Below are some links to posts that we provide because we think they are worth visiting…

I see that such professionals having such relations, even when consensual, can be problematic in an analysis critical of and seeking to stop colonialism, since such professionals are agents of such colonialism in a host of ways. Especially in how such agents internalize the value system of colonialism and inadverdently “seed” their colonial values and “slavability” to such values and their systems.

What I insist on challenging though, is the broad-brush construction that all relations of these sorts are somehow always morally “bad” (even when they are consensual).

Yes, in the context of colonial agents working to impress upon the colonized a system that they take for granted, yes, that’s something to be challenged. That’s something that I am challenging more and more amongst my colleagues as I see what you are saying.

Yet what is missing in the discourse, and what makes it a curious kind of new propaganda, is the reality that these relations are stripped of their contexts, such as that many if not most consensual relations can be noted to be more about meaningful and authentic friendships where age and power lines have a habit of becoming lessened than the popularized notions of “power over” being first and foremost in the “sicko” mind.

Anti-sex/anti-organic-relations propagandists (and their new church called social science) want, of course, to show such radical relations without their contexts, without the organic friendships, without the solidarity between two people whose sexuality with each other may well often be the minor portion of their relations (not that this is bad or good, just that it is a truth).

Anti-autonomous propagandists, on whatever topic, have consistently worked to force the least-understood truths out of relations, and hammer systematically at these weaknesses. This is a basic tactic of warfare, after all. That today’s critical thinkers don’t seem to be aware of this proves how they can and are being tooled by this type of warfare. (Especially in the reality that taking a nuanced approach to the issue of authentic intergenerational bonding has now been often blocked from being allowed to be heard in the official policies of many IPs and social networks.)

There is a grey area here that is being blocked from view, even by the decolonial promoters. Why is this? Perhaps the numbers are perceived to be so small that some believe “it doesn’t matter” if people labled pedophiles get demonized (and pushed into a situation very similar to various groups in 1933 germany); they may think that a seemingly small minority is “fair game” when this kind of scapegoating means a possible better foothold for decolonizing values.

But in terms of seeding authentic (and thus, truly decolonizing) relations, versus the Brave New World of artificialized relations (pushed at the forefront by professional/colonial values cammoflauged behind calls to emotionally potent over-simplifications like anti-pedophile sentiment), well I think if you think this through, you start to see dangerous precedents in these broad-brush strokes as Andrea and so many others seem to be uncritically buying into.

Precedents which block autonomous relations like those found in the radical friendship between the much-demonized ex-Seattle teacher, Mary Letourneau, and her young lover. And the free-spirited ways of youth the world over who do not automatically see themselves breaking these “fundamental” laws when they make porn of themselves and then share with their friends via cell phones (having such intercepted by the surveillance state). And so on and so forth. There are piles of such cases where both consensual relations and age-peer sexuality is being dragged through a “good” old-fashioned anti-autonomous hysteria. I can supply such a listing if anyone’s interested.

Hope the more courageous of you will take a look at the academic website I’ve linked to here (will you allow it to be published here??) and think carefully through the grey areas!