First and foremost, let me shout out to Toy Soldier, the foremost blog on this topic.
It ranks up there with
as an important resource for people who need pertinent sociological knowledge to understand how people act.
I normally advocate tremendous latitude for freedom of speech, primarily because the government that burns de Sade today will burn Machiavelli tomorrow. Academics of good faith must always insist on protecting the books from the flames, and even the Vatican collects porn – presumably just for academic reference.
However, every now and again, some pro-sex activist makes me ponder whether I will have to draw a line. Recently a pro-gay activist, Larry Brinkin, was charged with advocacy of porn that actually required child abuse to be made.
Brinkin was somewhat famous because he brought the first domestic partnership lawsuit, against Southern Pacific Railroad, in 1982.
The ethnic overtones of the case are complicated. Some sources claim that Brinkin is Jewish. However, his online comments appear to be written in a distinctly non-Jewish style. Example:
Police say they linked the AOL address to Brinkin’s IP address; he is owner of the account and paid for AOL service with his credit card.
The warrant claims these e-mails contained images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men. Zack3737@aol.com — whom the police allege is Brinkin — provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”
(a) simply a case of a psychopath who uses the slogans of a different ethnic group to conceal his own tracks,
(b) a facetious attempt at “black humor”, or
(c) does Brinkin actually consider himself to be a white supporter of “White Power”?
Obviously, so long as child molesters succeed in molesting children, the communities that produced those children will have a need to locate those child molesters and stop them.
The imperative to stop child molestation is not affected by the issue of whether cameras are rolling to record the molestation.
Therefore one does not need new anti-pornography laws to shut down child pornography producers, because we already have laws against molesting children.
The problem is that if one tries to make a stand for freedom of speech here, the statists (such as J. Edgar Hoover) will immediately group you with the pro-sex advocates – but if one does not try to make a stand for freedom of speech here, the statists will demand the right to spy on all speech everywhere.
The short-term solution is to push off the debate onto experts such as Lessig –
the long-term solution is to analyze the issues thoroughly and write a book about the jurisprudence of the issues involved.
Human Civilizations presented some scientific literature on sexual child abuse, and some bottom-line summaries:
The imprinting hypothesis complements the social cohesion theory and the dominance-assertion hypothesis (Nadler, 1980) to offer another reason for the evolution of male homosexuality – male sexual competition reduction, while maintaining social cohesion.
In a polygynous tribal environment with around 150 members, a dominant male who exhibited adult heterosexual behavior combined with homosexual paedophilia could effectively ‘imprint’ upon other vulnerable young boys in the tribe, inducing homosexuality among them, removing them as potential sexual competitors for himself and his male offspring. Homosexuality could have evolved as a group selection mechanism to maintain social harmony among males in a polygynous tribe, who would otherwise be viciously competing for sex to the overall detriment of the group. For instance, in baboons in which dominant males maintain large harems, homosexual mounting is a display of dominance, and being mounted homosexually is a display of submission.
This hypothesis explains why male homosexual paedophilia could be naturally selected, as a sexual competition reduction technique. This hypothesis also explains why homophobia could have been naturally selected as a response to such predatory tactics, to protect offspring from being diverted away from reproductive success. This hypothesis also explains how ‘homosexual imprintability’ – the ability for males to be induced into homosexual orientation as a result of predatory behaviour – could also have evolved as a group selection mechanism, in accordance with the social cohesion theory (i.e.) male homosexuality allows a polygynous tribe to function better; monogamy, though, is even better for inter-male trust and co-operation.
Evidence in US supporting this hypothesis comes from prisons. A study of prison rape finds the dominant-assertion hypothesis to be generally true – dominant men are the mounters and submissive males are the mountees. Moreover, submissive males also develop effeminate homosexual characteristics that they had not displayed earlier, as a coping mechanism.
Another evidence for this hypothesis comes from polygynous Afghanistan where prepubescent and adolescent boys from impoverished, vulnerable backgrounds are sold into sexual slavery to wealthy and powerful men (who are typically polygynous with multiple wives) through markets known as Bacha Baazi. The predatory behavior by these powerful, polygynous men would have varying degrees of success in inducing homosexuality in their victims, thereby eliminating their sexual competition.
Note that earlier bloggers have argued that homosexual behavior might be caused by pathogens:
While I often argue that some people have more moral agency than others, I do not argue that moral agency is supernaturally guaranteed.
It is entirely possible that some kind of physical injury (e.g. introduction of a pathogen, or traumatic experiences) might reduce a person’s moral agency, and cause the victim to become more likely to sin.
“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” – Mark 9:42
The word translated as “offend” is -σκανδαλίσῃ-it means “cause to sin” in this context.
Robert Lindsay mentions that actual child molesters are much rarer than the media would have you believe:
On the subject of child abuse involving sex, I had assumed up to this point that Woody Allen was another child molester who had pulled strings to avoid punishment. However, it seems that was not the case; it seems that he was an ugly, widely disliked man who was married to a psychotic compulsive liar. This is troubling, because false accusations of child abuse not only run the risk of destroying innocent men’s lives, but also destroying the trust that is essential for communities to function.
My interpretation is that Woody Allen is vile because he makes vile movies, and Mia Farrow is probably a psychotic compulsive liar, but neither of them, so far as I can tell, is a child abuser of any kind. I’m not even sure if Mia Farrow is guilty of intentionally falsifying evidence; it seems likely that she’s intensely delusional.