Crossing Genres: From Harsh Reality To Utter Surrealism In A Few Days
Ender Wiggin
93

If there’s one thing I can say about you guys, it’s that you’re persistent. And still transparent as glass.

So let’s start with your final question. The answer seems to be obvious to everyone but you: You should definitely take that as a no. An emphatic, roaring NO. Despite your raging logorrhea and ineffectively defensive verbiage, you do not require any kind of publicly-acknowledged acceptance, and you shouldn’t be published in Crossing Genres.

But why, you no doubt will ask, should people with such obvious passion for a topic, who presents such reasonable arguments with such noble courage and such conspicuous virtuosity be, like Justin Forest, ignominiously dumped from an online publication which states that its “only submission requirement is intentional subversion”?

The answer is self-evident—because Crossing Genres has no obligation to publish you or anyone else. They don’t have to print something just because you’ve presented it for publication, no matter how much you whinge. CG’s recent refusal to publish pieces by members of the group “Virtuous Pedophiles” is completely reasonable, considering that your “sock puppet” identities refuse to be open about who you really are, even to the publisher.

And, as I stated in “I CALL BULLSHIT,” you-of-various-names all write in a peculiarly indistinguishable writing style—”the same condescending tone, same limited vocabulary and childish syntax, same groundless arguments, same obsequious responses to each other’s comments, and same utterly unbelievable ‘scientific’ references.” How about having your articles analyzed by a forensic linguistics expert who specializes in author identification? Didn’t think so. For this particular issue, why go to all that bother and expense?

About your supporting scientific research. The studies are real, apparently, published in reputable periodicals like Sexual Abuse, a Journal of Research and Treatment, and European Psychiatry. Your links, however, lead to abstracts only, not to the detailed studies themselves. The abstracts do make the case that not all people who abuse children are pedophiles, and that not all people who are sexually attracted to children actually molest them. But without the full reports presenting the comprehensive results of research, there’s no indication that psychiatrists and professionals in the study of child sexual abuse think it’s important for non-offending pedophiles require widespread social acceptance, in the same way as, say, homosexuals.

Under one of the abstracts you offered as scientific proof for “virtuous pedophila,” I noticed that another study was listed, with this title: “Emotional Congruence With Children Is Associated With Sexual Deviancy in Sexual Offenders Against Children.” Here’s the full text of its abstract: Emotional congruence with children is a psychologically meaningful risk factor for sexual offending against children. The present study examines the correlates of emotional congruence with children in a sample of 424 adult male sexual offenders who started a period of community supervision in Canada, Alaska, and Iowa between 2001 and 2005. Consistent with previous work, we found sexual offenders against children high in emotional congruence with children were more likely to be sexually deviant, have poor sexual self-regulation, experience social loneliness, and have more distorted cognitions about sex with children. Overall, our findings are most consistent with a sexual deviancy model, with some support for a blockage model.

Doesn’t exactly make your case, does it? Without convincing and broad-based scholarship promoting your contention that non-offending pedophiles should achieve public acknowledgement and acceptance, I think you’re fighting a losing battle. You haven’t persuaded anyone of the validity of your case. Instead, what you’ve done is provoke and deeply upset people who’ve been vicitimized by child molesters, without the slightest recognition that this would be the predictable result. So I’d rather read Heather Nann’s understandably scathing diatribe against pedophiles, rising from reprehensible childhood experiences, than your continued attempts to foster social support for your masturbatory fantasies.

You have every right to express your opinion, of course. But it’s not your inherent right to be published by Crossing Genres.

And a final note for the rest of us.

Continuing this discussion, even with our most vehement remonstrations and indisputably cogent arguments, only gets these guys the attention they want. Like Tim Barrus, my next step will be to block them, and get on with life.

Next topic, please.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.