I’ve mentioned before that one of the subjects people just freak out about is children (won’t SOMEBODY think of them!?). Combine children and sex and it’s freakout squared (or due to synergy, possibly an exponent between 2 and 3). We knew Robert Lindsay had balls, but I think titling a post Kid’s Lie About Child Molestation takes the cake (and feminists say only pro-rape misogynists claim rape victims lie). So as to maintain the innocence of those precious snowflakes I would add that it’s usually adult authorities that badger them into lying, even insisting they tell the truth when refuted by videotape. If that doesn’t bother you enough his previous post discusses all the students that had a thing for him back when he was a teacher, and his regrets that he didn’t commit statutory rape.
Post title thanks to IOZ. More on that subject from the Distributed Republic. The makers of the Powerthirst commercial engage in pedophile humor here.
UPDATE: Robin Hanson on Paul Graham on lying to kids.
UPDATE 2: Roderick Long defends Mary Ruwart’s comments on pedophilia/child pornography here.
Entitled to an Opinion 
May 21, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Wow, your blog post’s title is worse than anything even alluded to within it.
May 22, 2008 at 12:49 am
I wonder if I’m trying to piss people off on purpose? This blogging thing at some point can start to resemble performace art, you know?
I didn’t mean to say that they *always* lie. Of course not. But I think that they lie a lot, especially in the past 20 years when we handed them this great big fat weapon they can use to bust us adults they hate so much with. That’s like handing machine guns to 15 yr olds. But they do lie so much, that I wonder when and why we should ever believe them. So, if there is no other evidence against a man, and he has no priors, why convict him strictly on the testimony of some little brat? I’m aware that this attitude may cause some really bad guys to go free, but they other way around seems to end up sentencing a lot of innocent guys on one of the worst charges you can go down on.
And I don’t regret not committing statutory rape. The Homecoming Queen in question was 18, and so was the Black girl. I just had to wait until they day she graduated, but I didn’t have the nerve to ask her out. I’m so stupid sometimes.
May 22, 2008 at 1:26 am
Hi, I just read your links. Nice stuff. However, they both seem to posit that all forms of child porn are illegal. Not true.
Child porn in the form of stories is completely legal! You can find them all over the Internet and some of them are pretty darn nasty. There is a sex stories site called Mr. Double that I used to go to a lot. Lots of erotica lit of varying qualities on there (stories only) but the site did seem to have an obsession with the kiddie stuff. I looked into the authors of the kiddie stuff and a lot of them seemed like really normal people. In many cases it was a woman aged 30-40, married, housewife with young kids, often middle class and White. They aren’t pedophiles at all! So what gives? Well, I shouldn’t talk about this too much, but there is an underbelly to the web. There used to be Yahoo chat rooms dedicated to people trading this stuff. They were *very* popular and there were lots of women in there. I used to go in there just out curiosity and what was amazing was how normal the people seemed. Then I met this guy from San Diego who was into that stuff. He wasn’t a pedo either. He was a really normal guy living with a woman.
Truth is, I think a lot of these people just find this stuff exciting for the forbidden thrill aspect to it. Studies have shown that up to 28% of normal males react to pedo stuff, so it’s not true that everyone who reacts to pedo stuff is pedo. Pedos are preferentially into kid sex and they have minimal arousal to normal sex with mature people. It’s almost like the more you forbid something, the more people want to see it out of thrill factor. Why do non-pedos dabble in child porn? Why do people watch beheading vids? Probably same reason.
And yes, I have seen the stuff. How many times? Enough to satisfy my curiosity at the most evil thing out there that one could probably look at. My motivation? Same as watching a beheading vid. There used to be clubs for this stuff on Yahoo that would open up all the time. They would fill up with like 5,000-10,000 members in just a few days and then they would close down just like that. *Lots* of people have seen this stuff. Every single one of these anti-kid-porn fighters has seen this stuff – guaranteed. *Lots* of cops have seen this stuff. Just having looked at it doesn’t mean crap, anymore than watching a beheading vid makes me a psychopath.
May 22, 2008 at 1:54 am
I believe literary erotica tends to be a woman thing while men are into visual imagery.
Most people even if they had mocked our fear of child molestation would not admit to seeking out such materials. My hat is off to you.
May 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm
If you want to amp up the unease a notch further, why not broaden the discussion to consider the unique body of literature by my friend and favorite writer, Peter Sotos — who also happens to be the the first person in U.S. history to be prosecuted for the possesssion of child pornography.
I provide some useful links in the comments preceding my review-essay, “Writing About Prostitutes,” which discusses Peter’s 1995 anthology, “Total Abuse.” See:
http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/09/writing-about-p.html
May 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Howdy Chip. I really loved that article about Peter Sotos. What you mean is that he is the only guy in the US ever convicted of child porn *for stories alone*.
That’s some disturbing stuff all right. I loved your essay about Dworkin too. She’s unjustly maligned, and I’m a pig. Oink oink. She’s basically saying that men are all pigs, and as a pig, I agree with that. Where we disagree is how to react. I think females should realize that males are pigs and just accept it as normal. Dworkin wants to go on jihad about it.
May 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Robert,
Thanks. Actually, Peter was prosecuted for possession of graphic CP, back in the mid-eighties. Prior to that event, mere possession was not prosecuted. I think there’s a Wayback link in my article somewhere that relates the details, possibly titled “The Law and Peter Sotos.” The entire narrative is also recounted in Jim Goad’s fascinating interview with Peter in Total Abuse. This interview, to my knowledge, is not available online. Most people learn about Sotos’ legal troubles through Adam Parfrey’s essay, “Aesthetic Terrorism,” which was originally published in Apocalypse Culture. That one is online at:
http://www.unpopart.org/manifestos/man_adam.html
Andrea Dworkin was a sad soul and a brilliant writer.
May 23, 2008 at 12:07 am
Robert Lindsay, how can you call yourself a leftist and say people should accept oppression (including rape) as normal?
May 23, 2008 at 1:09 am
I don’t support rape at all, of course, but what Dworkin says is that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. She is correct. One is doing the fucking and one is getting fucked. There are no two ways about it. I had a link up earlier about a gay webpage that advocated that gay men act masculine. Their notion was that the whole era of promiscuity, AIDS, “gay men as sex pigs”, effeminacy, degradation, etc, that characterizes gay life today came about through the mass promotion of anal sex. By the very act of getting penetrated anally, gay men were turned submissive. Getting penetrated resembles rape. Fucking makes the fucker dominant (and a sort of a rapist) and getting fucked makes one submissive and a sort of a rape victim. They argue that the only way that the gay men can reverse this trend is through something called frottage (they also like other non anal sex acts) which basically boils down to 2 guys rubbing their dicks against each other in a sort of martial combat. By having sex in this way, neither man is fucked and therefore made submissive. Also promiscuity is reduced – by getting anally fucked, the man is degraded and turned into a “sex slut” or “sex pig”. Also effeminacy will be reduced in gay men, since getting fucked in and of itself causes gay men to act effeminate (I would also argue that the act of getting fucked in and of itself turns a woman feminine, and most men with sexual experience have seen this with their very eyes).
I have read pro-sex feminists saying that getting fucked is an act of violence and and of itself and yes it does resemble rape. As I’ve never been fucked, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t agree when Dworkin conflates all heterosexual fucking with rape. Clearly rape is rape and consensual sex is consensual sex. Of course I don’t support rape, but I’ve talked more than a few women into bed before. As in giving them orders, which they were free to refuse, like, “Get over on that bed right now!” Believe it or not, an incredibly large % of females actually want to be bossed around and ordered around by a dominant male.
So, I don’t support rape, but I think Dworkin did hit something on the head there.
My piece on Heroic Homo Sex. That’s the gay website that I describe above. I actually like their POV and I think that they have hit on something very important.
May 23, 2008 at 4:27 am
I don’t support rape at all, of course, but what Dworkin says is that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
No, she never said this. This is a myth.
May 23, 2008 at 4:27 am
I don’t support rape at all, of course, but what Dworkin says is that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
No, she never said this. This is a myth.
May 23, 2008 at 6:47 am
What difference does it make what Dworkin said? She was obviously a complete fool – paying her enough attention to determine precisely what she did and did not claim is giving her more than she’s due.
As a feminist, feminism’s hijacking by anti-intellectual postmodernist morons is a deep concern. We should be trying to get them out, not debating their ‘positions’.
May 23, 2008 at 8:41 am
“We should be trying to get them out, not debating their ‘positions’.”
Wow. I couldn’t disagree more emphatically. Not merely with the “purge the pomos” conclusion, but with your characterization of Dworkin as an anti-intellectual moron. She was foremost a literary and cultural critic, and as such, something of a classisist and transcendentalist. I defy anyone to read “Intercourse” or “Pornography” or even the essay collection, “Life and Death,” and come away with the impression that Dworkin had an anti-intellectual bone in her corpulent body. Frankly, I think you’re confusing her with the later wave of half-read Foucault-bred feminists who began making serious noise in the 80s and 90s. Dworkin’s scholarship grew sloppy during the later stages of her career when she was infirm and depressed (save for the opening chapter, “Scapegoat” is a mess), but to my mind, she was always distinguished by her respect for literary tradition and liberal discourse.
And I think Micha is essentially correct regarding the “all sex is rape” canard, though I don’t think the common reduction is as indefensible as the apologists would have it. Clearly, Dworkin thought that the patriarchal hegemon had polluted the orgone to the extent that even consensual relations could be tainted by the dominant male narrative. If you want to understand her views on sexuality, they’re much more in line with Reich than with the feminazi cartoon that’s so conveniently bought and sold.
Andrea Dworkin’s work embodies fascinating contradictions. I have my own ideas about the motives and internal conflicts that give it resonance, and value. Much of the urgency may stem from her own writerly ambitions, which seemed oddly similar in plot and spirit to that which animated those male “sexual outlaws” – Mailer, Miller, Ginsburg, etc – whom she at once admired and decried. And I think there is a fascinating sense of tragic fatalism – perhaps even biological fatalism – present in her fiction that doesn’t neatly reconcile with the explanations that sift through interviews and polemics. (Her recurrent argument with Sade can be read as a covert argument with nature.)
Her wordlview was informed primarily by and acute sense of horror, and, as the title of her memoir provides, by “heartbreak.” She cared. She played fair. She was intellectually deft and honest. And best of all, she never grew out of it. I have gained more from reading Andrea Dworkin’s work than I have from reading de Bouvier or Camille Paglia.
May 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I don’t care much for literary and cultural criticism about this-or-that “discourse”, but I did like this from John Dolan in the eXile about Dworkin.
Lindsay, that site sounds like Jack Malebranche. He wrote a book called Androphilia and has a blog here.
May 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm
TGGP,
For what it’s worth, my reference to “liberal discourse” wasn’t meant to refer to the sort of palaver-laden obfuscation-as-theory crap that often falls under the label of “discourse” in certain academic cloisters. By “liberal discourse,” I simply meant open discussion or debate.
May 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The myth that kids don’t lie- and, as you say, often at the instigation of adult authority figures- goes to show how flawed some peoples’ takes on reality are. During the McMartin hearings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_Preschool the radio airwaves were filled with psychobabble about how children were the instruments of all things true and holy. And of course, no acknowledgement of sins in the aftermath.
May 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I must say, Chip Smith, you are certainly a character. That goes for TGGP too. I secretly dedicated my recent posts on Distributed Republic with you two in mind.
June 19, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers
[Edit: you don’t need to sign your name, it appears at the top]
December 31, 2010 at 6:02 pm
[…] Do some people view kiddy porn for reasons totally unrelated to their genitals? […]
June 24, 2014 at 8:13 pm
You’re a hateful piece of shit!
March 9, 2016 at 6:02 pm
[…] (or even wanting to)? Perhaps the motivated incuriosity of the paedogeddon pushers simply makes some eager to find out what all the fucking fuss is about. That or they just like looking at the pudenda […]
June 11, 2019 at 7:37 am
[…] (or even wanting to)? Perhaps the motivated incuriosity of the paedogeddon pushers simply makes some eager to find out what all the fuss is about. That or they just like looking at the pudenda of […]
August 24, 2020 at 7:04 pm
[…] Do some people view kiddy porn for reasons totally unrelated to their genitals? […]