Pedophile Jack McClellan

[Spartacist]

Just as Gay, lesbian and transgender people were once hated, misunderstood and discriminated against by an uptight society with outmoded “moral values,” so are pedophiles in America today. Soon, pedophiles like Jack McClellan will be perceived as normal, healthy citizens who are part of the fabric of a diverse society. But more importantly, in the future, sexual trailblazers and pioneers like McClellan himself will be seen not only as victims of repression, but as heroes, the Rosa Parks of their generation. Just as leftists of all shades have embraced the once oppressed Gay, lesbian and transgender communities, they should take up a forward-looking, progressive stance by inviting the pedophile community to join its diverse, multicultural ranks to triumph over the hate, fear and bigotry of the religious right.

[TC]

I agree that the paranoid horror with which pedophiles are reviled is a form of bigotry and it has more to do with a paternalist view of children and a patriarchal convention of children as the sexual property of their parents then with anything else...(the biggest example being that the term "pedophile" is used in the popular press as synonymous with "child molester", denying the reality that most pedophiles are not child molesters and most child molesters are not pedophiles in orientation; its like assuming that all gay men want to rape straight guys) ...

But you can't realistically compare pedophiles to gay people because gay people have potential partners who return their interests whereas true pedophiles do not (whereas pederastics probably do). Some people simply have sexual desires that they can't realize (same with lots of rare fetishes), and while they shouldn't be discriminated against or hated for them they do not have the same potential for meaningful consensual social and sexual interactions as others do. Some people are just sexually dysfunctional; not all human psychological and behavioral variation is equally desirable.

There will never be streets named after Jack McClellan for the same reason that there will never be streets named after leading robot fetishists or leading zoophiles, alien-sex fetishists or ghost-sex fetishists; gays have sex object preferences that can return their affections, people who like robots, animals, aliens, cartoons, furry anthropomorphic mythical animals or ghosts do not. Social progressive on that front would mean that people would see pedophiles as merely weird and sexually dysfunctional rather than monsters who should be driven out of their communities, lynched, castrated, killed or jailed or any of the other common socially sanctioned responses to them.

[Marion]

Jesus Christ! I've read some utter crap in my time, but this just about takes the biscuit...

[Marion]

My God, where to start?

The original post (society is "uptight" as doesn't accept paedophiles and MClellan is a "trailblazer") must obviously be some sort of spoof so isn't really worth dealing with. Anyway, moving on to the reply which I guess is serious:

I agree that the paranoid horror with which pedophiles are reviled is a form of bigotry
Yeah, the horror of paedophiles goes over the top but its nothing like a form of bigotry. Bigotry is a completely unjustified viewpoint which can't be compared to a dislike of paedophiles whatsoever.

it has more to do with a paternalist view of children and a patriarchal convention of children as the sexual property of their parents then with anything else
Are you honestly arguing that the reason why people get so worked up over paedophiles isn't due to a natural concern over their children (which has got stoked up the wrong way) but because they see their kids as their sexual property?

the biggest example being that the term "pedophile" is used in the popular press as synonymous with "child molester", denying the reality that most pedophiles are not child molesters and most child molesters are not pedophiles in orientation; its like assuming that all gay men want to rape straight guys)
No, its nothing of the kind whatsoever. Fancying children is not at all comparable to fancying people of the same sex. Being a paedophile is more akin to someone who is solely turned on by rape. I know you're not intending to say being a paedophile is in any way equivalent to being a paedophile, but the analogy doesn't work.

There will never be streets named after Jack McClellan for the same reason that there will never be streets named after leading robot fetishists or leading zoophiles, alien-sex fetishists or ghost-sex fetishists
Nope. Most people would probably find it very strange and odd if their street was named after someone who, say, wrote porn about aliens. They'd correctly find it completely fucked-up if it was named after a paedophile. Lumping paedophilia in with all these other sexual traits is relativism taken to the most ridiculous degree.

[Djehuti]

Alice is in trouble.

6.000 people on this planet are determined to abduct, rape, torture and kill her.

6.000.000 are attracted to her in a way that might lead to some minimal physical contact, which very rarely results in her getting hurt or forced into anything. Actually, quite a few of these 6.000.000, like deacon Charles Dodgson, are happy just to take pictures of Alice or look at them.

6.OOO.OOO.000 earthlings are most unlikely to fall into the first category, but may very well partake of the second, often for a very short while, maybe once in their life, or possibly only in their mind.

6 billions of us are increasingly regarded by psychologists, cops, judges and reporters as if they could turn into those 6 millions, while these 6 millions are currently treated as if they acted like the 6 thousand. In the year 2001, Socrates would be witchhunted as a child molester, and Oxford University would sack Lewis Carroll as a child pornographer.

http://troploin0.free.fr/biblio/alice/

[Spartacist]

Some comrades are very, very hypocritical and backward on the subject of sex.

If I had written the very same thing in the 1960s about Gays and lesbians, most of you would have attacked me then too. But today, we all agree that Gays and lesbians are not abnormal and should practice their sexual habits unfettered. Do not forget that the founder of the Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, was also a communist.

The very same thing could be in the future for people like Jack McClellan. Some of you comrades are no better than the Jerry Falwells of the world.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:08 pm
Some comrades are very, very hypocritical and backward on the subject of sex.

If I had written the very same thing in the 1960s about Gays and lesbians, most of you would have attacked me then too. But today, we all agree that Gays and lesbians are not abnormal and should practice their sexual habits unfettered. Do not forget that the founder of the Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, was also a communist.

The very same thing could be in the future for people like Jack McClellan. Some of you comrades are no better than the Jerry Falwells of the world.
Equating being gay or lesbian with being a paedophile is complete nonsense. McClellan is not "normal", "healthy", in any way a "trailblazer" or comparable whatsoever to Rosa Parks.

And please don't consider me in any way your "comrade".

[Spartacist]

Go back to your church, Marion.

If this were 1967, you'd be calling homosexuals "faggots" and advocating we kill them. Twenty years from now you will march arm-in-arm with people like McClellan and say you have always been on his side.

The world will progress on, that is what we as progressives are all about. That many of you, so-called progressives cling to these hilariously outdated christian mores is stunning!

[luxemburg89]

HAHA - this is a good laugh! Yes Marion and I will march in the streets of London hand in hand with men and women who beat and rape children - as should be their right. I shall then walk side by side with men who shot dead factory workers - as we must do the opposite of EVERYTHING religion has ever said, all murder should be legal.

What would happen if Marion was to 'go back to [their] church'? They'd encounter a large number of paedophiles in the organisation - many of the church ministers for example.

I know someone touched by a paedophile as a child - I'll never defend them. I half-understand what you are saying at simply looking at pictures of children per se but I find that quite repulsive (- maybe that's a personal opinion?). Anyway read 'The Bluest Eye' by Toni Morrison and tell me paedophilia doesn't make you sick.

Adults who love children but do not act on their urges, well I cannot blame them for those feelings can I, even if personally I disagree.

NB. I am using 'paedophiles' here as a term referring to those who have acted upon those urges against the will of a child. I do not consider a 20 year old in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old, from whom they have total consent, a paedophile.

EDIT- Typo, sorry :blush:

[Spartacist]

luxemburg89, you are not that stupid are you?


I do not consider a 20 year old in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old, from whom they have total consent, a paedophile.

You dumb fucking asshole, THIS IS WHAT MOST PEDOPHILES ADVOCATE! NAMBLA is an accepted part of most Gay Pride celebrations around the world for this reason.

Rape ocurrs but not all sex is rape; pedophiles rape but not all pedophilia is rape, isn't that correct?


Anyway read 'The Bluest Eye' by Toni Morrison and tell me paedophilia doesn't make you sick.

Oh, oh, oh! Read "Wild Indigo" and tell me that hetrosexuality won't make you sick, read "A Clockwork Orange" or "Nova Express." Please.

[Marion]

You've absolutely no right whatsoever to suggest that had I been around in 67 I'd have advocated killing homosexuals. That's a fucking disgraceful assertion to make on the basis of absolutely no evidence. I don't think I've every sworn at anyone on any Internet board before, but you're a fucking paedophile-apologist arsehole.

[Spartacist]

And YOU, Marion, are an up-tight, people-hating, crypto-christian, sex fascist.

Go join the Republican Party.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:56 pm
Christianity is against homosexuality and pedophiolia nice to see you standing with the oppressors.
Did you actually read what Luxemburg89 wrote about religion? I'm not religious at all, but to suggest that because Christianity is against paedophilia you should be for it is complete nonsense. If only communism was as simple as just inverting everything that the Bible said...

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:01 pm
And YOU, Marion, are an up-tight, people-hating, crypto-christian, sex fascist.

Go join the Republican Party.
Yet again we differ substantially. At least when I insult you I actually accurately describe your crap viewpoints (you are a paedophile-apologist). I'm not uptight, people hating, crypto-christian or a sex fascist. Unless being a sex fascist is thinking that calling people like McClellan a "trailblazer" is complete crap.

I did honestly think your original post might well have been a joke, but I'm astonished to find you actually believe it.

[Spartacist]

Marion, we could put what you know about communism into a thimble and still have room to make a double martini.


Unless being a sex fascist is thinking that calling people like McClellan a "trailblazer" is complete crap.

Do you know who Harry Hay was, Marion? Was HE a pioneer, a trailblazer?

Go back to you Jerry Falwell cave.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:09 pm
Marion, we could put what you know about communism into a thimble and still have room to make a double martini.


Unless being a sex fascist is thinking that calling people like McClellan a "trailblazer" is complete crap.

Do you know who Harry Hay was, Marion? Was HE a pioneer, a trailblazer?

Go back to you Jerry Falwell cave.
Yeah, I do know a bit about Harry Hay. Not a huge amount, tbh, and I doubt I'd agree with him politically on much. However, your assertion that what Hay did is in any way comparable to McClellan is complete gibberish.

Out of interest, are you a Spart member and, if so, is this crap an official position?

PS Given your risible definition of what "progressive" means I wouldn't slag anyone off for lack of left-wing understanding if I were you.

[Dr Mindbender]

Homosexuality (generally) occurs between 2 adults who have the sentient ability and wisdom to make informed choices about their sexuality.

Children do not have the maturity or education to make informed choices about their sexuality, or the risk of STD's, family planning etc.

End of thread.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by some wacko
Soon, pedophiles like Jack McClellan will be perceived as normal, healthy citizens who are part of the fabric of a diverse society. But more importantly, in the future, sexual trailblazers and pioneers like McClellan himself will be seen not only as victims of repression, but as heroes, the Rosa Parks of their generation.

I don't see the people recognising individuals suffering from a genetic neurological disorder as being "pioneers" of anything besides new techniques to cure their illness, imprison them or put them to death.

Child abuse is unforgivable; period.

[Dr Mindbender]

spartacist is also missing a fundamental point, paedophilia and other forms of sexual deviation are all products of the social alienation endemic within capitalist society.
Under socialism, in theory, there will be no peadophiles or zooiphiles etc.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by ulster
spartacist is also missing a fundamental point, paedophilia and other forms of sexual deviation are all products of the social alienation endemic within capitalist society.

I would have to disagree on the origins of sexual deviation such as paedophilia is purely neurological in origin.

Can social events "trigger" the manifestation of neurological disorder? Sure they can.

These disorders can also manifest themselves without any negative social triggers as well; much like in most anorexia nervosa cases.

The point being that to consider individuals that are suffering from a disorder that forces them to abuse children as "sexual pioneers" is simply absurd.

As leftists, it is our responsibility to weed these people and their apologists from our ranks.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 03:45 pm
spartacist is also missing a fundamental point, paedophilia and other forms of sexual deviation are all products of the social alienation endemic within capitalist society.
Under socialism, in theory, there will be no peadophiles or zooiphiles etc.
I assume there will be no gays or lesbians either :rolleyes:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:27 pm
I assume there will be no gays or lesbians either :rolleyes:
I agree. Ulster has been mislead on what exactly a neurological disorder is and how and why it is manifested.

That's cool though jack, at least he's on the right side.

[TC]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)
Yeah, the horror of paedophiles goes over the top but its nothing like a form of bigotry. Bigotry is a completely unjustified viewpoint which can't be compared to a dislike of paedophiles whatsoever.[/b]

Yah but, when i said "bigotry" i didn't mean casual dislike. I meant people who actually want to kill or jail every one of them, which is not an uncommon response, and thats obviously bigotry. Obviously I think pedophilia is dislikeable (i think a lot of things are) but lots of people go so much further into irrational and often sadistic hatred and make no apologies for it.


Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)
Are you honestly arguing that the reason why people get so worked up over paedophiles isn't due to a natural concern over their children (which has got stoked up the wrong way) but because they see their kids as their sexual property?
[/b]

Yes thats exactly what i'm arguing.

What parents call "natural concern" is the patronizing concern towards children as property.

They don't want their children having sex with *anyone* even as teenagers, even with other teens their own age, it drives them insane. The same patriarchal family values types who drum up media and legislature based pedophile witch hunts prosecute teens for having sex with each other, try to restrict their teenagers access to birth control and sex education and would often rather force their daughters to give birth against their will (a far graver sexual assault than the type pedophiles are normally accused of) than have anonymous access to abortion.

The vast majority children who are sexually abused are abused within the patriarchal family, by their heterosexual parents or step parents or their adult-oriented uncles or older cousins, not by pedophiles. Statistically speaking if you want to stop child sexual abuse you shouldn't hunt pedophiles you should take children away from their parents!(who are, by definition, not pedophiles, they're situational child molesters who prefer adults)


Originally posted by Marion

No, its nothing of the kind whatsoever. Fancying children is not at all comparable to fancying people of the same sex. Being a paedophile is more akin to someone who is solely turned on by rape.

Not really, some pedophiles are sexual sadists but most aren't turned on by hurting children. Pedophilia is an orientation towards children not a desire to force children to do things against their will; similarly gay people don't want to force straights to have sex with them, even if they want them sexually and wish they would return their affections, they wouldn't be aroused by hurting them (unless they're also sadists).

I realize that its tempting to try to make people into monsters because of a "OMFG SAVE THE CHILDREN" hype, but that doesn't justify demonizing a tiny sexual minority.


Originally posted by Marion

Lumping paedophilia in with all these other sexual traits is relativism taken to the most ridiculous degree.

The reverse though is to assert a sort of unique exceptionalism for pedophilia, which is a sexual preference not a behavior, and to pretend that it has some kind of metaphysical moral status rather than looking at it scientifically.


[email protected]
Yes Marion and I will march in the streets of London hand in hand with men and women who beat and rape children - as should be their right.

Parents are the biggest group of people who beat and rape children...many of them even publicly defend their "parental right" to beat their children (which they reduce to some cutesy term like 'smacking' or 'spanking' because its only "assault and battery" if its someone your own size or "domestic violence" if its someone only slightly smaller) ...and yet these are the people who are paranoid about pedophiles and have kept Maddy MCain in the news for weeks and weeks and weeks despite there being nothing new to report.

Pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction towards children not a desire to commit sexual violence against them.


Luxemburg89


I know someone touched by a paedophile as a child - I'll never defend them.

Everyone knows people who were sexually abused as children because child sexual abuse is much more common than pedophilia; most child molesters are heterosexual men who prefer post-pubescent women and only abuse their own or their spouses or siblings children because they can get away with it more easily than with adults.

Thats not pedophilia though, thats situational child molestation, the same way that prison rape isn't (typically) homosexuality, its situational same sex rape (usually again, by heterosexual male offenders based on opportunity not preference).

[QUOTE]
NB. I am using 'paedophiles' here as a term referring to those who have acted upon those urges against the will of a child. [/QUOTE}

Okay but thats not technically what the word "pedophile" means. Its incorrect to conflate child molesters and pedophiles as i described in my first post in this thread, and thats clearly not the way that Sparticist has been using the term anyways.

The assumption that pedophiles necessarily will be compelled to rape children just because they're attracted to them is like assuming that all straight men are rapists just because they're attracted to women. If its clearly wrong in the later instance than there can be no reason for thinking its correct in the former instance.

And we can't have a serious political conversation about any topic if we're not going to use consistent terminology.

[LSD]

Any relationship between an adult and a child is predicated on inequality. Children are socialized to obey adults and to respect their judgments and directives. Accordingly, and normal adult-child intimate relationships make allowances for this fact: parents are overtly "in charge" of their children and make no bones about it.

When someone tries to enter into a sexual relationship with a child, this impled inequality forces them to do one of two things. One, they can use this inequality to force the child to do what they want; or two, they can try and pretend that it doesn't exist.

If they pick the first option, they are, by definition, exploiting that child. They are forcing it to do something which does not serve it at any level but which only helps the adult.

The fact that the act itself may not be immediately painful is irrelevent. Working in a factory isn't nescesssarily "painful" either. The bourgeoisie is still wrong to force workers to do it.

The second option I mentioned above is even more exploitive, although it desperately tries to pretend otherwise. You see, the inherent power disparity between adult and child cannot be "wished away". Rather all that that kind of "fantasy" equal relationships does is corrupt that child's idea of what an equal realtionship is!

The authority that adults have over children is a nescessarily one, but it is also a sharply limited one. If, at any time, an adult uses that authority to serve solely his own interest, he has violated the tacit contract of that authority and must be stripped of it.


If I had written the very same thing in the 1960s about Gays and lesbians, most of you would have attacked me then too. But today, we all agree that Gays and lesbians are not abnormal and should practice their sexual habits unfettered.

That's because those sexual habits are in and of themselves harmless. The same certainly canot be said for pedophilic ones.

Tell me, do you also envisage a world in which murderers and date-rapers will be hailed as hero? After all, they too were condemned in the 1960s, surely society must "progress" for them too?

Or do you recognize the fact that certain things are just plain undeniably harmful, seperate and away from what cultural mores at the time may say.

And while I understand, superficially, the tendency to view all sexual attractions as relativistically "the same", such a view completely misses the psychology dynamic.

A clitorectomy performed under general anaesthesia has no pain associated with it. It doesn't have any pleasure, either, of course; but since the child probably never used the clitoris before, they don't actually lose anything following it. In your own words, it's "nominal".

Somehow, though, I doubt that anyone familiar with the nature of female genital mutilation would share that assesment. :angry:

Child sex abuse may not always be physically painful. But like with the above analogy, it has long-term and persistant consequences. The fact that the child does not experience them immediately is only further evidence for why such acts should be prevented, not encouraged.

If children realized that sex with an adult with stunt their psychological development, they would never be manipulated into such encounters. But of the course the irony of lack of capacity is that, by definition, one cannot know that they are being abused.



I do not consider a 20 year old in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old, from whom they have total consent, a paedophile.

You dumb fucking asshole, THIS IS WHAT MOST PEDOPHILES ADVOCATE!

Piece of advice, you probably shouldn't call people "dumb assoles" when you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Paedophilia by definition is is a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths; that does not include 15 year olds!

Someone attracted to 15 year olds, regardless of their own age, cannot be a "pedophile". I know that the American media likes to label those people as such, but for someone who claims to be so "informed" on this subject, you really should know better.

What "most pedophiles advocate" is for the "right" to fuck little kids. Not fifteen year olds, not even thirteen year olds, but seven year olds.

Kids as young as a few months have been sexually molested in the past. Surely you're not contending that that constitutes anything other than a horrific crime.

And yet if we, as groups like NAMBLA propose, eliminate all age of consent laws and other anti-child molestation laws, we would have absolutely no means of stopping such behaviour.


Rape ocurrs but not all sex is rape; pedophiles rape but not all pedophilia is rape, isn't that correct?

Actually... no. Indeed I would propose quite the reverse, that any and all sex between an adult and a prepubescent child is in fact tantamount to rape.

Engaging a child in sex before they've developed their own adult sexuality artificialyl accelerates their development and grafts an externalistic sexual paradigm on to them.

It ties sexuality into concepts of authority and coercion, it prevents them from undertaking normal sexual experimentation, and makes them associate their bodies with the pleasure of only other people.

Because such encounters serve the adult and not the child, they start seeing sex as something not about themselves; as a chore one "must" perform. This stops them from investigating their own sexuality when it finally starts ariving and makes them feel ashamed about any sex or sex interest that's actually about themselves.

Instead of seeing their body as their own, they see it as belonging to the other. They become unable to differentiate personal boundries.

This is why victims of child sexual abuse tend towards either abuse themselves or repeated abusive relationships. In either case, they are drawn to relationships in which the normal boundries are not present.

The repeat the lack of consent which defined their early "sexuality".

Groups like NAMBLA content that the overwhelming evidence for sexual abuse related harm is due solely to the "social factors" of contemporary society, but that is a remarkably oversimplified analysis of child sexuality; and one which fails to account for the actual documented harm that comes out of adult-child sexual relationships.

If the sole problem with such relationships was a "lack of knowledge" on the part of the child, we would expect to see absolutely no psychological damage when children are "informed" about sexuality.

In reality, of course, the opposite is true.

Children who, at a young age, are made sexually active by and with an adult will suffer long-term damage whether or not the adult in question "explained" what they were doing first.

It doesn't matter if a 30 year old father "explains" how penetration works before he fucks his 7 year old daughter. It will still scar her and it will still have a serious and detrimental effect on her psychosexual development.

If a child seeks out pleasurable activities on their own, that's one thing, but that is not what child abuse is about. Child abuse, rather, is about adults grafting their adult sexuality onto a developing and psychologicall unprepared child.

There is a reason, after all, that while children will often touch their genitals and pleasure themselves, they will not seek out sexual partners. Childhood sexuality is simply not a "mirror" for adult sexuality and we cannot treat children as if they were "little adults" just "waiting" to be "taught" how to fuck.

Even children subjected to repeated sexual abuse, will not then seek out further sexual encounters on their own, nor would they be likely to receeve a positive reaction if they were to.

Adult-child relationships, almost by the nature, tend towards the dictatorial side in which the child's "sexuality" is entirely subject to the whims of the mature partner.

The implicit power disparity between an adult and a child is simply insurmountable, no matter how much "education" is given to the child. A developing mind is simply not capable of making many of the decisions nescessary for modern living and so must rest under the care of some mature and responsible adult.

Should that adult chose to "sexualize" that child, the inherent power that he has over the child will nescessarily taint the entire encounter and, more importantly, taint that child's conception of sexuality then and into the future.

It's development, you see, which is the relevent issue here. Both physiologically and socially, a child is designed to "respect" and "look up to" her elders, almost to a degree bordering on worship. Accordingly, any sexual activities with an adult will be predicated on drastic inequality. That cannot help but effect her conception of sex even when she matures.

That's why sexual abuse has such long-term consequences and why it is important that adult and child sexuality remain seperated.

[Redmau5]

I suppose the clues in his name.

The Sparts are fuckin' crazy, especially when it comes to paedophiles.

[capstop]

Don’t you think that alienated individuals and communities say and do strange destructive things to each other?

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:56 pm
luxemburg89, you are not that stupid are you?


I do not consider a 20 year old in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old, from whom they have total consent, a paedophile.

You dumb fucking asshole, THIS IS WHAT MOST PEDOPHILES ADVOCATE! NAMBLA is an accepted part of most Gay Pride celebrations around the world for this reason.

Rape ocurrs but not all sex is rape; pedophiles rape but not all pedophilia is rape, isn't that correct?


Anyway read 'The Bluest Eye' by Toni Morrison and tell me paedophilia doesn't make you sick.

Oh, oh, oh! Read "Wild Indigo" and tell me that hetrosexuality won't make you sick, read "A Clockwork Orange" or "Nova Express." Please.
Disgraceful. I didn't deserve that.

[BreadBros]

This thread is ludicrous. I agree with LSD on the broader issue of pedophilia. But Jack McClellan as a trailblazer? Comparing him to gay rights advocates? Are you insane?

Jack McClellan isn't engaged in any consensual sex (not that I would even think that would be possible wit a 5-year old girl). He is stalking locations frequented by little girls, snapping undesired pictures of them and hosting them online. If I started going to gay bathhouses and snapping pictures of people who wanted nothing to do with me from afar I would be condemned as a creep, not hailed. Why would it be any different just because hes a pedophile?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:36 am
Just as Gay, lesbian and transgender people were once hated, misunderstood and discriminated against by an uptight society with outmoded “moral values,” so are pedophiles in America today. Soon, pedophiles like Jack McClellan will be perceived as normal, healthy citizens who are part of the fabric of a diverse society. But more importantly, in the future, sexual trailblazers and pioneers like McClellan himself will be seen not only as victims of repression, but as heroes, the Rosa Parks of their generation. Just as leftists of all shades have embraced the once oppressed Gay, lesbian and transgender communities, they should take up a forward-looking, progressive stance by inviting the pedophile community to join its diverse, multicultural ranks to triumph over the hate, fear and bigotry of the religious right.
WTF, how much HAVE you been drinking? <_<

Anyway, only a Spart could post such cack. -_-

[gilhyle]

There is of course lots of vagueness around the definition of the issue. Statutory rape and the oppressive role of the family are key issues. But if you leave them aside there is still a difficult point: at the heart of the damage done by paedophilia generally (leaving aside the additional damage done by the aggresive cases) is the retrospective damage done to the &#39;victim&#39;, even if a willing victim at the time. It is this backward gaze of the person on themselves which is most damaging.

History suggests to us that there is a significant social element in determining this damage - the damage may not have been as intense or have existed at all in societies where paedophilia was widely approved of.

Paedophiles will often argue that the damage is not necesarily done, that it is only the oppresive ideas of society that cause the damage. That may actually be so. But the damage is no less real for all that and it is that point that paedophiles do not come to grips with. They cannot know that a child they persuade to sex will not be damaged irrespective of the attitude and behaviour of the child at the time. Indeed the greatest damage may well be done to many of the most collusive children.

Paedophiles live in this society. To exercise their sexuality in this society, they have to do damage - almost inevitably. To ask paedophiles to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their sexuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those paedophiles who believe that it need not be so damaging. But sex is about the here and now, its not about ideals or long term plans. There is no choice in this society and, I suspect, in mst future stages of society.

Personally, I often feel deeply sympathetic to paedophiles and the burden they must bear, but I see no immediate alternative - they must bear the intolerable burden of restraint.

In relation to aggresive paedophilia, as with violent crime, I believe the police of the capitalist state should, infortunately, be facilitiated, always wary that they will use this emotive issue to erode peoples rights.

The main political question here relates to the anti-child pornography laws which ban the possession of certain images irrespective of how procured. THis is a very dangerous development, it is only a matter of time before it is used to erode free speech in more significant areas.

[capstop]

Gilhyle

“To ask paedophiles to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their sexuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those paedophiles who believe that it need not be so damaging.”

So lets do this:
To ask a capitalist to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their individuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those capitalists who believe that it need not be so damaging.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:02 pm
Gilhyle

“To ask paedophiles to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their sexuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those paedophiles who believe that it need not be so damaging.”

So lets do this:
To ask a capitalist to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their individuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those capitalists who believe that it need not be so damaging.
Your point...I dunno.....but Ive got a bit more sympathy for someone forced into a life of sexual abstinence than someone forced into luxury yacht abstinence.

[capstop]

Gilhyle

Exploitative use of power is exploitative use of power, capitalists or alienated paedophiles.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 15, 2007 10:19 pm--> (gilhyle &#064; August 15, 2007 10:19 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:02 pm
Gilhyle

“To ask paedophiles to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their sexuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those paedophiles who believe that it need not be so damaging.”

So lets do this:
To ask a capitalist to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their individuality. It is a lot for society to ask, and is probably particularly difficult to bear for those capitalists who believe that it need not be so damaging.
Your point...I dunno.....but Ive got a bit more sympathy for someone forced into a life of sexual abstinence than someone forced into luxury yacht abstinence.[/b]
Sympathy? Would you have sympathy for a rapist? In the end they&#39;re both very similar, they both inflect psychological and (sometimes with paedophiles) physical damage and scars the victim for life. These people deserve nether sympathy nor support.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:19 pm

Your point...I dunno.....but Ive got a bit more sympathy for someone forced into a life of sexual abstinence than someone forced into luxury yacht abstinence.
Why you give a shit is beyond me however we can offer them solutions:

1) Undergo treatment for their disease.

2 If treatment is unavailable, undergo temporary imprisonment until treatment is available.

3) Assisted euthanization.

Done deal esse.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Gilhyle

Exploitative use of power is exploitative use of power, capitalists or alienated paedophiles.
Show me a person who doesnt engage in the exploitative use of power and I will show you a corpse.

I can have sympathy and still wish the aggresive paedophile jailed and the key thrown away.....remember, in a round about way my whole point was that the paedophile apologists are wrong.

[LSD]

To ask paedophiles to restrain themselves is a terrible sentence to impose on anyone. You are, in effect, asking them to live an incomplete life, with no expression of their sexuality.

Yeah, it sucks. I can only hope that one day we can develop a means to alleviate their suffering.

In the mean time, however, I really don&#39;t see any alternative to forced abstinence, or at the very least a forced diversion of their sexual behaviours into other less abusive areas.


The main political question here relates to the anti-child pornography laws which ban the possession of certain images irrespective of how procured.

That&#39;s one of the political questions here, but I wouldn&#39;t say that it&#39;s the "main". Indeed, the "main" issue in this thread would appear to be over whether or not pedophiles constitute an "oppressed" minority and whether the more famous ones like Jack McClellan should be considered "heroes".

Clearly no one save the original poster believes any of that nonsense, but unfortuantely this board does have it&#39;s share of frankly bizarre opinions on questions relating to pedophilia and adult-child sex.

For instance we have Vanguard1917 who asserts that leftist should immediately agitate for the elimination of all age of consent laws&#33; That is he proposes that there be no legal sanction for fucking children&#33;

He portrays himself as "defending the working classs" against "police excess", but while his approach would do nothing to lessen the class hegemony of the bourgeoisie and their stooges in blue, it sure as hell would be a boon for the pedophile community which would be newly freed to run around molesting children to their heart&#39;s delight.

Vanguard seems to feel that child abuse is more myth than reality and that working people "just don&#39;t" abuse their kids. This apotheosis of the "glorious" proletariat, however, does not seem to extend into other areas as he tends to hold rather perversely conservative opinions on many other social issues.

For instance despite his instance that he opposes increased police powers, he vehemently supports anti-euthenasia legislation&#33; That is, while he does not support the police locking up child molesters, he does support them locking up doctors who euthanlize their patients even under situations of full consent.

And Vanguard is by no means alone in this lunacy. Former admin and current Mod, CdeL also asserted the "reactionary" nature of age of consent laws and called for their immediate repeal. As did a number of other self-described "revolutionaries".

So while clearly no one&#39;s eager to side with "sparticists" ridiculous notions regarding the "heroism" of men like McClellan, a great number of them are nonetheless willing to effectively support the political pedophile position; i.e., the decriminalization of sex with minors.


[Anti-child pornography laws are] a very dangerous development, it is only a matter of time before it is used to erode free speech in more significant areas.

I agree with you 100%.

No image, no matter how "disturbing" should land a person in jail. Obviously the production of child pornography cannot be tolerated for the same reason that any sexual abuse of a child cannot be tolerated, but "posession"-based criminalization is intolerably oppressive.

Not to mention that in many jurisdictions the mere posession of text is a crime provided that it includes references to "illicit" sex. The same is true for drawings or other creations that clearly did not involve the abuse of an action child.

Somehow our society has determined that child sex is so "evil" that even it&#39;s mention must be excized from our collective consciousness, as if it were a demon to be exorcised.

I guess murder isn&#39;t a problem then seeing as posessing fake pictures of murder is perfectly acceptable. Strange that the killing of a child is not considered to "imnoral" for us to write stories about, but the molestation of one is.

I think it speaks to the deeply confused nature of bourgeois "ethics".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And Vanguard is by no means alone in this lunacy. Former admin and current Mod, CdeL also asserted the "reactionary" nature of age of consent laws and called for their immediate repeal. As did a number of other self-described "revolutionaries".

Lunacy, huh?

If upholding capitalist laws that look like this in practice (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?319) is sane, than I&#39;m happy to be crazy.

And yeah "a number of &#39;revolutionaries&#39;" do hold a similar position, for good reason.

No one (maybe barring some nutters, somewhere) is saying that 65 year old guys should go around raping babies. But the "age of consent" laws themselves, inflexible and set arbitrarily (i.e. If you&#39;ve lived 17 years and 364 days, you can&#39;t consent to sexual activity; but tomorrow you can&#33;), are entirely reactionary.

[gilhyle]

I have wrestled a bit with this age of consent thing. It is very oppressive for teenagers. But I think there is a way out, even in capitalist society: instead of having an age of consent you could change the evidence required for consent below a certain age. Thus you could say something like the following:

"Where a person has not reached puberty or where one person is more than three years older than their sexual partner, it shall be obligatory for the older person to establish prior to the sex to the satisfaction of an independent nominated person (psychiatrist) that there is consent by the younger party to the sexual act and, in relation to persons below the age of puberty that there will be no damage done. Where the younger person does not establish to the satisfaction of the independent person that puberty has been reached, it shall be reasonable for the psychiatrist to assume that damage will be done, unless at least three other psychiatrists certify that no damage will be done. Having sex in the absence of such certification shall be equivalent to child abuse."

In that scenario there is no age of consent and almost no possibility of abusing a child.

I know this means 12 year olds can end up being persuaded to have sex with a 15 year old, but that is not the problem we are trying to solve here and that problem is best solved not by statutry rape laws but by good &#39;adult eduction&#39;

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by FoB+August 14, 2007 09:27 pm--> (FoB &#064; August 14, 2007 09:27 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 03:45 pm
spartacist is also missing a fundamental point, paedophilia and other forms of sexual deviation are all products of the social alienation endemic within capitalist society.
Under socialism, in theory, there will be no peadophiles or zooiphiles etc.
I assume there will be no gays or lesbians either :rolleyes: [/b]
thats different, as i already said homosexuality is not in itself harmful to those participating in it, and takes place between consenting, sentient adults. It is entirely different to paedophilia or bestiality.

