Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Authoritarian Ignorance the Norm of Hyped-up Public re: Demonized Groups like pedophiles
The depth of the grip that professional social and cultural managers have pioneered upon Leftists (and their followers) today should probably come as no surprise when we understand the amount of money and energy going into Rightwing *Rollback* since the mid-1970s. Chomsky and others have exposed this framework, yet most of an insightfully hysterified public continues to uncritically trust therapists and other social managers' propaganda as "objective information."
2002: You are properly under control again, as you are to be, so believe policymakers as outlined by Noam Chomsky and others. Your owners and managers don't want you to get out of hand like you did in the 1960s and 70s--where you began distrusting coercive authority in a big way; you're back to uncritically accepting and trusting the "scientific" "objectivity" and "helpful wisdom" of your Betters because this is where you must be. Anything else is defined as a "crisis of democracy", as you can learn about at:
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/crisis_html
And so, when your Betters "inform" you about entire groups of people (comparitively weak in the macro side of social politics) you enthusiastically and "sanely" pass around the "information" as "scientific fact." Nevermind the games played by such scientists themselves:
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99118_rbt_defense_nov99.htm
Who summarize:
"Nine months after publication in Psychological Bulletin, our analysis of the college student data came under intense attack by the radical right with assistance from traumatologists associated with the left. This controversy recently culminated with the U.S. House of Representatives condemning the article in a 355-0 vote. We will briefly summarize the methods and findings of our analyses, then focus on subsequent events."
But no matter what *we* say, or whether we risk our safety to speak up in a society replete with hysteria, you will do as you have been so well trained to do. And when your masters have a new distraction/scapegoat for you to foam at the mouth over, you'll jump right into it like the "stupid fools" your masters want you to do!
So much for the future idea of people being able to find serious ways of getting along in peace and justice.
Simply, because YOU are not being affected (at this point) by these bigoted methods of attacking an entire class of human interaction (real rape, nonconsensual, AND *consensual*), you don't ask significant questions about how the " nice and friendly" professionals you have been trained to trust in continue to keep you in the dark (and fooled and right where you are needed to be: defending those who don't have your interests in mind!). So you INSIST that sexual dissidents GET "HELP" from the same unaccountable institutions you blindly trust in! Either we submit to authoritarian coercions ("help") or you kill us if you can find us.
With all this in mind, I'm including some information for those of you who may allow yourselves to actually scrutinize this issue. There *is* a side of the truth that you have missed! Please take the responsibility to look into our claims! (And remember, the VALUE of love is as meaningful for young people and their older, and adult friends (now caught up in the raging hysteria and allowed no voice) as you VALUE love with your adult partners. And just as inspiring and beautiful)
With all that said, here's something from an anarchist:
"You can cite whatever scientific or moral "point of view" you wish to help justify the suppression of freedom. Obviously, the points of view of psycho-cops and moralists will always remain violently opposed to the expression of individual and social freedom. But please don't fool yourself that you're doing anything but arguing the the suppression of freedom by any such citations. On the other hand, the value of having cops and moralists on your side evaporates when your goal has nothing to do with repression. And those genuinely concerned with freedom are more inclined to look at things
sympathetically from the points of view of the victims of psycho-cops and moralists, rather than from the points of view of the enforcers of authoritarian norms." JM in Anarchy, #30
Now, 5 Q/A on the topic (I'll put the rest up later)
1) ISN'T SO-CALLED CHILD "LOVE" JUST A FRAUDULENT WAY OF SAYING CHILD MOLESTATION?
2)AT WHAT AGE SHOULD A YOUNG PERSON BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX?
3) HOW CAN A KID REALLY GIVE "INFORMED" CONSENT?
4) WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO TO CHILDREN SEXUALLY?
5) WHAT ABOUT THE HARM THAT SEX DOES TO A CHILD?
(#6-20 to be published later)
1) ISN’T SO-CALLED CHILD "LOVE" JUST A FRAUDULENT WAY OF SAYING CHILD MOLESTATION?
No, the two are very different. Molestation is formed around activities that both parties don’t agree on, whether it’s sexual, physical, emotional, or psychological. I do not believe that all of these interactions, if gone about in a consciously consensual manner, always mean older people will take advantage of younger people.
2) AT WHAT AGE SHOULD A YOUNG PERSON BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX?
In our society it is this arbitrary confine of age that supposedly controls what a wide variety of individuals are "competent" to do. No one gets a chance to weigh each individual’s own desire or the fact that they themselves don’t look at their age and say: "Oh, that’s right, I’m too young to do this. I’d better stop."
In a book by noted educator John Holt (Escape From Childhood; 1974) he said that kids want desperately to "grow up" because they often know that to be a "child" in our society is to be seen to be like a dog, or as Holt says, a "superpet." If kids get the chance, they’ll try to escape the "prison garden of childhood." The question is, do we create a society that constructively helps young people to make the choices they want, thereby promoting the idea of teaching future democratic citizens via enrichment strategies, or do we continue resricting and forcing them to conform to basically totalitarian forms of socialization, in order to play word games in our lip service to assist the next generations to solve society's problems?
The truth is, there have already been many people who have tried to promote *protection by enrichment* strategies to future generations. The best contemporary example I know of is in the "unschooling" movement (not against learning, but against compulsory schooling and its oft-destructive consequences on kids' desire to learn). In many jurisdictions, reports "Growing Without Schooling" magazine, school managers have allowed students to virtually "come and go" from the compulsory classroom to the home and un-schooling world as they please! And, if you think that makes it harder to go to college, not so, says the magazine (in articles on this topic).
I think that people should try to get beyond the prejudice or ignorance they have about various minority groups they don’t understand. Because, it is really about two people --albiet deeply wounded by society’s long history of sex hysterias--who are able to care so authentically about each other that they wish to give each other pleasure in a society where such remains inanely taboo! The kind of full pleasures that "consenting adults" have found so important in their lives that they'll fight long battles for (i.e. the gay and lesbian, and larger sexual freedom movement).
Young people are "sexual" like their adults. Depending on their individuality, they may be curious about different styles of what is called "sexuality" in our cultures, or just love to have liberating interactions with older people--people whom they've been socialized to imagine as very different from them.
Engaging in the so-called "evil" interactions with such adults, kids often find that "adults" are just people too.
"Age of Consent" laws do not recognize or respect anyone’s individuality, kids or "adults". Such arbitrary restriction goes against our country’s basic ideals about "we the people" having the right to not only pursue our happiness, but be judged independently of all arbitrary limits like race, gender, class, or in this case, age.
3) HOW CAN A KID REALLY GIVE "INFORMED" CONSENT?
No matter what "age," no person can have a "total" understanding of all the ramifications of anything. That doesn’t mean that people must then be denied the freedom to do what they wish --provided that they respect the wishes of others. If a society seriously wishes to solve problems, it is probably a better idea to give more of an enriching education to its citizens than to give, say, a restrictive one.
An orientation to an enriching education allows individuals to genuinely explore ideas and ways of living that work hand in hand with extending meaningful democracy.
What enthusiastically alive kid would want to bow down to such a negative-oriented passion as restriction? Instead, they’d rather have the freedom to explore and play and have fun to their heart’s content! And, with this education via the broadest of spectrums, they’d learn to make intelligent decisions in tune with the needs of any democratic society --unlike their restricted peers, who at 18 or 21 haven’t learned to "handle" their new freedoms. The old addage: "put out their eyes and call them blind," comes to mind.
I believe that people must be allowed to enrich themselves with authentic decisions concerning their own lives. If they are allowed the freedom to choose in a society that protects via strategies of enrichment, then our democratic society will be the better for it.
4) WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO TO CHILDREN SEXUALLY?
Men, women, older boys and girls, (as well as kids’ peers) like to be intimate with each other! We boylovers and girl-lovers can express our affection in whatever manner we may find mutually exciting! That’s what all people want to do with each other if they’ve been able to "grow" beyond the sex-negative enculturation they get in our fear-oriented society.
5) WHAT ABOUT THE HARM THAT SEX DOES TO A CHILD?
Approximately one hundred years ago, "legitimate" representatives of the mental "health" community, including businessmen John Kellogg (with his Corn Flakes cure-all) and Sylvester Graham (with his helpful cracker), might have asked a similar question about the "harm" of masturbation --then called "self-abuse." We’ve gotten mostly over that one, knowing that hair doesn’t grow on our palms and that we don’t go insane from such heated activity.
But, even today, society still has its "hang-ups," saying that these mystical creatures called "children" are so different from "adults" that what their adults love to do is definitely not what "innocent" and "defenseless" tots want. How could such an "angel" want something as "disgusting" and "vulgar" as sex??
Independently-thinking people know that sex isn’t about "getting over on another" or "taking" a precious state of mind away from their partner(s). They know it is about enhancing human interactions and creating bonds that no other interaction is capable of doing.
The harm that does come is from a society that forces such desires into a world of secrecy and fear, where only parts of truth are tolerated to be "appropriate" and "discussable." Such tactics don’t "do away" with the "dysfunctional" desires, but instead often cause their victims to develop all sorts of tragic self-hatreds and alienations so that people like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy may form.
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/crisis_html
And so, when your Betters "inform" you about entire groups of people (comparitively weak in the macro side of social politics) you enthusiastically and "sanely" pass around the "information" as "scientific fact." Nevermind the games played by such scientists themselves:
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99118_rbt_defense_nov99.htm
Who summarize:
"Nine months after publication in Psychological Bulletin, our analysis of the college student data came under intense attack by the radical right with assistance from traumatologists associated with the left. This controversy recently culminated with the U.S. House of Representatives condemning the article in a 355-0 vote. We will briefly summarize the methods and findings of our analyses, then focus on subsequent events."
But no matter what *we* say, or whether we risk our safety to speak up in a society replete with hysteria, you will do as you have been so well trained to do. And when your masters have a new distraction/scapegoat for you to foam at the mouth over, you'll jump right into it like the "stupid fools" your masters want you to do!
So much for the future idea of people being able to find serious ways of getting along in peace and justice.
Simply, because YOU are not being affected (at this point) by these bigoted methods of attacking an entire class of human interaction (real rape, nonconsensual, AND *consensual*), you don't ask significant questions about how the " nice and friendly" professionals you have been trained to trust in continue to keep you in the dark (and fooled and right where you are needed to be: defending those who don't have your interests in mind!). So you INSIST that sexual dissidents GET "HELP" from the same unaccountable institutions you blindly trust in! Either we submit to authoritarian coercions ("help") or you kill us if you can find us.
With all this in mind, I'm including some information for those of you who may allow yourselves to actually scrutinize this issue. There *is* a side of the truth that you have missed! Please take the responsibility to look into our claims! (And remember, the VALUE of love is as meaningful for young people and their older, and adult friends (now caught up in the raging hysteria and allowed no voice) as you VALUE love with your adult partners. And just as inspiring and beautiful)
With all that said, here's something from an anarchist:
"You can cite whatever scientific or moral "point of view" you wish to help justify the suppression of freedom. Obviously, the points of view of psycho-cops and moralists will always remain violently opposed to the expression of individual and social freedom. But please don't fool yourself that you're doing anything but arguing the the suppression of freedom by any such citations. On the other hand, the value of having cops and moralists on your side evaporates when your goal has nothing to do with repression. And those genuinely concerned with freedom are more inclined to look at things
sympathetically from the points of view of the victims of psycho-cops and moralists, rather than from the points of view of the enforcers of authoritarian norms." JM in Anarchy, #30
Now, 5 Q/A on the topic (I'll put the rest up later)
1) ISN'T SO-CALLED CHILD "LOVE" JUST A FRAUDULENT WAY OF SAYING CHILD MOLESTATION?
2)AT WHAT AGE SHOULD A YOUNG PERSON BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX?
3) HOW CAN A KID REALLY GIVE "INFORMED" CONSENT?
4) WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO TO CHILDREN SEXUALLY?
5) WHAT ABOUT THE HARM THAT SEX DOES TO A CHILD?
(#6-20 to be published later)
1) ISN’T SO-CALLED CHILD "LOVE" JUST A FRAUDULENT WAY OF SAYING CHILD MOLESTATION?
No, the two are very different. Molestation is formed around activities that both parties don’t agree on, whether it’s sexual, physical, emotional, or psychological. I do not believe that all of these interactions, if gone about in a consciously consensual manner, always mean older people will take advantage of younger people.
2) AT WHAT AGE SHOULD A YOUNG PERSON BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX?
In our society it is this arbitrary confine of age that supposedly controls what a wide variety of individuals are "competent" to do. No one gets a chance to weigh each individual’s own desire or the fact that they themselves don’t look at their age and say: "Oh, that’s right, I’m too young to do this. I’d better stop."
In a book by noted educator John Holt (Escape From Childhood; 1974) he said that kids want desperately to "grow up" because they often know that to be a "child" in our society is to be seen to be like a dog, or as Holt says, a "superpet." If kids get the chance, they’ll try to escape the "prison garden of childhood." The question is, do we create a society that constructively helps young people to make the choices they want, thereby promoting the idea of teaching future democratic citizens via enrichment strategies, or do we continue resricting and forcing them to conform to basically totalitarian forms of socialization, in order to play word games in our lip service to assist the next generations to solve society's problems?
The truth is, there have already been many people who have tried to promote *protection by enrichment* strategies to future generations. The best contemporary example I know of is in the "unschooling" movement (not against learning, but against compulsory schooling and its oft-destructive consequences on kids' desire to learn). In many jurisdictions, reports "Growing Without Schooling" magazine, school managers have allowed students to virtually "come and go" from the compulsory classroom to the home and un-schooling world as they please! And, if you think that makes it harder to go to college, not so, says the magazine (in articles on this topic).
I think that people should try to get beyond the prejudice or ignorance they have about various minority groups they don’t understand. Because, it is really about two people --albiet deeply wounded by society’s long history of sex hysterias--who are able to care so authentically about each other that they wish to give each other pleasure in a society where such remains inanely taboo! The kind of full pleasures that "consenting adults" have found so important in their lives that they'll fight long battles for (i.e. the gay and lesbian, and larger sexual freedom movement).
Young people are "sexual" like their adults. Depending on their individuality, they may be curious about different styles of what is called "sexuality" in our cultures, or just love to have liberating interactions with older people--people whom they've been socialized to imagine as very different from them.
Engaging in the so-called "evil" interactions with such adults, kids often find that "adults" are just people too.
"Age of Consent" laws do not recognize or respect anyone’s individuality, kids or "adults". Such arbitrary restriction goes against our country’s basic ideals about "we the people" having the right to not only pursue our happiness, but be judged independently of all arbitrary limits like race, gender, class, or in this case, age.
3) HOW CAN A KID REALLY GIVE "INFORMED" CONSENT?
No matter what "age," no person can have a "total" understanding of all the ramifications of anything. That doesn’t mean that people must then be denied the freedom to do what they wish --provided that they respect the wishes of others. If a society seriously wishes to solve problems, it is probably a better idea to give more of an enriching education to its citizens than to give, say, a restrictive one.
An orientation to an enriching education allows individuals to genuinely explore ideas and ways of living that work hand in hand with extending meaningful democracy.
What enthusiastically alive kid would want to bow down to such a negative-oriented passion as restriction? Instead, they’d rather have the freedom to explore and play and have fun to their heart’s content! And, with this education via the broadest of spectrums, they’d learn to make intelligent decisions in tune with the needs of any democratic society --unlike their restricted peers, who at 18 or 21 haven’t learned to "handle" their new freedoms. The old addage: "put out their eyes and call them blind," comes to mind.
I believe that people must be allowed to enrich themselves with authentic decisions concerning their own lives. If they are allowed the freedom to choose in a society that protects via strategies of enrichment, then our democratic society will be the better for it.
4) WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO TO CHILDREN SEXUALLY?
Men, women, older boys and girls, (as well as kids’ peers) like to be intimate with each other! We boylovers and girl-lovers can express our affection in whatever manner we may find mutually exciting! That’s what all people want to do with each other if they’ve been able to "grow" beyond the sex-negative enculturation they get in our fear-oriented society.
5) WHAT ABOUT THE HARM THAT SEX DOES TO A CHILD?
Approximately one hundred years ago, "legitimate" representatives of the mental "health" community, including businessmen John Kellogg (with his Corn Flakes cure-all) and Sylvester Graham (with his helpful cracker), might have asked a similar question about the "harm" of masturbation --then called "self-abuse." We’ve gotten mostly over that one, knowing that hair doesn’t grow on our palms and that we don’t go insane from such heated activity.
But, even today, society still has its "hang-ups," saying that these mystical creatures called "children" are so different from "adults" that what their adults love to do is definitely not what "innocent" and "defenseless" tots want. How could such an "angel" want something as "disgusting" and "vulgar" as sex??
Independently-thinking people know that sex isn’t about "getting over on another" or "taking" a precious state of mind away from their partner(s). They know it is about enhancing human interactions and creating bonds that no other interaction is capable of doing.
The harm that does come is from a society that forces such desires into a world of secrecy and fear, where only parts of truth are tolerated to be "appropriate" and "discussable." Such tactics don’t "do away" with the "dysfunctional" desires, but instead often cause their victims to develop all sorts of tragic self-hatreds and alienations so that people like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy may form.
For more information:
http://twincities.indymedia.org/front.php3...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Anyway... there is an interesting section about "The Pedophile." Sections include: "The Myth," "The Facts," and "The Enemy is Us."
That particular section is available at http://www.upress.umn.edu/HarmfultoMinors.html
I hope that it gives you food for thought.
Peace.
People I know , whose recollections of their childhood experiences of this "love" I have heard, do not think it was so wonderful and lovely. They were frightened, physically ill, and confused. Many of them hate their abusers and wish they were killed violently for perpetrating these acts on their bodies.
This is not an expression of love! And no matter what you may dismiss as cultural indoctrination, terror and fear and loathing and pain are universal. Your presumption that children enjoy sexual abuse really disgusts.
Seriously though, where is this going? How many little prepubescent kids have fantasies about lecherous old men, do you think? Sure, little kids might have some undefined 'sexual feelings' prior to puberty, but they'd rather play games like 'doctor' with kids in their own age range, is my guess. To utilize an old cliché: When innocent children unwittingly take the candy from strangers, its because the children want the candy, not because they want to be tricked or forced into having a supposedly 'consensual' cock in their mouths, undeveloped vaginas, and/or up their anuses.
"Last Friday, a Utah judge handed down five concurrent five-year sentences to bigamist Tom Green. Note I did not say polygamist; I said bigamist, for that is what Tom Green is. Not only is he a bigamist, he is also a con artist and in fact of law, a rapist. The latter applies because one of his so-called ‘wives’ was 13 when he impregnated her, and under Utah law (as in any other state), that qualifies as statutory rape.
"At any rate, reliable sources show that more than half, and some say almost all, of sexual abuse is visited upon children by their own family members or parental substitutes. The federal government recorded over 217,000 cases in 1993 (fewer than the media hysteria would indicate, but still plenty). Research confirms what is intuitively clear: that the worst devastation is wrought not by sex per se but by the betrayal of the child's fundamental trust. And the closer the relation, the more forced or intimate the sex acts, and the longer and later in a child's life they persist, the more hurtful is the immediate trauma and longer-lasting the harm of incest. Incest is a qualitatively different experience from sex with a nonfamily adult; almost inevitably, the former is a lot worse."
So that makes the latter okay? It isn't. It still isn't right to force one's adult eroticism on children, or adolescents for that matter. When I was a teenager, I simply didn't have the experience or the intellectual ability to judge what was best for me in the sexual realm. I never dated an adult (thank god -- and no one I knew in middle or high school wanted to, for that matter), but if I had, I wouldn't have had the wits or better judgment to protect myself.
Sorry, you CANNOT say children and adolescents always know what's best for them. They are just beginning to sort things out, and are in a very precarious and volatile state which must be looked after and protected.
"Even those who don't buy Kincaid's claim that the cultural "we" are drooling over the prepubescent Macaulay Culkin cavorting through Home Alone in his underpants or Herman's metaphor of the family as incest incubator might be surprised to find that their own secret yearnings could be illegal. The vast majority of so-called pedophiles do not go out and ravage small children. So-called criminals are most often caught not touching but looking at something called child pornography (which I will get to in a moment). And their desired objects are not "children" but adolescents, about the age of the model Kate Moss at the start of her modeling career. "The clients are usually white, suburban, married businessmen who want a blow job from a teenage boy but don't consider themselves gay, and heterosexual men who seek out young girls," said Edith Springer, who worked for many years with teenage prostitutes in New York's Times Square. "I have never in all my years of therapy and counseling come across what the media advertise as a 'pedophile.'"
Well, again, so what? If society has fostered an image of the adolescent upon us as the be all and end all of sexual attraction, is it the fault of the hapless adolescent who is being abused by an adult? Or the witless child? Not all adults have these fantasies, as Levine seems to almost be suggesting. She is suggesting that because advertising and culture have built a product and a norm, we have bought it hook, line, and sinker, as though we were unable to think and judge for ourselves what is ethical and what is not.
One cannot ever make the claim that because something is pervasive, it is therefore "normal." Hell, in this culture, drinking alcohol to excess is pervasive, but alcoholism is not considered "normal." It is consisdered a disease. The same must be said of those adults who seek out children and adolescents as sexual partners.
"Psychologists and law enforcers call the man who loves teenagers a hebophile. That's a psychiatric term, denoting pathological sexual deviance. But if we were to diagnose every American man for whom Miss (or Mr.) Teenage America was the optimal sex object, we'd have to call ourselves a nation of perverts."
We ARE a nation of perverts. That's the point! We have stopped making moral decisions for ourselves, and have bought Madison Avenue's menu like the empty-headed culture of consumers we are.
"If the teenage body were not the culture's ideal of sexiness, junior high school girls probably would not start starving themselves as soon as they notice a secondary sex characteristic, and the leading lady (on-screen or in life) would not customarily be twenty to forty years younger than the leading man."
There are many adults for whom the teenage body is NOT the ideal. It's as if Levine is saying, because society has fostered this ideal upon us, we have accepted it, and why not? After all, it's NORMAL.
"I asked Meg Kaplan, a widely respected clinician who treats sex offenders at the New York State Psychiatric Institute's Sexual Behavior Clinic, about the medicalization and criminalization of the taste for adolescent flesh. "Show me a heterosexual male who's not attracted to teenagers," she snorted. "Puh-leeze."
I can show you plenty of heterosexual males who are not attracted to teenagers, and who would find the idea of having sex with them repugnant. They are fully adult and mature people who have ethical bearings. Unlike Ms. Levine.
Levine is obviously a clumsy writer and a shalllow thinker. If this excerpt is indicative of the intellectual quality of her book as a whole, it will be absolutely decimated, and rightly so.
Kids have sex. Get used to it.
Get used to it, old boy.
But for you to say, "Kids ilke to have sex with OTHER KIDS, not 'old boys,'" presumes that all kids are the same. In fact, kids arenot the same. Kids are as varied as adults. Some kids like other kids. Some kids like adults. Other kids wait till they are adults themselves to have sex. A tiny minority never have sex for their entire lives. It's fallacious to lump them all together like that.
Really? I'd like to see your proof of that. Please show me your list of children who "like to have sex with adults."
I bet you ten to one they are being forced to have sex with adults, and the adults are "rewarding" them for doing so, and thus they are saying they "like it."
Or else they are being threatened with physical abuse if they say they don't like it.
Oh sure, they like that.