The Myth of Consent

iconsent

When it comes to consent everyone becomes a champion for it to be acknowledged and promoted throughout modern societies.  Everyone becomes an advocate and agrees that each individual should confirm and feel comfortable with whatever situation they are exposed to.  Modern democratic systems also endorses that people should be alright with whatever it is getting done in their respective environments and also be allowed to complain if they do not?

How much truth does this when it comes to younger members of our society?  Are they partially allowed to some and/or given the illusion that they have some control over their life?  In children’s eyes, is democracy actually even applicable to them or are they forced to submit to authority regardless of what their opinion on the matter is?  How could this be changed?

According to the Dictionary Merriam-Webster, the definition of “Consent” is to “give assent or approval; to be in concord in opinion or sentiment”.  When it comes to consent in the MAP community, many individuals quickly jump to intercourse = sex, which is not always the case, in fact, I would say it is almost never the case to use that word to solely represent just that.  In spite of that, many still choose to misinterpret it into exclusively intercourse, when in reality, an ideal adult-child relationship would constitute into so much more than mere contact.  There are feelings, teaching, growth, communication, you know, like regular relationships, but not explicitly the same due to the nature of it being promoting growth, mentoring and love.

One thing people like to point out when it comes to these relationships are the “differences in power” as something diabolical and that all pedophiles will use in order to get what they want which, given the nature of such claim, it is entirely false in that context.  There is no denying that in current society there would be differences in power and trust implicated in adult-child relationships, but that does not mean that such elements should be exploited in order to take advantage of the child, rather it should be completely the opposite, using your position in order to maximize the growth of the young one, as well as introduce them to other things in life as they grow up.

b83e5871-3e11-4e48-861b-5c3de0d67aed The complex approach towards these relationships mostly emanate from the thought that these would emulate a regular adult relationship.  That statement couldn’t be further from the truth of what most adults, as well as children, want from these relationships.  Some people just want company, younger companions who make them feel more comfortable and make their lives perhaps more lively, as well as the same contributions for the child’s life.  This means having a stable relationship that doesn’t exactly consists of all the variables that are mostly present in other types of interactions of this nature.

There is also the fact that children are mostly taken for granted and their input never seems to be valued, unless it’s a reply from them confirming to blind obedience to their respective guardians.  Why choose to ignore what the child wants and preset the experiences they have to go through their entire youth?  Where is their agreement in this?  Why do you use your authority to over their will, sometimes not really in the best hopes for them, but to get them to do what you want, but then refuse to give them any freedom to do certain things without proper reason to do so?  In fact, why isn’t it immoral to prevent for children’s rights to have their own experiences fully?  Just like everyone, they learn from their mistakes, but also acquire from their experiences, and that’s part of them growing up.

Parents’ Perspectives on Parenting Styles and Disciplining Children

I mostly tackle current raising methods as being limiting and selfish when it comes about actually caring about the child.  Current methods goes against the child will at times and enables parents to have the absolute power in what children should say, think and what their general approach to life should be, amongst other restrictions, unfortunately. Where is their acknowledgement in all of this?  Are children your property or a life that should be taught to grow open to everything that there is to life, rather than keeping them from reality?

I really think a more open and less restrictive approach should be taken when raising a child.  One where the main worry is not getting the child to do what you tell them to do all the time, but let them explore what they wish to seek instead.  Society itself also needs to change it’s view towards children as the inherent to explicitly the current society that is now.  What if they want to go about it differently and create something to replace today’s society?  Schooling systems need to drastically be changed from just adapting children to work and obey to something that equips them with analytical thinking, allowing them to actually learn subjects and approach them in a logical/rational manner in order to truly appreciate their observations and perhaps even willingness to learn about more subjects, as well as explore them on their own, not just focusing on their memorizing capabilities, which aren’t certainly a bad thing, but it shouldn’t be the main focus of modern education.

Traditional Methods of Raising Children

The link above is an example of what constitutes indoctrination, in this case it would be Islam taken as an example, but it can be the case with any and all religions, including atheism.  While people appeal over pedophiles using “grooming” methods to manipulate children, many times against their consent (which I condemn when done so), they disregard religious folks doing the same in their given raising methods.  Children are subject to learn traditions and to behave in certain ways, but receive punishments if they drift out of their ways.  According to Islam, “Parents would marry their children off at a young age to ensure they did not commit any acts of disobedience.”, meaning that they are to be held to be married against potentially their consent just because they are not allowed to “commit any acts of disobedience”, but what if they want to follow a different path in their life?

It is hypocritical to think that implemented raising methods actually care about children, while thinking that MAPs in general do not care about them.  Most believe pedophiles have ulterior motives with them, bending them against their.  Same people who are also imposing these kinds of ideologies on kids that are currently growing, instead of valuing the liberty of them to explore different aspects that will eventually constitute their thoughts and general perspective towards life.  Children need liberty, not restriction.  They need guidance, not submission.  These variables will constitute into creating a child who can be more self-dependent, but also kind and open-minded.

Young Boy at School Raising His Hand to Answer in Class
Is blind obedience and confirming nods what you want from a child?  Or do you want a human life taking responsibilities for their actions, exploring life as it is, therefore creating a better understanding of it, and being able to analyze situations according to their capabilities?  What is more important to you?  Submission or Freedom? 

 

 

24 Replies to “The Myth of Consent”

  1. The human nature strives to be more than a drone…But the prevailing order wants drones…

    …I think this is why I so naturally “hate” the prevailing order…I see it as killing and tormenting the personal human being.

    I am a homosexual child of religion…one of the least accepting ones…Which has given me a particular style of experience, and understanding.

    For decades I’ve asked…why is there such a range of things people can do to children, against their will and wellbeing…if those things are done in the name of religion?

    What possible good are “child saving champions” and their agencies doing…when they are selective, regarding what circumstances to intervene in?

    A time or two I’ve talked about…”wouldn’t it have been amazing, to have had the sexual minority support groups, when I was in school?”…

    This would never happen…It was a Baptist school…The elders didn’t accept, that anyone was naturally homosexual…I spent quite a bit of my life…my time in that church…believing quite literally, that I was headed to hell.

    So much about that organization was just toxic…From it’s mental shackling, to it’s bad teachings…to it’s meager educational offerings…

    One thing I know about this experience, is that it badly stunts your development….You walk out of there with a diploma, just to discover how underprepared you are to deal with the world…and how far behind you are…

    It’s crazy…And it takes decades to deprogram…to get all the mental baggage out of your head.

    Life experience has taught me…if there is a sizable amount of people doing something to children…then you can do that same thing to children…Those groups are to hard to round up, and met out consequence to…

    …If it’s a small group of people taking a minority stance…they move in on you, because you are easy to crush.

    It would be an impossible task to arrest, prosecute, judge, sentence and met out that sentence…if “everybody” was into making love to children…Any laws of prohibition, would be untenable…And if they viewed child loving as a positive, wonderful thing…most would view the very existence of such laws, as a vile matter.

    ….It’s a numbers game…A game of balances, and tipping points….And most people aren’t “blessed” with this charming orientation.

    The predominant order isn’t there to actually save children…It’s there, to act as an agent of social control…Once every now and then, it stumbles through the process of saving a child in peril…The rest of the time, it just…enforces “the plan”, which most of us had no voice in forming.

    There are many forms of abuse, which “the plan” doesn’t care about…Those were never a concern…The people behind “the plan”, already accept those kinds of abuse.

    When I get to this point…it’s really my inner anarchist talking…

    …I’ve always been an anarchist, at heart…

    …I see concentrated power, and those who seek to control said power, to be amongst the most dangerous variables in this world…In my opinion, these levels of power and position should not exist.

    All to often, they just redirect and concentrate the abuse, elsewhere…They never eradicate it…They incorporate it into their own ends.

    People should be free, to walk away from their abusers, no matter what form they take…People should be free to choose their companions…These are amongst the highest of human rights.

    1. >This would never happen…It was a Baptist school…The elders didn’t accept, that anyone was naturally homosexual…I spent quite a bit of my life…my time in that church…believing quite literally, that I was headed to hell.

      I used to think that back when I was Christian too… That pedophiles would go to hell for being “evil”. Then I discovered how utterly ridiculous that is because we are not inherently bad, only society makes us look like that and psychology’s approach to us by only using inmates in majority of their “studies” does not help to give an accurate representation of the overall MAP community that actually exists, along with many not even taking said tests because of fear that might be traced down, along other factors, which is unfortunate.

      >….It’s a numbers game…A game of balances, and tipping points….And most people aren’t “blessed” with this charming orientation.

      I wouldn’t say that it is only a number of games. Look at homosexuality. They certainly aren’t a majority in the world’s population, but they achieved liberation. It’s more about the approach we take and how we prove to the world that they’re wrong by having their current mindset about us.

      >…I see concentrated power, and those who seek to control said power, to be amongst the most dangerous variables in this world…In my opinion, these levels of power and position should not exist.

      I agree, these elements must be destroyed, but the case is that this is far from still happening and so we must strive to do the little we can achieve now in order to then forward to a more fair society. I wish could just make this world more fair with one step, but that’s not how things work around here. The society they built is based on fear and prejudice, debunking these will result to be the most difficult and we are aware of that, since we have confronted with said variables.

      > All to often, they just redirect and concentrate the abuse, elsewhere…They never eradicate it…They incorporate it into their own ends.

      I have seen this happening over the course of history. From accusing different groups of people, to accusing races. They never end to find something to attack, a common enemy. It’s something humans are bound to do in order to feel a purpose in life and that there can be a change. Human mind is powerful and sometimes dangerous when they succumb into illusions.

      >People should be free, to walk away from their abusers, no matter what form they take…People should be free to choose their companions…These are amongst the highest of human rights.

      I completely agree. In the society I think of, abusers shouldn’t be present because there wouldn’t be a specific point in which someone should feel to be forced becoming an abuser in order to get what they wish.

      What a lot of people forget is that these “criminals” also have a story behind them on how they were mistreated by society, hated, stumbled upon. I don’t believe that every wrongdoer out there do these things just for the sake of doing it. Something is wrong in order for people to approach these behaviors and they must dealt with.

      1. “I wouldn’t say that it is only a number of games. Look at homosexuality. They certainly aren’t a majority in the world’s population, but they achieved liberation.”

        They are not a majority…That is true…But the balance was pushed to a tipping point, even if that meant having to tap into the apathetic population, who just didn’t care to see homosexuality persecuted. It was every bit as much about losing support for those laws, practices and mindsets, as it was about the people pushing for something different.

        If either had been absent, change would not have happened…

        I think in most of these cases…the balance really exists in the realm of public and personal perception…Meaning, when most people thought they were going to be crucified for supporting homosexuality, they were too terrified to say anything about it that might be construed as “not condemning it”.

        The populations who understand homosexuality, personally accept it or just don’t care, have always been there…They’ve just not always felt safe enough, to make their presence known.

        …And that’s a huge, huge problem for any sexual minority to confront.

        The public condemnation is always illusionary, to some degree.

        1. Agreed. We do have more people against us than those that were against homosexuality perhaps, but main reason is because of hate culture, stereotyping and propaganda that has been promoted against us, all while having bias incorporated in “studies” and also keeping the community highly censored in this modern era.

          Despite of that, it is not impossible for us to regain foot again, or at least, we shouldn’t thinking that, or else what would be the point of us being here in the first place? Just to hear ourselves talk or to inform individuals of how the harsh reality that we are currently confronting with and how the government exploits all this social issues into something that allows them to take advantage, not only on the MAP community but eventually on everyone as well. A clear example of this is how the government invades everyone’s privacy in order to “protect” the children from child molester and to “attack” terrorism.

  2. Those who accuse paedophiles of manipulating children and who claim that children are incapable of decision in sexual matters are just projecting onto paedophilia and child sexuality their own authoritarian views on child-adult relations and their dismissive views on children’s competences.
    The notion of “informed consent” comes from contracts: before signing, one must guarantee that all parts have received the necessary information and that they sign freely. But if you look at http://www.ogc.fullerton.edu/IRB/consentassent.htm you see that there is a third condition: the parts to the contract must have the authority to sign a contract. Minors are legally considered as without such an authority, so legally “unable” to pass the contract; this inability is purely legal, it does not indicate anything about the psychological abilities and the information of the minor. Then generally the capacity to consent is given to parents, “informed parental consent” is required, while the minor is just asked to give “assent”, an informal but not legally valid statement.
    In matters of sex, underage minors do not have the legal authority to consent, but even their parents cannot consent with the minor’s assent. Thus sex is considered as buying a house or contracting a mortgage, something which is forbidden to a minor. Thus simply sex is by decree forbidden to underage minors, it is under the control of the State, the parents cannot judge the minor’s capacities, and the minor cannot prove them. It is thus just a State-imposed legal ban, and all talks about minors being psychologically unable to understand sex (because of their “immature brain”) are just a diversion. In non-sexual activities, nobody invokes childhood immaturity to ban the activity, simply one advocates progressive learning and practice, something which goes hand in hand with psychological and neurological maturation, since a child develops by learning and doing things.

    1. >In non-sexual activities, nobody invokes childhood immaturity to ban the activity, simply one advocates progressive learning and practice, something which goes hand in hand with psychological and neurological maturation, since a child develops by learning and doing things.

      THIS, this is pretty much the whole issue. They want to separate intercourse into being something vastly different than also a process that encourages just the same growth and benefit for the child to understand the world better, if they so desire to seek such activity. Not all of them do and that is fine, but those that do should not suffer over such authority restricting them from these mundane activities that in the long-run do not have no one that genuinely love themselves, and that is with saying that not of us, child lovers, even desire such things as penetrating the children, especially if they do not enjoy it.

  3. Therapist: “Kids can not consent.”
    Patient: “I had a relationship at eight and I consented.”
    Therapist: “No, dammit, you did not.”

    David Finkelhor agrees that, scientifically, there may not be a reason to ban adult-child intimacy, but still thinks it’s immoral. But, when he says “it’s immoral”, at same time that adult-child intimacy is demonstrably safe when there’s no harm or coercion, he is passing the ball from science to philosophy. In face of so much evidence, science can’t say much else about this. So, if philosophy concludes that it’s not immoral, the ban will lose all academic support. His philosophical arguments against kid consent are:

    1) Consent can only be given in full understanding of the consequences of the act.
    2) Consent can only be given if the person is free to say no.

    If consent depends on understanding, the kid, specially considering how kids are super into learning about their own bodies, can be taught in an afternoon, specially if the act is non-penetrative, as 95% of pedophiles would want, according to Consenting Humans. Like, it’s skin-to-skin friction. What can go wrong? You can tell a kid what you are going to do and what are the consequences. Plus, thinking like the first argument, may very well label child-child intimacy as wrong as well. In adult-child intimacy, at least one side knows better. By the way, kids can consent with gender reassignment surgery at 12, something I’m sure they don’t fully understand. But it’s allowed because the kid would enjoy it and the act is “safe”. So, yeah. There you go. Finkelhor’s first argument has the consistency of a snowflake in current society.

