Kommentar zu Pädophile als Behinderte

Todd Nickerson bei Salon: 1, 2. Replik von Alicen Grey. Comment: ‚This dreadful article by Alicen Grey just refers to the usual sex-negative prejudice against male heterosexuality. It’s like saying people, both male and female, shave their pubes in order to get in touch with a predominant culture that sexually idolizes the bodies of children. They do this because they want to get attractive (again): Amanda Palmer, the wife of Neil Gaiman, once made such a stupid suggestion, regarding (female) body hair. Yet such suggestions are exactly the ones that sexualize the bodies of children. They do nothing for the acceptance of different body types except forcing their own will on the sexuality of others, what they like, who they find attractive, by inventing “normality” and so on. As some sort of collective mind-hub, always speaking not as individuals with own thoughts, but as a form of human representation regarding certain (supposed to be social) groups. And in the end, Nickerson doesn’t talk about sexuality at all: in a typical collectivist state of mind, he’s mixing up sexuality with the emotion of love. He gives no description of sexual desire, his own sexuality, probably because he does’t want to offend anyone and therefore carefully chose his words. Like all great manipulators. Yet, as a handicapped person, I’m very offended by those Salon articles. My handicap is not comparable to sexual desire: I’m born this way, it’s not a question of what I want, what or whom I lust for. On the contrary, my sexual desire is something others (like Alicen Grey in her article for example) pathologize, make a handicap. My handicap (the one I’m born with, not the one people like Grey or Sarkeesian are forcing upon me) is also not necessarily something I want to get rid of, but something I just live with. Yet pedophilia, in this terms, is something that needs to be suppressed in order to not become an outburst of violence. Maybe Nickerson mistakes fantasy with reality, in a typical realistic notion, but otherwise he cannot live his sexuality in the way he talks about reality. Because Nickerson is not saying he „loves“ just images of children, but suggests he „loves“ real children most, children living in this, our own world. It’s like saying: “I love Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa”. Yes you can, you can love the painted image, or have a sexual relationship with it. In your own mind. But you can’t love “Mona Lisa” as (perhaps) a historical figure, other than violating a (supposed to be) dead body. Nickerson too, favours reality. The same reality he needs to protect his desires from. The core problem is the narrow notion of life and living surrounding all of these ideas, the central focus on reality. And Grey is referring the same patriarchal purposes she supposedly wants to attack: she uses (capable) bodies (and identities) as some sort of weapons. She suggests heteronormativity in pedophiles, a rather biologistic notion of sex, rather than gender, and so on. It’s like saying Marilyn Monroe was a poster child for pedophiles, and some comments surrounding her article also suggest exactly that: no, what many heterosexual males lust for is youth and (supposed) innocence. That’s what “Barely Legal” means – the Hustler magazine, or Internet search engine results. Also regarding the fact why a search for female first names often leads to pornographic material: not because women are being held sexually captivated, but many fantasies regarding female bodies are based on platonic thoughts of innocence in person. They don’t know and more often than not don’t want to know who the objects of their sexual desire “really” are. And both, youth and the sexual fantasy of innocence, are not identical with the idea of children. They suggest rather an aesthetic that favours the new, against the old. And this aesthetic is observable across the world: new and shiny things are usually more attractive than old or worn stuff, despite some personal worth. Yet there’s no talk about that, because otherwise they would need to “objectify” human beings as objects of sexual desire, and that’s exactly what their ideology doesn’t want when talking about “love”, rather than sex. Yet sexuality always comes through objective views on other beings, humans, animals, plants and lifeless artificial things. Subjects first and foremost can only see objects in their surroundings, like just others in the environment, and not other subjects – they are no mentalists and can just respect the other being – everything else is just hypocrisy: and there’s also an exaggeration of the term „pedophile“ at present. A „pedoophile“ is per definition NOT someone who is attracted by adolescence, but to pre-pubescent children. Therefore it’s totally misleading and belittling to even talk about “pedophilia” that way, in a different context or even out of the context pedophiles lust for children.‘