Dmitriyev's case: sexual morality covers up public hypocrisy

Dmitriyev's case: sexual morality covers up public hypocrisy
Opinion

2 October , 17:29
Алина Витухновская
Писатель
There is a certain legalized form of public hypocrisy and bias when it is customary to assert that a child cannot be perceived as a sexual object.

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

“Discrediting” Dmitriyev began with the libel of one “activist” posing as a traumatized Lolita. This is the motive. But Lolitas don't look like that. This is a doubt about her legend.

And it ended with a story on central television with photos of a naked girl taken from nowhere. Moreover, from these photos it absolutely does not follow that the girl is his adopted daughter. Just as their pornographic nature should not be.

There is text (photo), but there is context. There may be a million reasons why they were made. I have enough nude or semi-nude photos of children. But this is a photo of a child who was not perceived as a sex object.

Logically speaking, in this story, the only criminal can be the one who not only considers the child in the context of sexuality (this is just not a crime, many children, indeed, have sexuality), but the one who uses this sexuality, violating the child's personal boundaries.

When the case falls apart and the prosecution has no arguments, heavy artillery in the form of the media is used. As soon as another flaw was discovered in my old trial, a plot appeared in Top Secret, or in the newspapers Pravda, Zavtra and some other leaflets.

From there came accusatory stuffing, which the court investigated (!) As real legal charges (!). Once "Top Secret" announced a press conference in the "House of Journalists", where the "misled" public was supposed to learn about the real background of the case and the "sinister crimes" of Alina Vitukhnovskaya in conjunction with some foreign mafias (!) And why - by the payment system "Western Union".

The journalists came. And what? In addition to the afterlife voice-overs, which they like to accompany empty plots so that they acquire a negative color and at least some significance, FSK-FSB showed "hidden filming", namely, a video where on Pushkin Square I walk towards the monument to Pushkin. The poet went to the poet...

Fortunately, all this happened in the good 90s, when the press was free and adequate. In addition to the listed publications, everyone, including foreign ones, spoke for me. That was one of the main reasons that the case fell apart, and the FSB disgraced itself so much that it cursed itself, that it got involved in it. But then we lived in a different country.

Now the situation is radically different, but the voice of the public and the media is and must remain the force that will stop the repressive mechanism, which does not tolerate light, publicity, and therefore exposure.

In the comments to my post about the Dmitriyev's case, it seems to a greater extent at the suggestion of the media, the topic of pedophilia and eroticization of children began to emerge. I am confident and continue to insist that the Dmitriev case is a political affair, a direct example of systemic revenge. We have known for a long time that they have always tried to smear dissidents in the most vicious and unpleasant stories from the point of view of public opinion.

But the reaction to Dmitriyev's case exposed another social problem, not related either to the sacrificial prisoner himself or to the political context of the case. It turned out that the repressive and frightening term "pedophilia", which really means a crime against children, is so blurred in the minds of our citizens, where in the three pines of modernity, postmodernism, literature, metaphors and unbridled autochthonous animal life, a post-Soviet man wanders like a bear in an artist's forest Shishkin.

There is a certain legalized form of public hypocrisy and bias when it is customary to assert that a child cannot be perceived as a sexual object.

However, there are so many erotic looking children out there. Moreover, many of them, especially girls, want to look this way quite deliberately. You don't have to go far for examples, this is the same Nabokov's Lolita. Whose name is legion.

And now, after the fact, I understand that at the age of 6-12, I would prefer to look like a sexy child, a beautiful, aesthetic doll that attracts everyone's attention, rather than sitting at home reading books and unwanted lessons, an unkempt girl, because for my parents “ beauty was not the main thing. " But I am not my parents.

One day I heard my grandmother talking on the phone with her friend. She said: "The girl should always be told that she is beautiful". From that moment on, I stopped believing my grandmother's words.

It is surprising that in a logocratic, pseudo-intellectual environment, the word is always more important than the deed. They did not try to give me the opportunity to become beautiful, to teach this.

By the way, not only some children are beautiful and sexy, but also, for example, Barbie dolls, so unloved by the “complicated” intelligentsia, who hate her so much that it seems they are still trying to crucify her and dissolve in Malevich's black square.

Why do you dictate the identity between the statement of the fact that the child is erotic and some dirty intentions regarding him? Is this not a defect of your specific consciousness? Latent desire and animal mystery?

If adults do not violate the child's personal space, do not touch him, etc., what is wrong with the very fact of admitting that children are erotic?

“I think it's hard to eroticize something and not want it physically,” writes one of my subscribers. But this is a wild look! The statues in the Tretyakov Gallery are also erotic, which does not mean that one should feel any desire for them.

Eroticism does not (does not necessarily imply) desire. This is just a property. As the term "sexual object" should be understood as an artifact of a certain kind, and not a person to whom you are attracted.

Such statements - "Erotic-looking children and the perception of them as a sexual object, it is only in the minds of unhealthy people or freaks who need to be castrated..." only assert me in the previously expressed thought that we live in a hypocritical society with cruel suppressed desires.

Only savage autochthonous groups give eroticism an exclusively consumer, utilitarian function, without perceiving it in a different context - as simply beauty or art, as a kind of embodied ideal. It is an amazing paradox that the overly cultured and overly well-read Soviet society gave birth to a half-animal hypocrite moralist.

We see that morality here is nothing more than a social game, but the main thing is to cover up one's own vice.

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter