 |
Intelligent Debate @ Debate Unlimited
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
 Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Cale Tucker wrote: | | Friendly advice here, falling back on "familial" examples and then referring to them as "romantic" is not going to bolster most people's opinions of the relationships you discuss. Mostp people would view an uncle being romantic with a niece FAR worse than a family friend being romantic with a family member. |
Yeah, I'm not too good at explaining things when some people are half listening because then I start half explaining.
Bottom line: I wanted to be with the girl, and she wanted to be with me. In whatever capacity she could do that as a young girl, and whatever capacity I could do it as an adult, that's the way it was. Regardless of whether anyone understands how such a thing can occur, the fact remains that it did. In fact, I contacted her the other day to see if she would join us here to give her side of the story. She declined, seeing no need to make a big deal out of it, and even wondering why I'm even bringing it up in the first place. According to her she has no bad memories or thoughts of what we had together, and still wouldn't mind picking up where we left off. But she's 14 now and has a 15yo boyfriend. I won't get between them like that. But if things were different...
Was my relationship with her malignant? I believe not, and I don't believe it will have future negative repercussions. We got lucky.
Are such relationships in general malignant? Impossible to say. Every individual is different in their makeup.
Are such relationships benign? ... same answer.
| Raskolnikov wrote: | | And I must admit I'm using this thread a bit to clear things up for myself. |
This thread and the others have served to be educational for myself, too. Kasira made me stop and look in the mirror a couple times, as did some others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 17795
Location: The Moral High Ground
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [Admin: Posts from this user have been removed.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no answer for that, and my own assumptions are that I don't know if those girls would feel compelled to come forward about something that has no point to come forward about without being directly asked to do so. A truly abused girl who felt abused and wronged would (hopefully) someday come out and get her abuser put away; and that does happen. The non-abused girl has no concerns because 1) she's not in the social spotlight like paedos and molesters are, and 2) if she's feeling no ill effects from the relationship, there's no issue to be publicised.
Paedophiles are vocal about it because they want to be known for what they really are, and want others to know that such relationships do happen, and do not end up in abuse (actual abuse, not implied or theoretical).
Again, that's just my opnion of why we don't hear from the girls. Maybe there's a study or some other documentation that Cale knows of that really explains it. I'm not an academic paedo who researches all these studies and papers and case-law and all that. I just live my life and report what I see and experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Martin,
I can speak for the specific feelings of the former boys in these relationships.
First, what is the appropriate forum to bring this up in? I have seen such accounts on a limited basis in online forums, but they are quickly dismissed as hoax. I know of several pedophile forums, most notably those such as http://www.boylover.net and http://www.boychat.org where former young partners have come to share their stories, however; they have no real incentive to stick around and chat and usually post once or twice at the request of their former older friend and then leave. Many are careful to discuss sexual matters in terms of "if sex may or may not have taken place" because frankly, the police monitor those boards on a regular basis and will pounce on the first scrap of evidence that would be sufficient for them to get a search warrant and sieze the servers in the name of a criminal investigation.
Plus, the general public does not WANT to hear it, even if it were available. I already mentioned Judith Levine's book, Harmful to Minors: the perils of protecting children from sex. Here is an exerpt from an article written BEFORE the contents of the book were evne published. This was the reaction to one thing... a brief synopsis that suggests the "pedophile panic" is unwarranted and a chapter index showing that one chapter is called "the pedophile panic". At this point, none of the "critics" of the book had ever laid eyes on the text.
| Quote: | A month before its publication, a provocative book about children’s sexuality is being denounced by conservatives as evil and prompting angry calls for action against the University of Minnesota Press.
“What’s happening to me is a perfect example of the very hysteria that my book is about,” New York-based author Judith Levine said in an interview.
Levine has been working on the book since the mid-1990s. With the recent sex scandals involving clergy and young people, she admits it’s a particularly challenging time to make her case that American youth are entitled to safe, satisfying sex lives.
Publisher after publisher rejected the book — one called its contents “radioactive” — before the University of Minnesota Press accepted the manuscript a year ago.
Writes Levine in her introduction, “In America today, it is nearly impossible to publish a book that says children and teen-agers can have sexual pleasure and be safe too.”
From the outset, officials at the Minnesota press knew the book would be controversial; they had the manuscript reviewed by five academic experts, instead of the usual two, to be sure its contentions were based on sound research.
Still, the uproar exceeded expectations after the book was condemned on conservative Internet sites. |
(emphasis added)
She didn't even go so far as to "promote' the idea, but merely to suggest that perhaps we overreact a little bit and this is the public reaction... can you IMAGINE the reaction if someone came out in SUPPORT with a widely read manuscript?
| Quote: |
Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute, is urging the University of Minnesota to fire the university press officials who decided to publish the book.
“The action is so grievous and so irresponsible that I felt they relinquished their right to academic freedom,” said Knight, who has described the book as “very evil.” |
But...
Speaking personally, I do know of one highly private group that meets in the Boston area, where 6 or 8 former "young friends" of professed pedophiles meet. I have met one of them and he says that the "boys" have all been friends since they were teens, having been introduced to eachother by these men, who were all friends themselves.
The former-boy I spoke to refused to discuss any detail regarding his sex life as a teen except to say that they are happy now, never felt abused or manipulated and regard this group (some people might use the word "ring") of pedophiles to be a model for the proverbial "guardian angels". At least one of them was adopted by a pedophile around the age of 10 and today, he is happily married and has several children of his own who call this pedophile "grandpa".
The boy I spoke with expressed passive desire to share his story, but fears that his wife would look on it poorly as she speaks out loudly about abuse (and is an avid fan of Nancy Grace, which seems to be a coorilation.. heh) and fears if there were ever difficulties in their marraige, she would use it (probably successfully) as a way of blocking his changes at getting any custody of his children. In addition, he fears if he were to garner media attention, he would lose his job as an EMT at the only hospital in the area and be unable to find new work. Rightfully or not, he will probably never share his story except with a select few friends. I could put you in touch with him via anonymous email, but I hardly figure that would allay your concerns.
Of course, all of my anicdotes are useless coming from an online forum. I know this former-boy said he has posted several times on pedophile chat boards, encouraging people to be discerning and cautious, but that with sufficient care and a degree of self-control, they don't have to live a life of fear and shame, but I doubt he intends to do more.
But... I know of an author that was attempting to put together a book containing the stories of former 'loved boys' involved in sexual relationships; however, his lawyer has advised him that with the statute of limitations almost completely eliminated in most jurisdictions for such 'crimes', that he may be putting himself and the publishing company at risk for massive lawsuits if he publishes a book claiming to be full of true stories of felony activities, which appears to advocate more such 'crimes'.
Frankly, I cannot recall any adult males who express this opinion openly today, though one only has to find a gay bookstore to read the many hundreds (or thousands) of "coming of age" stories that describe their first sexual experience at the age of 11-14, often with an adult, in glowing terms. However, the facts that I have uncovered tell me that only rarely do boys who are sexual with adults during early adolescence end up becoming gay and that number isn't significantly higher than the general population (less than 10%)... at least out of the few stories I know of.
Statistically speaking, there is some evidence to show this non-coorilation.
From Rind et. al. 1999 published in the APA Bulliten:
| Quote: | | Our meta-analyses of the relations between CSA and adjustment in both the national samples and college samples showed that CSA is statistically significantly related to poorer adjustment by only a tiny margin. For boys, CSA accounted for only one half of one percent of the adjustment variability, while for girls, it accounted for only 1%. These small effect sizes are inconsistent with the assumption that CSA produces intense effects. The examination of self-perceived effects and reactions contradict the assumption that CSA has pervasive effects. Analyses of self-perceived effects, as well as the role that family environment plays in the CSA-adjustment relationship, do not support the assumption that CSA typically causes harm. There is support from these data that CSA causes harm in specific cases, but the evidence speaks against harm resulting in the typical case. |
Speaking anicodotally, let me provide a few more examples.
This is from Dan Savage, author of the internationally syndicated advice column Savage Love speaking of the Rind et al. report:
| Quote: | | Why is this controversial? Speaking as a survivor of "Child Sexual Abuse" at fourteen with a twenty-two-year-old woman; sex at fifteen with a thirty-year-old man--I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory. It's absurd to think that what I did at fourteen would be considered ``child sexual abuse,'' or lumped together by lazy researchers with the violent incestuous rape of a five-year-old girl. |
A study http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tindall.htm by Tindall in 1979 puts together the anicdotal reports of 200 former "abuse victims". Here is one example (obviously, I can't reproduce the whole book or discussions following) this story most succinctly lays out the "template" of most of the relationships I have come to hear about: (note, Denver is a pseudonym adopted by the author)
| Quote: | Denver was referred at age 13 for taking part in vandalism directed toward a junior high school followed by running away from home. He was of high average ability and reading at grade level. He was quite interested in machinery and mechanics.
Denver reached pubescence by age 14. He was introduced to mutual masturbation at age 13 by peers, some of whom were more developed sexually. During his 14th year he began spending his spare time around a service station, where he became acquainted with a master mechanic who was then in his early 40s, married and childless. The mechanic and Denver began engaging in recreational pursuits together. On a fishing trip, during a break on an island, they began talking about sex, which led to Denver's being fellated by the mechanic and to masturbation of the mechanic by Denver. For the next 5 years mutual fellatio occurred two or three times per week. Sexual activity with the mechanic ceased at about age 19, but a close relationship continued to exist until the mechanic's death.
Denver is now 44 years of age. He was married and fathered two sons. He and his first wife were divorced and he raised his boys. One boy went to college and the other boy to a technical school. Denver remarried and has been a valued mechanic with the same company for 20 years. He has a supervisory position and believes that his relationship with his mechanic friend helped him reach his goals. He says he would have approved a similar relationship for either of his sons, had he become aware of such a situation. He reports no desire to have sex with males since approximately age 20. |
The only females I can point to who express their positive opinion regarding adult/minor sex are Camillo Paglio and Judith Levine, both of whom are prominent liberal political writers who have shared their story of such a positive youth sexual experience. I am sure there are others... what the prevalence of positive outcomes to negative outcomes, I am not sure of; however, research by Rind et. al. (1999) indicates that positive or neutral outcomes (both in terms of psychosocial adjustment measured by the MMPI test and self-report of their feelings about the event) outnumber negative reactions 2:1 in males, and this is even INCLUDING forcible, violent and incenstuous relationships, which are statistically and in terms of self reports almost always viewed negatively... leaving much more than 2:1 "neutral or positive" result in the remainder of cases that were not forced, violent or incestuous.
Judith Levin says this about her experience:
| Quote: |
"When I was a minor, I had sex with an adult," she said. "He was one of my first lovers. My heart was broken when he left me out of fear, but my heart was broken by a lot of boys, too. I'd say on balance that it was a perfectly good experience." |
Levine goes on to say:
| Quote: |
"Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors. In fact, America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from far less than intended. Instead, often it is harming them."
|
I have to go for now, work calls...
Sorry I couldn't come up with more, I only had a few minutes to research it.
Cale[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Raskolnikov"] | Cale Tucker wrote: |
I'm more concerned however about what Kasira has been talking about earlier. Inevitably, our opinions change or our memories can get blurred or whatever else can happen and it may make us feel bad about what happened back then. At that point, there is nothing to do of course. But knowing these things happen, shouldn't we do what we can to avoid having remorse? Especially when we're talking about kids? |
Well, I feel bad about not pursuing my dream of playing competitive soccer, personally, but that was a choice I made at the age of 13 and that is how life is. There are always regrets. Frankly, the choice ofo whether or not to have your penis (or clitoris) stroked by a friend is not as pivotal to your future as what school you attend, what activities you focus on and what sort of effort you put into your schoolwork, all of which are basically decided by oneself probably around the age of 10-14.
Then again, if you think that sex is somehow a "magical" and "spiritual" experience then, perhaps I can understand some hesitation. But I don't believe the government should mandate that we all, too, view sex as transcendental and earth-shattering.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I do not proclaim to have insight into islander, here, or his romance with a young girl. I have no context on which to judge the relationship (nor do you, directly), but as I said before, I have seen, with my own eyes, a dozen or more successful such relationships with boys (even up to and including sex) that seems, even now, 20 years later, to have resulted in a very obvious net-positive outcome for everyone involved. |
Are you talking about adolescents or kids? |
Most of the sexual relationships I speak of were initiated between the ages of 9-13 and continued for several years. Again, the ones I speak of were all years ago. I don't know if this trend has changed because of increased paranoia or changes in attitudes and behaviors of parents.
I know only second or third hand of relationships initiated younger than 8 or 9 and they tend to have much darker and more sordid details. I know of very many relationships initiated at the age of 14 or above, but they are spoken of openly in gay circles and many thousands of positive examples can be found in "coming of age" stories, especially in "gay" bookstores.
| Quote: | | I only know about friendship. And friendship can come in various degrees, from simple comradeship, to the more intimate variants where you share secrets to even sex. |
With a more fluid understanding of friendship, then perhaps you can understand the relationships on some level.
I'm still not claiming they are all beneficial and benign, but that they can be under the right circumstances and it is a travesty to claim that it is impossible to benefit from them and that they are all invariable destructive.
Cale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some more writings from academic journals (Tormovitch 1999): (FYI, CSA stands for "child sexual abuse" as typically defined by the psychological community)
| Quote: | A few additional comments about causality are also in order. The finding that family environment was 10 times more important than CSA in accounting for current adjustment in the college population is consistent with the results of several recent studies using subjects from noncollege populations. In one study conducted by Eckenrode and his colleagues published in 1993, the researchers categorized children and adolescents obtained from a large representative community sample in a small-sized city in New York state into six groups: not abused, CSA, physical abuse, neglect, CSA and neglect, and physical abuse and neglect. They found that CSA children and adolescents performed as well in school as nonabused controls in all areas measured, including standardized test scores, school performance, and behavior. Neglect and physical abuse, on the other hand, were associated with poorer performance and more behavior problems.
In another study conducted by Ney and his colleagues published in 1994, the researchers separated their mostly clinical sample of children and adolescents into categories of CSA, physical abuse, physical neglect, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, and combinations of these. They found that the combination of abuse that correlated most strongly with adjustment problems was physical abuse, physical neglect, and verbal abuse. In the top 10 worst combinations, verbal abuse appeared seven times, physical neglect six times, physical abuse and emotional neglect five times each, whereas CSA appeared only once and in a virtually insignificant amount.
These results jive well with the conclusion of Wiesniewski that we presented before. Again, she studied 32 samples of college students across the U.S. chosen to be representative of the U.S. college population. She concluded that, when taking other forms of abuse into account, CSA was not related to adjustment problems. It was instead, she noted, maltreatment such as physical abuse that directly impacted on future adjustment. |
More statistical muttering, not that this is going to affect anyone's opinion when it is already made up.
Cale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markaba 2.0
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 9980
Location: The Goldilocks Zone
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: B9? Bingo! |
|
|
Yes, in answer to islander's query, I simply cannot see how such a relationship isn't benign; in fact, I'd argue that it's actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I've already mentioned it twice.) Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that--refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, "Well, you're on your own!" That's what society does to children in the name of protecting them.
I wanted to address two issues brought up in this thread, one being the question of what we peds get out of nonsexual relationships and the other being the Martin's question of what romance is for. I answer the first by saying, we get EVERYTHING out of such a relationship. Children just make us feel good all-round--we relate to them, we find them attractive and fun to be with, and we love to feed their curiosity. And here's an interesting side-point--alot of people feel that peds go into jobs like teaching and coaching to "gain access" to children, but I think many of us are just naturally inclined towards a love of teaching and helping children. I was once asked by a friend who taught elementary school to come in and teach art once every other week for awhile, as their budget had been cut. It was strictly volunteer, but I loved it and still cherish those memories to this day, plus all of the other occasions when I have been able to help a child learn something new and exciting about the world, or just helping them succeed.
Anyway, sex isn't necessary for us to have a fulfilling relationship with a child, but it is certainly a major component of who we are, and so there is a void there for many of us. I believe that children need us as much as we need them, that there is an evolutionary aspect to our orientation that has yet to be determined (though I have several theories.) My point is that, if there weren't far more to our attraction than simply a wish to get our rocks off, we would've been long gone before now, don't you think? I mean that on several levels--realistically, evolutionarily, etc. We would not continue to come into being if we did not serve some purpose in society, and also, if there weren't some deep, possibly innate drive in us to seek out the comapny of children when sex is an impossibility, we would've given up on companionship with children long ago. Obviously, we do get quite a bit from such relationships, even sans sexual gratification.
