Heretics will be pleased to learn that today’s guest blog makes not a single mention of Prince Harry. We have heard quite enough about his frost-bitten todger, thank you very much, and his presumably much hotter teenage (but legal) sexual debut with “an older woman”, to say nothing of all his entitled whinging. But this will not be a royalty-free zone because there is the important matter of Harry’s even more controversial Uncle Andrew to discuss. “Prue”, well known as an erudite commentator here and creator of superb Newgon pages, takes up the challenge below in their second guest blog. Billed as a review of a Channel 4 TV show, they have actually given us something much more, by anchoring thoughts about the programme itself in a much deeper and broader cultural setting – and by questioning the entire satirical premise that “Randy Andy” should be seen as a figure of fun.
PRINCE ANDREW: THE MUSICAL – A REVIEW
Our ears have been bent inescapably in recent years by media monsterings of Jeffrey Epstein as a depraved sex offender. Previously lauded as a major philanthropist who donated millions towards the advancement of education and cutting-edge science, even this good work has been trashed. Worst of all, we are led to believe, Epstein was just the tip of the iceberg of an imagined paedophilic elite. See here, here, and here, among countless stories.
Epstein was a high school maths teacher turned wealthy financier, who would become known for alleged sexual experiences during his time living as a socialite with his friend and likely occasional sexual/romantic partner Ghislaine Maxwell, with the pair amassing an extensive list of influential connections. Epstein and Maxwell were eventually indicted (and Maxwell convicted) for conspiring to bring young women, some of them post-pubescent minors “as young as 14”, to Jeffrey for sexual purposes. This allegedly involved crossing borders (i.e. sex trafficking), including flying to at least one of two private islands Epstein owned in the Caribbean (the U.S. virgin islands). In 2008, Epstein was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and procuring a minor for prostitution, and like most people accused of sexual offences in the U.S. (Taylor, 2018) he did not stand trial but accepted a plea bargain, serving 13 months in custody with work release.
In 2019, Epstein was again arrested but died in custody, leaving the online world endlessly speculating on whether his suicide by hanging was in fact a cover-up killing to silence him from exposing the true extent of the “paedophilic elite”. Speculative and lending itself to conspiracy theory, “Epstein didn’t kill himself” became a popular joke online.
However, as Lady Colin Campbell explained to the horror of self-identified left-wing Novara Media reporters, Epstein has been incorrectly dubbed a paedophile in media. If anything, Epstein’s alleged behaviour indicates he was an “ephebophile”, predominantly attracted to teenagers around the typical legal age of consent in the United States (18 years) and not to people before puberty (i.e. a paedophile). Or, as ex-president Donald Trump, who had been among Epstein’s friends, put it: Jeffrey “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side”.
Epstein remains big news, but so are his friends, including the subject of Prince Andrew: The Musical, broadcast on Channel 4 late last month and billed as a “hilarious, all-singing, all-dancing reimagining of the Duke of York’s very public fall from grace”. Andrew was accused of having sex with Virginia Giuffre when she was 17, after being brought (“trafficked”) to Andrew by Jeffrey Epstein. The ensuing media firestorm saw Andrew denying any wrongdoing and withdrawing from public roles in May 2020, with many of his military/royal titles being removed by the late Queen Elizabeth II in January 2022. Giuffre had filed a civil lawsuit over sexual assault in the State of New York, which was settled out of court in February 2022 for what is speculated to be a very large sum.
After seeing the trailer for this musical – a trailer which made sure to make explicit mention that Andrew was “friends with a paedophile!” – I expected that the show would have at least one relevant scene of interest. I was naive. Rather than one, it had many. It had so many that it became clear the whole musical was just an excuse to attack the prince as a lech – “Randy Andy” as he is repeatedly called. The very first scene of the musical begins by re-enacting and splicing clips from the infamous BBC Newsnight interview, where Andrew stated that he didn’t regret his friendship with the dreaded “paedophile” Jeffrey Epstein.
The spectre of this interview and Andrew’s friendship with Epstein remains constant in the musical. Their association makes up the cornerstone of three scenes, placed deliberately at the start, middle, and end. Towards the end we even see Prince Charles watching the BBC interview when Andrew is asked if he regrets his friendship. Charles implores the screen in frustration, “You have one fucking job… just say yes!” When Andrew does not, we the audience are treated to the final musical number “You’ll Always Need an Andrew”, conveying an up-beat, cynical message that the only reason someone like him is kept around is to make the other royals look good by comparison.
To me, this interview of Andrew was not the “car crash” it has since been dubbed. Although, I will admit the humour in Andrew defending his continued relationship with Epstein after his prison sentence via his “tendency to be too honourable”, something the musical picks up on by framing Andrew as conceited: “the favourite son of the sovereign queen in whose radiance we are all basking”. It is, however, easy for me to imagine that if you had visited and stayed with a good friend multiple times over multiple years, then no matter if someone is arrested, scandalised and/or unpopular, you wouldn’t regret your entire friendship. To me, Andrew answered the explicit question, missing the subtext: Do you regret being friends with a paedophile? The expected answer, unfortunately for the lonely, afraid, suicidal MAPs, the distressed, confused MAP children growing up who may see this programme and others like it, is “yes”.
Here, the British general public are seeing what historian Rachel Hope Cleves called the 21st century figure of the “monstrous paedophile” (Cleves, Unspeakable 2020, p. 278; reviewed here). The public hears this question and wonders why Andrew doesn’t distance himself from the “monster figure” that Epstein has become. The need for the interview itself, the fact that “paedophile” was even uttered, and the negative response to the interview – all this reflects both a lack of basic education on MAP issues, and suggests that much of the public have never met an “out” paedophile (see reactions to MAPs coming out in Walker 2021, reviewed here). The general public have no human face/stakes to prompt the realisation that, as Cleves herself bravely stated in response to commentaries on her work (10 May, 2022), “paedophiles are not monsters”. Here, Andrew was living in reality: he was thinking of his friend.
Overall, the show does indeed manage to be hilarious, as claimed. It makes fun of the big moments of Andrew’s life: his military service, his marriage and divorce, his service as a trade envoy and his fall from grace over his association with Epstein. Andrew and Charles are mocked for their suspect monetary deals, associations with dictators, and in Andrew’s case, his use of taxpayer money to fly on private jets, going from “Randy Andy” to “Air-miles Andy” and back again. There’s an interesting presentation of Andrew asserting his desire to fight the Virginia Giuffre case against him in court, before being undercut by Prince Charles who settles the case out of court against Andrew’s will.
While I like the musical overall, I dislike how alleged minor-attraction is framed as morally bankrupt, and how the show draws its cultural force from repeated exploits of the interconnected Epstein and Andrew scandals, with the rest of Andrew’s life far less prominent. These scandals easily fulfil academically accepted criteria for “moral panic,” and one line in the musical subtly suggests this view, saying to Andrew that “no one wants to lower the tone…no one wants to hear what you say”. To me, the worst problem is how the show, likely unintentionally, plays into the largely politically/culturally right-wing elite “paedophile”/“gay groomer” hysteria/conspiracy theory which has spread with massive popularity online in recent years. There is a long history of accusations of child abuse within anti-Semitic propaganda (see, for example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Poisonous Mushroom), and Epstein’s popularity comes off the back of anti-MAP and veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which have arguably resurrected the satanic panic of the 1980s (see Victor, 1998; Breland, 2019) in a new guise. Epstein’s case provided a perception of legitimacy to “elite pedophile” conspiracy theories, especially QAnon, which had gained popularity by piggybacking on the otherwise innocuous (now banned) Twitter hashtag #SaveTheChildren. On how the Right use dog whistles and slight-of-hand, belief and conspiratorial thinking to radicalise its followers, I highly recommend Innuendo Studio’s YouTube series “The Alt-Right Playbook”, and, for this discussion, the dissection of QAnon by youtuber Folding Ideas, who compares flat-earth theorists to QAnon believers. Starting from Part 2, Folding Ideas explains QAnon as follows:
QAnon is a fascist Biblical esoteric apocalypse cult that believes an anonymous agent known only as Q is leaking sensitive, “above top secret” information to “patriots”, revealing that the supposed political and cultural opponents of Donald J. Trump – the so-called “Deep State” and “Hollywood elite” – are the minions of “the Cabal”; literal Satan-worshipping paedophiles who kidnap, traffic, molest and terrorise children in order to produce and harvest Adrenochrome, a by-product of the body producing Adrenaline, which they use to get high during the ritual worship of their lord who is, again, Satan. A constructed enemy so cartoonishly evil that it justifies discarding basically all human rights in order to turn basically any opposition to Trump into a crime, in a sweeping authoritarian purge of undesirables and political opponents called “The Storm”.
The Storm is sometimes referred to as “draining the swamp”, with “Hollywood elites” representing a dog whistle for the Jewish elite via the most infamous scandals of Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, and of course, Jeffrey Epstein, who all coincidentally have Jewish-sounding names. Anti-Semitism is a bannable offence online, so it must be hidden on most popular platforms through coded messaging which can appear innocuous to people who merely think they want to #SaveTheChildren. Because the hysteria around Epstein and the Jewish cabal thrives, the hysteria around “elites” like Prince Andrew thrives. Interconnected, Epstein and Andrew have become part of a seemingly endless feedback loop which radicalises otherwise apolitical “ordinary” people to believe they are enacting morally just violence against some component of the “paedophilic elite”. Transgender individuals are particularly scapegoated in connection with MAPs online (see libsoftiktok), as recently seen in the “Club Q” shooting which saw five deaths in response to an advertisement for an “all ages” drag event. Other significant events are the Pizzagate conspiracy (and shooting), and the storming of the U.S. Capitol building by Trump-QAnon supporters on 6 January, 2021. The latter, in which five people died, saw protestors who expressed their intent to publicly execute Trump’s political opponents (“hang Mike Pence”).
The musical addresses serious issues – economic and social class, divorce, and taboo sex. I have no sympathy for monarchy or royalty, and in a just world, either everyone would have a standard of living equivalent to royalty, or the royals would have their large estates used as social/council housing. Nevertheless, the musical successfully makes comedy out of Andrew’s privileged life, with one of the funniest things being the sense of drama and exaggeration throughout what is likely Andrew’s very mundane, conventional life. Appealing to “consensus morality” (Rind, 2002) indicative of moral panic, Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey is played-up, and not his alleged sex with Virginia Giuffre. Why is that? The answer is simple: because no one in their right mind cares if you have mutually willing sex with a 17-year-old. In England, their alleged sex would not be illegal, and I can comfortably assert that there is a gap on this issue between the silent majority in this country – at least a generational gap – versus the bourgeois media.
In February last year, I happened to be at an event frequented by my former college teachers, who I could now speak freely with as equals without the censorious pressure to maintain a rigid teacher-student gap. Prince Andrew was the hot topic. I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw that the general consensus was “Well he probably did do it, but I can’t see why it’s such a big issue.” The obvious points about Giuffre having ulterior (financial) motives, along with the offshoot of celebrity and clout to be gained, both goals which have now been fulfilled, were raised and agreed with. What was the commonality here? These people were all middle-class, well-educated and over the age of 40. They were people who did not have a large social media presence or jobs like online streaming, which rely on survival in hotly contested online spaces prone to in-fighting. However, many of them were teachers or professional artists. They had a lot to lose, and they wouldn’t take the risk of arguing in the comments section, writing articles or otherwise drawing attention to themselves just to point out what everyone else is thinking. Experiences like these are common in my life, and confirm to me that the queer desires of adolescents and teenagers are a rapidly changing silent majority issue. Prince Andrew: The Musical doesn’t give us the details, especially not the details of Giuffre’s alleged sexual experience with Andrew, because the details make it harder to not feel conflicted. To have any cultural weight, to appeal to dominant sentiment, the musical has to frame Andrew as a suspect and sex obsessed “Randy Andy” friend to paedophiles from the start; someone who brought a “sexual predator” and a “vile sexual abuser” into the Palace.
The recently deceased sociologist Ken Plummer (1946-2022), in his earliest published piece on paedophilia, concluded in 1979 that “Paedophilia is a sensitive issue, especially at present. It is capable of evoking the most extreme and violent reactions amongst ‘ordinary’ and sincere people.” In researching this piece, I discovered a relevant video, “Lawrence Krauss, Jeffrey Epstein, and Firing Your Heroes into the Sun”, by the science youtuber Rebecca Watson who self-describes as “founder of the Skepchick Network, a collection of sites focused on science and critical thinking”. The video discusses the popular scientist and public intellectual Lawrence Krauss, who runs his own YouTube channel and who was a personal friend to Epstein.
In an email exchange between Watson and Krauss, he is quoted as saying:
Based on my direct experience with Jeffrey, which is all I can base my assessment on, he is a thoughtful, kind, considerate man who is generous to his friends, and all of the women I have known who have been associated with Jeffrey speak glowingly in the same words..
…Jeffrey apparently paid for massages with sex… I believe him when he told me he had no idea the girls were underage, and I doubt that people normally are asked for or present a driver’s licence under such circumstances… Moreover, I also believe that Jeffrey is an easy target for those who want to take advantage of him… Moreover, I can say with great honesty that Jeffrey’s time in prison led him to seriously examine his life in very positive ways and I don’t believe in blanket condemnations of people. He served time for something that was determined was inappropriate. I honestly don’t know who was the victim in this case. Probably everyone was a victim, with no happy resolution or consequences of these activities. I fully expect that these masseuses knew what they were doing, and were not swayed to do anything with Jeffrey that they were not already doing. That is not to approve of the whole behaviour, but lots of people I know and like have behaviour I don’t entirely approve of. I know it is not politically correct to say that, because in general this is a very sensitive issue and all other things being equal one should take the side of the young women. But all things are not equal in this case, from my point of view. It is a judgement call, and I will not turn my back on a good friend so easily.
Watson, despite claiming to be a sceptical science buff, loses all scepticism in her video. She condemns Krauss in incendiary, moralistic language, and seems unable to see past the emotive labels of “rape”, “paedophile”, and “sex offender” assigned to Krauss’s now deceased friend, declaring that “no paedophile has ever, or will ever, be my hero”. If, as Plummer stated in the 1970s, “paedophilia” could make ordinary people ally with the politically right-wing National Front thugs of his day, its spectre evidently has the power to do the same if not more today.
The show left me feeling that MAPs have an uphill struggle if they seek social acceptance. Arguably, last year has seen many watershed moments for the highly marginalised minor-attracted (MAP) community, with MAP-discourse becoming increasingly mainstream in the Allyn Walker controversy among other scandals. Newgon identifies 13 examples in 2022 alone. There is a widespread culture of risk and fear around children and their expansive “childhoods”, which now extend to age 18, with teenagers reportedly less rebellious than in the past (Fisher, 2022), education lasting longer and longer, and financial autonomy/independence being attained later in life, if ever. The pendulum appears to me, for the moment, to be swinging towards increased tension around age and gender non-conformity, especially around children’s queer desires and their earlier access to technology.
Liberals and leftists will one-day have to confront age as an axis of oppression with the same understanding and dedication given to gender non-conformity, lest they wind up associated with MAPs as “trans groomers” versus MAPs as human beings (Vaerwaeter, 2022), as the cultural right-wing has been very successfully attempting to do via popular social media accounts such as libsoftiktok. For now, the violence we have seen will likely continue. While Prince Andrew: The Musical is amusing and perhaps uncontroversial for some, for those “in-the-know” who believe in some shade of the “paedophilic elite”, the show will only enable their radicalisation and justify their beliefs. Just as censorship always has effects beyond its stated aims (Mader and Hekma, 2013), a TV satire such as this can have effects beyond making us all laugh. It perpetuates the dehumanisation of alleged MAPs as “predators”, something MAPs themselves may see as normal and ordinary as they, like other sexual minority groups, internalise society’s negative stereotypes (termed “internalised paedonegativity” in Elchuck et al. 2021). It is, to me, a bad sign that “paedophile” is used as a term of abuse and dehumanisation on a national television programme, enabling the ridicule of a royal family member’s entire life, now filtered through a MAP-phobic lens.
If you want to see social acceptance, to express yourself openly, to build a world where young people have far greater autonomy and freedom along with a freer economic and sexual climate for everyone, then hate-speech media will need to be challenged, counterbalanced and overcome by positive media representation. In the ongoing war of adjacency, you can be part of that change.
Unrelated to the article, but I wonder whether I can put this here.
A statistician friend of mine is interested in hearing more about the effects on child molestation rates of the banning of CP in Japan in 2014. I have heard that child molestation rates rose after this ‘outlet’ was proscribed by law. As a statistician, he is most interested in hard science and whether or not any change can be regarded as statistically significant. So two questions: 1) What is the name of the 2014 Act? (I can only find references to it as the ‘bill’ and the ‘Act’.) 2) Does anyone know of any scientific paper on the effects?
I don’t know whether Japan has been studied in the light of the 2014 change in the law, but the correlates of child (and other) porn law changes in several countries, including Japan, are reported in a number of studies. Milton Diamond has been a central figure in this research. See here for full text PDF of a paper reviewing the issues and research before 2014:
Many thanks, Tom!
Fata, if you still have my email and would like to have further discussion about this topic I’d be interested? I can’t find your email… I still use the hatopiyo one. To be perfectly honest, I am not aware of research in English other than research prior to Diamond’s, but Diamond’s is the best of its kind out there that i am aware of, which discusses research on countries which have decriminalized pornography for a time before re-criminalizing it. The trend is always for sex crime rates to go down when de criminalized, and up when criminalized.
The explanation for why, however, is open to much debate. Is it just about how countries have at various times counted sex crimes differently? Of course, when something considered sexual is legal, it is no longer a sex crime, and if, say, your age of consent is 13, then lots of mutually willing sex can be happening that people in other countries would declare to be “rape”. If it’s just about what’s counted as sex crime, that would be a huge disappointment but also perhaps not surprising. It would take some close reading to figure out, but if yourself or your friend does discover any particularly great research on the topic, I’d be grateful if you could spotlight it to me.
Humour me here.
In having a pro-MAP opinion, I follow Ovid’s “video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor”. This translates as “I see better things and I approve, I follow worse things”, or more loosely “I know what’s right, I’m doing what’s wrong anyway”. Before you misunderstand me, this refers to a traditional morality in the spirit of St Paul’s Romans 7:15 – “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I”.
This is a critique of all modern libertinism and hedonism, including casual sex between heterosexuals. It acknowledges that the flesh often rules over the spirit, ie. we think and act against our better nature. What’s missing from modern “morality” is that there is not even any acknowledgment of this higher standard.
So putting minor attraction in the context of traditional morality: it is objectively no worse than the casual sex culture we have now, and this would be apparent were not the masses blinded by deliberate disinformation and irrationalism. We make concessions to the flesh, because we are body and soul, but it is not our ideal or our chief aim.
I feel that sexuality is important, but it is only one, lower, aspect of life. All the whiny types like Stephen Fry love to glorify homosexuality and say “your sexuality is the deepest part of you” but this is merely a hedonistic relativism. In truth sexuality is of course not the most important thing, it is a lower order concern, but there is no rational reason, aside from historical contingency and deliberate policies of suppression, why minor attraction should not be a valid sexuality, and indeed in line with traditional morality.
Just thought I’d offer a unique take.
Been up to far too much writing again :p
Newgon wiki has become Prue wiki lol
[I will, at some point, link her case in other Newgon pages as it’s important in relation to ‘Grooming gang’ claims…]
My God, you’re going like a runaway train! Do hope you’re not going to come off the rails! 🙂
As you may be aware, Wikipedia has a separate article on every single child sex scare that made the news. About 40 in the UK alone.
I’ve basically explained (to another editor) that this is all institutional sex abuse hysteria, and needn’t be approached in such an obsessive manner. By institutional, I mean large scale sex abuse controversies created by institutions such as schools, sports clubs, close-knit ethnic communities, or enabled by institutions – public agencies trawling, or employing rogue interviewers/medical examiners.
So I see an avenue here; to summarize all of this hysteria, along with the satanic nonsense and suspicious women with prodding fingers, into a single concise article. Perhaps that article can explain the nature of the “abuse” in each major case (often hidden from the media – see Vanessa George), the unique motives for exposing it, and the outcomes, including the witnesses. Common and not-so common interview and investigation techniques would need to be covered as well – something Wikipedia, driven by the tiresome concept of repeating what is “notable” fails to do in a critical manner.
I like the strategic thinking here. Just hope you don’t suffer burn-out from working too hard. Work/life balance, and all that.
Besides its obvious merits, there is a big shortcoming associated with Newgon: they provide no e-mail address or other ways to contact the organization. This means that people that have questions to ask or corrections to make are prevented from doing so.
Yes, I suppose it’s a bit like joining the British secret services in the old days. You could not apply to become the next James Bond, you had to wait to be asked.
In those days, though, it helped to “move in the right circles”. Well, so far as recruitment to active work with Newgon is concerned, it is clear that Heretic TOC is one of the “right circles”. One only has to observe the fact that Prue posts a lot here and also creates lots of Newgon pages to see that this is so. If you are interested, SB, you might find it worthwhile to have a word with Prue.
The chatroom and my email email@example.com are both visible on the homepage. Hope this helps.
Are they? Sorry, I must have forgotten that. Do many people go to the Homepage in search of this information though? I’d have thought there is a case for having the “getting involved” link of every page.
I have added a “chat” link in the sidebar, which shows on every page.
>I have added a “chat” link in the sidebar, which shows on every page.
Good. Clicking on it, I see there is a way to begin the process of getting involved. There is also this:
>Note: Since recently, an introduction is required to gain access to all rooms.
This, or something like it, was perhaps something I had at the back of my mind in my earlier and rather misleading post.
This is a really, really depressing thing that appeared on Unherd this week.
Not only the article itself (in which we are asked to believe that judges are currently handing out warrants to barge into people’s homes willy-nilly) but the thoroughly dismal comments from various members of Unherd’s regular (cough) intelligentsia, full of the usual half-baked evo-psych babble about being “wired” in such and such a way, and NOTHING about the immemorial power of interdiction to generate desire, and it’s direct relation to the hugely erotc charge thus packed by the figure of any “innocent child. Incredibly, there is even concern expressed for the officials who must “scrutinize” the seized imagery. There is not even a flicker of humour anywhere to be found about these obviously now burgeoning British, sorry Pedoph Isles…
The crime of CSAM, which will see a “major incident” police unit round at your house, is unique in that the harms are metaphysically transferred from an old picture or moving image to become your direct responsibility, ie. you are a perpetrator on an equal footing to the abuser, or in the case of self-abuse, the “split personality” of the underage subject. I’m withholding judgement on the suitability of society’s heavy proscription of CSAM, I’m just saying the harms are calculated in a strange way.
Hold on ZT, can you explain that bit about ‘self-abuse”? You’re telling us that these CSAM goons have a category whereby any reprographic certification/image of a self-pleasuring small person is said to reveal the product of “split personality”? Or what? You’re not clear at all there!
I think we should (attempt to) discuss tbis notion of “withholding judgement”. Does it mean you have a judgement but prefer not to pronounce it, or that you are incapable of deciding one way or another? Or perhaps you are waiting for another to venture their take (going first) before agreeing or disagreeing?
My own feeling is that it is impossible to know the conditions under which any recording of RL children engaged sexually is made. The authorities instantly and reflexively smother all possibilty of the truth in hyperbole, oozing words like “horrific” and “devastating” left right & centre. But ny judgement as such is that, for any society to be a truly healthy one, real taboos need to be periodically given the chance to be lifted. As indeed was done on a formal/ritual basis in years long past
Do you believe the figures in that Unherd piece, said in it to come from a single source, some sort of UK Council of BigWig Cops? That they really are content to destroy lives on that scale just to possess the world’s largest collection of CP?
Your third paragraph makes a lot of sense: it’s rational, and in no way unreasonable.
I said “split personality” partly through irony, as in the person purportedly does harm to themselves, so there must be a conflicted psyche. Also “self-abuse” is a very old term for masturbation, still current in strict religious contexts, so it’s quite funny/ironic that an under eighteen is committing self-abuse almost as a legal definition of the act.
I withhold judgement because I don’t wish to be so at odds with society. I merely refer to your excellent third paragraph where you say the authorities “smother all possibility of the truth in hyperbole” which is of course a sign of weakness and shaky ground, because “the truth” as such would be self-evident and speak for itself.
As for destroying lives on a large scale, yes that’s precisely what it is, and because of the “voodoo” of attaching abuser status to someone looking at an old picture or moving image, it is intensely stigmatised. Yet this is of course out of all proportion with the detached passivity of the act of consuming any media. So it’s ultimately gross hypocrisy and it ends up condemning some fairly average, non-descript, otherwise perfectly moral family guy. So yes, it’s sad that this should be a deliberate policy of government. But the whole business is repressive and unpleasant, and crucifying a passive consumer of old media doesn’t safeguard an abused child, of course – it merely destroys another life.
But there’s so much vehemence and venom attached to CSAM, and when generative AI goes mainstream it will become crystal clear that the aim is not to safeguard a child, but rather to ban a particular category of thinking, for the purposes of greater government control over the population.
I have but ONE question for you now ZT. WHY do these very words of yours not also appear in the comments section of aforesaid article at Unherd?
Haha, simply because this is a safe forum and Unherd is the general public, therefore likely to elicit a deeply hostile response.
See this is what i (still) fail to quite ‘get’, ZT. Unherd is not Twitter. The commentariat thereupon is comprised of fellows who obviously pride themselves on being rational creatures, caoable of tackling any “issue” with intelligence, for is this not so? Again you and i – and by extension i would fervently hope the whole of TOC’s readership – find ourselves confronting this whole problem of ‘securing ourselves in safe havens” vs activism. Vs whatever version of “coming out” is available to MAPs. Are we to remain tucked away safely in such fora where nobody can ever hear our voices, fondly cultivating our belief that ‘the culture’ will ultimately achieve all our most vital goals somehow “anyway” someday?
We’ve ‘been here before’, i know. But so long as i do not recall the substance of your, well shall we say previously stated rationale – assuming therefore its gist didn’t penetrate very far – then i am compelled to press the issue. You have consistently advanced the notion that the emerging online expression of pre-pubescent sexuality is by now unstoppable.
But what have you ever said about emergent RL paedos?
Again, the worst one can ever expect from Unherd is to be ignored…downvoted even (..the horror, the horror).
Are we MAPs to continue opting for having no real active public voice at all, because we’ve already surrendered our souls wholesale to the dictates of Safetyism?
The thing is, I have a life quite apart from my sexuality, the latter being a private and personal thing. I’m not a political activist and I don’t wish to court public hostility by expressing pro-MAP views, even if many of those views are ethical, rational and grounded in sound argument.
Because the end result is just an outburst of irrationality from the other side, ad hominem attacks, and vicious hate. One can’t be surprised about this as it has practically been drilled into the psyche of the common man that the “paedophile menace” is the most disgusting, reprehensible and alarming issue of our times, which of course the media plentifully stoked and sowed into hearts and minds especially at the turn of the century.
With an irrational hostility so firmly implanted, the last thing I want to do is be the object of attacks. As such I will talk openly about MAP issues here but nowhere else. That is just a policy of safety and common sense. I repeat, I am not an activist, I am just a regular man who has MAP inclinations and sympathies, but who has plenty of other interests and concerns quite apart from this topic.
I don’t know anything about Unherd, but what’s it’s reach like? Is it sizable enough that cultivating a MAP presence would be worth the time and energy to reach a wider audience? If we have the openness of HTOC on one extreme and the censorship of Reddit, YouTube, etc… on the other, where does Unherd fall?
Seems we either freely say what we want to a small crowd, or are shadowbanned/deleted (or worse) where the ears most in need of hearing our voices are.
>I don’t know anything about Unherd
Try reading it for a while. You might discover why a lot of people, including me, feel it is an important presence in the media scene.
Nobody who watches an ISIS execution clip online is equated to being a terrorist, but somehow watching IIOCPSAMC makes you the same as the perpetrator in the film (unless you’re a cop watching it ‘for research’, then rules don’t apply).
If somebody is enthusiastic about the violence/gore they see do they then become as morally culpable as the enactors?
“often” violent. “in some cases” a monster. But hey, let’s herd them all under the common umbrella of ‘offender’ as though it’s all the same.
So no “CP”, no “CSAM”, now we’re dealing with “IIoC? I can’t keep up with the euphemism treadmill and changing acronyms. Are IIoC and CSAM synonymous?
But remember, you’re an abnormal abomination if this increasingly popular content appeals to you, regardless of whether or not you even download!
Are you telling me that taxpayer funded pedohunters care more about persecuting MAPs than they do about how their actions will directly impact the families involved? You don’t say! Well, at least these sex fascists help safeguard Pride parades, am I right? Standup members of the community. And don’t forget about all the hypothetical children their crackdowns save! I’m sure they’ve pre-rescued millions at this point (well, not the minor MAPs who commit suicide over their sexuality, but they were never really people to begin with).
… This is absurd.
Protecting children from trauma was never the point. Exacting punishment and channeling society’s disdain for pedos in the ‘acceptable’ form of humiliation and incarceration is what the Anti’s are about, at their core, despite claims to the contrary.
Whoa! Each and every one? Even self-shot nudes constitute “abuse”? The penetration of toddlers one I get, but it doesn’t therefore follow that every other “indecent image” is of the same severity / class.
Maybe I’m missing something, but the lack of details leave me thinking this condemnation is boilerplate and we’re, as always, to default regard *all* illegal material as violation of the highest order.
What if the images weren’t of *real* children? What if AI models, trained using datasets not containing actual CP, created imaginary porn instead? But even this is too much for those disgusted by such thoughtcrime. Again, it’s not about THE CHILDREN!!1, it’s about hating a minority sexuality.
Yes, I’m sure the kids featured in the media being consumed without their knowledge are “victims” of the viewers, as long as those viewers derive sexual pleasure from looking. If they look but aren’t turned on, like a police investigator (that isn’t secretly pedo themself), then magically there is no victimization. Only when it gives you good feelings in your no-no spot is it a problem.
It’d be a shame if not all these busts involved truly “despicable” acts. But hey, video of violent baby rape, webcam pics of masturbating teenagers – they’re all equally vile, right? Go on then. Break those homes, relationships, and psyches of children!
Feeling mistreated by and ostracized from society, are you?
That must be tough.
Just want to THANK you for the tremendous vigour and sure-footedness of the above, and express the great hope (naturellement) that in some form the same words might enter into the online lives of the Unherd ‘intelligentsia’ and give those buggers something to really and truly CHEW ON.
Made pages for https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Richard_Green
2 brilliant individuals…
>2 brilliant individuals…
And two of my favourite people! More fantastic stuff from you, Prue!
Haha, I especially like Green’s down-to-earth style of writing. It’s very different compared to the jargon heavy complicated writings of Judith Butler, Deleuze and the like…
I just did another glaring omission, https://www.newgon.net/wiki/John_Money
Not sure if you ever met him, but, as you’ll know, I met someone who had, and when i was skeptical was told emphatically that Money was “totally supportive!” (of the MAPs)…
In light of Reimer, Money’s chemical castration of pedos doesn’t come as much of a shock. Did Richard Green, Money’s apologist regarding the former, also support the latter?
Did you know that Tucker Carlson of FOX News fame has in the past expressed a based take on male adolescents having sex with older women? Check it out in this hostile but informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDzp4Y8Dps
I wanted to mention about it in comment earlier, but I couldn’t provide a link to the proof. Now, such video has been found. Well done, Prue.
Glad i could be of service 🙂
Here’s another interesting thing i found: https://www.history.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/82-86.pdf
From a scholar who’s documenting historical ‘indecency’ cases https://indecentalberta.wordpress.com/
You HAVE to see this! I know you’ve reported before about false claims before which have included people linked to PIE… Well, here’s the case of Eleanor Williams.
A shocking case from Cumbria no less, where a young woman lied over a prolonged period about being beaten, raped and ‘trafficked’ by various people, including young white guys she happened to meet and, most politically overt, by an ‘Asian grooming gang’. This second claim, the UK right-wing seized on, including the popular right-wing anti-immigrant populist Tommy Robinson. Protests happened in the local town, and an Asian business owner and his partner and children were threatened, with claims leading to his arrest and both himself and a young white man attempting suicide. That young white man was Jordan Trengove, who was accused of multiple rapes and spent two months in prison.
The accuser, Eleanor Williams, has now been sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison for perverting the course of justice, after making up claims and fabricating evidence to support them. With a history of self-harm, she reportedly injured herself and took graphic photos: giving herself 2 black eyes, cutting her ear and finger, bruising her legs and posting these claims to social media with classic, emotionally manipulative language – “This is the hardest post I’m ever going to write”… She even lied in readily disprovable ways, that she had been ‘trafficked’ out of the country and then (also) beaten and raped.
I think this video is the best one as it has the most relevant footage of the major people involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Ycp5yzAjc
The channel 4 video isn’t bad either [oh and the comments section! Oooo it’s spicy!]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rXcm3Buo24
I watched the sentencing shown by Sky News and it really brought home the extent of her lying and, shockingly in the social media age, how easy it is to do for a young woman with access to cheap phones and a lot of time on her hands. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EWLJI6u9iA
It’s sad… If she were an artist, she could have channeled her fantasies into erotic sadistic stories [very common in hentai and comic art].
Yes, this is an extraordinary story that I have been aware of for a long time, through all the “justice for Ellie” campaign, with Tommy Robinson etc, and then the bizarre revelations about the extreme lengths this woman went to in order to “prove” her allegations. This is also a rare case in which the police also came up trumps by undertaking excellent detective work through which those allegations were comprehensively disproved.
This would certainly make a good and important blog theme. Great shame my time commitments lie elsewhere at the moment.
Tom, what do you think about the idea of getting a couple of readers to form a news editorial team and post a roughly 2-weekly news update to keep conversation running here?
This would be easier than relying on others to produce original content, and provide a regular anchor point for discussions. Maybe I can go on my server and ask around if you like the sound of this idea.
Great idea, Strat. By all means run with it! And thanks for taking the initiative.
I’m assembling a team of 5 or 6 to act as a kind of collaborative news-aggregation-agency. There will be a submission room on Yesmap.net’s Matrix (chat) platform, and an archive kept on Newgon.net.
From there, I will pluck stories and comments, and will be able to upload them in a post on here every 2-3 weeks, or more immediately in the case of an exceptional story. I’ll look and see if there is anyone within my team willing to edit the WordPress draft with me.
Sounds very promising!
2 links of interest:
1st one relevant to the blog post: https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/epstein-accuser-claims-virginia-giuffre-performed-oral-sex-on-her/
2nd one: https://www.gogreenva.org/which-schools-are-teaching-about-minor-attracted-persons-movement/
As soon as I read this I “realized” Oh was just another grifter trying to cash in on pedohysteria.
Refer to the child as a minor-attracted person? I’m guessing this is a typo? Also, am I the only one who has never heard the term “telecommunicatiiophilia” before?
Also, I love the Twitter screenshot they have of “the-recovering-pedo” whose username is @depressed_pedo. I wonder if they’re depressed because of the futile effort to repress their sexuality? Nah, couldn’t be…
Another “am I reading this properly?” moment. Teleiophilia recognized as a brain disorder? Mental disorder? Crime??? By who? Certainly not the mainstream, where even legal age gaps are seen as ‘disturbing’ by all too many people. I mean, when *I* encounter an individual who lacks appreciation for the sexual beauty of LG’s or ‘age-inappropriate’ others I feel sorry for their debilitating impairment, and pray that one day their profound disability will be overcome, but I think most folk consider “adult love” the most, if not only, acceptable expression of lust.
I have to be missing something here.
>I have to be missing something here.
You are not missing anything. I have just had a look at the link, where it says this:
This is utter drivel. The writer has no idea. Teleiophilia simply means attraction to adults. It is a term coined by researchers (specifically Ray Blanchard) to distinguish this type of age (or stage of body development) attraction from other age categories of attraction, including paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. Ordinary heterosexual attraction between man and woman is teleiophilic! To call this a brain disorder seems somewhat eccentric!
I am pretty sure this is an AI-generated article.
You see, AI is getting so good these days, it can correctly tell us that Teleiophilia is a disorder of the mind.
> it can correctly tell us that Teleiophilia is a disorder of the mind.
LOL! Good to see you have a sense of humour Strat! 🙂
Chapter 5, “Tabloids and Tiaras: The JonBenét Ramsey Murder and ‘Reality’ TV (pp. 143–182), focuses on child beauty pageants, including original data collection on participants and longer-term impacts based on participant observation and extensive interviews. Documentary and reality television show treatments are also covered and analyzed here. Earlier chapters (especially 1 and 2) cover the early history of child pageants in America.
Book available on libgen: https://library.lol/main/484372604E1ED94C22A9540FDFAFEC05
According to the author in perhaps an accurate if shameless plug for their book, the 2020 book linked is “The most comprehensive treatment of child beauty pageants—including their history, current structure, and long-term impacts on participants”. Quote from: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-0132.xml#obo-9780199791231-0132-bibItem-0002
[I have near zero interest in ‘child beauty pageants’ and consider the outrage against them both performative and as uninteresting as I’d find the pageant. I do, however, accept that such events might give kids a boost in terms of feeling accepted, beautiful, even sexy – in short, good for their self-esteem. A bit like how Jacob Breslow reads / imagines himself in the place of drag kids, confident in their queerness and accepted in a space which facilitates self-expression. Of course, beauty pageants could also be beset by mixed feelings and negative feelings…]
These people will be a bit more obscure, but an Indian MAP spotlighted 4 cases of historical intergen relationships from India, and so I very quickly (under 1 hour for each) made pages for all of them. Now we at least have a few Indian figures in addition to Gandhi: https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Category:People:_Indian
Maybe in years to come we’ll have people calling to “de-colonize” MAP studies? :p
Great care needed in the interpretation of these pages. They are mainly about preteen and early teen girls getting married to a much older husband. But these would almost certainly have been arranged marriages by the parents on both sides, not a matter of MAP preference. Nor did co-habitation and consummation necessarily take place in the preteen years.
Made this possibly far too detailed page and took far too long reading up on his life (don’t regret it though; fascinating!)
Was shocked (and happy) to see how much hitherto obscure info there was on Dowson: a fascinating figure for MAPs to look into.
Great poetry about childhood and seizing the moment, but a sad life in many respects. Raised in a family racked by what we’d now call mental illness, Dowson seems to have been deeply troubled all his life, and found respite chiefly in the company of female children, who he adored and venerated as superior to adults.
Truly, whoever runs Agapeta (the poster who goes by ‘Christian’ here, I believe) is a Saint. Amazing.
>”They are not long, the days of wine and roses”
Many for whom this line is familiar will be unaware it is from Dowson. Nor will they have any idea he was a friend of Oscar Wilde.
This is a great page, and not too detailed at all.
I would question (just as a matter of general scepticism, not knowledge) that he reserved his lust for adult prostitutes (why would he be interested? what is the evidence? maybe Christian knows) but the whole page is well worth reading and noting.
Yes, it is me: clicking on my name leads to the blog.
I am proud to have inspired your article, which summarises several of my articles in Agapeta and one in Pigtails in Paint.
In your article, some parts of paragraphs are in italics, which should not be, and some parts of quotes are not in italics, which should be.
I have his essay “The Cult of the Child.” I will one day publish it on my blog.
Dowson was also an excellent translator from French to English. He translated in particular novels by Zola, and in his collection Decorations there are a few poems which are in fact translations from Verlaine made to rhyme in English. In Caroline Dowson’s Ph.D. thesis (https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/ernest-dowson-the-language-of-poetry-at-the-victorian-fin-de-siec), his translations are favourably compared to those made by others.
He is also credited with inventing the word “soccer.”
As Adelaide grew up, his ages of attraction extended upward.
His sexual frequentation of prostitutes is inferred from some of his poems (in particular, the the so-called Cynara poem). This aspect has been exaggerated by the “Dowson legend” created by some like Arthur Symons, depicting him as an unkempt alcoholic, spending his nights drinking, brawling and fighting in lower-class bars full of prostitutes.
Hi, could you tell me if the issues with italics are now resolved? Thanks very much.
Writing to Arthur Moore on February 16, 1890 (Letters, no. 89, pages 137–138), he presents her childhood as soothing the sufferings of his life:
should not be in italics
Cardinal McElroy is arguing that sexual sins should be dealt with pastorally rather than doctrinally, that the language of “intrinsic disorder” is both unhelpful and damaging, and that sexual sins should not automatically be mortal, ie. cutting us off from God.
I know the pain of confessing “MAP related sexual sins” in the confessional – it’s horrible. The big issue for the Church is LGBT Catholics who are sexually active, whether they should be excluded from communion – but I’m sick of the LGBT cultural agenda and its vicious exclusion of MAPs. I hate the garish postmodernism of LGBT and its secularist gauche posturing.
For me, a Minor Attracted Person can have whatever political and religious beliefs they want and should not be boxed into a crass and unworthy LGBT model. Children are not “perversely sexualised by outside influences”, sexuality is innate to every human being from birth to death. Minor attraction is also innately less left wing a cause than LGBT. The perversion of our society is that it has deeply stigmatised and laden with shame any attraction to children, resulting no doubt from the centuries old practice of gentlemen seeking out very young and ever younger prostitutes to escape deadly venereal diseases (I don’t condone this behaviour of course). We know that modern anti-paedophilia legislation arose to combat underage prostitution in precisely this way.
Ultimately I am happy the Church is taking a more pastoral and gentle approach to “sexual sin” and this is a perfect reminder that “the ultimate secular sin of paedophila” is nothing of the sort and a gross distortion of psychological and social reality arising from unhappy historical circumstances.
An influential but (I think to many of us) not not very well-known atm writer, and some ostensible quotes from his posthumously published erotic literary work The Manuel de civilité pour les petites filles à l’usage des maisons d’éducation (English: Handbook of behaviour for little girls to be used in educational establishments). Heads-up for some probably amusing quotes about cocks and pussies at:
Next up, a page on Erwin Schrödinger, the Nobel Prize-winning Austrian and naturalized Irish physicist who is widely cited as the father of quantum physics, best remembered for his 1935 thought experiment “Schrödinger’s Cat”. In 2021, the Irish Times published an article with the headline “How Erwin Schrödinger indulged his ‘Lolita complex’ in Ireland”, describing him as a paedophile / pedophile. I’ve read multiple articles and went through word searching the biography cited by wikipedia, which led me to call the page out the English wiki page for its bias. This Newgon page is the most well-sourced information you’ll find about his minor-attraction in any one single place online.
The page for Schrödinger has now been further updated to reflect the impact of false / shaky claims of him being a “pedophile.” (See the same link, above).
The response and media framing, when compared against the main source they strip of all context, is just incredible. Shameful…
Do Prostitution Laws Affect Rape Rates? Evidence from Europe
We identify a causal effect of the liberalization and prohibition of commercial sex on rape rates, using staggered legislative changes in European countries. Liberalizing prostitution leads to a significant decrease in rape rates, while prohibiting it leads to a significant increase. The results are stronger when rape is less severely underreported and when it is more difficult for men to obtain sex via marriage or partnership. We also provide the first evidence for the asymmetric effect of prostitution regulation on rape rates: the magnitude of prostitution prohibition is much larger than that of prostitution liberalization. Placebo tests show that prostitution laws have no impact on nonsexual crimes. Overall, our results indicate that prostitution is a substitute for sexual violence and that the recent global trend of prohibiting commercial sex (especially the Nordic model) could have the unforeseen consequence of proliferating sexual violence.
[Some very strong claims here…]
This is completely logical and obvious. A pornography, prostitution and sex-positive reduce rape to a minimum. Just like sex education reduces unplanned pregnancies and STIs. But puritanism does not listen to the voice of reason, but only to the cries of hysteria.
“People widely believe that sexual assault is graver than nonsexual assault, uninvited sexual compliments are worse than nonsexual insults, and sex work is different from work. Criminal codes create a dedicated category for sex offenses, uniting under its umbrella conduct as different as violent attacks and consensual commercial transactions. This exceptionalist treatment of sex as categorically different rarely evokes discussion, much less debate. However, sex exceptionalism is not natural or neutral, and its political history should give us pause. […] Sex dazzles theorists of all types. For sex crimes, retributivists accept exorbitant sentences, and utilitarians tolerate ineffective ones. Critics of mass incarceration selectively abandon their principled stance against expanding the penal state. Denaturalizing sex exceptionalism and excavating its troubling origins forces analysts to confront a detrimental frame underlying society’s perpetual enthusiasm for punitive sex regulation.”
From the article Sex Exceptionalism in Criminal Law (2022)
[Has just been added to Newgon so thought I’d share it here.]
>This Article is the first to trace, catalogue, and analyze sex exceptionalism in criminal law.
Sounds good. While this article definitely appears to do something worthwhile and new as a study in legal history, it should be noted that sex exceptionalism has been challenged philosophically in recent times, notably by Alan Goldman in his 1977 article Plain Sex and later Igor Primoratz in his 1999 book Ethics and Sex.
Primoratz also did a very level-headed article on paedophilia, citing my work, in “Pedophilia,” in A. Soble (ed.) Sex from Plato to Paglia: A Philosophical Encyclopedia. See here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9pkujyn9keya4ul/Paedophilia%20entry%20in%20Plato%20to%20Paglia.pdf?dl=0
Just a reminder in case you still plan to do so that you wanted to add something to Newgon a few blog posts ago (https://heretictoc.com/2022/09/16/friends-with-benefits-for-youth/):
“some quotes made by Butler can be found here: https://www.boychat.org/messages/1544269.htm
>Despite this, Butler strangely has also on a few occasions attacked “pedophilia”. It is not clear to me how exactly she defines this word when using it, maybe it’s just synonymous to rape for her and different from child-adult sex (with the latter being consensual and the former not).
Yes, linguistic confusion seems the only logical way to interpret this, bearing in mind the highly positive things Butler is quoted elsewhere as saying on intergen sex, with children specifically mentioned, and without any caveats as to age.
BTW, the freespeechtube link isn’t working (404 error).
BTW, the freespeechtube link isn’t working (404 error).
> Yes FST is down while the brongersma.info site has been put back up (by some of the ppl at Newgon – not involving me – who are outside Netherlands jurisdiction)
Ah i may have beaten you to the punch on this one, as i went through and added quotes that i could check myself, to the Feminism page:
You’ll see it under Contemporary 3rd/4th Wave Feminism
I now realize it’s unclear what I added: I added Judith Butler quotes to the feminism page, after checking the source material myself! So yes, I did finally get around to it, and you can see the Butler quotes under the heading mentioned, “Contemporary 3rd/4th wave feminism”.
It may not be readily apparent but we have entered a new age of child representation. Now that short form video has blasted off into the stratosphere, would Cuties even be controversial if it was released today? Child representation has shifted immeasurably in a short time. Totally outside the purview of law enforcement and wholly licit, the recent representation of children cannot with any obvious certainty be pinned down as “erotic” because eroticism is such a subjective classification. Kids designer clothes ads that have conservatives in a frenzied froth of rage are incredibly tame compared to some social media representations. Of course, “the shifting Overton Window” is a cliché but has there ever been a more obvious example of this than the changing way children have been depicted in even the last five years?
So this changing representation affects social media, advertising, cinema, kids’ fashion choices, schooling, TV programming, parenting…the list goes on. It is all-encompassing, and it is amusing watching conservatives froth impotently. This is also the ideal age of the MAP introvert, because there is such a rich creative and imaginative field of child representation in the popular culture, that he can build his own private fantasy world and live in a virtual paradise. Those who yearn for real contact will still be disappointed, but I think technology will increasingly blur the boundary between the virtual and the real, the real life physical presence and the increasingly realistic virtual representation, going forward.
There’s genuinely nothing more entertaining than watching conservatives on the topic of kids these days, because they are getting so thoroughly trounced by the culture and even by government. In many cases they homeschool, in some cases in the US they even found their own traditionalist villages in the wilderness (this is a thing). But kids are almost laughably sexual now. I know we can say that eroticism is incredibly subjective, but from the evidence of contemporary culture, children’s sexuality is now incredibly obvious, and it is a self-reinforcing spiral through culture pushing schooling and schooling reinforcing the culture. As I have emphasised, this is a very recent phenomenon and there is a long way for this to play out. I think if you are both an introvert and a MAP, you are in a very happy place right now.
Cuties was very controversial and wasn’t released all that long ago. Given it’s temporal proximity, I’d wager it would still be controversial…
Could the incredibly divisive, overtly sexually provocative 1995 movie “Kids” be made today? Cuties was NOTHING compared!… I watched the 1995 film recently and couldn’t believe it was made in the 1st place! I’m not surprised someone wanted to make it, it’s a serious, edgy film with the cultural backdrop of AIDS. But, the fact a whole team collaborated on it, filming real minors in the process (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong): that’s really something!
Otherwise, yes Conservatives panicking is funny to watch, though when it translated to real consequences in the form of book banning etc as in Florida, the asshole of the U.S., then it’s not so funny.
“Kids are almost laughably sexual now”: speaking as someone who can remember my 10/11 YO sexual self, the online world certainly has provided a means for kids to express themselves like never before. I was flipping up girl’s skirts at 10, trying, wanting, to see what was under there! I can only imagine how my burgeoning sexuality could have been channelled had I had access to a fancy smartphone like many kids today. We have even seen media articles admitting that most “child sexual abuse material” is “self-generated”… The challenge will be getting people to accept children can have sexual/sensual needs (to use Ken Plummer’s phrasing), without dismissing them as “innocent sex play” (implicitly lesser) or as something dangerous in need of stamping out. Might it be that, as people become more aware of children producing their own “abuse material” – that this is illegal and counts as them producing (and sometimes distributing) child pornography – parents etc will be *even more* incensed to keep kids as far from anything remotely sexual?
Sometimes it seems that the illegal status for such materials was introduced to hide the truth about the youth sexuality from folk and to prevent sexologists from studying such materials as self documentary evidence of youth sexuality.
“Sometimes it seems that the illegal status for such materials was introduced to hide the truth about the youth sexuality from folk and to prevent sexologists from studying such materials as self documentary evidence of youth sexuality.”
>Even if it’s not the intention behind the law (at least the stated rationale), laws have effects / consequences beyond their stated aims. Preventing / disincentivizing research and journalism is one of them… David Sonenschien began an ethnographic study of real life CP but faced criminalization and narrowly avoided posecution. https://www.newgon.net/wiki/David_Sonenschein The side effect is a ‘chilling effect’ and being prevented from conducting important research. See the censorship timeline I’ve contributed to https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Censorship#A_modern_timeline
Lol I remember my seven year old sexual self, fantasising at night about girls in my class. Stuff that is incredibly personal so I don’t want to go into detail, but the tenor wasn’t “innocent” at all, it was sexual and exploratory. I have every reason to believe this is typical, and that others had more magnified experiences than me; after all I was quiet and understated as a child.
Short form video, more than anything, has confirmed to me the sexuality of children, and it is more surprising to me what is actually legal on these macro platforms, than the extreme end with explicit material prohibited by law.
[MODERATOR: Unfortunately, ZT, you make an unjustified assumption when you say “what is actually legal on these macro platforms”. Just because certain images regularly appear (going by your information) on “macro platforms” does NOT mean they are legal. One problem in this area is that in any case brought before a court it is for the jury to decide whether images are indecent or not. The test is a subjective one, so no one can say in advance what a correct decision would be. We only know that the jury is always “right”, whatever they decide. As the remainder of your post misleadingly asserts that certain things are legal when they may not be, this platform cannot safely publish these comments.]
Ok that’s fine, but just as a point of clarification, Meta cannot break the law. What gets published on Instagram and “pushed” by the algorithm is as safe as a school library.
If someone were to attempt to post an illegal image it would be immediately detected by their AI systems and dealt with by moderators.
>If someone were to attempt to post an illegal image
What is an illegal image? I don’t think you have taken my point.
On Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg decides what is in contravention of the rules.
However you’re right that “twelve members of the public” might disagree with Zuckerberg on his content policies.
>On Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg decides what is in contravention of the rules.
Quite so. In effect, the big platforms make their own law. It is most unlikely that the likes of Zuckerberg or Musk would ever be held accountable to a jury, especially not a UK one. Heretic TOC does not enjoy such de facto immunity.
Yes, that’s an excellent point Tom. Because not everything in life is black and white, Zuckerberg effectively establishes his own law on the platform with his, and his relevant department’s, subjective choices about what content is permissible.
I’m sure they try to follow case law as closely as possible to reach a logical decision on moderation policy, but because it just is such an incredibly subjective field, mistakes or misjudgements could occur.
Unfortunately, the main problem is not that BigTech create “their own laws”, but that they prevent the emergence of alternative platforms with less stringent restrictions and applying for freespeech
>they prevent the emergence of alternative platforms
How? Not saying it is easy to set up rival platforms on a large scale, but is there anything the big platforms do that actively “prevents” anyone from having a go?
I didn’t express clearly. Those who have the resources to launch sooner or later will run into maintenance issues after a significant increase users and media coverage.
The scandalous app Parler, positioning itself as a “free speech” alternative to Twitter and Facebook. With little content moderation, the site had a reported 15 million users. Parler having been offline for weeks after Amazon cut off its cloud hosting services because had spread content that glorified the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, an alternative to Twitter, told
Thanks, Leonerd, that provides helpful clarification. It seems to me there has been a whole succession of major social media platforms as new competitors have entered the field. So MySpace was outcompeted by Facebook; then along came Instagram and Snapchat; then TikTok took the younger market by storm. And of course there is YouTube. And Twitter. And multiple smaller platforms, including (on and off) Freespeechtube hanging in there.
I guess a new competitor could break in at any time if they could offer something fresh e.g. a brilliant way of using the Metaverse, or AI such as ChatGPT. But you are right to say the big players have powerful weapons they can use against platforms that promote or enable controversial views and activities. Also a near monopoly prevails, as Facebook owns several platforms. That gives them huge power.
Leonerd, you find Instagram to have “stringent restrictions” on content, and my positive wording about Instagram was “too dangerous for the blog” lol. Clearly it’s just very subjective. I might have been bigging it up unnecessarily – if law enforcement were to read this and get a false impression – but I’m sure they know everything about Instagram anyway.
Frankly, I’d be scared to use a less stringent platform, because fascism is alive and real and I don’t want to jeopardise my legal security.
A thoughtful new BL novel is a rare treat, which is what Peter Thomas Wolfe appears to have given us, going by the publisher blurb which I reproduce below.
I have been sent a review copy but I would be happy to see someone else have the opportunity to read this book for free if they can commit to writing a review of it for Heretic TOC.
You Can Be A King If You Are Brave
A Novel by Peter Thomas Wolfe
Is there any entirely self-evident truth? Set in Melbourne, Australia and then Burma at the turn of the last century, You Can Be A King If You Are Brave raises this dilemma through the eyes of Adam Townsend, a beguiling adolescent boy from a wealthy family in Melbourne, Australia.
Outwardly Adam is blessed with sublime good looks and a keen intellect, yet he struggles with family problems caused by an abusive father. Adam begins to build a relationship with Geoffrey Lang, one of the most charismatic teachers in his new school, Wellington Grammar, an exclusive boys’ college. Geoff understands the problems Adam is facing. He accepts him into the school bushwalking group, through which Adam builds friendships with his peers and opens up to Geoff about his struggles. The bond between student and teacher develops in ways that neither expects but is brought to a tragic and senseless end.
As a man, Adam finally discovers his purpose, working to curtail poverty in exotic Burma, a country locked in the depths of a military dictatorship. In Rangoon, he discovers things about himself that have remained hidden and suppressed, brought to light through friendship with a group of adolescent boys from the streets and one in particular who steals his heart.
This book raises questions about the ambiguity of our ever-more polarising definitions of love and abuse. It is a simple story about complex issues. One that asks us to look beyond the hysteria surrounding inter-generational relationships and understand that truth is not always as straightforward as we might like it to be.
I have made the entire English translation of Florian Mildenberger’s biography of German anarchist MAP activist Peter Schult (2006), complete with all the errors of online translation software, available as PDF files.
See link here: https://www.newgon.net/wiki/File:Peter_Schult_-_Pedophilia_in_Public_Discourse.pdf
New section quoting some important literature on the question of MAPs and hate crime. Will break from adding so much stuff for a while as the Admin wants a break (and I should really go focus on other things!) :p
Another good and important page, but you might like to alter the sequencing in the Bijan Ebrahimi case. At present it looks as though he was murdered before the police arrested him. Somewhat confusing.
>I should really go focus on other things!
I was beginning to wonder about that! 🙂
Just thought I’d say, I’ve had my first negative experience on Instagram. There was a beautiful eight year old who I liked very much, and I wanted to give a compliment as a comment on a post. I carefully reflected for a long time on how to make the language as neutral and inoffensive as humanly possible, and I basically said that she was graceful and beautiful. Everything seemed to go fine and it remained for 24 hours. But then the next day her mum blocked me, and the pain I felt was awful for 1-2 days. I couldn’t even eat. So I unfollowed all my girls and unliked every single post in my interactions list, because I didn’t want to risk another block and feel the same pain.
I’m now a detached observer of things on Instagram instead. You just can’t trust people not to block you. Now this eight year old’s mother tried to do a universal block on me, which blocks all possible accounts held by the user and all future accounts. But the Meta gods were kind and one pre-existing account isn’t affected. I can still watch her grow up. But the whole episode has shaken my confidence and I now think the best thing is simply to remain in the shadows and not interact with these accounts at all. A sad day but I reluctantly reached this conclusion.
Sorry to hear you were blocked and negatively affected like that. Sounds like some time off the platform might be a good thing though if such a ‘minor’ event causes you this distress. I mean, at least take comfort knowing it was Mom blocking you and not the girl herself, I suppose. There are literally thousands upon thousands of accounts and people who *would* welcome your considerate words of praise, so it’s a shame you’re ceasing activity altogether, but if it brings you peace then so be it!
I just got attached to her, I felt real love, and it hurt. It may seem pathetic to people that I can love little girls via social media, but reflect that there is absolutely no other way at present for a man to show his love to a child! I’m sure she was aware of my two comments, and the second got me the block from Hitler mum lol.
I worry that a girl I am attached to may in fact place a successful universal block, and she would then be dead to me. This has already happened with one girl, who I simply followed and got a block for that. It may seem like a small matter to you but being blocked for life from seeing a child you’re fond of is a harsh penalty. I just don’t want the heartache.
A very, very important post on Newgon: an archived scan of Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives, ed. by Larry Constantine and Floyd Martinson (1981), including chapters, section introductions, and index has been added.
All the parts can be accessed via the following link: https://www.newgon.net/wiki/File:ChildrenAndSexprefacepartial.pdf
Please save a copy for yourselves of this rare, important book.
I didn’t think of uploading books in parts to bypass the file size limit; that’s given me some ideas, since I’m working on translating a PDF of Florian Mildenberger’s book on Peter Schult. https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Peter_Schult
Neoliberal Feminism and the Future of Human Capital (2017)
This article examines the contemporary embrace of feminism by the mainstream media and among high-powered women. I begin by showing that not only is a neoliberal variant of feminism on the rise but that this feminism is producing a new form of neoliberal governmentality for middle-class women, one based on careful planning and smart self-investments in the present to ensure enhanced returns in the future. Providing two representative examples—the glorification of college hookup culture and the new technology of egg freezing being offered as part of corporations’ benefits packages—I demonstrate how upwardly mobile middle-class women are being encouraged to invest in their professions first and to postpone maternity until some later point. By encouraging these women to build their own portfolio and to self-invest in the years once thought of as the most fertile, I further suggest that neoliberal feminism is increasingly interpellating middle-class women as human capital. Yet, given that reproduction continues to present a stumbling block in this conversion process, reproduction and care work are increasingly being outsourced to other women deemed disposable because not properly responsibilized. Hence, the emergent neoliberal feminism not only forsakes the majority of women by splitting female subjecthood into the few worthy capital-enhancing female subjects and the disavowed rest, it also facilitates the creation of new and intensified forms of racialized and class-stratified gender exploitation.
[Bold by me. Just thought this article sounds very thoughtful.]
Created page w/ detail up to ch. 2 https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Beispiel_Peter_Schult
Expect ch. 2 sooon
Trans children and the necessity to complicate gender in primary schools
Trans children have become more visible in primary schools in recent years. Arising from a qualitative study with twelve parents of trans children (aged 5–13) and six primary school educators in Ireland, this paper explores how trans children experience two very different forms of celebratory rituals that are entangled with life in primary schools: birthday celebrations and religious rituals. These rituals are experienced as moments of affectively intense rupture for trans children, moments that shunt the violence of the disciplinary framework of gender into view. Informed by theorizing on gender norms and affect, this paper makes visible the cruel conundrum of navigating a gender frame that acts violently but at the same provides the very terms through which trans identities can be asserted and apprehended. Ultimately, this paper provides an empirical illustration of the messiness of gender and argues for the necessity to complicate the framework of gender in primary schools.
“It’s the Time You Got to Wear Whatever You Wanted”: Pre-Teen Girls Negotiating Gender, Sexuality and Age through Fashion (2022)
Abstract Worries about the marketing of fashion to pre-teen girls and the power of fashionable clothes to sexualize these girls, have been on-going for some time. However, there is little research with this age group of girls that explicitly explores the ways in which fashionable clothes are understood and worn by the girls themselves and the impact on their sense of identity. Yet girls are increasingly considered in childhood sociology to be competent social actors able to articulate something of their own interactions and understanding of their social worlds. This study uses focus groups, participant photography and interviews with 32 predominately white, middle-class girls from the South of England, to examine pre-teen girls’ fashion practices to address this gap in knowledge. This article argues that young girls are active and thoughtful in their consumption of dress, aware of the construction of gender norms in responding to aged sexual expectations as they decide what to wear. In considering the context of their constructions of aged, gendered and (a)sexualized identity, girls code-switched between identity forms, actively constituting their subjectivity through clothing.
[In other words, young girls have an awareness of how they may be looked at and want to be looked at, and make choices about what they wear. Very interesting, the finding that girls were “responding to aged sexual expectations as they decide what to wear.” ]
>Very interesting, the finding that girls were “responding to aged sexual expectations as they decide what to wear.”
Yes, this is great, but clicking through to the publisher’s own page about this article, we see it appears in the Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry.
A cynic might be a little bit worried about their objectivity! Relevant question: Cui bono? Rule of thumb: Follow the money!
Also, it looks as though the writer goes through the full ritual denunciation or “predators”. It’s not in the Abstract , but this webpage gives the writer’s Footnotes, one of which says, “A particularly extensive example of predatory paedophiles, that was proven to be based on a great deal of fact, began in 2012 with the Jimmy Savile scandal that started a police investigation into, predominantly child, sexual abuse allegations (Greer and McLaughlin 2013).”
“A particularly extensive example of predatory paedophiles, that was proven to be based on a great deal of fact”
> A great deal of fact?! So not… fact? And tbf, I’m sure some paedophiles can behave in ways that could fit the label ‘predatory’, just as anyone could, but of course I get the implication that MAPs are being dehumanized here. Unnecessary, bigoted framing, punching down on an already deeply marginalized and vulnerable identity [do you like how i used social justice language there? It works well, I think :p ]
Someone spotlighted more sources about young females and fashion that could be of interest to readers here:
Feeling your age: Pre-teen fashionable femininity (2017 PhD thesis)
Sexy Dolls, Sexy Grade-Schoolers? Media & Maternal
Influences on Young Girls’ Self-Sexualization (2012 article)
The above article got reported on outside of scholarship with a fairly provocative title: https://www.medicaldaily.com/psychologists-reveal-why-even-6-year-old-girls-want-be-sexy-241398
Last activity for today. Created the page for John Ruskin
Amazing and beautiful if I don’t say so myself. The page was meant to be a quick stub, but there’s too many good quotes out there. Got me a bit emotional, seeing the sketch of Rose on her deathbed…
New page of interest to MAP history https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Will_Durant
A study which some of you may’ve missed which sounds of great interest [I’ve added the abstract to Newgon]:
Dana Larssi, Ortal Wasser and Dafna Tener. (2022). ‘Lover, Mentor, or Exploiter: Retrospective Perspectives of the Older Person Following Sexual Relationships with Adults During Adolescence’, in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51:2, pp. 987-999.
Abstract: “Sexual relationships between an adolescent and an older person are considered controversial and in many countries are conceptualized under the legal definition of statutory relationship/rape. Despite the consensus regarding their potential negative implications, little is known about how adolescents perceive and construct them. To address this lacuna, the current exploratory study examined how individuals who have experienced sexual relationships with an adult while growing up perceived the older person and the meaning they ascribed to the age gap (M age gap, 7.78 years; range, 2–18 years). A qualitative thematic methodology was incorporated in analyzing in-depth semi-structured interviews with 28 individuals (M age, 29.89 years) who had experienced sexual relationships with an (at least 2 years) older person during adolescence (M age, 14.78 years). Participants described five different perceptions of the older persons: romantic partner; sexual partner; authority figure; complex/unstable figure; and exploiter. Subsequent analysis, focusing on the role participants assigned to age when describing these different images of older persons, shed additional light on their subjective perceptions; namely, for each image, age had a particular meaning. This paper may contribute to the understanding of individuals’ experiences of sexual relationships with an older person by emphasizing the complexity of such relationships, as reflected in the participants’ construction of the older person’s image, potentially providing important information that can inform best practice for professionals working with this population. Findings highlight the need to address diversity and ambiguity rather than the uniform dichotomy that characterizes the legal framing of automatically constructing these relationships as statutory. Further implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed.”
Will and Ariel Durant, now that’s a proper love story! 🙂
As for the Archives paper, well spotted! I usually see everything in this journal but this one somehow slipped under my radar.
> “Will and Ariel Durant, now that’s a proper love story!”
Absolutely! A great love story of a life long, successful intergen relationship between a teacher and student no less. A great case to throw at people who’d say such things are impossible.
Time for something you’ll like less, a sadistic novel. I’d read the LA review of books article about the author a year or so ago, and have now somewhat painstakingly created the page for its author after reading multiple reviews of his last novel https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Alain_Robbe-Grillet
Tried to give a reasonable and balanced account that wouldn’t upset anyone. Also, the guy had a fascinating and very successful life career wise, which is great to read about.
Nothing I’ve read claims that the characters in the story are aged below 14, so how much the novel relates to paedophilia is debatable and even questionable, with the story seeming typical of teiliophilic fantasies with an author who was elderly and willing to admit he found the idea of sadism with teens sexy. Not really that much of a shocker, IMO, at least if we lived in more honest societies, but still interesting nevertheless.
There are other known cases of a young teenage girl marrying a man twice her ages. I can mention Virginia Clemm (13) with Edgar Allan Poe (26) and the Inuit girl Navarana (13) with the Danish explorer Peter Freuchen (25); however these two marriages lasted only about 10 years, because both girls died of a disease. These four people are not in Newgon’s list of people. Ernest Dowson is also missing in the list.
We will get them on Newgon ASAP. Poe is next up!
Have never heard of Peter Freuchen or the Inuit girl Navarana before; any quick and quotable info would be appreciated!
On the Agapeta blog. For Freuchen:in the menu, choose the category “Navarana Freuchen” (under the “Girl heading”). For Dowson, see the 3 articles on top of the category “Ernest Christopher Dowson”.
Have now quickly created a stub https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe
On another note, does anyone have TALKINGPICS TV Channel, it’s on FREESAT 305. On a Saturday around mid morning they have some old kids films on, some from the 60s 70s 80s. Today was Tarzan and the Trappers with Gordon Scott. He wasn’t the highlight for me and others on here and I’m not talking about Jane LOL.
While the phrase free love is often associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination, especially in reference to the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, historically the free-love movement has not advocated multiple sexual partners or short-term sexual relationships. Rather, it has argued that sexual relations that are freely entered into should not be regulated by law, and may be initiated or terminated by the parties involved at will.
Sure, but, love indeed should be free- and sex should not have the expectation of exclusivity. Sex is too highly prized, too highly thought of- it needs to not be on the pedestal it is put on. It shouldn’t be but another form of affection, and not have anymore social weight placed on it than that. If people are of a mutual mind for monogamy, then great, go forth and be happy. By no means should it be “encouraged” or prescribed. And that is the real point: prescription of relationships. Not just the regulation of the state- but also free of social pressure (social pressure which ultimately manifests in its shadow side as rape and abuse).
Humans are not wired for monogamy anyway. But, as I said, just as monogamy shouldn’t be expected or prescribed, neither should polyamory, but only that which people have a mind of, which can be freely changed, without repercussion or jealousy, at any time. Jealousy is mostly the product of social expectation anyway. People are only “hurt” because of the expectations we build up about things like fidelity, exclusivity, or the idea that one can only love one, and if love is expressed with more that your love is somehow cheapened (as per capitalistic supply and demand market logic) or made less real in some way. Love in all forms and manifestations should be free, uninhibited, and free flowing in its abundance. Not regulated by either law or social pressure or expectation or possessiveness.
I believe sex should be considered an exclusive and deeply special experience, but there is no reason why loving, considerate and non-abusive sex cannot occur between an adult and a minor.
In an ideal world there would be a law change, because we have the social infrastructure in place now to carefully screen for abuse, but the entropic forces of cultural and legal stagnation have left us mired in the nineteenth century, and the legacy of the Pall Mall Gazette and its sensationalism. That was a very different world and we are badly due an update to our social and legal understanding of minor sexuality.
Except that exceptionalism you place on sex, that high value, and its exclusivity- is what keeps the status quo you want changed in place, and as long as it is seen that way, your world is impossible to bring people to. It makes sex high stakes, and those high stakes will always lead people to the conclusion that young people must be part of the exclusion.
I disagree. It’s about assigning the proper value to a very important experience. It’s not “high stakes”, but at the same time sex has a spiritual element, a strong interpersonal element, a high emotive element, and a social bonding element. The human species are not on the same level as other animals – we have a highly developed and refined culture. It is not because of that refinement that adult-minor sexual experiences have been legally prohibited – it is despite the extra protections we have in place, especially in our New Age of advanced social infrastructural technologies that can easily regulate something like adult-minor sexual experiences, should there be the political will to allow this to happen.
And the political will is lacking because the crucial 10% needed to swing political change isn’t there yet.
On another note, I disagree that sexual experiences are fundamentally harmful to children, because we are born sexual and all our interpersonal relationships are influenced by that innate sexuality. As an expression of love, affection or kindness an adult can make a child feel good about themselves, however that action is conceived. Harm to children occurs when an action is unwanted by them or against their will, or is motivated by a solipsistic selfishness or carried out with violence. This is why the area of adult-minor interaction, sexual or otherwise, must be carefully regulated and we have the technology to accomplish this.
But the high value and exclusive nature of sex should remain, as an expression of our civilisation and culture, because of course if sex is cheapened enough, it will lose all its value. Making sex cheap isn’t a way of allowing children to participate in sexual experiences; rather the opposite – it makes sex more flippant, arbitrary and dangerous to participants. The promiscuity of the gay scene for example isn’t an advert for it, it surely detracts from what it means to be gay – and there are plenty of “conservative” gay couples who live monogamously and with mutual respect and love.
High value is high stakes. They are synonymous terms. You cannot say something is of high value and great importance without the attending implication that there are dire consequences if it is messed up or gotten wrong. You cannot have it both ways. In other words, you are introducing the elements that create sexual harm and sexual trauma, which are not the result of outright violence.
Furthermore- you can take your judgmental attitude toward what you deem “promiscuous” and put it…you know where. It’s no better than a Christian puritan going around condemning people to hell for sin. That is not an honorable position to take, it’s not a fair position to take, and it objectifies and robs children of their humanity, their autonomy, and it makes the environment for predation- and consequently, as it already does in our society- makes you predatory in the eyes of others. It makes sex predatory- it makes the harm you say sex doesn’t have and shouldn’t have. You are adding the elements that create the harm you say doesn’t exist.
“Promiscuity” only exists because the social construct of “purity”, which you support, exists. And they are the bookends of the predation dynamic of sex.
I think “promiscuity protects against predation” is a complete non sequitur. If you love a romantic partner you want it to be a special and exclusive experience. I think that should be obvious.
Sex should be high value in any civilised human culture and furthermore, sex should be “right”. This is especially important with children who are uniquely vulnerable due to both lack of physical strength and a mentally developing state. If we want children to have sexual experiences, which I think should be permissible, we need to take great care over this as if the sex is “wrong” there could indeed be “dire consequences” to that child’s formation. Any action towards a child that is 1) violent 2) solipsistically selfish 3) unwanted, should be astutely avoided. This is something that needs careful regulation, because human nature can’t be trusted.
We see this with women all the time, with the high instances of rape and sexual assault when “consent” is ambiguous. You seem to want no-holds-barred cheap casual sex of everyone with everyone else, which would be a literal hell.
Finally, you say if sex remains “high value” or “high stakes” then minor sexual experiences will never be made permissible. I think instead with the (seemingly parabolic) advance of social technologies we will soon be in a position where adult-minor sexual interactions could, theoretically, be carefully screened and regulated and adequate protections could be in place to safeguard the physical and mental challenges of children, just like the relative physical weakness of women is a perennial issue now in cases of sexual interaction between adult heterosexuals.
I can’t see how your “vision” of a possible future could work as men can be rough, uncouth and instinctual and this creates enough problems with women, never mind the additional fragilities of children. An unregulated sexual space between adults and children simply cannot work. Children deserve to be treated with love, kindness and affection, and many men would instead be callous and brutal without adequate safeguards.
As long as you reinforce the paradigm of women and children as property, I don’t know what else to tell you. We’re at an impasse. You support misogyny and misopedy. You can’t seem to connect the dots as to how that is so, but you do. You say women and children need to be protected from men, but support the very social structures that make men a threat in the first place, and it’s unfortunate because it’s tantamount to admitting men are an existential threat to women and children. Indeed- admitting that you, a man, are a threat to children.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying you are an existential threat to children, and then you are surprised and dismayed when society treats you like an existential threat to children.
But, I seem to lack the ability to articulate this in a way you’ll understand and see, and should probably stop trying to convince you, and let it be.
I am too busy to get deeply involved in this, unfortunately but it seems to me both of you are arguing from rather unnecessarily polarised positions. I would just urge both of you to go back through what you have each said in the debate and note the strongest elements of what “the other side” has contributed. Then say to yourselves, “I think I am right,” (if you still do think that) “but is there any conceivable society, or set of laws, that might accommodate the other guy’s sincerely held objections without surrendering my own perspective?”
For what it’s worth, based on reading the debate but not subjecting it to a close analysis, I would say that both of you have made quite a few good points.
Ed Lange (1920 – 1995) was a nudist photographer, and a publisher of many nudist pamphlets and magazines showing the nudist lifestyle.
As well as founding the publisher Elysium Growth Press, he was the founder and president of the Elysium Institute in Topanga Canyon, California, and a Vice-President of the International Naturist Federation. His free love ideals placed him in the sexual revolution movement of the 1960s and 1970s. He also was very active in the Western Sunbathing Association and in the first stirrings of the Free Beach movement in the 1960s in California. Lange was originally a fashion photographer who worked for Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar and Life magazines as well as a studio photographer at Paramount and Conde Nast in Los Angeles. A few months before his death, he was named Citizen of the Year by the Topanga Chamber of Commerce.
Ed Lange’s “Innocent” Nudist Moppets
Valida Davila est une maquerelle qui fonda en 1975 le réseau pédocriminel CSC ou “Chilhood Sensuality Circle”, dont le siège social est situé à San Diego (P.O.B. 5164) en Californie (CA 92105 USA), sous le couvert d’un organisme de recherche, d’information et d’éducation. Le coût de l’inscription était de $25, pour rentrer en contact avec d’autres pédophiles et recevoir la brochure pédophile bimestrielle appelée “Newsletter”, qui communique divers renseignements utiles aux membres. Spécialiste de la prostitution des petite filles qui sont fournies à raison de 100$ pour quelques heures, Valida Davila figure aux carnets d’adresse du réseau de Zandvoort, CRIES et Spartacus. Des photos pédopornographique de Yvonne (8 ans) et Tammy (9 ans), “louées” par leurs parents au réseau, ont été vendues au magazine hollandais Lolita, dans les n° 29, 30 et 31.
“Chilhood Sensuality Circle”, par Valida Davila
“My Life of Molesting Children”, by Joseph Henry
Paedo-criminal network? The only evidence is the testimony in Senate of a convict saying that through Valida Davila he met other people, and that apparently these people were doing illegal things. That is not enough to make CSC a “criminal network”. The other link is to a conspiracy site from which the above French summary is given.
The repeated comments by this person look like trolling.
Feb 1985, 99th Congress (change hands)…
Fascinating page created that’d make for a good research topic https://www.newgon.net/wiki/The_Oneida_Community
Will add images shortly.
It’d be interesting to research the Christian utopian socialism of the Founder John Humphrey Noyes, and whether his ideas influenced other utopian socialists like Charles Fourier, who was a massive influence on Rene Scherer. It’d also be interesting to see if anyone’s done a historical project about the diaries and letters of people recalling sex experience in Oneida, especially boys with women.
Also, apparently, according to Wikipedia, Noyes coined the term “free love.” How cool is that!
Charles Fourier (1772-1837) could not have been influenced by John Humphrey Noyes (1811-1886), check the chronology. Fourier had written most of his works before Noyes converted to his new brand of Christianity. Anyway, Fourier advocated free choice in love, not pan-gamy or compulsory polyamory, and he would not have had any sympathy with “male continence”. From Fourier, read “Le Nouveau Monde Amoureux”.
Thanks for this
Just found out, slightly to my gobsmacking horror, that Andrea Dworkin was at one point very positive about children’s sexual liberation, indeed, sexual freedom across the board. See the section I added https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Feminism#Andrea_Dworkin
I am surprised but not horrified. This is an important quote. It illustrates that even the most passionate and blood-curdling denunciations of intergen intimacy (as with the later Dworkin) are not necessarily deeply rooted, and nor does it mean such a position is well supported. I found her last sentence especially interesting, with its specifically intergen content:
> “The distinctions between “children” and “adults,” and the social institutions which enforce those distinctions, would disappear as androgynous community develops.”
Roger Moody (1986) and Dworkin (1974) appear to believe this. Dare we say it: very relevant for contemporary transgender politics… And very early predictions.
Our current society relies heavily on compartmentalization and departmentalization. The future should rather be integrative and holistic in nature.
In lighter news to my below comment:
Made the pages for:
And further updated https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Roger_Moody by summarizing his ‘How to Make Pedophilia Acceptable‘ (1986) chapter
The Nobu Watsuki page is a bit personal bc I’ve always like his famous series Rurouni Kenshin, before and after he was arrested for CP. Doesn’t change my view of his work nor the merit of it, and it’s great to see other famous artists, indeed probably the most famous manga artist alive right now – Eichiro Oda – sticking by their friends. Readers will have noticed that sticking by your friends, refusing to disavow them, is one of the themes subtly carried throughout this blog post, with both Prince Andrew and Lawrence Krauss refusing to disavow their friend Epstein. If you ask me, there’s something quite beautiful and moral about that, especially in the age of cancel culture…
Note also how America dropped Watsuki but Japan didn’t, and the now continuing series remains popular there, and a great money maker 🙂
Yes, I agree, although loyalty must be for the right reasons, for real friendship. Those who demand loyalty or else, such as The Donald, tend to give it a bad name.
Fabulous new pages, all of them! Of course, I was particularly delighted to see the one about Bill Nash. What a great idea to do one on him!
According to Boychat, Ad Van de Berg has died https://boychat.org/messages/1605355.htm
Not sure if this is true. If so, it’s very sudden. I can recall seeing him in Newgon’s pmca chat last week.
I have already heard this from two separate sources, one originating with Frans Gieles, of Ipce, the other was an email from Norbert de Jonge. So I think we can take this as authentic. I see the BC poster is “Marth”. My guess is this is Marthijn Uittenbogaard, another impeccable source.
Well it almost certainly must be true then. RIP to Ad. I didn’t know him in the slightest or have even a single extented interaction, but whatever one’s impression of him might be, he certainly was a motivated fighter till the end…
Made the Newgon pages for:
Not overtly related to the blog post but may be of interest. Will be doing Hayao Miyazaki next; yes, *that* Miyazaki, of Spirited Away fame. It turns out all your heroes have some relevance to minor-attraction; certainly, I’ve discovered that many of mine have. Amazing and terrifying, how utterly transformative reading and researching can be…
Great. I also suggest adding pages about danish sexologists Preben Hertoft and his book “Crimes without victims”. And also about “Childhood Sensuality Circle” and its founder Valida Davila.
All of this will be in the pipeline:
In fact, we allow trusted editors on board just to make suggestions and links to relevant research on individuals, publications, events and organizations.
Building an article can involve considerable research, or it can be as simple as assimilating or distilling material from a Wikipedia article and doing the finishing touches.
I was just thinking that since everyone is getting caught up in “groomer” accusations these days, the term is starting to lose its bite. That is, if you call someone a groomer, I think certain groups of people (that are growing in number) are going to dismiss it as overblown or look at it skeptically. I feel like this is our chance to talk about why the term “grooming” is dumb in the first place. Often, all it really means is that you’re influencing someone to do something that *you* don’t agree with. We need to find language that is more precise and accurate to describe exactly how someone is being abusive. I also think more people are noticing that “exposing children to sexuality” is also an overused term, and doesn’t cut it to describe abuse.
Great point, which would be worth a guest blog here! There’s plenty to say on the subject.
Wikipedia article about Bonobo chimpanzees, who are known for engaging in intergenerational relationships, has a caption under the photo “Grooming: reinforcement of social links”. In fact, it’s right. A caring, friendship, mentoring, erotic experience strengthens social bonds and harmonize society. But woke-newspeak perverts any humane concepts. Now the flirting is Harassment and friendliness is Grooming.
For domesticated animals, the word ‘grooming’ means care of their body by the owner; for apes, it means the social practice of removing lice on the body of another ape, which represents an expression of politeness and good will. The recent anti-sex victimology has perverted the meaning of the word. Other words have been perverted. My 1910 dictionary defines ‘to fondle’ as ‘to treat with tenderness; to caress;’ my 1984 dictionary defines it as ‘to touch or stroke lovingly,’ with the example ‘fondling a kitten.’ Now victimologists mean by it sexual touch, and generally interpret it as sexual assault.
Biologically speaking, we are equidistant relatives to bonobos and chimpanzees. We just discovered and projected onto chimps first. Chimps are violent, aggressive, domineering, and patriarchal. Bonobos substitute sex for violence, more pacific, more egalitarian, and matriarchal. Read what you will from that.
It’s because, unless you’re talking about someone pretending to be friendly, kind, intimate, and loving- basically that someone isn’t actually affectionate but in fact purposefully being a specially kind of torturously cruel for whatever reason (which indeed would be an outstanding kind of cruelty and a kind of cruelty far rarer than the known frequency of supposed and real abuse and rape at that), grooming is nothing more than being affectionate and trying to be close to someone and truly be loving with and to them, regardless of whatever mistakes someone makes or hurt they inadvertently cause. There is no difference between “grooming” and being fatherly, motherly, parental, sisterly, brotherly, familial, friendly, cromradly, romantic, loverly, or relational. It is how all relationships work, how all relationships are built- whether romantic, platonic, friendly, familial, or sexual.
All we’re doing is scaring the piss and shit out of children anytime they feel any kind of affection for someone, or someone expresses any kind of affection for them- making them feel predatory for trying to express that affection, or making them feel averse to receiving affection. It makes them touch starved, self hating, ashamed, and making people insane and suicidal. It is fueling the general sense of isolation that everyone is increasingly feeling, especially youth, and winds up making people actually, truly abusive- it how coldness, psychopathy, and acting out and up are actually brought to fruition- how we get the misogynist, the misoped, the mass shooter, the sexual abuser, the rapist, the torturer, the power grabber, etc.
I have long now realized the bullshit that is “grooming” and our conflating it with exploiting (which is real, and does happen, and is common- Jeffrey Epstein is an example of exploitation- but exploitation has many faces that are not related to sexual exploitation). I have wracked my brain endlessly and searched tirelessly to figure out what “grooming” is- and I cannot find anything different about it than any other healthy, normal, desireable relationship dynamic other than sex might happen as a result or as part of it- an expression of that love, whether mutually wanting sex, wanting to sex another, or accepting sex from another even if one isn’t big on sex, but doesn’t find it disagreeable to have it for the other person.
But if that’s true- then adults cannot consent to sex either, and all “adult” relationships are the result of grooming. Dating is grooming. Having a boyfriend or girlfriend is grooming. Seeking out a relationship for the eventual purpose of marriage and family is grooming. Having friends is grooming. Having sleepovers is grooming. Feeling and expressing any liking or affection whatsoever is grooming. Being more than just passing, mere acquaintances is grooming. Which leaves us with what? Mutual uncaring and exploitative, transactional relationships. Which is truly more exploitative and abusive? Little wonder everyone is depressed, anxious, and suicidal. Little wonder we’re going absolutely insane in our loneliness.
And make no mistake, this trend is coming for all adult relationships. Even the straight ones will eventually succumb to it, not just queer relationships and age-gap adult relationships (which are already being attacked outside queer spaces and even inside queer spaces). The puritanism we find ourselves enthralled by is either going to burn itself out, or purge humanity of all love and affection, and eventually purge humanity itself. One need look no further than Japan and Korea and the neurotic divergence it is experiencing. Hypersexuality and puritanism are two sides of the same coin. It leads to mandatory, obligatory hypersexuality on one hand and total sexual isolation and coerced, tortured sexlessness on the other.
One thing I never hear about is heterosexual grooming in childrens entertainment. When the cartoon Prince and Princess touch lips in a physical expression of love, alarmists do not freak out about such sexualized media. If anything these moments are lauded as wonderful examples of healthy, non-woke, family values displayed onscreen. But if there are two mommies or two daddies featuree, this is obviously twisted brainwashing on the part of degenerates who seek to influence the impressionable with their nefarious alphabetical ideology!!
That said, I agree there is usually ‘agenda’ at play, but given that the agenda is one of promoting acceptance and tolerance, I can’t be bothered to care. Certain issues involving gender identity, sure, but like, a gay kiss? Oh nooooooo!
When it’s Good the words used are “childrearing”, “raising”, “preparing”, “teaching”, etc… When it’s Bad it’s “indoctrinating”, “brainwashing”, and worst of all “grooming”.
It really is the height of hypocrisy. Couldn’t agree more.
Good point….I am anti — Woke, I could be one of these ‘far right’ mentioned above because I do see the left as the Nasy ones in general. They are the ‘be kind’ brigade while being anything but. A good example is the Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern….Over the Covid Lockdowns she turned into a tyrant, and that also goes for another far leftist, Trudeau of Canada.
We had the Rotheram scandal where young teens were pimped by mainly Pakistani gangs. I remember questioning the 1500 figure in 2015 on twitter (when I had an account). When I do hear Rotheram mentioned I tend to roll my eyes, and I do feel guilty for that because some of the stories are horrific. The problem is, the framing of it. To me, is based on a false premise, that anyone under the UK age of consent cannot consent, and that children are ‘asexual’. so as sympathetic I am to these accounts, I feel I cannot give my full support because of the deceptive use of language.
Yup the problem with Japan is the computerised girlfriends. Though I will say that Japan has a low crime rate and doesn’t allow mass immigration unlike in the West that is driving Europe into a nose dive. You would’t hear on the MSM but parts of France are war-zones with ethnic tensions. This all seems deliberate with Agenda 2030 (Net 0). Not to mention Ukraine that is just used as a Battering Ram to wreak the old adversary Russia.
It’s already too late for them. Child sexuality is too far advanced. We passed the tipping point and now events will naturally take their course.
When schools and government become “groomers” the term is made a nonsense.
They lost and we won. But it may take a generation to feed through.
Did anyone see the latest Internet Watch story?
Headline: Lockdowns linked to tenfold rise in child sex imagery
Stand-out detail: Self-generated child abuse videos and images now make up two-thirds of imagery investigated by analysts.
>When schools and government become “groomers” the term is made a nonsense. They lost and we won.
On first reading this I thought ZT was being wildly over-optimistic. After catching up on a video link he sent a couple of weeks ago I am not so sure. I’ll give the link again because it’s worth checking out:
Hikari, in the post ZT was replying to, had not specified who these supposed losers are, other than anyone worried about child “sexualisation”. But after seeing the video it looks to me as though ZT was thinking mainly about parents. Personally, I would prefer not to make parents the enemy in a culture war of winners and losers but the two conservative parents in the video were clearly conceiving it in these terms.
Objecting to all-ages drag shows, one of them said, “it’s about a power transfer away from parents”. This contributor also objected to “pleasure-based” sex education, which she claimed now includes teaching children in kindergarten to masturbate. She even objected to the anti-bullying element in Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) lessons. However, the culture war warriors on the Right, such as these women, have a long history of gross distortion e.g. using child-protection concerns as a weapon against homosexuality.
Tom, I wasn’t thinking especially of “parents” as losers in this significant cultural shift towards more sexualised children. Indeed, my experience of Instagram shows a strong bond between mothers and their daughters, for example, where the young girl seems very liberated and often poses knowingly under the adult male gaze. Men have learned to be polite and respectful or they get a block, but young girls can be beautiful, risqué, provocative and precocious, mostly in alliance with their parents.
The real “losers” in this rapidly developing cultural change are the staunch and hubristically intransigent “conservative” or “trad” parents, the type that believe in homeschooling their kids and are a diminishing minority.
They have always been loud in the cultural fight, and Ron DeSantis is their cheerleader (eg. he wants the death penalty for child rape – not sure if that includes statutory rape).
If DeSantis was conceivably a future president (even though he has socially “hard right” niche views) that could set back children’s freedoms and the, by now, slightly growing acceptance of adults fancying children. We’ll see.
Point taken. Not all parents think the same way. Indeed, I am reminded that several times previously you have pointed to the “strong bond” between at least some mothers and their daughters in taking a more positive view.
Are you American? He does not hold “niche views”. His views are very much part of the mainstream of American society, and certainly are common among Republican voters. And either he or Trump will be president come 2025.
As for parents winning and losing- the 2020s and 2030s will see the last burst of fighting over parents vs the state, only to end, I believe, in the diminishing authority of both, long term. It is the autonomy of the child that is coming. Not parental authority or curating, not state warding and in loco parentis or parens patriae.
Conservatives and Republicans will fight it tooth and nail, and will succeed for a time for this decade. Many progressives will aid them too (in ways witting and unwitting), before they finally get shaken so bad by conservative rollbacks of LGBTQ and women’s rights, that feminists and queer people will be shaken out of their current puritanical stupor and rediscover their own post-war era roots. As of right now, the overturn of Roe and various other court rulings and legislation passed in numerous Republican states apparently hasn’t been enough of a thorough slap across the face. They all got so focus on girl-bossing and marriage equality that they forgot that those were compromise positions to appease the right. Well, the right is not appeased. They’ll never be appeased until we reach some nonexistent better past.
DeSantis seems extreme to a mild-mannered Brit who is used to Sunak and Starmer.
I think children will be granted a greater societal role too – especially through the dramatic ongoing development of social technologies.
I quite like DeSantis, he opened up Florida while many left leaning states doubled down. People ask why so many leftists are authoritarian, others argue that it is because they are authoritarian but not necessarily because they are of the left.
Remember a year or so ago there was a survey done asking if anti-vexers should be in quarantine camps and around 60% agreed. So on other issues besides paedophilia, careful what you wish for.
[MODERATOR: APART FROM THE P WORD IN THE LAST LINE THERE IS NOTHING ON TOPIC HERE, PAT. NO MORE ANTI-VAX OR GENERAL POLITICAL STUFF PLEASE, UNLESS YOUR MAIN THEME IS RELEVANT TO THIS BLOG.]
Tom, if I may be political a little more:
@Zen @PAT this is what I don’t understand about so many MAPs- you all keep allying yourself with your enemies, and calling liberals (Democrats, Ardern, Biden, Hollywood, Bill Gates, et. al.) leftists- they’re not. They’re centrists. They are the established global status quo. And because a few nationalists, right wing nut jobs throw a temper tantrum because these liberals support gay marriage (a compromise position with the right) and engage in authoritarianism (as all power establishments do), and oppose trans people (which these conservative MAPs selfishly denigrate on the idea of “spoiling” their attracted subject- not terribly different from conservative ideas of child innocence, purity, and sexlessness), they think they have a friend in these people- people who would never in a million years consider you a human being. People who start organizations like OUR and NAMEC, and who created the Satanic Panic and forced MAPs back underground in the 80s and 90s in the first place- causing LGBTQ people (who they misidentify as the enemy) to compromise with the right in order to obtain some normatization (i.e. monogamous committed relationships among adults only, and only then, without “rubbing it” in conservatives faces).
You are allying yourselves with your enemies. Undermining your own cause. It is perplexing to say the least, and reveals an underlying objectification (i.e. dehumanization) of the child that you claim to want to move away from. An underlying fetishization of the pure, innocent child. Just that you have followed their fetishization through to its sexual conclusion- an exploitation they fear because it is the shadow of their own way of thinking. Something they unconsciously know and see in themselves. Which they see manifest in you. And its maddening that you don’t see it. The same forces that evicted you from the queer movement, which will further move us to the right, and further into the hysteria, further into the clampdowns, further into the surveillance and prison state that thrives on making MAPs their favorite target of choice. Moving the center evermore rightward and evermore authoritarian. Even now, they are moving legislation in the states to bar minors from using social media. I just don’t understand how you don’t see all of this.
(Sorry, Tom if it doesn’t flow well. If I had more time, I could better compose it)
>its maddening that you don’t see it.
The people we need to worry most about are those who think they have a monopoly of wisdom.
I think ignorance (especially of the willful kind) is more worrisome.
Ok but I was just responding to Zen who first brought up DeSantis and thought I would defend him on other freedom related grounds. Just because some on here point to Big Tech as our friend, doesn’t mean we all agree and some of us are deeply suspicious of these monopolies of the public square. Elon has exposed the ex CIA interference in favour of the Democrats. Here in the UK journalists are so ‘shocked’ that 77 Brigade were keeping tabs on those who question Lockdown like Peter Hitchens to name a few. Us ‘conspiracy theorists’ knew about 77 Brigade and I remember joking about them in 2020.
The Woke represent cancel culture, and that is why H – TOC had to renew the website in 2020. At least they let you keep all your information, but what right did they have, there was no crime to date!
>The Woke represent cancel culture, and that is why H – TOC had to renew the website in 2020.
No, it was nothing to do with cancel culture from the Left. This was from the Right: the pressure to shut HTOC down was from the Daily Mail, a very powerful right-wing force for well over a century, even flirting with fascism in the 1930s.
Woke cancel culture from the Left is by comparison a very recent phenomenon, including the word “woke” itself.
Ah yes, Instagram. The great “Pedo Playground” as it has been termed by the anti’s. They’re not wrong though! It’s an environment where grown men, sometimes posing under a false age, sometimes not, can come to be part of the smiling, dancing, fun-loving energy exuded by happy-go-lucky LG’s. The parents running these “Mom Monitored” accounts are obviously aware that a sizable portion of their audience includes adults with a sexual interest in their daughters. While explicit messages are blocked and reported, it is hardly a mystery what a cluster of flame emojis is getting at.
For MAPs who are regularly despised and verbally assaulted on other major social media platforms, Instagram is a breath of fresh air. It’s like the inverse of Reddit (post- r/jailbait era of course) and Youtube. Certainly there are haters and vigilantes out to out, but they are often ratioed and drowned out in a sea of positivity and compliments put forth by girl lovers. Plus one can’t help but wonder what these white knights are doing on these profiles *themselves*, ya know?
While some behaviour, especially from the very young, seems more monkey-see-monkey-do #trending content, there is an overwhelming amount of thousands upon thousands of accounts showcasing girls who willingly and without adult assistance show off their bodies (midriff and rumps especially) and are obviously enjoying themselves. They are providing reams of visual proof. It doesn’t take a self interested ‘perv’ to arrive at such conclusions – the beaming smiles, knowing winks, and laughter all serve as evidence that children are sexual beings with a desire to express themselves. “Self generated abuse material” – Ha!
Valid criticisms are to be made about the young and dangers of social media with the pursuit of Likes based primarily upon how one looks, but in my experience there seems to be far more instances of encouragement and positive reinforcement than there is cyberbullying. I have difficulty seeing this as a drastic social ill.
For MAPs I truly believe that Instagram will do more for increased acceptance of our kind than many, if not most, of the pro-pedo political efforts of the past few decades. Really! Campaigns of “Stranger Danger” are ongoing, but never before in human history have kids been so directly exposed to the ‘monsters in our midst’ as they are today. I think, even with as much fearmongering as there is out there, it will become more and more difficult to convince the up and coming generations that the huge swaths of people online who flood their comments with hearts and the occasional remark on body parts they find attractive (which the kids themselves probably share in thinking are cute bits about themselves) are the Big Bad Wolves intent on destroying their lives. Us ‘abnormals’ are a normal part of their daily experience and partially responsible for dopamine boosts. We become associated with feeling good. The revolution will come from the youth themselves whose lived experience directly contradicts the dominant narrative.
Instagram is a great confidence booster for kids. I’ve seen young girls with very ropey looks get a thousand likes, simply because they’re children.
Totally agree, Instagram is a great, positive advert for intergenerational attraction. As a safe ersatz social space combining MAPs and children, mediated by parents, it’s the perfect formula.
It shows such a future is possible.
I don’t follow any independent child run accounts, only “mum” accounts. Much safer to have that mediation, trust me. Say the wrong thing to a child and you can get three years in jail just like that. Not that I ever would, but there’s plenty of professional fake “entrapment” accounts too. Mum accounts are the way forward.
I’ve only ever commented twice, said a six year old was “wonderful” and an eight year old had a “beautiful smile”. Parents are cool, they let both comments stand. No negative experiences.
Instagram is a societal blueprint for the successful coexistence and (mediated) interaction between MAPs and children. It works.
Exactly. For those who bemoan the dominance of a singular beauty ideal, just hop on the Gram and you will see that all ages, shapes, colors, etc… have their admirers. The amputees are praised for their TikTok dance challenge vids and get to be included. People with down syndrome will receive compliments. Chubby girls get to know that they too have admirers. Almost always social media is framed as a confidence *destroyer*, what with always comparing to others, but I really don’t think it’s as simple as that.
Thus the fearmongering by anti’s desperate to prevent such evolution. But whereas it’s easy to drum up support for taking down ‘Dark Web’ boogeymen, Instagram is such a mainstream platform that the scare tactics are failing to land. I know it’s common to laugh off the idea of a Pedo Elite, but I legitimately wonder if there is a contingency of executive MAPs at Meta who are well aware of what they’re doing. The algorithms practically scream “We know what you reeeeally want.” and it is allowed to stay. Big Tech sometimes gets hit with campaigns like #PedoTube or whatever the hell it was, but beyond some changes to the TOS, no really radical crackdowns are enforced. FWIW I think the ‘Elsagate’ content is despicable and I wouldn’t fight for its right to exist (I’m also not going to spend time trying to scrub it from existence), but Insta isn’t pushing violence and death and injections and kidnapping and all that on a kid audience, it’s just showcasing the natural beauty of youth, sometimes sexualized sometimes not, for all to enjoy. I’ll never understand why people insist on treating sex and violence as they’re both equally objectionable. Zero sense.
Best to behave as though anything you say will be screenshotted and used against you. Don’t slide into DMs. That said even mild comments like “cutie” or calling a 16 year old “babe” can bring out the Chris Hansen wannabes, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about that. At least as far as I know such activity wouldn’t be classified as grooming, but then again we live in clown world, so who knows. I like making comments like that because it lets other MAPs know they’re not alone. If really concerned you can always refrain from making comments yourself, but heart those made by others which essentially signal boosts the girl love. No downvotes, so even if most people think you’re a ‘sicko’ for telling a tween she has ‘nice moves’, the presence of a few upvotes can draw attention to the fact that this sentiment is shared. Sometimes these “i’d go to jail over her”-esque remarks are some of the most liked comments!
I’m very careful with language; I’d only use neutral terms like “beautiful” or “wonderful”. But I have a cautious nature.
Yes the “Meta executive paedo elite” are driving forward significant cultural change, haha.
At least he defended their right to breathe freely, and he is one of the few who is starting a legal challenge against vaccine mandates with experimental technology. Please tell me any democrat that is doing this. Don’t get me wrong, I see the Dems and Republicans as corrupt to the core with weapons & big Pharma having a stranglehold with lobbying, insider trading etc. Pentagon is the worlds largest money laundering operation. That can explain such a religious support for Ukraine.
I’m for child sexual freedom as the next but couldn’t help agreeing with Trump in his latest speech saying how he will make gender reassignment illegal before a certain age. Many regret being pressured into these life changing operations and, as usual, follow the money is at the heart of it. On another Note, I see circumcision as abusive and unecessary in many ways and hate how it’s abusive in girls and healthy in boys.
They are also using the child protection Trojan horse to shoe horn this Online harms (censorship) Bill through Parliament. Another nail in the coffin of free speech and democracy in the UK. Or was democracy always an illusion. There is a famous quote….’If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us have them’.
To those who bemoan the changing culture surrounding children and sexuality, I say “ok, fumers“!
“Grooming”….I call it the seduction pejorative!
The deficiency of Watson’s skepticism comes as no surprise. She’s the one who started the ridiculous dispute with Richard Dawkins a few years ago.
First, I haven’t found anything about child abuse in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Second, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein are Jews indeed, according to the Wikipedia. Epstein is buried in a Jewish mausoleum.
[MODERATOR: Part of this comment has been deleted. The issue is one that I will discuss with Cyril privately. He raises a personal point that I think is best resolved that way.]
And Roman Polanski is also a Jew. Some have said that the campaign against him is motivated by antisemitism. Others have pointed out that caricatures of Weinstein published in the media are antisemitic.
And some use it to close down debate as discussed last blog on here regarding ‘Globalists’…Some try to delegitimise people’s concerns with the ‘antisemitic trope.
[MODERATOR: SEE MY COMMENT ON YOUR PREVIOUS POST.]
When the Far Right come to power they invariably close down free speech far more than it is ever limited within liberal democracies. In fairness, so do the Far Left.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Free speech!
This just in! Reported a whole 20 minutes ago from one outlet https://www.ok.co.uk/royal/royal-news/prince-andrew-plans-apology-after-29018574.
Multiple news / media outlets are posting stoies about Andrew allegedly consulting with lawyers to re-vamp his defence against Virginia Giuffre and secure an apology.
I think I will refrain from commenting more on this and instead see other people’s thoughts on the blog post itself first. However, I will say this is important information that reinforces the implication behind the scene in the musical where Prince Charles settles Andrew’s case against his will. I.e. Andrew wanted to fight the case and recieve recognition of his innocence.
According to news reports, he still does…
The Daily Mail reported on this yesterday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11661933/Prince-Andrew-consults-lawyers-hope-ending-royal-exile.html
Sensational stuff! This looks set fair to be the hottest topic for the tabs over the weekend and into next week, so your review could hardly have been better timed, Prue!
As the Mail notes, there is an unmissable interview with Ghislaine coming up on Monday:
Jeremy Kyle Live: Ghislaine Behind Bars on Monday night on TalkTV at 7pm. Available on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217.
Ghislaine’s TV interview from prison interested me, but not so much for her claim that Andrew never met accuser Virginia Giuffre, and that the photo showing them together was a fake. We’d have heard this from written reports. What struck me, rather was her demeanour. Others remarked how well she looked, as though she was doing just fine in prison. That’s not what I saw. She was fiddling with her hair a lot and seemed physically uncomfortable. Likewise her description of her life in prison tells me she is suffering.
But for a sensational encounter the next hour on the same channel, Piers Morgan Uncensored, was where the sparks flew. Historian Tessa Dunlop was so incandescent with rightous feminist fury I thought at one point she was about to grab Andrew’s ex-girlfriend, Lady Victoria Hervey, and start pulling her hair out. The latter stayed remarkably cool and articulate in Andrew’s defence throughout, except for one lapse when the tension took over and she called Giuffre “a fucking liar”.
I did watch these interviews btw, the day after they aired, as they can be found on YouTube easily 🙂 I was pretty disappointed by the Ghislaine “interview”, which I expected would be a straight, uncut, unedited grilling between Piers and Ghislaine. Instead it appeared edited with lots of ad breaks, so I wonder what could’ve been left out.
I agree though, she did not seem well at all. Whoever looked at her and thought she’s doing well is clearly a sadist of the kind routinely hired in prisons.
Yes piers Morgan uncensored was more interesting; some righteous feminist fury indeed. What we’d call an NPC in gamer language nowadays; essentially a stock character who’s sole purpose is to run through a selection of common talking points and rhetorical flourishes. I bet she reminded you of Esther Rantzen?
Someone commented “catfight!” below the video, and that’s what I thought too. It was almost embarrassing, and if Lady Hervey’s claims are true, and if she ever gets to publish the evidence for her case or bring it to court should Andrew decide to defend himself, the impact could be sensational. Imagine if Guiffre was exposed as a “fucking liar” – the case of the century so far – endless media spectacle and condemnation: it would be a nail in the coffin of Western feminist victimology. What the Johnny Depp / Amber Herdt trial was to the men’s rights movement: a vindication of a man torn down by money hungry women exploiting contemporary sensitivities.
Hervey’s claims do make the whole saga that bit more interesting; timely too, with both herself and Ghislaine claiming that the photo showing Andrew and Guiffre together is fake. I.e. that no original has ever been produced in court because there is none.
As for Esptein being murdered as Ghislaine put it, I suspect she’s got a point. From everything I’ve seen of Espstein he seems to have been a very cheerful, nice guy who’s well likes by his friends and spoken of in the highest terms. He didn’t seem to believe he’d done anything seriously wrong, and his surviving friends who’ve, *ahem*, spoken out, say that after he came out of the prison the 1st time hed reflected on his life and decided he wanted to make a change: in his case, through funding scientific research.
He doesn’t *seem* like someone who’d kill himself, though he was at a particularly low point in his life. It’s possible, and if his name was well-known and any case against him deeply prejudiced by the point of his 2nd arrest and imprisonment, then perhaps he was killed by your garden variety “nonce basher” thug… I am somewhat skeptical bc I can believe easily that Epstein died by hanging, but remain on-the-fence about who dunnit. I lean towards the suicide via coroners report, and doubt we’ll ever know the capital T “truth”. Dare we say the prison staff themselves might have played a role in deliberately facilitating his death? The case sure does lend itself to speculation, and I’d rather not speculate lest i get grapped by conspiratorial thinking…
Anyway, the piers Morgan uncensored was amusing. Here’s the link if others want to watch https://www.youtube.com/live/Gw6Ig07lT4k
Great article Prue.
>Imagine if Guiffre was exposed as a “fucking liar” – the case of the century so far – endless media spectacle and condemnation
Now that would be interesting. To be fair, there are still a fair amount of people on Amber Heard’s side.
Anybody seen the Daily Telegraph this morning? The front-page leads with “The photo that ‘clears Duke’ over bath sex”. The smaller headline with it says “Maxwell family claims ‘frolicking’ could not happen because there was not enough room.” Readers are treated to a photo of two people in a bath at Ghislaine Maxwell’s former London home with photographs of Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre stuck to their heads.
The Telegraph story is behind a paywall but the Daily Beast now has the details:
Justin Webb on Radio 4’s Today programme called it one of the oddest newspaper front pages he had ever seen, with its “bizarre” photo. Odd for the upmarket papers, certainly. More like the livelier tabloids, especially the Daily Star!
Obviously, the photo doesn’t prove a thing, but it does draw attention to the fact that the original bath sex claim was made in a book that Giuffre’s lawyers have apparently admitted was partly “fictionalised”.
I watched the Ghislaine interview and the subsequent comments by Jeremy Kyle’s guests. One guest in particular – described as a ‘TV psychologist’ – made claims about the interview which just didn’t seem justified to me. She said that Ghislaine showed herself to be a narcissist. I didn’t see that at all.
>She said that Ghislaine showed herself to be a narcissist. I didn’t see that at all.
Indeed. It was just a baseless slur.
Yes, if she had just been a member of the public who had been asked her opinion, that would have been bad enough. But the fact that she was described as a ‘psychologist’ made it doubly objectionable. What a fraud!
Actually, “narcissism” is a clinical diagnosis. Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are not supposed to make diagnoses without a proper consultation with the patient, examining any symptoms carefully, taking a full medical history, etc. They are certainly not allowed to diagnose based on seeing someone on the telly. This is against their professional ethical code.
Imma gonna leave the royal family stuff alone, and say only about it that I have always been an ardent civic republican, and leave it at that.
As for Epstein- he didn’t kill himself, and the people who run this world absolutely engage in human trafficking and sexual abuse on the regular. That’s all I’ll say about that.
To the more important issue at hand- that of oppression, liberation, and autonomy:
It is going to be most important to establish youthful autonomy in two areas, if things in this world are to improve. They must have economic independence, and they must have the franchise. Everything else will follow. The moment they are no longer dependent on another person for their physical and economic well being, and are given a political say, then everything else should follow, whereby they will be able to assert themselves however they wish to. Instead of children being dependent on a parent’s income, or, frankly, even on employment, but instead have some sort of secured allowance which they have at least half access to, which they are free to use however they want- is the most important. Economic reality always dictates what future political and legal reality will be. Wherever the money goes, so society goes.
[MODERATOR: This was retrieved from Spam. No idea why it went there, but sorry about the delay.]
Yes, I agree with the point about economic independence. In fact, I favour a universal basic income, including for adolescents. At what age should it be payable? I would suggest no specific age, but rather that the young person should take a competency test to determine their eligibility.
It should apply from the womb. Until age 7, mostly spent by parents (but only for the kids, not as part of a family pooling), age 7-13 give them partial access, and 14+ they should have full co-access. From a simplistic standpoint. But the funds should be only spent on the person whom it is disbursed for. It is in no way to be allowed to be a supplemental income for the parents or family.
(a) If you allow parents to access the funds, it is hard to enforce their use only for the child. The present system of child benefit payments (in the U.K. – I guess other developed countries have similar schemes) seems better for children not yet mature enough to handle their own funds.
(b) Having an age-based system is unfair for the child able to handle funds sensibly at a precociously young age.
It’s not hard to monitor accounts at all. The funds should be disbursed to a specific account which belongs to the child, and which is monitored until the child has full autonomy over it, after which, it wouldn’t be monitored. And the child should be able to petition for total autonomy any time after 14.
I have an entire peerage system in mind, which allows for a child to advance to the next group a year or two early, or be held back a year longer. Then of course there is the matter of what we might call permanent dependents- those incapable of caring for themselves mentally and/or physically, which would have to be accounted for. Really, it’s all part of a larger constitution for a better society I have in mind.
Regarding your first paragraph, how would you prevent a parent making a cash withdrawal and then using it for booze and fags?
But maybe you’d say we’re moving so fast towards a cashless society that you could prohibit cash withdrawals or severely restrict them?
Cashless society. No cash withdrawals. Only verifiable purchases. Parents should never be given autonomy over the money. The child can slowly gain autonomy over portions of the funds, but never the parents.