Are all Men Pedophiles?

Are_All_Men_Pedophiles_Correct_Poster

This is the question posed by Jan Willem Breure in a 60 minute piece of propaganda documentary which attempts to persuade viewers that an adult male’s level of increased sexual attraction toward much younger female’s, is an evolutionary and therefore natural process that all adult males experience.

This documentary states, that from an evolutionary perspective, it has been preferable for older males to find much younger females (teens and tweens) sexually attractive because their appearances indicate to men, that on some primal level ,that young and developing girls are at their prime breeding age.

Hence forth the older male should be excused for having lustful thoughts and feelings towards teenage girls as they are only obeying their primal instincts by doing so.

The makers of this documentary then take this particular line of rational despicably one step further by making the claim that it’s also a natural evolutionary and biological process for younger females (teens and tweens) to deliberately seek out and desire the sexual attention of older males.

As evidence of this they cite the rising levels of young girls taking naked or sexually suggestive “selfies” and sending them to boys or posting them online to garner male attention.

They then state that across globe “there is no standard definition for pedophilia because the world cannot agree on the legal definition of the age of consent. The legal age at which a heterosexual person is considered legal for sexual acts varies from nine years to twenty years.”

Due to the lack of legal agreement as to the age of consent, the presumption is them made that the age at which one is considered to be an adult, in western countries, is an arbitrary one that is based more on the needs of our economic and educational systems, than it is based on a young person’s actual levels of physical and mental maturity.

Thus, because girls mature physically faster than males of their own age, they are also presumed to mature mentally and sexually faster as well.

So fast in fact that under age girls are (supposedly) routinely seeking out and willingly engaging in sexual encounters with much older men.

Given that the film makers have already argued that the age at which one becomes viewed as an adult is an ineffective and economically arbitrary one, the sick argument then follows that, if a girl is physically developed, regardless of her biological age, she should also be considered mentally mature enough to legally have sex.

In other words, if her breasts are developing and she’s begun menstruating, then a girl should effectively be considered an adult who is fair game able to engage in sex with older men.

In a further attempt to normalize pedophilia the documentary makers repeatedly make the assertion that the sexual actions that we consider to be acts of pedophilia are instead acts of Hebophilia which is defined as the state of adults being sexually attracted to adolescent children.

In this case an adolescent is described as a child between the ages of 12 to 16 years of age.

As opposed to pedophilia which is defined as an attraction to pre-pubescent children (12 years or younger)

Hebophilia, they argue, should be seen as something that is perfectly normal as it serves an evolutionary purpose and therefore should be accepted and if not legalized, then understood by society to be a lesser crime than that of pedophilia.

In order to further bolster this claim they then introduce the few cases of hebophilia around the world that have involved older women, usually teachers, engaging in consensual sexual acts with teenage males.

As if this fact somehow creates a level of predatory equality.

At no point within this documentary do they make the point that the vast majority of hebophilia is committed by males and that acts of pedophilia, sexual acts committed against children under the age of 12, are exclusively committed by males.

Only once do they mention the sea of damage and devastation caused to the many victims of pedophilia who are by no means willing participants in the process of their sexual abuse.

They do their best to make it sound as if all acts of hebophilia between younger women and older males are consensual acts, when in point of fact, statistically they are not.

Only once in this documentary is the word ‘rape’ mentioned and even then it’s only as a sound bite within a broader conversation.

They also fail to address the incredibly wide age range wherein acts of hebophilia, the kind of pedophilia that they say is okay and should be made forgivable, occur.

It’s one thing to claim that a 16-year-old gave her consent to engaging in a sexual encounter with an older male but another thing entirely to try and make that same claim regarding a 13-year-old child.

On the whole I’d have to say that this documentary sickened me to my very core and left me even more concerned for a world that could produce a documentary that seeks to promote and defend pedophilia / hebophilia in such way.

As much as I despised the messages contained within this documentary I think it’s worth making others aware of the kind of illogical bias and propaganda that those who are willing to defend pedophilia are spouting.

Related Materials

“Are All Men Pedophiles Correct Poster” by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/05/13/are-all-men-pedophiles/

http://www.amazon.com/Are-All-Pedophiles-Dick-Swaab/product-reviews/B00EX6UHPA

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/are_all_men_pedophiles/

From Slaughterhouses to Serial Killers

A few days ago I watched a documentary called “Earthlings” (which you can find of a review of here earthlings-a-documentary-not-for-the-faint-hearted/ ) which detailed the disturbingly inhumane ways in which animals in slaughterhouses are being killed for their meat.

The documentary is filled with graphic footage of cattle being shot in the head with bolts, (which don’t actually kill them) and hung upside down on great metal machines by one hoof so that their necks can be more easily sliced open by the slaughter-men, who, if the cattle don’t die quickly enough for their liking, stab them in the heart and then reach in and pull the animals entire trachea out of their bodies, whilst the animals are still alive.

Gasping for air they kick so hard with their legs, even with their trachea’s dangling down, that they actually managed to free themselves of the giant metal machines holding them upside down, only to land on a hard, blood soaked concrete floor and suffer the further harm of being kicked in the head and stabbed multiple times until they finally die.

As I watched this I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of person would choose to work in a place where they torture and kill not just one animal but hundreds of animals, day in day out, week in week out, as if it were nothing?

I also couldn’t help but notice, that without fail, all of the people shown working in jobs that involved active killing were male.

It didn’t even really seem to matter whether the killing was occurring in India, Japan, America, Mexico, Cuba, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, England or even what species of animal was being slaughtered or why.

The workers were all male.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t any females actively working in slaughterhouses, but if there are, they aren’t in the documentary).

This gender anomaly led me to wonder whether or not the lack of women in that kind of work place is a reflection of social and cultural norms towards killing  being seen as “men’s work “ or if males for some reason do genuinely hold a greater propensity toward being attracted to jobs that involve inflicting pain and killing.

I know that I wouldn’t be attracted to doing a job like that even if there were a million dollars waiting for me at the end of every week and I doubt that any of my female friends would even be tempted either.

But here’s the weird thing about it all:

The men working in the slaughterhouses, most of the time, weren’t even getting paid a decent wage, let alone an extravagant one..

So they weren’t doing it for the money.

And most of them were also regularly getting sick due to bacterial contamination from blood and fecal matter.

So, if men are not doing jobs like this because they offer greater money, and are instead actually getting physically ill from doing them, then why are they doing them?

Could it possibly be that some of them actually like it?

With the vision of that documentary clearly still fresh in mind, today I began reading a book called “Predators – killers without a conscience” by Howard and Wilson, which sets out to examine why serial killers kill and  to explore what parts social and/or psychological issues may play in it all

Within reading the first few pages of this book I was instantly struck by two very clear similarities that seem to somehow flow, eerily neatly, between the documentary and the book, even though they are both about very different subject matters.

Firstly there’s a striking similarity between the ways in which the serial killers in the book choose to kill their victims and the ways in which animals in slaughterhouses are killed.

The book quite literally contains page after page of men rendering their victims immobile while stabbing, raping, strangling, mutilating and cutting the throats of not just women but also children and all , so the authors believe, for their own “male sexual gratification”.

Here are just a few examples that almost mirror in places, the acts of violence that were perpetrated against the cattle in the slaughterhouse.

Trigger warning, if you have a sensitivity towards violence please do not read the following quotes.

“She was hog-tied on the ground. I walked around to her left side and I cut her throat two or three times…but she just started thrashing around on the ground. She was trying to scream but nothing was coming out. I kicked her and put my foot on her to keep her still. It didn’t work so I stabbed her in the throat again. I aimed and stabbed at the hard thing (her windpipe) in her neck. I pushed the knife all the way in but she still wouldn’t keep still so I worked out where the heart would be and I stabbed her on the left side of the chest. She still didn’t stop moving so I stabbed her in the chest again. I needed two hands to get through her chest. She kept moving so I kicked her in the head a couple of times. She still kept moving but she was slowing down. I waited.” (Confession of a man who raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”).

“He dragged the girl’s dying body…blood still dripping from the wound in her throat…then cut the crotch out of her swimmers and raped her dying body”.(murder and rape of a 15-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”)

“The killer drove her to a secluded area where he sexually abused her, using a knife to inflict horrific injuries on the girl’s body, before disembowelling her while she was still alive.” (murder and rape of a 12-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”).

““The killer tortured and mutilated his body. As his killer sliced away … he died a slow suffocating death. The killer cut the boys throat.” (3-year-old boy, abducted and murdered quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”).

Time and time again the authors report that all pleas for mercy were met with the same callous and cold refusal by the killers to even recognize their victims as human beings.

The second similarity between the documentary and the book is the fact that 99% of all the serial killers, not just mentioned in the book, but also statistically, are indeed male.

In the entire book there are only two women listed and of the two, one was an accomplice to her partners crimes and didn’t kill anyone and the other was an horrendously abused woman herself with clear psychological issues who, unfortunately for her and perhaps because she was already psychologically vulnerable, became romantically entangled with a man who was already a serial killer.

So, as of now, I’ll be staying well and truly clear of anyone who works in a slaughterhouse.

Let me know whether or not you think there may be a valid connection between the two.

Related Reviews

https://vultureculture2016.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/predators-killers-without-a-conscience/

http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Killers-Without-Conscience-Amanda-Howard-ebook/dp/B005PSUOHQ

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/reviews

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/earthlings/

“Predators – killers without a conscience”

-predator-killers-without-a-conscience

In this book, criminologist Dr Paul Wilson and author Amanda Howard attempt to examine whether or not social, economic and cultural factors contribute toward the making of predators rather than dwelling entirely on the psychological aspects which are often later claimed to have been the driving forces behind the actions of those who become sexual predators and serial killers.

In order to do this they review the case files of several notorious sexual predators and serial killers from across the globe.

In the process of doing so, Wilson and Howard detail each and every act of depravity committed upon the victims of the perpetrators they review , in a shockingly graphic way.

“The killer drove her to a secluded area where he sexually abused her, using a knife to inflict horrific injuries on the girl’s body, before disembowelling her while she was still alive.” (murder and rape of a 12-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”).

“He dragged the girl’s dying body…blood still dripping from the wound in her throat…then cut the crotch out of her swimmers and raped her dying body”.(murder and rape of a 15-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”)

As can be seen from the quotes immediately above and below, the vast majority of the contents of this book should be considered carefully as it is not suitable reading for those who are either sensitive toward descriptions of acts of violence or those who are younger than 18.

“She was hog-tied on the ground. I walked around to her left side and I cut her throat two or three times…but she just started thrashing around on the ground. She was trying to scream but nothing was coming out. I kicked her and put my foot on her to keep her still. It didn’t work so I stabbed her in the throat again. I aimed and stabbed at the hard thing (her windpipe) in her neck. I pushed the knife all the way in but she still wouldn’t keep still so I worked out where the heart would be and I stabbed her on the left side of the chest. She still didn’t stop moving so I stabbed her in the chest. I needed two hands to get through her chest. She kept moving so I kicked her in the head a couple of times. She still kept moving but she was slowing down. I waited.” (Confession of a man who raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl quoted directly from “Predators – killers without a conscience”).

The amount of time that Wilson and Howard spend on detailing the crimes committed, leaves very little space within each chapter for them to focus their attention on actually setting about the task of unpacking just what role, if any, each killers social and demographic circumstances actually played in the committing of their crimes.

To that end, out of the entire 246 page book, it is only in the final chapter, a whole 13 pages, that they at long last set about answering such questions.

Of that only 1 and a half pages are dedicated toward delving into considerations  such as to “How monsters are made” and whether or not predators should be seen as being “ mad or bad?.

In their search for common denominators, Wilson and Howard found only three sustained similarities across the board and none of them were specifically related to socio-economic status or cultural norms.

These denominators were:

  • The fact that all of the predators they reviewed had a long history of engaging in criminal behavior.
  • The fact that the majority of the killers they reviewed were later found to be psychopaths who were focused on fulfilling their “urgent, intense and ongoing desire to physically hurt and violate non-consenting victims,” as opposed to being criminally insane.

This was a point that was made time and time again via the amount of forethought, planning and organization, which the predators engaged in prior to the abduction, rape and torture of each of their victims.

  • Each predator was noted to have held no empathy, what so ever, for their victims. Often treating the act of killing as a necessary step in order to fulfill their desires and viewing the disposal of their bodies as inconvenience to them that had to be dealt with.

Yet the question of whether or not psychopaths are born rather than being created by socio economic circumstances or cultural norms, still remains an unanswered one.

Despite its gruesome content, there was one of the aspects of this book that I, as reader, found as equally disturbing as the descriptions of the acts of violence that were perpetrated against each victim, and that was the violation perpetrated by authors of this book against those who had already been victimized in the worst ways.

With the exception of one victim, whom they simply named “H”, they openly exposed the full names, ages, occupations and locations of not only each and every victim attacked, but also the full names and locations of their family members.

As a reader I can understand their bent for detail when discussing the crimes because each and every aspect of the level of depravity involved argues for the diagnosis of such perpetrator as highly organized psychopaths, but why include the full names of all of the victims?

Why could they not have nominated them, as they did with “H”, simply an initial?

Reading the names of the victims over and over again created within me such a deep sense of sorrow for the victims and wrongness for their families due to the fact that they will forever be marked in print and defined once again by the history of such horrific events.

It must be difficult enough to have a child of any age, taken from you, but to have that loss be so constantly written about, spoken about or relived in the media each every time an anniversary comes around or whenever someone decides to write a book about your family’s tragedy, must be absolutely horrendous.

It also made me ponder whether or not the family members knew all of the details of their loved ones treatment prior to death?

After all Wilson and Howard describe the events of crimes that occurred during the 50’s,60’, 70’s 80’s, all the way up until 2009.

How would any of these parents feel reading this?

How would the siblings feel reading this?

What if the siblings of the murdered had been deliberately spared the details of their brother of sister death, only to discover them in a book like this?

Fans of true crime are sure to enjoy this work, but for me, unfortunately, this book comes across as little more than being just that.

It is a book that presents the remnants of true crimes in a sensationalist manner poorly disguised as an academic work.

‘Earthlings’ – A documentary not for the faint hearted

earthlings

If slaughter houses had glass walls, wouldn’t we all be vegetarian.

But slaughter houses do not have glass walls.

They are not designed for us to be able to look in and see what’s going on..

They are designed to conceal from us the inhumane practices that are being inflicted on animals behind the scenes.

This is just one of the many messages that this incredibly powerful documentary, ‘Earthlings’ is trying to get across.

I will warn you now that it is not for  the faint heart-ed.

It is filled with graphic footage of animals being bled, jumped on,  hung upside down, stabbed, skinned, boiled and essentially slaughtered alive.

There is no doubt, that when confronted with the awful truth of the myriad of ways in which animals are used and abused for human benefit, including entertainment via such avenues as horse racing, outfits such as sea world and the well documented training practices of circuses, it becomes almost impossible to view any of these things in the same light ever again.

Even though at times, the images on the screen made me feel sick to my stomach and quite literally forced me to cover my eyes so that I may not see the cruelty occurring before me,  the truth is, I am a more informed person for having seen it.

This documentary highlights yet another simple truth.

That what we see on the packaging of meat, poultry and dairy products are little more than blatant lies and yet, we already know this.

And knowing this makes us complicit in the process.

So complicit that we no longer even wish to think about, let alone see the acts that our silent complicity have created.

Yet it’s our complicity that also serves to make this topic such a highly sensitive and complex one.

No one wants to talk about it.

And that’s good if your one of the few actually making bucket loads of money out of it.

But it’s incredibly bad if you’re the one whose going to end up living in an increasingly over polluted and unsanitary  environment due to the overcrowding and improper disposal of animal feces into our rivers, the overuse of antibiotics in animals making them less effective in humans and the waste created by toxins used to tan leather and other animal hides.

Not to mention the fact that it is especially bad if you’re animal.

Every choice you make when it comes to consumerism is exactly that.

A choice.

You can choose to buy products that are made from animals, but be aware that in doing so  you are also willingly  buying into an industry that makes its profits by either killing or treating animals with extreme cruelty.

And how do you know if the producers you are buying from are indeed committing acts of cruelty towards animals?

Well, the only way to know what’s going on within the industries that profit from animal products, is to watch what they are doing.

.So challenge yourself to step out of your own comfort zone of ignorance is bliss when it comes to the practices that are occurring within the industries, (and they are industries), that produce your food, your clothing, your entertainment and actually watch what they are doing, after you do then ask yourself;

Are these really the industries and the practices that you want to support.

This is exactly what Shaun Monson, the brains behind this entire documentary, wants you to do.

He also wants to make everyone aware that during the Bush administration, they passed a bill called ‘Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act’, which is now a law that makes it not only illegal for documentaries like these to be made, but also for protesters against animal cruelty to protest.

The law states that”

If protests, consumer boycotts, whistle blowing or even media campaigns, cause any animal enterprise a loss of profit, then the activists, protesters or even film makers, can be imprisoned..

The message here is pretty clear.

It’s illegal to protest or draw attention to the cruelty occurring within these industries because industry people pay the government top dollar to make it so.

It’s all about profit and the truth be damned.

People must not be able to see what’s going on behind the scenes in these multi-million dollar industries.

To make this point even clearer, Monson also states that due to the fact that most television networks/stations are sponsored by industries that in one or another profit off either the slaughter or the byproducts  of animals (milk, cheese, clothing), he could not find anyone to  air his documentary.

The only line of defense we have in the “war on domestic animal terrorism” is the truth.

Be brave enough to watch this documentary and others like it and tell me what you think.