Hysteria can be seen in what terminology is used, which further precipitates the problem literally brainwashing people to become more hysterical. Such brainwashing terminology in reference to pedophilia includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Referring to anything sexual occurring between an adult and a child as: "sexual abuse." "Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a legal term rather than a scientific." "Child sexual abuse is not a syndrome or illness, but rather an event ...Children identified as sexually abused are similar to each other only in that they have been exposed to sexual behavior deemed to be inappropriate or socially unacceptable." Such language is slanted because it incorporates the value judgment that anything at all sexual between an adult and a child is just de facto "abusive," which of course has no basis in fact -- It's just a declaration made by many people who realize it is wrong, but unfortunately resort to underhanded tactic to try to make their point. The term is simply not a neutral description as it honestly should be if one is concerned about carrying on an intelligent, objective conversation about the topic. Just plainly descriptive words should be used such as "sexual contact," "sexual interaction," or even "sensuous contact," etc.
"Survivor of sexual abuse" is the worst, in that it is a doubly loaded expression that can only result in brainwashing. "Survivor" means by definition "to remain alive, esp. after others in the same situation have died." Since child-adult sexual encounters rarely end in death for the child "survivor" is hardly appropriate. Even the word "victim," which is less severe than "survivor," has a preconceived value judgment associated with it, and it is often the adult who is the victim of the child. One should say "one who has experienced" or other terminology, such as "target," "focus," or even just "participant" or "partner." "Hurt" is another loaded word. We often see things like "How could anyone hurt a child like that?" "Hurt" is most often used to describe a physical injury and only occasionally used in reference to mental anguish. All of these terms are used by those who over-react, become hysterical, and want to spread that hysteria to others. In the vast majority of child-adult sexual relationships there is no physical harm done, and emotional distress is inflicted by others who make the child feel ashamed. In fact, rather than being distressed many of those who were child-partners have very pleasant memories
Another point to take into consideration is complete sexual depravation during childhood actually does cause emotional distress as well as a tendency toward perversions -- because when normal sexual desires can not be fulfilled at a time when the desire is acutely strong, the child or teen begins to explore fetishes for relief of sexual tension.
The primary reason why adult-child sexual relations is wrong is because it's anti-social, and not because it actually traumatizes the child. Sex is fundamentally about having babies, and adults with child partners most certainly cannot raise a family. Sex is all about having sex with one's own generation to procreate the species, and the more we get abreast of that reality the more perverted things get even when it comes to consenting adults.
Certainly if a child is truly taken sexual advantage he or she could be abused, victimized, hurt, and even be a survivor in some rare cases, but the point here is that none of these things are necessarily true of any and all or even most adult-child sexual interactions -- and should not be declared as such in the language used.
Compare the two following descriptions:
"I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse. I was victimized. Now I'm traumatized; I naturally hate the person, and require years of clinical therapy."
"I participated in adult-child sexual interaction. I'm now bothered by it, but I certainly don't hate the person. I feel that it was inappropriate; and I would like to discuss it with someone."
Which of the above two descriptions would actually be the most accurate and would be less likely to result in either the child or the adult suffering overly adverse consequences?
However, to be fair, the term "intergenerational
sex," which is sometimes use by
those attempting to be neutral, is
really not appropriate either. A
forty-year -old having sex with a
20-year-old would be
intergenerational sex, as would a
sixty-year-old having sex with a
forty-year-old. Though even that
may raise some eye-brows, it is not
the issue here. What we are
concerned with here specifically is:
child-adult sex or
adolescent-adult sex, and
sometimes even child-adolescent
Another area of hysteria presides in just what we view to be sexual molestation. Molestation means the unwanted (bothersome) or inappropriate sexual advances shown toward someone. There is nothing in that, that means that absolutely any and all sexually provocative interactions between an adult and a child is molestation or abusive. There is such a thing as sexual "horseplay" and "an air of sexuality" that may occur between adults and children in any number of situations that should not be viewed as molestation, harmful or in any way traumatizing. However, over zealous prosecutors and hysterical parents often want some kind of vengeance for just anything at all that smacks of sexuality between an adult and a child no matter how minor. This is true fanaticism, and fanatical views and reactions concerning anything constitute a sickness in and of itself that causes incredible amounts of harm in society.
|1.||the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children)|
Idiotic things such as playful pats, tickling, or discussing anything at all sexual with a child can be thought of as sexual molestation now-a-days. Just as adults can joke around about sexual matters without really being sexually erotic, so too can adults joke and engage in horseplay with children that is in some sense sexual, but not erotic, thus not molestation. Unfortunately, many teachers and others who work around children are going to jail for the most ridiculous excuses of child molestation imaginable due to the fanatical sickness of what one might call pedophileophobia. A sex offender used to mean a rapist and not usually much less, perhaps indecent exposure or a voyeur, but now it just anything that could possibly be perceived as having any air of sexuality. Sex offender registries are busting that the seams, not because there are more criminals, but because of the forever widening definitions of sexual offenses.
Hysteria magnifies things and causes over reactions which often end in tragedy:
On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."
In the article "Day of the dad: pedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?
Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."
Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.
A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.