Why hate parental entitlement? Most children's rights advocates support a differentiation between pedophiles and the rest of adult society, meaning "take a backseat, buckaroo", having low expectations for pedophiles, but open to ideas of total inclusion in the adult population. Here, we do things differently. We see a healthy pedophile is a humble, but happy soul that enjoys the company of children without needing to sexualize them with his/her actions, but simply finds them attractive.
Why can't all adults be as humble and self-restrained as a non-offending pedophile. I am one of those non-offending pedophiles. I believe I have no right to control my abuser except push away methods, and that's because I oppose parental entitlement in me enough to just know not to impose any entitlement on children.
Opposing Parental Entitlement means mowing down adults to the point of all adults being convicted of their entitled, wicked sin nature in relation to children through reverent fear, leading to full selfless and dutiful submission to children, sacrificing oneself at the altar of one's child, taking up the cross as Christ would, leading to good works for the sake of good works.
We don't just hate "pedophiles", but all adults, meaning every single adult has wronged children with their existence, so don't exist while identifying with that kind of adult entitlement, meaning parental entitlement. Don't exist within my periphery of perception.
I never control anyone else, meaning I find that inhumane for my abuser. I just don't associate with them, so not to enable them, hoping enough people shun them for them to hit rock bottom. Treat pro-spanking parents as toxic, and pass the trash, and parents today are trash, for the most part.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.