Mr James M. Baker is really lashing out, cluelessly. He has sent me a few other emails (which I just trashed on sight), and now someone at the IP address 67.177.100.132 (which traces back to Shelbyville…Hi, Jim!) has attempted to subscribe me to a large body of gay and fetish porn. Who knew there were sites dedicated to just pictures of young boys' feet?
Anyway, the people who run these porn sites are not stupid, and they know they'll be abused by homophobes who think they are a weapon. Before they send me a pile of glossy magazines and DVDs they verify by sending an email, with the IP address of the person who tried to subscribe me. Busted! Tsk, tsk…how petty, Mr Baker.
The only question now is how Mr Baker came to have such a working familiarity with so many diverse sites, with such a focus on gay sex, feet, and watersports?
Besides, someone else has associated me with porn with a bit more humor…and a more appropriate focus.
- Log in to post comments
And I thought I got strange birthday presents.
I wonder if there's a website that offers itself as a revenge service. Something like "We'll send your enemies lots of disgusting porn! Just enter their email address here!" Hmmm would that be a service people would pay for?
Mr. Baker is a socialist. He's trying to spread the porn!
Sorry, couldn't help that one.
Someone tried to do that to me once. From Boulder County.
Methinks Mr Baker may be alongs the lines of Rev. Haggard....
He was focused on your asshole in that first email.
Repressed much Jimmy?
Two words: epic win.
I do likes me a good dose of flaming* hypocrisy fer breakfast.
*Adjective chosen after some deliberation.
So, what, a pedopedphile?
Wow. That's just too crazy for words. First he shows his Christian Love by threatening you violence. Then he shows his heterosexual "normalcy" by displaying familiarity with a bunch of freak sites. He's just a model for his faith, isn't he. What a freak.
Get a life, Jim. And a boyfriend.
Mmm, gay feet porn, yum!
Seriously, how infantile can you get Jim?
I find that a useful way to deal with such people is to repeatedly send them large attachments (like a 25MB .zip file containing hundreds of copies of the hampster dance mp3). It crashes their inbox, yielding complaints from their ISP. Of course, your choice of stuffer material for such e-mails may not be so pleasant.
Another nice trick is to send them to a "shocker site" (lemon party, goatse, 2 girls 1 cup etc) by disguising a link in your e-mail as something else (e.g. a link to a source of info' on evolution). They click the link, and bam... eye bleach time!
PZ,i think the clinically insane are best left alone or ignored.Or.just reported to the FBI.There are open threats to you involved here.
Certainly looks like your man... same ISP anyway (Comcast). Vicinity of Mt Laurel, NJ. Or so Whois tells me.
@12: There's always Last Measure.
Tell them that Comfort has rejected Christianity and send them to http://faith.on.nimp.org/news/2009/ComfortRejectsChristianity.asp
Note to Pharynguloids: Do not go to any address on that domain name!
Ach, a girl's just trying to earn a living, schatzi...
I believe, if I am not mistaken, that if you can prove it was indeed Mr. Baker’s computer....he has committed a prosecutable crime.
Threadjack!
Be sure to direct him to this article... http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/03/whats-connection-between-religio…
Off topic: Do any of you know why Barefoot Bum shuttered his Blog? I am pretty sure he participated here in the past and I was surprised to see that post. The comments there are closed to "team members" now, as well.
Check the hospitals around Mt Laurel for severe penis abrasions. Jimmy probably has the thing wrapped in a mile of gauze after 2 days of furious masturbation researching gay kiddie porn fetish sites
I guess Jimmy might actually enjoy goatse, though.
After corresponding with Mr Baker yesterday today I found myself subscribed to a similar bunch of sites.
Why do people who are homophobic assume that everyone else would be bothered by the insinuation that they were gay?
So you think I'm gay?
It's like trying to insult me by claiming I have brown eyes.
Anyway, I shall have my revenge, I'm going to subscribe him up to the Skeptical Enquirer.
Mwahaha!
You might want to consider turning the matter over to the police. I do not think you care, but the guys running the porn sites are trying to run a business, and the kind of fraud attempted by mr. Baker must be both annoying and expensive.
#21
If you don't use the term heterosexual kiddie porn, why would you use the term gay kiddie porn?
Paedophilia is neither gay nor straight, it is an abberation.
Christian love, don'tcha know?
Threats of violence are okay if they're Threats for Jebus. PZ is such an evil evilutionist atheist (=babyeating satanfucker) that the only proper way to deal with him is to either hurt him or kill him. That's the true way to interpret Jesus's teachings.
*wank*
"And yea verily, whosoever doth not believe that I am the great sky wizard who made everything by magic, truly shall that man be deluged with images of scantily clad youths. Mmmm, youths."
-from an early draft of the Beatoffitudes.
Cruithne> subscribing him to a neonazi site might be more apt, althought I wouldn't want my IP associated with one.
I subscribed my dad to gay porn mags. . . . when I was 13 and thought it was hilarious.
He was on the verge of tears worrying the neighbors might think hes "a gay".
Oh, it takes great dedication to suffer through those sites to seek out sin and to expose it.
Boner time, eh Baker?
Don't worry, though. You can deny it until the day you die.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
This is your brain.
This is your brain on religion.
Any questions?
@Cruithne: "After corresponding with Mr Baker yesterday..." Whyyy were you talking to him? :P Can't you see it's all he wants?
The porn subscription thing... It's was a good trick for teenagers to pull in the early days on the internet when our emails were NOT already spam fodder the second we created them. It really pissed us BACK THEN since our emails were so precious and private but today it's just not effective anymore.
I can assure you no one subscribed me to porn sites and that I don't give my email to porn sites but I STILL get 'em. Come on. It's not original anymore, and it's just lost in the usual, normal spam where they ask girls to enlarge their weiners.
Shelbyville? Why, next thing you know he will be stealing your lemon tree!
I think it is indeed perhaps time to get the authorities involved. He seems dangerous.
Well- I guess "breaking every tooth in your head" was more difficult than just signing you up for huge amounts of porn.... that he know exactly where to find apparently.
The IP address given (I was spammed too) resists my casual attempts to discover additional information other than it is from Shelbyville, Indiana.
Still, what a fraudulent asshole (who seems interested in young boys).
May he die in the hellfire that he believes in.
I got it! Send him the high-res scans of Otzi the Iceman!
#25
because the post mentioned little boys' feet, not little children.
However I wholehearted agree with you, and am usually the one griping on line about such infractions.
Weird being on the other side for once.
BUT
This is not necessarily true:
since pedophiles usually have a clear sexual preference, and neither gay nor straight exclude aberration.
If a Catholic Priest molests an underage girl, that is a man bites dog story, and the gender of the victim is part of the story.
So when Catholic Priests go pedo-hetero that's going to be pointed out.
Works both ways, but not very often, so your complaint is statistically on target.
mea culpa
abstruse, his reaction would be what made it hilarious. but for that, it'd've been tawdry and pointless.
Geez, this guy is a right headcase. He "agrees with Ray Comfort" but disclaims being a Christian, makes threats of violence and diplays familiarity with a range of material that...well, I don't anything about (and would just as soon continue in the ignorance). One suspects the presence of psychiatric issues....
PZ, whilst I find that cartoon quite funny, I can't help but think it makes you look like a bit of a dickhead.
"I got it! Send him the high-res scans of Otzi the Iceman!"
Those were amazing actually.
I think it's really funny when people try to offend you with what they find offensive. It's so often far from the mark. I'd report the kiddo stuff though, I bet Mr. Baker's hard drive has lots of downloads the police might be interested in.
Ever notice how these sky-fairy praising nutjobs always send you gay-MALE porn?
I mean, if according to their special book ALL homosexual behaviour is wrong, evil, and will lead children to stop playing hop-scotch, then wouldn't the more consistent response be to send you ALL the queer porn, regardless of gender?
Methinks they might be doing something else with the lesbian porn.
I mean, being lesbian myself, I'd personally feel kinda squicky having heterosexual porn turn up in my inbox or front-door (kinda gave up the whole penis thing a while back as I remember), as you would imagine that that would be consistent similarly, but somehow I think they'd conceptualise that as doing me a favour. After all, all I need is some good x-tian rodgering to get me back on the straight and narrow ... so to speak.
Ahh...PZ, you make such a cute squid.
#40
Yeah, but that's a well-endowed and virile dickhead, that's all that matters
**Warning: For the sensitive there may be Teh Swears ahead**
On another thread I took Raven to task for implying (however accurate the demographics might be) that Phil Skell was a likely child abuser. My point was that the creotards (incl. Skell) and others do sufficiently stupid shit that we have absolutely no need to make shit up, or imply possible shit. The shit they do is good enough ammo. This new found chum of fuckwittery, Mr James M Baker, is a fascinating and fabulous case in point.
What a fucking ginormous jebustard!
He (probably) wrecked his own (very available) internet search/browsing history to send PZ a bunch of emails that PZ will never read beyond "no way am I clicking THAT link!". How the fuck can we need to make shit up about people like James M Baker when they pull shit like this? The man is clearly a moron. What does he think is going to happen? Homeland security and the FBI will now raid PZ's house? Aren't they going to check back to the IP address of the person requesting those emails be sent? Durrrrrrrrr! What does he think will happen to him if something happens to PZ? Coupled to that, how hard does he think it is for a spam filter to eradicate this crap from PZ's inbox? I have yoghurt more intelligent than this!
Also, like others, I am very amused by how quickly Mr James M Baker appears to have gone for the gay and the paedo material. Wouldn't something PZ is likely to be into (you know, wife, kids and all, maybe some ladies!) be potentially more damaging? After all it's possible the Trophy Wife is mean and jealous and wants PZ all to herself and that consorting with cybervixens might cause annoyance in the Myers home. I doubt it's very likely, but it's vastly more possible than PZ being some closet case child rapist with a foot fetish (on numbers alone!).
The word was used of Kent Hovind, it will be used of James M Baker. It is the most appropriate word for these people:
FUCKTARD
Louis
Yeah, how does this guy know about all these sites? It's weird that he knows more about these sites than the people he thinks will use them. It's kinda like how the average person knows more about the Bible than the fundamentalists do.
That is sick and unnatural. If possible the man should be prosecuted for harassment.
Aw, man, there's even Hokusai woodcut squidsmut in comic's background! I've been trying to find a poster of "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" for ages, but I can't find any place that carries it. It'd go so disturbingly well with the giant poster of George Lucas' head I have in my bathroom (which is captioned "George Lucas is watching you pee").
You know, for someone with an e-mail address that suggests military service (usnvet = US Navy vet?), he certainly knows a LOT about websites that most vets would find abhorrent.
Hey, James - hello, Sailor! (Said best with a Python-esque campy lisp)
37-
Priests molesting girls is the dog-bites-man story. It's the norm, which is why only the "gay" pedophilia stories are mentioned. And the purpose of that has been to get the public to associate pedophilia with a grown-up sexuality (a prepubescent girl and a prepubescent boy don't have much distinguishable gender differences, certainly not enough to drive a sexuality schism in pedophiles, which doesn't even get into the fact that pedophiles for the most part aren't sexually attracted to children, but rather the power of rape that the imbalance of power grants (it's an ego thing)) particularly one already hated by the public at large.
The lesson that gets out there ends up not being that priests are molesting kids, but priests are gay molesting boys. The presentation erases girl victims as the normal price to be paid and fixates the scandal on homosexuality rather than a priesthood filled with pedophiles in an organization that is also against condoms, STD testing, and abortions for girls and women alike.
Kobra @15
That's like a "DO Not Press This Button" sign. So tempting...
@ Louis
Raven is well known for hyperbole and made similar (in kind) claims against me.
catgirl #46
Not that weird. The poor guy is obviously a badly repressed homosexual with a HUGE guilt load.
It's quite sad really.
I'm wondering if Mr. Baker ever works... at least I would get in trouble if I tried to access any sites like those at work, even for petty and inane reasons. So he must have a lot of free time at home to send such a plethora to you, PZ.
@ Spiro Keat
I wouldn't be surprised. Many of these characters have underlying psychological issues that need to be discouraged.
And more cultured.
'If a Catholic Priest molests an underage girl, that is a man bites dog story, and the gender of the victim is part of the story.' - About 70% of catholic priest child sex abuse cases are with persons of the female persuasion. There's just a bit more press when it's males.
There seems to be a fair amount of homophobia in this thread in the comments directed against that certifiable idiot, James Baker. Can we stop conflating "gay" with "bad", please? I thought we were supposed to be more evolved (pun most certainly intended) and cultured (yeah, I liked the yogurt joke, too) than that. Let's be the better people and not descend to the level of their adolescent pranks, huh?
Scooty Puff, Jr.
I'm not sure anyone is equating Gay with bad but instead highlighting the fact that he (James) obviously thinks it is bad yet knows where to find all the links and porn he sent PZ.
I could be wrong but that is how I read it.
So I guess it's true after all (as many tried to convince me on another thread recently) that there's no need to pay for porn! ;^)
Watchman #56
WIN!
P.S.
I'm watching you.
Apropos of the text under the comic, I wish to table a motion that anyone using the phrase "how I roll" be charged with a moving triteness violation against the English language, pilloried, and exposed to no less than four hours of the most obnoxious banal elevator muzak available, with longer durations for subsequent offenses.
PZ does make a mighty cute squid-man, though. :) PZ, your groupie in London, Ontario would agree with me, too.
I normally advocate leaving internet squabbles on the internet but this guy has already threatened to kill you violently and shown he's crazy enough to waste hours of his life attempting to discredit you. I think this guy requires police attention. No one wants to see you be martyred :)
That characterization of PZ would make great T-shirts and buttons. You'd never miss a fellow Ilk in one of those!
Pete,
The problem for you is I agree with Raven mightily on a number of issues.
Fundamentalist, literalist and extremist religious people (like yourself, don't be shy, own up to your blinkers) do have a well documented greater instance of all the kinds of things Raven mentions. The evidence is, very sadly, in. Lying for Jesus won't help you, even though I know (based on your behaviour here) you think it will.
Raven's fondness for hyperbole aside, my comment is a very simple one: castigate people for what they DO actually do, not what they MIGHT do based on some demographic. People like yourself are more than generous with the ammunition. What need is there to make any up out of probabilities and fictions?
You and I are from the UK, we are representatives of a nation that practised slavery in years past. Does this mean that you and I advocate or practise slavery? Nope. THAT was what I took issue with Raven for, that kind of silly error of logic. An error that those of us trying to defend reason and science from religious fundamentalists/literalists/extremists like yourself have no need to make.
Trust me, it was in no way a defence of any of the more oleaginous actions and elisions of reason you exhibit on this website. Is that clear?
Louis
pipl.com is a very useful search tool...
What I find to be most amusing is that the harassment has definitely shown Mr. Baker is the "loser" of what ever little game he's playing. He's practically apoplectic now.
I suspect Mister James Baker is actually running afoul of his Internet Service Provider's terms and conditions. The IP address provided is supplied by Comcast. Comcast's corporate web page ( http://www.comcast.com/Customers/Faq/FaqDetails.ashx?Id=4395&fss=harass… ) has the following to say about harassment:
Darn HTML.
Actually, I don't think the Bible says anything about female homosexuality. (It says little enough about male homosexuality to begin with.) I guess the various writers just assumed that women are asexual and would only do it when their husbands told them to. Or, maybe they didn't care so much about female homosexuality because it doesn't challenge traditional gender roles as much as male sexuality. As long as the lesbian is able to bear children for a husband which she was forced to marry, it doesn't really matter if she has an affair with another woman, and it's actually better than an affair with a man.
And Catgirl, you forgot that lesbians/bi-women doing it is hot. I'm sure I read that in the bible...well maybe it was the bible.
;-)
Louis
Oh, there are a couple of vague references "shall not lie with womankind as with a man" (or some-such) also is used against lesbian and bisexual women.
But I agree actually, I think this has more to do with the fact that women aren't supposed to have sex drives, and don't exist in western culture sexually outside of being in terms of male access to. If it doesn't involve a man, it's not sex.
Mr. Baker (dom dom dom) what went on in your head? (to the tune of Ozzy's Mr. Crowley).
One Pauline letter mentions it as a symptom of living in a state of sin. That's all, though.
Hmm... maybe it's just me, but when I read Shelbyville, I thought "Simpsons" and saw Ned Flanders sending angry emails...
#42 Sarah in Chicago:
I do not see how that should be surprising. I am not a psychologist, but homophobia is always a matter of personal issues. It is not an attraction to women (in anyone) that a male homophobe will find threatening. Or, as I have heard it put, go down the road, scream "There is going to be a lesbian invasion!" and look who's *scared*.
Sorry if I sound silly. Just my 2 cents.
What kind of idiot uses their main isp e-mail account for threats anyway?
Cerberus@ 50, Robert@ 57,
Thank you. I was all fired up to say something along those lines, but you've done it far more coherently than I would've managed.
Poor old Jim. So knotted with rage he can barely move.
But there are things to admire about him. He's a salty sailor. I like a lad who can dish it out. So let's give him credit. He's not some milquetoast eggshell armed with a hammer who comes blubbing here about what meanies we are for pointing and laughing at him. Instead, he gives us all a hearty 'fuck off', which is as it should be.
No, Jim is a robust fellow. He dishes it out. He can take it like a man. I bet he likes a bit of rum, bum and concertina.
And what a man he is! So mean of spirit, so petty and vindictive that his best shot is to send an enemy gay porn like some snickering schoolboy. But let's not forget he is also a man of violence, a veteran with a grudge and, I'd guess, a gun. He has nailed his flag to the mast of some foolish ideologies. He fantasizes about killing us because he will only feel free when we all lie slaughtered and he stands atop a heap of our corpses, laughing.
What a freedom he will have won, that day! An America eradicated of the taint of liberalism. A land free of compassion, where the poor and undeserving will know their place. A country where might is all, and self-reliance is expressed with a firearm. It will be a brave new Somalia.
This is Jim's dream. A nightmare for us, but a paradise for disenfranchised white males like Jimbo. Our hell is their opportunity.
So feel sad for Jim. The America he lives in is too robust. It will reject him and his madness. It will resist his every move. He is a stranger in his own country. Jim exists in his very own circle of Hades, forged from his own nihilist fantasies.
We can but pity him.
PZ, just give the federal agents the following information:
James M. Baker
2946 Blue Ridge Orch.
Shelbyville, IN 46176
In case the FBI would like to call first:
(317) 398-2685
Violent threats should be reported. The insinuation about how suddenly someone can be shot to death is particularly disturbing.
The real question is what kind of idiot uses his wife's work email to send violent threats?
Run for your lives! - It's the army of crack-smoking home school kids!
"The only question now is how Mr Baker came to have such a working familiarity with so many diverse sites, with such a focus on gay sex, feet, and watersports?"
It's always nice when the only questions left to answer are just rethorical ones.
What kind of idiot uses their main isp e-mail account for sends threats anyway?
Fixed it for you.
Wonkette post of the day:
http://wonkette.com/406848/religious-people-rapidly-vanishing-from-amer…
"Good news, atheists: The mythological “Rapture” appears to be happening, in America! But it’s happening very, very slowly: While the United States was 86% Christian less than two decades ago, in 1990, last year that percentage fell to 76%. And a full 15% of Americans now say they are not religious at all — nearly double the percentage of godless heathens since 1990."
So James Baker must be one of the Left Behind.
Yeah, I think that pretty much sums up their attitude on female homosexuality. It's much more catchy than my long explanation about gender roles.
Virgil #12, #18, kobra #15 and others:
Why should we stoop down to the level of James M. Baker with malicious links and virus emails?
Act like adults, not juvenile criminals.
Agree with those who've urged Myers to report incidents like this to the local cops (if you suspect an imminent, local threat), and to the FBI in any case since they have interstate jurisdiction, and to the ISP of the threatener.
Random "burn in hell" threats are one thing (not reportworthy), but specific threats such as Baker made are a far more serious matter.
Watersports, Jim? Really?
Not that I have seen much straight boy "lesbian" porn but what I have seen have been overly made up femmes. It seems that it is made for the men who want to fantasize that they are so masculine that they can make "lesbians" straight.
Nah there is some not "made up" lesbian porn that I've seen an...
um wait
nevermind.
Generally they aren't lesbians even in the context of the film, but are just killing time until a man shows up.
Man, my hometown never gets mentioned in a good way...I'm embarrassed by my natives.
PZ might not be the only person whose peace of mind would benefit from reporting Mr. Baker's activities to the authorities. If there is a Mrs. Baker, spousal equivalent, and/or children involved (and I sincerely hope there aren't), they're probably grateful that he's found someone else to be the target of his rage for a few days. And whatever jail time he might earn from his terroristic threats, fraud, etc. would give them even more of a vacation.
Please, PZ, won't you think of the children?
Not sure about lesbians in the bible, but I didn't get very far into it before a pair of daughters were double-teaming their father. I think I lost my stomach for it (reading the bible) soon after that...
Is it just me, or does PZ's mantle look like a pointy penis?
Dmitry, yes, it is just you.
Call me cynical, but I doubt that reporting it will do much good. I don't have much faith in the criminal justice system. I once received threatening phone calls, and the police who came to my house basically said it was probably just some boyfriend of mine who was playing a practical joke. The only benefit of reporting it is that if something does happen, they'll know where to start looking.
"Dmitry, yes, it is just you."
That doesn't make me feel better!
Volunteers for domestic violence hot lines are instructed to inform the called to report the incidents to the police. The reason being not that any actions will come from the report. It is so that in the future, there will be a paper trail so there is proof in the future that a future attack is not coming from out of the blue, that there is a pattern of abuse.
Could this cartoon be considered Blasphemy under the new UN resolution? If the Muslim countries are willing to place a ban on blasphenmy shouldn't we then affirm science itself as a "religion." The ban may actually be a boon for science because if we can hold up a precept that "truth" and "reason" are sacred, then many aspects of religion could be considered blasphemous in and of themselves. If testable truth were held "sacred" then teaching people that a certain someone was born of a virgin and rose from the dead would in fact be blasphemous. Share your thoughts with us --->http://www.tompainesghost.com/2009/03/four-horseman.html
Green ninja makes a good point.
Infantile, but what else would one expect.
PZ really attracts the densest quality of stupid, doesn't he? One can imagine this man, sitting at home, watching porn and indulging his various perversions, while obsessing deeply over the good Professor. How natural to connect the two! Now, outside this untrammelled hatred and lust, our Jim is also deeply, deeply, sub-creationist, stupid. He can barely function in the world, crippled as he is by his raging "thoughts", and connecting the two, as he must, he decides to send his favourites to PZ. Stupid, always, he doesn't realise that he will be caught if he e-mails this junk, so he does that, and once again, alone with his thought, he sits back a happy man.
Ha Ha Ha!
I just hope that Jim gets some comeback from this, some little indication to him that he has made a mistake. But hey, I guess the guy thinks he's hellbound anyway. Nonetheless, if a consequence of his real sinning in this life could make him try to think, then I'd vote for that.
@87: Aww, do I have to?
:P Fine, you win.
I really with the “Rapture” would happen...
We could finally find our "Heaven" here on earth once all the "Christians" are gone.
Heh. I woulda thought that most Pharyngulistas would be upset at the suggestion that PeeZed, does not enjoy tentacleporn.
The Dicks (from Texas) had a song called "Young Boys Feet Are Pretty." Ah, those cultural touchstones...
Not so. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, and strongly. Whatever the psychological causes behind it, they end up fixated on pre-adolescences and its signs - children, and only children, turn them on.
The gay/straight thing is probably also misleading - most gay and straight people, while fancying who they do, fancy only adults. A sexual preference is also "natural" but the attraction to children is peculiarly their own. That's why they are called "paedophiles"
Thanks for that one, God!
If Jim is a paedophile, he should be exposed.
Catgirl#70
I think you might be over-estimating the mentality of strong patriarchies, especially where it involves desert death cults such as Christbot, Jewtards, or Mushatts.
These are polygamous, dirt scratching, patriarchal third rate civilizations where women are sometimes as important as livestock, depending on whether or not Yahoo or Allhoo is pissed off about the slaughter Du Jour.
Female homosexuality is not on the radar in these shitholes because all the steamiest rollin and moanin in the world will not produce an offspring, and when one's attitude toward their wife, or wives, is purely to continue a bloodline, that's not even a factor.
Women are vessels for reproduction in these societies and if they want to go off and make it with the other gals, or a cucumber or whatever, it's irrelevant. As long as they aren't screwin the neighbors, for which they will be put to death quickly and as publicly as possible.
Patriarchies are ruled by men obsessed with raising their children only, and they don't want any goddam samaritans in the woodpile.
All the sex stuff and endless rules in their shitty little books are concerned with that and with that only.
There's a few lines here and there about not screwing the goats and what is it? Three lines total alluding to male homosexuality? Out of THOUSANDS of verses, laws, writings, and quotes proscribing improper male/female sex usually punishable by death.
It's all about bloodline with these Neanderthals, and if you want some insight into that priority, study the behavior of social mammalian species, and it's crystal clear. The only difference between Religious patriarchy and animal behavior is that the religious tards have a compulsion to write everything down as if their bullshit were even marginally relevant. Beyond that, it's pretty much standard herd alpha male social structure, right up there with the warthogs and wildebeests.
I remember those guys, my sister was good friends with the front dude, and we all hung out in SF one day, he was just fed up with the homophobia in TX and bailed out to SF.
That front dude is Gary Floyd. Google him and you'll find all kinds of cool art and other stuff he's been up to since those days. His lyrics were as revolutionary and profound as any rock'n'roll songs ever got.
Here is something fun:
"Baker, James M. " Paedophile, Pervert or mentally ill?
Then you kick back and see how long it takes to come up in a google search of "Baker, James M. " , or a search of James M. Baker.
I am strongly opposed to anyone actually posting their ruminations or speculations about "Baker, James M. " , or James M Baker on a blog because these days it is not unusual for an employer to do a google search on job applicants, and "Baker, James M. " , aka James M. Baker might suffer consequences if a current or future employer googled "Baker, James M. " , or James M. Baker and his name were associated with death threats, posting drunken rants, or collecting and distributing information on illegal porn sites involving the sexual abuse of young children.
It might give "Baker, James M. " , or James M. Baker a bad name which could haunt him for his entire life.
That would not be fair to "Baker, James M. " aka James M. Baker
The Church did burn almost all of Sappho's poetry.
If you're thinking of Romans 1:26, I was recently re-reading that, and recalled the whole saddlebacking foofaraw, and it occurred to me that "for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural" might just as easily have been a reference to non-vaginal sex with men (so as to preserve their putative virginity/marital fidelity) as it might have been to lesbianism.
That is, maybe he meant women having any sex other than sex for the purpose of procreation, including but not limited to lesbianism.
Who can say? Vague prude was vague.
OUCH. Color me DOLT.
....
Modern legends, with origins that are difficult to trace, have made Sappho's literary legacy the victim of purposeful obliteration by scandalized church leaders, often by means of book-burning. There is no known historical evidence for these accounts. Indeed, Gregory of Nazianzus, who along with Pope Gregory VII features as the villain in many of these stories, was a reader and admirer of Sappho's poetry...
PAT, wow thanks for trip thru memory lane.
I had no idea Ha HA Ha was a tribute to the Dicks. Ted Falcone (Flipper guitar) was my upstairs neighbor in the old East Oakland loft district for years, he was a real character.
And also the Butthole Surfers did a song about him, I had no idea the Dicks were such heavies. BTW, I caught the Butthole Surfers a few months ago here in HouTX, and they sounded great.
I'll have to forward the googles to my sis.
The connection between the Gay community and early punk was very strong in the Bay Area, so I'm not surprised they moved out there.
I knew Dirk Dirkson pretty well who was a big early punk promotor and a gay guy from the Milk era.
We tried to move the scene out to Crockett in the Bay Area when the Broadway scene in SF got too weird, but it didn't work because it was too far.
We couldn't get the audience out there, even with the DKs, because it was off the BART system.
Then the theatre burnt down and a lot of folks lost everything, and that pretty much was the end of the scene until the revivals years later.
You can see me diving off the stage at the DK show, closing of the 'On Broadway'
ahh
the good old daze.
pk wrote
Indeed it is. It appears that Mr. Baker was in the Navy about the same time I was, more decades ago than I care to think about.
Louis@71 -
Solomon had 1000 wives. The way I see it, I kind of doubt he saw them all one at a time, and I'm sure that they would have "made their own entertainment" as well...
Wow dude that is like amazing.
James Woods
www.privacy.at.tc
scooter, you bad! :)
You evil you.. now you mentioned you were in too, I can't make a nasty remark about mr. James. M. Baker aquiring his peculiar taste in recommendable websites after being worked over by a bunch of sailors. Too bad. :>
Eeeeeeeeewwww, furfags.
@51: Not if the button is rigged to spray you with hot lead at 3,600 rounds per second (tip o' the hat to the Evil Overlord's List). :)
Scooter, you may want to be a bit careful. I'm sure there are many James M. Bakers out there.
While I'm happy to see that you appear to understand that paedophila -does- mean a sexual attraction to children rather than to the power-trip, I think you've still got several details wrong.
First, just as there's a sliding scale of attraction between homo- and hetero-sexuality, there's a similar one with pedophilia. If it's possible to be mostly attracted to women but still attracted to men to one extent or another, why do you think that it's not possible to have pedophilic tendencies to one extent or another while still being somewhat or even mostly attracted to adults? I've seen at least a couple of studies that indicated that a far higher percentage of people are aroused by pedophilic stimuli than would ever admit it, (88% of the males tested!), including a very large percentage of people who are predominantly attracted to adults. Over 50% of the males tested were predominantly attracted to adults, but still showed some degree of arousal when presented with pedophilic images or taped audio scenarios. Whether they admit it or not, the attraction was there - but as long as they don't act on those desires, they've done absolutely nothing wrong.
Why do you feel that it's okay to try to destroy a person's life for a *thought*, one which they have probably never acted upon? How is that different from the deplorable actions committed by the homophobes and fundamentalists?
Second, paedophile != child molester. Even if there were some way to be absolutely sure that our Mr. Baker was a pedophile, That would be merely his sexual orientation or some facet of it. Just because someone is sexually aroused to whatever degree by adolescent or preadolescent children, that doesn't mean that they ever have or ever will harm a child in the slightest way! Wouldn't we achieve a great deal more if we were to concentrate our efforts and vilification on those who had actually committed a crime, rather than tarring a far larger -and mostly innocent- group with the same brush?
I strongly suspect that I'd be swiftly corrected by quite a few people here if I started posting regularly about the evils of 'heterosexuals', but what I described and linked to were reports of rapes and rapists.
