MyAnimeList.net

Forums

Recent Posts | My Watched Topics | My Ignored Topics | Search

To all lolicons, what about real life loli?

This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
 
Pages (8) -0.6 0.4 [1.4] 2.4 3.4 » ... Last »
10-09-08, 8:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3098
Your not thinking about parol are you? ;)
 
10-09-08, 8:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6521
It is sick and wrong on so many levels, and not just because of the trauma it can induce. Though it's also worth mentioning that underage girls, if savvy enough, can sometimes be even worse than the sexual predators themselves thanks to the powers of both manipulation and the double standard. And I'd personally imagine there are quite a lot of minors who'd be perfectly willing to use such a relationship to their own advantage.
 
10-09-08, 8:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3098
khorven said:
How much does your Japanese-influenced moral allow you to sexualize let's say:



eh?

I personally do not believe in the whole 'age of consent', this supposed 'children don't know what sex is' is bullshit to me, first because 'knowing what sex is' is a pretty vague and ill-defined term, secondly, I haven't seen any research being done into it at all, thirdly, there have been countless cultures par locum et tempus where it was normal practice for children to have whatever sex, even with animals without any psychological trauma to them. Classical Greek and Rome, classical India, Classical American civilizations, Arabia, and of course Japan. I'm pretty much devoid of moral in the conventional sense, that is disapproving of things 'because they are sick'. So indeed, I sexualize some real life loli. With the stress on 'some', æsthetic people are rare for me to meet, attractive people even more so. As I already let know in the gender role topic, I don't think that much in 'age' and 'gender', I do think in 'cute', I like cuteness, and that's more so often found in loli.


How old are you talking man? If you approve of fucking 5 year olds than your a sick bastard. I 14-15 year old girl is a bit differnt but that really depends on her maturity level, I would never think of going with any female more that 4 years younger than me unless we were adults. Its truly digusting to take advantage of a childs innocence.
 
10-09-08, 8:21 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3520
wtf D:
 
10-09-08, 8:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Rpgwiz99 said:
khorven said:
How much does your Japanese-influenced moral allow you to sexualize let's say:



eh?

I personally do not believe in the whole 'age of consent', this supposed 'children don't know what sex is' is bullshit to me, first because 'knowing what sex is' is a pretty vague and ill-defined term, secondly, I haven't seen any research being done into it at all, thirdly, there have been countless cultures par locum et tempus where it was normal practice for children to have whatever sex, even with animals without any psychological trauma to them. Classical Greek and Rome, classical India, Classical American civilizations, Arabia, and of course Japan. I'm pretty much devoid of moral in the conventional sense, that is disapproving of things 'because they are sick'. So indeed, I sexualize some real life loli. With the stress on 'some', æsthetic people are rare for me to meet, attractive people even more so. As I already let know in the gender role topic, I don't think that much in 'age' and 'gender', I do think in 'cute', I like cuteness, and that's more so often found in loli.


How old are you talking man? If you approve of fucking 5 year olds than your a sick bastard. I 14-15 year old girl is a bit differnt but that really depends on her maturity level, I would never think of going with any female more that 4 years younger than me unless we were adults. Its truly digusting to take advantage of a childs innocence.
The problem with society is that they think in ages and not judge this per person, humans are extremely conscious to think in one those 'three', age, sex and race, they tend to class people very absolutely in it which is reflected throughout history with laws based upon them, like 'vote after eighteen years old only', that's pretty much a textbook example of acting upon a præjudice, this discrimination, it's based on the præjudice that all people below eighteen cannot vote consciously, but all people of seventeen years old are different, some will be able to, and some will not, just as some will be able to when they are nineteen, and some will not. Some twelve year old children are definitely ready for sex, you have to admit that, some aren't, some, but fewer of ten years old are, and some of seventeen even aren't.

But the point is that a child makes clear that it isn't ready for it, that idea that children are easy to manipulate into it is long outdated psychology and was first conceived without any research into it. Yes, it's true, 99 per cent of ten year old children will not be ready for intercourse, that's probably why 99 per cent of them says 'eeeewwww' when they even hear the word. The notion of 'difference in dominance' is also outdated, as is turns out, it's not significantly different from difference in dominance in adults, a shy woman dating an assured man, so to speak.

That colloquial thought is that 'children can't decide' was never backed up by research, and only in the last decade was it finally decided to do some research, which reveals the negation, children can determine and mention if they want intercourse, which leads to the vast majority simply saying 'no', simple as that. And research has shown that children have no bad side-effects if it was consensual,and if it wasn't than the side-effects aren't significantly different from adults being raped. Throughout history, there have been countless of such notions of a 'weaker' group in society, some examples:

'Women cannot decide consciously how to vote.'
'People that aren't noble can't decide how to run a country'
'Black people don't know what's good for them.'
'Gay men are all rapists of other men.'
lastly:
'Children can't decide what friends they want, what videogames they will play and last.y if they want sex.'

All of these things were never backed up by research, but man has a penchant to believe those things.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 8:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 5961
Nice private photobucket, guy.




I wonder how many more of those you have...
 
10-09-08, 8:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1201
Links to research?
 
10-09-08, 8:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 5112
ZinnKid said:
*fixed
Flibbertigibbet said:
be_loved said:
Drybananna said:
LadyShiva said:
I love Children in general in any form


LOL NO!
better looking than u
 
10-09-08, 8:43 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
FireReaverX said:
Nice private photobucket, guy.




I wonder how many more of those you have...
Only those, I have 01 . 07 on my drive, I wanted to post those two and uploaded them and then thought 'mehh, overdone, I'll let them search for it if they want'.

Which leaves me to ask you why you checked the URL of that link? Expecting a blog to find more eh?
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 8:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 5129
That's an adorable pic OP, but seriously, hell fucking no.
My first novel, Kardia has been published! Click here to read!
 
