Civilized discussion? April 2, 2008 10:08 PM   Subscribe

Is it just me, or is tkchrist being a bit rude in this post about child exploitation?

Normally, I'm not one to take my issues to the teacher, but tk's comments in this thread, at least some of the ones directed to me, seem to be "my god, you're telling yourself a sick twisted lie! what is wrong with you?! I'm the only one who has a clue about this, just admit that you're wrong!!!" I know that it's a topic that tends to raise hackles, but if most of the rest of the people in the thread can at least attempt to have a civilized discussion and exchange of ideas, can't he?

Examples, some more egregious than others:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

It isn't an executionable offense, but, come on.
Disclaimer: Not saying that I have been the model of generous discourse, so I'm totally open to rational, constructive criticism about my snarks
posted by papakwanz to Etiquette/Policy at 10:08 PM (148 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Well, it's not exactly a nice subject, and clearly he's allowed it to push his hot button. But what are you hoping for here?
posted by Burhanistan at 10:11 PM on April 2, 2008


I'm sorry, but I'm biased against abusing children, so I think your views on this subject are just a little fucked up and I have to agree with him, at least on his last comment ("7"), which summarizes a lot of what is said. If using the forum of Metatalk is the best defense you can muster, it's perhaps time to rethink your premises.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:13 PM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wow. Death by Ugabooga defends the institutionalized rape of children and you call out tkchrist for being too rude to him in his response. Amazing.
posted by 1 at 10:14 PM on April 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


C'mon. It's a thread about child sexual abuse. And you start off saying shit like:

Do we really think that Aristotle needed therapy because Plato fucked him in the ass?

"A bit rude" is better than you deserve. Since you brought it up.
posted by moxiedoll at 10:15 PM on April 2, 2008


Dude, you're telling yourself a sick and twisted lie. What is wrong with you?
posted by dersins at 10:16 PM on April 2, 2008


I often think that tkchrist goes overboard in MeFi but strangely this is not one of those times. I mean yeah he's commenting a lot and he's hot under the collar but this gem...?

Another MeFi knee-jerk fest about sex and "minors." Ah yes. I debated posting at all, as I'm sure I'll get some, "you sicko perv, stay away from my kids! i hope u go to jail and get assraped lol!!!1" comments, but whatever.

That was you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:17 PM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


That whole thread is pretty ugly if you ask me. But if I have to choose, I'm going to have to come down on the side of those opposing the sexual exploitation of children.
posted by LeeJay at 10:18 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maybe the tone's bad, but come on, this is about fucking children. Pick your battles.
posted by ALongDecember at 10:19 PM on April 2, 2008


Do we really think that Aristotle needed therapy because Plato fucked him in the ass?

Sorry, I haven't even read that thread, and I must be made of evil or something, but I think that's hilarious. I mean come on, sure, Aristotle needed therapy, but that's not why, silly!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:20 PM on April 2, 2008


Yeah, sorry tkchrist was a bit curt and/or rude, but I don't think you're going to get any backup on defending what is essentially underage sexual slavery.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:21 PM on April 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


Btw, call me overly westernized or something, but I've long considered part of being "civilized" to be not condoning rape.
posted by 1 at 10:22 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hmm, I see no problem with someone standing up for the rights of teenage boys to not be coerced into sexual slavery and, if that person offends you with said defence, I think it is you with the problem, not them.
posted by dg at 10:25 PM on April 2, 2008


I'm just glad that its not the Christian brothers for once
posted by mattoxic at 10:27 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah, the intellectual bravery of so many in boldly declaring rape to be a bad thing.

So reasonable, so civilized. Tell me, though, do you support the troops?

I'm sorry, I'm probably just derailing the thread into Shitcanistan, but the sanctimony is a little thick in here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:34 PM on April 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


stav, I think you're better than that sort of argument.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:37 PM on April 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ah, the intellectual bravery of so many in boldly declaring rape to be a bad thing.

So reasonable, so civilized. Tell me, though, do you support the troops?


No stavros, I am only able to oppose one act of sexual assault per day. I just added your article to my dayplanner if it makes you feel better, though.
posted by LeeJay at 10:38 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


So reasonable, so civilized.

So, er, how much for your son and daughter?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:39 PM on April 2, 2008


Well, thanks for your thoughtful comments, considering I never, ever, ever said that I condoned or supported underage sexual slavery or anything close to it, but whatever. My point was that I (and others) were being 1) intentionally misinterpreted by tkchrist (among others) and then 2) insulted and borderline slandered based on that. But I see that is just going to continue here, so nevermind.
posted by papakwanz at 10:39 PM on April 2, 2008


Ah, the intellectual bravery of so many in boldly declaring rape to be a bad thing.

More seriously, wtf? Would it be more intellectually brave to declare rape a good thing?

What the hell is up with Metafilter tonight?
posted by LeeJay at 10:40 PM on April 2, 2008


Wait, other injustices exist in the world? Oh, well forget it then.
posted by ALongDecember at 10:42 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm an ugly old guy, but I have some extra hugs if we are running dry.
posted by dawson at 10:45 PM on April 2, 2008


stav, I think you're better than that sort of argument.

I'm not making an argument. There's no argument to be made. It just smelled a little too knitted-brow and two-minute-hatey in here to me, that's all. And maybe I was feeling a little exasperated with Americans-in-the-collective getting overheated about injustices abroad while passing over awfully familiar ones at home. Call it a brain fart that I ought to have held in, if you like. Apologies all 'round.

So, er, how much for your son and daughter?

How much you offering?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


But I see that is just going to continue here, so nevermind.

Advice: Never, ever, ever come to Metatalk for sympathy. Sharpen your claws. Take no prisoners. Throw ad hominems around like candy and distract people with comments about Iraq.

And if children aren't necessarily, functionally, legally incapable of asserting power over the kinds of adults who sexually abuse children, perhaps you might do a much better job explaining why next time around.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:49 PM on April 2, 2008


*hugs dawson*
posted by LeeJay at 10:50 PM on April 2, 2008


Thanks for pointing me back to that thread so I could see you're comments, papakwanz. What are you, the fucking NAMBLA ambassador to metafilter?
posted by puke & cry at 10:51 PM on April 2, 2008


ahh, I sensed you had a hard on for America tonight/today stavrosthewonderchicken , but personally I took no offense.

thanks, LeeJay. wanna sip of my Double Cola?
posted by dawson at 10:53 PM on April 2, 2008


And maybe I was feeling a little exasperated with Americans-in-the-collective getting overheated about injustices abroad while passing over awfully familiar ones at home.

You know what? Now I feel a little guilty about snarking at you, stav, because I have to admit we Americans are pretty good at that. I just think maybe this wasn't the argument to hang that hat on.
posted by LeeJay at 10:53 PM on April 2, 2008


How much you offering?

I got a trunk filled with Support the Troops car magnets. Do you support the troops? Let's talk off-list.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:54 PM on April 2, 2008


thanks, LeeJay. wanna sip of my Double Cola?

Do you even have to ask? I'm drinking water because they SAY it's good for me but it's cola I want. Double Cola, even.
posted by LeeJay at 10:54 PM on April 2, 2008


ahh, I sensed you had a hard on for America tonight/today stavrosthewonderchicken , but personally I took no offense.

Heh. That was an odd perfect-storm coincidence in timing. I haven't been hating on America nearly as much as I used to in recent years, actually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:55 PM on April 2, 2008


I'm drinking water because they SAY it's good for me ...

BTW -- no need for the recommended 8 glasses a day!
posted by ericb at 10:56 PM on April 2, 2008


BTW -- no need for the recommended 8 glasses a day!

I KNEW it! Back to diet cola and hard liquor I go. What could possibly go wrong?
posted by LeeJay at 10:59 PM on April 2, 2008


I'm drinking water because they SAY it's good for me
No, that's wine. they SAY red wine, but I suspect that a cheap zinfandel is fine.
stav, actually yr line in that FPP made me guffaw. well, that's better than giggle anyway
posted by dawson at 11:02 PM on April 2, 2008


they SAY red wine, but I suspect that a cheap zinfandel is fine.

God, I hope so. Do you think the cardboard from the box adds nutritional value or am I just kidding myself?
posted by LeeJay at 11:06 PM on April 2, 2008


Diet cola is bad for you. Stick with straight liquor.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:10 PM on April 2, 2008


Stick with straight liquor.

Liquor? I don't even know her!
posted by ericb at 11:12 PM on April 2, 2008


Do you think the cardboard from the box adds nutritional value

probably not, but just pop a handful of Flintstone vitamins and you'll be in fine form.
posted by dawson at 11:12 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


My point was that I (and others) were being 1) intentionally misinterpreted by tkchrist (among others) and then 2) insulted and borderline slandered based on that. But I see that is just going to continue here, so nevermind.

You probably should've said that in the first place with examples rather than misquote horribly and link only to your opponent's comments.

Or gotten up from the computer and drank eight glasses of water.
It's good for what ails you, or so I've heard.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:12 PM on April 2, 2008


I hate cutesy pun filled articles like that CBS News one ericb linked to:

...That just doesn't hold water, according to doctors...
...For some, the findings may be hard to swallow...
...cherished beliefs about the power of water could be … all wet.

I can write for CBS too!

Do you need 8 glasses of water! H2No! Those claims are all washed up and on thin ice, gushed a recent report. After pouring over the facts, doctors were flushed to find out...
posted by ALongDecember at 11:29 PM on April 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


Is it just me, or is tkchrist being a bit rude in this post about child exploitation?

No; you are a fucking mental case. Fourteen year old adolescents of either sex are not equipped with the reasoning ability of a grown adult; I understand that the species may have allowed this sort of thing in other cultures and other times, but they also didn't bathe for fear of demon invasion. This is because they were barbaric and retarded. And when you advocate a return to that, that makes you barbaric and retarded.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:37 PM on April 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


2) insulted and borderline slandered based on that.

Libeled. Slander is spoken.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:50 PM on April 2, 2008


Someone brought up a point in that thread that I thought was kinda interesting: To paraphrase "maybe the rich should be kept from the poor" when it comes to matters of sex, the idea being that you don't have to be a child to be exploited and/or coerced.

In any case, it brought this anonymous AskMe to mind. The parallels aren't strong and obviously the situation isn't anywhere near as icky as the one in the FPP, but it still seemed to me to be the question of someone facing a Hobson's choice solely because they were "poor." This would have been on ask I'd love to see a follow-up on.

posted by maxwelton at 11:51 PM on April 2, 2008


Rudeness? Well, we can't have that, now, can we?
posted by Dave Faris at 11:54 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Blazecock: I didn't ask for sympathy, nor do I want it.

Optimus: Point to where I "advocated a return to that." Oh wait, I didn't. So I see that the new standard for discourse here is "complete intellectual dishonesty." Thanks, didn't get the memo, but you and puke & cry (eponysterical?) have cleared things up for me.
posted by papakwanz at 12:08 AM on April 3, 2008


You don't have a problem with institutionalized pederasty. You compare it to modern "wage slavery." Many people are more or less fine with the 40 hour workweek. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect these dots. Get over yourself, you weirdo moral relativist.

Can you not wait a few more years to fuck someone? If, as you say, a child being fucked up the ass by someone thirty or more years older is no big deal, then surely being a fifty year old who has to wait another five years to fuck a young man in the ass is even less of a big deal. We don't let fourteen year-olds sign contracts or buy property; why would we let them engage in sexual relationships with sad old pathetic men (or women, I don't discriminate) whose only value is perhaps the greater wealth accumulated with age?

But hey, maybe you could get a little more weepy about us mean old anti-childfuckers, there, princess.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:19 AM on April 3, 2008


Yeah, uh, papakwanz, a word of advice: If you're going to be a bit of an apologist for child-fucking you're probably gonna want to thicken up your skin a bit. Or maybe stick to something less controversial? Like advocating declawing cats, maybe?
posted by Justinian at 12:36 AM on April 3, 2008


Wow, someone is eventually going to regret having this line of argument locked in their permanent mefi record, and I ain't talking about tk.
posted by mullingitover at 12:41 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey Optimus: I did not "compare" it to wage slavery. I mentioned wage slavery as ANOTHER form of oppression that some people seemed to be (facetiously?) discounting as traumatic.

Nor did I say that I "don't have a problem with institutionalized pederasty."

Nor did I ever say anything even remotely resembling the phrase "a child being fucked up the ass by someone thirty or more years older is no big deal." I said that it is not necessarily the most traumatic experience possible for every person, in every culture, in every time period.

And I also specifically addressed the issue of moral/cultural relativism, saying that I do NOT believe that "anything goes." I said that blindly passing moral judgments on other cultures based solely on your own historically-specific values is self-righteous tunnel-vision and obscures true understanding of those cultures. That is no where even close to saying, "yeah, it's cool to have sex with kids."

Basically, what it comes down to, is that you, Optimus Chyme, tkchrist, puke & cry, bravelitteltoaster, Blazecock Pileon, and whoever else wants to pile-on and make me their imaginary boogey-man whipping boy, are lying. One might say that you are liars. You have intentionally distorted everything that I (and many others in that thread) have said, and because I happen to be the one who decided to say that its bullshit, now I get the brunt of the ad hominems and somehow have to take responsibility for everything anyone in the thread wrote that you disagree with, regardless of whether or not I said anything remotely resembling it. And the comments directed towards me and others have gotten progressively more suggestive. Let's see, what did you say in your comment...

"Can you not wait a few more years to fuck someone?"

Whence the second-person pronoun, Optimus? Did you just suggest that I have sex with underage kids? Why, I think you did. It's the classic LBJ-"pigfucker" strategy of debate. And since the arbiters of MeFi have seen fit to join the pile on (or at least look the other way), such extremely offensive insults that would not be tolerated in any other thread are now completely acceptable.

Yes, it's an extremely difficult and sensitive topic dealing with issues that are for many people horrific and traumatic. In my opinion, that means that participants should hold themselves to a HIGHER standard of civilized, rational discussion, and not abandon ourselves to extremely horrible insults.

If you go back over my comments from the original thread -- MY comments, not mine and 5 other people's -- and read them HONESTLY and not with your self-aggrandizing agenda in mind, you'll see that, aside from some snarks and admittedly absurdly phrased examples, I was pointing out what I saw to be flaws in other people's logic and suggesting, perhaps too obliquely, ways of nuancing/rethinking their statements from positions that were less knee-jerk and culturally specific. No where EVER did I say any of the fucking repulsive things that have been attributed to me by you and your cohort.

on preview: Justinian, you can add your name to the above list, as no where EVER did I in any way attempt to apologize for pederasty.
posted by papakwanz at 12:48 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I did not "compare" it to wage slavery. I mentioned wage slavery as ANOTHER form of oppression that some people seemed to be (facetiously?) discounting as traumatic.

Sounds great. Too bad the original comment is still in the thread. Hard to backtrack when we can go read the original, in which you say that child fucking isn't any worse than the "wage slavery" practiced here in the West. That's what you said, flat out. That's a clear apologia however you want to dress it up.

as no where EVER did I in any way attempt to apologize for pederasty.

Probably shouldn't say it's no worse than people having to work in cubicles then.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 AM on April 3, 2008


Huh, it was actually "death by ugabooga" who posted the comment I was thinking of. So I apologize for that.

But your own:

Also, we shouldn't ignore the dehumanizing effects of wage slavery just because you usually don't have something physically put in your butt.

is teetering right there on the edge of saying the exact same thing.

And:

Could it be our own insecurities about our masculinity, our own fears about our sexuality that inflect our rage?

No, it's the whole "child fucking" thing, actually.

So yeah, I think you're being an apologist for it. But you didn't specifically say the comment I attributed to you before, only something similar, so I made a mistake about that.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 AM on April 3, 2008


If you're so fucking hurt by people being mean to you, papakwanz, maybe you shouldn't have accused people who are upset about institutionalized child sex slavery of being homophobic or insecure about their masculinity.
posted by Snyder at 1:03 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, actually, I'm sort of glad you brought this to MeTa because I wanted to say something that wasn't really appropriate in the thread.

I recall arguing with tkchrist about this very subject of adolescent sex, although with vastly different circumstances, and I wanted to say that under these circumstances I quite agree with him.

Rape is horrible, child rape is horrible. Equating it, ever, with working for The Man or whether 15 year olds screw each other is serious creepsville.

And, it's starting to creep me the hell out when people consistently come into child rape threads and start up semantic arguments (what do you do when tkchrist says "Hey, you know what, you're right, bad analogy, but I still hold this position and here's why in less sloppy terms"? Just reframe your argument over and over?), or my new favorite, start up an entire new tangent as bait.

The beauty of New Tangent Bait is that it's preemptive in its utter creepitude. You start with how you have a more nuanced point of view than everyone else in the discussion. You explain that your point of view is more nuanced because 1. Age of consent is totally different in different countries, it's an unclear line, and 2. Adolescents have sexuality, by hating adolescent rape you clearly demonstrate that you don't know that but I do. You've made an appeal to intellect, great, good for you. But the thing is? That wasn't what the conversation was about. The people who don't like child rape (whoa, total surprise there) never fucking said shit about the existence of child sexuality in the global sense of "Does it exist?", the age of consent, or the very fluid and unclear lines of sexuality at all. And they certainly never said that gay rape is worse than straight rape (in fact, Bill O'Reilly seems to feel quite the opposite; boys totally want it, so you have a friend there).

Really, I can't say enough that I think it's gross. Starting with the assumption that nobody else in the conversation is as smart, nuanced, and cynical about mass media as you (and in fact, we're hysterical because of it), and ending with, well, you know, being sort of sketchily an apologist for child rape.
posted by birdie birdington at 1:12 AM on April 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


you say that child fucking isn't any worse than the "wage slavery" practiced here in the West. That's what you said, flat out. [...] Probably shouldn't say it's no worse than people having to work in cubicles then.

Oh my dear christ, I did not say that EVER AT ALL, but thank you for proving my point and announcing your own inability to debate without lying (or perhaps low levels of reading comprehension).

The post you're referring to:

I'm not sure how this is any more wrong than the wage slaves of the United States, who are "forced" to work in dehumanizing little cubicles for overbearing managers, and be yanked around by clueless, power-hungry "human resources" people in order to feed and house themselves and their families. posted by Death by Ugabooga

Hmm. What was that last part again?
posted by Death by Ugabooga

One more time?
posted by Death by Ugabooga

Ah, thank you. Who needs to "backtrack" now, Justinian?

Now, let's compare it to MY statement, made THIRTY SEVEN posts later (so it's not like you can say, "oh, whoops, they were right next to each other, I made a boo-boo!"):

Also, we shouldn't ignore the dehumanizing effects of wage slavery just because you usually don't have something physically put in your butt. There are many forms of exploitation, and their effects on different people and in different cultures can be profound, and for some people the oppressive effects of modern capitalism are no doubt more traumatic than other things. posted by papakwanz

Let's do a close reading of that, shall we?

we shouldn't ignore the dehumanizing effects of wage slavery just because you usually don't have something physically put in your butt.
My direct response to this comment by Blazecock Pileon, which was, most likely somewhat facetiously, implying that the oppressive effects of wage slavery can be ignored or are not important because they don't involve sodomy.

There are many forms of exploitation,
Pretty self-explanatory. Note: I did not say "Wage slavery is exploitative and forced child sex is not", nor did I say "wage slavery is exactly as exploitative as forced child sex."

their effects on different people and in different cultures can be profound
Hmm... I seem to be saying that forms of exploitation, such as, oh, I don't know, FORCED CHILD SEX can be powerful and traumatic. But, oh, wait, I'm an "apologist" for pederasty, right? According to some people, I'm an ADVOCATE for it!

for some people the oppressive effects of modern capitalism are no doubt more traumatic than other things.
Again, fairly self-explanatory. But, to translate for the hard-of-thinking, "Wage Slavery can be very oppressive and traumatic, and, although it is not the SAME THING as enforced sodomy, just because WE assume that the latter is worse than the former, that does not mean that all people have the same experience. It is quite probable that there exist or has existed someone for whom the effects of wage slavery were the most traumatic experience of their life, perhaps even trumping some form of sexual abuse."

So. Where again did I apologize/advocate/defend/justify/whateverthefuck pederasty?

Do I get an apology from you for intentionally attributing someone else's quote to me? Doubtful, but if you're man (woman?) enough to give it, I'm man enough to accept it.
posted by papakwanz at 1:17 AM on April 3, 2008


and on non-preview, papakwanz is accepting Justinian's apology, yes?
posted by jacalata at 1:21 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Snyder: If you're so fucking hurt by people being mean to you

Once again, putting words in my mouth. Thanks, Snyder, for proving that people really can't learn.

Equating it, ever, with working for The Man or whether 15 year olds screw each other is serious creepsville.
See my last post addressed to Justinian. Perhaps you should email this comment directly to Death by Ugabooga, since he/she is the person who made the quote that so offended you?

what do you do when tkchrist says "Hey, you know what, you're right, bad analogy, but I still hold this position and here's why in less sloppy terms"?

I'd say, "OK, that makes more sense, and hey, guess what, we are two intelligent adults having a real discussion." If I had further objections to his logic, I would make them, and as long as the discussion was fruitful, I'd continue it, challenging or accepting his statements as I found them convincing. Would he do the same for me (or anyone he disagrees with on any subject?)

You explain that your point of view is more nuanced because 1. Age of consent is totally different in different countries, it's an unclear line, and 2. Adolescents have sexuality, by hating adolescent rape you clearly demonstrate that you don't know that but I do.

If you want, I can scan the original thread and find the people who made those points, and you can email them directly to express your distaste. Would that be helpful for you, or can you do that on your own?
posted by papakwanz at 1:24 AM on April 3, 2008


I, for one, think I do understand what papakwanz was trying to say, or at least, giving him the benefit of the doubt, where he was coming from. I also think he said it badly, and it's getting worse with layers of backtracking and nitpicking, but that was his only sin: trying to be nuanced about something that people justifiably get very very worked up about, and not being careful enough in doing so.

I kinda think you people going after him should put your pitchforks away. I know papakwanz started this thread and should probably have known what he was in for, but. It is the worst and nastiest side of Metafilter (or of any community of people) when this sort of rabid pitchforkery begins to emerge. I hoped my quixotic shit-disturber sally upthread would have derailed it, but no such luck.

To papakwanz I'd say: hard as it may be, it's probably a good idea to just state as calmly and carefully and simply as possible, without referencing the rancor here, what you were trying to express in the original thread, and let this fighty back and forth in this thread go. Your call, of course, but when it's a pack of hyenas and an antelope, the antelope always falls eventually.

I'm not on anyone's side here at all (other than hating to see this kind of thing, having been on the receiving end before), but my good faith advice is : don't argue about it. It's a losing proposition, and it'll make you crazy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:25 AM on April 3, 2008 [17 favorites]


Eh.

And, it's starting to creep me the hell out when people consistently come into child rape threads and start up semantic arguments...

Since this is MeTa, I was venting what I see as a more general problem/weirdness. You merely contributed to that weirdness (but also conveniently brought it here, a more appropriate venting location than the blue). My "you"s were general yous.

That thread just tipped me over into feeling like...I don't know...I guess especially after that nudist pedophile who went to great pains to be...yeah, you know what, I don't know. It just creeps me out anymore, is all. Didn't used to, does now.
posted by birdie birdington at 1:38 AM on April 3, 2008


Forgot to mention this one

Snyder: maybe you shouldn't have accused people who are upset about institutionalized child sex slavery of being homophobic or insecure about their masculinity.

My first comment on that subject:

I notice that people's dander really gets up when it's homosexual pederasty that is discussed. Not that people ignore, say, the experience of 13-14 yr old females who were married to 40 yr old men and having their children, but what really pisses people off is the idea of an older guy porking a younger one. Could it be our own insecurities about our masculinity, our own fears about our sexuality that inflect our rage? (emphasis added)

So... I used the first-person plural possessive pronoun how many times? 1, 2, 3, 4... FIVE times. Did I say, "Hey tkchrist, you're totally insecure about your masculinity!!!" Nope. I used the royal we, the editorial we, Dude, thus implicating myself in what I have noticed based on my own anecdotal evidence to be perhaps a culture-wide phenomenon.

My second comment on that subject:

Anyway, my point, which you willfully ignored, was that when the subject of pederasty or sexual child abuse comes up, people (usually male people) often seem to get way more bent out of shape about homosexual adult-child sex rather than heterosexual adult-child sex, something that suggests to me a particularly modern anxiety about masculinity and sexual identity. This is, however, just a personal observation, not supported by empirical research but my own impressions.

No first person pronouns there, but again, I didn't name names, now did I? Was I implying that my armchair psychoanalyzing might apply to some of the people in the thread? Yes, but I also ADMITTED that it was merely an IMPRESSION and I didn't press the issue or use it to insult anyone.

But you're right, I did say to Pope Guilty that "the blanket assumption that "male-male buttsex is qualitatively horrific" could be construed as a bit homophobic." Truly, a horrible insult, perhaps the worst in the thread, what with the conditional tense and all.

Still, sarcasm aside, I will apologize to Pope Guilty for implying that he may be homophobic and to tkchrist and whomever else felt I was suggesting that they were insecure about their masculinity or sexual identity. I have never met any of these people, I don't know what they are like in real life, what they do day to day, or anything. I was unfairly blanketing them under a very vague impression based solely on my (mis?)interpretation of a few comments on an online discussion board.

Now, not to seem like I'm demanding quid pro quo here, but will any of you step up and do the same thing (especially those people who have suggested that I get off on having sex with kids)?

on preview: stavros -- thanks for your calm rationality. I appreciate the sentiment. But the point I'm trying to make is that I am NOT backtracking. In fact, as I think I've made pretty clear, most of what people have been pitchforking me about (I love that verb!) are comments made by OTHER PEOPLE.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being stubborn and fighting a losing battle, but hey, it's the internet, might as well. Why shouldn't I stand up for my right to be represented honestly? I am completely willing to admit mistakes in my rhetoric either here or in the original thread and admit my errors when pointed out to me constructively and rationally, but I seem to be the only one. I'm not trying to get perverse pleasure out of being a martyr here, but I feel like I'm in the right and I think that, well, isn't that what MetaTalk is for?

can we start a metatalk thread for this metatalk thread?

on second preview: birdie -- understood. I reacted defensively to your comment because I've been getting the pile-on for about 5 different people's statements just because I'm the one who decided to call out someone for being irrational in a thread on a touchy subject.
posted by papakwanz at 1:46 AM on April 3, 2008


Justinian: Didn't see your apology until just now. Accepted, whole-heartedly and sincerely.

Re: the rest of that comment, you can see what I wrote in the subsequent post (with apologies for my snarkiness/rancor, which I will weakly explain, but not excuse, as defensiveness and a long day with little sleep).
posted by papakwanz at 1:52 AM on April 3, 2008


Last comment to Justinian: the "masculinity" thing was not about why we get mad about child sexual exploitation PERIOD, but why, in my anecdotal experience, people get MORE upset about male on (minor) male than male on (minor) female sexual abuse. I did NOT say that the only reason people are upset about child abuse is because they are insecure in their masculinity. I thought that my statement was fairly clear, but if not, sorry.
posted by papakwanz at 1:55 AM on April 3, 2008


Afghanistan is a very bad place. Injustice and exploitation are a regular part of the scenery.

They hate animals. When I stop to scratch the belly of my adopted street dog, Sara, it causes a traffic jam. "Holy shit, look at that, a crazy foreigner being nice to a DOG!!!" Her body language indicates she is mortally afraid of the hotel guards - I assume they beat her regularly.

My friends there are frustrated that they will never be able to experience romantic love. It is forbidden for men or women to dance in one another's presence. A woman who smiles or makes eye contract with a man is a filthy slut who should be beaten. Girls in a mixed classroom give fake names, because it would put shame on their entire family for a strange man to know their real name.

Kids are for the most part filthy, because most people don't have access to water (let alone hot water). They own at most two sets of clothes, often don't own a pair of socks. Imagine never being clean.

I do not condone the anal rape of underage children. My comments in that thread were an attempt to highlight that in the broader scheme of what goes on in Afghanistan, this is nothing.

If you have not spent an extended time in a brutal shithole like this, it is easy to come to issues like this without a reasonable sense of perspective, is all. Yes, bravo, all of you anti child rape people are right - it would be nice though if you weren't so stridently righteous.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:32 AM on April 3, 2008 [18 favorites]


Disclaimer: The stuff in that FPP seems pretty foul, and I think laws about adults having sex with minors below the age of consent are good. Halve your age and add 7 is a rule-of-thumb for a reason...

However, someone who covets a post-pubescent male or female isn't actually a pedophile, are they? I mean, assuming you found yourself aroused by looking at, say, Tracy Lords in an adult film, assuming at the time you saw it that she was 18 or 19, only later to discover she was 15, that doesn't make you a pedophile. Have sex with her at that age, or knowing she was 15 and seeking out the film, yes, you're committing a crime (and with good reason), but you're still not a pedophile.

I don't know why this bugs me, but maybe it's the fact that you cannot have a rational discussion once "pedophilia" is thrown out there (if we're not actually talking about pre-pubescent kids). Again, I'm not defending anyone of legal age banging a 14-year-old, and I'm not defending any sexual encounter between people of any age where coercion is involved.
posted by maxwelton at 3:25 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


papakwanz:

Anyway, why is it that we think that being sodomized is the most absolutely horrible traumatic thing that can happen to a boy? Do we really think that Aristotle needed therapy because Plato fucked him in the ass?

...
Also, I notice that people's dander really gets up when it's homosexual pederasty that is discussed. Not that people ignore, say, the experience of 13-14 yr old females who were married to 40 yr old men and having their children, but what really pisses people off is the idea of an older guy porking a younger one. Could it be our own insecurities about our masculinity, our own fears about our sexuality that inflect our rage?


This is in a thread about sexually abusing children. The article even says that it's against the law:
“It’s shocking from both a humanitarian and a legal point of view. The boys who do this have a very dark future ahead of them – they will always be ashamed and they grow into frustrated human beings, and, pose a threat to community. The government has taken no action on this issue, and child abuse is still being practiced.”
Most people are against the sexual abuse of anyone, especially children. This is a particularly egregious example, as the children are kept for years to do nothing but entertain the men. Your comment derails the conversation in three seperate ways: by saying that 14-year-olds are "minors" just because our culture says so, by saying that being sodomized isn't that bad, and by accusing the readers of only being interested because it's homosexual abuse. The first two points certainly imply that you're in some part condoning the practice, while the third definitely will anger anyone responding.

In my opinion, sexual abuse is bad. Sexual abuse at a young age will warp that person's view of themselves and their sexuality, no matter what the gender of the people involved. tkchrist says pretty much the same thing: that fourteen-year-olds are too immature to have sex with adults. I agree completely with the emotionally half; biologically it may or may not be the case. Then again, being biologically capable of being sexually abused isn't saying much.
posted by flatluigi at 3:58 AM on April 3, 2008


I'm not defending papakwanz. I think he's gone about this in a pretty arrogant and block headed way.

I think there's a kernel of truth hidden in what he's saying. At least, I can see one there. I don't know if he meant it.

An age of consent will always be an arbitrary measure of maturity. Some people under 18 are responsible enough to have sex with others, and some people over 18 still lack that maturity. The law picks that age because it needs to have a limit, and this one is about right.

So, if you accept that point, then there isn't anything automatically wrong with sleeping with someone under 18. It's possible that they are mature enough to have a relationship and understand the implications of it. Of course, many people under 18 lack that maturity, and to sleep with those people would be to exploit them. I have yet to meet a 14 year old who seems to be mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship. Even if there was one, institutionalised relationships between older men and 14 year old boys would be wrong because they assume that maturity, and are not dependent on it.

I guess I'm saying that not every act of paedophilia, as it is legally defined, is necessarily wrong. It's conceivable for a relationship to exist that is mature and responsible and still illegal. Yes, every paedophilic relationship I've ever heard of seems to be very safely in the 'wrong' side of things. But, and I think this is what papakwanz was trying to say (very poorly), it's not automatically immoral.
posted by twirlypen at 4:28 AM on April 3, 2008


maybe it's the fact that you cannot have a rational discussion once "pedophilia" is thrown out there

Yeah, I think that papakwanz may even be a paediatrician! Lets burn the fucker's house down!

This is in a thread about sexually abusing children

And unless you are prepared to wholeheartedly and unequivically denounce any sexual contact with minors at every available opportunity, then you're a nonce and we'll be seeing you in the shower block later, where we'll be assisting in your shower using the soap with the razor blades embedded in it.

Pat Califia had a very interesting take on this issue in one of her books. She argued that the vast majority of the children who sold sex in the USA were doing so because they were escaping from a background of sexual or physical abuse -- whether that be in the family home, a foster home, an institution or whatever.

In selling sex, they carve out for themseves an arena in which their power and autonomy is much greater than it was in the previous situation. They get to choose who they will or won't have sex with. They get to choose which acts they will or won't participate in. They get economically rewarded, and that brings a degree of personal autonomy that was hitherto unknown to them and is actually liberating.

Our response to this, as a society, isn't to say -- lets provide these children with more protection, more autonomy, better sexual education and more choice -- rather, it's invariably to return them to the site of their previous abuse. According to Califia, the mark of the phallocentric patriarchy is much more evident here than it is in the marginalized men who buy sex from these children.

Now I'm not sure whether I agree with Califia or not. However, I do recognize her account as one that takes into account the explanations of the supposed 'victims' at the centre of all this into account -- ie, that of the children working in the sex industry.

"But they're just children!", I hear the howls. "Their weak, underdeveloped and impulsive brains mean that they can't be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. That's why we, as adults, must decide on their behalf."

Yeah, pack 'em off to boot camp.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:48 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


They get to choose who they will or won't have sex with. They get to choose which acts they will or won't participate in.

This strikes me a schockingly naive view of a 120 prostitute going up against a 200 man john or pimp.

They get economically rewarded, and that brings a degree of personal autonomy that was hitherto unknown to them and is actually liberating.

Getting economically rewarded for being someone's fuck puppet and having that fact shape their personality isn't exactly liberating. It's a fucked up situation that may be better than completely fucked up situation, but lets not pretend it's some beautiful stance of independence.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:10 AM on April 3, 2008


However, someone who covets a post-pubescent male or female isn't actually a pedophile, are they?

If they exclusively covet teens, then that person is an ephebophile. If they are sometimes sexually attracted to post-pubescent youngsters as well as other adults, then I think the term for that is "human." If they pursue those attractions, then the term is either "jerk," "perv," "rapist," "boy/girlfriend" or "spouse," depending on a variety of factors.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:14 AM on April 3, 2008


I, for one, applaud tkchrist's comments. They were completely reasonable. Child prostitution, on the otherhand? Not so reasonable.
posted by emd3737 at 6:24 AM on April 3, 2008


Basically, what it comes down to, is that you, Optimus Chyme, tkchrist, puke & cry, bravelitteltoaster, Blazecock Pileon, and whoever else wants to pile-on and make me their imaginary boogey-man whipping boy, are lying.

Please add me to your list.

Thank you,

BBB
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 6:25 AM on April 3, 2008


I guess I'm saying that not every act of paedophilia, as it is legally defined, is necessarily wrong. It's conceivable for a relationship to exist that is mature and responsible and still illegal.

Paedophilia generally isn't legally defined as sex with an underage person. Paedophilia is the interest in children, whatever headlines suggest to the contrary, and they are by definition not mature.
posted by bonaldi at 6:56 AM on April 3, 2008


Papakwanz, your intentions might have been reasonable or good, but you really fucked up, again and again, from the very start.

However many people piled on you in the thread, many more, myself included, simply raised eyebrows at your words, thought, "Christ, what an asshole," and moved on.

Seriously, if you didn't want to look like an apologist for institutionalized pederasty, you did a bad job, there and here. All your semantic defenses are lead weights to a drowning man. Let them go and float away, or sink like a stone.
posted by breezeway at 7:16 AM on April 3, 2008


Man, what a shitstorm. I'd just like to thank stav and meatbomb for being thoughtful and having some perspective on the ultimate hot-button issue, and second stav's advice to papakwanz to let it alone. You had a point, you didn't make it as well as you could have, tkchrist is stubborn and has a sharp tongue (and an easy case to make), it didn't go well. Live and learn, and we can all be grateful we're not a kid in Afghanistan.
posted by languagehat at 7:23 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hello. koeselitz here, using my wife's account because I don't want to go to the trouble of restarting my old one for one lone comment. Unfortunately, this has to be done, though I promised myself I wouldn't. I found myself ducking in today, and noticed this:

papakwanz: Anyway, why is it that we think that being sodomized is the most absolutely horrible traumatic thing that can happen to a boy? Do we really think that Aristotle needed therapy because Plato fucked him in the ass?

This needs to be said: papakwanz doesn't know a damned thing about ancient Greek culture and society if he thinks Aristotle was fucked in the ass by Plato. And, though I know he can retort that he wasn't really saying that, that he was just referring to the general ancient Greek attitude toward pederasty, he and all should know that there was no such simple attitude. This is a common misconception, and it angers me greatly; and that anger is never greater than when I hear some simpering idiot-- maybe you've met some of them, papakwanz-- who attempts to use the tired old canard about 'different cultures' and 'different traditions' to justify pederasty.

The fact of the matter is that pederasty was a very controversial and hotly debated topic in Greece. It was not always discussed as openly and bluntly as to translate easily two and a half thousand years later, but it was important, and people on all sides of the debate had a position. As has often been the case in history, it was the people in power who chose to take advantage of others; pederasty was mostly the sport of the aristocracy, and joking about it was common among the upper classes, as we see (though not uncomplicated) in such laudable authors as Aristophanes and Plato. But the simplicity of our own times and the shallowness of our minds often leads us to believe that, because these authors discussed such things, or even joked about them, they were in favor of them. Plato's Socrates often pointed out that he tried to take the most serious things lightly and the lightest things most seriously, so this is not surprising. Nonetheless, for those who need it spelled out, let it be known: all the evidence points to the conclusion that neither Aristotle nor Plato were pederasts, and that pederasty was a sport and hobby amongst a tiny minority of the most wealthy and prosperous ancient Greeks, especially in Athens. For specifics, please see Plato's Laws, probably (in my opinion) his most important dialogue, wherein his Athenian Stranger argues (among other things) against an old pederast that pederasty should be banned and punished severely, and pretty clearly makes said pederast feel ashamed of his acts. There is an original meaning of the term 'Platonic love;' it stems from the notion of his Socrates that there is often a very meaningful bond between boys and men, and that this bond is dialectical rather than physical. I could argue on about Aristophanes, but I leave it to you to comb his plays and note the treatment there of pederasts. One can argue that marriage at a much younger age was common; but even this isn't really a valid argument, for one sees from the literature (Xenophon's Oeconomicus, among others) that it was seen as a husband's duty (1) to care for and educate the wife he married at 15, if that happened, and (2) not to make sexual advances toward her until she was at least eighteen. Yes, I know, they were married, after all, but many people seem to have felt very strongly about this: sexual maturity seems to have been an important thing in ancient Greece, something respected.

And not only these two, who are but the most-often quoted Greeks who are supposed to be 'in favor of pederasty.' It is clear from their writings and from the writings of many others (see, especially, the tremendously useful The Ancient City, by Fustel de Coulanges) that, in ancient Greece as now, caring parents always hated to see their children sexually exploited. It's clear that this is part of what led to a lot of strife in Rome later on, although that period is not my specialty: the commoners fucking hated it that the wealthy could take young children and do what they wanted with them. They hated it for the same reason that people tend to hate sexual exploitation of children today: because, on an instinctive level, we all realize that it takes some growing up before one has the emotional apparatus to deal with something as complex as sex. That's not to say that shame should be a part, and shame was much less a part of Greek life, but shame has nothing to do with letting people grow up. There was also the common understanding that people who are older have power over people who are younger, even more so in ancient Greece, and it is wrong for people to use their power over others to satisfy their sexual appetites. Again, returning to Plato, it is so common as to be between every line in his writings that using the "I am a noble old man giving this young man life experiences" line to predicate sexual exploitation has nothing really to do with bettering the young man and everything to do with taking advantage of others. Please read the Symposium closely if you'd like to see this.

The conclusion here? Some people in all times and all places have seen pederasty as harmful. Very, very few cultures have ever accepted it, and those that did so did only because a tiny minority who had power were able to indulge themselves in it. Family structures practically prohibit it, and given that family structures are so common, this makes sense.

It's important to see beyond our own culture. It's also important to keep your head on straight and to see beyond our own desires and bitternesses. The Greeks have nothing new to tell us that can better inform our injunction against pederasty; the wisest among them, in fact, would probably have said that it's the best feature of our society.

And, personally, papakwanz, while I see that you weren't arguing for child prostitution, or child slavery, or even pederasty, you certainly suggested that pederasty might not be as bad as we think it is, and that we only think so because we are historically conditioned to think so. I agree that we're culturally conditioned somewhat on this, but it's also natural in many ways to find pederasty somewhat repulsive, and society is right to teach us that it is so.

koeselitz out.
posted by Viomeda at 7:27 AM on April 3, 2008 [56 favorites]


^ why the "disable" button is bad.

cooooommmme baaaaaack!
posted by exlotuseater at 7:35 AM on April 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


What exlotuseater said. Dammit.
posted by languagehat at 7:43 AM on April 3, 2008


koeselitz - please come back.
posted by typewriter at 7:46 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


No; you are a fucking mental case. Fourteen year old adolescents of either sex are not equipped with the reasoning ability of a grown adult; I understand that the species may have allowed this sort of thing in other cultures and other times, but they also didn't bathe for fear of demon invasion. This is because they were barbaric and retarded. And when you advocate a return to that, that makes you barbaric and retarded.

I didn't realize Canada was so barbaric. AOC was 14 here until last year when the conservatives raised it to 16 (cuz they're TOUGH ON CRIME!!!).
posted by sevenyearlurk at 8:07 AM on April 3, 2008


^ why the "disable" button is bad.

Please be happy for koeselitz that he has a life; there is nothing wrong with the disable button.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:17 AM on April 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


...and please don't take to heart the implication that those who do not click "disable" do not have lives.
posted by breezeway at 8:28 AM on April 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Fyi PeterMcDermott, last I heard Califia is identifying as male - Patrick Califia. This was in 05 I think, when he had his hospitalization (heart attack, iirc).
posted by subbes at 8:30 AM on April 3, 2008


I can't read the Symposium in the original Greek, but I remain convinced: children should not be able to declaw cats.
posted by everichon at 8:47 AM on April 3, 2008


Why does W.D. Peckenpaugh still have an active profile here, isn't he in prison for child rape? And he talks about the kid in said profile? Creepy.
posted by dawson at 8:55 AM on April 3, 2008


Jesus.

You can quit your job in the United States if you don't like it.

As far as I can tell, most involuntarily sexually exploited minors can only escape their circumstances by being sold. Or killed.

tkchrist may have been less than eloquent, but he's for damn sure on the side of the angels here.

And, once again, I can only conclude that the people making semantic arguments here are people who have no real firsthand experience with victims of sexual abuse, and those (like tkchrist) who are most forcefully arguing against it do.
posted by scrump at 8:58 AM on April 3, 2008


You know, I've had many a fun debate in which I've taken up the devil's advocate position, just because it's fun to argue the other side, or because you can see how maybe something may be acceptable in a particular circumstance even if it's against common opinion.

It's fun to be the contrarian in the crowd, right up until everyone notices you and goes "holy fucking shit this guy/gal is arguing for something that's really fucked up", and then you either go, oh um yeah, I was just being contrary because it's fun and kind of interesting to imagine yourself on the other side of the debate, or you take it terribly seriously and attempt to extractate yourself from the whole thing by getting really pissed off that people have taken your devil's advocate position seriously, or you have to present your argument seriously, if that's what you truly believe.

If yer going to do this, you have to accept being called on it. Choose your forum!
posted by h00py at 9:36 AM on April 3, 2008


Jessamyn: No, no, I'm happy for koeselitz, I'm just saying that I miss certain members that have left (for whatever reasons) because they had a great deal to offer, and consistently at that. Those same users could have simply taken a hiatus without closing their accounts, and spotting a scenario in which they might contribute, will not, as it's a hassle to reopen--a relative hassle, to be sure, what is it, an email? --but many won't bother for just one comment--fortunately for us, koeselitz had another account (his wife's) to post from.

Whatevs. As to the current discussion, I have nothing to add with the exeption that I happen to like papakwanz, and I think his intent wasn't ill, he simply has been misunderstood by a few, others may have (un)intentionally misrepresented his commentary, and perhaps the continuation of the conversation is--as many upthread have noticed--a bad idea, as it seems to be one of those situations where it can really only go downhill.

I reserve my pitchfork, tar, feathers, and torches for something better. No doubt I will not be disappointed.

ps please, members, email me when there's a good auto-da-fe in the making, or throw out the LH sign or something.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:41 AM on April 3, 2008


Well, I guess I'm done with this, because the rest of the comments since my late night posts have simply repeated the same non-thinking as everyone else. Because, as I've said ad fucking nauseum, I never approved of child-rape. In fact (it is ridiculous that I should have to say this to a bunch of supposedly rational and intelligent adults) I find it abhorrent. "Oh well this is coming perhaps dangerously close to something like approving of..." No, no it's not. But, you want to insist that it is so you can maintain your self-righteous position and not have to admit that maybe, just maybe, you acted like an asshole, so keep on. I've admitted that I made rhetorical mistakes in presenting an argument and attempted to contextualize and elaborate on my statements. I've even apologized for them. But since I'm on the "unpopular" side (that is, the side that advocates a little bit more discussion and not knee-jerk rage), I'm the only one who as to do so. Anyone else who wants to be a jack ass, well as long as you're with the majority, you've got a free pass. What a free and open forum for discussion this site is! And then I get shit upon for being arrogant in defending myself, instead of, what, I don't know, crawling on my knees to kiss people's ass and beg forgiveness because THEY misunderstood what I said? But, hey, seems like a lot of people will feel extra good about themselves this week because they stood up for justice and all that is decent on the internet.
posted by papakwanz at 9:48 AM on April 3, 2008


What a dick.
posted by breezeway at 9:59 AM on April 3, 2008


In a lot of the threads about men having sex with underage girls, I've often thought, "No one here would ever dismiss this as an issue of anti-sex hysteria if it were boys being taken advantage of!" I was quite wrong.
posted by transona5 at 10:01 AM on April 3, 2008


papakwanz said:

I am completely willing to admit mistakes in my rhetoric either here or in the original thread and admit my errors when pointed out to me constructively and rationally, but I seem to be the only one.

I haven't noticed anyone mentioning this, so I thought I'd mention it. Your principle mistake came here:

If pederasty is an institutionalized part of a society, then individual experiences are very different. That's not to say that sodomy in other cultures was hunky-dory, but that age is not the sole determining factor, nor necessarily the most important one. It isn't about an old guy and a young guy, its about power, and being the younger party in a sexual relationship, even a much younger party, does not mean by necessity that you are being abused.

It would be an accurate paraphrasing of what you've said here to say "it's possible that 14 year olds are more prepared for sexual activity in other cultures where they aren't raised to think it's taboo that young. being the youngest person in a sexual encounter, even at age 14, does not necessarily mean that you are being abused."

this argument has no basis in fact. you have made the claim that being raised in a society that sanctions perderasty makes pederasty less traumatic for the younger participant, while ignoring the fact that, even if it is LESS traumatic (which is arguable. your position on this matter likely has no basis in history or otherwise provable fact) it is still provably traumatic. you have claimed that the studies demonstrating this have come from a society which infantalizes its children, but have provided no evidence that less infantalized societies were not traumatic to children who were made sexually active by older partners. In fact, koeselitz has given us ample reason to think that there isn't any and that you're talking nonsense. Essentially, your entire stance on this matter rests on a position of ignorance and wild speculation which you have couched in terms of condescension and snobbery. You pre-emptively accused everyone who MIGHT disagree with you of ignorance and/or cultural myopia and/or prejudice ("but by all means, let's get oooh icky pervo grossed out by it." "I'm sure I'll get some, "you sicko perv, stay away from my kids! i hope u go to jail and get assraped lol!!!1" comments, but whatever.", etc...)

As the discussion continued, you engaged in intellectual dishonesty, attempting to qualify your original statements by restating your argument so that it does not match your original comment. Additionally, you responded to tkchrist with the following:

Driving involves putting a 14 yr old behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle made of glass, steel, and plastic, that can travel over 100 miles per hour. Most of us aren't hung that well. The most reasonable interpretation of this comment is that since driving a car is more physically dangerous than typical pederasty, the inadvisability of putting a 14 year old behind the wheel of a car does not imply that the 14 year old should not be engaging in pederasty. This avoids addressing tkchrist's actual point that 14 year olds are demonstrably and provably less emotionally mature than someone who is 44 as a simple matter of biology and instead focuses on the non-issue of the relative danger of a car. when you were called on this by tkchrist you responded by mentioning that 14 year olds have functioning sexual organs. This is either intentional intellectual dishonesty, or simply a complete misunderstanding of his point. Either way, your argumentation has been both flawed in execution and based in factual error.

I hope this makes the problem more clear to you so that you can admit the mistakes in your rhetoric.
posted by shmegegge at 10:01 AM on April 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


What a free and open forum for discussion this site is!

To the best of my understanding, we haven't deleted a single comment from either of the threads you are referring to. The problem may be that this forum is a little too free and open, especially in MetaTalk, so you are free to get your ass handed to you. You've had people saying they've agreed with some of your points or like you on the site and you've had some who disagreed with either your beliefs or your tactics in presenting them and we had a discussion about it here so it didn't fuck up a thread that is already pretty argumentative.

You asked if people thought tkchrist was rude or if it was just you and many people thought it was just you, and that tkchrist was responding more or less appropriately. You don't seem to have made a good faith effort to engage people who are disagreeing with you and even your responses to people who directly misattributed things to you sound defensive and huffy. If there's one thing I've learned here it's that people respond to tone as much as content and while I think you've had several people saying they sort of got where you were coming from content-wise, I think a lot of your delivery has been hindering any real communication or understanding. This is also true of many of the people responding to you but not all of them by a longshot.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:03 AM on April 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


papakwanz,
with all due respect, and please note that I've not said anything to, or about you, so I'm not 'piling on', you were the person who made the original call-out here and a pretty detailed one at that. You asked what people thought. It seems they told you and that you have about as much 'support' here as you are likely to find in most forums. You wanted, it appeared, and hey I could be wrong, but it seems you wanted people to vindicate you by agreeing that tkchrist was way over the line. Most don't agree with that assumption. Regardless of who is right or wrong, I'm failing to see what is upsetting you here. I wish you could let it go, what you have said in both threads is there for anyone to read and interpret. Just state yr position and move on, the Christ complex thing invariability backfires.

posted by dawson at 10:11 AM on April 3, 2008


should have previewed, and deleted, ah well...
posted by dawson at 10:12 AM on April 3, 2008


Because, as I've said ad fucking nauseum, I never approved of child-rape. In fact (it is ridiculous that I should have to say this to a bunch of supposedly rational and intelligent adults) I find it abhorrent.

Here's how a rational and intelligent adult take what you've said as condoning child-rape and exploitation:

- Thread about the exploitation of poverty-stricken teenage boys.
- Your comment boiling down to "Teenage boys can enjoy sex and are capable of willfully having sex."

The fact that teenage boys are sexual has no bearing on whether or not they can be exploited. We aren't a bunch of uber-conservatives who are under the delusion that hormones only kick in at the age of 18; it's widely known that teenage boys can be horny bastards.

It has as much bearing on their exploitation as "Well, women like sex" would in a thread about rape or human-trafficking for underground whorehouses.
posted by CKmtl at 10:25 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


MetaTalk: you are free to get your ass handed to you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:36 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


But, hey, seems like a lot of people will feel extra good about themselves this week because they stood up for justice and all that is decent on the internet.

You are not a victim.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:46 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


The problem may be that this forum is a little too free and open, especially in MetaTalk, so you are free to get your ass handed to you.

the problem is people think this is a kangaroo court instead of a forum
posted by pyramid termite at 10:55 AM on April 3, 2008


Thanks to Meatbomb, stavros, koeselitz and papakwanz for their interesting contributions. God forbid we can have a sensible conversation about a contentious issue here. People just seem to lose their sense of humour completely and go all knee-jerky.

Sometimes it appears that Soth Park represents the apex of cultural debate in the US.

I am not saying anyone should be immune from reacting to their 'hot-button' subjects, but temper it with a deep breath and a bit of thinking before typing.
posted by asok at 10:56 AM on April 3, 2008


the problem is people think this is a kangaroo court instead of a forum
posted by pyramid termite at 1:55 PM on April 3


while this is often true, and I've piled on to people myself on occasion, this isn't really the best place to make that case, since papakwanz called the court to order in the first place. that's not how kangaroo courts work.
posted by shmegegge at 11:02 AM on April 3, 2008


Wow. Death by Ugabooga defends the institutionalized rape of children and you call out tkchrist for being too rude to him in his response. Amazing.

I feel the need to reiterate 1's point that we are straining at the whining gnat of papakwanz while swallowing (or accepting through another orifice) the camel of Death by Ugabooga:

You guys sure know how to take all the fun out of something. Anyone who thinks boys aren't sexual creatures has never spent much time around them.... posted by Death by Ugabooga at 5:37 PM on April 1 [2 favorites +] [!]

If Death by Ugabooga hadn't so very wisely chosen maximal anonymity here, I might be compelled against my will to contact the authorities wherever he is to ask them to look into all that time he seems to have spent around young boys.
posted by jamjam at 11:22 AM on April 3, 2008


I might be compelled against my will to contact the authorities wherever he is to ask them to look into all that time he seems to have spent around young boys.

If that's not tongue-in-cheek, that's some scary shit right there jamjam.
posted by CKmtl at 11:34 AM on April 3, 2008


contact the authorities wherever he is to ask them to look into all that time he seems to have spent around young boys.
---
What a free and open forum for discussion this site is!

posted by danOstuporStar at 11:35 AM on April 3, 2008


I'm serious here: Didn't the last guy who posted on Metafilter about little boys and sex and stuff end up killing and eating one of them or something? Or at least raping 'em... I know he did somethin' really bad.
posted by Justinian at 11:35 AM on April 3, 2008


wh wh what?!
posted by shmegegge at 11:40 AM on April 3, 2008


I'm serious here: Didn't the last guy who posted on Metafilter about little boys and sex and stuff end up killing and eating one of them or something? Or at least raping 'em... I know he did somethin' really bad.

Wasn't the last person to post on that you?

Wait. Crap, now it's me. Someone post about that stuff, quick!
posted by Drastic at 11:42 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


(Death by Uugabooga is a sockpuppet/troll account and was claimed as such in the thread.)

"APRIL FOOLS! SUCKERS!"
posted by jason's_planet at 11:47 AM on April 3, 2008


But seriously, koeselitz's by-proxy post isn't really a case for getting rid of the disable button. I think it's a good case that he should use his wife's account more, though. The "but Ancient Greeeeece" line of moral relativism on the subject desperately needs to be killed, and that was a terrific attack on it.
posted by Drastic at 11:47 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hah, IM NOT CRAZY:

http://metatalk.metafilter.com/9616/

Yeah, the poster was busted for child fucking.
posted by Justinian at 11:58 AM on April 3, 2008


Man, rereading 9616 now. I'd forgotten about that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:37 PM on April 3, 2008


Yea that's awfully bad stuff there. You should ban that dude, 'tex.
posted by Mister_A at 12:38 PM on April 3, 2008


To be less cryptic; I was implying that if some people on Metafilter have a knee-jerk response to people who appear to be even weakly apologetic for abusing children it is because people on Metafilter have, in some cases, first hand experience right on this very site with child molesters posting such things.
posted by Justinian at 12:43 PM on April 3, 2008


holy shit.
posted by shmegegge at 12:47 PM on April 3, 2008


maxwelton> However, someone who covets a post-pubescent male or female isn't actually a pedophile, are they?

That would be ephebophilia (at least when you're talking about post-pubescent adolescents). This was a distinction that some were making during the Catholic Church sex scandals.

I'm staying out of this one, and I'm only bringing it up so that folks have a handy word to use in discussions like this (assuming you didn't know already -- this is a sharp, well-read crowd). I have no idea whatsoever how meaningful it is to make any such distinction.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 12:48 PM on April 3, 2008


Dammit, how did I miss Peter Aletheias' post? Oh, well.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 12:51 PM on April 3, 2008


That's an interesting reading of Plato, koeselitz. Of course, it conveniently overlooks Phaedrus, entirely.
posted by paulsc at 12:52 PM on April 3, 2008


Justinian: Are you thinking of this guy, mentioned up thread? He's currently serving 30 years for sexual abuse.
posted by puke & cry at 12:58 PM on April 3, 2008


Nevermind, that's what I get for not refreshing the page before commenting.
posted by puke & cry at 12:58 PM on April 3, 2008


Wow, I completely missed the reference earlier in the thread. That's a testament to my stunning lack of reading comprehension, I suppose.
posted by Justinian at 1:03 PM on April 3, 2008


wh wh what?!

But-but-but wait it gets worse!
posted by ignignokt at 1:25 PM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I was never sure before but now I am, I think I like this tkchrist. So thanks for bringing his recent posts to my attention. He really seems to be calling people out for the stupid bullshit they are slinging. Good for you tkchrist, some of these Mefi would defend anything in the world no matter how fucked up, but a white male Christian cause they are the devil. which really gives me a headache when confronted with such logically torcherd people.
posted by nola at 2:07 PM on April 3, 2008


I wish I'd gotten here earlier but I'm sure there'll be another boy/girl fucking post every few weeks or so and one of these days I'll make it to the party on time.

There seems to be an assumption of viewing those defending the pederasty from the role of the abuser leading to carefully chosen words for fear of accusation. So switching it here I think allows more of a first person approach:

Were I an impoverished young male in comparable conditions to that of Afghanistan and had the looks such that a wealthy young man was offering escape from the nightmare in exchange for sexual favors, I would more than likely have taken it, presuming there was little risk of physical abuse. And yes this is something, (not the specific case, but of being sexually involved with someone older in return for some financial freedom) that I thought about at that age and in fact at a younger age. Admittedly, I don't know what I would have thought about it were I born poor and in Afghanistan but I imagine few here do.

In addition, were I to be fawned upon like many young women of this society and could have avoided grueling 'wage slavery' resulting in numerous injuries, constant migraines, and a quick decline in physical and mental health, I would have taken that too. In fact I had an instance around age 8 of a significantly late teenage boy paying sexual attention to me, something I only much later understood and it was in fact a positive experience having had the rest of my experience with older boys being that of teasing, beating, and general cruelty. Now I wouldn't deny that article's situations would probably be abusive, but that's because of the power imbalance put in place by those who rally behind the horrible child abuse stigma attached to it. Secrecy leads to abuse and demonization leads to the secrecy.

I not only decry the kneejerk reactions to adult/child love, but I point the finger of blame right at you tkchrist and the others joining in the rallying cry for the mental nightmare that often ensues in these people's lives and hold you partially morally culpable for their pain.
posted by kigpig at 2:22 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Are you thinking of this guy, mentioned up thread? He's currently serving 30 years for sexual abuse.

So, would that be MetaFilter's own William D. Peckenpaugh?
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:26 PM on April 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Careful, kigpig.

jamjam might call the Feds on your ass for that comment.
posted by CKmtl at 2:39 PM on April 3, 2008


So this turned out well, huh papakwanz? You little call out kinda backfired, huh.

Oops.

Now I am the last person your likely to take advice from. But listen. I have often argued here from some fairly knee-jerk or ill considered (or plain ol' devils advocate) positions. And when I find myself getting overwhelmed or general consensus is against me... I examine my argument more carefully. It may be hard to believe but talking with people here has changed my mind - or at least got me to see a truth I had not or had ill considered before.

Look in to it.

Or at the very least you need to pay better attention to the actual arguments posed in the original thread. And then address them as opposed to the tackling of every other strawman you could come up with. Really. yo got your ass handed to you on all fronts.

What you may want to do, instead of "running to teacher", when you can't rhetorically support any god damned thing that drops out of your ass, is you may want to consider what you are actually arguing and maybe.... just maybe... reconsider the position.

But no. It must be becuase everybody is picking on you.

And by the way, yeah I was kinda rude. And I'm not proud. But you came out swinging.


kigpig wrote:

presuming there was little risk of physical abuse.

Ah. Well unfortunately there is reams of you know, pesky facts, that show when children get into sexual relationships with older adults they are at extreme risk of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregancy etc, etc,. And young kids have much less real ability to deal with this than adults. Nor do they have the same level of foresight to do so.

Again another fucking strawman. Did you even READ my comments? I can cherry pick the shit out any scenario, too.

What if the adult endowed the kid with laser vision, immortality, and a flying castle? Sexual slavery would be so worth it then.


I not only decry the knee jerk reactions to adult/child love, but I point the finger of blame right at you tkchrist and the others joining in the rallying cry for the mental nightmare that often ensues in these people's lives and hold you partially morally culpable for their pain.

Knee jerk? Yeah mountains of studies and facts about child exploitation are not enough. So you didn't read through the thread did you?

Great. So Kigpig. How much for your daughter and/or son? And can I get them before you spoil them. I'd like them at about 10 or so. They are so sweet, then. I got lots of money. They may never need to "work" again.
posted by tkchrist at 3:00 PM on April 3, 2008


ignignokt, I just want to point out that that line from Slam gets stuck in my head all the time for the most random reasons, and I hadn't heard the song since it was on mtv. in fact, when I read that link I knew what you were linking to. that was awesome. also, yay for aqua teen.
posted by shmegegge at 3:11 PM on April 3, 2008


note: Everyone needs a hug.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:11 PM on April 3, 2008


I not only decry the kneejerk reactions to adult/child love, but I point the finger of blame right at you tkchrist and the others joining in the rallying cry for the mental nightmare that often ensues in these people's lives and hold you partially morally culpable for their pain.

I have to disagree there—I think that the assumption, knee-jerk or otherwise, that these relationships are negative, which specific instances may contradict, is one that makes sense given both the risks and the general distribution of negative outcomes from older/younger relationships.
posted by klangklangston at 3:17 PM on April 3, 2008


Hey there Marty, how you doing? Yep, great to hear from ya, been a while. How's the back feelin? Yessir, I hear that. Awww, don't worry, she'll come around sooner or later. Damndest weather lately, ain't that just a thing. What's that, tractor's not startin'? Yeah, happened to me once, I called old Jim Henry down the way there and he fixed 'er right up good. Purrs like a kitten now, she does. Well, good runnin' in tooya, you take 'er easy now, hear?
posted by baphomet at 3:38 PM on April 3, 2008


Sodomy

You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

Don't worry if you feel ashamed
It's been around for years
Thousands more than can be named
Are interested in rears
Don't worry about hell
No harm will come to your soul
We're not all Pentacostal
But everybody's got an asshole

Let me tell ya 'bout sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

It might just improve your sex
It's a hard act to follow
The fact that fundamentalists
Find difficult to swallow
So join me as I sing
Of an activity that's fun
Open up your ring
And try it front to bum
Bum-bum
Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum

Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
But I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you tried it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of sodomy

SODOMY!
posted by KokuRyu at 3:42 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Y'know sodomy, to any god fear'n Christian, was also considered to be ANY "perverse" sexual act. Like oral sex.

Until the French, clever marketers that they are, perfected it and gave a much nicer sounding name. And of course Benjamin Franklin had nothing but good things to say about it after his stay in Paris.
posted by tkchrist at 3:53 PM on April 3, 2008


Hey, all of you on papakwanz's list, a new thread requires your services!
posted by Crabby Appleton at 4:01 PM on April 3, 2008



Hey, all of you on papakwanz's list, a new thread requires your services!

That's an awesome post.
posted by tkchrist at 4:07 PM on April 3, 2008


presuming there was little risk of physical abuse.

Ah. Well unfortunately there is reams of you know, pesky facts, that show when children get into sexual relationships with older adults they are at extreme risk of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregancy etc, etc,. And young kids have much less real ability to deal with this than adults. Nor do they have the same level of foresight to do so.

Again another fucking strawman. Did you even READ my comments? I can cherry pick the shit out any scenario, too.


But I already indirectly addressed that one so you'd need to become a better judge of cherries. They are at extreme risk of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy specifically because it's behind closed walls and done coercively. We actually have parallel examples with women's sexual rights wherein religiously repressive anti sex areas have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, and I believe spousal abuse though I'm not so sure about that one. And young kids ability to deal with these things is directly related to their inability to speak freely about such things. I suppose it might be the case that with children it does not follow this pattern and remain dangerous, but we have at this point no reason to suspect.

What if the adult endowed the kid with laser vision, immortality, and a flying castle? Sexual slavery would be so worth it then.

Immortal people with laser vision and flying castles are slaves to no one. So, when you were a kid, if you were offered such things for sex you wouldn't have taken it? Because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting and I can't imagine what kind of ethical view would lead you to that. It isn't like someone saying "hurt someone else for these things" which would be an unfortunate choice to make since in the sexual acts you're effectively helping someone else which isn't immoral unless you think sex act itself is intrinsically immoral.

Knee jerk? Yeah mountains of studies and facts about child exploitation are not enough. So you didn't read through the thread did you?

The psychological ones or the anthropological ones?

The psychological ones suffer for two reasons. One, the studies are done on people who are screwed up. Much like drug statistics, they rarely take into account the people who had these things happen and aren't fucked up because no one knows about them. We also have studies showing that sexual abuse and rape are way off the scale honing in on 50%. If this is true then it demonstrates pretty clearly that people who are fucked up by sexual 'abuse' are in the minority. Secondly, psychological trauma must invariably based upon assumptions of what we want/should do. So, for instance, one of the things I've seen pointed out is that the sexually abused tend to be very promiscuous. Since this is a perfectly good way to live, it should be heralded not evidence of how screwed up these kids are later on in life. Also, as many have pointed out in various threads, their psyche is developing in a culture which has a way more horrific view of children's sexuality being the worst thing in evar than anyone in either thread expressed which ultimately will shape how they deal with the events.

As to the anthropological ones, I recall a metafilter thread about The Oneida Community and upon reading it, they in fact did have what would be termed sexual abuse of minors without the psychological trauma.

Great. So Kigpig. How much for your daughter and/or son? And can I get them before you spoil them. I'd like them at about 10 or so. They are so sweet, then. I got lots of money. They may never need to "work" again.

My future clones will want nothing to do with you and I will respect their decision.

I should clarify, though morally against the timbre of such posts, the 'civilized debate' callout might be off the mark as they lacked any of the you must be a paedophile for making an academic argument about it tone which is a general improvement. The first comment was misinformed, and possibly willfully dishonest for the sake of the argument which if so, I put right up there with 'abortion causes breast cancer' comments.
posted by kigpig at 4:41 PM on April 3, 2008


They are at extreme risk of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy specifically because it's behind closed walls and done coercively.

Citation please? Because you seem to be confusing correlation for causality there.

And young kids ability to deal with these things is directly related to their inability to speak freely about such things. I suppose it might be the case that with children it does not follow this pattern and remain dangerous, but we have at this point no reason to suspect.

Says who? You don't think that the primary cause of the kid's inability to deal with this stuff is, you know, the exploitation and power differential? Being unable to speak openly compounds, no doubt, but please keep your direct and contributory causes separate.

So, when you were a kid, if you were offered such things for sex you wouldn't have taken it?

That's the problem—a kid would. Unfortunately, laser vision and superpowers do not actually come from sex with adults. The kid has no power to enforce the contract, and likely is being lied to by the adult. The immoral act isn't the kid accepting, it's the adult offering.

We also have studies showing that sexual abuse and rape are way off the scale honing in on 50%. If this is true then it demonstrates pretty clearly that people who are fucked up by sexual 'abuse' are in the minority.

Cite 'em. And the issue of morality isn't "Does being molested cripple the kid for life," it's "Is being molested worse than not being molested," or "Does being molested predict more negative experiences later?"

So, for instance, one of the things I've seen pointed out is that the sexually abused tend to be very promiscuous. Since this is a perfectly good way to live, it should be heralded not evidence of how screwed up these kids are later on in life.

All promiscuity isn't equal, and promiscuity correlates with things like STDs and hard substance abuse. That you, as an adult, want to take a train of rugby players isn't a problem. That someone who has been abused could not know how to say no to a train of rugby players is a problem.

Also, as many have pointed out in various threads, their psyche is developing in a culture which has a way more horrific view of children's sexuality being the worst thing in evar than anyone in either thread expressed which ultimately will shape how they deal with the events.

Wait, they're developing in a culture that's the same as the one these threads came out of but also worse? And again, not being the worst thing ever doesn't mean that it's good. That's dumb, and appears to be what you're arguing.
posted by klangklangston at 5:26 PM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


So, when you were a kid, if you were offered such things for sex you wouldn't have taken it?

You mean "get in my car for some candy?" Or. "I have a puppy, Wanna see it?" Your eloquent but ultimately facile arguments are not much an improvement on the same. And I was told not to do such things as a child by adults that gave a shit about me.

Hell I wanted to eat candy every second of the day and never take a bath and not go to school. Should I have been allowed to do that? I mean seriously. Is the best you got. And you really believe this?

kigpig. You are a smart person. Listen to yourself. It's bullshit coming out of your mouth.

The psychological ones suffer for two reasons. One, the studies are done on people who are screwed up

Your doing it too. Again kids are not just a wee bit psycho from getting buggered or what ever it is you imagine I'm talking about.

They are dead. They are getting murdered. They are getting AIDS. They are getting hooked on drugs. They are remaining in poverty. Selling them selves is absolutely no ticket anywhere. These are the facts.

What you seem to be talking about is some sort of idealized dream world that if only we just didn't stigmatize these kids and if only everybody wore condoms, and if only everybody wasn't violently abusing children...

Well if only we had dilithium crystals and lived in near earth orbit and had mountains made of chocolate.

We live in a world where 44 year old are attracted to children not for love but FOR exploitation. That is the world we live in.

Kids are not adults. This is a fact. They do not make adult decisions. They are far more vulnerable than adults are to exploitation and harm. In some ideal world where everybody just loves each other and nobody is an asshole maybe a 44 year old could have a wonderful sincerer loving rela..

Jebus. We don't live there. We live here.

Your argument is, what? Essentially it's our cruel infantalized western society to blame for kids getting exploited, murdered and getting AIDS? WTF?

Sorry the rest of your speech there was... well... it was nonsense. I couldn't even parse it. I'm just going to ignore you now because you're exhibiting a dangerous level of cognitive dissonance and just pisses me off. I want to still like you so I'm done for now.
posted by tkchrist at 5:28 PM on April 3, 2008


They are at extreme risk of abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy specifically because it's behind closed walls and done coercively.

Citation please? Because you seem to be confusing correlation for causality there.


I gave a parallel example I could dig up studies for. As far as I know there's no real way to do a study on this barring some fairly unethical psychological practices.

Says who? You don't think that the primary cause of the kid's inability to deal with this stuff is, you know, the exploitation and power differential? Being unable to speak openly compounds, no doubt, but please keep your direct and contributory causes separate.

People in relationships have power differentials based upon who has more money, who has better social status. Are we to assume this is always exploitative and damaging? If you agree as I suspect that it would be silly to think that, then why is it reasonable to think that the child who is already in a power differential with all other adults is damaged by this? However, to be fair it could perhaps be compounds but after all everyone arguing the same side as me is not promoting sex with minors but merely want the uber-outraged to STFU so it can be dealt with in a healthy manner.

That's the problem—a kid would. Unfortunately, laser vision and superpowers do not actually come from sex with adults. The kid has no power to enforce the contract, and likely is being lied to by the adult. The immoral act isn't the kid accepting, it's the adult offering.
|
You mean "get in my car for some candy?" Or. "I have a puppy, Wanna see it?" Your eloquent but ultimately facile arguments are not much an improvement on the same. And I was told not to do such things as a child by adults that gave a shit about me.


It wasn't my bad analogy.

Cite 'em. And the issue of morality isn't "Does being molested cripple the kid for life," it's "Is being molested worse than not being molested," or "Does being molested predict more negative experiences later?"

Okay, I was being a bit unfair here and taking a backhanded poke at people who claim 25% of women are raped and then more egregious numbers for molestation, which I don't actually believe, but wanted to take a chance while I had it to call out the inconsistency in their beliefs on it. I could swear one instance was referenced in the original thread, presumably coming out of the links though. As to the issue of the morality, we seem to be in disagreement about the nature of this callout. papakwanz' original comment was of the nature of, being molested/exploited sexually isn't as bad as the claims. Which is all I would claim as well.

Also, as many have pointed out in various threads, their psyche is developing in a culture which has a way more horrific view of children's sexuality being the worst thing in evar than anyone in either thread expressed which ultimately will shape how they deal with the events.

Wait, they're developing in a culture that's the same as the one these threads came out of but also worse? And again, not being the worst thing ever doesn't mean that it's good. That's dumb, and appears to be what you're arguing.


Poor wording on my part. I was trying to throw in the midst admission that by and large the posters here have a healthier approach to this than the common dialog. And that therefore the culture we grow up in is far worse than even the worst arguments here. Along with that was that our culture almost certainly exacerbates the strife of these kids since they've become lepers after the abuse.

Your doing it too. Again kids are not just a wee bit psycho from getting buggered or what ever it is you imagine I'm talking about.

They are dead. They are getting murdered. They are getting AIDS. They are getting hooked on drugs. They are remaining in poverty. Selling them selves is absolutely no ticket anywhere. These are the facts.


You can't seriously not see the problem here can you? Ever read More's Utopia? In it there was a passage poking fun at British law where he pointed out that if the punishment for theft was death then what would deter a thief from killing someone to escape. This is exactly what I'm calling people like you out on. The attitude you hold turns these molesters into monsters, then they become exactly what you've pinned them as. Similar cases can be made in each of your other problems above but I have to go now.
posted by kigpig at 6:30 PM on April 3, 2008


We live in a world where 44 year old are attracted to children not for love but FOR exploitation.

Which is the reason I'm annoyed by the term "pedophile", which as we all know means "lover of children", and couldn't be further from the truth. It's one of the most blatant misnomers in the long history of misnomers. It was either Bill Maher or Dennis Miller who said we don't need a 50 cent word to describe these people, and I agree wholeheartedly. "Child molester" will suffice.
posted by Devils Slide at 6:44 PM on April 3, 2008


In some ideal world where everybody just loves each other and nobody is an asshole maybe a 44 year old could have a wonderful sincerer loving rela..

For the sake of argument, I'll take that hypothetical ideal non-harmful world and run with it.

This hypothetical scenario does not apply to, say, a 14yo and 18yo who fall in love; wherein the 18yo loves the 14yo despite his being underage. This hypothetical scenario involves a 14yo - let's say groomed since he was 12 or 13 - and a 44yo who "loves" the 14yo because he is underage. This is closer to the situation involved in the Afghan post, since the kept boys are sent packing when they get too old; except there's no real mention of romantic love.

---

Since the age of 12 until he's 16, the kid has been doted upon by his keeper and loves him with that intense sort of teenage love. In his hormone soaked mind, they were meant for each other and will be together forever and ever. Everything's rainbows and puppydogs, and the sex is damn good. Four years is a long time to a teenager, isn't it?

The keeper's getting uncomfortable though, you see. The kid's gotten almost as tall as him, and he's having to start shaving. His voice has stopped cracking, and yesterday he found a lone hair on the kid's chest. Hmm... Time to have The Talk.

"Hey, kiddo. I like you and all... but your body's getting too old for me. It's not about you, really; it's about me. It's getting harder and harder to stay attracted to you, y'know? ... No, no. I know you can shave it off. It's not just that. Listen, there's nothing that can be done about it. ... Fuck, I knew you'd cry about it. ... HEY! I never said I would throw you out. You can stick around while I look for a new boy. Maybe you can help me find one, and help him move in?"

----

Wouldn't that be a touch traumatic? The sex and relationship itself weren't, but wouldn't the love of your just-started life being suddenly grossed out by you sort of fuck you up in the head for a while? Would you consider inflicting this sort of situation on a teenager - or, going further, on a barely pubescent kid - ethical or moral?

Note: This sort of trauma isn't comparable to a relationship ending because one party got fat. The kid did nothing other than mature naturally and irreversibly; gained weight can be lost. If this situation is comparable to anything, it's more like a guy divorcing his wife because she's gotten a few wrinkles - and that messes up some women an awful lot.
posted by CKmtl at 6:50 PM on April 3, 2008


I'm disappointed in you, tkchrist. People in that thread are praising the author of a book that portrays a child molester in a sympathetic light. Don't you feel the need to set them straight?

Don't bother to answer. kigpig took your stupid laser vision analogy and (rhetorically) rammed it back down your throat, and you didn't even have the grace (or intellectual honesty) to acknowledge it. I'm not particularly interested in finding out how you'll weasel out of this one.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 7:18 PM on April 3, 2008


papakwanz isn't the only one making lists. I've got one going now, too. He was the only one on it for a while, but all of a sudden, he has a bunch of company.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:33 PM on April 3, 2008


"Child molester" will suffice.

What about pedophiles who never act on their impulses and never molest a child? What should they be called?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:00 PM on April 3, 2008


What about pedophiles who never act on their impulses and never molest a child? What should they be called?

Lewis Carroll?
posted by Justinian at 8:13 PM on April 3, 2008


What about pedophiles who never act on their impulses and never molest a child? What should they be called?

Maybe we don't really need a whole vocabulary for thought crimes.
posted by mdn at 8:14 PM on April 3, 2008



What about pedophiles who never act on their impulses and never molest a child? What should they be called?

Well, you just called them 'pedophiles' so I'm gonna have to give up...what?
posted by dawson at 8:19 PM on April 3, 2008


People in that thread are praising the author of a book that portrays a child molester in a sympathetic light.

Crabby Appleton, have you ever read "Lolita"? Humbert's a total monster! That's what makes it such a great read - the narrator is clearly insane and evil but he has no idea.
posted by moxiedoll at 8:20 PM on April 3, 2008


People in that thread are praising the author of a book that portrays a child molester in a sympathetic light. Don't you feel the need to set them straight?

A work of fiction.

Don't bother to answer.


Oh my god. I did. I answered. Oh noes what will Crabby Appelton do? Oh. Yeah. Not a god damned thing.

kigpig took your stupid laser vision analogy and (rhetorically) rammed it back down your throat, and you didn't even have the grace (or intellectual honesty) to acknowledge it. I'm not particularly interested in finding out how you'll weasel out of this one.

And you my friend are being rather vividly sexually violent yourself. Ram down my throat? Um.

Weasel out of what one? What are you even talking about? There was nothing to weasel in or out of.

He was the one that blithely posed this wonderful nonexistent word where all a teenager who is going to sell him or herself has worry about is how much money and neat toys they are gonna get. he was was the one cherry picking from la-la land.

He said "presuming there was little risk of physical abuse."

And one can make NO such presumption. For it entire point is the risk for children in sexual relatinships is MUCH higher than it is for adults. Which has been part of our thesis from day one. All this other strawman shit you people keep bringing into the argument are your own inventions and you steadfastly refuse to admit reality. AIDS. Murder. Rape. These are the reality for child sex workers. And while ALL sex workers are vulnerable, it is underage sex workers who are uniquely SOUGHT out to be exploited BECAUSE of these types of vulnerabilities — and becuase they are cheap—and then discarded when these problems befall them.

These are the facts that all you child exploitation apologist conveniently ignore. Oh. Those statistics about mortality rates among child prostitutes. pffft. Schmatistics.

Your logic is idiotic and your arguments have been proven invalid now by over a dozen people in this thread alone.

Oh. I posed no analogy. I was being a straight up smart ass to an idiotic comment that deserved nothing more thoughtful than that. I was being dismissive.

You, papakwanz, kigpig, all of you have LOST this argument. It's obvious to 90% of the people on this board. And if you had a shred of integrity you would see that, admit you are wrong, and shut the fuck up.

But why won't you? What's the motive for keeping this gong without addressing a single relevant point? What is the need to convince us that it's just fine for 44 year olds to buy, sell, trade and fuck children? Why? Is it so important to you? And what you say you want is "civil" discussion. But you just talk in circles over and over. Inventing worlds of wonder THAT DON'T EXIST or cherry picking fringe bullshit. I think you have an agenda. You have convinced me of that now. I didn't want to go there. But it's like you picked me up and drove me here.

If it was possible I'm approaching an inch away from demanding the mods notify law enforcement of people so vociferously arguing for pederasty. I never thought in a million years I would feel that way about people on this board. People I like. But. That's how fucked up some of you sound. Do you understand this now? You better start thinking about what your arguing for. Because some of you sound pretty fucked up.

Matt. Jessamyn. Kill this thread now. Before these people dig themselves in any deeper.

What?
posted by tkchrist at 8:23 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


You, papakwanz, kigpig, all of you have LOST this argument. It's obvious to 90% of the people on this board. And if you had a shred of integrity you would see that, admit you are wrong, and shut the fuck up...Matt. Jessamyn. Kill this thread now.

Jeepers.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2008

Don't bother to answer.

Oh my god. I did. I answered. Oh noes what will Crabby Appelton do? Oh. Yeah. Not a god damned thing.
Uh, maybe you should close the thread before tkchrist loses it completely.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:43 PM on April 3, 2008


I think I'll close it because it's not going anyplace particularly.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:15 PM on April 3, 2008


« Older Boobs + Cured meat /= Best of the Web   |   Embrace this new feature, and take it to where it... Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.