Another Professor Exposes Himself as an Apologist for P3dophiles

It's weird how this keeps happening, huh?

"The notion that it's wrong even with a one-year-old is not quite obvious to me... I don't think it's blanket wrong at any age."

Now that's what you call a pull-quote.

Here's Kershnar on video saying that an adult male having sex with a 12-year-old girl is not obviously wrong, and that calling it wrong is a "mistake." In the same clip, he refers to pedophilic rape as "adult-child sex," another euphemism that, just like "minor-attracted person," is being used in an attempt to run cover for evil.

I keep trying to be a good open-minded philosophically-oriented person and play the game of "let's boil this down to first principles and no presuppositions and just blue-sky this," but the thing is, they don't just seem to be asking, "How do we know this is wrong? What makes us think that? What priors are telling us that?"

They seem to be full of answers, not questions, and the answers are: This is fine, we should do this.

He then plays a game of competitive bidding against himself, where the object of the game is to drive down the age of consent of as low as possible, and gets as low as one year old, and decides, the hell with it, he can't even say that involuntary, nonconsensual sex with a one-year-old is necessarily bad.

Then he says that forcing sex on a child isn't that bad, because we force kids to do all sorts of things, like participating in judo tournaments or bar mitzvah lessons, so what's the diff?

In the second video here, he argues that we routinely make children do lots of things against their wills, for "adult's pleasure only," like going to church or going to a relatives' funeral, so that's not a good argument about why having sex with children without their consent isn't a good thing.

Now, I'm going to postulate here that he's talking about "without their consent" in the sense that at a young age, actual legal consent is not possible, so he means "without consent" in that way.

I hope he means that.

But even if he means that: It's not really better.

He has lots of arguments about the "benefits of adult-child sex," including the fact that bonobo monkeys practice it, which, you know: I mean, bonobo monkeys? I set my watch by them.

The other professor here says he's "been making arguments in class in favor of adult-child sex for about 25 years," and in fact wrote an article for The Daily Beast questioning why we have age of consent laws at all.

The Daily Beast?

You don't say. You don't say.

And here you go.

He discusses arguing with his students about the appropriateness of Roman Polanski anally r@ping a 13 year old he had drugged -- he's in favor of it, while his uptight, shackled-bourgeois students have hang-ups about it, man -- and then regales us about the various age of consent laws around the world, such as Spain, places where Roman Polanski would be allowed to drug a 13 year old child and then have anal sex with her.

Like a certain kind of guy, he is very fluent in rattling off the age of consent statutes in effect around the world. Like he's got them committed to memory.

Or he's got a laminated card with all the world's ages of consent printed on it. Like world time zones. But with the ages of children you can legally have sex with.

My students were willing to discuss the appropriateness of the 16-18 range, but were resolutely opposed to going any lower. One said she was so disturbed by the Spanish law that she was reconsidering spending her study year abroad in Barcelona.

Most often my students argued that sexual relations between an adult and a child (whom some defined as anyone under 18, some under 16, and others as the "emotionally immature") necessarily involved the manipulation of the weak by the powerful, which was wrong. But then, I asked, why was it acceptable for adults to cajole and at times physically force children to play sports, wear hipster t-shirts, attend church, wash the dishes, listen to "good" music, obey authority figures, or, as the president of the United States told them directly, to take responsibility for "nothing less than the future of this country"?

In the video above, he exclaims "THANK YOU!" when his fellow p3dophile-apologist makes the same argument.

Perhaps my being a young, male professor in a room of female undergraduates made the question especially provocative...

Like Humbert Humbert. He imagines he's being sexy.

...but I felt that I was onto something that illuminated what I believe to be one of the core cultural assumptions of Americans: sex is like walking in traffic or playing with knives--activities we aggressively coerce children not to do. In American culture, to tell a child about the pleasures of sex is equivalent to discussing the thrill of dodging oncoming cars or handling a meat cleaver. In our sex-education lectures, public service announcements, relatively high age-of-consent laws, and, most importantly, in our silences, we tell children only that sex is dangerous.

What I tried to push my students to understand was that there were Puritans at work underneath the consciousness of their minds, as I believe there are in the minds of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

The 13 states--including California--that place the legal age of consent at 18 are in a small minority among the world's sovereignties. Only Tunisia's is higher, at 20.

...

Some of the philosophers we read in my class--especially, and significantly, the French ones--argued that prohibitions on desires only produced even more intense versions of those desires. Could it be that Americans' answers to the question I posed have created the very thing we so fear?

You get the idea.

In the Daily Beast. What a terrific publication.

Anyway, that's what's going on in the failure factories we call "colleges."

The school says it's reviewing Kershner. I don't know about the other guy.

You're probably not in the mood for this now, but this part of Pitch Meeting: Age of Extinction deals with a very strange insistence on discussing age of consent laws.

Another very creepy Pitch Meeting -- Twilight, Breaking Dawn.

posted by Ace at 06:09 PM

| Access Comments