ANNOUNCEMENT: Motives for bringing up certain topics

Many seem concerned about me bringing up topics related to child nudity. I, as an advocate for children and a responsible adult, believe that especially in the case of children, there is a difference between nudity and sexuality. Maybe the two overlap somewhere if you are a pedophile like me, but nowhere on the screen do I sexualize children in the biblical context. 

Beyond this point, any sexually entitled remarks from adults regarding naked children in biblical times as sexual objects will be counted as fornication by way of obscenity. This limit is simply there to make clear that I do not like my work being sexualized. A naked child is not there for sexual objectification, meaning treating them like a sexual object in your speech or actions. A naked child is simply a naked child, and their body is simply the body. Any sexualization of the biblical context is irrelevant to anything. Only sexual morality is relevant for sexual reasons in the Bible.

You come to this view of naked or partially naked children by way of want avoidance, meaning the more you avoid wanting things from children, period, the more you don't want them even when they are naked. Their bodies might simply be pretty or beautiful, and only "sexy" later, with the doors closed and the shades down. That is a PRIVATE, solemn act to be done only with oneself, and never involving any child under age 18, or any adult that is not one's lawfully-wedded spouse. 

The body is the body, and if it sexually arouses or threatens you, that is your problem to work on. Same with references to nudity in a blog post about attachment parenting. Attachment parenting comes with a great deal of nudity, but children should not be treated as sexual objects in the speech, actions, or written word of anyone. If you need help with pedophilic desires, you should be able to disclose in a clinical or clinical celebratory manner, but sexuality should be on the back burner with people today.

Unfortunately, sexuality is not on the back burner with most adults today. Adults especially are having sex left and right, shacking up with no remorse. How much does it take to wait until marriage? If you are dedicated, not much. None of this pornography and obscenity in the media, especially the liberal media. However, if you are reading my posts, know that they are not intended to be sexualized at all, and my Christian senses are offended by anyone sexualizing the nudity of biblical children enough to point it out.

I do mention parent sexual attraction in my posts quite a bit, but one has to understand the level that these attractions were on. Men in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, took the attitude that they were entitled to nothing from their children. "Sun tan spray" means the attraction is merely a perceived "spray" on the child's bare skin, and not a driven attraction. You can be attracted to someone and have non-sexual reasons for interacting with them, and as long as your intent was not to sexually objectify and/or use a child, you were not sinning. Fathers were simply shy around their children, in a fearful and reverent way. If you were literally pining for your child, and want them for yourself, you had problems then. Churches did help to the best that they could, but only when the parent was willing to be helped - sexually abusive parents were excommunicated from the Early Christian church for life, and were put to death in the Old Testament. Even in the biblical context, they had a concept of child abuse and child sexual abuse, and the definitions in both instances were broader than today!

Everything I state about the history then is simply to point out historical facts. Not all of history is unicorns and rainbows. Not all of history is squeaky clean. Some of it is the dirty truth. It was acceptable to be a pedophile in biblical times, but ONLY in abstinent format, meaning the pedophile identifies by their abstinence and not their "prowess". 

Now, do I find my own historical knowledge "interesting" in another way? In another context, maybe, but that sort of thing is private. 

Regards, 

Maxwell