Table of Contents
1.
Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People
2. Hunter
Biden's Shamelessness
3. Joe and Hunter Biden Are Both Child
Molesters
4. Hunter Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him
5.
Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators
6. Shamelessness Helps Karens
and Cancel Culture Resisters
7. Shamelessness Robs Children of
Their Childhoods
8. Shamelessness Promotes Vanity and Risky
Behavior
9. Shamelessness Promotes a Culture of Silence About
Objectification
10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of
Anti-Negativity
11. Conclusion
12. Author's Note on Additional
Resources
Content
1. Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People
It has been observed by others, and correctly, that the movement against body-shaming helps all the wrong people.
Numerous articles have been written, several by so-called “intersectional feminists”, that the movement to stop people from heaping shame upon others for their appearance – which should more appropriately be defending people who are disabled, differently abled, or disfigured, or paralyzed people (people who really need to know that their bodies are not something to be ashamed of) – has come to defend people who are slightly strange-looking, and people who are morbidly obese or are otherwise unhealthy more or less because of their own decisions.
(One of such articles can be found here: http://studybreaks.com/culture/body-positivity/)
But there is a new problem, and it is much worse. The movement against bodyshaming has begotten a culture of shamelessness.
This has had, and will continue to have, vast, serious, and damning repercussions upon the basic premises of decency and privacy which previously kept our culture from drifting into sin, degradation, vanity, materialism, denial of the need to solve problems, and normalization of child sexual abuse.
When pictures leaked in October 2020 (and then again in January 2021) of Hunter Biden having sex with a female stripper who appears to be under the legal age of consent, opponents of Joe Biden were enraged. Some of Biden's defenders, and certain miscellaneous unconvinced people, stooped to defending the new president's son, however.
Statutory rape laws were instituted in order to put the burden of proof on the older person involved in the sexual act, to prove that the younger person was of legal age to consent, when there is any question. In complete disregard of that fact – or, probably more likely, complete ignorance – some Twitter users who saw the leaked Hunter Biden photos, argued “You can't prove that the girl is underage.” That is not how the law works.
The details of that particular legal argument aside, the point is that Hunter Biden is getting undue defense. It seems that the movement against body-shaming might have something to do with this as well, because some of Hunter Biden's defenders have been arguing something to the effect of “It's not fair for Trump, or anybody else, to 'target' Hunter Biden like this. He clearly has a problem and you have no right to shame him for it.”
It may be true that we should not shame someone for having a cocaine habit, which the president's son was obviously still struggling with as recently as summer 2018 (when the photos were taken). But are we to believe that grown men in their mid- to late 40s, who have sex with teenagers, should never experience shame at having that fact exposed to the public?
What has Hunter Biden done, that he should have some protection and defense from having to feel ashamed for what he has done? Even if you think he has contributed to our society politically and financially, is that enough to give someone immunity from shame?
3. Joe
and Hunter Biden Are Both Child Molesters
Between the second wave of Hunter Biden photo leaks in January, and Joe Biden's inauguration, Hunter's defenders were still citing the fact that his father wasn't president yet, as a reason not to worry about Hunter's behavior.
Hunter's defenders argued additionally, “It's not like Hunter's behavior means that Joe Biden is a child molester. Hunter's actions shouldn't reflect upon his father.” They continue to say this, even though it's been six years since Joe Biden was shown live on C-SPAN, pinching the right nipple of the young niece of Senator Steve Daines of Montana. That girl was approximately eight years old.
Biden also grazed the nipple of one of the daughters of Senator Michael Bennet, probably intentionally. Biden has also been photographed with his hand over a boy's mouth, his hand on a police officer's knee, his hands on both sides of an Asian-American girl's face, and his hand in a handshake position over a baby boy's crotch. Based on observations from videos, it's also possible that Biden has been pulling little girls back against his groin, and pushing his groin into their backs, during congressional swearing-in photo sessions.
The idea that Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior shouldn't reflect on his father is one thing. But the question is moot because Joe Biden has been directly filmed live on television pinching a little girl's nipple. Joe Biden is a child molester, and Hunter Biden has now been photographed with a girl who is somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18.
It's fair to assume that she is under 18, because: 1) of all the females who appear in the leaked photos, she appears, far and away, the youngest; and 2) one of the images leaked from Hunter Biden's phone is a screenshot of a text message from a woman named Allie (probably an ex-girlfriend of Hunter's based on context clues) who told Biden that he had let a stripper take-over his life, whom she described as “A CHILD”.
Did I censor these photos in order to shame this girl?
Or did I do it in order to protect her innocence,
and to provide her with
what little bare minimum of decency and privacy
that she still needs and deserves
in this sensitive situation in which a high-profile individual's
reputation and freedom are at stake?
Neither 1) the fact that this girl is a stripper, nor 2) the fact that she is wearing a thong, proves that she is of legal age to consent to sex. Legally, the burden is on Hunter Biden, to prove that she was of age, at the time when the photos were taken (summer 2018).
Don't console yourself, or try to soften this blow, with thoughts of “If she were underage, Hunter Biden would have been put away by now.” I have been told for years that I am a dreamer and I need to get real, yet now I'm the one telling people to stop making “if” statements. Let's deal exclusively with reality. Let's deal with what we know, based on the photographic evidence, and previous reporting about Joe Biden's corruption and about Hunter's "misbehavior".
Hunter Biden is the president's son. He's gotten away with his misbehavior for more than just the three years since those leaked photos were taken. His father has gotten away with pinching girls for six years, and staring at their chests for 40 years. Joe Biden swims in his pool naked when he has guests coming, and his security guards know it, and they help him make sexual advances against women. Hunter Biden's uncle James once owned property near Jeffrey Epstein's island. The Bidens have the Kerrys to protect their interests at Burisma, and the Podestas to protect other related and unrelated interests in Ukraine. Aside from Hunter Biden getting kicked out of the military for cocaine use, and his father probably helping him escape consequences for it.
Do you really think this is all a big coincidence, and that Hunter Biden would be punished if he were guilty? You are making an “argument from benevolence”, which is typically used to make the case that God could not allow something bad to happen because that would make God evil. The government is corrupt; it is not infallible, and it is certainly not of God.
Do not deny what you see in front of your own eyes. Hunter Biden probably committed statutory rape, and if he did, he probably also enticed a minor into delinquency, and possibly also cocaine use or even addiction. If the government is good, then it should arrest Hunter Biden. It's as simple as that.
4. Hunter
Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him
These Twitter users, and other defenders of Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior, are not genuinely sympathetic towards Hunter Biden. No normal person would react to the possibility that a man in his mid-40s may have raped a minor child, with sentiments expressing more of a focus on their sympathy for Biden than for the impressionable child who was taken advantage of.
Rest assured that a fair quantity of Hunter Biden's defenders actually think that what he did is awesome. If you ask enough of them, eventually one of them will admit that they think having sex with underage strippers and doing cocaine is “the life” and “the American dream”.
Well, excuse me, but I want an American dream in which children do not have to sell themselves for sex, and become coke whores and strippers, and suck old rich guys' dicks in yachts in international waters, in order to earn what they need to survive and thrive. I want an American dream in which every child is fed, and every person is given shelter, and nobody can be pressured to sell their body, or accept unwanted flirting, in order to live comfortably.
5. Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators
The culture against body-shaming has thus morphed into a culture which is against all forms of shame in general. And there is nobody who is less deserving of protection from shame than Hunter Biden. For one, he is obviously attractive and fit, and probably has not experienced much body-shame.
Except for some perhaps undue attention to his five-o'-clock shadow in the leaked photos, which make him look almost completely different from his over-made-up, kabuki-like mannequin look that he sported when stumping for his father in campaign videos. It's too bad the make-up people did such a good job! Biden's defenders have even said “That's not Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden looks like the over-made-up mannequin we saw in the Joe Biden campaign videos.” It's Hunter alright.
But, getting back to the point, Biden needs no protection from shame. What makes you think that Biden is even ashamed of what he has done? Or that his supporters are ashamed of what he has done, instead of thinking that he's pushing boundaries and being a rock star?
Shameless people do not need any protection from shame. They already have denial, and their own narcissistic egos and insane defense mechanisms, to protect them from ever having to feel the shame for what they have done. Narcissists, and psychopaths / sociopaths, do not experience remorse in the same way that other people do. They are incapable of accepting that they caused someone hurt or harm. They have every tool they need to rationalize-away what they did, and minimize its damage, and make others feel ashamed about completely unrelated things that they might have done, in order to avoid feeling shame, and in order to delay and deny the delivery of the consequences.
Anti-shaming culture protects the guilty, who are covert and use their lack of shame and remorse to convince themselves that they're not guilty, and convince others of the same. They have convinced themselves that what they did wasn't wrong. They do not believe they have done anything wrong; that is why their attempts at deflection and minimization can seem so convincing. But the fact that they work hard to convince us that what they did wasn't wrong, or didn't happen, or isn't as bad as some would make it seem, does not mean that we have to tolerate immoral people who lack a conscience and fail to understand the harm they've done.
Child sexual predators do not need to be defended from having to experience shame as part of the consequences of their crimes. And whether they are defended from shame or not, they certainly do not need to be defended from prosecution and jail time.
Powerful and rich people who abuse children typically get off with a slap on the wrist. Hunter Biden has not been arrested yet. This means there is absolutely no reason to withhold criticism of him, based on these photos. He should be criticized, and loudly, so that – and until - the authorities do something about his possible crimes. These photos were apparently taken in Los Angeles, so the Los Angeles police or the county police should charge Biden with criminal sexual abuse of a child.
If he isn't arrested, then we should still be glad that we brought this issue to the public's attention, because being publicly shamed will then be the worst consequence he experiences as a result of what he did. Especially considering the fact that Biden might claim that the evidence is inadmissible since the photos were stolen. But if the person whom Biden gave his hard drive to, to repair, turned these photos over to authorities, and that is how we got them, then that argument would be wrong. It's not clear yet (at least to me) whether that evidence will be admissible or inadmissible if Hunter Biden is charged with statutory rape.
A simple answer of "I'm not guilty, I don't know what you're talking about" is not enough. Non-Disclosure Agreements (N.D.A.s) are not enough. As Richard Nixon said "The people have a right to know whether or not their president's a crook", we have a right to know whether our president and his son are child molesters. If we continue to deprive people of trials - whether they're terror suspects or child sexual abuse and assault survivors - then we have a failed state on our hands. Charges must be filed against Hunter Biden, which obligate him to prove that his stripper girlfriend was of age.
6. Shamelessness Helps Karens and Cancel Culture Resisters
We should wonder whether anti-bodyshaming culture has combined with the Karen culture, and with the culture that wants to protect racists, and rapists, and fascists from experiencing consequences for their actions (even non-violent, legal consequences, to which they react like vampires having the curtains pulled open on them in the middle of the day).
Apparently, some white right-wing conservatives and Republicans, and some neo-liberal middle-class suburban white women, believe that they have the right to be blatantly homophobic and racist in public, to the point where it interferes with people's ability to avoid feeling shame at the fact that they are black, or transgender, etc..
They believe that nobody has a right to resist them, and that if you call the police on them for cutting black people off in traffic, and screaming at them and calling them the N-word, then you are shaming them. Additionally, you are putting their life in danger because they might get fired when their employer finds out they're a toxic racist who likes to terrorize certain groups of people because they're different.
This may seem unrelated to Hunter Biden, but virtually the same thing is going on here. Someone white, who is in a position of wealth or power, is committing a crime against a person of a lesser status. Hunter Biden raped a minor, and old white women get away with being racist against black people by screaming in fear and pretending they're being attacked. And then calling the cops on the person they're attacking, for attacking them.
In the same manner, when Donald Trump criticized Hunter Biden in the first presidential debate of 2020, Democrats rushed to defend Hunter Biden, many of them having no clue about what the worst things were, that he was suspected of doing. (Note: I will remind you that the photos of Hunter Biden originally leaked no later than October 2020, when the debates were occurring.) So an accusation of sexual impropriety - even of raping a child - is now treated as an attack in this country, because it puts the person at risk.
This is what happens in a culture in which there is a taboo against “making people feel shame”. People take it as free rein to be racist, sexist homophobes who rape children. And then the seriousness of what they did is diminished by the legal system that doesn't take it seriously, and sentences the child rapist to a few classes, or reading some pamphlets about how to avoid being so "stupid" and "careless" that you "accidentally" rape children all the time. You made a mistake! Read a book. No therapy necessary.
People accused of sex crimes and hate crimes may tell us, “You can't do this to me.” Well, that was probably what your victim was saying while you were victimizing him or her! “My reputation is at stake.” Your pleas do not exist in a vacuum. Something brought this on. You should have thought about your reputation, and your money and your job, before you decided to rape a child, or cut off a black person in traffic and scream racial epithets at them.
For each “Karen”, there are many other victims aside from the one black guy that one Karen was caught cutting off. And one reason they're called Karens is because many people behave this way. And like the “Karen” who gets caught one time cutting off a black guy in traffic, Hunter Biden likely has other underage victims, and there are certainly other people like Hunter Biden in politics (and likely in the energy industry as well).
A single photo of a probably underage girl next to Hunter Biden, both nearly undressed, may not be enough to prove that Hunter Biden raped a minor. But combined with what else we know about the Biden family, and the way our government typically deals with wealthy people accused of child molestation and rape, should indicate that something bigger is going on here. Don't forget that Hunter Biden's now deceased brother Beau praised a Delaware prosecutor who let DuPont heir Robert H. Richards IV off with a light charge for his sex crimes against his very young son and daughter.
It's likely that Hunter Biden is involved with sex trafficking in Ukraine, very likely involving minors, or at least, very young women. It's likely that Hunter Biden is not just “having sex with, and partying with, strippers who happen to be underage”. Maybe he used his position of superior wealth and power to coerce some poor family into giving up a daughter, like Jeffrey Epstein did with the help of Jean-Luc Brunel.
But even if Biden didn't seek out a girl in as direct a manner as that, it's likely that he used his position to enrich himself at the expense of the people of Ukraine, which indirectly resulted in political turmoil and poverty, which would have made Ukrainians more financially desperate, and thus more likely to consider resorting to “uncouth” measures in order to make ends meet.
We don't know what happened. There needs to be a trial. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some general “anti-shame-ism” culture, treat Hunter Biden like an underage baby who didn't know what he was doing, and wants to stop the big mean man from putting the “shame-cuffs” on him. I just hope that "cannibal-shaming" Armie Hammer isn't next!
This man was 47 years old, having sex with a girl who was probably no older than 17. The age of consent in California is 18. Hunter Biden needs to be criminally charged.
7. Shamelessness Robs Children of Their Childhoods
There are several unspoken rules in American society. One is “Do not discuss religion or politics”. Following this rule has led to silence on the issue of corruption in government and the Church. Another rule is “Don't take from another man's plate”, or “Don't interfere with the way someone else makes his money.”
But should that really extend to child traffickers? People like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, whom for years, worked in close proximity with people sharing Biden's wealthy, elite profile?
This generalized culture against shame, defends teenage girls who want to become prostitutes the best of all. After all, if you body-shame a child, you must be some kind of sick, pedophilic monster! Why else would you be interested in a child's welfare, unless you wanted to have sex with them!? After all, there is no reason to pay attention to children other than for sexual purposes, and that's how every normal adult thinks. Right?
Because it's totally normal for every adult - as a part of being an adult - to be obsessed with their appearance, and body, and sexuality, to the point where it's a focal point of their identity, and even the basis of their political opinions. Young people today act as if having gay sex automatically makes them woke, or a socialist, or a minority who is entitled to more rights than others, because they've been oppressed. Like a high school boy can suck a dick, and all of a sudden he's Harvey Milk or Marsha P. Johnson. Sucking a cock doesn't make you a communist; it makes you a cocksucker. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The point being: sexual liberation is not, by itself, a complete or cohesive political ideology.
Gender identity has become the most important identity among the younger generation. Numerous articles have been written, which criticize the sexually-obsessive undertones of "gender reveal parties" (which have caused several wildfires). Kids today grew up with their parents hyper-focusing on their children's bodies - dressing them in tight clothes, and adult clothes, making them look like little grown-ups - and many of them have shared embarrassing or revealing photos or videos of their children on social media before they are old enough to be able to consent to it. The worst parents think of their children in terms of what their kids can do for them some day, and think about their kids' potential to start working early, and eventually be used and sold for their parents' profit.
If kids grow up to think there's nothing wrong with talking about their sexuality constantly, then they will have no cause to suspect it's creepy when an adult fixates on their sexuality. So shut the fuck up about your stupid fucking pussy!
Being obsessed with one's appearance, and constantly talking about other people's appearances, has become so normal for adults, that now, we're also going to make children feel ashamed if they don't succumb to other kids' pressure to wear revealing clothing, wear lots of makeup, dancing provocatively, and having sex prematurely. Any child who minds being stared at, must be hiding something! It's a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset, but the aim is to prove guilt rather than innocence.
The anti-bodyshaming culture happens to work well with, and is easily cloaked by, the culture of bullying virgins and virgin-shaming in schools. According to this widely accepted culture, which is rarely regarded as the bullying which it is, any child who doesn't want to have sex early, isn't cool! And, so the twisted "logic" continues. Roughhousing, fun and games, risky behavior, pressuring other kids during "Truth or Dare" games... this is just part of being a child nowadays!
If you don't want children to be in danger of being objectified and exploited by adults - and only pushed into certain professions like dancing and contortion because adults are looking for excuses to touch and ogle their bodies - then you are shaming kids "for being kids".
Any child who doesn't want to get a titty-twister, and get pushed into the pool, deserves it, because they're intruding on other kids' good time! So some children's right to have fun, apparently pre-empts and negates other children's rights to safety and innocence and decency, and their right to say no.
Being embarrassed or ashamed is the worst thing you can possibly do, among young people these days. It is practically a sin to feel shy, humiliated, or afraid, all of which are "negative" emotions. The phrase "U mad bro?" is often used on the internet to poke fun at, or shame, someone who is angry or frustrated. All of this creates a culture in which children and young people are afraid to voice objections, complain, or alert others when they feel uncomfortable. We are creating a culture in which kids are not free to say no.
We are treating children as if they have a right to be protected from knowing how much danger they are in. Forgive me for "danger-shaming" children, but I believe that children should look and act like children. They should not have to suffer so much hyper-focusing on their appearance, and celebration of and attention to their sexuality, because that robs them of their childhood. Warning children that people are trying to shame them about their looks, while disguising it as being against body-shaming, doesn't rob kids of their childhoods.
Telling a child to wear more make-up, or telling a transgender person that they need to pass - and saying that doing so will make them feel better about themselves - is body-shaming. You are telling them that they are not currently acceptable, the way they look. That is body-shaming, disguised as body positivity. Some of these people who are against body-shaming are thus secretly in support of it.
