The myth of childhood innocence.

The entire concept of childhood innocence and its inherent extension to pubescent people under the age of 18 has created a wave of idiocy that threatens with the destruction of Western civilization.

This nonsense, which restricts the lives of many individuals ages 10 and up is a fallacious concept based on Rousseau’s statements that all children are born good and innocent and society makes them bad and sinful.

To begin with sin is associated with most adult activities since Western civilization is extremely puritanical. To worsen the matter this means children must be protected from “sin”. While it is true that children should be protected from harm, this extends to people who are NOT children and activities that are NOT harmful.

Why? Because to this puritanical and infantilized society anything under 18, or 20 for that matter, is a child, identical to a baby. And as such, the “child” must be protected from harm, that is “sin”.

Ironically enough the child is sometimes vicious and “sinful” in nature. And that is the core of this small essay. Children are NOT all innocent. They are ignorant. And ignorance combined with evil leads to dangerous people who will worsen if not stopped.

A few weeks ago a relative of mine told me her stories about how she dealt with a class of third graders. She confided me those spoiled brats she worked with were “inhuman spawn from hell”, using her own words.

Her class was a problem class, and despite her pupils being children no older than 9 years old, that didn’t mean they were not awful. These children were by no means innocent.

She mentioned they engaged in both physical and verbal abuse to both students and teachers, the later were unable to defend themselves because of how rules were rigged against them. As such she was the target of both complaints from parents who opposed her discipline methods and children who constantly insulted her.

She was by no means the most affected, and in fact she was probably the least affected. According to what her pupils bragged about, they made her predecessor fall into tears and abandon the school due to an emotional breakdown.

We are talking about third graders ages 7-9 who break teachers emotionally. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not innocence, and is also not healthy.

Someone else I know once mentioned me he worked with a troublesome class of middle schoolers which was so horrible they drove another teacher to suicide. He teaches to middle school students which are extremely hostile, one of them in fact broke his leg during the first week.

As it is evident these “children” and “teenagers” are not innocent, they are sociopathic and violent. But you might wonder why I showcase the monstrous behavior of these individuals.

As previously stated. One of the core arguments of those who infantilize pubescent humans is that they are “innocent children” who “must be protected from sin and vice”. But the experiences of these two school teachers prove them wrong.

One of the arguments against normal male sexuality is that pubescent women under the age of 18 are not mature enough and are innocent. As such it is important to point at the fact that humans are not born innocent and good. We are not blank slates.

Some of us are born predisposed to be good and prosocial, others are predisposed to be scum. And one needs to guide individuals so that the ons predisposed to good stay in track and the ones predisposed to evil are not a threat to everyone. Children are no exception.

Children are not innocent, and teenagers are not even children. Childhood ends in puberty, and the only things children are which demand them to be protected are ignorant, inexperienced, and physically weaker. Once you hit puberty most of that is over, and in fact ignorance and lack of experience in life could stay with you until you die.

So stop using the argument of “Muh innocent children” every time someone brings biological arguments to declare the abolition of the age of consent instead of making consent based on both physical development and knowledge of facts.

To make it clear. Anyone who believes the stork delivers babies or has not hit puberty is better off out of sexual environments (Since STDs could ruin their lives), but anyone who has reach puberty and is well informed on how to avoid self harm during, or after, sexual activities should consent.

The idea that children can not consent because they are innocent is retarded because children are not always innocent, and sincerely I don’t even understand why an actual pedophile likes them.

The reason children, actual, prepubescent, single digit aged children should not be allowed to have sex is because some of them are way too fucked up already and need to be guided before they become one of those Californian bastards who intentionally infect people with AIDS. Not because they are innocent, but because some are born vicious and vicious people engaging in sexual activity become a threat to others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s