keyser_soze

:notworthy

Buddrow_Wilson

What about this angle?

As a society, the last thing we need are laws that encourage 10 year old parents and preteens with STDs.

Even children have sex with other children, while I think shouldn't be sensationalized and overblown, neither should it be encouraged or necessarily condoned.

Childhood is short enough. They need to be allowed to mature at their own pace.

Pat Kelly

Self gratification is not a mystical evil and the lunatics who think life and the sexual components of life should somehow exist void of self-gratification are beyond any form of rational thought. As if it was somehow immoral or wrong to seek to gratify one’s self. I cannot even imagine having sex with a partner who was not seeking to gratify themselves. You might as well take a rubber doll to bed with you as engage in sex with someone so manipulated and robotized they are only capable of concerning themselves with the other person’s pleasure. Even the most stupid animals are capable of seeking pleasure so how does one account for a certain segment of society?

All sex obviously involves the component of self-gratification and anyone who would claim it should not is quite frankly an idiot. Whenever two or more people come together to engage in sex the primary goal is always self-gratification and if it is not for a particular person, I am not sure what they are doing but whatever it is it is not sex.

I enjoy the pleasure I experience during sex and I enjoy directing my partner to do things that pleasure me. Is this somehow, in the wildest imaginations of some sick minds supposed to be morally wrong or something? I also enjoy functioning in a role where I pleasure my partner too and actually enjoy the giving just as much as the getting. Something wrong with this too? Look, if someone is not able to successfully engage in sex with others because they are too hung-up over guilt feelings that prevent them from being assertive enough to have others pleasure them, it is no wonder they might develop such negative views of sex and assume it is all about force and violence. Go see a doctor and get help. He or she should be able to direct such poor confused souls to the appropriate sex psychotherapists.

STDs are a serious problem and require a serious response to protect everyone from possible infection. However, there are far more rational options available than total abstinence and much more attention should be paid to education and isolation. How about an implanted chip that certifies one is disease free along with the date of their last trip to the doctor? A keychain size reader anyone can pick up at 7-11 for $19.99 would make bar hopping a lot safer. Move the keychain over one’s arm and bingo you have the information you should be entitled to and need to know. Green=Tested and certified STD free within the last week. Yellow=Tested within the last month. Orange=6 months or less. Red=Greater than 6-months. No color equals no response or no chip and you are on your own. Proceed with caution. Surely, with such a scheme more people would see their doctor more often enabling STDs to be nicked in the bud and eventually wiped out all together.

:notworthy

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, what do you know? It only took you nine pages to get just this far. I'm guessing another six before you ever deal with the real issue.

But it's a good thing your intention here is to discuss the entirety of this issue in a calm, rational manner...



Tchah, baby, tchah. It's a means to an end...

It is when you seek to do it with a six year old boy or girl.

Really? So you think children understand such sexual greed? Such experienced selfishness from either themselves or, worse, their "partner?"

Do you think little Billy is going to be able to comprehend the pain being inflicted upon him through sodomy, for a hypothetical, because his "partner" needs sexual gratification, too? That just because little Sally gets exciting tingles when she bounces on Uncle Harry's knee, that she's going to be able to correlate the reciprocal escalation of her innocent explorations with why her Uncle Harry's pants are now undone?

I tell you what. Why don't you do as you've keep claiming is the case and provide for us a specific example in kind where mutual self gratification both obtains and is fully comprehended by both "partners" in an adult/child scenario?

How about that, sport? Now that we finally have it out on the table--that the adult's get sexual gratification out of "engaging" in sex with children--let's really explore this glorious and majestic sexuality from the adult's responsibility, yes?

Now that it's finally admitted that the adult's motivation is his or her own sexual gratification, we can finally dispense with all the pointless smokescreen crap about a glorious new future "for the children," yes?

We know it's no longer just "for the children." Now we know what it's really all about; the self-gratification of the adult.

So, with that finally admitted on your part, let's take a long, detailed look at the adult's responsibility in all of this; the adult who seeks sexual gratification out of a child. The motive is now clearly delineated as a pre-meditated act of sexual desire; of wanting to achieve self-gratification.

The adult, who not only wants it, but is apparently helpless to stop themselves from actually going through with it. The adult who likely fantasizes about it long before ever acting upon those fantasies; upon those self-gratifying motives. The adult who then one day sees a child all alone; a child who enjoys, say, touching themselves in those places we all enjoy. A child who, necessarily, has no idea what is the mind of the adult now approaching him or her; has no idea what "mutual consent" means or, for that matter, what "mutual self-gratification" means.

Only the adult knows these things; the adult who also harbors fantasies the child could not possibly comprehend about sex and not just "sexuality;" sex with a child who has no clue what any of that means or what any of that will entail.

All the child knows, is that it feels good when he or she rubs up against something or touches him or herself in a certain spot. Now, what do you suppose the adult knows in comparison?

Does little Sally know what cunnilingus is? Or how to even spell fellatio?

No. So how is she going to learn about those things? Who will "teach" her these things?

And as such, who will therefore be raping little Sally if he "engages" in any of that kind of activity with her?

She doesn't know what any of the acts of sex entail, she doesn't know what is being done to her and she has no way of stopping it when the needs of the adult "kick in" and take over.

Even if she enjoyed it, she has still been raped and the responsibility lies entirely on the one with the knowledge, understanding and motive.

Now, you have been saying all along that "sex in itself" is not harmful, but as we can now fully see, with no rhertoric or rationalization, we aren't and haven't been talking about "sex in itself;" we've been talking about a predator with a motive, who has knowledge the victim couldn't possibly comprehend and a desire the victim couldn't possibly understand and actions the child has never encountered before.

You've also been talking about the harm coming as a result of "society's views on sex." Presumably the victim grows up and begins to enter into society, where he or she first learns that what Uncle Harry did was considered "wrong" by society.

But why is it considered "wrong" by society? Just because? For no rational reason? For ancient, esoteric holdover's from a more puritanical society?

NO. It is considered "wrong" by society because the adult took advantage of the child for the adult's sexual gratification. That was his or her motive. Not to be little Sally's or Billy's "special, secret friend," but just because Uncle Harry couldn't keep his pants on! Once little Sally or Billy grows up and becomes mature, themselves, they reallize what was actually going on in Uncle Harry's mind and all of the lies and all of the manipulations and the gestalt of how they were used by Uncle Harry come into clear, painful focus.

That is what starts the psychological reallizations of trauma for the victim who actually may have enjoyed what had been inflicted upon them as helpless, innocent children. I won't even go into the Sally's and Billy's who knew right away that serious pain was being inflicted upon them; or the Sally's and Billy's who were severely terrified by the Uncle Harry's (or Daddy or Mommy; etc.) whenever they see him and know that they will be inflicted with more of the same pain and probably worse.

Let's just keep to the lowest one percent of child rape victims who actually enjoyed the encounters for this hypothetical (I'm sure you'll counter with a higher percentage, but since you have no evidence to support it either, who gives a crap).

Whatever the percentage, we can now clearly see the chronology of the best case scenarios and how the psychological harm inflicted years prior slowly emerge over time as the victims grow to maturity and begin to comprehend all of the manipulations and lies that were inflicted upon them from a predator whose motivations are now firmly established.

Uncle Harry wanted to get his rocks off and he didn't care how he did it.

Then, with just about everything else you rationalize here, why don't we flip that one around, too into its proper context. You might as well have sex with a child who is so manipulated and robotized they are only capable of being used by someone seeking their own sexual gratification.

After all, a child wouldn't be able to fellate you or sodomize you, right? Hell, a child's muscles are so weak, they wouldn't even be able to give you a hand job effectively. That means the adult would have to take the lead and "engage" the child in this manner. The child certainly doesn't know what the details of all of this sex is; they're just "sexual." They wouldn't even know what an orgasm is, let alone the ability to give or even receive one of their own manipulations, so that means somebody else would be manipulating them.

So, who is only capable of concerning themselves with their own pleasure in the adult/child sex scenario?

Easy. We account for them by calling them adults.

Now, now, don't get down on yourself like that. You had no idea you'd trap yourself in this web of rationalizations and obfuscation you've spun for yourself.

It just takes a responsible, mature adult to point that out to you.

You're right. It's called "rape." And since children aren't mature enough or experienced enough to even comprehend what "self-gratification" even means, let alone be able to do it in a like fashion as the adult, well, you see now where you've hung yourself on your own rhetoric.

I'm sure you do. The question is, can the child understand the ramifications of what is going on to fully consent and request the same, in turn?

Without prompting from the teacher....I mean, predator....I mean, adult.

See, that's what it means to engage in equally mature, fully informed, consensual sex. Both sides understand and comprehend what it is they are "engaging" in.

Considering, as I pointed out several times before, that even grown adults do not always understand and comprehend what it is they are engaging in, how the hell can you defend the notion that a child can?

Because it assuages your possible guilt over your hypothetical actions? Because a propensity for rationalization and delusional obfuscations necessarily betrays the true actions of the adult who "engages" in sex with children? Because the adult just needs to get their rocks off, regardless of the harm it will obtain?

Or because the adult somehow has the ability to read a child's mind and accurately assess a child's comprehension of how they are being used as the adult is taken over by powerful sexual needs while, as you put it, "directing" their "partners?"

The only difference between a rubber blow up doll and a child that I can see, is that the child has a pulse.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further, however, in the art of reading a child's mind and assessing just at what point it becomes "consensual" and at what point it becomes "trauma?"

Come on. You're the mature adult. Don't you know, while you direct your "partner?" Or does that just not enter into the powerful drives of self-gratification that so overwhelms the adult and motivates them into "directing" their "partners" to begin with?

No, not in the slightest. By all means, use a child's innocence and lack of knowledge and/or experience in order to get your rocks off.

What could be wrong about that? Other than the overwhelming clinical reasearch, documentation and direct, personal testimonials that prove it to be not just "wrong," but grievously detrimental to both the victim and to society in general.

You know? To the future of "the children?"

Other than a confession of rape, no? Hypothetically speaking in regard to our discussion about adult/child sex, of course.

Key words revealed in the rhetoric for those keeping score: "assertive," "force" and "violence."

I'm so glad you've finally broken through. Don't worry, I understand you aren't capable of seeking a doctor on your own, so I will get one for you. You will receive help, I assure you. But you've got to want to change.

Now...where do you live?

Good! Good. Admitting you have the problem and knowing who you need help from is the first step.

Funny, that's how some sexual thoughts are viewed, metaphorically, by society! The future of "the children" just got a little bit brighter.

Indeed. Like the education one can receive in intense, weekly or even thrice weekly therapy sessions. There might also be pills that one could take.

I think just registering with the local police's "child predator" programs will suffice for the first step. Then, years of psychotherapy to recover empathy and develop normal self control over one's desire to "direct" one's child "partner" to fulfill one's own sexual gratification will be next.

Good plan. That way when the child rapist lapses in their treatment and rapes another victim, at least the parents will have the small respite to know their child won't die of AIDS on top of everything else they've suffered.

It's heartening to see you've finally understood what all is involved and how to best stop it from resulting in any harm to the future of "the children."

All we have to do is make these predator adults responsible for their actions and treat them for their lack of empathy in directing their victims...sorry, "partners"...in how to sexually gratify the adult.

No, no. No praise please. It was my pleasure to enlighten you as to the grievous and obvious harms in the "philosophy" you unwittingly advocated; steeped as you were in over nine pages of rationalizations and exonerative self-delusional rhetoric.

Just to know that one more fraud was uncovered and laid bare for all to clealry see is praise enough.

keyser_soze

:notworthy

Pat Kelly

POMONA, California (AP) -- A 2-year-old girl was rescued from a locked, running washer at a coin laundry and her mother was arrested after a surveillance tape allegedly showed her putting the child into the machine, police said.

An officer smashed the window of the machine with his baton to rescue the girl, who was "submerged in water," police Sgt. Matt Stone said.

The child was unconscious when she was pulled from the washer Saturday but breathing. She was taken to a hospital where she was listed in serious condition with cuts, scrapes, bruises. She had inhaled some water but was expected to survive, Stone said.

Her mother, Erma Osborne, 35, of Pomona, California, later was arrested for investigation of child endangerment and held on $10,000 bail.

This story appeared this morning and I wanted to draw your attention to the discrepancy between how we treat real child abuse and anything connected with children and sex. This child’s mother will likely receive no real prison time because she will probably be found to have acted from undue stress, ignorance or whatever. On the other hand we are handing out 200-year jail sentences with no parole for people caught looking at pictures of children engaging in sex.

We seem to place a higher value on the imaginary bruises, cuts and scrapes we assume must be connected with children’s sexual activities than the very real and tangible ones on a little girl her mother may have tried to murder. But some will claim the difference is in the unseen emotional scars that come from sex at too early an age as if this two year old girl experienced no emotional trauma at the hands of her rather ignorant mother. Though this girl, even at two years old, might have consented to someone fondling her with a smile and giggles, I doubt very much she consented to being locked inside a coin-operated washer.

Chicken Girl

Changing the subject, are we, Pat?

Was Koy's argument too much for you to handle?

AquaVita

Sure seems that way.

Pat Kelly

Now now girls... Let's not get ourselves all worked up here.

I have a rule that prevents me from engaging in conversations with those unable to comprehend even the most rudimentary concepts. I also have no time for those whose only goal is to argue and defend their understandings against the threat of more rational ideas.

Koy has not put forth any argument I could not easily dispense as illogical and founded in myth if I was willing to waste my time. Even the fact Koy comes with his own rooting section does not peek my interest.

I suspect Koy knows what he or she needs to do if he or she is really interested in anything I have to say. I also suspect Koy would be just as content to read over his or her own posts over and over and just nod to himself or herself in agreement. Here... I think this should fulfill your true reasons for being here:

:notworthy

Godot

Kelly, you've done nothing on this thread but dance around like a seventeen year old white suburbanite at a rave. You started by making unsupported and unproved assertions, and every one of your arguments has been thoroughly decimated (particularly by Koy). You have also been repeatedly asked to provide documentation and/or scenarios where your assertions may hold true. Your inability to do so speaks volumes as to your character.

Your petulant claims of "I could do it if I wanted to, but I don't feel like it right now" require you to emphatically stomp your foot and start pouting.

AT NO POINT in this entire dialectic have you provided the least shred of evidence that your position is "a more rational idea."
Put up or shut up pal.