Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The latest salvo in the normalization of pre pubescent homosexual pedophilia

  1. #1

    The latest salvo in the normalization of pre pubescent homosexual pedophilia

    Hat Tip to @Occam's Banana who posted a tweet about this in his Clown World thread.


    tldr; English academic publishes "research" paper on the effects of masturbating to animated homosexual Japanese kiddie porn.

    Police take notice and start investigation.

    Turns out this "academic" has a long history of promoting homosexual pedophilia.


    It occurred to me whilst going through all this, that here is a perfect example of what conservatives and people on the right are often prattling on about without really understanding: "We want to preserve Christian values".

    Well, here's a good place to start. Prior to the Christian revolution in the Roman empire, the sexual abuse of young boys was commonplace and maybe if not accepted, was certainly tolerated in ancient Rome and Greece and throughout the West. It was not until the teachings of Christ, enforced by the church, prohibiting the abuse of children, especially for sexual pleasure, became crimes to be punished, and the practice dwindled.

    In less than a lifetime, this has all changed: the "mainstream" churches are apostate and fallen, openly embracing all manners of perversions, including hommosexual abuse of young boys.

    If you are part of one of these denominations, do you agree with this? What have you done to change it, if not? Can it even be changed?


    The first post that started this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    A follow up that I found, that indicated the cops were now involved:

    Academic Who Published Paper on Masturbating to Child Porn Under Police Investigation

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...investigation/

    KURT ZINDULKA 12 Aug 2022

    Police have launched an investigation into a British PhD candidate who has published a “research” paper centering around him masturbating to child porn, Breitbart News can reveal.

    Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has said that an investigation has been launched after University of Manchester student Karl Andersson published a PhD research paper on his personal experiences of masturbating to the “Shotacon” subgenre of Japanese manga comic books that focus on often highly sexualised portrayals of prepubescent or pubescent boys.

    Anderson claimed that in order to “understand how [people] experience sexual pleasure when reading shota” he conducted a three-month “experiment” of masturbating to paedophilic comic books, taking notes during every “session”.

    “I would not be allowed to have any other sexual relief during this ‘fieldwork’ in my own sexuality: no regular porn, no sex with another person, no fantasies or memories — it had to be shota every time.”

    In his paper, published by the peer-reviewed academic journal Qualitative Research, Andersson admitted that “the age of the characters and the explicitness of the sex, as well as in the readers’ views on whether or how sexual desire for fictional boys is connected to sexual attraction to actual children.”

    Yet despite acknowledging the illicit nature of the material, he said that he found interviewing others inadequate for his study, writing: “I realized that my body was equipped with a research tool of its own that could give me, quite literally, a first-hand understanding of shota.”

    Describing one such masturbation “session”, Anderson wrote in his notebook in September of last year: “Started reading on the toilet: Boy who is staying with relatives happens to see his same-age friend masturbate… The boy who has admitted to everything has nothing to lose, so he throws himself over Tokio-kun and starts sniffing his cock and licking his smooth balls, and while waiting for the shot I came!”

    Possession of drawn child pornography is a crime in the United Kingdom, and it seems likely the materials indulged in by Andersson would meet this definition, given the paper’s own description of “very young boy characters [who] would greedily jump over the first cock that presented itself” in the material — content of which Andersson wrote: “That worked for me”.

    Speaking to Breitbart London, a spokesman for the Greater Manchester Police revealed that the force has launched an investigation to determine if the “research” project had violated any laws.

    “GMP received a report in relation to this matter in August 2022 and have since launched an investigation. We are working closely with the University of Manchester who are assisting us with our enquiries to establish what, if any offences have been committed.”

    The spokesman told Breitbart London that as of the time of this publication: “No arrests have been made”.





    Ten years ago he was publishing "Destroyer", a queeer pedophile mag.

    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Circling the wagons

    https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p...ing-the-wagons

    There was no defending that appalling "autoethnography" paper on masturbation. But a lot of academics defended it anyway

    Stuart Ritchie Aug 11 2022

    A conservative politician attacks a peer-reviewed research paper by a Humanities PhD student.

