Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’

Posted on | October 21, 2013 | 52 Comments

James Kincaid is a University of Southern California professor emeritus who is the author of Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture (1992) and Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting (1998). When it was announced he would speak in Toronto at an academic conference with the creepy title “Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life,” an understandable outrage erupted:

Dr. Charles McVety of the Institute for Canadian Values has written an open letter to Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, asking that Kincaid be denied entry into the country. . . .
“On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Institute for Canadian Values and Canada Family Action, we request that the Minister refuse admission of Dr. James Kincaid to Canada for a lecture on October 19th, 2013 in Toronto,” Dr. McVety wrote.
“Dr. Kincaid is a well-known advocate for pedophilia, a criminal activity in Canada,” the letter states.

Is that description — “a well-known advocate for pedophilia” — perhaps just a wee bit over-the-top? Does it fail to capture the complexity and sophistication of Kincaid’s nuanced arguments? Let’s read the publisher’s description of one of Kincaid’s books:

In Erotic Innocence James R. Kincaid explores contemporary America’s preoccupation with stories about the sexual abuse of children. Claiming that our culture has yet to come to terms with the bungled legacy of Victorian sexuality, Kincaid examines how children and images of youth are idealized, fetishized, and eroticized in everyday culture. Evoking the cyclic elements of Gothic narrative, he thoughtfully and convincingly concludes that the only way to break this cycle is to acknowledge—and confront—not only the sensuality of children but the eroticism loaded onto them.

Uh, really, Doc? Your beef with “contemporary America” is that we are too worried about “sexual abuse,” and so we need “to acknowledge . . . the sensuality of children” and their “eroticism”? And while we’re at it, why don’t we take a look at the cover of your book?

Nothing weird there. Nothing out of the ordinary. Move along.

Despite the protests, Professor Kincaid spoke Saturday in Toronto:

A controversial U.S. professor who writes about children and sexuality shot down his critics Saturday by declaring that he is not an advocate for pedophilia.
Dr. James Kincaid, standing with his wife, Nita, at the University of Toronto, defended himself following his keynote address about children and sexuality.
“I’ve already said I’m not in favour of pedophilia. Period. Isn’t that enough?” he firmly told Linda Beaudoin, a sexual abuse survivor and advocate for children’s rights after she challenged him following his address. . . .
Kincaid told the Star he doesn’t think it’s a matter of rounding up “a few freaks and a few pedophiles and horrible monsters who regard young people as attractive.”
He said the real problem is that in the United States there is enormous attention paid to stranger kidnappings of children that draws the focus away from a higher incidence of children who are physically or emotionally abused.
Earlier, he told his audience that Canada is more enlightened than the U.S., where the public requires a steady diet of “predator kidnappers, Internet stalkers of youth, kiddie porn rings and such fantasies to maintain national identity.”
Of Internet predators, he added, “we are given to believe that they are legion, but the hard evidence is small.”

So, “the hard evidence is small,” Professor Kincaid?

Former youth minister in St. Charles County
charged with possessing child porn
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Former Arlington Man Faces Child Porn,
Abuse Charges in Oklahoma
— KXAS-TV, Dallas

Prosecutors: Youth baseball coach caught
with 450 sexual photos of players
— Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Child pornography convict from
New Castle now charged with molestation
— WFMJ-TV/Associated Press

That’s just a brief sample of headlines today. Do your own Google News search. There is certainly no shortage of evidence to contradict Professor Kincaid’s claim that the danger is insignificant.

But perhaps Professor Kincaid doesn’t Google . . . for news.

Is there any reason to believe that Professor Kincaid’s writings about “erotic” children are less than objective?

Would it be a mistake to suspect that Professor Kincaid’s interest in child sexuality is not entirely academic?

Far be it from me to insinuate any such thing.

However, when somebody writes books telling parents not to worry about perverts and predators, insisting that the danger is exaggerated, while every day’s headlines show the danger is very real . . .

Well, two lawsuits at a time, I guess.

BomberSuesBloggers.com

Category: Culture, Education, Sex

Comments

52 Responses to “Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’”

BobBelvedere
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:21 pm

RT @smitty_one_each: TOM Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/g2hsbBmB1t #TCOT
rsmccain
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM | @jmattbarber @kjcopp @MrEvilMatt
slp
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

Aren’t you a defendant in two Kimberlin lawsuits?
Quartermaster
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man.
BobBelvedere
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:27 pm

RT @rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/HAEyb0DT5p
jmattbarber
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:27 pm

RT @rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM | @jmattbarber @kjcopp @MrEvilMa…
robertstacymccain
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:34 pm

Thanks. Fixed it.
kjcopp
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:34 pm

Another Creep exposed. Bravo! > “@rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/NNqNrbY7Go
rsmccain
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

RT @kjcopp: Another Creep exposed. Bravo! > “@rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/N…
rsmccain
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

“Far be it from me to insinuate any such thing.” http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM
Josh_Painter
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

RT @smitty_one_each: TOM Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/g2hsbBmB1t #TCOT
thatMrGguy
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/T9R4SBiZlt
AmPowerBlog
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

RT @rsmccain: “Far be it from me to insinuate any such thing.” http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM
RaisingCamelot
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

RT @rsmccain: “Far be it from me to insinuate any such thing.” http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM
FruitNJ
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

RT @rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM | @jmattbarber @kjcopp @MrEvilMa…
JoyKeller1
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/HvtFTB9fKN
joethefatman1
October 21st, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/zzKQUBU5h7
coastx
October 21st, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

Four biggie MERC populations: LGBT, transnationals, pedophiles and USC, least to most perverted.
Matthew W
October 21st, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

If a person is unable to unequivocally denounce pedophilia………..

Then they support it.
archonix
October 21st, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

Certainly feels like it’s been raining 40 days and nights here…
archonix
October 21st, 2013 @ 8:46 pm

There is a problem with your position: the definition of terms.

If paedophilia means “the molestation of children” then you’re right, and it should be condemned.

If paedophilia means also the creation, possession or viewing of images and video of the molestation of children, then that too should be condemned. Absolutely.

But then you reach a point where things get a teensy bit grey. Photographs of naked children taken for the purpose of titillation? On the balance of potential future damage, they should probably be condemned. Based on the fact that the child is being exploited “now”, the reasoning for condemnation is quite easy to define.

… except that photographs of an entirely innocent nature have been used to condemn innocent people as paedophiles in the past, based on the assumption that “only paedophiles take photographs of naked children” that was quickly established by precedent and built into law. Which of course makes my parents paedophiles, because I used to run around in the nud all over the place and turned up in photographs in that state with alarming regularity (alarming for my own embarrassment the day my mother brought out the picture album for my then fiancée, I should stress).

That becomes grey area #1.

And then what about fictional images? Images where no actual children are involved? What about literature? These are ultimately and entirely the products of the mind, and while you might argue that they’re indicative of certain potential behaviours, they are not those behaviours in and of themselves. They are merely the imagination. They are free speech.

So that’s grey area #2.

The reason for banning the possession of images of real children being abused was that it encouraged the continued abuse of children; therefore the banning of such imagery is a good thing. However, the definition of “paedophilia” has been expanded dramatically in the last fifteen or so years to include imagery and activity that in no way can be mistaken for real. Under the current law on the subject, half the art produced since the enlightenment would considered paedophilic if it were created today and only escapes destruction because it’s “old”, or “art”, despite the fact that a great deal of it can’t be mistaken for anything but badly disguised erotica.

We’re at the point, now, of prosecuting people who have never harmed any child and never will, for the possession of images that are unreal. We’re coming to a point where the law on this particular issue attempts to reach inside the mind and criminalise thought itself. There’s no similar move to criminalise the possession of fictional depictions of murder, or any other fictional depictions of crime. Only this.

If paedophilia is defined as the sexual abuse of children, whether directly, or at second-hand through the consumption of media depicting actual children in sexual situations, then my condemnation is unequivocal.

The problem is that the definition is much broader now. Far too broad to be unequivocal.

That’s an issue that needs to be addressed fairly sharpish, because it places me in the position of having to equivocate over what should be a simple and clear-cut issue, and it gives people like Kincaid the opportunity to introduce doubt over the entire thing by pointing to these grey areas that shouldn’t exist, and declaring them as evidence that paedophilia is “harmless”.

The simple fact is, the legal definition of paedophile materials in most western law now theoretically criminalises the possession of cherubim. That is not a healthy law. IT needs to be reined back in, to starve people like Kincaid of their talking points and to create a clear, simple and easy definition of what paedophilia is: the sexual abuse of children.
The Bearded Bastard of Babylon
October 21st, 2013 @ 8:53 pm

The closest any of the major “gay rights” organisations have gotten to denouncing paedophilia is to deny there is any historical connection with paedophilia and homosexuality!
richard mcenroe
October 21st, 2013 @ 9:01 pm

See preceding comments.
Professor_Why
October 21st, 2013 @ 9:13 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/PffazHeOSo
What? Now Pedophiles are Offended by Being Called Pedophiles? | The Daley Gator
October 21st, 2013 @ 9:52 pm

[…] Apparently even morally backwards freaks are sensitive these days. I just do not get it, and neither does The Other McCain […]
The Other McCain reports on “Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’” | Batshit Crazy News
October 21st, 2013 @ 9:53 pm

[…] This is beyond BSC… […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
October 21st, 2013 @ 9:54 pm

http://batshitcrazynews.com/2013/10/the-other-mccain-reports-on-pro-pedophile-author-how-dare-you-call-me-a-pro-pedophile-author/
ladymacbeth1212
October 21st, 2013 @ 10:10 pm

RT @rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM | @jmattbarber @kjcopp @MrEvilMa…
Julie Pascal
October 21st, 2013 @ 10:29 pm

So… the thing is… if it weren’t for the fact that this society has decided that anything that is *natural* is good… there wouldn’t be a big problem in pointing out that it’s common enough for adults to respond sexually to children (or at least the ones on the cusp of puberty and after, which is biologically rational). Human nature is corrupt. As long as we understand that human nature is corrupt, we can “acknowledge and confront” that corruption.

If this is at all what he’s trying to get at, he needs to clarify his messaging a whole lot better and crack down on using the corruption to make his books and his lectures seem edgy.

You aim for edgy and *get* it, don’t go home crying to your mother.
robcrawford2
October 21st, 2013 @ 10:38 pm

Notice the lefty tick of saying Americans have to create these demons or we wouldn’t think of ourselves as Americans…

Do these people breathe?
The Bearded Bastard of Babylon
October 21st, 2013 @ 11:02 pm

But that’s not what Kincaid is trying to get at…

He’s like Richard Dawkins and the rest of that totalitarian socialist rot!

It’s “Cultural Marxism!
The Bearded Bastard of Babylon
October 21st, 2013 @ 11:03 pm

Not believers in American Exceptionalism, I suppose…
budosworldcom
October 21st, 2013 @ 11:12 pm

Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ : The Other McCain http://t.co/NzYoHIvElR
Flipper
October 21st, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

I’ve actually read the essay that you’re quoting from in an anthology called “On Humanism” where he in fact makes the claim that the reason contemporary Americans act so irrationally when they hear stories about child sexual abuse or any discussion about sex containing underage persons is not really due to moral outrage but rather due to a combination of psychological projection and Victorian era repression about things we simply don’t wan’t to admit to ourselves. And if he’s 100% wrong why is so much male fantasy centered around young women in school girl uniforms, wearing pig tails, sucking on lollipops, and in other styles of dress normally associated with children? And we see this not only in pornography but also in mainstream men magazines like Maxim(the Terry Richardson Glee photo shoot) in advertising, especially Calvin Klein’s 90’s ad campaigns which teased us with jailbait in bras and underwear striking provocative poses, and in pop music(Britney Spears early career, specifically the Baby One More Time video and of course Miley Cyrus). Food for thought.
The Bearded Bastard of Babylon
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:14 am

I read that that notorious pederast, Harvey Milk, is getting a postage stamp…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/harvey-milk-stamp-matt-barber-_n_4117311.html
Glaivester
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:18 am

RT @thatMrGguy: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/T9R4SBiZlt
cbntaRMNP
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:21 am

RT @thatMrGguy: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/T9R4SBiZlt
jeanieous11
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:57 am

RT @rsmccain: “Far be it from me to insinuate any such thing.” http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM
Kirby McCain
October 22nd, 2013 @ 4:17 am

What is child like about a silicone enhanced stripper sporting pigtails and a school uniform? How does that make the case that most men have desires for kids. That kind of crap is for college age losers. How would the wildly more popular SI Swimsuit edition fit this line of thinking?

Thank God most women shop Victoria Secret because they known what most men want.
ThomasD
October 22nd, 2013 @ 8:34 am

A fully formed woman appearing in the types of children’s regalia you noted is intended to accentuate the dichotomy, ie. she’s young but she ain’t that young..

Which, IMO, is one of the reasons Miley Cyrus is viewed with such distaste – she’s too adolescent in her facial/body appearance and consequently brings far too much ‘ick’ factor to the otherwise highly sexualized display.
PeterLaBarbera
October 22nd, 2013 @ 10:51 am

RT @rsmccain: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM | @jmattbarber @kjcopp @MrEvilMa…
rsmccain
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

ICYMI: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM #tcot
Red__Rover
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:25 pm

RT @rsmccain: ICYMI: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM #tcot
trangbang68
October 22nd, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

In Genesis 6 in God’s book, it says that “men’s hearts were only evil continually” before God brought judgment. I think these amoral monsters are only beginning to plumb the depths of the cesspool. One day, God will say “enough.” As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the Son of Man.
ObamaCare Save Line: CALL 1-800-YOU-DUMMY | Regular Right Guy
October 22nd, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

[…] Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ […]
Acartia_bogart
October 22nd, 2013 @ 3:14 pm

There are two facts that have been overlooked in this article, and many of the comments:

1) This prof’s presentation was brought to the media’s attention by Charles McVety, a man who has a record of lying and misinforming to support his often hateful viewpoints. This is a matter of record. But it is nice to see that most media and the public have finally exposed him for what he is. The massive groundswell of support that McVety was hoping for amounted to two protesters and the event.

2) Kincaide has never promoted or supported pedophilia. He is merely suggesting that society as a whole is partially responsible because of our “sexualization” of children through the media, advertising, etc. and that our labelling of pedophiles as monsters is partially to relieve our collective guilt. Whether you agree with his theory or not, this is a far cry from making the claim that he supports and promotes pedophilia.

If I were Kincaide, I would take McVety to court.
ThePoliticalHat
October 22nd, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

RT @rsmccain: ICYMI: Pro-Pedophile Author: ‘How Dare You Call Me a Pro-Pedophile Author?!’ http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM #tcot
Zed381
October 22nd, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

By posting the image of the book cover, you actually make one of Professor Kinkaids points quite nicely. He says that its quite common in American society to show titillating images of children, and then voicing ‘moral outrage’. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too. He gives the example of talk shows that have problem children on, then pick out the attractive ones to do a provocative dance, to which everyone then expresses outrage. They have their cake and eat it too.

And of course everyone knows, or should know that authors do not choose the cover art for their books, that is done by the publisher, who chose the artist for the cover art, as well as the photographer. All in all, this is really much ado about nothing, typical of right-wing blogs, who need a new ‘crisis’ everyday. Its a shame this guy is being dragged thru the mud as a result.

I think he can take comfort in the fact that only two people showed up for the protest. Its seems most people have more common sense then is generally assumed.
rsmccain
October 24th, 2013 @ 11:13 am

Creepy Professor: “Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life” http://t.co/Ziysg4PXFM @AmericanGlob @crousselle @oliverdarcy
Acartia_returned
October 24th, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

If you are not for me, you are against me. It is this type of absolutist nonsense that detracts from any logical argument.