Oh by the way, since we are on the topic of Camille Paglia, I always wanted to discuss her sexualized misopedy, so let's take a look on some of her most memorable quotes on this topic Tw: csa, csa apologia

"These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature -

"But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization" -Sexual Personae.

Because of course the victims of the institutionalized abuse of children at the hands of powerful institutions are actually...adult men.

It is a shame they are not allowed to act like they used to in the heights of Greek civilisation (own slaves and rape women and children). So much so that the percentage of children who have experienced CSA remains incredibly high, which I imagine makes her happy.

And proves in her mind that they're still capable of "appreciating beauty", which here means, to objectify children that are deemed to be "beautiful" because they are perceived as smaller and weaker and devoid of any other quality.

Her belief is that men are persecuted for sexually abusive behavior that she deems to be natural, but the personhood of children isn't even a concern here. How are "boys" supposed to feel about being merely beautiful objects? Is a child who reports a csa incident themself

an heartless brat prosecuting men simply for "appreciating their beauty"? It is unlikely that the answer would be no.

"Worldwide, in Greece and Rome as in the Near East, China, and Japan, pretty boys have usually been considered by men to be as sexually desirable as women. This seems to me perfectly natural. Judeo-Christianity is unusual in finding the practice of boy-love abhorrent" -Sex, Art

and American Culture.

Patriarchal cultures have objectified and sexually abused children, but that is praiseworthy to her. Her comment on Judeo-christian culture is senseless. The multiple sexual abuse cases in the church are testimony to that, and I do not mean just abusive power structures in the

church, but a longstanding tradition of objectification of children.

This is without even taking into account the fact that the church always condoned child marriage, and Mary herself was supposed to be 14.

The condemnation of pederasty by the church is exclusively based in the fact that it cannot produce children, and therefore it is sex for only the sake of it, and therefore it is bad. The reason the church condemned it is because they saw it as debasing for the *man's soul*

not because it hurt a child.

This is why the church has always been more focused on preventing children from tempting men rather than encouraging men to respect children. See...horrible situations like this one.

And again, Christianity has a longstanding pederastic tradition in their art as well. See, depictions of angels, John the Evangelist, St. Sebastian, sometimes Jesus himself.

See also, this very poignant book, which talks a lot about the way children were responsibilized for men's sexual feelings, especially child oblates.

Stories like this seemed to imply that a child should want to die or disfigure themselves before provoking ill thoughts in their elders. So, to claim Christianity rejected this altogether, is ridiculous.

If you consider the child perspective to be as important as that of the adult obviously, which Paglia does not.

She repeatedly defended CSAM, which is only natural for someone that believes that children are sexual objects whose main purpose is representing an ideal of beauty and being lusted after.

She praised the book Lolita, thinking that is is favorable to the protagonist and his behavior, when in reality it is the opposite, it explicitly condemns the reduction of children as sexual objects that her writing encourages.

It is explicitly inspired by the real life case of adult sexual violence against a girl named Sally Horner.

The author explicitly said that he did not want any pictures of young girls on the cover to feed the objectification of them that Humbert justifies throughout the book.

Adult publishers preferred representations of this sort instead. Our culture hammers us with the message that children are a temptation to be kept under check, see the cover of her holding an apple, the fruit most tied to sexual "sin".

This is why I have a profound distaste for sexualisation debates, they're just a seemingly progressive reiteration of this rhetoric

They are about making sure children do not tempt adults, even if it is masked as a concern "for their safety", the behavior of the adult is not scrutinised, only that of the child is, as if sexualized misopedy was a natural fact of life (which is what Paglia believes

, and while for most of the people that take part in that debate that is a negative side of "nature", for her it is a positive one that should be expressed, like misogyny, and that certain people (feminists) are trying to repress, out of a "hatred for men/nature").

She expressed support for groups like NAMbLA and people like Allen Ginsberg because she saw them as "brave heroes" resisting the castration of a society that seems to be criticising their unquestioned sexual access to young people's bodies a little bit more.

She constantly refers to this as "lynching mentality" and witch hunt which mirrors rethoric (including her own rethoric) about the #MeToo movement, which is disrespectful in itself since the vast majority of witch hunt victims in history and now were children and women.

The objection still could be that this is not a reflection of misopedy, but Paglia repeatedly stated children have "demonic imaginations" and "love violence", of course, they are the perverts tainted by original sin that need to be tamed, they are the ones who secretly beg for

their own abuse.

Paglia believed that men sacrificed their lives for children throughout history (when? The history of childhood is a nightmare without end, as deMause showed), and that children are perverse. Therefore children *owe* them, and they "enjoy it anyway".

Nice quotes from her about children: "Children are monsters of unbridled egotism and will, for they spring directly from nature, hostile intimations of immorality"

It's curious that she would criticize Christian morality when this is textbook Christian morality, I guess it is only bad when Christian morality inconveniences adult men (or when she thinks it does). See:

I also find it pretty ironic that she subscribed to the idea that feminists were waging a "war on boys" when she had a deep seated belief that boys are sexual objects, empty vessels, and evil and perverse at heart. She is on the side of millennia long war on boys, not a made up

"feminist" one.

One more reason to remember Mozart as the child who flung adults into panic with his abilities that "defied his age" according to a misopedic public rather than this talking point against feminism. Also check out his sister.