The six-month sabbatical I awarded myself back in August has drawn to its close and I’m eager to start blogging again. Indeed I’ve missed having to produce something reasonably coherent, readable and (I hope) interesting every two weeks.
Anyway, here I am, back home from my travels, having lived it up where the weather suits my clothes and where orange juice comes like running water.
The house smells a bit musty, but my body is toned from months of swimming in the morning, then in the afternoon, driving up into the mountains and skiing. And my mind is refreshed from getting in plenty of on-topic study whilst sipping Darjeeling in my favourite reading spot – the ostrich house at the local zoo, as it happens.
Sorry not to have sent more post-cards, but when you’re partying 24-hours a day it can be hard to find time to put pen to paper. Anyway here are a few happy-snaps of me on holiday:
As mentioned above, despite all this partying, socialising and physical exertion I managed to get in a fair bit of on-topic reading – including the following on-topic, or vaguely on-topic, publications:
- Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ (not a paedo-read by any means, but very relevant to our situation – as I hope to eventually prove to you)
- ‘Moral Panics – The social construction of Deviance’ by Eriche Goode and Nachmann Ben-Yehjuda
- ‘BirthRights’ by Richard Farson
- ‘Death in Venice and other stories’ by Thomas Mann
- a second reading of ‘Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons’ by Carl Toms – better known as Tom O’Carroll
- ‘What Maisie Knew’ by Henry James
- ‘Toxic Childhood’ by Sue Palmer
- ‘Childhood and Consumer Culture’ Eds David Buckingham and Vebjorg Tingstadt
- ‘Ethics in the Real World’ by Peter Singer
- ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam’ – by Robert Spencer
- James Cantor’s complete published research on paedophilia.
I’ve managed to complete a handful of essays and posts during the sabbatical, and have started and half-completed many more.
Whilst I hope to maintain variety and responsiveness in the issues I cover there are several two-parters, and certain trains-of-thought that I will pursue over three or more essays. One of these is an attempt to elaborate an ‘ethics of paedophilia’ and its application to contemporary and historical issues. I will also pursue my ‘Aetiology of Paedophobia’ hypothesis, and I will be digging away at the phenomena of Stigma, and of Moral Panics and Witch-hunts.
I’ll also mention here that I plan to update my ‘blog roll’ – culling any blogs or forums that appear to be dormant or defunct. If your blog disappears from my blog roll and you feel its culling was premature or unwarranted, please don’t hesitate to contact me via ‘comments’ to inform me about the status of your blog.
I’ve also, for the first time, received a few angry and hostile comments – all to ‘18 Common Misconceptions About Paedophiles & Paedophilia: Update & Reblog‘. I’m guessing that it must be listed on some anti-paedophile forum somewhere.
The comments are all low-level kind of stuff (‘I know someone who was brutally raped and left for dead by a paedophile…’) and make no reference whatsoever to the content of the ’18 Common Misconceptions…’. The modus operandi of these commenters seems to be that they decide a blog or a page is sympathetic to paedophilia and, without reading the content of the page, they fire off (or cut-and-paste) a formulaic, hysterical, catch-all paedophobic comment.
These comments put me in a slight quandary: do I ‘approve’ them? Surely, if I ‘approve’ them, I can’t just leave them there, stinking out the comments section? In that case, I should respond to them. But then I’d be wasting time responding to low-level, fish-in-barrel comments wholly irrelevant to the issues raised by the accompanying blog-essay or by other commenters.
Neither is this blog, nor its comments section, a free-speech free-for-all: ‘freedom of speech‘ is not the same thing as the ‘right to have one’s voice heard from any platform of one’s choosing‘.
Anyway…the policy I have decided is as follows: I welcome and will approve comments that oppose this blog’s stance – provided that:
- such comments clearly address ideas and arguments set out in the accompanying essay, or in other comments;
- such comments are polite. Any gratuitous abuse will guarantee the comment’s trashing. Death threats, or threats of violence or torture, either explicit or implied, will be considered as a form of impoliteness;
- I am convinced of the honesty, integrity and veracity of the comment’s content and intentions.
I’m actually in the thick of writing what I originally intended to be the inaugural post of this blog’s 2017 season.
It’s working title is ‘What I Think’ and it is going to be a summary of my stance and opinions on what I consider to be the most important issues concerning paedophilia and child sexuality (I’m actually writing this post during a rest-break from writing ‘What I Think’!).
I originally thought that, if I maintained a sufficiently ruthless approach and a concise style, I would be able to keep this within the 3000 maximum-word-count limit I think appropriate for a blog.
I now see that I hopelessly under-rated the complexity of the issues I would have to address, and equally hopelessly over-rated my capacity for concision. I have failed to summon the ruthlessness necessary for ditching a nice turn of phrase or a juicy, succulent, mouth-drenching gobbet of information. Like a fat man on a half-hearted diet facing a vendor offering 50 new varieties of home-made ice-cream, I have decided to reserve my parsimony for a more fitting future occasion..
I’m actually not that far from completing the blog-post in question. If I don’t eat, drink or sleep; if I don’t take Fido walkies; if I urinate, defecate and expectorate into the bucket currently steaming besides my desk, I might just get it out before the twelfth stroke of the bell tomorrow midnight…