Only Looking (2)
And in, er, child-molestation-fantasy news:
A professor of Ethics at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway has called to legalise AI-generated child pornography, claiming that paedophilia should be seen as an innate sexuality that requires destigmatisation. Ole Martin Moen, a gay man who identifies as “queer,” currently serves as a member of the advisory board on Norway’s Patient Organization for Gender-Incongruence (PKI), a social and political lobby group for trans rights. […]
Moen details arguments for and against “adult-child sex” before ultimately coming to the conclusion that “adult-child sex is not categorically very harmful” but may result in “risks” of children being harmed… Moen also argues that paedophiles who do not sexually abuse children should be “praised” for their “admirable willpower,”
Not raping children – so far, that is – but really, really wanting to and thinking about it a lot – is praiseworthy, you see.
Update, via the comments:
If readers will forgive a little paraphrasing:
Frisky Nonce: “I didn’t utterly ruin a small child’s life today. I wanted to, quite a lot, but I didn’t.”
Woke Academic: “Oh well done. Have a sweet. And some more child-abuse pornography.”
We could, I think, paraphrase a little further:
“I didn’t stab any random passers-by in the face today.”
“Oh well done. Here are some pictures of random people being stabbed in the face.”
Farcical as it sounds, the dynamic is not entirely dissimilar.
Update 2:
Aside from the more bewildering claims – that “the mental state of finding children sexually attractive is very common,” for instance, or that 11-year-olds’ crushes on other 11-year-olds are somehow equivalent to creepy 40-year-old men ogling kiddies – Dr Moen has other odd thoughts. We’re told that “most adult-child sex… does not involve violence or penetration,” merely “cuddling, caressing, and genital fondling,” and that penetration “occurs most commonly when the child is well into adolescence.” So, hey. No biggie.
We’re also told that we mustn’t assume that paedophiles “desire to harm children,” even though their desires, when enacted, via secrecy and deceit, do harm children, often catastrophically, and even though their enacted desire is, by definition, a violation, a betrayal, an act of monstrous selfishness.
“There is no reason to posit intentions to harm, disrespect, or expression of ill will on the part of all or even most paedophiles,” says Dr Moen. This is despite acknowledging that such experiences leave a majority of victims with “psychological disorders… increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, major depression,” etc. And despite the fact that these consequences are very widely understood, at least in simple terms. And despite the fact that many paedophiles have been subjected to similar abuse themselves and therefore know first-hand the likely consequences.
Hence the stigma, of course. The stigma that Dr Moen finds so problematic.
Our educator then entertains the conceit that paedophilia is only harmful to its victims “because of society’s way of viewing and handling sexual contact between adults and children.” As if the only disagreeable aspect of being raped as a child were the subsequent embarrassment. Not the actual, you know, violation.
This, remember, is in the same essay that acknowledges the “psychological disorders” and “major depression” that are frequently the result for children who’ve been sexually assaulted. To say nothing of all the oddly unmentioned consequences that may manifest later in life, including, for some, transgenderism and/or paedophilia, and none of which are generally regarded as life-affirming.
Update 3:
In the comments, Mags quotes Dr Moen’s deep musings:
“Many of us have been paedophiles at one point,” Moen argues, adding “When you were 11, it is not unlikely that you were sexually attracted to prepubertal children.”
She adds,
That’s not paedophilia. Couldn’t he find a dictionary?
Well, quite. And Dr Moen’s readiness to build a rickety argument on the blatant misuse of basic terms – carefully omitting the obvious adult-child power dynamic – does rather cast some doubt on his motives. The attempt to equate the ill-defined crushes of middle-school children with some creepy middle-aged man perving on those same middle-school children is, I think, telling.
We’ve been here before, of course.
Via pst314.
Aguilera’s day-glo dildo gets rave reviews
Cuz, you know, f**k actual families and kids.
Hence the stigma, of course. The stigma that Dr Moen finds so problematic.
These days we could use a bit more stigma.
There is ample evidence that early sexualization has permanent effects on a human being’s psyche, and those effects are largely detrimental to what the Western world considers a successful, happy life.
And yet there are those who seem bent on precisely that end.
These days we could use a bit more stigma.
When we look at the entire “progressive” agenda, not just child-grooming but also “green” policies, open borders, BLM, CRT, Defund the Police, reparations and guaranteed income, the islamophobia myth, and so on ad nauseum, there is a common theme of malevolent or selfish motives dressed up as benevolence.
Instead of a bit more stigma, how about a boatload of intolerance?
Aguilera, I thought that was some kind of salad. It’s supposed to be good for you.
Circling back on the suggestion that AI child porn might be a ‘solution’ to child molestation; it is bollocks on stilts. For some people, porn is a substitute for sex. Great, AI nonce porn keeps those perverts at home. However, for lots of there people, porn fuels their desires and makes them act out their fantasies.
There is a huge number of convicted sexual predators (of all sorts) who were obsessed with and inflamed by porn (often the nasty end of legal porn). Wayne Couzens is one recent UK example. AI nonce porn will drive some people to rape children, so it is a non-starter
Circling back on the suggestion that AI child porn might be a ‘solution’ to child molestation; it is bollocks on stilts.
I don’t think anyone here said it was a ‘solution’. As you suggest, for some people porn is a substitute for sex and possibly keeps those perverts at home. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. “However, for lots of there people, porn fuels their desires and makes them act out their fantasies.” This is not knowable to any significant degree. There have been plenty of studies on this. Which is absurd itself because “studies” could not determine a pre-crime thought to any degree one way or the other and yet unsurprisingly some studies say one thing others say another. The problem here is opening up the Pandora’s box of pre-crime. Once that nose is under the tent, all sorts of nefarious fascist policies are on the table. In a world where we cannot even stop doctors from chopping little boys dicks off to sew them onto little girls, I don’t see giving this lawless culture any legal cover to do far more nefarious things is going to help any.
The closest thing to a solution to this problem is to speak out loudly and forcefully, to keep a wary eye out for those who are a bit too enthusiastic to be around children (mostly men but also many women), to prosecute people who do harm children to the fullest extent of the law, and even for the occasional Leon Gary Plauché type action where appropriate. Yet obviously(?) this whole discussion is putting the cart way before the horse. Before we even get there, how about some more conservative…”conservative” people, especially GOP politicians (yeah, Lincoln Project…SMFH) speaking out about the current grooming trend? Ron DeSantis cannot carry this issue on his back alone. And keep a wary eye out for the false-flag types. You know, get us back to the future of 1990 or so?
keep a wary eye out for those who are a bit too enthusiastic to be around children (mostly men but also many women)
The truth is that more sexual assaults on children are committed by men than women. So I’m okay with this policy as long as we also recognize that more physical abuse is committed on children by women than men.
Agree. They do have more opportunity and…incentive? for lack of a better word. Plus the damn hormone rage every month or so that they would not dare take out on men. Well not to the degree of doing, or being able to do, serious physical damage.
Will never happen in my lifetime but if we could get back to the social situation where women manage children up to age 10 or so and slowly move the boys over to the men’s side, especially as work apprenticeships, etc. where they’re not completely alone with men until age 13 or so, a ton of these problems would go away.
“The truth is that more sexual assaults on children are committed by men than women.”
The numbers are small, but the effect of this gem of info is that we have consigned all of our elementary-school-aged kids to be educated by women only.
To their detriment. We need more male influence on kids’ lives.
To their detriment. We need more male influence on kids’ lives.
As the saying goes, it isn’t toxic masculinity that’s the problem, it’s a total lack of masculinity.
That’s not pedophilia. Couldn’t he find a dictionary?
That’s not pedophilia. Couldn’t he find a dictionary?
Well, quite. And Dr Moen’s readiness to build a rickety argument on the blatant misuse of basic terms – carefully omitting the obvious adult-child power dynamic – does rather cast some doubt on his motives. The attempt to equate the ill-defined crushes of middle-school children with some creepy middle-aged man perving on those same middle-school children is, I think, telling.
The numbers are small, but the effect of this gem of info is that we have consigned all of our elementary-school-aged kids to be educated by women only.
Roughly half my elementary school teachers were male. (Or that’s how I remember it.) But then, I was born in the mid-50’s.
And Dr Moen’s readiness to build a rickety argument on the blatant misuse of basic terms – carefully omitting the obvious adult-child power dynamic – does rather cast some doubt on his motives.
Misuse of language for dishonest purposes is all too common in academia. But then, every form of dishonesty has become common on academia as the left has taken over: Selective quotation, misquotation, outright fabrication, all are justified in the name of leftism.
Misuse of language for dishonest purposes is all too common in academia.
It’s both rhetorically sly and logically inept. This is just before Dr Moen informs us that “youngness” is a “property children have in excess.” And because twenty-something babes are often considered more sexually attractive than saggy battleaxes pushing fifty, “what makes paedophiles diverge from others is that they prefer more youngness than does the average person.”
There’s a minimising tone, one that runs throughout.
There’s a minimising tone, one that runs throughout.
I would use a “minimising tone” to describe any campaign to destroy his academic career. 😉
The real question is, why is this academic taken even remotely seriously by anyone? Why is his University not shamed by this? The board that granted this obvious idiot his doctorate? Of course this is Norway, land of the quislings. You would think they would learn. And these are the people passing out Nobel Prizes. Well…
The real question is, why is this academic taken even remotely seriously by anyone? Why is his University not shamed by this? The board that granted this obvious idiot his doctorate?
Because leftists hire leftists.
…Of course this is Norway, land of the quislings…
Bruce Bawer (American ex-pat now living in Norway and previously the Netherlands) has written extensively about the European left and especially about the ruling leftist elites in the Netherlands and Norway. (Both of the linked books are well worth buying and reading.)
…You would think they would learn…
There is no incentive to learn because there are no consesequences to being wrong–other, disposable people bear the costs.
…And these are the people passing out Nobel Prizes. Well…
Hence my loathing and contempt for “smart” people.
Misuse of language for dishonest purposes is all too common in academia.
See also Dr Moen’s claim that paedophiles are generally well-meaning, despite the obvious and serious harm they do, and despite the subterfuge that their activities typically entail.
because there are no consesequences to being wrong–other, disposable people bear the costs.
Here I go being the Akshully Guy again….Mr. Quisling himself…well…Not to mention Herr Hitler’s stealing their resources and their children.
despite the subterfuge
Subterfuge is a reliable sign of bad intent.
Dr Moen’s claim that paedophiles are generally well-meaning
“Well-meaning” remains to be proved, as David might say in his understated way.
That reminds me of an abusive husband I once heard about: He would do things that caused his wife great emotional distress, and when confronted would say something to the effect of “It doesn’t bother me, so why should it bother you?”
Subterfuge is a reliable sign of bad intent.
The Gotcha Game is popular with these types. With shrinks as well. Along with the opportunistic use of Janus words. It really is quite pathetic to see grown men play such games. When encountered I immediately wonder what kind of father these clowns had, assuming they had one. The bastards.