Robert Važan

How to molest children properly

Provocative title notwithstanding, this is a serious blog post. When I was a little boy, I had a number of encounters with older girls and women, plus some with same-age girls who were ahead of me in development. Some of these experiences were enjoyable and I have fond memories of them to this day. Some were confusing or embarrasing. And yet others were traumatic and gave me nightmares. If you are into a young boy, you are playing with fire, because it is very hard to go about it in a way that guarantees positive outcome for the boy. Here I want to give you some guidance and explain why it might be worth the risk.

While I base a lot of this on personal experience, I also have other sources that I have personally verified. I am not revealing any details to protect everyone involved. I am writing this from boy's point of view. I suspect that most of this applies to girls too, but girls are more often encouraged to view these experiences negatively and through feminist lens. Many people are surprised when they hear this, but it's normal for women to be attracted to young boys. Women are just more hesitant to act on their desires for various reasons, especially now with all the child abuse scare.

It goes without saying that sexual contact done with intent to harm is traumatic. Most sexual encounters between children and adults or teens are however meant to be enjoyable for both sides. Forget the sleazy perv from movies. Think older cousin, summer camp leader, or classmate's mother. Things can however quickly go sideways despite good intentions. I want to help you to do things right.

It matters who you are

Before you attempt anything, ask yourself who you are:

Prepubescent boys

As you go about your advances, observe a few rules:

Boys in puberty

When you are into a boy who is in puberty, things get both simpler and more complicated:

What crime is this anyway and who is actually being punished?

I don't feel comfortable with today's harsh criminalization and stigma of child sexual abuse. We don't even have a nice term for it. I am alternating between innuendos (encounters, experience, advances), illustrative details (touching, kisses), and tongue-in-cheek repurposing of legal terms (child sexual abuse, molestation). The latter is problematic, because these terms were designed to be inherently negative, but perhaps the absurdity of giving "abuse" positive meaning reflects absurdity of the legal system declaring that positive experiences constitute abuse.

Would I want any of the women and teens who played sexy games with me or just flirted with me to be punished? No. Absolutely no. I am actually thankful for the experience. I even had a crush on some of them during puberty. Why would I ever want to punish someone I care about? Someone who was nice to me? Even where there is trauma and I have no positive feelings left for the perps, I think punishment is not right, because the trauma was never intended. People are just stupid and they make stupid mistakes. Punishing them would solve nothing. It would just add more suffering on top of what has already happened. The only cases where punishment is warranted are those, in which sexual abuse was part of a wider bullying campaign, but I would hesitate even in those cases, because there's no proportionality to it and thus no justice. It's just an insane witch hunt.

Sensitization of society and introduction of child sexual abuse as a separate crime were measures ostensibly intended to protect children, but I feel like more harm than good has been done. There's massive collateral damage and children are within its range. Kids are treated like toxic material, to be avoided, isolated, and handled with thick gloves. Men are disappearing from children's lives. Natural prepubescent and pubescent sexuality is being suppressed. People closest to the child are at risk of having their life ruined. When that happens, the kid is first traumatized by having to testify against someone they love, then having that someone taken away from them, and finally by the inevitable feeling of guilt believing it's all their fault. It looks like the law is not really intended to protect children but rather to protect the abstract idea of innocent, asexual childhood, in some cases stretched up to 18 years of age. If you look at it this way, children themselves are perpetrators breaking the law and punishing them makes perverse, twisted sense.

Why we need more pedophiles

The above subtitle is tongue-in-cheek, of course. Nobody should ever wish harm to children. It's just that I don't believe that most of what currently falls under molestation umbrella constitutes real harm to children. You can of course say that it's better to be safe than sorry, but that safety comes at great cost to children. Some of the costs are detailed in previous section. That's all collateral damage though, which would make for a poor argument. because people would claim it can be fixed, so let's consider direct damage.

Children are missing out on valuable experience. This is particularly troubling for boys who are expected to play active and dominant role in a relationship with much more mature girls (remember that girls have puberty earlier). That adds to the already high difficulty of forming a relationship between two inexperienced teens. Experience gained with an older girl or woman, a "teacher of love", can save boys a lot of frustration. Even prepubescent children benefit from romantic role-play and light erotic games in complex ways. Teens and adults do not have to play any special role in relationships with children though. Sometimes it's just a crush that should be given a chance to grow, regardless of who initiated it, if there's mutual interest. And some relationships are just ambiguous, in which case focus should be on mutual enjoyment rather than legally imposed boundaries.

To make this practical and low-risk for the participating adult women, current legislation and public image concerning child sexual abuse must be scaled down quite a bit. Definition of abuse must be narrowed to actual and intentional harm. And at that point, it's better to completely remove it from the law, because intentional harm is already covered elsewhere in the law. Meanwhile, let's be thankful for those willing to accept the risk, take off the hazmat suit, and give children a bite of the sweetest cake in the world.