Field Trip to the Sick Parts of the Net
Filed under: Lead Story — Claudia, Assistant Editor on July 5, 2008 @ 5:09 pm CEST
I look into the online world of self-righteous pedophiles
I have a confession to make: I’m fascinated by the darker fringe of humanity. The people in the world who are most hated and reviled as well as the most extreme of the extremists, are all very interesting to me. I’m especially fascinated by the little societies they build up around them, little tribes within the wider more reasonable world, all of them with their special language, rules and heirarchies.
Many groups enter into this category. Religious extremists do, the more sect-like the better (so the FLDS is more interesting than the kids at “Jesus Camp”), but not only them. Racist communities, extreme anti-semites, conspiracy theorists, any group that is rejected by wider society and therefore huddles amongst themselves.
And there is quite possibly no group more universally despised than pedophiles. And, believe it or not, many of them also congregate amongst themselves, and some even believe that there’s nothing wrong with their filthy habits and wish to legitimize themselves in society.
NAMBLA probably is the first thought of any American who thinks of “pedophiles trying to become legal”. In fact, NAMBLA essentially died the minute attention was paid to them. Pedophiles live in quite legitimate terror of being discovered, so bringing light to such groups is usually the quickest way to get rid of them.
But the internet has given new life to pedophiles who wish to legitimize their acts or prefferences, to the point where they have decided to create a day “International BoyLove Day” to celebrate and claim their “rights”. I wish I were joking about this.
I passed through one of the central hubs of these people, BoyChat today (I’m not linking to them, google if you must). A sampling of the discussions taking place:
- A talk about how society doesn’t respect childrens rights because they are denied freedom of speech and over their own bodies. This may sound like a bizarre topic of conversation for men who want sexual relations with children, but they way it’s framed is thus:
Take as example an excerpt from an online guide to parents about children’s sexual development which outright lies and ignores the basic facts of our society:
“Tell kids that their bodies are their own [lie 1] and that they have the right to privacy [lie 2]. No one should touch kids if they don’t like it or want it [lie 3 - it doesn’t matter if they like or want it]. Tell them that if anyone ever touches them in a way that feels strange or bad [lie 4 by omission… should read: Tell them that if anyone touches them in any way], they should tell that person to stop it and then tell you about it.”
So you see we are denying children their rights by denying them the right to freely want and enjoy sex with adult men. Un-bel-ievable.
- A short discussion on the delights of young adolescent boys in tights.
- A post discussing “employment opportunities”. Recommended jobs include babysitting, tutoring and driving children around. One member complains that he can’t get jobs like those because of the pesky restraining order that prevents him getting anywhere near children. Very nice.
- A very long post where a prominent forum member (I think) explains just how he ended up being sentenced to 5 years in a Mexican prison for child exploitation, that being the reason he’s low on posting. Short version: I didn’t do anything wrong with those little boys in the hotel. The porn movies were planted on me. Forum members believe him.
- An outraged post about a guy getting 4.000 years prison for continually abusing two girls over the course of a couple of years. Apparently too harsh a sentence. I don’t see why, they’re letting him keep his genitals, which is more than I would do.
- Several different posts with pictures of little boys (none of them actually sexual, or I’d be on the phone right now). I will spare you the comments.
I’m a very extreme defender of free speech. As such, I don’t think this should be illegal, as disturbing as it is. Only ACTION should be illegal. The only words that can be illegal are incitement or collaboration in committing crimes. Though I hate the attempts to make something as disgusting as child abuse legitimate, on the other hand I suppose it’s useful for law enforcement and mental health experts to have these sites available, in order to keep an eye on these very disturbed people.
A final thought, the triangle in the picture leading into the story is the “boy love” symbol. It’s unlikely, since they are a very secretive bunch, but if you EVER see a guy sporting one, I’d highly recommend getting your kids as far away from him as possible.
