Search Box

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Pedophiles, Part III: While we're at it....

It just occurred to me: if the LGBT movement does believe their own argument that people don't choose their own sexuality, they should also accept people who are into bestiality -- maybe not those who actually practice those it, but at least those who want to.

After all, the heart wants what the heart wants. And is the practice of bestiality really all that harmful?

Think of it this way: raising sentient mammals so that we can eat them is considered perfectly acceptable. So which fate would you rather suffer: having your head chopped off so you can be eaten, or being screwed occasionally by a horny human?

It's my impression that men who practice bestiality aren't really doing so because that's their primary orientation. They're just sexually frustrated guys who don't have a woman available and prefer the feeling of an animal aperture to that of their own hand.

But, I could be wrong about that; maybe some men actually do prefer other species to their own. And if they do prefer other species, who's to condemn that practice -- or at least desire -- as morally repugnant? Certainly not meat-eaters.

The phrase "consenting adults" comes to mind. But bear in mind, eating meat hardly implies consent.

I know some readers will think I've gone off the deep end with this line of argument. In fact, my sensibilities are not so different from yours: I agree that the "ick factor" here is huge. But if we're going to allow the ick factor to dictate the legality of various activities, we might as well outlaw homosexuality since so many people find the idea of that revolting.

Let me emphasize, I'm neither condoning nor trying to normalize any of these practices. And I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed. I just want to point out that if one of your guiding principles is that you don't choose your own sexuality, then, well, you should stay principled.

Drawing the line right outside your own perversion and disapproving of of others is, well, discriminatory.

[Here's another way to look at it. You've probably heard of dolphins which have gotten sexually aggressive with humans. And most of us have witnessed dogs trying to hump someone's leg. When we see this, we tend to find it funny. (Though with dolphins, it can be dangerous.)

We never react by thinking, oh, that is a really perverted dolphin! Nor do we ever think, what a grotesque, sick dog -- we should put it in jail! Most of us just find it sort of cute and almost endearing.

After all, they're just dumb animals whose sex drive got the better of them.

It's easy to lose sight of the fact that humans are just animals, too.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

As disgusting as I personally find it, there is a difference between bestiality and paedophillia. Children are legally deemed unable to consent, and many suffer PTSD years later even though they "consented" at the time. Animals do sometimes consent, though. Years ago I read a news article about a farm where a male pilot died because he'd had sex with a stallion that was too rough. Obviously, the stallion consented because he was on top. The issue here is a one of disease rather than necessarily of consent: there are many viruses carried by other spieces that can make humans ill but not the animal carrier (and probably vice versa). It is believed that HIV was originally contracted via sex with an animal. In the case of the stallion, it was hardly possible to put a condom on the horse: I doubt manufacturers make ones big enough. But, like I said in the post on paedophillia: having a taboo fantasy and acting it out are different things. As someone LGBT, I don't have problems with people having taboo fantasies per se (I don't like the concept of thoughtcrime) - as long as they're not acted out.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Wow. At first I thought you might have been mistaken about that male pilot, or maybe read an Onion-type account of something that hadn't actually happened, and mistakenly taken it as a serious news piece. But I just looked it up, and sure enough....for anyone who's curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

I'm not sure I'd actually ascribe "consent" in the sense that we use the term and apply it to animals. But one of the points I made in the post was that, unless you (not you personally) are a vegetarian, you're not really in a position to be pontificating about the immorality of using animals for sex.

I agree with you completely about the scarring effect on children, and as I said earlier, think that if anything the laws against sex with children aren't strong enough. But at the same time, I have no problem with what anybody fantasizes about.

I realize I'm making some fairly ridiculous arguments in these last three posts, but by taking the logical extension of some current arguments I'm trying to show how ridiculous THEY are. I suppose the larger point I'm trying to make is that all of these social taboos are somewhat arbitrary. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered taboo, and the now the line has been drawn so that it is included, but other stuff isn't. There have been societies more prudish than ours, and also more libertine than ours. A lot of these things are just a function of time and place and attitude.

Glen Filthie said...

And here we go. Another elderly baby boomer cuckservative is caught on the horns of liberal degeneracy. Who woulda thunk it? Once Ya make homosexuality a fashionable mental illness - pedophilia and bestiality have to become the next step to... To what exactly? What other stupidity can you be coaxed into because you fear being labelled a phobic of some sort? How noble and brave of you in overcoming the ghastly 'ick factor'!!! You're a real hero, dumbass. Just so ya know, moron - that's you judgement, morals and ethics trying to talk to you. If you weren't stupid you would listen to them.

The cultural reset is only a matter of time now.

John Craig said...

For those of you who don't remember Glen Filthie, he used to come here a few years ago and let loose with comments not dissimilar in tone to the one above. I told him -- politely -- that I couldn't publish his comments if he continued to use the n-word, explaining that I was in enough trouble as it was for merely honest about racial differences. He took that as a personal insult, and basically stormed off in a huff, saying that I was a cuckservative or something to that effect by not allowing it, and he said he would never return to this blog.

I was sorta hoping he would make good on that promise.

The interesting thing about Glen is that he argues like a liberal -- with ad hominem attacks rather reasoned arguments. And, like the liberals, he seems to do an awful lot of projecting. I've pointed out on several occasions how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being "haters," and how that's pure projection. I've also described elsewhere on this blog how gays have accused me of being gay, how Aspies have accused me of having Aspergers, and how a sociopath once accused me of getting a "buzz" out of other's misfortunes. This is basically what's going on here. Note that Glen has called me "stupid," "dumbass," and a "moron." That's pretty much all you need to know about Glen.

And note the way he has missed the point of these posts entirely. First of all, the Left does not condone either pedophilia or bestiality, so the idea that I was somehow assuaging the Left by making them "fashionable" is absurd. In fact, by taking what the Left says a step further, I was, if anything, pointing out the ridiculousness of some of what they say about the LGBT movement, and also pointing out their hypocrisy in not accepting people who are even more perverse. But, subtleties are lost on some people, especially those whose favorite insults are "stupid," "dumbass," and "moron."

Julia Gwin said...

John,

If it is true that people do not choose (and cannot change) their sexual orientation, then is all sexual BEHAVIOR (as opposed to sexual THOUGHT) beyond condemnation?

You do not seem to think so. When you say you believe the LGBT crowd should accept bestiality in predilection (in THOUGHT), but perhaps reject those who act upon their animal fantasies (BEHAVIOR), you seem to be saying THOUGHTS are exempt from moral condemnation, but not BEHAVIOR.

Do I understand you rightly?

If I understand you, then do you believe there exists any morally wrong thought (even though it is private)?

I have been thinking, also, about the nature of these sexual perversions and why people do them. I do not think pedophiles commit their acts because of simple sexual arousal by the appearance of pre-pubescent bodies. Nor do I think sexual release (orgasm) is the primary impetus, because this can be achieved without a partner. Sex is more than all of that – it is relational and very powerful. The relational part of pedophilia craves the child’s differences from the adult. This craving for union with the essence of the child must be the driving animus. You can’t really get that from masturbation, you can only wish for it, fantasize about it.

It is difficult for me, when thinking about these things, to separate the thing about which I am thinking from its purpose. Sex has purpose. Food has purpose. Both sex and food are very pleasurable – but pleasure is not the only purpose, and, I would argue, not the highest purpose.

At one time, pedophiles would consent to “chemical castration” with Depo Provera to avoid prison (where the pedophile is the lowest of the low in the social hierarchy and likely to be raped, tortured and / or killed). This is a very different approach than giving them CGI porn. CGI porn acknowledges the drive and sublimates it while feeding the thought. Depo Provera acknowledges the drive and removes the spontaneous erection, the goal being to weaken the thought and the behavior.

John Craig said...

Julia --
Yes, you understand me correctly. I don't blame people for their thoughts, but I do blame them for their actions. If we were all to be punished for our bad thoughts, there would be very few free people left.

A nonsexual example: a lot of us (I count myself among this number) have, at one point or another, wanted to kill someone else. Or, at the very least, we wanted to see them dead. But very few of us have acted on that thought, for a combination of reasons: we know it's wrong, we wouldn't have the nerve to actually do it, and we don't want to face the consequences. But the point is, having that thought does not make us murderers, nor should it make us legally liable in any way.

Are there thoughts that are "morally wrong?" Sure. Wanting to see another person dead isn't exactly moral, although it's very much human nature to feel that way sometimes. In fact, another commenter, "Fled the Undertow," just wrote in at 11:57 last night on the first child molestation post, and he described an incident where a relative of his had molested/bothered his daughter and a friend of hers (it may have been just incest and not child molestation, he didn't say in his comment how old his daughter was at the time, and it sounded as if the guy's fetish was more about incest than pedophilia), and he mentioned that he's often wished this guy dead. I replied that I had always thought that if someone had molested my kids I would have killed the guy, although, realistically, I probably wouldn't have, for the combination of reasons listed above.

I doubt that most people would condemn either Fled or myself for having those feelings. But where do you draw the line? There are people who wish others dead for much less justifiable reasons....at what point does it become "immoral?" I don't know, I basically just say, as above, that people's thoughts are their own and they shouldn't be condemned for them.

John Craig said...

Julia --
(Here's the continuation, I evidently wrote too much in the last reply):

Having said that, here's an example of a quick and easy measure of morality: the distance between someone's thoughts and his actions, including his words. (I.E., his honesty.) Whenever I meet someone who confesses to naughty thoughts, I generally instinctively react by thinking, this is an honest person. Whenever I meet someone who's slick and who always says the "right thing," I tend to put my guard up. So, in that case, you could say I was judging them by their thoughts, though, really, I'm just judging them by the presumed honesty or lack thereof of their words.

Back to sex, perverted and otherwise: it occurred to me while reading your comment that you're speaking from a very female point of view, where sex must be tied to some sort of emotional feeling for the other person, the desire for a bond of some sort. Keep in mind, men are by nature more animalistic, and most guys will just enjoy sex for its own sake. But that's not to say that none of these child molesters are not looking for a deeper connection -- admittedly, in the wrong place -- and that they have motives other than just sexual excitement and an orgasm. I always wondered if Michael Jackson wasn't somehow searching for his own lost childhood at some level when he "befriended" all those 10- and 11- and 12-year-old boys. Could be. At the same time, of course, that didn't make it right.

You sound like a more soulful person then me (I'm not being sarcastic there): I rarely look for a "higher purpose" in anything I do. Various things just interest me, for better or worse. I'm not even particularly moral, as I described in a fairly recent post, I'm just sort of average in that regard. But I'm also not a sociopath, or even a narcissist. (Which is not to say I don't have a big ego.) And actually, morality is one of the things that interests me, especially when it comes to relative morality. (Like the acceptance of homosexuality but not bestiality.)

I forgot about Depo Provera. I think that's a good addition to a jail sentence for anyone who's actually molested a child. (I realize it can often be, as you point out, it can be an alternative as opposed to an addition, but to me, there ought to be an extremely strong deterrent to the actual molesting of a child.)

Julia Gwin said...

John:

You say: “I don't blame people for their thoughts, but I do blame them for their actions. If we were all to be punished for our bad thoughts, there would be very few free people left.”

I think you conflate “blame” with “legal punishment.” These are very different things. If I tell you that I find thoughts blameworthy (many of my own are quite shockingly so), but that private thoughts should not be the subject of government inquiry or punishment, I think you would agree.

Fled the Undertow shared his private murderous thoughts here. Without context, these are blameworthy. But those of us with a strong sense of JUSTICE, upon learning the circumstances, feel compassion for him. I feel solidarity with him, and marvel at his restraint. Further, I wish Fled the Undertow well – that he would freedom and escape the bondage of these poisonous thoughts. Without JUSTICE, this is impossible for the GOOD person.

Normally, death is the legal punishment for taking another’s life. Life for life. Skin for skin. An eye for an eye. Lex Taliones. Is it not interesting, that, for so many of us, rape of a young child makes us desire DEATH for the perpetrator? Something has been taken from the child that is permanent, lasting. Mere imprisonment does not re-establish equilibrium, but death would do it. Healing is easier if the perpetrator paid with his life. Sex is different from other acts. It has a spiritual component uncontradicted by the fact you raise that many people, mostly men but certainly many women, can engage in it for superficial reasons.

I like your quick and easy measure of morality as being the distance between thought and action. It reminds me of what someone else has said about the greatest distance being the distance between heart and head. You then take the analogy further, and give great value to words (as an action of the thought) of honesty.

I agree that honesty is virtuous, but the psychopath and the murderer can have honesty between thought and action.

You say: “I rarely look for a ‘higher purpose’ in anything I do. Various things just interest me, for better or worse. I'm not even particularly moral, as I described in a fairly recent post, I'm just sort of average in that regard.”

I also do not look for higher purpose in everything I do. I wish I did. I only look for it when I begin to think, as I am doing here with you, in categories. It is a tool I used to refine my thoughts and test them for validity, value and utility.

I disagree that you are not “particularly moral.” I think you might mean that you are not particularly of GOOD morality? You appear to be a man of many and strong opinions, and I do not know how to separate your opinions from your moral judgments about the GOODNESS or BADNESS of a thing. Therefore, I think you ARE very moral and interested in “relative morality.”

John Craig said...

Julia --
I guess it did sound as if I was conflating blame with legal consequences, but that isn't what I meant to say. I meant blame, not just legal consequences. We agree there.

I do think there's a difference between what most of us think the proper penalty for child molestation is and how we would feel about someone molested our own child. Most people certainly wouldn't advocate the death penalty for child molestation. But Fled, unfortunately for him, actually had that experience, and his reaction was entirely natural, in fact I think it's the reaction most of us would have.

You described another difference between us: I don't even wish that I had higher purpose.

Thank you for what you said about me, but I don't think being opinionated makes me moral. (Most people would just say it makes me obnoxious.) And, yeah, I'm interested in morality, but that doesn't make me moral. A parallel: I'm interested in courage, too, but that doesn't exactly make me brave. (If you knew me you'd know what I was talking about.) But, thanks anyway.