Some further thoughts on paedophilia (1524 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.88 on 97 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by shandythedog (View user info) at 2007-10-10 21:09:28 EDT
Oh look! The word paedophilia is in the title of this post!
This must be a crude attempt to shock people!
Or alternatively, Shandy must be a paedophile!
Let me be earnest for a moment. I don't really like being earnest in this manner, in writing, on ubersite, because I fear people like Apollo will see me as pompous. I'd prefer to make jokes about how much I would enjoy watching online videos of my seven year old son being raped by a gang of pedo kidnappers. About how I would laugh as the blood and jism hemorrhaged out of his mangled little arsehole, a single lojope tear running down his sweet little face, until finally his breathing stopped and he was still. And about how much fun it would be to then print off a screen shot and ejaculate all over that sweet little face, perhaps get a few friends from my pedo clique around for a bukkake session, etc etc etc. That is the uber way - we make jokes about the most unpleasant and awful things we can - and I do sort of like the uber way. It seems preferable to the false, saccharine, lojope way.
However, as I said, I must join lojope and be earnest for a moment: if a gang of pedo pornographers did the above to my son, I, like any average father, would want to kill them and also their customers.
But the fact that I want to kill pedo pornographers who rape children does not mean that my powers of observation are blunted to the point that I have no further interest in the topic of paedophilia as manifested in contemporary western society.
Driving in my car a few days ago they were interviewing on the radio some woman who is nobly fighting child sex tourism in poor countries. She claims this is making a big difference, but neither she nor the interviewer seemed to actually know anything concrete about the numbers of people involved. The interviewer suspected that things were not getting better, and threw out a figure of 'several thousand' aussies heading off each year to pay money to have sex with children overseas. To me, that seemed like a fucking lot of people. We sometimes tend to think that paedophilia is limited to the occasional psycho freak who gets caught and is exposed in the newspaper, and the only real issue with paedophilia is should we execute this bastard, or chop his balls off or put a brand on his forehead or a poster on his house etc etc. We tend to see it as a bit like a shark attack - an awful but isolated thing.
Hearing about the thousands of aussie tourists heading off to pay money to fuck impoverished dusky children reminded me that this is probably not the case. One thing the 'experts' do seem to agree on is that most domestic child sex abuse is not reported. So it seems reasonably safe to assume that lots and lots of adults are getting their paws on children, one way or another, locally or abroad.
The other night, lying between the pathetic white satin sheets ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/99539 ), I turned on the faithful little tele that is my only bedroom companion and, after the customary confusion over which button is the channel button and which is the volume button, scanned what was on offer. The grand final Footy Show was on WIN with Fatty and the boys, which was very tempting, but on the serious SBS was a serious 'forum' and they seemed to be discussing something about the 'sexualisation' of children. Naturally, as a serious student of these matters, I sacrificed the Footy Show to observe this piece of contemporary intellectual exploration.
They seemed to be talking about 'innappropriate' images of children in the mainstream media. This has become mildly topical lately, and I gathered that a minor parliamentarian was waging some sort of crusade about it. Maybe it was connected to this fascinating court case on 'corporate paedophilia': http://www.ubersite.com/m/98394, but unfortunately they didn't mention that (and unfortunately this case seems to have slipped out of media coverage completely. I did try to find some info about it on a NSW court website a few weeks ago, but after ten minutes of intense irritation gave up - a jug of my number one a-grade Fresh Jism for anyone who can find it).
Anyway, the panel comprised a sexy media savvy chick who seemed to belong to some kind of media industry body, a cool academic dude from Perth with an earring, another woman who didn't say much, and a very ugly fuddy-duddy woman from some kind of morals organisation.
It was all fairly predictable. They all constantly used the term 'sexualisation of children' without explaining or questioning what this actually meant. Somehow they got onto the topic of an advert that apparently shows a woman pole dancing, getting money tucked into her g-string, and then going home to bake dinner for the kids. Obviously this was not a media product that 'sexualised children', but the concern of the fuddy duddy was that this ad was shown at a time when children might see it, and be brainwashed into believing women were objects to be sexually exploited. Predictably, the media savvy chickie babe sprang to the articulate defence of pole dancing, and got quite heated about how the fuddy duddy couldn't accept the free expression of female sexuality - she was no doubt caught in the paradigm that only bad sluts were sexually free enough to pole dance, in fact the ad was showing that even family mums could be so sexually free which they should be, and snicker snicker, she herself did a bit of pole dancing, blah blah, blah blah. God knows what the stupid ad was actually trying to sell. Probably microwave ovens or frozen peas.
The part of the show that most interested me was a particular set of remarks from the hip young earring academic dude. (Like me) he prefaced his remarks with the standard Vow of Allegiance against Paedophilia, although I was a little taken aback at how extremely he put it: he actually said, in his mild hip academic voice, that pedos were evil and were rightfully the most hated group in society and that he hated them as much as anyone. He then presented his argument about the 'sexualisation of children' in media images: he said that the problem was not created by advert catalogues, the problem was in the mind of the sick evil pedos who actually saw these images as sexual. In other words, it is the evil pedos who are 'sexualising' children, not the media or the advertising companies.
And in other words, if, when you look at a catalogue showing little girls or boys scantily clad or wearing 'adult' clothes, and a sexual thought crosses your mind, or your body reacts in some sexual manner to such an image, YOU MUST BE AN EVIL PEDO. That follows from he said, as clearly as night follows day, but of course no one raised this with him.
I forget how the 'debate' bumbled along after this. Perhaps the silver haired wise host guided the panel seriously onto another topic to spout clichés about, perhaps the woman who didn't say much said something, perhaps the hip earring dude made a joke about the need for more men to get into pole dancing, or perhaps that was when they opened the forum to the audience, and some chickie babe teen models spoke about how offended they were that people thought they were exploited when in fact they were empowered, blah blah blah.
Anyway, as I said, the part that interested me most was earring dude's uncontested statement that essentially meant that if you looked at a picture of a child (whatever a 'child' is) and had some kind of sexual response, you were a pedo, you were a member of the most evil group in the world and you deserved to be hated by everyone.
NOW, the time has come to explain my most basic theory on human sexuality, Shandythedog's Theorem of Universal Sexual Magnetism.
