Post by Erasmus on Mar 1, 2010 3:24:52 GMT
I see this obsession about 'paedophilia' about the same kind of way the Roman Church sees homosexuality: It's no sin to be a homosexual, the sin is to do homosexuality. Some people enjoy sex with their own kind and some only with their own kind. There's an almighty difference!
No law can prevent somebody from finding children attractive or specify exactly where sexual begins or really distinguish between somebody who'd get a sexual thrill where it's not acceptable and somebody who would not get it anywhere else.
Unless they actively make some come-on or aggressive assault, what the hell difference does it make? We are talking thoughtcrime, and speculative thoughtcrime at that. They don't know it's so, they just assume it. Earlier today I was reading an Ifeminist report about some American condemned because his Manga collection included some drawings that looked like they might be 'underage'. They are drawings for God's sake!
What is underage anyway? The fact is that teenage 'kids' are sexual and do have sex and resent adult 'protection' now as 'repression' as much as they ever did when they were freaking out in love-ins to the Beatles that they have long forgotten and are sucking their cheeks in at their grandchildren doing the same.
That's not the same as little kids but Law is about what people do, not what they think or feel, however repugnant. I'd much rather an adult man who'd want to caress a child and 'love' it tenderly than one storming about how he'd put uppity women in their place under him and teach them 'respect' - or his female equivalent.
If somebody finds children 'pretty' or 'charming', I don't have any guilt to project and exorcise onto them. I've read Lolita and can understand what the attraction could be, That doesn't mean I feel it in the same way or that I give a monkey's if somebody else feels like Humbert Humbert - as long as he doesn't do anything about it. I think adults who declare that at some ridiculously low age, children can be sorted into will-never-experience-heterosexuality and must-never-experience-homosexuality and should be taught to accept their 'sexuality' as defined by others by all-too-traditional mystic signs and portents far more pernicious and in need of prosecution for interfering with these kids' freedom to grow up in their own way learning that one kind of relationship does not need to exclude others.
What matters to me is whether the feeling is inward or outward. Inward in this case means feeling tender and gentle towards the person concerned so that there would never be a conscious attempt to hurt them. There might be an unconscious unknowing attempt by somebody of feeble mind but if we suspect that in advance we can avoid the circumstances to make it possible. It is a totally different thing when the words belie the reality that all that is really under consideration is some aggressive scumbag getting his rocks off for his own thrills.
We treat that worse for children but there's really no difference: a rapist perverts the whole meaning of normal sexual attraction and how it works with the female as ultimate arbiter, whether he forces sex on children or adults against their wishes, even when he justifies it by claiming she 'consented' without mentioning that he'd been pestering her and sulking for hours until she finally spread her legs to shut his whining up. No denying that there are female equivalents too who go less noticed because they are not always as aggressive and for women to enforce sex is still seen as some kind of daring liberated transgression. Who (or what) actually enjoys sex with somebody they know does not and is just waiting for them to get it over with because they've been pestered and cajoled into it?
Is that kind of socially acceptable rapist better than a man who feels attraction to a 'child' - and let's distinguish between 'child' meaning pre-pubescent and 'child' meaning actively sexual but denied sexual freedom by local law? I think not. I prefer the paederast able to control himself just like any 'normal' man who might fancy somebody respects their rejection, to the braggart social rapist with nothing but contempt and hatred for the adult women he abuses parallel to some women who use the name of 'feminism' to define that as male 'normality' and show themselves all too envious that that is what they imagine they would be if men granted what they see as the 'magic penis' of Superiority.
See Grabbajabba and related boards for the open-minded.
No law can prevent somebody from finding children attractive or specify exactly where sexual begins or really distinguish between somebody who'd get a sexual thrill where it's not acceptable and somebody who would not get it anywhere else.
Unless they actively make some come-on or aggressive assault, what the hell difference does it make? We are talking thoughtcrime, and speculative thoughtcrime at that. They don't know it's so, they just assume it. Earlier today I was reading an Ifeminist report about some American condemned because his Manga collection included some drawings that looked like they might be 'underage'. They are drawings for God's sake!
What is underage anyway? The fact is that teenage 'kids' are sexual and do have sex and resent adult 'protection' now as 'repression' as much as they ever did when they were freaking out in love-ins to the Beatles that they have long forgotten and are sucking their cheeks in at their grandchildren doing the same.
That's not the same as little kids but Law is about what people do, not what they think or feel, however repugnant. I'd much rather an adult man who'd want to caress a child and 'love' it tenderly than one storming about how he'd put uppity women in their place under him and teach them 'respect' - or his female equivalent.
If somebody finds children 'pretty' or 'charming', I don't have any guilt to project and exorcise onto them. I've read Lolita and can understand what the attraction could be, That doesn't mean I feel it in the same way or that I give a monkey's if somebody else feels like Humbert Humbert - as long as he doesn't do anything about it. I think adults who declare that at some ridiculously low age, children can be sorted into will-never-experience-heterosexuality and must-never-experience-homosexuality and should be taught to accept their 'sexuality' as defined by others by all-too-traditional mystic signs and portents far more pernicious and in need of prosecution for interfering with these kids' freedom to grow up in their own way learning that one kind of relationship does not need to exclude others.
What matters to me is whether the feeling is inward or outward. Inward in this case means feeling tender and gentle towards the person concerned so that there would never be a conscious attempt to hurt them. There might be an unconscious unknowing attempt by somebody of feeble mind but if we suspect that in advance we can avoid the circumstances to make it possible. It is a totally different thing when the words belie the reality that all that is really under consideration is some aggressive scumbag getting his rocks off for his own thrills.
We treat that worse for children but there's really no difference: a rapist perverts the whole meaning of normal sexual attraction and how it works with the female as ultimate arbiter, whether he forces sex on children or adults against their wishes, even when he justifies it by claiming she 'consented' without mentioning that he'd been pestering her and sulking for hours until she finally spread her legs to shut his whining up. No denying that there are female equivalents too who go less noticed because they are not always as aggressive and for women to enforce sex is still seen as some kind of daring liberated transgression. Who (or what) actually enjoys sex with somebody they know does not and is just waiting for them to get it over with because they've been pestered and cajoled into it?
Is that kind of socially acceptable rapist better than a man who feels attraction to a 'child' - and let's distinguish between 'child' meaning pre-pubescent and 'child' meaning actively sexual but denied sexual freedom by local law? I think not. I prefer the paederast able to control himself just like any 'normal' man who might fancy somebody respects their rejection, to the braggart social rapist with nothing but contempt and hatred for the adult women he abuses parallel to some women who use the name of 'feminism' to define that as male 'normality' and show themselves all too envious that that is what they imagine they would be if men granted what they see as the 'magic penis' of Superiority.
See Grabbajabba and related boards for the open-minded.