17 de outubro de 2011

Minha opinião sobre a pedofilia.

Filed under: Computadores e Internet, Jogos, Música — Tags:, , , — Yure @ 12:10

Então, eu estava lendo um artigo na Internet sobre como a pedofilia pode ser o próximo movimento de direitos sexuais a avassalar o mundo desde os anos setenta, quando a homossexualidade deixou de ser encarada como doença. Eu venho pesquisando a pedofilia já faz um mês, de ambos os pontos de vista, tanto contra quanto a favor. O que segue abaixo é um comentário que eu quis colocar no artigo, mas que não foi porque precisa de moderação. Sempre que eu quero comentar em algo e não posso, uso o Analecto pra fazer isso. Afinal, se eu comento, é porque me é pertinente. Espero que isso venha a dar alguma luz a vocês, se souberem inglês, claro.

Mm. I have been peeking at pedophile blogs as of late and I’m glad I can comment somewhere I don’t need a Facebook account to do so.
First, it’s important to understand that there are four kinds of pedophiles: 1) Offending, pro-contact; 2) Non-offending, pro-contact; 3) Offending, anti-contact; 4) Non-offending, anti-contact.
I’m not sure if this comment will be submitted imediately or if it will be subject to moderation approval. Either way, I may keep a copy of this.
An offending pro-contact is someone who was convicted of statutory rape or possession of child porn, but believes that such things should be allowed. They argue on three grounds: adult-child intimacy isn’t always harmful and can be beneficial, kids can consent, a relationship with a pedophile almost never involves intercourse. An example of offending pro-contact is Tom O’Carrol, in his blog “Heretic TOC“. Even if he doesn’t break laws anymore, he was convicted before and paid for it. Nonetheless, he sees no harm in consented adult-child intimacy, that is, without violence or manipulation, and defends that age of consent should be abolished. Of course, he doesn’t pull these things from thin air: he has scientific arguments to back up his allegations, specially because such scientific evidence that adult-child intimacy can be benefitial keeps being pumped out by journalists (Levine‘s “Harmful to Minors” book, from 2002) and philosophers (“Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex: A Philosophical Analysis“, from 2015), while psychiatrists are starting to see that, sometimes, it’s not the act that causes the trauma, but the treatment the kids are submitted to afterwards (“The Trauma Myth“, also from this decade). To be fair, even if Carrol defends that age of consent has no reason to exist for all kinds of erotic act, he argues that it’s reasonable to have an age of consent for intercourse, that is, phallic penetration to mouth, anus or vagina, specially because he (as former PIE member) says with great degree of security that 95% of all pedophiles don’t express their sexuality that way. So, if they aren’t going to be penetrated, a child doesn’t full information to consent, because risk of pregnancy and STDs, as well as physical damage, is zero. Unless you aren’t liking, a fondle can’t hurt, or so they say.
A non-offending pro-contact is pretty much like the previous case, except they have never acted on their desire. That means that, even though they crave intimacy with a kid, they don’t do so. Meanwhile, they don’t do so because they think it’s “wrong” or “bad”, but because they prefer to abide to the law, while fighting and brewing arguments for it to change. They also argue on three grounds, the same as the previous case, except that the last ground is wider: pedophiles don’t do intercourse because they crush on children and, when you are in love with someone, you don’t want to cause harm. They argue that a lot of the “charm” in a relationship with a kid is the romance, they become emotionally attached to the kid. If they don’t penetrate, it’s because they fear harming the child, as most, if not all, of the sexual contacts with children that end in harm are penetrative. A kid just isn’t ready for that, it can hurt and it can induce trauma. Most of the people arrested for intercouse with children, they argue, based on Finkelhorn’s findings on child sexual abuse, aren’t pedophiles and fail at the diagnostic. Pedophiles are often charged for smaller things, such as an icky touch, a kiss, putting the kid on their lap, undressing them, bathing them or recording them. Those are things that many parents do to their kids, they argue, which means that the persecution of pedophiles is harming normal relationships between parents and children. I heard that Arizona passed a law that equals nappy changing to pedophilia. An example of non-offending pro-contact is the owner of “Consenting Humans” blog.
An offending anti-contact is someone who was convicted of a child-related crime and doesn’t want to reoffend. They think that adult-child intimacy is wrong and want to abide to the law. If they committed a crime, it was due to temptation and poor self-control. They don’t want to do that again and want to live normal lives. They don’t defend age of consent reforms of any nature, don’t want liberation of child porn and want to be reintegrated in society. There are several examples of those in the site “B4U-Act“.
A non-offending anti-contact is someone who wasn’t convicted of child-related crimes and doesn’t want to ever tend to their urges. They argue that isolation and stigmatization are keeping pedophiles from looking for help, including psychiatric help, which leads pedophiles to endure temptation alone. For them, the demonization of pedophiles actually increases the chances of offense, as they are driven underground, where no one can help, where they are alone. While alone, it’s easier for them to develop ways to offend and not be caught. But together, with other anti-contacts, they feel less inclined to do so. They satisfy their urges through other means, such normal porn or things are close to child porn, but not quite, such as SFW pictures of children. Others don’t even defend that and prefer to give themselves no gratification whatsoever. The group is divided in this ground, if a pedophile can gratify their paraphilia through safer means or not, because one side says it reinforces the behavior and the other side says that not doing so makes a pressure cooker out of their hormones, increasing the chances of offense. An example of non-offending anti-contact is Todd Nickerson (I think is the name), who runs the site “Virtuous Pedophiles.
Now, my opinion: if pedophiles don’t want to penetrate or cause harm, if they do indeed love the children they indulge with, at same time as there are pedophiles willing to receive therapy and some who can even go their whole life without offending, I don’t think that pedophiles are unsafe. In fact, many of those things that pedophiles want to do to children were done to us by our parents. I don’t hate my parents at all, and I don’t think that those advances harmed me. I do think that some intimacy did improve my bounds with my father, before the new statutory rape law made all “libidinous acts” illegal in 2009, when done to anyone under 14, in a way that even a kiss on the lips is rape. Sure, there are child rapists, but all pedophiles and even the specialists in such cases agree that pedophiles are a minority among those who abuse of children. Most of them are alcohol/drug users, people with other disturbances and even people who want revenge from the child’s father, but has no guts to get revenge on the father, preferring to attack the kid. In short, most pedophiles don’t harm children and most of those who harm aren’t pedophiles, the desires pedophiles have are mostly benign, this witchhunt is hysteria and does more harm than good, to pedophiles, to children and to parents.

Crie um website ou blog gratuito no

%d blogueiros gostam disto: