Monday, September 28, 2015

Tales From Weimerica: Pedophiles And The Kid Dildo

The hits keep coming in Weimerica. The new push is in the form, of course, of the first person, confesssional with "I'm a pedophile, not a monster". This is not new, as I noted last year the NY Times was trying to normalize it and excuse it away. I'm not going to devote time or mindspace to this as, no, you are a monster, and no we will not give into the false choice of "Act on it is bad vs. lust after but don't touch is good". That is the choice the media is trying to set up. It will be okay to be an open pedo just as long as you don't act on it. No. You deserve the tar pits.

There is one interesting thing to this specific article. No, it is not the National Review taking a nuanced approach to pedophilia. No, it is not that this is literally just months after gay marriage became a Supreme Court decree. It is that the first person confessional was written not by some poor soul who just likes kiddies and tries hard to be normal but by a weirdo. Let us Google Todd Nickerson. He does exist, unlike the NY Mag cuckold writer.

There is his Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. This tracks his history as a pedophile in spirit who also found a way to work in a school. Here are choice quotes.


Scrounging around the Net I did find a small version of the image. I won't post it as it is still legally contentious, but the girls are obviously very young--clearly under age 10. But I might add that it isn't entirely unprecedented for gay men to be aesthetically interested in nude/semi-nude or provocative images of children, even of the opposite sex. There is Robert Mapplethorpe's controversial image "Rosie" depicting a 3-year-old girl sitting on a bench with one leg raised, and she clearly isn't wearing any undies. He also took a photo of fully nude little boy, "Jessie McBride." Mapplethorpe had a show in Ohio shut down (temporarily) because of these two images primarily. He eventually won his case, and the images are legally protected art. Both children--now grown--are on record as supporting Mapplethorpe's images of them and as stating that they were not traumatized by the images. 
When young girls go naked, I am liable to drool. :) 
Believe whatever you like. I have three little girl friends in my life right now that I see semi-regularly. That's plenty for me. I wish I got to see them more often, but such is life. In addition, I get to see the smiling, happy faces of little girls at work almost every day. Most days that's all I need to feel happy. 
I am out of the toybox, as I'm sure you're aware, and I look at little girls all the time--every day I say a little cutie or five at work, except today for some reason :-( , but that's okay. Most of my community knows about me, certainly everyone at work, and yet they don't seem to mind too much. I have yet to be attacked or even insulted, and most people seem to like me pretty well. 
...Without me, a 1st grade class would not have had an art teacher one year. It was cut from the budget and the teacher, whom I knew, asked me to volunteer, which I did. What an amazing experience. And, of course, dozens of children would not have had me in their lives to squeeze them and kiss them and love them unconditionally. They would've lacked my help with homework and learning to read and kissing their owies when they got hurt. They would've lacked a great friend and playmate.
I wish I were joking about this guy. I wish these were made up, but they are the truth. Breitbart was onto this guy's game as not the virtuous figure he portrayed himself in the essay. Other sites track this pedo's advocacy. This was the best they could come up with for a "virtuous" pedo. It is like the incest examples and the spotlighted bestiality guy. The best they can use for confessional, "I'm normal too" message vessels are broken, dysfunctional people.


If they do not let the pedophiles sexually interact with your kids, they will find other means to sexualize them. Have you seen the posts on dildos for 4 year olds? Of course, the creator is a shim freak. This shim has created a dildo so that trans kids can feel okay or something. This is ridiculous. This is supposedly to help 4 years olds who feel the wrong gender to be okay with it. I know 4 year olds who say they are a robot, a horse or Iron Man. These kids can barely make it click that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not real. No one takes their odd statements and runs with them in a life altering manner. That is not quite right. On the margins, some do. The urge of the parent to be holy and a good prog will force a 4 year old down a weird path. It is child abuse, and these freaks making the kiddie dildo are there to enable the holier than thou prog parents towards the dysfunctional Weimerican destination.

This does not qualify as one of the progressive's "angels with dirty faces" problem where everyone they turn into a martyr or saint is really a scumbag. This is a scumbag representing a scumbag group in a scumbag manner. The trans-thing making a kid dildo is a monster pushing their perversion out into the open and on the young. This does reveal part of the problem with pushing ever creepier kinks. You may clean up a queer and give him a handsome beau to adopt the cute Chinese baby, you may find the MTV lesbian who is Just Like Us!, but eventually you end up with the carnival acts like Bruce Jenner in a dress and pedophiles who want to fuck kids being your new cause du jour.


Only in Weimerica!

9 comments:

Toddy Cat said...

Sex toys for four-year olds?

I'm not a religious fanatic, by any means, but this country really does have to start worrying about the wrath of an angry God. I'm not kidding. Weimar is starting to look like a Family Research Council's dream compared to what we have now.

Even I didn't think that it would get this bad this fast...

Son of Brock Landers said...

Speed of the next change is getting quick, and reminds me either of an overreaching army that extends its lines too far or Wile E. Coyote going over the cliff. I'm big on how HIV-AIDS temporarily changed sexual behavior. We're approaching the disappearance of antibiotics for treating STDs. If that were to happen say in the 2020s, you'd see a physical problem to go with the "WTF is going on???" crowd.

Deduction said...

This is just so crazy and yet I'm worried that we'll become accustomed to it too.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

This will continue until we put a stop to it. Lines have been crossed, and the ensuing reaction will be firm. Give it time. People do crazy things when their kinds are at risk.

Anonymous said...

Exactly why do you think a non-offending pedo deserves tar pit?

Deduction said...

To have sexual thoughts about children is wrong and to feel extremely ashamed over those thoughts is appropriate.

People should always be encouraged to have appropriate feelings because the only alternative is for them to have inappropriate feelings, and this makes everyone crazy.

A non-offending paedophile should consider themselves worthy of the tar pits because of their feelings.

They should also, I suppose, have the emotional maturity to place that shame in context and not let it overwhelm them, whether they need to confess it to their God, meditate on it or philosophise I don't care.

Either a non-offending paedophile is wracked with guilt/shame and agrees about the tar pits or they are crazy because they're emotional response in unhinged from morality, those are the only choices unfortunately.

Suburban_elk said...

In regards to sex abuse, the elephant in the room is American men having had their penis clipped. If that doesn’t count for sex abuse, what does?

The argument that it happened when they were only days old is beyond absurd - as if it is allowable to abuse and mutilate people when they are less than a certain age because their conscious memories are not formed or accessible.

The revilement of pedo’s is all well and good, but considering how many American adults have their own children mutilated, their moral positioning is “hysterical”.

Anonymous said...

No-one can choose to be a pedophile and no-one can choose to not be a pedophile. This is an empirically observed fact. Since it is not a choice and not even an action of any kind, it is not something that can be labeled as a moral right or wrong.

Being a pedophile means to be attracted by children, not having "sexual feelings" towards children. There is a subtle but important difference.

Deduction said...

Desiring to do something wrong is wrong and so should induce feelings of shame.

Also, clearly paedophilia includes sexual attraction (sexual feelings) because if it were just attraction then all sane mothers would be paedophiles for their kids, thus rendering the word and concept useless.