|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from anovagrrrl
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 18:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good line of questioning, Cultivator. These are exactly the kinds of questions and issues that drove my dissertation research. I can send you a bibliography of articles on this topic if you're interested.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Vic
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 10:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is an interesting point of discussion. Although some of you might disagree, I think in some ways it must be a bit more confusing for guys than it is for girls - I don't want to play down the abuse on the guys but I think that boys are more used to experimenting with themselves than girls before they go through puberty, and therefore if an "Aunty" wanted to put them to bed as that pervert Berg suggested, then the experience may not have been as bad a little girl having a fully grown male trying to penetrate her (which has happened to several of my friends by the way).
The whole environment in the COG was so charged sexually that we all got caught into it - basically I have figured out what it is, when you are brought up in that sort of environment, you think you want sex, and you think you are ready for it but its mostly peer pressure and the energy that surrounds you as a child is what eventually takes over and you end up doing things that if they had left you alone, you wouldn't dream of doing. Most of it was about trying to be "revolutionary" and to be like the adults and fit in.
All this sexual activity was perpretated by the adults and the worse torture for me was that when I actually became interested in boys, I wasn't allowed to be around them. They assumed I wanted intercourse with them when I was 13! the thought is sickening, all I wanted was an innocent kiss and a cuddle - I knew I wasn't ready for sex at that age. What happened with me is that my sexual development happened in reverse, first they shoved it in my face and when I naturally gained interest in it - suddenly it was taboo.
I still don't think I have fully recovered from this as an adult, and because I was abused when I was 7 years old I still feel the effects of it.
On a positive note though all this has made me more determined that when I have kids I will do everything in my power for them to retain their innocence and not be robbed of their own natural development, be it educational, sexual, emotional or otherwise. The worse thing about leaving the COG was the realization that all this time they had stolen from me but thank God I have been able to get back my dignity, self respect and more importantly to know that God is not the one they worship!
(reply to this comment)
|  From Cultinvator
Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 13:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you're definately right on the order of things and the fact that penetration at such a young age for a young girl is a lot more traumatic than a young boy being put to bed through masturbation, which is not all together exclusive to the group we grew up in. I've also heard that biologically a lot of girls that young are not even "wired" yet to be able to enjoy an orgasm at that age. As to the oversexualization, I'm not sure that it's harmful for children to see and be around sexual activities, it sounds kind of discusting in our part of the world, but I'm not sure if scientifically it's been proven. I have to be honest and tell you that I am not a christian so I can't help but see religious morals linked to a lot of people's attitude's about their body and sexuality. I've had a chance to separate one and the other through some research and taking human sexuality psych classes to demythify some of my previous family perspectives. I still consider myself a person with values and ethics, and I believe that religions serve their purpose and can be very meaningful to a lot of people, yet for personal reasons I've found that personal tailoring of my own belief system works better for me than the adoption or acceptance of a set frame of revealed truths.
I'm getting a bit off topic, but I still think that there is a direct relationship between inhibitions in a religion and the lack of selfknowlege and sexual liberation as an adult which can sometimes be more harmful to a relationship than helpful. Then again this is my opinion alone, I don't expect those with vows of chastity, or different views on sexuality and what their view of appropriate might be, to necessarily see eye to eye.
I've found that even Dr. Laura has stopped condeming the sex of children amongst children at an early age or the involvement of parents in the teaching of sexual responsibility such as the use of condoms to children as young as 11 and 13 years of age.
The consequences of ignorance IMO are far greater making those who are victims a lot more vulnerable.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From anovagrrrl
Tuesday, February 04, 2003, 18:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I'm not sure that it's harmful for children to see and be around sexual activities, it sounds kind of discusting in our part of the world, but I'm not sure if scientifically it's been proven."
Cultivator: what the research says is that it isn't necessarily the sexual activity in and of itself that is traumatizing, but the individual's appraisal of what the activity means to him/her. If the child feels threatened by the activity--regardless of how an objective observer would evaluate the activity--the child's reaction to the activity will determine how much harm is done.
What is the difference between sexual abuse and sexual socialization? Sometimes people experience "normal" childhood socialization as abuse. That's what happened to many people who grew up in the Family. When an adult interprets what they experienced as a child as abuse, then most probably they were harmed in some way. When an adult interprets what they experienced as simply an alternative form of sexual socialization, then most probably the experience was not harmful.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Victoria
Tuesday, February 04, 2003, 13:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree that youngsters should be informed about their sexuality and taught about condoms especially in this day and age where there are so many sexually transmitted diseases - the idea is not to scare them out of having sex but to raise an awareness and educate them.
However there IS a difference between informing children and abusing them. If a child decides they want to have sex at 13 and they have a normal upbringing and they choose to do it with someone their same age then although they are in my opinion far too young, at least it can be said that they made their own decision. But having an adult there waiting around to screw them is another matter altogether and regardless of what religions or "cultures" encourage this, a child's body is not made for sexual intercourse with an adult - therefore it's physically and morally wrong. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that if something is damaging someone physically and phsycologically it's wrong and always will be. (reply to this comment) |
| | from geo
Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 21:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
i liked your question allot, i assume though your mostly asking for opinions i really dont think there is a right answer to the question, and i think you'd have a hard time even getting an objective opinion on this site.
even legally and medically there isn't allot of agreement on the subject, i think that by itself shows it is a cultural issue and especially in a america a religious or moral one.
ive gotten into a lot of arguments on subjects mostly because im a very abstract thinker, really a border line anarchist, the main argument i have is that most people believe us special humans are born with some sort of moral instinct that theres at least same base things that we can differentiate between as right or wrong.
that i cant believe, if you take religion out, original sin and all that, i think people are very empty that humans are born moldable, were adaptable but hate change, our character my be congenital but our values and standards must be enviormental. i dont mean that if you are raised to believe somethings bad or good youll continue to believe that; but that, those standards will become the framework by which you create you own beliefs. and of course the social structure were born into is probably the strongest aspect of what forms our beliefs.
within "normal" society as we know it, i see everything wrong with what took place within TF between younger people and the older "perverts" i can say its simply wrong legaly, morally, and mostly socially, those children are possibly gonna be fucked up now and have trouble interacting with the rest of "polite" society. you can say that 2000 years ago an eskimo tribe in the himalayas or something, practiced it and didnt have any problems, which is great except that we dont live 2000 years ago in an eskimo tribe in the himalayas.
the law of love, contrary to what most people on this site probably think, i think it is a very good system of morals and social guidlines, to me it makes complete sense... almost. but of course it all goes to crap when you try to aply it, nothing about love and human nature will ever be uniform or even commonly defined, so we always need rule of law.
that siad though based on my own demented, chaotic veiw of life i dont see anything inherintly wrong with what could take place sexually between a younger and older person, there are alot of boundries everywhere that we have for our security i wish didnt exist, i think we destroy alot of possiblitlies because of our need for saftey and our fear of the unknown or really our fear of the unusual.
still im deffinitly not an advicate of child adult sex and i would never defend what went on in TF ever.
my opinion is though, that the majority of what is socialy or legaly acceptable sexually is based on cultural and religous habit and because of that i believe it is almost completly relative.
(reply to this comment)
| from Jerseygirl
Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 17:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can appreciate this topic Cul, what I'm wodering is this,Do you see having a certain moral ethic as a "demented limited perception"?
The truth we grew up with was demented and limited while promoting many of the things you bring up. I guess I usually consider myself to be pretty open minded and liberal but I seem to get a stomach ache at the prospect of this being one of those grey areas.I admire people who want to push the envelope in questioning about life or sexual topics but I guess I'm just curious as to where the line should be drawn. Anyways, How are you BTW?
(reply to this comment)
| From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 20:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good point. I can only talk for myself, but I belive moral ethics are very necessary. Lot's of issues are subjective to the individual, region, custom, etc... the reflect our experiences with our environments or the ideas we've been exposed to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Basically, that's all we know. For me, I try to be respectful of every more and traditional value, so long as they are not intolerant to the existence of different views and stances that are not harmful. I do belive in uneversal values pertaining to the wellbeing of humans and even animals as much as possible. As an american, I also have a great deal of respect for the constitutioal protective rights of life, liberty, and even property to a certain extent. So to answer your questions, I think conservative perspectives are fine so long as they're not unduly aggressive towards other harmless perspectives. I just have a very low tolerance for exclusive attitues that are ethnocentric in nature at an active destructive level. Art and creativity is my bag. Those who perfer ideas based on other tried and proven methods are cool by me too. I just thrive in pushing the envelope in a creative way not a destructive one. I hope I answered your question ok? In other words, any trend or tradition or value is fine by me, even if I don't care for it so long as it doesn't restrict others from living their life and trying different and even controversial experiences. To me it's all about experiencing life to it's uttermost free of force interferance as much as possible, unless necessary to hold back harm. But the burden of proof is on those who wish to restrict, not on those who are creative. (I'm sure there are some exceptions)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Cultinvator
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 16:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know, Living in California I feel the same, I've been conditioned too much in the negative way and for now I'm playing safe for me and those around me. Plus, it's illegal and inapproriate in our country. Much like watching movies about something and discovering new ideas that we don't practice, the exchange of views and perspectives is more often than not abstract and not applied. Thank goodness for that. Reminds me of the recent release "Bowling for columbine" to that respect, however thier issue is aggression and violence. "Fear" seemed to be the determining factor.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 17:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, I missed your greeting. I'm doing fine, thanks. How's life in N. Jersey. It was great hearing from you. I hope I'm not sticking my foot up my mouth on some of these issues. I don't belive in sex amongst minors and older people in America, I'm I agree with one of the earlier comentators who made that assertion. I gues the grey area lied in the action itself rather than weather it's appropriate in this culture. I've disscussed this issue with people from northern countries and anthropologist who dedicate their life to trying to scientifically shed light on these issues of human nature. The reason why I didn't want to bring in personal experiences is because the emotional factor and rhetoric clowds judgement too much in the scientific process of finding concrete solutions. That does't mean that the experiences should be minimized in value. I just think that details are best kept to counseling and apropriate legislative action, if harmed. My intention in this article and many about other controversial issues in life is to dig and break down the definitions and behaviours to the base fractions in order to see where the effects can be seen as valid reactions and not correlated factors. Valididty verses correlation. We see children being kidnapped, raped, murdered, and horrible attrocities being comitted in spite of the tough laws in our country. We in America have some of the ugliest of them all and our laws are some of the toughest? How is that? In scandinavia and other northern European contries it's not rare to see very young people and even preadolescents engaging in respectful creative relationships with people who are older without the element of abuse and definately no kids in the trunk or any of those discusting events that we see here in America? And to say that all of those people who live differently are psychologically harmed seems like a very culturally centric perspective and almost just as harmful in an overly protective way. We've grown from witchhunts, laws prohibiting homosexuality, laws repressing blacks, and all kinds of fear induced myths to a better America today. But I have to agree with Producer Philip More in Bowling for columbine, that our culture is a very fear inducing culture and we tend to put people up on the stake for things we just don't like or understand, and are often not guided by the scientific method of trial and error. Testing this issue, I agree is very difficult, but we can take a peek at people who belive and act differently to see what the results of their actions have brought them to before creating our fixed assumptions. Thank you for your commens, it's good to hear from you! :) Jules, I'm not at all offended by your thougts and perspectives, I thank you for your honesty and look forwards to learning more from your ideas. Like I said, I this is a grey area in my perspective and I see room to grow. None of this information reflects a fixed judgement and I'm very conservative, like Jersey girl on the applied level. I just think the unrestricted exchange of ideas will only help to separate myth from fact, validity from correlation, and belief from science. Children are vulnerable, I belive in caring and protecting. Abuse and pain is not something I subscribe to, but neither is intolerance. Two wrongs don't make one right.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 19:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not all of North America is the US, or as hypocritical and religious regarding sexuality. Here is the current Canadian law regarding age of consent. Note though that even here, a 30 year old with a 13 year old is a crime.
"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 23:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
The US has similar statutory rape laws, but they are determined, legislated and enforced by the States. Such criminal laws are not determined by the federal government. Therefore, there is no national provisions against statutory rape. They vary from state to state. Some states are more lenient, some more strict. However, there is the model penal code which many states have adopted and which has a similar provision on statutory rape, which also has concessions for when the perpetrator is also underage. However, no such laws recognize the consent of a minor. In the eyes of the law, a minor does not have the capacity to consent because of their vulnerability to influence and control. A minor may say they consented while still having been coerced, so the law does not recognize the consent of a minor. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning the mental state of the perpetrator is not an element of the crime.
There have been some interesting cases recently where women have been severely prosecuted for statutory rape of a minor male, including stiff prison sentences. In one case, the male claimed he consented at the time, but after the woman went to prison, he admitted that he had been seduced and coerced.
It is also interesting to know that Canadian law regarding pornography is among the most stringent in the western world. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon, two feminist legal scholars, were able to pass laws in Canada, which the US ruled unconstitutional, which had the effect of censoring academic publications because they were so broad. It was an odd case of Frankenstein’s monster because Dworkin’s own academic publications on the sex industry and its objectification of women and the link between crimes of violence against women and pornography was confiscated at the border by Canadian officials.
Both the US and Canadian law is based on the English common law, as opposed to civil law countries like France. So their legal system is practically identical. The most stark difference is the US Constitution and the states’ constitutions, which have the authority to overrule years of common law precedent or strike down federal or state laws which are deemed unconstitutional for having violated one of the provisions, such as those which protect certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, free press, right to the process of law, etc.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from thepersoniamnow
Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I personally think that when you hit the age (it varies in people) of 13-15 you have already pretty much become very much sexually aware and sometimes active.
If the topic is truly unrelated to abuse and your talking about sex between consenting partners then I think theres alot of leniency.
Just a few months ago I was living with several very young girls, the youngest was 13.
All of them had sex regularly and enoyed it and alot of it was with men that were even in their 30s.
When I talked to them about it my initial reaction was to be a little worried because I didn`t think that a 14 year old girl should even be messing around with anyone beyond 5-6 years older than her max and much less an adult.
But when talking to them they seemed pretty relaxed and in control. Pretty soon I didnt worry about them at all when they went out and after a while I hardly gave their dating lives a 2nd thought.
So much depends on the person specifically. Of course it may be generally a much better idea to have restrictions and laws to avoid the opposite extreme swing.
I`ve gone to parties and later found out that the girl I hung out with was a 14 year old highschool girl posing as a 20 year old and nobody knew.
All that to say that when its individualized, it depends on the case at hand.
However lets say the Scandanavian Laws get implemented in the States. I personally think thats a dangerous step and alot of girls would get hurt.
On the subject of whether we as ex members are paranoid...I would say we are a little.
However we do have every fucking right to be, and just as someone whos had their house burned down from a fire would be extra precaucious with candles and matches, you can`t blame an ex member for going to the nth degree to make sure that him/her or his family and loved ones never have to experience what he/her may have had the misfortune of going through themselves.
The thing that affected me for a long time was the violent and extreme discipline that I was subjected to in the Family. I witnessed sexual abuse in The family, but since I was taught and fed it since birth, it took me several years to fully grasp the horror of what was going on.
Interesting article Cul!
(reply to this comment)
| From Big Sister is worried too
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 01:03
 (Agree/Disagree?)
A 13 year old who is having sex at all, much less with a 30 year old, is not pretty relaxed and in control; she is way out of control and in a bad situation. She she seems ok to you, is faking it and inside she is scared sh**less. A thirteen year old should be into reading, sports and her girlfriends. She should be so busy with school, sports and other actual activities that she does not have time for dating. If she is having sex with any one, it is illegal. And there are reasons for those laws. A thirty year old who is interested in anyone 18 or younger is a person with many many problems.
I am expressing only my opinion here but it is a strong one. For your own person health and safety it is important to get a good grip on right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy on this subject.
I have learned a lot from a radio program called Loveline that airs nationally out of LA. It doesn't seem to have a web site connected with it but you can look here:
http://www.adamanddrew.com/stat.htm
to find a list of radio stations in your area. I recommend Loveline to all the readers of this thread. Let me know what you think!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Cultinvator
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 02:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Bigsister, I don't doubt your good intentions. I can't help but see your concern, but I also can't help but see a trend of conditioning. I've been amazed at the effects of combining natural drives and needs with philosophy, religion, black and white perspectives of right and wrong. Like the bell with the dog in classical pavlovian conditioning. We get to the point were we no longer need the meet to get the dog to salivate. We no longer need to search answers for ourselves, the bible, radio talk shows, and convincing arguments now create or perceptions of right and wrong. I'm not against that if that's what you're happy with. I guess I'm against that if that's how you feel all people should be forced to do. That's where critical thinking is emperative in my opinion. When I hear the words: needs, should, illegal, problems, I can't help but see subjective values, not objective rational and cultural relativity.
I'm not happy being a church christian who attends church on Sunday or any day, I'm not happy slaving away at minimum wage and being told how I should live my life by a conformist society who prefers to create neatly packaged morals that work as blanket policies of how we should feel and think so that we never have to really dig into the real issues of life through our own senses on a case by case scenario. I'm sorry, I don't mean to patronize, that's not my intention. I'm just shedding my perspective. Laws are reflective of a people's interest, nothing else. Governments are made up of people who are not necessarily concerned with the good of individuals or the general good of humanity. That's the first thing I learned from political science, and it's true. But I continue to challenge my teachers, I continue to challenge the status quo and I belive every one has the responsibility to do that in his/her own life in all matters. The truth is too preacious to be coated with our limited perception or a neatly packaged set of group ideas. Liberty is just too precious. Nothing against lovline or any other show or book. So long as it's kept as a concept and peoples vies are not inflicted upon others as fact. Thanks for your comment. Feel free to give me a peek into your mind, as long as there is talk and free exchange of ideas, there is hope of growth. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 13:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cultinvator, what the hell?
Speaking hypothetically and about primal cultures is one thing, but are you saying that a man in his 30s who is molesting (a child cannot consent to sex) a 13 year old girl is an issue of cultural relativity? I admittedly have zero objectivity when it comes to abuse of children, but that’s nonsense.
What is a sign of conditioning IMO is the lack of appropriate response that many of us sometimes show to these serious issues. I resent this attitude immensely in the FGs, and I think they are accountable for the abuse that occurred in the Family because they were passive about this issue, but it’s shocking to see passivity and inaction here too. This was supposedly a real life scenario, and IMO anyone who knew about something like this and did nothing is accountable. Moral relativism is fine in an academic setting, and I believe everything should be open to debate, in the real world however, some things are just plain wrong. It’s not complicated, and it’s not relative.
Children cannot consent to sex. If a child is being abused or taken advantage of their parents need to act to protect them. That is their responsibility as parents. If the parents won’t act or are participating in the abuse then they need to be removed from their parents’ care. People who stand idly by while this sort of abuse occurs are responsible morally and legally for the abuse.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Vicky
Saturday, March 22, 2003, 06:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was very sexually aware at the age of 13 and probably would have enjoyed having some attention from the grown men who I had crushes on but that wouldn't have meant that I was ready for sex with an older man and it would have been wrong for a man to take advantage even if my mannerisms gave the impression that I was interested.
In my opinion very few people have the maturity and self-respect needed to begin sexual activities in a healthy way at the age of 13, though I concede that of course some people grow up mentally and emotionally much earlier than average.
Perhaps that's why you, Cultinvator, don't feel that your experiences were harmful to you.
I also have to say that of course there are grey areas. Many people got married at 13 even in "civilised" countries up until a relatively short time ago and it was accepted. The thing is that if those girls were treated roughly or forced into sex on a regular basis, as was totally within the rights of a husband to do to his wife in those days, it would have been very damaging to the girls psychologically, emotionally and even physically, probably affecting them for the rest of their lives.
I am sure it happens sometimes that a young girl of 13 or so falls deeply in love with a much older man who truly loves her and who would be good for her but I think that in reality the dynamics of such a relationship would be completely unfair - How could you expect a young girl like that to know herself well enough to know when she is being manipulated or cajoled into things that she's not comfortable with (And I don't just mean sexually but in many other aspects too)?
I just remembered that Sofia Loren met and fell in love with her husband at the age of 13 I believe? Does anyone know for sure? As far as i remember she was 15 when they got married and they are still happily married now, about 40 years later. So obviously it can work.
But I think cases in which it is a positive thing in the young girl's life are FAR out-weighed by all the times when it's turned out to be very damaging.
If a young girl wants to experiment with people of her own age i think that's different because there is more chance that the two people involved will be at the same or similar stages in their mental and emotional development, so the power dynamics of the relationship would hopefully be more evenly placed.
I accept also that probably for guys it's a little easier and may not affect them as badly (Though I wouldn't venture to say that every guy who has had sex with an older woman is happy about it years later).
Girls generally attach much more psychological importance to sex and it is a very emotional thing which, esp the first few times, opens up a whole new can of worms when it comes to how we think and feel about ourselves and the environment around us. If a girl is unlucky enough to have a deeply disturbing experience at a young age I am sure that it will affect her for years to come and may even make it impossible for her to completely trust a man ever again.
And lets not even get started on young children being made to have sex with older people.
In my opinion there should be no mercy on those people who cannot control their sexual urges towards young children and they should all be locked up after the first offense and kept there indefinitely!
I do accept that until recently homosexuality was looked upon with the same outrage and considered to be inherently evil as well and I can just imagine that somewhere someone's saying that child-adult sex is no worse and should also be accepted as "Just the way some people are - we can't help the way we are, etc" but in my opinion these two issues are worlds apart and I hope society never gets to the stage where it would be accepting of child-adult sex.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Sunday, March 23, 2003, 05:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's been awhile since anyone's gone back to this article... But it's always intersting to get a fresh perspective. Sexuality is not a game. I see that in many ways especially when dealing with minors. I appreciate your feelings and experiences as a girl and now a woman speaking about how it all made you feel.
I don't regret being fondled, I still don't but I'm who I am and I can change nothing in my past concerning that. For a girl and woman it's different. And I totally concord with you on that issue. I hope you're a happy and fulfilled person. I like your personality and I appreciate your sincerity as a mother on this issue. I'm still very much in touch with my sexuality in this point in time of my life. I'm still Jonathan, and although sex with young people under age has been sealed off as pretty much abhorant to me, I have a duality in experience as a child reverting often to the vulnerability I experienced as an intersting fetish of mixed emotions in both my steady reltationship and uncategorized sense of emotion from a relative perspective as to the individuals I specifically shared sexual feelings with. I'm not suing any of them, but I might look into that option for physical punisment from those who overused that pattle and who's bruises are still a very vivid memory. Ultimately, though I think it's the responsibility of those who have veen harmed to right the wrongs towards those who took advantage.
BTW, how's life in your end of the world vick?
I'll be in NY on the 10th... let me know if you feel like chatting at the airport? I'll be at JFK in the evening of that day. (April 10th, 2003) (reply to this comment) |
| | From Vicky
Sunday, March 23, 2003, 12:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Think you've mistaken me for another Vicky as I don't believe I know you...
I live in the UK.
Well, I'm glad someone read my comment!
Also, let me say thanks again for your reply to the post I wrote a few weeks back (about child-rearing), it was helpful to get someone else's advice on things.
Do you have kids, by the way?
Cheers and have a good day. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Sunday, March 23, 2003, 17:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks Vic, sorry 'bout that!
Actually I'm still not married or have any kids. I haven't found that person yet, or at least I don't know for sure that I have. But I'm in the children entertainment business, so I deal with kidz all the time. I had 4 brothers of my own which I probably helped to raise more than my parents did, lol! But no, no kids as of yet. And I know there are probably a lot of differences being on the parenting figure position. I just didn't want to get rushed into following the herds of young couples in the family. I've always been a beed odd and different like that, going for the dirt instead of the gold. But who knows, some day... I don't feel a compelling drive to have children in this stage in my life. My brother just had his first little girl a few weeks ago and it's a big deal for him... The cutest little face. And he's the first in our family to breed in this generation. My mom had 5 boys before she gave up on a girl, and now she's a grandmother of one. Isn't it ironic...?
You have a good day too, vic. I like the way you write!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Monday, December 16, 2002, 13:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf, although for sure 13 is a child, I don't really know the definitive answer to this.
I'm not sure what you have against Western laws, and I agree with Nan on the whole laws of gods thing, but as you know laws vary from country to country and even within the same country different things are legally permissible at different ages. From what I understand the US allows 17 year olds to enlist in the army with parental permission, yet many states don't allow consumption of alcohol until 21. Here in Canada, the age of consent is 14 and drinking is 18/19 (depending on the province).
I guess my personal opinion is that the laws of the country should be upheld, however the responsiblity of parents is to individually care, protect and guide a child into adulthood. I don't personally agree with the Canadian age of consent laws, I have a 15 year old sister, and if it was up to me, there would be no unchaperoned dating allowed until she was at least 25 (ok, I'm kidding--kind of).
Where the theoretical line between child and adult is drawn, I don't know. I still feel like a kid in some areas, but I've carried an adult workload and responsiblities since I was 12. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Monday, December 16, 2002, 15:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
That kind of leads to the argument of where childhood begins. For me I feel like I'm living my childhood now in many ways, when I was 12 I had a very adult life in many aspects, was expected to care for my brothers, somtimes more than my parents did. We brought in more income than our parents did, by far. (Cute little faces got better tips) Yet mentally and emotionally we still had not developped to the level of adults, there is no doubht about that, yet I can almost say with certainty that our development accelerated to some extent. I'm surprised at how irresponsible and out of touch with reality some of the kids are today. I'm not going to even pretent to act as a judge as to how long someone should stay as a child, in my case it was out of necessity. I also can't be too arbitrary in saying that we in the west are better to thar respect and that all labor as a child in 3rd world countries is in itself a bad thing. I think too much undue responsibility as a child can take the child away from play and learing in school and limit the child's future to some extent, yet some of use seemed to have developed a work ethic very early and we've enjoyed the benefits earlier than those who are babied by their parents till the age of 40. lol! This topic along with when does life begin was a heated debate topic and is just as interesting as the previous one in my opinion. There are a lot of good arguments on both ends. My personal perspective on this is that a child should be free to be a child as long as posible, and unless one has other children or individuals to care for there might not even be a reason to stop being a child, that's how liberal I am on the issue. I know of very poor families who just could not have survived had all the family pitched in to help, there is a wide range of leeway for abuse in childlabor. I know I hated it at many points. Life sucks sometimes though and difficulties don't always represent abuse. What doesn't kill us often makes us stronger. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 23:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
But, since humans run the world, not gods, the law seems to be doing a pretty good job of helping us have a civilization here. One has to start some where. Besides, in the western world, laws are made by legislators who are elected by majority vote. Therefore, the law is the will of the majority of the people. So, basing ones point of view on the law, seems damn logical to me. Further, I'm not real sure I want to live in a society governed by gods and a select few or a divine monarchy who legislate morality or dictate their will onto the masses. That sounds too much like a little cult which once held me prisoner as a child. We needed a whole hell of a lot of child protection laws up in there. They said I was supposedly mature and old enough to have sex at 12 years old which turned out to just be their way of giving themselves license to sleep with children. God! Give me the law over that madness and exploitation any damn day! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 20:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm totally with you on that one. Very well put. I like your open minded view of the issue. And it's very subjective, like you said. I'm not here to put anyone down. This comment is just about information, not about persuasion. I'm not on any particular politica or cultural mission other than to inform and be informed. I'm agnostic, yet I truly belive that Jesus was right on when he said that "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!" Yet, I'm taking this out of context as I definately do not subscribe to the "If ye continue in my words" part. The thought of "I am the way" or take the highway to hell perspective is very harmful and I think it was irresponsible of Jesus to be so exclusive. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 18:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Did you tell their parents what was going on with their daughters? I can't believe that someone faced with this as a real situation would turn a blind eye to this or think it was ok if they seemed to be "okay about it". Sure the teenagers might be upset, but at some point we aren't kids anymore and have to take responsibility for what is going on around us and act in the best interest of those we care about, even if they don't understand it now.
Sorry, I am just stunned by this. (reply to this comment) |
| | From thepersoniamnow/dan
Monday, December 16, 2002, 14:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
No I didn`t.
It was in a Family home and they were mostly dating other teenagers.
There was a 13, 15, and 17 year old in particular and all of them were dating guys from the senior high.
I simply did not want a issue being raised because if something like that was brought out the topic would never be forgotten and I probably couldn`t have gotten any sleep for several months.
You know how it was in TF...
I know it wounds awfully immoral of me but I would have done somethingif any of them needed it. I had a good rap with them and they pretty much told me everything they did so I was relatively relaxed and aware about the situation -unlike their parents(reply to this comment) |
| | from rosa
Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 04:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
sweet boy, keep your debates on whether you liked your sexual abuse to yourself untill you can write a coherent
paragraph, go back to community college!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 05:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I will, thanks. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully and not be so distracted with typing errors. What is this elementary school cops picking the lamest excuses... These are the most used lines in I've heard. How about some originality for a change. I'm sorry if you've been abused. I wasn't the abuser... so why don't you quit projecting your insecurities in debates that are not even about that.
I'M NOT ANSWERING ANY MORE LAME COMMENTS. PERSONAL ATTACTS WITHOUT SPECIFICS ARE LIKE THE LAMEST WAY TO GET A POINT ACROSS. Please leave the board open to grownups with substantial points of view and not inbred hick perspectives!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Big Sister
Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 01:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems to me that child/adult sex is also an issue of abuse of power. Sex is an emotionally powerful activity that immature people (children, that is) don't have the ability to handle, especially with more powerful people (and that would be: adults!) I have always understood that most perpetrators have themselves very often been victims of child sexual abuse. In that way, the abused pass on the abuse to the next generation. And given half a chance I suspect abusers hang out together for safety and mutual denial.
What I am sure of is that not all victims choose to pass it on. Some people choose NOT to victimize others, in spite of what happened to them.
I have to wonder if a lot of the FGA's were sexually abused as children? Not to say that they were ALL perpetrators but that they were unnaturally tolerant of abuse that went on. Any thoughts on this?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from Jules
Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 01:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
To start with, I don’t think you can open a discussion on this topic without the issue of our own experiences with this. The “nightmarish details” give this perspective and it is irresponsible IMO to bring this topic up among those of us who have been deeply traumatised by experiences like this without allowing for that. However that being said, I can give my somewhat objective argument on this, as I have personally thought about this issue from many angles.
This is an issue that has been raised before (by the Family for one), and it has recently come into academic discussion with the book by Judith Lavine, “Harmful to Minors”. Other leading figures who have discussed this topic include Michel Foucault, Alfred Kinsey, Allen Ginsberg, Camille Paglia and Oscar Wilde to name a few.
Completely detached academic research can have it’s flaws, the most obvious being that the human cost of experimentation is often overlooked. We all know that this is the Family’s overused defence in regards to everything we experienced. They have said “We were a new society, forging our own rules and our own culture. We tried to find things that worked, and abandoned them when they didn’t”. Sounds great. The issue is how exactly did they experiment with these issues? What sort of ethical system of check and balance and accountability was used? Josef Mengele would probably have a similar defence to the one used by the Family.
In the case of the researchers and writers mentioned above, one also has to wonder how much of their “study” involved the issues regarding adult child sexual interaction from the perspective of the children, although I have read many writings from the people listed above, I have not read Lavine’s book, and I can’t comment on that from any other perspective but as a child victim of adult sexual predators. As we know only too well, an adult in these situations has a very different perspective than that of the child. There is an incredible amount of rationalization that occurs among pedophiles in order for them to function and continue to do what they do to children. Although the consensus on adult males having sexual intercourse with female children is pretty much universal in that this is harmful, (and the most basic look at anatomy bears this out) there has been discussion that female (or male) adults with boy children (when it does not involve penetration of the child) may not be intrinsically harmful.
The core issue here is one of exploitation. Sexuality should be a shared experience between two consenting PARTNERS. There is no way that a child can consent on an equal level with an adult to share a sexual experience. Children are psychologically, financially and emotionally dependent on their caregivers for their basic needs. They have a deep need for love, protection and care from these adults. When that relationship turns sexual, it is impossible, given the dependency of the child on the adult, for that not to be exploitative. That is wrong. Unfortunately, when a child is exposed to inappropriate sexual interactions, they do become precociously sexualised, and may even initiate sexual relations with adults, because this is what they think they are required to do to gain the love and acceptance of their caregivers. Instead of seeing this behaviour as the cry for help it was, many adults in the Family took this as liberty to compound the damage, and figured that these children were “Lolita’s” and seducing them.
I have had discussion on this issue with academics, who wonder if sexual interactions between boys and men or women is really harmful, as the grown boys speak of the experiences as pleasurable. Not being male and not being an academic, I can only give you my own opinion on this, and that is that almost all of the young men I know who have had these experiences are deeply disturbed by them, sometimes more than they will consciously admit. Though they are often comfortable with women, there is often a deep-rooted inability to maintain intimacy or trust towards women. What is strange is that in the men who had men take advantage of them, there is frequently rage which is directed towards women and there is a need to be dominant in every relationship with them. I would go into my own theory on this, but I am already in dangerous territory here, so I’ll leave this be. I believe that the reasons for the conscious denial of harm is more social, and the same reason that male victims of female violence often do not come forward. Men are supposed to be sexual aggressors, and for a man to claim rape by a woman is still unfortunately sometimes not taken seriously. I think that women victims of sexual abuse usually find more support socially than men do.
Another issue is that something being frightening and unpleasant for a child (like an adult sexually interacting with them) and yet physiologically pleasurable, can create a lot of confusion psychologically. When I was working in a brothel, one night the girls were sitting around smoking something (I wasn’t into stuff like that at the time and couldn’t even tell you what it was) and there was a young prostitute (about 18) who had been “working” since she was 12. She said that the most traumatic experience she ever had was when she was about 13, and a client was having sex with her and she climaxed. The experience of having to do what she was doing was repulsive to her, and she could only get through it by disassociating her body from herself. To have her body react in that way was horrific for her, and she said she has never been able to reach an orgasm since then. Given the anatomical differences, men perhaps don’t have this issue, but for women, sexuality is very much tied to our psychological or emotional response to our partner and the situation, and many female SGs, while responsive sexually, are not able to climax with their partners. In fact what is interesting is that many females who were abused in this way as children seem to be drawn to situations where sexual experiences are not in their control, and they therefore do not have to engage their self, but can let their body experience what it does freely. Unfortunately, many men especially, see pleasure as the ultimate goal of sexuality, and again from their own adult perspective, do not understand the trauma this may bring about in a child who is not consenting in any sense of the word to the experience.
The issue of children being sexual beings however, is one that I don’t discount. Although I think that our inappropriate exposure to adult sexuality did make us prematurely sexualized, I think children are sexual, and do explore their own bodies and those of their peers. Again though, I think that a child’s version of sexuality and that of an adult is very different. A young girl will “flirt” with older boys and men for attention, with no idea of what those older males are thinking about her cute little pouty mouth.
This is already very long, but let me finish by saying that my personal sexual morales are very liberal. Though I understand your question about Judeo-Christian ethics, I don’t believe that they come into play at all in this regards. There are many cultural practices (female genital mutilation comes to mind) that are entirely harmful. Every society and culture once embraced practices that, with education, or cultural evolution, they came to abandon. Unfortunately it seems to be human nature to oppress the weaker members of a society. Whether they are women, African Americans, or children, until the people oppressed by a culture have a voice in the society in question, oppression and exploitation will continue.
