Post a response:
|
interactions.. Sometimes I'm at Wal-Mart and see some kid approach a woman and start talking to her, saying, "I recognize you from school! You're Ms. So-and-so!" And the woman will start asking her questions about who her teacher is, etc. trying to figure out how she knows her. And I think, "Is that even allowed, for a woman to talk to a kid who's not her own? Sound waves that come from her mouth go inside that kid's ear and impact against her eardrums. Isn't that technically rape, since the kid is too young to consent to that kind of invasion of her body? It doesn't matter whether it's possibly harmless; 'molesters' are always claiming that what they do is harmless, and no one cares. All that matters is whether the kid is capable of consenting to it." Molecules of air that the woman exhales become part of the atmosphere that then comes into contact with intimate parts of the child's body, for example later on in the day, when she undresses to take a bath. Some of those molecules are even inhaled by the kid. Isn't that technically molestation, like when someone ejaculates onto a kid, or feeds her semen cookies, as Max Berndt did? Shouldn't the kid get a $140 million settlement for that? Wal-Mart took video recordings of the kid walking around the store. Isn't this footage of child exploitation? People say that Wal-Mart exploits the innocent by using its market power to force people to shop there, including those who need to buy stuff for their kids. Therefore the kid had to be present to pick out what she wanted; yet, she is too young to consent to any of this, even if it works to her benefit (because of course, exploiters will always claim that what they do is for the kid's benefit; that doesn't make it okay). Thus the security staff who watch that footage are technically watching child abuse imagery and should go to prison. I was playing a game of concentration with a friend's kid, and he beat me. His mom invited me to come over and play with him some other time. I thought, "Isn't there supposed to be a wall between the generations, with the assumption being that we have nothing in common other than that men want to rape little kids, and therefore, unless I'm his caregiver I'm supposed to have no contact with him? Aren't I engaging in what could be deemed child grooming any time a kid enjoys an interaction with me? Where does one draw the line? After all, who can objectively say what my intent is?" I do notice, it's pretty rare that men will have conversations with random kids. The closest I get to that is that I might watch when my wife interacts with some kids. Because of my reticence, I feel like a good citizen, thinking to myself, "Yes! I'm doing my part to maintain that intergenerational wall, so that kids can reach adulthood mostly inexperienced with, and therefore unprepared for, the kinds of social interactions they're likely to encounter in the adult world." Sometimes I don't even look at the kids, because they might look back, and of course they can't consent to having light rays bounce off of my eyes and into theirs, which would make that eye contact a form of indecent liberties, or sexual battery, etc. (Since of course, who can say whether I might have an intent to ultimately defile, if the interaction escalated further?) On Wikipedia, you can get banned if you "advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki" so it's not even necessary that anything of a sexual nature be involved in what you're advocating. The boundaries of what might be "inappropriate" are therefore limited only by your imagination. |