7. Legal bubbles of "the fight against pedophilia" and their consequences

7. Legal bubbles of "the fight against pedophilia" and their consequences 

One girl, whom I have unnecessarily and thoughtlessly attacked on the Internet (today I regret it and I think there is nothing could add about it here), who "by a slippery slope" found out about my pedophilia and who unknowingly gave me the motivation to write this work, sent me a message where she asked if I knew that "pedophilia in Poland is punished". I have no intention of fighting her anymore, but let me answer her question here, in this work. -I just don't know that.
..I know that (VERY RIGHTLY) all forms of child sexual abuse are punished, but I haven't heard of a law in any country punishing pedophilia itself. If it was, it would have to sound like that:

"Anyone who publicly admits to having sexual inclinations or fantasies about children and/or to perceiving in them any sexual attraction, or it will be proved to have such an attraction (by discovering an interest in children's fashion, having, or viewing photographs of not their children, or observing and testifying by credible witnesses; friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.) shall be punished by (...)".

Fortunately, there is no such thing anywhere. At least not yet, because the law in the UK is already very close to punishing pedophilia itself...

Various bubbles have arisen in connection with this psychosis, to which I am going to refer here, but this law, that is, the actual persecution of pedophiles for sexuality, and has nothing to do with child protection. The point is that in the UK, if someone who has a proven sexual interest in children has pictures of them, that will be treated by the justice system as child pornography, although that will be completely innocent, as pictures made by proud parents on the Instagram.

Even in the case of the other bubbles discussed here, one could find by force some intention to protect children. -But here? How do they want to prevent the filthy acts against them if they pump frustration among pedophiles in such a perfidious way? Besides, I'd ask the English themselves: what's wrong with someone admiring the beauty of your children? -What's so terrible about it? -Why? Child pornography is terrible because it's a registered filthy abuse that teaches abuse to others, but what can be terrible about admiring beauty? Masturbation...? As I've written, everyone is responsible for their actions. -But do you prefer your pedophiles to masturbate to the pictures you make public, or to think about other ways to satisfy themselves sexually? -Yeah.
No one can escape their libido, as is clearly seen among Catholic priests, where sexual pathologies multiply in them like mushrooms after rain through celibacy. So I guess it's better not to limit the possibility of sexual gratification to someone who doesn't do any harm and doesn't want to look at it or support it. (?) If you are so disturbed by the very fact that someone can admire the beauty of your children in pictures, just don't make them public. Problem solved.

Besides, how can you call pornography something that is not? Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the pictures of your children you have taken yourself could be called "pornographic" in some English court, being used as evidence of sexual guilt against someone? I suppose you might think that masturbating to children's pictures 'offends their dignity'. But if that's the point, then try to answer yourself in what way. But calling them "pornographic" in my opinion is clearly doing it. I have never liked pornography of any kind... I just associate it with something dirty - and it's with all my libertarian approach to sex. If the point is that if something starts to get sexually aroused, it becomes "pornographic" automatically, how would some pretty actress posing in Playboy feel if someone said her session was pornographic?

I'm very attached to my collection... I remember how happy I was when thanks to "Little Prince" I discovered pages with little photo models. -that I could finally admire the beauty of tiny little pretty ladies without fear and legally... Although I am able to see the beauty and satisfy myself sexually with adult girls, but they never wanted me (at least those that I liked). Therefore, after many failures and love failures, and taking into account the fear that always accompanied me during flirting attempts, I simply gave up and stopped even dreaming about creating any relationship... And I always liked the girls more. So since I had the opportunity to admire them in the pictures, I became somehow 'fulfilled in life'... (if it could be call like that, considering my own limitations)

The legality of my cutties collection when I feel cursed and persecuted by everyone around me for my sexual orientation is the last bastion of my sense of sexual freedom. I can't imagine losing it... Especially since the girls in the pictures introduce 'colors' into my 'black and white' life. -It is for me, above all, the satisfaction of my sensitivity to beauty, because the beauty of the girls makes me feel something of affection... It is so emotionally deep that it is even hard for me to describe it... And you may believe it or not, but in my opinion, the satisfaction of libido is less important to me than just experiencing this admiration...

Now I'm going to take the care Polish law, which I've already mentioned in connection with Bear and his outlawed side...

This "prohibiting on promotion or support pedophile content" is first of all contrary to the Polish constitution, which prohibits the so-called "preventive censorship", and is also quite imprecise. {*} But what's problem - in something as 'noble' as "the fight against pedophilia", the constitution and the rule of law does not count for anyone (in this case not only for PiS). The so called 'Law on Beasts', which was supposed to keep the already mentioned Trynkiewicz in prison, is equally contradictory to the constitution, but I am not going to stick to it. (well, at least that's good...)

{*Although I condemn all forms of sexual abuse of children, can the Polish "justice system" manage to pull up this work under "pedophile content", because I do not present the word "pedophilia" in a pejorative sense? That's what this work is about, that this word in its true definition has absolutely no such meaning...! Besides, in my opinion, when they wanted to introduce something like that, out of respect for lawmaking, they should precisely define what the law is about - for example "(...) content promoting or supporting any violation of sexual integrity of people under fifteen years of age (...)". Because What means "pedophilic content"?! Personally, "pedophilic content", which offends me and my dignity, I know only from the media...! That's why, in my opinion, every MP and senator who voted "yes" simply spit on the seriousness of his office and lawmaking...}

Like I said, there is no good side of child sexual abuse. However, in order to change (straighten out) the convictions of a man who is errs, who generally wants to do well, but because of loneliness and the feeling of general hatred towards him, he has got a little lost (...) the worst thing you can do is gag him so that he can't speak and suffocate in his own frustration! {*}

{*I'll throw in a digression here that one paedophile I met on Virtous Pedophiles told me that such things should be censored, because thanks to such Bear, a lot of pedophiles probably took advantage of his "positive paedophile codex" and hurt children. Surely, but apart from children, everyone is responsible for themselves (Bear, from what he wrote, never abused any child), and besides, take understand that censorship does not solve problems at all, that it can only give these pedophiles the wrong conviction about the rightness of their demands. -Something like that: "they have no arguments against us, so they censor us..." It can also be added that this law will still not manage to cleanse even the ordinary Internet (clear net) from "positive pedophilia", if only because it operates only in Poland. (each country has their own bubbles... ) Therefore the only really effective solution to counteract this harmful philosophy is to confront it with the truth. -But for this it takes first rejection of another harmful philosophy, which by definition does not use the truth, but only dogma, threats and epithets, means "the fight against pedophilia".}

Agreement is based on dialogue; on a mutual desire to understand each other. And it is not about any acceptance of wild adoption, 'massages' or other crazy ideas of Bear, but only directing epithets and threats at him, how was he could understand anything? How was I supposed to understand if I didn't finally find a kindly person, ready to discuss it with me in Human terms? {*}

{*In Human terms, not like using below-the-belt punches like sexist associations or some kind of expression bomb, as my father always did. To be able to talk frankly and Humanly with some pedophile (who remained Human) about his sexuality, you have to stop associating it with any kind of getting to children (which he never did and he doesn't intend to if he remained Human). And to put it simply, to respect a man who wants a dialogue. My father has always preferred media-style debates, as he learned from mainstream television - not to get to the truth, but to destroy the opponent with his own arguments; to drag him into a blind alley to bend and feel like a winner... (and by the way feed on the frustration of the defeated one) I hate such like that...}

Gagging people's lips with "the fight against pedophilia" or "fight against hate speech" is fuelling social tensions, where there is no understanding of each other, but only more and more hatred on both sides.

Another, but much more harmful law against "pedophilia" is the total prohibition on parents of over seven years old from touching them in Sweden. In reference to the children, I have already written that it is a production of generations spoiled by the orphanage disease... 'In the name of the higher good', this law emotionally destroys whole generations of people, and many Scandinavians are certainly aware of this, but no one opposes it for fear of this terrible slander (...)!

Because the sexual sphere is strongly connected with the emotional sphere. They are not the same as Freud claimed, but they are completely interdependent mechanisms. If somebody has emotions in order and is generally happy in life, then one can safely assume that everything is fine with his sexual sphere. On the other hand, if someone suffers from depression, neurosis, anxiety, or other emotional disorders, something is certainly not right there...

And it is worth emphasizing here that this also applies to children. Of course, in children sexuality is realized a little differently, but it is a physiological need of every Human, the lack of which simply kills. There is such a thing as a body map. Everyone has it; different for parents, colleagues, lovers, and also children. (Lovers also sometimes have nooks and crannies inaccessible to theirselves...)

In short, in my opinion, the map of a child's body, available for parents, possibly grandparents or siblings, looks like this: legs below the knees, hands whole with arms, head, neck, back whole to a safe distance from the buttocks (especially the caudal bone) and for very young children, belly above the navel, without nipples (also to boys; in them nipples are also erogenous). In case of further relatives or strangers, this body map is shortened to the hands, shoulders, and head.

Not touching children in this healthy Human way is as harmful to their emotional and sexual development as abuse. (if not more...) Such a pathology also damages the mental health and sexuality of whole families, which do not touch children at all. Taking this fact into account, I want to make you aware that the above mentioned law kills the Humanity under its yoke on the social level.

Worth mentioning is also the fact that in Scandinavia (as well as in Poland and many other countries, although to a slightly lesser extent) the effect of "fighting pedophilia" is a kind of 'nationalisation' of children. I have heard on TV that in Sweden EVERY FOURTH child was taken away from its parents... You don't believe that all these children have been molested? I don't know about you, but it sounds like a bad dream to me... And the fact that it is a direct result of "the fight against pedophilia" is obvious to me. Because the state "in the name of the higher good" takes control of children, diminishing the role, position and authority of parents. (in Scandinavia even nullifying it) And no one opposes this sick bureaucratic pathology because it could sometimes turn out that they "support pedophilia" or even "are pedophiles" themselves...

I believe that the United States is such a manifestation of the fact that it has broken down to all the limits of absurdity on this subject. Examples of this paranoia are "abusing children themselfes", "twenty-year-old children" and thirty years for a bathing.
There are cases in the USA where even a few years olds are accused of abusing slightly younger children. Admittedly, this is a problem if, for example, a seven-year-old boy touches a younger girl in the sandbox (something I have heard about once). Most likely, it was the result of the lack or shortage of this healthy parental touch, as I wrote above, although it is possible that there was some sexual abuse, as was happened in my case.

And as a result of the "fight against pedophilia", instead of normally setting boundaries for a boy by his parents and finding the cause of such behaviour to help him psychologically, the parents of this girl are dragging a small child to court for molesting! I don't even know how to name it, because the term "curious situation" is far too mild to express my emotions about it.

Another terrible absurdity is the "20-year-old children" in Texas, where voluntary sex with a 20-year-old girl could even be punished by the death! I understand the American law on alcohol, cigarettes and now marijuana, that you can only use it above twenty-one years old. I do not agree with this, but I do understand it, because between the age of 18 and the American border of maturity, human in some sense is still maturing.

Personally, I do not support any rigid age limits. Some grow up a little bit earlier, others a little bit later. Nevertheless, it is obvious to me that a few years of age, or even a dozen or so - closer to ten than twenty years of age - are unable to make ANY conscious LIFE CHOICE, INCLUDING ALL SExUALS! However, if someone under the age of eighteen didn't grow up to make conscious decisions about themselves, I think it's too late to protect them from anything (unless the situation is so bad that they need incapacitation).

Another such example was a Pole who got thirty years for bathing his daughter without a special glove. I personally support the idea of not touching children in intimate places with bare hands, even during bathing (except when it's necessary, such as applying cream, or putting a suppository in the case of children too young to do it on their own). This is a certain breaking of the boundaries of the body map I wrote about, whether it's who likes it or not... But the criminal Trynkiewicz, who should die slowly (...), came out prison after twenty-five years, and here in comparison with this we have insignificant minor offense (because I don't think that the intention of this Pole was abuse), deserving THIRTY YEARS?! Come on..

It is worth mentioning, however, that in the USA, they can at least talk freely about this paranoia, as well as about Nazism and other matters forbidden in Europe, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, but in fact only within the limits strictly defined by the so-called 'political rightness' and 'European values'.

These legal bubbles are, in fact, the only real consequence of the tightening up of the law through the 'fight against pedophilia'. Because the real abusing of children has always outraged and will always outrage normal people. Do you really like this direction of change in the law...? I don't think so.