The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)

August 6th, 2008 by Llort

Originally posted on ANU.

If we were to put aside our case for non-contact pedophile rights – just for a moment, how many adverse consequences could we list for society in general? I almost considered grafting extra fingers to count them all. In this half of my post, I consider the negative impacts on Children:

1. Denial of contact with children – a problem that has already seen some coverage in the media.[1][2] When violent and/or illegal acts against children are confused with universal feelings of affection and caring/physical responses, we end up seeing a degree of stand-offishness that denies young people their share of affection, and the right to feel valued. As a result, normal physical contact – common among closely related species and nearly always present in the more peaceful of human societies is characterised as perverse – something the young should fear.

2. Priming of children for victimhood – whereby a child who has been raped, traumatised or has no conception of the “wrongness” of his or her sexual involvements is told that they must be a victim. This is a mechanism of coercion and constraint that contributes to the formation of moral absolutes and the persecution of pedophiles – who according to the proponents of such propaganda, make up the majority of child sex offenders – a false claim.

Plummer[3] applies this to Girls:

“Again, this floods over into their sexual meanings: their sexuality is much more a matter of something that others do to them and define for them. It is something relatively out of their own control. At its most extreme edge, little girls may come to realize that it is totally out of their control — in dim, inarticulate ways they may come to see themselves as the objects of massive sexual terrorism”

3. A lack of guidance for children – when all unofficial, non-parental relationships between legal children and legal adults are seen as exploitative, or at least dangerous (possibly due to their ability to subvert order), childhood becomes a matter of mere indoctrination and replication of “family” propaganda. Children become the property of their parents; exposure to mind-opening and diverse opinions, values and practises is prohibited. Such over-protection in a risk – oriented society is very likely to lead to overly risk-averse adults who have no will to exploit positive opportunities outside of a normative framework that they will in turn attempt to replicate. This kind of paranoia has also been covered in the media.[4]

4. Banning of children – and this can be taken quite literally. When groups involving children and generally accepted children’s activities become risky, the rational response is to impose bans, or risk prosecution. We are seeing at least some compromised reporting of this, from some sources. For example:

“Children could be barred from joining sports and hobby clubs because of the increasing burden of red tape, campaigners fear. Organisations which run activities for youngsters are already struggling to recruit volunteers because they must undergo criminal records checks. But when a new child protection database is introduced next year – which one in four adults will have to sign at a cost of £64 each – it is feared that many groups which admit members of all ages will decide it is cheaper and simpler to exclude children.” [5]

5. Obesity in children – self evident, and a natural consequence of the previous point. As fears of “stalking predators” have been ramped up, parents have become less likely to allow their children to be active outdoors, or join sports clubs – assuming that they have not been banned. With an expansive service economy and an increasing denial of physical outlet, it is important that we do not allow the youngest members of society to grow fat and lazy for other reasons.

In Part 2, I will cover the adverse effects for society as a whole. These are Vigilante Justice, Murders, Expenditure, Validation of Pseudo-Science and False Allegations and Validation of Psychic Mediums.

Reference:

1. http://www.freewebtown.com/newsstand/archive1/1272.html
2. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1408828,00.html
3. Plummer, K. (1990). Understanding Childhood Sexualities. In Sandfort, T., Brongersma, J, & van Naerssen, A (eds.), Male Intergenerational Intimacy. New York: Harrington Park Press.
4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1918842.ece
5. Daily Telegraph, 20/06/2008, “Child protection rules could see youngsters banned from sport and hobby clubs”.

5 Responses to “The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)”

  1. Daniel Lièvre Says:

    Another issue to consider is of course the criminalisation of youth who engage in sexual contact. A shrine to this problem can be found here:

    http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/ethical.htm

  2. Strato Says:

    Thanks Dan, am looking forward to Part II.

    Meantime, I’m confused by the opening paragraph. What are ‘non-contact pedophile rights’?

  3. Daniel Lièvre Says:

    If you look at the agenda of ANU (I wrote the post for that site), that pretty well matches what they are aiming to do. Paedophile rights without paedophile sexual relationships.

  4. culturalterrorist Says:

    I find the need to be a bit muted on the orginal post. But the justifiable claim in NCPRs is a fair reaction to the political and societal landscape towards gradual acceptance. A common tactic among most movements to present the least offensive means — albeit it would still require a much more harsh reaction to those that do not share the same philosophy, even more severe and public than that of the opposing sides. And as such an event is unlikely to take place once, let alone the necessity as a constant presence of ethics and values, it’s rather doubtful that such agendas will gain adequate progression in as a movement or to a wider promotion of its goals and policies, as to present a mainstream accepted ideal representation of the IGA communities.

    But eh… now I’ll back out. Carry on. ;)

    Albeit most of those ‘battles’ seem locked in re-defining the defitions and reclaiming the word rather than truly an argument for reserving rights or the promotion of equality.

  5. culturalterrorist Says:

    The more I read it. I can’t help but giggle. I suppose its serious and sure it’s recognizable in the current state of hysteria. But it’s also just so seemingly absurd. Which is likely one of the fundamental points.

    And it rather reminds me of an essay I’ve been over linking…. bt a section from Kants works, seems entertainment for the moment.


    It is simply for the sake of our own convenience that we swathe our children like mummies, so that we may not have the trouble of watching them in order to prevent their limbs from getting broken or bent. And yet it often happens that they do get bent, just by swathing them. Also it makes the children themselves uneasy, and they are almost driven to despair on account of their never being able to use their limbs. And then people imagine that by calling to the child they stop its crying. But suppose a grown man were to be subjected to the same treatment, and we shall soon see whether he, too, would not cry and fall into uneasiness and despair.

    In general we must bear in mind that early education is only negative—that is, we have not to add anything to the provision of Nature, but merely to see that such provision is duly carried out. If any addition to this is necessary on our part, it must be the process of hardening the child. For this reason, also, we must give up the habit of swathing our children. If, however, we want to use some kind of caution, the most suitable arrangement would be a kind of box covered with leather straps, such as the Italians use and call arcuccio. The child is never taken out of this box, even when nursed by its mother. This protects the child from the chance of being smothered when sleeping with its mother at night, while with us many children lose their lives in this way. This arrangement is better than swathing the child, since it allows greater freedom for the limbs, while at the same time it serves as a protection against anything that might hurt or bend its body.”

    Part of me can’t help to wonder if the goals are to prepare our youth to live in a box. Not so much for a social reference … more of the cardboard kind in a back alley. Even if society becomes child-safe in this seemingly anti-youth exploitation … as adults, in what world can they actually exist?

    But alas, I digress, which is a rather annoying catchphrase. Mm.. the more I read it, the more I enjoy it on multiple levels.

Leave a Reply