Now, as for Martin's question, I suggest that, while his description of romance is accurate when applying to adults (at least non-peds), it is NOT the reason children are interested in romance. To a child, everything is preperation for adulthood--society (and evolution) gears it that way. So, go back to my swimming metaphor and you'll see how that, in fact, answers the question of what romance is to both the child and the ped. For the child it is the process of hands-on learning and preparation for an adult relationship, a means of learning a highly valuable (perhaps the MOST valuable) life skill--learning to cultivate a mate and keep him/her. For the ped, I supply that this IS our evolutionary purpose, or one of them: to provide children with a "bridge" between the child world and the adult world, to allow them to practice relationships and sex safely and on their level and terms. Children do seem to know intuitively when one of us is around, and all that pint-up curiosity about sex and adult bodies and romance manifests when we're around, sometimes rather quickly and persistently (as was the case with J.)
I also wanted to add one thing: I understand the protective instinct that emerges in parents. I feel it myself--for all children! And society has so villified us peds that the natural inclination is for parents to feel defensive and aggressive toward us. I want point out a couple of things here, because these points can never be stressed enough: First, parents themselves tend to be far more dangerous to their children than we will ever be, not just in terms of genuine sexual abuse but in many other ways, and second, those of you get aggressive and start beating your chests as soon as we come on the scene are not protecting your children. The more hysterical you get, the more entrench the taboo, and the more you entrench the taboo, the more you puch any sexual inclinations toward children underground. I'm sure you're all intelligent enough to realize that that never works for long--people need pressure valves, and if you take ours away and stigmatize us, many peds so no reason not to act on their attractions and go out in a blaze of glory, so to speak, rather than spend their greater lives in loneliness, misery and self-hatred. Likewise, you only make US defensive as well.
I have already made up my mind that I am prepared to die for the truth and the right to exist openly and with dignity. Anyone who wishes to come after me can do so, but I will gladly take out as many motherfuckers who have vigilantism on their minds as I can before I go. If you don't believe me, just try it. I will never intentionally hurt a child--in fact, I actively oppose many things that DO harm children in my view, including spanking. Want to talk about hypocrisy! I'll believe that the majority of parents really want to protect children from harm when they abolish this horrible practice! I once nearly got into a fist fight with someone who was about to spank his 3-year-old granddaughter because she didn't put her crayons fast enough for him. I DO believe in protecting children from real harm.
--Todd E. Nickerson (a.k.a. Markaba) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andkon
Available for hot chicks
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 26370
Location: Turn around
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: Re: B9? Bingo! |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: | | Yes, in answer to islander's query, I simply cannot see how such a relationship isn't benign; in fact, I'd argue that it's actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I've already mentioned it twice.) Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that--refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, "Well, you're on your own!" That's what society does to children in the name of protecting them. |
Yes, what you say about throwing kids off the deep end is probably true, but isn't there a conflict of interest here? I mean it's not like you're an unconcerned citizen vouching for defenseless children, you'd be the #1 beneficiary. Let's not forget that.
| Markaba wrote: | | It was strictly volunteer, but I loved it and still cherish those memories to this day, plus all of the other occasions when I have been able to help a child learn something new and exciting about the world, or just helping them succeed. |
But you also want to have sex with them, right? Even if you don't do it, you still want though, right?
| Markaba wrote: | | We would not continue to come into being if we did not serve some purpose in society, and also, if there weren't some deep, possibly innate drive in us to seek out the comapny of children when sex is an impossibility, we would've given up on companionship with children long ago. |
Evolution is a killing machine that produces rejects mostly. Consider species where thousands of eggs have to be laid when only one or two organisms survive into adulthood. That's not to say that makes you a bad person, that's just to say you're evolutionary engels is a bit off marx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: Re: B9? Bingo! |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: | | Yes, in answer to islander's query, I simply cannot see how such a relationship isn't benign; in fact, I'd argue that it's actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I've already mentioned it twice.) |
Frankly, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is dangerous to say that it is ALWAYS malignant, but it is equally dangerous to say it is ALWAYS benign. Frankly, when you use your swimming pool analogy, I can picture a helpful swim coach easing a young kid into the water, but when the swim coach gets pleasure out of watching the children be in the water, I can also picture some swim coaches running around tossing as many young children into the deep end of the pool as possible before someone stops him. This is the exact opposite extreme and one we must be careful of.
Age of consent laws are not baseless. They may be overly strict in cases, misguided and wrongheaded in some aspects of how they are handled, but they are based on valid and genuine concerns about the ability of children to protest and protect themselves. To deny this is to scuttle your own argument before you begin because this fact is painfully obvious to anyone who has spent time with young children. I can tell a young child that she has to take his pants down and sit still if she wants to be a "real lady" and she may do it, even if she feels very strongly that she doesn't want to. To toe the line even more, I could do something to him and find he shows nothing but passive non-resistance (he lies there and does nothing) because he has been taught to do that when an adult tells him what to do. He is not dissenting, so you would have no concrete way of knowing his displeasure.
There are important issues to consider. I think the first step is to get people to accept that some such relationships are carefully considered, carefully undertaken and there is a specific and easily observable set of circumstances in which the relationship can be profoundly positive.
There was a study in 1981, I believe, that laid out some guidelines for studying what situations are harmful and what situations are not, but the
| Quote: | | Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that--refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, "Well, you're on your own!" That's what society does to children in the name of protecting them. |
There is a balance between depriving them and then tossing them in the deep end at 18... and tossing them in the deep end at age 6. Keep that in mind. Both are undesirable and the latter must be guarded against.
| Quote: | | I believe that children need us as much as we need them, that there is an evolutionary aspect to our orientation that has yet to be determined (though I have several theories.) |
Careful, evolution is crude and full of dead ends. Just because humans have bad eyesight or are prone to cancer doesn't mean evolution made it that way. Also, traditional views of evolution select only for individual level traits that increase the likelyhood of reproduction. Since a person mentoring a child but not having his own children would result in genes that are not passed on to future generations, it is awfully hard to imply that "evolution made it that way". Now, there is some concept of societal evolution. For example, societies where children are mentored are more likely to succeed, but frankly, I don't know if our species has seen a sufficient number of cultural dead-ends yet and then the question remains, even if there were, would mentoring a child ultimate lead that culture to be the "stronger" rather than the weaker culture.
One might argue ancient Greece as an example of this, because their military strength was deeply rooted in the tradition of pederasty, where young boys mentored with older men. In a society of mostly soldiers, this means that the youth are given a strong model of physical prowess to which they should aspire. Similar was the case in Imperial Japan's feudal system, where Samurai were expected to have a young apprentice and teach him in the ways of life, including sex.
Outside of ancient Greece and Imperial Japan, I'm not sure I see the coorilation in other cultures. They both strongly influenced modern culture, but still, it's hard to see how that is evolutaionarly related to your own genetic or phsychological makeup and attraction to children.
| Quote: | | We would not continue to come into being if we did not serve some purpose in society, and also, if there weren't some deep, possibly innate drive in us to seek out the comapny of children when sex is an impossibility, we would've given up on companionship with children long ago. Obviously, we do get quite a bit from such relationships, even sans sexual gratification. |
This is a no sequitor argument. It does not follow from "obviously we serve some purpose" to "therefore, we get a lot from such relationships" and neither of these things is provable or follows from previously mentioned points. While I agree with your viewpoint that pedophiles can have a positive impact on the children they associate with if they are prudent and contientious, your reasoning is poor.
| andkon wrote: |
Yes, what you say about throwing kids off the deep end is probably true, but isn't there a conflict of interest here? I mean it's not like you're an unconcerned citizen vouching for defenseless children, you'd be the #1 beneficiary. Let's not forget that. |
Markaba, It is important not to avoid this point. If you dodge this, it makes you appear shifty and lacking transparency, which would be important in such an endeavour.
[quote[But you also want to have sex with them, right? Even if you don't do it, you still want though, right?[/quote]
Again, simply flailing around and saying "I don't ACTUALLY have sex with kids" doesn't help your cause. You ARE attracted to kids, so the only way to actually discuss it is to begin with the honest admission that you are excited, sexually, by interacting with them. Even if this is not a state of tumescent arousal, it is a state of heightend sensory excitement associated with sexual tension. In my opinion, the only way to achive your purpose is to state:
"Yes, I am sexually attracted to youth, but even if I were to engage in sexual conduct with them, it should not be a grave concern."
Any less than that and you are fighting a losing battle of saying "Yes, I'm a pedophile, but no, I don't plan to ever do anything about it."
While people view your fantasies as inherently dispicable and damaging, it doesn't matter how much you convince them you are as pure as the driven snow, they will villify you.
Just my opinion.
