I use Google reader to follow what is published on several websites. Sometimes I get to read a story that is saucy. Today I read about a named 13 year old boy who abused his fathers credit card and after having played in a "World of Warcraft" tournament ordered a supply of Dr Pepper, Fritos and Oreos as well as two escort girls. To quote the article, the boy said he thought it was the thing to do when you win a "World of Warcraft" tournament. To quote the two ladies of the night, they knew that something was up when they ended up playing Halo in stead of providing sexual services.
It is an amusing story but once I realised that this 13 year old kid was named in the article, it became a disgusting story to me. This kid is likely to be stigmatised for the rest of his life. I do not have any respect for a justice system that allows kids to be abused in this way. I do not have any respect for news organisations that name kids in this way. If this defines me and my values, I am proud to have them in this way.
There has been a lot to do about an article that my friend Erik Möller wrote several years ago in kuro5hin. This was written on websites and blogs that I do not care for because of their barrage of negative stories targetted against the Wikimedia Foundation and the people involved in it. I had been asked to take part in an edition of the Wikipedia Weekly, and this subject was discussed. After the program I was urged by Andrew Lih to read the kuro5hin article and make up my own mind.
I have read it and I find again how morals differ. This article is about children and sex; but the notion of what is acceptable and what is not, what is healthy and what is not is apparently very much a cultural thing. The article is about children and sex and provides a decidedly European view. In the Netherlands for instance a girl mature enough to ask a doctor for the pill, is likely to get it. This is much to be preferred over her going to the doctor two months later for an abortus provocatus or becoming a teen mother.
Erik writes: "It is a scandal in itself that the subject of child sexuality cannot be discussed without people raising the spectre of paedophilia", he writes: "If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child /child contact". I do not find suggestions in the article that provide an apology for peadophilia. Having read the article, I do not understand what the fuss is about.
What I do know is that both the 13 year old boy and Erik are damaged by a complete lack of what I consider appropriate. The 13 year old boy emulated adult behaviour and the escort girls went their way after having played Halo. Erik is being damaged because of what is to me a narrow minded POV on acceptable sexual morals, a fundamentalist parochial view that is sadly damaging many children. It has everything of a thought police ready to lynch all those who provide strong arguments that their dearly beloved moral beliefs are bankrupt.
Thanks,
GerardM
8 comments:
Just to point out, you write: "After the program I was urged by Andrew Lih to read the kuro5hin article and make up my own mind."
In other words, you were commenting on the topic without actually having read the material? That is kinda like people condemning the Satanic Verses without actually having read the book. It is actually a sign of intolerance.
As for comparing a thirteen year old kid who ordered Oreos and hookers on his dad's credit card to a kid who got sexually abused, indeed they are almost identical, except for the cookies, the hookers, and the sexual abuse.
Man, you're so full of crap. Honestly. Anyone who raises an eyebrow at the tremendous amount of time and energy erik has spent rationalizing child sexuality, combined with his off-the-wall attempts at starting youth groups, and his talk of "age discrimination" and "age politics" -- we're all just agents of the american right wing. Fuck you. I've been railing against the american right wing my whole life.
As I have written elsewhere, the level of relevance that I give to sources like the Valleywag is non existent.
When I compare this oreo kid and Erik they CAN be compared as both are instances where an injustice is done. Mr Wool has the audacity to make Erik out for a paedophile. He does not have anything that proves this but his suppositions. Mr Wool how dare you ?
When you read Erik's piece, you find a well written and well sourced article it makes the point that you protect kids by ensuring a proper sexual education and the provision of anti conceptiva.
As to Mr Yates, have you realised what job Erik had at the time? He was a journalist.. Maybe he was asked to write this stuff ?
As to the quality of Mr Yates' language, if you cannot argue without your case without resorting to abuse, you apparently lost your argument or do not have much of one.
Thanks,
GerardM
Sometimes it might help to read things before commenting on them. If you have read my blog you will see that I said I do not believe Erik is a pedophile. I simply think he is a naive and stupid self-professed journalist with a chip on his shoulders and an agenda to push. As for your comments to Ben, I doubt very strongly that Erik was asked to write anything as journalist to Kuro5hin. As for comparing a kid using his dad's credit card and a who is molested, how dare you?
I can only wonder if it is your liberal sexual politics which led you to suggest that Wikimania would be safer in Iran than in the US.
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/15/iran
* http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atb5xZZ7fPY
Mr Wool, I feel that your reply is not worthy of a reaction.
@GerardM -- You crack me up with your juvenile attitude. Danny (or anybody for that matter) reminds you of the things you have said in a public forum and then you decide that you don't want to discuss anything further? Why? Was is because you sound like a complete idiot? Is it because Danny has a position and will discuss why at length while your only position is that it isn't Danny's? Or are your anti-American views so important that you would rather sound stupid and inconsistent than agree that something American is actually acceptable? Or perhaps, you share Erik's view that any restraint on children's sexuality at any age, absent of violence, is acceptable?
Dear anonymous coward, you do not parse..
The sentiments expressed in this story remain valid even though it has turned out that the story about these boys is not.
Thanks,
GerardM
Post a Comment