The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)
22 June 2008If 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”.
10 Responses to “The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)”
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Did you see this year’s “Child of Our Time” series on BBC 1, Daniel? The children in that programme (7 years old) spent much of their time locked indoors because their parents were paranoid about road traffic and “paedophiles”. Only 1 of 17 children was allowed to venture out of the sight of his parent or supervisor.
A panel of celebrity “experts” reviewed the implications of this and other aspects of modern childhood in a special BBC 4 documentary. They mostly avoided the “issue” of paedophilia - other than mentioning that children are more likely to meet “paedophiles” on the internet than in the park - implying instead that the main reason for the lack of adult-child interaction is that adults have a lack of time for children. That claim was clearly a diversion from the real issue. The panel - which included Tanya Byron - then attempted to incite hysteria about children using the internet. If these profiteers continue with their crusade, children will be banned from using the internet soon.
Anyway, I’ll address your article specifically….
“1. Denial of contact with children”
I agree that this is an issue. There are situations when adults need to comfort children in distress, but they are unable to do so because of the possibility of false accusations. I remember - a couple of years ago - watching one of my brother’s friends playing for a sports team. When another boy was injured, nobody would help the boy because they were afraid of touching him. This resulted in the rather amusing and sad situation of his Mum having to run onto the field to help him.
“2. Priming of children for victimhood”
As you know, I don’t agree with adult sexual contact with children, although I do accept the existence of secondary harm. Especially in the case of rape, I believe there is an inherent level of harm in adult-child sexual contact which shouldn’t be underestimated. Of course, if there is a situation wherein a child does not display a significant level of trauma, the response should not excessively communicate the negative aspects of such contact to the child who has been subject to that contact.
The Plummer quote is very interesting and it makes sense.
“3. A lack of guidance for children”
Children clearly need some guidance, but the guidance which they are likely receive from a “normal” British adult is likely to be inadequate. I accept your argument relating to childrens’ thoughts being shaped only by their parents and how this restricts their exposure to a wider range of views, however the extent to which underlying views in the UK are “diverse” is debatable. Adults rarely discuss controversial issues with children, so children will only acquire a narrow range of useless values regardless of who they interact with.
I agree with what you say about children becoming dangerously risk-averse. Such fear leads to the creation of a nanny state; a BoyChat poster explained how this allows for the formation of a police state. With this in mind, it isn’t surprising that a government which loves to penetrate peoples’ private lives mysteriously chooses to remain silent on this issue.
“4. Banning of children”
This leads to #3 as well as #5.
I agree with much of what you say here, and this article is a useful collection of thoughts for future debates. I think the protectionists are oblivious to the fact that child (and adult) protection guidelines do actually have some negative consequences for children.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am
There is also criminalisation of youth, that is maybe not one of our immediate concerns here.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
uhm, yeah. yer basically making up a bunch of bs reasons why its ok for you to do something that hurts people. maybe just maybe everyone else is right about this and you are wrong. forget all the little details, legal analysis, etc. in the big picture, people are hurting, and its your fault.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 am
annymous, we are not supporting sexual activity involving adults and children. Please read the rest of our site (or the About page).
July 24th, 2008 at 3:23 am
As suggested by the title and the introduction, the list of arguments was constructed to demonstrate that the hysteria surrounding any mention or implication of under-age children with a sexual or sensual topic has adverse consequences for young people.
And in that very spirit, someone writes a response like that.
It has nothing to do with “hurting” as you put it. I have no history of sexual contact with under-age children (even 17 or 18 y/o “children” who are legal in my part of the world), and would not choose them by preference.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Anonymous coward said:
“uhm, yeah. yer basically making up a bunch of bs reasons why its ok for you to do something that hurts people.”
Hurts people? Since when does promoting a sexual orientation hurt people? Since when does promoting tolerance and acceptance of a sexual attraction hurt people?
“maybe just maybe everyone else is right about this and you are wrong.”
What’s wrong is hating somebody because of who they find sexually attractive. The hateful moronic bigots(antis) will always be wrong, love will prevail over hate every time, it happened with blacks it happened with gays and it will happen with pedos.
“people are hurting, and its your fault.”
Need i say anymore? All it takes is two minutes of reading this site and you will see that the authors do not promote anything illegal.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
You guys are fucking sick! You sick bastards. You define everything about pedophiles! Looking or thinking like one still makes you a pedophile!
October 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“You guys are fucking sick! You sick bastards. You define everything about pedophiles!”
How does one define “everything about pedophiles”? Paedophilia is simply a sexual and emotional attraction to young children; so yes, I am a paedophile. Do you have a problem with that?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“Looking or thinking like one still makes you a pedophile!”
Tell me, exactly what does a pedophile look like? I can assure you, you will be wrong.
And, if you’re wrong about part of it, then you’re just… plain… wrong.
Hi, BL, everyone. I’m still alive and quite well, thanks!
Peace, Love and… has anyone seen my chew toy? No? Maybe anonymous will volunteer…
^Silver Wolfe~~
November 15th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Dear god, how long will this nightmare have to go on? The most beautiful thing in the world is to love a child and (Michael Jackson R.I.P.) to share your bed with one.
Love is Love and it cannot be anything other, even though William Blake prophecized that it would become a crime! This is that age of futurity. (I……s)