GirlChat #703215

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

More complicated

Posted by Dante on 2015-June-24 08:51:37 EDT, Wednesday
In reply to Changing the TOXIC image posted by Alice on 2015-June-23 23:45:50 EDT, Tuesday
  Views: 2    Likes: 0     
"As mentioned in an earlier thread I feel that paedophilia has become a toxic word. A word now long detached from its historic semantic, and popularly associated with the sexual exploitation of minors. This image is firmly fixed in the public consciousness, will not be erased, and it is simply no longer accurate or helpful to use the term paedophilia."

If you start running away now, you will never stop.

You can look it up. The Antis know that "ChildLover" and "MAP" are codewords Pedophiles use to try to conceal their "perversion." The euphemism does nothing to help us AND makes it look like we are trying to obfuscate.

This is because it is not about hatred of the label. There is no label that will give the hatemongers "the slip." They hate the fact that we love and desire girls, and they cannot tolerate the cases where these feelings are returned in kind.

I will always be a Pedophile because it was the most neutral term being used by our allies and by Nons before the modern hysteria had truly set in. It is the term Lanning and others contrast with "molester" to make the distinction. So, while it is the most abused term, it is also the most defended. I have no interest in coming up with a code word that might confuse our allies but which will not shake the haters.

"Parents naturally want to protect their children, we must understand this is not simply a response to paedophilia-scaremongering; the drive to nurture and protect is primal instinct, natural, and legitimate. Everyone must come to see that and respect the dynamics of what we are dealing with."

If only that were the only thing going on here.

But the history of how those children have been used and abused in the West and elsewhere also reveals an ownership paradigm. Children have been sold to cement alliances, as hostages to ensure cooperation between vassal States and the Imperial one, to work off family debts.

This also plays into the notion that there is a preordained hierarchy with a series of master-servant relationships; with Ghods at the top, followed by Kings and various officials, Fathers as the domestic master and so on. This not only gives the lowliest servant their own child as a subordinate, but uses this relationship to distract them from the fact of their own subjugation.

We have got to realize that the whole idea of selfless parents whose goal with their children is to foster such independence that their adult offspring depend upon them for nothing and owe them nothing compulsory in return is VERY recent and very local.

The rest of the planet understands that filial duty to obey is for life; at least the life of the parents.

GLers are doing something radical which threatens the old models supported by religion and by ossified tradition. We are relating directly to the child and not seeing them as an extension of their parents' will. To an extent, we are embracing the modern Western paradigm that the goal of childhood is the creation of an independent equal, but we aren't delaying its recognition until an arbitrary natal anniversary is reached. And we are doing so without treating the artifacts of the child's enslavement as features necessary for their emancipation.

"I feel above all it is critical that we make a clear distinction between girllove and the sexual exploitation of children. Between aesthetics and sensuality, and adult-child sex. "

The two pairs are not equivalent.

Society already distinguishes rape from all manner of other things.

If, by "sexual exploitation" we mean something other than the violation of consent, then we may have to accept the "sexualization" usage that disallows even the aesthetic and sensual appreciation.

And, in the latter area, we have seen that women were more exploited and not less when Victorian society was in favor of appreciating them for their aesthetic features while condemning their sexual self-determination.

When the two are necessarily parsed it is to punish the sexually expressive party who is supposed to be subordinate to the one doing the punishing. So long as she is not allowed to choose, her choice in the positive will be seen as a threat and even the mere recognition of her sexiness will be cause for punishment.

We need to get over ourselves. We are punished to keep her subordinate in much the same way that white supremacists threatened by their women's choice chose to punish only the colored male. It wasn't the social betterment of blacks that they were seeking when they reminded them of segregation upon the threat of death.

We see this too among the Antis. The hysteria among them over ad campaigns, revealing clothing and other artifacts of "sexualization" demonstrates that what Pedos are most beat-up over will be denounced even in our absence.

"In my view, girllove should not welcome those with a toxic agenda, and reduce the amount of naval-gazing sexual discussions; which tbh, would understandably seem really far for regular folks in the real world."

The convos that minorities have among themselves do tend to focus on their issues and interests more than seems "normal" to those without those experiences.

To the outsider any first-wave feminist discussion seemed unhealthily obsessed with gender and with talk of discrimination and gender roles. Why suffrage? What was this obsession with the voting franchise we exercise but once every few years and which doesn't really seem to solve anything?

Only from a POV of "all mankind" in which males are a substitute for "man" does it seem like navel-gazing. I would hope that social progress has taught us that we can learn from the struggles of various subcultures, and that it is not their job, when talking among themselves to reduce their concerns to only those shared by the majority.

At some point, the sensitive new-age guy may be welcomed at a consciousness-raising session by the sisterhood; but he really ought not object to the convo being so gynocentric. If he is a welcome guest, but feels neglected by their agenda, too bad.

It seems to me that at some point the uncomfortable convo has to happen, in which those who benefit from and support the structures of oppression are told that "meaning well" is not enough.

Ultimately social movements cannot depend on the movement catering its message so that it is acceptable to those who see no need to change. And ultimately their allies will be from among those who can see that what they thought was well-intentioned help to defend fragile womanhood is actually toxic and exploitive.

Dante

Dante
Dante

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses