What is the "mystification of children's conscious access to desire"?

A while ago, Prostasia posted on twitter about a webinar about the documentary Leaving Neverland exploring how the " mystification of children’s conscious access to desire helps to explain how child sexual abuse begins, continues, and remains secret for so long." The tweet was fiercely and massively attacked by the MJ fans(gosh, I hate them so much) and I’ve never been able to find this webinar to watch and to this day I don’t know what idoes that mean. Does anyone here knows?

1 Like

To me the reason for this is very clear, it’s a mixture of false memories, influences, and the effects of morals. And, explaining in more detail would be. The ease of convincing a person that something is good or bad. The ease of convincing yourself of something because of the ideas of your group. And the false memories that make people forget what prompted them to do something in the first place.
Or to be even more specific, why abuses against minors last so long? Because the abuser and the people around him can easily convince the child that doing what he did was a good thing. And later on, other people can easily convince that person that the same thing was bad. And people can easily forget what exactly happened.


It was a quote from the presenter of that session, and I don’t want to speak for him. In fact, he blocked Prostasia after we tagged him in the thread, and I don’t blame him given the MJ fanbase reaction that you refer to. (MJ fans: I am expressing no opinions about Michael Jackson’s case, and don’t want to enter into an argument with you about his guilt or innocence. My reply is not about him, and I am not interested in hearing about any conspiracies.)

But to me, what the phrase seems to mean is that our society operates under the myth of the sexless child, who blossoms into their sexuality on the morning of their 18th birthday. In other words, child sexuality is stigmatized, and talking about it (or, heaven forbid, depicting it in fiction or art) is taboo. But this taboo it is dangerous, because it allows child grooming and abuse to go on in secret.

There are other books that talk about the same thing and that are a worthwhile read:


In don’t think anybody really wants to ignore the concept of teens having sex, it’s more or less focused on children below the age of adolescence, which I understand. In absolutely zero citcumstances should there be real-life adult-minor sexual relations, either directly or indirectly.

I don’t think anybody can stop teenagers from having sex with one another. I recall the state of Texas was having problems with teen pregnancy back in the 90s and 2000s, because their schools were required by law to teach ‘abstinence-only’ sex education. This, in combination with limited/stigmatized access to birth control or abortion lead to an explosion in teen pregnancy and teen rape rates.
Rather than actually listen to their educators and experts on the issue and abandon the abstinence-only approach (which has been consistently linked with increased pregnancy rates, in addition to somewhat intriguing associations with STDs among teens) they blamed the media! Hypersexualized culture in TV, movies, magazines, video games, music videos, in addition to pornography. They saw these as the evil, unholy influences corrupting the young minds of their precious youth so they blamed that and did whatever they could to prosecute obscenity laws against sex toys, pornographic films, etc.

It wasn’t until the mid-late 2000s when various school districts began to drop the abstinence-only approach and encourage the use of contraception between teens, like condoms and birth control, and even access to abortion (thanks Planned Parenthood!) that STD, rape, and pregnancy rates would statistically decrease in these communities.

Just another prime example of why the obscenity doctrine needs to be discarded and wholly abandoned. Absolutely nothing but good would happen from it, regardless of what cultural pessimists fear with regard to sexual deviance and pedophilia. Absolutely zero meaningful or causal links have been observed between pornography, even violent pornography, and the commission of subsequent sexual aggression.

I think you confused the topic, this doesn’t have much to do with the question I made here