collecting entire sites as well, especially youthlove sites which aren’t as likely to safely stay live on the net.

eqfoundation

I think it has…
I didn’t realize URLs and links were being suppressed in the visitor comments.
Was this an intentional option setting on your part?
Perfectly fine if it was…I just did not realize.
Last I knew…people could still post links in my comments section.

eqfoundation

Maybe it’s a glitch…It would not let me post the URL to the Wayback Machine archive of Dave’s website.
Let’s see…
Anyone can go to Archive Dot Org, and enter the SafeHaven URL.
http://www.shfri. net/
Do note the break in this URL…attempting reader’s trick.

bartender

Petro Poroshenko is no longer a president of Ukraine, there is now a new president.

reader

“It is possible we could both be seen as useful people, but only to those who want to crush everything we stand for. What an irony! So, I ask all heretics here: What is to be done? Should we all just shut up?”
It might be a bit cheesy, but maybe this clip provides a possible answer: https://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=WRs5rg0UbcA&t=199
“If doing a good deed leads to the universe getting destroyed… partner that’s not a universe I wanna live in anyway.”
Sometimes actions with good intentions and based on the avaiable knowledge still turn out to have negative consequences. That doesn’t mean the actions shouldn’t have been taken.
Today it is one MAP who protested, maybe tomorrow it’ll be more. One never knows when and where the next big movement starts.

Yure
Yure

I specially agree with your last line. Thank you.

171
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top