Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Alienation and dangerous sexual deviation

Alienation and dangerous sexual deviation: How our reaction makes things worse

  • 1

Online child porn

For the most part I agree with you, we (as humans) do tend to isolate the people in our society who most need help. But I have to disagree with the idea that online child porn surfing is a thought crime only. Children are often put into abusive, degrading and horrific positions for the sake of these photo/video sessions, and their emotional/physical pain is funded by the viewers of these media. The small numbers of people who feel sexually attracted to children and are far enough removed from humanity to consciously act on this attraction, while bad enough (for the welfare of the children involved) are small peanuts compared to the numbers of (there is no other way to put it) ASSHOLES who commit these crimes solely for the PROFITS available from this market.

By no means am I saying that as long as there is no profit involved that this behavior is tolerable, what I am saying is that due to the increased availability of these media, many people who may have pursued lives untainted by the stigma of these crimes (such as your college friend), were much more easily pushed into a life altering mistake. And what do the marketers of this crap care as long as they get their buck.

I will also comment that although it is often true that people are angered by paedophilia due to latent feelings of their own, many are also angered because like myself they are parents of children and see anything that has the potential to harm their children as "the enemy". These people will of course feel justified in their hatred of paedophiles, but I would like to caution them of one thing. As parents, they have brought into being lives that are not copies of their own, but individual life forces with thoughts and feelings often as alien to a parent as any other strangers. They have also made a commitment to that child of unconditional love which should not be broken under any circumstance. My caution is that if you cannot find forgiveness and compassion in your heart for the paedophile, what happens when your child becomes the paedophile? While most parents will feel this inconceivable, the fact that every paedophile was the child of somebody makes this a possibility that any parent might someday have to face, and I hope for their sake and the sake of their child that they have the fortitude to face it as well as you (vexen) did.

Few people have the moral fortitude to face a situation as you did in college and still refer to the person involved as a "college friend". Befriending the friendless is a thought often espoused by "Christians", and rarely practiced, so I have to applaud you (though you may take it as an insult) for being a better Christian than many of those who make the claim. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep reading.

Re: Online child porn

Thankyou for commenting.

What you said about parents makes lots of sense!

Child Abuse

The general tone of your ideas seem to be sound and thoughtful, although I don't really approve of satanism any more or less than any other religion.

These stories we tell each other help us get a handle on the world. For example: Planting corn in the nude produces a better harvest! Is that because God witnesses our 'sacrifice' or because, without clothes we are better able to sense the right the soil temperature, moisture content, meteorological conditions and so on for germination?

Children, as you rightly mention, are sexually active ab-initio. Mutual masturbation is very common, particularly among boys. To label this as either homosexuality or somehow 'deviant' seems to me to be child abuse of the worst order. Germain Greer's book 'The Beauty of Boys' explores this social perversion in some detail.

Serial killers, it seems, are often lonely boys who kill some small animal, and then have a wank to cheer themselves up. This 'successful' pattern of behavior, if repeated, may become habitual and amplified, until eventually homicide occurs.

Religion is no different: if praying seems to be successful ("Please, God, make my maths homework right, and awarded a distinction")then the process will be repeated so that some imaginary God, rather than the worshiper, deserves the credit for success.

Child abuse, it seems to me, has more to do with society's attitude to child sexuality, and the severe guild that can induce in the child, than the actual event.

Direct harm occurs when a child (or indeed an adult) is physically or psychologically coerced into behaving in a way that is both unnatural and harmful.

Would you agree then, that Rambo style behavior models that encourage bullying, 'Christian values' that cause us to invade Iraq and indeed the sort of Satanism that demands live sacrifice all the sorts of stories that amount to child abuse, whilst obviously invented fantasies such as Jack and the Beanstalk, Tom and Gerry (and indeed, parts of this website)which act as lightning conductors for our childish imagination, are essential for mental health?

Regards, Tim

Please to see!

Please to see:

gary glitter

was gary glitter not prosicuted for supporting those who committed a crime, aswell or perhaps instead of a "thought crime"?


Hello, a friend of mine sent me your site to read, and i must say you put your point across most eloquently. However, having read your essay, i am left feeling that you lack a certain perspective. you have succeeded in putting your point across in a professional and impassionate manner, well done. I was unable to read it unimpassioned however, which i can only assume is your purpose. As a mother myself, i can state quite categorically that i am not "scapegoating" anyone, but i find the notion of a pedophile living within close proximity to my child appalling. it is not the action of observing pedophilic images that disturbs me particularly, i understand that we all get turned on by different things, what concerns me, is that a large portion of the known pedophilliacs have watched/downloaded/bought images to satiate there urges, and this has only appeased there nature for so long, whereupon, they seek to enact there desires out in the world, upon innocent children, in many cases murdering there victims in an attempt to hide there perversity. I personally do not think that pedophiles need understanding nor compassion, but should be given the most painfully, humiliating and above all prolonged death that can be imagined. when a person with this perversity acts upon his.her desires, it strips a child of a life. whether the child is murdered, ending its existence and depriving the world of another einstein or plato, or is left to live out its life with the memory of its attack etched forever in its mind, hindering and marring any hope for future happiness, the result is the same. A life has been taken, that can never be returned, and that is a crime of the most appalling nature.

Re: Paedophillia

Im sorry but I find your comments about making making paedophiles suffer barbaric and inhumane. EVERYBODY has rights. Whilst I also find the idea of children being pressured/co-orced/forced into situations they should not be in, two wrongs do not make a right and we, as a society, should find other ways of dealing with offenders in a way that does not make us animals. I, too, wish to protect my children from harm, but persucuting a group of people for their beliefs is not the right way to go about it. Retribution in the way you describe only serves to make us feel better about ourselves, that we have done something so can salve our conscience. Having a peodophile living near you does not automatically mean your child is in danger. You may have a murderer living next door and not even know; you can't weed out society to your own end, so that only acceptable people live in close proximity to you - where do you think they should live, Mars?

Re: Paedophillia

If a paedophile acts on their urges, yes destroy them as they've shown themselves to be a danger. But this is the same as destroying rapists as well. They to succumb to urges which harm. In order for someone who has naturally paedophilic tendancies to actually rape children they must be morally bankrupt. We should no more punish not practicing paedophiles any more than we should homosexuals.

In persecuting others, we attemept to purge that which is unsilencable within ourselves. Can we really believe our own sexualities to be so normal, tame and acceptable as to consider ourselves entirely removed from such things? No. When our own natures are so inexpliccable, who are we to judge that of others? Sexuality is a wild card, not a choice, and to persecute a fellow human being simply for being human (and thus flawed) is wrong. You demonstrate this fact well in your essay, keep on at it.

Having reviewed my previous post (the post above) may I just say that I do not in any way condone any actual realisation of such fantasies. All I intend to say is that such people require help of a proffesional nature, not our absolute unquestionned revulsion. Anyone possessing such a desire is not of sound mind, and anyone acting on such impulses is inexcusably flawed and (if you believe in such abstract concepts) evil.

is my boyfriend a paedophile?

im 17 and me boyfriend is 22 people call him a paedophile is this true?

Child Porn

I understand your point about thought crimes etc but at the same time i believe we shouldn't show any tolerance for child pornography. Anyone downloading it, paedophile or otherwise, is increasing the demand for these exploitative films and images. Nobody can stop a person from w*nking off at the thought of a 6 year old boy - that's anybody's given freedom, but once somebody takes it further than the confines of their own head - even if its only looking at pictures, they have some effect (if only small/indirect) on the pornographer, the child and the active paedophile in society. If they still want to do that, then they should be prepared to accept the consequences shouldn't they?

Re: Child Porn

That depends on what the consequences are, doesn't it? They are subject to the law, just like anyone else. They should not, though, be ostracised from society, or beaten up whilst walking down the street.

Heinlein, sex and children (part 1)

I think it was Robert Heinlein that once wrote "if so many normal and healthy men like to watch women getting undressed on stage, then at least some women must enjoy undressing on stage in front of men, otherwise there's something fundamentally wrong with the human species".

When I was 8, I felt sexually attracted to adult women. So it doesn't surprise me the least bit that at least some adult women feel attracted to young boys. The same goes for any other combination.

Now, would I have wanted to actually do something with an adult woman? That would (as it still does) depend on the specific woman, but the short reply is "yes, I would". Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't come across any woman who was interested in me (or maybe I did, but they were afraid to show it, or I didn't understand the signs).

It's not a matter of age, it's a matter of will. When a 10 year old child is raped, the bad thing isn't the fact that she or he was 10. It's the fact that she or he was raped. Forced to do something against their will. Conversely, if two children (or teenagers, or a child and a teen, or a teen and an adult, etc.) want to have some sort of sexual contact, I don't think that I (or anyone else) have the right to forbid them.

Saying that no-one under 18 (or 16, or any other age) can have sex is like saying that everyone over 18 (or 21, or whatever) has to have sex.

Now, some people (especially children, but this also applies to many teens and even some adults) are not fully aware of the implications of their actions. And those people can be easily manipulated. The way to avoid letting our children be manipulated by molesters is to make sure they are informed about sex, and are able to make conscious decisions regarding their own bodies. What some parents call "protection" and "innocence" is actually ignorance, and ignorance is fertile ground for manipulation.

[continuted on next comment]

Heinlein, sex and children (part 2)

[continued from previous comment]

Assuming all peodphiles are rapists or molesters is like assuming all heterosexual men are going to start raping or harassing women. A few of them might, and we should be vigilant, but that's no reason to alienate everyone who feels some sort of attraction toward children, or likes to look at child porn. Some people like crime novels, or movies with lots of killings. Does that make them murderers? If we can see dead and mutilated children on the news, why shouldn't we be allowed to see children having sex, or masturbating, or even just posing? I've read that the book that most serial killers have in common is the Bible. Should we ban that, too?

I don't think downloading child porn contributes the least bit to increase child abuse. On the contrary, it might give some unstable individuals a way to reduce their sexual tension. This does not apply, of course, to paying for child porn; that definitely increases the likelihood that children will be abused or exploited (often by people who aren't even attracted to children; they're just attracted to the money). If the internet lets people who really want to look at child porn get it for free, instead of paying for it, that will decrease the profits of individuals who exploit children. And that's a good thing.

As to pedophilia itself, or, more specifically, to sexual relationships involving children, I think we need to get rid of a lot of prejudices. Boys can have erections from the moment they're born (in fact, even before). And both boys and girls can have orgasms. If it was somehow biologically "wrong" to have an orgasm during childhood, then it would be either impossible or, at least, it would feel bad. It doesn't, it feels good. At around 12 years of age (for girls, or 14 for boys), we become able to reproduce. Would that happen if we weren't biologically ready to have sex?

The real issue is mental readiness, and culture. And the only reason why some (most?) children in our society are sexually immature and ignorant is because we deliberately keep them that way. Sex is a much more fundamental part of human existence that, for example, telephones. But do you know any 6-year-old child that can't use a telephone? Parent actively teach their children to use them. But when it comes to sex, they go out of their way to make sure they don't see it, don't hear about it, don't try it, and can't even find any information related to it.

I had sex for the first time when I was 12. It was an extremely positive experience. But, throughout the years, I've been bombarded with "expert opinion" (on TV, books, etc.) suggesting that a) I didn't know what I was doing, b) I can't possibly have enjoyed it, otherwise I'm not normal it and c) I was a victim of abuse (she was 19). To those "experts" (who "study" pedosexuality by interviewing child rapists), I say: bollocks! I was there, you weren't, and it was great. You're not going to change the way I felt about it then, and you're not even going to change the way I feel about it now.

But unfortunately, these "expert opinions" do change the way some people feel. Some people who had positive (or perhaps confusing, but not negative) sexual experiences when they were children, later become convinced (by psychologists, etc.), that they were victims of some terrible abuse, and all their problems as adults were caused by those experiences. Which is also bollocks (in 99% of the cases, anyway).

Drop the religious "moralism" (which tells us to be ashamed of our own pleasure and offended by the pleasure of others), stop deliberately keeping children ignorant about sex, and the world will be a much better and safer place.

Re: Heinlein, sex and children (part 2)

I think a lot of what you say makes sense. However, I do not agree that downloading child porn does not contribute to abuse - who are in the pictures that are being downloaded? You cannot be sure that they are willing and consenting pariticpants, which leaves the door wide open for abuse.

Whilst I can see your point that a child under the age of 16 may be able to enjoy a pleasurable sexual experience, are they emotionally ready for a sexual relationship? Maybe in a few years they will wish they had done things differently. Our job as parents is to try to help our children grow up with good morals and make good choices. They should be taught to think through situations and consider the consequences, not purely act on a physical desire. Sex is not just a physical pleasure but a part of a loving and fulfilling relationship.


I think it would be good for a person to not have the 'thought crimes' that you are speaking of. However, that is not always easy. But it would be best, wouldn't it?

Beautifully written! I really loved your article. Hopefully, you have made me a lot more mature than I was before.

My most favourite lines:

The worst step is reached when a person does not admit to themselves that these thoughts occur. Such religious fervour or devotion is frequently a cover up for a guilty conscience, people who are pressurized to behave well, constantly, are forced into doublethinking and timebombing their way through life.

Honesty is our saviour. We should never cease to analize our own sexual patterns, and find some friends with whom you share your deepest desires, no matter how deviant they are. Thinking about these things allows you much relief. Voicing your deviant thoughts reduces the amount which they control you, it releases their energy.

I conclude that the main problem facing deviants is the taboo. People are scared to be honest about themselves, leading also to them being scared of other people who are deviant because they daren't consider the topics. These taboos are a source of great inhumanity on the personal and social level, there is no point in maintaining them.

Amazingly true!!

Finally i find those who agree with me.

I currently have tendonitis and my wrist is in a brace so i will keep this short. I recently had a discussion on this subject with a friend of mine. My line of thinking being quite similar to that you have written.
He immediately turned on me for taking this point of view and has not talked to me for a week. I being 15, began to wonder if there was something wrong with me. I am not nor do I believe i will ever be a pedophile. So i searched to see if anyone was of a like opinion. I rather quickly found this site and read it through. It cleared that up for me and for that I thank you.

I actually read the article last Thursday and decided today id like to pose a question to you. What is your opinion on todays society pressuring teens and people of the ages considered "minors" being pressured into sexual attraction to those older then them. And essentially being taught that it is wrong to be attracted to their peer-group. Wouldn't it only heighten the stigmata and hatred toward individuals whose minds work this way, through (usually) no fault of there own?
I will check back to see if you answer.

-Avian Ryu Feral A.k.A Alexander John Kelley
Minnesota, U.S.A

Re: Finally i find those who agree with me.

I've got a book that contains some anthropology of sexuality, "Sociology" by Anthony Giddens, which details various forms of sexual relations in different cultures. In many societies, it is the norm that teenagers or those too young to marry form sexual & protective relationships with an older man or woman. In the West, however, it IS stigmatized and our culture brings us up to react negatively (towards others and ourselves) to such relationships. It's not simple - no-one knows what is "natural" when it comes to relationship taboos like that, and no-one knows whether it is normal to suppress age-difference sexual relations, or normal to let them go ahead. It's almost purely cultural, and answers to your question will depend on who you ask, in what country, in what time period.

Good article

A little old now, so yeah, kinda like bringing up an old issue - but its still one of the most relevant issues today. I don't know if you have ever seen Brass Eye's 2001 "Pedophilia Special", but it was one of the most contraversial TV programs ever aired, as it took a spin that really proved its own point - that when you mention "pedophile" people stop thnking rationally, they think of the Ian Huntleys, the Dutrox', and so forth - and then are bewildered to find some guy going to prison for having a picture of a child who is 40, and community respected.

I leave my email address here in the hope you will email me on it, I would like to discuss this matter briefly with you. retrofitted88@yahoo.com


you're argument here is utterly flawed. firstly, as to the point of looking for the good in paedophiles, well why should we? what i mean to say is that these are people who abuse and traumatize innocent children for their own sexual gratification - therefore why do we need to look at their good points? i do not doubt that they are there, i'm simply saying that the act of paedophilic abuse is quite enough to make a valid moral judgement about these people, irrespective of whether they are otherwise 'nice' individuals. you also claim that their behaviour is due to some form of rejection 'by their entire set of friends and family'. surely this is backwards; any form rejection of these people is most likely to arrive after their family and friends are aware of their already past-tense abuse of children. it therefore follows that they are already acting upon their deviant desires, indicating an amoral decision. therefore any 'support' is meaningless - they are paedophiles, and no ammount of support will alter their deeply disturbed concept of reality.

as for a singular 'incident' leading to labelling - well, 'yes', quite frankly. whilst i agree with you that viewing child pornography is not quite the same as actually raping a child, surely you cannot overlook the fact that this endorses the production of said pornography. obviously producing this kind of deeply exploitative material is wrong, therefore the laws of our country cannot condone the use of this material in any way - be that production, distribution, or use. as for the person being legally classed as a paedophile - they viewed child pornography, indicating sexual stimulus by this material, therefore they ARE a paedophile. the material has to be illegal to prevent the abuse of the children featured in it, therefore anyone who uses it is part of the problem. your description of this as a 'thought crime' naively does not take any of this into account.

you suggest that we all 'consider' a range of unacceptable acts. this is quite possibly incorrect, but for the purpose of this argument, we shall take that as true. however whilst a person might think something, or become aroused by accidentally viewing something on television, that is incidental (although deeply worrying). however ACTIVELY seeking out abusive pornographic material is quite different.

your comparison of this kind of act to facism is also flawed - facism is simply one moral doctrine, admittedly one which most of us disagree with. Nazism is perhaps what you are alluding to. indeed you are correct in saying that passive agreement with something is not harmful. downloading child pornography however, in whatever quantity, is an active pursuit of the paedophile's deviant psychology, with consequences for the abused children who are used to make it.

your suggestion that it is society's reaction to offenders which creates 'monsters' is practically laughable. these people are ALREADY 'monsters' if that is the term to be used, with perceptions of the world around them that suggest that what they do is acceptable and not harmful. subsequently they are ostracised, yes; what is wrong with this? anyone who believes that acts which harm children (or the use of material which, as we have seen, endorses these acts) does not behave in a way which is condusive to normal social behaviour, and is therefore no more deserving of society's acceptance than those whose beliefs lead them to murder. paedophilia is simply rape in its most foul and extreme form, where the victim is innately innocent. those who endorse this, in act or in the usage of pornographic material (which is fundamentally second-hand rape) do not have humanity to be destroyed, have no desert of any moral responsibilty from the rest of us. i have no 'guilt' being vented when i condemn paedophiles in this way... see next post

we are not forcing people OUT of society - it is their amoral acts of paedophilia which remove them from society. any response from society is toward individuals who have chosen to alienate themselves by abusing children.
you ask 'how can that person feel?'. I put it to you that what they feel is irrelevant; their behaviour CAUSES the negative response. if they feel anything other than remorse then it is simply irrelevant. and very few paedophiles experience remorse - my mother is a psychotherapist and worked with many people including paedophiles. in thirty years she never once found a paedohile who had remorse for their actions, only the excuses you indeed detail - that it was the child's 'seduction'. these are warped people - they are most likely severely mentally damaged by their own childhood experiences. but this does nothing to JUSTIFY their actions.

i agree that 'passive paedophilia' is technically not immoral. however anything other than completely unattended desires cannot be classified as 'passive', including - as i have explained - the use of child pornography.

finally, to address the issue of deviancy and supression of desires. deviancy is simply to deviate from the norm. sadomasochistic pursuits, for example, are a prime example of deviant behaviour. but this occurs between consenting parties. paedophilia is not simply a deviancy in this way. yes it veers away from the norm, but not just to the extent of S&M, but to an end where there are innocent, innately unconsenting children involved. this (and this is immutable fact) goes against any form of moral thinking. if someone is truly a passive paedophile, with no active behaviour in the pursuit of these desires, then that alone is perhaps acceptable, although nonetheless a very disturbed psychological symptom.

as for supression of desires, it is surely NECESSARY to supress desires such as paedophilic ones, as to act out on them is to rape, or endorse the rape of, children. to talk about them amongst friends is of course acceptable, although i worry that a group of friends would exist where more than one member wishes to have sex with kids. but the supression of 'immoral desires' by members of the clergy is quite a different point. their immorality is measured by their subscription to the moral doctrine of the church and its stipulations for its clergy, and therefore their own personal choice. moral theories which permit their forbidden acts abound, and whilst are a topic of widespread discussion, they cannot be universally deemed wrong. paedophilia is quite the opposite: no moral theory, by the very nature of what a moral theory is (a system of concepts seen to be moral governing one's actions within a society, as one of its members) could possibly do anything other than condemn the abuse of children.

see next post

you conclude that the problem facing deviants is the taboo. this is not really a valid conclusion, as it is implied by the very word 'deviant'. to deviate from society's norms is to enter the realm of the taboo. as these taboos are broken down, so the deviation becomes closer to, or part of the norm, no longer a deviation. this is true of my earlier example of S&M - still a taboo, but now only in a double-entendre/sex shop way, very much becoming a part of normal society. I agree that, if we can judge a topic considered as taboo as having no inherent immorality, then we have no business maintaining it and labelling its adherents 'deviants'.

however it it is impossible to call paedophilia anything other than immoral, therefore it is not truly a taboo with the inherent capacity to be broken down. paedophilia is wrong, no matter what moral theory or doctrine one applies, and it remains of importance that we seek out those who actively abuse children and remove them from society, where they have no place. if people can merely entertain private thoughts of having sexual relations with children without active pursuit of them, then good luck (although as i have said, this is deeply disturbed). but anyone who lets these thoughts out into society via the use of child pornography is exacerbating the more worrying problem of its production, and MUST BE PENALISED. anyone who produces it, or simply abuses children without record, is a rapist of the worst sort, and should be permanently excluded from society.

my e-mail is guy_j@hotmail.com should you wish to contact me

the irony of oppression

fill a jar with water.
put a lid on the jar.
chain the lid to the jar.
put the jar over a flame.

the jar will explode.

you can't stop water from boiling when it's heated.. only make it worse when it happens.

the same principle applies.
by demonizing a person for thinking outside society's standards, we only encourage them to distance themselves more--and worse--to attack that which is rejecting them.

Treating someone who has done no wrong like a criminal encourages them to become a criminal.
After all, why not do the crime if you've already done the time?

Treat people like people, and they will act like people.
Treat them like demons, and they will act like demons.

Re: the irony of oppression (addendum)

I am neither condoning nor condemning pedophilia, any other paraphilia, or any other morally or ethically questionable subject matter. I am simply saying that there is a relationship between cause and effect--between how one is treated and how one treats others. We reap what we sow. Therefore, it is not wise to condemn what one does not understand.

Dangerous Sexual Deviation

The arguments for ruining the lives of thought-criminals presented on this site fail to present any rational chain of cause and effect in cases of sex abuse, and are based on moral outrage instead.
This sort of warped thinking is present in the war on drugs and the war on terror and has led to massive human rights abuse.

  • 1