The first part of this two-part guest blog by “Marco” appeared under the main heading “Like cutting off my own limb” on 24 September.
TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
In the first part of this guest blog, last month, I explained the devastating consequences that repression (self-inflicted) and oppression (exercised by others) of my homosexuality, had on me over the course of my adolescence, leading to several suicide attempts. I also explained that, as an adult, I had been chatting on Grindr with a 13-year-old boy who showed interest in a sexual encounter, and I told of the horrible experience I had in a legal consultation. I eventually decided not to meet the kid. Not because I would be doing anything wrong, but because I wanted to be free to tell my full story later, and to advocate for social and legal change.
I have come to the realisation that we are trapped in a system that is rotten to the core. The current debates on the age of consent are driven by the interests, expectations, needs, phobias, and prejudices of parents. Sex negationists deny youth sexuality, as if children had no identity, no preferences, and no sexual desire. It is as if youngsters were deemed incapable of taking the initiative, or as though being oppressed was just a minor inconvenience. Irrationality is cranked up by journalists who use the term “paedophile” in a sensationalistic way to generate click-bait headlines.
Adults suck, sometimes. The debate should return to what it should always have been about: the interests and needs of children themselves. However, our “justice” system doesn’t really care about what young people think, feel, or say about their sexuality. It takes them as mere legal artefacts, cute but innocent, silly brats, unripe fruit, or brittle China dolls we’d rather wrap in protective cotton wool and keep safe in a box. Youngsters are indeed immature, but, ironically, they are deprived of real experiences from which they would gain – guess what – maturity.
Sadly, legal consent involving minors and adults has been reduced to a completely dehumanised procedure for the convenience of a “justice” system designed to resolve cases through the brutal application of a simple “one size fits all” formula that fails to do justice to individual circumstances. It has become a bit like primary school Maths: “Tell me your age. Tell me ‘her’ age. Formula applied. We are done. Next.” This justice system is ostensibly for the protection of minors. But horny teenagers do not wait. Instead, they rush into furtive encounters, leaving them with a terrible fear of discovery and vulnerable to risks including abuse and STIs. I take sexual abuse seriously. So seriously that I don’t buy the utterly absurd idea that wanted relationships are the same for minors as unwanted ones. It is high time to rethink consent.
But, first, we need to lay a foundation from a philosophical and ethical perspective, to see what is at stake. In a way, oppression and abuse are two sides of the same coin. The common underlying principle is that you own your body, your intimacy is yours. The moment we are born, our body is ours, and we have an identity that will persist for the rest of our life. If our sexual intimacy is something so important, sacred, transcendental, ancestral, and which profoundly affects our dignity… then it must be so both in terms of inviolability and in terms of right to its use. Correct?
We can think of it this way: keeping innocent people out of prison is as important as putting guilty ones behind bars. The greater the punishment at stake, the more relevant that “as important” becomes, and the more necessary it is to correctly define what is an offence and what is not. In my view, any system that does not strongly recognise both sexual abuse and sexual oppression as core ethical concerns is flawed. In other words: Laws must not only exist to protect us from abuse; they are also there to ensure our freedom. And if you ask me how much sexual freedom is enough, I’ll ask you: How much gender equality do you think is enough? To put it in Foucaultian terms, sex shaming has an overwhelming yet underestimated power dynamic.
In the specific case of youth, to be fair, I do think they are more vulnerable to abuse. But people systematically overlook the fact that they are more vulnerable to oppression as well, since they are at a stage of life where they are completely dependent on their parents, do not have the right to vote, and are under high pressure to swallow pre-established social conventions. In the meantime, their libido increases along with their rapidly rising testosterone levels . Putting all this together, we can say that young people are highly impacted by both abuse and oppression.
Consequently, human rights should address sexual freedom both in terms of abuse and oppression. The right to be free from sexual abuse is recognised. But there is no recognised right to private intimate contact that is mutually desired. What is stopping this? One of the obvious pitfalls is child sexuality. By definition, human rights apply to all humans, so that if we recognise sexual freedom as a human right, we will inevitably have to address juvenile sexual freedom. However, the human rights conventions of the United Nations are still galaxies away* from such ideas . As a reminder, they still fail to effectively decriminalise homosexuality these days, even though ILGA surrendered in the debate on child sexuality three decades ago to satisfy the demands of the conservatives. That was the price of acceptance into the UN club – an astronomically expensive price, I must add. I wonder when humanity will be mature enough to recognise sexual freedom as a human right.
But, hey, wait a moment! It would be totally wrong to treat adolescents just like adults, as they don’t have the same capabilities. I especially refer to the capacity for rejecting sexual propositions. Saying “no” is not that easy. Additionally, receiving a sexual proposition may come unexpectedly to a teenager, and this poses a problem. In other words, adolescents are not adults. They don’t start from a level playing field. Agreed. But adolescents are not toddlers either! In fact, a 5-year-old infant is not the same as a 10-year-old pre-teen, or a 15-year-old teenager, or a 20-year-old young adult. In my opinion, establishing a single age of consent (before which you are deemed sexually disabled, and after which you are deemed autonomous) doesn’t make much sense because it is poorly adapted to our nature. We don’t become autonomous overnight. It is more of a gradual process, isn’t it? Laws should strive to adapt to human nature, not the other way around! Therefore, for a start, we need a system that recognises different “stages of consent” (rather than a single “age of consent”).
Adolescents cannot consent autonomously. But this is by no means an excuse to oppress those who do want to have an intimate contact with someone. If you simply say “they can’t consent” you are basically saying you don’t care about their feelings and dignity, since you have already decided for them, but without them. They are not objects! Let’s not forget that we are talking about humans. Also, the “they can’t consent” rhetoric creates conflicts with sex education. How come we can have sex education activities below the age of consent? How come we can ask youth to respect the will of others if we don’t respect theirs?
Rather, we have the moral duty to respect their feelings and help them have contacts safely. Legal consent should establish guarantees, not limits. In the case of minors, I think two things should be added to the law with regard to age gaps, as strong indicators of consent: whether the minor is supervised by parents who knew about the intended contact, and whether the sexual encounter is explicit and organised on the initiative of the minor. I consider parental supervision especially important. Parents have the responsibility to safeguard the sexual freedom of their children as much as they have the responsibility to feed them.
We cannot sacrifice the freedom of some in order to protect others, as this creates a new injustice. The fact that real sexual abuse is rightly treated as criminal does not mean non-abusive acts should also be criminalised. In my view, it is an ethical perversion to curtail the sexual freedom of teenagers because “we hate abusers”, since this directs part of the punishment onto innocent youngsters and their partners. Also, restrictions cannot be based on “risk of abuse”, since this immediately establishes a prejudice. Instead, the goal of a fair system of legal consent is to make sure, to the greatest possible extent, that the will of every individual is respected. That’s what consent is in its essence: profound respect for the individual will.
* Except for a remarkably bold development in a report two years ago sponsored by the UN but never endorsed by that organisation, which timidly rowed back when the proposals came under attack from then Senator Marco Rubio, who is now the US Secretary of State. This was a report by the International Commission of Jurists, as featured in a downpage Heretic TOC item headed “Let’s march to the 8 March tune”.
***
Your regular heretic host resumes here:
GROOMED, BY MUSK AND ROBINSON
We have been around the “grooming gangs” block before. There have already been inquiries in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oldham and Bradford. And of course there was the vast, sprawling, multi-year, no-expense-spared Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to which I testified when they wanted to hear about my involvement (which was zero) in the alleged VIP child abuse ring (also zilch), in parliament and government.
The so-called “Westminster strand” of the inquiry was founded entirely on the lies of a few fantasists, one of whom was later discredited and jailed – unlike the hacks and pols who chose to believe what common sense should have told them was ridiculous. They believed all the fake news, or said they did, simply because it suited them to do so: it promoted a sensational narrative that promised to advance their own careers while kicking political opponents in the teeth, with one side denouncing Labour’s association (think NCCL, Harriet Harman) with people like me while the other side knocked fantasy Tory child abusers such as former prime minister Edward Heath.
“Strat”, in a recent comment here, rightly said a new grooming gangs inquiry will be a “useless and expensive” exercise, noting that Jim Gamble, a high-profile police figure who had been tipped to lead it, has pulled out. This, too, brings back that déjà vu feeling. Gamble’s withdrawal came when “survivors” expressed no confidence in a police-led inquiry. Likewise, IICSA had a rocky start when the alleged victims/survivors at that time refused to accept several experienced and respected figures as the inquiry head, finally settling for Prof. Alexis Jay, who had been in charge of the Rotherham inquiry.
If anything needs to be done to prevent genuinely coercive or violent sexual behaviour towards children, yet more inquiries are not going to help. When self-appointed victim/survivor leaders are given the “voice” they constantly claim is being ignored, they tend to end up squabbling among themselves, scrabbling to grab hold of the biggest megaphone and denouncing any voice except their own. Why is it, I wonder, that these so-called “vulnerable” people, who have allegedly suffered so badly at the hands of abusers who “have all the power”, all seem to be so stridently assertive, aggressive, noisy, and, well, incredibly powerful?