    Sounds terrible, doesn’t it? Anti-free speech. Anti-academic freedom. A chilling atmosphere for researchers. But before you get out the loudhailer and head to protest outside Parliament, perhaps it would be good to get a little context. First, here’s the tweet, from Conservative Party MP Neil O’Brien:



    My instinct upon seeing a tweet like this is to click the link to the paper—in this case, one published this year in the journal Qualitative Research—and take a look at it. The instinct of several other academics on Twitter was to instantly, reflexively defend the paper from O’Brien’s criticism. But we’ll get to those academics in just a moment. For now, let’s actually look the paper - if we can stomach it.

    I think O’Brien buried the lede in his tweet (sorry to use this annoying journalistic term - it just means “didn’t immediately mention the most important part of the story”). That’s because the shota to which the author is masturbating isn’t just “normal” Japanese pornography - it’s Japanese pornography that heavily features pubescent boys. In other words, it’s hand-drawn, simulated, child porn.

    You don’t need to look far to see this - you can find it in literally the first line of the paper’s Abstract:

    I wanted to understand how my research participants experience sexual pleasure when reading shota, a Japanese genre of self-published erotic comics that features young boy characters.

    The recently-single researcher—a PhD student named Karl Andersson at the University of Manchester—describes an “experiment” where, for a period of three months, he masturbated only to shota magazines. He kept a diary, updated each time he masturbated, detailing “which material I had used, where I had done it, at what time, and for how long”.

    It’s quite difficult to choose which parts of the paper to quote; I actually recommend you read the whole thing (it’s not long), just to see how unbelievably weird “autoethnography” research—studies where the researcher describes their own personal experience and tries to draw some wider lessons for society—can get. But here’s one quotation (note the “very young”):

    The examples above, with stories from a past childhood, were believable to me, as in ‘that could have happened’... But more often, very young boy characters would greedily jump over the first cock that presented itself. That too worked for me, but it was different. If the boyhood stories enhanced a sexual curiosity that was there from the start in the typical pubescent boy that the characters were modelled on, these other stories pasted an overly virile sexuality onto characters that would not be sexual to start with (or at least not that sexual, or in that way).

    And here’s a quotation from one of Karlsson’s diaries (I have to re-emphasize that this was published in a peer-reviewed academic paper):

    I continued in bed, arranged the pillows until I was in a comfortable position, a bit ceremonial. ... The boy is now observing Tokio-kun through the window, on the veranda, while jerking off. He slips on the snow and is discovered. Tokio-kun angry, but also excited even as he keeps repeating ‘I’m not ****!’. The boy who has admitted to everything has nothing to lose, so he throws himself over Tokio-kun and starts sniffing his cock and licking his smooth balls, and while waiting for the shot I came!

    Some of it is just bizarre:

    3D [as opposed to the 2D comics] is my culture, just like milk and muesli is my breakfast, and not fish and miso soup, which you might be served for breakfast at a traditional ryokan in Japan. I can enjoy both, but I think I will never overcome my preference – I wonder if any of us truly can. And so, it was necessary to be diligent enough to abstain from the ‘milk and muesli’ of porn during this experiment, in order to see what happened to my body on a long diet of ‘fish and miso soup’.

    Towards the end, he tries to make some kind of insightful point by writing:

    When we masturbate, someone else is always there. During this fieldwork, others were there with me, both in the form of the characters that populated the dōjinshi, but also in the form of the invisible creator of these characters and the other readers who were enjoying them.

    “Fieldwork”! As someone who does quantitative (as opposed to qualitative) research, I always have a boggle reaction when I see papers like this. This counts as research?! To be unreasonably charitable to autoethnography in general, it might occasionally be useful: it could generate hypotheses which we can then properly test in quantitative studies, with actual data, rather than just a diary (what’s frustrating is when researchers stop after the qualitative part, or even argue that qualitative research is better than quantiative).

    But even for autoethnography, this paper is terrible. A masturbation diary isn’t “research”. There is absolutely nothing we learn from it apart from gaining a disturbing insight into the mind of the author.

