The site's ‘Facebook and Child-spanking Fetish Groups’ article is based on false information

[Overlap]

For reasons I will explain shortly, the ‘Facebook and Child-spanking Fetish Groups’ blog article should either be taken down, or drastically rewritten. It is based almost entirely upon demonstrably-false misinformation from Jillian Keenan’s long-discredited videos.

There was indeed a case decades ago in which 9 people traded videos of themselves spanking either their children or child-sized dolls. This remains the first and last example of a spanking fetishist child abuse ring known to have existed ever. It is also the only evidence in Ms. Keenan’s videos based on anything real.

Ms. Keenan shows an image of a classroom teacher appearing to spank a little girl with a ruler. This image is from a 2 and a half minute video from 2004 of playful “birthday spankings” in her classroom. The image Ms. Keenan claims constitutes “an assault on a little girl,” flashes by at the 01:13 mark. Ms. Keenan blurs out the child’s face, so viewers of her youtube video can’t tell that the birthday girl is smiling while “assaulted.” Another little girl at the beginning of the video tells the interviewer that being play-spanked by “Mrs. Oster” is, quote, “a fun way to celebrate” her birthday, and she’s later shown across Mrs. Oster’s lap smiling and laughing with delight during her so-called “spanking.” Other segments show the class eating donuts and popsicles while the Beatles song “Birthday” plays in the background.

I would like to send Prostasia this 25 meg 2 and a half minute video so you can see for yourselves that I am telling the truth about the image Keenan misrepresented. Please let me know if that is possible and how I might go about sending it.

As for the alleged spanking parent “conference,” that was nothing but an online roleplay fantasy by a bunch of fetishists, (most or all of whom are likely lonely, single, childless pervs, swapping stories on Facebook as their make-believe “strict parent” personae, and pretending to one another that they and their “children” are real). Here’s how we know this “conference” wasn’t real:

An actual 4-day conference of any kind involves a great deal of advance planning and coordination. If an actual conference were in the planning stages, threads would have appeared offering or asking about possible venues. Would someone’s church allow their basement to be used? There would have been questions and concerns about funding, and about housing for out of town visitors. What would the costs be for attendees? Is there a sliding scale for low income attendees? What are the dates for the conference? What is the deadline to register? What affordable hotel accomodations suitable for families exist within walking distance from the venue? Will child care be available for infants during the workshops? On and on.

Absolutely none of this appeared in that forum because those ridiculous “workshops” were total fantasies and everyone in that Facebook group knew it. The only posted information about the “conference” consisted entirely of titillating descriptions of those imaginary “workshops” full of the kinds of details about which spanking fetishists find exciting to write about and read. Literally hundreds of fake fantasy “parenting” groups like that one have come and gone over the decades, just usually on more obscure online venues than Facebook.

And if that alone weren’t enough, Ms. Heuvel-Collins asks, “why isn’t this illegal?” Simple answer: it already IS illegal! The descriptions of the “workshops” in that “conference” included children being forced to disrobe and be paddled naked for the viewing pleasure of an assembled audience. I challenge anyone to cite a jurisdiction anywhere in the English-speaking world where such a thing wouldn’t already violate current child protection laws. There aren’t any. There was never going to be any such “conference” and therefore everything in that Prostasia article based on erroneous assumptions to the contrary should be removed forthwith - i.e. virtually the entire page.

The misrepresented “birthday spanking,” a couple stills from a 1935 episode of “Our Gang” (which she claimed were victims of spanking fetish child abusers) and the nonexistent “conference,” are the ONLY “evidence” in Ms Keenan’s videos for the existence of spanking fetish child abuse rings now or at any time in the past twenty years. Wasting time and attention on a nonexistent threat, based on demonstrably false “evidence,” does not further the cause of child protection, Prostasia’s ostensible mission.

A relative handful of spanking fetishists do abuse children, but as loners not as organized rings. There are indeed bonafide cases of school or church officials with the authority to spank children in their care caught with child-spanking-oriented porn. I would be happy to see Prostasia redo that article to focus on genuine cases of that nature; I’ll even offer my assistance in doing so if asked.

However, both of Jillian Keenan’s videos and all of the article’s text based upon her unhinged falsehoods needs to be removed.

[Overlap]

I received an email from Prostasia’s executive director, Gilian Tenbergen, regarding my issues with the ‘Facebook and Child-spanking Fetish Groups’ blog article. I would have liked to have included her brief missive, but wasn’t sure if that would be allowed here. My rejoinder to Dr. Tenbergen follows:

Thank you for your response, Dr. Tenbergen.

I’m deeply disappointed that after a fortnight’s rumination, neither you nor anyone else in Prostasia’s senior echelon sees fit to directly engage with any element of my critique of Jillian Keenan’s two videos, and hence of Prostasia’s blog article built entirely around those two videos.

What “evidence” do you believe still remains which you think I’ve failed to address? What “sound and relevant” evidence, to use your words, do you believe I’ve missed? That is not a rhetorical question, Dr. Tenbergen. Every bit of “evidence” in Prostasia’s letter to Facebook is demonstrably false (aside from saying the Facebook groups in question were full of fetishists, as they obviously were). Let’s review the “evidence” in Prostasia’s letter to Facebook in its entirety:

The alleged photographic evidence that the Facebook group was a child abuse ring trading pictures of its victims consists of an image of a birthday spanking from Mrs. Oster’s 2004 classroom, and a couple of images of child actor George “Spanky” McFarlane over the lap of an adult male actor in an episode of the 1930s-era children’s show, “Our Gang.” Mainstream, legal, non-porn images of that nature, (along with spanking-related artwork, which Keenan also showcases as if it proves her point somehow), is what spanking fetishists actually do trade and swap with one another. None of that constitutes evidence of any “rings” in operation abusing actual children.

Spanking fetishists swapping harmless, legal material does not fundamentally differ from MAPs swapping movie stills of their favorite child stars, or explicit anime/manga they find exciting. How would Prostasia feel if “antis” created a web article using, as its “evidence,” harmless material of that nature being exchanged between MAPs, and claiming that it proves that MAPs trading such legal images are sex criminals involved in dangerous child abuse rings which must be crushed asap? Most people erotically aroused by sex fantasies involving minors are non-contact. Most people erotically aroused by spanking fantasies involving minors are also no-contact. Prostasia doesn’t support moral-panic crusaders who paint targets on the backs of MAPs based on trumped up, false evidence. Prostasia needs to stop helping the Jillian Keenans of the world painting targets on our backs based on equally-trumped-up, equally-false evidence.

To continue this review, let’s move now to the patently-silly “conference.” Where is Ms. Keenan’s (and hence Prostasia’s) evidence that this was ever anything other than an online group fantasy? If Prostasia chooses to accuse my community of planning real-life in-person child abuse conferences now or at any time in the past, Prostasia has the burden of proof of showing that such real-world-oriented planning ever occurred anywhere. This burden, Ms. Keenan, and hence Prostasia, has utterly failed to meet. Even a single Facebook thread concerning logistics, funding, housing, selecting a venue, etc. for that alleged “conference” would have proven Ms. Keenan’s point, and hence Prostasia’s. But not a scrap of such evidence exists…

…Because it was an online group fantasy, and the outrageousness of the themes of those make-believe “workshops” clearly served, in part, to signal that fact to everyone reading about them. Fake “strict parent” online fetishist forums are as old as the online world itself. Dozens exist now, scattered here and there in more obscure corners of the internet than Facebook. Literally hundreds have come and gone over the decades. None of them amount to anything tangible in the real world. One easily distinguishes them from actual Christian parenting forums by the outrageousness of their content - content posted, I suspect, for the precise purpose of dissuading any actual parents from joining, (while also signaling to lonely, childless, online spanking fetishists who enjoy roleplaying as “strict parent” personae that they’ve come to the right place).

And that’s it. That’s the “evidence” in Prostasia’s blog article and in its letter to Facebook. What other evidence can Prostasia cite in support of its claim that spanking fetish child abuse rings exist now or at any time in the past 20 years? If you have any, you failed to include it in that blog article or your letter to Facebook.

Regarding your perfunctory email, Dr. Tenbergen, all I hear when I read it is Prostasia’s executive director talking down to me as if I were a small child being told No, with no reason given other than the fact that the grown ups have decided the answer is No and that is that.

I’m requesting that either you, or someone else in authority at Prostasia, straightforwardly address the evidence I’ve presented. I don’t believe any of you can. Change my mind.

I’m know I’m not entitled to Prostasia senior management’s further time and attention. Likewise, if Prostasia has nothing else to say on this matter, Prostasia is also not entitled to any further benefit of the doubt from me.

If your email is indeed Prostasia management’s last word on this matter, I’m left with the assumption that Prostasia doesn’t care that its blog article is based entirely on discredited false evidence, doesn’t care that there isn’t a bit of evidence that anyone in my community is involved any child spanking abuse rings now or in the past twenty years, and is perfectly content to both signal boost, and add the Foundation’s credibility to, a moral panic directed at a vulnerable, marginalized erotic minority, for purposes which have nothing to do with actual child protection.

Overlap

P.S. You might not be aware that elements of the consenting-adults real-life-meetups-oriented spanking fetish scene, of which Ms. Keenan is a part, have pursued a one-sided war against my community for decades. And it seldom pretends to have anything to do with any “sex rings” we allegedly run. Ms. Keenan states in her first video that not only her spanking fetish, but everyone else’s spanking fetishes, “have nothing to do with trauma.” Her scene strives to follow in the LGBT’s footsteps on the road to complete societal mainstream acceptability; and they don’t believe they can achieve such acceptability if their sexuality is perceived as traumatic damage. They loathe the very existence of non-contact people with childhood-oriented spanking fantasies not merely because they don’t want to be confused with us, but because so many of us (myself included) state that our spanking fetishes are entirely about childhood trauma. They want all of us to shut up and disappear. When we try to talk online, certain members of her scene post horrible hateful messages describing how we should die and the torture methods which should be used on us to ensure that our ends aren’t quick ones; they rarely even pretend to believe that we’re abusing actual children - anyone with fantasies like ours should die, period. (This, ironically, is also a contributing factor in why some childhood-fantasy-oriented fetishists create fake “parent” forums like the ones on Facebook, so they can swap stories and legal pictures while dodging that kind of hate.) Ms. Keenan’s two moral-panic videos, based on nothing but a tissue of false “evidence,” are just one more salvo in that one-sided war on us. Ms. Keenan, (and now Prostasia), knows that the photos in her video and the nonsense about the “conference” aren’t actually evidence of the existence of spanking fetish child abuse rings. On multiple occasions, our community politely reached out to her years ago when her videos first appeared, and were ignored by her. And her scurrilous videos remain on youtube, and on Prostasia’s blog.

[Overlap]

Sheila van den Heuvel-Collins writes, “The author of this blog has spoken to non-offending child-spanking fetishists. They are quite aware that their actions would cause sexual and physical harm to a child, so they refrain from doing so—just as most people in the world refrain from using another person’s body without their consent.”

But Jillian Keenan’s two videos, around which Heuvel-Collins’ entire blog article is based, make no such qualifications. Spanking fetishists, in her narrative, fall into two categories: those into spanking scenes with consenting adults like herself, and those into abusing real children and holding “conferences” and “workshops” about it.

Ms. Keenan is dogmatic about spanking fetishism having nothing to do with childhood or with traumatic damage. She wants her spanking fetish scene - consenting adults meeting up to spank each other - accepted by the mainstream of society, like LGBT. And non-contact spanking fetishists whose fantasies revolve around imaginary child spankees are nothing but a hindrance to such efforts, especially when some of us say that our spanking fetishes DID arise as a result of our trauma from childhood spankings.

[Overlap]

Prostasia defends dolls and anime as outlets for MAPs since they don’t involve contact.

What about MAPs who post/share (on other sites besides Prostasia’s) screen caps from mainstream movies featuring child actors whom they find attractive? This also involves no contact. Does Prostasia defend that? condemn that? ignore it and take no position?

Followup question: If posting/sharing a mainstream movie image of a present-day child star is beyond Prostasia’s pale, what about a child star who has grown up and is now an adult? What about a child star who is no longer alive?

Serious question.

[elliot]

I can’t speak for the organization, but I’m pretty sure they generally oppose sharing pictures of a real child in a sexual context where that child could stumble across it (any public space). In general, making unsolicited sexual comments about someone in a space where they could see it is a shitty thing to do, regardless of their age, and any respectable anti-abuse organization will recognize that.

The MAP space that they serve as a child protection partner for doesn’t allow pictures of kids to be shared, though I’m not certain whether that’s a rule implemented based on Prostasia’s recommendations or one that existed before the partnership was formed.