Post a response:
|
What even is "sexualisation"? Why do they use that term instead of say, "sexual objectification". Is "sexualising" sexual objectification, or is it broader than that? "Sexualising" is such a silly and useless term. Everyone is already sexual. I think sexual adultists do it on purpose to be vague. So they can ban people for just admitting to being pedophiles, or for acknowledging youth sexuality, things like that. Not just for sexually objectifying kids. Even "sexual objectification" seems vague, and in its broadest sense, I don't see why it should be stigmatised. Like, is sexual objectification when you think of someone in a sexual way, and don't think about their personality? If so, does that mean watching porn of a stranger is sexual objectification? Is having a casual sexual relationship with someone sexual objectification? Now, both of these things are illegal when the person is a kid. But what about just looking at a stranger and finding them attractive? Are they going make it mandatory for pedophiles to tell the government about their attraction to kids, so that the government can ban them from going anywhere near kids, as though everyone below a particular age had a restraining order on them? I reckon sexual adultism is more akin to objectification than acknowledging the truth about youth sexuality. Acknowledging that kids have sexual feelings, can consent to sexual relations with adults, and that it would be perfectly fine and natural for them to have such relationships if it were accepted, is certainly not sexual objectification. It's seeing them as people. Sexual adultism is dehumanisation. And child sexual abuse is wrong, but it's not necessarily worse than other forms of child abuse. It's really wrong that society is willing to condone such stuff like denying kids freedom of expression (through things like age limits on social media and not allowing comments on videos featuring kids or aimed at kids) and violating their privacy (through parental surveillance), to protect kids from sexual abuse. In my opinion, chronic denial of freedom of expression and chronic violation of privacy is more damaging to a kid than being mildly sexually assaulted once or twice. Perhaps you could also say this about sexual repression. It's also chronic. And it leads to a violation of privacy, because consensual sexual relationships get reported. Chronic abuse is in general more damaging than non-chronic, even if the non-chronic abuse is sexual and the victim is a kid. And even if the chronic abuse is thought to be necessary to protect them from sexual abuse. |