…Daniel Lièvre’s rebuttal of AMC’s March 13 article for Absolute Zero (an anti-pedophile organisation).
The article concerned appears to be an attempt to use cherry-picked and unsupported medical literature to (illegitimately) justify the current trend of intense hatred directed towards minor attracted persons - a group, it appears, taxonomically confused with child sex offenders and generalised to the in fact, very specific attraction / condition of pedophilia.
The text of the article can be found below this one, and online here:
As with many editorials to be found on this website, the abusive, nature of the literature is encapsulated by the title, i.e. the argument attempts to use the (albeit questionable) authority of the medical model to reinforce its proponent’s and supporters’ casual and clinically unsupported cultural biases / one size fits all “profiles” for “unacceptable others”.
The main point contested by the author is that mature adults have an instinctive urge to protect their young, and their hating of pedophiles must as a result be of natural causes, and therefore in the author’s mind, justifiable. A linked article appears to support this point, but on closer reading, neither of its conclusions are specific to pedophilia, as contested. Despite this apparent error, the argument can still be demonstrated to have some logical consistency, if some continuity between the listed “child rapists, pedophiles, child molesters and predators” and innately dangerous individuals can be found. Herein lies the problem; there is at best very little consistency, and if the author’s apparent prejudices are to be assumed, none at all.
Whilst their term “predator” has become so removed from its actual meaning and hopelessly subjectified that analysis would prove useless, the first category - child rapists is probably the most consistent. Despite the legal and popular use of the term to characterise any penetrative and sometimes non-penetrative sexual contact between a legal adult and a minor (sometimes under an age set somewhat below that of legal consent), if we are to assume that the person is someone known to have forcibly penetrated a youngster, it is reasonable to take as given that older persons would be naturally inclined to protect their young from such violence. Although there exist some tribal cultures in which adolescent girls are forcibly “initiated”, generally to no long term ill effect, they are rare, and would surely involve some form of “override” mechanism for usually protective age peers and older persons, as the behaviour concerned is culturally permitted and not intended to cause physical damage, or if eventual reproductive intentions are to be assumed, any extreme physical pain to the effect of a long term aversion.
The second category used in the generalisation is that of the pedophile, and has no consistency with the author’s requirement of an innately grounded threat. Besides the fact that a pedophile, being a person with a preferential sexual attraction to prepubescent children is extremely hard to detect (as it is not of any etymological or clinical necessity for that person to have acted, let alone offended), there is no evidence that people outside of the vastly expanded western industrialised world have any fear of this preference in other people. A decades old western order would present a scenario in which men who casually socialise with children would more often be regarded as socially incompetent than a threat, and a millennia-old world order would present a wider variety of cultures in which anything such as pedophilia was very rarely even conceptualised as anything distinct, let alone a threat. With such uncountable variations between ancient, post-enlightenment, present non-western and even modern societies such as Northern Europe of a few years ago and some parts of Southern Europe and Asia to this day, it is clearly ludicrous to present a natural argument for adults’ hating of pedophiles, especially since this hatred is often expressed in adults who have no children to protect (sometimes to the extent of direct action!), and seems to be set off by endless different cultural triggers, even within the constrained western society.
The problematic nature of the author’s argument (I trust, obvious to most who have read the literature on this subject) does not end with the vague and somewhat hypothetical issue of attraction. There is ample anthropological evidence from a variety of sources, presented in texts on cultural practices, ritual and homosexuality among other topics which indicates that adults in multiple non-western cultures tolerate, and even encourage sexual contact between adults and adolescents / prepubescents. It has been observed that such behaviour is encouraged for reasons ranging from cultural myths to mentorship requirements and the masculinization of future warriors, and since no overt harm is caused (i.e. individuals and whole cultures do not become deficient), there are no aversions based on anything but taboo, and certainly far less than for sexual relationships between two adult males. Some cultures, one such example in the middle-east, even permit the fellation or masturbation of infant genitalia by mothers, who surely our author would expect to be most naturally averse to such “violation”.
There are other problems in addition to the above mentioned core objections to the author’s argument. One such problem is the apparent appeal to numerical “majority” when determining the validity of the core naturalistic (or sociologically ignorant) claim. This position would hold that because of its greater numbers, achieved through imperialism, industry, agriculture and other such artifice, the western culture should play a greater role in determining what is “natural”, and therefore “moral”. The problem with such an argument is that other cultures, which stand either side of differences roughly equal to those between the Judeo-Christian West and themselves, continue to exist without the same opportunities to expand. One may even be persuaded to take the implied argument to its logical extreme and wipe out all conflicting cultures so that the west can finally claim ultimate “natural validity”, despite its already “persuasive” numerical dominance. Regardless of this, and as already explained, world “consensus” is subject to change over time, as indeed subcultural consensus was with the “Gay Community”, correctly identified as hostile today, although sympathetic, if not amalgamated with pederasts only decades ago, as seen in the membership of ILGA and various historical accounts. Human psychology would require a miracle to evolve noticeably in such a short time, especially when constrained to only one socially determined subculture.
Another problem lies in the author’s comparison of the generalised quartet of moral ills to the dangers of the road, as things that adults “naturally” fear for their children’s well-being. Besides the obvious learning required to become fully aware of the dangers posed by motorised vehicles, there is no apparent reason for humans to “innately” fear something that various anecdotal accounts indicate as having no innately harmful properties (see http://newgon.com/accounts.php) and that non-clinical / non-legal (in most cases, less biased) surveys, exhaustively advocated by academics such as Bruce Rind, have demonstrated to be of a) neutral to b) trivially or substantially positive nature for adolescents and a) neutral to b) nearly always trivially negative nature for prepubescents, despite a culture that condemns and criminalises them before and after the fact. It would appear that the best this author has to offer is either contrived or constructed “harm”, which would most certainly not support their naturalistic argument.
There are still further errors in the argument presented; a tangled, self supporting web of assumptions upon which assumptions are based, such as “children are vulnerable, unarguably innocent and without the tools to protect themselves”, where again, some naturalistic claims may suffice in the most relative sense, but with others, social causation becomes a hypothesis worthy of more than just fleeting investigation. With the passage in question, I am also lead to ask why exactly the sexual aspect must be deemed opposite to the “innocence” and “vulnerability” of its victims, and if it is so, what this means for compliant and fondly reminiscent “victims” and “self-exploiting” child-self-pornographers. Similarly, it is claimed that “Typically, pedophiles and their advocates are quite simply, psychotic”. As well as being unsupported, this statement, in its muddling of ideology and abnormal psychology, comes across as disingenuously sensationalistic and narrow minded, as it effectively pathologizes all dissenting viewpoints.
In one of the more comedic fallacies of the article, it is argued, after tarring all pedophiles and anyone who agrees with them (by implication, numerous non-western cultures, sexual liberationists, mental health organisations and a near-parliamentary-majority in the Netherlands just decades ago) as “psychotic”, that:
“Sex offenders (and the people who support and rally their actions) would claim I’m wrong, but really, ARE psychotic people who support the victimization and brutal sexual violations against children, qualified to make that determination????”
It had apparently not crossed this author’s mind, at the time of writing, that using an argument X against the person to disprove their rebuttal of X constitutes blindingly obvious fallacious, circular argumentation. It would be particularly useful if we could all make unsupported and sweeping accusations against a group of people that would render all of their arguments unqualified, but unfortunately, rational argument simply does not work in such a way. In fact, it is probably of greater significance to ask this author whether they are qualified to make such assertions of medical authority, when the only material in support of their belief is their own moral abhorrence, opposed by hundreds of positive child sexuality testimonies that under any fair ethical system, they would have no right to interfere with.
Soon after, the article hops on from circular to ad populum arguments, with an aside based around a nannying advert, which is frankly not worth discussing. What should be said, though, is that it is based around a clinical generalisation from child sex offenders (criminals, who may understandably be outcasts, shorter with lower IQs) to pedophiles. This appears to contradict the earlier literal separation of pedophiles and child molesters, and is the basis of my understanding that the author believes they might as well be the same thing. Similarly, the police profile is not worth addressing in detail. It is already known that the law and law enforcement condemn these activities, and for efficiency’s sake, try to find ways of generalising to a set profile. This branch of “legal science” surely corresponds with the often opined “cognitive distortion” circular, in which a disreputable psychologist hilariously characterises common pedophile arguments as “cognitively distorted” with nothing but subjective support, observes them in great frequency among the pedophile population, and then unsurprisingly concludes that pedophiles as a taxon are cognitively distorted. This is not a thing of ingenuity.
