Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
On 27 July 2017, I uploaded what I thought was an amusing anecdote of a discussion I had with my third son regarding the pro-pedophilia site, Heart Progress. Despite what I consider to be the horrific nature of the site and its agenda — i.e., the normalization of sexual relations between adults and pre-pubescent children, I tried to keep it light in tone and focused more on my child’s reactions and our discussion. My third son is 17, and I have an open topic policy with all of my children. If they have heard about it, it needs to be discussed so that misinformation does not grow and fester.
The video touches upon the difference between Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and Ephebophilia (the interest in pre-pubescent, young teen, and older teens). It also discussed the history of the normalization of Pedophilia, particularly pederasty, via the person of Hakim Bey and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
The only responses to date are from Pedophile Apologists.
Now I have no way to know (& really no inclination to find out) if the responses are from one or more people. Since the anonymous postings are trivial, I have just rolled them into the same discussion.
It all started with some anonymous poster stating that “Pedosexuality is natural, its OK, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it.”
I wrote back that animals often engage in unsavory practices, google did not give me any hits to support intercourse with sexually immature members of the species, and that yes, if shame is necessary to keep one from hurting children, then one should feel shame.
I am going to interject here with some definitions. The vague terms were refined later in the thread, but one could interpret the exchange as my moving the goalposts. From the beginning, I meant intercourse to mean “penetrative sexual intercourse” and “sexually immature” as pre-pubescent. Fortunately, my “opponents” are as poor in reasoning and logic as they are fact deficient, so they did not capitalize on the vagueness to perform any equivocation, nor to accuse me of moving the goalposts. However, I do hope that some of the people listening are better versed in reasoning than the posters to this thread.
Anyway, this is where Otis Jenkins jumped in. I will admit that I did not recognize “Frans de waal” as a name. He claimed that the Bonobos were our closest relatives and that they were wanton pedophiles. After I demanded a citation, he gave me an article with page numbers and a claim that he had read the article. I then procured the article (and some others) and found three things. One, the page citation was the whole article, it matched the Wikipedia article citation, and the article did not support his assertion of penetrative sex with pre-pubescent members of their species. We will discuss the article later.
When I told him this and demanded a real citation (i.e. page) he responded with a video whose description (in Italian) indicated sex with a youth. When I pointed this out to him he told me it was obvious that it was a child. He then responded with another video showing a mother and child, where the mother rubbed the girl’s genitals to soothe it to sleep. Evidently, this was supposed to prove that the first video actually depicted a pre-pubescent since “they were the same size”. He got pissy when I pointed out that neither actually counted as proof and that I was not an expert on bonobos such that I could visibly identify age and sexual maturity.
After a weeks worth of exchanges, of which I have taken screen shots so even if he deletes his comments I have a record, he still hasn’t provided me with the actual citation from the article which he claims supports his position. He has also called me a Nazi repeatedly for disagreeing with him. Obviously, such a charge has duly chastised me and I am torn with agony. He has also failed to respond to my question of whether one should engage in other behaviors such as not giving food to women unless they put out, or whether one should kill the children of women who refuse to have sex with oneself.
You can read the thread for yourself, if you so choose. As these things go, it isn’t all that long.
As a result of this thread, I’ve learned far more about the bonobos that I could reasonably have wanted. They are perpetually caught in the 70s-80s hedonistic lifestyle. They do not seem to pair bond, and will engage in sex for any reason from boredom to food to apologize — and sometimes even for the purpose of procreating.
The article we will discuss is 1990 paper by Frans B.M. de Waal titled “Sociosexual Behavior Used for Tension Regulation in All Age and Sex Combinations Among Bonobos.” It was published in the book Pedophilia, pp.378-393.
The first thing to notice about the article is its age. This does not invalidate the research, but it does beg the question of what more recent research indicates — and why more recent research is not used to bolster the pro-pedophiliacs arguments. From the limited research I did on the topic, I found nothing to contradict de Waal’s findings, but I must stress that the amount of research I did was not at the level of what I would have engaged had I been writing a paper for instructor or peer review.
Next, It should be noted that this study was done on captive bonobos and might not be indicative of wild bonobo behavior. Again, other papers seem to indicate that the behavior is similar, but the fact of their captivity should be born in mind. After all, the Wolf hierarchy study received much criticism for this when people tried to discredit the the resulting idea of Alpha-Beta-Gamma-Omega roles (& which partially succeeded in collapsing the hierarchy to merely two levels, Alpha-Beta).
First off, it should be noted that in the entire 16 pages of the article, it does not support the assertion of penetrative sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent members of the species. In fact, while the article does indicate sexual play, it never involved penetration, and it was always initiated by the child. Essentially, the child would rub her genitals on the other members. I quote from page 382: “Mounts with the female infant never resulted in intromission or ejaculation”. Also from 382: “sociosexual contacts of adults and adolescents with the infant were initiated by the infant herself”.
Now while the article on bonobos does not support pedophilia, it does make a strong case for the normalization of prostitution. On page 387: “The interaction [food sharing] could even take place as an exchange, e.g., a female presents to a male who is holding a large bundle of branches and leaves and takes the entire bundle out of his hands immediately following sexual intercourse.” If we follow the bonobo way of life, women don’t get dinner until the men get the nookie.
Now Otis posited that bonobos were the “closest”, but in reality, that divergence was some 8 million years ago, as was that with the chimpanzees. Both can be accurately called humans closest relatives. However, both show different mating strategies and sexual “mores” (for want of a better term). You can read about that on page 387-389.
Now Otis seemed to be arguing that since bonobos were closely related to humans, we should emulate their behaviors. This is just stupid. First there is the logical fallacy of analogy going on here — or perhaps identity would be more accurate. Essentially, to say that because A is like B whatever qualities A has must also be present in B is wrong. This can only be the case if A=B and B=A. That is, if Humans are Bonobos and Bonobos are Humans. Since this is false, Otis’ argument fails logically.
However, let us look more deeply. Humans have a civilization and culture. We (arguably) have the ability to reason. We also have a greater intellect. Humans also have a longer maturation process. A Bonobo goes from infant to puberty in 6 years. Rather than forming family units through pair-bonding, they exist in a looser collective reminiscent of a free-love commune.
Humans are not suited for a social structure such as the bonobo displays. This can be seen in the wreckage of the 1960s were free love communes imploded. Simply put, if you want to live as a bonobo, you should go live with the bonobos. I will admit to an abstract curiosity as to how the bonobos would react if a pedophile actually penetrated one of their children. I am also curious as to how the pedophile would react to all of the necessary adult sexual interaction of both hetro & homosexual nature. Poor little pedophile would have to have sex with adults too.
Also, let us not pretend that “love” is a part of this. Love is a poetic description of the pair bonding process. There is no love in the sexual activity of the bonobos. One could argue that there is no love in any animal sexual activity, even those who pair bond, but that gets into a more philosophical realm.
So yeah, to anyone trying to normalize pedophilia: You need medical assistance before you harm a child and need to be removed from society. Your naturalist arguments do not appear to be correct. Evidence cited in favor of nurturing sexual relations with adults and pre-pubescent children fails to support your position.
Even were such evidence to be found, you would still need to demonstrate that such examples are applicable to a different species. Even among humans, the fact that Joe robbed a store does not mean that you should be allowed to rob a store. In a similar fashion, just because the simpler brain structures of one of our primate relative that diverged from our common ancestor 8 million years ago (& not all of our primate relatives) allow some sexual play with immature members of their species, this does not indicate that it is proper or natural for human beings to engage in such play.
Hopefully, this will wrap up this rather stupid and disgusting exchange.
Truth is found in the Rubble of FalsehoodLove is the law, love under will
This is a video response to the rather inane thread by Otis Jenkins, who seems to be an advocate for having sex with children. If this is a mis-characterization, Otis, please let me know.
For legal reasons, please do not interpret this as a call to harass Otis for his views.
Original Video
Citations:
de Waal, Frans B.M. Sociosexual Behavior Used for Tension Regulation in All Age and Sex Combinations Among Bonobos. (1990)
Primate Factsheet: Bonobos
Intro/Outro Music is from the Free Music Archive.
Borrowed without their knowledge for non-commercial purposes.
There opinions are their own and the use of their music should not be taken as agreeing with my positions or even as awareness that I even exist.
