Essay:My Analysis Of The Attacks On Intergenerational Attraction By Cracked.com: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(cleaning up spacing, adding to subcat)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''by Dissident''' ==
==by Dissident==
Everybody hates pedophiles (and hebephiles, of course, but too few people these days have the slightest interest in making the distinction anyway, so you know what I mean). Hating and attacking pedophilia in a mindless, knee-jerk manner is a bona fide trend. It's a trend that is equally popular among conservatives and liberals alike, which is saying something! If you want to cast any literary character in a bad light, make him (or her) into a pedophile [i.e., a Minor Attracted Adult, or MAA, a political blanket term covering both pedophiles and hebephiles]. Just don't expect anyone to accept that such a character can possibly have any shades of gray in his persona, or any degree of complexity of character at all. If he is written as a pedophile, he is '''''evil'''''. He is psychotic. His mind is more depraved than that of a serial killer, because let's face it, everyone knows that actually murdering and cutting people to pieces is by far the lesser evil than some grown man who simply ''thinks'' about how sexy a girl under 18 is, regardless of whether or not he actually does something as gut-wrenchingly horrifying as sharing a mutually desired kiss on the lips with her. After all, serial killers merely take the lives of adult women in usually incredibly painful and sadistic ways--they do not do the far more horrible thing that MAAs do:  they do not steal the indescribably beautiful "innocence" of young girls by engaging in mutually consensual sexual activity that may bring the girl so much pleasure that the poor naive and idiotic child may actually have ''no idea whatsoever'' that she actually hated it, and had something so incredibly precious stolen from her! So it's easy to see why MAAs are hated by everyone, and considered to have no gray in their character whatsoever, while even a serial killer can be depicted as an emotionally complex character with arguably commendable traits in a popular TV series on Showtime. Just imagine an MAA character being depicted as anything less than a total bag of filth in human form, and being shown to display even an ounce of humanity in an ongoing TV series aired during today's climate.


Far be it from the usually prescient people who bring us the uberly-hilarious and usually insightful online zine Cracked.com to risk bucking such a popular trend by attempting to be any more open-minded or informed about this hot button topic than anyone else. Which brings us to [http://www.cracked.com/article_18568_the-5-greatest-books-with-psychotic-fanbases_p2.html this article] by Connor Thorpe describing the "5 Greatest Books With Psychotic Fan Bases," a list that includes (at number one, no less!) the classic novel ''Lolita''. Take a wild guess who Nabakov's infamous tome has as a "psychotic" fan base? I'll give you a small hint if you can't figure it out on your own--it isn't Trekkies, in case that was your first guess.


As you can see from reading the article, author Thorpe's problem isn't so much the "pedophiles" in America, who are rightfully ostracized and denied even the meager right to look at computer generated images of fully-clothed minors if there is ''any possibility'' they might become aroused by viewing the fictitious simulation of a girl, but rather the the "pedophiles" of Japan, since they actually have legalized lolicon! Okay, though ''Lolita'' was actually about a hebephile, not a pedophile, and the largest amount of lolicon features young teen girls rather than little girls, why squabble over a simple term when the one being used invokes the strongest mental reaction in people than another more accurate term that would pack far less of an emotional punch in the gut, right? I mean, since accuracy is rarely the forte of any article that purports to discuss pedophilia and/or hebephilia, why expect any one single detail to be accurate, no matter how obvious the detail (i.e., the obvious physical differences between children and adolescents), right?


Everybody hates pedophiles (and hebephiles, of course, but too few people these
Let's look at some of the highlights of the section of Thorpe's article that presents such a humorous (read: laughable) condemnation of ''Lolita'''s contemptible fan base of evil "pedophiles" and my response to each of them:


days have the slightest interest in making the distinction anyway, so you know what
"Vladimir Nabokov's ''Lolita'' is the story of the unfortunately named Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged professor who's also basically a deranged pedophile. Humbert kidnaps a young girl, Lolita, and travels the country with her, until she runs off with another middle-aged man [Quilty]."


I mean). Hating and attacking pedophilia in a mindless, knee-jerk manner is a bona
Um, Humbert is deranged? Granted, he isn't depicted as a saint in the book, and he certainly isn't a role model for any hebephile (or actual pedophile) to follow, of course, but he's hardly Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers--then again, the latter two characters merely brutally murdered numerous people in hideously grotesque ways, and the unfortunately named Humbert has a romantic/physical preference for young adolescent girls--I would hate to further besmirch the character of Lecter or Myers by comparing them to the likes of Humbert!


fide trend. It's a trend that is equally popular among conservatives and liberals
And Humbert kidnapped Lolita? From what I recall from reading the book, he simply took legal custody of her when his wife Charlotte, who was Lolita's mom, died after being struck by a car, and Lolita didn't resist going with him in any way because she shared the attraction to Humbert. Of course, I wouldn't expect Thorpe to mention an insignificant little detail like that because it might make Humbert look ever so slightly less vile, and I can understand him not wanting to take that chance. So it's better to use the word "kidnapping," because every ignorant, er, smart person knows that under no conceivable circumstance would any girl on the planet, regardless of her personal preferences or individual level of experience, willingly go anywhere with a filthy "pedophile" like Humbert.


