Is there a ‘third scenario’ in which paedophiles and their partners can engage in intimacy, but Society manages to maintain all the advantages of Modernity?

Those who defend this possibility point to Modern Western societies that have had paedo-friendly moments and enclaves: the radical movements of the 60s and 70s in which intellectuals such as Michel Foucault and Alain Robbe-Grillet openly advocated child-adult intimacy; reforms to consent laws in 1970s Netherlands; communes such as Kibbutzim and religious cults which dissolved the nuclear family and thus created the conceptual space in which people could feel comfortable about child sexuality.

But these are experiments that failed, that hardly existed outside the minds of intellectuals or, when attempted on a large scale, as with the Dutch, were abortive. And whilst the small scale examples (such as religious cults and kibbutzim) seem to confirm the hypothesis that where the nuclear family is weakened, child sexuality becomes licit, I know of no modern example of this kind of enclave scaling up.

As such it seems that there is little historical evidence that the Third Scenario is possible.

Those who defend the possibility of a third scenario may point out that liberation movements have been successful in the past (for example women’s and gay rights, and the abolition of slavery). Why should a movement in which children demand full sexual autonomy not be similarly successful?

Analyses of successful liberation movements identify changes in economic conditions that caused a shift in the Overton Window that made the proposed advances thinkable. For example, it is not a coincidence that gay liberation occurred at the same time (and same places) as the rise in hysterical paedophobia: the move from industrial to consumer capitalism, as well as giving rise to the clashing archetypes of The Child, also radically changed what the economy demanded of masculinity: industrial capitalism required physical and mental strength, stoicism and solidarity; consumerism requires a workforce that is less gender-differentiated and with feminised men. This shift in the masculine ideal created fertile ground for gay liberation movements, whose rapid gains can best be conceptualised as pushing at an open door that had till then had been firmly locked (I go into this in more depth in my blog-post Unthinkable Thoughts and the Mechanism of Hatred).

The idea that changes in attitudes are made possible by economic changes is also supported by the example of the Classical World: despite them producing some of the greatest, most humane and most original thinkers mankind has known, not a single ancient Greek or Roman thinker or writer ever came close to contemplating the absence of slavery. Because their economies were wholly dependent on slavery, the absence of slavery was as unthinkable as is the licitness of fully sexually autonomous children in our society today.

midvale school for the gifted

Such liberation movements were possible only after certain (usually economic) conditions were in place. Which is not to downplay the role of liberation movements and campaigners: even open doors can be heavy, resistant and rusty-hinged, especially if they’ve remained locked shut for millennia.

* * *

So paedophiles face an essentially binary choice: aspire to live under Modernity, but accept that there is little hope of their love becoming licit; or aspire to the legitimisation of child-adult intimacy, but at the price of severe deterioration in the general conditions of life.

Some will object that I am assuming that living under Western Modernism is better than living under, say, Sharia or localised feudal or pre-feudal structures. After all, doesn’t the bien-pensant orthodoxy take it as axiomatic that cultures are by definition equal? That one culture can not be said to be superior to another? That cultures can’t be compared and contrasted?

What, if anything, makes living in one civilisation preferable to another? Why should living in a western-style democratic mixed-economy be preferable to living under religious totalitarianism or in a feudal society?

To risk countering one axiom with another I propose that the job of a civilisation is to help its inhabitants to flourish and avoid unnecessary suffering. ‘Flourish’ – admittedly a vague term – can be broken down into more concrete components: good health, long lifespan, learning, creativity, love, community, agency, security and stability.

Western civilisation’s extraordinary success in promoting these is a result of the integration of several dispositions, including monogamy, science, the work ethic, competition, consumption, and private property rights. Which is not to say that the West is the only civilisation to have adopted these – but that their combination has made for the freest, fairest, most prosperous, healthiest, most technologically advanced societies that mankind has yet known, societies in which citizens can best pursue their talents, interests and flourish.

We can also gauge the success of a civillisation by the choices people make, both from within and from outside that civilisation.

When, for example, a ‘Westerner’ chooses to undergo surgery under anaesthesia he is effectively voting for the civilisation that developed effective and safe anaesthesia; when he chooses not to emigrate to a country whose laws recognise polygynous marriages, he is implicitly voting for the immense social, civilisational and moral benefits of monogamy; when he uses a computer he is voting for the civilisation that harnessed electricity, created transistors, elaborated higher mathematics and quantum physics etc etc.

From outside the culture, we can note immigration to the West from non-Western cultures vastly outnumbers immigration in the opposite direction. We can also note how non-Western cultures have eagerly adopted Western institutions, inventions and discoveries.

maxresdefault

(if you doubt this, next time you are in a non-Western city try listing everything there that elevates people’s lives above Dark Age conditions. You will find precious few things in your list that are not gifts of the West)

* * *

But surely, even granting that the West offers the best civilisational model that History has yet produced, that does not prevent us from imagining and inventing even better models, and demanding them of the future?

Utopias can be seductive to those whose sexuality sets them at odds with their society. But it is one thing to criticise a society or civilisation because it lags far behind others, it is an entirely different thing to evaluate civilisations by the criteria of one’s dreams. Society is a clockwork whose delicate intricacies have been hard-won over millennia by our ancestors through much trial and much error. To judge Society by how far it falls short of our dreams is to adopt unrealistic criteria for what constitutes a ‘working society’. If one bases one’s political expectations on one’s dreams, Reality will always be unsatisfactory, requiring radical and revolutionary change of the sort that holds Utopia just the next genocide away from being realised. Dissatisfied that our home is not a dream palace, we demolish it, only to realise too late that we have neither the resources or skills necessary for rebuilding the original home, let alone building the dream palace. Revolution based on Utopian dreams is akin to demolishing one’s home out of frustration at a squeaky hinge.

Muddling through is generally the best way for a society to advance into the future: empirically, attempting small changes and advances, and seeing how they work out. Where revolutions are justified, it is where they arise empirically: the ‘Arab’ Spring was based not on Utopian dreams, but on people aspiring to conditions that they could see taken for granted elsewhere in the world. It was an aspiration to swim with the stream of Modernity and Progress, rather than against it backwards to the 7th Century.

* * *

There are ways of ‘normalising’ paedophilia that are so harmful and ethically compromising that everyone (I would argue) is better off with the status quo of paedophobia.

This statement will outrage many. But I hope it’s not controversial to state that both paedophiles and children have needs that far supersede their sexual needs, and that there are a lot worse things a Society can do to both paedophiles and children than forbidding them intimacy with one another. A society that allows paedophilic interactions, but that is bad at everything else, is not good for anyone. Children not being allowed to choose adults as their sexual partners may be hard for us paedophiles (and for those children) but is, I strongly suspect, a necessary condition for living in a society worth living in.

I do not make this argument because I want it to be true.

I make this argument because the evidence points to it being true.

A field of study becomes ‘grown up’ when it can accept unwelcome facts and evidence, and allow those unwelcome facts to influence and change it – that is what differentiates mathematics from, say, Grievance Studies. Scientists are accustomed to unwelcome truths. The acceptance and investigation of unwelcome truths is a large part of why Reason and the Scientific Method has been so effective in improving the lot of humanity: a diagnosis of cancer is, after all, a scientific statement, albeit an unwelcome one.

Our condition, as paedophiles, leaves us particularly vulnerable to the temptation of Utopian dreaming. There is nothing we can realistically aspire to that is particularly good. To enjoy the warm glow of Hope we must turn to dreams. But we must recognise our dreams for what they are, and not think we can extrapolate from them functioning social systems

Sometimes I feel that the the wheels of Radical Paedophilia have been spinning in the mud, recycling theories, narratives and dreams that have grown too comfortable and comforting, but that have little interface with reality. We have too often mistaken our dreams for facts, and extrapolated all kinds of wonderful, impossible things from those dreams. We’ve been fascinated by the sight of angels dancing on the head of a pin and become proficient at annotating the choreography we’ve imagined taking place there.

The challenge for Radical Paedophilia is that of integrating difficult truths; of understanding that the fears of otherwise-decent ordinary people do not arise from malevolence or ignorance; of working out a vision for society that improves things for paedophiles, and for children who want more sexual autonomy, but at the same time accepts that it is quite reasonable that Society should not prioritise these above its general well-being.

It is about recognising that we, as paedophiles, should be on the side of Civilisation, rather than, wittingly or unwittingly, setting ourselves against it, as we have far too often been tempted into doing whenever we mistake our Utopian dreams for Evidence and Facts.

tumblr_ma3v5naJqX1rgnf7go1_500

18 thoughts on “The Trouble With Radical Paedophilia – Part 2 – The Third Scenario

  1. Congratulations, LSM, on these two brilliant and unflinchingly honest additions to your oeuvres. While I do not share your pessimistic conclusions, you do help radical thinkers to “keep it real”, by posing awkward questions that should not be ducked.

    There is also much that you say that civilised heretics can agree with, such as your view that “There are ways of ‘normalising’ paedophilia that are so harmful and ethically compromising that everyone (I would argue) is better off with the status quo of paedophobia.”

    Where I part company from you is your gloomy conclusion that the conditions of civilised modern life are inherently incompatible with sexual freedom for children, and “radical paedophilia”.

    You analysis raises important issues, especially concerning economics and the nuclear family. You make a good case, but it is by no means dispositive given that prediction is a tricky business, especially in a rapidly changing world.

    In my article last year for Sexuality & Culture [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-018-9519-1], I set out a quite different vision of a way forward for humanity, in which radical sexuality was envisaged as the foundation of a more cooperative, peaceful, planet-conserving culture. No “means justifies the ends” and genocidal violence in this vision, I assure you! Changes will indeed, as you say, need to be incremental and gradual, rather than revolutionary, unless brought about rapidly through technological advances or forced on us through environmental crisis.

    Mine was not a detailed plan and could easily be dismissed as “PIE in the sky” without one. But it did give reasoned, empirically-supported grounds for supposing that we can and should explore radical possibilities.

    So here is my challenge to you. If you think the ideas I set out in that paper are not viable, I invite you to refute them by way of a formal response paper or letter in Sexuality & Culture. Of course, I cannot guarantee publication but I do have every confidence that you would be able to satisfy the peer reviewers.

    Coming back to your two-part critique of radical paedophilia, it is tempting to take issue right now with a number of your claims but this comment is already getting quite lengthy, so I’ll try to keep it brief.

    I particularly agree with [REDACTED], who says:

    >You’re operating from the assumption that the only way to leave our current situation (the primacy of the nuclear family) is to go back to a time before it existed in the modern sense.

    This is a very contestable assumption, and I would certainly cite the example of the Netherlands in very recent times. You mention “reforms to consent laws in 1970s Netherlands”. Actually, the cultural groundwork for reform arguably started in the 1970s, or even 60s, but the law reform was as recent as 1990, lasting until 2002, and it was successful on its own terms: there was greater freedom without any evidence of harm to children. Indeed, sexual assaults against children probably went down in the era when there was no enforcement of laws against child pornography, as they are known to have done in Denmark, Germany, Japan and elsewhere that experienced comparable liberalisation. The lower age of consent (effectively down to 12) proved “abortive” only as a result of international pressure, notably from the US, aided and abetted by the nascent Dutch victim-feminist movement, which, like its counterparts elsewhere, was interested more in ideological dogma than in empirical reality.

    That said, I am content to agree with you that taking up the radical cause these days is not a rational activity if it is undertaken in the expectation of forcing the pace of change, or even its direction.

    I gave up on that years ago, after the collapse of PIE. Admittedly, I was urged back into the fray in the late 1990s but with no great expectations. Latterly, since I started my blog Heretic TOC seven years ago as a “discourse of resistance”, I have seen my work more by way of using defiance as a means of keeping myself (and hopefully others) reasonably sane and cheerful when otherwise we might lapse into depression and despair. For me, at least, it has worked, although there are those who might doubt my sanity!

    One reason I have stuck the course, I suppose, and why I may be thought unlikely to change, is that I have invested decades of my life to the project. Logically, perhaps I should regard this as a “sunk cost” and move on, turning to something more obviously beneficial, such as becoming an active environmentalist.

    For younger people than me, who have invested less and might find it psychologically easier to change their ways, I can see that this might well be the best course to take. However, it is possible to do more than one thing in life, and I see nothing deluded or unworthy in contributing time and thought to kind-oriented blogs, online discussion forums, magazines, etc: these help build a sense of community that I believe is helpful to many and even vital to some.

    Like

    1. Thanks for your appreciative comment, Tom. I was especially pleased because I really didn’t want my questioning of the radical vision to be taken for a critique of the good and valuable work you have been doing for the cause all these decades. I’m know that you very much agree with John Stuart Mill – that ideas and beliefs are only truly ‘known’ when they are tested and contested – “keeping it real”.

      >”So here is my challenge to you. If you think the ideas I set out in that paper are not viable, I invite you to refute them by way of a formal response paper or letter in Sexuality & Culture. Of course, I cannot guarantee publication but I do have every confidence that you would be able to satisfy the peer reviewers.”

      OK. I accept your challenge. It may (as is increasingly becoming the case with me) take some time – I’ve quite a few projects that I’m struggling to pursue at the moment – most having nothing to do with paedo-affairs – but I remember finding your paper thought-provoking and informative, so it will be nice to revisit it – It will be especially good to revisit ‘Virtue Ethics’ as I’m working on a blog-post focusing on Ethics and Paedophilia. As with probably every blog-post I will be making in this new ‘season’, I think it will meet with some resistance – but I guess every citadel needs its resident Casandra.

      >”You mention “reforms to consent laws in 1970s Netherlands”. Actually, the cultural groundwork for reform arguably started in the 1970s, or even 60s, but the law reform was as recent as 1990, lasting until 2002, and it was successful on its own terms: there was greater freedom without any evidence of harm to children. Indeed, sexual assaults against children probably went down in the era when there was no enforcement of laws against child pornography, as they are known to have done in Denmark, Germany, Japan and elsewhere that experienced comparable liberalisation.”

      I accept everything you write in this paragraph, and I accept that liberalisation had the beneficial effects you mention.

      But I am not arguing against the benefits of reform. I am instead pointing out that the problem (if indeed it is a ‘problem’) reformers face are much deeper than that of mere prejudice, propaganda and inertia.

      Whether we’re ‘right’ or not is not relevant. We can be as right as ‘1+1=2’, but if Society perceives that a reform threatens or undermines the social structures they’ve grown up in, invested in, and function and feel safe within, no amount of being ‘right’ will be able to persuade them.

      You suggest that the lower age of consent proved abortive because of international pressure.

      I am inclined to be skeptical of that narrative, but am also pretty ignorant of what happened around those reforms. Are you sure that when you attribute the abolition to ‘international pressure’ you are not downplaying the will of the Dutch people? ‘Blaming the butcher’? Blaming the easily blamable? The ‘usual culprits’?

      I’d be interested to know how popular the reforms were with the Dutch people? Was the abolition done against the will of the Dutch?

      I’d be interested in reading a non-partisan history of those reforms – do you know of one?

      This is not me arguing against such reforms, but wanting to avoid the easy answers and narratives that (in my opinion) too often vitiate our thinking on such matters – is it possible that these reforms were rejected because the Dutch people felt uneasy about them? And is it possible that the reason for their unease lay deeper than international pressure or propaganda? The will of ordinary people is too readily derided as some form of ignorance, or the result of them having been duped, when that will goes against ones own opinions or those of elite (whilst not pro-Brexit I have been disgusted by the way the media have decried the ideas of the voting majority – much as I was disgusted by Hilary Clinton labeling those who voted for Trump ‘deplorables’)

      I have become more and more resistant of this gambit (not that you are guilty of this, Tom – but the ‘propaganda/duping’ narratives that are all too common in radical paedophile thinking are guilty of dismissing ordinary people’s opinions and intuitions).

      Concerning your final remarks – I think the great value of what you do is that you have discovered, nurtured, maintained and defended Truths – in the face of a Society not ready to hear them. I have no doubt that paedophiles have access to truths, and experiences, concerning the nature of childhood, child sexuality, concerning society and social institutions, concerning ourselves – that nobody else has. And these are not trivial truths but ones that matter., whether Society listens or not. We are Galileos stamping on the ground, saying ‘and yet it moves’.

      Truth has power and resistance – it may be submerged, but it does not drown, and can always emerge. If I have a vision for Radical Paedophilia it is that of focusing on these truths, nurturing and developing them – not just scientific, sociological, psychological ones, but also cultural ones – it matters that Sally Mann’s photographs are perceived as beautiful, it matters that non-paedophiles can be moved by a film such as ‘Lamb’, it matters that ‘A High Wind in Jamaica’ is appreciated as a classic novel by non-paedophiles, as well as (I hope) paedophiles.

      This is what we have, now and today. It is the true ‘treasure horde’ of radical paedophilia. It is our ‘money in our bank’. We don’t need fantasies and Utopias to make our case, we have enough in-hand to make our case – we can invest in tomorrow rather than the far-distant future of Utopian dreams – the hoped-for results may not be as spectacular but they are achievable.

      An example is your defense of the Truth in the whole ‘Westminster Paedophile Network’ debacle. You, a ‘vile paedo’, have been vindicated as an absolutely honest and truthful witness.

      OK, there have been no headlines: ‘Tom O’Carroll’s Statements Vindicated’ – and there are still those who (as with all conspiracy theories) take the fact that they were wrong as merely another part of the conspiracy. But the fact that you spoke sanely, honestly and truthfully is now well-documented. You defended a modest truth and when that truth was eventually acknowledged your reputation and the cause of paedophilia took a step forwards, albeit a small one – the witch-hunters were (once more) shown to have been hunting mythical beast, and have been shown to have been hysterical and deluded.

      I realise that I have never properly thanked you for publishing my FGM essay. I am profoundly grateful, not least because I am aware that you do/did not wholly concur with everything I argued there – that takes a great deal of generosity of spirit and integrity to do that.

      What did you think of the discussions in the comment section?

      I quite enjoyed it and found it stimulating and challenging – I enjoyed getting into deep waters – and some got very deep. I just hope that it made a difference, even a small one.

      I also hope that critical and hostile outsiders will note that our concerns go far beyond ‘paedophilia’ – and that ‘paedophilia’ is only part of a wider defense of children’s sexual well-being.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I am delighted, LSM, to see that you have accepted the challenge to refute my ideas by way of a formal response paper or letter in Sexuality & Culture. This is bound to be quite a long time in the pipeline but I very much look forward to seeing what you come up with when this contribution eventually makes its appearance on the Springer Nature platform.

        As for what I wrote about the Netherlands, you graciously accepted what I said, including my conclusion that liberalisation there in the later decades of the last century “had the beneficial effects you mention”. However, you then entered a sceptical note based on the suspicion that these benefits might have been imposed on the Dutch people by the liberal elite of the day.

        If so, I would suggest there are worse crimes than benefits being foisted on an unwilling nation by a well educated, thoughtful, enlightened elite, which I would argue has been the great achievement of liberal parliamentary democracies until the advent of the disastrous populism to which we are now being subjected around the globe, in which vicious leaders such as Bolsonaro in Brazil (tearing up the Amazon) and Trump in the US (predatory eyes on Greenland’s mineral riches) are hell-bent on wrecking the planet with the backing of their ignorant non-elite supporters.

        By contrast, taking the UK alone, the liberal elite of the 1960s gave us – against the will of the people – the abolition of capital punishment and the decriminalisation of homosexuality among many other important reforms. This was about wise leadership exercised through the greatest political invention of all time, representative democracy, rather than its cruder ancient Greek prototype, direct democracy.

        Coming back to the Netherlands, you admit to being “pretty ignorant of what happened around those reforms”. Your honesty is welcome, as ever. My observations about that country have always been informed by those of the Dutch themselves, based on long discussions there with key participants in the times we are talking about, and on the work of Dutch historians. Yes, these informants could be dismissed as an intellectual elite but they do take into account and discuss wider public opinion and its sources. I would refer you to the final chapter of my 1980 book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which appeared a decade before the liberalisation of the Dutch consent law (about which I have written elsewhere).

        In line with your current thinking, I wrote:

        “It cannot yet be said, however, that most Dutch people approve of paedophilia, or that they have no misgivings about it: their culture has too many roots in common with ours for such a carefree outlook.”

        But this is followed by paragraph after astonishing paragraph of hard evidence showing in great detail that there had begun to be a genuinely quite widespread acceptance of paedophilia, perhaps comparable with the rapid and unexpected embrace of trans people in recent years. I urge you and your readers to consult these pages, starting with the above quote. See here: https://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/chap13.htm

        I defy you not to be impressed by the degree of institutional and public acceptance of radical change at that time. My point, in any case, in my previous comment here on your blog, was not that child-adult sexual relations were ever enthusiastically accepted by the population in general. Rather, I was taking issue with your view that such relations are incompatible with modern civilisation. To the contrary, I would say that the spirit of tolerant “live and let live” that flourished so recently in the Netherlands was an expression of liberal democracy at its best and civilisation at its most civilised.

        Did things go too far? Does this explain the great backlash against liberal elites? The backlash, I suspect, owes more to the precarious, anxious economic situation of the sub-elites in our now highly competitive, globalised post-industrial world. This will not necessarily be a permanent problem as population growth worldwide levels off and the world’s poorest countries themselves become richer.

        As for your closing comments, it only remains for me to thank you for their generosity. I am in your debt for your excellent FGM essay, rather than the other way around. It is no accident that this essay was followed by one of the most sophisticated debates in the comments section ever to grace my blog: it takes a fine essay to stimulate such a discussion.

        Like

        1. Just a quick thought. The halcyon days of BL freedom in the Philippines were mainly under the Marcos dictatorship, not under a heartwarming liberal elite. But that was likely because a) Marcos’ son Bongbong was reported to be gay b) Ferdinand and Imelda were too busy amassing money and shoes to care (and Imelda had a coterie of gay designer friends) and c) high-ranking police officials were probably the most active BLs… the same applies to Indonesia under Soeharto, where a flaming BL queen was a long-time Tourism Minister and the General and “Mrs Ten Percent” were too busy acquiring money, islands and forests to worry about quiet and friendly BL activity. So…so much for liberal democracy. I am not a student of history, so I don’t know if the same applies to Russia, say, under Stalin, where BLs may have been either feted or killed. Or both.

          Like

  2. I’ve tried to be “out” in an “enlightened” cultural microcosm (a hippie commune in the 1970s). Didn’t work. We were living in a mix of pre”civilisation” (no electricity, frequent group rituals involving nudity, drugs which included children) and Western civilisation at the time – rock and roll, a truck, clothing, Food Stamps, regular medical and dental care, etc. As soon as it became apparent that the entire community was starting to believe that children could enjoy their sexuality, the “feminists” shut it down – at least for the male persons. The couple of women who were initiating young boys into hetero sex were allowed to continue. I left before I was run out of Dodge.

    After a few years, I was living outside the US in a modern society that allowed, if not encouraged, child sexuality and relations between adults and children. This was pre-computers, pre-Internet and before cell phones, of course. Also pre-hysteria. As soon as “communications technology” improved and this place began to be more reliant on imported American culture, they imported the hysteria and things went downhill, and though friends of mine had problems, I didn’t.

    I then came to the same conclusion that you have. The culture isn’t going to change, the “Western” consumerism will continue to spread. So while I continued to enact your dreamy scenario of meeting, flirting, etc., I became a lot more subtle, quiet, less visible, and very cautious to meet and get approvals from family, and if possible, neighbours. I learned the local language. I became known for other things than having lots of young friends. The number of relationships fell (as did my ability to handle them, anyway), but some continued, and new ones “arose.”

    I thinks this is the only way to go. Live outside the US, blend in, don’t demand radical structural societal change, be nice. Sure, I’d rather have the age of consent at 10 everywhere, and require young boys to wear no pants, but it ain’t gonna happen. We all need to do the best we can with what is given in the current age. Pining for, and (unfortunately) working towards society-wide and public change is useless.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You have had some fascinating experiences, B J. Your life, from where I’m sitting, looks like some sociological adventure. I too have had a little experience in communities where child sexual expression was more accepted than it currently is in the West. I think in those communities either the nuclear family was not the exclusive locus of childhood or consumerism was weak. And like you I think that we can make progress, but it has to be incremental – and based not on the quest for some Utopia, but on the fact that we have facts, knowledge and experiences that valid and reveal Truths, albeit unwelcome ones . ‘Truth’ and facts have an intrinsic leverage that social aspirations based on our sexual aspirations don’t.
      And though I witness in several fields I am concerned with how reluctant Society can be to acknowledge unwelcome Truths, I think, at least whilst we live in the shadow of the Enlightenment , Truth, like gravity, ultimately draws us towards it.

      Like

  3. Well…sure…it’s extremely complicated…maybe even extremely close to impossible…

    …but that’s never going to stop me from condemning, the wrongs committed in the name of “protecting” society.

    It’s never made any sense to me that people claim to “protect” society, as they go about acting to devastate large portions of that exact same society.

    They’re not “protecting” anything…they’re forcing a social breakdown…possibly even a civil war.

    One thing we can demand and aspire towards…is the open presence of MAPs, not only in public communication forums…but also in official public service positions…Yes, I’m talking about openly serving in government.

    At the bare minimum, if it is decided that things “cannot” currently change as we would like to see them…at least we would have a voice, and a say in the process.

    As things stand…everything is simply imposed by force, threat, intimidation…or more extreme measures.

    To the best of my knowledge…we are not really even fighting for sexual liberation of ourselves.

    We’re fighting for so many other things…including the simple right, to have a safe life in society…and a place at the political table…We’re fighting to walk society back away from the edge of the crazy cliff.

    Maybe the day will come, that MAPs can fight for their own sexual liberation…but I don’t see a realistic shot at achieving it, today.

    I don’t view what I do, as working towards tearing down society…In fact, on the balance…I think what I do is actually quite uplifting and constructive…empowering, even.

    I admit that I have said many times, I would have happily accepted a far shorter lifespan, in trade for an honestly fulfilled lifetime…and given how hard and awful things have become, I sometimes find myself wishing I no longer had to bare it.

    I stand by my statement…I would consider it a very good trade, if I could have had one, two…maybe three good, extended man boy love relationships in my lifetime, and I were dead today…hell…even if I’d have died ten years ago.

    No…I don’t wish to push my will onto another who is unwilling…nor onto society…But I cannot live, with society snuffing out the meaning and joy in my own life…and that has been robbed of me, regardless of the reasoning…There is no fitting restitution…Nothing will reckon it.

    This is what the war on human sexuality creates…I don’t like it…I don’t want it this way…but, this is their Frankenstein…

    A lot of people live with these injuries…far more than most people realize.

    Society at large does suffer a cost for this…It bubbles under the surface…and concentrates in places, which in some cases leave children raped and murdered…in some cases, it might be mental illness…in others, violence…

    Society is injuring itself, no matter what…It’s just choosing to ignore the many ways it is injuring itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “I stand by my statement…I would consider it a very good trade, if I could have had one, two…maybe three good, extended man boy love relationships in my lifetime, and I were dead today…hell…even if I’d have died ten years ago.“

      It wasn’t society that prevented you from having two or three extended man-boy relationships. It was your fears, your inability to change locations and attitude and make it happen. I am sorry you have had to live long, unfulfilled life, but a) other ways were possible and b) you’re never too old, Champ.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you.

        I’ve never really been in a position to make a big move, however.

        In so many ways, you are still correct…I should have picked a direction, and started walking…left this all behind.

        I wouldn’t say my life has been entirely unfulfilled, though…I’ve taken a lot of gratification in the fight.

        Like

    2. Thank you for your comment Steve

      Your comment addresses a question that I considered dealing with in my essay, but which I decided, more out of exhaustion than anything, not to touch on – that is – what are the practical implications of what I wrote for paedophiles, especially Radical paedophiles.

      I hope maybe to get round to writing and publishing this essay – but there are few things you raise that I’d like to reply to here.

      >”It’s never made any sense to me that people claim to “protect” society, as they go about acting to devastate large portions of that exact same society.”

      I think that Society’s most profound function is that of resolving conflicts of interest and of will – for a mass of humans to exist reasonably harmoniously together it is inevitable that as individuals we don’t always get what we want. It’s like living on a boat – there are some wants that allow the boat to keep afloat and prosper – decorating the cabin in avocado green is fine, but drilling holes in the hull isn’t and such a society would have a taboo on the latter activity. It is unfortunate that our attraction is a taboo-provoking one – but we have to counter that ‘downer’ with the fact that we’re living in quite a nice boat and not swimming in the icy shark-infested seas.

