GirlChat #502354

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

The real silliness

Posted by Iron Marxist on 2010-May-24 08:57:57 EDT, Monday
In reply to this is silly ... posted by kea on 2010-May-24 08:30:15 EDT, Monday
  Views: 0    Likes: 0     
For starters, many people believe it's wrong to "seduce" anyone of any age into a sexual act. What if, for instance, a child already expressed an interest in the adult? What if the child strongly suggested she was interested in the adult's advances? Would a "seduction" in that sense be wrong? I would argue that "seduction" would only be wrong if the adult had no idea whatsoever how the child felt, and in such a case, the adult would probably only succeed in making a fool out of himself or herself, and possibly driving the child out of his or her life.

Also, I only mentioned seduction in one of my points. We can argue till we are blue in the face over the morality of it; I simply argued in this particular post that it should not be criminalized, because it's nothing more than a focused form of persuasion, it's not a form of coercion or manipulation, it doesn't offer favors in exchange for sexual activity, and it is in no way disrespectful to the minor in question. It's hardly comparable to giving a child gifts in exchange for a certain type of action. You seem to have totally ignored the rest of my post, which discussed implications that were far larger than anything connected to this community alone.

Now, as to this...

and i don't care about your stupid artificial category of pro/anti 'choice'. it's a meaningless distinction, and a total distraction from the things we should be attending to.

It's stupid? It's artificial? It's meaningless? Dude, have you been living in a cave for the past ten years? Are you sure you have truly been involved in this community for a long time? Newsflash: there are people in this community who have differing ideologies. You need to accept this fact, because trying to deny it when it's glaringly obvious to everyone who has been in this community for even a short time for reasons of political expediency is both disingenuous and flat out ridiculous. Acknowledging these differences are important, and it's far from a distraction from what we are attending to: not all MAAs are going to be able to co-exist harmoniously in the various groups we are gradually forming solely on the basis that they share an attraction base unless the organization is entirely based upon support issues (and even then, it can get "sticky" sometimes). Sharing an attraction base does not mean that you share goals, either immediate or ultimate, nor does it mean you share an ideology, a common perception of minors, or much of anything else, for that matter. There are a lot of good reasons not to trust anti-contact people with personal info, and for that reason alone, I think it's very important to know someone's ideological stance in this community because I do enjoy making friends and I do like to extend my hand in trust with certain people here. None of the people on this board I have trusted with my personal info would ever have received that info if they were anti-contact, so you're incredibly wrong that the distinction is meaningless. If it was actually meaningless, no debates of this nature would ever occur. This is a perfect example of what happens when you take a stance based entirely on emotion and it clashes with reason and empirically observable phenomena: the former always comes up wanting. This is also what happens when you put politics over truth and reality.

So I'm sorry, but the anti-contact/anti-choice and pro-choice/pro-contact factions in this community are real, the fact that both exist are totally logical when you consider the great diversity of humankind, and attempting to mask or deny the differences rather than accept them and all they entail is not doing anyone in this community a favor.

Iron Marxist

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses