Outgoing British prime minister Liz Truss made mistakes so gigantic they could be seen from America, even by sleepy old Joe Biden, whose eyes barely open wide enough to read his autocue.
We might think those who are smart enough to claw their way to the top in politics would also have the wit to avoid moves that with 20:20 hindsight were always bound to see them tripping over their shoe laces. But we would be wrong, wouldn’t we? We all put our foot in it sometimes.
So I’m not going to put the boot in too hard over the mess queer theorist and apparent MAP (hope his lawyers won’t wrong foot me on this one!) Jacob Breslow has stepped into with a disastrous analogy he used, in which he reportedly said cumming on a kid is much the same as cumming on a shoe used as a fetish object.
But we should discuss it.
First though, with apologies for all the heavy-handed footwork 😊, we need a bit of background.
Earlier this month, and as I reported in the comments here, The Times broke the news that Dr Breslow had resigned as a trustee of the transgender youth support charity Mermaids, “after it emerged that he had spoken at a conference hosted by an organisation that promotes services to paedophiles”. The organisation was B4U-ACT. The event, held in Baltimore, Maryland, was way back in 2011 when Breslow was a graduate student in gender research at the London School of Economics. Now an assistant professor of gender and sexuality there, he became a trustee of Mermaids as recently as this July.
Now some Mermaids may be little, as in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, but Mermaids is BIG. Mess with the Mermaids and you’re gonna end up sleeping with the fishes, dude! So the news that Breslow had been rubbed out (sorry, “resigned”) by them was everywhere.
Not that academics being cancelled is anything new to us. Heretic TOC ran a dispatch last year on three such dispatches: those of Tom Hubbard, Kathleen Stock, and Allyn Walker. And now, as well as Jacob Breslow, we’ll be coming in a moment to yet another, Karl Andersson. No one here will be surprised to hear that three of this quartet have been in trouble over their admitted or alleged MAP sympathies, the exception being Stock, castigated as a TERF. Her presence in the list reminds us that freedom of expression is under attack on a broad front, and that you don’t have to be a MAP to get cancelled.
But it helps.
And as “Kit” observed in a lively discussion on BoyChat, “No matter how anodyne or couched in the arcane language of critical theory your observations might appear to be, as soon as you make any concession to the perverts you might as well daub the word NONCE on your front gate.”
So we need not be surprised that Breslow’s inept shoe analogy over a decade ago would have such consequences now that the Cultural Revolution is fully into its Red Guards stride. Perhaps I should row back a bit on that and say allegedly inept, because some say he was misquoted, or his remarks ripped misleadingly out of context. I don’t think so, but let’s take a look at that.
It was Julie Bindel, another notorious TERF, not Stock, who brought the quote to my attention, via an article in UnHerd. She said that in his paper to B4U-ACT, delivered as a speech of which the full text does not appear to be available, he stated:
Just as the desire to and the act of cumming on a shoe requires a rethinking of the shoe and how it comes into being, I want to now argue that the desire to and the act of cumming on, or possibly even with, a child requires a rethinking both of the child, which we just begun, and of the person for whom the child is a sexual fantasy or partner.
This contorted, ungrammatical gobbledegook does look decidedly crass in my view, to the extent that we can make sense of it. Breslow’s own outline of his intentions for the paper sets the scene but doesn’t help much. Ironically, far more precise context, with exact quotes (even including a “sic”) appears in an academic paper co-written by the late unlamented Judith Reisman, slanderous scourge of the great sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. Here we see Breslow’s “heuristic of shoes” described and discussed in detail. Unfortunately, all this sophistication still leaves dog shit on the shoe and NONCE on the gate.
So he didn’t think enough B4 his ACT, despite the clue in the name. But, hey, it’s not all been shitty shoes since then for the fledgling academic. The media attack dogs (mainly bitches, actually) picked out other supposedly damning aspects of his work that will sound to heretics here far more sensibly supportive both of children’s sexuality and that of MAPs.
In an article on feminist website 4W, Dana Vitalosova wrote:
Five years after his B4U-Act presentation, Breslow made his stance on children and sex even clearer, when in his PhD. thesis he argued some kids were “queer,” defining this phenomenon with the help of two other academics, Bruhm and Hurley: “the figure of the queer child is […] the child who displays interest in sex generally, in same-sex erotic attachments, or in cross-generational attachments.”
Last year, he brought out a book, Ambivalent Childhoods: Speculative Futures and the Psychic Life of the Child. Vitalosova tells us that during a launch event he said: ‘Is it really that children or young people having sex is the problem? Or is it [the problem] the conditions under which that sex happens?’” She notes that he started a chapter titled “Desiring the Child” with a description of a 12-year-old boy’s dance in front of a crowd of two hundred people:
While the boy wearing a t-shirt that says “G-A-Y” begins his performance on stage by break-dancing, according to Breslow, “his movements transition (…) to those that mimic sex acts, repeating the easily citational gestations of pelvic thrusts.”
In contrast with other audience members who murmured about such a twist to the kid’s dance or “looked panicked,” Jacob Breslow found himself “caught up in exhilarating waves of memory, identification and desire: a wish.”
In another feminist outfit, Reduxx, Breslow was said to have “confessed” to having sexual fantasies about children in his now-defunct WordPress blog: “I am constantly struggling not because of my ‘homosexuality’ or because my ‘gayness’ is so repressed, but because of my sexuality as deviant … it isn’t the gender of my sexual object choice that is the sole basis of my desire, but the age and subsequent deviance of that desire that is important,” Breslow wrote.
He was said to have written blog posts in which he “describes his fascination with and appreciation for pornographic magazines centred on the sexualization of teenage boys”. This brings us neatly to where Karl Andersson comes in. We hear that Breslow praises Destroyer Magazine, a publication created by Andersson, “which features sexualized photos of models that are advertised as being as young as 15 years old”.
We are told Andersson came under widespread scrutiny in August after it was revealed he had written an academic article in which “he admitted to masturbating to fantasy child sexual abuse material for three months as part of his ‘research’ as a PhD student at the University of Manchester”, and that following media coverage he was suspended by university administrators.
Actually, the article was based on “shota” artwork legally acquired and studied in Japan. It was not part of his research project and was not funded out of the public purse. Those very important details were ignored in hostile reports, and only emerged later in the media after the damage had been done, including the retraction of the paper from the Sage academic journal Qualitative Research and a baseless investigation by Manchester police into whether Andersson had used illegal comic book images while in the UK.
An account by Jack Grove, in Times Higher Education helped put the record straight, especially as it was based on a detailed defence of Andersson’s work by manga comic expert Casey Brienza in another academic journal, Publishing Research Quarterly. Brienza made the case, which I strongly support, that Sage should have stuck by their author. Failure to do so was bound to have a chilling effect on scholarship, and would stifle innovation in research methods.
That said, another writer in Times HE took a very different view. William Matthews, himself an expert in Andersson’s own field, social anthropology, deplored the masturbation paper, speaking of “the insanity of ethnography’s turn towards introspection and other postmodern research methods that place little value on objectivity”. He wrote:
If ethnography results from participant observation, but this inherently involves subjective inferences, why bother with the observation part in the first place when you can simply resort to introspection? Hence, “autoethnography”, which in essence takes subjectivity-as-method to its logical conclusion. This might be all well and good as an exercise in personal development, assuming one does not share Andersson’s predilections, but what it produces is equivalent to a diary. It might have relevance as a source of evidence for scholars interested in the internal life and ideas of the author and others like them, or the context in which they live, but in itself it is not research in any meaningful sense.
Apart from the moralising tone implicit in that snide reference to “predilections”, I find much that is persuasive here. But it wasn’t a scholarly beef over objectivity that left Andersson up shit creek along with shitty-shoe Breslow. Obviously, the real problem was the “deviant” nature of the project combined with its easy exposure to ridicule once exposed to the public gaze: “PhD in wanking” summed it all up, a line bringing much hilarity to YouTube and doubtless right across the social media.
As our new king might say, “Dear, oh dear!”. But if Liz Truss’s mistakes can be seen from America they’re probably goggle-eyed in Andromeda over the naïve antics of Breslow and Andersson. ET and his pals will be falling about, shaking with inter-galactic mirth!
But who am I to make fun? Unlike these guys, my follies back in the day were big enough to cost me my freedom as well as my job. And Heretic TOC is still not immune: the latest issue of The Critic focuses on the junior drag queen scene and my own take on it in Desmond is truly amazing – and hot! But at least this blog gets a plug, and as a retired guy I no longer have a career to lose.
What are we to make of all this? Most important as an immediate concern is that we should remember that these are real people, with real feelings, who have risked a lot for the cause – whether we conceive that cause as being to advance public understanding of child and MAP sexuality or simply honest scholarship. Accordingly, we should extend the hand of friendship and support towards Jacob and Karl. Using first names here isn’t about knowing them personally, it’s about welcoming their ideas and acknowledging them as “our people” even though they might back off when Survival Mode calls for it, as when Jacob went “full Virped” recently.
Beyond struggling for survival, what can MAP-friendly scholars constructively do, if anything, in the present climate? Should they just plough on for the cause, but with more caution? In the BoyChat thread mentioned above, “Kit” asserts that MAP activism has been long dead:
I would suggest that we don’t need yet another head paraded on a stick to convince us that a decade of MAP activism has been a flop. When Breslow appeared at the B4U-Act conference in 2011, VirPed had just got off the ground and it seemed like a new dawn for respectable non-offending paedophiles. Several ruined lives and destroyed careers later, I wonder if we can admit that this kind of activism has been completely defeated?
That bad? Dear, oh dear! But not everyone thought so. Kit’s gloomy assessment drew a more upbeat answer from “JohnHolt”, who wrote: “I am actually encouraged by the amount of energy that has been devoted towards these campaigns, and the resilience of MAP-adjacent scholars in the face of it.”
For no very good reason, I’m with JohnHolt on this one. Guess Mr Holt and I are just Tiggers by temperament, as against Kit’s Eeyore. Whatever. But I do have a modest riposte to Kit by way of reference to one academic dude who has been successfully dodging bullets for decades from a “MAP-adjacent” position: Jim Kincaid. The author of Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture and Erotic Innocence: The culture of child molesting has survived and thrived in academia thanks mainly to adopting the cunning but simple expedient of disappearing behind one tiny word: “we”. He always talks about ways in which “we”, i.e. society, eroticise the child. It’s never “I”. Even though he wears nothing but this scanty fig leaf, he never finds himself too exposed. Brilliant! As good as Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak!
Also, a viable alternative way to limit personal exposure is open to those who approach MAP issues from the direction of relatively impersonal quantitative science rather than the far more personal, subjective, analyses that characterise queer studies and much other cultural work. The older “ologies” (biology, psychology, etc.) are far from safe (just ask Bruce Rind) but are perhaps a tad less dangerous than the newer “studies”: queer studies, cultural studies, etc. In my view they also have the advantage of being more rigorous. It’s a moot point, though, so feel free to argue!
KINSEY SEES OFF REISMAN
Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), author of the fabled Kinsey Reports, who dared to publish research on prepubertal orgasms, lived nothing like as long as the appalling Judith Reisman (1935–2021), who made a career out of trashing his work and his character.
So for Kinsey fans like me, it is wonderful to know that her baleful influence his been pretty much pegged back to the American hard-Right conservatives, and that his reputational survival is now symbolised in the form of a splendid new statue, unveiled to mark the 75th anniversary last month of the research foundation and archives that bears his name, the Kinsey Institute.
The life-size bronze statue, which sits on the Bloomington campus of Indiana University, is the work of Melanie Cooper Pennington. In the words of the official press release, it “demonstrates the university’s pride in the living legacy of research and academic freedom Kinsey helped to forge”.
Pennington researched her subject through the Kinsey Institute‘s collection of materials. She brought Kinsey’s famous interview process into her interactive concept for the piece. The sculpture includes a resin chair opposite Kinsey that the viewer may occupy, taking the same position as the 18,000+ research participants who responded to Kinsey’s 347-question interview survey.
Once seated, the viewer will be met by the researcher’s gaze. Kinsey devised a code sheet, represented in Pennington’s sculpture, to record responses to the survey. It enabled him to tick coded items on the sheet while allowing him to maintain eye contact with his subject. The chair and code sheet are internally illuminated, providing additional visual appeal at night.
Well done, Melanie, fine work!
Use of the code sheet enabled those being interviewed about their sex lives to talk in a relaxed, conversational way with Kinsey, without the need to fill in questionnaires themselves. What their eyes were naturally drawn to instead was Kinsey’s own relaxed body language and encouraging manner – it took away the potential embarrassment of revealing sexual secrets.
GOOD OLD BORIS!
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say bring back Boris, the big blond guy was definitely right about one thing. He was branded “shameless” three years ago after he claimed that money spent investigating historic cases of child sex abuse was being “spaffed up the wall”.
He revealed that the vast Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) had cost a stonking £60 million by that time. But now, as the final report was presented yesterday, after this lumbering Behemoth had been wreaking havoc for a decade or so, we learn that Boris’s figure wasn’t even half the final one. It is now being officially put at a truly monstrous £186 million.
And for what? Just so that a bunch of narcissistic attention-seekers could sound off, basically, and go grubbing for “compo”, aided and abetted by vulture lawyers.
I should know how ridiculous the whole thing was. I was approached by the inquiry’s chief solicitor and asked to be a witness in the Westminster strand of its deliberations. That, you may recall, was about an alleged “V.I.P. paedophile ring” involving PIE, as well as top politicians and the like, including former prime minister Edward Heath. It was all an utter farce, a wild concoction of fantasy B.S. in which many people were falsely accused. I blogged about it, so no need to reprise the sorry saga now, except to make clear that I did give evidence as requested, using the opportunity to tell all the parasites profiting from this scandalous waste of public money exactly what I thought of their endeavours.
“Qatar ambassador comments on homosexuality ‘harmful and unacceptable'”
The hypocrisy here is outrageous but of course entirely unsurprising.
MAPs suffer with a vicious abuse of their rights in legacy media, on social media, and institutionally in the West, yet as soon as an Asian country dislikes homosexuality there is consternation among those same Westerners. All Out say: “It is time for Fifa to end the silence and hypocrisy”. Well, they need to look in the mirror! Human Rights Watch are championing this defence of LGBTQ+ in Qatar, while there is a deafening silence around MAP rights and freedom of expression in their sphere.
Historically even, a man loving a young girl is less controversial than a man loving a man.
All Out and Human Rights Watch can shove it, because they are egregious hypocrites. I actually feel more sympathy for Islamic tradition than I do for these two-faced jerks.
Until MAP rights are put on a level playing field with LGBTQ+ rights, I won’t be able to take the latter’s brand of campaigning seriously at all.
If the England national team will play with the rainbow armband to lecture others on human rights as they have announced, then I propose that Qàtar (note: stress on the first syllable) play with a corresponding armband marked “Free Assange”, who is rotting in a British prison “guilty” of having revealed the wrongdoings committed by the US.
I have similar feelings. In particular, it is rank inconsistency to think that homosexuality is not a ‘choice’, but being attracted to youngsters is.
Which is why the right is not your friend, and never will be. @Zen, Matt Walsh is not your friend, and beyond that, is wrong about everything.
Religious conservatives still view it as a “choice”, and will never stop viewing it that way- it’s part of their religion.
Didn’t Julie Bindel say once that men should be in concentration camps with 4x4s (quads) to keep them entertained? She was an old twitter sparing partner to the late, great Dr Oldfield…The OSC.
Was on public transport the other day when I overheard a kid of around 5yo saying that he loves it when another kids shoves (some object) up his…..There was condemnation from the older kids asking, “how old are you” “this is not appropriate” etc. It Polices itself in a modern day McCarthyism.
“this is not appropriate”
The label “appropriate” / “inappropriate” is one of the most thought-terminating, dogmatic phrases used as a bludgeon to prevent desent from forming, especially around sensitive issues where sweeping moral absolutes are commomplace. It’s a great way to not have to justify or explain your argument. Why don’t you think X should do Y? Instead of explaining, you just say “it’s inappropriate.”
Some deeds may be acceptable, but not always appropriate. However, the sex taboo labels harmless things as vicious and destructive. What can be destructive in compliments, hugs, kisses, masturbation ?
People have always tried to dehumanize everything that was somehow related to “sex” and chose prohibitions and punishments instead of a reasonable and balanced approach. Even simple friendly and romantic relationship now they call “grooming” and invent malicious intent for all adult friends. Surely now there are fools who would call Prince Philip the “groomer” who seduced the 13-year-old Elizabeth.
Agree one hundred percent!
Regarding the criticism of autoethnography and Karl Andersson:
You quote social anthrpologist William Matthews, “speaking of “the insanity of ethnography’s turn towards introspection and other postmodern research methods that place little value on objectivity”.
> You’ll pobably guess my push-back.
Matthews writes: ” If ethnography results from participant observation, but this inherently involves subjective inferences, why bother with the observation part in the first place when you can simply resort to introspection? Hence, “autoethnography”, which in essence takes subjectivity-as-method to its logical conclusion.”
> To me, I read this as descriptive even while knowing he’s implying derision. Yes, that is autoethnography. Yes, ethnography, indeed, the whole discipline of anthropology, is about observation (if not with your eyes then your ears etc – to experience and report findings about other cultures and how their society is organized). I can’t imagine how Matthews believes he’s going to be free of “subjective inferences”? How is that even possible?
Whenever we name something, label it, and then describe it, we have to use language, and in using language we have to make choices which betray our subjectivity – what Matthews likes, dislikes – his values – relating to a given culture or thing. To me, you can only get close to objectivity by way of biological mechanisms – say, puberty, adrenache, or saturated fat blocking your arteries slowly over many, many years – but even the labelling of these things takes us back to the terrain of human subjectivity. The “paraphilias” as coined by John Money were meant to be “objective” but, of course, no matter how non-stigmatizing and [so I’ve been told] “totally supportive” of MAPs Money privately was, his re-labelling was simply another inscription of values – John Money’s values!
Self-perception – subjectivity – what Rind et al. called “simple consent” back in 1998 – your “perception of willingness” – is the discriminating factor. Grounded in biology, yes, and this is important to remember because our biology will effect our mood, for example, the kinds of language we use and the why, when’s and where’s, but once we communicate (even with ourselves – “introspection” – autoethnography), we enter Matthews’s undesired realm of “subjective inferences.”
So there you go, that’s my current thinking. I don’t see how Matthews is different to Karl in any meaningful sense. I’m sure he’s produced lots of extended “diaries” in the form of books and articles, chronicaling his interpretation of other cultures. Just because Karl used himself as a research subject makes no odds, he’s making “subjective inferences” either way.
Thanks, Prue, for reflecting on this and giving a thoughtful response.
Important and sympathetic article about predator hunter stings which has provoked outrage on the right. The author Rachel Monroe was forced to delete her Twitter due to right-wing abuse.
The article rightly points out how many “predators” are low risk, low hanging fruit. Let’s face it, many people likely to get caught in an online sting are either simplistic, or deluded in some way, or maybe even suffering from mental illness. Any psychologist can tell you that text on a screen can create an “unrealistic fantasy” context detached from the real world.
So Rachel Monroe’s article is important and indeed I have noticed a more sympathetic portrayal of the “paedophile” on the liberal left (as an aside, I still fundamentally object to the term “paedophile” as it has been intrinsically tied to and associated with criminality).
Plus, the publicly searchable sex offender registries in the US in the wake of the Adam Walsh Act (2006), which Monroe thinks are unnecessary, sound absolutely horrific. I’m glad I don’t live in such a primitive totemistic society – one that must bring back the pillory and create a virtual wall of shame to expose a demonised sexual minority to public derision and contempt.
But read the article and see for yourself that the left are becoming more humane and understanding of the MAP sexual minority. Meanwhile the right make this perhaps their keystone, totemic issue and scream blue murder at the slightest rejection of what can be best summed up as their “psychopathic woodchipper narrative”.
“Let’s face it, many people likely to get caught in an online sting are either simplistic, or deluded in some way, or maybe even suffering from mental illness”
> Classic Vice article: Predators or Prey? Creep Catchers Accused of Targeting People with Physical and Mental Disabilities https://www.vice.com/en/article/4xw9mb/predators-or-prey-creep-catchers-accused-of-targeting-people-with-physical-and-mental-disabilities
“McKnight, 27, a trans woman, had spent most of last year living in southeast Edmonton with Matthias Eichner, a man who considered himself her “street dad.” But after she was confronted and shamed online by Edmonton Creep Catchers in April, Eichner said his home became her prison. He found her lying on the basement floor dead on September 7.
Both Eichner and McKnight’s adoptive parents told VICE they believe her death was an intentional drug overdose, although authorities have not yet confirmed that. VICE has viewed Facebook conversations in which McKnight said killing herself was the only way to make a statement to Creep Catchers and the public.”
A reminded that these people have blood on their hands…
“Earlier this year, a sting operation spiralled into a fistfight in a North Carolina Target, ending with a predator catcher shot in the leg.”
> You will all have to guess my reaction to this but, for the record, unlike some I am no pacifist…
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state – book which transformed my thinking on the topic].
“In 2019, NBC identified about thirty predator-catcher online groups scattered across the country; recently, the Washington Post found more than a hundred and sixty, which have been responsible for nearly a thousand stings this year.”
> Terrifying. Want to know the reason there’s so man groups?
“The show “To Catch a Predator” quote: “paid Perverted-Justice more than a hundred thousand dollars per instance” [PER INSTANCE!!!]”
> It’s big bucks to exploit the vulnerable for clicks and trash TV. Youtube will be no different. Less money than perverted justice, but still lucrative. Remember the Marxist base-superstructure model: all culture must relate back to the base, i.e. all culture relates back to private ownership and production for profit. We wouldn’t see half the incendiary, sensationalist media if it wasn’t popular (read: profitable), institutionalized even, duty and discourse-bound therapists / social workers whose employment relies on the existence of sex abuse discourses [not that this can’t change – vegans, for example, work with farmers by helping them switch to plant-based farming]. If there was zero monetary element, no fame leading to cash, no government handouts like the huge sum given to Judith Reisman ($734,371 in 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman#Images_of_children,_crime_and_violence), then only the die-hard crazies would bother…
“Cam knows that the predators are out there, but recently she’s had a harder time getting to them. Her profiles on dating sites keep getting reported and shut down, and the sites have banned her from making new ones. Pretending to be a teen-ager has turned out to be more difficult than she expected.”
> Amazing… Creating a climate that makes them obsolete.
At the end of this, I’m interested to know, Zen, how you saw this article as indicative of left-wing politics? Do you mean because the author is left-wing?
And yes, the cultural, neo-nazi, jewish question / great replacement Right will die on the “save the children” hill because it’s the best argument they’ve got to reach across the political spectrum and appear apolitical, to bring people over who would otherwise take no interest. That’s because, as Harris Mirkin taught us, sex is not generally thought of as political. And that’s where danger enters. As we know from the explosion principle in philosophy, once you accept a false premise (read: once the Right gets you to accept a false premise), anything can follow…
>As we know from the explosion principle in philosophy
Worth a link, I think. Such as:
Prue, when I stated left-wing, I meant American social liberalism such as is found in the New York Times or the Washington Post. One could say this is the default mainstream of America, only the MAGA right are a huge faction in the American population too.
I certainly did not imply anything Marxist or economically left, or necessarily far left radicalism, although the right perceives even the “cultural mainstream” to be radically left nowadays.
In Britain we don’t quite have the same divide, with Sunak and Starmer both being fairly centrist figures, ideologically similar.
I don’t know that I see any softening in all that. It’s less a softening and more practical law enforcement considerations.
The right has gone all in on “groomer” rhetoric and in on a “human trafficking” scare, and the like, and it’s manifested in all sorts of conspiracy theories and vigilante activism (whether you think any given conspiracy theory is true- certainly Epstein didn’t kill himself, and he was basically a brothel keeper for the elite, cutting across party and industry lines- at least, doesn’t seem all that far fetched to me). And it has the double effect of getting established leaders smeared (whether correctly or incorrectly), which makes established leadership mad, and the effect of running interference with actual law enforcement on the issues.
You have groups like Operation Underground Railroad and other vigilante groups getting involved, making fighting human trafficking and sexual exploitation an cottage industry (as per usual, for hey, money to be made), and what actually ends up happening is they end up ruining cases and operations for institutional law enforcement. Evidence collected improperly gets thrown out, busts wind up catching small fish possession offenders and the like, and busting larger rings and bigger, producer fish gets thwarted. It wastes the FBI and police’s resources, and wastes the DOJ’s time, and all that comes of it is a few Republican AG’s get to playact at being superhero batmans.
Governments and law enforcement agences have limited resources, and they’re using data-driven, reality-based, targeted methods, and the right wing vigilantes are messing all that up with their posturing and conspiracy theories and rhetoric, and they neither want nor have the resources to treat every offender like they’re high risk, especially when the data says most of them are not. And of course, they don’t like the rhetoric that says the very leaders and law enforcement working on the issues are complicit in perpetuating them in the first place.
So it’s less a softening on the issue, and less any sort of shift in moral sentiments or compassion, and more having to establish a “rational”, practical law enforcement approach, that keeps getting undermined by the zealous, holy, self-righteous amateurs.
Three points on this:
1) I believe there is genuinely a thawing in attitudes towards MAPs on the soft liberal left, a very recent phenomenon which can only date to the last year or two. This is evidenced in various journalistic articles. I know this because I track the right carefully and they’re frequently up in arms at the shifting cultural landscape towards gradual acceptance of child sexuality (e.g. Gender Queer in school libraries, for one thing).
2) I agree that CP access is totally out of control (friendly reminder: don’t risk breaking the law) and maybe law enforcement is just on the cusp of prioritising other areas, although simple CP possession cases are still prosecuted vigorously. Any contact offence or sexual solicitation will basically result in jail.
3) Yes the vigilante groups are an ugly reflection of the culture, although we must remember that in the case of “human trafficking” there is genuine and sometimes horrific suffering. This isn’t a 15 and 20 year old making out 🙂
Overall though it is possible to discern a gradual shift of attitudes in the social liberal mainstream, and especially on the more leftist fringes, although the right have doubled down in a kind of reactionary fervour against this.
Sure, it’s prosecuted vigorously, but they’d rather get where it’s coming from more. Taking one possession case by one possession case is time consuming and saps a lot of resources. Better to get a big bust, and stop the flow. At least, that’s the reasoning, anyway.
Tom, did you know freespeechtube is down? https://www.freespeechtube.org
[MODERATOR, LATER, AFTER THIS POST HAS BEEN UP FOR A DAY OR SO: GOOD NEWS. FST IS BACK. THERE WAS AN OUTAGE BUT IT WAS NOT CAUSE BY AN ATTACK]
So sad how few spaces there are for critical thinking / discussion on intergen issues. I prefer having publicly accessible platforms rather than only private spaces that give the impression of furtiveness by choice, rather than by force/incentive to avoid unproductive hostility. Even VirPed’s got banned off twitter! Thank god for IPCE, Boychat and Girlchat. Like this wonderful website, beacons of inspiration and content that “makes you think”!
ALERT: I have just noticed that the INCREDIBLE resource https://greek-love.com/ may not be long for this world! If they haven’t recieved a DDoS attack, and it’s a matter of the website host expiring, this sounds like something (intuitively) that could be dealt with easily by someone who’s familiar with web hosting. Any heretical allies who could help out?
From the site: “Sadly, this website has just suffered devastating damage to its functionality from an unknown source. If anyone who thinks this website worthwhile can help rescue it from imminent demise, please write to firstname.lastname@example.orgImportant note. This sitemap is NOT the home page, but has taken over from it due to an unknown cause, which will hopefully be corrected as soon as possible. Most of the real homepage can be found What was Greek love?, but it has also been inexplicably corrupted, so that the menu can no longer be found on it.
Maintenance of the sitemap unfortunately ended in June 2022, so that it is now out-of-date, nearly useless (apart from its present function of emergency access to the site) and overdue for deletion.
Terrible news as regards both sites.
The fact that both sites have gone down at more or less the same times gives rise to thoughts about some sort of coordinated attack on MAP-friendly sites. But this is offset by the news that the Greek Love site has not been maintained for the last four months or so. Has anyone been in touch with Edmond Marlowe? It was and remains his site to the best of my knowledge.
Wish these sites favored substance over style. KISS.
Nada, as a scientific principle Keep It Simple works very well, as per Occam’s Razor. But does everything we say outside the realm of scientific inquiry lack truth value and “substance”?
Is history insubstantial and therefore “stupid”? What about fiction, including highly imaginative fiction exploring possibly impossible things? Or science fiction, exploring possibly possible but seemingly improbable ones? Or poetry? Or metaphysical philosophy?
For over a century now, the most “substantial” strand in philosophy has arguably been its most insubstantial.
After Wittgenstein advised that “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”, he was often interpreted as saying STFU if you cannot KISS – to the extent that KISS meant confining that which we say to that which is verifiable and falsifiable.
STFU was just what Wittgenstein himself did, for many years. But when he spoke again, as he did, his lips opened with something more like a blessing than a KISS.
How will you answer this? Probably two letters: BS! 🙂 To which I could reply, FU! But I won’t! 🙂
Let’s see if Mr “freespeech absolutist” Musk turns out to be a hypocrite.
The Virped controversy is a bit more nuanced than a simple ban. The group was linked to a pamphleting campaign in the United Kingdom. It appears Virped had given a newly recruited social media manager access to their 7-year old Twitter account, and he then made a series of posts claiming that he was engaged in the campaign, oblivious to the risk this posed to the account.
This follows the pattern we have seen on the old NYSE-listed Twitter this year. A controversy erupts, viralizes to above 1000 shares, and eventually after a number of reports, the account is suspended without explanation. The process typically takes 20-40 hours.
A recent account has met a similar fate, not before gaining over 3000 shares and huge exposure for the MAP and Ally-owned educational site, Newgon.net.
In Musk’s defense, he says that the T&C has not changed, and it will probably take months to put into force whatever vision he has for the company.
FST IS BACK. See Prue’s comment above, reporting that it had gone down. There is now a message of the FST site. It says:
In a comment attached to the previous blog post (‘Friends with benefits for youth’), Warbling J. Turpitude drew attention to recent publicity surrounding the apparent boy-related minor attraction of Lord Mountbatten, great uncle to the present king, Supreme Allied Commander for South-East Asia during World War Two, and the last Viceroy of India, who was assassinated by the IRA in 1979. Here is an article about it, albeit with the usual biases.
One part of which I found very noteworthy was this testimony from a 16-year-old boy called Amal:
“He [Mountbatten] was very polite, very nice. I knew he was someone important. He asked if I wanted a drink or candy. He told me he liked dark-skinned people, especially Sri Lankan people, as they were very friendly and very good-looking. I remember he admired my smooth skin. We gave each other oral sex in a 69 position. He was very tender, and I felt comfortable about it. It seemed very natural. I know that several other boys from Kincora were brought to him on other occasions”
The positive nature of this interaction receives no comment from the author.
800 K₽ fine for “pedophilic propaganda” — new federal laws in Russia against “non-traditional sexual relationships”:
Tom, do you want hyperlinks to the exact texts of laws changed today?
Only if you already have them. Don’t go looking for them. I doubt any HTOC readers will be delving in a scholarly way beyond what is in the general news report you mentioned. None of us are lawyers who will be representing clients in Russian courts, as far as I am aware.
I read the same news on RT, but they only talked about “homosexual propaganda”. In this connection there was even a bill to forbid gay bars. Should we believe Western or Russian media? This is the problem…
If the bills are going to punish all “non-traditional sexual relationships”, however, then at least they don’t discriminate…
It terms of activism there is the smart thing to do and then there is the brave thing to do. The two are not always exclusive but sometimes they are. When it come to MAP activism I think it is largely a choice between one or the other.
Allow me to clarify what I mean. Let’s say you were some place with a friend. Let’s say it’s a large building like a hotel. You and your friend get separated and suddenly a mass shooter enters the the building you guys are at. You hear gunshots ring out. You see a clear exit where you can safely escape the shooter but at the same time you hear your friend call out for for help from somewhere in the building. The smart thing would be to get the fuck out of there. The brave thing would be to go find and help your friend.
My point is that MAP activism is very stupid and dangerous but also extremely noble and brave. The smart thing would be to just keep your mouth shut and not get involved. But some people choose to take the risk and it’s probably because they care very deeply about what they are fighting for and are brave enough to risk themselves regardless of the odds and potential cost.
This is why intelligent people are usually cowards. That doesn’t include you, Tom.
>This is why intelligent people are usually cowards. That doesn’t include you, Tom.
Thank you for excluding me from this generalisation, Steven.
As for the generalisation itself, I am not sure it is true but you have set out the thinking behind your conclusion very clearly.
You forgot to mention Stephen Kershnar.
The Kinsey statue is awesome! 🙂
Quite the destination for a self portrait, I should think.
Hi Steve! I am pleased to see you share my enthusiasm. I would definitely consider making a pilgrimage to this spot but for the extreme unlikelihood that I would be allowed into the US.
I’ve said it before, I’ll reiterate it again- trans youth are the barometer for the “MAP” camp. You may not see it, but it is as clear as day to me. If that domino falls, then things are headed quickly toward a reexamination of pedophiles. It’s not politically correct to say that, and most trans people would be horrified by it (understandably), but there’s too much overlap in the substance of the issue for it not to be, even if actively unallied.
Ironically, it’s something conservatives are actually right about- though not for the reasons they think, and I certainly do not think conservatives are right about it, let alone anything else. The road of queer rights, and trans rights more specifically, does indeed eventually lead to a place where MAP’s will emerge as a contender for reexamination of their place in society as well.
It could but I could also see it leading to nowhere. I think trans kids should be supported just as a matter of principle and treating everyone with respect. But to say it will lead to the reexamination of pedophilia might be underestimating society’s ability to hold sexual activity outside normal logic.
Why is it wrong to have sex with animals but not wrong to butcher and eat them? Some might try to argue that we need to eat animals to survive. But we don’t. Not anymore. You can survive just fine with a vegetarian diet and some vitamins. But for some reason consent doesn’t matter when we kill and eat animals, but it does matter when it comes to having sex with one.
I could easily see our society using similar mental gymnastics to claim why trans surgery for kids is okay but them deciding when to have sex is not.
Part of why I think it’s so likely is because society (or at least certain segements of it) have decided to so vehemently link the two together. The last time that happened was when the LGBT+ movement began in the 60s and 70s, and it was an at least semi-serious conversation then. But you could be right. But I think it’s a strong possibility nonetheless.
Queer theory will inevitably lead us to a reexamination of the child and the child’s sexuality. It most certainly leads us to a reexamination of the ever contorted puritanical-degenerate horn dog dichotomy adolescents live in (being on the one hand highly sexual, and on the other hand increasingly deprived of that sexuality). If you talk about gay kids, trans kids, queer kids of any kind- you’re talking about kids, and sexuality. Not adults and sexuality, children and sexuality.
And the very existence of queer kids is going to force the issue- most notably trans-kids, whose very existence challenges our ideas of depriving youth of bodily autonomy. We cannot on the one hand teach bodily autonomy to protect against abuse, without also eventually confronting the reality that bodily autonomy includes the right to say “yes” and isn’t bodily autonomy if it’s under a command to only say “no”.
Furthermore, the more conservatives try to undo the gains made by queer people, under the guise of “protecting” children from “groomers”- a term they utterly misuse and abuse- eventually if you keep calling everyone a pedo- from the right or the left side of the equation- eventually that means people are going to have a long and hard look at pedophilia- just as it did when the worst thing you could be we was queer or gay.
Not only that, but attempts at conversion therapy and celibacy are going to fail, long term, just as they failed in the case of queer people. Not only is it going to fail, but be shown to be a driver of misery and problems, rather than alleviating problems. And queer people are eventually going to have a reckoning once it is rediscovered- as always happens with history- that the queer movement included pedophilia and pederasty as part of it in the beginning, and that at least half of all their heroes had underage relations- either themselves as minors, or as adults with minors. Indeed, that it wasn’t just part of the movement, but not even thought of as something separate from being gay, bi, lesbian, etc. but rather an innate part of growing up queer, and being inducted into a “queer lifestyle”- that that’s how they came to identify as gay or otherwise queer- because of positive or at least not overtly abusive experiences with older siblings, the older siblings of friends, or an adult friend or family member, or even younger friends, siblings, or friends of younger siblings.
We will have to face all these things, and given the current trajectory, I wouldn’t give it more than a decade or two before it is in the mainstream conversation- with all the shouting and fighting about it that will inevitably be a part of it. Moral panics eventually undo themselves. It might take a few decades or so, sometimes a lifespan- but they eventually burn through the fuel they possess. We’ll have to figure out something more closely approximating the truth than what we currently believe.
the names are listed on current blog (you forgot Stephen Kershnar) shows that cheeky academic activity is still exists (with difficulties).
We are at the same stage when academics claimed that masturbation leads to mental illness, but the realization of the delusion came thanks to those who disputed and challenged the taboo. As long as voices are sound, there is hope for enlightenment in future
It wasn’t meant to be a complete list, but you are certainly right to note Kershnar.
Let’s be clear that Stephen Kershnar is the exception compared to other recent examples: Kershnar has job protections, has written on multiple controversial philosophical “hot” topics (he does not exclusively write about intergen eroticism / relationships / attraction), and has written his fuller book on “adult-child sex” late into his career. I acknowledge his 1st article on the topic appeared in 2001, but this appears to have remained fairly obscure, and his 2009 book chapter which expanded that article also remained obscure. Mass access to the internet is one big factor changing this: now, anyone can access sholarship at little to no cost – something I’ve beneffitted from in being able to spend hours trawling journals and google scholar to read up on the topic. But, I started off being ignorant and non-hostile about intergen issues, whereas, a person who’s already decided they’re fighting evil incarnate, can do the same thing as me but in the opposite, trouble-making direction… Finally, Kershnar is an attorney so has legal expertise to defend himself: he is also a libertarian economically: i.e. he has money behind him. Unlike the rest, Kershnar doesn’t make for an easy opponent…
“We are at the same stage when academics claimed that masturbation leads to mental illness, but the realization of the delusion came thanks to those who disputed and challenged the taboo. As long as voices are sound, there is hope for enlightenment in future”
> I agree, it’s just a different discourse but the similarities are stricking. Agustin Malon wrote an amazing article about this, one of my favorite articles ever written:
Malon, Onanism and Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparative Study of Two Hypotheses (2010). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-008-9465-3
Great article. Thanks Prue.
“recovered memory”, “sleeper effects”.
Once again shows that the majority believes in what they want to believe.
You can’t burn yourself on a cup after drinking from it. But people can make you vomit if they make you believe you ate a non-existent bug. Psychotrauma occurs immediately during traumatic event when experiencing negative and painful feelings. If a person smiled, laughed, enjoyed then s/he is not traumatized. In all other cases, people suffer from the swallowing a iatrogenic bug (wordplay).
This is an excellent paper. And the analogy between the anti-onanism narrative of yesteryear and the current CSA panic is relevant to the question of whether we are ever likely to see societal acceptance of child-adult sex. For surely during the height of anti-onanism, it must have been very hard to imagine a world in which masturbation was considered acceptable, and yet we now inhabit such a world. This shows that the fact that we currently find it so difficult to imagine a thawing of social attitudes towards child-adult sex doesn’t show it will never happen.
[I posted something like this earlier, but it seems to have lost it’s way in the intertubes…]
In reprising the cancellation of Allyn Walker, Michelle Shipworth seems unaware that she’s lending more support to Dr Brienza’s argument than to her own. The shoddy treatment of Dr Walker was anything but universally celebrated in the halls of academe and his new position, as a research fellow at Johns Hopkins, is in no way a step down from his brave but precarious professorship at the spineless and craven ODU.
>Most important as an immediate concern is that we should remember that these are real people
Whereas the pedophiles and children not only thrown under the bus, but subjected to probable harm, are not?
I, for one, will not be a useful idiot for a gobshite, who makes even other anti-pedophiles seem reasonable and humane.
in a new study anti-CSA education “Policies were not associated with increases in incidence of child sexual abuse reports made by non-education personnel (IRR = 1.08, 95 % CI, 0.95–1.22) or decreases in likelihood that any given report was confirmed (OR = 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.90–1.12).”
It’s also intriguing that William Matthews and Michelle Shipworth have chosen to direct their plaintive appeals for ‘objectivity’ toward the minuscule subset of research specifically addressing sexual interest in children.
A lucky break, for those thousands of other publications in qualitative research and autoethnography that don’t mention paedophilia, that they haven’t also caught the ire of these ‘objective’ critics.
It’s also disturbing to read that Shipworth has served on UCL’s Research Ethics Committee for four years. Whither ‘ethics’, I have to ask.
Above all, I think, MAPs need to have good taste, to shame the naysayers and critics. Now talking about “cumming on a shoe” in relation to a child, and including a “masturbation diary” in academic research, both strike me as appallingly bad taste. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot here. The beauty of a child is pure, radiant and wonderful – why do we need to put it in the gutter all the time? If MAPs want to gain mainstream respect we need to handle the absolute basics better. Because the failure to cut through so far, in cultural terms, seems to me fairly self-explanatory as things stand.
On the IICSA, yes £186 million is disgraceful, but sadistic cruelty to children obviously exists. Some people suffered truly traumatic and abusive CSA which must not be forgotten. It is important to make a distinction between the fantasies and desires of good MAPs to be a positive force for children and give them joy, protection, pleasure, affirmation, etc and that of evil individuals who employ violence, force, cruelty or sadism on children, which we must accept is an outrage and a tragedy.
Still, the failure to even conceive of this distinction in mainstream society is an absurd and stupid error, of both judgement and imagination.
Bad taste? Perhaps, if you hold a moral view in respect of what is tasteful and what is not.
More importantly, perhaps, a view as to the relative value of the subjective contra the objective. But the objective, as far as I can tell, is a fantasy, however much we dislike that notion. It is a fantasy in the sense that all knowledge is based soundly in the imagination (Kant) and the personal (Polanyi, Korzybski, et. al.).
I am not going to argue for this; others already have done a very good job of this. But I will say the following:that we produce useful tools out of this fantasy of the objective is cool, but not a reason for highly valuing the objective, over and above the subjective. (Most of those tools are actively destroying us and our world, after all, which seems to me not to be worthy of high value.) Everything we do and say arises from the imagination and the personal; beginning in the subjective, we then ignore this beginning and claim some type of universality for another invention of the imagination: the ‘objective’.
Sadly, most who engage in autoethnography are inadequate writers, which makes their work just a tad tedious to read.
Taste belongs to the faculty of judgement and therefore is closely linked to morality. Having a romantic love for a child strikes me as both beautiful and decorous, but MAPs go out of their way to try and cheapen the experience. This must reflect badly on our cause.
Your notion of subjectivity seems to be grounded in Romanticism; I am a Thomistic Realist and believe in objective truth. The relativisation of all value isn’t necessary to give MAPs legitimacy or “ontological room”. Children are objectively beautiful; loving a child is noble; desiring a child does not strike me as being intrinsically disordered, however various churches may pander to the modernist sentiment for the innocence of the child. Extreme phobia to “MAPs” (admittedly an anachronism) is rooted in modernity.
You call the objective an “invention of the imagination” and indeed Kant believed all experience was grounded in phenomenon and we could never approach or access the noumenon which is the underlying reality. Similarly, Schopenhauer believed all experience was representation. Of man he said: “what he knows is not a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea”. I fundamentally disagree with this level of subjectivity, although such a system of philosophy may have artistic merit.
But the point is that we don’t need to be radically subjective to defend MAPs, or legitimise loving a child, or even having sexual desires towards a child. Otherwise Shakespeare’s Romeo would have been cancelled as a paedophile, which is preposterous. And Donatello would definitely have been cancelled as a paedophile for his precocious and alluring naked statue of a minor David. It’s ok to like children, and the aberration lies on the part of modern society in their neurotic or even psychotic hatred of the demonised “paedophile”, certainly not with MAPs who have a legitimate, beautiful and potentially nurturing and loving attraction.
“Having a romantic love for a child strikes me as both beautiful and decorous, but MAPs go out of their way to try and cheapen the experience. ”
Could you perhaps supply a referent or two for your (use of) “MAPs” here? To whom, to what ‘group’ (gasp) of fellows do you refer exactly? And how, pray tell, can one possibly “cheapen” an experience one simply does not have? As we all (should) know by now website data plainly reveals hundreds of thousands of CP and sholicon fans at every step for whom the sheerest reality of re-presentation (go ahead, feel that word on your tongue anew) has made of them the perfectly insatiable pedo-horndogs they never knew they could ever be… these too have realized beyond a shadow of doubt that the representation of the forbidden eclipses all else in the sphere of reprographic certification, of the promise that seems always to live somewhere just beyond the SURFACE we apprehend with such a thrill.
Well, to begin with no responsible MAP should be viewing illegal material – for one thing the Police are very hot on this, and distribution of CP is almost always dealt with in the UK courts as a 2-3 year jail sentence.
But I refer to the fact that MAPs are always about crude and often lurid sexual satisfactions, whereas in truth the spectrum of child-adult relations encompasses so much more: love, appreciation of beauty, encouragement, mentorship, giving joy and pleasure to the child, friendship…there is no need to use the language and sentiments of a pornographer.
I know the LGBTQ scene is often about “kink”, “fetish” and “cheap sex” but we have a chance to rise above that level, to see the Romantic beauty in attraction to a child and dealing with it in a responsible and compassionate way. Unfortunately I don’t see many MAPs following this path.
I take offense to that as a queer person. And would respond that because your romantic idealism is the pathway back to puritanism, which only reinforces the conservative side of our society- reinforces monogamy, marriage, fidelity, exclusivity, and all the attending neuroticism and dysfunction in the first place- which is all based on the commodification and objectification of the person, just draped in high sounding language, which is just a roundabout way of denying people autonomy in their lives, personhood and respect born of equality, and subjecting them to unrealistic, high strung expectations which is it not humanly possible to meet, and which cause an endless stream of trauma, abuse, and mental health deterioration, which is covered up and excused away by bad apples, individual failure, and “mental illness”, when, in most cases, the menally “ill” are not what is sick, but society that is making them sick, and their bodies and brains are responding accordingly as they are designed to.
If people, for example, really wanted to end abuse, they’d stop teaching kids to obey their parents, teachers, coaches, police, etc. “Do what your [mom/dad/teacher/babysitter/coach/etc.] tell you, and be good” is the beginning of abuse. If people want to bitch and moan and accuse people of “grooming”- the “good” people of society have already pre-groomed all their children for anyone to take advantage of, in any way they wish. It’s a contradiction in our cultural conditioning- and why it won’t be able to last much longer.
You can have “innocent” and abused kids, or you can have educated, “filthy” (to the conservative/religious mind) kids who have been given the tools to exercise their autonomy, and know what they’re dealing with in life- and able to choose to engage or tell someone to fuck off.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be offensive to the queer community. But it is a solid fact that the queer community is very much more promiscuous and “free” than the norm.
I do want kids to have more autonomy, but still believe guidance from elders, parents, etc can be incredibly helpful to them. I don’t see “advice” as damaging, only forced coercion.
I really don’t think kids need to be “filthy”. That strikes me as a severe cultural deterioration. Children should be allowed to express their sexuality, but why drag civilisation down to an animalistic gutter? Heck, I can even imagine a society where a MAP and a child legitimately and legally make love, but I absolutely disagree with introducing kink into children’s education, and confusing them about their gender identity.
The “filthy” designation is the product of our puritanically based society- that we’re still undoing. It’s not because it actually is so, only that it is deemed so- and will be deemed so regardless of what higher language it’s draped in.
As for kinks proper- kids are kinky as fuck, if my own childhood and experiences with other kids as a kid are any indication. And I grew up in an extremely religious, conservative community.
It’s a conservative’s arguement that you’re placing “ideas” in their heads by educating them- that it (like any other aspect of sexuality or queerness) is somehow a “social contagion”, which is simply not true. They spout the same nonsense with regards to teaching about contraception.
Fact is, GenZ has less sex than every generation prior. And that’s after a number of places (not nearly enough) have implemented comprehensive sex ed and ready access to contraception. Which I’d argue is a part of what’s causing the mental health epidemic.
As if innocent children, not yet subjected to your indoctrination, sorry, “education”, would be unable to form non-abusive relationships.
We also have good reason to invest heavily in such a rare partner of extreme value, hence lean strongly towards monogamy, not promiscuity, as a matter of strategy.
So you want to have sexual access to children, on top of not educating them? Yeah, that’s a winning strategy for sure.
As evidenced by historical man/girl and man/boy relationships, indoctrination is not required.
The continued smearing of pedophiles and malicious assumptions about their relationships reveals your own strategy, not mine.
Think of it this way Zen- you’re just reinforcing the “innocent child” motif- that image. In a way that’s going to be off-putting to people, when they know how you mean it. And no, you cannot plead that it’s just the same as admiring a nice painting- you have a sexual component to it that the average person finds abhorrent, and will immediately color their perception of what you say, if they knew, and even will set off red flags in their minds if expressed too in earnest, without them knowing right off that you are attracted to children.
It’s reinforcing the same conservative puritanism that puts you in the position you’re in.
It’s in coming to grips with the messiness of life- in coming to grips with the sexuality of children- that they’re not these precious, pure, innocent little objects for us to lavish our “pure” love and adoration on- but living creatures with the same instincts and drives that have been deemed by conservatives as “base” and “animal”- that we will start to realize a better paradigm for sexuality and child development- regardless of what that ends up being and where it takes us.
I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of this. There is obviously a basal and visceral sexual component to my feelings as well as a higher aesthetic and even romantic feeling.
I do want to challenge the view in broader society that attraction to children is a bad thing, but I don’t personally think “kink” and “promiscuity” is the best way forward.
It’s going to be viewed by opponents as kind and promiscuity regardless, is my point.
I guess this depends on where you’re looking. There’s nothing cheap about the poems and essays I’ve seen in Alice Lovers Magazine, nor those posted by Katie Cuddles on FreeSpeechTube.
That being said, Zen does have a point in this- the more you can normalize yourself – “I’m just like you, just a little different” – that does go a long way, and does require at least some level of appeasement to the sensibilities of people who could be persuaded away from the conservative position to an at least moderate one, if not exactly a supportive one. The unapologetic radical who doesn’t make the slightest effort to even meet people halfway on their delicate sensibilities has their place, but it can’t be the in the main.
Queer people have to fight for marriage equality- not the total eradication of marriage and undoing of monogamous norms (no matter how much it would be better for us and how wrong the current paradigm is). There is an order to things, and only so much distance people are willing to travel, collectively, in one sitting. Society can only handle so much change in one go. Only so much radicalism.
I think we need to adopt a middle position here. On the one hand the idea of absolute objectivity makes no sense, in my view. As Wittgenstein put it, ‘no state of affairs has the coercive power of an absolute judge’. There is no ‘view from nowhere’, no perspective on things which doesn’t carry an influence deriving from the subjectivity of the believer. But though there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, ideas and arguments can be more or less objective, depending on how little or how much they reflect the individual biases of the person from whom they originate. An advantage in trying to be more objective in our arguments is that they are then likely to find favour with a wider audience.
I can’t abide the association of paedophilia with fetishism.
I mean, most people would place the former in the category of the latter. How do would you go about disassociating the two in the mind of the general public?
I would argue that preferred age is not enough to qualify as a fetish. If that were the case then the 20 year old who doesn’t want to date someone in their 60’s could be accused of having a fetish for younger people. Basically almost everyone would be a fetishist. It is absolutely absurd and the only way to make it seem less so is by applying the logic discriminately based on the age of the desirer rather than what is being desired which isn’t how fetishism is normally defined.
I mean, whether you like it or not, pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia (aka, fetish, in lay terms) in the DSM-V.
The meaning of ‘fetish’ is quite precise: an object imbued with psychological or spiritual significance.
The meaning of ‘paraphilia’ is, at best: a vague construct disguised as a category; variously presented as either a disturbance of sexual behaviour, of erotic impulse or of gender identity; hinging, alternately, on a subject’s relation to another object or on their relation to their own self. Sometimes it’s a dog’s breakfast, sometimes it’s dinner.
I don’t see how one can possibly be an alias for the other.
Given the general public’s resistance to logic and evidence, I wouldn’t attempt to raise consciousness to this level in the sexual domain. In the mind of the public, sex can only ever be an excuse for salacious tittering or a provocation to fatuous moral grandstanding, never a topic for serious inquiry or deliberation.
In my own mind, I’d answer your question with more questions:
How would you disassociate:
1) hetero/homo-sexuality from fetishism?
2) children (and humans beings in general) from:
parts thereof?other species?shoes, rubber, leather, urine, and any other inanimate or insentient object or substance?
I’m only concerned with that insofar as it is used to slander people and deny rights, existence, and normalization. I don’t think fetishes need to be fetishized or punished or viewed with innate suspicion either.Simple- they are people, and people of the same intelligent species with whom we can openly communicate. As Seuss would say “A person’s a person, no matter how small”. To be sure, I am not one of these people who think animals should be elevated to the status of human or person. And I don’t think we should treat children as animals either, as we do in their overly-dependent nominal status. It’s why I do not approve of people referring to their pets as “fur babies”. They’re not babies, they’re not your children, and in the event of a fire, I do not want firemen prioritizing your pets over or equal to human beings.
Dear perplexed, there’s something wrong there. A human infant is highly dependent not because it is ‘treated as animal’ but because it is treated as anything but, requiring goodness knows how much more close attention and massive amounts of nuturing before being ‘set free in the wild to fend for itself’! Also, no matter how much we “elevate” (= domesticate?) our animal friends (i think that’s rather wonderful tbh), they can never ever be confused with humans simply because they do not possess the sign, they do not possess language, aka the capacity to generate an entire parallel universe consisting solely of meaning. A dog on the other hand might well be charged with ‘fetishism’, having zeroed in on that chewy slipper for far too long now,
This notion kind of flows into a line I thought I keep having about MAPs in general. There is this general fixation of normalizing and decriminalizing sexual interactions between minors and non-minors, which is all well and good.
Where MAPs currently are in society, they can’t even live a normal life out in the open without having to fear being harassed, canceled or worse, at least in the Western world and every nation that has been indoctrinated by them on this subject thanks to the UN.
Yes, it’s true that child sex(abuse) is the linchpin of the fears instilled into the masses, and that if you’d manage to knock over that domino, every other issue would evaporate in relatively short order.
But that’s a task which is also very difficult to achieve, and by focusing on it so much, the public image of the MAP as some sex crazed individual only out to get his rocks with a kid is given plenty of fuel for misinterpretation.
A MAP isn’t allowed to have a platonic relationship with a minor, they aren’t allowed to be near one, talk or even think about them. None of these norms are being challenged, despite them supposedly being large aspects of what constitutes minor attraction.
There is a huge difference between being friends with a kid and enjoying their presence as an open MAP versus one who is in the closet about it. He might not feel different (compartmentalizing away feelings of fear), but it is a big deal to society. There have been plenty of articles written by MAPs who talked about their friendship with kids, but all tend to wither away in archives or pedophile magazines available for download on the edges of the clearnet where no average Joe would ever be exposed to them. These stories did just as much for me to become a supporter of the MAP issue, as did the scientific evidence about minor-adult sex. In a way, they made me start sympathizing with you on an emotional level, to the point where I’m getting actually angry seeing the masses treat you like a societal punching bag. That’s something sexological studies supporting your points of view just can’t do.
tl;dr – I think not highlighting the nonsexual aspects of a MAP’s interest, which are just as taboo and almost as dangerous to engage in, is a huge missed opportunity by the movement, and should be focused on getting exposed to the hating masses just as much as scientific arguments.
Densetsu, I think it’s important, both for public perceptions and for a healthy outlook, to not narrow the MAP issue to simply one of “sex”. You are quite right to say that friendship and sharing a child’s company are essential goals for a MAP, albeit not ones that can really be actualised in today’s horrible environment.
“CSA” is used as a nuclear weapon to totally uproot and destroy any progress on a true friendship between adults and children. There is an attitude of grossly elevated suspicion, deep anxiety, and hostility. This situation can’t logically last as it is so out of whack with secular (i.e. centuries long) civilisational norms, but MAPs have the ill fortune to be born in the current environment, which must only be a blip in world history. The situation will improve, but a concatenation of very complex factors have led to this impasse.
One key plank must be the media and politicians, and if things improve there we may begin to see a thaw.