    If consent depends on freedom to say “no”, then many adult relationships do not qualify. Men are naturally stronger, they can force a woman if desired. Why don’t they? Because it’s wrong, that’s not what you do when you love someone. An adult can force a kid if desired, but, if they love the kid, they will not. And, if they do, the relationship is exploitative, just like some adult relationships are exploitative and, thus, illegal. However, majority of the sexual offenses against children aren’t perpertrated by pedophiles, but by people with other disturbs, such as desire to hurt, being raised in rape culture, emotional instability, substance abuse or unavailability of an adult partner. I’m sure that Finkelhor is not worried because of pedophiles, but because of situational offenders, people who pose a problem to society even if they don’t offend kids.

    Plus, consent is response to proposal. Finkelhor didn’t ask himself “What if the kid starts it?”. Kids are willing, as boys as young as ten are engaging in sexting. I hope they remember how they were chastisized for that when they reach voting age. If a kid proposes something to me, say, “mind showering me?”, who needs to give consent is me.

    I proposed a new theory of consent in my essay Estupro de Vulnerável: Reflexões Sobre Ato Libidinoso Com Menor de Catorze Anos ( https://www.brongersma.info/Statutory_rape_-_Reflections_on_violence_presumption_in_libidinous_act_with_a_person_under_the_age_of_consent ), which is based on Aristóteles’ principle that everyone wants happiness and, thus, all choices we make aim for our happiness. So, if an act ends in harm, no one in their sane mind would have agreed with the act, meaning that the subject was either forced (rape) or lied to (manipulated). In absense of harm and presence of benefit, the person consented to something and got exactly what they wanted. It’s a different way to prove information. So, Finkelhor’s worries about those who hurt kids would be addressed that way. But how? This theory of consent renders justice unable to act before the rape occurs, it’s not preventive! No law is preventive, as a crime only exists to justice if reported or busted. If a kid is harmed, they will disclose. That’s how many cases of abuse are uncovered, even if the kid is ordered silence. They either bluntly tell or give clear signs of being abused, such as unhappiness and an odd silence. So, by applying this theory of consent, kids who engage in intimacy and aren’t harmed won’t have to disclose and adults who have intimacy with a child and don’t harm them won’t need to be punished.

    The sociological benefit of that would be clear. According to Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Philip Tromovitch, 70% of the cases of adult-child and child-child intimacy end in no harm. Each process filed against them can’t advance without the use of public money. And, because they aren’t deserving of strong punishment (such as death), they are sustained with public money in jail. Applying the law only to harmful encounters would reduce the amount of money spent in statutory rape charges in 70%. In my country, that’s a whoopload of money. Plus, the lawnacy going on is slowly, but surely, stirring adults away from children, as if they were scared to touch a kid and be called a “pervert”.

    From “Pedophile Funposting!”:

    If kids don’t know better, how can they consent to sex or intimacy?
    Answer 1: Intimacy and sex is down to bodily friction, it’s not hard to get prepared to. They can be informed in an afternoon.
    Answer 2: Kids can get sex reassignment surgery at age 12. Sex and intimacy are way safer than that. So they can consent in childhood.

    What should the kids know before consenting?
    Answer 1: They should know they can say “no” anytime without any pressure. They should know of potential risks (including social stigma) if any.

    How can children consent if their brain isn’t mature enough?
    Answer 1: Evidence shows that 12-year-olds already have a very mature cognitive faculty. They mature fast enough to learn. https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/brain_levels.htm
    Answer 2: Mentally-impaired people can consent, and a kid is often in better mental condition than them.

    What do pedophiles really desire? What do they fantasize about?
    Answer 1: Romantic intimacy, even if a sexual element is present, expressed or not. Most relationships between adult and kid end up asexual. https://Consentinghumans.Wordpress.Com/2015/12/09/18-Common-Misconceptions-About-Paedophiles-Paedophilia-Update-Reblog/

    How many pedophiles out there actually want sex with children?
    Answer 1: A minority, if “sex” is “penetration”. Considering that penetration hurts, many of us don’t want it. https://web.archive.org/web/20071219095524/http://www.paedosexualitaet.de:80/pedo/interest.html

    1. >he is passing the ball from science to philosophy.

