Because God Hates Us Or Is Dead, Here's A Whole Episode About Noah Berlatsky And Pedophilia

You start off acknowledging that Berlatsky is dishonest and manipulative, but you trust that he’s not a pedophile just because… he says he isn’t? Even though all his arguments conveniently align with the arguments for normalizing and legalizing sex with children? Normally I love the podcast, but I wish you’d been as skeptical about pedo PR as you are about mainstream positions.

Katie and Jesse rely on and are fans of Dr. Cantor’s work and I think that colors their thinking here regarding Prostasia.

Tea Ess

New sub here. Strangely enough this one came up right after I read about one of Scotland’s biggest pedophilia crime (https://www.scotsman.com/news/horror-upon-horror-unfolded-worst-ever-abuse-trial-2443858). Honestly as much as I want to help these people, I don’t know how I can, or want to. I even listened to the This American Life pod as you suggested, and tried to be empathetic but here I am, ranting without a solution but full of judgment. We need more podcasters like you. Keep asking questions.

Guys, I love you, but you come off as astonishingly credulous in this episode. Here are some facts about Prostasia: 1. it poses as a charity and solicits donations, but it’s not a charity. It has “delinquent” status, meaning it has either not provided the requisite documents to get charitable status or its application has been rejected. 2. it claims to be an organisation whose purpose is to protect children but there are no experts on child protection on its board or on its advisory council. It did have one convicted sex offender on the latter though. 3. another convicted sex offender, Jeff White, was also hired by Prostasia as a research associate. Prostasia’s exec director Jeremy Malcolm threatened Sarah Phillimore, the female family lawyer who uncovered this fact. It implemented a screening process for employees after this happened, but if it had any real concern for child victims it would have screened from the beginning. I understand and agree with the point about many paedophiles having a terrible affliction that they didn’t choose and being compassionate about that. I however profoundly disagree with the notion that this means we should therefore throw all caution to the wind when it comes to obviously dodgy orgs like Prostasia, whose focus is clearly on sexual libertarianism for paedophiles and not for the protection of children. Their approach - sex dolls, group forum chats, and access to simulated porn is not backed by any available evidence as a way to reduce offending, and at worst has clear reasoning and some research set against it. Evidence given by Katie about non-offending paedophiles was purely anecdotal and self-reported by a population with every reason to lie. Critical thinking about thorny issues is great; but taking a contrarian approach because it's your brand, then failing to really give due diligence to the discussion and exploration of a topic as serious as this is less laudable.

Federal prosecutors are hired and traditionally are supposed to be insulated somewhat from politics (the President can fire a federal prosecutor but that's usually seen as a huge scandal unless the prosecutor did something egregiously bad). District attorneys at the county level are usually elected and might have to try to please voters if someone decides to run against them.

I'm not much of a believer in "orientations." It worked politically for homosexuals, but if pedos are an orientation "born that way" then I guess we also need to define adult-attracted people as an orientation, as well as those attracted to all ages... what else? I guess any fetish, paraphilia, or preference could gain this conceptual crown. Sure, the pedos do need real help beyond prison & demonisation. But the "orientation" argument is veering into a Foucault-style defence, which the Left hasn't come to terms with. Relatedly, Katie is forgetting that child-like sex-dolls completely override that human dignity that should be (but is rarely) accorded to little girls. Why should girls have to deal with this sort of thing in their society? Isn't it enough that everyone already has a pocket full of mobile-porn + camera? It's myopic of Jessie to call for "being decent" regarding the mockery of men pretending to be women (re: the Graham Lineham episodes), but "being decent" to little girls by NOT producing fuckable simulacra of their increasingly pornographied bodies is not on the radar... Plus, I doubt that a for-profit company could sell these things as an effective medicine without trying to sell them into mainstream as the next big thrill for our increasing jaded & porn addicted (male) population. Perhaps the pedo-afflicted men & boys could just check out some Hans Belmer? (I'm kidding.) Or they could consider the real virtue of chastity (in addition to celibacy)?

About the guy who got 40 years for operating a website, in Canada our prosecutors are not elected, they are hired. But in your system, any prosecutor knows that if he comes down hard on protecting children, he'll get a lot of support. Like the prosecutors during the Satanic Panic.

In the past I've done a lot of writing and advocacy for people who were falsely accused of ritual child sexual abuse during the Satanic Panic, so I know it takes courage to come anywhere NEAR this topic, and I'm also impressed that you would devote time to assessing which accusations against a dirtbag journalist who consistently misrepresents people were valid, and which weren't. We've got a culture where certain topics are just shut down, you can't discuss them, and that's not helpful, not even for an issue like child sexual abuse. You mentioned the idea that pedophiles are born not made. So what is the current scientific thinking on the "bite of the vampire" theory? Did that come up in your research?

These are two things. Most people don't rape because of lack of sex but some might. Fictional porn may help the pedos and if it's not proven to cause harm then it's a free speech issue.

vorbei

Totally with you. I love just listening to the personals and the creative and interesting ads the BARpod community comes up with. Would welcome it as a permanent feature even though my married self would never use it.

Maybe I lost the plot of this conversation at one point it's noted as obvious and true that people who don't have sex lives aren't out plotting to rape at the next opertunity but later it's raised that we need to stare into the abyss of making child sex dolls and condoning child abuse fiction as a harm reduction strategy for people who earlier according to Katie say "it's never been hard for me not to hurt a child."

Jordan Bickett

Disappointing. It makes my fave cynics seem like gullible airheads. I suppose not everyone has gotten a worldly education but that deficit in Katie and Jesse undermines my interest in their opinions.

Tie for silliest hot takes heard on this podcast today: A group which has every incentive to lie and rebrand their image can be trusted to provide the best solution to their own demise through Harm Reduction™️ The implication that hardcore pornography hasn’t been linked to changes in sexual behavior, demands, and expectations which significantly and negatively impact women

Accipitridae

Yea seriously. A big part of the attraction of these two hosts and their work is their critical thinking skills. Yet they talk to some pedophiles who - shockingly - wave away concerns over their attraction to children, minimize worries over their compulsions to sexual activity with minors, and extol the benefit of simulated child porn, suddenly tell all their listeners “okay everyone nothing to see here! The pedos said it was all fine so let’s move it along folks, ignore the naysayers what would they know, they don’t have the relevant lived experience!”

Speaking as a Gen Xer here, I personally didn't care much for the Muppets once I was past middle school age.

I'm not sure if there is the same amount of gays and lesbians and I also think that doesn't matter.

vorbei

I believe there have also been multiple teenagers prosecuted for "Making and distributing child pornography" because they sent nude photos of themselves to a partner." We have to be careful with these laws, because they inevitably get misused to threaten teenagers into chastity.

Yup. Jimmy Saville is another super famous case in the UK.

If being attracted to minors is a sexual orientation why would it so predominately appear in males? Wouldn’t we expect the rate to be the same between the sexes? (I’m genuinely curious if that matters, this isn’t in bad faith)

>Also, if you don’t think violent porn can have an effect on real-life behaviour, interview any straight woman in her 20s. I’m not going to opine on child erotica as I don’t know any real statistics and don’t dare Google them, but “porn has no effect on reality” is some mighty hand-waving. So freakin' true. The stories I hear from my friends...

Warren is significantly (relatively speaking) to the right of the Marxist/economic justice left. Bernie's economic proposal, including Medicare for All and a job guarantee, would mean public spending (federal + state + local) would be 70% of GDP and half of workers would work for the federal government doing projects supervised by local officials. Bernie bros think racial equality and racial justice are important (they argue that both racial justice and economic justice are equally important), the idea that they don't is originally a smear from the 2016 Clinton campaign. The Warren campaign existed pretty much to take primary votes away from Bernie by appealing to people who leaned towards "identity before class" but are further to the left than other Democrats. I get the sense Noah is further economically to the left than most Democrats and is pretty far left on issues like property rights. But he's definitely closer to "mainstream SJW" stances on class vs. identity than, say, the DSA is.

Man, I appreciate that Katie is willing to tackle this topic in a dispassionate way, but I feel she is way way too naive about taking these MAPs at their word. I do feel bad for virtuous pedophiles, but forgive me for thinking they probably should NOT be in a forum with teenagers, and probably not be involved with a child protection organization. It’s too damn sketchy. Of course these people are telling you they’d never offend! Also, if you don’t think violent porn can have an effect on real-life behaviour, interview any straight woman in her 20s. I’m not going to opine on child erotica as I don’t know any real statistics and don’t dare Google them, but “porn has no effect on reality” is some mighty hand-waving.

Definitely not the angle I expected! Katie made a lot of thoughts that I agreed with, but I need to make one major point of contention - Katie's dismissal of Prostasia as being a cover for abusers because there are other, less regulated, places to prey. In many cases pedophiles who are able to abuse multiple victims over the course of decades due so with a scheme/cover that is often completely in the public eye. The most famous case may be former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. He started a non-profit for troubled youth called the Second Mile, fostered dozens of children, and mentored hundreds more. It created a pipeline of thousands of potential victims of which he groomed and abused the most vulnerable. This took decades of dedicated hard work to establish bonafides in his community as someone who deeply cared for children and he was able to operate this scheme in front of the entire country. I'm not saying that this is why Prostasia was founded or even accusing anyone there of bad faith; I don't have any insight into specifics. But the lengths that pedophiles seem to be willing to go in order to find victims is vast and can be paved with good works along the way. It is undeniable that Jerry Sandusky helped hundreds of troubled kids find a better life, but it also served as an incredible cover for horrible acts happening in plain sight. Thanks for tackling an impossible subject. Really appreciate you both.

I would prefer it if people tackled sensible reforms to sex offenders registries before creating any other laws that will inevitably be abused.

@Karl There are some Canadian researchers that consider pedophilia an orientation. I understand why when considering that it most likely is something people are born with but it’s not my favorite framing. I am of different minds when it comes to things like illustrations, as are some researchers. Most countries already go above and beyond when it comes to child abuse - after a crime is committed. Rights are eroded in unimaginable ways when compared to every other serious crime. A lot of misinformation has been spread for decades. There are some offenders that cannot be rehabilitated, and they will strike again. They do appear to be a minority. Rates of recidivism are not 80% among the rest, as many in the media and politics have claimed. They are lower than most other criminal categories and fall with the addition of interventions. I’m leery of all claims about sex dolls because they typically come from anti prostitution/sex work groups. They start screaming about child abusers and rapists first thing, just as they do with adult pornography. Absurd laws are immediately passed about “child sex dolls” that are actually dolls built to a smaller (but not child like) scale to make access easier for some disabled people. There is a known market there. I don’t like the idea of criminalizing drawings or illustrations. I remember the conversations about sex offender registries having a high probability of misuse & abuse in the 1990s. That is unfortunately exactly what happened from the word go. When it comes to criminalizing drawings or stories in the name of protecting children that are not actually being harmed I see the potential for abuse shooting through the roof. Abuses that will largely remain hidden because too many live with the false perception only the worst child predators imaginable will be harmed. The sex offenders registry shows that they are the minority of those harmed by overzealous laws that actually erode constitutional rights in America, and harm countless families of people on registries that have not actually committed a sex crime… let alone one involving children. As far as it being an outlet… I’ve not looked at any research related to this. I do not have the foggiest clue. I do like the approach taken in Germany but that doesn’t necessarily mean I think criminalizing illustrations is a worthy goal when considering large scale abuses that police departments receive financial kick backs to commit from politicians who have religious or other ideological goals.

actual LOL -Jesse

I'd argue there's also good ethical reasons to distinguish between paedophilia, hebiphilia, and ephebophilia… If (for example) a 21-year-old is in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old. Or an 18-year-old is in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Maybe we'd want social services to check up on the younger person to make sure they weren't being taken advantage of. But we should not want the older person to automatically be considered a child abuser and be liable to prosecution.

the podcast attracts people with critical minds that's kinda the point

suz

Researchers don't call pedophilia an orientation because pedophiles often feel compelled to act on their feelings if they're not getting appropriate support to not offend. IIRC, it seems like pedophiles are more compulsive than people who are gay or straight and attracted to adults. Protasia takes the stance that erotica/hentai are a responsible outlet but also mixes in a First Amendment advocacy stance that you should be allowed to use any simulated erotica you want. It feels like they're shooting themselves in the foot by arguing that it's a responsible outlet (researchers are divided on that) and also pretty heavily implying that you have a right to use any type of simulated erotica you want no matter the content. The MAP support programs in Germany oppose people engaging in fantasies about children or using simulated erotica depicting children. That's probably a good idea for now because we don't know whether erotica is a "responsible outlet" for pedophiles that decreases offending.

Not so sure that they're not Nambla 2.0: https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1432722851358982146?s=19

One article about muppets is a job. Two articles about muppets is an interest. Three is a paraphilia.

Is this the Dexter of podcasts?

I’ll add that I am also uncomfortable with the sexual orientation approach. I spent much of my childhood, during the AIDS crisis, trying convince adults that gay men were not pedophiles by default due to 3 of my teachers who were gay and shared this with our class because they had been kicked out of their churches due to hysteria and feared their jobs were next. I was a kid during the NAMBLA & PIE years. They were a tiny minority still discussed as of they are legion today when the majority of the LGB community put them in their place rather quickly. I understand this. I also understand that the majority of legal & social approaches radical feminists, who I prefer to call carceral separatists, share with their legislative allies on religious right do far more harm than good.

*playing show me yours and I’ll show you mine. expect errors. my phone keeps freezing.

@Jacob Davies (I think) in case you do not know the overwhelming majority of therapy for sex offenders in 🇺🇸 involves them reliving every criminal offense, over and over, in graphic detail. We now have 22 states that put people on the sex offenders registry for non sex related offenses and the rest put people on the SOR for peeing in an alley at 3am while drunk or homeless, skinny dipping with your girlfriend at 1 am, having sex with your 17 year old first love when you were 18, giving “too many hugs at 11 years old, 2 eight year olds show me yours and I’ll show you mine, etc. These people now make up the majority on the SOR. We have almost 100,000 minors on the sex offenders registry and the overwhelming majority are not pedophiles of sex offenders. The same holds true with adults. Our sex offenders registry is in need of drastic reform. There are excellent articles that discuss young people who didn’t actually commit a sex offense at all going through graphically detailed “therapy” sessions with actual child predators and dentists who drugged and raped multiple patients. The way we handle things now is an absolute disgrace. I want to throat punch every baby boomer that says, “we already settled this”… during the Satanic Panic years. No. You didn’t. I have no idea why people are so content to not try do anything until after a child is abused. To top it off the isolation & rejection of any help directed at non offending pedophiles and child abusers is shown to make matters much worse. I’m not saying you have to become best friends. I’m saying that people need to try more preventative measures. The therapies in Germany do NOT focus on fantasies. They teach pedophiles techniques to prevent them. They don’t direct people toward CP. They try to redirect entirely. If a teenager (pubescent) is diagnosed as a pedophile with a preference for prepubescent children (what makes them a pedophile) they should be able to reach out for help without angry mobs chasing them back into the shadows. You would not find a social contagion involved with being diagnosed with pedophilia. The person that said this obviously has not read about vigilantes who press shotguns into the heads of people on the sex offenders registry in their towns… including 10 year old children on the registry for exploratory behaviors doctors deem normal. Currently, in multiple countries, the accusation of being a child predator or simply on the registry, which has a minority of legitimate child predators on it, results in mobbing and brutal murders. Innocent people have been hung by lynch mobs and burned in the streets. People are not asking you to invite a child abuser over to babysit. They are saying that newer prevention efforts are needed, and that people need to be able to seek help at puberty. If talked to early teens in therapy on Twitter who have been diagnosed as pedophiles (again, medical speak, they have not abused children as of yet) and actively sought out help because there are now more publicized resources for it. Not doing anything, not trying to help, and arresting them if they seek out help before offending resulting in no one being able to seek help… that’s a horrible plan. Breaking out research on one therapy technique from 60 - 6 years ago that did not work, as if it is proof that no therapeutic technique will ever help, is not taking a step toward preventing child abuse. Having people arrested for thought crimes if they try to seek help while pretending that a person who did not actually commit a crime will remain in jail the rest of their lives when the person that watched child porn will be out in 4 years is not actually helping anyone. Again, waiting until after a child has been abused to act does not actually help anyone. People need to try and try again.

Always fun to come on here and see people who are also paying for access to J & K's work yet take everything they say the most insanely uncharitable way conceivable. Honestly, it's worth the price of admission for that alone

It's probably at least in part a sample size issue. When trans adults are only about 0.6% of the population, even a sample size of a few hundred is relatively small.

“No, see - I spoke to some paedophiles and they said there’s nothing to worry about.” Forgive me if I lose some respect for the hosts over this episode.

However, I am also appalled that pedophiles who speak to therapists about it are reported. That’s what should change. They do need therapy—lots of it—but society does not owe them a sexual outlet. That just seems affirming to me.

Being Canadian, I’m not all “free speech for everyone all the time,” and I’m not convinced that sexual predators are entitled to sexual outlets in the form of stories, imagery or products that they didn’t make themselves. I.e. I’m as against the legality of child sex dolls as I would be of a sex doll filled with fake blood that you can dismember and put back together. Companies and people should not be allowed to make, distribute or profit from these kinds of things. I’ve seen hentai of child porn that was truly horrifying—put some blue ears on a tiny little girl and suddenly anything is OK? Absolutely not. I think the guy who hosted the website that distributed child porn (even though “fictional”, should have been prosecuted, although 40 years seems excessive.

Like Noah, I am about 50 but I’ll look and act way more immature. In his defense, the Muppets are kind of like Gen X’s version of Harry Potter bullshit as much as it could be a Gen X version of that. What he didn’t realize that actually Miss Piggy is the ID Kermit is the ego And those critics in the balcony, I think they’re the super ego.

JGraves

Also, I can see how much of this controversy is driven by schadenfreude toward Noah Berlatsky, who really is as huge of an asshole as you describe him. It's ironic to see him cancelled by his own side in a way that has strong parallels with Milo Yiannopolis' cancellation by conservatives over statements that were perceived to support child sexual abuse. And, if anything, Milo's statements were more nuanced than Noah's "parents are tyrants" hot take - maybe Prostasia should have made Milo Y their communications director! One correction about Noah's politics is that he is a bit to the economic left than you have him placed. He was a Sanders supporter in 2016 when many in his 'social justice' cohort were big on HRC, but he's also part of larger group that hates "Bernie Bros" and "class reductionists" and is largely "race before class", so he kind of ended up siding with woke neoliberal types in their disagreements with the more Marxist/economic justice left. In 2020, he went big for Warren, and was pretty much in line with the rest of the 'social justice' pundits in that regard.

Excellent episode! I think your description of Prostasia is spot on and jibes with what I found when I looked into them further. They really are not NAMBLA 2.0, and I think the worst you can say about them is that they may be a bit naive/optimistic in their solutions to pedophilia - certainly the fact that the chat group they sponsor ended up with older pedophiles sending inappropriate messages to minors shows they weren't taking that possibility seriously enough. But I don't think that was willful on their part. In general, I'm not sure if sex positive/pro-sex work activism and pedophilia policy reform fit together well within the same organization - the latter is just so controversial that it's a hard sell to begin with and will create negative associations for their other causes.

