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.

Since I reject all religions I don't tend to take seriously anything said in the name of any particular religion but base my scepticism on the arguments presented "as is" and if you have followed my posts you'll know my general opposition to adult/child sexual relationships is based on the differences between adults and children - all children that is since they are very much alike all around the world. I am in agreement with Sarah Goode on this issue that it is the intrinsic nature of children and their relationships with adults that is the issue. What has occurred and is occurring at the moment is irrelevant. If it is wrong then it has been wrong and will be wrong regardless of where it happens. I do not however insist that all such relationships will end badly but it is extremely difficult to know whether this will be the result so that is essentially why we have laws to protect children and why I believe they will not change substantially in the future.

"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.

That is a bit like trying to prove a negative? We don't hear from them so they must be repressed? Why not assume that they do not actually want such rights (the pre-pubescents that is) - eminently more plausible.

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

And these memories are more valid than others? As I've commented, early sexual experiences can and often are problematical so why would one give "rights" to those who might just be having atypical and possibly damaging experiences?

http://www.psychforums.com/child-abuse/topic95205.html

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.

I'm probably not mixing in the right circles but I haven't seen any evidence for pre-pubescents campaigning for adult/child sexual relations to be made legal or non-paedophiles doing so.

"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.

I think that kids have been having sex earlier than the AOC and always will but this is much less so for pre-pubescents and I think that any increases in such behaviour is likely down to the sexualisation of society in general over the last several decades. I doubt that there is a huge increase however in demand.

"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?

We can agree here since I would like to see more truth emerging just as much as you.

"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.

Not really - majority or minority - they are the same. We can't necessarily base our actions on how others will fit in to the general population but the affects of what we might do must guide our actions.

"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.

I have my reasons why I think sex might be harmful but I am not in a position to know exactly what would be harmful to one person and not another. The approach of least harms seems to be a useful approach to me - particularly when it is not essential to a child's early development. There is a difference between child/child sex and adult/child sex but it is a very grey area.

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?

Another agreement since being non-religious I discount most other arguments against euthanasia and would hope it will come about more widely in the future with appropriate controls in place.

"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.

I believe it is frowned upon because often it does cause so many problems - read the accounts on Child Abuse forums where the posters explain their problems. I know it is difficult to assess the numbers for whom it was a problem and for those for whom it wasn't so it is not clear but the harms are quite serious for those who do see it as a problem. As with adults and children it often is a power issue of older and younger kids.

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.

I can only go so far in putting my views across and I'm not going to be repeating myself endlessly. Most people who will have read my posts will know what I believe by now so either they accept that these are my views and continue debating in the hope of changing my views or accept that I see the world differently.

Sex does not = bad.

Sex = good. This is not necessarily the case either. It seems to me that much of how we view sex now, apart from all the cultural backdrop from history and religion, is coming from a commercial aspect in that sex sells, is enjoyable (mostly), and has taken over as the predominant activity for giving pleasure. Perhaps we have more Bonobo in us than we think. We might also have a similar amount of Chimp genetic material since we seem to share their aggressive nature.

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.

I think there might be many other things as you point out why our youth do have problems with how they are treated but I can't see sexual freedom contributing to a more healthy youth population.

"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.

Growing demand does not equate to assaults on children by other children.

"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.

I don't want to get into this too much but a search for things like "f~ck" and anything female related gives as much anal or more material. I think it probably is a backlash against feminism and although I would like to be neutral I have never seen myself particularly on the side of feminism although I can appreciate most of their positions and how male attitudes have needed to change.

"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.

Agreed that many European countries are more liberal and the US has some peculiar beliefs in that showing a bare breast is disgusting but also turns out much of the worst adult porn. I doubt the clampdown on the Scandinavian countries at the end of the 1970's was coming from the US alone.