Humans and Monsters Redux; or, WT-everlasting-F, Salon

[CN: pedophilia, sexual molestation, intimate partner abuse. Oh — and a quite-possibly-excessive amount of Adult Language, too.]


Disgust me once? Shame on you.

Disgust me twice? Shame on — well, actually…

Maybe at that point, Salon.com,  it’s time to put aside shame and instead ask why in the name of everything unholy and rank an editor in your Life section keeps publishing rot that trivializes victimization and reads like something straight out of an abuser’s handbook.

Just a thought.

what is this ish
Srsly, Salon. WHAT are you even doing.

So we’re all on the same page: Yes, I am referring to that “Pity the Poor Pedophile[NB: not its real title] article^ you published last month.

It would be disingenuous of me to say I’m entirely surprised, of course. of course. I’ve long approached your site in the same way I do Playboy’s: the articles are often interesting (at least Playboy’s flowcharts are), but best avoid anything marketed as explicitly sex-related unless I’m prepared to give myself a HUGE mental tidy afterwards. Which is why I was completely prepared — eager! even — to let this article go by without comment. Honest.

But then a short while later, like a dog eating its own vomit, you decided to run a second essay by the same self-declared “celibate pedophile.” For convenience, let’s refer to this one as “Pity the Poor Published Pedophile. Because Conservative Wacko-birds Have Been So Mean to Me About that First Thing I Wrote [NB: not its real title either].^

thinkofpedophiles
In a word: No.

The central argument of these pieces: Pedophilia is really just a form of “sexual orientation,” and — as long as the author pinkie-swears not to molest any kids — we should all feel bad for him and listen to him talking about himself as much as he wants. Because protecting children. Because not a monster.

[Got that? Errybody up to speed?

You, in the back?

‘K, great. Moving on.] 

Since the points I want to make are rather specific, I’ma borrow from Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville to do the heavy lifting of outlining the holy-jeez-this-crap-isn’t-even-original problems with that first essay [I encourage interested parties — and, really, all of you who can — to check out her whole response]:  Continue reading “Humans and Monsters Redux; or, WT-everlasting-F, Salon”

How Blogs Save Lives: Shakesville

Reading blogs has played a critical role in my survival over these past few years. I started with reading food blogs (food blogging does exist at the most-basic-needs level of Maslow’s hierarchy, does it not?) and over time found my way to a range of explicitly feminist blogs. I found much of the writing produced at these sites both nurturing and challenging, and the feminists who write for them have helped me expand my own approach to gender from a purely academic approach to a set of lenses critical to understanding…well, kinda everything. From cultural and political perspectives to a deeper understanding of my most intimately personal experiences.

And so, for quite some time now, I’ve wanted to say thank you to the writers who have mattered to me most. I sent my first such thank-you note this week to the incomparable Melissa McEwan of Shakesville.