Child sexual abuse - here's the real story behind it
Two cases are provided below, for comparison purposes.
One day, a man--a large and powerful man, and a man who is in a position of great authority--takes a little 5-year-old girl into his private room where no one could see what he is going to do to her.
He tells her to get undressed, and he helps her remove her clothing. When the child is completely naked, he slowly runs his eyes over her entire body. He asks her, "Are you afraid?" The child says no.
Then he lays her on a table, one which has a soft cushion on it. He tells her to spread her legs wide open. The man gently touches the girl's labia. He asks her, "How does this feel?" She says, "It tickles!"
The man then gently manipulates the girl's clitoris, to see if it erects. It does. Then the man gently spreads the girl's labia, and tries to insert his finger into her vagina. He is only partly successful, as the girl's hymen is tight. "Does this hurt?" he asks. "A little," says the girl.
He asks the girl to roll over onto her stomach. She does. He has her assume a "doggy" position, and he looks closely and carefully at her anus. Then he places his lubricated finger inside her anus.
"How does this feel?" he asks. "I don't like that!" says the girl.
Then the man begins to photograph the girl--he takes pictures of her buttocks, her anus, then has her roll over for more pictures of her chest, and her vulva.
Then he has her get dressed, smiles at her, and says "Thanks. You're a wonderful little girl!"
The girl smiles back, and says, "Can I go now, doctor?" He says, "Sure," and let's the girl out of the room.
The above is the description of a medical examination of a girl--a girl who was suspected of being the victim of "child sexual abuse". The examination had been ordered by the court.
This is about a man (also a large man, but not a man in any particular position of authority over the girl) who was being charged with sexual abuse of the little girl done to the girl?
He had taken a little girl into his private room where no one could see what he was going to do to her.
He had asked the girl to undress, even helping her to remove her clothing. When the child was completely naked, he had slowly run his eyes over her entire body. He had asked her, "Are you afraid?" The child had said no.
Then he had asked her to lie down on a table, one which had a soft cushion on it. He had told her to spread her legs wide open. He had gently touched the girl's labia. He had asked her, "How does this feel?" She had said, "It tickles!"
He had then gently manipulated the girl's clitoris, to see if it erected. It had. Then the man gently spread the girl's labia, and tried to insert his finger into her vagina. He had been only partly successful, as the girl's hymen had been tight. "Does this hurt?" he had asked. "A little," the girl had said.
He had then asked the girl to roll over onto her stomach. She had done so. He had then had her assume a "doggy" position, and he had looked closely and carefully at her anus. Then he had placed his lubricated finger inside her anus.
"How does this feel?" he had asked. "I don't like that!" the girl had said.
Then the man had begun to photograph the girl--he taken pictures of her buttocks, her anus, then had had her roll over for more pictures of her chest, and her vulva.
Then he had her get dressed, smiled at her, and said "Thanks. You're a wonderful little girl!"
Unknown to the little girl at the time, the man had had an erection while he had been giving the girl an examination. He was subsequently arrested for "child sexual abuse."
Results of the comparison
The second man
The second man, according to the law, had "sexually abused" the little girl. This was because he had found the experience to be "sexually stimulating".
The doctor, according to the law, had not "sexually abused" a little girl. This was only because he had not found the experience to be sexually exciting.
The second man, for his examination of a girl (an examination identical to the one performed by the doctor), goes to prison for five years.
The doctor, on the other hand, gets paid $500 for his examination of the girl.
If the problem of "sexual abuse" is about a person in a position of power over a child touching that child's sexual organs, then both are equally guilty of abusing the girl sexually.
If the problem of "sexual abuse" is about the way that a little girl has been touched (her sexual organs), then both are guilty of abusing the girl sexually.
But the doctor is considered by society to not be guilty of sexually abusing the girl!
The difference between the two is that one (the second man) had found himself sexually stimulated by the experience, while the first man (the doctor) had not!
What the men did--physically--to the little girl was absolutely identical!
But one is condemned by society and labelled as a sick, evil pedophile, while the other is praised for doing much good in society.
OK--so here's the real story behind "child sexual abuse".
Its not about any real harms to any girls (or boys) from being touched. No. What it is, is that society feels an overwhelming need to demonstrate its outrage, shock, and horror that there exist men who feel sexually aroused by children!
So it's not about "saving the children". It's really about society reassuring itself that the taboos about sexual activities with minors are being enforced!
And the really strange thing is, if it had turned out (in the example of the doctor's examination above) that the doctor himself had found the examination he had performed to be (secretly) sexually stimulating, then he would have, under the law, suddenly turned into a sick, evil pedophile and would have been condemned by society, arrested, put on trial, convicted, and sent to prison!
If this all does not sound a little crazy to you, the reader, then--well, I'd start to wonder if maybe you might be a little crazy yourself!
- (to be added)