alike, which is saying something! If you want to cast any literary character in a
"The term ''lolicon'' specifically refers to animated pornography that depicts children [specifically girls] in an erotic context. Even more disturbing? The sheer volume: almost half of the animated porn released in Japan every year (which is, like, all of it; they seriously love to hump cartoons in the Land of the Rising Sun) fits comfortably into the lolicon genre."


bad light, make him (or her) into a pedophile [i.e., a Minor Attracted Adult, or
Hmmm, yea, the depiction of underage girls in an erotic context, and acknowledging their physical attraction in any way, shape, or form, is indeed disturbing. Much more so, in fact, than any depiction of extraordinarily graphic violence and torture that routinely appears in Japanese film like their infamous ''Guinea Pig'' movie series, or their "pink" films (and  no, I am ''not'' suggesting here that the uber-violent films should be banned simply because they upset the sensibilities of many people any more than lolicon should). When it comes  to the erotic admiration of girls' (or boys') youthful beauty, that is waaaayyy over the line of decency that no enlightened society should ever tolerate. Bring on the violence and butchery any day, but leave the "innocence" of underagers alone, damn it!


MAA, a political blanket term covering both pedophiles and hebephiles]. Just don't
Author Thorpe also points out that the large prevalence of lolicon production in Japan is "even more disturbing" than the idea of admiring younger people "in that way." Hmmmm, could this possibly mean that such an attraction is relatively ''common''? Could this mean that hebephilia (and maybe even true pedophilia) is not as rare as enlightened Americans like Thorpe would like to believe? Could it mean that adult attraction to younger people might be as "normal" as adult attraction to members of the same gender despite its social unpopularity amongst conservative factions in Western society?


expect anyone to accept that such a character can possibly have any shades of gray
Are such a vast amount of adults in Japan truly so disproportionately depraved compared to us open-minded and enlightened folks in the West, or can it simply be that the huge amount of legal, cultural, and social oppression of MAAs in America and its fellow Western nations causes the bulk of pedophiles and hebephiles native to the West to stay far inside the closet? I'm sure the thought that hebephilia and pedophilia could be as common in America as they are in Japan is just too unsettling a thought for Mr. Thorpe to consider! It's much better to follow the party line of the American media than it is to do your own thinking or research on this subject.


in his persona, or any degree of complexity of character at all. If he is written as
Here is the kicker from this section of Thorpe's article: "Though the studies aren't exactly concrete, many do suggest that the prevalence of lolicon in Japan has reportedly led to significantly increased sex crime rates against children and teens."
 
a pedophile, he is '''''evil'''''. He is psychotic. His mind is more depraved than that
 
of a serial killer, because let's face it, everyone knows that actually murdering
 
and cutting people to pieces is by far the lesser evil than some grown man who
 
simply ''thinks'' about how sexy a girl under 18 is, regardless of whether or not
 
he actually does something as gut-wrenchingly horrifying as sharing a mutually
 
desired kiss on the lips with her. After all, serial killers merely take the lives
 
of adult women in usually incredibly painful and sadistic ways--they do not do the
 
far more horrible thing that MAAs do:  they do not steal the indescribably beautiful
 
"innocence" of young girls by engaging in mutually consensual sexual activity
 
that may bring the girl so much pleasure that the poor naive and idiotic child may
 
actually have ''no idea whatsoever'' that she actually hated it, and had
 
something so incredibly precious stolen from her! So it's easy to see why MAAs are
 
hated by everyone, and considered to have no gray in their character whatsoever,
 
while even a serial killer can be depicted as an emotionally complex character with
 
arguably commendable traits in a popular TV series on Showtime. Just imagine an MAA
 
character being depicted as anything less than a total bag of filth in human form,
 
and being shown to display even an ounce of humanity in an ongoing TV series aired
 
during today's climate.
 
 
 
Far be it from the usually prescient people who bring us the uberly-hilarious and
 
usually insightful online zine Cracked.com to risk bucking such a popular trend by
 
attempting to be any more open-minded or informed about this hot button topic than
 
anyone else. Which brings us to
 
[http://www.cracked.com/article_18568_the-5-greatest-books-with-psychotic-fanbases_p2.html  this article]
 
by Connor Thorpe describing the "5 Greatest Books With
 
Psychotic Fan Bases," a list that includes (at number one, no less!) the classic
 
novel ''Lolita''. Take a wild guess who Nabakov's infamous tome has as a
 
"psychotic" fan base? I'll give you a small hint if you can't figure it out on your
 
own--it isn't Trekkies, in case that was your first guess.
 
 
 
As you can see from reading the article, author Thorpe's problem isn't so much
 
the "pedophiles" in America, who are rightfully ostracized and denied even the
 
meager right to look at computer generated images of fully-clothed minors if there
 
is ''any possibility'' they might become aroused by viewing the fictitious
 
simulation of a girl, but rather the the "pedophiles" of Japan, since they actually
 
have legalized lolicon! Okay, though ''Lolita'' was actually about a hebephile,
 
not a pedophile, and the largest amount of lolicon features young teen girls rather
 
than little girls, why squabble over a simple term when the one being used invokes
 
the strongest mental reaction in people than another more accurate term that would
 
pack far less of an emotional punch in the gut, right? I mean, since accuracy is
 
rarely the forte of any article that purports to discuss pedophilia and/or
 
hebephilia, why expect any one single detail to be accurate, no matter how obvious
 
the detail (i.e., the obvious physical differences between children and
 
adolescents), right?
 
 
 
Let's look at some of the highlights of the section of Thorpe's article that
 
presents such a humorous (read: laughable) condemnation of ''Lolita'''s
 
contemptible fan base of evil "pedophiles" and my response to each of them:
 
 
 
"Vladimir Nabokov's ''Lolita'' is the story of the unfortunately named Humbert
 
Humbert, a middle-aged professor who's also basically a deranged pedophile.
 
Humbert kidnaps a young girl, Lolita, and travels the country with her, until she runs off
 
with another middle-aged man [Quilty]."
 
 
 
Um, Humbert is deranged? Granted, he isn't depicted as a saint in the book, and
 
he certainly isn't a role model for any hebephile (or actual pedophile) to follow,
 
of course, but he's hardly Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers--then again, the latter
 
two characters merely brutally murdered numerous people in hideously grotesque ways,
 
and the unfortunately named Humbert has a romantic/physical preference for young
 
adolescent girls--I would hate to further besmirch the character of Lecter or Myers
 
by comparing them to the likes of Humbert!
 
 
 
And Humbert kidnapped Lolita? From what I recall from reading the book, he simply took legal custody
 
of her when his wife Charlotte, who was Lolita's mom, died after being struck by a car, and Lolita didn't resist
 
going with him in any way because she shared the attraction to Humbert. Of course, I
 
wouldn't expect Thorpe to mention an insignificant little detail like that because
 
it might make Humbert look ever so slightly less vile, and I can understand him not
 
wanting to take that chance. So it's better to use the word "kidnapping," because
 
every ignorant, er, smart person knows that under no conceivable circumstance would
 
any girl on the planet, regardless of her personal preferences or individual level
 
of experience, willingly go anywhere with a filthy "pedophile" like Humbert.


Um, Mr. Thorpe needs to get his facts straight, if that isn't too much to ask of  someone when they are doing something as innocuous and socially acceptable as bashing pedophiles and hebephiles.


One need look to the Research section of Newgon on [[Research:_Child_Pornography|child pornography]] to find cited quotations from numerous studies, most of which were not conducted by MAAs, and one of which even dealt directly with the prevalence of sex crimes against minors in Japan, that make it quite clear that contrary to Thorpe's statement there is no convincing confirmation whatsoever that viewing erotic material featuring minors is any more likely to increase an adult's chances of committing a sex crime against a child or teen than viewing adult pornography is likely to cause an adult man to sexually assault a woman. I will directly quote the report specifically dealing with sex crimes against minors in Japan, since the Japanese acceptance of adult attraction to young adolescents was the prime "offender" in Thorpe's article:
   
   
"Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). 'Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan,' International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 1-22.


"The term ''lolicon'' specifically refers to animated pornography that depicts
"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."
 
children [specifically girls] in an erotic context. Even more disturbing? The sheer
 
volume: almost half of the animated porn released in Japan every year (which is,
 
like, all of it; they seriously love to hump cartoons in the Land of the Rising Sun)
 
fits comfortably into the lolicon genre."
 
 
 
Hmmm, yea, the depiction of underage girls in an erotic context, and
 
acknowledging their physical attraction in any way, shape, or form, is indeed
 
disturbing. Much more so, in fact, than any depiction of extraordinarily graphic
 
violence and torture that routinely appears in Japanese film like their infamous
 
''Guinea Pig'' movie series, or their "pink" films (and  no, I am ''not''
 
suggesting here that the uber-violent films should be banned simply because they
 
upset the sensibilities of many people any more than lolicon should). When it comes
 
to the erotic admiration of girls' (or boys') youthful beauty, that is waaaayyy over
 
the line of decency that no enlightened society should ever tolerate. Bring on the
 
violence and butchery any day, but leave the "innocence" of underagers alone, damn
 
it!
 
 
 
Author Thorpe also points out that the large prevalence of lolicon production in
 
Japan is "even more disturbing" than the idea of admiring younger people "in that
 
way." Hmmmm, could this possibly mean that such an attraction is relatively ''common''?
 
Could this mean that hebephilia (and maybe even true pedophilia) is not as rare as
 
enlightened Americans like Thorpe would like to believe? Could it mean that adult
 
attraction to younger people might be as "normal" as adult attraction to members of
 
the same gender despite its social unpopularity amongst conservative factions in Western society?
 
Are such a vast amount
 
of adults in Japan truly so disproportionately depraved compared to us open-minded
 
and enlightened folks in the West, or can it simply be that the huge amount of
 
legal, cultural, and social oppression of MAAs in America and its fellow Western
 
nations causes the bulk of pedophiles and hebephiles native to the West to stay far
 
inside the closet? I'm sure the thought that hebephilia and pedophilia could be as
 
common in America as they are in Japan is just too unsettling a thought for Mr.
 
Thorpe to consider! It's much better to follow the party line of the American media
 
than it is to do your own thinking or research on this subject.
 
 
 
Here is the kicker from this section of Thorpe's article:
 
 
"Though the studies aren't exactly concrete, many do suggest that the prevalence of
 
lolicon in Japan has reportedly led to significantly increased sex crime rates
 
against children and teens."
 
 
 
Um, Mr. Thorpe needs to get his facts straight, if that isn't too much to ask of
 
someone when they are doing something as innocuous and socially acceptable as
 
bashing pedophiles and hebephiles.
 
 
 
One need look to the Research section of Newgon on
 
[http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:_Child_Pornography  Child Pornography] to find
 
cited quotations from numerous studies, most of which were not conducted by MAAs,
 
and one of which even dealt directly with the prevalence of sex crimes against
 
minors in Japan, that make it quite clear that contrary to Thorpe's statement there
 
is no convincing confirmation whatsoever that viewing erotic material featuring
 
minors is any more likely to increase an adult's chances of committing a sex crime
 
against a child or teen than viewing adult pornography is likely to cause an adult
 
man to sexually assault a woman. I will directly quote the report specifically
 
dealing with sex crimes against minors in Japan, since the Japanese acceptance of
 
adult attraction to young adolescents was the prime "offender" in Thorpe's article:
 
 
 
"Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). 'Pornography, rape, and sex crimes
 
in Japan,' International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 1-22.
 
 
 
"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting  
 
minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease  
 
in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists  
 
and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in  
 
pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any  
 
detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the  
 
opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every  
 
period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of  
 
some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the  
 
females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than  
 
13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."
 
 
 
   
   
Note to Mr. Thorpe: I understand that bashing pedophilia and hebephilia, and  
Note to Mr. Thorpe: I understand that bashing pedophilia and hebephilia, and denouncing these poorly understood and poorly researched attraction bases is the "in" thing for almost everyone to do these days, and I also understand how important it is for Americans and other Westerners to pass judgement on cultural differences in nations that exist outside of the West that our own customs do not personally agree with--along with confusing our "normative" tastes with laws of nature--but please at least show us the courtesy to do your research effectively and provide citations to back up such claims, even if such claims are widely accepted and most of your readers do not care if you say inaccurate things about a certain social phenomenon as long as the targeted group is unpopular enough. Cracked.com is an awesome site, and it would be even more so if you guys showed equal care for accuracy regardless of what topic you are covering. Further, the site would be a truly refreshing face in a sea of mindless and ignorant condemnation if you actually made fun of the hysteria itself rather than mindlessly joining in on it.
 
denouncing these poorly understood and poorly researched attraction bases is the  
 
"in" thing for almost everyone to do these days, and I also understand how important  
 
it is for Americans and other Westerners to pass judgement on cultural differences  
 
in nations that exist outside of the West that our own customs do not personally  
 
agree with--along with confusing our "normative" tastes with laws of nature--but  
 
please at least show us the courtesy to do your research effectively and provide  
 
citations to back up such claims, even if such claims are widely accepted and most  
 
of your readers do not care if you say inaccurate things about a certain social  
 
phenomenon as long as the targeted group is unpopular enough. Cracked.com is an  
 
awesome site, and it would be even more so if you guys showed equal care for  
 
accuracy regardless of what topic you are covering. Further, the site would be a  
 
truly refreshing face in a sea of mindless and ignorant condemnation if you actually  
 
made fun of the hysteria itself rather than mindlessly joining in on it.
 
 
 


"The message of ''Lolita'' is hardly 'pedophiles are awesome!'"
"The message of ''Lolita'' is hardly 'pedophiles are awesome!'"


I don't think any MAA, be they a pedophile or hebephile, has ever interpreted that as the message behind Nabokov's book. We simply perceive it as a character study of a hebephile, and Humbert is hardly considered a role model for hebephiles and pedophiles to follow, but he was depicted as a complex character who wasn't unequivocally evil, but had issues that were largely related to the way his attraction base was treated by society. That didn't make much of his behavior in the book ethically right, of course, but it did put it into important context.


"In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame."


I don't think any MAA, be they a pedophile or hebephile, has ever interpreted
I guess the Japanese do an injustice to what happened at the end of Nabokov's novel every time they do a story involving a hebephiliac relationship that doesn't end in horrible tragedy for all concerned, right, Mr. Thorpe? Oh, and by the way, not every story touching on this theme in Japanese manga or cinema is patterned after Nabokov's book. The tradition of society-wide admiration for the beauty of young girls in the Land of the Rising Sun goes back long before Nabokov's novel saw the light of publication. The Japanese have never needed Nabokov's "encouragement" to feel that it's not the epitome of vileness or evil to admire the erotic aspects of young girl beauty.  
 
that as the message behind Nabokov's book. We simply perceive it as a character
 
study of a hebephile, and Humbert is hardly considered a role model for hebephiles
 
and pedophiles to follow, but he was depicted as a complex character who wasn't
 
unequivocally evil, but had issues that were largely related to the way his
 
attraction base was treated by society. That didn't make much of his behavior in the book
 
ethically right, of course, but it did put it into important context.
 
 
 
"In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody
 
dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure
 
the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into
 
the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame."
 
 
 
 
 
 
I guess the Japanese do an injustice to what happened at the end of Nabokov's  
 
novel every time they do a story involving a hebephiliac relationship that doesn't  
 
end in horrible tragedy for all concerned, right, Mr. Thorpe? Oh, and by the way,  
 
not every story touching on this theme in Japanese manga or cinema is patterned  
 
after Nabokov's book. The tradition of society-wide admiration for the beauty of  
 
young girls in the Land of the Rising Sun goes back long before Nabokov's novel saw  
 
the light of publication. The Japanese have never needed Nabokov's "encouragement"  
 
to feel that it's not the epitome of vileness or evil to admire the erotic aspects  
 
of young girl beauty.
 
 
 
 
 
"Most of the interpretations of Nabokov's famous novel point to Humbert being
 
a gigantic collection of dick-shaped blobs--a completely and utterly reprehensible
 
human being that should by no means be emulated. Nabokov himself even hated the
 
character, as evidenced by the fact that ''he wrote him as a goddamn pedophile''
 
[emphasis in original]."
 
 
 
 
First of all, where does Mr. Thorpe get the impression that any hebephiles (or
 
pedophiles) anywhere in the world are trying to emulate Humbert when they openly
 
express their admiration for young girl attractiveness? I have yet to meet a fellow
 
MAA who finds Humbert worthy of emulation. And newsflash, Mr. Thorpe: the great
 
majority of MAAs are decent people who do not act like Humbert or Quilty in our
 
personal dealings with people of any age simply because we have an unpopular
 
attraction base that disgusts you and much of the rest of "polite society." We are
 
as multi-faceted and diverse in character traits and range of interests as any human
 
being with a socially acceptable attraction base.  


"Most of the interpretations of Nabokov's famous novel point to Humbert being a gigantic collection of dick-shaped blobs--a completely and utterly reprehensible human being that should by no means be emulated. Nabokov himself even hated the character, as evidenced by the fact that ''he wrote him as a goddamn pedophile'' [emphasis in original]."


First of all, where does Mr. Thorpe get the impression that any hebephiles (or pedophiles) anywhere in the world are trying to emulate Humbert when they openly express their admiration for young girl attractiveness? I have yet to meet a fellow MAA who finds Humbert worthy of emulation. And newsflash, Mr. Thorpe: the great majority of MAAs are decent people who do not act like Humbert or Quilty in our personal dealings with people of any age simply because we have an unpopular attraction base that disgusts you and much of the rest of "polite society." We are as multi-faceted and diverse in character traits and range of interests as any human being with a socially acceptable attraction base.


As for your contention that Nabokov "obviously" hated Humbert simply because he wrote him as a "pedophile," well that is certainly on target since no individual or character so obviously deserves condemnation and hatred more than a pedophile or hebephile, and there is no way in hell that anyone can possibly like an MAA since it's quite "obvious" that all of us are psychos and monsters who cannot possibly have a single positive quality to our character considering our icky attraction base, correct? And also by the way, Mr. Thorpe, are you aware that sexual crimes against children and teens are extremely rare outside of the home and other institutions (such as boarding schools) where adults have the greatest degree of ''power and control'' over minors, and that most real child molesters ''do not'' have a preferential attraction towards minors? If real MAAs were as universally evil and depraved as you seem to think, crimes against children and teens by adults who did not live in the same home with them would be astronomical in number, as opposed to the rare crime that it actually is.


 
Should I have expected better from one of Cracked.com's authors when tackling this issue? I suppose not, because some trends are just too popular to risk going against via a modicum of open-mindedness and attempts at accurate research. I certainly hope that none of Mr. Thorpe's family or close friends--especially not one of his children--turns out to be an MAA, or they will be quite reluctant to ever be honest with him about these feelings--despite the fact that they didn't choose this attraction base any more than a mainstream homosexual chose to be gay, nor will his articles contribute to their sense of self-worth as human beings above and beyond their attraction base.
 
