Debate Guide: Reverse sexualization: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
No edit summary
JohnHolt (talk | contribs)
Bots, Bureaucrats, MU Editors
1,456 edits
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
One of the most 'counter-productive' phenomena, which our recent history of kindersex denial will be remembered for, would have to be the reverse sexualisation of children, via the panic that is aroused upon the discovery, making or release of naked photography. By classing any naked picture of a child as 'sexual' or 'pornography', we admit the very truth that we are trying to repress, i.e. that pictures of children arouse sexual emotions throughout culture as a whole. This is not to say that the 'sexualisers' particularly find such pictures highly arousing, but they do at the very least admit a knowledge of what can be a turn on, regarding the bodies of children, unless of course, they have a robotic analysis mechanism for detecting 'what turns a pedo on'. The way that we all intuitively know how a child can aesthetically express sexuality, shows to some extent how human sexuality is a heterogeneous mesh of conflicting and complimenting desires, including attraction to children (preferential or not), or in the case of its repression, a clear 'instinct' towards identifying the sexual appeal of children and / or those brief, quickly suppressed feelings towards our own young or those of others.
[[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.


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. In fact, it is just about a perfect contradiction of contemporary society's supposed moral propriety and children's supposed inborn asexuality.
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.


An 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 the (technically innocent) general pose implied a precocious and sexual nature. So here we are, expressing the fear of our inner desires in the form of a complaint, i.e. not only the denial of the image's appeal to oneself, but the counter - claim that 'it must be wrong'. However, for what reason would a human being instinctively perceive something so wrong as overtly sexual? Why do we then need moral perception to tell us that something so 'inherently dangerous' is wrong? In his long evolution, man could not rely on something as flimsy as morality to warn him off universally bad ideas.
==External links==
 
*[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]]
 
[[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"