I don't do a lot of news commentary here on this blog, because I feel that the issues I'm talking about are fundamentally timeless. That said, I'm pissed enough about the case of Kaitlyn Hunt to break from that just this once.
For those unaware, Kaitlyn is a young woman who turned 18 recently, and is being prosecuted for her sexual relationship with an underage girl from her high school. The media is painting this as anti-gay discrimination, and the conversations that have started because of it need to be addressed.
Let's start with the idea that this prosecution is because the girls are in a homosexual relationship. Yes, the parents of the younger girl are alleged to be prosecuting because the older girl "turned their daughter gay". That doesn't make the prosecution a case of anti-gay discrimination. Every high school boy who has ever been prosecuted and had his life destroyed because of the overprotective parents of his lover can attest to the fact that this is a shining example of equality, at least in the fact that the law is prosecuting.
There is some discrimination here, though. And it's the media who's doing it. No one gives a shit about the excesses of age of consent laws until it's a photogenic young woman who's suffering because of it. And once the media uproar inevitably subverts the legal system and ensures that this woman will escape punishment, everyone will go back to not giving a shit about the awful age of consent laws that will still be in place.
As I've said elsewhere on this blog, I do not support the age of consent. Kaitlyn should not be prosecuted or punished for a consensual relationship. I take Kaitlyn's lover at her word that the relationship was consensual, since she is the one who ought to get to decide that.
The conversation has also spawned much hand wringing about why this isn't covered under the "obvious" Romeo and Juliet clauses many states have in place for just this set of circumstances. First off, not every state's age of consent has an exception for minors who are close in age to one another. Secondly, no state should have such an exemption.
By setting an age of consent, the state is declaring that everyone under the line is incapable of consent, and it is under that justification that individuals who have sex with them are prosecuted. As such, whether Kaitlyn is an 18 year old from her same school or a 70 year old, what matters is that her lover is legally declared incapable of making her own choices about sex.
The very idea that you can be competent to consent to sex with teenagers but not to consent to sex with adults would be laughable if it were not the explicit law of the land, punishable by sentences harsher than some murderers get.
What these laws do is say "this group is particularly vulnerable, so let's create an entire class of people who are only legally allowed to fuck people in that particularly vulnerable class."
Either Kaitlyn's lover is competent to make her own decisions about her own body and who she shares it with, or she isn't. I think she very much is competent to make that decision, whether the person she decides to have sex with is a photogenic young woman or not.
Update:
Kaitlyn has accepted a plea bargain that nets her less than a year in jail and no need to register as a sex offender. We can all stop panicking now. The photogenic white woman won't suffer the insane consequences we always intended only for those evil, creepy men. Words cannot adequately express my disgust at the national dialogue. Though one emotion I can put into words is "unsurprised".
Friday, May 24, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Fantasy Versus Reality
So much of what I write shouldn't need to be said. One of the hardest parts of writing these posts without being a direct response to someone who's said something stupid is that I have to work out what people actually can't be relied upon to understand already. This is one that I run across constantly.
Very young children are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They can play make believe and recognize full well that their games aren't the same thing as whatever game they're playing really happening. You pretend to cut your little brother down with an invisible sword, and he falls over, but both of you know that he isn't really dead, and there was never any sword.
One of the core abilities that makes us the dominant species on this planet is our ability to imagine the unreal in great detail. That ability is at the root of our ability to plan for the future, work out the best course of action by imagining all the alternatives before actually committing to one. Imagination is a wonderful tool that doesn't get nearly enough credit. Our ability to deliberately adapt this powerful tool to use creating worlds and scenarios for our own amusement is one of the best parts of being a human being.
And yet there are a surprisingly large number of people who don't understand how fantasy works. They see the ability to plan out a move and think fantasy stops there. You hear about it every day, when people call shooter video games murder simulators, and wring their hands at the sex and violence in the media. The people who are most afraid of imagination are the ones who don't understand how to separate a fantasy from a plan.
I will unashamedly admit to numerous horrible, antisocial fantasies I deliberately indulge in on a regular basis. When someone slights me, I employ my imagination to hear the sound of their skull cracking open and feel the skin scraped off my knuckles from delivering the beating that did it. When I'm feeling horny I'll use it to touch and taste and feel the motions of a dozen scenarios with imaginary partners, consenting or otherwise, both based on real people and made up whole cloth.
I'm unashamed to admit this, because I know the difference between fantasy and reality. I can indulge in fantasy all I like, and there will be no consequences aside from a possible lack of physical activity if you overdo it. The real world has consequences that can't be dismissed with a thought, that aren't under the control of my will, and that often impact other people's lives in addition to my own.
Now, there are fantasies of mine that blur the line between a mere imagination for my own amusement, and an actual plan. I sometimes indulge myself by imagining that I'm living in a world where children are treated as people, where no means no and yes means yes, and where I can announce my sexual orientation and have it result in people helping me find a date instead of contacting the police. Every person I reach brings me one step closer to living that one, even if I don't expect I'll get there in my lifetime.
Very young children are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They can play make believe and recognize full well that their games aren't the same thing as whatever game they're playing really happening. You pretend to cut your little brother down with an invisible sword, and he falls over, but both of you know that he isn't really dead, and there was never any sword.
One of the core abilities that makes us the dominant species on this planet is our ability to imagine the unreal in great detail. That ability is at the root of our ability to plan for the future, work out the best course of action by imagining all the alternatives before actually committing to one. Imagination is a wonderful tool that doesn't get nearly enough credit. Our ability to deliberately adapt this powerful tool to use creating worlds and scenarios for our own amusement is one of the best parts of being a human being.
And yet there are a surprisingly large number of people who don't understand how fantasy works. They see the ability to plan out a move and think fantasy stops there. You hear about it every day, when people call shooter video games murder simulators, and wring their hands at the sex and violence in the media. The people who are most afraid of imagination are the ones who don't understand how to separate a fantasy from a plan.
I will unashamedly admit to numerous horrible, antisocial fantasies I deliberately indulge in on a regular basis. When someone slights me, I employ my imagination to hear the sound of their skull cracking open and feel the skin scraped off my knuckles from delivering the beating that did it. When I'm feeling horny I'll use it to touch and taste and feel the motions of a dozen scenarios with imaginary partners, consenting or otherwise, both based on real people and made up whole cloth.
I'm unashamed to admit this, because I know the difference between fantasy and reality. I can indulge in fantasy all I like, and there will be no consequences aside from a possible lack of physical activity if you overdo it. The real world has consequences that can't be dismissed with a thought, that aren't under the control of my will, and that often impact other people's lives in addition to my own.
Now, there are fantasies of mine that blur the line between a mere imagination for my own amusement, and an actual plan. I sometimes indulge myself by imagining that I'm living in a world where children are treated as people, where no means no and yes means yes, and where I can announce my sexual orientation and have it result in people helping me find a date instead of contacting the police. Every person I reach brings me one step closer to living that one, even if I don't expect I'll get there in my lifetime.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The Closet
The closet sucks.
I was raised to value honesty quite highly. To this day, few insults will get under my skin quite like being called a liar.
And yet I've spent every day since working out my sexual orientation keeping things from the people around me. It was years before I said anything to my father, and longer after that I spoke to my mother about it. And every new person who comes into my life, I need to make a decision about when or if they'll ever be allowed to know about this part of my personality.
I've chosen to speak openly about the fact that I am a pedophile in all my online dealings, in part, as a way to balance out the number of lies of omission I perpetrate on a daily basis.
No one likes being in the closet. No one likes keeping everyone around them at arms length, nor does anyone enjoy constantly questioning whether the people in your life would accept or reject you if they knew the secrets you're keeping from them.
I've been very cautious and very lucky. Everyone I've chosen to speak to in meatspace about my sexuality has accepted me and recognized that I'm not a psychopath just because of what I find attractive. Likewise they've all recognized it as my right to tell people or not as I choose. That adds up to three people including my parents.
I don't like thinking the worst of my friends and family, but the closet is, by its very nature, a defense mechanism. The stakes are quite high, since once this particular secret is out, my life changes forever, for the worse. There is at least one mandatory reporter in my family, and if he sticks with his schooling, another will be added among my friends in a few years time. I haven't broken the law, but not everyone understands what the law is, including friends, family, and mandatory reporters.
Anyone I tell both my real name and my orientation to is someone that I've chosen to trust with my life. Someone who's intentions and competence at keeping my secrets I consider beyond reproach. Because when I give those pieces of information to someone together, I'm willingly handing them the power to destroy my life by accident.
I really wish I didn't need that much trust in a person to share completely. I have nothing but respect for individuals who've publicly outed themselves, whether as pedophiles or as any despised invisible minority, since they're hastening the day when that level of trust won't be necessary. I hold nothing but contempt for those who out others against their will, since they've betrayed someone who put so much trust in them.
I find myself frequently evaluating my friends and family. What signs can I give that I could plausibly deny afterward? If this person responds badly, can I cut them out of my life effectively enough to avoid the worst consequences of that bad reaction? What do they already know about the subject, and is there a way to educate them on tolerance without inadvertently outing myself before I feel safe?
For everyone who's never had to spend time in the closet, you have no idea how lucky you are.
I was raised to value honesty quite highly. To this day, few insults will get under my skin quite like being called a liar.
And yet I've spent every day since working out my sexual orientation keeping things from the people around me. It was years before I said anything to my father, and longer after that I spoke to my mother about it. And every new person who comes into my life, I need to make a decision about when or if they'll ever be allowed to know about this part of my personality.
I've chosen to speak openly about the fact that I am a pedophile in all my online dealings, in part, as a way to balance out the number of lies of omission I perpetrate on a daily basis.
No one likes being in the closet. No one likes keeping everyone around them at arms length, nor does anyone enjoy constantly questioning whether the people in your life would accept or reject you if they knew the secrets you're keeping from them.
I've been very cautious and very lucky. Everyone I've chosen to speak to in meatspace about my sexuality has accepted me and recognized that I'm not a psychopath just because of what I find attractive. Likewise they've all recognized it as my right to tell people or not as I choose. That adds up to three people including my parents.
I don't like thinking the worst of my friends and family, but the closet is, by its very nature, a defense mechanism. The stakes are quite high, since once this particular secret is out, my life changes forever, for the worse. There is at least one mandatory reporter in my family, and if he sticks with his schooling, another will be added among my friends in a few years time. I haven't broken the law, but not everyone understands what the law is, including friends, family, and mandatory reporters.
Anyone I tell both my real name and my orientation to is someone that I've chosen to trust with my life. Someone who's intentions and competence at keeping my secrets I consider beyond reproach. Because when I give those pieces of information to someone together, I'm willingly handing them the power to destroy my life by accident.
I really wish I didn't need that much trust in a person to share completely. I have nothing but respect for individuals who've publicly outed themselves, whether as pedophiles or as any despised invisible minority, since they're hastening the day when that level of trust won't be necessary. I hold nothing but contempt for those who out others against their will, since they've betrayed someone who put so much trust in them.
I find myself frequently evaluating my friends and family. What signs can I give that I could plausibly deny afterward? If this person responds badly, can I cut them out of my life effectively enough to avoid the worst consequences of that bad reaction? What do they already know about the subject, and is there a way to educate them on tolerance without inadvertently outing myself before I feel safe?
For everyone who's never had to spend time in the closet, you have no idea how lucky you are.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
You'll Understand When You're Older
Of all the prejudiced, dismissive remarks and thought-terminating cliches I've ever been exposed to, none has stoked the fires of my righteous outrage more effectively than "you'll understand when you're older".
Even such gems as "because I said so" can't manage to match the level of dismissive arrogance as "you'll understand when you're older".
Implicit in the statement is the absolute certainty that whoever you're talking to is inherently inferior to yourself. That the gap between you is so great that there is no possible way you can explain your side of the argument to the other person, because they would be completely incapable of following your inherent brilliance.
Make no mistake. This is not about experience. That's what "when you have kids, you'll understand" is about. "You'll understand when you're older" is a statement that denies any experience could possibly make the slightest bit of difference. That there is nothing you can do about this inherent inferiority you have to the other party that could possibly bring you up to their level.
And of course, it's a go-to excuse for stupid people who don't have an actual argument to pretend that the reason they aren't presenting one is that they're actually far too superior to the other party, not the truth, that they have no argument that could stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
There's an old saying among scientists. "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." In other words, if you can use the exact same argument for any position at all, then it isn't an argument that's worth anything, because it's just as effective at arguing for falsehoods as it as at arguing for truths. That's the reason lists of logical fallacies get linked to so often on debate boards.
Still, never let it be said that I refuse to test the assertions of others against the objective standard of reality, no matter how much I disagree with them. I was told quite often when I was very young that all the age-based discrimination I noticed and complained about was something I would "understand when I was older". I'm older now. I have a better vocabulary for expressing my views, and I've got a broader education in the social justice struggles of yesteryear. But all those things I said were wrong back then, are still things I say are wrong today.
The truth, I think, lies with an absolutely wonderful quote from Albert Einstein. "If you cannot explain something to a six year old child, you don't understand it yourself."
Even such gems as "because I said so" can't manage to match the level of dismissive arrogance as "you'll understand when you're older".
Implicit in the statement is the absolute certainty that whoever you're talking to is inherently inferior to yourself. That the gap between you is so great that there is no possible way you can explain your side of the argument to the other person, because they would be completely incapable of following your inherent brilliance.
Make no mistake. This is not about experience. That's what "when you have kids, you'll understand" is about. "You'll understand when you're older" is a statement that denies any experience could possibly make the slightest bit of difference. That there is nothing you can do about this inherent inferiority you have to the other party that could possibly bring you up to their level.
And of course, it's a go-to excuse for stupid people who don't have an actual argument to pretend that the reason they aren't presenting one is that they're actually far too superior to the other party, not the truth, that they have no argument that could stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
There's an old saying among scientists. "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." In other words, if you can use the exact same argument for any position at all, then it isn't an argument that's worth anything, because it's just as effective at arguing for falsehoods as it as at arguing for truths. That's the reason lists of logical fallacies get linked to so often on debate boards.
Still, never let it be said that I refuse to test the assertions of others against the objective standard of reality, no matter how much I disagree with them. I was told quite often when I was very young that all the age-based discrimination I noticed and complained about was something I would "understand when I was older". I'm older now. I have a better vocabulary for expressing my views, and I've got a broader education in the social justice struggles of yesteryear. But all those things I said were wrong back then, are still things I say are wrong today.
The truth, I think, lies with an absolutely wonderful quote from Albert Einstein. "If you cannot explain something to a six year old child, you don't understand it yourself."
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Evolutionary Psychology
I'm not a big fan of evolutionary psychology as I generally encounter it online. The greatest sin, I think is treating evolutionary success as some sort of moral endorsement. A close second is that absolutely annoying tendency to produce unfalsible, "just so" narratives for why the particular trait the writer is already invested in must have been advantageous to our early hominid ancestors. Working from the conclusion to build a narrative rather than looking at the facts and letting them lead one to the conclusion.
Still, just because I give the practice little to no credence doesn't mean I don't recognize the value a certain segment of the population ascribes to these "just so" narratives. I'm not proud and am more than willing to meet people on their own intellectual battlefields in order to advance my causes. So while I'm no fan of evolutionary psychology narratives, I've constructed one for the benefit of those in the audience who do value them.
Some people seem to have taken the bizzare standpoint (often used against any sexuality besides 1 man 1 woman to make a baby), that pedophiles are evolutionarily "wrong" because they don't reproduce. Well, there are a few benefits from the point of view of pedophilia as a reproductively viable strategy.
Consider that our species suffers from a very prolonged maturation period, during which we accumulate information and experience. Our bodies do not reach full maturity for a ridiculously long time as compared with other animals. This extended period of childhood means more time and effort must be spent protecting and rearing the young.
As a result, individuals with tendencies that draw them to spend more time with children will expend more such time and effort. As a result, the offspring of these individuals (or if they have none, the offspring of their siblings which carry their genes as well) are more able to survive to adulthood, and learn essential skills due to the increased expenditure of resources on those children by the adult in question. The more children carrying your genes that survive to adulthood, the more viable it is as an evolutionary strategy.
To take a somewhat more extreme track:
Neoteny, or pedomorphism is the process whereby an organism retains traits from its immature stages into sexual maturity. Humans are a neotenous species, resembling juvenile great apes more than we resemble the adults. The brain plasticity that pushes us out ahead of the curve in terms of mental ability is a side-effect of that process. We see the same thing in other neotenous species (comparing dogs with wolves for example), it's just more pronounced in humans.
With domesticated animals, neoteny tends to be a side-effect of our selective breeding choices. With humans not having anyone selectively breeding them, that only leaves the one option for how those traits were selected for.
Still, just because I give the practice little to no credence doesn't mean I don't recognize the value a certain segment of the population ascribes to these "just so" narratives. I'm not proud and am more than willing to meet people on their own intellectual battlefields in order to advance my causes. So while I'm no fan of evolutionary psychology narratives, I've constructed one for the benefit of those in the audience who do value them.
Some people seem to have taken the bizzare standpoint (often used against any sexuality besides 1 man 1 woman to make a baby), that pedophiles are evolutionarily "wrong" because they don't reproduce. Well, there are a few benefits from the point of view of pedophilia as a reproductively viable strategy.
Consider that our species suffers from a very prolonged maturation period, during which we accumulate information and experience. Our bodies do not reach full maturity for a ridiculously long time as compared with other animals. This extended period of childhood means more time and effort must be spent protecting and rearing the young.
As a result, individuals with tendencies that draw them to spend more time with children will expend more such time and effort. As a result, the offspring of these individuals (or if they have none, the offspring of their siblings which carry their genes as well) are more able to survive to adulthood, and learn essential skills due to the increased expenditure of resources on those children by the adult in question. The more children carrying your genes that survive to adulthood, the more viable it is as an evolutionary strategy.
To take a somewhat more extreme track:
Neoteny, or pedomorphism is the process whereby an organism retains traits from its immature stages into sexual maturity. Humans are a neotenous species, resembling juvenile great apes more than we resemble the adults. The brain plasticity that pushes us out ahead of the curve in terms of mental ability is a side-effect of that process. We see the same thing in other neotenous species (comparing dogs with wolves for example), it's just more pronounced in humans.
With domesticated animals, neoteny tends to be a side-effect of our selective breeding choices. With humans not having anyone selectively breeding them, that only leaves the one option for how those traits were selected for.
Treating "Yes" The Same As "No"
There is an incredibly harmful narrative that's wormed its way into the mainstream discussion about sexual consent. The idea that we should ignore "yes" and "no" when it comes to sexual consent.
What's that? That isn't mainstream, you say? That's rapist talk? Why yes, that is rapist talk, but that doesn't mean it isn't mainstream.
I am, of course, talking about those underage individuals who desire and pursue sexual relationships with older individuals. The very fact that the age of consent exists as a law is proof of the existence of such individuals, since you don't make laws against things that never happen.
The politically driven policy is to treat the kids who said "yes" exactly the same as the ones who said "no". I'm not talking about the adult not having sex with the kid, for those of you still unsure where I stand on that. I'm talking about how society is to treat those kids who did end up having sex with someone in violation of the age of consent.
What happens when you treat someone like a rape victim? They start acting the part. So much of the trauma that comes from rape stems not from the mere act of forced sex, but from the societal reaction. To take one example, the feelings of bodily impurity that may come about naturally when someone is forced into sex are added to by a cultural narrative that says that a person who has been raped will never be the same again. If the person didn't feel violated or sullied before, the cultural narrative can do the job of making them feel violated retroactively all on its own.
By treating "yes" the same as "no", we make damn sure that everyone who said "yes" and meant it ends up exactly as traumatized as the ones who said "no" and meant that. The pattern is so consistent, an alien observer would be forced to conclude that was the point.
The virgin/whore false dichotomy is at the root of a lot of harmful ideas the mainstream of society has about sexuality, and here we have yet another example. The people pushing the agenda of treating those young people who honestly and enthusiastically said "yes" precisely the same way we treat those who've been the victims of force or coersion aren't doing so because it's healthy for those kids. They're pushing that agenda because in their narrow minds the only other option is to call the kid a slut and move on with their day.
There is no inherent need to make such a child devalue his/her own choices and judgements. There is no value in making that child feel vulnerable and exploited. If we were actually concerned with the health and sanity of those kids, we would be looking for any way to make them feel safe and empowered, rather than deliberately imposing a victim narrative on those who haven't reached that point naturally.
The crime of rape is the crime of ignoring another person's explicit consent. Whether they said "yes" or "no", the rapist does what he/she was going to do anyway. Consent is all about the importance of that distinction. By ignoring that "yes", we're making sure that whether they said "yes" or "no", someone is going to ignore their opinion on the subject and mistreat them accordingly.
What's that? That isn't mainstream, you say? That's rapist talk? Why yes, that is rapist talk, but that doesn't mean it isn't mainstream.
I am, of course, talking about those underage individuals who desire and pursue sexual relationships with older individuals. The very fact that the age of consent exists as a law is proof of the existence of such individuals, since you don't make laws against things that never happen.
The politically driven policy is to treat the kids who said "yes" exactly the same as the ones who said "no". I'm not talking about the adult not having sex with the kid, for those of you still unsure where I stand on that. I'm talking about how society is to treat those kids who did end up having sex with someone in violation of the age of consent.
What happens when you treat someone like a rape victim? They start acting the part. So much of the trauma that comes from rape stems not from the mere act of forced sex, but from the societal reaction. To take one example, the feelings of bodily impurity that may come about naturally when someone is forced into sex are added to by a cultural narrative that says that a person who has been raped will never be the same again. If the person didn't feel violated or sullied before, the cultural narrative can do the job of making them feel violated retroactively all on its own.
By treating "yes" the same as "no", we make damn sure that everyone who said "yes" and meant it ends up exactly as traumatized as the ones who said "no" and meant that. The pattern is so consistent, an alien observer would be forced to conclude that was the point.
The virgin/whore false dichotomy is at the root of a lot of harmful ideas the mainstream of society has about sexuality, and here we have yet another example. The people pushing the agenda of treating those young people who honestly and enthusiastically said "yes" precisely the same way we treat those who've been the victims of force or coersion aren't doing so because it's healthy for those kids. They're pushing that agenda because in their narrow minds the only other option is to call the kid a slut and move on with their day.
There is no inherent need to make such a child devalue his/her own choices and judgements. There is no value in making that child feel vulnerable and exploited. If we were actually concerned with the health and sanity of those kids, we would be looking for any way to make them feel safe and empowered, rather than deliberately imposing a victim narrative on those who haven't reached that point naturally.
The crime of rape is the crime of ignoring another person's explicit consent. Whether they said "yes" or "no", the rapist does what he/she was going to do anyway. Consent is all about the importance of that distinction. By ignoring that "yes", we're making sure that whether they said "yes" or "no", someone is going to ignore their opinion on the subject and mistreat them accordingly.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Age Appropriate Content
I am a hardcore believer in the idea of free speech, open exchange of ideas, and the fundamental goodness of knowledge. Censorship in all its forms is anathema to me. The best use I can think of for a time machine would be to go back and save copies of the books that were burned throughout history.
I'm also a person who believes that children are people, and deserve to be treated like human beings. These two passions of mine combine whenever the phrase "age appropriate" is uttered to send me into a sputtering, incoherent rage. Thank goodness for the written word, where I can be articulate even in moments like these where I can't vocalize anything beyond threats and obscenities at best and animal snarls at worst.
Somehow the adults of this society have fallen into thinking that information about sex has the same effect as cracking open Lovecroft's Necromonicon. I mean this quite literally with numerous pieces of propaganda being spread that claim that children "exposed" to "age inappropriate content" display the same symptoms as those who were directly sexually abused. If I believed for one second that molesting a child would do no more harm than them seeing a RedTube video, I would have done so ages ago.
Since the dawn of the internet, an enormous industry has sprung up to censor it. Governments try to block content they don't like, and not just dictatorships like China. The likes of Sweeden have gotten into the act of censoring explicit sexual content for everyone "for the children". Home based firewall solutions have been the flavor of choice for the rugged individualists in the United States, but whether the nanny is the state or the parent, the internet is being censored.
The censorship efforts don't stop at blocking the content itself, however. After all, if the consequences were really so horrific, it would be criminally irresponsible to stop there. No, efforts are made to ensure that young people never develop the knowledge base to frame the questions that might lead to them seeing something "age inappropriate" in the first place.
Avoiding the subjects of sex and sexuality isn't a silent, seamless act. A five year old can tell when you're dancing around a subject you don't want to talk about. That's where shaming starts. They know that whatever it is you don't want to talk about, it's shameful and taboo. That is, in fact, the first thing they learn about it when you behave this way. This discourages them from asking questions, because that would mean violating the taboo they've already learned is in place.
Of course, discouraging questions is more thorough than that. When adults do respond to questions about sex, they always give as little information as possible. The idea, of course, is that they should only give them as much information as they explicitly ask for, lest they be "exposing" those children to sexual knowledge. The trouble with this method is, again, a five year old can figure out that you don't want to give a complete answer for some reason, and will thus be discouraged from asking those followup questions that this method theoretically relies upon.
If you're old enough to ask the question, you're old enough to know the answer. The whole answer. If you can articulate the question of how to define acceleration mathematically, you're old enough to learn calculus. If you're old enough to ask about sex, you're old enough to get a thorough overview of the subject matter.
But what of that most universal followup question to the clinical minimalism so many people prefer? "Why would anyone want to do that?" It's the most important question in any discussion of sex, and it's the one that's explicitly left out of sexual education curriculums and parental lectures alike. Surely answering that question will just make them go out and do it, right?
They asked the question. They're going to want to know the answer, and it can either come from you actually answering the question, or it can come from them experimenting in whatever unsupervised time they have available. And they'll wait for the unsupervised time because, again, by not answering the question, you're communicating that the subject is taboo and that any further attempts to get answers should be hidden from you.
I'm not above exploiting the violent hysteria and frothing hatrid people have for my kind in order to advance my causes, and this is one that matters to me. The children who are most vulnerable to child molesters are the ones who are most ignorant and have been taught most thoroughly that sex is a taboo. If they don't know what sex is, they've no reason not to believe that this new "game" is legitimately just that. Your efforts to silence their awkward questions also silences any hope of them telling you they've been molested.
I'm also a person who believes that children are people, and deserve to be treated like human beings. These two passions of mine combine whenever the phrase "age appropriate" is uttered to send me into a sputtering, incoherent rage. Thank goodness for the written word, where I can be articulate even in moments like these where I can't vocalize anything beyond threats and obscenities at best and animal snarls at worst.
Somehow the adults of this society have fallen into thinking that information about sex has the same effect as cracking open Lovecroft's Necromonicon. I mean this quite literally with numerous pieces of propaganda being spread that claim that children "exposed" to "age inappropriate content" display the same symptoms as those who were directly sexually abused. If I believed for one second that molesting a child would do no more harm than them seeing a RedTube video, I would have done so ages ago.
Since the dawn of the internet, an enormous industry has sprung up to censor it. Governments try to block content they don't like, and not just dictatorships like China. The likes of Sweeden have gotten into the act of censoring explicit sexual content for everyone "for the children". Home based firewall solutions have been the flavor of choice for the rugged individualists in the United States, but whether the nanny is the state or the parent, the internet is being censored.
The censorship efforts don't stop at blocking the content itself, however. After all, if the consequences were really so horrific, it would be criminally irresponsible to stop there. No, efforts are made to ensure that young people never develop the knowledge base to frame the questions that might lead to them seeing something "age inappropriate" in the first place.
Avoiding the subjects of sex and sexuality isn't a silent, seamless act. A five year old can tell when you're dancing around a subject you don't want to talk about. That's where shaming starts. They know that whatever it is you don't want to talk about, it's shameful and taboo. That is, in fact, the first thing they learn about it when you behave this way. This discourages them from asking questions, because that would mean violating the taboo they've already learned is in place.
Of course, discouraging questions is more thorough than that. When adults do respond to questions about sex, they always give as little information as possible. The idea, of course, is that they should only give them as much information as they explicitly ask for, lest they be "exposing" those children to sexual knowledge. The trouble with this method is, again, a five year old can figure out that you don't want to give a complete answer for some reason, and will thus be discouraged from asking those followup questions that this method theoretically relies upon.
If you're old enough to ask the question, you're old enough to know the answer. The whole answer. If you can articulate the question of how to define acceleration mathematically, you're old enough to learn calculus. If you're old enough to ask about sex, you're old enough to get a thorough overview of the subject matter.
But what of that most universal followup question to the clinical minimalism so many people prefer? "Why would anyone want to do that?" It's the most important question in any discussion of sex, and it's the one that's explicitly left out of sexual education curriculums and parental lectures alike. Surely answering that question will just make them go out and do it, right?
They asked the question. They're going to want to know the answer, and it can either come from you actually answering the question, or it can come from them experimenting in whatever unsupervised time they have available. And they'll wait for the unsupervised time because, again, by not answering the question, you're communicating that the subject is taboo and that any further attempts to get answers should be hidden from you.
I'm not above exploiting the violent hysteria and frothing hatrid people have for my kind in order to advance my causes, and this is one that matters to me. The children who are most vulnerable to child molesters are the ones who are most ignorant and have been taught most thoroughly that sex is a taboo. If they don't know what sex is, they've no reason not to believe that this new "game" is legitimately just that. Your efforts to silence their awkward questions also silences any hope of them telling you they've been molested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)