“There are girls in my class who, if I didn’t know them and I’d encountered them in the street, I know I’d have found very sexually attractive; but because I’m their teacher I don’t feel that way about them.”

“The less contact I have with children the more sexual thoughts I have about them.”

“I have to admit that she’s not the most spectacularly attractive little girl, but when she sits in my lap and looks at me like that she turns my brains to custard! And she knows it!”

“I spend hours masturbating over child porn but I don’t actually like children when I meet them.”

“Even though I’m a paedophile I don’t have sexual feelings for my own children.”

I’ve encountered statements like those above in various internet paedophile forums, statements which associate a particular manifestation of desire with a particular social situation.

The fact that people feel different things at different times in their lives seems like something that hardly requires investigation – after all life is complicated, as are we, and, as they say – ‘shit happens’.

But do the social conditions under which we interact with those whom we desire significantly determine how that desire is experienced? What if it were possible to analyse these conditions and identify pressures inherent in them which might predispose us to think or feel in a particular way? Could such explanations throw light on some of the issues associated with being a paedophile in our society?

Let’s start by breaking down adult-child interactions into four categories:

  • non-contact
  • functional contact
  • familial contact
  • egalitarian contact

non-contact

This is the condition where the adult has no regular interaction with real-life children over a considerable period of time.

This has become the norm for most adults who aren’t parents. We live in a society where adults have very little contact with real life children, making for a society where ‘childhood’ is increasingly defined through mediated depictions (news, advertising, film etc) rather than by actual interactions with children. While this is very harmful to society, it is especially difficult for the paedophile, the absence of children creating a vacuum at the heart of his emotional life.

The paedophile in this situation has to express his emotions and his sexuality through his imagination (fantasy, memory or dreams) or through representations of children (literature, photos, films, internet, possibly erotic or pornographic).

Because he can exercise control and selectivity in his fantasies and in his choice of photos, novels, films &c, he can construct for himself an idea of ‘the child’ which most pleases him. Any representations or fantasies he doesn’t like are consigned to the real or metaphorical waste-paper basket. I, for example, avoid anything that depicts children as ‘mini-adults’ – such a lot of singing and dance videos on YouTube (of course the paedophile does not have complete freedom – his freedom is constrained by many factors, including restricted access to pornography, and fear of discovery and of prosecution).

The lack of contact with real-life children also means that his concept of ‘the child’ is not tested, and it is likely to gradually drift towards a view of ‘the child’ that is increasingly idealised.

His concept of ‘the child’ may drift so far from ‘reality’ that when he does encounter real-life children the disparity between his ideal and the real child makes the encounter disagreeable, disappointing or even disturbing.

Experience and memory may play a significant factor in anchoring such a person’s concept of ‘the child’ in reality: someone who has spent years working with children, or has raised them, is unlikely, even after many years of isolation from children, to have their concept of the ‘child’ drift too far from reality.

But what happens when a paedophile finds himself thus isolated without having had that long experience of real-life children to anchor his concept of the ‘child’?

This may be the case for many young paedophiles nowadays and I suspect that a lot of the more unpleasant comments and attitudes that one reads on anonymous chans may be a result of young people discovering that they are paedophiles, and developing their sexual identity, through pornography and erotica rather than through encounters and interactions with real-life children.

This allows a process of objectification and inappropriate sexualisation (adultification) of the child to take place untested by reality, and a too ready adoption of the social construct of the ‘paedophile’ as monster role.

I hope to return to this issue in the future.

functional contact

This is a very crowded category, including as it does most of the socially recognised roles that an adult can have with a child: teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker, nursery nurse, scout leader, youth-worker, sports coach, priest…

In these interactions the adult works with a social construct of the ‘the child’ which conceals a large part of the child’s personality. The absence of sexuality is an essential element of all approved ideas of the child in our society, and the roles children adopt (pupil, patient, cub-scout/brownie, choir boy &c) are all ones which, in multiple ways, enact this innocence.

I’ll take the ‘teacher’ as an example.

He must act the role of a ‘teacher’, assuming the authority and distance proper to that role. Likewise the child acts, or learns how to act, the role of the ‘pupil’. The school environment facilitates the adoption of these roles in a variety of ways, including systems of sanctions and rewards.

Experiments such as Philip Zimbardo‘s infamous Stanford prison experiment show how people are very apt to adopt the values and perspectives proper to the roles they find themselves playing.

The teacher is under great pressure to ‘buy into’ the social construct of the ‘pupil’, and ‘the child’: teaching is goal-oriented and the adult’s performance is evaluated in terms of how well those goals have been achieved, the teacher is successful to the extent that his pupils resemble the ideal ‘school-child’ (polite, sociable, bright, hard-working); interactions are easier and more enjoyable and the teacher will win more respect from his colleagues and employers. Moreover the children themselves are happiest when conforming to the roles allotted them – a child who refuses to play his role is often a child who is troubled or unhappy.

The challenges of teaching also make it difficult for the teacher to know his pupils as full individuals. A conscientious teacher may be aware of a child’s interests, problems, hopes, fears and friendships – but when he has a curriculum to deliver to up to 30 children – some of whom may be difficult and demanding – he can not give the same attention to these aspects of his pupils’ self-hoods as, say, their parents or their friends can – which is why teachers sometimes have to remind themselves that ‘all children are likeable if you get to know them well enough‘.

I’ve discussed this question with a friend who taught a child whom she knew extremely well out of school and was very close to. She found that child’s self-hood in class a pale shadow of the vivid, complex, entertaining and affectionate person whom she knew at evenings and weekends.

The ‘ideal school-child’ is likely to be significantly different from a paedophile’s ‘ideal child’: there is no place for ‘sexiness’, ‘sensuality’ or ‘seductiveness’ in the role of the ‘school child’, certainly the primary-age school-child. An example of this is how school uniforms emphasise the identity of the ‘school child’ at the expense of individuality and expression, and has the effect of desexualising the child.

4928

A paedophile teacher will daily encounter children whom he dislikes, finds troublesome or unattractive, and this will ‘test’ and, through a constant process of negotiation and friction, ‘shape’ that teacher’s concept of ‘the child’. The paedophile teacher, if he is committed to his role, will come to think of, and value, those he teaches primarily in terms of how well they fulfill the role of ‘pupil’: their academic work, their behaviour and attitude; not their sexuality or attractiveness. Indeed he may come to find intrusions of his sexuality into his teaching disruptive.

All of which will have an an anaphrodisiac effect on a paedophile.

(A parenthetical word about the limitations of this approach

Before I touch on the third category – ‘familial contact’ – I should acknowledge the limitations of this way of analysing relationships and desire: life and people are complicated and generally subject to more influences than can be taken into account.

Personality, personal history, the influence of one’s social circle, the way habits of thought and of deed persist beyond the conditions which gave rise to them, &c &c all reduce the predictive power of such analyses.

Moreover, people can also inhabit several categories at any one period in their life – someone may be, at different moments of the day, a teacher, a father and the best friend of the next-door neighbour’s child.

This means that this kind of analysis may not be spectacularly effective at explaining or predicting individual behaviour. However, I feel that this way of thinking is useful when thinking about populations and groups of people.)

familial contact

The family represents a transition between ‘functional’ and ‘egalitarian’ contact.

As in ‘egalitarian contact’ the relationship between the child and the parent is constructed through a complex and ever-developing interaction which starts at the child’s birth. The adult/child distinction matters less – the individual qualities of the child start to take precedence over a priori socially constructed ideas of ‘the child’. The child feels less ‘on display’ in such a relationship and the engagement between the adult and child is more based on their personalities than roles.

However, despite the child generally having more agency and freedom of expression, as in the case of ‘functional contact’ the parents maintain a position of authority over the child.

Family roles and interactions are much more complex, changeable, contradictory and less codified than in ‘functional’ contact – think of the number of roles a father has to play which affect the child either directly or indirectly: parent, husband, ‘lover’ (of his wife, but also as a child’s first model of masculinity), wage-earner, friend, teacher, disciplinarian, entertainer, role model &c. And if the father also happens to be a paedophile we can add to this complex mix his sexuality, incest taboos, the Westermark effect &c.

Parents are the front line troops in the fight against child sexuality. They encounter the earliest signs of child sexuality and have to do what it takes to maintain the idea that children are ‘innocent’ as defined by society.

They don’t do this out of cruelty, repressiveness or puritanism: it’s a process that generally happens beyond the awareness of either the parents or the child – it is a ‘triumph of assumptions’ rather than an act of will on the parents’ part.

However a father or mother who is a paedophile is likely to have to suppress conflicting impulses and beliefs out of fear of the law and/or of their spouse – and also out of an awareness that their child will have to exist in a society where child sexuality is seen as dysfunctional.

But I will leave my consideration of ‘familial contact’ here. If it seems I do so with unseemly haste it is not because there is little to say but because, on the contrary, there is too much to say. The roles and interactions in the family are so various and complex that, whereas a few hundred words suffices to sketch out the essentials of the other categories it would require a whole essay, or series of essays, to do the same for the family.

I hope eventually to write such an essay.

egalitarian contact

I’m sure many who are reading this will, at some time in their life, have experienced a profound friendship with a child.

Like all friendships, they are the result of interactions which depend little on social norms, roles and expectations. Such a relationship is more an original creation of the two people involved (though outside forces – parents, schools etc will always have an input).

The adult is not playing a role (teacher, parent) and has no socially sanctioned authority over the child. The relationship is egalitarian. The adult does not think of his young friend as ‘a child’ and the child does not think of her old friend as ‘an adult’. The adult can find himself ‘looking up’ to the child in a way that goes against the assumptions of ‘superiority’ which the orthodox cultural narrative automatically attributes to the adult.

At this level the two individuals get to know each other in a way which makes socially constructed identities less and less relevant and the connection between the two individuals can become very profound.

The child’s behaviour is shaped by her respect this person, and vice versa. This can, and does, of course, occur between children – but the fact that the partner in this interaction is an adult will allow the child to have a more sophisticated conception of what it is to be a social being and give him/her a foot in the ‘adult’ world that no other relationship can provide.

Such interactions probably are, ethically, the safest relationships within which an adult and a child can experience physical intimacy. The issue of ‘abuse of authority’ is unlikely to arise as disparity of authority is not built into such relationships and – unlike as with familial and functional relationships – the child can opt out of the relationship or end it if she wishes.

As the neither partner has a significant advantage in terms of authority any sensuality and sexuality in such a relationship is likely to be a product of the desires and wishes of both participants.

They are also the kinds of interactions where the levels of trust are such that the child will feel most at ease expressing any sexual feelings she has towards the adult. To the adult these will feel less like advances from a ‘child’ (as defined by society) and more as from an autonomous, complete ‘person’.

This is a kind of relationship which is invisible, remains un-named (though in the UK the label ‘uncle’ or ‘aunt’ is sometimes applied to non-related adults who share a close friendship with a child), and is viewed with suspicion in WEIRD societies. But (I suspect) that this kind of relationship is an essential part of the socialization of children and occurs more frequently in more community-oriented the society is. Such relationships create vertical cohesion (i.e. between generations). They give the child the experience of being respected by an adult, they give am more independent access to the community and the world than the child’s parents could. And the child has the opportunity to engage in more ‘mature’ ways of acting and interacting without being subjected to the authoritarian constraints that are necessary to parenthood, teaching &c.

I sometimes wonder whether our paedophobic culture (‘paedophobic’ in both the commonly use sense of ‘fearing paedophiles’ and in the strict sense of ‘fearing children’) doesn’t have a deep-down nostalgia for this kind of relationship: the film industry seems to portray such relationships with a frequency which belies the distaste with which they are viewed in real life. Three recent films in this genre are ‘Lamb’, Up and ‘Mary and Max’. I could write a list ten times as long, but will hold my fire as this is something I hope to investigate in more detail eventually.

24 thoughts on “Knowing ‘The Child’: An Epistemology of Paedophilic Desire

  1. >”I don’t doubt that Neel Sethi (Mowgli) will pop the cork of many a boy-lover, and leave a good few non-paedos worried about the feelings the sight of him provokes in them.”

    Interestingly, I just found a 1989 paper (“Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference”, Freund, et al, The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 107-117 February, 1989) which researches this, and mentions earlier studies, e.g.,

    >”The first study (Freund, McKnight, Langevin, & Cibiri, 1972) assessed the erotic value of minors for gynephiles. The results indicated that for a substantial proportion of gynephiles the erotic impact
    of pubescent girls is quite strong, and that the female child also has significant, albeit weak, erotic arousal potential.”

    In this study the definitions used are: “gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males)”.

    >”The second study (Freund, Langevin, Cibiri, & Zajac, 1973) compared gynephiles and androphiles on the erotic impact of children, pubescents, and adults of the preferred as well as of the nonpreferred gender. There were no differences between the two subject groups in respect to responses to adults, pubescents, and to 6- to 8-year-old children; however, responses of gynephiles to 8- to 11-year-old female
    children turned out to be larger than responses of androphiles to male children of that age. While this difference was significant, it was very small.”

    The whole point of the paper was silly, in that it was attempting to discover why “the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men”.

    The important point for me is that their phallometric measurements (sic) showed that in non-paedophiles, children never the less produced an “erotic reaction”, i.e., increased blood flow through the penis.

    This feeds into my (strong) suspicion that finding children sexy and desirable simply is normal human sexuality, which would, of course, account for “opportunistic” adult-child sexual interactions in “non-paedophiles.” Of course, that was one of the major points made by Kincaid in “Erotic Innocence”: we make and watch these movies because we all are just a little turned on by the children in them (Though he did say this in a more caveat ridden manner.)

    Of course, more recent research into this usually claims that any man who has the aforementioned penile blood flow response simply is a paedophile, but Freund was definite in researching non-paedophiles, though he may have been more or less successful at finding appropriate research candidates, we have to assume that he was indeed testing non-paedophiles.

    But, if we accept this type of response to the research, then the argument that paedophilia is merely a particular sexuality (vide homosexuality, and so on) receives a boost.

    Ok, ok, I wandered far away from your point, but I claim intellectual lunacy. All I really was trying to say is that, yep, there will be many non-paedophiles who will respond in an entirely (non-) sexual way and wonder just what is going on in their lives. If they think that far at all…

    Like

    1. Such researches about significant attraction of hetero males towards young or little girls have been repeated. Filip Schuster even made a meta-analysis of them in 2014, “Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic”. LSM or TOC may perhaps have the URL of it.

      From my notes, all following results with a sample of ordinary heteros:

      Barbaree & al. 1989: 68% had best responses to adult women, 14% to teen girls or adult women, and 18% to litttle girls, teens or adult women.

      Hall & al. 1995: 3/80 with pedo behavior, 16/80 pedo interest, 26/80 respond equally to girls and women on slides, 21/80 respond equally to girls and women for tape recording of consensual sex.

      Freund &Watson 1991: 19.4% significant response to little girls.

      Fedora & al. 92: 11/60 react more on young (preferred, boy or girl) erotica than on adult (male or female) erotica, or equally on young and adult erotica (of preferred gender), but reacting more on young explicit sex than on adult explicit. Globally, means and standard deviations of responses are:
      M SD
      YBE 0.90 2.35
      YBX 1.73 3.13
      AME 0.42 1.54
      AMX 2.45 4.11
      YGE 3.43 5.29
      YGX 5.69 7.49
      AFE 6.77 7.86
      AFX 6.98 6.27
      (YB: young boy, YG: young girl, AM: adult male, AF: adult female, E: erotica, X: explicit sex).

      Liked by 1 person

  2. First, to everyone here, I have found the above discussion interesting as well as the blog.

    >I sometimes wonder whether our paedophobic culture (‘paedophobic’ in both the commonly use sense of ‘fearing paedophiles’ and in the strict sense of ‘fearing children’) doesn’t have a deep-down nostalgia for this kind of relationship: the film industry seems to portray such relationships with a frequency which belies the distaste with which they are viewed in real life.

    Good point! Actually, it is just one good point among many in your analysis. I home in on this one because parents are flocking with their kids right now to see a new version of The Jungle Book, with very loving “autonomous” relationships between the little “man cub” Mowgli and some awesomely big and powerful animals, notably Bagheera the panther and Baloo the bear. I have just seen the film and will be blogging about it shortly.

    These relationships are not obviously egalitarian; indeed some might say they are obviously not, but they would be wrong: broadly, the beasts have the brawn plus jungle savvy while the boy has ingenuity plus hand skills; it’s a great partnership, with parity of esteem and affectionate bonding.

    It seems a shame to comment on only one point from such an interesting analysis, though, so I’ll make one more observation, on your point that the family represents a transition between ‘functional’ and ‘autonomous’ contact and that “The child feels less ‘on display’ in such a relationship and the engagement between the adult and child is more based on their personalities than roles.”

    I agree, but with a caveat. Where there are siblings the child is likely to present not their intrinsic personality but, rather, a persona that allows them to compete effectively with the other offspring for parental attention. If the first-born is clever, the second-born may feel outgunned in that department. Instead of trying to keep up on the smartness front, they might discover they can impress their parents more by being charming, obliging and “lovable” instead. It’s a Darwinian struggle for parental investment of resources. See Frank L Sulloway, Born to Rebel.

    To everyone again: Happy Alice Day!

    Like

    1. I’ve watched some of the trailers for the new ‘The Jungle Book’ film and look forward to reading your review, Tom. I don’t doubt that Neel Sethi (Mowgli) will pop the cork of many a boy-lover, and leave a good few non-paedos worried about the feelings the sight of him provokes in them.

      But I’m not that hopeful for how the film will fare in comparison to the 1967 version – I can’t see how it could top it on the musical front – and I can’t imagine that Mowgli could be treated as sensually as he is in the cartoon version (he’s all over that big paedo of a bear, Balloo, and Kaa, more sinisterly, is really all over Mowgli).

      >”a caveat. Where there are siblings the child is likely to present not their intrinsic personality but, rather, a persona that allows them to compete effectively with the other offspring for parental attention.”

      Good point and very true. Your comment has made me consider how much my own personality has been shaped by having an older sibling who has a very strong personality and who is very dominant – on reflection, I’ve had to ‘fit into the gaps’ left by that sibling.

      But I think that this adds to the factors which makes the family fall short of truly egalitarian relationships. The power relationships are mainly between parents and children, but also, as you point out, between siblings.

      It just shows what a complex thing the nuclear family is…

      Which reminds me of something I learnt from a year I spent teaching teaching a very small class of children – for some reason the class was split into to two at the start of the year and I, much to my glee, ended up teaching a class of 16 children.

      I thought that it would be an easy year – less marking, more time to devote to each child…

      However that year’s teaching proved to be a nightmare – the kids were always arguing and fighting and falling out with each other. And there was little I could do to improve the atmosphere in class.

      I discussed this with some more experienced teachers and they pointed out that small classes are notorious for being fractious. In a small class each child has fewer children to choose from when making friendships and parternerships: in a class of 16 – assuming at that age children will not make cross-gender friendships- each child is left with 7 others with whom to make friendships. Which means that there may in fact be no-one in the class that a child particularly gets on with and the quality of friendships are generally poorer.

      If this is the case for a class of 16 – how much more is it the case for a nuclear family with maybe 3, 4, 5 or 6 members? Members of different ages? How is it possible for conflict not to happen in such a small and insular institution?

      This is why I think it is so important for children to be ‘released’ into the community at a much younger age than they are nowadays. I’d say that by the age of seven a child should feel that they belong as much to their community as to their family – if we build our personality and self-hood from those with whom we interact it seems evident that a child will generally benefit from having a wide and varied social circle as early as possible.

      Like

      1. I thought that it would be an easy year – less marking, more time to devote to each child…

        However that year’s teaching proved to be a nightmare – the kids were always arguing and fighting and falling out with each other. And there was little I could do to improve the atmosphere in class.

        Part of the problem there, IMO, is that the current dominant schooling environment serves as a corollary of the situation within the nuclear family unit. Kids in the top-down, gerontocentric authoritarian classroom are forced to compete with each other in many ways to win the favor of the teachers, who operate there as the Central Adult Authority figures in the parents’ stead. Teachers, like parents, will tend to pick “favorites” based on the kids whose general personality traits, receptiveness to the standardized educational methodology, and demonstrated areas of skill appeal most to the school (e.g., academic, athletic, or musical). Any student who fails to live up to the aforementioned favored characteristics are often disliked by the teachers, and labeled a “problem child.” They are often singled out for disciplinary measures and sent on regular visits to the guidance counselor to provide them with “help” and to try and “figure them out.” These days they might be prescribed various drugs like Ritalin in an attempt to modify their personalities in ways that are more conducive to the preferences of the authoritarian classroom setting.

        I’m speaking from experience as someone who was considered a “problem child” both at home and in school for all of the above reasons.

        I discussed this with some more experienced teachers and they pointed out that small classes are notorious for being fractious. In a small class each child has fewer children to choose from when making friendships and parternerships: in a class of 16 – assuming at that age children will not make cross-gender friendships- each child is left with 7 others with whom to make friendships. Which means that there may in fact be no-one in the class that a child particularly gets on with and the quality of friendships are generally poorer.

        I can relate to this because during my years of secondary education I attended a small high school. As a result, the unpopular students didn’t have a large group of individuals to bond with and offer support and defense against the more common, popular groups (e.g., jocks, honor roll students, the most physically attractive pupils, and anyone else with more visceral, socially applauded talents such as singing ability–all of whom tended to control the token student body government). In reality, the bullies were only rarely the types of delinquent, drug-dealing, lunch-money stealing punks as depicted in movies like My Bodyguard (as much as I loved that film); rather, they tended to be members of the popular groups mentioned above. But in a very small school like the one I attended for high school, there weren’t enough of us unpopular people to count on a single hand, so we were very easy prey for both our more socially powerful peers and the supremely powerful members of the adult staff.

        This is why I think it is so important for children to be ‘released’ into the community at a much younger age than they are nowadays. I’d say that by the age of seven a child should feel that they belong as much to their community as to their family – if we build our personality and self-hood from those with whom we interact it seems evident that a child will generally benefit from having a wide and varied social circle as early as possible.

        Fully agree. There are just too many power imbalances in the insular nuclear family institution and authoritarian schooling system, because a degree of inequality is built into their very foundation. This means that children and young teens will learn early on to build their own hierarchies-within-a-hierarchy so that they are most favored by the few adult authority figures at the top of the chain, yet another parallel with the behavior of chattel slaves on a pre-Civil War Southern plantation (as deftly described in many slave journals, as well as novels like Uncle Tom’s Cabin). This learned deference to the authority of a few carries on into their adult lives, which is why the great majority of adults in Western/Northern society readily accept the supremacy and abuses of power routinely meted out by corporate executives and anyone with an important office in Parliament or Congress.

        Like

  3. Yes BJM, your previous comments have mentioned the absence of any sexual attraction for children, and it is refreshing to have someone here with potentially different perceptions. Thing is though, some of us who are attracted to children are also attracted to adults, me included, and so differences in perception (and sexuality) may often be marginal.

    My facetious use of the term grooming was meant to highlight the current state of the witch hunt where no man, irrespective of his sexuality, who mentors children is safe from accusations of assault. This situation may explain why the ratio of male teachers to female teachers in the UK has fallen from 3 to 1 in the 1950s to 1 to 20 today in primary schools. This is what a recent Daily Telegraph article had to say: “At the same time, men as a whole were increasingly being portrayed in feminist-dominated culture as predatory beasts who are a menace to children and women alike … men who might like to become primary school teachers today are worried that they might be seen as latent or active paedophiles, or otherwise unmanly.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. >>your previous comments have mentioned the absence of any sexual attraction for children, and it is refreshing to have someone here with potentially different perceptions<>Potentially different perceptions?<<

      I have no idea about that. But I suspect much of my perception is not so very different to yours, or LSM's, in that the more research I do, the more it appears to me that so-called paedophilia is a very normal part of human sexuality, and that the current hysteria about adult-child relationships is bullshit (no other term possible).

      And yes, I knew why you were using "grooming", I was merely being very silly in reply.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. This is post which is very difficult to comment on, but I do have at least one thing to say/suggest.

    You talk about autonomous contact, and yes, I agree that this is something which is very important (“mentoring”, as they now call it). In this category, of course, is autonomous contact with other children, which is often not allowed—by default, because contemporary parents surveil their children all but continuously, which reduces their ability to be with and earn from each other.

    As for adults, the interesting aspect of this is the extension of childhood until age 18 or more. What this extension does is ensure that parents talk to their children as though they are ten years old, or less, well into what should be young adulthood. During this extension, the children often continue to be surveilled as though they are ten years old.

    The type of benefit which arises from autonomous contact with non-familial adults also can occur if and when the parents treat their children according to their age and capabilities rather than their imaginary status as innocent and hence incapable children. Indeed, doing so encourages autonomous contact with other people, of all ages and genders. This much I have learnt by treating my own children as sensible and capable people from a very young age. So much so, that it has caused them some difficulty at high school, where the teachers have complained about their questioning of teacher’s authority, and have made somewhat disparaging remarks about it being clear that they had had a lot of contact and conversation with adults. Other parents with children the same age also become quite bothered by the “adult” conversation and argumentation from my children, whilst maintaining an all but unbearable childishness in their own children. (they are 15 1nd 16, by the way, so such complaints seem ridiculous, at best.)

    Anyway, just a thought… but how to get parents to treat their children in a different fashion. Well, I have no answer to that!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Mentoring” is so passé … the new word is grooming. Its adoption, popularity and frequency of use has created yet another major fracture line across an already broken society. The chasm between the youngest generation and the rest of the world is now unbridgeable as the act of establishing a bridge has effectively been rendered illegal..

      Like

      1. Yes, but what else am I going to call it when I’m not sexually attracted to children?
        It would seem exceeding odd to talk of myself as grooming people I’m not particularly interested in or excited by. Then again, as a dedicated teliophile(?) / heterophile, perhaps if they had an exceedingly attractive mother, or much older sister….

        Apologies, I am not intending to diminish your comment. In fact I agree with it, and have experienced a great many difficulties talking to my children’s friends when they’ve been visiting over the past few years. But I have to continue being optimistic about the situation, if only because I feel too old to suddenly become pessimistic.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Thanks BJ.

      >”As for adults, the interesting aspect of this is the extension of childhood until age 18 or more.”

      I agree that there is a strong upwards shift in the boundaries of adulthood. I think that a lot of the brouhaha around ‘campus rape’ is an expression of the idea that the Age of Consent is set too young – I’ve seen people arguing for it to be raised to 21!

      Another aspect of this is how consumer culture seems to infantilise adults – how adults buy into adolescent trends, activities and mindsets. I’m planning to get round to reading a bit more on this subject – I don’t doubt that investigating this will throw some light on paedo-hysteria and our society’s conception of ‘the child’.

      >”but how to get parents to treat their children in a different fashion. Well, I have no answer to that!”

      That’s a tough one – I think a lot of parents find themselves ‘cornered’ by society – they want to bring up their children with certain values and experiences but ‘society’ gets to them. the TV/no-TV dilemna illustrates this – how there are parents who don’t want a TV in their home but who buy one, realising that their child would be seriously socially disadvantaged if they were ignorant of the TV-culture. I suspect that there are hundreds of such decisions where the costs of doing what, in the abstract, is ‘right’ are so great that the parent feels obliged to compromise and conform.

      Like

    1. Thanks for that Salem21 – there are several videos by Jenn that are very well-thought-out and sympathetic to children’s sexual rights and ethical paedophilia. As you say, people like her show that not everyone buys into the hysteria – in fact I’m pretty certain that there are more people than it would appear out there who are sceptical or who are ‘pro-paedo’ – after all there can be no opinion that is more suppressed and more dangerous to articulate than pro-paedo ones.

      I think that we are like atheists in islamic dictatorships – probably loads of them, but the price for speaking out, or expressing doubts, is too great.

      Like

  5. “But do the social conditions under which we interact with those whom we desire significantly determine how that desire is experienced?”

    Sorry LSM, I cannot contribute much to this topic as I have no experience of interacting with those whom I desire. Within the family situation, many years ago, there were agonising situations where my kids’ friends wanted to rough and tumble with me for example, but the ever-present self-induced fear-fueled force-field cocooned me from their wanted advances. To them, I must have appeared no better than a stereotypical remote ‘adult’. The blame for my inability to relate naturally to kids can be laid squarely at the door of a phobic and vindictive society.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I suspect that the answer is that the social conditions determine how we respond to our desire. But a goodly part of the social conditions is the “the ever-present self-induced fear-fueled force-field” that Feinmanno mentions, which, like all “morality” is internalised in us all.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi feinmann0

      I think you kind of give an example of the difficulties of being a parent and a paedophile – I suspect that it must be very, well, ‘confusing’ – as you must notice expressions of your child’s sexuality, but also have pressures to conform to the ‘innocent child’ narrative. I remember discussing fatherhood with my own father and him saying that it kind of happened in a ‘fog of battle’ where you’re too close to what is happening to be able to get much perspective on it, and how you’re so busy dealing with the immediate crises that ideals tend to go out of the window.

      I think back to my own history – one of the factors that made me uneasy about marrying a girl to whom I was engaged was that I knew she’d not have a liberal attitude towards our children’s sexual expression – I’m not talking about ‘incest’but more the kind of think like nudity and sharing baths with any children we might have. In the end I suspect, that on such questions, the parent with the attitudes closest to the orthodoxy will generally win out.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks LSM. Sounds as if you had a cool dad to have discussed such personal things with you. Yes, one thing the non-incestuous child lover does not have is a full 24/7 responsibility from day one. Consequently, they find themselves sitting on a knoll in brilliant sunshine, looking down upon the ‘fog of battle’ in the isolated valley below. In a more communal bonobo-esque setting, fog would be a far rarer phenomenon I suspect.

        On the topic of marrying the right girl, it seems you could be spoilt for choice, given the massive statistic of young mums who have no male presence in their homes. Why not prostitute yourself a little via online dating? ;o)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. >” Sounds as if you had a cool dad to have discussed such personal things with you.”

          Yes, I’ve been pretty lucky (or wise) in my choice of parents, I guess.

          >”Why not prostitute yourself a little via online dating? ;o)”

          I tried that once. Didn’t like it. Got me head stuck, couldn’t work out where to smear the Marmite and it ended up costing me hundreds of Bolivianos in structural repairs to my house.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. This ongoing endless self-justifying defensive shit against mainstream IMproperganda mass mind RAPE, could eventually give mere benign pedophilia real bad name.Sooo, let’s never end by joining up so called child-adult SeX into one celebration – BILLIONS of Adultophiles ROCK!  “My mind, my body, my choice, my pedo – mind yer own!”Further kind thoughts for the unthinking daily daZed. In 130 yrs since 1885 when the UK AOC was raised to 16, why have THOUSANDS of supposedly ‘Innocent Children’ as young as EIGHT been lawfully convicted or caged for their Moral, Mental, Emotional ability to CONSENT to commit crimes?Answer the questions, answer the Goddam questions!! E.G. “When I was a FOUR year old (ADULTOPHILE) in our secluded garden with my favorite adult uncle. I LOVED him ‘crossing my borders’..”   vv – – The Erotic Lives of Women – The New York Times – Breaking … http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/29/bib/981129.rv…   En cacheTHE EROTIC LIVES OF WOMEN By Linda Troeller and Marion Schneider. Scalo, $45. – photo-eye Bookstore | Linda Troeller: The Erotic Lives of … http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=PK492   En cacheThe Erotic Lives of Women. Photographs by Linda Troeller. Text by Marion Schneider http://www.amazon.com  › …  › Photography & VideoThe Erotic Lives of Women [Linda Troeller] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Book by Troeller, Linda, Schneider, Marion Plus, Proud ADULTOPHILE Priscilla, ”I was only 14.” Priscilla Presley discusses Elvis…. September 2010

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | Priscilla Presley discusses Elvis…. September 2010 Priscilla Presley discusses Elvis, his music, his life, and career. She also judges “Little Elvis”. | |

    |

    |

    PLUS, Rock God Good Pedo PRESLEY, “He was agreat kisser”…”The younger (an ADULTOPHILE) you were the better.”  Elvis Presley. Elvis In Love. Part 1.Documentary.

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | Elvis Presley. Elvis In Love. Part 1.Documentary. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for… | |

    |

    |

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlI2RKNGnLU  AND, based on her (UNREVISED) 1stEdition, 1985 sensational bio book: “ELVIS & ME”: Elvis and Me (1988)

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | Elvis and Me (1988) “Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use&quo… | |

    |

    |

    Plus, “At that point in  time there was influx of baby groupies, and I mean ‘babies’. These girls were 13 & 14.”… “He was a wonderful person. It was worth every minute.”JIMMY PAGE & LORI MATTIX

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | JIMMY PAGE & LORI MATTIX Story about Jimmy Page and his former girlfriend Lori Mattix. Includes Interview with Lori. *COMMENT, RATE, SUBS… | |

    |

    |

    Plus, popular BIG GAY TV celeb Dale Winton, paraphrased, “When I was 13 I didn’t know if I was gay or straight. So I CHOSE to have  SeX with an attractive woman teacher, and then with an attractive male teacher. I was aMused NOT aBused.”Dale winton biography – Yahoo Search – Actualités

    | | | Dale winton biography – Yahoo Search – Actualités | |

    |

    Like

........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

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