– What does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?

– You could ask the same question of homosexuality: what does society gain by permitting people of the same sex to have sex with one-another?

– Trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality is false equivalency. What consenting adults do together sexually is of no concern to anybody else.


The above exchange comes from an on-line discussion I engaged in on the subject of paedophilia. My interlocutor’s final reply contains several flaws: it attempts a Diversion, it betrays a misunderstanding of the role of Comparison in discourse, and it ‘Begs the Question’.

Diversion

A Diversion is an attempt to change the subject mid-argument, generally to one about which the person attempting the diversion feels more confident. Diversions mean that the initial issue of contention is lost sight of and is not brought to a conclusion. Diversions often happen without either of the participants realising it.

The above exchange opens with a question about possible social benefits of ‘permitting adults to have sex with children’ (notice the biases my interlocutor’s wording introduces into the debate – it is the adults being permitted to have sex with children, not children being permitted to have sex with adults; and the word ‘sex’ is loaded with teleiophilic overtones of penetration, perspiration and orgasms).

My opponent refused to acknowledge the possibility that there were any parallels between the benefits of permitting homosexuality and those of permitting child-adult intimacy, and tried to shut down that line of enquiry by shifting the discussion to ‘consent’.

Diversions are not always easy to deal with because refusing to follow a diversion can leave you looking like you are dodging the new issue being raised. And of course, sometimes it can be to your advantage to accept a diversion which moves the discussion onto an issue you feel more confident about.

The most important thing is to be able spot Diversions whenever they arise as this will allow you to control the direction the exchange will take. A discussion where neither interlocutor can resist a diversion can be reminiscent of two cats attached to one-another by a leash chasing birds up trees in a forest.

The nature of comparison in discourse

If we decline the invitation to follow the diversion in the second sentence, we are left with the statement that “trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality is false equivalency”. This touches on the nature of comparison in discourse and on the False Equivalence.

Ouroboros-benzene.svgFirst of all, let’s be clear: anyone can compare anything to anything: Shakespeare, in sonnet 18, compared his love to ‘a Summer’s day’; Emily Dickinson compared ‘hope’ to ‘a thing with feathers‘; George Orwell in ‘Animal Farm’ devoted a whole book to comparing farm animals to the Russian Revolution; the chemist August Kekulé, struggling to work out the structure of the benzene molecule, realised it had a cyclic structure after having a dream in which he saw a snake eat its own tail.

Whilst Kekulé’s insight was not sufficient in itself to generate new knowledge, it was effective in generating a hypothesis plausible enough to justify further investigation and testing.

So, a comparison is not disqualified by there being disparate elements between the comparates (the two things being compared). Indeed if there were no disparate elements then the comparates would be identical, and there would be no point in comparing them.

Comparisons establish short-cuts whereby we can take concrete and familiar notions (a snake swallowing its tail) and transfer them to something more abstract and unfamiliar (possible arrangements of six carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms). Comparisons allow us to colour in the blanks spaces of existence with the wax crayons of established knowledge.

When Whistler, in Monty Python’s ‘Oscar Wilde‘ sketch, compares his Highness to a ‘stream of bat’s piss’ our first reaction (and indeed that of the king and of the guests in Wilde’s drawing-room) is that the comparison has violated some taboo. However, on hearing the justification for the comparison (that his Highness “shine[s] out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark”) the initial shock of the comparison turns into an appreciation of the comparison’s unexpected truth and validity.

And even if we were to concede that ‘children can’t consent’ (which, of course, I don’t) that does not invalidate any parallels and similarities between homosexuality and paedophilia that are not relevant to the issue of consent.

Indeed there are many similarities shared by paedophilia and homosexuality:

  • they have both been illegal and highly stigmatised;
  • both paedophiles and homosexuals have at times had to keep their sexuality secret for fear of persecution and prejudice;
  • both are sexual orientations and are not chosen;
  • both have been considered as inherently non-consensual;
  • both have been defined in the public imagination by the worst that could be said, reported or imagined about them;
  • homosexuality was once synonymous with sodomy in the same way as paedophilia is now erroneously thought of as ‘adults fucking children’;
  • both have been thought of as exclusively male predilections;
  • both have been considered as violating ‘nature’ narratives;
  • both have been considered as corrupting of youth;
  • in the public imagination both have been disassociated from ideas of tenderness or love;
  • people accused of both orientations have had their lives, reputations and careers ruined;
  • both are, or have been, tarred with ‘infection’ narratives: till recently it was thought that people were ‘converted’ to homosexuality – echoing the contemporary myth that paedophilia is passed on from abuser to abused;
  • both are, or have been, portrayed as obsessive, hyper-sexual and out of control;

In addition, for a long time, and especially during Victorian times, the roles were reversed: homosexuality was stigmatised and persecuted, whereas paedophilia was not only tolerated, it was, in certain circles quite fashionable (see Lewis Carroll, Ernest Dowson, John Ruskin et al in ‘Men in Wonderland: The Lost Girlhood of the Victorian Gentleman‘ by Catherine Robson). And in moslem societies homosexuality is reviled, whilst a patriarchal, non-consensual version of paedophilia is quite acceptable.

A note on ‘False Equivalence’

In the exchange in question my interlocutor accused me of committing the fallacy of ‘false equivalency’.

A ‘False equivalence’ is a proposition in which an inference (or inferences) is drawn from one comparate to the other on the basis of a shared trait which is insufficiently relevant to the issue in question.

Hitler had moustaches and was evil; Jesus had moustaches. Therefore Jesus must have been evil.

There’s no biological difference between a cat and a dog. They’re both soft, cuddly pets.

Abusive child molesters are sexually attracted to the children they abuse. As are Paedophiles. Therefore there is no difference between a paedophile and a child molester.

Each of these propositions reaches its conclusion via an unstated, but erroneous, intermediary proposition. The fact that the error is unstated gives the statements a spurious appearance of logic, but once this intermediate proposition is made explicit the fallacies behind these propositions become obvious:

Hitler had moustaches and was evil.
Therefore all men with moustaches are evil.
Jesus had moustaches.
Therefore Jesus must have been evil.

A cat is a soft, cuddly pet.
Therefore all soft, cuddly pets are cats.
Dogs are soft, cuddly pets.
Therefore there’s no biological difference between a cat and a dog.

Child molesters are sexually attracted to the children they abuse.
Therefore all who find children sexually attractive are child molesters.
Paedophiles find children sexually attractive.
Therefore there’s no difference between paedophiles and child molesters.

The first sentences in each of these 3 propositions take the form ‘all x is y’. The second (highlighted sentences) try to convert this to ‘all y is x’.

However ‘all x is y’ does not convert to ‘all y is x’: ‘All dogs are mammals’ may be true, but ‘all mammals are dogs’ certainly isn’t. And this means that any conclusion drawn from ‘all y is x’ is invalid.

My comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia boiled down to its simplest terms gives:

homosexuality is a kind of sexual orientation,
paedophilia is a kind of sexual orientation,
They therefore share the defining characteristics of their common definition (and possibly some non-defining characteristics too).

It should be clear from this that my comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia is not a False Equivalency.

Now, let’s imagine an alien who is familiar with humans but is encountering dolphins and bat stars for the first time. What knowledge can be transferred from humans to bat stars and dolphins?

Table_13_1_sm
Humans and dolphins are both members of the class Mammalia. This means that they must share the defining characteristics of not just Mammalia (e.g. 3 middle ear bones, hair, mammary glands) but also the subphylum Vertebrata (e.g. bony vertebral column), the phylum Chordata (e.g. a post-anal tail) and the kingdom Animalia (e.g. reliance on other organisms for food).

Bat stars and humans converge at the kingdom ‘Animalia’. This means that they must share the defining characteristics of the Animalia kingdom: they are both organisms that consist of multiple cells, cells which contain mitochondria, and they rely on other organisms for food (they will also share characteristics of higher categories – such as Domain, and also ‘things that physically exist’).

More can be inferred from humans to dolphins than from humans to bat stars, humans and dolphins are more closely related to one an-other than humans and bat stars and therefore more ‘comparable’.

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

But it is not always possible to apply such taxonomic rigour to comparisons.

A rule of thumb for determining how close two comparates are to one-another is to ask how few defining characteristics of one comparate need be changed to transform it into the other comparate: to get from Homosexuality to Paedophilia one has only to change one thing: the age of one of the participants.

Begging the question

The final fallacy that my interlocutor commits in the exchange in question is ‘Begging the Question’ (also known as ‘Petitio Principii‘).

The phrase is today often used to indicate that an urgent question has been raised (e.g. “this situation begs the question: are we all in fact guided by the same universal principles and values?”). Its correct use refers to a form of circular thinking in which ‘an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion which the argument is seeking to prove’.

Some examples of begging the question:

Affirmative Action can never be just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another.”

(the second sentence, the sentence that purportedly proves the first, merely assumes what the first sentence asserts, without supplying any new evidence and/or reason for doing so)

“In the third chapter of II Timothy it says that ‘all scripture is given by divine inspiration of God’. This proves that the Bible is divinely inspired”

(the conclusion is reached via the unstated assumption that ‘everything in the Bible is true’. But this is only valid if one assume that the Bible is the word of god– the very issue up for debate)

Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.”

(this argument proceeds via the unstated assumption that ‘abortion is murder’ – morally wrong killing – and fails to consider the possibility that certain forms of killing, of which abortion may be one, need not necessarily be morally wrong)

Even when this fallacy occurs within the succinct space of a couple of sentences, as in the above examples, it is not always easy to grasp. When ‘question begging’ occurs within the context of a protracted argument it can easily escape notice.

The exchange at the top of this essay does not, taken in isolation, ‘beg the question’. But it does when taken within the context of the broader discussion: a debate as to whether children can or cannot consent to ‘sex’ with adults.

This question was far from resolved (indeed, it’s unlikely that a pro-choice paedophile and an ‘anti’ would come to agree on this issue), and when my interlocutor suggested that ‘children can’t consent she was prematurely assuming that our disagreement over consent had been resolved, and resolved in her favour.

How should I have replied?

– “what does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?”

– “You could ask the same question of homosexuality – what does society gain by permitting people of the same sex to have sex with one-another?”

– “Trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality is false equivalency. What consenting adults do together sexually is of no concern to anybody else…”

A reply that addresses each of these vulnerabilities might read as:

“I can compare paedophiila to whatever I want.

Homosexuality and paedophilia are closely related phenomenayou have only to change one thing about Homosexuality for it to become Paedophilia: the age of one of the participants. You also suggest that I’m not allowed to compare paedophilia to homosexuality because they differ with respect to ‘consent’. First of all, I have consistently argued that children can consent to certain forms of intimacy with adults. Secondly, in the UK homosexuals have only been able to consent since 1980, and it took twenty-three more years for homosexual consent to be recognised nationwide in the USA, and almost 80 countries today still deny that adults of the same sex can consent to sexual activity with one-another. Clearly a society’s willingness to recognise a couple’s capacity to consent is not always distinguishable from its prejudices.

But all this is a distraction: you originally asked me “what does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?” I’ll have another go at answering your question, this time by spelling it out:

  • children being able to have nurturing, mentoring and educative friendships with adults other than those adults allocated to them by accident of birth, or by profession,
  • children being empowered in their relationships with adults and exploring relationships with an adult which they have chosen and which they can end,
  • children participating in an equal relationship with an adult, fostering maturity and respect,
  • children enjoying and sharing affection, and sensual and sexual pleasure,
  • children feeling more loved by the community beyond the family – a source of love absent from contemporary Western society
  • stronger intergenerational cohesion within the community,
  • a loosening of the stranglehold of the nuclear family on the growing child.
  • children receiving a practical, child-centered education in sex, sexuality, health, hygiene, and interpersonal relationships from someone they like, trust and have chosen,
  • a reduction in real child sexual abuse – since educated and empowered children will be able to more effectively understand, identify, resist, report and talk about unwanted sexual advances,
  • since only non-consensual relationships would be prosecuted there would be a huge reduction in the number of CSA cases needing to be processed by the police and courts.

(I’m sure that this list is far from comprehensive. If I have missed out anything significant, I trust you, respected reader, to please let me know)

46 thoughts on “Comparing Paedophilia & Homosexuality

  1. Like others commentators I have made the personal decision to leave Consentinghumans.Wordpress.com due to the unregulated hate it allows on its site. All though they did allow me to freely speak my mind, they still allowed hate speech which in no way should fall under the umbrella free speech. Inaceptable hate ranged from homophobia, holocaust denying, racism, transphobia, Islamophobia (like here), pro nazism and every other form of bigoted hate speech in existence today.
    It was a painful decision for me to leave as one of the countless followers that this blog gained during their time online, but it was just too much hate for me stomach. It was a great place place to for me to speak freely about the social injustices that are plaguing society, but I refuse to return to it until they clean up their site and make it more accepting to all minorities. But as of today it seems to be a safe haven for muslim hatemongers. Leonard, clean out the hate so we can all feel welcome, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religious beliefs.

    Like

    1. This will be the last comment touching on islam or religion that I will approve on this particular page.

      The essay at the top of this page is ‘Comparing Paedophilia & Homosexuality’, not ‘Should islam Be Immune From Criticism?’ and I have just wasted half an hour dealing with the above comment – half an hour that I should have spent working on my next post.

      Over the coming months there will be plenty of opportunity for debate and discussion on the subject of islam and paedophilia. As I mention at the end of this comment – in view of James/ Anonymous_176/chief’s hypocricy and taqiyya I have decided to work on an extended series of essays examining the condition of children under islam.

      Not surprisingly ‘James’ is the same individual who posted the fake LICRA comment and also posted “I want to marry 9 year old girls. My party will come to power and all pedophiles who oppose it will be executed like the rest of anti-pedophiles.” – Given that he is advocating genocide, and given that islam’s threats of genocide have been made wholly credible by islam’s history and recent actions, I think that it is legitimate to be ‘phobic’ of a political ideology that generates such a mind-set and such a statement.

      And presumably ‘James’ considers I am being ‘islamophobic’ for holding him to account for his earlier statement in which he advocated genocide – this is a familiar tactic – witness Medhi Hassan calling Kufr ‘animals’ then being outraged when he is held to account for it.

      You’ve clearly got it into your mind that the world’s right to freedom of thought, expression and criticism stops where ‘islam’ begins: that it is unfair to mention when islam marries off little girls to strangers for a cash payment; that it is ‘phobic’ to mention that your so-called ‘prophet’ raped a nine-year old girl; when your religion cuts off little girls’ clitorises and infibutlates their labia, we should be polite and politically-correct and pretend that it does not overwhelmingly correlate with one particular ideology; when your religion deprives girls of their right to say ‘yes’ outside of marriage and deprives them of their right to say ‘no’ within marriage, you demand I stay silent on the matter; you think it is ‘islamophobic’ to mention that your religion is one where women and girls who have sex outside marriage, or who have been raped, are ostracised, suffer ‘honour’ killing or are buried up to their waist and stoned; when your most holy books state that women are worth half a man, or that a woman needs four male eyewitness to bring a prosecuation for rape, you see this as something that should not be mentioned, let alone criticised; when girls as young as nine are stored, like reproductive machines, in black cloth bags and deprived of their rights, of an education, of a childhood, of their civil identity, you think the world should accept this horror in silence.

      If you find my mentioning the above evils offensive it can be for 3 reasons –

      1/ you agree with those practices, and you think they are islamic, and therefore should not be portrayed in a negative way;

      2/ you disagree with these practices and you are ashamed of their association with islam and wish that association to be obfuscated;

      3/ you believe that they are falsely associated with islam;

      which is it? because:

      If it is 1/ – then hard cheese pal, my freedom of speech majorly trumps your religion’s snowflake fear of criticism. Your superstition has no authority over me.
      if it is 2/ – then instead of criticising ME for pointing out these evils, you should instead be campaigning to rid your religion of these evils;
      if it is 3/ – then instead of your pathetic attempts to shut me up, you should be supplying me with data and evidence FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES that support your case

      People like you bring shame to the paedophile cause – I, and many others, believe and want to show the world that the average paedophile is an ethical person, who puts the child’s well-being and needs first. A version of your religion has offered you a route by which you can legally fuck a child, but at the price of the child being treated as livestock, and you have not been able to resist that offer – you are eager to throw the well-being and rights of the child under the bus so that you can drain your spuds. You have not so much as lost your moral compass, as deliberately thrown it into the mud, stamped on it, pulled up your burnous and voided a copious flow of foul-smelling taqiyarrhoea all over the shards and fragments that remain of it.

      I’ll be honest: I prefer ‘antis’ to you. At least they believe that they have children’s best interests at heart. I have many friends who are antis – all good people – none of them would fail to condemn the selling of little girls for sex, their rape within marriage, their genitals being hacked at and obliterated etc – all of them hate ISIS and the way they treat kufr little girls and women, and indeed moslem little girls and women. These antis are better people than you, indeed they are more child-lovers than you – the little girl for you is just some receptacle for your sperm – to be purchased from her parents, or slave-owners (see ISIS – islamic so-called state in Syria), and stored at home, no better than a sex-doll made of flesh, that actually cries and bleeds.

      You haven’t even tried to defend your political ideology’s evils by debate and discussion but have simply tried to trick and bully me into silence. If you’d actually defended FGM, the stoning of raped little girls etc I’d have been interested – after all it is fascinating to see the workings of a completely unhinged mind. But instead you tried to use Taqiyya – the koranically commanded lying and deception – and your taqiyya was of an insultingly low quality, too – you’re not even capable of concealing your IP address.

      Your religion, or your interpretation of your religion, has lost the argument – so that all that is left for you is to silence, by death or threats of death, those who have, through Reason and evidence, discredited your beliefs. Your violence and dishonesty is the sure sign that you have no defensible grounds for your position.

      Unfortunately, it’s not within my power to stop you accessing or visiting my blog. But if it were I’d exercise that power. I don’t want you visiting my blog. You’re not welcome here. You’re not welcome in my world or my mind.

      But what it is within my power to do is to set up my comment system so that any comments you make go straight into the trash. After posting this comment I will take the necessary step – I will only be aware of your existence during my very rare visits to my ‘trash can’ where your comments will lie amongst the pork ribs and half-empty beer bottles.

      Well, James/ Anonymous_176/chief – you’ve also gone and scored an own-goal for your ‘religion’: your dishonesty and baseness has made me decide to research and write a series of essays that will come under the rubric of ‘the little girl under islam’: these essays will include and examination of the story of Aisha and mohammed as told in the sahih Hadith; an essay on FGM; one on child-marriage under islam, and one on the condition of little girls under sharia. I would also like to write an essay on the condition of the little boy under isislam. The need for other essays may also arise as I work on these.

      These essays will be a two fingers, a bronx cheer, to any attempt by you, or anyone else, to try to police what I can research, what I can think or what I can write. They will be dedicated to all little girls who are repressed and abused in the name of ‘the religion of peace’. Let not this dedication be a hollow verbal flourish: if any good comes from James/ Anonymous_176/chief’s dishonesty and taqiyya it is that it has motivated me to increase my standing payments to the FGM charity I contribute to.

      I know that a lot of readers buy into the ‘islamophobia’ narrative – who are keen to criticise Christianity, Christian-heritage countries, Jews, and secularism, but take intense offense whenever islam’s evils are pointed out, examined or criticised. If I lose such readers so be it – I’ve never sought popularity and never avoided controversy – I don’t make money from this blog, nor am I more popular or successful IRL for writing this blog.

      Indeed, I will take pride in any offense I caused through my having articulated Truths that the more dishonest or befuddled amongst us are seeking to render taboo.

      I will also, once I have finished this series, invite an apologist for islam to respond to the series, a moslem apologist, not a kufr-apologist. Needless to say I will not ask James/ Anonymous_176/chief to be that respondent. First of all because he is dishonest. Secondly because I suspect he knows nothing about islam. In fact I suspect that I know more about his religion than he does: after all, who knows most about cockroach physiology? who can take an impartial view of cockroaches? the entomologist who studies cockroaches? or the cockroach itself?

      Just to remind readers – this is the last word on this matter. You are welcome to post on issues germane to the blog-post – no comments touching on this diversion will be approved. I will not debate, or allow to be debated, my right to free thought, or free expression.

      If you are easily offended by radical thinking you shouldn’t be visiting my blog in the first place.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “In the exchange in question my interlocutor accused me of committing the fallacy of ‘false equivalency’”
    She also said people can live and society can function quite well with paedophilia being illegal, And you quite rightly pointed out that heterosexuals and society functioned quite well before 1968 when homosexuality was illegal, and she accused us of being the selfish ones!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. You have been reported to the LICRA (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme), whose legal team confirmed that there is illegal content [Islamophobia]. They will fight for the removal of these pages. They are known to pursue such a fight thoroughly, including in courts.

    You are warned: to operate in WordPress, you must respect the following “Terms of Service”: no Nazism, no holocaust denial, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. Either you follow them, or you will have to get out of WordPress. And if you don’t understand, one day a court order will explain you what to do.

    Regards.
    LICRA legal team.

    Like

    1. Note that the above comment (purportedly from LICRA) shares the same IP address as the earlier comment from ‘Chief’ in which he stated: “I want to marry 9 year old girls. My party will come to power and all pedophiles who oppose it will be executed like the rest of anti-pedophiles”.

      Is forced child-marriage, and the wholesale genocide of those who disapprove of it, now official LICRA policy?

      How does it sit on the hypocrisy scale that someone who advocates systematic mass genocide at 10 a.m comes back a couple of hours later and whimpers on about ‘islamphobia’?

      Clearly our jihadi friend is suffering from a bad case of taqiyarrhoea

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Though I normally hate to boast about anything, Lensman, will you at least give me due props that I seem to have been totally correct in calling “Anonymous” out? I do think you suspected that all along, though, since you didn’t admonish me for making that conjecture about “Anonymous” 🙂

        Like

        1. Sorry to rain on your parade and reign in your boasting Dissy, but the trouble with the name ‘Anonymous’ is that there are a hell of a lot of people out there with that particular name. The ‘anonymous’ you respond to lower down in the comments to isn’t the same ‘anonymous’ who has been suffering from taqiyarrhoea and threating me with jihad and censorship.

          Like

      2. Also, I think that photo you provided would convey its message much more effectively if it included an apropos sound effect. How is this one: BLLLLAAAAAATTTTTTTTSSSPPLLLPPPP!!!

        Like

    2. BTW, while we’re on the subject of Taqiyarrhoea – nowhere in WordPress’s Terms of Service does it say:

      “no Nazism, no holocaust denial, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia”

      What it does say is:

      “At WordPress.com, we’re committed to freedom of speech: our core mission is to democratize publishing. Our service allows anyone on the web to express their ideas and opinions, whether we agree with them or not — we don’t censor, moderate, or endorse the content of any site we host.

      We believe that our openness to a diversity of viewpoints is one of the main reasons so many great blogs and sites call WordPress.com home. However, you may also come across the occasional blog that offends you, or that contains ideas that you disagree with. The best response to content that you find negative, offensive, malicious, or inaccurate is not to silence it, but rather to speak out. When you present your own counter-narrative, you give others a chance to see multiple aspects of complex issues and help them reach their own conclusions.

      While we don’t limit the range of opinions allowed on WordPress.com, we’re strict about certain behaviors and remove content that violates our Terms of Service, such as spam and threats of violence. If you see such behaviors on a WordPress.com site, you can report them. Finally, always remember that on your own site, you can control who may or may not view your content or participate in discussions.” (https://en.wordpress.com/freedom-of-speech/)

      Like

  4. Your first mistake was responding to that question in the first place. It’s a trap question that forces you to justify your human rights. In fact they require no justification: you are entitled to them simply by nature of being human. A better question that you might have substituted is “What does society gain by preventing children from having sex?” The reflexive answer to this question would be “it prevents children from being abused and exploited,” but that simple response makes several assumptions that have no foundation in empirical evidence.

    For starters, why should children be protected from abuse and exploitation? It’s obvious to me: they’re also humans and should benefit from the same human rights as you and I, but it’s not at all obvious when discussing the issue with someone who would deny sexual rights (among others) to children. These people implicitly accept the place of children as effectively being slaves to their parents (though they would never call it that because they also implicitly believe in the idea that a slaveholder must by necessity be an evil person incapable of caring about the physical, mental, and emotional health of his or her slaves).

    Next is the question of whether laws against childrens’ sexuality actually prevent children from being harmed. There’s ample evidence of children being harmed by the laws themselves: just look at how many minors are added to the sex offender registry. There’s very little evidence that these laws prevent any sort of harm to children at all. Age of consent laws are the most obvious example of legislation that does absolutely nothing to help children despite that being its stated purpose. Rape is already illegal, which means that AOC laws only ban consensual sex involving minors. How often do consensual sexual relationships result in harm? My understanding of the Rind studies suggests that it’s not a meaningful percentage, and that we would be far better off spending our efforts protecting children from things that actually do cause harm (namely physical and emotional abuse).

    And finally (well, as deep as I feel like diving into this at the moment), there’s the implication that legislation is the only, or even the best, method that we have at hand to protect children. Studies show that more than 4 in 5 convicted child molesters aren’t even primarily attracted to children (in fact, pedophiles are actually under represented among those convicted of sex offences against children). That suggests that we’ve got problems that go a lot deeper than a handful of pedos that can’t keep it in their pants. Instead of throwing a bandaid on the problem, why don’t we take steps to identify and resolve these deeper social issues that drive teleiophiles to sexually abuse (I still don’t like the implications that go along with that term, even though it’s maybe a bit more fitting in this context) children? That would prevent up to 80% of sex offences against children before they ever happen. If the goal was in fact to protect children rather than to enforce their status as nonpeople, wouldn’t that be the desired outcome?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Society gains all the money and resources it wastes, on tormenting and imprisoning good hearted MAPs…Money and resources, that can sorely be used elsewhere, on real social needs…like health care.

    Society gets to be humane, and stop destroying lives…maybe redeem it’s own decency and humanity, in the process…

    I’m never at a loss in astonishment, at the fickle and subjective nature of “sexual rights”…Humans are the worst…If we’d been born any other species, there wouldn’t be all this insanity surrounding who likes to rub naughty bits with who…because all other individuals of the animal kingdom, aren’t even considered in any legal sense…They don’t get “protections”…not even from truly savage brutality…And there’s also no magic age, where the humping may productively begin…

    We curiously don’t presume bonobo chimps are traumatized, from “rubbing nasties” with older members of the pack…even…[…gasp!…]…mom?…

    …In those cases, it’s just nature…something to observe, study and document…Not care, or even imagine, that “something horrible has happened”…But, why?…because they’re “not smart enough” to be traumatized?…Because they’re not human?…not worthy of the concern?…

    The humans biggest bane, will always be it’s psychological complexity…It’s seeming need to project…It’s emotional fragility…it’s ego…it’s fear…and it’s propensity, to work itself up into an angered frenzy.

    People like us would have been far better off, being born into a different species…far, far away from human culture…free from being hunted and menaced by humans.

    …Or, maybe I’m just having a fit of insane ramblings…who knows? ;-P

    Like

    1. Not at all insane ramblings Steve. Other than that, I am considering putting a “bonobo” sticker on my car.
      Yes, we would be been better off as bonobos. We would also be better off living in any age other than our dismal present one.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Another great and insightful post, Lensman! To add more benefits to allowing and recognizing consensual relationships between younger and older people:

    1. The broader idea of childhood sexuality would cease being a taboo to so much as acknowledge, let alone explore, on the academic front. The mythical asexuality of children would no longer be forced into unquestioning acceptance as a “given,” and the burgeoning sexuality of younger adolescents would no longer be considered immoral to simply discuss or recognize. All of this would be out of the shadows and into the realm of reasonable, legitimate discussion as begun to occur during the 1970s before the moral panics of the ’80s knocked it out of “polite” public discussion.

    2. It would no longer be taboo for organizations to be formed that would give non-judgmental, non-moralizing, scientifically objective sexual guidance and information to younger people who needed it. Professionals would no longer fear all of the usual accusations to provide these needed services.

    3. This would open up the opportunity to accept the liberation of younger people on a wider scale. Yes, the great majority of adults today argue against youth liberation, but that is to be expected at such an early point in the movement’s existence, and has been the case in all other emancipation movements that challenged a prevailing status quo. It should still be permitted to be discussed on its merits rather than marginalized in the media so it’s far easier to ignore.

    4. Repression and censorship of legitimately peer-reviewed scientific research would no longer be business as usual on the government, academic, and media front. This would allow objective understanding to advance, with belief-based systems pushed to the wayside rather than actual scientific knowledge.

    5. The voices of younger people would now be free to be given without fear or concern of adult reprisal, either in the form of their “legal guardians” or in the form of government officials.

    6. An end to the witch-hunting, which would free us from the anchor of often vaguely-defined “exceptions to the First Amendment rights” that are used to relentlessly prosecute, persecute, and shame people of all ages: adults for openly finding younger people attractive simply as per their viewing and/or reading habits; younger people for openly expressing a sexual side in a variety of ways that do not hurt other people.

    7. The end of shaming youth (and women) for sexual expression, which would go a long way towards younger people no longer having to fear severe consequences for sexting or sharing of sexually expressive selfies with a single intended party being shared with the public. This would replace repressive laws and penalties against those younger people for sharing as a “solution” with education campaigns against shaming. And it would replace shaming the people who had these private pictures exposed with shaming those who tried to humiliate others by violating their trust. People who violate the trust of others are the ones who should be shamed and considered morally unacceptable, not people who take “sexy” pics of themselves.

    8. To restore a society-wide aesthetic appreciation for the youthful form, rather than considering depictions of such in art and other forms of visual expression as being inherently “perverse” or “obscene.” Legitimate artistic expression is hurt in countless ways by this form of repression.

    9. The diminishing of bloated police powers, imprisonment, and government surveillance/intrusion into the private and professional lives of all citizens of every age group.

    10. Reasonable government regulation of certain products and presentations of youth erotica can be publicly discussed and implemented in a rational manner, rather than the type of hysterical blanket prohibition and persecution that results in a wider draconian veil being placed on society. Hence, it can be argued here that all society will benefit from permitting such consent and overall liberation.

    With these in mind, just a few critiques, my friend.

    And in moslem societies homosexuality is reviled, whilst a patriarchal, non-consensual version of paedophilia is quite acceptable.

    Yes, again. You once more let your dislike for Islam make a statement that is a bit overly broad without some very necessary clarification, so I will yet again point this out: Acceptance and legal permitting of forced child marriage is not widespread among the general working class population of even the most repressive hyper-patriarchal nations governed by Sharia law. Only a small number of truly privileged members of the ruling class engage in such practices anymore, and only then because they can twist the law in any way they please. But the number of those who among the Muslim ruling classes who do this today are likely no more than a tiny few, and the ruling class numbers are a tiny handful of the overall population to begin with. Also, pedophilia is as hated by Westernized Muslims as anyone born and bred in the contemporary West.

    Finally, why do you spell “Muslim” with an “o” in place of the “u”?

    I’m currently reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography ‘Infidel’ – a brilliant, disturbing read. The self-loathing and shame instilled into little girls from birth is abominable, and permeates not only the distaff side of society but infects everyone and everything – leading directly to societies that are violent, brutal, sexually violent and abusive of children and in which human well-being (especially the well-being of females) is sacrificed to the well being of fictional gods. [note the relevant emphasis, which is, of course, mine]

    Here is another thing that too many people on the Left, or even in the realm of socialists, are often too quick to assume about everyone else on the Left, or fellow socialists: that we are all atheists. Not true, my friend, and you should know that. I, as an example, am a religious/spiritual person who has taken the Pagan path, one that does not require me to adopt a worldview imposed by organized religion which is not actually spiritual at all, but archaic political attitudes written into scripture that is considered holy writ rather than the barely disguised political propaganda that it actually is. The Hindu religion is polytheistic, yes, but its practice in hyper-patriarchal nations has twisted the interpretation of their deities into a hierarchy that is similar to, and approving of, the human class/caste system.

    Here is the real point, though. The atheistic assumption that deities are absolutely fictional is not proven, and it’s pointless to debate this because it involves phenomena that cannot be easily (if at all) studied under the limits of present day technology, or the limits of present day laboratory conditions, much as this used to be the case for other “hidden” phenomena such as microbial life, radiation, radio waves, dark matter & other deep space phenomena, the entire atomic realm of existence, etc., and all in the not too distant past. For the most part, the deities and other phenomena commonly labeled “spiritual” or “paranormal” can only be readily experienced on a personal level for a variety of reasons. That may or may not remain true as more technological advances and methodological frontiers for scientific research are made in the future. Also, we could get into several off-topic and pointless debates as to “what” the deities actually are, or how to define them in scientifically understandable terms that are bereft of politically biased interpretations, so that is not my intention here. My intention in critiquing that absolutist statement of yours, my friend, is this:

    Not everyone you know and consider friends and allies are atheists who would agree with the statement that deities–however one may choose to define them–are fictional in the same sense that literary creations or abstract metaphors are. As a result, such statements can offend those who do not accept that as a “given,” who have experienced such phenomena on a personal level, who do study such phenomena within the limits of modern scientific methodology & technology in the hope of one day coming to an understanding of it when scientific methods & technology improve, and who do not believe it’s necessary to abandon a spiritual way of viewing the universe and embracing a form of hardcore materialism in order to achieve a democratic and freedom-loving worldview.

    In fact, I think there is a good amount of evidence that even the most fervently materialist and atheistic nations can still have very fascistic laws under a class-divided system, and religion is just one tool among many that can be used in the wrong hands to oppress and pacify others into apathy. Atheism is fine as a choice, but I think there is good evidence that it is no panacea for tyranny, nor is it a viable way of looking at the universe from a scientific standpoint, which itself provides ample evidence that there are many hidden phenomena in the cosmos, much of which we have only the barest hints of being “real.”

    I should also say this: Yes, there is much written mythology that portrays the deities of all the various world pantheons doing immoral and very violent things, and adhering to strict human-style hierarchies and class-like divisions. However, they were written within the context of a specific era of human history, and thus the deities were interpreted and described in a context that was readily understandable to that society and time period. Spiritual/religious people like myself who adhere to democratic and civil libertarian views readily interpret the deities in a very different way, and when freed from their political and even literary contexts (such beings have been adapted to fictional literature for entertainment and metaphorical purposes on many occasions over the past two centuries), they take on different forms than they do when interpreted in a way that is intended to aid and abet a prevailing class-divided system.

    There have also always been conflicts within the pantheons regarding which aspects of human society are supported by this or that deity. For example, the Norsemen, who worshiped the particular pantheon that I revere, even as interpreted by the harsh world the Vikings lived within, had members of the ruling class obviously identifying with Odin, but the common peasant class and farmers always viewed Thor as their protector and supporter.

    As interpreted within the modern context of a democratic, egalitarian system, the deities are no longer identified as something “above” humanity so much as having a mutual symbiotic relationship with it, as well as all of nature as a whole. This means, for instance, that Thor is no longer interpreted by Asatruar or Norse Wiccans as a deity favoring war and physical superiority, but simply strength of will, fortitude under adversity, and the strength embodied by the collective will of the common people. His connections with crop fertility have obviously been retained. Odin is now often identified not with battle-frenzy and ruling class values, but as a “wise old man” sort of entity who facilitates creativity, personal empowerment, and development of full psychic potential and what we today call the liberal arts.

    I could go on, but I only wanted to give you the gist, which is that a lot of your friends and supporters do not agree with that statement of yours, and such comments could alienate some of us. Please also note, my friend, that my problem is not with you having or expressing that opinion that the deities are fictional, nor your right to dissent from all religious views, so much as your unequivocally stating such things in the context of an absolute given.

    Like

    1. Hi Dissy,

      I’ll give a longer reply to you comment in the days to come, but I can address something immediately:

      >”Finally, why do you spell “Muslim” with an “o” in place of the “u”?”

      Traditionally ‘muslim’ has been the adjective and ‘Moslem’ is the noun. Read any book on islam from before the 1990s and you will find that this is the usage.

      The moslem brotherhood have for the past few decades been trying to eliminate ‘moslem’ because phonetically it sounds like the arabic word for ‘oppressor’.

      Given that ‘islam’ means ‘submission’, and that when one ‘submits’ one submits to an ‘oppressor’ then the word ‘moslem’ seems to very well encapsulate the ideology that demands this submission, especially when one looks at how this submission is enforced (I really recommend that every LG lover should read Ayann Hirsi Ali’s book).

      Finally I’m not going to let the moslem brotherhood dictate what words I use, any more than I’ll use the words ‘abuser’ or ‘molester’ of an adult who engages in loving consensual intimacy with a child.

      >”Here is another thing that too many people on the Left, or even in the realm of socialists, are often too quick to assume about everyone else on the Left, or fellow socialists: that we are all atheists.”

      I wasn’t assuming anything Dissy – I know that some of this blog’s readers believe in god/s. I don’t expect my readers to agree with everything I write, and I when I write I do not seek to reflect the opinions of my readership in all matters. It’s all part of the cut and thrust of honest enquiry – I won’t muffle my beliefs and will always try to call things as I see them – sometimes this will mean that a reader will disagree strongly with something I’ve written.

      I think that is the beauty of the blog format – I am unsponsored, I don’t have a boss, and make no money from this, so I am totally free. It’s a freedom that I revel in – and, as you know, if one writes a paedo-blog one has from the start to get hardened to the idea that most people will deeply disagree with what you write.

      I am also very happy for you to pick me up on my stance on religion – I don’t think we’ll agree, but it is good to exist in an intellectual circle where people can disagree politely and challenge each other – so I won’t change my position, but I value the fact that you care enough to challenge me.

      Re my use of “to the well being of fictional gods.”

      Yes, I’m an atheist. But even if I weren’t the phrase would still stand.

      All the religions I’m aware of make claims of exclusivity about the god or gods they believe in, including those religions that assimilate gods from other religions (once a god is assimilated they ‘exist’, and gods that aren’t assimilated don’t exist).

      let’s say that in the history of mankind X number of gods have been believed in.

      if you believe in a monotheistic religion the ratio of ‘gods you believe to be real’ (R) to ‘gods you believe to be fictional’ (F) is: 1:X-1

      if you have are a polythiest the ratio is R:X-R

      The estimates differ as to how many gods mankind has believe in over its 200,000 history – I have seen it estimated as 28,000,000

      so if you are a monotheist you have a one in 28,000,000 chance of your god not being fictional – which is as near-as-dammit ‘no chance’.
      if someone is a polytheist their chances somewhat increase in proportion to how many gods they believe in.

      Like

      1. “I wasn’t assuming anything Dissy – I know that some of this blog’s readers believe in god/s. I don’t expect my readers to agree with everything I write, and I when I write I do not seek to reflect the opinions of my readership in all matters. It’s all part of the cut and thrust of honest enquiry – I won’t muffle my beliefs and will always try to call things as I see them – sometimes this will mean that a reader will disagree strongly with something I’ve written.

        I think that is the beauty of the blog format – I am unsponsored, I don’t have a boss, and make no money from this, so I am totally free. It’s a freedom that I revel in – and, as you know, if one writes a paedo-blog one has from the start to get hardened to the idea that most people will deeply disagree with what you write.”

        I am totally on the same page as you, LSM…

        …People of any spiritual persuasion are welcome at my blog…but my blog, is ultimately an extension [and expression] of myself…and it can be a “rough n tumble” mixture of personal philosophy, vague exploration of issues [and other people’s viewpoints]…artistic expression…education…entertainment…

        I don’t speak for everyone…and to me, blogging is more about chiseling out a personal ethos, that others can consider…even critique…but never condemn, because it is the documentation of my journey through life…It has every right to exist, in it’s own right…Just as anyone can write about their religious philosophy…

        …And thank you, to Dissident…That was honestly interesting…I’ve always had a fascination with paganism…even when I was growing up “Christian”.

        Like

        1. >”to me, blogging is more about chiseling out a personal ethos, that others can consider…even critique….”

          Yes. I think that this is kind of my philosophy – on the blog I write about issues and questions that I’m curious about and that I feel need reflecting on – I want to discover truths and ideas that matter, and share those discoveries.

          But I know that if I didn’t have a blog (and self-imposed deadlines) there’s no way I would spend the time and effort I do on these issues – It’s the difference between playing the guitar in your bedroom because you just like playing, and playing your guitar because you’re giving a one-hour recital in a couple of months time. One situation gets a hell of a lot more work out of you than the other. So I use the fact that I have an audience as the prime motivator to get me working. But in the end I want to answer certain big questions – ‘what is the nature of paedophobia?’ being probably the biggest one.

          The fact that having a blog has made me part of a community of interesting, intelligent, challenging and good human beings only serves to increase that motivation.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. I wasn’t assuming anything Dissy – I know that some of this blog’s readers believe in god/s. I don’t expect my readers to agree with everything I write, and I when I write I do not seek to reflect the opinions of my readership in all matters. It’s all part of the cut and thrust of honest enquiry – I won’t muffle my beliefs and will always try to call things as I see them – sometimes this will mean that a reader will disagree strongly with something I’ve written.

        As I noted, my friend, it’s not your beliefs I have a problem with, nor do I have a problem with your using this great format to express your beliefs. My critique is of you referring to your beliefs as absolute fact rather than acknowledging them as beliefs. This is something I always strive not to do, as I do have a legitimate concern about offending my many friends and colleagues who are atheists. If I speak as if it’s a “given” that my beliefs are incontrovertible fact — even if that is how I truly see them — it can easily come off as a slap in the face to my friends who believe differently.

        Moreover, many atheists I know do lose sight of this fact, and do not care to acknowledge that the hardcore materialist position is no more “proven” to be scientific fact that a universe that incorporates the possibility of beyond-human intelligences that have a symbiotic relationship with humanity on various levels that are not normally visible to the world human consciousness is typically focused on (as is the case with microbes, dark matter, and quantum particles).

        I think that is the beauty of the blog format – I am unsponsored, I don’t have a boss, and make no money from this, so I am totally free. It’s a freedom that I revel in – and, as you know, if one writes a paedo-blog one has from the start to get hardened to the idea that most people will deeply disagree with what you write.

        True. But the thing is, the beauty of your blog, and what makes it so intellectually compelling and useful, is that instead of just presenting your views of pedophilia/hebephilia and conception of childhood as an absolute given–as do the antis–you present a large amount of evidence and reasoning to prove your points, or at least to provide good evidence for them. This is a boon for those who want to consider all possibilities and all views, rather than just go with the common viewpoint, which you cogently point out is a belief rather than a proven fact, as is commonly assumed.

        You also take great care to do this with many other topics which you may segue into from this one. However, you break that great loyalty to open-minded when it comes to your ideological materialist wordlview, which you present as a given fact without seeking out evidence for your view. Of course, as I noted before, this not a topic where the evidence presented on either side can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, because this type of phenomena cannot be easily tracked and uncatalogued by modern technology and contemporary laboratory methodology; rather, there are compelling hints and personal experiences to track down that add up to the real possibility that such phenomena may be a natural part of the universe that we simply lack the faculties to prove and study “on demand” at the present time, in a similar vein to both dark matter and theorized quantum particles that have not yet been actually viewed or tracked down or produced “on demand” via the Hadron Collider.

        What it would ultimately boil down to if we had such a drag-out discussion, I suspect, would be this: the materialist worldview appeals to those on a philosophical and political level who dislike religion, and who therefore in turn dislike anything that they feel may be remotely associated with it. This includes the conception of consciousness being able to exist outside the organic hardware of the brain, or the very conception of an “unseen” world that may influence the world we know on various levels that are not immediately evident to our five common physical senses.

        Interestingly, there are experienced paranormal researchers who are atheists, and these investigators acknowledge their research suggests disembodied consciousness can exist, but they incorporate it into their belief system/atheistic worldview by insisting that such intelligences can never be incarnate in a human body, nor can specifically human consciousness survive outside the physical hardware of the brain. That is because acknowledging the possibility that such may the case would be too comfortably close to religion in their eyes, even though it’s fully possible and common to confront the possibility entirely outside the schema of religion.

        I am also very happy for you to pick me up on my stance on religion – I don’t think we’ll agree, but it is good to exist in an intellectual circle where people can disagree politely and challenge each other – so I won’t change my position, but I value the fact that you care enough to challenge me.

        For the record, my friend, I never expected you to agree that my conception of the universe is correct whereas yours is not. I was simply critiquing your presentation of your worldview as absolute fact, when it can indeed be cogently challenged. It’s not about all of us agreeing on the same thing, but respecting each other’s stances and that the proverbial jury is out on certain things. This, of course, is not the proper place to into that particular topic in depth.

        All the religions I’m aware of make claims of exclusivity about the god or gods they believe in, including those religions that assimilate gods from other religions (once a god is assimilated they ‘exist’, and gods that aren’t assimilated don’t exist).

        Then I do heartily recommend that you research the Pagan religions and spiritual systems, which in no way insist that their pantheon is “legit” whereas all others are not. That type of insisted exclusivity is a hallmark of organized religion, and it’s a form of politics disguised as holy scripture. There is no evidence that any deity ever decreed such, but only that humans seeking power over others simply used belief in a deity to manipulate other people so as to achieve political ends. There are entirely secular ways to do the same thing, and the conceptions and paradigms discussed in this blog so well by you–the paradigms of the Innocent Child, the media formulation of the Child Molester, the Exploited Child, the Sex Trafficker, etc.–are all entirely secular boogeymen that prove atheists can believe foolish but politically comforting and expedient paradigms every bit as much as they can conscript the “word” of deities for that purpose. All of the above may have elements of truth, but they do not exist as those who control and manipulate the narratives claim they do.

        There is also nothing to prove that unassimilated or no longer revered deities literally cease to exist, unless they are intelligences whose symbiotic relationship with groups of people depend on belief in them in the sense that sustained belief and acknowledgement may “feed” them a form of energy that passes for sustenance, much as viewing quantum particles determine where that particle is or specifically what form it takes. We simply do not know at this point in time. Subatomic particles are clearly not conscious entities, but other forces in the universe we do not fully understand that are similarly unseen by the unaided eye may possibly be.

        I think this may be my main point here, Lensman: I share your dislike for the politicized aspects of organized religion. The respective paths we chose in response to that is where the differences lie. Some people conclude that religion in and of itself is the problem, rather than within what type of context it is practiced, so they reject the very idea of it and adopt an atheistic worldview. That is the path you took. Others, however, have chosen alternative spiritual paths that are not tainted by politics, and which do not incorporate those negative aspects, believing religion can be a problem but only within a specific context. That is the path I chose. Atheism is a legitimate path, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not the only alternative to organized religion, and it makes me wonder if some people (certainly NOT all) choose atheism or agnosticism simply because they are unaware that spiritual paths outside the Religions of the Book (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) do exist. Note for example that after I become disillusioned with the Christianity I was brought up within at a very young age, I vacillated between atheism and agnosticism for many years until I discovered and researched the contemporary Pagan religions.

        Let us also not forget that capitalism can corrupt any institution, and manipulate any belief system for its purpose, which is why it has both religious and secular versions of its various boogeymen so that atheists as well as spiritual people can be bamboozled into accepting false beliefs as needed. An example of the former was the Satanic Ritual Abuser that supposedly infiltrated day care centers across the nation right under the noses of the community; an example of the latter is the Sex Trafficker that apparently operates in numerous neighborhoods across the globe but under the radar of the community except for its sadistically monstrous clientele.

        One thing we could argue cogently, I think, is whether or not atheism actually works as a remedy for political tyranny, or if such governments and the pundits who operate it simply change the form of the entities and boogeymen it uses to manipulate the public. Not that we actually need to; I’m just sayin’ 🙂

        Like

      3. And wait a minute, Lensman, what about my suggested additions to the list you mentioned? I’m sorry my statements about Muslims (to me it’s always gonna be “Muslim,” not “moslem” lol!) and religion side-tracked us from that. Now I feel like the contributions I made to the actual topic you discussed in this blog went unheeded because of my big mouth :-\

        Like

    2. “Only a small number of truly privileged members of the ruling class engage in such practices anymore, and only then because they can twist the law in any way they please. But the number of those who among the Muslim ruling classes who do this today are likely no more than a tiny few, and the ruling class numbers are a tiny handful of the overall population to begin with”
      i do not know if you responded in any way to this before elsewhere, Dissident, but I’d just like to get this straight – these are the tiny ruling few you speak of? They certainly do not look at way….! https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatcreativefeeling.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FYemen-brides.jpg&f=1

      Like

      1. First of all, posting without using even a distinct handle is suspect right there. Anonymous “hit and run” posting forces one to question whether you’re truly trying to provide legitimate evidence or arguments, or simply trolling.

        Secondly, that pic could have been taken from anywhere, and represent many types of social functions other than what you want me to believe it is: a mass wedding between child brides and their adult husbands lined up as if in a cattle call. It fails to “prove” that child brides are widespread among the general population in contemporary nations governed by Sharia law. I can easily find a pic online showing a group of white girls in ornate wedding-like dresses appearing to be partnered off with a large group of American men in tuxedos, and claim this provides “proof” that mass child bride cattle call-like weddings are “common” in the United States… when in actuality, the pic could actually be of fathers escorting their daughters to father-daughter school dances that are fairly common in some parts of the U.S. for middle school & high school girls. Without providing context by letting us know which site the pic was taken from, or what type of situation it was actually depicting, I could claim it was just about anything I wanted too.

        Moreover, these claims are contradicted in numerous places: https://www.quora.com/Is-child-marriage-common-in-Middle-East

        The claim that the involuntary servitude of child brides is mainstream among men of all classes in even hyper-patriarchal Middle Eastern nations of today have about as much substance as the mass claims that sex traffickers are common throughout the world, and likely operating under the community radar in your own neighborhood.

        People who dislike Islam have a lot of emotionally biased motivation to believe and/or promote any rumor or claim they can think of to “prove” the religion is bad. This is a common tendency among people.

        Other examples of that tendency include people who dislike the U.S. government all too often buying into claims that 9/11 was an “inside job”; or those who dislike sex work use the sex trafficker hysteria to claim that vast numbers of sex workers are conscripted against their will under brutal slavery conditions. And let’s look at another all-too familiar way this type of emotionally charged bias operates in Western society: note how often people will attempt to demonize just about any given organization, institution, religion, etc., they dislike by believing and/or promoting claims that the party in question “harbors” and “covers” for the activities of “pedophiles.” Just the other day a friend of mine who has good reason to dislike the Jehovah’s Witnesses due to negative experiences he had as a follower of that religion for a few years mentioned claims that this religious group was recently “proven” to have a lot of “pedophiles” within their ranks that were recruiting children in large numbers to abuse them. And this is a friend of mine who knows that I’m a MAP! This friend of mine is also extremely intelligent, but he dislikes the Jehovah’s Witnesses so much that he will unquestionably believe any claim made against them, whether it’s true or not.

        Here we have proof that Harlem politics is infiltrated and run by pedophiles, who force children to be their escorts to high society events: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/58/c0/6a58c00c36dbfba3e1130a5600bebe3d.jpg

        This pic absolutely proves that in the United States not only do Christians force little girls to marry adult men in large group weddings, but the men even force these helpless little girls to give them fellatio publicly on the dance floors at the receptions (horrifying!!!): http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/03/Father-Daughter-Dance-AP-640×480.jpg

        Here we have incontrovertible proof that American politicians of the Mormon religion practice child bride polygamy: http://www.booth-o-rama.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/f109699-grid2.jpg

        As further proof, one can scarcely imagine the horror this poor forced child bride will spend a lifetime enduring at the hands of her brutal husband (after all, what other type of situation could this photo possibly depict?!): http://static.hugedomains.com/images/logo_huge_domains.gif

        Like

          1. In the girls not brides article LSM, the statistics presented assumes a child to be less than 18 years old. In fact, 120 of the 193 countries around the world impose a minimum age lower than 18 for brides. This would seem to imply that the majority of countries around the world consider someone less than 18 to be no longer a child.

            Like

            1. Yes, that’s a major problem with that organisation’s approach – the data they present is not rich enough to make a distinction between a girl being married off at, say, 4, and a girl marrying at 16 or 17. I’ll have to explore their web-site and see if they publish somewhere their raw data.

              Like

          2. Please do try to look at such claims with a skeptical eye when you do your research for an eventual post on this topic, Lensman. There are numerous wild claims about this type of thing to justify not only simple dislike or opposition to this or that religion, or this or that organization, etc., but also harsh draconian laws to “combat” the problem, whose actual goal is to justify consolidating greater power over everyone with an annual income of less than $1 million.

            Also, one of your linked sources is UNICEF, and that organization is notorious for being brutally anti-pedophile agenda, suppressive of youth liberation in favor of paternalism, and spreading false statistics about the sex trafficking hysteria (the modern version of the “white slavery” panic of the early 20th century in what we today call WEIRD nations). You have valid reasons for disliking Islam and all organized religion, that I know. Just please try not to be so determined to think the worst that you allow yourself to get emotionally manipulated into accepting the most outrageous of claims and bogus sources of statistics simply because the claim is directed at some institution that you greatly dislike.

            Note that I greatly dislike the U.S. government for the way it acts as a tool for the super-wealthy and engages in numerous foreign campaigns that are all about money and have nothing to with “defending democracy” or helping spread the stated principles of the U.S. Constitution (which I do generally support)… yet not for a second do I believe the conspiracy theories of those who claim it was the Bush administration that engineered the whole thing, even though the government manipulated the situation to its advantage in all the predictable ways. Why don’t I believe 9/11 was an “inside job”? Because there is simply no convincing evidence it was deliberately engineered by the government, and a lot of claims by the conspiracy theorists lack logic and make no sense from a logistical standpoint despite how much these claims appeal to the emotions of many who oppose and dislike the U.S. government, which is why they are all too happy to ignore logic and evidence in favor of just believing the worst things said about the government. Need I even get into the ridiculous but widely disseminated “Pizzagate” fiasco designed to give a black eye to the U.S. government recently reported and debunked? It was the latest such media fracas to take emotional advantage of the “pedophile panic.”

            Let us also keep in mind how so many people in the U.K. recently believed the widespread but fully debunked claims that high government officials in the British parliament (and there is a lot to genuinely dislike about the British government) were “pedophiles” who had a secret club that was sexually abusing kids and then having them murdered by such horrific means as drawing and quartering them with four cars. The U.K. media had a field day with that, and serious claims from several fantasists and true believers did a good job of appealing to the anger-driven emotions of the populace before the London chief of police (or whatever his official rank is) had to grudgingly admit to the media that the whole thing was a bunch of nonsense, despite the vast amount of tax-payer money used to initiate ruthless in-depth investigations of the whole affair. But people believed it, because they have a need to believe in such things. This whole fiasco was discussed in detail on Tom’s blog several times within the past year.

            Like

          3. I want to marry 9 year old girls. My party will come to power and all pedophiles who oppose it will be executed like the rest of anti-pedophiles.

            Like

    3. Thanks for those Dissy. It can take me some time to get round to answering comments – Real Life ‘n’shi crowding-out my time at the keyboard and in the paedosphere.

      I take on board your additions.

      Reading your points has made me realise that when I compiled the list at the question I actually had in mind was not just

      “what does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?” – but

      “what advantages can I think of that the average uninformed ‘anti’ could take on board?”, and that is why many of the points you list take me along avenues that I had not considered.

      Some of your points though being entirely valid, are not points that I would make to the average anti, since the point in question presumes them already buying into the Radical paedophile philosophy, or at least being an enlightened ‘non’. The lady I was exchanging with was certainly not the former, and was failing to convince me that she was the latter. That is the curse and the blessing of Realpolitik!

      I’d include the following in this category: your first point (I think most antis are quite happy keeping child sexuality taboo); point 3 (as you suggest most adults, and therefore most antis, are against child liberation); point 6 & 7 (I think your average anti is quite happy with the witch-hunting of paedophiles, child erotica, children openly expressing their sexuality, and sexual shame is an integral part of all this).

      This isn’t to say that I in anyway disagree with these points, but they are advantages that will only make sense to someone who already understands or inhabits the Radical paedophile perspective. It would be worth, at some point in an exchange, putting these points to the anti, but they would definitely divert the discussion – for example, to propose ‘child liberation’ as one the advantages of ‘permitting adults to have sex with children’ would oblige me to define and justify child liberation – a worthwhile thing to do, of course, but it would mean wholly changing the direction of the exchange.

      I suspect Points 2 (taboo-free sexual guidance), 4 (the production of repression-free research), 5 (the freeing of the voices of young people), 9 (the diminishing of police powers) and 10 (a rational approach to policing depictions of children) would all amenable to a reasonable and open-minded ‘anti’.

      point number 8 (to restore an aesthetic appreciation of the youthful form) surprises me somewhat – don’t you think that one of the ironies of WEIRD society is that it lionises youth, whilst at the same time being afraid of it? Isn’t the fashion industry, and so much of the marketing industry about selling us things via the glamour of youthfulness?

      I think we need two lists – one for the unconverted and one for the converted. I know that this reads as very sinister – like the difference between what moslems say to each other in their mosques and what they say when they are addressing the kufr – but I don’t think that this is the case since the second list – the converted list – would contain the items in the first list and reinforce, not contradict them. It’s like converting someone to being catholic – you need to persuade them of the divinity of Christ before it makes sense to try to persuade them of transubstantiation.

      Like

      1. Thank you for getting to these, Lensman! I do understand your point that perhaps two separate lists may be in order, and that made complete sense. I should have taken into account that there are certain negatives effects on society in general caused by the pedo panic that many antis would be more than happy to live with, and that the worst any might say about them (e.g., witch-hunting, surveillance, increase in police powers and censorship) is that they are “necessary evils.”

        As an interesting side-note, I have even seen a few antis genuinely lament all of the above, and then turn around and lament MAPs in turn for making it a “necessity” to turn the WEIRD nations into borderline police states. One, for instance, told me that while she hates having to keep her children supervised at all times, but it’s “evil” and “abusive” pedos like “us” that are to blame for these draconian policies, whether one deems them “necessary evils” or not. Her clear implication was that if not for us, a true democratic society could flourish in the WEIRD World. Mmm-hmm.

        So I think those particular points of mine can be said to beg the following question: should we, as a society, be using the pedo panic, or a war against child sexuality and broader liberation, to justify the often extreme erosion of democratic rights for all that result? Let’s face it, it’s not only actual MAPs who get affected by this, or hurt by the hysteria. Consider the following, for instance:

        1. There are many innocent non-MAPs who are falsely accused, both in error and maliciously, of CSA.

        2. People never know if their own kids may end up in jail or on sex offender registries, even a 5-year-old boy who innocently lifts up a female peer’s skirt in the playground.

        3. Planting child erotica or even legal but “racy” images of underagers on someone’s computer can be a malicious way of ruining the lives of innocent people, or committing acts of blackmail.

        4. Similar to the above, people can control, manipulate, extort, or hurt innocents of any given sexual orientation simply by threatening to accuse them of being a “pedophile” or of committing an act of”child abuse” by deliberately blowing a legitimately “innocent’ situation or circumstance out of proportion.

        As for this:

        point number 8 (to restore an aesthetic appreciation of the youthful form) surprises me somewhat – don’t you think that one of the ironies of WEIRD society is that it lionises youth, whilst at the same time being afraid of it? Isn’t the fashion industry, and so much of the marketing industry about selling us things via the glamour of youthfulness?

        What you say there is true, but what I meant was appreciating underage youths in aesthetic ways that can easily be mistaken for, or sometimes genuinely go hand-in-hand with, sexual admiration. For example, are we allowed any longer to produce and view photos, paintings, or any other form of artistic depiction of the nude underage youth for aesthetic appreciation any longer? I think not; rather, we are accused of “sexualizing” them when we admire their nude form even from an entirely aesthetic standpoint. The nude underage form is currently considered “obscene” and “perverse” to capture on film or even to render via ink or CGI. The youth fashion market you note is indeed a contradiction to the above, but it often promotes such admiration in a manner that is just subtle enough to be acceptable or “tolerable.”

        Like

        1. Yes, I think that Injustice has bloody borders – that an injustice that targets quite a specific population will inadvertently harm much more people than those it targets. In a sense the instance of the antis who recognise the damaging effect of paedo-hysteria gives us a little cause to be optimistic though – such people seem to deep-down know that there is a disproportion to their response and the actual problem, they maybe only need to be confronted with some facts, some statistics and some reason to have their hysteria placated. Or maybe I’m being over-optimistic – since I started writing my blog I’ve not engaged much in arguing with antis.

          >”What you say there is true, but what I meant was appreciating underage youths in aesthetic ways that can easily be mistaken for, or sometimes genuinely go hand-in-hand with, sexual admiration.”

          I was looking at Sally Mann’s work the other day, and found myself doubting that she could print or exhibit it today – I suspect that there would be legal consequences for doing so.

          Like

    4. ” Norsemen, who worshiped the particular pantheon that I revere”…I believe the symbol of Thor is the hammer — I listen to some Scandinavian metal, and there is a lot of emphasis on ‘Hammers’.
      Also, the Vikings started what was believed as the first Parliamentary democracy — Fleeing the draconian Kings of Scandinavia to start a new life in Iceland. At least the Norse gods didn’t see sexuality as a sin! But it was trade that brought Christianity to the Vikings. As for the subject of Muslims/Moslims — It brings a side of multiculturalism that people in the west can’t deal with: The fact that they often wear the ‘headgear’ (girls) around nine, because that’s the average onset of puberty, and why do they wear it, because that’s when men start to find them attractive, therefore to remain chaste, they cover up. I remember a female radio presenter discussing this — She’s nine! How could someone who’s “not perverted” see her as attractive.

      Like

      1. Yup, the symbol of Thor is indeed the hammer. More specifically, the symbol used to represent his hammer, Mjolnir, in art and jewelry resembles an inverted capital “T.” Lightning bolts also serve as one of his symbols for obvious reasons, though that symbol has at times likewise been attributed to Zeus/Jupiter of the Greco-Roman pantheon, and other deities from various pantheons who were described as having control over the weather or “heavens” (e.g., the Slavic Perun, who is very similar to Thor, even wielding a battle hammer in some depictions, though also an ax at times; and Raiden from the Japanese Shinto pantheon, who was popularized as a character in the long-running Mortal Kombat video game series since the early 1990s, much as Thor has been popularized as a character in Marvel Comics since the early 1960s).

        Like

  7. A pretty exhaustive list LSM, but I think these answers would be more appropriate as a response to the question: “What does society gain by permitting children to have sex with adults?” … equivalent to a Clintonesque sleight of mouth perhaps.

    A couple more answers if I may. First, allied to your seventh bullet might be: empowering children to take risks sufficient to prevent the creation of snowflakes. Second: children being instilled with a sense of pride in their own bodies rather than being afflicted by a sense of body shame. Third, allied to your sixth bullet point, the presence of a mentor role within and across communities, a role that was valued by societies in the past, and only in a very few today.

    Like

    1. hi feinnmann0

      >”I think these answers would be more appropriate as a response to the question: “What does society gain by permitting children to have sex with adults?” “

      I quite agree. I think that in the context of the exchange, your phrasing would convey something that would usefully challenge the preconceptions of the anti.

      >”A couple more answers if I may. First, allied to your seventh bullet might be: empowering children to take risks sufficient to prevent the creation of snowflakes.”

      Yes, I think a contributory factor to the SJW phenomenon is that of young people abdicating responsibility for their emotions and well-being. A sense of empowerment over one’s body and desires would counter that tendency.

      >” Second: children being instilled with a sense of pride in their own bodies rather than being afflicted by a sense of body shame.”

      Very true. I think it is important that children perceive themselves as being attractive at an early age.

      I’m currently reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography ‘Infidel’ – a brilliant, disturbing read. The self-loathing and shame instilled into little girls from birth is abominable, and permeates not only the distaff side of society but infects everyone and everything – leading directly to societies that are violent, brutal, sexually violent and abusive of children and in which human well-being (especially the well-being of females) is sacrificed to the well being of fictional gods.

      >”Third, allied to your sixth bullet point, the presence of a mentor role within and across communities, a role that was valued by societies in the past, and only in a very few today.”

      Yes, I think mentoring is something that we have lost.

      I recently finished Phillip Ariès’s ‘Centuries of Childhood’ – he writes a lot about the apprentice system that preceded the formal education system. It seems like, when it worked, it was a very useful thing for children – it would take them out of the suffocating context of the nuclear family, it would mark a right of passage where the child started to assume more adult roles and take on responsibilities – it also marked a kind of start of sexual ‘adulthood’. Apprenticeship started as young as seven.

      I don’t think society could institute apprenticeship in the same way as in early capitalism, but I think that there is much we can learn from it – the idea that children should be encouraged, when ready, to form friendships with adults of their choice, which would wean them away from the dependent role of offspring and introduce them to an ‘adult’ way of existing in the world.

      The UK university system, till recently (before students had to pay for their own tuition) kind of created an ‘underground’ mentoring system – many families would supplement their income and make use of a spare room by taking on a student as a lodger.

      The student, if he or she was inclined to be friendly to any children in the house, would become a kind of ‘adult friend’ to the children – not aspiring to the authority of a parent, but not a scary stranger. As a student I lodged with several families and I know that the friendships I established with the children all benefited those children, and had a kind of mentoring role – indeed one mother, who found it difficult to discuss sex education matters with her eldest boy (who would have been about 7) asked me if I’d be willing to do so – because she saw that he would feel more comfortable with me doing so and would be less embarrassed with me. I was only 19 at the time – and felt quite honoured that she’d asked.

      Like

      1. Sex is a deep and profound process that only mature human beings can fully grasp. Teaching sex to children is wrong because their brains and bodies haven’t even reached puberty.

        Like

        1. Once again, Rei, you make this statement as if its an absolute given sans providing any evidence, or (apparently) considering all the evidence that Lensman and many other researchers have provided to the contrary. That is indicative of repeating a narrative rather than making a case.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Sex is no more – and no less – “deep” and “profound” that any other process, be it sociality, intellection, creativity etc. The involvement in social, intellectual, creative processes starts in childhood, with children gradually learning them by experience, with help by adults. It is the same story with sexuality – involvement in it should start in childhood and be primarily controlled by children themselves, who will engage in it as much as they themselves desire, with relevant adult guidance and support.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “It is the same story with sexuality – involvement in it should start in childhood and be primarily controlled by children themselves, who will engage in it as much as they themselves desire, with relevant adult guidance and support.”

            Absolutely Explorer. It is clear that children instinctively have a natural healthy sexual desire, but perversely the adult world that contains them seems hell bent on suppressing that desire whenever it shows itself. All you need do is look at the reprehensible actions of the lunatic police in Durham who, with evident self-imposed moral superiority, denounce and lecture a five year-old for distributing child pornography whilst sexting to other kids: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4685088/Boy-aged-five-investigated-police-sexting.html. A further 400 children beneath the age of 12 have received similar warnings from detectives in recent years apparently. Who the fuck do the imbecile plod think they are traumatising these unfortunate children in such a sadistic way?

            We seem to be a million miles away from a world of consenting humans; instead, since the 1970s, two species have been created separated by a massive canyon that widens further and further as each year passes.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. At age 6, my father allowed me to read some sex education pamphlets and comics that he would distribute in his classrooms (he was work safety technician and would train newbies in the job). They mostly dealt with sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy. I didn’t find them creepy or anything, since everything was exposed in a very cartoony style. I had only recently learned to read, and felt very curious. So I would read whatever was in reach. My father never complained and would actively give me those pamphlets and comics. By age 8, I was pretty sex-savvy, I knew about STDs, teenage pregnancy, how sex actually goes and everything else. Sure, it didn’t make me eager to try. In fact, if anything, it steered me away from actual sexual activity involving others, as I knew I would be in big trouble for doing so, due to the possibility of becoming ill and because it’s criminal to do certain things in public or with unwilling people. Age of consent in Japan is 13 and only four in every one-thousand births are from mothers below age 19. I do think that early sexual education actually reduces the chances of doing sex irresponsibily. With an age of consent of 13, Japan is probably teaching sex ed in elementary or middle school. And, mind you, Japan works so much better than US in several senses. Sex ed isn’t supposed to teach solely how to do intercourse; that you can learn yourself. It’s supposed to teach how the body works, what is pleasure, how to deal with the body, how to respect other’s limits, hygiene, things that kids need to know, before jumping to the center of the question, that is sex itself. Sex ed is supposed to be adapted to the level of the kid for it to work. If sex ed is only teaching sex, it’s doing it wrong.

          Like

        4. ” haven’t even reached puberty”…And when they do reach puberty, are they liberated…I think not, Unless the onset of puberty has suddenly started at eighteen!

          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