Child Abuse vs. Pedophilia Research 1985–2015: Frequently Asked Questions
Child Sexuality and Child Abuse
Child Sexuality and Child Abuse
Q–01. Do you endorse or defend child abuse?
The motivation for my research is academic, not based upon defending any lifestyle or group opinions. To say it clearly, I have no affiliations to organized pedophilia anywhere in the world. I say this right at the top of this FAQ because at least one scientist worried about it and actually insulted me, without having anything at hand against me, just by making up assumptions. As this is very common today, which doesn’t astonish me when you see the public hysteria around these subjects.
In addition, I have found that among people who are fanatically ‘fighting child–abuse,’ it suffices you research on child sexuality, and they put you already on their agenda of suspicious individuals. So I have to be outspoken.
Q–02. What is your motivation for researching sexual abuse?
I have been facing violence against children at repeated occasions in my life, most of the time in the school and home setting, and here most often with religious institutions. In addition, I have been physically abused in my childhood by the female directors of a Catholic home in Germany.
I would like to make a contribution for substantially reducing the battery and abuse of children in whatever setting and therefore started a research on violence against children back in 1985.
My goal is to help society overcome limitations that are exactly bringing about what it most fights, abuse. All abuse is society–made, man–made, a direct consequence of moralism, that is, of coercive, compulsive morality. Abuse is not necessary and not natural. All abuse is the result of the repression of our emotions, not of the intelligent understanding of our emotional life. All abuse is anti–life, not pro–life. All abuse is a misunderstanding of the human nature, a self–programming that can be made undone.
All abuse is the result of taboos and restrictions in communication together with a denial of complexity, general complexity and specific, emotional and erotic complexity; in other words, all abuse is the result of a fascist worldview.
Western society is thoroughly fascist; it needs abuse for allowing many of its implicit software features to function. Without abuse, this society’s consumerist worldview would crash like a cardhouse. When you study tribal cultures, you see that abuse is the exception while in mainstream dominator cultures, and especially in white Western culture, abuse is the rule.
Q–03. What is your solution?
My solution, if there is any, is not ‘my’ solution. There is no proprietorship for solutions that benefit humanity. But there are solutions, and I found that some of them are effective. Working with our inner selves, dialoguing with our inner mind, is one of them. I have made it an integral part of a more encompassing personal growth technique that I came to call Life Authoring.
Q–04. What do you think about political solutions?
As long as politicians are concerned about being voted instead of being concerned to find solutions for our problem, there can be no political solutions. Sounds logical?
Hence, solutions come from another angle of society. Or in other terms, the solution to evil can be found within evil, not outside of it. The solution for healing abuse can be found when you exchange with abusers, instead of lobbying with ignorant politicians. I have done several years of free counseling to people who struggle with their unruly emotions, who were either at the point to commit crimes, and I could readily interfere and help changing their fatal course of conduct, or else they had committed offenses and I have tried to help them gaining self–awareness of their emotional life and needs.
By so doing, I could gain much insight in the nature and the problems of abuse and also the consequences in terms of self–condemnation and guilt. I found, for example, that without helping the person to get over that guilt, and to really quit with self–condemnation, the person cannot change, and the abuse pattern cannot be erased on the level of the inner mind, within the luminous body.
However, our whole prison and correction system does the very contrary, by labeling offenders as ‘abusers’ which is why it actually contributes to raise abuse in our society, instead of fighting effectively against it.
Q–05. Why do some people feel uncomfortable about child sexuality?
Every culture has its specific means of sexual conditioning, its own taboos, restrictions, repressions and prohibitions in order to ensure the closest adaptation of its newborn individuals to the ethical code of the community. In this process, societies tend to be particularly sensitive with regard to deviances from its sexual code of conduct. In Western culture, the child’s sexual life was not questioned before the industrial age. However, with the beginning of industrialization, it became a question of good mores to keep children ‘pure and innocent’ and the denial of the child’s sexuality became a societal concern.
Within postindustrial culture, child sexuality while in the meantime being widely recognized in psychoanalytical research and practice, became even a matter of global concern because a free sexual child is a bad consumer. Hence, free child sexuality is not economically correct in the sense that the present consumer culture needs asexual children to function.
Together with the denial of the child’s sexuality, brutality against children, justified as corporal punishment for the child’s best, and, worse, the denial of the child’s unique personality, became part of the educational paradigm. At the same time, individual and collective aggression against childlovers, so–called pedophiles, raised, probably because they questioned the myth of the sexual purity of children. However, the notion of the pedophile is in itself a myth made up by consumer culture for various purposes. The problem barely existed in ancient cultures because girls could be married from early age, and pederasty with boys was tolerated in many tribal and also some of the larger civilizations of Antiquity such as Greece, Rome, old Egypt, Persia or Russia.
Even today, in many of the more exotic island cultures, girls are married before they are ten years of age and nobody, in those cultures, would label a male a ‘pedophile’ because he marries a young virgin. In the Bible, which is notoriously the book of ‘good mores’ for exactly those who today persecute pedophiles, it is reported that King Solomon was supposed to gain new forces through intercourse with a young virgin that was put in his bed for testing his vitality and predicting his death. As he did not touch the girl, it was concluded he was going to die soon, and so it was. Needless to add that nobody called the mighty King ‘a pedophile.’
In my view, the present public child sexual abuse and pedophilia debate, was it not a dangerous avatar of worldwide fascism to come, is the most ridiculous parade of imbeciles that world history has ever seen. The truth about it was clearly to be seen at the starting point of it all, that is, the Industrial Revolution.
The repression of children’s sex life by the industrial bourgeoisie and the ruthless exploitation of children for industrial labor were namely the two sides of the same medal. Concern for the child’s best, then, is but a pretext that hides a total disconcern for the child as a person, as an individual with his or her own desires and preferences.
This is still today so, while children are no more, in industrialized nations, subjected to child labor, the exploitation has become more subtle. The consumer child is exploited as an economic force, spoken to by media publicity, and thus represents an important element for economic growth of all nations today.
But as a human being, that same child is shunned, their emotions and sexual urges are denied or repressed, or the child is turned into an intellectual robot with a starved body and a forgotten soul.
As a general rule, it can be stated that sexual repression and exploitation always go together, whereas tolerant and comprehensive forms of educating children typically begin with sexual permissiveness. Wilhelm Reich and Françoise Dolto coincided in saying that sexual education always comes too late. Any instruction of children has to take into account the emotional dimension sexuality has for children; any kind of instruction that is not rooted in the emotional life of the child has no sense and will only engender confusion in the child’s psyche and behavior code.
This means that sex education focused upon reproduction and complicated biological processes not only completely misses its goal, but creates more damage than no sex education. A change in the traditional and still present attitudes toward child sexuality can only be effected by changing the education of the next generation of parents our present–day children, by introducing a consciousness–based and permissive education for all children, independently of gender and social status.
Q–06. Why do you think adult–child sexual interactions have to be socially coded?
Pedoemotions and the whole spectrum of sexual behavior between adults and minors must be coded socially. A social code — which is much more than a legal statute in that it judges certain forms of conduct as socially acceptable — is the only way to progress on the level of culture, while the present irresponsible attitude produces chaos, confusion, insecurity and, at worst, civil war. The late child therapist Françoise Dolto (1908–1988), when I interviewed her back in 1986 in Paris, was sharing my view and clearly emphasized the need to socially code adult–child sexual relations because, as she said, the very fact that children project their ‘Oedipal desires’ outside of the family was a good thing to happen as it helped avoid incest, but that those relations, as long as they are not socially coded, survive in a grey area of uncoded behavior and therefore are potentially chaotic because of fear, and psychological pressure through the secrecy they are surrounded with. Besides chaos, confusion, anxiety and guilt, the fact these desires are largely repressed results in a high level of violence in our society. It has been shown by different research that there is a functional link between the repression of human sexual pleasure and the upsurge of violence.
It is first of all the repression of the child’s natural sexual function and the social disapproval of tactile pleasure for certain age groups that prepares the ground for societal violence. In our culture, violence serves a compensatory function for the frustration of body pleasure. The age–old collective denial of emotional and sexual freedom for children has greatly facilitated the rise of authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist, violent and irresponsible forms of government. This is why the quest for liberalizing child sexuality in all its forms is a vital political issue! For it has to be seen that the reason why conservative circles do not wish the child to choose partners for love and sex freely is precisely that children then would also at times opt for an adult love mate, and that would then act counter to the pedophilia taboo.
I encountered this contradiction even with authors and scientists who are by and large in favor of child sexuality; the moment one renders them aware that if children are to be granted free choice relations, this implies the child may choose an adult love mate at times, they are scandalized and shout and yell that such was a ‘typically pedophile’ argument. When that happens with a scientist, it renders us strangely aware of the irrationality of the human race. As Goethe said in his Faust drama, ‘what must not be cannot be.’
Q–07. Is your sociopolitical agenda different from that of pedophile groups?
Decidedly so. That is inter alia the reason I was shunned and impersonated, back in 1998, by group of boylovers, and messages were posted on their forums about me, where it was alleged I was a psychiatrist out to brainwash pedophiles, or else a police spy. As ridiculous as I found this when I first heard about it, it has shown me to what extent most of these people live in a world of fear, a world of depression and paranoia, a world of almost constant anguish.
From their point of view, what they said made sense to me. They saw I was not signed up with joining their groupings, and at the same time they noticed I was not signed up for mainstream propaganda. So they wondered what kind of green frog I was? It seems to me that not only pedophiles, but generally many people in our society do not like self–thinkers, people like me, who do not join groupings and are single fighters.
It has to be seen that I do not make money from this engagement. All what I have done with publishing since the almost twenty I am now on the Internet, was done with my own money invested, with no returns, and even with as good as no feedback. It also has to be seen that I have an agenda as a lawyer that dates back to my times in law school. This agenda can be called social reform, so this is actually an old idea of mine. I was about in the 3rd semester, and not yet twenty years old, that I joined a seminar on criminology and paid a visit to our local prison; and I was so scandalized that I talked to the prison director and tried to mobilize our criminal law professor to do a petition for improving the terrible conditions in that prison. In the coming years I have done prisoner care and have learnt much from it, and my conviction that criminal laws and law enforcement have to be thoroughly reformed was deepening still more.
In addition, I have done my doctoral thesis in international law also on a subject that was highly controversial at the time, sovereign immunity litigation. I have actually never, in all my studies, worked on something that was mainstream, and not in some way controversial. It would simply not interest me.
Q–08. What are the main points where you differ from pedophile groupings in terms of strategy?
It’s dead simple. I am against the cause of pedophilia, period! It’s the wrong cause. The right cause is the cause of the child, to work for more permissiveness in education, for parents, caretakers and society respecting the emotional and sexual integrity of the child.
I am against any social cause where a sexual minority uses their sexual orientation as a hanger identity, thereby circumventing to build a real soul identity. It’s the same with the cause of homosexuality that suggests homosexuality was something inevitable, a fate people are born with, and other ideological nonsense. The truth is that homosexuality is an emotional distortion that is man–made, not nature–made; it’s the result of wrong education, wrong upbringing, specifically the consequence of some decisive events of a traumatic nature that have catapulted the child out of the natural course of psychosexual growth and into introverting their bioenergy.
With pedophilia it is similar, there is a reason, or there are reasons why adults are sexually attracted to children. The etiology is not yet clear, much is still in research, but pedophilia surely is not something that is set as such by nature. One thing is certain, people are not born as pedophiles, as some politicians who play around with fascist euthanasia ideas, assume it nowadays. By the same token, if the person wants to change their sexual attraction, which is just an outflow of their emotional predilection for the young, they can do so. In some of my writings, I am showing effective ways to change one’s love map, and I address the concerned directly, showing them work tools for personal and emotional transformation. But it’s of course a choice that must be made by the person herself, and here we see that sexual attraction is not an automatism, but is choice.
There are reasons, good reasons, why adults choose to be around children, and these are valid reasons in a society that has pretty much lost its soul and its humanity. Children are our angels, they are our gods and goddesses, our princes and princesses, they can teach us so much, they are full of wisdom and love. I personally do not have relations with people who are indifferent to children or are violent against children as I know that these people are deeply ignorant about life and the destiny of humanity. I know since many years that those who are naturally religious, sensitive and intelligent love children, if they talk about it or not. This is simply so.
Q–09. Is there any message you would want to give to childlovers?
Yes. Childlovers could be integrated socially in that they can take on important tasks in education and social welfare, especially in charity work for neglected or destitute children.
This is one of the policies to be implemented in order to reduce violence and aggression, and violent sexual crime involving children, in our society. But they would have to accept society’s social code, as it is for now, and thus would have to do some work on themselves, as I suggest it in my books, and as I practice it with two different coaching methods I have coined, that is, Pedoemotions Consulting (PEC), which is addressed to educators and will be proposed to governments as an effective alternative to law enforcement, and Emosexcoaching as a 1–2–1 life coaching method.
I practically suggest that laws should be changed and pedophiles and among them convicted pedophiles should be made eligible for educational work with children after having passed a course in handling their Pedoemotions. I am convinced that after they have gained emosexual awareness, these people are the most valuable as educators we can find in society. They are the born educators, and society needs them badly! But for this change to happen, a lot of objective information has to be spread, as for now public opinion is very badly and wrongly informed about the real world of pedophiles.
The ambience is one of bewilderment, secrecy and fear, and the myths about so–called ‘pedophile predators’ are really overshadowing reality. So the message I have for pedophiles is to remain positive, accept themselves, and help publishing objective information about their desire and their lives, their reality, instead of hiding, making depressions and indulging in a negative and fatalistic attitude. In my view, pedophiles have to seek out exchanges also with straight people and any kind of people, instead of just meeting and discoursing in their forums, for this will root them more in reality and help them to live with their desire, as conflictual as that may be in our judgmental and actually very little rational society.
In my view, pedophiles should eventually understand that it is futile and ineffective to indulge in so–called scientific explanations or justifications for child sexuality and begin to act, wherever possible, for the dignity of children. As I put it in a slogan, we have to get away from child protection in order to get to be at the service of children!
The grand public is simply not interested in what a pedophile has to say about himself, about children or about his relationships with children. The grand public has no true interest in children and therefore no interest in those who love them! What matters is action! There are many fields of productive action for childlovers, for example in education, in youth work and generally in all areas where children can be benefited by love, patience and true understanding. This work should be oriented as a long–term goal to free children from the enslavement they are subjected to under the reigning paradigm and, as a result, at helping to change the old patriarchal authoritarian societal model into a viable modern paradigm of shared citizenship.
I also repeat myself saying that childlovers should rather opt to be around children than breeding out depressions and suicidal ideas, and they should accept the social norm and hence, stay away from being sexual with children. The emotional relationship and closeness they can enjoy with children, for example in the sports setting, in the educational or the family setting, are so much more important and so much more rewarding than a haphazard and in our society outright dangerous sexual interaction with a child.
While I do not deny or belittle the importance of sexual activeness, in such a negative situation as in our society right now regarding childlove, the better way is to use restraint but make sure to be around children as much as possible. The danger to lose one’s mind in such an obvious value conflict, or to attract a fatal disease such as cancer, is greater when the concerned close themselves up in their four walls and accumulate and pile up their urges.
Moreover, childlovers should be conscious of the drawbacks, but remain persistent in their goal setting and motivation. They should always be on the watch for conservative and tradition oriented individuals or groups because extremist and ideological response almost always comes from those ranges of pluralistic society that preach ‘high morality.’
Politically conscious childlovers will be aware that they live on the edge of society without resenting this somewhat Herculean role. They understand that we must surpass child protection in order to really serve children. As a result, the politically conscious pedophile may be asked for a higher human investment than this can be expected from ordinary people in that he or she has to struggle against conservatism and fascism in politics and release sustained effort in reforming or restructuring social, legal and political instruments that have proved to be damaging to the freedom and dignity of children.
As long as children are regarded as possessions either of their parents or the state, anyone interested in freeing them from that bondage will meet with defensive social attitudes and a certain deeply rooted and often unconscious resistance.
In the long run, politically conscious childlovers help bringing about a new society that is nurturing instead of controlling, understanding instead of judging and supportive instead of destructive, a society that favors freedom and respect for intergenerational love and that does not condition sexual behavior but accepts sexual attraction in any form, provided it is nonviolent and constructive.
Q–10. Why are you against child protection?
I am not against child protection, when this term is used as a general term and not a term loaded with a hidden ideological agenda. Most of the time, today, when people use that term, they connote the ideological vintage of child protection. The ideology behind this kind of child protection defends a worldwide business that was established over the last two decades by people situated rather on the right wing of society, and by people close to churches and sects, among them many Christian fundamentalists and world puritans, that is, Oedipal Heroes, to use my terminology, people who have a persecutor mindset and who are emotionally immature if not infantile. This ideology of protecting children from life comes over to me, honestly, as a very blatant and stringent perversion in the sense that it’s a paranoid worldview that puts life upside down in every respect.
And it’s no fun for the children, to be true. The rose and blue world of modern civilization babies represents the plastic shell in which they are incarcerated for ‘their own good;’ it is the clean façade of a culture that has lost the sense of birth and death and, as such, of living.
The truth of childhood that child protectors tend to invoke authoritatively to justify their paranoid assumptions is in fact a very relative concept; among hundred fifty cultures in a survey, ours showed to be one of the three most sexually restrictive.
Thus, from a global perspective, such kind of statements are not only relative, they are simply invalid in their pretended universality. Research on sexual conduct over times shows that the only difference between now and the past is that since three hundred years sexuality has become a privilege for adults, whereas formerly it was a shared enjoyment of all members of the community, except within the family structure.
Thus, it can be said that the task to liberalize the child’s sexual life is a truly democratic endeavor. By the same token, liberalizing adult–child sexual relations means to act counter to the devastating effects of incest and to free the child from widespread emotional and sexual abuse within the family.
Mainstream society is well equipped to exploit children through keeping them innocent, that is, ignorant in matters of love. Authoritarian education together with emotional abuse set the ground state for incest as an institutional collective perversion in modern society. In the sexually repressive and nuclear family structure the child is forcibly trapped into the Oedipal triangle, a problem that is nonexistent in sexually permissive cultures where children enjoy free sex with peers.
The paradigm of total obedience in patriarchal society ensures that the child is unable to say no to an adult, a concept that really opens the gate for potentially unlimited emotional, physical and sexual abuse of the child by the tutelary adult or educator. The dimension of emotional exploitation of children is inevitable in the nuclear family because of the mutual exclusive emotional fixation of the members of the vicious triangle. Emotional incest is probably more damaging for the child’s healthy sexual development in that sexual behavior is proved to be a result of unconscious emotional patterns and not of physical (genital) contacts or experiences.
Reported sexual incest cases where child trauma has been assessed all show the same pattern: a subtle or blunt submission of the child under the power of the tutelary adult for the exclusive gratification of the adult’s desire. Another factor for trauma is the child’s lasting guilt feelings that result from their knowledge that the tutelary adult, while having illicit sex, endangers the peaceful perpetuation of the family ensemble.
The incest problem is above all a power problem. Overprotectiveness serves the hero culture in that it ensures the child to be available as the cheapest and most willing sex slave and dummy partner to ever think of. Fear of sexuality is to a large part fear of sexploitation. Sex, when it becomes a weapon for the stronger against the weaker, is perverted into a fascist terror instrument.
We can by no means combat sexual exploitation of children if we do not attack the larger framework of emotional exploitation of children that is part of the hidden agenda of all fanatic religions, fascist ideologies and undemocratic governments.
Emotionally and sexually healthy and strong children cannot be victimized for they defy seduction and are not easily trapped by manipulative education. But this means to concede children the right for leading their own love life and to restrain from interfering in their personal power and decision making.
Sexploitation of children is not a matter of choice nor of social conditions. It is the result of systematic manipulation and seduction of children by tutelary adults. This exploitation, while itself not being sexual in most cases, nonetheless entices children to become sexual slaves through putting on their back the welfare of the family; the market does the rest through its demand for fun sex with minors. In countries where sexploitation is a part of tourism, the child sex market is part of a neo–colonial pattern. However, it has to be seen that exploiting children sexually is not in any way a result of permissiveness toward adult–child sexual relations, but a pure money affair, a business, and it cannot be taken as a value judgment for adult–child sexual relations in general.
To confuse both leads to the same unwanted results as depriving girls from premarital sex. The mere fact that some people abuse of young girls if they can is not an argument against premarital sex, in the contrary. The fact that something is mishandled, exploited or done in a negative way, in a harmful way, cannot be taken as an argument against that matter in its natural state. If smuggling alcohol is bad, if black markets are bad where youngsters can buy alcohol, it is not bad for an adult to drink a glass of wine with lunch or dinner. But this is how child protectors argue, really, that dead–stupid is their rhetoric! They say that because child sex is a exploited somewhere, for some reasons, all child sex is a matter of the devil. To reason that way is childish, immature and sorry, in my view it borders mental derangement and cannot be taken into account by serious research on the matter.
Mutual sexual attraction of children and adults are a historical fact; fixation of children upon their parents only came up as a result of the repression of the natural sexual play between children. The question of childlove is almost exclusively discussed under the heading of the adult’s desire for young partners while the desire of the child for older partners is wiped under the flying carpet of socially institutionalized hypocrisy.
Research on pederasty, for example, has shown that adolescent boys can exhibit a fervent emotional longing for male adult company, friendship and sexual gratification in which they like to constitute the passive and yielding partner in the relation.
Our protectiveness toward children sadly results in depriving them of life and thus perpetuates fascism and tight social control. The main argument against pederasty, i.e. that it turns boys into homosexual lovers, is a pure myth. Reality is that temporary love and sex relations that occur in adolescence have been shown to enhance stable heterosexual relations later in life.
This was already the shared opinion in ancient times, and it is showing through all honest and non–manipulated interviews with men, provided the love relations had been lived without coercion from the side of the adult and on a basis of mutual consent and respect.
Child protectors would quickly be disqualified in public if the masses were informed about their most basic contradiction, namely their declaring war to what at the same time they declare as being nonexistent. I am talking about child sexuality.
The child protectors, within their child sexual abuse rhetoric, argue that the child is basically nonsexual and that if a child shows signs of sexual interest, the child has invariably been molested or has spied out something that traumatized and thus psychically damaged him or her. At the same time however, these same child protectors become very inventive when it is about turning those asexual beings away from any potential source of erotic interest.
If a provincial and basically life–denying environment grants them their requested freedom of action, they will do as they did at the beginning of this century and attach every baby’s hands at the wooden frame of the cradle, to defend sinning, as they put it. To say it in modern language, they will inhibit the child from engaging in self–satisfaction through body pleasure.
