Camille Paglia: a promoter of pedophilia?

[Hindsight Man]

here's the video about Camilla Paglia, that was briefly discussed. There's a bit of Jordan Peterson bashing going in it too, and tbh I found the video quite disturbing, especially the stuff with Ginsbergs poem

Reminded me of Fiona Barnett's book Eyes Wide Open.Especially when the Moloch part came up.Seems it really does function as a single global integrated network.Peterson should pick his friends better.

 

[Niall]

Rather contributing to the collapse of civilization, I'd say. These twisted individuals feel so titillated by evil that they assume that because shocking art, child pornography or pedophilia are deeply disturbing to most people, there must be something really "interesting" in there to "explore" (read: to wallow in) in order to find some "deeper meaning" through the pain that exposition to such filth causes. I'm sorry, but the pain is just a normal reaction to pathology, that is all!

We might allow some leeway, for now, that Paglia has not been herself 'wallowing' in the sick stuff she has defended in the past, and that it's her ideological stance ("I'm a libertarian on these matters") that blinded her to the dangers and contradictions of her provocative views. On her Wiki page it says she legally adopted, as co-parent, the child of her (now former) female partner. No matter how destructive that relationship is likely to have been, based on appearances to us outsiders, there's no evidence for it having been deliberately abusive or neglectful. People, even those we might earmark at a distance as being 'deviant', are still complicated.

This is from a 2007 interview (in which she soundly bashed Hillary Clinton, incidentally):

I'm glad to see you haven't mellowed. But your personal life has really changed. You have a son now. What's that like?

His name is Lucien Maddex and he'll be 5 in November. He's the son of my partner, Alison Maddex. It's been fabulous for me. I've enjoyed every step of it - SpongeBob SquarePants, the whole thing. I've always said I have no maternal instincts, but I've always liked children. I was born with an entertainment gene, a comedy gene, and small children have always gravitated toward me because I seem like a sort of cartoon character to them.

I very much enjoy having a son. I think I would have been uncertain with a daughter. I wouldn't have been that good buying Barbie dolls, but I know exactly what a boy wants - the little soldiers and all.

I am not a mother. This Heather has Two Mommies stuff is terrible. The thing about the "two moms" or the "two dads" is a terrible thing to impose on a child. Parents should be in two roles. Lucien has one mother and that is Alison. I am his parent, and I have adopted him legally. I've enjoyed it greatly not least because I see what it's like to be immersed in the world of moms. I've had a chance to observe them ... like an anthropologist. They get on fabulously with each other. And I can say every single statement I made about gender in Sexual Personae - about gender differences, child rearing and so on - has proved true.

So she apparently stands by what she was saying back then, but there's room for doubt that that translates to depravity on her part, towards children or people generally.

 

[Hindsight Man]

We might allow some leeway for now that Paglia has not been herself 'wallowing' in the sick stuff she has defended in the past, and that it's her ideological stance ("I'm a libertarian on these matters") that blinded her to the dangers and contradictions of her provocative views. On her Wiki page it says she legally adopted, as co-parent, the child of her (now former) female partner. No matter how destructive that relationship is likely to have been, based on appearances to us outsiders, there's no evidence for it having been deliberately abusive or neglectful. People, even those we might earmark at a distance as being 'deviant', are still complicated.

This is from a 2007 interview (in which she soundly bashed Hillary Clinton, incidentally):



So she apparently stands by what she was saying back then, but it's doubtful that that translates to depravity on her part, towards children or people generally.

I'm sorry but no,I'm not convinced.This isn't a case of ''I was too hot headed back then''.She didn't simply say that stuff to offend,kinda obvious when people do.These were serious convictions and she was not only mentored,but also respected a satanic pedophile.The kind of stuff he wrote reminds me of the ''girl fixer'' chapter in Hostage to the devil.
She has made no effort to recant on her beliefs and when you seriously advocate for actual snuff films involving actual children and a society wide acceptance of such you don't get to just say ''oh it's all dandy now'' just because you decided to lie low for a few decades.If anything this indicates that she wised up and decided to either go underground or bide her time.Beliefs like this are far worse than any garden variety edginess that is common to teenagers and young people.Considering that she used her gravitas as an academic and her intelligence as a learned woman to defend them speaks to a deeper and more persistent darkness than being offensive for offence sake.
There is no remorse or second guessing on her part and considering how degenerate western academia has become I wouldn't be surprised if she supported those things in more ways than just verbal.
P.S. whenever these people speak of the Christian ''dogma'' I can't help but sense that what they really hate is all that pesky morality getting in the way of a massive chaotic orgy that spirals society into hell.After all,when was the last time they spoke of the Jewish dogma preventing progress eh?

 

[luc]

I think the idea of "sexual liberation" (from what??) was rotten from the start, and the so called "intellectuals" went on with it, justifying it with psychological mumbo jumbo, because it responded to a sickness they had inside to begin with.

Indeed. This whole "the patriarchy oppresses us by promoting repression of sexuality, which, once removed, would usher in utopia" is such an abhorrent trope. But I must say, having been brainwashed into precisely this kind of thinking, I realized how deep this goes only recently. It is complete, utter BS. Good grief.

And still the strangest thing for me to grok is that the lovers of the "darkness" always find a way to spin it to seem like darkness is actually light. And this is not something we are conditioned to look out for. If you look at modern movies or TV shows for instance, quite often the bad guy will happily indulge in his own badness. He'll freely admit that everything is a pursuit of power and destruction. Think Voldemort, the sith, even Sauron.

Yes, and notice how they (unconsciously) mix truth into their pathological views that make it even harder to detect these deceptions. For example, there IS a disruptive element to art; it's in part about bringing in new ideas, make people think and so on. It's not ALL art is about, but as JP says, you need creative people sometimes who question the status quo. So she has a point. But the postmodernists brought this to a horrible extreme: art is ONLY about disruption and destruction, and especially destruction of everything sacred. And disruption is taken to such an extreme that it's okay to advocate for pedophilia! Talk about a camouflaging pathology and delivering a trojan horse!

As for Paglia, I agree with Niall that we need to be careful. For example, people can say deeply disturbing things in their youth just out of intellectual fancy, to provoke or whatever. Also, for a time in the 60ies/70ies there was a zeitgeist of breaking down all taboos, and some people have probable peddled this nonsense just because it was fashionable among their peers. However, given the quotes posted here so far, I can't really see how this would apply to Paglia. It's really horrible stuff she said, and it seems she really means it. I think the most charitable interpretation is that maybe her own "queerness" has driven her to such extreme views on a purely intellectual level.

 

[Scottie]

Normally I loathe Foucault, I think he's a fraud. But Foucault did speak out on this issue. All his followers in the academy suppress a lot of this, they suppress the boy-love part, they suppress the part where Foucault said that he was against rape laws. He thought that the law should never concern itself with sexuality. And I agree with him on that. I believe that the law should only concern itself with ideas of assault, and there should be no sexualized laws of any kind, so violence and brutality and coercion can be forbidden. But to sexualize a law, to fine-tune it in a sexual direction, is already an intrusion into real freedom.

Um, that obviously doesn't work.

She's saying that as long as there's no violence or brutality or coercion, it's okay.

Stealing something isn't violent or brutal or coercing, but it's still illegal for very good reasons.

So, no, that cannot possibly be the way to go. The law MUST be concerned with sexuality because there are too many pathological people out there of various degrees.

This idea of "real freedom" simply does not mesh with the realities of 3d life. We are restricted for good reasons, and we restrict ourselves for other good reasons. Remove that, and pathology takes over (just look at history).

Even if all legal restrictions are removed, you still have the limitations of 3d life here at a very basic level. Which means if you also want to remove that, you've got 2 options:
1. Move up to something better
2. Move down and degenerate into darkness, with eventually leads to nothingness

I'm reminded of that "Freedom isn't free" song...

 

[Adaryn]

We might allow some leeway, for now, that Paglia has not been herself 'wallowing' in the sick stuff she has defended in the past, and that it's her ideological stance ("I'm a libertarian on these matters") that blinded her to the dangers and contradictions of her provocative views. On her Wiki page it says she legally adopted, as co-parent, the child of her (now former) female partner. No matter how destructive that relationship is likely to have been, based on appearances to us outsiders, there's no evidence for it having been deliberately abusive or neglectful. People, even those we might earmark at a distance as being 'deviant', are still complicated.

This is from a 2007 interview (in which she soundly bashed Hillary Clinton, incidentally)

So she apparently stands by what she was saying back then, but there's room for doubt that that translates to depravity on her part, towards children or people generally.

Let's allow for some leeway for now, if you want. That being said, there's more than one way someone can be twisted. You don't necessarily have to walk the talk (though we have no evidence that she doesn't). Tomassi used to use and manipulate women into having sex with him. He seems to have "settled" now - has been married for years, has a daughter. We have no evidence of him abusing them or him indulging in his previous "hobbies". Does it make him any less pathological and his ideology less toxic to young people's minds?

Granted, people are complex. But sometimes "complexity" - especially when morality is concerned - is just a ploy to explain away pathology and confuse people. Or normal people resort to it when faced with cognitive dissonance. "Hey, it looks like she's promoting this or that, but actually, look at that bit she wrote here, which seems to contradict what she wrote 20 years ago. There might be some explanation… maybe her zeal to fight political correctness blinded her etc. People are complex." (I'm not singling you out, just pointing that it's common to have that kind of reasoning when faced with new information about someone that doesn't mesh… I've been guilty of that myself.)
Really, as far as issues of morality are concerned, prominent figures such as her should be very clear in their stance and don't allow room for any ambiguity.

 

[fabric]

Really, as far as issues of morality are concerned, prominent figures such as her should be very clear in their stance and don't allow room for any ambiguity.

Yes, and that's what bothers me about it the most. Granted her discussion with JP was good and interesting and all that but something like that she should be called out on. But then again, even if someone did and she publicly denounces those views, it will always leave a bad taste in your mouth. I don't think there is any coming back from that once it is in the open, no matter when they said it.

 

[mkrnhr]

But then again, even if someone did and she publicly denounces those views, it will always leave a bad taste in your mouth. I don't think there is any coming back from that once it is in the open, no matter when they said it.

And still, saying something is better than saying nothing. Intellectual courage should lead someone to say "I was wrong". Saying something without being called out is even even better.

 

[Ant22]

Granted, people are complex. But sometimes "complexity" - especially when morality is concerned - is just a ploy to explain away pathology and confuse people. Or normal people resort to it when faced with cognitive dissonance.

I understand the "people are complex" argument, but in my opinion a normal person would never even think of asking "what's wrong with mild sex play involving children?" becuase it's a classic case of "it's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start". Yet she could not think of even one level at which this is wrong.

Aversion to such perversion is an instinctive reaction. If 20 years ago (before libtards turned this world into a gender fluid postmodern joke) she didn't have that basic instinct to protect the young and innocent, is it actually possible that it developed later in life? In her case, well past the age of 50?

In my opinion, there is something really off with her inner moral and emotional compass, even if she has produced useful intellectual work.

Empathy and the ability to see the world through another person's eyes clearly aren't her strengths either. An angry reaction form an audience who opposed her sick views made her outraged. She didn't even pause to consider where they may have been coming from. And nowhere in the quoted sections did she consider the children on whose behalf she effectively spoke. There are plenty of suffering victims of child abuse who could have broadened her perspective with their viewpoint and yet she could only think of benefits of "sex play". That's projecting the abuser's perspective on the victim.

I may be blinded by my personal despise of pedophilia, but I really cannot think of any circumstances for a non-pedophile to develop such views in the first place, other than a victim of sexual abuse that holds such views as a coping mechanism to lie to themselves that nothing bad happened. And even then, such a victim should deal with their issues in therapy rather than vocally support such twisted behaviour in an attempt to lessen one's suffering.

Yes, and that's what bothers me about it the most. Granted her discussion with JP was good and interesting and all that but something like that she should be called out on. But then again, even if someone did and she publicly denounces those views, it will always leave a bad taste in your mouth. I don't think there is any coming back from that once it is in the open, no matter when they said it.

Agreed. And publicly denouncing one's views doesn't really mean she doesn't hold those views anymore. It could just be a strategic move while she'd still consider pedophilia to be normal.

On her Wiki page it says she legally adopted, as co-parent, the child of her (now former) female partner. No matter how destructive that relationship is likely to have been, based on appearances to us outsiders, there's no evidence for it having been deliberately abusive or neglectful. People, even those we might earmark at a distance as being 'deviant', are still complicated.

I may be overly pessimistic here but to me a complex deviant is still a deviant. Complexities can and should be taken into account but not as a justification of someone's behaviour/views themselves, but as a means to understand their root causes.

 

[Scottie]

I've already said what I think of what Paglia has said/written in the past.

Having said that, I always like to remind myself that I am objecting to what that person did/said in the past. Sometimes, obviously, I'm objecting to what they say now.

In the first case, her views may have changed. If they are the same now, they still may change in the future.

I like to remind myself of this simple fact because if I didn't, then I would have to hold myself to the same ridiculously high standards that I am attempting to hold everyone else to (obviously, not being a pedophile is not a "ridiculously high standard" - I'm trying to make a general point here based on multiple recent events). Naturally, that would be a bad idea. If we all did that, there would be no one left on this forum.

Let's say tomorrow, it comes out that some hero of ours who has done lots of good things is a child molester. That would upset me. If the allegations were true, I would have to advocate for them being thrown in jail.

But would such revelations instantly negate everything else they have said and done to date? Not really. I would have to reevaluate what the person said in light of the "new info" of course, but it is standard for a person to be quite bright and helpful in some ways, and a total useless evil moron in others.

Of course, that it is a very slippery slope to tread, because we can (and do) easily excuse pathology. Pathological types also know that we do this, and they take advantage of it.

And then: "Full Pathological" is not always equal to "pathologized". Which is it? It's often very difficult to tell.

But that's also exactly why it seems to be the correct path to take when dealing with anyone: because it's frickin' H-A-R-D to do!

It's also more difficult because we can fall in the trap of hoping that person will change, and being repeatedly disappointed, over and over. There are all kinds of permutations of traps to fall into, and unfortunately most of them have to do with our own emotional crap, not someone else's.

As Castaneda said:

Self-importance is our greatest enemy. Think about it - what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellowmen. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.

I like my version better:

The universe doesn't give a crap how you feel; It cares what you DO."

 

[Matthew]

Well said Scottie. We are living in a world which is quick to judge and condemn others. It would be a better world, I think, if we all chose to farm our own land and let life sort everyone else out.

 

[Aeneas]

Camilla Paglia was born in April 1947, which makes her 72 years old. When she made the interview in 1999 that Niall referred to she was therefore 52 and in that interview she was advocating for sex with children and lauding Foucault and his views on pedophilia.

I think it is only fair to allow for people to do silly things in their youth and to wise up a little with time and experience. That is one of the things that I enjoyed by reading Dostoevsky as he always gives his characters a chance of redemption.

In this case, I find it hard to give her the benefit of the doubt as she still was a fervent supporter of pedophilia at the age of 52. We are not talking about an adolescent or a young adult. AND for mentioning Dostoevsky again, it is not as if she has made outward attempts of correcting her twisted world views. Dostoevsky's characters actively did things to redeem themselves and remedy their ways.

As Scottie says, then it is hard to pass judgment as people are complex and have also likely done good things. Yes, this is true and that will undoubtedly be added to her ledger in her life review on the other side, when her life is reviewed

We on 3D are not at that level of weighing the scales of her deeds, so we have to rely on what we observe. So if I had a young kids in her neighbourhood, I would act to protect them from her and her ilk based on what I see and observe, with the full knowledge that I might have been wrong about her.

Really, as far as issues of morality are concerned, prominent figures such as her should be very clear in their stance and don't allow room for any ambiguity.

The thing is though, that she has being very clear of her stance and has defended it for decades. There has been no ambiguity in what she has said and her defence of what she has written. Her moral tastebuds appears to be very limited.

We might also ask ourselves if we are a being a little too generous with giving her the benefits of the doubt because of our favourable view of Jordan Peterson?

 

[whitecoast]

I am not sure I understand correctly. In this video, I cannot make out whether Jensen is either for or against pedophillia.

Is he justifying pedophillia based on the fact that previous queer theorists have argued in favour of it? Or is he highlighting the pathological thinking of queer theorists?

Derrick Jensen is opposed to pedophilia. At the start of the video he is calling out queer theorists for supporting rape culture in their advocacy of “child sexual rights” He is a close associate of Lierre Keith’s actually, and has written some books on deep ecology, anti-oppression, and so on. He is a persona non grata on the left in spite of this because he’s considered a terf (trans-excluding radical feminist).

 

[Adaryn]

Camilla Paglia was born in April 1947, which makes her 72 years old. When she made the interview in 1999 that Niall referred to she was therefore 52 and in that interview she was advocating for sex with children and lauding Foucault and his views on pedophilia.

Foucault and Ginsberg and Sade, who she praises to the sky. I read one of Sade's book years ago. Even as a "literary exercise", it made me sick to my stomach. It's common to hear that it's essential to read Sade's work if only to have an window into the mind of deranged individuals. Well, some people (like Paglia, apparently) seem to particularly relish in it.

From her book, Sexual personae (1990): (While reading this, let's keep in mind, as Luc wrote above, that "they (unconsciously) mix truth into their pathological views that make it even harder to detect these deceptions".)

This book takes the point of view of Sade, the most unread major
writer in western literature. Sade’s work is a comprehensive satiric
critique of Rousseau, written in the decade after the first failed Rous-
seauist experiment, the French Revolution, which ended not in political
paradise but in the hell of the Reign of Terror. Sade follows Hobbes
rather than Locke. Aggression comes from nature; it is what Nietzsche
is to call the will-to-power. For Sade, getting back to nature (the Ro¬
mantic imperative that still permeates our culture from sex counseling
to cereal commercials) would be to give free rein to violence and lust. I
agree. Society is not the criminal but the force which keeps crime in
check. When social controls weaken, man’s innate cruelty bursts forth.
The rapist is created not by bad social influences but by a failure of
social conditioning. Feminists, seeking to drive power relations out of
sex, have set themselves against nature. Sex is power. Identity is power.
In western culture, there are no nonexploitative relationships. Everyone
has killed in order to live. Nature’s universal law of creation from
destruction operates in mind as in matter. As Freud, Nietzsche’s heir,
asserts, identity is conflict. Each generation drives its plow over the
bones of the dead.

[…]

Few Greek tragedies fully conform to the humanist commentary on
them. Their barbaric residue will not come unglued. Even in the fifth
century, as we shall see, a satiric response to Apollonianized theater
came in Euripides’ decadent plays. Problems in accurate assessment of
Greek tragedy include not only the loss of three-quarters of the original
body of work but the lack of survival of any complete satyr-play. This
was the finale to the classic trilogy, an obscene comic burlesque. In
Greek tragedy, comedy always had the last word. Modem criticism has
projected a Victorian and, I feel, Protestant high seriousness upon
pagan culture that still blankets teaching of the humanities. Paradox¬
ically, assent to savage chthonian realities leads not to gloom but to
humor. Hence Sade’s strange laughter, his wit amid the most fantastic
cruelties. For life is not a tragedy but a comedy. Comedy is bom of the
clash between Apollo and Dionysus. Nature is always pulling the mg
out from under our pompous ideals.

