The Child Sex Taboo: is it rational? (2842 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.13 on 124 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by shandythedog (View user info) at 2007-06-15 10:10:17 EDT
There are many taboos in our society. Some of them, such as murder, are easily justified. Murder deprives the victim of their life, causes suffering to the victim's loved ones, mskrd s horrible fuckkng mess of tings.
Not so long ago we had a very strong taboo against homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were regarded in much the same way paedophiles are today: they were evil sickos who deserved to be lynched. Homosexuality is no longer illegal, and 'enlightened' people now espouse the view that any kind of consensual sex between adults is fine. As we can see on ubersite, even flagrant homosexuals such as Caulincourt are now held in high regard by the common masses.
So. Is there a sound rationale for the paedophilia taboo? Is it on a par with murder, or does it belong in the same category as homosexuality - a taboo for which no reasonable justification can be found?
Let's consider the main arguments against paedophilia:
IT HURTS CHILDREN PHYSICALLY
Obviously sticking an object such as an erect penis into the wrong part of a small child could cause pain, injury and even death. Clearly a taboo, and indeed strong laws, are necessary in this case.
But there are many forms of sexual activity, currently illegal, that do not cause physical pain: a 14 year old boy fucking an adult woman; an adult man fucking a (physically mature) 14 year old girl; a woman playing with a small child's cock; a six year old girl giving a man a handjob; a man licking a little girl's cunt, etc etc etc. Such activities not only do not cause physical pain, it is quite possible they would provide physical pleasure to all parties involved. (What studies there have been indicate a physical capacity for sexual pleasure in even very young children, and anecdotal evidence I have gathered from friends confirms this.)
So, for some activities, physical pain can not reasonably be used as a justification for the prohibition of paedophilia.
IT HURTS CHILDREN PSYCHOLOGICALLY
The evidence is very clear: in our society, children who have sexual activity with adults are more likely to end up mentally fucked.
But is this because sexual activity between adults and children in itself, intrinsically, fucks people up? Or is it simply because there is a taboo against the activity, ie the taboo is what causes the fucking up of people, not the activity itself? Presumably being a homosexual during the era when it was illegal and universally despised fucked up homosexual's lives. Anxiety, guilt, secrecy, low self-esteem, paranoia: presumably homosexuals suffered more from these problems when bum-rooting was prohibited than they do now. I think most people agree that bum-rooting in itself does not cause these mental problems. It would be hard to argue that a penis going up the anal canal somehow creates all these negative effects on brain chemistry.
When I was writing about paedophilia at university, I interviewed a policewoman from the Child Sexual Assault Unit. One of the problems when dealing with very young victims, she told me, was that they often didn't know anything wrong had been done. As far as they were concerned, daddy cuming all over their face was just a bit of harmless fun. They needed to LEARN that this was a bad thing.
Anyway, the fact remains that you definitely SHOULD NOT have sex with children because it will probably fuck them up mentally. However, in the context of our rational investigation, this does not mean that sex with children INTRINSICALLY causes them mental harm. In a society where no taboo or restriction against paedophilia existed, where secrets did not need to be protected by intimidation and shame, it seems quite likely that psychological and social harm would not be a factor.
CHILDREN ARE UNABLE TO GIVE CONSENT, THEREFORE IT IS RAPE
This strikes me as a tricky area in terms of legal and moral philosophy, as it involves the difficult question of child rights.
To simplify things a little, let us firstly remove violence from the equation. Most of us would agree that it is wrong for a child to be bashed and beaten into sucking someone's cock, just as it would be wrong for a child to be bashed and beaten into playing ping pong with someone.
However, adults have authority over children in many ways, and use that authority to persuade children to comply with their wishes. The man could say "suck my cock or else you can't watch Pokemon tonight" or "if you don't suck my cock, god will punish you". This is undoubtedly unpleasant and undesirable, but so is the ping-pong addicted parent using these same methods to persuade an unwilling child to play ping-pong.
BUT, some might say, ping-pong and cock sucking are hardly the same thing - cock sucking by children is BAD. However, that would not be a valid argument at this stage, because for the sake of argument we are allowing that paedophilia might not be intrinsically bad. What we are trying to establish in this section is whether paedophilia is bad BECAUSE adults can coerce children into it. And if we want to maintain that, we must also logically maintain that adult coercion of children into ANY activity is bad.
PAEDOPHILIA IS UNNATURAL
If you believe that the sole purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, then paedophilia is unnatural. But under this definition, so would be homosexuality, oral sex, and wanking. Apparently even kissing was defined by Freud as a perversion - and I'm sure mentioning freud will give credibltlk y to my aruamenteas.
On the other hand, using a different definition of 'natural', it can be argued that all kinds of sexual arousals are perfectly natural: if something arouses you physically, it is by nature natural. If a cat or a child sits on your lap and your cock automatically gets hard, it is natural. If a small child is curious to touch you penis or breasts, it is just a natural thing, just as it is natural for a child to touch and stimulate their own genitals or for some women to have orgasms while breastfeeding.
PAEDOPHILIA IS YUCKY
This might be the strongest argument against paedophilia - and also the strongest argument FOR sexual taboos. Perhaps it would just be bad taste if people were walking around naked, fucking in public, etc etc. And perhaps children should be spared the gross world of sex for as long as possible - because perhaps sex actually is just GROSS AND YUCKY?
And that brings me to my final question: if we want to maintain (and teach our children) that sex is beautiful and wonderful and lovely and free of shame etc etc, how do we also justify/explain their exclusion from the world of sex?
I know a lot of morons out there in uberland will respond to this by saying that I am a paedophile, even though I have clearly stated that I am oppossed to paedophilia in this day and age.
I think that is a shame, as to me this is a very interesting and FUNDAFUCKINGMENTAL QUESTION.
In conclusino, I wouuld also like to add:
In response to questions related to GSC five, Ms Smith thoughtfully discussed the benefits of adapting communication styles, emphasising the importance of getting the message across by being flexible and by considering the different ways individuals process information. In the hypothetical situation of a vetee abusing one of her Assessing Officers, Ms Smith outlined a sensible process of investigation and consultation, and pointed out that the vetting can be intrusive and difficult for the vetee. The Committee noted that her answer would have been improved by greater attention to the wellbeing of the Assessing Officer.
And I would also liie to add:
Sexual freedom reveals itself in brief glimmers
Entering the supermarket today, following closely behind Isabelle pushing a trolley containing her two children and my son, I became sexually aroused. As in, my penis began to expand, I felt the desire to have sex. Firstly with Isabelle and then with other women nearby. For a few lovely moments my eyes seemed to exist in a world of sexually attractive women. Everywhere I turned there was a sexually appealing female, beckoning subtly.
I started to ponder the causes of this arousal, and concluded it had something to do with the feeling of squiring this attractive wench around the supermarket, her trolley wiggling with the apparent evidence of my virility. For a few moments I kind of enjoyed this, then the philosophical rights and wrongs of it started to impinge on my pleasure. By this stage we had emerged into the fruit section - though not before Isabelle had made some remark like 'ooh, where am I' which I took to POSSIBLY mean she had been temporarily transported with pleasure by the magical sexual arousal between us.
In the fruit section I became distracted by various thoughts, the sexual magic waned, and I wandered away from Isabelle and the boys to look for a bottle of wine.
Note: not actually a bad boy, I CAN appear to be one, a smoldering wildcard etc, but actually I am quite timid. I remmebered this today in the supermarket as I wandered around by myself, alternatively feeling magically sexually charmed and rather repulsive.
Met a check out chick with an american accent. Although no longer sexually on fire, I was still in nice friendly mode, so chatted to her about the novelty of hearing an american accent. She said something about people sometimes pretending to be Canadian to avoid prejudice. I then made some inane big statement aobut people being people, which thkough harmless, was pretty poor form. I should have told her trhat I was just lisinget to bob dylans radio show, and also mentioned the thhoery I'd heard that the true language of shakespear is actually seppo talk, because that's how cunts spoke in shakespeares day. The cunts who fucked off to america then took the lingo of shakesepaere with them, where it remained relatively pure or sometjing I sthe toery.
Also in the supermakret, realised that I am not the fire eating king of the world who sets women ablaze, or rather, that I am, but I am also a timid, shy gentle chap, who just wants to feel safe and happy.
I don't mind a little competition and spaarring, but it is nice to feel safe and friendly with people.
And I would also just like to add:
We already have machines that fit in your pocket that can pick up words broadcast out into space and all the way around the planet, so it's probably only a matter of time before mind reading machines are invented - if they haven't already been.
So, I asked myself, what does that mean? If the cunts are reading my mind? Perhaps, I thought, it might in some ways be a good thing. So many anxieties in life are caused by the effort of trying to conceal inner thoughts, by the gap between how you force yourself to behave and what you actually think and feel. If it was all just out in the open, maybe there would be less tension. Maybe it would be easier to accept who and what you are, and who and what other people are.
Now, I don't really believe that I am the main character in a Truman show type scenario. I certainly think it's very feasible - even the famous Shakespeare apparently said something about all the world being a stage - and quite a sound explanation of my existence. But there are so many other possible explanations, and there isn't enough evidence to believe any of them.
Some people of course believe in God, and from this point of view we are all Trumans performing to an audience of one: to God. God can read all our minds.
God knows all our secrets. God knows who we are.
I can see the appeal of this concept.
It's less lonely.
And one last thing:
today, when walking the dog, i noticed that things had reached a new level. occassionally we bypass areas which seem to be favourite dog pissing spots. usually i shy away from the first hint of stale dog urine on the breeze. today, though, i actually caught myself sniffing at it with interest and pleasure.
User Reviews
Submitted by DasHeer (user info) at 2007-10-25 10:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you are fucked
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2007-06-19 14:50:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes it is rational.
Sex with children is disgusting and bad.
Go join NAMBLA you fuck.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-06-19 07:26:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a brave thing to discuss - especially with a title that will probably spring a couple of dozen red flags on employer's internet server. Just how bored at work do you have to be to be interested in child sex?
I'm not giving this a +2 because I agree with what you have written. On the contrary, I think alot of what you have written is fundamentally flawed by the fact that you are relatively normal individual who is attempting to think like a sex offender.
Having worked in forensics for the last couple of years it has become apparent to me that when offender rapes it is less about the act of sex itself but more to do with gratifying the urge to to dominate and make the victim submissive. To take away their dignity and humanity.
But with that in mind you have also raised some excellent points and judging by the very terse reaction of some users you have proved why this issue should continually be debated until it is resolved.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2007-06-18 16:55:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sick, depraved, degenerate, and quite possibly THE BEST SUPPORTING ARGUMENT I've seen anyone put up on uber in a damn long time.
You sell used cars, don't you?
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-06-18 04:55:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm doing this as much to form my own opinion as I am to counter yours. Touchy subjects really bring out who's there for debate and who's there because they can't get over their own biases... it takes brass ones to make a post like this.
Certainly some children can be aroused, and a child seducing an adult is reasonable. I'll leave it at that because I think I have a better argument.
The strongest argument I can think of is that children are generally not responsible for looking out for themselves. Pedophilia in simpler times may have been perfectly normal and even healthy under the right social code (I think it was common practice in ancienct Greece?). These days, however, you NEED to be educated about condoms, pregnancy, STDs, and other risks of sex if you're going to engage in sex. There's just too many things that can affect your health. If you're between the ages of 4 and 10, STDs and unintended pregnancy are not problems you can reasonably navigate.
Your son coming home to say he sucked the janitor's cock is to say that the janitor put the child at risk (STDs in this case) without the consent of the parents. That's as far as I think the question needs to be taken. Beyond that it's mostly social protocal.
Submitted by Mike-Mc (user info) at 2007-06-18 04:14:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Ballare (user info) at 2007-06-18 04:06:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:43:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't be retarded and creepy, old guy.
Submitted by Phate (user info) at 2007-06-18 03:36:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Pedophiles are fucking immature assholes
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-18 02:41:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If the worst of society dosent accpet it i think that says something
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-17 15:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
worm, most of your arguments are based largely on the prevailing morality
in a general theoretical sense, most of what you have said could have been said about homosexuality not long ago, and accepted
what i am trhing to do, for the sake of rational exploration, is imagine a hyapothetical world in which sex itslef has no taboo
as i hve mentioned, this could be a hideous gross business
on the other hand, re. the question of parents monitoring children, their actually could be some advantages
eg: jnr comes home from school and mentions he gave the janitor a handjob at recess. "oh really dear, was that nice". yes mum, thanks, it was jolly good fun. or, no mum, actually i didn't like it much, but he keeps pesetering me. handjobs and pingpong, that's all the cunt wants, i'm actually a bit sick of it"
"is that so! i'll speak to the principal tomorrow!"
compared to:
jnr gets fiddled with scretely by the insane janitor in the broom cupborad, threatened in fearful terrible manner, or otherwise confused, tormnedted for life, etc
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-17 13:39:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thankyou worm for your words of encouragement, without them i wouldnt have bothered to reply
i am not convinced by your first point:
"1) The adult is (almost always) the one that wants to do the act. The child does not have much of a capacity for sexual arousal, and is often simply convinced or coersed into participation. "
in my own experience, i have had to actively discourage children from sexual behavour with me. there is also, i believe, considerable evidence that many if not most (pre-pubescent) children sexually pleasure themselves and masturbate - although i don't think i did this myself.
there are also reputable pieces of literature, although these are rare, where reputable literary authors discuss child sexuality in the context of the child being active. i remember a very convincing one written by a female author, and presented as autobiography, in which she described seducing an old farm hand who was employed on her family's property. she had the position of power over him, and used it to get him to lick her cunt, basically, which he was reluctant to do, but ended up enjoying physically.
so it seems possible to be that the reason adults are genrally seen as the ones who would always be coercing children into sex is simply that it is an ililegal activity, more than that - the most vile taboo of all, even murders despise pedohiles. so forming conclusions about potential sexual relations between adults and children based on the evidence of who is doing it now (ie fucked up and selfish lunatics and evil monsters) might be a mistake.
i'm open to argument on this, of course.
i havent' read your other points, but may do so at some stage if i don't go stark raving mad in the meantime, or just decide to spend my time doing my paid work and stop being such a pretentious stupid cunt trying to be so original and clever and on the edge etc etc etc
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-06-17 00:12:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm fairly certain this Worm guy just won.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-06-16 23:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
First off, I applaud your argument. It was actually thoughtful and a good effort to fight off a possibly unwarranted stereotype. However, you didn't mention two issues of paramount importance: power and safety.
With a true child (pre-puberty), the problems are:
1) The adult is (almost always) the one that wants to do the act. The child does not have much of a capacity for sexual arousal, and is often simply convinced or coersed into participation.
2) The reward is skewed toward the adult. In some situations this is not the case, but all adults can experience sexual arousal and most children cannot. Also, let's not forget who's in control and who likely instigated the encounter.
3) The burden of risk falls heavily on the child. Whether its pregnancy, STDs, physical harm (intended abuse or parts-not-fitting), or emotional trauma, the child is ill prepared to deal with the risks associated with sex and is often powerless to stop the more powerful adult from taking things too far or in the wrong direction.