(reply to this comment)
| From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 06:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey, Jules... This is your site. Do as you wish. I understand the pain and even though I haven't been abused sexualy in the family I have by relatives at some point, and physically abused non sexually in the family. I'm not on the outside, belive me. Sorry, I'm obviously liberal in my approach to stigmas phobias and abuse. I don't differ in my opinion about what you said, but I have to say, I'm a bit surprized by your approach to what is responsible and appropriate most of us are adults who log on to this site and I don't see hiding from fears and pain cause as a solution to recovery. Facing the ugliest fears and dealing with them by looking at them in the eye seems far more effective on a long term basis. I could be wrong. You can delete this "hot topic" if you deem it inappropiate. My impression was that this is a free debate site, but I wasn't aware that it was intended as a psychological counseling venue. I'm sure that is one of the goals, but sensorship was never something I apreciated in the family and I certainly don't apreciate it now that I'm out. I don't think anything I said is irresponsible. I don't think any topic is irresponsible. There are no wrong questions, common let's grow out of the demented limited perception that we have to put crutches under the truth. I certainly don't claim the keys to it, but all things being equal the truth has a way of making itself evident. Seriously, if you're going to put up a free speech site don't start acting like a conservative republican about this stuff. Give me a break! Hey, I don't mean to disrespect you, and don't mean to minimize all the great work you've put into it. In fact I'd give you credit for being the one with the best effort to reunite a whole bunch of great people who otherwise would not have a way of staying in touch, and expressing their views, Feel free to put this article in a different section as you see fit.
Obviously I'm not expecting you to be neutral to issues. There is very little I'm neutral about. I appreciate your opinion and I'll reply the specifics of your comment with more time to think about it. Don't worry I'm not political about this. Any one of these members can pick up a book or take a class in human sexuality in the nearest community college and discuss these issues openly like we did. The issues are out there, there is nothing to fear more than fear itself!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Deep breath there my friend. I wrote a lot in response to you, which I thought was well thought out, did you read past the first paragraph?
Don't take my opinion as censorship, I am the "editor" for this section and if I wanted to censor you I would have never posted this article. I didn't appreciate "shepherding" in the Family, and please don't put me in that role now. Freedom of speech applies to me too. My opinion (though of course I think it is brilliantly argued :p) holds no more weight than anyone else's.
The topic is not irresponsible. I am all about debate and questioning EVERYTHING. Quantifying what you feel is an appropriate response, which you did by saying: "I'd like to open the floor for those who have mixed feelings about this issue to talk frankly about the idea, not their experiences with it or nightmarish details", when you consider this subject with this audience, is irresponsible and is censorship by you and I stand by that.
Jules (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 08:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Breathing is good, believe me I lived in zen budhhist temple for over a year and I can appreciate the meaning literally and metaphorically, ha! Very interesting perspective. Good solid argument. You did deal with a lot of western concepts, quite liberal true. I didn't really mean you're a republican by the way. That was a joke. And even if you are, that's a personal choice like any other and I wouldn't hold it against you, lol. I still get the feeling of slight overtones of western thinking in your argument, though, don't know if anthropology is a strong interest in yours, or if you include multicultural relativity much in your pursuit of objectivity? Maybe you do, and I'm just not aware of it. Modern psychology has often been critiqued for embracing a rather ethnocentric western perspective ignoring cultural diveristy of thought, which is not bad. In my case I've made it a personal goal to try to be as international in perspective as possible. Although a good part of my argument dealt with us, the family, and some western scenarios were allowance is made for child/adult sexual interaction my interest delved more on a anthropological level, I don't know it's that's how it came accross. Yes, my commens remain due to your generous graces and like apreciation of free speech. I understand this is very much of a hot topic and even the very discussion of it is offensive to some, and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. I just have the habit of wanting to deal with issues at a ground level through open unrestricted debate at all levels even if painfully direct and somewhat unrefined at times. Critical thinking is of utter importance to me and like socrate's gadfly I intend to continue to be a the gadfly of controversy in hopes of reaching a better understaniding on issues that are still not solid and concrete. After all the behavioral sciences are very much a soft science by nature, making it interesting to debate. Feelings are important, and social respect cannot be ignored. Ideas rarely come isolated and I understand that there are people behind the monitors displaying this site. I've kept that in mind and continue to do so. I congratulate you for your argument and am with you on most of it. Some of your terms seem a bit loaded. I love the beatles for questioning presumptions. I question everything including myself and hope, like you, to get to the root of some of these issues. Yet as a liberal, I have some conservative perspectives, shrinks have been known for crying wolf a lot on issues of child abuse, especially in the mid 80s. As a good "libra" I like to give both sides of the coin. Many children have been taken away from parents and put in foster care of situations that proved to be unecessary and cruel to the child in the longrun. Many have been saved from hidious atrocities by social workers, and I belive that they're usually dignified in their missions to aleviate pain. But you know where I'm going with this... There is always an antithesis to the most dignified thesis... In hopes of synthesising facts and finding a balance I will continue to bring up controversial perspectives from both poles of issues and I'm sure I'll continue to learn from those, like you who are quite well informed yet like all humans limited in perceptions of time and space. We all have our biases.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Wolf
Friday, December 13, 2002 - 23:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you trying to say that because some of us may have actually liked our experiences with adults it would be OK be more lax on the laws? I think we'd all agree that whatever pleasure a little lad might get at the hands of some "auntie" doesn't even come close to making up for the scars caused by kids having bad experiences. Your article's well written and interesting, though.
(reply to this comment)
| From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 00:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks Wolf, No actually this comment is not a statement... It's a question mark. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. Life is short and I can only do so much ready about this, sometimes it's interesting to put out controversial subjects like this to get some different perspectives and facts that I might not be aware of. I'm just brainstorming. I'm not saying that an isolated positive experience of a child and an adult is excuse to be permissive as a society into giving adults free reign in interacting with children in this way, quite the opposite. I'm trying to break down the issue of sex with minors to the essentials in hopes of finding some concrete answers as to what is harmful and what isn't. What should be restricted and what are just arbitrary laws. In other words, could it be that the isolated incidents of those who are not abused have to be condemened for the benefit of keeping real frieks from ever getting a chance? Does punishment still deter them? Is it a disease or a crime? I'm just opening the floor for any related inovative ideas or concrete conservative ones as well. No implication here. I hope I've made that clear. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Bella
Friday, December 13, 2002 - 23:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very interesting article Cultinvator and I see the point you are trying to understand despite the "hot topic" you are addressing. I too enjoy the topic of anthropology and grappled with these same questions when I took not only my first anthropology class, but also my first ethics class. A little side note, have you studied the behavior of Bonobo apes in one of your anthropology classes yet? Interestingly, the Bonobos engage in child/adult incest, until the young ape is old enough to reproduce. Perhaps the Bonobo's instinct tells them that same blood line reproduction is not right, I have no idea. They are fascinating creatures, I think that you would enjoy learning about their behavior. --Just a hunch.
Perhaps as these tribal clans become more educated they will discontinue some of these rituals that they believe to be essential to their well-being, but which are in fact detrimental. As seen in your example of the tradition of bathing the dead. I need to think about this topic a little more -- you got me thinking!
(reply to this comment)
| from JoeH
Friday, December 13, 2002 - 18:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just because some screwed up natives and born-again Christians in the middle of the jungle think fondling kids is okay, doesn't mean this is a topic worthy of serious discussion. You said it best with the words "intrisically harmful"
The fact is that children are very vulnerable to abuse. This is why we have laws keeping dirty old men away from them.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Cultinvator
Friday, December 13, 2002, 19:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Point taken. So in your opinion this is a case where being culturally relative is harmful. To allow it would kind of be like saying "oh, it was part of hitler's culture to proceed with ethnic clensing"? Some actions are univerally wrong, just messed up stuff against basic human rights, and no set of traditions or ritualistic pattern of habits is an exception? I kind of agree. To what extent it should be punishable I guess is now the question. How should this be regulated. There are dozens of cultures around the world that practice "male child insemination" or other types of behaviours that are considered abhorrent in our culture. These cultures don't follow our rational in thinking. Some belive that one get's pregnant by bathing in water... wonder how that came about?ha!
I guess I would move this topic to level of regulation and tolerance. There is a tribe in africa, where sexual acts are ritualistic. Young children from the age of 7 to 16 or so are sexually inseminated anally, they believe this feeds their soul with some kind of life giving fluid. Or so I read in Cultural Anthropology. Then when the child is old enough the ritual is discontinued and the male gets married with a woman or girl after "graduating" from this experience into rite of passage. I know it sounds grose to us. And I don't spend my days thinking about these odd behaviours, ha! However, it is relevant in some way, sexuality plays a role in all homosapiens, wether right or wrong. Should authorities put these tribal people in jail? Or let them be? Indians in the amazon have similar rites. I think some are just not humanfriendly. In fact I can think of an example:
There is a village in central africa where a group of people have the tradition of bathing their dead. It's a custom passed on from generation to generation. The problem is, an elderly woman died of ebola, a very contagious desease and the fact that the sons and daughters all practiced this ritual turned out to be their fate. Half the village ended up dying from the disease. This opens up a good argument on when culture has gone too far. I think the solution is probably a compromise in both. In other aspects, like the sexual one... I don't know what to think. Maybe it should be abolished altogether? (reply to this comment) |
| | From just checking
Friday, December 13, 2002, 23:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're not saying that TF was analogous to a tribe out in Africa, are you?
If those tribes in Africa do that, there is a major difference. The ritual probably has been around for as long as anybody alive can remember.
This is different from TF, where the adults who suddenly found a haven for an act they could not get away with anywhere else did not grow up that way. In my opinion, these paedophiles who were finally carrying out acts of the utmost illegality and immorality where THEY grew up, transmitted their consciousness of the aberrant nature of their preying on children even if the immediately obvious attitude they exhibited was "PTL, ILY, what a blessing."
Being the sensitive children that we were because we had no protective barriers against anything, and adept as we were of reading in our elders what our immediate fates were to be, the abused ones' unconscious received the message from the abusers' unconscious, "this is extremely dirty and nasty."
So what does the poor child conclude, with a total lack of worldly experience or self-valuing in a group-oriented and self-denying society? The child unconsciously concludes "this dirty and nasty thing is happening to me. Moreover, a shepherd, a higher-up, is doing it to me. I am punished for anything less than total obedience and deference to shepherds: shepherds would not do wrong. I am the dirty and nasty one and the bad feelings that are confusing me, that come from I don't know where because this is a godly practice here, are because something is severely wrong with me."
Summarized: the TF paedophiles were not removed from the historical prohibition they were imbued with, which the purported African tribe did not have. The abused child interprets his/her confusing bad feelings against him/herself. Because, after all, "give God the glory for everything good, and yourself the blame for everything bad."(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 00:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not sure who I'm addressing in this comment. But like I said earlier, no I'm not making an analogy with the older generation in TF. In fact, I thought I made it quite clear that I found no excuse for the actions of those who were obviously deviating from standars that were not tribal in the very least. Yet, I did bring up the example about a child who initiates the activity, that was me. I was very flirtatious as a child, and developed erotic fantasies at an early age, I don't feel harmed because my experiences were consensual. In the negative examples you brought up, don't you think that the crime is more the phychological abuse of the adult perpetrating and pushing children into activities that they were not comfortable in? Is this not a crime of force and manipulation, rather than the act of sexual interactive eroticism? In other words, the adult was getting the pleasure at the expense of the child's ignorance and subserviant tendancies. In other words, RAPE! Punishable by stiff sentences, even capital punisment in the U.S. I believe.(In extreme cases) I am completely oposed to this subservient "do it cause, daddy said so" type of trend where things are kept hush hush, and that includes corporal punishment, censorship, and moral intolerace of creative thinking. Induce fear appears to be a key factor in most of these abuses that some of us experienced? Am I on track...? When a child knows his/her rights and is not punished for speaking out, is old enough to speak and understand what's going on they can still be manipulated. They are young, still quite undevelopped... Usually poor in critical thinking and reasoning skills compared to a 21 year old, is this vulnerability the main reason for the need to restrict all child sex play? Because when they grow up and understand the far reaching emotional consequences they might be scarred and feel inadequacy? I guess my question to this too goes even deeper... Don't adults basically impose ideas and actions to hundred's of activities, some good and for the safety and education of the child, and some just because daddy or mommy believes them to be so? In other words why is sex in itself more harmful when not physically harmful then JJTs, Litnessing, Believing in God, going to church, going to school, following school prodedures, and every more that is basically imposed at this early age? Sex is often linked to something dirty, perverted, and something to be ashamed of could it be that this attitude bleeds into our rational? (BTW, I'm the case of phisical abuse and rape in non-consensual situations is out of the question, not open for debate, and obviously horrendous, not only for children but all living beings.(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]