Sex, Lies and Society IV: Waxing the Line

250px-Chest_waxing_cropped-vertEroticism and sensuality is part of the tradition of many ancient religions. A healthy “earthiness” is a natural part of the human experience. It may well be that many parents experience sexual feelings for their children at some stages of their interaction, however fleeting. Similarly, the depiction of erotic images can elicit an array of responses from all ages, child, mother, father, brother and sister and with an equal number of programmed feelings.

How this sexual energy is expressed, creatively, lovingly or selfishly, depends on many developmental factors from experiences in childhood and the formative years. At the same time, innocent eroticism and the healthy expression of our sensuality can be demonised in part, from a severe misunderstanding of the power of sexual cues which have been distorted by religion, advertising, pornography and info-tainment.

What is disturbing in the context of paedophilia for males and females is the effects of our body and pornography obsessed culture which makes us so unhappy with our physicality and self-concept. For instance, the mainstreaming preference for hairless genitals! When did such a thing become so gross? As psychologist Marnia Robinson observes: “Are we waxing away the line between adults and children?” [1]

And it doesn’t stop there as Robinson reveals:

In today’s porn world, … ‘shaved,’ like anal sex, is de rigueur. We now hear younger men saying they will have nothing (sexual) to do with an unshaven female. What has happened? Adolescent porn users are cutting their teeth on depilated sirens. This is just when their brains are most sensitive to reward and furiously wiring their sexual arousal to associated cues—in this case, hairless genitals. This same process affects some adult viewers, too. […]…also labia surgery to eradicate signs of sexual maturity are increasingly common. Using shaving and surgery, women are deliberately neotenizing their genitals, that is, intentionally making them look immature, juvenile. [2]

In a nut-shell, these trends can only feed into the normalising of sexual extremes. Those who practice paedophilia and child molestation as a way of life thrive on the same, relying on misguided politically correct ignorance borne from intentionally created confusion that limits preventative measures. Establishment paedophiles and/or child rapists need the public to be kept busy with paedophile rights and paedophile vigilantism while blurring the lines between eroticism, love, sexual perversion and pathology – all serving to protect institutional abuse that operates above the law.

As Robinson eloquently points out:

“Is this change in conditioned visual tastes removing an evolved barrier that once discouraged adult sex with children? If this is a possibility, how can we, as a society, hope to have an open discussion about it? Or even do reliable research? Given the willingness of today’s authorities to assume any sexual response to images of minors proves someone is a paedophile, who would dare to discuss such feelings except on an anonymous Internet forum…maybe?” [3]

In case the reader thinks that the move to hairless women and men is trivial and the discerning porn and multi-media user is ultimately in control, you’d be labouring under a false assumption. As Pavlov’s experiments * in conditioned response showed, the dogs salivated after they heard the bell alone, regardless of the circumstances. And in relation to the plasticity of our brains: “once we wire up a cue, we have no way of knowing when it will trigger a reaction” and thus such “new wiring” does not necessarily have anything to do with sexual orientation but the neurological pathways they create. This could have serious consequences in a world that is fast becoming paranoid and civil liberty free. Moreover, in this climate of internet hysteria concerning paedophile websites and the dubious nature of police entrapment antics it is hardly likely that any meaningful discourse is going to filter through to where it’s needed: in the bastions of local and international law.

There is a school of thought within academia intent on legitimising paedophilia rather than treating it. The “sexual self-determination” that deems children as adults is a twist on the truth that delivers them into paedophiles who benefit from such para-logical discourse.

Child abuse is the result of many complex and problematic issues that should be not trivialised and its social impact and brevity reduced. Some of the most vocal exponents of in the last twenty years who advocate paedophile rights over treatment include Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bausermann and Judith Levine.  They have also tried to prove that child abuse is vastly overestimated, even to the extent that it may not exist. The media, while touting sensationalist stories and stoking fear on the one hand, has also given a great deal of coverage to these views. The academic credentials of Rind, Tromovitch and Bausermann are negated by their astonishing bias which amounts to a trumpeting of paedophile rights at the expense of their victims. And yet, with the censorship issues and Establishment wrangling creating sexual witchunts, the truth, as is so often the case is somewhere between these two extremes.

Rind’s influential collection of studies on the impact of child abuse, conclude that it is largely a symptom of family dysfunction rather than actual sexual abuse. [4] Statistics were produced from select college samples to prove this point. Other conclusions suggested that the age of consent was subject to whether or not violence is involved. If the child – with no distinction to age – gives consent, then it is not abuse. If violent coercion emerges then this is abuse. Even the term “abuse” was to be replaced by the “adult-child” or adult-adolescent sex.

Once again, paedophile apologists fail to distinguish between the emotional differences between child and adult; they fail to address the effects of abuse from non-coercive methods thus excluding the highly manipulative nature of abusers. They place the onus on the child as instigator rather than the victim and manage to twist socio-cultural statistics to fit their own clear bias for sex between adults and children.

This is not to say that all the data collected is without merit, only the methods by which they collected this data and the final conclusions they came to were very far from impartial. Context is everything. The idea that child abuse was really not all that bad and that we were all overreacting and taking an anti-scientific stance are classic symptoms of ponerology agents doing what they do best – seeding pathogens of confusion and dissonance.

The Journal of Paidika (1987-1995) was published in the Netherlands (where the age of sexual consent is twelve) is, in its own words: “… a scholarly journal which seeks to examine the range of cultural, historical, psychological, and literary issues pertaining to consensual adult-child sexual relationships and desires. The journal was attempting to create a “history of record subject to academic peer-review” and “subscribed to by prestigious institutions such as the British Library and “…the Library of Congress.” Unfortunately, while this implies rigorous science the reality is somewhat different. Paidika, by its own admission was a journal concerned with placing the scientific acceptance of paedophile’s rights firmly on the academic agenda. However, reading the material one is left with the overwhelming realisation that there is only pseudo-science to be found, gift-wrapped for the paedophile intelligentsia.

Extreme narcissists and those with psychopathic tendencies will always use the very same accusations from critics to deflect the perceived attacks against their nature. Rind and Bausermann published articles in the journal for a number of years before their “meta-analysis” appeared on the scene. Both have gone out of their way to promote and defend the scientific justification for seeing paedophilia as just another way to express oneself sexually.

Persons such as author Judith Levine can be commended for raising the issue of child agency power, over-protection and those profiting from child abuse. However, her simplification and selective data is dangerously misleading. For someone who proposes an age of consent to be dropped to twelve and with many of her sources from closet or “practicing” paedophiles, we can understand how Levine’s bias then colours that research. [5] She believes paedophiles can be cured rather than treated without the distinction as to whether we are dealing with sexual psychopaths for example. As the association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers clearly state: “… there is no known ‘cure.’ [6]

The underreported fact that her key source for much of her statistical data and analyses came from her hero Lawrence Stanley for whom academic paedophilia was not simply confined to white papers.  He was convicted in absentia, by a Dutch court in 1998 for sexual abuse of three 7 to 10-year-old girls and faces a three-year prison sentence if he returns to the Netherlands. With the Netherland’s liberal reputation regarding paedophilia you can imagine the case details must have been rather convincing. At the time of writing, Stanley has yet to face charges for sexually assaulting a girl in Canada who was under the age of 14 and according to a wire services report in The Miami Herald was finally arrested and charged with possession of child pornography in Brazil. [7]

The US paedophile activists have received much support from the liberal traditions of Scandinavia and Northern Europe which have also given opportunities for more repellent forms of “sexual liberation” to take hold. The Netherlands seems to have a strange predilection for this kind of degeneration, where an often valuable and responsible progressive tradition goes headlong over the edge. In fact, in Holland the audacity of Dutch paedophiles fighting for their right to abuse children in their own country launched a new political party in May 2006 called The Charity, Freedom and Diversity  Party (NVD) which stands for some interesting forms of “emancipation” including:

  • Private possession of child pornography to be allowed; (though a ban on trading such material)
  • The broadcasting of pornography on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.
  • Toddlers should be given sex education.
  • Youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.
  • Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal.
  • Everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.
  • The legalization of all soft and hard drugs.
  • Free train travel for all.

This is similar to the way monotheistic religions work by including a few vital truths floating in a sea of ponerological influences. Sweden went one step further than their Dutch neighbours by lifting the ban that had been imposed on homosexuality in 1944, along with … Bestiality.

According to the country’s first government-commissioned study horses are the species most often sexually abused. The government last year tasked the Swedish Animal welfare Agency to determine the scope of the problem including whether or not the animals suffer psychologically from the abuse. A person can be found guilty of cruelty to animals if prosecutors can prove that the animal suffered physical or psychological injury.

One has to question from which reality those who presided over the legalisation of such a law and what criteria they used to come to such a conclusion other than that they were quite partial to these activities themselves. Having sex with animals and then using tax payer’s money to determine if the animal enjoyed the experience or was less than satisfied, seems to an odd way to address the balance.

Meanwhile, as money being spent on commissioned studies to determine whether horses have Post Traumatic Stress, victimised children are falling through the net and justice is being ignored. This naturally raises questions regarding the suitability of a judicial system that legalises sex with animals while claiming to uphold the moral integrity required for sexual abuse cases of human beings. It seems that we should be not only keeping a watchful eye on our children, but our pets as well.

Finland too has curious laws which appear to favour predators. In 1996 police discovered a “massive computer library of child pornography that included pictures of torture, mutilation, and cannibalism.” However, the owner of the child pornography evaded arrest because distributing hard-core child pornography is a minor offence in Finland.

Is it any wonder that sexual pathologies are on the rise?

 


* Experiments carried out by 1890’s Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov who developed his ideas of conditioned and unconditioned responses. For example, dogs don’t learn to salivate whenever they see food being hard wired into the dog. He noticed that his dogs would begin to salivate whenever he entered the room, even when he was not bringing them food. He also found that any object or event which the dogs learnt to associate with food would trigger the same salivating response thus leading to the scientific discovery of Pavlovian conditioning.
** A reminder: Paralogism: n. illogical or fallacious deduction. paralogical, paralogistic, a. paralogize, v.i. be illogical; draw unwarranted conclusions. Paralogist | n. conversive thinking: subconscious selection and substitution of data leading to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter.

Notes

[1] Wiring Sexual Tastes to Hairless Genitals…Oops!’ Psychology Today, By Marian Robinson. January 2 2012.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] pp. 22-53; A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch & Robert Bauserman; in: Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124-1.
[5] Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine.
[6] Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) http://www.atsa.com/
[7] ‘American Association for Nudist Recreation’ (ASA) lawyer arrested in Brazil; charged with child exploitation By Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 24, 2002.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s