The Critical and the Vital…
August 24th, 2008 by Steve DiamondWe can be pretty and popular, but isn’t it better to be critical and vital?
The pretty and popular things will follow, if the critical and vital efforts succeed.
That is the one thing I really like to make clear, whenever the “boring and dry” nature of many of our activities comes up in conversation.
A lot of “pedophiles” come online, get excited and want to play like it is Disneyland…as though “this” is the big prize…
I’m not the person to judge, but if we all do that, then we get stuck in a rut, spinning our wheels but going nowhere…
Ultimately, I do not think that “we” should cater to that…It is fine that it is out there, some places…but it does not need to be “everywhere”, in the “child love” galaxy…
This site specialises in something…and that is a very, very good thing. It does not water down what is being done here…and that is a very, very good thing…It should stay focused, because what is going on at sites like this is vital, and it should continue in a clear and undiverted manner.
Masturbating is good…There is a time and a place…but that does not mean that “this” is the place…
I think the biggest problem, is that so few people envision a real liberation for ourselves…So, they live in the present, and get whatever they can, wherever they can…and “right now”…because they want to experience it, while they are still alive and can do so.
This site has more of an altruistic nature to it, however. There is a fairly clear, future goal…a vision for a better future…but, we know it will not be easy to gain that better future…I think, the more foundational activists see and understand the vision…and understand that while “we” ourselves may not realise personal benefit…our own lives may be devastated by what has already transpired…but fighting so that this inhumane injustice we suffer is not visited upon others of the future, is a worthwhile pursuit…
If we don’t do what is necessary, then we will never get there…which is why getting sidetracked is bad.
What is “most” important to “you”?…
…to masturbate and orgasm, or to play a role in defeating prejudice, hostility and violence?…
The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)
August 6th, 2008 by DanielOriginally posted on ANU.
If we were to put aside our case for non-contact pedophile rights - just for a moment, how many adverse consequences could we list for society in general? I almost considered grafting extra fingers to count them all. In this half of my post, I consider the negative impacts on Children:
1. Denial of contact with children - a problem that has already seen some coverage in the media.[1][2] When violent and/or illegal acts against children are confused with universal feelings of affection and caring/physical responses, we end up seeing a degree of stand-offishness that denies young people their share of affection, and the right to feel valued. As a result, normal physical contact - common among closely related species and nearly always present in the more peaceful of human societies is characterised as perverse - something the young should fear.
2. Priming of children for victimhood - whereby a child who has been raped, traumatised or has no conception of the “wrongness” of his or her sexual involvements is told that they must be a victim. This is a mechanism of coercion and constraint that contributes to the formation of moral absolutes and the persecution of pedophiles - who according to the proponents of such propaganda, make up the majority of child sex offenders - a false claim.
Plummer[3] applies this to Girls:
“Again, this floods over into their sexual meanings: their sexuality is much more a matter of something that others do to them and define for them. It is something relatively out of their own control. At its most extreme edge, little girls may come to realize that it is totally out of their control — in dim, inarticulate ways they may come to see themselves as the objects of massive sexual terrorism”
3. A lack of guidance for children - when all unofficial, non-parental relationships between legal children and legal adults are seen as exploitative, or at least dangerous (possibly due to their ability to subvert order), childhood becomes a matter of mere indoctrination and replication of “family” propaganda. Children become the property of their parents; exposure to mind-opening and diverse opinions, values and practises is prohibited. Such over-protection in a risk - oriented society is very likely to lead to overly risk-averse adults who have no will to exploit positive opportunities outside of a normative framework that they will in turn attempt to replicate. This kind of paranoia has also been covered in the media.[4]
4. Banning of children - and this can be taken quite literally. When groups involving children and generally accepted children’s activities become risky, the rational response is to impose bans, or risk prosecution. We are seeing at least some compromised reporting of this, from some sources. For example:
“Children could be barred from joining sports and hobby clubs because of the increasing burden of red tape, campaigners fear. Organisations which run activities for youngsters are already struggling to recruit volunteers because they must undergo criminal records checks. But when a new child protection database is introduced next year - which one in four adults will have to sign at a cost of £64 each - it is feared that many groups which admit members of all ages will decide it is cheaper and simpler to exclude children.” [5]
5. Obesity in children - self evident, and a natural consequence of the previous point. As fears of “stalking predators” have been ramped up, parents have become less likely to allow their children to be active outdoors, or join sports clubs - assuming that they have not been banned. With an expansive service economy and an increasing denial of physical outlet, it is important that we do not allow the youngest members of society to grow fat and lazy for other reasons.
In Part 2, I will cover the adverse effects for society as a whole. These are Vigilante Justice, Murders, Expenditure, Validation of Pseudo-Science and False Allegations and Validation of Psychic Mediums.
Reference:
1. http://www.freewebtown.com/newsstand/archive1/1272.html
2. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1408828,00.html
3. Plummer, K. (1990). Understanding Childhood Sexualities. In Sandfort, T., Brongersma, J, & van Naerssen, A (eds.), Male Intergenerational Intimacy. New York: Harrington Park Press.
4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1918842.ece
5. Daily Telegraph, 20/06/2008, “Child protection rules could see youngsters banned from sport and hobby clubs”.
Apology
July 19th, 2008 by Stephen JamesI notice the Pope has just apologised for sexual abuse by catholic priests in Australia, though one lobby group has complained about the fact that he did not apologise to any of the victims in person, as apparently he did in the U.S.
Why have so many priests been caught ‘interfering’ with children in various parts of the world? It seems unlikely that many of them are paedophiles in the strict sense of being predominantly attracted to children. It seems far more probable that the Catholic Church’s banning of sex for priests is to blame. The majority are probably ’normal’ in their sexual orientation, but deprived of the possibility of openly expressing it, they turn to children, with whom their work brings them into frequent contact. If this is so, the Pope himself bears much of the responsibility for maintaining a system that makes sex between priests and children more likely. And he could also reflect that priestly celibacy has (I think I am right in saying) no biblical basis.
That would be a conservative, albeit fairly unblinkered, take on the issue. Of course there are other concerns less frequently aired. It seems likely that some of the relationships are tender and caring. But they would all suffer from one fundamental flaw. The priest is committed to upholding the doctrines of the Catholic Church including, for example, St. Paul’s opinions about sex. Paul famously thought that the only morally acceptable sexual outlet for a Christian is through marriage (“it is better to marry than to burn”). If you believe that and you are having a sexual relationship with a child or youth, you are creating a great potential for psychic conflict both for yourself and for the young person involved.
I am not a Christian, but I think it is important to make distinctions in our attitudes to Christian belief and the most significant distinctions in my view are ethical. ’Decent’ Christians talk a lot about such things as the Good Samaritan and Jesus’ apparent egalitarianism. They tend to avert their gaze from such things as the Bible’s talk of Hell and (to some extent at least) its sex-negativity. I have a suggestion to make to any Christians reading this. Isn’t it about time you produced a new version of the Bible that keeps the good parts and leaves out the bad ones? I think everyone would benefit.
Spiraling Out of Control…
July 13th, 2008 by StratoAnti-pedophile hysteria has always been rooted primarily in the underlying, unspoken, desire to keep young people in a controlled, confined atmosphere. A greenhouse environment. Only in such surroundings can they be suitably conditioned and indoctrinated into becoming the obedient, placid drones that the social order needs them to be.
Fortunately, this control becomes self-propelling and can only escalate. The more tightly young people are controlled, the more likely is abreaction, leading to ever more rigid and artificial measures of control.
In the past two years alone, we have seen a raising of the Age of Consent (Canada), proposals to extend the duration of compulsory schooling (UK), increasing persecution of sex play among minors (particularly in the US), widespread concern over ’self-generated porn’, and the placing of preteens on Sex Offender Registries. This is pure desperation on the part of the authorities.
The latest measure? A UK newspaper, The Times, today reports that ‘the public and senior politicians’ have backed the idea of “a nationwide youth curfew”. A trial scheme is currently underway in one part of the country (Cornwall), in which police have been given the power to “remove” anyone under 16 years old seen on the streets after 9pm, and anyone under 10 years old seen out after 8pm. A poll for The Times indicated ‘overwhelming support’ for this curfew scheme to be extended throughout the UK.
So – the literal imprisonment of young people in the family home. It appears that the ruling regimes of the West are exhausting measures of control.
We should welcome this situation. The more that young people are alienated from their parents and the authorities, the greater the damage to the nuclear family and the social order. The authorities are doing part of our job for us…creating an atmosphere in which young people increasingly resent their subjugation. As their persecution escalates, they become more open to our message: understanding the rationale and hidden methodologies of their castration and unnatural enslavement.
While unfortunate for young people (and us) in the short term, the acceleration of these desperate, authoritarian measures is a sign of, and a necessary factor in, the disintegration of social control. Bring it on.
A Ripple in a Pond?
June 26th, 2008 by StratoA UK think-tank today issued a report (’Licensed to Hug’) which states that “the dramatic escalation of child protection measures has succeeded in poisoning the relationship between the generations and creating an atmosphere of suspicion that actually increases the risks to children”.
See http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html for the full story.
Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, argues that children “need to have contact with a range of adult members of the community for their education and socialisation”, but that “this form of collaboration, which has traditionally underpinned intergenerational relationships, is now threatened by a regime that insists that adult/child encounters must be mediated through a security check”.
Professor Furedi refers primarily to the recent UK legislation - Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 - which requires a criminal records check for more or less anyone who comes into contact with children: “‘From Girl Guiders to football coaches, from Christmas-time Santas to parents helping out in schools, volunteers — once regarded as pillars of the community — have been transformed in the regulatory and public imagination into potential child abusers, barred from any contact with children until the database gives them the green light.”
(As a result of this legislation, it is estimated that by October next year, criminal records checks will be required of 11.3 million people - over one-quarter of the adult population of England.)
Instead of creating ‘an atmosphere of fear and suspicion’, the Report says that there should be “a halt to the juggernaut of regulation” and argues that “we would all benefit” from encouraging “greater openness and more frequent contact between the generations”.
Initial public response to this Report is broadly encouraging - the vast majority of comments at one site (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/26/civitas_crb_report/comments/) for example, agree with the Report’s conclusions, with the general theme of ‘it’s about time for a backlash against Government protectionism’.
In itself, of course, this Report is merely the view of a political think-tank. Nevertheless, the story seems to have been picked up by many of the major UK newspapers, and - if nothing else comes of it - at least it hopefully plants in the minds of the masses the notion that the UK Government is going too far with it’s self-serving ‘think of the children’ hysteria…and maybe…just maybe…the Government may think twice before implementing the next piece of legislation.
We can of course expect powerful lobbying against this swathe of public opinion by the child abuse industry - particularly children’s charities and law enforcement bodies like CEOP, who have a significant financial interest in perpetuating the hysteria. (And, consequently, don’t be surprised if, in the next week or two, a “major pedophile ring” is conveniently unearthed). Nevertheless, in a time of overwhelmingly negative news stories, generation of the ‘time for a backlash?’ question is - at least on a subliminal level - a positive one.
IYAC: Disingenuous “Children’s Rights”
June 16th, 2008 by The Administrator“OK, kids. We’ll listen to you, as long as you say what we want to hear”.
If ever there was confirmation that the club-wielding ogre known as the Child-Protection Movement has completed its brutally effective hijacking of the Children’s-Rights Bandwagon, this has to be it. Now watch me as I drown in my own sarcasm.
In just one day’s time at a still undisclosed venue in London, “Child Representatives” (speaking on behalf of the Children’s Republic), corporate interests (acting out of nothing but compassion and original thought) and the leading lights of Britain’s State-Sponsored Child-Protection Cartel (no vested interests there, then) will meet in a closed, cult-like “International Youth Advisory Congress“.
What a wonderful turn of events it is, that these selfless figureheads of the Child-Protection Movement have suddenly performed an about turn, and decided to consider the opinions of young people before they propose the Children and Young People’s Global Online Charter, whose internationally relevant recommendations must be an open case from beginning to end! How brave of the historically dispassionate organisers - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and their allies in the police force, to risk dealing with the conflicting attitudes and opinions of happy-go-lucky youth! Think again.
The anatomy of a state-sponsored sham
Applications for attendees were closed (on the site’s homepage) from the very beginning. Oh, but hang on… one redeeming feature. This only applies to children and young people (aged between 14 and 17). Of course, if you are one of a number of…
“organisations who have a vested interest in ensuring the safety and security of children online”
…you are more than welcome to put yourself forward. But 14-17 year olds, please… move along now. Go to the separate “Children’s Site” where we have arranged a series of entertaining games for you to numb your pain with. Cut out some paper men and take photographs of them… its so fun and liberating!
And those of you who we have “vetted and jetted” in to the UK, after leaving adverts on totally fair and unbiased websites need only worry just that little bit about being belittled, categorised and patronised by the middle-class values of our organisers:
“We are looking for forty young people from around Europe to come to the five-day residential event All travel expenses will be covered, and accommodation and meals will be provided on site The young people will be chaperoned at all times by staff from CEOP and partnership agencies including the NSPCC; and interpreters will be available to translate for non-English speaking children. Full safeguarding procedures will be put in place and made available to teachers and parents prior to the event, and we are able to cater for young people with a range of special needs and disabilities.”
Nappies, emergency wet nurses and sun cream are optional, it appears.
And as for dissent, no need to worry. We choose who goes before “consulting” them anyway. What harm can come from an organised, tokenistic freak-show with a set outcome? It’s like asking the treatment clientèle of NARTH associates how they would like to be cured. What can possibly go wrong?
And what’s more, when the show has ended, we can claim that… THE KIDS AGREE WITH US!!! Even though they are not old enough to be informed about this kind of thing… unless they agree with us, m’kay.
Semantics: seeing I to I, or not?
June 4th, 2008 by ReidyMany people have differing opinions and regurgitated definitions of what certain words mean. I respect personal opinions whether I agree with them or not, but I make a *”so-so”/”really?”* looking face when somebody digs up a dictionary or DSM definition of word.
Specifically, I am talking about the words pedophile, boylover, and child molester.
New perceptions on the words will begin with “some say…”
Pedophile:
“What does the word pedophile mean?” is a commonly implied question in NUMEROUS debates. Some say it means child-lover (translation, as direct as possible). This is a resurrected definition AS IF this definition should break through the heaps of semantical deposits and twisted views. Why should that take precedence over every other ‘meaning’? BUT, that is strictly the word translation. What does it mean in today’s society? Some will say it means child-lover; keeping its original translation. Some will say it means child molester. Some put “pedophile” and “heterosexual” on the same playing field, as equal value, in the category of sexuality and actually prefer the term “pedosexual.” A heterosexual is as likely to rape a woman as a pedophile is to rape a child (yes, they can both hold real relationships too). Pedophilia or pedosexuality is just another seuxality. Some will plagiarize out of the DSM that it is a paraphilia - a mental illness of being sexually attracted to children (another loooooose term), and some start and stop only with the ’sexual attraction to children’ part. Some will give critical accounts of what they think it means on a grand scale (generalizing) of society. And yet some will say it means “boylover”- which amounts to nothing…
Boylover:
“What does the word “Boylover” mean?” is a common implicit and explicit question in countless discussions. Some will say that the term “Boylover” is a sugar-coated term for pedophile (it was created by pedophiles and ephebophiles (should I even mention the distinct attractions in a writing about blurry lines!?!?) to shed the baggage that comes with the term “pedophile”). Some will say “Boylover”= child molester. In plain English, this would simply be a compound word, “boy” and “lover”, meaning, somebody who loves boys (LOVE: oh yes, we never have differing opinions on what love is. We unanimously believe it means the same thing [Roll Eyes] ). Whatever your interpretation of love is is going to differ with others, and when you meld that into the term “boylover”, your personal opinion is going to hit and miss with others’ opinions, creating a totally custom meaning. In other words, “boylover” means boy-lover; amounting to nothing, again…
Child molester:
This should be pretty straight forward… SHOULD BE. BUT, many people here believe that a child molester is a model of a make of humans. A subcategory of a subcategory. A Pinto, but not a Ford. This is definitely a possibility, but child molesters are not strictly pedophiles. There are many people who sexually and mentally hurt people under the age of consent who are not even attracted to them. (There are plenty who do the same to those of “consenting age” who are and are not attracted to their “victims” (dammit, another word!)). In many cases it can be a power-hungry drunken rage or something similar. Maybe a boy’s dad had 10 too many to drink one night after his boss gave him a double shift and a demotion- he needed control over something, someone, displacement. Hypothetical, but you see the point. Some say a child molester is somebody who rapes children just as a rapist is somebody who rapes people (of consenting age). Some say that child molester is a pedophile who acts on his/her urges, regardless of the nature of the acts. Even the term “molester” implies age!
As I stated earlier, even the word “child” and NUMEROUS other words (rape, molest, love, sexuality, victim, etc.) are tossed around in oblivion to how it should be interpreted. But how should we extract meanings when they are built on each other?
One usage is grammatical, one is emotional, one is literal, one is critical, one is wrong, all might be wrong; are any “right”?
*Now, being that I did not define words I was referring to in order to define other words (i.e. “…but child molesters are not strictly pedophiles.”), I do not know if you will be able to map out what I’m saying with definitions and opinions deeply branded, AND/OR with all the many-times-over exemplified options.
UK: Criminalizing Child Erotica in Cartoons and Sketches. A Step Too Far?
May 29th, 2008 by StratoYesterday, the UK’s ‘Ministry of Justice’ (do they also have Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love and Plenty?) announced plans to implement new legislation, criminalizing possession of cartoons, drawings and sketches of child erotica.
This announcement follows a ‘public consultation’ last June. The full Report, published yesterday, is available in .pdf format from: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/non-photographic-depictions.htm).
In summary:
A majority of respondents to the consultation “saw the lack of research and evidence, as acknowledged in the original consultation paper, of a causative correlation between viewing non-photographic visual depictions of child sex abuse and the commission of offences as a reason not to legislate in this area. It was argued that ‘while there may be behaviours of which most of us disapprove, these should not be criminalised unless they directly cause harm to others in society’ and that ‘an unsupported ‘concern’ cannot be sufficient to justify restricting the liberty of citizens.”
In addition:
“Many of the respondents thought that the proposals were tantamount to ‘thought crime,’ victimless activities or ‘Orwellian behaviour’ on behalf of the Government and were concerned about the possibility of viewers of these images being criminalised without harming children or ever intending to do so. Many individual respondents reiterated the principle that freedom of expression should not be limited to information or ideas favoured by the Government, or the majority, but rather the test of free expression was whether the Government criminalised a form of free expression that does no harm, on the grounds that the expression is abhorrent.”
Nevertheless, ultimately, the UK Government felt that:
“there exists a class of material that should not be tolerated, even in the absence of conclusive evidence that it caused offending behaviour.”
Is there any more evidence of an authoritarian regime?
It is notable that the most powerful brokers in this discussion were – yes, you guessed it – those who had the greatest vested interests (financial and otherwise) in pushing new legislation through: “the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Public Prosecution Service NI (PPSNI), Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), Police Federation of England & Wales, the Internet Service Providers Association, numerous child welfare organisations, local police forces, religious groups and the British Association of Social Workers.”
There is nothing more to be said in this matter. I suspect that the UK Government will not get these proposals enacted into legislation until at least 2009 – which gives us a year to prepare our friends in the UK. At the very least, we need to step up our computer security campaign. We must get one simple message across as broadly as possible: Encrypt, Encrypt, Encrypt.
Whatever (remaining) ‘obligation’ UK citizens felt towards their government has been well and truly forfeited.
Too Young For Euphoria?
May 15th, 2008 by Steve DiamondRound n round n round I spun at age nine, arms floating wide in the open air; almost as if being helicopter propellers. Sometimes, I’d even lift my feet off the ground testing if I could stay off the ground…I always crashed on the floor, of course…
I remember back to days long before the internet…We did not have all the technical stuff of today, so we needed to find other forms of entertainment; which typically included physical activities.
Like many children, I greatly enjoyed the natural euphoria of driving myself into a state of “stupid dizzy”…That euphoric sensation of losing all sense of balance, falling to the ground and watching the room continue to spin according to your own eyes; of course you could feel it also.
This sensation was a true natural high…Energy was being burned, yet it was being created at the same time, because of the adrenaline rush.
There was no pain. In fact, the feeling was wonderful! It was not just fun, it was carefree…it was stimulating…No matter how long I will live, I will never feel as good as I did back then; during those times…doing all the crazy things I did as a boy…
What is a sensation “too strong for a child to deal with”?…
I can understand attempts to shield a child from severe pain, and things which might threaten bodily injury…but I can not envision a justification in trying to prevent another human being of any age from experiencing a harmless natural state of euphoria.
Recently, I had the opportunity of reading ongoing exchanges between people of opposing viewpoints. The topic was childhood sexuality, and one person holding an opposing viewpoint made a statement I can only describe as…strange…
Apparently, they believe that the chemical changes which occur in the brain during moments of euphoria, are “too much” for a child too be capable of dealing with. Allegedly, they don’t know how too handle it…or what should be done with the emotions that might come with it.
Whether this is more a psychological argument or a biological one, I am not sure. After all, some might further argue that chemical changes in the brain during formative years perhaps can impose a substantial alteration. I don’t know this as being true, but then again it does seem plausible…not necessarily “bad”, but still plausible.
I loved cheese every bit as much as I loved chocolate, back when I was a boy (still do). The explosion of wonderful flavor inside of your mouth, it never ceased too bring great pleasure. It was exciting too experience…much like a trip to the candy store.
Euphoria has many sources, and they all cause a biological change in chemistry…in the brain and through the body.
As a matter of the natural course of living, is it even possible to avoid such things?
They have done studies on this, and concluded that for many people, the level of chemical change in the brain (dopamines I believe) experienced while eating chocolate can rival that of experiencing sexual pleasure…
…Children typically love chocolate…I did as a boy…but, you already know that by now.
The important questions here are…where do you get your euphoria? We all do, after all…it’s just a question of “how”…and how does one form of euphoria differ tangibly from another?
Children spend much of their time and energy, chasing after euphoria; in one form or another…We adults just dismiss it, as being a trivial part of a carefree life; not concerned with the mundane and demanding elements of life…We think it is the simplistic endeavors of an unsophisticated mind…Yet, these sensations and knowledge gained from experiencing them, are invaluable bits of data; which we process and learn to evolve with.
My first orgasm…I was twelve, and had a long history of “working up to it” and easing off…I did not know what I should expect, or even that I should expect anything at all…Such is the abysmal sexual education, when you grow up deeply within the church…
Don’t ask me why, but in my deliciously naughty state of boyish lust, I’d decided that I was going too continue on, even past those early “funny feelings”…I would just keep going, and see what happened…
…Oh!…My!…Freaking!…Gwad!…
A fundamental change in personal body paradigm took place on that day, as I saw my own semen for the first time ever (not to say I’d seen any semen before). It gushed far and wide, all across my bare, smooth chest…almost hitting me in the chin. With warm and slimy goo all over, I had never before felt this absolutely overpowering sense of amazing wonderfulness, in my entire life…and it is tragic that it shall never be that great again, I think.
This was the first of many, countless orgasms I would experience; well before officially hitting puberty a few years later. Like so many boys, I traveled that road of “infamy”…there were never enough orgasms…It was always a good time for an orgasm…once a day…twice a day…every single day…sometimes three times in a day (and once four!)…
Boys and orgasms go hand in hand…They are a typical and natural pairing…It is what a boy will naturally do (girls also, in all honesty) once this incredible discovery is made…and it is not a “bad” discovery…It is amongst the most wonderful natural treasures in the world.
Everybody loves an orgasm, including children…
…but, “can they handle it”?…
I have to ask the obvious question here…
With so many males growing up and masturbating “half” of their childhood and teenage years away…and sexual development experts telling us this is normal…
…How do we make the leap from what we know about human biology, to something which is entirely contrary and incompatible?…such as, “orgasms cause harm”?
I think it is just incredible that anyone could even imply such…even if they do frame it in a sense of, “not being ready for it”. Physical sensations and the orgasm are a lot more primal and simple…There is not an enormous amount of psychology that you “have to get”, in order to experience, love and benefit from them. Physical love is one of the universal languages, after all.
It is the people running around with a grocery list full of demands…”you must get married”…”you must be in love”…”you must have the blessing of others”…”you must follow pop psychology”…”you must not be different”…”you must”, “you must”, “you must”…
…It is these people who pile an endless flood of mental and emotional baggage onto sexuality, the body and how we choose to live our lives…It is these people who will not rest, so long as diversity is allowed to thrive.
“We”, as individuals…on that day we discovered this extreme euphoric joy…we did not have a natural shame too associate with it…it just simply was what it was…
…and it was one freaking incredible ride, which lasted years and years…
How does this measure up?…How does it reconcile with “not being psychologically ready”?
Is it even possible to “not” be psychologically ready to experience an orgasm?…sexual arousal is an ever constantly repeating part of human life, after all…It is there, even at the early ages…the very natural outcome of this state, exists within the orgasm…In part, that is why we become aroused in the first place…
So, why do children of all ages become sexually aroused?…especially if they “weren’t supposed too experience it”? It just seems like a natural, biological progression. The sex drive is there, and you naturally progress and grow with it; as you experience it on a deeper and deeper level.
It makes no sense that following this natural instinct might be something you “are not ready for”…because if you honestly “are not ready for it” while it is occurring in you, then will you ever honestly be ready for it?
…and if you push it away all of your life until you are much older…will you ever be able to approach it with the open honesty, and guiltlessness that you would have, had you been allowed such natural experiences as a child prior to social indoctrination?
“Not ready for it”…”Cant handle it”…
What of the billions of us “pervert” males, who jerked off like crazy as children?…What of those who had the sex?…
We do grow up, you know?…We do take our place in society…We do become regarded as “normal” and respectable people…
In spite of the sexual superstition that “we could not handle it”…we handled it just fine…Indeed, for many of us, it was no trouble at all…quite an enhancement on childhood, honestly…
Of course, I understand that explanation is required at various points in time, to work hand in hand with a child’s real world experiences…and the fallacy is in believing that these children are “never” ready for this imparting of knowledge.
Byron confronts a pedophile on BBC television
May 9th, 2008 by Stephen JamesOn May 5, 2008, the BBC broadcast an edition of ‘Am I normal?’ on the subject of sex, presented by the media-friendly clinical psychologist Tanya Byron. It included an interview with a pedophile; an ‘out’ (but non-practising) girl-lover, who has been bravely campaigning for wider acceptance of child-love and for the abolition of age-of-consent laws as presently formulated. It was a good opportunity for him to present his case to a wide audience in the U.K. and beyond.
My first reaction to the way in which he was portrayed by the programme was very negative. Though I have seen dozens of these sorts of treatments of the subject of ‘paedophilia’ before, it never ceases to amaze me how one-sided and blinkered they can be. Byron announced before she went in to interview the pedophile that, despite her biases and prior assumptions, she was going to try to be ‘rational’. If that was really her intention, then she failed miserably. Her subject explained that he was attracted to girls from about seven to eleven years of age, and that if it were legal and if the girl was willing, he would act on this attraction. He did, however, rule out penetrative sex at that age. When asked what he would like to do, he mentioned masturbation and oral sex. Byron described all this as ’horrifying’.
Just in case emotion might have ’clouded’ her judgment (surely not!) she checked her interviewee’s opinions with a psychiatrist, who duly confirmed that he was talking nonsense and that the distinction between violent molestation and what he wanted to defend comes to nothing. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief– our prejudices are comfortably endorsed by ’science’.
Such was my initial reaction. But then I started to wonder. Suppose Byron had said she agreed with some of the points the pedophile was making or even just shown some sympathy with them. Would the programme still have been shown? I doubt it. It is daring enough that an ‘out’ child-lover is allowed to express his views on national TV. If this is going to be done, it is expected that the presenter will be required to knock his views down, as in this case. But for a pedophile to be able to speak at all on the BBC is something of an achievement. Byron mentioned that she spoke to him for about an hour and we saw only about ten minutes of this (no doubt heavily edited). But that we were able to hear him at all must, I think, be regarded as a very positive thing.
See also:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_PuWNNn2bpw