Germany: Less Perverted Than You Think. Despite All the Apotemnophiliacs.


sprockets germany's most disturbing videos von pentakatharidis

Canada's National Post fills us in on the latest in the field of apotemnophilia, which we're now apparently supposed to call "transability":

People like Jason [who chopped one of his arms off] have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.

“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.

“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”

Researchers in Canada are trying to better understand how transabled people think and feel. Clive Baldwin, a Canada Research Chair in Narrative Studies who teaches social work at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B., has interviewed 37 people worldwide who identify as transabled.

Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind.

One stereotype many Germans aren't aware of is "the German-speaking parts of Northern Europe are hothouses of the most exotic perversions known to humanity -- second only, perhaps, to Japan".

When Germans think of Kraut stereotypes, they generally imagine Alphorns, Bavarian dress, punctuality, precision engineering, Nazis, beer, sausage, pretzels. But not necessarily perversion.

But that is indeed one of the stereotypes. Where does it come from? Perhaps an amalgam of:

  • Weimar-era transvestitism, rape-murders, and Expressionist documentation of same
  • Nazi sadists and homosexuals, and the weirdly sexless Hitler
  • A long -- and continuing -- history of legalized prostitution
  • Freikörperkultur, i.e. hanging around in large groups naked
  • Extreme German performance and body art (I'm looking at you, Nitsch and, to a much lesser extent, Beuys)
  • Freudian theory and Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis
  • Elfriede Jelinek
  • Armin Meiwes (you know, the cannibal)
  • Berlin gay sex clubs

I could go on. Stereotypes are generally accurate, but I think this one ain't. It's a matter of selection bias and self-fulfilling prophecies: sex sells, so anything happening in Germany which has to do with sex gets reported to the outside world. Germany, like most European cultures, is fairly sexually conservative compared to the United States or Britain. Germans who travel abroad (both men and women) are usually shocked, even primly dismayed, by how promiscuous Anglo-American city-dwellers are. Not to mention all the irresponsible drinking and drug use.

Truth to tell, the kind of Germans in my social circle tend to combine a lack of prudishness with a sensible moderation in matters genital. It's quite admirable. And even the ones who might go in for a suckling-pig swinger orgy (g) or two (as a friend of mine once quipped, this would be the ultimate integration test for foreigners) are unrecognizable outside the club. You get the definite impression that their second-favorite activity, after swinger orgies, is scoring excellent deals on equipment to re-grout their bathtubs.

Germany, I pronounce thee no more perverted than any other advanced country, and a lot less perverted than some. You're welcome!


I Will Not Delete Comments At Your Request

Commenters sometimes ask me to delete some of their previous comments, or other peoples' comments.

I am not going to do that. Let me repeat points I've made a few times, but which apparently need to be made again and again:

  • This blog is a private, non-profit hobby run by exactly one person, me. I have no staff, no helpers, no assistants.
  • I like having a comments section and am usually amused and stimulated by what goes on there, because the vast majority of commenters have something interesting to say.
  • Many comments contain points of view with which I strongly disagree and are phrased in ways I wouldn't choose myself. I let them stand anyway because they contribute a point of view to the discussion.
  • I have a real job, and therefore a limited amount of time to work on this side hobby.
  • What little time I do have I put into writing new stuff
  • I have neither the time nor the inclination to search through thousands of past comments to find ones which someone regrets having posted, or which they think is inappropriate.

Yet if a comment comes to my attention which I don't like, I reserve the right to delete any comment, at any time, for any reason, at my sole and unappealable discretion. Period. This blog is not a democracy; if I find a comment crosses the line, I will nuke it.

I define the line, and I don't do so in any consistent way. Nor do I read every single comment ever posted here. I have only deleted a very few comments during the life of this blog. If you ask me nicely, I might explain why I did so, or I may ignore your question. I am ignoring it not because I dislike you, but because I have only a limited time to work on this blog, and I would rather spend it creating new posts than adjudicating disputes about old posts.

I suspect you would rather I spend my time that way as well.

So, with that in mind, feel free to comment away. But please do not ask or expect me to intervene in the comments section. Handle it yourselves.


The History of the German Press "No Ethnicity" Policy

Okinawa

(source)

Given that recent migrants have been committing a goodly number of crimes in Germany since 2015, the question facing reporters and editors is whether to tell their readers when crimes are committed by foreigners.

The German Press Code, a non-binding voluntary code of conduct put forward by the German Press Council, contains the famous Guideline 12.1, which specifies that news reports should not mention a that a criminal suspect is a member of an ethnic or religious minority unless there is an "objective reason" to do so linked to the specific circumstances of the crime. The rule further warns journalists that violating the guideline can "stoke prejudices against minorities".

This provision has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, with critics claiming it is a form of politically-correct censorship which patronizes readers. Readers can be trusted not to generalize, these critics say, and deserve a full picture of serious crimes. A few smaller German newspapers, including the Rhein Zeitung (g) and the Sächsische Zeitung (g), declared that they would no longer observe the guideline in their reporting. Most national press outlets have stuck by it, although they stress that they reserve the right to decide for themselves whether a suspect's ethnicity or nationality is relevant.

Yesterday I found out the interesting origins of this provision, thanks to this Deutschlandfunk (g) article. This long article (g) at the German Protestant Church's website gives an even more detailed history of the guideline's origins.

It turns out the provision goes back to a 1971 suggestion by Federation of German-American Clubs. They were dismayed that whenever black American soldiers were arrested for crimes in Germany, they were identified on the basis of their race. The Press Council incorporated the first "anti-discrimination" provision into the Press Code in 1973, and it's been updated several times since.

I found this enlightening and a bit surprising. I don't have all that much to add, except that the original context giving rise to Article 12.1 is hardly relevant anymore. There's a difference between merely identifying the skin color of a criminal suspect who is and will always remain a foreigner and who will certainly leave your country in a few years, and identifying the ethnic background of a person who is either living in your country for the foreseeable future, has its citizenship, or is actively claiming a a legal right to live there indefinitely (by getting asylum).

Tourists and soldiers on 2-year rotations are one thing, but Germans have every right to accurate information about whether people who have been invited to permanently resettle into their country or are seeking the right to do so are adapting well and contributing. And the amount of crime foreigners are responsible for is a legitimate indicator.

Yet even if this distinction doesn't convince you, gentle reader, I still think papers should ignore this guideline. Everyone already knows that certain kinds of crime are much more frequent in majority-black American ghettos and in heavily-immigrant areas of German cities. When flash-mobs pour into the streets of German cities (g) to attack policemen stopping cars or parking cops giving tickets, there is not a German alive who thinks the young men beating the cops have names like Ulf, Karlheinz, Alexander, and Torsten. Merely reporting what everyone is already going to suspect -- or (rarely) surprising them by showing the suspicion was false -- is hardly a breach of ethics.


"Arabs Enjoy the Suffering of Others"

Almost every day, something happens which reminds me of an interview (g) the Rheinische Post newspaper did with a Swiss woman, Gaby Zweng, in January of 2016. She has lived in Egypt for 17 years, and has had relationships with both Christian and Muslim men. She stressed that she herself felt safe in Egypt, and that the vast majority of Egyptians condemned the sort of sexual harassment that happened in Cologne.

But she also had a few other things to say:

You have surely heard of the attacks on New Years' Eve in Cologne. Does it surprise you that Muslims did something like that?

Zweng: Let's just say that it doesn't surprise me that men from Arab countries could do something like that. 

Why not?

Zweng: I am constantly aware here that events which are ascribed to Islam by the West happen just as often among Christians as among Muslims. Both religions live here alongside one another, and I think it's more a question of mentality than religion.

So the problem is not Islam but Arabic culture?

Zweng: Yes.

...

Could you imagine that something like what happened in Cologne might also happen in Cairo?

Zweng: Yes, that happened during the revolution in Cairo in Tahrir Square. Women went onto the streets and protested. I think that such things happen so that Arabic people can enjoy the suffering of other people, and that men especially want to raise their profile, especially in a group

Why do you think that Arabs, in particular, enjoy the suffering of others?

Zweng: Arabs love videos in which other people have accidents and suffer misfortunes. They find it funny. This has caught my attention, as well as that of some of my friends.

You mean videos of silly accidents and pratfalls like ones in Germany, or ones in which people are seriously injured?

Zweng: No, these are certainly serious videos. This is probably a result of the fact that here, you teach children what's right and wrong by hitting them, and people as a whole are much more likely to resort to violence than we are. That's how they are raised.

The latest incident that made me think of this interview was the arrest of seven young men -- six from Iraq, one from Libya -- for setting a homeless man on fire in a Berlin subway station.


Returning to Hell -- Voluntarily!

The date: mid-2015. Here and on my Facebook page, I point out that most of the migrants arriving in Germany come from countries which aren't at war -- Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, the Maghreb states, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran -- and therefore aren't likely to be refugees. I dare to wonder why Germany is letting them into the country without even a background check.

One-world Germans, caught up in the fever dream of Wilkommenskultur, immediately zap over to Google, looking for reasons why it would be unethical, even inhumane, to send them back. And boy, do they find them. These Germans came back with shocking news: Those countries are poor! They have political corruption! They have backward customs that oppress women! (although women aren't coming). They have high unemployment! They have discrimination! They have regional insurgencies! Their education systems are flawed!

For a few months, the German press was filled with articles revealing to an unsuspecting public that many countries in the world apparently have less money than Germany, and flawed institutions to boot.

How could anybody possibly be heartless enough to send back anyone to such apocalyptic hellholes, I was asked repeatedly. What are you, some kind of xenophobic fascist? I'd like to see you go live in Albania!

And then the belligerently naïve delivered the killer argument: Nobody would ever voluntarily uproot themselves from their homeland and undertake a dangerous and expensive trek to Europe unless they were absolutely desperate and in fear for their lives. 

Nobody.

After all, nobody ever leaves Germany to go live in other countries in search of a better life. Well, 3.4 million have, but let's not get distracted. 

Yet now something strange is happening: Thousands of migrants are returning to these countries. So far in 2016, about 55,000 (g) have voluntarily left Germany, lured by nothing more than free plane ticket and a modest financial incentive ranging from €500 to €1200 per person depending on circumstances.

15,000 back to the smoldering toxic inferno of Albania, 5,000 each back to the desolate, bandit-plagued moonscapes of Serbia, Iraq, and Kosovo, 3200 back to Afghanistan. Amazing, given that there are only 30.5 million people left alive in that unlivable charnel-house.

You could almost be forgiven for thinking these folks were merely economic migrants who just wanted to see if they could live in a richer, more stable country than their own, and found they couldn't, or didn't want to.

Almost.


Chicago's Bloody Christmas Makes International News

The BBC Newsbrief yesterday mentioned the shooting of 27 people over Christmas in Chicago. So did th Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Canoe.ca, and Le Monde.

One thing none of these newspapers mentioned was the demographic profile of the shooters and victims. There was talk of 'gangs' and 'high-crime neighborhoods', which all Americans can immediately decipher. But in case my foreign readers are wondering, this is what it's all about:

Chiav morr

(source). Although the majority of assailants has yet to be identified (it's hard to investigate crimes in black neighborhoods because witnesses distrust police and fear retaliation from the shooters, who are often well-known), nobody is assuming they're white.

Violent crime has always been a disproportionately black / Hispanic affair in the U.S., but it appears to be getting even more extremely concentrated. Not necessarily because black and Hispanic crime rates are going up -- they are, in some cities, but not dramatically overall -- but because U.S. urban whites and Asians are quickly becoming one of the most law-abiding groups in human history.

Thanks to gentrification and rising costs of living, the white populations of major U.S. citizens are becoming quite rich. This means the only groups left in cities who continue to commit any kind of violent crime at all are blacks and Hispanics. Despite a record wave of 750+ homicides in Chicago this year overall, some predominantly white neighborhoods had no homicides at all.

So feel free to visit Chicago, which is a delightful place. The locals will tell you which neighborhoods to avoid. Even if you visited them, you probably won't have a problem, since most of these killings are gang-related, and you're not in a gang. But you could be hit by a stray bullet.