Additionally, telling a minor what clothes or make-up to wear, is grooming. It's only pedophile grooming when it involves unwanted touching. But adults who want to see children in tight clothes - like Abby Lee Miller, and parents of girls who take dance classes, and child molesting gymnastics coach Larry Nassar - will often obsess over what girls are wearing, in order to control what they are wearing. Larry Nassar prohibited his female students from wearing anything under their leotards. He may have had rational-sounding explanations for this rule - probably that underwear would restrict flexibility - and he probably got away with that excuse for a while because "he's the expert", and you wouldn't want to question him! How do we know he didn't make that rule so he could ogle the girls' genitals more clearly? How do we know he didn't pursue control over what they did with their leotards, so that he could steal them, or sniff them, or wear them?
There is no reason not to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior which could be pedophile grooming. By the time you would notice behavior like that, it is usually too late, and something has already happened to your child. Always relentlessly question any adult's attempt to make your child submit to touching, or control over their clothing, even if that person claims to be an expert on something. The risk to your children is too great, to worry about whether you are shaming your child for "being excessively free with their body", when what they are actually doing is submitting their body to the control of adult authorities whom you barely know. You can shut the fuck up with your nonsensical grasping at straws, and rationalizing, and trying to find something wrong with what a man is telling you about how children should be protected. Men have as much of a right to try to protect children as women do, and we don't have time to debate all the "what-ifs" that a rationalizing woman might come up with, to justify her own child's "freedom of sexual expression" (outside of her own bedroom) while also justifying her own promiscuity as a teenager. Just because you were a slut in high school, doesn't mean your kid has to be on Dance Moms, and then come out as gay and have a million grown-ass adults talking non-stop on Twitter about what effectively amounts to the fact that your daughter wants to eat pussy. I'm talking about Jojo Siwa. And I have nothing against her, nor do i wish to make an issue of her sexuality, nor do I wish to dwell on "How are parents going to explain Jojo being gay, to their children?". Jojo Siwa did nothing wrong. Her dumbass mother chose to put her on a show for pedophiles. The girl is innocent; she's a minor and can't be held legally responsible for becoming an Illuminati mind-controlled sex slave. The producers of that shitty show for pedophiles and child molesters are the ones who did that to her and her family. They are the reason Jojo Siwa had to live apart from her father and brother for several years. The need to be rich and famous broke her family up temporarily. She is not alone in this.
Some American women have become so obsessed with their appearance, that they derive their entire sense of self-worth from how they look. Not just to the point where covering themselves with make-up makes them feel unashamed enough to go out the door, but also to the point where the fact that they look good covers for the fact that they are shitty, toxic, amoral human beings who value nothing except artifice and materiality and appearance.
Billy Crystal's impersonation of Fernando Llamas described the 1980s version of this attitude perfectly: "It is better to look good, than to feel good." Now the sentiment is "It is more important to look good, than to be a good person." This sentiment is what allowed Shane Dawson to grasp onto his fifteen minutes of fame, long after everybody knew he was a pedophile, by beginning to film and post videos of himself applying layer after layer of multicolored make-up to his face. Dawson evidently thought, "As long as you look like a pretty transsexual clown with a big fake smile, you can talk about looking up pictures of naked babies all day long." Maybe if he had started applying make-up a day earlier, young people wouldn't have cancelled him.
The culture against shame thus protects both sexual predators and their victims, whether they're good looking or not, and whether they're bad people or not. This, and the culture against victim-blaming, combine, to tell us that there is nothing a victim can ever do to put themselves in a dangerous situation! Pointing out that a girl shouldn't become a prostitute, is now victim-blaming and victim-shaming, because you're unfairly assuming that the sex trade is dangerous.
And it is certainly true that you shouldn't be a creep. If you invite a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked. Excuse me, but did I miss something? Miss Peck evidently believes that there is nothing intrinsically creepy about asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked.
Rape victims are never at fault. However, the culture of female empowerment has become stubbornly headstrong, in the face of criticism. Some of that criticism of feminism is deserved, and some of it is not. That debate aside, some feminists treat adult women as so competent, and so empowered, that it's almost as if they could never lose control, and get raped.
That line of logic is actually a form of victim-blaming in its own way, because it causes men to worry that it would seem sexist to suggest that a woman could ever get raped. If you are drunk or on drugs, or a very young adult or a virgin, you could probably benefit from a few words of caution about sexual predators now and then! Just because Camille Paglia and her cohorts were right to fight against the universities' overly protective attitude towards young adult women, doesn't mean that everybody who is not a woman, is being overly protective towards young women.
I know a guy whose girlfriend left him for a guy that we had previously nicknamed "Stabby Jack". We called him that because he stabbed people. We had long since stopped hanging out with him after he tried to stab a friend of ours for throwing a donut at him. My friend tried to warn his girlfriend about Jack, and she refused to listen. I don't know if anything bad happened, but the point is that we have the right to tell people things they may not want to hear.
The fact that I'm observing that lots of men are rapists, or potential rapists - and saying that you should protect yourself - doesn't mean I'm victim-blaming! The fact that men are pigs does not relieve you of the duty to protect and defend yourself when and if no man will. Yet it is almost impossible to caution a woman or girl about danger, and to try to anticipate possible dangers, without being accused of blaming the victim.
As if a single woman not being disgusted by the sight of Harvey Weinstein naked in the shower, means that nobody has the right to assume that Weinstein suddenly appearing naked before them, could possibly be interpreted as an awkward sexual advance. There's nothing awkward about it, because there is no shame! We are in Heaven, where God has relieved us of our shame, as if we were in the Garden of Eden! Harvey is free to show all the angels, and creatures of the Earth, the filthy naked disgusting body he was born in, and nobody gets to "shame" him by telling him to keep his penis to himself! It's God's penis now! It's everybody's! We're all in a holy marriage with God and Harvey Weinstein's penis!
Fuck off!
But no, you're shaming the teenage girl on the basis of her profession - nude model, or whore, or child erotic dancer (or "rhythmic gymnast", as they're called now) - which she clearly chose of her own volition! Having so many additional skills and opportunities to consider, at the age of eighteen! Right? And the girls on Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras, I'm sure they gave fully informed consent to be involved in a show like that, since children are deemed as capable of consent for commercial purposes nowadays, as long as their parents "consent on their behalf".
The girls on these shows have no idea what kind of damage it will cause them, to have appeared in these shows, until they reach an age at which they are capable of consenting, and of fully understanding the consequences of allowing adults to dress them up and film them dancing in a cage, or on a stripper pole, et cetera. They will not understand what harm it did to them, and understand what it means to grow up famous in front of a large audience (including possibly having information about their sexuality or sexual history revealed in a very public manner).
But - we are told - discrimination on the basis of profession is wrong! Everybody knows that sex work is not something to be ashamed of; it is no less shameful than any other job! So just because it is no less shameful than other jobs, it must be something dignified, right? The fact that a prostitute doesn't want to work on an oil rig, must mean that prostitution is all fun and games, and that oil is good for seals and penguins and polar bears because the oil workers don't want to suck any cock. But does that make sense? Is there pride in sucking cock for money, just because you can use "whataboutism", think of a profession that seems worse, and point to it?
By that measure, Hunter Biden didn't have sex with a ten-year-old, so it's almost like he didn't do anything wrong. By that measure, only the single worst person alive should ever be in prison, and all the other criminals should go free because what they did wasn't as bad.
9. Shamelessness Promotes a Culture of Silence About Objectification
You and I have every right to warn teenage girls against “getting a sugar-daddy” (a/k/a becoming a child prostitute), and Democrats have no right to shame me for wanting to protect children. How about that? How about "Don't innocence-shame me", or "Don't prude-shame me"?
We have the right to caution impressionable children against getting too many piercings and tattoos, and having sex, at too young an age. We have the right to caution children against the evils of imbibing the deadly neurotoxin alcohol if their parents are irresponsible alcoholic asses. We may risk being labeled "body-shamers" for cautioning children that dancing on TikTok and Instagram, or appearing on Abby Lee Miller's Dance Moms, is likely to lead to their exploitation and objectification, but we retain the right to bring this to their attention nonetheless.
Most girls in this position are being exploited by their parents, so who are we to say that we have no individual responsibility to stop such an active case of child abuse? Did John Brown reckon that he had no responsibility to set slaves free, since the slave-masters weren't personally bothering him too much? No. This affects all of us.
If we all have the right to be protected from shame, then where is my protection from the shame I feel when the defenders of child predators try to make me feel powerless to protect children?
Teaching people not to be ashamed of their bodies, has nothing to do with our right to caution teenagers that sex work is dangerous. It is not "conservative", nor "conformist", nor "uncool" to be worried that an 18-year-old (or younger) who "enters the sex trade" (i.e., allows themselves to be captured as a sex slave, if they're still a minor) will come to harm.
Ron Paul once said that "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear." We have the right to tell people that prostitution, and "having a sugar daddy" is dangerous. And spending the prime of your youth having sex with old people for money, isn't exactly something to be proud of. It's not so shameful that you should kill yourself, but it's shameful enough that you should ask yourself whether you were taken advantage of.
Is that really so crazy to suggest?
10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of Anti-Negativity
The culture against bodyshaming can also be characterized as a pro- "body positivity" movement. The phrase "body positivity" exists because everything in our society has to be positive. Just as we have a problem with shame in our society, because it's “negative”.
“Being negative” is apparently the worst thing you can do, in a society that's evidently still drunk on the feel-good, pro-human, positive vibes that they discovered in the 1990s. If you complain, you're being negative, and you should relax and be positive.
If you criticize your government, you're being negative. Don't worry about it. If you report a crime, or abuse against yourself, you're being negative. Forget about it, it's not a big deal, nothing will probably ever be done about it anyway. If you're so sad or depressed from the government not doing anything about the molestation or rape that you endured that you want to kill yourself, you're being negative. Cheer up! It's your responsibility to be happy all the time.
Even if you're sad, distract yourself with happy thoughts, and "put on a happy face" for others. Or else you're "being a bummer" and "you need to bring something to the table if you want others to treat you with respect".
This is the attitude of a society that would have no problem if the authorities started taking unproductive and unhappy people behind a shed and shooting them. We are already being divided into "essential" and "non-essential" workers, and strikes are done by government permission. We're not far from that fascist vision of the future.
We are not supposed to fake happiness for our friends and family members the same way we are paid to pretend to be happy at work. And even that can result in depression, and possibly even a "split personality disorder" such as dissociative identity disorder. Employees at Tokyo Disneyland experienced this first-hand.
Our society is so vehemently against all things negative, that even liking things and having preferences have been attacked. A British school once reprimanded a girl for having a best friend. The rationale goes like this: having a favorite, or a best friend, implies that all the other choices are "bad", and that's negative, and therefore not allowed. It's also hierarchical and discriminatory, in the minds of neo-liberal schoolteachers who are trying to get credit as being "woke".
We must not let this cult of positivity and shamelessness blind us to the need to improve society, and to file charges and arrest people suspected of crimes so we can have trials for them and find out whether they're actually guilty.
Maybe we need a little shame every now and then. This society clearly needs at least a small dose of it. Hunter Biden, the Karens, and the fascists in the Republican Party clearly need it.
12. Author's Note on Additional Resources
I have previously written on the topics of Hunter
Biden's sex crimes, and the objectification of children. Those
articles are available here:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-your-children-are-sexualized-and.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/joe-bidens-son-hunter-does-drugs-next.html
Written and published on January 29th, 2021
Edited
and Expanded on January 30th and 31st,
February 3rd and 6th, and May 8th, 2021
Meme added on June 23rd, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment