Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 09-12-2002, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by infidelchic:

If you have something substantial to add then please add it.

Do you perhaps have some sort of emotional trauma that causes you to engage in this way?

The only reason I ask is because during similar discussions on a number of boards I have been caled all sorts of names, in fact if you add them all up I am supposedly a closet homosexual, nazi, commie, paedophile, sexist pig, satanist, necrophiliac and engaged in beastiality! Oh and to top it all off I am supposedly suffering from severe psychological problems due to my sexual past.

Strangely enough I have absolutely no sexual attraction to other species or dead or pre-pubital members of my own species, I am a slightly right-wing marxist and a 10:1 bisexual (i.e for every 10 women I find sexually attractive I find only 1 male sexually attractive, roughly speakinmg of course

). Oh and I don't believe satan exists any more than I believe any god exists!

As to the psychological problems I am in no position to objectively analyse such claims!

Amen-Moses

infidelchic · 09-12-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Amen-Moses:
Do you perhaps have some sort of emotional trauma that causes you to engage in this way?

The only emotional trauma I've experienced was watching you defend your friend Hedonologist, the pedophile, over at another board you post on..

Amen-Moses · 09-12-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Xixax:
My problem with it is children ( again that definition means different things to different people, but by this I mean a young person not yet mature enough to reason on the same level as an adolescent or young adult ) do not have the capacity to understand what it is they are consenting to.

Who says that they don't have the capacity?

My mother was married at 14 to my father. In her case, she wasn't a 'child' at that age.

So even though legally a child she did have the capacity?

Some I run into now that age are children, others are not.

So how can we even define an "age"? Surely we should strive to find some way to differentiate between what is and is not a "child" rather than pick a subjective age?

How would one go about determining 'objectively' whether or not they other is a child? I honestly can't say for sure. Perhaps clues picked up in conversation: Do they understand the 'value' of certain possessions? I.E., if you bought them a $50,000 antique, would they care for it or trade it in for a 'toy' at a neighbors house? Some of these are unfortunately applicable to adults as well, but I think we all understand the difference between a child, an adolescent, a young adult and an adult. It may not be something we can easily place into words, but we understand the difference.

Ahh, the old "I know it when I see it" argument. This is too damn subjective don't you think? (refer to my earlier posts about what constitutes "porn" in different cultures.)

A child does not have the cognitive facilities necessary to understand what it is they are consenting to.

OK so now you have defined "child" as lacking in cognitive facilities, at least this is a start. What cognitive facilities are those and how do you suggest they be measured?

They are more influenced by the adults permissiveness than they are their own reasoning.

But surely this is the same for everything? i.e if parents say something is right then it is right, if they say it is wrong then it is wrong.

I think the attraction to children over adolscents and beyond is the ease in which they can be used for this purpose. They do not require any sexual attraction to the adult, as they are mostly acting on command ( their sexual instincts are not defined at -all- ).

Says who? How are their "sexual instincts" supposed to be developed sans any sexual interaction?

I find it repulsive.

The crux of the issue! Why do you find "it" repulsive and what do you mean by "it"? Do you find Bonobo's repulsive and/or immoral? If so why?

Also, it has been asked, can you have sex with your wife if she were somehow in an accident where her ability to reason for herself was damaged? My -generalized- answer would be no. She cannot provide consent, and sex without consent is wrong regardless of the relationship with the other party.

Aha so age has nothing to do with it, it is purely about "consent", so how do we measure "consent"?

I know we are an ape, an intelligent bipedal mammal. However, our complex language and intelligence have given us qualities that other animals do not possess in the same degree as we have them, and the only inescapable prison is our minds. To place unwanted sexual memories in the memories of another person is wrong. They cause tremendous feelings of personal violation, and because it's in their memories, they can never escape it.

Do you speak from experience, or from indocrination? Personally my experiences at the hand of fellow adults outweigh my experiences as a "child" (legally specified) by several times over!

Not to mention, what point is there to sexual behavior with a child??

Once we have a definition of "child" I may be able to answer this more thoroughly but for now my gut instinct would be "none", of course you really need to aim that question at someone who is actually attracted to pre-pubital members of their own species.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 09-12-2002, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by infidelchic:


The only emotional trauma I've experienced was watching you defend your friend Hedonologist, the pedophile, over at another board you post on..

What makes him a paedophile?

Again if you have anything substantial to add then please do so, name calling is more suited to kindergarten than these boards dontcha think?

Amen-Moses

Jane Bovary · 09-12-2002, 04:29 PM

At the same time it has resulted in bigotry towards homosexuality, padeophilia and all sorts of "deviant" sexual behaviour. People have ended up being deprived of familial love and self-images have been damaged in the process. Virgins failing to bleed during their first nuptial encounters have been treated as outcasts etc.

Many evils have been committed and lives lost in the name of romanticizing sex - a purely physical act.
Intensity

They have...but I'm not advocating ignorance and bigotry. You can have romanticism without these. Shakespeare wrote some beautiful sonnets to his male lovers. I agree there's been a lot of screw-ups in our notions of sexuality...but most of these have been due to crazy religious moralities, not because humans have placed a special value upon their sexuality.

So are you suggesting the de-romanticization of sexuality? Let it be just another bodily function like farting and burping? Goodbye poets, musicians, artists, all those who concern themselves with sexuality as something more than screwing. When I talk about romanticism...I'm not talking about what might be found on the covers of torrid airport paperbacks. Mills and Boon makes me puke. I mean something subtle, imaginative and deeply sexy. Much of the heightened enjoyment of sex comes from contrived conflict, tension and the multitude of very human nuances we have built around the whole thing. Something Bonobo's wouldn't know or care about, no matter how complex their screwing patterns are.

And something children are just too young to get.

How do you know that Bonobo's do not experience similar "fine-tuned concepts" that we are missing out on? Bonobo sexuality is a hellishly complicated system compared to ours.
Amen-Moses

Just a guess. I haven't read any Bonobo Byrons, Shelley's...Keats...? Look I'm sure it's a great society in simian terms, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to hold it up as a role model for humans. Besides if we did abandon everything and let it all hang out, I suspect we wouldn't be half as civilised as the Bonobos.

Personally I prefer the Bonobo way of dealing with stress than the Human one, i.e rubbing genitals is a hell of a lot less painful than a punch on the nose (or a bomb on your house).

*L* Right...so next time you feel stressed out you'll just go and rub your genitals on someone?
How annoying to sit on the evening train and have a bunch of stressed out office workers rubbing their genitals against each other. I couldn't concentrate on my newspaper.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jane Bovary ]

echidna · 09-12-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris:
You're clearly convinced that this thread is essentially about defending paedophilia. This wasn't my interpretation of the original question (although it would be helpful if Intensity were a little more specific). In any event this is no reason to assume that everyone who questions your views is an apologist for child abuse.

No the thread is about whatever individual posters want to make of it. I do object that some specific posters however are using it to defend paedophilia. A genuine academic conversation is not occurring. For them it would appear to be a process of justification, quite possibly justifications of actions.

Is anyone just a teensy bit bothered by this type of stuff ?

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
In my experience paedophiles go out of their way to be as gentle as possible although it depends on which category of paedophile we are talking about, just as you can't categorise all heterosexual men by the actions of a few rapists.

As Infidelchic points out, the language of paedophiles is widely understood (read up on paedophilia if you�re unfamiliar with this), and there are individual posters here posting material which accurately fits this pattern. No, not the entire thread. Individual posts.

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris:
You do yourself no favours with these petulant implied slurs.

Excuse me Chris, what petulant slur ? Some posters here are questioning what is termed by �indecently assault�.

The reasoning outlined is that fingering a consensual 5 year old in the name of teaching them about sex is morally OK, because that�s what Bonobo monkeys do.

I call it indecent assault. They will call it metaphysically natural. The law calls it illegal.

09-12-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:

"We"? the child or the adult?
What you have offered is an romanticization of the act of sex. Quibbling about semantic nuances between exploration and exploitation won't help us much.
Sex with kids can be made explorational for them. In any case, kids, being the tabla rassa they are, should find every act explorational, a judgemental adult with a negative stance is the one who can describe the act as exploitative.[/qb]

"We" as child or as adult. I you reduce sex to mere mechanics even rape is no longer possible because if we were only tabula rasa identities everything can be justified and explained away without any lasting effect.

As a side note, it always puzzled me why people would study monkeys to learn about humans.

Sorry to have interfered in your argument because I did not read the entire thread and so I don't really know what has been discussed. I just wanted to agree with the point Jane had made.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Pomp · 09-12-2002, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


Exactly Jane and that's the difference betweeen exploration and exploitation.

Exploration is from the inside out and is like a response to our inner drives and feelings while exploitation is from the outside in and prematurily awakens these feelings. It so betrays the inner child (man) and is a the cost of our integrity. We feel betrayed.

Very eloquent, Amos.

Mad Kally · 09-12-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

posted by Amos:
"We" as child or as adult. If you reduce sex to mere mechanics even rape is no longer possible because if we were only tabula rasa identities everything can be justified and explained away without any lasting effect.

Well said!

09-12-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:


Well said!

Hi Kally, how are you? Nice to see you again. I missed you already.

09-12-2002, 04:29 PM	#185
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	At the same time it has resulted in bigotry towards homosexuality, padeophilia and all sorts of "deviant" sexual behaviour. People have ended up being deprived of familial love and self-images have been damaged in the process. Virgins failing to bleed during their first nuptial encounters have been treated as outcasts etc. Many evils have been committed and lives lost in the name of romanticizing sex - a purely physical act. Intensity They have...but I'm not advocating ignorance and bigotry. You can have romanticism without these. Shakespeare wrote some beautiful sonnets to his male lovers. I agree there's been a lot of screw-ups in our notions of sexuality...but most of these have been due to crazy religious moralities, not because humans have placed a special value upon their sexuality. So are you suggesting the de-romanticization of sexuality? Let it be just another bodily function like farting and burping? Goodbye poets, musicians, artists, all those who concern themselves with sexuality as something more than screwing. When I talk about romanticism...I'm not talking about what might be found on the covers of torrid airport paperbacks. Mills and Boon makes me puke. I mean something subtle, imaginative and deeply sexy. Much of the heightened enjoyment of sex comes from contrived conflict, tension and the multitude of very human nuances we have built around the whole thing. Something Bonobo's wouldn't know or care about, no matter how complex their screwing patterns are. And something children are just too young to get. How do you know that Bonobo's do not experience similar "fine-tuned concepts" that we are missing out on? Bonobo sexuality is a hellishly complicated system compared to ours. Amen-Moses Just a guess. I haven't read any Bonobo Byrons, Shelley's...Keats...? Look I'm sure it's a great society in simian terms, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to hold it up as a role model for humans. Besides if we did abandon everything and let it all hang out, I suspect we wouldn't be half as civilised as the Bonobos. Personally I prefer the Bonobo way of dealing with stress than the Human one, i.e rubbing genitals is a hell of a lot less painful than a punch on the nose (or a bomb on your house). L Right...so next time you feel stressed out you'll just go and rub your genitals on someone? How annoying to sit on the evening train and have a bunch of stressed out office workers rubbing their genitals against each other. I couldn't concentrate on my newspaper. [ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jane Bovary ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2002, 03:48 PM	#183
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by Xixax: My problem with it is children ( again that definition means different things to different people, but by this I mean a young person not yet mature enough to reason on the same level as an adolescent or young adult ) do not have the capacity to understand what it is they are consenting to. Who says that they don't have the capacity? My mother was married at 14 to my father. In her case, she wasn't a 'child' at that age. So even though legally a child she did have the capacity? Some I run into now that age are children, others are not. So how can we even define an "age"? Surely we should strive to find some way to differentiate between what is and is not a "child" rather than pick a subjective age? How would one go about determining 'objectively' whether or not they other is a child? I honestly can't say for sure. Perhaps clues picked up in conversation: Do they understand the 'value' of certain possessions? I.E., if you bought them a $50,000 antique, would they care for it or trade it in for a 'toy' at a neighbors house? Some of these are unfortunately applicable to adults as well, but I think we all understand the difference between a child, an adolescent, a young adult and an adult. It may not be something we can easily place into words, but we understand the difference. Ahh, the old "I know it when I see it" argument. This is too damn subjective don't you think? (refer to my earlier posts about what constitutes "porn" in different cultures.) A child does not have the cognitive facilities necessary to understand what it is they are consenting to. OK so now you have defined "child" as lacking in cognitive facilities, at least this is a start. What cognitive facilities are those and how do you suggest they be measured? They are more influenced by the adults permissiveness than they are their own reasoning. But surely this is the same for everything? i.e if parents say something is right then it is right, if they say it is wrong then it is wrong. I think the attraction to children over adolscents and beyond is the ease in which they can be used for this purpose. They do not require any sexual attraction to the adult, as they are mostly acting on command ( their sexual instincts are not defined at -all- ). Says who? How are their "sexual instincts" supposed to be developed sans any sexual interaction? I find it repulsive. The crux of the issue! Why do you find "it" repulsive and what do you mean by "it"? Do you find Bonobo's repulsive and/or immoral? If so why? Also, it has been asked, can you have sex with your wife if she were somehow in an accident where her ability to reason for herself was damaged? My -generalized- answer would be no. She cannot provide consent, and sex without consent is wrong regardless of the relationship with the other party. Aha so age has nothing to do with it, it is purely about "consent", so how do we measure "consent"? I know we are an ape, an intelligent bipedal mammal. However, our complex language and intelligence have given us qualities that other animals do not possess in the same degree as we have them, and the only inescapable prison is our minds. To place unwanted sexual memories in the memories of another person is wrong. They cause tremendous feelings of personal violation, and because it's in their memories, they can never escape it. Do you speak from experience, or from indocrination? Personally my experiences at the hand of fellow adults outweigh my experiences as a "child" (legally specified) by several times over! Not to mention, what point is there to sexual behavior with a child?? Once we have a definition of "child" I may be able to answer this more thoroughly but for now my gut instinct would be "none", of course you really need to aim that question at someone who is actually attracted to pre-pubital members of their own species. Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.