The Sexual Revolution And Children's Education

[Shahriyar]

The german pedagogue Gustav Wynekem (1875-1964) coined the terms Jugendkultur (youth culture) and Pädagosisher Eros (pedagogical eros). The former had better diffusion than the latter, thank God. That there should be an eorticism of sorts in pedagogy seems undoubtable, in that a good teacher is always a zealous (jealous?) lover of the best that their student can become and achieve, but Wyneken's thoughts weren't exactly following the path of intellectual love. That's why he ended up in prison. But his ideas were never completely forgotten. They extended in diverse ways throughout the USA (Paul Goodman tackled this topic in his novel Parent's Day, 1951), England (Homer Lane, founder of the Little Commonwealth School, which greatly influenced A.S. Neill, the createor of the Summerhill School, who has been tried for immoral behavior with his students) and Germany, where they met a revival in 98 among the radical left, determined to sexually free the children, even against their own will.

There were schools (of thought?) in Berlin convinced that sexual repression was the subjacent cause to all social neurosis. In their view, the control of sexual desire was the principal instrument of domination by the bourgous society and the cause of the aggressivity inherent to the capitalist system. To create a new man you had to break away from the repression of desire. Thus, the masters went out of their way so that children confronted situations in which erotism was inescapable, even though what they really wanted was to play. It was necessary to awaken their sexual curiosity in order to later be able to satisfy it. One of the books of the moment, Revolution der Erziehung ("the revoultion of education, 1971) criticized the diserotization of family life made manifest by the prohibition of sexual activity between kids and the taboo of incest. In order to reeroticize human relationships, communities were created that wanted to overcome any bourgeois restriction by eliminating private property, monogamic relationships, and the poisonous control of shame exerted by "the system". Whoever wants to delve further in this topic may go for chapter 9 of the autobiography of Daniel Cohn Bendit, Der Grosse Bazar (1975) where he describes his experience as a schoolteacher in a Kinderladen of Frankfurt. Or his declarations in the programme Apostrophes aired the 23rd of april 1982.

Translated from Catalan journal La Vanguardia's 10th of January 2010 issue. Further down I added the urls to wikipedia articles relevant to the people and events discussed, including a fairly lenthy article (the column above appears to be made largely from uncredited quotes of that article, almost word for word) by Der Spiegel (one of the best journals of the world if not the best), describing in detail what some sectors of the German left were, shall we say, experimenting with. It doesn't take any gloves, so I would not recommend it to the faint of heart. The rationale, in a few words, is this:

Sexual liberation was at the top of the agenda of the young revolutionaries who, in 1967, began turning society upside down. The control of sexual desire was seen as an instrument of domination, which bourgeois society used to uphold its power. Everything that the innovators perceived as wrong and harmful has its origins in this concept: man's aggression, greed and desire to own things, as well as his willingness to submit to authority. The student radicals believed that only those who liberated themselves from sexual repression could be truly free.

To them, it seemed obvious that liberation should begin at an early age. Once sexual inhibitions had taken root, they reasoned, everything that followed was merely the treatment of symptoms. They were convinced that it was much better to prevent those inhibitions from developing in the first place. Hardly any leftist texts of the day did not address the subject of sexuality.

... Well, this is thought-provoking to say the least. In fact, I recommend reading the Spiegel article in full. Here's the conclusions I reached:

Spoiler:

This (the 1968 bit at least) isn't just a bunch of paedos looking for an excuse. This, as far as I can tell, the german bit at least, is a bunch of intellectual adults who were raised in a very repressive (sexually and otherwise) postwar society, with a lot of suffocating boundaries, and reacted to it, as soon as they felt newly empowered to do it, by violently going in the opposite direction in every possible way. They also percieved the system they lived in to be profoundly unjust: by extension, it was easy to think that everything that sutained the system was evil. It's especially easy to judge repression (which was present in abundance and took violent, brutal forms) to be evil per se (though a bit of thought will reveal that some amount of self-repression is indispensable even in the most idealistically anarchic society), and from there to want to tear down all repression. Freud's ideas were extremely popular at the time, and, knowing that, anyone familiar with them can understand how the (at first glance) outlandish idea that sexual repression was the source of all social repression came to be. Again, from a Freudianism-informed perspective, the best bet is to completely avoid sexual repression in children... and the next step is to proactively go out of one's way to make children have a positive perspective of their sexuality, and even encourage them to investigate it.

Which manifestly led the thoughtless parents and teachers into situations they hadn't expected, and weren't prepared to deal with. Namely, that the kids wouldn't just be curious about each other. Several excrepts point out that the adults were mostly very and perplexed in those situations, and really hadn't figured out what to do about it.

It also led to some forms of abuse, since the children were sometimes told to strip and not be ashamed. The adults probably thought of it as simply one more parcel of education to be inflicted on children, on the same level as forcing them to do their homework or to run in gym, which I think proves they weren't as open and progressive as they thought they were.

And, last but not least, it led to some actual paedophiles piggybacking on the movement (what a dreadful image) and taking advantage of the ideological bias against (hetero and other*)normativity and authoritarianism in leftist milieus and in the GLBT movement to advance their agenda. According to the article, they were defeated thanks to, first, the Women's Rights movements, which established that sexual relationships between grown men and women who so young that they were unable to meaningfully consent were a form of abuse, then the extension of that same treatment to male kids (why their case was ever thought to be different mystifies me).

I think this particular bit is very interesting, from an ethical point of view. The sad fact is that most people just don't notice a moral issue at all unless someone else is pointing it out to them. Marrying little girls to much older men in horribly unequal marriages used to be perfectly okay because the consent of the woman was seen as utterly irrelevant: it was part and parcel of the patriarchal system. Then women grew powerful, and questioned that, and fought to give themselves and their daughters rights. Among them the right to have sex with whom they consented to. Women below a certain age being manipulable, impressionable, and vulnerable to other forms of coertion, it was determined safer, for their own protection against both abusive males and their own juvenile rashness, to simply prohibit intercourse between girls under a certain age barrier, and males over it.

(Obviously, like all rules, this one opens a certain number of controversies, such what age that should be, and what to do with borderline cases, such as, say, age 17 girl meeting with age 19 boy when the age limit is 18,or what to do with the fact that, whatever age of consent you choose, there will be some people below it that will exceed the level of maturity of some of the people that are above it, but, and that's just my opinion, as a legal rule of thumb I'd say it's pretty sound, and quite expedient.)

And then someone noticed that, why should male kids be treated any different? Until fairly recently, it was perfecly okay for "men" to abuse "boys", and for older boys to abuse younger boys. To bully, to threaten, to beat, to mistreat and force. Sexual abuse was, in some cases, simply one more aspect of that. And the kids are expeted to shrug it all off, because that's what a man's supposed to do, unless one's a "wimp" or a "cissy". Again, blame pariarchy. This was stopped: boys were acknowledged as being as vulnerable as girls... when confronted to male abuse.

And then, even more recently, people started acknowledging the potency of women's sexuality and the fact that they too could hurt children with it. The The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could segment was progressively removed from most performaces of The Vagina Monologues (or heavily edited, aging the 13-year old protagonsit to 16, and removing the line "If it was rape, it was a good rape."), and older women hitting on underage boys stopped being a laughing matter.

I don't know about you guys, but I like the current trend this is going. If society were to treat any other group of people the way it treats its children, it would be considered a violation of human rights. But for most of the world's children, many of the forms of abuse they are subjected to are the normal expectation from parents, school and the society in which we live. But it's getting better. People are actually starting to pay attention to children beyond being helpless puppets that should be molded into one more cog in the social machinery. Cogs that it was wrong to damage in the process of making only insofar as it affected their future performance as such.

You could say that the ill thought-out experiments of those sixties and seventies revolutionaries were one more botched product of their time, in wich people who had grown up in a messed-up framework tried to fix things, but, their mentalities being strongly shaped by that very framework down to the subconscious level, they botched the job and ended up perpetuating those patterns into the innovations they were trying to achieve. This goes in the same category as Black Supermacism, Misandrist Feminism, Totalitarian Socialism (all three being carriers of the meme "one group oppresses another, therefore the opressed should overthrow their oppressors... and oppress them in turn!"), some egregious trends among the male Gay community (due to buying into and living by the memes "men can't help themselves when it they are horny", "men always want sex", "men should aggressively pursue sexual targets as a matter of course", "homosexuality equals being a girl/girly/a cissy", "men should always tease each other, that is, test each other for weakness, and, once the weak are identified, bully and oppress them"... ) and the like. But it turns out that, well, given time to develop the right mental framework, racial equality, gender equality and the welfare state are turning out just fine, and people both in the GLBT community and in the mainstream are discovering that they can dissociate themselves from any double standards and gender roles society tries to impose on them.

So what about the sexual revolution? Again, you had the sixties half-baked version ("liberated women have sex easily", "sex is good for you, period"). And then the current mainstream version, which is still pretty sketchy, at least from where I stand.

A person's percieved social worth (and self-esteem) is deemed to be heavily dependent on their relationship status (and on the percieved "hotness" of their partner). I've had girls who were hitting on me lie to me about having a girlfriend because they preferred to be thought of as unfaithful rather than as needy/lonely/desperate! And of course males should have sex with many girls! Or, wait, even better, many girls at once! Or, you know what would be even cooler? Twins! (In case you were in doubt, I am being sarcastic.) Okay, that last bit is a bit of a stretch, but the thing is, our culture is still riddled with sexual fantasies that are blatantly sexist and/or objectifying towards either or both of the parties involved.
And girls in particular have to maintain some strange equilibrium between having so little sex they're thought of as prudish, sanctimonious or stupid, and having so much that they get called sluts (and assorted synonyms). Admittedly, boys are beginning to face the same problem: a promiscous boy is progressively being seen and treated as less "stud" and more "slut".

And what about the kids? What about their education, and their protection from adults, themselves, and each other?

When it comes to the teenagers... Well, we do try to give them Sex Ed. Often, the reason Sex Ed is introduced in the first place is for the sake of preventing teen pregnancy: since now it's widely accepted that teens will want sex and will find ways to do it, and that therefore they should be informed in order to prevent the disaster that, in our current society, is teenage pregnancy. However, as a result of this perspective, it's still poorly taught, and focuses almost exclusively on the female body, and the woman's responsibility in preventing her own pregnancy. And little is taught in the way of understanding and appreciating sexual practice, nor on the cultural and social and ethical implications of the way they approach it. Thus irresponsibly leaving them to their own devices. And they won't wait for you to teach them how to use them.

Among most of the youth I know (born in the very late eighties, early nineties), "everyone in class" had had sex at age fourteen (or claims to), often simply because that's what everyone does. No more waiting for Mr. or Mrs. Right, Mr or Mrs. Right Now will have to do. They have been and will continue consuming pornography assiduously, thanks to Internet free contents and to the lack of tech-savviness of their parents. This in particular strikes me as dangerous. Pornography tends to be an enthusiastic carrier of sexist values and preordained gender roles and sexual practices, even when subverting them, since it places the thrill value in the violation of a rule that still stands afterwards, not in exploring/demonstrating its abolition and how sexual practices would be changed in the wake of that event. Especially since no-one would express those mindsets in Real Life, in which they are publically derided.

So, it seems evident that teenagers should get sex-ed, and one that doesn't just consist of "here's what to do so you don't get pregnant or catch a disease, here's what happens when you don't do that or those measures fail, here's what you can do to minimise the damage should you fail to follow those measures or should those measures themselves fail". The question that arises is: should prepubsecent children be given sex-ed, in any form? Would any good come from teaching them not to treat their bodies and their sexualities as taboo or shameful? Should they be taught that as soon as possible, to prevent the deep installment of such prejudice, or should it be delayed as much as possible? And how much is that?

I haven't been able to find much information on the American and British works, authors, and institutions, that I mentioned at the top of this post. I'd be grateful if any of you here could contribute to this.

I was curious as to what reactions the article would cause among the readership, and so I've been exploring the comments section of that article, which is surprisingly civil and not-stupid for an online comments section, and I've found this gem

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by ibesq View Post
I left Germany in 1965 and spent the rest of the 60s and 70s in the U.S., with the 70s in San Francisco, so I have experience with left and progressive groups. I find it hard to believe that the conduct and attitude described in this article with questionable source material was so widespread in the late 60s and 70s in Germany. If you read between the lines, the author acknowledges the absence of widespread sexual abuse of children.

Perhaps it is an attempt to support a bishop who uttered that the sexual revolution had just made the abuse of children done by clerics of the Catholic church possible. It was pure nonsense. I am not sure whether the examples mentioned in the article are representative for the left. There is no question that the headline delivers a wrong picture of the situation. The authors avoid declaring what caused that movement. Instead they take quotes from books where sexual contact which would be regarded as crime nowadays is thoroughly described. The books were never mainstream. They totally ignore that it happened at a time where the sexuality was much more important and even used as mean to liberate the younger people from the bonds their parents and all the generations before them were suffering from.

.

Indeed, one would wonder "Why bring this topic up now, after so many years?" Which led me to the following article

A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the church’s sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were to blame.

Instead, the report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s.

Known occurrences of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.

The “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and by Pope Benedict XVI after it erupted in Europe in 2010.

Hum! It's official now! Leftism inspires you to have sex with small boys, even when they wouldn't be your first choice! Now I get it!:P

In a few words, people in the Catholic church blame the Left for the sex abuse committed by their priests, and it seems that the Spiegel article (and quite a few ripoffs I found in Italian and Spanish journals) have taken the opportunity to pull out the Left's dark archives and implicitly accuse them of widespread sexual abuse of children over many decades. Many people in the comments section even ask for "those people" to be exposed, and tried. And many of the people involved, looking back, don't know what to think, and are not sure how right or wrong that they did was. This post was largely an attempt by myself at doing precisely that, making my mind up on what to think. And I'll risk taking the following stance: that the intentions were good, they had basically the right idea but were irresponsibly clumsy about it and didn't think it through, there was some fallout (and I wouldn't dare to put forth an estimate of how much, since I feel I don't have enough information), and I'm unsure of what consequences it may have had for today. Also, that these experiments raise questions about the advisability of giving children sex education, and about what sort of sex education should be given, and at what ages. Which is what I wish to debate with you guys.

[bibliography]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Wyneken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Goodman_(8writer)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_Neill
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html
http://gloria.tv/?media=55332
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18bishops.html?pagewanted=all
[/bibliography]
*notice the pun

[Shahriyar]

... I see there's lots of views, but not much posting. Is the topic intimidating, or is it the wall of text, or is my style just that awful...?

[PAstrychef]

I suspect it's the wall of text, and the feeling of stepping into a thesis project. Also, it's hard to figure out just what you think on the subject-if it's there it's buried.

[Роберт]

Wall of text for me...

[Shahriyar]

the feeling of stepping into a thesis project

I've probably gone overboard with the holistic, think-of-all-the-implications and put-in-context attitude, huh? Now that I reread it, it's like I summed up another thread, or tried to anticipate one all by myself. Not the smartest way to start a discussion...

