Debate Guide: Reverse sexualization

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.

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.

An example of reverse sexualisation comes from a 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.