|
||
| …. |
Date: May 02, 2024
“His opinion on the evidence of harm might surprise you. I wonder if new evidence has come to light in the past decade which has changed his view?” It’s been known for decades, that the red herring of “automatic injury to children” is a false assertion, forcefully asserted in order to force mass conformity…and institute vicious, inhumane punishment, for failure to conform. Of course…some reading this may retort, by implying that I am “including literal rape and forced sex acts” whenever I reference childhood sexuality, inter-generational sexuality, and human sexual relations…But if you have any familiarity with my past discussions of this…then you already know, I exclude all forms of sexual brutality from this and consider them violations…and that has always been the case with me…I have never wavered on this. === |
…. |
| Sub-Blog Archive | M.A. Net |
||
Our Love Frontier
Our Love Frontier 
I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I saw the title of this clip: “leading expert on pedophilia”. How is it these toxic dominant narrative charlatans resurface ad nauseum, like turds that refuse to flush?
If you really want a leading expert in the field, and discover why, then you need look no further than here and listen carefully to what he says: https://fstube.net/w/tBPAgGAppDvq8eSAf5BoK7
To be fair, it’s Eivind’s chosen title…and I don’t think he is quite that deeply involved in the more refined and established pedophilia research…
It’s still totally of note, that even James Cantor makes such an admission. Maybe there needs to be more nuance and description here, as to why this is relevant…James, after all, does not believe pedophilia should be legalized.
The take away point for me…is that even people who have become of note on the “pedophile research” front in the last decade, who condemn pedophilia in practice, know that various manifestations of pedophilia in practice are at worst still harmless.
Of course, Edward Brongersma is going to blow pretty much anyone else out of the water…even if only for the fact that he is unapologetically to the point, honest, deeply knowledgeable and matter of fact. He wasn’t intimidated by the stigma and social backlash…So, he said what was on his mind, as opposed to making concessions.
I’m pretty sure I have that video earmarked for sharing…Don’t think I’ve watched it yet, though.
No, I am sure Eivind is not involved to any great degree. He appears to have given up on the MRA leadership front, and instead adopting a pro-MAP stance: https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2024/03/behold-james-cantor-leading-witch.html.
My recollection was that Cantor published papers about fifteen years ago on topics such as: “prenatal neurodevelopmental perturbations increase the risk of pedophilia in males”, and “cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men”. These reminded me back then of a certain antisemitism drive in Germany during the 1930s, and elsewhere at other times: https://www.philaholocaustmemorial.org/antisemitism-explained/.
In my view, Cantor’s research enabled him to ride and amplify the wave of paedohysteria, and in the process increase his standing and self-aggrandisement in the pseudoscientific world he inhabits – all at the expense of a persecuted sexual minority group that had no means of defending itself.
I note the following conversation in boychat between Observer and Cantor, albeit more than ten years ago:
O: ‘So then, are you saying that so long as there is no coercion, manipulation, secrecy, or courting – i.e., if the child initiates the sex as sometimes seems to be the case (e.g. Bender & Blau, Sandfort, Tindall) – that you approve of and support consensual sexually expressed boy/older male interactions? Would you be willing to give expert testimony to that effect in a court trial where a “pedophile” has been accused of “harming” a perfectly willing child who insists he was not harmed – as some of them do? I think you would have a flood of requests!! Yes or no, please.’
C: ‘First, I don’t do any expert testimony at all. I figured out long ago that that was the path to hell. Nothing biases anyone more quickly than does having money riding on one’s opinion. I could buy a house on the money I have turned down. In fact, I think the clinical/scientific community trusts me exactly because I have no financial motives behind my opinions. Second, if (let’s say) I ended up on the stand because I was compelled to (it’s happened to me once), I would not for a minute hesitate to say that there is no evidence for the sexual interactions themselves being harmful. That said …, we are in the real world. We don’t get kid plus adult randomly getting together. We get kid plus adult plus some questions about whether there was coercion/secrecy/pre-existing problems/etc. (plus lawyers and others manipulating how things look). In such a situation, I wouldn’t be of much help. That would take a child development expert, which is not at all my expertise. Is that a help?’
O: ‘Let’s think this through. Sex with children, according to the DSM, is pedophilic behavior, and it is what identifies “pedophiles” as mentally defective and/or ill. Just having “pedophilia” is not a mental illness unless it causes the bearer distress, but “acting out” is. Sex with children is what specifically is criminal in most jurisdictions. Not coercion, manipulation, secrecy, or courting kids. The sex is criminal because it is assumed to be harmful, and is spelled out as such in statutes. But you “would not for a minute hesitate to say that there is no evidence for the sexual interactions themselves being harmful.” This would seem to indicate that you hold that pedophilic behavior is not intrinsically harmful, and thus should not be considered criminal in the legal system. You may not like this conclusion and try to tap-dance away from it, but it seems inescapable. If pedophilic behavior is neither mental illness nor criminal, what is your point is studying the white matter, handedness, IQs, stature, ad infinitum, of so-called “pedophiles?” And why do you argue that pedophiles are “more to be pitied than censured” (Gray, 1898), rather than just left alone? Shouldn’t your fruitless, senseless, and destructive witch hunt for boys and older males who choose to enjoy sex together be truncated? You could always take up something more helpful to humanity, such as the sex life of the African tsetse fly.’
I could find no response from Cantor to the questions Observer asked of him.
I also recall Tom O’Carroll describing James Cantor, in the following extract: ‘… a research psychologist whose hissy fits, dubious science, egotistic self-promotion and evangelical moral entrepreneurship in “support” of paedophiles …’
Cantor has not been an ideal advocate by any means, on the question of legalizing pedophilia…for sure.
I think my softer touch on the issue of him, results from the fact that any cohesive grouping and movement for “liberating pedophilia”, was largely vanished and in disarray…
At the time Cantor came into prominence, I was more focused on just humanizing MAPs, and in a community of MAPs where this was the primary focus.
Some may grimmes at this, but I was intermingling with Virtuous Pedophile type MAPs, over a handful of years…”Legalization of pedophilia”, was largely abandoned among MAPs, especially if you wanted to freely be on mainstream platforms.
I don’t agree with everything Cantor did or said…I just saw it, that he existed in more of a gray area, and was beneficial in his own way at the time.
He was there on twitter, fighting to get them to leave MAPs alone, the first time they wanted to mass purge us for no valid reason.
I have a hard time throwing Cantor out with the trash.
My problem is I find it hard to forgive, particularly on the topic of my sexuality and the misrepresentation of it by influential people and agencies.
I totally understand.