▼

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

The Right to Remain Innocent: Insisting That "Nothing Children Do is Sexual" Puts Kids in Danger


Table of Contents

1. Introduction: "Nothing Kids Do is Sexual" is False

2. Grooming, Denial, and Desensitization

3. Saying "Nothing Kids Do is Sexual" is Dangerous

4. When "Letting Kids Be Kids" Puts Children in Danger

5. Children's Freedoms: What Are They?

6. Author's Notes




Content



1. Introduction: "Nothing Kids Do is Sexual" is False

      Many people seem to agree that “nothing children do is sexual”. That is a perfectly reasonable position, if by that, they mean “nothing children do should be sexually arousing to adults”.

     However, “sexual” and “sexually arousing” are not the exact same thing. There is certainly some overlap, but only when, and because, people fail to properly articulate the difference between them. "Sexually arousing" is more specific than "sexual", by which I mean "having to do with (i.e., pertaining to) sexuality, sexual attraction, or the genitals / reproductive system".
     I bring up the fact that children have sexual urges, and masturbate, in order to demonstrate that the idea that “nothing children do is sexual” is patently false.

     Children exploring themselves in the privacy of their own rooms, is fine. But it is, no doubt, sexual; because what they are doing pertains to their sexual organs / genitalia. 
     But to point out that children's sexual self-exploration is sexual, is not the same thing as stating that it is sexually arousing, or should be sexually arousing. The act of noticing that children have sexual urges, does not, by itself, sexualize children. If it did, then medical science itself could be described as sexualizing children.
     I do not bring up children's sexual urges, in order to justify sexual activity between children and adults. Nothing could justify that. I bring up the fact that children have sexual urges in order to explain that it is possible for children to "do something sexual". This is to say that it is possible for children to be introduced to sex, sexual content, and sexual context - and possible for them to be traumatized by sexual activity - regardless of their age.
      The idea that “nothing kids do is sexual” is false, because we know that children masturbate, and we know that minors have sexual fantasies.

    Children have these feelings and do these things, and we should be able to admit these facts without  “sexualizing” children, and also without being said to have sexualized children when we have not.
     The only people who want to pretend that "sexual" and "sexually arousing" aren't different things, are people who want to confuse us into thinking that anyone and everyone who points out that a child is being objectified, is perverted themselves.
     They want us to be scared into refraining from even talking about the subject of child sexual abuse, which has the effect of guaranteeing that children will never be rescued from abusive situations. This is the so-called "conspiracy of silence" which has loaned its name to the title of a documentary about child sexual abuse.




2. Grooming, Denial, and Desensitization

     It seems that some people are so unwilling to admit that kidnapping and child rape are as serious and widespread the problems as they are, that they have become defensive, and are in denial about the dangers which children face.

     They are in denial about the fact that the way some parents are leading and expecting and conditioning their children to behave, is excessively focused on their appearance, hygiene, dress, and/or make-up. Rewarding the child for looking "cute" or "pretty" or "attractive" too much, can have the effect of "grooming" the child to accept unwanted touching or flirtation. So can conditioning a child to kiss you too often in order to get what they want.
     Sometimes, parents' direction or negligence can even condition children to casually accept touching from adults, when that touching should be recognized as flirting.

     Parents reinforce children's complicity in grooming when they coach their children to look attractive at work, or tell the child to "kiss the cop's ass a little bit" if they are pulled over for a moving violation.     Many such girls are unaware that simply dressing attractively at the job site can attract uninvited flirtatious attention. This is not to blame the women, though; bosses want things this way.
     If the child voices any objection to being groomed (or being conditioned to accept grooming, which is often indistinguishable from grooming itself), the parent rationalizes their concerns away, and makes it clear that the child must learn to accept that people judge them instantly based on their appearance. Parents act as if the fact that many people are judgmental, justifies conditioning girls to devote huge amounts of their attention, time, and money, to their appearances; and to dress attractively at their first jobs.
     Not voicing objection to these behaviors, is thus the price children are learning to pay, for receiving accolades in school and other opportunities.



     It's very sad and disturbing that I actually have to write the next few sentences. It says something about the times in which we're living.
     But if parents can make their kids dance in a cage, or grind on a stripper pole – and it's supposedly not child molestation – then what would these parents do, if they actually witnessed an adult touching their child's genitals?
     

     Breasts, armpit hair, and pubic hair are not the genitalia, but they are secondary sex characteristics. If some adult is making jokes about your kid's pubic hair, and won't stop, then you need to stop rationalizing and denying, and keep your child away from that person. And you should certainly not allow your child to perform for that person, nor take artistic direction from them.
     The mere fact that they are not directly talking about your kid's actual penis or vagina itself, should not put you at ease. If we keep saying "Nothing kids do is sexual", then the next thing we know, we'll be saying "Touching children's breasts, armpits, and feet is not sexual."
     These are the consequences of letting possible child rapist Bill Clinton teach our children that oral sex is not sex.


     To put it bluntly: "Nothing kids do is sexual, because children are by definition innocent and not sexual?" Wouldn't that imply that a child can disrobe, or even masturbate, in front of strangers, and it's automatically not sexual, because it's a child?
     If nothing kids do is sexual, then by that logic, someone could molest them, and it wouldn't be sexual.
     If sexual means "pertaining to sex" instead of "arousing", then "Nothing kids do is sexual" is clearly false.
          If you touch a child's genitals, it will elicit something resembling a sexual response. The fact that a sexual response is triggered, does not always mean that the touching is desired. This would be like if a woman told a man "I know I didn't take advantage of you because you had an erection." As Oprah has explained, child sex predators will often subject their victims to pleasurable touch in order to confuse them into thinking that they liked it and consented.
     Admitting that the child will feel the touching as something sexual, is not admitting attraction to children; it is admitting that a child can be traumatized by sexual touching even if the child has not yet entered puberty.


     Children are capable of being exploited sexually, because children have genitals. The fact that they experience sexual feelings does not make it OK for adults to abuse them, nor does the fact that they have genitals.
     But in this new way of "thinking", to notice that there is something sexual about an adult touching a child's genitals - or about a child grabbing his crotch while dancing like Michael Jackson in front of thousands of people - would itself be perverted. Almost as if to molest a child at a young enough age, would remove all sexual context from the act, and maybe even all possibility of sexual gratification or arousal, on the part of both the adult and the child's, as well. This is obviously not true.
     This line of twisted logic is nothing but pedophile-enabling grooming which is intended to desensitize us to child sexual abuse and confuse us about at what age it is possible for sexual activity to traumatize a child. It is possible at all ages.
     Some parents attempt to rationalize-away the idea that they should do something about the abuser. The Talmud makes numerous excuses for raping girls under three years old, using the same kind of twisted logic (about how the injury will go away, and how it's as if it never happened).
     But it doesn't matter if the child forgets the abuse, or physically recovers from it. The child may still recover the memory later in life. Sometimes the trauma will fester subconsciously for years before those memories are recovered, causing the child all sorts of unexplainable suffering.
     We are not a civilized society as long as we continue to cling to "logic" that could someday lead us to conclude that "your child wasn't raped, because he was too young for anything sexual to be able to happen to him."

     These lines of twisted logic are nothing but pieces of pedophile-enabling grooming propaganda, which are intended to desensitize us to child sexual abuse, and confuse us about at what age it is possible for sexual activity to traumatize a child, and for sexual context or content to be introduced to children. It is possible at all ages.
     To insist that “nothing children do is sexual” too steadfastly, is to ignore, and consciously deny, all reasonable objections to placing children in what any rational person should be able to recognize as sexual contexts and sexual situations.


     Some adults have paraphilias ("kinks") for certain body parts, such as feet, armpits, and pubic hair. Understanding this is crucial to being able to detect when a potential child molester is fixated on some (supposedly) "non-sexual" body part of your child (or someone else's child), and to understanding how a non-sexual body part can be sexualized by someone with a perverted mind.
     Nickelodeon writer Dan Schneider has a foot fetish. He was filmed, on the set of iCarly, dragging teen actress Jennette McCurdy by her feet.
     Schneider snuck foot-related sketches and jokes into his shows for years undetected. Some people who know about Schneider have even surmised that Nickelodeon's foot logo (seen below) is some sort of veiled reference to Schneider's foot fetish.



     In fact, Dan Schneider's writing - and the acting of another pedophile named Brian Peck - have provided Nickelodeon's child audience with years of "immature gross-out comedy desigend for kids" which is actually cleverly-concealed humor based on child grooming.
     McCurdy has now gone public about this, quit acting, and published a book about her exploitative mother.

.

     Proceeding from the idea that we should “let kids be kids”, what now dictates whether a child is being molested, is the child's ability to recognize the behavior as sexual, rather than whether the adult is touching the child for the adult's own purposes of sexual gratification.
     As long as the child's parents are capable of denying – and rationalizing-away – the problematic, hypersexualizing, exploitative nature of what they are teaching their child to do, then nobody else gets to criticize the parents' final decision. This is excused on the grounds that, if a parent is legally considered the child's guardian, then there is probably some actual active guarding going on. That would be a misguided assumption to make.

