Re: Are you a Caveman?

"I suspect it is harmful but like many other things many of us seem to have no problems and many do."

Yes, well, it's very easy to explain why sex does appear to be harmful to children, but I'm sure you know all that already. It's a complicated, rational, believable answer, which I'm sure you're aware of. Actually, there are a lot of explanations which account for this.

As for incest, you are right, but there are ways around all of that. It doesn't really explain why it should be illegal. A lot it (as with the retarded anti-sex attitude in general) seems to stem from religion. But it's ironic since religious texts are loaded with approval of incest and pedophilia (or even child rape), yet religion is used today as one of the biggest reasons for banning pedophilia, even if people don't realize it. Actually, with so many issues such as that, the reasons for banning it often change, yet people will believe the modern reason (sex is harmful to children) as if it's the most important. Unfortunately, we do know that science and the laws of physics do not change.

"Apart from paedophiles how many do you see arguing for adult/child sexual relationships? Meaning pre-pubescents not adolescents."

Are you kidding? The whole purpose of this is giving kids the right to speak out and do what they want. They don't currently have those rights.

Last I checked... pedophiles and adolescents once were children as well. Thus, they have memories of being children.

Were non-gays arguing in favor of homosexuality at first? Would rights have been given to women if they weren't complaining about what was happening? Fact is, the CL movement is quite new, and depending how you look at it, so is this witch hunt. Don't pretend though that you haven't seen nons arguing in defense of pedophiles. Don't pretend either that the reputation of someone in high status couldn't be ruined for arguing in favor of child/adult sex, kiddie pronz, etc. I've had friends who were so frightened by the witch hunt that they were scared to act at all "Pro" for those very reasons, and to be honest I think most of us suspect the same of you.

"Growing demand? Where did you pull that bit of information from?"

Actually, I'm not even sure about that. I assume it's possible, because of various factors (just like child sex appearing harmful). However, the real reason why I made that point is because I assumed you would end up using it as a reason why so many kids are having sex. I imagined you arguing about the "faulty" factors in society which provoke sexual urges in children. TV, magazines, clothing, drugs, etc. Therefore, I thought you would say this makes child sex unnatural and the result of societal factors.

If you're arguing the opposite - that current sex trends among young people are in fact natural, and that it's always been like this - then I rest my case.

"Well it isn't about age it is about maturity and psychological and emotional development which makes them not on the same level as an adult and so not having the same abilities to consent. I fail to see how we could arrange a "test" such as to allow such children to be considered to have consented. I'm afraid a simple "because I want to" will not suffice."

Yes, well, that wasn't part of my argument, was it? I was saying that regardless of how bad it is, you shouldn't equate it to murder, rape, necrophilia, or incest. There are clearly different degrees.

As for a "test"... how about to start, the media stops lying to people about certain issues within this topic, stops withholding facts, stops all the propaganda? Clearly they know that telling the truth will result in a lot of people being tolerant of pedophilia, due to how common this "disorder" really is?

"This is not an argument one can make - because it happens to the majority - many things happen to minorities or majorities and that does not affect the issue at all."

Weird. Because you have been making these arguments all a long, though you back track on it whenever it's convenient.

"I wonder why? Perhaps because the "victims" are dead and nothing done will actually affect them whilst that is hardly the same with child victims who are still living."

But you continue to ignore the real reasons why sex appears harmful to children.

Furthermore - I am a firm believer in euthanasia for humans. So yes, it should be legal to murder (kill) people if the said person agrees to it. Death is something that affects you forever. Or are you going to argue now that child sex is worse than murder?

"Yes, well some child-on-child sexual interactions are consensual and many are not and it is particularly difficult to determine which is which."

Doesn't explain why sex between two children also has to be frowned upon, or even persecuted depending what sector of the police state you're living under.

Proper education will determine which child/adult relations are consensual and which aren't. There are many ways around this. But a good way is educating the child on when a crime has been committed, so they can come forward. But I'm opening a can of worms now, and going way off topic, so I'll stop. You do seem to ignore all my points and change the subject into something entirely different. You do this continuously.

Sex does not = bad.

I'm convinced that a lot of things we're doing to children today are more harmful than basically any type of sex can be. Even an all-out rape. I'm especially talking about all the drugs we pump our children full of, or the tedious schedules we force them to live on. Currently the youth are very messed up, and I highly doubt it's from sex..... if so, that would seem strange considering that child sex is persecuted now more than ever. Perhaps sexual repression is the real culprit for the state of the youth, and not sex itself? Hmmmmm. I'm not suggesting it's the only factor, but certainly one of them.

"Perhaps we are seeing a lot of child-on-child sex because as a society we seem to be obsessed with sex (in the West) and that filters down to children who readily ingest it."

Euh? I mentioned this earlier (growing demand) and you seemed to have a problem with it. Again you seem to be backtracking and changing facts around when it suits you.

"I am not sure if you have noticed since being a CL you will not be looking but much of adult porn"

I watch plenty of adult porn. What's the alternative?

"is actually more about the hatred of females than anything else. Since when did anal sex and all the other permutations become the norm?"

Ironically, most porn I watch is quite the opposite, as I have a major Femdom fetish.

You aren't arguing against anal sex now, are you?

Interesting that you seem to be playing the misogyny card. I'm not totally sure of your beliefs, since I haven't seen you exhibit too much misandry (yet), though I find it quite common for anti-pedos to be misandrists who only care about the rights of females. After all, anti-pedophilia is a form of misandry.

As for addressing your point...

You may be right that a lot of porn is misogynistic. However, I don't see why a man doing something hurtful to a woman always has to be seen as an aggression or hatred towards all women. Though I'll agree their does seem to be an awful lot of this porn, so you may be right. Part of it is what we're teaching each other to be attracted to. Aggression wins in today's world. Also I'm sure sexual repression and tension contributes to it. However, these are just fantasies, and 99% of the time no one is being hurt. The women agree to be in these films, and they are paid. In contrast one could argue about the high number of men being degraded and humiliated on TV, or even a degradation of the entire male gender, but you wouldn't complain about that, would you? Either way I'm not sure what the types of pornography have to do with the topic.

The typical argument is that women in these predicaments were manipulated, or had no other alternative in order to survive. Most often this is applied to prostitution. This argument is interesting, since it assumes that women are incapable of thinking for themselves or making proper decisions. I also don't see anybody defending the male gender when a man grows and sells marijuana to feed his family, or when some homeless 17 year old steals to feed himself, goes to jail, and gets mixed up with gangs and crime for life. The whole system is faulty and is anti-male.

But what does pornographic aggression against women have to do with a sexually obsessed society? Perhaps subconsciously you equate all sex with aggression against females, or an act of power, which contributes to your anti-pedophile rhetoric?

Either way, I don't think fantasies should be frowned about, even ones which include harm. I've heard of studies which say that most men have fantasies about committing rape, and most women have fantasies about being raped. I'll accept that there may be a real problem with today's pornography, but I don't see at all what that has to do with causing kids to engage in sex more than usual.

"Perhaps but Europe doesn't look too kindly on paedophiles either. My gripes with the USA would probably be the same towards any nation that considered itself "top dog" and "leader of the free world" when mostly it is just about self-interest as occurs in most nations but the USA seems to think it is their right to interfere where they choose simply because they have the power to do so. It vetos just like any other nation when whatever is planned conflicts with their own local interests and the US seems to be governed by those with the power and money (military-industrial-commercial) rather than "the people".

Anti-pedophilia = money.
Hysteria = money.

Obviously other nations are anti-pedophile. Very much so. But as you seem to point out, the USA controls the world, and has been doing so for a very long time. Every country is struggling to become more U.S.-like. Amerikkka is the leader of the United Nations, yes? I'm not sure of that fact 100%, but they certainly are symbolically. The United Nations has mandated that every country must have an age of consent. The countries that don't agree to this are put under a bad eye.

The truth is, we can't say for sure how things would be different if America didn't become what it is, but you can be damn sure things would have happened quite differently. Power, and money, yes? It took a very specific chain of events to put things where they are.

With Europe, not all those countries, or specifically the people there, are against pedophilia. Pedophilia, child sex, kiddie pronz, etc, are all fairly common in some of those places. Not everyone cares about this witch hunt. Lots of people are pious enough that they don't meddle in the affairs of others, though that can't be said about Americans. I'd bet that a lot of Europeans had a problem with modernizing and industrializing, and some probably still do. My guess is Europe would have remained more "simple" and "traditional" if not for Amerikkka. It might not be Pro-pedophile today, but it certainly wouldn't be as "Anti", as nosy, or as busy-bodied. It's those types of unacceptable attitudes towards ones neighbor which fuel the anti-pedo witch hunt. Without that attitude, anti-pedophilia is a hollow shell of what it is today. It's just common sense that you don't stick your nose into business which has no affect over you personally.