What is a pedophile?

[Coral Rhedd]

Directly why not. But ultimately this is due to social norms' date=' beliefs, and behaviors.

[/quote']

 

We cannot eliminate social norms that may make some people feel isolated.

 

This can be taken in two different ways, and hopefully you're not playing semantics on me.

 

No, I am not that sophisticated.

 

I reject the importance of genetic factors in depleted environments.

 

Could you define a depleted environment? Or if that question requires too broad an answer, could you give an example of a depleted environment that might lead to the impacted person being a sex offender against children?

[ramin]

ahem! exuse me' date=' but i did not avoid becoming a paedophile by becoming insane. i avoided becoming a paedophile simply by not having the desire to have sex with kids.

 

 

 

and i do not feel isolated from society or that its completely corrupt etc, when i said 'this is how i feel' i was agreeing with the last centanse, ie 'why should we follow these peoples rules etc', but reguardless of the reasons, the effect is still that i have no inclination to respect the rules of society. however, i am not a paedophile or, may i add, schitzophrenic, autistic, a member of the monstor raving loony party etc. my point was that disreguard for the rules of society does not nessesaraly equate to paedophile[/quote']

 

Why are you making the point when I never said anything close to that it is?

[ramin]

We cannot eliminate social norms that may make some people feel isolated.

 

I can understand how some people will always at times 'feel' isolated. The point is that in reality they not be isolated. Do you think there has to be social norms that always isolate some people? Isolation in the sense that they do not feel that they are considered basically equal with others' date=' as human beings.

 

And what justification do you have for such a claim? I think this is the real issue at hand: this belief that you and many others have. First you seem to think isolation means the 'feeling of isolation,' while it means not being considered human. Secondly, and where we consequently diverge, you believe that isolation is a must, in other words that humans will always not feel human!

 

I really look forward to your views...

 

Could you define a depleted environment? Or if that question requires too broad an answer, could you give an example of a depleted environment that might lead to the impacted person being a sex offender against children?

 

I already did, in detail, in response to your previous threads. Why would you deny it?

[Coral Rhedd]

I can understand how some people will always at times 'feel' isolated. The point is that in reality they not be isolated. Do you think there has to be social norms that always isolate some people? Isolation in the sense that they do not feel that they are considered basically equal with others' date=' as human beings.

[/quote']

 

To your third sentence above: Yes, I do. I am not saying these norms are good; I am saying that establishing them is part of human nature. It is one way people create for themselves a sense of order and fair play. It is also a way that people gain a sense of justice (although some might call it vengeance).

 

To your fourth sentence above: I suspect no one really thinks they are equal. Human beings are massively insecure. But I think that you mean that some people are made to feel subhuman? Of course this is true. I have worked with mentally retarded young people and I can tell you that -- despite political correctness -- their experience tell them exactly that. "Normal" people often think they are not smart enough to know when they are being insulted or condescended to -- but they are exactly that smart, even with IQ in the low 70s and functional IQ in some areas that make some of their skills around 55.

 

And what justification do you have for such a claim? I think this is the real issue at hand: this belief that you and many others have. First you seem to think isolation means the 'feeling of isolation,' while it means not being considered human. Secondly, and where we consequently diverge, you believe that isolation is a must, in other words that humans will always not feel human!

 

The nice thing about the English language (or probably any language) is flexibility. You have decided that isolation should be defined your particular way. Look in an adequate dictionary and you will find otherwise. To me isolation would mean not being able to contact my daughter for a couple of weeks. To others, it might mean going to the movies alone.

 

Surely you must see that your definition of isolation necessitates that people still make evaluations about what makes them feel human or not.

 

I really look forward to your views...

 

As I do yours. In fact a missed your responses in a previous thread.

 

I already did, in detail, in response to your previous threads. Why would you deny it?

 

Not denying. Just forgetful. I have ADD. I reread and just want to clarify that you see a deficient environment as one that does not meet a person's needs. To also clarify: You see parents as often being unresponsive to the needs of their children. Do you also see cultures as not being responsive to the needs of children?

[ramin]

To your third sentence above: Yes, I do. I am not saying these norms are good; I am saying that establishing them is part of human nature. It is one way people create for themselves a sense of order and fair play. It is also a way that people gain a sense of justice (although some might call it vengeance).