      Agreed, many people like to do that under scientific discussion and fail to realise how they are going the moralfag side of this, rather than presenting facts.

      >If consent depends on freedom to say “no”, then many adult relationships do not qualify. Men are naturally stronger, they can force a woman if desired. Why don’t they?

      That doesn’t mean there are relationships where they do force themselves, unfortunately. All it takes is to watch television’s representation of these “no power differentiation relationships” and you will see that power between genders is still constantly in play there, mostly because of gender roles… Not as strong as before, but it is still there, mostly subconsciously, so people do not notice it at naked eye.

      >However, majority of the sexual offenses against children aren’t perpertrated by pedophiles, but by people with other disturbs, such as desire to hurt, being raised in rape culture, emotional instability, substance abuse or unavailability of an adult partner.

      Agreed. Most of these offenders don’t even care about children, they just take advantage of their current situation in order to sexually gratify themselves.

      >I’m sure that Finkelhor is not worried because of pedophiles, but because of situational offenders, people who pose a problem to society even if they don’t offend kids.

      That’s another thing! They keep putting us together with situational offenders, so everyone keeps thinking we are the same. How is that accurate information in the name of “science”? Said variables are not helping into solving real issues, but they are making reality worse for both MAPs and children in the long-run and that has to stop.

      >Plus, consent is response to proposal. Finkelhor didn’t ask himself “What if the kid starts it?”

      What people like to bring into game when it comes to consent is immediately sexuality, so they say kids cannot consent because of their sexual drives not being developed, therefore they assume they can’t consent to anything at all and so society completely takes away all their freedom, but some refuse to acknowledge they do that.

      For example, a child needs parent’s or guardian’s permission for literally everything. Where in this does their consent to these activities comes into play? Plus a lot of people also like to jump into the conclusion that since these children do not have sex drives then they do not seek any kind of sexual activity, but all it takes is to watch their uninterrupted behaviors and conduct, which are recorded by science, to know that it is actually the opposite. While they aren’t certainly fully developed, it does not mean they are devoid of these necessities? Should we exploit them? No. Should we guide them on how to deal with them properly? Yes, if they so happen to approach you with such natural things. Does that mean sex? Absolutely not. Just teaching them that sexuality is not wrong and it’s natural thing of life. If they want relationships then it should be fine, as long as safe measures are taken by that person who, in current society, has power.

      As an AnCap, I like your theory. If you don’t mind me asking, are you a psychologist or are you studying in that field? Do you plan on officially proposing that theory in the scientific ground? I really wish to see that theory come into play, since it looks like something more fair for both parties.

      However, as a child lover myself, I feel I have to point out one of the vulnerabilities I saw in that theory.

      >If a kid is harmed, they will disclose. That’s how many cases of abuse are uncovered, even if the kid is ordered silence. They either bluntly tell or give clear signs of being abused, such as unhappiness and an odd silence.

      In court, at least here in the US, they do make confessions. However, they use just confessions in a half-assed way, as in only getting the information they want for the prosecution and disregarding if the child actually enjoyed the activity or not.

      I bring this up because, assuming this theory came into play, some people would use the current justice system in order to try undermining this theory and then claim that it doesn’t stop abuse, just as they do now in order to bring more harsh punishments to us.

      >No law is preventive, as a crime only exists to justice if reported or busted.

      I agree. No law is preventive, but when it comes to us they always try to find an excuse to make laws inapplicable to defend us, unless it’s just for prosecuting. When it comes to rights, we lose them just for being pedophiles in many cases and that can be seen just by watching how the current justice system as well as society constantly approaches us as.

      >According to Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Philip Tromovitch, 70% of the cases of adult-child and child-child intimacy end in no harm.

      Here, they consider “abuse” as also any contact with children on the sexual level, even if they initiate it, which is absurd since these activities do not really end in harm if the person is a genuine child lover. Most of us do not even want to penetrate them anyways, we just want to love them.

      >Plus, the lawnacy going on is slowly, but surely, stirring adults away from children, as if they were scared to touch a kid and be called a “pervert”.

      Separating children from us is a wrong move, when it should be the opposite. Keeping children separate from us will only encourage weaker generations that do not know what they are doing, and the awful part is that these side-effects can already be seen from younger adults that do not know how to even fend by themselves properly.

      1. “Here, they consider “abuse” as also any contact with children on the sexual level, even if they initiate it, which is absurd since these activities do not really end in harm if the person is a genuine child lover.”

        I’ve always gotten the sense, that this comes from the same place as prohibition against dancing and rock n roll…and the belief that any tolerance only serves as “a gateway” to broader social “decline”…

        They’re more thinking about controlling the larger herd of humans, than they are concerned with the quality and nature of any specific child’s experience.

        The claimed “harm” comes in the form of deviation in thought, understanding and deed, from the rigid social roles…And the people in power, losing their grasp on that power.

        1. >“Here, they consider “abuse” as also any contact with children on the sexual level, even if they initiate it, which is absurd since these activities do not really end in harm if the person is a genuine child lover.”

          That’s the thing. They believe that by “sexual contact”, that we actually mean unrestrained sex which is absolutely insane to do. No child lover would do that right out the bat since that does actually hurts and would probably also indeed scare the child.

          >I’ve always gotten the sense, that this comes from the same place as prohibition against dancing and rock n roll…and the belief that any tolerance only serves as “a gateway” to broader social “decline”…

          As some people likes to falsely call some changes, “degeneracy”. While some things are deserving of that name, like current society, not all changes hint to “decline”. They are only in denial and believe society should stay like it is forever. They are the real decline, ironically enough.

          >They’re more thinking about controlling the larger herd of humans, than they are concerned with the quality and nature of any specific child’s experience.

          No. They are not concerned about the child at all. They only want them to grow to whatever they wish and then support the horrible society they created, all while bullshitting them by saying “you are the future, you are the change”, but what do these individuals actually allow them to pursue in order to get a different approach on life? Nothing.

          >The claimed “harm” comes in the form of deviation in thought, understanding and deed, from the rigid social roles…And the people in power, losing their grasp on that power.

          For them, deviation in thought is just different thinking that isn’t what they want you to think, which makes them hypocrites. Have you read one of those Spanish Civil War pamphlets? They are an interesting read and I think I still have them with me when I took that class in university. I will share them if I get the chance.

          They show how the Fascistas in Spain during 1916~ manipulated certain definition to their own benefits, you know, just like what they do right now with us and children.

      2. I graduated in philosophy, my plan is to be teacher, is all. I sent the text I wrote to all political parties in my country, but only one got back at me to say they would read. Also, the problems you pointed are more of a problem with how society views the act than a problem with the theory itself. One, people take pleasure in discharging anger at us. And two, there are people profiting from sending us to jail. So, it’s natural that people would try to get confessions from kids and manipulate their discourse. There’s one Paidika with a case like that.

        1. Yes, you’re right, which is ironic, given that they are doing themselves what they supposedly don’t want us to do to them, “manipulate”. I hope you career proves to be what you want in life and that it serves you well to build you into a better person in the future, not to mention also being able to contribute as a teacher yourself into these young individuals minds.

      3. In response to EqFoundation and ProPedoFront above, hopefully in the relevant thread:

        “I’ve always gotten the sense that this comes from the same place as prohibition against dancing and rock n roll…and the belief that any tolerance only serves as “a gateway” to broader social “decline”…
        They’re more thinking about controlling the larger herd of humans, than they are concerned with the quality and nature of any specific child’s experience.

        The claimed “harm” comes in the form of deviation in thought, understanding and deed, from the rigid social roles…And the people in power, losing their grasp on that power.”

        There is a lot of truth in this Steve. For me, the root problem is fall-out from ‘establishment’ paranoia. Their greatest fear is having the control they wield wrested from them, control that can only be exerted upon a submissive society that behaves in a predictable manner.

        You mention prohibition against dancing and rock n roll in days of yore, but even now we see the establishment out to get even with those they believe responsible for encouraging society to behave unpredictably decades ago. For example, among the countless mostly male victims of the UK’s feminist-inspired and state-sponsored false-allegations and sexual-abuse industries, can be counted many facilitators of pop, and especially dead ones unable to sue.

        Investigative journalism has been replaced by a hideously over-inflated media balloon, full of lies, exaggeration and invention. The story must drip sex, celebrity and scandal – truth is unimportant – to feed the UK society’s insatiable and perverted prurient appetite, an appetite doubtless fuelled historically by hopelessly inadequate sex-and-relationship education within each passing generation.

        Seventeen percent of the UK’s population of 67 million cannot consent to sex, being younger than 16, but more than a third of this group, those between 10 and 15, can be held criminally responsible for their actions. For me this anomaly vividly illustrates the hypocritical iniquity and suppressive nature of the establishment’s paranoia.

        “Children need liberty, not restriction. They need guidance, not submission. These variables will constitute into creating a child who can be more self-dependent, but also kind and open-minded.”

        Exactly so ProPedoFront, and I would suggest age of consent laws equate with restriction rather than liberty.

        1. >Exactly so ProPedoFront, and I would suggest age of consent laws equate with restriction rather than liberty.

          That is correct. From their standpoint, it is to “protect” children, but they never seem to consider “What about if the child actually does wants it?”. They don’t care at all at this point, it’s not even about what the children’s think, otherwise they would at least bother to ask them, but no, “status quo” is something that can never be broken, period.

          And that’s where it becomes an enforcement rather than a medium to keep them safe. If children are going against this by nature then they should reconsider and, at the very least, start by listening them and revising these so called “studies” that are actually just as over-blown as the media itself.

          For them, children are born like that and any deviation from what they “think” they are, it’s an anomaly that has to be treated. It’s sad.

          1. “What about if the child actually does wants it?”.

            What a child wants is not always goof for them. I work in a school. There are children who only want to eat candy, who want to bully other children, who want to be home instead of in school, etc. What if a child wants to have unprotected sex with someone with a sexual disease? Do we let them because that is what they want?

          2. Well in that case, you inform them of why they shouldn’t do such activity rather than just bluntly say to them: “Because I told you so.” Part of sexuality in an earlier age is also to teach them how to prevent these situations in where they will get harmed, rather than keeping them oblivious from these activities until they reach an age where they magically are allowed to learn of these.

  4. I really like that image of smiling Lady-girl Liberty!
    I would love to have the full image- I would put it on the front of my fridge!
    Could you possibly provide the URL for this image?
    Thanks.

  5. “Have you read one of those Spanish Civil War pamphlets? They are an interesting read and I think I still have them with me when I took that class in university. I will share them if I get the chance.”

    I have not seen these…Please do share.

    1. I thought I would still able to access my old databases that I used back when I was still in university before dropping out. Given that, it will prove for me difficult to find the specific document I am looking for along with some extra ones. I will provide them once I do find them though, it will just take a little more longer.

    2. Ok, never mind. I actually managed to find the specific book I mentioned with a little more extra search. My main problem was not remembering what the book was called. I do not know whether you know Spanish or not but to sum it up this is similar to what a book guided to Hitler’s Youth would be if Hitler’s regime ever made one, but in this case it is for the Spanish Falange and this is the book titled: “Así Quiero Ser” [This Is How I Want To Be]: https://laicismo.org/data/docs/archivo_500.PDF

      The title itself already gives you a hint of how their propaganda actually works by telling the child that what the book contains and explains is what the child has to become in order to live in Spain during that time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *