An Interest In Children
And in unrepentant pervert news:
That would be this chap here, mentioned previously. The chap for whom three months of masturbation constitutes “research,” the basis for a PhD. And given the not uncommon consequences of childhood molestation, Mr Andersson’s use of the words healing and worship may strike readers as somewhat perverse.
When this unobvious approach to scholarship – “an experimental method of masturbating” – first came to wider attention, four months after its submission, Mr Andersson’s peers and supervisors had apparently not noticed the particulars of his vigorous, hands-on investigations, or the legal and reputational implications of such pederastic probing.
Except, of course, for those who rushed to his defence, among them, the University of Manchester’s Professor Steven Fielding, who, in a now-deleted X post, invoked the universality of masturbation, before hailing the project as “socially useful,” albeit in ways left entirely mysterious.
A pattern of approval seemingly repeated:
His own academic supervisor, Andersson claims, complimented the paper as “pretty damn good” and described it as his “best piece of writing.” Additionally, one reviewer for the academic publication Qualitative Research emphasised that the rationale behind using masturbation as a research method was “well justified,” and said of the shota-obsessed academic: “The author has conducted provocative research by use of a highly bold and innovative application of autoethnography. Best of all, the author has done this extremely well.”
According to Mr Andersson, other academic colleagues have hailed his “queer autoethnography” as “wonderfully written, reflective, analytical and intriguing,” and have described it as “very publishable.”
Readers will doubtless recall the dizzying rigour of Mr Andersson’s academic work, noted in the post linked above, in which we learned that his feverish wanking gave him “a more embodied understanding of the topic.”
As I said at the time,
Clearly, the frontiers of human knowledge are being pushed back, heroically, selflessly, by our “visual anthropologist.”
The paper itself, now removed from the website of the journal Qualitative Research, is remarkable chiefly in terms of the author’s self-involvement and the sheer flimsiness of its content. The lines quoted above – about a “feeling of intimacy” and the luxurious wrappers of Mr Andersson’s porn stash – are much of the supposed substance of the thing. The rest is largely flatulent, self-involved rambling – as “autoethnography” generally is.
This, then, is what is considered “very publishable” in academia’s Clown Quarter. That progressive fiefdom.
However, one topic that Mr Andersson left oddly untouched was the matter of his own relationship to the law – child pornography, including shota, being illegal in many countries, including the United Kingdom, where his self-pleasuring project was so proudly conducted. That this detail doesn’t appear to have concerned Mr Andersson, or his peers and supervisors – at least until the project came to wider, incredulous attention – possibly tells us something about the academic circles in which he moves – or rather, moved.
Conceivably, this kind of contrived edginess, this exulting in pathology, is itself found titillating among his peers. An indicator of radical sophistication.
One might, I think, regard Mr Andersson’s paper, his boldness, and his pretence of intellectual heft, as a kind of provocation, a shit test. Readers may wonder whether, as Ben Sixsmith suggested, the field of “queer studies” is often spared even basic scrutiny, regardless of its content, or lack thereof, for fear of seeming bigoted and, with dark irony, anti-intellectual.
Readers may even wonder whether the widespread and rapid propagation, not least in academia, of transgender ideology and boutique identities has emboldened other niche psychological demographics – including, seemingly, paedophiles – to make themselves known while daring us to disapprove. Or at least, daring those sufficiently hamstrung by their own pretensions.
As commenter [+] quipped at the time,
Certainly, there has been quite a bit of nonce-as-oppressed-minority sentiment appearing recently in academia’s Clown Quarter and Clown-adjacent areas – Allyn Walker, Miranda Galbreath, and Ole Martin Moen come to mind – along with the conceit that in order to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children, we must stop being judgmental of the adults who wish to molest them and thereby ruin their lives.
Such is the eye-watering progress of our times.
This blog is kept afloat by the tip jar buttons below.
Probably wise.
I haven’t rewatched the series since it first aired, twenty-five years ago, but at the time I found it funny. Twisted, but funny. A sort of grotesque horror-comedy. The first two or three seasons are, I think, the best. The later ‘specials’ are less good, if memory serves, and the subsequent feature film is too clever-clever and rather disappointing.
It occurs to me that the series would be unlikely to be approved by the BBC today. Make of that what you will.
Just checked the BBC iPlayer, and League of Gentlemen is still available, albeit with a stern warning that the series “contains discriminatory language and content.” Which for some reason made me laugh.
I can’t imagine that the black-faced Papa Lazarou, who steals people’s wives for his travelling circus, would be approved by today’s pronoun-stipulating BBC. Likewise, the pederastic German schoolteacher who tries to drug his prey, or the transsexual taxi-driver with short skirts, hairy legs, and “nipples like bullets.”
Perhaps you need to watch the original feature film instead.
We actually watched that a couple of weeks ago. It’s nicely written and an entertaining watch. Maybe that’s what made me think of the (unrelated) series.
Not specific to cultists. This is how the broader culture functions. Men, especially even many of the “pillars of the community” types* give in to, or at least pretend to give in to many of the more ridiculous expectation and demands of unstable women. They do it clearly for the p***y. They may not be so explicit by saying so. Only the
more honestdumb ones do.*At a rate of at least once a month or so
[ Straightens coasters. ]
Expecting someone?
I just thought the heathen rabble were being suspiciously quiet.
Probably absorbed by the RNLI’s dramatic North Sea rescue.
Band name.
I’m assuming they’re all in the toilets, smoking carpet underlay. Or whatever the thing is these days.
That would account for the smell.
The sight of Stephen Fry and his much younger, much smaller husband is a little jarring, but Elliott Spencer was well into adulthood when they met. It’s a bit unfair to mention them in the context of actual unashamed nonces, I think.
For those who haven’t read it, this may be worth a squint.
It conveys something of the mental limbo-dancing currently in fashion.
During a recent drive, I mentioned to The Other Half that a defining attribute of our time is of people pretending not to know things that, until very recently, were fairly common knowledge. It seems to be underway on many fronts, but the above, the blatherings of Dr Moen, fit the template quite well.
from the link:
Something to keep in mind when people talk about “queering the culture”.
I wonder at times if it is pretence. The inability (or refusal) of schools to impart knowledge to pupils is notorious.
And again, Mr Andersson was apparently flourishing – until people outside of that weird progressive bubble got wind of his activities.
When you live in a bubble you ultimately become emboldened by all the positive feedback. It must be quite jarring when you confidently unleash yourself on the world and discover there exists an alternate viewpoint.
@Marius,
Can’t be any worse than many a heterosexual May-December sort of thing.
My feeling is that the heart gets what the heart wants, and that’s often in complete ignorance of age. So long as it’s consenting adults, who cares?
Sex is often a power game, going both ways. The number of women who “want to be dominated” is distressingly high, until you realize it’s more of a ploy than anything else. I’ve lost track of the relationships I’ve observed where the wife is vehemently submissive in form and in public, but somehow… The “dominant” husband is always doing precisely as she orders their lives.
You see this a lot in cross-cultural marriages in the US military. Husband marries “compliant” European or Asian bride, thinking that the forms she offers will be the reality. Within weeks of marriage, he discovers the iron fist within the velvet glove, and either rebels or complies. Woe be unto he who rebels… That which is visible does not always represent that which really is. You marry a Korean, you’ll often find yourself being run as a business, and if your bottom line doesn’t trend upwards…?
Always amusing to watch that crap. American women, in my general observation, do not “woman” very well at all. They, too, mistook the form for the substance, reached for the forms, and now discover they were grabbing for a mess of pottage.
As an aside, in terms of sexual/gender role idiocy… I find it truly amusing that so many Western women examined their lives, decided they were deficient, and demanded changes be made. The sad reality is, as I state, they simply weren’t all that good a being “women” in traditional terms. In a traditional society, women have all sorts of power, more than men do in a lot of respects. Who decides who gets laid? Married? Has kids? Has those kids live to adulthood? Women. If you don’t think that the mothers of all those “honor killing” victims weren’t involved in the affair, you have another think coming. The whole of how we socially controlled the baser urges of young women stems from one thing, and one things only: The older woman’s fear of being replaced by the latest young hottie to come along. Men would gladly let sluttishness rule the day, but the older matrons knowingly demand full-scale slut control, even of their own daughters. They’ve a vested institutional interest in it all.
Which is why I laugh every time I hear some midwit fembot pronounce upon the evils of the supposed “Patriarchy”. Baby, if the patriarchy ran things, you’d have everything you wanted, because those things enable older men to get younger women like you ohsoveryeasily… Your “real” enemies are the older women who used to be the social arbiters of all. Now that you got rid of them, you can slut yourselves up to your heart’s content, despite the fact that it’s horribly unhealthy for you yourself and the rest of society.
Off topic, but the subject of how far Scientific American has fallen has been discussed here many times. Here’s the latest wisdom.
For those who missed out…
Here’s an article claiming that differences in male-female sporting performance are a result of “bias,” not biology.
Here’s one fretting about the “colonial” violation of hypothetical microbes.
And here’s another denouncing as “racist” the fact that contact-sport injuries tend to affect those who play contact sports.
Speaking of pathologies: “Diddy’s Miami house had over 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant among ‘various Freak Off supplies’, police documents reveal”
There was a sexual revolution and a youth revolution, and obviously they weren’t separate. The open message of the sexual rebels to the forces of parental morality was (i) your belief that we’re coming for your daughters is a symptom of your authoritarian paranoia and repressed incestuous urges, and (ii) by the way, we are coming for your daughters, and they’ll like it. The rebels having conquered sexual repression, jealousy and possessiveness, and being able to engage authentically in the moment, conventional sexual morality didn’t apply to them.
I don’t know if the sex-with-youth revolution was ever stopped on principle. In the 70’s, it was promoted in the mainstream as far as it could go, and then there was a pushback based on parental instinct (“I’m no prude, but Brooke Shields is is the same age as my daughter: you’re perving over a child”). In the Spiegel article linked by Kirk, some of the sexual rebels actually talk about this protective instinct as a symptom of societal repression that they were embarrassed about not being able to overcome. And there’s the age of consent, which on the boundary is a legal fiction, and leaves uncontested the sexual revolution principles that everyone should be able to do what they want all the time.
@ZmG,
One suspects that there were ulterior motives to the whole thing.
Interesting snippet, provenance unknown, found on X/Twitter:
This passage rings true, although I’m not having much luck with online translation of that supposed Turkish term.
If you’ve studied the way the Ottomans operated in the Balkans and elsewhere, this is pretty much the pattern for how they ran their conquered areas. The bacha bazi of Afghanistan are expressions of similar cultural dysfunction.
In the end, the whole of it comes down to dominance games playing out in the common cultural spaces, many of which are perpetrated by some seriously sick individuals. Examine precisely what is being delivered by Disney in all of its children’s entertainment, these days… Anyone actually sat down and monitored what the hell is being modeled in things like the shows you see as “children’s television”, these days? It’s illuminating, when you do… You suddenly realize where all these Tik-Tok girls and OnlyFans types come from. They’ve been conditioned to be narcissistic exhibitionists from day one, and nobody noticed…
Mostly because the majority of parents these days aren’t parents; they’ve subcontracted the raising of their kids to the television studios and the other dysfunctional kids that are out there.
The open message of the sexual rebels to the forces of parental morality was (i) your belief that we’re coming for your daughters is a symptom of your authoritarian paranoia and repressed incestuous urges,
And then there was “Men Loving Boys, Loving Men” and Pink Triangle Press and the foundational “fathers” Foucault and Gramsci. They were coming for your daughters and your sons in the name of the revolution and sex was just another tool. The thing they’re focusing on, the thing they’re talking about, is never the thing they’re really after.
I run into that a lot with the leftists I know: They pretend to be utterly unaware of things which are well documented. (Such as Islamo-fascist immigrants or leftist attacks on free speech.) And if you give them examples (incidents and statistics from France and Scandinavia and the Netherlands, the firing of Jame Damore and various professors, etc, etc) they either deny their authenticity or insist they are unrepresentative.
Leftist politics does seem to function more like a religion than anything else.
Crackpottery and fraud have moved into the academy.
I vaguely recall that back in the 70’s and 80’s when I had more time to browse leisurely in used book stores*, I would run across pseudo-scholarly books on various topics, including sex. A notable feature was the highly selective use of various sources, including creative quotes out of context, to support their theses. Thus, one might encounter 200 pages “proving” that the traditions and practices of cultures around the world “prove” that sex with children is healthy and should be encouraged. Or that the accomplishments of Western civilization were really all thanks to Dark Skinned People. Or that humanity lived in utopian matriarchies before the arrival of cruel patriarchal steppe barbarians. And so on.
But some time in the 90’s I began to notice such fraudulent material being published by academic presses. Shameful and utterly discrediting academia’s authority.
* I do miss being able to browse shelves, glancing in random books which I otherwise would never notice.