Accepting paedophile rights isn't progressive. (Credit:ANDREJ ISAKOVIC/AFP/ Getty Images)
“Julie Bindel takes to right wing GB News to smear the trans community with the same trope that was used against gay men in the 1980s — that they are all paedophiles. Has she forgotten that made gays a target for physical violence? Does she care if trans people are now targeted too?”
Billy Bragg didn’t much care for my appearance on Andrew Doyle’s Free Speech Nation.
He got it wrong, though. I had not accused trans people or gay men of anything of the kind. I had simply pointed out that Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs), a sanitised term for paedophiles, were being included by queer activists in the ever-expanding rainbow flag and that it should be a matter of some concern. What I said was: “I don’t, as a lesbian, want to be lumped in with ‘minor attracted persons’, which, of course, is the latest addition to this rainbow coalition and means ‘child abusers’”.
The first use of the euphemism “minor attraction” to describe those who desire sex with children was back in 1988, by a journalist called Elizabeth Peterson in a Christian publication. She was appealing for empathy and understanding towards “paedophiles”. Since when, there has been a creeping attempt in certain quarters to normalise their desires.
In particular, a number of British academics within the Queer Theory discipline have, over the past few years, pushed the idea that “paedophilia and child abuse are not the same thing”, and that “paedophilia is a sexual attraction pattern that shares common features with other sexual orientations”. Bafflingly, child sexual abuse is being described by some clinicians as a sexual identity worthy of empathy. Additionally, attempts have been made to bring it under the rainbow coalition where it should be treated with dignity and respect; Norwegian “queer” academic and professor of ethics Ole Martin Moen argues that paedophilia should be treated as a sexual identity.
Jacob Breslow, feels the same. He was, until his affiliation with organisations promoting paedophilia as a sexual identity came to light, a trustee at Mermaids. When a graduate student at the London School of Economics, Breslow gave a presentation at a 2011 event for the US-based organisation B4U-ACT, co-founded in 2003 by a convicted child sex offender to help people “who are sexually attracted to children and desire assistance”. There, he said that: “Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it potentially creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can begin to better understand Minor Attracted Persons.”
Then, in June 2021, trans-identified queer scholar Allyn Walker published their book A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and their Pursuit of Dignity, making a clear link between queer theory and child abuse apologism. In it, Walker posits there are many similarities between MAPs and lesbians and gays. Walker’s PhD thesis, titled “Understanding Resilience Strategies among Minor-Attracted Individuals”, argued that such men should be permitted to view child abuse imagery as a “harm-reduction technique” or “form of therapy” to help “maintain abstinence from sexual contact with children”. Following complaints about their book being “pro-paedophilia”, Walker was suspended from their professorial post at Old Dominion, Virginia.
You might remember Karl Andersson, a UK-based student in queer studies at the University of Manchester, who got into trouble last year when an essay based on his experiences of masturbating to Japanese comics of child sexual abuse was published in the academic journal Qualitative Research. When the complaints flooded in, the university had no choice but to suspend Andersson, claiming that because he worked in a “niche area” of studies, no one noticed what he was up to. That “niche” is queer studies.
Andersson also publishes the magazine Destroyer: A Journal of Apollonian Beauty and Dionysian Sexuality, a Swedish-based journal focused on sex and “romance” between men and underage boys. Its stated objective is “to bring back the adolescent boy as one of the ideals of gay culture”. Breslow has praised Destroyer in his own work, claiming it documents the “sexual desire of boys”.
Queer theorists such as Breslow, Walker and Andersson are pushing the line that paedophilia is a hardwired medical condition, and that therefore there must be some kind of “paedophilic gene”. And if these attractions are both innate and uncontrollable, the answer is, according to queer theorists, to feed the beast.
Craig Harper, Associate Professor at the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University (NTU), also promotes this line of thought. He collaborates with Prostasia — a California-based charity which advocates the use of sex dolls as a way for men wishing to rape small children to vent their sexual frustrations. Prostasia also gives pointers on its website as to “age play” — adults fantasising during sex that one of them is a child.
Harper says MAPs are targeted by unfair online abuse. His study on their use of child sex dolls found that “when asking participants directly about their engagement with criminal activities, we found that there were no differences in self-reported offending between those who owned child-like dolls and those who did not.” The term “self-reporting” is key here. As Caitlin Roper, feminist activists and author of the book Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating points out, arguments used in support of men’s use of child sex abuse dolls, “build on previous arguments by paedophiles and queer theorists in support of men’s sexual access to children”.
A number of organisations, such as Virtuous Paedophiles and B4U-ACT, argue that child abuse imagery and sex dolls are good ways of keeping these men “satisfied”. But Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Ethics and Culture of Robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI) at De Montfort University, is deeply concerned about the way that men’s desire for sex with children is being enabled and encouraged. “For adults to identify with practices that involve the abuse of children implies these are not lone individuals,” says Richardson, “but groups to discuss these issues and are working with academics who use ethics to do their politics of persuasion by arguing they present no harm to children. In fact, it is impossible to have a ‘sexual identity’, without consideration of what it entails.
There are, according to Gail Dines, author of Pornland, studies of use of Internet pornography which have drawn attention to the extent of adult sexual interest in children. “Clinical experience and now research evidence are accumulating to suggest that the Internet is not simply drawing attention to those with existing paedophilic interests but is contributing to the crystallisation of those interests in people with no explicit prior sexual interest in children,” says Dines.
Prior to the internet, groups of men that seeking to decriminalise child sexual abuse met as special interest groups. In 1974, a group of “paedophile rights” activists in the UK formed the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and somehow managed to be welcomed into the upper echelons of polite, liberal society.
PIE, which openly argued for the abolition of the age of consent, convinced the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL) to accept them by claiming to be an oppressed sexual minority similar to the gay community. When I interviewed PIE leader Tom O’Carroll in 2015, he told me he had never liked the word paedophile, and that one of the main positives of being accepted by the NCCL, and, as a result, by some gay groups, was that it would mean that men like him could unify and “organise against oppression”. “We were kind of stuck with the word,” O’Carroll told me. “If we had another word, more like gay, it would be hard to stigmatise us.”
O’Carroll suggested that, rather than “paedophile” the word “kindly”, should be used, because it was similar to the Dutch word “kinder”, meaning “children”. “Being ‘kind’ as well as being sexual,” he said.
Alarmingly, these men were not only being painted as harmless, partly by their association with NCCL, but also potentially beneficial to society. In his study of PIE, published in 1983, the psychologist Glenn Wilson made the extraordinary claim that “many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse”.
But the bad old days of PIE appear to have taught us nothing. PIE was disbanded in 1984, up until 1983 it lobbied for the age of consent to be abolished, appearing on Newsnight to argue its case.
Their influence is being felt still within the echelons of academia and now echoed in the thoughtless slurs of musicians. Those of us who campaign to end the sexual abuse of children do not point the finger at gay men as likely perpetrators, despite Billy Bragg accusing me of doing so. I lived through the Eighties when it was a regular occurrence for lesbians to lose custody of their children, usually to violent ex-husbands, because we were considered to be sexual perverts and dangerous for children to be around.
It is clearly an abhorrence to suggest that gay men, by virtue of being same sex attracted, are a danger to boys. But our defence of gay men from prejudice and bigotry must not act as a smokescreen for those groups that are seeking to normalise sex with children. And this is why including so-called MAPs as part of the rainbow flag would be a disaster.
We should have learned by now that sexual predators of children are not just another oppressed sexual minority in need of support and understanding. Their apologists should not be corrupting our universities with a dangerous ideology. The sexual abuse of children is stigmatised for a reason, and so it should remain.
Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.
bindelj 
In my own lifetime, I have seen misogyny, racism, and paedophilia beaten down to near zero. Patriarchies have been dismantled. Racist stereotypes have been uprooted from society, and the institutional Catholic Church has had its reckoning. I thought for a while that these particular forms of moral corruption had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Now, in the space of a few short years, misogyny is back (death threats against gender-critical feminists), racism is back (no white men need apply) and now, horror of horrors, paedophilia is emerging from whatever vile and dark place it has been hiding. These are sad times we are living in.
That’s a pertinent comment. I believe the change is down to the internet, from which the proliferation of contact with like-minded individuals and imagery has allowed the genie to escape the bottle. It simply can’t be brushed under the carpet any more.
There are two things the article omits, however. First, is the case for how the rationalisation of those sexually attracted to minors should be countered. If this is something being discussed at an academic level (and clearly it is) then the rationale for its avoidance – however obvious it might seem – still needs to be made.
Second, i’m not sure it’s confined to males. If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity. There are examples of such, but like Queen Victoria who just couldn’t consider that lesbians might exist, so Julie Bindel doesn’t consider that female sexual attraction to minors exists.
Those points don’t detract from the main thrust of the article, for which i commend her. Forthright discussion of this admittedly difficult topic is required in order to protect young lives from adults who can’t contain themselves.
I agree that the internet and social media have certainly changed how humans interact.
I call it the “village idiot” affect.
In the past the village idiots found few to join their group. In order for groups such as the John Birch Society, the Trotskyists or religious cults to grow they had to work hard organizing and finding people. Now, far easier to find fellow cranks and nutjobs online. Village idiots go viral and infect our society out of all proportion relative to their numbers. Jonathan Haidt estimates that around 20% of the population (left and right) drive a lot of online discourse.
Welcome to the World of Village Idiocy..ha..ha.
I think you are making an important point and that is a useful starter to answering a question I increasingly ask myself (and get asked by friends) “how did X” (name culture wars battleground of your choice) come to dominate so much of the national/international discourse? Where did all these people (if they are not also AI creations) come from, and who is behind them? If you look across the media, you’d imagine we’re in a world where extremists of every flavour were the majority, not (in many cases) a vanishingly small minority of the population. But grouped together round that virtual village square, their online mass disguises their real life prevalence.
Empty barrels make the most noise. And it is a first world drama.
Empty barrels make the most noise.
Empty barrels make the most noise. And it is a first world drama.
Empty barrels make the most noise.
Good comment but the “ha…ha..” is idiocy.
Putting “ha, ha” at the end of a comment really invalidatesIt. It makes you sound like a village idiot.
I think you are making an important point and that is a useful starter to answering a question I increasingly ask myself (and get asked by friends) “how did X” (name culture wars battleground of your choice) come to dominate so much of the national/international discourse? Where did all these people (if they are not also AI creations) come from, and who is behind them? If you look across the media, you’d imagine we’re in a world where extremists of every flavour were the majority, not (in many cases) a vanishingly small minority of the population. But grouped together round that virtual village square, their online mass disguises their real life prevalence.
Good comment but the “ha…ha..” is idiocy.
Putting “ha, ha” at the end of a comment really invalidatesIt. It makes you sound like a village idiot.
“Second, i’m not sure it’s confined to males. If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity. There are examples of such, but like Queen Victoria who just couldn’t consider that lesbians might exist, so Julie Bindel doesn’t consider that female sexual attraction to minors exists.”
This is a Julie Bindel article. Virtually all wrongdoing is male. The only wrongdoing women can perpetrate is being insufficiently feminist.
Steve and Galvatron: it’s true that women commit crimes and it’s true that there are decent men who do not want to hurt women. Unfortunately even the most cursory of glances at crime statistics reveals that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual offences. Please look it up. Two women are murdered by partners every week in the UK by men.
But what is frequently overlooked is that men are the victims of male violence far more often than women. So we should be natural allies but, of course, Bindel doesn’t see it that way.
No honest woman sees it that way.
Sharing a common abuser does not always make for “natural” allies, unfortunately.
“Adult men are the victims of male violence far more often than women”. What?!! And your source for this misinformation is?
But it’s male on male so which is the victim? It’s gun violence in the US, black on black crime.
No honest woman sees it that way.
Sharing a common abuser does not always make for “natural” allies, unfortunately.
“Adult men are the victims of male violence far more often than women”. What?!! And your source for this misinformation is?
But it’s male on male so which is the victim? It’s gun violence in the US, black on black crime.
Faux naivety is always irritating.
True, but some mothers emotionally damage their sons and sexually seduce them before they’re adults. How much of male violence against women comes from this type of scenario No one, as yet, knows.
Exactly.
But what is frequently overlooked is that men are the victims of male violence far more often than women. So we should be natural allies but, of course, Bindel doesn’t see it that way.
Faux naivety is always irritating.
True, but some mothers emotionally damage their sons and sexually seduce them before they’re adults. How much of male violence against women comes from this type of scenario No one, as yet, knows.
Exactly.
You’re obviously unaware of the stats, 98% of ALL sexual crime globally is committed by men, just facts, not fiction. Men historically have always had more money and leisure time to watch porn, and its nowa proven link to violence against women and girls. No need to get defensive, just aim to be the opposite and you won’t become a statistic.
Steve and Galvatron: it’s true that women commit crimes and it’s true that there are decent men who do not want to hurt women. Unfortunately even the most cursory of glances at crime statistics reveals that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual offences. Please look it up. Two women are murdered by partners every week in the UK by men.
You’re obviously unaware of the stats, 98% of ALL sexual crime globally is committed by men, just facts, not fiction. Men historically have always had more money and leisure time to watch porn, and its nowa proven link to violence against women and girls. No need to get defensive, just aim to be the opposite and you won’t become a statistic.
It can’t be countered because there’s no actual case (see Rind 2022), or, if there was one, the defenders of the current paradigm have become so lazy they are incapable of making actual argument and rely on censorship primarily to enforce current taboos.
“If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity.” Yes, but show me the evidence that it is a human trait and not just a male one (like having a p***s and paraphilias, both male traits). There are some real differences between male and female human sexuality, just like there are some real differences between male and female internal and external genitalia.
Research and history alike would tend to suggest that pedophilia is a male thing.
What a stupid and annoying comment that was.
Predominately but not exclusively male.
What a stupid and annoying comment that was.
Predominately but not exclusively male.
You can’t possibly believe that women commit sexual crimes at the rate of men. I don’t believe you believe that. You are too articulate and educated not to be perfectly well aware of that. So why bother adding the second point? Just to be annoying?
I was married to a psychiatrist who had been sexually molested by his mother. He had many clients to whom this had also occurred. There are mothers who seduce their sons, sexually abuse them and have intercourse with them. Male victims are reluctant to discuss what happened to them and so, no authoritative studies have been done, so far. I so wish someone, appropriate, would write something based on interviews with men who’ve been victimized. I suspect many of these damaged men have gone on to damage many women, because they’re filled with rage. This seems to be the last taboo which still remains in the closet.
I agree that the internet and social media have certainly changed how humans interact.
I call it the “village idiot” affect.
In the past the village idiots found few to join their group. In order for groups such as the John Birch Society, the Trotskyists or religious cults to grow they had to work hard organizing and finding people. Now, far easier to find fellow cranks and nutjobs online. Village idiots go viral and infect our society out of all proportion relative to their numbers. Jonathan Haidt estimates that around 20% of the population (left and right) drive a lot of online discourse.
Welcome to the World of Village Idiocy..ha..ha.
“Second, i’m not sure it’s confined to males. If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity. There are examples of such, but like Queen Victoria who just couldn’t consider that lesbians might exist, so Julie Bindel doesn’t consider that female sexual attraction to minors exists.”
This is a Julie Bindel article. Virtually all wrongdoing is male. The only wrongdoing women can perpetrate is being insufficiently feminist.
It can’t be countered because there’s no actual case (see Rind 2022), or, if there was one, the defenders of the current paradigm have become so lazy they are incapable of making actual argument and rely on censorship primarily to enforce current taboos.
“If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity.” Yes, but show me the evidence that it is a human trait and not just a male one (like having a p***s and paraphilias, both male traits). There are some real differences between male and female human sexuality, just like there are some real differences between male and female internal and external genitalia.
Research and history alike would tend to suggest that pedophilia is a male thing.
You can’t possibly believe that women commit sexual crimes at the rate of men. I don’t believe you believe that. You are too articulate and educated not to be perfectly well aware of that. So why bother adding the second point? Just to be annoying?
I was married to a psychiatrist who had been sexually molested by his mother. He had many clients to whom this had also occurred. There are mothers who seduce their sons, sexually abuse them and have intercourse with them. Male victims are reluctant to discuss what happened to them and so, no authoritative studies have been done, so far. I so wish someone, appropriate, would write something based on interviews with men who’ve been victimized. I suspect many of these damaged men have gone on to damage many women, because they’re filled with rage. This seems to be the last taboo which still remains in the closet.
Agree. Let’s also not forget to include people attracted to animals who want validation now.
Just like a parking ticket?
Looking at the recent case of Mr Edwards and his luckless Labrador, I suspect that the English law on bestiality could easily be overturned if a sufficiently bold lawyer was prepared to fight an argument all the way up the legal chain. Admittedly he might drive his client to a nervous breakdown and/or suicide along the way. Especially if millions of enraged British dog lovers started Twittering him to death. If you can legally commit certain acts with a living human being, why not an animal? Or a corpse, as per the late Sir James Savile, OBE, KCSG.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23100407.peter-edwards-sentenced-depraved-sex-acts-dog/
As for child abuse, what if the child consents? Carson Holloway did a superb article years ago called “Dare we get serious about sex?” in Touchstone magazine ( unfortunately behind a pay wall). His depressing conclusion was that we probably couldn’t. Too many nice respectable middle class Christians had compromised themselves too much to have any coherent argument against minority sexual practices, however totally repulsive they seemed.
“As for child abuse, what if the child consents? “
That’s the point of an age of consent, they can’t legally.
and that fact isn’t taken anywhere seriously enough in society. The age of consent is there for a reason – to protect.
It protects no one, since negative outcomes only result from contacts that were unwilling and would have been prohibited anyway, or from subsequent social indoctrination to make the younger party feel that they did something wrong and shameful. The actual effect of these laws is to traumatize people by violently separating them from their older lovers.
Rubbish.
Rubbish.
It protects no one, since negative outcomes only result from contacts that were unwilling and would have been prohibited anyway, or from subsequent social indoctrination to make the younger party feel that they did something wrong and shameful. The actual effect of these laws is to traumatize people by violently separating them from their older lovers.
No, that’s the consequence of an age of consent, not its point. It tells us nothing about whether there should be one in the first place.
Well said.
and that fact isn’t taken anywhere seriously enough in society. The age of consent is there for a reason – to protect.
No, that’s the consequence of an age of consent, not its point. It tells us nothing about whether there should be one in the first place.
Well said.
If the child consented it wouldn’t be abuse , but they don’t consent.
“As for child abuse, what if the child consents? “
That’s the point of an age of consent, they can’t legally.
If the child consented it wouldn’t be abuse , but they don’t consent.
Yes! I foresee a time when one can marry their dog or cat.
And why not if mutual love and adoration is the prime criteria as it seems to be now. Of course your average dog may not have the mental capacity to understand the meaning of marriage and all that it entails but plenty of humans seem to have forgotten the traditional purpose.
Procreation was the purpose, wasn’t it?
Procreation was the purpose, wasn’t it?
No doubt by virtue of claiming to be a dog or a cat…
And why not if mutual love and adoration is the prime criteria as it seems to be now. Of course your average dog may not have the mental capacity to understand the meaning of marriage and all that it entails but plenty of humans seem to have forgotten the traditional purpose.
No doubt by virtue of claiming to be a dog or a cat…
Just like a parking ticket?
Looking at the recent case of Mr Edwards and his luckless Labrador, I suspect that the English law on bestiality could easily be overturned if a sufficiently bold lawyer was prepared to fight an argument all the way up the legal chain. Admittedly he might drive his client to a nervous breakdown and/or suicide along the way. Especially if millions of enraged British dog lovers started Twittering him to death. If you can legally commit certain acts with a living human being, why not an animal? Or a corpse, as per the late Sir James Savile, OBE, KCSG.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23100407.peter-edwards-sentenced-depraved-sex-acts-dog/
As for child abuse, what if the child consents? Carson Holloway did a superb article years ago called “Dare we get serious about sex?” in Touchstone magazine ( unfortunately behind a pay wall). His depressing conclusion was that we probably couldn’t. Too many nice respectable middle class Christians had compromised themselves too much to have any coherent argument against minority sexual practices, however totally repulsive they seemed.
Yes! I foresee a time when one can marry their dog or cat.
Welcome to the consequences of identity politics in all their awful glory. What I mean by identity politics is the marriage of identity based theories with theories of distributive justice, and combining them with the corruption and ineptitude of bloated state bureaucracies. Whilst many activists will snarl that rights aren’t pie, that is exactly what the modern iterations of identity activism turn rights into; rights are now expected to be applied via giving certain groups greater portions of finite resources, for example funding, jobs, legal cover (there’s a finite amount of police, lawyers, court time, etc for dealing with the full range of crimes in a given society) in order to provide those groups with “reparations”.
Such situations also incentivise providing certain identity groups with increased immunity from being held to account for their behaviour, as we have seen in numerous cases, social workers, HR departments, schools and councils shy away from investigating allegations against certain individuals for fear they will be accused of some ism, leading to preventable tragedies such as the murder of Star Hobson. This creates an absolutely perfect situation for a variety of different predatory human beings to take advantage of, and so of course, those individuals are then aligning themselves with whatever identity groups are receiving the greatest amounts of immunity and reparations at any given time. In the 1970s and 80s, many such predators chose to latch on to the gay community, as it was at that time the only community where someone could attain membership of it via self identification.
Identity activists really do need to do some genuine work on consequentialism, there is not a magic infinite source of funding, there is not room for infinite toilets, there are not infinite jobs, or infinite houses, there’s not infinite medical care available, or infinite court time. Scarcity is an inescapable reality of life, when we give to one group, we take from another. When we give one person surgery on the NHS, we are limiting the resources for other people to receive other potentially life saving treatments, when we give a certain proportion of jobs to a ring fenced group, we are depriving a certain proportion of all other groups a job in the process. That’s not a sustainable situation in terms of community cohesion, it creates resentment in the groups who are excluded towards the groups that benefit, it incentivises more groups to organise themselves and push back with counter demands, it teaches individuals that their personal choices and circumstances mean less than the choices and circumstances of their ancestors.
Exactly. The fundamental issue is the validation of the concept, ‘I identify as….’ and the view that ‘identities’ are always valid.
‘Identity’ is nonsense. People either are something; female, black, gay, their age, etc or they are pretending to be it. Men who ‘identify as women’ are pretending to be women. That’s it.
Exactly. The fundamental issue is the validation of the concept, ‘I identify as….’ and the view that ‘identities’ are always valid.
‘Identity’ is nonsense. People either are something; female, black, gay, their age, etc or they are pretending to be it. Men who ‘identify as women’ are pretending to be women. That’s it.
Well stated. I remember when homosexuality was euphemised into the word gay. And the word “queer” was used derogatorily. Now both are celebrated and cause for pride. But Ms. Bindel has now apparently been confronted with her personal line in the sand and is taken aback. How hypocritical.
paedophilia and ” racism” beaten down to near zero? what planet have you been inhabiting? Have you ? Homosexuality is still a criminal offence in large parts of the globe, including certain nations where sex with boys under 12 is considered legal? Where are all the white politicians in these countries?
Whilst you have a point about the global perspectives, the particular issues this articles references are very much confined to a handful of Western countries, which had made huge amounts of progress that is being heavily undermined by a small number of extreme activists who make hyperbolic claims about genocide every time someone so much as disagrees with them.
LGB activists and feminists should be focussing on serious issues such as fgm, the rampant sexual abuse against children in developing countries, or the actual murders of gay people for being gay in other parts of the world. However, trying to interfere in other countries tends to go rather poorly for the West judging by history, so it’s very hard for people to approach such issues in a way that makes any difference, thus they end up devoting more and more of their time to battles they believe they have a good chance to win, even if those battles turn out to be about whose bum cheeks are allowed to touch which toilet seats.
Whilst you have a point about the global perspectives, the particular issues this articles references are very much confined to a handful of Western countries, which had made huge amounts of progress that is being heavily undermined by a small number of extreme activists who make hyperbolic claims about genocide every time someone so much as disagrees with them.
LGB activists and feminists should be focussing on serious issues such as fgm, the rampant sexual abuse against children in developing countries, or the actual murders of gay people for being gay in other parts of the world. However, trying to interfere in other countries tends to go rather poorly for the West judging by history, so it’s very hard for people to approach such issues in a way that makes any difference, thus they end up devoting more and more of their time to battles they believe they have a good chance to win, even if those battles turn out to be about whose bum cheeks are allowed to touch which toilet seats.
You can thank the Far Left and – sorry – useful idiots like Julie B.
What are you sorry for? That’s a pathetic thing to say. At least have the courage of your warped convictions.
What are you sorry for? That’s a pathetic thing to say. At least have the courage of your warped convictions.
We really had a long way to go to establish progress for women before this trans eruption. But now we see that under a thin veneer of progress for women there was a churning virulent hatred of women waiting impatiently to emerge.
There has and always will be a virulent hatred of women.
There has and always will be a virulent hatred of women.
More than “sad”. One might say “demonic”.
I agree with evrything you say except for the “Racism is back (no whites need apply). That’s very silly.
That’s a pertinent comment. I believe the change is down to the internet, from which the proliferation of contact with like-minded individuals and imagery has allowed the genie to escape the bottle. It simply can’t be brushed under the carpet any more.
There are two things the article omits, however. First, is the case for how the rationalisation of those sexually attracted to minors should be countered. If this is something being discussed at an academic level (and clearly it is) then the rationale for its avoidance – however obvious it might seem – still needs to be made.
Second, i’m not sure it’s confined to males. If this is a human trait, there must be females with the same proclivity. There are examples of such, but like Queen Victoria who just couldn’t consider that lesbians might exist, so Julie Bindel doesn’t consider that female sexual attraction to minors exists.
Those points don’t detract from the main thrust of the article, for which i commend her. Forthright discussion of this admittedly difficult topic is required in order to protect young lives from adults who can’t contain themselves.
Agree. Let’s also not forget to include people attracted to animals who want validation now.
Welcome to the consequences of identity politics in all their awful glory. What I mean by identity politics is the marriage of identity based theories with theories of distributive justice, and combining them with the corruption and ineptitude of bloated state bureaucracies. Whilst many activists will snarl that rights aren’t pie, that is exactly what the modern iterations of identity activism turn rights into; rights are now expected to be applied via giving certain groups greater portions of finite resources, for example funding, jobs, legal cover (there’s a finite amount of police, lawyers, court time, etc for dealing with the full range of crimes in a given society) in order to provide those groups with “reparations”.
Such situations also incentivise providing certain identity groups with increased immunity from being held to account for their behaviour, as we have seen in numerous cases, social workers, HR departments, schools and councils shy away from investigating allegations against certain individuals for fear they will be accused of some ism, leading to preventable tragedies such as the murder of Star Hobson. This creates an absolutely perfect situation for a variety of different predatory human beings to take advantage of, and so of course, those individuals are then aligning themselves with whatever identity groups are receiving the greatest amounts of immunity and reparations at any given time. In the 1970s and 80s, many such predators chose to latch on to the gay community, as it was at that time the only community where someone could attain membership of it via self identification.
Identity activists really do need to do some genuine work on consequentialism, there is not a magic infinite source of funding, there is not room for infinite toilets, there are not infinite jobs, or infinite houses, there’s not infinite medical care available, or infinite court time. Scarcity is an inescapable reality of life, when we give to one group, we take from another. When we give one person surgery on the NHS, we are limiting the resources for other people to receive other potentially life saving treatments, when we give a certain proportion of jobs to a ring fenced group, we are depriving a certain proportion of all other groups a job in the process. That’s not a sustainable situation in terms of community cohesion, it creates resentment in the groups who are excluded towards the groups that benefit, it incentivises more groups to organise themselves and push back with counter demands, it teaches individuals that their personal choices and circumstances mean less than the choices and circumstances of their ancestors.
Well stated. I remember when homosexuality was euphemised into the word gay. And the word “queer” was used derogatorily. Now both are celebrated and cause for pride. But Ms. Bindel has now apparently been confronted with her personal line in the sand and is taken aback. How hypocritical.
paedophilia and ” racism” beaten down to near zero? what planet have you been inhabiting? Have you ? Homosexuality is still a criminal offence in large parts of the globe, including certain nations where sex with boys under 12 is considered legal? Where are all the white politicians in these countries?
You can thank the Far Left and – sorry – useful idiots like Julie B.
We really had a long way to go to establish progress for women before this trans eruption. But now we see that under a thin veneer of progress for women there was a churning virulent hatred of women waiting impatiently to emerge.
More than “sad”. One might say “demonic”.
I agree with evrything you say except for the “Racism is back (no whites need apply). That’s very silly.
In my own lifetime, I have seen misogyny, racism, and paedophilia beaten down to near zero. Patriarchies have been dismantled. Racist stereotypes have been uprooted from society, and the institutional Catholic Church has had its reckoning. I thought for a while that these particular forms of moral corruption had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Now, in the space of a few short years, misogyny is back (death threats against gender-critical feminists), racism is back (no white men need apply) and now, horror of horrors, paedophilia is emerging from whatever vile and dark place it has been hiding. These are sad times we are living in.
The problem with the author’s argument is that sexual orientation is claimed to be an identity, not linked to moral choices or actions but inherent to the personal make-up of each individual. The LGBTQ+ rainbow is symbol of the wide, almost open-ended (hence the ‘+’) variety of sexualities across the human spectrum. Indeed, this diversity doesn’t just call for acceptance, but for flaunting and celebration. The trouble is, then, if that’s true of your sexual inclination, why isn’t it true of theirs? Surely the author isn’t asserting a moral deficiency in a group of people based purely on their sexuality?
Besides, there is another, more subtle and pernicious aspect to this. Stonewall, and other organisations, publish guidance on supporting ‘LGBT+ children’ down to primary school age, incorporating the idea that small children – children who snuggle soft toys and have bedtime stories – have a sexual identity which must be affirmed and nurtured. A generation ago the idea of sexualising small children would have been so repulsive, it wouldn’t have come up in polite conversation unless in the context of Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville. Now it is taken on board by schools, youth organisations and even churches, and is becoming mainstream.
It it a very short hop from assigning small children a sexual identity (with, presumably, sexual feelings and responses) to claiming that this sexual identity should be expressed. This happens not by de-stigmatisation of sexual abuse of children, but by devaluing the concept of abuse. Journalists and ageing rockers are offended by the trope that gay men and women are a menace to children. But the actions of Stonewall and the more militant activists, as they pursue their mission of queering of society and its institutions, suggest they are wrong.
Excellent sum up.
As I said in my comment, Julie’s use of “they” when referring to an individual (a female in this case) is telling. It does seem to me that certain affirmations are ok, but others not so much, but where/how do you draw the line and why should you draw a line at all?
I’m toying with the idea that if you remove the concept of normality (as queer theory via identity theory does), then it becomes very very difficult to draw a line. I’m reluctant to do this because I remember well the indignities that gay people suffered. But as you imply, once gay people were emancipated it raises the question, why stop there?
Yes, at one time gays were homosexuals. Hence, the need to now say “minor attracted” instead of pedophiles. But that will morph into something less judgemental as well some day, as “minor” still indicates lack of ability to consent.
Well, the line can be drawn using age, consent and consanguinuity. And that is how it’s drawn, and how it should stay.
Funny how they adopted the nick name ” queer” but not arse bandit, dung trumpeter, chocolate speedway merchant, uphill gardener etc? very illiberal?
I find your comments offensive.
I find your comments offensive.
Yes, at one time gays were homosexuals. Hence, the need to now say “minor attracted” instead of pedophiles. But that will morph into something less judgemental as well some day, as “minor” still indicates lack of ability to consent.
Well, the line can be drawn using age, consent and consanguinuity. And that is how it’s drawn, and how it should stay.
Funny how they adopted the nick name ” queer” but not arse bandit, dung trumpeter, chocolate speedway merchant, uphill gardener etc? very illiberal?
“…where/how do you draw the line and why should you draw a line at all?” The line has been drawn, in legal terms. I’m not an expert, and I’m loathe to look into it, but I presume the legal age of consent is based – in part – upon scientific evidence pertaining to psychological and physical health; and child abuse is referred to as ‘abuse’ not purely for moral reasons. I don’t think it’s just sentimentality and squeamishness – or religious prohibition – that forms societal norms in opposition to paedophilia.
No, that’s not what it’s based on. It was invented to protect young girls’ chastity so they could get a husband one day. When feminism made this sort of rationale less popular, the notion of intrinsic trauma from age discrepant sex was invented, and “new research” was carried out in support of this idea. As Paul Okami showed in his paper “Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents,” this “research ” was ideology-driven junk science.
I have a hard time with accepting that a woman over the age of 18 having sex with a male of 17 is considered rape in the US.
I have a hard time with accepting that a woman over the age of 18 having sex with a male of 17 is considered rape in the US.
No, that’s not what it’s based on. It was invented to protect young girls’ chastity so they could get a husband one day. When feminism made this sort of rationale less popular, the notion of intrinsic trauma from age discrepant sex was invented, and “new research” was carried out in support of this idea. As Paul Okami showed in his paper “Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents,” this “research ” was ideology-driven junk science.
I’m toying with the idea that if you remove the concept of normality (as queer theory via identity theory does), then it becomes very very difficult to draw a line. I’m reluctant to do this because I remember well the indignities that gay people suffered. But as you imply, once gay people were emancipated it raises the question, why stop there?
“…where/how do you draw the line and why should you draw a line at all?” The line has been drawn, in legal terms. I’m not an expert, and I’m loathe to look into it, but I presume the legal age of consent is based – in part – upon scientific evidence pertaining to psychological and physical health; and child abuse is referred to as ‘abuse’ not purely for moral reasons. I don’t think it’s just sentimentality and squeamishness – or religious prohibition – that forms societal norms in opposition to paedophilia.
I left a comment here, but it seems to have disappeared…
Edit:
And it has now reappeared…
Confusing, isn’t it ? Where do they go !!
Confusing, isn’t it ? Where do they go !!
Non-consequentialism does seem to be at the heart of many of the issues within society right now. The act of biological males identifying as women is painted as if it is an action that is intrinsically good, in spite of the range of consequences that demonstrate that the picture is far more complex and nuanced than any blanket universal statement can cover. Yet to activists, anything that seeks to demonstrate that good or bad isn’t a trait intrinsic to particular actions of individuals, but a measurement of the overall consequences of those actions on the majority of society is treated as reprehensible.
Even worse, whilst we see the most blatant iterations of the current desire to make self-identification the sole criteria for admission into a particular identity group within trans activism, its presence is fairly consistent within other non-consequentialist narratives of identity. For example, whenever immigration is raised as a topic, “refugees are welcome here” or some synonymous phrase tends to arise, but when it comes to deciding who actually qualifies as a refugee, all that is apparently required for activists is for an individual to self-identify as a refugee, which is of course a self-identification that is heavily incentivised by the current immigration system, so even those who don’t merit being defined as refugees by even the loosest of criteria will still attempt to do so.
As I’ve said in another post, scarcity is an inescapable reality of life, we don’t have unlimited land, unlimited housing, unlimited infrastructure for unlimited numbers of people, just as we don’t have unlimited numbers of toilet facilities, schools, and jobs for all of these self identifying collectives to ring fence for themselves, there has to be decisions made about how these are allocated, not based on activist fairy tales that magically rearrange the global economy to remove all those pesky wealthy people, but based on what is realistically accessible. Every time we privilege one identity group, we deprive another, and I and many others believe that when it comes to priorities, the safety of the majority of children has to take precedence over the feelings of a very small minority of wider society.
Additionally, self-identification is a very poor method for determining identity within society, as it will invariably lead to individuals trying to claim whichever identities further their pursuit of their own goals regardless of how detrimental those goals are to wider society.
It’s hard to believe that anyone who’s psychologically healthy would want to get involved in this identity mess.
It’s hard to believe that anyone who’s psychologically healthy would want to get involved in this identity mess.
Spot on, especially your first paragraph.
I find LG and T are very different. Acknowledging and legitimizing the rights of gay people did not impinge on the human rights of others, nor did it lead to an explosion in gay children and youth, the likes of which we see in the trans fad which appeals so much to confused hormonal teens.
It did not lead to blokes in dresses getting into female sports and female prisons and female toilets. Some of them not just in dresses – often in leggings or swimming costumes or indeed naked, showing their square stubbly jaws, broad shoulders and their tackle.
Fact is that there ARE genuine trans people who were and are accepted happily by most in society. Their rights are also being trampled on by this lunacy.
G and T must have a clean glass clear ice and Scweppes tonic from a bottle
G and T must have a clean glass clear ice and Scweppes tonic from a bottle
To call paedophiles minor attracted people is normalising. Some girls go through puberty at the age of 11 and are fully formed. It is perfectly normal for a man to be attracted to a post pubescent minor (Bill Whyman and Mandy Smith), but It is not perfectly normal to act on the attraction, that is a moral choice. I think there should be a distinction between those who are attracted to-pre pubescent and post-pubescent minors. I suspect it is abnormal to be attracted to pre-pubescent minors. Sexual attraction and arousal and the interaction of taboo and desire is a fascinating topic. Apparently male rats who are separated from their mothers at birth will copulate with their mothers if reintroduced to them as adults but male rats raised by their mothers do not copulate with their mothers. Obviously, how similar rat sexuality is to human sexuality is debatable. I read a research paper reporting on some research in which participants watched same sex porn whilst having their genitals attached to electrodes to detect sexual arousal. The results were heterosexual men were only aroused by girl on girl action (except for homophobic men who were aroused by male sexual activity as were homosexual men) and women were aroused by everything but were generally not aware of their arousal when it contradicted their professed sexuality. Women seem to have a much greater social component to their sexuality. Julie Bindel is very proud of having chosen to be a lesbian. If female sexuality is strongly influenced by social conditions, social acceptance, then it is more susceptible to grooming and social contagion. Kathleen Stock switched teams and is now an out and proud lesbian. I suspect it was partly because of the reaction to her material girls book, being attacked and reviled, and the need for social acceptance. I suspect the response was unexpected and she was accustomed to being highly praised for her work. Now she is a heroic and high status feminist lesbian who is compromised as a philosopher. Her position on certain important subjects is not open for debate, I suspect.
I was waiting for a downvote, I was actually expecting a deluge. Surprisingly, it took 23 hours. Could you state exactly what you are objecting to. Do you just dislike that it is probably true, an objection to the way the world is, or do you disagree with some of my assertions, if so, which ones?
I didn’t expect this comment to be downvoted. It is the behaviour of the herd (the censorious mob) particularly those who populate higher education departments of the arts and social ‘sciences’. Those who have an aversion to debate. Those who just want dissenters silenced. It is disappointing.
I didn’t expect this comment to be downvoted. It is the behaviour of the herd (the censorious mob) particularly those who populate higher education departments of the arts and social ‘sciences’. Those who have an aversion to debate. Those who just want dissenters silenced. It is disappointing.
I up voted you, but to be fair you do jump to conclusions based on your own hunches, most likely a sign of confirmation bias. Although, I am beginning to see that the “soft sciences” embrace confirmation bias as a way of research, so this may be totally acceptable. For example, examining something through the lens of something (Marxism, environmentalism, feminism), a popular method in the social sciences, is most certainly confirmation bias.
Coming from the hard sciences, I now understand my frustration with much of academia at the moment.
My background is hard sciences. I do have a diploma in psychology as well. My conclusions are based on reading a huge, huge number of papers and numerous text books, and reading the great works. It probably seems like I jump around but if I were to include everything that inclines me to my conclusions, all the connections, I would have to write a book.
There is some excellent work produced in psychology but also a huge amount of dross. Piaget was brilliant but he did have a PhD in pure mathematics, as is Jordan Peterson. Cognitive psychology is generally well structured. There is a problem with the application of statistics by those who have no understanding of statistics – the power and the limitations (numbers in themselves say nothing, people do the talking).
I believe it is intellectual sloth to study, say history, through the lens of Marxism. To develop a true understanding of history, it is necessary to understand human nature which involves self-knowledge (an awareness of bias is an aspect of self-knowledge) and, as the ancient Greek philosophers generally recognised, that is probably the hardest kind of knowledge to attain.
Why did you upvote? Where is the confirmation bias? Please specify? I appreciate constructive criticism but your criticism is far to vague to be useful. I don’t believe I am always right and always want to correct my erroneous thinking.
My background is hard sciences. I do have a diploma in psychology as well. My conclusions are based on reading a huge, huge number of papers and numerous text books, and reading the great works. It probably seems like I jump around but if I were to include everything that inclines me to my conclusions, all the connections, I would have to write a book.
There is some excellent work produced in psychology but also a huge amount of dross. Piaget was brilliant but he did have a PhD in pure mathematics, as is Jordan Peterson. Cognitive psychology is generally well structured. There is a problem with the application of statistics by those who have no understanding of statistics – the power and the limitations (numbers in themselves say nothing, people do the talking).
I believe it is intellectual sloth to study, say history, through the lens of Marxism. To develop a true understanding of history, it is necessary to understand human nature which involves self-knowledge (an awareness of bias is an aspect of self-knowledge) and, as the ancient Greek philosophers generally recognised, that is probably the hardest kind of knowledge to attain.
Why did you upvote? Where is the confirmation bias? Please specify? I appreciate constructive criticism but your criticism is far to vague to be useful. I don’t believe I am always right and always want to correct my erroneous thinking.
I was waiting for a downvote, I was actually expecting a deluge. Surprisingly, it took 23 hours. Could you state exactly what you are objecting to. Do you just dislike that it is probably true, an objection to the way the world is, or do you disagree with some of my assertions, if so, which ones?
I up voted you, but to be fair you do jump to conclusions based on your own hunches, most likely a sign of confirmation bias. Although, I am beginning to see that the “soft sciences” embrace confirmation bias as a way of research, so this may be totally acceptable. For example, examining something through the lens of something (Marxism, environmentalism, feminism), a popular method in the social sciences, is most certainly confirmation bias.
Coming from the hard sciences, I now understand my frustration with much of academia at the moment.
Excellent sum up.
As I said in my comment, Julie’s use of “they” when referring to an individual (a female in this case) is telling. It does seem to me that certain affirmations are ok, but others not so much, but where/how do you draw the line and why should you draw a line at all?
I left a comment here, but it seems to have disappeared…
Edit:
And it has now reappeared…
Non-consequentialism does seem to be at the heart of many of the issues within society right now. The act of biological males identifying as women is painted as if it is an action that is intrinsically good, in spite of the range of consequences that demonstrate that the picture is far more complex and nuanced than any blanket universal statement can cover. Yet to activists, anything that seeks to demonstrate that good or bad isn’t a trait intrinsic to particular actions of individuals, but a measurement of the overall consequences of those actions on the majority of society is treated as reprehensible.
Even worse, whilst we see the most blatant iterations of the current desire to make self-identification the sole criteria for admission into a particular identity group within trans activism, its presence is fairly consistent within other non-consequentialist narratives of identity. For example, whenever immigration is raised as a topic, “refugees are welcome here” or some synonymous phrase tends to arise, but when it comes to deciding who actually qualifies as a refugee, all that is apparently required for activists is for an individual to self-identify as a refugee, which is of course a self-identification that is heavily incentivised by the current immigration system, so even those who don’t merit being defined as refugees by even the loosest of criteria will still attempt to do so.
As I’ve said in another post, scarcity is an inescapable reality of life, we don’t have unlimited land, unlimited housing, unlimited infrastructure for unlimited numbers of people, just as we don’t have unlimited numbers of toilet facilities, schools, and jobs for all of these self identifying collectives to ring fence for themselves, there has to be decisions made about how these are allocated, not based on activist fairy tales that magically rearrange the global economy to remove all those pesky wealthy people, but based on what is realistically accessible. Every time we privilege one identity group, we deprive another, and I and many others believe that when it comes to priorities, the safety of the majority of children has to take precedence over the feelings of a very small minority of wider society.
Additionally, self-identification is a very poor method for determining identity within society, as it will invariably lead to individuals trying to claim whichever identities further their pursuit of their own goals regardless of how detrimental those goals are to wider society.
Spot on, especially your first paragraph.
I find LG and T are very different. Acknowledging and legitimizing the rights of gay people did not impinge on the human rights of others, nor did it lead to an explosion in gay children and youth, the likes of which we see in the trans fad which appeals so much to confused hormonal teens.
It did not lead to blokes in dresses getting into female sports and female prisons and female toilets. Some of them not just in dresses – often in leggings or swimming costumes or indeed naked, showing their square stubbly jaws, broad shoulders and their tackle.
Fact is that there ARE genuine trans people who were and are accepted happily by most in society. Their rights are also being trampled on by this lunacy.
To call paedophiles minor attracted people is normalising. Some girls go through puberty at the age of 11 and are fully formed. It is perfectly normal for a man to be attracted to a post pubescent minor (Bill Whyman and Mandy Smith), but It is not perfectly normal to act on the attraction, that is a moral choice. I think there should be a distinction between those who are attracted to-pre pubescent and post-pubescent minors. I suspect it is abnormal to be attracted to pre-pubescent minors. Sexual attraction and arousal and the interaction of taboo and desire is a fascinating topic. Apparently male rats who are separated from their mothers at birth will copulate with their mothers if reintroduced to them as adults but male rats raised by their mothers do not copulate with their mothers. Obviously, how similar rat sexuality is to human sexuality is debatable. I read a research paper reporting on some research in which participants watched same sex porn whilst having their genitals attached to electrodes to detect sexual arousal. The results were heterosexual men were only aroused by girl on girl action (except for homophobic men who were aroused by male sexual activity as were homosexual men) and women were aroused by everything but were generally not aware of their arousal when it contradicted their professed sexuality. Women seem to have a much greater social component to their sexuality. Julie Bindel is very proud of having chosen to be a lesbian. If female sexuality is strongly influenced by social conditions, social acceptance, then it is more susceptible to grooming and social contagion. Kathleen Stock switched teams and is now an out and proud lesbian. I suspect it was partly because of the reaction to her material girls book, being attacked and reviled, and the need for social acceptance. I suspect the response was unexpected and she was accustomed to being highly praised for her work. Now she is a heroic and high status feminist lesbian who is compromised as a philosopher. Her position on certain important subjects is not open for debate, I suspect.
The problem with the author’s argument is that sexual orientation is claimed to be an identity, not linked to moral choices or actions but inherent to the personal make-up of each individual. The LGBTQ+ rainbow is symbol of the wide, almost open-ended (hence the ‘+’) variety of sexualities across the human spectrum. Indeed, this diversity doesn’t just call for acceptance, but for flaunting and celebration. The trouble is, then, if that’s true of your sexual inclination, why isn’t it true of theirs? Surely the author isn’t asserting a moral deficiency in a group of people based purely on their sexuality?
Besides, there is another, more subtle and pernicious aspect to this. Stonewall, and other organisations, publish guidance on supporting ‘LGBT+ children’ down to primary school age, incorporating the idea that small children – children who snuggle soft toys and have bedtime stories – have a sexual identity which must be affirmed and nurtured. A generation ago the idea of sexualising small children would have been so repulsive, it wouldn’t have come up in polite conversation unless in the context of Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville. Now it is taken on board by schools, youth organisations and even churches, and is becoming mainstream.
It it a very short hop from assigning small children a sexual identity (with, presumably, sexual feelings and responses) to claiming that this sexual identity should be expressed. This happens not by de-stigmatisation of sexual abuse of children, but by devaluing the concept of abuse. Journalists and ageing rockers are offended by the trope that gay men and women are a menace to children. But the actions of Stonewall and the more militant activists, as they pursue their mission of queering of society and its institutions, suggest they are wrong.
A society that fails to protect and nurture children is a sick, sick thing, and will almost certainly lead to self destruction.
I refuse to believe that paedophilia will ever be accepted in mainstream society. Unfortunately, it has become acceptable to perform life-altering medical procedures on children suffering mental health issues. And we also allowed children to get vaccinated for a virus that clearly had no impact on their health. I fear for the west.
Anything goes when anything is allowed.
Rome had institutionalized and socially accepted pedophilia for 1,000 years and did not fall due to it.
I also fear for the West and for the same reasons, but I think you are being a bit optimistic about the mainstream never accepting pedophilia. The ancient Greeks didn’t just accept it, they celebrated adult male pedophilia as a virtue.
what about the middle east where certain male paedo activity is the norm?
As is misogyny.
As is misogyny.
But I wonder how the kids felt about it.
what about the middle east where certain male paedo activity is the norm?
But I wonder how the kids felt about it.
What is today called pedophilia was accepted for most of human history. As recently as the nineteenth century, the age of consent in Delaware was ten.
That doesn’t make it right. There is something called progress.
Actually the age of consent in Delaware was seven. In other states ten and twelve. What suffering that must have caused to the victims.
That doesn’t make it right. There is something called progress.
Actually the age of consent in Delaware was seven. In other states ten and twelve. What suffering that must have caused to the victims.
Anything goes when anything is allowed.
Rome had institutionalized and socially accepted pedophilia for 1,000 years and did not fall due to it.
I also fear for the West and for the same reasons, but I think you are being a bit optimistic about the mainstream never accepting pedophilia. The ancient Greeks didn’t just accept it, they celebrated adult male pedophilia as a virtue.
What is today called pedophilia was accepted for most of human history. As recently as the nineteenth century, the age of consent in Delaware was ten.
A society that fails to protect and nurture children is a sick, sick thing, and will almost certainly lead to self destruction.
I refuse to believe that paedophilia will ever be accepted in mainstream society. Unfortunately, it has become acceptable to perform life-altering medical procedures on children suffering mental health issues. And we also allowed children to get vaccinated for a virus that clearly had no impact on their health. I fear for the west.
i think part of the problem is over production of so called academics looking for new areas of research. In 2009, I undertook some research in psychology investigating stigmatisatIon and various different types of mental illness. Being of a scientific bent, social psychology was quite alien to me and I decided I wanted to understand it and thought the best way would be to involve myself in some research. Clearly, the most stigmatised of all the mental illnesses is schizophrenia. I was having an interesting discussion with a highly intelligent lecturer in social psychology about the level of stigmatisation of schizophrenia and the the underlying reasons (applying some depth psychology). She became very excited and animated, and asked me if I knew which group was actually the most stigmatised in society. I didn’t. She paused then dramatically announced paedophiles. It was clear from her tone she was condemning mainstream society for its bigotry. I was both shocked and slightly sickened. I didn’t know how to respond. I had already decided an academic career in psychology was not for me as some of my results were politically incorrect so I left them out. I had found myself self censoring, saying nothing when ignorance of other subjects resulted in completely fallacious statements and claims. There seemed to be an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, but compassion for pedophiles was promoted: It was a safe topic.
I think that is a shrewd analysis. Decades ago Stanislav Andreski wrote a wickedly funny book called “Social sciences as sorcery”. He declared that the expansion of modern academia (circa 1970!!) had attracted people with no ability for original scholarship.
Some fields, like physics, were visibly very difficult and would deter the less bright. But charlatans could bullshit their way into certain social sciences and survive after a fashion. Which of their equally talentless colleagues was going to call them out? Andreski had fought in the Polish Army in 1939 and was not afraid of a punch-up.
Like animals who can survive in niches in hostile environments which deter most species, espousing a repulsive field of study will ensure that you have limited competition. And you may even get media attention as a qualified “expert”.
Yes and they indoctrinate students less able than themselves who are unleashed on society as social justice warriors who believe they know better than the unindoctrinated masses, who must be educated and enlightened. They then infiltrate organisations and government departments, become teachers, and set up charities to further their cause.
Yes and they indoctrinate students less able than themselves who are unleashed on society as social justice warriors who believe they know better than the unindoctrinated masses, who must be educated and enlightened. They then infiltrate organisations and government departments, become teachers, and set up charities to further their cause.
I honestly think as a society we have far too many professional academics, particularly in the humanities. There is only so much funding to go around between academics, and the way that this funding is prioritised seems to skew in favour of whatever research topics are in fashion rather than what research topics are actually useful to society. Thus we get endless research about queering funded, often with public funding from state based research councils, even though if you asked the general public, such subjects do absolutely nothing to improve their day to day lives or solve problems that they actually deal with on a daily basis.
In addition, as the vast majority of academic research is hidden behind varied paywalls, that greatly inhibits how useful it can actually be to anyone beyond the ivory towers of the academic profession, and creates a pretty toxic echo chamber where at least some academics start to believe that they should be treated as some kind of neo-priestly order that interprets reality and doles it out in small doses to dictate what is good for the plebs, and tell them what they are allowed to think.
There’s also a massive progressive and left wing political bias within academia, especially within the arts and humanities, with niche ideas being pursued to the point where you can’t help but wonder if the critical faculties of the faculty have been thrown out the window because they are considered heteronormative, eurocentric, and a hindrance to their weird conceptions of progress.
Truth is too upsetting for progressives and logic beyond them. Anyone who really believes in the pursuit of truth and open logical discussion is anathema to them, and would not want to work in such an environment.
Rubbish.
Rubbish.
Truth is too upsetting for progressives and logic beyond them. Anyone who really believes in the pursuit of truth and open logical discussion is anathema to them, and would not want to work in such an environment.
I doubt there is compassion for pedophiles in all of academia.
I think that is a shrewd analysis. Decades ago Stanislav Andreski wrote a wickedly funny book called “Social sciences as sorcery”. He declared that the expansion of modern academia (circa 1970!!) had attracted people with no ability for original scholarship.
Some fields, like physics, were visibly very difficult and would deter the less bright. But charlatans could bullshit their way into certain social sciences and survive after a fashion. Which of their equally talentless colleagues was going to call them out? Andreski had fought in the Polish Army in 1939 and was not afraid of a punch-up.
Like animals who can survive in niches in hostile environments which deter most species, espousing a repulsive field of study will ensure that you have limited competition. And you may even get media attention as a qualified “expert”.
I honestly think as a society we have far too many professional academics, particularly in the humanities. There is only so much funding to go around between academics, and the way that this funding is prioritised seems to skew in favour of whatever research topics are in fashion rather than what research topics are actually useful to society. Thus we get endless research about queering funded, often with public funding from state based research councils, even though if you asked the general public, such subjects do absolutely nothing to improve their day to day lives or solve problems that they actually deal with on a daily basis.
In addition, as the vast majority of academic research is hidden behind varied paywalls, that greatly inhibits how useful it can actually be to anyone beyond the ivory towers of the academic profession, and creates a pretty toxic echo chamber where at least some academics start to believe that they should be treated as some kind of neo-priestly order that interprets reality and doles it out in small doses to dictate what is good for the plebs, and tell them what they are allowed to think.
There’s also a massive progressive and left wing political bias within academia, especially within the arts and humanities, with niche ideas being pursued to the point where you can’t help but wonder if the critical faculties of the faculty have been thrown out the window because they are considered heteronormative, eurocentric, and a hindrance to their weird conceptions of progress.
I doubt there is compassion for pedophiles in all of academia.
i think part of the problem is over production of so called academics looking for new areas of research. In 2009, I undertook some research in psychology investigating stigmatisatIon and various different types of mental illness. Being of a scientific bent, social psychology was quite alien to me and I decided I wanted to understand it and thought the best way would be to involve myself in some research. Clearly, the most stigmatised of all the mental illnesses is schizophrenia. I was having an interesting discussion with a highly intelligent lecturer in social psychology about the level of stigmatisation of schizophrenia and the the underlying reasons (applying some depth psychology). She became very excited and animated, and asked me if I knew which group was actually the most stigmatised in society. I didn’t. She paused then dramatically announced paedophiles. It was clear from her tone she was condemning mainstream society for its bigotry. I was both shocked and slightly sickened. I didn’t know how to respond. I had already decided an academic career in psychology was not for me as some of my results were politically incorrect so I left them out. I had found myself self censoring, saying nothing when ignorance of other subjects resulted in completely fallacious statements and claims. There seemed to be an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, but compassion for pedophiles was promoted: It was a safe topic.
4 decades ago, there was a gay paedo advocacy group in North America known as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, and LGB organizations back in the day vehemently opposed their agenda not only by word but also concrete action which saw NAMBLA being banned from many large LGBTQ events. Now flash-forward some 40 years- you have the likes of Sen. Scott Weiner and the woke media going the exact opposite way. I have nothing but love and support for those who are in the LGB community(TQ depends on the specific issue), as many of them are simply good folks living their lives and not bothering others, but we don’t need paedophiles infiltrating their community and ruin their reputation, let alone being enabled to harm innocent kids as they please!
This minor attracted person thing will cause harm to gay rights. It’s always been a cudgel to vilify the gay community. If the gay community tolerates this disturbing behavior, there will be a lot of bigots saying; “I told you so.”
I told you so ! (Well, obviously, not, I’m far to polite, but that that didn’t mean that I didn’t think there might be a connection, but, presumably, bigots would have called me bigoted for immature, adolescent, thoughts, so I keep them to myself).
A bit like Asian (mostly Pakistani) grooming gangs, I wonder if there is not a ‘degree’ of cultural ‘sensitivity’ that hinders the ‘open’ examination of links between paedophilia and homosexuality. Not wanting to ‘stigmatise’ a ‘minority’ community allows a minority, within a minority, to operate, screened from the usual scrutiny. Until a frank and open conversation can be had, that fully examines connections (or not) between homosexuality and paedophilia, then is it any wonder that M.A.P’s will try to seek cover under the rainbow flag.
MAPs are doing no such thing. They’ve got their own flag (as do AAMs, adult attracted minors), and are quite bitter over having been ejected from the gay movement in the ’90s after it was taken over by conservative assimilationists.
So there is an organization for minors attracted to adults?!! That sounds awfully suspicious. I’d like to know who started it and the mentality of those in it. Would it be boys, not girls? And what race? Whites I assume.
So there is an organization for minors attracted to adults?!! That sounds awfully suspicious. I’d like to know who started it and the mentality of those in it. Would it be boys, not girls? And what race? Whites I assume.
But not all pedophiles are attracted to young boys. For some it’s young girls.
MAPs are doing no such thing. They’ve got their own flag (as do AAMs, adult attracted minors), and are quite bitter over having been ejected from the gay movement in the ’90s after it was taken over by conservative assimilationists.
But not all pedophiles are attracted to young boys. For some it’s young girls.
or perhaps true? Heaven forbid!
Exactly, they need to speak up.
I told you so ! (Well, obviously, not, I’m far to polite, but that that didn’t mean that I didn’t think there might be a connection, but, presumably, bigots would have called me bigoted for immature, adolescent, thoughts, so I keep them to myself).
A bit like Asian (mostly Pakistani) grooming gangs, I wonder if there is not a ‘degree’ of cultural ‘sensitivity’ that hinders the ‘open’ examination of links between paedophilia and homosexuality. Not wanting to ‘stigmatise’ a ‘minority’ community allows a minority, within a minority, to operate, screened from the usual scrutiny. Until a frank and open conversation can be had, that fully examines connections (or not) between homosexuality and paedophilia, then is it any wonder that M.A.P’s will try to seek cover under the rainbow flag.
or perhaps true? Heaven forbid!
Exactly, they need to speak up.
But what if some of them are “simply good folks living their lives?”
NACHO, a gay youth group founded a month after Stonewall, called for the complete abolition of the age of consent. NAMBLA was only banned from San Fran Pride in 1986 which actually led to protests from prominent gay rights campaigners like Harry Hay who wore a jacked emblazoned with the words “NAMBLA walks with me.” The divorce was only complete when the ILGA removed NAMBLA from its observer status in 1994 under pressure from Christian conservatives who wanted to get the ILGA removed from its consultative status at the UN.
I don’t disagree that the LGBT community has been some the of most vicious haters and persecutors of MAPs but the reality is back in its heyday, when it still had the whiff of radicalism about it, it was way closer to MAPs than the identitarian rainbow revisionists pretend.
Fair point. There must’ve been some division on the matter of MAPs among the LGB(I deem TQ as a seperate group) even back then, with many LGB factions condemning the NAMBLA while others like Harry Hay(whom I’m already aware of) backing them instead. Perhaps the consensus isn’t as uncontested as many would like to believe.
Was there more than one NACHO? Because the organisation described here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Conference_of_Homophile_Organizations) did support an age of consent.
Fair point. There must’ve been some division on the matter of MAPs among the LGB(I deem TQ as a seperate group) even back then, with many LGB factions condemning the NAMBLA while others like Harry Hay(whom I’m already aware of) backing them instead. Perhaps the consensus isn’t as uncontested as many would like to believe.
Was there more than one NACHO? Because the organisation described here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Conference_of_Homophile_Organizations) did support an age of consent.
This minor attracted person thing will cause harm to gay rights. It’s always been a cudgel to vilify the gay community. If the gay community tolerates this disturbing behavior, there will be a lot of bigots saying; “I told you so.”
But what if some of them are “simply good folks living their lives?”
NACHO, a gay youth group founded a month after Stonewall, called for the complete abolition of the age of consent. NAMBLA was only banned from San Fran Pride in 1986 which actually led to protests from prominent gay rights campaigners like Harry Hay who wore a jacked emblazoned with the words “NAMBLA walks with me.” The divorce was only complete when the ILGA removed NAMBLA from its observer status in 1994 under pressure from Christian conservatives who wanted to get the ILGA removed from its consultative status at the UN.
I don’t disagree that the LGBT community has been some the of most vicious haters and persecutors of MAPs but the reality is back in its heyday, when it still had the whiff of radicalism about it, it was way closer to MAPs than the identitarian rainbow revisionists pretend.
4 decades ago, there was a gay paedo advocacy group in North America known as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, and LGB organizations back in the day vehemently opposed their agenda not only by word but also concrete action which saw NAMBLA being banned from many large LGBTQ events. Now flash-forward some 40 years- you have the likes of Sen. Scott Weiner and the woke media going the exact opposite way. I have nothing but love and support for those who are in the LGB community(TQ depends on the specific issue), as many of them are simply good folks living their lives and not bothering others, but we don’t need paedophiles infiltrating their community and ruin their reputation, let alone being enabled to harm innocent kids as they please!
Contrary to Julie Bindel’s twisted telling, no one is describing child sexual abuse “as a sexual identity worthy of empathy”. Nor could anyone meaningfully do so, because an “identity” is not that sort of thing. Identities do not commit abuse, or do anything at all.
If Bindel’s lazy (or overworked: take a break Julie!) category errors and other crimes against grammar were the only counts on the indictment against her, there might be some scope for leniency. But sadly she is a recidivist perpetrator of convenient untruths. In the above case, for example, the effect of her distortion is serious, leaving the false and defamatory impression that MAP activists and their academic allies support child abuse.
Then there is this:
So queer theorists are genetic determinists already? Sorry, Julie, you’ve got your “hardwires” crossed. There is, to be sure, plenty of scientific research substantiating the claim that paedophilia is indeed a sexual orientation, one of a number of sexual “chronophilias”, but the evidence comes from conventional (and rather conservative) psychology, not from queer theory. See, notably, Michael C. Seto, “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2012.
And here’s yet another example of misrepresentation:
But no one is saying innate means uncontrollable. This double conditional is pure invention. Bindel bollocks!
There is much more one could easily have fun nailing as nonsense but time is getting on, and as I have Covid at the moment I’d frankly rather just be chilling with my feet up in front of the telly.
Just one further observation is irresistible, though. Bindel says that back in the 1970s activists including me “somehow” managed to be welcomed “into the upper echelons of polite, liberal society”. For scaremongering purposes, she overstates this welcome. However, to the extent that we did indeed make some inroads maybe it was because we were “polite, liberal people” ourselves, which is apparently unforgivable in today’s angry, irrational, times.
So, perhaps you can state your position in simpler and clearer terms: do you favour the legalisation of sex with minors? And are you intrinsically sexually attracted to minors?
An impressive display of nitpicking but please, what is your point? Should being sexually attracted to children be treated as we do the forms of sexual attraction between adults just because, perhaps scientifically, it works the same way in those with the affliction (because that is what I think it is)? There surely must be moral limits on what we accept in our society?
The groups that have to date put themselves forward as representatives of ‘maps’ have made painfully unconvincing assurances that their shared prevalence for sexual activity with minors has been and will remain limited to their perverted fantasies rather than result in real life abuse either in person or by the purchasing and exchanging of child pornography thereby harming real children just at arm’s length.
Children do honestly always appear to come last lately in every context and I find this inversion of our human priorities deeply concerning.
I do not know who you are but I very much wish the police would come take a very good look at your hard drive Mr O’Carrell.
I think Mr. O’Carroll is right to point out that it’s unwise to conflate categories that are distinct and opposed to each other. Many people equate MAP identities with child molestation, which often leads to an attitude of “People who have these thoughts are disgusting subhumans who shouldn’t exist.”
And that’s not great. Especially since it can scare MAPs away from getting professional help, thus making them more likely to act on it and increasing the amount of child molestation in the world.
Research has shown that what turns a pedophile into a child molester is what our current society excels at. Shame them into hiding, take away any alternatives for sexual release, and eventually the combination of sexual distress and believing themselves to be bad people already, causes some of them to break down and go through with it.
The irony is that bans on CSAM possession absolutely correlate with higher child sexual abuse rates. In all countries where CSAM possession was legalized, there was a significant decrease in the amount of sex crimes against children:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y
I wouldn’t claim this means we should legalize it, but it seems silly to be claiming it is “harming children at arm’s length” when all available evidence points to the opposite.
This logic is the same as people thinking decriminalizing cannabis possession leads to more drug addiction when the opposite is true.
That doesn’t sound right, “research has shown that what turns a pedophile into a child molester is…….. shaming them.” They get shamed when they’re caught, so they’ve already acted on it. You’ve got your cause-and-effect arse backwards (so to speak). Pedophiles get their name because they molest children, not because they just think about molesting them.
That doesn’t sound right, “research has shown that what turns a pedophile into a child molester is…….. shaming them.” They get shamed when they’re caught, so they’ve already acted on it. You’ve got your cause-and-effect arse backwards (so to speak). Pedophiles get their name because they molest children, not because they just think about molesting them.
Actual children, as distinguished from Victorian fantasies about children, have come last for a long time, and there’s no clearer sign of this than the traumatic gaslighting of those who’ve had positive intimate relationships with adults, as documented on the Consenting Juveniles website among other places.
And who bankrolls these Consenting Juveniles?
And who bankrolls these Consenting Juveniles?
I think Mr. O’Carroll is right to point out that it’s unwise to conflate categories that are distinct and opposed to each other. Many people equate MAP identities with child molestation, which often leads to an attitude of “People who have these thoughts are disgusting subhumans who shouldn’t exist.”
And that’s not great. Especially since it can scare MAPs away from getting professional help, thus making them more likely to act on it and increasing the amount of child molestation in the world.
Research has shown that what turns a pedophile into a child molester is what our current society excels at. Shame them into hiding, take away any alternatives for sexual release, and eventually the combination of sexual distress and believing themselves to be bad people already, causes some of them to break down and go through with it.
The irony is that bans on CSAM possession absolutely correlate with higher child sexual abuse rates. In all countries where CSAM possession was legalized, there was a significant decrease in the amount of sex crimes against children:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y
I wouldn’t claim this means we should legalize it, but it seems silly to be claiming it is “harming children at arm’s length” when all available evidence points to the opposite.
This logic is the same as people thinking decriminalizing cannabis possession leads to more drug addiction when the opposite is true.
Actual children, as distinguished from Victorian fantasies about children, have come last for a long time, and there’s no clearer sign of this than the traumatic gaslighting of those who’ve had positive intimate relationships with adults, as documented on the Consenting Juveniles website among other places.
Is this the same Thomas O’Carroll who is the subject of this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-paedohphile-campaigner-jailed-in-uk-1.800953 If it is it is ironic that someone convicted of possessing multiple pictures of crimes being committed against children should go on about “crimes” against grammar.
He talks about Bindel “leaving the false and defamatory impression that MAP activists and their academic allies support child abuse.” This might be the case as far as a lot of the academics and activists are concerned. But O’Caroll and his friend’s collection of 50,000 child abuse images proves that those two particular activists very much do support child abuse by encouraging others to provide them with pictures of it happening.
In O’Carroll’s case the new euphemism for pederasts should more accurately be expressed as “Minor-aroused persons”. I know that O’Carroll claimed that the pictures of children he was caught with before one of his other convictions were artistic. But it isn’t artistic sentiment that make him and his friends masturbate over illicitly taken pictures but their being sexual aroused. So whenever I see the acronym “MAP” I will know what it really stands for.
So, perhaps you can state your position in simpler and clearer terms: do you favour the legalisation of sex with minors? And are you intrinsically sexually attracted to minors?
An impressive display of nitpicking but please, what is your point? Should being sexually attracted to children be treated as we do the forms of sexual attraction between adults just because, perhaps scientifically, it works the same way in those with the affliction (because that is what I think it is)? There surely must be moral limits on what we accept in our society?
The groups that have to date put themselves forward as representatives of ‘maps’ have made painfully unconvincing assurances that their shared prevalence for sexual activity with minors has been and will remain limited to their perverted fantasies rather than result in real life abuse either in person or by the purchasing and exchanging of child pornography thereby harming real children just at arm’s length.
Children do honestly always appear to come last lately in every context and I find this inversion of our human priorities deeply concerning.
I do not know who you are but I very much wish the police would come take a very good look at your hard drive Mr O’Carrell.
Is this the same Thomas O’Carroll who is the subject of this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-paedohphile-campaigner-jailed-in-uk-1.800953 If it is it is ironic that someone convicted of possessing multiple pictures of crimes being committed against children should go on about “crimes” against grammar.
He talks about Bindel “leaving the false and defamatory impression that MAP activists and their academic allies support child abuse.” This might be the case as far as a lot of the academics and activists are concerned. But O’Caroll and his friend’s collection of 50,000 child abuse images proves that those two particular activists very much do support child abuse by encouraging others to provide them with pictures of it happening.
In O’Carroll’s case the new euphemism for pederasts should more accurately be expressed as “Minor-aroused persons”. I know that O’Carroll claimed that the pictures of children he was caught with before one of his other convictions were artistic. But it isn’t artistic sentiment that make him and his friends masturbate over illicitly taken pictures but their being sexual aroused. So whenever I see the acronym “MAP” I will know what it really stands for.
Contrary to Julie Bindel’s twisted telling, no one is describing child sexual abuse “as a sexual identity worthy of empathy”. Nor could anyone meaningfully do so, because an “identity” is not that sort of thing. Identities do not commit abuse, or do anything at all.
If Bindel’s lazy (or overworked: take a break Julie!) category errors and other crimes against grammar were the only counts on the indictment against her, there might be some scope for leniency. But sadly she is a recidivist perpetrator of convenient untruths. In the above case, for example, the effect of her distortion is serious, leaving the false and defamatory impression that MAP activists and their academic allies support child abuse.
Then there is this:
So queer theorists are genetic determinists already? Sorry, Julie, you’ve got your “hardwires” crossed. There is, to be sure, plenty of scientific research substantiating the claim that paedophilia is indeed a sexual orientation, one of a number of sexual “chronophilias”, but the evidence comes from conventional (and rather conservative) psychology, not from queer theory. See, notably, Michael C. Seto, “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2012.
And here’s yet another example of misrepresentation:
But no one is saying innate means uncontrollable. This double conditional is pure invention. Bindel bollocks!
There is much more one could easily have fun nailing as nonsense but time is getting on, and as I have Covid at the moment I’d frankly rather just be chilling with my feet up in front of the telly.
Just one further observation is irresistible, though. Bindel says that back in the 1970s activists including me “somehow” managed to be welcomed “into the upper echelons of polite, liberal society”. For scaremongering purposes, she overstates this welcome. However, to the extent that we did indeed make some inroads maybe it was because we were “polite, liberal people” ourselves, which is apparently unforgivable in today’s angry, irrational, times.
FYI Allyn Walker who resigned from Old Dominion University over the controversy about their book “ A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity” landed a job with John Hopkins (the same University that John Money was employed by). Walker is now a post doctorial fellow at the Moore Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse in Blatimore.
Walker claims the book was “mischaracterized by some in the media and online, partly on the basis of my trans identity” I may be wrong, but I feel that the sympathetic title has more to do with the backlash: the use of the term Minor Attracted People rather than Paedophile, and the phrase `Their Pursuit of Dignity”. Just how is that Dignity going to be gained? In the coming years will we see apologies issued to Gary Glitter? Savile, Harris, the clergy…etc for offending their dignity?
Anyone looking to lessen the stigma of paedophelia should be viewed with suspicion
FYI Allyn Walker who resigned from Old Dominion University over the controversy about their book “ A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity” landed a job with John Hopkins (the same University that John Money was employed by). Walker is now a post doctorial fellow at the Moore Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse in Blatimore.
Walker claims the book was “mischaracterized by some in the media and online, partly on the basis of my trans identity” I may be wrong, but I feel that the sympathetic title has more to do with the backlash: the use of the term Minor Attracted People rather than Paedophile, and the phrase `Their Pursuit of Dignity”. Just how is that Dignity going to be gained? In the coming years will we see apologies issued to Gary Glitter? Savile, Harris, the clergy…etc for offending their dignity?
Anyone looking to lessen the stigma of paedophelia should be viewed with suspicion
As I am reading I have come across this passage:
“Then, in June 2021, trans-identified queer scholar Allyn Walker published their book”
Julie, wtf?? Could you not say “published *a* book like a normal person? The same later on when you say
“Walker was suspended from their professorial post ”
Anyway, how would you classify p@edophilia? If you say an aberration or an illness, than you admit that some sexual behaviours are unacceptable. What else would be an aberration or an illness, then? I can see how for some this would be a slippery slope.
I noticed this, too. If someone is unwilling to say he or she then word the phrase so it’s not necessary to use a pronoun. Personally, if someone has a problem I just say “it”.
I thought that it was a bit of unnecessary virtue-signalling on Julie B’s part. That sort of thing is very irritating. it’s a bit like when a writer uses ‘she’ to mean ‘he or she’, presumably to protest about the very long-established use of ‘he’ to mean ‘he or she’.
Me too!!
I thought that it was a bit of unnecessary virtue-signalling on Julie B’s part. That sort of thing is very irritating. it’s a bit like when a writer uses ‘she’ to mean ‘he or she’, presumably to protest about the very long-established use of ‘he’ to mean ‘he or she’.
Me too!!
As a straight, biological, female liberal I must say I’m pissed off that any journalist would pander to the pronoun thing. There are ways around having to use a pronoun at all. Please don’t allow yourself to be morally blackmailed.
I noticed this, too. If someone is unwilling to say he or she then word the phrase so it’s not necessary to use a pronoun. Personally, if someone has a problem I just say “it”.
As a straight, biological, female liberal I must say I’m pissed off that any journalist would pander to the pronoun thing. There are ways around having to use a pronoun at all. Please don’t allow yourself to be morally blackmailed.
As I am reading I have come across this passage:
“Then, in June 2021, trans-identified queer scholar Allyn Walker published their book”
Julie, wtf?? Could you not say “published *a* book like a normal person? The same later on when you say
“Walker was suspended from their professorial post ”
Anyway, how would you classify p@edophilia? If you say an aberration or an illness, than you admit that some sexual behaviours are unacceptable. What else would be an aberration or an illness, then? I can see how for some this would be a slippery slope.
This is what happens when we say that anyone that is different deserves empathy, sympathy and to be treated with respect.
Sometimes, different is evil and sometimes it is the people most afflicted and in pain that are the most dangerous.
I would argue too that this is what happens when you take down all the guard rails, make judging other people socially unacceptable, and lose the ability to clearly define right and wrong or to even define clearly what something is.
This is also a byproduct of having achieved a social system where there is US and THEM and anything THEY say is automatically evil. A lot of this left wing folks will fail to act or react to this because they do not want, in anyway, to agree with people on the right and because they see the people trying to nomalize this abomination as otherwise being of their tribe.
That’s a load of bullshit. You don’t know all the people on the left, and like the right there’s a spectrum. Extreme left and extreme right and moderates in the middle. As a straight, white, single, feminist, atheist, liberal. biological woman, who doesn’t belong to any tribe because there aren’t any for a SWSFALBW. Just want you to know that you’re on thin ice when you generalize.
That’s a load of bullshit. You don’t know all the people on the left, and like the right there’s a spectrum. Extreme left and extreme right and moderates in the middle. As a straight, white, single, feminist, atheist, liberal. biological woman, who doesn’t belong to any tribe because there aren’t any for a SWSFALBW. Just want you to know that you’re on thin ice when you generalize.
This is what happens when we say that anyone that is different deserves empathy, sympathy and to be treated with respect.
Sometimes, different is evil and sometimes it is the people most afflicted and in pain that are the most dangerous.
I would argue too that this is what happens when you take down all the guard rails, make judging other people socially unacceptable, and lose the ability to clearly define right and wrong or to even define clearly what something is.
This is also a byproduct of having achieved a social system where there is US and THEM and anything THEY say is automatically evil. A lot of this left wing folks will fail to act or react to this because they do not want, in anyway, to agree with people on the right and because they see the people trying to nomalize this abomination as otherwise being of their tribe.
The whole idea of the sexuality of a child is wrong. Children are NOT sexual beings. They should be left alone and not confronted with adults’ sexual preferences in any way. Not for acceptance propaganda either; children accept everything. There precisely lies the associated risk. The two should be separated.
I have long doubted what on earth the value of most of the ‘social sciences’ are and continue to regard them Mickey Mouse degree subjects. The example mentioned; queer studies.. even before this disturbed, sad man completed his ‘masturbation marathon phd’, one must wonder what even are ‘queer studies’? Gayness or whatever queer is is surely not sufficiently scientifically interesting nor of such complexity to warrant a whole department/degree subject?
Children aren’t sexual beings? Fetuses of both sexes have been observed masturbating in utero. And ethnographers have reported that children engage in exactly as much sexual activity as adults allow them to. Where they’re not systematically repressed, they start quite young.
Children aren’t sexual beings? Fetuses of both sexes have been observed masturbating in utero. And ethnographers have reported that children engage in exactly as much sexual activity as adults allow them to. Where they’re not systematically repressed, they start quite young.
The whole idea of the sexuality of a child is wrong. Children are NOT sexual beings. They should be left alone and not confronted with adults’ sexual preferences in any way. Not for acceptance propaganda either; children accept everything. There precisely lies the associated risk. The two should be separated.
I have long doubted what on earth the value of most of the ‘social sciences’ are and continue to regard them Mickey Mouse degree subjects. The example mentioned; queer studies.. even before this disturbed, sad man completed his ‘masturbation marathon phd’, one must wonder what even are ‘queer studies’? Gayness or whatever queer is is surely not sufficiently scientifically interesting nor of such complexity to warrant a whole department/degree subject?
It’s not even illegal in Rotherham and other Labour- controlled areas .
It’s not even illegal in Rotherham and other Labour- controlled areas .
Julie Bindel used some emotive terms such as predator but she’s trying to have her rainbow cake and eat it. Paedophilia is as natural a predilection as homosexuality or lesbianism. It’s always been here. Some people are probably born that way, some learn it in the home, some probably encounter it as adults and get to like it. In university way back, we were taught that homosexuality was a sexual deviance. Lgbtq groups did their thing and now it’s normal and natural apparently. Even desirable. Paedophilia might have a way to go but these movements to destroy society, sorry- promote diversity and freedom, will have their way
Julie Bindel used some emotive terms such as predator but she’s trying to have her rainbow cake and eat it. Paedophilia is as natural a predilection as homosexuality or lesbianism. It’s always been here. Some people are probably born that way, some learn it in the home, some probably encounter it as adults and get to like it. In university way back, we were taught that homosexuality was a sexual deviance. Lgbtq groups did their thing and now it’s normal and natural apparently. Even desirable. Paedophilia might have a way to go but these movements to destroy society, sorry- promote diversity and freedom, will have their way
This article exemplifies a blind spot for Miss Bindel. Pro-pedophilia interest groups claim that pre-pubescent sexual activity does not harm children. They accomplish this claim by re-characterizing the resulting harms (the children are more sexually active as young people, they are more likely to embrace unorthodox sexual identities) as positives, and by blaming their ensuing mental disorders on social opposition to their sexual activity, rather than the sexual activity itself.
This is the same argumentative technique that was used by pro-homosexual interest groups fifty years ago – homosexuals have greater numbers of sexual partners but that’s a good thing; homosexuals have higher levels of sexual disease but that’s a public health failing; homosexuals have higher levels of family dysfunction but that’s because of social prejudice, etc.
Also, her article notes that exposure to pedophilia on the internet “is contributing to the crystallization of those interests in people with no explicit prior sexual interest in children.” Apparently, pedophiles, like gender dysphorics, can be made. Then why not homosexuals? And if they can be made, they can also be un-made.
So… I wonder if Miss Bindel is aware how likely she is to be hoist on her own petard?
“ Pro-pedophilia interest groups claim that pre-pubescent sexual activity does not harm children. ”
Actual evidence says otherwise, just ask the people who work with child victims of s**ual abuse! It is hugely damaging! On their mental development and emotional development.
I think perhaps I did not express myself clearly. My point is that what constitutes ‘hugely damaging’ outcomes is itself in dispute. Once upon a time society said of gay men, ‘look how much less manly they are!’ Because men not being manly was considered prima facie evidence of something unhealthy, unnatural and wrong. But then society’s conception of what ‘healthy manhood’ looked like, changed. (I’m not trying to argue that was right or wrong, just to point out how the parameters of the debate shifted.)
Pro-pedophilia interest groups will do the same regarding effects of sexual activity on children. Do post-pedophilia children have more abortions? So what, abortion is healthcare. Are post-pedophilia children less likely to stay married? So what, divorce is empowering. Are post-pedophilia children more likely to commit suicide? No doubt because of prejudicial stigma, proving society must change. Quite similar arguments were deployed in the past fifty years to normalize homosexual behavior, and in recent years to normalize gender dysphoria, polyamory, etc. etc. Now these arguments are reaching pedophilia. Next stop: necrophilia, bestiality, and no doubt things my conventional mind can’t think up.
Once society said to itself, ‘maybe lifelong, legally-binding monogamy isn’t the healthiest form of sexual entanglement’ the floodgates were opened – and here comes the flood.
I suppose bringing the Catholic church and its history of child abuse into this discussion would just muddy the waters..
That’s like judging heterosexuality by the experience of women who’ve been raped.
I think perhaps I did not express myself clearly. My point is that what constitutes ‘hugely damaging’ outcomes is itself in dispute. Once upon a time society said of gay men, ‘look how much less manly they are!’ Because men not being manly was considered prima facie evidence of something unhealthy, unnatural and wrong. But then society’s conception of what ‘healthy manhood’ looked like, changed. (I’m not trying to argue that was right or wrong, just to point out how the parameters of the debate shifted.)
Pro-pedophilia interest groups will do the same regarding effects of sexual activity on children. Do post-pedophilia children have more abortions? So what, abortion is healthcare. Are post-pedophilia children less likely to stay married? So what, divorce is empowering. Are post-pedophilia children more likely to commit suicide? No doubt because of prejudicial stigma, proving society must change. Quite similar arguments were deployed in the past fifty years to normalize homosexual behavior, and in recent years to normalize gender dysphoria, polyamory, etc. etc. Now these arguments are reaching pedophilia. Next stop: necrophilia, bestiality, and no doubt things my conventional mind can’t think up.
Once society said to itself, ‘maybe lifelong, legally-binding monogamy isn’t the healthiest form of sexual entanglement’ the floodgates were opened – and here comes the flood.
I suppose bringing the Catholic church and its history of child abuse into this discussion would just muddy the waters..
That’s like judging heterosexuality by the experience of women who’ve been raped.
Actually, I don’t think Ms Bindel does believe that homosexuality is necessarily innate, I thought that I read some by her where she says it can be a life-style cHoice. If I am wrong I would be gladly corrected.
She proudly claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I wrote a long, probably very controversial, reply to a comment on this article discussing sexuality which is displayed higher up.
Then she is even more hoist on her own petard than I realized when I wrote my original comment…
Then she is even more hoist on her own petard than I realized when I wrote my original comment…
She proudly claims to have chosen to be a lesbian. I wrote a long, probably very controversial, reply to a comment on this article discussing sexuality which is displayed higher up.
“ Pro-pedophilia interest groups claim that pre-pubescent sexual activity does not harm children. ”
Actual evidence says otherwise, just ask the people who work with child victims of s**ual abuse! It is hugely damaging! On their mental development and emotional development.
Actually, I don’t think Ms Bindel does believe that homosexuality is necessarily innate, I thought that I read some by her where she says it can be a life-style cHoice. If I am wrong I would be gladly corrected.
This article exemplifies a blind spot for Miss Bindel. Pro-pedophilia interest groups claim that pre-pubescent sexual activity does not harm children. They accomplish this claim by re-characterizing the resulting harms (the children are more sexually active as young people, they are more likely to embrace unorthodox sexual identities) as positives, and by blaming their ensuing mental disorders on social opposition to their sexual activity, rather than the sexual activity itself.
This is the same argumentative technique that was used by pro-homosexual interest groups fifty years ago – homosexuals have greater numbers of sexual partners but that’s a good thing; homosexuals have higher levels of sexual disease but that’s a public health failing; homosexuals have higher levels of family dysfunction but that’s because of social prejudice, etc.
Also, her article notes that exposure to pedophilia on the internet “is contributing to the crystallization of those interests in people with no explicit prior sexual interest in children.” Apparently, pedophiles, like gender dysphorics, can be made. Then why not homosexuals? And if they can be made, they can also be un-made.
So… I wonder if Miss Bindel is aware how likely she is to be hoist on her own petard?
Billy Bragg is a well meaning chap, but like most virtue signallers of his ilk, has become completely tribalistic, and wilfully misinterpretes any point of view that deviates from the narrative.
For all the talk of Nazis and fascists nowadays, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare the left wing narrative to Stalinism?
Billy Bragg is a well meaning chap, but like most virtue signallers of his ilk, has become completely tribalistic, and wilfully misinterpretes any point of view that deviates from the narrative.
For all the talk of Nazis and fascists nowadays, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare the left wing narrative to Stalinism?
Well, ‘Pride’ *is* one of the Seven Deadly Sins, isn’t it?
Well, ‘Pride’ *is* one of the Seven Deadly Sins, isn’t it?
Poor Julie. She so desperately wants to stop liberalism at the friendly, pro-gay, 2010 or so timeframe. She just doesn’t get it that liberalism will NEVER stop liberating.
“I don’t, as a lesbian, want to be lumped in with ‘minor attracted persons’, which means ‘child abusers’”. You made this bed. You led the charge to get rid of restrictions on sexual behavior. You don’t get to disclaim ownership of the mess now.
Bottom line, if gayness is normal, and trans-women are normal, then minor attracted persons are too. What, you didn’t know that came with the package? Too bad. There were people who tried to warn you, but you were probably too busy calling us sexist homophobes to listen.
Poor Julie. She so desperately wants to stop liberalism at the friendly, pro-gay, 2010 or so timeframe. She just doesn’t get it that liberalism will NEVER stop liberating.
“I don’t, as a lesbian, want to be lumped in with ‘minor attracted persons’, which means ‘child abusers’”. You made this bed. You led the charge to get rid of restrictions on sexual behavior. You don’t get to disclaim ownership of the mess now.
Bottom line, if gayness is normal, and trans-women are normal, then minor attracted persons are too. What, you didn’t know that came with the package? Too bad. There were people who tried to warn you, but you were probably too busy calling us sexist homophobes to listen.
If, as trendy thinking likes to have it, all sexual orientations are precious, paedophilia must surely be included and accepted. In fact the ‘Greens’ movement in Germany once saw it exactly that way. Now, children’s ‘innocence’ is valued, where it suits.
And general ‘innocence’? ‘Anything goes’ and deviants rule. The majority of us.. we’re not free to express ‘our feelings’, not even to love children innocently
If, as trendy thinking likes to have it, all sexual orientations are precious, paedophilia must surely be included and accepted. In fact the ‘Greens’ movement in Germany once saw it exactly that way. Now, children’s ‘innocence’ is valued, where it suits.
And general ‘innocence’? ‘Anything goes’ and deviants rule. The majority of us.. we’re not free to express ‘our feelings’, not even to love children innocently
“Then, in June 2021, trans-identified queer scholar Allyn Walker published their book”
Her book. I googled her. She’s only one person, and she’s a bird with a beard.
“Then, in June 2021, trans-identified queer scholar Allyn Walker published their book”
Her book. I googled her. She’s only one person, and she’s a bird with a beard.
They’re merely trying to get through the door that you helped to open, Julie.
They’re merely trying to get through the door that you helped to open, Julie.
Clear-sighted and fiercely courageous as always, laying it all out in daylight so we can’t pretend it’s not happening. Brava, Julie! In the latest iteration of the WPATH ‘care’ guidelines there’s a whole chapter on eunuchs…..is that to come next?
Clear-sighted and fiercely courageous as always, laying it all out in daylight so we can’t pretend it’s not happening. Brava, Julie! In the latest iteration of the WPATH ‘care’ guidelines there’s a whole chapter on eunuchs…..is that to come next?
The “PIE” even managed to draw in Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey, and Patricia Hewitt: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt
The “PIE” even managed to draw in Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey, and Patricia Hewitt: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt
Bindel said she would take legal action against Bragg for that line.
Seems that she wrote an Unherd article instead.
Bindel said she would take legal action against Bragg for that line.
Seems that she wrote an Unherd article instead.
Thank you, Julie Bindel. Would we even know any of this was creeping up on us without you? I despair that there’s so little challenge.
Thank you, Julie Bindel. Would we even know any of this was creeping up on us without you? I despair that there’s so little challenge.
The LGBT Q movement is the male paedo dream
The LGBT Q movement is the male paedo dream
Progressives seeking greater and greater stimulation to achieve their highs, paired with mickey-mouse academics desperate to be noticed.
Progressives seeking greater and greater stimulation to achieve their highs, paired with mickey-mouse academics desperate to be noticed.
A female (school) principle and a predator.
April 3rd 2023
The long running case of Melbourne school principle Malka Leifer has come to a close with a guilty verdict. Guilty of 18 counts of sexual offences against at least 9 children over a period of 6 1/2 years.
Not just men!
It’s the exception that makes the rule.
It’s the exception that makes the rule.
A female (school) principle and a predator.
April 3rd 2023
The long running case of Melbourne school principle Malka Leifer has come to a close with a guilty verdict. Guilty of 18 counts of sexual offences against at least 9 children over a period of 6 1/2 years.
Not just men!
The MAPS movement only goes one way. What about the minors to whom they are attracted? They don’t have a complimentary organization, as in MAOF –“minors attracted to old farts”. If it were mutual (which we know it isn’t) there would be no need to lobby for it.
I speak as a liberal when I say I resent Julie pandering to the pronoun thing. We’ve gotten this far without it so why start now. It makes reading confusing and surely it would be petty for the gender confused person to be offended by correct grammar? But as I write this I remember there are gender confused activists who make death threats when they fail to control the rest of us.
!!.
“Queer” science is just that. Queer. There is mature and immature human sexual behavior. And our two sexes are of course about reproduction, as eating is about bodily health and nutrition and our two legs for walking
When the point and purpose of our reproductive radical identities as men and women is simply dismissed and barely mentionable in polite society, then along with the same sex perversions .. and I use the term advisedly… there of course is no remaining moral obstacle to sexually abusing and now, monsterizing chidren. Just another pleasure to be enjoyed like tasty food or nice scenery.
As James Lindsay details so beautifully, the queer science crowd is a gnostic sex cult. Period.
When was the last time you were reminded that the 1.4% of Americans who identified as same sex attracted constituted 70% of AIDS carriers.
Or that over a million young men in the west died from practicing sodomy.
Think Monkeypox was an unintelligible accident?
If you really want to claim you love and accept people then if “people” has a meaning.. which the postmodern insanity of the left denies, then love them in truth and real concern. And stop railroading the many sexually abused youngsters who mysteriously end up “gay”.
The stats on the almost totally homosexual abuse in the Catholic church compiled by Paul Sully are most revelatory. Unlike society it directly mapped the number of homosexually behaving religious.
Germaine Greer released a photography book of male children.
Barbara Ellen (Guardian) stated female paedophilia was not predatory like male paedophilia.
But Julie won’t about female MAPs, because she doesn’t think female MAPs are bad.
Yiou don’t know what Ms Bindel thinks about female MAP, so don’y assign to her any particular view. It is correct that she mentioned only male MAPs, but it is mostly males that appear to be guilty, either that or the females are cleverly getting away with it more. I think that we can all agree that both sexes can be involved, but I suspect that it is one sex that is mostly involved. However, whatever the sex of the abuser they cannot be tolerated if we wish to keep our children safe.
By the way, they may be correct in saying that paedophilia is not the same as child abuse, the former is the inclination, the latter the act. If a person is a paedophile life may be difficult for him (or her), especially if there is a paedophilia gene, but I’m afraid they can’t be permitted to act upon their predilections. If we found out that violence had a genetic cause would we say “hey,it’s ok to beat up that old lady”? The same is true for any “natural” predisposition for sexual activity with children.
I think I can hazard a guess as to what she thinks, given her previous statements on other matters. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly male, that is true.
Barbara Ellen was talking about adult females who had been reprimanded for sex with young teenage boys.
I think the topic can be difficult given that the age of consent is, in historical terms, a relatively new concept. I am not over the moon about 16-18 year olds having sex, even if this is legal.
No, it isn’t. Research shows no negative outcomes except those mediated by stigma and self-blame, which only arise because of the social taboo.
I think I can hazard a guess as to what she thinks, given her previous statements on other matters. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly male, that is true.
Barbara Ellen was talking about adult females who had been reprimanded for sex with young teenage boys.
I think the topic can be difficult given that the age of consent is, in historical terms, a relatively new concept. I am not over the moon about 16-18 year olds having sex, even if this is legal.
No, it isn’t. Research shows no negative outcomes except those mediated by stigma and self-blame, which only arise because of the social taboo.
Greer knew from a school friend’s experience that such contacts can be positive. “[She] enjoyed sex with her uncle throughout her childhood and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away to school. What disturbed her then was not what her uncle had done, but the attitude of her teachers and psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special help. In order to capitulate to their expectations, she began to fake symptoms she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty for not having felt guilty. She ended up judging herself quite harshly for this innate lechery.” (Greer, “Seduction Is a Four-letter Word,” reprinted in The Madwoman’s Underclothes)
Yiou don’t know what Ms Bindel thinks about female MAP, so don’y assign to her any particular view. It is correct that she mentioned only male MAPs, but it is mostly males that appear to be guilty, either that or the females are cleverly getting away with it more. I think that we can all agree that both sexes can be involved, but I suspect that it is one sex that is mostly involved. However, whatever the sex of the abuser they cannot be tolerated if we wish to keep our children safe.
By the way, they may be correct in saying that paedophilia is not the same as child abuse, the former is the inclination, the latter the act. If a person is a paedophile life may be difficult for him (or her), especially if there is a paedophilia gene, but I’m afraid they can’t be permitted to act upon their predilections. If we found out that violence had a genetic cause would we say “hey,it’s ok to beat up that old lady”? The same is true for any “natural” predisposition for sexual activity with children.
Greer knew from a school friend’s experience that such contacts can be positive. “[She] enjoyed sex with her uncle throughout her childhood and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away to school. What disturbed her then was not what her uncle had done, but the attitude of her teachers and psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special help. In order to capitulate to their expectations, she began to fake symptoms she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty for not having felt guilty. She ended up judging herself quite harshly for this innate lechery.” (Greer, “Seduction Is a Four-letter Word,” reprinted in The Madwoman’s Underclothes)
Germaine Greer released a photography book of male children.
Barbara Ellen (Guardian) stated female paedophilia was not predatory like male paedophilia.
But Julie won’t about female MAPs, because she doesn’t think female MAPs are bad.
Contra Allyn Walker, I seriously doubt that there are any similarities between MAPs and lesbians/gays.
It feels like we’ve gone over the rainbow and into Crazy Land!!!!!
To think that for the 40 years I lived in Virginia a portion of my taxes paid this person’s salary – ODU is a state school.)
As y’all say in the Uk – Gobsmacked…….
There are a lot of similarities but the biggest difference is that MAPs are far more persecuted than teleo-gays/lesbians ever were or likely ever will be.
Because / unlike that of gays/lesbians – their ‘orientation’ (let me indulge you here and call it that) hurts children. Not hard to understand surely.
Not hard to believe, if you’ve been brainwashed. But the former children who’ve told their stories in the book Positive Memories know better.
Not hard to believe, if you’ve been brainwashed. But the former children who’ve told their stories in the book Positive Memories know better.
Because / unlike that of gays/lesbians – their ‘orientation’ (let me indulge you here and call it that) hurts children. Not hard to understand surely.
There are a lot of similarities but the biggest difference is that MAPs are far more persecuted than teleo-gays/lesbians ever were or likely ever will be.
Contra Allyn Walker, I seriously doubt that there are any similarities between MAPs and lesbians/gays.
It feels like we’ve gone over the rainbow and into Crazy Land!!!!!
To think that for the 40 years I lived in Virginia a portion of my taxes paid this person’s salary – ODU is a state school.)
As y’all say in the Uk – Gobsmacked…….
““age play” — adults fantasising during sex that one of them is a child”. I wonder if the enthusiasm of so many adult trans-rights activists for puberty blocker use in adolescents has anything to do with this?
According to self-identified MAPs, no. And puberty blockers don’t make people look like children anyway.
According to self-identified MAPs, no. And puberty blockers don’t make people look like children anyway.
““age play” — adults fantasising during sex that one of them is a child”. I wonder if the enthusiasm of so many adult trans-rights activists for puberty blocker use in adolescents has anything to do with this?
I’m glad that the Author is willing to stand up and tackle this issue, the child abusers can give themselves any fancy name they want they are still child abusers and should be removed from free society, along with any who support their cause.
My one issue with the article however, is that you can tell it’s written by a feminist without even checking. such men men this, men that, men the other. not such people, but such men, despite all the women convicted of child sexual abuse they get a free ride. I guess we should only be worried about the 80% of convicted child sexual abusers that are men, the other 20% (probably more given the imbalance of conviction rates between the sexes) should be free to carry on abusing…..
Nobody is suggesting that the abuse of children should be tolerated. The article deliberately obscures this by claiming that MAP means child abuser. It doesn’t. Most child sex abusers aren’t MAPs, and most MAPs never become child abusers. Hence the need for a different term.
“Most child sex abusers aren’t MAPs, and most MAPs never become child abusers.” This feels like a whole lot of question begging. There is only one category of interest to the public policy debate: adults who choose to have sexual relations with children. Of course not everyone with an inclination always acts on it, and of course not all forms of sexual relations with children will have the same level of harmful effect on the child. Those aren’t the issues in debate. The real question is: can *any* form of sexual interaction between adult and child lead to healthy outcomes (for the adult or the child)? The answer seems obvious to me, but lots of things that were obvious decades ago are now routinely dismissed.
It was obvious decades ago that many such relationships have positive outcomes, before the current moral panic set in and made this nearly unsayable. You can still find such accounts in places like the Consenting Juveniles website, but you’re unlikely to come upon them if you’re not looking, because of how pervasive the taboo has become.
That’s a bold assertion, and I would be curious to see the research. That said, there are some people who do heroin and it doesn’t ruin their lives. Should their experiences set the pattern for our social policy?
That’s a bold assertion, and I would be curious to see the research. That said, there are some people who do heroin and it doesn’t ruin their lives. Should their experiences set the pattern for our social policy?
It was obvious decades ago that many such relationships have positive outcomes, before the current moral panic set in and made this nearly unsayable. You can still find such accounts in places like the Consenting Juveniles website, but you’re unlikely to come upon them if you’re not looking, because of how pervasive the taboo has become.
“Most child sex abusers aren’t MAPs, and most MAPs never become child abusers.” This feels like a whole lot of question begging. There is only one category of interest to the public policy debate: adults who choose to have sexual relations with children. Of course not everyone with an inclination always acts on it, and of course not all forms of sexual relations with children will have the same level of harmful effect on the child. Those aren’t the issues in debate. The real question is: can *any* form of sexual interaction between adult and child lead to healthy outcomes (for the adult or the child)? The answer seems obvious to me, but lots of things that were obvious decades ago are now routinely dismissed.
Stats from the MOD are very clear. 98% of sexual abuse committed by males 80% of victims are female. Females who are convicted are either doing it in cahoots with their male partner or it’s older women and teenage boys. Not the same as baby rapists at all.
No one seems to have mentioned that these men who “just watch pa3d0ph1l3 porn online” are nonetheless complicit as the children in these scenes are actually being abused for the purposes of filming the abuse. No free pass for the “non-contact “ ones either! Had to code above word for fear of banning!
This is how badly the kids in CP are “abused”: Mirkin, Harris (2009). “The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography,” Journal of Homosexuality, 56(2), pp. 233-267:
“Most of the actual acts depicted by the young models in child pornography are legal… the smiles and playfulness are often in hundreds of photographs of the same models, and giggles are ubiquitous in the films.”
This is how badly the kids in CP are “abused”: Mirkin, Harris (2009). “The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography,” Journal of Homosexuality, 56(2), pp. 233-267:
“Most of the actual acts depicted by the young models in child pornography are legal… the smiles and playfulness are often in hundreds of photographs of the same models, and giggles are ubiquitous in the films.”
Nobody is suggesting that the abuse of children should be tolerated. The article deliberately obscures this by claiming that MAP means child abuser. It doesn’t. Most child sex abusers aren’t MAPs, and most MAPs never become child abusers. Hence the need for a different term.
Stats from the MOD are very clear. 98% of sexual abuse committed by males 80% of victims are female. Females who are convicted are either doing it in cahoots with their male partner or it’s older women and teenage boys. Not the same as baby rapists at all.
No one seems to have mentioned that these men who “just watch pa3d0ph1l3 porn online” are nonetheless complicit as the children in these scenes are actually being abused for the purposes of filming the abuse. No free pass for the “non-contact “ ones either! Had to code above word for fear of banning!
I’m glad that the Author is willing to stand up and tackle this issue, the child abusers can give themselves any fancy name they want they are still child abusers and should be removed from free society, along with any who support their cause.
My one issue with the article however, is that you can tell it’s written by a feminist without even checking. such men men this, men that, men the other. not such people, but such men, despite all the women convicted of child sexual abuse they get a free ride. I guess we should only be worried about the 80% of convicted child sexual abusers that are men, the other 20% (probably more given the imbalance of conviction rates between the sexes) should be free to carry on abusing…..