Friday Ephemera
There’s Something On The Windscreen

Only Looking (2)

And in, er, child-molestation-fantasy news

A professor of Ethics at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway has called to legalise AI-generated child pornography, claiming that paedophilia should be seen as an innate sexuality that requires destigmatisation. Ole Martin Moen, a gay man who identifies as “queer,” currently serves as a member of the advisory board on Norway’s Patient Organization for Gender-Incongruence (PKI), a social and political lobby group for trans rights. […]

Moen details arguments for and against “adult-child sex” before ultimately coming to the conclusion that “adult-child sex is not categorically very harmful” but may result in “risks” of children being harmed… Moen also argues that paedophiles who do not sexually abuse children should be “praised” for their “admirable willpower,”

Not raping children - so far, that is - but really, really wanting to and thinking about it a lot - is praiseworthy, you see.

Update, via the comments:

If readers will forgive a little paraphrasing:

Frisky Nonce: “I didn’t utterly ruin a small child’s life today. I wanted to, quite a lot, but I didn’t.”

Woke Academic: “Oh well done. Have a sweet. And some more child-abuse pornography.”

We could, I think, paraphrase a little further:

“I didn’t stab any random passers-by in the face today.”

“Oh well done. Here are some pictures of random people being stabbed in the face.”

Farcical as it sounds, the dynamic is not entirely dissimilar.

Update 2:

Aside from the more bewildering claims – that “the mental state of finding children sexually attractive is very common,” for instance, or that 11-year-olds’ crushes on other 11-year-olds are somehow equivalent to creepy 40-year-old men ogling kiddies – Dr Moen has other odd thoughts. We’re told that “most adult-child sex… does not involve violence or penetration,” merely “cuddling, caressing, and genital fondling,” and that penetration “occurs most commonly when the child is well into adolescence.” So, hey. No biggie.

We’re also told that we mustn’t assume that paedophiles “desire to harm children,” even though their desires, when enacted, via secrecy and deceit, do harm children, often catastrophically, and even though their enacted desire is, by definition, a violation, a betrayal, an act of monstrous selfishness. “There is no reason to posit intentions to harm, disrespect, or expression of ill will on the part of all or even most paedophiles,” says Dr Moen. This is despite acknowledging that such experiences leave a majority of victims with “psychological disorders… increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, major depression,” etc. And despite the fact that these consequences are very widely understood, at least in simple terms. And despite the fact that many paedophiles have been subjected to similar abuse themselves and therefore know first-hand the likely consequences.

Hence the stigma, of course. The stigma that Dr Moen finds so problematic.

Our educator then entertains the conceit that paedophilia is only harmful to its victims “because of society’s way of viewing and handling sexual contact between adults and children.” As if the only disagreeable aspect of being raped as a child were the subsequent embarrassment. Not the actual, you know, violation. This, remember, is in the same essay that acknowledges the “psychological disorders” and “major depression” that are frequently the result for children who’ve been sexually assaulted. To say nothing of all the oddly unmentioned consequences that may manifest later in life, including, for some, transgenderism and/or paedophilia, and none of which are generally regarded as life-affirming.

Update 3:

In the comments, Mags quotes Dr Moen’s deep musings:

“Many of us have been paedophiles at one point,” Moen argues, adding “When you were 11, it is not unlikely that you were sexually attracted to prepubertal children.”

She adds,

That’s not paedophilia. Couldn’t he find a dictionary?

Well, quite. And Dr Moen’s readiness to build a rickety argument on the blatant misuse of basic terms - carefully omitting the obvious adult-child power dynamic - does rather cast some doubt on his motives. The attempt to equate the ill-defined crushes of middle-school children with some creepy middle-aged man perving on those same middle-school children is, I think, telling.

We’ve been here before, of course

Via pst314.

 

Heavens, a button. I wonder what it does. 

Comments