     We cannot continue putting the responsibility on children (most of whom don't even know what sex is yet) - instead of the parents - to recognize that something that's happening to them, is sexual. Yet that is what we are doing, each time we say “let kids be kids” to people who are only warning us that we are putting our children in harm's way.
     Parents should be jailed for repeatedly allow their children to be near, or be seen by, someone whose intentions are sexual.





3. Saying "Nothing Kids Do is Sexual" is Dangerous


     The Democratic Party, which once exalted itself as the party that cares about children, and the party of “it takes a village to raise a child”, has emphasized improving children's health and freedom from work at the expense of increasing children's safety from sexual predators. The Democrats have become distracted, by their lust for power, from the need to protect children. And, in some cases (Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, probably the Podesta brothers, etc.), their lust for actual children themselves.
     The Left used to consistently criticize the exploitation of children, though. Friedrich Engels, for example, called to an end to child exploitation, in the workplace and elsewhere. Some communists believed that communal raising of children could reduce child abuse; it would at least reduce the rates of abuse by the child's own biological parents.
     But now, with the rise of the deliberately transgressive social "values" of the Left (whose values have been poisoned by the neoliberals who run the Democratic Party) the Left's concern for children's welfare has largely dissipated, outside of their need for education and health services. Being concerned about children's physical safety, and right to remain unmolested, is, by and large, considered a "fringe" issue, or even a "conspiracy theory".


     As a result of this distraction, it is now deemed “bullying” to criticize parents who let their children dress inappropriately, or dance in manners which could be perceived as provocative, in public. If you don't want children to dance on stripper poles or in cages for adults' entertainment on TLC's Toddlers and Tiaras – and you talk about it on the internet – then you are “bullying” the child who you think is being exploited.
     “Shame on you, that kid might commit suicide!” Ridiculous, isn't it? If the child commits suicide, it's not going to be because people are criticizing their parents' decisions; it's going to be because the child is being treated like an object by its parents in the first place. A child whose parents care more about the possibility that the child's actions will lead to more money and attention for the parents, than about their child's dignity and honor, is being bullied by its parents.

     Children are usually not the ones who decide to put revealing or provocative photos or videos of themselves onto the internet; it is usually done under the parents' direction, management, and "supervision". But even when the parent is not directing the child to do these things, the parent still gave them access to the phone, and probably set up the account for their child. It's the parents who are at fault, not the children. That goes even when the child is the one who "decides" to post photos or videos; because children cannot make these decisions on their own.
     Most people understand that, but the idea that there are some things that children can do which parents' approval would never make acceptable.

     When parents objectify their children on the internet, they are not thinking about the bad things that could result from broadcasting photos and videos of their children, when they are at awkward stages of their life, and are still unable to give fully informed consent to the publication of photos and videos of them which they may regret later.
     Parents who use television shows or social media sites to display their children's bodies, for people they know are looking at them with intent of sexual gratification, are putting their children at risk of kidnapping by those people, and they are ignoring the possibility that their child could become a star, only to become addicted to drugs, or even die at a young age.
     I know that that is the worst-case scenario, but the fact that Jeffrey Epstein and his financiers have had ties to the fashion and beauty pageant industries, means that several industries which capitalize on girls' and young women's beauty, could potentially put unwitting females at risk.
     Not many mothers, who run their children's Instagram or TikTok accounts, seemed to know that just a few years ago.
     But after nine straight years of major sex crime busts at Disney, and grooming scandals involving men at Nickelodeon, it now seems appropriate to conclude that most mothers still trying to get their kids into the entertainment industry, know about these dangers, but simply don't care. To them, child actors are their children's competitors; not people who need to be protected.


     These days, we are not free to object to any level of child exploitation or child objectification, no matter how obvious. Only if a child is fully naked, dancing for money, is it deemed child exploitation.
     Nowadays, a bunch of adult males can get together at a bar, to watch a preteen boy dress in a belly-shirt, dance to Gwen Stefani (while impersonating Gwen Stefani, and lip-syncing to her singing about being just a girl), and nobody gets to say anything.
     As long as the boy doesn't take his clothes off, and there's no stripper pole, and nobody's throwing money at him, then he must not technically be a stripper, and there cannot possibly be anything wrong with what's happening.
     Does this sound like an exaggeration, or a stretch? Well, sadly, I didn't make that up. A boy who calls himself “Desmond is Amazing” did this in Brooklyn in 2019. His parents suffered no consequences, aside from a visit from New York Child Protective Services, and comments from some “haters” who evidently had the good sense to tell them that they're exploiting their child.

     The same boy can even dress as David Bowie, even though Bowie once raped a 13-year-old girl. Child actresses and girl singers can dress up as David Bowie for Halloween, and wear David Bowie T-shirts. Yet nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care, that kids the same age as groupies whom Bowie would probably try to rape, now idolize Bowie.
     Parents of girls who become David Bowie fans should tell their daughters that David Bowie raped either three or four girls between the ages of thirteen and sixteen years old, or else they should stop letting their daughters listen to child rapists, and not tell them the reason until they're old enough to understand.


     The fact that Desmond danced without a stripper pole was enough to allay most readers' worries. But even when there is a stripper pole present, all the warnings on Earth are no match for a modern parent's denial.
     In recent years, several mothers have danced with their daughters on stripper poles, and posted videos of it on the internet. When they received the inevitable backlash -  people criticized them for introducing their very young daughters to exotic dancing - they argued “It's just a dancing pole!”.
     Sadly, the age of the girl involved in the article below, was just three years old or younger.


     But it's not only dancing onstage half-naked, and on poles, that is off-limits, as far as criticizing parenting decisions goes. Kids can also use ketamine with adults now!
     “Desmond is Amazing” was only nine years old when he said “Everyone can do drag” and then explained how it's totally normal for a nine-year-old boy to snort ketamine (which was widely considered a date-rape drug until just five to ten years ago) with adults who are covered in kabuki-style pancake makeup!


     In 2019, I became aware that a child singer, who was then aged 15, was allowing people in the audience to touch her hands and forearms during her concerts. These audience members were not only children, but also adult males.
     This child singer got her first tattoo on her forearm in 2019, at age 15, and was allowing grown men to caress her forearms, where the tattoo was located.
     Also, the smell of alcohol was in the air, because the concert took place in a bar, and both children and adults were present. Additionally, when the singer took breaks to go off-stage, the music that played over the speakers was rap music that contained curse words. I heard a young woman complain to someone else that there were children in the room while the speakers were playing vulgar rap lyrics.
     Evidently, the fact that this girl wasn't doing all of the things that strippers do (like take their clothes off), is enough to justify allowing her to do some of the things that strippers do (like dance in front of adults).
     The audience should have asked themselves the following question: "Wait, adult men can caress 15-year-old girl singers on stage, but they can't touch adult women whose job it is to take their clothes off for money!?"
     This is not just a matter of me "reading too much into it". Adult men now have a place they can go, if they want to touch children on stage without getting to know their parents and asking if it's OK first. This should not be acceptable, yet it is accepted, because we accept everything now. We do this because accepting the way things are, is easier than changing things, and accepting it makes you feel like you're being tolerant, and makes you want to pat yourself on the back.
     It's a bullshit line of logic, it puts children at risk, and it's the reason why society's problems are getting worse.




4. When "Letting Kids Be Kids" Puts Children in Danger

     The idea that “nothing kids do is sexual” is supported by the equally fallacious notion that “letting kids be kids” means we should let them remain completely innocent, or as innocent as possible, about sexual matters, and about the sexual intent which other people might have, regarding them.
     We are saying "letting kids be kids", and letting kids walk or bike unattended to the corner store, wishing for the old days when we didn't have to worry about them getting abducted. And then we still let them go to the corner store. We pretend that nothing has changed. This is a deliberate confusion of reality with fantasy; yet people who say parents should watch their children more, are regarded as the ones who are living in a fantasy world.

     It's not that kids need to be told specific things about sex at a young age; they don't. All I'm saying is that many kids are told not to talk to strangers, and are told to beware of kidnappers, but aren't told exactly why. Some kids don't make the connection that most kidnappers want sex; some kids simply assume that kidnappers want ransom money from the parents.
     Kids, at the very least, deserve to know that kidnappers want to rape or molest them, or, at least, that, in general, they probably want to do something that involves unwanted sexual touching or violation that they will not enjoy. Children deserve a “good touch vs. bad touch” talk, they eventually need to be told that they are more likely to be abused by someone they know rather than by a stranger, and they deserve to be taught the accurate names for their genitals (so that people can't easily use secret names for genitals and sexual acts to trick kids into keeping those activities a secret).


     If “let kids be kids” means “let kids wear whatever they want when they're swimming” - or “let kids play outside in their underwear or bathing suits, and if someone is watching, then they're a creep, and it's not the kids' fault, and they shouldn't have to cover up” - then that's fine.
     But people who say “let kids be kids” to justify silencing people who are criticizing parents' exploitation of children and children's images, are off-base.
     If you want to "let kids be kids", then that needs to with taking at least the bare minimum of reasonable steps to ensure that they are adequately informed about the dangers of kidnappers; and also to guarantee that they will not come near, nor be seen by, nor perform for, people who may not respect their children for any reason aside from the monetary and sexual value which can be extracted from them.

     Criticizing parents for “displaying their children in public” would be creepy and unfounded. But if the “public” in which the parent is displaying the child, is the “public” that's on the internet, or in the entertainment industry, then the parent might be doing it for profit.
     That might point to the possibility that the child doesn't really want to be dancing, modeling, singing, doing gymnastics, swimming (or whatever they're doing), and that the parent is pressuring them.
     A parent who would pressure a child to do something, so that the parent can take pictures and put them on the internet, is a parent who probably doesn't care whether the child would object, or will regret it when the child becomes an adult.
     Such a parent might even be the type to directly condition a child to do things they know are inappropriate or uncomfortable for attention or money, or even actively sexually abuse or assault a child.
     This is not difficult to imagine as something that is widespread, if you consider how many mothers of girls allow them to drink alcohol and/or have sex with their boyfriends "so that they're not out having sex somewhere where they're not safe."
     Despite such mothers posing as "cool" or "liberal" - and rationalizing that they wish they'd had such freedom as children (the operative word here being "children) - they are actually endangering their daughters. We should also be wondering how many mothers allow their daughters to have sex in their own houses because they plan to seduce their daughters' boyfriends.
     Mothers need to stop worrying about trying to be their daughters' friends. Believe it or not, it is possible to parent a child too liberally.


     Parents' denial about the possibility that they are exploiting their children, has caused these types of twisted logic to emerge, surrounding the old adages of "let kids be kids" and "nothing kids do is sexual".
     These sayings used to promote and protect the innocence of children, but have now been turned on their heads, by pedophile enablers who want us to lower our guards.
     Take "Nothing children do is sexual" for example. This phrase means that means that children are, by definition, sexually innocent, so nothing they do should be perceived as sexual. And that is a fine idea that makes plenty of sense. But if this saying is kept short, and never elaborated upon, then it will remain not descriptive enough, and confusing.

     Because there are many mothers who steadfastly believe that absolutely nothing children do should ever be interpreted as sexual in any way, it is now impossible to warn mothers that their child is being sexualized, groomed, or sexually exploited or objectified.
     Thanks to these new lines of "logic" surrounding "Nothing children do is sexual" and "Let kids be kids" it's almost as if noticing that children are being exploited sexually, is a more heinous crime than if you were to actually exploit or abuse the child yourself. The parents' denial will always reign supreme over the objections of others.
     Now, the idea that “nothing children do is sexual” is being used to pretend that any and all people who criticized the exploitation must have been perverted enough to see something sexual in what the child did, in order to be “bothered” enough to criticize it.
     Basically, if you think a child is being exploited for their appearance, or otherwise being put on display for adults, then you're the pervert. Because “Who else, except a pedophile, would notice the sexual undertones which I didn't detect?”

     You did detect them, though. In fact, you willfully ignored, rationalized, and downplayed those sexual undertones away.
     Are these mothers really saying that they had absolutely zero sexual intent when they taught their five-year-old daughters to dance in a tight costume inside of a cage? Do they really think a person would have to be a pedophile to predict that instructing a little girl to perform a dance full of pelvic thrusts, for a room full of adult strangers, could potentially elicit reactions of sexual arousal in people who might be in attendance for the wrong reasons?
     These women know exactly what they are doing. They do it because they know that pedophile alpha males rule the world, and they will do whatever it takes to be materially comfortable in that world. And, of course, objecting to their child's exploitation would end that material comfort very quickly.



5. Children's Freedoms: What Are They?


     There has developed a sort of licentious acceptance, and apathy, about child abuse, which enables parents to continue to sexually exploit their children, as long as it is done for the sake of the child's "prospects" (as I have explained), or else for the sake of the child's ability to “express himself”.
     So now a kid taking his shirt off and shaking his ass for adults at a gay pride parade, while people film it and then upload it to the internet without getting the child's and parents' permission first - isn't “exploitation”, nor in any way inappropriate. Now it's “self-expression”!
   Is a kid shaking his ass for adults? [For example, minor children who dance at gay pride parades.] Do you have a problem with it? Well, now it's “self-expression", which is protected free speech.
     As dance, it could even be spun as artistic: “If you object to it, then I can't help that you have 'tastes in art' which are different from mine.” Or worse, as something patriotic: "If you don't want me to let my child twerk next to grown gay men, then you are a fascist who is trying to take away my First Amendment rights."

     Children's freedom no longer consists in the right to remain innocent, and in the right to play without being endangered. Children's freedom now only consists in children's freedoms to act like adults (while adults get infantilized); more specifically, to look more like how American culture's stereotypes of what good, patriotic, compulsive-purchasing hypermasculine and hyperfeminine adults tell them how to look.
     Our society is suffering from apathetic acceptance and normalization of child exploitation. It is through this normalization, that other parents become desensitized to noticing child exploitation, and become unable to tell the difference between a child who's being exploited, and one who's not. Eventually, the parent may simply stop responding when the child objects to what the parent is instructing the child to do, or the parent will stop caring that the child is objecting.
     The parent will override the child's objection, instead of doing what they should be doing, which is giving the child veto power over all situations which the child is even remotely worried about their safety being compromised. There is no point in screaming at your kid, telling him he's safe, if he is freaking out and crying and panicking and saying no.
     Many people will read the preceding passage, and conclude that this means that I want children to be able to refuse to eat broccoli and take baths, or even that I want children to make decisions that override their parents. Nobody could reach this conclusion except for a pedophile, a pedophile enabler, or a person who is in extreme denial. Any reasonable person will understand that I not talking about some imaginary sort of children's freedom from being given adequate nutrition if they don't "consent" to it; but rather, I am talking about physical safety, and safety from sexual predation and grooming.


     A parent who accepts child exploitation, thus cares nothing of the child's lack of ability to give informed consent without an adult's guidance. Or else the parent deems whatever minimal level of attention they given their child, “guidance” and “supervision”, making it OK for the child to drink, dance, smoke, swear, or even take drugs, “as long as an adult is watching them”.
     Well, excuse me, but since when does an adult watching you, necessarily make you safer? Remember Desmond is Amazing, dancing in a bar, near where alcohol was being served? Those adults were watching him pretty closely. But as long as they're watching him, then he's being supervised, right? Wrong! Many of those men were only watching his body so that they could jack off to the memory of him later.


     Just as Desmond's mother is doing to him, some women seem to be conditioning their daughters to be nothing more than objects intended for men's entertainment and viewing. But as long as these mothers can pass off their daughters' activities as “dancing”, “rhythmic gymnastics”, “ballet”, or “just having fun making videos on the internet”, then no man can criticize it.
     Some women even seem to take personally, the fact that many of the people criticizing these “parenting” decisions, are men.
     In the midst of this recent battle to stop the sexualization and exploitation of children on the internet (as well as the hyperfeminization and early feminization of young girls), two traditional ideas have taken hits: 1) the idea that growing up with at least one woman and one man in or nearby their household is essential to raising a well-rounded child; and 2) the idea that fathers deserve to have equal input regarding how their kids are raised (unless they have committed spousal abuse or child abuse).
     And spousal abuse must be punished. But we must not punish spousal abuse instead of ending the demonization of poor divorced fathers, and fathers who were wrongly accused of abusing their kids. We must not prosecute spousal abuse instead of ending the demonization of fathers who are trying to warn people that their child's mother, teacher, priest, coach, dance instructor, child modeling photographer, or anybody else, might be trying to groom or objectify their kid, or expose them to sexual material or conversation.
     We must repeal the 1994 Clinton crime omnibus bill, which was penned by the current President Joe Biden, because it took nearly twenty different types of guns out of the hands of American mothers (and fathers alike), while the Violence Against Women Act (a portion of the 1994 crime bill) promised women a form of protection which has proven itself far inferior to having a man to protect the house: the administration of a Social Security and child support system that makes fathers pay ransom to the state in order to see their children.


     The silencing of men who oppose child exploitation, has at least four negative consequences. These include the following:
     1) men, whom have historically caused most of the exploitation of females, are now being discouraged from voicing an objection to that exploitation, when a man speaking out would represent a “sea change” on the issue of gender relations;
     2) it puts all of the responsibility on women to criticize other parents, when women are already shouldering most of the burdens of parenting;
     3) the exploitation and abuse of children has become more difficult to detect and call-out when it is perpetrated by women; and
     4) the issue of men losing custody, is being ignored, which is extremely dangerous because removing a man from the household removes the member of the household whom is most capable of defending the family from the state (and from its possible attempts to take custody of children without cause).


     This insanity has got to end.

     Today's kids and young adults are being pushed through an amoral machine that's designed to turn them into either: 1) submissive wage-slaves who are effectively whores due to the way they are being objectified at work; 2) people with no skills, save for dancing like horny idiots; 3) outright child sex slaves and child prostitutes; or else 4) people who sell their children into prostitution.

     Child exploitation does not increase solely through exploitation on the job site, nor solely at the hands of government. It also increases due to lax social mores, which can be exacerbated by economic stressors.
     Sadly, the way this often manifests, is that unemployed parents are telling their kids to go to work, when the parents should be mature and stable enough to retain employment and make that sacrifice for their child (who risks dangers and unwanted flirting at the workplace).
     Economic stress and child exploitation both become rampant when those who have the most skills and the most control over the means of production, strategically withhold skills, education, and opportunities, from teenagers and young adults (any of whom might lose control of their life, and then resort to potentially dangerous sex work as a last-ditch effort to pay the bills).


     That is why we must fight child exploitation and child objectification on the economic front, the political front, and the social front alike. And we must teach our children that the sex trade is not always dangerous, and not always shameful, but can become dangerous or shameful quickly if they go into it without being cautious, realistic, and prepared to defend themselves.

     Take off the blinders. These behaviors are problematic. Noticing that they're problematic, isn't perverted, nor is it obscene. Noticing that children have sexual urges isn't obscene. What would be obscene, would be to fail to do something about the numerous widely condoned and legal forms of exploitation of children (in addition to the blatantly illegal forms of physical and sexual abuse of children).



     We have got to stop “shooting the messenger”, and shouting “pervert”, when people speak up about children who have no idea that they're being exploited for adults' sexual gratification; children whose guardians have abdicated their roles as protectors of their children's lives and innocence. They have not protected their children's innocence; but rather, their right to remain ignorant.

     There is no way we are going to be able to consider doing things like legalizing sex work for adults, nor establishing minimum ages for working and being party to contracts, until we establish and spread basic social mores which would limit adults' abilities to interact with children, based on an understanding that all adult-child interactions carry with them an extraordinarily high risk that intimidation will occur (whether intentional on the part of the adult or not).
     Otherwise, no child will be able to get even remotely famous or successful at an early age, without becoming objectified or exploited by adults. This is tragic, because, often, lack of financial independence is what causes children (and usually their mothers, as well) to become susceptible to child abuse.

     If wives and daughters do not achieve sufficient financial dependence from abusive fathers without risking becoming dependent upon bosses or welfare checks in a way that makes them susceptible to unwanted advances in the workplace, then girls will begin to grow up directly from children, up into strippers. This will happen so early and become so common, that it will become a part of our culture, which nobody can criticize, because everyone is doing it.
     This is peer pressure. This is group sacrifice of children, for the sake of demonic, public, ritual child sexual abuse. Children will never learn that being exploited on stage - or getting exploited in fields aside from entertainment - is unacceptable, until their parents learn that it is unacceptable first.

     This process has already taken root in Japan, where grown men can come to leer at prepubescent girls as they sing on stage, preparing to become pop music stars.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JywMhWnOQqk

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0df7k__KEHw

     And as you can tell by the stories above (about Desmond, and the 15-year-old child star with the tattoo who let adults touch her on stage, whom I mentioned), it is happening here in America as well.


     We must teach children that "drawing on themselves" with semi-permanent tattoos, permanent tattoos, and piercings at young ages – and dancing for adults, especially near where alcohol is being served – are not things to be proud of. Nor are they things that children should be able to decide by themselves. Nor, even, are they activities that a parent's approval and permission could ever make acceptable.
     We must teach them that these prohibitions are not to be cruel or harsh on them, but to keep them safe from adult predators who get off on seeing children mature too fast.

     Considering how few American parents are well-educated about the problem of sexual predators in our government, parents might not even be able to offer sufficient guidance, in a way that leads to a decision which acknowledges the child's dignity and the child's right to remain innocent.
     If a child insists that getting a tattoo or a piercing will help make them "cool", the parent usually doesn't consider whether the child is choosing a painful form of "self-expression" out of a misplaced desire to commit acts of self-harm.
     By this, I mean to say that some people who get piercings and tattoos, do so because they are socially acceptable forms of self-harm. There is a French saying that translates to "you must suffer in order to be beautiful."
     However, the kind of people I'm talking about might never guess that they are doing it to themselves because they are struggling with suppressed memories of trauma or abuse. They might never consciously think "I want to take the power to harm myself into my own hands", but they might do it anyway.
     By getting artistic works imprinted onto themselves, which can serve as beautiful calls for help, they can draw positive attention to themselves. Unfortunately, though, this only feeds the cycle of self-abuse; as the person's need for positive attention is satisfied, but for the wrong reason, while the very real self-harm (minor though it is) is being ignored as a sign of desire to self-harm. We would be foolish to assume that there exist no minors who experience the same thing.
     Moreover, sex traffickers have been known to "tag" or mark the people they traffic, with tattoos. It is a sad state of affairs when some people are getting painful tattoos to help them heal from sexual abuse, while other people are getting tattooed because they're getting taken as some pimp's or sex trafficker's property.

     No parent could possibly understand - let alone convey to their children - all the possible negative consequences which could result from getting a tattoo, getting pregnant, or having sex at an early age. The child can't be "guided" to the right decision, if the parent can't even warn the child of all the potential negative consequences.
     That's why adults need to work together to craft laws that protect children, while respecting the freedoms of adults, and confer an adequate amount of freedom upon children at the same time.
     So why are we allowing certain states to go on having no minimum age for marrying and tattooing as long as a parent and/or a judge says it's okay? Whose freedom does that promote?


     It's not that kids should be ashamed of doing these sorts of things, necessarily. They certainly shouldn't be bullied for it, anyway.
     But, to the point, it's their parents who guided them into those bad decisions. The parents should recognize that they are exposing their children to risks such as kidnapping and objectification, and the parents should be punished – not the kids – while the kids should be told that their parents instructed them to do something that was wrong, selfish, and potentially suggests mental illness.

     We must teach children - and parents as well - that painting children up like whores at young ages, and making careers out of looking pretty for adults and doing little else, are not dignified. The fact that many people consider sex work to be less shameful than other professions we could name, does not mean that teenage girls should be taught that they should start getting ready to become prostitutes when they are still in high school.


     There are some decisions that no children are mature enough to make; not even with a parent's guidance, and a judge's permission. This includes marriage, pregnancy, driving, drinking, taking drugs, and getting tattoos and intimate piercings (and, arguably, getting any piercings at all).
     Getting tattoos, before you're old enough to make long-term decisions about what permanent marks will be on your skin, is not glamorous. A girl should not look like a piece of luggage that's been shipped around the world before she's eighteen years old.

     Reducing yourself to little more than a work of art may seem glamorous. But to do this to yourself is an act of self-objectification. The fact that you do it to yourself, is not “empowering”, and it does not power away from anybody.
     It just allows you to reduce yourself to the level of an object, saving those who wish to objectify you, the expense, of having to start that process by themselves (which they do by grooming you, noticing things you're sensitive and self-conscious about, and making you vulnerable to flattery about your appearance).


     Tattooing is not just "drawing on yourself", it involves the act of allowing an adult to cause you pain for money. Old people should not be looking down at permanent artwork on their bodies, fifty years from now, thinking "I got that before I was old enough to consent to anything life-altering or permanent or painful" (all three of which tattooing is).
     Piercing and tattooing involve danger because they involve direct infliction of pain. Adults - who are, on average, larger, stronger, and more mature than children - have a responsibility to protect children from dangerous decisions, because are not wise enough to protect themselves.
     Unfortunately, we are approaching a point at which adults are not wise enough to protect children; or at least have willfully abdicated their duty to do so.

     Children are being publicly sacrificed for the sake of artistic self-expression; we must not deny this.

     Any parent who allows their child to be objectified for adults in such manners, should be looked at as if they were worse than a pimp. And they are worse than many pimps; because some pimps exclusively pimp adult women, and who leave children alone.


     Don't fall for cheap objectification. Don't yet others reduce you to the monetary value of your appearance and your image. Be a real person, not just a work of art. Respect yourself. Maintain your dignity and hold onto your innocence.
     Your dignity and innocence are more precious and valuable than anything you have, no matter how much others are willing to pay to see your other "talents", and no matter how much others are willing to devalue your innocence or cast doubt on its existence.


     We must not suffer those who question the innocence of children in order to justify "instructing" them about sex on the grounds that "they need to learn sometime". Anyone who talks like this is a sick person.
     When I attended the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the late 2000s, my "sociology of sex" professor announced that there would be an optional extra credit assignment in the course. He then held up the prize that would be given to the winner: a red T-shirt, with white letters that spelled "If you don't teach your kids about sex, I will."
     That might seem like a funny "inside joke", for academics working in the fields of sexual sociology and gender studies, because their job is to teach "kids" (really, eighteen-year-old adults) about sex. But ultimately, it is little more than a threat to rape people's children if they do not overwhelm their children with sexual information before they reach adulthood (basically, conservative people's children).
     This kind of talk should be unacceptable. It is joking about children's innocence and safety. And it has got to stop.



6. Author's Notes

     I have previously discussed many of the topics mentioned in this article; specifically in my September 2020 article "How Your Children Are Sexually and Economically Objectified and Trafficked into the Social Security Slavery System", which can be read at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-your-children-are-sexualized-and.html




Written on March 8th and 9th, 2021

Published on March 9th, 2021
under the title
"Insisting That "Nothing Children Do is Sexual" Puts Kids in Danger"

Edited and Expanded on March 23rd, 2022
and April 25th and 26th, 2022

Title Changed on March 23rd, 2022

at

No comments:

Post a Comment