[Moderated Thread] CFLarsen's and SteveGrenard's Pedophilia Thread

[Q-Source]

HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD: I think the radical feminist opposition to paedophilia comes out of the general perception of men as aggressive and dominating. They use sex to dominate the weak. The weak would be women and children. That the opposition comes out of women's jealousy because men can have meaningful paedophile relationships, and they wish they could, I don't agree with it.

.
.
.
RALPH UNDERWAGER: Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophiles is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings.
.
.
.
PAIDIKA: You spoke about the need for paedophiles to engage in a discourse. What should that be?

HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD: We can't presume to tell them specific behaviors, but in terms of goals, certainly the goal is that the experience be positive, at the very least not negative, for their partner and partner's family. And nurturing. Even if it were a good relationship with the boy, if the boy was not harmed and perhaps even benefited, it it tore the family of the boy apart, that would be negative.
It would be nice if someone could get some kind of big research grant to do a longitudinal study of, let's say, a hundred twelve year old boys in relationships with loving paedophiles. Whoever was doing the study would have to follow that at five year intervals for twenty years. This is impossible in the U. S. right now. We're talking a long time in the future.--END

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager3.html


What is exactly the part that doesn't get into your brain?

 

[CFLarsen]

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager3.html


What is exactly the part that doesn't get into your brain?

Well, I simply don't understand this paragraph:

I think the radical feminist opposition to paedophilia comes out of the general perception of men as aggressive and dominating. They use sex to dominate the weak. The weak would be women and children. That the opposition comes out of women's jealousy because men can have meaningful paedophile relationships, and they wish they could, I don't agree with it.

What is it she doesn't agree with??

 

[brodski]

What is it she doesn't agree with??

radical feminist's opposition to pedophilia. It could have been worded better, but then as it's such unmitigated crap it would have been better not to word it at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

radical feminist's opposition to pedophilia. It could have been worded better, but then as it's such unmitigated crap it would have been better not to word it at all.

That the opposition comes out of women's jealousy because men can have meaningful paedophile relationships, and they wish they could, I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure. It could also be that she doesn't agree with the latter part "and they wish they could".

But you are right, it could have been worded better. It is very ambiguous. It creates more confusion than clarification.

 

[Q-Source]

But you are right, it could have been worded better. It is very ambiguous. It creates more confusion than clarification.

It is clear, you just play the stupid.

This is VERY clear

PAIDIKA: You spoke about the need for paedophiles to engage in a discourse. What should that be?

HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD: We can't presume to tell them specific behaviors, but in terms of goals, certainly the goal is that the experience be positive, at the very least not negative, for their partner and partner's family . And nurturing.

If you don't understand it let me explain it. She means that the goal of the paedophile's discourse (about having a sexual relationship with a chid) BE positive for the child and for the child's family.

... and nurturing... of course

 

[CFLarsen]

It is clear, you just play the stupid.

This is VERY clear

If you don't understand it let me explain it. She means that the goal of the paedophile's discourse should be that the experience of having a sexual relationship with chidren BE positive for the child and for the child's family.

... and nurturing... of course

Where does she say anything about a sexual relationship?

Main Entry: 1dis·course
Pronunciation: 'dis-"kors, dis-'
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English discours, from Medieval Latin & Late Latin discursus; Medieval Latin, argument, from Late Latin, conversation, from Latin, act of running about, from discurrere to run about, from dis- + currere to run -- more at CAR
1 archaic : the capacity of orderly thought or procedure : RATIONALITY
2 : verbal interchange of ideas; especially : CONVERSATION
3 a : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence
4 obsolete : social familiarity
5 : a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts (as history or institutions) <critical discourse>
(Webster)

Discourse. Not intercourse.

 

[Checkmite]

[*]Despite earlier claims, there is no evidence that the Dutch journal Paidika is pro-pedophilia, or it its objective to "normalize" and decriminalize child molestation in society.

Err, no. What you're posting and falling for is a propaganda line. If you look past it, at the titles of the articles actually in the journal, I believe there's no excuse for anyone thinking Paidika is anything but pro-pedophilia.

By the way, that a journal is "subscribed to" by the Library of Congress, or its British counterpart, is meaningless, because the Library of Congress subscribes to everything. They try to have at least one copy of everything ever published.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Err, no. What you're posting and falling for is a propaganda line. If you look past it, at the titles of the articles actually in the journal, I believe there's no excuse for anyone thinking Paidika is anything but pro-pedophilia.

By the way, that a journal is "subscribed to" by the Library of Congress, or its British counterpart, is meaningless, because the Library of Congress subscribes to everything. They try to have at least one copy of everything ever published.

More from Reisman on Bullough and Paidika among others:

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/implications_of.html

This organization embraces Paidika and its efforts:

http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=2171992

 

[SteveGrenard]

Here is a reprint from Paidika on the Enclave movement. The author frames paedophilia as a "political problem" He extolls the emancipation of paedophiles (=decriminalize and normalize):

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_text.htm

 

[Checkmite]

Pedophile "activism" groups will embrace literally anything they think helps their cause, whether that thing is in and of itself pro-pedophilic or not. That a pedophile organization embraces something and child advocacy groups reject it doesn't matter to me; I can decide for myself. What matters to me, for instance, is that in a list of articles published in a "neutral, scholarly" journal re: pedophilia, not one article seems to suggest a less-than-positive view of these so-called "consentual sexual relationships" between abusers and children. Oh, sure, their authors and contributers love to later post all sorts of backpedalling retractions on the web: "Oh, we really don't think sex between adults and children is EVER right; we just didn't feel like mentioning that while being interviewed by a pedophilic journal about how pedophiles should be allowed to have loving relationships with children". Anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

Err, no. What you're posting and falling for is a propaganda line. If you look past it, at the titles of the articles actually in the journal, I believe there's no excuse for anyone thinking Paidika is anything but pro-pedophilia.

Err, no. "Do not judge a book by its cover".

Remember the taxi guy from Carl Sagan's book "A Demon-Haunted World"? He had heard about UFOs, conspiracies and what-not. Only, he only had a very superfluous understanding of the subjects.

Same thing here. None of us here are experts on pedophilia. We certainly cannot - and shouldn't - judge the contents of articles based on the titles.

Here are a sample of titles of some articles from a publication:

"Medium Terry Evans"

"Isaac Newton and Astrology"

"Analysis of a Telepathy Test"

"Extra-Terrestrial Influence? - An International Biography"

"Pseudoscientists vs Paranormalists"

"A Remote Viewing Primer"

"The Current State of Parapsychology Research"

"Freedom of Informed Choice"

"Cell Memory"

"Sounding the Alarm on the September 11 Attacks"

"Was The First Queen of Denmark a Man?"

"The real dangers of Armageddon"

"Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe""

"Sylvia Browne: Predictions for 2000-2100"

If you had been the Taxi Guy, you sure wouldn't have guessed that the above titles were from the baddest of all skeptic magazines, would you?

By the way, that a journal is "subscribed to" by the Library of Congress, or its British counterpart, is meaningless, because the Library of Congress subscribes to everything. They try to have at least one copy of everything ever published.

Paedika is a Dutch publication - do they subscribe to non-US publications? (They might subscribe to UK/English publications).

More from Reisman on Bullough and Paidika among others:

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/implications_of.html

The conference featured Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia editor Vern Bullough and his pedophile editorial colleagues: John DeCecco, Daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes — all professors at major American colleges.

First, Bullough isn't the editor of Paidika. Second, where is the evidence that the three people are professors at major American colleges and pedophiles? That's a very serious accusation.

If this source is to be considered, we need to see evidence of this. Otherwise, we have to dismiss it as not only irrelevant, but also misleading and trying to poison the well.

This organization embraces Paidika and its efforts:

http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=2171992

White supremacists embraces genetics and the implications in an effort to promote their agenda. Should we dismiss genetics as being racist?

Here is a reprint from Paidika on the Enclave movement. The author frames paedophilia as a "political problem" He extolls the emancipation of paedophiles (=decriminalize and normalize):

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_text.htm

This is a description of the Enclave movement. It therefore follows the stated aim of Paedika, which is to create a "history of record". In no way does it indicate that Paedika supports the Enclave movement's efforts.

Pedophile "activism" groups will embrace literally anything they think helps their cause, whether that thing is in and of itself pro-pedophilic or not. That a pedophile organization embraces something and child advocacy groups reject it doesn't matter to me; I can decide for myself. What matters to me, for instance, is that in a list of articles published in a "neutral, scholarly" journal re: pedophilia, not one article seems to suggest a less-than-positive view of these so-called "consentual sexual relationships" between abusers and children. Oh, sure, their authors and contributers love to later post all sorts of backpedalling retractions on the web: "Oh, we really don't think sex between adults and children is EVER right; we just didn't feel like mentioning that while being interviewed by a pedophilic journal about how pedophiles should be allowed to have loving relationships with children". Anyway.

How do you know that, if you haven't read the articles, but only the titles?

Edited by Darat: 

Content responded to split to AAH

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Paedika is a Dutch publication - do they subscribe to non-US publications? (They might subscribe to UK/English publications).

That's part of what the LofC does.

Foreign Collections

Since 1962, the Library of Congress has maintained offices abroad to acquire, catalog and preserve library and research materials from countries where such materials are essentially unavailable through conventional acquisitions methods. Overseas offices in New Delhi (India), Cairo (Egypt), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Jakarta (Indonesia), Nairobi (Kenya), and Islamabad (Pakistan) collectively acquire materials from more than 60 countries, and acquire materials on behalf of United States libraries participating in the Cooperative Acquisitions Program.

http://www.loc.gov/about/facts.html

 

[Checkmite]

How do you know that, if you haven't read the articles, but only the titles?[/edit]

Because a couple of those articles have been transcribed and linked to in this thread. Also, one of the backpedalling retractions were linked to in this thread, and I have described their content accurately.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because a couple of those articles have been transcribed and linked to in this thread. Also, one of the backpedalling retractions were linked to in this thread, and I have described their content accurately.

What backpedaling retraction?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Testing 1 2 3

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_766.html

ETA: Yes it is possible to link directly to titles at Prometheus Books, though this is not immediately obvious from the way the site is set up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Great. When Steve returns from his suspension, it will be easy for him to link to the books that justify, glorify and condone pedophilia.

 

[Checkmite]

Look Claus, this argument has become absurd already. You know precisely as much about this particular publication as I do - which, as you say, is not much at all. I've formed my opinion based on what little I do know. You base your opinion on something else, which is perfectly fine. And over and over again I've conceded that it's possible this journal may feature some fair and balanced both-sides articles of educational value slipped in there somewhere between the (scholarly and balanced, of course) "poetry submissions" by pedophiles about "the boys they've loved". It's true that just because an article's title, for instance, explicitly refers to the problem of child pornography as "hysteria", it could really explain why child pornography is bad. That, as you say, one can't "judge a book by its cover" means I could be wrong, but it doesn't at all mean that I am wrong.

My impression of this journal remains the same until I see something which compels me to change it. This shouldn't matter to you - my opinion isn't that important in the scheme of things. But your own opinion that this magazine is scholarly and balanced has as much weight and merit as my opinion otherwise; so I'm just dumbfounded as to why you're going on about it. Pick on someone else.

 

[CFLarsen]

Pick on someone else.

I'm not picking on you. I just find your assessment wrong. Paedika is a legal publication concerned with documenting pedophilia. So far, I have not seen anything to the contrary. Should we think the worst, just because it is an uncomfortable issue? I don't think so.

What backpedaling retraction?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Call me crazy, but wouldn't the easiest way to make up your mind about the journal be to go find a copy and read it?

Oh, wait, that's not the easiest way. The easiest way is to just decide without the bother of actually checking the thing for yourself, and then arguing for or against it for page after page of bickering.

 

[CFLarsen]

Call me crazy, but wouldn't the easiest way to make up your mind about the journal be to go find a copy and read it?

Oh, wait, that's not the easiest way. The easiest way is to just decide without the bother of actually checking the thing for yourself, and then arguing for or against it for page after page of bickering.

That's unfair.

There doesn't seem to be a website for the journal, so it has proven difficult to find contact information. It's not particularly easy to find a copy, if we don't have that info. Additionally, it is a Dutch paper, quite possibly with a small circulation.

What we have found, however, strongly supports the notion that it is not a pro-pedophilia journal, but a journal for documenting pedophilia. There are lots of opinions abound that claims otherwise, but what we have from Paedika itself does not support the idea.

So don't say that nobody has checked. That's simply not correct.