Cale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjb
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Melb Aus
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Islander46,
Question though it is not related directly to the topic. I have an understanding of where you are coming from in terms of the relationships you develop with young girls but I am still puzzled by the morality of it. You are a married man as am I. If I were to have the same type of romantic feelings towards a woman of say 25 how do you think this would be viewed? If I were to call her on the odd occasion, give her an occasional present, hold hands with her at times and sit together on the couch watching DVD’s. No sex but still a romantic and loving connection. Am I cheating on my wife? At what point does it become cheating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markaba 2.0
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 9980
Location: The Goldilocks Zone
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:26 am Post subject: andy and cale |
|
|
andkon:
| Quote: | | Yes, what you say about throwing kids off the deep end is probably true, but isn't there a conflict of interest here? I mean it's not like you're an unconcerned citizen vouching for defenseless children, you'd be the #1 beneficiary. Let's not forget that. |
I've never denied that I am biased, but then again, so are parents, and the vast majority of researchers are also parents. So I reckon that brings us to square one.
| Quote: | | But you also want to have sex with them, right? Even if you don't do it, you still want though, right? |
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and not with every little girl I come across (no jokes please) who is in my AoA (age [range] of attraction). It's as silly for non-peds to assume that I am attracted to every LG I see as it would be for me to assume that heteros are attracted to every person of the opposite gender and gays is attracted to every person of the same gender, at all times, every day, and never have anything in mind when they're around them except bedding them. Perhaps some of us are a bit more desperate, on average, than straights or gays, but you must admit that there's a good reason for that--we're the only orientation left that cannot legitimately express our attraction with the person we love, or even vicariously through photos. Beastiality may be illegal, but is it really enforced, and how is an animal going to complain (and to whom) if they ARE being hurt/abused? So yeah, I get aroused when I'm around hot little girls. No question.
| Quote: | | Evolution is a killing machine that produces rejects mostly. Consider species where thousands of eggs have to be laid when only one or two organisms survive into adulthood. That's not to say that makes you a bad person, that's just to say you're evolutionary engels is a bit off marx. |
LOL, nice pun. I would agree, but I DO believe there is an evolutionary big picture that we just haven't yet come to understand, and that it's expression comes closest to being understood through certain philosophies like Taoism, and a few Western ideas like Kant's Categorical Imperative. The painter Henri Matisse once said, "What I dream of is an art of balance." In a sense, so does nature, I believe.
Cale Tucker:
| Quote: | | Frankly, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is dangerous to say that it is ALWAYS malignant, but it is equally dangerous to say it is ALWAYS benign. Frankly, when you use your swimming pool analogy, I can picture a helpful swim coach easing a young kid into the water, but when the swim coach gets pleasure out of watching the children be in the water, I can also picture some swim coaches running around tossing as many young children into the deep end of the pool as possible before someone stops him. This is the exact opposite extreme and one we must be careful of |
A bit of a straw man, sir. I never said it is ALWAYS benign, but in general I think it is, or rather would be if society didn't have the shaming mechanisms in place to be sure that children WILL be traumatized later in life (whether they were at the time or not.) And, I believe that, should your example happen, that that person WOULD be a menace. There should be plenty of failsafes in place for just such instances--it is no great difficulty to teach children how and where they should complain if they are being made to do something they don't want to do, taken in directions they don't want to go, especially against their will.
In a sex-positive culture, sexuality would be discussed openly and would include children in the discussion. Thus, when your mad swim coach tossed tykes into the deep end willy-nilly they'd be able and willing to shout "Help!" and there'd be lifegaurds on hand to rescue them. Situations of abuse, especially when it is ongoing, is actually fostered and protected in our current society--it effectively silences children, because they are smart enough to know that sex isn't spoken of in the open, if at all. But in sex-positive culture, they would have a voice and would openly discuss everything, and if any abuse WERE occurring it would likely be discovered very quickly and stopped, as opposed to today's environment, where it can remain undetected for years (especially in the case of incest, where parents are all-powerful.) With all due respect, please do not take me for an idiot.
| Quote: | | Age of consent laws are not baseless. They may be overly strict in cases, misguided and wrongheaded in some aspects of how they are handled, but they are based on valid and genuine concerns about the ability of children to protest and protect themselves. |
I never said they were. However, I think they (or certain parts of them) have outlived their usefulness for the most part. I do believe that penetration--whether oral, anal or genital--should remain off-limits for prepubescent children. I think it's rather obvious that their bodies simply aren't ready for it. When I speak of sex/romance with children, let it be known hereafter that I am not talking about these things. What I mean is sex/romance play, which encompasses everything else--kissing, touching, massaging, etc., and the courtship rituals like holding hands and going out in public together.
| Quote: | | To deny this is to scuttle your own argument before you begin because this fact is painfully obvious to anyone who has spent time with young children. I can tell a young child that she has to take his pants down and sit still if she wants to be a "real lady" and she may do it, even if she feels very strongly that she doesn't want to. |
Again, you missed the point, which is that I never MADE a point one way or the other in the post above. You assumed much in your interpretation of my meaning that was not there, but all of the points I am making to you now can be found in the "roving eye: pedophiles" thread in some form or other.
| Quote: | | To toe the line even more, I could do something to him and find he shows nothing but passive non-resistance (he lies there and does nothing) because he has been taught to do that when an adult tells him what to do. He is not dissenting, so you would have no concrete way of knowing his displeasure. |
Which is why I have stressed time and again that I believe it is imperitave to allow the CHILD to take the lead. In my situation with J, she "came onto" me (in her naive but rather aggressive way) rather obviously and for a prolongued amount of time--I mean over days. She obviously had given her desire alot of thought, and it was both to be touched by me and to touch me in return. She even plotted to trick me--more than once--into making it happen, though I, being 18 at the time, could see through her ruses fairly quickly. Now here is a situation where the child DESIRED to learn more about sex, and this would be no different than if she'd come to me and asked me to teach her to swim. I would oblige either one if society allowed it and didn't poison the waters, so to speak. And I would do it at her pace, working with her as much as she liked for as long as she liked. Now, would I get pleasure out of teaching her? Hell yes! In fact, I did teach a little cousin of mine to swim (not to mention read and write, at least in part) and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Does that make it wrong because it also benefits me?
| Quote: | | There are important issues to consider. I think the first step is to get people to accept that some such relationships are carefully considered, carefully undertaken and there is a specific and easily observable set of circumstances in which the relationship can be profoundly positive. |
I think the first step is laying everything on the table and being honest, and for my part I've done that. I don't even hide my real identity. I believe what I believe and I will not be intimidated by anyone.
| Quote: | | There is a balance between depriving them and then tossing them in the deep end at 18... and tossing them in the deep end at age 6. Keep that in mind. Both are undesirable and the latter must be guarded against. |
Indeed, and I just stated what the balance should be--let the child set his or her own agenda in learning this, and other valuable life skills.
| Quote: | | Careful, evolution is crude and full of dead ends. Just because humans have bad eyesight or are prone to cancer doesn't mean evolution made it that way. Also, traditional views of evolution select only for individual level traits that increase the likelyhood of reproduction. Since a person mentoring a child but not having his own children would result in genes that are not passed on to future generations, it is awfully hard to imply that "evolution made it that way". Now, there is some concept of societal evolution. For example, societies where children are mentored are more likely to succeed, but frankly, I don't know if our species has seen a sufficient number of cultural dead-ends yet and then the question remains, even if there were, would mentoring a child ultimate lead that culture to be the "stronger" rather than the weaker culture. |
I don't claim to be an expert on evolution or any other science; as I stated, these are my theories, or rather, hypotheses if we are to be scientifically accurate. I draw from a wide array of fields of study and knowledge sources: science, philosophy (Eastern and Western), art, psychology, and, ultimately, my own intuition. I believe I have a pretty good grasp on the big picture, even if it is rather skeletal at the moment. My concept of human evolution takes into account not simply natural selection but societal evolution, which I think is part of that big picture of which I speak. It isn't evolution in the pure scientific sense (though that is a part of it) but in the universal or holistic sense.
| Quote: | | This is a no sequitor argument. It does not follow from "obviously we serve some purpose" to "therefore, we get a lot from such relationships" and neither of these things is provable or follows from previously mentioned points. While I agree with your viewpoint that pedophiles can have a positive impact on the children they associate with if they are prudent and contientious, your reasoning is poor. |
It isn't a non sequitur--it was actually my attempt to make two points in one, with a little poetic irony thrown in. Admittedly it was badly executed; I should've made the points seperately. That said, I do not see a flaw in my reasoning.
