Thursday, September 24, 2015

Have you hugged your monster today?

This article has been getting some buzz:
I've skimmed it. A few observations:
i) He says he doesn't view kiddy porn, but why take his word for it? Would he admit to viewing kiddy porn? 
ii) He makes all the same rhetorical moves as homosexual activists. 
iii) It's a tearjerker designed to elicit the sympathy of readers. Manipulate the reader's emotions by telling a good sob story.
iv) It reads like the all-too familiar opening gambit: "we need to open a dialogue," "we need to have a national conversation"–which is the first move towards mainstreaming a traditional taboo. 
v) Seems to me that he's making a faux admission of a problem. It's like political candidates who volunteer revelations about their "youthful indiscretions."
That's not a confession of guilt. To the contrary, that's designed to preempt criticism. Now that they've gotten that out of the way, they can move ahead with their campaign. It's really a way of neutralizing the issue, under the expectation that an "understanding" audience will and allow them to put that that chapter of their life behind them.

vi) Many opponents of homosexual marriage have pointed out that once you buy into the arguments for homosexuality, why stop there? Why not pedophilia? Proponents of homosexual marriage usually feign outrage at that comparison, but it's not just hypothetical. The Salon article is one of those softening-up exercises designed to incrementally reduce resistance to pedophilia. And the process will be accelerated in this case because many people have already accommodated the same arguments for homosexuality. 

vii) Moreover, this doesn't just involve social outcasts. Take the "Spies, Lords and Predators" investigative report. 


  1. I agree that it's incredibly creepy and designed to elicit sympathy.

    Suppose that one gave it the farthest benefit of the doubt. Suppose that one assumes for the sake of the argument that he believes everything he says, isn't just trying to soften people up, is telling the truth, etc.

    There's plenty of remaining creepiness to go round. Viz.

    1) He strongly implies that "virtuous" pedophiles like himself should be left alone with kids as a sign of trust and says that he would do so with "virtuous" pedophiles he knows. That's ridiculous. If he really takes his condition as seriously as he says he takes it, he should be saying, "Don't leave your children alone with me! Children are vulnerable, and that would not be fleeing temptation." It's as though he's asking people to prove that they don't think he's a monster by leaving their kids alone with him even if they know about his inclinations. This is putting his own desire to not have his feelings hurt ahead of the safety of children.

    2) He says that he needs a "community" of fellow pedophiles to make him feel good. This is unhealthy. He may need to tell a counselor or spiritual adviser, but he doesn't need a "community" of fellow perverts with whom to sit around and chat. Such chats at a minimum will likely be exercises in self-pity, talk about how society needs to accept them more, and will always be in danger of veering into extremely unhealthy content. They are a bad idea, period. But he says the opposite and is a moderator at a forum for so-called "virtuous pedophiles."

    3) He implies that he should receive disability payments because his pedophilia and the scorn he has suffered for it have made it hard for him to get a job. Apparently part of the problem is that he hung out on a _really_ bad chat site that included _active_ monsters, and then some doxxers infiltrated the site and "outed" him along with the active monsters. Poor baby. Learn that you are judged by the company you keep. If you hadn't been hanging out with extremely evil people, you would find it easier to get a job today. You don't deserve disability payments.

    4) He implies that it should be possible for him to "come out" (a highly problematic term) to a larger number of people so that he would feel better. Actually, no. That's TMI. Society as a whole (e.g., a church group) doesn't need to hear about your perversions. He should keep himself away from kids and otherwise not darken most people's lives with his sickness. Get help with discretion. Making this sort of thing widely known desensitizes society to its evil. But he doesn't seem to get that.

    And that's all just assuming he's sincere. The left has a history of covering up for real monsters in this area, so one has to wonder, even though he sounds sincere. Others have made that point.

    1. i) A certain percentage of people who have inclinations of one sort or another act on their inclinations. It's inevitable that a percentage of people so inclined will act on their desires.

      That's why people who have unhealthy or dangerous inclinations should either avoid putting themselves in a tempting situation, or (depending on the nature of the inclination) be disallowed by law from getting into that situation.

      ii) In cases of risk assessment, it's the potential victim, not the potential perpetrator, who ought to be protected. The benefit of the doubt should benefit potential victims, not perps.

    2. ...he should be saying, "Don't leave your children alone with me! Children are vulnerable, and that would not be fleeing temptation."

      That's the virtuous thing to do. Rather than surrounding himself in tempting situations or telling others it okay to leave children around people with pedophilic attraction.

      But he says the opposite and is a moderator at a forum for so-called "virtuous pedophiles."

      Part of the problem is the Unchristian assumption that feelings and thoughts are morally neutral. It's the assumption that what only/really matters are actions. Such thinking leads people to conclude that it's okay to indulge thoughts of evil, without them every becoming evil thoughts (since only outward actions are good or evil in their thinking). Christianity teaches God will judge both are outward actions and inner thoughts.

      He implies that he should receive disability payments because his pedophilia and the scorn he has suffered for it have made it hard for him to get a job.

      Some feelings, inclinations and thoughts are WORHTY of scorn. But non-Christians often don't understand that.

  2. The writer wrote:

    I think it’s safe to say that many pedophiles have deep-seated feelings of inferiority in one way or another, or at least we did when our sexuality was forming, and this becomes a downward spiral during puberty and beyond. Anything can be the trigger of this: disabilities, weight issues, or just general feelings of unattractiveness to peers. These feelings can be influential on one’s developing sexuality, such that even the severe cultural taboo is not enough to override it. Indeed, the taboo itself can negatively influence these vulnerable children.

    From his recounted childhood, it's not difficult to speculate why he's attracted to children.
    I suspect pedophiles have differing causes to their attraction. Some suffer from stunted emotional growth. Others have a longing to recapture their own lost innocence or the newness/freshness of youth. Some because of the power they would have over the children. Power to use, to control, to determine, to frighten, to manipulate. Some because they are fearful of, can't or refuse to deal with adult relationships which require earning, developing and nurturing the trust of a relative equal. So, they find unequals (lessers) more appealing. It's an easy way out that's less intimidating. It keeps their inadequacies (perceived and/or real) from being exposed. So, these people who feel inadequate (emotionally, sexually, physically, mentally, character-wise etc.) settle for easy prey. Some do so to feel superior or forget their inferiority.

    While, others who are the opposite, and feel superior want to maximize that sense of superiority by abusing the weak, innocent and helpless. It can be a manifestation of a god complex that wants not only to rule, but to affirm he/she is beyond rules.

    The former are pedophiles on account of their feelings of inferiority. The latter on feelings of superiority. But both are self focused rather than also being concerned for the good of others (i.e. loving neighbors as oneself). Both types of people need a reality check. They need to see who they are and who other people are in relation to God.

    It seems to me that attraction is a bit fluid in youth and if it's not channeled and nurtured correctly (by parental and/or self-discipline) it can create patterns of thought and neurochemical reactions that are so ingrained that people think they are that way naturally. For myself, (as a male) I was always attracted to females (even in my earliest memories at the age of 4). But there was a curiosity about my fellow males in my early youth that clearly wasn't attraction. Yet, I can see how some other boys who have such curiosities could confuse it (and the consequent excitement that attends any type of curiosity) with attraction. Also, admiration and envy of another boy could develop into same-sex attraction. Or lack of a good model of masculinity.

    I think something similar happens in the development of pedophiles. Pedophiles encouraged and fed some thoughts and impulses while starving and neglecting others that lead to such a wicked inclination. This includes impulses to want to do what's right/good or wrong/evil. There's a wicked streak in all people that makes wicked things exciting (think Augustine and his stolen pears). That's why Total Depravity makes so much sense.

    Finally, I think there's a demonic aspect to all sexual sin. If it doesn't start demonic, it almost always involves the demonic to some lesser or greater degree. Outward sins and attitudes tell demons our weaknesses, and then they target those weaknesses till they get a foothold that gets stronger and stronger.

    1. Some men and women are homosexuals because it's difficult for them to attract the opposite sex. Others are homosexuals because it's so easy for them to attract the opposite sex that there's no challenge or excitement to it. Similarly, I suspect that some pedophiles are attracted to children because it's too easy to attract adults. The taboo of pedophilia itself makes it novel and exciting. It's the very secrecy of the (actual or hypothetical) relationship that's so attractive. Or they are pedophiles because it's too difficult to attract adults. Or because they like the feeling of how they are able to attract and seduce children by winning their trust and friendship. It's one thing to seduce a fellow adult, but seducing innocent and uninformed children is so despicable. I don't understand how the mere thought of it doesn't make it repulsive to pedophiles. Don't they understand they are ruining those children's lives (potentially or actually if they physically molest)? That they are also ruining themselves, their character and their future?

      Pedophiles need to realize their attractions are not only unloving, they are hateful and disrespectful to the children, to God and to themselves who are made in His image.

  3. Should people who have inclinations to murder pedophiles, we'll call them "virtuous vigilantes" be welcome to hang out with him and his crew?