Other bold, generalising and outlandish claims, for example the incorrect assumption that pedophilic sexuality involves the penetration of children by adults (far from it, as demonstrated in Sandfort, Eglinton and even surveys of the supposedly hardened criminal population (Paedosexual Resources Directory)) and “Pedophile’s activism is offensive in it absurdity and it’s remission of credit towards the general public’s respect for children”, go completely unsupported. Much the same applies to the claim that “pedophiles have proven that they cannot control their urges”. How this fits with the mind-numbingly repetitive home office and criminological statistics in which child sex offenders (the assumed meaning of “pedophile”) come out as the class of criminal with the second lowest recidivism rate after murder, AMC only knows. In addition, stating that child molesters are “criminal” and children “sweet” is as obvious or otherwise irrelevant as to leave the reader with the belief that the author can only be emptily appealing to emotion.
Some quotes also reveal a further unwillingness to debate issues without feeling or expressing disgust-emotions, with “It’s insulting to be asked to entertain the validation of sexual abuse against children”, being one example of such stagnant thought patterns, which fail to entertain non standard, even value-neutral conceptions of behaviours which one abhors. This should be a minimum requirement for any person who intends to write an article on this subject, especially one which delves into academia and medicine.
One final objection to the author’s approach is the dogmatic adherence to medicine, at least to the extent where it gives direct or implied support to the prevailing opinion. Apart from the fact that mainstream medical definitions of pedophilia (in the rare cases where they agree with the author) and those of child sexual abuse are hotly contested both for and against, the psychiatric discussion has variably condemned and permitted different kinds of practices at different times in history. When public opinion condemned homosexuality, so did the APA’s list of mental disorders. This does not particularly condemn to “prior aversion” any such arguments against sex between adults and minors, but adds further weight to the already expressed doubt, in that the medical “consensus” is far from an absolute foundation for supporting ones subjective opinions, if ever it were for such deeply held and unreasoning disgust. Even so, it is important to note that the psychiatric consensus on pedophilia has been misrepresented. There are some theorists such as Richard Green, who have presented arguments for the complete removal of Pedophilia from the DSM. Although not thus far successful, these arguments and the divisions that followed aptly demonstrate that the debate is not only around how to classify pedophiles within the “disorder” model.
All in all, the article presents a series of already, although not widely discredited arguments, along with a tendency to propose “one true way” models of sexual out-groups, an all-too-common pattern that can be seen in most anti-sexual advocacy of one form or another. In conveying a feel-good, pseudo-academic (if that) tone that is sure to please already-convinced readers, the author opens themselves up to some most obvious criticisms, borne of widely distributed literature (Kinsey, Blelbtreu-Ehrenburg) which on close inspection would metaphorically burst the seams of their sacred, simplified “profiles”.
Further reading (in addition to that briefly mentioned in the body, or otherwise contained within or linked to from the newgon.com domain):
Alma Pintanda (probably somewhere on http://www.amaros-amarso-amarsi.org/)
The original article follows:
The Sociopathological Mind of the Pedo
This is why the vast, overwhelming majority of emotionally stable and healthy people in the world are so offended by the motives and urges that drive child rapists, pedophiles, child molesters and predators. The general public has an innate disdain for people that enjoy hurting children. While pedos call this disdain “hysteria”, in effort to neutralize that sick feeling people get as a result of natural instincts to protect babies, truth is, human survival is predicated on protecting and saving children. It’s biological. The instinctual defense mechanism, especially in parents, is the little voice that tells you to watch your two year old so that they don’t get too close to the road or the panic when you’ve turned your back and fear as you realize they’ve gotten to close in one split second.
These are the natural instincts of mothers, fathers and just plain ordinary, good people of various demographics, religions and race. From the gay community to Quakers working their fields, there is a general consensus amongst society that repudiates adult/child sex and holds a protective instinct that is unique unto children. Quite simply, this is because children are vulnerable, inarguably innocent and without the tools to protect themselves.
This is also why the general public is so incredibly offended when child molesters and child rapists seek to change public perception on how it views pedophilia. Pedophile’s activism is offensive in it absurdity and it’s remission of credit towards the general public’s respect for children. It’s insulting to be asked to entertain the validation of sexual abuse against children. (As if the public is going to fall under some pedo-spell and simply hand over our children to be penetrated by an adult, so that parents can somehow see the light and celebrate their child’s suffering.) While pedos justify their behaviors and “lobby” to change laws that punish such behavior, their drawing attention to pedo activism only furthers the determination and defenses of people worldwide.
Since we know that the general public views pedophilia and child rape/molestation as vile, repugnant and criminal, one must ask — why do pedophiles spend so much time and effort in trying to convince the public that sexual assaults against children are natural and beneficial to children as young as infants?
The answer is quite clear and is further substantiated by research. Typically, pedophiles and their advocates are quite simply, psychotic.
Sex offenders (and the people who support and rally their actions) would claim I’m wrong, but really, ARE psychotic people who support the victimization and brutal sexual violations against children, qualified to make that determination????
A recent Canadian study interestingly revealed that pedophiles are significantly shorter than “normal” males, have significantly lower IQ’s “and are more likely to have suffered head injuries as children.
Huh. So when’s the last time you’ve seen a classified ad looking for a babysitter with those qualifications? When’s the last time on Craigslist, you’ve seen this…
Child Care Wanted:
NE mom reluctantly going back to work and wanting to find that perfect Nanny to be nurture my babies in a positive environment. Caregiver must be a short person with a Neapolitan complex with a low IQ and brain damage to care for my precious infant and toddler. Great pay!
Who on earth would knowingly allow a pedo to be around their children? (Well, except for the women who stand by their pedophile family members and friends — that profile will be featured in a future post.)
The following article from Medscape further analyzes the rationalization of pedophiles:
When confronted, pedophiles rationalize their behavior by suggesting that these activities “have educational value for the child”, “give the child sexual pleasure,” or “were performed because the child was sexually provocative.”[2,3] The US Department of Justice identified 5 common defense patterns used by pedophiles[3,4]:
* Denial (”She’s lying. Nothing happened.”)
* Minimization (”It only happened twice.”)
* Justification (”I’m not a molester, I’m a child lover.”)
* Fabrication (”I did it as part of a research project.”)
* Attack (”You cops are just out to get us.”)
From Sex Offenders, Sentencing Laws and Pharmaceutical Treatment: A Prescription for Failure
Stone TH, Winslade WJ, Klugman CM
Behav Sci Law. 2000;18(1):83-110
The phenomenon of adults who have sexual interests involving children as partners, or pedophiles, is considered among the most sociopathological of human conditions. Considerable literature is devoted to issues and problems associated with or related to pedophilia, including prevalence, etiology, treatment, and outcome studies. The sexual victimization of children, based upon data gathered from a number of sources, suggests an intractable problem that is national in scope.
While there are various debates within the psychiatric and psychological fields as to how to classify pedophilia as a mental illness and whether how it should be labeled — one thing is certainly clear — these men (and some women)who molest and rape children are criminal. They are without remorse or empathy. In fact they blame sweet little children for the abuse in which pedos feel that children deserve. (Can you imagine?) They lack the intelligence and empathy to care if they’re hurting children and they lack the capacity to understand why they aren’t allowed to do it.
Some argue that we should just take away the mental illness label(s) for good so that pedophiles can be prosecuted for the criminals they are — never to be given the leeway, excuse or pass by a sympathic social worker, judge or counseler.
In the end, it’s not about mental labels as much as it’s about protecting children from those that conspire to brutally attack them. It’s about keeping children safe. And if the problem cannot be solved through treatment (which has been the case consistantly) and pedophiles have proven that they cannot control their urges (which has been the case consistantly), what shall we do with them? It’s kinda like this, “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here — on this planet, amongst children, amongst the sane.”