10-09-08, 8:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 474
ZinnKid said:
wonder how long that took
lol
 
10-09-08, 9:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
sikkkke said:
ZinnKid said:
wonder how long that took
script.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 9:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7903
^ best script ever

[saves]
 
10-09-08, 9:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2757
the_seventh_l said:
^ best script ever

[saves]
The actual copypasta:
http://zinnkid.dyndns.org/upload/chris.htm
Modified by ZinnKid, 12-14-09, 10:31 AM
 
10-09-08, 9:26 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
I'm not fond of real loli, just as I am not fond of real children. 2D loli are idealized and unrealistic, which is why we like them.

I mean, who wants to have to feed them and stuff?
 
10-09-08, 9:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
This shit is getting out of hand now, why the hell are we posting pics of little asian girls with swimsuits?

And khorven, there's an age limit for certain things for a reason. Young people have no real life experience, they make quick, rash decisions based on whatever emotions they are experiencing at the time. A 12 year old girl and an 18 year girl have 2 totally different mindsets, saying that age doesnt matter is a cop out for your sick ass fetish. It takes years to figure out how your body really works, and how sex is going to effect you physically and emotionally, and a lot of people who have sex before they are ready scar themselves, a lot dont even realize that they have done it either. Children consenting to adults is not a consent out of a sexual desire, its out of a desire to please a person they trust and admire most of the time, and when the adult takes advantage of that, it is one of the worst thing that is possible.

And you base this shit off of 'Classical Greek and Rome', what a load of shit, saying that it doesn't cause any 'psychological Trauma to them', now how do we know that? Did people study the reactions of kids while they were getting forced to wed/sex at age 10? Kids who have sex at a young age with an adult do suffer from relationship issues, trust issues and a number of other effects. The truth is children cant make the decision about sex, shit half of the adults in the world cant make a rational decision when it comes to sex, and children are by far the worst to place in a position of that.

After reading about your own 'loli' which you seem so proud of, all it shows is how weak and pitiful a person can be. You say you have no morals, but we both know thats not true, on some level you know what you suposedly did with this 'loli' was wrong (i say suposedly because honestly I think you are starved for attention and thats why you pick abstract topics to rattle about). You wont admit it I know, you will more than likely have some big essay ready for me to read when I check again, telling me to mathematically prove that a 12 year old cant make a decision or some bs. But when the smoke clears all that is left is the fact that you are a sick fuck my friend, and I hope you grow up one day and dont end up being a pedaphile like you are quickly approaching.
 
10-09-08, 9:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 217
Anime loli = Good, most of the time.
Real life loli = Epic Failure.
My opinion on it.
 
10-09-08, 10:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Razma said:
This shit is getting out of hand now, why the hell are we posting pics of little asian girls with swimsuits?

And khorven, there's an age limit for certain things for a reason. Young people have no real life experience, they make quick, rash decisions based on whatever emotions they are experiencing at the time. A 12 year old girl and an 18 year girl have 2 totally different mindsets, saying that age doesnt matter is a cop out for your sick ass fetish. It takes years to figure out how your body really works, and how sex is going to effect you physically and emotionally, and a lot of people who have sex before they are ready scar themselves, a lot dont even realize that they have done it either. Children consenting to adults is not a consent out of a sexual desire, its out of a desire to please a person they trust and admire most of the time, and when the adult takes advantage of that, it is one of the worst thing that is possible.
Back it up, the burden of proof is yours. I don't even have to show sources, that's the funny part, the burden of proof is yours.

Razma said:
And you base this shit off of 'Classical Greek and Rome', what a load of shit, saying that it doesn't cause any 'psychological Trauma to them', now how do we know that? Did people study the reactions of kids while they were getting forced to wed/sex at age 10? Kids who have sex at a young age with an adult do suffer from relationship issues, trust issues and a number of other effects. The truth is children cant make the decision about sex, shit half of the adults in the world cant make a rational decision when it comes to sex, and children are by far the worst to place in a position of that.
Same shit, burden of proof is yours.


Razma said:
After reading about your own 'loli' which you seem so proud of, all it shows is how weak and pitiful a person can be. You say you have no morals, but we both know thats not true, on some level you know what you suposedly did with this 'loli' was wrong (i say suposedly because honestly I think you are starved for attention and thats why you pick abstract topics to rattle about). You wont admit it I know, you will more than likely have some big essay ready for me to read when I check again, telling me to mathematically prove that a 12 year old cant make a decision or some bs. But when the smoke clears all that is left is the fact that you are a sick fuck my friend, and I hope you grow up one day and dont end up being a pedaphile like you are quickly approaching.
Ain't we having a self-fulfilling prophecy here? You make your opinion up without knowing the situation here? She hit on me, not the reverse, like I said in that topic, I knew her from the nets and I didn't know she was twelve until it was too late, now that would be hypocrite of me to to back of then. I already knew her personality but would be scared by her twelve year old looking exterior? If I did that I could never again claim to not go for appearance. Besides, it's the Netherlands, same sex marriage, marijuana, euthanasia? Twenty per cent of this country lost its virginity by the time they were thirteen. The really funny part is that I'm still a virgin in my early twenties because I didn't want to do it but she wanted... bet you didn't expect that. I believe I also said some-where already that I was a virigin.

Oh, and just to end it:
source

source. It shouldn't even be necessary as the burden of proof is yours, but whatever, consider yourself another hypocrite of the same levels as those who opposed female suffrage... but that doesn't make you any sub-mediocre, believe me, it's human.. all men præ-Lucy Stone did so and you would do too if you were born then, just as people now for strange reasons think violent videogames are bad for children which was never proven, or sitting long being the computer causes RSI, which was also never proven.

A physicist says this about it:

"physicist" said:


"What this does, in essence, is it has a chilling effect on research," Byrd
said. "That is, once you declassify it, there's no reason to continue
studying it."


I think this is a pretty silly arguement. He argues as if it were an arguement about declassification of the concepts as a whole, but for as far as I understand, the only thing argued in the paper I linked was removal of them from the DSM as being paraphilia, or 'mental illnesses'. His point also doesn't hold; consider what happened to homosexuality after it was removed from DSM. No more studies were done ever since...? I find that hard to believe.


"If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists, then how can it remain
illegal?" Nicolosi asked. "It will be a tough fight to prove in the courts
that it should still be against the law."


Exactly. And we should be able to question those laws being right. This person is funny, she takes practising pedophilia being illegal as a REQUIREMENT in debating removal of the attraction pedophilia from DSM definitions, rather than using DSM as a source of information for creating such laws. In other words, she hangs on to an un-(or at least under-)arguemented law as an arguement to reject removal of pedophilia as being a mental illness. How silly can one be...


In previous articles, psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Indeed, they
have argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their
experience as positive, Nicolosi said.
[important]

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.

But whether pedophilia should be judged "normal and healthy" is as much a
moral question as a scientific one, according to Nicolosi.


She acknowledges that sex at a young age is often looked back on positively according to some psychiatrists, and doesn't falsify that, but accepts it. As there is no remaining logical ground to reject it, she says that despite this evidence, she'll hang on to her (unfounded) morals. Now this is a big person in the science called "psychiatry".. Wow.


In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal and
immoral."


That it is criminal is irrelevant, the law is subject to change and cannot be used to argue whether an attraction is 'right' or 'wrong'. That it is immoral is also subject to change, and definately not something that is solid or inherently true. In other words: the APA just said "we do not like pedophilia". Nothing more, no further value can be added to this statement, except that current society (with no further arguements) apparently agrees with them; for the law and morals are that way. It's only an observation on how we feel about it, not a guideline about how we should feel about it.


Some years ago, the APA considered the question of whether a person who had
such attractions but did not act on them should still be labeled with a
disorder.

"We clarified in the DSM-IV-TR...that if a person acted on those urges, we
considered it a disorder," Regier said.


According to DSM, people that have sexual feelings for children and do not act on them, are not pedophiles. :lol:

Another compelling arguement in favor of maintaining paraphilias in DSM:

"Getting rid of the paraphilias, which would mean getting rid of pedophilia,
that would not happen in a million years."


His reasoning is stunning. "We must not remove it, because we will never remove it."

APA is a joke, from what I'm reading here. I'm imagining a room full of psychiatrists (which is a joke on itself) debating in the most moralistic country of all, which I believe is the USA. All being veteran psychiatrists and very protective of what they achieved through DSM and psychiatry. I think they are indeed so biased they are uncapable of drawing logical or "objective" conclusions on the matter.

The paper I linked was not objective, but it was sufficiently arguemented and I've yet to see them falsified by proper reasoning or valid arguements.



And no, I have no morals... I also am not affected by the 'dreadful human quality to præfer to believe what I præfer to be true, I also have extremely high resistance to imprinting, in fact, I have on various occasions completely turned my life perspective around at the singlemost sign of compelling counterarguments, what we debate her is one of them. I used to think that videogames were bad for children and I advocated censorship, until I saw the first research into it and then thought 'bullshit, change of opinion', I have no morals and no sense of 'decency', for all I care you fuck a demented granny in her eye socket as long as she doesn't disapprove.

And I'm still a virgin yes, which has nothing to do with morals, I'm simply not keen on getting naked.
Modified by nihlniisadxhai, 10-09-08, 10:07 PM
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
Shit I really dont have a burden of proof, thats the lovely thing about having morals, you dont have to have proof that something is wrong. you just know that fucking a 12 year old is wrong, great isnt it? The real burden is on you, having to talk yourself into believing that half of the shit that comes out of your mouth isnt pure garbage.
 
10-09-08, 10:15 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
Razma said:
Shit I really dont have a burden of proof, thats the lovely thing about having morals, you dont have to have proof that something is wrong. you just know that fucking a 12 year old is wrong, great isnt it? The real burden is on you, having to talk yourself into believing that half of the shit that comes out of your mouth isnt pure garbage.


This is the equivalent of

 
10-09-08, 10:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Razma said:
Shit I really dont have a burden of proof, thats the lovely thing about having morals, you dont have to have proof that something is wrong. you just know that fucking a 12 year old is wrong, great isnt it? The real burden is on you, having to talk yourself into believing that half of the shit that comes out of your mouth isnt pure garbage.
Kay, I just gave sources to research which prove beyond all reasonable doubt this:

1: It's bullshit that children cannot decide if they want sex.
2: Children are not left with trauma from consensual sex at an early age.
3: Children often desire sex at an early age.

You want to ban this because it's 'wrong', well, then I simply call you a nazi faggot who seeks to deprive personal freedom and call you no different than a random taliban or whatever Middle-eastern regime who wants women in Burqa because it's 'wrong' if they don't wear them.

Congratulations, I know hope you at least realize this:

1: Know that children you deprive of their freedom feel the same as women there who are forced into a burqa.
2: Know that the talban who deprives those women of freedom feels exactly the same as you do when you think this of this issue.

Point two is some-thing people often forget.

But again, you're not sub-mediocre, man is an atrocious and hypocrite species for this and I long for the day that I flip and cannot take this behaviour any more and murder as much as I can.

Edit:

Plate said:
Razma said:
Shit I really dont have a burden of proof, thats the lovely thing about having morals, you dont have to have proof that something is wrong. you just know that fucking a 12 year old is wrong, great isnt it? The real burden is on you, having to talk yourself into believing that half of the shit that comes out of your mouth isnt pure garbage.


This is the equivalent of

Ahahahahhahahaha, damn. Ahaahhaahahha, that made my day.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:26 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 120
This one's turned into a flamewar.

And as much as you love real lolis, society frowns upon it. You can bitch and moan all you like, but as long as the people around you consider you a pedo (or replace that with morally objectionable) you'll be disliked, shunned, and thrown out with the garbage. Come back in 50 (arbitrary number) years when the rest of society has changed, or find a time machine and go back to premodernity.

Last post in this topic before mods find a reason to lock.
 
10-09-08, 10:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
Sticks said:


And as much as you love real lolis think black people shouldn't be slaves, society frowns upon it. You can bitch and moan all you like, but as long as the people around you consider you a pedo nigra lover, you'll be disliked, shunned, and thrown out with the garbage. Come back in 50 (arbitrary number) years when the rest of society has changed, or find a time machine and go back to premodernity.


Lol 1820s.

Still work? No.

Sometimes you just have to change the context to realize your argument is a fallacy. O lawd is that some argumentum ad populum?
 
10-09-08, 10:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Sticks said:
This one's turned into a flamewar.

And as much as you love real lolis, society frowns upon it. You can bitch and moan all you like, but as long as the people around you consider you a pedo (or replace that with morally objectionable) you'll be disliked, shunned, and thrown out with the garbage. Come back in 50 (arbitrary number) years when the rest of society has changed, or find a time machine and go back to premodernity.

Last post in this topic before mods find a reason to lock.
Oh, they hate me for more, I have various 'controversial' opinions which are backed up by scientific evidence which I refuse to let silenced. I've been banned from fora, gotten into troubles at the university for this where I eventually had to say to a professor as a first years 'You dare to call yourself a scientist, you and every-one I've thusfar met at this institute are a disgrace to the scientific method.', seriously people like Russell were put into jail for refusing to be silenced when they knew the scientific method proved them right? What did Russell argue? Tolerance for homosexuals, he argued that being homosexual need note make one a Russian spy / rapist any-more than being heterosexual. And he was put into prison for that because his opinion was too controversial. Turing was denied access to his own research because he was homosexual, Bruno was burnt because he thought the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and Gallilei was denied the power to do further scientific research..

Man is arrogant and naïve that he thinks he's beyond this, in an-other fifty years, maybe man looks back and thinks the same things it things now of its own behaviour 50 years back of black people and homosexuals, and then it has found some new shit again to imprint upon society which is a blatant lie every-one holds true.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4085
chill out guys. have a healthy debate, but no reason to invest emotions into it and call each other names and whatnot. first warning.

and lol, those latter two pics aren't even loli. they're clearly past puberty, just check out their racks. they only look young cuz they're asians lol. seriously, who needs pedos when you got azns? :D
 
10-09-08, 10:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
kei-clone said:
chill out guys. have a healthy debate, but no reason to invest emotions into it and call each other names and whatnot. first warning.

and lol, those latter two pics aren't even loli. they're clearly past puberty, just check out their racks. they only look young cuz they're asians lol. seriously, who needs pedos when you got azns? :D
The swimming pool one is clearly shopped by the way, loli head on breasted body.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4085
khorven said:
kei-clone said:
chill out guys. have a healthy debate, but no reason to invest emotions into it and call each other names and whatnot. first warning.

and lol, those latter two pics aren't even loli. they're clearly past puberty, just check out their racks. they only look young cuz they're asians lol. seriously, who needs pedos when you got azns? :D
The swimming pool one is clearly shopped by the way, loli head on breasted body.


i dunno man, the way that hair's falling...it'd be quite impressive
 
10-09-08, 10:50 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
ok I am done with this shit, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but this arguement is useless. You know I hope you do snap and go out on a murderous rampage, less of you is worth the loss of a couple of lives.
 
10-09-08, 10:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
kei-clone said:
khorven said:
kei-clone said:
chill out guys. have a healthy debate, but no reason to invest emotions into it and call each other names and whatnot. first warning.

and lol, those latter two pics aren't even loli. they're clearly past puberty, just check out their racks. they only look young cuz they're asians lol. seriously, who needs pedos when you got azns? :D
The swimming pool one is clearly shopped by the way, loli head on breasted body.


i dunno man, the way that hair's falling...it'd be quite impressive
Nahh, the hear looks as if it's composed from two different pictures, the body is too large for the head, in fact, the whole boobs are shopped on to it, or at least enlarged, the lines of the bra don't look natural, looks like some-one tried to erase an error with a blurr tool subtly, it's my job to do it better, I call shop.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:54 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
Razma said:
ok I am done with this shit, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but this arguement is useless. You know I hope you do snap and go out on a murderous rampage, less of you is worth the loss of a couple of lives.


And the winner is~
 
10-09-08, 10:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Plate said:
Razma said:
ok I am done with this shit, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but this arguement is useless. You know I hope you do snap and go out on a murderous rampage, less of you is worth the loss of a couple of lives.


And the winner is~
Can I claim that spot?

Edit, no, seriously, I've been thinking about turning myself in lately, the more I learn the more bittered I become against others for not keeping up with my pace, like, at night I see idiots like psychiatrists / university students / parents of friends of mine / people whom I've met before me and I continually scream at them which I doubt I do as my mother doesn't waken, I've also stabbed some, humans are so stupid it's not funny any more.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 10:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
Plate said:
Razma said:
ok I am done with this shit, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but this arguement is useless. You know I hope you do snap and go out on a murderous rampage, less of you is worth the loss of a couple of lives.


And the winner is~pedophelia


 
10-09-08, 10:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/
 
10-09-08, 11:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
Plate said:
khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/


Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.
 
10-09-08, 11:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
Razma said:

Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.


I don't see anyone being fanatical. There were actually a few reasoned arguments and references and whatnot.

A fanatical argument is like "I'm a moral person so I know and don't need proof!!"

I called you a sore loser because of your "winner is pedophilia" comment, it was completely unnecessary and only made you look bad.
 
10-09-08, 11:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Razma said:
Plate said:
khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/


Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.
Except that you don't change your mind because you don't want it to be true, kind of like young earth creationists, and I won't because I have a fancy research with the stamp 'science' on it which tells me to keep this opinion.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 11:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 830
khorven said:
Razma said:
Plate said:
khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/


Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.
Except that you don't change your mind because you don't want it to be true, kind of like young earth creationists, and I won't because I have a fancy research with the stamp 'science' on it which tells me to keep this opinion.


You are the one with the fancy research bro, I just have my beliefs, and no one like you will be able to change them. Even if you have all this 'proof' that molesting kids is a positive experience for the kids. Sorry if I have to say, its a bunch of bullshit.

Sore loser, I am I guess to you all. But I have loss nothing with arguing with you other than a few minutes out of my life.

edit: Ok now I really am done, have your last words and lets get on with our lives
 
10-09-08, 11:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
Razma said:
khorven said:
Razma said:
Plate said:
khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/


Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.
Except that you don't change your mind because you don't want it to be true, kind of like young earth creationists, and I won't because I have a fancy research with the stamp 'science' on it which tells me to keep this opinion.


You are the one with the fancy research bro, I just have my beliefs, and no one like you will be able to change them. Even if you have all this 'proof' that molesting kids is a positive experience for the kids. Sorry if I have to say, its a bunch of bullshit.

Sore loser, I am I guess to you all. But I have loss nothing with arguing with you other than a few minutes out of my life.

edit: Ok now I really am done, have your last words and lets get on with our lives
Spot on, that's what all the people thought when they shoved them niggers to the back of the bus and didn't let them bloody women vote you know?

Congratulations with being human.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 11:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4085
...the hell just happened? why wasn't arguing for lolis as easy as arguing for pedos? >_> (those of you who haven't been on MAL forums for over a year won't get that)

Well anyway, the thing is that unlike black and women's rights, children aren't exactly clamoring en masse for the right to have sex with adults, so I doubt the societal mores for this will change for a while despite the scientific evidence you put up.
Modified by kei-clone, 10-09-08, 11:30 PM
 
10-09-08, 11:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
kei-clone said:
...the hell just happened? why wasn't arguing for lolis as easy as arguing for pedos? >_> (those of you who haven't been on MAL forums for over a year won't get that)

Well anyway, the thing is that unlike black and women's rights, children aren't exactly clamoring en masse for the right to have sex with adults, so I doubt the society mores for this will change for a while despite the scientific evidence you put up.
Where did I talk about adults?

What the hell? My best guess is children more often have sex with each other and damn right they complain when their parents forbid that there girlfriend is sleeping over?

Seriously, where did I talk about adults?
Perelman, martyr
 
10-09-08, 11:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4085
khorven said:
kei-clone said:
...the hell just happened? why wasn't arguing for lolis as easy as arguing for pedos? >_> (those of you who haven't been on MAL forums for over a year won't get that)

Well anyway, the thing is that unlike black and women's rights, children aren't exactly clamoring en masse for the right to have sex with adults, so I doubt the society mores for this will change for a while despite the scientific evidence you put up.
Where did I talk about adults?

What the hell? My best guess is children more often have sex with each other and damn right they complain when their parents forbid that there girlfriend is sleeping over?

Seriously, where did I talk about adults?


maybe you didn't mention it directly, but you did mention ancient greece in your first post, where it was common practice for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. but if laws change to legalize sex for minors then i'd have to assume sex with adults would be legal as well unless they specifically say "but they have to be within (age*0.5+7) years of each other!" in which case would be quite lulz.

and yes, i am quite aware that children complain about those kinds of things, but when i say "clamoring" i mean having a movement in all seriousness with a goal to change some societal norms like all the previous civil rights movements you've cited have done. but hey, that may already be happening under my nose and I don't even realize it, so if you tell me it's happening over there where boobs are commonplace on tv commercials, i'll take you for your word.
 
10-09-08, 11:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3996
kei-clone said:



maybe you didn't mention it directly, but you did mention ancient greece in your first post, where it was common practice for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. but if laws change to legalize sex for minors then i'd have to assume sex with adults would be legal as well unless they specifically say "but they have to be within (age*0.5+7) years of each other!" in which case would be quite lulz.

and yes, i am quite aware that children complain about those kinds of things, but when i say "clamoring" i mean having a movement in all seriousness with a goal to change some societal norms like all the previous civil rights movements you've cited have done. but hey, that may already be happening under my nose and I don't even realize it, so if you tell me it's happening over there where boobs are commonplace on tv commercials, i'll take you for your word.


Well, 12 year olds don't have any civil rights movements to begin with, since they're 12 year olds.

I'm sure a lot of them aren't even aware that they could change something about the world they don't like. I mean, I remember in school how we were denied many basic rights adults have, and kids just took it. They didn't know they could do anything. As an adult if I were in the same situations now I would throw a fit.

/needs to SLEEP
 
10-09-08, 11:49 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
kei-clone said:
khorven said:
kei-clone said:
...the hell just happened? why wasn't arguing for lolis as easy as arguing for pedos? >_> (those of you who haven't been on MAL forums for over a year won't get that)

Well anyway, the thing is that unlike black and women's rights, children aren't exactly clamoring en masse for the right to have sex with adults, so I doubt the society mores for this will change for a while despite the scientific evidence you put up.
Where did I talk about adults?

What the hell? My best guess is children more often have sex with each other and damn right they complain when their parents forbid that there girlfriend is sleeping over?

Seriously, where did I talk about adults?


maybe you didn't mention it directly, but you did mention ancient greece in your first post, where it was common practice for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. but if laws change to legalize sex for minors then i'd have to assume sex with adults would be legal as well unless they specifically say "but they have to be within (age*0.5+7) years of each other!" in which case would be quite lulz.

and yes, i am quite aware that children complain about those kinds of things, but when i say "clamoring" i mean having a movement in all seriousness with a goal to change some societal norms like all the previous civil rights movements you've cited have done. but hey, that may already be happening under my nose and I don't even realize it, so if you tell me it's happening over there where boobs are commonplace on tv commercials, i'll take you for your word.
Women didn't have a movement until Lucy Stone ignited, blacks didn't have a movement until Luther-King Jr. Ignited it, Turing had to commit a tragic suicide before the movement of homosexuals was ignited.

What's interesting though is though Stone is now referred as a hero coming up for her rights, as was King, they were in all effect, selfish, I doubt they had fancy scientific research to back their case up, Lucy just wanted to vote and Martin just wanted to get a nice view in he bus. I, myself am not a child, neither sexually active, I have no benefits if this whole bullshit is cleared out. In fact, of all the other controversial opinions I have, like violent videogames, legalizing incest and all forms of drugs, driving from any age on, voting not per age but simply if one attains a certain level of eduction (school dropouts can't vote then, I know, gives them some motivation maybe), alcohol for children but with thorough counselling, legalizing suicide in all forms. I only have the slightest benefit of the last. But when I say this, I often get created into 'You just want to fuck children', to which my usual reply is 'Freudian slip? I have never mentioned sex with adults here, it's only logical they first do it with peers.'

But Lucy Stone, Luther-King Jr. and the lot known for this were just selfish. 'I have a dream' was a cheesy speech giving no scientific data whatsoever, he was right in the end, but how could he know? He just wanted to have a nice view.. I myself, don't drink, don't smoke, don't use drugs,. don't play videogames, don't have intercourse, dress very discretely and really don't want to see it of others, don't go to concerts. But the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the view and I advocate that these things should be accessible to any.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-10-08, 12:14 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1201
"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.


I read that, and it sounds like consent isn't necessary for a sexual experience? That almost sounds like condoning rape, the way it's phrased, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions. In fact, reading this has piqued my interest.

khorven said:
the burden of proof is yours

I'M BITING. At least for now... I have midterm essays I should be getting to, that have zero to do with this.

This isn't a subject I've researched, but I have access to my university's e-Resources... I'll cite what I'm using, and try to include quotations, but I don't know that I can find free online versions of the articles/books I'm looking at.

From what I'm reading the ideas you're presenting aren't new to this field of study


The last bit reminds me of this



To put this in a sort of context... After the first quotation, the text went on to describe difficulties in the field, namely, that CSA is viewed as harmful to the child but what is harm? And who decides that it is harmful? The child, with whatever they take away from the experience? The professionals? The abuser? Society? This segues to the second quotation, that definitions are socially constructed, and thus, you get a variety of interpretations and perceptions. And, when reading literature, you have to look athte definition of CSA being used and the sample group being used. Does the group acknowledge the abuse? Are they reluctant to talk about it? It's difficult to gather empirical data...

Anyway, this brought to mind very much the latter quotation. So far, what I've gathered from this reading is that...

- Child sexual abuse is, to an extent, socially constructed or framed
- It's effects can be seen as positive or negative (depending on the researcher you're talking to!)

But...



A glaring failure in the articles that the OP listed to me was that they neglected to include the emotional state of the child with which sexual contact has been initiated. They argued technical difficulties with the DSM and its definition of paraphilia, or how once DSM worthy activities/beliefs/orientations/whatever are now seen as normal, but neither article seems to actually articulate anything about the children (do the children want sexual relations? are they being harmed from not having them? is this worse for them?), just the people who want to have these relations with these children. The quote I started with, coming from the OP's second article,

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.


shows disregard for the mental/emotional state of the child. The page 43 quotation above seems to imply an implicit confusion that goes along with sexual contact at such a young age in our specific society and culture. Because of these sociocultural beliefs of sex, it is inevitable that a child, at some point in life, feel confused and subsequently guilty, ashamed, or otherwise harmed by the experience. This seems to be regardless of consent.



But what if the child doesn't perceive that's s/he has been abused? What if, as an adult, they don't count themselves as a survivor of CSA?



My conclusion: even if "consenting" at the time, a child can not truly consent to a sex act (or benefit from) because they are simply biting off more than they can chew with regards to their own emotional responses (confusion, shame, guilt, whatever) - immediate or eventual - from their specific sociocultural situation. That, and the disregard of those wishing to engage in such acts with children for the long term emotional well being of the child lead me to believe that those advocating for the normalization of sexual relations with children are simply in it for themselves.

Edits made for spelling and clarity.

Modified by url_elf, 10-10-08, 12:21 AM
 
10-10-08, 12:14 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 170
"These are the findings of a comprehensive survey by the Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET Africa) in November and December 2002."

"The study involved 269 905 pupils in Grades 6 to 11 in all language groups, across a range of schools and from all nine provinces."

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20050710123619850C495299

This is an article that reported on the findings of the survey mentioned above. This does not classify with having sex with an adult, but does give evidence that children can become traumatized and also bring about worse causes by having sex at young ages.

"Some of the other disturbing findings included that, at 18, two out of every three children had had sex. Two out of 10 pupils did not believe condoms prevented pregnancy or other sexually transmitted diseases.

One in 10 said they believed sex with a virgin could cure HIV/Aids, and one in 10 had been raped in the past year. Three out of every 100 pupils thought that girls liked sexually violent boys and one out of every 10 thought that girls who got raped, asked for it, according to the study. "

This can only go to show that children are not mature enough to make decisions on whether or not to have sex at young ages. I mean it is pretty amazing the some kids find that you can cure HIV/aids by having sex with a virgin or even believing condoms don't provide safe sex. Kids wouldn't even be using condoms, I mean they don't exactly hand condoms out at school to 10 year old children so they can have safe sex. Should they, no they shouldn't. This study only proves that children can not make decisions with o0ther children, let alone an adult. Of course, an adult is more self-conscious than another child but the effects it can still have on one child can be pretty devastating. Plus, also proving that its all possible to spread sexually transmitted diseases even adds on to the trouble.
 
10-10-08, 12:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
url_elf said:
"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.