Also, it's hard to figure out just what you think on the subject-if it's there it's buried.

Eh, I think I said it in the first paragraph of the first spoiler, but, really, I'm not sure what to think because there's not enough data. The article suggests that we leap in moral outrage at the paedo commiesideologically-motivated child abusers, but it doesn't give me quite enough evidence for that, beyond a couple of anecdotal cases. On the other hand, I'm aware that I have a strong bias towards revolutionary, libertarian values and ideals, and I am wary that my sympathies might cause me to minimize and dismiss an evil that is real. That, and I have a compulsion (since early childhood "Why?" "Because. It's obvious. Why can't you understand that? That's right, that's wrong." "But why?") to push at boundaries and question moral preconceptions. I really actually don't know, right now, if teaching kids about sex and about being sex-positive is actually a good idea, nor am I quite certain about how it should be done, if it should be done at all.

What I can conclude for certain from that article is that they went and did it just because they thought they should, but didn't actually think it through, and ended up doing some damage along the way. Which is wrong, and I strongly disapprove of. It amounts to unethical, potentially traumatic, crude science experiments on non-consenting patients who happen to be children on top of that. But the two questions above remain open, and I don't think the answer is trivial, regardless of what knee-jerk reflexes would suggest. Attempting to answer them reasonably is what I've opened this thread for.

But if you think that's not material for a friendly discussion, and more for a doctoral thesis on pedagogy, well, then I guess I'll have to leave it be. Maybe someone competent will pick it up?

[Роберт]

Pre-pubescent children should get sex-ed they need in order to not be naive about sexual predators and to not do anything dangerous. Beyond that, I'm not sure. They probably don't need anything more than that. Once you get to hitting puberty, they need to be talked to more about sex, and how it needs to be consensual for ALL those involved, what "consent" means (including age of consent), what the risks are of various sexual behaviors, and counsel to avoid them. This includes teaching them that they need to be honest about their sexual history with any new potential partners, and honest about their current sexual behavior with their current partners as well.

I think the safest thing would be to make sexual activities with pre-pubescents illegal, and have some sort of half + 7 law for statutory rape. My recommendation would be abstinence until you're in a committed relationship like marriage (and being faithful in your marriage), but I don't think we should make open relationships, threesomes, one-night stands, etc illegal. In fact, I think polygamy should be legal, and I think it should be legal to marry close relatives like 1st cousins.

I'm still not sure where you want this discussion to go, though.

[Shahriyar]

Spoiler:

I think the safest thing would be to make sexual activities with pre-pubescents illegal, and have some sort of half + 7 law for statutory rape. My recommendation would be abstinence until you're in a committed relationship like marriage (and being faithful in your marriage), but I don't think we should make open relationships, threesomes, one-night stands, etc illegal. In fact, I think polygamy should be legal, and I think it should be legal to marry close relatives like 1st cousins.

I'd suggest making polyandry (polyamoury in general) legal too. The half+seven law sounds pretty good... but you know The guy who came up with that rule (http://www.amazon.com/Bro-Code-Barney-Stinson/dp/143911000X) was actually suggesting it for the most desirable age you should be targeting if you're a man looking for a woman. But, yeah, something along those lines might be reasonable, though the current hard limit+patch system is pretty okay, methinks.

Pre-pubescent children should get sex-ed they need in order to not be naive about sexual predators and to not do anything dangerous. Beyond that, I'm not sure. They probably don't need anything more than that. Once you get to hitting puberty, they need to be talked to more about sex, and how it needs to be consensual for ALL those involved, what "consent" means (including age of consent), what the risks are of various sexual behaviors, and counsel to avoid them. This includes teaching them that they need to be honest about their sexual history with any new potential partners, and honest about their current sexual behavior with their current partners as well.

Yes, that's certainly a minimum. But that's more, like, civic education. It's sex related, but I think it should be treated with the same clarity and rigor as, say, how to cross the road or what to do at a public transportation or the road code. I don't think there's any controversy to be had here.

But what about, you know, shame? Guilt, repression, and perversion (the pleasure of transgressing, of doing what you think is wrong). The notion of "filth", "smut". This whole strange mindset that treats sex as a sort of fascinating and inevitable evil. Sex-related words (genitalia, sexual practices, sexual preference) being used as "strong language", for shock and impact. All those complexes that porn exploits, often in the most base, inartistic ways. Using your sexual prowess as a determining factor in assessing personal worth. All that sad, harmful nonsense. Wouldn't kids grow to be happier, and healthier, if they were taught about it, taught to accept that part of themselves and treat it with respect, and taught (you know, pointers, good advice) how to handle and manage it? (because yes, repressing your own sexuality and submitting it to your will, not out of guilt but out of deliberate, rational self-interest and altruism, is a very good and very desirable thing).

Perhaps I'm being selfish here, but when I look back I tend to think "I wish I had been taught about this differently." "But then how do you wish you had been taught?" "... How indeed..."

[lucrezaborgia]

But what about, you know, shame? Guilt, repression, and perversion (the pleasure of transgressing, of doing what you think is wrong). The notion of "filth", "smut". This whole strange mindset that treats sex as a sort of fascinating and inevitable evil. Sex-related words (genitalia, sexual practices, sexual preference) being used as "strong language", for shock and impact. All those complexes that porn exploits, often in the most base, inartistic ways. Using your sexual prowess as a determining factor in assessing personal worth. All that sad, harmful nonsense. Wouldn't kids grow to be happier, and healthier, if they were taught about it, taught to accept that part of themselves and treat it with respect, and taught (you know, pointers, good advice) how to handle and manage it? (because yes, repressing your own sexuality and submitting it to your will, not out of guilt but out of deliberate, rational self-interest and altruism, is a very good and very desirable thing).

Perhaps I'm being selfish here, but when I look back I tend to think "I wish I had been taught about this differently." "But then how do you wish you had been taught?" "... How indeed..."

Taught what??? You aren't being very clear at all anywhere in this thread. I have no idea what point you are trying to make with all this. What is an example of the shame you are talking about? Give a situation that details this shame. It does not have to be a real one but something expository would be helpful. Shame can mean so many different things depending on the context. Shame isn't equal for all cultures.

[Shahriyar]

What is an example of the shame you are talking about?

I have a sister. She has a boyfriend, and a girl friend, which has been my girlfriend at some point. Once, at that time, they were all going out, and I insisted in accompanying them. My sister was dead set against it. Since she failed to reason it, I kept insisting. After a few rounds of this, my sister completely flipped out. As in, she broke down crying. She couldn't understand why I couldn't understand that she didn't want me to witness what she did at the night club. Apparently, I'm somehow, for some reason, representative of our parents, in her mind. And she was ashamed of what she did, at night, with her friends, in da club. No matter how much I insisted that I didn't freaking care what she did with her body, that I only wanted to be with my girlfriend, she simply couldn't take it.

In general, she tries to act like all her friends, all "blasé" and "modern" and all that stuff, like casual sex is no big deal, just some fun. Then they hide and they cheat and they lie and they angst and they engage in all sorts of absurd, unhealthy nonsense. And she's the one that angsts the most.

Calling sexually attractive women, or sexually attractive parts of people's bodies, indecent, slutty, shameful. Using adjectives in the same register to qualify women who enjoy sex "too much" (however much that is... at least the "Lie Back And Think Of England" era is mostly over and done with).

"Fucking someone", "being fucked by someone", "screwed over" as a synonym for "having been swindled, fooled, humiliated, hurt"... and those connotations being conversely applied to the act itself.

"You fucked my daughter" "Why yes, yes I did. I fail to see the problem. Is this why you've been treating me so poorly?": parents being overprotective of their daughters ("She's always been my little baby") and encouraging their sons to "go have some fun".

Naked people being either hilarious or sexualized. One of my girlfriends would never let me see her naked outside of sexual situations, and she'd turn off the freaking lights. Then she'd walk on the beach wearing a tight bikini.

When a person tries to overtly use their sexual attractiveness for personal gain (say, pulling a daring hip swag during a dancing competition... or sometimes simply being a model), they are said to be "selling out". Actual prostitution in general being a shameful, last resort, despicable profession. In my country of birth, most prostitutes cost no more than one dollar, and look away while you're doing it. They have the self-esteem of an earthworm, but they'll still scorn the more expensive prostitutes (five dollars, a worker's day's pay!) because they'll kiss their clients or give them blow, because that's scandalous, dirty stuff.

All that stuff, that's bullshit. All that stuff is based on shame, a visceral, deeply-ingrained shame, that we pick up from a very young age. Of our bodies, of our sexuality. And things don't have to be that way. A sister should be able to cuddle with her BF without having a panic attack upon the prospect of her brother witnessing that. People should be able to have casual sex without beating themselves up over it. Sexually attractive people and their body parts are sexually attractive, not "dirty". Lovers who have seen each other naked should feel no compunctions about showing themselves naked to each other at any time. There should be no shame in enjoying sex as much as one does. There should be no association whatsoever, metaphorical, figurative or otherwise, between the act of sexual intercourse and the acts of abuse and breach of trust. A parent shouldn't care, one way or the other, how much sex their children get, besides legitimate concerns such as health, time management, or the quality of one's social circle. A naked person is a naked person. Taking nakedness, and the exposition of skin, as a sexual cue, is blatantly absurd. Seeing a naked person as vulnerable, and laughing at them, is stupid. Using other people's sex drives to get what you want, when you shouldn't get it that way, is equivalent to giving false promises at best and bribing at worst, and should be exactly as unbecoming as these things, not more, not less. Having sex with people in exchange for remuneration of any sort is providing a service, and should be treated seriously and done well and with care. All this can be done if you are able to accept and understand your own sexuality. Not as something "natural", "beautiful" or "wonderful", but as something that simply is there, like hunger or curiosity or greed. Your genitalia are there like your guts, your nose, your brain is there. They can be useful, they can be annoying, they can have "a will of their own", and one may have to "reign them in", just like every other freaking function of the body, just like every other emotion, stirring or appetite.

And I think that if, from a young age, you teach kids not to be ashamed of their bodies in general and their genitalia in particular, a very important foundation of all the bullshit I listed above will be removed. Whether it will tumble down or not is not something I can discern from where I stand. You'd have to test it, I guess (by communicating it to children in an appropriate way).

Spoiler:

Which is unethical (regardless of how appropriate you are about it).

But then again, education itself, as it is practiced now, is inherently unethical, since it consists in inflicting knowledge, drilling habits, hammering rules, and incepting doctrines and beliefs and tastes into people who are unable to give informed consent (since they don't have the information yet: you're the one supposed to give it to them, to "inform" them, in the first place).

Obviously, once they've been indoctrinated, they'll be glad of that education, because part of what the doctrine says is that the doctrine itself is good, according to the doctrine's own values. That retroactive consent is pretty much worthless, almost as much as asking someone whether they're glad they were born. Almost.

Because there are always other doctrines one can come in contact with, and there's always one's own sensitivities and intelligence, and one may undertake a change of course... but that's all it is: you've already walked a long way in the wrong direction, and some of the wrong things you were taught will plague you all your life.

So how do you avoid that pitfall? Put the kids in front of a library, a computer, a DVD collection, and let them explore at will so they can make up their own minds? The problem with not telling kids what to do and letting them figure it out is that they often don't know what to do and are too dumb, emotional, rash and inexperienced to figure it out, and, to every given situation, there's such a huge range of possible responses... and a big chunk of those is horrible stuff. Letting kids figure out morality by themselves might hurt them much more than inflicting a pre-formatted education on them.

Whether it would also remove the foundations for other kinds of bullshit that aren't directly related to sex, like the German leftists over there thought, is something I really can't answer right now, but I'm really curious about it.

Was this clear and concrete enough? (And sorry about the digression on the ethics of education in general... honestly, I just noticed that issue myself, it was all spur of the moment...).

[lucrezaborgia]

The first part you mentioned is called rape culture in some circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

When a person tries to overtly use their sexual attractiveness for personal gain (say, pulling a daring hip swag during a dancing competition... or sometimes simply being a model), they are said to be "selling out". Actual prostitution in general being a shameful, last resort, despicable profession. In my country of birth, most prostitutes cost no more than one dollar, and look away while you're doing it. They have the self-esteem of an earthworm, but they'll still scorn the more expensive prostitutes (five dollars, a worker's day's pay!) because they'll kiss their clients or give them blow, because that's scandalous, dirty stuff.

It might have something to do with the fact that not all women choose sex-work in a way that other women in the world choose careers. This is a really bad example to use. Women shouldn't have to compromise their bodily integrity just to put food on he table...unless they really like sex work.

All that stuff, that's bullshit. All that stuff is based on shame, a visceral, deeply-ingrained shame, that we pick up from a very young age. Of our bodies, of our sexuality. And things don't have to be that way.

This can be very culturally specific, even more so within certain subsets in cultures. Shame is not the default worldwide.

Not as something "natural", "beautiful" or "wonderful", but as something that simply is there, like hunger or curiosity or greed.

This is dismissive of people who view sex through certain religious cultural lenses.

Obviously, once they've been indoctrinated, they'll be glad of that education, because part of what the doctrine says is that the doctrine itself is good, according to the doctrine's own values. That retroactive consent is pretty much worthless, almost as much as asking someone whether they're glad they were born. Almost.

This is not always true. EX. There are many ex-fundamentalist Christians who realized, as children, that their lifestyle was legalistic and education were worthless.

The best we can do is teach our own children the values we feel are important. Government can only do so much and schools can only teach so much.

[Роберт]

The best we can do is teach our own children the values we feel are important. Government can only do so much and schools can only teach so much.

That's pretty true.

We wouldn't want the government legislating morality, really. Should we teach kids one-night stands are okay? I don't think so, because I don't think they are. But hey, you can do that if you want to. I don't think the government should intervene.

I think part of the problem is the taboo of talking about sex that a lot of people have. I've known lots of people whose parents never gave them "the talk" or when they did, they NEVER SAID THE WORD SEX. That's a problem and that and similar things lead to all sorts of other problems.

[The Great Hippo]

It might have something to do with the fact that not all women choose sex-work in a way that other women in the world choose careers. This is a really bad example to use. Women shouldn't have to compromise their bodily integrity just to put food on he table...unless they really like sex work.

Maybe, but keep in mind, sex work's exploitative nature is a result of how most cultures handle sex--it wouldn't be nearly as exploitative as it is if we weren't so weird about it. The moment you stop treating sex like something magical, shameful, or special--the moment you think of it as just a fun activity that should be done safely and between consenting parties--the sex industry becomes as exploitative as the chauffeur industry.

Not as something "natural", "beautiful" or "wonderful", but as something that simply is there, like hunger or curiosity or greed.

This is dismissive of people who view sex through certain religious cultural lenses.

Is it important that it's dismissive? I'm all for dismissing the fuck out of culture that's unhealthy and leads to exploitation; ideally, you're free to practice your culture, and I'm free to dismiss it. And I'd certainly characterize most religions' approach to sex as very unhealthy.

[lucrezaborgia]

This is dismissive of people who view sex through certain religious cultural lenses.

Is it important that it's dismissive? I'm all for dismissing the fuck out of culture that's unhealthy and leads to exploitation; ideally, you're free to practice your culture, and I'm free to dismiss it. And I'd certainly characterize most religions' approach to sex as very unhealthy.

Not all cultures that think sex is special are inherently exploitative or unhealthy. I can't make a call like that without seeing the culture in context.

[Shahriyar]

The first part you mentioned is called rape culture in some circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

I would argue that the abolishment of a rape culture would be a culture where rape is actually no big deal, at least not more than, say, the sum of a beating and a "Hannibal lecture". In a society where sex is not shameful or degrading or filthy, rape loses all its potency as a weapon. (It would also be a lot less frequent: most actual instances of rape are about power, humiliation and degradation, not about sating lust). Also, that article was very interesting, especially the bit about the US military, so thanks for linking to it.

It might have something to do with the fact that not all women choose sex-work in a way that other women in the world choose careers. This is a really bad example to use. Women shouldn't have to compromise their bodily integrity just to put food on he table...unless they really like sex work.

Maybe, but keep in mind, sex work's exploitative nature is a result of how most cultures handle sex--it wouldn't be nearly as exploitative as it is if we weren't so weird about it. The moment you stop treating sex like something magical, shameful, or special--the moment you think of it as just a fun activity that should be done safely and between consenting parties--the sex industry becomes as exploitative as the chauffeur industry.

What he said. Plus, people shouldn't compromise their moral integrity (by practicing immoral business practices, relying on nepotism and buttkissing and bribes, swindling uninformed clients...) to bring food on the table, yet they do so constantly, and are seldom treated as badly as prostitutes, when their "whoring" is actually most destructive. And a lot of them actually hate it and are forced into it because that's the way of their workplace. As for physical integrity (and moral, for that matter), let's look no further than soldiers or mercenaries. Most of them will claim not to enjoy the killing people and getting shot at parts, too. Some people despise them, others put them on a pedestal.

Sometimes people take dangerous jobs out of necessity and not vocation. It's sad, so no point in making it sadder by making them ashamed of it.

This can be very culturally specific, even more so within certain subsets in cultures. Shame is not the default worldwide.

You keep mentioning these other cultures. I'm only familiar with Western European, USA and parts of the Arab world. And I'm fairly interested in alternate perspectives.

This is dismissive of people who view sex through certain religious cultural lenses.

It's true that one has to keep the religious viewpoint in mind. I have a tendency to dismiss it because of how supremely malleable religion is when it comes to morality.

Spoiler:

Usually religion reflects, justifies and supports the values of a society, rather than inform then: it's an affiliation, a re-linking (which is what the word originally means): the important part is not what the tenets are, but whether you share them with your correligionaries, and, especially, whether you do not share them with the infidel. It's not about believing as in actually expecting stuff to happen, it's about endorsing, cheering and professing, and about "othering" and distinguishing oneself from those who profess differently. While this perspective

While that explanation is very good at explaining religious people's behavior, it causes one to dismiss religious sensitivities by forgetting how much it actually matters to those concerned: explaining it doesn't mean it's explained away.

Obviously, once they've been indoctrinated, they'll be glad of that education, because part of what the doctrine says is that the doctrine itself is good, according to the doctrine's own values. That retroactive consent is pretty much worthless, almost as much as asking someone whether they're glad they were born. Almost.

This is not always true. EX. There are many ex-fundamentalist Christians who realized, as children, that their lifestyle was legalistic and education were worthless.

The best we can do is teach our own children the values we feel are important. Government can only do so much and schools can only teach so much.

Absolutely. A lot has to come from the parents. But, here's the thing: most of their learning, the kids will make in school: from teachers, the media, and each other. They go there at eight in the morning, they come back at eight in the evening (after all the extracurriculars), and between that and falling asleep, they get like two daily hours of contact with their parents. Who come home from work, tired and with their minds elsewhere. There's only so much parents can do. If, instead of teaching the kids a set of rules, you help them raise awareness of their own moral sensitivity, (i.e. their senses of empathy, of attentiveness, their sensitivity towards their own emotions, their acceptance of themselves and their own bodies, a proactive attitude, and a sense of joy in seeing joy in others), I think the metaethics ("how do I choose the right criteria upon which to decide what rules I will follow?"), the ethics ("what rules will I follow, according to my criteria?"), and the morals ("what should I do about this situation, here and now, according to my rules?"), will flow directly from there.

This is dismissive of people who view sex through certain religious cultural lenses.

Is it important that it's dismissive? I'm all for dismissing the fuck out of culture that's unhealthy and leads to exploitation; ideally, you're free to practice your culture, and I'm free to dismiss it. And I'd certainly characterize most religions' approach to sex as very unhealthy.

Not all cultures that think sex is special are inherently exploitative or unhealthy. I can't make a call like that without seeing the culture in context.

First: I don't think there's anything wrong about sex being "special".

Spoiler:

I've been in countries where eating is a big deal, and food is treated with love and respect. Of the French in particular, you could say that they live to eat, rather than the reverse. I also remember having read that there are cultures where it's eating in public that is extremely taboo, while having sex in public is perfectly okay (though a bit messy and inappropriate... just like eating food on the street is in other cultures). I've been in cultures where odor is systematically expunged from everywhere, and cultures where smell is a very important, very present dimension of daily life (in some Arabic cultures, and they're more diverse than they're given credit for, women tasked with the mission of finding compatible couples for arranged marriages would judge a candidate partly on the quality of their personal smell: in Arabic, the word for "person who smells nice" and "kind person" is the same, tayyib, and the Prophet, a great user of perfumes himself, once said "God loves the tayyibin").

But I do take issue with it being "magical": there's three paths you can take before a phenomenon you don't understand: explain, worship or ignore. I take great issue with the worshiping: it only leads to nonsense.

[The Great Hippo]

Not all cultures that think sex is special are inherently exploitative or unhealthy. I can't make a call like that without seeing the culture in context.

Oh, I absolutely agree; I'm just for calling cultures out when they approach sexuality in a way that's clearly unhealthy. Shaming plays a large part in that. I only mean to suggest that "But it's their culture!" is an inadequate defense.

I would argue that the abolishment of a rape culture would be a culture where rape is actually no big deal, at least not more than, say, the sum of a beating and a "Hannibal lecture". In a society where sex is not shameful or degrading or filthy, rape loses all its potency as a weapon. (It would also be a lot less frequent: most actual instances of rape are about power, humiliation and degradation, not about sating lust).

I see your point, but I suggest caution: When it comes to our bodies, everything is a big deal. While it seems reasonable that a society that has a healthy attitude toward sex would also have a healthy perspective on rape, I don't think this tells us much about what that healthy perspective would necessarily be, and I think we should take care not to imply how seriously people should take their negative experiences.

[Shahriyar]

(First of all, please notice that I keep my pronouns gender-neutral and age-neutral: rape by females, and rape on males, should be serious business as well).

Victims of rape in a rape society were hurt in that society's context.

Spoiler:

Which means they were humiliated, degraded, and sullied, in that context. It's, like, when a person of African descent is called a nigger, or a woman is called a wench, or a prostitute a slut: while the terms themselves are mere descriptors, strictly speaking, context makes them genuinely hurtful weapons. Heck, with the right inflexions you can make a person's name an insult. And rape is many, many orders of magnitudes worse on the offensive trying-to-hurt-you scale.

So, while I would indeed advocate that rape victims take a different view of what happened to them, for the sake of their own inner peace, what was intended to happen to them would remain absolutely unchanged, and I think that's the most hurtful bit of it all: I for one am extremely difficult to hurt, psychologically, but it depresses me and angers me greatly that people would still intend to, for very flimsy reasons, so the end result is still pretty similar.

What society around the victims thinks of it, and how they may treat them differently, look upon them differently (seriously, just the way people stare at you and move around you, the "atmosphere", can mean so much), is also a big part of it. But while your attitude can't change what the victim intended to achieve, it can change how people react around you, greatly.

So rape victims feel the way they feel about rape largely because of the context in which it happens, regardless of whether, in their own mind, they are free of that context: anyone suggesting that they "suck it up" is therefore being insensitive and thoughtless in the extreme.

You know, back in the Cavalier Years, being mocked or insulted was serious business. It was literally grounds for either a duel to the death or a suicide... and if you didn't go through with either of those things, the people around you would give you so much hell life wouldn't be worth living. Telling someone that someone telling them their nose was huge was stupid, juvenile, and it's not that big anyway, and that they should just ignore them, would be pointless, rather flippant, and would potentially get some very bad reactions. And yet, how "silly" this seems from our perspective. It would be nice if, sometime in the future, people would turn back and say "These people got raped and thought they were "ruined forever"? How quaint.". (And it would be much nicer if they would instead say "What sort of awful, despicable people would commit rape when it meant what it used to mean?" instead of being such smug ethnocentric oafs).

Shit like the following is the fast track to getting kicked out of a thread (if not the section and/or forum entirely). Trying to distinguish between types of rape is, at best, an astoundingly fine line that is entirely unnecessary. Either way, it's irrelevant to this thread.

Please understand this is not a debatable point here and now.

Move on.

- Az
This post had objectionable content.

So, I'll insist that rape victims' pain shouldn't be made light of. However, I must also say that a "sexually liberated" person would be able to cope with rape much more easily, starting by being able to make sense of what happened to them and understand it (you'd be amazed how much that accounts for): one more reason to teach the kids not to be ashamed of their bodies and the functions thereof.

[Azrael]

Now, the at-least-sorta-maybe-relevant-to-the-discussion part:

So, I'll insist that rape victims' pain shouldn't be made light of. However, I must also say that a "sexually liberated" person would be able to cope with rape much more easily, starting by being able to make sense of what happened to them and understand it (you'd be amazed how much that accounts for): one more reason to teach the kids not to be ashamed of their bodies and the functions thereof.

Much as a person who was used to martial combat might be able to cope better with the aftermath of the injuries from a mob-beating. In short: It doesn't change a damn thing that matters. Nor does it make a solid argument that we should teach children martial combat so as to reap a benefit if they are eventually beaten by a mob.

Rape is a terribly violation of someone's rights. You do not get to hand-wave off that basic truth while trying to find some benefit from an increased coping mechanism.

[Shahriyar]

Rape is a terribly violation of someone's rights. You do not get to hand-wave off that basic truth while trying to find some benefit from an increased coping mechanism.

No you don't. But encouraging people to teach their kids martial arts because it would arguably make violence both rarer (by the same logic gun ownership is supposed to do the same) and less effective were it to happen to them is hardly bad policy. Teaching them not to think of violence in terms of a contest of dominance, and telling them about the legal resources at their disposal, means that, in the event of a provocation, they will not resort to violence, and if the other person does, they will simply sue, rather than respond out of misplaced pride. Of course, if we're going to teach that to children, we should be responsible about it, in that we should walk our talk. In too many schools, "don't fight" actually means "don't cause trouble for us", and teachers prefer to ignore acts of bullying whenever they can, out of sheer convenience. In too many doujos, the master will insist on the virtues of discipline and self-restraint, only to joyously demonstrate how to snap a neck. And where did the bullies first pick up their skewed mindset, if not in the household?

Can one fix the world form the kindergarten? I know it's not that simple, but I'd like to think something can be done. But I see your point, and you're right: it sounded like I suggested that, with the right conditioning, the right set of shared beliefs, all people of a society would become entirely immune to the psychological effects of rape, and simultaneously lose all possible motivation of inflicting it on others. I don't think this is possible. Perhaps it also sounded like I was suggesting it was the rapee's responsibility to prepare themselves for that eventuality. I vehemently deny this, in the same way I will affirm It is not the responsibility of the beaten-up to have spent hours and hours training to prepare for that beating.

[The Great Hippo]

No you don't. But encouraging people to teach their kids martial arts because it would arguably make violence both rarer (by the same logic gun ownership is supposed to do the same) and less effective were it to happen to them is hardly bad policy.

How does this concern Azrael's point? Being abused is being abused; it's true that healthy, intelligent attitudes about sex and your body might help you better cope with abuse, but it's also true that they might not. It does not always follow that because I'm open about sex, I'm also going to deal with sexual trauma better. It seems more likely, but it isn't a guarantee. Remember: Abuse is a very personal experience. There are no universal panaceas, and no one deals with their abuse in precisely the same way--regardless of what culture they come from.

You're dealing in a lot of hypotheticals here, which is fine, but you're making a lot of concrete assertions based on those hypotheticals. I'm comfortable with the assertion that a sexually liberated (and sexually responsible!) society is likely to deal with matters of sex in a much more mature, beneficial way; I'm not comfortable describing in detail what those ways are, or what shape those benefits will take. Because really, how the hell would any of us know?

[Shahriyar]

Note: the spoilered bits are offtopic: they explain what I'm trying to achieve here, and what my motivations are. I still publish them because they might inform the way this discussion goes on in the future, if it goes on at all.

You're dealing in a lot of hypotheticals here, which is fine, but you're making a lot of concrete assertions based on those hypotheticals. I'm comfortable with the assertion that a sexually liberated (and sexually responsible!) society is likely to deal with matters of sex in a much more mature, beneficial way; I'm not comfortable describing in detail what those ways are, or what shape those benefits will take. Because really, how the hell would any of us know?

You make an excellent point.

Spoiler:

I admit that I'm on a bit of a crusade against my own breeding, which was trademark contemporary rape culture. Since, to my horror, I found out how unhealthy and harmful some of my priors were, I have been sparing no effort to update them. Sometimes I get overeager and venture into territories where I'm in way over my head, because, really, if I can't trust the culture where I was brought up, I can't trust the culture that brought me out of it. I feel like I need to anticipate, go one step further, because maybe this stage of development, that is consensual in this culture, is still not "right" yet. Maybe there's still some moral issues we're overlooking, some evils we aren't fixing because we haven't noticed them, haven't thought about them.

To be honest, I'm not comfortable with these speculations either.

Spoiler:

But I feel compelled to make them, and submit them for sniping, smashing, and shaving, in the hopes that, out of that raw nonsense, and with everyone's help, something new and good may come out of it. Kinda like a Socratic method, but I don't mean to be an annoying gadfly: my goal isn't to puncture inflated egos, it's to find out whether I'm still wrong about things. In fact, I am positively and proactively looking for people to contradict me and point out any flaws in my wild theories. Otherwise I wouldn't post them on a public forum: I'd do a blog, or share them with my friends, or just keep a diary. Being uncomfortable, not being sure what to think, is the entire point, it means I'm actually venturing into terra incognita, where there be dragons. It means I'm fighting my own demons rather than staying in my comfort zone. Everyone, sorry for drafting you into my war. If you have any suggestions that I shouldn't do that here, and/or would suggest better media for this endeavor, don't hesitate to tell me. (Better do it via PM, since it would be offtopic)

[lucrezaborgia]

Shahriyar, correct me if I'm wrong...you seem to want absolute answers to most of these issues.

That's not the world we live in and part of being human is negotiating and adapting our core values into cultures that have their own values. These values, by both cultures, can seem to be fundamentalist to the practice of their culture.

On the flip-side...as adults we can be an educated and as enlightened as can be and still feel that sexual relations, for them, are only worth wile between limited partners or in lifetime relationships. Some people then try to say that situation is an absolute, but I'd gather that most don't.

Either way, people should decide for themselves how they want to express themselves sexually and if that expression is conservative and is come out independent of fundy propaganda, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

[The Great Hippo]

Either way, people should decide for themselves how they want to express themselves sexually and if that expression is conservative and is come out independent of fundy propaganda, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

I'm not interested in telling people how they should act, sexually, but I am interested in telling people how they should respond to the sexuality of others. It's one thing to go "Safe, happy-time fun orgies are not my thing, I have zero interest in participating, watching, or even hearing about them"; it's another to say "Safe, happy-time fun orgies are shameful, horrible things that no reasonably moral person should participate in."

I think part of our sickness when it comes to sexual attitude is conflating our emotional position toward sex ("Sex makes me uncomfortable") with a moral position ("Sex is immoral", or "Sex is moral only when performed under the right rituals"). Culture tends toward the latter, and so I find myself often dismissive toward cultural perspectives on sex.

[useddestilation]

You talk of pedophiles like if they were evil or willing to take advantage of kids, not as normal human beings.

While I completely oppose forcing children to experiment with sex before they want to, I also think that if they want to experience the pleasure that comes with being with someone they like, then there is nothing wrong about it.

And if children are to be sexually liberated, with whom do you expect them to have sex? With straight men attracted to grown up women? Is like asking a gay man to have sex with a girl. No, its obvious that if children want to have sex, the most apt person to fulfill those desires is a responsible pedophile who loves the child back. I read somewhere that a pedophile is the exact opposite of a pedagoge, because a pedagoge is, for the child, an authority figure, someone above them, while a pedophile is a peer, someone at their level who does not want to teach but rather to play.

I do agree with the general idea of those idealist revolutionaries, but I think that of course children should decide, not adults.

This (the 1968 bit at least) isn't just a bunch of paedos looking for an excuse.

And, last but not least, it led to some actual paedophiles piggybacking on the movement (what a dreadful image) and taking advantage of the ideological bias against (hetero and other*)normativity and authoritarianism in leftist milieus and in the GLBT movement to advance their agenda.

WTF? Are you implying that they cant be pedophiles because they had good intentions? Like if pedophiles were evil monsters who want to harm children? You are also implying that it was a "wrong" thing that pedophiles could possible participate on the movement. WTF?! Do you also believe it would have been wrong if gays or lesbians have participated in that movement?

Pedophiles are considered "Others", not a legitimate part of culture, and thus, pedophiles can only "infiltrate", "sabotage", "piggyback". Since pedophiles are Others, shadows, faceless monsters, and not really one of us, they can only infiltrate, lurk, our "normal" (straight) society,

Well, NOT.

Pedophiles are not "others": are an integral, normal and natural part of society, they are our brothers and sisters. There is nothing wrong about having a different sexual orientation and there is nothing wrong about being a pedophile. A pedophile is a normal human being just like everyone else.

Double posts combined.
-Az

[Роберт]

Pedophiles are not "others": are an integral, normal and natural part of society, they are our brothers and sisters. There is nothing wrong about having a different sexual orientation and there is nothing wrong about being a pedophile. A pedophile is a normal human being just like everyone else.

This is the second thread time you've necroed this thread (plus once in another thread) to talk about how pedophiles are awesome. You'd probably get a better reaction if you were subtler with your pro-pedophile activism.

The reason people are against pedophilia is not because we think that it's inherently wrong to be attracted to children. It's not wrong for a cis hetero male to be sexually attracted to a cis hetero married woman who doesn't want him and is in an exclusive relationship with someone else.

The problem is when rape, molestation, and exploitation happens. I think you'll find most people on the forum think CGI child porn should be legal. But children should not be molested, raped, or otherwise exploited. We don't like rape, and it seems especially bad to prey on the more vulnerable, for example, children.

[Azrael]

... alright, I guess the pocket veto isn't going to work. Let's see how this goes?

[Роберт]

No, its obvious that if children want to have sex, the most apt person to fulfill those desires is a responsible pedophile who loves the child back.

I must have missed this with the double posting fiasco, but NO, THIS IS NOT OBVIOUS. In fact, to most people it seems obvious that if minors want to have sex, it should be without a huge power differential that makes consent impossible. That is rape, and rape is bad.

I didn't see this part before, but NO, it is NOT okay for adults to have sex with children.



Let me put it this way "it's obvious that if an 18-year old girl wants to have sex, the most apt person to fulfill those desires is a responsible 50-year old man
(trigger)

Spoiler:

who happens to be her father and

who loves her back" is pretty similar to what you said. Do you see how that's not even close to true?

[The Great Hippo]

And if children are to be sexually liberated, with whom do you expect them to have sex?

...with their peers? I.e., other children? I'm not convinced this would be healthy (in fact, I suspect it would be the opposite), but I am convinced it would be healthier than allowing for lopsided relationships which are, by their very nature, inescapably exploitative.

I read somewhere that a pedophile is the exact opposite of a pedagoge, because a pedagoge is, for the child, an authority figure, someone above them, while a pedophile is a peer, someone at their level who does not want to teach but rather to play.

Pedophiles are at the level of children, now? Should they be treated as such? Should we restrict their access to alcohol, elections, heavy machinery, and place their right to consent into the hands of more capable guardians?

Children are children because they lack the proper experience to make important decisions. We've set aside a period of time in their lives--defined it as 'growing up'--and made special considerations to insulate them from the dangers of bad decisions. Once they've gathered up enough experience, we strip down the insulation and they're free to make any decisions they want (including who they want to sleep with) and suffer the appropriate consequences.

Do you really want to have sex with someone? Wait until this period is over. If you have some sort of bizarre mental block where you no longer want to have sex with this person the moment they've left this period, then maybe--just maybe!--you were never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and you should be kept far the fuck away from them.

[useddestilation]

The reason people are against pedophilia is not because we think that it's inherently wrong to be attracted to children.

That is your personal position. Most people believe pedos are intrinsically evil.

Let me put it this way "it's obvious that if an 18-year old girl wants to have sex, the most apt person to fulfill those desires is a responsible 50-year old man who happens to be her father who loves her back" is pretty similar to what you said.

First, I never said anything about incest; second, if the 18 yo girl wants to fuck the 50 year old man, then who cares? It would be a little weird, but nothing i would be against.

Pedophiles are at the level of children, now? Should they be treated as such? Should we restrict their access to alcohol, elections, heavy machinery, and place their right to consent into the hands of more capable guardians?

Its not expected to be taken at face value, there is something called a metaphor. My point was that some pedophiles (child lovers) identify strongly with children and thus, are not quite fit to be pedagoges, since teaching (at least in the traditional sense) requires someone who places himself/herself in a position above the student. He/she assumes an active role and the student a passive one. For a child lover that would be impossible because of the strong identification with children.

Do you really want to have sex with someone? Wait until this period is over. If you have some sort of bizarre mental block where you no longer want to have sex with this person the moment they've left this period, then maybe--just maybe!--you were never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and you should be kept far the fuck away from them.

Funny way to test if an heterosexual man is truly in love with his girlfriend: if he doesnt want to have sex with her after a sex-change operation, he was never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and he should be kept far the fuck away from she.

If you are heterosexual and unable to find your wife with a big cock hanging between her? hairy legs sexy , then it must be that you never actually cared for her! **Facepalm**

[gmalivuk]

The reason people are against pedophilia is not because we think that it's inherently wrong to be attracted to children.

That is your personal position. Most people believe pedos are intrinsically evil.

Well they aren't here in this discussion, so might we suggest you take your apologist whining elsewhere?

[elasto]

I think it's true that most of society think pedophiles to be inherently evil, but a disappointing proportion of society think that homosexuals are evil, so, yeah, what can you do.

I think the majority of this forum are more grown up about these things and realise that you aren't in control of who you find sexually attractive: If you find children sexually attractive that's no more a conscious choice than a man finding a woman sexually attractive, a man finding a man sexually attractive, a man finding a horse sexually attractive or a man finding leather boots sexually attractive.

Pedophiles have my sympathy therefore - because, as others have said - it is almost impossible for a pedophile to engage in a sexual relationship with a child in a non-exploitative and non-damaging fashion; It is therefore quite appropriate for society to rule sex acts between adults and children to be illegal under all circumstances.

[The Great Hippo]

Its not expected to be taken at face value, there is something called a metaphor. My point was that some pedophiles (child lovers) identify strongly with children and thus, are not quite fit to be pedagoges, since teaching (at least in the traditional sense) requires someone who places himself/herself in a position above the student. He/she assumes an active role and the student a passive one. For a child lover that would be impossible because of the strong identification with children.

You said 'peer'. Do you understand what a 'peer' is? Someone who possesses comparable social, mental, and educational status. Most children and adults are not peers.

Funny way to test if an heterosexual man is truly in love with his girlfriend: if he doesnt want to have sex with her after a sex-change operation, he was never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and he should be kept far the fuck away from she.

If you are heterosexual and unable to find your wife with a big cock hanging between her? hairy legs sexy , then it must be that you never actually cared for her! **Facepalm**

Except my girlfriend is an adult, capable of making adult decisions, some of which might include decisions about the shape of her genitalia. If I say 'If you get that sex change operation, I don't want to have sex with you', I'm saying it to an adult, who I know will be able to understand this consequence and measure it against the value of a sex change operation--and make the choice that's most important to them. There's no 'decision' involved in growing up, and even if there was, you're making this statement to someone who is typically not capable of understanding this consequence and making rational decisions concerning it. I.e., either you're a moron, not interested in their welfare, or both. Either way, you shouldn't be around this person--as you're very likely to harm them.

I've often wondered if pedophiles don't want to have sex with people, but rather, taboos--periods of time when people are defined as vulnerable and having reduced autonomy. I'd be curious whether if children were born with the experience set of adults, most pedophiles would lose interest.

The reason people are against pedophilia is not because we think that it's inherently wrong to be attracted to children.

That is your personal position. Most people believe pedos are intrinsically evil.

Well they aren't here in this discussion, so might we suggest you take your apologist whining elsewhere?

This.

[useddestilation]

your apologist whining

Defending people who are discriminated, hated, demonized and bullied for their sexual orientation is not apologism. Is defending human rights. Pedophile rights are human rights, like LGBT rights or black rights. Is not apologism, is a matter of human rights.

[lutzj]

your apologist whining

Defending people who are discriminated, hated, demonized and bullied for their sexual orientation is not apologism. Is defending human rights. Pedophile rights are human rights, like LGBT rights or black rights. Is not apologism, is a matter of human rights.

Give me a second, I need to go check something.

...

hmm, not here...

...

Nope, couldn't find anywhere in my Big Book of Human Rights where people have a right not to be ostracized for exploiting minors.

[The Great Hippo]

Defending people who are discriminated, hated, demonized and bullied for their sexual orientation is not apologism. Is defending human rights. Pedophile rights are human rights, like LGBT rights or black rights. Is not apologism, is a matter of human rights.

Are you trolling? Do you know what 'apologism' means? You weren't defending their right to be treated like human beings (we've already conceded that this is true, and noted that it's unlikely anyone present disagrees with this point), you were defending the legitimacy of adults having sex with children.

Yes, pedophiles are people. Yes, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. No, allowing adults to have sex with children is not a good idea, and should be treated as a criminal offence. Can we move on? Or is there anything actually relevant you have to add?

[Роберт]

First, I never said anything about incest; second, if the 18 yo girl wants to fuck the 50 year old man, then who cares? It would be a little weird, but nothing i would be against.

Reading comprehension. I said "the most apt person is obviously...". It was a satire that was basically the same as your position. "If X person want's to have sex, then obviously it should by with Y". I could just as well have said "if a man wants to have sex, obviously it would make sense to do it in a group of three". Or "if a woman wants to have sex, obviously she should do it with a man".
No, there's nothing obvious about it.

Funny way to test if an heterosexual man is truly in love with his girlfriend: if he doesnt[sic] want to have sex with her after a sex-change operation, he was never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and he should be kept far the fuck away from she.

If you are heterosexual and unable to find your wife with a big cock hanging between her? hairy legs sexy , then it must be that you never actually cared for her! **Facepalm**

...I'm really confused. In your scenario "a man loves his trans girlfriend", he already loves her while she still has her penis. When she gets the sex change and gets her penis replaced with female genitalia, I see no reason her heterosexual partner would automatically become less attracted to her...

[Copper Bezel]

He means it the other way around. I. e., the girlfriend is biologically female and self-identifies as such until a specific point of realization / acceptance / etc.

Edit: Should be noted that the parallel still isn't sufficient between those circumstances to make the comparison meaningful. A normal relationship between adults doesn't have to be "healthy," by anyone's definition, to justify itself. useddestilation's proposing a very damaging practice and defending it on the basis that it fosters this or that positive, healthy result. So the label of a "normal" relationship isn't even evidence that anyone presumes a net benefit in a particular case, whereas useddestilation would have to assume a very strong net benefit.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Funny way to test if an heterosexual man is truly in love with his girlfriend: if he doesnt want to have sex with her after a sex-change operation, he was never interested in that person's welfare anyway, and he should be kept far the fuck away from she.

If you are heterosexual and unable to find your wife with a big cock hanging between her? hairy legs sexy , then it must be that you never actually cared for her! **Facepalm**

Are you describing a situation where a person transitions from female to male? That person is a man, not a "her" or a "she". Of course a heterosexual man wouldn't want to continue a relationship with a person who starts identifying as a man. Heterosexual men don't tend to date men. Are you broken?

[Copper Bezel]

That's overly teleological, frankly. If a person self-identified as female at one time, then later self-identified as male, then we don't have to go back and revise all the pronouns of prior experience. I don't see any problem with "she realized she was a he." It gets the meaning across.

The other part is a bit silly, yes.

[Pez Dispens3r]

useddestilation continuously describes a post-op trans man as a 'wife', 'her' and a 'she', not once using a valid pronoun for that person. That's a zero-effort approach, and I'm not being 'overly teleological' by calling them out on that. Truly.

[Copper Bezel]

I just don't think there's actually a case there where the pronoun was used unambiguously to refer to the man after his self-discovery. But I admit it's comically bad form for someone trying to advocate something he describes as a kind of sexual liberation, which is what I think we're really talking about here, if I can say that.