Being fiercely protective of minors is not a virtue if your ‘protection’ consists of
- patronising: denying their agency, treating every teenager like a delicate flower with the innocent mind of a new born child,
shaming them for experiencing their own bodies in any sexual way.- invalidating: talking over their feelings, claiming that what felt right to them can not have been right because it did not fit your description of what a minor should experience.
- simplification: meaningless absolutist statements about age differences, useless predator vs. safe person binaries, stereotypes about what predators look like.,hiding the complexities of power inequalities and relationships from them.
- denying information: not providing access to proper sex education to make informed decisions about their reality. Trying to suppress content that contradicts your simplifications.
This kind of protectiveness does NOT make minors safer in any way. It creates a world where teenagers grow up with a very unclear definition of what consent means, a lot of shame about having sexual feelings before adults deemed it ‘appropriate’, and most of all it means that minors grow up with an awareness that the people claiming to protect them are either completely out of touch with their reality or purposely lying to them.
op is a pedophile apologist
@cybercommie could have easily provided some links to posts I have made (stuff about giving pedophiles access to therapy to create a safer society etc). so that people could read my actual opinions and figure out for themselves what they think about that but chooses instead to use scare tactics. In this way cybercommie knowingly makes it more difficult for readers to distinguish between ‘people who disagree with cybercommie on how to make the world safer for children’ and ‘people who want adults to be able to fuck children’. This makes cybercommie an excellent example of exactly the kind of shit I am talking about.
edit: I am not reblogging more of that shit because I don’t wanna flood my dash with that. But just to further illustrate how pathetic this name-calling is: cybercommie is by now also spreading the word that I’m an ‘LGBTphobe’ because I, a queer person, wrote about feeling alienated by white-dressses-in-a-rose-garden-style same-sex weddings that copy the heteronormative idea of what a marriage should be. Yeah… that’s so LGBTphobic of me… right.
Can you explain your actual opinions on this? Maybe in keywords bc I’m low on spoons (but i get it if you can’t)
ALL my actual opinions on this would definitely require a lot of words, so I’ll try to be short. Basically:
People with fantasies about having sex with children exist and are probably not about to stop existing. Until someone acts, we can not tell who experiences this.
So how do we create safety? Obviously, the prefered thing would be if people with these fantasies never acted on them. By the time someone acts, damage is being done and we’re already too late. So prevention is key.
Shouting “if you experience these feelings you are a MONSTER forever and you will inevitably do bad things and you should just die” does NOT create a safer world. It just drives people into isolation, self-hate and stops them from getting therapy or other help to cope of change or to live ethically.
Access to therapy & a focus on the fact that you are not defined by your desires but by your actions, helps people cope, change and live ethically.
Even if you choose to think ONLY of protecting children, this is by far the best way to create a safer world.