I read that, and it sounds like consent isn't necessary for a sexual experience? That almost sounds like condoning rape, the way it's phrased, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions. In fact, reading this has piqued my interest.
Nope it's a reductio ad absurdum it says 'If going to church needn't be consent, then neither does sex, the latter is false, than also the former.' It is merely there to highlight how partial is it viewed, like 'forcing people into sex is _wrong_ but forcing them to go to church is apparently a_o_k.

khorven said:
the burden of proof is yours

I'M BITING. At least for now... I have midterm essays I should be getting to, that have zero to do with this.

This isn't a subject I've researched, but I have access to my university's e-Resources... I'll cite what I'm using, and try to include quotations, but I don't know that I can find free online versions of the articles/books I'm looking at.

From what I'm reading the ideas you're presenting aren't new to this field of study


The last bit reminds me of this



To put this in a sort of context... After the first quotation, the text went on to describe difficulties in the field, namely, that CSA is viewed as harmful to the child but what is harm? And who decides that it is harmful? The child, with whatever they take away from the experience? The professionals? The abuser? Society? This segues to the second quotation, that definitions are socially constructed, and thus, you get a variety of interpretations and perceptions. And, when reading literature, you have to look athte definition of CSA being used and the sample group being used. Does the group acknowledge the abuse? Are they reluctant to talk about it? It's difficult to gather empirical data...
Yetp, that is what my source also argues, however it takes the simple definition of psychological damage, id est testible conditions as 'harmful' and then shows by research that these do not occur.

Anyway, this brought to mind very much the latter quotation. So far, what I've gathered from this reading is that...

- Child sexual abuse is, to an extent, socially constructed or framed
- It's effects can be seen as positive or negative (depending on the researcher you're talking to!)

But...



A glaring failure in the articles that the OP listed to me was that they neglected to include the emotional state of the child with which sexual contact has been initiated. They argued technical difficulties with the DSM and its definition of paraphilia, or how once DSM worthy activities/beliefs/orientations/whatever are now seen as normal, but neither article seems to actually articulate anything about the children (do the children want sexual relations? are they being harmed from not having them? is this worse for them?), just the people who want to have these relations with these children. The quote I started with, coming from the OP's second article,

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.


shows disregard for the mental/emotional state of the child. The page 43 quotation above seems to imply an implicit confusion that goes along with sexual contact at such a young age in our specific society and culture. Because of these sociocultural beliefs of sex, it is inevitable that a child, at some point in life, feel confused and subsequently guilty, ashamed, or otherwise harmed by the experience. This seems to be regardless of consent.
1: That is what I wish to counter of course. 2: Not necessarily, one may take in mind that the children who indeed indulge in this have a more 'fuck the world' mentality and thus receive lesser to non damage from social reactions around them.



But what if the child doesn't perceive that's s/he has been abused? What if, as an adult, they don't count themselves as a survivor of CSA?
Then it's extremely obvious no arm was done.



My conclusion: even if "consenting" at the time, a child can not truly consent to a sex act (or benefit from) because they are simply biting off more than they can chew with regards to their own emotional responses (confusion, shame, guilt, whatever) - immediate or eventual - from their specific sociocultural situation. That, and the disregard of those wishing to engage in such acts with children for the long term emotional well being of the child lead me to believe that those advocating for the normalization of sexual relations with children are simply in it for themselves.

Edits made for spelling and clarity.

I challenge the notion that sex is supposedly a very complicated feat for a human to accomplish, sexual urge still is a primal one, I believe not on the cerebral cortex located, it has also been shown that mentally retarded patients at least know how to masturbate and even issue mating signals and try to provoke sex, these are often rated as having a 'mental age' of around ten, though that concept is pretty flawed.
sucura said:
"These are the findings of a comprehensive survey by the Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET Africa) in November and December 2002."

"The study involved 269 905 pupils in Grades 6 to 11 in all language groups, across a range of schools and from all nine provinces."

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20050710123619850C495299

This is an article that reported on the findings of the survey mentioned above. This does not classify with having sex with an adult, but does give evidence that children can become traumatized and also bring about worse causes by having sex at young ages.

"Some of the other disturbing findings included that, at 18, two out of every three children had had sex. Two out of 10 pupils did not believe condoms prevented pregnancy or other sexually transmitted diseases.

One in 10 said they believed sex with a virgin could cure HIV/Aids, and one in 10 had been raped in the past year. Three out of every 100 pupils thought that girls liked sexually violent boys and one out of every 10 thought that girls who got raped, asked for it, according to the study. "

This can only go to show that children are not mature enough to make decisions on whether or not to have sex at young ages. I mean it is pretty amazing the some kids find that you can cure HIV/aids by having sex with a virgin or even believing condoms don't provide safe sex. Kids wouldn't even be using condoms, I mean they don't exactly hand condoms out at school to 10 year old children so they can have safe sex. Should they, no they shouldn't. This study only proves that children can not make decisions with o0ther children, let alone an adult. Of course, an adult is more self-conscious than another child but the effects it can still have on one child can be pretty devastating. Plus, also proving that its all possible to spread sexually transmitted diseases even adds on to the trouble.
Lawlwtf, has little to do with children, every-one in that region thinks that.. not only children.... you have to ban sex altogether there then, which is not a completely bad idea...
Perelman, martyr
 
10-10-08, 12:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1201
I challenge the notion that sex is supposedly a very complicated feat for a human to accomplish, sexual urge still is a primal one, I believe not on the cerebral cortex located, it has also been shown that mentally retarded patients at least know how to masturbate and even issue mating signals and try to provoke sex, these are often rated as having a 'mental age' of around ten, though that concept is pretty flawed.

So you're willfully ignoring/denying the emotional and psychological effects that sexual intercourse has on a person? Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there - sex is very loaded in Western culture (most any culture, really), and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There ARE demonstrable emotional/psychological effects that I've sited above, for example. This isn't to say that sex isn't a primal urge, but because of the sociocultural context under which we are raised and under which this act is scrutinized, it becomes more.

