Article From New Yorker: The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children With Paedophiles

[UtopiaPlanitia]

I came across this article in my Twitter feed: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

In Helen Joyce’s book, she mentions that in the 70s there were sexual liberation experiments in German kindergartens and the German Green Party was supportive of paedophilia-friendly arguments, so when I saw this more detailed article I decided to read it.

Here are some excerpts from various parts of the article to give an idea of what it discusses:

"With the approval of the government, a renowned sexologist ran a dangerous program."

"Like many of his contemporaries, Kentler came to believe that sexual repression was key to understanding the Fascist consciousness."

"Suddenly, it seemed as if all relationship structures could—and must—be reconfigured, if there was any hope of producing a generation less damaged than the previous one."

"Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the “oppression of children’s sexuality.” Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults."

"Perhaps the politicians were receptive because the project seemed to be the opposite of the Nazis’ reproductive experiments, with their rigid emphasis on propagating certain kinds of families, or perhaps they were unconcerned because, in their opinion, the boys were already lost. In the sixties and seventies, the political élite were suddenly taking an interest in the lower classe, but their capacity for identification was apparently limited."

It took me ages to read the article because it's really quite shocking to discover that adults with responsibility for children could allow themselves to think that treating children in this way was justifiable.

When I was reading the article, it felt like there are echoes of our own time in this story: I feel like queer theory having a strong hold and influence on many aspects of academia, and thus also on public institutions, has led to people being told that wanting strict safeguarding for children is conservative and old-hat; there’s a prevailing idea that adults should believe that children (even from a young age) always understand who they are and what they want and that children should be allowed to act on these wants rather than be protected by the adults in their lives from making dangerous decisions. There are organisations that advise schools to see families as likely to be intolerant and dangerous to children and that schools should hide aspects of children’s lives behaviour from parents.

I feel like, as a society, we’ve been through all this before, in the 70s when fringe groups like PIE and NAMBLA did a lot of damage to genuinely worthy causes by hitching themselves to more respectable activist groups. And French intellectuals called for removing age of consent laws for children and now we’re seeing the fallout from the behaviour of those intellectuals being revealed in French courts (e.g. child abuse cases against Gabriel Matzneff and Olivier Duhamel, and the refusal to acknowledge the rape of a 13 year old girl by firefighters). There have been statements calling for the queering of all societal boundaries and power relations and the destruction of the nuclear family made by activist groups like BLM and Action for Trans Health and these groups are still partnered with by businesses and institutions. Various media outlets in the last 10 years have published articles by writers arguing that some paedophiles are virtuous because they form groups centred around non-contact paedophilia.

I’m horrified by how easily dangerous ideas can gain acceptance in society. I’m angry that the people who point out that these dangerous ideas are bad are the ones who are disparaged rather than the people promoting the dangerous ideas. I don’t understand why these sorts of crazy, damaging-to-children ideas pop up every few decades and have the veneer of academic support or social sophistication until they’re refuted (again) and shown to be harmful. Why does society have to keep re-learning this stuff?!

To an extent there’s always been tension between the idea that children are inherently innocent and in need of protection from adults and opposing ideas. We can see this in our treatment of child offenders, child refugees, and children born into poor families. Disabled children are nothing but a drain on society. It been the case since Rousseau that only children born into privilege are allowed to be idealised cherubs.

I felt similar when I read this OP https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

And also this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aaf4d35c-d8ce-11eb-8f14-0bb645f59db0?shareToken=53ada424733516a998e8354274648ae0

Sadly there are a LOT of adults who will turn a blind eye - and even enable - other adults to abuse children.

And yes, the parallels with the TRA cult are manifold.

@Angelica789

To an extent there’s always been tension between the idea that children are inherently innocent and in need of protection from adults and opposing ideas. We can see this in our treatment of child offenders, child refugees, and children born into poor families. Disabled children are nothing but a drain on society. It been the case since Rousseau that only children born into privilege are allowed to be idealised cherubs.

The hell are you on about?

Ha! Well just that the acceptance of children’s exploitation and suffering at the hands of adults is a constant thread through history not an idea that was prevalent in the 70s then went away then came back.

I've seen pieces about this before.

Fucking scandal.

Thanks for the links Foo I’ll take a read later.

I’ve always been horrified at the ways in which children have been and are viewed by certain people and/or societies as expendable resources or not always worthy of protection. And I know that not all families or societies are perfect.

But in the case of people who should very obviously know better, because they have safeguarding knowledge and responsibility, who instead put ideology before children’s welfare because an obviously dangerous idea (like the experiment mentioned in the article) has gained currency - that is something I can’t comprehend. How do educated, experienced adults switch off their common sense and go along with risky ideas?

In the 80s the German Greens had "a national working group called Gays and Pederasts" which "at the [1985] Lüdenscheid party convention... managed to place a discussion paper in the manifesto for the regional election. It included the demand to abolish legal punishment for non-violent sexual acts between children and adults." The demand met both internal and external resistance and was ultimately removed from the manifesto, but it is incredible nevertheless. The working group was dissolved two years later.

In several countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, child abuse images were legal to own and distribute in the 1970s, e.g.

"Between 1969 and 1980, the Color Climax Corporation produced legal child pornography films. Since 1980, child pornography has been illegal in Denmark" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Denmark )

"Wilhelmus [a Dutch radical leftist who advocated complete 'sexual freedom'] was also the founder and publisher of child pornography magazine Lolita. Lolita was first published circa 1970. .. and was eventually closed down by Dutch authorities in 1987." ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_Wilhelmus#Lolita )

So it was far from restricted to Germany, although perhaps the shocking scandals with the foster homes and nurseries does indicate it went even further there.

(The quote in my first paragraph was from www.dw.com/en/pedophilia-scandal-entangles-german-greens/a-16836153 )

@transdimensional

In the 80s the German Greens had "a national working group called Gays and Pederasts" which "at the [1985] Lüdenscheid party convention... managed to place a discussion paper in the manifesto for the regional election. It included the demand to abolish legal punishment for non-violent sexual acts between children and adults." The demand met both internal and external resistance and was ultimately removed from the manifesto, but it is incredible nevertheless. The working group was dissolved two years later.

In several countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, child abuse images were legal to own and distribute in the 1970s, e.g.

"Between 1969 and 1980, the Color Climax Corporation produced legal child pornography films. Since 1980, child pornography has been illegal in Denmark" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Denmark )

"Wilhelmus [a Dutch radical leftist who advocated complete 'sexual freedom'] was also the founder and publisher of child pornography magazine Lolita. Lolita was first published circa 1970. .. and was eventually closed down by Dutch authorities in 1987." ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_Wilhelmus#Lolita )

So it was far from restricted to Germany, although perhaps the shocking scandals with the foster homes and nurseries does indicate it went even further there.

Thanks for posting links - that is really shocking information. I’m really having my eyes opened by reading about this.

I’m very glad those things were shut down but, again, I’m baffled as to how they were seen as acceptable in any way. How on earth have these ideas gained purchase in lefty political parties at different times in different countries? And those Northern European countries are often listed as countries with a longish modern history of good rates of education and of equality between the sexes, and are often seen as something for us to emulate.

A lot of the people either supporting or complicit in or turning a blind eye to these various things must have seen themselves as the good guys and believed that a lot of this was part of the progression of the sexual liberation and general liberalisation of social attitudes that had begun in the sixties.
To me it gives me pause not just because of the horror of the scandals concerned but because it calls into question the view that social liberal and leftist groups are always on the "right side of history".
If they were wrong then then logically they could be wrong now. And there is a sort of pushing at the boundaries of what's acceptable and an attempt to legitimise and normalise things that wouldn't previously have been acceptable, eroding protections and limits.

There must have been people at the time saying that this is wrong - but I can bet they were all told they were bigots and ‘phobes. Sounds familiar?

The article is so depressing. So many familiar themes!
Kentler warned the youth-welfare office that Marco’s “educational successes are ruined by a few hours of being with his mother.”

In a letter, Kentler advised the youth-welfare office that, if a psychological assessment had to be done, he would perform it. “Insights beyond my findings are not to be expected,” he wrote. He acknowledged that Henkel could appear “harsh and hurtful,” but “I ask you to consider that a man who deals with such seriously damaged children is not a ‘simple person,’ ” he wrote, in another letter. “What Mr. Henkel needs from the authorities is trust and protection.”.

I haven't read Helen Joyce's book yet, but I remember pieces about this emerging 20 years ago, back when The Guardian was a proper newspaper and safeguarding was something people still bothered about: 'Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68', Guardian 24/ 2/ 2001. Signatories of the 1970s petitions included many names on my generation's reading lists at university, including our old friend Foucault.

@IvyTwines2

I haven't read Helen Joyce's book yet, but I remember pieces about this emerging 20 years ago, back when The Guardian was a proper newspaper and safeguarding was something people still bothered about: 'Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68', Guardian 24/ 2/ 2001. Signatories of the 1970s petitions included many names on my generation's reading lists at university, including our old friend Foucault.

The Guardian article is here: www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley

@transdimensional

A lot of the people either supporting or complicit in or turning a blind eye to these various things must have seen themselves as the good guys and believed that a lot of this was part of the progression of the sexual liberation and general liberalisation of social attitudes that had begun in the sixties. To me it gives me pause not just because of the horror of the scandals concerned but because it calls into question the view that social liberal and leftist groups are always on the "right side of history". If they were wrong then then logically they could be wrong now. And there is a sort of pushing at the boundaries of what's acceptable and an attempt to legitimise and normalise things that wouldn't previously have been acceptable, eroding protections and limits.

It does seem that for some theorists and activists all boundaries are bad and are an unwanted imposition so they should be done away with in order to achieve true liberation and/or revolution I can’t understand that mindset either from the Libertarian Right or the Far Left.

G.K. Chesterton’s argument is a more succinct analysis of the problem:

”In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

@IvyTwines2

I haven't read Helen Joyce's book yet, but I remember pieces about this emerging 20 years ago, back when The Guardian was a proper newspaper and safeguarding was something people still bothered about: 'Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68', Guardian 24/ 2/ 2001. Signatories of the 1970s petitions included many names on my generation's reading lists at university, including our old friend Foucault.

I do miss the days when The Guardian had more intelligent journalism.

@CardinalLolzy

The article is so depressing. So many familiar themes! Kentler warned the youth-welfare office that Marco’s “educational successes are ruined by a few hours of being with his mother.”

In a letter, Kentler advised the youth-welfare office that, if a psychological assessment had to be done, he would perform it. “Insights beyond my findings are not to be expected,” he wrote. He acknowledged that Henkel could appear “harsh and hurtful,” but “I ask you to consider that a man who deals with such seriously damaged children is not a ‘simple person,’ ” he wrote, in another letter. “What Mr. Henkel needs from the authorities is trust and protection.”.

Yup, that part of the article jumped out at me too and had a familiar feel to it - it reminded me of current groups of men designated that way by the great and good, despite reality showing things to be different.

I’ve seen articles in magazines like Vice and Slate stating that paedophiles can be virtuous and they need society’s compassion and protection rather than incarceration. I’ve also seen articles arguing that Incels are angry and dangerous because they aren’t getting sex so let’s work out some way to get them women who can give them sex for the good of society.

Societal open-mindedness and compassion are good things but not if they allow the vulnerable to be taken advantage of by those with dangerous or bad intentions.