Apparently even morally backwards freaks are sensitive these days. I just do not get it, and neither does The Other McCain
James Kincaid is a University of Southern California professor emeritus who is the author of Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture (1992) and Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting(1998). When it was announced he would speak in Toronto at an academic conference with the creepy title “Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life,” an understandable outrage erupted:
Dr. Charles McVety of the Institute for Canadian Values has written an open letter to Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, asking that Kincaid be denied entry into the country. . . .
“On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Institute for Canadian Values and Canada Family Action, we request that the Minister refuse admission of Dr. James Kincaid to Canada for a lecture on October 19th, 2013 in Toronto,” Dr. McVety wrote.
“Dr. Kincaid is a well-known advocate for pedophilia, a criminal activity in Canada,” the letter states.
Of course if Mr. Kincaid is not, in fact a defender or advocate for pedophilia, then he ought to be offended. But what IS the truth here
Is that description — “a well-known advocate for pedophilia” – perhaps just a wee bit over-the-top? Does it fail to capture the complexity andsophistication of Kincaid’s nuanced arguments? Let’s read the publisher’s description of one of Kincaid’s books:
In Erotic Innocence James R. Kincaid explores contemporary America’s preoccupation with stories about the sexual abuse of children. Claiming that our culture has yet to come to terms with the bungled legacy of Victorian sexuality, Kincaid examines how children and images of youth are idealized, fetishized, and eroticized in everyday culture. Evoking the cyclic elements of Gothic narrative, he thoughtfully and convincingly concludes that the only way to break this cycle is to acknowledge—and confront—not only the sensuality of children but the eroticism loaded onto them.
Kincaid vehemently denies he is pro-pedophilia, and I hope that is true. I cannot label him a pedophile, that would be unfair, and I do not wish to be unfair. All I can say is that the views Kincaid holds are a bit, shall we say WEIRD, as in freakish. Children are not “erotic” they are children, and they ought to be allowed to be children before they grow up. Kincaid seems to have convinced himself that child predators are few and not all that dangerous
A controversial U.S. professor who writes about children and sexuality shot down his critics Saturday by declaring that he is not an advocate for pedophilia.
Dr. James Kincaid, standing with his wife, Nita, at the University of Toronto, defended himself following his keynote address about children and sexuality.
“I’ve already said I’m not in favour of pedophilia. Period. Isn’t that enough?” he firmly told Linda Beaudoin, a sexual abuse survivor and advocate for children’s rights after she challenged him following his address. . . .
Kincaid told the Star he doesn’t think it’s a matter of rounding up “a few freaks and a few pedophiles and horrible monsters who regard young people as attractive.”
He said the real problem is that in the United States there is enormous attention paid to stranger kidnappings of children that draws the focus away from a higher incidence of children who are physically or emotionally abused.
Earlier, he told his audience that Canada is more enlightened than the U.S., where the public requires a steady diet of “predator kidnappers, Internet stalkers of youth, kiddie porn rings and such fantasies to maintain national identity.”
Of Internet predators, he added, “we are given to believe that they are legion, but the hard evidence is small.”
Mr. Kincaid is blind on the facts it seems, what his motivation is is not so clear-cut. Suffice it to say, I would never trust him around a child