 

You're obviously talking about a different isolation than I am.

To your fourth sentence above: I suspect no one really thinks they are equal. Human beings are massively insecure. But I think that you mean that some people are made to feel subhuman? Of course this is true. I have worked with mentally retarded young people and I can tell you that -- despite political correctness -- their experience tell them exactly that. "Normal" people often think they are not smart enough to know when they are being insulted or condescended to -- but they are exactly that smart, even with IQ in the low 70s and functional IQ in some areas that make some of their skills around 55.

 

Comon...Denying one's own humanness is hardly natural. Feeling insecure and inferior at times is a better argument.

 

So what's your justification that humans don't realize their humanness naturally again? I didn't get that last thing about youth and the mentally ill. If people feel insecure all the time, it doesn't mean that's by nature. It's probably due to my first premise: that society creates such isolation. As long as you argue against me, I think you have to consider my premises. You are arguing for a certain nature of humans, while I say that the very same behaviors are due to social influences. You have to somehow justify your position how it is not society that influences people to feel subhuman.

 

 

The nice thing about the English language (or probably any language) is flexibility. You have decided that isolation should be defined your particular way.

 

No!!! I'm saying that's the type of isolation people feel that makes them mentally ill: that they are not accepted as humans.

 

Look in an adequate dictionary and you will find otherwise.

 

A dictionary!!! That's funny...

 

To me isolation would mean not being able to contact my daughter for a couple of weeks. To others, it might mean going to the movies alone.

 

Great, but that's not the type of isolation I'm saying people experience in order to become mentally ill!!!

 

Not denying. Just forgetful. I have ADD.

 

Well for having "ADD" you're pretty good at this. So what does ADD refer to again, society's labelling of healthy people with attentional pressure in a fast, isolating society!!!? It would seem like society needs some cognitive and behavioral therapy!!

 

I also want to note here that I have ADD, Autism, OCD, BP, UP, Fetishism, GAD, Fugue, as well as Schizophrenia right on the horizons!

 

Also, you gotta love the Fugue...

 

I reread and just want to clarify that you see a deficient environment as one that does not meet a person's needs. To also clarify: You see parents as often being unresponsive to the needs of their children. Do you also see cultures as not being responsive to the needs of children?

 

Cultures...hmm. I'm not sure. I would use the phrase "political or social pressures" rather than culture. Culture to me seems to be the good side of things: the developed meanings and values according to good reason. So I would again say political or social pressures...

[Glider]

IYes, most illnesses have the same root cause of social isolation.

You should tell somebody. There are thousands of people wasting their time looking for the root cause of such illnesses, and there you are with the answer all along, keeping it to yourself.

[ramin]

You should tell somebody. There are thousands of people wasting their time looking for the root cause of such illnesses, and there you are with the answer all along, keeping it to yourself.

 

 

There intellect is tedius and laughable! There are millions of people with common-sense that already know the answer...

[Glider]

Really? So all that research funding is just going to waste? Damn!

 

There's a funny thing about common sense: It's not really that common. For example, common sense would suggest tell one that assumptions and conjecture are a poor basis for conclusions concerning the aetiology of such ilnesses. Common sense would suggest that such conclusions need to be supported by evidence.

 

Of course, this evidence must be generated by researchers, however tedious and laughable their intellect may be.

[ramin]

Really? So all that research funding is just going to waste? Damn!

 

You better believe it. A whole lot of wasted money that could go to starving children. Also, they do harm as well as waste money: through spreading their deterministic ideology.

 

There's a funny thing about common sense: It's not really that common. For example, common sense would suggest tell one that assumptions and conjecture are a poor basis for conclusions concerning the aetiology of such ilnesses. Common sense would suggest that such conclusions need to be supported by evidence.

 

Ok? Well, common-sense that has a lot of evidence to support it doesn't seem to be shared by many researchers.

 

Also, to say that everything needs evidence is ridiculous and tedius.

 

Of course, this evidence must be generated by researchers, however tedious and laughable their intellect may be.

 

Its the sick ideology behind it that doesn't allow for the correct inferences. All evidence is incomplete on its own and requires inference and argument. And they can't infer truth because of fed political norms.

[Coral Rhedd]

You're obviously talking about a different isolation than I am.

 

Are you talking about stigma? Do you mean that sort of deliberate isolating behavior that is like shunning because someone is different?

 

Comon...Denying one's own humanness is hardly natural. Feeling insecure and inferior at times is a better argument.

 

To be really honest' date=' I am not sure it is that easy to know what is natural and normal. Maybe for some people . . . I am not close enough to normal to have a clear picture. I've had an interesting life.

 

So what's your justification that humans don't realize their humanness naturally again?

 

I think feelings of alienation are a part of being human. Maybe I should have never read Camus. I suppose the answer would be that families or society do not accept them. I don't offer a justification. I am just one person and not "society."

 

I didn't get that last thing about youth and the mentally ill.

 

I used to be a job coach and I worked with mentally retarded young people -- which is some what different from mental illness, but there is still a stigma attached to it.

 

If people feel insecure all the time, it doesn't mean that's by nature. It's probably due to my first premise: that society creates such isolation. As long as you argue against me, I think you have to consider my premises.

 

Hmmm. I don't feel like I am arguing so much as I am trying to understand. If you cannot enter someone else's world, it is not the same thing as deliberately isolating them. It could simply be a failure of the imagination rather than a failure of compassion. Also, I have noticed people resist dealing with problems that frighten them. I don't disagree with you that society can create isolation. Of course it can. But it doesn't cause all mental diseases. I believe some mental illness will happen without that societal trigger. Schizophrenia seems to be one of them. Autism may be one of them. I know that most people think Bipolar Disorder is highly heritable but it is comorbid with PTSD so often that I begin to have some doubt. At this point, I don't feel that pedophilia is a disease that can happen without a trigger. I think it is more likely that pedophiles are made, not born.

 

You are arguing for a certain nature of humans, while I say that the very same behaviors are due to social influences. You have to somehow justify your position how it is not society that influences people to feel subhuman.

 

Not.

 

I don't have to argue for that because I never denied that society can make people feel inhuman. Of course it can. And it can make some people feel more inhuman that others. But is that causal? Which comes first? If someone doesn't fit by being different in some marked way, then they can be isolated long before any illness manifests itself. Do you wish to equate "differentness" with illness? Let us say that someone begins displaying schizotypal behavior at 17. Does that mean that any past isolation that person experienced must be view as causal.

 

No!!! I'm saying that's the type of isolation people feel that makes them mentally ill: that they are not accepted as humans.

 

In order for us to proceed to any understanding, shouldn't you describe specifically some of the isolating behaviors that our society displays that you feel causes mental illness.

 

A dictionary!!! That's funny...

 

Well actually it is funny. You are the person who says you have autism and I think you are trying to make me feel something, so I keep running to my dictionary to avoid dealing with this. Call it an inadequate defense mechanism if you like. The point is that I am the one taking you seriously enough to respond to your POV.

 

Great, but that's not the type of isolation I'm saying people experience in order to become mentally ill!!!

 

So define the type! Offer some examples.

 

Well for having "ADD" you're pretty good at this. So what does ADD refer to again, society's labelling of healthy people with attentional pressure in a fast, isolating society!!!? It would seem like society needs some cognitive and behavioral therapy!!

 

No one understands better than I do that I do not fit very well in todays fast-paced, and highly structured and time-driven world. How am I going to make society slow down? That's why I take medication to keep up. I would probably be unemployed if I didn't. Do I like taking Adderall? Hell no! I rather leave it to the meth freaks. Do I have a choice? Not really. Welfare and disability are not what I choose to live on.

 

I also want to note here that I have ADD, Autism, OCD, BP, UP, Fetishism, GAD, Fugue, as well as Schizophrenia right on the horizons!

 

You trumped me! I don't even know what UP is.

 

But I am just arrogant enough to quibble with a couple of your diagnoses. You may be on the Autism Spectrum but you have Asperger's do you not? Second, you either have a Schizophrenia or you don't. (You must be in your twenties.) How can you possibly say for sure it is on the horizon? Why would you want to borrow such trouble?

 

You probably see that last paragraph of mine as isolating.

[ramin]

Are you talking about stigma? Do you mean that sort of deliberate isolating behavior that is like shunning because someone is different?

 

It's really more complicated than that, though it could be summed up in that way, yes.

 

This definition that you've given is right (its what I'm talking about) but it really comes in different forms, i.e. in different intensities, at different times, and in different ways. One form could be indirect in that the pressure to socialize kids a certain way makes kids that are different (in various ways) simply lose out from being fully understood, which will affect their freedom and development in the environment.

 

It could be in a different form for this same person if these things happen at a later time in development.

 

It could be in the form of discrimination, or rejection & neglect, due to the caregivers being pressured to live a certain negative stereotype and/or social class, or due to a general drop in motivation to understand kids due to socialization in the adult-world.

 

More obviously...

 

To be really honest, I am not sure it is that easy to know what is natural and normal. Maybe for some people . . . I am not close enough to normal to have a clear picture. I've had an interesting life.

 

Understanding that one is a human being is the most elementary of things that I would think even occurs in babyhood, but is distracted & repressed after due to the oppressive-style environment.

 

 

I think feelings of alienation are a part of being human. Maybe I should have never read Camus. I suppose the answer would be that families or society do not accept them. I don't offer a justification. I am just one person and not "society."

 

But I'm not saying feelings of alienation are not natural. I'm saying actually being alienation is unnatural.

 

 

 

I used to be a job coach and I worked with mentally retarded young people -- which is some what different from mental illness, but there is still a stigma attached to it.

 

I'm sure you're right...

 

If you cannot enter someone else's world, it is not the same thing as deliberately isolating them. It could simply be a failure of the imagination rather than a failure of compassion. Also, I have noticed people resist dealing with problems that frighten them. I don't disagree with you that society can create isolation. Of course it can. But it doesn't cause all mental diseases. I believe some mental illness will happen without that societal trigger. Schizophrenia seems to be one of them.

 

You obviously don't know much about schizophrenia when you're saying that. You see the danger of implication? Just because schizoprhenia is highly bio-pathological, you think it is genetic. But these are not the same thing. Schizoprhenia is one of the most known diseases to have a necessary environmental component. Even over-deterministic and arbitrary behavioral genetic research has proven this as they admit that the environment is necessary for schizophrenia to form via their data. Schizophrenia is according to them partly genetic, partly environmental. But that's non-sense. It is due to highly unnecessary social isolation that can be prevented via a less deficient society and thus is not genetic at all. Genes are only the medium.

 

Autism may be one of them.

 

Let's not jump the gun again. Bio-pathology does not mean genetic. Stress, vaccination, drugs, and nutrition to name a few things come from the environment and they induce bio-pathology in various ways.

 

 

I know that most people think Bipolar Disorder is highly heritable but it is comorbid with PTSD so often that I begin to have some doubt. At this point, I don't feel that pedophilia is a disease that can happen without a trigger. I think it is more likely that pedophiles are made, not born.

 

I agree as well. The interesting question that you brought up is what to do with them, and others with disorders. It seems that though they are made, it is sometimes too late and interventions (in the case of pedophilia intervention, in the case of bulimia for instance cognitive therapy) must be administered.

 

 

 

Not.

 

I don't have to argue for that because I never denied that society can make people feel inhuman. Of course it can. And it can make some people feel more inhuman that others. But is that causal? Which comes first? If someone doesn't fit by being different in some marked way, then they can be isolated long before any illness manifests itself. Do you wish to equate "differentness" with illness? Let us say that someone begins displaying schizotypal behavior at 17. Does that mean that any past isolation that person experienced must be view as causal.

 

 

 

In order for us to proceed to any understanding, shouldn't you describe specifically some of the isolating behaviors that our society displays that you feel causes mental illness.

 

 

 

Well actually it is funny. You are the person who says you have autism and I think you are trying to make me feel something, so I keep running to my dictionary to avoid dealing with this. Call it an inadequate defense mechanism if you like. The point is that I am the one taking you seriously enough to respond to your POV.

 

So define the type! Offer some examples.

 

 

Ok, I responded to all these in the beginning of this post. But what's a POV?

 

 

 

 

No one understands better than I do that I do not fit very well in todays fast-paced, and highly structured and time-driven world. How am I going to make society slow down? That's why I take medication to keep up. I would probably be unemployed if I didn't. Do I like taking Adderall? Hell no! I rather leave it to the meth freaks. Do I have a choice? Not really. Welfare and disability are not what I choose to live on.

 

How is it that you can carry on this complex conversation better than me then?

 

 

You trumped me! I don't even know what UP is.

 

But I am just arrogant enough to quibble with a couple of your diagnoses. You may be on the Autism Spectrum but you have Asperger's do you not? Second, you either have a Schizophrenia or you don't. (You must be in your twenties.) How can you possibly say for sure it is on the horizon? Why would you want to borrow such trouble?

 

You probably see that last paragraph of mine as isolating.

 

Look here's the evidence! All this "disorders" thinking is making you think I actually have some kind of disorder, a salad of disorders even! I was being sarcastic about having a disorder. The notion of a disorder is sometimes so proposterous that I was making fun of it.

 

The notion of disorder is NOT for the patient ever to "know" either. It is only useful as a tool for clinicians and should not be made public, because people can't stop thinking about it and that highly affects them in various ways such as making them lazy to develop, finding themselves an easy to accept pre-made "role" or status level, or method of dealing with their problem.

 

Anyway, you mentioned you have had an interesting life. What did you mean?

[Coral Rhedd]

This definition that you've given is right (its what I'm talking about) but it really comes in different forms' date=' i.e. in different intensities, at different times, and in different ways. One form could be indirect in that the pressure to socialize kids a certain way makes kids that are different (in various ways) simply lose out from being fully understood, which will affect their freedom and development in the environment.

[/quote']

 

Until, parents understand that they must adjust the environment to the child's needs rather than the other way around, we will continue to have these problems. It is one thing to see the problem, but it is another do envision what should be done to correct it.

 

I wonder if you have read the works of Alice Miller? She was a great influence upon me in the way I tried to bring up my daughter.

 

It could be in the form of discrimination, or rejection & neglect, due to the caregivers being pressured to live a certain negative stereotype and/or social class, or due to a general drop in motivation to understand kids due to socialization in the adult-world.

 

Yes. One of the primary contributors to physical child abuse is that parents do not understand what their children are truly capable of a particular stages of their development. When the child is different from the "norm," these problems are exacerbated. Mentally retarded children suffer more victimization than any other group.

 

More obviously...

 

I am not truly very interested in being or even appearing to be normal. That effort would bore me.

 

But I'm not saying feelings of alienation are not natural. I'm saying actually being alienation is unnatural.

 

Unnatural to what. We have only the environment that we do have to work with, do we not?

 

In toddlers there is often a natural exuberance and venturesomeness that disappears (is suppressed?). It is sad to see this go. I do not know enough about child development to know if its disappearance is natural or not. Do you think this is due to alienation.

 

If so, then a child need have no diagnoses of anything to have this alienation. What is natural and what is normal are two different things.

 

You obviously don't know much about schizophrenia when you're saying that. You see the danger of implication? Just because schizoprhenia is highly bio-pathological, you think it is genetic. But these are not the same thing. Schizoprhenia is one of the most known diseases to have a necessary environmental component.

 

I am not a psychologist. I am a writer. So yes, you are no doubt correct that I do not know much about schizophrenia. However, what is the "necessary environmental component to schizophrenia? I know in the past people thought it was a rejecting mother. But in the past, people held mother's responsible for all their children's woes.

 

Schizophrenia is according to them partly genetic, partly environmental. But that's non-sense. It is due to highly unnecessary social isolation that can be prevented via a less deficient society and thus is not genetic at all. Genes are only the medium.

 

Could you provide an example as to how this comes about?

 

Let's not jump the gun again. Bio-pathology does not mean genetic. Stress, vaccination, drugs, and nutrition to name a few things come from the environment and they induce bio-pathology in various ways.

 

Thank you for the terminology correction.

 

I agree as well. The interesting question that you brought up is what to do with them, and others with disorders. It seems that though they are made, it is sometimes too late and interventions (in the case of pedophilia intervention, in the case of bulimia for instance cognitive therapy) must be administered.

 

I am no expert in this, but I know that interventions with adults and children over 12 have not been especially efficacious. What interventions would you propose?

 

But what's a POV?

 

It means point of view.

 

How is it that you can carry on this complex conversation better than me then?

 

Was I? English is my first and only language. I have an M.A. in English. Being able to write and being ADD are not mutually exclusive. I can take my time to respond. I am medicated.

 

(But I still spend up to two hours a week searching for my glasses, my car keys, my grocery list, my dog's leash, my checkbook, and so on and so on. )

 

Look here's the evidence! All this "disorders" thinking is making you think I actually have some kind of disorder, a salad of disorders even! I was being sarcastic about having a disorder. The notion of a disorder is sometimes so proposterous that I was making fun of it.

 

LOL! You'd better check the DSM. You're sure to have something. You know, making up stories could be an illness all of itself.

 

The notion of disorder is NOT for the patient ever to "know" either. It is only useful as a tool for clinicians and should not be made public, because people can't stop thinking about it and that highly affects them in various ways such as making them lazy to develop, finding themselves an easy to accept pre-made "role" or status level, or method of dealing with their problem.

 

I strongly disagree with this. Perhaps it does children little good to know they have a disorder, but I feel adults should embrace their disorders. Adults have political power and can make the environment bend to their needs. I am a strong proponent of disability rights.

 

Anyway, you mentioned you have had an interesting life. What did you mean?

 

I was being a little glib. The saying, "May you live an interesing life." is a Chinese curse. However, detailing my interesing life would benefit me little in this forum. I have found scientific types have little sympathy for anecdote as evidence.

[ramin]

Until' date=' parents understand that they must adjust the environment to the child's needs rather than the other way around, we will continue to have these problems. It is one thing to see the problem, but it is another do envision what should be done to correct it.

 

I wonder if you have read the works of Alice Miller? She was a great influence upon me in the way I tried to bring up my daughter.

 

 

 

Yes. One of the primary contributors to physical child abuse is that parents do not understand what their children are truly capable of a particular stages of their development. When the child is different from the "norm," these problems are exacerbated. Mentally retarded children suffer more victimization than any other group.

 

 

 

I am not truly very interested in being or even appearing to be normal. That effort would bore me.

 

 

 

Unnatural to what. We have only the environment that we do have to work with, do we not?

 

In toddlers there is often a natural exuberance and venturesomeness that disappears (is suppressed?). It is sad to see this go. I do not know enough about child development to know if its disappearance is natural or not. Do you think this is due to alienation.

 

If so, then a child need have no diagnoses of anything to have this alienation. What is natural and what is normal are two different things.

 

 

 

I am not a psychologist. I am a writer. So yes, you are no doubt correct that I do not know much about schizophrenia. However, what is the "necessary environmental component to schizophrenia? I know in the past people thought it was a rejecting mother. But in the past, people held mother's responsible for all their children's woes.

 

 

 

Could you provide an example as to how this comes about?

 

 

 

Thank you for the terminology correction.

 

 

 

I am no expert in this, but I know that interventions with adults and children over 12 have not been especially efficacious. What interventions would you propose?

 

 

 

It means point of view.

 

 

 

Was I? English is my first and only language. I have an M.A. in English. Being able to write and being ADD are not mutually exclusive. I can take my time to respond. I am medicated.

 

(But I still spend up to two hours a week searching for my glasses, my car keys, my grocery list, my dog's leash, my checkbook, and so on and so on. )

 

 

 

LOL! You'd better check the DSM. You're sure to have [b']something[/b]. You know, making up stories could be an illness all of itself.

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with this. Perhaps it does children little good to know they have a disorder, but I feel adults should embrace their disorders. Adults have political power and can make the environment bend to their needs. I am a strong proponent of disability rights.

 

 

 

I was being a little glib. The saying, "May you live an interesing life." is a Chinese curse. However, detailing my interesing life would benefit me little in this forum. I have found scientific types have little sympathy for anecdote as evidence.

 

 

Coral Rhedd, I just want to say that you're awesome! I'm all for embracing one's state and getting benefits for the state, but that state is not meant to be the same across time and generations, so neither will the benefits. I know you're an English major and not a linguist, but wouldn't it be the very definition of determinism if we acted as if these were viable labels that must exist in the future, if this future does not necessitate the formation of the disorders in the first place? We talk about disorders as if they have to exist even if we altered the environment, which could only take 10-20 years if there were educated and smart politicians in power.

 

This is a type of "bending society" as you put it, but in a deeper, preventative way. Once a disorder forms, it has formed, and it is SOMETIMES too late for full recovery without treatment. When it is too late, society is so bent towards health that their dignity and benefits would be the best.

 

 

Aside from this I'm curious about your opinion about something quite different, which I guess I'll make a thread out of...

[BourBohemian]

I'll more than likely receive plenty of thoughtful remarks for this, but I feel obligated to speak out. I have long protested the witch hunt hysteria against Man/Boy love in particular, as it clearly - and obviously has its cardinal roots in humanity itself; from various cultures, civilizations, and times where something that was once free of repression now consists of a moral hysteria. One has to back to the days of the Roman Inquisition to find a parellel situation in regard to the current lynch mob mentality that bears no real understanding of the phenomena that is Man/Boy love.

 

Why do I feel obligated? I had several sexual experiences with a 34 year old man who worked on my dad's farm when I was 11 years old. What began as a "Man without a Face" friendship evolved into a Man/Boy romance. I consented to the sexual friendship and have always to this very day looked back on it as something benevolent. However the legal and moral rectitudes of today's sex-obsessed society would consider such a sexual relationship as "child molestation, abuse" under the junk science mentality that since I was below the age of consent, it's automatically "child abuse".

 

I prefer a more eloquent, rational broach of the subject - in particular respect to the academic responses on the subject and cultural ones; like Allen Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, and subsequently Camille Paglia's support for the liberation of Boylovers and the Boys they fall madly in love with.

 

And the whole thing with NAMBLA anway... a 5 year-old girl who is raped by her father has absolutely nothing in common with a young gay boy who has a fling with an older man.

[Dak]

in england, the laws of sexual concent were broat in during victorian times, as many men were praying on young women. sure, i bet a few of these girls enjoyed it and didnt suffer any seriouse repercussions from it, but the majority were taken advantage of and did suffer as a result of it, hence the laws.

 

you had sex with a man when you were 11 and you dont regret it - fair enough. to be honest, i know that i wouldnt have regretted it if id had sex with an adult when i was 11. but most childeren do not sexually mature this fast, and in the majority of cases of adult/child 'love', the adult is taking advantage of the child.

 

in japan, they have only very recently broat in anything even resembling a legal age of concent, vis there is now a minimum age a woman must be before she can have sex in return for gifts. this is because buisnismen were renting schoolgirls. this is from a contry which has, traditionally, not had an age of concent. they rationally thought about it and decided that the adults were, in the majority of cases, taking advantage of the child, and that this was detrimental to the child.

[BourBohemian]

Sure - when obviously there is exploitation going on, then what's going on is gravely wrong and ought to be dealt with accordingly. But there's the absolutism of Age of Consent laws, where that they stigmatize otherwise normal and non-pathological relationships. When it comes to prosecution of adult-child sexual contact - it ought in my opinion be done on a case by case basis instead of an inquisitorial blanket over all instances. Instead what we have today is an almost puritan approach to child sexuality.

[Bettina]

I'll more than likely receive plenty of thoughtful remarks for this' date=' but I feel obligated to speak out. I have long protested the witch hunt hysteria against Man/Boy love in particular, as it clearly - and obviously has its cardinal roots in humanity itself; from various cultures, civilizations, and times where something that was once free of repression now consists of a moral hysteria. One has to back to the days of the Roman Inquisition to find a parellel situation in regard to the current lynch mob mentality that bears no real understanding of the phenomena that is Man/Boy love.

 

Why do I feel obligated? I had several sexual experiences with a 34 year old man who worked on my dad's farm when I was 11 years old. What began as a "Man without a Face" friendship evolved into a Man/Boy romance. I consented to the sexual friendship and have always to this very day looked back on it as something benevolent. However the legal and moral rectitudes of today's sex-obsessed society would consider such a sexual relationship as "child molestation, abuse" under the junk science mentality that since I was below the age of consent, it's automatically "child abuse".

 

I prefer a more eloquent, rational broach of the subject - in particular respect to the academic responses on the subject and cultural ones; like Allen Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, and subsequently Camille Paglia's support for the liberation of Boylovers and the Boys they fall madly in love with.

 

And the whole thing with NAMBLA anway... a 5 year-old girl who is raped by her father has absolutely nothing in common with a young gay boy who has a fling with an older man.[/quote']

 

So, if your saying your gay, then its different than what I am against. You are lucky. Consider this.....suppose the man was worried that when he had to leave that you may say something to your dad who would have called the police. He could have killed you to prevent that.

 

Other than that scenario, I have nothing against what your talking about....

 

Bettina

[Coral Rhedd]

I'll more than likely receive plenty of thoughtful remarks for this' date=' but I feel obligated to speak out. I have long protested the witch hunt hysteria against Man/Boy love in particular, as it clearly - and obviously has its cardinal roots in humanity itself; from various cultures, civilizations, and times where something that was once free of repression now consists of a moral hysteria. One has to back to the days of the Roman Inquisition to find a parellel situation in regard to the current lynch mob mentality that bears no real understanding of the phenomena that is Man/Boy love.

 

Why do I feel obligated? I had several sexual experiences with a 34 year old man who worked on my dad's farm when I was 11 years old. What began as a "Man without a Face" friendship evolved into a Man/Boy romance. I consented to the sexual friendship and have always to this very day looked back on it as something benevolent. However the legal and moral rectitudes of today's sex-obsessed society would consider such a sexual relationship as "child molestation, abuse" under the junk science mentality that since I was below the age of consent, it's automatically "child abuse".

 

I prefer a more eloquent, rational broach of the subject - in particular respect to the academic responses on the subject and cultural ones; like Allen Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, and subsequently Camille Paglia's support for the liberation of Boylovers and the Boys they fall madly in love with.

 

And the whole thing with NAMBLA anway... a 5 year-old girl who is raped by her father has absolutely nothing in common with a young gay boy who has a fling with an older man.[/quote']

 

So now that you are an adult, do you have sex with children under the age of legal consent?

[Dak]

Other than that scenario, I have nothing against what your talking about....

i do.

 

if, when i was 11, my female maths teacher (mmmm) had asked if i wanted to have sex with her, i'd had been extatic, and said yes. and, to this day, i wouldnt have regretted it.

 

now, imagine if when i was 11 one of my male teachers asked if i wanted sex with him. id have probably said yes out of curiosity, but i believe i would have regretted it afterwards.

 

as an adult i am sure of my attitude towards sex, and am able to tolerate any mistakes that i make. as a kid, i was much less sure about the whole sex thing, and thus more likely to make a mistake - also, any mistake that i made would have been harder for me to deal with, what with not fully understanding the whole sex thing.

 

that is why we protekt kids by dissalowing adults to sleep with them.

[BourBohemian]

So' date=' if your saying your gay, then its different than what I am against. You are lucky. Consider this.....suppose the man was worried that when he had to leave that you may say something to your dad who would have called the police. He could have killed you to prevent that.

 

Other than that scenario, I have nothing against what your talking about....

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

That's a very unlikely scenario given the lack of pathology in my situation at hand.

[BourBohemian]

So now that you are an adult, do you have sex with children under the age of legal consent?

 

I have sex with other men my own age.

[Dak]

thats such an apt emoticon!

 

ok, so if you dont concider it wrong, why dont you have sex with boys. thats a personal question, so if youd rather decline to answre then go ahead.

[BourBohemian]

thats such an apt emoticon!

 

ok' date=' so if you dont concider it wrong, why dont you have sex with boys. thats a personal question, so if youd rather decline to answre then go ahead.[/quote']

 

It simply isn't my fancy.

[Dak]

well basically some kids mature faster than others. i matured very early, hence why i think it would have been ok had my female teacher had sex with me when i was 11.

 

other kids mature much slower.

 

and remember, reguardless of what your first lover was like, there are many ass-holes who dont care what effect they have on the person that they sleep with. if everyone was going to be careful, and ensure that the person that they were sleeping with was going to be ok (and if not, not sleep with them), then we would have no need for the age of consent and im sure a few men would openly sleep with a few boys, and it would be acepted.

 

but as i said, there are many ass-holes in this world

[Coral Rhedd]

It simply isn't my fancy.

 

So should you become a parent, may I assume that you would be totally cool with a 34 year old man having sex with your 11 year old son or daughter?