Debate Guide: Reverse sexualization: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Rez (talk | contribs)
1,674 edits
No edit summary
JohnHolt (talk | contribs)
Bots, Bureaucrats, MU Editors
1,456 edits
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Armani.PNG|thumb|Reverse-sexualised]]Very often, the panic aroused upon the discovery, making or release of naked or provocative child photography renders non-explicitly-sexual matter erotic in retrospect. Alternatively, by classifying any naked picture of a child as "pornography", "dangerous" and worthy of censorship, we admit that children's bodies arouse erotic interest in society. This is particularly pertinent to the mindset of "sexualisers" - those who are complicit in this sexualising censorship. It is indeed bizarre that under our current stigma, the only "appropriate" thought to be expressed on seeing the naked body of a child depicted for its own sake is one of a ''sexual'' nature. It seems to contradict contemporary society's supposed moral propriety, something only possible in the face of undeniable evidence (children can be erotic). This intuitive knowledge of children's aesthetic, erotic appeal shows to some extent how human sexuality is a heterogeneous mesh of conflicting and complimenting desires, including attraction to children.
[[Image:Armani.PNG|thumb|Reverse-sexualized by a British morality "Watchdog"]]By classifying any naked picture of a child as morally dangerous "pornography" worthy of [[censorship]], we admit that even prepubescent children's bodies arouse some erotic interest in society. It is indeed a bizarre quirk of Anglo-American orthodoxy, that the only "appropriate" response to depictions of naked or non-normative children is to complain of a "sexual" impropriety. Is this itself not only ''improper'', but prurient and counter to widely-accepted [[Research: Youth sexuality|evidence]]? This intuitive knowledge of children's aesthetic, erotic appeal, attests to how human desire is really an inter-meshing of conflicting and complimenting attractions.


One example of reverse sexualisation comes from a [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/art/armani/ Junior Armani] poster, which was criticised for sexualising children. It is clear that the 74 moralistic, totally 'non - pedophilic'(!) UK complainants had somehow "deciphered" just how the boy himself oozed sexuality, and how his - one would imagine, innocent - pose implied a precocious and sexual nature. The role of conditioning - even guilt in this process is easy to see. For what other reason would a human being instinctively perceive something as so "sickening" yet "sexual" at the same time? If there really is something universally and timelessly "dangerous" about the sexually attractive child, we have yet to see the expected instinctual response, instead relying on the social construct of contemporary morality to save the children.
One revealing example of reverse-sexualization comes from a Junior Armani poster (pictured), which was (astonishingly) criticized for sexualizing children back in 2004, leading to an ''upheld'' advertising regulator complaint.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3706075.stm Armani advert slammed by watchdog]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070323133318/http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/art/armani/ Geocities page with rundown of controversy]</ref> 74 UK adult complainants had determined the pose to be "sexually inappropriate", as it carried connotations of precocity and agency - something they instinctively saw as unlocking the erotic potential of a child. It was the ''absence'' of "uglification" and [[infantilization]] that confounded the complainants, showing that what we are in fact desperately defending is an ''imposed'' moral standard, and not some sacred natural state. While we might 20 years later (in the era of "sharenting" Instagram Kids) look back and laugh at the ''Armani'' episode, the fact that we do, speaks to the instability of [[Childhood Innocence|childhood innocence]] as a notion.


==Denial==
==External links==


A recent example of denial - a possible attempt to crack down on "sexualising" the most sexually explicit material can be seen in the language of the [[british]] [[IWF]], where all mentions of "pornography" must be replaced by "images of child abuse".
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/h-m-advert-banned-school-uniform-b2483076.html H&M advert banned] - Similar in the 2020s.
 
==See also==
 
*[[Childhood Innocence]]
*[[Erotic Innocence]]
 
==References==


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]
[[fr:Guide de débat: Inverser la sexualisation]]

Latest revision as of 00:52, 17 February 2024

Reverse-sexualized by a British morality "Watchdog"

By classifying any naked picture of a child as morally dangerous "pornography" worthy of censorship, we admit that even prepubescent children's bodies arouse some erotic interest in society. It is indeed a bizarre quirk of Anglo-American orthodoxy, that the only "appropriate" response to depictions of naked or non-normative children is to complain of a "sexual" impropriety. Is this itself not only improper, but prurient and counter to widely-accepted evidence? This intuitive knowledge of children's aesthetic, erotic appeal, attests to how human desire is really an inter-meshing of conflicting and complimenting attractions.

One revealing example of reverse-sexualization comes from a Junior Armani poster (pictured), which was (astonishingly) criticized for sexualizing children back in 2004, leading to an upheld advertising regulator complaint.[1][2] 74 UK adult complainants had determined the pose to be "sexually inappropriate", as it carried connotations of precocity and agency - something they instinctively saw as unlocking the erotic potential of a child. It was the absence of "uglification" and infantilization that confounded the complainants, showing that what we are in fact desperately defending is an imposed moral standard, and not some sacred natural state. While we might 20 years later (in the era of "sharenting" Instagram Kids) look back and laugh at the Armani episode, the fact that we do, speaks to the instability of childhood innocence as a notion.

External links

See also

References

  1. ↑ Armani advert slammed by watchdog
  2. ↑ Geocities page with rundown of controversy
Retrieved from "https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Reverse_sexualization&oldid=24295"