Save the Children
Save the Children was (and is) a campaign by misguided people to protect children from (often only imaginary) "harms".
Letter
Quite a long time ago by now I wrote as a private person a letter to the then general secretary for the organization "Save the Children", Bjarne Christensen. At the time I felt quite convinced that I would not receive an answer, and this prophecy turned out to be true. On the other hand I noticed to my surprise that Save the Children very shortly thereafter was looking for a new general secretary. In spite of the fact that, I suppose, Bjarne Christensen hadn't held the position very long. Maybe my letter had had an effect after all! Actually I wanted to apply for the position myself, but I gave it up all the same, since odds were against me. But here follows the letter:
This morning, 6th february 1998, I saw you in a morning tv show in a feature about the fight against child pornography on the Internet.
It struck me how presupposed and undebatable this subject - once again - was treated. No critical questions whether it was worth the effort and trouble, whether it really is all child pornography that is harmful, and whether the existence of this type of access could ensure against assaults on children. Instead Save the Children came out as the great child lover that almost has the patent for looking after the interests of the children, whereas 'the abusers' are the great villains.
As it is, the world luckily isn't as simple as that, but it makes my flesh crawl the way the truth is always described in a totally simplified way in regard to child pornography and sexual abuse of children, and where it is always presupposed that all child sex is harmful to the child. And this thought often occurs to me: If you are so occupied with the interests of the children, then why never ask the children themself? It is always the presupposed opinion of the adult of what is best for the child which is expressed. But reality is that the harmful effects most often are far greater from the negative reactions of the environment than from the relationship itself. This is not merely an assertion of mine, it is confirmed by thoroughly documented studies on large groups (read for example Preben Hertoft and Hans Hessellund).
You get the impression that large parts of the population is succumbing to a mass-suggestion that gives scary vestiges of the past, where no-one dare ask questions, and if you do you will immidiately be, if not lynched, then at least serious suspicion will be thrown on you for your motives.
Several years ago I at a few occasions saw films with so-called child pornography. It was rather big lads, about 12 to 15 years, who were having fun with each other - in all ways. It most definitely did not look as if they were 'abused' or 'exploited'. On the contrary they quite obviously had great fun. Naturally, I am not saying that actual exploitation and abuse cannot occur, but I really do believe that there is a need for discriminating between the notions, which so very obviously is never done by anyone but professionals like sexologists and criminologists.
If you, as I have often done, ask especially the 'crusaders' against childsex and child pornography the simple question: 'But who says that many of the children don't like it?', they will look at you as if you are out of your mind. You will definitely not get a qualified answer. You really have to do with a tabu so ingrained that it isn't questioned. If you do get an answer - which you rarely do, either the receiver is slammed down or the letter isn't answered - it is always a cliché, typically: 'But children can't foresee the consequenses'. Should you carefully ask again: 'What consequenses are those - and can you foresee them?', you can be sure that all further communication is ceased. And that is not very fruitful for either part....
Continue reading at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050406033040/http://205.205.236.41/english/savec.php#1
