hey - what about pedophilia, is it wrong?

Spookz asked:

"What about the flat-chested 1998 nine-year-old dolled up like a Spice Girl and sucking face with the boy (or girl) next door like they do on "Dawson's Creek," but who will wait until she's twenty-six and married to lose her virginity because first she was busy with basketball, then with business school, and then she converted to fundamentalist Christianity? Both girls are creatures of culture, and there's little if anything inherent in how they behave. "


The nine year old dolled up like a spice girl is experimenting with the boy next door and it is age appropriate behaviour. The girl on Dawson's Creek who waits to lose her virginity is making a choice. I don't understand what you mean by saying there is "little if anything inherent in how they behave", Please explain.
 
To Spookz who said:

"The answer to the question, then: yes and no, but mostly no. Yes, humans have bodies, which from birth appear to seek pleasurable touch as surely as slugs seek moisture; and yes, that pleasure-generating touch eventually finds the genitals and other culturally designated erogenous zones. But beyond that, as the sexologist Leonore Tiefer says, the only thing natural (or inherent) about humans is culture. That goes for both childhood and sex, which are historical and cultural artifacts, with myriad variations around the globe, in flux through time, and under almost continual contest. (levine)"


So I guess the step-father who was arrested for placing his cock in the mouth of a newborn and the babysitter who used a toddler to perform cunnilingus could use this argument as their defense? Is that what you are getting at? When I read arguments like Levine's and Tiefer's I want to ask them to spend a week at a group home or child welfare with kids who were used for pleasure by their parents or siblings and ask them to explain why they the children have become deviant, criminal, anti-social, suicidal or homicidal.

I would also have them go to Inida and talk to girls who were rescued from child-sexual slavery and see what effects it has had on their being. Not to mention the girls in PatPong who take a razor to their arms, not to commit suicide but to scar themselves in pain and frustration, who would do anything to have some freedom from their 'enforced' circumstances. It is rubbish to discuss this further. There is enough proof to know that the sexually abused often grow up to sexually abuse or are riddled with a whole array of problems: i.e personality disorders, multiple personality disorders, sexual intimacy disorders. Finding that they have no other identity or worth than their bodies some become that young girl on the strip who uses sex to survive and find "love". I mean why not? If the only self-worth is derived from giving someone else pleasure. Child hood sexual abuse is a killer of self for the abused.

I remember seeing a documentary where a beautiful young woman was trying to break into the porn industry and she was on her first shoot. She was asked what she hoped to derive from the industry and she said "I hope to make my father proud".

I don't think the answer needs qualifying.
 
Last edited:
so you do know that i quoted levine (just to mess with you) and you insist on saying "Spookz asked: ,To Spookz who said: "

"little if anything inherent in how they behave"

i think she is saying that sexuality tho primarily biological, expresses itself thru the culture in which it arises. ie: samoan kids fuck, americans dont
levine is actually kinda outrageous and nutty. i am fairly openminded (yay dutch!) but advocating sex with prepubescents is criminal

http://www.brentmorrison.com/020408Judith_Levine.htm

i am curious. you seem very passionate about this. do you work in the field?
personal experience?
 
remember seeing a documentary where a beautiful young woman was trying to break into the porn industry and she was on her first shoot. She was asked what she hoped to derive from the industry and she said "I hope to make my father proud".

that is too cool. every father should be so lucky ehh?

:D
 
To Spookz:

"spookz so you do know that i quoted levine (just to mess with you) and you insist on saying "Spookz asked: ,To Spookz who said: "

I'm sorry your right, I directed my comments at you but I was really elaborating on their comments.

"little if anything inherent in how they behave"

"i think she is saying that sexuality tho primarily biological, expresses itself thru the culture in which it arises. ie: samoan kids fuck, americans dont
levine is actually kinda outrageous and nutty. i am fairly openminded (yay dutch!) but advocating sex with prepubescents is criminal"

I consider myself very open minded as well and I think the States can learn a lot from liberal European society.

"i am curious. you seem very passionate about this. do you work in the field?"

I have worked for child welfare assessing and placing these kids in group homes or foster care. I have seen five year olds with syphillus. I left disgusted.

Also I was repeatedly sexually abused as a child by adults who were not members of the family. To say it has impacted my life is an understatement but it did not present itself as one would think. I became sexually precocious very early on. I was the kind of young girl who WOULD go with a grown man if asked. I used sex like a tool. My sexual identity and self were melded in such a way that to be sexually desired VALIDATED who I was. Sex itself became greater than other aspects of my identity.
 
Spookz:

Now I know you are just trying to get a rise out of me! I think the young woman's comment was sad really! I understand it but it is sad.

:)
 
"Human infants who are not held "fail to thrive," and if they survive, they may become social misfits."

Levine is essentially correct. If one does not touch a newborn it will die, but the kind of touch which is necessary to survival is called AFFECTION. Any adult in a loving relationship knows there is a difference between affection and fucking and sucking. The sexually abused child grows up skewed, they mistake love, nurturing and affection with fucking and sucking...or they fear all physical contact and become frigid (these are the two extremes). Abused children have problems with physical boundaries, they have to be taught that it is okay to say "I don't want to be touched, I don't want to have sex, I don't want to please or be pleasured by you", which healthy individuals determine as they CHOOSE when, where and how they would like to physically engage with others.
 
Last edited:
well lemme offer an apology on behalf of the asshole men out there. so ahh, shit is resolved? issues remain? young? middle aged?
 
spookz you wrote: "well lemme offer an apology on behalf of the asshole men out there. so ahh, shit is resolved? issues remain? young? middle aged?"

Thanx but I know most men out there are not assholes or sick. I do think however that men sometimes don't understand what motivates a woman's actions (and why the hell should they we don't half the time either!). Yea, I guess most of the shit is resolved but I think there will always be residue. I am young (28). While I worked for child-welfare I saw cases of abuse way worst than my own. I mean cases where you wonder if the child will ever be able to hold together psychologically. I worked there out of some sense of duty and left out of duty to myself. In many respects I think some experience programming will always remain, for example I think I will always have less sexual boundaries than someone who was not abused. The abuse itself was non-violent (when it is violent the child sometimes grows up frigid or intensly masochistic or sadistic). What some people do not understand is how sex abuse fundamentally changes the persons sexual identity, sex takes up more space than it normally would or should.
 
Originally posted byspookz
ie: samoan kids fuck, americans dont
Click to expand...

The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead (1999). In that book Freeman argued that Mead had been lied to by two of her female informants and thus came to erroneous conclusions about Samoan culture and the sexual freedom of the girls. Freeman's claims were again challenged by other researchers. Even after Freeman's death on July 6, 2001, scholars continue to debate the issues raised by this controversy.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/field-samoa.html
The Mead-Freeman Controversy in Review (pdf)


edit: fixed quote
 
Last edited:
Hey Spookz where did you see this comment? I am not the one who made it :

Spookz wrote:
(Originally posted by Lucysnow
ie: samoan kids fuck, americans dont)

I know there has been much controversy over Meads methodology. I will read both articles and respond later.
 
To Spookz:

When you had made the statement samoans fuck/americans don't, and I am assuming you were referring to any child under the age of 14, you were basing your ideas on Meads report? I have heard before that there was a dispute over her data...anywho I like Mead she was an interesting woman, and I also value the work and life of Zora Neale Hurston who was also a student of Franz Boaz but....

I am wary of cultural anthropology which is generally interpreted by a Western outsider (or at least it used to be I understand many in the field have confronted the assumption that it is western mans right to interpret everything, so I believe there has been some change). I do not dismiss it but I am always a little suspicious. Notice how Africans and Asians do not send researchers to Europe and the States or anywhere else for that matter to compile data on how they fuck, eat, worship, form their values etc., etc.,

I mean can you imagine it? Traditional people gathering data and making assumptions about local yoakums in Berryville, Arkansas? But they wouldn't. Why bother right? To do what with the information? Learning a more productive way of cheating them in trade, appropriating their land, learning their medicine...

And please don't say intellectual or cultural curiosity and understanding because I'll just barf!

The Kung Tribe of the Kalahari Desert were living as hunters and gatheres relatively unknown to anyone, when one day an anthropologist turns up and makes them famous. Less than a decade later after having been bombarded by these foreigners their values begin to change: They found some smoking cigarettes, they learned a sense of personal ownership (a notion which did not exist before among the group everything one had was eventually given away as a 'gift' bonding members and diffusing jealousy). There are other documented examples of what happened to this nomadic group and I will give them if you like. I just want to highlight that the influence of the 'stranger' had damaging effects. Being thrown out of Eden so to speak. Anyway I do not think it is possible to create a methodology of observation which is not tainted by ones interpretation and projection, even if it is done more thoroughly than what they are accusing Mead.
I also find it arrogance on the part of the West to investigate traditional people as they would a new species of fish. White folk, what to do!
 
Anyway I do not think it is possible to create a methodology of observation which is not tainted by ones interpretation and projection, even if it is done more thoroughly than what they are accusing Mead.

never say never. anyway despite the biases inherent in most studies of cultures, useful info could be extracted, common sense could be applied to the more controversial aspects.

you are being cynical. academics will do the research (knowledge for knowledge's sake). others might exploit it but yet that is hardly a good enough reason to live in ignorance.

berryville has been done. the africans can go to the bookstore and pick a copy

as for the kung........ welcome to the real world. if they cannot cope with new influences, that is their problem not mine. this noble savage shit is fake and i do not buy it.
 
To Spookz who wrote:


"never say never. anyway despite the biases inherent in most studies of cultures, useful info could be extracted, common sense could be applied to the more controversial aspects."

As long as the observer is taken out of consideration then it would be difficult to trust the methodology, but there is a lot of work concerning this issue and it is common now for the observer to write themselves into the process...I never did say never.


"you are being cynical. academics will do the research (knowledge for knowledge's sake). others might exploit it but yet that is hardly a good enough reason to live in ignorance."

I said I was suspicious. I understand it is knowledge for knowledge sake. Others have exploited it and I never said anything about anyone living in ignorance. I just said it was interesting that only the West has found it necessary to observe other cultures in this particular capacity.

"berryville has been done. the africans can go to the bookstore and pick a copy"

Why Africans? I said 'traditional people' or what is referred to as 'primitive people'. The book which was done on Berryville could very well have been written by a westernized african who studied at Oxford. How's that for cultural and racial assumptions!

"as for the kung........ welcome to the real world. if they cannot cope with new influences, that is their problem not mine. this noble savage shit is fake and i do not buy it."

I dislike the phrase noble savage. I used the word Eden only to illustrate the simplicity of their lives. I don't buy this dog eat dog shit mentality as being the 'real world' I think many in the field of cultural anthropology have recognized and are sensitive to the consequences of their research.
 
so ahh do we still go look for that elusive tribe in the amazon forest? document their ass? offer them a stick of gum? have sex with em?

i want in the " great hall of records" a reference to everything that exists and more

;)
 
To Spookz who wrote:

"so ahh do we still go look for that elusive tribe in the amazon forest? document their ass? offer them a stick of gum? have sex with em?

i want in the " great hall of records" a reference to everything that exists and more"

Oh I think I would prefer to begin with your ass!
what kind of gum do you like? Or perhaps you prefer chocolate hum? If not I can always get my hands on a bottle of 21 year Mcallan's single malt?

:D
 
I'm not a paedophile.

That much out the way, you must not assume that all paedophiles are monsters. Too often the crowd that are baying for blood are full of people guilty of much more horrible things, and thoughts.

The moral of the story: Do not use labels, they will only fail you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top