GirlChat #721740

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

"Anti-contact" is not pragmatism, it is defeatism

Posted by Explorer on Monday, December 04 2017 at 10:23:23AM
In reply to practical cost-benefit stuff posted by EthanEdwards on Sunday, December 03 2017 at 00:21:31AM

Ethan, your proposals, as well as proposals of “anti-contacts” in general, has nothing to do with pragmatism (or “practical cost-benefit stuff” as you formulate it). Pragmatism means supporting something which is practically useful and generally beneficial, yet suppression of intergenerational sexuality is neither useful not beneficial, it is counterproductive and harmful. Submission to this suppression is defeatism, a passive agreement to atrocity. And “atrocity” is not a rhetorical exaggeration on my part: it is an adequate description of wild cruelty which is normalised and socially supported – and thus unnoticeable to the large part of the population. Let’s look at it in some more detail.

1. For children, the suppression of intergenerational sexuality means:
- restriction of movement, outdoors activities and neighbourhood exploration (in order to “protect” them from illusive danger of sexual contacts with adults);
- restriction of informal social contacts and relations outside of familial and educational circles (for the same reason);
- restriction of information access, intellectual inquiry and cultural acquaintance (to prevent the contact with paedosexuals and access to “age-inappropriate” sexual information);
- restriction of common sensuality and bodily contact (for the fear of “bad touches”);
- restriction of initiatory and consensual sexual expression and exploration;
- cruel treatment in the cases of “precocious” and “inappropriate” sexual activity initiated by children themselves (in some cases, to the extent to the life-long stigmatisation and marginalisation of young people as registered “juvenile sexual offenders”).

2. For non-minor-attracted adults, it means:
- restriction of sensual, social and cultural contact with children (in suspicion that they might be covert paedosexuals);
- restriction of their own sensual, social and cultural activities, if children may somehow learn about them or if they relate to the topics of intergenerational sexuality (such as ban on the engagement in their own sexual activities if children may notice it, or preemptive censorship of sexual information on the fear that children may access it, or censorship of pro-intergenerational sexuality views);
- constant danger of being accused of “sexual abuse” (an accusation which is very hard to refute and which may devastate one’s life even if being disproven in the long run).

3. For minor-attracted adults (including you, Ethan) it means:
- enforced life-long celibacy;
- social marginalisation and segregation (in order to separate them from children and adolescents);
- legally allowed violent, cruel and inhuman treatment, especially in cases of the refusal to condemn their own sexuality (from psychologically violent indoctrinations under the guise of “therapy” to indefinite incarceration to castration);
- cultural misrepresentation and unjustified condemnation of their orientation as “intrinsically dangerous” (which it is not);
- demonisation and dehumanisation of MAPs;
- censorship of their views and opinions;
- socially approved aggression and violence towards them by the members of the population (vigilante attacks).

4. For society in general, it means:
- restriction and repression of scientific and scholarly inquiry (such as research in child sexuality, paedosexuality and intergenerational sexuality, as long such research is not strictly condemnatory);
- restriction and repression of artistic and literary expression (as long as it includes child erotica or just positively portraits intergenerational sexuality);
- restriction and repression of religious and spiritual practices and teachings (if they include or approve sexual rites);
- age apartheid (physical, social and cultural separation between adults and children);
- difficulties in forms of intergenerational relations (because of the aforementioned age apartheid);
- the spread of the general atmosphere of fear, anxiety, suspicion, mistrust and hostility (because of seeking covert paedosexuals everywhere);
- recurrent moral panics (which may damage or even destroy many lives before their cessation).

This is it, Ethan. These are the result of the modern Western society’s absurd rejection of intergenerational sexuality and atrocious attempts to suppress it. And, as I have said above, acceptance of such situation is not pragmatism, but defeatism – a submission to the atrocious social practices inspired by the absurd social notions.

And, I would add, many “anti-contacts” go further than mere defeatist acceptance – they approve of this situation, apparently trying to make sense of the demonstrably absurd idea of the intrinsic negativity of child-adult sex. Sorry, but as Baldur has already told you on this thread, there is no way to make sense out of absurdity. Absurdity does exist as a negative side of culture, with which we have to deal, and which we have to account for; but absurdity cannot and should not be accepted and approved, cannot and should not be represented as something meaningful or sensible, since it is anything but. As well as atrocity does exist as a negative side of society, and we cannot pretend that it is not out there and we can simply avoid it or ignore it; but, as in the case of absurdity, we cannot and should not make peace with it, agree with it; we cannot and should not try to describe it as something which is beneficent or humane, because it is clearly not. And “anti-contacts”, whether they acknowledge it or not, effectively support the current atrocious social practices, since they refuse to challenge the absurd notions that are used to justify them.

This does not mean that “anti-contacts” are bad people by themselves; they are not, as well as anti-MAPs. “Anti-contacts”, as well as anti-MAPs, are “normal” – even despite their “deviant” sexual orientation – people who (to some degree) bought into prevailing absurd notions and thus became (to some extent) blind to the common atrocities that are happening because of such notions. In this regard, they are, more-or-less, the part of the overwhelming majority of “normal” people who accepted nonsensical ideas because they were “authoritative”, or “universally acknowledged”, or “self-evident”, and approved of cruelty as long as it done in the name of state-enforced law and dominant morality that are based on such ideas. It requires to be the part of small “deviant” minority – to be so willfully and consciously – to call the dominant, “normal” absurdity and atrocity their own names, and to refuse to bow to them.

The sad fact is, despite their desperate attempts to demonstrate their “normality”, “anti-contacts” are still not “normal” enough in the eyes of the ones who even more “normal” than them – anti-MAPs. So, no matter how eagerly they try to beg for anti-MAPs’ lenience, hardly any would be shown – for general society, they would still be monsters… until the radical changes are enacted. And the “radical” should be interpreted literally here, in the meaning of “coming to the roots” of problems; and the root of our problem is the irrational fear of intergenerational sexuality. Only when this root is uprooted, we can see a real, notable change.

It is possible, of course, that some “anti-contacts” did not bought into anti-child-adult-sex notions; they just lost any hope of ever reaching positive change and now simply wants to be left to live, without all society’s hatred, wrath and scorn being directed as them. If this is the case, I won’t judge them; I’m myself is hardly a hero or a martyr to do so. Yet I will still state that their rejection and condemnation of the paedophile and child liberation is not intellectually or morally justified; it is just the sign that they were not strong enough to continue their own struggle. And, in such case, they should admit that it is their inability to maintain a confrontation with prejudice and injustice that made them to give up, not some innate weakness of the cause they would like to defend, but cannot.

Here I should add that I do not condemn the people who disagree with the current state of events yet do not publicly protest, let alone actively resist. It requires the true courage to stand against the vast majority even by mere words, let alone by action. I have to confess that I do not possess such remarkable courage myself – while I once tried to defend intergenerational sexuality, I did it on a forum which was populated by exceptionally open-minded yet critically-thinking people, where I was an old and respectable member, and where one of the members had already tried, some years ago, to defend child-adult intimacy – and was not banished, despite the massive disagreement with his ideas. To be short, I defended my views in an online community which was able to listen to them without becoming restrictive and repressive, and that was personally friendly to me. I do not have enough strength and fortitude to defend such views before the people who are likely to be censorious and who are hostile. I also do not have bravery to defend my views non-anonymously or offline, thus disclosing my personality in connection to them: it will destroy my life, and this is a sacrifice I cannot bear.

So, when I call someone defeatist – as I call you, Ethan – I do not say that you haven’t done much; not to do much is not defeatism as long a person acknowledges that it is his or her own weakness. It is defeatism if this person starts insisting that the cause itself is doomed to fail – or it is not worthy enough to stand for. And it is what you, and “anti-contacts” in general, do.




Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?