Daily Archives: May 28, 2024

Zelensky BEGS For More Help, Says US Allows Israel to Use Its Weapons Why Not UKRAINE?…

Leave a reply

Date: May 28, 2024

01) LINK

“Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave give new updates on the Ukraine-Russia war. #russia #ukraine”

We have never been obliged to fund, nor to provide weapons for this!

It is insane that any of this was ever even happening!

The USA is being robbed and desolated.

===

This Video Game Trend is Killing Single Player Games…

Leave a reply

….

Date: May 28, 2024

01) LINK

“Some great studios behind great singleplayer games have pivoted to live service multiplayer games. What’s going on?”

Same problem as what’s happened with the music industry…wealthy parasites who didn’t even like music, descended and bought up “everything”…turning the whole establishment into a slave to mercilessly bilk money out of…They allow just enough pleasing content to get released, to keep the majority engaged…Which is why music coming out of the mainstream studios today overwhelmingly sucks.

They’ve abandoned proven, legacy talent…because they want mediocracy to be the norm…They want every one to accept the mundane, which is why it’s the only thing out there anymore.

If you want good, new music…you have to look to independents.

===

 ….
…..

Excerpts from Paidika: John P. DeCecco Interview (Part 2)…

2 Replies

….

May 28, 2024

Thanks to feinmann!

Please forgive any mispronunciations.
–

Excerpts from Paidika: Dr. John P. DeCecco interview (Part 2)

Dr. John P. DeCecco is a Professor of Psychology and Human Sexuality at San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, and Director of Human Sexuality Studies for the University. He is also Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality (CERES), and Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality. The interview took place in December 1987 in Amsterdam, where Dr. DeCecco is a visiting professor.

Society versus Paedophilia

Pdk: Why is society’s protectiveness of the child so strong, and why has it created such a violent reaction to paedophilia, especially in the last five years?

JDC: I think you need to ask, ‘What are they protecting?’ ‘It seems to me that what they are protecting, is a whole system of adult ownership of children and control of their development, of dictating to them desire and character so that they grow up to be mindless workers and consumers. The ordinary family is suffocating kids’ imaginations and feelings, including their sexuality. There is so much economic and political power that rests on the continuation of family control and oppression, that anyone who threatens it is going to be severely punished. The family is the only recognized institution for the rearing of children, and other organizations are acting in place of the parent, and the law says it that way, that they have parental custodial rights, even though we have legions of unfit and abusive parents. It was the genius of the Greeks – well, it’s not genius, because they could not do anything but what they did – that they organized homosexuality so that it was congruent with the family, and therefore did not have this opposition. I think we need to investigate the family’s mistreatment of children, which is in many cases outrageous. The feminists are calling it patriarchy, I think that needs to be taken much more seriously by non-feminists.

Pdk: Yet the feminists, who are precisely the ones who most condemn the family as patriarchy, are also the ones who most condemn paedophilia. Do you have any comment on that?

JDC: The feminists have their own dilemmas, and their own contradictions. To the extent that they have taken on the identity of women, which puts them at a disjuncture to all of men, and all of humanity that’s not woman, to the extent that they are women – identified women, they’ve backed themselves into a corner because this category of ‘woman’ then has to have unique characteristics, which will set them off from men. They have had to come up with such things as ‘women are nurturant’, whereas men can never be, and to the extent that they are nurturant, of course, this puts them into a very traditional role, protecting women from these awful males who are all bad anyway, because one of the characteristics of males is selfish aggressiveness. So, the only posture that a male adult could have toward a child would be one of exploitation, not one of nurturance. In fact, I think these feminists are jealous of men who show the kind of nurturance that only females are supposed to possess, because from what I know of paedophile relationships, they are supremely nurturant, in a way that should make most parents crumble with shame. The children respond so well to the care in paedophile relationships because they are getting what they want, their desires and their needs are being met. The fact that these relationships are seen as only sexual is a way of hiding the inadequacies of biological parents. We also don’t have to look at what paedophile relationships with these kids really consist of.

Pdk: Could you enlarge on what needs of kids you see being met in paedophile relationships?

JDC: Men who have paedophile relationships may have insights into the kid’s need for freedom and at the same time for guidance and protection, for a home base to come back to, and I think you need to tell about that out of your own understanding of these relationships. I don’t think you’re going to get this from most heterosexual researchers. I would certainly not leave out the fact that these kids are finding in paedophile relationships something that they cannot find in their parents. Even in the well-established homes of the professional class, kids turn to paedophile relationships, to men who have time to give them, men who are cultured and who are responsive to them. Child abuse can be seen as the other side of this coin. That kids are being beaten is partly because they are expressing needs and desires, or even satisfying them, in ways that the family cannot accept, for one reason or another. If you’re a heterosexual moral majoritarian, you can say the breakdown in discipline is because parents have been neglecting their duties as parents. But another way of looking at the breakdown of discipline is that many parents do not satisfy the needs of their children, that the children have outgrown their family, and the parents are not allowing that, and are beating them as a last desperate effort to shore-up the foundations of their authority.

Pdk: One of the other problems in the family is incest, which is often lumped together with paedophilia. Do you have any comments on it?

JDC: I have heard that often the men who have been involved in incest are men who have been defeated, who feel their failure as men and as fathers. They haven’t been able to sustain employment – that’s why they are home with the daughters in the first place – and they feel that they have not met the expectation of their wives, in many cases that they’ve never been adequate lovers, breadwinners, parents, and in some desperate moment they often turn to a teenage daughter who intuitively senses this defeat in the father and will give in to his sexual needs. It doesn’t take any great wisdom to realize that sexuality is complexly related to other things in our lives and that often what looks like a grossly sexual act is really the expression of other things. In incest, the sexual act expresses the need of the defeated man to regain power. Incest has been depicted as so horrible, and the adult has been so terribly stigmatized, that we’ve been afraid to even get into the dynamics of it, but I know some stories that my students have told me and they’re terribly complex. I think the guilt that the young person carries into later life is not only the guilt of the sexual exploitation, but it’s the fact that they were encumbered with this feeling of defeat in an adult, and tried some form of nurturance, and it couldn’t work because the child could not shoulder this reversal of responsibility. But again, sexuality is a nice, neat category used by the establishment to run away from the examination of problems, because they’re afraid of looking at the failures of the family very closely, and it’s much easier to prosecute a few individuals for sexual abuse.

Pdk: Can we return to the question of why it should be now, at this time, that the hysteria against paedophilia, and other sexual acts that threaten the family, should be growing?

JDC: I think Jeffrey Weeks is right. He’s saying that the establishment is really besieged right now, the family is really besieged, there’s a lot of failure, in marriage, in love, in affection, in bonds between children and parents, that we’re confronted with a whole area of great social failure. Now Weeks contends that there is a whole other movement coming in, which is typified by the gay movement; I think that’s terribly optimistic. I think that we’ve simply got to take another view of what individuals are, what few real choices we have in our lives, which are much more limited than we once believed they were. We’ve got to incorporate that all in our dealings with children, we’ve got to learn to deal with children in ways that keep us in contact with them but also out of their lives. They’ve got to have the space to understand who they are, to know their desires, and there’s where I think men who have paedophile relationships often achieve that balance better than parents. The parents feel so overwhelmed by the task that they move between total neglect and total control, and the kids need something else – they need a distancing from the adult, and the adult’s presence at crucial moments. I think men who have paedophile relationships also have some insights into the balancing of distance and closeness.

Pdk: In your discussion of paedophilia, in terms of the exploration of childhood sexuality, you don’t seem to take into consideration the reality of the paedophiles themselves, especially in the midst of oppression. Are the paedophiles themselves getting lost here?

JDC: I think that you have an obvious need; you have a help that you can provide one another, because you’ re not getting it from any other place. I have total respect for that, and I’m poignantly aware of it since I’ve been in Amsterdam, where there is this whole emigre group of men who have been run out of their countries because of the so-called “abuse” of children. For those who know nothing of your persecution, you need to describe your experiences, but you need to ask questions, that is, why it is happening, and I think the ‘why’ questions will take you in many different directions. They will certainly take you back to the family, to the guardianship of childhood sexuality – that is why I dwelt so much on that. A question that always comes up when spokesmen for paedophile groups speak to my classes in San Francisco, is: ‘You talk so much about the welfare of these kids, and how much you’ re doing for them, but what are you getting out of it?’ I think what men who have paedophile relationships get out of them, needs to be clearly delineated. The fact that the relationships are parental and affectionate, and that the sexuality is worked into that much larger framework, is not understood. That there can be that combination is surprising to most people, who still think of sex when it’s cross-generational as exploitive and manipulative. I think your telling of your relationships is very important, particularly how you must balance your own fulfilment against theirs, if there come moments when these are not harmonious. I think many parents need to learn how to do that with their own children, and maybe you have insight into that that they don’t have.

Pdk: You are a professor of psychology. One of the major social forces opposing paedophilia is the psychological profession. It provides research which opposes paedophilia, and takes an active role in the courts, giving testimony to convict paedophiles. It also advises courts on sentencing, and in Sexually Dangerous Person procedures. Do you have observations on the state of psychological research in this area, or on its funding and responsiveness to power?

JDC: Psychology has played a shameful role carrying out the government’s research priorities. You must understand the process of getting research grants. The grants I got from the Federal government were to study only aspects of homosexuality which represented failures or victimization. If I were to go to the government and say: ‘I think there’s an inventiveness in relationships between two men or two women that married heterosexuals really could profit by, how the going in and out of these relationships is negotiated with much less trauma, and sometimes with enormous care and understanding, that we could well use in the present era of divorce’, I would never have gotten a single grant. But I could get a grant to study jail rape, for studying ageing homosexuals who presumably the government believes never have sex anymore, or for discrimination. Today psychologists will get grants for incest and for child abuse, and violence against children and pornography. Also, these studies can be experimentally designed, and the government now prefers controlled experiments; it fits in with their idea that all sexuality should be controlled, even within the context of research. So psychology has been opposed to paedophilia because the government has been opposed to paedophilia, and that’s where psychology gets its money.

Psychology pretends to be a science, in the sense of a natural science. It can never be that; it shows a terrible misunderstanding of the natural sciences and of its own biases. It can never be a perspective-less discipline. That is, any human being looking at another human being, at human conduct or relationships or studying human phenomena, does so from one, or several, of various human perspectives. Whereas, in the natural sciences, presumably, we come up with the truth that will stand the test from many different perspectives, so that in essence science becomes perspective-less. But that is never the case when human beings are studying other human beings. Psychology also is not a predictive science. Again, it is a pretence to being a natural science. I know one forensic clinical psychologist, who has practically dropped his private practice now. He gets involved in child abuse cases, and it’s very lucrative. He is flown all around the country; he’s paid for every day that he’s away from home and works on the case, all of his hotel accommodations – it’s a whole profession.

Previous Parts:

Excerpts from Paidika: John P. DeCecco Interview (Part 1)…


===

 ….
Sub-Blog Archive – EQF Library Archive