Before Fully Legalizing Sex Work, Stop Lowering the Age of Consent

     The following article was written as advice to the Libertarian Party regarding why its members should stop advocating for the lowering of the age of consent to sexual relations.

     In the mid-2010s, Americans began to notice that teenagers were increasingly being required to register as sex offenders for life; even for the supposed "crimes" of possessing nude photographs of themselves, and of having sex with someone below the age of consent but still very close in age.

     Since then, so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, have become more popular. These are exemptions to the statutory rape or age of consent laws, which allow minors close in age, to have sex, without it being considered a crime. The statute typically specifies the age range, and establishes a minimum age to protect young children.

     It's certainly a fair argument that if a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old are dating, then they should be able to have sex without anyone going to jail or registering as a sex offender. It's also a fair argument that teenagers do not belong on sex offender registries, unless they are repeat or violent offenders, or assaulted significantly younger children.

     However, the facts that these arguments hold water, does not mean that every argument criticizing the current state of age of consent laws, holds water. Statutory rape laws may be rigid, but there's a reason for that; especially young children need to be protected.

     In the article from The Appeal which is linked below, the children involved were only 12 and 14 years old. Yet, because the 14-year-old faced sex offender registration, people felt sorry for him. And that's understandable. But from that point, the excuse train just kept on rolling.
     http://theappeal.org/underage-teenager-faces-life-as-registered-sex-offender-for-having-sex-with-underage-girlfriend-55c377ea9729/
     The fact that these children don't belong on a sex offender list with adult criminals, doesn't mean that nobody should suffer any consequences for what they did. These children's parents are treating them as "boyfriend and girlfriend" who should be free to have sex; as such, it is the parents' fault that their children cannot keep their hands to themselves.

     Think about it: The older party was a fourteen-year-old boy, whose parents evidently did not teach him how to avoid having sex with younger children who are incapable of consenting. I will not address the possibility that the girl was, in any way, to blame; not because she's a girl, nor because boys are evil, but because she was the younger party and was therefore vulnerable. The boy's parents should be fined or jailed for failing to teach their son how to respect other children's boundaries.

     Twelve-year-old girls can get pregnant, as some girls begin puberty early. And there are typically other negative consequences associated with having sex at such a young age, including sexual dysfunction, sex addiction, drug addiction, dropping out of school, and difficulty staying employed.
     Minors under age 16 or 17 cannot fully understand these serious negative consequences, and thus cannot make a fully informed decision which takes them into account. Taking too libertine an attitude regarding the protection of children, can have serious effects.


     Romeo and Juliet exceptions and "close-in-age exemptions" have become a popular solution to the rigidity of statutory rape laws. Indiana an Connecticut passed laws like these in 2007. Texas's law passed in 2011.
     When sex offender registration for juveniles became a controversial issue, the Libertarian Party was on the correct side of that issue. For older teenagers, these exceptions helped fix the problem that Libertarians and other Americans had noticed. And that is admirable, on the part of the Libertarians.
     However - evidently unaware that they have already succeeded - the Libertarians have continued to advocate for the lowering of the age of consent to sex. The push to lower the age of consent has worked too well!
     A 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision caused that change. But before explaining that, it's important to ask, "Is lowering the age of consent really a good idea right now?"


     Take Texas for example. If thirteen-year-olds can already legally have sex in that state, under some circumstances, then lowering the age of consent probably isn't the wisest thing to do.
     There are a number of reforms which could be made to age of consent laws and statutory rape laws, which would protect children, without either limiting adults' freedom, or lowering the age of consent any further.
     These include:
     1) Leaving the law the way it is, and focusing on enforcing it properly (which is probably the most libertarian option);
     2) Increasing the punishments for people who abuse children under 13, or 15 or 16, or both;
     3) Increasing the age of consent to 16 or 17 with no exceptions; and/or
     4) Increasing the age of consent while establishing a sex offender registry that's temporary and for minors only.
     I would recommend that Texas enact the latter three reforms.

     It's correct that we should stop treating minors like adults, when it comes to the legal consequences for their actions. That's because children don't really "choose" their actions, nor do they "decide" carefully in the same way that adults do. Children act on impulse.
     But it does not logically follow, from the fact that minors shouldn't be punished as if they were adults, that we should start treating minors like adults when it comes to sex.
     If you're opposed to putting minors on sex offender registries for life, then why overreact by saying "lower the age of consent"? Why not advocate for the continued registration of teens who commit sex crimes, but put them on a registry that is for minors only? Make it expire when they turn 17 or 18, or at some date that reflects the seriousness of their crime and the vulnerability of the other party involved.
     Why go overboard, when it's unnecessary?

    Lowering the age of consent is not something we should do hastily; not without first checking to see what it is. It is necessary to see what it is, because it keeps changing, based on time and location.

     "The age of consent" is not a fixed thing, and is in constant flux.
     The age of consent to sex changes every few years, in the states, because each state sets its own age, in its own statutes. The national government has an age of consent to sex as well.
     Also, there is so much overlap between "age of consent laws" and "statutory rape laws" that it is difficult to distinguish one category from the other. And both categories affect the laws against human trafficking, child trafficking, and kidnapping (because the victim being young enough means a crime has occurred, and a younger victim means a harsher sentence).
     But most importantly, "the age of consent" is not a single thing. The generic age of consent to sex, the minimum age for sex considering all statutory exemptions, the generic age of consent to marriage, and the minimum age for marriage considering all statutory exemptions, are four different things. Yet each of them could be described as either an "age of consent to sex" or an age of consent to sex within the context of a relationship legalized through a marriage license.

     We have to be clear about what we are talking about, when we say "age of consent". Not only because states sometimes pass exemptions which cause the general state age of consent to stop applying, in certain circumstances; but also because the age of marriage may actually be lower than the age of consent to sex.
     Ten states have even failed to establish any minimum age for consent to marriage. That means the age of consent for marriage, in those states, is effectively zero. Due to exemptions to the marriage laws, which allow judges and/or parents to assent to marriages involving minors, if you can find a couple and a judge who are crazy or stupid or perverted enough, you can marry a baby in those ten states.
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/child-marriage-is-legal-in-ten-states.html

     Maybe nobody is going to try to marry a baby, so this isn't a problem.
     But on the other hand, we know from recent events that some child molesters know people high-up in government. We can't be sure that nobody will ever try to get away with such a thing. If that happens, there should be a limitation in place, to say "this child is incapable of giving fully informed consent to this marriage contract".
     If our laws do not reflect our values, such as the need to protect vulnerable children who cannot protect themselves, then our civil society is worthless, because it cannot establish basic norms or standards.
     

     Lowering the age of consent was a great position to take... ten or twenty years ago. It would be a great position to take, if "the age of consent" were actually 18 years old, as most Americans assume it is. But it simply isn't true that there is an 18-year age of consent; not nationally anyway. The age of consent is 18, only in a few states.
     As of early 2021, the age of consent was 18 in 12 states, 17 in 7 states, and 16 in 31 states. As of one or two years ago, the most common age of consent was 17, but now it is 16.

     The fact that more states are reducing the age of consent, than increasing it, should not necessarily be taken as evidence that it is the right thing to do. Keep in mind that, in the figures provided above, state statutes regarding exceptions were not taken into account. Each state's laws regarding exceptions to statutory rape laws, vary widely.

     That is why it is difficult to even say "the age of consent in this particular state is this particular age"; there are so many exceptions that it is often hard to keep track of. Especially when state laws on the matter change so often.

     It was not due to the Libertarian Party's legislative efforts that Romeo and Juliet laws were passed. Nor should we blame the Libertarians for failing to notice that the advocates of reforming statutory rape laws, succeeded.

     But we cannot fail to hold those Libertarians accountable who continue to support lowering ages of consent. Some Libertarians - though not all - continue to remain ignorant about the current state of these laws.

     If Libertarians are so interested in the topic, then they should notice what has changed. They should distinguish what the advocates of lowering the age of consent, did right, from what they did wrong. Then Libertarians should start proposing solutions to the parts they got wrong.

     If the Libertarians do not propose any such solutions, then they should not expect to be part of a coalition that enforces those solutions.

     Curiously, what caused the big change in statutory rape laws, that the Libertarians missed, was not an avalanche of states rushing to pass Romeo and Juliet exceptions.

     Instead, it was the decision in the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. Additionally, the subsequent lowering of the age of consent in at least twenty states, to sixteen, which appears to have been done in order to accommodate and apply the Esquivel ruling.

     Attorney General Jeff Sessions lost the government's case against an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who had sex with a 17-year-old female, at a time when it was illegal for him to do so at age 21, according to a California statute. That California statute was ignored, and effectively invalidated, in the 2017 case.

     In June 2017, the Huffington Post reported that, as a result of that Supreme Court decision, twenty states would have to see their ages of consent reduced to sixteen. That's because the immigrant's attorneys appealed to the fact that the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor (which is articulated in 18 U.S. Code Section 2243) specifically references an age of consent to sex, and not to the age of "legal competence". The age of consent to sex is the federal age of sixteen. The age of legal competence therein referred, is eighteen.

     http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12
     This ought to teach us why it is important to distinguish age of consent to sex, from age of legal competence (or age of consent to contract) wherever necessary. If I may make a suggestion, for the sake of simplicity, these ought to be set at the same age. Doing that might help prevent a "race to the bottom", in case the federal age of consent gets any lower than it already is.

     The reason why twenty states' ages of consent became 16, rather than 18, as a result of that decision, is because there is no national or "federal" age of consent to sex which is set at 18 years old.
     There has never been such a law. The states currently set their ages of consent between 16 and 18. They do so because they can, and because the federal government hasn't ruled their age of consent statutes unconstitutional yet. There is no national law, currently on the books, which states that states must set their ages of consent between 16 and 18, nor between any other set of ages.
     States could lower their ages at any time, and they can and do pass exceptions. Those exemptions often legalize sex involving people well below 18, and that is why children below 16 are put at risk, whether or not a state were to claim "states' rights" and lower its general age of consent before exemptions to below 16.

     Huffington Post contributor James R. Marsh explains why 18 U.S. Code Section 2243 is at fault for the outcome of this decision: Esquivel-Quintana's attorneys cited this law to justify refraining from deeming the actions of thee accused as sexual abuse of a minor.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquivel-Quintana_v._Sessions
     In 18 U.S. Code Section 2243, titled "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward", the law provides that whomever is under U.S. jurisdiction, and "knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who... has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years", can be punished.

     http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243

     This law is referred to as the "generic federal definition" of sexual abuse of a minor.

     It could be argued that this means there is a national age of consent of 16 years old. [However, taking such a stance, would probably require you to argue that state laws establishing a 17-year or 18-year age of consent, are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.]

     It gets worse, though.

     According to the defenses listed in 18 U.S. Code Section 2243, whomever has sex with someone under 16, but over twelve, might not be guilty of a crime, if they are either married to that person, or they reasonably believed that the person was over 16.

     What does this mean, in effect? If a child aged twelve through fifteen, obtains a fake identification card (a "fake I.D."), and shows it to an adult, then that adult could rape them, and use the fact that they had an I.D. saying they were over 16, to argue that they "reasonably believed that the other person had attained 16 years of age".

     So the "national age of consent" is 16, not 18; and if you have a fake I.D., it's only twelve. Apparently, no criminal consequences can be visited upon someone who rapes a 12- to 15-year-old child who shows them a fake I.D., as long as the rapist is simply aware of the law and its acceptable legal defenses, and doesn't commit any additional crimes in the process.

     It is customary to have the defenses for breaking the law, listed right beneath the law itself. But it is disturbing to think that anyone who looks up this "national age of consent" law, can find what basically amount to instructions on how to use a loophole in the law, right below this very necessary law which is supposed to exist in order to protect children.
     Knowing all of this, it's hard to avoid feeling like the government is instructing child traffickers how to have sex with, an abduct children, legally.
     And in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein / Alexander Acosta scandal, we should also think about what it means that attorneys, judges, and legislators see that piece of legislation a lot more often than the average American does (and especially more often than the average child who is put in danger by its flaws).
     Do you understand, now, why lowering the age of consent is such a bad idea?
     In case you don't, then yes, it still gets worse! Read on!

     The fact that this national 16-year age of consent law exists at the national level, means that anyone who traffics a child across state lines, is under federal jurisdiction. That means the state cannot prosecute the kidnapper (which is bad), but the federal government can (which is good).

     However, the federal government might not prosecute the kidnapper (which is bad)! It all depends on the age of the victim and the perpetrator.

     Suppose that you live in a state in which the age of consent is 17, and your child is 16 years old, and they've been abducted. If the kidnapper stays within state lines, then state courts can prosecute him, and they will prosecute him under your state's 17-year age of consent law. Naturally, you would prefer that your kidnapper stay close-by, and not leave state lines, because that would make recovering your child very difficult.

     But that's where the federal government comes in. If your child's kidnapper leaves the state with your child, now he's under federal jurisdiction, because he's using the national highway system. And, according to the federal law on "Sexual abuse of a minor", a person who transports a child across state lines, whom is between 12 and 15, and is less than four years younger than the other person involved, has not committed sexual abuse of a minor, and cannot be found guilty of that in federal courts.

     Read closely: "Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who- (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both."

     The appearance of the word "and", before "(2)", means that both (1) and (2) must be fulfilled, rather than just one or the other. This means that, for a crime to have been committed - simply due to the victim's age, rather than other criminal factors - the victim must be both: 1) at least 12, but not yet 16; and at least four years younger than the kidnapper or rapist.

     In effect, this means that a kidnapper can abduct a child, and take them across state lines for purposes of sex, as long as the child is over 12, and the kidnapper is no more than four years older than the victim. A 16-year-old can kidnap children over 12 and take them across state lines, a 17-year-old can kidnap children over 13, an 18-year-old can kidnap children over 14, and a 19-year-old can kidnap children aged 15. And 16-year-olds can be taken across state lines by anybody, and it's not kidnapping. Unless, that is, other crimes are committed in the process, which obviously indicate that the younger party never consented in the first place (such as evidence of assault).

     Not many Americans, and probably few potential kidnappers, know about these facts. But whether a lot of people know about it, does not change the fact of what we have done, by allowing the Supreme Court to ignore and invalidate the age of consent laws of twenty states.

     We have created a federal incentive program, for kidnappers, to take our children outside state borders.
     We have effectively created this incentive to take kids out of the state, by eliminating the disincentive to stay in the state after abducting the child. That disincentive, which previously existed, was the threat of punishment, by the states, according to their own age of consent and statutory rape laws. In 2017, those laws were invalidated in 20 states, including several of the most populous states in the nation.

     This should demonstrate why it's important to read the law, and to know how to read the law. It could mean the difference between having your child in your arms and never seeing the child again. It could mean the difference between being certain that your child's rape is prosecutable, and having no clue on the matter.

     Age of consent to sex, statutory rape, and intrastate kidnapping, certainly belong under the jurisdiction of the states or the people. Just as interstate kidnapping is rightfully a national or federal issue. But that doesn't mean that the states and the federal government should not coordinate when deciding what those laws should be.

     The wide variation in states' ages of consent - coupled with the many exceptions to those laws - are a complete mess. We would probably see less interstate child trafficking, if kidnappers couldn't simply relocate to a new state, where the age of consent is lower, in order to get away with more legal sex with minors.

     That is why I support a constitutional amendment which would establish a minimum age of consent to sex, marriage, contract, and work, which would be uniform across all states. In my opinion, the age of consent should be set at 17, with a two-year "close-in-age exception" that allows minors aged 15 or older to have sex, without being labeled sex offenders, as long as the other party is below 17.

     A constitutional amendment would avoid objections associated with "states' rights", by making sure to get at least three-fourths of the states' approval, before making such a permanent change to the U.S. Constitution. There may not be constitutional precedent supporting the authority for a national age of consent, but the existence of interstate child trafficking necessitates such laws, and an amendment would delegate that authority properly.

     To include a provision regarding age of contract, or age of legal competence, would also be an important achievement. Without such a law, children could work and marry and have sex and vote in one state, while being able to do none of these things the next state over (which is sometimes as close as just over a bridge). Perhaps some minors could even be legally transported to other states for the purposes of legal prostitution (just as they can legally be transported now, by their parents, to get piercings and tattoos which are illegal for them to get in their home states).
     States' rights have their place, but to continue to have zero consistency whatsoever - concerning whom is allowed to vote, and start a family, and file lawsuits - would constitute a failure to set up the most basic standards necessary for a civil society.

