https://www.newgon.net/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Tyciol&feedformat=atomNewgonWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T09:12:06ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_censorship_of_MAP_related_topics&diff=14838Wikipedia censorship of MAP related topics2022-09-26T03:46:14Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div>'''Wikipedia''' (f. January 2001 by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger) is an online encyclopedia website that claims to be "consensus driven". Material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable. This flouting of principles is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of [[child sexuality]] and [[paraphilias]]. Because of this, most Wikipedia articles that focus on [[Minor Attracted People]] and [[Adult-child sex]] for example, tend to have a medical/psychiatric bias, expressed thru a combination of undue weight, advocacy science and weasel words.<br />
<br />
While much of the material now removed from Wikipedia appears to be legitimate, sourced content from a neutral or contrarian perspective, previous bans on a small number self-identifying [[pedophile]] editors (in late 2006 and early 2007) exacerbated perceptions of any editing that may be considered similar in style. Users who "may bring the project into disrepute" were blocked "per directive"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=125487687&diffonly=1</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VigilancePrime&oldid=208864891</ref> by the arbitration committee - a select group of site administrators who converse in private.<br />
<br />
In practise, it is common for anti-pedophile administrators to simply block editors who they dislike (or deem to be pedophiles), with the full knowledge that ArbCom will not oppose their actions. For example, the Administrator seicer re-affirmed an appealed block on 12 February 2009 by simply stating that he did not like the editor involved. This is not exceptional behavior among Wikimedia administrators, even to this day.<ref>[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3A86sedan&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= Surjection perma-banned LegitSock 86Sedan for factual edits that did no more than make two longstanding controversial articles consistent with one another, accusing "advocacy of illegal activity".]</ref><br />
<br />
==Timeline of events==<br />
:''We refer to some editors as MAPs or MAP aligned for clarity. Please note that this term was not even coined or widely used until 2007 and 2018 respectively.''<br />
<br />
The censorship of MAP-related information from Wikipedia has a long history, which can be broken down into roughly three distinct eras. For the first part of its life, from 2001 to the "Pedo Wars" of the late 00s, Wikipedia took a pragmatic approach to editors who self-identified as MAPs or displayed sympathies. At this point, the publicity risks were considerably lower, and the need for a growing base of quality content was first priority. This was the era before organized 2nd-wave MAP activism, so examples of dissent were limited to productive editors who had made controversial statements.<ref>https://infogalactic.com/info/Wikipedia_and_pedophilia</ref><br />
<br />
===Activism begins===<br />
The first MAP activists to edit Wikipedia (2004 onward) didn't attempt to hide the fact. Users such as [[Rookiee]]<ref>[https://books.google.nl/books?id=y_CLDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=wikipedia+pedophile+editors&source=bl&ots=WypwD9HzqJ&sig=ACfU3U0mCAydeHCpkQ5zCLCBGNyVmAMV-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizr6XjvuLyAhVJM-wKHcRvBjMQ6AF6BAgeEAI#v=onepage&q=wikipedia%20pedophile%20editors&f=false Goode - It would be useful to have the later pages of this, see what she went into]</ref> (the host of [[Pedologues]]), Zanthalon ([[AP]]) and Clayboy were blocked because of the publicity risk they posed to the project. One controversy involved a "userbox/template" which identified an editor as a Pedophile on their user page<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war Pedo userbox war]</ref> - leading to arguments among Wikipedians over freedom of speech and the temporary banning of admins who opposed the template. This would be considered a near-impossibility nowadays. The crucial period of this 2nd era, started with an uptick in the level of anonymous editing in 2007. This was a period in which numerous edit wars raged, information was removed due to the perceived ''motivation or bad faith'' of editors, and the associated publicity risks. This was the "witch hunt" we refer to as the "Pedo Wars", and our narrative of that period continues after the short commentary below.<br />
<br />
====Interlude Commentary====<br />
<br />
'''Wikipedia's inherent weakness'''<br />
<br />
One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is their vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. On average, it is likely that moderate editors (those with no partisan leanings), will have less natural interest in a subject, less knowledge on it, and are less likely to care about saving their edits from hostile actors. This rule applies particularly to hot-button topics, meaning unlikely consensus has to be found on emotive, polarizing topics such as [[CSA]]. Negative bias can also creep in to some articles such as "Pro-pedophile activism", since any perception of "objectivity" towards topics that elicit visceral reactions might lead to self-censorship. At the time pro-MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a politically-correct, "victimological", psychiatry-led bias throughout most of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch Pedophilia Article Watch]" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly outside of medicine. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to pedal grifts such as [[repressed memory]].<br />
<br />
====Pedo Wars====<br />
<br />
It was at this time, around late 2006/early 2007, that pro-MAP activists responded to the previous blocks en-masse by creating anonymous accounts and attempting to alter editorial consensus. Favored edits introduced citations refuting the pathological theory of [[Pedophilia]], and cited examples of [[CSA]] research contesting the narrative of universal harm (material such as [[Rind et al]]). This sparked a number of edit-wars and confrontations, attracting both administrators and anti-pedophile activists to the articles and their discussion pages. At this point, some high level Wikipedians personally contacted some of the more influential activist editors, attempting to explain the publicity risks of rampant, polarized special interest editing. This was of course a just warning, albeit against ''exactly'' the type of editing Wikipedia had tolerated for many years from victimological, therapeutic-interventionist and traumatology-led editors posing as disinterested specialists. It was for this reason, the appeals fell on deaf ears. The reaction that followed, towards "inclusionist" pro-MAP editing patterns - was sometimes indiscriminate, leading to arbitrary accusations of sockpuppetry and "pro-pedophile disruption" - an often stated rationale for blocking. As this "witch-hunt" reaction snowballed, accounts were often blocked regardless of activist affiliation, for editing patterns no more outlandish than citations of peer-reviewed research on related articles. It is also believed that highly abusive (i.e. "simultaneous") sock-puppetry was used on multiple occasions by anti-MAP activists in order to skirt around the "three revert rule" and to fabricate editor consensus. Many pro-MAP activists fought on, creating new identities after their initial bans - some getting through 10 or more identities before giving up. According to one editor, it was a running joke to compare the number of edits they got to before being banned, with 150 the marque of a skillful activist editor. In one particularly egregious incident, Administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic Dominic Byrd-McDevitt] claimed that he had forensic evidence to link two accounts and justify a block by east718. We knew immediately, this was incorrect (see Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue in the list below), as both users were on our list of activists, but had never met one another. If McDevitt did indeed fabricate this evidence, we also know he lied to other sysops to cover himself.<br />
<br />
====[[Richard Weiss]] controversy====<br />
<br />
The pinnacle of the Pedo-Wars controversy and a major turning point, was the politically-influenced decision to retain the services of the British-born, renowned anti-pedophile edit warrior, [[Richard Weiss]] (Squeakbox) and his sockpuppets. This remains to this day, one of the all-time most blatant abuses of administrative privilege on the encyclopedia - if it is to be held that Jimbo Wales was not behind the decision.<br />
<br />
Through various suspected sock puppet reports, it was established that accounts were being used throughout ''Pedophilia Article Watch'' to fabricate consensus and escape the three-revert-rule. These edits, particularly by the account Pol64, always reverted to the initial edits of Weiss, an avowed fighter of "pedophile disruption" known for previous sock puppetry and attempts to silence other editors by labeling them pedophiles. Interestingly, these edits also contained grammatical/typographical errors that uncannily resembled those made by Weiss. It was noted by investigating editors, that Pol64 would typically compile a list of edits that appended perfectly on to the end of Weiss' earlier session, and vice versa. These concerns were initially ignored due to Weiss' use of geographically unrelated proxy IPs to evade detection.<ref>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SqueakBox</ref> This inspired the user '''Dyskolos''' (Daniel Lievre) to compile an exhaustive list of timed edit sessions, effectively proving that Richard Weiss was regularly and frantically switching between his main account and Pol64.<ref>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SqueakBox_(3rd)</ref> Indeed, as the detailed list revealed, Weiss was barely leaving enough time between these puppeteering vacations to afford himself a simple tea break. The report, was nevertheless dismissed out of hand, confirming that Wikipedia would now not be willing to punish even the most obvious examples of abuse, if it were deemed to be countering the "pedophile point of view". One editor familiar with these exchanges recalls seeing at least one admin's comments expressing skepticism towards Weiss' activities being "rolled back", strongly suggesting the involvement of oversight from ArbCom or above.<br />
<br />
It is a comic irony, that in a belated 2010 investigation<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-pedophiles-find-a-home-on-wikipedia</ref> into pedophile-related editing activity on Wikipedia, Fox News implied that Weiss (Squeakbox) had posted on [[BoyChat]] soliciting votes against the deletion of [[Marthijn Uittenbogaard]]'s article. Of course, a BoyChat user had ironically used Weiss' screen name to troll him on BC, and prevent his own Wikipedian identity from being revealed.<br />
<br />
====2008: Adult-Child Sex - the last stand====<br />
Having effectively lost the war over editing privileges, there was one last significant attempt by MAP-aligned or amenable Wikipedians to incorporate value-neutral information on CSA. This was the [[minor-adult sex|Adult-child sex]] article - the concept being to create a new article as opposed to altering an existing one. Amazingly, this article (which we took over, and edit to this day) survived one deletion vote handsomely, and hung on for a few months until new anti-MAP activist editors appeared to be called in to the vote.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex_(2nd_nomination)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex</ref> Editors on, or roughly aligned to our activist network continued to be active all the way through 2008, but were eventually swamped by further blocks, article protections and the appearance of special interest editors such as [[James Cantor]].<br />
<br />
===A return to the old normal===<br />
The Pedophilia Article Watch is now incredibly quiet after the cessation of MAP activist editing, and MAPs are frequently warned against editing Wikipedia without taking precautions such as computer security and checking their edit pattern. The events of 2007 are frequently used as a precedent to suppress "tendentious" editing, and most articles are now policed and sanitized as a matter of course. One positive outcome, is that due in part to the events of 2007, regular Wikipedia editors are now far more aware of the special interest editing patterns that led to the poisoning of many psychology, psychiatry and sexology related topics in the preceding era. In this sense, we are now able to link to a number of less contentious Wikipedia articles that are unlikely to fall foul of advocacy editing, and thus reduced the burden on our own content producers.<br />
<br />
==List of notable editors==<br />
All of the following editors were involved in the 2007/8 controversy. Some notables from <2006 and 2009> have been excluded.<br />
<hr><br />
<br />
===Deletionist/Special Interest/Anti-MAP===<br />
Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets.<br />
<hr><br />
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2"><br />
<br />
*'''Richard Weiss☻''' - (at the time, SqueakBox). Multiple abusive simultaneous sock puppeteer with his own section in this article. '''Pol64☻''' was allegedly a female former police officer - eventually banned in early 2008<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive359 Pol64 Blocked, Weiss continues to support his own sockpuppet]</ref>.<br />
*'''AbuseTruth☻''' aka '''ResearchEditor☻''' (3000 edits, special interest, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive multiple socks], [[Leadership Council]]?)<br />
*'''AWeidman☻''' aka '''DPeterson☻''' (Dr Arthur Becker Weidman, Anti-ped Attachment Therapist who eventually got a lifetime block in 07 for ban evasion. Associated with [[Phillip John Eide]] on wiki)<br />
*'''East718''', '''El_C''' (Pedophobic Admins)<br />
*'''Jack-A-Roe''' (Highly tendentious special interest editor and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing Civil POV pusher])<br />
*'''Fred Bauder''' (Admin who was hugely influential in policing pedophilia and enacting blocks)<br />
*'''PetraSchelm''' (Typical Jack/PhDarts style victimological agenda-pusher, possible $$ grift)<br />
*'''Phdarts☻''' aka '''HeadleyDown☻''' (Similar to the above, one was reincarnation of the other)<br />
*'''SeattleJoe''' (vile character who started threatening editors with police action, for editing)<br />
*'''Will Beback''' (William McWhinney, disingenuous admin who supported harsh and excessive permanent blocks of other editors, while expressing no corresponding objection to them in normal editing)<br />
*'''[[Phillip John Eide|XavierVE]]''' (Phillip John Eide) - of [[Perverted Justice]].<br />
<br />
</div><hr><br />
<br />
===Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent===<br />
All of these editors were banned, and got only limited support from established Wikipedians such as Springeragh and Homologeo. Editors with the black dot are known to have been sockpuppets, although some are not linked explicitly for their security. The usual form of sockpuppetry was creation of a new account after banning. Simultaneous abuse was rare among this group. [[Wikisposure]] did their own research at the time, and got some of it right.<ref>https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia_Campaign</ref><br />
<br />
<hr><div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2"><br />
<br />
*'''[[VigilancePrime]]''' (Disgraceful block of a productive editor)<br />
*'''Dfpc'''<br />
*'''Barry Jameson☻''' (171 edits)<br />
*'''Catherine N.X.''' (Activist who helped the logic section of out [[Debate Guide]])<br />
*'''BLueRibbon☻''' (BL Activist, one of our contributors early on)<br />
*'''Silent War'''<br />
*'''Digital Emotion☻''' (123 edits - profiled on [[Wikisposure]])<br />
*'''Enrico Dirac☻''' aka '''Hermitian☻''' (Often seen, likely connected accounts, reasonable editing style)<br />
*'''Farenhorst☻'''<br />
*'''GroomingVictim☻''' (176 Edits)<br />
*'''[https://www.boywiki.org/en/User:Meco Meco]'''<br />
*'''Jillium☻''' (our former Web Admin/Producer of research lists) ran '''Tryckfelsnisse☻''' and '''Paroxysm☻'''.<br />
*'''Jim Burton☻''' (Highly successful MAP-aligned editor, almost 1000 edits, defended right of editors to self-identify as pedophiles, and described them as ideal editors of articles related to themselves on a provocative [[Jim Burton userpage (Wikipedia)|userpage]])<br />
*'''Karla Lindstrom☻''' (46 edits) was a sock of '''Dyskolos☻''' and '''Samantha Pignez☻''' ('''Daniel Lievre☻''' - our cofounder who had operated over 10 accounts by 2008 and ran a private email list).<br />
*'''Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue☻''' (This alleged sock puppet of '''Voice of Britain☻''' was actually Samantha Pignez/Lievre instead. We know '''both''' individuals who operated these accounts! Administrative abuse by East718. This<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louisa_Petit-Ladoumegue</ref> is where they were caught lying)<br />
*'''Voice of Britain☻'''<br />
*'''Jovin Lambton☻''' (Almost 1000 edits)<br />
*'''Roman Czyborra''' (Czyborra.com - a Unix Administrator from Berlin, Germany, who threatened to sue Wikimedia)<br />
*'''Strichmann☻''' (66 edits and sources provided for [[Adult-child sex]] in co-operation with the below, which seemingly outraged Admins)<br />
*'''TlatoSMD''' (High quality editor with 2000+ edits - sparred with Jack-A-Roe, calling him out as a pusher. Banned incorrectly as "single purpose")<br />
*'''AnotherSolipsist☻'''<br />
*'''Foresticpig☻''' (over 1000)<br />
*'''Tyciol''' (edits [[user:tyciol|here]])<br />
*'''MikeD78☻''' (around 500 edits)<br />
*'''A.Z.'''<br />
*'''Equilibrist☻'''<br />
*'''Bow Ty☻'''<br />
<br />
</div><hr><br />
<br />
====What does this all mean?====<br />
<br />
From looking at logs and known/likely socks and reincarnation of banned editors, it looks like each side had between 3 and 4 highly biased activist editors on PAW at any one time, through most of 2007 and part of 2008. These editors would contribute roughly half of the counting edits during that time.<br />
<br />
==Contemporary commentary==<br />
<br />
Anonymous '''Wikipedia Admin''' (via perma-banned ex-editor, Karla Lindstrom - probably Daniel Lievre):<br />
<br />
:''"I don't believe that Wikipedia is going to have a paedophile related article that is neutral in the proper sense of the word now or in the forseeable future. It appears to be an editorial decision that the subject matter is too sensitive, and the risk of appearing to condone (that is, not to condemn but appear impartial) the practice is one that the Foundation, Board, etc. are not prepared to take."''<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch&oldid=188506074|Project '''Anonymous'''] (probably former editor, Enrico Dirac):<br />
<br />
:''"It seems to me that characterizing criticism of the plethora of biased and misleading Wikipedia articles on sex and kids as "editors claiming adult/child sex is not harmful to children" just mirrors the tactics used by those pushing the CSA moral panic in regular society. Publish a paper debunking bogus numbers on the incidence of child porn and child abuse, propose a population-based peer-reviewed study which might produce an unpopular result, or suggest a change in the extremely value-laden terminology presently used in the CSA field, and no matter what your academic reputation, the usual Dr Lauras and Judith Reismans and "family values" organizations of the world will bombard the media with claims that "so-and-so says sexual abuse isn't harmful" and "so-and-so is pro-pedophile" and "so-and-so wants to legalize adult/child sex." This is always tremendously successful, and the resulting noise completely obscures any attempt to discuss the research on its merits.''<br />
<br />
:''Given that tremendously sucessful political strategies generally manage to get adopted in new venues, it's hardly a huge surprise that Wikipedia now has its own little cadre of True Believers, beating their little sex abuse drum, and running around shouting "pro-pedophile activism" every time they see something which violates the party line on the topic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that what currently passes for NPOV* in some of these articles reads like a press release from some conservative religious pressure group.''<br />
<br />
:''Sexual abuse is certainly a bad thing, but the type of hypervigilance that leads to sex abuse witch hunts like Wenatchee and the daycare scandals of the 1980's, which put scores of people in prison based on fabricated evidence, is also a bad thing.''<br />
<br />
:''I can't ever remember anyone getting banned from Wikipedia for turning a sex abuse article into a hateful pejorative-laden rant. But I've seen a lot of people banned after their edits annoyed the current Kiddie Sex Cabal that has arrogated to themselves the right to make sure that all such articles on Wikipedia contain the approved amount of anti-pedophile innuendo and vitriol. Some are banned with vague references to Pro-Pedophile POV, whatever that is. Others just disappear at the hands of Arbcom after secret proceedings. Entire articles which have been worked on by hundreds of editors, and which certainly represent community consensus, just arbitrarily disappear if someone high up decides they don't have enough anti-pedophile innuendo in them. This isn't an open and transparent process, where actions may be reviewed and commented upon. It is a fiat process in which talk pages get protected, and replaced by Wikipedia's version of what Wikipedia alleges transpired.''<br />
<br />
:''Now Wikipedia is a privately owned resource, with complete and total control over what it publishes. Oh, there's a lot of handwaving about consensus, and how it's actually run by the editors, and editorials making fun of anyone who suggests a Cabal exists. But in point of fact, Wikipedia has a certain political tone, and although anyone is free to contribute, it is a hierarchy of plebian editors, admins, Arbcom members, with Jimbo Wales at the top, and each level learns what the level above it wants, and exerts veto power over the levels below it.''<br />
<br />
:''NPOV is in reality the official Wikipedia POV, and the official Wikipedia POV on Child Sexual Abuse is fully supportive of the current hysteria and moral panic, and cares not a whit about what the actual facts are, and will always favor innacurate "mainstream perspective" over the truth. Wikiality and Truthiness aren't just amusing words on late night TV. They are an accurate description of what is produced by the Wikipedia process"''<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>The term "NPOV" (Neutral Point Of View) refers to a Wikipedia policy whereby encyclopaedia content must be nonpartisan, even in relation to moderate or centrist points of view.</small><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Websites]][[Category:Websites: Academic]][[Category:Websites: Generic]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: International]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:History & Events]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyciol&diff=14837User talk:Tyciol2022-09-26T03:45:28Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you would like to provide feedback as to edits, or talk about help in something, go ahead. [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2008=<br />
I just gave you sysop privs. Although you are not an admin of the site, I thought it fair that you have the adequate controls to rollback, delete, etc. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
*Srsly? that's pretty cool, thanks for the trust there. I've never been an admin of a wiki before... [[User:Tyciol|tyciol]] 23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2009=<br />
We prefer to link encyclopedia content from encyclopedia articles. Would you be willing to co-operate on writing a biography page here? [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
Hi, I had a look at some of the [[Wikisposure]] and [[Evil Unveiled]] literature on here, and you placed some technical info before the "blackout". If possible, could you ensure its accuracy, as it's probably not worth going into that kind of detail if nobody is updating it. Cheers. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 02:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2022=</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Admins&diff=7027User talk:The Admins2013-11-06T14:50:03Z<p>Tyciol: importing messages that were mistakenly left on the main user page instead of this talk page.</p>
<hr />
<div>=2009=<br />
==Anon==<br />
Here's a properly named admin account for anonymous editing. // -Jim [[User:Rez]] 20:42, 19 January 2009<br />
:Nudge me on private board for p/w. [[User:Rez]] 20:44, 19 January 2009<br />
<br />
==Yo Jim==<br />
I read your newsletter! [[User:Tyciol|tyciol]] 02:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks for clearing it up, [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2010=<br />
==Odd==<br />
"Admins" is plural but Jim is singular... er... anyway so I am a little confused when you mentioned a biography page. Who exactly would you be biographying? [[User:Tyciol|tyciol]] 10:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:You. Your user page is biographic, and would better suit an article format... other articles look a bit amateurish if they refer to notable people (such as yourself, within this context at least) by linking to accounts they have on this site. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Oh okay, if you want to change my [[Tyciol]] redirect into an article I can't stop you, it would divide what I say about myself (on my userpage) versus a wiki-style information gathering on an article edited by many. I don't feel right creating it though as I don't feel particularly notable, I'll just intercede if I believe there are inaccuracies. I hope you'll allow me that courtesy at least, it's a lot more than ED/CSO/Wikispo/EU/.ch ever did. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 05:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2011=<br />
==[[EU]]==<br />
European Union? I guess I don't really understand the significance of this, is someone in the process of writing that? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)<br />
:It's a body that funds NGOs, so is of interest to NewgonWiki. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
::So, planning on making that page anytime soon? I don't really see it happening. In the mean time, we have [[Evil-Unveiled]] which could use it. If a Europe article comes up in the future I could always change a redirect into a disambiguation page right? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 20:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Quoting==<br />
About [http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Profound_and_lifelong_scarring&curid=800&diff=6728&oldid=6723 this], if we're going to have quotes, shouldn't we attribute them? Otherwise, anyone could just add a random quote. I could make one up and be all "hymen-breaking cures HIV" and unattributed it might be implied to come from some source we're criticizing. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Moving==<br />
Hi, haven't seen you active this September, still lurking? Anyway I have been trying to help out [[User:Dissident]] by categorizing the essays he has been adding. Unfortunately he seems to be having some trouble creating new pages, I think he's clicking any random red link he sees to open a blank page (such as articles which don't yet have talk pages) and using those to make his essays, and then using the 'move' command to retitle them. This creates a lot of havock in terms of navigation because people will click a talk page for a certain essay, but rather than bringing them to a conversation about a said page or essay as they would expect, it instead redirects to a whole new essay he has written.<br />
<br />
He seems to be imbued with Bureaucrat/SysOp powers, I am not entirely sure why based upon the lack of experience in wiki editing that I have observed. I spoke sternly and issued a 2-hr warning ban based on this abuse of the 'move' function prior to realizing these ranks. I am concerned about potential repercussions now. Should I be banned in return or something, I hope you will keep in mind that I did that out of concern for what is best for wiki integrity. Also do you know if Pantheadoros or Jillium will be coming back? First hasn't been on since 09 and 2nd not since March this year. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 06:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
==Yo==<br />
Any idea when someone fixed the wiki so it would work again? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Wikisposure]]==<br />
If you mean the info I added from 2010 to 2011 (after your last 2009 edit) which linked to the new [[Evil-Unveiled]] page, I added info based on some critics investigating the site at the time.<br />
<br />
The name server data on the E-U article was dated only from 2010 to 2012 though, so it expired by now (I posted it in 2011). I don't know if Wikisposure has renewed with the same host or if they moved on to a new host for their 2013 hosting. TBH I'm not really web-savvy enough to remember how to look up that stuff except to check WhoIs or something.<br />
<br />
Since [[Corrupted-Justice]] went down, wherever possible I'd like to find Wayback archives of their threads. Dodger and co did a lot of great work criticizing PJ but seems to have backed off for some reason or another. They didn't do much criticism of E-U compared to Wikisposure even though it's the same thing. This leads me to think his beef was more with the fake calls and not with the wiki.<br />
<br />
[http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=evil-unveiled.com NetworkSolutions] is still showing E-U's URL being registered by eNom, Inc. and resold by NAMECHEAP.com. It's a bit confusing and I think they might be masking how they're hosting it via a privacy org (possibly WhoIs itself, dunno).<br />
<br />
Ideally if someone more knowledgeable of tech could get more info I'd love to list something more up to date an thorough. Right now these are barely bread crumbs. But I think it's better than nothing. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] ([[User talk:Tyciol|talk]]) 20:45, 19 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Registration==<br />
I got contacted by someone who wants to become an editor here. It's been years so I actually forgot the process on how to register and stuff. Do you know what sort of instructions I should forward to this person? They left me an e-mail and a web site. Should I send this to you? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] ([[User talk:Tyciol|talk]]) 15:50, 6 November 2013 (CET)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User:The_Admins&diff=7026User:The Admins2013-11-06T14:48:40Z<p>Tyciol: I got confused and thought that this was the talk page, redirecting to the talk page and merging the comments left here with the ones there.</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[User talk:The Admins]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Jillium&diff=7025User talk:Jillium2013-11-06T14:42:43Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[/9-11|2009 to 2011]]<br />
<br />
=May=<br />
==Yo==<br />
You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=October=<br />
==What is your opinion?==<br />
It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, restructuring the wiki would be a better choice. The standard blog format, with recent posts burying older ones, doesn't make sense for timeless content and can be difficult to navigate. A CMS without the blog format would be okay, but probably even less successful in encouraging collaborative article editing, which MediaWiki is designed for.<br />
<br />
:Moving to a CMS while archiving the wiki would leave two versions of the same content. Duplicate content doesn't fare well with search engines, and the version already established on Google (wiki) would presumably become outdated. There's also the French translations to consider. We could still modernize a bit by editing the stylesheet to hide wiki functionality from logged-out users who don't need it. (Just as examples: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Minit_skin_-_anonymous_user.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:SkinScreenshotScreenRealEstate.PNG] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Cavendish_mod.png][https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:DroneSkin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:WordPress_TwentyTen_skin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:MediaWikiSkinTheErudite.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:BluWiki.png])<br />
<br />
:Regarding your BC post, I doubt MediaWiki's learning curve is much to blame for the state of NW. There are after all [http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity very active] wikis about Thomas the Tank Engine and every other trivial subject, and our old WordPress is even deader than this wiki. There just aren't many people who have the stamina to contribute on any platform in this cultural climate.<br />
<br />
:Do you have any intentions for the splash page? If the forum's not coming back, I could create a new link image for some other section if you want. The font is D3 Egoistism. [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium|talk]]) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::What I have been looking at is a reader-friendly application of WP (could also be a refreshed MW - which you appear to be more familiar with), where the blog format is either absent, or used as a front page (site root) for pointing to recent updates, etc. The format of MW seems to cause problems with editing conflicts, regardless of what effect it has on participation - for example, there is plenty of unencyclopedic and inconsistently formatted content on this Wiki that probably needs modifying or removing altogether. It puts a burden on admin users to police bad formatting and fluff editing. However, given that there is no forum (is there anybody with the will to moderate one?), I don't rate the chances of attracting a large team of editors, let alone those who are capable of generating useful content. In fact, I don't object to two or three active editors contributing only useful material that will be seen by more readers - which opens up the possibility of using MW, as those editors would not be constantly cleaning up.<br />
<br />
::If the MW were to be archived, it would have to be edited to exclude useful material that were moved to WP and redirect its traffic to the new interface. If it were just to be altered, I'd favor making MW the site root. We would have to draw a line between material to delete, material to label archived and orphan from the new directory structure and the core projects which will be maintained by a small team of editors and kept up to date. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::That sort of WordPress sounds fine. [http://www.pädophilie-irrtümer.de This site] does look nice. I just think it might be easier to restructure the wiki than set up a new platform and maintain both (the software is supposed to be kept up-to-date, etc.).<br />
:::In case you decide to stick with the wiki, I made a quick Photoshop of what a simplified skin might look like, though I don't particularly like the way it turned out: [https://i.minus.com/ibhRrKvNjzDwPr.png this] ([https://i.minus.com/ikmCiX8s1MfDp.png alt font]). Do you have anything in mind for the style/colour scheme? [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium|talk]]) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Regardless of the platform, I propose we replace the bullet point format of the Testimony and Research projects with [http://i6.minus.com/iujUMB2RjfL9z.png this] to allay the wall-of-text effect. (Only a stylesheet change is required, the wikitext would remain the same.) [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium|talk]]) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:That's just fine. I'm in favor of changing the whole site design, as it has come slightly unstuck over a PHP upgrade that bridged 4 years. If this can be done in MediaWiki, then good - please look for more templates that may be preferable with MW as the front page. The type of theme you presented above (with a homepage) is the kind of thing I'm talking about - and I don't care much about the color scheme - light and user-friendly should do. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (CEST)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category_talk:Browse&diff=7024Category talk:Browse2013-11-06T14:41:25Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Please explain the relevance of this category==<br />
The category does not relate to anything in particular.<br />
<br />
Categories will probably have to be disabled or abandoned as they pull together outdated/archived material with material which is presently being worked on. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 21:08, 21 October 2013 (CEST)<br />
:It's a standard top-level category, like at http://www.wikia.com/Category:Browse or http://animanga.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Browse so I thought it would make a good simply-named root category. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] ([[User talk:Tyciol|talk]]) 15:41, 6 November 2013 (CET)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User:The_Admins&diff=7020User:The Admins2013-10-19T18:45:49Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>=2009=<br />
==Anon==<br />
Here's a properly named admin account for anonymous editing. // -Jim [[User:Rez]] 20:42, 19 January 2009<br />
:Nudge me on private board for p/w. [[User:Rez]] 20:44, 19 January 2009<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
==Yo==<br />
Any idea when someone fixed the wiki so it would work again? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Wikisposure]]==<br />
If you mean the info I added from 2010 to 2011 (after your last 2009 edit) which linked to the new [[Evil-Unveiled]] page, I added info based on some critics investigating the site at the time.<br />
<br />
The name server data on the E-U article was dated only from 2010 to 2012 though, so it expired by now (I posted it in 2011). I don't know if Wikisposure has renewed with the same host or if they moved on to a new host for their 2013 hosting. TBH I'm not really web-savvy enough to remember how to look up that stuff except to check WhoIs or something.<br />
<br />
Since [[Corrupted-Justice]] went down, wherever possible I'd like to find Wayback archives of their threads. Dodger and co did a lot of great work criticizing PJ but seems to have backed off for some reason or another. They didn't do much criticism of E-U compared to Wikisposure even though it's the same thing. This leads me to think his beef was more with the fake calls and not with the wiki.<br />
<br />
[http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=evil-unveiled.com NetworkSolutions] is still showing E-U's URL being registered by eNom, Inc. and resold by NAMECHEAP.com. It's a bit confusing and I think they might be masking how they're hosting it via a privacy org (possibly WhoIs itself, dunno).<br />
<br />
Ideally if someone more knowledgeable of tech could get more info I'd love to list something more up to date an thorough. Right now these are barely bread crumbs. But I think it's better than nothing. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] ([[User talk:Tyciol|talk]]) 20:45, 19 October 2013 (CEST)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Evil_Unveiled&diff=7019Evil Unveiled2013-10-19T18:38:48Z<p>Tyciol: Redirected page to Evil-Unveiled</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Evil-Unveiled]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Evil_Unveiled&diff=7018Evil Unveiled2013-10-19T18:36:45Z<p>Tyciol: Redirected page to Wikisposure#Evil-Unveiled</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Wikisposure#Evil-Unveiled]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyciol&diff=7017User talk:Tyciol2013-10-19T18:35:51Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you would like to provide feedback as to edits, or talk about help in something, go ahead. [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2008=<br />
I just gave you sysop privs. Although you are not an admin of the site, I thought it fair that you have the adequate controls to rollback, delete, etc. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
*Srsly? that's pretty cool, thanks for the trust there. I've never been an admin of a wiki before... [[User:Tyciol|tyciol]] 23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2009=<br />
We prefer to link encyclopedia content from encyclopedia articles. Would you be willing to co-operate on writing a biography page here? [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
Hi, I had a look at some of the [[Wikisposure]] and [[Evil Unveiled]] literature on here, and you placed some technical info before the "blackout". If possible, could you ensure its accuracy, as it's probably not worth going into that kind of detail if nobody is updating it. Cheers. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 02:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Browse&diff=7016Category:Browse2013-10-19T18:34:37Z<p>Tyciol: Created page with "Browse is the top-level category on most wikis. It does not have a parent category."</p>
<hr />
<div>Browse is the top-level category on most wikis. It does not have a parent category.</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Music_featuring_attraction_to_minors&diff=7015Music featuring attraction to minors2013-10-19T18:34:13Z<p>Tyciol: expand as needed folks</p>
<hr />
<div>A variety of interesting '''music''' pertains to subjects covered on this wiki.<br />
<br />
==Songs==<br />
===Only music===<br />
*Aerosmith: [http://www.lyricsdownload.com/deuces-are-wild-aerosmith-lyrics.html "Deuces Are Wild"] - "I been lovin' you since you was a child girl, Cause you an' me is two of a kind"<br />
<br />
*Alan Price: [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/randy-newman/simon-smith-and-the-amazing-dancing-bear.html Simon Smith and his Amazing Dancing Bear] (a.k.a. when Pedobear turns into a [[faggot]]) - " "<br />
<br />
*All American Rejects: [http://www.metrolyrics.com/i-wanna-lyrics-all-american-rejects.html "I Wanna"] - "I wanna, I wanna, I wanna touch you, You wanna touch me too, Everyday but all I have is time, Our love's the perfect crime."<br />
<br />
*American Bang: [http://www.elyricsworld.com/we_are_wild_and_young_lyrics_american_bang.html Wild and Young] - "I fell in love with a southern girl" "we are wild and young, we have just begun" "take a deep breathe and make it last! These should be the best days of your life" "there's no reason to run" "slow it down" "what happened to the days of doin what we wanted to do?" "we should kick back just have a little fun to kids gettin high, have a couple beers in the sun" (([[Wrestling|WWE NXT]]) opening [http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/wwenxt/2010/february8-14/13491168 Video])<br />
<br />
*Benny Mardones: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki-8XuStK0 Into the Night] - "She's just 16 years old, Leave her alone they said......If I could fly I'd pick you up, and take you into the night"<br />
<br />
*Bruce Springsteen: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bruce+springsteen/im+on+fire_20025015.html I'm On Fire] - "Hey little girl is your daddy home, did he go away and leave you all alone? I got a bad desire, oh oh oh I'm on fire"<br />
<br />
*Cher: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/cher/gypsies+tramps+thieves_20029746.html Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves] - "I picked up a boy just south of mobile, Gave him a ride, filled him with a hot meal, I was thirteen, he was thirty-one"<br />
<br />
*Deadsy: [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Itty-Bitty-Titty-Girl-Itsy-Bitsy-Titsy-Girl-lyrics-Deadsy/23EF82B656E5B3FE48256BE60008B901.html Itsy Bitsy Titsy Girl] - "Oh, itsy bitsy titsy girl, where are you? Oh, itsy bitsy titsy said our love was true. Oh, my itsy bitsy titsy, so young and so unused. Now, itsy bitsy titsy plays a mean hop-scotch. As she does her little ditty, I can stare at her crotch. Oh, my itsy bitsy titsy, little queen of double dutch..."<br />
<br />
*Depeche Mode: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/depeche+mode/a+question+of+time_20039255.html A Question of Time] - "I've got to get to you first, before they do, it's just a question of time, before they lay their hands on you, and make you just like the rest, I've got to get to you first, it's just a question of time... well now you're only fifteen, and you look good, I'll take you under my wing, somebody should"<br />
<br />
*Edward Ryan and Glenn Vernon in the film [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042570 Hollywood Varieties] (produced 1949) sing [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfiNT6AKG0s this] before doing a [[BLACK FACE contempo]]: "Pretty little girls: we ask them once, we ask them twice, they make us feel like mice! Why do they say yes when they really mean no? Why do they stop when they really should go? We're under their spell! Why do they squirm? If they keep that up we'll be a wreck! We can't stand this much more, we wish that we could score, with any one of our little girls!"<br />
<br />
*Eminem: [http://www.hotlyrics.net/lyrics/E/Eminem/Guilty_Conscience_%5BAcappella%5D.html Guilty Conscience (Acappella)] - "Yo, look at her bush. Does it got hair? (uhuh) Fuck this bitch right on that spot there.'Till she passes out she forgot how she got their.(Man, ain't you ever seen that one movie Kids?) No, but I seen the porno thats on nubiest!(Shit, you wanna get hauled off to jail?)Fuck that, hit that shit raw dawg and bail."<br />
<br />
*Faith No More: [http://www.lyricsdownload.com/faith-no-more-edge-of-the-world-410-lyrics.html Edge of the World] - "Hey, little girl, Would you like some candy?.. Come sit right down, Lay your head on my shoulder, It's not the point, That I'm forty years older.. Give me a smile, Let me see those pearlies, I'll do anything, For the little girlies"<br />
<br />
*Gary Puckett and the Union Gap: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0ZJHVH17I Young Girl] "Young girl, get out of my mind. My love for you is way out of line. Better run girl, you're much too young girl. - With all the charms of a woman, you've kept the secret of your youth. You led me to believe you're old enough to give me love and now it hurts to know the truth. - Beneath your perfume and make-up, you're just a baby in disguise, and though you know that it is wrong to be alone with me that come on look is in your eyes. - So hurry home to your mama, I'm sure she wonders where you are. Get out of here before I have the time to change my mind, 'cause I'm afraid we'll go too far" (See also: [[Bob Saget]] on [[Full House]])<br />
<br />
*Grateful Dead: [http://www.lyrics007.com/Grateful%20Dead%20Lyrics/Good%20Morning%20Little%20Schoolgirl%20Lyrics.html Good Morning Little Schoolgirl] - "Good morning little schoolgirl, Can I come home with you? Tell your mama and your papa, I'm a little schoolboy too."<br />
<br />
*Guns 'n' Roses: [http://www.lyrics007.com/Guns%20N'%20Roses%20Lyrics/Sweet%20Child%20O'%20Mine%20Lyrics.html Sweet Child O' Mine] - "Sweet child o' mine, sweet love of mine, where do we go now?"<br />
<br />
*Heart: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/h/heart/magic+man_20064749.html "Magic Man"] - A little more subtle, but is clearly about a woman remembering losing her virginity to a much older man ("Come on home, girl he said with a smile, I cast my spell of love on you a woman from a child")<br />
<br />
*Hour of 13: Missing Girl - "I see her walking all alone / On her way between her school and home / I see her as she passes by / Now I have the chance I´ll make her mine"<br />
<br />
*Jethro Tull: [http://www.collecting-tull.com/Albums/Lyrics/Aqualung.html Aqualung] - "Sitting on a park bench eyeing little girls with bad intent. Snot running down his nose greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes. Drying in the cold sun Watching as the frilly panties run."<br />
<br />
*Led Zeppelin: The Ocean - "Now I'm singing all my songs to the girl who won my heart. She is only three years old and it's a real fine way to start."<br />
<br />
*Lynyrd Skynyrd: [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/What's-Your-Name-lyrics-Lynyrd-Skynyrd/F5723A5F65439B45482569EB001390D0 What's Your Name?] - "I done made some plans for later on tonight. I'll find a little queen and I know I can treat her right. What's your name, little girl? What's your name? Shootin' you straight, little girl? Won't you do the same?. The police said we can't drink in the bar, what a shame. Won't you come upstairs girl and have a drink of champagne?"<br />
<br />
*Marilyn Manson:<br />
:*''Smells Like Children'' - particularly '[http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/marilyn_manson_lyrics_205/smells_like_children_lyrics_1021/everlasting_cocksucker_remix_lyrics_11619.html Everlasting Cocksucker]' ([[cake]] and [[Buttsecks|sodomy]]) and '[http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/marilyn_manson_lyrics_205/smells_like_children_lyrics_1021/abuse_part_2_confession_lyrics_11622.html Abuse Part 2]'.<br />
:*[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Wrapped-in-Plastic-lyrics-Marilyn-Manson/39D071225374D602482568C10011E202 Wrapped in Plastic] - "Daddy tells the daughter While mommy's sleeping at night To wash away sin you must take off your skin The righteous father wears the yellowest grin"<br />
<br />
*Maximum the Hormone - "''Chu Chu Lovely''" - We all know how those wacky Japs love the [[loli]]/[[shota]]!!<br />
<br />
*[[Michael Jackson]]'s Thriller - I mean, we all know what thrills him. Amirite?<br />
<br />
*Mother of Invention: [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/frank-zappa/motherly-love.html "Motherly Love"] - "Send us up some little groupies and we'll take their hands and rock 'em till they sweat and cry."<br />
<br />
*Oingo Boingo:<br />
:*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/o/oingo+boingo/little+girls_20102778.html Little Girls] - "I love little girls..."<br />
:*[http://www.lyricsdownload.com/oingo-boingo-nothing-to-fear-lyrics.html Nothing to Fear] - "Hey little girl won't you come this way, Wont you let me buy you candy, or perhaps a chocolate shake, Or perhaps some nice cocaine, or perhaps a little kiss, Or perhaps a ride in my big car, Perhaps a ride in my big car, Wont you make an old man happy, Won't you make an old man happy, Wont you let me show you paradise(dont ask your mother for advice)"<br />
<br />
*Ozzy Osbourne: [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Mr-Tinkertrain-lyrics-Ozzy-Osbourne/9359707830080431482568B7000CBC78 Mr. Tinkertrain] - "Would you like some sweeties little girl? Come a little closer... I'm gonna show you a brand new world tonight! I've got a palace full of fantasy, ready made just for you and me. Once you're there I'm gonna take you for a ride..."<br />
<br />
*Scala Girls Choir: [http://www.ironcircus.com/Scala_-_I_Touch_Myself.mp3 I Touch Myself] - "I'd get down on my knees, I'd do anything for you. I love myself, I want you to love me..."<br />
<br />
*Shawn Colvin: [http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/colvin-shawn/suicide-alley-10539.html Suicide Alley] - "Sitting naked by the window in the middle of the night, I can see you wearing your halo, If only in the daybreak of the dirty streetlight, I know baby wasn't born to follow."<br />
<br />
*Simon and Garfunkel: [http://www.metrolyrics.com/baby-driver-lyrics-simon-and-garfunkel.html Baby Driver] - "Theres no one home, were all alone, Oh come to my room and play, Yes we can play! I'm not talking about your pigtails, But I'm talking bout your sex appeal..." [[YA RLY|Yeah, really.]]<br />
<br />
*Spinal Tap: [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Tonight-I'm-Gonna-Rock-You-Tonight-lyrics-Spinal-Tap/17C816C9E6CC2FDC48256DCE002F5635 Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight] - "You're sweet but you're just four feet and you still got your baby teeth, you're too young and I'm too well hung"<br />
<br />
*Steely Dan: [http://www.metrolyrics.com/everyones-gone-to-the-movies-lyrics-steely-dan.html Everyone's Gone to the Movies] - "Kids if you want some fun, See what you never have seen, Take off your cheaters and sit right down, Start the projection machine"<br />
<br />
*Steinski: [http://www.boomkat.com/item.cfm?id=11246 Lolita] - "''Ordinary, Plumpish, Formless, Cold-skinned... Little girls.''" Who know Pedobear was a pretty awesome DJ too?<br />
<br />
*Steppenwolf: [http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/magcca.html Magic Carpet Ride] - "Well, you don't know what we can find, Why don't you come with me little girl, On a magic carpet ride."<br />
<br />
*Stone Temple Pilots: [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/stone+temple+pilots/sex+type+thing_20132550.html Sex Type Thing] - "I'll give ya somethin' that ya won't forget, I said ya shouldn't have worn that dress"<br />
<br />
*The Doors: [http://www.actionext.com/names_d/doors_the_lyrics/alabama_song_-_whiskey_bar.html Alabama Song (Whisky Bar)] - "Well show me the way, to the next little girl... Oh don't ask why"<br />
<br />
*The Eels: [http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/justmyluck/heymannowyourereallyliving.htm Hey Man] - "Have you ever made love to a beautiful girl? Made you feel like it's not such a bad world? Hey man, now you're really living!"<br />
<br />
*The Knack: [http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/realitybites/mysharona.htm My Sharona] - "Never gonna stop, give it up. Such a dirty mind. Always get it up for the touch of the younger kind."<br />
<br />
*The Police & Sting - [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/police/dont+stand+so+close+to+me_20110096.html Don't Stand So Close to Me]: "Young teacher, the subject of schoolgirl fantasy, she wants him so badly"<br />
<br />
*Tool:<br />
:*[http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/maynardsdick.html Maynard's Dick] - "Would you like to climb on, Climb on my six inches and go down on Maynard's dick"<br />
:*[http://www.toolband.com/album/lyrics/undertow.html Prison Sex] - "(little girl:) I was so young and vestal then, you know it hurt me...I've got my hands bound, my head down, my eyes closed, and my throat wide open. (Pedobear:)My lamb and martyr, you look so precious. Won't you come a bit closer, close enough so I can smell you. I need you to feel this, I can't stand to burn too long. Released in this sodomy. For one sweet moment I am whole...Got your hands bound, your head down, your eyes closed. You look so precious now. I have found some kind of temporary sanity in this shit blood and cum on my hands."<br />
:*[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Third-Eye-lyrics-Tool/6956417022EE8C2148256A57002C304C Third Eye] - "Came out to watch you play. Why are you running away? ... On my back and tumbling, Down that hole and back again ... in.. out.. in.. out.."<br />
<br />
*U2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooropa Zooropa] / [http://www.u2.com/discography/lyrics/lyric/song/19 Babyface, Babyface] - "Slow down child, let me untie your lace...Bitter-sweet girl, won't you give me a taste..."<br />
<br />
*Vehicle: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBMo8xHGNs The Ides of March] - "Hey, well I'm the friendly stranger in the black sedan oh won't you hop inside my car? I got pictures, got candy, I am a lovable man, I'd like to take you to the nearest star. I'm your vehicle baby, I'll take you anywhere you wanna go. I'm your vehicle woman, By now I'm sure you know that I love ya (love you) need ya (need you) I want to, got to have you child Great God in heaven, you know I love you"<br />
<br />
*Winger: [http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/w/winger7682/seventeen394211.html Seventeen] - "She's only seventeen, daddy says she's too young, but she's old enough for me"<br />
<br />
===Video with music===<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=8MPA8dbG3Go Alexandru Bognibov - "I Love The Girls"] - "I love the girls of thirteen years old, Thirteen years old and nothing else, me baby"<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_THqHqUXZU Ballet Blue] (and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5wQPdJwHYA another version]) "Baby girl... you better keep your eye on me. I'm not trying to hurt, don't even want to be free. But when I see them walk and I hear them talk, well that's the end of me. They have bumps and curls and I haven't even mentioned their lips. They have wild eyes that make me lie and lips right up to their hips. They're from outer space, they're the fairer race and we all know who's in control. But with a lick of the lips and a swing of the hips, well a man can can lose his soul. Stop it, I like it. Stop it, [[feels good]]. You're so wrong I'm getting excited. Please don't stop, though I know you should."<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aWhn0Hc8ps Benny Mardones - "Into the Night"] 1980<br />
:*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZFreurbf3o remix by Nick Kamen] 1987<br />
:*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJrqDNBF1Yk remix by Junior Tucker] 1991<br />
:*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyLvjsqbLqM Triple J's remix] Feb 2009 or earlier<br />
:*Harlem Yu's 2009 remix needed<br />
:*Usher did a 2010 remix Making Love (Into the Night) in Raymond vs Raymond<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=iTW8oUV8Aq0 Bloodhound Gang - "The Bad Touch"] - Pedobear ain't nothin' but a mammal.<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=GdCl0WP5FnI Chuck Berry - "Memphis Tennessee"] - Chuck Berry likes the little girls.<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=nPA6vwKIBGQ Dr. Hook & The Medicine Band - "Only Sixteen"] - "She was only sixteen, only sixteen. But I loved her so."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF0WdIbt0-s Jethro Tull - ''Aqualung''] - "Sitting on the park bench, eyeing little girls with bad intent.. Watching as the frilly panties run. (I have a painting of the titular character on my wall that my aunt painted in 1972.)"<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=CKl_7zK3fbI Marcy Playground - "Sex and Candy"] - What, you need any moar of an explanation?!<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwQFmghga0c Maximum Hormone - "Chu Chu Lovely"] - "A college student would be good. A high school student would be good. A middle school student would be good. An elementary school student would be good. It would be great if they were tantalizing. A kindergartner would be good." <br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=hUOdyMn4p4Q Mustard Plug - Lolita] - [http://www.lyricstime.com/mustard-plug-lolita-lyrics.html "Lolita, I wanna meet ya, I wanna take you in my arms and squeeze ya"]<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=jItz-uNjoZA Oingo Boingo - "Little Girls"] Nuff said<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=76O6tuJPe3w Ringo Starr - "You're Sixteen"] "You're sixteen, you're beautiful and you're mine. [[Star Wars|CARRIE FISHER]] IS IN THIS VIDEO! [[FAP]] [[Fanboys]] [[FAP]]!<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_SzyteePM Rooney - "Daisy Duke"] - "You're too young for me but I can keep a secret. I'm in total control of the situation. Bow down daisy duke.. I'm sorry for cuffing you to my bathtub."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=KHwMGsTftsA Rush - "Digital Man"] - "He's got a force field and a flexible plan, he's got a date with fate in a black sedan, he plays fast forward just as long as he can, but he don't need a bed, he's a digital man."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=2O_M6cH5Bgk Steely Dan - "Everyone's Gone To The Movies"] - "Kids if you want some fun, Mr. LaPage is your man. He's always laughing, having some fun, showing films in his den. Come on, come on. Soon you will be 18, I think you know what I mean. Don't tell your mama, your daddy or mama, they'll never know where you been. Everyone's gone to the movies, now were alone at last."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=D9ebT_jeKoo Sting - "Don't Stand So Close To Me"] - "Inside her, there's longing. This girl's an open page. Book marking - she's so close now. This girl is half his age."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=R89NqQv26PU Three Six Mafia - "Loli Loli"] - "Loli, loli, loli, loli, let me see you park that body."<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=BacCAXDLz10 Throw Me The Statue - "Lolita"] - Do I need to explain?<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=WW5VWSnven4 Toy-Box - "Wizard of Oz"] - "I am searching for the magic land. Follow me, my girl. (Okay.) Do you have to touch me with your magic hands? It's part of the ritual. (Hey, hands off, Mister!)"<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=gqU_0xpILIU Yello - "Oh Yeah"] - Watch and believe it.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Promotional Media]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Browse]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Official_Encyclopedia&diff=7014Category:Official Encyclopedia2013-10-19T18:33:56Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTITLE__<br />
{|class="boilerplate" id="pd" style="width:80%; -moz-border-radius: 1em; margin: 0 auto; border:3px solid black; padding:5px; background-color:#FFF380;" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4"<br />
|<center><br />
<div style="font-size:230%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;">'''Welcome to our Encyclopedia!'''</div><br/><br />
<br />
Any article of an encyclopedic/informational nature is included in the Encyclopedia on NewgonWiki. And for all Encyclopedia categories in a non-hierarchical order, see [[Special:Categories|Categories]]. <br />
<br />
Why not consider [[NewgonWiki:getting involved|'''getting involved''' in editing]]?</center><br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[fr:Category:Fr: Encyclopédie officielle]]<br />
[[Category:Browse]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=7013Main Page2013-10-19T18:33:48Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTITLE__<br />
<div style="font-size:10%; color:#fff; cursor:default;"><br />
G O O G L E B O M B, Subversive Information Resource, BoyLover, GirlLover, Childlove, Pedophilia, Child, Rape, Sick, Evil, Jack McClellan, Pedo, Perverted Justice, Satanic Ritual Abuse, Human Trafficking, The truth about Paedophilia, Michael Jackson Pedophilia, Sarah Payne Murder, Soham Murders, NSPCC child abuse, Bruce Rind, PNVD pedophilia, pedophile party, pedopartij, NAMBLA, Daniel Lièvre, Tom O'Carroll, Paedophilia in Britain, USA, American pedophilia, Paedophile Information Exchange, UNCRC Convention, Children's rights, Child protection, Child sexual abuse, every child matters, G O O G L E B O M B</div><br />
__NOTOC__ <br />
{| style="width:90%; -moz-border-radius: 1em; margin: 0 auto; border:3px solid black; padding:5px; background-color:#BDEDFF;" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5"<br />
|-<br />
|<div class="imagelink_newgon center">[[Newgon.com|&nbsp;]]</div><br />
|<div align="center">Our resource aims to document '''facts, opinions, arguments, research and testimonies''' relating to '''physical attractions and relationships between minors and adults''' ([[Ethos of Newgon.com|see ethos]]). We strive to expose the positive side of these often condemned facts of life. Why not consider [[NewgonWiki:getting involved|'''getting involved''' in editing]]? If you wish to discuss issues similar to those covered on this wiki, our forum (forthcoming) is open to everyone. Established editors, refer to [[NewgonWiki:Noticeboard|noticeboard]] for in-house discussion.<br />
<br />
NewgonWiki has '''[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]]''' articles.<br />
<br />
<div class="imagelink_en-fr">[[Page Principale|&nbsp;]]</div><br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
{| style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px; background:none;"<br />
| style="width:50%; border:3px solid #000; background:white; vertical-align:top; color:white;"|<br />
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:white; width:100%;"<br />
<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#3BB9FF; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:white; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Browse our Encyclopedia...</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| <div>{{NewgonWiki:Browse our Encyclopedia}}</div> <br />
|-<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#4EE2EC; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:white; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Browse our projects...</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| <div>{{NewgonWiki:Projects}}</div> <br />
|}<br />
|style="border:1px solid transparent"|<!--<br />
--------------------------------2nd Column-------------------------------><br />
| style="width:50%; border:3px solid #000; background:white; vertical-align:top;"|<br />
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:white; width:100%;"<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#1589FF; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:white; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Sexual experiences of youth and others...</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| <div>{{NewgonWiki:Sexual Experiences of Youth and Others}}</div> <br />
|-<br />
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#ADDFFF; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:white; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Featured/special content...</h2><br />
|-<br />
|style="color:#000;"| <div>{{NewgonWiki:Featured/Special content}}</div> <br />
|}<br />
|}<!-- --><br />
<br />
[[fr:Page Principale]]<br />
[[Category:Browse]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Minimodels_injustice&diff=6885Minimodels injustice2013-05-17T21:15:25Z<p>Tyciol: /* External link */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Childporn.jpg|frame|Deemed by Brazilian authorities to be pornographic]]<br />
'''Minimodels injustice''' refers to a major, unfolding injustice perpetuated by the [[Brazil]]ian authorities in which a [[Lawrence A. Stanley]] was convicted for producing images of [[Child Pornography|child pornography]] (in reality, clothed fashion shoots) and framed for other dubious crimes that he did not commit. This was carried out in the face of a re-formulated prosecution opinion that there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.<br />
<br />
Testimony comes in the form of a personal statement, published on [http://inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=367 inquisition21.com]:<br />
<br />
:''"I was arrested on June 8, 2002 under the theory that my photo site, Minimodels was a hub of international child pornography. I was even on the cover of a national magazine owned by Globo, the main television station. Several weeks later the police investigator admitted in the local newspaper that there were no nude images, but as she saw it, non-nude images were child pornography too, even if the law didn’t yet define it as such. On August 13, 2002, I was released under a writ of habeas corpus by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which noted that the images in the case did not appear to fit the definition of child pornography. (Editor. He sent a number of images for our inspection. Only two are shown with this story but the others sent were largely similar and none were nude.)''<br />
<br />
:''In the meantime, on October 12, 2002, I was giving a lift to a girl who I knew (she used to hang out on the street near my studio) and I was stopped by the police. First they attempted to extort R$2000 from me. Several hours later, the police decided to book me for engaging in oral sex with the girl. At the police station she denied having oral sex. There was no medical exam; no search for semen in the car. No package of condoms, used or new.''<br />
<br />
:''The fix was in from the beginning. I was convicted at trial and sentenced to 8 years and 6 months. (6 years and six months on the supposed sex, which never happened, and 2 years on the bribery attempt, which was in reality an extortion attempt on the part of the police). The conviction occurred in July of 2003. (I had been in jail already for 9 months.) The case went to appeal, which was scheduled for a hearing in June of 2004. However, a dispute broke out between my lawyer and the judge (Assemany) and when the prosecution joined the plea for acquittal, she shelved the case. In October 2004, the first appeal was heard. The vote was 2-1 against me, triggering an automatic en banc hearing (i.e., a vote by the full panel of judges of the criminal appeals court, not just 3 of them). Judge Assemany failed to follow her own jurisprudence and never looked at, let alone analyzed, the facts of the case. Subsequently she kept my case file in her house and forbid even my lawyers to have access to it, until her retirement in 2006. (Corruption of this type is illegal, but not rare in Brazil. Who is going to enforce the law against judges?)''<br />
<br />
:''In June of 2006 the case went to another judge, Irany, and the prosecutor again wrote a formal opinion in favour of my acquittal. In late 2006 or early 2007 Irany lied to the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia, stating that my case would be heard ‘imminently’, which led to the denial of a habeas corpus motion in February 2007 in the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia. The fact is that he never put the case on for hearing and held onto it until June 2008, when he retired. As the case was returned to the office of court administration, the prosecution issued its third opinion in favour of my acquittal.<br />
<br />
:''Finally on October 11, 2008, the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia granted a writ of habeas corpus harshly criticizing the courts of Bahia and granting my immediate release. However, the case goes on. It passed through the hands of several judges like a hot potato, and the current judge apparently intends to put it on for a hearing in the next few weeks or months.''<br />
<br />
:''I was convicted in the photo case in the summer of 2003. The trial judge determined that the photographs (he didn’t say which ones) were not pornographic as photographed, but that they turned into child porn when thumbnails of 12 of them were reproduced by the site Alessandra’s Smile in an advertisement for the minimodels site. (Please feel free to reproduce the attached photographs, which are part of the case. When Mirna, who is pictured in these, turned 18 in 2006, she began visiting me in prison. So much for her being my victim. I am also currently in touch with and in fact live near a half dozen of my former models, who are all now over the age of 16).''<br />
<br />
:''A negligent lawyer I had at the time missed the oral argument on appeal in the photo case. The appeals court decided that the images (it never said which ones) were pornographic because they depicted ‘erotic poses’, a phrase first used in a Brazilian law passed in 2003! (Under the Brazilian Constitution, a law may not be applied retroactively, but never mind.) The negligent lawyer then compounded his negligence by filing a habeas corpus complaining that he was never notified about the oral argument, but neglecting to appeal the decision or complaining about the obviously unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law. (Don’t worry, he kept telling me.)''<br />
<br />
:''When I was released in October 2008, the photo trial judge began the process of sending me back to jail to serve yet another unjust sentence, this one of 2 years and 8 months. My current lawyer is trying to undo all these errors, but I’m not exactly optimistic. I may only have a few weeks left in freedom and I am trying to raise money to pay my lawyer. For this phase I need to pay him $800 (US) in March and another $800 (US) in April, funds which I don’t have, as I have no income."<br />
<br />
:''[.. Favourable prosecution testimony omitted ..]''<br />
<br />
:''[Editor note]Upon further questioning from us, Lawrence Allen Stanley explained: “Yes. Technically the law is this: the age of consent is 18, technically. But age of consent is variable. Between the ages of 14 and 18 one must prove actual violence or grave threat in order to convict someone of a sexual act. Actual violence or grave threat is not hard to prove. All the girl has to say is that she didn't want the sex. However, if she says she didn't object to the sex, no crime is committed.''<br />
<br />
:''“If the girl is under 14, no crime is committed if (a) the girl is physically developed and appears to have consented (i.e., said there was no violence or threat), or (b) if the girl is a prostitute or otherwise very experienced sexually.''<br />
<br />
:''“So, as the prosecution shows by citing jurisprudence, including from the judge who affirmed my conviction (!), even if the oral sex occurred, the law does not apply.”''<br />
<br />
:''Another note: “A Brazilian affiliate of Save the Children, CEDECA, was called in by the sentencing judge. I only know they offered a ‘free’ lawyer to the girl, but her family already had a family lawyer. The judge did her best to intimidate the girl's aunt and the girl (including screaming at both). In the sentence she notes that it was very ‘suspicious’ that they refused a ‘free’ lawyer. (Note, too, that my lawyer at the time was incompetent and did nothing that might prejudice his future practice in front of this judge.)''"<br />
<br />
==External link==<br />
*[http://inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=367 Full story] site has been down for years [http://web.archive.org/web/20090211152759/http://inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=367 here is an archive from February 11, 2009]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Art]]<br />
[[Category:Censorship]]<br />
[[Category:Child Pornography]]<br />
[[Category:History & Events]]<br />
[[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]<br />
[[Category:History & Events: Brazilian]]<br />
[[Category:History & Events: Personal Scandals]]<br />
[[Category:History & Events: Real Crime]]<br />
[[Category:Hysteria]]<br />
[[Category:Law/Crime]]<br />
[[Category:Law/Crime: Brazilian]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accounts_and_Testimonies&diff=6884Accounts and Testimonies2013-05-17T19:46:25Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Foralostsoldier.JPG|thumb|Our lists do not only document man-boy relationships]]<br />
:''[http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 Feedback Forum available]'' forum has been down a long time, archives available of [http://web.archive.org/web/20091230073556/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 December 30, 2009] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100325051929/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 March 25, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100526130745/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 May 26, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100826045405/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 August 26, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20101206200414/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 December 6, 2010].<br />
This list is intended to be used as evidence of positive relationships, and also to demonstrate that when harm does occur, it is not caused by the activities themselves if such activities are thoroughly non-violent and consensual. Please note that this is not intended to be an unbiased and wholly accurate study of sexual activities between minors and adults. Accounts vary in credibility, some of them being anonymous (the reasons for which, may be understandable) and others being the spoken or written word of one or more known persons.<br />
<br />
The accounts are divided into sections for easy retrieval.<br />
<br />
==Minors' relationships with Adults==<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Male]]: Man-Boy sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Female]]: Man-Girl sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Female with Minor]]: Sexual experiences of youth with women.<br />
*[[Testimony: CSA (Children's Sexual Advances)]]: Sexual experiences in which the child or youth made a clear advance.<br />
<br />
==Among Children or Youth==<br />
*[[Testimony: Expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
*[[Testimony: Non-expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
<br />
==Attraction as an experience==<br />
*[[Testimony: Experiences of ephebophilia and pedophilia]]<br />
<br />
==Other sources of similar lists==<br />
*[[List of testimony resources]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Comptes rendus et témoignages]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accounts_and_Testimonies&diff=6883Accounts and Testimonies2013-05-17T19:46:11Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Foralostsoldier.JPG|thumb|Our lists do not only document man-boy relationships]]<br />
:''[http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 Feedback Forum available]'' forum has been down a long time, archives available of [http://web.archive.org/web/20091230073556/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 December 30, 2009] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100325051929/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 March 25, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100526130745/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 May 26, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20100826045405/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 August 26, 2010] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20101206200414/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 December 6, 2010] and <br />
This list is intended to be used as evidence of positive relationships, and also to demonstrate that when harm does occur, it is not caused by the activities themselves if such activities are thoroughly non-violent and consensual. Please note that this is not intended to be an unbiased and wholly accurate study of sexual activities between minors and adults. Accounts vary in credibility, some of them being anonymous (the reasons for which, may be understandable) and others being the spoken or written word of one or more known persons.<br />
<br />
The accounts are divided into sections for easy retrieval.<br />
<br />
==Minors' relationships with Adults==<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Male]]: Man-Boy sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Female]]: Man-Girl sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Female with Minor]]: Sexual experiences of youth with women.<br />
*[[Testimony: CSA (Children's Sexual Advances)]]: Sexual experiences in which the child or youth made a clear advance.<br />
<br />
==Among Children or Youth==<br />
*[[Testimony: Expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
*[[Testimony: Non-expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
<br />
==Attraction as an experience==<br />
*[[Testimony: Experiences of ephebophilia and pedophilia]]<br />
<br />
==Other sources of similar lists==<br />
*[[List of testimony resources]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Comptes rendus et témoignages]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accounts_and_Testimonies&diff=6882Accounts and Testimonies2013-05-17T19:43:33Z<p>Tyciol: we don't really need to have sections for these, duplicating links. wtf that's just excessive. sections are for dividing info. look how much prettier this is bitches</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
[[Image:Foralostsoldier.JPG|thumb|Our lists do not only document man-boy relationships]]<br />
:''[http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=510 Feedback Forum available]''<br />
This list is intended to be used as evidence of positive relationships, and also to demonstrate that when harm does occur, it is not caused by the activities themselves if such activities are thoroughly non-violent and consensual. Please note that this is not intended to be an unbiased and wholly accurate study of sexual activities between minors and adults. Accounts vary in credibility, some of them being anonymous (the reasons for which, may be understandable) and others being the spoken or written word of one or more known persons.<br />
<br />
The accounts are divided into sections for easy retrieval.<br />
<br />
==Minors' relationships with Adults==<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Male]]: Man-Boy sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Male with Minor Female]]: Man-Girl sex experiences.<br />
*[[Testimony: Adult Female with Minor]]: Sexual experiences of youth with women.<br />
*[[Testimony: CSA (Children's Sexual Advances)]]: Sexual experiences in which the child or youth made a clear advance.<br />
<br />
==Among Children or Youth==<br />
*[[Testimony: Expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
*[[Testimony: Non-expressed childhood sexuality]]<br />
<br />
==Attraction as an experience==<br />
*[[Testimony: Experiences of ephebophilia and pedophilia]]<br />
<br />
==Other sources of similar lists==<br />
*[[List of testimony resources]]<br />
<br />
[[fr:Comptes rendus et témoignages]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Official_Encyclopedia&diff=6880Category:Official Encyclopedia2013-05-17T19:33:52Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTITLE__<br />
{|class="boilerplate" id="pd" style="width:80%; -moz-border-radius: 1em; margin: 0 auto; border:3px solid black; padding:5px; background-color:#FFF380;" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4"<br />
|<center><br />
<div style="font-size:230%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;">'''Welcome to our Encyclopedia!'''</div><br/><br />
<br />
Any article of an encyclopedic/informational nature is included in the Encyclopedia on NewgonWiki. And for all Encyclopedia categories in a non-hierarchical order, see [[Special:Categories|Categories]]. <br />
<br />
Why not consider [[NewgonWiki:getting involved|'''getting involved''' in editing]]? Our '''[http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=511 feedback forum]''' exists so that readers can share their thoughts on the Encyclopedia project.<br />
<br />
The forums have been down for a while, but [http://web.archive.org/web/20110101000152/http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=511 here is snapshot from the Wayback Machine from January 1, 2011]. The forums and wiki have both been down for a rather long period, and only some time in 2013 did the Wiki come back.<br />
</center><br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[fr:Category:Fr:Encyclopédie officielle]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=NewgonWiki:Administrators&diff=6879NewgonWiki:Administrators2013-05-17T19:30:14Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Administrators''' ala '''Systems Operators''' ('''SysOps''') are listed [http://newgon.com/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop here].<br />
[[Category:User groups]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User:The_Admins&diff=6878User:The Admins2013-05-17T19:29:28Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>=2009=<br />
==Anon==<br />
Here's a properly named admin account for anonymous editing. // -Jim [[User:Rez]] 20:42, 19 January 2009<br />
:Nudge me on private board for p/w. [[User:Rez]] 20:44, 19 January 2009<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
==Yo==<br />
Any idea when someone fixed the wiki so it would work again? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantheadoros/9-11&diff=6877User talk:Pantheadoros/9-112013-05-17T19:28:35Z<p>Tyciol: New page: =2009= ==Defaultsort== I can't find the defaultsort temp/extension anywhere. Do you have any idea how we can get it here - we need it for the encyclopedia. User:TheAdmins 16:00, 26 Feb...</p>
<hr />
<div>=2009=<br />
==Defaultsort==<br />
I can't find the defaultsort temp/extension anywhere. Do you have any idea how we can get it here - we need it for the encyclopedia. [[User:TheAdmins]] 16:00, 26 February 2009 <br />
:It's not a template or extension. It's built in. [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2011=<br />
==Hi==<br />
I noticed you were listed as a bureaucrat but in checking [http://newgon.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pantheadoros your contributions] you haven't been active since 2009. Are you around? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantheadoros&diff=6876User talk:Pantheadoros2013-05-17T19:28:30Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[/9-11]]<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
==Sup==<br />
It appears the wiki is editable again. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User:Pantheadoros&diff=6875User:Pantheadoros2013-05-17T19:28:00Z<p>Tyciol: Redirecting to User talk:Pantheadoros</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[User talk:Pantheadoros]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Jillium/9-11&diff=6874User talk:Jillium/9-112013-05-17T19:27:33Z<p>Tyciol: New page: =2009= ==Do you have an opinion on ^notitle?== I think that it unclutters some pages. Rez (The Administrators - anonym) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC) ==GuyonSoc== You appear ...</p>
<hr />
<div>=2009=<br />
==Do you have an opinion on ^notitle?==<br />
I think that it unclutters some pages. [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==GuyonSoc==<br />
You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: [[List of hoax pedophilia organisations]]. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Rollbacks==<br />
<s>A lot of my edits are being rolled back for no obvious reason (e.g. uncontroversial spelling/punctuation corrections). Can you explain?[[User:Stephen James|Stephen James]] 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:The above user rolled back this message, I restored it for record-keeping purposes. I am unsure why they did so. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 05:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=2011=<br />
==Sup==<br />
Hi Jillium I noticed that you were a bureaucrat and were last active March of this year. How's it hangin'? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 05:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Jillium&diff=6873User talk:Jillium2013-05-17T19:27:28Z<p>Tyciol: Replacing page with 'Archives: 2009 to 2011
==Yo==
You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? ~~~~'</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[/9-11|2009 to 2011]]<br />
<br />
==Yo==<br />
You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Dissident/2011&diff=6872User talk:Dissident/20112013-05-17T19:26:20Z<p>Tyciol: New page: =August= ==Hi there== I hope you don't mind but rather than a redirect, I just posted the link up there since talk pages are for communication and all that. Anywho, I happened across an in...</p>
<hr />
<div>=August=<br />
==Hi there==<br />
I hope you don't mind but rather than a redirect, I just posted the link up there since talk pages are for communication and all that. Anywho, I happened across an interesting comic but I am not really sure what to do with it. Any idea what section would be good on this wiki for it? I [http://rule34.paheal.net/post/view/667069 uploaded it here] (english translation). Seems like provoking commentary on modern censorship. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 10:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Essays==<br />
Noticed you did a lot of essays, if you don't mind could you grab the ones I missed and tag them with [[:Category:Essays]] so all essays are linked from that category? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi, Tyciol, Since when are you on the administration? What has been going on there without my knowledge lately?<br />
:Anyhoo, the reason I placed those essays on the "talk" pages is because nobody on the administration took the time, despite my requests, to e-mail me and teach me how to use the tools of the Wiki properly, including how to start new pages, to tag the pages with the appropriate category, etc. Hence, I had to improvise and learn the entire thing almost completely on my own. If you know how to work the tools, including doing the above two things, and have the time to give me the run-through on them, I would appreciate it. <br />
:In the meantime, since I do not currently know how to tag essays into categories, I will list the other essays I put up that are not currently on the list for the Category:Essays page, so that maybe you can tag them and get a link to each of them up there yourself until I learn how to do it:<br />
*Essay: [[A Startling Revelation About the Celebrity Known as Jewel]]<br />
*[[Essay:Why_Most_Teens_Will_Not_Support_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws_If_Given_The_Choice]]<br />
*[[Essay:A_Response_To_A_Person_Who_Expressed_Concern_Over_Intergenerational_Attraction]]<br />
*[[Essay:Depicting_the_Minor_Attracted_Adult_in_Cinema_-_A_Review_and_Analysis_of_GUTER_JUNGE]]<br />
*[[Essay:Child_Pornography_In_Art_Galleries]]<br />
*[[Essay:History_Of_Intergenerational_Relationships]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Greatest_Horror_Of_Them_All--Being_Labeled_A_Sexual_Predator]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Vagaries_and_Changes_of_Perception]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Ultimate_Scapegoat]]<br />
:That's all I could find for now. Thank you for making this intervention, it's both welcome and appreciated. I will get back to you with my opinion on the comic strip you sent me a link to ASAP, so I have a bit of time to look it over. --Dissident 21:29, 17 August 2011<br />
<br />
I dunno, someone made me a mod some day, I forget why. Trust well placed since I am the epitome of technicalness, NPOV, organization and anti-vandalism in spite of whatever wikipedia arbcoms say. Technically it`s not the place of arbcoms to teach to use the software, in spite of the problems I have with their staff, editing wikipedia is probably a good way to get familiar with the MediaWiki software. They have a lot of guides written on stuff. I pretty much picked it up as I go along. Thanks for posting the links (I wikified them) and I`ll go and tag them later, my comp`s in the process of crashing (see the backwards apotrophes and my inability to use a question markÉ) but should be able to do it later. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm now tagging them with the category as requested. Also, to set them apart since you have done so many, would you like there to be a [[:Category:Dissident essays]] as a subcategory to put them in instead? I'm thinking this might be good for grouping multiple essays that share a single author for aiding navigation. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=September=<br />
==Dude==<br />
Why is it that you keep writing over your talk page? You seem to be able to create new pages for the essays, please try to do that from the start. Deleting talk page content (unless you're making an archive) is against most wiki rules. Also remember to add [[:Category:Essays]] when you create the new documents. You haven't responded to the proposal of creating sub-categories for the Essay category to organize the essays you have added which share a similar author. You can write back here or click my name and leave a message on my talk. Please make an effort to create more organization. I'll add the C:E for the ones you added recently. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Guide==<br />
Click [http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Essay:TITLE&action=edit this URL] then replace TITLE in the bar with whatever it is you want to call your new essay. This should open a blank page for you to paste it in. Then add the category tag at the bottom. Please do not edit previously uploaded essays' redirects to create new ones, this really messes up the organization. For example when I clicked [http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Essay:A_Critical_Look_At_the_Age_of_Consent_Laws&action=history here] it seems you edited the 'Jewel' essay previous incarnations to create the 'Critical Look' essay, that's not the correct way to do it. Once an essay is added, please pretend it doesn't exist and create new essay pages from scratch. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Moving==<br />
I blocked you for 2 hours basically as a warning for the records. Please avoid using the 'move' function in the future. If there is a page you need moved, feel free to ask me and I can do it for you. Upon reviewing your editing history, you have been using the move function inappropriately by creating pages in inappropriate places (like other essays' talk pages) and then moving them to their own articles. This makes organizing things somewhat difficult. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=December=<br />
==Yo==<br />
Why you need so many extra blank lines of space between paragraphs in your essays? =/ [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Dissident&diff=6871User talk:Dissident2013-05-17T19:26:12Z<p>Tyciol: Replacing page with 'Archives: /2011
=2013=
==Yo==
It works again faggot, GTF back in here bro. ~~~~'</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[/2011]]<br />
<br />
=2013=<br />
==Yo==<br />
It works again faggot, GTF back in here bro. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Minimodels_injustice&diff=6870Minimodels injustice2013-05-17T19:24:30Z<p>Tyciol: holy shit, I can edit again without the wiki crashing like fuck, amazing</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Childporn.jpg|frame|Deemed by Brazilian authorities to be pornographic]]<br />
'''Minimodels injustice''' refers to a major, unfolding injustice perpetuated by the [[Brazil]]ian authorities in which a [[Lawrence A. Stanley]] was convicted for producing images of [[Child Pornography|child pornography]] (in reality, clothed fashion shoots) and framed for other dubious crimes that he did not commit. This was carried out in the face of a re-formulated prosecution opinion that there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.<br />
<br />
Testimony comes in the form of a personal statement, published on [http://inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=367 inquisition21.com]:<br />
<br />
:''"I was arrested on June 8, 2002 under the theory that my photo site, Minimodels was a hub of international child pornography. I was even on the cover of a national magazine owned by Globo, the main television station. Several weeks later the police investigator admitted in the local newspaper that there were no nude images, but as she saw it, non-nude images were child pornography too, even if the law didn’t yet define it as such. On August 13, 2002, I was released under a writ of habeas corpus by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which noted that the images in the case did not appear to fit the definition of child pornography. (Editor. He sent a number of images for our inspection. Only two are shown with this story but the others sent were largely similar and none were nude.)''<br />
<br />
:''In the meantime, on October 12, 2002, I was giving a lift to a girl who I knew (she used to hang out on the street near my studio) and I was stopped by the police. First they attempted to extort R$2000 from me. Several hours later, the police decided to book me for engaging in oral sex with the girl. At the police station she denied having oral sex. There was no medical exam; no search for semen in the car. No package of condoms, used or new.''<br />
<br />
:''The fix was in from the beginning. I was convicted at trial and sentenced to 8 years and 6 months. (6 years and six months on the supposed sex, which never happened, and 2 years on the bribery attempt, which was in reality an extortion attempt on the part of the police). The conviction occurred in July of 2003. (I had been in jail already for 9 months.) The case went to appeal, which was scheduled for a hearing in June of 2004. However, a dispute broke out between my lawyer and the judge (Assemany) and when the prosecution joined the plea for acquittal, she shelved the case. In October 2004, the first appeal was heard. The vote was 2-1 against me, triggering an automatic en banc hearing (i.e., a vote by the full panel of judges of the criminal appeals court, not just 3 of them). Judge Assemany failed to follow her own jurisprudence and never looked at, let alone analyzed, the facts of the case. Subsequently she kept my case file in her house and forbid even my lawyers to have access to it, until her retirement in 2006. (Corruption of this type is illegal, but not rare in Brazil. Who is going to enforce the law against judges?)''<br />
<br />
:''In June of 2006 the case went to another judge, Irany, and the prosecutor again wrote a formal opinion in favour of my acquittal. In late 2006 or early 2007 Irany lied to the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia, stating that my case would be heard ‘imminently’, which led to the denial of a habeas corpus motion in February 2007 in the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia. The fact is that he never put the case on for hearing and held onto it until June 2008, when he retired. As the case was returned to the office of court administration, the prosecution issued its third opinion in favour of my acquittal.<br />
<br />
:''Finally on October 11, 2008, the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Brasilia granted a writ of habeas corpus harshly criticizing the courts of Bahia and granting my immediate release. However, the case goes on. It passed through the hands of several judges like a hot potato, and the current judge apparently intends to put it on for a hearing in the next few weeks or months.''<br />
<br />
:''I was convicted in the photo case in the summer of 2003. The trial judge determined that the photographs (he didn’t say which ones) were not pornographic as photographed, but that they turned into child porn when thumbnails of 12 of them were reproduced by the site Alessandra’s Smile in an advertisement for the minimodels site. (Please feel free to reproduce the attached photographs, which are part of the case. When Mirna, who is pictured in these, turned 18 in 2006, she began visiting me in prison. So much for her being my victim. I am also currently in touch with and in fact live near a half dozen of my former models, who are all now over the age of 16).''<br />
<br />
:''A negligent lawyer I had at the time missed the oral argument on appeal in the photo case. The appeals court decided that the images (it never said which ones) were pornographic because they depicted ‘erotic poses’, a phrase first used in a Brazilian law passed in 2003! (Under the Brazilian Constitution, a law may not be applied retroactively, but never mind.) The negligent lawyer then compounded his negligence by filing a habeas corpus complaining that he was never notified about the oral argument, but neglecting to appeal the decision or complaining about the obviously unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law. (Don’t worry, he kept telling me.)''<br />
<br />
:''When I was released in October 2008, the photo trial judge began the process of sending me back to jail to serve yet another unjust sentence, this one of 2 years and 8 months. My current lawyer is trying to undo all these errors, but I’m not exactly optimistic. I may only have a few weeks left in freedom and I am trying to raise money to pay my lawyer. For this phase I need to pay him $800 (US) in March and another $800 (US) in April, funds which I don’t have, as I have no income."<br />
<br />
:''[.. Favourable prosecution testimony omitted ..]''<br />
<br />
:''[Editor note]Upon further questioning from us, Lawrence Allen Stanley explained: “Yes. Technically the law is this: the age of consent is 18, technically. But age of consent is variable. Between the ages of 14 and 18 one must prove actual violence or grave threat in order to convict someone of a sexual act. Actual violence or grave threat is not hard to prove. All the girl has to say is that she didn't want the sex. However, if she says she didn't object to the sex, no crime is committed.''<br />
<br />
:''“If the girl is under 14, no crime is committed if (a) the girl is physically developed and appears to have consented (i.e., said there was no violence or threat), or (b) if the girl is a prostitute or otherwise very experienced sexually.''<br />
<br />
:''“So, as the prosecution shows by citing jurisprudence, including from the judge who affirmed my conviction (!), even if the oral sex occurred, the law does not apply.”''<br />
<br />
:''Another note: “A Brazilian affiliate of Save the Children, CEDECA, was called in by the sentencing judge. I only know they offered a ‘free’ lawyer to the girl, but her family already had a family lawyer. The judge did her best to intimidate the girl's aunt and the girl (including screaming at both). In the sentence she notes that it was very ‘suspicious’ that they refused a ‘free’ lawyer. (Note, too, that my lawyer at the time was incompetent and did nothing that might prejudice his future practice in front of this judge.)''"<br />
<br />
==External link==<br />
<br />
*[http://inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=367 Full story]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: Brazilian]][[Category:History & Events: Real Crime]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: Personal Scandals]][[Category:History & Events: Brazilian]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Dissident&diff=6863User talk:Dissident2011-12-03T14:13:53Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>=August=<br />
==Hi there==<br />
I hope you don't mind but rather than a redirect, I just posted the link up there since talk pages are for communication and all that. Anywho, I happened across an interesting comic but I am not really sure what to do with it. Any idea what section would be good on this wiki for it? I [http://rule34.paheal.net/post/view/667069 uploaded it here] (english translation). Seems like provoking commentary on modern censorship. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 10:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Essays==<br />
Noticed you did a lot of essays, if you don't mind could you grab the ones I missed and tag them with [[:Category:Essays]] so all essays are linked from that category? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi, Tyciol, Since when are you on the administration? What has been going on there without my knowledge lately?<br />
:Anyhoo, the reason I placed those essays on the "talk" pages is because nobody on the administration took the time, despite my requests, to e-mail me and teach me how to use the tools of the Wiki properly, including how to start new pages, to tag the pages with the appropriate category, etc. Hence, I had to improvise and learn the entire thing almost completely on my own. If you know how to work the tools, including doing the above two things, and have the time to give me the run-through on them, I would appreciate it. <br />
:In the meantime, since I do not currently know how to tag essays into categories, I will list the other essays I put up that are not currently on the list for the Category:Essays page, so that maybe you can tag them and get a link to each of them up there yourself until I learn how to do it:<br />
*Essay: [[A Startling Revelation About the Celebrity Known as Jewel]]<br />
*[[Essay:Why_Most_Teens_Will_Not_Support_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws_If_Given_The_Choice]]<br />
*[[Essay:A_Response_To_A_Person_Who_Expressed_Concern_Over_Intergenerational_Attraction]]<br />
*[[Essay:Depicting_the_Minor_Attracted_Adult_in_Cinema_-_A_Review_and_Analysis_of_GUTER_JUNGE]]<br />
*[[Essay:Child_Pornography_In_Art_Galleries]]<br />
*[[Essay:History_Of_Intergenerational_Relationships]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Greatest_Horror_Of_Them_All--Being_Labeled_A_Sexual_Predator]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Vagaries_and_Changes_of_Perception]]<br />
*[[Essay:The_Ultimate_Scapegoat]]<br />
:That's all I could find for now. Thank you for making this intervention, it's both welcome and appreciated. I will get back to you with my opinion on the comic strip you sent me a link to ASAP, so I have a bit of time to look it over. --Dissident 21:29, 17 August 2011<br />
<br />
I dunno, someone made me a mod some day, I forget why. Trust well placed since I am the epitome of technicalness, NPOV, organization and anti-vandalism in spite of whatever wikipedia arbcoms say. Technically it`s not the place of arbcoms to teach to use the software, in spite of the problems I have with their staff, editing wikipedia is probably a good way to get familiar with the MediaWiki software. They have a lot of guides written on stuff. I pretty much picked it up as I go along. Thanks for posting the links (I wikified them) and I`ll go and tag them later, my comp`s in the process of crashing (see the backwards apotrophes and my inability to use a question markÉ) but should be able to do it later. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm now tagging them with the category as requested. Also, to set them apart since you have done so many, would you like there to be a [[:Category:Dissident essays]] as a subcategory to put them in instead? I'm thinking this might be good for grouping multiple essays that share a single author for aiding navigation. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=September=<br />
==Dude==<br />
Why is it that you keep writing over your talk page? You seem to be able to create new pages for the essays, please try to do that from the start. Deleting talk page content (unless you're making an archive) is against most wiki rules. Also remember to add [[:Category:Essays]] when you create the new documents. You haven't responded to the proposal of creating sub-categories for the Essay category to organize the essays you have added which share a similar author. You can write back here or click my name and leave a message on my talk. Please make an effort to create more organization. I'll add the C:E for the ones you added recently. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Guide==<br />
Click [http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Essay:TITLE&action=edit this URL] then replace TITLE in the bar with whatever it is you want to call your new essay. This should open a blank page for you to paste it in. Then add the category tag at the bottom. Please do not edit previously uploaded essays' redirects to create new ones, this really messes up the organization. For example when I clicked [http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Essay:A_Critical_Look_At_the_Age_of_Consent_Laws&action=history here] it seems you edited the 'Jewel' essay previous incarnations to create the 'Critical Look' essay, that's not the correct way to do it. Once an essay is added, please pretend it doesn't exist and create new essay pages from scratch. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Moving==<br />
I blocked you for 2 hours basically as a warning for the records. Please avoid using the 'move' function in the future. If there is a page you need moved, feel free to ask me and I can do it for you. Upon reviewing your editing history, you have been using the move function inappropriately by creating pages in inappropriate places (like other essays' talk pages) and then moving them to their own articles. This makes organizing things somewhat difficult. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=December=<br />
==Yo==<br />
Why you need so many extra blank lines of space between paragraphs in your essays? =/ [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=File_talk:AZU.jpg&diff=6853File talk:AZU.jpg2011-09-26T07:11:53Z<p>Tyciol: New page: ==OMG== If that's stitches, she's hawt. ~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>==OMG==<br />
If that's stitches, she's hawt. [[User:Tyciol|Ty]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Absolute_Zero&diff=6852Absolute Zero2011-09-26T07:10:55Z<p>Tyciol: ToC is good, removing speculation about how much vigilantism they do or how many people are online at once, unless you have data to support claims like that. adding new banner</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Az.jpg|frame|left|Previous AZU logo]][[Image:absolutezerounitedbanne.png|thumb|Most current logo]]<br />
'''Absolute Zero United''', '''Absolute Zero''', '''AZU''' or simply '''AZ''', (f. 2006) is an information-sharing organization formed presumably in the middle of the 1st decade of the 21st century to share information about various causes and individuals. Their slogan is "fighting pedophiles around the world".<br />
<br />
It can be described as an internet hate-campaign run by [[Anti-pedophile activism|anti-pedophile activists]] and potentially including some trolls out for a good time. In addition to the [[vigilantism]] that takes place on Absolute Zero, the campaign serves to promote the vigilante work done by others groups (such as [[Perverted Justice]] and [[Evil-Unleashed]]) and staff may be involved with these organizations as members or information-sharing partners.<br />
<br />
==Website==<br />
At one point, the organization held the '''absolutezerounited.org''' domain, but this disappeared for some unknown reason. The group - consisting of around seventeen volunteers continues to operate on [[Google]]'s free blogging platform, [[Blogger]]/[[Blogspot]].<br />
<br />
==Origin==<br />
[[Image:AZU.jpg|thumb|[[Marina H.]] claims that this is her at a sex offender protest]]<br />
Absolute Zero was first established at '''absolutezerounited.blogspot.com''' after a member ([[Daydreamer of Oz]]) was offended by a pedophile who posted on a website of hers. Her mother, Marina H/[[Stitches77]], a highly active AZU member later wrote:<br />
<br />
:''"You see Matt is a filthy pedophile. Not only that, he's a rather stupid, militant filthy pedophile I had the misfortune of 'meeting' when he decided to make a target of my daughter. Daydreamer of Oz was a blogger, just a blogger minding her own business and writing her opinions about whatever struck her fancy at the time. She didn't know about people like [[Matthew Woodward]]...........a crazed filthy pedophile proud of his perversion. Until she became his target that is. Until he decided to inflict his ugliness upon her -- an unwanted intrusion into her life. Matt changed everything"''.<br />
<br />
By "Matt" she means an alleged real-life identity of [[Lepidopterist]]. His own commentary on the affair is highly conflicting:<br />
:''"I visited a blog by the daydreamerofOz character - who is a female - and I posted something which was not a flame. The next I knew they were up in flames and due to my posting inoffensive messages on other blogs of people who hate us naturally, they all seem to have banded together to form the ridiculous and false site Absolute Zero"''.<br />
<br />
==General tone==<br />
Early on in its existence, AZU editorials focused on what the group saw as "pro-pedophile" cyber-activism, attempting to manipulate quotes, intimidate chosen enemies and shut down the sites of those who they found offensive via a flagging mechanism. AZU was instrumental in [[Blogger.com censorship]]. With the further advancement of online [[Sex Offender activism]], purging of offensive pedophile blogs and establishment of less vulnerable replacements elsewhere, AZU turned its attention to Sex Offender activists such as [[Tom Madison]], attempting to link them and their groups with their previous [[pedophile]] targets. 2008 and 2009 postings indicate that AZU is now little more than an advert for [[Wikisposure]], and old posts are frequently shunted to the front of the site to make up for a drop in participation.<br />
<br />
Absolute Zero is seen as an extremist group by individuals of many different persuasions. The campaign has been ridiculed for a number of reasons, including:<br />
*The socially conservative (generally American Imperialist/Dominionist) viewpoints of its contributors and supporters on a number of topics. AZU gains much of its traffic and support from blogs such as "Tampa Pirate" and flaunts a link to "Dr" [[Judith Reisman]].<br />
*The repetitive, back-slapping nature of comments posted after editorials, taking on almost ritual importance in the reinforcement and justification of group hate-sports.<br />
*The inevitable pro-[[rape]] and "[[Bubba]]" type comments on the blog (see below).<br />
*The contrivance of a language of hate not found on any other site, and the tendency of members to continue using this self-supporting language outside of AZU.<br />
*"Absolute Zero"(...) as an incredibly easy name to satirise, and the implied idiocy of whoever chose the name. Similar to [[Chris Morris]]' fictional "Militant Paedophile" organisation "Milit-Pede", implying that whoever coined the name lacks presence of mind for not picking a better or more obvious alternative.<br />
*The almost wilful inability of its contributors to make a distinction between [[child molester]]s and [[Pedophilia|pedophiles]]. The fact that AZU have been repeatedly confronted with this important distinction over a number of years, makes this failure more pertinent and easy to assert.<br />
*The contributor Marina H. ([[Stitches77]]), who after many years of what she would seem to regard as "psyops", insistent assertion of her assumed superiority, and obsession with (inciting) suicide, is thought by many to be a borderline [[psychopath]].<br />
<br />
AZU is repeatedly criticised throughout the blogosphere, as a haven for rape fetishists claiming acceptability as opponents of sex offenders. Whilst the articulation of fantasies may not be problematic in and of itself, the boastful celebration of rape that so often characterises AZU comment threads is certainly very revealing. The following expression is quite typical in its emotional tone:<br />
<br />
:''"I hope he gets butt raped repeatedly without any ice cream or "powder" to relax."''<br />
:''Violet Leaves (an AZU editorial contributor), 08.02.09''<br />
<br />
==Campaigns==<br />
Absolute Zero has taken on a number of campaigns, some successful and some impotent. On the one hand, they were very successful at harassing the [[boylover]], [[Octaevius Altair]] and getting him banned from a number of on line communities and book distributors. It is worth noting that the level of targeted, destructive rage expressed by a number of members during this campaign erases all doubt that AZ is anything but a hate mob. On the other hand, AZ embarked on a highly comical and ineffectual crusade against Disney, calling for a boycott after journalist, [[John Stossel]] outraged them by exposing the true impact of [[statutory rape]] laws.<br />
<br />
They also publicize the holiday-related outing campaigns done by [[Wikisposure]] and later [[Evil-Unveiled]], and may work in co-operation with them.<br />
<br />
==Key associates==<br />
*[[Stitches77]]<br />
*[[Daydreamer of Oz]]<br />
*[[Violet Leaves]]<br />
*[[Jacey]]<br />
*[[Gawfer]]<br />
*[[Lostinlimaohio]]<br />
*[[Tampa Pirate]]<br />
*[[Determined]] ("rookiee")<br />
<br />
===Contributors===<br />
These are the contributors listed on the left of the blogspot:<br />
*[[AFSister]]<br />
*[[AMC]]<br />
*[[Anti Pedophile Mother]]<br />
*[[BigNewsDay]]<br />
*[[Bloviating Zeppelin]]<br />
*[[Carisma]]<br />
*[[Daydreamer of Oz]]<br />
*[[Gawfer]]<br />
*[[Hydra]]<br />
*[[imthenemesis]]<br />
*[[Irish Diablo]]<br />
*[[Jacey]]<br />
*[[Lefty Metalhead]]<br />
*[[LetsGetRealistic]]<br />
*[[LostInLimaOhio]]<br />
*[[Not In My Backyard]]<br />
*[[Raguel]]<br />
*[[Rookiee]]<br />
*[[Shoprat]]<br />
*[[Stitches77]]<br />
*[[Tampa Pirate]]<br />
*[[Violet Leaves]]<br />
<br />
==Blogspot==<br />
The most recent visible post on the blog was Sunday, July 31, 2011 called Hey! It's Bubbaj232!!!! which was the 6th post so far made in 2011.<br />
<br />
They provide a searchable link to [[Evil-Unveiled]] on the left box of their blog, supporting the obvious strong link to that web site.<br />
<br />
===Boycotts===<br />
Other banners on their site call for the boycotts of certain industries. This includes Amazon, Disney and 20/20.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Anti-Pedophile culture]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:Hysteria]]<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]]<br />
[[Category:Organisations]][[Category:Organisations: American]][[Category:Organisations: International]][[Category:Organisations: Unsympathetic]][[Category:Organisations: Vigilante & Hate]][[Category:Organisations: Web-based]]<br />
[[Category:Victims' Rights]][[Category:Websites]][[Category:Websites: AntiPed]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=File:Absolutezerounitedbanne.png&diff=6851File:Absolutezerounitedbanne.png2011-09-26T07:09:50Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Essays&diff=6849Category:Essays2011-09-19T06:52:02Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>Essays, free and creative writing by NewgonWiki users.<br />
<br />
May be works in progress.<br />
<br />
Essays that share a common author have been grouped in subcategories, only essays by authors who have only written one are listed directly in this category.</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:Why_The_Legality_Of_Child_Pornography_Is_Relevant_To_The_Youth_Liberation_Movement&diff=6848Essay:Why The Legality Of Child Pornography Is Relevant To The Youth Liberation Movement2011-09-19T06:50:58Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By Dissident==<br />
:"''Whenever any government, or any church, or anyone else for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects: "This book you may not read, this film you may not watch, this image you may not see, this knowledge you may not have," then the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.''" '''- Robert A. Heinlein, "If This Goes On..."'''<br />
<br />
I extend many thanks to the crew of GirlChat [GC] for their invaluable editorial assist on the earliest draft of this essay, and I have incorporated several suggestions and anecdotes from them. Particular thanks goes to my fellow GC posters Baldur, qtns2di4, Summerdays, CatcherintheRye, Sancho Panza, Little Girl Lover, and FreeThinkerGL.<br />
<br />
Recently I composed an essay designed to answer a question I often hear from individuals as to why the age of consent [AoC] laws are of any importance to the youth liberation movement, and if perhaps the pro-choice faction of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community is simply being "selfish" for arguing that it is. Today, I move on to what may be considered the second part of that essay, which brings the same question to the fore regarding the many types of imagery and writing that may be classified as CP [child pornography] by the government of any given country. In other words, in this essay I will give a response to the many variations of the following question and an accompanying comment that I often hear in concert with it: "What does CP have to do with youth liberation? I don't think any youth under the age of 18 would ever have the slightest interest in appearing in erotic photography or videos, so I think it's foolish, selfish, and counter-productive for the pro-choice faction of the MAA community to support its legalization even in a future youth liberated society." That is quite a bold question and follow-up statement, but does it actually hold up to close scrutiny and logical analysis?<br />
<br />
To begin with, one who has the above contention would have to answer the question as to why so many young people over the age of 18 so obviously have a desire to appear in films and photoshoots of an erotic nature, yet be simultaneously certain that absolutely no young person under the age of 18--even just a few years younger--would have a similar desire to do so. Does it make logical sense for youth liberationists to argue that those we today designate 'underagers'--particularly those in adolescence--have many of the same capabilities or desires as older people with the ''sole exception'' of the desire to publicly express their sexuality? <br />
<br />
First of all, what does the heavy proliferation of the ''sexting'' phenomenon amongst underagers who own cell phones say about this? Please note the following online news reports--[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml here], [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34422197/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets here], and [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WorldNews/sexting-teens/story?id=6456834 here].<br />
----<br />
The above linked articles provide just a few examples that one can find with a simple Google search. Although one can and will argue that sexted pics are designed entirely for the eyes of significant others and not for public consumption, one has to consider a few things: 1) it's illegal for underagers to post nude or overly provocative pics of themselves on public venues, and 2) many do so anyway on their socnet pages on MySpace and Facebook, and not all who do this keep those pages--and therefore access to their photo sections--private. <br />
<br />
One then has to consider the proliferation over the past two decades of the online youth modeling sites, many of which remain legal despite strong attempts by the American government to criminalize the entire industry. These modeling sites often feature girls (and sometimes boys) in highly revealing clothing and sometimes even arguably provocative poses. When one of the biggest and most well known companies producing material for youth models, Webe Web, was eradicated from existence after its three owners were brought up on CP charges (some say spuriously), the hope of the government that the entire industry based in the U.S. would be destroyed along with Webe Web was ultimately quashed. This is because several of the young models previously hosted by Webe Web subsequently went off on their own following Webe's demise and continued working in the industry, many of them under new websites run by their parents. When the legal European youth modeling company known as the Gegg Agency fell for similar reasons, several of the girl models who were hosted by that site have likewise reappeared on other sites, also often under the auspices of their parents, who have interestingly refused to cooperate with LEAs [law enforcement agencies] in many cases; very few of these parents actually made a fuzz in the media about alleged "abuse" going on at the Gegg Agency, thus suggesting that the closing of the agency was more the result of pressure coming from the U.S. and Britain than anything more substantial. Pressure from the U.S. with likely help from Britain was known to have a large effect on the closure and indictment of youth modeling agencies situated in the Ukraine, who produced images--sometimes including nudity--that were not legal in the U.S. and certain other jurisdictions, but as my fellow activist qtns2di4 said, "it's not clear that they broke local laws." As he also noted, "As with Webe and C&G, girls and parents reappeared [on other youth modeling sites] and did not collaborate with police." Clearly, the government and parents are often at odds when it comes to the subject of youth modeling, and what does or does not constitute "appropriate" images, including the matter of simple nudity. <br />
<br />
There are some in the MAA community who totally enjoy these still legal modeling sites but seem to be totally against young models and actresses appearing in more obviously erotic films regardless of what the youths themselves may feel about appearing in such videos. These dissenting voices strongly deny that any of the youths who appear in today's legal but controversial modeling sites would ever have the slightest desire to appear in actual erotica even in a youth liberated society. Because of this belief, they argue, the CP question is entirely irrelevant to the general youth liberation platform, and pro-choice MAAs--along with youth liberationists in general, of course--need to leave this topic alone for the "good" of the movement. Apparently, some people seem to believe that adolescent youth activists themselves do not want people in their age group to have certain choices that they have no problem with people over the age of 18 to possess. And the reason for this appears to be that they personally consider some of these possible choices to be so "icky" that the right to choose should be forfeit in these cases. In other words, if certain choices would offend society's sensibilities enough, and if it's strongly believed that very few, if any, people in a certain group would even want to make these choices in the first place, then it's okay to legally deny freedom of choice for such people in these particular cases. <br />
<br />
As my fellow activist Summerdays noted, "Freedom [includes] the freedom to let others do things we don't like (as long as it doesn't hurt us or anyone else non-consensually, and in a real way)." He further notes, "If youths are to be free, they must be allowed the freedom to pursue avenues that are morally offensive to some, if they so choose. <br />
<br />
"It's the same argument made against adult performers in the field of erotic entertainment - but again, with adults, we allow them the freedom to pursue their own vision of happiness, even if that vision disgusts and offends us. Minors, however, are not given such freedom. They may only pursue their vision of happiness if it falls within accepted boundaries as defined by certain adults."<br />
<br />
The problem is that the above examples of sexting, uploading nude and provocative pics of themselves to socnet sites, and the proliferation of the youth modeling industry would seem to indicate, quite logically, that in a youth liberated society there may be some youths--perhaps a sizable amount—who would not only be happily willing to make films where they do nude scenes and even appear in outright erotic scenarios, but some may even be willing to appear in films or photoshoots that specialize in erotic content. Why is one to assume that exhibitionist tendencies would be entirely unique to people 18 years of age and older? Does the empirical evidence really suggest this to be the case?<br />
<br />
While some assert that arguing for the legalization of much of what we today call "CP" in a youth liberated society--or even in today's society--is counter-productive and is not in the best interests of the young people we are fighting on behalf of, there are actually much better reasons to argue that the exact opposite may be the case.<br />
<br />
For one thing, what type of message does the condemnation of all forms of youth erotica give to society when uttered by youth libbers? Such a message would appear to be that youths engaged in erotic activity on film, or in any way publicly expressing their sexual desires, is somehow inherently "disgusting" and "improper" despite the fact that youths are well known to have such desires. Yet, at the same time, it's believed by most of these same people that such activities are perfectly okay and proper for someone who is of the arbitrary age of 18 or over to do to any degree that they please, as if young people under this arbitrary age doing the same thing has some type of innate "ickiness" factor attached to it. <br />
<br />
What, exactly, is inherently ugly about the nude body of youths under a certain arbitrary age? Or, perhaps more specifically, what is particularly ugly for young girls under 18 displaying their breasts and genital region on camera that is not similarly inherently ugly, demeaning, or exploitive for young women 18 and over who choose to do the same thing? What is it about youths willingly engaging in the mutual exchange of a pleasurable display like sexual activity on camera somehow disgusting or "wrong" in an inherent sense? Conversely, why is it perfectly okay and non-exploitive for young people of the arbitrary age of 18 and over to do the exact same thing? Why is the right to sexual expression liberating for people over one specific arbitrary age demarcation, yet somehow demeaning and exploitive for any person with the same desires who may fall anywhere beneath that same arbitrary chronological demarcation? What is it about sexual expression in particular that is so inherently anti-youth that no one under a certain arbitrary age would ever want to do it? What is so inherently anti-youth about sexual expression that even some purported youth libbers appear to insist that we must continue to legally prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from having the opportunity to make this choice? What is so inherently pivotal about the specific chronological age of 18 that suddenly allows everything of this nature to become “ok” in the eyes of our culture? Why does this specific age carry so much divine weight in our society’s collective mind, as if its great legal importance was somehow akin to a law of cosmic significance? And again, perhaps most importantly, what type of message does this send to the public when it comes from a political platform that is supposed to be based upon liberation rather than some type of moralizing form of protectionism? In what way would the continued criminalization of such erotica benefit the general principle of liberation amongst any group of people? When, exactly, has censorship of any sort and the concept of liberation ever walked hand-in-hand with each other and comfortably shared a proverbial bed?<br />
<br />
Some of these individuals will argue that the legalization of CP would hurt young people under 18 even in a youth liberated society, and is therefore against their best interests. Let us take a look at this claim by using a few excerpts from one of the above linked online articles (specifically, the third) about what the current CP and "obscenity" laws have done to some underagers who were caught sexting [excerpt in '''bold face''']:<br />
<br />
:'''News reports are increasingly documenting legal repercussions after indecent photos appear online. And attorneys say there are many unanswered questions about whether young people who send their own photos could face prosecution for obscenity or child pornography. <br />
<br />
:'''This year in Wisconsin, a 17-year-old was charged with possessing child pornography after he posted naked pictures of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend online.''' <br />
<br />
:'''In Alabama, authorities arrested four middle-school students for exchanging nude photos of themselves. In Rochester, N.Y., a 16-year-old boy is now facing up to seven years in prison for forwarding a nude photo of a 15-year-old girlfriend to his friends.'''<br />
<br />
:'''"I don't think that's what was contemplated when the laws were written," says the Rochester teen's attorney, Tom Splain, who has worked on several similar cases this year. "I think it was more for the older pedophile [sic] collecting pictures of young children; we're now running into high school students getting swept up in these charges."'''<br />
<br />
So it would appear that these pundits of protectionism now claim that laws originally intended to prevent "older pedophiles" (actually, hebephiles) from obtaining pics of underage teens that they may end up (god forbid!) fantasizing about in the privacy of their own mind had unforeseen negative consequences on another segment of the greater population: the very segment of the population that such laws were intended to "protect" in the first place. Many activists, however, believe that it's entirely hypocritical for these pundits to act as if they are shocked that underagers themselves ended up being prosecuted under these laws instead of just the older "perverts" that these laws were allegedly created to "protect" them from. These pundits are clearly playing dumb here, since it's well known amongst any politician with an I.Q. over 40 that any type of draconian law will inevitably have such "unforeseen" consequences on every segment of society, including those whom these laws were supposedly intended to "protect" from the horrible crime of having an older person fantasize to their image in the privacy of his or her own thoughts.<br />
<br />
One now feels obliged to ask some very important questions whose answers may be disturbing to contemplate. What will happen in the future once these laws continue to expand so that underage teen girls get into legal trouble for sending pics of themselves in their strapless or otherwise “sexy” homecoming or prom dresses to a friend? Moreover, what will happen to parents in the future if they should send such a pic to one of their adult friends simply to show off how beautiful their daughter looked on that special evening? What would happen, for example, if the law suspected that one of the adults these parents sent the pic to may be likely to get aroused by viewing it? If you think I am being comically facetious here, then please consider how nebulous and broad all of the various things that fit under the general umbrella of CP are becoming. Consider, for instance, the many occurrences since the beginning of the sex abuse hysteria at the close of the 1970s and its resulting draconian laws of parents being arrested for taking nude pics of their babies and young children while the latter were in the bathtub or happily frolicking on the beach. This has been a common thing done by families since the invention of the camera that was intended to be entirely innocent, yet the very laws that most parents initially applauded have--predictably--come back to bite even them on the proverbial ass in many cases. No segment of society--not even the very architects of these laws themselves in some instances (*waves to former Senator Mark Foley*)--are spared the consequences of these draconian legislative measures. <br />
<br />
If you look back to my previous essay where I dealt with the AoC laws and their relevance to youth liberation in general, you will remember that I noted how even the passage and toleration of a single draconian law in a purportedly democratic society will almost certainly have a cumulative effect on future legislation in this area. The result will invariably be further and further rationalizations for greater and increasingly insidious and far-reaching draconian laws. Predictably, as the years roll on large segments of the population are being convicted for things that they never would have realized were covered under the aegis of these laws when they were first instituted under totally noble pretenses. The ultimate result is an inexorable dive towards a borderline police and surveillance state where privacy is an alien concept, and anxiety over inadvertently breaking some pernicious law is a common fact of life. How is this supposed to benefit or protect younger people from harm? What about the serious implications upon the general adult population and the civil rights that they, unlike people under 18, currently enjoy? And how could it be argued that most teen activists who support youth liberation would actually agree with continued restrictions on their choices in just this one particular area? (The only other area in the realm of youth liberation that even approaches sexual rights in terms of the level of emotional contention is respect for youths' Second Amendment rights, but that is a whole other topic.) <br />
<br />
Of course, one will then argue that the act of sexting can have many unforeseen consequences of its own [see endnote 1 for example]. Such concerns are certainly valid, but is the outright criminalization of something that people over the age of majority are allowed to do despite the same attendant risk factors constitute the correct solution to this problem? <br />
<br />
The above question needs to be asked, because freedom of choice is extremely important to any platform dedicated to liberation, and this prominently includes the right to take risks. There are any number of ways in which girls (and boys) can be cautioned about indiscriminately sending nude pics of themselves to significant others or friends over their cell phones that belie the need for protectionist prohibitions on freedom of choice [see endnote 2 for some examples of these fully democratic alternatives]. <br />
<br />
The question of how many youths under a certain arbitrary age would or would not want to appear in erotic films or photoshoots is totally irrelevant to the importance of freedom of choice [see endnote 3]. Freedom of choice is perhaps the most important aspect to any program or platform that purports to be based upon liberation, and this includes choices that the activists involved may not be totally comfortable with, or which they personally deem "inappropriate" for someone to make for whatever reason [see endnote 4]. <br />
<br />
Another question the naysayers have to consider is how the full range of these CP laws as we know them today hurt the very foundation of a democratic society in a general sense. This includes the well-being of everyone in society, regardless of what their personal tastes in erotica--or the lack of same--may happen to be. How could such a thing be the case, you may ask? The answer is very simple and very logical, and would be much more clear to everyone if they simply compelled themselves to put logic and reason before emotion when confronting any given subject. <br />
<br />
As I have said numerous times before, any society that purports to be based on democratic principles suffers immensely with the introduction of even a single draconian law into the penal framework, no matter how genuinely noble or good the intentions of those who pass or support such a law may be. History has shown, over and over again, that draconian laws passed within the context of a democratic society are clearly cumulative in nature and ultimately destructive to such a society's most cherished principles. In other words, the passage and toleration of even one such law within a democratic system tends to gradually lead to further and further justifications of more draconian laws of increasing severity and scope as time marches on. This is because the rationalization of the "need" for one such law can easily lead to further rationalizations for other such laws as time progresses, especially when a certain type of hysteria rears its hideous metaphorical head. <br />
<br />
This is why placing laws pertaining to the possession and viewing of CP in a "special" class of image (and sometimes text) that is immune to First Amendment protections has gradually escalated into further and increasingly irrational prohibitions that have begun encroaching upon imagery where no actual minors are involved and erotic material that consists entirely of actors who are legal adults [see endnote 5 for specific examples]. This makes it clear that such legislation inevitably ends up targeting ''ideas'' rather than imagery of material beings or objects, a very dangerous prospect for a democratic system to engage in. <br />
<br />
The above factors make it abundantly clear why it's so highly detrimental for a purportedly democratic society to allow any type of draconian law, or any type of censorship regarding what type of imagery or text that people can or cannot view or possess--or any type of idea that they may advocate, either in a subtle or overt fashion, or access information about (be it written or visual). This is regardless of whatever good intentions one may offer to justify banning such imagery or text--and the "dangerous" ideas one feels to be implicit in each--and regardless of how much you may be offended or upset by the imagery or text in question. And this, of course, goes equally for the politically motivated rationales for censoring footage or reports of war atrocities, but that is a whole other topic despite its equal level of importance to the realm of censorship law and its implications on a supposedly free society [again, see endnote 5 for more examples of imagery and footage that are banned by various Western governments under similar justifications]. <br />
<br />
Now, just so I am clear on this and no misinterpretation can be made, I ''do not'', of course, support the production of CP that features children or teens literally being forced into sexual activity against their will and/or actually tortured in brutal ways on camera, or allowing these heinous producers to sell such imagery on the open market for profit, any more than I would support the existence of adult "snuff" porn if a burgeoning international market for such a product was actually true as per the claims once made by our esteemed bastions of the truth, i.e., the law enforcement agencies [LEAs] and their frequent enablers in deception, the corporate-controlled media. Unfortunately, when one thinks of the term "CP," such imagery is precisely the first thing to come to mind thanks to the constant popular image promulgated endlessly by the mass media, much as (with equal relevance to youth liberation) people automatically thinking of horrid sweatshop conditions whenever the term "child labor" is mentioned, as if it was totally impossible for younger people to desire employment, or to find such employment under perfectly humane and reasonable conditions in an advanced society like our own (though again, this is a whole other subject for another essay). <br />
<br />
The fact of the matter remains, the various LEAs have never bothered to provide the public with proof of the frequent and often totally outrageous claims of what the CP they have in their vaulted collection consists of. Further, their utter refusal to allow even a few objective and well-respected journalists to view such material for the purpose of confirming the veracity of these often incredible claims is very telling [see endnote 6 for more examples of such chicanery perpetrated by the LEAs with a lot of help from the media in the not too distant past]. Hence, it's utterly absurd for even those who hate the very thought of CP to claim that it's in no way fishy or suspicious that the LEAs in question will not allow the viewing of these pics and vids even to a few well-respected journalists so they can confirm the veracity of the former statements about what the imagery in those pics and vids largely consist of. This is especially pertinent given the long record of dishonesty amongst the world of law enforcement and the frequently bizarre nature of the claims being made by them about different things they target. It's been said that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (or at least some evidence), but people seem all too willing to make exceptions in the case of anything that they want to believe for purely emotional reasons, no matter how much these comforting beliefs may defy common sense (note the popular but highly incorrect belief in the "stranger danger" epidemic, but more on that below).<br />
<br />
But what reason would the LEAs have for so massively deceiving the public about this subject, as they have with other subjects in the past? [Again, see endnote 6 for three major examples] This is actually a silly question for anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about law enforcement and politics--and how each of them works--to ask, but I will explicate the three major reasons for such deception here anyway:<br />
<br />
1. The hefty paychecks enjoyed by the officers who comprise the various task forces of the LEAs that are dedicated to combating what the system refers to as crimes of "vice" depend upon the continuation of public hysteria and exaggerated moral "concern" about certain activities going on in our society. Hence, the LEAs have to convince the public and the media that the "problem" they are paid so handsomely to combat is one of such extremely high magnitude to the safety of our children and society in general that the common rules of democracy must be dispensed with to deal with them effectively. In other words, the highly lucrative career opportunities for LEOs [law enforcement officers] that can potentially arise via the generous flow of government funds are seen as extremely important by LEAs to maintain. These heavily valued career opportunities include the creation of future task forces and promotions within them, and they require a steady stream of arrests to build the reputations of the officers involved, and to justify the steep government (read: taxpayer) expenditures required to keep the cash flowing from Congress. This is why the officers who comprise these particular LEAs try to assure a constant supply of arrests by going after the easiest targets, such as those who download, possess, or simply view the banned imagery online rather than conducting the more sensible and less draconian action of tracking down and arresting the alleged plethora of people producing this new CP, and rescuing the supposed legion of kidnapped and horribly abused kids whom these officers claim are forced into making this product by the producers for profit.<br />
<br />
2. In order for the public and the media to continue supporting the vast amount of government funding--read: taxpayer support--of such expensive and ultimately futile programs for combating the appearance and expression of every instance of youth sexuality on camera they can find necessitates the claims of the various LEAs that the perceived problem is one of extreme magnitude. Therefore, the LEAs frequently claim that as many as several million children worldwide are being victimized by this allegedly underground but powerful industry, and that the purveyors of these atrocities are so powerful, well-connected, and crafty--and that the demand for such product is so incredibly high across the globe--that they always remain one step ahead of the best and most well-funded of these LEAs' efforts. This enables the LEAs to demand a continuously larger amount of taxpayer-acquired funds every several months to a year, along with further encroachments on our democratic liberties every year, in order to combat this "menace." Of course, any demand for proof of the validity of these claims that are used to justify the perceived need for the Orwellian legislation and the excessive pilfering of taxpayer monies to fund the task forces to carry out its directives are never provided. Instead, we are expected to simply trust our government-funded "protectors" and take absolutely everything they say at face value, despite the fact that their record for honesty when it comes to matters of this nature is alarmingly poor [once again, see endnote 6 for a little sojourn down memory lane in regards to the honesty of law enforcement officers]. Worse, those of us who are disgusted with the very idea of CP on an emotional level truly want to believe the claims of these LEAs. This results in such citizens forming strong attempts to rationalize away the LEAs' refusal to grant freedom of the press to journalists who want to confirm the validity of their claims despite the fact that such people may be well aware of their duplicity in other aspects of the ongoing sex abuse hysteria over the past three decades [ibid]. Note the similar lamentations given to the notorious War On Drugs, though again that is a whole other if equally important topic. <br />
<br />
3. Not only does the ongoing panic and disgust with any possible depiction of youth sexuality on camera throughout our culture enable the aforementioned lucrative careers for those officers who work in this particular area of law enforcement, they also serve to increase the rationale of these organizations to continuously demand increased police powers over society in a general sense [see endnote 7]. This is another reason why the successful passage of even one draconian law within a democratic framework can result in the latter framework being gradually eradicated as more and more draconian legislation is rationalized as different aspects of the hysteria or differing simultaneous hysterias (more than one often occur at once) combine to constantly create new aspects of the panic from which the government and its enablers in the media claim we need to be "protected" from. <br />
<br />
In other words, those who work within law enforcement and other areas of government have a lot to gain from these hysterias, even as we, the common citizens, and anyone who may--now or in the future--dissent in any way from the imposition of any established norm, will end up paying a huge penalty in the long run. But terrified and intolerant people all too often do not think with their reasoning faculties, and instead let their emotions take over during such manufactured crises.<br />
<br />
This is why I believe that it's entirely justified to accuse the various LEAs of yet another horrendous act of duplicity due to their adamant refusal to allow their highly outrageous claims to be validated by a few objective and well-respected journalists in the name of freedom of the press and freedom of information. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the bulk of CP consists of children or teens being forced into sexual acts against their will and brutally tortured on camera, let alone the existence of a multi-billion dollar international industry that deals in the widespread production and sale of such horrific material. Such pics of genuine abuse do exist, of course, but there is no evidence to suggest that they make up a sizable proportion of the overall rubric of what is broadly defined as CP. Further, there are no known outlets for such product to be distributed profitably just as there was never a large-scale profitable business for adult "snuff" films as the LEAs once claimed. There are many truly depraved human beings in the world, granted, but there is no evidence that there are organized bastions of depravity of such a huge scale who possess such a vast amount of capital and exceptional technical skill amongst their number that an international demand of such a degree for this type of product is being successfully produced and sold for such a huge amount of profit. Arguing otherwise is to argue that MAAs with "extreme" tastes are so disproportionately vile and nasty compared to teleiophiles [people who have a preference for members of the same general age group] with similar "extreme" tastes that simulations of such activity featuring actors who aren't being tortured in actuality will not suffice in place of the real thing for these particular MAAs or child and teen fetishists. <br />
<br />
Yet there is no evidence that an adult with a preferential attraction to minors, or even one who has a mere sexual fetish for minors, is in any way more likely than a teleiophile to be of such an aberrant or violent nature that they will absolutely demand the real thing over acted simulations on a large scale. To say otherwise is, whether intentionally or not, admitting that you buy into the worst form of stereotype towards MAAs imaginable sans a single shred of evidence that this stereotype is in any way a part of reality. We need to let common sense and simple logic prevail before we adopt such extremist beliefs about any single group of people. Let's not forget what happened to the Jews and other ethnic and sexual minorities living in Germany during the Holocaust when similar hysterical claims became widespread beliefs amongst the general populace of a particular nation, with government policies reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
As fellow activist Summerdays noted: "...I think this idea is fueled by the (erroneous) belief that the sexual attraction to minors is itself a vile and nasty perversion of normal adult attraction. Thus, anyone who could be so twisted as to be attracted to children [or adolescents] must undoubtedly harbor such disturbing tastes that would lead them to desire things - and to pursue those things - that not even the most perverted teleiophile would consider. But this is quite ridiculous. It's a bogeyman. It's not reality."<br />
<br />
Also, such naysayers appear to buy into the common belief that the bulk of what is legally considered CP involves pre-pubescents as young as five years of age. The few individuals who have reported seeing such material--both within and outside of the law enforcement vocation--have stated that the majority of such images consists of adolescents, not pre-pubescents; that the vast majority of these images are old and were produced prior to the criminalization of CP beginning in the early 1980s; and those that feature explicit sexual acts are far fewer than those that feature 'simple' nudity which may or may not highlight the breasts (of teen girls) or genitalia. The type of pics that seem to be actual depictions of real acts of violence and torture appear to encompass by far the smallest amounts of this material in existence. Further, it's very difficult to tell which of the small amount of pics depicting torture and bondage themes are simulated and which are actual footage of real non-consensual abuse.<br />
<br />
One must also consider the following logical questions: if such a vast amount of underagers across the globe were literally being kidnapped and forced into sexual activity against their will before a camera, and this material is being distributed to a huge corrupt clientele with deep pockets, then why has there been virtually no instance of such girls appearing in public after they had reached adulthood to make a plea before the world media to end such a horrific global industry? Where are the supposed multitude of adults who one would expect to have a body full of cigarette burns, savage wounds made by blades, or lacerations made by a whip appearing before the media to show these horrific wounds to the public in attempts to get this alleged powerful and heavily profitable industry eradicated once and for all? Moreover, where are the parents of all of these allegedly millions of kidnapped kids who one would expect to appear in the media daily making similar pleas on behalf of their missing children, especially since such parental public pleas and media noise is well known to be very common whenever one of the very small cases of stranger abduction occurs every year? Are we to believe that almost every single one of these multitudes of children supposedly being kidnapped and enslaved for the CP industry are killed and effectively disposed of after the films are made? And even if such was actually the case, what about the multitude of parents and other family members that we should expect to hear the impassioned pleas from on the public airwaves? <br />
<br />
In other words, how do the LEAs--along with those who believe these claims--rationalize what may be called '''The Great Silence''' regarding an issue such as this? The only voices we ever usually hear are those of the LEAs and a certain number of CAs ["child advocates," who should never be confused with youth liberationists] and a smidgeon of miscellaneous Web surfers (including a few within the MAA community, it must be noted) who claim to have come across whole websites that are allegedly full of pics depicting such horrendous material. No proof or even any good evidence is ever offered that such a thing is occurring on anywhere near the scale that the LEAs and CAs often claim, yet the belief continues to proliferate via the sheer force of emotion that such propaganda stirs up amongst the masses. Hitler and Stalin would truly be proud of the contemporary American media if they were still alive to see the current sex abuse hysteria and its attendant "pedophile panic," along with the widespread irrational beliefs and draconian laws spawned by them.<br />
<br />
Of course, I have no doubt that such abusive films have been made, and continue to be made, from time to time, but in such cases, it often turns out that the perpetrators of these non-consensual films and even on camera torture are usually not some stranger who abducted the kids in question for the purpose of selling videos of the abuse and torture on some nefarious underground market, but rather ''the parents or stepparents'' of these abused kids. This is very likely to be true because it would certainly explain why the great parental silence on this subject is so ubiquitous across the media, and why the media would be highly reluctant to report these facts due to what they may say about what happens to the supposedly sacrosanct institution of parenthood due to the reality of the present hierarchal nature of the much-beloved nuclear family unit in our modern non-youth-liberated society that the current status quo loves to promote so devotedly--and attempt to preserve at all costs--as inherently good. The latter statement is ''not'' intended by this author to disparage the institution of parenthood and the close bond shared between members of the family; rather, it's to make clear that the very concerns this essay was written to address most often occurs--when it actually does occur--as the result of the same laws that legally and civilly disempower younger people, and leave them as little more than the property of their parents. This situation leaves children and teens all the more vulnerable to the very thing that the platform of youth liberation in general is hoping to rectify. Hence, the eventual success of this movement will decrease the likelihood of the more unscrupulous parents out there from successfully forcing their kids into sexual servitude, or genuine abuse of any sort for that matter.<br />
<br />
As Summerdays noted on this topic: <br />
:"''I could imagine a completely alternate reality where pedophiles [and hebephiles] worked in tandem with peace officers to prevent the abuse (actual abuse) of children. By allowing the [MAAs] their trade - most of whom, as human beings, would be concerned about the treatment of the children in the pictures - they could bring to the attention of peace officers any pictures that looked suspect, which could then be followed by an investigation. If abuse is proved, then score one for the good guys. Otherwise, if the material has not been produced through abuse (and of course, the child's opinion will be paramount in this determination), then let it flow.''"<br />
<br />
As such, I--and the entire pro-choice segment of the MAA community that I am aware of who supports the general legality of youth erotica--only support the production of such erotica that was made with the willing consent of the young people in question. This is particularly true concerning such material that is created by young people themselves; the idea that it's mostly or entirely adults who produce youth erotica is yet another falsehood that the twin phenomena of sexting and uploading of nude pics to socnet sites clearly debunk in no uncertain terms. <br />
<br />
Moreover, I do not support any type of "hardcore" production of erotica for pre-pubescents, or anything that would be developmentally injurious to their age group (such as full onscreen sexual penetration of either their vaginas or anuses), so my support of the legalization of youth erotica is entirely geared towards mutually consensually produced products that are ''within reason'', and I do not by any means take an "absolutely anything goes" type of attitude towards youth erotica, especially not when applied to pre-pubescents. Of course, I would never have a problem with any depiction of simple nudity, especially not within the context of a mainstream film that is designed to explore the intimate lives of youths in every detail to a realistic extent [see endnote 8]. <br />
<br />
One thing we should all keep in mind is that since what is often considered CP has such a great and ever-increasing broadness to it, one must first define what they consider to be CP rather than attacking "CP" in a general sense, since anything that is today legal can be declared CP by a single legislative decision tomorrow. Thus, many personally believe that the legal youth modeling sites of today should be considered CP, and are actively petitioning the Western governments to officially declare them illegal on those grounds. Hence, what does or does not constitute CP can be a personal as well as a legal definition, and the two are often incorrectly and irresponsibly conflated with each other by anyone discussing the subject.<br />
<br />
Now, onto the final very important question as to why any type of imagery should be legal to possess or at least to view, even if not to produce or distribute for financial gain. <br />
<br />
The idea that even the most deplorable images of CP should be criminalized to view or download because they depict a crime scene and will cause great emotional distress to the victims and family of such crimes must consider the following questions to prove that imagery specifically depicting the sexual exploitation of younger people must be considered part of a very special category of 'crime scene.' For starters, why isn't it illegal to download or view images or vids of actual war carnage, including that involving children getting or having had their limbs blown off as a result of accidentally getting caught in the crossfire of two opposing military forces (i.e., what our government and media loves to call "collateral damage")? <br />
<br />
Why aren't pics and vids of actual murders and the horrible torture and execution of reporters and other non-military personnel by terrorists and foreign armies illegal to possess or view? What about the many actual pics of the horrifying carnage wreaked by real serial killers upon their victims that are fully legal to print in any number of serious books about the nature of serial killers? Perhaps very importantly, why isn't it illegal for anyone to possess or view pics of the extreme and very non-consensual sexual humiliation inflicted upon many Middle Eastern male prisoners by American security guards (some of them women) that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a few years ago, which resulted in one of several major scandals to erupt from this duplicitous war? The latter case is especially true when you consider the deep level of humiliation that a man raised under a conservative Islamic culture will experience as a result of being forced to engage in simulated homoerotic contact with several other males while being photographed in the act for the amusement of their captors. And please note that many of these men were never even accused, let alone convicted, of a crime--in case some of you attempt to say that these men deserved this atrocious humiliation for allegedly being terrorists, or for being nationalist insurgents who dared to oppose the invasion and lengthy occupation of their nation by a foreign military that too many Americans wrongly identify with their own interests simply due to their citizenship. I am sure it can be cogently argued that these men and their families will be heavily emotionally distressed to realize that people across the world have possession of, and unencumbered access to, these pics. <br />
<br />
Further, I am sure that there are many homosexual male and probably even some female bondage fetishists out there--that are otherwise very good and decent people in their dealings with anyone they know in real life--who are actually sexually aroused by viewing such pics and fantasizing about either being in the place of those guards, or of the men who were sexually victimized by them (since many people harbor fantasies of actually being raped). The Islamic male victims in question would certainly be highly emotionally distressed to receive confirmation of those pics being used for such a purpose. Yet I have seen all of the aforedescribed type of pics legally distributed all over the Web and in print, and all ostensibly for informative and/or political purposes. Why isn't anyone arrested for the possession or even simple viewing of such pics, especially when we do not have the slightest idea what happens to be going through the minds of anyone who may be viewing them? Can we possibly take the chance that some of these viewers may have such filthy and depraved thoughts while viewing these pics of what to many constitutes actual footage of a war crime? Is this, perhaps, because we do not favor any type of thought control, no matter how deplorable or vile we may consider such thoughts to be? Should any type of fantasy be criminalized, no matter how awful it may be to our collective sensibilities, as long as it stays entirely within the realm of fantasy? Is there any proof that anyone who has truly awful fantasies are likely to eventually "act out" these fantasies on a real victim? Have we seen even a single Abu Ghraib "copycat" crime perpetrated in the few years these pics have been legally available all over the Web?<br />
<br />
As my fellow MAA activist who posts under the nick Little Girl Lover noted in regards to the Abu Ghraib debacle:<br />
:"The thing you hear the anti-CP crowd holler is that children cannot consent, so this is another reason why CP should be illegal. But what of the men who had their pictures taken in Abu Ghraib? These men did not consent to these videos and pictures. They were humiliated. It's even legal to possess these pictures and upload them, but it's illegal to have LS model type pictures even though the girls were paid for posing. They are about the same as ''Playboy'' or ''Penthouse''."<br />
<br />
Little Girl Lover further laments:<br />
:"''And what of the victims of the Holocaust? You can buy books in many bookstores with pictures of women and children stripped naked [and] heading off to be slaughtered. This was humiliating and terrifying for all these people involved. They did not consent, yet these pictures are [publicly accessible and legal to view and possess]. I'm sure that the survivors feel traumatized by such an experience, yet this crime is viewed by millions of people over time.''"<br />
:"''All these pictures, including CP and child erotica, should be legal to possess and view. There's a lot of pictures and videos I do not care to look at or own but I will fight for the right to be able to look, read, view, own, and distribute any source of media available.''"<br />
<br />
Let us also keep in mind the famous pic of a Vietnam War atrocity where an 11-year-old girl was photographed running through her village streets in extraordinary agony after napalm was dropped on her by American military forces (it should perhaps be noted that the girl is entirely nude in the pic, and her secondary sexual characteristics are clearly visible). The girl is known to have survived this horrific incident despite incurring a great amount of permanent scars, both physical and emotional, as a result. Yet this pic is widely and legally available to view and possess in many print and online resources that cover war atrocities. Can it not be argued that the now adult woman and her surviving family may be extremely emotionally distressed as a result of coming across this pic in so many sources? Do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what purpose absolutely everyone who takes possession of this pic may use it for, or what thoughts everyone who views this pic may possibly have while viewing it? Do we ever make such assumptions in regards to this pic? Or is the simple fact that it doesn't have a sexual context to it automatically cause us to accept the fact that it has the possibility of being viewed or possessed for non-puerile or non-insidious reasons?<br />
<br />
What exactly justifies the legality of this pic to view or possess, but not anything considered CP by the various governments? Does anyone accuse people who possess the above-mentioned pic for whatever conceivable reason, and for supporting the continued legality of possessing it, to be supportive of war atrocities? What if some bigot or American with a twisted sense of patriotism (and there are many of those, unfortunately) uploaded that pic to a website with a horrible statement saying something like, "Burn the Gooks!"? Isn't there a possibility of that happening if this pic remains legal to view, possess, download, and upload wherever and for whatever purposes one pleases? If someone insists that this matter is "different" than CP, and that these questions should not apply to pics of atrocities inflicted upon a minor that does not have an obvious sexual context to it no matter how much emotional distress the public distribution of such pics may have on the victim and her family, then can they explain exactly why the presence or absence of an overt or suggested sexual context should make or break the legality of any type of imagery? What is it about sexuality that Western society is so hysterical about? Why does that subject elicit such a disproportionate degree of irrationality in our culture? <br />
<br />
<br />
In regards to the oft-made assertion that the simple distribution of such pics or vids without the expectation of monetary gain will automatically create a huge swelling of demand that will result in a huge surfeit of such material being produced in the future is totally without proof, especially if the demand in question is of material that is illegal. Without the hope of a vast amount of financial remuneration being present to make the production of such dangerously illegal material on a large scale worth the effort for any number of insidious individuals who would comprise such an industry--which would include the high degree of logistical difficulties in doing so [see endnote 9]--then why would they do it? This is why such incidents are extremely low, why there is no logical way possible that such material could constitute a sizable degree of what is considered CP by the law, and it explains exactly why The Great Silence described above exists [see endnote 10 for a logical but highly disturbing reason as to why both the LEAs and the media may be highly reluctant to explain the truth behind the tiny amount of genuinely abusive CP, though this matter was already strongly hinted at above]. <br />
<br />
These are all of the reasons why CP should be entirely legal to possess and view in a democratic society, why all forms of censorship and draconian laws should never be tolerated or resorted to in a democratic system (or one that purports to be) in order to combat any perceived problem or threat, and why the issue of CP most certainly does pertain to the platform of youth liberation.<br />
<br />
==Endnotes==<br />
1. One such example is the possibility of a girl who sends nude pics of herself to her boyfriend being double-crossed as he shares the pic with several of his friends without her permission, or which he may even post online.<br />
<br />
A cogent statement made by my friend and fellow activist CatcherintheRye on this point is the following: <br />
:"''One thing that frustrates me about cases of sexting is how people hardly ever confront the people that bully young girls who have sexted and tell them how wrong their behavior is. Instead, they seem to instill guilt in the girls themselves. Sure, it is risky to sext with the laws the way they are, so I guess there's nothing wrong with informing young people about that, but I just find that they are really placing a sense of guilt and shame onto the wrong people.''"<br />
<br />
Several months later, in regards to a case of the U.S. practice of bullying people under 18 who sext each other that was being discussed on GC, another friend and fellow activist of mine, Summerdays, made this valuable anecdote:<br />
:"''The moral of this story is: if you sext, we will make your life hell. So don't sext.''"<br />
:"''Notice how the bullies protect themselves by emphasizing the dangers of sexting, placing the blame on kids who make the 'poor decision' to sext, and not those who make sexting dangerous (i.e., the bullies themselves, be they peers, or school administrators, or prosecutors, or what have you).''"<br />
:"''You know, because bullying kids to the point of suicide is a whole lot better than telling them it's ''okay'' to take sexy pictures and share them with friends.''"<br />
<br />
2. Democratic solutions to the risk factors involved with sexting includes such eminently common sense options as parents offering cautionary advice to their kids the first time the youths in question purchase a cell phone and start an account. In a youth liberated society, parents will accept the fact that their kids may utilize the technology for this purpose, and will not have to feel hesitant to offer this advice to them. <br />
<br />
Further, sex education courses can offer similar advice during the teaching of the section that includes risks that young people should be aware of in regards to any type of sexual-oriented activity. This cautionary, value neutral advice doesn't have to be limited to discussions of the possible physical consequences of sexual intercourse amongst adolescents, such as STDs and unwanted pregnancies. The advice given in these courses can also include risk factors amongst the various social choices that young people may make in the course of a relationship, including those related to the use of technology such as cell phone cameras and that pertaining to the online world. '''Every problem a democratic society will ever face, either perceived or totally legitimate, can always be dealt with effectively via a democratic solution, and a draconian response that denies freedom of choice should never be the preferred solution in such a society, no matter how "serious" the problem is considered to be, or how good or noble the intentions behind it are believed to be''' (as noted above in the main text). <br />
<br />
As my fellow activist Summerdays opined in regards to including objective and value neutral discussions about the risk factors associated with sexting in sex education courses: <br />
:"''It's the same problem I see often with sex education in general. Assuming kids will practice abstinence (in this case, from taking sexy pictures and sharing them), and gearing the education toward that assumption, results in kids being kept from some very important safety information they should know. And the ones who don't abstain - and they will always exist - suffer because of it. Whether we want kids to sext or not, we ought to recognize that it's going to happen anyway, and we ought to have the responsibility to inform them about what the risks are, and the best ways to do it safely if that's what they end up choosing to do. No moral judgments, no behavioral prescriptions (or proscriptions) - just honest, accurate information.''"<br />
<br />
3. Such possible sources of youth erotica that may exist in a future youth liberated society may include print and/or online publications similar to ''Playboy'', but which are instead dedicated exclusively to displaying and celebrating the great beauty of youth. <br />
<br />
4. Any alleged platform of liberation that denies or prohibits freedom of choice in its itinerary of goals, or which defines freedom in the context of "freedom from..." rather than "freedom to..." (as explicated in the classic book ''The Handmaiden's Tale''), is in actuality a protectionist racket masquerading as "liberation." Do not be fooled by tyrants dressed in a liberator's clothing, or enticed by the proposition of safety in the arms of a "benevolent" dictator. Any platform of solutions to any perceived problems in society must offer much more than simply good intentions; their proposed solutions must be in harmony with the principles of a free society regardless of the genuine nature of their intentions. <br />
<br />
5. Specifically, the aforementioned escalation that has arisen following the passing of the initial CP laws has exponentially increased from the simple viewing or possession of pics featuring minors engaged in explicitly sexual acts to the...<br />
#criminalization of pics or vids featuring simple nudity of minors without any blatant signs of sexuality; <br />
#criminalization of pics or vids featuring legal adults pretending to be minors engaged in sexual activity or appearing nude;<br />
#criminalization of cartoon representations and drawings or CGI [computer generated imagery] of sexually active or nude minors; <br />
#criminalization of any serious attempt at artwork which may depict nude or "provocative" imagery of minors;<br />
#criminalization of minors wearing scanty clothing (since such imagery might arouse a "pedophile");<br />
#criminalization of fully clothed minors who may be posing in a "provocative" manner or having an "enticing" expression on their faces, for the same reason as above;<br />
#utterly absurd and mind-blowing serious proposal amongst the Australian parliament to criminalize adult pornography featuring adult women of legal age with small breasts. In case anyone thinks I'm actually making this last one up, check out the following excerpt that can be found by scrolling down a bit on [http://exileonmoanstreet.blogspot.com/2010/01/wtf-australian-censor-board-demands.html this blog]. <br />
<br />
The blog states (quotes in '''bold face'''): <br />
:'''Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. They banned mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, apparently on the grounds that they encourage paedophilia, and in spite of the fact this is a normal breast size for many adult women. Presumably small breasted women taking photographs of themselves will now be guilty of creating simulated child pornography, to say nothing of the message this sends to women with modestly sized chests or those who favour them. Australia has also banned pornographic depictions of female ejaculation, a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as "abhorrent."''' <br />
<br />
:'''The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint's Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications. "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size", she said. "It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator's actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late.”'''<br />
<br />
For further clarification of what the toleration of any type of draconian law or justification for censorship of any sort eventually leads--and so you do not think the above excerpt was posted on that blog by yours truly and thus has no actual validity--check out [http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/weird-politics-of-small-boobs-and-bodily-fluids-20100129-n278.html?comments=27 this link] (as columnist Bella Counihan said of this topic: "You can't make this stuff up").<br />
<br />
And be sure to check out the coverage of this topic on the following [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Operation_Titstorm parody site] -- parody often does a very good job of pointing out the sheer idiocy of very serious political matters, something seen regularly in the pages of ''MAD'' magazine, TV shows like ''Saturday Night Live'', and the work of many excellent stand-up comedians such as Bill Maher and the late, great George Carlin.<br />
<br />
Is it a coincidence that the move by Australian parliament to ban the appearance of small-breasted women in erotic films and mags occurred in the same legislation that is also trying to ban filmed or photographed depictions of female ejaculation? Is it so important that our society goes out of its way to such an extent to ban anything that may be remotely believed to "encourage 'pedophilia'" (or hebephilia, as the case may be) that certain rights of how legal adults may be depicted on camera should now be curtailed? Is it just a coincidence that encroachments on what legal adults can and cannot do on camera appear to be the result of legislators with a moralizing agenda starting out with censoring "easy" targets like CP before moving on to more "difficult" targets like adult porn? The answer to all three of these interrelated questions would appear to be a resounding '''no'''.<br />
<br />
Since it's becoming increasingly evident, as noted in the main text of this essay, that these laws are intended to target a specific idea rather than to actually "protect" minors from appearing on camera while engaged in sexual activities, the common argument in defense of the continuation of this Orwellian legislation is that the proliferation of such imagery may encourage MAAs to "act out" on their urges with real minors. The problem comes when these individuals are asked to provide actual scientific evidence that this is actually the case, and not simply to make assumptions in the absence of such evidence. A far bigger problem arises, with far-reaching negative implications for the survival of what is left of our democracy, when those individuals who actually bother to respond to the above concern do so with a variation of, "We shouldn't have to ask for evidence! If there is even the slightest chance something like that may happen, and even one child per year may be 'abused' as a result, then that possibility makes these laws more than justified! And I don't care how draconian these laws may be when the 'safety' of children is at stake!" <br />
<br />
My fellow MAA activist and youth liberationist, qtns2di4, made the following very important statement regarding the above argument being used to justify the criminalization of the viewing and possession of any type of image or text, by making a comparison to the only other two types of imagery or text that are routinely legally banned by governments in the Western world (both outside of America):<br />
<br />
"Regarding bans on imagery that are rationalized as helping prevent copycats, there are two non-CP, non-blasphemy-laws, categories that have been made illegal or of controlled access in many countries. One is animal cruelty, and pics or vids featuring it have been banned in some countries. While the argument is [to prevent] an inspiration for others to do the same, a) as you argue, devoting resources to the banning of the images distracts them from prosecuting the culprits of the acts, and b) the [public accessibility of the] images themselves act as prevention and as awareness-building. The second category I am thinking of is Nazi and Nazi camp imagery. Apart from the above objections, which still apply, it is hard to see how [the public accessibility of] Nazi camp imagery helps create another Holocaust. That needs thousands, maybe millions, of collaborators, and they have to be in the broad daylight. A random Neo-Nazi, on the other hand, will not need a camp image to get inspired to commit any atrocity themselves, but will still be limited to what a single person can do. Though these cases are not identical, they are both cases of censorship allegedly as prevention of the commission of the action, akin to that of CP laws."<br />
<br />
6. The concern with the validity of the often sensational claims made about the content of much of the CP collected by law enforcement task forces since the first laws were instituted is especially crucial in light of the fact that the LEAs and their hangers-on in the media once thoroughly promoted the reality of the "snuff" film market, the prevalence of rampant satanic ritual abuse of children occurring within day care centers across the entire breadth of North America, and their promotion and widespread acceptance of the "repressed memory" phenomenon that had (and still has, in some cases) a major effect on the mental health industry in the Western world--all of which has since been proven to be total bunk [the satanic ritual abuse and "repressed memory syndrome" phenomena were tackled in detail in my previous essay, [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:The_Importance_of_Truth The Importance of Truth], which includes a large amount of links and citations to relevant sources; info on the once widely circulated and non-existent "snuff" film industry can be obtained via a simple Google search.<br />
<br />
7. All of the justified admonitions by civil rights advocates against the government's increasing rationalizations for increased police powers over society, which includes: 1) greater surveillance on the general public; 2) increased intrusions in our privacy, such as monitoring our phone calls and e-mail transmissions; 3) increasing the creation of the number of "special" categories of crimes and groups of people that are exempt from common constitutional protections (note what is occurring in the simultaneously ongoing "War On Terror"); 4) and the increased justifications for various forms of censorship that such hysterias and "moral panics" cause, are thrown by the wayside by a terrified public and cowardly politicians who are too afraid to argue against these continued Orwellian encroachments on our basic civil liberties due to the perceived magnitude of the "threat." <br />
<br />
8. These include the many examples of cinema that were produced in foreign countries like France and Denmark for the "coming of age" genre that featured pre-pubescent nudity, any type of artistic production designed to celebrate the beauty of the youthful form of children or adolescents, or any type of film that is intended to be of an educational nature. This would include the re-legalization of once renowned and heavily lauded educational books such as ''Show Me'', as well as all artistic photojournals produced by artists like Sally Mann, Tierney Gearon, Violeta Gómez, and Bill Henson, which feature the celebration of the nude youthful form that has been a major subject of art throughout human history. <br />
<br />
9. The logistical nightmares would include the obtainment of a continued supply of victims and what to do with those victims once the films are made and sent to the hypothetical buyers without gaining the attention of the young person's family, friends, or the local police in the process, totally belies common sense and credulity. This is why it's far more likely that in the instances in which genuinely abusive CP is actually produced, it is most often done by parents or stepparents who have continual closeted access to the child victims in question, rather than an organized network of strangers who are motivated entirely by profit on a large scale. This is also why such highly rare products are most often not intended for public consumption but rather for the small number of utterly corrupt fetishists who may share such a horrid interest.<br />
<br />
Note the following excerpt of a quote taken from German defense attorney Udo Vetter from [http://archiv.sueddeutsche.de/25F38V/2996588/Simple-Loesungen-fuer-ein-komplexes-Problem.html this article] that appeared on the ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' news site (translated into English courtesy of GirlChat's webmaster NFiH, who is fluent in German, and which can be confirmed via a translation from Google's software):<br />
<br />
'''You cannot physically abuse children on the Internet. But you can look at pictures or movies of child abuse and trade them. "Of course paedophiles use the Internet to trade child porn," says lawyer Udo Vetter, who has acted as a defense lawyer in hundreds of child porn cases. "But there is no such thing as a commercial market."''' <br />
<br />
'''...There is no effective system of money transfer for the distribution of illegal pictures and movies. According to Vetter, "you simply can't receive millions of dollars online anonymously." Money flow is monitored by the authorities of many states, including the USA.''' <br />
<br />
'''...According to Vetter, none of his clients ever paid for pictures or movies[;] 80 to 90 percent of the files found by the police are identical. "Some of these pictures are 30 to 40 years old." In contrast to the claims made to justify Net censorship[,] the amount of child porn available on the Internet is rising extremely slowly. ''None of these pictures and movies have been produced professionally'' (the only exceptions being movies with teenage victims which may have been legal when they were produced) [emphasis mine].'''<br />
<br />
If you remove the value judgment terms "abuse" and "victim" from the above excerpt--which were likely made to appease the readers of this article by using the type of language that they are used to seeing in the media when it comes to this subject--the entire article pretty much says it all about the silliness of the widespread claims by LEAs and their status quo-defending allies in the press that CP production is a huge multi-billion dollar international business.<br />
<br />
See also [http://lapsiporno.info/landslide.html this article] about the infamous Texas case involving Landslide Productions, where its webmaster Paul Reeve was arrested for what amounted to a witch hunt. This article also shows the length that LEAs will go to get someone indicted even when the evidence collected doesn't warrant it. <br />
<br />
My thanks to NFiH and qtns2di4 for the above tidbits of info. <br />
<br />
10. An examination of the two most prominent of the very few victims of what they described as truly non-consensual CP while in their childhood to come forward via the media would appear to reveal the reality behind the tiny amount of genuinely coercive examples of underagers participating in CP production. This reality clearly doesn't lead towards the common, conspiratorial conception of CP being largely the product of an organized, well-funded group of criminal strangers kidnapping kids across the globe and forcing them to participate in sexual activity with adults on camera for the purpose of selling the footage for a sizable profit. <br />
<br />
Two of the very few girls to loudly come out in the media for such a reason after reaching adulthood are Masha Allen, who participated in a relatively lengthy series of sexually explicit videos in her childhood--she was given the nickname "Disney Girl" in the media due to the fact that some of the pics of her were taken next to Disney World--and Kylie Freeman, who participated in a similar series of videos during her childhood under the nickname of "Vicky." These two girls, now adults, are perhaps the only two prominent victims of what were said to be coerced participants in the production of new CP that occurred during the age of the Internet, and Masha in particular has become something of a poster girl for LEAs as they engage in their never-ending battle to combat the dissemination of CP. There is a good degree of info on Masha [http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=150 here] on the Inquisition 21 website, and I thank my fellow activist Baldur for bringing this to my attention, and FreeThinkerGL for finding me the specific link. <br />
<br />
However, as noted above, neither of these girls were the victims of an organized group of criminal strangers who kidnapped them and forced them to appear in such films for intended sale to a corrupt, international clientele of buyers who demanded such product. According to Masha, she was coerced into participation in such films by her adopted father, and Kylie was forced into doing the same thing by her biological father. Neither series of CP videos were produced with the intention of selling them for profit to some corrupt underground market, but were the result of fetishistic parents who made them for free distribution on P2P [peer to peer] video sharing networks that were available to a small circle of private acquaintances during the earlier days of public access to the Internet. There have been subsequent claims by those in the know that the very small amount of truly coercive CP produced for free consumption in the P2P online file sharing networks have all been the product of parents who have this sort of fetishistic "hobby," and not by organized criminal cartels controlled by strangers who kidnap kids for the purpose of producing CP for sale to a large international group of clients (see below for a highly important shared anecdote about the prevalence of CP distribution on P2P networks, now and in the past).<br />
<br />
The above evidence and claims are actually entirely logical, because it's well known to both the FBI and youth liberationist orgs alike that the greatest amount of genuine abuse of all kinds perpetrated on minors by adults--including physical and emotional abuse in addition to that of a sexual nature, and even including murder--occurs at the hands of parents and stepparents, but not strangers. This unsettling fact is obviously very uncomfortable for the present day status quo to accept, and since the political overseers of modern society are dedicated to preserving the currently hierarchal version of the nuclear family unit at any cost, it's fully understandable as to why it's far preferable for the media to promote the concept of "stranger danger" and to portray the home as the safest place for children and young teens to be despite all the readily available evidence to the contrary. <br />
<br />
Again, this reality is ''not'' mentioned here as an attempt to disparage the institution of parenthood or the sanctity of the family, but simply to make it clear that the current state of affairs with young people lacking most of their civil rights and the parents having such a near-total control over every aspect of their children's lives, as well as a near-monopoly on adult interaction with their kids--save for a few "authorized" non-familial adults, such as teachers and coaches, who are currently discouraged from actually befriending the kids under their charge for obvious reasons related to the ongoing sex abuse hysteria--is the very crux of the greatest and usually the most severe cases of genuine child abuse that occurs in society today. Love shared by family members is a very good thing, but the introduction of such a high degree of power into the equation predictably corrupts this love in too many cases and results in abuse, with some of the less scrupulous parents all too often taking this abuse into some truly horrific directions. The solution that youth libbers promote is not to break up the family unit or destroy the bond between parents and children, but simply to legally empower kids so that they can much more easily resist or escape being subject to any type of abuse or harm by others in their lives, whether it originates from the hands of strangers, teachers, co-workers, peers, or parents.<br />
<br />
This is also why, despite the impassioned declarations of Masha and Kylie themselves, arresting people who simply download and view their pics--including the many who likely have no idea that they were supposedly taken under coerced circumstances, and also considering the only place these pics remain readily accessible to the public is on entrapment sites set up by the FBI in sting operations of highly questionable ethical and constitutional acceptability--is not conducive to democratic principles. The only solution that works within a democratic framework is to empower children and teens in a legal and civil manner so as to greatly increase their ability to willingly escape from truly abusive situations of any sort, and to prosecute the producers of any non-consensual material of this nature. Ironically, it should be noted that Masha Allen is now suing the state as a result of their 'post-rescue' operations, including the use of imagery she says were made under coerced circumstances for use in federal entrapment schemes, such as phony sting websites. <br />
<br />
Doesn't the fact that upon 'rescuing' Masha from the reportedly abusive clutches of her adoptive father, she was placed under the foster care of a woman who claims to be a victim of sexual abuse who not only lost a case in court where she apparently frivolously accused her pastor of sexually abusing her, but also accused her parents of being part of a satanic cult who forced her to take part in human sacrifice (remember my discussions of the now thoroughly debunked satanic ritual abuse hysteria in my previous essay, “The Importance of Truth"?), mean that such foster care parents were bound to have a distorting effect on Masha's ideology, fueling her with feelings of revenge rather than healing, and into becoming an advocate of vengeful draconian rather than productive empowering solutions for other kids who may find their way into situations similar to hers as the result of abusive parents? Can this be the reason why Masha is so stringent upon penalizing people for looking at pics of her alleged abuse rather than focusing upon the notion of parental power that prevented her from leaving the abusive situation she found herself in? It should also be noted that the U.S. attorney who handled Masha's case following her 'rescue,' Mary Beth Buchanan, was fully aware of the past of Masha's foster mothers whose custody she was placed in. This forces us to wonder if Buchanan did so purposely, so as to increase the chance that victims like Masha would be subject to the type of irrational, vengeance-driven rhetoric from her foster parent so as to better ensure that the girl would develop a mindset conducive to furthering any political agenda that Buchanan and other LEOs like her may have. For the source of this info, go [http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=150 here].<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, despite the very few lone voices in the wilderness like Masha and Kylie, the Great Silence continues, and these few voices of protest that do arise are from girls who were forced into abusive sexual situations on camera by parents, not by an organized, multi-national cabal of strangers, and their resulting pics and vids were produced for consumption by a small group of like-minded fetishists via a P2P online network with no money passing any hands, and not for profit to a huge underground international market of vile MAAs. The cases of these two girls should speak volumes about the reality of CP, a reality that bears no resemblance to the urban legends created by the LEAs and their allies in the mass media. <br />
<br />
Also courtesy of my fellow activist FreeThinkerGL is this link to another essay on Inquisition21 that explains exactly how the American police often create crimes: [http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=146 Two Little Girls in a Doorway]. As FreeThinkerGL mentioned to me about the latter article, "This was written before the Masha story above, but Masha's story gives it new significance." Many thanks and appreciation to FreeThinkerGL for the link to this article. <br />
<br />
On the subject of P2P file sharing networks and their relation to CP distribution and all the myths that have sprung out of that, my fellow activist qtns2di4 makes the following important observations [in '''bold face''']:<br />
<br />
'''A few words about P2P.'''<br />
<br />
'''P2P requires every user to identify themselves, therefore IP addresses are always visible to others, either by default or with little technical expertise needed to uncover them. This makes it an extremely vulnerable platform for sharing, and esp. for sharing illegal content. Any step taken to protect IP address information also makes the use of P2P less efficient to the user, so users will normally try to avoid doing it. That is not even to mention the dangers of malware transmitting through P2P, which are independent from the risks of giving IP address information publicly.'''<br />
<br />
'''P2P reached its peak of use during the music sharing days. It was very adaptive to the technology of the time. It declined [in popular usage] as copyright lobbies and LEAs infiltrated it in order to combat music piracy. Obviously, while this use is also illegal, it doesn't have the emotional load, the harsh legal penalties, and the niche market characteristics that CP has, so it is not surprising that traffic involving music piracy, at any time, accounted for far more P2P traffic than CP ever could. I don't know if there is any analysis about the use of P2P that relates it directly to the sharing of CP. However, simple intuition would dictate that as P2P declined in use with the combat of music piracy and greater infiltration by LEAs, so did sharing of CP through it. Notice that, because of its structure, it is impossible to establish a payment system that works in assigning you rights of downloading in P2P sharing. That is why music pirates can use it but recording companies cannot. It also means that any CP that arrived into a P2P network became pirate, and therefore impossible to earn money from.'''<br />
<br />
'''Traditional P2P networks today still exist, but, because of (otherwise legal) music and video piracy, they are completely full of LEOs [law enforcement officers], thereby making it ever less safe for sharing of any content, and CP will always be much less safe than any pirated music album. Their obvious successors are torrent networks, which work under some of the same basic assumptions of P2P, but which are more stable in themselves, less vulnerable (though not 100% safe) to malware, better adapted to larger file sizes, where it is possible to establish some form of payments system, and it is easier to hide IP addresses without obvious efficiency losses. However, the structure of sharing in torrents would also make it harder to share CP openly.'''<br />
<br />
'''In short:'''<br />
<br />
'''- P2P overall use coincided with the curve of (pirated) music sharing.'''<br />
<br />
'''- There are no reasons to suspect CP was ever a large part of P2P traffic.'''<br />
<br />
'''- P2P sharing has declined the more that LEOs and copyright lobbies have infiltrated it in their anti-piracy operations, but there is no reason to suppose that this doesn't spill over to CP, as it is also illegal content.'''<br />
<br />
'''- Since the P2P structure doesn't allow for payments to be used, any CP diffused through this means was diffused for free (whether or not it was originally produced for profit)'''<br />
<br />
'''- same as music [in the form of mp3 files] always was.'''<br />
<br />
'''- Because of the changes undergone since then, it currently should be far more difficult to diffuse CP, new or not, via publicly accessible channels than it was during the golden age of P2P.'''<br />
<br />
My thanks and appreciation to qtns2di4 for sharing this important info with me and thereby enhancing the informational basis of this essay. <br />
<br />
A few important anecdotes have also been offered by my fellow Girl Lover in the MAA community who hails from the Netherlands and posts under the name Sancho Panza [in '''bold face''']:<br />
<br />
'''The view on what CP really is has changed dramatically over the years; I remember our Lolita magazine in the '70s of the last century. Freely available back then, but probably good for a couple of months on water and bread these days.'''<br />
<br />
'''The Ukrainian child pornography raids are also interesting; the LS material I saw didn't look like CP by any standard to me, yet American influences managed to shut down the whole thing.'''<br />
<br />
'''[P2P networks] like [LimeWire] will be history soon, not because of the availability of CP, but because of copyright infringements (as confirmed by the following excerpt from the [http://www.limewire.com/nl LimeWire home page]):'''<br />
<br />
'''''LimeWire is under a court order dated October 26, 2010 to stop distributing the LimeWire software. A copy of the injunction can be found here. LimeWire LLC, its directors and officers, are taking all steps to comply with the injunction. We have very recently become aware of unauthorized applications on the internet purporting to use the LimeWire name. We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so. We further remind you that the unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted works is illegal.'''''<br />
<br />
'''It's all about money; few people are really concerned with the well being of children, I'm afraid.'''<br />
<br />
Sancho's latter statement is quite interesting when you think about it. Despite the fact that P2P networks have allegedly been a bastion of CP trading over the past decade, the biggest creators of such software were never shut down by any of the LEAs for that reason as long as they cooperated with the police. But now they are rapidly getting shut down by LEAs for entirely financial reasons related to the money allegedly being lost by the big record companies due to the well known proliferation of mp3 file sharing through these networks. The fact that money trumps proclaimed morality shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone in our capitalistic society, since that's pretty much business as usual. It also makes you wonder if the U.S. government and the many large corporations that control it wouldn't be covertly financing the production and sale of CP if their ridiculous claims that it was actually an international multi-billion dollar a year industry were actually true.<br />
<br />
=ADDENDUM=<br />
The following "bonus" essay was composed by my fellow activist Summerdays in response to my above article, where he discusses 'The Paradigm of Innocence,' which contains some good insights about our present society's seeming deification of the notion of "childhood innocence" [in '''bold face''']:<br />
<br />
'''Most people regard childhood "innocence" as an inherently positive thing. For many, this may be true. Indeed, not knowing the full nature of the tragedy that is life (understanding death, the fact that good things end, that there is not a benevolent all-protecting God watching over you (because if there is a God, it's empirically verifiable that he doesn't mind if bad things happen to you, regardless of whether or not it's for a good reason [at least in God's mind]) - it's pleasant not to have to deal with these heavy truths, and there seems to be a lightness about childhood, at least when we think back on it, that it seems to be so much better than adulthood (provided we didn't have a rough childhood where our innocence was taken away from us prematurely).'''<br />
<br />
'''The truth may be that childhood wasn't so light as we imagine it during fits of nostalgia. But to go even further than that, I have personal experience that casts the concept of "innocence" in a negative light. Innocence terrified me. I am terrified of the things I don't know and don't understand. For me, a child who knew so little about the world, the world was a terrifying place. It's only now, as I am growing up and learning about the world, that its mysteries are being revealed to me and its shadows brought under the light. The more I know, the more I understand, the less I fear, and the stronger I become. As an innocent child, I was weak and vulnerable - and I knew it. Experience, for me, is the path towards levity. Sure, life is hard, but it's so much easier when I know exactly what to expect. And what not to expect - like knowing, as a result of decades of firsthand experience, that there can be no inhuman monsters hiding in my closet waiting to eat me. And having enough of an understanding to justify not constantly worrying about the human monsters that may be hiding there, because I know the likelihood is so slim that it's not worth getting bothered about.'''<br />
<br />
'''Now, I don't want to say that everyone experiences innocence in this way - but that's exactly the point. Innocence is not the same thing to everyone, and it is not always a desirable state. To preserve a child's innocence because we presume that innocence is a good thing, could do damage to the child if the truth is different (as it was in my case). So in some cases, preserving a child's innocence could be more abusive than dispelling it, and we ought not to assume that it is something that should universally be protected.'''<br />
<br />
'''And who knows, maybe a lot more people feel the way I do about innocence. After all, how often is it the child who asks to have her innocence preserved, and how often does she go out of her way to do the opposite, wanting to experience life? And when she asks us if there's a monster in the closet, do we tell her she's better off not knowing, or do we reassure her by going over and opening the closet to let her know exactly what is (and is not) in there?'''<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:Why_Most_Teens_Will_Not_Support_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws_If_Given_The_Choice&diff=6847Essay:Why Most Teens Will Not Support The Age Of Consent Laws If Given The Choice2011-09-19T06:44:17Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By [[User:Dissident]]==<br />
I would like to thank some of my fellow pro-choice activists for their contributions and editorial assistance with this essay, including Summerdays, Baldur, qtns2di4, and Bella. <br />
<br />
One of the biggest questions I ever receive from those--both within and outside of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community--who supports the continuation of the age of consent [AoC] laws as we know them today is a variation of the following:<br />
<br />
"I don't think the elimination of the AoC laws as they now stand is in any way a legitimate part of youth liberation politics, because I don't think that most underage girls [or boys, as the case may be] have any interest whatsoever in having sexual relations with adults. So, I think it's just pure selfishness on the part of MAAs for trying to alter these laws, as well as pure wishful thinking on their part that a youth liberated society would be some sort of 'pedo paradise.'"<br />
<br />
Individuals who frequently make variations of the above statement clearly fail to realize that even if it did happen to be true, it is nevertheless ''totally and completely beside the point'' of the very foundation of liberation, including youth liberation. They also make the error of assuming that pro-choice MAA activists are in turn assuming that there would, for some reason, be lines of youths in our preferred gender and/or age group standing outside of our homes and begging for the sexual and romantic contact with us that they were denied for the duration of time that these laws were heavily enforced.<br />
<br />
The point of liberation—''the main point'', in fact--is not to give people the right to do only the things that the vast majority of the population want to do, but rather to give them the choice to do what they want even if some of their decisions may be uncomfortable to the majority of both the people who comprise their particular group, and the majority of people in the greater society around them. The key word here is ''choice''. That is the crux of liberation, it's the crux of the pro-choice stance amongst MAA activists, and it should be the crux behind the platform of youth liberation, as well. This stance doesn't advocate any type of activity, nor does it say that everyone who belongs to a certain group should or should not engage in a certain type of activity, nor does it make any type of moral judgments on those who either do or do not engage in any particular type of activity. What it does advocate, plain and simply, is the importance of ''choice'', which is why the stance is referred to as pro-choice rather than something less accurate and more loaded in context, like "pro-sex."<br />
<br />
Making the above statement and supporting the continuation of the AoC laws more or less as they are today due to the strong belief that the above statement is true, is no more logical or ethical than the great heterosexual majority refusing to support the granting of rights to the homosexual minority simply because the majority of people have no desire to engage in homosexual relationships or marry someone of the same gender themselves; or, for that matter, because we don't personally know anyone who supports these rights. Of course, the latter of which, if true, is more likely due to the case of us happening to live in an area of the nation, or under a specific political climate in any given era of history, where most people with non-normative desires are firmly in the closet, and thus firmly silent about these desires. For instance, how many heterosexual people who lived during the 1940s were aware of anyone they knew being a homosexual? And how many homosexuals who lived during that era were open and honest with every one of their heterosexual friends about their preferences? Obviously, AAMs [Adult Attracted Minors, a term for gerontophiles who are legally underage] are mostly in the closet these days just as firmly as MAAs, and for very good and obvious reasons. Hence, I certainly don't understand why anyone would expect large numbers of them to be talking openly about their desire to date and socialize with significantly older people even with some of their closest friends, who in the current climate may very well panic upon hearing this and relay the news to their friend's parents and/or teachers. <br />
<br />
I do not personally believe that the great majority of young adolescent girls [AGs] would actually desire to have a more than platonic relationship with me even if we lived in a youth liberated society, and I do not believe that the great majority of my fellow MAAs believe this in regards to themselves either; but I do think that it's totally ridiculous to assert that very few, if any, would harbor such a desire, or that there wouldn't be a possibly significant minority of them who would do so, either as a result of their natural preferences or due to simple curiosity as to how well a relationship with an older man (or woman) may work for them, if the choice was allowed. Individuals who claim otherwise are not only ignoring the very real existence of gerontophilia [a sexual, emotional, social, and aesthetic preference for significantly older though not necessarily elderly individuals]--which may exist to varying degrees amongst the youth population as often as hebephilia occurs amongst legal adults today--but they are also ignoring the full range of diversity of desire and curiosity in regards to sexual preferences and proclivities that exists amongst the human species overall. Those that do deny such things may actually be the one's who are engaging in wishful thinking here, not those amongst the pro-choice segment of the MAA community.<br />
<br />
As my fellow activist qtns2di4 noted:<br />
:"The argument that it's 'a very tiny minority' is well debunked, but the gay example isn't even the best example you can think of. 'How many slaves wanted to be free?' 'How many women wanted to go to university, work, and vote?' If you are willing to dive into more dangerous waters, 'how many people support some form of drug legalization yet have never taken drugs and don't plan to do it once it's legal?' 'How many people support abortion that have never had one and don't plan to have any?' Liberal audiences should be even more receptive to the argument, given the subsidies to opportunity that which liberals usually promote: those are usually for a tiny minority, at least when they begin."<br />
<br />
As noted by my fellow activist Summderdays:<br />
:"Freedom is not an issue of, 'if we give these people this freedom, will it benefit us or not benefit us, overall?' Freedom is simply freedom. People deserve to be free - free to make choices, even when those choices are ones we don't like. Anything else is like saying, 'okay, you're free to choose, but ''only'' if you make a decision I'm happy with.' It would be less offensive if these people actually admitted that they don't support freedom, but what really bugs me is they act like they do support freedom at the same time that they deny it of people."<br />
<br />
Hence, a youth liberated society would not be a "pedo paradise," of course (regardless of how someone may define such a place), but it would be a much more liberated and ultimately more enlightened society where the range of--and respect for--the right of choice would be considerably greater than it is today. Such a society would benefit younger people every bit as much as it would older people with a preference for much younger individuals, and such a system of tolerance of all activities that respected consent and didn't cause demonstrable harm to another human being would ultimately be beneficial for society itself. For a truly free, democratic, and liberated society to exist, people have to try to empathize with the perspectives of those who exist outside their own, and not to limit their respect only for the type of mutually consensual activities that they believe are either common or which do not have an “ickiness” factor according to their personal sensibilities.<br />
<br />
As such--and getting back to the comparison to gay rights--I will always support the right for individuals to engage in homosexual relations as their individual tastes and emotional needs decree despite the fact that it may appear on the surface that the criminalization of such relations wouldn't impact upon me personally, nor the heterosexual majority I belong to. Further, the large number of bisexuals in this country would continue to have a greater range of choices regarding who they may or may not date or have sexual relations with if the matter of choice in regards to this is allowed and respected. <br />
<br />
However, I would argue that if I supported the criminalization of any activity that was outside my personal tastes, as well as the personal tastes of the majority of society, then that would constitute selfishness on my part, not selfishness on the part of the minority of people who would desire homosexual relations to have this choice open to them. I would also be aware that the ramifications on our democracy over such an Orwellian decision would certainly be extreme, and if I agreed to allow one particular type of choice to be denied to others simply because I didn't think the taste was common, or because it wasn't a taste that I personally shared, then this would make it easier for the government to rationalize further restrictions on such choices in the future. Because of the tendency for such draconian legislation to be cumulative in effect, eventually I could expect one of my personal tastes to be criminalized, as would likely be the case for all of my fellow heterosexuals, be they teleiophiles or not [a teleiophile is an individual with a sexual, emotional, and social preference for individuals in the same general age group, regardless of gender or race, and are presently the ‘norm’ in Western society]. As I always say, when discussing civil rights and the criminalization of any type of choice--as long as it honors mutual consent and does not lead to the demonstrable harm of anyone else--the big picture always needs to be considered. An emphasis placed upon the much smaller picture that only relates to what our own personal desires happen to be, or what we perceive to be common amongst the general population, is highly counter-productive to the notion of freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness in the long run. Minority desires and lifestyle choices always need to be respected as much as the "normative" choices made by the majority in a democratic society. <br />
<br />
It should also be considered that most people who lived during the decades prior to the 1970s would swear that no one they knew had any desire to engage in homosexual relations, because most mainstream gays back then were firmly in the closet. This is something that someone living in today's era should consider when they insist that they are totally (or almost totally) unaware of any underager who actually has gerontophiliac desires, regardless of whether or not they themselves are underagers and thus have a large group of peers and friends who are also tweens or teens.<br />
<br />
Now, as for the question as to whether most young people would have no interest in having the AoC laws lowered or abolished simply because the great majority of them had no interest in having sexual/romantic relations with adults. Is this really the crux of the matter in regards to this one particular aspect of youth liberation? I would like to say there is some good evidence that the answer to the above question is a resounding '''''no'''''.<br />
<br />
Back in 2000, there was an article by Nicole Martin posted on the online version of the British newspaper known as ''The Telegraph'' (still available today) that discusses what many adolescent girls in Britain consider to be the highly inadequate and hugely unrealistic sex education courses available to them in middle school and high school, which among other things was, "out-dated, uninformative and taught too late." A poll was taken amongst numerous schoolgirls in Britain between the age range of 12-16 by wickedcolors.com which yielded some results that make it quite clear that the majority of AGs in the West may have attitudes about sexuality that contradict the moralizing values of the West's heavily gerontocentric culture:<br />
<br />
Not only did ''9 out of 10'' of these girls polled say that it's unrealistic to expect young people to wait until they are married to have sex, but ''87% of the adolescent girl respondents'' on that poll said that they wanted the AoC in Britain to be ''lowered'' from its current status at 16. In that article, Martin said, "Lucy Laverack, a founder of wickedcolors.com, which conducted the survey, said the poll showed how frustrated young girls were with the Government's inability to understand what they wanted. She said: 'Girls today are head-strong, opinionated and intelligent. They are career driven and politically and economically very aware.'" <br />
<br />
That sounds like something that youth liberationists have been arguing about for years now, and this makes it clear that the question of sexual rights is far from irrelevant to the entirety of youth liberation, even though it’s hardly the only important right that younger people need to win, with voting rights, labor rights, free speech rights, educational rights, and rights of association and movement also very important (and with voting rights probably the most important of all the rights the “underage” youth community needs to win). <br />
<br />
As noted by Summerdays regarding that poll (in '''bold face'''):<br />
:'''There's a novel idea - ask the girls themselves who are underage rather than extrapolate from what adults retroactively believe (or have convinced themselves to believe) ''they'' would have wanted, or worse yet, what they want kids to want, regardless of reality.'''<br />
:'''It's not about giving ''adults'' the right to be intimate with kids. It's not that at all. It's about giving the kids the right to ''choose for themselves'' what ''they'' want to do with their bodies. Whether that involves adults or not.'''<br />
:'''Funny how anyone could get the idea that a position that promotes ''choice'' would be anything but disdainful of non-consent. The idea that people want to give kids a “choice,” just so that they can then go and force them to do things they wouldn't want to do. How ridiculous is that? If I want kids to have a choice, that means I intend to respect that choice.'''<br />
<br />
A link to that article can be found [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1376140/Girls-say-teenage-sex-campaign-is-out-of-touch.html here]. Many thanks to my friend and fellow activist Bella (no, not actress Bella Thorne!) for providing me with a link to that article.<br />
<br />
So, should any of the naysayers be surprised about the above results from that poll? And do those results indicate that the great majority of adolescent girls between the ages of 12 and 16 want to have sexual relations with much older adults? The answer to both questions is certainly no. That is ''not'' what the above poll results indicate, and again that is entirely ''beside the point'' of the AoC question when it comes to youth liberation. What I believe those above poll results do indicate is that AGs support the simple ''freedom of choice'' to carry out their personal dating and sex lives ''as they see fit''--in concert with whatever their personal desires and tastes may happen to be--and that they wish that sex education classes would prepare them for making whatever decisions they might want to make for themselves from an early point in their lives--nothing more, and nothing less than that. No “pedo paradise” (or “hebe paradise,” for that matter), but simply a society that honored ''freedom of choice'', a situation that would benefit everyone whatever their age, race, gender, or personal tastes happened to be. <br />
<br />
As Summerdays further lamented on this point:<br />
:"I will never be able to understand how sex could be an exception to a person's freedoms. If sex is not included, then a person is not completely free. If it were true that kids aren't interested in sex, then what difference does giving them the freedom make? As long as we continue to honor choice, none of the kids will be having sex. And if it so happens that some of them ''are'' interested in sex, then not giving them that choice is a restriction of freedom. Seems pretty simple to me."<br />
<br />
Thus, the question of the AoC laws most definitely is a valid aspect of youth liberation, even if some youth lib orgs are afraid to touch the issue due to the fact that it's such a highly emotionally charged topic. Nevertheless, this issue is every bit as important as other major components of the youth lib platform such as the other rights mentioned above, and may be surpassed in importance only by (in this order) voting rights, free speech rights, and educational rights. <br />
<br />
In [[Essay:Why_The_Legality_Of_Child_Pornography_Is_Relevant_To_The_Youth_Liberation_Movement|another essay]], I tackle the question of what our culture all-too-often refers to as "child pornography" as it relates to the overall issue of youth liberation.<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:Why_Child_Pornography_Should_Be_Legal&diff=6846Essay:Why Child Pornography Should Be Legal2011-09-19T06:43:57Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By Dissident==<br />
:"''Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.''" '''- C.S. Lewis'''<br />
:"''I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish. The first banning of an association because it advocates hated ideas -- whether that association be called a political party or not -- marks a fateful moment in the history of a free country...''" '''- Justice Black'''<br />
:"''It is always unconscionable for the government to punish people for expressing an idea merely because government officials -- or the majority of citizens -- decide that those ideas are “dangerous” or “wrong.” That is a power nobody ought to possess.''" '''- Glenn Greenwald'''<br />
:"''He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.''" '''- Thomas Paine'''<br />
:"''The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.''" '''- Woodrow Wilson'''<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the crew of GirlChat [GC] for giving me invaluable editorial input on my earlier drafts of this essay, with particular thanks going to my fellow activists Summerdays, Baldur, Little Girl Lover (all three of whom have their contributions referenced below), along with some invaluable corrections from FreeThinkerGL and Misha.<br />
<br />
Previously, I composed [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:Why_The_Legality_Of_Child_Pornography_Is_Relevant_To_The_Youth_Liberation_Movement an essay] discussing the question of legality about the very emotionally-charged subject of CP [what our culture and penal system commonly calls 'child pornography'] and its relevance to the youth liberation movement. But there are many broader implications regarding why CP should be legal outside of the various points I made in that previous essay. Before I get into them, however, I would like to say a few things about CP to make my stance, as well as that of the broader pro-choice segment of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community, crystal clear to all who read this.<br />
<br />
Most of us (including myself) do not support an "absolutely anything goes" attitude regarding the production of CP, especially when it comes to pre-pubescent children rather than adolescents. I fully believe that pre-pubescents should never appear in what we call "hardcore" pornography that would include large amounts of sexual activity--either with peers or adults--that would likely prove physically injurious to them--such as full penetrative intercourse--and which they would not likely seek out in real life. Accordingly, there is a big difference between "child pornography" and what may best be labeled ''child erotica''. I would see no problem with pre-pubescents who possess an exhibitionist streak in them (and our society is well aware that such children do exist, despite our strong attempts to deny it) to appear in mildly erotic films where they engage in what we often call 'sex play' with people of various ages--depending upon what the child in question would agree to as per their individual tastes--which pre-pubescents of a slightly older age (say, six years old and up) at least semi-regularly do with peers and sometimes with adults whom they trust and have bonded with in a certain way. <br />
<br />
I also have no problem with pre-pubescents appearing nude in films, including mainstream films, as long as they have no objections, since--as I explained in my aforementioned previous essay--I do not think it's logical or healthy for our culture to promulgate the idea that there is something inherently ugly or "obscene" about the nude youthful form, or even about normal youth sexual activity. Pre-pubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently "wrong" with this--though this positive attitude about youth sexuality has been diminishing in these foreign Western nations due to constant aggressive American and British influence over the past two decades. In fact, it's largely American and British culture who has this irrational fear and loathing of anything remotely to do with youthful nudity and sexual activity despite their reality throughout human history, and it's the governments of these two nations who put so much pressure on artists of all stripes in nations both within and outside of the West to stifle all such attempts. As such, foreign films depicting a "coming of age" theme have regularly become noticeably less "bold" (read: realistic) in their portrayal of these normal aspects of the lives of youths over the past decade, the first of the 21st century. I'm sure if the current American mindset had its way, all "coming of age" films would be produced for suitability to air on the Disney Channel.<br />
<br />
As for adolescents, since it's physically safe for them to engage in full intercourse with proper precautions, and some of them do have an interest in it (though not all, of course), then they should be allowed to participate in whatever type of on camera erotica that they please. I would never encourage or ask for them to participate in the equivalent of XXX-rated films where sex is the only point, but I believe that what we call "softcore" erotica should be no problem for those adolescents who may want to participate in it. Saying that absolutely no adolescents under the age of 18 would ever have the slightest interest in doing this is quite ridiculous and illogical for reasons I explicated in a [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:Why_Most_Teens_Will_Not_Support_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws_If_Given_The_Choice previous essay] on whether or not teens would support the age of consent [AoC] laws, as well as my previous essay on the relevance of the legalization of CP to the youth liberation movement. To make this point further, there are a few instances of underage actresses who lied about their age and appeared in several adult pornographic films, the best example of this perhaps being Traci Lords. Further, actresses such as Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster appeared in popular mainstream American films with highly erotic themes involving consensual youth prostitution during the 1970s when both were 12 years of age--''Pretty Baby'' and ''Taxi Driver'', respectively--and neither of them were emotionally "damaged" as a result; to the contrary, both went on to prosperous careers in mainstream cinema. Shields subsequently appeared in a few other mainstream films with highly erotic themes to them shortly after her first, including ''The Blue Lagoon'' and ''Endless Love'', both of which included sex scenes (though she used a body double to depict her nude scenes in both of these films, something she curiously didn't do when she was a few years younger in ''Pretty Baby''). And of course, Foster continued to do the same in films such as ''The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane'' at age 14, where she removed her shirt on camera (though viewers only saw her from the back and briefly from the side after she did so) and got into bed with an older teenage boy whom she had fallen in love with. Sadly, the latter film also gave us a typical stereotyped version of an Evil Pedo [or 'Evil Hebe,' to be technical in this case], who was played in this instance by Martin Sheen as the titular character's main antagonist. But as we all know, the bygone era of the 1970s and early '80s is long behind us now, and the sex abuse hysteria has continued to progress into the present, thus making films like those mentioned above much more difficult to produce today. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, some film producers continue to defy these modern conventions, such as then-12-year-old actress Isabelle Fuhurman taking on a racy role--including a sexy seduction scene where she attempted to seduce an adult man--in the 2009 horror/suspense film ''The Orphan''. And prior to that, we had the then-adolescent Drew Barrymore explore sexual themes during the 1990s in films such as ''Far From Home'' (which she did at age 14) and the much sexier ''Poison Ivy'' (which she did at age 17), where she successfully seduced a much older man played by Tom Skerritt in a daringly erotic sex scene. And let's not forget Barrymore's sex-charged role, also at age 17, which she played the same year in the short-lived TV series ''2000 Malibu Road''. It's hardly a wonder that a year later she did a very sexual portrayal of real life "lethal lolita" Amy Fisher in ''The Amy Fisher Story'', a well-received telefilm that hit the airwaves in 1993; Barrymore was barely 18 at the time, but the character she portrayed was a few years younger than that, and this true story made it clear once and for all that young adolescent girls can indeed pursue adult men and be dangerously conniving at the same time. Unfortunately, such relationships only make the headlines when they have an element of tragedy attached to them, or some other type of sensationalism (such as when a girl runs away with an older lover), thus promoting the biased attitude that intergenerational attraction always results in something bad, the same type of attitude promoted by the notorious lesbian novels published during the 1950s in regards to same gender attraction amongst women. <br />
<br />
Let us not forget the popular French/American film collaboration ''The Professional'' (the longer version seen by French audiences was titled ''Leon the Professional''), which starred then-12-year-old Natalie Portman in a very big role where she developed a heavy romantic attraction to a hit man named Leon (played by French actor Jean Reno) and wanted to have him be her first sexual experience, an offer the hit man gracefully declined despite obviously reciprocating her romantic love and even sharing a bed with her--the scene where Portman's character Mathilda asked Leon to be her first was excised from the American version to avoid rousing the ire of American audiences any further than it already did, but the scene where Mathilda told Leon that she was in love with him in no uncertain terms was retained. A year later, Portman appeared in another film where she portrayed a young adolescent girl who fell in love with an older adult man (and he with her) in the big screen opus ''Beautiful Girls''. With these two films in her oeuvre, it appeared quite strange when Portman publicly announced shortly after the release of ''Beautiful Girls'' that she and her parents agreed to turn down the offer for her to portray the famed titular character in Adrian Lyne's 1990s film version of ''Lolita'', since they believed it was "inappropriate" for her to star in a film where a young adolescent girl was romantically involved with a much older adult man (I guess they were hoping that the public had forgotten Portman's previous two film roles mentioned above). Needless to say, Lyne's film ended up languishing in production hell for a few years due to the expected controversy of producing it during the height of the sex abuse hysteria until finally being completed and released in 1997 with 17-year-old Dominique Swain in the title role. The latter version certainly had bolder scenes than the 1962 version of the movie (with 15-year-old Sue Lyons in the role of Dolores Haze, a.k.a., Lolita), but as one would expect, body doubles and scene deletions galore ensued in order for the finished product to reach the American silver screen--though it did include the rather bold scene of Swain locking lips with co-star Jeremy Irons in his role of the notorious literary hebephile Humbert Humbert.<br />
<br />
As my fellow MAA activist Little Girl Lover reminded me, the 1990s also saw then-tween actress Kirsten Dunst take the role of the vampire Claudia, an ancient adult woman forever trapped in the body of a ten-year-old girl (since she was turned into a vampire when she was ten, and vampires do not age beyond the point when they are first turned), in the film version of Anne Rice’s novel ''The Interview With the Vampire.'' In that movie, the character of Claudia was in love with, and almost locked lips with, adult actor Brad Pitt in his role as Rice's famed vampire, Louis [thank you to fellow GLer db1 for giving me the correct version of this interesting fun fact]. This was a highly ironic role for Dunst to take, considering how outspoken the beautiful actress was in her early adult years about how disgusting and immoral she thinks it is for a younger woman (let alone a young girl) to have a romantic liaison with an older man--and how she likewise believed she was "too young" to do a nude scene in a movie at the tender age of 19. <br />
<br />
Finally, let's not forget how actress Claire Danes surprised audiences in 1996 when, at the "mere" age of 16, she won the much coveted role of Juliet in director Buz Luhrmann's updated cinematic version of Shakespeare's classic play of doomed young love ''Romeo and Juliet'', which included a bedroom scene with her equally famous lover Romeo (sans any actual nudity, but Claire was topless at the time, but was only seen from the back when she removed her top). However, actress Olivia Hussey played the much coveted role of Juliet in director Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 version of the film, which began filming two months after her 16th birthday, and she didn’t shy away from doing a nude scene (in fact, Hussey had played a fairly sultry role at age 12 in the English film version of Rumer Godden’s novel ''The Battle of the Villa Fiorita''). And even more recently, let's not forget a few of the films that the truly amazing actress Dakota Fanning has participated in. These include ''Man On Fire'', which she did at age ten, and which was a remake of a foreign action/adventure film from the late ‘80s that retained some of the latter movie's "lolita" themes, albeit more subtle to spare the sensibilities of American audiences. Nevertheless, it was very clear to all viewers that Fanning's tweenage character and her adult bodyguard/teacher, played to perfection by Denzel Washington, had developed actual deep romantic feelings for each other. Then there was Fanning's critically acclaimed and controversial indie film ''Hounddog'', which she did at the "tender" age of 12, and which featured a rather heavy degree of "coming of age" sexuality--as well as the famed actress frolicking about in her underwear throughout much of this period film--but which also included an awful scene where she was raped by an older boy. Then, at 15 going on 16, Fanning had perhaps her best racy role yet, as she accurately portrayed the real life adolescent singer and unabashed sex symbol Cherie Currie in the 2010 film ''The Runaways'', a biopic of the famous but short-lived girl band from the free-wheeling 1970s decade based on Currie's autobiography ''Neon Angel''. In the latter movie, Fanning famously and somewhat daringly shared a lesbian kiss onscreen with her co-star Kristen Stewart. <br />
<br />
Also worth mentioning are two other films with intergenerational romance as their central focus that are still legal to view today. The more or less obscure 1979 film ''A Circle of Two'' was a truly beautiful and open-minded film about a 16-year-old girl--played with stellar and witty alacrity by then underage Tatum O'Neill--who fell deeply in mutually shared love with an intense but kind-hearted 60-year-old artist--also played to perfection by Richard Burton. Interestingly, this movie featured the only nude scene that Tatum ever did. The other is the 1992 movie ''For A Lost Soldier'', which was a true story based on the memoirs of Dutch artist Jeroen Boman, where he recalled a romantic relationship he had during World War II in his early adolescence with an adult Canadian soldier who had previously saved his life. <br />
<br />
None of the above films are currently considered CP by the American penal code (save for those which actress Traci Lords appeared in from the age of 15 to 17), but all of them are examples of erotically charged films featuring young adolescents--and in some cases (such as ''Man On Fire''), girls who are "merely" tweens. And since the definition of what legally constitutes CP in America continues to broaden every single year, it cannot be certain that even these films will not someday fall under the rubric of CP as defined by the increasingly draconian American penal code as the government continues to wage a vicious war against youth sexuality, and all possible depictions and expressions of it thereof. After all, the government will poignantly argue, if these films continue to be legal to possess and produce, a "pedophile" may end up seeing them and become aroused by them, and no society that cares about the sacrosanct Victorian image of kids could ever tolerate the possibility of such a horrible thing occurring, correct? Even worse, the government will tell us, such films may convey the "dangerous" idea that youth sexuality is normal, and we can't have that either, right? <br />
<br />
The above examples also make it clear that in a youth liberated society, there would not likely be a shortage of youthful models and actresses who would enjoy appearing in erotic films, and at this point in time it's impossible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this wouldn't include a smaller but perhaps sizable amount of pre-pubescent girls as well. <br />
<br />
Once again, I would like to stress that I am ''not'' in any way suggesting that--even in a youth liberated society--the MAA community, parents, or anyone else should actually blatantly advocate youth sexuality or the production of youth erotica, or in any way imply that all or even most young girls (or boys) ''should'' participate in the production of it, as eroticism is very clearly not a genre of filmography or photography that all youths are suited for, and this should be respected. We simply advocate the matter of ''choice'', and there can be no doubt that there would be some youths of such a sensibility that they would enjoy participating in such films, including those which they produced and marketed themselves; the surfeit of "racy" YouTube videos out there featuring young girls (both tween and teen, and even some pre-pubescent) dancing provocatively and frolicking in bikinis and other revealing clothing that was produced and uploaded by the girls themselves make it very clear that there is a sizable number of young girls (and boys) who enjoy "showing off" in such a way on camera. Moreover, these youths clearly do not particularly care about the age group of people who have access to their videos and pictorials. Thus, youth sexuality and exhibitionism is a reality in our world, and even though I am not saying it should ever be advocated, it should nevertheless not be demonized or suppressed either. '''Toleration or acceptance of a certain phenomenon or genre of film or prose is ''not'' the same thing as advocating it.''' <br />
<br />
Now, here is a fast and loose set of reasons why CP (or simple youth eroticism) should be legal in any society that purports to be a democracy:<br />
<br />
1) The criminalization of CP is a form of ''censorship'', plain and simple. Censorship in any form should not be tolerated in a democratic society, no matter how offensive or upsetting many people may consider the imagery or information in question. If our legal system places any type of material in a "special" category that is not protected by the First Amendment to view and access by the public, then we start a very nasty precedent that can easily lead to the rationalization of any type of "dangerous" idea or image being denied public access by our esteemed protectors in the future. <br />
<br />
2) The argument that CP should be criminalized because people who possess or even simply view the images are viewing a "crime scene" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There are many types of crime scene images that are perfectly legal for people to view or possess. For example, vids and pics of often innocent people--such as reporters and journalists--being executed by agents of repressive governments worldwide, and the carnage wrought on innocent victims in many books detailing the history of real life serial killers are filled with extremely graphic pics of people who were murdered in very gruesome ways. Why aren't they illegal to view or possess also? Perhaps, because, they do not specifically feature ''children''? Then again, there are numerous examples of horrifying real images of children who have been subject to war atrocities that are perfectly legal to view and possess. These include numerous pics of children with limbs blown off as a result of accidentally stepping on land mines, and a famous pic from the Vietnam War featuring a tween girl running through the streets after napalm was dropped on her--and very obviously in extreme agony as her flesh was set afire (I recounted these things in a bit more detail on my previous essay about CP). <br />
<br />
Yet, because these pics do not specifically feature anything to do with sexual activity (the above example of the girl who had napalm dropped on her was actually fully nude as she ran through the streets with her flesh burning, it should perhaps be noted), our culture and penal system mysteriously sees no problem with the public being allowed to view them. Also, despite the fact that many people are highly unsettled or offended by pics showing aborted fetuses, it is still fully legal to possess them and to post them anywhere, which many anti-choice advocates on the abortion issue often do for political purposes. How would such activists feel if access to such pics was illegal even for them to possess or distribute because of the fact that so many people were bothered or offended by them? '''Despite the fact that I am greatly sickened and horrified by pics of aborted fetuses, and despite the fact that I am pro-choice on the abortion argument, I fully support the right of these anti-choice advocates to collect and distribute such pics for whatever reason they may choose.''' Why? Because the tenets of democracy--which I support and take seriously--make me realize that I have to accept the public accessibility of ideas and images that I find personally offensive and abhorrent. <br />
<br />
3) A point needs to be made about the tiny amount of CP that features actual footage of minors who were coerced into participating in the production of such films or pics, and even sometimes horribly tortured on camera (the rarity of such vids and pics, and the role of parents and stepparents behind the production of virtually all non-consensual CP, was discussed in detail in my previous essay on CP's relevance to the youth liberation movement). It's been argued that due to the nature of such imagery, it should be illegal to possess or view because some pervert might become aroused by the imagery, and thus, in effect, receive pleasure off of a child's misery. The problem with this justification to censor and criminalize such imagery leads to this question: is it ever justified in a democracy to penalize people for anything that may be going on within the privacy of their own thoughts regardless of how deplorable polite society may consider those thoughts, rightfully or otherwise? What type of precedent does this create for our society when we support the concept of thought control? <br />
<br />
There are other things to consider here, too. As I mentioned in my aforementioned previous essay, the total criminalization of this type of imagery prevents their access not only to would-be-perverts who may become aroused by viewing it, but also to serious journalists who may want to view the imagery for the purpose of research and future articles based on that research. The argument that they do not need access to this imagery in order to write about it is entirely bogus, because without being able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the LEOs [law enforcement officers] are saying is in those images are actually true, they cannot compose an article or expose' on the topic with a full degree of accuracy. It's foolish and downright Orwellian for the law--or anyone else--to make assumptions as to why someone may want to access such imagery when mind-reading technology is not yet available, and to therefore conclude that the only possible reason for someone to access and view such imagery is because they want to be aroused by the images of abused children.<br />
<br />
A further point that must be made about the argument that such coerced imagery is so horrible that we need to punish anyone who may be aroused by it is illustrated by the following example. A few years ago, a major scandal erupted in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison when some of the American guards there--at least two of whom were women--forced many of the male Iraqi POWs imprisoned there (many of whom were never actually charged with a crime) to strip fully naked and engage in close physical contact activities with their fellow male prisoners, including standing on top of each other while all were nude so as to form a human pyramid-like structure. This was obviously done very much against these men’s will, and the guards took photographs for their personal amusement and to further debase these men in the future. These pics were subsequently discovered and disseminated across many political websites and blogs all over cyberspace, for the purpose of the columnists to protest this outrage and breach of American principles. As anyone who is familiar with the culture of these Islamic societies in the Middle East are well aware, such an action was far more humiliating and emotionally distressing for men who grew up in these cultures than it would have been for heterosexual men who grew up in a Western culture, where homoeroticism is currently more or less accepted and not considered a form of deviant behavior (save by some of the most conservative elements in Western society). There can be no doubt that all of these men forced to participate in this activity by their captors was humiliating beyond description and likely even emotionally traumatic to experience--yet no civilian reporters, journalists, or bloggers were arrested for posting these pics all over the Net. Can it not be cogently argued that these men and their families would receive a great degree of severe emotional distress, and likely even trauma, as a result of the appearance of these pics all over the Net, even on sites whose columnists were using them to rightfully protest what was done to these men, and even on sites where their faces were blurred out of focus to protect the anonymity of the victims? I would say yes, yet this rationalization was never used to arrest any of these well-intentioned bloggers (nor should it have been, for all of the reasons expressed both above and below).<br />
<br />
Moreover, there is something further that must be considered about the Abu Grahib debacle. Are we to assume that everyone who viewed and downloaded these pics did so for the same reason as the above politically-motivated bloggers? It needs to be said that contrary to what appears to be popular belief, it's not simply a small number of adults with an attraction to children and teens who have "extreme" interests, and there are most certainly members of the mainstream homosexual community who can likewise have some rather "extreme" interests, as well as people from all groups with a teleiophilic attraction base [a teleiophile is someone who has a preference for members of the same general age group, regardless of gender or race]. Thus, it can readily be presumed with a high degree of likelihood that some adults viewed and downloaded the pics of those abused POWs in Abu Ghraib for the purpose of becoming aroused by having fantasies of being in place of the guards, and even of committing further forms of abuse with these men than are actually known to have occurred. Not only that, but it's also likely that several adults viewed or downloaded those pics and fantasized about being in the place of those abused men; fantasies of being raped as opposed to perpetrating such acts are far from unheard of, and many women--and some men--have admitted to having them, including many women who belong to the BDSM community (though certainly not all). Yet, this great likelihood was never mentioned anywhere that I am aware of, let alone any suggestion that possession or viewing of such pics should be legally prohibited from anyone outside of authorized court officials due to the corrupt thoughts they may have inspired in people with a certain type of predilection. <br />
<br />
The exact ''same'' complaint can be made about pics of actual carnage wrought on victims by serial killers, since it's well known that some teleiophiles have the type of "extreme" tastes where they become aroused by depictions of violence, including those that had a sexual context to them. The realization of this would doubtlessly cause much emotional distress to the families of these victims, as well as anyone who managed to survive such an attack, to know that some people were collecting these pics for that particular reason. Should necrophiliacs be arrested for collecting pics of people who were murdered by serial killers for the purpose of "getting off" on the pics entirely within the privacy of their own mind? Sure, such thoughts may be considered "disgusting" by the great majority of society, and one may argue that some type of injustice is committed against the victims, but this is no reason to criminalize possession or viewing of crime scene pics where people were hurt or killed in horrible ways, and it's entirely unjust for any courts under the ethos of American jurisprudence to ''assume'' any reason why any particular person may wish to obtain such pics. <br />
<br />
Yet, the complaints about these adult victims, and what they and/or their families may suffer as a result of these horrid pics being available for public access by people who likely have a wide assortment of reasons for wanting to view them (some well-intentioned, and others entirely puerile and salacious), are almost always non-existent. Nor do we ever hear any of the families of these victims, or of any victims who may have survived the attempt on their lives, of taking anyone who simply viewed or possessed the pics of the carnage for whatever reason to civil court so as to sue them for possibly "getting off" on the misery of these victims. When these points are made to people who want these coercive pics to continue to be criminalized, the response is usually a variation of, "That's different! The victims in those pics and videos weren't children!" This response is very telling and informative, and it cuts to the crux of the problem. It also makes it clear why such people support the criminalization of even on camera depictions of the majority of youth erotica that is known to have been produced with the full consent and enjoyment of the young participants, or where no evidence exists to suggest otherwise since no investigation was ever conducted to collect any evidence to suggest that coercion was involved. These statements are even echoed by people connected to the MAA community who enjoy and support the continued legalization of the youth modeling sites that feature girls in scanty clothing and sometimes arguably "enticing" poses. Once nudity enters the equation, however, such individuals immediately cry "foul" and claim that such pics or vids have "crossed the line." They further attempt to categorize any pics and vids featuring nudity as if they were examples of coercion, without bothering to ask for proof or even the slightest bit of evidence. And they never seem to realize that as long as what constitutes CP continues to be broadened, their beloved non-nude-but-sometimes-racy youth modeling sites will likewise get banned in the future, too. It's not like several members of the U.S. Congress aren't actually trying to do so, and this includes the attempts of uber-hypocrites like the rightfully disgraced Senator Mark Foley (and which proves that MAAs can be hypocrites who work against the interests of youth rights, their own community, and civil rights in general as much as homosexuals in positions of political power—such as J. Edgar Hoover—have done in the past). <br />
<br />
So, in other words, if such imagery involves ''children'', or anyone who happens to be "underage," it suddenly becomes a whole different story than any similar imagery involving adults, as far as most people are concerned. <br />
<br />
Of course, the pundits of protectionism have a common excuse used to justify the consensual agreement of underagers being denied when it comes to taking nude or provocative pics of themselves, or participating in films of that nature. When the consensual participation of the underager in question is made clear, the latter pundits will say that these youths ''might'' later come to regret these on camera depictions of themselves, so we have to consider them being distressed in an entirely pre-emptive and hypothetical context. And this despite the fact that Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster never seemed to suffer after becoming adults for some of the erotic roles they played back at the "vulnerable" age of 12, as both have enjoyed very good careers and personal lives that were hardly scandalous or full of strife when compared to many of their fellow Hollywood celebrities. Further, Traci Lords herself broke into mainstream films and never suffered for her participation in blatantly pornographic films beginning when she was 15; Lords did later allegedly develop a serious drug problem, but the same thing is the case with many starlets of mainstream cinema, including those who limited their childhood roles to family-friendly fare like the late Anissa Jones of the popular late 1960s TV series ''Family Affair''. A few youth models have likewise achieved their dreams, including Tierra Lee Abbott breaking into mainstream acting (including a recurring role on Nickelodeon's TV series ''Unfabulous'') and the youth model who used the name Marie, who achieved her long-time dream of posing for ''Playboy'' shortly following her 18th birthday. It's quite clear that print versions of ''Playboy'' catering to the celebration and admiration of the beauty of youths would exist in a youth liberated society without people worrying about whether or not a "pedophile" became aroused by the pictorials included therein. Imagine how many opportunities for personal growth and advancement would be curtailed if we allowed the powers-that-be to follow the Nanny State mentality and forcibly prevent us from making certain decisions simply because we ''might'' end up regretting them later, no matter how much these pundits of protectionism may argue the likelihood of this happening, or that youths are "more likely" to later come to regret this or that decision than an adult will (as if this can actually be deduced effectively); one of the things we need to remember is that one of the most important civil rights people of any age can possess is the right to take emotional risks, because without this right we lose too many opportunities to grow and learn, and we end up at the mercy of the possible bad decisions of those who have the power to decide for us, rather than to learn and grow from the possible bad decisions of our own.<br />
<br />
We should also keep in mind that our gossip-loving yet moralizing society loves to uncover “scandals” regarding underage celebrities, such as when the American press pilloried actress/singer Miley Cyrus for being caught in the act on more than one occasion of behaving like a normal adolescent girl does, which unfortunately contradicts the crystal pure image of the character Hanna Montana that she popularly but unrealistically portrays for the benefit of her employers at Disney—or for daring to participate in the taking of pictorials for various fashion mags that “inappropriately” show off her youthful beauty—such as exposing the skin on her back; yes, her back, not her breasts! Yet the moralizers in the press and outside of it had a field day with that, and Miley was ultimately being pressured—some might say bullied—into making an apology that the public wasn’t owed. In other words, Disney expects Miley to be Hannah Montana 24/7 in her real life, not only when she is in front of the cameras at their studios, and it doesn't matter to them how far removed Hannah may be from real adolescent girls--Miley appears to have sworn to uphold an idealized and highly sanitized version of a developing young woman when she signed that contract (*ahem*--I mean when ''her parents'' signed the contract, as any youth under the age of 18 are not permitted to sign their own contracts), and she and her parents are called names in the media and pushed into apologizing when she doesn't live up to a standard that no real adolescent girl should be expected to live up to. <br />
<br />
Let's also not forget that the highly disturbing autopsy photos of child murder victim Jon-Bonet Ramsey are legally available online, and these include close-up photos of her vagina. But because the purpose of these pics are for the clinical study of a crime victim and not for the purpose of titillation, these pics are fully legal to view and presumably to download and possess. If the parents are indeed innocent of the crime, then aren't we causing them emotional distress by making these horrific crime photos publicly available? I am not arguing that disturbing crime photos should be illegal to view or possess, but I am using this as a point to make it clear that it seems really ludicrous that we can allow pics of this nature to be legal, yet pics and vids of youths posing nude or engaging in willing sexual situations that they may enjoy participating in is totally off-limits legally, and actually worthy of being placed in a "special" class of imagery that is not protected by the First Amendment. Again, this is what happens when emotion trumps logic; it results in one of the most important aspects of democracy being abandoned with too little complaints attached to it, and the government becoming involved in what clearly constitutes full fledged exercises in thought control. <br />
<br />
The semi-naysayers often like to justify their above statements by making the famous declaration, "We have to draw the line somewhere!" I agree, which is why I believe the line should be drawn when the important factor of ''consent'' is no longer present. Claims that consent wasn't present when the young people who participated insist that it was need to be ''proven'' via a thorough but ethical investigation of all involved with the production, and not simply assumed for the purpose of "erring on the side of caution" or following the “better to be safe than sorry” ethos to the extreme.<br />
<br />
So back to the main point: we only make sometimes irrational, and oftentimes outright draconian, exceptions to the above described rules when the people involved are underage, and this counts even after the girls or boys in question have become adults, as there is a new crop of lawyers who have taken advantage of the present climate of hysteria by encouraging some of these women to sue people who are discovered to have possession of some of the erotic pics taken of them when they were underage. I would say this creates a strong monetary incentive for such women to claim they suddenly woke up one morning to discover that they were “emotionally damaged” by the memory of those pics or vids being made—and hell hath no fury like a woman and her lawyer out to grab public sympathy via playing on people’s emotions in order to make a killing for themselves. <br />
<br />
This all strongly suggests that our society has a deep and abiding fear and loathing of youth sexuality that is so pervasive that even some people who admit an attraction to younger people are caught up in the hysteria, and thus tend to view depictions of youth sexuality with great suspicion even when there is no reason to have such suspicions. The latter appears to be partly true because some MAAs appear to project their own personal tastes on underage models, and seem to assume outright that because they wouldn't have wanted to participate in such videos or pictorials when they were underage, they consider it inconceivable that any sizable number of girls (or boys) could possibly have different tastes and sensibilities from themselves, all the evidence that youths are no exception to the rule of diversity amongst the human species notwithstanding. Hence, they justify the criminalization of possessing or viewing any of the tiny amount of coercive films involving underage people while continuing to (usually) support the legal access to similar or worse pics and vids depicting adult victims. Predictably, the government jumps on this, realizing that they can start with the criminalization of possession and viewing of the small amount of non-consensual CP, and from there move on to rationalizing the criminalization of viewing consensual erotic material involving youths, and then moving on from there to criminalizing the possession and viewing of simple artistic nudes, and from there pics and vids of youths wearing revealing clothing, and from there...well, use your imagination, you are not likely to be far off base by doing so. This is because, as I have mentioned numerous times, the passing of a single draconian law of censorship creates a domino effect of sorts, resulting in the easier rationalization of increasingly severe and prohibitive Orwellian measures passed under the pretext of “protecting” children (i.e., anyone who is legally underage and thus bereft of sufficient civil rights to make their own decisions in almost any matter). This is something that the semi-naysayers do not seem willing to accept any more than the total naysayers are.<br />
<br />
To complete this point, I want to make one thing ''very'' clear. Nobody in the pro-choice segment of the MAA community supports the legalization of producing any type of youth erotica where the participants were ''forced'' or somehow ''coerced'' into making the films or photo-shoots. To suggest that any of us would literally support the production of such material is silly, insulting, and totally outrageous. Trying to claim that those who support the legality of simply viewing even coerced imagery that they had nothing to do with the production of as being tantamount to supporting actual rape and torture, or the production and sale of films depicting such atrocities, is beneath contempt and a total corruption of the point we are trying to make. And arguing that the simple viewing of films depicting actual rape and torture somehow creates a demand for the production of more material ''even though no money is passing any hands'' is beyond ridiculous, and a classic example of the sordid tactic of grasping at straws to justify a certain form of censorship. This is like saying that those who view pics of actual victims of serial killers, or own a book containing such pics (which are readily available via Amazon.com or the true crime section of your local Barnes and Noble), actually support the ''legalization'' of serial murder, and that a demand exists for serial killers to continue committing acts of murder even though none of them make any money as a result of it. Such arguments would be totally and rightfully laughed at if not for the powerful emotional resonance that they bring with them due to the fact that people under 18 and sexuality are both involved. I and the rest of my community fully support the arrest and prosecution of ''anyone'' of ''any age'' who is involved with the production of any type of film or images of people of any age who are participating on camera in sexual activities that they ''did not'' consent to, or are being genuinely tortured and harmed on camera against their will. Very very few, if any, people in our community would ever remotely support the production of such films any more than the tiniest percentage of the various teleiophile communities would support a market for actual "snuff" films featuring real adult victims. The naysayers need to keep in mind that MAAs are, first and foremost, ''human beings'', and as such we are fully capable of empathizing with human pain and suffering to the same extent that any teleiophile can.<br />
<br />
4) As my fellow activist Baldur pointed out to me before, the continued criminalization of such imagery and/or text can be used to blackmail or frame individuals by having such evidence planted on their computer hard drives without the knowledge of the owner. This can be done by any individual with a sufficient degree of hacking skills, including a jealous co-worker or even a LEO who wants to see to the arrest and personal destruction of a certain individual for purely political reasons. And of course, there have been a growing number of claims that certain types of malware may automatically download CP to people's hard drives that they had no intention of even viewing, let alone permanently possessing. These claims are far from outrageous, because it's a well known fact that malware can and often does automatically download adult pornography to people's hard drives against their intentions, so it's quite likely that any type of online material can be unknowingly downloaded onto someone's computer hard drive without their knowledge or intention.<br />
<br />
==Addendum==<br />
The following are a few very important anecdotes in response to certain of my points, provided by my fellow pro-choice MAA activist Summerdays, to whom I extend much thanks and appreciation for them. My previously mentioned points are in '''bold face''', and Summerdays' responses are in standard text.<br />
<br />
'''Accordingly, there is a big difference between 'child pornography' and what may best be labeled ''child erotica''.'''<br />
:I'm sure there's a term for the argumentative fallacy where the opponent exaggerates your point to the most extreme and indefensible end of the spectrum, in order to more easily refute it. And the black and white thinking ("all CP is the worst kind") certainly doesn't contribute to an atmosphere of reasoned discussion. There is a middle ground that is being trampled, and I find this to be very unfortunate, because that middle ground occupies a place where the erotic beauty of youth and adolescence can be celebrated in a very positive way. But if you dare try to defend the middle ground, the antis write you off as trying to defend the "worst kind" of CP, since to them it's all the same.<br />
<br />
'''I would see no problem with pre-pubescents who possess an exhibitionist streak in them (and our society is well aware that such children do exist, despite our strong attempts to deny it) to appear in mildly erotic films...'''<br />
:I have no problem with this either, but I can see a potential problem with it - sociogenic in nature. It kind of parallels the issue of mutually consensual sexual contact between [youths] and adults - if the contact itself is not harmful, there is still the stigma that is imposed from outside forces that can result in harm. In this case, the stigma has to do with the sexual shame that is imposed on exhibitionism of this form. In other words, the idea that if somebody sees a "naughty" picture (or video) of you, your reputation could be ruined.<br />
:This is a general problem I see that needs to be addressed, but becomes something of a thorn in our side when the issue of youth erotica is involved. This is because of the "child protection" argument that considers children [and younger adolescents] unable to comprehend the repercussions of posing for sexy pictures (or videos) at their age - and the fact that they may regret it later (after it's too late, given the "immortality" of digital media in this age). You certainly see this argument when the topic of "sexting" comes up.<br />
:Some people would (and obviously do) argue that the solution is to eliminate any and all material of this nature - and to prevent kids from taking that "risk" to their reputation. I would argue that the freedom to engage in that kind of activity is important enough not to squander it for the sake of this risk, and also that I'm certain there are some (if certainly not all) children [and adolescents] who are capable both of understanding the risk (of potential stigma), and also possess the strength of character not to be significantly affected by it. Indeed, there may be cases where a [youth's] need to express him/herself overcomes the fear of "what people may think/do/say" - and I would argue that that's a healthy attitude to foster, rather than teaching kids to be afraid to express themselves for fear of how others may judge them.<br />
<br />
'''Pre-pubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently "wrong" with this.'''<br />
:Indeed, I do not believe we should indulge our culture's sickness. The exploration of sexuality is a natural curiosity, and it should be indulged, not repressed. I don't believe we should refrain from certain behaviors only because society frowns upon them. Where there are explicit laws against certain behaviors, that is another matter, but in terms of cultural norms, I think it's our duty to push the boundaries and keep an open discussion, and not be afraid to turn a few heads in our pursuit of a better way, as long as we are doing it with an understanding of the backlash we are likely to receive.<br />
:Ideally, the goal would be a more tolerant society where people are not shamed and stigmatized for being involved in the erotic arts, thus significantly reducing the risks of participation.<br />
<br />
'''And since the definition of what legally constitutes CP in America continues to broaden every single year, it cannot be certain that even these films will not someday fall under the rubric of CP as defined by the increasingly draconian American penal code as the government continues to wage a vicious war against youth sexuality, and all possible depictions and expressions of it thereof.'''<br />
:Granted, I think Congress and/or whoever makes those decisions is concerned about laws that are so strict as to render that which is unambiguously "artistic" illegal - particularly works of art that are historically renowned. On the other hand, our tolerance for this type of material - youth sexuality - is gradually eroding, and the limitations on what can and cannot be represented artistically are increasing. I think we ought to be more concerned about what hasn't been created yet than what has. The movies you mentioned may not fall under the legal classification for "child pornography" any time soon (although it's still important for us to make certain they don't), but as time passes, and the laws tighten, and the penalties grow, fewer people are going to want to tackle such a controversial issue, and they'll be able to get away with much less with confidence. And if one such person dares to push the boundaries, he/she is bound to be demonized, and used as an example for even tighter laws, and harsher penalties. (The furor over Bill Henson comes to mind, and his work, from what I've seen, neither involves children, nor can it rightly be classified as "pornographic." If his work pushes people's buttons, then what sort of ban will they call for next?)<br />
:How long will it be before no one has the guts to even bring up the topic of youth sexuality anymore? There are already people saying this topic shouldn't even be addressed. Youths are sexual - not talking about it doesn't help anyone. And if youths were to somehow become completely asexual as a result - a result that the anti mindset would seem to favor - what kind of an impact would that have on us as a society and as a species? Think about how authoritarian a government would have to be to have the power to regulate all sexual expression involving minors (whether as the subject of the expression, or merely the subject of discussion). And worse yet, to actually regulate the way minors feel (by excising their natural sexual impulses through some kind of social conditioning). Do you really want to be controlled by a government with that much power? And surely you can't believe that they would limit their exercising of that power to minors. Anyway, the minors will one day become adults, and the adults will eventually die off, and what we've got then is a completely brainwashed populace. Children are the future of us all. Do we really want them growing up ashamed and with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality? The minute we place sexuality into the governing hands of our so-called "protectors," we are giving up our own power over the continuation of our very existence.<br />
<br />
'''After all, the government will poignantly argue, if these films continue to be legal to possess and produce, a "pedophile" may end up seeing them and become aroused by the imagery, and no society that cares about the sacrosanct Victorian image of kids could ever tolerate the possibility of such a horrible thing occurring, correct?'''<br />
:This is a ridiculous argument, because you simply cannot prevent pedophiles [or hebephiles] from being aroused by pedophilic stimuli. You would need to completely separate children from adults to start - and though that seems to be the direction we're heading, there are any number of reasons why I think that would be a terrible idea - and even then, pedophiles still have their imagination. As much as society hates pedophiles, you can't punish children for them - and that means allowing children to remain visible to the public eye. I won't accept "pedophiles may get turned on" as an argument unless it's backed up by a realistic plan to prevent pedophiles from ever getting turned on - and in that case, I would be vehemently against such an inhumane plan.<br />
<br />
'''I would like to stress that I am not in any way suggesting that, even in a youth liberated society, the MAA community, parents, or anyone else should actually blatantly advocate youth sexuality or the production of youth erotica, or in any way imply that all or even most young girls (or boys) should participate in the production of it, as eroticism is very clearly not a genre of filmography or photography that all youths are suited for, and this should be respected'''.<br />
:Arguing that "youth erotica" should be legal in no way presumes that most children ought to be involved with it, and certainly not that any youths should be forced into it. Even were it true that most kids wouldn't have the slightest interest (and I'm not so sure that's the case), the fact that a few of them would is reason enough to allow them that opportunity. That's what choice is about.<br />
<br />
'''Despite the fact that I am greatly sickened and horrified by pics of aborted fetuses, and despite the fact that I am pro-choice on the abortion argument, I fully support the right of these anti-choice advocates to collect and distribute such pics for whatever reason they may choose.'''<br />
:What is it about a naked [youth] posing in a suggestive manner that is considerably worse than an image of an aborted fetus, that we have to censor the former yet not the latter?<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:Why_Child_Pornography_Should_Be_Legal&diff=6845Essay:Why Child Pornography Should Be Legal2011-09-19T06:43:35Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By Dissident==<br />
"''Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.''" '''- C.S. Lewis'''<br />
<br />
"''I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish. The first banning of an association because it advocates hated ideas -- whether that association be called a political party or not -- marks a fateful moment in the history of a free country...''" '''- Justice Black'''<br />
<br />
"''It is always unconscionable for the government to punish people for expressing an idea merely because government officials -- or the majority of citizens -- decide that those ideas are “dangerous” or “wrong.” That is a power nobody ought to possess.''" '''- Glenn Greenwald'''<br />
<br />
"''He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.''" '''- Thomas Paine'''<br />
<br />
"''The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.''" '''- Woodrow Wilson'''<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the crew of GirlChat [GC] for giving me invaluable editorial input on my earlier drafts of this essay, with particular thanks going to my fellow activists Summerdays, Baldur, Little Girl Lover (all three of whom have their contributions referenced below), along with some invaluable corrections from FreeThinkerGL and Misha.<br />
<br />
Previously, I composed [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:Why_The_Legality_Of_Child_Pornography_Is_Relevant_To_The_Youth_Liberation_Movement an essay] discussing the question of legality about the very emotionally-charged subject of CP [what our culture and penal system commonly calls 'child pornography'] and its relevance to the youth liberation movement. But there are many broader implications regarding why CP should be legal outside of the various points I made in that previous essay. Before I get into them, however, I would like to say a few things about CP to make my stance, as well as that of the broader pro-choice segment of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community, crystal clear to all who read this.<br />
<br />
Most of us (including myself) do not support an "absolutely anything goes" attitude regarding the production of CP, especially when it comes to pre-pubescent children rather than adolescents. I fully believe that pre-pubescents should never appear in what we call "hardcore" pornography that would include large amounts of sexual activity--either with peers or adults--that would likely prove physically injurious to them--such as full penetrative intercourse--and which they would not likely seek out in real life. Accordingly, there is a big difference between "child pornography" and what may best be labeled ''child erotica''. I would see no problem with pre-pubescents who possess an exhibitionist streak in them (and our society is well aware that such children do exist, despite our strong attempts to deny it) to appear in mildly erotic films where they engage in what we often call 'sex play' with people of various ages--depending upon what the child in question would agree to as per their individual tastes--which pre-pubescents of a slightly older age (say, six years old and up) at least semi-regularly do with peers and sometimes with adults whom they trust and have bonded with in a certain way. <br />
<br />
I also have no problem with pre-pubescents appearing nude in films, including mainstream films, as long as they have no objections, since--as I explained in my aforementioned previous essay--I do not think it's logical or healthy for our culture to promulgate the idea that there is something inherently ugly or "obscene" about the nude youthful form, or even about normal youth sexual activity. Pre-pubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently "wrong" with this--though this positive attitude about youth sexuality has been diminishing in these foreign Western nations due to constant aggressive American and British influence over the past two decades. In fact, it's largely American and British culture who has this irrational fear and loathing of anything remotely to do with youthful nudity and sexual activity despite their reality throughout human history, and it's the governments of these two nations who put so much pressure on artists of all stripes in nations both within and outside of the West to stifle all such attempts. As such, foreign films depicting a "coming of age" theme have regularly become noticeably less "bold" (read: realistic) in their portrayal of these normal aspects of the lives of youths over the past decade, the first of the 21st century. I'm sure if the current American mindset had its way, all "coming of age" films would be produced for suitability to air on the Disney Channel.<br />
<br />
As for adolescents, since it's physically safe for them to engage in full intercourse with proper precautions, and some of them do have an interest in it (though not all, of course), then they should be allowed to participate in whatever type of on camera erotica that they please. I would never encourage or ask for them to participate in the equivalent of XXX-rated films where sex is the only point, but I believe that what we call "softcore" erotica should be no problem for those adolescents who may want to participate in it. Saying that absolutely no adolescents under the age of 18 would ever have the slightest interest in doing this is quite ridiculous and illogical for reasons I explicated in a [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:Why_Most_Teens_Will_Not_Support_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws_If_Given_The_Choice previous essay] on whether or not teens would support the age of consent [AoC] laws, as well as my previous essay on the relevance of the legalization of CP to the youth liberation movement. To make this point further, there are a few instances of underage actresses who lied about their age and appeared in several adult pornographic films, the best example of this perhaps being Traci Lords. Further, actresses such as Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster appeared in popular mainstream American films with highly erotic themes involving consensual youth prostitution during the 1970s when both were 12 years of age--''Pretty Baby'' and ''Taxi Driver'', respectively--and neither of them were emotionally "damaged" as a result; to the contrary, both went on to prosperous careers in mainstream cinema. Shields subsequently appeared in a few other mainstream films with highly erotic themes to them shortly after her first, including ''The Blue Lagoon'' and ''Endless Love'', both of which included sex scenes (though she used a body double to depict her nude scenes in both of these films, something she curiously didn't do when she was a few years younger in ''Pretty Baby''). And of course, Foster continued to do the same in films such as ''The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane'' at age 14, where she removed her shirt on camera (though viewers only saw her from the back and briefly from the side after she did so) and got into bed with an older teenage boy whom she had fallen in love with. Sadly, the latter film also gave us a typical stereotyped version of an Evil Pedo [or 'Evil Hebe,' to be technical in this case], who was played in this instance by Martin Sheen as the titular character's main antagonist. But as we all know, the bygone era of the 1970s and early '80s is long behind us now, and the sex abuse hysteria has continued to progress into the present, thus making films like those mentioned above much more difficult to produce today. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, some film producers continue to defy these modern conventions, such as then-12-year-old actress Isabelle Fuhurman taking on a racy role--including a sexy seduction scene where she attempted to seduce an adult man--in the 2009 horror/suspense film ''The Orphan''. And prior to that, we had the then-adolescent Drew Barrymore explore sexual themes during the 1990s in films such as ''Far From Home'' (which she did at age 14) and the much sexier ''Poison Ivy'' (which she did at age 17), where she successfully seduced a much older man played by Tom Skerritt in a daringly erotic sex scene. And let's not forget Barrymore's sex-charged role, also at age 17, which she played the same year in the short-lived TV series ''2000 Malibu Road''. It's hardly a wonder that a year later she did a very sexual portrayal of real life "lethal lolita" Amy Fisher in ''The Amy Fisher Story'', a well-received telefilm that hit the airwaves in 1993; Barrymore was barely 18 at the time, but the character she portrayed was a few years younger than that, and this true story made it clear once and for all that young adolescent girls can indeed pursue adult men and be dangerously conniving at the same time. Unfortunately, such relationships only make the headlines when they have an element of tragedy attached to them, or some other type of sensationalism (such as when a girl runs away with an older lover), thus promoting the biased attitude that intergenerational attraction always results in something bad, the same type of attitude promoted by the notorious lesbian novels published during the 1950s in regards to same gender attraction amongst women. <br />
<br />
Let us not forget the popular French/American film collaboration ''The Professional'' (the longer version seen by French audiences was titled ''Leon the Professional''), which starred then-12-year-old Natalie Portman in a very big role where she developed a heavy romantic attraction to a hit man named Leon (played by French actor Jean Reno) and wanted to have him be her first sexual experience, an offer the hit man gracefully declined despite obviously reciprocating her romantic love and even sharing a bed with her--the scene where Portman's character Mathilda asked Leon to be her first was excised from the American version to avoid rousing the ire of American audiences any further than it already did, but the scene where Mathilda told Leon that she was in love with him in no uncertain terms was retained. A year later, Portman appeared in another film where she portrayed a young adolescent girl who fell in love with an older adult man (and he with her) in the big screen opus ''Beautiful Girls''. With these two films in her oeuvre, it appeared quite strange when Portman publicly announced shortly after the release of ''Beautiful Girls'' that she and her parents agreed to turn down the offer for her to portray the famed titular character in Adrian Lyne's 1990s film version of ''Lolita'', since they believed it was "inappropriate" for her to star in a film where a young adolescent girl was romantically involved with a much older adult man (I guess they were hoping that the public had forgotten Portman's previous two film roles mentioned above). Needless to say, Lyne's film ended up languishing in production hell for a few years due to the expected controversy of producing it during the height of the sex abuse hysteria until finally being completed and released in 1997 with 17-year-old Dominique Swain in the title role. The latter version certainly had bolder scenes than the 1962 version of the movie (with 15-year-old Sue Lyons in the role of Dolores Haze, a.k.a., Lolita), but as one would expect, body doubles and scene deletions galore ensued in order for the finished product to reach the American silver screen--though it did include the rather bold scene of Swain locking lips with co-star Jeremy Irons in his role of the notorious literary hebephile Humbert Humbert.<br />
<br />
As my fellow MAA activist Little Girl Lover reminded me, the 1990s also saw then-tween actress Kirsten Dunst take the role of the vampire Claudia, an ancient adult woman forever trapped in the body of a ten-year-old girl (since she was turned into a vampire when she was ten, and vampires do not age beyond the point when they are first turned), in the film version of Anne Rice’s novel ''The Interview With the Vampire.'' In that movie, the character of Claudia was in love with, and almost locked lips with, adult actor Brad Pitt in his role as Rice's famed vampire, Louis [thank you to fellow GLer db1 for giving me the correct version of this interesting fun fact]. This was a highly ironic role for Dunst to take, considering how outspoken the beautiful actress was in her early adult years about how disgusting and immoral she thinks it is for a younger woman (let alone a young girl) to have a romantic liaison with an older man--and how she likewise believed she was "too young" to do a nude scene in a movie at the tender age of 19. <br />
<br />
Finally, let's not forget how actress Claire Danes surprised audiences in 1996 when, at the "mere" age of 16, she won the much coveted role of Juliet in director Buz Luhrmann's updated cinematic version of Shakespeare's classic play of doomed young love ''Romeo and Juliet'', which included a bedroom scene with her equally famous lover Romeo (sans any actual nudity, but Claire was topless at the time, but was only seen from the back when she removed her top). However, actress Olivia Hussey played the much coveted role of Juliet in director Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 version of the film, which began filming two months after her 16th birthday, and she didn’t shy away from doing a nude scene (in fact, Hussey had played a fairly sultry role at age 12 in the English film version of Rumer Godden’s novel ''The Battle of the Villa Fiorita''). And even more recently, let's not forget a few of the films that the truly amazing actress Dakota Fanning has participated in. These include ''Man On Fire'', which she did at age ten, and which was a remake of a foreign action/adventure film from the late ‘80s that retained some of the latter movie's "lolita" themes, albeit more subtle to spare the sensibilities of American audiences. Nevertheless, it was very clear to all viewers that Fanning's tweenage character and her adult bodyguard/teacher, played to perfection by Denzel Washington, had developed actual deep romantic feelings for each other. Then there was Fanning's critically acclaimed and controversial indie film ''Hounddog'', which she did at the "tender" age of 12, and which featured a rather heavy degree of "coming of age" sexuality--as well as the famed actress frolicking about in her underwear throughout much of this period film--but which also included an awful scene where she was raped by an older boy. Then, at 15 going on 16, Fanning had perhaps her best racy role yet, as she accurately portrayed the real life adolescent singer and unabashed sex symbol Cherie Currie in the 2010 film ''The Runaways'', a biopic of the famous but short-lived girl band from the free-wheeling 1970s decade based on Currie's autobiography ''Neon Angel''. In the latter movie, Fanning famously and somewhat daringly shared a lesbian kiss onscreen with her co-star Kristen Stewart. <br />
<br />
Also worth mentioning are two other films with intergenerational romance as their central focus that are still legal to view today. The more or less obscure 1979 film ''A Circle of Two'' was a truly beautiful and open-minded film about a 16-year-old girl--played with stellar and witty alacrity by then underage Tatum O'Neill--who fell deeply in mutually shared love with an intense but kind-hearted 60-year-old artist--also played to perfection by Richard Burton. Interestingly, this movie featured the only nude scene that Tatum ever did. The other is the 1992 movie ''For A Lost Soldier'', which was a true story based on the memoirs of Dutch artist Jeroen Boman, where he recalled a romantic relationship he had during World War II in his early adolescence with an adult Canadian soldier who had previously saved his life. <br />
<br />
None of the above films are currently considered CP by the American penal code (save for those which actress Traci Lords appeared in from the age of 15 to 17), but all of them are examples of erotically charged films featuring young adolescents--and in some cases (such as ''Man On Fire''), girls who are "merely" tweens. And since the definition of what legally constitutes CP in America continues to broaden every single year, it cannot be certain that even these films will not someday fall under the rubric of CP as defined by the increasingly draconian American penal code as the government continues to wage a vicious war against youth sexuality, and all possible depictions and expressions of it thereof. After all, the government will poignantly argue, if these films continue to be legal to possess and produce, a "pedophile" may end up seeing them and become aroused by them, and no society that cares about the sacrosanct Victorian image of kids could ever tolerate the possibility of such a horrible thing occurring, correct? Even worse, the government will tell us, such films may convey the "dangerous" idea that youth sexuality is normal, and we can't have that either, right? <br />
<br />
The above examples also make it clear that in a youth liberated society, there would not likely be a shortage of youthful models and actresses who would enjoy appearing in erotic films, and at this point in time it's impossible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this wouldn't include a smaller but perhaps sizable amount of pre-pubescent girls as well. <br />
<br />
Once again, I would like to stress that I am ''not'' in any way suggesting that--even in a youth liberated society--the MAA community, parents, or anyone else should actually blatantly advocate youth sexuality or the production of youth erotica, or in any way imply that all or even most young girls (or boys) ''should'' participate in the production of it, as eroticism is very clearly not a genre of filmography or photography that all youths are suited for, and this should be respected. We simply advocate the matter of ''choice'', and there can be no doubt that there would be some youths of such a sensibility that they would enjoy participating in such films, including those which they produced and marketed themselves; the surfeit of "racy" YouTube videos out there featuring young girls (both tween and teen, and even some pre-pubescent) dancing provocatively and frolicking in bikinis and other revealing clothing that was produced and uploaded by the girls themselves make it very clear that there is a sizable number of young girls (and boys) who enjoy "showing off" in such a way on camera. Moreover, these youths clearly do not particularly care about the age group of people who have access to their videos and pictorials. Thus, youth sexuality and exhibitionism is a reality in our world, and even though I am not saying it should ever be advocated, it should nevertheless not be demonized or suppressed either. '''Toleration or acceptance of a certain phenomenon or genre of film or prose is ''not'' the same thing as advocating it.''' <br />
<br />
Now, here is a fast and loose set of reasons why CP (or simple youth eroticism) should be legal in any society that purports to be a democracy:<br />
<br />
1) The criminalization of CP is a form of ''censorship'', plain and simple. Censorship in any form should not be tolerated in a democratic society, no matter how offensive or upsetting many people may consider the imagery or information in question. If our legal system places any type of material in a "special" category that is not protected by the First Amendment to view and access by the public, then we start a very nasty precedent that can easily lead to the rationalization of any type of "dangerous" idea or image being denied public access by our esteemed protectors in the future. <br />
<br />
2) The argument that CP should be criminalized because people who possess or even simply view the images are viewing a "crime scene" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There are many types of crime scene images that are perfectly legal for people to view or possess. For example, vids and pics of often innocent people--such as reporters and journalists--being executed by agents of repressive governments worldwide, and the carnage wrought on innocent victims in many books detailing the history of real life serial killers are filled with extremely graphic pics of people who were murdered in very gruesome ways. Why aren't they illegal to view or possess also? Perhaps, because, they do not specifically feature ''children''? Then again, there are numerous examples of horrifying real images of children who have been subject to war atrocities that are perfectly legal to view and possess. These include numerous pics of children with limbs blown off as a result of accidentally stepping on land mines, and a famous pic from the Vietnam War featuring a tween girl running through the streets after napalm was dropped on her--and very obviously in extreme agony as her flesh was set afire (I recounted these things in a bit more detail on my previous essay about CP). <br />
<br />
Yet, because these pics do not specifically feature anything to do with sexual activity (the above example of the girl who had napalm dropped on her was actually fully nude as she ran through the streets with her flesh burning, it should perhaps be noted), our culture and penal system mysteriously sees no problem with the public being allowed to view them. Also, despite the fact that many people are highly unsettled or offended by pics showing aborted fetuses, it is still fully legal to possess them and to post them anywhere, which many anti-choice advocates on the abortion issue often do for political purposes. How would such activists feel if access to such pics was illegal even for them to possess or distribute because of the fact that so many people were bothered or offended by them? '''Despite the fact that I am greatly sickened and horrified by pics of aborted fetuses, and despite the fact that I am pro-choice on the abortion argument, I fully support the right of these anti-choice advocates to collect and distribute such pics for whatever reason they may choose.''' Why? Because the tenets of democracy--which I support and take seriously--make me realize that I have to accept the public accessibility of ideas and images that I find personally offensive and abhorrent. <br />
<br />
3) A point needs to be made about the tiny amount of CP that features actual footage of minors who were coerced into participating in the production of such films or pics, and even sometimes horribly tortured on camera (the rarity of such vids and pics, and the role of parents and stepparents behind the production of virtually all non-consensual CP, was discussed in detail in my previous essay on CP's relevance to the youth liberation movement). It's been argued that due to the nature of such imagery, it should be illegal to possess or view because some pervert might become aroused by the imagery, and thus, in effect, receive pleasure off of a child's misery. The problem with this justification to censor and criminalize such imagery leads to this question: is it ever justified in a democracy to penalize people for anything that may be going on within the privacy of their own thoughts regardless of how deplorable polite society may consider those thoughts, rightfully or otherwise? What type of precedent does this create for our society when we support the concept of thought control? <br />
<br />
There are other things to consider here, too. As I mentioned in my aforementioned previous essay, the total criminalization of this type of imagery prevents their access not only to would-be-perverts who may become aroused by viewing it, but also to serious journalists who may want to view the imagery for the purpose of research and future articles based on that research. The argument that they do not need access to this imagery in order to write about it is entirely bogus, because without being able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the LEOs [law enforcement officers] are saying is in those images are actually true, they cannot compose an article or expose' on the topic with a full degree of accuracy. It's foolish and downright Orwellian for the law--or anyone else--to make assumptions as to why someone may want to access such imagery when mind-reading technology is not yet available, and to therefore conclude that the only possible reason for someone to access and view such imagery is because they want to be aroused by the images of abused children.<br />
<br />
A further point that must be made about the argument that such coerced imagery is so horrible that we need to punish anyone who may be aroused by it is illustrated by the following example. A few years ago, a major scandal erupted in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison when some of the American guards there--at least two of whom were women--forced many of the male Iraqi POWs imprisoned there (many of whom were never actually charged with a crime) to strip fully naked and engage in close physical contact activities with their fellow male prisoners, including standing on top of each other while all were nude so as to form a human pyramid-like structure. This was obviously done very much against these men’s will, and the guards took photographs for their personal amusement and to further debase these men in the future. These pics were subsequently discovered and disseminated across many political websites and blogs all over cyberspace, for the purpose of the columnists to protest this outrage and breach of American principles. As anyone who is familiar with the culture of these Islamic societies in the Middle East are well aware, such an action was far more humiliating and emotionally distressing for men who grew up in these cultures than it would have been for heterosexual men who grew up in a Western culture, where homoeroticism is currently more or less accepted and not considered a form of deviant behavior (save by some of the most conservative elements in Western society). There can be no doubt that all of these men forced to participate in this activity by their captors was humiliating beyond description and likely even emotionally traumatic to experience--yet no civilian reporters, journalists, or bloggers were arrested for posting these pics all over the Net. Can it not be cogently argued that these men and their families would receive a great degree of severe emotional distress, and likely even trauma, as a result of the appearance of these pics all over the Net, even on sites whose columnists were using them to rightfully protest what was done to these men, and even on sites where their faces were blurred out of focus to protect the anonymity of the victims? I would say yes, yet this rationalization was never used to arrest any of these well-intentioned bloggers (nor should it have been, for all of the reasons expressed both above and below).<br />
<br />
Moreover, there is something further that must be considered about the Abu Grahib debacle. Are we to assume that everyone who viewed and downloaded these pics did so for the same reason as the above politically-motivated bloggers? It needs to be said that contrary to what appears to be popular belief, it's not simply a small number of adults with an attraction to children and teens who have "extreme" interests, and there are most certainly members of the mainstream homosexual community who can likewise have some rather "extreme" interests, as well as people from all groups with a teleiophilic attraction base [a teleiophile is someone who has a preference for members of the same general age group, regardless of gender or race]. Thus, it can readily be presumed with a high degree of likelihood that some adults viewed and downloaded the pics of those abused POWs in Abu Ghraib for the purpose of becoming aroused by having fantasies of being in place of the guards, and even of committing further forms of abuse with these men than are actually known to have occurred. Not only that, but it's also likely that several adults viewed or downloaded those pics and fantasized about being in the place of those abused men; fantasies of being raped as opposed to perpetrating such acts are far from unheard of, and many women--and some men--have admitted to having them, including many women who belong to the BDSM community (though certainly not all). Yet, this great likelihood was never mentioned anywhere that I am aware of, let alone any suggestion that possession or viewing of such pics should be legally prohibited from anyone outside of authorized court officials due to the corrupt thoughts they may have inspired in people with a certain type of predilection. <br />
<br />
The exact ''same'' complaint can be made about pics of actual carnage wrought on victims by serial killers, since it's well known that some teleiophiles have the type of "extreme" tastes where they become aroused by depictions of violence, including those that had a sexual context to them. The realization of this would doubtlessly cause much emotional distress to the families of these victims, as well as anyone who managed to survive such an attack, to know that some people were collecting these pics for that particular reason. Should necrophiliacs be arrested for collecting pics of people who were murdered by serial killers for the purpose of "getting off" on the pics entirely within the privacy of their own mind? Sure, such thoughts may be considered "disgusting" by the great majority of society, and one may argue that some type of injustice is committed against the victims, but this is no reason to criminalize possession or viewing of crime scene pics where people were hurt or killed in horrible ways, and it's entirely unjust for any courts under the ethos of American jurisprudence to ''assume'' any reason why any particular person may wish to obtain such pics. <br />
<br />
Yet, the complaints about these adult victims, and what they and/or their families may suffer as a result of these horrid pics being available for public access by people who likely have a wide assortment of reasons for wanting to view them (some well-intentioned, and others entirely puerile and salacious), are almost always non-existent. Nor do we ever hear any of the families of these victims, or of any victims who may have survived the attempt on their lives, of taking anyone who simply viewed or possessed the pics of the carnage for whatever reason to civil court so as to sue them for possibly "getting off" on the misery of these victims. When these points are made to people who want these coercive pics to continue to be criminalized, the response is usually a variation of, "That's different! The victims in those pics and videos weren't children!" This response is very telling and informative, and it cuts to the crux of the problem. It also makes it clear why such people support the criminalization of even on camera depictions of the majority of youth erotica that is known to have been produced with the full consent and enjoyment of the young participants, or where no evidence exists to suggest otherwise since no investigation was ever conducted to collect any evidence to suggest that coercion was involved. These statements are even echoed by people connected to the MAA community who enjoy and support the continued legalization of the youth modeling sites that feature girls in scanty clothing and sometimes arguably "enticing" poses. Once nudity enters the equation, however, such individuals immediately cry "foul" and claim that such pics or vids have "crossed the line." They further attempt to categorize any pics and vids featuring nudity as if they were examples of coercion, without bothering to ask for proof or even the slightest bit of evidence. And they never seem to realize that as long as what constitutes CP continues to be broadened, their beloved non-nude-but-sometimes-racy youth modeling sites will likewise get banned in the future, too. It's not like several members of the U.S. Congress aren't actually trying to do so, and this includes the attempts of uber-hypocrites like the rightfully disgraced Senator Mark Foley (and which proves that MAAs can be hypocrites who work against the interests of youth rights, their own community, and civil rights in general as much as homosexuals in positions of political power—such as J. Edgar Hoover—have done in the past). <br />
<br />
So, in other words, if such imagery involves ''children'', or anyone who happens to be "underage," it suddenly becomes a whole different story than any similar imagery involving adults, as far as most people are concerned. <br />
<br />
Of course, the pundits of protectionism have a common excuse used to justify the consensual agreement of underagers being denied when it comes to taking nude or provocative pics of themselves, or participating in films of that nature. When the consensual participation of the underager in question is made clear, the latter pundits will say that these youths ''might'' later come to regret these on camera depictions of themselves, so we have to consider them being distressed in an entirely pre-emptive and hypothetical context. And this despite the fact that Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster never seemed to suffer after becoming adults for some of the erotic roles they played back at the "vulnerable" age of 12, as both have enjoyed very good careers and personal lives that were hardly scandalous or full of strife when compared to many of their fellow Hollywood celebrities. Further, Traci Lords herself broke into mainstream films and never suffered for her participation in blatantly pornographic films beginning when she was 15; Lords did later allegedly develop a serious drug problem, but the same thing is the case with many starlets of mainstream cinema, including those who limited their childhood roles to family-friendly fare like the late Anissa Jones of the popular late 1960s TV series ''Family Affair''. A few youth models have likewise achieved their dreams, including Tierra Lee Abbott breaking into mainstream acting (including a recurring role on Nickelodeon's TV series ''Unfabulous'') and the youth model who used the name Marie, who achieved her long-time dream of posing for ''Playboy'' shortly following her 18th birthday. It's quite clear that print versions of ''Playboy'' catering to the celebration and admiration of the beauty of youths would exist in a youth liberated society without people worrying about whether or not a "pedophile" became aroused by the pictorials included therein. Imagine how many opportunities for personal growth and advancement would be curtailed if we allowed the powers-that-be to follow the Nanny State mentality and forcibly prevent us from making certain decisions simply because we ''might'' end up regretting them later, no matter how much these pundits of protectionism may argue the likelihood of this happening, or that youths are "more likely" to later come to regret this or that decision than an adult will (as if this can actually be deduced effectively); one of the things we need to remember is that one of the most important civil rights people of any age can possess is the right to take emotional risks, because without this right we lose too many opportunities to grow and learn, and we end up at the mercy of the possible bad decisions of those who have the power to decide for us, rather than to learn and grow from the possible bad decisions of our own.<br />
<br />
We should also keep in mind that our gossip-loving yet moralizing society loves to uncover “scandals” regarding underage celebrities, such as when the American press pilloried actress/singer Miley Cyrus for being caught in the act on more than one occasion of behaving like a normal adolescent girl does, which unfortunately contradicts the crystal pure image of the character Hanna Montana that she popularly but unrealistically portrays for the benefit of her employers at Disney—or for daring to participate in the taking of pictorials for various fashion mags that “inappropriately” show off her youthful beauty—such as exposing the skin on her back; yes, her back, not her breasts! Yet the moralizers in the press and outside of it had a field day with that, and Miley was ultimately being pressured—some might say bullied—into making an apology that the public wasn’t owed. In other words, Disney expects Miley to be Hannah Montana 24/7 in her real life, not only when she is in front of the cameras at their studios, and it doesn't matter to them how far removed Hannah may be from real adolescent girls--Miley appears to have sworn to uphold an idealized and highly sanitized version of a developing young woman when she signed that contract (*ahem*--I mean when ''her parents'' signed the contract, as any youth under the age of 18 are not permitted to sign their own contracts), and she and her parents are called names in the media and pushed into apologizing when she doesn't live up to a standard that no real adolescent girl should be expected to live up to. <br />
<br />
Let's also not forget that the highly disturbing autopsy photos of child murder victim Jon-Bonet Ramsey are legally available online, and these include close-up photos of her vagina. But because the purpose of these pics are for the clinical study of a crime victim and not for the purpose of titillation, these pics are fully legal to view and presumably to download and possess. If the parents are indeed innocent of the crime, then aren't we causing them emotional distress by making these horrific crime photos publicly available? I am not arguing that disturbing crime photos should be illegal to view or possess, but I am using this as a point to make it clear that it seems really ludicrous that we can allow pics of this nature to be legal, yet pics and vids of youths posing nude or engaging in willing sexual situations that they may enjoy participating in is totally off-limits legally, and actually worthy of being placed in a "special" class of imagery that is not protected by the First Amendment. Again, this is what happens when emotion trumps logic; it results in one of the most important aspects of democracy being abandoned with too little complaints attached to it, and the government becoming involved in what clearly constitutes full fledged exercises in thought control. <br />
<br />
The semi-naysayers often like to justify their above statements by making the famous declaration, "We have to draw the line somewhere!" I agree, which is why I believe the line should be drawn when the important factor of ''consent'' is no longer present. Claims that consent wasn't present when the young people who participated insist that it was need to be ''proven'' via a thorough but ethical investigation of all involved with the production, and not simply assumed for the purpose of "erring on the side of caution" or following the “better to be safe than sorry” ethos to the extreme.<br />
<br />
So back to the main point: we only make sometimes irrational, and oftentimes outright draconian, exceptions to the above described rules when the people involved are underage, and this counts even after the girls or boys in question have become adults, as there is a new crop of lawyers who have taken advantage of the present climate of hysteria by encouraging some of these women to sue people who are discovered to have possession of some of the erotic pics taken of them when they were underage. I would say this creates a strong monetary incentive for such women to claim they suddenly woke up one morning to discover that they were “emotionally damaged” by the memory of those pics or vids being made—and hell hath no fury like a woman and her lawyer out to grab public sympathy via playing on people’s emotions in order to make a killing for themselves. <br />
<br />
This all strongly suggests that our society has a deep and abiding fear and loathing of youth sexuality that is so pervasive that even some people who admit an attraction to younger people are caught up in the hysteria, and thus tend to view depictions of youth sexuality with great suspicion even when there is no reason to have such suspicions. The latter appears to be partly true because some MAAs appear to project their own personal tastes on underage models, and seem to assume outright that because they wouldn't have wanted to participate in such videos or pictorials when they were underage, they consider it inconceivable that any sizable number of girls (or boys) could possibly have different tastes and sensibilities from themselves, all the evidence that youths are no exception to the rule of diversity amongst the human species notwithstanding. Hence, they justify the criminalization of possessing or viewing any of the tiny amount of coercive films involving underage people while continuing to (usually) support the legal access to similar or worse pics and vids depicting adult victims. Predictably, the government jumps on this, realizing that they can start with the criminalization of possession and viewing of the small amount of non-consensual CP, and from there move on to rationalizing the criminalization of viewing consensual erotic material involving youths, and then moving on from there to criminalizing the possession and viewing of simple artistic nudes, and from there pics and vids of youths wearing revealing clothing, and from there...well, use your imagination, you are not likely to be far off base by doing so. This is because, as I have mentioned numerous times, the passing of a single draconian law of censorship creates a domino effect of sorts, resulting in the easier rationalization of increasingly severe and prohibitive Orwellian measures passed under the pretext of “protecting” children (i.e., anyone who is legally underage and thus bereft of sufficient civil rights to make their own decisions in almost any matter). This is something that the semi-naysayers do not seem willing to accept any more than the total naysayers are.<br />
<br />
To complete this point, I want to make one thing ''very'' clear. Nobody in the pro-choice segment of the MAA community supports the legalization of producing any type of youth erotica where the participants were ''forced'' or somehow ''coerced'' into making the films or photo-shoots. To suggest that any of us would literally support the production of such material is silly, insulting, and totally outrageous. Trying to claim that those who support the legality of simply viewing even coerced imagery that they had nothing to do with the production of as being tantamount to supporting actual rape and torture, or the production and sale of films depicting such atrocities, is beneath contempt and a total corruption of the point we are trying to make. And arguing that the simple viewing of films depicting actual rape and torture somehow creates a demand for the production of more material ''even though no money is passing any hands'' is beyond ridiculous, and a classic example of the sordid tactic of grasping at straws to justify a certain form of censorship. This is like saying that those who view pics of actual victims of serial killers, or own a book containing such pics (which are readily available via Amazon.com or the true crime section of your local Barnes and Noble), actually support the ''legalization'' of serial murder, and that a demand exists for serial killers to continue committing acts of murder even though none of them make any money as a result of it. Such arguments would be totally and rightfully laughed at if not for the powerful emotional resonance that they bring with them due to the fact that people under 18 and sexuality are both involved. I and the rest of my community fully support the arrest and prosecution of ''anyone'' of ''any age'' who is involved with the production of any type of film or images of people of any age who are participating on camera in sexual activities that they ''did not'' consent to, or are being genuinely tortured and harmed on camera against their will. Very very few, if any, people in our community would ever remotely support the production of such films any more than the tiniest percentage of the various teleiophile communities would support a market for actual "snuff" films featuring real adult victims. The naysayers need to keep in mind that MAAs are, first and foremost, ''human beings'', and as such we are fully capable of empathizing with human pain and suffering to the same extent that any teleiophile can.<br />
<br />
4) As my fellow activist Baldur pointed out to me before, the continued criminalization of such imagery and/or text can be used to blackmail or frame individuals by having such evidence planted on their computer hard drives without the knowledge of the owner. This can be done by any individual with a sufficient degree of hacking skills, including a jealous co-worker or even a LEO who wants to see to the arrest and personal destruction of a certain individual for purely political reasons. And of course, there have been a growing number of claims that certain types of malware may automatically download CP to people's hard drives that they had no intention of even viewing, let alone permanently possessing. These claims are far from outrageous, because it's a well known fact that malware can and often does automatically download adult pornography to people's hard drives against their intentions, so it's quite likely that any type of online material can be unknowingly downloaded onto someone's computer hard drive without their knowledge or intention.<br />
<br />
==Addendum==<br />
The following are a few very important anecdotes in response to certain of my points, provided by my fellow pro-choice MAA activist Summerdays, to whom I extend much thanks and appreciation for them. My previously mentioned points are in '''bold face''', and Summerdays' responses are in standard text.<br />
<br />
'''Accordingly, there is a big difference between 'child pornography' and what may best be labeled ''child erotica''.'''<br />
:I'm sure there's a term for the argumentative fallacy where the opponent exaggerates your point to the most extreme and indefensible end of the spectrum, in order to more easily refute it. And the black and white thinking ("all CP is the worst kind") certainly doesn't contribute to an atmosphere of reasoned discussion. There is a middle ground that is being trampled, and I find this to be very unfortunate, because that middle ground occupies a place where the erotic beauty of youth and adolescence can be celebrated in a very positive way. But if you dare try to defend the middle ground, the antis write you off as trying to defend the "worst kind" of CP, since to them it's all the same.<br />
<br />
'''I would see no problem with pre-pubescents who possess an exhibitionist streak in them (and our society is well aware that such children do exist, despite our strong attempts to deny it) to appear in mildly erotic films...'''<br />
:I have no problem with this either, but I can see a potential problem with it - sociogenic in nature. It kind of parallels the issue of mutually consensual sexual contact between [youths] and adults - if the contact itself is not harmful, there is still the stigma that is imposed from outside forces that can result in harm. In this case, the stigma has to do with the sexual shame that is imposed on exhibitionism of this form. In other words, the idea that if somebody sees a "naughty" picture (or video) of you, your reputation could be ruined.<br />
:This is a general problem I see that needs to be addressed, but becomes something of a thorn in our side when the issue of youth erotica is involved. This is because of the "child protection" argument that considers children [and younger adolescents] unable to comprehend the repercussions of posing for sexy pictures (or videos) at their age - and the fact that they may regret it later (after it's too late, given the "immortality" of digital media in this age). You certainly see this argument when the topic of "sexting" comes up.<br />
:Some people would (and obviously do) argue that the solution is to eliminate any and all material of this nature - and to prevent kids from taking that "risk" to their reputation. I would argue that the freedom to engage in that kind of activity is important enough not to squander it for the sake of this risk, and also that I'm certain there are some (if certainly not all) children [and adolescents] who are capable both of understanding the risk (of potential stigma), and also possess the strength of character not to be significantly affected by it. Indeed, there may be cases where a [youth's] need to express him/herself overcomes the fear of "what people may think/do/say" - and I would argue that that's a healthy attitude to foster, rather than teaching kids to be afraid to express themselves for fear of how others may judge them.<br />
<br />
'''Pre-pubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently "wrong" with this.'''<br />
:Indeed, I do not believe we should indulge our culture's sickness. The exploration of sexuality is a natural curiosity, and it should be indulged, not repressed. I don't believe we should refrain from certain behaviors only because society frowns upon them. Where there are explicit laws against certain behaviors, that is another matter, but in terms of cultural norms, I think it's our duty to push the boundaries and keep an open discussion, and not be afraid to turn a few heads in our pursuit of a better way, as long as we are doing it with an understanding of the backlash we are likely to receive.<br />
:Ideally, the goal would be a more tolerant society where people are not shamed and stigmatized for being involved in the erotic arts, thus significantly reducing the risks of participation.<br />
<br />
'''And since the definition of what legally constitutes CP in America continues to broaden every single year, it cannot be certain that even these films will not someday fall under the rubric of CP as defined by the increasingly draconian American penal code as the government continues to wage a vicious war against youth sexuality, and all possible depictions and expressions of it thereof.'''<br />
:Granted, I think Congress and/or whoever makes those decisions is concerned about laws that are so strict as to render that which is unambiguously "artistic" illegal - particularly works of art that are historically renowned. On the other hand, our tolerance for this type of material - youth sexuality - is gradually eroding, and the limitations on what can and cannot be represented artistically are increasing. I think we ought to be more concerned about what hasn't been created yet than what has. The movies you mentioned may not fall under the legal classification for "child pornography" any time soon (although it's still important for us to make certain they don't), but as time passes, and the laws tighten, and the penalties grow, fewer people are going to want to tackle such a controversial issue, and they'll be able to get away with much less with confidence. And if one such person dares to push the boundaries, he/she is bound to be demonized, and used as an example for even tighter laws, and harsher penalties. (The furor over Bill Henson comes to mind, and his work, from what I've seen, neither involves children, nor can it rightly be classified as "pornographic." If his work pushes people's buttons, then what sort of ban will they call for next?)<br />
:How long will it be before no one has the guts to even bring up the topic of youth sexuality anymore? There are already people saying this topic shouldn't even be addressed. Youths are sexual - not talking about it doesn't help anyone. And if youths were to somehow become completely asexual as a result - a result that the anti mindset would seem to favor - what kind of an impact would that have on us as a society and as a species? Think about how authoritarian a government would have to be to have the power to regulate all sexual expression involving minors (whether as the subject of the expression, or merely the subject of discussion). And worse yet, to actually regulate the way minors feel (by excising their natural sexual impulses through some kind of social conditioning). Do you really want to be controlled by a government with that much power? And surely you can't believe that they would limit their exercising of that power to minors. Anyway, the minors will one day become adults, and the adults will eventually die off, and what we've got then is a completely brainwashed populace. Children are the future of us all. Do we really want them growing up ashamed and with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality? The minute we place sexuality into the governing hands of our so-called "protectors," we are giving up our own power over the continuation of our very existence.<br />
<br />
'''After all, the government will poignantly argue, if these films continue to be legal to possess and produce, a "pedophile" may end up seeing them and become aroused by the imagery, and no society that cares about the sacrosanct Victorian image of kids could ever tolerate the possibility of such a horrible thing occurring, correct?'''<br />
:This is a ridiculous argument, because you simply cannot prevent pedophiles [or hebephiles] from being aroused by pedophilic stimuli. You would need to completely separate children from adults to start - and though that seems to be the direction we're heading, there are any number of reasons why I think that would be a terrible idea - and even then, pedophiles still have their imagination. As much as society hates pedophiles, you can't punish children for them - and that means allowing children to remain visible to the public eye. I won't accept "pedophiles may get turned on" as an argument unless it's backed up by a realistic plan to prevent pedophiles from ever getting turned on - and in that case, I would be vehemently against such an inhumane plan.<br />
<br />
'''I would like to stress that I am not in any way suggesting that, even in a youth liberated society, the MAA community, parents, or anyone else should actually blatantly advocate youth sexuality or the production of youth erotica, or in any way imply that all or even most young girls (or boys) should participate in the production of it, as eroticism is very clearly not a genre of filmography or photography that all youths are suited for, and this should be respected'''.<br />
:Arguing that "youth erotica" should be legal in no way presumes that most children ought to be involved with it, and certainly not that any youths should be forced into it. Even were it true that most kids wouldn't have the slightest interest (and I'm not so sure that's the case), the fact that a few of them would is reason enough to allow them that opportunity. That's what choice is about.<br />
<br />
'''Despite the fact that I am greatly sickened and horrified by pics of aborted fetuses, and despite the fact that I am pro-choice on the abortion argument, I fully support the right of these anti-choice advocates to collect and distribute such pics for whatever reason they may choose.'''<br />
:What is it about a naked [youth] posing in a suggestive manner that is considerably worse than an image of an aborted fetus, that we have to censor the former yet not the latter?<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Ultimate_Pandora_Box:_The_Phillip_Greaves_Case_And_The_First_Amendment&diff=6844Essay:The Ultimate Pandora Box: The Phillip Greaves Case And The First Amendment2011-09-19T06:40:17Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Dissident==<br />
'''The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.'''<br />
<br />
'''- Rabbi Daniel Lapin'''<br />
<br />
My thanks and appreciation to several members of the GirlChat [GC] forum who edited my early drafts of this essay, and who contributed material to it: Scotty, qtns2di4, Lateralus, Summerdays, Tester, LOD, and Taf-kat.<br />
<br />
The December 20th, 2010 arrest of Phillip R. Greaves, author of the uber-controversial self-published e-book ''The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct'', on obscenity charges filed against him from a Florida court (despite the fact that the author resides in Colorado) makes a very important point very clear in our society: the current anti-pedo hysteria may not be compatible with the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. The whole story can be read about [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/20/national/main7168315.shtml?tag=strip here]. <br />
<br />
The words of the Polk County Sheriff who had Greaves arrested, Grady Judd, goes a long way towards revealing the real reason why the powers-that-be in our society argue for the power to single out certain ideas that it considers particularly offensive to warrant an arrest for those expressing such "forbidden" thoughts through the written word despite our pretenses towards a constitutional democracy that is supposed to protect unpopular speech as readily as our most popular and cherished opinions. That is basically what the crime of "obscenity" is designed to do. Its parameters are usually vague enough that you can arrest people for almost any type of speech or imagery that offends the sensibilities of a large number of people in either any given community--or the entire nation--if you can't build up charges for anything more substantive, such as evidence for some type of demonstrable harm suffered by a human being (as opposed to a cherished idea or paradigm). And it's also quite telling how powerful the "obscenity" laws of a single small county within a state can be when the author of the offending words lives in another state located far from the prosecuting court or the jurisdiction of the LEOs [law enforcement officers] who ordered the arrest. <br />
<br />
Let's note a few of Sheriff Judd's ever-so-enlightened words for bringing Greaves to what he considers to be "justice" [as excerpted from the above linked article on CBS News]:<br />
<br />
"I was outraged by the content," Judd told The Associated Press. "It was clearly a manifesto on how to sexually batter children ... You just can't believe how absolutely disgusting it was." <br />
<br />
Sexually battered children? Since Greaves said he in no way promoted any illegal activity in his book, it's quite clear that the powers-that-be--like the vigilantes who run notorious hate groups like Absolute Zero United [AZU]--enjoy twisting words and meanings so that advocating an open-minded or neutral attitude towards intergenerational love and sexuality is automatically encouraging "rape" and "molestation"--or in this case, "sexual battery." This is a classic "trap" situation that these pundits of purity and ideological orthodoxy place before authors who dare to tackle this subject in any way other than total condemnation, because this attitude allows the vigilantes and LEOs to label fully consensual sexual contact as "rape," "molestation," "sexual battery," etc., simply because ''the law says that is the case solely due to the age of one of the two participants regardless of whether or not the matter of consent was present and how the younger participant may have felt about the experience''. This enables the pundits of the law and arbiters of anti-youth sexuality to bring an extremely loaded context to the entire discussion or purpose of the author in question, and to define actions according to what the law refers to them as, rather than what the actual definition of the word entails. If merely arguing that intergenerational sexual contact should be legal if consent from both parties is duly respected constitutes the advocating of "rape" or "molestation" in the eyes of the law, then what does this mean in regards to the First Amendment right of people to peacefully challenge laws which they do not agree with via the written word? Isn't this a massive case of political and intellectual dirty pool being leveled against those who may wish to oppose a certain topic that the current national mindset considers unpopular to challenge? Attorneys who are truly loyal to constitutional rights need to directly confront this issue in the near future, and I can only hope that Greaves' legal team does so.<br />
<br />
Another matter brought up by Judd is a classic reason for leveling charges of "obscenity" against someone: that the topic they are discussing, and the stance they take in regards to that topic--and possibly some of the scenarios they use to illustrate their points--come off as "disgusting" (i.e., a visceral, knee-jerk negative emotional reaction) to those who read it. Sheriff Judd actually used that adjective, so I can hardly be accused of putting words in his mouth or distorting the meaning of what he tried to say. So, in other words, if certain types of speech and certain means of conveying points, such as through hypothetical scenarios, happen to offend the personal sensibilities of people badly enough, then the vice police should have the legal power to arrest and indict that person. Is this what you are saying, Sheriff Judd? If so, then you need to take a crash course on constitutional law, and learn what the meaning of the First Amendment is, so that you can understand that a true constitutional democracy doesn't limit its protection of ideas to only those which are popular and do not offend anyone. If such was the case, then we shouldn’t pretend we have a democracy—even a nominal one—in the first place.<br />
<br />
I would like to say here that I have spoken with a fellow MAAs [Minor Attracted Adults] who reviewed Greaves' e-book, and he said the tome is certainly deserving of a certain degree of criticism. For instance, his hypothetical scenarios of sexual contact spoken from a faux child's point of view may arguably be considered unwise in the present climate, and the inclusion of these scenarios were bound to make the case for an "obscenity" charge somewhere in the nation. This is not to say, however, that I think the charge was justified, because those scenarios he described in his book were not actual events, and it shouldn't matter whether or not the ideas expressed by those scenarios offended a large number of people or not. Change and social evolution cannot occur without a large amount of outrage as the old ideas are challenged and new ones suggested in their place, and the normative ideas of one century are very often the highly controversial or radical ideas of a previous century. Greaves' e-tome and other publications like it are putting our purported commitment to democracy and freedom of speech to a major test, and it's a shame that individuals like Sheriff Judd are determined to make our nation fail that test. What will it mean to future generations if the nation ends up miserably failing that all-important test on a wide scale? This question is especially important when you consider how the U.S. often seems determined to drag the rest of the world down whatever abyss it chooses to plunge into itself by way of its presently unrivaled economic and military power (though China and Russia are both rising powers in the global arena, as if we really needed more "super power" nations in the world; but that is a whole other topic). <br />
<br />
Let's take a look at another excerpt from the above linked article, which includes more of Judd's spurious comments:<br />
<br />
" ‘What's wrong with a society that has gotten to the point that we can't arrest child pornographers and child molesters who write a book about how to rape a child?’ said Judd, who keeps a Bible on his desk and is known throughout Florida as a crusader against child predators. <br />
<br />
“Florida'[s] obscenity law - a third-degree felony - prohibits the ‘distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors.’"<br />
<br />
It's rather interesting how Judd considers Greaves to be a "child pornographer" and a "child molester" despite the fact that he took no illegal pictures of nude minors or of minors engaged in sexual situations, nor has he ever been accused of illegal sexual contact with a minor. Yet, because of his mere ideas, and the first person narrative style he used to explicate fictitious scenarios to illustrate a specific idea to his readers, he has actually been referred to by these shameful monikers from an officer of the law, an obvious attempt to garner a specific emotional reaction of outrage towards Greaves despite the fact that his actions in no way fit the true definition of such terms. Does this not make it clear that these terms are becoming more and more broad, and pretty much slowly evolving in the popular and even legal lexicon to mean nearly anything the person using those terms wants them to mean? Does this mean that pro-choice MAAs who are fully law-abiding are now considered "child molesters" simply because of their views, regardless of having had no actual sexual contact with a minor? Does the exercise of free speech in defense of fully consensual intergenerational romantic/sexual relationships now constitute an act of "child pornography?" I am not currently sure how graphic Greaves' first person fictional narratives were, but I will say that the mere written word is not currently against the law in America, though authors have been arrested on "obscenity" charges for such written material in the past. That is the joy of the "obscenity" charge for prosecutors--the charge can be applied to nearly anything that happens to offend them or others badly enough. <br />
<br />
Also, is it any wonder that Sheriff Judd keeps a Bible on his desk? Not to disparage the Bible for whatever truths or insights it can provide to those who read it, but that tome has been infamous for the number of fundamentalists who have used various scriptures within it to justify any number of totalitarian policies or bigoted attitudes. Never mind the fact that there is clearly nothing in the Bible that speaks out against mutually consensual intergenerational relationships, as the "pedophile problem" was a non-issue in the long ago era when the Bible was written since younger people were not conceptualized in the same way then that they are today, i.e., as helpless, naive innocents who are always harmed by participation in even mutually consensual sexual activity. Then again, Bible-thumpers of any given era have always felt free to interpret and twist any given scripture to mean pretty much anything they want it to mean, and to help them rationalize any given moralizing crusade they may have up their sleeves in any given decade or century. <br />
<br />
Further, Sheriff Judd is known throughout Florida as a crusader against "child predators," yet another term that appears to be used more and more broadly as time goes on. So Greaves is now a "child predator" because of his ''ideas and opinions''? What does that make anyone who dares to speak in an open-minded fashion about mutually consensual intergenerational sexual contact? Is it any wonder that the mainstream progressives and liberals--a political tendency whose adherents have not been known for their courage over the past three decades since the conservative mindset took over the nation with Reagan's election back in 1980—usually tend to speak out as mindlessly ignorant about this subject as any conservative whenever they care to discuss it publicly? By broadening these terms to apply to individuals with no criminal records who simply have unpopular ideas, this is a clear attempt at intimidating people into not speaking out against the hysteria, to not look at the general subject of youth sexuality in a remotely progressive fashion (at least not publicly), and to not in any way challenge the feeding of people who benefit and acquire power via the ongoing "child predator" and sex abuse hysteria like Judd out of fear of being called all the usual names. It takes real courage to challenge the extreme damage that people like Judd are doing to the foundation of our democracy, and this courage is in short supply today as anyone who merely challenges the popular reigning conception of youth sexuality, or our present day paradigm of the "child" in general, can be labeled a "child predator" or a "child molester." <br />
<br />
Of course, Judd made sure to justify his "obscenity" charge against Greaves by saying that it's unlawful in his Florida county to distribute "obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors." Never mind the fact that all of the available objective and peer-reviewed science has found no evidence that intergenerational sexual activity is harmful to minors if the matter of ''consent'' was honored and respected by the older participant. How long are we going to ignore science and continue to allow the law to create policies that are based on a social myth? Isn't this problem especially grave now that freedom of speech and the free expression of unpopular ideas that a lot of people consider to be "disgusting" are at risk of being stifled by the power of the state? If this precedent is allowed to continue, how far will it go? Where will it end? What type of society will be the ultimate result of this tendency taken to its logical conclusion?<br />
<br />
Thankfully, this major threat to democracy in general and the First Amendment in particular has not gone entirely unnoticed by those who have worked within the legal system. Note this other excerpt from the above linked article: <br />
<br />
“Legal experts questioned whether Greaves' right to free speech would come into play if there's a trial. If prosecutors can charge Greaves for shipping his book, they ask, what would prevent booksellers from facing prosecution for selling Vladimir Nabokov's ''Lolita'', a novel about a pedophile [sic]? <br />
<br />
" ‘As bad as this book may be, the charge opens a very big Pandora's box,’ said Dennis J. Kenney, a former police officer in Polk County and a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. ‘The charge sounds to me like a significant overreach.’"<br />
<br />
It's nice to see that some people like Prof. Kenney can put aside the emotional effect that this book has on him long enough to realize what is actually at stake when it comes to the type of legal actions taken by Sheriff Judd and his many ideological partners-in-crime. Hence, there is hope on the horizon, but will we end up in a Second Dark Age before this hysteria and those who benefit from it are exposed for what they really are, and for what the implications they represent on our core freedoms really entail? That is the major question we should all be concerned with. <br />
<br />
Finally, Sheriff Judd made a comment in the above linked article that is all too common from any pundit looking for an irreproachable excuse to circumvent democracy and arrest people for promulgating "offensive" or "dangerous" ideas:<br />
<br />
" ‘If we can get jurisdiction ... we're coming after you,’ Judd said. ‘There's nothing in the world more important than our children.’"<br />
<br />
As long as that intellectually dishonest excuse is made, virtually any curtailment of our essential freedoms and liberties can be rationalized, and those who do cherish democracy are often afraid to challenge anyone making such statements for fear of being accused of being a "child predator," "child molester," "soft on child abuse," etc., regardless of the fact that it's quite obvious that what Judd is actually concerned about is not the safety of children, but rather an attempt to make it a case of political suicide to challenge the sacrosanct ''idea'' of what the conceptual image of the "child" is supposed to represent in our society. <br />
<br />
As one of my fellow MAAs who reviewed this e-book said to me about this situation via e-mail: <br />
<br />
"He was arrested for 'distributing obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors.' Obviously, Amazon is at least as guilty. They, not Greaves, sent it to me. Should I report them to the police?<br />
<br />
"Seriously, if Greaves is going to be arrested over this, we should all push for Amazon, Jeff Bezos, and all his minions under him to be arrested. What better way to make people realize the absurdity of all this?"<br />
<br />
To further underscore the seriousness of this situation, how much of a threat this hysteria poses to our democracy, and exactly what happens when mob rule takes over and people allow their emotions to cloud their reasoning faculties, my fellow MAA activist Scotty made this observation about the Greaves arrest:<br />
<br />
"He did not send the material to a minor; he sent it to an adult police officer. He violated Polk County law, not state law.<br />
<br />
"Then the sheriff asks Colorado to arrest the man and extradite him to Florida, and they do it? He WAS NOT arrested by Polk County deputies in Colorado where they have no jurisdiction; Colorado authorities did it.<br />
<br />
"Now, a red-neck county in Florida seeks to impose its will upon the rest of the United States.<br />
<br />
"I went to AC360 to comment, and I could not believe the things that were posted there.<br />
The vast majority agreed with the sheriff AND said that if the author cannot be prosecuted<br />
under the Constitution of the United States as it is presently written, then we should change<br />
it to allow that!<br />
<br />
"Do you see where this is heading? If such a constitutional referendum came before the people now<br />
it would probably pass.<br />
<br />
"The powers-that-be are using pedophilia to take away our freedoms! The posters also wanted the<br />
people who purchased the book to be jailed, and Amazon to be prosecuted for selling it!<br />
<br />
"''Playboy'' magazine interviewed noted international security consultant Philippe Bacard and asked<br />
him if it were possible to turn America into a police state. His reply:<br />
<br />
"'Easy.<br />
First, keep a dossier of every schoolchild from the beginning, so that every future American<br />
will grow up knowing that the government is keeping a record of his activities.<br />
<br />
"'Second, scare the people into surrendering their freedoms by filling the news with stories of<br />
drug dealers, pedophiles, and terrorists.<br />
<br />
"'In fact, it is happening now!'"<br />
<br />
As of December 22nd, 2010, Greaves has declared that he will continue his habit of courage by fighting the charges against him, as reported [http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_polk/infamous-pedophile-guide-author-could-beat-obscenity-charges here].<br />
<br />
An excerpt from the above linked article notes: <br />
<br />
“Greaves said he plans to fight the obscenity charge, and he expects to win.<br />
<br />
“One lawyer says Greaves will walk out of jail a free man.<br />
<br />
“ ‘I don’t think that this case has a chance of being successful for Grady Judd and Polk County authorities,’ said defense attorney and First Amendment expert Lawrence Walters.”<br />
<br />
Though many people will balk at the fact that a "pedophile" will be likely be granted the freedom of speech to express his opinions openly, this predicted resolution will actually be a victory for ''everyone'' in America, because ultimately the Constitution and the principles we defend under American law will prevail over knee-jerk emotional reactionary attitudes, and one less book will be censored as a result.<br />
<br />
My thanks to fellow MAA activist LOD for providing me and the rest of the community with the information from the above linked article.<br />
<br />
==ADDENDUM==<br />
The early drafts of this essay generated a good degree of further discourse amongst my fellow MAA activists on the GirlChat forum, and their words deserve to be included in the last section of this essay.<br />
<br />
My fellow activist qtns2di4 had this to say while quickly evaluating my first draft:<br />
<br />
"Obscenity statutes have so far been upheld as valid 1A exceptions.<br />
<br />
"I wouldn't fight it, because of this, as a 1A issue.<br />
<br />
"I am much, much, much more convinced that it is a violation of the Federation arrangement through the Commerce Clause. This is very clearly Interstate Commerce. Federal jurisdiction. The states have no authority over that. The police officers have to be arrested for possession, but there is no fault either from the Colorado guy [Greaves] or from Amazon because they are in other states, so they are regulated by the Federal in this interaction."<br />
<br />
Lateralus responded to the above with the following anecdote:<br />
<br />
"It doesn't matter on what grounds you fight this; it will stand at the local level, though it might be overturned at the state/federal level. The reason is simple: if you have a jury trying this case, the jury will uphold anything having to do with pedophilia, because most people are ignorant and high-strung when it comes to this issue. I believe juries should be outlawed in the U.S. at this point. They used to be fairly reliable. You could count on the average person to exercise fairness with regard to their peers and be pretty well up on the laws. That time is no more. Juries were invented to counter the biases inherent to the class system, but they are no longer very useful because average people are idiots who make decisions based on emotional gut reactions, not on facts or higher principles."<br />
<br />
Though Lateralus' words towards his fellow 'common' citizens were rather harsh and arguably ad hominem territory, it cannot be denied that the essence of his statement was true: too many people think with their emotions when it comes to this issue, and anti-democratic, agenda-pushing pundits like Sheriff Judd count on this. If Judd didn't think that he could count on this type of emotionalistic attitude from his fellow citizens, he never would have wasted the time to push such an unconstitutional case in the first place. He knew Greaves' opinions were unpopular enough that many people in a possible jury--along with many in the press on any side of the political spectrum--wouldn't care about the important foundations of American jurisprudence as long as a "disgusting" pedophile was arrested and his book censored. <br />
<br />
In response to the above response by Lateralus, qtns2di4 stated:<br />
<br />
"In most states (and for most ''felonies'') the defendant can freely choose whether to go jury or bench trial.<br />
<br />
"In this particular case, the Commerce Clause argument would be about admissibility in the court, so it would have to be argued pre-trial, and would always be bench, not jury, because it is a Technicality.<br />
<br />
"The First argument is about the merits of the case. Here is where it might be jury (don't know the specifics, there might be choice or there might be a statute determining it is one or the other). Evidently, for the same reasons you point out, I would choose bench. But still, if the presiding judge is only county level, not state level, then it might still stick - at least until it made it to the state level. Any state level judge should know better than that (''should'' is, of course, no guarantee that they ''do'').<br />
<br />
"Notice that the book need not be declared legal in Polk County for Greaves to be acquitted; all the defense needs to prove is that it was a legal material to sell or possess in his own jurisdiction and that there was no way he could prevent its sale to pockets within the USA where it is not legal. Much like, e.g., small wineries, breweries, and distilleries that only sell online cannot realistically know when they are selling to a dry county - yet I am sure if any such case was tested the cops are the only ones that would be jailed - and at least they would be very publicly embarrassed. (Now of course, if the verdict makes the book legal, that is welcome! I just wanted to remind [here] that it doesn't have to go that far to acquit Greaves)."<br />
<br />
My fellow MAA activist Summerdays then had these important words and observations to add to this discussion:<br />
<br />
"Our 1st Amendment 'rights' have been watered down to the point that 'freedom of speech' hardly means anything anymore. That is the insidious way to do it. Most people will say, 'well, we still have freedom of speech, there are just certain kinds of speech that don't deserve protection, that's all.' This is how people are tricked into believing they have freedom of speech when they don't. Into believing that censorship in some way serves our rights - by providing us protection at the expense of liberty. Unfortunately, most people these days seem far more concerned with protection than liberty, they'd gladly sacrifice the latter for the former, and it's apparently beyond them to consider why that's a bad thing. I'd rather take the risk of being free, than the protection of living in a cage.<br />
<br />
"And people will still argue, 'the ones in power are sensible, they'll only censor things that really ought to be censored to begin with.' Slippery slope arguments don't seem to faze these people. Most of them are lucky enough to have thoughts and opinions that go along with the status quo, or are otherwise too susceptible to suggestion. If it's censored, then it ought to have been censored. People argue that the topic of pedophilia is rightly censored because what kind of civilized society would allow the spreading of speech that depicts the 'rape' of children? But the reality of it is, I could have an extremely positive romantic fantasy about having an intimate moment with another human being, but if that human being is a minor, and I choose to share that fantasy with the wrong person, I could be subjecting myself to a world of hurt (if not at the hands of the law, then at the hands of my peers at least). There's nothing sensible about censoring the topic of pedophilia. There's nothing civilized about it either."<br />
<br />
Summerdays continued with a few responses to various points I made in the above essay (which will be repeated in '''bold face''' to make it clear which points Summerdays is referring to, while Summerdays' responses will be in standard text in quotation marks):<br />
<br />
'''"I was outraged by the content," Judd told The Associated Press. "It was clearly a manifesto on how to sexually batter children ... You just can't believe how absolutely disgusting it was."'''<br />
<br />
"This cop is going up against a phantom. A 'sexual predator' who wrote a book about committing heinous crimes. Except the predator, and the book, exist only within his mind, and the minds of those who believe his lies. Unfortunately, though, that phantom has been projected onto a real person who wrote a real book, and he's being punished for this cop's tortured fantasies. I can't believe the system encourages this gross abuse of 'justice.'<br />
<br />
"Obscenity law is unconstitutional."<br />
<br />
Here I must say that I totally agree with Summerdays on that assessment, because the notion of "obscenity" doesn't stand well as a legal concept in a constitutional democracy, since the term is very subjective, what it covers changes not only from decade to decade but also according to the personal opinions and sensibilities of any given judge depending upon what type of community he/she happened to have been brought up in or happened to be adjudicating within. It's not a concept that can have a specific definition that holds up to the test of time or all sensibilities, and as such it results in judges and LEOs using their own discretion upon which material to judge "obscene" or not. Also, and most importantly, what the "obscenity" laws basically legalize is the power of the courts and LEAs [law enforcement agencies] to criminalize any type of text or image that they find personally offensive, or which a majority of people in the nation (or certain areas within the country) may find offensive, and that is not conducive with democratic principles. This is also why hate speech and anti-war speech must be allowed in a true constitutional democracy despite the highly offensive nature of such words or images. <br />
<br />
'''So Greaves is now a "child predator" because of his ''ideas and opinions''?'''<br />
<br />
"Judd laid a trap for Greaves. I think it's obvious which one of the two is the predator."<br />
<br />
'''It takes real courage to challenge the extreme damage that people like Judd are doing to the foundation of our democracy[...]'''<br />
<br />
"The people who stand up for democracy are labeled criminals and thrown in jail. The people who continue to erode our democracy are awarded positions like 'sheriff,' 'judge,' 'mayor.' It's disgusting."<br />
<br />
I would opine here that all too often people in positions of power attempt to protect the sanctity of certain ideas while masquerading as an attempt to protect actual people. However noble this may sound to too many people in essence, it's not harmonious with the principles of a true constitutional democracy. And before any detractor of ours chimes in here with the following oft-used statement to attempt to defend anti-democratic actions, "the U.S. actually isn't a democracy, it's a republic," let me remind you that the only 'differences' between a democracy and a republic are purely semantic.<br />
<br />
'''Of course, Judd made sure to justify his "obscenity" charge against Greaves by saying that it's unlawful in his Florida county to distribute "obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors."'''<br />
<br />
"Personally, I think Judd should be held responsible for requesting material that he knew was illegal in his county. I don't give a damn that he's a cop, that doesn't give him the right to break the law with impunity, especially for the purpose of luring others into legal traps. And it doesn't make a difference to me whether this constitutes legal 'entrapment'; I think the cop should be punished regardless, for his blatant disregard for the law, as well as his petty victimizing (not to mention the lies - no, cops should not be allowed to lie to anyone).<br />
<br />
"What a world we live in."<br />
<br />
After this, qtns2di4 then weighed in with the following responses to Summerdays' above points [the former of which are in standard text within quotation marks, the latter of which are again in '''bold face''']:<br />
<br />
'''Most people will say, "well, we still have freedom of speech, there are just certain kinds of speech that don't deserve protection, that's all."'''<br />
<br />
"'Freedom of speech is there to protect the ideas which are uncomfortable to us. The ideas everyone agrees upon need no legal protection.'<br />
(Miloš Forman)"<br />
<br />
'''Into believing that censorship in some way serves our rights - by providing us protection at the expense of liberty. Unfortunately, most people these days seem far more concerned with protection than liberty, they'd gladly sacrifice the latter for the former, and it's apparently beyond them to consider why that's a bad thing.'''<br />
<br />
"Larry Niven's Equation: F * S = k<br />
"(The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. Any increase in either comes at the expense of the other)."<br />
<br />
'''And people will still argue, "the ones in power are sensible, they'll only censor things that really ought to be censored to begin with."'''<br />
<br />
"Politicians are not suddenly more sensible or ethical because you happen to agree with their current position. They are the same politicians you hate every other day of the calendar, when they are not busy screwing up pedophiles, but screwing up someone else."<br />
<br />
'''Personally, I think Judd should be held responsible for requesting material that he knew was illegal in his county. I don't give a damn that he's a cop, that doesn't give him the right to break the law with impunity, especially for the purpose of luring others into legal traps. And it doesn't make a difference to me whether this constitutes legal "entrapment," I think the cop should be punished regardless, for his blatant disregard for the law, as well as his petty victimizing (not to mention the lies - no, cops should not be allowed to lie to anyone).'''<br />
<br />
"If he had requested a product from a country under U.S. embargo, he'd already be in federal jail, no matter what his title is - and independently of whether anyone else would also get charged with distribution (likely yes)."<br />
<br />
Thus, it would appear that LEOs are liable for violating some laws when seeking arrests, but not any that happen to more blatantly inconvenience the federal government as opposed to the rights of common citizens. <br />
<br />
A single statement/request by Tester is worth mentioning here:<br />
<br />
"Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, and other TV news anchors all said on National TV that they purchased this book. I want these TV news anchors arrested for possession of [obscene material]."<br />
<br />
The source for the above can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxI52FRVO4&playnext=1&list=PL01FE48A945663615&index=83 here].<br />
<br />
If these news anchors are not prosecuted as Tester has requested, then it would appear we are sent the message that what type of material you may have in your possession doesn't matter so much as why you have possession of it. If this is the case, then why do the LEAs continue to prohibit respected journalists from viewing the content of their child pornography files for the purpose of verifying all of the often outrageous claims made by the LEOs in regards to what type of imagery exists in those files? (And yes, you're damn right I'm going to bring this subject up again, even if only briefly!) Once again, it would appear that certain laws are honored or ignored by the courts depending upon whom they may or may not happen to inconvenience.<br />
<br />
==Update==<br />
Courtesy of my fellow GChatter LOD, as of April 6, 2011, it was reported in [http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/06/2154135/author-of-pedophilia-book-gets.html#ixzz1ImTQnWAf this article] that Phillip Greaves has decided to plead "no contest" to the charges against him.<br />
<br />
An excerpt from the above linked article (in '''bold face'''): <br />
<br />
'''LAKELAND, Fla. -- A Colorado man who wrote ''The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure'' has been sentenced to two years probation in Florida.'''<br />
<br />
'''As part of a deal with Polk County prosecutors, 48-year-old Phillip R. Greaves II pleaded no contest Wednesday to distributing obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors. He will serve his probation in Colorado. He will not have to register as a sex offender.'''<br />
<br />
In response to that on the GC board, qtns2di4 said:<br />
<br />
"No contest ≠ Guilty plea.<br />
<br />
"It doesn't set a precedent (good for us), and doesn't necessarily prevent double jeopardy (bad for him).<br />
<br />
"I would still have fought it purely by Commerce Clause, trying to create a constitutional crisis."<br />
<br />
In response to the above, LOD said:<br />
<br />
"I know there are superficial differences but it basically means guilty, otherwise there would be no punishment."<br />
<br />
A response from yours truly to the above was: <br />
<br />
...it should be noted that his punishment--such as it is--was extremely light, especially when you consider there was no SOR [sex offender registration] requirements. So it may not be the equivalent of a full admission of guilt, and the very light probation may have been added just to make it clear that the court did "something" in exchange for his plea. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I do wish he had chosen to fight this, and maybe even bring it all the way to the Supreme Court, out of principle rather than simply pleading "no contest" to something he clearly didn't do, when you consider what nebulous and subjective legal terms "obscenity" or "material depicting acts harmful to minors" can be. I suspect that his lawyer talked him into taking the easy way out of this one, probably saying something to him like, "With an accusation like this, you are all but guaranteed to lose in a trial by jury, so I strongly suggest you let me work out a plea bargain deal with the judge, because you don't want this going to a jury trial, and such a plea should be easy and light since the whole thing is simply over words in a book and you have no prior criminal record."<br />
<br />
In response to the above comment of mine, Taf-kat weighed in with:<br />
<br />
"Diss, I know it smacks of a sell-out, but when you have been given the option of a plea-bargain, like I have, it takes a man braver than me to decline it - despite pleading guilty with tears running down my cheeks it's something I would do again; sometimes you have to lose a battle and hope you win the war at a later date."<br />
<br />
My reply to the above was:<br />
<br />
Understood, and I'm sure I would have strongly considered taking the plea bargain too, especially such a light one, rather than face a jury trial against accusations of that nature. I have heard how difficult and trying such a situation can be, so I am not unsympathetic.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I wish he had gone the distance because his case is so important to the issue of civil rights and free speech in general; it was over something as important as unpopular ideas expressed in a book rather than his being caught with illegal pics or engaging in illegal sexual activity; and it was based on an accusation that is very vague and subjective, i.e., the "obscenity" nonsense and the "material that is harmful to minors" claptrap. Your situation was different from his in a major sense, in my opinion. I wish he had found a more courageous and heavily principled defense attorney in the field of constitutional law.<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Truth_Behind_The_Age_Of_Consent_Laws&diff=6843Essay:The Truth Behind The Age Of Consent Laws2011-09-19T06:39:57Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By Dissident==<br />
This essay is a response to many questions I have been asked by people in the Minor Attracted Adult [MAA] community, as well as those outside who support us (and yes, such people do exist!), in regards to the age of consent [AoC] laws.<br />
<br />
Since much scientific evidence has emerged to make it clear that younger people do not receive severe emotional damage following sexual contact with a significantly older adult if mutual consent was a factor, and no fully objective, scientifically validated evidence to the contrary has ever been gathered by any of the mainstream naysayers out there, what is the real reasons that contemporary society supports the continued existence of the AoC laws? Why does society generally feel equally dedicated to enforcing AoC laws in regards to adolescents in addition to children when it's empirically obvious that the former are actually young adults? What is the reason for all the negative stereotypes and assumptions directed at both adults who engage in relationships with much younger people as well as the young people who may reciprocate the interest? This essay will seek to answer those questions by explicating my thoughts and observations on this subject based upon my many years as a hebephile activist on the pro-choice side of the coin, and my many more years as a youth liberationist (the latter going back to my own early adolescence). <br />
<br />
Please note that this particular essay will not describe the specific circumstances that led to the creation of the AoC laws as we know them today back during the 1880s in England. That will perhaps be the subject of a future essay, and the circumstances in question are well documented in a scholarly manner in Judith Walkowitz's excellent tome about sexual dangers and hysterias running rampant in late Victorian London, ''The City of Dreadful Delight''. Instead, this essay will focus upon the modern rationale behind the continued enforcement of these laws and the societal attitudes that back up these laws in the minds of the great majority of the general public in the present era, while still keeping the historical perspectives in mind. <br />
<br />
The first reason for the widespread modern societal support for these laws and accompanying attitudes is a very simple one: intergenerational sexual activity is currently offensive to the emotional sensibilities of many people raised under the present day cultural milieu, much as homosexual acts are considered aesthetically repulsive to many of a certain ideological stripe (e.g., fundamentalist Christians and other homophobes). The advantage that mainstream gay activists had over the youth community of today, however, is that the heart of the movement was composed of legal adults who had their full civil rights, whereas people under 18--during the heyday of the modern civil rights movement as well as now--do not. Those whom the government legally designate as "minors" today are essentially the glorified property of their parents and helpless to resist the "protection racket" mentality of the State. <br />
<br />
Underage people in contemporary society also represent a strongly ingrained paradigm that people, influenced by the many lingering remnants of the Victorian mindset, consider to be sacred to them. This is the idea that enforced ignorance about the world (our culture uses the word "innocence" as a feel-good euphemism to sugarcoat this form of ignorance) is somehow blissful and beautiful, and that the supposedly carefree nature of childhood and early adolescence that comes along with this blissful and beautiful ignorance implies a degree of inner purity that adults are believed to lose once they learn about the world and all of the “horrible” and emotionally “complicated” things that exist within it outside of the confined safety of a child’s world. As such, our culture perceives such ignorance as immensely precious, regardless of how all of the younger people who are currently forced to conform to that paradigm may or may not feel about it. <br />
<br />
Due to prevailing negative attitudes about sex, sexuality is therefore considered "dirty" and the introduction of it to minors is perceived as somehow tainting that blissful ignorance. Our culture therefore considers this perceived besmirching of "innocence" to be a heinous act (e.g., "stealing someone's childhood" or "violating their innocence"). Thus, the introduction of sexuality into a minor's life is viewed by most in our society to cause these kids to "grow up too fast," thus undermining that perceived wondrous state of bliss and purity of spirit that our culture believes childhood to personify in a material sense. Of course, in actuality, the presence of sexual knowledge and the full freedom to practice it in a mutually consensual manner is correctly recognized as a liberating experience for adults that is important to their emotional health, which one may think to cause many open-minded people to feel bemused over why we feel the exact opposite is true when it comes to sexual knowledge and experience being given to someone who has yet to reach the vaunted Magic Age. But the recognized liberating effects of sexual knowledge and experience is the very crux of the matter here, because the vast majority of people in our contemporary culture ''do not want kids to be liberated''; they want them to remain legally, economically, and socially dependent on legal adults, and to stay within the parameters of the wonderful state of socially constructed "childhood"--and thus firmly under adult control--for as long as possible. Society rationalizes the artificial extension of childhood for teens under 18 as being beneficial to their spirit because of the ideological glorification of our present day paradigm of childhood. After all, the defenders of our society will say, childhood is so wonderful, blissful, and carefree, why wouldn’t someone want to be a child for as long as possible, and enjoy the beauty of this existence until society legally forces them to suddenly “grow up” once they reach their 18th birthday?<br />
<br />
If an adult has consensual sex with someone who is underage (i.e., legally a child regardless of their individual level of biological or emotional development), he may not be harming a person in a demonstrable or objective sense but he is nevertheless harming a very sacrosanct ''idea'' in the eyes of modern Western culture, and thus demeaning what our society believes to be a idyllic and beautiful state of being that children (i.e., anyone who is legally a child, of course) represents to our ideological mindset. As such, people raised in this society take huge offense to such an act, with many actually finding this act to be literally worse than murdering a child. <br />
<br />
Also thrown into the mix to rationalize such attitudes are the beliefs that young people under 18 are inherently incompetent and prone to bad decision-making. In other words, they are stereotyped, and their supposed lack of competency to make such "emotionally complex" decisions are assumed on the arbitrary basis of chronological age rather than judged according to individual merit. The justification to have this same attitude towards teens as towards actual children is bolstered by common societal myths that teens have inherent neurological malfunctions that render them very prone to making "bone-headed" decisions. An earlier biological myth described how teens were supposedly subject to hormonal swings that caused their behavior and decision-making abilities to be erratic, but more recently we have seen the development of the belief that the teen brain is inherently "defective," which therefore allegedly causes them to have a great propensity for making incompetent decisions. These all-too common discriminatory beliefs have been challenged quite well over the past decade in scientific studies conducted by clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein in several of his articles, beginning with "The Myth of the Teen Brain" [available online] and in his excellent book, ''The Case Against Adolescence'' from 2007 and its 2010 update, ''Teen 2.0''. As a result of this thinking, teens--like children--are seen to be in a perpetual state of "not knowing any better"...until they reach their 18th birthday, of course, where they officially become legal adults and are then assumed to be competent to make their own decisions regardless of individual merits. Legal adults have their full civil rights, so they must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to take emotional risks regardless of their perceived or actual individual merits, and this is the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. But people under 18 do not have these civil rights because they are not recognized as "adults" (according to current legal definitions), and thus the very important democratic right to take risks and grow as a person at their own pace--and to judge the rapidity of that pace for themselves--is not recognized. <br />
<br />
Also add this to the mix: people in general are often reluctant to give up any power that they have over others. Why should either the majority of parents or the State willingly give up control over an entire class of people? Both see the civil liberation of individuals under 18 as a threat to their ability to mold young people to fit whatever paradigm our culture wants them to fit during their formative years, and many belonging to either of these two institutions therefore consider it to be very important to leave younger people in no legal or political position to resist such molding. That tactic is the basis for the famous maxim, "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man." Now imagine how much truer that saying is if you give both parents and the State near-full control over the child for the first 18 years of their lives. This is why youth liberationists continually stress that it's vitally important to grant people their full civil liberties during their formative years, and why it's ridiculous for opponents of youth liberation to claim that kids cannot be considered a true oppressed minority group simply because they will be automatically awarded their full citizenship once they reach their 18th birthday (well, almost; they still retain a few limits on their full rights until they reach their 21st birthday). The various powers-that-be in our society seem to feel that 18 years of pre-citizenship is a long enough time for the "molding" or indoctrination effect to have a maximum chance of "sticking" (and most often, it does). <br />
<br />
The reason many mainstream liberals (or, as some of my activist friends may prefer, "libruls") believe that it's okay for teens to have mutually consensual sex with each other but not with adults is because some people take a stab at being "open-minded" and "sex positive" in their own eyes by grudgingly accepting the fact that teens, including young teens, are sexual beings and that attempting to deny this completely is not only futile, but also counterproductive to their well-being (which is true, of course). <br />
<br />
However, having been raised in the same culture as the rest of us, they will only allow their open-mindedness to go forward to a limited extent, i.e., to a level that is considered politically "safe" to hold among "reasonable" people on the Left of the political spectrum, who fear being called names by their opponents on the Right if they do otherwise. Hence, though they do not believe that consensual sexual activity between two teens of the same general age group is automatically going to have emotionally negative effects on the participants, they are still repulsed from an aesthetic standpoint by the idea of an adult engaging in sexual activity with someone that young regardless of the issue of consent. Simply put, such age disparate pairings are "icky" to them. So they justify this attitude by the stated belief that adults automatically have "too much worldly experience" for teens under the Magic Age, and this is believed to enable the adult in question to easily control the teen and manipulate them into doing something that these "libruls" do not want to believe any teen would willingly do unless they were manipulated into doing it, and therefore may have only ''thought'' they wanted to do it, or that they found it a positive and enjoyable experience.<br />
<br />
Of course, this was the exact same rationale used by Southern white bigots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to lynch black men who had sex with white women. Such men of color were always accused of "rape" regardless of whether or not the woman consented because the white men of this era and locale were so offended by the idea of interracial sex--bolstered by then still prevailing beliefs that women were easily led astray by "selfish" and logically superior men (an attitude that has since been aimed at people according to age rather than gender)--that they rationalized their lynchings with a firm belief that no self-respecting white woman could possibly have desired to have "icky" sex with a black man of her own volition. Because of their disdain for sex between black men and white women, these white bigots concluded that if the women weren't forced into sex with these black men then they must have been manipulated into it by the suave nature that reputedly gave all men an advantage over and above the inherent naivety and easily led astray female psyche. This enabled them to justify such harsh and unnecessary acts of retribution that were in actuality done solely out of hatred for blacks and revulsion over interracial relations between black men and white women, the latter of whom white men felt they were supposed to be "protective" of in the sense that these white women belonged to them alone (sound familiar?).<br />
<br />
This exact same dynamic is played out today, though not in regards to race but rather in regards to age. Blacks have since earned enough civil rights that it's no longer possible for the legal system--or for too many even mildly open-minded white people--to justify miscegenation laws. And women have earned much more respect in regards to their perceived level of competence during that same time as a result of their own movement for emancipation, so they are no longer automatically assumed to have been manipulated when they have a consensual relationship with a black man (they are simply said to have "jungle fever," and left at that). But the important thing to consider about teens under 18 is that, like children, and like blacks and women in the past, they currently lack the civil rights and legally recognized autonomy to escape from these stereotypes, and thus lack any substantial opportunities to prove their competence. They are also forcibly kept from obtaining certain "age inappropriate" information that would enhance their knowledge and ability to make competent decisions, which causes them to appear to "naturally" fit the stereotype of "ignorant" young people that is actually culturally imposed upon them--which is obviously a major case of political dirty pool played upon them by a combination of parents and the State. Those minors who obviously do not fit the stereotypes and rise above their legally and culturally imposed disadvantages are dismissed as "exceptions to the rule" or sometimes as prodigies, and not enough reasonable opportunities exist for sizable numbers of young people to prove their individual levels of competence at the present time. But people in our culture are indoctrinated into believing that this is the "natural" state of being for young people, while encouraged to ignore all of the historical and anthropological evidence that strongly suggests otherwise [recommended reading: ''Centuries of Childhood'' by Phillipe Aries, which traces the very gradual socio-cultural construction of the "child" as we know it today]. <br />
<br />
Another thing to consider is that teens, like children, are expected to conform to a certain cultural hierarchy. In our gerontocentric culture, older individuals are believed to be due respect by underage people simply by reaching the Magic Age and becoming a legal adult. This is seen to automatically confer legal adults with a level of authority over those who have not achieved the automatic esteem our culture feels one is due simply for reaching their 18th birthday. Thus, all adults are arbitrarily considered to be authority figures over people under 18, regardless of whether or not the adult in question has any real degree of power over the life of any given young person, such as that possessed by a parent, teacher, coach, etc. This authority is seen as inherent in the role one is expected to take on as an "adult," and as such, our society instantly perceives anyone who is granted full citizenship that comes with the legally recognized age of adulthood to have a power advantage over people under 18. <br />
<br />
As a result of what I described above, intergenerational relationships are perceived as having an inherent power imbalance in favor of the legal adult regardless of any of the many other factors that could be present to effect that aspect of the relationship, and assuming how likely it is for any two people of any age group to form a relationship that is entirely equitable in every conceivable manner. As a result, according to our cultural mindset, if people see an intergenerational relationship--no matter how nice and egalitarian-minded the adult in the relationship may be--they nevertheless believe that they can never be "quite sure" that the girl doesn't actually want the relationship, but is merely acceding to her older lover's "authority" and doing everything he wants her to do simply because he commands it rather than because she wants to do it--so the law must intervene "just in case." No evidence needed or required, because the basis of the AoC laws are very arbitrary and are based on overriding assumptions that do not need to be backed up by evidence, a situation is supposed to the be the very antitheses of American law. The AoC laws are among the very few laws under American jurisprudence where assumptions without evidence are accepted in court, because it's believed that if there is even a remote chance that the adult in question is guilty of manipulating the girl into a relationship in which she doesn't consciously realize that she actually doesn't want to participate in, then no "good" and "responsible" court can possibly take the chance of granting him and the relationship clemency no matter how much the evidence may support doing so--and regardless of what the individual merits of the girl in question happen to be. This is because she is not yet a legal adult, and therefore not a full citizen whose right to take emotional risks, and whose competency is given the benefit of the doubt sans any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, have to be taken into consideration. <br />
<br />
While many people in our culture may still consider a relationship between a 45-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman to be "icky" and morally and ideologically objectionable due to all of the stereotypes and assumptions I mentioned above, a 19-year-old woman is nevertheless a full citizen legally, so her right to take such risks is grudgingly recognized despite all the stereotypical assumptions thrown at the two of them by polite society (e.g., he must be a control freak who is looking for a partner that is "easy" to manipulate, and she must see him as a surrogate "father figure" rather than as an actual relationship partner and has "issues" that she needs to work out, etc., et al.). <br />
<br />
Then there is this other important factor to consider, based on what I explained in the last paragraph. Because adults are supposed to be authority figures to anyone under the legal designation of "minor," a romantic relationship between two people on the opposite ends of the Magic Age divide is seen (correctly) as necessitating that the adult treat their younger lover more or less as an equal. This is viewed as "inappropriate" by our society because it undermines the nature of the hierarchy of authority that our cultural attitudes believe to be so important in order to maintain social cohesion and the present day order of things. If large numbers of adults are treating teens and children as equals, then the latter will end up having a voice in society by proxy that many parents and government officials do not want them to have. This is similar to the political reasons why the Roman Catholic Church long ago insisted that priests do not marry and have no romantic relationships at all. While the official ideological justification was that having a sex life and a romantic connection tainted the purity of their soul due to the inherent "ickiness" factor of sex, and that being in love with a woman would detract from the love the priests were supposed to hold for the Lord alone, what much of the upper echelons of the clergy truly feared was that priests who were married may be influenced in their clerical decisions by their wives. This, the holy big wigs feared, would result in many women acquiring a voice in the church by proxy, and at that time it was strongly believed that women shouldn't have a say in how society was run because they would be prone to making "bad" decisions for the church and society in general (such as pro-woman decisions, of course). <br />
<br />
The same attitude persists today, albeit now directed towards people according to age rather than gender. If too many adults treated people under 18 as equals, it may grant a potentially high degree of empowerment to these underagers, and our culture believes that young people should be kept in “their proper place." And if these youngsters were given too many opportunities to prove they are capable of much more than the common contemporary attitudes claim they are, this may gradually erode the justification for the law enforcing their disadvantaged status as "pre-citizens." In other words, mutually consensual intergenerational relationships pose an inherent threat not to young people, but to the existing power structure in society. The government considers itself to be a protector of the prevailing status quo first and foremost, and people are raised and indoctrinated with a belief that the present status quo is basically good for everyone, and that it's the job of every decent citizen to work to preserve it, thus further explaining the uncritical, widespread acceptance of so many draconian laws and negative cultural attitudes used to suppress such relationships, and youth rights in general. <br />
<br />
All of the above factors combine to explain why people are so willing to swallow the many obvious contradictions related to the AoC laws, and support all of the silly rationalizations and stereotypes that we are indoctrinated into accepting as reasonable justification for them. They also explain why the government enforces and promotes these attitudes and beliefs while outright condemning any valid scientific study or empirical observations that disprove any of the rationales—a prime example of this occurred when the entire U.S. Congress voted unanimously to condemn the Rind Report after it was published in 1998 despite the fact that it was fully peer-reviewed and used perfectly credible methodology to exact its results (and proved fully replicable by another group of researchers in 2005). This made it quite clear that truth is far less important to the government than preserving custom and the belief systems that rationalize the defense and retention of the present status quo. The fact that this status quo, and the laws and cultural mores designed to preserve it, may be based on a series of lies isn’t important as long as these fallacies best enable the powers-that-be to maintain the present gerontocentric cultural hierarchy, civil rights be damned.<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Trauma_Myth--My_Analysis_Of_The_Susan_Clancy_Interview&diff=6842Essay:The Trauma Myth--My Analysis Of The Susan Clancy Interview2011-09-19T06:39:12Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Dissident==<br />
This essay concerns an article on the progressive news site Salon.com about the sex abuse industry, this time [http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/01/18/trauma_myth_interview/index.html an interview] that columnist Thomas Rogers conducts with controversial author Susan Clancy regarding her extraordinary 2009 book, ''The Trauma Myth''. This book is perhaps as important to the cause of the pro-choice segment of the Minor Attracted Adult [MAA] community's movement, as well as the youth liberation movement, as any other book before it, because it dispels one of society's most fervent myths about adult interaction with youths--that such interactions are ''always'' traumatic for the young person, and will transform all such youth participants into emotionally "damaged goods" for the rest of their lives. <br />
<br />
However, be advised that Clancy is no friend of the MAA community (very few would admit to be today), nor is she open-minded regarding youth sexuality, as are other controversial authors such as Judith Levine and Robert Epstein. She is actually quite adamant that youth/adult sexual interactions are ''always'' and intrinsically wrong and therefore should always be considered a crime, and I will respond to her statements along those lines in this analysis. However, just as Clancy made a major challenge to the once fashionable myth of "repressed memories" in a previous book, she now challenges the myth of mandatory/intrinsic trauma for "abuse" victims, and this nevertheless opens the door to a future where young people are allowed to enjoy sexual interactions with whomever they choose to be with.<br />
<br />
Let's start by looking at some excerpts from the article and break them down:<br />
<br />
"In a 2003 ''New York Times'' magazine profile about her, well-known trauma therapist Daniel Brown lashed out at Clancy's 'political agenda,' and Clancy's hate mail has included accusations of cheering on child molesters and even abusing children herself."<br />
<br />
Whenever someone challenges the established orthodoxy of the sex abuse industry that allows for lucrative careers for people like Daniel Brown--even though their careers are based on treating nothing but a myth, and therefore perpetuating it--you must be a defender of "abuse" in their eyes. Despite Clancy's hysterical attitudes and even a degree of anti-male sentiment (yes, she is ''that'' type of "feminist") towards the subject, she is nevertheless a seeker of truth who may one day change her tune on other aspects of this sex abuse industry in the future, and her willingness to challenge the industry even to this limited but important extent deserves commending.<br />
<br />