 
10-10-08, 12:47 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
url_elf said:
I challenge the notion that sex is supposedly a very complicated feat for a human to accomplish, sexual urge still is a primal one, I believe not on the cerebral cortex located, it has also been shown that mentally retarded patients at least know how to masturbate and even issue mating signals and try to provoke sex, these are often rated as having a 'mental age' of around ten, though that concept is pretty flawed.

So you're willfully ignoring/denying the emotional and psychological effects that sexual intercourse has on a person? Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there - sex is very loaded in Western culture (most any culture, really), and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There ARE demonstrable emotional/psychological effects that I've sited above, for example. This isn't to say that sex isn't a primal urge, but because of the sociocultural context under which we are raised and under which this act is scrutinized, it becomes more.

That indeed is true, however we are not talking about forcing people to have sex, we are talking about granting upon them the choice, the same applies to being a porn star, or controversial spokesman as a whole. We are now drifting from science and more into ethics, scientifically there exists these:

1: Having consent sex at a young age, either with a peer, elder (or younger, ehehe) leaves no inherent damage.
2: There exists a not to be neglected possibility that social feedback leaves some forms of damage.

By allowing people to have sex, we allow them to make there own choices, by banning it, we say that we know better what's best for them.

Personally, I am always of the former option, which is an ethical and not a scientific standpoint, I believe personally that people should have the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them, or either do what is disadvised, and see that it wasn't a mistake after all. The point is also that these laws put a very generalizing sense through, effectively limiting those who are able, because of those who aren't. Also, what strikes me as more horrid is that by these rules of banning drugs, alcohol, sex, suicide, it to me strikes as that the government owns your body, and you ultimately just borrow from them it with some terms of service attached to it. I really believe that a random eleven year old child knows better what is best for that child than some-one who has never met that child and simply makes (biased) laws based on the average.
Perelman, martyr
 
10-10-08, 1:03 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1201
But all of that presupposes a sociocultural context which doesn't have all sorts of baggage with sex. The reality is, we do have a rich history of sexual-related baggage, and thus, a sociocultural context which inevitably induces confusion/shame/guilt/an effect on the child.

Because of their age, this is something they can't bargain for, or fully consent to. Thus, I can't see how it's ethic to let children walk into those sorts of situations, where they can end up traumatized over things they had no ability to forsee but adults did, and could have guarded them from at such a young age.

Even if a particular child is very, I don't know, beyond their years mentally and perhaps COULD handle sexual relations the same as an adult, society as it exists simply wouldn't have it. Ultimately, there would always be blacklash on the child, I think, that they couldn't bargain for or couldn't imagine at the time. Of course, this too is getting into fuzzier realms.

I also don't buy the idea that an eleven year old child knows what's best for them. Thinking back to when I was younger, and to my thinking/reasoning capabilities, my understanding of the world at large, of other people, of institutions, society, culture, whatever... My ability to reason, to understand things outside of myself, to grasp consequences and to gauge my feelings on a subject to know whether or not it is something I want to do... All these things have vastly improved. I definitely made bad decisions as a child, but because of the guidance of adults, or protection, or whatever you might want to call it, I never made a decision that left me traumatized.

I know I'm not representative of everyone, but I am inclined to think that many people would agree with the gist of what I've said. For whatever that's worth.
 
10-10-08, 1:14 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1347
url_elf said:
But all of that presupposes a sociocultural context which doesn't have all sorts of baggage with sex. The reality is, we do have a rich history of sexual-related baggage, and thus, a sociocultural context which inevitably induces confusion/shame/guilt/an effect on the child.

Because of their age, this is something they can't bargain for, or fully consent to. Thus, I can't see how it's ethic to let children walk into those sorts of situations, where they can end up traumatized over things they had no ability to forsee but adults did, and could have guarded them from at such a young age.
I am highly sceptical towards this argument as time and time again it was held of certain social groups with no research done into it and every time it was proven false, I thus opt for 'One is able to make decisions unless proven otherwise.' how it works for aduls, also women and blacks nowadays thank LORD..

Even if a particular child is very, I don't know, beyond their years mentally and perhaps COULD handle sexual relations the same as an adult, society as it exists simply wouldn't have it. Ultimately, there would always be blacklash on the child, I think, that they couldn't bargain for or couldn't imagine at the time. Of course, this too is getting into fuzzier realms.
Even so, the research indicates that overtly, children do not experience it and ratherso look back positively on that time.

I also don't buy the idea that an eleven year old child knows what's best for them. Thinking back to when I was younger, and to my thinking/reasoning capabilities, my understanding of the world at large, of other people, of institutions, society, culture, whatever... My ability to reason, to understand things outside of myself, to grasp consequences and to gauge my feelings on a subject to know whether or not it is something I want to do... All these things have vastly improved. I definitely made bad decisions as a child, but because of the guidance of adults, or protection, or whatever you might want to call it, I never made a decision that left me traumatized.
'Speaking from experience is a sample statistic in a sample space of one 1 executed by a layman and not randomly selected.', I could also give my history of that I was prævented from making certain decisions which ultimately led to my life ending in a disaster which could've been prævented just by that I had the conscious feeling of knowing better than adults at a lot of fields, I know have the unconditional realization that I am countlessly more intelligent than my mother and extrapolate better, would I have that if I was eleven I would have rebelled more and followed my own inside into certain things were her decisions ultimately resulted into a large portion of my life destroyed. Again, speaking from a personal experience does not an argument make.

I know I'm not representative of everyone, but I am inclined to think that many people would agree with the gist of what I've said. For whatever that's worth.
Depends about what issues, finance, educational choice et ceteral, surely as those are artificial elements introduced into human culture whereto evolution can't keep up, however sexual behaviour and social reflexion are things which happen at the more inherent level, like duckling knowing how to swim, a 30 year old man having had no experience which œconomy will not know how to operate it, however a 30 year old man having no experience with sex will most likely on instict know how it works.
Perelman, martyr
 
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Top
Pages (8) -0.6 0.4 [1.4] 2.4 3.4 » ... Last »