It is not every day a prestigious, scholarly book mentions Heretic TOC and names its humble host literally scores of times, but a recent tome from publishers Palgrave Macmillan, yours for a princely £89.99, does just that, so it might be thought worth shouting about.
Well, yes, but the title is Sexual Violence Against Children in Britain Since 1965: Trailing Abuse, so you will not be surprised to hear that the kind of noisiness called for is not so much a triumphant fanfare as an agonised scream of protest.
The book, by Nicholas Basannavar, who has taught history at Birkbeck, University of London, is ostensibly about sexual violence but the term is never defined. It is simply assumed, in lock-step with the rest of the mighty CSA industry, that any child-adult sexual act constitutes abuse of the younger party. But this author then takes a monstrously huge step further by in effect equating loving, de facto consensual, relationships with the grotesque acts of sadistic child murderers. For Basannavar, apparently, the essence of the matter is that any paedophilic act is violent and must be denounced as such, regardless of the obvious injustice and defamatory potential of any such claim.
I say “apparently”, rather than being more definite, because I have not had access to this prohibitively expensive volume. But there is little room for doubt. This is because it is clear from the publisher’s description and the table of contents that the book, which came out late last year, is a tweaked version of the author’s PhD thesis of a couple of years earlier. I have a PDF of this and have read most of it, including a chunky 48-page chapter on PIE, the contents of which are split into two chapters for the book, one titled “Speaking About PIE, Speaking About Paedophilia”, the other called “PIE and the ‘Radical Case’”. As may be surmised, the latter is a reference to my own book Paedophilia: The Radical Case.
The same three case studies form the core material of both the PhD and the book. These are: the notorious 1960s Moors Murders; the impact of PIE in the 1970s; and finally the Cleveland scandal of 1987. Basannavar tells us he was born in 1986, so plainly he has no more personal memory of these events than he has of the Roman Empire. In marked contrast, I have strong recollections of all three, especially as an active player in the case of PIE. To the author’s credit, I should say at once that barring a few quibbles over small errors of fact, I have no quarrel with the quality of his research, which is impressively rich and wide-ranging.
As regards the Moors Murders, I was certainly not involved as either a perpetrator, victim (obviously), or in any other capacity than following events in the news. Same with Cleveland. However, it is precisely the news coverage of the day that is Basannavar’s main focus: his project delves into the changing ways in which “sexual violence” has been conceived and presented in the media and wider society. He explores the language used, notably the emergence of the word “paedophilia” into public debate and popular consciousness. While he documents in considerable detail the intellectual movement in the 1970s towards greater sexual freedom, including that of children, the arc of his narrative bends, in line with that of more recent history, towards public concerns over child protection.
By the time we reach Basannavar’s account of the liberatory era, the tone has already been set. While his exposition is presented for the most part with non-emotive language and an air of academic detachment, his more visceral sentiments are never far below the surface. In a candid personal reflection at the end, he admits his first ambition was to be a journalist not a historian. And there are many indications, starting with his choice of the most sensationally horrific murders of the 20th century in Britain as his first case study, that his taste is for the lurid, gut-churning tabloid end of the business. Likewise his admission, also in his reflective coda, to feeling “revulsion” over Jimmy Savile’s cheerfully guilt-free public expressions of sexual interest in young girls, strongly suggests he will have had no qualms about the prejudicial effect of contextualising PIE alongside the Moors Murders.
These indications of bias and prejudice start early. By page 11, in his introductory chapter, we learn that he will adopt the term “child sexual abuse” to describe adult sex with children, reflecting his own view that such sex “is an inherently abusive matter”. And that’s it. No debate. End of story. So it need not surprise us that just a few pages later he tells us his PIE chapter will show “how PIE piggybacked on burgeoning liberationist sexual rights movements to promote its campaign for the abolition of the age of consent.” Note that rather than being a legitimate part of these movements we just “piggybacked” on them – imposters, as it were, catching a free ride.
A further indication of bias, if not of prejudice, is built into his approach to history through the journalism of the time. Such an approach would be entirely justified in a study of media history but not of sexual violence, however defined. Yes, media representations are hugely important in any modern culture, but over-reliance on them (he admits “a large proportion” of his sources are media-based) undermines the scholarly quest for objectivity. The mainstream media, especially, tend to reflect popular opinion precisely because that is the way to be popular, and hence to sell their newspapers and boost their broadcast ratings.
This is fine if popular opinion is what the study is all about. But it is less fine if the work is to be truth-seeking in a wider sense. Then it will benefit from research data. In this case what is missing is empirical evidence as to the benefits or harms associated with MAP sexual contacts with children. Nowhere in Basannavar’s study, for instance, do we hear about Rind et al.’s famous meta-analysis showing that such contacts are not typically traumatic, as is popularly supposed; nor is there a single word about work such as Sandfort’s, which gives detailed findings of substantial benefits. Instead, the focus is on endless media attention given to unrepresentative and often very dubious “survivor” accounts, many of them based on discredited “recovered memory”, and in some spectacular instances utterly, obviously and provenly false.
Parenthetically, I might add that a related shortcoming besets another MAP-related book chapter out recently, in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Sex and Sexuality. This chapter, by Spanish scholar Agustín Malón, is titled simply “Pedophilia” (US spelling , although the publisher is British). My Radical Case book and also my much more recent paper “Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal” are cited by him as among ten or so items that he singles out as “particularly significant” philosophical texts. I would consider that generous of him, but for the fact that he takes a conservative line himself while refusing to engage with either my arguments or their empirical support base. As with Basannavar, one has to suspect he feels the case I present is dangerously “significant”, hence best kept at a distance.
Moving on from Basannavar’s general approach to his case study on PIE, the chapter to a great extent gives a clear, reasonably accurate, and balanced account of our activities and of the impact made by the organisation that I led for several years. He writes:
PIE sought to define and explain paedophilia to its audiences – be it the individual members who had subscribed to PIE’s journals, or wider audiences in academia or campaign groups whose attention had been caught. They were historically significant definitions. Until PIE appropriated the terms “paedophile” and “paedophilia” with both its own group name and these publications, there were very few instances of the terms’ common usage or definition in the United Kingdom in the twentieth century. Paedophilia, an early PIE publication stated, was “sexual love directed towards children”… What is apparent is PIE’s attempt to distinguish paedophilia from abuse, and with considerable care under the terms of their manifesto: “paedophilia”, so PIE claimed, was a loving and “tender” sexual condition which should not bring persecution or social rejection; “abuse”, they said, was something that should still be punishable by law.
Much of “the PIE episode”, he says, was played out in academic debates, as well as the pages of our own journals and papers. He promises to survey these “along with a particular focus on Tom O’Carroll’s output such as his 1980 book Paedophilia: The Radical Case. And he delivers, giving plenty of space to arguments for children’s consent and liberation that were put forward at the time not just by PIE and myself but also by heavyweight intellectuals such as Michel Foucault, along with less obviously radical sources: “The age of consent was indeed challenged elsewhere,” he writes, “as increasing teenage sexual activity attracted concern from groups such as the British Medical Association.”
But here’s the cunning bit. Basannavar is mentioning all this stuff not in order to scrutinise the arguments critically, which would be intellectually respectable, but rather just to denounce the 1970s as an era in which everybody supposedly went a bit mad – drunk, as it were, on the heady spirit of liberation. This is to take a lazily “presentist” standpoint, making the dubious assumption that our present culture is now so much more sensible and wise than that of those irresponsible idiots in the past.
As a sophisticated writer he is alert to this problem, though, which he tackles by coming up with an excuse for all those free spirited souls back in the day. They were naively idealistic. What they failed to reckon with was that evil people (PIE, basically, although Jimmy Savile is thrown in at the end for good measure) would cynically latch on (“piggyback”) to an otherwise well-intentioned movement, presenting clever arguments but in bad faith.
How does he know we were acting cynically, wanting only to get into kids’ pants rather than having any concern for their own wishes and welfare? Why, by noting that some of us (including me) were later convicted for offences involving children. Just like those bad, cynical gay guys who racked up criminal convictions for having sex with each other back in the 1950s and 1960s and much earlier – wicked people like Oscar Wilde, say, or Alan Turing.
Not a great argument, then, but as Basannavar obliquely admits elsewhere, he really has nothing else to go on but his own suspicious instincts and those of fellow historians covering this ground. He writes:
There has been a degree of consensus in these works about the conditions that led to PIE being able to gain traction in debates over adult sex with children, namely that PIE exploited the liberal rights campaigning of the period in order to gain a platform for its views, and to promote sexual activity with children. Such arguments do tend, however, toward assigning a cynical motivation to PIE’s members that, as outlined in the introductory chapters, is a difficult historical concept to prove.
Difficult, I would say, for a very good reason. OK, time for a big reveal. Here is the real reason our cynical bad faith was difficult to prove: the allegation is false. We were not cynics. We, too, were genuine idealists. We were certainly guilty of naivety, along with so many others in the 1970s. We naively supposed our arguments would find traction once the initial fuss had died down and they came to be investigated empirically in greater depth. What we failed to allow for was that the tide of history would turn and that evidence in support of our claims would be systematically either trashed unreasonably (as with Rind and Sandfort) or else just ignored, and further research discouraged and starved of funding.
Finally, I might just note that Basannavar touches on fairly recent events in the final pages of his PhD. As mentioned earlier, he points out that I am blogging these days, at Heretic TOC. He also alludes briefly in his thesis to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). In the book, though, there must be additional material because his bibliography is available online and it includes several references to my witness statement to the Inquiry. I can only wonder what he has made of it. As the book is so expensive I may never find out, so I am left with the feeling that he is talking about me behind my back!
NONCES ARE NOTHING NEW
Basannovar’s attention to language (see above) includes the claim that there is no evidence for the use among prison inmates of disparaging terms such as “paedo” and “nonce”, aimed specifically at MAPs, before the word “paedophile” was launched into popular usage in the UK by PIE.
He is right about “paedo” but wrong on nonce. A recent Channel 5 documentary established very credibly that “nonce” has been around much longer, having originated in the northern prison that has been dubbed Monster Mansion as it houses so many serial killers, terrorists and (obvs!) child sex offenders. As local online newspaper Yorkshire Live put it, “the prison is known for having some of the most notorious and vile inmates who have committed the worst of crimes”. Inmates were said to include “Hannibal the Cannibal” Robert Maudsley, “Britain’s worst rapist” Reynhard Sinaga and “Dr. Death” Dr Harold Shipman. Yorkshire Live continues:
The word “nonce” – a British slang word for paedophile actually originated in the Wakefield prison and comes from an acronym used by staff there… N.O.N.C.E was marked on the cell card of any prisoner who may have been in danger of violence from other prisoners. It meant staff would not open their doors when other prisoners were out.
The acronym NONCE stands for “not on normal courtyard exercise”, according to the documentary, and apparently was first coined at the jail in Yorkshire.
Other sources online back this up, suggesting “not on normal communal exercise”, so the prison’s claims to have started the term do ring true.
The word is listed in Urban Dictionary and Inside Time, an online and monthly printed national newspaper for prisoners and detainees. [These listings] support the theory that the term originated in Wakefield.
Sounds good to me, but when was the date of origin? The term “nonce” already appears to have been old when I first heard it used in London prisons in 1981. Nobody at that time seemed to know the origin and we can safely say, in the wake of the TV documentary, that it goes back beyond the memory of the oldest prison officers still alive today.
I suppose you have seen this video:
Yes, Cyril, I have seen it. These two guys both left us in recent years, sadly. Steven Smith (later Freeman) died in prison with Covid. I was at Peter Bremner’s funeral not not before that, after he died aged 79.
sad, nice guys
it is commented under this video that the UK government used to sponsor PIE, and “victimized” children must sue the government
>the UK government used to sponsor PIE
I wish they had! We might have been a lot more successful with government backing! Conspiracy-theorists often talk the most ridiculous nonsense and this is a prime example.
one of the comments:
>Harriet Harman and her husband Jack Drone and Patricia Hodges gave money and support to the PIE organisation
No, they did not. Whoever wrote this knows nothing, and hasn’t even got the names right. The public figures mentioned in the media in this context were Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt.
Please do not post again about this, Cyril. All it does is give new currency to long-discredited lies. I have been through all this before, including as a witness to a public inquiry.
O.K., I thought it would be interesting for you
you’re mentioned in a new book:
Also, there is another “authoritative book”:
Cyril, as you may know, your first link is to a book by Nick Basannavar that I reviewed here in July:
Your link is to a review of the book in a journal called Twentieth Century British History. This is definitely a review I will be interested to read. Well spotted!
I’m sorry, I was inattentive, did not remember the author’s name
If a researcher/historian argues that Western culture and scientific inquiry is more enlightened today than in the antideluvian days of the 1970s, then someone should ask him/her/they/xir/it/etc how the proliferation of identity politics and the censorship policies now actually adopted and promoted by what passes for the Left today has taken over from the liberals of that era.
He should also be asked why there is an en masse movement among the “liberation” activists of today to pressure doctors into surgically removing the breasts (and sometimes even the nipples — I’m not making that up) of any girl who decides to deal with any emotional issues related to fitting in or non-conformity by suddenly declaring last week at the age of 16 that she might not actually be a girl, but instead may be a boy or “non-binary”. Back in the 70’s and 80’s, girls (and guys) who felt that they transcended strict gender expectations, including fashion, would simply dress in accordance with the “glam” crowd of that time, which included singers like David Bowie and Boy George. Or, like me, they might simply not conform so strictly with gender-based expectations in terms of social interests and behavior. They and liberals of the time didn’t demand that doctors just assume a genuine case of gender dysphoria was present and agree to administer potentially dangerous hormones and/or carve up a healthy body without incisive medical and psychological inquiry to see if this is truly warranted, just like any competent medical professional will do with any type of health issue.
Cheers to you and the other enlightened folks of the 21st century, Prof. Basannavar *clink*
Here is link to Ms Galbreath’s video (still up as i write), taken down from YouTube but viewed by some 2.6 million people (gasp) via the LibsOfTikTok account. The staggering certitude displayed by the shamefully ignorant thousands who pile in to comment will take your breath away. Is there anything to stop every MAP who reads this to go here and make your voice heard?
Angry crowd of modern geocentrists.
Unfortunately the majority is always ignorant until the minority becomes prominent enough to challenge and enlighten them.
Another person, this time a prison counsellor, tries to speak out reasonably and sanely only to have the entire clobbering/silencing machine go into frantically reactionary overdrive
Wow, that Breitbart story is quite something.
>When they say these guys are non-offending, I say to them this: ‘How do you know?,’” he added. “So we are going to take the word of a guy who claims to have to use restraint not to sexually violate a child…?”
In my view, this point will continue to be a problem for “virtuous” MAPs and their defenders. It is one reason why our movement needs a less apologetic wing.
Using some conjecture re. phallometric studies by Seto, we know that his rather broad pedohebephilic construct is a poor predictor of behavior:
So, using an arousal-based definition of pedophilia/hebephilia, we can safely say that the dark figure of offending is very low, maybe around 10% compared to 5% in the general population.
It looks like offending rates among self-declared MAPs are much higher, with a baseline of just under 1/5 having detected offences!
What I don’t understand is why sexologists, psychologists and psychiatrists have become so obsessed with the dichotomy offending /non-offending. As health care professionals, there are committed to care about people’s mental health, not to worry about whether people have infringed an accidental law enacted by accidentally elected people. The latter is a duty of justice and law enforcement alone. No man can serve two masters.
perhaps such labeling will help to educate people the understanding banality that real violence is committed by rare single individuals, and not by the whole group.
Exactly. “Paedophiles” are associated in the media and popular imagination with rape and murder, which is a risible calumny.
Too many in the health care industry seem to think of themselves as “protectors” of society rather than clinicians with the purpose of healing the ill and scientists trying to uncover provable facts. This is especially true if they fancy themselves activists with an agenda that isn’t based on seeking empirical evidence. To them, being a hero and an activist is much more romantic than being a “lowly” healer and seeker of facts.
It is one thing if one discusses the absurd and harmful sexual repressiveness of our (post-)modern times theoretically (as I always did), an another one if it touched some people with whom you are acquainted personally.
Being unmarried and childless myself, I have a large friend circle in that nearly everyone has children – young ones, since we are all roughly in our 30s. One of these kids is a 4-year-old boy, smart and kind and bold one.
Recently, he and his parents paid a visit to their closest neighbours, another couple with a child – a 6-year-old girl. Children were left alone for a time, while parents had a small party together. And, when they came to a room where children were left to play, they found the boy with his pants down, and the girl intently studying the little thing he had there.
There was a scandal. The children were angrily interrogated, and it was found out that it was the older girl’s initiative and behest to play this way. Yet, it was the boy who is now facing harsh consequences.
Now, he is no longer allowed to enter the neighbouring house where the girl lives, despite it being the main gathering spot for the local kindergarten-age kids, and has to look at other playing children from behind the fence, since the girl’s parents seem to perceive him as “a little pervert” of a kind, not to be allowed to in the vicinity of other children, especially girls. Needless to say, this banishment is a source of an intense distress for a poor kid – as well as the adults’ insistence that he has done a Very Bad Thing and now must feel guilty and ashamed for his vile villainy.
His mother is now trying to negotiate his pardon, insisting that the boy understands that he has committed a horrible misdeed, regrets it greatly and will never reoffend this way again, but, as for now, to no avail.
This is insanity.
What is especially sad, just two decades ago, in the semi-anarchic Russia of the 1990s, the adults’ attitudes to children’s sex play were most tolerant and lenient. In times of my own childhood and adolescence, I knew kids who played sexually with each other, were exposed by adults, yet suffered no negative social consequences whatsoever, since the adults of that much more sexually (and otherwise) libertarian era thought that it is normal and natural for children to explore their sexuality together in a playful way.
Since then, Russia has unfortunately adopted the most restrictive and repressive Western ways of dealing with child (and intergenerational) sexuality.
At least, they were not arrested as they would have been i the US:
[T.O’C. writes: SugarBoy sent me an image file of this story as it appeared in the Houston Chronicle. Unfortunately, I can find no way to add the image file to the comment space. On a more positive note, though, the AP version of the story, linked above, gives the whole story from the Houston Chronicle plus a few more paragraphs of further detail.]
Oof. I feel sorry for those kids. Already labeled a bad/problem child at 5. Poor kid. And the girl is no doubt scarred as well. She now thinks she did wrong, and got her friend in trouble. Unfortunately, that is something that would happen around here too.
Let me say upfront that CSAM is incredibly dangerous and likely part of its persistent “presence” on the internet is aimed at rounding up and identifying MAPs by State actors. Always avoid it.
Having said that, this article is incredibly dumb. Apparently, self-generated CSAM must be the result of a sadistic and perversely persuasive manipulation by predators, and not simply children reacting to a sex-saturated culture by acting out their own inclinations.
This “problematic issue” couldn’t have happened to a nicer set of Western governments, and I commend their stupidity and incompetence for stoking the flames while bitching about it.
Is this what they meant by “let kids be kids”? Let them masturbate in their bedrooms? Lol, this will only get worse.
We often hear of children that are lazy and lack motivation to do schoolwork. Maybe governments should consider hiring pedophiles in order to groom these children into doing their exciting homework? If pedophiles are equipped with such an irresistible power of persuasion even online, the social benefits could be huge.
Very funny. I think Helmut Kentler would agree :p
Lol I get the impression these media articles say “children tricked into masturbating on video” to hide the sheer embarrassment that children do it of their own volition.
You are right that it’s going to get “worse”- in more ways than one. It’s almost like there’s a subconscious push by society- regardless of political or religious leanings- to force a conversation about child sexuality, pedophilia, pederasty, and where we seem to be going wrong with all of it. It’s kind of pathological in a way- a neurosis, like we just can’t leave it alone. An irritating collective obsession that we just gotta deal with, with almost insane fever pitch. That we won’t let go or feel better about until we have a big blowup session and finally empty of whatever’s got us emotionally constipated about it.
Yes, you could say it’s the “elephant in the room”. People are afraid of the potential societal consequences too, but it can potentially be a beautiful thing. As soon as children took on the public role of “influencer” I realised this marked a significant shift in our attitude towards the child. It’s like we have two dangerously converging lanes: on the one hand, the slow progress of MAP rights and lack of positive MAP recognition; on the other hand, the speeding transformation in the societal conditions of children themselves, through the internet, through massive liberalisation, and their resultant radically liberal upbringing. It’s unclear right now when the sexuality of children will be forced into the light, as it were, to become a real societal issue. But I’d say we’re not too far off.
Abortion and trans issues alone will get us there. Liberals will harp about 10 year olds not being ready to be parents, conservatives that 10 year olds aren’t mature enough to have abortions (with or without parental consent), liberals will continue to side with queer people on the issue of trans rights- and most queer people will side with trans kids on trans issues- which by necessity undermines parental and social authority over children, and conservatives will continue to call everyone else a groomer. And of course both will continue slandering each other with (ironically rather true accusations, most of the time) of supporting their own pedophile or MAP of choice in any given election for political reasons. Both sides think they’re opposed, both sides think the other side is trying to pollute the kids- and they’re both about to face a reckoning that indeed they are both right and both wrong about the whole thing- and any historian worth their salt a couple hundred years from now will point to how the self-righteous child abuse warriors wound up undoing their own cause unwittingly. But, hopefully, whatever proves to actually be child abuse will be largely done away with in society as a result. As I’ve said- I’m willing to follow the science and our collective experience to whatever end that leads, regardless of which camps are right about what things.
>But, hopefully, whatever proves to actually be child abuse will be largely done away with in society as a result
Absolutely. The last thing anyone wants is a child who suffers. Childhood should be a joyous and magical time. But the continued marginalisation of children allows sadistic people to harm them.
Give much more power to children. Let them make some of their own decisions. This is the greatest protection against real child abuse. Does a fifteen year old girl enjoy and value a liaison with a twenty two year old man? Sorry, that isn’t abuse. It will land you in prison, it is illegal and therefore cannot be acted out safely, but don’t pretend a child suffers anything except enjoyment, if it is a benign and mutually desired thing.
Where do we draw the line? Would an eight year old enjoy sexual exploration of her body? Again, it is illegal and therefore unsound as things stand, but if it is mutually desired, and pleasurable, is it in fact morally wrong? Does the law always base itself squarely on the moral good? Or does it often overshoot and even distort the moral good?
Law is right by might, not right by appeal to unshakable moral principles. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe law is strictly utilitarian rather than being moral at all.
In religion, we talk of the “moral law within me”. Secular legal systems misappropriate religious ideology if they claim to have a moral foundation and not merely one of mutual convenience and utility for the citizenry.
So it is perfectly morally sound, in principle, to sexually explore an eight year old’s body and give her pleasure, if she desires it. The stumbling block is that legal tradition has made a utilitarian judgement that this is not permissible, and will attract severe punishment. The justification for such punishment is entirely arbitrary, because might makes right, and the powerful have the biggest say.
But ironically, as you say, if we actually focused on the pleasure, fulfillment, and needs of children, we could in fact tackle real abuse much more soundly, as in cases of unwanted sexual contact. So give more power and arbitration to the child, because even the Church says seven is the age of reason.
It’s rather amazing that WEIRD society is so “uppity” about this issue, to such an irrational extent, that they actually believe kids are capable of abusing themselves. The “CSA” narrative is seriously that embedded in the international consciousness.
It’s interesting that Newgon and IPCE support an AoC of twelve, which is of course the standard age through a lot of civilised history. Twelve seems more intuitive than sixteen or eighteen, based on biological factors and from a psychosexual perspective.
Of course, the Anglo-American orthodoxy, which mustn’t attract a lot of respect or reverence, as in its modern iteration it is a very deeply flawed system of thought, opted for sixteen to eighteen based on moral panics, which is never a sound basis for sexual doctrine.
I can only speak for myself personally, who experiences as much fulfilment from private fantasy as perhaps the stringently debarred and taboo “adult-minor sex” may yield. I am therefore in a happy situation. The question is, would children be in a happier situation if they were sexually liberated? And this depends on one’s perspective. We all yearned as young children to have sexual contact with our cousins or had fantasies about Pamela Anderson (lol!) and this formed a major part of our psychological landscape. We engaged in sexual fantasy at least as young as seven.
It seems to me to be a sociological failure that children are not more sexually liberated. We box them in and suppress them, and this experience dominates the childhood years, as far as I can tell. So twelve is an obvious step, although it suffers most from a lack of populism and popular fervour. For me, the most beautiful girls are actually often six or seven, with tooth gaps (so adorable) and very fine and sometimes even voluptuous figures, as can be divined from Instagram. This is my ideal, and I derive a fine inner life of the mind from contemplating these paragons of beauty.
And I fully accept that the AoC may not come down even in my lifetime – it is almost a matter of indifference to me. For with my rich life of fantasy, I have found a high degree of sexual fulfilment already – and I strongly believe that sex is not a major part of life or its goals, but that we should pursue personal, intellectual or even spiritual goals as a higher priority.
So I am happy, but when I observe the latent sexuality of children, it gives me much joy. And they are certainly being pushed more in this direction. Conservatives be damned, the voluptuous attractiveness and bright sexuality of many children is wonderful. And one can merely be an observer, and reap a full harvest of the mind from such spectacles and encounters.
This compromise must unite all MAP community. The age of consent should limit vaginal and anal intercourse until 12. Friendship, hugs, kisses, masturbation is harmless.
a new article on how media influence MAPs’ mental health: https://link.researcher-app.com/5wxi
Finally, Prue joins the fray! I’ve been ill over the last week, so out of action for the most part. I was surprised that I tested negative for Covid, but thankfully I’m much better now. Anyway, to the blog!
I’d never heard of the Cleveland scandal before. It seems like Britain’s version of the McMartin daycare scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
“in 1987, during the period of February to July, many children living in Cleveland were removed from their homes by social service agencies and diagnosed as sexually abused. The 121 diagnoses were made by two paediatricians at a Middlesbrough hospital, Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt, using the later-discredited diagnostic of reflex anal dilation. ”
“PIE piggybacked on burgeoning liberationist sexual rights movements”
> Why is it so difficult to accept that PIE activists could have legitimately wanted sexual liberty for other sexual minorities, of which many of them were a part of in being, dare we say it, gay paedophiles (same-sex attracted)? Even if we accept the now politically correct line that “gay” or “homosexual” is no longer to refer to same-sex attraction, but to same-sex attraction for others above X age, that would still apply to non-exclusive paedophiles and paedohebephiles. Their struggles would still be the same, and Nick the historian knows that Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) and other groups supported a reduction/abolition of the AOC. In his PhD thesis he mentions CHE, the NCCL (now Liberty) etc but just as a list, a minor detail; he never goes into detail about them or the mutual support with PIE.
I do think his PhD thesis is overall much less negative than it could be framed, but it’s unfortunate that sexualized killing like in the Moors Murders are lumped alongside the Cleveland scandal and PIE. Really, the latter two are part of the same phenomena and the Moors Murders stand out as the odd example to bring up, given that killing young children has never been something that activist groups or doctors debate (unless we’re debating, say, the right to die via suicide and assisted suicide).
Nick’s writing is quite grand when it comes to PIE, making bold statements about history rather than going into detail about particular persons, their ideas and contributions. By contrast, the book you mentioned in your obituary for Bill Nash and your “Tom O’Carroll is dead” train chat, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Twentieth Century Britain, by Chris Moores, published in 2017, apparently examined the minutes of PIE meetings and locates Nettie Pollard specifically as the most influential bridge builder between PIE and other liberation groups. https://heretictoc.com/2022/03/20/repression-in-netherlands-rivals-russias/
You can read this historical retrospective on Nettie via google books: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=bH_uDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=google+books+Civil+Liberties+and+Human+Rights+in+Twentieth+Century+Britain+by+Chris+Moores+nettie+pollard&source=bl&ots=67XSVrokAS&sig=ACfU3U3E3piRMntrrEEeQ7ZCYHc0_t1xsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMobztqZ75AhU0gFYBHREwC2MQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false
>I’ve been ill over the last week
Sorry to hear that, Prue, but glad you are better now and thanks for your input.
>I’d never heard of the Cleveland scandal before. It seems like Britain’s version of the McMartin daycare scandal
Actually, there were other scares in the UK that were rather more like McMartin than Cleveland was. I am thinking of the “Satanic abuse” panics in the Orkneys, Rochdale, etc., in which there were lots of crazily colourful allegations, as in McMartin. Cleveland’s “bottom inspectors” were quite a distinctively British bit of lunacy as far as I can recall.
>Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Twentieth Century Britain, by Chris Moores, published in 2017, apparently examined the minutes of PIE meetings and locates Nettie Pollard specifically as the most influential bridge builder between PIE and other liberation groups.
Maybe I should try to get hold of Moores via inter-library loan.
The Americans have their alternative to RAD. They call it the “Anal Wink”.
When you combine the two theories, you are left with only one option for a “non-abused” child subjected to a doctor’s anal probing test: absence of response.
>”Dr. Bruce Woodling developed the anal wink test… His testimony was prominent in the McMartin preschool child abuse case.”
Interesting. I hadn’t realised, or had long ago forgotten, that this sort of medical testimony had a part to play in McMartin. So Prue’s comment the other day was more accurate than I gave credit for.
Dear Tom, as someone living in the United States during the darkest period of reaction I’ve seen in my youngish life (I’m around 30) I was wondering what your thoughts are on how we can move forward. Recently, as I’m sure you know, the previously constitutional right to abortion was taken away by an ultra-reactionary Supreme Court, and since the conservative movement had been preparing for such an outcome the result is half of women in the United States do not have access to abortion services.
I can only guess that this is somewhat like the 1970s when the people you describe as naive optimists entered the radically reactionary era of the 1980s –– something that many activists of many different hues failed to anticipate.
Right now, things seem hard, I have never seen so much stigma directed against MAPs or maybe I’m more sensitive to it. I guess this is what being gay in the 1950s must’ve been like except its worse for MAPs. Even jokes about age-gap relationships that wouldn’t have raised an eye ten years ago now seem to be forbidden. Even legal age gap relationships seem to be being stigmatized right now in the United States.
How can we (and I) fight against this? I don’t like having to keep this a secret but I have to for all but a few people. Even if I wasn’t a MAP myself I think I would’ve been sympathetic to the cause, I never really understood the logic behind the prohibition, the only thing that ever made sense was the argument that there was a power differential at play. BUT the older I get the more it becomes clear how much of a power differential exists between people in the adult world.
I don’t want to be afraid anymore even in a world that is near-uniformly hostile. Maybe I am a näive idealist myself but I can’t let this go unopposed anymore. There are limits to what I can do as an individual and how far I can go without being out. Right now, I cannot be out because of my job but also because even if it weren’t for my present job being out would close off a lot of opportunities for me.
But it is hard to lie, when the topic of pedophilia/teenlove comes up, I usually just say nothing. Because I know I’m not allowed to offer a contrary opinion, in fact, sometimes I hear people in their mid 20s/30s talk about how it would be “wrong” to date someone who is 18 and I feel isolated as well. I feel I cannot say that I don’t think anything is wrong with it because (perhaps correctly) the other participants would surmise if I think dating at the legal limit is not wrong, what might I think is okay if not for the law?
>How can we (and I) fight against this?
If I really knew the answer, AL, I’d be telling everyone in every blog I write. I would be urging younger people to organise in this way and that way, adopt my fantastic Plan X, etc.
But it isn’t like that. I can do no better than say I had a go with my crystal ball last October to see where we could be heading. My prophetic powers may not have improved since I was a “naive idealist” decades ago, but my essay might be of some interest and could prompt a few thoughts of your own:
I would actually think that it would be the opposite –– pedophilia seems, to me at least, more likely to be normalized as the old capitalist powers (Japan, SK, EU, UK and even the US) enter drastic and accelerated demographic decline. Sure, a society like Japan can go through decades of demographic aging, below replacement births, before it enters the phase of stagnation and literal population shrink. With birth-rates falling rapidly in the Third World the idea of “replacing” the population with migrants looks untenable and nonetheless it is politically impossible given how xenophobia has driven a lot of the discontent in Western nations by bringing far right movements to power. If we look at the goals of the US by itself — smash Russia’s military capabilities and contain China, continue to maintain strategic and geopolitical dominance, which also means maintaining economic dominance, this is just not possible without an increase in domestic births. The US has entered a period of labor shortage since the retirement of the baby boomers has begun en masse with Covid-19, in particular, low-skilled jobs have seen surprising demand because many millennials are aging out of them and into white collar careers whereas Gen Z is a smaller generation than both millennials and baby boomers. Because unemployment is fairly low the US is also suffering from a military staffing problem –– not exactly what you want when your preparing to fight two super-powers at once, one of which has four times your population and is a tech-manufacturing superpower. It may seem like I’m harping on the demographic issue and its an easy problem to ignore (especially since pensions get paid in the end or governments’ fall) but the US needs to be able to maintain higher growth than it has done since the Great Recession which has averaged 2% a year. Looking at everything from soldiering to economic growth to infrastructure to manufacturing/agriculture (a renewed concern thanks to the breakdown of global supply chains) to even the grand New Deal style projects planned to deal with Climate Change itself — there just isn’t enough labor within Western borders to meet the crises of Western societies without dramatic changes. What does that look like? I can’t say but I will not be surprised if part of what that looks like is reversing the anti-teen pregnancy messages of the 80s and 90s to increase fertility and extend the functional reproductive lives of women. A 43 year old woman is going to have a harder time conceiving and birthing than a 13 year old girl — these are just biological facts.
I do not desire the return of child labor but I would not be surprised if it comes back in a big way given that it is questionable whether Western capitalist societies can maintain themselves in this time of crisis. From this, the question may flow whether children should be allowed to have sex –– surprisingly, there is some fairly lurid descriptions of child-adult sex in some of Marx’s citations about working and living conditions in Victorian Britain in volume. That certainly wasn’t unknown in 19th century America either.
Without denigrating anyone, I understand why people want to hitch the wagon onto LGBT, that is the most successful sexuality/body positivity movement going. Yet, I find it bizarre that Queers have appointed themselves as the arbiters of sexual morality –– many have said its just respectability politics, considering they still aren’t respected everywhere, they feel their identities under attack. But, what if the reason for that is another type of self-interest, what if earlier heterosexual family formation (the type of this does not matter so much, it does not have to even be conventional heterosexual marriage) from teen pregnancy is actually antithetical to queerness at least as modern queers interpret it?
I wrote an essay on why I think girls are actually the main reason the MAP movement didn’t move forward: “From what I’ve seen it does not seem to be an exaggeration to say that much of MAP theory is another type of Queer theory. Queer theory being defined as a concern with non-normative non-reproductive sex. In this case, it is very much the problem of reproduction that is at stake here. It also shouldn’t have to be said but it really must be that abortion must be legal, free, and accessible in every state for young girls to freely chose their destiny. I’m not a doctor but doesn’t seem to be practical or fair to put pre-teens on birth control tablets/IUDs and the fact is that there will be cases where a girl was having sex on the cusp of her menarche and her/her partner did not know that she had had it and it may be the case that she will get pregnant after having her first ovulation. This is not compatible with the conservative social agenda as it has evolved since 1980.” I know the last bit seems unrelated but witness how some people in America seem more concerned with the potential overturning of gay marriage then the already overturned right to abortion. Gay marriage has a 90+% approval rate but pro-choice positions hover somewhere between 56-60% conservatively to high 70 percent depending on the polls and questions asked. In the 70s, feminists had some cache in that heterosexual women were more popular than gay people, now you almost wonder if it isn’t the reverse.
I have other essays up but if your interested I’d be willing to submit an essay on possible positive and negative trends for the movement.
Thanks, AL, for this very interesting comment.
First off, just to be clear for the benefit of other readers, the quotation you start off with is from the HTOC blog to which I drew your attention in the post you have now replied to i.e. this one, from last October:
Your demographic analysis could well be right i.e. economies will come under pressure to increase population, not curtail it. In the immediate future this is not just a realistic assessment, it is actually happening already. Alarm over population stagnation and decline has been expressed at government level in a number of major countries, of which Russia, Japan and Italy come particularly to mind for me.
My main point was not so much the direction of demographic change as the fact that deep factors not in our immediate control can bring about rapid changes in social policy. The precise nature of that change is very difficult to predict, so I believe it remains possible that severe resource pressures, as I suggested, will force a steep downward trend in population, even below the downward trend that has already begun.
That said, you make an impressive case for your contrary analysis, drawing on a variety of factors.
You conclude by saying, “I’d be willing to submit an essay on possible positive and negative trends for the movement”.
Yes, I would be very interested in considering such an essay as a guest blog, as long as you do not mind being edited, especially as regards shorter paragraphs and tighter syntax. Better still if you can take your time and submit a self-polished draft.
Also, I notice, especially from the FST post to which you linked, that you throw in a great many interesting thoughts in a sort of breathless dash, as though you are being chased by a man with a gun and need to get everything off your chest before he buries bullets in it!
I quite like that impatience and would not wish to cramp your style too much. However, I do feel you should leave time for fact-checking and for finding references to back up your main claims where they might be in doubt. Do you think you could manage that?
“however, I do feel you should leave time for fact-checking and for finding references to back up your main claims where they might be in doubt.” Yeah, I don’t really do citations on FST because there’s not much point, I’m mainly just brainstorming plus I don’t feel the format lends itself to it. But, I’m more than happy to add links or citations.
>I’m more than happy to add links or citations.
>on FST… I’m mainly just brainstorming
You clearly have a good brain to go storming with, so that’s a great start! 🙂
>Yeah, I don’t really do citations on FST
Considering the rather dubious nature of your claims in the essay, not surprizing. Do you know about feminist eugenics, AoC reforms and demonization of men loving girls, as to make an accurate comparison to the Nazis?
My impression is you don’t care about history in general, nor how we have been treated by the “good” side, but at most care about the select few – say, those sufficiently non-white and non-straight attracted to girls of 17 years and 360 days, as opposed to older straight white males age attracted to 7-year-olds. Had the degenerate “Left” at any time offered sufficient support for the select few, would you have embraced the “Left” and left the rest to their fate (including prison or castration, depending on time and place)?
“My impression is you don’t care about history in general, nor how we have been treated by the “good” side, but at most care about the select few – say, those sufficiently non-white and non-straight attracted to girls of 17 years and 360 days, as opposed to older straight white males age attracted to 7-year-olds” Ironic, because SLCornejo (another contard user) has bizarrely accused me of only caring about prepubescent boys in order to carry out my leftist agenda. And that’s a bizarre one given my writing and research focus has been mainly about girls –– there’s plenty of writing on pederastic relations both scholarly and movement-focused. And given that pro-choice movement orgs (Newgon, PNVD) have explicitly set the goal of an aoc of 12 years old as a movement goal –– and not the proposed abolition of age of consent advocated by (yes, leftist) post-Stonewall gay youth groups in the 70s or even communist groups and intellectuals as far back as the 1930s, it is accurate to say that MAPs right now are focused on hebephile liberation. SLC thinks that I and other movement members are somehow spoiling his attempt to convince conservative parents (LOL) that it is not hebephilia but pedophilia for him to sleep with their 13 year old daughter.
So, now I have been accused of being both a radical pedophilia advocate and now an exceptionally moderate ephebephile advocate. In fact, its strange that you think I am only interested in “17 years and 360 days” cases when I don’t even live in a state where the AOC is 18. I can’t really control how conservatives choose to interpret me or my work which appears to be just like Rorschach test where they look and see what they want to see.
You just openly race-bait saying that I apparently just want to let non-white non-straight people have access to late teens but I have never advocated for a non-universalist particularist approach. Your bizarre cuckold fantasies aside, I find this rather inconsistent with your earlier claim: “feminist eugenics…to make an accurate comparison with the Nazis.” Yes, we’ve all heard the standard GOP pap before: democrats are the real anti-black racists, Margaret Sanger was the world’s most successful Klanswoman etc. You can go ahead and assume I am a progressive Nazi but at least be consistent.
“including prison or castration, depending on time and place” Its funny because I live in a conservative state where castration is a punishment that some sex offenders undertake in order to secure an early release. I wonder if you think they are just “cuckservatives” to use your parlance? I can say with certainty that most conservatives on twitter want to kill you lol you either aren’t very bright or you have no experience with that world. I don’t think they are cuckservatives, I think they are probably more militantly right-wing than you.
This seems to be something that conservative MAPs can’t or won’t process because criminalizing adult-child sex is assumed to be progress and therefore the side that’s anti-progress must love them. I have pointed to at least a half-dozen ways where blue states are more tolerant and conservative states have been just as punitive if not even more so. You have your feelings whereas I have both the law and my life experience in conservative states on my side. I could point to other historical evidence and international examples but I don’t think it would make a difference since you haven’t bothered to look at the evidence I have produced. As you say in your other post “the anti-marriage anti-child anti-family tradition” I don’t think you realize that traditional marriage and family has actually long been a problem for MAPs? They didn’t just let 40 year olds fuck 8 year old girls because they were white and male — medieval Europe was a culture where extramarital sex was highly stigmatized and even criminalized. I think if you’re satisfied with child marriage then move to Afghanistan (or one of those nine American states!) and do that as long as it lasts. It seems most people in the movement feel that trying to take advantage of this exception is not worth the effort or satisfactory.
I didn’t realize Newgon has adopted the same stance as IPCE with their suggested AoC of 12 until I read your post. Confirming that on their wiki, I now feel just as uneasy about supporting them as I did with the other organizations.
From where I stand, what that implies is that even under the best of circumstances, you’d only have governments move the goalpost as society accepts the hebe/ephebophiles sexuality as natural, while leaving pedophiles and infantophiles(sp?) to fend for themselves.
I gave already witnessed these age based schisms on sites like FST where members of one group of MAPs, mostly belonging to the Hebe and Ephebo group are trying to validate their attraction as natural while criticizing pedophiles’ as unnatural.
I fear that in the future, literal pedophiles might be experiencing another betrayal from their current chronophilic allies once the ‘teen lovers’ get accepted into the fold. There’s no difference to me if someone’s life if ruined over a sexual affair with a 17 year and 364 day or a 11 year and 364 day old minor. The law needs to encompass consent regardless of age, even if a mixed parental/minor consent method has to be employed, like it usually is the case with organized hobbies.
Just for posterty, this is coming from someone who isn’t a MAP, but has become incredibly furious at society’s hypocrisies regarding the topic.
>And given that pro-choice movement orgs (Newgon, PNVD) have explicitly set the goal of an aoc of 12 years old as a movement goal
This alleged pro-choice movement is an obvious contradiction and not relevant to my posts.
But if an AoC of 12 is fine for you, there’s no reason to whine about an AoC of 12, 10 or 7 in the 19th century, nor demonize anyone supporting or (in your phrasing) taking advantage, of it – much less white-wash your “Left” denying freedom to girls and men by increasing it.
Believing an AoC of 7 – implemented in reality (Delaware) – is worth supporting over one of 13 (apparently not even implemented in New Jersey), or alleged radicalism of gay youth groups, which did fuck all in terms of actual improvements, is conservative in the same sense as keeping virtually the same software setup for decades (as I do).
The subset of rational GL attracted to girls below 13 has no reason to favor your New Jersey example (and the extreme claims you make in favor of it) to that of Delaware: Breaking the law in New Jersey (having sex with a 7-year-old girl) would result in up to 20 years in prison. According to your legal knowledge, what would the penalty be in Delaware?
As for baiting etc., you did not read the essay with the slightest critical eye. Since you claim (LOL!) to have never advocated for a non-universalist particularist approach, introducing (IIRC) “SW men” (straight white?, Small Wonders?) – and other variants in that essay of yours, as well as bemoaning loving older teens is considered pedophilia, are rather curious particular choices.
Analogously, the feminists of the day tended to meddle in slightly more than denying freedom to men and girls – some got slightly butthurt by black men being demonized in this context and objected to it (an act apparently considered praiseworthy(!) by those more inclined to racism today).
>I find this rather inconsistent with your earlier claim: “feminist eugenics…to make an accurate comparison with the Nazis.”
I doubt you know the meaning of consistency, given your non-sequitur response involving the GOP and increasingly delusional premises. Your essay mentioned “fascism”! Considering the extreme suffering the feminist policies have put men and girls through, I consider it dubious, to say the least, to not look at the data. When you can prove it’s necessarily better to have an AoC at or above 14, be subject to castration for pedophilia or imprisonment (in addition to being denied basic rights, like marriage), in a femi-Nazi regime, I’d give your shallow rhetoric and appeal to Reich (whose thesis seems well and truly fucked by at least the party youth LOL!) the benefit of the doubt.
>I think if you’re satisfied with child marriage then move to Afghanistan (or one of those nine American states!) and do that as long as it lasts.
Yet, you don’t demand of women, satisfied by killing at least some little girls (the unborn), move to other states, or tell them to enjoy the respite while it lasts: A preference for death must be universally satisfied, while a preference for love in a stable relationship for the benefit of both men and girls is can remain at most rare particular!
I’ve had at least one girl, who wanted to marry me, but living in a femi-Nazi regime, we obviously had no such rights. Suggesting such couples move to Afgahanistan not only displays your ignorance of relevant laws, but also your callous nature.
>>Without denigrating anyone, I understand why people want to hitch the wagon onto LGBT, that is the most successful sexuality/body positivity movement going.
To me, it looks like the most successful example of opportunisme, hypocrisy, repressive desublimation and anti-sexuality. See what William Percy says about LGBT:
The ascendancy of LGBT represented several things:
1) All talk of sex was eliminated. A struggle for sexual freedom was replaced by a quest for mere “equality.” “We are family” became the mantra. “We’re just like you.”
2) The LGBT agenda pursued assimilation, patriotism, and conventionality: aping of the failing hetero institution of marriage; enthusiastic participation in the imperialist military; passage of hate-crimes laws that strengthened the police state and punished thoughts and intent.
3) A struggle for social justice and against capitalist injustice was replaced by a parochial focus on identity.
4) It had the effect of erasing gay males in favor of a diluted hodgepodge of identities.
5) It became a new interest group and electoral constituency oriented mostly toward the Democrat Party and assimilation into the capitalist system. Not being beholden to any democratic base, it was easily, and willingly, co-opted by the ruling class.
6) It became part of the imperialist project, used by the State Department under Democrat regimes to bludgeon third-world countries into acquiescing to the Western agenda, even where the notion of “LGBT” was alien to their cultures. The government spent millions to advance this “gay imperialism” under the guise of supporting “human rights.”
This is on Bill Percy’s website but the essay is “LGBT: A Dissection” by the late David Thorstad. The first anniversary of David’s death will be on Monday, 1 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorstad
He was a former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance and was a founding member of NAMBLA.
As the WP page says, and in line with the article quoted by Sugarboy, “With the turn of the millennium, Thorstad became a critic of the way in which the sexual liberationist goals of gay politics were replaced by the identity politics that came to dominate the movement.”
“I guess this is what being gay in the 1950s must’ve been like except its worse for MAPs”
> It’s not a competition, but yes I’ve met people who lived through gay lib who’d agree with this
“surprisingly, there is some fairly lurid descriptions of child-adult sex in some of Marx’s citations about working and living conditions in Victorian Britain in volume”
> I’d love to know more about this. Could you be more specific? If you work on an essay for Tom’s blog, maybe you could cite some examples? I’m sure we’d all enjoy reading some hitherto lesser known cases.
And yes I agree with Tom, AL has a sharp mind. They’ve been corresponding with me anonymously over email for a month or so now and they / you always have thoughtful things to say. I hope and look forward to a focused blog
>If we look at the goals of the US by itself
Conflates the US with the neo-liberal (“Left”/Democrat/cuckservative) agenda. Yet, there’s also populists, who are willing to consider the consequences of warmongering with Russia and China and inane policies to the US population (not merely the “liberal” elite). For ordinary americans wanting an increased probability of peace and prosperity, not inceasing Biden prize hikes and increased probabilty for WW3, this is were the hope lies.
Persuing natalism in response to the challeges ahead requires a radical break with the degenerate parts of the “Left”, including Malthusianism and the anti-marriage anti-child anti-family traditions still popular with feminism, more than with conservative tradition. MAPs have nothing to lose, but their chains, from this probable change. The question is if our chains are so nice, we not only should continue to wear them, but ensure future generations (if any) will too?
>Recently, as I’m sure you know, the previously constitutional right to abortion was taken away by an ultra-reactionary Supreme Court
Kudos to the brave people, who fought the good fight against federal overreach and in favor of state rights! Those supporting the rights of girls and men should remember it was the states which had AoCs of 12, 10 and 7 and allowed marriage. Were AL serious about wanting to fight, these would be inspiring examples, not to be brushed aside as conservative or reactionary in a fit of hysteria.
>I guess this is what being gay in the 1950s must’ve been like except its worse for MAPs.
Gays could find sufficient freedom (eg. Turing went to Norway), whereas MAPs behaving analogously today would be considered child sex tourists and severely punished. Isn’t progress wonderful?
“who fought the good fight against federal overreach and in favor of state rights!” Yes, states rights to oppress and deny citizens of their constitutional rights, excuse me if I don’t stand up and applaud. Anyone who supports the decision is complicit in the denial of personal sexual autonomy. Sorry. Its just that black and white, if you support states being allowed to throw women and providers in prison for something that was legal until just a month ago then you do not support sexual autonomy. I don’t care if you think that’s “woke” or whatever its just the fact of the matter. That Republican legislatures are already talking about a national abortion ban and even banning birth control should clue you in to the fact that the whole thing is really about allowing evangelical Christians to control the sex lives of other people –– not about states rights or whatever fantasy you have cooked up in your head.
“Those supporting the rights of girls and men should remember it was the states which had AoCs of 12, 10 and 7” You know damn well there is not a single state in the US where the AOC is under 16. Many of the states that have an aoc of 16 are actually liberal states whereas many others that maintain a high aoc like Tennessee and Florida are actually conservative. Assuming that you are referring to states that have no minimum marriage age lets review:
“9 states have no official minimum age, but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.” Five out of nine of these are liberal lol. I don’t know why conservative MAPs persist in the fantasy that GOP run states are different when it comes to aoc/marriage laws.In fact, red states generally have some of the harshest laws when it comes to sex offenders and some of the most zealous judges and prosecutors eager to prove to their base that they are tough on sex crime. Take a look at this jewel:
“Alabama law allows electronic solicitation of a child to be enforced as a statutory charge. This means that this charge can be applied to cases in which the victim is younger than the Alabama Age of Consent, even if the victim willingly engages in sexual relations with the defendant. Electronic solicitation of a child is a charge that is unique to Alabama.” Two year mandatory sentence btw for talking about sexy time with someone under 16 online.
Meanwhile in “libtard” California: “In California, a bill to set the minimum marriage age at 18 — the state’s age of consent — failed in 2017 after objections from lawmakers and liberal groups such as the state’s American Civil Liberties Union. The state currently has no minimum marriage age and collects little to no data on child marriages.
The ACLU argued that the bill “unnecessarily and unduly intrudes on the fundamental rights of marriage without sufficient cause,” adding that “largely banning marriage under 18, before we have evidence regarding the nature and severity of the problem, however, puts the cart before the horse.”
Other groups, like Planned Parenthood and The National Center for Youth Law, a youth advocacy organization, agreed.”
Do I even need to address the beautiful irony of the fact that Alabama struck down statutes allowing marriage at 14 while California still has no set marriage age? Yes, all fifty states have publicly available sex offender registries –– that’s about as bipartisan as it gets. Yet those MAPs who advocate a closer alliance with the GOP in the United States never seem to ask why not a single GOP state has chosen to opt out of the registry or why a conservative Supreme Court chose to uphold it in the first place despite its blatant unconstitutionality. At least I could point to softer all-round prosecution as something that generally happens when libs appoint prosecutors –– that was the root of Greene’s accusation that by appointing Ketanji Jackson that it was a pedophile party, because she did not prosecute CP possessors to the maximum extent of the law.
I think taking solace underage marriage is largely a cope and a copout mainly made possible by legal inertia, it doesn’t allow for people to freely pursue relations with youth freely without signing some absurd document and buying a ring, and it isn’t really practical for most pedophiles/hebephiles because many parents and/or courts will not agree anyways given the current culture. Will it stay like that in liberal states that have it? If MAPs lose it it will mainly be because of those people who have tied their cart to conservatives who produce deep hatred in the young population and certainly those populations that reside in those states. Nothing did more damage to the image of MAPs imo than being associated with the libertarian right — fairly or unfairly.
The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. The right to life the most basic and important human right and therefore should be given priority when the two rights conflict. Additionally, bodily autonomy does not grant you the right to kill another innocent human being because it’s no longer about your own body anymore. Bodily autonomy allows you to pierce your ears. Bodily autonomy allows you to get vaccinated. Bodily autonomy allows you to get tattoos. Bodily autonomy allows you to refuse medical treatment. However, bodily autonomy should not allow anyone to kill a child.
There is always the option of putting the baby up for adoption and giving them a chance at a loving home. There is no shortage of eligible people wanting to adopt children, and contrary to popular belief, the adoption system has seen a decline, and parents wishing for children have been going abroad to adopt babies. Most adoption agencies have long waiting lists because women are increasingly keeping their babies instead of giving them up for adoption. Many abortion supporters claim that adoption is bad because it increases the likelihood of a child being subjected to “sexual abuse”, and cherry-pick horror stories of adults who claim they were abused in adoptive families. As MAPs, we know that this is a bullshit argument, but it is one that feminist ideologues promote to attempt to discredit adoption as an alternative for abortion.
Parents have an obligation to provide basic care for their children until someone else is capable and willing to do it for them. Meaning that the parent of a 2 year old is legally obligated to do the bare minimum maintain their son’s life. They must feed him, shelter him, protect him from danger and certainly not intentionally do anything that they know will put his life at risk. So if a parent chooses to do something as simple as abandoning their son for a few days and does absolutely nothing to provide food, water and other basic needs for him, and the child passes away as a result, the parent will be legally held accountable for child abuse, negligence and murder. Likewise, a pregnant woman who disregards the well-being of her own unborn offspring, and intentionally participates in something that she knows full well will harm her fetus (such as an abortion), has committed murder.
Pregnancy is not always easy, but that is not a justification for killing a human being. Waiting in a line is also annoying, but you would be a horrible person if you killed the people in front of you. Women who hate children and pregnancy and the prospect of motherhood should get a hysterectomy (and I know, some doctors refuse to do it to young women, but that is nonsense). Get it all removed, and don’t worry about potentially having to live with the stain of murdering their own child on you.
This is one of those issues that has been “beyond debate” on the feminist left for decades. That is not good, but neither is the emotive, polarising language of “murder” either. Arguably, it is all somewhat theological and slightly off topic here, but Lee has a good answer to that, even before the objection is made:
So the debate takes us very much into the lives of children long after their birth, whose full personhood status is acknowledged by all.
>Many abortion supporters claim that adoption is bad because it increases the likelihood of a child being subjected to “sexual abuse”
The eugenics desire lives on! Who are they to say an abused child’s life is not worth living?
For the erudiation of those, not willing to deny the Constitution and history:
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote.
“That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” he added.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote.
The verdict is essentially a bug fix, rejecting earlier faulty assumptions.
Even accepting the worst propaganda (like Guttmacher), it’s not even clear that, an abortion provider breaking state law need necessarily face more than a wrist slap, nor that a strictly enforced minimum penalty of the woman even exists.
In which delusion is, at worst, an inconvience easily remedied (eg. adoption) of the same magnitude as the “Left’s” long tradition of denying sexual autonomy to GL men, proudly continued by AL and his cherry-picked Twitter twats?
I’m going to just copy and paste a comment I made on an earlier article, which didn’t get much response because it was an old article:
I think the framing of the entire issue is wholly wrong. I’m studying a lot of things, and while I can confidently say that we get practically everything wrong when it comes to children, adolescents, and sex, I cannot say that I have any solutions beyond comprehensive sex education. The rest is what I endeavor to study.
I personally couldn’t give two rats’ asses whether or not adults ever get to have sexual access to children, and, indeed, any framing from that angle rubs me the wrong way, and I know will never be accepted by society. I would not consider myself a pedophile, pederast, or MAP, or any other such thing, as I’m not sexually attracted to anybody, let alone children.
That being said, I am anxiously desirous to see children grow up happy and healthy and to no longer be subjected to the warping influences of our puritanical, misogynistic, pedophobic, ephebiphobic society, be it religion, patriarchy, or misguided notions of innocence and purity.
I am an asexual and I can tell you I was incredibly damaged and warped by all these things, despite not having sexual attraction towards anybody. Yet my body still had a high libido. It was very confusing to me as a child and an adolescent. I had to learn about sex and sexuality entirely on my own, and that led to a number of gross mistakes on my part growing up, that I still deal with to this day.
I’ve come to realize that the narratives we have about children and sexuality are completely bogus- both from my own personal experience as a child and also from realizing that Law & Order SVU is not correct in its portrayal either. Including of pedophiles, pederasts, and sexual abuse.
However, I believe (and even find myself still believing, if not reinforcing) the belief that it is not important whether pedophiles or pederasts get their way. What is going to be important is what is best for children and adolescents. I don’t know if that involves exploring sexuality with adults, but I sure as hell know it involves giving them the explicit space and right to explore themselves and each other.
Change on this front will come when teenagers begin demanding their rights and liberation, which is a great difference between today and the 60’s and 70’s. Back then there were active, large youth liberation groups. Today, no such groups meaningfully exist, let alone have a voice in public discourse. Until they start demanding things like the right to vote, the right to drink, the right to bodily autonomy, nothing will significantly alter.
Teenagers are the hope of resolving all these condundrums. They will be better guardians and speakers for the rights of children, even, than anyone else, in addition to their own rights. It will only be when teenagers organize and find their voices again- and do not shed them upon reaching adulthood and parenthood- that issues like children and sex will start to work themselves out to what it should be.
Also, queer people (of which I am one) are indeed going to have to reckon with the reality that pedophilia and pederasty were once integral parts of the movement before the satanic panic of the 80’s, and that there are issues and aspects to revisited and explored there. And that not only was it part of the movement, it wasn’t considered to be a separate category to the L, G, or B letters. Just an integral part of growing up queer.
And surely body positivity and desexualization of breasts, nipples, and the body in general will be key to resolving this issues. Indeed, I would even argue the desexualization of sex- by which I mean it is no longer placed on a pedestal as THE penultimate expression of love, and sacred, secret, and exclusive- but rather considered no more serious than any other form of affection, intimacy, and sensuality- is also key.
Additionally, trans people and trans youth in particular, hold the key to moving in a direction to granting children and adolescents bodily autonomy. It won’t go anywhere right now, but I reckon on all the things I have mentioned, there will be a great reckoning and upheaval in society over these things in the 2030’s. I anticipate, based off my observations, that that is the case. I hope that we can give better consideration to youth sexuality, and gain better understanding. If that means that pedophilia and pederasty in some form or fashion ought to be legalized and destigmatized, so be it. If it doesn’t, so be it. But regardless, it is important to have these conversations, and we’re doing nobody any favors by avoiding them and demonizing everyone who has anything to say against the established order- be it conservative or progressive features- that so terribly oppresses people- not the least being kids.
I think you’d be surprised. Progressive/blue states tend to have greater penalties, longer lists of offenses, and more tedious restrictions when it comes to sex offender registries and laws than red states do. Or, rather, it’s a hodgepodge that doesn’t exactly go along the conventional political divides. California is notoriously strict on all fronts, where somewhere like Utah, Wyoming, or Kansas are routinely criticized for being too soft on sex crimes.
“Or, rather, it’s a hodgepodge that doesn’t exactly go along the conventional political divide” I said that, as I wrote: “all fifty states have publicly available sex offender registries –– that’s about as bipartisan as it gets.”
But the thing is you have many people who seem to think that the sweetness and light all resides in the red states because liberals can’t attack conservatives for being “sexually degenerate” for much beyond the age issue while conservatives have ample free reign. This creates a false impression of the reality of red states, for instance California’s law on unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (statutory) provides a sentence that ranges from up to a year in county to four years in prison. Roman Polanski should have gotten 90 days in prison because he was a first time offender with no criminal record; the judge did plan to break the sentencing agreement but this was not why Polanski fled because he most likely would’ve won at appeal, the main reason he fled was that the judge kept sending him for medical evaluations to keep him in lock up and delay sentencing.
If we look at Alabama’s statutory charge, by contrast, there is a mandatory minimum of two years with a potential upward sentence of twenty years. So much stricter than California’s charge and Alabama is an important example, because beyond having one of the most hegemonically Republican governments (outside of a small cluster of black majority areas) it is also tied with Louisiana with being the most ideologically conservative population in the country, with a slim majority of Alabamian adults (54%) identifying as conservative.
Only one of the ten charges related to statutory crimes sets a maximum guideline of sentencing up to a year. 8 charges range from 2 (minimum) to twenty years and one ranges from one (minimum) to ten years. Polanski would probably have been hit with a two year minimum charge if he was tried in Alabama. Even if you classify California as one of the worse liberal states for MAPs (which seems odd given its one of the few without a marriage age, Alabama is not) it is definitely not as bad as the worst conservative states for MAPs.
Wyoming has a general age of consent of 17 which is lower than a number of liberal states such as Washington which keep their aoc around 16. Utah has an age of consent of 18 and is probably the most conservative of the states that you listed. Surprisingly, only Wyoming is listed among the nine states with no minimum marriage law. California is only one year stricter in terms of aoc than Wyoming. Michigan and Washington both have a permissive (by American standards) aoc of 16 and no minimum marriage law. Politically-speaking those states are truer Blue states than California which was a Republican state up until the Cold War contractor recession of the early 90s. I hate to mention him but Vaush with some accuracy said that California was “the reddest blue state” given that it has a large Republican voting base, its Democratic party is more centrist than leftist (especially when it comes to Econ) and its property tax law (written by Ronald Reagan) put its it closer to Alabama than to Minnesota in terms of taxation.
Yes, there isn’t a clear cleavage (yet), this is one reason I think MAPs have been so confused politically and can’t seem to find a lesser-evil party to support as LGBT did. But to those who say that a greater evil party does not exist I would encourage you to type “minor attracted person” into twitter and you will see post after post after post of MAGAboomers convinced that “woke leftists” are going to make them call pedophiles MAPs instead of pedophiles. Yes, they may be unintentionally popularizing the term as some MAPs smugly conclude but the point is not to help us but to hurt to us. I see younger liberals and leftists who now hold the B4u-ACT position that pedophiles aren’t bad people they just need therapy. Many of us may resist this medicalization but this was part of how homosexuality did make it into the mainstream.
I hate to use Marxist terminology but I think anyone who thinks conservatives will be better than liberals is not thinking dialectically. The conservatives will lose abortion, gay, and trans battles in the end, despite short-lived victories, and, we are already seeing it now, when that happens they will target MAPs more and more as an outlet for their desire to punish unapproved sex.
>I hate to use Marxist terminology but I think anyone who thinks conservatives will be better than liberals is not thinking dialectically.
I agree, although I would point out that thinking dialectically was Hegelian before it was Marxist, so no need to get too identified with an unfashionable brand. 🙂 Hegel defined history as progress in the consciousness of freedom. Put like that, the old superstar prof might cut it with both the libertarian right and the progressive left! What’s not to like about that? 🙂
The AoC in California is now 18, it was 10. Given such abuse of the data set, I have to wonder if intellectual honesty a foreign concept for you.
Are men loving girls of 10 better off heavily penalized in California these days?
I also checked your earlier claim: If the alleged downward reform in New Jersey in 1979 is to be considered a positive example, assuming the law hasn’t changed a man loving a 10-year-old girl would be looking at up to 20 years in prison. Based on the article, keeping 16 as the AoC had bipartisan support, and the womyn of NOW were no friends to girls and men.
>I see younger liberals and leftists who now hold the B4u-ACT position
While some considered on the Right, from brave supporters of Roy Moore to Berge, espouse more radical positions regarding man/girl love. Chosing those holding much weaker position over at least partial support is outright idiotic.
It’s also irrelevant if pedophilia goes mainstream as long as sufficient freedom exists.
>The conservatives will lose abortion, gay, and trans battles in the end
If so, as they did to the femi-Nazis in the 19th century with regards to the rights of girls and men! I’d rather fight for good on the losing side, than sell principles, those I love and future generations down the river. (Not an uncommon position for the genuine old Leftists I’ve known)
As gays, trannies and women already have sufficient rights, why do you continue to harp on about them, as opposed to tackle groups actually lacking rights (girls and men spring to mind, given the data above!)?
As for who targets MAPs for unapproved sex, I’d be surprized if the conservatives can hold a candle to the “Left”, embracing feminism, over a sufficiently long timeframe.
As much as I despise the idea of using childrens’ rights as a tool to erode the state of a second class citizen pedos have to live as, it’s the only way to help them. Pedophile rights are as important, and shall I say valuable, as those childrens’ rights. Not more, not less.
To have to resort to “think of the children” in order to restore pedophile rights is in sickening given how exactly that underhanded tactic has been used for so long to whittle away at all sorts of freedoms across the world.
Even if the most likely way forward for pedophiles is to put childrens’ concern on a pedestal, one should never forget that its done because there is no other choice.
Where children are concerned, it isn’t even so much a question of rights. It’s more a question of what’s right. And as I said elsewhere, it wouldn’t be enough for pedophiles to demonstrate that there is no harm, but rather there would have to be demonstrable and measurable good, some benefit or necessity that’s being deprived children (not adults), and that isn’t easily fulfilled any other way. And while I generally believe in equality, it is the concerns surrounding those who are not equal, nominally or in actuality- ie. concerns about the wellbeing and development of children- that rightfully precedes the concerns of adults, particularly adults who have what most (rather understandably) consider to be ulterior motives. Not that they’re mutually exclusive premises, but that one is by default going to be suspect. Self-interest is and should always be held suspect when involving many more people.
Also, the future of the queer movement is going to surround children and adolescents, not adults. Despite some back and forth that may happen, queer adults mostly have what they need now. The problems lie with minors- their education and upbringing and their bodily autonomy. Because most queer people know that you are not queer upon reaching adulthood, or reaching puberty. This is especially pronounced where gender issues are concerned, because gender in consciousness is basically solidified by ages 3-4. Straight conservatives are going to want to insist on heteronormativity for children, and you already see that most of society isn’t willing to listen to queer people on that front.
Children are queer, both sexually and genderwise, before puberty. We know that we come out baked that way, even though most (mostly straight and conservative) people want to deny this still. But the lie won’t last forever. Lies eventually do themselves in, whether it takes moments, days, decades, or centuries. It is criminal to deprive queer children of themselves and of the ability to understand and express themselves. And just by virtue of there being queer families, kids are going to know that queer people are a thing. We cannot keep children ignorant (i.e. innocent) of knowledge forever.
And when the bodily autonomy and right to self-knowledge and self-exploration of children is finally respected and facilitated, I cannot see how it will not lead to changes in sexual laws and mores for children as well. The right to say no will contains the inherent right to say yes as well. I could not say that this will lead to adult/child relations (if it does, that will come much, much later, and after it is demonstrated to be a good thing, not just not a bad thing), but it will definitely open the field to experimentation and devleopment with peers, and will expand the range of age beyond the current Romeo and Juliet laws, which usually only allow for relations 2-3 years in either direction. That range will be much greater, perhaps 5-10 years as a result. Certainly it will give the greatest range to adolescents, even if children are still more off limits beyond a limited age range for participants.
It could be that the wider age ranges will come as some kind of educational, developmental, institutionalized, and heavily monitored mentorship between, say older children or adolescents and younger children or adolescents, which may extend to young adults (18-25) playing a role as well. A sort of more expansive, intensive, and comprehensive version of what groups like Big Brothers and Big Sisters do.
The defeat of the CSA industry will come from children themselves. According to the IWF twitter feed, in 2021 three quarters of CSA imagery was “self-generated”, i.e. children stripping or masturbating mainly, I suspect, of their own volition. Children are becoming increasingly sexual, as is more than evident on the benign and legitimate social media sources of child representation. The CSA industry will ultimately be exposed as a lie on some of their fundamental intellectual foundations.
The severe energy going into defending and bolstering the CSA narrative rests on the collapsing lie that children are asexual. If these organisations shifted their focus to genuine cases of violent and gratuitous harm rather than ploughing into children’s minds retrospective psychological traumas about naked selfies, maybe the state of play would be improved.
As it is, I see increasingly convoluted attempts to combat children’s emergent and burgeoning sexuality. Why are schools becoming increasingly sexually explicit at increasingly young ages with their instruction? Not in order to further any “woke” agenda but precisely as a reaction to containing the explosion in children’s sexual awareness, as a result of a radically open culture which has fundamentally shifted and liberalised in the last 20+ years.
It would be a miracle if the status quo did not radically change over time as a result of these burgeoning forces.
What’s most interesting of all here perhaps is how correspondent ZT (unrelated to AZT) who it must be said gets better all the time at presenting/pushing the passion of his case, nonetheless reveals as he goes a remarkably consistent disconnect between the idea of paedophilia, per se, and that of the most youthfully imaginable “sexuality itself”. For as the fellow often reminds us, he is afraid to so much as look upon a living child, for fear that he might “impinge” on that child’s life. I would have to enquire then if this is first & foremost because he perceives himself as maximally unfit to appear before the court of ‘infantile’ inquisition, aka the unrestrained inquiry into the how why and wherefore of everything, or because he is simply erring on the side of downright fragile and cowardly?
Good to see you back, Mr Turp! Courtesy is the order of the day here, as you know. Personal abuse is frowned upon. I feel your final word goes too far. However, honesty is also important, and in this case I feel ZT should be told your honestly held (I believe) opinion and given the opportunity to answer the charge.
Haha, it’s quite alright Tom, I’m not offended in the least!
In answer to your challenge, Warbling, I admit absolutely no shame or contrition in erring on the side of caution. If you equate this with the “downright fragile and cowardly”, that is your opinion which you have a right to express; however, I feel as though this is an incredibly challenging public environment in the present state of affairs, and it would be “maximally unfit” to start giving children the eye in the coffee shop or the supermarket. It would not go unnoticed, may cause anger in adults, and distress in the child, in such a toxic cultural environment as we find ourselves in, and I want no part in that.
How this is not “sensible and prudent” rather than “fragile and cowardly” I can’t quite fathom, but there you have it, maybe it comes down to a question of personality, for which I am a quiet and unassuming individual. It strikes me you may have something of the loud brash extrovert about you, in which case your attitudes and values may be different.
Also, I feel nothing for boys, but I don’t like looking at girls in case she’s pretty and I get, er…aroused. That may be noticeable by people in the immediate environment and again I am mentally fragile and paranoid and it’s a practical concern I worry about.
I find it a bit extraordinary that you are attacking my a) prudence and b) mental health, but I can’t help being who I am nor would I want to change myself. It doesn’t stop my commitment to wishing to end the stigma of minor attraction or the suffocating restrictions of childhood, but I simply cannot interact with a child in this toxic situation for the sake of my own mental health if nothing more.
I find it disappointing you would attack me for this but hopefully now you understand a little better.
Apologies for long time in moderation. I was away in the mountains. Taking advantage of all-too-short spells of good weather in British summer. Not too hot today. Just right.
>Haha, it’s quite alright Tom, I’m not offended in the least!
Pleased to hear it. My aim is to encourage civility generally but I do not believe anyone has a right not to be offended.
I thankyou for this response ZT. I am certainly ‘extroverted’ – which we can only oppose to ‘introverted’ – but assuredly NOT “loud and brash”.. Oooh, that would never, ever do.
What i think i’m trying to say is that, despite the “toxic environment” – i would much prefer to call it a “highly charged scene” – it is vitally important to let small beings know that there are wild creatures afoot who do not correspond to, shall we say, their parental units’ rather sclerotic social portraiture?
When one encounters however briefly a small person whose curiosity is still fierce, whose antennae have not slackened and dulled, have not been completely cauterized by implanted fear, should we not make every attempt, no matter how limited the demonstrative moves available to us at the time, to NOT let that curiosity go to waste?
I have relevant anecdotes aplenty, but hesitate to relate same in case they come across all wrong. I mean to say, the tales i’d have to tell enclose such precious memories that it would seem an indecent advance on them to publcally disclose!
TBH. When i read an assertion like “commitment to ending the stigma of…etc” (sorry i can never quite bring myself to refer to anyone as “a minor”) I must wonder in what such a commitment can actively consist?
Do you really, honestly believe that anyone will notice your “arousal”? When you say such things i’m envisaging one of those cartoons by R Crumb or something! Even your use of “giving (them) the eye” suggests to me a woefully intermalized conception of ‘what men do’
I mean once again – this wholesale disconnect. Supposedly celebrating the ‘rise’ of uninhibited kids via the screenic universe, even as one’s own inhibition seems to reinforce itself at every step. And do we observe any corresponding changes in mostly paralytically nervous kids huddled there in the shadows of their caregivers?
Basically i just want us to stop pretending, and forge not just a screenic but a scenic presence as.well somehow, somehow anyhow! This doesn’t mean prancing about like Bono or whoever, it means conceiving of the territory verily as a spy does in an occupied country, looking everywhere for signs of the resistance fighters he *knows* must be here somewhere …
I’ve never been content with the idea of “who” or “what i am”. Only ever with the idea of what i could socially be…
Great comment, Mr Turp!
I would add my own thoughts but feel I should take the opportunity, while you are here, to draw to your attention a blog of mine in May that mentioned Eric Gans. I think you probably missed it, or surely you would have said something. It was this one: “MAPs are queer but are we in here?”:
I mentioned an article called “The scapegoating machine”. I said:
As you were name-checked, Mr Turp, I was disappointed to hear nothing from you. Maybe this time?
Truth be told Tom i was stricken with plain stagefright! Which inevitably grew into a mountain of procrastination. No-one could have been more pleased and impressed than I that you were up with the likes of Sullenberger (& Stock, sounds like a legal firm already), and openly inviting me to wax freely upon a topic as dear to my heart as the originary hypothesis of generative anthropology (‘GA’)!
But therein lies the unmistakable rub – Both GA and The Radical Case have something hugely in common – both of them require overcoming a threshold of respectability, they both require a definite ‘crossing of the Rubicon’.
For reasons that none.of us can quite fathom, the work of Girard has achieved academic respectability, whilst what Gans has done – taken real anthropology (= a rigorous science of the universally HUMAN) leaps and bounds, leagues even beyond that of his teacher – remains situated in perfect obscurity.
Even very smart fellows like Sullenberger simply will not depart from the Girardian framework. And then along came Mr Franklin James to opine that Thiel’s fierce, seemingly exclusive focus on scapegoating falls short of encompassing the work of the renegade Frenchman. But i’m here to tell you with all the authority i possess that, when it comes to the *anthropological*, which is to say any firm theory of what made us human, any theory of human ORIGIN, for Girard the scapegoat mechanism, the generation of the sacred/sacrificial from out of violence, is IT. There is nothing more to the man’s anthropology that exactly that. His other works are moral theories derived entirely from modern literature, along with of course his celebrated ‘updating’ of Christianity.
I will say no more for now. Things i must attend to hereabouts right now. Please feel entirely free to…well, AMA!
Fascinating! I must give this some thought (which I suppose could turn into procrastination, but I hope not! 🙂 )
Hi Mr Turp,
Thank you for focusing on how you feel Gans takes anthropology far beyond the work of Girard. You say, “For reasons that none of us can quite fathom, the work of Girard has achieved academic respectability, whilst what Gans has done… remains situated in perfect obscurity.”
I can only guess, because I haven’t read Girard, but I would think his focus on scapegoating strikes a very strong chord as it is so well documented, especially in the Bible, and we all recognise it as a very distinctive, unmistakable, social phenomenon.
Gans, by contrast, has a theory about the origin of language that may or may not be true but which lacks an obvious and compelling connection to reality once the details start to be elaborated. Admittedly, it begins with an attractively simple idea: the origin of human language happened in a singular event. This is an appealing notion to the extent that it potentially explains a great deal, unlocking a great deal about why we behave as we do, especially as regards such fundamentals of behaviour as violent competition and harmonious cooperation. Like the Book of Genesis, it provides a foundational story. As WP puts it, it is “a kind of origin story that hypothesizes the specific event where language originated. The Originary Scene is powerful because any human ability: our ability to do science, to be ironic, to love, to think, to dominate, etc can be carefully explained first by reference to this scene of origin.” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_anthropology ]
So far so good. But it is the elaborations that follow this “carefully explaining”, that strike me as problematic (as outlined in WP at least), both for the popularity of the theory and for its credibility. It looks as though there are concepts and propositions that have to be taken on trust, whereas a good scientific theory would be designed with the generation of testable hypotheses kept clearly in view.
Freud’s armchair anthropology can be criticised on similar grounds, as merely speculative. Not that there is anything wrong with imaginative speculation. Darwin, for instance, speculated on the early social and sexual arrangements of humans, but he did so from a highly informed evolutionary perspective that included observing the behaviour of our close primate relatives.
Freud took Darwin’s ideas about the “primal horde” and ran with them, producing his own origin myth to explain the beginnings of the incest taboo. Or, rather, he didn’t just run with the idea but let it run away with him, making bold assertions that have been discredited by subsequent investigation.
Well, that too is fine. Freud’s work fired the imagination and inspired investigative follow-up. But Gans appears explicitly uninterested in empirical investigation and validation. He seems positively to repudiate it, as I discovered when giving some thought to the broad sweep of linguistic philosophy, and linguistics, across the 20th century, from Wittgenstein to Chomsky, and pondering where Gans could be said to fit in (or not).
In the course of this little investigation in the last couple of days, I came across an interesting 2016 online essay by Gans called “Learning from Chomsky”, in which this paragraph caught my eye:
Note some key phrases here: “not concerned”; “precludes the examination”. This looks like a dogmatic attachment to his own ideas in the teeth of key features of evolution as well understood in modern biology. Gans says, “Evolution normally proceeds from the simple to the complex.”
No. Not just “normally”. It always proceeds in this way. If Gans or anyone else can give an example of an exception, please tell me about it. Yes, there are “saltations”, or leaps, when the usual glacial pace of evolution is dramatically speeded up against a background of rapid environmental change exerting urgent selection pressures, but there is no sudden emergence of complexity that is unattributable to prior simple adaptations.
The essay title, “Learning from Chomsky”, suggests that Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition can be taken as a reasonable “saltational” precedent for his own work (notwithstanding that Gans’s “generative anthropology” is radically at odds with Chomsky’s “generative grammar”). If so, I would point out that empirical work in recent years has significantly undermined Chomsky’s work.
According to WP, the main source of criticism of Gans is from his mentor Girard, “who claims that generative anthropology is just another version of social contract theories of origins”. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gans ]
I don’t know about that, but I would certainly dispute the word “just”. Social contract theories from Hobbes onwards have been hugely important. The social contract imagined by John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice formed an important underpinning of my own writing in Paedophilia: The Radical Case.
Hobbes has been credible for centuries even though, like Freud, he was an armchair anthropologist. He had to imagine “the state of nature” long before the academic discipline of anthropology was established, with its field studies and systematic reports. Like Girard, he has remained influential because his thinking resonates with common experience.
Rawls, by contrast, makes no pretence that his social contract ideas are grounded in social structures of the past. Rather, they are a completely imaginary construction, a thought experiment that projects into the future rather than relying on any truths about the past. His theory is designed to help us envisage the ethical foundations of a notional just society. Because it makes no claims about the past, its propositions can be accepted or rejected (which is arguably all we need for ethics) but they cannot be disproved or validated (which scientific claims require).
Unlike Rawls, then, who needs no factual grounding, and Hobbes (and Girard), whose appeal lies in their theories’ resonance with our experience, Gans’s ideas seem rather out on a limb. His originary claims are interestingly original and perhaps have interestingly high explanatory value, but without tight empirical validation the “explanations” in question might well collapse under scrutiny. After all, Rudyard Kipling’s Just So stories for children (“How the Leopard Got His Spots”, etc.) explain a lot, but not in a way that would convince a biologist!
I note that in December last year, Mr Turp, you wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, Mr Turp. I have no wish to deprive you of what you “believe to my bones”. You have studied Gans at length and doubtless have stronger grounds for feeling he is right, or at least “onto something” than I do. You may be right and I may be wrong, so I come to this with humility.
My point is simply that looked at from a stance of evolutionary science (or my lay understanding of it), I cannot see a good reason for accepting Gans’s arguments over a more evidence-based approach.
That said, Gans invokes concepts that do have scientific support, notably mimesis in nature. At least two books with significant input from scientists have been published on this theme in recent years. My worry is whether and to what extent Gans goes beyond the evidence without producing testable hypotheses.
You invited me to “AMA”. So, let me try to ask something that should be possible to answer simply, without going deeply into explaining Gans’s theory. So, here goes:
1. Has Gans produced testable hypotheses?
2. If so, can you give me one or more examples? (one or two will be enough).
3. Have any such hypotheses actually been tested, whether by Gans or anyone else? (via psychology experiments, say).
Over to you if, as I hope, you are still listening!
Yes, I like this response, it seems genuine and from the heart.
We each handle our situation differently.
I can’t find fault with your analysis, but I might not have mentioned I get anxiety in public places and situations, which colours my response when out and about.
>The defeat of the CSA industry will come from children themselves.
Considering children are subjected to increasingly extreme indoctrination passed off as education, free speech is an alien concept on social media and Big Tech censorship and surveillance is increasing, how do you imagine it will happen? Handwaving in favor of cultural changes is likely to produce an even worse state – compare the result of the sexual liberation(!) with the relative freedom enjoyed by Dogdson, Wilde or even anonymous men in the 1950s(?) taking boys to the cinema.
Freedom, in so far as it still exists, is a reaction against such trends. And it’s a heavy burden to place on young shoulders to make the Internet and, perhaps, society great again.
Yes, perhaps you’re right. I was just speculating that the children of today are in a much more liberal environment, partly due to the internet, and have a much more socially liberal education. That might prompt change by itself, simply due to the shifting reality of childhood. Once politicians feel the need for change, change will happen. We’re still hooked on the “trans rights debate” as a society currently, but who knows what the future will bring.
No, children aren’t currently given the platform or tools necessary to voice their own opinions as a bloc. Not while they’re children, anyway. It’s going to take generational turnover- with teenagers and young adults who’ve grown up in this new world of tech, and the experiences that come with it, including the unmediated (relatively) peer-to-peer sharing it enables, which has given rise to things like sexting and webcamming. They’re going to feel differently about these things than those of us who didn’t have those same experiences during our formative years. They’re going to see problems that we don’t see, they’re going to consider things we now consider problems to not be problems, and whatever we currently spout as a society that isn’t true from their experience they’re going to call bullshit on. They’re going to parent differently accordingly too, and demand that institutions bend toward and honor their parenting. I do not say this will lead to sexual liberation or to, say, something like lowering the age of consent- it may or may not. But it will be the current crop of kids and teens, and the coming batch, that will jolt us out of our current dysfunction. Whether it shifts to a new kind of dysfunction or leads to less dysfunction remains to be seen. Though no doubt, it will be viewed by current generations as horrendous, regardless.
I see kids’ current experiences as having a tremendously liberalising effect over time. If politicians really cared about stopping this trend, you’d think for a start they’d prevent the incredibly easy access to pornography on the internet, that someone of any age can access. Also, they’d tone down the “pornographied” sex ed lessons being outsourced to unvetted groups and taught at all ages. Finally, they’d do something to check the spread of child social media influencers, who spread the most liberal, sexualised and sophisticated image of childhood.
One gets the impression that politicians don’t care about these trends, other than die hard Texan Republicans, which is good news for MAPs as today’s children are growing up, dare I say it, sexually sophisticated at least in terms of sexual politics and knowledge. I also can’t help noticing that something as seemingly unconnected as the England Women’s victory has a sizeable impact for little girls, giving them new societal autonomy and confidence in this symbolic moment.
Simply the way children are taught and experience the world, their habitus or exogenous pressures practically guarantee an accelerated sexual sophistication in this and subsequent generations. Things that were unimaginable “when I were a lad” are now part of the trivial and ordinary mindscape, and I imagine the end result of this will be more sociological power and self-determination to children, often with the collaboration of woke parents.
This may lead to, at first, an academic or fringe reconsideration of sexuality in childhood – which will no doubt gain influence.
Tom, you may be interested in a new article “Framing Perpetrators of Sexual Violence Who Participate in Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA): An Analysis of Global Print Media” by Kelly Richards & Dean Biron in the International Journal of Offender therapy and comparative criminology, July 19, 2022
Thanks, Cyril. What drew you to this paper, I suppose, was the term “sexual violence” in the title (as in Basannavar’s book) in connection with minor attraction.
The title also indicates a focus on Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), which I wrote about briefly a couple of years ago:
I see the Abstract of this new article says, “We argue therefore that the nature of CoSA as an intervention may allow for more sympathetic and humanistic representation.”
Assuming this “sympathetic and humanistic representation” is something the authors want to see, it looks as though they are shooting themselves in the foot by indiscriminately referring to all those who have broken the anti-“CSA” laws as “perpetrators of sexual violence”!
Even so, the CoSA do seem to be getting somewhat more sympathetic attention in the media now than in the early days, some 20 years ago. Their appearance at that time (as I see in this new paper’s list of references) tended to have hostile headlines such as “Become pals with a pervert” and “Child sex convicts paid to go bowling”.
Hmm. such evil people… many people are now repulsed by legends such as charlie chaplin..
if only they knew how many of their pop star heroes had relations with teens..
I dont think i will be buying this book… might be worth a read though.
Interesting to see how the other , evil
Nword originated from.
Sexual violence.. interesting how it is illegal to take a photo of a 16-17 year old (even though it causes no harm unless distributed WITHOUT consent).
But.. as 16-17 year old is legal for sex, BDSM is ok i assume?
Actually, in the United States a good many states have 18 as the age of consent. Some have 16/17, but almost as many have 18.
Makes me think that abuse is in the eyes of the beholder…
Speaking of cynicism, I am rather suspicious of the idea that ‘nonce’ is an acronym from ‘Not On Normal Communal Exercises’ – it’s superficially plausible, but sounds to my ears a wee bit too good to be true. For what it’s worth, Wiktionary agrees with me, and says that this derivation is “likely a backronym” – not unlike the fanciful claim that “posh” derives from “port out, starboard home.” Wiktionary suggests that ‘nonce’ is likely related to ‘nance’ and ‘ponce’ – the link with effeminacy and (presumed) homosexuality probably predating the specific association with paedophilia.
Yes, scepticism is very much in order here but what struck me as particularly interesting was the claim that the term originated at one particular prison, Wakefield. It is possible the Channel 5 programme makers were shown something in the prison records that was not mentioned in the newspaper account. At all events, I don’t think they would have made such a specific claim – “it was Wakefield” – without some sort of backing.
I was hoping to check out what led the Channel 5 documentary to make this claim but I am currently unable to get their website to play any programmes via the “Play Now” button, even though I am properly registered and logged in. Very frustrating.
I agree with you, Kit, that “Not On Normal Communal Exercises” sounds suspicious, but not because it is too good to be true. No, I think it is wrong because the word “communal” in the context of a prison is very post-millennial as a self-consciously “inclusive” word. Prison, in harsher times of old, was not meant to be a community. At one time prisoners were not even allowed to talk to each other on exercise.
But the TV documentary apparently used the other wording, with the c standing for “courtyard”. This sounds far more plausible to me.
It could still be a backronym, but in its favour I know from my own experience that officers did indeed use acronyms to give other officers relevant information, just as ward staff in hospitals do e.g. the famous DNR on a patient’s medical notes, possibly appearing on a card at the end of the bed: Do Not Resuscitate.
As for an alternative etymology, you say:
>‘nonce’ is likely related to ‘nance’ and ‘ponce’ – the link with effeminacy and (presumed) homosexuality probably predating the specific association with paedophilia.
I doubt it. While effeminacy is an easy source of mockery, in prison there are an awful lot of “manly” inmates who, in the absence of women, would much rather fuck an effeminate cellmate than beat them up or shun them. Serious hostility tends to be reserved for grasses and those whose particular convictions put them beyond the pale and allow even quite unsavoury characters a rare opportunity to feel morally outraged – or to pretend they do by virtue signalling through violence.
By the way, I’ve not heard psychiatrists and mass media call it a “homophilic disorder” and tried to treat it, according to the logic of a “pedophilic disorder”.
There might still have been some further degree of “semantic drift,” though. French pédé , for example, has long referred to homosexuals in general, from the days when BLs and gays were not so clearly distinguished as now.
Have you tried to look for the Basanavaar’s book in library?
I used to use the British public library system a lot at one time. You could get almost anything through the Inter-Library Loan Scheme, especially via its connection to the Lending Division of the British Library.
But that was 10 years ago, or more. The local libraries have to pay quite a big fee to the British Library. After the financial crisis of 2007-8 the budgets available to the local libraries were squeezed and squeezed every year, so I found it harder and harder to get the books I wanted: they were ruled out as too costly.
Now, though, it might be worth trying the British Library directly, so thanks for the suggestion, Cyril.
A typical manipulative ploy of mass culture, that in their current time they are the wisest and most progressive, that allowed “progressive” doctors and psychiatrists to “cure” masturbation and homosexuality. And now, under the guise of fighting against “sexualization” and harassment, “progressive” feminists are trying to bring back the Victorian era, and a “progressive” court is banning abortion.
A person cannot be sexualized, he is naturally sexual and the only way to overcome “sexualization” is to force everyone to wear a burqa. The sex-positive sexual revolution freed people from prejudice. The current generation of feminists is sex-negative and promotes desexualization.
We live in the best of all possible worlds.
Of course, the grand era of sexual liberation was similarly “presentist,” even in its nascent forms. Down with traditional sexual morality and all that; we know better.
the past liberation movement did not restrict the rights of majorities, but asks to cancel unfair restrictions for minorities.
But now, the feminists and SJW are focuses on limiting existed rights. This led to an increase in censorship and a cancel culture. It’s hard to joke without offending someone. People are losing their jobs.
I quite agree; my point is simply that “presentism” has been practically a hallmark of sexual liberation from the beginning.
> “presentism” has been practically a hallmark of sexual liberation from the beginning.
The most salient feature of presentism is that it is a view of history that uses the presumptively superior standards of the present to trash those of the past. This was certainly true of sexual liberationists in the 1960s and 1970s (and much earlier) who attacked what they saw as Victorian prudery and sexual hypocrisy.
However, this is arguably not the only important feature of presentism. The sexual liberationists of the 1960s and 1970s were not guilty of what might be considered presentism’s most besetting sin, which is smug, complacent conservatism grounded in the unimaginative belief that the present era represents a highpoint and culmination of progress, such that attempts at social improvement through sexual liberation (or any other social change for that matter) should be rejected out of hand.
Not that many people are in much danger of smugness and complacency at the moment. On the contrary, it seems to me that politics is becoming increasingly unhinged and hysterical, with a very widespread feeling that things are getting worse and we are losing all sense of direction. In the 1960s and 70s, though, many of us felt the established order was far too satisfied with itself. The sexual liberationists presented an exciting challenge to the old ways, a breath of fresh air.
Or so it seemed to us at the time. No doubt some decided they could throw out the baby (moral behaviour i.e. respectful, considerate, kind, responsible) along with the bathwater (compulsory monogamy, homophobia, excessively authoritarian patriarchy, etc.).
Basannavar’s harsh perspective is the only publicly permissible one at present: demonise minor attraction in the way homosexuality was demonised in the early twentieth century. The familiar pattern only suggests of course that there will be a turning point.
And I care about children very much. As I stated earlier, I don’t feel I have a right to impinge on a child’s existence; I take a very understated approach in public places. I donate generously to children’s charities.
It was never exclusively or even mainly a sexual question, although of course it has been turned into this because it is the most sensational element in a MAP’s orientation towards the child. I care about the welfare of children deeply and I believe the CSA industry does tremendous psychological damage, although they portray themselves as the noblest of causes.
Child sex is abusive by current universal dictat (presumably also child on child sex as well as even autoerotic acts). There is no alternative voice allowed – the dogma is absolute. And it is just dogma, without a solid empirical grounding. But academia for example is beholden to these sacred idols, until the point at which sufficient critical mass is reached in the sexual progress of children and the “sexual child” no longer becomes a wrong term but instead a generally accepted phenomenon.
Child sex is abusive by current universal dictat (presumably also child on child sex as well as even autoerotic acts). There is no alternative voice allowed – the dogma is absolute. And it is just dogma, without a solid empirical grounding.
At the same time, the UK is the European country with the highest pregnancy rate among young teens, and there have been episodes of sex (and even sexual violence) among children in lower schools (If I remember correctly, Tom wrote about that in a blog last year).
So, to quote Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf, aka “Comical Ali” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf): “Let them live in their illusions…”.
>episodes of sex (and even sexual violence) among children in lower schools (If I remember correctly, Tom wrote about that in a blog last year).
“Lower” schools? Have you been using voice entry, SB? “Lower” sounds quite similar to “our”, which is what I suspect you mean. If so, I think this would be the blog you had in mind:
I meant school just over elementary school (boys and girls aged 11-12 and over, but “lower” than high school).
Ah, right. Apart from fee-paying prep schools for kids aged 8-13, and a few “middle schools”, the UK system is mainly just primary (up to 11) and secondary (11-18). What you are describing seems to correspond to US “junior high school”. I have never heard the term “lower”.
Also, the blog I mentioned was mainly about the secondary level. Actually, it was focused largely on the teen years. Maybe you were thinking about a different blog, in which case I do not know which one.