Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators

[Dak]

Dak (feel free to slap me if I ever call you "Dax")

 

the amount of times that i get other peoples names wrong, i could hardly complain.

 

as for your other comments, very briefly:

 

'usualy ok' does not mean that, in the cases where it is not ok, it is insignificant enough to not require preventative legislature.

 

Yes, the branding can do more damage than the sex-act, and as i said that is an issue that needs to be addressed; that doesnt mean that the sex-act itself is ok.

 

Im more than happy to discuss these issues, but from experience I know that that kind of conversation tends to go on for quite a while, and i believe the OP was specifically about the refusal to admit sex-offenders into hurricane shelters.

 

So, unless pangloss doesnt mind his thread changing course, Im going to declince to fully respond to your comments, unless you want to start a new thread on them, lest we drag this thread off-topic.

[Pangloss]

Fear also shuts down the intellect.

 

That certainly seems to be the case here.

[beautyundone]

That doesn't mean that you can correctly assume that every sexual act with someone who is underage is abuse. It is also very possible to abuse someone's sexuality without any overtly sexual behavior or illegal activities. Compulsory sexual morality is perpetrated by a system of physical and mental abuse that is all but invisible but causes tremendous damage to its victims. Yes' date=' this damage is like the damage caused by sexual abuse. I firmly believe that it is a form of sexual abuse. It is the most prevalent and the most damaging. It also makes us hate anyone who wants to try to help us out of the system of abuse.

 

To tell you the truth, if some child's life is ruined because someone groped him when he was seven years old, we've got something else wrong here. From my perspective what damage follows is because his family, his therapists, and maybe his teachers and law enforcement do things to him because he is no longer a human being to them. He is a "victim of sexual abuse" and he could very well be exposed to more injury from his caretakers because of the taint of sex than if he were groped a hundred times. Doesn't anyone stop to think just how hard the allegedly straight and moral caretakers of children are on them when it comes to sex? They can be more than abusive enough to cause all sorts of post-traumatic stress disorder. They will force the child to attempt to deceive himself about who abused him and how. They will simply blatantly tear the child apart mentally just to be sadistic. They will do sneaky little tricks to him just to hurt him. No apologies to anyone that this statement offends, but "sexual abuse" as I think it is defined by many of you is nothing special. Making it special takes something away from other survivors of abuse, distracts us from knowing anything useful about child abuse, and helps blind people to the real abuses that occur that are far more prevalent than overt sexual misconduct. So that is just one more reason not to give a care about whether someone's abuse is sexual or not. It is also a very good reason not to believe that every overtly sexual act is abuse.[/quote']

 

 

okay. let me clarify something. the people i truly detest and believe are sick and horrible idiots are the ones that actually FORCE anyone (child or not) to participate in any kind of sexual activity.

[Thomas Kirby]

Beauty, what I think is just as bad is to force anyone to hate their own sexuality, to punish them for sexuality, to put them down for their honest feelings, to label them as some kind of evil beings for their feelings.

[beautyundone]

i agree. as long as you are not attracted to children. children cannot make decisions for themselves. now, if we're talking about a TEENAGER who has consensual sex with an adult, that's one thing. i'm talking about pedophiles. the ones that rape little children. NO ONE has a right to rape ANYONE. no matter what their sexuality.

[MetaFrizzics]

Im far too drunk to understand exactly what your last centance meant;

Banning drinking would put an end to 95% of all child and other abuse.

[Thomas Kirby]

i agree. as long as you are not attracted to children. children cannot make decisions for themselves. now, if we're talking about a TEENAGER who has consensual sex with an adult, that's one thing. i'm talking about pedophiles. the ones that rape little children. NO ONE has a right to rape ANYONE. no matter what their sexuality.

 

I think of pedophiles as mentally ill, not as criminals, and I also do not think that it is pedophilia to have sex with teenagers. I am being honest that sex with teenagers is distasteful to me.

 

Among other things, the following are inane: Jailing someone on worse than dubious evidence because he might have done something with a child. Jailing someone to punish him for harm that might exist but isn't proven to exist, in other words, enabling the prescription of severe punishments without requiring the prosecutor to prove that the defendant harmed anyone. Jailing someone for possession of pictures because it "creates a market." I also don't agree with jailing someone for meeting with a 14 year old who doesn't exist.

 

The inane list also includes defining acts as pedophilia that are performed with post-pubescent humans, and defining as child pornography pictures of people who look like adults, who also are not children but are teenagers. It includes putting anyone in the same broad category, that of "sex offender" who didn't even have sex with anyone who was underage. Why should I care or even want to know if someone had sex that was "against nature"? In some states this still lumps oral sex and sodomy between consenting adults with bestiality. Why should any of these people be required to register with the state when they move around and be forced to stay away from children? This is what I mean by using the issue of pedophilia to rope in anyone they can think of and make them targets of abuse. We don't even receive the courtesy that those who didn't do things to children would not suffer punishment as if they did.

[Severian]

I find this sort of thing absolutely appalling. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the 'sexual predators' have done something illegal which indicates that they are a danger to society, then they should be off the streets in a prison or mental asylum. They should only be let out when they are thought to no longer be a threat. That is what the legal system is for - to protect society, not to serve vengence.

 

The very fact that they have served their sentences implies that our society has already judged that they are not a threat and that they have paid their dues. We can't just turn around and change our minds about the decision. and it is not good enough to lock someone up or restrict their rights simply because we think they might commit a crime.

 

Hell, I think MetaFrizzics is a dangerous nutter, but I would defend his right to live free from persecution.

[MetaFrizzics]

Hell, I think MetaFrizzics is a dangerous nutter, but I would defend his right to live free from persecution.

Exactly! ...I mean...

 

I also would defend the right of Severian to promulgate his radical scientific notions, even if many a good Mormon or Scientologist found his faith shattered, and he was forced to seek spiritual guidance with some sexual cult instead.

 

Regarding MetaFrizzics as a dangerous 'nutter',

he could in fact be 'unarmed'. He contracted elephantiasis once,

but I believe those things may have been removed...

[Thomas Kirby]

For what it's worth, even if "pedophilia" is nasty, and indeed I have to agree with that, I don't consider it to be a high level threat against children. When we focus on it and make it a political football, we forget all of the other bad things we do to children. We also forget that we manufacture a much more damaging and painful future for them as adults. In my book being a child is pretty pointless if you cannot grow up to be some kind of functional adult. The perpetual child is the one who gets addicted to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. He is the one who is working fast food at the age of 45. He is the one who gambles away all the money he has and borrows more. He is the one who was literally told by his mother that the reason she beat him up over questions of sex was because she didn't want him to grow up and become like his father or his stepfather.

 

We already have a situation in which every sexual choice is politically tainted by perceptions of connections with pedophilia. This is just one more way to make people think of any sex as "potentially" harmful or even deadly. It is part of the program to make us think of and fear a painful death when we have sex. As if nature even offered us another alternative unless we legalize voluntary euthanasia. Somehow we even get so messed up in our heads that we think we are dealing with this problem by acting it out in our minds. We die thousands of painful deaths of all sorts of diseases, radiation poisoning, gunshot, automobile accidents, and sometimes even being split in half from behind by something that I don't even want to talk about. Like it isn't bad enough that we will have to experience it once at the end of our lives? Our imaginations are quite powerful. Most of us are able to experience more pain from our imagined painful demise than we will experience when it actually happens. Some of us, don't ask me how I know, even experienced it physically over and over again from simple beatings, prolonged well past the point that hyperventilation precluded any form of coherent brain function.

 

Of course it does seem to a lot of people as if it is best to deal with any big problem this way. Turn our minds inside out, or someone else's mind inside out, and flay every exposed mental progress until it bleeds or is visibly spitting sparks. Punish without mercy anyone who resists this practice, especially ourselves. If we see positive results, give the punishment and pain the credit. If we see negative results, they are the fault of the bad person who hasn't had enough punishment yet.

 

Hey, to a lot of people all this stuff seems rational. It seems as rational as forcing people through an artificially prolonged childhood and then hoping that we will have more rational and emotionally stable adults as a result. It is as rational as believing that forcing people to lock up all expressions of emotion is beneficial to them and to society. Sexual feelings are the most powerful. They would have to be to make a woman want someone who smokes, drinks, abuses children, and treats her like dirt. Beating those feelings down beats all emotion down. It also creates an area of confinement where anger builds and burns. Unless someone can convince me that there is another way to accomplish this, I would have to say that this is what inspires a mother to beat her children and injure or kill them.

[beautyundone]

^ you are confusing me. a lot. are you saying that pedophilia or raping a child is okay because it is someone's "sexual preference"? being attracted to children isn't a sexual preference. especially the ones that haven't even gone through puberty. it's a very serious problem and is completely wrong, no matter what.

 

it also sounds as if you're saying locking up pedophiles is some sort of conspiracy.

 

and it would be quite helpful if you could make your posts a little more concise. i'm having difficulty following you.

[Thomas Kirby]

I've got WAY too much background to bring in for the ideas that I want to share. There are a lot of essays and books that need to be written.

 

How do we know that it isn't a sexual preference? Just because we don't want it to be doesn't make it so. Besides, I just said that I thought it was a mental illness. I can't explain why I think so in a thirty second sound bite, especially when my views diverge from the popular views. You got the concise form, and if anything, it was way too concise. There is only so much information that can be packed into less than a thousand words without losing definition.

 

Just because something is not OK doesn't mean that it's the end of the world either. Were it the end of the world, my world would have ended a long time ago. Perhaps humanity needs to start with understanding how to tell the end of the world from other disasters.

[Dak]

How do we know that it isn't a sexual preference?

 

The issue isnt wether it is a sexual preference or a mental illness, the issue is wether it is too bad for childeren to be allowed.

[Thomas Kirby]

All of these issues need to be considered, Dak.

 

Using the issue of pedophilia for anything else except concern for the children makes it a dominance issue. It is no longer concern for the children. I don't think a lot of the people who make political capital out of this issue care about the children at all, not in any way that is healthy.

 

Locking up pedophiles may or may not be a conspiracy in itself. Whether or not this is true, it is a criminal conspiracy to use the issue of pedophilia as an excuse to lock up consenting adults for engaging in adult activities such as exchanging photographs of adults having sex.

 

This conspiracy gains force by using our own traumas against us. Beating a child causes lasting emotional trauma. A lot of us, I think almost all of us have a form of post-traumatic stress from physical and emotional abuse. One of the nastiest features of post-traumatic stress disorder is having to relive the trauma over and over again. This isn't good for the rational thought processes. Reliving the trauma over and over again weakens people, makes them less able to process information well, and compromises the quality of their lives. It leaves them very susceptible to any conman who can offer them anything that can make them feel better. They become a really good market for drugs and religion. It also feels better to be able to put the blame for this on anyone or anything that is available.

 

We suffer an extra penalty because the same system that makes us relive past trauma also makes us live out future possible trauma over and over again, as I mentioned earlier. Nothing can be just exactly what it is. Someone copping a feel is as good as someone knocking us down, raping us in horrible ways, then cutting and burning us and burying us alive in a shallow grave. Then we live that trauma a thousand times before it ever happens. It never happens to most of us. It doesn't have to. We already suffer for it.

 

At least the people who sell us drugs just sell us a packet of a substance. The people who sell us religion or psychobabble sell us a mind job. Whatever it is that they are on about, and they usually are on about sex, they will turn us on to that. If we hate our sexuality enough, the story goes, we will gain a measure of spiritual elevation or mental competence or social propriety that will help us with our problems. Even if we don't remember an actual act of sex, someone ****ed us, *****ed us, or some sexual metaphor applies, so we definitely got a ******ing, so it's about sex when someone sadistically paddled us for as long as they were physically able every chance they got or tore up our lives every chance they got. The reason society sets us up for the beatings is to make us susceptible to these kinds of manipulations. Also, after all, if someone hadn't had sex, we wouldn't be in this mess, would we? Then the people who manipulate us have us blame sex and forget about the beatings, the "non-sexual" emotional abuse, and everything else that is not sex. Those of us who weren't forced to have sex with our parents, a neighbor, a relative, a complete stranger, or any adult have to look at our own generative organs for the source of the problem. They are somehow "just wrong." If someone didn't do us, we did ourselves, didn't we? We don't know how or why and wouldn't have done it on purpose, but by God we did it and no one else. Anything in God's creation that put the sexual impulse into us, and the standard time that this happens is around the age of 13, although some research shows much earlier, is criminally suspect, destructive, only good for hanging, burning, vivisecting, and hurting really, really badly.

 

Then they offer us political posturing and non-solutions like locking people out of hurricane shelters.

 

This isn't any example of intelligent design. It is just the low cunning and brutality of the school bully, the mind-numbing continual abuse and manipulation.

[Dak]

Using the issue of pedophilia for anything else except concern for the children makes it a dominance issue. It is no longer concern for the children. I don't think a lot of the people who make political capital out of this issue care about the children at all, not in any way that is healthy.

 

I agree that its often used for political gain, rather than for the belief that its actually justified and benificial, but i dont see why making sex-offenders use prisons rather than schools as hurricane shelters neccesarily falls into the former catogory, rather than the latter.

 

Whether or not this is true, it is a criminal conspiracy to use the issue of pedophilia as an excuse to lock up consenting adults for engaging in adult activities such as exchanging photographs of adults having sex.

 

citation? I dont believe that any adults have ever been incarcerated on the charge of paedophillia for exchanging photographs of adults having sex.

[Thomas Kirby]

They always use the excuse that pornography is allegedly harmful to children.

[Dak]

As i said, i dont think anyone has been locked up for 'paedophilia' for distributing pictures of adults to other adults.

 

If you want me to accept otherwize, you'll have to provide a source.

[beautyundone]

as far as i am aware, adults and children are two different categories. therefore, you're saying that adults swapping pornographic images of other adults will be charged with pedophilia?

 

that is completely untrue. i have never heard of such a case.

[Thomas Kirby]

I believe that I said that pedophilia is used as an excuse for locking them up. That does not mean that they were locked up on charges of pedophilia. In this case it means that pedophilia is one of the things that was used as an excuse to pass laws against pornography that involves consenting adults. It is also used as an excuse to convict when we know very well that such laws violate human rights.

[Dak]

yeah, laws such as 'you cant show it to kids'.

 

I dont think that any adults have ever been incarcerated for looking at or producing pornographic images of adults, with paedophillia being cited as a reason.

 

[edit] all of which is diverging from the OP[/edit]

[Thomas Kirby]

It's "just" one of those things they throw into the mix as a kicker. The first time someone suggested that a man should not have pornography at all because even if he kept it in a safe a kid could possibly catch a glimpse of it, that man should have slapped the speaker's teeth down the hallway. I'm talking about the idea that anyone who thinks that children should have access to information about sex might be a pedophile. I'm also talking about the idea that anyone who would even make it physically possible in any way for a teenager to access such information, he might be a pedophile. Of course I am also talking about anyone using the excuse that explicit literature or films might somehow encourage pedophilia.

[Dak]

Which is significantly different from what you originaly said, which was

 

Whether or not this is true, it is a criminal conspiracy to use the issue of pedophilia as an excuse to lock up consenting adults for engaging in adult activities such as exchanging photographs of adults having sex.

[Thomas Kirby]

No, it's not that different. They use the issue of pedophilia as an excuse. It's something that can be express or implied, something to push the undecided around, something just to get a case over the hump, just because something "might" affect a child somehow. Anything that might "sexualize" a child is bad, evil, deserving of nuclear devestation, so it's either pedophilia or like pedophilia, no excuses, no evasions, no rationalizations.

[Pangloss]

I think that kind of crass, unsubstantiated overgeneralization is repugnant, detestable, and devestating to the spirit of open debate.

[Thomas Kirby]

I think that kind of crass, unsubstantiated overgeneralization is repugnant, detestable, and devestating to the spirit of open debate.

 

That is why they do it. It was not clear to you that I was describing someone else's behavior?