[PigmerikanMao]

Wow&#33; :lol: At first I thought the OP was joking&#33; xD

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:40 pm
Wow&#33; :lol: At first I thought the OP was joking&#33; xD
whos the OP? :blink:

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:24 pm
whos the OP? :blink:
Original Poster :mellow:

[spartan]

im sorry but what can these child rapists contribute to a socialist world. i mean how can a child who hasnt even hit puberty decide what they want sexually. these rapists are taking advantage just like a capitalist.

[Philosophical Materialist]

The sexual exploitation of children by adults is not progressive. It is not socialist, it is not communistic. It is disgusting, damaging and a horrible crime of sexual violence and subjugation. Paedophiles are oppressors and exploiters.

[Le People]

Its fucking sick, these pedophiles. But please, any ideas on pedastary? I think its okay, as long as both partners are mature and consent is involved.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:08 pm
Some comrades are very, very hypocritical and backward on the subject of sex.

If I had written the very same thing in the 1960s about Gays and lesbians, most of you would have attacked me then too. But today, we all agree that Gays and lesbians are not abnormal and should practice their sexual habits unfettered. Do not forget that the founder of the Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, was also a communist.

The very same thing could be in the future for people like Jack McClellan. Some of you comrades are no better than the Jerry Falwells of the world.
you&#39;d be perfectly fine with a 30 year old man or woman sexually attracted to your 11 year old child???

cus. Um i don&#39;t get it.

or as longest you consent the sexual relationship and your child is OK with it? its cool? or what the fuck is the argument here?

I think pedophiles need serious help. and some sort of evaluation and rehab. no death or our hate. but help.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:05 pm
im sorry but what can these child rapists contribute to a socialist world. i mean how can a child who hasnt even hit puberty decide what they want sexually. these rapists are taking advantage just like a capitalist.
Pedophiles are not "child rapists." Child rapists are people who rape children, they could be pedophiles. Pedophiles are people who have an attraction to pre-pubescent children, determined by genetics. Most pedophiles are able to restrain their feelings, for the better of society.

[southernmissfan]

As some have already mentioned, pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to children. While you may find this weird, even disgusting, it is a relatively small sexual fetish. Most "pedophiles" are not rapists, and do not actually go after children. Most sexual abuse of children is committed by parents, step-parents, and other authority figures who are not really pedophiles but abused them because of the opportunity. Child molester and pedophile are not the same thing.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:30 pm
As some have already mentioned, pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to children. While you may find this weird, even disgusting, it is a relatively small sexual fetish. Most "pedophiles" are not rapists, and do not actually go after children. Most sexual abuse of children is committed by parents, step-parents, and other authority figures who are not really pedophiles but abused them because of the opportunity. Child molester and pedophile are not the same thing.
Im still trying to stomach the whole "natural fetish" thing. I just don&#39;t think grown men should be looking at young children in a sexual way. and I don&#39;t think is natural. foot fetish is a fetish. fuck&#33;

[Ultra-Violence]

i just dont get how the fuck can you compare jack mcClellan to rosa parks?Wtf?
She fought for civil rights&#33; and these fucking sicko goes and takes pictures of kids from afar and post them on the internet&#33; :blink:

[spartan]

we should cut off all paedophiles&#39; penis&#39;,arms, legs,etc so they can never hurt anyone again.

[Dr Mindbender]

if we remove the genitals of the pretentious shits in the capitalist media then maybe it wouldnt be such an issue.

[spartan]

ulster socialist please dont defend such scum. if you have kids imagine one of those bloody paedos getting their slimey hands on them its disgusting and wrong and should never be accepted in any society whether capitalist or socialist. i hope thats something the majority of both capitalists and socialists can both agree on.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:40 pm
we should cut off all paedophiles&#39; penis&#39;,arms, legs,etc so they can never hurt anyone again.
If you cut the penis off first, isn&#39;t the rest redundant and a bit excessive ?

Granted you could &#39;get confused&#39; and cut the arms and legs off and then apologise for getting the sequence wrong....but, heh, what can you do then...even an armless paedophile might not be harmless so you better do the penis too......I can see how that might happen.

But if you do it a few times, you should really get the hang of the sequence and do the penis first and then reassess the situation and decide whether they are still paedophiles or ex-paedophiles. If they are ex-paedophiles, surely it is unjustified to cut off the arms and legs ?

Alternatively, if you find that they die every time you cut off all their extremities, would it be worth while to conclude that this procedure is equivalent to a death sentence and just shoot them.

Furthermore, Im not sure you are taking into account the burden on society of all these armless, legless and penisless persons....why do we want them sitting around, whinging, begging ....bullet behind the ear, philips screwdriver in the forehead: surely that would be the utilitarian option ?

Then we come to the question of &#39;etc&#39; Would you include noses in &#39;etc&#39;. In theory you can abuse someone with your nose. Not to mention tongues. I personally think we might well include &#39;liver&#39; in &#39;etc&#39; cos then they couldnt drink and we all know how drink makes the sexually unattractive, attractive.

I would also include &#39;hair&#39; in &#39;etc&#39; cos cutting someone&#39;s hair is humiliating and that wll teach to think again about their crimes. We must protect the children.

[spartan]

ha no point using bullets it would be a slap to the face of the workers who made it wasting a good bullet which could be used on a capitalist on a paedo. how about cut their penis off and whilst they bleed to death force the castrated penis down their throat and have them choke to death at the same time.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:15 pm
ha no point using bullets it would be a slap to the face of the workers who made it wasting a good bullet which could be used on a capitalist on a paedo. how about cut their penis off and whilst they bleed to death force the castrated penis down their throat and have them choke to death at the same time.
Is there something wrong with your head? It sounds like you&#39;ve been reading The News of the World a little too much.

[spartan]

seriously how can you defend these sick people. i mean let me put it this way what if you had a ten year old child boy or girl and that child was raped by some fifty year old paedo. i dont think you would be defending the sick bastards then. this specific matter has nothing to do with capitalism or communism but with whats acceptable in any society capitalist or communist. the fact is if some of you people who defend these paedos think they should have an outlet for there perverted and sick fantasies then you must have something seriously wrong with yourselves for this should never and hopefully will never be excepted in any society. we are not some primitive tribe here we are proletarians living in a modern civilized world where such practices are regarded as abnormal at the very least and long may they remain so cause if i have a child im not having some middle aged pervert attempting to seduce him/her. especially when you consider that most victims of paedos havent hit puberty yet. how can these children decide what they want sexually? it is adults taking advantage of children for their own selfish desires (alot like capitalists take advantage of proletarans) for gods sake&#33;

[gilhyle]

My own earlier posts said they should be jailed and I would even support the capitalist state in that enterprise.


The point is not to enter into the ideology pushed by the popular press which they use to justify that, while hiding the social nature of human sexuality and the commonly oppressive role family. I can agree with the outcome of jail, but not with the narrative of &#39;evil&#39; and &#39;innocence&#39;

These are concepts that serves to make us all mindless, that facilitate the oppression of teenagers through statutory rape laws, that protect intra-filial child abuse and that also cover up the scandalous truth about internet based child abuse - namely that it only exists because national authorities will not put the money and cross border resources in place to deal with it.

Compare, for example, the extensive laws against &#39;money laundering&#39; internationally coordinated Compare the intensive surveillance operations against political activists. Compare those things to the miniscule resouces devoted to internet child porn ? Why - cos there is no intention to stop internet child porn, only an intention to be seen to be doing something.

Consider also the lack of treatment facilities for offenders, so often released with a liikelihood of re-offending, even an increased likelihood. (The whole treatment question is complex and Im not getting into it - but just mentioning that whatever the full truth what we have is not working as well as it might.)

The whole child abuse narrative we get shoveled at us in this society is a tissue of lies designed to make those in power look good rather than to protect children.

[Cencus]

Sex with pre-pubescent children is just so wrong on so many levels, and equate it to the struggle for lesbian and gay CONSENTING ADULT rights is such an insult. Christ you are talking about fucking children. People talk on these boards talk about the abuse of power by states, but that pales against abuse of power of an adult using a child as a sex object.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:02 pm
Sex with pre-pubescent children is just so wrong on so many levels, and equate it to the struggle for lesbian and gay CONSENTING ADULT rights is such an insult. Christ you are talking about fucking children. People talk on these boards talk about the abuse of power by states, but that pales against abuse of power of an adult using a child as a sex object.
I agree whole heartedly with Cartman, which is why this isn&#39;t in italics&#33; I&#39;m that serious&#33; :mellow:

[spartan]

paedos should be put in the same group as murderers, rapists and cannibals all socially unacceptable practices.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

hehehehe oh god this has to be 1 of the funniest arguements ever i doubt monty python could come up as some as good as this half of u sound like a religous crackpot (a charecter Eric Idle would play) others of you sound like just idiots (Michael Palin would play) and then theres Marion who is the one in the right but everyone else is too dopey to understand and he would be played by John Cleese



Good work guys i haven&#39;t seen a script this good in years.

[spartan]

death to paedos and death to those who think it is acceptable. you are reactionary scum.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:14 pm
death to paedos and death to those who think it is acceptable. you are reactionary scum.
You&#39;re starting to sound like a nut. I am certainly not pro-pedophilia either and obviously support jailing them but come on, what&#39;s killing every single person suspected of it going to do?

[spartan]

sorry ismail im just trying to get it through to these individual rights libertarians that paedophilia is unacceptable.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:43 pm
sorry ismail im just trying to get it through to these individual rights libertarians that paedophilia is unacceptable. Yeah, but the ideology you churn out actually facilitates child abuse.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:51 pm
ulster socialist please dont defend such scum. if you have kids imagine one of those bloody paedos getting their slimey hands on them its disgusting and wrong and should never be accepted in any society whether capitalist or socialist. i hope thats something the majority of both capitalists and socialists can both agree on.
im not defending anyone im merely suggesting that paedophillia is a symptom of a much bigger root cause. ie capitalist social material conditioning. The paedophile lynch mob are comparible to the anti terrorist brigade who whinge about the evils of political islam while at the same time completely ignore the oppressive motives instigated by the US and Israel.

(BTW im not in any way comparing paedophiles to the intifada but i hope you understand my point).

[Dublin Red]

Paedophiles cannot be defended. Whats the point in taking the soft aproach with sick people. They made the choice to be like that and to be honest they need harsh punishment. Not just a slap on the wrists from the courts they need prison sentances. That will give them all the help they need and make them cop on to life.

A young girl or boy who gets abused by a paedophile is scarred for life. It lasts with them for their whole life and in some cases can cause suicide later on in their lives. It can cause them problems having normal or sexual relitions with people when they are older. Even the people who have grown up being abused and appear to be ok it still has an effect on them. Paedophilia is sick, there is no two ways about it.

[Cencus]

Sexual acts with prepubescent children are beyond my understanding, I&#39;m not afraid to say so, I just don&#39;t get it. The whole idea of performing a sexual with anyone that cannot give consent is just alien to me, but that in no way means that I cannot tell that it is wrong.

It is a shame if someone cannot become a sexually satisfied human being due to an accident of genetics or some act of abuse that has twisted their desires, but there can never ever be a way we offer up children as sex objects to adults.


People in this thread have suggested that possession of child pornography should not be a crime, but then you have to ask how is this material made? Child porn is made by abusers to be sold to other peodophilles for profit. The act of making child porn can be as abusive or even more so than a normal abusive relationship.

If child pornography could be made with no abuse involved [cgi etc] maybe it would be acceptable but until that time it cannot be acceptable as it not only supports the abuser but also provides them with profit for thier abuse.

[Dr Mindbender]

i dont think the problem would be solved as easily as simply executing paedophiles. Its predominately a symptom of social alienation and exclusion.