1 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
July 5, 2008 @ 7:13 pm CESTThese people should all be put in jail for encouraging criminal behavior. Seriously. Pedophiles who control themselves are no problem, but these ones are not controlling themselves… or others.
Scary stuff. Especially if you’ve got a child. If those bastards would ever publish a photo of my child (if I’m lucky enough to have one or more) I’d go after them personally.
We’ve also got groups like that in the Netherlands; who want to make it debatable, legal even. Idiots.
2 Thomas
July 5, 2008 @ 8:00 pm CESTThese people are not screwing 10 year olds. They rarely marry girls younger than 16. If you examine the facts, you would discover there was a definate shortage of child brides Pedophelia is as valid a charge against the Flds as was the blood libel against the Jews. Both accusations are proof of religious predjudice.
3 Erika
July 6, 2008 @ 1:31 am CESTIt has been said before that pedophiles are to America 2008 what the Jews were to Germany 1938 — and by this post that comparison seems all the more clear.
Further, children are to America 2008 what slaves were to America 1848. "The basic facts of our society" is that children are slaves who are allowed to say "No" but never allowed to say "Yes;" and just ask anyone who has fought for the simplest, most basic of human freedoms, when society allows any group the right of only one response, then it is clear society allows them not rights whatsoever.
4 Chuck Norton
July 6, 2008 @ 1:40 am CESTErika - and I doubt that you are even female - as a big supporter of Iarael, I will say that your disgusting moral equivilency of Jews to pedophiles is one of the most revolting examples of anti-semitism I have ever seen. Pedophelia is a behavior, and an awful one at that, being Jewish is a characteristic. Take your racism and bigotry somewhere else.
5 Claudia, Assistant Editor
July 6, 2008 @ 1:51 am CESTIt has been said before by whom, Erika, other pedophiles?
Here’s a neat difference between Germany’s Jews and todays pedophiles, Germany’s Jews weren’t raping children! A minor difference I know, but I think possibly relevant, no?
Not content with comparing the plight of Jews to the "plight" of child diddlers (something I’m sure all Jews highly appreciate) you go on to compare children not being considered capable of consenting to sex with adults to forced importation and labor of African slaves. I’m sure the entire African American community thinks that’s just dandy. Tell you what, go to your nearest black Baptist church, and give this comparison. Report back to us, if you still have any fingers to write with.
Explain to me just how a 4 year old can consent to sex with a 40 year old. Oh and don’t give me this BS about prepubescent children having sexual desire. The most a child will have is a curiosity about his or her body, a curiosity that is normal and innocent, that is, exactly the opposite of the monsters who prey on them.
Look, I knew a guy once who actually had those desires. He never EVER acted on those impulses because he was a decent guy. He had the desire (admittedly not for very young children, more like young adolescents), but controlled it because he knew it was wrong. He didn’t go about justifying the matter to himself, he admitted he had a problem and took steps to control it.
You folks delude yourselves into thinking that a young child wants sexual conduct with an adult. It is a delusion, and a dangerous one. Young children do not feel sexual desire, and biology and training makes them likely to obey orders, making them societies most vulnerable members. Feeling hatred towards those who would take advantage of that vulnerability is normal.
6 Erika
July 6, 2008 @ 3:01 am CESTChuck,
My comment was not anti-Semitic. What I’m asking is an act of historical honesty: simply take the most vilified group of one culture and compare that to the most vilified group of another culture. Out of this comparison we can find the socio-cultural similarities such as hysteria, deliberate acts of propaganda, and systematic, institutionalized injustice — all of which are foundational aspects of both the persecuted Jews and today’s pedophiles. For example, Nazi Germany it was often a death sentence to even point out injustice towards Jews. And as per your response to my post, it seems it’s not popular to suggest injustices are committed against pedophiles.
By the way, Chuck, why do you think I’m not a female? Are you suggesting all men are pedophiles?
Claudia,
Again, I’m not comparing pedophiles to Jews; I’m not saying Jews are pedophiles — but I am comparing their "plights," as you put it, or their common suffering. In Nazi Germany it took a true Nazi to believe Jews could not suffer; likewise, in today’s America it takes the equivalent of a true Nazi to believe pedophiles cannot suffer.
As for children: slaves were considered property at one time in America; similarly (as is the slant of your initial post) children are currently considered property. Hysteria, such as you practice, has systematically denied children the right to voice, the right to choose, and the rights to their bodies — leaving them nothing but (as you imply) sexless things to be controlled.
An observer of cultural hysteria will see that the fear over pedophiles is persecuting children as much, if not more, than it is the pedophiles themselves. Thanks to the propaganda machine and political correctness, boys (ask Chuck) are more and more being considered defacto sexual predators, and children who do choose to be sexual can very well find themselves in jail or on sexual offender registries. That is slavery.
Finally, you say you knew a guy who "had those desires". I seriously doubt you knew that man very well, if you did I don’t think you would have written such a sexually-fascist article and posted it on the internet, condemning an entire group of people with a few foggy assumptions that fall in line with the current trend to hysteria.
7 Chuck Norton
July 6, 2008 @ 3:17 am CESTErika - which is not your real name - I am not saying that all men are pedophiles, I am suggesting that YOU very likely are one. When people engage in tortured logic to engage in propaganda, a common tactic in that propaganda is the "bogus moral equivilancy". Radical homosexual activists equate themselves with the black civil rights and most blacks find the equivilency highly offensive. Heck I am not black and it offends me. To equate a behavior with a characteristic is a bogus equivilency. Now you equate children with slaves as if they need to be freed to have sex with predatory adults. Such a rediculous argument isnt worthy of serious refutation. If I ran this blog I would send your IP to the authorities. Anyone who defends pedophelia has just given probable cause in my book.
8 Claudia, Assistant Editor
July 6, 2008 @ 12:49 pm CESTErika, I have no doubt that pedophiles can suffer, I simply see no equivalence between feeling sympathy for millions of people who were persecuted and killed for their ethnicity/religion and people who are persecuted and jailed for crimes committed against children. Rapists are not victims, they are victimizers.
I don’t approve of persecuting people who have those kinds of impulses if they aren’t actually following up on them, because to me that is persecuting thought crimes. In fact, I think that a man (or woman, in a minority of cases) who has sexual impulses towards children but doesn’t wish to do harm should be provided with as much medical and psychiatric care as possible. It would indeed be a shame for someone who wants to control themselves to end up in jail because no one was willing to lend them a hand in keeping them out of trouble.
Chuck, I agree that this person is probably a man, since the vast majority of pedophiles are male, but there is a small minority that are female. I won’t report this IP to authorities because, as I’ve mentioned, I’m a radical when it comes to free speech and don’t think even this sort of speech should be criminal. "Erika" has used no obscenities, has insulted no one and has not incited anything, even if her (assuming it’s a woman) opinion is abhorrent to me. The IP will not be reported nor will the commenter be banned until I see evidence of criminal intent or disobedience of blog rules, respectively.
9 Erika
July 6, 2008 @ 5:57 pm CESTThere was a time when society thought it could not be wrong on the treatment of African slaves: Society was wrong.
There was a time when society thought it could not be wrong on the treatment of women: Society was wrong.
There was a time when society thought it could not be wrong on the treatment of Jews: Society was wrong.
There was a time when society thought it could not be wrong on the treatment of gays: Society was wrong.
Today society thinks it is not wrong on the treatment of children: is it possible that society is wrong once again?
Today society thinks it is not wrong on the treatment pedophiles: is it possible that society is wrong once again?
10 Claudia, Assistant Editor
July 6, 2008 @ 6:26 pm CESTLOL, why not keep going?
Today society thinks it is not wrong on the treatment of murderers: is it possible that society is wrong once again?
Today society thinks it is not wrong on the treatment of those who commit genocide: is it possible that society is wrong once again?
Today society thinks it is not wrong on the treatment of something-more-vile-than-a-child-rapist (I couldn’t think of anything else): is it possible that society is wrong once again?
Hey, maybe society was RIGHT about slavery the first time! Maybe blacks really DO deserve to be bought and traded like chattel! I mean, society could be wrong couldn’t it! That lends plenty of validity to the argument!
Geez, I consider myself a rational moral relativist (I think almost everyone is, whether they know it or not) but your "argument" is so much horse doo-doo. "What if you’re wrong" is an argument that can’t, or shouldn’t, work on anyone who graduated the 5th grade. I understand that probably you have no interest in people who have made it past that grade, but you really ought to, since some of them wear uniforms and can be awfully unfriendly. I don’t think they’d buy your argument either.
11 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
July 6, 2008 @ 6:30 pm CESTPerhaps that is because they are children? Who are scientifically and biologically not able to make certain decisions? And parents have the right, yes right, to protect their children.
Chuck; it’s like that the name of the commenter is Erik, and that the A stands for something else; first letter of the last name, for instance.
As for the freedom of speech; yes, until this person crosses the line. There is a line, and I don’t feel myself hindered by the freedom of speech. If I think that a commenter is a pedophile, clearly acting or ready to act in breach with the law, I will report it.
Erika has not done so as of this moment, but he / she can consider this comment a warning. Do not cross the line. Be very, very careful.
And stop comparing yourself to Jews, etc. Do that again and you’re instantly banned.
12 Erika
July 7, 2008 @ 12:05 am CESTSigh… I am a female. I’m not a pedophile. I never claimed I was a pedophile. And I have made no comment about the validity of adults and children engaging in sexual activity. I simply took a poorly conceived article and poked holes through it. My technique was to go down the line and question the "common assumptions" in the article (as any ethicist would), assumptions that the writer, writing out of emotion rather than insight, probably never investigated herself.
Of course, considering we live in an age of high intensity hysteria when it comes to the sexuality of children, it’s not surprising that the responses by the staff (does anyone else read this blog?) are the Internet age’s equivalents to frothing at the mouth.
And then Mike enters the stage with all the grace of a balloon full of water, and starts shouting that he’ll call the authorities if you disagree with his opinions.
What a joke.
13 Tully
July 7, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CESTI see the legal concepts of consent and rape seem to be lost on Erika.
In plain words, children are not legally capable of consent, neither in contract nor in sex, and for very good reasons. Side arguments about children possibly having sexual desires areentirely irrelevant. Sex without legal consent is rape. Rape is rightfully considered a serious crime. The exploitive rape of those who are categorically unable to consent, even more so. Erika is arguing in favor of those who openly fantasize about, encourage, and offer facilitating advice on, committing child rape. Erika is comparing that to being Jewish. Condemning the open facilitation and encouragement of child rape is not remotely hysteria. It is not even remotely similar to anti-Semitism.
your "argument" is so much horse doo-doo
That’s very restrained of you, Claudia. And yes, if it didn’t involve some child actually being raped or terrorized to bring it into court, I’d LOVE to see someone trying that argument on a jury. I predict it would precede phrases from the judge along the lines "the maximum penalty allowed by the law" and "to be served consecutively."
14 Jason, Managing Editor
July 7, 2008 @ 9:44 pm CESTI think Erika’s arguments are seriously flawed, but there is nothing she said that could legitimately be construed as endorsing or encouraging the sexual abuse of children. The hasty jumps to assume that she did do that actually tend to confirm her point that this is more a subject of hysteria than analysis.
At the point we start to threaten to ban people or turn them in to the authorities for merely refusing to join a moral crusade and not for anything they actually did or said, I’ve got a very serious problem with that. We should be capable of disagreeing with someone’s analysis even about a morally hypersensitive without trying to criminalize any and all disagreement on the subject. The better historical analogy might be the Salem witch trials, where not only were the witches themselves presumed guilty, but anyone who even raised the tiniest questions on their behalf was also likely to be deemed a witch. Look above, Michael and Claudia and Tully and Conner, that is exactly what you just did.
I read Erika’s points as being that the hysteria about childhood sexuality may be less justified than it intuitively appears to someone in our contemporary moral system. That is an analytical point, not a normative argument. It carries no presumptive endorsement of adult-child sexual contact and it presumes no moral comparison with other “despised” groups to make an analytical comparison. I suspect Erika may be coming from a background similar to that of recent scholarly works that raise questions about childhood sexuality that have provoked unreasonable reactions from hypersensitive publics when those works are misinterpreted as endorsing child sexuality.
In short, put your intellectual glasses on for just a second and you may find that Erika is not doing what you thought she was doing. One of the hardest things to do in social science is to suspend normative judgments long enough to see through to empirical realities. I run into this problem all the time in the civil-military relations field — people pathologize military intervention in politics at such a high normative level that it often blinds them to empirical realities and potential complicating cases like the role of Turkey’s military in restraining Islamism. I would suggest that observations that children are in fact sexual beings can be observed and accepted WITHOUT endorsing adult exploitations of it.
15 Tully
July 7, 2008 @ 10:19 pm CESTIt’s very clear to me that she’s dodging the very basic point that there are good and sound reasons that children are not possessed of sexual consent, Jason, as that one basic point undercuts most of what she’s said. Legal guardianship is not to be dismissed so lightly, nor are the concepts of legal incapacity and special protection that underlies it.
Likewise, that a group is condemned by society for their criminal actions does not make them anything more than very superficially similar to groups persecuted in the past for their ethnicity. Nasty little attempt at playing victim with a false moral equivalency there.
Erika’s also conflating wardship status with property, and legal incompetence to give sexual consent with slavery, and alleging that the only basis for guardianship and legal inability to sexually consent is the hysteria of others.
Hysteria, such as you practice, has systematically denied children the right to voice, the right to choose, and the rights to their bodies — leaving them nothing but (as you imply) sexless things to be controlled.
Uh uh. Not buying even a small part of that. Complete and utter BS. And in my humble assessment that argument can indeed "legitimately be construed as endorsing or encouraging the sexual abuse of children." Many pedophiles defend pedophilia as not being immoral, and being wrongfully illegal by trying to end-run the basic reasons children are a protected class. Stripping legal protections from children and the right to defend children from their guardians does indeed open children to sexual abuse. QED.
At the point we start to threaten to ban people or turn them in to the authorities for merely refusing to join a moral crusade and not for anything they actually did or said, I’ve got a very serious problem with that.
That part I can agree with.
16 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
July 7, 2008 @ 11:10 pm CESTI agree with that too Tully; luckily that’s not what I did. But I did say, that if someone crosses the line - actively encouraging people to break the law, for instance, by having sex with children - then I will let the authorities know.
That’s even something the Dutch law requires of me (when you know about a crime committed or a crime that can be committed, etc., you have to report it). Someone, then, who actively encourages others to break the law is, yes, breaking the Dutch law and that, yes, I find important enough to report.
Frankly, it’s little to no concern to me whether people enjoy that or whether they think that it’s hysteria.
As said, Erika did not do this, which is why I’m not reporting her; but there is a line, and it should not be crossed. And that most certainly is a warning.
17 Erika
July 20, 2008 @ 4:03 am CESTMore evidence to the thesis that pedophiles are becoming the new "Jews" of society (for lack of a better analogy):
18 Plato Socrates
July 23, 2008 @ 11:18 pm CESTGreetz,
I’m going to share my opinion. I hope you consider it based on empirical merit rather than what is politically and culturally correct.
It is certainly true that children are not sexless slyphs. They usually discover some means of sexual gratification at a young age (apart from prone masturbation, typically this age is six), often on a subconscious level. Some take it further and seek out sexual interactions, typically with their peers.
This is considered normal and regarded as experimentation in most of the more liberal 1st world and most 3rd world cultures.
Most gay boys, when they become teens, have their first experience with Men - their are two reasons for this - one, Men are available, interested, and usually discreet, two - society makes it very hard, particularly in the US, UK and Australia, for them to simply "come out" and be open to their peers about their desires and, biological needs (post 13, on average, sexual activity becomes a physical need). That is not to say societal acceptance is without progress - but the toll in the interim in terms of human suffering for children is severe - in the US, 50% of gay high-schoolers (even some primary-schoolers) commit suicide. Look up the stats if you don’t believe me.
As I was saying, usually from the age of 6 children engage in arbitrary and casual sexual activity - not all, but the vast majority - since this is often without and mental context - ie the thought "i am masturbating.." it is not something everyone even remembers without severe analysis of their past - many people choose to dismiss pre-teen sexual activity because of the PC controvesy. Again, not all people do have young sexual activity - but most.
That said, man children from the age of about 8 onwards, begin to seek out sexual activity, usually with peers, and sometimes with trusted adults who appear open to these acts.
The average age for penetrative heterosexual sex in the US is 12. Usually this is with an older partner (usually 15-25 yrs).
Historically, this is neither unusual or frowned apon. The current hysterical concern over children damaging themselves through sexual activity is best described as originating in the Victorian era.
Indeed, as you can see my Name is an alias - Plato, Socrates and their contemporaries, founders of the university model and many of our most fundemental and pervasive methods defined as "civilized," would turn in their graves at the current condemation of Adult-Teen relationships (with or without intimacy) and resrtiction of children from birth through, in the worst countries, age 18.
Thanks for listening. Take care out there.
19 Bill Evans
July 24, 2008 @ 1:04 pm CESTFirst let me introduce myself. The name on this comment is my real name. You will find (if you dare) that same name pops up quite frequently on Boychat. I am and have been for almost 4 years, a regular poster there. I am a paedophile attracted to boys. I am not a child molester. I never have been and never will be, despite the attempts by certain corrupt cops to have me branded as such.
The blog post above that began this thread is utter balderedash! There is nothing on Boychat that encourages anyone to molest kids. There never has been and never will be. The purpose of Boychat is to assist boylovers to be able to live in our paranoid societies and have loving, non-sexual relationships with boys. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no "secret code". What you read is what it means.
The photos of boys the author referred to are in fact "sigpics" or avatars, and it is a requirement of the board that sigpics may only be photos of the poster when he/she was a child. If the person who wrote the above post had done his research properly, he would know that. There are currently several threads there discussing some new sigpics that posters have had included. It should be noted, that for a photo to be used as a sigpic, it has to be emailed to the admin for approval and included in a specific folder on the server to be accessible. Photos cannot otherwise be included in a post. The server uses a modified version of HTML that does not recognise the "img" tag.
Boychat is open for anyone to post, and you will find that those who go there seeking real information are well received, and that questions will be answered honestly and frankly. If you want to continue this discussion with me, do it there. I read every post on the board.
20 Jim
July 24, 2008 @ 10:00 pm CESTWhile I will not deffend sex with kids, I will speak out against the pathetic laws in the United Kingdom that can send out to prison someone who downloads CARTOONS.
While this law continues, only the fully legalisation of child pornography makes any sense, nobody in their right mind can surely imprison someone for looking at CARTOONS that they do not like.
Reference:
http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/politics-of-an-obscene-character
21 Jason, Managing Editor
July 25, 2008 @ 1:21 am CESTBecause of a few commenters persistently using multiple accounts to post potentially libelous personal attacks against other commenters, I have been forced to close this comments thread. This site will not tolerate witch hunts and personal vendettas, even on an issue so legitimately emotional as this one.