Can (Male Sexual Predators) Paedophiles be Good (Men) People?
Malestream media is depressingly predictable because within days of malestream media avidly reporting 600+ people (meaning males) have been arrested by police on suspicion of possessing images of male sexual violence committed against female and male children, UK's Independent malestream newspaper publishes a propaganda article claiming 'can (male sexual predators) paedophiles be good people (men)?'
This article is exactly what I predicted when I discussed with a female colleague mens' latest attempt at fooling us women into believing male dominated police forces and mens' legal system are actively curbing pandemic male sexual violence against women, girls and to a much lesser extent boys.
Last week UK male controlled police forces under the auspices of male controlled National Crime Agency, announced they had arrested 600+ people (meaning males) on suspicion of possessing images of male sexual violence perpetrated against female and male children.
Independent's article is very cleverly written because it states factual evidence that 'paedophilia' is not a syndrome majority of male sexual predators suffer from, because the clinical definition is 'males who have a sexual interest in only female/male children who are pre-adolescent, commonly under the age of 11.' This excludes male sexual predators who are sexually interested in adult females/adult males and/or are in/have had a sexual relationship with an adult female/male. Hence only a tiny percentage of male sexual predators are 'paedophiles.'
However, Independent's article is focused solely on hiding/denying fact male sexual predators are numerous and they all share one common denominator irrespective of their class/race/ethnicity/age and that is they are all males.
The issue is not as Independent claims - asking whether those adult males who accept they are paedophiles (the clinical definition not malestream lies) but who make choice not to sexually prey on female/male children are good people (men)? This piece of 'male created window dressing' is used to hide/deny the politics of why so many males from differing classes/ethnicities/races continue to enact their male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on women, girls and or boys with impunity.
'To help figure out what you think about it, consider this analogy, drawn by Dr Jackie Craissati, a leading psychologist in the field. "If I were to say to you, all violence is the same, and all violent men are persistently violent, and you can't categorise by degrees of severity, you'd say: hang on a second. There's a difference between the bombmaker, and the man who tries to kill his partner, and the man who attacks someone in the pub, and all of these cases need different approaches. But if you make the same point about child sexual abuse, people say, how dare you?"
Conveniently Independent's writer does explain why males who attack someone (sic) in a pub and males who murder their female/ex female partner are committing violence for different reasons. Male bombmakers are waging war on other men for political reasons, whereas males who murder their female/ex female partners are waging war on women collectively because women must be punished if they do enact constant subservience to the superior male owner/master!
Quoting from Liz Kelly's excellent paper on Weasel Words: Paedophiles and The Cycle of Abuse:
'Immediately the word paedophile appears we have moved away from recognition of abusers as ‘ordinary men’—fathers, brothers, uncles, colleagues—and are returned to the more comfortable view of them as ‘other’, a small minority who are fundamentally different from most men. The fact that they have lives, kinship links and jobs disappears from view in the desire to focus on their difference. Attention shifts immediately from the centrality of power and control to notions of sexual deviance, obsession and ‘addiction’. Paedophilia returns us to the medical and individualised explanations which we have spent so much time and energy attempting to deconstruct and challenge. Rather than sexual abuse demanding that we look critically at the social construction of masculinity, male sexuality and the family, the safer terrain of ‘abnormality’ beckons.
The separation of ‘paedophiles’ in much of the clinical literature on sex offenders from all men, but also other men who sexually abuse, has involved the presumption of difference. Similarities—in the forms of abuse, in the strategies abusers use to entrap, control and silence children—are ignored.'
The Independent's article promotes these claims by quoting Dr. Donald Findlater, Director of Research and Development at the Lucy Faithful Foundation who claims:
'Many cross the line and don't know they cross it." It is said that every one of these images is an image of abuse, but according to CEOP's own statistics, more than a fifth of the indecent images of children reported in 2012 were "self-generated" – that is, selfies. "There's no evidence of coercion in these cases," says Findlater. "To then categorise that as an image of a child being abused – well, that's rather rich."
Dr. Findlater was referring to male sexual predators who supposedly 'cross the line and don't know they cross it.' Bingo - men supposedly don't know they have committed a crime when they knowingly access images of male sexual violence perpetrated against girls/boys. This neatly hides fact men have always defined male sexuality as one wherein males have the right if they choose to sexually prey on adult women; female and/or male children because male sexual aggression against females and/or boys is normal innate male sexual behaviour.'
Dr. Findlater did not pose the pertinent question 'why are so many female children (because it is female children not boy children) creating pornified images of themselves?' Do female children magically decide one day 'I am going to turn myself into a dehumanised female sexualised object and put these images on the internet so that boys and adult men can sexually gratify themselves by viewing my images?'
Dr. Findlater refuses to examine the fact men's very profitable pornography industry has successfully infiltrated every aspect of our society and now female children are being indoctrinated into believing it is 'fashionable' to create sexualised images of themselves and circulate said images on the internet for male consumption. This is how male sexual coercion of female children is justified because female children supposedly make the informed choice to turn themselves into males' dehumanised sexual service stations! Female and male children do not have the same cognitive critical skills as adult men and women which is why Child Protection legislation exists in order to protect female and male children from male sexual predators.
But according to Dr. Findlater female children are the ones responsible for creating pornified images of themselves, rather than malestream popular culture teaching girl children imitating 'female sexually submissive poses is harmless fun!' It is not a case of female children 'creating selfies' of themselves but how malestream pornified media is indoctrinating innumerable female children into becoming mens' dehumanised sexual service stations. But Dr. Findlater states this is not '(male) sexual coercion!'
Just because there was no direct male coercion of female children does not mean male sexual coercion of females does not exist. Quoting from Kelly's paper on Weasel Words:
'Whilst the motivations of ruthless (male) entrepreneurs may not be the same as those of familial child abusers, children are exploited and sexually used in both contexts, and the legacies which such abuse results in do not stem from whether financial gain was involved.'
Malestreaming of mens' pornography industry is widespread within popular culture such as the music industry and female children are viewing videos of naked women engaging in sexually submissive poses around fully clothed male singers. Real Feminist critiques of the pornification of mens' music industry is not permitted by mens' malestream media and so we should not be surprised female children are imitating the video images they are watching.
Instead we have an article which serves to deflect attention away from the fact innumerable males of differing classes/races/ethnicites are continuing to enact their male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on women, girls and boys with impunity.
As Liz Kelly rightly states men continue to ensure the focus is not on looking critically at how (men maintain) the social construction of masculinity; male sexuality and the family serves to normalise and maintain male pseudo sex right to females of all ages/all classes and all ethnicities. Instead issue is supposedly one of supposed (male) 'abnormality' rather than male normality.
I am not interested in whether or not 'males who meet the clinical clinical definition of 'paedophile' but choose not to enact their sexual proclivities are 'good people (men)' because definition of 'good person' is subjective and only applies to men. Feminists campaigned for decades to destroy mens' myth that male sexual predators are “deviant monsters” not ordinary respectable family men enacting their male pseudo sex right to females of all ages. Males can be 'good respectable family men' but at the same time these 'good respectable family men believe it is their male right to sexually prey on certain females. Hitler was kind to animals and he demonstrated kindness to Aryan children, but he also instigated systemic atrocities against non-Aryan women, men and children. So does this mean Hitler was a 'good person' because he demonstrated kindness to Aryan children?
Men have always claimed women are innately 'evil' whereas men are never accountable/responsible for their choice and agency to commit acts of violence against women and girls.
Men have for centuries sought to justify and maintain their male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on women and girls which is why men continue to claim this:
'There is arguably a difference between a guy who looks at 15-year-olds and gets off on it because it is wrong and a guy who looks at nine-year-olds and gets off on it because they are nine. There's something surreal about the idea that treating them differently is a matter of controversy.'
The glaring similarity is conveniently ignored by the male writer of this article because he ignores fact male is enacting his male pseudo sex right to 'get off' on viewing pornified images of females. Claiming there is a difference between males viewing pornified images of a 15 year old female and a 9 year old female serves to hide/invisibilise fact males are enacting their male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on females of all ages. This is the issue not 'age of female victims.'
UK Feminists campaigned for decades to have the age of sexual consent raised from 12 to 16 in order to afford female children some legal protection from male sexual predators. But as usual men continue to engage in 'fragmentation' wherein male sexual access to females is merely one of age not one of male sexual power and male pseudo sex right.
The real issue is not whether or not 'real male paedophiles can be good persons' but how and why innumerable males continue to be afforded their male pseudo sex right to sexually prey on women and girls with impunity. Going to the root of the issue means critically looking at mens' social constructions of male sexuality; male power; masculinity and male definitions of 'moral principles' not creating more false diversionary claims.
http://www.troubleandstrife.org/articles/issue-33/weasel-words-paedophiles-and-the-cycle-of-abuse/Download this post as PDF? Click here