      >”One thing we can demand and aspire towards…is the open presence of MAPs, not only in public communication forums…but also in official public service positions…Yes, I’m talking about openly serving in government.”

      Yes, I think that this is something the MAP community can work towards – and I suspect it can be done by demonstrating that we have knowledge and perspectives that are useful to society. I think Tom has achieved this to some extent – I think of his recent testimonies to select committees on the ‘Westminster Scandals’ – by simply being knowledgeable and recognised as someone with integrity.

      But I think that to get to that point we need to start from somewhere other than where we are know – in a sense we need to make a truce with Society – whilst I am still essentially a RadPed (I take the key distinction between RadPeds and VirPeds to be the recognition that child-adult intimacy is not of itself harmful to children) VirPeds have been somewhat successful in engaging the public because they are perceived as being on the side of the ‘rest of Society’ and not just of themselves.

      There’s a thin line to tread here, I know – and I’m far from sure of how it should be done… it’s something I hope to get round to thinking about.

      >”To the best of my knowledge…we are not really even fighting for sexual liberation of ourselves.
      We’re fighting for so many other things…including the simple right, to have a safe life in society”

      Yes, I think that is very important. Whilst I can’t see Society accepting child-adult intimacy I think that there is potential for the reduction of stigma we suffer, and – even better – a reduction of stigma suffered by children who have been sexually involved with adults. In a sense my ‘dream’ is to return to the attitudes of when I grew up, in the 60s and 70s – this was before Consumerism took over from Industrial capitalism and before the hysteria kicked off.

      >”I admit that I have said many times, I would have happily accepted a far shorter lifespan, in trade for an honestly fulfilled lifetime…and given how hard and awful things have become, I sometimes find myself wishing I no longer had to bare it.”

      I understand this, and have felt the same thing on many occasions. I remember a time, now half a life-time away, when I spent several years when a lovely little girl and I were very close – I sometimes feel I would trade the rest of my life, just to be able to go back and spend a minute with that little girl. On the one hand those years provide me with beautiful memories, on the other hand, when I’m feeling low, they provide me with a longing for the past that can be painfully intense.

      >”Society is injuring itself, no matter what…It’s just choosing to ignore the many ways it is injuring itself.”

      I want to re-emphasise that I personally don’t much like the conclusions I come to in this essay – but I recognise a grain of consolation in them – the idea that the repression of my love and my best impulses is not completely senseless – many of my grandparents and great-uncles sacrificed their lives in WWII in order that their Society might continue to exist in a form worth living in – I have been lucky in not having had to risk or sacrifice my life, but, I guess that I have had to sacrifice my Love for my Society – and even then, I have not quite had to sacrifice my love – I have had the luck to love a little girl and had that love reciprocated – but I definitely sacrificed my sexuality.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Interesting article, Leonard. But I suppose, over time, no civilisation is an immutable package deal. I have never read a, for me, convincing theory that links paedophobia and capitalism. I myself think religion is to blame for a great deal: sex is only meant for procreation.

    David

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your comment David Rogers,

      >”I have never read a, for me, convincing theory that links paedophobia and capitalism.”

      Ahh, I have failed to convince you – though my thinking is not so much that it’s Capitalism that causes paedophobia – industrial Capitalism seems to create a kind of indifference to child sexuality – as the clash of the innocent child archetype and the sexualised consumer child.

      >” I myself think religion is to blame for a great deal: sex is only meant for procreation.”

      Yet it seems that certain religions don’t cause paedophobia – Islam is approving of extreme patriarchal ‘paedophilia’ and (from memory) I can think of nothing in the New Testatment that justifies paedophobia; presumably the Trobriand Islanders and the Lepcha also had their religions. And dark age Christianity (arguably) did not generate paedophobia.

      Given that ‘Christianity’ (not that contemporary West is particularly Christian) has had its paedophobic and non-paedophobic moments – it seems that some other factor is at play. Given that paedophobia has really taken off in the last 40 or so years it seems that we could look at what changed 40 or so years ago.

      Like

  5. LSM,

    It was really excited when I saw your new essay after such a long period of silence. Reading it, however, was truly disappointing. I can’t say that I wasn’t ready for the ideas you expressed here – you wrote a lot along the same lines on the Tom’s blog comment section – but here your new worldview presented in an condensed manner, and – dare I say so – with a taste of sad finality, of hope being decisively given up.

    What can I say here? LSM, you’re not the first disappointed progressive turned conservative, and hardly the last one; this phenomenon of hope-rejection is quite common for the human beings, and is in work far beyond the political realm – I can recall a pen-friend of mine who once was as ardent in its defense of the free will and now rejected it for a hardcore determinism.

    All and any such cases are, however, what I call “existential defeatism” – a personal surrender to fatigue and despair, elevated for a kind of worldview that I call “complacent pessimism” – a sad and desperate attempt of proclaiming acceptance of defeat as a form of wisdom, as a demonstration of one’s exalted ability to face the “bleak facts” and thus to rise above the “pretty illusions” within that one’s old, supposedly not-yet-enlightened friends are still apparently dwelling.

    Yet celebration of hopelessness is not a great achievement of wisdom; it is the most dangerous of illusions, an attempt to maintain one’s self-respect in the situation of being defeated. it is a doomed-to-fail quest to find joy in joylessness, power in powerlessness and meaning in meaninglessness.

    In the intellectual sphere, existential defeatism always tries to hide itself under the disguise of fatalism – or, which is much more common in our materialism-prone age, determinism. Such determinism may take any form; it may be physical, biological and genetic (as in case of many advocates of “fundamental inequality” of races, sexes, ages etc.), or it may be historical, economic and social (as it is in your case), but it is effectively one and the same philosophy – the urge to give up one’s personal agency, one’s free choice, one’s will and power for the unconditional surrender of some supposedly insurmountable external power – be it “laws of nature” or “structure of society”.

    But such surrender is always an act of self-deception, since “nature” are not bound by “laws” – what it has are changeable and violable (by power of will) regularities; and the “structure” of society is purely artificial and can be reshaped by people themselves every moment – if they understand that such reconfiguration is entirely possible, and turn their wills toward its enactment.

    The problem is exactly that – understanding, the “thinkability” of change. You, LSM, try to tie it to economical structures – but the understanding is not determined, not even greatly influenced, by economy. The most dangerous poison for it lies in the culturally-enforced custom, in the inertia and stubborn persistence of traditions.

    Yet there is a way to break this persistence. It is not pleasant, to put it very mildly. In fact, it is nightmarishly horrible. But it works.

    ***

    Here I has to warn, seriously: what I will write below will sound… cruel. Cynical. Amoral. Maybe even repulsive. But it is true.

    ***

    You thought that determinism is ugly-but-true, LSM? You were mistaken, since it is neither true not, actually, unpleasant. Despite its covert defeatism (which I described above), it is tempting and captivating because of its soothing, consolatory nature: existence is much easier to accept if one believes that it is predetermined and could never be different.

    The true horror – the horror which most people desperately try to escape – is the one of absolute freedom we possess within ourselves. This horror of freedom is the power that can break even the most persistent thinking habits.

    And when people experience this horror? When they has to confront the inhumanity of humans – the depths of absurd atrocity and atrocious absurdity. The terror of mass cruelty, mass illusion and mass enslavement. Such confrontation put large collectives of human beings in the state of severe, mind-crushing shock – shock severe enough to dissolve the entrenched habits of thought and make something previously unthinkable easily thinkable.

    And, what is equally important, is provides the most intense incentive for the willful enactment of changes that may prevent the further horrors – and thus, move people toward liberation and humanisation.

    The history of the 20th century provides us with enough examples of society-wide thought-changing effects of mass shocking events: have you noticed that both large waves of sociocultural humanisation and liberation (1920s and 1960s – 1970s) has directly followed the horrid nightmares of two world wars? This is no coincidence; in fact, it was the shock and trauma of wars that allowed the changes to become both thinkable and desirable.

    For example: before the World War 1, the women’s rights movement was largely ineffective, mostly confined to the marginal circles of the radical intelligentsia and not able to enact large-scale changes, and the notion of homosexuality being anything but anti-social pathology was utterly unthinkable. Yet after the war, women’s movement has achieved its first substantial victories, and homosexuality has moved from the areas of unthinkable to the radical intelligentsia circles – in fact, it was quite popular among radicals in the early, pre-Stalinism Soviet Union and the pre-Nazism Weimar Republic… only to be banished back to the “unthinkable” status by Stalin and Hitler.

    And after the World War 2, women have achieved equality, homosexuality become acceptable, and children’s liberation and paedosexuality has, for a short time, become radical rather than utterly unthinkable cause… only to be banished back to the unthinkable during the Satanic panic.

    So we can see: the massive nightmare of the war have a possibility to transform people’s thoughts to a very substantial degree: it is enough to change an unthinkable notion into a radical, yet thinkable one; and the notions that are already radical-but-thinkable may become acceptable, even mainstream ones.

    Of course I do NOT say that we should desire World War 3 or something comparably nightmarish. But we should understand that such ugly massive event is not far away one way or another, whether we want it or not: with the ever-increasing level of mutual hate and fear that modern society demonstrates is bound to end in a large-scale atrocity one day, and a few good-willed, kind-hearted people simply cannot stop large masses desiring a new bloodbath. We can feel compassionate towards them… yet this compassion do not preclude understanding that these horrors would be, once again, freely brought by the people on themselves, simply because they thought that such horrible final was inevitable; because they sincerely believed that they are just fulfilling the inevitable dictates of Nature, Society, History or some other bloodthirsty illusion they produced to escape their own innate freedom and responsibility.

    Unfortunately, until or unless someone come up with a method to help people to overcome their ugliest thinking-habits on a large societal scale, the positive changes will only be enacted after the episodes of horrible cruelty. Can anyone here provide us with such a method? If not, now we should thought how we can survive the ugly days-to-come, so, when the horror ends and people are filled with repentance and willing to change society for the better, we can at last argue for the liberation of children.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply, Explorer.

      I’m sorry to have disappointed you, but, as you acknowledge, any disappointment should have happened quite a while ago. Indeed I think that the position I express here is a logical consequence of ideas explored in some of the earliest posts I made on my blog – but it has taken me a few years to join the dots and see the full picture.

      Of course I knew that my ideas would get a negative reception – and the bad news is that I have a few blog posts planned that are not going to help endear me any more to many members of that community.

      But I’ve long felt peripheral to the RadPed community – over the past couple of years the radical position has seen more and more untenable to me and I’d given up on the whole paedo-politics thing and moved towards broader issues concerning child sexual welfare – FGM in particular.

      But I thought it would be fun to express my ideas as best as I could and share them with you, and go out ‘in a blaze of ignominy’.

      I also reserve a small hope that some amongst the RadPed community might not wholly disagree with what I write…

      You describe my general position as ‘existential defeatism’. You will not be surprised to learn that I see things differently: every victory implies a corresponding defeat – one team has to lose in order for another to win – and the question that matters is ‘which team are you on?’. Sometimes, when it comes to history and geopolitics, we many not be on the team that we think we assume we are on…

      Yes, I don’t see a desirable way by which the more Utopian dreams of Radical Paedophiles can be realised – so on that front you might be justified in describing my position as one of ‘defeatism’.

      But it is a very small ‘defeat’ when measured against the enormous ‘victory’ that those who have been born into Western Modernity enjoy.

      I don’t see my position as ‘defeatism’ but one of waking up to the miracle of the modern world I have been born into. That is why I reject my position as ‘defeatism’ – in fact it is the opposite – it is ‘triumphalism’.

      It is human nature to take for granted those things we were born into – we are like the millionaire’s child who thinks of himself as poor and oppressed – we are spoilt brats who don’t know how lucky we are.

      But studying History (something I’ve been doing more and more) and the sheer miseries of life prior to the dawn of modernity, or even of, say, the late Victorian age, has made me realise the true value that the society our ancestors and my parents have built.

      Another thing that has made me value the civilisation I have been born into is the fact that it looks like it is ending – Western Civilisation has lost its will to exist and protect itself, and here in Europe – our so-called bien pensants are positively relishing the prospect and inviting the Barbarians in and doing everything to facilitate and celebrate their growing dominance.

      We love the things we are losing with a special intensity – and it has taken the sight of my civilisation dying to realise how much I owe to it and appreciate the luck and privilege of having lived in it.

      So what you describe as ‘defeatism’ is only so if one views the question narrowly – the single piece of the jigsaw that is ‘my paedophile needs’. Take a broader view and my ‘defeatism’ actually is ‘triumphalism’ – my appreciation of my good luck to have been born into modern Western Civilisation. But, sadly, take the broadest view and, yes, I will confess to a, incipient ‘defeatism’ – the defeatism of someone watching a loved-one dying of an incurable disease, the defeatism that the Romans must have felt when Odoacer deposed Augustulus and proclaimed himself ruler of Italy.

      I aspire to the survival and victory of my civilisation and I will fight the Barbarian and their collabarateurs in every way I can.

      To you my position seems like ‘defeatism’ because the victories we each aspire to appear to be mutually exclusive.

      >” hardcore determinism”

      I do not think my stance is ‘hardcore determinist’ – it is more that macro-structuralist factors (economics is only one of these, but maybe the most important one) determines a kind of Overton Window of possibilities – some ideas will more readily thrive and others will struggle and perish, or simply never take root, since they are poorly adapted to the soil they find themselves in – much as one can’t plant a cactus in peat and expect it to thrive, one can’t expect paedo-friendly ideas to thrive in a social context where ‘The Child’ is defined by its role in the nuclear family.

      I’m not sure whether this is ‘determinism’ or not. It’s certainly not ‘hardcore determinism’. But it seems that the contrary position is that macro-social conditions have no, or virtually no, influence on what ideas thrive in a society – things such as economy, geography, kinship, climate. Is that at all a tenable proposition? Why do you think the Incas, living in steep mountainous regions, never conceptualised ‘the wheel’? Their geography diminished its usefulness, and they had a ready supply of pack animals in the llamas. How does one explain the absence of any slavery-skepticism amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans?

      >”Such determinism may take any form; it may be physical, biological and genetic“

      Well, yes, I do think we are massively constrained by our physiology, biology and genetics (and by countless other things) – can a dog fly? a fish sing? a man give birth? a woman pass a shoe shop without stopping?

      And, yes, there are general (i.e. statistical, on macro-levels) difference between races, sexes, ages (though what value (if any) and meaning one accords to those differences is a whole set of other issues): races return different IQ results (East Asians score tend to be higher than those of Caucasians), men have greater upper body strength than women, blacks have darker skins than Caucasians, and adults are taller than children.

      >”Here I has to warn, seriously: what I will write below will sound… cruel. Cynical. Amoral. Maybe even repulsive. But it is true.”

      No warning required.

      In fact what you write seems to broadly confirm something I say in my essay – that a paedo-friendly society is possible, but either through some kind of totalitarian imposition or as a result of some cataclysm that so radically restructures society that the nuclear (or sub-nuclear) family is no longer the dominant kinship unit. The scenario you propose approximates to the latter.

      >”Of course I do NOT say that we should desire World War 3 or something comparably nightmarish. But we should understand that such ugly massive event is not far away one way or another, “

      I fear you may be correct. In fact I think that since at least 9/11 (when Islam’s most recent attempt to establish the world-wide caliphate ramped-up a notch) we have been engaged in WWIII. And, of course, if the Barbarians win – as they seem to be doing – we may get what so many of us wished for – but it certainly won’t be a Utopia.

      >”Unfortunately, until or unless someone come up with a method to help people to overcome their ugliest thinking-habits on a large societal scale, the positive changes will only be enacted after the episodes of horrible cruelty. Can anyone here provide us with such a method? “

      I think that the method that started being elaborated in the Renaissance – Judeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman heritage filtered and intensified through Reason, Humanism (tempered by a respect for non-human entities) and Secularism – has taken us a huge distance very rapidly. Unfortunately it has periodically come under attack from hostile forces – such as Communism, Fascism and Islam – and is now facing probably its most severe concerted attack, both from outside and from within.

      Like

      1. >I aspire to the survival and victory of my civilisation and I will fight the Barbarian and their collabarateurs in every way I can.

        Including by supporting the genocide of pedophiles?

        I see very little in the West worth fighting for – we’re denied even free speech and basic civil rights, and most of us have no access to the wealth your Panglossian vision takes for granted. I imagine most of us would prefer to live, even if equally poor, a life of greater freedom elsewhere.

        Like

    2. Given the AoC reforms and attacks on marrige from feminists, I’d say they were devastatingly effective before WW1.

      As for homosexuality, those seeking its liberation (despite already being liberated (France)!) seems to have been content to latch on to the feminist demands already in the late 19th and early 20th century.

      Like

  6. FaceBook SeXentric: Tina Willis 3 August at 09:28 ·

    ” In The Year 2029 – Streetsmart, CP ADULTOPHILE-kids WHACK PC-Cops!! ” [image: Image may contain: one or more people] 2You and Nat White Haha Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s