8. False "fight against pedophilia" doctrines and their consequences

8. False "fight against pedophilia" doctrines and their consequences

The main false doctrine of "fighting pedophilia" is that paedophilia in itself is evil. I have already written a lot about the effects of this dogma, so I think there is nothing to repeat myself about. By planting seeds, you're harvesting crops - just to remind you, I think it's enough...

I have already mentioned the same way of thinking that 'pedophilia' is something 'extremely rare', 'extremely perverted', and that it always goes hand in hand with actions (in the guess that pedophiles who 'don't do' "pedophilia" yet are "bombs with delayed ignition"...). And for the strongest possible consolidation of this doctrine in the common consciousness, even new words are created, such as "nymphophilia", so that "pedophilia" itself can be reserved for men getting to young children. {*} Although this is not a subject to be spread over the x-es of the paragraphs, it is worth to realize that this doctrine is the basis for the existence and survival of the "fight against pedophilia". Because thanks to this, men who perceive beauty in a similar way to me (and in my opinion this is more than 1-3%), probably think to themselves: "Oh, shit...unfortunately, I've got it...what an idiotic fascination...because how can you get to children...but fortunately I also like mature girls...so it will never come out...(and of course -fuck the paedophiles!! {**})"

{*It is worth adding here that in this case we are dealing with a kind of 'conceptual evolution' in the direction, so to speak, of 'behaviorization' of the definition of the word "pedophilia"... In encyclopedias it is "a preferred form of sexual satisfaction (with children)", i.e. compared to my stand, it is only about 'sexual satisfaction' and the way of achieving it, as if the sexual perception of beauty, which is fundamental to the perception of one's own sexuality - OWN "I AM", was something insignificant at all and had no meaning (...). But it is still very mildly "behavioural" definitions, compared to the media, where "pedophile" is closely attached to "pedophilic acts" and without them does not exist...}

{**By which you're more or less consciously of it, you curse yourselves then!}

It is worth closing here the topic I have already written about, but as a complement to other threads - namely "asexuality of children".

Now remember the allegory of germination and the symbolism of the butterfly I quoted earlier. Children are innocent beings whose sexuality is still in its infancy. Innocent because they are naive and irresponsible and hard to blame for anything, and all the more reason to require them to make sensible choices in life. In turn their germinating sexuality is my allegory of the fact that helping or obstructing them is something very evil, pathological, and harmful for their entire development.

"Asexuality of children", on the other hand, is undermining the whole nature of sexuality, which is based on sexuality and acts through sexuality in general. Starting from the beginning - a human being are created thanks to the sexual intercourse of two people, which results from love (at least it should), which is also connected with sexuality. The formation of man in fetal life also has its own sexual nature, because as "secondary" organisms, we create, one can say, "from the back of the page".

But when it comes to the already born people themselves and their sexuality. -Orphan's disease harms the youngest children the most, because the older a person gets, the more resilient he is. Therefore, even in the Scandinavian countries, where they have almost completely gone mad fighting pedophilia, children can be pampered up to the age of seven. And this "pampering" is nothing else but a healthy (normal) satisfaction of their sexual sphere.

And what is most important in this subject is that denial of sexuality in children is just dangerous, because it universally retards the knowledge of the need to set boundaries for them. The fact that preschool children often try to break the sexual boundaries with people they trust is simply normal. Therefore, awareness of this and the ability to assertively set boundaries in relations with them is an absolute necessity, both for parents and for all who have contact with them.

Moreover, the widespread recognition of this physiological obviousness, which is contrary to the "fight against pedophilia", as well as of the fact that simply not setting boundaries to children; letting them touch you in intimate places, is a passive form of molestation, just as morally vile as the active one - it would end forever the possibility of putting forward brazen arguments of defense, often used by child abuse deviants that "they provoked them (...)". (Instead of "fighting against pedophilia", it would be ripostatized with dogmatic nonsense in the style that "it is not possible, because children do not have sexual energy".) Children simply have the right to be sexually unaware, to not know their own and our boundaries, they have the right to provide them with a guarantee of obeying them, and finally they have the right to blame in the future those who broke them, or even 'only' did not put them up them.

At the end of this thread we can also add that children often test their sexuality at a very young age, at the so-called "doctor games". In fact, I used to play like that myself and I think there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is purely for the satisfaction of curiosity and has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction. (which, in my opinion, always has its cause in other, conscious pathologies against children) It's just that children are sexually immature beings, but they're sexual - a human being is a sexual being already in the fetal life, even before he or she is fully human, that is, a breathing spiritual being.{*}

{*"The connection between the soul and the body occurs when the first breath is taken. And this is not my hypothesis, because the soul is directly connected with the breath. If you have any doubts, do yogic breathing exercises (on which all spiritual development is based) and you will see it for yourself...}

Another example of false doctrines is the saying that "pedophilia is a disorder (which needs to be treated)". If we separate paedophilia from any sexual abuse of children, it remains only a form of admiration for beauty. When it turns into obsession, yes, it can have its own pathological consequences, but only CAN HAVE! (It is mainly because of the "fight against pedophilia"...)
What about the abuses themselves? Calling criminals "sick" is Christianity in its worst form! -Whether it's sexual or any other matter... Such abuses are crimes, and often even terrible crimes, for which the guilty must be punished very severely - it is the only right and preventively effective cure for such a 'disease', which manifests itself in dehumanisation! But no "cure on pedophilia"! Pedophilia could have been (because it is possible that it wasn't even{*}) just one of the causes of this dehumanization!

{*Here we can boldly hypothesize that not all producers, especially distributors of child pornography, are with any sexual interest in children pedophiles. "Business is business..."}