Clancy: "The title [''The Trauma Myth''] refers to the fact that although sexual abuse is usually portrayed by professionals and the media as a traumatic experience for the victims when it happens — meaning frightening, overwhelming, painful — it rarely is. Most victims do not understand they are being victimized, because they are too young to understand sex, the perpetrators are almost always people they know and trust, and violence or penetration rarely occurs. 'Confusion' is the most frequently reported word when victims are asked to describe what the experience was like. Confusion is a far cry from trauma."<br />
<br />
It's thoughtful of Clancy to point this out, but what she sails over, of course, is exactly why a youth is "victimized" if they are not traumatized by the incident. Is it possible that the "confusion" may be the result of the fact that they enjoyed a mutually consensual experience while always hearing from others that such interaction constitutes "abuse"? One can indeed argue that sexual interaction with older family members can be considered abuse, since young people are in no position to say 'no' to such authority figures (but this may be a complex issue in and of itself that is not entirely black and white, and I will perhaps tackle it in a future essay). What I am talking about here is non-familial adults who do not live in the home, and therefore do not have such direct and extreme authority over the young people whom they may have mutually consensual interactions with.<br />
<br />
Clancy: "You get all these people who are keeping it a secret because they're ashamed — because what happened to them is not what is portrayed in the media or psychological and medical circles."<br />
<br />
Hmmmm...is this perhaps more indication that people are ashamed of mutually consensual experiences in their youth because this is how the various institutions of society tell them they should feel? And are they actually made to feel guilty because they were ''not'' traumatized by the experience? Once again, I am not talking about definitively non-consensual and unwanted sexual experiences with older people that occur within the home; I am talking about those that occur with adults whom they trust, and who do not have direct authority over them--and especially those whom the younger person may even initiate such contact with (though I strongly recommend that both minors and adults avoid breaking these laws due to the possible consequences for both people if they are "found out"...I am fully law-abiding myself and I would never advocate breaking the law). <br />
<br />
Clancy: "For 30 years we've been working on preventing sexual abuse. But we've skirted around what sexual abuse really is. ''The kids don't know what's going on, and '''they often enjoy it'''. They're not going to resist'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Of course, the fact that someone enjoys something and receives pleasure from it, and the fact that they don't resist as a result, isn't cause for Clancy (or too many other people, for that matter) to question whether we should continue to categorize something as "abuse." Instead, it's assumed that the youth in question "doesn't know what's going on," because if they did, according to the logic being presented here, they ''would'' resist. This is a case of stereotyping younger people as much as it is their "abusers."<br />
<br />
Clancy: "In the 1950s and 1960s, psychiatrists were very open and honest about sexual abuse, but there was also that tendency to think it was the child's fault. Feminists were naturally infuriated, because it's not the children's fault! But the way they got attention to it was to portray the sexual abuse in a way that would shock people. They did that by comparing it to a rape. Before that, the reaction from the medical and psych communities was, 'This is not something we really care about.' It wasn't until feminists and child-protection advocates misportrayed it that we were able to arouse massive medical and scientific attention to the topic."<br />
<br />
No one from the MAA community has ever suggested that intergenerational sexual interactions are "the child's fault." What Clancy and the establishment cannot conceive of is the concept that it's actually possible for the youth to initiate such contact, or that it's actually possible for a younger person to desire an older person, because the prevailing "wisdom" on this subject is that kids (even those as old as 16) do not understand their sexual desires and therefore have no conception of sexual pleasure unless such contact is foisted upon them. Further, it's an established belief on this topic that blame has to be assigned to either party when two people of disparate age groups act on a mutual desire, and the blame is always on the older person since adults are always expected to "know better." Once again, this is a case of stereotyping in both directions. Also, Clancy seems to suggest that the attempt by certain elements of society (which she identifies as "feminists" and "child-protection advocates") to bring attention to the problem of child sexual abuse by “misportraying” it in a way that would "shock" the public was ultimately a good thing, a case of the ends justifying the means, despite this attitude being responsible for creating a huge mess that Clancy is working to clear up.<br />
<br />
Clancy: "Ninety-five percent of sexual abuse victims never seek treatment because of what they falsely assume and fear about sexual abuse. ''Many of them do not even think they were sexually abused'' [emphasis mine]. This is a huge problem."<br />
<br />
Could it be that such cases are a "huge problem" because society cannot accept the idea of young people finding pleasure in sexual interactions with others, particularly older people? Now don't get me wrong...if force or coercion was used, I would expect the event to be an extremely negative one for the youth in question, and such youths would indeed be victims in a true and accurate sense of the word. And, of course, adults who are responsible for such coercion should be considered to be guilty of a crime and treated accordingly by the law. I am ''not'' saying that youths cannot be victims, because they most certainly can; anyone of any age can. I doubt a young person, or someone of any age, would experience pleasure and "feel good about" a forcible rape or a sexual interaction they capitulated to as a result of blackmail. But how the young person felt about the interaction, and the important question of whether or not it's always the adult who initiates such interactions, are important things to consider that Clancy completely shunts aside because she cannot conceive of the validity or possibility of either. And it's very telling that Clancy never goes so far as to question the fact that the bulk of real sexual abuse goes on within the home, often by parents, stepparents, grandparents, etc., even though this "open secret" and shameful condemnation of the hierarchal nature of the prevailing family unit is readily available via FBI statistics. She never seems to consider that the legal and civil empowerment of youths--and society taking their potential, intelligence, and desires seriously--may be a good antidote to the problem. But since Clancy doesn't consider young people and their desires any more worthy of consideration than the establishment she opposes on various issues, she never reaches these conclusions (at least, not at this point in her career; I am giving her a chance).<br />
<br />
Clancy: "You have people who call me and say, 'My uncle attempted sexual penetration when I was a child, but I'm not sure if I qualify as a sexual abuse victim.' I say, 'How in God's name do you not think you're a sexual abuse victim?' It's because in most cases of sexual abuse, ''it was not traumatic when it happened'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
As everyone in the MAA community who knows me is aware of, I am ''not'' a fan of adults engaging in full sexual penetration of pre-pubescents, even if the young person requests it, because I do not think it's a responsible thing to do for reasons of physical safety (but I am not against the mutually consensual practice of outercourse, i.e., mere "sex play," between adults and willing pre-pubescents who may initiate the contact with both peers and adults whom they like and trust). I do not believe that pre-pubescents are miniature adults, and I do believe that the type of sexual interaction they desire with others (peers or otherwise) are quite different in many ways from those that adolescents and adults desire to engage in, and this needs to be considered. Also, I am not someone who encourages or supports incest for a variety of reasons (which I will get into in a future essay; however, for the record, I do not believe that mutually consensual incestuous activities should result in prison for any of the participants). Nevertheless, I need to point out that Clancy doesn't distinguish the age of the person she is discussing when they say they were penetrated as a "child," and some of her other statements make it clear she is one of those willfully blind people who considers adolescents under 18 to be "children" simply because they share a legal status with pre-pubescents; hence, her conception of adolescents appears to be no different than her conception of pre-pubescents.<br />
<br />
Also, Clancy makes it clear once again with her above statement that she considers all sexual interactions between adults and youths under 18 to be "abuse" regardless of the fact that the younger person wasn't traumatized or emotionally "damaged" by it in any sense. She will justify this by uttering the popular attitude, "Children can't consent." This is a cultural belief and a stereotypical attitude towards younger people that grew out of the Victorian era mindset that children are essentially asexual beings who are "tainted" by sexual experiences, and that ''only adults would initiate sexual activity with them, but '''never''' the other way around''. And in case someone accuses me of "blaming the victim," I am ''not'' assigning any blame at all on ''either'' participant, regardless of who initiated it, as long as the sexual encounter was willing and pleasurable to both people who participated in it. It takes two people to tango, not just one. If someone can concede that sexual activity between people of disparate age groups where no force or coercion was involved is not only non-traumatic, but even pleasurable to the younger person as well as the older person, why is it still considered "abuse"? Is it an abuse of a person or in actuality an abuse of a cherished societal paradigm? Why can’t the many detractors of the phenomenon simply call a spade a spade and be honest about this?<br />
<br />
Rogers then makes the following observation: "It's a very fine line between what you're saying and saying that children aren't hurt by sexual abuse."<br />
<br />
Eager not to allow him to go further in that direction, Clancy forcefully responds with: "I will never say that. I could not be more clear. This is an atrocious, disgusting crime. People have a tendency to assume I'm saying it's not a big deal or it's the child's fault."<br />
<br />
Okay, let me try to understand Clancy's logic here. She concedes based on objective study of her own (regardless of how uncomfy the conclusions of such studies make so many people) that "most" kids (meaning, perhaps, those who weren't forced or coerced into sexual interactions with adults?) who have non-coerced sexual interactions with adults are not traumatized by it, and often actually report deriving pleasure from it, but it still hurts kids nevertheless because, as conventional wisdom tells us, kids are incapable of understanding sexuality. Hence, according to this logic, even if they aren't harmed by mutually desired contact of this nature, we must always cry foul when it happens. <br />
<br />
As for Clancy's concern that taking a morally neutral stance on non-forced and non-coerced sexual interactions between youths and adults will result in her being accused of "blaming the child," I again respond to such a ridiculous and loaded assertion by asking: why must blame be assigned to anyone in a situation where both participants found it pleasurable, and where both were fully willing? <br />
<br />
Clancy continues: "Most people don't want to think too hard or thoroughly about these things."<br />
<br />
Good observation, Susan. Now why don't you ponder that statement further and take your own advice?<br />
<br />
Rogers then further cautions Clancy: "One could argue that your claims could encourage child abusers — or convince them that what they're doing isn't wrong. How do you respond to that?"<br />
<br />
Clancy replies: " Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK."<br />
<br />
So in other words, according to Clancy (and our esteemed conventional wisdom that she iconoclastically opposes, albeit only to a certain extent), despite the fact that sexual interactions between adults and kids under 18 are rarely physically or psychologically damaging to youths (with those "rare" occasions perhaps being the occasions when force or coercion of some sort is used), no matter what the circumstances are (e.g., even if the youth initiates it themselves), or how it may impact the "victim" (e.g., even if the youth finds it entirely positive, pleasurable, and conducive to the enhancement of their life experience) it's always "atrocious" and "despicable," it should always be considered a crime, and it always constitutes "abuse." Is Clancy, and those who make similar declarations, in any way conscious of how much they sound like they are engaging in nothing more than petty moralizing here? And not to mention how they sound as if they are condemning something that she admits causes no discernable or demonstrable damage to those who participate in it willingly simply because it offends their personal sensibilities and the cultural conception of younger people that they have been indoctrinated with all of their lives? However, since Clancy is still a highly courageous woman, I am not going to go so far as to say she is taking this stance simply because she hopes that by doing so it will lessen the condemnation she is receiving from society for making the observations that she has in her book.<br />
<br />
Clancy further ruminates: "Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness."<br />
<br />
So, just because something doesn't cause any harm and may even be positive and pleasurable to experience that doesn't mean that it isn't wrong in some intrinsic sense. Hasn't the same things been said in the past about women enjoying sex, homosexual sex, masturbation, recreational sex in general, and the "doggie style" sexual position? I am hoping that Clancy does more thinking in the future since she has shown that she is indeed capable of it.<br />
<br />
Clancy then goes for the gold: "And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent."<br />
<br />
Leaving aside the too commonly accepted stereotype Clancy uttered above to justify her moralizing about this topic (there is no proof that children are cognitively incapable of consent, especially not if they receive objective and comprehensive sex education early in their lives), does the fact that young people are capable of experiencing pleasure and reporting positive experiences with mutually consensual sexual interactions with adults mean absolutely nothing? Does that not make it clear that kids are fully capable of understanding sexual activity? The Rind Report made it clear in the past that even pre-pubescents are capable of something that Dr. Rind et al. referred to as ''simple consent'', and that those who experienced interactions of this sort with both peers and adults felt, upon becoming adults, that they were capable of consenting to activity that clearly felt pleasurable to them. Once again, I am ''not'' condoning aggressive incestuous advances by family members or other adults who have such a heavy degree of authority over the kids in question; I am talking about adults they trust who they may share an interest in interacting with in such a way, and who do not have such a high and direct degree of power and authority over them.<br />
<br />
Clancy then goes further still to distance herself from taking the next logical step in understanding the intricacies of sexual interactions between underagers and adults: "Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick."<br />
<br />
Can Clancy possibly be any less overt with her spewing of pure emotionalistic rhetoric rather than reasoned analysis of the subject? The term "sick" is often used to denote something that offends someone's sensibilities regardless of whether or not it's actually harmful in any demonstrative sense. Yet Clancy engages in it without a second thought when it comes to such a topic. According to Clancy, children (again, without even specifying her exact definition of the word) are "incapable of understanding the meaning or significance of sexual behavior." What is the meaning and significance of sexual behavior? Progressives seem to agree that sexual behavior is often done for the mutual giving and receiving of pleasure; because it's fun to engage in; and because it can further a strong emotional bond and affection between two people or perhaps work to establish one that didn't already exist. Is its significance not the fact that when done with mutual respect between two people who seek to exchange pleasure with each other it can be a positive experience on one's self-esteem and personal growth? Is sexual activity not an important learning experience in life? With those observations in mind, and with Clancy's concession that sexual activity is often reported to be positive and pleasurable by young people under 18 who have engaged in it in a mutually consensual manner either with peers or with adults, is this not a strong indication that young people are every bit as capable of "getting" and understanding the meaning and significance of sexual behavior as well as anyone who is X number of years older? <br />
<br />
Of course, according to Clancy, children are always "innocent" (she actually used the word in her above statement), which by our societal definition means inherently asexual. Therefore, their conceptual image and what they represent to society is "tainted" if they experience something as "dirty" and "impure" as sexual behavior. And Clancy never seems to recognize the cultural significance of such attitudes, nor does she, as a self-professed feminist, even seem to realize that such an attitude was once applied to women to deny the validity of their sexual nature and desires.<br />
<br />
But adults, according to Clancy, always know the meaning and significance of sexual behavior which, as I mentioned up above, is about the mutual exchange of pleasure and emotional bonding between two human beings. Thus, they are always being "manipulative" when they engage in a mutually pleasurable activity with younger people (perhaps because they "taint" the spiritually pure cultural image of these young people), because adults who either respond to young people's advances (something Clancy seems to deny the possibility of), or initiates the advances themselves, are "manipulating the kids into providing sexual pleasure," something that kids should never be engaging in--because of the "damage" this does to their cultural image, even though it does no damage in a purely physical, demonstrable sense--and the assumption being that the adult only cares about their own sexual pleasure and couldn't possibly care about the youth they are interacting with in any possible way. The latter attitude constitutes nothing more than making a huge and totally unsubstantiated assumption based upon nothing more than a stereotype.<br />
<br />
Also, I think in the future Clancy needs to talk to some gerontophiles [younger people with a preferential attraction to significantly older individuals who are not necessarily elderly] who have passed the Magic Age, as they will make it clear to her that some people under 18 are not only sexually aware--sometimes at a surprisingly early point in their lives--but have a sexual and emotional preference for significantly older people and often make the advances themselves. One thing the MAA community needs to do in the future is to gather together all of those gerontophiles we have met in the past to speak on behalf of both themselves (i.e., youth sexual rights and youth rights in general) and our community in the future. Clancy and other researchers need to hear their stories and acknowledge the reality of their existence, along with what it implies about the validity of the conception of youthful "innocence" that our society is so fond of preserving and perpetuating.<br />
<br />
When Thomas asks Clancy why she is so opposed to the "repressed memory" concept, she responds: "Because it doesn't exist. There is not one single research study showing that people exposed to horrifying, overwhelming, painful events 'repress them' and recover them later on. Rather, ''people exposed to horrifying events report that they often remember them all too well'' [emphasis mine]. Ask any child exposed to the recent earthquake in Haiti if they 'repressed it.' None will. True trauma will always be remembered. Richard J. McNally's ''Remembering Trauma'' is a comprehensive critique of repression. ''Repression is a psychiatric myth'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
In this good statement, Clancy helps rebuke one of the most glaring examples of junk science and (as she calls it) "psychiatric mythology" used to justify and perpetuate the sex abuse hysteria of the past 30 years, one which began with the publication of the utterly debunked but socially influential and destructive book ''Michelle Remembers'' (which also started the equally infamous and socially destructive "satanic ritual abuse" hysteria, now likewise debunked). She has now moved on to tackle and debunk another myth perpetuated by the sexual abuse hysteria: the belief and assumption that young people under 18 are always traumatized by sexual interactions with adults (in particular, at least). <br />
<br />
However, despite her doing something that takes a good degree of courage and open-minded critical thinking, which is commendable, Clancy (at least at this point in her career) refuses to take this critical thinking to the next level so as to repudiate the sex abuse hysteria itself, even as she has denounced two of its most sacred though terribly incorrect tenets. The next logical leap, of course, would be to actually do what she is already accused of doing by her detractors: to consider that if it's not true that kids are traumatized by sexual interactions with adults as long as such interaction is not the result of force or coercion of some sort, then maybe their ability to experience pleasure from it is an indication that kids do indeed have a sexual aspect to their nature that is every bit as legitimate for them to explore and experience as that of adults--and that it can potentially have the same benefits for them as it does for adults. Perhaps society's prevailing image of kids is wrong; perhaps kids aren't inherently "innocent." Perhaps kids can sometimes initiate sexual contact with adults and it's not always adults who foist their advances on kids. And perhaps adults who have a sexual attraction to kids may have more than a selfish desire for their own personal sexual satisfaction, and they may have at least as great an interest in the pleasure and emotional comfort of the younger person as they do their own. Maybe it's possible for an adult to actually love a youth in a true romantic sense, and vice versa. Maybe "manipulation" can work both ways in some isolated cases, not just on a one-sided adult-to-youth manner. And maybe, just maybe, kids have the potential to make their own decisions in other matters not related to sexuality (thus resulting in a comprehensive pro-youth stance by Clancy and feminists like her in the future). If such is the case, should we perhaps stop defining the term "abuse" so broadly, and in such an absolutist fashion? And maybe, just maybe, should we consider that perhaps other factors in society, such as poverty, warfare, and (just perhaps) the oppressive third class citizen status of kids are far, far more harmful to kids than mutually desired sexual experiences between these youngsters and anyone they may choose to share such intimacy with? <br />
<br />
In fact, Judith Levine (further to her credit and pro-youth credentials) devotes a whole chapter in her book ''Harmful To Minors'' to poverty and how it negatively affects kids in many more ways than the expression of their sexuality ever could, even going so far as to make the bold declaration that poverty doesn't simply cause child abuse, but poverty is a form of child abuse. And, of course, Levine challenged the validity of the "pedophile panic" in another chapter of her aforementioned book. Can it be, as Levine suggests, that the priorities of the "child advocates" are totally mixed up and single-mindedly focused on things that aren't the worst problems that kids have to face in modern society? And if so, wouldn’t our society and its child protective industry be guilty of placing priority on issues of moralism as opposed to material issues with an actual tangible effect on the lives of kids?<br />
<br />
But Clancy has yet to take these steps and currently seems to define her conception of "child safety" and "child advocacy" almost solely on the basis of protecting kids not simply from sexual abuse (which is an admirable goal that those in the MAA community fully support), but from protecting kids from ''their own sexual desires''. That is a case of suppression masquerading as "protection."<br />
<br />
Continuing on this subject, Clancy then makes this telling observation: "The idea of repression ultimately hurts victims. It reinforces the notion that sexual abuse is and should be a traumatic experience when it happens — something done against the will of the victims. Since for most victims this is not the case, they end up feeling 'alone,' 'isolated' and 'ashamed.'"<br />
<br />
Once again, though Clancy concedes that sexual activity between older and younger people (which she always labels "abuse") is not normally traumatic and not even against the will of the younger people it is nevertheless always wrong and harmful. The question I raised before remains: is such mutually consensual activity harmful to kids, or harmful to society's conception of them, and therefore to perhaps the continued justification for the civil oppression of people under 18?<br />
<br />
And is it possible that the reason so many kids feel "ashamed" when they think back to their sexual interaction with adults is because of the attitudes society has against younger people's expression of their sexuality--i.e., that sexual behavior is a "dirty" thing to engage in--and ''not'' because sexual activity has an inherently "shaming" affect on younger people?<br />
<br />
When Rogers asks Clancy about how she was treated back at Harvard when she first proposed her controversial work on the myths of the sex abuse industry, she said: "It's bad enough I moved to Nicaragua. When I was at Harvard — the peak of my career, at the university you want to be, surrounded by all the people who were the titans in the field — there was just so much bullshit going on. People focused on a type of abuse that affects maybe 2 percent of the population, millions of dollars for funding that doesn't apply to most victims, best selling books written by therapists misportraying sexual abuse. I would try to tell the truth. I would be attacked. Grad students wouldn't talk to me.<br />
<br />
"Professors would tell me to leave for other fields. I just felt disillusioned. I got this opportunity from the World Bank to do cross-cultural research on how sexual abuse is understood in Latin America. I came down to Central America, and I've stayed."<br />
<br />
So, Clancy had to move to another nation on another continent to escape the chastisement of her peers in the academic and intellectual field for daring to make even a moderately controversial challenge to the accepted orthodoxy of our culture even though she remains firmly entrenched in society's overall belief system and cultural conception of younger people as inherently "innocent," asexual, and incompetent. Isn't that interesting considering how many people in the MAA community have either done the same thing (i.e., self-imposed exile from their native land) or strongly contemplated doing the same thing for the exact same reasons as Clancy did? I guess maybe in the future Clancy will be able to understand exactly how people from this community feel for having desires and/or views that challenge society's most sacrosanct beliefs. And it should be noted that Clancy is all too aware that some of the greatest intellectual minds in academia, who are present at Harvard, are less capable--or perhaps less willing--to make even a relatively modest challenge to the existing orthodoxy regarding youth sexuality and the intrinsic nature of those we today label 'minors' than many people who are not college educated but do so on the basis of their personal experiences (like the bulk of gerontophiles who have described positive and both physically and emotionally fulfilling sexual interactions with adults even prior to reaching the vaunted Magic Age). <br />
<br />
I am sorry that Clancy felt forced into self-imposed exile from her native country in order to continue her work, but I think this should be all the more reason for her to consider questioning the Western cultural attitudes and assumptions even further than she has already to see what other firmly held beliefs and policies may be based entirely on social or psychiatric mythology. And it's probably a good thing that Clancy is now living in Latin America, because not only does that section of the world have a much more open-minded view on the nature of "abuse" than does the Western nations, but there is even an emerging tendency there to be more respectful of the sexual desires of younger people and of the damage that legally enforced repression of their sexual expression can cause, a state of affairs made clear when one Latin American nation--Peru--recently lowered its age of consent from 17 to 14.<br />
<br />
When Clancy is asked to address how depictions of sexual abuse of kids in movies that are based on the type of psychiatric and cultural assumptions that she has worked to refute, she says: <br />
<br />
"I think it does a disservice to victims. There were a number of movies in the last few years where people were so traumatized by sexual abuse that they needed hypnosis to bring back the memory. ''In 5 percent of cases it is awful, and medical attention is required. For 95 percent of victims, that's not what happens'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Can it be that the 5 percent of the cases (and probably a bit more) that Clancy mentions above which are "awful" may perhaps be cases where actual force was used, and actual beating of the child occurred, and thus physical and emotional damage did indeed result? In such a case, no sane or compassionate person would argue that the youth was anything other than a true victim of genuine abuse. Of course, I am not saying that physical damage needs to occur in order for a case to be genuine abuse. Coercion can take other forms, such as blackmail or threats where the violence wasn't actually carried out due to the youth's unwilling compliance as a result of the threats. In such cases, the youth is also a genuine victim, and I have little doubt that a youth (or someone of any age) that experienced such a thing would feel extremely violated and emotionally devastated as a result, but such cases are ''extremely rare'' outside the home. And as Clancy's research (which matches with FBI statistics) seems to indicate, the ''great majority'' of kids who experience sexual interactions with adults do so in a manner that is fully consensual and thus non-traumatizing without any type of psychological damage, save a possible degree of shame and guilt that is not an inherent result of the experience itself but rather is based on society's reaction to the interaction, or how society conditions the youth to perceive the experience (i.e., an entirely sociogenic effect). That latter condition can be remedied by a combination of sex positive education for kids at an early age and a strong challenge to the attitudes of a society which insists--against all available evidence--that sexual activity is always negative for people under 18 no matter how positive it generally is on many levels for people who were past the Magic Age.<br />
<br />
Clancy gives an example of the above:<br />
<br />
"Look at ''Mystic River''. In that movie child sex abuse involves a faceless priest. The child is destroyed for life. There's a sadistic aspect to it that has nothing to do with what happens to most kids."<br />
<br />
Well said. Yet, Clancy will then turn around and argue that even if an intergenerational sexual interaction is totally bereft of any sadistic aspects and the youth is not "destroyed for life," it is still always wrong because a lack of "harmfulness" is not always commensurate with a lack of "wrongfulness."<br />
<br />
When Thomas asks Clancy if she is aware of any movie or TV show which depicts a sexual interaction between an adult and a minor in an accurate way, she says:<br />
<br />
"There's a moment on HBO's ''True Blood'' in the first season, where Sookie Stackhouse is talking to Bill, her vampire lover, about what happened between her and her uncle, and I thought that was a very good depiction. She said it didn't ruin her life, but it's sad that something like that has to color her feelings about sex and intimacy as an adult."<br />
<br />
Um, if the sexual interaction wasn't traumatizing and didn't ruin her life, and if the interaction was mutually consensual, then how would it "color" her feelings about sex and intimacy as an adult? Is it even remotely conceivable that an experience looked upon as positive by a youth may enhance her ability to achieve successful intimacy with another person later in life? Clancy won't go there, of course.<br />
<br />
In regards to the matter of accurate depiction of an attraction between an adult and a youth on TV, I would like to refer her to an incredibly daring storyline from the defunct but greatly missed TV series ''Once And Again'', where high school student and regular character Grace Manning (played by Julia Whelan) fell in love with her drama and creative writing teacher August Dimitri (played by Eric Stoltz), and he ended up reciprocating the feelings. It should be noted that Grace pursued August, not the other way around. This was a rare acknowledgement in our popular culture that sometimes the younger person can be the initiator, not only the adult. It should be noted here that their physical intimacy never went beyond a single kiss--Grace moved in and kissed August (''not'' the other way around)--and he neither moved away nor responded in kind despite his desire to do the latter. Fearful for the consequences that both would face if he allowed things to progress any further, he immediately suggested that they proceed to the play that both of them had plans to attend, with Grace incorrectly upset over feeling that the reason he didn’t return her affection was because she was unappealing. <br />
<br />
The storyline came to an explosive head when Grace's stepmom Karen Sammler discovers a semi-romantic poem that August wrote for Grace and all hell broke loose after that. Grace is terribly upset that due to society's conventions she is unable to have a relationship with her teacher, someone she loves, respects, and trusts--and would therefore greatly enjoy sharing her first intimate sexual experience with--and when her mom sees how the ensuing investigation by the school board that Karen initiated against August due to a relationship that she pursued first is causing her daughter such emotional turmoil, she does something extremely selfless that is nearly unthinkable for a "concerned" parent in our current society: she considers her daughter's feelings for her teacher and what the investigation by the school board will likely result in for August, and she drops the charges and even allows her daughter to say goodbye to August as he packs up and leaves the school—and Grace’s life--for good. August tells Grace that the whole thing was his fault, not hers, but she declined agreeing with him, likely because it was something that she wanted as much as he did [does this perhaps suggest that there is absolutely no need to assign blame to either participant?]. <br />
<br />
This didn't mean that Grace's mom was as forgiving of him, however; as August was leaving he ran into Karen Sammler, and when he attempted to talk to her to explain his side of things to her, she simply closed her eyes and firmly said, "I don't want to hear it." Despite her continuing disdain for August, however, at least Karen Sammler ultimately respected the feelings of her stepdaughter and came to reluctantly accept the fact that, in words passionately spoken earlier by Grace, "I don't need to be protected from this person!"<br />
<br />
That particular storyline of a great drama series that left the air after a mere three seasons was the only open-minded depiction of intergenerational love on a TV series to my knowledge where the adult was not condemned as an utterly deplorable human beings for his feelings, and where the feelings (if not the competence) of a girl under 18 was honored in the end (though I do recall an episode from the truly awesome first three seasons of the radical 1990s TV series ''Picket Fences'' where the age of consent laws were duly questioned, but it that case it was a situation involving a 16-year-old girl having consensual sex with an 18-year-old boy, so the American audience may have been somewhat more sympathetic for that situation than the one depicted in ''Once And Again''). Maybe Clancy should have watched the episodes of this series containing that storyline, and think hard and critically about the themes presented therein. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, at least in the past few years, reruns of the show were aired on the Lifetime channel, a station that is notorious for producing telefilms that are not just poor in quality, but which espouse strong anti-male and anti-youth rights themes, including propping up the main tropes of the sex abuse industry whenever possible, and you would think Clancy would have an interest in whatever airs on that network for these reasons. The refuns of ''Once And Again'' must have stood out as a shining gem compared to the usual dreck seen on that channel when you consider the themes seen on many of its self-produced telefilms, especially that one particular storyline involving the romantic feelings between Grace Manning and August Dimitri; that must have stood out on the Lifetime channel like an X-rated film airing on the Disney Channel. But even if Clancy cannot watch the reruns on Lifetime anymore (either because the network isn't available on any Nicaraguan stations or because the series is no longer rerun on that channel) the entire series is now available on DVD. I would urge Clancy and other "feminists" of her particular stripe to purchase the series and watch it with an open mind and heart. <br />
<br />
Clancy concludes her thoughts about the above fictional example of the accurate reminiscence of an intergenerational sexual experience on ''True Blood'' with this:<br />
<br />
"It wasn't out of control. They didn't make it sensational."<br />
<br />
Imagine that! But isn't the continuation of the current attitudes towards youths and adults interacting with each other sexually ''even with the acknowledgement that non-coercive experiences of that nature do not automatically traumatize and damage the youth for life'', as well as society's attitude towards youth sexuality and any expression of it thereof (not to mention the broader issue of youth competence in general), going to prolong the existence of the hysteria for much longer than it has to even as we incrementally undercut all the popular myths associated with it? And won’t this prove that the main beliefs used to justify it in the first place are nothing more than myths? Shouldn't that encourage us to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the entire gamut of beliefs and assumptions regarding youth sexuality and even youth competence in general? And, perhaps most importantly, shouldn't we perhaps listen to what the youths themselves have to say about this, and how they feel about non-coerced interactions and relationships with both peers and adults, without telling them how we think they should view such interactions?<br />
<br />
This is what Clancy had to say about the legal use of the term 'statutory rape':<br />
<br />
"It's outside my bailiwick to comment on legal terms, but in an ideal world I don't think that's the term we should use. I think there should be clear legal terms to differentiate sexual abuse that involves touching and no force, and sexual abuse that's penetrative, and sexual abuse that involves force and violence. You have to make it clear that in all cases it is a crime, but clumping all of them under one title — when they range from genital stroking to anal penetration — is a bad thing."<br />
<br />
That's an interesting and not overly bad idea, leaving aside the fact that Clancy insists that all instances of youth and adult sexual interactions, even when no force or coercion is involved, should be considered a crime and be labeled "abuse."<br />
<br />
Now, here is what Clancy had to say when asked about whether or not Roman Polanski should be put in jail:<br />
<br />
"The Roman Polanski case is a clear case for sexual abuse. It's infuriating that people are losing the main point. He's a guy who had sex with a child. If she had been beaten or if she had been rushed to the hospital, it would have been an entirely different situation, but because she wasn't physically traumatized nobody cares. She was drugged, the poor thing. If he had slapped her around, if he had pushed her up against the wall, he would have been locked up. Ninety-five percent of children don't fight it because they don't understand what's happening and because when they tell the truth nobody cares."<br />
<br />
Okay, let's look at the various portions of Clancy's totally predictable response and do some analytical nitpicking:<br />
<br />
"He's a guy who had sex with a child..."<br />
<br />
Why doesn't it surprise me that a supposed progressive like Clancy views an adolescent girl--even a younger adolescent--as a "child"? Obviously, she cannot see beyond the legal definition of "child" and willfully confuses someone who is subject to that legal terminology with empirically evident reality.<br />
<br />
"If she had been beaten or if she had been rushed to the hospital, it would have been an entirely different situation..."<br />
<br />
Yes, it certainly would have, and that is one of the main points of my essay.<br />
<br />
"…but because she wasn't physically traumatized nobody cares..."<br />
<br />
Nobody? I see plenty of people out to hang Polanski by a noose simply because he had sex with a girl under the age of 18, with none of the other factors usually being relevant in the least. I believe it's entirely possible for a youth to be a victim of genuine abuse even if no actual physical violence had occurred, of course, but there are too many questions and holes involved in the Polanski situation, especially when you consider that Polanski was not known for being either violent, or for coercing any lady of any age into sexual situations with him, and he has been friends with many young women in his life due to his predilections as a hebephile (please see my essay [[The Roman Polanski Circus]] for my detailed analysis of the Polanski situation). <br />
<br />
"She was drugged, the poor thing..."<br />
<br />
Yes, there is good evidence that Polanski gave Samantha Geimer a qualuude prior to having sex with her. But though she implied that she was "out of it" in her famous grand jury testimony and told Polanski "no" and that she wanted to go home repeatedly, it was revealed by the judge who tried the initial case that Geimer had taken qualuudes before and was familiar with how they would affect her, especially if washed down with alcohol. But she took the pill anyway, and considering how the drug scene was in the '70s when this incident took place, it can be argued that Polanski gave her the pill to relax her, not to dope her up to the extent that she couldn't resist his advances [please permit me to point out that this is something I do not personally agree with; I would never give any hypothetical teen girl I was about to be intimate with a recreational drug or alcohol of any sort to relax her or to "get her in the mood," no matter how familiar she was with its effects on her or even if she requested these things herself...I would simply put on some sweet music, and if that didn't work, I would simply have lunch or dinner with her and that's it]. <br />
<br />
But I don't get the impression that Geimer was totally zonked out of her mind when she and Polanski had sex. If Clancy was reading this, she would likely berate me with a variation of the following: "How could you be so insensitive? You're simply defending Polanski because he is a hebephile like you, and you would probably defend him even if he did beat her to a bloody pulp before having sex with her!" Not true, and a very poor assessment of my character such a statement would be. As I wrote in my previous essay on the Roman Polanski situation (noted above), there is something fishy about that grand jury testimony that Geimer disseminated when you consider that she has never made any disparaging comments about Polanski at any point in her life following the incident, not even 30 years later, and she has recently said she wants no part of the sensational media circus surrounding Polanski's arrest in Sweden, except to say that she holds no ill will towards him and that she thinks the case against him should be ''dropped''. <br />
<br />
But there is something even more important to take into consideration when analyzing the veracity of that grand jury testimony. Clancy should be well aware of the fact that police and social workers often do a bit of coercing themselves, especially when it comes to their highly suspect method of interrogating minors whom they are trying to get them to help the cops make a case against an adult (or even another minor in some instances) who is accused of sexually abusing them. Clancy must also be aware of how this situation was exposed beyond a shadow of a doubt with the infamous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria McMartin pre-school incident]. <br />
<br />
Of course, Clancy, like many other authors who recently appeared on Salon and elsewhere, would likely respond to Geimer's request that the charges be dropped by saying that how she felt about the situation--even from the perspective of her current adult mind (which Clancy would presumably have more respect for than the judgment capabilities of a 13-year-old)--was totally irrelevant, that what Polanski did should still be a crime, and the situation should be considered a clear case of "abuse" no matter what Geimer's emotional reaction to it was, either then or now. Sexual activity between adults and people under 18, no matter how mutually consensual, no matter how pleasurable it was to the younger person, no matter who initiated the contact, no matter how much love and affection may have been shared between the two as part of the experience, and no matter how evident it was that no trauma or emotional damage of any sort had occurred to the younger person, is always wrong in some intrinsic absolute moral sense because kids can't understand sex, and as a result of that, they just don't "get" the fact that it was wrong. <br />
<br />
"Ninety-five percent of children don't fight it because they don't understand what's happening and because when they tell the truth nobody cares..."<br />
<br />
Wrong on both counts. I think kids, particularly adolescents (though Clancy doesn't make the distinction anyway), are fully capable of understanding sexual intimacy and are well aware of the difference between something that gives them pleasure and something that hurts them, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. If a parent, stepparent, or grandparent does push them into the situation, yes, it can be confusing to the kids in question, which is why it's important to question the power imbalance that exists within the hierarchal family unit of the present in a society where kids under 18 are effectively without most of their civil rights, and are therefore little more than the legal property of their parents in one sense and wards of the state in another sense (if the prevailing family unit was democratic in structure, as it would be in a youth liberated society, however, things may well be different; again, I will try to tackle this issue in a future essay). Clancy has yet to do this, of course, so she has yet to go to the root of the problem where a good 85% of all genuine abuse directed towards kids by adults occurs. A situation with an adult that did not have direct power over them would be much different, especially if the youth initiated it. Even pre-pubescents often engage in sex play with each other and they fully understand that this type of experimentation is fun when conducted between two willing individuals. Why would it be any different with an adult that does not live in their house and does not have direct power over them? I think it’s likely that Clancy would respond to my latter question with a variation of this: “That’s different, because adults ‘know better’ and kids do not!” What, exactly, do adults “know better” than kids when it comes to understanding that mutually desired sexual contact can be pleasurable and fulfilling? I guess what that statement really means is that it’s commonly believed that adults are mentally sophisticated enough to understand that even mutually consensual sexual interaction between themselves and younger people who are legally designated as “minors” is supposed to be intrinsically “wrong” in some absolutist, cosmic sense—or, perhaps more accurately, are better able to understand that offending the moral sensibilities of the majority and those who run the state apparatus is very unwise.<br />
<br />
And Clancy says that nobody cares when kids tell the truth? At the risk of coming off as impolite, I think Clancy has a lot of nerve to complain about people not listening to kids, since she only considers listening to kids if they tell her something in harmony with her worldview regarding youth sexuality, and though she will believe them if they insist they weren't traumatized or damaged by the experience since that goes along with the conclusions of her research, she will argue with them until she is blue in the face if they should also insist that what they did wasn't intrinsically wrong regardless of how they themselves felt about it.<br />
<br />
When asked how sex abuse victims should be treated by the system, she says:<br />
<br />
"I think practically, sexual abuse victims need to hear loud and clear that what happened to you is what happens to most people. It was wrong and not your fault, and you should report the crime, and the perpetrator should be punished. I don't think that sex abuse victims in most cases need years of therapy to get over the betrayal. What they need first and foremost is the straightforward truth: You are not alone, you have nothing to be ashamed of, it's his fault, and this is a crime."<br />
<br />
What if the young person insists it was not abuse? What if they question the absolutist edict that their experience was "wrong" if they felt it was a positive experience? Yes, it's a crime in the sense that it is against the law, but shouldn't what we have learned thus far open the door to questioning the wisdom of these laws? And once again, as for telling them it wasn't their fault even if they initiated it or pursued the adult--because unlike them adults always "know better"—then why must any blame be assigned to either participant in the first place? And if you keep telling them that what they did with an adult that may have made them feel loved and gave them pleasure was inherently wrong, isn't that all the more likely to make them feel ashamed about what happened if they see things differently than you do? <br />
<br />
With her next statement, Clancy goes a bit off the deep end and displays how much of her attitudes are based on raw emotion rather than reason when she makes it clear how much of her attitude is based on her interpretation of "feminism":<br />
<br />
"There's something I would like to add. Despite all of this media and research attention on sexual abuse for the last 30 years, I still don't hear the answer to one question: What the fuck is wrong with all of these men?"<br />
<br />
Um, considering all the media and research attention on sexual abuse for the past 30 years, ''this'' is the ''one'' question that Clancy wants the answer to? As if none of the other questions I raised above in this essay should even be considered?<br />
<br />
"''Sexual abuse is '''not''' women; it's men'' [emphasis mine]. Every once in a while a woman will sexually abuse, but in 95 percent of cases it's a man that is known to the child — a teacher, a friend, a family member."<br />
<br />
It was very revealing of you to point out this bias of yours, Dr. Clancy, which adds more credence to my theory that age of consent laws are largely based on negative stereotypes our society has on men. But is it true that a whopping 95% of all those who engage in actual abuse against kids are men? Could it be that reports of women committing acts of abuse are simply underreported to a huge extent because if the reality was made crystal clear via the media, it would besmirch the warm and cuddly image society has of women being inherently nurturing and loving of kids? This would be in contrast to the cultural conception of men being inherently predatory and possessing a disproportionately voracious sexual appetite in comparison to women. Hence, would this serve to encourage society to ask uncomfortable questions about various institutions--including that of raising kids--that favor women? More on that in a bit.<br />
<br />
Clancy elaborates further:<br />
:"These are high-functioning people in society who are choosing to molest children. All this focus on the psychology of the victim is a way to sidestep this central question: What is going on in society that so many men are choosing to get off on small children? I can find almost no studies on the subject. People will go into jails and interview a perpetrator, but most of these people don't go to jail, and most of them aren't caught."<br />
<br />
Now she says "small children," which implies very young kids as opposed to adolescents even though she has previously made it clear that she doesn't make a distinction, so I will continue to go with that; perhaps Clancy believes that by saying "small children" this will pack a greater emotional punch to her readers by emphasizing what she considers to be the inherent helplessness of kids. <br />
<br />
Now, as for what is going on in society that makes so many men "get off" on kids...that depends on whether you are talking about MAAs, child fetishists, or situational molesters. Of course, Clancy will not make the distinction at this point in time, and will likely rank all of the above three categories under the blanket term "pedophile" just as much of the media does. That is highly inaccurate, as members of the MAA community are well aware, but I will get to that after answering Clancy's main question raised up above.<br />
<br />
First of all, sexual/romantic attraction and admiration of those who are today labeled as “minors” is ''not'' truly rare, nor is it a trend that suddenly appeared in society out of the blue 30 years ago. This is especially true in regards to adult attraction to adolescents, who are basically young adults themselves. The three sub-categories of MAA [Minor Attracted Adult]--pedophiles, hebephiles, and nepiophiles--have existed throughout human history in equal numbers to what each of these groups exist today. The beauty of youth among all age groups has been recognized by many artists and writers throughout history, and it was only during the Victorian era of the mid-19th century that the concept of everyone labeled under the term "child" (a term that has since been expanded to include adolescents under 18 by the beginning of the 20th century) were considered to be pure and asexual, and this was due to a general disdain for sexuality and sexual expression itself that was the hallmark of this era. Since adult women were gaining more rights and gradually making it clear that they were capable of feeling sexual desire and having a positive reaction to sexual experiences, Victorian society took advantage of the gradually decreasing rights of younger people that were occurring at the same time to treat them as a political and cultural "consolation prize," and to use them to take women's place as society’s treasured paragons of asexual purity. <br />
<br />
At this time, it was also “minors” that took the place of women as being the individuals in society who were considered to have an inability to make competent decisions outside the realm of some other group's authority (men in the case of women in the days before their suffrage, adults 18 and over in the case of those we today label “minors”). The culmination of the Industrial Revolution that happened shortly after the Victorian mentality gained a foothold in Western society delivered the final blow to what was left of youth rights, along with the expansion of the definition of both the term and the cultural conception of the "child," including the creation of an intermediary phase of youth between childhood and adulthood, which came to be called ''adolescence''. All but the oldest people under the latter intermediary stage of human development were relegated to the legal status of "child" and were no longer treated as young adults but rather as older children. <br />
<br />
As a result of the above, society began to see adult attraction to people under the arbitrary age of legal adulthood as unnatural and pathological, and utterly ignored the existence of art and literature from the classical and medieval world that made it clear how common adult attraction to both pre-pubescents and (especially) adolescents have always been throughout history, and did its best to legally and culturally suppress all newly produced works of art carrying this theme by condemning them as "obscene." Youths under a legally designated arbitrary age, now bereft of most of the rights that young boys at least once enjoyed, and firmly entrenched at the bottom rung of the hierarchal nuclear family unit, were harshly disciplined for expressing their sexual nature in any way, a situation that occurs to this day when tweens and teens under 18 are actually brought to court and put on sex offender registries for expressing their sexual side by doing things such as taking nude or otherwise provocative pics of themselves and posting them on socnet sites like MySpace and Facebook, or sending them to other people via their cell phones (i.e., the sexting phenomenon), or even when pre-pubescents are caught "playing doctor" with each other. This recent state of affairs forced almost all expressions of adult attraction to kids into the closet as it now became an "issue" in society. <br />
<br />
But the issue didn't truly explode until the beginning of the sex abuse industry that coincided with the conservative takeover of the government that started with the Reagan years, where liberals were beaten back and felt compelled to repudiate their previous development of an open-minded stance on certain "hot button" issues, including this one, which led to the type of progressive we most often see today that is epitomized by Clancy and the other Salon writers I mentioned in my essay "The Roman Polanski Circus." This is in marked contrast to the progressives who existed during the truly liberal era of the early 1970s that applauded books like ''Show Me'' for their educational and scientific value to kids without worrying about whether a "pedophile" might become aroused after viewing the pics in that book. Imagine how Clancy and most other modern progressives would react to that book if it was published today? Judith Levine and possibly Robert Epstein would likely be among the relatively few lone voices even in the progressive world who would be arguing on its possible merits rather than falling all over themselves to come up with stronger words of condemnation for the book. Progressives of today are reluctant to even fight for sex education of young adolescents that doesn't place a high moral emphasis on abstinence.<br />
<br />
''That'' is what created the illusion in the minds of Clancy and others who think as she does that adults (erm, okay...men) with a sexual attraction to kids is some deviant aberration that sprang up out of the dark depths of decadent 20th century society. This only seemed to occur when the idea of adult attraction to those the legal system today designates as “minors” became a major "issue." <br />
<br />
Needless to say, the great majority of MAAs probably ''do not'' get involved in sexual relationships with kids in their respective age of attraction, and even less initiate such mutually consensual experiences that do still occur. Instead, the bulk of modern MAAs who enjoy having kids in their lives seek to interact with minors in legal and socially acceptable ways, and there are many (like myself) who steer clear of having underagers in their lives altogether because they fear being accused of something even if they didn't actually do anything illegal, and/or because they find it emotionally troubling to always have to stifle their true feelings for minors they interact with should a greater than platonic interest develop on either end, or because they may be activists who are "out" as MAAs in real life and therefore do not find it wise to interact with kids even in a legal and socially acceptable manner due to the risk of being accused of something by a panicky bigot (this author belongs to the latter category; as a heterosexual hebephile who is not in the toybox at all, I stay as far away from adolescent girls as possible in almost all cases out of fear that I might get accused of something illegal despite the fact that I am entirely law-abiding). Regardless, the popular belief that it's MAAs of any of the three aforementioned sub-categories that are involved with the bulk of intergenerational sexual interaction that does occur in this society in spite of the laws is another major myth that needs to be addressed much more often than it has been thus far. <br />
<br />
Secondly, there are individuals that may best be called '''child or teen fetishists'''. There are probably a lot of these individuals in society today, and they have likely been around for as long as human history has been around too. What distinguishes them from bona fide pedos, hebes, and nepis (i.e., those who together make up the broad political categorization of Minor Attracted Adults, or MAAs) is that their interest in kids is strictly sexual, and can even harbor violent fantasies to a much more prevalent degree than that which occurs amongst bona fide MAAs. This is in contrast to those better defined as MAAs, who tend to possess an attraction for kids that is as much emotional, social, and aesthetic as it is physical. However, child fetishists rarely act out their fantasies and most of them are quite harmless from a demonstrable point of view. Most of the relatively small number of them I have met personally when they gravitate to the MAA community display varying but often high degrees of guilt over their strictly sexual attraction to kids as a result of the societal condemnation of it, and do not believe it should ever be acted out, though many of them believe that viewing and possessing child porn should be legal. The only crime child fetishists are routinely found guilty of is downloading and viewing child porn. Hence, I think few child fetishists (save for the small number of them that may lack good self-control) are involved in the genuine abuse of kids discussed in this article. It should come to no surprise to Clancy that large numbers of these child or teen fetishists exist, because human beings can have almost anything you can possibly imagine as a sexual fetish. If there can be small but notable groups of people with sexual fetishes for depictions of animals having sex, plushies, dolls, and even shoes it should come as no surprise to anyone that children and teens could be the subject of many adult's personal fetish too.<br />
<br />
Next, we come to the '''situational molesters''', and it is from individuals like these that most genuine abuse of kids occurs, including outright force if not by various types of coercion. To Clancy's credit, she does not push the "stranger danger" myth, and she recognizes that most people who initiate sexual acts on minors are those who live with them or who they otherwise know (though this can be a rather broad definition, since kids could obviously be said to know any adult whom they developed an interest in). As has been noted in FBI statistics and many other sources but not at all acknowledged by Clancy is that the great majority of situational molesters ''do not have a sexual preference for minors'', but initiate sexual acts with them for a variety of other reasons, including severe emotional stress resulting from things like marital problems, the detrimental effects on behavior and judgment that can result from alcoholics who do not get any help and frequently consume alcohol, or simply from particularly severe power trips that are the natural consequence of the hierarchal nuclear family unit that is the socially dominant model of today. Such adults initiate non-consensual sexual contact with kids for much the same reason that heterosexual prisoners rape fellow inmates of the same gender, i.e., not because of a simple sexual desire alone but rather as a way of exercising power in an utterly corrupt way and establishing dominance and inflicting humiliation on an easy victim. The power that parents and other adults in certain positions in society have over children and adolescents under 18 make these individuals very easy victims in many cases, and this is something that our current heavily gerontocentric society doesn’t want to acknowledge, let alone deal with in any realistic manner. <br />
<br />
There are a minority of situational molesters who do not operate in the home, of course, and this small number of individuals simply see kids as easy victims due to their small size and are malevolent opportunists. It's these people who are responsible for the tiny number of kidnappings and murders of kids that the press often make sensationalistic stories about, and use as the impetus to rationalize a new wave of heavily draconian laws that hurt far more innocent people than they protect, further increase police powers over society, further encroach upon what few positive rights youths under 18 currently have, and further perpetuating the already pervasive sex abuse hysteria. However, it should be noted that the very tiny number of situational molesters who are strangers to the kids they kidnap or even murder pales enormously in comparison to the number of kids who are sexually abused or physically abused in many other ways, including murder, by parents every year. Clancy has so far refused to ask the very difficult questions about the nature of kids' politically disempowered status in society and the hierarchal structure of the present day family unit and school system that are together the cause of by far the greatest amount of real demonstrable harm inflicted upon kids every year. Judith Levine took a halting step towards identifying these things as major problems for kids in ''Harmful To Minors'', but she didn't go into it in detail, possibly so as to avoid offending a major target audience of her book any more than she had to. <br />
<br />
Hence, situational molesters, who are the cause of the vast majority of actual sexual interactions with minors (and neither MAAs nor typical child and teen fetishists), including most instances that are truly abusive and non-consensual in nature, tend to "get off" on power and dominance more than they do on simple sexual interaction with kids, and to them kids are simply targets of convenience due to both their present disempowered status in society (including within the schools) and their current servile role within the dominant family unit.<br />
<br />
Okay, with that out of the way, let's turn to Clancy's contention, a popular one in society, that it's "not women, but men" who abuse kids and see if it holds up to scrutiny or is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by "victim" feminists. This is going to be lengthy, because I want to gather as much evidence to back up my contention as possible, and any or all of this info may be highly valuable to future researchers on this or related topics. <br />
<br />
First, note [http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx this section] of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, which is not a youth liberationist org but rather one of those "child advocacy" orgs that Clancy seems to be so fond of, but it devotes a whole section of the site to the phenomenon of female sex offenders across North America. The site proves its "CA" credentials with its attitude towards all sexual activity between kids under 18 and adults, and it ignorantly combines articles from various places where the sexual relations between adult women and minors were clearly consensual with articles that are clearly describing acts of true abuse and outright sadism perpetrated by women against minors (such as the Melissa Huckabee incident), a shameful practice that perpetuates the idea that all sexual activity between adults and minors constitutes "abuse."<br />
<br />
However, despite the wrongful equation of mutually consensual acts between women and minors with true acts of violent sadism committed by women against minors, the articles and statistics on that site make two things clear that will make "feminists" like Clancy quite uncomfortable: 1) It's not all that uncommon for women--be they MAAs or those without a sexual preference for minors who simply happen to unexpectedly fall for a minor--to have mutually consensual sexual relations with minors; and 2) a large degree of actual violent abuse committed against minors by adult women, including mothers, is a problem that is much more widespread than society is willing to face up to for a variety of reasons. Let's look at some of the highlights from the above site:<br />
<br />
"Female sexual predators go unreported because of a lack of awareness by the public."<br />
<br />
"75% of sexual predators are male and '''25% are female'''."<br />
<br />
Though the majority of sex offenders in North America are indeed male, the number of women who engage in illegal sexual acts with minors are much greater than the mere 5% Clancy imagined, according to this report.<br />
<br />
"'''86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed''', so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted."<br />
<br />
This is in contrast to the situation faced by men, where almost all accusations against them are believed no matter how unfounded the accusations may be in many instances, and which greatly discourage men from taking jobs where they will be working closely with kids, such as teachers or babysitters. This is due to the very different cultural perceptions of men and women that I mentioned up above. Hence, these statistics suggest that contrary to Susan Clancy's claim that few women commit such crimes, in actuality it may simply seem this way due to the fact that women are rarely arrested for them. But "feminists" like Clancy do not, of course, consider this, since if they did it would conflict uncomfortably with their worldview about men being more prone to violence and/or sexually voracious than women.<br />
<br />
Now, check out [http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/MovingF_Female_perpetrators_Child_sexual_abuse_JUL94.aspx this section] of the site, which features a detailed analysis of female sex offenders by author Lisa Lipshires, which, of course, includes both mutually consensual experiences between women and minors and those who suffered genuine abuse at the hands of female situational molesters, though both are labeled as "abuse" here. Some highlights I would like to point out and maybe comment on:<br />
<br />
"Betsy K. and Marcia Turner are part of a small, growing number of people confronting the issue of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse. Many feel they are fighting an uphill battle against ''societal denial and cultural stereotypes of women and men'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
"In her 1993 doctoral dissertation, 'Female Sex Offenders: Societal Avoidance of Comprehending the Phenomenon of Women Who Sexually Abuse Children' (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI), Boston psychologist Laurie Goldman analyzed the ways society minimizes the scope and impact of sexual abuse by women."<br />
<br />
So it would appear that some women academics who are not blinded by "feminist" stereotypes not only acknowledge the existence of women who have sex with minors, as well as women who commit actual acts of violence against them (I will distinguish between the two though the article and Clancy herself does not), but actual studies have been conducted on it. Hasn't Clancy ever read any of these studies? Let's take a look at what Dr. Goldman has to say about this phenomenon:<br />
<br />
"Unable to obtain subjects for her study, ''Goldman decided to focus on the societal denial that makes female perpetrators such an elusive population'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
This should be interesting...<br />
<br />
"Goldman discovered that denial of female perpetration is woven into the very systems meant to protect children."<br />
<br />
Translation: the very system that pushes the sex abuse hysteria in the interests of "protecting" children from their own sexual desires works to suppress not only the culturally unacceptable idea that kids can be sexual beings, but also the almost equally culturally unacceptable idea that women can possibly be anything other than nurturing in a strictly maternal way towards minors.<br />
<br />
"In the State of Washington, for example, one human services professional reported that when an accused female offender was brought before a judge, the judge declared, 'women don't do things like this,' and dismissed the case. In another case, a New England prison warden told Goldman that she had only one woman in her system who had been convicted of child sexual abuse because 'public sentiment did not allow for such charges to be brought to trial in her conservative state.'"<br />
<br />
Imagine that! I see that our esteemed Harvard scholar and expert on child sexual abuse—that’s you, Dr. Clancy--needs to do more research, and just as she commendably works hard to dispel certain myths perpetrated by the sex abuse hysteria, there are certain myths she needs to work to dispel from her own psyche first.<br />
<br />
"This comes as no surprise to Gail Ryan, facilitator of the Kemp Center's Perpetrator Prevention Project in Denver. She has found that female adolescent sex offenders 'are much less likely than male adolescent offenders to be caught or charged.'"<br />
<br />
In other words, adolescent female "offenders" who have sexual contact with pre-pubescent kids are much less likely to be charged than their male counterparts who engage in the same activities for the reasons mentioned above by Goldberg, and they are also much less likely to be caught because people no doubt keep less of an eye on them around kids than they do with adolescent boys. This is very similar to how black shoplifters are much more likely to be caught while committing the act of theft than white shoplifters, not necessarily because whites shoplift less but simply because store employees and security guards tend to watch black shoppers much more closely than they do white shoppers due to common stereotypes of blacks as being more prone to commit crimes than whites.<br />
<br />
"Iowa State University sociologist Craig Allen, who conducted a study Of 75 men and 65 women who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child, refers to this process as a form of societal 'gate keeping.' By the time female offenders could be referred to a therapist for treatment, he writes in ''Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis'' (Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press, 1991), 'only those women would be left whose behaviors were so deviant' that their abusiveness could not be denied 'at any of the preceding 'gates' in the system.' Allen's gate keeping hypothesis could account for why female perpetrators appear so rarely in therapists' case studies and why, when they do, they are generally described as psychotic or otherwise severely disturbed."<br />
<br />
The above observation by Allen is easy to interpret. Basically, in his case studies conducted on female sex offenders, it was clear that the only female perps who received state enforced therapy were those who were likely to have truly abused minors in a real sense, including the use of violence. Those who engaged in what was most likely mutually consensual relationships with minors were let go. This is certainly fair in my opinion, but the point of the above is that men are hardly ever given this type of deal, and they tend to be sent to therapy regardless of whether their sexual interactions with a minor was clearly mutually consensual or actually abusive. This can largely account for why there are so many more male sex offenders in prison and therapy than females.<br />
<br />
"Ruth Matthews, a St. Paul psychologist who has worked with 50 adolescent and 70 adult female sex offenders, says another major reason why adult female perpetrators are rarely seen in treatment is that many are mothers. In such cases, she says, dependent children are generally reluctant to turn in their mothers."<br />
<br />
Hmmmm...imagine that. This is an uncomfortable fact for our gerontocentric society that youth liberationists have been trying to get across to the public for many years now. Most of the cases alluded to in the above excerpt probably did constitute actual abuse and coercion, since the bulk of all real abuse--sexual, physical, and (rarely considered to be a problem) emotional--are committed by parents or any other adult who lives within the home and therefore wields great power over the kids. I have no doubt that kids are much less likely to report a mother than a father, and even if they do, a guilty mother is much less likely to be investigated, let alone convicted, than a guilty father, as the above evidence makes clear. And the above study displays (however inadvertently) the fact that kids are forced into dependence on their parents much longer than is necessary, and because there is no community overview of younger children who could not be on their own even in a youth liberated society, are ''major reasons'' why kids would be much more reluctant to turn in a parent than they would a total stranger, or a person who lived down the street that may have genuinely abused them. And since mothers are usually awarded custody of their kids when a divorce occurs via one of the most blatant examples of favoritism given towards them due to the cultural belief that women are inherently more nurturing and thus make better parents in most cases than men do, it stands to reason that much parental abuse inflicted on kids results from mothers. <br />
<br />
"If children -- whose disclosures still provide the primary means of reporting offenders -- are being abused by mothers who are single parents or who carry out the abuse with male partners, disclosure would cause them to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care. By contrast, when there is an offending father and a non-offending mother, a child's disclosure would not mean 'as much of a loss,' says Matthews. 'They still will have their home, they still will have a parent, and their family will stay intact.'"<br />
<br />
Very good observation on Matthews' part. And one Clancy and her fellow "feminists" need to pay attention to.<br />
<br />
"If children seldom disclose, and if female abusers are often winnowed out of investigations and court proceedings, how much female perpetration is actually going on? Because of the hidden nature of child sexual abuse [at least within the home] and because of problems with the way in which child abuse data are collected, nobody can provide a definitive answer to this question."<br />
<br />
The above is a point that makes it all the more clear that Clancy's claim of 5% for female perps of sexual abuse--and most importantly, ''real'' abuse that actually harms kids--was simply pulled out of her...well, you know where. In other words, it was a total assumption on her part based on "feminist" ideology and nothing more.<br />
<br />
"In a 1981 study, 60 percent of 412 male and 10 percent of 540 female undergraduate psychology students at the University of Washington who recalled childhood sexual contact with a post-pubescent person at least five years older than themselves said their abusers were female. (Fritz, G., Stoll, K., and Wagner, N. 'A Comparison of Males and Females Who Were Sexually Molested as Children,' Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1981, vol. 7,54-59.)"<br />
<br />
Despite the biased comment in the above quote that refers to all the instances of sexual interaction between kids of both genders and females who were at least five years older than themselves as being "abuse" without even taking the issue of consent into consideration, the aforementioned study nevertheless makes it clear that older kids who are female engage in sexual contact in a general sense with other kids several years younger much more often than is commonly believed.<br />
<br />
"Researchers do not know why some studies uncover a higher rate of female perpetration than others, but The National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse (NRCCSA) asserts that because of a lack of standardization in reporting and inconsistencies in research methods and ''definitions of sexual abuse'' [emphasis mine], 'the firm statistics everyone desires' on the prevalence of abuse 'simply are not available.' (NRCCSA News, May-June 1992, vol. 1, no. 1.)"<br />
<br />
This excerpt makes it clear that one of the problems with getting consistent statistics of illegal sexual activity involving adults of either gender with minors is often because the definition of "sexual abuse" tends to be inconsistent from one study or another, and all based upon often loaded and culturally biased definitions of what constitutes "abuse."<br />
<br />
"The abuse that females perpetrate can range from subtle, non-contact forms such as exhibitionism and voyeurism to overt sexual touching and/or penetration."<br />
<br />
"Other therapists, including those specializing in male survivors of sexual abuse, have noticed an apparent pattern in clients' reports of female-perpetrated abuse. Minneapolis psychologist Peter Dimock has counseled 400 to 500 male survivors of sexual abuse since 1980. He found that, for the 25 percent who recall being abused by a female, most experienced the abuse as subtle or seductive. Very often, Dimock says, if the female abuser is in a parental or caretaking role, she will perpetrate the abuse 'under the guise of caretaking, where it has involved putting medication on the child's genitals, inserting suppositories or enemas,' or she will make an excuse to expose her body to the boy, 'clearly with an intent to arouse, but, again, under the guise of normalized behavior.'"<br />
<br />
Imagine that!<br />
<br />
"Nic Hunter, a psychologist from St. Paul, author of ''Abused Boys: The Neglected Victim of Sexual Abuse'', and editor of ''The Sexually Abused Male'', Volumes I and II (all from Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990), has also found in his work with hundreds of male survivors that approximately 25 percent were sexually abused by females and that in general, the abuse was 'very covert in that it was disguised as something other than a sexual contact.' Dimock adds that female abusers frequently treat their victims like romantic partners, taking them on 'date-like outings.'"<br />
<br />
Okay, the above excerpt contains the conceit that an adult and a youth cannot actually be romantic partners, and that the adult taking their younger partners on "date-like outings" (maybe to the movies, the park, out to dinner, etc.?) is a form of "abuse." It would appear that any type of interaction between kids and adults that remotely contains romantic connotations can be labeled as "abuse" these days. These were most likely instances of mutually consensual relationships that were "found out," and the boys were then "convinced" it was abusive and that they were "victims" after being forced into "therapy" (just a theory of mine, but quite likely to be accurate since I'm sure not only girls are forced into therapy when mutually consensual relationships with adults are discovered; such "therapy" sessions are a routine part of the state intervention process). But again, such statements would make it clear to Clancy that many more women engage in romantic relationships with minors that she is willing to believe.<br />
<br />
"Not all survivors or victims report that sexual abuse by females was subtle or covert. Of the 93 women who perpetrated in Michigan therapist Bobbie Rosencrans' recent four-year study of survivors of maternal incest, 65 percent reported that their abuse had been violent. Karen K., a survivor of maternal incest from Washington State who edits the newsletter S.O.F.I.E.(Survivors of Female Incest Emerge!), has read nearly 500 letters from survivors in the past 18 months. She feels that '''women are more creative and more brutal in their abuse''' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Since the above analysis was based on studies of maternal incest, it's far more likely that these incidents constituted actual abuse by women who were situational molesters rather than MAAs. And to think that it's been said by some survivors of maternal abuse that women are more creative in their abuse than men, and also ''more brutal''. This proves that women can be as violent as men when it comes to abusing the power that society grants them over their biological kids in the currently dominant family unit.<br />
<br />
"One of the most common reactions to female-perpetrated abuse is shame about gender identity. Phyllis E, who was sexually abused by both her mother and her father, remembers feeling a deep disgust for her mother's body -- a disgust that carried over into a hatred of her own female self. 'I couldn't stand my own body for years,' she says. 'I couldn't understand how men could stand women's bodies.'"<br />
<br />
Very interesting. "Feminists," take heed!<br />
<br />
"Tom, a therapist and survivor of abuse by three females, including his mother, has also felt a deep confusion about his gender identity. Along with subjecting Tom to unnecessary enemas, masturbating him in the bathtub, and making him sleep in her bed and watch her dress, his mother perpetrated against him a type of behavior that Indiana therapist Christine Lawson refers to as 'perversive abuse.' Perversive abuse, Lawson writes in 'Mother-Son Sexual Abuse: Rare or Underreported? A Critique of the Research' (''Child Abuse & Neglect'', vol. 17, no. 2) is abuse of a child's sexuality and 'may include behavior such as forcing the boy to wear female clothing ... and generally discouraging the child's identification with males.' Tom says that 'until I was five, I hadn't the foggiest notion that I wasn't a girl.'"<br />
<br />
It would appear that the above report constitutes a case of actual abuse conducted by a female situational offender with many psychological issues that she took out on her son, and it serves as a chilling reminder to the depth that mothers can sink to when they turn abusive on their kids. In fact, though I have no idea if it has happened or not, I have yet to hear of a father or other male authority figure who forced kids under their care to undergo enemas, which are highly unpleasant to endure even if necessary and done by yourself or a medical professional.<br />
<br />
"A widespread societal belief that female-perpetrated sexual abuse is improbable -- particularly if the abuser was one's mother -- has made it especially difficult for survivors of female abusers to disclose their experiences and has left them with perhaps an even deeper sense of isolation."<br />
<br />
"Karen K. remembers believing for years that she was the only survivor of mother-daughter incest. 'I felt completely isolated and alone with who my perpetrator was,' Karen says. In response to Rosencrans' study (Safer Society Press, 1994), one woman wrote, 'I've never met anyone who was sexually abused by their mother. I didn't know that 93 other people existed.'"<br />
<br />
Yet another allegation that suggests the real number of female situational molesters who assault their own kids is not as rare as many seem to think, but simply swept under the rug.<br />
<br />
Now, to further refute Clancy's specious and arguably sexist claim, let's take a look at [http://sexual-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/sexually_abusive_mothers this article] by Karen Richardson, which is specifically devoted to ''sexually abusive mothers''. This means that it's likely that real abuse was occurring in all of the true accounts by female situational molesters who were operating within the favorite and safest place for all situational molesters who are parents to operate--within the loving home. In almost every single one of these cases, I would agree with Clancy that they constitute a real problem, though I am not quite sure our respective suggestions at solutions would coincide.<br />
<br />
"Sexual abuse perpetrated by mothers is an uncomfortable subject for many people. A mother committing sexual acts on their child in unthinkable – yet it happens. It defies everything we want to believe about mothers. Yet statistics validate that sexually abusive mothers do exist."<br />
<br />
"ChildLine is a helpline operated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). ''According to their 2008/09 statistics, 2,142 children who called about sexual abuse reported that the perpetrators were women. Out of these children, 1,311, or 11% of all calls cited their mother as the abuser'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
"Other female perpetrators reported by children who called ChildLine were a female acquaintance, aunts, sisters, stepmothers and grandmothers."<br />
<br />
Wow. What a humbling stat for "feminists" like Susan Clancy to digest.<br />
<br />
"Dr. Christine Hatchard has a Masters degree in Counseling Psychology and Human Services and a doctorate in Clinical Psychology, with a specialization in Psychological Assessment. She founded Making Daughters Safe Again in 1999 and has worked with hundreds of survivors of mother-daughter sexual abuse."<br />
<br />
Imagine that. This is the second organization I came across in the course of this research that is exclusively devoted to abuse survivors who were victims in the home ''by mothers'', and ''not'' fathers. Are the "feminists" of Clancy's stripe absolutely certain that her immortal declaration--"Sexual abuse is not women; it's men"--are based in reality?<br />
<br />
"According to Dr. Hatchard, the vast majority of female sexual abusers are married and heterosexual. The mother may be a survivor of abuse and act out her experiences on her daughter or son. She writes on her website, 'The mother may find it unbearable to see any part of herself in her daughter, and displace her own anger and shame over her sexuality onto her daughter. ''The mother often wishes to dominate and control her daughter'' [emphasis mine], while also seeking emotional support from her, sometimes resulting in a reversal of roles.'”<br />
<br />
Though I think the claim that someone who was sexually abused by parents will likely grow up to become abusers of their own children in turn is a highly dubious one, I think the crux of the above excerpt is the commonly reported observation that genuine sexual abuse of kids is often the result of the power that parents currently have over their kids, something that few if anyone outside the youth liberationist movement are seriously challenging for obvious political reasons. This is because such power all too often results in a desire to dominate and control those who are in a subservient position to themselves, and the above is a disturbing reminder that women are just as capable of taking advantage of this power they wield and resorting to abuse as men. This is also evident in how many female politicians tend to be every bit as warmongering and inimical to the civil rights of those under their rule as any male politician (e.g., Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, the female perpetrators of prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib scandal), but that is a whole other subject that I will not go into now; I just mentioned it here quickly since that is a further bit of evidence to refute the common societal belief that women are inherently nurturing and more peaceful than men when in positions of power and authority.<br />
<br />
"There is agreement that this is a highly under-reported crime. An NSPCC report on female sex offenders in 2005 suggests that determining a precise prevalence rate is difficult because ''sometimes even professionals do not acknowledge that a woman is capable of committing such a heinous crime against her own child'' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
"Less than 1% of members at Dr. Hatchard’s 'Making Daughters Safe Again' report that they had intervention as a child. Dr. Hatchard states that some of the reasons this is highly under-reported include:<br />
*"Therapists, doctors, social workers and other professionals know very little about this form of abuse or ''they simply do not consider it a possibility'' [emphasis mine].<br />
*"Perpetrators overwhelmingly appear like a caring mother.<br />
*"Low physical evidence that can’t be detected upon a routine physical exam.<br />
*"Lack of protection by physically or emotionally absent fathers or abusive fathers.<br />
*"Abuse is hidden under the guise of normal medical care or hygiene routines."<br />
<br />
So societal biases against men and in favor of women cause abusive mothers to get away with their bullshit far more often than abusive fathers do. Nice. Also, it amazes me that "feminists" like Clancy and others who look the other way in regards to the prevalence of maternal abuse of kids due to a belief that abuse against kids (as well as spouses) is a thing that almost only men do never seem to consider the fact that since women do not produce semen and men do, it can be much more difficult to use laboratory testing to prove (or disprove, admittedly) that a woman committed an act of sexual violence than men. <br />
<br />
"For the sake of the children whose mothers have sexually violated them, ''it’s time society acknowledges that women can and do commit sexual abuse'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Granted, men may indeed commit acts of abuse against their kids much more often than women do, and there is undoubtedly many more male situational molesters than there are female in a general sense, but ignoring the sizable number of cases that women are responsible for is totally unjustifiable and yet another result of cultural beliefs being confused with facts. And the number of female perps is clearly well above a mere 5%.<br />
<br />
Here is the link to [http://mdsasupport.homestead.com/home.html Making Our Daughters Safe Again], the site mentioned above that is devoted to the cause of raising society's awareness that many kids (specifically girls in this case) are abused by their mothers, much more so than is commonly believed. Didn't Clancy ever happen upon the site of this org before? Or did she do so and just willfully block it out of her mind? I will give her the benefit of the doubt and presume the former, which shows that she needs to do more research before spouting her “feminist” rhetoric. I have no doubt she is fully capable of getting past these biases of hers, as she has proven to be willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of the truth.<br />
<br />
Next we find [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/taboo-tolerance/female-sexual-abuse-the-untold-story-of-societys-last-taboo-1767688.html this article] by Charlotte Philby. Though, as we might expect, this article contains a certain number of ignorant assertions (that I will nitpick a bit), such as the claim that child sexual abuse is a result of "pedophilia" in general--which is not accurate, as the bulk of real sexual abuse occurs in the home by situational molesters who ''do not'' have a sexual preference for minors--pedophilia (as well as hebephilia) is a set of feelings and a state of being, and ''does not'' denote or imply any type of action. The article also fails to differentiate between mutually consensual sex between women and minors and the type of genuine abuse all too often inflicted by those adults who have direct power over kids. And of course, the article refuses to take the next logical step of some of its findings and suggest that perhaps the civil disempowerment of kids and their forced role as "lowest person on the totem pole" within the confines of the present family unit may be the biggest source of these problems. But it does at least provide a lot of good info that further refutes Clancy's claim.<br />
<br />
"The story that Sharon, who is now 40, has been unable to tell before today is one that few would wish to hear: from as far back as she can remember until the day she left home at the age of 16, Sharon, an only child, was sexually abused by her mother. ''The particulars of her abuse are too horrific to bear repeating in detail; this was sustained sexual violence, which she suffered silently at the hands of the one person who was supposed to love and protect her above all others'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Do parents in general, including mothers, really do such a stand up job of protecting their kids from harm when statistics show that it's most often parents who commit acts of violence, including murder, on their kids than either peers or strangers every year? <br />
<br />
Granted, many parents are decent and caring human beings, but that doesn't make their current level of power over their kids any less justifiable (as the saying goes, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator). Let me make it clear that I do not believe it's the institution of parenthood itself that is the problem, but rather the type of near-absolute power they currently have over their kids. Parents are not the enemy of kids, and are in fact potentially the greatest resource they have in their lives, but the type of hierarchal power that they and other adults currently have over youths under 18 may very well constitute an "enemy" to these minors. In other words, ''it’s power and not any group of people that is the enemy'', because too much power tends to corrupt people, even ordinarily good people. This holds true regardless of the person’s gender.<br />
<br />
"It was at the age of 30, when she became pregnant with her own daughter, that Sharon finally summoned the courage to speak to her GP for the first time about what had happened to her. Her fear was that if she didn't seek help to overcome her issues, they could in turn have a damaging effect on her unborn child. But her doctor's response was: 'Don't be silly, mothers don't sexually abuse children. You're understandably worried about becoming a parent yourself, but don't let your imagination run away with you.' <br />
<br />
"And it seems this reaction is all too common."<br />
<br />
Is it really that hard to believe that a mother, who wields the same type of power over her children as their father does, is any less capable of abusing that power? <br />
<br />
"While researching this piece, I spoke to a number of adults – men and women – who as children ''endured horrific sexual abuse at the hands of their mothers, aunts, grandmothers and female [care providers]'' [emphasis mine]. Very few of them had ever had a chance to tell their story before, and the effect of keeping their experiences to themselves for so long has had a disastrous effect on their mental state."<br />
<br />
Though I think there is a good amount of evidence that even kids who suffer genuine abuse are not destined to be "damaged goods" for life because of it, and should be able to heal fully with sufficient support and some competent therapy, I can understand that the perceived need to hide abuse committed by a close family member, particularly a mother, can cause extreme anxiety and depression.<br />
<br />
"The systemic denial of female sexual abuse is one of the scandals of our times. While in recent years the issue of male paedophilia has been placed firmly at the forefront of public debate in Britain, with endless high-profile media and Government campaigns bringing this formerly underground issue into the public spotlight, it seems that the involvement of women in cases of child molestation is an enduring taboo, and in order to break that wall of silence we must start by addressing a series of serious shortfalls that run throughout the child protection services in this country."<br />
<br />
For starters, as I said above, the issue of genuine sexual abuse of kids has nothing to do with the topic of "pedophilia" per se. And the existence of MAAs has never been an "underground" issue; they have existed as long as human history has existed. It simply wasn't an issue at all until relatively recently in history because it's only in recent history that youth sexuality, along with their general potential and competence, has been denounced and suppressed to the extent that they are today. It can be argued, though, that the sexual abuse that all too often occurs within the home by mostly situational molesters has been an "underground" issue for obvious reasons. <br />
<br />
As for the shortfalls that "run throughout the child protection services" in any Western country, these governments do not dare address that issue directly, because it would risk undercutting the current structure of one of modern society's most revered institutions, as well as bringing up the matter of youth rights. So instead, it's much safer to blame the existence of MAAs for this problem, and attributing all the cases that involve arresting adult perps who live in the home to the problem of "pedophilia" rather than parental power and the civil disempowerment of youth.<br />
<br />
"Yet, while such figures have forced us to face the reality of male child sex abuse in the UK, there are enduring myths that surround our ideas of paedophilia – including ideas about the type of people who abuse."<br />
<br />
It's nice of the author to recognize the above, but it's a shame that she won't consider the idea that there may be other myths regarding adult attraction to minors also.<br />
<br />
"As well as founding Kidscape, Elliott is also a child psychologist with 40 years' experience and the author of ''Female Sexual Abuse of Children: The Ultimate Taboo''. She understands all too well that predators come in all shapes and sizes, male and female. In the early Nineties, while researching her book on female sexual abuse, Elliott was a guest on the Richard and Judy breakfast show. During her brief television appearance, she invited viewers with personal experiences of female sexual abuse to phone in and share their stories. Immediately, she says, the lines started buzzing. There was barely enough time on air to answer a fraction of the calls she received from men and women of all ages, from across the country, getting in touch to share their stories."<br />
<br />
Though I would question the definition that Elliot uses for "predator," I think it's quite telling that there has been enough hoopla about females who abuse kids--or at least those who have mutually consensual sex with them--that a book has actually been written about it. I guess Clancy and other "feminists" of her particular stripe didn't see that, either.<br />
<br />
"Since then, Elliott has been contacted by some 800 victims, 780 of them in the UK, each desperate just to talk. ''In a large percentage of these cases, the abuse took place '''within the family home''', which is one of the reasons why cases of female sexual abuse are so incredibly hard to spot'' [emphasis mine]. Yet, sadly, this doesn't mean that the abuse isn't happening. As Elliott points out: 'Considering that I am just one woman working for one relatively small charity, and this many people have managed to get in touch with me, I dread to think of the true scale of the problem.'"<br />
<br />
Please note what the author said up above (which I italicized), because it's a very important acknowledgement and it is something that the welfare agencies purporting to "protect" kids need to open their eyes to and start criticizing the real reasons why so many kids get physically and sexually abused so often in the Western nations. And I wish Clancy would see that too.<br />
<br />
"Extraordinarily, ''in the vast majority of cases involving female sexual abuse (of both boys and girls), the child's mother turns out to be involved in that abuse, whether offending alone or with another woman or a man'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Are you getting all of this, Dr. Clancy?<br />
<br />
"Very few have ever before felt able to talk about the abuse because they feared they would not be believed – and those who have already come forward, to a doctor or therapist, have usually had their worst fears realized. One man, now 60 years old, recalls: 'When I tried to tell my therapist of my abuse when I was 35, I was told: 'You are having fantasies about your mother and you need more therapy to deal with that.' In reality, ''my mother had been physically and sexually abusing me for as long as I can remember. The abuse was horrific, '''including beatings and sadomasochistic sex'''''.'"<br />
<br />
Are you this too, Dr. Clancy?<br />
<br />
"And this view is one corroborated by a number of frustrated officials currently working in child welfare organizations and different parts of the British justice system, who wish to remain anonymous. These individuals say they just aren't being given the tools they need to address this issue, or even being made aware that it is an issue at all. This is perhaps not surprising when you learn that ''there is hardly any official information available pertaining specifically to the area of women who sexually abuse children, and barely any research being carried out, either'' [emphasis mine]. There have been a couple of Government-led initiatives to educate officials in welfare agencies about the issue – including a conference held in Manchester last April entitled 'Child Abuse: The Female Offender'. But still nowhere near enough is being done."<br />
<br />
I guess Clancy never heard of that conference in Manchester. Maybe the communications were down in her area of Nicaragua at the time.<br />
<br />
"All things considered, we might do better to look somewhere other than the Government data for an idea of the prevalence of cases of child abuse involving female offenders in the UK – and the most widely respected sources for this are the independent studies from ChildLine and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which are believed to provide a much more accurate picture. ''Suddenly, the issue of female sexual abuse doesn't look quite as uncommon as we might otherwise have believed'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Imagine that.<br />
<br />
"...as Zoe Hilton, the [The National Center for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children] policy advisor for child protection, suggests: '''The true extent of female sexual abuse is still a hidden picture.' Furthermore, it is not a picture that many seem in any hurry to clarify'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
"One of the biggest problems, of course, is that the idea that women can and do sexually abuse children [or at least be sexual with them in a mutually consensual manner--D] is ''highly provocative in itself'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Doesn't Clancy know that!<br />
<br />
"'Women are perceived as the nurturers, those who are there to look after our young people," explains a spokeswoman for the online child protection act in Britain, adding that ''female sexual abuse is often even more threatening than male sexual abuse as it undermines what we understand about the way women relate to children'' [emphasis mine]. In order for us to recognize it, the spokeswoman continues, we have to set our preconceptions aside. Otherwise, children will continue to suffer in silence: 'How can a child be expected to understand they are being abused and that what they are enduring is wrong if we as a society cannot recognize women as abusers?' she asks."<br />
<br />
It's relatively easy for a kid to tell if something that is done to their body by another person is right or wrong: if it gives them pleasure, if it doesn't cause any physical or psychological damage, and ''if they desire the activity in quest''ion, then it shouldn't be considered "wrong." Most often (at least in our culture) kids do not grow up thinking of their parents in such a way (the Freudian concepts of the Oedipus and Electra Complexes notwithstanding), which is why such activity often bothers them when initiated by a parent. Also, with the very direct power that parents have over their kids, the latter are in no position to say "no" to such sexual advances (which are why I have reservations about supporting in-the-home incest, at least during a time period when youths do not have most of their civil rights recognized by the law). As for the particular sentence I italicized up above, that one is on target.<br />
<br />
"Understandably, this is a sensitive and highly emotive subject, the fallout from which Michele Elliott of Kidscape has witnessed at first hand. In 1992, she held a conference in London while compiling her book on the subject of female sexual abuse. She recalls how 30 women turned up to disrupt her address: 'They stood up and started yelling about how terrible it was that ''I was detracting from the fact that '''male power''' was to blame'' [emphasis mine]. It is very disappointing when you encounter such extreme and closed-minded reactions [bwah-hah-hah! The pot calling the kettle black here? Sorry, I couldn't resist--D]. I was simply responding to what victims had told me."<br />
<br />
Instead of blaming the abuse of kids on specifically male power, why not the dangers of female power also? Since when do women act any kinder than men when in positions of power? Has any of these people ever studied the policies and positions of female politicians, or had a female boss at a job in the past? And isn't parental power, which women share with men, one of the most prominent examples of power granted to women in society? I think parental power in general needs to be blamed here. And yes, I agree with Elliot that close-mindedness, particularly in its extreme forms, is truly a negative force in society. People in both this community and the youth community know that all too well. Which is why I couldn't help laughing when I saw that comment Elliot made in the above excerpt.<br />
<br />
"And such closed-mindedness is rife in the criminal-justice system too, Hilary Aldridge confirms: 'There is a tendency in the courts to see the woman as a victim of a male counterpart.' But this isn't always the case by any means. Even when there is a male co-offender, this doesn't automatically mean that the female partner is an unwilling accomplice."<br />
<br />
The above point made by Aldridge is extremely important, because the courts in all the Western nations, not just Britain, all too often make the exact same stereotypical assumptions, i.e., that all women who commit horrendous acts of abuse on minors, even murder, are most likely a dupe of some monstrous man. A very glaring example of such a thing was [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html the case] involving the horrific Canadian serial killer Paul Bernardo and his very willing accomplice--his wife Karla Homolka.<br />
<br />
Bernardo is especially loathed by hebephiles like myself (as well as the entire MAA community, of course) because he was one of those rare serial killers who targeted teen girls. His first kill was the most shocking one of all, as it was Karla's own younger teen sister Tammy (even though he only intended to rape the girl after drugging her, which was abominable on its own), but the most horrible part of the entire incident was that ''Karla helped him drug and rape her own little sister at his request''. Since Karla worked at a veterinary clinic, she stole some halothane, a chemical used to anesthetize animals before surgery, and Bernardo used it to keep Karla's sister unconscious after knocking her out by slipping a halcion pill in a drink he made for her without the girl's knowledge. In fact, while the rape was going on, Paul requested that Karla join in on the sexual assault, and she complied. Think about this for a minute...she did this to ''her own sister''. Unfortunately, an already horrific situation got far worse when Tammy choked to death on her own vomit. As per another of Bernardo's requests, Karla helped him hide the drugs and the camera they used to film the rape-turned-deadly, and to cover up the fact that they were responsible for Tammy's death, thereby convincing her grieving parents that she and her husband had nothing to do with the fact that the girl choked to death. After all, how could the Homolka's possibly suspect that their daughter was remotely capable of doing such a thing to her own little sister? Since Karla was home that night, they couldn't imagine that she would let her husband do anything to her sister without fighting like mad to protect her. <br />
<br />
After this, the horrid activities of Bernardo continued as he targeted two other teen girls before he was found out and arrested, but he couldn't have successfully kidnapped either of those girls without Karla's help. Bernardo’s and Karla's modus operandi for kidnapping these girls would be for Karla to drive up to the curb near where the girls were walking without her husband in the car and call the girl over to her vehicle to ask for directions. Both girls did so in succession because, as Bernardo had anticipated, they would be much more likely to trust approaching a strange woman than they would a man. When the girls were talking to Karla, Bernardo, who was hiding nearby, would sneak up behind them and force them into the car at knifepoint. What followed for both of his following victims were days of torture and sexual abuse, all of which Bernardo caught on camera--and all of which Karla directly participated in, which included her sexually assaulting the girls in various ways at Bernardo's direction. Bernardo then killed both of his victims, deliberately this time, and disposed of their bodies, and Karla helped with that, too. <br />
<br />
Luckily, Bernardo's obsessive and perverse need to get the sexual abuse on film proved to work against him when he finally went to court, since the films provided proof of what he did. What the confiscated films also showed the jury during their trial was Karla's direct involvement, and though her attorney pleaded with the jury to accept his claim that Karla only did this because she was forced to do so under threat of death by her husband, the jurors noted that she participated in the sexual assaults of the girls with a lot of evident enthusiasm, and she seemed to be very aroused while doing so. Could she fake that and put on such a good performance under duress? And even if she was threatened by her husband to help him drug and rape her little sister, wouldn't anyone expect her to defy her husband and fight to protect her sister even if it may have meant her own death? Couldn't she have told her husband she would go along with it and then shove a knife in his back when he wasn't looking, before they actually went through with it? Needless to say, the jury had trouble believing the claims of Karla's attorney and found her as guilty of the horrible crimes as her husband was (as noted before, not only did she directly participate in all of them, but Bernardo couldn't have gotten his hands on those girls--including Tammy Homolka--nearly as easily without Karla's help). Despite the verdict by the jury, the judge decided to go soft on Karla with the sentencing, so she only got a mere seven years in prison while her husband (thank the gods!) got life imprisonment. Why didn't Karla get put away for life also? This partial travesty of justice wouldn't likely have occurred if Bernardo's loyal accomplice had been male.<br />
<br />
Next up, there was an article that appeared on Salon.com on ''the very same day'' and under ''the very same category'' (Sexual Abuse) as Clancy's interview that further blows holes in Clancy's rather sexist assumption. <br />
<br />
The [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/08/17/nuns following article] on Salon.com by feminist progressive author Frances Kissling and you will see yet another set of allegations of sexual abuse towards minors in the Catholic hierarchy, only this time not perpetrated by priests but by ''nuns''. I am not making any judgments on how true all of these allegations are since I have not yet conducted a detailed study of these claims against the Catholic clergy, but since priests and nuns are authority figures and Catholic boarding schools are extremely authoritarian in nature, with kids being oppressed there to a heavy degree, it doesn't surprise me too much if situational molesters would flourish in such places. This is because most situational molesters operate within the home, boarding schools, or other places where adult religious authority figures have such a huge degree of power over kids, and where the environment takes the place of the home for students residing there. So it's not surprising that the same type of abuse that all too often goes on in homes would go on there too. And since several Catholic priests and nuns may have serious personal issues as a result of forcing celibacy and general sex negative attitudes upon themselves, this may indeed be the reason why some of them segue their natural authoritarian attitudes into particularly corrupt power trips that involve abuse of a sexual nature. Such power trips may cause them to "act out" their deeply sublimated sexual frustrations on those who currently are compelled to be under their authority. And since (contrary to Clancy's attitude) nuns in these authoritarian institutions often have the same degree of power over kids that the priests do, should it be surprising to anyone that they will often take advantage of their power and authority in ways similar to their male counterparts in the hierarchy? This is an especially good question when you consider how nuns are at least as notorious as any male members of the clergy for dispensing cruel abuses of their authority, sometimes including outright physical abuse, against kids under their charge in such places. Please look at this one single excerpt from Kissling's article:<br />
<br />
"Instances like this [i.e., numerous reports of physical abuse by nuns] were child's play compared with some of the stories told by boys and girls abused by U.S. sisters at the same time as lucky girls like me were flourishing in Catholic girls' schools. Pamela Miller, a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, reported on a press conference of survivors of nun abuse held in June 2006. Five women who were among a dozen Minnesotans and ''an 'estimated 400 men and women who have recently come forward to talk about being sexually abused by nuns' [emphasis mine] told their stories''."<br />
<br />
Please keep in mind again that the above article was composed by a fellow female feminist of Clancy, and it may be surmised that Kissling is a member of a class of feminism that is closer to the true essence of a noble movement dedicated to achieving female empowerment and equality of opportunity in society, which includes being harsh on members of the female gender when necessary, rather than the man-hating spin-off of the movement that wrongly uses the same moniker ("feminism"), the latter of which can see women and girls as being nothing other than victims or innocents, and rarely if ever perpetrators of abuse when in positions of power themselves.<br />
<br />
No analysis of this subject can be complete without reminding Clancy (and other "feminists" of her stripe) of the truly horrifying murder of a teen girl that was taken under the wing of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Baniszewski Gertrude Baniszewski]. In 1965, Baniszewski, who was a single mom that adopted several kids, viciously and brutally tortured Sylvia Likens, one of the teen girls she had adopted whom she grew to despise. This torture continued over a prolonged period of time and left the girl in extreme agony for far too long before the mercy of death finally released her. Not only that, but Baniszewski had her own adopted kids join in on the brutality inflicted upon the hapless girl, and also invited young boys from the neighborhood to likewise join in. The horrors inflicted upon Likens ran the entire gamut of psychological and physical brutality of the highest extreme, and this included sexual abuse such as frequently raping the girl with a Coke bottle to the extent that Likens' vagina was almost swollen shut by the time her body was discovered and an autopsy was performed to determine the extent of the damage (as horrible as the actions of serial killer Jefferey Dahmer were, at least he typically drugged his male victims into unconsciousness before dismembering them). The sexual abuse inflicted upon Likens by Baniszewski was so extreme that Likens became incontinent as a result, and because of this Baniszewski kept her chained in the basement, often naked and with a minimum of food, from that time onwards. <br />
<br />
The full extent of the unspeakable brutality that this teen girl suffered under the hands of Baniszewski and her young accomplices is described in detail in the link provided above, and a warning is in order: that particular entry on Wikipedia is ''not for the weak of stomach'', and because of that I will not repeat any more of it in this essay (and what I did report here was, sadly, merely the tip of the iceberg). Needless to say, what happened to Sylvia Likens as a result of Baniszewski's extraordinary cruelty was labeled "the single worst crime perpetrated against an individual in Indiana's history" by one of the people involved in her court case when the woman was tried for first-degree murder. Ultimately, Baniszewski was sentenced to 18 years in prison following an appeal, and despite the intense protests by groups such as Protect the Innocent and Society's League Against Molestation, as well as an equal degree of protests all over the media by Sylvia Likens' family, Baniszewski was paroled and released from prison due to almost two decades of good behavior behind bars (mm-hmmm). If Baniszewski was a man, it can be readily assumed that her appeal would have been denied and she would have gotten life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Baniszewski died in 1990 of lung cancer). Baniszewski should ''never'' have been released from prison, and had her parole occurred in more recent years, you can rest assured that the MAA community would have been foremost in protesting her release. <br />
<br />
The Baniszewski incident was chronicled in the recent film ''An American Crime'' starring Catherine Keener as Gertrude Baniszewski and Ellen Page as Sylvia Likens, and it was released on Showtime in 2008. It's now available on DVD, and I urge those with reasonably strong stomachs to watch this film and think upon its implications. I further urge anyone who may have doubts as to the capability of women committing such horrible crimes against kids under their charge to watch this film regardless of their gastro-intestinal constitution because they ''need'' to experience the shock out of their current mode of thinking that this film of a true story will help provide. <br />
<br />
Of course, Clancy and other "feminists" of her camp would insist that cases like Baniszewski's are incredibly rare, but based on the rest of the info on this subject which I have presented in the latter portion of this essay, such horrible abuse inflicted upon minors by women within the home or other institutions where adults have such near-total control under the kids in their care (such as the Catholic boarding schools mentioned above) is much more common than "feminists" such as Clancy--and our entire society in general--are willing to admit. <br />
<br />
Yes, women ''can'' be very nurturing and caring to kids under their care, and in the majority of cases, they are. So can men, however. There are any number of single fathers out there who treat their kids quite well under the circumstances. And yes, men do commit acts of violence against kids under their care much more often than women do. But the fact remains, however unpleasant it may be for certain elements of society to admit, that women who are in positions of extreme authority over minors commit acts of often horrifying abuse against the kids under their care much more often than is frequently believed. And as the above reports suggest, such women often commit acts that are of even greater savagery and brutality than their male counterparts do, which includes severe cases of sexual abuse and murder. Further, the above info makes it quite clear that many decent, non-abusive women will engage in illegal but mutually consensual relationships with minors of both genders, and that female MAAs are certainly far more common than our society will admit. <br />
<br />
As I have often said in my various writings within the MAA community, the problem is neither men or women, but rather the degree of power that adults are given over kids in the modern nuclear family unit and in most of its educational institutions. You will note, for example, that I have never heard of a single case of abuse inflicted upon kids by either the men or women who are part of the staff of the democratic schools based upon the Sudbury model, and this speaks volumes as to the future solution of the problem of child abuse once society gets over its love affair and consequent blind eye turned towards the current gerontocentric, hierarchal institutions in society that are run like totalitarian governments. Since Clancy is a woman dedicated to uncovering truth no matter how uncomfortable society is with hearing it, I think there is a good possibility that she is capable of eventually embracing the tenets of youth liberation in the future. Time will tell, but lets all give Dr. Clancy a chance.<br />
<br />
Finally, here is a link to another book (again written by a woman!) that Dr. Clancy seems to have missed:<br />
[http://books.google.com/books?id=KKTr_bJbcXwC&dq=Sexual+Abuse+of+Children+By+Women&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=eGJXS-vbNcuTkAXtnLHjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CC0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=Sexual%20Abuse%20of%20Children%20By%20Women&f=false ''Sexual Abuse of Children by Women''] by Michelle Elliott.<br />
<br />
I trust I have made my case on the above point. If Dr. Clancy believes that either mutually consensual sex between adult women and minors, or genuine sexual abuse of minors by mothers or other female relatives and those who are in positions of heavy authority over kids (and yes, I ''will'' make that distinction, unlike her, because like it or not it's a major distinction), she needs to put her "feminist" biases aside and do a lot more research. If I could do it, then so could she.<br />
<br />
If Dr. Clancy ever reads this essay, I hope she will one day forgive me for coming off as harsh on her, but I would like to think she can understand the strong degree of passion that an activist of any particular cause can have. And I am sure that she can fully understand the strong desire for anyone to make the truth about a certain controversial subject known, regardless of how uncomfortable society may be in confronting and acclimating to that truth.<br />
<br />
Okay, in overview of all the above in this essay:<br />
<br />
''The Trauma Myth'' is probably going to become one of the most important books written in terms of its impact on both the MAA community and the youth community for the first decade of the 21st century since Judith Levine's ''Harmful To Minors'' and Robert Epstein's ''The Case Against Adolescence'' and its more recent update,'' Teen 2.0''. It contains a highly controversial--but very necessary--refutation of one of the most powerful myths used to propagate the sexual abuse hysteria that causes both the media and the government to mercilessly persecute Minor Attracted Adults, as well as wage a war on youth sexuality and any possible expression of it. This includes the passing of more and more Orwellian laws that not only increase the already prodigious chains around the freedom of youths under 18, but also attacks the civil liberties of everyone in this country under the auspices of "protecting children." The main objective of such laws and the hysteria that bolsters support for them is to keep youths under 18 in their current place, and a major part of that is to suppress their sexual nature. MAAs are simply the equivalent of "collateral damage" in the hysteria and accompanying witch-hunting by the government (to borrow a very apt usage of military vernacular from a fellow Girl Lover activist, qtns2di4). <br />
<br />
After the publication of this book, Clancy has made it very explicit ("forcefully," as she puts it in her Salon interview) that ''she has not written this book to advance the rights of MAAs'' (who she seems to loathe as much as anyone else), nor has she written this book to advance youth rights or legitimize their sexual nature (as has Judith Levine in the latter case, another fellow feminist progressive writer, albeit one who takes her status as a progressive much more seriously). She simply has the stated goal of helping victims of sexual abuse (both real and culturally constructed), and she feels that the continuation of any type of sociological, psychological, or cultural myths that may hinder the understanding of what sexual abuse victims go through is wrong and must be opposed no matter how controversial and politically unpopular pointing out these truths may be, and no matter what the personal costs to herself may be. For this, as I said before, Susan Clancy is to be commended and admired. She deserves a lot of props, and despite the ignorance of many of her claims against MAAs and men in general, she is nevertheless a supremely courageous woman, and I am going to give her the accolades she deserves. <br />
<br />
I will also remind everyone in the MAA community and youth communities, as well as all of those in the ever-growing youth liberation movement, that the publication of this book is ''no small thing''. What Susan Clancy calls the "trauma myth" was perhaps the most powerful of the several socio-cultural myths disguised and mistaken for some sort of objective truth used to justify societal condemnation of intergenerational relationships. It has made crystal clear what pro-choice members of the MAA community, a sentiment echoed by many gerontophiles who have had positive relationships with adults while legally underage, have been saying for as long as I have been an active participant in this community, and also much longer. It is a validation that mutually consensual and mutually desired romantic/sexual relationships between younger and older people do not automatically and magickally cause trauma or lifelong emotional damage to the younger person involved in the relationship. This book proves the contention of the activists in both the MAA and youth communities that progress towards change is indeed occurring incrementally, and that there is hope for the future. Once again, Clancy did not intend the book to serve this latter purpose and she makes it very clear in her interview that she is ''not'' "pro-pedophile" in any way, shape, or form. Nevertheless, the book still serves to dispel one of society's greatest myths in the sexual abuse hysteria, one used as an extremely potent weapon to justify all the draconian legislation designed to prevent youths under 18 from any type of sexual interactions with legal adults--or oftentimes even with peers—not to mention pretty much any type of youth sexual expression--no matter how much it may erode our democracy (or pretenses to it, at least).<br />
<br />
Please note that I ''am not'' saying that we don't still have a long way to go before making the case for the legitimization of our orientation, as well as the achievement of respect for youth competence that will lead to the establishment of all of their civil rights. There are many important questions that Clancy does not bother to tackle in her book, such as the manner in which the legally disempowered status of youths and their forced dependence on adults for the first 18 years of their lives may play in the rampant amount of abuse of all kinds (including but not limited to the sexual) that is perpetrated against them; the role that the authoritarian and hierarchal nature of the currently dominant family unit--the nuclear family unit, where the majority of actual abuse of all kinds, including the greatest number of non-accidental deaths, inflicted upon minors occurs-- plays in this situation; the way the "pedophile panic" is inexorably transforming the Western nations into borderline police states; the manner in which the war on youth sexuality is causing many young teens who express themselves sexually to be arrested and placed on sex offender registries (e.g., the “sexting” phenomenon); and the questioning of why she still considers it intrinsically "wrong" for adults and youths under 18 to enjoy mutually consensual romantic/sexual relationships with each other if the evidence she has compiled for this book--which has been stated in similar objective studies in the past, including the Congressionally condemned Rind Report-- establishes once and for all that no trauma or emotional damage automatically occurs as if by some mystical force when two people of disparate age groups share a mutual desire for intimacy with each other. These are all questions that need to be confronted and addressed in the future, and though Clancy is not going to be the one to do this (at least not at this point in her career), what she has done in this book is still exceedingly important and groundbreaking. Though the antis and much of academia will do their best to either denounce it or ignore it, it's not going to go away, and its implications on the validity of the war on youth sexuality, and its expression and legitimacy thereof, cannot be denied.<br />
<br />
As a short '''addendum''' to this essay, my fellow activist on GirlChat, Baldur, had this to say:<br />
:"Just noticed this from the Clancy interview:<br />
::"'In the 1950s and 1960s, psychiatrists were very open and honest about sexual abuse, but there was also that tendency to think it was the child's fault. Feminists were naturally infuriated, because it's not the children's fault! But the way they got attention to it was to portray the sexual abuse in a way that would shock people. They did that by comparing it to a rape. Before that, the reaction from the medical and psych communities was, 'This is not something we really care about.' It wasn't until feminists and child-protection advocates misportrayed it that we were able to arouse massive medical and scientific attention to the topic.'<br />
:"In essence, Clancy is saying that when the Feminists realized that their arguments were ineffectual, they decided to lie to get what they wanted.<br />
:"It is something that this variety of Feminists are still doing. They can't get their way by honest means, so they lie. They commit fraud. And they're proud of it.<br />
:"We heard about it lately with regards to the fight against sex trafficking: the activists lie because the truth doesn't bother people."<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Sexting_Issue&diff=6841Essay:The Sexting Issue2011-09-19T06:32:59Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Summerdays==<br />
It bugs me that whenever someone is "brave" enough to tackle the sexting issue - though they are correct to conclude that charging these kids under "child pornography" laws is inappropriate - they inevitably work from the assumption that sexting is still a dangerous, and even stupid, activity for kids to be engaging in. Sure, it's dangerous considering the potential repercussions, and it's right to argue that punishing it as a felony is overkill, but they don't continue that thought to its logical conclusion - that is, that the reason sexting is dangerous is because we punish it so harshly, and because we frown upon it so strongly (which results in all the shaming and bullying).<br />
<br />
The solution to the sexting "problem" isn't some impossible method of preventing all kids from ever engaging in sexting - because the truth is, no matter what we do, some kids will sext: '''and that's not a bad thing'''. The "solution" is not to stop kids from sexting, but to find a way for those of us who hate it so much to learn how to tolerate it. The immature approach is to try to control your environment, to change it to suit your whims. The mature approach is to learn to accept the way things are, and find a way to come to terms with that fact.<br />
<br />
And along that line, can you imagine how many people would be ''happier'' if we made sexting into an accepted (whether encouraged or not) activity? Do these people realize how much misery they're propagating by their suppression of the natural physical beauty of youth? They convince themselves that what they're doing prevents evil (i.e., actual rape) from occurring, but that's bogus.<br />
<br />
I just wish I had a way to convince a person that appreciating the erotic beauty of youth can 1) be a very positive and life-affirming activity, and 2) have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rape. I just hate that in this context (whenever minors are involved), they - that is, those who control the dominant paradigm - have the power to disguise supreme good (consensual sexuality) as supreme evil (physical and/or psychological violence, that just happens to have sexuality as a component). To put it in other words, they are able to clothe proper sexual 'use' in the rags of 'abuse', so that there no longer is 'sex', there is only 'rape.'<br />
<br />
What a dismal world they must live in. Why must they make us suffer along with them, only because they lack the ability to see the light in the world that surrounds them? If I were to put a beautiful naked child in front of them, they would not praise the heavens like they should, but their minds would be consumed with dark and sinister thoughts, and they would be filled with the desire to destroy the lives of anyone who doesn't think like them. And ''we're'' the ones with the mental disorder?<br />
<br />
In regards to [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792044 this paper] on sexting:<br />
<br />
''inappropriate and unsafe activity", "short-sighted adolescents", "poor judgment", "vulnerable teens", "youthful lapse in judgment", "inappropriate...images''<br />
<br />
The language here is highly judgmental, and betrays exactly the approach I mentioned above. The author is saying, "the way we're dealing with sexting is out of control, but '''sexting is still bad and needs to be discouraged'''." Which, ironically, propagates the problem.<br />
<br />
''The issue of how to legally approach teenagers caught sexting and ultimately discourage this practice is a modern legal dilemma.''<br />
<br />
Why should the practice be discouraged? If we encouraged it, it would no longer be dangerous.<br />
<br />
''...while establishing a national standard to judge this activity.''<br />
<br />
Why should we even have a national standard to judge this activity? Who's to say that judging this activity as immoral and inadvisable is the proper judgment anyway? And why should the law be making moral judgments in the first place?<br />
<br />
''Pornography laws presently in place could be used to continue to protect America's youth from predators.''<br />
<br />
Pornography laws '''should not''' be used to protect anyone from predators. Laws against demonstrably predatory behavior should be used to protect people from predators. Pornography is a form of speech (that ought to be protected). Violence and coercion are forms of [usually illegal] behavior. Heed the difference.<br />
<br />
''Society has come to recognize that teens and technology are a dangerous combination, and as responsible adults, we must teach teens that an act as simple as pressing the 'send' button on a cell phone can lead to a lifetime of legal and moral complications.''<br />
<br />
As '''responsible''' adults, shouldn't we instead see to it that something as simple as pressing the 'send' button on a cell phone ''doesn't'' lead to a lifetime of legal and moral complications? We have that power!<br />
<br />
What kind of a world do we live in if we have to tell kids: ''if you take a picture of a certain part of your body and show it to someone else, you could go to jail''? It's madness, pure and simple.<br />
[[Category:Summerdays' essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Roman_Polanski_Circus&diff=6840Essay:The Roman Polanski Circus2011-09-19T06:32:41Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==By Dissident==<br />
This essay is devoted to an analysis of the several articles that were written by a number of different authors on the liberal/progressive news site Salon.com regarding the belated 2009 arrest of hebephile celebrity Roman Polanski. After reading these articles, I was so incensed due to, once again, seeing those who consider themselves progressives and liberals attacking Polanski for having sex with a girl under the Magic Age in such a mindless and ignorant manner, without even once deviating from the morally absolutist script that Western culture has dictated to our society about this uber-controversial subject.<br />
<br />
As usual, the progressives were doing their part to add to the sex abuse hysteria pervading our society, which includes the single-minded condemnation of intergenerational sex as part of its component, and with as little reasoned thought as any writer who deems themselves a social conservative. And some of the authors of these articles were progressives that I usually respect, until I see them writing mindless drivel like this to join in on the sex hysteria bandwagon. And to think these progressives frequently assail the liberal politicians for caving into support for the neocons' endless wars of aggression and failing to challenge or even think critically about the neocon conventional wisdom regarding the need for presidents to be warmongers. Hence, this refutation of their specious claims about the Polanski media circus.<br />
<br />
Let's begin with the article from one of my favorite and most respected bloggers, Gene Lyons. His article on this topic carried the title "There's A Special Place In Hell For Roman Polanski," so right away you see how free of bias it's going to be. Let's look at some quotes from Lyons, followed by my responses.<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"Everybody's least favorite character is French/Polish film director Roman Polanski. Except for a few Hollywood fools and European intellectuals who express the perverse belief that art excuses all crimes, hardly anybody would be upset to see Polanski go to prison. (In polls, ordinary Poles and Frenchmen reject the art alibi by large majorities.) As one who thinks his film 'Chinatown' a masterpiece, I don't much care what happens to him."''<br />
<br />
I will start by saying that I agree with Lyons that just because someone is a renowned and talented artist (in Polanski's case, a filmmaker) doesn't mean they should be given special license to commit crimes. What I am questioning here, however, is whether or not we should possibly question the perceived wisdom of certain laws. Lyons says that Polanski is "everyone's least favorite character." That's a rather odd thing for a progressive to conclude, because I would imagine that any "neocon" politician who wage preemptive wars of aggression that kill numerous innocent civilians and erode our civil liberties at home, as well as genuine terrorists who attempt to blow up innocent people along with themselves, would rank higher on such a person's list of "least favorite characters" in the world. But instead, a progressive concludes that a man who had sex with a girl who was under the Magic Age and never actually killed anyone nor waged a preemptive war that killed thousands of innocent civilians is worse than any of them on the villain meter. I would expect someone who considers themselves a social conservative to say such a thing (after all, such moralism fixated people have said that the issue of preventing the legitimization of gay marriage is the most important issue in America) but to hear a progressive utter such words is beyond belief. Or, rather, ''should'' be beyond belief if it wasn't for the extreme PC interpretation of this issue all too often seen from anyone of any belief system in the present day sex abuse hysteria and moral panic. And anyone who does question the dubious wisdom described above is, according to Lyons, a "fool." And this is someone who routinely complains about how anyone who questions the sacred wisdom of the neocons that the American government is always right no matter what it does are "unAmerican" and "traitors."<br />
<br />
:Next up, Lyons says: ''"Polanski's a one-dimensional villain to almost everybody except his 1977 victim, now a 45-year-old mother of three who's forgiven him. She thinks even the seven weeks he served undergoing psychiatric evaluation were excessive. Samantha Geimer has long argued that charges should be dropped."''<br />
<br />
An adult who has sex with someone under the Magic Age, regardless of how the younger participant in question says she felt about it, even after more than 30 years to reflect on the incident and is thus no longer considered a helpless and incompetent "kid" in the eyes of society, says she wasn't damaged beyond measure by the tryst, is always a "one dimensional villain." No shades of gray or ambiguity in such a situation at all. Conventional wisdom tells us so, hence one is a "fool" to believe otherwise no matter what the evidence tells us. Is it that unbelievable that perhaps Geimer doesn't think Polanski has anything to be forgiven for, and that it's society that is demanding an apology for breach of one of its most precious customs?<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"Should her wishes be honored? Not necessarily. However, it also shouldn't be forbidden to wonder why she thinks that way. Wasn't her life irretrievably ruined by the famous director's crime? Evidently, Geimer doesn't think so."''<br />
<br />
And since Geimer's assertion that her life wasn't "irretrievably ruined" simply by having sex with an adult man when she was "only" 13, even though our culture's conventional wisdom refuses to allow us to consider any other possible outcome of such trysts, we must wonder and question why she thinks this way. There must be an ulterior motive to her claims, because conventional wisdom tells us that there can be only one outcome to a young teen girl having sex with an adult man, and that is for her to be emotionally scarred for life and to view herself as "damaged goods" forever.<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"It's also important to call things by their right names. Yes, it's illegal for an adult man to have sex with a 13-year-old girl; the slang term is 'jailbait.' (Remember Louisiana rock 'n' roller Jerry Lee Lewis and his 13-year-old wife being expelled from England?) But that doesn't make Polanski a 'pedophile,' i.e. a deeply disturbed person obsessed with pre-pubescent children. If I had my way, there'd be no need for a 'Megan's Law' tracking paroled pedophiles, because there wouldn't be any parole. Ever."''<br />
<br />
The above quote is full of so many incorrect cultural biases that it's almost beyond belief. First of all, Lyons contends that pedophiles (and Polanski is not a true pedophile, but a hebephile, so I don't understand why he is picking on pedophiles here) are "deeply disturbed" due to their attraction to pre-pubescents, and they aren't merely attracted to pre-pubescents but "obsessed." If Lyons had bothered to dispense with these crude stereotypical assumptions in favor of doing some actual research, he could have found out how untrue all of those assertions are, even if doing so would come at the risk of forcing him to think critically about these assumptions he spouts as mindlessly as any social conservative. Many quotes from this research can be found throughout the various pages of the B4U-ACT website, and all are backed up by citations. And it's nice that he doesn't bother to question the wisdom of Megan's Law, despite the fact that several people who actually care about civil liberties and who actually decry the police state mentality that progressives like Lyons are supposed to be ardent opponents of are doing this very thing.<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"Anyway, here's what the now-deceased judge who accepted Polanski's guilty plea said at the hearing: 'The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the (victim) was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17-year-old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the (victim) was not unfamiliar with the drug Quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her 10th or 11th year.'"''<br />
<br />
Okay, let's take a close look at what the judge said here, because Lyons didn't bother to make a single critical evaluation of these words whatsoever, choosing to just mindlessly condemn them instead. Samantha Geimer was not sexually inexperienced when Polanski had sex with her, so she had no "innocence" (as defined by our society) to be "stolen" at the time (endeavoring to make himself sound as PC as possible, the judge made sure to make the value judgment of Geimer that it was "regrettable" that she wasn't a virgin at her age). Further, Geimer's then boyfriend was 17 years old, and was thus almost a legal adult. So she did have experience with older guys and seemed to have a liking for them, even though Polanski may have been much older than her steady boyfriend at the time. And we all know how obsessed our society is with arbitrary numbers when it comes to gauging whether or not a sexual experience would reduce a young girl to "damaged goods" for life.<br />
<br />
Now, onto the matter of the drug use. A while back, I made a post on GirlChat entitled [http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/480506.htm My Thoughts On the Polanski Situation Reconsidered], where I basically renounced my previous support of Polanski because of info given to me by a youth liberationist friend of mine from off the board who is supportive of mutually consensual relationships between adults and minors, and this info pointed out that Geimer's consent to Polanski's advances was in question because of the quaalude he gave her. Some people on the board agreed with my renouncement of support for Polanski for this reason and posted links to the court records where Geimer made statements that suggested she didn't really want the contact with Polanski. Others vehemently defended Polanski, so the board was a bit divided over this. However, I must concede that my source did not know about the fact that Geimer was apparently already familiar with quaaludes going back a few years, and hence she may have been willing to take the pill that Polanski gave her while knowing full well what effect it would have on her. This, along with the fact that Geimer insists in retrospect that she wasn't a "victim" of Polanski in any way, forces me to question my renouncement of my initial defense of him. It should be noted that Polanski has never been accused of displaying violent behavior of any kind, was never arrested for any crime not related to this one since it occurred (at least not that I know of), and there is effectively zero evidence that he ever threatened Geimer a few decades after the fact into stating that she thinks he should not be charged. There are definite shades of gray in this situation, and this should be considered. Though I do not agree with Polanski giving Geimer the drug, there is good evidence that she was no rookie at drug use and thus may have known how it would affect her.<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"The child also apparently had the Stage Mother from Hell, a film industry tradition. In short, there may have been excellent reasons why both sides wanted to avoid a highly publicized Hollywood trial, and no reason to treat the grand jury testimony of a 14-year-old girl pressed by her mother and the prosecutor as holy writ. She may have interpreted Polanski's pleading guilty to a reduced charge as a kindness."''<br />
<br />
Of course, Lyons insists that we should ascribe ulterior motives on the part of Geimer and her mother for not pushing for charges against Polanski because the idea that she may not have considered her life "irretrievably ruined" after sex with him is inconceivable to someone in Western society. And again, progressives like Lyons routinely denounce the neocons for never challenging the strict orthodoxy of their pro-war and pro-business mindset.<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"That said, Polanski's 1979 interview with novelist Martin Amis ought to earn him a special place in hell, if not a California penitentiary. 'If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?' he said. 'But ... judges want to (bleep) young girls. Juries want to (bleep) young girls. Everyone wants to (bleep) young girls!'"''<br />
<br />
Polanski's crude statements add further credence to my oft- stated contention that a poor choice of words on the part of MAAs to make a point can come back to haunt us in a major way (and Polanski is far from inarticulate, so that particular justification wouldn't work for him). We can't expect people like Lyons to see beyond the use of Polanski's words to understand the essence of what he was trying to say at this point in time, which is that attraction to young girls by adults is hardly uncommon despite its taboo nature to acknowledge or act upon, and this may have been recognized by the judge and jury in his case. Nevertheless, as much as many may be tempted to dismiss those particular words of Polanski due to their crudeness, one cannot so easily dismiss the first statement he made to Amis during the interview, where he said the press wouldn't have been nearly as interested in his case if it involved something as "minor" in comparison as cold-blooded murder. Murder may be universally regarded as wrong in our society, but it doesn't pack nearly as much of an emotional punch in the gut as the idea of "stealing" the "innocence" of a young girl. The idea of taking someone's life needlessly is certainly bad enough, but taking a young girl's chastity and innocence from her --that is totally unacceptable!<br />
<br />
:Lyons: ''"Actually, no they don't. But a culture that tolerates beauty pageants for heavily made-up little girls, promotes teen bombshells like Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus and a million 'Barely Legal' porn films ought to consider where Polanski got the idea. The law may demand that a fleeing felon be brought to justice, but we Americans should probably be a bit less smug about it."''<br />
<br />
And Lyons knows for a fact that judges, juries, and most adults in society outside of "pervs" like Polanski have no sexual attraction to teen girls? Gotcha. The fact that people are so much in the closet about it for obvious reasons is a comfy indication to him that adult attraction to people who are basically young adults who simply happen to be below the legal age of majority is a rare phenomenon confined to a small handful of deviants, despite the fact that art and literature throughout human history easily refute this popular claim. And he feels society should not tolerate beauty pageants for "heavily made-up little girls" despite the fact that the majority of true pedos I know do not find it attractive when little girls are made up to look as "adult" as possible, nor should we tolerate the promotion of teen girl celebrities who express themselves sexually in the most modest ways possible, because these things may convince a few deviants like Polanski that girls under 18 can have sexual appeal to adults when any sane and rational person knows this cannot possibly be the case (after all, our infallible conventional wisdom tells us so, and that is far more believable than the evidence to the contrary that Lyons points out). And he also criticizes the proliferation of the "Barely Legal" porn films even though the women in those films are young though not underage because that also gives a few deviants the idea that young women who are almost below the Magic Age actually have sex appeal, and this could lead these few dangerous deviants to conclude that even younger girls might have sex appeal too. Never mind the fact that the "Barely Legal" videos weren't around in the late '70s when Polanski crossed the legal line with Geimer. Could it be that the proliferation of such videos, and their great popularity, may indicate that adult attraction to younger girls (who will settle for as young as they can legally get on these videos since girls younger than that cannot appear in them) is common and widespread? Of course not. Lyons the progressive cannot possibly fathom such an idea, and he says our society shouldn't tolerate these things, which suggests that he may support the suppression of all instances--or even hints at--the idea that young girls can be sexually attractive to adult men. Maybe he should reinstate the Meese Commission to deal with this "problem."<br />
<br />
Next up is the article from columnist Tracy Clark-Florey. "The director sends warm wishes to his many, many supporters," she sarcastically says about Polanski. I guess this means he shouldn't be expected to show appreciation for those who dared to support him rather than just mindlessly condemn him without considering any of the factors I pointed out up above.<br />
<br />
:Clark-Florey: ''"That's right -- Polanski's first public words after being imprisoned didn't express remorse or beg for forgiveness. Instead, he gave a shout-out to all of the strangers out there who have had his back this whole time -- despite his having raped a 13 -year-old girl."''<br />
<br />
So every adult who has sex with a minor should feel remorse for doing so. For those who think this attitude is totally unreasonable for someone who has committed such an unthinkably horrible crime despite the fact that progressives like Clark-Foley routinely grapple with war-mongering neocons who support wars that kill thousands of innocent people, please consider. No comparison, eh? Polanski's crime sticks out in comparison to the war-mongering politicos who have devastated the world in a way that adults who fancy young girls never could like the proverbial elephant in a small room.<br />
<br />
Now, as for Clark- Foley's claim that Polanski "raped" Geimer, that is a default claim made towards any adult who had sex with someone under 18, regardless of whether the girl insists she was not a "victim" 30+ years after the incident in question. Heaven forbid should anyone (i.e., Polanski's supporters) question these attitudes that Clark-Foley mindlessly champions.<br />
<br />
:Clark-Foley: ''"The entire stomach-churning communique can be found on the Huffington Post, where it was published Monday by the letter's recipient, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. Thanks to 'the generous access provided by Arianna Huffington and her staff,' Levy has used the site for months now as a dumping ground for his Polanski apologism -- or, as he likes to call it, a point of view that 'contrasts with the howling of the pack.'"''<br />
<br />
As I said above, heaven forbid should some progressives actually live up to the standards they espouse and question conventional wisdom. And how dare fools like Levy critique the point of view of those who cling to the caveats of conventional wisdom like lint to a rug and refer to such mindless herd mentality as "the howling of the pack." And damn The Huffington Post for having progressive columnists who lack the "profound wisdom" of those on Salon who weighed in on this issue without bothering to do the slightest degree of open-minded analysis of all the issues Polanski's situation forces us to confront. And if the press can't get enough satisfaction by deriding Polanski for being a monster, then they attack Geimer for refusing to see herself as a "victim" and suggest she must have less than sincere motives for taking a stance that doesn't coincide to what most of society insists is always the case when an underage girl has sex with an adult man. Then again, I wouldn't blame Arianna Huffington for this, since I have heard her make such ignorant comments about MAAs on one of her appearances on Bill Maher's show. However, it's to her credit that she allows writers who have views contrasting with the herd to post them on her blog.<br />
<br />
:Clark-Foley: ''"The truth, though, is that early on a significant share of 'the pack' was howling about Polanski's victimhood just like Levy [emphasis in original] -- but sanity finally prevailed. Unfortunately, despite popular opinion turning against the world- renowned director, his letter sadly suggests that Levy is still far from alone."''<br />
<br />
Yup, it's a horrible shame that not everyone has turned on Polanski like Clark-Foley and the rest of "the pack" had hoped, though since enough have bowed down to media pressure to do so she sees that as a case of "sanity" prevailing. Let's all note the fact that Clark-Foley, like Lyons before her, didn't bother to put a shred of critical evaluation into any aspect of Polanski's situation, which is supposed to be the job of a progressive blogger to do. All they did was go along with the herd (or, as Levy calls them, "the pack") and express outrage that Polanski was treated by some in any way remotely to the contrary of what our conventional wisdom insists upon. And I must ask, is it really the matter that Polanski is given special treatment for breaking the law because of the value several people feel he has towards the world of cinematography, or can it possibly be the fact that when a renowned celebrity gets in trouble for breaking laws of dubious wisdom people are more likely to question the nature of the law and its supposed infallible absolutist wisdom than they are if Joe Schmoe gets arrested for the same type of crime? Progressives can accept shades of gray in almost anything, such as war, love, and most forms of crimes-- except for the idea of sex between adults and those we today label 'minors.' When it comes to that, moral absolutism reigns.<br />
<br />
Now we move onto the article by Kate Harding.<br />
<br />
:Harding: ''"The good news: California's 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected Roman Polanski's most recent request for dismissal of all that unpleasant business about his raping a kid and fleeing sentencing."''<br />
<br />
Yup, no gray area whatsoever when it comes to sex between adults and minors...it's always "rape." And let's all continue to ignore what Samantha Geimer has to say about this, okay? Nice to hear this from a progressive, but I won't belabor that point again since I already got into it up above. I will say here that it can be construed, as is likely the case by several of Polanski's supporters, that his fleeing the U.S. when faced with his conviction can be the equivalent of someone seeking political asylum in another nation to escape being imprisoned for an unjust law in the same manner as those American citizens who fled to Canada to escape being drafted during the Vietnam War. The progressives see many shades of gray in the situation of the draft-dodgers, even though their opponents on the Right believe those individuals should be thrown in prison to rot for life. It should be noted that the nation Polanski fled to would likely have extradited him to America to face the charges there if he had committed something like murder or even rape where there was no doubt or ambiguity that consent wasn't present with a woman of any age. I guess Harding and her cohorts in "the pack" would never consider the fact that maybe these other nations have a more enlightened view of the subject than America does.<br />
<br />
:Harding: ''"The justices seem particularly concerned, says Harriet Ryan in the L.A. Times, with sorting out 'Polanski's allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the original handling of the case' -- memorably conveyed to the public in the 2008 documentary 'Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired' -- 'enough so that they took the unusual step of injecting themselves into the details of a specific case.' They wrote: 'We exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or for his flight.' I guess a justice system that punishes both crooked judges and fugitive child rapists is too much to hope for?"''<br />
<br />
Why don't you insist that the courts go after the draft-dodgers who fled America during the Vietnam War, Kate? Weren't they all fugitives in the eyes of the law? Not even the conservatives argue for pursuing the case against them after all this time! And I guess that any judge who doesn't have a one-track mind in this situation, and who dared to listen to what the supposed "victim" in the situation felt about her societally-imposed status, are "crooked" in your eyes. And if you happen to see this essau and want to debate with me that the situation of the draft-dodgers during the Vietnam era is ''not'' comparable to Polanski's situation, it would be my pleasure to do so.<br />
<br />
Now onto an article on Salon.com that was not credited to any particular author but was instead included as part of the site's "Bogus Stories of the Year 2009."<br />
<br />
:Article: ''"The 13-year-old girl wasn't the true victim. Such was the shockingly popular response to Roman Polanski's September arrest in Switzerland. He was the real injured party, the bogus argument went, despite the fact he had pleaded guilty and fled the country before sentencing. The world-renowned director had already paid steep legal fees, faced professional stigma and spent 30 years in European exile. He wasn't even able to pick up his Oscar in person -- poor guy. The 76-year-old Holocaust survivor had suffered enough."''<br />
<br />
I think Geimer actually was a victim, but more of the society she lives in than of Polanski. Polanski pleaded guilty because he did indeed commit the crime of having sex with an underage girl--he fled to Europe because (reportedly) he believed that the judge was likely to get pressured into violating the plea bargain he made with Polanski. Also, attitudes about this subject were much more liberal in Polanski's native Europe during the days before the official start of the global "pedophile panic." That is the point many of his supporters are trying to make, but none of the Salon authors seem willing to examine their points or to question this law.<br />
<br />
:Article: ''"Many also reasoned that his creative brilliance ultimately outweighed his criminal misdeeds. More than 100 artists -- including Hollywood heavyweights Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Wes Anderson -- signed a petition calling for Polanski's release. France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was similarly appalled: 'A man of such talent, recognized in the entire world, recognized especially in the country that arrested him -- all this just isn't nice.' It just wasn't nice. How often is that said about the punishment of an admitted child rapist? Of course, Whoopi Goldberg infamously argued on 'The View' that what Polanski did with that little girl wasn't actually, you know, 'rape-rape.' Some contended that Polanski hadn't known the girl's real age and that he had been taken advantage of by her fame-seeking stage mom."''<br />
<br />
Heaven forbid should celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg suggest that the legal concept of statutory rape isn't actual rape. And questioning this idea is seen as outrageous on a progressive blog? And Geimer--a "little girl"? *Sigh*<br />
<br />
:Article: ''"This was a mainstream, accepted response until Salon's Kate Harding stated a simple, no-nonsense fact: 'Roman Polanski raped a child,' she wrote in Broadsheet."''<br />
<br />
Ah yes, Harding the great open-minded, critically thinking progressive. Let's take a look at what she said. Geimer being a "child" was a "no-nonsense fact." The idea that a teen is less than a young adult because of her legal status sure is a progressive idea and most certainly a "fact." And the idea that statutory rape is identical to actual rape as the word is correctly defined, without even bothering to distinguish the two, is also entirely factual. Let's look at more of Harding's quote.<br />
<br />
:Harding: ''"Let's keep in mind that [he] gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."''<br />
<br />
Never mind the fact that a judge acknowledged how Geimer was experienced with using Quaaludes (though I would never recommend giving a drug to anyone of any age for recreational purposes and I do condemn Polanski for doing this). The judge was simply "crooked" for this acknowledgment. As for Geimer being criticized because she didn't want the media pushing for her into embracing the "victim" card and telling them how severely damaged for life this mother of three was when she feels otherwise (and never even considering that she may be the best judge of this than anyone else) and thus entering this media circus and having her family pulled into it also...need I say more?<br />
<br />
:Harding: ''"Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, 'No,' then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm."''<br />
<br />
Okay, we are now back to the controversy of Geimer's grand jury testimony. It would seem to be damning evidence against Polanski, and this was cited as such by his detractors in the MAA community as well as my much respected youth liberationist friend who told me that I should renounce my support for Polanski based on that testimony. I agreed to do so, hence my post "My Support For Roman Polanski Reconsidered." But...there may be more to consider here than I realized at the time.<br />
<br />
I cannot pretend to know what Geimer's thoughts were back then. However, based on much evidence that we have seen since the era of Polanski's original crime, has it not been the case that cops and social workers have compelled minors who had mutually consensual sex with adults into saying what they wanted to hear? Why hasn't Polanski ever been accused of forcing himself on anyone else? Why just this one isolated incident? And if Geimer's grand jury testimony was entirely her own and had nothing to do with pressure from the cops and social workers (this was before the practice came into vogue with the beginning of the sex abuse hysteria that started just a few years after the Polanski case, but I doubt it didn't happen before), then why her later 'change of heart'? Now before anyone accuses me of being insensitive to the victim, why didn't Geimer and her mom say the same things after the grand jury hearing that Samantha was recorded as saying during that hearing? Why wouldn't Geimer come out in force against Polanski today, when he is at a vulnerable point and where she could easily sway public opinion against him and make fools out of his supporters? Can Harding and her cohorts honestly say that it's all about the ambitions of Geimer's stage mom at this point in time? Is Geimer's mother still a 'Stage Mom from Hell' even now? Could a mere desire to stay out of the media be the motivation for her to support Polanski if her grand jury allegations were entirely unmotivated by the pressure of the cops and social workers, and he really did drug her out and then force himself on her? I admit the high degree of ambiguity in the above situation, and I welcome feedback from everyone on both sides of the issue, though I do think what I said up above should be considered in light of Geimer's statements outside of the grand jury hearing.<br />
<br />
:Article: ''"Throughout her exceedingly rational piece, Harding offered the crucial reminder that he had raped a child. It was a call to arms -- and a hugely successful one at that. Her post landed her an appearance on the 'Today' show, Time magazine called it 'the best, most comprehensive rebuttal' of Polanski's supporters, and Newsweek highlighted her post as the most notable of the 'smart and convincing' responses to his arrest. It restored sanity to the national conversation."''<br />
<br />
And once again, questioning conventional wisdom is against "sanity" and "rationality." Gotcha.<br />
<br />
Next comes the article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, which was much more reasonable than the others on Salon in many ways:<br />
<br />
:Williams: ''"The woman at the heart of the Roman Polanski rape case has spoken, and once again, she's explicitly asked for the charges against the director to be dropped.''<br />
<br />
:''"In the statement filed by her attorney Lawrence Silver on Friday, the woman said that she has received 'close to 500 phone calls from media as far as Germany, Israel and Japan.' She's received invitations to appear on Oprah and Larry King, and photographers have camped outside her home and offered gifts to her kids in exchange for information."''<br />
<br />
Hmmmm...and to think people are actually questioning why she may have asked to be left alone. And I'm sure she doesn't feel the least bit concerned about being swayed into claiming she was a "victim," as she may have been in the past. Oprah asked her to come on her show? If Geimer is the least bit familiar with Oprah's reputation for objectivity and open-mindedness regarding this particular subject, is it any wonder she was concerned about going on the Big O's show? I am glad Williams had the stones to confront this matter in a way that was the pinnacle of open-mindedness in comparison to what was said in the previous articles on Salon about the Polanski situation.<br />
<br />
The rest of Williams' article, though not in any way questioning the situation regarding Polanski's guilt, nevertheless further described emphatically why Geimer's wishes to be left alone should be honored. And that, at least, is commendable.<br />
<br />
:Williams: ''"It would be great if it were possible to mete out justice for a sex abuser while honoring the privacy of his victim, but in this case it's not. The on and off attention she's lived with for the past 30 years are nothing compared to the deluge of reporters who have been chasing her and her family over the past weeks. In addition, she's had to contend with the very public and high-profile support her rapist has received from the entertainment industry, and a fair measure of subsequent disparagement of her own character. In an interview this week in the Atlantic's online edition, author Gore Vidal sniffed, 'Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she's been taken advantage of? The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko -- that's what people were calling him -- well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.'''<br />
<br />
Okay, I would like to point out that Polanski has just as many detractors as supporters in this situation, and probably much more so. He has been subjected to at least as many character attacks as Geimer has. Geimer could easily have gotten enough media sympathy and support to insure Polanski's downfall. For instance, I am sure that if she went on Oprah's show the Big O would have done as much as anyone possibly could to defame Polanski and make Geimer look like a true victim. Would anyone argue that Oprah lacks sufficient influence to do this?<br />
<br />
As for Vidal's words, he is an idiot to say something like that. There was no call for him to come off like attacking Geimer in that way and to suggest that she was a "hooker," especially not considering how she hasn't attacked Polanski in all the years since the incident. Give the woman some respect. He should have made it more clear that he was attacking the perception of the younger Geimer and other girls her age as "little angels all in white" and living paragons of innocence as crafted by American culture via following the Victorian model, rather than seeming to attack Geimer specifically, even though I understand that he was actually attempting to do the former. Of course, Williams and other enlightened progressive members of "the pack" are not going to see it this way.<br />
<br />
:Williams: ''"Her request for dismissal is a tough one for many to fathom."''<br />
<br />
For many in ''this'' society and period of time, at least.<br />
<br />
:Williams: ''"The Los Angeles Times scolded this weekend that 'Polanski's victim is not judge and jury.' In brushing aside her wishes, the paper said that 'We empathize with [the victim], who has received about 500 media calls in recent weeks, but the case against Polanski was not brought to satisfy her desire for justice or her need for closure.' Yeah, who does she think she is anyway, with her desires and needs?"''<br />
<br />
Thank you, Mary Elizabeth.<br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
The URL to the page on Salon.com where all of the Polanski articles can be seen is here:<br />
<br />
'''http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/roman_polanski'''<br />
<br />
Here is the URL to my October 2nd, 2009 post on GirlChat entitled, "My Thoughts On the Polanski Situation Reconsidered," an opinion I repudiated in the above essay/analysis due to my further study of Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony. This further study took into consideration all the evidence regarding its possible validity, including the fact that Geimer's subsequent actions, including her refusal to help indict Polanski in more recent years and her request that the charges be dropped even when she could have easily swayed public sentiment to her side if she did so--as well as statements she made on other occasions years after the incident--just didn't match up with that of someone who was actually forced to engage in sex without her consent. As a possible explanation as to why she made that testimony at the grand jury hearing if it wasn't actually true, one must consider the well acknowledged tendency of law enforcement officers and social workers to attempt to coax alleged victims of sexual abuse who had actually consented to the activity into fabricating details to make a better case against the accused, a tendency that became crystal clear to the public with the notorious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria McMartin pre-school incident]. The URL to that post is here: <br />
<br />
'''http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/480506.htm'''<br />
<br />
Below is the URL to my October 1st, 2009 post on GirlChat where I defended Roman Polanski from an attack by ''New York Times'' columnist Jonathan Rosenbaum prior to my reading Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony: <br />
<br />
'''http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/480360.htm'''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Many_Faces_of_Love_-_Monogamy_and_Chronophilic_Attraction&diff=6839Essay:The Many Faces of Love - Monogamy and Chronophilic Attraction2011-09-19T06:32:12Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Summerdays==<br />
If we understand the term 'chronophilic attraction' to refer to a sexual attraction towards individuals within a specific age range, then the question is inevitably raised: What does a person with this attraction do when their partner grows out of that age range? This question is frequently aimed at the minor-attracted community in an attempt to discredit adult attraction to minors as a form of immature and abusive love - with the assumption that an individual with this attraction will, if allowed, jump from partner to partner, dumping each one as soon as s/he grows out of the older person's attraction range.<br />
<br />
Frankly, I think this is a vain and insulting assumption. What about a regular teleiophile attraction to adults? [A teleiophile is an individual who has a romantic preference for people in the same general age group.] Does a person with a standard attraction become sexually interested in senior citizens when his partner reaches that age? Or does he still cast glances at the 20-year-old beauties he spots in a crowd? I expect we are all wired to respond to certain physical types, and for most people (or perhaps most males), this probably includes some measure of youth (more or less, depending), and that doesn't simply cease once we've found a mate.<br />
<br />
Yet, a committed relationship doesn't fall apart based on this fact alone. There are many different aspects to an interpersonal relationship. Mating is about more than just a physical attraction. It's an emotional bond as well; it's a promise, and it's a friendship. And, I think there is some truth to the concept that your physical attraction to a person can change based on how you feel about them emotionally. I don't think anyone stops being attracted to young, fresh partners - however, their interest in pursuing them may wane depending on what they have and what they need in life. And how much the wife objects! <br />
<br />
Just because your lover will some day grow old and wither, and not be physically attractive in the same way that she once was, doesn't mean you'll fall out of love with her. And it doesn't mean that forming a lasting bond with her is not a good idea. This is no different for a man who thinks 8-year-olds are the pinnacle of beauty, than it is for one who thinks the same thing about 18-year-olds, or 28-year-olds, or even 68-year-olds. Should we judge a man's civility by the nature of his aesthetic sense, and then condemn the love his heart expresses?<br />
<br />
But whether one strives for longevity is a decision each individual or couple must make for themselves. If, on the other hand, someone chooses not to pursue long-term commitments, that doesn't make him less kind or moral, so long as he's not intentionally leading people on only to unexpectedly drop them off - which would be a behavioral problem independent of the nature of a person's attraction. Love is no less meaningful when it is fleeting. And there is no reason to judge a relationship harshly only because it doesn't conform to the standard protocol. Love does not need to end in marriage, a house in the suburbs, and raising a family in order for it to be an enriching experience, and a worthwhile investment of time and feeling for all concerned.<br />
[[Category:Summerdays' essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Importance_of_Truth&diff=6838Essay:The Importance of Truth2011-09-19T06:31:34Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Dissident==<br />
Every so often, a particularly important and inspirational statement is made by someone in the public eye, be it courtesy of a writer, a politician, a lawyer, etc., that everyone in the world should take heed of and which should be preserved in perpetuity. Such a quote was made in an early 2010 [http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/03/david_aaronovitch_conspiracy_theories?source=newsletter article/interview] of British journalist David Aaronovitch, who was discussing his new book detailing some of the greatest conspiracy theories of the 20th century to the first decade of the 21st, ''Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History'' (the quote will be given down below in the summation paragraph of this essay, so be patient!). Though the book has nothing to do with the Minor Attracted Adult (MAA) community, it should be noted that it does have a lot of relevance to us. This is because it can be argued that many of the lies aimed at the members of this community, including the highly inaccurate image of us constructed by the media and since emblazoned into the mindset of popular culture, have been a litany of urban legends that could possibly be combined to include what future historians and journalists may consider a massive conspiracy theory of sorts (especially since the sex abuse hysteria includes the child porn scare, aspects of which that are commonly reported in the media may constitute an urban legend of its own). That is pushing the definition of "conspiracy theory" a bit, of course, but consider some of the incorrect beliefs that have been part of the interconnected sex abuse hysteria and "pedophile panic" that have since been totally disproven, or at least received a major challenge in a mainstream book or research paper to the point of providing enormous evidence against these dubious credences. The following disproven or greatly challenged assumptions were once accepted parts of our society's conventional wisdom that weren't challenged for many years each (listed below in no particular order):<br />
<br />
'''1) Children ''never'' lie when they say they have been sexually abused'''. That once very popular belief, which all but doomed almost every single adult who was ever accused of this crime regardless of the fact that there may have been zero evidence to back up any given accusation, was finally disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt with the tragic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial McMartin pre-school incident]. The above incident put the kibosh on this once thoroughly accepted assumption forever after a bunch of unscrupulous female social workers with a moralizing political agenda got caught on tape bullying kids into making up extremely grotesque and outrageous stories about many bizarre types of abuse that evidently happened to these kids at the McMartin day-care center...all of which turned out to be complete fabrications. Info on the aspect of the sexual abuse hysteria that claimed that such abuse of kids was occurring in epidemic proportions in American day-care centers, of which the McMartin incident was the culmination of, can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria here].<br />
<br />
'''2) Every adult who commits genuine acts of sexual abuse against kids have and are primarily motivated by a sexual attraction to kids'''. Some very good objective studies, many of which are quoted [http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2007/quotes-on-the-occurence-of-paedophilia-in-csos here] with links to the full reports, have provided extremely compelling evidence that close to 90% of all cases of genuine, demonstrable sexual abuse against kids are not done by true pedophiles and hebephiles, but by what are often called ''situational child molesters'' (SCMs). Those who fit the latter definition are defined as adults (and sometimes teens) who sexually abuse kids for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual desire but most often due to an array of other factors, including alcoholism, power trips over these kids whom such adults have particularly heavy authority over, marital problems, heavy stress, and other personal issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with a sexual desire for underagers.<br />
<br />
Also, the bulk of SCMs operate within the home, boarding school, or other places where adults have the most stringent power and authority over kids. This strongly suggests that it's this element of ''power'' and not a mere erotic attraction to kids that most often acts as a catalyst for genuine non-consensual abuse of minors. FBI statistics that can be found with a modicum of research admit this (though the FBI, of course, does not distinguish between genuine non-consensual abuse and mutually consensual contact between kids and adults since all such contact is equally criminalized under the present day age of consent laws).<br />
<br />
'''3) Kids have no real sexual desire'''. A [http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3175376/Young-kids-search-for-sex-online recent collection of the Web surfing habits of kids]--including pre-pubescents of both genders as young as seven years old--that was conducted by Symantec discovered that some of the most common topics searched for online by these underagers...well, let's just say that this data proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the concept of "innocence" in regards to childhood is about as realistic as a big fat man in red clothing sliding down the chimney of every house in the world on Christmas Eve.<br />
<br />
'''4) Kids were being sexually abused in truly horrific and often preposterous ways in the U.S.--and possibly across the world--by groups of mysterious and diabolical cultists who worshipped Satan and were abusing these kids in "honor" of the ultimate Lord of Evil'''. This particularly bizarre manifestation of the ongoing sex abuse hysteria that has been plaguing Western society for the past three decades was once accepted as absolute fact by the usual suspects who benefit from all permutations of this hysteria. These suspects include child "protectionist" groups, victim feminists, politicians of both major political parties seeking brownie points with the public and any excuse to increase police powers over all society, right-wing fundamentalist Christians, prosecutors without a conscience (including the later Waco, Texas mass murderess and good friend of Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno), and corrupt social workers and therapists with a less than savory agenda and an eye for a career boost at the expense of destroying the lives of innocent people.<br />
<br />
Following a few totally unsubstantiated rumours that began early in the 1970s, the satanic ritual abuse hysteria began in earnest with the 1980 publication of the book [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Remembers ''Michelle Remembers''] by psychologist Dr. Lawrence Pazder and his patient (and later wife) Michelle Smith. Thousands of innocent people, including numerous day-care center workers, were victims of this twisted tomfoolery, and as usual, people who were truly and wisely skeptical of this atrocity were too afraid to speak out for the risk of being called names that may have led to them losing their jobs as a result of questioning the hysteria.<br />
<br />
This aspect of the hysteria was finally (and thankfully) totally disproven in the extremely important book [http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/jenkins.html ''Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of A Modern American Witchhunt''] by the uber-courageous journalist Debbie Nathan and the uber-honorable lawyer (yes, there are a few of those!) Michael Snedeker, both of whom should be hailed as heroes. A page of links leading to many important articles on this particular manifestation of the sex abuse panic can be found [http://www.smwane.dk/content/section/5/30/ here].<br />
<br />
'''5) Innumerable people who were sexually abused in their childhood were so traumatized by the alleged abuse that they repressed the memory deep into their subconscious, which could subsequently be retrieved at any point in their adulthood by deep hypnosis'''. The "repressed memory syndrome" was another major component of the sex abuse hysteria that was considered a scientifically valid concept despite no real evidence to support it when ignorant and outright unscrupulous therapists with (often questionable) talent in hypnosis claimed that individuals who showed any number of emotional problems in adulthood may have these symptoms as a result of experiencing extreme trauma in their childhood after being sexually abused, but which, according to this pseudo-scientific theory, these alleged victims would repress and thus no longer consciously remember the events.<br />
<br />
The "repressed memory syndrome" also got its start in the infamous book ''Michelle Remembers'' (discussed above), which claimed that the horrific memories of an alleged victim of severe sexual abuse via her mom's non-existent satanic cult was repressed until retrieved by her therapist (and later husband) Dr. Lawrence Pazder by way of hypnotic regression. As one might expect, many other individuals with less than altruistic intentions soon exploited this newly recognized "syndrome" to further their own moral or political agenda. For instance, this phoney psychological condition got a further boost towards popular acceptance in the notorious book ''The Courage to Heal'' by agenda-ridden victim feminists Ellen Bass and Laura Davis. The latter two "victims' rights activists" jumped on the sex abuse bandwagon so popular with members of their specious ideology to spread the word to their many readers that just because they don't remember being sexually abused doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Bass and Davis not so sagely asserted that any number of personal issues that can be caused by any number of non-traumatic factors in the type of society that we live in today were often indicative of forgotten sexual abuse during their childhood.<br />
<br />
Two particularly telling quotes from the book that are representative of the typical statements made within its pages make it quite clear how devoted to scientific validity and objective reason its authors ''weren't'' in the original edition of the book: "If you are unable to remember any specific instances like the ones mentioned above but still have a feeling that something abusive happened to you, it probably did" (p.21). And if that wasn't indicative enough of the type of chicanery which filled the pages of this book, behold this utterly anti-scientific gem that is also found within this charming little tome: "Demands for proof are unreasonable" (p. 137).<br />
<br />
So according to the authors, it's more important to be "kind" and "considerate" to the feelings of the alleged victim of the alleged abuse than it is to call for an investigation or any type of inquiry into the truth if the evidence doesn't back up the allegations of this supposed victim. Obviously, the faux social science of "victimology" certainly doesn't fit well into a society that is supposed to be based on democratic principles, nor a legal system that purports to be based upon the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Just imagine if this ideology was allowed to infest our entire system of jurisprudence without challenge. Excuse me, but I would like to think that anyone who is devoted to the truth and the simple concept of social justice would gladly risk being "insensitive" to the feelings of the alleged victims by demanding evidence of their claims before taking the risk of prosecuting someone who may be entirely innocent.<br />
<br />
A book review of ''The Courage To Heal'' that is courtesy of therapist Ralph Underwager can be found [http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_4_br1.htm here]. Ignore some of Underwager's psychobabble in regards to various psychological theories he expresses in the review (including the rather unproven contention that psychopathic tendencies have a genetic basis according to one of the theories he seems to support), and you will find a cogent and not overly long critique of the type of "theories" that Bass and Davis push in their book to support their anti-male, anti-heterosexual, and anti-scientific agenda.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it should be noted that the most recent edition of ''The Courage To Heal'' added a chapter that attempted to refute the statements made by the book's many detractors who dared to ask for scientifically verified evidence of the claims made therein. It's sad that this book is still considered a legitimate source of objective info for female sexual abuse victims to seek out as a means of healing. But for those particular women who espouse the concept of "victimology" and are therefore interested in revenge rather than actual healing, creating a whole social identity around their "victimhood" (i.e., becoming a '''Victim''' rather than simply a victim, if you know what I mean), and to consider themselves "damaged goods" for the rest of their lives since truly healing and moving past their pain would deny them the perceived right to convey sociopathic behavior towards others who try to get close to them, especially men who may express an interest in them and family members who may offer their shoulder, and then calling all of the above individuals "insensitive to their pain" if they dare complain about such aberrant behavior being directed at them for no justifiable reason.<br />
<br />
Thus was born a new psychological concept, which contended that when people suffer extreme trauma they will very likely repress it deeply in their subconscious and that hypnosis was supposedly a reliable method of retrieving these buried and forgotten memories. As a result, numerous therapists with even a minor degree of skill in hypnosis jumped on the bandwagon, and before you knew it, people were "remembering" previously repressed memories of sexual abuse in massive numbers, a number that included actress and comedian Roseanne Barr (a.k.a., Roseanne Arnold, a.k.a.,...isn't it just plain old Roseanne now or did she end up taking the last name of that bodyguard of hers that she married?). These allegations were taken extremely seriously by the courts and the media, as well as many in the mental health profession.<br />
<br />
Of course, it's now known that people who suffer severe trauma very rarely, if ever, suppress such memories but instead suffer from empirically demonstrable conditions like post-traumatic stress syndrome, which often afflicts former soldiers who had truly horrific experiences in combat, victims of extreme forms of physical abuse by parents and/or their peers when younger, and victims of various violent crimes. This well documented condition made it clear what most often happens when someone undergoes a truly traumatic experience, which is the exact opposite of what the purveyors of the "repressed memory" nonsense claimed, i.e., that traumatic events in someone's life, which was believed to be a common reaction by children to sexual abuse until later studies (documented below) proved otherwise, would very often be forgotten as the result of an alleged natural self-defense mechanism of the psyche.<br />
<br />
After thousands of innocent people, often parents and other relatives, were falsely accused of sexual abuse and dragged through legal hell over the course of a decade due to events that were allegedly forgotten by their supposed victims until retrieved by hypnosis, the "repressed memory syndrome" was finally exposed beyond a shadow of a doubt as the junk science that it was in the book [http://www.flipkart.com/myth-repressed-memory-elizabeth-loftus/0312141238-mtw3fzg6jb ''The Myth Of Repressed Memory: False Memories And Allegations Of Sexual Abuse''] by psychologist and memory expert Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus with the assistance of Katherine Ketcham.<br />
<br />
Other books and articles have appeared in the mental health literature since then which cast further aspersions on the concept of "repressed memory," such as [http://www.ishk.com/myth_of_repressed_memory.pdf this excellent and extraordinary article] on Loftus' book by Karen Adler. A page containing many links to other articles on this topic can be found [http://www.smwane.dk/content/section/6/31/ here].<br />
<br />
And let's not forget how the "repressed memory syndrome" and the irresponsible use of hypnosis combined with other factors to create the alien abduction phenomenon that was popularized by such books as artist Budd Hopkin's series of tomes on the subject starting with ''Missing Time'' near the end of the 1970s, on the eve of the beginning of the sex abuse hysteria, and author/actor Whitley Strieber's equally popular series of books on this topic beginning with ''Communion'' in the 1980s. One cannot ignore the blatant sexual aspects and confabulation of fantasy and reality with "memories" retrieved via hypnosis that is highly evident in this phenomenon that became most popular during the days when "repressed memory syndrome" was at the peak of its societal acceptance. The alien abduction phenomenon was quite possibly influenced in certain ways by the sex abuse hysteria that was going on alongside it, which is evident when you analyze the reports closely enough and see how many kids were supposed to be involved in this phenomenon.<br />
<br />
'''6) All cases of what is legally considered child pornography are ''always'' produced by adults and never by the minors themselves.''' That simultaneously stereotypical and comforting idea to victim feminists and antis was blown out of the water completely once the [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml sexting phenomenon] came to light towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century. This revelation shouldn't have taken the public by surprise, since it was revealed a few years earlier that teens were routinely taking and uploading nude pics of themselves on socnet sites like MySpace, as noted [http://www.sodahead.com/business/14-year-old-arrested-for-uploading-nude-pics-on-myspace-should-justice-be-served/question-293484/ here]. This time, it wasn't possible for the media to blame adults for this increasingly popular method of underagers to express their sexuality, nor could the mental health industry and victimologists decree their famous mantra, "It's not the fault of the kids!"<br />
<br />
The above examples of wishful thinking by our gerontocentric society were blown to hell once and for all with the revelation of Justin Berry's story. For those who are not familiar with the case, Justin Berry was a youth who started a lucrative business for himself by making and distributing pornographic videos of himself masturbating online, beginning when he was 13 on a website of his own creation. He built a large clientele for himself and was very financially healthy as a result. He eventually came to the attention of author and reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who wrote a much balleyhooed article on Justin Berry's story in ''The New York Times'', which was filled with all the typical mainstream propaganda about how Berry was the victim in this situation, how his homosexual male clientele "exploited" him, how the advent of webcams and other new technology is a terrible thing for young people to have in their possession, how the Internet is allegedly filled to the brim with predators, etc. However, there were many things that Eichenwald didn't mention about Berry's story in his bias-filled article, including the fact that he directly insinuated himself into Berry's life by giving him money to allegedly try and help him "turn over a new leaf." Eichenwald was even found to have high-level access to one of Berry's illegal sites, and Eichenwald later convinced Berry to speak out on Internet predation in public by officially going along with Eichenwald's claims that he was a victim. Hence, once Berry turned 18 and was no longer sale material to his homosexual hebephile clientele, playing the "victim" card was probably seen as the wisest thing for him to do, since he had great potential to become a media darling as a result and to possibly make a killing by having Eichenwald's sanitized and 'socially acceptable' version of Berry's life story turned into a profitable movie. However, once the facts on the case came out, Eichenwald and Berry lost their movie potential, as well as the chance to turn Berry into a victim-turned-activist-media-sweetheart.<br />
<br />
Journalist Debbie Nathan, who had previously debunked the satanic ritual abuse nonsense with her book ''Satan's Silence'' in 1995, composed a lengthy article for CounterPunch in 2007 that revealed the full truth behind Justin Berry's story and put all of Eichenwald's politically correct claims to question. That article can be found [http://debbienathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/counterpunch-april-2007.pdf here]. Nathan's article makes it quite clear that Berry was hardly a saint, and his full story will make one question who exactly benefited from his situation the most and who was truly exploited.<br />
<br />
Further, Eichenwald's breach of ethical conduct in regards to his behavior during the entire affair is likewise illustrated in the above linked article, and his claims about Berry's innocence and victim status, along with his assertions about Internet "predation" and child porn for sale and profit being problems of epidemic proportions, are likewise debunked. Another good article detailing Eichenwald's handling of the Justin Berry story is John Farmer's 2006 essay that can be found [http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/TELECOM_Digest_Online2006-2/1358.html here]. Farmer does make some disparaging comments about younger people in this article (such as expressing his doubts that a 13-year-old possesses the intellectual and emotional wherewithal to think of creating the type of online business that Berry created without "encouragement" from adults) and he does seem to have no problem with parents incessantly invading the privacy of their kids, but he nevertheless asks many important questions about Eichenwald's portrayal of Justin Berry that need to be asked, and he should be commended for this.<br />
<br />
'''7) The brains of adolescents are inherently faulty due to innate biological factors and thus they have an inherent tendency to make poor decisions that necessitate denying them most of their civil rights and keeping them under the control of their parents and other adults for their own good.''' This idea has been fashionable since the turn of the 19th/20th century when the early stages of the Industrial Revolution eliminated what was left of the rights that young people used to enjoy, and the mid-19th century Victorian concept of the "innocent child" was extended to include anyone under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
As a result of this, the concept of a distinct phase of life that came to be called "adolescence" entered the official public consciousness in a major way, and this concept was mostly pioneered by the beginning of the 20th century courtesy of the social conservative psychologist and author G. Stanley Hall. Hall used aspects of what we today call Social Darwinism and misuse of evolutionary biology to claim that the life stage of adolescence was a natural biological reality rather than a social construct. He diligently opposed what he referred to as "precocity" in young people, which can easily be translated as, "Do not let young people do anything more than what society believes they should be doing at that current age, and society should insure that young people at this newly conceptualized stage of life universally adhere to the socio-cultural paradigm we have established for their age group."<br />
<br />
As Hall biographer Nancy Lesko said in [http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2026/Hall-G-Stanley-1844-1924.html this article], "The shapers of the modern, scientific adolescent made growing bodies and sexuality primary foci and the measures to prevent precocity ''enhanced youth's economic dependence''" [emphasis mine]. Sociologists and psychologists who have studied the concept of adolescence later in the 20th century and up to the modern era (it's early February of 2010 as I write these words) have increasingly come to question Hall's biological conception of adolescence as being a distinct and natural phase in human development that marks a period between childhood and full adulthood that requires individuals in this intermediate stage to have the same degree of legal and social controls as it came to be believed that children should have since the Victorian era began. This new social construct resulted in young people under the age of 18 who fit into this new category to be given the same legal and social status that pre-pubescents ended up with during the Victorian period (indeed, Western culture tends to view adolescents under 18 as older children rather than young adults). Hall's increasing number of opponents in the social sciences over the course of time began to view his conclusions as outdated.<br />
<br />
Major and notable challenges to Hall's theory on adolescence include French sociologist Philippe Aries' book ''Centuries of Childhood'' (published in the French speaking world in 1960 and first translated into English in 1962). This tome ended up having a major impact on the social sciences during the liberal era of the 1970s when progressives of that decade began to reassess society's attitude towards younger people that was largely established by Hall and his Victorian predecessors. These reconsiderations of the status of youth included questions regarding their subservient role in the present day social institutions (such as within the nuclear family unit and within the modern elementary and secondary school systems). This was a truly progressive idea that was sadly derailed when the onset of the sex abuse hysteria and the conservative takeover of government, beginning with Ronald Reagan's presidential election in 1980, rolled back the emerging youth liberation movement of the '70s (begun notably in Ann Arbor, Michigan). Further, the combination of the sex abuse hysteria and the conservative takeover of government (which complimented each other heavily) cowered most of the liberal elements of society who began considering the validity of youth competence (including their sexual rights) in the '70s into silence and outright capitulation to the demands of the newly empowered social conservatives. This, of course, was motivated by these progressives' fears of being called "pro-pedophile," "anti-family," "insensitive to victims of child abuse," and other highly unpleasant, potentially career-destroying epithets.<br />
<br />
And so things remained until the Internet bloomed to the level we recognize it as today in the late 1990s when the youth liberation movement was reborn in a significant way with the establishment of ASFAR (Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions) and, later, the even bigger and more influential youth lib org NYRA (National Youth Rights Association; created by somewhat less radical individuals who had left ASFAR).<br />
<br />
All of this led to the pioneering efforts of more scholars in the social sciences such as, perhaps most prominently today, clinical psychologist [http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=29 Dr. Robert Epstein]. Dr. Epstein began his work in this area with a highly important and much discussed article published in an issue of ''Scientific American Mind'' entitled "The Myth of the Teen Brain" (a digital version of the latter issue of ''Scientific American Mind'' containing Dr. Epstein's aforementioned article can be purchased online for $7.95 [http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=9F1EBAA7-2B35-221B-6CBD51A39316C4D6 here]).<br />
<br />
Epstein continued and expanded his studies into the reality of adolescent competency with an extremely groundbreaking book ''The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen'' in 2007, and quickly followed it up with an updated and expanded version in 2010, ''TEEN 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence''. A list of the various cultural myths our society has of adolescents that Dr. Epstein tackles in his book can be found [http://teen20.com/ here]. His Young Person's Bill of Rights, written in celebration of the first annual National Youth Rights Day on April 14th, 2010, can be accessed via a link found on the same page as the preview to Epstein's newest book at this writing.<br />
<br />
Though I consider Newt Gingrich, the far right-wing former Speaker of the House of Representatives, to be a mortal political nemesis of mine, I have no choice but to commend him (along with his ideological cohort Rush Limbaugh for the same reason) for coming out in favor of this book and the principles for which it stands, something that I am sad to say is much more than most prominent media pundits of the mainstream Left have done thus far. To quote Gingrich:<br />
<br />
"Adolescence is a social experiment that failed. Dr. Epstein's book traces the history of the problem, demonstrates with unrelenting perseverance that much of the turmoil of our teens is a creation of our culture, and offers a specific and detailed proposal for getting our young people back on track. If you are concerned about America's young, and about America's future, this is a must-read."<br />
<br />
And as physician and author Deepak Chopra importantly noted about this book: "�We need to re-examine our basic assumptions about young people, and Epstein shows us how.�<br />
<br />
Another very important article about youth liberation by Dr. Epstein, this one specifically aimed at how the modern secondary education system that we call high school needs to be dispensed with to a great extent, and which also details the circumstances that led Dr. Epstein to question modern cultural attitudes towards young people and ultimately embracing youth liberation, is his 2007 essay published in an issue of ''Education Week'' entitled, [http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/Epstein-Lets_Abolish_High_School-Education_Week-4-4-07.pdf "Let's Abolish High School"].<br />
<br />
A very important thing to note here is that in the latter article Dr. Epstein mentions the fact that he is a father of four children, which should further demolish the self-righteous claim of many of those who do not support youth liberation (both outside of and sometimes within the MAA community) that only people who are not parents could possibly support youth liberation, and that any youth liberationist who becomes a parent will quickly repudiate their support of youth lib, or that that youth liberation is inherently incompatible with and hostile to the institution of parenthood. In fact, Epstein describes in the opening paragraph of this essay that his status as a parent actually led him to embrace youth lib, not automatically reject it, as those who are hostile to or ambivalent about the youth lib platform will often claim.<br />
<br />
As all of the above makes clear, there are now serious challenges to the societal assumptions that adolescents are inherently incompetent due to a "faulty" or "underdeveloped" brain, and these challenges are being increasingly supported by a growing number of individuals in the social sciences. These latter social scientists are now being joined by others who are familiar with the history of childhood and how different conceptions of "The Child" in the pre-Victorian era were in comparison to afterwards. And this as opposed to the conception that was adopted since that ideology's paradigm for children became the dominant one in our society, and later expanded to include young adults who are under the arbitrary age of 18.<br />
<br />
'''8) Mutually consensual sexual contact between anyone today considered to be 'minors' and those who are adults is ''always'' traumatizing for the younger person and will likely cause lifelong psychological 'damage' to them, no matter how much the minor in question may have enjoyed and desired the experience.''' This powerfully imbedded and very widely held cultural assumption causes even many of the most outspoken and generally brave progressives and liberals to cower like an animal confronted with fire whenever this subject is brought up, and such individuals are more than quick to throw aside their ideology's devotion to open-mindedness and do nothing more than mindlessly agree with the mainstream view of this truly hot button topic. To show even the slightest deviation from the mainstream view, or even to ask for empirical evidence of its validity, runs the risk of being called a series of very unpleasant names and likely doom a planned political campaign or future job promotion.<br />
<br />
The conservative conquest of our national mindset beginning with the Reagan victory in 1980, along with the onset of the ongoing sex abuse hysteria and the accompanying "pedophile panic," is one of the most potent weapons used to keep those we today call 'underagers' or 'minors' under the direct control of both their parents and the state despite the fact that the largest amount of real abuse directed against young people of all kinds--including sexual abuse and even murder--occurs by individuals living within the home and who possess the most direct and stringent power over these minors.<br />
<br />
The tragic kidnapping and murder of eight-year-old Adam Walsh in his home town of Hollywood, Florida by a deranged serial killer (who is believed to have been a man named Otis Toole who died while in prison for an unrelated offense later in the 1980s and thus never brought to justice specifically for Adam's brutal murder) caused Adam's very understandably grief-stricken father John Walsh to declare war not on the small number of dangerous serial killers and other SCM who target kids per se (which would have been entirely justifiable), but on Minor Attracted Adults specifically. Picking up on the sex abuse hysteria that was in its early stages when his son was killed, John Walsh spread what came to be called the highly disingenuous "stranger danger" phenomenon. He proved to be one of those individuals in this mess whose desire for vengeance over that of reasonable justice, along with his total disregard for truth on this subject, caused the sex abuse hysteria to reach the epidemic level that it remains at today, three decades after the tragic loss of his son. John Walsh largely accomplished this by exploiting his situation and the hysteria accompanying it to establish a major media career for himself that promulgated one of the greatest myths of this hysteria: that "pedophiles" (which Walsh, like most of the rest of the media, use as a blanket term for both genuine pedophiles and hebephiles) are responsible for effectively all of the sexual abuse inflicted upon minors in society. In his eyes, there is no such thing as a SCM, i.e., what even the FBI admits are adults, and on some occasions adolescents, who commit the bulk of all real non-consensual and coerced acts of sexual violence on kids and who usually ''do not have a strong or preferential attraction to minors'' and are therefore ''not real pedophiles or hebephiles'' in the vast majority of cases.<br />
<br />
Walsh also pushed the idea that the threat of strangers who kidnap and sexually assault and murder kids constitute a menace of epidemic proportions, thus totally ignoring the facts. The facts are that most SCMs who commit acts of genuine and demonstrable abuse against kids operate ''within the home'' and sometimes within other institutions where adults have the most direct and strictest degree of power over kids, such as boarding schools. The SCMs who are strangers to kids, including the very rare breed of serial killer that targets kids, are extremely rare.<br />
<br />
Youth liberationists do not consider John Walsh to be an ally by any means, because his efforts have resulted in draconian laws that have imposed further and further restrictions on the rights of young people, not to mention an increase in the cultural attitude that they are inherently incompetent and always in extreme danger of being kidnapped and assaulted or even murdered by deadly trenchcoat wearing strangers. Therefore, according to the ideology of the "child advocates" that Walsh had a big hand in empowering, young people under the age of 18 are in dire need of this increased parental control "for their own good."<br />
<br />
Youth liberationists are also angered by the manner in which Walsh has worked to further empower the institutions where kids suffer the greatest amount of actual abuse of all kinds, such as the hierarchal structure of the nuclear family unit, and deceived the public as towards the ''real'' reasons why the vast majority of the 100,000 minors reported as missing every year were not at home. And if any of our opponents (or any of the "moderate" elements from the MAA community, for that matter) doubts that the youth liberation movement could possibly have any beef with John Walsh and the many misleading bits of information spread about the threats to the safety of young people in America by the organization he founded, the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, please take a gander at [http://www.youthrights.net/yt/v2n6.pdf this article] from 2001 by youth liberationist Lisa Freeman that appeared in an issue of ''Youth Truth'', ASFAR's official zine. And please note that Freeman has ''nothing whatsoever'' to do with the MAA community and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she is an MAA herself. This is true of the great majority of the youth lib movement, in case our enemies (including Walsh himself) might attempt to claim that Freeman must be a "pedophile" for denouncing an esteemed organization like the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children.<br />
<br />
Walsh was soon joined by another major player in his mindless and vindictive crusade against MAAs who also did more than her fair share of contributing to the growth of the sex abuse hysteria and its accompanying industry. Oprah Winfrey came on the scene in the 1980s a few years after John Walsh began building his influential career in the media and ended up building an even bigger and more lucrative career than Walsh did. Winfrey is often credited with the invention of what came to be known as "trash TV," a method of doing a talk show that made the once respectable genre under the hands of serious seekers of the truth like Phil Donahue into something that ravenously sought superior ratings via the exploitation of serious topics by means of sensationalism rather than objective discussion and consideration which analyzed all sides of any issue. If one has any doubts about this, then simply look at the difference between the early talk shows of the '70s, heralded by Donahue, and what passes for them today, with the likes of Jerry Springer having such huge ratings and popularity.<br />
<br />
Oprah's constantly growing influence and self-serving grab at big ratings effectively helped turn all talk shows against serious discussion of adult attraction to minors, and also helped further popularize the "victim mentality" (described above in my discussion of ''The Courage To Heal''). However, Winfrey didn't simply push such a mentality on adult women, but also upon anyone who had any type of intimate relationship with an adult prior to turning 18 regardless of consent. Of course, she also pushed anti-male attitudes in general on her huge audience that consisted mostly of women, the latter attitudes being (according to a theory of mine) a major component behind the justification of the age of consent laws. When Oprah revealed that she was sexually abused by an uncle when she was a child (the real details of which have never been fully investigated at this writing to determine things such as whether or not Oprah's uncle was a true pedophile, nor the authentic nature of the incidents she describes), she used this as a justification to officially declare open season on MAAs. She has done as much as John Walsh has to popularize the idea that young people under 18 can never be anything other than victims in relationships with adults. To this day she continues to spread an increasing number of sometimes truly bizarre and outright outlandish and nightmarish lies about MAAs. A good example of this is her recent outrageous claim that the "pedophile" community had posted an online instruction manual supposedly giving each other advice on how to sexually abuse kids, some as young as infants, in extremely graphic and disturbing ways, including the insertion of knives and other implements in their sexual organs. Predictably, no one in any of the many MAA boards I am familiar with has any idea what she was talking about or has ever even seen, let alone participated in the creation of, such a horrendous instruction manual. A few in the MAA community have conjectured that if this instruction manual actually exists anywhere on the Net (and that's a huge if) it's probably nothing more than a very sick joke composed by Internet trolls.<br />
<br />
Considering how Winfrey continues to terrify the public with outrageously horrid claims like the one mentioned above, which no one outside the community ever bothers to substantiate or even question, is it any surprise that her many viewers hate and fear MAAs with such a passion? And then there was the 9000 penis's affair which at least served to embarrass her when it was revealed that it was a hoax from a troll at her website and not a true pedophile, but this incident still didn't humiliate her enough to tarnish her stellar reputation among her viewers, nor to expose her singular lack of concern for seeking the truth when it comes to this subject.<br />
<br />
As a result of the sex abuse hysteria being helped along by the likes of Walsh and Winfrey, both of them since its early days, the idea that youths under 18 are terribly and irreparably traumatized by ''any'' type of sexual contact with adults, regardless of the matter of consent, was considered an irrefutable fact that has rarely been questioned by any politician or researcher. But there were some dissenting views here and there which did have an impact, and the massive amount of courage it took these lone voices in the wilderness to go against conventional wisdom when it comes to ''this'' particular topic was immense and commendable in the extreme.<br />
<br />
One of the first reports to come out that did a serious study of the issue of trauma during the sex abuse hysteria was [http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report the Rind Report], a government funded study conducted by (taken from the above link) Bruce Rind, Department of Psychology Temple University, Philip Tromovitch, Graduate School of Education Temple University and Robert Bauserman, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.<br />
<br />
The stated goal of the report was to do an objective study on the following common assumptions: <br />"Child sexual abuse (CSA) causes psychological harm; <br />this harm is pervasive; <br />this harm is intense; and <br />boys and girls experience CSA equivalently."<br />
<br />
This meta-analysis ultimately concluded, "Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. ''Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported"'' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
Of course, there is no doubt that the Rind Report is flawed to some degree, because it seemed to be conducted under the premise that all such contact is to be considered "abuse" in an absolutist sense (though, as you will see, it did take the matter of consent into account), and the report's loaded statement that girls are much more likely to receive a negative experience from ''all'' forms of sexual contact with adults has been challenged and contradicted elsewhere (I will get to that soon), though virtually no other aspect of Rind's study has been successfully refuted anywhere else by any objective study.<br />
<br />
As a result of the above mentioned flaw, a certain number of BLers who have no interest in promoting the rights of GLers and girls along with those of BLers and boys often justify this lack of consideration for the rights of adults and minors who do not fit their own gender preference by quoting the above conclusion of the Rind Report and deciding that girls are much more likely to perceive even ''mutually consensual'' contact with men (if not also with women) negatively than boys. This provides the rationale of these "old school" BLers for not working with GLers politically or supporting the emancipation of girls in equal degree to their support for the rights of boys, and thus exclusively arguing for the societal legitimization of man/boy love and the rights of boys while ignoring and occasionally even denouncing the equal legitimization of man/girl love (or even women/girl love) and the right for girls to choose whom they can love in addition to the rights of boys to do the same. Such BLers never seemed to bother asking the important question of who the girl participants in Rind's study happened to be, whether or not their sexual liaisons with adults were consensual or non-consensual, or (perhaps most importantly) whether or not these girls engaged in liaisons with adults that were found out, and if the girls who reported these negative experiences had therefore been subjected to the infamous intervention process by the police and agenda-driven social workers whose "interview" methods (perhaps more correctly referred to as ''interrogation'' methods) came to public attention during the previously mentioned McMartin day-care incident that occurred years earlier.<br />
<br />
Thanks to my fellow GL activist SuiDream, I was notified that the Rind Report did indeed have a flaw in it that was recognized as such by the three psychologists who conducted the meta-analysis. So I did a thorough search of the Rind Report and found out that there is indeed a flaw in the original correlations made in the meta-analysis that claimed girls are much more likely to have a negative reaction to a sexual liaison with an adult than boys (which I will get to in a moment).<br />
<br />
The Rind Report was ''not'' entirely flawed as the antis claim, however, because no alternate objective research on this subject that included boys and girls have found any evidence that boys react more negatively to sexual contact with adults than girls do, but this other research (including that conducted by Sharon Thompson, which didn't include boys at all) has found that girls in addition to boys generally do not react negatively to sexual relations with adults when such contact is ''mutually consensual'' and does ''not involve incestual advances by those with the most direct power over these youths''.<br />
<br />
When one does a thorough reading of the Rind Report, one will notice a certain passage which makes it abundantly clear that a likely reason why the girl participants expressed a much greater likelihood of having a negative reaction to their sexual liaisons with adults is because the samples of college students used included a disproportionately large number of those who were subject to incestual advances. Note the following passage from the Rind Report itself:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><font size="2">A chi-square test of the homogeneity of the sample-level effect sizes revealed that they were not homogeneous, X2(53) = 78, p < .01. In an attempt to achieve homogeneity, we examined the distribution of sample-level effect sizes to determine whether outliers existed. We defined outliers to be effect sizes that were at least 1.96 standard deviations away from the unweighted mean effect size (i.e., falling in the extreme 5% of the distribution). Three outliers were found (r = .36 in Jackson et al., 1990; r = .40 in Roland et al., 1989; r = -.25 in Silliman, 1993) with z scores of 2.71, 3.16, and -3.60, respectively. The Jackson et al. study included ''only incest cases in the CSA group, and the Roland et al. study included a large proportion of incest cases'' [emphasis mine]. Moreover, Neumann et al. (1996) also found the Roland et al. result to be an outlier. Measures used in these studies from which effect sizes were computed included: the SAS, BDI, RSE, and DSFI (Jackson et al., 1990); the MMPI form R (Roland et al., 1989); and the LOC and TSCS (Silliman, 1993). These measures were all used in other studies whose effect sizes were not outliers, implying that the outlying results were not a function of these measures. ''Removing these outliers resulted in homogeneity, *2(50) = 49.19, p > .50, based on k = 51 samples, with N = 15,635 subjects'' [emphasis mine]. The recalculated unbiased effect size estimate (/-� = .09) and the 95% confidence interval (.08 to .11) were unchanged after rounding. ''The obtained small unbiased effect size estimate implies that, in the college population, the magnitude of the relationship between CSA and adjustment is small, which contradicts the assumption that CSA is associated with intense harm in the typical case'' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
Initial meta-analyses yielded 8 homogeneous and 10 heterogeneous results. In an attempt to achieve homogeneity with heterogeneous sets, we examined the distribution of effect sizes within each of these sets to detect outliers, as defined previously. We removed all such deviant effect sizes and then recomputed the meta-analyses. If homogeneity was achieved in a particular set, then the search for outliers stopped for that set. Otherwise, the reduced set of effect sizes was examined for new outliers, and, if found, the outliers were removed and the meta-analysis was performed again. If the set of effect sizes was still heterogeneous and no additional outliers were found, the set was considered to be heterogeneous. ''This procedure resulted in achieving homogeneity in 7 of the 10 initially heterogeneous sets, yielding 15 out of 18 homogeneous sets'' [emphasis mine]. Effect sizes remained heterogeneous only for hostility, self-esteem, and sexual adjustment. Of the 9 effect sizes removed in the 7 sets that became homogeneous, the majority came from two of the studies that contributed to the heterogeneity of effect sizes in the sample-level metaanalysis� 5 from Roland et al. (1989) and 1 from Jackson et al. (1990). ''These six effect sizes and one additional effect size from Bendixen et al.'s (1994) female sample were removed from the upper end of their distributions'' [emphasis mine]. Two effect sizes were removed from the lower end of their distribution (Fishman, 1991; Fromuth & Burkhart, 1989, Southwest sample). Measures on which removed effect sizes were based in Jackson et al.'s and Roland et al.'s studies were listed previously in the sample level meta-analysis section; Bendixen et al. and Fishman used investigator-authored items, whereas Fromuth and Burkhart used the SCL-90-R. Many studies with no outlying effect sizes used investigator-authored items and the SCL-90-R, implying that the outlying results were not a function of the measures used.<br />
<br />
In Table 3, the original numbers (i.e., number of samples, number of participants in these samples, unbiased effect size estimate, and homogeneity statistic) associated with the heterogeneous results for the seven sets that became homogeneous are shown in parentheses, whereas the numbers associated with the reduced homogeneous sets appear directly under the column headings. ''Removing outliers showed itself to be productive in achieving homogeneity'' [emphasis mine]; further, this procedure had little effect on effect size estimates, indicating that the large majority of effect size estimates can be considered to be reliable estimates of true effect sizes in the college population. ''The unbiased effect size estimates for all 18 symptoms were small according to Cohen's (1988) guidelines'' [emphasis mine]. The effect size estimates ranged from ru = .04 to .13. Despite these small values, all effect size estimates, except for one (locus of control), were statistically significantly greater than zero, as is indicated by their 95% confidence intervals. These findings indicate that, for all symptoms but one, CSA participants as a group were slightly less well adjusted than control participants. ''The small magnitude of all effect size estimates implies that CSA effects or correlates in the college population are not intense for any of the 18 metaanalyzed symptoms'' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
</font></blockquote><br />
<br />
The overabundance of cases involving incest was very likely present in many more of the girl participants in the study than the boy participants, thus likely accounting for the discrepancy. And, as noted in the above excerpt (all taken from pp. 31-32 of the Rind Report), once the above outliers were adjusted and removed from the female samples, there was much less disharmony with the male samples. Hence, the Rind Report actually admitted that the above-mentioned flaw was indeed a discrepancy in the meta-analysis, and the final draft of the report recognized and corrected this. It's unfortunate that so many people seem to have failed to read this section of the Rind Report, and have used it as an excuse to imply that girls are less capable of handling their sexual rights than boys are. Or, within the MAA community, that BL is more legitimate from a moral standpoint than GL is. It seems rather clear from the above study that girls appear to be much more often subject to incestual advances by parents and other close relatives within the home than boys are. This fact would certainly account for the above noted discrepancy in the study results. But that should have little bearing on girls' typical reactions to sexual activity with adults who do not live within the home, do not have a direct degree of authority over them, are not related to them, and for which the relationship was entirely consensual.<br />
<br />
There are further good reasons to ask the questions I just asked about the girl participants in Rind et al.'s meta-analysis. This is because other researchers who have interviewed underage girls that engaged in specifically ''mutually consensual'' sexual liaisons with men who had no direct authority over them and were not related to them, such as Sharon Thompson in her monumentally large study of teen girls' sexual lives that was recorded in this very important book [http://books.google.com/books?id=xfObOu5n99sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Going+All+The+Way+by+Sharon+Thompson&source=bl&ots=CW3SetgFrl&sig=DXrM7T9vnmo_pi2vi-WDVvycL1g&hl=en&ei=tvttS8WnIZCRjAfG06D0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Going All The Way: Teenage Girls' Tales of Sex, Romance, and Pregnancy''], have reported things quite differently than the initial results of the Rind Report before the above mentioned discrepancy was accounted for. In this study she tackled the subject of these young girls' romantic relationships with adult men in Chapter 7 of that book, and she made the issue of consent quite clear in the questions she gave to her girl interviewees. She didn't make the mistake of lumping all sexual encounters together under one heading, without taking the important matter of consent into account.<br />
<br />
As Peggy Ornstein said in [http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/books/sex-and-the-teen-age-girl.html?pagewanted=1 her online review] of Thompson's book, "Sharon Thompson's ''Going All the Way'' takes a brave approach to one of the most emotionally and politically charged issues of our times: sex and teen-age girls. Let me make this clear: this is not a book lamenting teen-age pregnancy rates. It is not a rant against promiscuity. Ms. Thompson is simply, without censure, reporting on how young women see their sexual selves." Hence, the objectivity--not to mention courage--of Thompson's study of this subject is made quite clear in Ornstein's review (and for anyone who reads the book), and to her credit Thompson was concerned more with establishing the truth than she was with promoting a certain popular moral agenda that ends up effectively stereotyping teen girls by showing them little if any respect.<br />
<br />
Regarding what was said by the many interviewed girls regarding their mutually consensual liaisons with adult men, Ornstein reports, "And while the girls with adult male lovers ''generally reported enjoying sex'' [emphasis mine], they too operated on a barter system, often swapping erotic favors for surrogate fathering." It's quite possible that most of the girls that Thompson interviewed with this particular set of questions were ''not'' gerontophiles, and thus weren't naturally oriented towards adult men sexually and emotionally. However, the "surrogate fathering" thing, another stereotype directed at teen girls every time they get involved romantically with adult men, may be translated as girls who seek out relationships with men for reasons that are not entirely honest to the men in question. Nevertheless, the fact that these girls found surrogate "fathering" from their adult male lovers, and made it clear that they were not psychologically damaged or felt degraded by the sexual aspect of the relationship, it can be surmised as an educated guess that these girls' genuinely wanted the sex and may have had a strong sexual attraction to the men they had these relationships with even if they described themselves as "exchanging" sex for "fathering" in their interviews with Thompson.<br />
<br />
There are plenty of reasons why such stereotypes should be questioned. For one thing, it's well known to anyone who is either a parent or has worked with kids, or to anyone who has ever ''been'' a kid, that very few young people, both pre-pubescents or adolescents, ever do anything that they truly do not want to do or are not compelled to do out of absolute necessity. The idea that sexual activity is the one thing in the world that underagers will engage in if they don't want to with adults, let alone those particular adults who do not live with them or have any particular degree of strict power over them, is quite baffling and entirely devoid of common sense, to say the least. Further, it's well known that there are many adult men that do not have a romantic preference for adolescent girls but who still have a measure of respect for these girls that would gladly play the role of surrogate father for them without expecting erotic "favors" in return. Why don't girls who are only seeking a platonic father surrogate--and nothing more--simply find men who are not hebephiles (and thus do not have a preference for teens) and make it clear to them from the get-go that they are looking for a platonic friend or "father figure" and nothing more? Furthermore, since the hebephile attraction base encompasses far more than a simple sexual attraction to teen girls, and includes (at least in most cases) a strong social component to it, why couldn't these girls approach a caring hebephile and make it clear from the get-go that they were simply looking for platonic friendship and support?<br />
<br />
One is forced to suspect that many of these girls who were interviewed by Thompson found adult men whom they had a degree of physical attraction to, came onto them sexually, and convinced these men that they were in an actual romantic relationship with these girls when in actuality the girls hoped to keep these men around for their friendship and the feeling that they were a surrogate father figure of some sort who would perhaps take care of them in certain ways that they wouldn't have if the girls didn't feign a romantic interest in them. If so, this would constitute disingenuous and even manipulative behavior on the part of the girls, who may have felt that convincing these men they had a sexual/romantic interest in them would serve to wrap them around their fingers more, and to be more likely to keep them around in their lives. This, of course, contrasts heavily with the contention by many that these girls could never be anything other than a victim of these men, and that the adults in such cases are always without exception the ones in the wrong because unlike anyone who is under 18, adults are always believed to "know better." In other words, our society believes that it's impossible for an underage girl to manipulate an older man, and that only the reverse is possible because of the common ageist belief that older people always have superior wisdom and worldly experience than younger people do. Of course, if this was true, one wonders how the large number of young con artists working for fraudulent telemarketing companies have managed to so effectively bilk senior citizens out of their life savings.<br />
<br />
Any man who has been actively dating for any length of time have met the type of young woman described above, and hebephiles are well aware that there are adolescent girls who do exactly the same thing as these women who are legally adults do and are just as competent and capable of pulling it off, which should be expected since adolescents are essentially young adults.<br />
<br />
True gerontophiles, however, are not usually looking for a surrogate father figure when they enter into such relationships with adults, but have a genuine physical, emotional, and social orientation towards adult men (or women). Hence, their feelings for much older men (or much older women), and their reasons for seeking them out as lovers, are for reasons that are no different than why teleiophile women seek out adult men for romantic relationships.<br />
<br />
The main point is, however, that these many girls who had mutually consensual sex with much older adult men found the physical intimacy they shared with them generally enjoyable and did not later report psychological damage or overwhelming feelings of being used and abused as a result. Further, the many female gerontophiles who have visited the MAA community in the past have made it quite clear that they did not suffer any psychological damage or negative reaction to sexual relationships with adult men if the relationships were mutually consensual.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that the remaining number of BLers who ignore the rights of girls and GLers, and who may not consider them as morally legitimate as the rights of boys and BLers to choose to have relationships with each other, have thankfully greatly diminished over the past decade now that there are several message boards, including Newgon, where BLers and GLers routinely interact with each other, learn about each other, support each other, and perhaps most importantly, where the BLers who participate in these joint boards have met as many female gerontophiles as they have their male counterparts and are thus quite aware that girls are ''not'' more likely than boys to receive a negative reaction from a mutually consensual relationship with a man (or a woman, for that matter). The ever diminishing number of BLers who still feel that man/boy love is morally superior to man/girl love, and who show signs that they may believe that girls are less capable of handling their rights as boys, prominently appears to include the author whose otherwise excellent work is archived on the [http://www.shfri.net/shfp/shfp.cgi SafeHaven Foundation Press] website that he established to keep his work available to the public. This particular BLer author should know better given the several decades he has been doing research on this subject, yet he evidently still uses one of the few faults of the Rind Report to justify his total lack of interest in fighting to legitimize Girl Love as well as Boy Love. If he had bothered to interact with GLers as so many other BLers do nowadays rather than posting on boards exclusively inhabited by BLers, and if he met and talked to as many female gerontophiles as he has done with their male counterparts, he would indeed know this and not blindly follow the conclusion made by the Rind Report regarding the experiences of girls who had experiences with men being much more likely to be negative than that of boys who did the same when there is good reason to question that statement due to all of what I mentioned above.<br />
<br />
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Rind Report was "condemned and denounced" by Congress despite the fact that its findings and methodology was further peer reviewed by representatives of the APA, and psychologist Ray Fowler, representing that org and its review of the Rind Report, concluded: "Because the article has attracted so much attention, we have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound." But Congress' denunciation of the Rind Report's conclusions by a ''unanimous vote'' of 355-0 [!], which made it clear that no politician of either major political party will dare to be open-minded about this subject right now, and that the government officials' unwillingness to put science and truth before deeply held cultural beliefs no matter how much evidence is presented to counter such beliefs, should encourage more people to question the "wisdom" of the government far more often than they do. Sadly, due to all the outside attacks on his studies in this area, Dr. Rind was scared away from pursuing this particular research any further and has since put his time and efforts into other, less controversial areas of study.<br />
<br />
However, as noted in [http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/science_and_morality.htm this very important article] by Dr. Frans Gieles that offers a detailed counter-argument to the detractors of the Rind Report, Dr. Rind and his fellow authors of the report made this statement when the issue of consent was brought up by the many detractors of their study, specifically in regards to the ability of adolescents to consent, which was ''readily and officially recognized'' by the APA in a 1989 statement to the Supreme Court, and also made a strong implication that the studies suggested that pre-pubescents may be able to give what was defined as 'simple consent' (if not the more commonly used 'informed consent'), which was still found to result in positive or at least neutral outcomes by children who have utilized it in non-coerced and non-incestual relationships with adults:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><font size="2">It should also be made clear that when Congress, the Leadership Council, the Family Research Council, or even the APA is talking about 'children' in the context of sexual relations with adults, they are not using biological definitions of childhood, but instead are referring to minors under the age of consent, which is generally from 16 to 18 in the U.S. Thus, they are talking not only about prepubescent children, but also adolescents. It is thus informative to review what the APA has had to say in the past about adolescents' ability to provide informed consent in a different context. In an October, 1989 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the APA argued, based on a review of the developmental literature, that pregnant girls do not need parental consent to obtain abortions, because they are capable, in an informed consent sense, to decide for themselves. They wrote:<br />
<br />
"''Psychological theory and research about cognitive, social and moral development strongly supports the conclusion that most adolescents are competent to make informed decisions about important life situations'' [emphasis mine]. . . . In fact, by middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, and reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems. . . . By middle adolescence most young people develop an adult-like identity and understanding of self. . . . Thus, by age 14 most adolescents have developed adult-like intellectual and social capacities including specific abilities outlined in the law as necessary for understanding treatment alternatives, considering risks and benefits, and giving legally competent consent. . . . <br />[Additionally,] there are some 11-to-13-year-olds who possess adult-like capabilities in these areas.<br />
<br />
"In view of these conclusions, which are based on the developmental literature, it seems inconsistent to reject ''even simple consent'' [emphasis mine] as a moderating variable in a rigorously peer-reviewed article, given that many of the CSA [child sexual abuse] episodes analyzed involved adolescents. In short, the scientific data demonstrate the utility of consent, in the sense of simple consent or willingness, as a moderating variable. Thus, ''simple consent is a valid scientific construct for predicting and understanding the outcomes associated with CSA experiences'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
</font></blockquote><br />
<br />
It should be noted that the above quoted amicus brief given to the Supreme Court by the APA in 1989 likewise backs up the research and assertions made by Robert Epstein that was mentioned in a previous section of this essay.<br />
<br />
The Family Research Council said in response to the Rind Report: "Whatever the children's perceptions were, we know, [�] that the children were not capable of legally, ethically, morally, mentally, or emotionally consenting to sex with anybody, much less an adult. Thus, what we are left with is a study that should never have seen the light of day, much less publication in a professional journal."<br />
<br />
It's a typical ageist move for adults with a moral agenda to protect the integrity of the current institutions of society while masquerading as "protecting" the children to disregard just about anything that kids say unless it somehow fits their agenda to do so, such as when so many people insisted that believing everything the kids said in the McMartin pre-school incident despite the complete lack of evidence of what the kids were claiming, its utter outlandishness, and without considering what effect the bullying 'interview' methods of the social workers involved in the case may have had on the kids.<br />
<br />
In regards to the issue of consent being impossible for minors, Dr. Gieles remarks:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><font size="2">Several authors before Rind et al. have accepted that their participants told them that their experiences were wanted in a certain percentage of the cases. ''A scientist has to accept this as a matter of fact'' [emphasis mine]. The fact is: "the participants told me�"<br />
<br />
As the authors [i.e., Rind and his collaborators in his report] said it: "In the research we reviewed on the effects of CSA, �consent� has meant the victim's own perception of his or her level of participation - from being forced to willingness - ''because this is known to affect a victim's reaction to the experience'' [emphasis mine]. Given that our study is a review of dozens of other studies, many of which explicitly examined how victim's own perceptions of their level of participation affect outcomes, it was appropriate for us to examine this factor as well." Thus, “consent” was not a premise, nor a central concept, but ''one of the factors that could vary the participant’s perception of the CSA event'' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
If one rejects the possibility of willingness, one should reject every study that finds a difference between willing and unwilling experiences. ''But if consent to sex - informed or not - is impossible for children to give to adults, one has to then wonder why it makes such a dramatic difference in outcomes. Though a self-perceived level of consent may be of no interest to FRC [the Family Research Council], the meta-analysis demonstrates that the self-perceived level of consent makes '''a huge difference to actual children''''' [emphasis mine].<br />
<br />
The FRC statement cited above, "Whatever the children's perceptions were, we know that the children were not capable" is quite clear. What children say and feel is not important because FRC knows better.<br />
<br />
</font></blockquote><br />
<br />
I couldn't have said it better myself. And it now becomes clear why the FRC and other orgs like it sought to suppress the findings of the Rind Report so strongly...those findings went against the political and moral agenda of such orgs, and violated not children's safety but rather society's cultural norms.<br />
<br />
Dr. Gieles concludes: "If the children say they were harmed, they must be believed. NAMBLA has to accept the facts. But if they say they were not, they must still be believed. FRC has to also accept the facts. Otherwise, the children are just being used."<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree that children should be listened to if they say they were harmed by sexual contact with an adult. However, I think it's an entirely valid concern to sometimes question the verisimilitude of such statements if the youth in question had mutually consensual sexual activity with an adult and was subsequently found out and the youth in question was forced into what passes for "therapy" within the clinics of the sex abuse industry. Why didn't the members of the Rind commission take this into consideration? Come to think of it, why didn't Dr. Gieles do the same thing in his article? It's a very well known and extremely obvious fact to anyone who has ever spoken to someone who has been through this "therapy" that a huge dose of behavioral, conceptual, and moral modification is done to the young person if they say they weren't harmed by the contact with their adult lover and if they assert that the experiences were positive.<br />
<br />
I have personally known a brave teen female gerontophile activist (she used to post on some of the MAA boards as Fayla) who spoke out in defense of mutually consensual relationships between adults and youths under 18, both on the boards and in a series of audio recordings she uploaded to Youtube. When her real identity was found out by the notorious anti-MAA hate group called Perverted Justice, and her parents, her school, and the police in her home city were notified of what she was doing by this organization, she was forced against her will into this "therapy." She described to me the entire ordeal of any underage person who dares openly disagree with the moralizing imperatives thrown at them by the police and the corrupt therapists who oversee such programs. They relentlessly insisted that she was emotionally ill as a result of her preference for adult men, that she was "abused" by her adult boyfriend and that he couldn't possibly have loved her but was only using her for his own selfish purposes, that it's not possible or "normal" for an adult to love a person under 18 (any MAA will tell you that this common belief is a total load of bull), and that she should feel resentful against him and do everything in her power to see to it that he is put in jail. She had previously had other adult boyfriends whom her therapists likewise told her couldn't possibly have had any genuine feelings for her and couldn't have done anything other than having used and manipulated her for entirely selfish reasons, that she should hate every single one of them for what they did "to" her, and that she should do her utmost to cooperate with her "rescuers" by giving them the identities of these men so that they can be arrested. If you resist this attempt at brainwashing (which is what it clearly is), she said, her therapists only grow more and more relentless with it and they will not let any youth out of this "therapy" unless they begin telling these individuals what they want to hear, which can easily be argued is a form of thought control that is very similar to what adult sex offenders--whether they are real MAAs or not--go through in the prison "sexual recovery" programs. It's far from uncommon for youths who are not activists, and thus not as strong-willed as those who are, to be successfully brainwashed after their initial attempts to resist and deny what these cops and "therapists" are trying to convince them of.<br />
<br />
As an example, I remember that during my days posting on the now defunct Open Hands forum, we would periodically receive visits from adult women who had been intimate with an adult man when they were underage, who would make comments that were often a close variation of this:<br />
<br />
"When I was 13, I had a sexual relationship with a man many years older than me. I enjoyed the experience, he was always there for me, we spent a lot of time together, he treated me kindly at all times, and he told me that he loved me. But if he really loved me, how could he have hurt me in that way?"<br />
<br />
I think any moderately rational person would be entirely justified, after reading such a post, to respond with a loud, "Huh?!" This would automatically make at least the pro-choicers among the MAA posters on that board who read such a post to logically suspect that this woman and her older lover had their relationship "found out" and that she was consequently pushed through enforced "therapy" by the system. Thus, she was ultimately convinced that despite how much she admits she enjoyed the experiences she had with this man, she was nevertheless "hurt" by him. And sure enough, it usually turned out that women who made such posts had indeed been through "therapy" and thus coerced by those conducting her "treatment" via intense and utterly relentless repetition of psycho-propaganda into believing that her older lover had harmed her even though she continued to clearly recollect the pleasure and comfort she received from this relationship, and even recalled that the man always acted like he loved and cared about her.<br />
<br />
Of course, our opponents would love to jump at claims by women posters on the MAA frequented boards like the one I just described above and shout, "See! See! This proves that kids are hurt by such experiences even if they enjoy them!" The problem is, the latter common statement greatly conflicts with the experiences reported by the multitude of adult gerontophiles of both genders that we in the MAA community have met in the past when they came to our boards looking for support and camaraderie, many of whom said they had had mutually consensual sexual experiences with adults when they were underage and who were ''never'' "found out" and thus never put through any of those "therapy" programs. These women (and men on the BL boards) always without fail told a markedly different story than those who had either had their relationships discovered and they were forced into "therapy" as a result, or, on a few occasions, those who were given an extremely hard time by peers and family members who found out about the relationship some time after it had ended and told her over and over again, very harshly and very maliciously, that her relationship with that man was absolutely shameful, that she is a disgrace for enjoying it, that there was no possible way he could have actually loved her or truly cared for her well being, that he couldn't have been motivated by anything other than a purely selfish desire to use her for his personal sexual gratification, that she suffered a stain on her soul for enjoying such experiences, that she was obviously mentally unbalanced for her positive perception of the relationship, and that she clearly only ''thought'' she enjoyed it but actually could not have (as if they were mind-readers). Some have even claimed that people who reported having mutually consensual relationships with adults when they were minors that had positive effects on their self-esteem must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome! Those girls who told the wrong people about the relationship long after it happened ended up having those moralism-driven individuals impose a huge amount of guilt on them for feeling good about the relationship. This resulted in a heavy blow to their self-esteem along with great encouragement to blame the relationship they had with their adult lover for this shame and severe blow to her self-image and confidence and ''not'' the highly emotionalistic and totally irrational reaction that so many people she told about it had.<br />
<br />
I think that the above point is extremely important to mention, and any researcher who conducts such a study needs to take this into consideration and ask their interviewees if they had been through the system or not, or if they had ever revealed their relationship to others and, if so, how these others reacted to it and what they said to her or him, because ''there can be no doubt'' that these factors are potentially going to tremendously influence their perception of the experience.<br />
<br />
In response to some detractors of Rind's study claiming that his findings were "bad news" because now it would encourage MAAs to "molest" kids, Dr. Gieles said:<br />
<br />
"The conclusion that there is less harm than has always been supposed and that children are more resilient than was thought, is a message of hope. ''The Rind study is nothing more than another confirmation that children are '''resilient''''' [emphasis mine]. There are many studies showing that a percentage of children are able to endure horrific experiences in childhood and yet go on to lead normal healthy lives without apparent damage. People accept such a conclusion when the experiences concern things like deaths of parent or siblings, car accidents, fires, war, or natural disasters. They seem unwilling to accept the same result showing up in this particular circumstance."<br />
<br />
The above points represent yet more substantive evidence that the agenda of the antis and other groups who are hateful towards intergenerational relationships are entirely based on moralism and an emotionalistic fear of a natural thing which more and more evidence is making clear that it's not likely to cause any demonstrable harm to young people who participate in it of their own free will. And this finding also blows a hole in the commonly held belief that children and adolescents are extremely fragile emotionally, when in actuality all the evidence suggests that kids are quite resilient emotionally and thus can handle the "complications" of a sexual life with whomever they may please, be they peer or adult, just fine.<br />
<br />
Dr. Gieles next says: "If there is harm - and there is harm in some cases - than it's better to know which cases are the most harmful. ''Those are the cases in which the child suffers from a bad family environment, which has far more influence than the sexual experiences'' [emphasis mine; this is the closest anyone connected to the Rind Report came to actually questioning the totalitarian nature of the various social institutions that children and teens find themselves trapped within today, where it's well known that the lion's share of real abuse of all kinds, including sexual abuse, is inflicted upon minors]. Well, this is "bad news" for organizations that want to keep and protect "Family Values.'"<br />
<br />
Could it be that most of the cases where there was harm are cases that included genuine force or coercion? And could it be that if kids have been proven capable of healing quite well from actual abuse contrary to the popular belief that there is absolutely nothing more horrible and traumatizing to a youth than sexual abuse, can it not also be concluded--or at least logically conjectured--that kids could handle mutually consensual relationships with adults much better still, and that even negative experiences in such a mutually consensual relationship (e.g., getting involved with a particular older lover they weren't compatible with) will still result in the young person coming out of it with their sanity and overall emotional health fully intact, as opposed to the popular belief that they will be "scarred for life" as a result of this relationship? It's simply logical and reasonable to conclude that if young people can indeed recover fully from genuinely abusive relationships (which should certainly result in the abuser being punished by the law; the MAA community does ''not'' condone genuine abuse; we simply insist on the word "abuse" being limited to instances in which the younger person clearly did not want the contact they experienced), then they can deal with mutually consensual relationships with adults just fine. If this is indeed the case, then the only possible reason so many elements in society can be against mutually consensual intergenerational romantic/sexual relationships (as well as all civil rights for young people) is because they find such liaisons aesthetically repulsive.<br />
<br />
Another important statement made by Rind in defense of his report that further demolishes the sacred belief in question of the various entities that spread and benefit from the sex abuse hysteria was:<br />
<br />
"In fact, if adverse childhood events are found to be less psychologically harmful than previously thought, or in some cases not measurably harmful at all, researchers have an ethical duty to report this. In the case of CSA, this finding has some positive implications: ''victims do not have to believe that they are 'damaged goods' and will inevitably suffer personality disorders and other psychopathology'' [emphasis mine], and clinicians may have solid grounds for providing reassurance and hope to those who have had such experiences. Ignoring such data may bring harm to those who have had such experiences by perpetuating feelings of being "damaged.""<br />
<br />
Well said, Dr. Rind. The constant insistence by unscrupulous therapists and social workers, not to mention vengeful media moguls like Oprah Winfrey and the authors of ''The Courage To Heal'', who have embraced the "victim mentality" that enables these individuals to profit from the sex abuse hysteria in many ways, and to convince the public to further support the legal enforcement of the sexual suppression of young people (as well as all other forms of oppression imposed upon them), helps to further enable these mental health professionals who foster this mentality to further control their patients and to secure them as paying customers for life by assuring them that they are "damaged goods" forever. Of course, they will tell their hapless patients that they have the "pedophiles" to blame for their pain, even if the person who abused them was actually a situational offender, most likely a parent or other relative in the house who didn't possess the emotional and sexual preference for younger people that characterizes true pedophiles and hebephiles. And of course, if there is no evidence whatsoever that these women were actually sexually abused by anyone at all, they will be told that they repressed the memory due to the trauma of the event (thankfully, "repressed" memories that were supposedly uncovered by hypnotic regression with no evidence to back them up are no longer admissible in court).<br />
<br />
Of course, Rind didn't question or in any way take into consideration the institutions of society where kids currently suffer from the greatest degree of real and demonstrable abuse of all kinds, including sexual assault and murder, which is ''within the home'', and that was a very glaring omission that future researchers on this subject who truly purport to care about the welfare of kids over and above preserving the integrity of any single institution within our society, especially when the present version of said institutions may contribute heavily to the genuine abuse of youths. Such researchers need to address this matter if their research is to have a full degree of objectivity. Any seeker of particular truths which may be uncomfortable to the majority of people in society to come to terms with and accept need to expect to be called names and to acquire many enemies as a result, and should expect to suffer attempts by whatever org they work for to have them fired or even to receive anonymous death threats from various individuals. Rind and his crew should have anticipated this reaction and not been so taken aback when the hate-mongers came pouring in. A seeker of the truth who lacks courage and a very thick skin is not going to have a career in seeking these truths for very long. This is why the great majority of people who may have an inkling of the truth, or a genuine desire for learning it, do not pursue it or voice their opinions publicly, or they quickly cower into silence and complicity with the mainstream attitude after doing so once they have been attacked and insulted by protectors of the prevailing conventional wisdom. This creates the public illusion that "everyone" other than members of the MAA community themselves are supportive of the demonized status that pedophiles and hebephiles have to live with in society today.<br />
<br />
A similar situation faces anyone who supports the principle of youth liberation, and such people are often similarly criticized for supporting youth rights by detractors who claim, "If kids are awarded their civil rights, 'pedophiles' will have sex with them!" This is why the largest youth lib org in America, NYRA, currently has no official position on the sexual rights of youth even though they fully acknowledge the importance and validity of such rights on their message boards when the discussion is broached there.<br />
<br />
Backing off from supporting youth rights is ''not'' justified for this reason, because as icky and revolting as so many people currently feel intergenerational sexual activity to be, and as much as people generally dislike MAAs for the nature of our romantic desires, the fact remains that it's becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of us are not dangerous or deranged in any way, and all the common myths about underage people being unable to give meaningful consent to sexual contact with adults or being traumatized for the rest of their lives as a result of such contact are false. It's also becoming quite clear that MAAs are fully capable of truly loving and caring about kids in our respective age of attraction (AoA), despite the common belief that we are only capable of self-serving sexual gratification when involved romantically with minors. If all the above evidence is taken into rational consideration, then one is ultimately forced to admit that the incessant dislike for MAAs even in the face of such evidence is based more or less entirely upon moralistic and aesthetic reasons, and not anything to do with protecting minors from demonstrable harm that can be verified or even suggested by empirically observable scientific study. Denying kids support for their civil rights when it becomes evident they are capable of handling them competently (as the APA explicitly noted in its 1989 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to adolescents, and as Rind's study has suggested in regards to pre-pubescents being capable of what those in the mental health profession call 'simple consent') solely because one does not like pedophiles and hebephiles and are personally offended by the thought of kids enjoying mutually consensual sexual relationships with adults is extremely unjust and an affront to the youth community.<br />
<br />
I think Dr. Rind and his crew should be reminded of this because despite their strong attempts at scientific objectivity, they still fall victim to catering to the type of moralism-driven attitudes that was the motivation behind the detractors of the Rind Report (as will be seen a bit below).<br />
<br />
Dr. Gieles then seems to leave his objectivity behind a bit when he says: "...in my personal opinion, the 'good news!' cry of NAMBLA may not be interpreted as a green light for sexual acts with children; there is less harm than we had thought, but still there is harm in some cases."<br />
<br />
So kids shouldn't be allowed to take the emotional risks, despite the mounting evidence that it's highly unlikely that mutually consensual sexual contact between two people of different generations will harm them in any way? It's impossible to completely remove all degree of risk from the life of a child or teen. If the possibility of harm is ''not likely'', then it makes no logical or ethical sense to deny them the right to make such decisions, especially when it's a well known fact that riding in cars and taking a swim in a pool is far more risky for kids than engaging in mutually consensual sexual activity with either peers or adults, yet we continue to allow them to do the former things because the general public does not consider riding in a car or swimming in a pool to be 'icky' or offensive to their personal sensibilities.<br />
<br />
One of Rind's detractors was politician Joseph R. Pitts, who said: "The authors write that pedophilia is fine - as long [as] it is enjoyed." Um, if an intergenerational relationship was enjoyed by the younger person, how could it not be fine? Or is Mr. Pitts making nothing other than a moralizing argument here, which is exactly what I suspect? Unfortunately, loaded and moralism-based comments like the one spewed by Mr. Pitts up above serves to scare seekers of the truth into falling short of actually challenging the laws and social institutions that suppress the rights of youths even when those latter two things are found to be far more harmful on many occasions than any mutually consensual relationship with an adult could ever be.<br />
<br />
Dr. Rind made it clear that he was only willing to be objective and courageous to a certain extent when he made the following statement to his detractors in response to their claim that the findings of his report "condoned" the abuse of kids:<br />
<br />
"[...] critics have implied that [our] conclusions condone sexual abuse. In fact, in our article, we clearly state that our review of the research literature does not condone CSA, and changes nothing with regard to moral or legal views of abuse. We wrote that 'lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness,' that moral and legal codes of society need not be (and often are not) based on findings of psychological harmfulness, and that 'the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behavior, currently classified as CSA, should be abandoned or even altered.'"<br />
<br />
Once again I feel forced to utter an audible "Huh?!" at the above statement, as I would like to think any person who was truly committed to rationality, logical reasoning, and objectivity would also do after reading it. So let's be clear on what Dr. Rind is trying to say in order to pacify his detractors and probably society in general. First of all, I think we can all agree that Rind and everyone else (including--and especially--the MAA community) should ''never'' condone genuine abuse and should always support the moral and legal prosecution of those who would force or otherwise coerce anyone of any age to commit some act against their will. However, Dr. Rind saying that his study should have no impact on how society, from both a moral and legal standpoint, defines the word "abuse" is completely absurd and forces one to ask themselves why the study was even conducted in the first place if it was never intended to have any effect on the law or society's perception of what constitutes abuse when kids have sexual interactions with adults, and what our social attitudes and legal policies should be in regards to it. Worst of all, Rind and his partners in the study actually used the tired old moralism-based statement, "lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness." How can anyone who purports to put science and reason above moralism and emotionalism possibly support such a dubious old saying? How can one suggest that the legal system of a supposedly democratic society could use such unbridled moralism to justify any type of law? Could any law based on such an ideology be anything other than draconian and have anything less than very serious negative implications for everyone living in the society that adopts them? Does the fact that a certain act or relationship may greatly offend the personal sensibilities of "polite society" justify keeping it illegal and doing nothing to question its moral basis if reliable, peer-reviewed scientific studies make it clear that such an act, as long as it's mutually consensual, is not likely to cause any real demonstrable harm to anyone participating in it? And Dr. Rind opines that society's current moral views and legal definitions of any type of behavior should "not be abandoned or even altered" even if objective scientific studies suggest very strongly that these attitudes and definitions should indeed be questioned and re-evaluated? Or, in other words, as long as such forms of behavior happen to offend society's aesthetic sensibilities and go against its "traditional values" (just as homosexuality used to do, and still does to social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists), then we shouldn't change our moral views and legal policies against such behavior even if reputable scientific evidence suggests that such mutually consensual acts are highly unlikely to cause any demonstrable harm to anyone? Are we living in the Dark Ages here, or at least in a theocracy?<br />
<br />
And perhaps most important of all, no matter what someone may feel about MAAs and our "icky" romantic/sexual desires, if Rind can go so far as to quote an APA study that made it very clear that the mental health industry has great evidence to suggest that at least adolescents, including younger adolescents, are fully capable of giving informed consent to many things and clearly have intellectual and reasoning faculties on par with those who are legal adults, and if Rind's own findings suggest that pre-pubescents are at least capable of what he calls 'simple consent,' and that this basic form of consent also means that children who participate in activities that they consider enjoyable, pleasurable, and mutually desired are highly unlikely to suffer any psychological damage out of the blue, what exactly justifies Dr. Rind or most anyone else in the mental health profession who has done any degree of serious study into this topic to ''continue supporting'' the current moral attitudes and legal definitions towards the concept of youth rights in general and intergenerational sexual relationships in particular?<br />
<br />
Dr. Rind is supposed to be a man of science, as are others in the mental health profession, and their job is to seek empirically demonstrable truths on a rational basis, and this objectivity and devotion to scientific truth is enormously compromised when they attempt to pander to the customs and attitudes of the current status quo when the latter two things conflict with scientific validity and are based entirely on moralism-derived precepts. This is no different than supporting laws based upon Biblical scripture, such as laws designed to save the souls of people rather than protecting them from actual harm that is demonstrably observable (such as murder, robbery, arson, assault and battery, genuine rape, etc.). And there is also the very serious issue of civil rights here, not simply those of MAAs, but also those of youths under 18, and the extremely important question of whether or not it's in any way justifiable to deny any group of people their civil rights simply because having those rights might result in those people engaging in some activities that, while causing no one any demonstrable harm, would offend the general public, or (in the case of the youth community), would conflict with "traditional values" that support the subservient, third class citizen status of people under 18 out of a desire to preserve the "traditional family" (i.e., the nuclear family unit) and its hierarchal structure. And this despite the fact that it's well known to the various law enforcement agencies that the current nature of the institution known as the nuclear family unit is where the great majority of demonstrably real abuse towards minors actually occurs.<br />
<br />
Ignoring the latter situation, and trying to divert blame away from the institutions in question simply because they are in harmony with what we call our "traditional values" by passing laws that harass and oppress both MAAs (who all real evidence suggests are no more harmful to society as a group than are homosexuals) and youths under 18 (via denying them the vote, forcing them into a totalitarian educational system rather than seeking alternate methods of learning that are more in harmony with our society's supposed democratic tenets, passing restrictive curfew laws on them, denying them freedom of speech and association, invading their privacy with impunity, punishing them for any instance of expressing themselves sexually, etc.), is not justifiable from an ethical or democratic standpoint by any stretch of the imagination. Both the lawmakers and the mental health industry should know better than to do things like this, and I would have thought better of Dr. Rind and his collaborators after their initial bout of courage.<br />
<br />
Dr. Gieles then goes on to say this in defense of the Rind Report: "If politicians with their power (supposedly without reading or understanding the study), decide to condemn and denounce the facts, found in careful scientific research, it's the end of science, but also the end of a correct discussion about morality."<br />
<br />
Again, I couldn't agree more. Yet, it's allegedly okay, according to Dr. Rind and even Dr. Gieles, after stating a commitment to science over moralism and truth over assumptions, that it's more than okay to continue denying young people their full civil rights and continuing to denounce mutually consensual intergenerational sexual activity as being intrinsically "wrong," almost as if some absolute law of the universe decrees it to be so. This line of thinking has no more logical validity than someone who claims that gold has intrinsic value over and above the fact that our society says it does.<br />
<br />
And of course, according to Dr. Rind, there is no reason for society to change either its moral attitude towards adult attraction to minors (and vice versa, of course) or to change its cultural conception of those we today label 'minors', despite all the evidence accumulated and mentioned above, both in Rind's own meta-analysis and the 1989 APA briefing to the Supreme Court. So much for Dr. Rind's loyalty to science and reason over that of moralism and cultural bias.<br />
<br />
Finally, Dr. Gieles wraps up his article with this sage observation:<br />
<br />
"Everybody has to accept the conclusions from careful scientific research, until further research gives other conclusions. The FRC wrote: 'If psychology finds no harm in something considered morally wrong, we believe they are ''not looking carefully enough''' [emphasis in original]. This is the essence of what passes for respectful criticism of Rind et al. At least, it is not a personal attack. It is, however[,] an attack on ''the very idea of science'' [emphasis mine]. Think what this means: Social scientists would be sent back to the drawing board, until their facts agree with popular prejudices."<br />
<br />
Very well said, Dr. Gieles. However, I must ask why you (yes, you, Dr. Gieles) didn't take Dr. Rind et al. to task for doing the very same thing as his detractors did when he said that scientific findings shouldn't have any effect on social policy, the law, or moral attitudes of society as long as the herd's beliefs about something are strong and emotionally charged enough, and this regardless of whether or not the beliefs that support it are proven wrong by sound scientific research. And even more, if such scientific findings may risk casting aspersions on some of society's most sacrosanct socio-cultural institutions, however justified it may be in doing so, that is also apparently a good enough reason to avoid questioning the moral attitudes and legal policies connected to any given type of behavior.<br />
<br />
Moving away from the Rind Report and all that it entails, we now move onto the final point of this section of the essay, and a tome published in 2009 that may have cast the final nail in the coffin of one of the antis'--and general society's--most potent beliefs in favor of the denouncement of mutually consensual sexual activities between adults and underagers, albeit very inadvertently on the part of the author in question. That book is [http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/susan-a-clancy/the-trauma-myth/_/R-400000000000000187401 ''The Trauma Myth''] by Susan Clancy.<br />
<br />
Clancy's research dovetails nicely with the findings of the Rind Report, and her research makes it clear that underagers do not usually experience trauma and lifelong devastation as previously believed simply for having a sexual experience with an adult. Although, predictably, Clancy has been viciously attacked by detractors who claim she is "promoting pedophilia" or taking a "pro-pedophile" stance in her book, she has clearly kept her open-mindedness to a greatly limited extent and has done no such thing. She vehemently condemns all adult sexual contact with anyone underage out of hand for all of the usual stereotypical reasons (such as children being inherently incapable of consenting to sex with adults due to their lack of life experience and understanding of what sex actually is, blah blah blah...). But she was very courageous simply to challenge this deeply held assumption that has been propagated by the media for three decades now, and even suffered self-imposed exile to Nicaragua as a result of her colleagues turning on her as a result of her objectivity in these studies.<br />
<br />
However, she doesn't go anywhere near being pro-youth or even display any basic consideration of the actual potential of younger people in her studies of this subject, as does previous authors who were likewise courageous enough to challenge society's deeply held notions about young people since the Victorian era and the Industrial Revolution, such as Judith Levine and Robert Epstein.<br />
<br />
But what she did with this book was certainly iconoclastic enough, and one can hope that if she is capable of challenging deeply held societal myths like those concerning "repressed memory" (which she did in a previous book, ''Abducted'', where she dealt with the claims of "repressed memory syndrome" and the hypnotic retrieval of allegedly buried memories as they pertain to the alien abduction phenomenon) and the widely held belief that trauma, repressed or otherwise, always happens when kids come into sexual contact with adults, she may eventually come to challenge other social myths endorsed and spread all over the globe by the sex abuse industry in their incessant attempts to keep the current hysteria going strong so that those who profit from it in the realms of the mental health industry, government office, the media, and entertainment can continue to keep the money flowing in. The book remains extremely important to both the MAA community and the youth community as both struggle for their basic civil rights ''despite'' the fact that Clancy clearly wrote this book and conducted the studies recorded therein to help neither emancipation movement, but simply for the expressed purpose of benefiting sexual abuse victims.<br />
<br />
I already analyzed Clancy's interview that appeared on Salon.com in [http://newgon.com/wiki/Essay:The_Trauma_Myth--My_Analysis_Of_The_Susan_Clancy_Interview another essay], so I will not reiterate those points here. However, despite Clancy's demolition of one particular common assumption that is entirely false (one corroborated by other objective studies, such as the previously described Rind Report) and her previous demolition of another such myth in a different study, her book is full of other assumptions that she doesn't bother to challenge or do any research on. Instead, she continues to perpetuate these other myths and specious beliefs in regards to the subject of intergerational love with reckless abandon almost as much as Oprah Winfrey, John Walsh, and the rest of their ilk do.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Clancy certainly has a commendably large degree of courage and integrity, along with a sincere desire for honesty against popular falsehoods that have become part of our society's conventional wisdom, and these are admirable character traits that are alien to the personas of Winfrey and Walsh. Also, I believe that Clancy is driven by a sincere desire to help sex abuse victims, rather than being driven by a combination of revenge and a desire to maintain popular appeal so as to preserve their lucrative media careers, as is the case with Walsh and Winfrey.<br />
<br />
Still, there is much to nitpick about in Clancy's study seen in ''The Trauma Myth'', including this statement by the unnamed book reviewer on the page I linked to up above:<br />
<br />
"Because children don't understand sexual encounters in the same ways that adults do, they normally accommodate their perpetrators-- something they feel intensely ashamed about as adults." Of course, there can be no doubt that kids feeling the need to accommodate advances by parents or other adults who have direct power over them within the home (or sometimes within a boarding school) being a common result of their legal powerlessness and their lack of civil rights within these institutions...is a subject that Clancy didn't even bother to go near in her interview despite the extreme importance of doing so, an omission mirrored a decade earlier by Rind and his partners.<br />
<br />
I haven't yet read Clancy's book at this writing, but her interview on Salon.com strongly suggests that she isn't likely to do much, if any, questioning of these institutions at all since she lumps all adults in the same boat when it comes to having power over kids, so she feels no need to cast any stones on the institutions where kids are abused most often in a genuine sense of the word. Thankfully, both Levine and Epstein did these very things, as have various youth liberationist authors in the past, such as John Taylor Gatto and John Holt. And since Clancy doesn't distinguish between parents and other older relatives living within the home and adults from outside the home that have no direct power over the youths in their respective AoA whom they may share a mutually desired relationship with, she does a great disservice to the topic--and to the truth. In fact, Clancy even trotted out the "lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness" line previously used by Rind in regards to the same subject. So I guess that statement in defense of moralism over empiricism is going to become the official catch phrase that researchers who compile data on this subject will use in the future to assure the public that regardless of the nature of their findings, they will not repudiate the moralizing assumptions that their research effectively refutes as not being based in scientific reality.<br />
<br />
It may be fruitful for many in both the MAA community and the youth liberation movement to peruse [http://www.metafilter.com/88964/The-Trauma-Myth-by-Susan-Clancy this metafilter blog], which contains a large number of responses from various people outside of both the MAA community and the youth liberation movement, as it's interesting to see these individuals struggling to understand the subject that Clancy raises while pleasantly maintaining all of the typical biases and assumptions that each of these individuals have towards the topics of sexual abuse, the concept of childhood, adults who have a preferential attraction to minors (both pedophiles and hebephiles, though these people only know the term "pedophile"), the general state of psychiatric knowledge of all of these topics, etc. The aforementioned responses range from people who are trying their hardest to be open-minded despite the cultural influences they have grown up with, to people who are perhaps hopelessly ignorant and incorrigible about this subject. And the comments even include a response by someone that claims to be a mental health professional herself (scroll down low on the page linked to just above to find this one), and who happens to possess every single stereotypical conception of underagers in the book. As one might expect from her, she outright denies the capability of kids to consent to sexual activity with an adult despite the fact that Rind and his partners recognized the concept of ''simple consent'' along with the better known category of informed consent, and concluded that even pre-pubescent children are capable of this basic form of consent because they are well aware of what activities are pleasurable and positive to experience, and they fully recognize this as consent upon retrospect after growing up. That is, of course, provided they aren't forced into "therapy" or otherwise told by dozens of people whom they may have mistakenly told of their experience who insisted that the kids in question should be ashamed of having enjoyed the contact and all the other connected stereotypes and assumptions. In other words, intergenerational sexual activity is always intrinsically wrong in an absolute sense no matter how much it may have been mutually consented to and enjoyed by the younger person.<br />
<br />
The alleged mental health professional who made a comment on the metafilter I linked to up above didn't even seem to be aware of the concept of simple consent, but Rind et al's study made it clear that such a category of consent is indeed recognized in the psychiatric field (I highly doubt that Rind and his collaborators in the study made the definition up out of thin air, as they displayed great care in conducting their research on this very testy and controversial subject).<br />
<br />
As can be seen by the various commenters on the metafilter linked above, these following assumptions in regards to the general subject Clancy raised seem to be all too common and not challenged nearly enough:<br />
<br />
'''a) Children have an inherent lack of ability to consent to sexual contact with adults because they do not understand what sex is.''' This despite the fact that it's been proven in many studies that pre-pubescents, let alone adolescents, are fully capable of experiencing sexual pleasure and enjoyment and are not traumatized by mutually desired contact of this nature with either peers or adults [I should note here that I am ''not'' promoting any type of sexual activity between adults and pre-pubescents that is developmentally inappropriate for pre-pubescent children, such as full penetrative intercourse, and the great majority of genuine pedophiles I have met have no interest in engaging in such activities with kids that have not yet reached puberty. What I am talking about here is what is often called "sex play" (and referred to by various euphemisms in the past, such as "playing doctor"), which pre-pubescent children often engage in with peers and sometimes initiate with adults.] Is it all that hard to understand that some things bring pleasure and other things do not?<br />
<br />
'''b) Children are "pre-sexual" (yes, one of the commenters actually uses the latter term).''' This fashionable assumption is flatly contradicted by any child who has ever engaged in "playing doctor" with each other, peeked in at their older sister or cousin when she was changing her clothes, pulled up the dress of a peer, was caught masturbating, secretly told each other "dirty" jokes, or who surfed the Web looking for porno sites (which was revealed by that study conducted by Symantec that I mentioned and linked to up above in one of my previous points in this essay). Children are well known to be sexually curious, and this sometimes manifests in the ways described above or even with full blown sexual experimentation (i.e., "sex play") initiated with a peer or a trusted adult. While it's certainly true that pre-pubescent children do not have the same type of sexual desires as adults do, and generally do not seek to engage in all of the activities that adults (and adolescents, who are young adults) do with each other, they are clearly not entirely asexual as is commonly believed, and are naturally curious about sexuality. It's amazing how many adults wilfully forget what it was like being a child and practice denial of this aspect of their childhood.<br />
<br />
'''c) Even if children can receive pleasure from mutually consensual sexual contact with adults and are not magickally traumatized by it, it's still always a form of abuse on the part of the adult because children and younger teens cannot understand the full ramifications or consequences of engaging in such activity.''' What type of consequences are likely to result from sexual activity as long as sufficient precautions are taken in regards to STDs, pregnancy (in regards to teen girls), etc? Should kids be denied the right to take risks when it's been established via good and objective scientific studies that such risks are not extreme or are not likely to result in any serious psychological problems? Is sexual activity really too "complicated" for children and even teens to understand? Again, is it all that "complicated" to understand what brings you pleasure and what doesn't?<br />
<br />
'''d) Intergenerational sexual contact is always a form of abuse by the adult because of the inherent power differential between adults and minors.''' This power differential is an artificial one created by society, and youth liberationists are working hard to remedy it by establishing civil rights for young people under 18. Even in the absence of civil rights for youths, if we can trust adults to raise kids and to teach them without abusing them despite the very strict degree of power that such adults have over minors, why can't we likewise trust adults who may share a mutual desire to have romantic relationships with kids when these particular adults will most likely not have anywhere near the same degree of power over these kids as do parents and teachers? And should we ignore the fact that most of the real abuse of power directed at kids which harm them in very demonstrable ways occurs courtesy of those who live with them or otherwise have the most direct power over them? And if one attempts to define "power differential" as the physical power imbalance between adults and minors, I will have to remind them that such a physical power imbalance exists between men and women on most occasions yet we don't consider such relationships inherently abusive on the part of the man if the woman consents to the relationship and reports it as a positive experience.<br />
<br />
Please allow me to also remind such people, before they say "Children and women are not comparable in this situation because women are adults who fully understand sex and children don't!" that it was also once believed that women were "innocent" of all sexual desire at one time, that men who initiated sexual activity with them outside of marriage were abusing or corrupting them, and that women didn't understand the ramifications of such relationships (sex between men and women was tolerated within the bounds of marriage only as a "necessary evil" that was grudgingly accepted due to the fact that such activity was essential for propagating the human species, but it was believed that women didn't actually enjoy sex).<br />
<br />
In regards to the idea that all romantic relationships must have a complete "balance of power" in order to be considered legit and non-abusive, please note these words from psychologist Paul Okami, who has studied this topic in detail:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><font size="2">The problem with the "balance of power" argument is that dyadic power can be in constant flux within a relationship and, in any event, is always multidimensional. Who has the greater power in a relationship? A black man or his white wife? A smart, beautiful, well-heeled female medical student or her somewhat dim-witted, cab-driver boyfriend (who is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger)? A teacher who is desperately in love with her 15-year-old former student or the 15-year-old who doesn't much care one way or the other and could imprison the teacher for a hefty stretch with a few words? One simply cannot say which type of power is more significant socially or more important to the partners themselves - race versus sex, physical strength versus intelligence and wealth, age versus degree of "wanting" the relationship (being in love), social versus dyadic. ... Moreover, there is nothing logically intrinsic in power discrepancy that violates principles of justice or fairness in sexual relationships or that is necessarily harmful to the "less powerful" participant, unless one views sexual relationships as similar to hand-to-hand combat (e.g., heavyweight vs. flyweight contestant). The instability and multidimensionality of dyadic power and the fact that a "power-balanced" relationship is clearly mythological (in the sense that it can never be logically ascertained) lay to rest as useless the "power imbalance" argument. At best, this argument is a fine example of late twentieth century cultural-feminist silliness [Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002) Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2002, pp. 479-503].</font></blockquote><br />
<br />
In order to clarify Okami's words in regards to what he is saying about power imbalances in relationships, my fellow GLer activist who posts in the MAA community under the nick Hen-Wen had this to say: "I think the salient point is that power imbalances are unavoidable in relationships, and that what matters is how that power is used or not used. Power balance is something that you create in a relationship, not something ready-made to be sought out. In terms of so-called precociousness, I find it attractive not because it gives the girl more power, but because it demonstrates that the girl has achieved some mental and emotional maturity (which is something that is to some degree independent of age), and which allows me to have more meaningful interactions with her. While it's true that the power imbalance argument has its root in Christian ideas about sex, the specific power-imbalance argument has its roots in feminist criticisms of power imbalances inherent in heterosexual sex."<br />
<br />
'''e) Sexual activity that occurs between adults and minors is always initiated by the adult because kids "don't do that stuff."''' This popular assumption is entirely untrue, and is easily refuted if one bothers to read the multitude of posts left on MAA boards over the entire history of the Internet by teen and legally adult gerontophiles of both genders who made it clear that they frequently sought out contact of all sorts, both romantic and social, with adults of the gender they were attracted to when they were underage (or at least desired and frequently fantasized about such contact even if they didn't actually experience it).<br />
<br />
Of course, all of these posts made by gerontophiles of both genders were either ignored or assumed to be made by middle-aged MAAs pretending to be minors. And this despite the fact that some of the MAA community's worst enemies, most prominently hate groups like Perverted Justice and Absolute Zero United, are well aware that at least some of these underage gerontophiles are actual teens because a few of them have been outed and forced into "therapy" as a result of these orgs finding out these teens' real identities and reporting their online activities to their parents, school staff, and local police. If anyone reading this essay doubts what I just said, then I suggest that you go to Perverted Justice's infamous Wikisposure site and read the entry called "The Fayla Incident," as this event will also show the sad fate that can happen to any underage gerontophile who becomes an activist for their civil rights, particularly their sexual rights, if they are outed and their activities are reported to their parents, their schools, and the police.<br />
<br />
''Gerontophilia is a real and distinct form of attraction base experienced by a significant minority of young people'', and as this community is arguing, it constitutes a genuine sexual orientation that deserves to be acknowledged and respected rather than either ignored altogether, or declared to be an emotional illness or solely as cases of young people exchanging erotic favors for platonic friendship or surrogate fatherhood/motherhood from adults that they are supposedly not actually attracted to in a romantic or sexual manner. Young people who seek out adults for the latter deceptive reasons do actually exist, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that many other young people do indeed have a natural orientation and preference for significantly older people that is clearly romantic, emotional, and sexual in nature. Genuine gerontophiles, as opposed to girls, and occasionally boys, who seek to "exchange" sexual favors for surrogate fathers or mothers, usually ''do not perceive the adults they seek these relationships out with as the equivalent of a substitute parent''.<br />
<br />
Many hebephiles, including myself, are also attracted to adult women and actively seek out legal relationships with much younger women in the age range of 18-early 20s, and I have met numerous gerontophiles in that age group who have discussed how they routinely initiated sexual contact with adults when they were underage. This sometimes included the desire to engage in such activities--and frequent fantasizing about initiating them-- ever since they were pre-pubescents. I plan on making a point of bringing several of these gerontophiles who are now of legal age into this debate in the future, as they will make it very clear that not only are there many young people who have a natural sexual, emotional, social, and spiritual preference for significantly older people, but that most of them (like most MAAs) are entirely sane, were not traumatized or psychologically damaged in any way by these experiences (provided they were mutually consensual), that underagers can readily tell the difference between coercive and non-coercive relationships and react much differently to each, and that society's legal and moral definitions of "abuse" need to be differentiated (even if Dr. Rind doesn't think his scientific studies and conclusions necessitate this; common decency and a simple appeal to social justice suggests otherwise).<br />
<br />
'''f) Pedophilia is a mental disorder.''' Though pedophilia is considered to be a mental disorder by many in the mental health profession today and is listed as such in the current edition of the DSM (''Diagnostics and Statistical Manual'', the "bible" of the mental health profession), there are a growing number of MHPs (mental health professionals) who are challenging this notion. These open-minded MHPs are ''not'' making such challenges to "promote pedophilia" as their detractors will claim, but rather in the interest of advocating the ''truth''. As such, these MHPs who have a dedication to truth and science over politics and moralism believe that putting pedophilia in the DSM has nothing to do with scientific validity and everything to do with making the DSM cater to cultural biases against any given form of desire or behavior that is not currently considered to be socially acceptable. The less than honest MHPs who cater to such cultural attitudes even when they do not coincide with the truth are often rightfully accused of ''politicizing science''.<br />
<br />
It should also be mentioned that hebephilia, which is much more common than true pedophilia and which is often conflated with pedophilia by the media and the various anti groups out there, is not considered a mental illness in the current edition (nor any previous edition) of the DSM despite its degree of social unacceptability.<br />
<br />
'''g) The word "trauma" can have many different meanings or conceptions, and Susan Clancy only uses one of them in her book. Hence, her research and the main premise of her book is faulty.''' This is a claim that Clancy should have expected to hear from her detractors, especially since almost any word in popular usage can be twisted to mean pretty much anything that someone wants it to mean. However, Clancy uses the official definition of "trauma" that is accepted and utilized by the mental health industry, a definition that appears to be the most commonly understood usage of the word by the general public and the media also. As such, I am not certain as to what pet definitions or variations of the word are used by her various detractors who make such claims.<br />
<br />
Considering how some of the commenters in the above linked metafilter discussing Clancy's new book still believe implicitly in "repressed memory syndrome" despite its near-universal refutation by all credible MHPs based on real, objective study and available evidence, as well as their adherence to any number of myths regarding this topic that I mentioned in this sub-list, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some of these commenters are members of the Flat Earth Society, or who unquestionably believe any number of the conspiracy theories mentioned and debunked in David Aaronovitch's aforementioned new book. In truth, the claims of the people who make up the staff of the Repressed Memory Foundation (yes, such a foundation continues to exist to please the "victimology" advocates!) have about as much validity as those made by the members of the Flat Earth Society and those individuals who believe that the American government faked the 1969 mission to the moon.<br />
<br />
The brave purveyors of the truth documented in the preceding sections of this essay have courage beyond that of any anti who has ever walked the Earth, because unlike the latter hate-mongers these seekers of the truth have taken huge personal risks and sometimes made major personal sacrifices to disseminate research that contradicts a widely held belief. How many people have ever been fired from a job for being an anti? They may claim they receive death threats from MAAs for their work, but even if that were true, how many more MAAs have received death threats from people in their community as a result of being outed by antis than the antis have from actual MAAs? And how many people ever get ostracized by their community for being antis? Considering the mental health of many antis, I would like to see them deal with the type of adversity that MAAs routinely deal with, not to mention the Non-MAAs who seek out truths that society is not comfortable with hearing, and see how well they dealt with the situation if it were reversed.<br />
<br />
History only moves forward and social progress only occurs thanks to the efforts of such individuals as described in this essay (e.g., Debbie Nathan, Dr. Robert Epstein, Dr. Bruce Rind, Susan Thompson, Susan Clancy, etc.). Though it's still too early in the game to expect anyone from outside the MAA community (including those within the youth liberation movement) to openly champion for our rights specifically, that situation is slowly changing, due in part to the reaching out methods of newly emerging offline support orgs such as the Maryland based [http://b4uact.org/ B4U-ACT]. This organization has, in just a few years of existence, provided for mutually respectful discussions between MAAs and MHPs who are open-minded seekers of the truth that are willing to take great risks, both personal and professional, to learn what is true and what isn't about adults who have a preferential attraction to minors of all age groups from an objective scientific standpoint. Taking a specific stance on this (or any other) topic simply because it's politically popular and deeply imbedded in the cultural fabric is not ethically justifiable to those individuals who have a genuine desire to learn the reality behind this complex social phenomenon.<br />
<br />
As all activists remind those who grow impatient with the speed of progress in their chosen cause: one step at a time. The fact that there are a growing number of individuals who are openly fighting for youth rights and asking the questions that Dr. Bruce Rind and Susan Clancy failed to ask in their otherwise bold and courageous studies about the current cultural conceptions of young people should be seen as a welcome state of affairs for anyone who has any degree of respect for civil rights and liberties for ''everyone'' in society. These brave individuals are fighting for the rights of youths because it's the ''right thing to do'', and thus do so without worrying about detractors lamenting, "If young people gain their rights, that means they might end up having sex with 'pedophiles!'" The Robert Epsteins of the world strongly believe in the rights of young people and consider what has been discovered about them using valid scientific research and a detailed objective look at history to be more than enough of a good reason to strive to change both the laws and the moral conceptions of young people without being concerned about the possibility of these emancipated youths engaging in activities that might offend the sensibilities of many in society or inspire moral outrage in them. To those who are more concerned with matters of social justice than they are with offending sensitive people clearly believe that capitulation to societal attitudes that are based entirely on moralism rather than scientific accuracy (as Dr. Rind had no problem with doing) would constitute a vast injustice to the young people who these youth liberationists rightfully view as oppressed.<br />
<br />
In other words, to a few brave souls out there, doing the right thing based on truth is much more important to them than doing the convenient thing based on strictly moralizing concerns that have no basis in scientific fact. If we had more such individuals living in any given time period, imagine how much faster social progress and justice for everyone in society would have occurred.<br />
<br />
Going back to the subject of journalist David Aaronovitch's 2010 book on conspiracy theories that was mentioned in the opening paragraph of this essay, a book dedicated to the idea that learning the truth about any given subject is extremely important, Aaronovitch made the following statement in response to interviewer Thomas Rogers' query as to why it matters if people believe in things that are categorically untrue and whether or not people aren't entitled to believe whatever they want to believe:<br />
<br />
"I do think it actually matters what is true. The search for the truth is an important search, and if it isn't, we're lost in all kinds of ways. We're lost in the fields of Holocaust denial. We're lost in being able to compare what is good and what is bad because we can't agree what actually happened. ''We're lost when it comes to guarding minorities against populist agitation'' [emphasis mine]. Nobody's going to die from saying Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, but in other areas, when the truth suffers, our decision making suffers. ''When there is no authority to the truth, prejudices thrive'' [emphasis mine]."<br />
<br />
Though Aaronovitch certainly didn't make the above quote with either the MAA or the youth community in mind, it's nevertheless ''very'' applicable to the latter two groups as much as to anyone else, and should serve as one of the most inspirational quotes made in this decade. Aaronovitch's sage quote should also serve as a strong reminder to everyone who reads it that seeking the truth is extremely important to the world. Those who are courageous enough to seek the truth in opposition to some of the most deeply ingrained and even outright sacrosanct falsehoods in society should receive a huge amount of gratitude from everyone on this planet (particularly anyone who has ever been oppressed or harmed by false beliefs), because without these individuals social progress for the betterment of the entire world could never occur. <br /><br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''Addendum''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The following bonus section of this essay features brief responses to the sub-list of social myths regarding young people and intergenerational attraction which I mentioned above by my fellow MAA activist Quoth.<br />
<br />
'''1) Children never lie when they say they have been sexually abused.'''<br />
<br />
Bullies in the legal system certainly do try to force kids to say what they want to hear, and will also try to twist whatever they do say to fit their agenda. A friend of my family's was in this position a few years ago, after drawing the ire of the local child "welfare" agency due to her "interference" with a teen girl. What she was actually doing was trying to help a teen girl, who was facing emotional abuse by her father, but the father had some influence and complained about it. Next thing she knew, social workers were trying to fabricate proof that she was abusing her foster kids, and they tried to bully the kids into saying that. Fortunately, their bullying tactics were unsuccessful (and unfortunately nothing was ever done about the girl's emotionally abusive father, as far as I know), but this is a typical example of how legal authorities can and do try to fabricate cases of child abuse for political reasons. Do a search for "child protective services make false allegations" on Google or Yahoo and you'll find plenty of stories like this.<br />
<br />
'''2) Every adult who commits genuine acts of sexual abuse against kids have and are primarily motivated by a sexual attraction to kids.'''<br />
<br />
Of course, abuse of any form is about exerting power over someone else. It really shouldn't be a surprise that those who commit abusive acts are often in a position of power over their victim. On the other hand, attraction has nothing whatsoever to do with exerting power over someone else, and implies quite generally that someone views the person they are attracted to as an equal.<br />
<br />
'''3) Kids have no real sexual desire.'''<br />
<br />
I've always wondered how those that make this claim can do so with a straight face. Do they not remember anything at all before the Magic Age? And is their doublethink really good enough that they can deny that their own sons and daughters have sexual desires, especially when their spying software logs the kids searching for sex and porn, and notes that they are top ten search terms?<br />
<br />
'''4) Kids were being sexually abused in truly horrific and often preposterous ways in the U.S.--and possibly across the world--by groups of mysterious and diabolical cultists who worshipped Satan and were abusing these kids in "honor" of the ultimate Lord of Evil.'''<br />
<br />
Mass insanity at its finest.<br />
<br />
'''5) Innumerable people who were sexually abused in their childhood were so traumatized by the alleged abuse that they repressed the memory deep into their subconscious, which could subsequently be retrieved at any point in their adulthood by deep hypnosis.'''<br />
<br />
This idea was always so laughable that it should have been rejected by serious psychologists without consideration. I think "repressed memory syndrome" is just another symptom of a larger problem within the study of psychology, in that any "theory" is automatically true until proven false. It should be the other way around.<br />
<br />
'''6) All cases of what is legally considered child pornography are always produced by adults and never by the minors themselves.'''<br />
<br />
Kids were taking sexual pictures of themselves long before cell phones were invented. The sexting cases are simply the modern way of doing this.<br />
<br />
'''7) The brains of adolescents are inherently faulty due to innate biological factors and thus they have an inherent tendency to make poor decisions that necessitate denying them most of their civil rights and keeping them under the control of their parents and other adults for their own good.'''<br />
<br />
The proponents of this claim always like to use cases where teens "act out" to justify it. Of course, they never mention that this is almost universally in response to the unjust, broad denial of their civil liberties. And they never even attempt to justify their claim that a person can go from being incapable of making any decisions to being a fully capable human being in a single day.<br />
<br />
'''8) Mutually consensual sexual contact between anyone today considered to be 'minors' and those who are adults is always traumatizing for the younger person and will likely cause lifelong psychological 'damage' to them, no matter how much the minor in question may have enjoyed and desired the experience.'''<br />
<br />
The thing that people desperately need to realize is that the only valid definition of "wrong" is that which brings harm to someone.<br />
<br />
Mutually consensual sexual contact itself cannot be traumatizing for the very simple fact that it is consensual. Trauma from the contact can only occur where there is some kind of force or manipulation used, but if it does, the contact is no longer consensual in any way.<br />
<br />
The treatment that 'minors' get if they happened to be involved in a consensual relationship that is discovered is what is traumatizing. Moreover, hearing over and over again that any sexual contact between adult and child/teen is inherently harmful will have a severely negative impact on those who had some consensual contact that went undiscovered. And for the victims of genuine abuse, the way that they are treated by the legal system only traumatizes them further, in some instances far more than the actual abuse itself ever did.<br />
<br />
I'd love to see someone who supports this ignorant claim struggle (and inevitably fail) to refute this: "The idea that sexual activity is the one thing in the world that underagers will engage in if they don't want to with adults, let alone those particular adults who do not live with them or have any particular degree of strict power over them, is quite baffling and entirely devoid of common sense, to say the least."<br />
<br />
'''a) Children have an inherent lack of ability to consent to sexual contact with adults because they do not understand what sex is.'''<br />
<br />
Knowing if something is pleasurable is not a difficult concept, at all. And moreover, it is awfully hard to say with a straight face that kids don't understand what sex is when they are frequently searching for sex and porn online, as noted by the Symantec study of kids' surfing habits.<br />
<br />
'''b) Children are "pre-sexual" (yes, one of the commenters actually uses the latter term).'''<br />
<br />
A convenient term to begrudgingly acknowledge that kids, in fact, do have a sexual nature, while keeping it fully separated in their minds from "real" sexuality.<br />
<br />
'''c) Even if children can receive pleasure from mutually consensual sexual contact with adults and are not magickally traumatized by it, it's still always a form of abuse on the part of the adult because children cannot understand the full ramifications or consequences of engaging in such activity.'''<br />
<br />
How could something mutually consensual ever be considered abusive? Moreover, learning about the possible risks of sexual activity is not difficult, and those risks can also be largely negated by some simple precautions.<br />
<br />
'''d) Intergenerational sexual contact is always a form of abuse by the adult because of the inherent power differential between adults and children (a situation that could include teens under the age of 18 also).'''<br />
<br />
A power differential which exists solely because divisions based on age exist.<br />
<br />
'''e) Sexual activity that occurs between adults and minors is always initiated by the adult because kids "don't do that stuff."'''<br />
<br />
Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.<br />
<br />
'''f) Pedophilia is a mental disorder.'''<br />
<br />
A "mental disorder" which does not meet the DSM's definition of what constitutes a mental disorder.<br />
<br />
'''g) The word "trauma" can have many different meanings or conceptions, and Susan Clancy only uses one of them in her book. Hence, her research and the main premise of her book is faulty.'''<br />
<br />
Only if "trauma" is taken to mean something completely different than what any reasonable definition of the word would say. And in any event, playing a game of semantics with a word does not undermine what someone claims if one looks at what the person is actually trying to convey. <br /><br /><br />
<br />
<center><font size="4">'''Sources'''</font></center><br />
<br><br />
<br />
URL for David Aaronovitch's interview on Salon.com about his new book on famous conspiracy theories from the early 20th century to the first decade of the 21st century: <br />'''http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/03/david_aaronovitch_conspiracy_theories?source=newsletter'''<br />
<br />
URL for the Wikipedia entry on the McMartin pre-school incident: <br />'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial'''<br />
<br />
URL for the Wikipedia entry on the general day care sex abuse hysteria that once plagued America: <br />'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria'''<br />
<br />
URL for the section of the AttractedToChildren.org site describing some important facts about pedophilia: <br />'''http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2007/quotes-on-the-occurence-of-paedophilia-in-csos'''<br />
<br />
URL to the article on Stuff.co.nz about the Symantec data collection project that proves pre-pubescents and underage adolescents routinely search for porn and sex sites online: <br />'''http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3175376/Young-kids-search-for-sex-online'''<br />
<br />
URL to the Wikipedia entry on the book ''Michelle Remembers'', the 1980 tome that was largely responsible for starting both the satanic ritual abuse hysteria and the "repressed memory syndrome" fiasco: <br />'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Remembers'''<br />
<br />
URL to the article about the book ''Satan's Silence'', a tome which effectively debunked the satanic ritual abuse hysteria: <br />'''http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/jenkins.html'''<br />
<br />
URL to page containing various important articles on the satanic ritual abuse hysteria: <br />'''http://www.smwane.dk/content/section/5/30/'''<br />
<br />
URL for article about the book ''The Myth of Repressed Memory'', a tome which effectively disproved the once popular but almost entirely fallacious "repressed memory syndrome" phenomenon: <br />'''http://www.flipkart.com/myth-repressed-memory-elizabeth-loftus/0312141238-mtw3fzg6jb'''<br />
<br />
URL to another very excellent article on the book ''The Myth of Repressed Memory''<nowiki>: </nowiki><br />'''http://www.ishk.com/myth_of_repressed_memory.pdf'''<br />
<br />
URL to a book review of ''The Courage To Heal''<nowiki>: </nowiki><br />'''http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_4_br1.htm'''<br />
<br />
URL to a page containing links to many other articles on "repressed memory syndrome": <br />'''http://www.smwane.dk/content/section/6/31/'''<br />
<br />
URL to a CBS News article describing the sexting phenomenon: <br />'''http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml'''<br />
<br />
URL to an article on the Sodahead.com website describing the reality of underage girls uploading nude pics of themselves on socnet sites: <br />'''http://www.sodahead.com/business/14-year-old-arrested-for-uploading-nude-pics-on-myspace-should-justice-be-served/question-293484/'''<br />
<br />
URL to a biography of psychologist G. Stanley Hall, the creator of the modern day concept of "adolescence": <br />'''http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2026/Hall-G-Stanley-1844-1924.html'''<br />
<br />
URL to Dr. Robert Epstein's website: <br />'''http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=29'''<br />
<br />
URL to the section of the ''Scientific American Mind'' website where you can purchase (for $7.95) a digital copy of the issue containing the article, "The Myth of the Teen Brain": <br />'''http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=9F1EBAA7-2B35-221B-6CBD51A39316C4D6'''<br />
<br />
URL for a page containing links to a preview for the book ''TEEN 2.0: Freeing Our Children and Families From the Torment of Adolescence'' and the Young Person's Bill of Rights that was created by Robert Epstein: <br />'''http://teen20.com/'''<br />
<br />
URL to the article "Let's Abolish High School": <br />'''http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/Epstein-Lets_Abolish_High_School-Education_Week-4-4-07.pdf'''<br />
<br />
URL to the archived article from ASFAR's official zine ''Youth Truth'' explaining why the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is no friend of the youth liberation movement: <br />'''http://www.youthrights.net/yt/v2n6.pdf'''<br />
<br />
URL for Anarchopedia entry on the Rind Report: '''http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Rind_Report'''<br />
<br />
URL for Google page containing info on the book ''Going All The Way'', a seminal study of teen girls' sexual lives: <br />'''http://books.google.com/books?id=xfObOu5n99sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Going+All+The+Way+by+Sharon+Thompson&source=bl&ots=CW3SetgFrl&sig=DXrM7T9vnmo_pi2vi-WDVvycL1g&hl=en&ei=tvttS8WnIZCRjAfG06D0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false'''<br />
<br />
URL for a ''New York Times'' review of the book ''Going All The Way''<nowiki>: </nowiki><br />'''http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/books/sex-and-the-teen-age-girl.html?pagewanted=1'''<br />
<br />
URL for the Safehaven Foundation Press: <br />'''http://www.shfri.net/shfp/shfp.cgi'''<br />
<br />
URL for a detailed article that counters the common claims of the Rind Report's detractors: <br />'''http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/science_and_morality.htm'''<br />
<br />
URL for Debbie Nathan's CounterPunch article about the life of Justin Berry and Kurt Eichenwald's misrepresentation of it: <br />'''http://debbienathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/counterpunch-april-2007.pdf'''<br />
<br />
URL for John Farmer's good article on Telecom-Digest Online about the Justin Berry story and Kurt Eichenwald's highly selective interpretation of it: <br />'''http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/TELECOM_Digest_Online2006-2/1358.html'''<br />
<br />
URL to a book description of ''The Trauma Myth'', an important work of research that refutes the commonly held belief that sexual contact between underagers and adults is always highly traumatic for the younger person: <br />'''http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/susan-a-clancy/the-trauma-myth/_/R-400000000000000187401'''<br />
<br />
URL for metafilter blog featuring numerous comments by people (both those making a commendable effort to be open-minded and those who are extremely and blissfully ignorant about this topic) discussing ''The Trauma Myth'' and the implications of the research contained within: <br />'''http://www.metafilter.com/88964/The-Trauma-Myth-by-Susan-Clancy'''<br />
<br />
URL for B4U-ACT, a Maryland based org that is the historical first ever offline support group for MAAs: <br />'''http://b4uact.org/'''<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Greatest_Horror_Of_Them_All--Being_Labeled_A_Sexual_Predator&diff=6837Essay:The Greatest Horror Of Them All--Being Labeled A Sexual Predator2011-09-19T06:31:05Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by [[User:Dissident]]==<br />
Special thanks and appreciation goes to the people at GirlChat [GC] for helping me edit my initial draft of this essay, and this 'thank you' particularly flows to the following fellow GirlChatters of mine who contributed to this essay: Joey Bishop, Scotty, Crimson Moon, and Dante.<br />
<br />
Is there no place or hobby left untouched by the ongoing sex abuse hysteria? Is there nowhere, and no hobby, where we entities known as “legal adults” can interact with those who are legally considered "children" (even if very much adult in appearance and attitude) sans extreme fear of being labeled "child predators"? It would appear that no place and no hobby is safe from the hysteria, case in point... <br />
<br />
This may come as a surprise to both the antis and the mass media (there is a difference, right?), but most of us in the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community are very multi-faceted individuals with a variety of interests and hobbies completely outside of our admiration for underagers in our respective age of attraction [AoA], or even with any political movement connected to advancing the rights of MAAs and/or youths. In other words, we are human beings, not the single-minded monsters of Western cultural mythology and the Walshian aspects of the media. And I am greatly sympathetic of the many non-MAAs in this society who sometimes have to live with almost as much fear as we do because of the people in this world who profit off of the current sex abuse hysteria, and therefore cause most adults to back off from associating in even the most indirect way with underagers, as if the latter carry a highly contagious form of leprosy that can be contracted even across the breadth of cyberspace. <br />
<br />
Which brings me to the specific point of this essay. One of my many hobbies entirely outside of the MAA community—and mostly outside of politics and activism altogether--is my enjoyment of the sci-fi and horror genres in books, cinema, TV shows, video games, RPGs [role playing games], etc. I find much value in these genres since they are both inherently subversive, and they can therefore deal with subjects and themes that are difficult to express in non-genre fiction due to the sometimes taboo or sensitive nature of certain topics. As such, I believe the sci-fi and horror genres are extremely important to popular fiction, and this is especially the case when we are in the midst of a particular threat to our democratic principles (or more than one), and the ongoing sex abuse hysteria and accompanying "pedophile panic" certainly constitutes such a threat, as this essay will make abundantly clear. <br />
<br />
This brings me to the most recent issue of ''Scary Monsters Magazine'' (issue #75) at the time this essay was written (circa September, 2010). ''Scary Monsters Magazine'', edited by Dennis Drukentis, is one of the best print mags on the shelves today that covers horror and sci-fi fiction, and among its many popular features is a terrific column that appears in most issues of the mag, Scare-News by writer and fantasy fiction fan extraordinaire Johnny Scareshock. In fact, Scare-News is probably one of the best columns in any modern mag dedicated to horror and sci-fi fiction. On page 109 of ''Scary Monsters Magazine'' #75, Johnny was talking about the usual stuff for his column, when suddenly he segued into an unsettling experience he recently had on Facebook. Here is what had shaken Johnny so much in his own words (copied verbatim in '''bold face'''): <br />
:'''Facebook is a dangerous place. When people ask to be a friend the normal tendency is to allow it to happen. Well, when one of these friends asked me to join his fan club I had a sobering moment. I did not know who this "friend" was so I wondered why he would have a fan club in his name. I checked the fan club to find him using it to talk about his sexual fantasies. I saw that a number of his "fans" were young girls. I then checked this "friend's" profile to learn that he was only sixteen years old. Do you see what I am getting at here?''' <br />
:'''I'm an adult, and if I were to join this child's fan club to read about his sexual fantasies that makes me a sexual predator. I quickly removed him as a friend. I then checked all of my other "friends" to make sure they were all over 18 and removed those who weren't. That incident was one example of how you can get into trouble simply by doing nothing.'''<br />
<br />
The first thing I thought to myself after reading this while relaxing was, "Geez, can't I ever get away from this bullshit? Even we activists like a break from the nonsense we battle sometimes!" Let's think about this for a moment, people. Johnny Scareshock, who has nothing to do with anything remotely controversial that I am aware of, and certainly not the slightest involvement with the MAA community, is likewise feeling the fear that one would think should be limited to MAAs alone. He believes he will automatically be considered a "sexual predator" (his words!) simply for reading certain words on a certain socnet page/fan club. ''Just for reading words''! <br />
<br />
Obviously, he fears that if any legal adult dared to get *gasp choke scream!* ''aroused'' by reading about the sexual fantasies of a 16-year-old boy, then he is a most heinous criminal, far worse than the mad scientists who plot world domination by infecting people with zombie viruses or creating artificial monsters out of cadaver parts to kill on command in the movies and books he makes a hobby out of watching or reading! Not that Johnny himself would get aroused by this (I am not certain where his proclivities lie, as I don't know the man personally, though he is married to a woman in his age group and I have no reason to believe that they lie anywhere outside of the "norm"), but he seems to fear that even if he didn't get aroused from reading such fantasies that people would nevertheless assume he did if he was seen listed as a friend on this boy's Facebook fan club. And that would be so indescribably horrible, right? Worse than anything Johnny saw Michael Myers or Hannibal Lecter do in any of their movies, correct? Johnny seems to feel that the rest of society would think so. <br />
<br />
Here is where the problem truly gets bad. The fact that legal adults are so quick to avoid interacting socially with underagers and avoiding them like a human-devouring zombie plague is only adding to the heavily enforced age segregation in this society. If you're not a parent, you need to treat all underagers as if they carry the zombie plague that Scareshock reads about in the course of his hobby. Even if you’re a teacher or a coach and regularly work with underagers, you are strongly encouraged to keep your distance from them and to treat them as nothing more than students, and never as friends. <br />
<br />
In fact, the definition of "sexual predator" is becoming increasingly broad, to the point that people like Johnny believe they will be considered one simply for reading words on an online page--or being associated in any way with a "child" (read: anyone below the Magic Age of 18) who is not one of your own kids. And if the "child" in question is doing something as horribly inappropriate as describing their sexual fantasies--something that young people under 18 are either not supposed to be thinking about (after all, they should be concentrating solely on their academic studies, right?), or at least not supposed to be talking about, especially not in a venue like cyberspace, where anyone--including "old perverts" or other "impressionable children"--can see these horrific words, any self-respecting and "normal" legal adult had better clear the area as if it was being sprayed by napalm! Mother of God, what if such fan clubs cause other "children" to start thinking about sex too? They probably never would have known or even thought about that awful aspect of nature in the first place if not for this overly precocious little pervert! Talk about something that is ''truly'' scary! <br />
<br />
Also note that Johnny was freaked out to learn that several of this boy's fans were young (presumably underage) girls. Hmmmm...could this possibly mean that--and brace yourself for this one, people, because it may come as a major shock to our culture's sensibilities--underage girls ''actually have sexual desires'' and are therefore interested in hearing about the sexual fantasies of others? I shudder to think that any of these impressionable and innocent "little" girls may have been aroused by this boy's fantasies, so I am not about to go there! I don't want to risk spoiling these girls' socio-politically enforced chaste and virginal images. It was kind of Johnny not to participate in this travesty, not only for his own safety but also so that he wasn't contributing to the delinquency of these "children" in a by-proxy manner.<br />
<br />
Let's also keep in mind that after this shocking incident, Johnny immediately removed any friend he had on Facebook who was under 18. He seemed to be encouraging all of his adult friends and readers to do so as well, and his concern and fear were totally understandable. After all, is there anything worse in this society than being labeled a "sexual predator," i.e., a horrible despoiler of beautiful childhood innocence? We can live with being labeled serial killers, because even they can be considered cool by many despite the gruesome murders they routinely commit [note the great popularity of Showtime’s series ''Dexter''], but sexual predators? *Sigh* They are the lowest of the low! There is simply nothing lower on the scumbag ladder than an adult who may read about underage sexual fantasies and possibly becoming aroused by them! I don't even think Anakin Skywalker went as far down into the abyss of the dark side as some vile adult who becomes aroused by the natural beauty of an underager! In fact, Anakin’s mass slaughter of children (young Jedi knights in training) after being re-christened Darth Vader by his new Sith lord in ''Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith'' was far less abominable in our culture’s eyes than if Anakin had been attracted to any of them in a sexual manner, or had become aroused after viewing nude holograms of them. If that had happened instead of the murders that we saw onscreen in the above film, fans of the franchise never would have found Vader redeemable—as he proved to be at the end of ''Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi''—and he would have been viewed as being even more vile by far than the Sith lord who initiated the downfall of an entire interstellar democracy, and who cajoled Anakin into embracing the dark side of the Force in the first place! <br />
<br />
So now we reach a point where the fear has become so pervasive that adults en mass are avoiding virtually any type of association with underagers who are not their own flesh and blood, thus denying these youths potentially important networking opportunities and allies on the political field. Countless mutually beneficial friendships and relationships will now never come to be. Even adults who have no particular romantic/sexual preference for people under the Magic Age feel this fear and unremitting pressure to give underagers a wide berth, and to therefore deepen the already huge amount of age segregation in our gerontocentric society. <br />
<br />
And what of adults who may want to read these youthful sexual fantasies simply out of ordinary curiosity? Or perhaps as the subject of serious scientific research? Isn't the subject of adolescent sexuality a fascinating topic that our society really does need to know more about? Wouldn't knowledge of this taboo subject shed much needed light on a topic that our society all too often avoids and wants to hear nothing about, due to both fear of labeling and of facing something that we do not want to acknowledge the existence of because of the cherished cultural paradigms it may shatter to pieces in the process? After all, if we accept the fact that underage sexuality is real, not to mention pervasive, and even--dare I say it--normal, do we not then risk opening up multiple cans of socio-political worms, including the possibility that it's relatively common for adults to find much younger people attractive? I guess society would prefer to allow fear of reality to rule than the scarier prospect of facing that reality. Is the fear of facing an uncomfortable reality not the worst type of fear imaginable when you consider all of the societal consequences of putting the myth before the reality? The ongoing sex abuse hysteria and the maniacal obsession by the government and parents alike to suppress virtually all instances of sexual expression by youths under 18, along with stifling and preventing virtually all social contacts between underagers and adults whom they are not related to or authorized to interact with (e.g., teachers, coaches, pediatricians), would certainly seem to qualify as highly unfortunate consequences, along with the worsening of an already widespread negative and generational-divisive social phenomenon. <br />
<br />
While many people who share Johnny Scareshock's hobby huddle beneath the covers at night out of the fear that monsters may lurk under their bed, a far more realistic fear--sadly speaking--is what may lurk outside your front door as a result of becoming friends with an underager, or in any way providing evidence that you might be reading about their sexual fantasies. With the current sex abuse hysteria and fear of youthful sexuality--and the systematic age segregation, draconian laws, incessant labeling, public shaming, and the potential loss of employment and community respect that are the natural byproducts of it--one shouldn't be surprised that horror hobbyists like Johnny Scareshock would rather encounter Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees in a dark alley than an underage person on their Facebook page. <br />
<br />
When is society going to come to its senses while we still have a semblance of a democracy? How long do people have to keep living in fear? How far is the age segregation going to have to go before adults feel even moderately safe from being saddled with the Ultimate Scarlet Label of the modern age? How restrictive do the laws have to become before people en mass come to their senses and collectively cry, "Enough is enough!"? How many more rights do young people have to lose and how far does censorship have to go before our society becomes Orwellian enough to satisfy the government? When can older people cease having a fear of establishing social connections with younger people? How irrational is this fear going to get before common sense finally proves triumphant? This topic can spawn a truly terrifying horror movie all on its own. I can see the title and ad campaign of the movie now:<br />
<br />
''The Underage Friend: Horror From the Depths of Cyberspace''--"Can Johnny overcome the most horrifying situation of them all? Can he possibly survive the unremitting terror of being labeled a 'sexual predator?' If you thought Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Hannibal Lecter were something to fear, then you’ve had it easy! Beware, all ye legal adults, for the ultimate horror is now upon mankind!" Cue to a trailer where a legal adult is seen using their laptop and innocently clicking to a page on Facebook to check out the fan club of a person who added him as a friend in the past, only to come across--prepare yourself--the page of an underage girl with a pic of herself wearing a bikini! This is followed by a scene showing the unfortunate man screaming in terror ("Aaaaaahhhh! Underage sexuality! Please stop this nightmare! I swear I didn't know who she was or what her fan club was all about before I accepted her friend request! I swear I didn't get aroused by that pic of her! Please don't label me a child predator! Please don’t drag me away to the clink or put me on one of those online registries! Please don’t take away every bit of community respect I spent the last 20 years building! Please don’t make me lose my job! Pleee--aaa--ssse! Give me a month alone in Camp Crystal Lake first, or even a year being tortured by the Cenobites in Hell, but for the love of God, please don't put me on a sex offender registry!" <br />
<br />
Such a screenplay can practically write itself these days. What does it say for horror icons like Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Hannibal Lecter when a young teen girl in a bikini is considered a scarier, more nightmarish, and more repulsive image than the likes of them? Do they have their work cut out for them when it comes to the hordes of underagers expressing their natural sexuality? Perhaps a pic of an attractive underage girl or boy in a provocative pose should make the cover of the next issue of ''Fangoria''. Then again, as horrible as such an image is in the eyes of our our society, every regular adult reader of the mag would be afraid to pick up a copy of that particular issue lest the cashier at the store report them to the police for "abusing" children by looking at their underage images on the cover.<br />
<br />
==Addendum==<br />
Following the original draft of this essay of mine when it appeared on GC, one of my fellow activists, Scotty, mentioned [http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/510936.htm this]: "You are probably aware that a man in Ohio [Brian Dalton] was sentenced to seven years for writing erotic stories in his diary about young girls! Who was harmed?" <br />
<br />
Another GC poster, Crimson Moon, noted [http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/510937.htm this] in response:<br />
:"I just looked up [http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cla/discoveries/2009/11/ohio-man-jailed-for-diary-cont.html a blog] about that guy who wrote the erotic stories [Brian Dalton] and a line from that blog really stood out.<br />
:"'In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that protecting children from pedophiles is more important than First Amendment rights.'" <br />
<br />
That was followed by this response from yours truly: <br />
:When the time comes that mere words and ideas are considered "dangerous," and the State feels the need to "protect" any segment of the population from these "dangerous" words and ideas, then we are truly headed towards a police state. Invoking the "protect the children" line of thought is usually a foolproof, challenge free method for any corrupt, anti-democratic politician for getting draconian legislation of any sort passed. Who in public office would dare challenge any type of legislation that was backed up by an alleged "protect the children" purpose--even if the legislation in question clearly had nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with censorship of unpopular speech and ideas, dropping a further encroachment on the civil rights of society in general, or to harrass MAAs in particular? Certainly not any politician who had a hope for re-election in these paranoid times, or who would hope to avoid being labeled "soft on child abuse" by their opponents, that's for sure. Just who is it that the children--and society in general--truly need to be protected from? Pedophiles and hebephiles, or the State Gestapo that flourishes when a “witch hunt” mentality is thriving?<br />
<br />
Lastly, my fellow GC activist Dante had [http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/527429.htm this] to add about the above situation:<br />
:"I'm not terribly surprised at a lover of 'taboo' and 'horror' having swallowed the moral panic without questioning it. Those who push the envelope validate the envelope. The truly transgressive go where they please nonchalantly. They aren't drawn towards taking a stand on an invisible line because they know that the line is a fiction. You can't be the Anti-Christ without having a relationship with Christ (even in the negative).<br />
:"And much of Western Horror is actually moral reinforcement.<br />
:"''Friday the 13th'' teaches us that teenagers who don't abstain will be hacked to death.<br />
:"''Poltegeist'' teaches us that ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to violating zoning codes.<br />
:"The apparent chaos of occult evil almost always resolves into, 'the wicked are punished, the moral survive.'<br />
:"Contrast that with Japanese Horror or with tales from Celtic folklore.<br />
:"'They hate you because you're good,' and 'Once you come to the attention of the fair folk [read: Authorities], you're f**ked no matter what you do,' are lessons more conducive to a challenge of moral panics than to their validation."<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:History_Of_Intergenerational_Relationships&diff=6836Essay:History Of Intergenerational Relationships2011-09-19T06:30:36Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>=by Seamus=<br />
The story of intergenerational relationships is almost the story of humanity itself. Such relationships came to be the norm in human society because they were the best answer to a social need.<br />
<br />
A bit of background may be helpful here. Men are drawn to young females for a practical biological reason: the young ones offer the best chance for the male's progeny to live long enough to carry on his lineage, and extend his genes into the next generation.<br />
<br />
When the average life expectancy is 30 years or less, as it was until the turn of the twentieth century, people do not wait until they are 25 to begin families. In Jewish tradition, a boy undergoes Bar Mitzvah, or the rite of passage into adulthood, at age 13; a girl has her corresponding Bat Mitzvah at age 12.<br />
<br />
A bride who gives birth at 12 or 13, as Mary, the mother of Jesus, is regarded by Biblical scholars as having done, will be able to nurture and guide her offspring until their teen years even if she dies at the expected thirty. A 25-year-old bride who dies at 30 will be leaving helpless young children behind to fend for themselves.<br />
<br />
There are obvious biological reasons why the husband has traditionally been the breadwinner and the wife has been the homemaker: the husband could not replace the wife as the bearer of children; her role was indispensable to the future of the race.<br />
<br />
As Philip Ariès documented in ''Centuries of Childhood'', for most of human history childhood ended by the age of six. Extended childhood is a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by the advent of compulsory schooling in the 19th Century [not to mention the simultaneous advent of the Industrial Revolution--D]. Before then, at the age of seven, a boy was apprenticed to a man to learn a trade, and a girl learned the domestic arts from her mother.<br />
<br />
It was usually a decade, or a decade and a half, before the boy was ready to create his “master” piece (if he were a cabinetmaker’s apprentice, for example) to be submitted to the guild for examination and judging. If his piece passed scrutiny, he was considered a “passed” master and given the title of journeyman, allowing him to begin earning wages in<br />
his craft. Yet it would still be many years before he was established enough in his profession to feel financially secure. Other professions were similar.<br />
<br />
Twenty-five years of age was usually the earliest at which a man could feel truly ready to accept the responsibility of marriage and all that it entailed; in most cases it was much later. Those who took a bride for the first time while in their thirties, or who were widowers, were well aware that their days were numbered. They naturally sought a young bride<br />
to have and care for their children, because at least she would still be around to see to their upbringing even if he were not. He owed it to his children to see that one of their parents lived long enough to care for them.<br />
<br />
For the girl, it was also the best possible choice. Marrying a man who was in the prime of his earning years was much more practical than marrying someone who could not, and might not ever be able to, support her and her offspring.<br />
<br />
The man traded his wealth and worldly goods for a young, pretty bride; she traded her youth and attractiveness for the financial security necessary for her to raise a family, thus ensuring that her genes were passed on to posterity. It was a win-win situation. Nor did every girl wait until puberty to begin marriage, as child brides were common for a number of reasons.<br />
<br />
==Nations==<br />
In India, when the Muslim invaders began carrying off unmarried Hindu girls to be their concubines, the natives faced a real possibility that, with no females to bear children, their culture would perish (the Koran allows a man four wives and as many concubines as he can support; hence, the religion’s rapid rise in popularity). The Indians discovered a loophole in the Koran that saved their culture: a married female may not be pressed into concubinage. The Indians immediately began marrying the remaining girls, and established the practice of betrothal at birth, followed by a wedding ceremony when the girl could walk. The girls, of course, returned home after the ceremony to live with their own families until they were old enough to begin marriage.<br />
<br />
The Europeans had a different rationale: it is common knowledge that children need their mother more than the husband needs her, so when the first child is born the mother's attention naturally turns to the baby. It was therefore common for girls to marry quite some time before puberty in the hopes of bonding with their husbands and forging a strong<br />
relationship to sustain the marriage through the difficult times ahead. This was especially in the arranged marriages, so as to ensure a dynasty or cement an alliance.<br />
<br />
==People==<br />
*When James Madison was 32, after he wrote the Constitution of the United States, but before he became President, he became engaged to a 16-year-old who jilted him. The man with whom she ran away later died. Madison did not get romantically involved again until his forties, when he met a teenager named Dolly. He married her when he was forty-five.<br />
*When Elvis Presley met Priscilla, she was 13, although he waited until she was 18 to marry her.<br />
*Edgar Allan Poe's wife Victoria was thirteen.<br />
*Dante met Beatrice when she was eight [according to some sources--D].<br />
*The middle-aged Charles Dickens had a teenaged girlfriend, who was an actress that stayed with him until he died.<br />
*The future King Louis XVI of France married Princess Marie Antoinette when she was fourteen.<br />
*Closer to home, contemporaries who fell for underage girls include rocker Jerry Lee Lewis, and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones.<br />
<br />
==More==<br />
All of this began to change when compulsory schooling became the law. The state governments mandated forced schooling but left it to the separate communities to finance compliance. One-room schoolhouses, which had been the norm, soon were replaced with buildings designed to hold children in distinct rooms, separated by age groups. Although testing and grading each individual by ability was the obvious path to follow, the cash-strapped school districts opted for the faster and cheaper (and decidedly inferior) method of segregating the children by age.<br />
<br />
Instead of entering the real world with adults of all ages, as apprentices at the age of seven, children were confined in an artificial world populated only by other kids their own age. This had profound consequences: instead of being educated by all of the adults in the community, and getting a varied perspective on life, children received information only from the educators, i.e., the indoctrinators.<br />
<br />
The school’s function ''in loco parentis'' has been repeatedly sanctified by the courts. It was not difficult to channel the educational direction towards the judgmental “thou shalt not” attitude which had served so well to control the masses for so long.<br />
<br />
The schools repeatedly drive home the lesson of abstinence for a practical reason: survival is the basic instinct. Once an organism’s own safety is assured, it begins to seek ways of passing its genes on to the next generation, in a bid for immortality. Taking sex away from the people allows them to be controlled at the molecular level. Forbid sex, bottle up the urge inside, then occasionally allow the people to kill a scapegoat - such as the Iraqis - for cathartic release, and voila! Societal control. This strategy has been used by every religion, every despot, every dictator since time immemorial. Why? Because it works.<br />
<br />
After years of being confined to their age peers, quite naturally kids begin dating their contemporaries - who else do they know? Sex is forbidden them, along with birth control and factual sex education; the only approved outlet for their urges is marriage. Soon comes the relentless pressure to begin a family, and before they know it, the couple becomes three.<br />
<br />
As soon as a baby is born, the honeymoon is truly over. Now this young man finds himself facing a lifetime’s burden after a few months of happiness. Is it any wonder that he feels cheated, used, and betrayed? He isn’t grown up, nor could maturity be expected from someone whom society has kept in a perpetual state of extended childhood from his infancy.<br />
<br />
Finally he is away from parents and teachers, able to truly enjoy himself, and suddenly he is a burdened with the responsibilities of being a family man.<br />
<br />
His bride is also disillusioned to realize that he is not as mature as she had hoped. They will do the best that they can, but their marriage, like the majority, was doomed before it began.<br />
<br />
Will she seek someone older and more mature, who would consider a family to be a blessing? Or will she continue to fall for Hollywood and Madison Avenue's relentless ageism? Statistically, yes. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the divorce proceedings will strip the man of most of his assets, while the “woman wronged” will be convinced that all men are rotten. Both of them are victims of the taboo against intergenerational relationships.<br />
<br />
In our society, three classes of people are incarcerated against their will: criminals are kept in prisons, the insane are kept in mental institutions, and children are kept in schools. Of the three groups, children are the future of the society, yet they are isolated form everyone except their age peers, whose life experiences are virtually identical to their own. Children are denied any information about the world except that transmitted by the indoctrinators or the electronic baby-sitter, i.e., television, whose aims coincide with the oppressors. By segregating the old, who have seen through the system and are aware of its flaws, from the young who could change that system, control is maintained.<br />
<br />
With the rise of the corporate state, many in the clergy feared for their positions, yet their fears were groundless: the corporate state needed the mind-numbing church dogma to instill docility in the masses. And, the constant haranguing of the churches against sex, kept this form of empowering liberation in the "do not examine closely" area. <br />
<br />
It did not take long to extend the concept of Sunday school to the entire week. Combined with the week-long brain-deadening of the "educational" system, all that remained was for television to provide the mind candy that deflects from any real examination of the status quo, and the mental shackles were in place.<br />
<br />
The hysteria against intergenerational relationships has a practical basis for the power structure, as it is one of the tools used to maintain the masses in a perpetual state of ignorance and docility.<br />
[[Category:Seamus' essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Seamus%27_essays&diff=6835Category:Seamus' essays2011-09-19T06:29:59Z<p>Tyciol: New page: This is a subcategory for essays by Seamus, added by Dissident. Category:Essays</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a subcategory for essays by Seamus, added by Dissident.<br />
[[Category:Essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Church_-_the_Mafia_-_and_You&diff=6834Essay:The Church - the Mafia - and You2011-09-19T06:29:37Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Seamus==<br />
In the New World, since it was first settled by our forefathers, there have been two strongly disparate elements in the social body. One was anarchistic and tolerant; the other, sternly authoritarian and fanatically moralistic.<br />
<br />
It is a mistake to believe that the Puritans came here seeking religious freedom. On the contrary, they sought a place in which to exercise their own brand of religious totalitarianism, after having fled Merry Ole England and being driven from such a famously tolerant nation as Holland. It is probable that the religious persecutions and moralistic intolerances practiced upon dissenters by the colonists of New England were more severe than any from which they had fled.<br />
<br />
It is surprising that the Constitution contained an apparent guarantee of religious freedom. This seeming oversight may be attributed to two things: the mutual suspicion with which each colony viewed the other, and the staunch feeling for liberty felt by the man who wrote the provision. <br />
<br />
It is very significant to note that the religious freedom clause was an injunction to the federal government, but did not limit the several states.<br />
<br />
At one time the state of Virginia had an established church, and religious intolerance had been practiced, under the law, in every state in the union.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Puritanical factor in the American culture, there was the Roman Catholic strain, strong in some parts of the country, which supported many, if not most, of the same intolerances as the Protestant churches.<br />
<br />
All forms of organized religion are alike in certain social respects. <br />
<br />
Each claims to be the sole custodian of the essential truth. Each claims to speak with final authority on all ethical questions. And every church has requested, demanded, or ordered the state to enforce its particular system of taboos. No church ever withdraws its claim to control absolutely, by divine right, the moral life of the citizens.<br />
<br />
If the church is weak, it attempts by devious means to turn its creed and discipline into law. If it is strong, it uses the rack and thumbscrews.<br />
<br />
To a surprising degree, churches in the United States were able, under a governmental form which formally acknowledged no religion at the federal level, to have placed on the statutes of the several states the individual church's code of moral taboos, and to wrest, from the state, enough privileges and special concessions to amount to subsidy. This was especially true of the evangelical churches in the Midwest and South, but it was equally true of the Roman Catholic Church in its strongholds. It would have been equally true of any church: Holy Roller, Islamic, Judaism, or whatever. It is a characteristic of all organized religions, not of a particular sect.<br />
<br />
To cite a few examples: Sunday closing laws; tax exemption for church property; income tax exemption for church proceeds (ever wonder how those college football players are paid? The money is donated to a church, which rakes a percentage off of the top and distributes the rest; churches don't open their books); practically all laws relating to marriage and relations between the sexes, including laws forbidding divorce, nation-wide rule permitting only monogamous marriages, laws against fornication and other taboo sexual relationships, laws forbidding birth control; laws prohibiting the teaching of certain scientific doctrines - especially man's kinship to other animals; all laws of censorship, for moral reasons, of the press, stage, radio, and television; certain taboos of word and speech forms; laws prohibiting certain parts of the body being exposed to view; laws limiting the consumption of spirituous liquors and laws forbidding the use of recreational drugs; any law which takes a paternalistic attitude towards the citizen with the purpose of ensuring his moral compliance rather than the purpose of regulating his conduct to avoid damaging others, and to prevent others from damaging him.<br />
<br />
"Nature abhors a vacuum."<br />
<br />
Enter the Mafia.<br />
<br />
The "blue" laws created a grisly, perhaps unconscious symbiosis between organized crime and the organized churches, for the greatest bulwark of the underworld was always the moral creed of the church. You think that unlikely? Consider this: the churches have great political power. In some places it is almost impossible to be elected to public office if the churches disapprove.<br />
<br />
It is a matter of fact, easily verified, that every public leader of every corrupt political machine was invariably a prominent member of a large, powerful sect. He always contributed heavily to the church, especially to its charities.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, every church stood (publicly) for honesty in government. At the same time they demanded of the government that it suppress all manner of facts, harmless in themselves, but offensive to the creeds of the churches (sex education comes immediately to mind; the churches fought public sex education savagely, and still do in some places). Churches and clergy were usually willing to accept the word for the deed. Protestations of integrity, combined with tithing and psalm singing, plus a willingness to enact into law the prejudices of the church, were usually all that was required of a candidate.<br />
<br />
Gang leaders, though, were hardened realists; they cared nothing about a candidate's virtues if he were willing to protect the gang from prosecution. Furthermore, they wanted the blue laws on the books as long as such laws were not well-enforced.<br />
<br />
Illicitness was the thing that made their stock-in-trade valuable, and they knew it. The blue laws they broke gave them a weapon to destroy competition, since the same machine which gave them protection could be used to destroy a competitor who did not own a piece of the government.<br />
<br />
And so it has gone, for decades in America: the gangsters and the preachers, each for his own purpose, supporting and electing the same candidates. It was inevitable, because the churches demanded of government those things that government cannot or should not perform: things that came under the heading of forcing a man to be 'good' for the sake of his soul, instead of interfering only to prevent him from damaging another. The churches had unlimited rationalizations to prove that their nosy interference was 'good' for the welfare of all.<br />
<br />
Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but at the end in every case you will find the churches using the state to coerce a man into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading him to adopt without coercion. Wherever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a large, powerful underworld which will seize the local governments first and then work its way up the ladder to the top.<br />
<br />
With the rise of the Corporate State, Big Business (and I include the media) muscled up to the trough. At first, many in the clergy feared the coming of the Corporate Age, but their fears were groundless. The Corporate State needs the mind-numbing church dogshit (excuse me; church ''dogma'') to instill docility from an early age.<br />
<br />
It took no great leap of imagination for government, with the urging and support of Big Business, to expand the idea of Sunday school to fill up the rest of the week, loosening family ties and rendering the citizenry helpless against the concerted onslaught. With the full week brain-deadening of the educational system, and the preachers convincing their flocks on Sunday that their suffering here would be rewarded later, all that remained was for television to provide the mind candy that would deflect any real contemplation of the status quo.<br />
<br />
Yeah, kids, our enemies are powerful and we have a tough row to hoe.<br />
<br />
But let me leave you with this thought:<br />
<br />
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead<br />
[[Category:Seamus' essays]]</div>Tyciolhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:The_Beckii_Cruel_Situation&diff=6833Essay:The Beckii Cruel Situation2011-09-19T06:29:07Z<p>Tyciol: </p>
<hr />
<div>==by Dissident==<br />
A recent documentary has come to light which has some major relevance to the Minor Attracted Adult [MAA] community, and the global cultural factors which affect public attitudes towards the pedophiliac and hebephiliac attraction bases (in this particular case, the latter), and I believe this warranted an essay. <br />
<br />
The situation discussed in the documentary was adeptly summarized by my fellow MAA activist Joey Bishop in [http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/509001.htm this post] of his on GirlChat:<br />
<br />
“I just saw this BBC documentary titled ''Beckii: Schoolgirl Superstar at 14'', and it's probably one of the best documentaries I've seen in a while. It's an interesting chronicle of culture clash and instant Internet fame. It all starts when a cute British girl named Beckii, who's a fan of Japanese anime, and oddly enough sort of resembles an anime character herself, posts a video online of herself dancing along to an anime inspired J-Pop hip hop song called ''Danjo, Danjo''. <br />
<br />
“Almost overnight, she becomes a sensation in Japan with her cute looks that resemble an anime character, which satisfies Japan's cultural fascination with both incredibly cute things, known as kawaii culture, and anime characters. Eventually, she ends up landing in the top 20 on the Japanese pop charts and having entire magazines filled up with photos of her. There are even aspirations to stardom back in her native Britain, as well as worldwide, and whether that possibility will prevail is left open ended, but looks at least somewhat promising. Things seem to be on the up and up for this pretty young girl.<br />
<br />
“And yet, there is a culture clash and a moral dilemma in place. As Beckii herself admits, despite her appreciation of some aspects of the Japanese culture, she still thinks with a British mentality, and the sexual undertones of her appeal, and the age and gender of much of her fan base, troubles her and her family, which includes her policeman father. She's happy to receive expensive gifts from her biggest fan, an ostensibly wealthy middle-aged Japanese man, yet is a bit ambivalent about her relationship with him and whether it should continue despite the gifts he sends which please her.”<br />
<br />
You can watch the video of the documentary online at the BBC three home page, which can be found [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tf20x here].<br />
<br />
With the above said, courtesy of Joey Bishop (which I thank him for bringing to my attention), I now move onto my essay, where I have some words to say about this matter.<br />
<br />
One of the major things about the Internet to keep in mind is that it's a global phenomenon. As a result, people from Country A that become overnight sensations as a result of uploading videos of themselves to sites like YouTube are sometimes going to achieve a lot of appeal not just in their native land, but also in Country B. If the latter occurs, then they are quickly going to realize that the values and attitudes of their indigenous culture are not the equivalent of laws of nature. The moral conceits that are so popular in the U.S. and Britain which demonize adult men who openly acknowledge the sexual attractiveness of adolescent girls under a certain arbitrary age are obviously not nearly as extant in certain Eastern nations like Japan, which has a long and solid tradition of Girl Love [GL], much as Greece and Rome had long-standing traditions of Boy Love [BL]. <br />
<br />
In Japan, it's considered completely normal for middle-aged heterosexual or bisexual men to acknowledge the attractiveness of young adolescent girls. Rebecca Flint, a.k.a., Beckii Cruel, and her family may not like this aspect of Japanese culture, but if she chooses to immerse herself in the intricacies of a culture that made her a superstar, she needs to understand that the GL aspects of Japanese culture are a package deal and have been a central part of anime since the inception of the medium (more on that in a minute). Hopefully, upon studying the Japanese culture in greater detail and accepting friendships from the middle-aged fan boys there who adore her on all levels, she will become more open-minded and come to question what she has always incorrectly believed to be the universal nature or moral absolutism of her own Western-based culture's disdain for adult men (and women) acknowledging the attractiveness of young adolescent girls. It will eventually become clear to Beckii that girls of her age group are seen as young adults in Japan rather than how they are most often viewed by the wider culture in Western nations, i.e., as older children. Also, it should be mentioned that true pedophilia, while still stigmatized to a degree in Japan, is nevertheless much more easily discussed there than in the Western nations.<br />
<br />
Another thing regarding the situation discussed in this essay that Beckii should be aware of is this: in Japan, anime is enjoyed by people of multiple age groups, not simply children, tweens, and younger teens. The attitudes towards animated fare in Western and Eastern nations are often quite different. American and British audiences automatically relegate anything that is animated to the "kiddie ghetto," and such shows need to be made ‘kid friendly” in order to thrive on U.S. or British television, or on the big screen (unless, curiously, those shows are sitcoms like ''The Simpsons'' or ''Family Guy'', or odd comedic satire like ''South Park''). There are exceptions, of course (note the Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" segment), but they are rare, they are usually not nearly as popular or widely viewed as the animated fare designed for younger audiences, and they are often attacked by parents groups who expect all such animated fare to conform to "family oriented" standards. In other words, in many Western nations (including the U.S. and Britain) the realm of animation isn't viewed as a particular medium where any subject or genre can be depicted, but instead seems to be perceived as nothing more than a genre that is automatically geared towards a specific age group. <br />
<br />
This is not the case in Japan, where animated fare is geared towards and appreciated by a multiplicity of age groups. Anime is probably as popular among adults in Japan as it is to younger audiences. Hence, anime in its original form is often shown detailing themes that are not socially acceptable for "kiddie" fare in the U.S. and Britain, some of which would likely offend Western adult audiences even if explicitly geared towards that age group. As a result, when these anime shows are imported to American and British shores, they are heavily edited and censored, with any themes that may make them "inappropriate" for younger audiences according to Western cultural standards--including anything to do with intergenerational attraction--being excised. There have been several anime series featuring young girls where one of the girls' teachers or some other adult friend had a crush on her, and the adult in question was not automatically depicted as a bad guy, because what is called the hebephiliac attraction base in the Western world is not considered deviant in Japanese culture. But these themes (along with other things, such as scenes of young people smoking or drinking alcohol) are thoroughly extirpated from the American and British versions of the anime, which is why Beckii and other anime fans in the West wouldn't have the slightest clue that expressions of GL are relatively common, and something close to mainstream in the Land of the Rising Sun. Girls who grew up in a Japanese culture wouldn't consider such themes to constitute a "moral dilemma" (at least not in a knee-jerk manner), and regardless to how they may personally feel about adult attraction to girls in their age group, and whether or not they themselves may have a notable attraction to or even a preference for significantly older people or not, they nevertheless accept it as normal and common much as Western culture now largely considers mainstream homosexuality. <br />
<br />
But Beckii grew up in a Western culture, during a time period when the "pedophile panic" and the resultant infantalization of young adolescent girls is still going ahead full steam, so it's no wonder that her reaction to the adult male attention she has received from her Japanese fan base would come off as morally dubious or "strange" to her. This also explains why she is attempting to put forth an "innocent" or entirely non-sexual image since discovering this adult interest in her despite the fact that the sexual aspects of girls in anime have never been hidden in their original Japanese versions, and also despite the fact that there is ample evidence that this level of "innocence" isn't natural to adolescent girls but is actually an artificial socio-cultural imposition. Beckii, being a standard product of her culture and time period, feels that she must acquiesce to these societal expectations for sake of adhering to an image that is socially acceptable to her particular culture. At one point in the documentary, she acknowledged the cultural differences between Japan and her native Britain in regards to this issue, but she said she still believes that it's morally wrong for adult men to have this type of admiration for young adolescent girls, or for girls her age to exude any sexual appeal. What she doesn't seem to realize is that her belief that this is morally wrong is no different than people of various cultures strongly believing that the homosexual attraction base is morally wrong, yet this doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is natural and pervasive despite some people's moral reservations against it, which is the same situation regarding pedophilia and hebephilia. As such, it's quite clear that moralism is both subjective and culturally relative.<br />
<br />
Further, the fact that Beckii was supposedly so taken aback that a large proportion of her Japanese fan base are older adult males is not because adult attraction to girls in her age group is any less common in Britain than it is in Japan, but the illusion that this is the case occurs due to the fact that the vast majority of adult men in Britain do not acknowledge their attraction to young adolescent girls openly for fear of severe societal backlash. As a result, the many hebephiles in Britain (i.e., those adult men and women with a specific preference for young adolescents) are usually very much in the closet, a state of affairs which is demonstrably not the case in Japan. I think what Beckii needs to do in the future is to get her hands on some of the unedited, Japanese versions of the anime she enjoys so much, so that she can see some of these themes played out and come to the realization that the versions she sees in her native Britain are extremely whitewashed to make them more “acceptable” to the kid audiences in the West. This editing process is also done to make these animated series palatable to parents groups and polite society in general, who do not want intergenerational attraction depicted in a morally neutral fashion, do not want to see depictions of men with such an attraction base as anything other than predatory monsters in human skin, and do not want to see young girls giving out the implication that it's okay for them to express their natural human sexuality, let alone appear to embrace it proudly as a natural aspect of their being rather than attempting to deny its existence as Beckii is evidently attempting to do so as to appease the moralizing standards of her indigenous culture. <br />
<br />
Many examples of anime featuring young girl characters display a degree of sexual appreciation for them (note the revealing outfits worn by many girl protagonists in certain anime), and it's a shame that the sanitized versions of these shows that reach American and British shores leave out these important aspects to such an extent that Western girl fans like Beckii are totally unaware of the existence of such a multi-faceted level of admiration for these young girl protagonists that she admires and identifies with.<br />
<br />
Another thing to wonder about is whether or not Beckii was unduly influenced in her moral dilemma by her police officer father. The police are rivaled only by mainstream media moguls (such as Oprah Winfrey and just about any talk show host you can think of who is more interested in sensationalism-generated ratings than factual and open-minded discussions) as being the absolute worst source of information about MAAs and the phenomenon of adult attraction to minors in general. The police of Western nations do not routinely have mutually amiable discussions with the large number of MAAs who are perfectly law-abiding and decent people, and as such they do not have anything remotely resembling an accurate knowledge of the typical members of this community, nor do they see us as anything other than criminals or potential criminals who "prey" upon the young and vulnerable. To these police officers, arresting adults who engage in mutually consensual romantic/sexual relationships with young girls (and boys), or who view "sexy" pics of them online, is their job, and this will inevitably color their attitude towards even the large number of people in this community who do not break the law. This is precisely the same reason why police often develop a strong antipathy towards other marginalized minorities, including black people who live in the inner city ghettos and members of the homosexual community in the past (where they were often arrested for public displays of romantic affection towards each other). <br />
<br />
Thus, it's to be expected that Beckii's father would have such a negative reaction to the attention his daughter is receiving from middle-aged men in Japan as a result of her stardom there, because he views all such men as nothing more than dangerous psychotic deviants who would try to harm his daughter if given the slightest chance. This, of course, is utterly ridiculous, as the vast majority of men who are attracted to minors are decent people who would never harm a youth in any real or demonstrable manner, and the fact that violent crimes against children and adolescents are extremely rare outside of the home even in nations where the majority of adults acknowledge an attraction to minors (such as Japan), should speak volumes about the validity of this hysteria, and the accompanying moral objections and attitudes to the attraction base. The admiration towards Beckii by these men derive from a culture that is not ashamed of acknowledging the great attractiveness and appeal of young girls on all levels, but considering the political and cultural climate of the nation that Beckii was raised in (specifically, the Isle of Man), it shouldn't come as any major surprise that she doesn't perceive such attention as flattering and affirming to her self-esteem, but instead something to be concerned about. Since the hebephiliac attraction base is readily acknowledged by the great majority of men in Japan, obviously most, if not all, of these men are not psychopaths but normal and well-adjusted individuals who appreciate what Beckii offers to the world on every conceivable level, as opposed to viewing her through the lens of Western cultural conceits, which would insist that she be perceived as "just a cute kid" and have all of her amazing qualities dismissed or downplayed as a result. Instead, her adult male Japanese admirers see her in a far more multi-faceted manner: as a talented and beautiful young woman who exudes a high degree of intelligence, energy, creativity, and sex appeal, and who does the great medium of anime proud by her enthusiasm for it.<br />
<br />
At one point in the documentary Beckii's mother makes a sincere attempt to be open-minded about her daughter's great popularity amongst middle-aged men in Japan despite the political and cultural milieu in which she was raised by saying that she doesn't believe the common hype that all men who view her daughter's videos are "pedophiles" or other "seedy" individuals, and that many of these men are fully capable of enjoying these videos "innocently," i.e., appreciating every aspect of her daughter <i>except</i> for the sex appeal. Has it ever occurred to Beckii's mom that adult men are perfectly capable of admiring her obvious sexual attractiveness without that being the only reason that they admire her, that they can fully appreciate this in harmony with her other great qualities on display (e.g., talent, energy, a sparkling personality, creativity, a great appreciation for a much beloved medium, etc.), and that such men are not automatically "seedy" or in any way dishonorable simply because they find her physically attractive in addition to their admiration for all her other traits? Clearly, stereotypes about men who hold this natural and common attraction base for adolescent girls continues to abound in the Western mindset despite growing evidence that it's anything but unusual and that having this attraction base in no way denigrates the moral character of any adult who possesses it. <br />
<br />
One other thing that should be mentioned here is that Beckii and her family seem totally unaware of the cam girl phenomenon of the past decade, a phenomenon that is hardly unknown and which has been the subject of many articles and at least a few television news shows (such as ''60 Minutes''). It's been well known for a long time now that since the inception of public access to the Internet and the invention of web cams that young adolescent girls (and sometimes boys) from any number of nations, including Western nations like the U.S. and Britain, receive an enormous amount of attention from adult men by putting cam photos of themselves up on personal websites, and sometimes even do real time cam shows for their adoring fan base (usually kept legal, of course). These girls routinely put up wish lists on their sites where they highlight all of the often expensive items that they want, as they know that their many adult male fans will gladly purchase these items for them as gifts. Further, many of these cam girls accept generous monetary donations from their adult male admirers to support both themselves and the operating expenses of their site. Some cam girls and boys have made quite a decent living off of donations and gifts courtesy of their legion of admiring adult fans, and this in a society where younger people are mostly denied any good opportunities to earn their own money and achieve any degree of economic independence from their parents. Do these girls actually believe that it's mostly adolescent boys in their age group who purchase these gifts for them, especially when these wish lists are often created on Amazon.com and most teen boys do not have credit or debit cards that would enable them to make the purchases in the first place, let alone have enough money to do so? It's often made quite clear by these girls that they are well aware that a large proportion of their admirers, both male and female, are significantly older adults. Though a few of these cam girls complain about the "old pervs" who dare to admire them, none of these girls evidently have any problem with milking their obvious sexual appeal for all its worth and receiving literally thousands of dollars worth of gifts from these smitten adult admirers every year, not to mention enough donations in some cases to enable them to make a better living than most of their parents do. There has never been the slightest evidence that the vast majority of these adult admirers are mentally unbalanced or dangerous in any way, and I have yet to hear of any instance where any of these cam girls were stalked and/or murdered by one of their adult admirers (even if they do sometimes receive erotic personal communications from them). <br />
<br />
So while most men in contemporary Western culture are not willing to openly admit their attraction to young adolescent girls due to all of the severe societal stigma against it, they do indeed display their appreciation for these girls' great beauty and attractiveness in ways such as those mentioned above (where they can do so anonymously), so the phenomenon shouldn't have come to any great surprise to Beckii or her family. Is their professed naivety in this area of knowledge accurate, or are they simply "playing dumb" in an attempt to cater to the expectations of their culture? Adult attraction to young adolescent girls (as well as to children, even if in lesser numbers than hebephilia) is relatively common, pervasive, and quite obvious despite whatever level of moralizing condemnation may or may not exist against it on any level in any given culture. Furthermore, many adolescent girls are well aware of their sexual attraction to people of all age groups, and are readily able to profit from it if they so choose, so Beckii's claims to being innocently unaware of this aspect of herself is questionable. One must also wonder if she has honestly never seen the multitude of uploaded videos (particularly dance videos) to YouTube from tween and teen girls who are obviously making an effort to exude sex appeal, and are well aware that many of their channel's admirers are adult men. One cannot tell beyond a shadow of a doubt if Beckii is sincerely unaware of both this fairly ubiquitous aspect of YouTube as well as her own sex appeal, of course, but considering all of the obvious facts I mentioned above, I do not think it's out of line to at least question its veracity and wonder if she is just attempting to construct an image of herself that is acceptable to both her parents and her culture at large. <br />
<br />
I think the friendship that Beckii has established with her biggest Japanese fan, a wealthy middle-aged man who sends her many gifts, will ultimately come to open her mind and expand her cultural horizons if she chooses to continue it. She will come to see that he is most likely not a monster, that his admiration of her is sincere, and that the sexual components of that admiration in no way lesson or taint the emotional and social aspects of that admiration. He likely appreciates her on all levels, and therefore affords her a level of respect that the great majority of people over the age of 18 in her native Britain (and elsewhere in the Western world) would not give her, at least not openly. <br />
<br />
Though I would never expect Beckii or her Cruel Angels cohort Gemma (who also appears in the documentary and expresses many of the same misgivings about the adult attention she receives) to show an interest in adult men that they do not naturally possess--after all, I do not believe that the majority of adolescent girls are gerontophiles, i.e., possessing a pronounced romantic interest in or outright preference for significantly older adults--though I do believe the latter may very well comprise a significant minority of their number--I think they can nevertheless still receive a degree of flattery rather than concern or open disdain for a type of natural admiration that, while it may not be their personal cup of tea, was nevertheless responsible for a large proportion of the fan base that rocketed them towards stardom. It would appear that adult men (and likely women too) have a large influence on the level of popularity that adolescent (and possibly child) stars achieve, whether these youths and their families like it or not, and as such it may not be good form for these girls to publicly disparage this possibly important faction of their fan base, especially when there is no evidence whatsoever that these large numbers of adult fans are in any way dangerous even if their feelings are “inappropriate” due to Western culture’s contemporary biases. <br />
<br />
Gemma said that she thought it was "sad" that adult men enjoy watching young girls dance in videos, without considering that if they didn't, her popularity margin may have been considerably less than it has become, and it's arguably possible that her rise to fame would not have received nearly as much support as it did without this faction of her fan base. This doesn't mean that girl stars like Beckii and Gemma should be expected to develop an attraction to these men if they do not naturally possess it to any sizable degree, but at the same time it doesn't mean that they shouldn't show this important part of their fan base the respect it deserves, and to realize that adult men who have this degree of admiration for young girls are neither rare nor deviant. It also means that the sexual component of these girls' appeal to fans of all ages need not be denied or suppressed to appeal to their native cultural biases, but can be embraced or at least accepted as a natural aspect of their being that cannot be fully stifled or ignored even if they sincerely want this to be the case.<br />
<br />
In a brief '''addendum''' to the above essay, my fellow GirlChat activist Dante had this to say about the above:<br />
<br />
"Now Japan does not embrace Girl Love just because it doesn't mind the girl-as-sex-object. But we are talking about a culture which refuses to buy the 'monkey see, monkey do' argument in regard to the morality of public entertainment. So their ability to compartmentalize fantasy from real actions is a great test-case for the harmlessness of fantasies.<br />
<br />
"Though one should remember there are no bisexuals in Japan; let alone homosexuals.<br />
<br />
"Emperor Taisho may've been queer as a three yen note; but officially he wasn't.<br />
<br />
"Many homosexuals suffered needlessly during the early years of the AIDS crisis, but they weren't really there.<br />
<br />
"Just sayin'."<br />
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]</div>Tyciol