Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

haulonthebowline wrote

Reply to comment by a_zed_9 in Thoughts on AJODA #19? by a_zed_9

I actually think AJODA 19 is a very interesting text and that more people should read, but there are several other people in the thread who seem to be losing their mind that anarchists/anarchism would be associated with such a topic.

Perhaps you should be clear about what it is you want from this conversation. To me it seems like you're swinging between trying to smear certain anarchists (or even all anarchists) as pedophiles (i.e. adults who want to have sex with children) and trying to hear what people think about AJODA 19. Maybe you're just concern trolling.

All I'll say on the topic is that the distinction between children and adults is arbitrary, as are the state's various age of consent (as low as twelve in some places, as high as 21 in others). The various customs around sex in stateless cultures are just as arbitrary. My personal position, and one I've lived by no matter where I go in the world, is that it's good practice to only have sex (or any kind of erotic play) with people of a similar age and ability to yourself.

6

a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

Perhaps you should be clear about what it is you want from this conversation.

My apologies if the topic hasn't been clear but I am hoping to hear what people who have read AJODA 19 make of the arguments inside. I brought up Wolfis essay since it covers the same topic and is a text more people are familiar with. Because wolfis essay is similar, and it got a lot of backlash, and the fact not denouncing this piece may get one banned, I wanted to anticipate negative comments and ask how one separated these ideas from the authors larger work. A question I find extremely interesting since it seems to me that for people like wolfi and other post leftists who seek the complete autonomy if all things, as well as critiquing morality, saying this stance on child sexuality has nothing to do with the larger aim, doss not make immediate sense to me, so I'm curious how people do it.

To me it seems like you're swinging between trying to smear certain anarchists (or even all anarchists) as pedophiles (i.e. adults who want to have sex with children) and trying to hear what people think about AJODA 19.

My intention is not to smear anyone, if you take my words as a smear that is reflexive of your own values. I do not use any of these words in an intentionally derogatory way (even if they can have derogatory meanings). I say that these authors advocate pedophilia because the arguments they put forth are considered pedophilia by most people as most people just take pedophilia to mean anything sexual between a minor and adult. As well these works have been influential to people who take the label pedophile proudly for themself. So I do not use the term to smear, but to accurately describe the arguments and community these texts have been influential towards. Whether you thing that is a mark against these authors is your own opinion. I do not hold any negative opinion on these authors for these texts in question.

All I'll say on the topic is that the distinction between children and adults is arbitrary.

I completely agree. While this magazine issue touches on this a little bit i believe i definitely wish this line of argumentation had been explored more particular how this idea ties into identity abolition/nihlism/anti-identity. Since I think this argument is generalizable to all identity i think it is then easier for those not in this particular identity to understand.

it's good practice to only have sex (or any kind of erotic play) with people of a similar age and ability to yourself.

I do not want to come off as accusatory but simply to ask a question to spark further thought and discussion. But do you think that not having sex or erotic play with people due to them having different abilities could come off as ableist? (I would say this is similar to the argument made that explicitly choosing not to date trans women by straight men reinforces transphobia).

Edit: changed Dating to "sex or erotic play" since I realized the change in phrasing is not truly interchangeable.

−2

haulonthebowline wrote

I say that these authors advocate pedophilia because the arguments they put forth are considered pedophilia by most people

Okay, but you are naming people who never made that kind of argument. They either published a booklet that included similar arguments (as well as opposing arguments) or edited the magazine that the arguments and for some reason you think that puts them on team pro-pedophile.

But do you think that not having sex or erotic play with people due to them having different abilities could come off as ableist?

Possibly. I thought twice about using that word but it accurately describes my thinking. I would never date or whatever someone who, for example, had a profound learning difficulty. I was thinking of a video I saw by a lefttube person about a neo-Nazi who is engaged to a 19-year-old whose learning difficulties mean she is childlike. The video is here: https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=b0OsdkHelf0

As you can see, this is not the same as 'choosing not to date trans women by straight men reinforces transphobia.'

5