Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Wombaticus Rex » Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:32 pm
Jerky » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:28 pm wrote:Wombat, he's literally accusing me of being in league with -- a co-conspirator among -- baby-eating, baby-fucking baby-murderers. So pardon my fucking scorn if his feathers get ruffled by a little salty fucking language. Boo-fucking-hoo.
J
by Project Willow » Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:45 pm
Salon Writer Todd Nickerson: “I’ve always maintained that, if we lived in … more sex-positive society … I WOULD engage in sex play with a child … I will never deny that.”
...
1. “Pedophiles Don’t Harm Children; Society Does”
Over the years, Nickerson has written quite a bit about pedophilia online under the username Markaba 2.0. He has never hidden behind internet anonymity, having identified himself by his full name on the forum. His post history paints a clear picture of his overall philosophy regarding pedophilia. The fundamental premise of Nickerson’s thought is that children are in many cases not harmed by having sex with pedophiles. He writes:
My goal is to protect children from harm, not from sex. Society believes these two things are pretty much one-in-the-same in the case of children; there is ample evidence that this is untrue, and that, in fact, society itself generates much of the harm.
This is the typical progressive argument: people aren’t scarred by immoral actions; they’re just scarred by societal attitudes. Children who are molested by pedophiles don’t live a life of pain because of the abuse. It’s just that society tells them the abuse is wrong, so they feel bad about it. As he later writes:
…consensual sex play likely wouldn’t be traumatic or mess kids up so much if society didn’t make a big deal out of it.
This is the first step in the process of destigmatizing pedophilia: erasing the victim out of existence. Upon the premise that children are not harmed by molesters, Nickerson pushes his agenda even further and claims that children need to be taught about sex by pedophiles.
2. “Children Want & Need Pedophiles”
Nickerson hypothesizes that evolution has introduced pedophilia as a sexual orientation so that pedophiles might teach children about sex. In this sense, he explains, children actually need pedophiles:
I believe that children need us as much as we need them, that there is an evolutionary aspect to our orientation that has yet to be determined (though I have several theories.)
Victim-blaming has always been rampant in the pedophile community, so it’s no surprise that Nickerson’s next claim is that children have a sort of radar for pedophiles and desire to be around them:
For the ped, I supply that this IS our evolutionary purpose, or one of them: to provide children with a “bridge” between the child world and the adult world, to allow them to practice relationships and sex safely and on their level and terms. Children do seem to know intuitively when one of us is around, and all that pint-up curiosity about sex and adult bodies and romance manifests when we’re around, sometimes rather quickly and persistently (as was the case with J.)
If you thought this couldn’t get any more disturbing, Nickerson moves on to explain how “J”, a five-year-old girl he babysat, came onto him:
Which is why I have stressed time and again that I believe it is imperitave to allow the CHILD to take the lead. In my situation with J, she “came onto” me (in her naive but rather aggressive way) rather obviously and for a prolongued amount of time — I mean over days. She obviously had given her desire alot of thought, and it was both to be touched by me and to touch me in return.
In fact, I noticed a tendency in Nickerson’s overall post history: he again and again references children “coming onto” him, while all the while emphasizing that he’s never made a move on a single child. One’s credulity can only be stretched so far. Forgive me if I can’t accept Nickerson’s view of the world as a place where children desperately pursue sex with pedophiles while the pedophiles themselves are chastely and virtuously rebuffing these advances.
3. “Children Benefit from Pedophiles”
Nickerson goes on to assert that children not only need and want pedophiles, but that they also benefit from them. He explains his idea that the evolutionary purpose of pedophiles to teach children about sex with the analogy of a swimming lesson:
…in fact, I’d argue that it’s actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I’ve already mentioned it twice.) Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that — refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, “Well, you’re on your own!” That’s what society does to children in the name of protecting them.
You might be wondering why it shouldn’t be left to children’s parents to teach them about sex. After all, no responsible parent would wait until a child was eighteen to broach the subject. Well, Nickerson has thoughts on this as well.
This is why, when people say things like, “How can pedos be a good judge of my child’s readiness for sex?” I find such statements or questions to be ironic at best. I can turn it around and ask, “How can parents, who have a vested interest in controlling their children, be a good judge of whether children are ready?”
The relation of parent, child, and pedophile has at this point been completely reversed. It’s not the pedophile who mistreats the child, but the parent. It is the pedophiles, not the parents, who have the child’s best interests at heart, and who are better qualified to make decisions about when the child is ready for sex:
Yes, I DO believe we pedos have more empathy for children than the average parent does, and as such, I DO believe we are better judges, on average, of what children can and cannot handle.
His ideology is complete. While parents are the nefarious, controlling agents of society, pedophiles are compassionate individuals who know best when children are ready for sex. Children are quite eager to learn from these benevolent teachers, always jumping at the chance for a pedophile’s caress.
4. “If Society Changes, We Will Act”
In his Salon piece, Nickerson states unequivocally that it is wrong for a pedophile to act on his urges. But the detailed worldview outlined in his internet forum history says otherwise. Really, the only villains in Nickerson’s story are society and parents. Without these harmful influences, children could finally act on their urges to engage in relationships with pedophiles.
So what if society does change? What if we do become more sympathetic to pedophilia? Nickerson is clear:
Once again, I’ve always maintained that, if we lived in a different, more sex-positive society and it were legal to do so, I WOULD engage in sex play with a child that I loved if she wanted it and initiated it. I will never deny that.
That’s just what he does end up denying in his piece for Salon.
So we are left to ask what Nickerson and Salon’s true goal is in seeking to raise sympathy for the plight of pedophiles. Can we believe him when he claims his entire worldview has actually turned 180 degrees from what he repeatedly espoused in detail on internet forums? Or, was it just that his current rhetoric is far more effective at accomplishing the goal of making society more accepting and sex-positive — a means to an end? Even if his beliefs have changed over the years, can we truly believe that if society became accepting of pedophilia, his views wouldn’t change once again? And even if Nickerson would remain “virtuous,” would others in the pedophile community do the same?
by General Patton » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:30 pm
Wombaticus Rex » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:32 pm wrote:Jerky » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:28 pm wrote:Wombat, he's literally accusing me of being in league with -- a co-conspirator among -- baby-eating, baby-fucking baby-murderers. So pardon my fucking scorn if his feathers get ruffled by a little salty fucking language. Boo-fucking-hoo.
J
I don't and I won't, the onus is on you to be an adult. I'm asking both of you to disengage from this. Ridiculous accusations are ridiculous, not offensive.
by backtoiam » Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:51 pm
This is why, when people say things like, “How can pedos be a good judge of my child’s readiness for sex?” I find such statements or questions to be ironic at best. I can turn it around and ask, “How can parents, who have a vested interest in controlling their children, be a good judge of whether children are ready?”
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39194#p573725
There are 30 events planned including “Getting Laid,” “Sex Positivity; Queer as a Verb,” “Bow Chicka Bow Woah,” “How to Talk to Your Parents About Sex,” “Loud and Queer,” and “How Many Licks Does It Take…” – a workshop about oral sex.
covered in part by university grants, student fees and contributions from academic departments.
by km artlu » Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:36 pm
I wonder where the money and concept comes from that booted Salon into the netsphere, at it's true origin. Somebody is covering his ass, or his ass would be getting questioned by the cops.
by Iamwhomiam » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:16 am
by Jerky » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:00 am
by backtoiam » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:31 am
km artlu » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:36 pm wrote:I wonder where the money and concept comes from that booted Salon into the netsphere, at it's true origin. Somebody is covering his ass, or his ass would be getting questioned by the cops.
Bit of a synch here -- soon after you posted that I heard a man named Milo Yiannopoulos say, on Rogan's podcast, that he'd bet that tracing the money behind Salon would lead eventually to the Kochs. For the purpose of discrediting progressives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos
Yiannopoulos organised a method of ranking the most promising technology start-ups in Europe, The Telegraph Tech Start-Up 100, in 2011. It operated through an events company, called Wrong Agency, that Yiannopoulos had started with David Rosenberg, a friend from Cambridge University. The company was dissolved shortly after the ceremony that awarded the top start-up.
by General Patton » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:32 am
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/i-have- ... 64278.html
Tweens are supposed to experiment with their sexuality. It’s normal.
It’s Halloween season again. So far, my nine-year-old daughter with heavy tween tendencies has wanted to be a broken porcelain doll, a Cheshire Cat girl, and a Galaxy Cat. I’m rooting for the Cheshire Cat girl, personally. All of these costumes will likely involve either a short skirt or dress-over leggings, or just leggings and a shirt (that’s the Galaxy Cat).
She’s not yet at an age where she wants to explore being sexy with her Halloween costume, something I fully expect and understand her wanting to do in a couple of years.
I’ve already read a half dozen articles so far this year about “sexy” costumes for tween and teen girls. Let’s be very clear about this problem with sexy costumes for kids: we’re only talking about girls here. I haven’t heard a soul complain about boy costumes — and that’s telling.
And sure, we sexualize girls pretty early these days, at least when it comes to clothes, while also panicking about pedophiles and sex offenders. It’s a weird dichotomy.
When Shakespeare wrote “Romeo and Juliet,” there was no such thing as the period we now call adolescence. You were a child, and then when you became sexually mature, you were an adult.
Because of more abundant food, sexual maturity now happens earlier, and the concept of the sexually mature but “growing child” of adolescence was created.
...
So basically, you’ve got sexually mature humans forced to live under a newly-constructed definition of “child” and behave accordingly. This conflicts with every signal they’re getting from their own bodies.
Our kids’ bodies are packed full of hormones sending their brains all sorts of chemical messages about sex. For the vast majority of humanity’s existence, tweens and teens became sexually active as soon as their bodies were fertile.
So tweens and teens are supposed to experiment with their image, their gender identity, and yes, even their sexuality. It’s normal.
by guruilla » Fri Oct 16, 2015 11:45 am
General Patton » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:32 am wrote:So tweens and teens are supposed to experiment with their image, their gender identity, and yes, even their sexuality. It’s normal.
by General Patton » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:34 pm
https://archive.is/7sX2v#selection-3149.0-3153.255
Sexy police officer. Sexy nurse. Sexy cat. Sexy angel. Sexy devil.
It’s time to start talking with your preteen or teenage daughter about her Halloween costume. Chances are, she has been plotting it out for weeks, if not longer — even though she may very well insist that she hasn’t spent one second thinking about it yet.
...
“Halloween is supposed to be about embracing the sinister, but when you are a girl, ‘sinister’ equals ‘sexual,’” points out Katie Cappiello, co-director and artistic director of the New York City-based theater program the Arts Effect. “It’s the one day when girls are expected to, and can actually justify, pushing the boundaries — but then they are punished for doing what they’re ‘supposed’ to do. It’s an impossible situation.”
by Elvis » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:56 am
by backtoiam » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:02 am
by General Patton » Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:31 am
by tapitsbo » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:02 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