Real victims would be better served by resolute police action, not inquiries. Why doesn’t that happen? My suspicion is that the police understand quite well that the only reason “grooming gangs” are such a hot issue is that those who have pushed it to the top of the political agenda are the likes of Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson, whose target is not so much groomers as Muslims, especially Muslim immigrants. The “Muslim grooming gangs” motif hits two hot-button emotive issues at once: Pakis and paedos!
The police have plenty of real work to be doing, some of it against genuine child abuse, including neglect and cruelty (the original focus of the NSPCC), and we are all aware of how bogus abuse work and pursuing ridiculous woke hate-crime complaints has distracted them from real and urgent tasks such as tackling knife crime, county lines, the epidemic of industrial scale shoplifting, having a visible presence at known trouble hotspots before it all kicks off, and upping their game against devastating online scams that can wipe out life savings, to say nothing of major cybercrime: the JLR job alone has threatened thousands of livelihoods and cost the economy billions. The cops should focus on this important stuff, and we (the public) should let them get on with it.
DISLODGING PRINCE ANDREW
Having been forced out of my own home back in the day for no better reason than being unpopular as a MAP, I have some sympathy for Prince Andrew, who is under pressure not just to give up the roof over his head but to banish himself to some other country, just for the “crime” of once having had an unpopular friend, many years ago.
The claim is that he has been sponging off taxpayers by living rent-free for over 20 years at Royal Lodge, Windsor, which is admittedly more “des res” than your average asylum hotel. But the “sponging” allegation ignores the fact that Andrew’s lease committed him to paying an initial £1 million and spending £7.5 million on refurbishment plus maintaining the house and estate, which must cost a bomb – the grounds alone need four full-time gardeners, and total outdoor costs would be around £150,000 each year, to say nothing of the 30-room building’s upkeep.
A HINT OF HOPE FROM ECUADOR
It is always darkest just before the dawn, as wise man Thomas Fuller observed a few centuries ago. Was he right? I have no idea. I have never checked. But we must hope his metaphorical wisdom works in the case of Marthijn Uittenbogaard and his partner Lesley, the Dutch duo who fled their country’s increasing intolerance against MAP activism only to end up baselessly imprisoned in Ecuador in 2022 under appalling conditions. Their story, starting in the Netherlands, has long been followed by Heretic TOC when there have been major developments. See, especially, here, here, here, and here.
What we must hope was the darkest point, following a long-delayed trial, conviction, 10-year prison sentence and failed appeal, was an awful period this summer when the pair had reduced access to food, leaving them weak and increasingly vulnerable to TB, from which many prisoners were dying. As their compatriot and stalwart supporter Anton Dautzenberg, a famous writer in the Netherlands, put it, “the president of Ecuador thinks that [food] is an unnecessary luxury for the time being”. Last month, though, Dautzenberg brought some more encouraging news:
The men have been moved to another cell. They feel safe there, because they were already friends with two of the three cellmates. Moreover, they finally have access to the prison shop again, the credit (for three months) has been replenished. They also managed to transfer extra money so that the men can purchase vitamins and nutritional supplements. Finally, the process for transfer of sentence to the Netherlands has been set in motion – WOTS, Transfer of Enforcement of Criminal Sentences Act.
I’m not sure what’s WOTS. Maybe it’s an Ecuadoran or Dutch acronym. But the important bit is in bold. They could be coming home to serve the remainder of their sentence. No further news on that yet, but a week ago Dautzenberg reported that things are still going relatively well and that the prison regime has been relaxed somewhat.
THREE NOT-SO-WISE MEN
Less wise, no doubt, than Thomas Fuller, but probably a good deal more interesting to heretics here, are three figures who have been in the news.
Let’s kick off with naughty former Premier League football referee David Coote, who was unwise enough a few years ago to call Liverpool’s manager at the time, Jürgen Klopp, a “German cunt” and “fucking arrogant”. It got him a Red Card that saw him suspended from his job for a while, but that’s not the half of it. He has since been accused of “gambling misconduct”, caught snorting “a white powder through a bank note”, and – here’s the really naughty bit – in possession of child porn. Wow! What a gloriously colourful badass! Coote’s a hoot!
In January, he came out as gay in an interview with The Sun and said a lifelong struggle to hide his sexuality had contributed to the rant about Klopp. He is reportedly due in court again in December for sentencing in the porn case. Can’t wait to see what excuse he comes up with this time. I suppose it could be, “Sorry, Your Honour, I was off my head on coke while trying to forget about my disastrous gambling losses.” Whatever he tries, good luck to him!
**
Next up, someone for whom we may have less sympathy, former Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins, who was found dead earlier this month after being attacked in Wakefield prison. On the face of it, his criminality had been truly awful, as he had been serving a 29-year sentence for a number of child sex offences including “the attempted rape of a fan’s baby”.
We always need to be careful with rape allegations, though, bearing in mind that the word “rape” has been so diluted in meaning. At one time it was confined to forcible penetration of the vagina, which would have been truly horrific in the case of a baby – and perhaps also impossible bearing in mind that a baby’s genitals could not accommodate an adult penis. As for “attempted”, what might that have amounted to? Even gentle rubbing of a penis against a child’s vagina, anus, or mouth with only the very slightest intromission, would legally constitute rape these days, and for a charge of “attempted” rape to succeed it would be necessary only to show that the accused intended to penetrate the victim and had started relevant preliminaries, such as undressing a child.
What makes me doubt that he ever did anything that would have frightened or hurt a child is that he made little secret of his sexuality, and was able to recruit two women “who donated their babies to him”, as Watkins’ defence barrister Michael Wolkind put it. These women were jailed as well. Also, even though there was video evidence of his “attempted rape of a baby” he did not initially plead guilty. Did he imagine he might be able to persuade a jury, based on this visual record, that he was not guilty of such a serious charge? In the end he changed his plea, doubtless based on legal advice, so no jury ever saw the evidence.
**
Our third unwise man drowned after falling into a marina on his way home from a pub. CCTV cameras captured the 66-year-old walking “unsteadily” along a pontoon before falling over a railing and hitting his head, a coroner’s court heard earlier this month. It was not unknown for him to drink two bottles of whisky per day, the inquest heard.
But this wasn’t just any old drunkard. He was also a double murderer who spent 20 years in prison after a difficult childhood and an early life spent as, in his own words, “a liar, a thief and a cheat”. Some say he drank out of remorse, which is believable because in most respects (not the excessive drinking, clearly) he became a reformed character and a distinguished writer.
I refer to Erwin James, who wrote a regular column about prison life for The Guardian while he was still serving his sentence, and who also edited the prisons newspaper Inside Time until 2023. As a Guardian reader back then, I remember reading a number of his articles, and very good they were too.
James wrote about such bullies several times in his columns. In one article, headed “The hypocrisy of prison barbarism”, he wrote:
But who are these self-appointed judges and executioners who take it upon themselves to dish out extra-judicial violence on fellow prisoners of whom they disapprove? Either they are just nasty sanctimonious bullies, so ashamed of their own failings that they prey on anyone they see as more vulnerable than themselves. Or they are inadequate dullards, vulnerable and easily goaded into senseless assaults on strangers by their sharper neighbours, “the chaps” who get their kicks by playing the morally bankrupt “prison code” game. And cowardice always looms large when attacks are being considered. As the wise heads on the landings say, “If a man five feet nothing is convicted of something to do with sex or children he’s a nonce – if he’s over six feet, there might be some doubt about his conviction.”
Exactly! Well said, Erwin, and R.I.P.
James, whose full name was Erwin James Monahan, died in January last year. The Guardian ran an obituary that is worth checking out.
Recent discussion of Megyn Kelly and her response to the Epstein controversy (see similar in these comments: Alan Dershowitz, Peter Schiff) has tried to pin her as a defender of “diet pedophilia”.
The hypothesis is that she is attempting to reduce the blow for when the “files” land.
I have addressed the fallout from her comments here.
It’s so clear than any future history of “pedophilia” will have to include “the Jeffrey Epstein years.”
Ironic, yet instructive, since no “pedophiles” appear to be involved in this story… And yet, I’ve heard phrases like “Trump is a pedo” ad nauseam this week.
The sheer volume of media about Jeffrey and his “associates” and “victims” is enormous. Seemingly back-to-back, never ending “live updates” from news media, youtubers, social media pundits and written press. Even Jeffrey’s donations and investments in science and technology like the MIT Lab, which could have been used to present a nuanced picture of Jeffrey’s life and thought, have been rendered and denounced as deviant or perverse.
Statements from people who knew Jeffrey well, such as Lawrence Krauss, Prince Andrew, or Joi Ito, all paint a picture of a pretty normal heterosexual financier who liked young women, money, parties, and discussions about philosophy and technology. Yet their statements, such as Joi Ito’s reported belief that “Epstein was terrified after his prosecution in 2011,” have been ignored, vilified, dismissed, or used to spark more drama. Ito, for his part, is said to have believed that Jeffrey “[H]ad come to realize that he would lose everything. […T]hat he was a criminal who had stopped his crime. And nothing in his experience with Epstein contradicted this belief.”
There is currently explosive hysteria, language policing, about the American journalist Megyn Kelly pointing out that Epstein was not a “pedophile.”
One exception in all this, who did not performatively denounce Epstein after his “association” was revealed, is Noam Chomsky, a Leftist intellectual and early influence on me who I’ve covered in a Newgon page many moons ago. To end on something positive, Michael Tracey has just written a thoughtful piece about Chomsky and Jeffrey that is well worth reading…
So, returning to the question of mesophilia in minors.
Rockwell Kent wandered why a 16YO Eskimo loved him and explained it with her maternal instinct:
So, bald, IE middle-aged men can be loved by many teens.
I have read all of what has been written here and I can’t think of anything to contribute other than what the title says “Its high time to rethink what consent is” consent is something that a support group that I currently go to (which I will not name) also has the same thing on their agender and that is consent in fact they have had fellow group members saying on their Youtube Channel giving their opinions on what they believe what consent is and have even done a music Youtube Video which is called lets talk about sex, now I may not know what to say re Toms tread but what I do know is that the government is trying to get Britain working again but with the amount of MAPS out their who have lost their jobs and the amount of MAPs who fear that going back to the workplace (including myself) will just end up losing that job due to their criminal records along with the naming and shaming that comes with this then yes maybe it is time to rethink consent and maybe society needs to rethink how it looks at ppl with minor attractions if of course it wants to get Britain working again.
Thanks for your comment, Daniel. Unfortunately, it’s not in most people’s agenda. Now the media is too busy devouring the dead flesh of a corpse (see Prue’s comment below). But it is obvious to me that the system will eventually collapse because it is completely unsustainable and unfair.
Had never heard the “naming and shaming” expression before, but I see it is very very pertinent.
>Had never heard the “naming and shaming” expression before
It is very familiar in the UK. It became a big thing around the turn of the millennium through a “name and shame” campaign against sex offenders run by a powerful, high-circulation, tabloid newspaper.
Marco
What I mean by naming and shaming is that if a Map is in a job and the people who work with that person find out that the said map has committed an offence (even a consensual offence which here on heretic should be seen that way of course) and then take some kind of action to get that person fired/sacked from that job then it may put that person off from trying to find work in the future which I am sure you are aware is a big problem for the economy because the more people we have leaving the the workforce the worse the economy gets and in the UK the government have been looking at the figures and are now recognizing this as a problem due to the amount of unemployment that we currently have, I am not saying that the issue is all Map related but I think its a pretty safe bet to say its a contributing factor.
I think that your concern about the impact on UK economy is valid, but it’s a very small issue compared to the harm and unfairness caused when sex shaming someone for having de-facto consensual relationships. Not to mention that very few people make the effort to understand that nobody chooses their sexual feelings.
Unfortunately, Daniel, dominant discourse and “polite society” doesn’t care once you’re labelled a “sex offender.” You’re beyond the pale. Done. Homo Sacer. Begone. Not literally, but figuratively, symbolically. That’s the message these punitive sex laws and lurid tabloid exposés are supposed to convey. Do like Chinese youth with no job prospects: “lie flat.” Or, take a line from the Incels and “LTR” (Lie Down and Rot)…
Obviously, don’t do these things. I’ve met people on the registry who live more fulfilling lives than I do, so a conviction is not always the end of one’s world; it just presents new problems to work with and navigate.
Whilst many more people in Britain have a higher education thanks to the Tony Blair government’s push to normalize university attendance, that doesn’t mean the overall critical thinking, critical literacy, and research skills of the general population are high. In many Western countries, education is often justified through links to “jobs training” or social mobility, and stereotypical “big money” subjects like Science, Maths, and Engineering have been promoted relentlessly for years now.
There is a reason the political Right wants to defund universities and shit on “Queer,” Sexuality, and Gender Studies departments: these degrees teach critical thinking skills and threaten the established order. The founders of Queer Theory were all sympathetic to you guys – how could they not be when “queerness” is all about questioning established norms? The Right’s ascendancy and promotion of LGBTQ hate using the language of “grooming” / “groomer,” equating Transness with pedophilia, bodes very badly for you…
Countries like Britain couldn’t care less if sex offenders are unemployed. They want you dead. “Pedophiles” and “sex offenders” are the Underclass, the Untermensch, the Reserve army of labor. Their symbolic and lived role is to discipline and control the population, to remind them that your life could always be worse, so stay in line and stay quiet. It will take some very dedicated, squeaky clean, or else-wise relentless people to change that. And it starts, with critical thinking…
I’m sure we’ve all seen it, but just in case, the long dead Jeffrey Epstein is back in the news. Many outlets have made it front page news or the first / major story in their reporting…
Thousands of once-private emails have been released to the public, leading to another spat of speculation and sleuthing.
Would be interested to hear people’s thoughts. If anyone’s looked through these emails, is there anything particularly interesting there?
I was surprised to see that, after some time not speaking about Epstein, Jon Stewart’s comedy show now exorcized his corpse again for their jokes. From your comment it looks like all the media in general are sucking again the blood as much as they can since they got hungry and there’s nothing else as interesting to predate.
“all the media” are at it again for sure! It’s easy, entertaining, and popular! You’ll get more clicks, more views, more sponsorships, and more money! A dead man who can’t defend himself and “associates” who don’t want to: it’s perfect for a mass pile-on!
I’d be much more interested if it was a story about paedophiles. It is not. It is a story about powerful people using their power to have some fun with young girls. Nothing strange or unusual. If anything, I’ve fun watching how they call someone “convicted paedophile” for fucking 16yo…
But if we find out it was an operation designed by a foreign country to blackmail politicians, then it would be something!
Unlikely, though, Most probably, it is just about men being men. Let them suffer a bit of fear and shame they so willingly send our way, all the time.
This comment is a bit belated.
It’s about Musk was trying not to appear hypocritical by speaking out against Twitter’s ban of far-right activist Nick Fuentes.
Well, and while saying that, he continues to ban MAP people. What about freedom of speech ? People have the right to advocate for gun ownership or the legalization of marijuana – that doesn’t make them murderers or drug addicts. People can talk about their attraction and gender identity on Twitter. Why are MAP people excluded ? What’s the crime? Or are their arguments simply inconvenient and convincing ?
And why Holocaust revisionists/deniers like me are banned? What’s the crime—just non-believing? Or are the anti-Semitic arguments simply inconvenient and convincing?
[MODERATOR: One reason for limiting input here, Cyril, is when contributors go off-topic. While it makes sense to be flexible about this, the most controversial off-topic issues, such as beliefs about race, are best discussed elsewhere. But, fear not, you can be as controversial as you like at HTOC, within the law, when discussing on-topic issues including minors of any age and MAPs.]
Musk is a massive hypocrite. He wanted free speech for himself, not for those he disagrees with.
Some interesting recent stories from Reduxx:
Supreme Court of Canada Scraps Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Child Pornography Offenses, Claims It Amounts To “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”
“Queer” Spanish Summer Camp Forced Children To Shower With Adults
[I strongly recommend reading up on the Camp’s Ethos from the camp organizer’s themselves; see the thinking or rationale behind what people are complaining about (i.e. body positivity, naturalizing and “de-sexualizing” bodies (their term), ending shame around one’s body. It’s really interesting.]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03239-7
Good news, as Seto is far more reasonable on the topic of MAPs, pedophilia, etc., than outgoing Editor Ken Zucker ever was, despite Zucker’s enemies deriding him for old studies where he refers to children as “pretty” and “attractive”…
Seto, for his part, is well known for supporting the concept of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. As Allyn Walker wrote in their 2021 book, the evidence for pedophilia being a sexual orientation is “overwhelming,” and those who read research tend to agree!
Anyway, Seto is a good choice.
Seto is as good as can reasonably be expected, for sure.
As for Zucker being “far more reasonable on the topic of MAPs, pedophilia, etc., than outgoing Editor Ken Zucker ever was”, I’m not sure what you have in mind, Prue, as to Zucker’s implied lack of reasonableness. Did he editorialise on it in his journal? Or say disobliging things on podcasts and in media interviews?
I am thinking of the 2002 “Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?” Special Issue, spearheaded by Richard Green, the Founder and then Editor of the Archives. As we all know, Green was incredibly supportive and argued that homosexuality (1973) and pedophilia (2002) should be delisted as disorders in the DSM; i.e. they were not mental illnesses.
Of the many contributiors to that discussion, both Ken Zucker and Michael Seto took part, arguing that Pedophilia should remain a disorder in the DSM. Neither did so out of hostility, they are both decent people who aren’t raving lunatics out for blood. But, in the intervening period, it is Seto who has made the most supportive contributions on the topic, not Zucker.
So, whilst their contributions from 2002 onwards was what I was thinking of, it would be fair to say that Seto has had more opportunity and credence to write about Pedophilia in remotely ‘heretical’ ways in the years since. He is, after all, an expert on the topic, whereas Zucker’s focus has been gender identity development.
Perhaps I was unfair, but I guess I’m just saying that, to my knowledge, Zucker has never made any supportive statements or conclusions in public, whereas Seto arguably has… (Seto also nowadays does a lot to support the next generation of MAP ally academics, which he should be commended for).
To give him his due, I am aware that, as Editor of the Archives, Zucker would have allowed for publication of tons of studies which are implicitly supportive of MAPs. In a more subtle way then, Zucker has helped push the envelope, simply by being anti cancel culture and willing to publish unpopular or sensitive findings. So, it’s not like he’s a demonic Anti. I just haven’t seen much publicly to indicate a supportive position, though I do suspect that privately, if nothing else, he would agree that there’s an ongoing moral panic or hysteria around attraction and sexual behavior involving the young that’s gotten way out of hand…
Well argued, Prue. This is well-informed, thoughtful, and persuasive.
But mentioning this is hypocritically removed from the English-language Wikipedia page on pedophilia.
In an era of hypertrophied political correctness, even a neutral mention of an inconvenient piece of information is considered “promotion”. As a result, an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral in presenting all available data cannot, in fact, afford to be neutral.
Talking about Seto and chronophilias, I’ve noticed that many Heretics want to know how many mesophiles among children. According to Erasmus, all children are gerontophiles:
It is a joke, of course.
Hm, I liked Zucker, as a person.
Seto is fine, too, but I never had a feeling he would be sympathetic to our case in any way. Yes, he seems to understand pedophilia very well. But to me, I always had a feeling he would be able to use that understanding against us as easily as to support us… if you get what I mean .
Anyway, better to have there someone knowledgeable on the topic, I guess.
Germany: Court says schoolgirl’s relationship with uncle that began when she was 14 can continue
Can any Anglo (not Francophone Christian) conceive of any Anglophone court aligned with the regional appeal court of Brandenburg confirming the ruling in favour of the couple? The presiding judge said it was important to “get the relationship out of secrecy”. According to the court’s opinion, the prohibition of love is a threat to the child’s well-being.
Anglo fascist fake media unlikely splash, “Decades ongoing phoney Anglophone kidsex panic finally TRASHED by sensible Deutschland Judge. Quote, Love Generation Rock-Pop Gods, ‘All you need is Love!’ ”
Line first widely heard from William Holden in David Lean’s Rockin ’57 anti-War epic “The bridge on the River Kwai”. 1952 novel by Francophone Pierre Boulle, the film was initially scripted by screenwriter Carl Foreman, who was later replaced by Michael Wilson. Both writers had to work in secret since they were on the U.S. Anglo fascist McCarthyite Hollywood blacklist and had fled to the UK in order to continue working.
So, no loose change there…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_over_the_River_Kwai
A case that truly pushes boundaries!
In the same book ISBN 9780550103956 Alan Murdie quotes the theories that suppression of sexuality in minors causes poltergeist.
F.i., Gef the Mangoose:
Well, you’re certainly coming up with interesting material at the moment, Cyril. You’re on a roll!
As for Alan Murdie, I see he says, “My day job is a lawyer, but my night job is much more interesting. I am chairman of the Ghost Club (founded 1862)…”
I guess we are at the time of year (Halloween) for talking of such things!
I think I’ve heard something like this before. Oh yeah, J.K. Rowling describes it in her books, only sexuality is veiled as magic.
I wonder if this is a coincidence or is Ms. Rowling speaking between the lines? 🙂
>an accomplice in Daedalus, an architect
Very creative and imaginative! 🙂
I forgot to mention another example, from novel Golden ass, which obviously influenced Shakespeare and Collodi. A young man is described there living like a beast, and eventually he was turned into an ass:
Very droll! And, yes, an influential classic!
Indeed, there has been a French media outcry because Asian online sales platforms Shein, AliExpress, and others, known for selling cheap junk (such as “fast fashion” or toys that don’t satisfy the EU security norms), have advertised child sex dolls “with real vagina and anus”. A “child protection” organisation made a scandal, and a member of the government spoke publicly. One talks about banning Shein.
On the other hand, if I want to get informed about Sudan, where atrocities are committed on a massive scale, I have to watch Al Jazeera, because the topics does not interest French TV channels. We see here the depth reached by Western society, where the sexual innocence of dolls matters more than war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Africa.
Concerning Greek mythology, Zeus often disguised himself into an animal to capture his beloved, for instance as a bull to take Europa.
I saw this controversy about Shein. Has anyone actually seen the product listing the French gov are complaining about? It all sounds a bit ridiculous to me…
An image of the Shein doll (it was clothed) was shown in some French online media, you can also see it in a video on the French YouTube channel HugoDécrypte (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfyWLffTIhI), who starts with “it is a blood-curdling image”. Seeing his list of videos, genocide in Africa does not make his blood curdle.
There were also many scandalised speeches by MPs in the National Assembly, not only from the National Gathering, but also from Greens and Socialists. No such speeches for mass murders in Africa.
That’s because sex-negative feminists don’t give a rat’s ass about children, they only care about suppressing the competition of young sexuality, which they achieve through lying about “child protection,” and these feminists control the government and culture, so that’s that.
>Young scientists from the Czech republic have been developping a new social network that “protects children” from violent content.
While a sense-defender Deutsch judge positively rules a 14yo AAM can choose her own love life with a MAP uncle.
Anglo negative media groomed young Czech ‘scientists’ think that ‘violent content’ doesn’t include free to air for all horrific War porn showing small kids permanently pained, bloodied and destroyed?
While healthy all-age sex porn for positive pleasure is Anglo fake media negatively smeared Worldwide as ‘horrific’.
With due credit to ‘Love Generation’ Ralph McTell, “Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the all-age Red Light districts of Sexy 70s modern Holland, and maybe then you’ll understand why backward Anglos were wrong, then and now?”
In pedophilia qua child love, intercourse with e.g. 7-year-old girl is sufficient for rape, whereas the requirement for force concerned older females. This follows feminist extremism, e.g. increasing the age of consent, thus removing the girl’s consent as a defense.
Unlike hoi polloi, where supposed acts of rape – in degenerate liberal nations – includes the above, cunnilingus on a 4-year-old, or watching a 9-year-old masturbating on webcam, why does e.g. the convicted Watkins, with a stated desire to RAPE a girl, ellicit such sympathy, skepticism and consideration?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ian-watkins-dead-prison-lostprophets-singer-paedophile-b2843781.html
Thanks for the link, Lex, to a report in The Independent. The account includes an important detail that had escaped my attention when writing my piece about Watkins. Taken at face value, it supports your view that he wanted to rape girls in the violent sense, as opposed to just committing the legal offence which, in the US, they would call “statutory rape” i.e. sex with a willing underage girl. The key part is a phone message he sent to his girlfriend at the time, Joanne Mjadzelics, saying “‘WISHLIST RAPE A 12 YR OLD F*** TWO UNDERAGE TWINS’.
If he really wanted to impose himself by force, and especially if he actually did so, he would not have my sympathy. My suspicion, though, is that this message was just badass bragging to impress a certain kind of fan i.e. women who get turned on by male ruthlessness — the sort who become pen pals of serial killers. It seems he had reason to believe Mjadzelics was just such a woman because she was egging him on with “evil” messages of her own. But her messages were just an act: she actually shopped him to the police. It may be no accident that no record has emerged of any similar “evil” exchanges between Watkins and the two mothers with whose kids he committed offences. Even the judge, notwithstanding the long sentence handed down, made no suggestion that the Lostprophets star had behaved sadistically or forcefully. We may be sure it would have been reported if he had.
Absolutely. There is a tendency towards hyperbolic overemphasis on the debauched and degenerate aspects of sexuality, especially in highly-online sexually desensitized men.
Very rarely is this ever acted on in full, and there is a word for such men – “Gooners”. Many of these “no limits Gooners” have appeared on federated social networking over the last decade or so, and Law Enforcement Agents will be familiar with the fact that it’s all a fantasy in which deviancy itself is the object of a fetish.
I even started a language-analysis thread, collecting publicized cases when these Gooners get caught, as it does happen quite frequently.
No correction of the false assertion confining ,at one time, rape to only forcible rape, nor any attempt to answer the question posed, but more speculation lacking substance. Not only should we not expect the MSM to fully report, the judgement would also be restricted to the subset of the plea.
Oh, well, easier to defend the anti-thesis than man-girl love.
>No correction of the false assertion confining ,at one time, rape to only forcible rape
False? What is false about it?
As already mentioned above, it fails in the important case of non-forcible rape.
What, in your view, is the legal basis for confing rape (specifically of a young girl) to ONLY forcible rape? E.g. Blackstone suggests no such thing.
Thanks for doing your best to clarify your point, Lex, although I cannot see why you are making it because it doesn’t appear to follow in any obvious way from my original comment about Ian Watkins.
Anyway, you referred in your previous comment to “the false assertion confining, at one time, rape to only forcible rape”.
I think this assertion is defensible, although you have a point. Here is what Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#History
That said, you certainly have a point as regards the development of the age of consent in common law from Medieval England onwards. Bracton (in work written between the 1230s and 1250s and only later published as a book) said rape included “the violation of a virgin under age, even with her consent.” Later authorities confirmed this.
Again, though, how does this contradict what I was saying about Ian Watkins? All I was saying is that his behaviour may not have been coerced, or forced, or in any way distressing to the infant, but I believe the charge of rape would have suggested a forceful assault to almost everyone who followed the story in the media.
>In fact, a 5-year-old infant is not the same as a 10-year-old pre-teen, or a 15-year-old teenager, or a 20-year-old young adult. In my opinion, establishing a single age of consent (before which you are deemed sexually disabled, and after which you are deemed autonomous) doesn’t make much sense because it is poorly adapted to our nature. We don’t become autonomous overnight. It is more of a gradual process, isn’t it? Laws should strive to adapt to human nature, not the other way around! Therefore, for a start, we need a system that recognises different “stages of consent” (rather than a single “age of consent”).
Boxed-in scholar Marco seems to have completely overlooked the natural factual continuum of non-Anglo modern Denmark-centred 25 years 1960s thru mid-1990s AAM/MAP Mags & Vids on open sale, until trashed by backward Victorian psycho-lonial Anglos as ever invading lands where they don’t belong.. Plus, 1980s scientifically proven PRE-BIRTH fetal masturbation, 90% females HOTTER than the male. And numerous examples of autonymous sex-play tots also aping images and activities from popular culture, plus knowing pre-teens happily dry-humping familial adults, plus all-age adolescents grooming pestering molesting fucking adult Rock-Pop stars. Many fans (not victims) now grinning grannies fondly recall their illegal fun sex with adults. All in plain sight, all unseen and unheard by Anglo self-serving psycholonial divisive fake media, aka the loudest voice in the room, Dominant Narrative.
Hello HHP. Thanks for your comment but I have immense trouble understanding what is your point and how it relates to the quote. I’ll do my best.
I don’t know what do those mags and vids said (I was probably not born yet by then), and how does that relate to the idea I conveyed in the quote. If your point is that sexuality is in reality a continuum as we age (not a set of a few stages), then I agree. However, if we don’t consider those stages (for instance, infant, pre-teen, and teen), I don’t see how can we address the particularities of consent at those early ages. Unless you’re thinking about treating everybody exactly the same regardless of age. Which I would disagree. My suggested framework should not be seen as a perfect solution (sorry, it’s not), but as something a trillion times better than what we have now, and something that truly seeks to respect the inner will of people, whichever that will is.
I don’t know what “fetal masturbation” (self-masturbation, I guess) has to do with my whole blog. Unless you provide the references, I don’t think anybody will take you seriously when you use the word “scientifically proven”. Even with the references, we’ll see. But in any case I don’t think we need to consider any consent for that, do we? Then you add a percentage in the same sentence that I don’t understand what it has to do.
If I understand correctly, you argue that in those decades there were adolescents who had sex with adult Rock-Pop stars. Cool. So? I don’t see how this might contradict what I said, or why I should take it into account. The beauty of my proposal is that it is based on my life-long experience and personal thoughts, and it reflects the kind of society I would like to see in the future. It is good to know what has happened in the past, and it is good to try to understand it in its context. But whatever our past is as humanity, it does not justify the future. Just because something has been done in the past (you could as well have mentioned the Greeks), it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is what we have to do in the future.
Insisting on liberal presentism doesn’t show the suggestion vastly better than what we have, had or could have. After all, the Dutch system performed worse than alternatives.
>After all, the Dutch system performed worse than alternatives.
According to whom? And based on what criteria? References would be helpful.
>The beauty of my proposal is that it is based on my life-long experience and personal thoughts, and it reflects the kind of society I would like to see in the future. It is good to know what has happened in the past, and it is good to try to understand it in its context. But whatever our past is as humanity, it does not justify the future. Just because something has been done in the past (you could as well have mentioned the Greeks), it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is what we have to do in the future.
The beauty of even longer lived experiences from the vastly experienced Tom & Pup, is that the Swingin ’60s-Sexy ’70s modern anti-war ‘Love Generation’ was likely closer to ‘all-age victimless sex’ perfection than any other other pre or post-ancient Greece. So scared of the growing anti-Vietnam War youth movement, motto ‘Make Love Not War’, the Anglo corporate fascists Nixon & Co launched their so called ‘War On Drugs’. A fake media boosted cover for their de facto War On Love. Uncovered in 1994 by true journo Dan Baum, but sadly still dominating the ever divisive Anglo fake media for their kept dumb shallow ignorant masses buying into the Anglo banks, military, media unstated industrial mafia motto, ‘No Profit In Peace’.
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
Plus, ultrasound scientific proof of pre-birth fetal masturbation: Sonographic observation of in utero fetal “masturbation“ by I Meizner 1987 · Cited by 100 — J Ultrasound Med. 1987 Feb;6(2):111. doi: 10.7863/jum.1987.6.2.111.
Giorgi, Giorgio, and Siccardi, Marco (1996). “Ultrasonographic observation of a female fetus’ sexual behavior in utero,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 3(1, part 1), 753.
“We recently observed a female fetus at 32 weeks’ gestation touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested.”
You have used the ‘all-age victimless sex’ expression without explaining what you mean by that. I support the general idea that “if one wants to have sex and does have sex, one is not a victim”. Maybe you meant something else, but that would be too much to guess on my end. I understand that you use a 2016 article about the legalization of drugs (correct me if I am wrong but I think you are a true anarchist ) is to argue that the war on drugs was conceived to cover the war on love. Okay. In any case, your historical references are interesting, and the report about fetal masturbation is curious to say the least.
>Prof. Alexis Jay, who had been charge of the Rotherham inquiry.
Proof-read Pup, “IN charge..”
Well spotted, Pup. Now fixed. Cheers!
Interesting read (mainstream):
https://open.substack.com/pub/thescienceofsex/p/what-happened-to-the-erotic
Incredible how Marthijn and Lesley fled the NL, but only made it easier for the NL to put them in jail, with the help of completely fake evidence and a corrupt court in Ecuador. Meanwhile, the corrupt, morally reprehensible, evil, criminal Christcuck hypocrite Tim Ballard walks free after paying for the entire setup of the two men, with his disgusting genetic defect children in Utah. Maybe life in Utah is punishment enough for someone so detestable.
>his disgusting genetic defect children in Utah
I don’t know what you mean by “genetic defect children”, HIG, but if he has children it hardly seems fair to disrespect them on the basis of their father’s doings.
They come from Ballard, so is there any question? Like it or not, they got alot to atone for, something tells me they will take less than zero effort to do so. In fact, something tells me they’ll be chilling hard with that dirty Ballard money.
>something tells me they’ll be chilling hard with that dirty Ballard money.
Oh, right, so you mean grown-up kids? I have no idea. I haven’t taken an interest in the guy’s family. Didn’t even know he had one. Not that we can take anything for granted about their views or lifestyle.
MODERATOR: Strat, the “comment” you have submitted on this occasion is not your own comment. It comprises a link and a quote from an article at the link. I am not going to post it as is, because it could give the misleading impression that you support the writer’s position, which your history strongly suggests you do not. Accordingly, my suggestion is that you re-post, this time making your own position clear in an initial paragraph.
This just concerned one of the numerous stories I had updated to MAP Alert News yesterday. I haven’t really formed an opinion on it, as I don’t read too deep into articles.
The content of the article is a critical analysis, I suggest by some kind of reactionary, concerning the history of sex education with respect to transgenderism and pedophilia. I thought it would be useful to readers here, even if the analysis itself isn’t so useful.
Unholy Alliances: How sex ed gatekeepers crowned themselves king (via LiveAction)
[MOD: Thanks, Strat, I think this helps.]
Hey Strat, you say you’d updated MAP Alert News yesterday, but for me it appears that Newgon and MU MAP Union are still down? The web addresses take forever to load, and just time out.
In the brief time it was back up, I did see the threat that got posted to the MU Forum. I hope the cyberattack is over, gets resolved or circumvented soon…
The site has been online again for a while – not sure if they are still attacking it, but the site of the attacker (poodlesforhire.com) is a laugh.
They have a 4-part series trashing Kinsey: Built on Sand: Celebrated sexologist Alfred Kinsey was ‘dirty old man’ who groomed students.
How fun!
Andrew stripped of ‘prince’ title and will move out of Royal Lodge (BBC News).
The Royal Family have handled this matter terribly; they should’ve stood by Andrew, fought the case to the bitter end, and never given that woman a single cent until the case was over.
In no way should they be kowtowing to perceived public and media pressure. It makes them look weak, cowardly, and guilty. Stupid fucking idiots. And now they’ve given an inch, the enemy’ll take a mile: they’ll hound Andrew till the day he dies if there’s no cultural shift to bring the temperature down.
A sick, sick world. And for what? He allegedly had sex with a 17-year-old? This is a total nothingburger.
Too late for Andrew now, but there’s a really good article in UnHerd today:
https://unherd.com/2025/10/should-we-believe-virginia-giuffre/
Matthew Parris did a good piece in The Times as well.
Tracey’s new UnHerd piece is wonderful! The comments are very sympathetic as well!
There’s also: Tracey, The ‘Anti-Trafficking’ Racket (Compact Magazine, Oct 30, 2025).
One thing that erm…particularly pricked up my prickables in MT’s great piece for Compact was this:
As with “racism” or “addiction,” though, few tangible benchmarks have been articulated to establish when the malady(“trafficking”) has been defeated, or even discernibly mitigated.
Not long ago, both Tom and.Prue were still speaking of “the right” and of “racist” as if they were the very same thing. In hottest pursuit then of ever expanding the sphere in which heretics are free to think, might the aforementioned gentlepersons suggest their tangible benchmarks for a “racism” on the wane?
If “likes” are any indication – i can’t be 100% sure they are – what my turpitude has to say here in recent times just ain’t all that popular.
Or likeable. Or something like that.
Walking the undrawable line as ever, frisky as fuck..
>what my turpitude has to say here in recent times just ain’t all that popular.
Or likeable.
Well, I wouldn’t know about unpopularity, Mr Turp, because my opinions have always been hugely popular and liked by everyone! 🙂
As for anyone >>speaking of “the right” and of “racist” as if they were the very same thing<<, you'd have to tell me the context because it doesn't immediately spring to mind. What I can say right now, though, is that that I do not think being right-wing is synonymous with racism. “Right-wing” can mean many things, including support for unregulated capitalism that relies on importing labour from the cheapest source available from any ethnic group around the world. Job opportunities on a racially equal, undiscriminating basis. What could be less racist than that?
Just to be clear, though, that does not mean I support unregulated capitalism. I do not.
I’ll have to restate my question, Tom, as you’ve made some frisky moves there none of which tho addresses heem!
By what manner of media transmission do you suppose you’d be able to see tangible benchmarks of “racism” lessening its hold?.
“Frisky moves” eh? Wow! Didn’t know I was that cool and sexy! 🙂
Well, my main move, to put it in a prosaically non-frisky way, was just to say I didn’t believe what you said you thought I believe i.e. that “the right” and “racist” are the same thing.
Now you have sprung a new question “from leftfield” as I believe you folks in our North American colonies say. Or do I mean a “curveball”? Whatever. I gather these quaint expressions originated in obscure ball games, but I confess I have no idea as to their exact origin. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by this new question or what it relates to. In my previous message, I asked for the original context. You still haven’t given it, so I am still none the wiser!
I am not trying to be evasive, Mr Turp, I promise you. If you can dig out the context, I can dig out an answer.
But it was not a newly sprung question! The context – sorry for not emphasising with format the quote – was my included excerpt from Michael Tracey’s piece at Compact:
“As with “racism” or “addiction,” though, few tangible benchmarks have been articulated to establish when the malady(“trafficking”) has been defeated, or even discernibly mitigated”
In the article he is demonstrating the very similar conceptual elasticity/manipulability of all three terms, 1)”trafficking” 2) “addiction” 3) “racism”
Was trying to say heretics tend to be well aware of all this in the case of #1, so why not the other two as well?
My resort to “frisky moves” was chiefly directed at your opening response to my enquiry re popularity, which I could not quite get my head around!
Still searching for the basis in past comments for my “right = racist” charge! I know it is there somewhere!
The exact quote, from only two days ago, was this:
>Not long ago, both Tom and Prue were still speaking of “the right” and of “racist” as if they were the very same thing.
This is the comment where you start thus:
>One thing that erm…particularly pricked up my prickables in MT’s great piece for Compact was this:
As for the substance of your latest, I’ll try to get back to it later today.
OK, Turp, you have done what I asked and provided the context for your question, so well done in that regard. However, I am still baffled as to why I am being asked this question.
In my reply to you earlier this evening, I noted you said this earlier:
>Not long ago, both Tom and Prue were still speaking of “the right” and of “racist” as if they were the very same thing.
Maybe your question relates more closely to whatever it was that Prue had been saying? So maybe you should ask Prue?
Yeah. It is the perfect excuse for pushing forward republican or anti-monarchical views, rather than a genuine interest towards children rights.
Surprised to see critical thought around Ian Watkins on this blog. Brave, imo. I had never looked into it, and thought he was caught with a video of him raping a baby, that it was established and indisputable fact. So, to find out it’s “attempted rape,” which could simply mean rubbing one’s penis up against an orifice, sounds a lot more realistic for an edgy rockstar musician who probably lived a wild party life for many years.
I can’t really fathom nepiophilia, a preferential attraction to babies and toddlers. Though, I respect all people’s sexual attractions so long as they’re not actually out raping, drugging, and intentionally harming people. Still, are we claiming Watkins was Nepi with the line that he was “open about his sexuality”? If so, people with feelings like Ian must be vanishingly rare…?
I don’t think people with feelings towards toddlers or nepi are that rare. But yeah – in comparison to “normal” people, half of which are attracted to adolescents, we are quite rare :).
Anyway, great post – many thanks to Marco for the beautifully crafted article and to Tom for his signature humor. I loved both parts.
Cheers, David! 🙂
Hugs 🙂
>I can’t really fathom nepiophilia, a preferential attraction to babies and toddlers.
Very few people can understand any sexuality other than their own! Many of us can’t understand how anyone could find a fat person sexy, or a redhead, even within our own preferred age and gender range.
>Still, are we claiming Watkins was Nepi with the line that he was “open about his sexuality”?
I don’t think “we”, collectively, are claiming anything, but I guess I did personally appear to imply what you suggest, Prue. While I have no conclusive evidence that Watkins was preferentially attracted to babies or toddlers, his behaviour is very hard to explain if that were not the case. He took extreme risks in order to secure the cooperation of not one but two women, dropping some pretty big, semi-public hints of a highly transgressive orientation. It is hard to see why he would do risk so much (ultimately at the cost of his life) without a strong sexual motivation.
>If so, people with feelings like Ian must be vanishingly rare…?
I am pretty sure there have been no prevalence studies specifically on nepiophilia. We know preferential paedophilia is uncommon (1 to 5% of males) and nepiophilia can be regarded as a smaller subset of this already small figure.
But there is every possibility that nepiophilia is far more common than transgender if we go by desire for surgical transsexuality, as opposed to just identifying as trans or “nonbinary”. Defined in the strict sense, only about one person in ten thousand is trans, which is one tenth of one tenth of 1%, i.e. 0.01%.
That will sound unbelievable to many simply because trans people have such a strong activist presence and such strong support, especially from the gay movement. Trans people seem to be everywhere in public discourse (so there must be lots of them, right? – wrong!) whereas being a nepi is something you are even less likely to come out as than being a paedo.
Actually, I wonder if there’s anything to be understood at all. What we might be able to understand is that if we have some kind of sexual attraction, we can imagine the range of feelings other people have with other kinds of attractions. It’s quite a superficial understanding, but I don’t think we can go much further than that. And this not only applies to the kinds of attractions but to who we are attracted to (I like that soul but you don’t like… why?)
Sometimes people say things like “I like tall people because I feel protected”. Those kinds of explanations kinda make sense to me, as they provide details about the dynamics. But they do not necessarily help me “understand” that specific kind of attraction. Others might as well feel attracted to shorter people because they like protecting.
Anyway, a little anecdote here. The first time I had a conversation with a paedo, we were speaking about how different attractions exist. In a tone between revelation and giggle, he lowered the voice and approached me to make the comment that there is even people who like to play with shit. “That’s weird,” he said. That comment left me completely fascinated.
>Why did it leave you fascinated? Because of the contrast where a “paedo,” supposed to be ‘weird,’ was telling you there were things he/she found ‘weird’ (i.e. Coprophilia)?
Exactly! That moment was a revelation for me because it gave me a better understanding. His comment meant that his kind of sexual attraction was just like any other: you feel it deeply very yours, while it’s hard for you to understand others’. And I think this is true for any kind of attraction (ethical/moral considerations aside, and regardless of whether it’s considered a paraphilia or not).
My attempts to reflect on the nature of extreme philias lead me to the idea that nepiophilia, coprophilia and necrophilia are probably a fetishism rather than a sexual orientation with a deeply expressed identity.
John Money had his explanation and his theories about urophilia and coprophilia:
https://www.heretical.com/money/urophil.html
That’s an interesting comment. If I understood well, the difference between sexual orientation and fetish would be that the orientation has a deeply expressed identity.
I think that the harsh repression against homosexuals is what has resulted in the deeply expressed identity. Another key factor would be the critical mass: there needs to be some minimum % of people to generate identity. But if your (let’s say) kind of attraction has very low %, internet may still help bridge the gap. If oppression is null, the only motivation I see for creating identity (for instance, wearing a bracelet with the gay flag) is to facilitate to find sexual partners in social life.
BTW, with that definition, bisexuality among arabs would not be an orientation, would it? Doing it occasionally under the hood, no public expression or disclosure, not depending on it for having fulfilling sexual relationships…
However, that definition of ‘orientation’ is conflictive to me because it doesn’t help me understand the reality: it depends on the prevalence (not very meaningful, in my opinion), the level of oppression (circumstancial thing), and the existence of a movement (circumstancial thing). If the copro gets legally prosecuted and harshly ostracized, it might as well turn into an orientation? If adults having sex with teenagers becomes legal and accepted, wouldn’t we see the corresponding bracelets?
In conclusion, I don’t see anything that makes homosexuality/heterosexuality fundamentally different from copro or any other “philia”; we could as well call them homophilia/heterophilia instead. But if anyone has ideas, I’m open.
I think we (meaning humans) unnecessarily over analyze it, and I don’t think it’s a good thing. Obviously, when growing up and realizing I like kids more than adults, I felt the need to analyze it as well. So I studied a lot and identified myself as a pedophile.
Great. So what this new identity gave me, exactly? The right to feel as a victim. The right to hate society. The right to feel suicidal from time to time. And all the other shit you all know very well.
How is that helpful?
Identity politics sucks.
I meant that sexual orientation is based on more complex biological and psychological connections which form a deep identity. Social condemnation and repression cause a strong internal conflict that highlights this identity and leads to suffering and struggle.
I think that bisexuality is much more common among people than is commonly believed. Moreover, the universality of bisexuality allows one to avoid internal conflict due to the possibility of choosing an approved preference option.
Forgive my Aussie ignorance as I’m not familiar with the Watkins story, but in my experience, nepi is far more common than what people think. This could just be anecdotal evidence based on the people I’ve spoken to, but to me it’s far from rare (and possibly quite common).
My impression, too, is that nepi is not that rare. In Watkins’ case, though, it does not appear to have been exclusive. In another comment, in response to Lex, I mentioned some evidence of his interest in older preteens, 12-year-olds specifically. He had adult girlfriends, too, but possibly he was only really interested in their kids.
Yep, the fine folks that I talk to on various platforms can easily oscillate between nepi and pre-teen. They’re quite flexible in their attraction. It also broadens the opportunity for sightseeing hehe
This blog covers a lot, which is great to see and perhaps not surprising, given that “pedos” are on everyone’s minds these days.
>A space of exception is essentially what journalists, content creators, and public agitators end up pushing for, even if it’s not a goal they’re consciously working towards in their head. That’s the consequence of hysteria. People feel pressured to conform, emboldened join the pile on, or frightened into silence.
Strat is probably correct that the new UK grooming gangs inquiry will be a “useless and expensive” exercise. But arguably, its purpose is mostly symbolic (it certainly was with the past conservative government!). It’s meant to show that the gov are “doing something,” that they care and consider the issue important.
That’s probably true when it comes to former prosecutor Kier Starmer, and many of his close allies. Under them, the UK may actually see many changes if an inquiry ever gets going. As if they couldn’t make the UK much worse, Red Tory Labour has not only passed the terrifying and ridiculous “Online Safety Act” (more like “the No-No Act”), but will likely crack down in even more cruel and unusual ways on vague and broadly defined “grooming” and “abuse.”
People are not only having less children, but for those who do take the plunge, the world their kids will grow up in will be far more lonely and lacking in freedom than ever before…
There’s been plenty of commentary on this subject recently, and I’ll update the MAP Forum thread on Grooming very soon, with some of it.
One view that I have not seen covered, is the idea this inquiry was designed to fail by way of inevitable gridlock. On the one hand, you have the far-right who are baying for blood – they are the main reason we ever had this grooming inquiry. So then, we design this inquiry in such a way that its “scope” expands endlessly to give a voice to every kind of group-based sexual abuse victim under the sun, neglecting the Pakistani gangs issue seized upon by the far right.
The genius here, is that we have already appointed the survivor-advocates, and because they are survivors, we can not question them – they can never be the problem, you see. Therefore, anybody who questions the widening scope of the inquiry is a victim-blamer or abuse apologist. A truly awful human being.
As the scope expands, its specificity is diluted so much that it becomes meaningless.It becomes less about accountability, and more about the competing truth-claims of different identity groups of survivor. We had a female abuse victim the other day pushing for the inclusion of “young boy” voices, just to confuse matters. So ultimately this becomes a Britain’s Got Talent variety show of historic noncery with feminist talking heads cooing about “unprecedented” safeguarding failures and “lessons must be learned”.
>a Britain’s Got Talent variety show of historic noncery
LOL! Nice one, Strat!
Unfortunately, we are in the era of irrationality towards child sexuality. So many misconceptions and prejudices. But I trust that things will eventually recompose, as always happens in History. There will eventually be a spark. The current state of oppression (with a clear tendency to get worse) towards child sexuality is unsustainable, anyway. We have to take advantage that paedos is on everybody’s mouth these days, and act wisely. Sexuality is strong and stubborn. No matter what you do with the laws and the gangs, attraction will be there, and there will be people resisting the unresistable.
Sorry, maybe that was too prophetic haha.
France vs. media vs. democracy.
EU vs. media.
I have to wonder, what, in the case of The Netherlands would constitute a transfer of this sentence, if it were possible? It would appear to be a sentence The Netherlands could not honor, as it violates all accepted EU legal norms, and was secured on the back of Tim Ballard’s “influence”.
On the grooming front, it is my understanding from various accounts, this kind of casual trade in gay teens existed in Westminster in the 60s, 70s, 80s, as it did in most major cities. The important thing here is that almost without exception, it involved teens, and the cases were isolated to politicians who had a taste for boys, and were able to conduct their activities discreetly in various apartments in that part of town. Some of the men had a preference for BDSM, but in that case, they were almost without exception the passive partner, as is the case with any kind of sex work.
There was no ritual or organized rape-trafficking of children by elites, of course – that is absurd. If you look, even, at Kinsey’s “sexual underground”, what is described are swingers parties – Scotty Bowers was a gay teen sex worker, and if minors like him were doing the organizing and matchmaking furtively among the rich and powerful, this was hardly a well-organized industry, nor anything on the same level as the street scenes, boy brothels, etc in cities such as New York.
So, ultimately, what we find is that the elites were conducting themselves no differently to the rest of us, but almost certainly with a greater degree of care and discretion, avoiding the stations, bars, bath-houses, brothels, etc.
Thank you to Marco for such an articulately argued polemic. Shame it will be mainly preaching to the converted, but you never know who might drop by. And to Tom for his astute observations.
Marco’s actual proposal seems quite similar to the law that was in force in the Netherlands for about 10 years in the 1980s and 90s. My goodness, that seems a long time ago now!
I would remark that “neglect and cruelty” were not the NSPCC’s original focus. That was, guess what, sex. It started as it meant to go on.
Maybe not too surprising from the nonconformist Social Purity Movement evangelicals who founded it. In particular, the London Society, soon to be the National, was forged supporting W.T. Stead’s campaign against ‘white slavery’, using the subsequently debunked scandal of 13-year-old Eliza Armstrong supposedly being sold by her parents. All this was to force the passage of the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, which had been languishing on Parliament’s books for four years, and thus raise the age of consent from 13 to 16.
The Act was later best known for making all male homosexual activity illegal, and it was no coincidence that both featured in the same law. The impulse and rationale were the same, and the support for both mostly radical ‘Liberal’.
Moving on to Ian Watkins, one thing that struck me was that at his trial for possessing a mobile phone in prison, where he claimed he had been forced to keep it for others he dared not name, he pleaded that he was imprisoned among “murderers, mass murderers, rapists, paedophiles, serial killers – the worst of the worst”. I’m not sure what he meant by that, but it seemed unnecessary.
>I would remark that “neglect and cruelty” were not the NSPCC’s original focus. That was, guess what, sex.
Excellent point, Fogey! I was of course aware of the Eliza Armstrong scandal and WT Stead’s campaign, which has been mentioned in various of my own previous writings, but I had forgotten (or maybe never realised) that this was the original focus of the NSPCC.
Would it be true to say, though, that physical cruelty, and neglect, were the main points of the organisation’s focus through most of the 20th century until sexual abuse was revived as an issue from (mainly) the 1980s onwards? It would surprise me if it were otherwise, given that the word “cruelty” is in the name, although the term admittedly can have more than one interpretation. My personal memory, growing up in the 1950s and 60s, is that the NSPCC was always and only associated publicly with cruelty in the sense of extreme physical battering and neglect, generally associated with hostility to the child, who was often a stepchild. In those days you had “wicked” stepmothers and stepfathers, and the term was not used ironically to mean “exciting” or “awesome”. It just meant cruel.
My guess is that the age of Freud, in the early 20th century, and the growing rejection of “Victorian values” at that time, would have led to the NSPCC taking a turn away from its original focus. In the wake of Freud’s revelations about child sexuality, and the growing notion of “Victorian hypocrisy” on sexual matters, there was increasing reason to be sceptical over moralistic campaigns.
There was also a danger they would extend from the public zone of low-life street prostitution into the more private zone of the middle-class family, and of course that would never do. An Englishman’s home is his castle, and all that! The ramparts did eventually fall, as we know, with the big, revived feminist push from the 1970s onwards, and the effects have been felt ever since, including within the NSPCC.
Broadly right, do you think? I haven’t had time to check.
The Society certainly broadened its focus from sex, but its primary role has always been as a legislative lobbying organisation, seeking to, and often succeeding in, getting its own particular moralistic ideal of childhood enforced through legislation. In its early years, certainly up to WW2, it sought other, more direct means of enforcement.
Before there was a large scale state run social work profession, the Society’s next main role was to support a cadre of uniformed ‘inspectors’, often ex-policemen, who worked hand in glove with the police and courts to remove from their homes children they considered, to be ‘neglected’, for instance by being allowed to play in the street by working class parents without gardens. Fortunately, there were too few of them to this on any very large scale.
I really don’t think it deserves the slightest benefit of any doubt. It has always been at its core a malignant semi-official moralist lobbying and policing organisation posing as a charity, most comparable to the 18th century Society for the Reformation of Manners, persecutor of the molly houses. Of course, it uses stereotypical images of child suffering for its fundraising materials, and that has always been very successful in keeping the cash tills ringing. I view such imagery as a cynical, though highly effective technique of mass emotional manipulation.
To allow your point a little, it did also perform some more helpful social work activities, though always against a threatening background, and maybe some of its removals of children were less contentious than others, though that must be balanced against the possibility of placing them somewhere no better or worse. It also sometimes lobbied on less contentious matters. And as the state developed its own social work profession, but before the feminist anti-sex movement really got going, by default these had a more prominent place in its work. But I would say they were never its main purpose.
Well, it’s pretty clear you don’t like the NSPCC, Fogey, but I’m not sure how fair your view is. Quite fair and accurate, I would say, for the last half century or so. Before that, I’d say it’s a more mixed picture based on what I’ve been able to glean today from WP and AI.
And I now feel I was wrong to so readily accept your strongly asserted view of the origins. Largely, I think I was right: the original focus in the 1870s (the inspiration travelling from New York to Liverpool to London) was on cruelty, based on the earlier British model of the RSPCA. As WP says:
Wheeler subsequently suggested to Bergh that there should be a separate society for children, which led to the founding of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1874. Liverpool followed this example, and London adopted a similar model in 1884. Significantly, the London society predates Stead’s campaign, coming a year earlier. So, your claim that “the London Society, soon to be the National, was forged supporting W.T. Stead’s campaign against ‘white slavery’” is simply not supported by the facts.
What is true, though, is that from that point onwards i.e. from before the foundation of the national society, the social purity influence was indeed strong. Not overwhelming, though. Cruelty was in the title from the start and in the founding “objects” (mission statement).
What about the case load? According to ChatGPT, “Across most of the 20th century, the NSPCC’s primary concern remained cruelty and neglect – in the broad, welfare-based sense derived from its American and early British origins – rather than sexual morality.”
By the 1920s–30s:
• The NSPCC increasingly became a professional social work agency rather than a moral crusade.
• Inspectors investigated neglect and physical cruelty, working with magistrates and local authorities.
• The sexual purity discourse of Stead and Butler had faded from its vocabulary.
The Society’s reports from this period show:
• Around 80–90% of cases dealt with neglect, destitution, or general ill-treatment.
• Relatively few explicitly sexual cases.
This pattern only began to change significantly in the late part of the century, with the rise of the “CSA” discourse, which of course was not confined to the publicity campaigns of the NSPCC.
So, basically, I think all this bears out what I said.
Perhaps to some extent arguable either way. Reality is always complex. But I too stand by my analysis.
The name is copied from the US one, but still the foundation of the London society is at a couple of removes. Sure, it was founded in 1884, but the 1885 white slavery campaign was its first and formative one. The London society then formed the nucleus of the national one in 1889. The founders were quite effective philanthropists active in other fields, but always with that slightly paternalistic missionary tinge, and in the event it was that first campaign and its success that shaped its character.
The thing about saying that 80-90% of cases dealt with neglect, destitution and ill-treatment is that neglect, especially, can be quite a loaded term. It can mean little more than a style of upbringing one disapproves of.
The Dublin branch of the NSPCC, in its first annual report in 1889, gave a very striking account of the ways in which it differed from the other children’s charities, of which there were some already:
Although rarely stated that explicitly, it is a constant lean towards punishment and coercion by law that I think particularly characterises the NSPCC, and harmonises well with its emphasis on sex as a focal point for social conformity.
Nice try, Fogey, but that’s a million miles short of your original bold claim.
Have you not considered that many of the evangelicals were coming from a place of radical kindness and solidarity? If it were just a matter of the punitive impulse, I doubt we would have seen the earlier anti-slavery movement, with so much of its energy coming from the evangelicals, led by William Wilberforce.
“Am I Not a Man and a Brother?” The motto of Wedgwood’s anti-slavery medallions captured the popular sentiment and were a best seller. To the incorrigible cynic, of course, the entire anti-slavery movement was no doubt just a capitalist marketing opportunity for the Stoke pottery magnate!
As for solidarity of a more local kind, among the British working class, even as an atheist I feel we need to bear in mind the often forgotten dictum that the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marx.
This is not to say there was never any condescension from bourgeois “do gooders” towards “the lower orders”, who were indeed often seen as “feckless” and in need of moral reform. But guess what? In many cases they were right! There has always been a significant amount of real depravity, including child cruelty, among the poor. Just ask William Hogarth, he of the famous Gin Lane print!
Society has always cut more slack, of course, for fecklessness in the upper echelons. Just ask Boris Johnson, although he might disagree after his Partygate fall from grace! 🙂
Sorry to be so argumentative. Just cant help it 🙂
But I think the events of 1885 are so formative and such a model for what came after that it is a shame to pass over them. The first time that police, tabloid press, feminist morals campaigners and charities came together to press for a new law, and it was that one!
Police spokespeople introduced what became the Criminal Law Amendment Act every year from 1881. MPs were rightly wary of the idea of tackling one behaviour (prostitution) by making other easier to prove behaviours (sex below an age limit, gay male sex of all kinds) illegal, and each year let it run out of time, only for it to be introduced again.
What forced it through was Stead’s pioneering tabloid campaign, and the NSPCC’s core forerunner was in there right at the start, and that campaign right at the start of the NSPCC. That was my main claim, and the reason I picked up on your original statement. I think it is quite important context for the NSPCC, even if you think they moved on later.
The 1885 campaign was a model in other ways too, for instance for successors like the (so called) Child Protection Act 1978. It didn’t matter that MPs had been skeptical about an obviously bad law. It didn’t matter that the campaign was dishonest and soon debunked. Once the law was in place, it made its own reality, soon seemed normal, and was extremely hard to shift. All lessons well learnt.
I’m not just me. Frank Furedi’s books and articles on ‘paranoid parenting’ properly lay into the NSPCC. From the latchkey kids panic in the 70s we have moved, with the NSPCC at the forefront, to a situation where any unsupervised time at all is increasingly regarded as neglect.
As for earlier in the 20th century, most research has been about the Dublin branch (part of the NSPCC until 1922). That was where I got the ideas about its nature as a private police force, imposing its ideals against the city’s working class and poor. Of course it’s not the whole story, and no doubt they meant well. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
No problem, Fogey, especially given that you have come up with good information and arguments in this post. That’s what we want to hear.
>I’m not just me. Frank Furedi’s books and articles on ‘paranoid parenting’ properly lay into the NSPCC.
Rightly so, too. I read his book on paranoid parenting and found much to agree with. I note that all his references to the NSPCC in that book relate to the end of the 20th century, and the current situation when the book was published, in 2002. He is a sociologist not a historian. The record of the NSPCC since the 1970s in Britain has been dismal. On that we agree.
However, an attempt to damn their possibly far better record in Britain through most of the 20th century by focusing on Dublin (not in Britain! ) is strained. Ireland was a far different country in those days, when, under the influence of the Catholic Church at its very worst (with the possible exception of Spain during the Inquisition) it was dominated by hideously harsh, moralistic social policies, notably towards young unmarried mothers. Doubtless their local NSPCC was contaminated by this baleful Catholic influence.
Incidentally, I shared a few words with Furedi at a conference he was speaking at in London only last week. He was on good form.
Thanks Old Fogeynose for your kind remarks. This page is indexed by Google, so who knows who might land in here.
In any case, I do think there was the need nowadays to articulate an alternative proposal around the consent stuff. I’m so so so tired that the debates on consent are focused on the idea of “what else could we forbid now”? Or, what is the magic number (age of consent)? Those are the wrong questions. The right question is “how can we ensure that the will of humans is respected?”
I said “debates” but there is barely such thing outside forums like this. I sometimes hear sporadic comments, here and there, but there is no broad discussion, neither socially nor in politics. Everybody is afraid to speak out against this crusade on child sexuality.
Anyway, I would really like that someone challenges my ideas in a serious way. So if YOU landed here and are reading this, do challenge me.
I have been bugging ChatGPT about the AoC in the Netherlands and these are the key points I found:
Until 1971, while AoC was 12:
Around 1980s and 1990s, while AoC was 16:
I have not seen any provision making the distinction of whether the minor is the one taking the initiative. This is different from pressure and coercion, since one may receive a sexual proposition without pressure and coercion.
Even less so the “supervision criteria”. I have been unable to find a reference about that in the Netherlands law history.
Maybe those two criteria were applied in practice by judges, sometimes. Maybe they even generated jurisprudence. I don’t know. But I have not seen them explicitly stated in the law.
Just to be clear: although my framework can (and in practice should, as I expect) enable legal coverage to relationships that are currently considered illegal, my proposal is not really about “lowering the age of consent”. My proposal basically sets the shared goal of striving to ensure respect to the will of people, and establishes the “initiative” and the “supervision” criteria as safeguards with regards to age gaps. Note, though, that I have not discussed any specific ages, as I write: “I think two things should be added to the law with regard to age gaps […]”.
In my understanding, what AoC means in practice in current legal standards is: the minimum age at which one may be deemed legally capable and autonomous to formulate or accept a sexual proposition with anyone. You could potentially use my framework to establish that (I’m making this up) the “initiative” criterion is to be enforced if the person is 20 y.o. or less and the other party is 5+ years older. Such legislation would comply with my framework and would establish an AoC of 20!
The relevant Dutch law reform was as succinctly summarised in Wikipedia:
Between 1990 and 2002, the Netherlands operated what was in effect an age of consent of 12, subject to qualifications.[1] The relevant law, passed in November 1990, permitted sexual intercourse for young people between 12 and 16, but allowed a challenge by parents based on erosion of parental authority or child exploitation, which would be heard by a Council for the Protection of Children.[2]
[1] Elizabeth Bernstein, Laurie Schaffner. Regulating Sex: The politics of Intimacy and Identity.
[2] Evans, David T. (1993). Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. London: Routledge. p. 208. (2013 edn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age-of-consent_reform#:~:text=Between%201990%20and%202002%2C%20the,age%20of%20consent%20to%2012
Thanks, Tom. This is very illustrative.
This is indeed very similar to the “parental” criterion I wrote.