| Quote: | | Markaba, It is important not to avoid this point. If you dodge this, it makes you appear shifty and lacking transparency, which would be important in such an endeavour. |
Well, if you had given me the opportunity to answer without jumping all over me before I even got the chance to respond . . . Why do that? I might assume it is YOU who has the ulterior motive. I might begin to think that you are trying to make me look like the unreasonable ped next to your coolly logical and wholely earnest ped. I often get the feeling when I check in at BC (yes, I DO recognize your nick from there--I try to make it a point to get to know what's going on on the blue side--can you say the same of the pink side?) that BLers see us GLers as the drooling, lust-crazed pervs the media portrays us as while the BLers are somehow above it all. I hope you are not among that number. I do respect BLers (I think Dylan's a great guy,) but it's clear many of them do not respect me in return.
| Quote: | | Again, simply flailing around and saying "I don't ACTUALLY have sex with kids" doesn't help your cause. You ARE attracted to kids, so the only way to actually discuss it is to begin with the honest admission that you are excited, sexually, by interacting with them. Even if this is not a state of tumescent arousal, it is a state of heightend sensory excitement associated with sexual tension. In my opinion, the only way to achive your purpose is to state: |
Your choice of words (e.g. "flailing around") is rather condescending. At any rate, I challenge you to find anywhere in my posts where I ever said I was not sexually aroused by children. I have always been up front about that right from the beginning. You keep attacking straw man after straw man, setting me up to look like I am the pedo equivalent of Bill Clinton being interrogated about the Lewinsky affair. Well sir, I know what the definition of "is" is, and frankly I find your condescension a little irritating.
| Quote: | "Yes, I am sexually attracted to youth, but even if I were to engage in sexual conduct with them, it should not be a grave concern."
Any less than that and you are fighting a losing battle of saying "Yes, I'm a pedophile, but no, I don't plan to ever do anything about it."
While people view your fantasies as inherently dispicable and damaging, it doesn't matter how much you convince them you are as pure as the driven snow, they will villify you.
Just my opinion. |
Once again, I've always maintained that, if we lived in a different, more sex-positive society and it were legal to do so, I WOULD engage in sex play with a child that I loved if she wanted it and initiated it. I will never deny that. As for my fantasies, I could care less what people think of what takes place inside my head, just as I could care less what goes on in other people's heads. They can maintain fantasies of killing and torturing me all they like.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OliverBendix
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 1675
Location: Lower Hutt, NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cjb wrote: | | No sex but still a romantic and loving connection. Am I cheating on my wife? At what point does it become cheating? |
In my marriage, that would be cheating and cause big trouble. That doesn't mean it would be cheating in Islander's: that's up to him and his wife. People can set up their own rules in their own marriages, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cjb wrote: | Islander46,
Question though it is not related directly to the topic. I have an understanding of where you are coming from in terms of the relationships you develop with young girls but I am still puzzled by the morality of it. You are a married man as am I. If I were to have the same type of romantic feelings towards a woman of say 25 how do you think this would be viewed? If I were to call her on the odd occasion, give her an occasional present, hold hands with her at times and sit together on the couch watching DVD’s. No sex but still a romantic and loving connection. Am I cheating on my wife? At what point does it become cheating? |
In the technical sense, giving to any other person what my wife should be getting from me could be viewed a cheating, yes. But I take care of all my wife's needs, physically and emotionally, so I'm not holding back anything from her that she deserves. So am I cheating? It's a morality call, really, and these days I think there are worse moral issues than the one I'm in. OliverBendix is on the right track, too. My wife knows about my orientation, and we've come to an understanding about any relationships I might have with girls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: andy and cale |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: |
A bit of a straw man, sir. I never said it is ALWAYS benign, but in general I think it is, or rather would be if society didn't have the shaming mechanisms in place to be sure that children WILL be traumatized later in life (whether they were at the time or not.) |
Not to quibble, but you said "I simply cannot see how such a relationship isn't benign". Substituting the negative modifier for the opposite adjective, it reads "I simply cannot see how such a relationship is malignant". I'm sorry if I misinterpreted this, as I imagine you were responding to islander's "non-sexual" query, I still find it difficult to accept that there is no such thing as a malignant relationship in any given context, whether it be adults, girls or boys. They exist and denying it weakens your argument.
| Quote: | | And, I believe that, should your example happen, that that person WOULD be a menace. There should be plenty of failsafes in place for just such instances--it is no great difficulty to teach children how and where they should complain if they are being made to do something they don't want to do, taken in directions they don't want to go, especially against their will. |
Well, would you say that our culture sufficiently instructs children on "good touch, bad touch"? Most children I know have a firm grasp of this teaching by the time they are 6 or 7. Still, there are a good number who are victimzed by manipulative people. I'm not even implying here that all sex is victimization, but I am referring to genuinely hurtful, but perhaps subtle and difficult to prove manipulation.
| Quote: | In a sex-positive culture, sexuality would be discussed openly and would include children in the discussion. Thus, when your mad swim coach tossed tykes into the deep end willy-nilly they'd be able and willing to shout "Help!" and there'd be lifegaurds on hand to rescue them.
|
hmmmm well, I agree with your premise, but i'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. I'll have to think about it some more.
| Quote: | Situations of abuse, especially when it is ongoing, is actually fostered and protected in our current society--it effectively silences children, because they are smart enough to know that sex isn't spoken of in the open, if at all. But in sex-positive culture, they would have a voice and would openly discuss everything, and if any abuse WERE occurring it would likely be discovered very quickly and stopped, as opposed to today's environment, where it can remain undetected for years (especially in the case of incest, where parents are all-powerful.)
|
This is true, but also it is a big leap. I was speaking more practically of the transition from where we are now to where we might go. And while that makes sense on the far-end of openness, it doesn't work for much of the intermediate territory between "sex is evil and shameful" that we have today and the hypothetical "class, lets all talk about our sex lives before recess".
| Quote: | | Age of consent laws are not baseless. They may be overly strict in cases, misguided and wrongheaded in some aspects of how they are handled, but they are based on valid and genuine concerns about the ability of children to protest and protect themselves. |
| Quote: | I do believe that penetration--whether oral, anal or genital--should remain off-limits for prepubescent children. I think it's rather obvious that their bodies simply aren't ready for it. When I speak of sex/romance with children, let it be known hereafter that I am not talking about these things. What I mean is sex/romance play, which encompasses everything else--kissing, touching, massaging, etc., and the courtship rituals like holding hands and going out in public together.
|
I believe i spoke of mutual masturbation in terms of a good back rub before. This is along the same lines as what you're saying. But, that assumes an ideallic culture, which, being humans, we are unlikely to ever achieve so it is constructive to focus on how to adapt discussions with the understanding that we won't likely reach this "sex is like good chocolate" culture that we both write about.
| Quote: | | Which is why I have stressed time and again that I believe it is imperitave to allow the CHILD to take the lead. |
Yes, this is important. But do you honestly expect every person to follow this guideline? Short of legislating it (and even then!), I don't see it being a prerequisite of such a relationship. Should that constitute a law? "Child must initialte any/all sexual contact". Then how does one prove this in the face of a manipulative person fabricating all sorts of stories.
| Quote: | here is a situation where the child DESIRED to learn more about sex, and this would be no different than if she'd come to me and asked me to teach her to swim. I would oblige either one if society allowed it and didn't poison the waters, so to speak. And I would do it at her pace, working with her as much as she liked for as long as she liked. Now, would I get pleasure out of teaching her? Hell yes! In fact, I did teach a little cousin of mine to swim (not to mention read and write, at least in part) and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Does that make it wrong because it also benefits me?
|
Not at all, in my opinion. But... while you are clearly noble and aware of her feelings and needs, I don't trust everyone in your situation to be so empathic and perceptive. Many people will manufacture in their mind and then set up a circumstance where it is easy to claim "she started it" without it actually being the case. And how does someone disprove that?
| Quote: | | I think the first step is laying everything on the table and being honest, and for my part I've done that. I don't even hide my real identity. I believe what I believe and I will not be intimidated by anyone. |
I can't help but admire your conviction. I know of at least 10 people who have served serious time (one in a federal maximum security joint) for crimes they were charged with that were totally fabricated out of the air in an effort to "get back" at them or hurt them for speaking their mind or exercising their will. That's not condescending, just a friendly warning to be cautious.
| Quote: | | Indeed, and I just stated what the balance should be--let the child set his or her own agenda in learning this, and other valuable life skills. |
Sometimes children are very poor at setting an agenda that is meaningful and not harmful. To liken sex to candy, many young children would choose to eat nothing but candy, all day, every day. We can clearly see where this agenda is counter to their physical needs. Another example might be the 6 year old boy who was lost in the woods a few years ago and hid from searchers for days because he didn't comprehend that they might be looking for him and the sound of the voices in the distance frightened him.
| Quote: | | It isn't evolution in the pure scientific sense (though that is a part of it) but in the universal or holistic sense. |
I've never heard of evolution referenced in a 'holistic' sense. The process of natural selection is, however, fairly well described.
| Quote: | | I do respect BLers (I think Dylan's a great guy,) but it's clear many of them do not respect me in return. |
Dylan, in my opinion, is a borderline sociopath who is an exceptionally skilled writer, and manipulator of ideas to suit his purpose. He will probably be upset with me for saying that. I have never met him personall so my opinion is from second-hand accounts. If these accounts are inaccurate, I withdraw my accusation, but if they are not, I will stand by it.
| Quote: | | Your choice of words (e.g. "flailing around") is rather condescending. At any rate, I challenge you to find anywhere in my posts where I ever said I was not sexually aroused by children. I have always been up front about that right from the beginning. |
I apologize this came across as a personal attack. I should have worded it differently, but I was responding more to the general tone of this discussion which keeps coming back to "I don't have sex with kids, ever, that's wrong, I promise... now accept that I'm jsut a romantic a pedo and lets move on"- perhaps that was more islander's stance. I thought you had adopted it as well, as I know I have seen a good number of people in the past adopt it and parrot it repeatedly to try to gain support, but it always seems to fall flat, because it is a bit of trying to win an argument simply by misdirection. I did not associate your nickname with other posts in other threads (though I have read them), so I apologize for over-generalizing your viewpoint.
Cale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: andy and cale |
|
|
| Cale Tucker wrote: | | ...I was responding more to the general tone of this discussion which keeps coming back to "I don't have sex with kids, ever, that's wrong, I promise... now accept that I'm jsut a romantic a pedo and lets move on"- perhaps that was more islander's stance. |
Just to clarify, because you made a similar statement to me in the past few days: My stance was expressed that way repeatedly because some people kept wanting to bring the sexual aspect into it even though I clearly said that sex was not part of it. It was never my intention to beat a dead horse in an attempt to "convince" everyone that I was genuine or credible, etc. It was just to make sure the horse stayed dead. :D
That being said, my official stance is that I am not just a romantic paedo, and I'm not a saint (no, honestly!  ) My relationship with this particular girl was chosen for this debate because of the non-sexual nature of it, and I was just trying to keep it in that vein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cale Tucker
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It was never my intention to beat a dead horse in an attempt to "convince" everyone that I was genuine or credible, etc. It was just to make sure the horse stayed dead. |
Fair enough.
My aim in that line of reasoning extends beyond sex into other questions. When queried "is it a problem if you take her to dinner and the movies?" it seems counterproductive to me to say "but... I don't do that and I would never do that" and then go on to the next question, rather than to face the question squarely and say something akin to "I haven't done those things with this particular girl so it may not apply, but if I did, I don't imagine it would be a problem because her parents would be very clear what we were doing and if they had concerns, I would try to make sure they were comfortable with it and they knew that I had her best interest in mind."
I have been involved in many dozens of these types of debates and find that facing everyone's concerns, accepting them and then pointing out where they may be out of context is the best approach. To deny a concerned person's fears is to cause them to immediately shut out the remainder of whatever you have to say and simply pass you off as totally out of touch with reality.
The horse is now very dead. I'm glad i should share in its beating.
I think this thread has lost focus and is out of steam as well. I'd be tempted to start another, but I haven't heard back from Martin and I don't want to cause a ruckus.
Cale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cale Tucker wrote: | | ... it seems counterproductive to me to say "but... I don't do that and I would never do that" and then go on to the next question, rather than to face the question squarely...etc. |
Well, I've been going strong here in three diferent threads for a week (or more?), going over and over the same things twice, and by the time it got to the dinner & movie stuff I was just tired of expanding on any point I made. I'm glad you and a couple others showed up with your expansions.
| Cale Tucker wrote: | | facing everyone's concerns, accepting them and then pointing out where they may be out of context is the best approach |
Tried it. Eighty hundred times I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markaba 2.0
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 9980
Location: The Goldilocks Zone
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: The same old thing, blah blah . . . :) |
|
|
Cale:
| Quote: | | Not to quibble, but you said "I simply cannot see how such a relationship isn't benign". Substituting the negative modifier for the opposite adjective, it reads "I simply cannot see how such a relationship is malignant". I'm sorry if I misinterpreted this, as I imagine you were responding to islander's "non-sexual" query, I still find it difficult to accept that there is no such thing as a malignant relationship in any given context, whether it be adults, girls or boys. They exist and denying it weakens your argument. |
You're right--I did get a little gung-ho there and should've been more specific. Like you, I tend to be VERY mistrusting of the all-or-nothing black & white mentality. I will agree that malignant relationships can and do exist in any given context or combination. I was speaking generally (and of my ideal situation) when I said that I can't see how it would be malignant. This brings up another significant point--is there any relationship that isn't imperfect in some respect? I know alot of parents speak of "unconditional love," a concept that I don't really trust--every parent I've ever met has their limits and expectations placed on their children. Perhaps I do not understand the concept well enough, but it seems to me that the idea of unconditional love is a mystical sort of thing more akin to that all-or-nothing mentality than with reality as it is. To me, unconditional love would mean full acceptance of a person, flaws and all, and I just don't see how that is possible. I think we can accept a person for the most part and still object to their flaws, but the definition of 'unconditional' suggests to me that you would accept the person literally unconditionally, meaning you would completely accept and embrace their flaws. I mean, we can and should ASPIRE to love someone unconditionally, but I don't believe it is ever achievable in reality, for the same reason that perfection is not achievable in reality--there are far too many variables that will always cause change.
My question to all these parents who speak of unconditional love for their children: what if YOUR child grew up to become a serial child rapist or an axe murderer. Would you still love them unconditionally? I'm not saying you wouldn't still love them in some sense, but UNCONDITIONALLY? And even in same-aged romantic relationships, people change over time and find that person they fell in love with is not who their lover or spouse is anymore. They sometimes fall out of love. It happens all the time. But as in my case, most pedos DO love the person they fell in love with as a child even after they've grown up and changed drastically, and let's face it--puberty DOES cause a drastic change in people, often much more profound than those little changes that cause adults to fall out of love for each other. But even so, many of us still love our child friends dearly, like I said. I know I do. There is at least one that I would marry tomorrow if she came back into my life and still wanted me, and that is J.
| Quote: | | Well, would you say that our culture sufficiently instructs children on "good touch, bad touch"? Most children I know have a firm grasp of this teaching by the time they are 6 or 7. Still, there are a good number who are victimzed by manipulative people. I'm not even implying here that all sex is victimization, but I am referring to genuinely hurtful, but perhaps subtle and difficult to prove manipulation. |
No, I wouldn't. In fact, I'd say that the concept of "good touch, bad touch" as it is currently taught is highly confusing to children. They used to teach that the the "bad touch" made you feel funny and icky, but children who enjoyed being touched sexually never related the two and thus wouldn't equate it to a "bad touch." When they realized that didn't work, they changed to teaching that a "bad touch" is when an adult touches you in any spot covered by a bathing suit, but that REALLY gets confusing to girls who wear one-piece suits, and anyway, parents often touch children in the "sacred" spots for a variety of reasons not related to sex, which is how incest is so insidious--a child is at the mercy of a parent or stepparent, one that ostensibly is doing everything for the child's good, and it's true often enough. Granted, a non-parent can easily take advantage of the child in a similar way, but the difference is, if the child becomes uncomfortable, it is no great difficulty (most of the time) for them to avoid that adult, and anyway it would raise red flags for concerned parents. Not so with parents themselves. The child is literally at their parents' mercy in nearly every respect.
Anyway, the "good touch, bad touch" thing is ridiculous as it is taught anyway, because most children simply attach to it the obvious, which is that "good touch" is pleasurable and "bad touch" is painful. It seems to me that most true peds are loathe to do anything that causes their beloved pain, but parents hit and hurt their children all the time and are also the very ones drilling this "bad touch" bodily shame stuff into their kids' heads. Is it any wonder that children love us so much? We make them feel good, we help them, and we don't hit them. Why WOULDN'T they choose us over parents. In fact, I think that, beneath all the hatred of us by parents is really a deep-seated jealousy. Of course, parents will be loathe to admit it, but it's so flippin' obvious it's not even funny. If parents really wanted to keep children from being traumatized by sex, they'd do everything in their power to remove the taboo themselves so children WOULDN'T grow up feeling they had been victimized--they're reluctance to do that, combined with the reality that 80% or so of REAL sexual abuse is by parents and grandparents, underscores the fact that society's condemnation of pedophilia is NOT about protecting kids and never was.
| Quote: | | hmmmm well, I agree with your premise, but i'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. I'll have to think about it some more. |
Okay. :)
| Quote: | | This is true, but also it is a big leap. I was speaking more practically of the transition from where we are now to where we might go. And while that makes sense on the far-end of openness, it doesn't work for much of the intermediate territory between "sex is evil and shameful" that we have today and the hypothetical "class, lets all talk about our sex lives before recess". |
LOL, "Mr. Nickerson, can I show the class how to masturbate for 'show & tell'?"
Anyway, I agree. I think it starts with us first recognizing that children are sexual beings in their own right, and not only that--recognizing that it is society's labeling and holding kids back, at least in part, that makes them act so incompetent. In the past children were expected to do many of the things adults do now by the time they were 10, 11, 12 years old, and they did so effectively. Granted, that wasn't an ideal situation either, because the responsibility was forced upon them rather than elected by the child. I suggest a two-pronged approach here: A) Teaching children from day 1 that they are capable of doing anything they want but that they'll have to apply themselves and B) not simply giving lip service to that, but actually offering comprehenshion/skill tests for certain things that the child can take when they feel they are ready. If they fail the test, it's a no-go, but if they pass it, then society has to give them a chance. I'm not talking about sex play here but ALL (or most) activity that falls under the heading of "adults only," like driving.
This past weekend a 13-year-old cousin of mine proved that she was capable of driving a manual transmission automobile, having never driven one before (and barely having driven an automatic!) She would be a good candidate to take driver's ed and would probably pass--she's smart enough and fully capable. It is only society that holds her back. BTW, it was not me that allowed her to drive--I heard about it second hand, but I know the girl well enough to know that she would be an excellent driver given the chance.
| Quote: | | I believe i spoke of mutual masturbation in terms of a good back rub before. This is along the same lines as what you're saying. But, that assumes an ideallic culture, which, being humans, we are unlikely to ever achieve so it is constructive to focus on how to adapt discussions with the understanding that we won't likely reach this "sex is like good chocolate" culture that we both write about. |
I disagree. I feel that a sexually open and tolerant society is an inevitability, though maybe not without a period of severe persecution. Oh wait, that's already happening, LOL. Anyway, I only regret that it likely won't happen in my lifetime. But history seems to bear out that the overall drift of civilization is towards openness and tolerance of all practices in which the persecution and/or prohibition of said practices are far more harmful than the practices themselves, and I certainly think this falls in that category:
"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws against the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them." --Thomas Jefferson, 1779
| Quote: | | Yes, this is important. But do you honestly expect every person to follow this guideline? Short of legislating it (and even then!), I don't see it being a prerequisite of such a relationship. Should that constitute a law? "Child must initialte any/all sexual contact". Then how does one prove this in the face of a manipulative person fabricating all sorts of stories. |
Of course I don't expect everyone to follow it, but I would not be opposed to some legislation to that effect. I don't think it can ever be foolproof--nothing ever is. My concern is that the child is ultimately empowered to take control of their own destiny to the extent that they desire it and can comprehend it, and sex is not that big of a concept to comprehend. There's nothing inherently complex or abstract about the idea of only having someone touch your genitals (or touching someone else's) if you want it to happen, and as long as the child is ultimately safe and happy, I think in our projected sex-positive culture, even if they WERE coerced ot tricked, it wouldn't be any more traumatic than being tickled against their will or being made to eat some disgusting brussels sprouts. It certainly wouldn't be the stuff of lifelong problems.
| Quote: | | Not at all, in my opinion. But... while you are clearly noble and aware of her feelings and needs, I don't trust everyone in your situation to be so empathic and perceptive. Many people will manufacture in their mind and then set up a circumstance where it is easy to claim "she started it" without it actually being the case. And how does someone disprove that? |
Well, in this situation, again an educated child is an empowered child. Teaching children the proper words, for starters, so that when a little girl approaches you and says, "I'd like my clitoris rubbed" there can be no doubt as to what she is requesting. I think too that, in a society where sex wasn't ladden with so much baggage and mystification, any confusion would be no different than if someone tickled a child because the child gave the adult the impression they wanted to be tickled, then later the child made it known that they hadn't wanted that at all. I just don't see fondling genitals and sex play as that big a deal, and I don't think children do either--I think it's society that makes it a big deal. In fact, I think it is a child's natural tendency to want to explore their bodies, the bodies of others and to have other people explore their bodies as well. I think it is a natural and inherent process of learning what their bodies are capable of and wanting to share it with others in the same way they want to share their newfound ability to do cartwheels. I believe it is actually MORE harmful to deny children that en masse than it is to prevent it because of a few assholes who would take advantage.
| Quote: | | I can't help but admire your conviction. I know of at least 10 people who have served serious time (one in a federal maximum security joint) for crimes they were charged with that were totally fabricated out of the air in an effort to "get back" at them or hurt them for speaking their mind or exercising their will. That's not condescending, just a friendly warning to be cautious. |
Been out for a year and still no police trouble. Of course, it would be pretty damned hard for them to frame me for anything. I rarely interact with children these days, and when I do it's always a short duration and with at least one other adult in the room. Them's the breaks for an out ped. Ironic, isn't it? Before I was out I was hiding my pedoness, and yet I was regularly alone with children. You'd think that my willingness to out myself would earn my MORE trust rather than less, given that I went many years without so much as one infraction. Admittedly I was headed in a dangerous direction when I first got the Internet, but I eventually came to my senses and stopped short of getting involved in any of that mess. Now I write and draw and otherwise live in my fantasy world. It's a beautiful place--I don't much like to leave, really. ;-)
| Quote: | | Sometimes children are very poor at setting an agenda that is meaningful and not harmful. To liken sex to candy, many young children would choose to eat nothing but candy, all day, every day. We can clearly see where this agenda is counter to their physical needs. Another example might be the 6 year old boy who was lost in the woods a few years ago and hid from searchers for days because he didn't comprehend that they might be looking for him and the sound of the voices in the distance frightened him. |
Actually, most children would eventually go back to eating fairly healthy food and grow tired of candy. But since you brought it up, are most adults any better? Conventional wisdom says so, but the reality is something else. America is the fattest country in the world. It just goes to show that many parents are pretty much hypocrites when it comes to forcing their children to eat healthy. The right to be stupid and abuse your own body is exclusively an adult right. :-p
But I might also add that your example of the lost 6-year-old could very well be an outgrowth of the culture that teaches children to fear strangers. Indeed, I'd argue that his reaction was a result of getting mixed signals from his environment coupled with his self-preservation instinct and was actually a rather intelligent reaction given what he'd probably been taught about being alone with strangers in an unknown place.
| Quote: | | I've never heard of evolution referenced in a 'holistic' sense. The process of natural selection is, however, fairly well described. |
Yes, I think I may be the first to use the term "holistic evolution" LOL. What can I say? I'm a philosopher and iconoclast at heart.
| Quote: | | Dylan, in my opinion, is a borderline sociopath who is an exceptionally skilled writer, and manipulator of ideas to suit his purpose. He will probably be upset with me for saying that. I have never met him personall so my opinion is from second-hand accounts. If these accounts are inaccurate, I withdraw my accusation, but if they are not, I will stand by it. |
Oh boy. Well, he seems like a nice enough guy to me. Now there's a guy at BC by the name of tj--him I don't like much.
| Quote: | | I apologize this came across as a personal attack. I should have worded it differently, but I was responding more to the general tone of this discussion which keeps coming back to "I don't have sex with kids, ever, that's wrong, I promise... now accept that I'm jsut a romantic a pedo and lets move on"- perhaps that was more islander's stance. I thought you had adopted it as well, as I know I have seen a good number of people in the past adopt it and parrot it repeatedly to try to gain support, but it always seems to fall flat, because it is a bit of trying to win an argument simply by misdirection. I did not associate your nickname with other posts in other threads (though I have read them), so I apologize for over-generalizing your viewpoint. |
No problem, and thanks. No, I like islander but I disagree with him on several points. Though I like you too, and I also disagree with you here and there. D'oh! Why can't I ever find someone who thinks exactly like I do! Man, my ego is fragile . . . :-p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islander46
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 180
Location: Canuckda
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: | | I like islander but I disagree with him on several points. |
Do tell. Either I haven't been clear or I have something to learn... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrusselSprout
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | or being made to eat some disgusting brussels sprouts |
Hey! Why's everyone always picking on me??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andkon
Available for hot chicks
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 26370
Location: Turn around
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: Re: The same old thing, blah blah . . . :) |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: | | Yes, I think I may be the first to use the term "holistic evolution" LOL. What can I say? I'm a philosopher and iconoclast at heart. |
Not even close. You're 260th.