Many people have stated again and again on this and many other blogs that their hetero- or homo-sexuality was not a choice, and from what I've seen, that's been generally agreed to be the case by most of the regular posters on this blog who've ever posted on the subject. Why do you think that someone should be 'exposed' just because of their sexual orientation? Do you think that homosexuals should be 'exposed'? How about BDSM fetishists? Many of them are aroused by bondage and even rape fantasies/games! How about Furries? Shouldn't we be out there arresting them all or running them out of town on a rail or something? How is demonizing and attacking paedophiles as a group any better than the other actions I've described?
I agree -completely- that those who abuse children deserve severe punishment, but I can't help but worry every time the subject comes up and everyone around me goes into a total witch-hunt mentality. Couldn't WE at least, (as a supposedly more open-minded and educated section of the population,) try to remember that words -mean- things, and use the proper words for what we're trying to say? If it's child predators that you think deserve punishment, or fathers who rape their daughters, or priests who molest the children in their congregations, then say so! You're not doing anyone any favors by using the wrong word to describe who you mean.
I know it's hard to speak up and defend a group that is so constantly reviled, but aren't we atheists nearly as universally disliked? How do WE like being constantly compared to murderous criminals?
I'm sick and tired of it, tired enough that I've started calling people out on it, both here and at other blogs I read. It may not do any good, but the skeptics are the one group who might actually think about what I'm saying, and maybe, just maybe think about what -they're- saying in the future.
Can you?
*We now return you to your regular program, already in progress.*
(Let's see how many posts we go before someone accuses me of being a child molester or pedophile for trying to straighten out the terms being bandied about..)
HA! I knew it!
I'm disgusted with your remarks, Disgusted. Quit trying to stoop to the level of Rick Warren by equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Just stop it.
Atheists have every right to morals that non-believers do, and it is even OK for atheists to have taboos as long as they are rational and evidence based, I would suggest that pedophilia is one of them. Or could you enlighten us on how pedophilia should be integrated into society? ... I didn't think so.
Go spend your time ranting to the Catholics about their passive tolerance of pedophilia in the church/family hierarchy and leave LGBT atheists alone!
Blah blah blah, Aratina. Quit trying to tell me what to think or write. Just stop it. It is possible to make comparisons of things without equating them, and there are certainly enough similarities to be able to make some comparisons.
Suggest away, but I would suggest otherwise, and then ask what the enormous, indisputable difference is between the two? Where's that evidence and rationality you mentioned? All 'pedophilia' is is a sexual desire, just like the desire for an adult male or female. Oh, alright, I could probably be convinced to label it as more of a fetish or kink rather than an orientation, but I think the boundaries get pretty fuzzy at times. There are pedophiles that are exclusively heterosexual, some exclusively homo, and some bi. For some the age is more important than than the sex to attract them, and for those at least I'd have to consider it a primary orientation. I suspect that those are a very small fraction of the total, however. Just like homo- or hetero-sexuality, there are graduated levels of attraction and blending with the other orientations/kinks. There's a very specific and non-exclusive subset that I have a problem with, (child molesters) but I have not yet seen anyone give a rational reason to vilify the entire set.
However, the point of my comparison was that if, as many others have claimed, if your sexual orientation is part of who you are and not something under your control, what is it that makes them the object of such scorn and hate, if their orientation or primary turn-ons are no more under their control than your orientation was under yours? What have they -done- that's makes you want to make the very thought taboo?
What turns you on? Shoes? Bondage? Teenage girls? Boys? Nuns? Hell, any heterosexual adult male who tells you he isn't turned turned on by teenage girls is lying. Oh, not -every- one, there are exceptions to every rule, but I'd bet it's over 90%. In fact, the study I linked to showed that 88% of the 'normal' heterosexual males tested showed measurable signs of arousal when exposed to the images or audio of sub-12yo old girls. That's not even teenagers! Are you saying that 88% of males are sick and wrong?
It happens. It's NORMAL. At least as normal as someone being turned on by breasts, or uniforms, or any of the other myriad of possible turn-ons. Where's the rationality and evidence to make that so taboo that even -thinking- about it gives cause to shun and attack them?
ACTING on those urges is where the problem comes in. Have you ever been SO mad at someone that you imagined yourself strangling them? Maybe just punching their face in? That's assault! Murder! Should you be punished for that urge? Did you kill them? Or were you, like every 'normal' human being, able to control your urges instead of going through with it?
Considering that same study I linked to; If it's anywhere near correct, we should be neck deep in child molestation cases, with 30-90% of males molesting children right and left. Pretty much every child would have been molested, and many times over! I think that should count as at least some evidence that MOST people with pedophilic urges are perfectly capable of resisting and controlling them.
Well, you certainly gave me plenty of chance to answer before declaring yourself the victor, didn't you? Isn't declaring yourself the winner in the middle of the thread the same sort of tactics that we don't allow creationists and fundies to get away with here? That's a big part of what I was trying to say with my original post. Unlike how we advocate for skepticism and open minds on most subjects, on this subject even many of the atheists and skeptics seem to get away with tarring a far larger group for the sins of a few, as well as insisting on using an incomplete or incorrect definition for a word that has a limited and specific definition, (Like say, paedophilia) when another word that much more exactly describes what they're alluding to (child abuse or molestation) could easily be used instead.
What's this about integrating it into society? Did you look at that study? It's HERE, there's no need to -integrate- it. Did we have to 'integrate' greed, lust, or jealousy into society? No, they've been here with us since the beginning. While none of them are necessarily the most laudable of emotions, they happen. Creating a culture of hate and fear or ruining people's lives on the merest rumor is going to cause enough harm to far outweigh any possible good that it might bring. It would be nice if we could admit to ourselves that it's not only just another facet in the enormously varied range of things that we humans are attracted to, it's an extremely common occurrence that has very little if any correlation to child abuse.
Actually, Japan appears to have integrated paedophilia (NOT child abuse) into their society without any obvious major ill effects. Pornographic manga with paedophilic themes are common there and can be purchased at any manga and book store. but I'll bet that their rates of child sexual abuse aren't any higher than the US - I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were lower, actually. I freely admit that I haven't got statistics on that at the moment however - It's 4 am and I'm juuuust about done for the night. Child abuse is still illegal there and is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as it should be. Once again, the two are very different things.
There's a huge and easily quantifiable difference between thought and action. That was a major point of my original post! I do not in any way condone or support child abuse, and I think that those who harm children should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, I also do not condone or support prosecuting people or ruining their lives for thoughtcrimes. I personally do not see a quantifiable difference between hating/attacking/oppressing people because they're attracted to the 'wrong' sex, and hating/etc. people because they're attracted to the 'wrong' age. I believe that most people of ANY sexual orientation are fully able to control whatever urges they have, and that I should judge and react to their individual actions and arguments and not to possible thoughts in their heads that are never acted upon.
WTF? I have a serious problem with the Catholic church, but it's because of their passive (and active!) tolerance of child abuse and molestation. I care about what they DO, not what turns them on. Actually, I've got a lot more than just one problem with them, but that's getting way off the subject. What exactly does this have to do with the current conversation?
What have I done to LGBT atheists that I should now leave them alone? I've given my opinion on an open public blog, and pointed to some of my evidence to support my view. Can you do the same? I am perfectly willing to change my opinion if you can offer a compelling argument to the contrary, but your assertions so far aren't it.
Scooter, no. 109 - hardly fair to Neanderthals, is it?
I'll take some free gay porn! What? Yes, women like gay porn, shut up.
Really, though, I'll take any free porn as long as it's decent... free pr0n for the win.
Disgusted, if he has looked up and viewed CHILD PORN, then he has already harmed children. Period.
Disgusted: You make some decent points, I guess. I just wish you would make them elsewhere.
This story has gone viral around the net. It's a dubious distinction Jim is getting famous for. Delicious.
Join the club. I'm glad to hear some other women admit to this.
Sorry, I won't stop it, Disgusted. You are enabling homophobes with your comparisons that prop up pedophilia as just another hapless sexual orientation. Your attempt to diminish the gravity of pedophilia by accusing everyone of thought crimes is misguided. Isn't it the case that beliefs are correlated with actions? That's a major argument against religions, isn't it?
And what is all this nonsense about Japan? Japan has a different cultural attitude about the human body, sexual intimacy, and human waste than the Americas and Europe do, but Japan isn't cultivating pedophiles. That's preposterous. You are misreading a techie culture that is actually very adept at distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Anime and CGI is not reality and otaku know it coming from the culture they do.
It seems to me you came here as a concern troll to tell us to stop making fun of Jim Baker's porn fetish, so I am having a difficult time finding any sympathy for your rant. You want to stick up for him, fine, but your larger point is invalid. For one thing, we do not criminalize thoughts in North America and Europe. Another thing is that you did not accurately comprehend the study you linked to. But more importantly, pedophilia is not conducive to a healthy society, and unlike straight or gay sexual behavior, pedophilic behavior should remain illegal.
disgusted:
the issues you speak about are far more complex than your simplistic rants.
If you want to play pop-psychologist, you might at least try and get the terms down, and see some of the actual research done on various sexual attractions.
start with the wiki, and then go to PubMed once you find one of personal interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
btw, fetishes are applied to non-biological objects.
for me, what draws the line is always a matter of mutual consent, between ADULTS.
children, by definition, cannot be a consenting party.
didn't we already have this debate somewhere? Oh yeah, with the example of the CC that didn't care if a 9 year old girl died, just so long as they didn't abort the products of her pedophillic stepfather's rape.
That is a fix to my phrasing. I meant that Disgusted is wrong to accuse us of being the thought police. Laws don't extend to thoughts in the free world, but they do consider intentions.
I notice you've made no attempt whatsoever to actually back up your assertions, have you? Will I have to keep calling your attention back to it over and over again as you ignore the question and avoid the point of my argument?
How many times have we had to repeat this to a creationist? Correlation is not causation! Atheism does not lead to immorality and murder, videogames do not make people violent, heterosexuality does not cause rapists, collecting war movies or westerns doesn't mean that you're going to gun down the neighborhood. You're going to have to do better than that.
Wow, you mean it's possible for people to distinguish between their fantasies and what they actually DO? So what is it about our culture that prevents us from distinguishing between fantasy and reality? Once again you're making assertions with absolutely nothing to back them up.
Where did I say anything about cultivation, and how has anything I've said so far intimated that we 'cultivate' the fetish/kink/orientation in question? Isn't this portion of your argument just like that of the homophobes when they say 'We don't want the schools to push the gay agenda!' anytime the mere fact of homosexuality is mentioned? There's a huge difference between 'cultivation/pushing an agenda' and 'not starting a witch hunt every time the subject is mentioned'.
Making fun of? It looked to me like AnthonyK and scooter were doing a lot more than making fun of his fetish. One was hoping to get his name linked to pedophilia on search engines and the other was hoping to see him exposed of it, both obviously knowing that to do so could easily wreck the guy's life. I call foul.
There was a time, (Still is in a lot of places), when a similar exposure of homosexuality would have had the same effects on a person's life. I think it's hypocritical to fight for one and decry the other, and so far you've done nothing to change my mind.
But we do. That's what you're advocating right here. 'pedophilia' is a thought in just the same way that 'homosexuality' is a thought. The *actions* have other names. Get it? If what bothers you is child rapists or people who produce or collect kiddy-porn, then say so! See how those words include only the group you have a problem with, while excluding a larger group who don't all share that descriptor? I'm not telling anybody to stop anything, I'm just suggesting that words -mean- things, and that you either realize what you're saying and back up your claims, or use words that more accurately describe where your problem lies.
I didn't, huh? And your evidence for this assertion is..?
More importantly, you've once again failed to provide any reason whatsoever for your bold claim. HOW is it not conducive to a healthy society? Can you explain that without going outside the bounds of the definition and blaming anyone who has the -thought- with everyone who performed an -action-, some other action with a perfectly descriptive and exclusive name of its own?
As to what BEHAVIORS should be legal or not, that's a completely different matter. Murder is highly illegal if I recall, but it's perfectly legal to collect thousands of hours of footage of people on TV and in movies being killed in the most graphic and horrible of ways. You didn't appear to have any trouble with anime, and there are hundreds of manga and quite a bit of anime that are undeniably pedophilic pornography. How can you say deny that they aren't? They disgust and sicken me, but I have yet to see a properly-backed-up argument for why the artist shouldn't be allowed to draw or sell them, or why people should be punished for buying or reading them. - None that wouldn't also make most american movies illegal at the same time, if the rules for 'murder' were treated the same way. The people of Japan seem to go about their daily lives without having their society collapse. Why can't we?
Making child porn, REAL child porn, is illegal, and for damned good reason, just as abusing children in other ways is. The lines in the US and Europe and Canada are not so clearly drawn, and I personally don't see why someone who downloads pictures of some 15-year-old who took pictures of herself with her cellphone for her boyfriend should be treated the same as someone who pays for or even creates pictures of graphic abuse with real juveniles. And yet we treat them that way constantly! You're also lumping in all the people who ever buy, create, or even just download pedophilic artwork, along with anyone who reads or writes erotic fiction based on those themes. ALL of that is 'pedophilic behavior'. Well, the 15-yo on the cellphone isn't, but people continually equate 'statutory rape' or 'underage pornography' with 'pedophilia'.
That was the initial point! Words *mean* things. We communicate far more effectively if we use the right ones, and we call out creationists on the board here when they use the wrong ones, such as equating 'atheist' with 'immoral'. I'm just doing the same thing with other words that appear to be a blind spot for a lot of people.
The behaviors that actually harm children - rape, creation of REAL child pornography, other forms of abuse like neglect or beating - They're all already illegal, and rightly so. Each crime has its own name and specific description of a specific *action* taken, and in some way distinguishes those who have committed it from larger groups of people who haven't, groups such as 'parents' or 'priests' or 'pedophiles'. Do you understand what I am trying to say yet?
Going all witch-hunty and vigilante on 'pedophiles' would sweep up all those people who had questionable manga, anime , pictures, or stories on their hard drive but who had never and would never harm a child, while doing nothing to detect or prevent all those '100% heterosexual' fathers and stepfathers and uncles who abused their children because they were convenient and they got off on the power games.
It's the same sort of thing we see with the constant conflation between 'Muslims' and 'terrorists'.
I hate to see people muddy the issue and foul the aim of those trying to stop the real crimes by constantly conflating harmless thoughts with criminal actions.
Ichthyic posted:
And..? Please point out where I claimed it wasn't a complex issue? What exactly makes it a rant, anyway? I've been accused of that twice now, and I'd really like to know what distinguishes an opinion or an argument from a rant. Did I use too many words?
So you can't have a fetish for feet, or hairy guys, or tall women? See, here's one of those places where I'll be happy to use the proper descriptive word if you can supply one. What does one call such an attraction if not a kink or fetish?
Consenting party to what? You've gone off into action again! I agree with you completely about ACTIONS, but 'pedophilia' isn't an action, it's a state of mind, just as rape is a completely separate and illegal action separate from rape fantasy. What is it that allows someone with BDSM fantasies to control their urges and remain within the law, but prevents a pedophile (i.e., someone sexually aroused by children, the basic, bare-bones definition) from exerting the same control and being a perfectly law-abiding, trustworthy, productive citizen?
WTF? In what way are the two similar? It appeared to me at the time that pretty much everyone was in agreement that the stepfather was the -only- one who deserved excommunication, and that he was disgusting criminal scum for the ACTIONS he performed with his daughter(s). I fail to see any real similarities at all.
So you can't have a fetish for feet, or hairy guys, or tall women?
my bad, it's non-LIVING, not non-biological.
so yes to feet, no to hairy guys or tall women.
the latter two would be paraphilias, not fetishes.
I agree with you completely about ACTIONS, but 'pedophilia' isn't an action, it's a state of mind,
that's a terrible argument.
I'm thinking about murdering you right now.
get it?
In what way are the two similar?
wrt the consent issue, which is the debate in that thread I was referring to.
What is it that allows someone with BDSM fantasies to control their urges and remain within the law, but prevents a pedophile (i.e., someone sexually aroused by children, the basic, bare-bones definition) from exerting the same control and being a perfectly law-abiding, trustworthy, productive citizen?
because one paraphilia leads to lawful actions, and the other not, as you just pointed out. The difference being who is involved in the activity.
with pedophilia, one "participant" is unable to give consent.
Seems a pretty clear distinction to me.
And..? Please point out where I claimed it wasn't a complex issue? What exactly makes it a rant, anyway? I've been accused of that twice now, and I'd really like to know what distinguishes an opinion or an argument from a rant. Did I use too many words?
irrelevant questions and defensive behavior are the sure signs someone is ranting.
you want to talk about this issue like an adult, then do so. Otherwise, you sound like a petulant ass.
WHICH questions are irrelevant? Care to provide some detail instead of unsupported assertion? It's entirely possible that my questions were completely relevant to the point I was making, if perhaps you'd like to try discussing it instead of handwaving away my argument(s).
I've explained as clearly as I can so far, backed up my reasons with rational argument and links to scientific studies, and remained calm and polite throughout. How is that not 'adult', while insinuating that my posts are childish rants and saying that I sound like a petulant ass is?
Sure the topic is disturbing and emotional, but people manage to rationally discuss disturbing topics all the time. You aren't giving me any reason to change my mind, you're just calling me names.
WHY is that a terrible argument? No, I don't get it at all. Okay, you thought about murdering me. You might have even written a story about it, or created a picture of yourself right in the act. As long as you don't actually DO IT, or directly threaten to murder me, there's nothing wrong with it. You certainly won't be vilified or arrested if someone finds your picture/story. Yes, sometimes students are punished for those sorts of actions, but I thought most people here were in agreement that that was a BAD thing.
What's your point?
Disgusted, I wish you would look in a mirror. I'd also like to see your definition of a pedophile because I think it goes against common usage. With a faulty definition you would misinterpret the study you linked to, which actually says, "Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal." It had nothing to do with them being pedophiles but with them being unable to inhibit sexual arousal.
It really isn't an assertion to observe you throwing around adult sexual fetishes and homosexuality and conflating them with pedophilia. Rick Warren did that and so do many other bigots for whatever political purpose, and I am not going to be silent and let you get away with it. When you argue in favor of pedophilia, do so on its own merits.
You did say that "Japan appears to have integrated paedophilia (NOT child abuse) into their society without any obvious major ill effects." That is just not true and probably was claimed by you due to a warped conception of pedophilia. Seeing beauty in youth does not equal pedophilia.
I get the feeling that you think there is some vast conspiracy to crack down on pedophilia because people make fun of it, fear it, and are reviled by it. From my understanding, a man can go into the middle of a busy city center and shout at the top of his lungs about his "sexual attraction to children" without fear of legal repercussions. Obviously, such a man would have a very difficult time being socially accepted by most people within shouting distance.
Again, as for murders in movies, we understand they are fantasy but that does not mean it is socially acceptable (barring war, self defense, and sometimes euthanasia) to kill others, to participate in killing others, or to even think about killing others. However, murder is not something humans are inclined to do in the first place while sex is. A better analogy would be to compare pornography with pedophilic pornography--we all know where the first leads, why not the second? "You didn't appear to have any trouble with anime, and there are hundreds of manga and quite a bit of anime that are undeniably pedophilic pornography." I deny that because your idea of what a pedophile is or what a pedophile would consider pornographic is missing from the picture.
I am troubled by gray areas of the law being applied too harshly or even at all in some cases, but don't go moving the goalpost. You didn't start out talking about the gray areas of the law; you started out talking about pedophilia and how we should all be fine with it just like we are fine with x, y, and z.
Pedophilia is immoral. This is not a blind spot but an evidence-based, reasoned position for most people that isn't difficult to arrive at. The problem is that pedophiles and their supporters fail to realize that contentment with the very concept itself is an abuse of power because, as we all keep pounding out here on Pharyngula, children can't give adult consent to sex--it's always rape and always causes psychosocial trauma in society, so it isn't harmless.
The only people going "witch-hunty and vigilante" here are you and Jim Baker. Mr. Baker threatened a life, but all you seem to care about doing is smacking the heads of anyone who dares to use the word pedophile to mock him.
BDSM as a paraphila could just as easily lead to rape, pedophilia could just as easily lead to consensual sex between two adults with one acting the role of a child. It's possible for someone to be homosexual their entire life and NEVER have a homosexual encounter. Most people are fully able to control their urges and NOT commit crimes, even if they have a desire to do something that's illegal.
I fail to see why it isn't possible for someone with pedophilic tendencies to have a perfectly normal adult sexual relationship, either. Just as many homosexuals have managed to live 'normal' lives and raise families in heterosexual relationships, I don't see what's preventing people with other paraphilias from doing the same. Just as with homosexuality or any of the paraphilias listed, few people are 100% gay or 100% heterosexual, most fall somewhere on a curve. Have you any evidence to show that pedophiles aren't the same way? Sure, there may be some few who can't respond to anyone but prepubescents, but those are probably a very small minority, and most are probably able to find safe outlets for their urges. If the percentages in the study I linked to are right, it would appear that most males respond to pedophilic stimuli, but the vast majority are perfectly able to remain within the law and bend their urges to legal targets.
If you make it so taboo that no one can even admit to the slightest pedophilic urge, you drive the entire group underground, making it impossible for those who might have a real problem from being able to admit it and get help without having their life ruined. Is that really the way you want it? These days, I've seen far too many occasions where people pushed the 'pedophile' label all the way up to relationships involving 17-year olds. I think we'd be a lot more able to work on the problem if we used labels that were properly specific to the groups who had actually done things, not to the ones we were worried -might- do things.
With rape, statutory or otherwise, one participant does not or is unable to give consent. You're conflating thought and action again! So far I'm not at all swayed by your arguments.
pedophilia could just as easily lead to consensual sex between two adults
uh...
didn't realize we were dealing in pure fantasy.
conversation with you is rather pointless, isn't it?
maybe you will be more coherent at some other time on some other point.
Are you fucking kidding me? Someone really defending pedophiles? I'll never say "I've seen it all" again , I swear...
Disgusted, you're doing it again. Argue for it on its own or at least drop homosexuality and fetishes and bring in heterosexuality. I'm picking up serious homophobic markers in your comments, such as scare quotes ('normal') and the remark that homosexuality is a paraphilia which it most certainly is not.
I notice your above definitions are far too broad. You need to rest your arguments with some exactitude in the ranges and separation of ages for adult and child.
And then there is the uncanny idea that a pedophile could establish a long-term relationship, but that would be impossible with the object of his desire by definition (once you get around to defining it).
You also are misrepresenting that one study you linked to. It merely established that men automatically respond to sexual stimuli of many kinds. It said nothing conclusive about pedophiles.
aratina,
Not just broad, vague.
pedophilia :"The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular.
As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.[1][2][3] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse;[5][6][7] however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[8] In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" has been used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".[9][10][6][11][12]
In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).[13] An example of this use can be seen in various forensic trainings manuals. Some researchers have described this usage as improper and suggested it can confound two separate types of offenders.[13]
In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child.[14][12]"
(My bold, italics and underscoring).
I think Disgusted is defending an opinion based on a vague definition, close to that first example above under "common usage".
I agree with those who suggest that you report this to the authorities. This guy made specific, graphic threats of violence, and then committed a symbolic assault (probably an actual crime). He is probably not a direct physical threat to you, just because of distance, but I would not be so sure about people in his vicinity. At the very least, he needs some professional intervention.
Let me start with Aratina:
Actually, it is precisely the common usage description that I'm referring to, as cut-and-pasted by John Morales a couple of posts up. I thought I'd belabored the point a little *too* much, but apparently not. From the outset, I've been referring ONLY to the most basic definition, 'an adult who is sexually attracted to young children', the exact definition from dictionary.reference.com, freedictionary.com, and thefreedictionary.com. From yourdictionary.org: 'an abnormal condition in which an adult has a sexual desire for children'. Merriam-webster.com: 'sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object'. encarta.msn.com: 'an adult who has sexual desire for children'. www.wordsmyth.net: 'one who has an abnormal sexual desire for children.'. www.bartleby.com: 'An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children. '
How does the definition I've been using go against any of those? The point I've been trying to make from the outset is that the basic definition is about thoughts and desires, not actions. Oh, I know that it's being stretched to mean actions as well, but that's my point. There are perfectly good words that define the criminal actions, words that include all the people who aren't pedophiles but have abused children, while excluding all of those people who fit this description and have never committed a crime.
I've seen a vast number of people who stretch 'pedophile' to mean anyone who commits a sexual crime with 'children' up to 17 years old, too. At least a couple of people here tried to paste the label onto Mark Foley when the scandal broke with him texting inappropriate messages to 16yo pages, and *far* more people on other sites made the same stretch. There are better words to use, and stretching the definition to include so many other things renders it almost useless.
'Theory' has many definitions too, but we to stick to the one that best describes what's being discussed (scientific theories), even when creationists constantly try to conflate in the definition that better suits their purposes. If you wish to use a different definition go ahead and give it, but my stand on the matter will probably change radically.
With regards to the study I linked to, I can link to more if necessary to discuss specific items, but please be specific. When you say:
Are you asserting that the 30% or so who showed GREATER arousal to pedophilic stimuli than to adult has nothing to do with pedophilia? I haven't called any of the people in the study pedophiles, but when you're MORE aroused by young children than by adults, that certainly sounds to me like pedophilic behavior, whether they're honest enough to admit it or not.
Back to the subject of Japan:
I'm talking about manga or dojinshi that are obviously intended to be erotic, with graphically pornographic images involving obviously prepubescent children engaged in explicit consensual or nonconsensual sexual activity, either with others their own age or with adults. Do you really want me to hunt down links to provide examples? How could something like that that NOT be pedophilic imagery? That sort of thing is sold freely in manga shops all over Japan. What would you call someone who reads them for purposes of arousal or fantasy besides a pedophile? They are sold by the millions, and yet the country continues to soldier on undamaged, and without any wild increases in crimes against children. Really, I think that you're flat-out wrong here.
You're going to have to point to where I said that. From the beginning, I've stated that I'm referring only to thoughts and desires and not actions, and as shown by all the dictionary examples above, that's the basic definition of the paraphilia in question. Rather than 'We should all be fine with it', I've said that I have a problem with trying to arrest someone, drive them out of town, or otherwise attempt to ruin their life on the mere suspicion that they're sexually attracted to children.
You really might understand my point better if you tried to read what I was saying, rather than what you feel that I'm thinking. I think you're assuming a lot about me that just isn't the case. And no, there's no organized conspiracy, any more than gay-bashing is a conspiracy - it's just people in general diluting a perfectly good definition by stretching it to include a completely different group of people, then vilifying or attacking the the first group for the sins of those they had to stretch the definition to include in the first place. We have perfectly good words to describe the criminal group on their own, but if we stretch the term to include the second group, what word do we have left to describe the first group alone?
And your understanding is wrong in at least a couple of incidents. There's a man who has a restraining order on him to keep him away from every child in the state, but if I'm to trust the news report and the quotes of the law enforcement officials, he hasn't done anything illegal. By his own words he agrees that a child should never be touched inappropriately - or even at all, without permission. You could certainly claim that he was lying, but you'll have to come up with some supporting evidence to defend the claim if you do. If anyone else were to perform the actions that people are so up in arms about with their reasons unknown instead of honestly admitted, people wouldn't bat an eye. But because they know (or think they know) what he's thinking or feeling, suddenly he's a monster.
I just don't see why it's perfectly legal and completely okay to go to a park to watch the hot babes - (You certainly enjoy looking at them, even find them sexually appealing, but there's absolutely no chance you're going to touch one of them inappropriately!) - but if you go to watch the cute girls on the swingset, suddenly you're a sicko who should be hounded from the county by an angry mob. If our hypothetical park-goer tries to take upskirts photos, touch someone inappropriately, or otherwise DO something illegal to someone of *any* age, throw the book at him!
This paranoia that someone else might look at children in the wrong way is making it a lot harder for ANY males to visit parks or otherwise be around or interact with any children not their own.
Are you using your expanded and all-inclusive definition, or my specific, common-use one? If you're using my definition, you're going to have to show a bit more evidence and reason if I'm to agree with you. If you're talking about the expanded definition that's based on the actions of the person involved and not just thoughts and desires, I'm in total agreement with you. My point from the beginning has been to try to differentiate between the two.
Murder is always murder, causes psychosocial trauma in society, and also certainly doesn't involve the consent of the other party! But it's perfectly legal and accepted to talk about it, write about it, make movies about it, etc. Rape is always a crime in the same fashion, but again, one can do all those things, fantasize about it, even act it out with a consenting adult partner.
Doing WHAT again? I'd be a lot better able to follow you if you'd define your pronouns. As for the rest, I've got to be able to compare it with SOMETHING, and homosexuality has been a good comparison for several aspects: It's only recently that people could be open about it at all, and large groups of people still become disgusted or even get violent at even a hint of it. The practice has been illegal in many places and for quite a long time, until quite recently in fact. Homosexuals are insistent (and in my opinion, with very good evidence to back themselves up), that they don't choose their orientation, it's just the way they are. (Do you really think that pedophiles choose their attraction, knowing the universal scorn that they're in for if the secret gets out?) They (homosexuals) can talk/write/fantasize about their fantasies and desires as explicitly as they want, but any homosexual ACTIONS must take place between consenting adults. And, contrary to the claims of the christian churches, simply not having homosexual sex doesn't change the fact that you're a homosexual. You see? There are parallels that allow comparison, whether you want to admit it or not.
As to the 'serious homophobic markers', I REALLY think you're reading in things that just aren't there, no matter how much you might want or suspect them to be. I used quotes around 'normal' because I was talking about a HOMOsexual in a HETEROsexual relationship, which might be a 'normal' heterosexual relationship, but isn't necessarily 'normal' for the homosexual(s) involved, which was the point of my quote marks.
Could you point out where I called homosexuality a paraphilia? In the one instance that I can see where I mentioned the two in the same sentence, there's an or between it and paraphilias, not an and, the 'other paraphilias' being other than the subject, pedophilia. As a matter of fact, homosexuality WAS listed as a paraphilia all the way up until 1974. Was it an unacceptable thing back then because it WAS listed?
Really, I'm not trying to make homosexuality (or BDSM, or rape fantasy, or any of the others) look bad. I just haven't yet seen a defensible explanation for why one is perfectly okay, while even a rumor that someone fits the basic, common-use definition of the other makes it okay for people to start planning lynch mobs and beatings.
I also haven't seen any other word to use to describe the people who fit that basic description but not the extended version that adds all the criminal actions that could more succinctly be described with other words that don't include the first group. Have you got such a word? If you do, GREAT! I can use that, and it'll spare a lot of confusion if I ever have to try to explain this again.
That's really all I wanted to do in the first place, find and suggest that people use words that don't continually conflate the two groups. I'm sure that some people are perfectly happy to continue doing so, in hopes of tarring everyone so named with the worst facets of the expanded description, but I disagree with the practice enough to speak up about it.
Have I cleared up what definition I'm using yet, and my reasons for using it? I'm using a very specific definition, you appear to be the one using the much broader and more vague one. I can use that one word to describe all of the group I'm referring to, and then I can use other words to describe the group(s) you keep alluding to, words who's definitions will contain all of those who have committed the crimes you keep throwing out, yet exclude all of those who haven't done anything whatsoever illegal. I will happily use different words if you can provide them, but so far 'pedophile' is the only word I know that will include all the people who fit that basic, common-use definition. How is that being vague and overbroad?
I don't actually see what the ranges and ages have to do with it. There is no child being touched, inappropriately photographed, or in any other way abused if we stick with the basic definition of the word as I have been trying to do.
Many homosexuals throughout history formed long-lasting heterosexual relationships when it was illegal or otherwise unwise to let their secret be revealed. Shouldn't that have been impossible, if they couldn't have the 'object of their desires'? What makes the idea possible for one and 'uncanny' for the other? Nobody is ever guaranteed the object of their desires. I would think that most people of whatever orientation, kink, fetish, or paraphilia have to deal with disappointment and having one desire or another unattainable or even illegal. I don't see why it isn't possible to be attracted or aroused by more than one thing at a time, either. Can you provide a rational argument for why pedophilia wouldn't occur on the same sort of scale of severity as homosexuality? (I.e., everywhere from 'mostly het/homo but with some undeniable pedophilic urges or fantasies' to 'Entirely pedophilic, where age of target matters more than sex and there is no attraction whatsoever to adults.')
(Honestly, I'm sorry to use homosexuality as an example again, but I know about and can be somewhat confident that you have some familiarity with the Kinsey scale, and I don't know of any other similar studies or papers that describe the same sort of graduated scale of intensity I'm referring to. That's the only reason I'm using it for an example here, and the only part I'm comparing, okay?)
Anyway, I've done my best to explain my point several times now. I'm pretty sure I understand exactly what you're saying, I just still disagree with some parts of it. I'm totally willing to hear further explanation on your side, but unless you have something else besides what you've already said, I'm going to continue to disagree, and I'm certainly not going to make a dent in your opinion.
I object to the hysteria that leads angry crowds to burn down homes and drive people out of town on just the rumor that the owner might be a 'pedophile', with no more detail than that as to what the targeted person may have actually done or not, and with whom. I object to continually lumping productive, law-abiding members of the community in with felons just because they all share the same turn-on, when words exist that can easily differentiate between the two, and the most obvious difference between the two is the commission of a felony on one side and not the other.
I like what Neil Gaiman has to say about it:
Disgusting,
Did you ever stop to think that maybe your frenzy over this issue has something to do with the loose application of the word in society? I would suggest you define it carefully and precisely rather than rely on dictionary definitions or Wikipedia definitions because until you do, you are capturing a wide swath of vague (as John Morales said) attributes, intentions, thoughts, and behaviors of people defined differently and often vaguely by various fields and compressing them into an argument that is all over the place. This is causing you much confusion between reality and fantasy, thoughts and actions, and age categorizations, and it has allowed you to derail this thread with quirky arguments that have nothing to do with Jim Baker's threats or the mocking of Jim Baker.
Re: manga
Disgusting,
You are picking out a small part of all that is Japanese culture and portraying it as the main cultural theme. Get a grip. There is a difference in the Japanese and Western approaches to many subjects involving the naked human body and body parts, but these differences are not rooted in an acceptance of pedophilia by one and not the other.
Re: homophobe-baiting
Disgusting,
Doing "it" again referred to what followed: you arguing for pedophilia using homosexuality as a basis. You are greasing the slope, Disgusting. I don't appreciate you doing that.
As you well know, LGBT people can form loving, consensual relationships in the same way straight people can. But you would have us add pedophiles to the same relationship class. I think such a thing would be impossible because pedophilic relationships are not consensual, and what's more--people grow up! Here again, when you compare the pedophile sympathetically to an LGBT person locked in a heterosexual relationship, you are subverting the act of unambiguously defining just what a pedophile is or at least what factors should be considered. Everyone in a relationship with as little as five years age difference would have been in a pedophilic relationship had they been together when the oldest was 16 according to some legal jurisdictions, for instance, but that wouldn't have been the case if the youngest had been age 16. So pedophilia has intrinsic factors to it that don't come into play for either heterosexuality or homosexuality.
There are parallels to a pedophile hiding who they are in many things besides down-low relationships. The similarity of both pedophiles and homosexuals having to hide the truth or share the same DSM category at one point in history doesn't justify equating pedophilia with sexual orientation. In my opinion, harboring pedophilic thoughts is more akin to wanting to illegally download a movie or cheat on a test--you know you shouldn't be even considering doing it because it is ethically wrong, and you sure aren't going to advertise your desire to the world without being anonymous or supremely private, but despite all that it seems harmless to think about. Inborn or learned (consciously or unconsciously), pedophiles should not be allowed to act on their sexual desires in a similar (but much graver) way to how exam cheaters and e-pirates should not be allowed to act on their specific desires.
I did mistake your ambiguous statements about homosexuality (thinking you had something against gay people), but look, if you stop pairing up homosexuality with pedophilia, your arguments can only become more focused. Right now you are reaching back into the disastrous NAMBLA territory and making few friends for it (at least not the ones you want, I suspect, but the ones you don't want who do instigate witch hunts against people).
Re: slippery slope
Disgusting,
Here is a good look at exactly what you are aiding in your arguments above: Barb the Bigot.
My frenzy, huh? Riiiight. Because I've shown all the signs of frenzy, typing in all caps, using multiple exclamation marks, spouting insults and profanity in every sentence, all that sort of thing. I suppose you could consider verbosity an identifiable component of frenzy, but it's certainly not a distinguishing aspect of it, and I'd have to say you're really stretching if that's the only sign you're basing your accusation on.
My whole point was that society is now defining the word far too broadly, when to the best of my knowledge, it's the best available word to describe 'someone who's sexually attracted to prebubescent children' without also describing any other action they've taken. Anyone who's actually taken some action that deserves punishment is easily describable by some other term that clearly distinguishes them from the larger group who all meet the bare-bones technical definition of 'pedophile'.
I don't see that my definition is at all vague - Hey, every dictionary I checked agreed!), and I don't have any other definitions that can better describe the clear dividing line between the two groups. the fact that large groups of people are expanding the definition to include crimes committed doesn't make their new definition a better one, not when it actually muddies the issue and causes a lot of people to be harassed for crimes they haven't committed, when the previous and less-inclusive definition makes the differences perfectly clear.
So yes, I have a problem with people using the term far too broadly. Sure, I know that Is is not Ought, and I realize I've got exactly zero chance of changing the way the world at large is going to continue to use it. That doesn't stop me from trying every now and then! I had some hopes that at least a few people here would be able to look past their prejudices at the underlying point I was making and choose in future to use different and more exclusive words in their future discussion. Maybe a couple will. Certainly many won't, and that's pretty much what I expected. People can get downright singlemindedly protective when it comes to anything dealing with their kids. Now and again though I like to hope we can rise above our instinctive reactions, and once in awhile people even surprise me.
I beg to differ. I said that explicitly pedophilic manga & dojinshi exists, (in quantity even), it's legal, and people buy it openly and read it without being shunned or driven from their homes by vigilante mobs if they're discovered - Yet the country manages to go on without collapsing or even showing any measurable rise in sex crimes against children. I'm going to have to ask you to show me where I said or intimated that it was or should be a 'main cultural theme'. Come on now!
You really don't have to bother though. I don't think I'm likely to get my point through to you in any useful way, and anyone who is likely to get it has already done so. Continuing to talk past one another is apparently an exercise in futility on both our parts. (Not that that sort of conversation doesn't happen quite often here, after all..) Feel free to write me off as a bigot or a concern troll or whatever you've built me up in your head to be.
I could be wrong, too! I think you understand my point a bit better now, even if you don't agree with me.
Disgusted,
It did seem a bit frenzied the way you bolted onto the thread with a condescending moniker showing indifference to PZ, who was threatened by Jim Baker, and to LGBT people who have been bombarded with the "pedophile" accusation since time immemorial. You even dared people to call you a pedophile, yet nobody did. Not to mention the evidence you pulled out to show that pedophiles were victims of a mob mentality and being punished for their thoughts covered the gamut from otaku to highly arousable heterosexual men to mild-mannered pedophiles living incognito, married lives. It was all very accusatory looking and ungrounded, very much concern trollish.
I still don't think you adequately communicate how underground and how small a percentage this lolicon/dojinshi phenomena really is in relation to the larger culture and how most of what makes Westerners gasp is not pedophilia but a different cultural belief system about the appropriateness of sexual depictions and a more casual attitude toward erotic fantasy and crude humor. What you are really asking people to be OK with when you bring up lolicon/dojinshi is fictional child porn, which is currently a gray area of free speech and public rights versus private rights in Japan and the Western world.
I thought we were mad at Jim? Why are we fighting over such things when we should be emailing large files to Mr. Baker? Take your rants and send them to Jim!
So how exactly can you tell that someone has 'bolted onto a thread', as opposed to someone who took their time to read every post in the thread and then make a reasoned response in reaction to what they considered misinformation being promulgated by one or more of the previous posters? Did all the posters who posted prior to my original post 'bolt onto' the thread?
I've been reading pharyngula for some years now, and I can recall quite a few posts where PZ has said that he's not in charge of the masses who read and post here, not our leader or prophet, and isn't expecting us all to treat him with deference or adulation just because of who he is or what his views are. I'll bet I can find literally dozens of posts where people respond to something another poster has said without mentioning PZ at all, as I did. Were they all 'showing indifference' to PZ? Just how often do conversations veer completely off the subject of the original post in threads here? Pretty often, huh? Are all of those posters 'showing indifference' to PZ if they don't mention him when raising their unrelated topic?
You're still making demonstrably untrue claims about me and my actions here. If you'd refrain from doing that, my posts wouldn't have to be nearly as long as they keep ending up, you know. ;) Try to respond to what I said, not what you think I did or how you think I said it.
Yes, I pulled out evidence to back up my reasoning, (which were not the reasons you seem to assume I had, according to your responses). I used evidence from more than one place, and on more than one basic subject, according to what I was attempting to point out or rebut at the time. You have misinterpreted or flat-out denied a good bit of it without providing much (if any) of your own in rebuttal. I thought that the presentation of evidence to support rational discussion/debate/argument was what we were supposed to DO here. If you want more from me on some specific point just say so, but don't just disregard it all because it covered broad areas in addressing different parts of your argument.
I don't really consider anything I can buy at the local magazine shop to be especially 'underground'. Do you have any data on exactly how small a percentage it really is in relation to the larger culture? When I brought the subject up in the first place, you claimed that it didn't exist at all. Now that I've stuck to my guns, you say that it's rare and underground. I'm going to have to ask you to provide some evidence of your own for that assertion if you want to keep pushing this part of your argument.
Even if it is only a small percentage - so? There are a lot of things done in any culture that are done by only a small percentage of the people in that culture, but the point is that they ARE done, legally and without mob violence. There are lots of people in America who collect movies, but I suspect a far, far smaller percentage who collect gore-filled horror movies by choice. Neither the fact that what is fictionally pictured in the movie is illegal, nor the fact that only a small percentage are actually into watching it makes it any less legal, or makes it any less an accepted part of our culture.
Would you consider someone who viewed fictional child porn of prepubescent children for erotic gratification or fantasy to be a pedophile? I certainly would. What I wouldn't necessarily consider them is a criminal, (especially if I were in Japan), which is my point in trying to differentiate terms properly.
I'm pointing out that someone who gets off on fictional child porn (whether anime/dojinshi, other artwork, or text-only stories for that matter) clearly meets the standard, basic definition of 'pedophile', yet they've broken no laws, at least in countries where those things are still legal.
It doesn't make much sense to say 'oh, we don't mean THEM.' about that group of people when you start trying to associate someone's name with pedophilia on search engines or try to explain how terrible pedophiles are. There isn't any other word to describe that group, and there are better words to describe any and all of the other groups you and far too many other people are trying to conflate in. - As I said some posts back; If you've got a better word I can use to describe that group of people, I'll be happy to use it rather than starting another long and mostly-fruitless argument like this one.
Actually, I hate to see any properly-descriptive word being used in a similar fashion. It's hard enough for us to manage to communicate even in our native languages without having people deliberately confuse things by using words that muddy the issue rather than clarify it.
Do you like it when people equate 'atheist' to mean 'mean, anti-religious person with no morals whatsoever', or 'evolutionist' with 'Godless atheist hell-bent on destroying Christianity', or do you think they should be corrected when they make such pronouncements?
I hate seeing a uniquely descriptive word that succinctly describes a group of law-abiding people being stretched to conflate that group with criminals who are clearly identifiable by their own exclusive terms. I'm extraordinarily tired at the all-too common conflation of 'Muslim = Terrorist', too, but that's another argument for another time.
Oh sure, it's easier to lump everything together onto that one word. It's easier to say 'Jews' instead of 'greedy usurious Jewish bankers', but it's wrong all the same, and for pretty much the same reasons. (Yes I went there. Just making sure you're still awake!)
These days, I see people who are arrested for having pictures of teenage girls, or for having sex with a 17-year-old identified as 'pedophiles'. That's insane! According to their desires, they're ephebophiles, and according to their actions they're statutory rapists or collectors of 'child' porn. 'Ephebophile' doesn't appear to have nearly the connotations that they've DONE anything by itself, because most people use the word properly. (And I think because a lot less people know the word to misuse it, unlike some other words..) Ephebophilia is even considered 'normal' by most people who know the word, since a very high percentage of males are attracted to nubile young women - but an ephebophile who's actually committed a crime with his 'greatest desire' has committed just as much of a felony, and with someone who's legally just as unable to give consent as a pedophile would for giving in to the same urge.
Accurate description of them would list them as ephebophiles AND rapists, or ephebophiles AND child-porn collectors, and it's those other crimes that they are punished for. Even 'heterosexual' describes what our desires are, not what we DO in its most basic description. You wouldn't say that a homosexual was heterosexual just because they had heterosexual sex, would you?
Why ruin a perfectly good descriptive word by constantly misapplying it, especially when there's no other word as uniquely descriptive of the mindset alone, and many words that better describe the actions?
We're supposed to be above-average in our education and rationality here, why keep using (and even insist on using) the wrong word when we know there are better ones? Don't we object when we see creationists or fundies doing the same thing?
Gays aren't happy about being banned from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America, and they're even less happy about the reasons given for it - That pedophilia scare you mentioned, Aratina. But it's not pedophiles that are the problem either, it's child predators, isn't it? You're not happy being associated with the pedophiles in that instance, how do you think they feel about being associated with the predators? And they've got the gays joining in with everyone else to push the association even harder to try and keep it off themselves.
The fact that no one is willing to say 'Whoa, why are we doing this?' is how the meaning of a word gets extended so far beyond its basic and most fundamental meaning in the first place. It's the reason why 'sex offender' label is so unfair to so many people stuck with it, and why it is becoming less and less useful as a warning or descriptive term - people lump far too many unrelated groups into one big badly-labeled pile, then treat all of them like the worst of them, the ones who actually committed crimes worthy of punishment.
I may never get anyone to change the words they use to describe these various groups of people, but every now and then I can at least explain my reasons and TRY to get people to understand the point of it.
This is obviously not a popular topic, and one that most people are afraid to argue anywhere around for fear of being labeled one of them. It's certainly not a topic where I expect much agreement, or even to have everyone read through what I write without overlaying their preconceived ideas of what I and my intentions are.
Still, the audience here prides itself on its rationality, open-mindedness, and education. I see a lot of people here who seem proud of their individuality and separation from the herd. I thought it was worth a shot to possibly get a few people thinking about the words they themselves were using. Just because everyone else is doing it, why should you?
I don't suspect anyone who's been reading along wants to admit that I might be right, not out loud, anyway. I'm certainly not going to ask anyone to. But just -maybe- some few will think about the words they use the next time they discuss a child molester or other criminal. Maybe they'll even think to use words that properly describe them, rather than words that only confuse the issue.
If so, I can take being called a few names along the way.
Aratina, I think this topic is pretty much finished unless you want to continue it. I've explained as best as I can what I mean and why I feel that way about it. I'm not going to be able to say much more before I start repeating myself even more than I already have. You disagree with me, I can see that. You have not provided anything that changes my mind, however. I can agree to disagree without carrying a grudge, so you really don't have to feel like you need to put yourself out to continue this.
You'll probably feel a lot better if you just get out and enjoy your weekend!
In response to the part I emphasized, I see nothing wrong with pedophiles not liking their association with child predators--the fantasy of a pedophile that you wish to normalize is one of sexually abusing children, a truly delusional and potentially harmful conception if ever acted on. Your comparison, yet again, of pedophiles with gays v. Boy Scouts of America is aggravatingly wrong no matter what the Boy Scouts organization says about gays. Having a pedophile lead children isn't a situation that any thinking person should feel comfortable allowing. Are you seriously saying that you would be fine with letting a self-identified pedophile lead a Boy Scouts group?
So, they should do things which you have not done? Being rational about a problem does not include disparaging gays or the Japanese culture, grabbing random anecdotes to support a vague argument, or trivializing the impact of an immoral ideology on society. If a certain class of pedophilia turns out to be genetic or innate for whatever reason (formed by brain trauma or unknowingly, unwillingly learned for example) then of course rational people will work to help the affected individuals (pedophiles already are able to and often forced to get help in the U.S. no matter the cause of their pedophilia). Rational people and rational societies do not need to let their guard down in their responsibility to protect children when considering the realities of the human mind.
Once again I note that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this is true, though I've specifically asked you to provide some. You've already changed your story from 'it doesn't exist at all' to 'it's rare and underground', so I find that I'm a lot less willing to take whatever you say as fact.
In an article on radicalleft.net (NSFW) about the crackdown on REAL CP in japan, things appear to be much closer to how I've described them than how you have:
(I'll give the link to this article on request, but I'm not going to put the link into the post even as plaintext unless someone really doesn't trust that I'm quoting accurately. VERY disturbing NSFW manga images on the page. I'm quoting precisely, and this isn't peer-reviewed science they or I am talking about anyway. I strongly suggest you trust me on that rather than asking for a link to see the article yourself.)
From the comments of that article:
(Wow, not just bookshops but in convenience stores too!)
They are not definitive citations by any means, but it was the very first link I found that gave any statistics in the areas in question. I would however have to call them at least a couple of bits of evidence in favor of my observations and not in favor of yours. Can you offer anything to refute this besides your own assertions? From what I personally have seen in Japanese book and manga shops, that sort of art is neither underground nor at all uncommon.
That's nice. What does that have to do with the paragraph(s) of mine that you were quoting? Do you actually think that they had anything to do with whether or not it was illegal to get off on fictional CP in any particular country? The point was that someone who gets off to that sort of thing by choice undeniably meets the criteria to be labeled a pedophile, but they have 'perpetrated' (Great word choice there.) no crime whatsoever. This goes back to that 'Words *mean* things' rant that I seem to keep going back to. Of course, if that's what you got out of what I said, that pretty much explains the rest of your responses.
I think I've been quite clear in exactly what my argument is. I've tried to answer each of your responses in detail, and gone to great lengths to clearly state just what definition(s) I'm using and exactly why I think those are the best definitions. I've offered to try and provide more information, explanation, or citations for any specific point you disagreed with. I've even asked if you had any better words I could use instead of the one(s) I'm using.
I could lay out my argument in a nice numbered list for you, but if you can't actually point out yet exactly where or how I'm being vague or which of my 'anecdotes' you feel were random, I must respectfully suggest that perhaps the vagueness isn't coming entirely from me.
I've done no such thing. Pointing out what is is not disparagement, and it is possible to compare or make examples with two things without disparaging either. Any disparagement you see in the comparisons as I've made them is due to your own feelings about the groups being discussed, not to my remarks. To be honest, I'm quite fond of both Japanese culture and quite a few GLBT individuals and couples.
You have been wrong about my motives and made unsupported claims about them as well as my activities more than once now. I think at this point I'll cut this missive short, save us both a lot of time reading what would only be misinterpreted in the end anyway, and leave you to make up your own answers about the intent of my arguments. You're already a ways past me along that path and appear to be picking up speed.
There. Much shorter now, it's just too bad I wasted the time writing it all in the first place before deciding that you're really not listening, so there's really no point.
Meh. I think I'm done here. Ta-ta!