As for your contention that Nabokov "obviously" hated Humbert simply because he
 
wrote him as a "pedophile," well that is certainly on target since no individual or
 
character so obviously deserves condemnation and hatred more than a pedophile or
 
hebephile, and there is no way in hell that anyone can possibly like an MAA since
 
it's quite "obvious" that all of us are psychos and monsters who cannot possibly
 
have a single positive quality to our character considering our icky attraction
 
base, correct? And also by the way, Mr. Thorpe, are you aware that sexual crimes
 
against children and teens are extremely rare outside of the home and other
 
institutions (such as boarding schools) where adults have the greatest degree of
 
''power and control'' over minors, and that most real child molesters ''do not'' have a
 
preferential attraction towards minors? If real MAAs were as universally evil
 
and depraved as you seem to think, crimes against children and teens by adults who
 
did not live in the same home with them would be astronomical in number, as opposed
 
to the rare crime that it actually is.
 
 
 
 
Should I have expected better from one of Cracked.com's authors when tackling  
 
this issue? I suppose not, because some trends are just too popular to risk going  
 
against via a modicum of open-mindedness and attempts at accurate research. I  
 
certainly hope that none of Mr. Thorpe's family or close friends--especially not one  
 
of his children--turns out to be an MAA, or they will be quite reluctant to ever be  
 
honest with him about these feelings--despite the fact that they didn't choose this  
 
attraction base any more than a mainstream homosexual chose to be gay, nor will his  
 
articles contribute to their sense of self-worth as human beings above and beyond  
 
their attraction base.
 


For a quick '''addendum''' on this essay, my fellow activist Baldur made this observation in regards to how Japanese stories tend to conclude:
For a quick '''addendum''' on this essay, my fellow activist Baldur made this observation in regards to how Japanese stories tend to conclude:


"The author you quote [Mr. Thorpe] writes:
"The author you quote [Mr. Thorpe] writes:


"'In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame.'
"'In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame.'


"The author doesn't seem to understand Japanese literature. A novel in which all the most important characters die at the end...is typical, and has nothing to do with whether those characters are considered noble or ignoble."
"The author doesn't seem to understand Japanese literature. A novel in which all the most important characters die at the end...is typical, and has nothing to do with whether those characters are considered noble or ignoble."
 
[[Category:Dissident's essays]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Revision as of 06:26, 19 September 2011

by Dissident

Everybody hates pedophiles (and hebephiles, of course, but too few people these days have the slightest interest in making the distinction anyway, so you know what I mean). Hating and attacking pedophilia in a mindless, knee-jerk manner is a bona fide trend. It's a trend that is equally popular among conservatives and liberals alike, which is saying something! If you want to cast any literary character in a bad light, make him (or her) into a pedophile [i.e., a Minor Attracted Adult, or MAA, a political blanket term covering both pedophiles and hebephiles]. Just don't expect anyone to accept that such a character can possibly have any shades of gray in his persona, or any degree of complexity of character at all. If he is written as a pedophile, he is evil. He is psychotic. His mind is more depraved than that of a serial killer, because let's face it, everyone knows that actually murdering and cutting people to pieces is by far the lesser evil than some grown man who simply thinks about how sexy a girl under 18 is, regardless of whether or not he actually does something as gut-wrenchingly horrifying as sharing a mutually desired kiss on the lips with her. After all, serial killers merely take the lives of adult women in usually incredibly painful and sadistic ways--they do not do the far more horrible thing that MAAs do: they do not steal the indescribably beautiful "innocence" of young girls by engaging in mutually consensual sexual activity that may bring the girl so much pleasure that the poor naive and idiotic child may actually have no idea whatsoever that she actually hated it, and had something so incredibly precious stolen from her! So it's easy to see why MAAs are hated by everyone, and considered to have no gray in their character whatsoever, while even a serial killer can be depicted as an emotionally complex character with arguably commendable traits in a popular TV series on Showtime. Just imagine an MAA character being depicted as anything less than a total bag of filth in human form, and being shown to display even an ounce of humanity in an ongoing TV series aired during today's climate.

Far be it from the usually prescient people who bring us the uberly-hilarious and usually insightful online zine Cracked.com to risk bucking such a popular trend by attempting to be any more open-minded or informed about this hot button topic than anyone else. Which brings us to this article by Connor Thorpe describing the "5 Greatest Books With Psychotic Fan Bases," a list that includes (at number one, no less!) the classic novel Lolita. Take a wild guess who Nabakov's infamous tome has as a "psychotic" fan base? I'll give you a small hint if you can't figure it out on your own--it isn't Trekkies, in case that was your first guess.

As you can see from reading the article, author Thorpe's problem isn't so much the "pedophiles" in America, who are rightfully ostracized and denied even the meager right to look at computer generated images of fully-clothed minors if there is any possibility they might become aroused by viewing the fictitious simulation of a girl, but rather the the "pedophiles" of Japan, since they actually have legalized lolicon! Okay, though Lolita was actually about a hebephile, not a pedophile, and the largest amount of lolicon features young teen girls rather than little girls, why squabble over a simple term when the one being used invokes the strongest mental reaction in people than another more accurate term that would pack far less of an emotional punch in the gut, right? I mean, since accuracy is rarely the forte of any article that purports to discuss pedophilia and/or hebephilia, why expect any one single detail to be accurate, no matter how obvious the detail (i.e., the obvious physical differences between children and adolescents), right?

Let's look at some of the highlights of the section of Thorpe's article that presents such a humorous (read: laughable) condemnation of Lolita's contemptible fan base of evil "pedophiles" and my response to each of them:

"Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita is the story of the unfortunately named Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged professor who's also basically a deranged pedophile. Humbert kidnaps a young girl, Lolita, and travels the country with her, until she runs off with another middle-aged man [Quilty]."

Um, Humbert is deranged? Granted, he isn't depicted as a saint in the book, and he certainly isn't a role model for any hebephile (or actual pedophile) to follow, of course, but he's hardly Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers--then again, the latter two characters merely brutally murdered numerous people in hideously grotesque ways, and the unfortunately named Humbert has a romantic/physical preference for young adolescent girls--I would hate to further besmirch the character of Lecter or Myers by comparing them to the likes of Humbert!

And Humbert kidnapped Lolita? From what I recall from reading the book, he simply took legal custody of her when his wife Charlotte, who was Lolita's mom, died after being struck by a car, and Lolita didn't resist going with him in any way because she shared the attraction to Humbert. Of course, I wouldn't expect Thorpe to mention an insignificant little detail like that because it might make Humbert look ever so slightly less vile, and I can understand him not wanting to take that chance. So it's better to use the word "kidnapping," because every ignorant, er, smart person knows that under no conceivable circumstance would any girl on the planet, regardless of her personal preferences or individual level of experience, willingly go anywhere with a filthy "pedophile" like Humbert.

"The term lolicon specifically refers to animated pornography that depicts children [specifically girls] in an erotic context. Even more disturbing? The sheer volume: almost half of the animated porn released in Japan every year (which is, like, all of it; they seriously love to hump cartoons in the Land of the Rising Sun) fits comfortably into the lolicon genre."

Hmmm, yea, the depiction of underage girls in an erotic context, and acknowledging their physical attraction in any way, shape, or form, is indeed disturbing. Much more so, in fact, than any depiction of extraordinarily graphic violence and torture that routinely appears in Japanese film like their infamous Guinea Pig movie series, or their "pink" films (and no, I am not suggesting here that the uber-violent films should be banned simply because they upset the sensibilities of many people any more than lolicon should). When it comes to the erotic admiration of girls' (or boys') youthful beauty, that is waaaayyy over the line of decency that no enlightened society should ever tolerate. Bring on the violence and butchery any day, but leave the "innocence" of underagers alone, damn it!

Author Thorpe also points out that the large prevalence of lolicon production in Japan is "even more disturbing" than the idea of admiring younger people "in that way." Hmmmm, could this possibly mean that such an attraction is relatively common? Could this mean that hebephilia (and maybe even true pedophilia) is not as rare as enlightened Americans like Thorpe would like to believe? Could it mean that adult attraction to younger people might be as "normal" as adult attraction to members of the same gender despite its social unpopularity amongst conservative factions in Western society?

Are such a vast amount of adults in Japan truly so disproportionately depraved compared to us open-minded and enlightened folks in the West, or can it simply be that the huge amount of legal, cultural, and social oppression of MAAs in America and its fellow Western nations causes the bulk of pedophiles and hebephiles native to the West to stay far inside the closet? I'm sure the thought that hebephilia and pedophilia could be as common in America as they are in Japan is just too unsettling a thought for Mr. Thorpe to consider! It's much better to follow the party line of the American media than it is to do your own thinking or research on this subject.

Here is the kicker from this section of Thorpe's article: "Though the studies aren't exactly concrete, many do suggest that the prevalence of lolicon in Japan has reportedly led to significantly increased sex crime rates against children and teens."

Um, Mr. Thorpe needs to get his facts straight, if that isn't too much to ask of someone when they are doing something as innocuous and socially acceptable as bashing pedophiles and hebephiles.

One need look to the Research section of Newgon on child pornography to find cited quotations from numerous studies, most of which were not conducted by MAAs, and one of which even dealt directly with the prevalence of sex crimes against minors in Japan, that make it quite clear that contrary to Thorpe's statement there is no convincing confirmation whatsoever that viewing erotic material featuring minors is any more likely to increase an adult's chances of committing a sex crime against a child or teen than viewing adult pornography is likely to cause an adult man to sexually assault a woman. I will directly quote the report specifically dealing with sex crimes against minors in Japan, since the Japanese acceptance of adult attraction to young adolescents was the prime "offender" in Thorpe's article:

"Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). 'Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan,' International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 1-22.

"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."

Note to Mr. Thorpe: I understand that bashing pedophilia and hebephilia, and denouncing these poorly understood and poorly researched attraction bases is the "in" thing for almost everyone to do these days, and I also understand how important it is for Americans and other Westerners to pass judgement on cultural differences in nations that exist outside of the West that our own customs do not personally agree with--along with confusing our "normative" tastes with laws of nature--but please at least show us the courtesy to do your research effectively and provide citations to back up such claims, even if such claims are widely accepted and most of your readers do not care if you say inaccurate things about a certain social phenomenon as long as the targeted group is unpopular enough. Cracked.com is an awesome site, and it would be even more so if you guys showed equal care for accuracy regardless of what topic you are covering. Further, the site would be a truly refreshing face in a sea of mindless and ignorant condemnation if you actually made fun of the hysteria itself rather than mindlessly joining in on it.

"The message of Lolita is hardly 'pedophiles are awesome!'"

I don't think any MAA, be they a pedophile or hebephile, has ever interpreted that as the message behind Nabokov's book. We simply perceive it as a character study of a hebephile, and Humbert is hardly considered a role model for hebephiles and pedophiles to follow, but he was depicted as a complex character who wasn't unequivocally evil, but had issues that were largely related to the way his attraction base was treated by society. That didn't make much of his behavior in the book ethically right, of course, but it did put it into important context.

"In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame."

I guess the Japanese do an injustice to what happened at the end of Nabokov's novel every time they do a story involving a hebephiliac relationship that doesn't end in horrible tragedy for all concerned, right, Mr. Thorpe? Oh, and by the way, not every story touching on this theme in Japanese manga or cinema is patterned after Nabokov's book. The tradition of society-wide admiration for the beauty of young girls in the Land of the Rising Sun goes back long before Nabokov's novel saw the light of publication. The Japanese have never needed Nabokov's "encouragement" to feel that it's not the epitome of vileness or evil to admire the erotic aspects of young girl beauty.

"Most of the interpretations of Nabokov's famous novel point to Humbert being a gigantic collection of dick-shaped blobs--a completely and utterly reprehensible human being that should by no means be emulated. Nabokov himself even hated the character, as evidenced by the fact that he wrote him as a goddamn pedophile [emphasis in original]."

First of all, where does Mr. Thorpe get the impression that any hebephiles (or pedophiles) anywhere in the world are trying to emulate Humbert when they openly express their admiration for young girl attractiveness? I have yet to meet a fellow MAA who finds Humbert worthy of emulation. And newsflash, Mr. Thorpe: the great majority of MAAs are decent people who do not act like Humbert or Quilty in our personal dealings with people of any age simply because we have an unpopular attraction base that disgusts you and much of the rest of "polite society." We are as multi-faceted and diverse in character traits and range of interests as any human being with a socially acceptable attraction base.

As for your contention that Nabokov "obviously" hated Humbert simply because he wrote him as a "pedophile," well that is certainly on target since no individual or character so obviously deserves condemnation and hatred more than a pedophile or hebephile, and there is no way in hell that anyone can possibly like an MAA since it's quite "obvious" that all of us are psychos and monsters who cannot possibly have a single positive quality to our character considering our icky attraction base, correct? And also by the way, Mr. Thorpe, are you aware that sexual crimes against children and teens are extremely rare outside of the home and other institutions (such as boarding schools) where adults have the greatest degree of power and control over minors, and that most real child molesters do not have a preferential attraction towards minors? If real MAAs were as universally evil and depraved as you seem to think, crimes against children and teens by adults who did not live in the same home with them would be astronomical in number, as opposed to the rare crime that it actually is.

Should I have expected better from one of Cracked.com's authors when tackling this issue? I suppose not, because some trends are just too popular to risk going against via a modicum of open-mindedness and attempts at accurate research. I certainly hope that none of Mr. Thorpe's family or close friends--especially not one of his children--turns out to be an MAA, or they will be quite reluctant to ever be honest with him about these feelings--despite the fact that they didn't choose this attraction base any more than a mainstream homosexual chose to be gay, nor will his articles contribute to their sense of self-worth as human beings above and beyond their attraction base.

For a quick addendum on this essay, my fellow activist Baldur made this observation in regards to how Japanese stories tend to conclude:

"The author you quote [Mr. Thorpe] writes:

"'In fact, it's pretty much the exact fucking opposite. Remember how everybody dies and all? We don't know how the translation was handled, but we're pretty sure the Japanese version didn't end with all the characters laughing and leaping into the air for an '80s sitcom style freeze-frame.'

"The author doesn't seem to understand Japanese literature. A novel in which all the most important characters die at the end...is typical, and has nothing to do with whether those characters are considered noble or ignoble."