Hating Kids is Child Molestation

Think about it. Sexual molestation is an unspeakable evil, and society agrees. They take the obviously unquestionable moral tautology of detesting child sexual abuse, and then feel it justifiable that anything but outright detestation of kids is "unacceptable" on the grounds that "wanting nothing to do with them" reduces the likelihood of their abuse, or something. This means that it's actually preferable now for a man (in particular) to hate kids than to show them any compassion whatsoever, professional or otherwise, related or not, on the grounds that any compassion coming from a man to a child is a sign of inevitable sexual abuse in the works. Truth be told though, how it protects children to encourage the social disregard of them by half the adult population is beyond my reasoning capacity.

It's a weird situation of society wanting to "have its cake and eat it too." Do they want us men to hate kids or do they want us to agree child sexual abuse is wrong? Is not sex abuse predicated on harm, and harm stemming from lack of concern? If we're not supposed to show any compassion toward kids while they are unharmed, why does the presence of harm have to change those expectations? And if we're really supposed to hate kids, wouldn't it make sense that we shouldn't also care about whether they are being abused or not? See, I just get confused about what the standards are, because if it were up to me, I'd prefer to live in a world where I can wholeheartedly be against child sexual abuse and still not be expected to callously disregard that which I don't want to see come to harm.

I'd prefer to live in a world where a child's right to be nurtured by an individual was not dependent on whether society tolerates the sex of that nurturer, but that isn't the world we've allowed thus far. It happens every time the insinuation is made that the relationship of the man to a child is inevitably coercive and harmful, whether it's a professional relationship, family bond, or even a friendship. Every time that insinuation is made, even if in jest, a loving, committed adult man has convinced himself to turn away from a child in need of a role model. This is unfortunate.

Many men will go so far out of their way to prove to society that they absolutely, fundamentally, have no interest in children, that they actually start to sound more like the stereotypical child molester who only thinks about child abuse when he looks at a child. They've been scared into submission and conditioned from the time they were children themselves to withdraw, to fold at the sight of a child, to shirk them off, and now society wonders why so many do exactly that? Men are condemned for "stooping so low" as to be parents. They are harassed by paranoid bypassers when they take their own children out to the park. They are both lauded and chastised for running from their natural responsibilities so consistently and with such venom (to be undervalued when being a proper father and dismissed completely when complying with expectation not to be), that so many do run.

So many want nothing to do with children as a result, and the expectation that men are to keep a distance from every child maintains itself, spreads to the new generation, and society is content with it. They are content with depriving children their positive male role models. Our society delights in it, even if they don't recognize their own delight. They please themselves on the notion that a man can only bring harm to a child, and they seem to think the next generation ought to feel the same. It is the tyranny of the present once again over the future of mankind, and regardless of our intentions now, won't last. Bigotry never does.

Anyone, be them child molester or not, who looks upon a child and can only see the destruction of that child, is the equal of a child molester in sickness, and so is the society that holds such an expectation to begin with. The men who don't run, who don't submit to that sickness, and still do what is right for kids regardless of what anyone expects of them, are among the most commendable human beings on the planet, and unfortunately, the most under-appreciated.

The Downfall of Civilization

Marx famously stipulated that criticism of religion is the premise behind all social criticism, and it was because he never lived to see just where all that irrational zeal would go once it had been cut off to the heavens above. Since his time, people have turned society's youngest members into demi-gods, ascribing to them all the super-human powers of omni-benevolence and purity with the same degree of fervent zealotry--instigating the same amount of destruction with the same amount of good intention--as mankind ever has brought about--with hand on heart--as a result of religion or political ideology. Childhood is the new religion, the new ideology, and it's adherents can be found in all corners of the earth. So truly, criticism of it must be the basis for all social criticism in the 21st century.

While terrorism, the politics of preemption, corporate imperialism, the threat of environmental meltdown, fear politics, and the increasing dependence on technology are critical issues facing our world--and while extremist ideologies of the 20th century have mostly continued to fade--the one ideology still capable of gripping the heart so strongly as to starve it of oxygen and common sense (because it can not reside in the rational head for very long), is the ideology of the deification of the child and childhood. In fact, it has only grown in strength and numbers. When the death of a child means the birth of a saint, sparking a candlelight vigil of thousands, we can only expect to see more saints being born as the human children are fiendishly disposed of. The exalted status of a child's ghost, as depicted on the nightly news, only means the dehumanization of those still living.

In an age where one can depict terrorists as anti-heroes, suicide bombers as misunderstood romantics, murderers as sympathetic father/mother figures, and all so-called sexual deviancy as a celebrated triumph over intolerance and bigotry... in a world where it seems anything is permissible, human beings still react, as if wound by sensational clockwork, with breath-stealing dread, unspeakable horror, and vigilant blood lust, at the mere sight or thought of a non-parental adult ever being depicted holding a child's hand. All human rights are thrown in the wastebasket to ensure that such an image never permeates the social conscious ever again, as if such were a sure indication of the downfall of civilization. Such a divine aura still hangs over all children so strong that if ever seen penetrated, there is nothing stopping any onlooker's head from exploding.

This is a society where gore and obscenity is vindicated and the love of children on a personal level, adult to child, is demonized. The sight of an adult infiltrating the inflated holy realm of the child to simply hold hands is bound to send ripples of shock and horror down the spine of many a seasoned fan of unbridled, uncensored gore and promiscuity--more accustomed to seeing the torture and relentless gratification of the human body as an acceptable form of human expression than the gentle, nurturing compassion that can exist between adult and child. It often seems that civilization will resort back to watching human death and mutilation unfold before their eyes as entertainment before they will tolerate the non-parental love that can be shared between an adult and a child. They'll watch the bombing of a city, licking their lips with desire, before they tolerate the sight of a healthily sexualized child (because to be human is to be sexual).

Simply put, to love a child, to strip away what is pasted on them by a paranoid society with grace and dignity and bare their true spirits, is to be participating in the downfall of western civilization as it has worked centuries being established. To do it is to be driving the final nail in the coffin of established morality.