Every road from Rousseau leads to Sade. The mystique of our birth from human mothers is one of
the daemonic clouds we cannot dispel by tiny declarations of indepen¬
dence. Apollo can swerve from nature, but he cannot obliterate it. […]
Rousseauist psychologies like feminism assert the ultimate benev¬
olence of human emotion. In such a system, the femme fatale logically
has no place. I follow Freud, Nietzsche, and Sade in my view of the
amorality of the instinctual life. At some level, all love is combat, a
wrestling with ghosts. We are only for something by being against
something else. People who believe they are having pleasant, casual,
uncomplex sexual encounters, whether with friend, spouse, or stranger,
are blocking from consciousness the tangle of psycho dynamics at work,
just as they block the hostile clashings of their dream life. Family
romance operates at all times. The femme fatale is one of the refine¬
ments of female narcissism, of the ambivalent self-directedness that is
completed by the birth of a child or by the conversion of spouse or lover
into child. Mothers can be fatal to their sons. It is against the mother that men
have erected their towering edifice of politics and sky-cult. She is Me¬
dusa, in whom Freud sees the castrating and castrated female pubes.
But Medusa’s snaky hair is also the writhing vegetable growth of nature.
Her hideous grimace is men’s fear of the laughter of women. She that
gives life also blocks the way to freedom. Therefore I agree with Sade
that we have the right to thwart nature’s procreative compulsions,
through sodomy or abortion.

Ms. Paglia is not merely interested in Sade - she admires him. She is, in fact, the latest of the Sade cultists who have been haunting the fringes of serious literary criticism for decades. Like the rest of her fellow Sadeans, she complains that her idol is underrated and ignored, ''the most unread major writer in western literature. . . . No education in the western tradition is complete without Sade.'' (The NYT)

Read Wiki's bio of Sade. He clearly walked the talk:

In 1774, Sade trapped six children, including one boy, in his chateau for six weeks during which time he subjected them to abuse, which his wife allowed. He kept a group of young employees at the chateau, most of whom complained about sexual mistreatment and quickly left his service

We might also ask ourselves if we are a being a little too generous with giving her the benefits of the doubt because of our favourable view of Jordan Peterson?

Possible. Possible that, were she not associated somewhow with Peterson in people's minds, due to her defence of him and the interview he did with her, she'd be shred to pieces right here (metaphorically ), without any "yes but", or "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

Self-importance is our greatest enemy. Think about it - what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellowmen. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.

Great quote, but in the case of Paglia, it's not about being personally offended, though personally (yeah…), her writing makes me (and everyone here, I guess) nauseous… but I don't think it has much to do with our own emotional crap. I don't think the Universe doesn't give a crap about how we feel about certain things. "It" gave us moral tastebuds for a reason. So yeah, it's not about being offended but about pointing out pathology when we see it, calling a spade a spade. Just as we do with other prominent figures, political or other. And who cares if Paglia is innately pathological or has merely been pathologized? The effect is the same.

 

[Chu]

"We might allow some leeway, for now, that Paglia has not been herself 'wallowing' in the sick stuff she has defended in the past, and that it's her ideological stance ("I'm a libertarian on these matters") that blinded her to the dangers and contradictions of her provocative views. On her Wiki page it says she legally adopted, as co-parent, the child of her (now former) female partner. No matter how destructive that relationship is likely to have been, based on appearances to us outsiders, there's no evidence for it having been deliberately abusive or neglectful. People, even those we might earmark at a distance as being 'deviant', are still complicated.

[...]

I am not a mother. This Heather has Two Mommies stuff is terrible. The thing about the "two moms" or the "two dads" is a terrible thing to impose on a child. Parents should be in two roles. Lucien has one mother and that is Alison. I am his parent, and I have adopted him legally. I've enjoyed it greatly not least because I see what it's like to be immersed in the world of moms. I've had a chance to observe them ... like an anthropologist. They get on fabulously with each other. And I can say every single statement I made about gender in Sexual Personae - about gender differences, child rearing and so on - has proved true.

Well, even giving her the benefit of the doubt regarding deliberate abuse today (but like Aeneas pointed out, although possible, she wasn't so young and ignorant when she was promoting paedophilia!), I still find her statement to be quite messed up. So, she is all for "mom and dad" roles, yet, she is a parent, but not a mother? Obviously she is not a father, so...? Doesn't that have a lot of potential for messing up with the child's mind? "Hi, I have a mom and a parent at home. Both of them are women." I'm sorry, but actions have to match words. If you are all for traditional roles, then why are you doing the opposite and twisting it to make it sound less bad? That is still pathological, IMO.