As for cockulus homowork, I'm still the one and only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owl
Heretic Theist
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 6313
Location: Leeds, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucky Jim
Suspended
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 575
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: The same old thing, blah blah . . . :) |
|
|
| Markaba wrote: |
I disagree. I feel that a sexually open and tolerant society is an inevitability, though maybe not without a period of severe persecution. Oh wait, that's already happening, LOL. Anyway, I only regret that it likely won't happen in my lifetime. But history seems to bear out that the overall drift of civilization is towards openness and tolerance of all practices in which the persecution and/or prohibition of said practices are far more harmful than the practices themselves, and I certainly think this falls in that category:
"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws against the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them." --Thomas
Jefferson, 1779
|
It's true that broadly speaking increasing toleration of certain acts involving adults has been the norm, at least in the west. But in the case of children the reverse is true. If anything the trend has been toward a recognition that children shouldn't be involved in spheres of activity associated with the adult world. For example, one no longer sees children working in factories or coal mines. There are laws which forbid one from driving till a certain age. There are laws which oblige parents to keep their children in school - much longer than has ever been the case. There are laws which set a legal drinking age. There are laws which make it illegal for children to be involved in sexual acts. These sorts of things are the product of the century we've just emerged from.
| Quote: |
Of course I don't expect everyone to follow it, but I would not be opposed to some legislation to that effect. I don't think it can ever be foolproof--nothing ever is. My concern is that the child is ultimately empowered to take control of their own destiny to the extent that they desire it and can comprehend it, and sex is not that big of a concept to comprehend. There's nothing inherently complex or abstract about the idea of only having someone touch your genitals (or touching someone else's) if you want it to happen, and as long as the child is ultimately safe and happy, I think in our projected sex-positive culture, even if they WERE coerced ot tricked, it wouldn't be any more traumatic than being tickled against their will or being made to eat some disgusting brussels sprouts. It certainly wouldn't be the stuff of lifelong problems.
|
You speak of empowerment in this instance as though society is doing a disservice to children. Ignoring any kind of ulterior motive you might have here, I have to wonder - has anyone here felt the lack of having an adult touch your genitalia when you were little? I missed out on that delightful experience and yet I'm able to fully comprehend sex as an adult, indeed to enjoy it. *shrugs* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markaba 2.0
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 9980
Location: The Goldilocks Zone
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: well, you know |
|
|
Lucky Jim:
| Quote: | | It's true that broadly speaking increasing toleration of certain acts involving adults has been the norm, at least in the west. But in the case of children the reverse is true. If anything the trend has been toward a recognition that children shouldn't be involved in spheres of activity associated with the adult world. For example, one no longer sees children working in factories or coal mines. There are laws which forbid one from driving till a certain age. There are laws which oblige parents to keep their children in school - much longer than has ever been the case. There are laws which set a legal drinking age. There are laws which make it illegal for children to be involved in sexual acts. These sorts of things are the product of the century we've just emerged from. |
I think the trend (and I do think it is a trend) toward treating children as if they are little better than delicate gilded pets is really a knee-jerk reaction to the historical reality that children were not really viewed as a children in the sense that society views them now, and that they were FORCED into adulthood rather than given the opportunity to achieve it. Almost all of those laws you mention were inacted in the early twentieth century, a period of reform in general and right after Freud's publications revealed that children DO in fact have sexual thoughts and feelings--thus, it was a knee-jerk reaction as I said. So yes, historically the cultural attitude towards children has swung from one extreme of not recognizing children's weaknesses to the other--recognizing nothing BUT children's weaknesses and downplaying, or avoiding altogether, their strengths.
I suggest that the pendulum will eventually fall in the middle and that society will come to recognize that it does children (and the adults they will become) a great disservice by patronizing them and holding them back en masse instead of giving the ones who want and deserve to the chance to achieve a greater level of responsibilities and rights. Instead of treating children as a block group, it should recognize tiers of progressions and allow children the opportunity to move ahead, perhaps via a series of tests they can opt to take when they want to move on to the next level.
| Quote: | | You speak of empowerment in this instance as though society is doing a disservice to children. Ignoring any kind of ulterior motive you might have here, I have to wonder - has anyone here felt the lack of having an adult touch your genitalia when you were little? I missed out on that delightful experience and yet I'm able to fully comprehend sex as an adult, indeed to enjoy it. *shrugs* |
It IS doing a disservice to children, absolutely. And you missed the point. I don't think that many adults who have been held back from reaching their full potential recognize that they are not as far along as they could've been in their progress towards self-actualization, if that makes sense. And maybe you would've been one of the children that WAS'T ready anyway at that age. Those would certainly exist no matter what the cultural climate was.
But that's just my point--we do not recognize children's individual wants and needs in our culture. It is far more convenient (for parents and adults in general) to treat children and teens as one solid block of people with the same mentality and to send that group a highly confusing mixed message: you are unable to function in society, but you must pretend like you do, and you will be expected to function fully when you leave the group at [enter age of adulthood in your district here.] Rather than recognizing and encouraging children to achieve adulthood on their own terms, society holds them back as long as it possibly can. If adulthood is the ultimate goal, shouldn't we actually be gearing children up for it and recognizing when they DO make adult-level achievements by giving them adult rights to go along with it? What is a child's incentive to work towards the goal of adulthood if they can't have it anyway until age 18, and by then, haven't they relegated much of their potential to the Land of the Broken Spirit?
I think it's no irony that people are living with their parents longer and longer these days instead of getting out on their own, that our media has become increasingly juvenile-oriented and dumbed down to the level that even an 8-year-old should find insulting, that reading has virtually been phased out, and that we are becoming increasingly reliant on Big Daddy Gov't to take care of us and to make rules for us so we don't hurt ourselves. I think all of this goes hand in hand with the fact that our culture has idealized and mystified childhood to the point that many people feel no desire to leave it. We fail children by refusing to give them responsibility at the appropriate time--when they want it and prove they can handle it, as my 13-year-old cousin F did the other day when she drove a stickshift for the first time and did so exceptionally well.
But bringing this back to the topic of sex, since that is what the thread is about, I still see no reason why sex play (touching, kissing, etc.) is an inherently adult phenomenon and that children would be harmed by it in a different culture. In fact, there is plenty of documentation that children who were raised in sexually cultures grow up fine--pre-Westernized Hawaii, for example, had a practice of allowing adults to perform oral sex on little girls, ostensibly to prepare them for intercourse when they came of age. And please don't throw the "primitive culture" label at me--it's irrelevant to my point, which is that, in cultures where it is the norm, there is no evidence of trauma occurring. Thus, sex play, in my estimation, needs no particular test other than the child's demonstration that he or she wants to participate, particularly in terms of the child approaching the adult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markaba 2.0
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 9980
Location: The Goldilocks Zone
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: And all the one-liners |
|
|
islander46
| Quote: | | Do tell. Either I haven't been clear or I have something to learn... |
Nah, I meant it in a general sense, as I can't think of anything specifically at the moment. I would have to go back and read all your posts, but I do recall coming across a few points I didn't quite agree with, even as I feel you are on the right track overall. Sorry about being so vague, but if you post more on GC I think we'll have a disagreement eventually. :-p
BrusselSprout
[/quote]Hey! Why's everyone always picking on me???[quote]
LOL, sorry, I didn't know vegetables were active on this forum. I'll be careful next time not to cause offense. I won't even MENTION what I think of carrots. ;-)
andkon:
| Quote: | | Not even close. You're 260th. |
Gah! Well, I AM still the originator of the word ne--
Wait! No way am I saying it; someone would surely steal it. Whew, that was close. ::wipes brow::
| Quote: | | As for cockulus homowork, I'm still the one and only. |
And what exactly DOES that mean? Wait--do I really wanna know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