I had Noam Chomsky and Noah confused so it was a very confusing first 14 minutes

Could you say that about any minority group? I mean any group that has a negative image probably wants to be seen in a more positive light. Doesn't mean they are lying.

vorbei

I thought you two did a great job with a really difficult topic. I mean, both Noah and pedophilia are difficult topics, but you handled it well. Consider having a chat with James Cantor sometime (I know you have both already talked to him) because I think he's delightful.

Julia Mason

Bye Katelyn!

Julia Mason

A side note, but that 7% of the members being trans caught my ear. Isn’t that wildly disproportionate to the general population? Or is it a sample size issue?

That was a good movie. I think it captured what I’ve often read about people who are trying not to offend - they have major depression and difficulty finding something meaningful to do with their lives.

In the US, a 2002 case (Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft) Struck down a law prohibiting “virtual CP” that is computer generated rather than involving the abusive children. Basically, Scotus held that because no actual children are harmed in its production, and any harm arises from a subsequent criminal act, it was still protected speech And the statute went too far in attempting to regulate it. I believe there have been some lower circuit cases since then upholding restrictions on Material that superimposes children’s faces onto adult bodies and the like, but I don’t believe it’s been retested before the Supreme Court in a while.

I'm sure there's lots of hand-wringing in the comments but this is why BarPod exists, to tell uncomfortable truths to the too-online crowd, subscribers included. This ep proves it stands for something

DrSmart

This was such a good episode. Made me proud to be a subscriber

DrSmart

A group with a strong incentive to lie told Katie something so she believed them. Not very keen on pleas to sympathise or open my mind on this subject. When people show you what they are, believe them.

I became a Patron of Trashfuture due strictly to the name of the episode being "Twûnkhöle Capital SA". (I also knew one of the hosts from the Bottlemen podcast). But that episode banged. And a catchy controversial topic is catnip.

Cory

I hope they do it, but I think it would be hard for them to good a good job. Unless they read nakedcapitalism all the time.

Cory

yeah honestly me too. But should I judge him for it?

Cory

As a fan, I sometimes wonder which BARPOD episode might be best to bring in new listeners. This wasn't it. I would consider paying an extra 5 bucks a month to have you guys permanently move on from pedo-talk, and 70+ minutes on a virtually unknown internet writer like Noah Berlatsky, even if he's targeted you in a lame, self-published book, is just overkill.

"....natal male or natal female?" I will give you 100-1 odds that natal males, whatever their current body configuration are the main group. Aside from that, I dont think your experiences among gay friends is odd at all. Attraction to young girls was just taken as a given for straight men until a couple years ago. Mostly Catholic Schoolgirl -type tittilation if course. But for most of my life the "sophisticated" view on, for instance, Roman Polanski was that he was a guy who got up to some, maybe technically illegal sex stuff, but was being horrifically persecuted by uptight conservatives.

Yeah, I think there’s a question of whether it’s better to indulge in “safe” ways or to try to shut down that part of their brains and never think about it. I have a hard time believing that indulging helps. I tend to think indulging a fetish increases the desire to keep doing it, but I don’t know. Maybe there are relevant studies on fetishes involving adults.

An even more edgy related topic. If we’re talking about pedo/hebe/ehebophiles and not "child sex abusers"... What is the proportion of hetero- vs homo- sexual orientation? (compared to the population at large) Were the trans people natal male or female? I have my own guesses on these things. I'm a gay cis male. I think in my group of promiscuous gay men from 20-60 years old (roughly) there was a lot of casual acceptance of attraction in the ephebophilic range. Maybe I just hung out with weirdos -- I dunno. But there were some interesting "Dude, this guy lied to me about his age!" conversations that might raise an eyebrow in the normie world.

Cory

Maybe her opinion isn’t clouded (which is kind of denigrating), but influenced for sure. Agree with the second paragraph but I think they handled the whole thing admirably given that this topic isn’t a running theme for the show and they had to introduce their audience to a lot of new stuff that is probably extremely squicky and unfamiliar. Im pretty familiar with the subject and though the argumentation could have been tighter I think Katie’s sincerity did come through. (One just has to assess whether she’s a good reporter or a rube)

Cory

Well this guy sounds great, why don't you get him on?

This was a very rambling episode. More so than normal. I think the amount of material you were trying to get through and the seriousness of it didn't lend itself to the very informal, chatty style the podcast uses. It felt very rushed. I would like to have heard more about the research and less "a paedophile told me and it's fine" or "I went onto a forum, didn't see all the channels, but the paedophiles told me it was good so it is" because that was not compelling. Also, Liz Bruenig's opinion is clouded because she's a mother? Or because she's a catholic? That's facile.

The serious discussion above is great and people should read it. Some petty points: 1. I’ve always found the Kermit/Piggy dynamic unhealthy and unfunny, and hate having it put in my face. But I’m not going to, like, write a think piece about it. 2. I like the personal ads bc I like hearing about all the nifty people who listen to BARPod. What about sticking them up in an Excel sheet here? That might be a lighter lift than reading them on air and make it easier for people to connect with each other.

I don't see why writing three muppet articles is any worse than writing one. If you can sell the same piece three times, isn't that just smart business, or is there a journalist value that makes recycling your work hacky? (On the other hand, I guess I find it hacky that Thomas Friedman has a career out of writing the same three op ed pieces week after week, so maybe I see the point.)

Oh gosh, that's going to haunt me now.

No deep observations, just a moment of pettiness. While on a walk, I had a nightmare scenario: in light of this affair and his so-called "friends" unsurprisingly throwing him to the dogs, Noah Berlatsky reinvents himself as a shitty anti-woke martyr. Please stay woke, Berlatsky, please. It's better for our side if you do.

R.S.

Gratin

vorbei

I think we can add "cretin" to to the list of words Jesse doesn't know how to pronounce. Always heard it pronounced kreh-tin, not kree-tin.

Erik D

Bravo!

Can I just say that I agree with you. However names like Lolicon and Shotacon are fucked up cutesy names so that pedophiles don't have to confront the inherent evil that they have to fight within themselves. It's gross.

Katie going to get cancelled again for saying there’s a lot of trans people in the MAP chat group (like, srsly?) Agree with AA in the comments above, excellent post.

I was sceptical coming into this episode. But as always, you forced me to confront my own prejudices - and in the most thoughtful of ways. Grateful for you two culture obsessives.

Ram Adrian

Sounds a bit like "I didn't do anything and if I did it wouldn't be that bad". It sounds sus.

vorbei

I also hate to refer to children as people.

vorbei

I’m surprised nobody has pointed this out yet, but the idea that drawings of child sex will lead to rampant sexual abuse/put kids in danger is very obviously untrue. Lolicon works are common enough in Japan that there are popular online personalities in Japan that openly talk about enjoying if. Nobody has ever given me any compelling explanation of how this can be true and Japan can somehow not have an endemic sexual abuse problem. The most popular porn category in the US is step-sibling porn, but we don’t ban it because we’re smart enough to understand boys have enough self-control to not fuck their step-sisters.

This is sort of a trivial observation but the same organization probably shouldn’t be advocating for the rights of falsely accused pedophiles (teens sending sexts) and people who want to fuck kids (can’t remember the technical term). I just keep thinking about what a bizarre decision that is. God damn.

When I saw this story start on Twitter, literally the first thing I pictured was Jesse logging on and doing the Antonio Banderas reaction gif, and knew we'd get an episode about it.

The Ivermectin story might've been a safer topic.

Klondike

You mean the Barpod Murder Incentive for listeners of a "morally flexible" podcast? Nah, I'm gonna say that wouldn't go well for any of us...well, maybe one of us.

Klondike

Oh man, you guys really love controversy.

vorbei

Yes, important distinction.

Hello, I just listened to your latest Patrons-Only on pedophilia and was surprised at just how poorly you failed to explain the distinction between pre-pubescent vs post-pubescent pedophilia. You even sorta mocked the term ephebophilia at sign off. In fact, the contrast between pedophilia and ephebophilia is extraordinary. Vaginal penetration of a pre-pubescent girl is physically catastrophic. A girl child essentially lacks a functional vagina, which does not open up into a passageway until puberty. Penetration tears tissue in the vagina. The bleeding from this trauma is utterly unlike a young woman's bleeding from first sex. It can be life threatening, in addition to being physically and psychologically horrific. And because the vagina is shallow, penetration damages the cervix and other deep tissues. Even digital penetration can cause tissue tearing, and equivalent psychological devastation. Any kind of rectal penetration of a pre-pubescent boy or girl is also a variety of physical torture, in addition to being psychologically devastating. Rape of a pre-pubescent child is fundamentally torture. Sex with a post-pubescent girl is an entirely different matter, particularly if a girl is two or three years beyond onset. As grotesque as it may sound, there is truth to the saying, "If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed." This saying refers to menstruation, not the torture of ripping vaginal tissue during sex. There are extremely good reasons for taboos against mature men having sex with 14-year-old girls. But those reasons are traditionally related to the fact that unwed girls with babies are a burden on society. Today we recognize the unfairness of the relationship between a mature man and a teenage girl. She is at a severe psychological disadvantage. We know from vast experience that teen girls who have sex with mature men often (but certainly not always) end up living terrible lives, not having experienced a normal maturation process. There are really good reasons for our taboos and laws. But it is a simple fact that sex with a 14-year-old girl is not physically destructive. Sex with a pre-pubescent girl is physically catastrophic. Sex with girls shortly after puberty is typically extraordinarily painful and horrible, in addition to being psychologically damaging, but is rarely life-threatening. If I were an editor I would insist on a conscientious observation of the distinction between true pedophilia and ephebophilia. Conflating these two criminal categories is like conflating manslaughter with first degree murder, or conflating shoplifting with a bank heist. tldr: ephebophilia usually very bad, pedophilia always absolutely evil.

Berlatsky v Dirtbag Left…it’s like my own personal Alien v Predator

When “porn” became a legitimate commodity made by willing and happy “sex workers” for “sex positive” consumers. Children cannot consent, cannot be “sex workers,” and therefore cannot make pornography. (Not being facetious. The U.K. justice system has been working quite hard on the language to make the harm & illegality clear in a world of rapidly changing language.)

Joolz

If you're going to claim that 1) raped children are simply "child sex workers", and 2) children as young as 12 should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies, It's hard for me to understand how Liz Breuing is wrong here. the argument that children who sell sex for money are just "workers" is innately a pedophile argument, no matter how you caveat that later on. so it's doubly weird that this is the guy that is the spox for the "totally not child molestors, but pedophile normailzation advocacy group". just doesn't pass the smell test. it would be LESS weird (but still weird) if the pedophile advocacy group didn't choose as their spokesperson the guy who says parents are tyrants and can't tell their own12 year olds what to do with their bodies. really liked this episode, liked the nuance but this world is just too dangerous. if a guy quacks like a guy that likes to fuck children, just go with your gut. why test it.

Has anyone else seen the film THE WOODSMAN with Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Mos Def, that came out like 15 years ago? It’s about an MAP just released on parole and the conflicting emotions and what societal pressures can do to a person. It was a stage play originally, but it really opened my eyes on the topic.

Really not sure about the child sex dolls here. I have never met a person that bought a sex doll of any kind unironically. From a purely libertarian point of view this is tricky, but I have a hard time buying that sex dolls help anyone do anything except ride in the HOV lane with not enough people in their car.

When I saw there was a new episode I was sure it was going to be on that latest Wi Spa revelation, but I guess that hadn’t broken yet when you started recording... Looking forward to your take on it.

You don't write 3 muppet pieces without being sexually attracted to muppets.

Manzell Blakeley

For anyone interested in the legal issues around CP, I recommend reading the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Sharp, 2001 SCC 2, majority decision by Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. For the good stuff, skip to paragraph 86 where the harms of CP are set out. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html Drawings and fiction have harm related to them. Due to this decision, Canadian law has a small carve-out for self-created material, that does not include any actual children, and that is held strictly for personal use. But the moment it is shared, it loses Charter protection. Kiddie “erotica” website dude is no martyred artiste; the moment he set up his site for *sharing* that grooming material, he took himself out of the only legitimate carve-out for fiction/artwork.

The lyric "they don't love you like I love you" from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs song "Maps" is seeming much darker

>Or just had their sexual awakening and maybe had a passing thought when they looked at a toddler that they will then pathologize and fixate by enshrining it in a conversation with these groups? This is a great point. If social contagion is a thing and we're amazing at constantly creating new identities, seems like these groups could cause fixation on and creation of pedophile identities in teenagers, when perhaps it otherwise would have just been screwy passing puberty thought... Anorexia and cutting for girls....MAP for boys? OK, enough of these creepy and disturbing thoughts for me for tonight, and I'm really sorry for the hell you've been through. I think you're spot on about cautioning against naivety when the worst actors are in fact charming and experts at manipulation to get away with this kind of evil stuff.

Okay - I’m not even saying this to be funny but I’ve always assumed Noah is low IQ. Like if somebody asked me what his deal is, I would lean in and whisper “He’s r*******”. So when I heard about Prostasia, I just assumed he had no idea it was a pro-MAP org. I don’t even think he is knowingly a pedophilia apologist, he’s just an idiot.

Haha, somehow I doubt we'll be alone this time.

This comment is not about pedophiles but I just wanted to say that my heart is exploding for young Katie crushing on older kayakers. This is from last episode but whatever

Jules O'D

Ugh… I’m sure this is the comment you were hoping you wouldn’t get, but here goes. I think people have this idea that pedophiles are socially awkward and visibly weird people you could spot a mile away and that they could never manipulate you, or charm you, or make you see them as human. And that if they can do all those things that means they could never do something terrible, or awful, like rape a kid and then come across as reasonable and sympathetic five minutes later. Of course they can do all of those things, because they are people. And they are also monsters because all monsters are people. The man who raped me, and went on to rape the majority of my cousins, was charming. People loved him. He was a “rascal.” And what he thrived on, and could not live without, was that people were too surprised and felt too awkward to interrupt his charisma as he slowly pushed in on their boundaries and say “Hey, what the fuck?” And he knew that if you let him intrude on those barriers even a single time that it would almost certainly be the case that you would let him do it however many times he wanted after that because you would never forgive yourself for not having said something that first time. He’d just rattle you a little bit, you wouldn’t push back, and then he’d rattle you and a bit farther the next time. I was lucky. I was only five. It was violent, so at least I have the memory of not giving into him or being seduced by him. I know I’m lucky because the people I met in survivor’s groups who got groomed were hurt way worse. He only got me once. I refused to ever go near him again. And I’ll still never forgive myself for not saying anything when I found out he had done it to others. If I can hold five year old me accountable, I can post a comment on the internet to make you rethink some of these positions. Love you guys, and not sure what your own histories are (I never assume anymore and I don’t think my opinion is better only because I’ve been on the survivor side of this) but this episode strikes me as *extremely* naive. You know some things in your spine and the more you talk about them the less you know. You’re both nice people so you don’t want to believe that someone can be born a certain way and that way could be evil. You *want* people to be good because you are good. So your head gets so open to new ideas, because the reality is so fucking awful, you *want* a different way to think about, and then your head gets so open that your brain falls out. Not a lot of things work that way but some things, violent things especially, *are* like that. If an alcoholic said he only wanted to walk into a bar and smell a beer, or if a drug addict said he just wanted to walk through the park by the bridge where his dealer lives with fifty bucks in his pocket to “get some air” you would know that’s bullshit. The internet makes us feel like we are all brains floating in space, but we aren’t. If a guy says all he wants to do is read child erotica, or have sex with a doll that looks like a kid and you had to sit there and look him in the face, and not just as some text on the internet where it’s all philosophical, you’d know that’s bullshit too. If you had to live next to a guy and watch him walk past kids, and hear him make plans to go to his family reunion where his young relatives will be, or see him think through scenarios of how he’s going to get away with it, the meatspace terror of that adds something that reasoning about it on the internet cannot. You don’t want to believe people can be evil, because you are not evil, and it’s so much nicer to believe it’s all just misaligned incentives, but you are wrong. You are wrong to think that you thought your way through it. Let’s say they go their whole lives and they only slip once a decade. That’s a half a dozen people they’ve dealt a foundational injury. Some people *like* to hurt other people. It’s the hurting specifically that they like. The hurting isn’t some accidental byproduct, it’s the point. I don’t expect you to believe me, but my experience is not academic. The part of this that’s like AA for pedohiles, I’m ambiguous about. They should never *ever* see one another. The risks are way too high and the precautionary principle should prevail. I get this is ostensibly put there to help them by third parties, but are we 100% sure of their motives? I can’t imagine any benefit being so great that these people should have a chance to network. This is like people who are all broke and work at a bank and have nothing to lose getting together to talk about not committing a robbery. I can’t imagine a better incentive to work together, or a greater secret to build a circle of trust. I’m okay with them seeing therapists and that being private, maybe, but never with each other. They should never see another guy and have a lightbulb go off over their head and think “yeah, he’d help me.” I buy that they’re born with it, but some people are born wanting to set people on fire or cut them up with knives. Maybe you owe them the discernment of your judgment but you do not owe them the abandonment of your caution. And talking to thirteen year olds who are what, attracted to eleven year olds? Or nine year olds? Or just had their sexual awakening and maybe had a passing thought when they looked at a toddler that they will then pathologize and fixate by enshrining it in a conversation with these groups? And it’s safe because there are moderators? Put it on real people and it falls apart. The reasoning around it is theater to make you feel more comfortable. Maybe they’ve even convinced themselves they believe it, tied their minds all up in pretzels so they can live the rest of their lives normally, but this is like lions at the zoo pushing at bars they set up. It’s a terrible, terrible idea. I forgave the man who raped me, because I did not want my life to be motivated by hate or by shame. I forgave myself for not saying anything in time to help the others. But letting go of hate isn’t the same thing as letting go of judgment, or boundaries, or punishment.

after finishing this ep I feel more sure that berlatzky is a pedo than before I started it

suz

Ballsy choice of topic. Not sure how I feel about it but appreciate you not shying away from exploring a likely unpopular pov and attempting to be evenhanded about it

Since we're not doing the BAR Patron Dating Service anymore, what do you say to replacing it with a BAR Patrons Tontine?

radfem listeners are not gonna be happy with this ep

suz

Excellent episode

"Error theory" is the stance that "race" is a pseudoscientific concept that originated as a result of ignorance/superstition and therefore "race" should eventually be eliminated. It isn't saying that racial oppression does not exist. It's more like acknowledging that oppression/discrimination exists based on race, gender, and disability but race, gender, and disability are all different from each other. Protasia doesn't seem like it's specifically committed to evidence-based practices to help MAPS. People involved in running the organization seem to be First Amendment obscenity lawyers, people with some interest in hentai of underage people being legal, webcam models who are worried about obscenity law, etc. There don't seem to be tons of scientists involved with research into creating supportive environments for non-offending MAPs. At best, the research into drawings and sex dolls/robots as rehabilitative tools for people like MAPs and sexually compulsive serial rapists is sketchy.

Haven't had a chance to listen yet, but read some of the links and am wondering when did child pornography become child exploitation material? The change seems clunky and unnecessary.

Ewww

I only saw the first half of the title in my notifications and I KNEW lol

I took this as a sign God loves us.