User talk:Googie man/Archive2

No one, discusses here what an asshole I am. I know that already. Issues only please. If there are no issues discussed, I suggest not bothering. Only use words when they outperform silence.

Archive 1

I contend that prepubescent children lack the sufficient maturity to make fully informed sexual decision, are not sexual at all in the way that adults are sexual, and therefore pedophilia in any form should always remain as a mental disorder in the DSM IV and its future incarnations, and any pedophilic act should be illegal. Sexual orientation activism or advocacy is completely toothless without the consequent right to act on the orientation, so what is the point in any "orientation" activism or advocacy, in the first place? Why was there a women's suffrage movement if all women wanted was the preference to vote, why was there civil rights advocacy if all African-Americans wanted was the preference, and not the practice, of equal treatment? If people simply want to have the preference for children, but never ever act on it, well what goes on between people's two ears is really none of my business. And if this is all there is to it, then I stand corrected in my previous strong comments about pro-pedophilia activism. There simply is something about the concept of "pro-pedophilia activism" that I'm obviously not getting. I am asking for someone to have a rational, mutually respectful discussion about these issues, and to correct me if my belief's are ill-informed, misguided, or just plain wrong. If anyone wants to discuss this with me, please feel free to do so, and I promise you that I will accord you the same respect you give me.

These people are (mostly men) very obsessed with sex, which is a basic human need. I find the "I love children and only children but will never act on it" to be the most chilling, spine creeping of arguments. Authorities are becoming more aware of this. For pro-pedophile activists activists in jail in the UK for sex offences their beliefs are now correctly seen not only as lack of remorse and hence recovery but also a reason to never let them be free again. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take you seriously, Googie Man. What better use for a Talk page than serious consideration of issues?

Here's an issue: Is it just possible that, in the current moment at least, anti-paedophile activism is doing more harm to our children on a daily basis than any of pathetically weak "pro-paedophile activism" described in the Wikipedia article on that subject?

Recently a teacher in my city was caught playing a "game" with his second-graders that turned out to be for his sexual gratification. He was arrested, tried, and is being sent to jail for probably the rest of his life (a life that may well be cut short by a prison murder, something that happens with some regularity to American prisoners identified as paedophiles.)

On the TV news, when the case first became public, another local (young male) teacher complained that cases like this have made it impossible in the USA for any male teacher to show any affection to any child under his care, no matter how much the child needs the support of an adult male figure.

This is not an original observation. Starting about 25 years ago American teachers began to perceive that it was particularly risky to give a student any physical encouragement or comfort such as a quick hug or even a pat on the head. By the early 1990s showering after PE by middle-school and high-school students had virtually ceased in many US locales -- because teachers could no longer supervise shower rooms without being accused of "perving" on the kids (and without adult supervision, the mob harrassed the most vulnerable kids). Gay men suddenly were unable to obtain teaching jobs in many regions, because of the widespread perception that all gay men are attracted to boys.

In short: We all know that there are people who abuse children sexually. And at least in the USA we seem now to have become so hyper-alert to their existence that kids no longer enjoy the sort of routine affection from adult males that I and my contemporaries experienced in the 1960s when we were in school. Any man who shows any affection or support for any child other than his own runs the risk of being accused of having a sexual interest in the kid -- and may run into that suspicion even when the child is his own. Everybody knows it. And the result all too often is that kids find the male adults in their lives emotionally distant and guarded. Some of us worry that when the adult males in our boys' lives suppress their natural reactions to the boys' joys and sorrows, our boys may be led to question their own normal emotions and their own natural and healthy inclinations to express affection. If they perceive it to be "manly" to suppress emotion and all desire to touch affectionately, then this is how we are teaching them to be men.

Ashley Montagu argued persuasively many years ago that we all need touch. Babies actually fail to thrive if they are not held and cuddled. Sexual touch is just one form of touch. Once a society decides to view all touch as suspicious, and potentially sexual, it runs the risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: Is it possible that a generation of boys denied normal affectional touching will grow up failing to distinguish between non-sexual touching and sexualized touch? Are we creating sexual predators among boys denied other forms of affectional touch?

Here on Wikipedia those of us who suggest that not all affectional relationships between adults and children necessarily hide an adult sexual agenda have learned that sooner or later some other editor will accuse us of being "pro-pedophilia activists" or fellow-travelers, or (at minimum) weak in the head.

Part of the trouble, I have come to think, comes from how Freudian insights have been incorporated into common culture -- and we are all Freudians now, whether we admit it or not. Freud claimed that all human attraction is in some way sexual (repressed, perhaps, but gaining its energy from sex). But there is confusion, even in Freud himself, between sex-as-general-life-force and sex-as-genital-stimulation. These are by no means the same. Nevertheless, many people have come to equate them.

Since antiquity it has often been observed that the best teachers have a strong attraction to youth, and form bonds with the youth in their care that include erotic components, the teacher and students sharing an exhilaration, a physical joy, in the give and take between adult encouragement and direction of youthful spirits and youthful minds.

Can we deal with this ancient observation without flipping out? Must we assume that any adult male attracted to working with children will sooner or later be tempted to exploit a child sexually? Some of the remarks made by people who sniff out paedophilia in every corner seem to suggest that, indeed, men attracted to working with children for any reason other than a paycheck must always be watched carefully lest they prove to be closet paedophiles. To which I respond: God save my children from teachers who work for money alone!

Male teachers, especially young unmarried ones, rightly resent this undertone of suspicion (just to continue the focus on but one consequence of the current hyper-alertness to possible child sexual abuse).

So the question becomes: What would neutrality and balance in Wikipedia articles on related subjects look like, in the current climate?

Your comments would be much appreciated! SocJan (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that pedophiles, and especially unrepentant pro-pedophile activists, are the ones responsible for this lamentable state of affairs, just as it is terrorists and not governments that are responsible for other losses of freedom in modern societies. There are over 30,000 sex offenders (of all types) in the UK, that is 57 per 100,000, ie over 50 in your average medium sized city. And these people are firmly to blame for the loss of freedoms you talk about, which may indeed have negative consequences for the mental health of these children as they grow up. So your comment makes me personally feel more than ever that the pro-pedophile activism agenda is evil and needs opposing. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the media who over-blow the issue (high prevalence, high recidivism, etc) and the governments who buckle to it? PPA is virtually unknown in my country, and whenever we refer to O'Carroll, Joy or some other character, the emphasis is on "perv" as opposed to "lets censor this activist". J*Lambton ^T/_C 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have long believed that, for instance, it is thieves who make us security conscious not the media who cover their activities. So I don't blame the politicians or the media for the slide into surveillance society we see in the UK, I blame the criminals. I know the majority of criminals like to play the victim but that does not make them not responsible, not only for their own actions, but if the affect that these actions have on the rest of us and on society as a whole. And I see one direct affect of child sexual abusers being the deterioration of society described by SocJan. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambton, I thought you weren't interested in my ideas. I am not interested in yours, and I don't like veiled threats, which I most definitely got from you. This is MY talk page. Now get out and never come back. Your evasion of my questions is very suspicious, by the way.Googie man (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll avoid addressing Lambton if he posts again here. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary SqueekBox, if he does, please do so also. Someone needs to address his, shall we say, cognitive distortions? I've been instructed by the powers-that-be to not address him, and I have and will respect that. It's unfortunate that the powers-that-be don't believe I deserve the same respect. Googie man (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox - I can't agree with your ideas. It appears that the moral panic has escalated at exactly the same that the number of molestations has fallen. So it is important for the media to cover these stories neutrally an in proportion (as it is for us), and also for politicians not to replicate the age-old trick of enhancing control of the populous by playing to their fears. J*Lambton ^T/_C 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambton, what gives? Now you're suddenly interested in addressing me? Make up your mind, as I gave you the chance many times to answer my legitimate respectful questions. You instead threatened me, make accusations, and continue with general sound and fury. So now you mock me by writing on my user page again? I'll say it again - GET OUT OF HERE AND DO NOT EVER WRITE HERE AGAIN. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING AT ALL WITH YOU EVER. Googie man (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Is there any particular reason for you restoring over a 100,000 bytes of archived discussions back to the main page?, [1]--Jac16888 (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. I'm going to revert back to before your edit, so if you added something, you'll need to re-add it, there's too much added for me to see what wasn't there before--Jac16888 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]