If there is one ‘big’ idea concerning paedophilia that interests me most it is that the hysterical paedophobia we are currently suffering from might have its roots in the deep structure of society, particularly economics.

This post condenses four essays, each about 1500 words long, that I wrote early in 2014 and in which I gradually and tentatively edged my way towards the ideas outlined in the essay ‘Towards the aetiology of paedophobia‘. Each essay helped me refine some conceptual tools which would eventually give me the confidence to broach the question of what or who is to blame for the hatred of paedophilia.

However, even after finishing the fourth and last of these essays (which looks at the causes for the acceptance of homosexuality in the West over the past 50 years) I still didn’t have much of an idea what the answer to this question might be. But I knew that I should look for the causes of paedophobia not in the attitudes or activities of pressure groups and social movements, but as emerging from structures and institutions essential to society functioning and flourishing under its current economic dispensation.

I was encouraged early on by an essay written by Paul Graham called ‘What you can’t say‘. This essay confirmed a suspicion that paying attention those things that can’t be said, or indeed even ‘thought’, in a particular society could be a very effective way of getting at truths that might otherwise be inaccessible.

So what follows condenses some 6000 words down to 2000. Whilst much of this is not about paedophilia per se I hope that you will find here enough new ideas, and things to agree and argue with to justify your reading it.


“What or who is to blame for the hatred of paedophiles?” is a question that’s dangerous to ask and, for a non-paedophile, dangerous to even think about.

Let’s imagine putting this question to the average man in the street; someone whose only knowledge of paedophilia comes from the default sources: the press, television, the clearnet, gut feelings and his own and society’s imagination.

Our Mr Average would be troubled by the question and be suspicious of someone who could even ask it. To him it’s like asking ‘who is to blame for the unpopularity of mass murderers?’ – a question that answers itself and requires no further thought.

If pushed he might answer “Paedophiles themselves are to blame, of course!” That the cause paedophobia could reside outside the phenomenon itself is something he’ll have almost certainly have never considered.

I’d like to suggest here that in every society there are questions that can’t be asked without a sense of risk and transgression. In a deeply theist pre-enlightenment society ‘does god exist?’ is such a question; ‘Has a monarch got divine rights?’ has cost people their lives; and all societies have unquestionable incest taboos.

The anthropologist Margaret Mead identified “dirt” as “matter out of place”. Hair is ‘clean’ on a loved-one’s head, but not in a sandwich. Likewise ideas can be ‘out of place’ when they are not congruent to a particular society or context, and can provoke the same feelings of disgust as a hair in a sandwich.

I suspect that those things people find difficult to think about are so because they entail ideas that could severely undermine society. These ideas often provoke feelings of unease or disgust in citizens’ minds. But these are also thoughts that, once contemplated, have a seductive power – possibly because they have elements of truth about them.

One has only to think of child erotica (or porn). As a society we are primed to think of it with disgust. However for a ‘normal’ member of society the feelings of shock they might experience on seeing it can be as much to do with the unwelcome knowledge it brings –  the perception that the children are enjoying themselves, that the ‘abuser’ and the child may be interacting in a tender loving way, and the feelings of arousal or attraction the viewer might involuntarily feel.

Some ideas are dangerous: an armed escort is not required for lorry transporting raw sewage, but is required for one transporting enriched uranium or gold. Often that armed escort can take the form of Ignorance and Disgust.

The Romans

If we consider Roman (or ancient Greek) society we come across what, to us, is a glaring example of a thought that was for them ‘unthinkable’ but which to us is so evident that most of us would never question its validity.

That thought is ‘slavery is wrong’.

The Roman Republic, and subsequently the Roman Empire, was a slave-based economy. Its rapid territorial expansion was largely fueled by the need for a large and cheap workforce to maintain what was a relatively low-technology but highly expansionist economy. Without slavery the Roman citizen would not have his Via Appia, his fine wines and the Circus Maximus, well-stocked with gladiators and wild animals for his entertainment.

Roman and ancient Greek literature and philosophy, (including thinkers and humanists such as Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Jesus Christ) offers not a single statement that puts into question the morality or necessity of slavery. Why?

Because society protects its most essential institutions and practices through deploying various mechanisms which make subversive ideas less available and less easy to think. It must also be kept in mind that citizens also have a huge stake in the successful functioning of their society – so these mechanisms are created and backed up by the collective will.

Some 20% of the Roman Empire’s population and 40% of the population of the city of Rome was made up of slaves. Clearly there was a lot at stake in keeping the thought that slavery could be ‘wrong’ at bay. The slaves’ revolts were the most disturbing and terrifying events that a Roman citizen could think about because such revolts threatened the very economic survival of the Roman Empire in a way that external wars didn’t.

The impossibility of questioning Slavery applied not only to Roman citizens, slave masters and owners, but also to the slaves themselves. Most slaves came from cultures which also practised the enslavement of conquered peoples. Slaves accepted their situation as an unfortunate consequence of fate and necessity: it was better to be a slave than to be killed, which would otherwise have been the fate of most of the losing side in battles.

Roman society praised owners who treated their slaves well, and condemned bad slave owners. Slaves were offered a ‘reward system’, a way of attaining honour and self respect in their roles and could, if their masters were enlightened, even be made into Freedmen and become Roman citizens.

This established moral parameters which reassuringly embraced narratives of both virtue and vice, whilst never broaching the question of the ethical status of slavery itself.

What I believe this shows is that those structures and institutions (very often economic) upon which a society bases its safety, survival and prosperity are ‘protected’ from being questioned or undermined in the minds of groups and individuals.

How this operates must be very subtle: the citizenry must not ‘notice’ the existence of the mechanisms (since to notice that one’s being manipulated is to be halfway to working out why one is being manipulated) but I suspect that, like a well defended fort, it works on several lines of defence:

Laws

These not only operate through sanctions but also provide a kind of mirror of the ethical state of its citizens, reinforcing belief in those things the law defends.

Gut instinct

Nothing keeps us away from a thought or a feeling more effectively than disgust – this is how the concept of Taboo works.

It is very hard to argue against disgust: one can know feelings of disgust are irrational and wrong but the feelings nevertheless remain overwhelming: if I had to, say, excise someone’s eye in order to save their life I fear that Reason and Compassion could not sufficiently overcome my feelings of disgust for me to be able to go through with it.

Language

Words are the bricks with which we build thoughts. If some concepts have no words or words have meanings that are inherently false (like the word ‘witch’ – taken in the non-Wiccan sense) then certain thoughts become unavailable to us (Orwell’s Newspeak from ‘1984’ shows how impoverishing the language is effective in stopping people from thinking).

Discerning the underlying causes of ‘unthinkable thoughts’ becomes harder the more that thought’s context resembles one’s own society. This is because as a society’s blind spots coincide more and more with our own we have available to us fewer of those concepts which would allow us to think about these blind spots, and the vocabulary with which to think will be increasingly impoverished and corrupted – this impoverishment and corruption of language acts as a conceptual buffer, or ‘cordon sanitaire’, around forbidden thoughts. That’s why it’s easy for a contemporary westerner to think about Romans and slavery, whilst it’s almost impossible for him to think about paedophilia.

The linguistic dishonesties, distortions, and stumbling blocks which clutter the debate around paedophilia will be all too familiar to the reader. Half our problems are with establishing honest definitions of words. If a language lacks the words for certain concepts those concepts become very hard to think and manipulate, discuss and evaluate. How can one think of child-adult intimacy as being anything other than wrong if the only words one has for describing it are ‘abuse’, ‘rape’, ‘victim’, ‘molester’ &c? Most discussions about paedophilia boil down to disagreements about the implied definitions of words. Such discussions tend to be frustrating, unproductive and sterile.

Note that these mechanisms arise organically out of society and social interactions. They are not imposed from above or require conspiracy theories: they arise out of a citizen’s need to protect the very things that give him, his family and community a good, safe, and comfortable life – or an aspiration to such a life.

Homosexuality

During periods of social change groups spring up that are vocal in favour, or against, some change. It is easy to mistake these groups for the prime agents of change. They are generally merely ‘jumpers-on-the-bandwagon’ seeking to advance their own position by surfing on the impetus of a change that other deeper forces have impelled.

To credit pressure groups and campaigns for the success of gay liberation is to simply halt the search for the cause of this success at the first easy group of individuals capable of taking the credit or shouldering the blame. The movements for gay liberation in the second half of the twentieth century was very much pushing at an open door. Such groups were the midwives, not the mothers, of change.

During the last 4 decades of the 20th century – the economic systems of the UK, the USA and many other western nations were moving from a manufacturing base to one based on service and consumption. Not entirely, of course – heavy industry does still exist in these countries – but what matters is that these economies stopped defining themselves through manufacturing and heavy industry and started to define themselves, and their projects for the future, in terms of services and consumerism. This period coincides with the ‘swinging sixties’, the industrial troubles of the 70s and Thatcherism in the 80s.

enfant bw
‘l’Enfant’ – Spencer Rowell (1986)

In the 40s & 50s the ideal man was strong, emotionally aloof, independent and tough. By the late 80s there emerged the ideal of the ‘New Man’, who combined both masculine and feminine qualities.

735px-Lewis_Hine_Power_house_mechanic_working_on_steam_pump
‘Power House Mechanic Working on Steam Pump’ – Lewis Hine (1920)

The photograph l’Enfant – a best-seller for Athena in the late 80s – with its muscular man tenderly cradling a baby, embodied a new conception of masculinity. (Compare this image with an equally famous, and interestingly similar, representation of masculinity from the first half of the century – Hine’s ‘Power House Mechanic’.)

And then there were the shoulder-padded, ball-busting, business woman as embodied by Margaret Thatcher – a woman who’d assumed many of the more masculine characteristics. It’s no coincidence that feminism blossomed over this same period.

Previously sharply demarcated gender roles softened, broke down and genders freely exchanged characteristics. People could pick and choose how they constituted their gender identity and their choices would be largely respected and protected. Why?

In the 50s the idea of ‘The Man’ was someone who worked in a factory or a mine – a tough, masculine environment for tedious and boring physical tasks; tasks requiring little education and a tough stoical attitude to get you through the day. In fact education was a positive disadvantage in some ways.

By the end of the century things had changed. The economy had become a service economy in which interpersonal skills were valued above strength and sheer endurance. A man could be a nurse, a secretary, a receptionist, a nursery school teacher, all jobs required training, education and attitudes that had till then been thought of as ‘feminine’. Men adhering to the old masculine values were disqualified from such work and tended to end up at increased risk of unemployment as the local factories shut down. The values of the 50s died out because they were no longer congruent to the economic and structural needs of the society they lived in.

This increased permeability of the demarcations between gender-roles had several side effects, one of which was that ordinary men could allow elements into their identity which had previously been associated with homosexuality, or more precisely ‘lack of masculinity’, and which would have been disruptive in the factory, but not in a school staff-room, office or in a team of nurses.

The end of industry and the rise of Consumer and service-based forms of capitalism also changed the gender-profile of the labour market – there were fewer and fewer jobs that could only be done by men available and more unisex jobs. More and more women and wives were entering the job market and the phenomenon of house-husbands started to become increasingly common.

In short, in the 50s homosexuals were reviled because they undermined the conception of masculinity necessary for a functioning labour force in a society based on heavy industry. In the 21st century they are accepted because they embody the values that a consumer and service economy relies on.

It might be countered that all this is based on certain stereotypes of homosexuals being effeminate, sensitive, caring. After all there are other conceptions of ‘the Homosexual’: for example the super-macho DaddyandTheMuscle idea of homosexuality as embodied by ‘Tom of Finland’. However it is society’s conception of homosexuality that matters here rather than statistically accurate facts: what stereotype society promotes and why?

Homophobia was less fear of homosexuals than a contempt for the ‘less-than-manly’: homosexual behaviour was tolerated, accepted even, provided it were done in a macho context, with manly intent – think of the horse-play and masturbation competitions in the dressing room after a rugby game, think of the use of male rape as a tool of dominance in prisons. The playground insult ‘poof’ was more about not being ‘hard’ than about anything sexual. These indicate that the homophobia that predominates in heavy industrial economies is more about the reinforcement of values than about homosexuality per se.

The stereotype of the ‘poof’ or ‘queer’ was the repugnant and stigmatised ‘stick’ to the manly ‘carrot’ –  both worked to enforce conformity to a useful idea of masculinity. And the accuracy of this stereotype was no more relevant than is the accuracy of ‘monster’ stereotype of the paedophile – the ‘monster’ stereotype is useful to society so the stereotype persists (despite the perpetuation of that stereotype being counterproductive to the actual protection of children).

So what does this amount to?

Attitudes are adaptive. Given that most people are concerned with prospering (or, at least, surviving), populations will adopt those attitudes which best allow them to function within the economic and social constraints of the society they exist in. Those citizens who internalise such attitudes will tend to ‘do well’, those that don’t will be left behind.

Of course this is a simplification – there is always a range of attitudes available, and in a free society that range can be very wide. But the flip side of this coin is that those ideas that most deeply undermine adaptive attitudes, gradually become, not just feared and reviled, but actually become, in a very real sense, ‘unthinkable’.

37 thoughts on “Unthinkable Thoughts and the Mechanism of Hatred

  1. DSM-5 ameliorated its stance concerning the mental disease of homosexuality in 1973. Thirty-two years later, it became an offence in the UK to discriminate against homosexuals.

    I have suggested to the Forum for Understanding Minor Attraction, who are meeting today in London, that perhaps our focus could be extended to apply appropriate pressure to UK members of parliament. Specifically, to precipitate a shorter interval of time between the changes made in 2013 to the DSM regarding the mental disorder of paedophilia/paedosexuality, and legislation implemented to make it a crime to discriminate against minor-attracted people. We are certainly not afraid of making our presence felt.

    Like

  2. The absence of any laws to combat discrimination of MAPs (in the UK, and likely everywhere else too) leaves the doors wide open to treat us as less than human, just like black people, gays and Jews before us. The following recent news item (8the Dec) illustrates this well I think:

    British police are investigating newly crowned world heavyweight champion Tyson Fury over comments he made about homosexuality, a spokeswoman from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) told AFP on Tuesday. Fury, 27, has attracted controversy after likening homosexuality to paedophilia, with over 105,000 people signing a petition calling for his removal from the shortlist for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award. A GMP spokeswoman said that a member of the public had reported a ‘hate crime’ on Tuesday after watching a BBC television programme in which Fury’s remarks were discussed. She said the force was taking the matter ‘very seriously’ and would be attending the complainant’s address to speak to him in person before deciding whether to question Fury. Fury has also been accused of sexism, having notably stated that a woman’s place was ‘in the kitchen and on her back’. The complaint only concerns his remarks about homosexuality. In a recent interview with the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Fury, who is a born-again Christian, said that three things needed to be accomplished ‘before the devil comes home. One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia,’ he said. ‘Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?’ Manchester-born Fury, who is of traveller heritage and styles himself as the ‘Gypsy King’, has denied being homophobic or sexist and says that his views merely reflect what is written in the Bible. “That’s my beliefs, just like I believe in Lord Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour and if anyone wants to dispute that, let them do it,’ he said in a recent YouTube video. The BBC has defended its decision to shortlist him for its flagship award, saying it is ‘not an endorsement of an individual’s personal beliefs’.

    It is interesting to note that the complaint of a hate crime only concerns homophobia. Implicitly then, hate crime directed towards MAPs is OK. Tyson Fury is doubtless a role model given his sports celebrity status, particularly for the younger generation, and so the spouting of his hate-filled views can only further ingrain MAPS demonic status in the eyes of the public. It is interesting that his views are apparently supported by the bible.

    Like

    1. I’m quite a fan of boxing and though I’ve got a slight bias for UK fighters I’ve also got a much stronger bias against fighters who act like arseholes – as do, unfortunately, many UK fighters, not least Fury.

      I was definitely rooting for Klitschko, who seems someone intelligent, polite and thoughtful (and who is going out with Hayden Panettiere – a real sweetie when a little girl).

      But that’s besides the point – yes, though I found his pronouncement odd and offensive I was more angered, if not surprised, at the way it was assumed that speaking hatefully against paedophiles was OK.

      We see the same thing, but on a more tragic and horrific level, with the Pleasted/Sands case where a woman who took a knife and went to the house of a man accused of ‘abusing’ a boy (no relation or acquaintance of the woman) and stabbed him repeatedly got off with manslaughter because the judge seemed to consider the fact that the victim was a paedophile as a mitigating factor.

      Some in the legal profession have been very troubled by this ruling – this article is pretty good on that case:
      http://thejusticegap.com/2015/11/is-it-somehow-ok-to-kill-suspected-sex-offenders/

      Like

  3. A different take on sexual abuse, and closely mirrors my own experiences, outlook, hatred and anger.

    “I was sexually abused starting when I was 11, and I am full of rage now about it as an adult.

    Studies have shown that the effects of sexual abuse can be long-lasting and can include poor self-esteem, sleep disturbances, anxiety disorders, intense shame and loathing about sexuality, depression, self-harming behavior, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts and behavior. I’ve struggled with the first three all my life, and only in mid-adulthood resolved the fourth one. I still deal with hopelessness and lack of motivation (I don’t think that it’s clinical depression) and sometimes think suicide could be a rational course of action, but I guess my desire for a better life prevents me from seriously considering it.

    People never talk about how sexual abuse causes these effects. They can’t even rationally talk about what sexual abuse really is, instead sticking to simplistic moralistic condemnations. When they do that, how can they expect to understand sexual abuse, ways of preventing it, or ways to help victims? One has to decide which is more important: protecting children from harm, or enforcing a moralistic agenda. These two things are NOT always the same!

    Everyone can agree that an adult coercing or manipulating a child into sexual behaviour is harmful and therefore reprehensible. It’s especially harmful when an authority figure does it, when it involves humiliation or shaming, and/or when it happens repeatedly – that’s why my abuse was so harmful.

    It began when I was 11, when I admitted to myself that I was gay. I was a defective, disgusting, shameful ‘queer’, ‘faggot,’ ‘pervert,’ and ‘deviant.’ Or so I was told by everyone around me – authority figures as well as peers – by the way they talked about gay people. This occurred day after day, month after month, year after year, and into my adulthood. I knew that I was a ‘freak’ and would always be alone, never experiencing intimacy, romantic love, or sex.

    That was the abuse. No, no one ever coerced or manipulated me into sex. But before you tell me that isn’t ‘real’ abuse, think about the fact that I experienced the same effects that ‘conventionally’ abused children experienced. And I know plenty of people who were also shamed and humiliated for their sexuality like I was, and have gone on to abuse alcohol or drugs, engage in cutting, or attempt suicide in their teen or young adult years.

    I blame society’s moralism for this, but I have special loathing for the mental health professionals. Yes, they now advocate for LGBT people, but they only changed their tune begrudgingly 40 years ago, after long-running protests from gay activists. Before that, the psych profession gave society the ammunition for its hatred toward LGBT people by publishing sensationalistic documents and ‘studies’ about the evils of homosexuality.

    This wasn’t due to benign neglect – it was self-imposed ignorance; they simply didn’t want to do any decent research because their moralistic beliefs made such research irrelevant and they didn’t think LGBT people were worth it. They were happy to repudiate the Hippocratic Oath and support society’s call for the suppression and control of ‘sexual deviants’ through all kinds of hellish sexual aversion therapies. The psych profession was responsible for the abuse of countless LGBT people, including me, in the twentieth century.

    Electric shock therapy devices and devices connected to the penis to measure erection and determine arousal to male and female stimuli, were used on gay men in the 1950s, and a similar device used in the 1990s and 2000s on men and boys as young as 12, thought to be attracted to children.

    The problem is, they’re still doing the same thing now as they did to gays, just to a different group of people. When I was 17, I noticed I wasn’t attracted to boys my age or men anymore. Eventually I figured out I was attracted mainly to boys 11-15 years old. Just like when I was gay, I internalized all the negative stereotypes coming from society, led by the psych profession: intense shame and self-loathing. But I was puzzled: I was a very gentle person, yet the psychs told me (via the media) that I was a vicious animal – a predator – and that I would eventually abuse hundreds of children. How could this be?

    Once I got on the internet, I was able to find real research, in reputable books and journals that defied the horrific stereotypes and proved that popular and professional beliefs were false and destructive. This was the stuff that the psych profession ignores or even attacks as ‘obfuscating the moral issues involved.’
    I also met or communicated with several teens and young adults who were hopeless, dealing with depression or anxiety disorders, turning to drugs or alcohol, cutting themselves, or considering or attempting suicide because of their attraction to children. Some of them had been forced into these medieval ‘sexual aversion treatments.’ I even read about these treatments being inflicted on juvenile sex offenders and ‘children who molest’, often for willing sexual experimentation, leading them to psychiatric disorders and violent or suicidal behaviour. Abusing ‘deviant’ children to protect the ‘normal’ ones?!! Teaching these kids that their sexuality is destructive and monstrous?! This isn’t child protection. It’s child abuse. Sexual abuse.

    That’s when I became angry and realized that the institutions of society, especially mental health professionals, are blinded to facts about sexuality and the well-being of children and youth by their moralistic condemnation of people with the wrong sexual feelings or behaviour, including those who are attracted to children. They’re blinded to facts that could help young teenagers who are struggling to understand their attraction to children, and could even help those children who have had sexual contact with adolescents or adults. Instead, mental health professionals would rather condemn, control, and abuse, using the same aversion therapies, chemical castration, and containment of ‘sexual psychopaths’ (now called ‘civil commitment’) that they used in the 1950s against LGBT people. Will they ever learn?”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Since this post is about hatred, I come to discuss certain things, because I am a person full of hate, for good or badl, and I speak honestly here, not wanting to provoke anyone.

    I speak honestly from the heart, I think I have nothing against pedophilia as “attraction”, I understand that there are people to be attracted to prepubertal children… hell, sometimes a little girl attracts me in particular, but I think, honestly, not I like pedophilia as “act”, they may be my prejudice, my personal experiences or whatever, but I can not, I can not say here “sex with children it is ok,” I acknowledge that all adult-child intimacy is not harmful and I acknowledge that pedophilia is not a disease, that it does not make anyone better or worse, but I can not accept sex with prepubertal children actively.

    Perhaps the fear of attacks by people if I defend that? Well, the truth is as I advocate relationships with pubescent and I have enough problems, I know at 100% that hebephilia is good, which does not happen with pedophilia, for my personal experience etc. it’s good too? If you think so, it seems perfect.

    My goal is to speak publicly in favor of of my sexual ideals, most of you simply are hidden and only speak anonymously on the Internet, so it is very easy to be brave and go out to defend pedophilia but in real life I doubt that “you” were so brave (this is not going to no one in particular, and less Leonard, I made it clear.), if it is dangerous defending hebephilia, imagine pedophilia… but not, I’m just a “cretin that judge others”, come on, get out there and defend your pedophilia and falls like a martyr.

    I am not a fan of Todd, in fact it is quite the opposite, but at least, It shows its face to the public, something that does not make any pro-contacter, and people like Tom, everyone knows that we are like a cat and dog, he at least eats all the insults and abuse of people, only to defend four internet pedofighters “ohh pedophilia is wonderful, but I only say things here, I do not want people to break my beautiful face, but this asshole self-proclaimed pope eats all the blows for defend hebephilia that idiot! “.

    Like

  5. “I think an artist claiming that only he could appreciate a flower is also such a feeble idea.”

    Yes indeed; the story highlights the weakness in the human condition where egoism prevails over overwhelming evidence. But then, the artist was perhaps rather unwise putting forward such a poor idea directly to one of the world’s most able thinkers. When I was at University, where I studied Math, there was always a them-and-us divide: Scientists versus Artists. The problem arises when one-upmanship mutates into hate, and this brings us back full circle to the discrimination of minority groups. The US seems to be particularly adept at hating, with the top three hating states California, New England and Texas, having 32, 36 and 43 individual hate groups against people of colour, and Texas having a further 14 hate groups against other minority groups.

    Prof Richard Feynman again; this time on his abhorrence of honours.

    “I don’t like honours. I appreciate it for the work that I did, and for people who appreciate it, and I notice that other physicists use my work. I don’t need anything else. I don’t think there’s any sense to anything else. I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize.

    I’ve already got the prize.

    The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things. The honours are unreal to me. I don’t believe in honours. It bothers me; honours bother me. Honours is epaulettes; honours is uniforms. My poppa brought me up this way. I can’t stand it; it hurts me.

    When I was in high school, one of the first honours I got was to be a member of the Arista, which is a group of kids who got good grades. Everybody wanted to be a member of the Arista. And when I got into the Arista, I discovered that what they did in their meetings was to sit around to discuss who else was worthy to join this wonderful group that we are. So we sat around trying to decide who it was who would get to be allowed into this Arista. This kind of thing bothers me psychologically for one or another reason I don’t understand myself. Honours – and from that day to this – always bothered me.

    I had trouble when I became a member of the National Academy of Science, and I had ultimately to resign. Because there was another organization, most of whose time was spent in choosing who was illustrious enough to be allowed to join us in our organization. Including such questions as ‘We physicists have to stick together, because there’s a very good chemist that they’re trying to get in, and we haven’t got enough room for so-and-so.’ What’s the matter with chemists? The whole thing was rotten, because the purpose was mostly to decide who could have this honour.

    I don’t like honours.”

    It is not such a big leap to connect the behaviour exhibited by groups bestowing honours, to the behaviour exhibited by groups that preach hate. Indeed, his phrase: “The whole thing was rotten …” neatly summarises in my view, the unholy and corrupt alliance that has been forged between mental health care professionals, legal authorities, misandrist child protection agencies, prison sub-contractors and the State. This alliance is the primary source of the hatred directed towards paedophiles. Just as the artist who can only see the negatives in a scientist’s perception of a flower, so too, this corrupt alliance can only see harm in consensual inter-generational relationships, because they are wilfully blind to the facts.

    Like

  6. A further mechanism for hatred in my view, has been the corrupt and often incestuous alliance between professional bodies such as mental health care, legal authorities, child protection agencies, prison sub-contractors and the State. Evidence for much of this, if any were needed:
    • The case of unusually harsh judges profiting from sending youths to jail here: nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html,
    • Brian Rothery’s ‘The prostitution of the psychiatric profession’ here: inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=409
    • The damning indictment of the civil commitment gulags for sex offenders who have already served their time for their crimes and who now find themselves detained with no hope of release here: themarshallproject.org/2015/02/09/a-system-that-is-clearly-broken#.2g5atHZ5V and here: ipce.info/library_3/mag/im_06.htm
    • Richard Kramer’s Not One from B4U-Act: youtube.com/watch?v=LqZ3b10KjBc.

    The Diagnostic Statistical Manual (of mental disorders), an eternal catalyst for hatred directed towards sexual minority groups, considers a paedophile that sees nothing intrinsically wrong with consensual intergenerational relationships, to be suffering from a mental disorder, and thus a danger to society. Such a diagnosis leaves the door wide open for the State to sanction unethical and risky aversion therapies that employ chemical or physical castration to reduce sex drive. One comment from Dr Brongersma: “the only man cured of his paedophilic feelings this author knows about was the patient of a certain Dr Agnes Martin who, under aversion therapy, was drugged into continuous vomiting; this brought on a cardiac arrest and the man died.” Dr Brongersma goes on to say: ‘”Where society permits assault upon a person’s sexuality, doctors may become remarkably inventive, especially when they are setting out to eradicate sexual tendencies different from their own. The courts provide them with a constant supply of human guinea pigs on whom they are permitted to experiment. Labelling deviants ‘barbarians’ makes it easy for judges and doctors to treat them barbarically, and in so doing, those in power feel their righteousness confirmed.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Good points there feinmann0. The pathologisation of any behaviour that threatens social stability, or the interests of those in power (drapetomania is a prime example) is a very powerful tool for the suppression of subversive ideas.

      In truth I think that there are probably many many mechanisms by which thoughts are rendered unthinkable – if I feel brave enough and start growing a few extra grey cells I may one day try to put together a list…

      I’m familiar with Richard Kramer’s ‘Not One’ – it’s a very powerful piece of work, something to watch when one’s feeling strong.

      I’ll work my way through the links you provide over the next few days.

      Like

  7. Yes , one is fundamentally disadvantaged in seeking knowledge when the majority seem to be utterly content living in a dumbed-down world, where to question things is just too much bovver … wotever. To attempt to discuss news items such as: telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html tends to be met with a look of bemusement, and the conversation turns rapidly to the latest gossip in Corrie, or: “Did you see X-factor last night?” In the early 21st Century, paradigms will be much harder to overturn, the hardest of all being child asexuality/emancipation.

    I like this quote from Prof Richard Feynman taken from the BBC documentary: “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” circa 1981.

    ‘I have a friend who is an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.’

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting quote from Prof Richard Feynman!

      I’m definitely from the ‘artist’ side of things, but it supremely It pisses me off when artists talk this kind of bullshite – as if you have to be an artist to appreciate beauty. There is kind of artist – often they are mediocre – who like to think of themselves as having special powers which raise them ‘spiritually’.

      These artists often seem to think that whatever they do, make or say is special simply because it has been touched by their artistic sensibility – which often means that they are not sufficiently critical of what they produce and can end up producing self-indulgent art.

      Don’t get me wrong – I think that to be an artist you have to have some special spark – I’ve started to realise only recently (after 30 or so years of being an artist!) just how much my art is a result of my being a paedophile – how it explores the condition of being a secretly stigmatised human – though anyone looking at it wouldn’t pick up on that consciously.

      I think an artist claiming that only he could appreciate a flower is also such a feeble idea.

      If an artist said that he could appreciate the beauty in decaying corpse of a rat or a pile of shit or something else which might have hidden qualities of beauty which maybe only an artist could perceive and articulate through his medium – now that is a lot more interesting and shows that the artist is working and searching and not just reproducing and representing that which is already acknowledged as being beautiful.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “I’ve started to realise only recently (after 30 or so years of being an artist!) just how much my art is a result of my being a paedophile – how it explores the condition of being a secretly stigmatised human – though anyone looking at it wouldn’t pick up on that consciously.”

        I think it was Francis Bacon who said: ‘An artist must learn to be nourished by his passions and by his despairs,’ LSM, are you able to include a work or two of yours here, to allow us to give our take on the inner meanings? If you are, perhaps you might give us due warning if they happen to be in the style of the screaming popes – if they are, then I would worry that you might in fact be a closet virtuous paedophile.

        Like

        1. >“LSM, are you able to include a work or two of yours here, to allow us to give our take on the inner meanings? “

          Oh, how I’d love to, feinmann0!

          Whist I’m very far from being a big-name, famous artist – no Damien Hirst, Jurgen Teller or Anish Kapoor – my work is sufficiently out there that to do so would be to effectively out myself.

          >“you might give us due warning if they happen to be in the style of the screaming popes”

          I do love Bacon’s work – and his influence has been recognised in some of my work.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You are a very lucky guy to have sufficient artistic talent for your work to be ‘out there’, which I take to mean you are able to earn a living from something you enjoy doing.

            Yes, I like Bacon’s work, in fact I love strong, fantastical imagery that stops me in my tracks, holds me there, and transfixes me: Dali’s Hallucinogenic Torreador, Holbeins The Ambassadors, Dadd’s Halt in the Desert and the Faery Feller, Wain, Bosch, etc. Oh and I love nude too, but there is an age limit to this genre ;o)

            Like

            1. >”You are a very lucky guy to have sufficient artistic talent for your work to be ‘out there’, which I take to mean you are able to earn a living from something you enjoy doing.”

              Much to my regret – I’m not quite so lucky as that, feinmann0. Like most artists I don’t really even manage to break even and choose to keep the wolf off my couch (he’s already gotten past the door) by other means.

              >”Oh and I love nude too, but there is an age limit to this genre ;o)”

              Yup, it seems that the only thing too shocking and too obscene to be depicted by art is a child’s body.

              Like

              1. “it seems that the only thing too shocking and too obscene to be depicted by art is a child’s body.”

                Not totally true. On a trip with another bl to Berlin, we counted 93 small, but perfectly formed cocklets on naked cherubs at the Gemäldegalerie (interesting that most cherubs tend to be male). I guess if the work of art containing the representation of a naked child has sufficient age say, one hundred or more years, then the painter is deemed to hale from a society that has no connection with our own, and thus can safely be excused his lapse into perversion. Thinking about von Gloeden, his photographic output likely falls into this excusable category, but … within a gnat’s crotchet only.

                Keep at the art; it will keep you sane. I would add that in my opinion, your art also includes your output here.

                Like

          2. Tsk! You realise that you have now started many a search for works which may or may not be yours!

            As for Bacon, I admit that one of the highlights of my life was sitting on the floor of a gallery just drinking in three of his works. Thankfully the gallery police left me alone.

            Like

  8. I have been wondering what, if anything, I can say about this post. For me, the idea that there are beliefs and ideas which are unsayable in specific cultures and contexts is obvious—much of my work has been devoted to challenging the assumptions which support our culture’s discussions and research, which, in fact, provide the background of shared assumptions against which our discussions and research occur. The sheer obviousness of this is such that it is easy, all too often, to forget that there are ideas which cannot be expressed without some form of punitive reaction from those who do not question the assumptions.

    At the same time, it also is the case that these assumptions are limitations in themselves. Slavery, e.g., depends on a limited concept of humanity, this concept being essentially moral: if that group are not human in the fullest sense, then we can enslave them. Reactions to and beliefs about paedophilia and homosexuality depend on a limited concept of sex—if sex is penetrative and aimed at reproduction and (perhaps) orgasm, then any sex act which does not aim at reproduction is wrong. This in turn depends on a limited concept of “humanity”, a concept which limits by denying our physical nature as much as it is possible to do so. Of course, this is an area requiring a huge amount of information and detail to argue for, because they are in themselves not sayable, in the sense talked about here, in our culture.

    Specifically in terms of paedophilia, however, the unsayable is astounding. It is not acceptable, where I live, at least, e.g., to say “I like children” without placing several caveats around the statement; nor is it acceptable to say that a child is “cute” or “attractive”, without even more caveats. Nor is it acceptable to even talk about child-adult relations. One friend, mother of one of my con’s friends, after fifteen years of knowing me, has recently started warning her 16 year old son about me, because I have shown her some of the academic papers I have been reading on paedophilia which do not condemn child-adult relations. Her son has been quite charming and has kept a list of her lectures about me, and about other issues. I am up to 52 lectures over the past six months. When ordinary people react in this way…sigh. one can only hope and at the same time talk a little less because the majority of policing within society occurs at this level.

    In any event, this post has been a salutary reminder of something I need to remind myself of, and keep in mind when re-writing rejected articles on this issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. BJ: yes it is astounding what one is obliged not to say, even amongst one’s closest friends. But, has that not always been the way with respect to ‘deviant’ sexualities? The term paedophilia was not in common parlance when I was a youth, but the term homosexuality was, and it attracted pretty much the same nauseating disapproval, ridicule, ignorance and blind hate currently reserved for the paedophile.

      After 15 years of knowing someone, one might have thought that a degree of trust had formed between the two of you, sufficient for any topic to be discussed in a mature manner. The problem though I suspect is that she is protective towards her son because mother-love instinctively repels all perceived threats. These instincts are continuously informed by society that the numero uno threat to one’s child is an adult unrelated (stranger danger) male.

      The not-being-able-to-tell-anybody scenario is THE most mortifying aspect of my life, because people will never be able to fully appreciate the real me. It is a terribly sad indictment of society where one dare not discuss who/what one truly is without risking the Sword of Damocles descending very rapidly onto one’s head. If someone were to raise the topic of paedophilia with me, I’d have plenty of information at my disposal to respond, especially so if they were inclined to be derogatory and discriminatory. However, such a confrontation would inevitably take its toll.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You are correct, and I would not want to be in your situation—I don’t think I would have the ability to keep a secret about myself. No, for me the problem is (1) that I am the most vanilla of hetero non-paedophiles, (2) that people take my thoughts and turn them into a personal evaluation of me and my sexuality and, most importantly, (3) that what she is rejecting for herself and for her son is *knowledge* because she is not willing to look at or discuss research results which do not conform to her beliefs. I do not understand why anyone rejects knowledge, or the opportunity to learn and discuss different, competing ideas. This, I suppose, is my overly intellectualised background.

        Like

    2. >>>Specifically in terms of paedophilia, however, the unsayable is astounding. It is not acceptable, where I live, at least, e.g., to say “I like children” without placing several caveats around the statement; nor is it acceptable to say that a child is “cute” or “attractive”, without even more caveats. Nor is it acceptable to even talk about child-adult relations.<<<

      Everywhere it is unacceptable to say "I hate my attraction to adult women," without directly people do not call you crazy, and got the indifference of all people, It is unacceptable to say "the attraction to adults is dangerous and harmful" without more indifference. and it is not acceptable to speak out against adult-adult relationships.

      Like

      1. I have read a couple of comments from you about this, but haven’t replied to them because I haven’t had a clue what to say.

        Leonard’s post was about unthinkable thoughts, about expressing these thoughts, and was so from a particular point of view. A different side to this are thoughts which are unthinkable in the sense that a person has no foundation (intellectually, personally) within themselves by which they can think particular thoughts.

        As I have said elsewhere, I came to research paedophilia as a response to Hetty Johnston’s hysteria about Bill Henson’s photographs some years ago. I did not experience his work as sexual, and had no comprehension of why and how other people did so. As someone who had published art criticism and published at least one review of a Henson show, I set out to argue against this nonsense. I could not, at the time, think about his work as in any way sexual, and certainly not paedophilic. It only was after doing a load of research, including writings by hysterics, that I began to understand why some claim that even looking at these works is the act of a paedophile. What took place was that I learnt to think these thoughts which had previously not been thinkable by me.

        This process has in fact taken a lot of pleasure away from me: all too often I look at a Henson photograph (and other people’s work) and think about it sexually, in a manner which previously had never crossed my mind. (I am sure that Hetty and others in the hysterical anti- campaign would say that this makes me a paedophile, in which case, I could only answer that Hetty is the cause because I had never thought about the photos sexually until pursuing her public comments. Interesting, no?)

        I find I am in the same situation in respect of your comments (experiences, beliefs), in that I have no foundation in thought and experience which permits me to clearly think about and understand what you say.. As an aging child of Western culture, my initial—and rejected—reaction is to say “psychological illness”—this is where our society places those we do not understand.

        The closest I can come to understanding is to look at women in their fifties and sixties, those whom I am supposed to be attracted to because of my age, and I find that I am horrified by any sexual attraction I feel toward them. (Please, a thirty year old, maybe even forty, but not someone my own age because all those I have met seem to have lost their joy, and they tend to be “over” sex.)

        Anyway, this has been a long winded way of saying that I don’t really understand your comment, but one day I may, as the required background (I don’t mean your personal story, I mean better background thought about your comments). (And now I am beginning to tie myself in knots…)

        Like

        1. Thank you for respond like a human being, as I said I suffer a lot for my attracion to adult women, whether it justified or not, it may be that, basically, I hate many things related to sex (and what happens after him) that I basically get a hatred of it, or may be true, and is harmful trace (or genetic error), in any case no one cares at all my mental and physical health for it, or help me to admit my attracion and just reject the “bad” part or reject it altogether.

          Ironically, unlike if one is pedophile, if you’re addicted to pornography (of adults), rejects attraction/sex with adults etc. receives only silence and contempt from people, and worse, from alleged “professionals” as psychologists, sexologists and therapists in general.

          And you’re researcher of pedophilia, right? I will give an aside on this issue: these people give a damn (and sorry for the bad language) what happens to me, both pro-contact (and BC, GC) and the Virtuous pedophiles, do not care about my pain, I not have been more despised and insulted in my life, because of these people, to the point of taking a rejection of pedophilia in general, I believed to be pedohebephile, but no more, I’ve replaced my sexuality just to plain hebephilia, as a “new home” for me, because these people have treated me worse than anti-pedophilia groups.

          And hopefully all consensual relationships with children / minors will be legal, hopefully, even I, who i dont like and even have rejected all pre-pubescent sex, maybe adult-child love is not bad at all, I’m just a knucklehead, or maybe these people are real child abusers, and perhaps is fine to love older “mature” children but without taking advantage of very young kids, them as some alleged “child lovers/pedosexuals/MAPs” want.

          Like

          1. Actually, I am an ex-(academic) philosopher/artist/art critic who is researching this area due to claims made about works featuring by various hysterics and the occasional art critic. (I am finding it rather difficult to get back into the flow of this type of work, however, but that’s another story.)

            As for your situation, the only legal option is “mature” children (over the age of sexual consent, in other words).
            I still don’t understand your situation, but good luck with it—it would be very difficult to desire something that you really don’t want.

            Liked by 1 person

  9. During antiquity, slavery was not challenged because there was no economical alternative. At worst, it was considered as a “necessary evil”, in the same way as today’s apologists for capitalism consider that unemployment and people being driven out of their homes are necessary features of a healthy economy. Today slavery is considered as “wrong” because capitalist economy rests on “free labour”, that is, a mobile workforce that can go from one branch of industry to another, from one capitalist to another, as dictated by the market.
    The idea of a recent transition to “consumer capitalism” does not make sense. Capitalism rests on selling commodities to consumers. The UK shifted from industry-based to financial capitalism, and in other Western countries part of the industry moved to Asia. However German economy still rests on exporting the products of its industry, and in Germany gender roles are still strong: husbands are wage-earners and wives take care of the household and the kids, as public childcare is very poor compared to other European countries. Nevertheless, Germany has not escaped paedo-hysteria, although it is far from UK levels (but we have also to take into account the role of the UK tabloid press).
    I don’t see any economic basis for paedo-hatred. It looks rather like the recurring hatreds arising in times of crisis, where some people are branded as scapegoats in order to fool the masses about their real situation of exploitation: witches, then Jews, then paedophiles or Muslims. People are made to cling to fantasms of purity: in the 30’s it was racial purity, now it can be the integrity of a culture and lifestyle menaced by invading alien hordes (especially Muslims), and the sexual purity of the last remaining section of the population where it can be enforced: children.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. >“During antiquity, slavery was not challenged because there was no economical alternative. At worst, it was considered as a “necessary evil”, in the same way as today’s apologists for capitalism consider that unemployment and people being driven out of their homes are necessary features of a healthy economy. Today slavery is considered as “wrong” because capitalist economy rests on “free labour”, that is, a mobile workforce that can go from one branch of industry to another, from one capitalist to another, as dictated by the market.”

      Really what you’re saying here is that attitudes emerge from economic necessities – which is the hypothesis I’ve applied to slavery and homosexuality and, in another essay, to ‘paedophobia’.

      >“Capitalism rests on selling commodities to consumers.”

      All economic systems have rested on selling commodities to consumers in one form or another, even barter can be considered a form of selling which misses out the middle man – instead of selling a pig and buying an ox with the money – you simply cut out the money and exchange a pig for an ox.

      I’m no expert in capitalism and its history but from what I can tell Capitalism has remained far from uniform since, depending on how one defines Capitalism, it first appeared in the early modern period – there has been agrarian capitalism, merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism, state capitalism, financial capitalism, state-welfare capitalism, yes, consumer capitalism and I don’t doubt many more.

      A quick comparison between industrial capitalism and consumer capitalism should highlight some fundamental differences: early factories, though mechanised, still depended on a large workforce and in the UK most of the production was destined for export to the colonies or were components or raw materials i.e. not for sale to citizens – this meant that wages could and needed to be kept very low – in fact wages were kept at subsistence level – families had to send their children to work just to survive. For the working classes there was very little scope for surplus consumption, spending on anything other than necessities.

      Compare that to the system we have today – in the UK most manufacturing has moved abroad to countries where labour costs are lower. Most jobs are not in manufacturing – most jobs are in services, marketing, commerce &c A much smaller proportion of the average wage is spent on essentials (food, shelter, clothing, health). This posed a problem for Capitalism – why should people work any more than the hours necessary for purchasing the essentials? If this happened Capitalism would grind to a halt – so the need to create ‘need’ became paramount for Capitalism in order to keep people working and spending and to keep money circulating.

      >“However German economy still rests on exporting the products of its industry, and in Germany gender roles are still strong…”

      The German example supports my point – it is a traditional industrial economy and the sharply demarcated gender roles persist.

      Paedophobia is not solely a product of consumerism but of capitalism – though consumerism seelms to have turned simple paedophobia into hysterical paedophobia. Moreover though homophobia and paedophobia etc emerge from structural factors they emerge as ‘cultural phenomena’ and thus can be present even in areas where capitalism doesn’t itself function but where capitalist culture has access and influence.

      >“I don’t see any economic basis for paedo-hatred.”

      I don’t cover this in this essay, but a summary of my position is:

      The ideas of Childhood a society holds are defined by the nature of the predominant relationships children engage in in that society.

      Capitalism (and especially consumer capitalism – which adds complicating factors) almost entirely eliminates the role of the Community in children’s lives (something that has never happened before in any society) and at the same time isolates children in the nuclear family (the only significant role ‘Community’ plays in most children’s lives are through education. It’s not surprising then that a large portion of western children’s identities are tied up in their status as ‘being in need of education’.)

      This means that only intense relationships children can have with adults are with adults to whom the incest taboo applies. This means that the ‘sexual child’ not only has no place within society but that it would be disruptive the cohesion of the nuclear family structure. Children’s sexuality only starts to be acknowledged once they are considered mature enough to express their sexuality outside of the orbit of the family (i.e. when they become teenagers).

      This is more thoroughly outlined here – https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/towards-the-aetiology-of-paedophobia/

      Like

  10. Initially I will point to a post I made in the OtherChat discussion forum recently.

    You describe aptly how our civilization has evolved very rapidly during the past century to account largely for the paradigm shift when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality, or as I would rather put it, homosexual males. It’s the male part that’s been the stumbling block and that has required some highly surreptitious scheming and social engineering to get western societies to the point where they balance today. Which, however, is on the precipice, which means that the situation is far from stable, indeed it is highly unsustainable. I’ll get to that.

    In your article you write:

    Previously sharply demarcated gender roles softened, broke down and genders freely exchanged characteristics. People could pick and choose how they constituted their gender identity and their choices would be largely respected and protected.

    This may seem like a fair description of how society has changed, however, it misses out on the essential issue where nothing has changed.

    The issue is women’s utterly unchallengeable ownership of society’s children. What we experienced during the 70s, and here in Europe that was a lot more prominent than in the USA, with men generally “becoming more attuned to their feminine side” (ostensibly) and being expected to take their share of household chores such as cleaning, making food and pulling their weight in the day to day activities of providing care for the children (i.e. helping them clean themselves, get dressed, putting them to bed, bringing them to and from kindergarten, school, as well as sports and other leisure time activities), turned out to work out only as the men concomitantly shed their masculinity almost entirely. The promoted new role for men included supporting feminism, gender equality, the ubiquitous bashing of masculinity as being synonymous with violence, repression, egotism, immaturity, irresponsibility, in short everything that would otherwise be labeled anti-social behavior. The men who truly assumed this new template for manhood are today perceived as caricatures, but what have we gotten instead? The metrosexual male and the socially adjusted, politically correct gay male.

    The core issue, totally hidden from all overt discovery, is what I on numerous occasions have labeled the hidden Matriarchy. My accusation is that we never had true Patriarchy during the past 6,000 years since the decline of matriarchal civilizations. Instead Matriarchy has retained the reins in the biggest conspiracy humanity has ever known. And now the leash is both slipping and fraying. Consequently we perceive today what male rights activists have termed the War on Males. It’s the hidden Matriarchy in its death throes, irrational, draconian and (literally) hysterical.

    I’ll get to the relation with pedophilia in a bit, but I’ll address the issue of male homosexuality first.

    We don’t know all the contributing factors for the rising incidence of male homosexuality. You have pointed to the transformation of society and the change in society’s values resulting from that, but there may be other factors as well, perhaps most strikingly the changes in our chemical environment with xenoestrogens all about subverting the sex hormone balance of men. In any case, male homosexuality is an immanent threat to female hegemony since its essence is independence from females, including female control. Thus, during the first decades of the twentieth century, there was a fierce struggle going on within the burgeoning male homosexual liberation movement, or movements rather, as the two factions was so fundamentally at odds with one another, even to the core of how to define the homosexual male. This post would become too long if I were to detail this struggle, suffice to say that what we have today, i.e. male homosexuality ubiquitously subsumed under the “gay” and “queer” labels respectively, is the extrapolation of who won that battle. And thus a phenomenon that originally had the potential to radically upset the matriarchal control of society has now been neutered, emasculated, and brought under control.

    On the losing side of the battle for the male homosexual identity you can find today only the contorted vestiges of what was once a proud culture based on male bonding, romantic friendships, sharing and nurturing of masculine values, in particular between older and younger males, on the traditions of the ancient Indo-European Männerbunde, i.e. homosexual warrior culture with initiation rituals and apprentice-mentor relationships between pubescent boys and boyloving master warriors. All that is left of that today is the caricature representation by the leather gays and Tom of Finland.

    And this is why pedophilia (or actually pederasty) is today what is termed a Phase I Topic, the term signifying the strongest taboo of all within society – a topic deemed so dangerous and threatening that the battle is waged to keep the issue from being seen as political and negotiable, using psychological and moral categories to justify ridicule and preclude any discussions of the issue, and where standard Constitutional guarantees are seen as irrelevant

    But the barricades, even as they are being propped up in a frenetical last-ditch effort to stave off the inevitable, are destined to collapse. And that event is imminent. On the spiritual front the twain major bulwarks of the Roman Empire, today going under the name of the Roman Catholic Church (even as it is controlled by B’nai B’rith, Jewish Freemasonry), and with its appendages constituting the Western Esoteric tradition on the one hand, and the Theosophical Society on the other having orchestrated all of the New Age Movement with its promotion of the “divine feminine” archetype, including even the UFO phenomenon and its adherent cohorts on the other, have both put in effect gigantic social undercurrents likewise to the objective of propping up the dying paradigm. It’s not going to work.

    When the controversial Austrian physician and psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich presented his Sex Economy in 1927, the required tool that would defeat the controllers of the human race was irrevocably unleashed. With this tool, in the operative form of applied sex economy, the subsumption and subversion of organic human sexuality, and through that the containment and power to direct and control the sexual energy, which is synonymous with life energy, in mankind, can no longer be sustained or even prolonged.

    As a mere matter of course, this will also lead to the liberation of child sexuality and the new status of sexual relations becoming freed from the same, dying power matrix.

    Like

    1. Stimulating read Halvor, thank you.

      In the Phase I link you provide to the IPCE article: ‘Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia’ written more than fifteen years ago, Harris Mirkin says the following:
      “A stunning event in the transformation of the social evaluation of homosexuality, and a signal that the ideological battle was moving into Phase II, was the reversal of the psychiatric diagnosis. Prior to the adoption of DSM III in 1973 homosexuality was classified as a disease, and homosexuals were viewed as thwarted individuals who emerged from families with weak fathers and overpowering mothers. DSM III reflected a dramatically different view. Homosexuals were no longer “inverts” with unhealthy or immature personality traits, just as their families were no longer considered dysfunctional.”

      Since the Mirkin article was written, we have had a second no less remarkable transformation in DSM III. Prior to 2013, paedophilia was classified as a disease. In November 2013, DSM III reflected a dramatically different view where paedophiles who want to have sex with children, but whose desires are not distressing or harmful to themselves or to others, are no longer deemed to have a psychiatric condition. However, DSM III still maintains that those who act on those desires with persons unable to give legal consent, or persons that feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, have mental problems. In addition, DSM V was initially updated simultaneously, to state that paedophilia was a sexual orientation. Such was the outcry from US society in response to this change that the American Psychiatric Association was forced to admit its ‘typo’, and duly amended the word ‘orientation’ to the word ‘interest’.

      So, my question is: Do the DSM changes signal that the ideological battle is now moving into Phase II for paedophiles?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. From the data you present something does seem to be happening. However, looking at societies attitudes towards child-adult sexual relations it still seems unlikely that these efforts are going to effect a change. I wonder, though, whether there is some surreptitious agenda underway that would create a new type of “pedophilia” that basically was rigidly controlled through social engineering, subverting the natural love instincts and relations, sort of in line with what I discuss in my comment above.

        Like

        1. It is fascinating to read that William Reich died in a US prison in 1957, accused of quackery and racketeering, with the US government burning all his books and journals. This is so similar to the Nazi regime burning books in 1933 purging anything and everything that was perceived to be contrary to the German spirit. It is also interesting to note that your great grandfather, Ola Raknes, who wrote the article, Sex Economy, that you link to above, and who collaborated with Reich (and was saddled with the name: Reich’s last disciple), should end up venerated towards the end of his life, and to whom such people as Sean Connery would seek out for treatment. Amazing!

          I apologise if I am asking a dumb question here – I am sometimes not very good at grasping concepts that are couched in seldom-used technical words that are new to me. Anyways, here goes.

          If the anticipated paradigm shift actually took place ‘as a mere matter of course’, and the sexual emancipation of the child became a reality, what consensual dynamic would be acceptable to a future, presumably more enlightened society, between the minor-attracted individual and the empowered child? Please give me a few examples of what would be permissable in this future scenario, as you see it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I am linking my user page at BoyWiki for this one. What I am perceiving in terms of radical changes to reality itself, is inseparably linked to the weltanschauung that I have acquired over the past 12-15 years, and this entails views and perspectives that are positively esoteric and that would be bluntly impossible to accede by people who didn’t simply happen to have come upon the same views and perspectives all on their own (very unlikely, I think) or who couldn’t be bothered to make the effort of studying, at least to a degree exceeding cursory scanning, what I have so far put into words on the topics of cosmology and cosmogony (i.e. how the universe – or our reality – functions and came about), with some of the essential sub-topics to that pair being God, Creation, the relationship of Man to God, Man’s role in Creation (i.e. Man’s calling and destiny). I assert that I have put together the Big Picture in a coherent and integrated fashion that specifically and in sufficient detail describes the structure of Creation, from the inception of our cosmos through up until its finish. And then add to that Man’s central role in this process. Obviously this is much too encompassing and complex a subject to include here, but I added the link above, and I am in the process of expanding and refining the set of interlinked texts that you will be able to study via that link. In fact, a concrete question such as yours will be included in a planned q&a document (or q&a sections of relevant subject pages). This means that you are going to find your question quoted there later, and you will be able to see my response being edited and refined as time moves along. This is the plan, at least.

            Having set out the premises, I can answer your question, principally, by referring you to the already existing texts over in my user space at BoyWiki. Suffice thus to present the conclusions here:

            Once we step over that imminent threshold, the present infrastructure of humanity is going to undergo a total transformation which will result in an abrupt end to irrational primacy and emergence of clear authority to reason and sanity. Politicking for truth the way we are used to will cease completely as there will be in place a hierarchy of authorities to settle ethical disputes, and this hierarchy is not going to be challenged, i.e. its authority will be ubiquitously accepted and honored. Advocates of children’s rights and advocates of a turn to rationality in attitudes towards and practices of relations between disparate age groups will find that the iron carpet of ignorance and emotional pathology that they are up against in today’s world will quickly dissolve. Now, that doesn’t simply mean that the current positions of these advocacy groups will be the new baseline. The reason why not is that there are vaster changes still (though I do acknowledge that this area we’re focusing on here is very heavy on that scale of ontological processes set in motion to effect these changes) effecting changes in human society and how what being a human being is understood.

            If, at some point, you have had the motivation and opportunity to immerse yourself to a sufficient degree in my texts (and possibly engage me in dialog as I’m offering to partake in), and on top of that have been able to appreciate how it all answers your question, you may quite possibly understand why I cannot give you any examples. I simply cannot scry into such detail since the very definition of a human being itself is on the table to be reappraised and remolded. I can point to one detail of the picture though, that being how women’s domain over children is going to be equalized, not only for the reason I discuss above but also because procreation is no longer going to be the supreme imperative for humanity, seeing as immortality becomes immanent in members of our species . I suspect we might quite possibly also see the emergence of neoteny, i.e. individuals retaining, if not the morphology (physically as well as psychologically) of childhood, then at least that of pubescence.

            In the midst of such ontological turmoil, minor-attracted adults would be challenged to radically enter a process to redefine their individual evolution in order to e.g. acquire the agility of adolescence (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually) in order to be suited to interaction with truly equal, albeit chronologically younger people. Basically, the entire field of adult-child relations would by then be very much up in the air, with all of today’s stigma gone and trauma already systematically healing.

            Like

  11. Gut instinct: I would say loss of face is a natural Taboo too, particularly here in the Far East.

    Language: Empire is an unpalatable topic also I suspect, for contemporary Americans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Dutchmen and Englishmen. These white societies were guilty of the most appalling atrocities towards slaves who had no opportunity to become fellow citizens as Roman slaves did. Worse, if there was ever any resistance, the owners deemed the slave to have a mental illness known as Drapetomania, with cures of whipping the devil out of them and for good measure removing both their big toes. The absence of white guilt towards its racist past (and in many cases racist present) have created thriving pigmentocracies that continue to discriminate by limiting opportunities most to those people with the darkest skin colour, for reasons of strong economy.

    I believe that criminalizing male sexuality has been the most pernicious hatred mechanism of all. It is feminist-led sex law reform, and it has afflicted and enveloped every WEIRD country since the early 1980s. The increasing raft of paedophile-related sex laws demonstrates vividly the demonisation of men, with the definition of child pornography broadened to include images of women who look underage, drawings and text, and where the law is applied retrospectively to imprison old men for ‘crimes’ committed decades ago upon the flimsiest of *I_believe_her* evidence. The UK must be the centre of this perfect storm when an accuser basks in anonymity, media support and compensation, whilst the accuser’s life *You_know_I_always_thought_there_was_something_rather_funny_about_him* is automatically ruined, whether or not he is guilty or innocent, or indeed dead or alive. Legal due process has become servile to the media, and nothing sells hard copy faster than a story about child sexual abuse.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, drapetomania is one of those jaw-dropping instances of society inventing a pathology for behaviour that is entirely normal, right and rational in a given situation. I sometimes wonder if the concept of ‘paedophilia’ is not a similar instance – after all it doesn’t really seem to have existed as a concept before Victorian times – before it was just someone who was attracted to someone who was young.

      Interestingly Roman society seems to have not been noticeably racist – Africans could become as successful and powerful as native Romans and no comment was made of their pigmentation. This may be because the Romans drew their slaves from all the nations they conquered, including European ones and the status of slave was not associated with a particular nationality or race.

      I agree that things are pretty bad in the UK (and the USA) – just when you think things can’t get worse the hysteria ramps up a notch. The amplifier has gone from being at 11 to 12. One fears to imagine how many more increments might be available.

      But I still think that to blame feminism is too easy. They are making use of something going on deeper. An interesting question to ask is why this kind of man-hating feminism kicked off when it did. Why not in the 1920s? Why not in the 1730s or 100 BC?

      It can’t be because the ideas that underly it were not present at those dates since that just raises the question of why those ideas weren’t in circulation or popular at those dates. In the end one has to step out from the hamster wheel of ‘attitudes and interest groups’ and consider the ‘soil’ which gives rise to ideas which allow certain attitudes and beliefs to flourish.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “But I still think that to blame feminism is too easy. They are making use of something going on deeper. An interesting question to ask is why this kind of man-hating feminism kicked off when it did. Why not in the 1920s? Why not in the 1730s or 100 BC?”

        Can’t tell you about why not man-hating feminism prior to the 20th Century, but I suspect the rule of (man-made) law determined the fate of any militant feminism that might have been attempted historically. Pre-war, suffragettes had limited success, as the society of the day tended to frown on the use of violence to achieve aims. In looking-forward, positive, post-war Britain, the emphasis was very much on the nuclear family, comprising the baby-caring mother and the money-earning father, as a foundation of the new welfare state, and consequently militant feminism was very much on the back foot at this time. Only in the 1960s did women begin to have some control over their lives: the contraceptive pill, the legalisation of abortion, and then into the 1970s, the formation of rape crisis lines, legislation of discrimination on the basis of marriage, and the promotion of equal opportunity, plus, plus, plus, plus. So from what I understand, the increasing emancipation and empowerment of women over the past fifty years or so has in turn given birth to the psychosis of man-hating feminism.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. >>>Only in the 1960s did women begin to have some control over their lives: the contraceptive pill, the legalisation of abortion<<<

          Control to go against nature and kill children, those beings who looks you love so much.

          Like

      2. “It can’t be because the ideas that underly it were not present at those dates since that just raises the question of why those ideas weren’t in circulation or popular at those dates”…You should watch the BBC documentary ‘the do-gooders’ with Ian Hislop; He covers the 1880s with the child prostitution activists , To the first children’s charities. Often before reforms, kids under 10 would be working in coal mines, Often naked as noted, and the Oliver Twist types were seen as a nuisance without proper understanding of their dire situation: So on one hand, Things have got better for kids, Yet people that wouldve been seen as life savers then are now seen as predators and groomers now!

        Like

    2. Can I just put forth that Englishmen were actually the first to try and combat the purchase of African slaves? Hell, back in the 11th century we started putting sanctions on slave traders. Here’s a video that explains it well.

      Like

      1. I realise this is straying to be a tad off-topic, but, on the narrow subject of Britain’s despicable role in the slave trade, this piece from a merchant with a conscience writing in the Liverpool Mercury and subsequently reproduced in the Guardian on 15 November 1823, sixteen years after the slave trade was abolished ,

        “In the cruelty and injustice of negro slavery, in the misery it occasions, and the devastation which it spreads over the face of the earth, all the thinking part of mankind are agreed. How is it possible there can be two opinions on the subject, when it has long been a matter of public notoriety, that the slaves in the West Indies are degradingly driven like cattle by the whip at their labour, which, for nearly half the year, lasts for one half the night, as well as the whole day; that they are held, and dealt with, as property, and often branded as such with a hot iron; that they are liable to be sold at the will of their master, or for payment of his debts, and the nearest ties of life are thus rent asunder; that they are liable, whether male or female, to be exposed and degradingly punished, at the caprice, not only of the master or overseer, but of the meanest driver; that they are compelled to work on the Sabbath for their own subsistence, which is, in fact, for their master’s profit; that the advantages of religious instruction, and of the marriage tie, are almost universally withheld from them; that the most unrestrained licentiousness prevails amongst them, and is exhibited in a degrading, disgusting, and depopulating promiscuous intercourse, encouraged by the debaucheries of the whites; that they can hold no property; their evidence is not received, and hence laws for their protection are but a mockery.

        The reader will be ready to exclaim, “Surely there must be some great and palpable gain arising from this system, to induce its maintenance for a single hour!” But what will be his astonishment to find, that instead of gain, it is attended with great and enormous loss; that such is its inherent impolicy, that if it had not been supported and protected by bounties and prohibitions, it would long since have been ameliorated and finally have fallen.

        Had commerce been carried on with enlarged and enlightened views of self-interest, and especially if united with motives of benevolence and humanity, how would knowledge and civilization have marked the steps of Europeans, and have been extended from the coasts to the interior of Africa! Instead of which, we have spread barbarism and desolation on her coasts, and thereby formed a formidable barrier to our intercourse with the more civilized interior!

        Had these views and these motives characterized our intercourse with India, how would darkness, ignorance and idolatry, have been disappearing amongst her vast population? Then might we, at this day, have been exchanging the produce of a vastly-extended manufacturing industry, for the cheap productions of voluntary labour on the fertile soils of Africa and of India.

        But how widely different has been our conduct! What but absolute infatuation could have induced the Europeans to destroy the native inhabitants of the West Indies, in order to repeople those islands, at an enormous expense, from the coast of Africa! And what but absolute infatuation can it have been, which in this country has actually led us to reject sugar, if produced by the labour of the African on his native soil; and at the same time to give a bounty on the produce of his labour, when converted into a slave, and forced to cultivate the now-exhausted soils of our West India islands!

        Such is truly the state of things; and how lamentable is it, that after condemning and abolishing the African slave trade, we should still be supporting, with enormous pecuniary sacrifices, the remnant of our wickedness and folly!

        If the change from slavery to freedom was attended both with danger and with loss, who would even then be found to advocate the continuance of slavery? But when its policy has been so fully proved, let us hope that the enlightened part of the West Indians themselves will unite with us to extirpate this evil. Who can entertain any doubt, that if the subject was properly investigated, and the interests and claims of the planters, and those of their oppressed slaves fairly taken into consideration, a plan might be devised and adopted which would prove greatly beneficial alike to planters, to the slaves, and to the country at large?”

        Like

........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s