SHANDYTHEDOG'S THEOREM OF UNIVERSAL SEXUAL MAGNETISM
My theorem is very simple and non-scientific, and is based purely on everyday observations of myself and others.
Firstly, judging by all the people that exist, people are strongly inclined to have sex with each other.
Just as we are drawn to eat and drink, so we are drawn to fuck. We don't intellectually think to ourselves, oh dear, we better reproduce, otherwise the human race will die out. It is a natural instinct.
Our genitals are drawn, somehow, by some force or power, to the genitals of the opposite sex.
For want of a better term, I call this power The Force. No I don't! That's been taken. I call it 'Universal Sexual Magnetism'. Just as magnets are drawn to each other, so are our genitals.
As I said, it seems obvious that this is a very strong force. I have seen footage of male monkeys going beserk with frustrated sexual desire when they are shown pics of ape cunt.
What is the purpose of Universal Sexual Magnetism? IS there a purpose? That is too deep a question for me to ponder here (I only ponder such deep questions when I am deep in the bosom of my bapjismed worshippers).
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the purpose of Universal Sexual Magnetism is reproduction. It could then be argued that Universal Sexual Magnetism would only occur between people who are sexually mature (ie, able to reproduce). But I don't think that is the case. I don't think nature is as precise as that. Nature seems to operate in a broad, clumsy sort of way. Witness the absurdity of human childbirth.
It seems to me that if Universal Sexual Magnetism automatically draws my male flesh to fecund (ie 12 or 13 year old +) female flesh, it would also draw my flesh to some extent to 11 year old female flesh. It seems unlikely that this crude magnetic force (whatever it is) would be so precise that it switches off completely when the flesh is infertile. It seems more likely that my male flesh is, to differing degrees, drawn to ALL female flesh, and perhaps, indeed, to all flesh. Dogs prefer to root bitches on heat, but they will also hump your leg.
In other words, it seems to me that we live in an environment that is sexually charged at all times, even though, preoccupied as we are with other matters, we don't always notice it. Or indeed, we as a society actively choose not to notice it, for whatever reasons. Chimps, on the other hand, approach things differently. They are constantly wanking and bum fucking and getting blow jobs from children in public etc etc etc. And maybe we are better off without all that - but it doesn't mean that the force, the sexual magnetism that exists between us, has just vanished.
IMPLICATIONS OF MY ASTOUNDINGLY OBVIOUS THEORY OF UNIVERSAL SEXUAL MAGNETISM
So, if you accept my Theory of Universal Sexual Magnetism, the glib talk of 'sexualising children' can be seen to be flawed , because it implies that children are creatures that exist separately or apart from the magnetic sexual currents that run through our world. Even though children are made of flesh and have genitals, even though they are born of cunt, they are somehow supposed to be completely different creatures to those creatures one or two years older than them. The only way they become 'sexualised' is when evil and perverted adults make them that way.
And therefore, if follows, because children are completely and utterly non-sexual creatures, to experience any sexual response to them at all makes you an abnormal pervert and a paedophile.
In fact, if you accept my Theory of Universal Sexual Magnetism, it is perfectly normal that your body should experience some form of attraction to all other bodies.
Leaving aside the body and the flesh, there is also the mind and behavior. Are children's minds free of all sexuality? Does sexuality only enter their minds and their behavior as a consequence of being 'sexualised' by perverted adults. This seems unlikely. A large part of adult behavior and adults' minds is occupied with sex. Does this happen suddenly, when you reach a certain age? Or does your mind and behavior develop gradually?
Children learn by observing and imitating, particularly their parents, in the most subtle ways. If a daughter observes that her mum has a certain flirtatious way of strutting her stuff - her arse, her tits, her hair, her eyes, her neck, her legs, etc etc - and that men respond to this positively, she will start to imitate this. In other words, she will start to learn how to attract a mate. In other words, she is behaving sexually - even though she is only a trainee.
Men are trained/programmed to respond to these signals. So to me, it seems perfectly normal that a man should experience some kind of sexual response, or at least sexual awareness, if a little girl is practicing (unconsciously) her female wiles on him.
However, if we accept the fiction that children are completely non sexual freaks who exist in a pure and sterile universe separate to the adult universe, then the man who feels such a response is an evil and perverted paedophile.
But if we don't accept this fiction, if we accept the truth of Universal Sexual Magnetism and all that entails in terms of our bodies, minds, and behaviors, the question then becomes: what do we do about these normal feelings?
The question then becomes one of what SOCIAL RULES we wish to agree on in this area, in the interests of everyone living as happily and freely as possible.
In this context, the phrase 'sexualisation of children' does make a little more sense. Dressing up a five year old girl in lipstick and short skirts etc obviously does enhance the sexual cues in her appearance, and therefore she is more likely to induce sexual feelings in adults.
A QUICK LOOK AT ONE LITTLE SCRAP OF MY EXISTING 'WORK' ON THIS TOPIC ON UBERSITE, TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT MERE SHOCK MATERIAL, AND ALSO TO TIE IN CLEVERLY AND PROFOUNDLY WITH THE REST OF THIS POST.
Recently some people, who consider themselves to be amongst ubersite's intelligent and thoughtful classes, have said that my 'work' on paedophilia is nothing more than an attempt to shock, that there is no actual content to it.
The other day when I was looking for my fucking CV on the hard drive I stumbled across a copy of an old post ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/56725 ) [cue brief vision of cops raiding my house, getting out their hard drive search equipment, discovering the WORDS the EVIL WORDS 'paedophilia, child sex etc' "this muthafuckers busted sarge, take him away, get that seven year old boy to a safe house, Jane, comfort the poor child, but don't hug him of course"]
When this vision had passed, I read '$10,000 For Suggestive Pics of My Five Year Old Daughter', and was pleased with it.
I enjoyed the playful tone, but I also enjoyed the interesting questions it raised. As I mentioned, the experts on the panel show on TV used the phrase 'sexualisation of children' a lot, and they spoke vaguely about inappropriate images in the media. But the experts did not explore what this actually means in real life, they did not consider any hypothetical or real life situations at all. They didn't get down to the nitty gritty. IS it wrong for someone to wank over pictures of children? Is that paedophilia? Is it illegal? Is it wrong for someone to look at a picture of a child and have a sexual thought? Is that paedophilia? Is it wrong for a man to have an erection as a result of a picture of child (or as a result of a child sitting on his lap, for that matter)? Does that really, as the expert on the panel clearly implied, make him a paedophile? And does it also follow that a woman who experiences orgasm whilst breastfeeding is also a paedophile? ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/58169 )
My view, as stated above in my Theorem of Universal Sexual Magnetism, is clearly that it does NOT. Anymore than getting an erection when a cat sits in my lap makes me a bestialist.
AND, and now we are getting to the serious stuff, is it possible that a man (or woman) who detects some sort of sexual response to children in themselves will conclude "oh noes, I must be a pedo! I better not tell anyone about this terrible SECRET" and that, as a consequence, this person then gradually moves into the secret world of online child porn, and next thing you know they're hopping onto a flight for Cambodia or sneaking into their niece or nephew's bedroom, or enrolling in the priesthood, etc etc et fucking cetra.
Alternatively, is it possible, that, if Shandythedog's Theorem of Universal Sexual Magnetism was widely accepted, the person who detects some kind of sexual response within themselves to children would simply say to themselves "that's normal, how should I deal with this in a way that causes no harm to myself or to children?"
Which is precisely the question Jamie asks himself in my little hypothetical (meaningless, shock-value only) post '$10,000 For Suggestive Pics of My Five Year Old Daughter'.
So. There is a very brief little consideration of one little post. I could go through the entire volume of my 'work' on ubersite concerning paedophilia, pointing out what I see as the thoughtful elements to it.
Of course, I can't be bothered. However, to those people who claim my 'work' is devoid of anything except shock value, why not read this: http://www.ubersite.com/m/78127 . I am willing to accept the criticism that it has no literary value (although no doubt future, more perceptive generations will revere it at a SEMINAL work of unparalleled genius) but surely to god anyone can see that I am actually TRYING to explore many different aspects of the issue in a sincere manner, and that it goes beyond shock value.
And one last thing. To the people who say that I contribute nothing of value on this topic, what do YOU think about the issue? How is the problem to be solved? What to do about all these fellows hopping on planes to Cambodia and fiddling with their children. Why are they doing it? Do you really think the current approach is working, and that the issue is being properly debated and explored?
Of course, there's no point asking this question here at the end, because you dimwits wouldn't have been able to digest this huge quantity of words (3,131).
User Reviews
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-14 20:52:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
phauana, as a general rule, would a white australian man aged 43 with a beard and curly hair and a moderate pot belly be able to travel to japan for a holiday and instantly find jap females (of a legal age) wanting to root him?
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-10-14 08:42:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Shandy, this is good and well thought out, yet it retains much larrikin charm.
Age of consent in Oz is 18. However 17 and eleven month olds obviously are very attractive to most people. As are 17 and six month olds. So firstly, the age of consent is largely arbritrary and not in any way connected to sexuality.
Some might draw the line at when a child becomes physically 'mature', it may be easy to judge in women, maybe menarche or, first pubic hair or what have you. For men though it would be quite hard to choose when. First erection, first ejaculation?
Anyway, having sexual thoughts about children doesn't really make you a pedophile, it is the action of somehow abusing children which makes you a pedophile. So while i feel no guilt feeling attracted to high school girls, society has drawn a line, and that's it.
BTW I'm living in Tokyo at the moment, and the national age of consent is 12. However most prefectures have added their own laws which raise that age to a more reasonable 18 or something. Compensated dating (or school girl fucking) is quite prevalent still. Older richer businessmen shower schoolgirls with gifts in hopes of getting a root.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-10-14 00:51:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with you completely and very much enjoyed reading this.
We should try to be as uncondeming as possible about problems that have not yet caused anyone any harm. Otherwise, we will march those people into secrecy, so that we can't help stop them from crossing the point where it causes harm. Has someone who's attracted to children but hasn't actually harmed any children done anything immoral? I certainly don't think so. Instead of being fear-mongerers we should try to find ways to prevent them from harming others without making them feel alienated.
Okay, someone has molested a child, then off with his head. That's all fine and good. But the issue of pedophilia is more complicated than beheading everyone who has already molested a child. But now I'm just starting to reiterate what you've said.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-10-14 00:38:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But the fact that I want to kill pedo pornographers who rape children does not mean that my powers of observation are blunted to the point that I have no further interest in the topic of paedophilia as manifested in contemporary western society.
-
I can't stop laughing when I read this... oh fuck, I must be a terrible person.
But yeah, I completely agree with the sentiment of your first few paragraphs. Now let me read the rest...
Submitted by UTOCKIN2ME (user info) at 2007-10-12 03:31:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Verbal diarhea!
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-10-11 20:05:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-10-11 15:17:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
TRUE.
His comment about letting pedo's have a wank to kiddie swimwear did throw me off of his argument entirely. I don't think any extreme sexual fetish is subsided by feeding it-- even if indirectly. I thought the goal was to expand the person's desires to include a larger variety of sexual experiences. Especially where, in this case, the fetish is intensely heinous and criminal, where you need to break them entirely from it.
I think we are lessening our areas of disagreement here, though, so good dialogue.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:58:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The end scene in "Little Miss Sunshine" is perfect satire for the whole 'sexualization of children' in regards to child beauty contests and fashion shows.
Having said that, there does exist a point at which children mature. Post-puberty, adolescence, whatever that's called. AND YOU CAN TELL.
...
...
...
The REAL pedo's are the ones who like kids because they ARE NOT yet fully developed. That's a sickness. Those people are not as intensely attracted to fully developed adults. The reasons as someone said before, probably include a desire to "dominate" someone, or a sadistic desire to hurt someone or rip them of their innocence (or that playful portion of their life before they are fully developed-- whatever). That goes way beyond attraction, or "Universal Sexual Magnetism".
By the way, Shandy, you might want to modify your Theorem to account for that. Just because you can't always readily distinguish between a 20 yr/old and a 13 yr/old, doesn't mean that it holds true for kids under 10.
-------------
I agree there is no visual way to look at someone and determine if they are of the age of consent, and for most people by look there is a lot of grey area. But one of the points he made in the post was about attraction to kiddie swimwear, and unless kiddie is different slang in Aussie he was talking about the crowd that is attracted to people under 10.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:53:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:36:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
anyone who mixes up whether and weather is automatically disqualified from the debate. Go back to watching fox news in your trailer.
------------
Ah, I see. It is ok to blur the lines on and discuss the rational for what age it is acceptable when it comes to coercing young people into sex. But misusing arbitrary spellings of wether crosses the line for you.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:52:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF Im not reading all that
Submitted by Coleslaw_Murphy (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Apologies if someone has already made this comparison.
The more of your stuff I read, shandy, the more you remind me of Ignatius Reilly from "A Confederacy of Dunces".
I mean it as a compliment.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:28:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, this post follows the template of an 8,000-hit post: http://www.ubersite.com/m/52187 .
Irony? Coincidence?
The only thing that might hold you back a little is the your BR-ENG spelling of "pedophilia".
Submitted by AshyLarry (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:15:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that creep can roll, man
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-10-11 14:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:17:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What was the life expectancy then? How many children did people have, and how many good childbearing years did they have?
Moral relativism is interesting for mental masturbation, but if you can't see that with the modern medicine and life expectancy the disadvantages of a 14yr old getting knocked up I don't think you are really trying to honestly explore the issue.
____________________
The end scene in "Little Miss Sunshine" is perfect satire for the whole 'sexualization of children' in regards to child beauty contests and fashion shows.
Having said that, there does exist a point at which children mature. Post-puberty, adolescence, whatever that's called. AND YOU CAN TELL.
Shandy's point, and the point about sex and marriage laws of the past, is that it doesn't matter how long someone would live or how many children and childbearing years they had. It only matters how quickly they develop into sexual maturity. THAT HASN'T CHANGED from then until now. What's the average age that a girl starts to menstruate? That is a monumental sign towards sexual maturity.
If I find a female attractive for various PHYSICAL reasons, and those attributes could belong to a woman of 30, an 18 yr/old, or a 14 yr/old, then how am I to determine just upon sight 1) how old they are and 2) whether then, I am "allowed" to be attracted to them?
Now, emotional maturity is a much different and more subjective thing. In the past, people probably did "mature" mentally and emotionally at a younger age. It seems our current laws have incrementally factored that in. But that doesn't mean it's WRONG or EVIL to be attracted purely on physical grounds, to a fully developed 15 yr/old. But some girls at that age are MORE mature than some 21 yr/olds I've met, for damn sure.
In other words, I wouldn't be too miffed about lowering the "age of consent" a year or two. Why would anyone?
The REAL pedo's are the ones who like kids because they ARE NOT yet fully developed. That's a sickness. Those people are not as intensely attracted to fully developed adults. The reasons as someone said before, probably include a desire to "dominate" someone, or a sadistic desire to hurt someone or rip them of their innocence (or that playful portion of their life before they are fully developed-- whatever). That goes way beyond attraction, or "Universal Sexual Magnetism".
By the way, Shandy, you might want to modify your Theorem to account for that. Just because you can't always readily distinguish between a 20 yr/old and a 13 yr/old, doesn't mean that it holds true for kids under 10.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:46:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:36:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 06:13:47 CDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nowhere on this post did you address how the "war on pedophelia" is being fought wrong, or what you would do to fix it.
Weather or not people agree with your theorem doesn't matter. Weather they believe attraction to a "sexualized" underaged person is natural as long as they don't obsess and do nothing to hurt the person or if they think even having such thoughts makes them a monster and they ignore them. What matters is how people act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
anyone who mixes up whether and weather is automatically disqualified from the debate. Go back to watching fox news in your trailer.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:36:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 06:13:47 CDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nowhere on this post did you address how the "war on pedophelia" is being fought wrong, or what you would do to fix it.
Weather or not people agree with your theorem doesn't matter. Weather they believe attraction to a "sexualized" underaged person is natural as long as they don't obsess and do nothing to hurt the person or if they think even having such thoughts makes them a monster and they ignore them. What matters is how people act.
If the war on pedophelia was limited to discussions on what children should be allowed to wear, you might have a point. However I think the stricter laws on travel to countries for that purpose, pressure put on govts where it was formerly ignored to end it, watchdog groups on the internet, laws on arrainging meeting on the internet, etc are the main tools. Your attempts to explore this subject are little more than mental masturbation, which I have no problem with, but don't pretend it is some great stride in the war against pedo's.
anyone who mixes up whether and weather is automatically disqualified from the debate. Go back to watching fox news in your trailer.
Submitted by icanbecool (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:33:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
a long winded way of saying sex can be twisted into a simple equation...sex=power
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-10-11 13:13:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
didn't read it
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 12:40:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-10-11 12:05:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That's the kind of picture you'd see in Victoria's Secret with a 28yr old WOMAN advertising their new perfume line. So what's wrong here, the men (and women) who see an image like that and get a stir, or the people who make the image for you? ]
-----------
Both. They feed off each other. People wouldn't make shit like that unless it sold.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-10-11 12:20:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here I've simplified all this for you.
1. Men are pigs
2. Women need us to procreate
the rest is fluff
next
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-10-11 12:05:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was reading an article recently that discussed "Hot Tots" which is the unofficial mega-media term for children in scant or suggestive clothing or poses selling... whatever, anything really.
The images that made it into the article were not just a little suggestive either, one showed a toddler fashion show, where the little kids were wearing very adult makeup and clothing with plunging necklines, cut-off midriffs, accented bum area, etc. The kind of thing you would tell your teenage daughter to change out of before she left the house so the neighbors don't think she's a slut. But these weren't even teens attempting to mimic adult behaviour, the fashion designers built these outfits for their little bodies with a purpose. The children were also coached to stand in provocative poses, pushing out their hips, making pouty lips, even touching themselves for the camera.
Huh? You let your baby get on stage and do that? That's a bad parent, that's a bad bad parent!
Perhaps if you get a rise out of it you're "evil" but then again, are we MAKING the babies into sexual objects? Are we ENCOURAGING pedos, or even making new ones with this sort of thing? If you dress your baby girl or little boy up as predator snackies, what do you think is going to happen?
The final image was of a little blonde girl standing alone on the street, her tank-top only barely covering tiny nipples and she wore pink gloss on the lips, blush on the cheeks, short-shorts, a single silver strand of necklace held between her lips and a dreamy longing look in her eyes.
SHE WAS 7 YEARS OLD!
That's the kind of picture you'd see in Victoria's Secret with a 28yr old WOMAN advertising their new perfume line. So what's wrong here, the men (and women) who see an image like that and get a stir, or the people who make the image for you?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-10-11 11:28:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
boring.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 11:21:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 11:00:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why is it only in modern western societies (as far as I have ever heard, may be my ignorance) that we seek to excuse things that are wrong? Who do we not see the value, actually the superiority in our value system?
------
1) *We*, thank "god," are *allowed* to question such matters in an open forum. Thank Elvis.
2) I believe in the superiority of our value system. Because I am here and I am now.
Now, if I get fired, I'm going to come see you so you can kick my ass.
out
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 11:00:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, I've rethought it, and I don't think my analogy was that bad. My point was, if I had one, was that what is considered acceptable/normal is a product of our time/place. That is, there are no absolutes. Of course, I don't have the benefit of a god to tell me what's right and what's wrong...excpet for Elvis, and I don't think he had much to say concerning this matter.
Yes...it is "absolutely" wrong to do things such as are being "explore" here. I am absolutely sure of this. But my attitude is a product of my time/place.
----------------
Why is it only in modern western societies (as far as I have ever heard, may be my ignorance) that we seek to excuse things that are wrong? Who do we not see the value, actually the superiority in our value system?
There was a debate about this a few days ago, http://www.intelligencesquared.com/event_future.php?d=20071009 and I was absolutely baffled how someone who left a country like egypt couldn't see the superiority in western values, when it is those values that give them a platform to speak, a livelihood, etc...
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:37:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And I'm off for work. Thx for the entertainment
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, I've rethought it, and I don't think my analogy was that bad. My point was, if I had one, was that what is considered acceptable/normal is a product of our time/place. That is, there are no absolutes. Of course, I don't have the benefit of a god to tell me what's right and what's wrong...excpet for Elvis, and I don't think he had much to say concerning this matter.
Yes...it is "absolutely" wrong to do things such as are being "explore" here. I am absolutely sure of this. But my attitude is a product of my time/place.
God, I hate getting serious on Uber.
+2 no penis
go d'backs woo!
I'm tweaking on caffeine.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:24:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:17:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What was the life expectancy then? How many children did people have, and how many good childbearing years did they have?
Moral relativism is interesting for mental masturbation, but if you can't see that with the modern medicine and life expectancy the disadvantages of a 14yr old getting knocked up I don't think you are really trying to honestly explore the issue.
---------
Good points. Bad analogy on my part. But I'm not really exploring any issue...honestly or otherwise. Shandy is. I'm fucking around. Per usual.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:18:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I never done it! I only said I done it so they'd take the rat out of my anus
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:17:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it's not funny lungfish. why are people so unkind.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:17:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Plus anyone who spanks it to that deserves a kick in the balls, not encouragement.
00000000
I agree, but my point is/was, if I had a point, that our attitude has been shaped by the history that has shaped our mores. Remember, it wasn't that long ago in our own history (with ironic reference to the "Puritans") that a girl of 12 or 14 was considered suitable for marriage.
Indeed, here in Arizona we have the ongoing ruckus over the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Now there's a fucker I'd like to kick in the balls. But I also realize that my attitude is a product of my "culture," whatever that is.
I think Shandy is just trying to explore the subject in a positivist manner...as a moral relativist. (Mental Masturbation). I really enjoy this kind of thought.
I just woke up.
-------------------------------
What was the life expectancy then? How many children did people have, and how many good childbearing years did they have?
Moral relativism is interesting for mental masturbation, but if you can't see that with the modern medicine and life expectancy the disadvantages of a 14yr old getting knocked up I don't think you are really trying to honestly explore the issue.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:16:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
On second thought, I don't think it was Gary Coleman. But some similar actor from the late '70s/early '80s, and his image pops into my head when I recall the phrase.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:13:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fair enough. I'll put the puzzle pieces together eventually, I am certain. To quote Gary Coleman: "Mama didn't raise no fools." :)
The thought of funneling malicious talents into octogenerian care paints quite an entertaining mental scene.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:12:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Although I guess it was '00. I think I voted for Elvis in '04.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You'll have to forgive me Thorny, I really do not want to dwell on my observation. It'd be like having to dig out physics text books to explain why I've described a dog as 'brown'.
You've got a point though, there will always be horrid cunts in society. Whether one regards them as the majority or the minority is largely irrelevant, afterall we should never deem it acceptable even if only a small number of people suffer horribly at their hands.
Several ingenious practices in funneling horrid cunt's malicious talents into becoming captains of industry, ruthless lawyers and other productive members of society could possibly apply to our pedophile problem. If they are to be condemned as loners then perhaps their unspent emotional energy could be focused into something like octogeneraion care.
Perhaps that would be a mistake, afterall the elderly are ANTOHER vulnerable element of society. Perhaps they could be trained as personal assistance for abusive hollywood producers, thus providing a punishment aspect to their degenerate nature?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 10:03:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:56:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As far as politics go, I don't affiliate myself with a political party. Last time I voted was for Nader in '04.
-------
Yeah...me too. :(
Haha at d_r. I haven't had any piss myself since the last time I had a Foster's.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:58:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
in breaking news, I scored this completely divine pen off a distributor the other day.
"Don't tell the guys Danger, but this pen is for management only, they've just got half-arsed boring ones."
"O rly? Do tell.."
"Well yours has an enamel chassis, vibrant possibly real gold pocket clip and funky embossed branding, not to mention studded rubber grip-pad on the grip bit."
"sweet."
So I mention this to the guys, like hey look at my funky pen, what does yours look like, like oh dear..that's too bad....
Go out and blast some minions, call them stupid and stuff, crack my knuckles and smugly wander back into my office.
I sit down in my super comfy chair, twirl around a bit, and notice a photo on my desk.
It's my super shiny pen, precariously balanced on the staff toilet.
"FAGS!!!" I scream inwardly.
meanwhile....
I am aghast and screwing my nose up at my brilliantly better than theirs pen sitting delicately on my desk, wantonly even.....twirl uncomfortably in my super comfy chair a bit more, notice a phone on a shelf.
"Who's cell is that?" I ask my bosses P.A.
"I.T. Glenns, why?"
"The same I.T. Glenn who sent this picture?"
"Yes (snigger)."
"Right."
fast forward a few....
I.T. Glenn had, stuck under the windshield wiper of his car, an envelope with sequential photos of me doing my best wiggles thumbs up - with his phone, then bent over with in near my tight buns, then it falling down my undypants, then me doing my wiggles thumbs again in the toilet with said phone, then it on the same toilet seat, then with a replica dummy phone not exactly the same but close enough being dangled on string in the toilet. Sure there was a moments awkward silence and a bit of feet shuffling between me and my bosses 2IC being in a cubicle with a camera but we worked through that. alone. by ourselves. ALONE, without each other.
I got an email tonight, from I.T. Glenn.
:(
"I might have messed with the wrong person. kudos. Btw, that fancy-arsed spring water you drink, yes that one on your desk - don't."
:( :( :( :(
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:56:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:45:15 CDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Stop reading Ayn Rand, Thorny. She'll fuck with your head and make you a Republican.
My apologies if you are a Republican.
---------------------------------------
Hahahahahaha...I haven't read Rand in several years, I picked up Atlas Shrugged on a whim one day and plowed through it in about a month or so. Good for the entertainment value, anyways, even if her objectivist theorems are a bit odd.
As far as politics go, I don't affiliate myself with a political party. Last time I voted was for Nader in '04.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:56:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
All gays are paedophiles. It is written in stone. On the wall behind the bus shelter.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:49:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I'm not reading all that
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And I'm joking.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:45:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Stop reading Ayn Rand, Thorny. She'll fuck with your head and make you a Republican.
My apologies if you are a Republican.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:42:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:31:56 CDT (#)
Ranking: 2
QED mate. 'S cool, I mean a lot of people have this sort of view. Merlina does, you like Merlina right? There you go. Isn't a criticism, merely a statement of fact.
Most people are actually quite nice and compassionate.
-------------------------------
I concur on the latter point. Per the former - forgive myself for seeming a bit dim, I'm just not making the logical jump from A to B to QED that you have, and it's not that I perceive what you are saying as critical, but really rather am just interested in your psychological deductions/conclusions.
Que sera, sera. I value your input as an intelligent sentient being, as much as most anyone else on here, to help further my personal development and maturity. And who wouldn't want that?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:35:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ps, Shandy likes cat bums
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:31:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I don't believe my suspicious or emotionally closed just because I believe that people are inherently selfish."
--------------
QED mate. 'S cool, I mean a lot of people have this sort of view. Merlina does, you like Merlina right? There you go. Isn't a criticism, merely a statement of fact.
Most people are actually quite nice and compassionate.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:25:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:12:29 CDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Thorns is a capital example of the current system's product of a suspicious and emotionally closed adult.
---------------------
Please to explain your logical conclusion on that, Berty? I don't believe my suspicious or emotionally closed just because I believe that people are inherently selfish. Nor do I consider myself a product of a "system" - rather, I consider myself the product of the sum of my individual life experiences. And those experiences to date, by and large, point to self-motivated desires as the driving force behind behaviors. Myself included. Not to say that this couldn't change over time, as I continue to live out life and experience new relationships and events, of course.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Plus anyone who spanks it to that deserves a kick in the balls, not encouragement.
00000000
I agree, but my point is/was, if I had a point, that our attitude has been shaped by the history that has shaped our mores. Remember, it wasn't that long ago in our own history (with ironic reference to the "Puritans") that a girl of 12 or 14 was considered suitable for marriage.
Indeed, here in Arizona we have the ongoing ruckus over the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Now there's a fucker I'd like to kick in the balls. But I also realize that my attitude is a product of my "culture," whatever that is.
I think Shandy is just trying to explore the subject in a positivist manner...as a moral relativist. (Mental Masturbation). I really enjoy this kind of thought.
I just woke up.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:12:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Thorns is a capital example of the current system's product of a suspicious and emotionally closed adult.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:09:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's a tricky one, that's for sure. That's why it's such a fascinating topic. It's like a moral black hole in many ways, I mean pedo's are the way they are; like gay or straight people there's no changing them. The fact that we have essentially made it a crime for these people (who are, as Shandy has pointed out, quite a large minority) to fall in love seems a bit, well, unpalatable. Of course equally unpalatable is the idea of exposing vulnerable members of society to potential exploitation.
Sex is a fundamental part of life and it's important children be prepared for it. My primary concern regarding the sexualisation of children is that we do not prepare them emotionally for relationships. The current attitudes foster suspicion, doubt and uncertainty which I believe is a lot more damaging than protecting them from potential mistreatment, but then I was never mistreated myself so I am not very informed on this point.
After considering it all it appears that the only way forward is to say that pedo's are going to have to stay out in the cold for another generation or two and that we must focus on helping children gain a better understanding of human relationships so they'll be less fucked up when they're older. Then, hopefully, they'll be better placed to consider the issue.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-10-11 09:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe that the answer to your question lies within the same answer to the question of why children are still sold as slaves in Columbia, Rwanda, and other impoverished third world countries.
A: the inherent nature of humans as selfish, inward-focused beings.
People will always instinctively favor and act on whatever behaviors they deem as acceptable to satisfy their own individual cravings, regardless of what society at large or their tribe/community deems acceptable.
Poverty, war, and so-called "moral" issues of paedophilia and other related cognitive-behavioral disorders cannot be solved without first turning our inward focuses outward and placing others above ourselves.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:16:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
but i DO wonder: if a potential pedo had access to advice like: "don't worry, your feelings are perfetly normal, if you want, have a good wank with this kiddie swimwear catelogue" (as oppossed to being told by every molecule of society that he is an evil shameful freak who is sick sick sick)could this help to avert illegal behaviour?
------------
I doubt it. I mean the being told sometimes people have "bad" attractions is normal, might be good so they wouldn't obsess over it and want it more but I think it would be better to point them in the direction of "normal" porn. People can be trained to be turned on by certain stimuli, if they are encouraged to spank to kiddie swimwear, and ignore other stuff soon that is all they will like.
Plus anyone who spanks it to that deserves a kick in the balls, not encouragement.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:45:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
if you'd been born in greece during the birth of democracy, you would have been jumping smooth skinned young sodomites.
--------
smirks. wtf are you doing wasting your time here shandy..
and I threw all the baby help books out the minute I read they can't manipulate you before they're two.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:28:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:10:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
of course I might just be jumping to conclusions.
---
if you'd been born in greece during the birth of democracy, you would have been jumping smooth skinned young sodomites.
actually, an interesting read would be a history of child sex laws and customs through the ages.
there's not enough 'through the ages' stuff around, generally speaking
to change the topic, when i was involved in raising a baby all the fucking help books in the shops said much the same sort of things - ie the standard contemporary theories and practices in australia. what i really wanted was book showing how babies were raised by eskimos, by ancient peruvians, by spartans, by the kung bushmen, etc etc etc
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:16:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
'Cause the last thing the world needs are more ladies that associate sucking cock with unpleasentness - excellent point bertie
i interviewed a police constable in the sexual assualt unit and she said the same sort of thing you've mentioned: ie, with very youhng children they don't realise that something terrible has happened to them at all [because they actually haven't suffered any discomfit]
indoninja - how dare you question me! didn't you see someone comparing me with Copernicus! I am the saviour! The Chosen One!
You're quite right, i'm not earnestly tryign to rid the world of paedophilia - if i was i'd at least do some more research. i like exploring ideas, novel ideas that i make up myself.
but i DO wonder: if a potential pedo had access to advice like: "don't worry, your feelings are perfetly normal, if you want, have a good wank with this kiddie swimwear catelogue" (as oppossed to being told by every molecule of society that he is an evil shameful freak who is sick sick sick)could this help to avert illegal behaviour?
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:10:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
of course I might just be jumping to conclusions.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2007-10-11 08:07:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
okay fido I haven't read your post. I scrolled quickly, admired your higher-case usage and punctuation, shrugged and thought fuck shandy I read a really long post of his last week, then got all high and mighty on your arse.
Regardless of what you're trying to do here, be it playing devils advocate, having a wind-up because Satan's at work, Issac's at school and you've some time on your hands, or seriously debating old school idealogy, touching kids is wrong.
It's like blaming Iraq for 9 11, hitting people (men can be people too girls), shooting antelope on safari in phuzzys suud afrika or bears in Canada or deer in New Zealand to make you feel like more of a man, rape, forcing western styled democracy down a worlds-away throat, bigotry, shop-lifting.
Refusing to at the very *least* indulge debate on gun control because of some old-world constitution. Yes I realise I just argued for you - I *have* read some of the post, I'm a speed reader.
You can't debate something that is so fundamentally wrong though you pot-stirring weirdo, it ain't moot.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-10-11 07:28:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It does startle me that people don't learn more about pedophiles, seeing as how they hate & fear them so much. Y'know, know you enemy and all that.
Anyway, on the ol' internet is a bunch of stuff from various academic conferences and numerous police/judicial reports on folks who've been banged up on the charge of deviancy. Seems to indicate that most o' these folks are people who fell in love with kids. The whole torturing, sadistic, incest stuff only tends to occur in those sort of abusive family units where the kids are going to be fucked up whether or not they got semen stains on their underoos.
A lot of the material focuses on how it's important not to freak the kid out too much when getting evidence from them 'cause they pretty much love the abuser and generally protecting them from people who'll say "Oh you poor, damaged creature!". 'Cause the last thing the world needs are more ladies that associate sucking cock with unpleasentness.
I agree with you Shandy. The whole wacky business just seems to widespread not to look at in a calm way.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 07:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I actually enjoyed this post other than the pompous tone. If it was framed as exploring the issue, as opposed to work in the area of pedo's, I would have enjoyed it much more.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-10-11 07:13:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nowhere on this post did you address how the "war on pedophelia" is being fought wrong, or what you would do to fix it.
Weather or not people agree with your theorem doesn't matter. Weather they believe attraction to a "sexualized" underaged person is natural as long as they don't obsess and do nothing to hurt the person or if they think even having such thoughts makes them a monster and they ignore them. What matters is how people act.
If the war on pedophelia was limited to discussions on what children should be allowed to wear, you might have a point. However I think the stricter laws on travel to countries for that purpose, pressure put on govts where it was formerly ignored to end it, watchdog groups on the internet, laws on arrainging meeting on the internet, etc are the main tools. Your attempts to explore this subject are little more than mental masturbation, which I have no problem with, but don't pretend it is some great stride in the war against pedo's.
Submitted by Ballare (user info) at 2007-10-11 03:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-10-11 00:59:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what's the harm? kids need a dollar, and I need sex.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-10-11 00:25:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Little kids are great cause you can stake them to the side of their crib so they don't get crushed.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:58:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
im busy today, and im not reading a 25 page monstrosity if im not being marked on it or paid for it, but ill get back to you.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:39:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:06:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Alright, +2 for interesting content, but I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that this little gem played a part as well:
"I have seen footage of male monkeys going beserk with frustrated sexual desire when they are shown pics of ape cunt."
--
Is it just me, or would that not be a great name for a carbonated beverage?
Ape Cunt
Available in grape, lemon-lime, and tropical medley.
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:11:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Every sensible person knows that sex with children is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank God for midgets.
-----------
BWAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2007-10-10 23:06:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Alright, +2 for interesting content, but I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that this little gem played a part as well:
"I have seen footage of male monkeys going beserk with frustrated sexual desire when they are shown pics of ape cunt."
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:54:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
respek, i'm trying to draw a distinction between being an advocate for paedophilia and being an advocate for an approach to sexuality that lessons the damage currently being done by paedophiles.
and actually, i'm not an advocate for anything at all, because most of my time is spent watching sport on tv.
mind you, in theory i suppose there is no legal reason, in a democracy, that someone couldn't lobby for changes to paedophilia laws, just as you should be alloweed to lobby for a change to any laws
but then you get into things like inciting racial hatred etc, if for example you lobbied to make it legal to shoot black peope on sight.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:52:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bubba, I found this to be a thought-provoking essay.
+2
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:47:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thanks very much lungfish, i will investigate those at the library
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:46:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What a pile of shit. Lunger, stop being an asskisser. . . .
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:46:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Every sensible person knows that sex with children is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank God for midgets.
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:36:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Respek pretty much said what I don't have time to say! When the office dies down a little bit I can actually post something a little more relevant to the actual post.
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:29:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, the hell with it have a +2 for writing 3,131 words on Uber that I actually read until the very last fullstop.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:29:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:26:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Though I must say in todays society I would be careful how prominently you voice these sort of opinions.
------
Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Submitted by Respek (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:27:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thoughts on Why Uber kicks ass in response to Shandy's post:
I had the good fortune recently to hear a paedophile talk on the radio about his condition. Of course the Left wing (or Right wing, doesn't matter really) radio host made him out to be a horrible incantation of the devil, so you really didnt get to see what the pedo saw. It just goes to show paedophilia is a taboo topic, and that it'll be handled with the same stern hand used to butt-search Muslims at the airport.
The fact is by posting stuff like this, you become an advocate of paedophilia in the public eye, whether or not you actually intended to be one. And as an advocate of paedophilia, you become an incantation of the devil (in the public eye mind you, not on Uber). And as an incantation of the devil, your point becomes meaningless. So therefore, by posting things like this, you paradoxically discredit yourself as an ubiquitous observer of paedophilia, and in effect, become culturally synonymous with the "evil" paedophiles.
Consider the expositions of Copernicus. He proposed the world revolved around the sun, and not t'other way 'round. As a response he was shown the tools of torture, and was offered a choice: Either he comply with the beliefs of the society around him, or be tortured to death. Of course, no non-Braveheart human being would want to die for their beliefs, simply because they might be wrong. So Copernicus dropped out and waited.
I suggest you do the same thing. Publically, you WILL be scorned for your thoughts, because people are stupid en Masse. However, i'm glad that you brought this up here in the (hopefully) closed environment of Uber, because here is where people can discuss things without any serious repercussions. I want to say that I do agree with you on the topic, I don't think its right to fuck kids, but I do think its wrong to label them as evil just becaue we FEEL like its evil.
I think that society will augment itself within our lifetime, all because people like you talk about things like this and get people to think, as apposed to just leaving them to act off of whims, emotions, or religion.
And that leads me to my final point: Why Uber kicks ass. Here on Uber we can talk about shit like this and not feel like we're crazy, or horrible people. For all it's horribleness, Uber serves the good purpose of giving us a platform in front of rational thinking, and for the most part, normal people to express serious ideas. This could very well lead to big changes when all the current leaders die, and im excited for that day.
Also boobs. Boobs are here too.
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:26:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hmm...I'm not going to rate this - I don't know why. Though, this is actually the most thought provoking post I have read whilst my time on Uber. Though I must say in todays society I would be careful how prominently you voice these sort of opinions.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:16:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Check out:
"The Twelve Caesars" (Partisan Review, Summer 1965)
"Sex and the Law" (Partisan Review, Summer 1965)
"Sex is Politics" (Playboy, January 1979)
"Pornography" (The New Your Review of Books, 31 March 1966)
"Doc Reuben" (The New Your Review of Books, 4 January 1970)
"Pink Triangle and Yellow Star" (The Nation, 28 October 1991)
Well shit, I was just trying to track down the name of one particular essay I couldn't remember and found this:
Gore Vidal: Sexually Speaking: Collected Sex Writings (Cleis Press). You can get it on Amazon. Jesus.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:08:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:46:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And my friend is going on "insight" and getting $50 an hour. How about that!?
---
if only i could overcome this fear of public speaking, i'm sure i would be in great demand too on such programs
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 22:06:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Fatterrific (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:45:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This could have probably been edited down to less than half the size without really losing anything.
---
true, but think of the tragic loss of my peerless prose and charming atmospherics
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:46:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And my friend is going on "insight" and getting $50 an hour. How about that!?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:45:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jeanneee - catch me saturday
Submitted by Fatterrific (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:45:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This could have probably been edited down to less than half the size without really losing anything.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:45:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll get some for you after I finish my ramen. No cum necessary.
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:43:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:43:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:40:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
On a more serious note, something I also hate doing here, I understand what your saying, and only disagree with some of your talking points (but not necessarily your central tenets).
The strictures guiding our attitudes and (hopefully) behaviors are clearly the result of historical accident. Else, why would what is considered deviant sex in one culture be perfectly okay in another, when we're all basically the same, genetically? The only absolute is some basic need (such as the need for sexual gratification, intimacy, or some such).
Gore Vidal writes quite a lot on the subject. I recommend you check out some of his writings, if you haven't already, as this clearly is a subject of interest to you. Let me know if you want some references. I've got nearly every essay he ever published.
Good essay.
---
does he really??
i would love some references please - i will gladly supply a Cup of Cum for such material
interesing point re historical accident - i've always been interested in those social variations, but never made that connection with the hisotrical accident theory before
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The phrase "Lojope tear" just got you a +2 and that's as far as i've read.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:42:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I stand corrected. Please forgive the impertinence.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:41:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not drunk. It's Wednesday.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:40:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
don't forget, there's a jug of jism up for grabs if anyone can find reports on the corporate paedophilia court case
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:40:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
On a more serious note, something I also hate doing here, I understand what your saying, and only disagree with some of your talking points (but not necessarily your central tenets).
The strictures guiding our attitudes and (hopefully) behaviors are clearly the result of historical accident. Else, why would what is considered deviant sex in one culture be perfectly okay in another, when we're all basically the same, genetically? The only absolute is some basic need (such as the need for sexual gratification, intimacy, or some such).
Gore Vidal writes quite a lot on the subject. I recommend you check out some of his writings, if you haven't already, as this clearly is a subject of interest to you. Let me know if you want some references. I've got nearly every essay he ever published.
Good essay.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:38:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ORLY? How drunk are you right now?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:31:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sometimes, Jeanneee turns me on.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:30:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
beer-soaked fish humper below
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:29:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sometimes, buses turn me on.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:27:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bestialist!
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:25:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
tl;dr
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-10-10 21:25:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Why don't you make like a banana, and SHIT."
-- Tourette's Guy