4) In most countries, parents are responsible for the well-being of their child. They assess the risk/reward of all activities, whether it be a medical procedure or tike football. I don't know of any parents who would support their child engaging in sexual behavior with an adult- and, as parents, these people actually do have a vested interest in the well-being of the child. The adult looking to get his rocks of does not necessarily share the same priorities.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-06-16 22:16:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Rational?
No, as with a lot of things, it runs on fear.
Submitted by Maestro (user info) at 2007-06-16 21:38:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I really enjoyed reading this post. Even though I was a sceptic at the first part, I realised that you only have the best intentions and you are merely observing. The second part is simply great and spot on. I have to agree that reading each others mind would make it easier to understand not only each other, but also ourselves.
Actually, most of the time we act. Well, not most of the time, pretty much all the time. Like I am now, pretending to be a well-spoken individual, while I'm one of the crudest bastards alive. We act all the time, in front of our boss, friends, boyfriends and girlfriends and annoying seventeen-year-olds. "People don't know me" or "that is not the way I really am." Those are remarks often made by individuals excusing or explaining their behaviors. We seem to feel that the real "Us" is inside our heads. The "Me" that looks at cars ridiculing their roundness, or the "Me" that makes personal bets putting large aspects of my life on the line like "If the first key that I grab on my keychain is the key of my house, I will pass my drivers-exam."
One could argue that the real "Us" IS the person we are on the outside, how many personalities that might be, and not the inside. Simply for the fact that other people make you, you. If you were the only person, you wouldn't see yourself as a individual, because there would be no other people. Therefor you wouldn't be you, because there are no others. The thought of being a unique hump of flesh would just not cross your head.
But that question aside, yeah, reading each others minds would help understand things better.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-06-16 15:29:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
Switch to necrophilia. Something tells me you'd like it a lot.
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-16 15:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:19:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
chronoclysm, the std issue has some rational weight, as does the concept of over indulgence. but i don't believe they provide a definitive reason for the taboo. good parents monitor their children's consumption of chocolate, tv, video games, the kind of people they associate with, and the health risks of activities they engage in. that wouldn't necessarily change if sexual acativity was added into the equation.
i think the underlying message coming from quite a few responses is bascially: sex is yucky and gross and horrible, and children should be spared it.
now, i'm quite willing to accept that, but it DOES mean, if we want to be consistent, that we have to give up the idea that sexual pleasure is a beautiful lovely thing to be enjoyed for its own sake just for fun in a free and easy way.
----------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that parents should instead just monitor thier childrens sex with older people to make sure nothing "gose wrong"?
People are not saying sex is yucky and gross. People are saying sex between a 10 year old and 35 year old is gross yucky and horrible because those children have no sexual drive, dont even know what it is, are to young to know anything about it or begin to understand it.
People enjoy sex becasue it is a 2 way thing. I have never heard of a 10 year old enjoying being sexually exploited by a older person. There is a reason why the sickos drug them, brainwash them and force them into doing it becasue it is not right. Its not consensual when late teens and mid twenties can barley figure it out how could a kid?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2007-06-16 12:18:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
~~~~~~
Hey!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-16 10:05:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-16 03:57:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think he stopped reading at the point where you called him gay.
i thought it was pretty funny.
===
actually, my first reviews were based on the title alone. i have yet to read the post entirely. i get bored very quickly when reading in english.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2007-06-16 06:24:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's a shame people seem not to read the article and instead seem to rush to bring out the flaming torches and pitchforks. Perhaps though this suggests that to a majority of people paedophilia is naturally abhorrent? It is contradictory to the aim of propagating the species, and also potentially harmful to the bodies of young children if done in a certain way.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-16 03:57:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
everyone just needs to chill the fuck out.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
caulincourt, you fancy yourself as one of the more intelligent people here
why don't you try and discuss some of what i've actually written - your remarks suggest you haven't even read it
there's no point trying to debate this with you - all you are interested in is personal attack
=================================================
i think he stopped reading at the point where you called him gay.
i thought it was pretty funny.
Submitted by MitchRohr (user info) at 2007-06-16 03:22:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you are fucking tapped in the head. -1 for content, -1 for the spelling.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:28:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry dude, but your rationale even as a "reasoned topic" is still disturbing.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:23:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
The rape arguement is by far the best one, and it's true. Anything unnecessary to a child's life that may have negative long-term consequences shouldn't be allowed even if "voluntary," as the child isn't able to make the decision within a proper, educated context. The same would apply to pingpong if it was done so much that it hurt the kid.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:21:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok forensic girl, i'm allowed to do research, but not discuss it?
is that the message?
and please enlighted me - apart from kinsey (who may or may not be discredited) when was the last large scale survey and investigation into child sexuality and sexual behaviour?
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:19:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
chronoclysm, the std issue has some rational weight, as does the concept of over indulgence. but i don't believe they provide a definitive reason for the taboo. good parents monitor their children's consumption of chocolate, tv, video games, the kind of people they associate with, and the health risks of activities they engage in. that wouldn't necessarily change if sexual acativity was added into the equation.
i think the underlying message coming from quite a few responses is bascially: sex is yucky and gross and horrible, and children should be spared it.
now, i'm quite willing to accept that, but it DOES mean, if we want to be consistent, that we have to give up the idea that sexual pleasure is a beautiful lovely thing to be enjoyed for its own sake just for fun in a free and easy way.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:15:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
For fuck's sake, go research this. YES there has been a lot of research about this if you would just go bother to find it.
But that actually may take effort on your part.
There is enough out there to keep you occupied for a long time.
So go ahead and call me shallow minded. I've done enough research on this topic to satisfy any curiosity I might have had on this subject and I've firmly made up my mind on this.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:11:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think there's anything wrong with shandy for continuing to visit this subject, if only because I like to imagine that his natural (but fairly innocent) perversion overlaps into his normal thought process such as his care for his son. So all of these issues about child porn are more of a "what if he grew up in a world like _____". Or him just switching back and forth between Father mode and Perverted Old Man mode.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:11:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess you're right. The philosophic rhetoric defense against her is probably a lot easier than addressing me.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 02:07:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well forensic girl, i find that very offensive and also incredibly shallow minded.
bascially, you are saying that anyone who has a sincere and enduring intellectual interest in exploring the topic of child sexuality and how it relates to adult sexuality is a paedophile, or some kind of latent paedophile.
with people like you on patrol and ever ready to make such accusations, it's not suprising that there is so little research in this area, so little frank discussion, and the problem is getting worse and worse and worse.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:56:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
As I said, this is a huge and complicated topic. I have no desire or intention to write a thesis in response.
The way you keep harping on it is seriously creeping me out.
We've had discussions like this at Uni, yes, where we even called into question the issue of is sex with children really harmful or do we accept that it is so because of society mores. It was a difficult topic to discuss back then and I have no desire to revisit it.
The way you keep bringing it up and talking about sex with children, gives a lot of us the feeling that rather than a legitimate discourse, you are seeking justification for something.
If you want to consider yourself some philosopher and outside-the-box thinker, fine, but personally I can't shake the feeling that there is something fundamentally icky about your thought processes.
And that's all I'm going to say about this.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:43:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Of course it's rational.
It's fairly apparent in inbred populations that incest is not a genetically beneficial practice. Therefore, by NATURALLY eliminating incest as a positive, these adult/child sexual interactions, beginning at what you appear to suggest (6 years old girls jerking off grown men), would occur under what circumstances?
As a parent, wouldn't you insist on some oversight for your 8 year old son's "partners?" Or having eliminated all disillusionment about sexuality, you would allow your child and its medically proven to be non-fully developed brain to follow his hendonistic impulse responses and in practicality, the impulses of adults around him? And when the fat ugly whore rides his cute little face and gives him a rash that eventually scars up, and for the rest of his life, he's traumatized and unprogrammed by the genetically superior rationale of seeking genetically superior mates, then what? He comes to believe that older fat whores ride his face because that's the only thing his disfigured appearance is good enough for? A decision he made at 8?
If all the 12 year olds were walking around turning their holes out because daddy's friends taught them to grab and hump and suck at pole since they were 6 years old, you would have the following:
-Constant unwanted pregnancies in girls whose bodies can't physically carry a baby full-term.
-Rampant spread of STDs and sterility in the NEXT generation
-dissociation of nuclear family units via clouded roles of reasonable behavior in a socially complex society.
-incest. A 35 year old man with experience getting sexual gratification from 9 year olds would be MUCH more likely to sexually interact with his OWN 9 year old. Pedophilia is against the law so people don't suck at parenting any more than already do by introducing their poor sexual performance to an already troubled youth. Or the performance of their mindless pea-brained friends, either.
-Exponential increase to incidence of paternity uncertainty, blurred sexual roles, and unproductive fetishist behaviors.
-A lot more of those really feminine acting queers and masculine bull bitches.
-An EXPLOSION in the youth "sex slave" trade.
Don't be retarded and creepy, old guy.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:27:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
forensic girl, your argument is basically that children aren't capable of fully understanding what sexual activities with adults entail, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
but doesn't it then follow that you should protect children from ALL activities they don't understand? when a parent takes his daughter off to ballet lessons, does she understand the possible implications of what she's getting in for?
I AM JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE LOGICAL VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:18:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
trolling aside, from the little i read on this matter, attraction towards kiddies according to psychiatrists is not a sexual orientation, it is a dysfunction often masking other problems. to some extent, that applies to some cases of non-innate homosexuality as well. for instance, my own gayness only occured in the context of the immediate down period following heavy drug use. most child molestors display symptoms of depression and various other illness.
it isn't because it's not "normal" or because it's a "taboo" and we just haven't accept this behavior in our society, but because humans are not made to be attracted to infant bodies.
now that's on the adult side. the child perspective is a lot more delicate. children just aren't designed for sexuality and simply aren't mature enough to comprehend its implications. even though some freak kid was hungry for his daddy's cock, it would still be damaging.
and we're not even talking about the power an adult has over a child.
unless humanity took an entirely different tangent in its evolution, paedophilia simply isn't right.
that's my uneducated opinion. i think forensicgirl made the best argument.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-16 00:50:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
normally, i come on here from my cubicle at work. now i'm on my gf's laptop, waiting for the godamn laundry to be over with and as i read the replies i was thinking...what is she reads this? what if some random person stumbles upon ubersite to read that little chat?
the look i imagine on their face makes me giggle
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-06-16 00:26:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's all about the innocence of childhood and organized religion.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-16 00:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:44:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anyway, the fact remains that you definitely SHOULD NOT have sex with children because it will probably fuck them up mentally. However, in the context of our rational investigation, this does not mean that sex with children INTRINSICALLY causes them mental harm. In a society where no taboo or restriction against paedophilia existed, where secrets did not need to be protected by intimidation and shame, it seems quite likely that psychological and social harm would not be a factor. "
_______
you could use that argument on most anything that damages us psychologically.
aha!
a decent attempt to discuss the actual material i put forward, rather than make unrelated generalisations, or, as predicted, amateur analysis of my character!
to respond, i suppose part of what i'm trying to investigate here is whether some things ARE intrinsically bad. for example, bullying. english bording schools are famous for allowing a culture of bullying and nastiness. there was no taboo against older kids doing horrible things to weaker younger kids. i suppose the fact that it wasn't taboo probably lessened the impact for the victims, but for many of them the experience was still bad.
that is because, as far as i can see, bullying is INTRINSICALLY, in most cases, a bad thing. by definition, taboo or no taboo, it causes pain and suffering.
________________________________
You could take any behavior and try to determine whether it's a cultural conditioning or a result of genetic chemistry. Look at the homosexuality argument...
It's difficult to say where our instinctual behaviors end and our conditioned behaviors begins. A lot of people argue that if you had a baby girl, dressed her in blue instead of pink, and continued to treat her as a male, she'd grow up more like a man. I can't disagree with this too much but there ARE different hormones and chemicals that make a female a female. Tests done on violent repeat criminals have shown that, in some cases, there's a chemical imbalance. That's an imbalance from birth, either hereditary or otherwise, these people were born that way. There are other violent criminals that were brought up in horrid backgrounds who have no physiological signs of a propensity towards violence. It's an interesting topic to discuss but I think the avenue of child molestation is too offensive.
I think that the natural sexual needs and desires for most of the people in the world are to be attracted to mature bodies. Women (and men) that have fully functioning sexual organs and can reproduce. I think that intrinsic desire to procreate is the pushing force of that attraction. The odd man out is the one who gets aroused by extreme youth. More often than not it's a psychological attraction rather than a physical one. The thing that turns them on, sometimes, is the innocence and the naive approach children have to sex. There are other examples...you can violate a child without them understanding it which leaves no social limitations to how lewd your sexual tastes are. Typically, child sex offenders are more than just meat and potatoes kind of people, if you get that.
In summary, I don't think these issues are morally right or wrong in the eyes of the beholder. I think we have a natural morality and a desire to covet human life, particularly young life. I don't think these things are wrong because we've grown up in a society that deems them so. I think the original morality has been a part of creating civilized society.
As a side note...
It's completely dorkish to read TSR (Wizards of the Coast) novels, I know but if you like that kind of thing, pick up Legacy by R.A. Salvatore. In that book (and many others) there is an example of a race of beings that have a skewed sense of morality where what's right and wrong to us is completely different to them. Interesting read, again, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm dropping the +2 cause I'm off work now and drinking a fine whiskey.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-16 00:16:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hang on icarus, what are you talking about?
as far as i know, swift presented the baby eating scenario as a way of drawing attention to the people starving in ireland, and of making the english see what greedy selfish nasty cunts they were.
so what did the authorities visit him for? what are you talking about?
---------------
As I recall, people originally thought he was serious, and he had some explaining to do.
Yes, he had a purpose. You're just someone who must be amazingly bored and attention-starved. Go on, make a post about ingesting bodilly waste. Or maybe dog waste. Or maybe having sex with dog waste. You know you want to.
Dance, you limey puppet. Dance.
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2007-06-16 00:11:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Children, by nature, are beings with their own sensuality. They like to cuddle and hug. Children often begin to masturbate at a young age. However, adults shouldn't misinterpret any of this as a sign that kids want to have sex. Sex is an adult thing. Why not let them have their innocence for awhile before they become jaded and defiled like the rest of humanity? Childhood is a time of wonderment, learning and growing. They deserve to be able to experience this in an environment where they are safe from grown men trying to stick their dick in them (or grown women trying to do whatever it is that female pedos do--I don't want to picture it). Adult humans suck. They're always trying to twist and rationalize everything in the world to suit their own selfish desires. Aren't there enough willing adults in the world to fuck each other, and leave everyone else alone? People make me sick. I'm going to go kill someone now.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-06-15 23:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
to leave aside conjecture on whether a world where there was no sexual taboo would be utopic or just revolting, and to leave aside the question i asked that no one seems able to answer (how do we explain the contradiction between sexual pleasure being a supposedly beautiful and wonderful thing when experienced by adults and sexual pleasure being a supposedly bad and evil thing when experienced by adults and children together)
to leave aside that fuckuing question that no one seems able to answer
------------
While I find your slight obsession on this topic extraordinarily repulsive, this topic is an iceberg. Here is a minute scratch on the tip of it.
You can approach this in many ways. Let's talk cognitive development.
Cognition: A term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging, and problem solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception, and planning.
A child's brain is not fully developed, both physiologically and psychologically. One major developmental psychologist and researcher is Piaget. There is scads of info about him.
Anyway....
According to Piaget, there are stages of cognitive development.
Sensorimotor stage (years 0-2)
Preoperational stage (years 2-7)
Concrete operational stage (years 7-11)
Formal operational stage (years 11-adulthood)
Now although "formal operational stage" has a rather large window, this DOES NOT mean that a child of 11 years is fully cognitively developed. This of these each of these stages as a continum.
Generally, full adulthood is usually recognized at approx. 20-21 years of age. There are some researchers who suggest that full brain development doesn't finish until 20-21.
So...what does this suggest?
A child who is not fully developed cognitively cannot entirely grasp what human sexuality is all about.
This is why adults should not have sex with children. Period.
Just because it feels good doesn't mean you should do it.
There is physical development to consider too. Just because a female is menstruating, does not mean she can physically support a pregnancy. Putting her on birth control that early brings its own dangers. Many times her pelvis may not have not fully expanded and thus would make intercourse with a fully developed adult male painful.
What about sexually transmitted diseases? One unwise sexual encounter and bam-o, that child may have to live with herpes for the rest of their lives.
The sex with children taboo (yes, established by conventional society) is there for a reason.
You have done this topic to death and then keep digging up its rotting corpse.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 23:12:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
for fucks sake rob berg, i don't need to emphasise in my head that paedophilia in our society hurts people because i know that very clearly
i also know that it is an extremely big fucking problem in our society.
i also know that the current approach to solving the problem is not working at all
hence, as you yourself aknowledged, the value of discussing it openly
to leave aside conjecture on whether a world where there was no sexual taboo would be utopic or just revolting, and to leave aside the question i asked that no one seems able to answer (how do we explain the contradiction between sexual pleasure being a supposedly beautiful and wonderful thing when experienced by adults and sexual pleasure being a supposedly bad and evil thing when experienced by adults and children together)
to leave aside that fuckuing question that no one seems able to answer
and to just consider the practical state of affairs:
-wretched broken men groping and fumbling children in secret and fucking up everyone's lives
-other adults categorising them as mutant freaks and setting fire to their houses
-child sexual slavery a boom industry in the third world
-teachers in preschools banned from hugging children
-and meanwhile, increasing sexualisation of children in the media and in their own dress and behaviour
given this state of affairs, don't you think we might want to think a bit more about what sexuality actually is, and try to accept realities, and then deal with them somehow?
my own view is that there are sexual currents or vibrations between most living creatures, certainly between mammals. these currents are stronger at certain times and ages than at others, but they are there all the time. so in fact, there is nothing abnormal about a man getting an erection when a little child or a little pussy cat for that matter wiggles on his lap. there is also, from what studies have been done, nothing abnormal about children having sexual feelings of their own, and of them being conscious of the sexual currents flowing around in the world around them. and nothing abnormal, as i said, about a mother experiencing orgasm during breastfeeding.
now, maybe, perhaps, if we acknowledged the universality of sexual currents and connections, rathter than pretended they didn't exist and that only sickos felt such things, perhaps if we understood these things better, maybe some people would be less likely to crack and step over the boundries and do things that hurt people.
but this social good aspect isn't my main motivation in writing about these things. i am just an observor.
(and of course the Hermaphrodite Philosopher Lion King Captain of the Whitlof duty bound and destined to share my shining crazy diamond genius with the world via the Ether and via my special whacko tobacco thought dissemination machine and via my Sacred Semen, etc)
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 21:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 21:03:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:07:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
rob berg, if i discovered some fuckwit had fiddled with my infant son, i would of course be very sad and angry. if anyone caused ANY kind of pain to my son i would be angry.
---
Why don't you expand on that feeling then?
---
why bother?
it's common knowledge
but maybe in six months time when i broach this topic again i will emphasise all that as painstakingly as possible
---
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean on Uber - I meant in your head.
But you do seem rather incapable of that kind of introspection.
Oh, and the 'common knowledge' I have of you is that you have an odd fascination with pedophilia, are dyslexic, smoke pot, and at one point wrote some pretty fantastic stories.
Why you seem to be a rather large hypocrite is unknown to me.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-06-15 21:10:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 21:03:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:07:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
rob berg, if i discovered some fuckwit had fiddled with my infant son, i would of course be very sad and angry. if anyone caused ANY kind of pain to my son i would be angry.
---
Why don't you expand on that feeling then?
---
why bother?
it's common knowledge
but maybe in six months time when i broach this topic again i will emphasise all that as painstakingly as possible
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:24:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
17 is High schoolers. More than 2/3rds of people going to college arent virgins...
----------------------
I started college at 17. I'd argue that college is still the reason many high schoolers have sex as seniors. They're going off on their own, leaving the home behind. What they do won't follow them, or maybe they want some practice before going off to college.
Your 2/3rds numbers seems ridiculously high.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:07:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
rob berg, if i discovered some fuckwit had fiddled with my infant son, i would of course be very sad and angry. if anyone caused ANY kind of pain to my son i would be angry.
---
Why don't you expand on that feeling then?
All of the little girls and boys that are part of your 'rational discussion' (should) have parents that feel the same way as you about your son.
THAT is why it is wrong.
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 20:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:43:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:18:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a reason that most americans lose their virginity at around 17 and 18 to someone around the same age. Not a 10 year old losing it to a 40 year old. In fact isnt the female body not fully ready to carry a child until she is about 18 years old?
--------------------------------
WOW.
The reason most Americans lose their virginity around 17 to 18 is college.
---------------------------------
17 is High schoolers. More than 2/3rds of people going to college arent virgins...
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 19:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
rob berg, if i discovered some fuckwit had fiddled with my infant son, i would of course be very sad and angry. if anyone caused ANY kind of pain to my son i would be angry.
as i've said repeatedly, sex between adults and children is damaging in this society. it usually causes harm and people shouldn't do it.
if i was living in a different society, where there was no sex taboo whatsoever, where sex was regarded in the same way we regard any enjoyable activity, where people fucked like dogs in the park, obviously the whole question of sexual interaction between my son and other people would be completely different.
however, as i have written elsewhere, if a society actually did develop where children's sexuality was openly accepted (and funilly enough we seem to be evolving towards that) it would probably happen in the most rank and vile manner: horrible little brats boasting that their collection of ronald mcdonald shaped dildos is better than their 'friends'.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-15 19:16:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
what the hell man if they are coming at you,means they want somthin, more better you look after them and care for them ,than they get out on the street uh?
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-06-15 19:09:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Between Thorpe, Shandy, Wazza and Fagnum, I'm thinking I'm glad I didn't marry that bitch from NSW and move down there.
Bunch of fucking pervs.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:54:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Anyway, the fact remains that you definitely SHOULD NOT have sex with children"
Period.
Not just "because it will probably fuck them up mentally." because even the very notion of doing something so depraved should be considered filthy and disgusting. If you entertain such ideas, by our established societal doctrine, you fall outside of what the vast majority of people consider 'healthy'. If you act on such things you are a criminal.
To highlight fringe examples like that all-to-grown-up 13 year old adolescent girl, or that willing 14 year old boy fucking his band teacher - are little more than distractive ways to justify "a man licking a little girl's cunt".
Which is the main point you seem to be trying to make here.
"However, in the context of our rational investigation, this does not mean that sex with children INTRINSICALLY causes them mental harm. In a society where no taboo or restriction against paedophilia existed, where secrets did not need to be protected by intimidation and shame, it seems quite likely that psychological and social harm would not be a factor."
The taboo and restriction surrounding pedophilia exist BECAUSE it is fucking wrong. Period.
'We' have already lived this life. Society has already discovered the ill-effects that this kind of degeneracy has on the social, psychological and sexual development of children.
It is damaging. Period.
I know, let's maybe try this from another angle.
You claim to have a young child yourself. How would you react if he came home and eagerly informed you that his swim coach sucked on his ass for a while - but it was OK because he really enjoyed it and can't wait to go again next week?
Would you be so eager to have a rational discussion about the fact your child was just molested?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:27:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wait, where did i say i was one of the more intelligent people here?
i must say i believe i am certainly very pretty though...LMAO
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
anyway, it's bathroom rennovation time
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why don't you try and discuss some of what i've actually written - your remarks suggest you haven't even read it
===
honestly, i read the title only. but based on the comments, it seems to be your usual crap.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:23:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
let's find shandy's personal info. get him fired. then we murder him after we force his son to suck our cocks in front of him.
there is no line!
*dun dun dun dun...booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop*
CAN YOU HEAR MY BUSH CLEARING SAW?! LOOK AT ME STRAYING AWAY FROM THE BEATEN TRACKS, BEING RISQUE AND AHEAD OF MY TIME!
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
caulincourt, you fancy yourself as one of the more intelligent people here
why don't you try and discuss some of what i've actually written - your remarks suggest you haven't even read it
there's no point trying to debate this with you - all you are interested in is personal attack
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hang on icarus, what are you talking about?
as far as i know, swift presented the baby eating scenario as a way of drawing attention to the people starving in ireland, and of making the english see what greedy selfish nasty cunts they were.
so what did the authorities visit him for? what are you talking about?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:12:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
shandy is using the age-old "there is no line" argument, thinking he's some sort of revolutionnaire.
OMG! HE'S SO CONTROVERSIAL AND DIFFERENT!
i mean...why can't we just murder each others at will then? or perhaps legalize cannibalism? there is simply no limit to that "alternative thinking".
it's a completly pointless discussion. one that fails to take into account reality. that shandy's five years old simply isn't designed and fit to get fucked, no matter how he slices it or dices it.
BUT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ALLOWED NOW, PERHHAPS IN A FEW MILLENIUMS PAEDOPHILIA WILL BE A-OK. PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE WITH MY ASSUMPTIONS ON THE FUTURE MAKES IT OK TO FUCK CHILEN TODAY, NO?
you're either a real paedo or someone extremely boring who tries to look like a "psycho". i've seen it before. dullars who try to get attention by pretending they are hannibal lecter with their "disturbing" exploration of what is "beyond".
stfu already
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:09:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:29:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rob, buddy, you're looking too deeply into this one. Shandy's argument (like most of his arguments) plays into Swift's tired "Modest Proposal" formula.
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
2. Bend the fundamentals of reality to get around the immediate objections (while you'd think this would hurt children, it will actually reduce the number of abortions, and also feed the thousands of starving Irish people)
3. Do your own math (see the part where Swift arbitrarily calculates the birth rate and value of each child)
4. Use the jury-rigged math and bent reality as a springboard to demonstrate how said proposals would bring about other social 'goods'. (Irish people will prosper, the economy will flourish, there will be environmental benefits as fewer deer are hunted)
5. Insinuate that other cultures do it. (Roman Catholics, Asians, etc)
Watch while this dancing puppet goes on to show how black is white, babies take excellent on whole wheat bread, and coprophagia is good for the constitution.
this is nothing of the kind. where is the fucking proposal? i hvaen't suggested any action, such as eating babies, at all. i actually say very clearly that we should OBVIOUSLY NOT practise paedophilia
all i have done is CONSIDERED some commonly held views
i like that swift method you mention, and have tried to use something similar here:http://www.ubersite.com/m/68477
but this post is nothing like that at all
Oops!
6. Never directly encourage action, just present a viable course. That way, if the authorities arrive (believe they did with Swift) you can say you were only being philisophical.
If the entire basis for considering an action is simply that society generally abhors it, we should all consider ingesting our own waste immediately.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 18:06:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I do think that our tendency as a society to willingly ignore that these kinds of activities even take place - or shy away from the reality that this world is incredibly fucked up in some places only enables the cycle of molestation to continue... so in some ways I do applaud your attempt to discuss it.
But to what end? Your personal enjoyment aside - nothing positive will come from this kind of conversation. Not on this site, anyway.
------
i agree, the current situation with child abuse is a disaster. look at what it's done to poor old apollo, as an example.
and i really can't see it improving until people become more honest and rational about things. it's one of my hobbyhorses i hop onto now and again, and i usually try a different way of getting my ideas across. i've tried to be more structured and rational with this attempt.
i have plenty of other hobby horses i hop onto regularly - befriending the clothheads, consequences of the competitive obession in capitalist society, the problem of accepted wisdom, the death of reason, the intrinsic evil of the australian cricket team, the problem of identifying yourself as belonging to the Good side, etc etc.
why do i do that?
why does anyone post anyting on ubersite?
what good comes of any of it?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:48:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We already have machines that fit in your pocket that can pick up words broadcast out into space and all the way around the planet, so it's probably only a matter of time before mind reading machines are invented - if they haven't already been.
____
They're testing some new video game thing that is controlled by your thoughts, in hopes of using the technology for military drones in the future.
Yep, scary.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:44:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anyway, the fact remains that you definitely SHOULD NOT have sex with children because it will probably fuck them up mentally. However, in the context of our rational investigation, this does not mean that sex with children INTRINSICALLY causes them mental harm. In a society where no taboo or restriction against paedophilia existed, where secrets did not need to be protected by intimidation and shame, it seems quite likely that psychological and social harm would not be a factor. "
_______
you could use that argument on most anything that damages us psychologically.
aha!
a decent attempt to discuss the actual material i put forward, rather than make unrelated generalisations, or, as predicted, amateur analysis of my character!
to respond, i suppose part of what i'm trying to investigate here is whether some things ARE intrinsically bad. for example, bullying. english bording schools are famous for allowing a culture of bullying and nastiness. there was no taboo against older kids doing horrible things to weaker younger kids. i suppose the fact that it wasn't taboo probably lessened the impact for the victims, but for many of them the experience was still bad.
that is because, as far as i can see, bullying is INTRINSICALLY, in most cases, a bad thing. by definition, taboo or no taboo, it causes pain and suffering.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:29:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rob, buddy, you're looking too deeply into this one. Shandy's argument (like most of his arguments) plays into Swift's tired "Modest Proposal" formula.
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
2. Bend the fundamentals of reality to get around the immediate objections (while you'd think this would hurt children, it will actually reduce the number of abortions, and also feed the thousands of starving Irish people)
3. Do your own math (see the part where Swift arbitrarily calculates the birth rate and value of each child)
4. Use the jury-rigged math and bent reality as a springboard to demonstrate how said proposals would bring about other social 'goods'. (Irish people will prosper, the economy will flourish, there will be environmental benefits as fewer deer are hunted)
5. Insinuate that other cultures do it. (Roman Catholics, Asians, etc)
Watch while this dancing puppet goes on to show how black is white, babies take excellent on whole wheat bread, and coprophagia is good for the constitution.
this is nothing of the kind. where is the fucking proposal? i hvaen't suggested any action, such as eating babies, at all. i actually say very clearly that we should OBVIOUSLY NOT practise paedophilia
all i have done is CONSIDERED some commonly held views
i like that swift method you mention, and have tried to use something similar here:http://www.ubersite.com/m/68477
but this post is nothing like that at all
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:16:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Would you plan on using your hungry hungry hippos set as foreplay?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 17:00:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
As for coprophagia being good for the constitution - http://www.ubersite.com/m/109236#2441922
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:56:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rob, buddy, you're looking too deeply into this one. Shandy's argument (like most of his arguments) plays into Swift's tired "Modest Proposal" formula.
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
2. Bend the fundamentals of reality to get around the immediate objections (while you'd think this would hurt children, it will actually reduce the number of abortions, and also feed the thousands of starving Irish people)
3. Do your own math (see the part where Swift arbitrarily calculates the birth rate and value of each child)
4. Use the jury-rigged math and bent reality as a springboard to demonstrate how said proposals would bring about other social 'goods'. (Irish people will prosper, the economy will flourish, there will be environmental benefits as fewer deer are hunted)
5. Insinuate that other cultures do it. (Roman Catholics, Asians, etc)
Watch while this dancing puppet goes on to show how black is white, babies take excellent on whole wheat bread, and coprophagia is good for the constitution.
---
Brilliant.
I still maintain my... um... 'deeper' assessment - but your summary on his particular tactics is outstanding.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:43:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rob, buddy, you're looking too deeply into this one. Shandy's argument (like most of his arguments) plays into Swift's tired "Modest Proposal" formula.
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
2. Bend the fundamentals of reality to get around the immediate objections (while you'd think this would hurt children, it will actually reduce the number of abortions, and also feed the thousands of starving Irish people)
3. Do your own math (see the part where Swift arbitrarily calculates the birth rate and value of each child)
4. Use the jury-rigged math and bent reality as a springboard to demonstrate how said proposals would bring about other social 'goods'. (Irish people will prosper, the economy will flourish, there will be environmental benefits as fewer deer are hunted)
5. Insinuate that other cultures do it. (Roman Catholics, Asians, etc)
Watch while this dancing puppet goes on to show how black is white, babies take excellent on whole wheat bread, and coprophagia is good for the constitution.
===
byuteefool
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:32:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:41:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting, though I think there's got to be a reason sexual maturity occurs late in childhood, and not just to advertise fertility.
Also, if they wouldn't be doing it anyway (in a world without taboo), it would largely be the adults intiating it, so it's pretty much half as pressing an injustice as it might otherwise be, for a temporary period of time.
As to what Razor said below, I agree the age of consent should correspond somewhat with sexual maturity, but given that you can't have individualised laws and considering the range of ages at which it occurs it's definitely better to err on the older side. In the end any "harm" or infraction on rights is going to last for a few years at most.
It has always struck me as strange though that two fifteen year olds can have sex without fear of prosecution (I think?), but when one of them turns sixteen it becomes illegal, until the other one turns sixteen as well. Perhaps some kind of age formula is necessary?
_____________________
I was an 18 year old senior and my girlfriend was a 15 year old freshman. We were in school together and yes... we were having sex. (Her dad was a cop for extra added bonus fun!) This concept that a "magical maturity fairy" blesses you on your 18th birthday is bullshit. I agree, we need some kind of standard, but I think we need to re-assess some of our outdated ideals concerning 'children.' The whole concept of Statatory Rape is based on the fact that a 'child' has no ability to reason or think logically/morally. And yet we give these "lesser citizens" driver's liscences at 16 and will try them as adults for henious crimes before their 18th birthdays.
Yes, we all know some very mature 16 year olds and some very immature 22 year olds. This is irrellevant. I think it was Darko who made a comment about puberty, and I must agree somewhat with him. Teenagers are already sexually experimenting with their peers, but let's hold off on buggering the 5 year old.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 16:25:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rob, buddy, you're looking too deeply into this one. Shandy's argument (like most of his arguments) plays into Swift's tired "Modest Proposal" formula.
1. Make an idiotic 'proposal' (we should turn Irish children into food)
2. Bend the fundamentals of reality to get around the immediate objections (while you'd think this would hurt children, it will actually reduce the number of abortions, and also feed the thousands of starving Irish people)
3. Do your own math (see the part where Swift arbitrarily calculates the birth rate and value of each child)
4. Use the jury-rigged math and bent reality as a springboard to demonstrate how said proposals would bring about other social 'goods'. (Irish people will prosper, the economy will flourish, there will be environmental benefits as fewer deer are hunted)
5. Insinuate that other cultures do it. (Roman Catholics, Asians, etc)
Watch while this dancing puppet goes on to show how black is white, babies take excellent on whole wheat bread, and coprophagia is good for the constitution.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:40:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with Rob here. This post is less like an intellectual exploration into the morality of child molestation and more like someone trying to argue the good of licking children. The whole post screams 'red flag' to me. It's kind of creepy. No, that's not society telling me that children are off limits. It's nature telling me that children aren't sexually attractive to me.
-----------------------------------------
You can't judge morality and acceptability based on your individual sexual attractions.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:45:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:25:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
damn, rob. simma down nah!
i think shandy has a point. this is a discussion on stigma the way i read it. what's the big deal?
you may have yourself a nice, plump, juicy hot dog for lunch tomorrow. while you're savoring every bite without a care in the world, some muslim halfway across the globe from you, or on the other side of the fence 100 feet away from me, is thinking "that is some seriously fucked up shit! how can infidels commit such atrocities, such sacrilege, by eating PORK???"
don't get me wrong, if i had kids, i certainly wouldn't want any sexual activity to occur between them and an adult, but i can still see the merit of the questions asked and points made in this post. it's meant to make you think. whether it puts your mind on child molestation or the tenets of cultural and social stigmas, that's up to the individual.
---
hmmm...
I guess I find the same disconnect between comparing religious intolerance with the very justified revulsion at the sort of activity being suggested as 'not that bad' in this particular post.
Pointing out something worse or more revolting - doesn't make what you were originally discussing any less objectionable.
I agree that most of the content presented here is benign and has the appearance of civilized discourse. I'll even stipulate that there are some really good points being brought up in the areas of exploring cultural and social stigmas - but at the heart of this it reads more like an attempt to rationalize the fascination with some things that that SHOULD be found disgusting.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:40:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with Rob here. This post is less like an intellectual exploration into the morality of child molestation and more like someone trying to argue the good of licking children. The whole post screams 'red flag' to me. It's kind of creepy. No, that's not society telling me that children are off limits. It's nature telling me that children aren't sexually attractive to me.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:25:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
damn, rob. simma down nah!
i think shandy has a point. this is a discussion on stigma the way i read it. what's the big deal?
you may have yourself a nice, plump, juicy hot dog for lunch tomorrow. while you're savoring every bite without a care in the world, some muslim halfway across the globe from you, or on the other side of the fence 100 feet away from me, is thinking "that is some seriously fucked up shit! how can infidels commit such atrocities, such sacrilege, by eating PORK???"
don't get me wrong, if i had kids, i certainly wouldn't want any sexual activity to occur between them and an adult, but i can still see the merit of the questions asked and points made in this post. it's meant to make you think. whether it puts your mind on child molestation or the tenets of cultural and social stigmas, that's up to the individual.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-06-15 15:08:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You think about this shit too much.
What you have done here, is play on the irrational fear of homosexual activity to justify the revulsion that people SHOULD feel for any kind of sexual activity with a child.
My opinion is far from humble.
The responsibility that 'society' has embraced is set on protecting that same society from harm. It's a imperfect science - but historically we have built on precedent and our established moral conscience to establish rules by which to govern the "greater good".
With the advent of the internet, and anonymous communication this kind of exploratory bullshit can take place - "Oh I know actually FUCKING a child is wrong - but what about licking her cunt?" is a repulsive question to ask. However, considering the site in which this 'intellectual' conversation is being held and the relative moral ambivalence that the prolonged exposure to the most horrific and depraved images and notions the collective minds of this particular gathering of depraved assholes spew forth - one could almost trick themselves into thinking this dialog holds some sort of merrit.
It doesn't.
You are a disturbed individual - this is, of course, opinion as I don't know 'you' - but having read a few of your posts I feel pretty comfortable making that judgment call. Does this make you dangerous? Perhaps not. Our society is overflowing with individuals who are far more alarming than yourself. Priests, teachers, counselors - people in real positions to do actual harm to young children - are of a much greater concern than some pot-addled aussie weirdo who entertains himself by exploring his degenerate thoughts about sexual activities with small children on ubersite.
I do think that our tendency as a society to willingly ignore that these kinds of activities even take place - or shy away from the reality that this world is incredibly fucked up in some places only enables the cycle of molestation to continue... so in some ways I do applaud your attempt to discuss it.
But to what end? Your personal enjoyment aside - nothing positive will come from this kind of conversation. Not on this site, anyway.
Seriously - you think about this shit too much.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:43:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:18:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a reason that most americans lose their virginity at around 17 and 18 to someone around the same age. Not a 10 year old losing it to a 40 year old. In fact isnt the female body not fully ready to carry a child until she is about 18 years old?
--------------------------------
WOW.
The reason most Americans lose their virginity around 17 to 18 is college.
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:18:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a reason that most americans lose their virginity at around 17 and 18 to someone around the same age. Not a 10 year old losing it to a 40 year old. In fact isnt the female body not fully ready to carry a child until she is about 18 years old?
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anyway, the fact remains that you definitely SHOULD NOT have sex with children because it will probably fuck them up mentally. However, in the context of our rational investigation, this does not mean that sex with children INTRINSICALLY causes them mental harm. In a society where no taboo or restriction against paedophilia existed, where secrets did not need to be protected by intimidation and shame, it seems quite likely that psychological and social harm would not be a factor. "
_______
you could use that argument on most anything that damages us psychologically.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-06-15 14:05:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I too have felt the almost uncontrolable need to fornicate while at the supermarket....
maybe its the last remnants of the "hunter gatherer" in me that somehow makes going to get food with my woman in tow so arousing.
as for the rest of the post, meh
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 13:57:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:07:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think the dyslexic content here is quite sparse, due to the fact that most of it was written while sober, as opposed to under the influence of whacko tobacco. the dislexic bits are largely additions made just now under the influence of whacko tobacco. i suppose they are an indulgence, but they are a small part of this, and the arguements, it seems to me, are robust and interesting. as i said, no one seems able or willing to tackle them.
----
You're really whoring for the heat aren't you, you dyslexic whore you
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-06-15 13:12:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You need psychiatric help.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 13:09:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-06-15 13:05:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What's the worst part about having sex with a 6 year old?
Getting the blood out of your clown suit.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:55:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-06-15 10:34:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a masterpiece.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:53:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
STILL doing this, aren't we?
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Great post, a little long but what do I care? I am at work...
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:35:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
when are you coming to Seppo Land?
Submitted by gravitas (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:32:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i love how some sentences end in disarray.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:25:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:17:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i am laughing my ass off and i'm not even half way through this post. i have something pressing at hand, but i can't wait to come back and read the rest of this.
------
that is a seriously dirty review on one of the worst posts to ever put reviews like that on.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:17:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i am laughing my ass off and i'm not even half way through this post. i have something pressing at hand, but i can't wait to come back and read the rest of this.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:17:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
also, this is nothing fucking like jonathon swift, in the sense of a modest proposal, anyway
i'm not putting forward an extreme parody to illistrate the grotesque nature of reality
that's just nonsense talk
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:11:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hang on, where's the plus two you cunt?????????
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:09:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
more importantly - the MIGHTY APOLLO HAS RISEN AGAIN.
Look out for my post entitled Greek Hospitals, Deportation and the Generosity of Italians.
---
that is a relief, your revival has saved me from uber retirement, as i'm sure many of my fans will be relieved to hear!
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:07:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think the dyslexic content here is quite sparse, due to the fact that most of it was written while sober, as opposed to under the influence of whacko tobacco. the dislexic bits are largely additions made just now under the influence of whacko tobacco. i suppose they are an indulgence, but they are a small part of this, and the arguements, it seems to me, are robust and interesting. as i said, no one seems able or willing to tackle them.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
more importantly - the MIGHTY APOLLO HAS RISEN AGAIN.
Look out for my post entitled Greek Hospitals, Deportation and the Generosity of Italians.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-15 12:04:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not saying that you're a 'paedophile', shandy. I'm just saying that you're a poor writer and that the "A Modest Proposal" schtick has been done before; most notably by Jonathan Swift. While I realize that your contrived penchant for being a dyslexic douche is intended to put a comical spin on the Swift clichee, it doesn't work (mostly because you keep doing it, like a retarded child bashing his helmeted head against the wall). I guess the question of "is being a repetitive crappy writer of a dyslexic douche better or worse than diddling kiddies" is subjective, and I will leave it entirely to you.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:59:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
having said htat, having admitted i'm a fraud, i have actually put forward an attempt at logical, philosophical debate of an issue
i don't see any of my SPECIFIC points being rebutted
LET ALONE MY FUNDAFUCKINGMENTAL QUESTION being answered.
thorpe: in some ways it is about what constitutes consent and an individual, but more than that the thing that interests me is why cock sucking is distinguished from ping pong?
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:54:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
this gave me a stiffy
WHAT?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:53:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:51:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
completely meaningless, and anyone who pretends to find any meaning in it has been DUPED
---------------------------------
Don't say such things!
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
caulincourt, i KNOW that i'm a fraud, that my opions are presented merely in the hope of generating some minor notoriety on a website of losers
there is ABSOLUTELY NO SINCERE OPINION OR ATTEMPT AT HONEST OBSERVATION OF REALITY IN ANY OF THE ABOVE POST, OR IN ANY OF MY WRITINT EVER, ON THIS OR ANY OTHER TOPIC, FOR THAT MATTER
EVERYONE knows shandy is a fraud! A LIAR!
with no capacity for logical thought or analysis
just a cunt trying to be original for the sake of being original
completely meaningless, and anyone who pretends to find any meaning in it has been DUPED
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:50:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-16 01:42:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
dress it in academic vagaries all you like, shandy. its just not fucking right. its as simple as that, its a moral wrong for a child to engage in sexual activity. what defines a chile? if you have to wonder that before putting your cock in its mouth, its a fuckin child
case closed, leave the poor dead horse alone.
-------------------------------
What engages me with this post/issue is not so much the discussion of paedophilia, but the attempt to reconcile that type of reaction with another belief I hold, that consenting individuals should be able to do what they like.
I say 'consenting individuals' as opposed to 'consenting adults', how I would normally express the sentiment, only because in this case that's the issue, whether or not you have to be an adult to be able to reasonably consent.
Submitted by BubbaEarl (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:50:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're wrong in the head.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:42:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
dress it in academic vagaries all you like, shandy. its just not fucking right. its as simple as that, its a moral wrong for a child to engage in sexual activity. what defines a chile? if you have to wonder that before putting your cock in its mouth, its a fuckin child
case closed, leave the poor dead horse alone.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-06-15 11:41:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting, though I think there's got to be a reason sexual maturity occurs late in childhood, and not just to advertise fertility.