Real Child Abuse
by Peter Fritz Walter
Historically and psychologically, it can be seen that the hidden face of protectiveness is slavery.
The rose and blue world of modern civilization babies represents the plastic shell in which they are incarcerated for their own good and the clean façade of a culture that has lost the sense of birth and death and, as such, of living.
The ‘truth of childhood’ that child protectors tend to invoke authoritatively to justify their paranoid assumptions is in fact a very relative concept; among one hundred fifty cultures in a survey, ours showed to be one of the three most restrictive.
Thus, seen from a global perspective, such kind of statements are not only relative: they are simply invalid as to their pretended universality.
Research on sexual conduct over time shows that the only difference between now and the past is that for about the last three hundred years sexuality has become a somewhat undemocratic privilege for adults, whereas formerly it was a shared enjoyment of all members of the community, except within the family structure. This fact is actually vividly illustrated by the English language as the word ‘adult’ today is a synonym for sex-related matters.
We have adult literature, adult web sites, adult content on television, and here the term adult does not mean mature. It means that we are talking about a split concept of sexuality that cannot be found in nature because it’s artificially created by consumer culture.
This so-called heterosexuality is a fake concept; it’s a business, a money-making machine, a political track that enchains the consumer citizen in eternal immaturity. ‘I am grown-up, they affirm. I’m more than a little child, more than a minor. I am a major! I’m an adult. And as such I can rightfully claim and enjoy adult content.’
What an infantile sandbox game!
This concept is really fostering global retardation and it’s a guarantee for future generations to get back to a Neanderthal-level of evolution. And it’s a truly fascist track because it denies complexity, the complexity of love, the complexity of emotions, the complexity of partnership—which can well be a partnership adult-child!
And yet this worldview is our standard modern-day consumer philosophy, and all our modern laws are based on this schizophrenic setup of life that we have allowed to be created by our insane politicians and law makers. It’s really to render the insane sane and the sane insane, and to put reality upside-down, to create one gigantic global perversion as the ultimate junk paradigm of the Aquarius Age.
The task to liberalize the child’s natural emotional and sexual integrity is therefore not a minor one, and it’s a truly democratic endeavor, and thereby, a challenge. And then we got one more bug in the system: authors who favor child sexuality tend to discard child-adult erotic relations from the range of possible sex relations of the free child, thus taking away with one hand what they give with the other. This attitude results in splitting the public discussion about children’s sexuality into two fields that originally belong together. Which is just another form of madness. Mainstream society exploits children by keeping them ignorant in matters of love.
This so-called innocence together with the rest of the violent soup of authoritarian upbringing, talk taboos and codependent entanglement prepare the ground for emotional abuse as an institutional demonic must for children in postmodern consumer society.
In the sexually repressive and nuclear family structure the child is trapped in the Oedipal triangle, a problem that is nonexistent in sexually permissive cultures where children enjoy free sex with peers. The paradigm of total obedience in patriarchal society ensures that the child is unable to say ‘No’ to an adult.
It is clear that such a base premise opens the gate for potentially unlimited emotional, physical and sexual abuse of the child by the tutelary adult or educator. Sexual exploitation of our children is certainly not wanted by our policy makers, but what have they done to prevent the structural and institutional setup of our culture that truly favors emotional abuse?
The emotional exploitation of children is inevitable in the nuclear family because of the exclusive emotional fixation of the members of the vicious triangle.
Emotional abuse is probably more damaging for the child’s healthy sexual development than sexual abuse because it entangles the child in a net of emotional obligations, while in a coarse sex incest relation a child may simply stand up and say ‘No’ one day, or, when this is without effect, run away from home.
Interestingly, reported sex incest cases where child trauma has been assessed all seem to indicate a submission of the child under the power of the tutelary adult for the exclusive gratification of the adult’s desire. By contrast, emotional incest is much more subtle and underlying as a pattern. And it’s so devastating because the child cannot see any valid argument to deny the symbiotoholic demands from the side of parents and educators because these demands are backed up by society that came to use children as sentimental pets in a wide range of areas, and as amuse-jesters and welcome pain-killers and night pillows.
A factor for trauma is the child’s guilt feelings that result from their (correct) intuition that the symbiotically demanding tutelary adult or educator suffer from some kind of emotional hangup or long-standing inner wound, and that, therefore, to reject their possessive and persecutory attitudes would mean to put the finger on that wound.
Giving the child emotional autonomy clearly means to empower the child. And for many parents it means to have a huge slice of their own abusive parental power removed! And that’s why society does not move in that direction.
Protectiveness serves Oedipal Culture in that it ensures the child to be available as the cheapest and most willing cutie slave and dummy partner you can think of.
While sane children are early independent, outgoing, responsible and self-reliant. They don’t cling to their parents, and thus grow naturally out from the maternal shell.
The best way to keep a child in that protective shell is to deny to them a love life of their own.
But for a change to happen here, a long detour is needed, because the problem is much larger. It’s a problem of fear, and this fear is pretty much a fear of the unknown. In cultures where sexuality is a matter for every member of society, regardless of age, as for example number of tribal cultures, this fear is nonexistent. As their shamanic traditions help their people live in an integrated manner, they are naturally conscious of all their bodily functions.
Their sexual behavior is not guilt-ridden and not pervaded by fear. It’s exploratory, and a matter of trial and error, from early age. This fear, in our culture, is related to our Judeo-Christian origins.
Fear of sexuality is to a large part fear of exploitation.
Sex, when it becomes a weapon for the stronger against the weaker, is perverted into a fascist terror instrument. And yet, we cannot combat sexual exploitation of children if we do not attack the larger framework of emotional exploitation of children that is part of the hidden agenda of postmodern international consumer culture.
Emotionally and sexually healthy and strong children cannot be victimized for they defy seduction and are not easily trapped by manipulative education.
But this means to concede children the right for having a love life on their own and to restrain from interfering in children’s soul power and scope of autonomy.