Intellectual Elites Who Embraced Pedophilia

As we proceed into the terrain of the post-Christian world, it has become more obvious to me that our “intellectual elites” would be better described as our “intellectual freaks.”  If one doubts me, explain why the intellectual elites in France so willing embraced pedophilia.

From the NYT:

The French writer Gabriel Matzneff never hid the fact that he engaged in sex with girls and boys in their early teens or even younger. He wrote countless books detailing his insatiable pursuits and appeared on television boasting about them. “Under 16 Years Old,” was the title of an early book that left no ambiguity.

Still, he never spent a day in jail for his actions or suffered any repercussion. Instead, he won acclaim again and again. Much of France’s literary and journalism elite celebrated him and his work for decades. Now 83, Mr. Matzneff was awarded a major literary prize in 2013 and, just two months ago, one of France’s most prestigious publishing houses published his latest work.

But the publication, last Thursday, of an account by one of his victims, Vanessa Springora, has suddenly fueled an intense debate in France over its historically lax attitude toward sex with minors.

A known pedophile was long given awards and celebrated for writing about his sexual conquests of children.  You can’t make this up.

And it would be so “edgy”:

Caught now in the crosscurrents of France’s changing attitudes toward sex, Mr. Matzneff is the product and longtime beneficiary of France’s May 68 movement, the social revolution started in 1968 by students and unions against France’s old order.

With the slogan, “It’s forbidden to forbid,” the movement rebelled against authority and fought against imperialism, capitalism, racism, sexism and homophobia. Some also argued for abolishing age-of-consent laws, saying that doing so would liberate children from the domination of their parents and allow them to be full, sexual beings.

And check this out:

Thinkers on the left, like Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, spoke in defense of the practice, or came to the defense of men accused of engaging in sex with people below the age of consent in France.

Libération, the newspaper co-founded by Sartre, championed pedophiles as a discriminated minority and ran personal ads by adults seeking children for sex.

What do Sartre, Foucault, Barthes, and Beauvoir all have in common?  They were all atheist intellectuals.

And just as today’s atheists look down on people, these intellectuals also had this freakish sense of intellectual and moral superiority

While the ordinary French appeared revolted by the apologists, writers were considered part of this elite and were even expected to engage in acts of moral transgression, Mr. Verdrager said.

“There was an aristocracy of sexuality, an elite that was united in putting forth new attitudes and behavior toward sex,” Mr. Verdrager said. “And they were also grounded in an extreme prejudice toward ordinary people, whom they regarded as idiots and fools.”

If someone dares to judge you for wanting to molest to child, just refer to that person as an idiot.

This entry was posted in atheism, Social Justice and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Intellectual Elites Who Embraced Pedophilia

  1. TFBW says:

    It seems to me that this kind of activity must be driven more by a lust for power than for sex. It involves dominating the class of people of whom we should be most defensive, and violating laws which should attract an appropriately severe punishment. Doing it and getting away with it is one thing; to then boast about it openly is a further power trip in that it dares the world at large to do anything about it. It must make them feel like gods. It certainly explains the existence of someone like Jeffrey Epstein—the services he offered and the circles in which he moved. Not everyone in a position of power and authority is going to have that kind of proclivity, but such positions certainly attract those who do.

    God help us all if their current level of depravity were to be legalised: they’d need to invent something worse to get the same effect. The transgressive aspect is clearly part of the appeal.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Leftism has *always* been a vehicle to “liberate” sexual perverts … so they can rule and lord-it-over normal people.

    ===========
    … to then boast about it openly is a further power trip in that it dares the world at large to do anything about it. It must make them feel like gods

    As see “comedian” Michelle Wolfe, re her abortion and feeling “like God” after murdering her child.

  3. Dhay says:

    Où sont les neiges d’antan? Ils ont fondu, enfin.

    (Pardon my French.)

  4. nsr says:

    I’ve probably said this before but I don’t see paedophilia as such ever being legalised. What I can see is the definition being changed, i.e. the age of consent being incrementally lowered.

  5. Kevin says:

    Or just do what they’ve done in the past, and replace “pedophilia” with “pedosexuality”.

  6. Ilíon says:

    … and brand normal people as “pedophobes”

  7. pennywit says:

    What I can see is the definition being changed, i.e. the age of consent being incrementally lowered.

    There is some flexibility in definition; a lot of US states the age of consent at (if I recall correctly) something like 16, 17, or 18, but carve out exceptions where the participants are close in age. (E.g., an 18 year old with a 16 year old, vs. a 25 year old w/ a 16 year old).

  8. pennywit says:

    It seems to me that this kind of activity must be driven more by a lust for power than for sex.

    As I understand it, that conforms to more general research about sexual assault. The crime is about domination and control, rather than sex.

  9. Ilíon says:

    Feminist talking points do not equal research.

  10. Ilíon says:

    Aaaand here we go —

    As reported by the California Globe:

    ==”State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”

    However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.“==

  11. Arkenaten says:

    While I share your outrage and revulsion I find it somewhat hypocritical that you would ignore the circumstances surrounding the bible character, Mary, who was underage when she was betrothed,quite likely 12, and still under age when she fell pregnant, and yet you utter not a word.
    Furthermore, the Church has been a hotbed for pedophiles for millennia.
    And for what it’s worth, the US (in some states) allows (with consent) child marriage where the girl is as young as 12.
    Maybe you need to cover all bases before you let off steam?
    Just a thought.
    Regards

    Ark

  12. hikayamasan353 says:

    Child molestation and pedophilia, while related, are not the same. Child molestation is the sexual intercourse, usually forcible, with children, while pedophilia is sexual orientation towards children.

    There’s an apparent contradiction in this situation. On one side, sexual intercourse is unhealthy for prepubescent children, but on another one, people with pedophilic disorder are altogether stigmatized and persecuted – much like the LGBT.

  13. pennywit says:

    It strikes me, Ark, that the Catholic church’s issues with child molestation are less about the molestation itself and more about concealing that conduct. This behavior — concealing conduct — is endemic to any large organization that tries to protect its own reputation. It’s rather independent of the organization’s religious status.

  14. Arkenaten says:

    @pennywit
    Well, I felt it relevant to make the point as our host felt it necessary to mention that certain intellectuals with this predilection were atheists.

  15. Kevin says:

    While I share your outrage and revulsion I find it somewhat hypocritical that you would ignore the circumstances surrounding the bible character, Mary, who was underage when she was betrothed,quite likely 12, and still under age when she fell pregnant, and yet you utter not a word.

    Your objection involves neither sexual attraction to a child nor sexual activity with a child. How would it be hypocritical to not mention something that is off-topic?

  16. Arkenaten says:

    So a 12 year old isn’t a child as far as you’re concerned?

  17. Ilíon says:

    ^ Those sort of pointless and intellectually dishonest jabs at Christianity are no longer baffling once one grasps the truth that *all* God-deniers are intellectually dishonest with respect to God.

    The question isn’t “Will a God-denier level an irrational charge against Christianity?” but rather, How quickly will the shadow of God spook this particular God-denier, such that he *has* to shield himself with irrationality?

  18. Kevin says:

    So a 12 year old isn’t a child as far as you’re concerned?

    You’re very successfuly playing dumb, but I’m up for seeing how dumb you’re willing to play. It’s entertaining, at least.

    Explain how sexual attraction or sexual activity are involved in the story of Mary.

  19. Ilíon says:

    Keep on mind, Arkenaton is the towering intellect (of dishonesty) who dismisses the claim that he has already been given logical proof that God is with the quip that, “Proofs are generally reserved for mathematics.

    It seems that, as is customary with God-deniers, Arkenaton gives himself permission to say *anything* … and it’s opposite. And in the same breath, if need be.

  20. Ilíon says:

    Long before reading the term “motte and bailey argument”, I had seen this tendency in God-deniers (and DarwinDefenders, and leftists in general). I had just classified it with other intellectual dishonesty, by I can certain see that having a distinct term for it helps one to spot the tactic.

    ==”But first, a little history. In some medieval castles, when enemies breached the first line of defense, the inhabitants would retreat from the outer courtyard (the “bailey”) to a tower on top of a mound (called the “motte”) where they could take refuge and shoot arrows at the enemy until the hostile forces gave up. After doing so, everyone would return to the more pleasant and productive bailey, secure in the knowledge that the motte would protect them if another attack were made. Mottes were safe but economically useless, and baileys were profitable but vulnerable. For best results, both were necessary.

    That’s why philosopher Nicholas Shackel coined the term “motte-and-bailey” to describe the rhetorical strategy in which a debater retreats to an uncontroversial claim when challenged on a controversial one. The structure goes something like this:

    First, someone makes a controversial statement from what blogger Ash Navabi calls the “courtyard of ideas.” Then when that statement, the bailey, is attacked, the speaker retreats to the motte, the place of “strict terms and/or rigorous reasoning”—falsely claiming that she was just making an obvious, uncontroversial point, one that could not possibly be challenged by any right-minded individual. Finally, when the argument has ended, she will go back to making those same controversial statements—the argumentative bailey, having successfully fended off all attackers. The point is to defend a controversial idea by systematically conflating it with a less easily-assailable one.”==

    motte and bailey argument

  21. Arkenaten says:

    She was (most likely) betrothed at 12, and gave birth no later than 14.
    You don’t honestly believe in that virgin birth nonsense, do you?

  22. Michael says:

    While I share your outrage and revulsion I find it somewhat hypocritical that you would ignore the circumstances surrounding the bible character, Mary, who was underage when she was betrothed,quite likely 12, and still under age when she fell pregnant, and yet you utter not a word.

    This is a wild-eyed argument that would only appeal to Madelyn Murray O’Hair type atheists. Here is the definition of pedophilia: sexual feelings directed toward children. The account involving Mary does not involve any sexual feelings toward her.

    Furthermore, the Church has been a hotbed for pedophiles for millennia.

    And so have the schools. Look, the difference is that the Church does not defend pedophilia or try to rationalize it. Compare to the atheist philosophers who “championed pedophiles as a discriminated minority” and “spoke in defense of the practice.”

    And for what it’s worth, the US (in some states) allows (with consent) child marriage where the girl is as young as 12.

    Those should be changed.

    Do you recall who it was that argued we should not make such a fuss about “mild pedophilia?”

  23. Kevin says:

    She was (most likely) betrothed at 12, and gave birth no later than 14.
    You don’t honestly believe in that virgin birth nonsense, do you?

    This is hilarious. Why are you even talking about Mary if you don’t believe she existed? If you do believe she existed, why do you trust the Bible for that, but nothing else in the account? Are you aware that there is nothing sexual about her pregnancy in that account, which annihilates your point about pedophilia somehow being relevant?

    And why in the world do you think someone who believes in God should scoff at the concept of a miracle? Have you ever thought about any of this, or are you just making stuff up as you go and hoping something sticks?

  24. Arkenaten says:

    I thought the point of the post was to show how vile pedophilia was?
    Or was our host merely trying to draw some asinine connection between a few sick individuals who happen to be atheists?

    As the character, Mary was a child bride and the virgin birth is featured in two gospels I thought it pertinent to point out that your Inspired word of God glorifies/sanctions such behaviour.

    Sorry, I would have thought you would have the integrity and intellect to have realised that the virgin birth tale is not only nonsense but also a late addition to the tale.
    *Shrug*
    Shall we rather discuss how, once upon a time, dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

  25. Arkenaten says:

    And so have the schools. Look, the difference is that the Church does not defend pedophilia or try to rationalize it.

    Considering how the Catholic Church has defended, hidden, moved known pedophiles to other parishes, hand -waved and lied about pedophile priests your response is nothing but a disingenuous load of bullshit.

    Those should be changed.

    But apparently the laws are still on the books. Shame on the US.

    Do you recall who it was that argued we should not make such a fuss about “mild pedophilia?”

    Yes ….. and your point being?

  26. RobertM says:

    I’m genuinely curious what is Arkenaten’s EVIDENCE that Mary was 12 when she was betrothed or when Jesus was born. The gospels are silent on this point. There are ancient sources that are generally dubbed “apocryphal gospels” that may speak to this, but Christians (at least in the West) don’t generally regard them as authentic or authoritative- perhaps more like pious speculations or fan-fiction. Beyond that, there are general claims that in that era that marriage of girls at the age of 12 was typical, or it was the youngest age at which girls would be married off, but nothing specific to Mary.

    If we’re going with speculation based on general characteristics of the historical era, let’s also remember that first cousins were considered ideal partners for marriage, and an entire village like Nazareth was interrelated. It was a shame and honor society. Life was unimaginably harsh and difficult compared to today, and having a lot of kids (and getting started early) was a matter of survival because you could put kids to work as soon as they could walk. Life expectancy was maybe 30 years and parents would be lucky to see more than your first couple of kids live to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth, many children didn’t live past age 5, and many parents were dead by the time their children reached childbearing age. And when a man died, his brother was expected to marry the widow and raise the children. In other words, it was a totally different world from the comfortable and cosmopolitan world we know, although not dissimilar from other ancient or pre-industrial subsistence cultures. It’s interesting and telling that of all the (to us) distasteful aspects of that long-ago culture, Arkenaten chooses to assert that Mary was married at age 12 as a way to score some cheap points with insinuations of pedophilia.

  27. Michael says:

    Considering how the Catholic Church has defended, hidden, moved known pedophiles to other parishes, hand -waved and lied about pedophile priests your response is nothing but a disingenuous load of bullshit.

    Wrong. There is a huge difference between trying to conceal what you did wrong and denying that what you did was wrong. Thus far, the Church has not tried to argue that there is nothing wrong with the act of pedophilia. As the NYT article notes, it is the atheist intellectuals who “championed pedophiles as a discriminated minority” and “spoke in defense of the practice.”

    Yes ….. and your point being?

    Dawkins is just another example of an atheist intellectual who has defended pedophilia. Did you ever criticize him for this?

  28. Arkenaten says:

    Thus far, the Church has not tried to argue that there is nothing wrong with the act of pedophilia

    I did not say they defended pedophilia, but rather pedophiles.
    It would help if you tried to read a little more carefully.

    Furthermore, there have been statements that such behaviour – sodomizing /raping young boys is because of homosexuality among certain priests.

    Yes, I have done.

    Anything else?

  29. Arkenaten says:

    I’m genuinely curious what is Arkenaten’s EVIDENCE that Mary was 12 when she was betrothed or when Jesus was born. The gospels are silent on this point.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that the character Mary was 12. I am basing this claim on the scholarly view regarding Jewish tradition from the period in question.
    You mention the fact that life expectancy was maybe 30 which would add credence to the assertions regarding tradition and marriagable age of girls.
    Feel free, however, to dismiss such tradition. How old do you think the character Mary was when she was betrothed and gave birth to Jesus?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.