Search Box

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Child molestation: the one perversion left out in the cold

We live in an age of great sexual liberation. Practically every variation on sexuality has come out of the closet and into the mainstream. In fact, the zeitgeist has swung so far that if you don't accept them -- and, let's be honest, celebrate them -- you are considered beneath contempt.

But the one fairly common perversion it's still safe to label as that is child molestation. The obvious reason for this is that it's not right to take advantage of children. And let me emphasize, I completely agree -- anyone who actually molests a child should be locked up for a long, long time.

But the central tenet of the LGBT movement is that people can't help their orientation, and shouldn't be discriminated against for that reason. Shouldn't that same logic be applied to those whose sexuality skews toward the prepubescent?

If you adhere to that line of thinking -- and I do -- shouldn't child molesters at least be allowed child porn to masturbate to?

The standard answer to that is that you can't make that type of porn without abusing children. But, in fact, with modern computer generated images, you can.

Most people feel a healthy revulsion for child molesters. But, truth be told, many people feel a similar instinctive revulsion for transgenders, and even for ordinary homosexuals. Such feelings are actually evolutionarily adaptive: they keep one on the path to reproduction.

But should this instinctive revulsion necessarily equate with morality? Recently we've been taught that anyone who publicly expresses his feelings of revulsion toward homosexuals is himself immoral.

I agree that our natural feelings of revulsion ought not to dictate laws, since no one can help being what they are. Most of us have no control over whether we're smart or stupid, tall or short, crippled or able-bodied, straight or gay. Fair-mindedness demands we not be blamed for things we can't help.

This is not to say that some people don't feel an inner revulsion when seeing someone who is morbidly obese, or horribly deformed, or weirdly perverted. Of course, only extremely rude people would give voice to their revulsion. And almost all of us feel revulsion -- as well as anger -- when we encounter someone that rude.

And, as we're always told, no one should be judged by these things.

BUT -- and this is a very big BUT -- if we are supposed to retain a sense of moral outrage and shock over men who get off on kiddies -- even if they never touch a single child -- is that really any different from conflating morality with our entirely natural feelings of revulsion for, say, extremely effeminate men or extremely masculine women?

We have to remember that adults who are sexually attracted to children can't help that any more than regular homosexuals can help but be attracted to others of the same sex. And while I believe that any adult who actually molests a child should be locked away in jail for a long stretch, I also think they ought to at least be allowed computer-created pornography.

It's not as if banning those images will change their sexuality.

Exercising a selective morality is always tricky. Our government, as official policy, instructs US soldiers in Afghanistan to turn a blind eye toward Afghan Army officers who take advantage of "tea boys," underage males groomed specifically for pederasty.

If the land of the free and the home of the brave actually allows the sexual exploitation of prepubescent children by an ally -- for whom we are putting American lives at risk -- why would they not allow American men the luxury of computer generated images? Jerking off to a computer is far less harmful than physical contact with a tea boy.

Most readers of this blog are undoubtedly at least a little disgusted by this idea. But really, if we allow our instincts to tell us what is right and wrong, maybe we should outlaw homosexuality as well.

The principle is the same in both cases.

And it applies to another case as well: if we're not to blame people for their feelings, that understanding should extend to people who can't help their instinctive feelings of disgust when confronted with something they find grotesquely perverse.

Perhaps we can measure character by how vocal people are about expressing those feelings; but we can't measure it by the feelings themselves. 


Dave Moriarty said...

The Nazi's rank among the top seeds in the hierarchy of bad guys and in addition to all the other deeds they seemed to delight in children as sexual targets.

Your blog is right in pointing out though if we are going to be tolerant of "the heart wants what the heart wants" then next Hillary will have the child molesters up on stage to take applause after surviving being "victims" of straight white male oppression.

John Craig said...

Dave --
Yes, well put. I'm not even sure what's right here. My main point is that the principle should be no different for child molesters (who don't touch actual children) than for those inclined in any other direction.

Interestingly, the gay liberation movement at first (back in the 70's?) accepted NAMBLA as their brothers in arms, but after a short while chose to divorce them. They decided it would hurt their own cause if they were associated with actual child molesters. But at least at first, they recognized that there was a common principle uniting them.

LBD said...

This is one of those arguments that sounds completely reasonable and logical, but flies in the face of all actual human experience. In real life, the appetite grows on that on which it feeds, and the thought is father to the deed. When you feed such an appetite, it is only a matter of time before thought becomes deed.

Simply providing pedophile oriented material confers on the user a kind of legitimacy. Why should our goal be to make someone with this "orientation" feel better about himself and his feelings? Contrary to popular belief, repression of one's feelings does not result in damage to the psyche, and even if it did, what damage could be worse than entrenched pedophilia?

John Craig said...

LBD --
I agree that okaying pedophilic pornographic material does confer a sort of legitimacy. But, I don't think it's a bad goal to make anyone feel better about himself. I also think the entrenched pedophilia is simply there, it's never going to disappear, any more than those homosexual reorientation places can successfully "pray the gay away."

As far as "feeding an appetite" with porno, I"m not sure that I buy the argument that pornography increases the likelihood that someone will then go out and commit a sexual crime. The only people I've ever heard argue that pornography leads to sex crimes were Charles Keating, back when he was on Nixon's commission on pornography (everyone else on that committee disagreed with him), before the Lincoln Savings & Loan debacle, and Ted Bundy, who claimed that pornography drove him to his crimes shortly before he was executed.

If this were true, we'd hear that the abundantly available heterosexual pornography on the internet was leading to an epidemic of rapes, but we don't, in fact what we hear is that the abundance of such pornography makes regular sex seem pedestrian and boring by comparison. I've read a few stories of wives who feel neglected because their husbands would rather jerk off to internet porn. And I've seen a couple where experts have said that internet porn sets up expectations that can't possibly be fulfilled, which leads to porn addiction and more isolation.

I'd say, isolation is what we want for child molesters.

LBD said...

Fetish type pornography takes what might have been a passing thought or curiosity and allows it to become entrenched as an obsession. It is not harmless. It crowds out more normal thoughts and feelings because it is intense.

Even in animals, something analogous occurs. For example, some purebred dogs are bred by artificial insemination. To collect the semen, the veterinarian or vet technician has to stimulate the male to harvest the semen. Since it is so much easier for the male than actually going through the courtship ritual and sometimes being rejected by the female if she's not quite at the right stage of oestrus, many of the male dogs who have had A.I. become incapable of mounting a real female. This can also happen in stallions and bulls.

Pornography, especially fetish porn, makes human males socially lazy because experiences with real women are variable and unpredictable. Porn is 100% payoff with no rejection, no disappointments. Not good for normal relationships.

John Craig said...

LBD --
I agree completely with your last paragraph (but I think that's what we want for child molesters).

Your second paragraph is interesting, I hadn't heard that before about the animals. (I think, that's also what we'd want for child molesters.)

As far as your first paragraph, hmm.....I'm not so sure that's true with males. Males tend to have a very fixed sexuality, unlike females. For instance, you never hear of, say, a breast man becoming an ass man because he looked at more pictures of breasts. Guys will generally seek out the type of pornography which appeals to them in the first place.

LBD said...

I think that males become "breast men" or "ass men" from looking at pictures of women, not from actual experiences with women-- it's true that men are more visually oriented than women, but where do those early preferences come from? Usually pictures in magazines or on line. They become "fixed" due to repetition. Men do have preferences, but in the end most young men would screw a rock if they thought there was a snake under it. For most young guys, any sex is better than no sex.

No, that's not "what we want for child molesters". It is how child molesters are created and fixed in their "preference" with little chance of breaking out into normal sexuality. The way to break or preferably avoid a mental habit is to withdraw all positive reinforcement, and porn is a powerful positive reinforcement which tends to crowd out all other stimuli.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the LGBT line is that queers can't help it *and* aren't generally hurting anyone.

I've seen feminists argue that porn is harmful to women because it degrades them, and so should be banned. And yet the evidence shows that sex crimes are much lower in countries where porn is legal*. The feminists fail to understand that sexual urges are a natural effect of testosterone, and trying to supress them isn't going to help. Since standard porn works in reducing sex crimes against adults, legalising computer-generated taboo porn might work in reducing crimes against children. It's a controversial idea - but so is decriminalising heroin, and that has proven to reduce addiction & new HIV infections in Portugal and Switzerland (where doctors can legally prescribe to treatment-resistant heroin addicts). Even the idea of *computer-generated* taboo porn sounds repulsive to me, but if it works in reducing horrible crimes against actual kids...

- Gethin


John Craig said...

LBD --
I wonder about that; I'm not sure exactly how males get fixated. I remember reading once that males during the Victorian era used to become foot fetishists because that was the only part of the female anatomy they ever got to see on a regular basis. But I've also read that men who were breast fed longer are less likely to become "breast men." I just don't know how it works; but I do know that these preferences are pretty much in place by one's teenage years.

I agree about young men.

An awful lot of child molesters seem to be men who are married with children. (Priests excepted.) I've never figured out how they could carry on a normal relationship with a woman when their real preference was for little boys. (You hear about this with boy scout troop leaders and the like.)

But again, I think once these preferences are set, they're set. I don't believe homosexuality can be "cured," and I don't think the desire for little kids can be, either. It's not quite like breaking a smoking habit, or weaning oneself from alcohol, where sheer will and lack of opportunity can combine to lessen the acuteness of the desire. What I do think we should do with these guys, though, is to keep them away from children, which is done now, to a certain extent.

John Craig said...

Gethin --
That's interesting, I hadn't heard that there was actual evidence that porn reduces sex crimes.

And I hadn't known that about heroin either.

Agree, the idea of kiddie porn is disgusting, but if it reduces actual crimes against kids, I'm all for it.

LBD said...

The "sex crimes are lower where porn is legal" argument is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Sex crimes are lower in European or Anglosphere countries with homogeneous populations and Western values. Importing hordes of third worlders has resulted in huge increases in sex crimes, not the least because these troglodytes interpret the widespread availability of sexual images as license to abuse women rather than a harmless substitute for violence against females. Moving them from Bangladesh to Sweden does not change their cultural interpretation, it just gives them a target rich environment for rape.

John Craig said...

LBD --
Absolutely no question that demographics can skew any test results (which is why all those studies showing the US to be a more violent place than, say, Switzerland or Canada, are utterly misleading until you tease out the demographic differences). But I took a quick look at the abstract of the article that Gethin forwarded and it was about Denmark before and after their pornography laws were liberalized in the 1960's, long before the troglodytes had arrived. And they actually specifically talked about child molestation, too.

Yes, Muslims see topless women on beaches or women swimming nude at a spa -- and maybe pictures of nude women -- and see that as an invitation to rape, but that's a separate issue from child molesters in the West.

BTW, I just sent you an email but it was returned as undeliverable.

Mark Caplan said...

John, your argument for the normalization of pedophilia is so solid, I wouldn't be surprised to see within the next 10 years Pedophilia Pride parades in the downtowns of every liberal metropolis. Inevitably a courageous, straight Hollywood actor will win an Oscar for starring as an oppressed pedophile. Networks will vie to broadcast the first reality TV show featuring pedophiles as ordinary folks. The Catholic Church will experience a massive resurgence in wealth and prestige.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Oh c'mon, I wasn't quite arguing for the normalization of pedophilia, just saying that IF you believe that people have no choice about whom they're attracted to, that logic should apply to them as well. (I realize you're joking, and that I'm lamely replying to a humorous comment with a straight-laced reply, but I don't want people to think I was pushing for its "normalization," and I can see how people would interpret this post that way.)

LBD said...

Yeah, Denmark. Forgive me if I am skeptical.

Steven said...

My concern is this: you're basically putting the message out that its okay, or not immoral, to be sexually attracted to children and fantasise about it as long as you don't act upon it. That gives people a licence to explore those feelings and fantasies who might not be paedophiles as their primary or sole orientation. Perhaps its best to keep the taboo as strong as possible.

I wonder if children brought up with a lot of exposure to gay and trans people, as they are now, will have any feelings of revulsion...I'm not convinced that response is natural or natural to the point where it is inevitable. I don't think I have feelings of revulsion...if I do, they are mild.

John Craig said...

Steven --
You -- and LBD -- may be right about that, I don't know. As I said in my first (11:03) reply to Dave Moriarty's comment, I don't know what the right course of action is. I just wanted to point out how the guiding principle of the LGBT movement, if it is to be consistent, ought to be applied to pedophiles.

I've seen enough guys react that way to think that a certain amount of revulsion is natural. That's not to say it's universal, but it does seem to be instinctive.

LBD said...

It's news to me that the LGBT movement has any principles at all, let alone guiding ones.

John Craig said...

LBD --
The principle I'm referring to, that people can't help their sexuality, is one which is convenient for them. (I also happen to think it's true.) But, yeah, when you look at most movements, the "principles" they choose to honor will be ones which suit their movement.

LBD said...

Yes, they invoke that "principle" when convenient. For example, in New Jersey it is illegal for a therapist to suggest to a patient who is struggling with his sexual identity and asking for clarity that he does not have to choose to be homosexual, he can live a heterosexual life. Meanwhile, over the bridge in New York City, Mayor DeBlasio's wife lived for many years as a lesbian, but is now married to the Mayor and has two children. When did she stop being homosexual? The LGBT people never give her grief for that. Another example: Cher's daughter Chastity had a girlfriend when both of them were putatively lesbians. That means that the girlfriend liked other women, right? But then Chastity became Chaz and what is the girlfriend supposed to be then? We are enjoined to pretend to believe that Chaz is a man, correct? But why would her lesbian girlfriend want to live with a faux guy when if she wanted a guy she could get a real guy? Either Chaz is still a woman and they are both lesbians or Chaz is a man and her girlfriend is now heterosexual, or something....but if a New Jersey psychotherapist were to suggest to Chaz' girlfriend that things have changed and it's time to move on, the therapist risks jail and loss of license.

Mark Caplan said...

Don't lesbians and gay men feel revulsion or disgust at the thought of "normal" male-female sexual relations? Isn't that part of what makes them lesbian or gay? A heterosexual person need not feel ashamed of his or her inner feelings toward lesbian or gay sex. He or she can still be 100 percent in favor of gay rights and welcome gays as neighbors.

John Craig said...

Mark --
I imagine lesbians and gay men do feel some disgust at the thought of having sex with a member of the opposite sex. I agree with your analysis, basically. The most creeped out I ever was was when I was young and other guys, especially older men, came on to me. I found that sort of sickening. But even when I was young, if I saw a gay couple walking along somewhere, I didn't find it revolting. And I'd certainly have no problem with gays as neighbors.

Of course, now that I'm old, if a young gay guy comes on to me, I'm just flattered.

blogger said...

Power decides.

There is 'same sex marriage' but not 'same family marriage'(incest marriage) and polygamy. So much for 'marriage equality'. Why are homos favored over incest-sexuals and polygamists?

Homos are powerful and have the backing of Jews, the rulers of the world

blogger said...

Anonymous said...

The line between being a spectator and an actor is pretty thin. Which reminds me of the lines from the movie 'Silence of the Lambs"
“What does he do, Clarice? What is the first and principal thing he does, what need does he serve by killing? He covets. How do we begin to covet? We begin by coveting what we see every day.”

It is like the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden, you eventually want to actually taste it.

There is no comparison between married men being put off from actual sex by watching porn. They have tasted the fruit and decided it is too much hassle just for a jerk off.


John Craig said...

Sherie --
I agree with the laws that keep pedophiles away from real children, and that require them to register as sex offenders, and that alert their new neighbors to their presence. Those keep the pedophiles away from REAL temptation, and alert parents so that they'll keep temptation, in the form of their children, away from them. That will keep the "coveting" to a minimum.

I see internet porn as a distraction and a pressure release valve, not a gateway.

I've heard young guys say that if they jerk off before a date, it allows them to be much "cooler," allows them to not act like a supplicant begging for sex from the girl (which means they're more likely to actually get it). I've also heard young guys say that if they jerk off a lot, it lessens their desire to go to bars and nightclubs in search of real pussy. (Their word, not mine.) I would think internet porn for pedophiles would have the same effect.

Anonymous said...

I think child molestation is actually tolerated a bit if it's female and female. Like that one part of the Vagina monologues. Also there was a story of a woman who impersonated a man and had sex with several teenage girls in Indonesia, she got off with sexual assault rather than statuatory rape. And think of movies like that French one where a 16 year old girl pursed a relationship with an adult woman I think and it got great reviews with no raised eyebrows.

As for access to simulated porn for pedophiles, there is plenty in the form of Hentai. It's illegal in the west to own or sell underage hentai, but not to look at it on the internet. In Japan it's perfectly legal to own and sell the stuff no matter how horrible it gets, technically nobody is involved in any sex, it's all drawn. Some of the stuff is quite weird, Japanese stuff ya know, like there is a genre of gay porn drawn by women for other women, most gay men I read actually hate it due to the unrealistic portrayal of gay sex and "excessiveness", there is a different genre made by gay men for other gay men.

So for the stuff there is plenty of stuff involving underage, some involving high schoolers in vanilla sex, but then there are stuff involving little kids but they gravitate towards predatory genres, not just sex with a kid, some of which I was unfortunate enough to look at, I felt like clawing my eyes out, I even found out the author of a horrible one was female for God's sake! A question though is whether this is a good idea to let them look at in order to let out pent up sexual urges or if it only aggravates and encourages the urges.

Is attraction to children a fetish or an orientation? Maybe it can be either, for the former, if it's a fetish, it can be dealt with by a trained professional to coax it out of a person. If it's a true orientation, then I don't know. And maybe some people who have sex with an underage person through rape are not true pedophiles but are doing it for a power trip. Like not all prison rapists are truly gay, they do it out of desperations or for the thrill of domination.

A psychological theory of true pedophilia I have toyed with is that it happens when a person did not mature into a correct sexual age. A 14 year old is attracted to 14 year olds obviously and even elderly people I read on reddit in a thread said they were surprised they started to not be put off by the bodies of other elderly people once they got old enough so it is a continuing process, but if a person gets stuck at some point, then they become a pedophile or a lecherous old man who likes 20 year olds or something.


John Craig said...

Ga --
The thing about female on female molestation is, you never hear of it. I think women in general are just less inclined that way. You almost never hear of it, in any case. (I'm not including the rash of recent incidents in the US where a 27 year old female teacher has sex with one of her 16 year old pupils, that's something totally different. (I think it's basically the woman wanting to prove to herself that she's still young, or wanting to relive her high school years, not a matter of an aberrant sexuality.)

I"m not sure what the difference between a fetish and an orientation is. I'm gathering from what you're saying that a fetish is more of a minor quirk, sort of like being attracted to women who dress up as nurses, that sort of thing.

That psychological theory makes sense. You're right, all 12 year olds are attracted to other 12 year olds. Maybe it was a matter of not being allowed somehow to mature normally -- like Michael Jackson, who was basically exploited for his voice by his father, who reportedly fed him drugs to retard puberty when he was 12 or so, so that his voice could remain the same voice of the Jackson 5.

And yeah, I've actually surprised myself by being attracted to older women as I've gotten older. Sometimes I find myself even more attracted to them than I am to younger women. (That's a REAL perversion.)

Mark Caplan said...

John, I wasn't sure how to phrase my initial comment. The argument about pedophilia you presented was logical and persuasive. In recent decades all societal norms in the West have been questioned and often upended. I wasn't entirely joking about the stigmatization of pedophiles being yet another norm that could be reversed. I can well imagine that in 2024, when the Democrats nominate an ISIS leader to run for president, the candidate will proudly choose a pedophile as his running mate. The Mainstream Media will go ecstatic over the Party's openness and inclusivity.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha, well that seems to be the direction the Democrats are heading in.

I actually don't want to see pedophilia have its stigma taken away. The only change I was arguing for was that pedophilia porn -- as long as it's made with CGI and not real children -- be legalized. I see it, as I said earlier, as a pressure release valve. LBD has a good point about how normalizing it would encourage some of them to actually go out and molest real children.

And the other main point I wanted to make was about how if you recognize that gays can't help but be gay, you have to recognize the same about pedophiles.

Anonymous said...

There is already plenty of hand drawn pedophilia porn in the form of Hentai, many volumes translated into English through commissions on entire websites. Some of them made by famous artists, you can even go to Toranoana or a comic conventions in Japan and see the artists himself (and often herself) selling you the stuff face to face.

Materials involving teenagers is also prevalent and even more tolerated as a matter of fact. Some famous anime or manga creators draw and write this stuff in their free time. The softer attitude towards it is real.

It's very obscene in Japan, you can walk into a 7-11 and see pornography mags or softcore images with nudes of underage girls that legally get sold as "art" as long as there is no penetration going on.

It exists already in some form. If we can look at the rates of child rape in Japan per capita and compare it to the USA where this form of sexual material is not available, we may see if it has a positive or negative effect on said activity. But the problem is Japan already has a dysfunctional sexual culture, meaning an accurate gage on the effects of simulated child pornography may be muddled an already existing tendency. And we don't know if the soft attitude encourages this obscene material or if it is encouraged by the material itself being permitted.


John Craig said...

Ga --
This is just speculation, but my guess would be that the rate of actual child molestation in Japan would be lower than in the US, simply because the Japanese are more law-abiding in general. And I'd also guess that when it does take place, a lot of it is going to go unreported, just because of the nature of the culture.

Kynarion said...

Many of our problems stem from the words we use whose meanings have changed so these no longer have the power of their original meaning. I will capitalize or place in quotations these words. Failure to agree on their meanings will make difficult any meaningful exchange of ideas.

There is a relationship between society and law. The law exists for the GOOD of the society. Society should enact laws designed to maximize FREEDOM and individual RIGHTS while preserving order that we might live and thrive together.

I think the above statements are and should be free from controversy.

The problem is how we understand the meaning of “freedom” and “individual rights.” I will not discuss “good” at this time as it is much more complex.

“Freedom,” in the context of law, does not mean the unfettered right to pursue all one’s proclivities without restraint. That is a modern understanding and anathema to the principles upon which our great nation is founded. “Freedom” is the power to fulfill one’s purpose in service to objective, self-evident truths, the pursuit of which will cause one to be “happy.” This happiness is GOOD. That sounds very grand, but it actually and often plays out in humble and simple ways that are nonetheless powerful.

Likewise, “individual rights” does not mean the unfettered right to have government provide for your life, nor does it mean “liberty” to pursue your proclivities. Many of our proclivities are not “good.” A right is something with which you are born, and which belongs to you because you are human. There is no right contemplated by our constitution that requires another person (or the government) to serve our interest(s). This is why healthcare is not a “right,” as it requires the enslavement of health care professionals.

If the law must change and shift according to modern social mores, then we have anarchy and tyranny to the mob’s proclivities. The law must exist apart from the individual – it must be OUTSIDE of him and he must submit to it. If the law tends to deprive him of his God-given natural rights (life, liberty, and property created by his industry), then that law must be voided. If the law must stand, then it must be found to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to interfere most minimally with human “freedom.”

The specific crime contemplated here is pederasty. The posited defense given is natural proclivity. I think we are all born with proclivities that should not be indulged, as they tend to lessen the natural rights of others or contribute to societal breakdown and chaos. Pederasty has always been a crime of “strict liability.” This means no culpable mental state is necessary to establish criminal conviction or civil liability. Adding a mental state to pederasty is normalizing an activity that deeply violates the rights of persons who have no ability to contextualize sexuality and who will likely carry a lifetime of pain because of that violation. Whether we like it or not, sexual intercourse has a spiritual component. It is not just a physical thing.

Further, we should not feed the monster. Masturbation does not extinguish the lust, but serves as a momentary sacrifice / meal to assuage temporarily an immoral and destructive appetite.

John Craig said...

Julia --
You make a lot of great points about our language. The examples of how they're abused today -- especially, in my view, by the Left -- are legion.

A fair number of people have interpreted my post to mean that I think we should somehow "normalize" pedophilia. I don't think that we should. And I think that the laws against actual child molestation are, if anything, not strict enough. And I like all the safeguards in place which protect actual children from pedophiles, many of whom are in positions of trust, as priests, Boy Scout troop leaders, athletic coaches, and so on.

The only change I'm suggesting is that CGI-generated child porn be legalized. As I said a couple times above, I see it as a release valve, not a gateway. And the other main point I'm making is that the LGBT crowd, if they believe in their own principles, should accept pedophiles the same way they expect the rest of society to accept them.

Kynarion said...

Mr. Craig,
I am sure the LGBT crowd is composed of individuals whose opinions vary on the matter of pederasty, but there is a significantly greater percentage of pederasts in the homosexual community. This fact has been suppressed as the homosexual rights crowd seeks to gain social legitimacy and even celebration. Now that we have homosexual marriage (an oxymoron if ever there was one) foisted upon us, surely the rest of the camel will come into the tent - pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and all the rest.

I think there is a very large percentage of the male homosexual crowd (a subset of LGBT), that accepts pederasty. If there is not outright acceptance, there is at least a kind of tolerance of it that I find even more horrifying than outright acceptance.

Perhaps the unwillingness to go pro-pederast in public has more to do with power rather than morality. Victim status gives privilege and power these days. If we give up our victimhood and countenance another, will we remain protected and special?

I do not think CGI child porn should be legalized because I believe that our thoughts make us what we are. To make CGI porn is to feed the thoughts and lusts of the pederasts. This portrayal of what should be unthinkable is a huge first step towards desensitizing and even legitimacy.

I agree with you that the punishments for child sexual assault / rape are too lenient.

John Craig said...

Julia Gwin --
I agree, there does seem to be a sort of tacit acceptance of, if not sex with pre-pubescents, at least sex with minors, in the gay community. And I agree that a far larger proportion of gays are pederasts. I'm under the vague impression that the number of pre-pubescent girls molested is roughly the same as the number of boys molested, which, given that gays are only 5% or so of the population, means that gays are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles.

Here's another thing that nobody ever mentions that I've always found interesting: roughly half of serial killers are gay, too, which means they're punching way above their weight there too. I wrote about that here:

Steven said...

Assuming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation like homosexuality that is randomly distributed (and I don't really know if that is the case), it must be extremely difficult to be an otherwise good person and have those feelings. This is such a difficult subject and I just don't have the knowledge or expertise or the wisdom in general to know what the right approach is for society or for someone like that. So I can't make much of a contribution other than to say I'm inclined to be cautious...I suppose that's part of being conservative. Its an interesting problem though.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Agreed (that it must be extremely difficult). I actually have more sympathy for them (assuming they don't actually act on those feelings and prey on children) than most do. Most people just think, ugh, what grotesque monsters. But they can't help it any more than regular homosexuals can help their feelings, any more than regular heterosexuals can control whom they're attracted to.

One of the things I was thinking after I wrote this post was, how many child molesters have I known? Three, that I know of. The first was my first YMCA swimming coach, who struck me as a nice enough guy,though I didn't know about this predilection when I was swimming for him, and I wouldn't have suspected him of that, since he was married with a son. (This guy actually acted on his impulses later on, and was convicted for it.) The second was a guy I knew when I was young and lived in Los Angeles; his apartment shared a balcony with mine. This guy was a couple years older than me, and struck me as a gentle, pleasant guy. He had joined Big Brothers, and it wasn't until years later that I figured out what he was about. At first I couldn't figure out why he would want to spend his free time with some snot-nosed fatherless kid, then I concluded that he was simply a nicer guy than me. He never seemed to express any interest in girls, but I never really thought about that at the time. Then, a few years later, I finally realized what his real motivation must have been. The third guy was someone who was pointed out to me as a probable pedophile at the Y I work out at now. He hasn't been there for around ten years, I'm assuming he was kicked out (though I don't know that for sure). He never worked out, but would only show up an hang out in the locker room when the kids' swim team was practicing. Anyway, the point of all this is that what all three guys had in common was that they were very physically wimpy. Not a muscle to be seen among the three of them, and all three were short as well. Meaning, they were quite low on testosterone, one more clue that child molesters are sort of victims of their own biology. And when you think about it, Michael Jackson was pretty obviously low on testosterone too, he was abnormally skinny and had that high-pitched voice.

Kynarion said...

I deeply sympathize with Steven, who feels cautious about having opinions without more information. I want to encourage him to be unafraid to form opinions in the process of studying, and be ready to let new insights and information change his opinions or galvanize them into conviction.

I do not think Mr. Craig believes pedophilia should be normalized. He has very strong opinions that are frequently very condemning, but he seems to have very little ego that prevents him from abandoning his opinions that prove inadequate in light of new information.

I share LBD's beautifully stated thought that "the appetite grows on that on which it feeds, and the thought is father to the deed." In other words, we do NOT create a computer-generated pedophile experience because it will normalize and encourage pedophilic acts in real life.

Today, however, Drudge is carrying a news story entitled "Silicone Sally: Japanese Men Find True Love with Sex Dolls." There are so many questions raised by this story. Could a marriage survive this "infidelity"? Is this something that is more likely to be accepted by a non-Western culture? Would the rather embarrassing intimate pictures in that story not be considered shameful in the West, if they are not so in the East? Does the relationship with the doll(s) serve to increase / appetite for the real thing? In this story, Mr. Craig appears to be vindicated - the husband / doll lover appears content, although his marriage is ruined. Would the same be true for pedophiles? I am going to stick with my original assertion, but more tentatively so, that a pedophile sex doll or a CGI experience would increase appetite for the real thing. There is something about perversion that skews the mind and heart into death. The man with the sex dolls is pretending "normal" sex. So interesting, as Mr. Craig points out, that so many mass murderers were also sexually perverted.
I do have pity for the sexually perverted, even as I am repulsed and sickened by their behavior. This man who loves dolls is very pitiable, and I am embarrassed for him, but I do not feel the loathing that is aroused in me for homosexual or pedophilic behavior.

John Craig said...

Julia Gwin --
We've spoken a few times now, unless you're college age you don't have to refer to me as "Mr. Craig," you can just call me John, thank you. (Makes me feel younger.)

I like Steven's attitude too. An awful lot of people seem to have a hard time saying, "I don't know;" it should be aid a lot more often than it is. And thank you for the compliment -- we're going to have to disagree here, too, in fact I have a huge ego, otherwise I wouldn't be expressing so many opinions on the blog -- but I do try to go where the facts lead.

You and LBD are like-minded. She comes by her conservatism quite honestly, btw, she has spent a lot of time with liberals (and that's all I'm allowed to say there).

I've written about sex dolls on this blog, too, here about the feminist view of them:

And here, semi-humorously, about how the social (as opposed to sexual) role they will play in the future:

I think Drudge's headline is a little misleading: I doubt any of those Japanese men actually "fall in love" (in the romantic sense) with their bots. But the point is, if men have their animal needs taken care of, they have less need for actual women.

And by the way, I see that you too go where the facts lead, good for you having an open mind. (As you know, liberals price themselves on being "open-minded," but in fact are the opposite.)

Steven said...

I always enjoy your writing when you're in autobiographical and observational mode. Those superlative guy I've ever known posts are great.

Steven said...


I hesitate to contradict someone who deeply sympathises with me but I actually meant cautious about making radical changes to society.

I agree with the principle of not having uninformed views but I don't think anybody who has read this blog long enough would accuse me of being afraid to form opinions.

I also liked that LBD quote.


John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you very much.

europeasant said...

Wow John you've really opened up a can of worms. You keep this up and you might replace Dr. Phil!

europeasant said...

I forgot to add. What taboo are you going to take on next?

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
I realized about two-thirds of the way through responding to all the comments above that I had approached this topic wrong. The way I should have posited it was to say that if the LGBT movement believes its own central tenet about not being able to help one's sexuality, they should accept NAMBLA as their brothers in arms. Not to do so would be hypocritical. Instead I just went on about how they can't help the focus of their sexuality (which I believe) and how internet child porn should be legalized (which I also believe). A friend sent an email in which he suggested that that internet porn only be made available to those who agreed to register as a pedophile, which I think is a good idea.

But the hypocrisy of the LGBT's in not accepting pedophiles (who don't actually molest actual children) would have made for a better argument.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
Oh, and my next taboo? about gay incest?

Mark Caplan said...

Although I can see that my comments were somewhat ambiguous, I never thought you favored normalizing pedophilia.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Thank you. all of these comments have actually spurred me to write another couple posts on this subject, which I'll put up shortly.

Anonymous said...

Just want to say I was very impressed with LBD's comments - the insight, knowledge, and clarity of thought.
Also want to put in my vote against your idea of legalizing CGI kiddie porn, for reason's the above commentators have pretty well covered.

Bob J

John Craig said...

Bob J --
LBD's very smart, no question about it.

And I definitely seem to be outvoted here.

Fled The Undertow said...

Hi John,

I have an issue with men indulging in child porn, even computer-made images of such. The problem is that men with this character defect will, like alcoholics or addicts, ultimately succumb to the Law of Diminishing Returns: sooner or later, images won't be enough, and they'll look for opportunities to indulge in real life.

A close relative did this very thing to one of my daughters and her friends when she alerted us. He was thrown out that very night.

After his unceremonious ousting, we found hundreds of incest porn videos on his computer. His browser history revealed that he'd be viewing this stuff for many months. Apparently, images and videos weren't enough to satisfy his sick cravings anymore, so he victimized my kids. I frequently think of him, and wish him dead.

John Craig said...

Fled --
Yikes; I hope you went after him in the courts. Unfortunate that your daughter had to go through that.

I wonder about the diminishing returns though; some men are like that, but most young men who look at, say, regular porn, don't then go on to become rapists. Nor will wishing your daughter's victimizer dead turn you into a killer.

I used to think that if I had caught someone molesting one of my kids, I'd kill him. But I'm sure I wouldn't actually have done so.