What if accepting pedophilia is an antidote to a child hating culture?

[lovefindsaway]

“Children shouldn’t be on planes” “Children shouldn’t be at weddings” “Children shouldn’t be at bars” “Children shouldn’t be at Pride”

We’re seeing this messaging EVERYWHERE.

Children being excluded from every aspect of life. Hostility towards children.

“Hugging boys makes them soft” “I (a father) don’t change my [girl] child’s diaper because I don’t want to look like a pedophile”

And a macabre pattern of behavior where people are neglecting children out of fear of being labeled as pedophiles.
Projecting their own insecurities and fears onto those relationships.

People want to blame child attracted and child loving people for society’s ills rather than looking inward and searching deeper.

Our society hates kids and hates the people who genuinely love them, admire them, honor them, and advocate for them. Attraction is what creates belonging and therefore survival if our species.

[FairBlueLove]

I think like that as well. It seems most of the things regarding children protection and nurturing are upside-down in modern - especially western - society.

[Bookshelf]

I've long stood by the thought that anti-MAP / anti-AMSC sentiments don't just come from a bigoted hatred towards MAPs, but also a desire to control a subject group. Minors are effectively a subject group to adults. Even regular straight people who don't want to have sex with kids can be treated poorly and considered "creepy" for just wanting kids to be on the same level as them.

Take a look at the age gap discourse — legal adults are treated like children, and a part of reinforcing that is through controlling their sexuality. It's wrong for a 34 year old man to have sex with a 19 year old consenting woman because she's just not quite as developed as the rest of us, I'm afraid. She doesn't know what's best for her yet; it's up to everyone else to decide on her behalf.

Two people being able to mutually engage sexually breaks down social barriers that certain people rely on for power and control. This is the same reason why interracial relationships were so looked down in the past, and in some places still are.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I think you are right.
When my daughters were young I wouldn't bath them or even carry them in public because I always felt like the world was judging. The result was more work for my wife, as if she wasn't having to do enough as a mom. But I've spoken to other dads over the years and it isn't that uncommon, men just feel they are set up to be judged which creates pressure on dads to keep more distance from their kids in public especially.

Maps often click with the kids not just because of attraction. When two heterosexual people meet and click, the guy isn't just looking to have sex, in fact he'll often turn down such advances out of respect for the girl he likes. When I met my wife to be, I wasn't just looking for sex, we took time for that. When we went out clubbing and ended up back at her place, her drunk on the bed and flirting, I didn't have sex with her because she was drunk. I respected her, I wanted to protect her, care for her. Yes I was attracted to her, but sex wasn't the motivator, if it was then we could have been screwing much much sooner. But we weren't, because I'm not a raging sex beast. Well that's the same for maps, they're not raging sex beasts and there might be attraction but that's isn't everything. There's emotion, respect, care, tenderness. Are there maps who just want to have sex? Yes, there are, just like there are guys of any sexuality who are just out for sex. But they are a minority and they usually are restrained by other guys stopping them from being creeps and predators. Well guess what, most maps would be aware of truly predatory maps and restraining them because people in general just don't like selfish rapists.

In short, people should stop projecting rapists onto maps. They used to do that on gays, portraying gay men as sex predators.

[John_Doe]

I think you are right.
When my daughters were young I wouldn't bath them or even carry them in public because I always felt like the world was judging. The result was more work for my wife, as if she wasn't having to do enough as a mom. But I've spoken to other dads over the years and it isn't that uncommon, men just feel they are set up to be judged which creates pressure on dads to keep more distance from their kids in public especially.

Maps often click with the kids not just because of attraction. When two heterosexual people meet and click, the guy isn't just looking to have sex, in fact he'll often turn down such advances out of respect for the girl he likes. When I met my wife to be, I wasn't just looking for sex, we took time for that. When we went out clubbing and ended up back at her place, her drunk on the bed and flirting, I didn't have sex with her because she was drunk. I respected her, I wanted to protect her, care for her. Yes I was attracted to her, but sex wasn't the motivator, if it was then we could have been screwing much much sooner. But we weren't, because I'm not a raging sex beast. Well that's the same for maps, they're not raging sex beasts and there might be attraction but that's isn't everything. There's emotion, respect, care, tenderness. Are there maps who just want to have sex? Yes, there are, just like there are guys of any sexuality who are just out for sex. But they are a minority and they usually are restrained by other guys stopping them from being creeps and predators. Well guess what, most maps would be aware of truly predatory maps and restraining them because people in general just don't like selfish rapists.

In short, people should stop projecting rapists onto maps. They used to do that on gays, portraying gay men as sex predators.

I shouldn't reply when I have so little time left. I can respect people wanting to 'take things slowly' but I don't see why that should be considered/would be a gesture of respect. It seems that with every mini sexual revolution movement there's always this idea that we need to shed historical sex negativity even though a big part of the revolutionary message, from at least one very dominant faction in the movement, is always that this new sexual deviancy is as valid as other preferences, attractions etc. because it's really about love, not sex.

