History of Feminism
Related: About this forumreally, how creepy for a progressive board group of men to ask.. how young of a girl can we lust
after
really, no touching. we are not allowed to touch. but, how young is a girl allowed to be, that we can lust for?
i mean... when the post first appeared i just walked away from du. but, someone brought it to my attention today, and i cannot get beyond having a fuckin democratic message board that is suppose to oppose sexism/misogyny, yet we find a question from a man, to a group of men, asking.... is there really too young???
JonBenet Ramsey anyone???
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheDeputy
(224 posts)Involuntary emotions just are. They are neither right nor wrong. The actions one takes based on those emotions are what is either right or wrong.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)vomit
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I didn't know that bag of mush in our skulls was so malleable and controllable
Warpy
(111,266 posts)and there are a lot of men with that particular sexual screw loose.
"When did you decide to lust after children?" is the same as asking people when they chose to be gay or straight. We don't know why it happens, only that it's a part of that person.
Relatively few of them ever act on that lust.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I disagree. I worked in a cancer outpatient center for five years and can state with absolute certainty that once I put my lab coat on, no amount of nudity (of which I saw plenty of consistently-- and many patients were objectively attractive) could or did arouse me to any degree in that environment.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have been able to handle it all my life, making the choice on act/react ect... i am so fuckin tired of the fuckin weak telling me they have no control. just no desire to control
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pretty damn simple. jsut as simple as saying.... there is a fuckin line. period.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Warpy
(111,266 posts)I think most males react to 13 year old girls who are out in public trying to emulate the tween performer of the year. However, most males know better than to grab them off the street and jump their bones.
I dealt with men labeled "sexually dangerous." I know they couldn't help feeling what they felt. Part of my job was reinforcing lessons in how to cope with that without landing back in a VA psych unit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for three or four years of my sons high school. and i could easily react to that like any of your 'most males" and i chose not to because they are fuckin kids and just makes me fuckin pathetic. ia m so tired of this oh so awesome male sexuality that has them on every fuckin second of their day.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...types, not teenage boys.
All other BS aside, it's really very simple:
For the greatest genetic success, a male wants a young mate with a full breeding life ahead that has not yet been bred by a rival. Also for him, infidelity is just plain good sense, the wider the he scatters his genes, the greater his chances of long term evolutionary success.
For a female, her best chances lie with hitching up with an older male with a proven record of survival, and demonstrable ability to provide. Infidelity for her is an insurance bet.
Now put the BS back, because it's by bullshitting each other about sex, that we (mostly) stop ourselves from being baboons, frenetically, coupling in the hope of reaching completion before some rival comes along and beats the living shit out of us mid-fuck.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)most of society.
the GIRL at 16 or 17 or younger is AS likely, do you have it, AS likely to have problems in her pregnancy as the older woman over 36. THIRTEEN is not the OPTIMAL age to FUCK a girl to spread your fuckin seed. 20-24 is the optimal age health wise and health of the baby.
society has conditioned you.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...puberty would happen in the late teens and not at ten or younger and this issue would not exist.
BTW: Nature does not care about optimal. Nature cares only about what works to bring about a new generation in the shortest amount of time possible. Bodies left by the wayside are just that much mulch, which prove by simply existing, that they didn't have that which was necessary to make the cut.
Like it or lump it, underneath that veneer of civilisation, we're still animals, and it really does not take much poking and prodding to let it loose in either gender. We have the capacity to rise above that animal nature, but it's still there underneath. Recognising the existence of that nature, and understanding it, is the best path to controlling it.
I don't advocate "typical male-pig behaviour", I advocate understanding it with a view towards modifying it intelligently.
But no, we're delivered ultimatums to get ourselves under control, whilst being forbidden to properly discuss exactly what the fuck it is we're supposed to be controlling.
19 optimal for a male? What planet are you on? Compare a 19 year old hunter gatherer, or subsistence farmer, with a full adult of the same tribe. The adult would snap the 19 YO like a twig. 19 is young, dumb, full of cum, and in an ideal world still small enough to recognize that he's only up to knocking heads with his peers and the natural world. Well fed and over-entitled, he's out in the streets being stupidly macho and deliberately picking fights with the "chieftain's lieutenants". (police). And in some cases taking part in the pack rape of drunken sixteen year old girls with a greater or lesser degree of impunity.
FFS Well fed and over-entitled, we have 10, 12 and 13 year olds "behaving badly" like the late teen rake-hells of my generation and earlier and for exactly the same reason. Their just "dropped" balls are telling them to push the envelope and demonstrate by the simplest of expedients, survival, that they are fit to breed the next generation.
It's not enough to just label such behaviour wrong and insist that it be made to go away. We need to understand WHY THE BEHAVIOUR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to the beginning of humans. the development was not there. do you really think they understood the basic concept stick penis in vagina, sperm release to egg and viola, baby. really? or sexual urge. they complied. and viola, baby. holy shit. what is that all about.
you are all over with these evolved brains spreading seed, young and productive, while keeping them at animal position to tell your story of how men have to fuck kids.
and how women have to have old men.
you want to leave it open for men to talk about their "biological" innate issue, when there is only society telling them it is their right to fuck whatever they want at any given time cause in their sexuality, they are the ultimate in privileged.
you are using your brain power of today, to tell a story of humans that did not have any brain development beyond a grunt.
and then you demand no one challenge.
there are so many inconsistencies in your post above.
men need them young, biology tell them so. young then is not the young today. so men need them young today, we have to explore.
WTF....
spread see to any young female to produce (which spread the seed comes from religion, isnt it amazing male scientist pick that up from the bible) and women want old man to protect, as the man spread his seed all over and can protect no child.
it does not make sense. but it is the story men have been telling for a couple three, four decades, and puts men in position of dominance, privilege and they gotta keep it a fact.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Shall we explore that hypothesis? The hypothesis that free will, and free will alone drives all human behaviour.
Clearly, all gang bangers deliberately and consciously choose to become parasites and enemies of society. It has nothing to do with the obviously ridiculous idea that society prejudges them as trash based upon their parentage, skin colour and/or socioeconomic status, leaving the street gang as the only social unit that will accept them and offer them a place to belong.
"Mean Girls" has nothing to do with power struggles, they're just bitches.
The Pentagon will also be pleased to know that you've busted the scam which is PTSD. Now they can send all those goldbrickers straight back to the front.
Remember "The Niggler" when you were a kid? That kid with a talent for repeatedly offering another the tiniest of provocations until his victim exploded in incoherent rage. According to you, the victim's lack of self control and FREE CHOICE to react, which makes his victimisation possible, and the constant barrage of niggling attacks is as effective as it is, ONLY because the victim chooses to be a victim.
According to your hypothesis, most domestic violence victims, do have the option of walking away, and thus they only have themselves to blame if they "choose" not to exercise it.
IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE.
It is not just a case of evil wicked men choosing to give themselves permission to behave badly, and if we just stop that, that will be the end of paedophilia and rapists.
Centuries of abuse unto death has not beaten the poof out of homosexuals.
Ridicule, shaming, fines, and/or jail, haven't noticeably thinned out the supply of zoophiles.
Sexual deviancy, exists in in every generation,
Yes, absolutely, there are evil wicked men (and women) giving themselves permission to behave abominably towards other people. Who behave abhorrently in ALL WALKS OF LIFE: As mothers and fathers using their own flesh and blood as punching bags and ashtrays; CEO's and department managers browbeating subordinates into suicide; and teachers and coaches, seeking to rectify their own self-perceived failures becoming the trainer of a CHAMPION; Not all parents. Not that many bosses. Perhaps only a small handful of paedagogs. But yes THEY EXIST. They're called sociopaths.
Yes, agree, agree, agree, it's absolutely 100% about power and dominance, AND it is ALSO about sex as an imperative goal within that framework, because sex is the ultimate reward, beit for services rendered, or rivals vanquished.
In a "red in tooth and claw", "winner takes all", "might is right", ie 99% of human history, world IT IS all about the power struggle and who controls acess to engendering the next generation. The generation which is going to chew my food for me, and add as many as 20 years to my personal lifespan, so I'd better make sure of a surplus of descendents or worst case scenario, cousins. I'll also pay my way with knowledge accumulated over an extended lifetime.
IT'S NOT CONSCIOUS. There are no deep thoughts about degrees of relatedness when it comes to pathological nepotism or rivalry. There are very often, some very shallow thoughts about potential short term rewards vs. expenditure and long term instability. But if you crunch the raw data, then nearly every single time, family and the genome turn out to have benefited in the long term, however shortsighted immediate decisions might appear to have been on the surface.
IT JUST SOMEHOW WORKS OUT THAT WAY. Damned near every time.
"Ignorant tribesmen" (please note air qotes) with no sense of property or abstract mufti-generational continuance, swive and share with gay abandon; they treat sex as a petty currency and generally have a great old time, utterly ignorant of Terry Jones' condemnation, or the Long Haired academician's equally ignorant adulation of "man in his natural state". (There are other patterns of sexual behaviour in so called "primitives", each with their own glib, good enough for public consumption, not nearly complex enough to encompass all of reality, explanations. But stitching them all together, is the fairly simple concept of conflict minimisation.
Introduce the concept of "MY CHILD. MY FUTURE." <Smeagle's voice> and we have cuckoldry to contend with. No woman of any generation before this one ever had the remotest reason to question whether or not her child was hers.
Just how much existential angst is there in enforced chaperonage; hidden behind the burkah; in the shifting and sharing of responsibility for inexcusable liberties taken.
You and I are in 100% agreement as to desired outcome and the basic unacceptibility of certain behavioural choices. All the difference appears to lie in our perceptions of the roadblocks along the way. I sayWe have no choice but to work with the material we , (homo sapiens sapiens), is flawed , and those flaws need to be addressed directly in any dialogue on the subject.
No excuses, no extenuating circumstances, just an explanation, and definition of what we're working against.
You appear to be saying that the flaws (at least if they pertain to "deviant sex" (who defines BTW?)) are always matters of completely voluntary choice which must be corrected in advance of dialogue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)shit that has nothing to do with what i challenged. a quit being a sexist asshole calling girls bitches.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...of all that's left as an explanation of the behaviour of a very specific subset of girls, IF you completely ignore the psychology of power games.
Just what is your problem? We want the same results/outcomes.
One thing there is no escaping: Dominance and power games are an absolute fact of life. They can be directed into warfare, or business, or politics, or any number of other directions, good and bad or both depending on circumstances. The important thing though is while they CAN BE DIRECTED, they can't be abolished by simple fiat.
You say the games must stop before dialogue can begin. I say they have to be a part of that dialogue, and like it or lump it included in the solution. Modified and redirected into useful channels, but included, because they're in the genome as much as the mind.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Look. Human souls interface with our brains. Evil ones make bad choices even if the brains tell the souls not to. Souls are not victims of chance, history, circumstance, genetics, conditioning, disease, etc, because they are otherwordly. Thats the sum of it.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Right?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I will ask you to edit the word "poof" in regards to homosexuals.
The rest is rhetorical bullshit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)weaker man unable to protect and less likely to produce. 19 is the optimal for male.
it is men that have come up with this bogus story telling they call science.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Tribes have shown us that the older man gather together younger men under him to protect him and do his bidding, He gets these with intelligence and social connections (like they're his sons or nephews). And he promises them young women if they'll do what he asks--as well as positions of power and other goodies--like secrets that he knows and no one else does.
So. The older man--being older--has accumulated wealth (let's say, hides to wear and tools to use AND secret information--where the best hunting grounds are, how to make certain tools). He also (through trial and error) knows how to manipulate younger men to protect him and his. Being that human beings are a superstitious lot, he can also make himself into a supernatural power.
Thus, the woman who goes for the older guy is safer and better provided for--her and her children. That 19 year old doesn't have years of accumulated goodies, years of connections, years of knowledge. What can he offer her except a good time and then he's off looking for another good time? He'll give her kids, but he won't be around to help her raise them, or protect them, or clothe and feed them.
This is assuming, of course, that the woman has a choice at all. Which you shouldn't assume. If we view other apes, the female usually doesn't have much of a choice at all. The biggest, baddest, cleverest ape takes over, and rules his harem. His females belong to him and have no say in the matter. But they do sneak out and have affairs with younger guys. Thus, they have the cake and eat it, too. More babies, and a protector/provider.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)manipulation of power resulting in need of survival. this was not the case with the first humans that would make it biological. but societal conditions for survival. today we no longer live where woman aer financially dependent on man for survival and that concept is out the window.
you absolutely reinforce the point it is learned and not natural. it is abuse of power to control and dominate which is what is trying to be done now, saying it is biological.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...that do pretty much the same thing as we do. Biologically.
We are the smartest creatures, of course, and I'm not saying that intelligence and such isn't involved. But I am saying that it may SERVE our biological imperatives. Those being, for the male, to keep the most attractive ladies for himself--and get other younger males to help him so he can keep doing it even when he's past his prime. Male lions usually have buddies who help them keep their territory and harem. Likewise wolves.
How is that different from what older men in tribes do to maintain their power and their harem?
And this is not to say, by the way, that the older man isn't often overthrown. They're constantly challenged. And will lose out to younger rivals. But, again, your argument was "why would the woman biologically want this older man"? And the answer is, she doesn't. But she does want a provider for her and her kids. BIOLOGICALLY as the kids have to live and survive. And motherhood there is a powerful, biological drive. If it wasn't, we mammals wouldn't take care of those kids as needed.
So. Yes, the young female wants to have sex with the young males. And often does behind the older male's back. But she also wants that male who can help her care for the babies. That is biological. And so the older male has a chance, sometimes a better chance, of attracting the female on that score.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to think in the manner we do today. biological would be from the beginning like, sexual urge, breathing, eating, ect....
not knowing how to create a baby and what one needs to do for the babies survival. that.... is fuckin learned more so has the brain developed over time.
really, just fuckin ignore the beginning and attribute our thinking process to theirs.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...what to do for the baby's survival. It's not ALL learned, either. A baby cries and the mom's breast milk starts to flow. The baby knows how to latch on a suckle is the mom picks it up. And the mom's chemical make up is full of oxytocin, which make her want to cuddle, care for and protect that baby.
Take a look at this article: https://www.birthinternational.com/articles/birth/16-pain-in-labour. Chemistry and biology all say we may act a lot more out of our animal nature than we think when it comes to giving birth and caring for our young than we think. And less from what we've learned (and choose) than we presume.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with an old man.
you say it is innate. old men started hitting on me at 12. never once did i desire to hook up with an old man. always, it grossed me out.
do you fight the urge to fuck our kids?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)And are we talking chimpanzees or Bonobos?
Examples of unpolluted Aboriginal culture are rare indeed, so what studies are we talking about? Morris? Mead?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)That proven breeding ability i.e. already have successfully born children might have had something to do with sexual selection, given presumably high mortality rates as our brains grew larger. And family groups were more successful than 'a male protecter' as when we emerged into hunter-gatherer, it wasn't the hunters always bringing home the bacon, so to speak. And there is no evidence that all hunters were male.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Your "information" you've posted says a lot about you. You might want to do more research to understand why you are misinformed, and why you choose to perpetuate such drivel.
Child molesters are not driven by an evolutionary, genetic predisposition. They are motivated by their own sexual proclivities. As ours is NOT a child-centric society, children remain most vulnerable to abuse of every kind, including abuse at the hands of these self-indulgent, sex-addicted, pathetic pedophiles.
I would also encourage you to stop 'justifying' this unjustifiable behavior.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...must be as genetic as something like homosexuality and just as impossible to remove.
The choice and will to act are entirely separate things from that desire. Some act out of pure selfishness, others can't help themselves any more than a firebug with a pocket full of matches can. Some find safe outlet in fantasies and roleplaying with a partner who's "kink" dovetails with their "perversion".
I don't know what the answer is. I just know, that what we are doing right now isn't working, it's doing nothing whatsoever to lessen the supply of paedophiles, does little to dissuade far too many, and fear of reprisal when they do act, may well be driving them to commit further abuses up to and including murder to avoid being found out.
You're 100% correct children are vulnerable to abuse of every kind, some of it completely sanctioned by society in the form of piano lessons, hot-housing, religious instruction, competitive athletics, team sports, etcetera.
The desire to succeed through a child can and does on occasion turn pathologically abusive, but it's rarely remarked upon, and no great effort is made to put a stop to such a "committed/devoted" parent or trainer before great harm has been done.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)years of research, and decades of advocacy for survivors of relationship violence. Unless you are sincerely interested in learning the socio-political and sociocultural frameworks within which some of our (predominantly male) children learn to target those less powerful than them for sexual gratification, then I'm not interested in further discussion about "the desire must be genetic." Unless, of course, you can cite reliable research to support your claims...
Response to chervilant (Reply #208)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then give examples of cultures dealing.
your way of dealing is allowing the abuser who is on top of the pecking order to do at will and everyone else shutting the fuck up. maybe they really arent on top of the pecking order when as a group we knock the fuckers down to the ground. and at that point they are the slimey bottomfeeders they always were, with an illusion of being on the top ripped away.
your form of accepting abuse and telling those abused to deal is pretty far disgusting.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Also full of shit, but then such idealizing/whitewashing re: Japan's culture wrt sex is pretty routine.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
boston bean
(36,221 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I am of course, discounting any brain which may be hard-wired from birth to see a pre-pubescent as an object of lust/desire simply because I have no knowledge of whether that is in fact, a reality of our birth or a result of our environment or both. But I didn't make that as an implication in the post of mine your responded to.
"I think most males react to 13 year old girls..."
I'm not sure if that is the case or not. I certainly don't react to, for all intents and purposes, any female who appears to be young; whether that is through (again) habit, environment and/or brain-wiring I don't pretend to know. All things being equal though, a thirteen year old female doesn't really even register on my radar in regards to arousal or sexual stimulation. And I don't think I'm a minority.
You implied you've dealt with sexually dangerous men, and I imagine that may have colored your perception of how men see women to some extent...? I was a Texas Child protective Caseworker for a few years (any longer than that, and I would have turned to the drink), and have realized since that my years there *did* alter my perceptions of people as a whole- for many years after that, having dealt with some very Bad Parents & Adults, I would tend to default to a position of automatic distrust of adults as a whole; and see even the most benign punishment of a child as a leading indicator of potential abuse.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)At some point in their youth amongst normal development, "something" can go haywire and they begin finding the same age group attractive as they get older (and older to the point it is no longer appropriate). There was an article posted a few years here on psychologist who are now leaning toward this being a model in many cases
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia
Read that article...
"For having these feelings, I was destined to become a monster," he said. "I was terrified."
How terrifying to feel like that. How sick those people must feel and think of themselves. And of course, their potential to become monsters is terrifying as well.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I think it's bullshit to consider pedophilia as a sexual orientation. I think this bullshit arises from a lack of successful treatments. It's a pathology, not a 'natural state' probably arising from rigid gender expectations and sexual mores.
To harm a child goes against every adaptive 'biological' drive we've developed as a big brained, weaker species
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Is only a sexual assault counted?
What about searching for and masturbating to "barely legal" or child porn online?
Supporting and visiting "creepshots" type pages?
Leering at girls in public and prioritizing their boner over another human being's feelings of safety and comfort?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I work at a hospital and I've literally seem thousands of bodies, some very attractive--you notice in a kind of abstract way--no lust or desire, np that's not what I'm there for.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Abstract" Yes! A much more eloquent (and apt) word than I used. 'Academic', even. The brain working, analyzing and categorizing, but absent the passions or desires of the body/heart that we may allow with our spouses in our bedrooms.
We focus on the task at hand, we focus on helping the patient feel comfortable and safe,. It's not so much a question of denying any passion when the concept of passion is simply not there in the first place.
(On the other hand, the gallows humor I and the vast majority of my co-workers used in private to deal with the pain we saw everyday is something I'll never completely understand)
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)We have plenty of humor, it keeps you from crying sometimes
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Looking at the work to be done. I am detached from my personal desire and focused on
Performing the task at hand. I have seen plenty of naked bodies of all ages and lust never once entered my mind.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Your cancer patients are not at their best, are they? Not healthy, athletic, smiling, glowing, energetic. So comparing naked sick people with naked healthy people and saying you feel no lust for the sick people (who you view as biological anyway--a cancerous mammary gland rather than a big, beautiful breast) is really apples and oranges. Add to this that you see a lot of nudity so, as in a nudist camp or tribes where people walk around naked, it has no mystery and thus no allure.
Which is to say, nudity isn't the point. The stripper isn't just naked but doing an alluring dance around a pole. The topless waitress isn't just topless, but busty and jiggling the breasts in the man's face. What arouses a man or woman is what she doesn't usually get to see (which is why, back in the 19th century, a man could be aroused by seeing a woman's ankle), combined with certain sexually alluring attributes like health (etc) and the suggestion of sex to come in pose, look, etc.
So your argument that you're not aroused by naked bodies in THAT environment doesn't argue for how much control we have over feeling lust. Just how inured to nudity we can become if surrounded by it and taught to view it as other than sexual.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)I never said a five year old did anything to inspire lust. I never said, for that matter that a teenager or adult woman did anything either.
You really need to pay attention.
See, when hormones (lust) are in control, people feel that the object of their lust is offering sex. The question is, ARE THEY? And, alas for us who are lusting, most of the time they are not. The screaming teen girls at a boy band concert feel as if those boys are offering them sex. But those boys aren't. They couldn't be offering sex to each and every fan.
Likewise, the very nice looking lady jogging in a form-fitting outfit is not inviting any man to have sex with her. But men, experiencing that stirring of lust, may feel that she is. For that matter, the stripper gyrating at the pole is giving out the invite to have sex to all the men looking at her. That doesn't mean she really wants to have sex with any of them.
And there-in lies the difference in what we can and cannot control. Our feelings we may not be able to control. But whether we act on them is controllable. The question asked here is by someone who doesn't want to control them. "What age girl can I feel lust for?" he asks, which translates to "when can I see a girl who makes me feel lustful as inviting me to have sex with her...?" The pedophile and the rapist both want to think that the child/woman invited them to have sex.
But we who do not think in such twisted ways know that certain people make us feel lust, but that it not usually their intention. So we can't assume it's an invite to anything. And, of course, we know that no child can or will ever invite anyone to have sex. And so are always off the table no matter what feelings an adult may have towards them.
I hope that was clear enough for you.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Hell no you're not clear. And you're also incorrect. Sexuality is a multifactorial process that goes way beyond 'hormones'. And rapists could give a shit less whether a victim wants to "have sex" they want control of the situation and often get off on fear and pain. Ask a rape victim if she's "had sex"
Your post; you need to pay attention:
Which is to say, nudity isn't the point. The stripper isn't just naked but doing an alluring dance around a pole. The topless waitress isn't just topless, but busty and jiggling the breasts in the man's face. What arouses a man or woman is what she doesn't usually get to see (which is why, back in the 19th century, a man could be aroused by seeing a woman's ankle), combined with certain sexually alluring attributes like health (etc) and the suggestion of sex to come in pose, look, etc.
So your argument that you're not aroused by naked bodies in THAT environment doesn't argue for how much control we have over feeling lust. Just how inured to nudity we can become if surrounded by it and taught to view it as other than sexual
So what you seem to be saying is the attractiveness factor that inspires feelings of desire are not present. Yet there ARE people who desire in this environment. Another pathology, or perhaps fetish.
The original topic was desire for inappropriately aged children, not women in jogging suits. You really DO need to pay attention. And nobody has said that it doesn't happen or isn't present, just that its Fucked Up, wrong and not a natural 'desire', but one most likely born of a variety of factors. It's also ingrained and difficult to treat. Not "hard wired"
I hope that was clear enough for you.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)To be honest, quite a few patients can appear just as "normal", just as healthy and just as objectively attractive as non-cancer patients. 
hlthe2b
(102,282 posts)(pun intended--or not) 
Warpy
(111,266 posts)That's a big temptation on a public board where everybody is hiding behind screen names.
Skinner might find himself complying with a Federal warrant because of those guys, letting the mean old gummint know just who they all are.
This is not a bad thing.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It doesn't fucking matter if the lusting after is involuntary or not. That gets into a whole new area of discussion re: indulging in those oh so involuntary feelings.
What matters here is the way this subject was raised. Asking how young can the person being lusted after be, before one can be appropriately labeled a pedophile or a creep.
Asking that question SHOULD set off all kinds of red flags.
Not here. Nope. Just some apologia about how people who are sexually aroused by children simply can't help themselves.
You know what they can help? Indulging in it. They can actually resist the urge to try to obtain social sanctioning for their sick, damaging mental problems. That's what they can help.
But thanks to Mr. Derail up there, we are being treated to posts lamenting how awful it is that the poor dears just can't help themselves! (from feeling these sick fucked up feelings)
BUT THOSE FEELINGS ARE NOT THE ISSUE.
You know why these fucking monsters don't get sympathy for their poor, tragic lack of sexual fulfillment, and sometimes possibly even shame (lol as if)?
BECAUSE OF SHIT LIKE THIS. (Oh yeah and child porn. And schoolgirl fetishes. And so much other creepy shit that THEY PROPAGATE AND DEFEND.)
And how many men called this shit out for the creepy horrible shit it is?
Zero?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)by any number of the grown men.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Please. GMAFB. Nobody who's been paying any attention at all could have possibly expected that to happen.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)To ask what's the youngest you're allowed to lust after is... well, it's beyond fucking bizarre. So beyond that even I might not have been able to take it on, it'd be like wrestling a squid. How do you even approach something like that? It's like a bomb where every wire is the red wire.
As people point out upthread, no doubt there's plenty that goes on in peoples' heads that is weird and disconcerting and inappropriate. Way I figure, if it all stays in the head... whatever, right? But to be like "hey y'all, I want to oggle at an elementary school, should I draw the line at fourth-graders?" is... bwuh!
Warpy
(111,266 posts)but there has to be a distinction between "lust after" and "go after." The former is probably nothing that can be avoided, it's hard wired. The latter is something that everyone has the responsibility to avoid if the person one is lusting after is unavailable, immature, unwilling, or would otherwise be harmed if that lust is acted upon.
"Consent" is the whole thing here. If someone is judged incapable of or unwilling to give consent, then nothing should happen.
Thoughts, however indecent, inappropriate or nauseating to the people who aren't having them, can't be controlled unless you're willing to sedate the person into being a houseplant.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Not that I want to keep contributing to this derailment, but yeah.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)with their friends and see who is like-minded, can also be controlled.
Edited to change pronouns. Didn't want to imply that I thought you were involved in that thread.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)We have the capacity to deny, enhance or minimize any emotion. Another person's actions does not "make" me happy or angry... I instead *choose* to be angry or happy by what they do or do not do. Calling it involuntary is merely a rationalize to excuse oneself from blame. And whether the emotion itself is ethically right or wrong, I know not; but I do know that the choice is ours.
Yes... We *choose* to feel or not feel desire, lust, anger, happiness, frustration, etc.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Do you have a peer reviewed study suggesting such. BTW, what brain functionality is responsible for such "choosing".
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No. Merely my own experience... which does deny that your statement is absolute.
On edit: consider the following example: Two people, one a friend, one not so much, both state to me the precise same thing: "Nice shirt. Where'd you get it? Wal-Mart?"
In one instance, I laugh (happiness); in the other instance I scowl (anger). Hence, we may safely presume that I *chose* to act in two different ways despite the fact that the stimuli was the same. If there was no choice involved, the same stimuli would result in the same reaction.
Hence, choice of anger, choice of happiness.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Unless we choose otherwise. Which I did in my example, which we all do every day. Hence, all things being equal, we ourselves decide what emotions we feel.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and latern, so help me, i am so fuckin tired of the weak. i never talk about the weak in this manner. generally so much more empathy and understanding. my patience for weak is nil.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You are one and the same. Your brain produces the ouput. That is "choice". That is not controllable by an entity besides your brain, which will act according to its wiring and its state.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The brain weighs the fear and consequences against the reward during processing to determine the final behavior at a specific place/time.
Do you think you are controlling your body from heaven and your brain is just a wingman offering you suggestions? 
boston bean
(36,221 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Guilt, Fear, and Avoidance of Pain/Undersirable Consequences. Most "healthy" brains avoid dangerous behaviors that may bring instant gratification due to these other consequences associated with. But sometimes either they have no fear of those consequences or the gratification is immediately all that matters (or they cannot reason the true consequences). Sometimes its a combination. In any case, its not some willful, independent magical force of "choice". Its just "processing"
boston bean
(36,221 posts)alleged in this thread and subthread.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But its also not a weak "choice" that could willfully be corrected. Its abnormal processing often by a conditioned or atypical brain.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)we see in this society. They aren't all out having sex with minors, but do think young girls are sexy....blech and fucking sick.
And they do have control over those thoughts. YES they do. They choose not to, cause they enjoy it too much and then look for affirmation from their friends.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What is "them"? The brain.
What creates the thoughts? The brain
What creates the brain? Genetics and the environment
A brain has no more control over the electricity flowing through it to produce an outcome as a computer chip has over the electricity flowing through its circuits. There is but one outcome with one unique brain in one unique situation. A brain does not create itself. A brain does not control itself. It merely processes. And that's ok....most of the time.
If we had environments that could foster the development of normal multiplexors that had more beneficial behavior to the other multiplexor bodies, then we wouldn't have so much sickness. Your brain seems to admonish the broken machines, rather than the broken factory that broken machines have been building.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Of course people have control of their thoughts. Have you given up on free will? You don't have very much faith in human kind do you. We aint animals. We have consciousness, we have thoughts, that we we don't allow or do allow to permeate and act upon and can teach ourselves that something is wrong. We don't need others or punishment to do it for us.
You are making no sense and are coming very close to convincing me that you are defending this.
You are wrong. We are humans. We do have control, and we especially have control over what our fucking fingers type out on an internet message board. Get back to the real issue please and stop with all this mumbo jumbo junk bologne.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is no discovered brain mechanism to allow some supernatural soul to interact with it freely and make "choices".
You don't have very much faith in human kind do you.
I have faith in nothing. Faith is believe without proof
We aint animals.
Yes we are
We have consciousness
That actually not a fact and is being studied and debated, and the entire conception of what a "consciousness" is may be far less than what you've previously thought.
we have thoughts, that we we don't allow or do allow to permeate and act upon and can teach ourselves that something is wrong
We have a processor that weights pros and cons before acting and before producing an output. What you seem to think a "good choice" is is simply the brain avoiding guilt, pain or jail time. And sometimes not doing bad delivers pleasure via human constructed reality filters. Our processors do their best to maximize both pleasure and survivability (and many things that bring us more aggregate pleasure, like fucking, increase our species' viability).
We don't need others or punishment to do it for us.
The fear of punishment and consequences, or even internal guilt, is a massive motivator for behavior. For some people, the avoidance of potential pain is far more important than immediate gratification (for me in many cases as well).
You are making no sense and are coming very close to convincing me that you are defending this
I am talking about behavior and the brain. I am not defending anything. Does everyone have to jump on the tunnel vision hate train to appease you? Life is complicated. We are all doing our best. I prefer understanding to hate. With less hate in my life, I can make my days better.
You are wrong. We are humans. We do have control
Humans are collectively committing monumental mass ecocide while deluded by an rarely questioned mass psychosis driving us to produce and overexploit the globe up until our extinction. Our entire civilization is one large network of energy moving to fulfill immediate emotional needs at the cost of creating long term pain and destruction. I am not convinced we are all that special, beyond how special any unique animal is.
Get back to the real issue please and stop with all this mumbo jumbo junk bologne.
You can't dictate what I can and can't discuss. I believe that psychology is a very important aspect when discussing human behavior (besides, I didn't really bring up the holier-than-though "choice" bs). You seem angry.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)individual people do not make choices....
Free will is much broader than that is usually understood to mean that people can make choices. That is what I meant by free will.
We aint animals in the sense of have a much more highly functioning brain and don't base our choices on biological urges only!
If you don't think we have consciousness... well, I don't know what else to say..... but you may be convincing me some don't.
We have choices and obviously not every choice people make are based on consequences or internal guilt or the law or anything else. They do it anyways! it is a choice they have made in the face of those consequences. I'm not talking about mentally disturbed individuals who are pedophiles. I am speaking of men who lust after children and question how young is to young. They are weighing something there, are they not?
We have a brain, which operates in many ways, that give us reason.
People also have a choice to no kill or participate in genocide based on their reasoning and choice.
You can discuss what you like, just keep in mind that how you are viewed is how your written words are taken. You seem to be of the mind none of this is based in any choice at all, providing cover for those who lust after children and type out on a message board, how young is to young before you are considered one.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Choice is basically an illusion--something often embraced by the sanctimonious who want to derive personal satisfaction from deviating beneficially from their criticized bretheren. We are creations and actors in the largest set of falling dominoes we could imagine. Unless we can learn (which causes real physical changes in brain circuitry, and thereby, behavior) about the reality of our situation and construct a more conducive environment collectively, broken machines will continue to be created and perpetrate harm upon others.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I'v gone long enough on this merry go round with you. You are repeating things you have said that I have already told you why I disagree.
Time to move on.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)
Sorry about what you "feel" and "believe". There is neither a soul or free will. Choice is not some supernatural exception to the rule.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)that I don't think anything supernatural is the cause. Jesus!
Your science is psych it is not hard science, get real here. Now really time for me to bid adieu.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And I view brain functionality as "Hard science", in the same respect as computer science is. Because people talk about free will and choice, as if these things happen outside of the physical wiring and circuitry of the brain, it is supernatural
boston bean
(36,221 posts)No doctor would believe that humans, that are not mentally disturbed, don't have control over the choices they make. Leave me alone now, please. I'm done.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You must be joking
You know this because? Its truthy? It feels good to know it?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)This is getting to be laughable. I am now CHOOSING (like choice) to not respond to another thing you write to me AND I am letting you know even before you make your next response, which we know will be in a second or two.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Ok. I have no choice but to eat these Cheetos and re-watch "Silence of The Lambs", but instead I'm eating grapes and reading "V" by Thomas Pynchon.
Gave the the Cheetoes to my husband.
But, it's all an illusion
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)output. You will never "choose" the other options at that time/place/brain. There is but a single output
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)You like Sci Fi?
What if we go all quantum?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are you responsible for that?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Am I the observer?
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)They can decide what they feel and should be able to feel it for the opposite sex, not their own? It's a choice, a lifestyle, not biology?
And come to that, doesn't your argument fall apart there if we asked you to STOP feeling sexually attracted to ANY person at all? Whomever it is you love included?
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)That's sick as it gets dude.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)How easy it would be for you to win the argument IF that was what I was suggesting...or if you made it seem like that's what I was saying so that you didn't have to address the REAL argument.
Luckily for me, I'm suggesting no such thing.
I'm suggesting that "They should be able to control their feelings..." is the argument used by people who are homophobic. "I don't feel that way toward other people of my gender, so these people don't need to feel it either...." and, "they're in control. They can choose."
So--and here's the real argument for you, so pay close attention: if you use that argument, then you open a can of worms. Because you're not saying that pedophilia is a unique problem that involves being able to choose/not choose UNLIKE homosexual lust or heterosexual lust or lust for sheep or whatever. What you're saying is that ANYONE who feels an "undesirable" lust for another can shut it off. Just decide not to feel it. Choose. Putting it another way: If pedophiles *can* just stop feeling such things, can "not" be attracted if they choose, then why can't gays? Why can't heterosexuals?
Such assertions (it's a choice) are slippery slopes, dude. That is what I'm arguing. Which is why we should be very careful about making them.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Your actual words; pay close attention
147. But isn't this the same argument for why gay people should not be gay?
They can decide what they feel and should be able to feel it for the opposite sex, not their own? It's a choice, a lifestyle, not biology?
And come to that, doesn't your argument fall apart there if we asked you to STOP feeling sexually attracted to ANY person at all? Whomever it is you love included?
What you've done is suggest a false equivalency, and a extremely harmful one. Verbiage doesn't change this, unless you self delete, it's still there.
You've compared the natural, healthy and socially as well as evolutionary beneficial state of being Gay to the mal-adjusted and pathological state of being sexually attracted to children.
You did this, you. Having feelings of sexual attraction toward children happens, hopefully those with such feelings seek out help. Acting upon those feelings should never happen.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)By that logic depressed people should just cheer up, since they're "choosing" to feel depressed.
Didn't see that
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...and I would think that the person posing the question knows the answer already.
msongs
(67,407 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if associated with sex or sex parts is a big hoot for many. i hear ya.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)P.S. I believe you meant to refer to JonBenet Ramsey.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"how young is a girl allowed to be, that we can lust for?"
I'd think that's one of those things that if you're really compelled to ask, it may be better to seek counseling.
I think I'm better off not knowing where that thread is or who the piglet-poster is that asked the question else I may actually get myself banned in any response I'd make to him.
headsmack-facepalm-headbang to all new levels.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)as a progressive male your not allowed to lust after any female. It's maintains the zombie patriarchy.
Sorry if this comes across as rude, in my defense my blood sugar is really low.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and a little derision is your answer.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)A lot of folks here need to study the idea of reaction formation then look in the mirror.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if it is lusting after them or leering at them.
this poster i replied to, and you adn other men felt the need to come in and dismiss the issue. in your dismissal you all let me know that you really have little interest in grown fuckin men fuckin with our children.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)together you know what I or anyone thinks? See what is really going on here is you want to demonstrate some superiority over us but you know, you are really afraid of your own feelings. It's known as the reaction formation and you give yourself away very clearly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You know I see this all the time here. The OP is bait you put out there then you find your prey and have a field day abusing them with untruths. It's almost a regular game here. You're a bully who is afraid of your own make up.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)For some reason. Lusting after a child is fucked up. Defending it is fucked up. Coming to a protected group to discuss that is OK. You coming here to argue whatever point you think you have and attack a member here is abusive and being a bully
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)so tired of seeing this attitude in here and elsewhere on this board.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Classic Projection.--hey there's one for the psych books
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)defending lusting after children. That is what is wrong here. Not anything I said. this is a sick game played out daily here. I happened to jump in tbis time. My first responce was "?"
Then I get attacked as saying lusting after five year olds is natural or something.
Like I said and it is true. The OP is there because of something called reaction formation look it up. Your not the holy one here.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)
You shouldn't assume the presence of, or lack of education in posters you don't know. I don't need to look up psych stuff
And yes, I am the holy one around here.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)You really are the holy one around here! 
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I was going to try to answer you, but the more I think about it the less sense it makes. You would rather make me a convenient target, so go for it. Evil, evil man here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he can lust after a girl, a child. that made me angry and you come into this OP and dismiss it. you are basically siding with the op talking about lusting after a child. that you felt the need to even say something in this thread.
and you have an issue with me?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I was a 13 year old boy arguing about women's rights with my grandmother(this would make it the early '70s), she ends the talk with her version of a wife's 'duties'.
"A woman should not enjoy her 'relationship' with her husband, its a necessary evil, and she should just make her shopping list while he does his 'business'."
Nice thing to tell a young boy, just as he's starting to notice girls. My brothers both felt that it was insanely funny, I didn't understand then why mon and dad got so quiet .
But that started my policy "If your not interested in me, I'm not interested in you." Best way to deal with that problem, thanks grand mom, thanks mom, thank you young lady(22, 23?) for finishing their job later that summer.
Now I'm not a lawyer. The loopholes I leave behind will no double be large enough to drive a semi thru. And you shown every possible willingness to believe the worst of me. But let's try this.
If a single female is considered to be under a white flag, wouldn't a single underage female be under two flags?
Or you could just hurt one of my 24 nieces or nephews and find out first hand how I feel about it.
Also no one has said the obvious yet, if you find your self attracted to some one under 14/16 and your more then a couple of years older then them, turn your self in.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)Your reply was obnoxious. Your apology was weasely in its passive aggressiveness. Your position of opposition to the dismay over the use of children as sex objects was telling.
I'll take your word for it that you're an evil person.
daleanime
(17,796 posts) NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Best answer...possible
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)The best answer is "lusting after children is fucked up" period.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)many men.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I know it's not going to be popular with you, but here goes. Too many men DO NOT lust after children. Rinse, gargle, and repeat. Anyone who generalises men or women by using negative stereotypes has issues, as far as I'm concerned....
As a former host of this group, I want to say something else that's not going to be popular. One of the reasons I walked away from hosting this group was all the goddam drama. I consider it to be more goddam drama when you start a thread in here AFTER the OP yr complaining about was deleted from the Men's group. I don't know what the OP over there said and probably never will, but even the title of yr OP is reeking of over-exaggeration and hyperbole. From what I saw when I just took a quick look, one DUer started an OP and must have asked something, not 'a progressive board group of men' as you claim. This OP has nothing to do with feminism, but is a rather blatant attempt to inflame a board war....
Farewell. This seventh wave feminist is now heading off to watch some porn and sign a petition supporting legalised prostitution! 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)knowing, and continuing on.
let me be as blunt.
you will not see it is me saying ALL men want to fuck kids. you will note i am arguing with men in this thread who are saying it is a biological, innate character in men to want to fuck kids. you might also note that i am asking them, if that means that ALL men want to fuck kids cause i think the majority of men do not want to fuck kids and how insulting that is to men.
so thank you for getting it EXACTLY wrong.
all we have is what a poster said. this group is far from the only ones that was appalled by a poster saying quote.... how old can a girl be for a man to be sexually attracted to her without being considered a creep or pedophile. no touching. just looking. (no touching so clearly legally underage)
and you would also be wrong that the post was deleted well before i started this thread. it stood there proudly. and not a challenge but from a couple offended women that has nothing to do with this drama filled group. the poster deleted AFTER women finally got pissed and spoke out. AFTER. with a thread in GD and a thread in here about the same time. jury allowed it to stand. the men who host the group allowed it to stand. adm allows it to stand. what option is there but for a stink to get the thread asking at what point a man is considered a pedophile... to get it shut down. seeing how you get the whole legalization of prostitution thing, you get there is a real issue with children trafficking and the pain suffering torture and death of these children. so while cheering the legalization, i am sure you are equally putting forth the effort protecting the increase in children use.
sorry we did not sit quietly and allow a post that asks at what age a man can sexually get off on a girls without being a creep or pedophile.
this would be respect VC, the respect i have always given to you, not given back. you were clueless about the situation. you simply came in to rant. gotcha.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)The only thing I'm not clear on is the contents of the now deleted OP in the other group, but I already pointed that out. I got dragged here, btw, as I was a juror on a post in this thread this evening.
Just to be crystal clear here, I said that I didn't like the generalisation you made. The generalisation was: "The best answer is "lusting after children is fucked up" period." truly seems too hard for too many men.' And that generalisation was the entire post I replied to. I'm not sure where you got 'all men want to fuck kids' from, but you do like saying it a lot in this post I'm replying to...
No, I'm not wrong in saying the other OP was self-deleted before you started this OP here. The timestamps bear me out. You started this OP around 10 hours after the other one was self-deleted. I know you see yrself as some sort of strong and empowered woman defending all women everywhere, but seriously, you arrived in that other thread like a ball of tightly wound rubber bands, and fuelled by outrage bounced everywhere uncontrollably as though you were surrounded by a bunch of leering men who'd all been posting things like 'Yeah, I love checking out them little gals!' instead of what most if not all were doing, which was saying it's creepy for an adult male to have a perve at young teenage girls. I'm not sure why you'd have any objection to what the majority of them were saying, but you must have, because you were really getting outraged with some of them.
Y'know, when I was a host here, we had an influx of outraged people demanding we shut one OP down because it was offensive. We didn't, and at the time I got irritated at the way some people seem to go out of their way to go to groups they're hostile to and trawl them for things to get outraged about and then demand the hosts, Skinner, anyone shut it the fuck down. That's what you've been doing, imo. Okay, so the worst case scenario is someone posted something creepy, which I'm sure Skinner would have dealt with if it was intentional and not clumsy wording. The response from most people in it was legitimate comments that weren't in the slightest bit creepy. If you really had an issue with it, you should have PM'd Skinner about it rather than turn up here and notch up the drama.
btw, I know you hate even safe and legal prostitution and porn, so I'll spare you the essay from Stoya on her feminism, but linking our legal and very regulated brothels here with child trafficking is like linking the Easter Bunny with Freddy Krueger...
Also, respect doesn't mean sitting by silent when I disagree with someone. And I disagree with you very much right now, especially with the way you continually divide the world into men and women and it's women who speak out while men are busy leering and talking about boobs and stuff. The real world's not like that, at least not the one I live in...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)post. you make assumptions without knowledge.
the post you are addressing is well after three or more men came in and insisted fuckin kids was a biological demand.
look above you.
ism said the only correct answer is saying .... fucking kids is wrong.
i agreed, the only answer is simply saying.... fucking kids is wrong. too many men are having too hard of a time simply saying ... fucking kids are wrong.
so even your interpretation of the post that you reply to is wrong.
as far as time stamp. i do not know were you are wrong on that. but you are.
the original OP was a day or two before. the jury and quantress involvement in that OP happened in the afternoon. she posted. i got a pm to check out the thread. at first before replies i saw it and walked, yes, disgusted, but i walked. quantress was hidden in that thread. just after 3 she started a post in gd. 4 or 5 minutes after she started the thread, unknown by me, i made a comment in mens group and started this thread.
warren started his hyperbole on my posts. doctor j and warren chatted about his innocence. then he deleted.
that would be the time frame.
period
again, you are wrong.
all the other stuff in you post is history violet that i am not gonna go thru trying to decipher the right and wrong. thank you for the benefit of doubt, or at the least, the listen.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This thread was started at 3:20 pm on Friday. That thread was deleted SIX HOURS LATER, at 9:28 pm.
I wonder when Quantess started her OP in GD. I'm betting it was well before the sick shit was deleted as well.
Interesting that you come in here and attack sea despite your utter failure to read the situation accurately.
You came in here SOLELY to shit on the group and yammer about "seventh-wave" feminism? Really? Be proud.
Oh sorry, also to display your ignorance of what set this all off. Well done. And good riddance.
... And you cite Stoya, of course you do. 
Focus on the privileged few, and damn the rest, right? Par for the pathetic, sickening course.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Apparently the poster wanted her little poo flinging party and walk away. She's busy watching porn and signing partitions to legalize prostitution. Must keep her busy.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Not sure what kind of petitions she's talking about, but that fact shows her childish taunt for what it is
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I didn't realise when I helped create this group that it would turn into some echo chamber where daring to disagree wwith seabeyond is labelled a 'Poo flinging party' . I didn't realise a day would ever come where I get accused by someone in here of supporting the child sex trade. Nor that there was an outbreak of sarcasm and humour blindness. I never thought I'd ever get basically told to vacate this group by someone who was here from the start and knew the history of this group.
Lest I hang around long enough that the next blind accusation flung at me is supporting pedophilia, I'll vacate the premises and not return. I said all I needed to say. Sea and me ended up with an agree to disagree vibe, but you and redqueen are just outright nasty. I'll used the main feminism group for keeping up on feminism as its clear this isn't the group to learn from.
Maintain the outrage!
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)It really doesn't matter to me what you do or say, but I did think you were being mean and unfair to Sea.
So go get your petitions signed and watch your porn. It's all good.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Nobody accused you of supporting the child sex trade.
You flounced and I said good riddance, that's not quite the same thing as being "told to vacate the group", is it? But then I guess some people just love to stir up drama and all that shit.
You call me nasty, but you're the one who came in here talking shit and making all kinds of accusations - accusations based out of pure ignorance. But rather than simply admit you went off half cocked without knowing what the hell you were talking about, and got called on it after repeatedly flinging shit at someone who didn't deserve it, you come back and double down.
Nice. Real nice.
So yeah... go on and flounce again, and smirk about signing petitions legalizing prostitution ... somewhere other than Australia? I guess?
Whoop dee frickin doo.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)But like you said she is a very poor example of sex work in general and she herself states "the work I do does nothing to further the cause of feminism" a little honesty there is nice.
But she also distances pornagrahy as an industry for any potential side effects, says its not responsible for teaching sexual health. This is where I agree and disagree. No it's not responsible, but it's also not accountable-- she says pornography is not accountable in the first place.
But the potential is there, it could be if is wasn't objectifying and about as erotic as the National Geographic when you pick it apart--something most consumers don't do.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Doctor_J's OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111410022
This thread:
And if that post (and the fact that a DU jury let it stand) wasn't worthy of outrage, I am not sure what is.
And if you're "not clear on is the contents of the now deleted OP in the other group", how can you judge whether the reaction here is over the top or not?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)upthread is all sorts of ugliness that the mens room tried to wash over. read quantesses thread. read upaloopas thread yesterday...
If one had, I can't imagine how they could come to the conclusion that they did.
I've misread, miunderstood things before, so I'm willing to cut some slack.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Coming in all self righteous isn't the answer either. If Sea was upset and decided to start a thread, it could have gone a number of ways. The way it actually went was a lot shit-stirrers decided to jump in-- one who is now banned for being a pedophilia apologist.
Are we surprised?
If You don't see a problem with sex trafficking and legalized or any prostitution , you haven't been paying attention. Or have never worked n the sex field.
Yeah you have the right to disagree but you're not Seabeyonds Mom. No need to scold. And I think you have Sea pegged wrong. She divides he world into misogynists and sexists vs those who aren't. Some men are allies. She has sons. She's trying to teach them. A lot of sexism flys under the radar every day. You have the right to support that, but it's a little hypocritical to come in and scold those who don't like it.
And personally I don't care what you get irritated about. I do care that you pop in a 200+ reply thread to lay down some hate far after the fact. Adding to the drama. A PM would have done just fine. So don't point fingers when you've just added to the problem
boston bean
(36,221 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)lust in his heart. My guess it is something all male species have and are born with it. It sure isn't a learned thing like hate is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)wtf is your post about
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You want to attack me be my guest. It just proves we all have are negetive side.
Response to upaloopa (Reply #31)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lust? or is it just men that lust?
i am guessing you are not talking about men being born to lust at children. right? cause that is what this thread is about. men lusting at children.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)No say in this little tableau?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)self righteous can stomp on the rest of us. It's bully's game. They should be called out for it.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
The OP is clearly an outraged appeal against a specific discussion which set off all kinds of alarms for many people. Coming into this thread and making a big joke out of the issue was a choice, and the blowback is the consequence of that choice.
Thanks for reminding me of one of my favorite posts on DU ever, though.
I really needed that laugh.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)happened: you entered the discussion with a non sequitur, you read a non-attacking post and declared it an attack, and now say people are bullying you.
You might want to think that through.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You think this through. We all have our dark sides. Some of us admit it to ourselves and try to not let it impact us or others in a negetive way.
Others can't own up to their dark sides. They create threads like this to attack in others what they really can't except about themselves. It is a very well understood thing in mental health circles.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it and if they do not admit to it they are lying. go figure. fuck....
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)see you make shit up to attack me. I am speaking the truth. You can read a lot on the web about it if you want to
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to see what sticks....
you would be wrong about your assumptions from your first fuckin post. now, you can either let go of your deisre to "win" in your first incorrect assumptions, and listen, or continue to ignore what is being said to you.
there is a reason the strong majority of people on du are disgusted by an OP that wants to know what age is too young to lust after. you want to check out the thread, i am sure you know where it is. you want to go to gd and listen to the woman that was equally disgusted and then had a post hidden for merely showing a jury decision.... hey, you were already there and agreeing it is sick. you want to play a fuckin game in HOF, not fuckin gonna happen.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)just created.
And what is it that mental health circles say about persecution complexes? You might want to give that a think too. Also the difference between accept and except.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)An antiquated term used by the religious right to suppress women's sexuality?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lets just make a fuckin shrine to male sexuality
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)That's an odd thing to say, clarify please
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is that a sig line? anyway. i luv that face. i do not know why it appeals to me so much. but really really like it
it looks awfully good on you
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)A tragic anti-hero, a "replicant" or android in the movie. And a badass.
Blade runner is NOT feminist sci-fi, but Pris could have been.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)This thread is about pedophilia. Get it? No, you aren't allowed to lust after children.
CrispyQ
(36,470 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to see a reply in.
it was called to my attention again today....
disgusted. plain and simple, disgust.
and to hear those on this thread being fine.... with it. oh so fine.... cause after all, men were fuckin made that way.
hlthe2b
(102,282 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and women and minorities.
at what age can we prey on our children.
welcome to fuckin du
redqueen
(115,103 posts)A new low for DU.
And considering all the rape apologia and other assorted MRA talking points, that's REALLY saying something.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)This needs to be asked? If your 40 and lusting after 13 year olds-- you're fucked up. If you're 13, getting to know your sexuality and hopefully are getting the information needed to differentiate between "lust" and "sexual attraction" and eyeing a 13 or 15 or 20 year old, that's a normal response.
We grow up and learn to understand our sexuality for a reason. Someone may 'feel' lust, because of a variety of factors but mostly patriarchy--toward a young girl, that's social conditioning. The more natural response is a feeling responsibility to teach and protect our youth--not seeking permission for the golden age for objectification and sexual exploitation, because for a girl-child, that starts the day she's born.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I can look at them and tell that they are very attractive people and know that lots of girls their age are going to be crushing on them.
Me? At 40-something? I don't feel lust for teenagers. Not even 19 and 20 year olds.
You know why? Because compared to me, they are children.
Sometimes I wonder what the everloving fuck is wrong with some people.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I can't look at a kid and think "look at that ass"-- fucking disgusting man.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Yet so many men and some women too will fight very hard to maintain the illusion that this is socially acceptable behavior. Natural it may be. In the wild, animals will fuck their kin.
We aren't on that level of consciousness anymore.
Well, many of US aren't. Obviously, for a whole hell of a lot of people, well... they're not quite caught up yet.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this is not a natural occurrence, but a taught occurrence from society. this is very good. thank you
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)
Kali
(55,009 posts)almost 30K posts. jeebus. I think my answer was too cryptic. I pretty much called him a pedophile. Obviously he has some kind of perception disability to even ask that.
holy shit
i thought your answer cleverly creative.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)eom
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And seriously, some of the answers in this thread are fucking scary, along with sickening. What the fuck.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)This place never fails to shock and appall. Misogynists and now pedophiles are A-OK. There's something to be proud about.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)How did I miss this today? Glad I did though. Almost to much to comprehend, the sickness shining through in the guise that this fucking disgusting gross behavior is normal..
It's not fucking normal, and people do have control over these things. sick mother fuckers.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)entitlement being exposed for what it is.
I guess this is what happens when you turn over certain rocks. Some really, really ugly and foul insects scuttle out.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)come in with adult on adult relationships? self delete and proclaim what was said, was not.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Asking how young of a person one can lust after before you're considered a pedophile is way beyond the pale.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Lusting for girls is a bad thing, repeat after me fellow males.
And no, I do nto care about how in other cultures, this sort of thing is cool, about how Mohammed took a kid when she was six, or Brigham Young, blah blah,
Lusting after young girls is bad,
and putting it on this board is an attempt to get your jollies.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thread down.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And yeah, someone who even has to ask that question obviously has issues. I don't know how old the guy is but still... People can split hairs all they want, but it's still a matter of someone who's clearly well over 18, asking permission to openly lust after underage girls. Which is just fucked up and wrong.
And the passive-aggressive "I guess we're not allowed to be attracted to anybody" posts? What the fuck is that shit? To me that defensiveness seems completely out of place, and yes, a little creepy too.
But I should've told the guy off, I'm sorry. Especially since I've been known to frequent the Men's Group (though I do disagree and argue a good deal).
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)exactly what it said. Unfucking real.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)How young, creep and pedophilia.
Enough said
More than enough people read the op seeing the same thing we all did.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Is their blatant culpability. Where they are active players. Not just on the side staying silent
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)you know nothing about of being pediphiles and rapists. You should be ashamed
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)What is creepy is accusing people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=25875
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This is a protected group. NO ONE has accused anyone of being a pedophile or a rapist. Someone asked 'how young of a person can you lust after before you're considered a creep or a pedophile' and people were (of course) shocked and disgusted. This person is coming in here to distract from the actual issue with this false ploy for sympathy over accusations that didn't happen. This is derailing and distracting and there has been more than enough of that already which has been left by juries, I hope this time it won't stand.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 15, 2013, 01:47 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The hosts have the power to take action based on the protected group's SOP. My concerns as a juror are different. What I see is someone who was offended by the implications made in the original thread. I can't find fault with that.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That person is entitled to their interpretation. Use the "reply" button instead of the "Alert" button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't really like this post (or many of the posts in this thread) but I don't really see a strong case for hiding it. It's not my job to enforce the mission statement of this group, and I will leave it to the group hosts to determine whether to exclude this poster from the group.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree,hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is a group host issue, imo, not a community standards issue at all.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Ok, Will do! No reason for complaining then, right?
Just so this post doesn't lose it's meaning here is the post that prompted it:
At Sun Sep 15, 2013, 01:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
What is creepy is accusing people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=25875
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This is a protected group. NO ONE has accused anyone of being a pedophile or a rapist. Someone asked 'how young of a person can you lust after before you're considered a creep or a pedophile' and people were (of course) shocked and disgusted. This person is coming in here to distract from the actual issue with this false ploy for sympathy over accusations that didn't happen. This is derailing and distracting and there has been more than enough of that already which has been left by juries, I hope this time it won't stand.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 15, 2013, 01:47 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The hosts have the power to take action based on the protected group's SOP. My concerns as a juror are different. What I see is someone who was offended by the implications made in the original thread. I can't find fault with that.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That person is entitled to their interpretation. Use the "reply" button instead of the "Alert" button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't really like this post (or many of the posts in this thread) but I don't really see a strong case for hiding it. It's not my job to enforce the mission statement of this group, and I will leave it to the group hosts to determine whether to exclude this poster from the group.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree,hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is a group host issue, imo, not a community standards issue at all.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)creepy or pedophilia.
we did not write the OP. but, we do have enough character to call out the man that would ask that question. our children. our girls. our boys.
what does that make you?
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Unfortunately I've known the type of guys that talk that way and the most common trait between them is disrespect for women - at least when in the company of other guys. It's disgusting behavior and I refuse to hang out with people like that. I have two daughters myself (now women in their own right) and it has not been lost on me what the implications are. Fortunately it is not a universal trait among men, just an obnoxiously vocal subset who cannot be trusted.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)be a part of the bro code peer group, thinking this would make him cool with his brothers. i think, that once again, our girls were used, without much thought at all to them, in an effort to bond.
thank you for your post. i agree totally with what you are saying.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of their peers
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they are that privileged.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts) Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...to lust after girls of a certain young age. Meaning, the person is seeking to excuse their lust for girls of a certain young age by getting group approval on it.
You, I think, have confused some of the responses here with this question. There are men who feel such lust for young girls and say, "This is bad...I've a problem...I sure hope I can control it or do something about it...." They may not be able to stop feeling it. Our body chemistry and biology often drive us to want things that aren't socially acceptable, and, yes, how we were raised (pavlov's dog responses if you like) is included in that. Sometimes we can change this (pavlov's dog re-training). Sometimes not. We know certain people have inherited addiction problems. If they, say, start to drink they are likely to become alcoholic. And have a difficult time breaking that addiction no matter how much they want and choose to do so. And no matter how aware they are of how bad it is for them and their family.
But the difference here is between the person who says, "I've a chemical/biological issue that isn't good for me or anyone else, and I want to control it and not have it harm anyone," and the person who, in this case, said, "I want to know at what point it's socially acceptable for me to indulge in this chemical/biological issue I've got...."
You keep taking issue with the responses discussing biology, chemistry, etc. of such "lust." But they aren't arguing against you. Meaning, they're not saying this question wasn't creepy. They're only arguing for ways to deal with men who feel such lust. The true creepiness of this question--and that no one is arguing, I think--is that this man undoubtedly knows he should not feel such lust for children; but he is trying to avoid admitting this, and that he needs help. So he's like the alcoholic who says, "on what occasions can I drink?" rather than admitting that he can't.
And this is why, by the way, all the rest of these people here saying, "I'm an adult and I don't feel lust for teens..." etc. is moot. That's like saying, "I look at bottle of alcohol and never feel like getting drunk...." Biology/chemistry varies. And in dealing with alcoholism, we have to deal with facts about alcoholics, not the personal facts about us non-alchoholics.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)To invalidate it you'd have to explain why the majority of men aren't having sex with their 5 year old offspring, don't lust after 13 yea olds, why there is such a instinctual repulsion. A protective instinct, which is far more evolutionary consistent.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)GD I think. The OP kind of laughed it off.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)
That's all I'm saying
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Is posting stories of men falsely accused of rape. We all know what the point of that is.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I'm staying out of it after one comment. It's informative though--did you know there's supposed to be a secret cabal headed by Iverglas to sound the the trumpets when some abused man gets his fingers burned? Like--defending pedophilia for instance?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)They still can't stand the fact I was shown not to be her.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I knew you weren't her, I didn't know her well, but I did know her, but they were convinced. It was kind of funny actually.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)someone told me MIRT requested 3 IP checks on me because they were so certain I was her.
I think that is probably why I defend in MIRT some of the more unpopular posters. I know what it's like.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I highly doubt she is, considering the level of feminist discourse here (woooo femen! shut up old wimminz you just hate teh boobeez!).
But I imagine it might be rather amusing to her to see her fan club still as obsessed as ever.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)And yes she'd be cracking up I'll bet
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)implied I was hanging out with her today. Problem is I don't actually know her, so that would be tricky.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they were on about. do not really care. childish games.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Having said that, pedophiles do. Something in their brains lacks the disgusted impulse that keeps most of us from lusting after children, relatives, or those whose sex are outside of their orientation. There is an evolutionary advantage to to letting children grow up unmolested as is the case with amorous feelings toward ones relatives.
I can't blame people for their subjective feelings, but having them does not mean acting on them. It may not be a pedophile's fault that he feels the way he does, but it is sure as hell not his victims' fault either. Children can only be victims in this situation, never willing participants. So, to those which such impulses, I'm afraid it is there duty never to act on them and never to give anyone the slightest reason for concern. Part of that is not asking how young a kid can be and still be the subject of lust.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)message board in the first place. And not only isn't the post removed and the poster blocked from the website, it's APPROVED by the almighty jury system here. THAT'S the fucking problem here. That. Who is running this place, anyway?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)...mostly because they are not actually juries. There is no deliberation and no requirement for unanimity.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Is that it is normal. There was also a comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality that was alerted on with a total jury fail to leave.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I alerted, but there must have been multiple alerts. The poster is saying arguments against pedophilia are the same as arguments against homosexuality being a sexual orientation
At Sun Sep 15, 2013, 02:21 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
But isn't this the same argument for why gay people should not be gay?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=25906
The reason for the alert was:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
You added the following comments:
Comparing being Gay to pedophillia
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Sun Sep 15, 2013, 12:32 PM, and voted 1-5 to keep it.
Thank you.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I sent another alert with TOS checked. That is unfucking real. I think the gay members of DU would be outraged at that, as well as anyone with an ounce of decency.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)And disingenuous to suggest pedophilia is a sexual orientation, I don't care how many studies somebody does
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Since normal gay people are only attracted to adults who can decide for themselves what they want, it is not pathological. Again, children can only be victims.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)fantasizing about Murder, Maiming and Rape are signs of a wanna be Misanthrope .
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)It's a mad world.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)I showed her your Avatar, Pris is her favorite character, and this scene, my wife is also against unwarranted search . And also a hell of a cure for Geezers, Not that Harrison Ford is or was one .
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)I have all the "directors cut" versions, and that is an awesome and poigent scene--once you know that backstory
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...but perhaps I need to read what professionals have to say about the topic.
The subject brings to mind heartbreak and evil things done to young women. (Not exactly my favorite "thing" ...to say the least.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)was so upsetting, and offensive, to a number of people. I certainly didn't care for it myself, and I'm glad the OP decided to self-delete his creepy-ass post.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm usually a day late and a dollar short in regards to this stuff. Between this thread, the GD thread, and the original thread since deleted, I've finally got some context to put your question into.
But my original answer still stands-- if one feels compelled to ask, one may do better by seeking personal counseling.
Really creepy question he asked... a creepiness now being defended, rationalize and whitewashed in GD. And it should come as little surprise as to the original location on DU of the the Creepy Little Question.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I know it is rough when I do not link. But I figure it isn't hard to follow if interested. And I do not like doing direct links and call out. But, I do not lie either and try to keep it true