What is anti-contact? In what does it differ from pro-contact?
I guess that first we need to establish what is an anti-contact pedophile. I'm sure most people simply associate the word 'pedophile' to someone who wishes to molest children, or that already has molested them. As I have said extensively in other posts, pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, not someone who has abused said children, or wishes to. The conflation of the term 'pedophile' with 'child molester/sexual abuser' is not correct.Still, as it is true for any population and/or community on this planet, people that are a part of them have different views on a number of subjects. The same is also valid among pedophiles. We aren't all part of a collective mind that thinks, and acts, the same way. In this context, one of the major differentiations, in my opinion, is that of anti-contact pedophiles and pro-contact pedophiles.
Anti-contact pedophiles differ from pro-contact pedophiles on the matter of child-adult sexual activity being okay or not. Anti-contacts have an opinion on that which is very similar to that of non-pedophiles. That sex with children is not acceptable, and that it brings a potentially huge trauma to children. This trauma, and the ensuing damages, can last for a life time and affect different areas of the abuse victim's life.
Pro-contact pedophiles however believe that such activities only cause trauma due to society's opinions about said activity. That how we deal with children who are submitted to sexual activities with adults is what causes the trauma. If this vision, that such activities are wrong, wasn't forced upon children then they wouldn't be traumatized by such activities. They also point out that children are sexual beings and they are entitled to conducting those activities, be it among themselves or with adults, and that curtailing such rights makes us all sex fascists.
Basically we can see, in a simplistic view, that the fundamental difference between both "groups" is on children's capacity to consent, and understand, sexual activity. As well as the consequences of such activities when performed in conjunction with an adult.
What about you? What do you think?
I personally think that children are indeed sexual beings. I know, calm down. I mentioned this on the paragraph about pro-contact groupos, but read the link I referenced first. I really do think that children are sexual beings but that the sexual context they can understand is very, very limited. See, it isn't uncommon for children to be curious about their own bodies, including their genital area. The same curiosity is applied to their friend's bodies, even more so if they are from a different gender.
This is important for the child's sexual identity development, and it has nothing to do with erotized sex.
Children, as they grow up, will be curious about dating, marrying, how they were born and a whole host of other matters, all which have a sexual context to them. This is important for the child's sexual identity development, and it has nothing to do with erotized sex.
Due to the importance of this sexual development in the child's life, and the fragility of this process, which is also due to the child's own maturity, I believe it to be morally wrong to interact sexually with children. They do have the right to develop in a healthy and appropriate manner, and I don't think any adult's influence into having sex will contribute to this. Quite on the other hand, it will impact this process causing consequences that can be quite deep.
I can imagine that such opinion is welcomed in a incredulous manner by people. On one hand it must be odd since I admittedly said that I'm sexually attracted to children, thus also having some amount of sexual desire for them. On the other hand I imagine it to be even weirder since most people naturally assume that pedophiles have an uncontrollable desire to abuse children and that it can't be curbed/stopped.
Even though I feel a sexual desire it does not mean I will give in to that desire. As I have said I don't want, or desire, to abuse any child whatsoever. I understand the enormous negative potential that said action would have on them, causing something that could last their entire life time. Everyone, be them pedophiles or non-pedophiles, feels sexual desires towards someone, as I mentioned here, but that doesn't mean we all act on impulse and give in to those desires. Controlling one's desires is perfectly possible, as I'm sure we all accomplish that daily.
Overall, what does this mean?
I don't possess any desire to hurt children, of inflicting upon them a trauma that could endure their whole lives. There are several heavy, and long lasting, consequences to that action. It isn't something I wish upon any child, let alone if it was caused by me. I'm saddened every time I see news of a child being abuse, because I can imagine the pain and fear that those children must have endured.Be them non-pedophiles that believe that I'm a horrible person, someone who is lying and who secretly wishes to abuse children, or be them pro-contact pedophiles, who believe I'm a traitor to a cause I never belonged to and that call me sex fascists, here is something for you to read:
Independently of how you think about, feel about or view me my opinion remains the same. My resolution to not abuse a child for the remainder of my life remains the same. I'm not anti-contact because I want to please society, or to displease certain groups of pedophiles. I'm anti contact because I believe that is correct from a moral point of view. Morality, or better yet a moral code, is something personal, thus subjective, but this is my views on child-adult sexual contact.
Postagens
I exactly believe, what you describe as a belief of a pro-contacter. I also see the damage that is done to both parts in a pedophilic relationship. That is why i don't pursue any sexual contact with children. However, i don't make a distinction between pro- and anti-contacters, because it is not important.
ResponderExcluirYou haven't described why you need to distinguish between pro's and anti's. It is just for you to point to a group that is worse than you, the really bad guys? I think that all pedophiles are in the same boat. We have to deal with it. Society has to deal with it. Making the distinction is not helpful.
Hi Samuel,
ResponderExcluirThanks for your comment, it was the first one ever in the blog by the way.
I don't quite understand why you think making a distinction between anti-contact and pro-contact is not important. I personally think that the difference in philosophies is quite big and that the distinction does matter. It matters to any pedophile who have recently discovered he/she is so, and how they feel about sex with children. Knowing there there are basically two main "schools of thought" matters to them, imo.
It also matters because we, pedophiles, basically divide ourselves based on that as well. You can see that by the numerous different online groups, and they all eventually end up making a clear definition of their stance on child-adult sexual activities.
I also believe that for non-pedophiles, that are just getting to know more about pedophilia and pedophiles, this distinction matters because as all people they will have a view on child-adult sexual activity, and it seems obvious they will align, as any person does, with the philosophy they identify the most with.
The need to make that distinction is merely that of this being personal post where I state why I'm anti-contact, and not pro-contact. Also to cater for all of that I said in the previous paragraphs. It's not about pointing a finger to a group I feel it's worst than me, but I do make it clear that I don't agree with their opinions.
We are all indeed in the same boat, we are all universally hated by society. But I can't help but feel that some people in the boat are rowing the opposite direction at times. We do have to deal with that but I hardly see any movement towards that end, although I do know of a couple of pedophiles that tried to make a unified movement, with flags and everything a la the homosexuals movements, but I'm a bit skeptical of that ever working. It doesn't seem. to me, that the differences between both groups can be easily bridged.
And finally, I do disagree with your opinion that making that distinction is not helpful. With the track record of movements like NAMBLA or PIE I think it is well worth making the distinction between pro-contact and anti-contacts. I certainly don't want to live with the shadow, and stigma, of those movements as they flopped quite astoundingly.