It's hard for me to imagine that emotional intimacy/affection isn't a natural consequence of sexual intimacy and attraction (oxytocin is released during ejaculation, and I think with just sexual stimulation, although it's more than just the 'love hormone' it does play a role in emotional bonding) and sex without emotional intimacy is boring to me (I considered mentioning in another thread that I've never liked the dichotomy between a serious committed relationship and 'emotionless' casual sex, as someone who would prefer affectionate and emotionally intimate casual sex). I would agree that a person shouldn't have sex with someone they don't care about but I don't think you should not care about people to begin with (in the sense of wanting happiness for the other person, not necessarily a personal friendship although the former can imply the latter). If you have two people who aren't really interested in each other beyond sex I don't really see the issue with their having a relationship that revolves around sexual intimacy exclusively as long as no one is misleading the other person in a way that creates false expectations that will be frustrated (i.e. as long as their on the same page about their relationship). Just because someone frankly does not really want a relationship that extends beyond sex or some kind of sensual intimacy with someone else doesn't necessarily mean they're ok with raping that person or people in general.

Again, this was a quick reply.

Let me add-paternalism toward children and young people can be harmful (it can also be a net benefit circumstantially, I support some of the paternalism toward true children especially or at least, and toward adults in some scenarios), and they have traditionally had a lower social status in most cultures, but I don't think there's a norm of 'hating children' in modern Western culture or that it's 'anti-child.' For the most part, I think we often care more about children and young people even if we take them less seriously as agents. For the most part. Personally, I think the anti-pedophilia prejudice is generally about maintaining the image that adults have of childhood innocence and purity; which arguably implies a kind of misguided and self-serving admiration for them.

[JGHeaven]

I shouldn't reply when I have so little time left. I can respect people wanting to 'take things slowly' but I don't see why that should be considered/would be a gesture of respect. It seems that with every mini sexual revolution movement there's always this idea that we need to shed historical sex negativity even though a big part of the revolutionary message, from at least one very dominant faction in the movement, is always that this new sexual deviancy is as valid as other preferences, attractions etc. because it's really about love, not sex.

It's hard for me to imagine that emotional intimacy/affection isn't a natural consequence of sexual intimacy and attraction (oxytocin is released during ejaculation, and I think with just sexual stimulation, although it's more than just the 'love hormone' it does play a role in emotional bonding) and sex without emotional intimacy is boring to me (I considered mentioning in another thread that I've never liked the dichotomy between a serious committed relationship and 'emotionless' casual sex, as someone who would prefer affectionate and emotionally intimate casual sex). I would agree that a person shouldn't have sex with someone they don't care about but I don't think you should not care about people to begin with (in the sense of wanting happiness for the other person, not necessarily a personal friendship although the former can imply the latter). If you have two people who aren't really interested in each other beyond sex I don't really see the issue with their having a relationship that revolves around sexual intimacy exclusively as long as no one is misleading the other person in a way that creates false expectations that will be frustrated (i.e. as long as their on the same page about their relationship). Just because someone frankly does not really want a relationship that extends beyond sex or some kind of sensual intimacy with someone else doesn't necessarily mean they're ok with raping that person or people in general.

Again, this was a quick reply.

Let me add-paternalism toward children and young people can be harmful (it can also be a net benefit circumstantially, I support some of the paternalism toward true children especially or at least, and toward adults in some scenarios), and they have traditionally had a lower social status in most cultures, but I don't think there's a norm of 'hating children' in modern Western culture or that it's 'anti-child.' For the most part, I think we often care more about children and young people even if we take them less seriously as agents. For the most part. Personally, I think the anti-pedophilia prejudice is generally about maintaining the image that adults have of childhood innocence and purity; which arguably implies a kind of misguided and self-serving admiration for them.

This makes more sense, I mean I don't think sex is needed for romance and love but sex and intimacy can surely accelerate love and bonding if it's mutual and fun. I watched something recently where people talked about their first time and most were underage teens. It was striking that most said it was positive, most used more striking language about how great their first time was but I did notice that they were all talking about it was with boyfriends and people they cared about. But I've heard elsewhere some people saying their first time was awkward or not that pleasant. It seems clear that people underage do often have very positive experiences although I get the impression that it's down to who it's with as much as how much the person knows about how to do it right.

[wildly]

Children are more and more isolated from society and even from younger children.

How often do children interact with babies for example if they don't have a younger sibling or cousin?

How often do people see children except out in public, where they are often stressed and being hassled by a busy parent? Seeing children in a naturally joyful state, playing, chatting or singing with friends is much more rare. An unrelated adult who wanted to watch that might well be called a pedophile.

We've isolated children for long enough now that many of those children have grown into adults. It's only natural that those kids who were isolated from society and even from younger kids have grown up to have a negative view of children. We've prevented adults from seeing the parts of children lives where they are wonderful and let the see them only in the most disruptive state.

Accepting pedophilia I think is a small piece of the puzzle, a part of a greater piece that is accepting adults interacting with children. The bigger piece is reintegrating children with society, so they aren't a lower caste, kept isolated and imprisoned for their own safety. That starts I think with mixed-aged groups at school, encouraging groups to welcome children and community events that are open to all ages. But it seems like a long journey to achieve, there's a lot that needs to be reversed.