What they want to prevent, in fact, is not pleasure, but knowledge. Pleasure is harmless while knowledge is a weapon. Knowledge about the body is against the consumerist system. It is the only true danger of the manipulative system modern consumer society is based upon. A child who is free, happy and fulfilled does not need expensive treatments since their self–healing capacities are excellent. An erotically satisfied child does not develop high interest in plastic toys. Their body is their primary focus for play, and not a plastic ersatz, readily fabricated in the child toy industry that is the younger brother of the child protection industry and its foremost capitalizer. Thus, the erotically fulfilled child is per se a heretic in a system that feeds on the repression of the child’s primary eroticism.
That is why the modern debate about child sexuality and pedophilia is an absurd theatre where the actors are automatons that repeat formulas. Those formulas have no root in real life since they grow from a hyper–virtual moralistic life paradigm that is the production of a water–headed science.
It is absurd to prohibit something that doesn’t exist. A parent or educator who has never seen an expression of their children’s natural sexuality should resign from parenthood or as an educator, because they are deeply ignorant. More generally put, people who deny child sexuality have their reasons to do so! People who try to prohibit child sexuality in reality try to prohibit their own pedoemotive desires that they project on others or a group they label ‘pedophiles’ or else. People who have problems with their own adult sexuality or certain parts of it should seek professional advice or counseling before they viciously attack or molest others for their pretended sexual problems.
The only way out of this truly Minotaurean labyrinth of projections, absurd conclusions and publicly spread lies and myths is understanding. People who have problems when being in contact with natural sexual children or with childlovers should make serious efforts to understand their own repressed pedophilia — and the problems will disappear.
Of course, if a whole society reacts hysterically, the only conclusion is that such a society is intrinsically pedophile. As absurd as it sounds, it is only logical that as long as a society is in itself pedophile, it will not be ready to accept or to tolerate pedophilia.
Societies, like individuals, react hysterically, aggressive and violent only if feeling attacked at their most sensitive, most vulnerable points and in their most secret engagements and desires. Only in deeply pedophile societies, pedophilia is met with hysteria, public outrage, aggression, violence and prohibition. In tribal cultures, for example, pedophile attraction may be a matter of ridicule and joke, but never one of aggression and violence.
Typically, in those cultures pedophilia is tolerated as a random phenomenon of possible, while marginal, sexual human conduct.
Q–11. Do you opt for modernizing laws of consent or for abolishing them?
Abolish them completely. They are useless. They are counterproductive and have proven to be completely ineffective for preventing violent sex crimes against children, child abduction, child rape and child murder. So once an attempt of modernizing laws of consent is made, legislators should consider if we need sex laws at all. The aggression and humiliation of another as part of forced sex is punishable under general criminal law. Why, beyond that, sex as such should be penalized is questionable.
Responsible lawmaking must understand that nobody is inclined to follow legal rules that are outmoded, arbitrary and persecutory. The present situation does not prevent crime in that sex laws are no more part of a moral behavior code that once made sense, at least for a majority. Laws that are not rooted in a basic code of conduct are felt as oppression; they produce black markets and thus more crime and as such they are simply counterproductive. Aggression against children as part of strict education is part of a scheme of structural violence that supports the strong and powerful and oppresses the weak and dependent members of the community.
Denying children tactile pleasure is a logical add–on in the oppression scheme that results in manipulating children’s emotions so as to comply to the oppressors’ expectations. The sexless child is the ideal consumer in a fake culture, for the sexually experienced child would not be satisfied with a fake life, but prefer real life. An industry that lives from producing fake goods needs consumers that are alienated from their body and their true identity. In a system that holds sex being some form of violence, it is not surprising that violent child battery, on one hand, and a tender caress of the child’s genitalia, on the other, would be punished in pretty much the same way.
The perversity of this situation stems from the premise. It is a form of perversion from nature to regard sexuality as a form of assault whatever be the age of the people involved in the sex game.
The fake culture is a killing culture. It kills life. That is why it hates the sexy child with its highly vibrant and sensitive organism. The fake culture needs consumer puppets, not living humans, not vibrant sexual children who have a strong self–identity because they have real knowledge of their body and their emotional and sexual response. Only art can draw a slightly accurate picture of the child’s beautifully lively and marvelously formed body; no scientific study can render that picture.
To write about questions of love in scientific readers is an attempt to render respectable publications that otherwise would be treated as marginal. However, this trick does not work in that the truly interested reader already knows and the rest does not want to know. Only art and art publishing can transform a human soul and open barred minds and hearts. It is a waste of time to reform laws that have no basis in the natural moral structure of a democratic society. The best way to deal with such laws is to abolish them.
Q–12. It is often argued sex was dangerous for children. Do you agree?
Life is risk. When a child plays in a busy street, the child is in danger, that is, to be run down by a car, and that danger is probably higher than having sex with an adult. We cannot live without danger, for we would have to live in a shell, and no sun would reach us, and we would starve. So this argument is per se a tricky one. I would say, it’s a paranoid argument most of the time issued by paranoid people, while these people may look very normal in real life. To be paranoid in a paranoid society does look very normal, to be true, as a matter of logic!
Sexual development is much more a question of factual life experiences than of biological events. For the sexually healthy child, having sex with peers or adults is merely a result of emotional bonding, as a prolongation of that bonding into the tactile realm. It’s all about giving and taking, caressing, expressing love in a physical way. Most of the time when adults talk about child sex, they project their own notion of sexuality upon the life and play of children. This can only lead to a distorted view.
Children truly perceive sexuality in a different way, without any compulsion, more as something to be tried out, not something that needs to be done. There is no must about it, while for many adult males, for example, there is well a must about being sexual, and frequently sexual, and sexual with females, in order to prove to oneself that one is a man. While all such reasoning is of course nonsexual, it’s purely intellectual. And the child, the normal child, is not in that intellectual overdrive and thus perceives sexuality as something one may do, or not do, without being judgmental in any way about it. If a child does want to engage in it, it’s because it feels good, and feels good when one loves the partner. That’s about all there is to say about it.
The inherent dangers in sex are not different from the inherent dangers in living! Those who fear sexploitation of children experience their own sexuality in a childish way, lacking sexual aggressiveness so as to live their love and to enjoy life to its fullest. All of us carry a part of the responsibility for every child raped by our consenting to the perpetuation of laws that kill children emotionally from birth and transform them into sexless puppets.
An obedient puppet invites rape while a lively human is in control of all their relations, including sexual ones. It is our duty, then, as parents or educators to help children assume their sexual desire and to handle sexual encounters of every possible kind. This is done better through nonaction than through action since the natural self–regulation has prepared the child to grow early into sexual exchange as part of emotional bonding so as to satisfy the narcissistic ego. Nature has provided the right way if only we could become sensitive enough to perceive this truth again!
Q–13. How then to cope responsibly with children’s sexual life?
The answer is non–interference and permissiveness. It is part of a true understanding of democracy to work for more autonomy for children and more respect of their privacy and their friendships. As emotionally mature adults, we are bound to not interfere in the child’s emotional and sexual life instead of perpetuating persecution and control. Strangely, while people agree that persecution and tyranny are undemocratic measures, they nonetheless practice them with their own children, unaware that in doing this they maintain archaic and highly destructive forms of control that impede humankind from progressing into a new age of peace and enlightenment.
A child’s consent to sex, even though such consent may be the result of seduction or financial compensation, is still consent. Hence, if a child accepts favors, gifts or money in return for consenting to sex with an adult, it cannot be said the child has been raped or otherwise forced into sex if intercourse has taken place.
The present state of the law that declares the consent of the child as legally invalid implicitly states that the life of the child is legally invalid, for if the will of the child is legally not valid, their will to live is neither.
Hence, the high incidence of child rape and murder in societies that maintain such laws is not a mere coincidence. It is a direct consequence of the lacking social code. As a result, we need to change or abolish these laws and find better ways to handle our emotions.
I have proposed those changes in a draft bill that is published here on Medium.