All Human Sexuality is Perverse

People shouldn't be kept from having sex, lest we subject all people to the same oppressive rule we forcefully subject children to, but there just isn't any point to sexual intercourse and sexuality, whether done by children or adults. Those among us who are swayed by the "sexual revolution" may be tempted to say that sex and sexuality has a purpose, and that it's for "procreation," but since when is that the case anymore? The ability to procreate is meaningless. Unless all these pornographic websites and films out there are celebrating the act of impregnation, including the homosexual ones, and all these strip clubs are established to celebrate the bearing of children, we're forced to contend that "propagation of the species" factors little.

The sexual revolution in the 20th century had nothing to do with procreation, and everything to do with making promiscuity guiltless and consequence free--meaning, making sex unnatural. Any observation of unprotected promiscuous sex shows us that is that it has consequences, for everyone who partakes in it, if not biologically, then socially. All the "sexual revolutionaries" succeeded in doing was to make unnatural promiscuity seem normal, which is a dangerous illusion. And how do we know? Because we still restrict children access to such acts. Anything we can't stomach teaching to children for fear that it would destroy them has failed the litmus test for acceptability, for everyone, as far as I'm concerned.

So I merely advise rather than demand, not only that adults not have sex with children or that children have sex with other children, but that "consenting adults" not have sex with each other either. They should all spend that time showing love and kindness to one another instead. Maybe at such time a real sexual revolution will take place in humanity, one that favors brotherly love before bodily pleasure. But still people may ask, is not love and sex the same thing? Let's reason about this. Love is about personal sacrifice. Sex is about being personally narcissistic. There's that part of sex that is obviously about self-love (using the other person for pleasure), but even the part that is so-called "selfless" (for the enjoyment of the other person), even that is selfish, particularly if one is pleasing oneself based on having pleased the other person. There is a philosophical argument that humans always act out of self-interest (egoism), whether in charity or in sex, but these are two different self-interests being looked after.

The self-love involved in pleasing someone sexually is different than the self-love involved in benefiting someone charitably or sacrificially, which is to say "spiritually." It may not be something our society often thinks about, since we have become so taken up with the "sex is good" sexual revolution propaganda, but if anyone lives by a creed other than sex, they can testify to the quality of their life, especially respective to those who live under that creed alone. The idea that pleasure is innately good or moral is Epicurean, and if a human wishes to live that way, they ought to be free to do so, so long as they no longer wish to live in this consequential human society with its "laws," "ethics," and "responsibilities." In the same manner, how often are children told that if they want to act like animals, they should go live with them?

There are further differences though. When benefiting someone emotionally, charitably, kindly, and respectfully, you're edifying their spirit of thankfulness, human respect, strength of will, and generosity. When pleasing someone sexually, you are merely giving into their self-love and edifying their selfishness. These are two different positions, one of inward love of self, and one of outward love of humanity. Nothing about sex encourages charity or kindness, for it is about control, pleasure, and being weak-willed.

Sacrifice, which is what love is, is a matter of encouraging and strengthening the will, while sex is about tearing it down and being a slave to desire. The will is of strength and character, while desire is of weakness and animal passion without restraint, for restraint is an imposition of the will. Why else would we encourage the weakening of wills (in sex), unless we had a society that benefited from having a whole group of people in it with a weakness of willpower, or lack of "sales resistance," more accurately? Because sex is profitable and kindness is not, we've been told, and sold, that "sex is love," and that sex has no consequences.

But what good comes from being pleased sexually? Does it make you want to go donate money, volunteer, clean up the environment, and respect other people? Or does it make you ego-centered, engaging in self-love about your own body and its ability to bring those selfish qualities out in another person? Consider what people find sexually arousing to answer that question. Surely, a life spent under the impression that sex creates anything beneficial for "society" is a life spent building earthly treasures in a world where time and nature corrupts all things, instead of storing up for humanity treasures such as willpower, kindness, construction, and love, that time and nature can not corrupt.

That is to say, sex leads to a lowering of the human spirit on its own, while love, on its own, leads to a lifting up of it. Because of the sexual revolution, I'm even tempted to think all sexual acts, even those in marriage, are wrong and perverse, in this age where sex is recreation and procreation is proctored by geneticists more and more. All humans are born out of an activity that commences with a lowering of the spirit necessarily. Now the species perpetuates itself in spite of sex, and not because of it, and that kind of unnatural perversity has consequences.

Kids and Sexual Suggestion

It's not so much a problem that children are exposed to sex early, it's the way they are exposed to it. People seem to prefer exposing sex to kids coyly and comically on a regular, daily basis, rather than honestly and factually in small doses. Society is still hung up about sex, and so (after decades of declining standards over the acceptability of its suggestion) has been going to great lengths to throw sex into everything "suggestively," failing to find suitable any honest and accurate depictions of sex acceptable for viewing by children.

So if we have to be concerned about anything (and I don't think we do anyways), it would be that kids are getting the wrong idea of what sex is, and the real implications of it. A child can watch a commercial where a bikini woman opens a beer bottle with her "parts" while serving it to a leering man, and it is completely acceptable, but it is thought that if that same child saw even just the image of a vagina, or a penis, he or she is going to be traumatized for life. Neither is traumatizing. To view one as more hazardous than the other is mere superstition, and just an indication of how backwards a child's everyday reality is in the 21st century.

Expose them to sex early, sure. Expose a child to sex suggestively, sure, but counter it with exposing them to sex as an uncensored reality as well. If we leave it up to parents to pick the time when their children are "ready" to see an accurate portrayal of sex, the kids have already had 15 or so years of seeing sex as a series of untruthful, amoral, absurd, sexist, and exploitative imagery, and will likely have a misunderstanding about the word. It will all have to be unraveled and untangled before any discussion about sex as a real thing with real implications can be presented.

All the parental controls in the world are not going to stop the abundance of media from seeping into a child's everyday life, so it's best to just confront the issue early on as an inevitability. Show and tell them the honest truth about sex the way one would if asked any other question concerning human biology, and move on--tailoring the lesson to their developmental comprehension. Censorship of reality doesn't work, all it does is turn the illusion into reality.

Aphorisms on Child Sexuality

And now for a few observations, shared between myself and a like-minded friend, NG:

*

Sex between consenting adults is one of the most ugly things on the face of this planet.

*

Since molestation is primarily a deprivation of sexual liberties, it seems reasonable to assume that some victims of molestation would grow up to be militant defenders of childrens' sexual freedoms.

*

Child victims who grow up with a vendetta to clamp down on childrens' sexual expression are the ones society likes. Child victims who grow up and move on with their lives are tossed to the ash bin.

*

Child abuse must be all-consuming on the victim. If they ever recover and grow from it, they are seen as "justifying" the abuse.

*

Society has taken the concept of child sexuality and equated it with satanic rituals. This is abhorrent, heinous and unforgivable.

*

For the law to call mutually consenting loving relationships rape, is an atrocity in keeping with rape itself.

*

Society's ignorance of the sexuality of children under 18 has made them totally oblivious to the term "sexual development".

*

Don't Stone the Abstinent

I've been asked about my sexuality and it seems that because I require more than your average one or two words to explain it, it means I am abnormal. I am abnormal because I choose to be abstinent and people can not accept this. What I have come to find is that sexuality is enforced for adults where it is denied to young people. Choosing to express one's sexuality differently than the majority only seems to become a crime against nature when one has crossed that artificial and arbitrary edifice into adulthood, into the coven of humanity. It seems voluntarily going without intercourse is a greater crime against nature than forcing others to involuntarily abstain.

It's as if human sexuality is some prize to be won for years spent in enforced abstinence. Suddenly as an adult, you're supposed to be living it up, you're required to be expressing your sexuality, enjoying it, because you earned it. Decadence is how adults celebrate the fact that they've made it to adulthood, it's how they reap the benefits bestowed on them for simply being an adult, and one of the most obvious is the way they are expected to express their new-found sexuality. The adult way of doing things is indeed steeped in unhealthy decadence. Sexuality is natural, and however an individual chooses to express or not express it should be acceptable (as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights and dignity of others)--this either/or extremism between involuntary abstinence and involuntary decadence is not. It's a perversion.

Because adults enforce that no individual below their line in the sand edifice for sexuality is allowed to be sexual, they expect and require sexuality from each other. Abstinence is first required, expected, and then it is stoned to death. People react, with the same shock, to the incongruities of a sexual child as they do at an asexual adult--or at least, an adult with a sexuality that deviates from the norm. If one has to explain their sexuality in more than one or two words, then it is considered abnormal.

Normal sexuality for adults is whatever advertisers have told us it is. It is an erection at the sight of a beer bottle, a sleek car, or a hamburger. What is normal for the adult only becomes an abomination, it seems, when the same effect rubs off on a child. Children are not supposed to have a normal sexuality after all, they are in fact required to have no sexuality. When they express a sexuality, it is an automatic abomination--so says the west.

However, it seems the moment a youth reaches this magical deadline, sexuality is not just expected from them, but demanded of them. Adults will not accept one of their own confessing to be asexual, or at least, confessing to have a sexuality that is not one the consumer culture has picked out for them. When adults speak candidly about their sexuality when gloating on their self-defined "ability to be sexual," they react with little more than scorn when one member of their group does not jump right in line with their sexual fetish proselytizing. Sexuality is demanded from the adult, and with it, the open and constant expression of it, lest they become outsiders.

Sexuality Supermarket

Loosening sexual mores allow for tolerance, but also provide impetus for individuals in governments or corporations to create in their future customers or constituents any sexual appetite most fitting with whatever social message or piece of merchandise they wish to peddle. Fetishism is a natural evolutionary function of sexuality that social engineers would love to exploit, and with increasing tolerance for alternative sexual appetites comes unprecedented ability to construct markets out of them. Advertisers know how to play this game, and the motto is as it always was: "get 'em while they're young."

Beyond their consent, like it or not, children are raised and sexualized by the increasingly accessible media. This is not so much a bad thing in and of itself, but at the same time their sexuality is being shaped by the media and other companies, they are not given the sexual nurturing they need because people don't want to be "seen" as en-culturing a child into functional sexuality. It should be no doubt then, where sexual dis-functionality stems. The panic over whether a company is exposing children to a sexual lifestyles before they can comprehend such things is another distraction, because it should be no news that a corporation is not in it for Junior to begin with.

If there should be concern, it rests squarely with the culture that hasn't allowed the people in Junior's life (who are, or should be, the ones "in it" for him) to be the ones to nurture his developing sexuality as they would his ability to read. Time and time again though, that responsibility is taken away from the adults in his life, and given over to the television and the internet by a culture made too squeamish or paranoid about appearing to be "too involved" with kids.

More disturbing is the mechanism where future generations can be made to love the egotism and material servitude it takes to power our economic engine, by influencing their sexual development to correspond to what best suits the interests of those who have a hand in shaping that culture. How many little boys will grow up with a sexually driven inferiority complex to females after spending their formative years sexualized by a media that obviously finds greater value in its female customers? The idea behind this social engineering is to designate what populations buy and what populations don't, take the ones that do and create in them this belief of superiority as instinctive and unstoppable as a biological necessity (like their sexuality). Then take the ones that don't and create the opposite with theirs--an inferiority complex--so they accept their place or at least don't take issue with their depictions and social devaluation in the media for being what it cultured them to be, because they will be so busy getting off on it.

Abominations as such that would never be allowed by a stranger passing a child on the street are permitted and perpetuated on a daily basis by strangers who just so happen to be further away from the kids in question, but wield the same influence. Given the choice between a person who loves your child and a person who wants to make money off your child, the parent will side with the profiteer. So the marketing exec goes to work every day, makes his pay and feeds his family on the idea of stealing children away from their parents. The stranger on the street just wants to model the daily "how do you do?" for your kid, and yet he is made the villain--no doubt by who.

Any media-backed morality is innately immoral, especially if it's presented as "counter-culture." There is no such thing. That which is truly counter-culture, is that which can not be marketed.

Passive Resistance

Children break the cultural bodily boundaries on a daily basis. They exert their sexual, physical, gritty nature and the world shames it. Since no exploratory sexual behavior, outburst, nose picking, burp, or fart goes without reprimand for the first six years of life, no matter how much it's encouraged by looser mores, children spend the next six years using each one of those things in pointed attacks of retaliation and resistance against anyone they see as a worthy target. Having absorbed shame for their bodily needs and functions long enough, they stand the message on its head and use them to cast shame on others. It doesn't matter if the target is a sexually active youth's distressed parent, an illness-faking student's easily swayed teacher, or a nation's policy against violence in its schools (as we'll soon see). Children will quite literally hold their breath until they pass out to make a parent bend to their will.

This commentary comes in light of a now-annual phenomenon in news. In the mix of reports regarding the effectiveness of Zero Tolerance in public schools, we're treated to a slice of absurdity disguised as comic relief. It seems something as innocuous as "disturbing class" in the right context, if expressed with enough disdain, is considered violence and can and will result in a kid's arrest. Not even a kid's intestinal gas can be tolerated, so long as he emits it derisively and obnoxiously enough. Disruption like that no longer warrants only disciplinary action, but a police cruiser, handcuffs, a booking, and a police record, because kid farts are weapons now, officially.

Sometimes the only way to lay bare a system's faults is to cause a passive stir like this and force the system to abide by its own rules. And seeing as kids currently have no rights to free speech, what other way do they have to voice dissent than to hurl their bodily needs like weapons at their captors?

The use of the body is resistance expressed through non-violence. It's the willful glorification of self-degradation because the system can't degrade them enough on its own. For certainly, their bodily functions, including sexual impulses, are the one thing a child truly does own. The mind can be bent many different ways, behaviors can be controlled and redirected, but the need to void, the need to shed, to have intake and output, is entirely theirs, and theirs to do with as they please. It's the one thing where if it were controlled, the powers controlling it would cease to have a living child to control, and therefore, cease to be in control. Passive resistance plays with an authority's ability to control in like manner.

So let's reexamine the power of a kid's body. The body is one way our kids express comfort with their peers. They use their body to produce kinesthetic, athletic, and scatological feats, and express early masculine or feminine identification. They use their body and its functions as learning experiences in pro-social behavior, human bonding, manners, and taking ownership for their actions. The body is as much a projection of personality and talent as it is a depiction of their health and well being. It's a source of great pride. More importantly though, a kid's body presents options to them--needs, desires, excretions--that can be delivered decisively anytime and place, command instant attention, and express personal control--the root of all individual sovereignty.

So let the kids be free to be gross.

Harmful to Children

In her celebrated book Harmful to Minors, Levine (2002) concluded with this profound but rarely expressed insight:

Sex is not harmful to children. It is a vehicle to self-knowledge, love, healing, creativity, adventure, and intense feelings of aliveness. . . . Our moral obligation to the next generation is to make a world in which every child can partake safely, a world in which the needs and desires of every child . . . can be marvelously fulfilled (p. 225).

One can not raise a fulfilled child when a chunk of their humanity is ruthlessly denied them, when their dignity is unrecognized by the depraved and the dried up. One can not call a starving child full. One can not call a child whose asexuality has been forced on them, fulfilled.

Children are Sexual

"... we have examined the histories of 5300 males ... It would be difficult to show that masturbatory activities have done measurable damage.... On the other hand, the record does include thousands of boys living in continual conflict...occasionally attempting suicide--as a result of the teachings concerning masturbation."
(Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 514)

With the assumption that children aren't sexual, inevitably follows is the expectation that they are less than human. These criteria are intertwined--to unravel one is to destroy the unity of both. Denial has always been the strongest weapon waged against those who are subordinate from those who are in control--denial of the ability to procreate; denial of the ability to communicate; to travel; to be educated; to have money; to have human rights...etc.--and denial continues to be the weapon of choice used against young people for the purpose of maintaining adult power. The strongest one used in this day in age? The denial of children to their own sexuality. With it, children are turned into criminals waging war with their own flesh, and adults turned into heroes, waging war with the very same thing, justifying all the horrific recourse that follows on the grounds that doing such protects children.

The fact of the matter is, children enjoy pleasuring themselves, as all human beings do, and they enjoy pleasuring themselves sexually. Even if they don't have the terms to understand what form of pleasure the stimulation takes, the ability to feel pleasure exists. Nature does not cower at the feet of man, it doesn't kill off ugliness simply because mankind deems it ugly, and children are not born as asexual drones just because adults need something to subjugate and exploit.

However, the fact of the matter is that children, particularly smaller children, are not always aware of what their sexual feelings mean. This small fact is the jumping off point for all adult sexual oppression of children--whether forcing them into sexual assault or forcing them to ignore their impulses. Adults perceive the ability to procreate as the criterion for sexual capability, when in reality, it has more to do with sexual maturity. Imagine if children were prohibited from learning to walk (if such could be done) until some pre-set date where they were considered "mature" enough? Should we consider such a poor soul, as indicated, a mature individual? Maturity is an indication of learned experience, it is not a date on a calendar. Children mature mentally at different rates, so in spite of that, society is incorrect in its understanding that there can be one set standard, by which a law can be crafted on, that sets the legal age all youth completely understand the benefits, risks, and consequences of sex.

Just as rapists and child molesters are sexual deviants, the enforced celibacy children endure is one placed upon them by another kind of sexual deviant. It is not natural to inhumanly ignore sexual urges, burying them deep inside of oneself to be released in a rage of anticipated climax. It is not natural to allow sexual urges to overwhelm the rational and logical decisions, thereby allowing oneself to actively rape another human being, man or woman, adult or child. Both are on the end of a pendulum, neither one being centered, or in anyway near a balanced, "mature" normality. Childhood sexual fantasy is worthy to be explored in youth to create a healthier child and a sexually healthy adult later in life.

Repercussions will follow from these socially-created extremes, whether or not those sudden occurrences or emotional breakdowns are ever disclosed to anyone but oneself. Too many children have been forced to accommodate this abstinence against their will, causing too many to suffer the repercussions and emotional breakdowns later in their lives. Too many have been forced to accept sexual attention against their will because they were risen in a world where they must fear their adults in order to survive, and such action has caused repercussions and emotional breakdowns later in life. A balance must occur to end these learned repercussions regarding sexual expression, association of pride and love in one’s sexual feelings, and these balances must extend to childhood. Childhood sexual fantasy is worthy to be explored. It is part of what makes them human, whether we label them "children" or not.

Sexual Awareness

The adults are happy throwing a child in a box, burrying them underground and saying they are protecting them from the act of sex. And yet it never seems to cross anyone's mind what the child may be doing while they're down there. They get their sexual amusement any way they can, as is nature--they might be too young to understand it, but that doesn't mean they are too young to feel it. Society still pretends that the former inevitably means the dismissal of the later. That because the child can't think (supposedly), the child can't feel. Society gets a sense of purpose by placing its children in bondage. Without it, what would they have to protect? Their investments. Society needs children to control to give it some sense of purpose, and parents, something to work for and protect so that they won't feel so insecure.

It's politics dressed up as science. It's all dogma without credibility. It's all the suppression of the natural world by adults that children are subsequently living in. It's conquering a sense of being insecure and worthless by suppressing younger human beings. It's about taking advantage of their lack of experience in an unnatural adult world to maintain power. And by breeding ignorance, they inadvertantly dig more holes for their children to step into. Culture creates child abuse. As much as a child predator is said to be taking advantage of a child's inexperienced mind, they're also taking advantage of the culture that refuses to educate that child's mind. Sex is more than "good touch" and "bad touch," and to proliferate such myths breeds ignorance, and ignorance creates child abuse.

Ignorance is danger. Awareness is safety.

If kids at younger ages were allowed education into what their sexual feelings meant, later on in life they would be able to discern between a man who they may even trust is trying to take advantage of them and a man they trust who is doing it because they wanted it as well. If children were more sexually aware, they wouldn't be as prone to sexual attacks. They would still happen, but under the current society that oppresses children's ability to decipher for themselves what they want, they are unable to see the difference between someone who wants to rape them and someone who loves them. Child molestation is by in large the outcome of the adult's need to keep children ignorant "for their own good."

It doesn't start then by throwing a child in a box, nor does it by lowering the age of consent laws, as certain groups have argued. It starts through education, and mentoring, and building up a child's sense of awareness, sexual awareness, and their abilities to make informed decisions. If children had a better ability to decide for themselves, a better sense of self awareness, and not an utter dependence on an adult figure, than they wouldn't be so prone to be manipulated into something they didn't want to do, or believing it was or abuse when it wasn't or wasn't abuse when it was. The current system has children believing anything adults tell them, but if they had been given the chance to make decisions and have a higher self awareness, they wouldn't be so easily swayed, and could give proper informed consent.