     Emotional maturity, intellectual maturity, reproductive maturity, and economic independence, are not sufficient grounds for either legal sex, marriage, or voting. Maturity matters, but a child who is subjected to sex, must always be presumed to be the vulnerable party, unless and until the other person involved, proves otherwise.
     If economic independence - and emotional, intellectual, and reproductive maturity - were considered to be all a child needs to work, marry, have sex, and enter into contracts, then an adult could pay any child who has begun puberty, for sex, treat them as a legal prostitute, and use that to cite their economic independence. An adult could single-out a child, tell them that they're mature for their age, and use that to justify trying to date them, and starting a sexual relationship with them.
     I wrote about this topic previously, in direct rebuttal of an article written by former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Arvin Vohra, in my January 2018 article "Remove Arvin Vohra from the Libertarian Party". That article can be read at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/01/remove-arvin-vohra-from-libertarian.html

     Some Americans have heard rumors about there being a 16-year or a 12-year national age of consent (and I hope that this article has helped clarify that question). But few Americans know that ten states currently have no legal barrier to baby marriage.

     Some people do know some of these facts, though; for example, everyone who read the Huffington Post article about Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions and 18 U.S. Code Section 2243.

     The fact that some people are aware of this problem, is at least part of the reason why Americans are looking at Libertarians like they're crazy - and, as Mark Whitney put it, "the party of pedophilia" - for continuing to advocate for lowering "the" age of consent.

     We already did it!

     Now that we're done celebrating this pyrrhic victory, it's time to rein things back in. It might even be time to raise the age of consent (or at least raise it to 17 everywhere, and get rid of the exceptions that pertain to minors under 15 or 16).

     If we, as Americans, neglect to establish nationwide minimum ages for contract, work, marriage, and sex, then it will be very difficult for many people to accept the full legalization of sex work. Not considering the way state age of consent laws have been weakened over the past five years.

     I believe that the Libertarian Party – and the broader libertarian movement, and the movement to legalize sex work for consenting adults – will never succeed, as long as their proponents neglect to check whether states are establishing adequate and consistent minimum ages for participation in sex work.
     If they do succeed, then it will be because their proponents failed to update themselves on the changing sex laws.
     Libertarians are teaching children who come to their conventions that there is a safe way to do everything. That is not true; there is not a safe way for a child to have sex, nor to use dangerous drugs.
     Many people in the party think it is funny to boo laws against five-year-olds buying heroin. They usually argue that "that doesn't mean the kid is going to use it", or "it's probably for someone else", or even simply "no victim, no crime". But this is simply going into denial; it is letting our guards down through trying to rationalize-away real threats to our children. This will only end in desensitization to pedophile grooming, and tragedy.
     It's not OK to allow drug dealers around our children, and it's not OK to allow children to drink alcohol at a young age. We cannot allow adults to get children hooked on drugs, simply because there's nothing sexual about it, or whatever other bizarre rationalization we might have for turning a blind eye. If you don't put your foot down at some point, some child molester is going to be able to get away with putting his finger up your child's asshole in front of you, and then saying "There's nothing sexual about this, because the anus is for digestion, not sex, according to nature." And you can probably predict which political parties are going to vouch for the people who will make that argument.


     The Libertarian Party must establish itself as "the party of consent", and understand that children are not supposed to be completely free, because they cannot make certain decisions on their own. If the L.P. cannot do that, American society will end up prioritizing children's freedom over children's safety.

     The party needs to distance itself from Nathan Larson, Arvin Vohra, and Walter Block; and defend Mary Ruwart and Roderick Long from accusations of defending pedophilia.

     I wrote about this topic previously, in my March 2020 pamphlet “Understanding Libertarian Pedophilia Scandals”, which can be viewed and downloaded at the following link:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/understanding-libertarian-pedophilia.html

     

     The age of consent to contract is one of the cornerstones of civil society. From that principle, proceed the notions that minors under a certain age shouldn't be free to work, marry, or have sex, without the guidance of adults and also the guidance of the law.
     That is why failing to establish consistent standards regarding the ages of consent to sex, marriage, work, and other things, would be a serious misstep.

     I would like to help the members of the Libertarian Party, and other people who oppose punishing minors with serious adult consequences, avoid making that misstep.

     This problem may seem complicated, but it is simpler than it looks. All it takes it having some basic standards, a little bit of political coordination, and the sustained determination it will take to pass a constitutional amendment (which typically takes between six months and seven years).

     That time will be worth it, no matter how long it takes. Our children deserve it.

     To fail to protect children, will also endanger the freedom of adults. Because until children are adequately protected, the sexual freedoms of adults will be sacrificed in the name of protecting children, and children will be treated like adults in the name of freedom and order.
     Look around you; at the law, at parents, at the schools, and in our culture and in the media. It has already begun.

Originally Written on March 8th, 2021

Edited and Expanded, and Originally Published,
on March 10th, 2021

What if Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David are Pedophiles?

      The following text is an excerpt from my February 2021 article "Twenty-One Politicians and Celebrities Who May Be Indian R.S.S. Agents", which can be read at the following link:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/02/thirteen-politicians-and-celebrities.html

     The discussion of Jerry Seinfeld's and Larry David's possible pedophilia, was included in that article, as part of exploring which actors have both worked with Aziz Ansari and either made pedophilic jokes or have had sex scandals.

     Jerry Seinfeld was thirty-eight years old when he began dating 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein Gruss. They met some time in either 1992 or 1993.

     The 48th, 50^th, 51^st, and 56^th episodes of Seinfeld, which were aired around the same time, all featured jokes about either pedophilia, a possible reference to childhood in sex talk, or wanting to have sex with a virgin. The 48th episode is "The Cheever Letters", the 50th episode is “The Virgin”, the 51st is “The Contest”, and the 56th is “The Shoes”.

     In "The Cheever Letters", Jerry's girlfriend Sandra leaves his apartment after Sandra was talking about her panties, and Jerry replied, "You mean the panties your mother laid out for you?" This is revealed during a conversation with George, about Jerry's "dirty talk". Jerry declines to explain to George why he mentioned Sandra's mother during dirty talk. It's possible that the Jerry character was trying to infantilize Sandra, or get her to try "age play". "The Cheever Letters" episode was written by Larry David.
     http://seinfeld.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cheever_Letters

     In “The Virgin”, Frasier's Jane Leeves plays Marla Penny, an adult woman in her late 20s or early 30s who is still a virgin. The sexual frustration which Jerry experiences in the “Virgin” episode, leads to the following episode, “The Contest”, also featuring Leeves. That episode, which is one of the best-known and most popular episode in the show's history, was about the four main characters entering into a betting game to see who can go the longest without having sex. In the series finale, Marla Penny actually testifies in court about how horrified she was when she found out about this game, which Jerry was playing while he was dating her. But focusing on the “Contest” episode: during that episode, there is a scene in which Jerry tries to distract himself from how pent-up (and, presumably, horny) he is. He does so by calling his mother on the phone while watching the children's cartoon show Tiny Toons. While watching the show, Jerry sings along to the song “The Wheels on the Bus (Go 'Round and 'Round)”. This may not be a direct joke at the expense of child sex crime victim, but it is certainly a juxtaposition of children and sex which is intended to get laughs. If it is not pedophilic, then it is at least insensitive, and shows that the writers can't think of anything to distract Jerry that doesn't have to do with child-like things.

     Speaking of child-like things, not only does the real Jerry date teenagers while the fake Jerry dates virgins; the fake Jerry is an immature adult who basically has the mind of a child. He spends all his time making stupid, pointless observations, and talking about nothing, and making jokes all the time. Like a child does. He also eats and talks about cereal all the time, and Superman either appears as a figurine or is mentioned in nearly every single episode. I don't know whether it says anything about real Jerry, but fake Jerry has obviously not grown up yet.

     In “The Shoes”, George stares down the blouse of a teenage girl. George Costanza, played by Jason Alexander, risked losing a job opportunity after television producer Russell Dalrymple (played by Bob Balaban) caught him staring down the blouse of the young girl in his office. That young girl was played by Brooke Shields when she was 21 or 22. It was revealed that the young girl character was not only just 15 years old, but also Dalrymple's daughter.

     All of this means that Seinfeld broadcast four episodes about either pedophilia, reference to childhood in the bedroom, or wanting to have sex with a virgin, within the five-month span of time between late October 1992 and February 1993.

     Think about how pathological that is. Seinfeld had just begun dating a 17-year-old girl, and I'm sure there were probably people who thought it was creepy. If there were, and their opinion got back to Jerry and Larry David, they probably just said “Let's put it in the show! We can make jokes about it!” They were probably trying to “nip things in the bud” by making jokes about having sex with virgins, to get the audience accustomed to laughing about jokes that include both the topic of children or virginity and the topic of sex. The Marla Penny character is visibly in her thirties, and not a teenager, but it's hard to avoid wondering whether the “The Virgin” character, and episode, may have been influenced by the fact that Jerry was dating a teenage girl at the time.

     It's also noteworthy that the character of George Costanza is based on Larry David, the producer of Seinfeld. We might wonder whether George's experience – almost losing a job opportunity for getting caught staring down a female's shirt – could have been based on something that happened to Larry David. Maybe it was even a teenage girl, and/or the daughter of a producer. You know what they say: “Life imitates art, and art imitates life.”

     Maybe Larry David is a pedophile! Let's look at some more facts.

     When Larry David hosted Saturday Night Live, he made a joke about Harvey Weinstein, in which the punch line involved a Jewish rapist trying to get laid in a concentration camp, harassing other Holocaust victims imprisoned there. That was wildly insensitive, but it didn't have to do with children. However, later in the episode, Larry David appeared alongside sitting U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders in yet another sketch about an incident of mass death, the Titanic sinking. In that sketch, Larry David played a Titanic passenger who tried to steal a lifeboat from a boy, which was reserved for women and children only. David's character shouts that the boy is, in fact, a man, and that he could see the boy's “happy trail”, a reference to pubic hair.

     Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David obviously consider the juxtaposition of children and sex to be a laughing matter. None of this information may directly suggest that they are attracted to small children, but it's probable that they are attracted to teenage girls and have no problem joking about it in a very public manner.

     It turns out that Seinfeld isn't about “nothing” after all! For a few years there, I thought it was about food, such as cereals; or perhaps Superman. I guess it's about pedophilia!

Excerpt originally written on February 4th, 2021,
and published incomplete on February 4th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on February 4th, 9th,
14th, and 16th, 2021

Introduction to this article written on March 1st, 2021

Published on March 1st, 2021

Alan Dershowitz Cited Ethnicity to Defend His Opposition to Statutory Rape Laws

 

This opinion-editorial was written by Alan M. Dershowitz,

and published by the Los Angeles Times, in 1997.

     Dershowitz served as convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's attorney at least twice before Epstein's reported death in 2019. Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, claims that Alan Dershowitz flew on Epstein's plane "The Lolita Express" and had sex with minors.

     Dershowitz, who is married, maintains that he never took his pants off, and merely got a massage from an old Russian woman. Dershowitz maintains that he never had sex with any children, despite the fact that he has publicly gone on record as being against statutory rape laws.

     In the op-ed, Dershowitz says that he supports prohibitions on sex with very young children. After the op-ed was published, Dershowitz explained that he was making a constitutional argument, not a moral argument.

     However, that does not mean he is morally opposed to having sex with teenagers. In the article, he focuses on teenagers having sex with each other; probably to distract the reader from the fact that eliminating statutory rape laws, or lowering the legal age of consent, would result in adults having sex with teenagers.

     The one thing that Dershowitz and I agree on is that morality certainly doesn't enter into his argument. There are certainly arguments which can be made about statutory rape laws, which are both moral and constitutional. Dershowitz's argument is not one of them. It is odd for Dershowitz to claim that his argument is a constitutional one, when he doesn't even mention the Constitution a single time in the article.

     In my opinion, Dershowitz's goal, with this op-ed, is to use the "constitutional" (or legal) argument which could be made in favor of loosening or eliminating statutory rape laws, as a sort of Trojan Horse. His goal is to cloak the defense of teenagers having sex before they are old enough to consent, in a legal argument, and frame it as a constitutional argument.

     It is important to notice that the very title of the article is "Statutory Rape Is an Outdated Concept". If he were questioning the concept of statutory rape only in a legal sense but not in an ethical sense, then he would have titled the article "Statutory Rape Laws Are Flawed" or something to that effect. He is clearly questioning both the legal and ethical bases for statutory rape laws.
     Dershowitz writes that "It is obvious that there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group." Dershowitz shows with this sentence that he is either unaware of the idea that teenagers are not old enough nor mature enough to consent to sex, or else he is simply opposed to the idea and wishes to give it no recognition in his article.

     Nothing in this op-ed suggests that Dershowitz is opposed to adults having sex with teenagers. He doesn't even mention it. It's as if he thinks he has no responsibility to, or that adults having sex with teenagers has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It absolutely does.

     Even more shameful in all of this, is the fact that Dershowitz cited the fact that "puberty is apparently arriving earlier, particularly among certain ethnic groups". I do not know what Dershowitz is referring to, but an article published by WebMD in 2002 confirmed that African-American girls begin puberty before white girls. However, they only begin puberty an average of six months earlier. That is not even a full year, and thus is hardly a justification for lowering the age of consent.

     That article can be viewed here: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20021009/girls-menstruating-earlier#:~:text=While%20the%20average%20age%20of,months%20earlier%20than%20white%20girls.

     Considering this small difference, consider what it could mean that Dershowitz is citing ethnicity to justify eliminating statutory rape laws. The argument that "some ethnicities, like African-Americans, 'mature' earlier", is not very different from, and aligns perfectly with the way of thinking that informs the "black girls like wild sex" stereotype. Some African-American women have been exposed to violent sex, and heard their aggressors make the excuse that they had heard that black women liked wild sex. This stereotype is fed by the old idea that Africans are "wild", which is based on the idea that they're sub-human, and basically animals, and need to be controlled. The idea that black girls "mature earlier" is thus a medical fact, but not a noteworthy one considering the probability that the fact is only cited to justify raping African-American teenagers. It also potentially implies that black people immature, an idea which could be used to justify controlling them. And rape is a form of control.

     "If there's fluff on the muff, she's old enough" is not a medical saying. Nor is it a legal saying.

     If getting your period makes you a woman, and that makes it OK to have sex, then by that logic it's OK to have sex with young girls if they experience precocious puberty. Twelve and thirteen years old are not the youngest ages at which a female has experienced menarche (first menstruation). That age is four.

     There should not be a purely biological standard regarding when losing one's virginity is appropriate. Nor should that standard be dictated by "maturity", nor ability to earn money and have a career. There are plenty of talented children, child stars, and children capable of performing labor or investing in stocks. That does not make it OK for adults, or other children or teenagers, to have sex with them. That does not make it OK to marry children. Child molesters will tell teenagers and children that they are mature all day; they do this in order to justify treating them like adults.

     Age must be the standard; not biology, nor race, nor puberty, nor maturity, nor financial independence, nor work capability. If being at a "lowered capacity to consent" makes it OK for two drunk adults to have sex, then the same logic could be used to justify a retarded old man having sex with a little girl. Or getting drunk in order to be "on the same level as" a sober teenager.

     Age must be the standard. We must maintain the purpose of statutory rape laws, which is to place the obligation to prove the younger person's age, upon the older person, if and when there is any question about whether it was legal for the people in question to have sex, given their possible ages.

     We must maintain statutory rape laws and age of consent laws, and improve upon them, to prevent the federal government from unnecessarily and unconstitutionally intervening in child trafficking laws in a manner which causes the lower federal age of consent to trump the state's higher age of consent. (Note: You can learn more about this topic by researching the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.)
     Laws against trafficking children out of state for sex, are useless, as long as the federal government has an age of consent of twelve, with a defense written into the law that basically instructs child molesters to argue that they reasonably thought that the victim was at least 16 years old.

     This country's child sexual abuse laws are a complete mess, and Dershowitz's arguments only help the types of attorneys and other people in the legal professions who would be in the position to read this article. Dershowitz's "op-ed" thus amounts to little more than advice to child molesters and wannabe child rapists - especially those in or connected to the legal professions - who want to use these twisted arguments, and the "black girls mature earlier" argument, to justify having sex with minors which is both illegal and wrong.

     I appreciate the fact that Alan Dershowitz defended Julian Assange on rape charges. I also appreciate that Assange's victim was represented and was able to file charges. Everyone has the right to a defense. But we should be concerned that Dershowitz is leveraging his reputation as the nation's best defender of the "duty of adequate representation" (the duty to adequately represent your client) in order to justify his continued defense of accused child rapists and Israeli spies.

     When you see a Jewish lawyer defend Israeli spy, after Israeli spy, accused of child sex trafficking after Israeli spy after rapist, and see him defend eliminating statutory rape laws in an article in the paper, maybe it's time to wonder whether he's a pedophile. The fact that Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Giuffre, alleges he's a pedophile, ought to suggest that anyone connected to Dershowitz, or anyone who's been following him since 1997, might have been watching him for advice on how to abuse children and get away with it.

     They can certainly go to the U.S. Code section on child sex crimes for similar advice.

Written and published on January 31st, 2021

Edited and Expanded on February 6th, 2021

Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Begets Culture of Shamelessness (On Hunter Biden)

Table of Contents

1. Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People
2. Hunter Biden's Shamelessness
3. Joe and Hunter Biden Are Both Child Molesters
4. Hunter Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him
5. Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators
6. Shamelessness Helps Karens and Cancel Culture Resisters
7. Shamelessness Robs Children of Their Childhoods
8. Shamelessness Promotes Vanity and Risky Behavior
9. Shamelessness Promotes a Culture of Silence About Objectification
10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of Anti-Negativity
11. Conclusion
12. Author's Note on Additional Resources

Content

1. Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People

     “Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.” ... "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra," they shouted. "Turn us into these last men!"

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

     It has been observed by others, and correctly, that the movement against body-shaming helps all the wrong people.

     Numerous articles have been written, several by so-called “intersectional feminists”, that the movement to stop people from heaping shame upon others for their appearance – which should more appropriately be defending people who are disabled, differently abled, or disfigured, or paralyzed people (people who really need to know that their bodies are not something to be ashamed of) – has come to defend people who are slightly strange-looking, and people who are morbidly obese or are otherwise unhealthy more or less because of their own decisions.

     (One of such articles can be found here: http://studybreaks.com/culture/body-positivity/)

     But there is a new problem, and it is much worse. The movement against bodyshaming has begotten a culture of shamelessness.

     This has had, and will continue to have, vast, serious, and damning repercussions upon the basic premises of decency and privacy which previously kept our culture from drifting into sin, degradation, vanity, materialism, denial of the need to solve problems, and normalization of child sexual abuse.

2. Hunter Biden's Shamelessness

     When pictures leaked in October 2020 (and then again in January 2021) of Hunter Biden having sex with a female stripper who appears to be under the legal age of consent, opponents of Joe Biden were enraged. Some of Biden's defenders, and certain miscellaneous unconvinced people, stooped to defending the new president's son, however.

     Statutory rape laws were instituted in order to put the burden of proof on the older person involved in the sexual act, to prove that the younger person was of legal age to consent, when there is any question. In complete disregard of that fact – or, probably more likely, complete ignorance – some Twitter users who saw the leaked Hunter Biden photos, argued “You can't prove that the girl is underage.” That is not how the law works.

     The details of that particular legal argument aside, the point is that Hunter Biden is getting undue defense. It seems that the movement against body-shaming might have something to do with this as well, because some of Hunter Biden's defenders have been arguing something to the effect of “It's not fair for Trump, or anybody else, to 'target' Hunter Biden like this. He clearly has a problem and you have no right to shame him for it.”

     It may be true that we should not shame someone for having a cocaine habit, which the president's son was obviously still struggling with as recently as summer 2018 (when the photos were taken). But are we to believe that grown men in their mid- to late 40s, who have sex with teenagers, should never experience shame at having that fact exposed to the public?

     What has Hunter Biden done, that he should have some protection and defense from having to feel ashamed for what he has done? Even if you think he has contributed to our society politically and financially, is that enough to give someone immunity from shame?

3. Joe and Hunter Biden Are Both Child Molesters

     Between the second wave of Hunter Biden photo leaks in January, and Joe Biden's inauguration, Hunter's defenders were still citing the fact that his father wasn't president yet, as a reason not to worry about Hunter's behavior.

     Hunter's defenders argued additionally, “It's not like Hunter's behavior means that Joe Biden is a child molester. Hunter's actions shouldn't reflect upon his father.” They continue to say this, even though it's been six years since Joe Biden was shown live on C-SPAN, pinching the right nipple of the young niece of Senator Steve Daines of Montana. That girl was approximately eight years old.

     Biden also grazed the nipple of one of the daughters of Senator Michael Bennet, probably intentionally. Biden has also been photographed with his hand over a boy's mouth, his hand on a police officer's knee, his hands on both sides of an Asian-American girl's face, and his hand in a handshake position over a baby boy's crotch. Based on observations from videos, it's also possible that Biden has been pulling little girls back against his groin, and pushing his groin into their backs, during congressional swearing-in photo sessions.

     The idea that Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior shouldn't reflect on his father is one thing. But the question is moot because Joe Biden has been directly filmed live on television pinching a little girl's nipple. Joe Biden is a child molester, and Hunter Biden has now been photographed with a girl who is somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18.

     It's fair to assume that she is under 18, because: 1) of all the females who appear in the leaked photos, she appears, far and away, the youngest; and 2) one of the images leaked from Hunter Biden's phone is a screenshot of a text message from a woman named Allie (probably an ex-girlfriend of Hunter's based on context clues) who told Biden that he had let a stripper take-over his life, whom she described as “A CHILD”.

Did I censor these photos in order to shame this girl?

Or did I do it in order to protect her innocence,

and to provide her with

what little bare minimum of decency and privacy

that she still needs and deserves

in this sensitive situation in which a high-profile individual's

reputation and freedom are at stake?

 

     Neither 1) the fact that this girl is a stripper, nor 2) the fact that she is wearing a thong, proves that she is of legal age to consent to sex. Legally, the burden is on Hunter Biden, to prove that she was of age, at the time when the photos were taken (summer 2018).

     Don't console yourself, or try to soften this blow, with thoughts of “If she were underage, Hunter Biden would have been put away by now.” I have been told for years that I am a dreamer and I need to get real, yet now I'm the one telling people to stop making “if” statements. Let's deal exclusively with reality. Let's deal with what we know, based on the photographic evidence, and previous reporting about Joe Biden's corruption and about Hunter's "misbehavior".

     Hunter Biden is the president's son. He's gotten away with his misbehavior for more than just the three years since those leaked photos were taken. His father has gotten away with pinching girls for six years, and staring at their chests for 40 years. Joe Biden swims in his pool naked when he has guests coming, and his security guards know it, and they help him make sexual advances against women. Hunter Biden's uncle James once owned property near Jeffrey Epstein's island. The Bidens have the Kerrys to protect their interests at Burisma, and the Podestas to protect other related and unrelated interests in Ukraine. Aside from Hunter Biden getting kicked out of the military for cocaine use, and his father probably helping him escape consequences for it.

     Do you really think this is all a big coincidence, and that Hunter Biden would be punished if he were guilty? You are making an “argument from benevolence”, which is typically used to make the case that God could not allow something bad to happen because that would make God evil. The government is corrupt; it is not infallible, and it is certainly not of God.

     Do not deny what you see in front of your own eyes. Hunter Biden probably committed statutory rape, and if he did, he probably also enticed a minor into delinquency, and possibly also cocaine use or even addiction. If the government is good, then it should arrest Hunter Biden. It's as simple as that.

4. Hunter Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him

     These Twitter users, and other defenders of Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior, are not genuinely sympathetic towards Hunter Biden. No normal person would react to the possibility that a man in his mid-40s may have raped a minor child, with sentiments expressing more of a focus on their sympathy for Biden than for the impressionable child who was taken advantage of.

     Rest assured that a fair quantity of Hunter Biden's defenders actually think that what he did is awesome. If you ask enough of them, eventually one of them will admit that they think having sex with underage strippers and doing cocaine is “the life” and “the American dream”.

     Well, excuse me, but I want an American dream in which children do not have to sell themselves for sex, and become coke whores and strippers, and suck old rich guys' dicks in yachts in international waters, in order to earn what they need to survive and thrive. I want an American dream in which every child is fed, and every person is given shelter, and nobody can be pressured to sell their body, or accept unwanted flirting, in order to live comfortably.

5. Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators

     The culture against body-shaming has thus morphed into a culture which is against all forms of shame in general. And there is nobody who is less deserving of protection from shame than Hunter Biden. For one, he is obviously attractive and fit, and probably has not experienced much body-shame.

     Except for some perhaps undue attention to his five-o'-clock shadow in the leaked photos, which make him look almost completely different from his over-made-up, kabuki-like mannequin look that he sported when stumping for his father in campaign videos. It's too bad the make-up people did such a good job! Biden's defenders have even said “That's not Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden looks like the over-made-up mannequin we saw in the Joe Biden campaign videos.” It's Hunter alright.

     But, getting back to the point, Biden needs no protection from shame. What makes you think that Biden is even ashamed of what he has done? Or that his supporters are ashamed of what he has done, instead of thinking that he's pushing boundaries and being a rock star?

     Shameless people do not need any protection from shame. They already have denial, and their own narcissistic egos and insane defense mechanisms, to protect them from ever having to feel the shame for what they have done. Narcissists, and psychopaths / sociopaths, do not experience remorse in the same way that other people do. They are incapable of accepting that they caused someone hurt or harm. They have every tool they need to rationalize-away what they did, and minimize its damage, and make others feel ashamed about completely unrelated things that they might have done, in order to avoid feeling shame, and in order to delay and deny the delivery of the consequences.

     Anti-shaming culture protects the guilty, who are covert and use their lack of shame and remorse to convince themselves that they're not guilty, and convince others of the same. They have convinced themselves that what they did wasn't wrong. They do not believe they have done anything wrong; that is why their attempts at deflection and minimization can seem so convincing. But the fact that they work hard to convince us that what they did wasn't wrong, or didn't happen, or isn't as bad as some would make it seem, does not mean that we have to tolerate immoral people who lack a conscience and fail to understand the harm they've done. 

     Child sexual predators do not need to be defended from having to experience shame as part of the consequences of their crimes. And whether they are defended from shame or not, they certainly do not need to be defended from prosecution and jail time.

     Powerful and rich people who abuse children typically get off with a slap on the wrist. Hunter Biden has not been arrested yet. This means there is absolutely no reason to withhold criticism of him, based on these photos. He should be criticized, and loudly, so that – and until - the authorities do something about his possible crimes. These photos were apparently taken in Los Angeles, so the Los Angeles police or the county police should charge Biden with criminal sexual abuse of a child.

     If he isn't arrested, then we should still be glad that we brought this issue to the public's attention, because being publicly shamed will then be the worst consequence he experiences as a result of what he did. Especially considering the fact that Biden might claim that the evidence is inadmissible since the photos were stolen. But if the person whom Biden gave his hard drive to, to repair, turned these photos over to authorities, and that is how we got them, then that argument would be wrong. It's not clear yet (at least to me) whether that evidence will be admissible or inadmissible if Hunter Biden is charged with statutory rape.

     A simple answer of "I'm not guilty, I don't know what you're talking about" is not enough. Non-Disclosure Agreements (N.D.A.s) are not enough. As Richard Nixon said "The people have a right to know whether or not their president's a crook", we have a right to know whether our president and his son are child molesters. If we continue to deprive people of trials - whether they're terror suspects or child sexual abuse and assault survivors - then we have a failed state on our hands. Charges must be filed against Hunter Biden, which obligate him to prove that his stripper girlfriend was of age.

6. Shamelessness Helps Karens and Cancel Culture Resisters

     We should wonder whether anti-bodyshaming culture has combined with the Karen culture, and with the culture that wants to protect racists, and rapists, and fascists from experiencing consequences for their actions (even non-violent, legal consequences, to which they react like vampires having the curtains pulled open on them in the middle of the day).

     Apparently, some white right-wing conservatives and Republicans, and some neo-liberal middle-class suburban white women, believe that they have the right to be blatantly homophobic and racist in public, to the point where it interferes with people's ability to avoid feeling shame at the fact that they are black, or transgender, etc..

     They believe that nobody has a right to resist them, and that if you call the police on them for cutting black people off in traffic, and screaming at them and calling them the N-word, then you are shaming them. Additionally, you are putting their life in danger because they might get fired when their employer finds out they're a toxic racist who likes to terrorize certain groups of people because they're different.

     This may seem unrelated to Hunter Biden, but virtually the same thing is going on here. Someone white, who is in a position of wealth or power, is committing a crime against a person of a lesser status. Hunter Biden raped a minor, and old white women get away with being racist against black people by screaming in fear and pretending they're being attacked. And then calling the cops on the person they're attacking, for attacking them.

     In the same manner, when Donald Trump criticized Hunter Biden in the first presidential debate of 2020, Democrats rushed to defend Hunter Biden, many of them having no clue about what the worst things were, that he was suspected of doing. (Note: I will remind you that the photos of Hunter Biden originally leaked no later than October 2020, when the debates were occurring.) So an accusation of sexual impropriety - even of raping a child - is now treated as an attack in this country, because it puts the person at risk.

     This is what happens in a culture in which there is a taboo against “making people feel shame”. People take it as free rein to be racist, sexist homophobes who rape children. And then the seriousness of what they did is diminished by the legal system that doesn't take it seriously, and sentences the child rapist to a few classes, or reading some pamphlets about how to avoid being so "stupid" and "careless" that you "accidentally" rape children all the time. You made a mistake! Read a book. No therapy necessary.

     People accused of sex crimes and hate crimes may tell us, “You can't do this to me.” Well, that was probably what your victim was saying while you were victimizing him or her! “My reputation is at stake.” Your pleas do not exist in a vacuum. Something brought this on. You should have thought about your reputation, and your money and your job, before you decided to rape a child, or cut off a black person in traffic and scream racial epithets at them.

     For each “Karen”, there are many other victims aside from the one black guy that one Karen was caught cutting off. And one reason they're called Karens is because many people behave this way. And like the “Karen” who gets caught one time cutting off a black guy in traffic, Hunter Biden likely has other underage victims, and there are certainly other people like Hunter Biden in politics (and likely in the energy industry as well).

     A single photo of a probably underage girl next to Hunter Biden, both nearly undressed, may not be enough to prove that Hunter Biden raped a minor. But combined with what else we know about the Biden family, and the way our government typically deals with wealthy people accused of child molestation and rape, should indicate that something bigger is going on here. Don't forget that Hunter Biden's now deceased brother Beau praised a Delaware prosecutor who let DuPont heir Robert H. Richards IV off with a light charge for his sex crimes against his very young son and daughter.

     It's likely that Hunter Biden is involved with sex trafficking in Ukraine, very likely involving minors, or at least, very young women. It's likely that Hunter Biden is not just “having sex with, and partying with, strippers who happen to be underage”. Maybe he used his position of superior wealth and power to coerce some poor family into giving up a daughter, like Jeffrey Epstein did with the help of Jean-Luc Brunel.

     But even if Biden didn't seek out a girl in as direct a manner as that, it's likely that he used his position to enrich himself at the expense of the people of Ukraine, which indirectly resulted in political turmoil and poverty, which would have made Ukrainians more financially desperate, and thus more likely to consider resorting to “uncouth” measures in order to make ends meet.

     We don't know what happened. There needs to be a trial. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some      general “anti-shame-ism” culture, treat Hunter Biden like an underage baby who didn't know what he was doing, and wants to stop the big mean man from putting the “shame-cuffs” on him. I just hope that "cannibal-shaming" Armie Hammer isn't next!

     This man was 47 years old, having sex with a girl who was probably no older than 17. The age of consent in California is 18. Hunter Biden needs to be criminally charged.

7. Shamelessness Robs Children of Their Childhoods

     There are several unspoken rules in American society. One is “Do not discuss religion or politics”. Following this rule has led to silence on the issue of corruption in government and the Church. Another rule is “Don't take from another man's plate”, or “Don't interfere with the way someone else makes his money.”

     But should that really extend to child traffickers? People like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, whom for years, worked in close proximity with people sharing Biden's wealthy, elite profile?

     This generalized culture against shame, defends teenage girls who want to become prostitutes the best of all. After all, if you body-shame a child, you must be some kind of sick, pedophilic monster! Why else would you be interested in a child's welfare, unless you wanted to have sex with them!? After all, there is no reason to pay attention to children other than for sexual purposes, and that's how every normal adult thinks. Right?

     Because it's totally normal for every adult - as a part of being an adult - to be obsessed with their appearance, and body, and sexuality, to the point where it's a focal point of their identity, and even the basis of their political opinions. Young people today act as if having gay sex automatically makes them woke, or a socialist, or a minority who is entitled to more rights than others, because they've been oppressed. Like a high school boy can suck a dick, and all of a sudden he's Harvey Milk or Marsha P. Johnson. Sucking a cock doesn't make you a communist; it makes you a cocksucker. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The point being: sexual liberation is not, by itself, a complete or cohesive political ideology.

     Gender identity has become the most important identity among the younger generation. Numerous articles have been written, which criticize the sexually-obsessive undertones of "gender reveal parties" (which have caused several wildfires). Kids today grew up with their parents hyper-focusing on their children's bodies - dressing them in tight clothes, and adult clothes, making them look like little grown-ups - and many of them have shared embarrassing or revealing photos or videos of their children on social media before they are old enough to be able to consent to it. The worst parents think of their children in terms of what their kids can do for them some day, and think about their kids' potential to start working early, and eventually be used and sold for their parents' profit.

     If kids grow up to think there's nothing wrong with talking about their sexuality constantly, then they will have no cause to suspect it's creepy when an adult fixates on their sexuality. So shut the fuck up about your stupid fucking pussy!

     Being obsessed with one's appearance, and constantly talking about other people's appearances, has become so normal for adults, that now, we're also going to make children feel ashamed if they don't succumb to other kids' pressure to wear revealing clothing, wear lots of makeup, dancing provocatively, and having sex prematurely. Any child who minds being stared at, must be hiding something! It's a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset, but the aim is to prove guilt rather than innocence.

     The anti-bodyshaming culture happens to work well with, and is easily cloaked by, the culture of bullying virgins and virgin-shaming in schools. According to this widely accepted culture, which is rarely regarded as the bullying which it is, any child who doesn't want to have sex early, isn't cool! And, so the twisted "logic" continues. Roughhousing, fun and games, risky behavior, pressuring other kids during "Truth or Dare" games... this is just part of being a child nowadays! 

     If you don't want children to be in danger of being objectified and  exploited by adults - and only pushed into certain professions like dancing and contortion because adults are looking for excuses to touch and ogle their bodies - then you are shaming kids "for being kids".

     Any child who doesn't want to get a titty-twister, and get pushed into the pool, deserves it, because they're intruding on other kids' good time! So some children's right to have fun, apparently pre-empts and negates other children's rights to safety and innocence and decency, and their right to say no.

     Being embarrassed or ashamed is the worst thing you can possibly do, among young people these days. It is practically a sin to feel shy, humiliated, or afraid, all of which are "negative" emotions. The phrase "U mad bro?" is often used on the internet to poke fun at, or shame, someone who is angry or frustrated. All of this creates a culture in which children and young people are afraid to voice objections, complain, or alert others when they feel uncomfortable. We are creating a culture in which kids are not free to say no.

     We are treating children as if they have a right to be protected from knowing how much danger they are in. Forgive me for "danger-shaming" children, but I believe that children should look and act like children. They should not have to suffer so much hyper-focusing on their appearance, and celebration of and attention to their sexuality, because that robs them of their childhood. Warning children that people are trying to shame them about their looks, while disguising it as being against body-shaming, doesn't rob kids of their childhoods.

     Telling a child to wear more make-up, or telling a transgender person that they need to pass - and saying that doing so will make them feel better about themselves - is body-shaming. You are telling them that they are not currently acceptable, the way they look. That is body-shaming, disguised as body positivity. Some of these people who are against body-shaming are thus secretly in support of it.

     Additionally, telling a minor what clothes or make-up to wear, is grooming. It's only pedophile grooming when it involves unwanted touching. But adults who want to see children in tight clothes - like Abby Lee Miller, and parents of girls who take dance classes, and child molesting gymnastics coach Larry Nassar - will often obsess over what girls are wearing, in order to control what they are wearing. Larry Nassar prohibited his female students from wearing anything under their leotards. He may have had rational-sounding explanations for this rule - probably that underwear would restrict flexibility - and he probably got away with that excuse for a while because "he's the expert", and you wouldn't want to question him! How do we know he didn't make that rule so he could ogle the girls' genitals more clearly? How do we know he didn't pursue control over what they did with their leotards, so that he could steal them, or sniff them, or wear them?

     There is no reason not to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior which could be pedophile grooming. By the time you would notice behavior like that, it is usually too late, and something has already happened to your child. Always relentlessly question any adult's attempt to make your child submit to touching, or control over their clothing, even if that person claims to be an expert on something. The risk to your children is too great, to worry about whether you are shaming your child for "being excessively free with their body", when what they are actually doing is submitting their body to the control of adult authorities whom you barely know. You can shut the fuck up with your nonsensical grasping at straws, and rationalizing, and trying to find something wrong with what a man is telling you about how children should be protected. Men have as much of a right to try to protect children as women do, and we don't have time to debate all the "what-ifs" that a rationalizing woman might come up with, to justify her own child's "freedom of sexual expression" (outside of her own bedroom) while also justifying her own promiscuity as a teenager. Just because you were a slut in high school, doesn't mean your kid has to be on Dance Moms, and then come out as gay and have a million grown-ass adults talking non-stop on Twitter about what effectively amounts to the fact that your daughter wants to eat pussy. I'm talking about Jojo Siwa. And I have nothing against her, nor do i wish to make an issue of her sexuality, nor do I wish to dwell on "How are parents going to explain Jojo being gay, to their children?". Jojo Siwa did nothing wrong. Her dumbass mother chose to put her on a show for pedophiles. The girl is innocent; she's a minor and can't be held legally responsible for becoming an Illuminati mind-controlled sex slave. The producers of that shitty show for pedophiles and child molesters are the ones who did that to her and her family. They are the reason Jojo Siwa had to live apart from her father and brother for several years. The need to be rich and famous broke her family up temporarily. She is not alone in this.

    I have no doubt that countless fathers have left their wives after discovering that they intend to glam-up their daughters, and enroll them in an endless parade of pageants, and let them date older teenage boys while they're still 13, and drink alcohol and get tattoos. Half of these mothers are probably doing it in order to get close to their daughters' boyfriends. These mothers are sick, and the fact that they are women does not shield them from shame, nor does it prevent them from being wrong, nor does it make them liberal.

     They are still conservatives - fascists - because they support the sexual oppression and exploitation of young girls by adults and by older teenage boys. As Wilhelm Reich explained, the sexual objectification of the child begins at home, and fascistic parenting predisposes children to sexual abuse. This is because of the shame and secrecy involved in sexual repression.

     Sexual repression is damaging to children, but it is also damaging to encourage a child to be too public about their sexuality. It makes a child feel ashamed to dress conservatively (or even just non-provocatively), and ashamed to refrain from having sex at an early age. A child who is peer-pressured into having first sex early, is raped, because pressured sex is coerced sex, and coerced sex is rape.

     In my opinion, the remote possibility that children are being mass-bullied into losing their virginity, is much more dangerous than the absolute certainty that many moderately pretty girls in middle school don't yet view themselves as sex symbols, or as worthy of their own TikTok dancing channels.

8. Shamelessness Promotes Vanity and Risky Behavior

     Some American women have become so obsessed with their appearance, that they derive their entire sense of self-worth from how they look. Not just to the point where covering themselves with make-up makes them feel unashamed enough to go out the door, but also to the point where the fact that they look good covers for the fact that they are shitty, toxic, amoral human beings who value nothing except artifice and materiality and appearance.

     Billy Crystal's impersonation of Fernando Llamas described the 1980s version of this attitude perfectly: "It is better to look good, than to feel good." Now the sentiment is "It is more important to look good, than to be a good person." This sentiment is what allowed Shane Dawson to grasp onto his fifteen minutes of fame, long after everybody knew he was a pedophile, by beginning to film and post videos of himself applying layer after layer of multicolored make-up to his face. Dawson evidently thought, "As long as you look like a pretty transsexual clown with a big fake smile, you can talk about looking up pictures of naked babies all day long." Maybe if he had started applying make-up a day earlier, young people wouldn't have cancelled him.

     The culture against shame thus protects both sexual predators and their victims, whether they're good looking or not, and whether they're bad people or not. This, and the culture against victim-blaming, combine, to tell us that there is nothing a victim can ever do to put themselves in a dangerous situation! Pointing out that a girl shouldn't become a prostitute, is now victim-blaming and victim-shaming, because you're unfairly assuming that the sex trade is dangerous.

     I recently discovered that Jamie Peck, co-host of the Majority Report with Sam Seder, was sexually victimized by photographer Terry Richardson. We should support Peck because of what happened to her. But having read Peck's subsequent comments on the incident, it seems that she still holds the attitude that "not every photographer is like that". In 2010, Peck wrote, "This man has built his business/pleasure empire on breaking the cardinal rule of asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked: don't be a fucking creep."

     http://fashionista.com/2010/03/but-will-there-be-consequences-for-terry-richardson

     And it is certainly true that you shouldn't be a creep. If you invite a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked. Excuse me, but did I miss something? Miss Peck evidently believes that there is nothing intrinsically creepy about asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked. 

     I am a man, and I will say it now, loud and clear: Every man is a potential sexual predator. Everybody "might be" a sexual predator. Anybody might sexually harass a woman. Anything bad, might happen, at any time. Trust no one. Especially not photographers, and especially not guys who invite you over to their house and want to "hang out naked" and don't know you. Am I the first person to say this to you? Don't shoot the messenger! Women should not have to worry about rape, but men should not have to be worried that women will criticize them for "stereotyping" all guys who want to take naked pictures of barely legal women, as potential sexual predators.

     The following excerpt from an article by Camille Paglia, published by Time Magazine in September 2014, says it perfectly: "Misled by the naive optimism and [']You go, girl!['] boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature."

     http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

     Rape victims are never at fault. However, the culture of female empowerment has become stubbornly headstrong, in the face of criticism. Some of that criticism of feminism is deserved, and some of it is not. That debate aside, some feminists treat adult women as so competent, and so empowered, that it's almost as if they could never lose control, and get raped.
     That line of logic is actually a form of victim-blaming in its own way, because it causes men to worry that it would seem sexist to suggest that a woman could ever get raped. If you are drunk or on drugs, or a very young adult or a virgin, you could probably benefit from a few words of caution about sexual predators now and then! Just because Camille Paglia and her cohorts were right to fight against the universities' overly protective attitude towards young adult women, doesn't mean that everybody who is not a woman, is being overly protective towards young women.
     I know a guy whose girlfriend left him for a guy that we had previously nicknamed "Stabby Jack". We called him that because he stabbed people. We had long since stopped hanging out with him after he tried to stab a friend of ours for throwing a donut at him. My friend tried to warn his girlfriend about Jack, and she refused to listen. I don't know if anything bad happened, but the point is that we have the right to tell people things they may not want to hear.

     The fact that I'm observing that lots of men are rapists, or potential rapists - and saying that you should protect yourself - doesn't mean I'm victim-blaming! The fact that men are pigs does not relieve you of the duty to protect and defend yourself when and if no man will. Yet it is almost impossible to caution a woman or girl about danger, and to try to anticipate possible dangers, without being accused of blaming the victim.

     As if a single woman not being disgusted by the sight of Harvey Weinstein naked in the shower, means that nobody has the right to assume that Weinstein suddenly appearing naked before them, could possibly be interpreted as an awkward sexual advance. There's nothing awkward about it, because there is no shame! We are in Heaven, where God has relieved us of our shame, as if we were in the Garden of Eden! Harvey is free to show all the angels, and creatures of the Earth, the filthy naked disgusting body he was born in, and nobody gets to "shame" him by telling him to keep his penis to himself! It's God's penis now! It's everybody's! We're all in a holy marriage with God and Harvey Weinstein's penis!

     Fuck off!

     But no, you're shaming the teenage girl on the basis of her profession - nude model, or whore, or child erotic dancer (or "rhythmic gymnast", as they're called now) - which she clearly chose of her own volition! Having so many additional skills and opportunities to consider, at the age of eighteen! Right? And the girls on Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras, I'm sure they gave fully informed consent to be involved in a show like that, since children are deemed as capable of consent for commercial purposes nowadays, as long as their parents "consent on their behalf".

     The girls on these shows have no idea what kind of damage it will cause them, to have appeared in these shows, until they reach an age at which they are capable of consenting, and of fully understanding the consequences of allowing adults to dress them up and film them dancing in a cage, or on a stripper pole, et cetera. They will not understand what harm it did to them, and understand what it means to grow up famous in front of a large audience (including possibly having information about their sexuality or sexual history revealed in a very public manner).

     But - we are told - discrimination on the basis of profession is wrong! Everybody knows that sex work is not something to be ashamed of; it is no less shameful than any other job! So just because it is no less shameful than other jobs, it must be something dignified, right? The fact that a prostitute doesn't want to work on an oil rig, must mean that prostitution is all fun and games, and that oil is good for seals and penguins and polar bears because the oil workers don't want to suck any cock. But does that make sense? Is there pride in sucking cock for money, just because you can use "whataboutism", think of a profession that seems worse, and point to it?

     By that measure, Hunter Biden didn't have sex with a ten-year-old, so it's almost like he didn't do anything wrong. By that measure, only the single worst person alive should ever be in prison, and all the other criminals should go free because what they did wasn't as bad.

9. Shamelessness Promotes  a Culture of Silence About Objectification

     You and I have every right to warn teenage girls against “getting a sugar-daddy” (a/k/a becoming a child prostitute), and Democrats have no right to shame me for wanting to protect children. How about that? How about "Don't innocence-shame me", or "Don't prude-shame me"?

     We have the right to caution impressionable children against getting too many piercings and tattoos, and having sex, at too young an age. We have the right to caution children against the evils of imbibing the deadly neurotoxin alcohol if their parents are irresponsible alcoholic asses. We may risk being labeled "body-shamers" for cautioning children that dancing on TikTok and Instagram, or appearing on Abby Lee Miller's Dance Moms, is likely to lead to their exploitation and objectification, but we retain the right to bring this to their attention nonetheless.

     Most girls in this position are being exploited by their parents, so who are we to say that we have no individual responsibility to stop such an active case of child abuse? Did John Brown reckon that he had no responsibility to set slaves free, since the slave-masters weren't personally bothering him too much? No. This affects all of us.

     If we all have the right to be protected from shame, then where is my protection from the shame I feel when the defenders of child predators try to make me feel powerless to protect children?

     Teaching people not to be ashamed of their bodies, has nothing to do with our right to caution teenagers that sex work is dangerous. It is not "conservative", nor "conformist", nor "uncool" to be worried that an 18-year-old (or younger) who "enters the sex trade" (i.e., allows themselves to be captured as a sex slave, if they're still a minor) will come to harm.

     Ron Paul once said that "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear." We have the right to tell people that prostitution, and "having a sugar daddy" is dangerous. And spending the prime of your youth having sex with old people for money, isn't exactly something to be proud of. It's not so shameful that you should kill yourself, but it's shameful enough that you should ask yourself whether you were taken advantage of.

     Is that really so crazy to suggest?

10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of Anti-Negativity

     The culture against bodyshaming can also be characterized as a pro- "body positivity" movement. The phrase "body positivity" exists because everything in our society has to be positive. Just as we have a problem with shame in our society, because it's “negative”.

     “Being negative” is apparently the worst thing you can do, in a society that's evidently still drunk on the feel-good, pro-human, positive vibes that they discovered in the 1990s. If you complain, you're being negative, and you should relax and be positive.

     If you criticize your government, you're being negative. Don't worry about it. If you report a crime, or abuse against yourself, you're being negative. Forget about it, it's not a big deal, nothing will probably ever be done about it anyway. If you're so sad or depressed from the government not doing anything about the molestation or rape that you endured that you want to kill yourself, you're being negative. Cheer up! It's your responsibility to be happy all the time.

     Even if you're sad, distract yourself with happy thoughts, and "put on a happy face" for others. Or else you're "being a bummer" and "you need to bring something to the table if you want others to treat you with respect".

     This is the attitude of a society that would have no problem if the authorities started taking unproductive and unhappy people behind a shed and shooting them. We are already being divided into "essential" and "non-essential" workers, and strikes are done by government permission. We're not far from that fascist vision of the future.

     We are not supposed to fake happiness for our friends and family members the same way we are paid to pretend to be happy at work. And even that can result in depression, and possibly even a "split personality disorder" such as dissociative identity disorder. Employees at Tokyo Disneyland experienced this first-hand.

     Our society is so vehemently against all things negative, that even liking things and having preferences have been attacked. A British school once reprimanded a girl for having a best friend. The rationale goes like this: having a favorite, or a best friend, implies that all the other choices are "bad", and that's negative, and therefore not allowed. It's also hierarchical and discriminatory, in the minds of neo-liberal schoolteachers who are trying to get credit as being "woke".

11. Conclusion

     We must not let this cult of positivity and shamelessness blind us to the need to improve society, and to file charges and arrest people suspected of crimes so we can have trials for them and find out whether they're actually guilty.

     Maybe we need a little shame every now and then. This society clearly needs at least a small dose of it. Hunter Biden, the Karens, and the fascists in the Republican Party clearly need it.

12. Author's Note on Additional Resources

     I have previously written on the topics of Hunter Biden's sex crimes, and the objectification of children. Those articles are available here:
      http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-your-children-are-sexualized-and.html
      http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/joe-bidens-son-hunter-does-drugs-next.html

     

Original meme by the author

Written and published on January 29th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on January 30th and 31st,
February 3rd and 6th, and May 8th, 2021

Meme added on June 23rd, 2021