imagesAethenic

The age-old tradition of scapegoating is now as alive as it has ever been. And we are IT, i.e. the scapegoat of choice.

The fear of real-life retribution keeps us from coming out and getting together to try to set things right.

It is, I think, the only way forward. Coming out, whether singly or in large or small groups, and standing up for what is true. And never ever making concessions.

There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with Paedophilia and in fact it can be shown to be a positive influence on children.

But there are many impostors everywhere who would drag us down. I believe that true Paedophilia is a real but alas not very common phenomenon.

For every Paedophile there are perhaps ten child fetishists who do not feel any love for children.

We have a lot to break through. But we must start somewhere, somehow.
Being brave in the face of overwhelming oppositions is the only way forward.

It is the only way. Only one of us can start things rolling.
And History is on our side, as well as Truth.


680eb8054efa3c819a5b2fc91b79bd66Leonard Sisyphus Mann

My hopes and fears for paedophiles and children are coupled to my hopes and fears for society, mankind and the planet. And in these troubled times, I find it hard to be optimistic.

But if there is any positive to be taken from this Winter’s extreme weather it is that it might hasten a realisation that we can’t continue with growth-based economics. I suspect that ‘paedophobia’ has its roots in those products of capitalism: the nuclear family and the disappearance of Community. These create relationships between parents and their children which the granting of sexual rights to children would undermine. In more communitarian societies, where they are not considered as the property of their parents, will children have the right to enjoy intimacy with whom they choose. For reasons I’ve written about here, a steady-state economy would foster a more community-based society.

But what do we do whilst we’re waiting for some better society to emerge from the flood-waters of capitalism?

As things stand we can’t, through our own efforts, change society. A more achievable goal is to get ourselves into a position where our ideas and experiences are accepted as part of the debate and, to that end, we need to advocate and defend our values and ideas wherever and whenever we can.

However, whilst it’s not in our hands to change society, we can change ourselves and, by doing so, improve the welfare of paedophiles and prepare ourselves for the challenges and opportunities the future may bring.

Whilst arguments amongst factions can sometimes be frustrating, diversity of philosophies probably makes for a stronger movement. Debating with an anti-choicer is more challenging than debating with more overt, but worse-informed, paedophobes. Such debates are as whetstones to a knife, testing and sharpening one’s arguments.

Moreover different factions can achieve different goals – whilst pro-choicers are more engaged with reason, research and radical thinking, anti-choicers – by, in their quest for ‘acceptance’, effectively telling their oppressors whatever they want to hear – have been allowed to tell the general public some truths and many half-truths that would have otherwise gone unheard. Diversity gives us flexibility of response and offers people a variety of ways of engaging with the Kind community.

Young paedophiles (and curious non-paedophiles, journalists, researchers &c) need to encounter, early on, persuasive, ethical visions of paedophilia. Legal (and presumably illegal) chans &c often enact a tug-of-war between ethical paedophilia and an objectification which may lead to worse than just disrespectful comments. This latter occurs, I suspect, when paedophiles adopt the only role society presents them with: that of a loveless ‘monster’ bent on imposing adult desires on children. Young paedophiles constructing an identity for themselves from such negative models desperately need exposure to ethical understandings of paedophilia: this would serve to reduce real abuse, create a stronger community, and eventually offer to the wider culture a counter-narrative to the ‘monster’ or ‘self-hating celibate’.

We must educate ourselves before we can educate others. We should develop our culture, art, literature, philosophy, history, biography, anthropology, vocabulary &c. A shared culture creates a community and self-respect, reduces isolation, and embodies knowledge and attitudes. It will give us a vocabulary of words and concepts with which to think and communicate, both with each other and the world.

We are like an acorn that has fallen on a concrete slab – we need to put out many roots and make the most of every opportunity we encounter. Most roots will fail to find soil but we don’t know in advance what will succeed and when. We need to keep struggling because fighting for the truth is a good thing in itself, even when one fails. But a diverse, well-informed and culturally-rich community will be in a better position to absorb its failures and respond to challenges, and the opportunities the future may bring.


04d24379cd970b7670ee66fa203d646fPied Piper

What is our future right now? To be honest like many other kinds I believe our immediate future will be very negative with very few positives and the Kinds living today will have oppressive living conditions especially in the English speaking Countries.

What have we done wrong or right? Once upon a time I had serious criticisms but I have since mellowed realising the powerlessness of the situation, one of the big disasters is the losing and limiting of real life communities and organizations, where there could be focus in real life change. In the positive there is still people willing to communicate and express there opinions like this blog – any attempt to bring out our alternative ideas is always a good thing.

And Finally what can we do? Going back to the time I changed from a Self-Hating Paedo to the Kinder person I am today, took the influence of alternative ideas, from reading history books on ancient history, we live in a culture where brain-washing is in effect when it comes to MAPs. But reading up on brain-washing – it is very ineffective, especially when alternative ideas are expressed in the culture. In the age we are living in the best way is to create dialogue through as many media forms and websites: we must talk not just in monologue form but in dialogue amongst ourselves, as well as others willing to debate us; we must shine a light on the diversity of our community and if we create these discussion via video, audio, text we can at the very least create a Time capsule for future MAPs hearing that we were here.

Finally I believe there are two focuses: there is the freeing of the Paedophile and the freeing of the precarious Child, both based on the community obsession with separating the Child from the adult.

This may seem controversial but I believe in the focus of freeing the Paedophile first. I do not say this as a Virped which I’m not, but the voice of a politically powerless person is worth nothing. We must focus on the humanisation and empowering of MAPs with power; we can address other ideas such as children’s rights, consent laws, and other such issues from a position of a community with power.

How we humanize and empower MAPs I can only consider in abstract: paedophiles in general are used as a Negative Moral Anchor which anyone in the community can use to prove their moral superiority, consider this moral like a pure Clean Cloth (but when you look closely it is filled with holes and is paper thin). We should do anything in our power to shit and stain this pure Cloth so people realise what they are truly grasping is threadbare ideas, prejudice, and fantasy with only a dash of truth. Only by damaging the usefulness of the paedophile as moral anchor do I believe we can move forward.


4ddda5ecf08393cf7e6a5bd992823bdbSoren Pelleas

I believe the best thing for minor-attracted persons and the children they love is to advocate for comprehensive sex education, including education about consent and relationships. It seems to me that the biggest obstacle to minor-attracted persons is the prevailing attitude that children are unable to give informed consent to sex, and I believe that comprehensive sex education (which, among other things, empowers children to give or not give said informed consent) is the best way to challenge that attitude.

Harder to challenge is the idea that children SHOULDN’T be able to give informed consent, but those who openly make such arguments thereby reveal, at best, that they have no interest in actually educating the next generation about their own physical health; at worst, that they actively oppose such education. If they pay lip service to comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only education, yet object to efforts to empower children to give or withhold informed consent, they must be called out on their hypocrisy.

Few would disagree with a child’s right to say no if they don’t want to have sex; and the more children know about sex, the better able they are to decide whether they want to have sex or not (and thus, the more meaning and force their “no” will have if they decide that they don’t want to). This alone should persuade those who truly have children’s best interests at heart; even if they disagree with the idea of children having sex, they should trust children to make the best choice for themselves; when given permission and/or encouragement to seek out whatever knowledge they desire, children know more about what’s good for them than adults give them credit for.

To that end, in addition to a more comprehensive education about sex in general, it would be best to encourage each child to explore their own sexuality for themselves, and figure out which of the many sexual activities they would like or dislike. No elementary school would assign students an essay about oral sex, of course, but teachers can encourage students to go to the library and read about sex on their own terms; and indeed, that is what my sixth-grade science teacher did for me (though the exact terms of that assignment were to summarize several resources about “adolescent growth and development”).

Until children are better informed about sex, those who love them cannot find true sexual fulfillment. Nonetheless, minor-attracted persons are not entirely powerless either; if nothing else, they can encourage the healthy sexual development of their loved ones in a way that those who oppose pedophiles cannot or dare not. Because adults generally know more about sex than children, adults who pursue sexual relationships with children owe them some of that knowledge and should treat them with a healthy measure of noblesse oblige.


0132d0d4fd05f47d7b680d3594c48e50yakkO

I think the it’s difficult to say how the acceptance of society towards MAPs and intergenerational relationships will be in the near and distant future. I’m sure that they will eventually be seen as completely normal – like women and black people voting or gay people marrying. But being only 19 years old myself, I’ve often been told that my view is too optimistic regarding rapid changes in society, whether it’s about minor attraction or other social issues, so I wouldn’t say that it’s completely unlikely that in a hundred years MAPs will still be seen as “dangerous” in most countries by the majority of people.

However, I assume that a much more probable scenario will be that it won’t take so long and that, as with homosexuals, after a first apparent backlash there will be a sudden change in public opinion. In my view the years from 2000-2012 were the low-point, but in the last three years there have been many improvements (of course also alongside many things that have got worse) for the situation of MAPs.

From my perspective, in recent years, there have been more and more newspapers talking about MAPs as people instead of criminals, or even monsters. Not only are MAPs described as “people seeking help” but as “discriminated individuals” who need acceptance. In some cases – and that is perhaps the most important thing regarding the reduction of the stigmatisation of MAPs as evil – there are even stories about teenagers struggling with the acceptance of their feelings. I think in many cases people are afraid of MAPs because they fear for the well-being of children. But when they realize that there are many children who are MAPs themselves then they are likely start to think about how it must feel being hated merely for one’s own feelings.

For example I read in the comment section of a video (about a news story about an ‘anti’ trying to find out the identity of MAPs online) by one of the most famous German youtubers many people disagreeing with his view that MAPs must be ‘sick’. Although they always added that MAPs would have to learn how to restrain their feelings so they would not hurt anyone they compared minor attraction to homosexuality and said they don’t undertand why it isn’t seen as a sexual orientation.

When being a MAP becomes more accepted and society understands that having sexual feelings doesn’t mean one has to act on them, minor attracted teenagers will more and more come out of the toybox and discuss their feelings with their parents, teachers, and friends. I think maybe in 2-5 years there will already be some brave young people asking for acceptance.

From this point on it will become much more difficult I suppose to vilify MAPs. How do you tell a teenager or even a child that their feelings are an illness? How do you tell a young person that their love wasn’t really love but a harmful urge? Are you really going to say that? or will you first find out if your opinion is correct before destroying a person’s self-esteem and self-confidence?

I hope most people will then think before they simply adopt prejudices and instead listen to what the other side says.

Maybe this is what organizations like NAMBLA should have done more of in the past: emphasizing that current society’s views and laws are extremely harmful to young people too. Every time the media repeats prejudices against MAPs we should protest and ask them “Would you also say this to a 13 year old with these feelings?”

26 thoughts on “Road-Maps to a Kinder World – Part Two

  1. I wanted to write an eloquent and reasoned comment that may technically be a novel. I wanted to read through all the comments and address them all. I wanted to connect all these ideas into a cohesive goal or next move. I wanted…

    Instead, I’m going to admit that none of these things will come true. I won’t write a long comment, I haven’t read all the other comments (which from what I did read are excellent), and I won’t connect all the ideas. They’re all great, and I noticed a few themes. But after reading them, I realized that a single next move would be a mistake. We should be casting a net, not a line.

    One of the themes I saw is cohesion, or gathering forces. An admirable goal, but difficult to achieve. We can’t meet in person, really, because a single call to the police could end up with headlines of “Pedophile Meeting Ends In Arrests”. The lack of illegal activity wouldn’t stop the media as painting it as a victory. We have a better chance online.

    On the web, it’s been shown that we can do it. Look at this blog. Here are some intellectual powerhouses politely discussing various topics surrounding minor attraction. On the opposite section, look as 8ch.net/hebe/. It’s a very active board that is drenched in ‘chan culture’ which is far more casual. Finally, there are a few YouTube channels as well that are good at countering the insanely anti culture of that website (shameless self promotion :P). The problem is that I don’t see much interaction between these spheres. Bloggers write and comment on blogs, channers visit and screw around with other chan boards, YouTubers interact with videos and commenters. And this isn’t necessarily bad, by sticking with what you know, you can be more convincing. For example, I don’t post much on 8chan, because I don’t write small posts, unless I’m directly answering a simple question.

    There are two remedies to this, that I see. First, and more doable, is for these spheres to merge more. If we could all start trying for a bigger presence in all these spheres, we’d develop a chaotic cohesion where we debate among ourselves with the same fervor we do with antis, and this would control the direction of our collective power. This would have the added benefit of dispelling the ‘evil monster’ stereotype and providing a more respectable image in it’s place.

    Otherwise, we could start a new website, perhaps a forum, which seeks to combine all of these spheres. It’s a difficult task, but with a single hub of information, support, and debate, we could better organize our efforts, and apply them as needed. The benefit here is we could shape the movement as it grows.

    Personally, I’m a fan of the first, and implementing the second at a later date. Mostly because I’m no programmer, but I am active in the hubs to some extent. Naturally, I am open to persuasion and new ideas, so if I’m being foolish, please let me know.

    It’s now time for me to eat, so I will finish this up. Any idea that is implementable within today’s society and will logically help MAPs is a good one. Get one that now. In the words of Shia Lebeouf, “JUST DO IT!”

    Like

    1. “The problem is that I don’t see much interaction between these spheres.”

      This lack of interaction is something I touched on in my “silo-mentality” description made in Road Maps to a Kinder World Part 1, referring as it did, to the disparate nature of paedophile self-help groups across Europe, and the resistance to suggestions to get joined-up.

      “We have a better chance online.” and “we could start a new website, perhaps a forum, which seeks to combine all of these spheres.”

      Given my comment above, plus my perception of apathy generally across our impossible-to-traverse cartographic universe, I doubt this. Individual ownership (aka as egos) around a given existing sphere would never be given up lightly.

      “… YouTube channels as well that are good at countering the insanely anti-culture of that website (shameless self promotion :P) …”

      Yup, Map Man, alias Feinmann, feels at times as if he has been pitched into the middle of a sea of Orks at Helm’s Deep with just a stick of rhubarb to flail the opposition with over there :o(

      Like

      1. “…perception of apathy generally across our impossible-to-traverse cartographic” 😉 “universe, I doubt this”

        The universe as a whole may be apathetic, but our universe isn’t, in my view. I see frustration and helplessness, which leads people to getting shitty but not leaving their MAP-friendly space. I think it’s because they assume there’s nowhere else that will suit their needs.

        “Yup, Map Man, alias Feinmann, feels at times as if he has been pitched into the middle of a sea of Orks at Helm’s Deep with just a stick of rhubarb to flail the opposition with over there :o(”

        Don’t worry, you’ve been equipped with arguments of elvish silver. And you have a few allies to help you. Including a converted Ork.

        Like

  2. Having missed the deadline, after finding out about your request too late, I’ll include some relevant thoughts in this comment instead.

    First of, however, the introduction and definition of the word Kind has eluded me, though I have seen it used in pedo-discussions before, so I’d like it if you could clarify that for me.

    Secondly, I have a comment regarding the following part of your contribution, lensman:
    – “Whilst arguments amongst factions can sometimes be frustrating, diversity of philosophies probably makes for a stronger movement. Debating with an anti-choicer is more challenging than debating with more overt, but worse-informed, paedophobes. Such debates are as whetstones to a knife, testing and sharpening one’s arguments.”
    There may be a lot of situations where whetting is due, one should also allow such debates to influence one’s own opinions. Anti-choicers who have thought the issue through, may offer nuances that one has not considered themselves, and are more subtle than the arguments you normally hear.
    E.g., how about someone talking about the troubles that could be brought about by a child-lover being too enamored for the child to be able to reciprocate. Not necessarily an argument against all inter-generational relationships, but maybe some arguments should make you go “there’s a distinction I haven’t made before”.

    Also, rational arguments isn’t everything, and empathy and the ability to accurately put oneself in someone else’s place are at least just as important.

    On to some of the more or less random thoughts that more or less relate to your original request.

    I agree about the part about presenting role models for young pedophiles, both on the Internet, in real life (though of more seldom relevance), in the media, and, if possible, in educational material. On the Internet, unhealthy, unsympathetic or disagreeable attitudes should be argued against.

    When it comes to the Internet, one should be aware of the effects of not communicating face to face has. It can be easier to objectify when you’re looking at a picture that isn’t looking back and you’re behind an internet mask. Young pedophiles should be made aware of that, though people in general should be aware of that outside of the issues of sex and minors.

    If something could be included in sex ed. about finding out that you’re a pedophile, then society would have come a long way, even if the message has an anti-contact character.

    When it comes to people presenting arguments that defend pedophiles, or people coming out of the toy box in public, it makes a big difference what kind of person it is. I would predict that the more female, young, attractive and a victim instead of a perpetrator the person is, the less resistance will meet them. I’m not saying that pedophiles should seek out such a spokesperson, but I think it would make a difference if young pedophiles become a phenomenon known to the public, and I think it makes a difference that someone like the youtuber Jenn, linked to by Dissident, is a young woman presenting taboo arguments.

    Elsewhere, I notice what could a trend towards a more pragmatic and realistic look at relationships, with people considering polyamorousness and acknowledging the biology of lust, i.e., that lust is limited in time and not limited to one person. Such tendencies could make it easier to accept an inter-generational relationship, which may well be limited in time and won’t fit the marriage-and-happiness-ever-after-formula.

    It may be that the Internet will open a lot of eyes, though a lot of credibility is lost by the fact that anyone can say anything on the Internet. It may also be that a lot of people working too many jobs won’t have the extra time and energy to acquaint themselves with the issue of pedophilia and the nuances involved.

    Like

  3. OK, I am prepared to be flamed, but I have a simple, possibly naïve question for you Dissident and for you Lensman. You both appear to spend relatively large amounts of time debating: 15 years of close and direct interactions with the Kind community you say Dissident, and over 2500 posts for example in a forum elsewhere in the case of Lensman, possibly the tip of the iceberg – I know not.

    Is this dialogue just a selfish pastime, something that is necessary for your own personal well-being and survival in this difficult world we are saddled with – a game of tennis at an exclusive club just for close friends, or does it actually have a wider benefit?

    I am at a disadvantage here, because I feel as I have always felt, peripheral to society but, more importantly, peripheral to the minority group to which I belong. I intimated in my response to your offer of contributing to this topic Lensman, that we need cohesion to effect change. In the absence of cohesion I find it very difficult to see anything can in fact be changed.

    Perhaps a rhetorical, nevertheless heart-felt question to end with: What the hell do I have to do to belong to the club?

    Like

    1. No need to fear being flamed, Feinmanno, as I understand your frustration, and I will address it here in cordial fashion 🙂

      You both appear to spend relatively large amounts of time debating: 15 years of close and direct interactions with the Kind community you say Dissident, and over 2500 posts for example in a forum elsewhere in the case of Lensman, possibly the tip of the iceberg – I know not.

      Is this dialogue just a selfish pastime, something that is necessary for your own personal well-being and survival in this difficult world we are saddled with – a game of tennis at an exclusive club just for close friends, or does it actually have a wider benefit?

      I like to think it has a wider benefit because it gives our community a voice, however marginalized, and allows for the many in our community who are struggling with the loneliness and anxiety that can come with realizing they are Kind in today’s world to learn how others in the same boat deal with and perceive the issues; and it allows many of the until-very-recently-but-still-largely silent Non-Kind people who are “on the fence” about the issues to learn about us directly from our own mouths rather than rely entirely upon the media or those dubious forensic and clinical reports, It goes part of the way towards giving us that human face that the media refuses to allow us.

      It does have a personal benefit, though. It allows us to enter the arena of engagement, even if from a sheltered position, and this serves as a catharsis and productive outlet for our frustrations that we hope encourages other MAPs to do the same, and to help them understand that they do not have to be passive bystanders as all of this goes down around them.

      I am at a disadvantage here, because I feel as I have always felt, peripheral to society but, more importantly, peripheral to the minority group to which I belong. I intimated in my response to your offer of contributing to this topic Lensman, that we need cohesion to effect change. In the absence of cohesion I find it very difficult to see anything can in fact be changed.

      I think our cyberspace activities are one very important step towards building that cohesion you mention.

      Perhaps a rhetorical, nevertheless heart-felt question to end with: What the hell do I have to do to belong to the club?

      As far as I’m concerned, Feinmanno, you are already a member in good standing of the Kind Club 🙂 Your posts here and on TOC Heretic have been very inspiring to me on many levels. The only flaming you will get here is the metaphorical candle of thanks that I hereby light in your honor.

      Like

    2. Hi feinmann0 – don’t worry, I’ve got my flame-thrower safely locked away 😉

      I’d also like to echo and agree with Dissident’s reply to your comment – especially where he acknowledges how respected and appreciated you are by myself and I’m sure all in the Kind community – your posts are always intelligent, stimulating and convey – how can I describe it? – humane thoughtfulness?

      For a period of years, decades really, I’d kind of half-repressed the paedophile part of myself. I had a couple of not-entirely-unsatisfactory relationships with adult women and kind of drifted over to a quasi-‘Virtuous’ position. Then in the Summer of 2013 something happened – I can’t really remember what – maybe I stumbled on Tom’s blog, maybe I learnt about TOR and got curious, but, anyway I kind of started to again become interested in paedophilia as a nexus of ideas. Then I had an encounter with a seven-year old girl that left me stunned and thinking ‘how could I have forgotten for such a long time what a wonderful thing a little girl can be!’ – I revisited the ideas of radical paedophilia and realised that the Virtuous position is just the ‘default’ position that one drifts into when one just gives up thinking – and that’s where ‘Lensman’ came into existence…

      All those posts..? yes, not all of them are debating or discussions – many are of the nature – ‘which child from ‘kids react’ do you find the most appealing?’ – but, yes, a lot of the ideas that I’m interested in now emerged and came into focus through such discussions – and also arguing, and sometimes ‘debating’ with antis, nons and haters on Twitter, Spiked-online and other places. There are elements of ‘a game of tennis’ – though I don’t think these places could be described as exclusive clubs – but the benefit has been that I feel I’m better prepared to confront a wider audienceas a result .

      This blog has kind of grown out of this – and the three guest blogs I did for Heretic TOC. The pressure I felt knowing that my thoughts would be published on Tom’s blog was pretty great and it forced me to pull my finger out a bit and really work in a way that I had never done before – not even when writing dissertations at university. This experience taught me that if you want to really know what you think you have to try to write it down, preferably knowing that a critical audience will be reading it.

      The next question is whether there is any real benefit in a blog such as this one – I do fear that I’m preaching to the choir. I sometimes wish there were some anti-comments posted, even a few hater-comments… as it is I’ve been spared any real abuse or, other than TNSO, anyone profoundly disagreeing with me, which I find a little disappointing. I know Tom has expressed similar feelings about his blog and how few really ‘anti’ comments he gets. I don’t think the antis read paedo-blogs.

      >”I am at a disadvantage here, because I feel as I have always felt, peripheral to society but, more importantly, peripheral to the minority group to which I belong.”

      Welcome to the club 😦

      I’m not sure that there is a ‘center’ – OK, I guess Tom O’Carroll would count as a, maybe ‘the’, centre… But, like you, I feel peripheral, even with this blog.

      I mean, my love life is non-existent, and has been for a long time – I feel peripheral to little girl-hood – little girls are something I see in the distance maybe once or twice a week, maybe down an aisle in the supermarket or out of my car window or passing the local primary school at home-time. I’d swap, at the drop of a hat, this blog and all my 2,500 posts in exchange for a friendship with a charming little girl, a celibate one at that. I guess that even those at the centre must sometimes feel peripheral, given the huge and seemingly-impossible nature of the challenge we face – I guess that looking up at the north face of the Eiger before trying to climb it must leave one feeling peripheral and alone, even if you are there with a whole bunch of your friends.

      >”I intimated in my response to your offer of contributing to this topic Lensman, that we need cohesion to effect change. In the absence of cohesion I find it very difficult to see anything can in fact be changed.”

      Yes, we seem to hold two opposing positions here – but I think ‘cohesion’ and ‘diversity’ aren’t mutually exclusive. But I guess what I mean is that as an idea matures and becomes more widespread – it will tend to diversify – individuals and groups will interpret core ideas according to their interests, experiences and their context – think of how, say, the ideas of Marx were adapted and interpreted according to differing goals and different contexts and resulted in socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, communism, social democracy, the trade union movement, labour, trotskyism, stalinism, state capitalism, alternative life-styles etc etc.

      A range of philosophies and approaches means that the basic philosophy can be made accessible, palatable to a wider range of possible adherents – and is also an essential part of a society working out what the best solution/compromise is for itself.

      I certainly agree with you that cohesion is important.

      But I wonder whether even Virpeds breaking away isn’t actually doing us a favour in that they are kind of the thin, ‘acceptable’, end of a wedge -introducing ideas which, if they were to come from pro-choicers, would be rejected out of hand – I guess a lot of social change happens this way – on one hand there is an acceptable face (Martin Luther King) and on the other hand there is a more radical face (the Black Panthers). Maybe for change to happen movements need both the harder-to-swallow substance of the pill and the sugar coating?

      >”Perhaps a rhetorical, nevertheless heart-felt question to end with: What the hell do I have to do to belong to the club?”

      I think you DO belong to the club – but maybe the club isn’t quite what you wished it were…

      Like

      1. Sorry guys, stepped away from my desk here for a wee while – unforgiveable I know.

        Thanks very much to both you LSM and to Dissident for your warm words of encouragement. I am the kind of guy who relishes meeting and befriending MAPs in real life; this hasn’t happened for way too long now, due to death, imprisonment or just simple relocation. This makes life more real lonely and difficult as a result. The need-for-cohesion and not-belonging-to-a-club comments I made, partly reflects a sub-conscious wish to have soul mates in real life, and the frustration caused by only having a medium where trust at a personal level is virtually impossible to build, and revealing too much about oneself is tantermount to suicide. However, my comments also reflect the frustration I have with the apathy as I see it, of my fellow MAPs; the lack of any will to actually fight for our human rights and equality, as minority groups seem to have managed in the past. For all I know I may be naive in thinking this way, but there is only so much injustice this human is prepared to take.

        Like

    3. I would like to address this part of your comment: ” does it actually have a wider benefit?”

      As many people here would know from my comments (I think), I was until very recently completely against adult-child relationships that had a sexual or even vaguely erotic element. I believed completely in the “paedophile” myth. It was when this myth began to intrude on my consciousness in terms of photographic art that I began reading and researching.

      Is there a point in this type of blog? Yes, for sure. Tom O’Carroll’s blog, and now LSM’s blog, have provided me with an entirely different point of view, with articles, from the academic to the ragingly stupid, to read and ponder. I don’t agree with everything that is said, (e.g., I don’t believe that there is such a thing as “paedophilia” at all, and although I use the term, it is for lack of another, better word), but it helps me gain a perspective I would not otherwise have discovered.

      I may be a mere “one in a million”, but one is better than none.

      Like

      1. Thanks for that bj!

        I’m starting to believe that sympathetic non-paedophiles like yourself are much more common than it might seem at first sight.

        I’ve a couple of straight friends who are sympathetic (and not because I persuaded them: I came out to them after I found out they were pro-paedophilia), and then there are things like Jenn’s youtube channel, which Dissident mentions. What’s nice about her channel is that it’s not all about paedophilia – her support is just one thing amongst a very wide range of issues she addresses.

        All these create the hope that having pro-paed opinions might no longer be exclusive to paedophiles themselves. Clearly there is a kind of elite of people with the intellectual and emotional courage which allows them to look beyond society’s thought-embargo, whilst being disinterested themselves.

        The number of sympathetic non-paedos must be a very under-reported phenomenon – it certainly won’t be ‘over-reported’! The risks of speaking out in favour of paedophilia are almost as great as those of coming out as a paedophile. Most people with sympathetic views know that one can not bring up the subject willy-nilly. I imagine that many may never really ‘come out’ as sympathetic.

        So people like yourself are worth your weight in gold, BJ. Arguments put forwards by Paedophiles are too easily dismissed by accusations of rationalisation (I hope to eventually write a blog-essay on this subject) – but that rather facile argument can’t be levelled at non-paedophiles arguing for the ethical legitimacy of consensual child-adult intimacy.

        >”I don’t believe that there is such a thing as “paedophilia” at all”

        I’d be interested in reading more about this.

        I’ve read other commentators say similar things. I’m interested in the history and pre-history of the concept of ‘paedophilia’ and am aware that an adult and a child sharing sexual intimacy would have meant very different things in different historical periods and different societies – indeed I suspect that in most contexts that there hasn’t been a special word applied to such relationships – and therefore, conceptually, ‘paedophilia’ as we understand it today, hasn’t always existed.

        The victorians were interesting. I’d love to get a clear idea of how they conceptualised such feelings and relationships. I remember reading an incident in Kilvert’s diaries where a man comes into a room where Kilvert happens to be with a partially undressed little girl and him (the man, not Kilvert) getting the wrong impression (or so Kilvert implies) and becoming very cross, calling Kilvert ‘a bounder’ or ‘a cad’ or some such thing – so clearly there were some sensibilities around what we’d today call Paedophilia – but it doesn’t seem they had quite as neat or elaborate conceptualisation of it as we do.

        >”the ragingly stupid”

        I was wondering who would be the first to notice 😉

        Like

        1. A pleasure, although it is important to note that I don’t think of myself as being sympathetic, rather I see myself as trying to expand my understanding of this aspect of human sexuality. And this is the key point when it comes to thinking about paedophilia as a concept. The more one reads about human sexuality, the more obvious it is that adult-child relations are common throughout human cultures, that they are, in fact, normative. My disagreement with the term begins with that realisation, and continues with the observation that sexual desire is an extremely broad desire.

          I accept and believe that Alan Goldman’s (“Plain sex”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 3. (Spring, 1977), pp. 267-287.) analysis of sexual desire is correct. Goldman maintains that sexual desire is the desire to touch another particular person, and to enjoy the pleasures of that touch. His is a simple, rather elegant theory in which he denies any moral aspects (except one, which I’ll mention below), and which expands the idea of sex to include almost any act of touching which is based on the desire to touch.

          What this means (what I am working on expanding and explaining at the moment) is that any desire to touch and enjoy touching a child, is a sexual desire, and any act of touching a child is a sexual act (is, in fact, sex). What is important here is Goldman’s rejection of penetration and orgasm as being the primary constituting criteria of sex. Rather, the primary and constitutive criterion for sex is touch and its pleasures.

          If we accept this (and I do) then the currently held concept of paedophilia becomes meaningless, because it implies sexual abnormality and acts only as a moral category (with the backing of medicine which, in this instance, acts as a moral gate keeper). What this view of sexual desire and sex entails is that everyone who has ever wanted to touch, hug or caress a child is a “paedophile”, i.e., is a normal sexual human being.

          (My suspicion is that this is an unconsciously recognised aspect of human sexuality, and that those who reject adult-child relationships most vehemently are, just as unconsciously, rejecting this aspect of their own sexuality.)

          Goldman, unfortunately, rejected without query this consequence of his analysis, and claimed that adult-child sexual relations are the only area where morality justifiably intrudes on sexuality, and forbids adult-child sex on the basis of the harm done to a child by “child abuse”. His comments are so under theorised and under analysed (and patently wrong in terms of his own analysis) that it would have been better if he had made no comment at all, if only because his comments went some way to undermining his analysis. (But, at some point, we all lack intellectual integrity, his is merely more obvious.)

          What this view means is that adult-child sexual relations are taking place everywhere as a normal aspect of everyday life: you, me, everyone is doing it if we want to touch (and perhaps do touch) a child and enjoy the pleasures of that touch! Unfortunately, the only people who realise this are the hysterics in the CSA industry, and they are doing their best to destroy this perfectly normal aspect of human interaction and sexuality. (Imagine just how dull and destructive their vision of what is permissible would be if it was accepted in toto.)

          Many, more “primitive” societies, were significantly more honest in this respect.

          I have a lot more thinking to do about this, a lot more analysis, but this is the foundation of my view that paedophilia doesn’t exist, and that it is a meaningless concept because we all are child lovers sooner or later. What differs is the degree to which each of us takes our desire.

          Now this really needs more thought because the idea that we all are child lovers will frighten so many. It actually frightens me a little, because I have no particular desire to have a relationship with a child, but I can’t see any other way of thinking about it. What seems significant here is that we all have preferences. I myself prefer a twenty to thirty year old woman, thin, small breasted, short…. and so on. But more than that, I prefer a particular facial structure and, strangely enough, a particular shape of ear, whiter than white skin, or… the lovely tones of a clear Asian skin…

          It doesn’t seem odd to me, therefore, that some will prefer a child. In fact, it seems odder to me that some prefer people my own age (but I am thankful for those who do or, in reference to my second wife, used to do so). But nor does it seem conceptually odd to me that someone who usually prefers adults may find themselves desiring and perhaps in love with a child—it is well within the concept of sexual desire and the realities of human life as I understand them.

          Post now overlong, time to stop.

          Like

          1. I totally disagree with this theory. Among mammals, the touch of the mother taking care of the young is clearly distinguished from sexual touch during mating. Among humans, tender cuddling of a child or a pet is distinct from touch during sexual courtship. A mother taking her naked newborn baby in skin to skin contact, that is not sex. These are two different forms of love: storge and eros. For the confusion of the two, that is, your theory inspired by Goldman , you say that “the only people who realise this are the hysterics in the CSA industry”; in fact, these people are ridiculous, they confuse everything, they suspect paedophilia even in public breastfeeding.
            Unfortunately, sexology adds confusion by using the wrong Greek root “philia”, which means friendship, to denote erotic attraction.
            See my post Components of Love: https://agapeta.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/components-of-love/

            Like

            1. Apparently I didn’t put enough caveats in my post. But I am not going to add another thousand words of explanatory analysis.As for love… it has nothing to do with the analysis of sex, and I have already read your post. You won’t be surprised that I disagree with much of what it says.

              I think I’ll just keep the rest of my thinking private until I have finished the research and thought it all through more thoroughly, and written a paper. Everything I say is, after all, provisional until then… and even after then.

              Like

          2. “Goldman: sexual desire is the desire to touch another particular person, and to enjoy the pleasures of that touch.”

            And so, one might logically extend this first premise to say: An adult touching another adult is a sexual act, for example: shaking hands.

            “Any act of touching a child is a sexual act.”

            But what of a child’s desire? Can one logically extend the above premises to say: When a child touches another particular person, the child experiences sexual desire in the action that results in touching that particular person? Does this imply that all children are potential adult-abusers?

            “If we accept this … then the currently held concept of paedophilia becomes meaningless, because it implies sexual abnormality and acts only as a moral category… What this view of sexual desire and sex entails, is that everyone who has ever wanted to touch, hug or caress a child is a ‘paedophile’, i.e., is a normal sexual human being?”

            Again, extending this notion of moral categories, homosexuality and heterosexuality become meaningless categories too? If this is the case, surely we are left with no framework that enables us to define and categorise human sexual preferences and behaviour.

            Like

            1. My apologies to everyone. My desire to keep the post small (which I did not achieve), meant that I left our many aspects of the theory, such as how we can then describe a child’s sexual desire. I also didn’t take a great deal of time to explain the differences between the desire to touch as sexual desire and other types of touch. (To me they are conceptually and experientially distinct in obvious ways, and I thought I could leave those distinctions as merely hinted at, for the sake of brevity.)

              My first attempt to write the comment came in at about 1,500 words, and it needed to be smaller. So far, in the paper I am writing, over three thousand words have been written in an attempt to answer just what a child’s sexual desire may be, and how similar it may or may not be to an adult’s sexual desire.

              There is no way in which I can answer the questions raised here without using up thousands of words, but when the work is finished and trimmed down (edited) I will publish.

              But, yes, the majority of our sexual concepts seem to me to be meaningless and largely moral distinctions which, in themselves, tell us little about human sex and sexuality. Our framework needs to be sex itself, not distinctions within the variety of different types of sexual act. But that also requires thousands of words.

              It would be easier to read all the stuff I have to say about the nude and morality on my blog…. but those words are provisional explorations (in effect they are my notes for a book, and have not yet been revised, theoretical difficulties continue to be dealt with, and so on) and not my final view.

              This is an instance where I should have kept my theory to myself until ready to write it out and publish it in full. For now, I am afraid I will have to leave it partial. All I ask is that you and others realise that my post is about ten percent of what I should have written in order to present the theory with sufficient clarity.

              Like

        2. I watched one of Jenn’s videos, and I can understand why so many appreciate what she says. But, she did not say whether a “paedophile” engaging in sex with a willing child is “child molestation”. I did appreciate that she declared paedophlia to be just another sexuality, (similar to my point of view) but she left no room to move in terms of actual relationships, which seems to me to be the more important aspect, especially in light of the legal situation. So, is it that she thinks it’s ok to be a paedophile, but not to actually have a relationship with a child? Just a thought…

          Like

        3. The victorians were interesting. I’d love to get a clear idea of how they conceptualised such feelings and relationships. I remember reading an incident in Kilvert’s diaries where a man comes into a room where Kilvert happens to be with a partially undressed little girl and him (the man, not Kilvert) getting the wrong impression (or so Kilvert implies) and becoming very cross, calling Kilvert ‘a bounder’ or ‘a cad’ or some such thing – so clearly there were some sensibilities around what we’d today call Paedophilia – but it doesn’t seem they had quite as neat or elaborate conceptualisation of it as we do.

          I didn’t read that passage, and I certainly cannot know what was going on in that man’s head when he saw Kilvert in that situation, but I get the impression that it may have been more to do with the fact that Kilvert was perceived as “violating” a female in that man’s eyes, rather than a little girl per se. The Victorians largely forced females of every age into the paradigm of asexual innocence, something which all people under the age of 18 in general have since been pigeon-holed into in place of females in general. Of course, it would depend on how early or late in Victorian society that took place.

          Like

        4. I don’t remember that part of Kilvert’s diary, but I have the abridged one-volume version, as the full deal was prohibitively expensive. Do you have a page reference, by any chance?

          Like

          1. I lost my copy of Kilvert’s diaries, along with the rest of my book collection and pretty much everything else, a few years ago in a house fire. So I am currently Kilvert-free – all I remember is that it was the 1977 penguin selection edited by William Plomer.

            I promised myself to replace it, and your question is a good reminder – I’ve a half-intention to compile an anthology of the literary ‘pre-history of paedophilia’ consisting of references and incidents that would today be considered as ‘paedophilic’ today in literature from before the concept really gelled. I suspect that there could be some significant insights gleaned from such a study.

            A fictional instance I came across recently was in H.G. Wells’s ‘The History of Mr Polly’ (published 1910 – so not exactly ‘Victorian’) – where there is the villainous ‘uncle Jim’ who has corrupting designs on his niece, a little girl (who is also called ‘Polly’) – not a ‘paedophile’ in the sense I’d wish the word to be understood, but, still, the whole episode is quite fascinating material for a ‘compare and contrast’ exercise with current depictions of the paedophile as ‘monster’.

            Like

            1. Oh man, what a shame. Very sorry to hear that.

              I have the same edition, so I must reread it and try to find that passage. Must read the Wells as well!

              Like

  4. Just a few responses to some basically great anecdotes, largely revolving around the “monster identity” phenomenon and how pervasive it might be with our community in society:

    Aethenic: But there are many impostors everywhere who would drag us down. I believe that true Paedophilia is a real but alas not very common phenomenon.

    For every Paedophile there are perhaps ten child fetishists who do not feel any love for children.

    Based on my over 15 years of close and direct interactions with the Kind community, I do not believe that child and teen fetishists are considerably more common than true blue MAPs who have the full attraction base which includes all of the emotional, social, and aesthetic components along with the physical/sexual. I think the degree of media focus on just that one aspect, and its obvious quickness to quote mine the “worst” things it can find in various public and “underground” forums, creates the illusion that child-lusting pervs are “everywhere,” and provide a clear and present danger to children in epic proportions. That is a central theme of the anti-pedo/abuse narrative, and it’s a powerful emotionally charged belief that is so heavily pushed on the general public that even many genuine members of the Kind community cannot help but absorb these memes and develop a similar concern to the non-Kind public: that these monsters infest society like a colony of fleas may infest the fur of a cherished pet.

    Yet, as I will point out, adult sexual violence against children and adolescents largely occurs within the home, not by strangers stalking and hunting them through the neighborhoods and public playgrounds like a classic predator and prey scenario, as the narrative alleges. Why do we believe otherwise? Because TV shows like the long-running and once popular America’s Most Wanted, followed by the growth in the 2000s by the likes of the “To Catch a Predator” segments aired on Dateline NBC and the gross fictional depictions of the narrative depicted on popular, perpetually running TV shows like the infamous SVU. Recall, for instance, that I was a regular participant and later on the administration of Newgon when SVU claimed to base a pedo forum called “Our Special Love” on our forum, yet depicted it full of law-breaking creeps that was nothing all like Newgon as it existed in actuality. I know this for a fact not only as a long-time participant, but as one of the individuals who worked so hard to keep the forum meticulously legal and focused on insightful and respectful conversations. This was in marked contrast to the twisted version of the forum members and rules as interpreted by individuals with a vested interest in promoting the common narrative. I cannot help but wonder how many genuine and decent MAPs then struggling with accepting their identity who saw that and other episodes of SVU, and may have been concerned that MAP forums were actually like that.

    Yet the real life statistics outside of the pervasive dark fantasy promoted by the narrative suggests that the great majority of children subjected to real sexual abuse – or, indeed, abuse of any sort – comes from power-tripping and/or emotionally disjointed opportunists who operate within the cloistered confines of the contemporary home, and who have the most direct authority and power over underagers… not adults who seek out interactions with younger people in the outside world, including the oft-feared realm of cyberspace. This would include the many uber-authoritarian boarding skills that were sometimes spawning grounds for every type of abuse against their underage student residents. Whether or not those initiating the sexual aspects of the abuse were opportunistic Non-MAPs or perhaps real MAPs who adopted the dark identity promoted by the cultural narrative overlooks the following important point: the common denominator of the actual abuse was the corruption inherent in granting adults such unwavering power over their young charges, not mere attraction to kids. This is one of the reasons I have strongly supported democratizing all schools in the methodologies of the Sudbury system, which would allow the young students a strong and equal voice in running the institutions and formulating their rules and curricula, so that any abusive adults of any sexual orientation would not be able to thrive and operate with near-impunity. You will note, of course, that anti-choicers usually ignore and refuse to even acknowledge the limiting of adult power over younger people in society’s present institutions, and instead obsessively focus on the “danger” presented by adult attraction to underagers, which is a distraction from where the evidence actually points. Many well-intentioned MAPs and Non-MAPs alike are successfully manipulated into being diverted by these distractions, unfortunately (but more on that in a minute).

    The evidence to support the common narrative just isn’t there. Hence, genuine concerns for children and young adolescents which are suggested or initiated based upon the narrative, rather than the reality, invariably end up resulting in overcompensation at best, and a resigned support for draconian measures at worst. This is the emotionally manipulative “trap” that the beneficiaries of the current status quo want us to fall into, by exploiting our sincere love and concern for kids into darkly misguided directions. Hence, some of the greatest threats to progressive progress and kids in general can come from those with the best of intentions – including many of the decently caring people within the Kind community itself – rather than those with the worst of intentions, or who are primarily concerned with preserving the status quo more than anything else.

    In regards to cyberspace, I still believe the evidence suggests that a large chunk of the often disrespectful comments you see directed at girls who appear on YouTube videos (as an example) are common Internet trolls looking to get a “rise” out of the self-appointed pedo patrol who monitor those channels, much as they similarly journey to PETA boards and claim to be anti-vegans to get a rise out of those folks. They thrive on negative attention by preying upon the sensibilities of the sensitive. Others surely are fetishists with no manners or concern for how they become associated with typical MAPs, and a small number may likely be actual MAPs who simply have no manners or concerns, with a portion of them adopting the “monster” identity based on societal expectations, as Lensman has opined. Yet these people no more represent the majority of adults attracted to underagers than the fundamentalist Christians or Islamic extremists represent Christians and Muslims as a whole. However, a combination of persistent twisted agenda-ridden media narrative and the fact that the majority of the much larger number of decent Christians and Muslims choose to stay silent rather than opposing the negative voices that besmirch them all, effectively create the illusion that fuels the prejudices against all people of faith. The same phenomenon is, I believe, at work in regards to Kind people, with a very similar illusion being promulgated as a result.

    Yet the dearth of reports of actual predators stalking younger people after seeing them in online videos, just as such actual monstrous predators are rare in real life, do not substantiate either the sensationalistic claims of the media whose main concern is preserving the status quo institutions, nor the well-intentioned but misplaced fears of those who truly care about the well-being of children and young adolescents (both within and outside the Kind community). I think the evidence suggests that many more well-intentioned people within the Kind community (as well as without) become convinced there is considerably more credence to the narrative than is actually true, than there are mentally tormented MAPs who feel compelled to adopt and embrace the “monster” identity. This is the basis of the old adage, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions,” and I think it’s very important that the many decent and well-intentioned among us do not end up unwittingly manipulated into playing the Devil’s game (if you pardon a sectarian metaphor).

    This being said, you are correct that there are a good number of imposters who are drawn to identify with the MAP community (note the “hurtcore” fanatics, sadists, and certain hentai fans), or who are lumped in with us by the media and even certain researchers. We need to be diligent about this, and make it clear that the definition of a Kind person is neither vague nor completely subjective.

    Lensman: Whilst arguments amongst factions can sometimes be frustrating, diversity of philosophies probably makes for a stronger movement. Debating with an anti-choicer is more challenging than debating with more overt, but worse-informed, paedophobes. Such debates are as whetstones to a knife, testing and sharpening one’s arguments.

    I fully agree with the first sentence of the above excerpt of yours, my friend. However, as I noted in a discussion elsewhere with you, my extensive experience debating with anti-choice MAPs in addition to the typical Non-MAP pedophobes over the past 15+ years do not bear out your statement in the second sentence.

    I do believe a previous statement of yours where you mentioned having once had an extensive e-mail debate with an anti-choicer from the Kind community who presented considerably more cogent arguments than any Non-MAP pedophobe you ever met, which forced you to really think about the validity of the pro-choice stance like never before, thus keeping you on your intellectual toes, so to speak. But whoever that esteemed anti-choicer was, my frequent experience debating every sort of naysayer to the pro-choice stance tells a far different story, and makes me again feel adamant to point out that this person whom you debated with behind the scenes is far, far from representative of anti-choice MAPs as a whole. Many of the anti-choice MAPs I’ve debated with, including many whom I consider much smarter and more erudite than me in a general sense, as well as good debaters in their own right – which includes the very brilliant, well-educated, and well-read Ethan and Todd Nickerson – very frequently spew the same moralistic and emotionalistic rhetoric as the typical non-MAP pedophobe. This includes hefty dollups of misandry, great loyalty to status quo institutions as they now exist, and an insistence that arguing anything other than the anti-choice view to the Non-MAP majority is a political “non-starter”.

    I ask everyone who may be reading not to take my word for this, but to simply observe the many debates that I, Tom O’Carroll, and many other prominent pro-choicers have had with the aforementioned two and many other anti-choice MAPs, and continue to have with them, on GC, Heretic TOC, and even occasionally here. So whomever that anti-choice MAP you argued with via e-mail that sorely tested your stance happened to be, Lensman, by all means ask him/her to appear on the many MAP forums and blogs that allow for broad discussion and engage the pro-choicers publicly, because whomever he/she may be, I’ve certainly never met them. Not only can we use the challenge to better hone our skills, as you mention, but Ethan, Todd, and the many other vocal and pontificating anti-choicers in the Kind community sorely need his/her help 🙂

    Yakko: But being only 19 years old myself, I’ve often been told that my view is too optimistic regarding rapid changes in society, whether it’s about minor attraction or other social issues, so I wouldn’t say that it’s completely unlikely that in a hundred years MAPs will still be seen as “dangerous” in most countries by the majority of people.

    First off, hi, Yakko, it’s nice to meet you! Your contribution is excellent, and it’s very refreshing to meet another young MAP who did not personally experience any of the years prior to the current hysteria, yet has clearly read and researched sufficiently to learn about those days so as not to get seduced by the prevailing narrative of the past three decades into feeling shameful or antagonistic towards their own natural attraction base.

    In regards to the above excerpt, you will note that one of the best qualities younger people have, but which they are often derided for possessing by the older folks in our gerontocentric society, is their idealism. Their optimism for the future and willingness to embrace and help facilitate needed change is invaluable to the world. Accordingly, their ostracism from the political apparatus has had much to do with the moribund nature of the system, and with so many people feeling resigned to either accept things as they are, or even go so far as to defend the worst aspects of our class-divided and heavily age-segregated system as “necessary evils,” no matter how bad they may get. This is the result of older adults having so much dominance over the system and the laws and media that result from it, without youthful optimism to balance this out, and counter it where desirable. The powers that be have managed to paint idealism and optimism as naive traits that younger people need to “grow out of,” much as the present culture has succeeded in painting progressive thinking and liberalism in general as negative traits that must be dispensed from politics, or disparaged intellectual and thinking people as “nerds”.

    You can see the end result of all of this before you, and I’m hoping this encourages you to retain that priceless optimism, and continue believing that we as a society can accomplish anything if we put our collective will to it, and not just accept or resign ourselves to the way things are.

    Thank you to everyone for their contributions to this 2-part multi-authored endeavor, and to Lensman for allowing us all a voice in his latest excellent entry 🙂

    Like

    1. Thanks for that very comprehensive and fascinating reply, Dissident.

      I’ll just address for now the part of your comment which pertains to what I wrote (though I hope to find time to touch on some of the rest of your comment).

      Ethan and I had a very interesting and challenging exchange when I was writing the-good-the-bad-and-the-virtuous. I regularly read Ethan’s and Todd’s blogs because, despite them being anti-choice, I think they both write well and have interesting things to say, and I’ve sometimes left comments there.

      However they both have recently stopped approving my comments when the comment puts forward any questions, evidence or thoughts that either reflect a pro-choice position or question the anti-choice position. This is frustrating.

      Now, I’m not wholly unsympathetic – after all these are their blogs and I understand that Ethan and Todd may not want their blogs to become venues for anti vs pro debates. Moreover I also understand that they may have other priorities – defending their beliefs against the ignorance and hatred of society rather than against pro-choicers.

      However I also think that this kind of isolationism is worrying – clearly they want to opt out of a debate which they have created.

      This may be because they don’t want to be seen fraternising with those whom the oppressors (from whom they are seeking tolerance) consider as unacceptable, or because they realise that their arguments are not up to being scrutinised, or the reason which Todd gave when I asked why he hadn’t approved one of my comments:

      “I do not want any representation of the pro-contact position here at all. I don’t mind you commenting in general, but from this point on all pro-contact responses from ANYONE (it’s not personal) will be summarily executed without trial. 😉

      The thing is, I have followers who are abuse survivors and don’t want to see that stuff, and if it comes between protecting their sensibilities vs. your right to make your case, it’s clear which side I am going to take on that. You have a venue for your position; I ask that you please not make mine an extension of yours. Thanks!”

      This is worrying because Todd is adopting the position that one person’s potential to be offended justifies the silencing of any opinion or evidence that could cause that offence. Todd is pandering to that new form of entitlement – that of the offended to shut down any thought and debate that could cause him offence.

      So, yes, behind the scenes it seems that certain virpeds are willing to engage in debate – but virpeds have a ‘front’, an ‘image’ to maintain. They want to be the acceptable face of paedophilia – and seek to acheive this not by any deep investigation of the nature of paedophilia or childhood or society, but by conforming as closely as they can to the very narrative that oppresses them. Yes, I’m disappointed in the way they want to isolate themselves from the wider community – if Todd and Ethan don’t want their blogs to be sullied by pro-choice arguments and evidence – I invite them cordially to come to my blog and criticise the pro-choice ideas that they will find here.

      Despite our disagreements I still consider Todd and Ethan as comrades – unfortunately whilst I’m still eager to learn, be tested, debate and discover, they are too much like religious persons who feel that they have finally discovered the Truth and that their journey of learning is over, and have shut the gates of their castle and are guarding their precious horde of truth.

      Maybe things will change – maybe some virpeds will learn that Doubt is permissible and won’t necessarily lead them down the road of out-of-control child-abuse and perdition. That there is no contradiction in being both pro-choice and celibate.

      Like

      1. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Lensman, it was much appreciated 🙂 I fully understand that my longer and more comprehensive posts can be daunting both to read and to find the time to reply to properly if one is so inclined, which is why I’m greatly appreciative that you did both, and replied as much as your time constraints of the day allowed for.

        Ethan and I had a very interesting and challenging exchange when I was writing the-good-the-bad-and-the-virtuous.

        If Ethan was this Kind personage whom you had that truly challenging behind-the-scenes exchange with, then he would do well to bring that side of himself to public boards like GC or public forums like TOC Heretic (or here), where these topics are up for discussion. As I noted before, I ask all to observe the many exchanges/debates on this topic he has had with me, Tom O’Carroll, Dante, and several other pro-choicers on these various cyber-locales, and see my point that virtually all of his anti-choice arguments are the same moribund, moralizing, emotionalistic, and negative-Left cliche’s you routinely hear from the Non-Kind pedophobes.

        This is not to disparage Ethan as the brilliant man that he is, nor his debating skills, which are nothing to sneeze it. Instead, this is saying something about the validity of the anti-choice argument he espouses, and how it tends to lack rational points, and is based on spurious assumptions and “it’s better to be safe than sorry” types of scenarios.

        And for the record, I concur with Sierra that it shouldn’t be all about rationality, and empathy should come into play too. However, an ideology that condones the suppression of freedom of individual choice and expression in one’s personal life “for their own good” and which gladly subjects innocent people to life-destroying penalization if it might ensure that all guilty parties are brought to justice, is hardly displaying empathy. Insisting that choice and the ready availability of proper education and support networks to allow all parties to make the best possible choices for themselves based on how you or society at large feels about those choices, as opposed to how the individuals who desire to make the choice themselves may feel about it, is hardly an expression of empathy, IMHO. Rather, it’s a moralistically “feel good” form of selfishness from individuals who accuse pro-choicers of being selfish for not believing that their mutually consensual sexual expression would not (at least likely/probably) be the equivalent of a rattlesnake bite.

        I regularly read Ethan’s and Todd’s blogs because, despite them being anti-choice, I think they both write well and have interesting things to say, and I’ve sometimes left comments there.

        This is very true. Todd is rightfully renowned in the community for many posts he has made discussing literature and aspects of pop culture where girl celebrities and girl characters have made a great impact on society, and his reviews and analyses of the same have always been top-notch and insightful. His fiction writing along these lines is also excellent, and his writing skills in this area likely surpass my own. Ethan, for his part, does have a lot of interesting things to say about certain aspects of society and the overall situation as it relates to Kind folk of today, and he is certainly an erudite individual. And he doesn’t follow the herd on every topic relevant to MAPs; for instance, he doesn’t support the criminalization of simple possession of CP or producing and distributing animated & virtual CP that does not involve any real minors, and he does advocate for reform of current sex offender laws. I will give them, and others of their ilk, full credit where it’s due. Also, I considered Todd a friend despite our differences on these issues, because we knew each other for a long time and both of us have a long history together in the community, until it got to the point that he declared our friendship over because things just got too heated between us one time too many regarding these issues over on GC (the fact that he called all law-abiding pro-choicers a bunch of wannabe child molesters who simply obey the laws because we’re “scared of going to jail” during that same final exchange didn’t help matters either; not all anti-choicers feel that way, however, but Ethan has conceded that a sizable number of them probably do).

        It’s when they move into the most controversial subjects relevant to us, such as the contact and youth liberationist topics, that they put their great intelligence aside in favor of appealing to cultural bias and emotionalistic, moralizing rhetoric and assumptions. This includes varying degrees of all of the following: misandry (while sometimes insisting that pro-choicers are largely misogynists), emphasis on emotion over reason, misanthropy and severe mistrust of their fellow human beings (and the belief that laws should reflect this attitude), loyalty to status quo institutions over any type of fundamental change, the powerful psychological need to be a savior to children (and other minorities, such as women) at the expense of respecting them as potentially capable human beings, a dark interpretation of liberal values (i.e., “negative-Left”, such as organized misandrists posing as “feminists” or “pro-women’s rights”), and utterly baseless assumptions tailored to the specific form of political correctness demanded of MAPs in order to be considered “acceptable” to the prevailing consensus (much as mainstream liberals had to become unflinchingly pro-business in order to be considered “acceptable” by the dominant conservative mindset in politics starting in the Thatcher and Reagan years; I think we would agree the fact that this happened at the same time in history that the anti-pedo hysteria got started is not a coincidence).

        However they both have recently stopped approving my comments when the comment puts forward any questions, evidence or thoughts that either reflect a pro-choice position or question the anti-choice position. This is frustrating.

        They will then complain how boards like GC are predominantly pro-choice, and insist that participants are mercilessly harangued there for expressing anti-choice views if the pro-choicers dare to challenge these views when certain anti-choice posters (like Ethan and Todd) constantly bring the topic up and make very insulting accusations and insinuations against the pro-choicers (quite overtly and antagonistically, in Todd’s case; mostly in a “polite” but still quite obvious manner, in Ethan’s case). But anti-choicers are still welcome to post there as long as they follow the FAQs, even if they continue to consider it “harassment” whenever they blatantly poke the bear and the proverbial bear dares to react by poking back at them.

        This is not the case with all anti-choicers who have posted there, of course, as some of them are more interested in building community and discussing the aspects of girl appreciation (or boy appreciation, as the case may be) that most of their fellow MAPs can find common ground with regardless of ideology. This is not about acquiescing to the pro-choice view, but a simple acceptance on their part that pro-choicers are going to be quite vocal in the few “green zones” where they are allowed to express their views and present their case and arguments to any party who is interested in listening and finding links to the supportive data where it will not be censored or suppressed. As you noted, these debates are most often disallowed on many mainstream venues, or any MAP forums that have a strong anti-choice view.

        Now, I’m not wholly unsympathetic – after all these are their blogs and I understand that Ethan and Todd may not want their blogs to become venues for anti vs pro debates. Moreover I also understand that they may have other priorities – defending their beliefs against the ignorance and hatred of society rather than against pro-choicers.

        Agreed. There certainly are other priorities that both camps, and every one in between, should give attention to than just the contact issue.

        However I also think that this kind of isolationism is worrying – clearly they want to opt out of a debate which they have created.

        Because they fear, deep down, that the only way to win the debate is to agree with society that the pro-choice view must be censored and suppressed so that only one side of the issue is visible to the public. When your side of the argument is not the side that is supported by reason and much of the available scientific data, then you need to play this type of dirty pool in order to maintain the consensus view as the dominant one for as long as possible.

        This may be because they don’t want to be seen fraternising with those whom the oppressors (from whom they are seeking tolerance) consider as unacceptable, or because they realise that their arguments are not up to being scrutinised,

        Agreed, based on everything I have observed. Note again my response to the previous excerpt.

        or the reason which Todd gave when I asked why he hadn’t approved one of my comments:

        “I do not want any representation of the pro-contact position here at all. I don’t mind you commenting in general, but from this point on all pro-contact responses from ANYONE (it’s not personal) will be summarily executed without trial. 😉

        The thing is, I have followers who are abuse survivors and don’t want to see that stuff, and if it comes between protecting their sensibilities vs. your right to make your case, it’s clear which side I am going to take on that. You have a venue for your position; I ask that you please not make mine an extension of yours. Thanks!”

        This is worrying because Todd is adopting the position that one person’s potential to be offended justifies the silencing of any opinion or evidence that could cause that offence. Todd is pandering to that new form of entitlement – that of the offended to shut down any thought and debate that could cause him offence.

        This is essentially the same position that PC members of the Left – i.e., the negative and dark side of liberalism – are using in the mainstream media when they insist that not providing “triggers” which may upset certain groups of people who have been victims – whether in actuality or manufactured – are more important than any type of truth or ethical principles. This is, I believe, what Todd has meant when he has critiqued the civil libertarian and pro-choice views on GC for “putting principles over people.” That roughly translates as: “the best way to right an injustice which has been committed against certain groups whom we happen to feel a strong emotional connection with is to pander to them and coddle them, and invert the power imbalance in their favor rather than eliminating power imbalances between different groups of people altogether.” In other words, it’s the politics of revenge trying to pose as a quest for justice.

        These is the same school of thought who have argued that all women who accuse men of rape are to be assumed to be telling the truth without any type of investigation, and that even those who have been proven to have lied are still lauded as being “brave” for bringing the problem of rape to public attention. This, such PC liberals will argue, is more important than matters like what actually happened, because men have supposedly had it so great in society compared to women that the latter must be judged by different standards of justice, and their gender should be more important than things such as the truth of any given incident. In other words, this is putting the emerging trend of identity politics over that of principles of justice (the “putting people over principles” school of thought at its worst). According to this school of thought, destroying the life of a man who may be innocent is less of a travesty of justice than putting any type of negative scrutiny upon someone who may be a liar if that person happens to be a woman, because women as a whole are always Victims in the eyes of such individuals. Anyone who disagrees is branded a “misogynist” who is clearly supportive of a “rape culture” in America. The many reasonable, independent, and principled women who oppose such spurious thinking, and support justice over pandering to sensibilities, are dismissed as being “complicit with their own oppression.”

        This Perpetual Victim status has similarly been taken up by the pro-Israel lobby, who have used the past victimization of Jewish people to make it illegal in some countries (most recently, France) to criticize any action or policy that the state of Israel takes. Any gentile person who breaches these laws or code of PC etiquette are accused of being “anti-Semitic” or of engaging in “hate speech”; and any of the many reasonable and progressive Jews who do not want to be identified with the actions and policies of the Israeli government (such as Noam Chomsky) are derided as “self-hating Jews.” Those who are considered Perpetual Victims are granted special license based on overcompensating sympathy that is twisted beyond reason. Again, identity politics trump justice.

        More relevant to the topic at hand, this same phenomenon is the case with a certain category of sexual abuse victim, who have gone from victims to Victims (as some have described it) by taking on a whole social identity as such. They have no interest in healing, because they know that many individuals will excuse and rationalize any type of behavior they engage in towards others. Anyone who opposes such behavior or negative identity-crafting are accused of being insensitive creeps who lack sympathy for those who have been hurt. It doesn’t matter that what opponents of this school of thought are actually doing is opposing those who have been hurt from justifying the harming of others who may be innocent, but whom they are conditioned to see as representatives of whomever hurt them. This is why anti-choicers see no problem with this category of sex abuse victims venting against MAPs as a group, because the former are seen as having a sense of entitlement that forbids criticism of any of their actions. In other words, victims who deal with their pain by victimizing others rather than taking legitimate steps to heal are merely seen as engaging in a legitimate form of catharsis; and if they do not want to heal but only seek revenge, well, that is their prerogative as individuals who have been granted this form of entitlement.

        So, yes, behind the scenes it seems that certain virpeds are willing to engage in debate

        I have never seen a lack of them engaging in debate on boards or blogs like BC, GC, or TOC Heretic. They simply cry foul and accuse pro-choicers of harassing them entirely for their views when they seek such engagement and receive actually receive opposition. I actually cannot think of any current MAP-oriented forum or blog where anti-choicers are unwelcome simply because of their views.

        – but virpeds have a ‘front’, an ‘image’ to maintain. They want to be the acceptable face of paedophilia – and seek to achieve this not by any deep investigation of the nature of paedophilia or childhood or society, but by conforming as closely as they can to the very narrative that oppresses them. Yes, I’m disappointed in the way they want to isolate themselves from the wider community – if Todd and Ethan don’t want their blogs to be sullied by pro-choice arguments and evidence – I invite them cordially to come to my blog and criticise the pro-choice ideas that they will find here.

        That’s cool. They are equally welcome to do the same on BC, GC, and elsewhere, and always have been. There are literally thousands of words exchanged between pro-choicers (including yours truly) and anti-choicers (including Todd and Ethan in large measure) in this public venues to prove that. It seems one of the fundamental disagreements between the pro-choice/pro-youth liberationist view and the anti-choice/protectionist view is that this matter is actually debatable in the first place.

        Despite our disagreements I still consider Todd and Ethan as comrades – unfortunately whilst I’m still eager to learn, be tested, debate and discover, they are too much like religious persons who feel that they have finally discovered the Truth and that their journey of learning is over, and have shut the gates of their castle and are guarding their precious horde of truth.

        I think Galileo could relate to your feelings, my friend.

        Maybe things will change – maybe some virpeds will learn that Doubt is permissible and won’t necessarily lead them down the road of out-of-control child-abuse and perdition. That there is no contradiction in being both pro-choice and celibate.

        It’s in the vested interest of the less reasonable and vocal school of anti-choicer to portray pro-choicers as out of control “bad” MAPs who put their lust before anything else. Those who espouse a view that must so grossly represent their opposition in order to appear legitimate are well aware of this, which is why avoiding a level playing field for debate is a very important tactic of theirs. Dirty pool is a necessary methodology for them, and they believe it’s fully justified if that’s what it takes for the “righteous” to win. Which is akin to saying that cheating is perfectly fine as long as the “good guys” are doing it. Which goes back to that sense of despotic entitlement that is such an important part of the PC tool kit.

        The Designated Righteous feel they are entitled to decidedly non-righteous actions to insure that their conception of the “greater good” wins out in the end. The Great Saviors and the Designated Perpetual Victims are allowed to commit the exact same atrocities they accuse their opposition of as long as the “good” or “right” people are doing it to the Designated Bad Guys, and not the other way around. To them, their views and stated intentions are what give them the moral high ground, not their actions or behavior. Which is similar to fundamentalist Christians insisting that as long as they believe in the teachings of Jesus (their interpretation of those teachings, that is), anything they do in His name, or to protect His flock, is entirely justified. So your comparison of them to religious fundies was quite apt. Ideological fundamentalism is every bit as destructive and dogmatic as religious fundamentalism, no matter how secular the former may sound.

        Like

      2. Wanting to respect the sensibilities of people who have been sexually abused isn’t the same as rejecting all discussion of the issue because one has found the truth, whether that is the case or not. I actually think that silencing the debate in his comment sections is a considerate thing to do, and as long as opinions that might offend can be expressed elsewhere, then there is still freedom of speech. I think the term ‘freedom of speech’ is too abstract and removes too much context, in many cases. All speech is carried out within some real-world context, and it has its reason/cause and it also has consequences.

        Judging from what you quoted alone, I agree with that reasoning for disallowing certain comments. Censorship in more public venues is more of a place for an argument about freedom of speech.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if, for those anti-choice MAPs who have debated the issue for a long time, a great role is played by getting fed up with debating, and theorizing, as well as fed up with having so little hope of acceptance from society, with that amount of hope being diminished even further if you argue on the pro side of things. Especially if they’ve gone public.

        Like

        1. Wanting to respect the sensibilities of people who have been sexually abused isn’t the same as rejecting all discussion of the issue because one has found the truth, whether that is the case or not. I actually think that silencing the debate in his comment sections is a considerate thing to do, and as long as opinions that might offend can be expressed elsewhere, then there is still freedom of speech.

          It’s not simply about freedom of speech, Sierra. There are much larger issues here. One of these issues is the offensive and insensitive notion of sexual abuse victims identifying their abuse with adult attraction to minors, plain and simple. That makes as much logical sense as victims of homosexual rape in prisons loathing homosexuality in general, and venting and raging against LGBT people for being “responsible” for the above.

          Another related matter is how anti-choicers too often act as the enablers of the category of sex abuse victims who do not wish to heal but simply to vent and adopt the abuse narrative as part of their social identity because they believe–against the scientific data that has thus far been accumulated–that mutually consensual intergenerational relationships are inherently harmful, or pose an immense potential risk for being harmful outside the matter of the current legal and socio-political environment.

          Then there is the matter of anti-choicers so often refusing to hold society accountable for the iatrogenic and sociogenic damage done, including the unscrupulous sex abuse industry that profits in many ways off of manufacturing certain abuse victims and seeing to it that they have no inclination to heal, so these “damaged for life” patients remain paying clients for life and continue to play into the political agenda of these social workers and therapists. When an entire social identity has been adopted around being a Sexual Abuse Victim, then you know things are starting to really get out of hand with both the narrative and the industry that feeds into and off of it. And then there is the problem of reconceptualization caused by society and the sex abuse industry that anti-choicers rarely, if ever, hold to account, when even pedo-hating social scientists like Susan Clancy take it to task, as she did in her very gutsy book The Trauma Myth.

          It’s also connected to the wider issue of identity politics in a general sense, which is putting sensibilities before discussion. This invariably results in mass censorship and even stifling of relevant scientific data because it might hurt someone’s feelings. You will notice this, too: heaps of abuse of many different types are inflicted upon MAPs on a regular basis. I do not think that it’s in any way unreasonable to suggest that perhaps our feelings should be considered also. The reason it so often isn’t is because the mere fact of our unpopular attraction base causes society to think we are less than other human beings, and that our unpopularity means we do not merit the same consideration afforded to this or that group of people. I think it’s understandable that we oppose this. The recent suicide of Paul Christiano, and many other MAPs before him, make it clear that it’s not only sex abuse victims who are hurting.

          Then there is the other matter of the great majority of genuine underage sex abuse victims being abused within the home by the same adults whom the anti-choicers insist are “protecting” them from pro-contacters. Even the FBI acknowledges that the majority of these adults are not MAPs, but are opportunistic abusers taking advantage of the power and authority they hold over the children and young adolescents under their charge. Yet society conditions sex abuse victims to identify these problems not with the insular power imbalances found within the nuclear family home and the authoritarian nature of boarding schools, but simply upon adult attraction to minors, period. I think Lensman should be commended for not taking the easy way out and promoting serious thought about the cherished institutions in contemporary society that maybe we shouldn’t be cherishing so much after all. Continuing to support these institutions and ignoring the problems they cause, while taking the full brunt of the blame ourselves, may appease those who hold power in society to some degree, but it doesn’t benefit children in any manner whatsoever.

          I think the term ‘freedom of speech’ is too abstract and removes too much context, in many cases. All speech is carried out within some real-world context, and it has its reason/cause and it also has consequences.

          Not speaking out in many cases can have equally negative consequences, so there are times you need to weigh the benefits of one against the other. Sometimes it is necessary to tell groups of people, or society in general, things they do not want to hear.

          Judging from what you quoted alone, I agree with that reasoning for disallowing certain comments. Censorship in more public venues is more of a place for an argument about freedom of speech.

          Part of the problem, Sierra, is that society in general, and anti-choicers as well, do not want pro-choicers to have any such venue to discuss our side of the issue. The scientific evidence thus far accumulated has made it clear that our side of the issue has real validity to it, and certainly does not deserve to be unilaterally censored because it upsets this or that group, or is considered “inappropriate” (the generic term most often used to justify the use of those infamous flag buttons to censor discussion of this issue). Granted it’s certainly not be appropriate to discuss the pro-choice side everywhere, and I can agree with that. But there does have to be some places where it can be discussed and debated freely, regardless of who it may upset.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if, for those anti-choice MAPs who have debated the issue for a long time, a great role is played by getting fed up with debating, and theorizing, as well as fed up with having so little hope of acceptance from society, with that amount of hope being diminished even further if you argue on the pro side of things. Especially if they’ve gone public.

          Oftentimes, and throughout history, doing the right thing isn’t thing isn’t the easy or expedient thing. Let’s not forget there is also B4U-ACT’s approach, which simply does not discuss or address either side of the contact issue. That org agrees it’s not a wise idea to pummel the public with such a hot button and unpopular stance; but at the same time, the org recognizes that the scientific consensus is not in full agreement with anti-choicers, so they take both the sensibilities of Non-MAP participants in the org, and MAPs of every ideology, into consideration. IMO, this method works, and is much more fair and considerate to all concerned. They show plenty of sympathy for sexual abuse victims, but they certainly wouldn’t allow abuse victims to come to one of their workshops for the purpose of venting against the MAP participants, especially when it’s likely whoever abused them wasn’t actually a MAP, just as people who are victims of same gender rape in prison environments were often raped by individuals who were not actually homosexuals.

          When any particular org chooses to take an official anti-contact/anti-choice line, then they are going to be inviting debate. And I included a few links in this comments section which makes it clear that an increasing number of Non-MAPs are beginning to show support not only for the Kind community, but for reasonable discussion of the pro-choice issue. That is something that the anti-choicers try hard to ignore, but the evidence is right there before them nevertheless.

          Please do not think I’m trying to be snarky here with you, Sierra, as I didn’t mean to come off that way. I’m just trying to point out that there are greater issues regarding the matter of respecting sensibilities vs. speaking your mind to consider. Further, MAPs are a minority group who have been afflicted with more than our share of pain and hurt over the past view decades. Many of us have been victims as well, and our high suicide rate makes that quite clear. That is why some of us may come off as sensitive regarding the implication that we are less deserving of respectful treatment or consideration of our feelings than other groups who have been victims.

          Like

          1. Don’t worry about coming off as snarky, as that is not the case.

            You put forth good points, which I hadn’t considered in this particular discussion and which I agree with.

            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