    And that mind is a very warped place. The writer Ben Sixsmith dug into Andersson’s background and found that he used to run a magazine with eroticised pictures of boys “as young as 13”, and gave a terrifying interview to Vice magazine in 2012 which has to be read to be believed. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t want to push this, but if you look at the relevant UK law, I don’t see how the shota materials he has in his possession are legal (but as I say: not a lawyer).

    What I’m mainly interested in is the reaction from Karlsson’s fellow academics. Happily, there were many academics who were repulsed by the paper and said so loudly - and good for them. But when some other academics saw a Conservative MP tweeting about the study, it was simply too much. They sprang into action - and also blundered straight into what was—deliberately-set or otherwise—a trap.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-13-2022 at 06:22 AM. Reason: removed tracking cruft from article URL
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    Moving thread to "World News & Affairs" subforum, as this incident is from the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Circling the wagons

    https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p...ing-the-wagons

    There was no defending that appalling "autoethnography" paper on masturbation. But a lot of academics defended it anyway

    Stuart Ritchie Aug 11 2022

    [...]

    What I’m mainly interested in is the reaction from Karlsson’s fellow academics. Happily, there were many academics who were repulsed by the paper and said so loudly - and good for them. But when some other academics saw a Conservative MP tweeting about the study, it was simply too much. They sprang into action - and also blundered straight into what was—deliberately-set or otherwise—a trap.
    CONTINUED FROM: https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p...ing-the-wagons

    Defending the indefensible

    Here are lots of highly-credentialed academic Tweeters—all but one with their credential prominently in their Twitter name or handle—responding to Neil O’Brien’s tweet by reflexively defending the paper about masturbating to cartoons of underage boys.

    [examples hidden to save space - OB]
     
    For example, here’s Dr. Fern Riddell, who is a cultural historian who writes about sex and related issues:

    [DELETED]

    And here’s Prof. Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History at the University of Nottingham:
    Here’s Prof. Nigel Driffield, Professor of International Business at Warwick Business School:
    And finally, here’s Prof. Danny Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth:
    There were other tweeters who joined [DELETED - OB] in the wagon-circling, mainly making the false claim that Andersson wasn’t funded, or was self-funded. For instance, here’s Prof. Paul Bernal, professor of IT Law at University of East Anglia:

    [DELETED]
    The claim that the paper wasn’t funded isn’t true: even though the paper contains a statement that no funding was received for that project specifically, Andersson mentions in his Twitter bio that he’s funded by his university department, has put a video on YouTube talking about how his PhD is funded through his department, and someone—most likely the university—has paid the ~£2,500 “article processing charge” required to make the article fully open-access. Someone is paying for this - and given how universities are funded, it’s perfectly reasonable to think it’s all, or at least in part, the UK taxpayer.

    But the heuristic for these academics seemed to be: if a right-wing MP is criticising a paper published by a Humanities academic, I must defend that paper. Perhaps in many cases that heuristic would work—it has, after all, become a pastime on the right to mindlessly attack work in the Humanities and social science, as the very cringe “grievance studies” hoax from 2017-18 proved. But this situation illustrates how terribly badly the heuristic can go wrong. There is an enormous amount of terrible, useless “research” in the Humanities/social science. The UK taxpayer does fund a lot of it.

    This extreme paper was an opportunity for everyone to say “okay, can we do anything to raise standards in qualitative research?”. Instead, they went with their basest political instinct and defended it - without having even read the first sentence of the Abstract.

    At the time of writing, Dr. Riddell and Prof. Bernal have apologised and deleted their tweets; Profs. Driffield and Blanchflower have moved on to other things; and Prof. Fielding has doubled down, saying he isn’t “qualified” to attack or defend the article (yikes!).

    As I summarised it on Twitter:
    The last post on this Substack was about pseudocritics - about social-media users who leap to attack research on the flimsiest pretext, and who end up having never actually read the study or thought about its context. I suppose this current post is a companion piece, because it’s about pseudodefenders - people who provide knee-jerk defence of work for completely irrational reasons, without (again) having read it - or even, as must be the explanation for many of the tweets above, taken a glance at it. To say the least, this isn’t what academia is supposed to be about.

    The academic community

    Of course, the other reaction to the paper came a few months ago when it was being published: the reaction from all the academics around Andersson who helped him get his paper published. They include:

    • His PhD supervisor, whom he thanks in the Acknowledgements section of his paper “for always encouraging me to go where my research takes me”;
    • Another senior academic who commented on a draft, who is also thanked in the Acknowledgements section;
    • Two peer reviewers—presumably also academics—who “provid[ed] useful feedback”;
    • The editor(s) of the journal Qualitative Research who decided to accept the article for publication, and anyone else at the journal (for example a copyeditor) who conceivably might’ve seen the paper at some point and said “just a second…”;
    • The ethics committee at the University of Manchester, who must’ve had some idea of what he was up to - he reports in another video that one of his projects failed to receive ethics approval, but it’s unclear whether he submitted this specific project to the panel since it was all about himself;
    • Other academics at his department and his university. He’s been a PhD student at the University of Manchester for over a year, so I’d bet he’s been made to attend all manner of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion training, Decolonising the Curriculum sessions, microaggression awareness sessions, as well as research ethics training - and if so, it is grimly ironic that these courses will have contained all sorts of quite specific advice on how to behave, but not “don’t publish in an academic journal that you enjoy masturbating to pictures of young boys”.

    The most likely scenario, to my mind, is that all the above people are either well-meaning, or very distracted, or both, and have been taken for a ride by someone who isn’t really interested in research, but merely in finding excuses to examine and publicise his own sexual paraphilia. As Ben Sixsmith put it in his article, I hope Andersson gets help - but I also hope the authorities take a look at his hard drive.

    Thanks to the Twitter storm, the University of Manchester have now said they’re investigating the paper and how it got published. Probably they’ll deem the paper a violation of research ethics, possibly for the legal reasons I mentioned above, and request that the journal retracts it.

    The journal has also said it’s investigating. At the very least, they should be pressured to make this investigation totally transparent: to post online the full peer-reviews of, and any editorial correspondence about, the paper. There’s no argument for keeping these secret (and they don’t need to have the names of the reviewers visible - just the reviews will do). Many journals now post all the reviews alongside every paper, giving really useful context, and all journals should do this as a matter of course - but it’s especially important in a case like this.

    Publishing this paper was an unbelievable, gross mistake - mostly on the part of the author, but to varying degrees on the part of everyone listed above. It illustrates that something has gone terribly wrong in the world of qualitative research, and especially at the journal Qualitative Research. What’s the point of having an academic community, with all its supposed checks and balances, if they merrily speed a paper like this on its way to publication - and then let it sit there for months until there’s a fuss online? Can anything get under the radar of this academic community if it’s dressed up in the language of “autoethnography” and “experimental methods”?

    As for Neil O’Brien’s tweet, I should say that I’m perfectly comfortable with there being research that’s of no immediate, or even long-term, “social value” - though of course academics should have to justify to some degree what they’re doing if they’re taxpayer-funded. But the responses to O’Brien’s tweet showed that some social media users are on a hair-trigger to justify research that doesn’t just have no social value, but could be incredibly harmful.

    Indeed, the whole affair couldn’t be a better illustration of the more depressing aspects of online partisanship. Do some academics really hate a Tory MP so much that they’ll defend paedophilia? Not quite - but they will end up accidentally defending paedophilia, simply because they’re so politically biased that they can’t be bothered to read a single sentence.

    Not a brilliant day to be an academic.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-13-2022 at 08:20 AM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The first post that started this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    The journal has also said it’s investigating. At the very least, they should be pressured to make this investigation totally transparent: to post online the full peer-reviews of, and any editorial correspondence about, the paper. There’s no argument for keeping these secret (and they don’t need to have the names of the reviewers visible - just the reviews will do). Many journals now post all the reviews alongside every paper, giving really useful context, and all journals should do this as a matter of course - but it’s especially important in a case like this.
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....87941221096600

  6. #5

  7. #6

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ten years ago he was publishing "Destroyer", a queeer pedophile mag.

    https://twitter.com/madjane_/status/1557295918222675968
    Here is the entire Twitter thread:

    https://twitter.com/madjane_/status/1557295894428413954


    (additional matter hidden to save space)
     

  9. #8
    Beyond the pervasion about "studying" masturbation, I am dumbfounded that some believe it should be taught. Anyone who needs to be taught how to play with themselves is probably in the running for the stupidest person on earth.
    ...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    f
    a
    g
    s
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Beyond the pervasion about "studying" masturbation, I am dumbfounded that some believe it should be taught. Anyone who needs to be taught how to play with themselves is probably in the running for the stupidest person on earth.
    Especially since most people know how to do it naturally.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Moving thread to "World News & Affairs" subforum, as this incident is from the UK.
    Understood, but the journal he published it in, while having a global network, was founded by an American and its primary offices are in the United States.

    https://group.sagepub.com/our-story

    That's what I noticed at first glance.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  14. #12
    This is in no way a defense of pedophiles or weirdos and freaks masquerading as academics, but I just need to point out that most of this falls under the category of "thought crime", and hopefully we all know where that will lead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The latest salvo in the normalization of pre pubescent homosexual pedophilia
    And that is a different matter entirely. People who actually molest children, should be in jail, no doubt about that. Normalization, via public schools or libraries, should not be tolerated either.

    Parents who take their kids to drag shows at bars are already in violation of several laws, as are the bar owners. But do we want CPS to do something about that, or is CPS a big enough problem already?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    People who actually molest children, should be in jail,
    I disagree.

    Public disembowelment is far more fitting.

  16. #14
    Truly vile. Another facet of degeneracy I would have happily never learned about.
    DeFi tutorials for noobs and normies. Merchandise for apes and chads who want to share the love with our libertarian clothing2nd Amendment shirts. "Liberty is beautiful" for all - only at Libertas Bella.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    This is in no way a defense of pedophiles or weirdos and freaks masquerading as academics, but I just need to point out that most of this falls under the category of "thought crime", and hopefully we all know where that will lead.
    I agree. I do not think any subject area should be regarded as forbidden to academic investigation or scholarly consideration (including any of various paraphilias).

    But some subject areas are more worthy of consideration and investigation than others (especially when they are conducted on the public dime) - and in any case, when it comes to subject matter that is otherwise objectionable, such endeavors should strive to be as neutral in character as possible, rather than apologetic (such as in an attempt to "rehabilitate" otherwise objectionable subject matter by normalizing it or making it seem less objectionable). Seeking to understand a thing does not require condoning or endorsing it.

    The work by this Karl Andersson person is pretty clearly of the latter kind. Given just the material presented in this thread, it is pretty clear he is using the academy as cover for indulging in a kind of public exhibitionism of his own personal pedophilic fixations - that is, he may well get some kind of "kick", not just out of the subject matter itself, but also out of talking about his own indulgence of it under the guise of an otherwise "respectable" venue (in this case, a scholarly journal).

    There is also at least some reasonable basis for suspicion that he might have gone beyond mere "thought crime" and into actual crime. For just one example, this is from the Vice interview referenced in the last tweet in post #7 above:


    If he has not acted on it, then why not just say, "No, I have not"?

    Of course, if he has acted on it, then it would be wise (or at least smart) to deny it anyway.

    But either way, not denying it may well be part of the thrill (that exhibitionist "kick" I mentioned before).

    Whatever this guy has done (or why he has done it), it is certainly not scholarship (or scholarly "research") of any kind, and it should never have been treated as such. That it was is testament to the extremely low estate to which the academy has sunk. The imprimatur of university was once a mark of prestige - but due to the likes of Karl Andersson (and their colleagues, who allow them to publicly indulge their personal fetishes as if they were some kind of academic scholarship), that is no longer the case.



Similar Threads

  1. Another salvo in the war on meat
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-08-2018, 02:24 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-10-2013, 01:35 PM
  3. The Normalization of Dystopia
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 05:29 PM
  4. The Normalization Of Nullification (TPM)
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 07:36 AM
  5. The first Salvo is Away!!!
    By MayTheRonBeWithYou in forum Free At Last 1/21 Mass Donation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 11:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •