|
[ Sex Questions Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I just found out some really weird stuff that people do in their sex lives. I dont want to go into the details and make you all want to puke, but I guess my question and comment to the board is these things that I have found out go beyond decency. Isnt there any decency left in people? Is there no limit to seeking pleasure? The worst thing is they have no shame and no guilt at all.
Isnt their a line we shouldnt cross when it comes to expressing our sexuality? Such as beastiality, incest, portraying children in pornography, having sex with children etc. I dont know maybe i am a prude, but these things gross me out big time. I am a romantic at heart, and find more interesting and dignified ways of expressing my sexuality than having to use these deviant ways.
The reason I bring this up is a friend of mine was telling me about her ex boyfriend who was into weird acts like what i just mentioned. I never met him, but she told me that he had absolutely no guilt about some of the acts he has performed. Lets just say they were real shockers! I guess I must be really naiive or something.
I can understand that there are circumstances out there that i may not necessarily agree with, thats fine, but some things just seem over the top and well, downright, disgusting!
Please share your comments here, because i am starting to feel like the odd one out in all of this because I find it totally abhorrent.
In Reply to: Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked out on May 30, 2002 at 10:44:07:
that maybe you were the deviant? and those people enjoy their freedom of sexual pleasure? what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander but it doesn't mean one person is right and the other is wrong.
In Reply to: Did you ever think... posted by Sexy J on May 30, 2002 at 13:00:47:
I "ever think" that you may be sick. There is DEFINITELY SOMETHING WRONG WITH sexually abusing children. Freedom of sexual pleasure? Just try sexually exploiting children or abusing them in such a sick way and JUST SEE how free you'll be. I'll be the first to call the authorities on you; then let you sit up in jail and be sexually abused by more sicko freaks. Then we'll see if what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In Reply to: Re: Did you ever think... posted by Carole on May 30, 2002 at 13:18:46:
Incest is taboo.
Why?
Who better to introduce children to sex than a trusted parent or relative.
Then instead of dysfunctional adults with all kinds of weird hangups to pass along to their children, who will be a problem for their equally screwed up partners and will pass along THEIR hangups and problems to THEIR children, you have sexually well-adjusted and loving offspring. It is seen so rarely that people have come to accept sexual hangups as the norm.
Maybe it is the puritans and their extreme regime of sexual repressive practices, but there is nothing inherently wrong with parents teaching their children about sex, as they teach them about everything else.
The environment is so sick that everything except an extremely narrow range of activities is seen as "sick" instead. Freaked Out & you are just more in a long line of Freedom Rapers & Sex Tyrants who "decide" what is best for us all.
In Reply to: Who Gets To Decide? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 30, 2002 at 17:11:35:
What exactly is the best way for a parent to teach their child about sex, in your view?
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? posted by Donna E. on May 30, 2002 at 20:36:51:
Good Question. Apparently this guy thinks it's ok for parents to molest their children.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? posted by Carole on May 31, 2002 at 01:36:54:
How come you can only see the question in terms of molestation and/or abuse? Your parents teach you about life. Not all is pain and abuse. You must have had a rotten childhood.
Thank god not everyone is like you.
In Reply to: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 08:21:15:
Please answer and address Donna E's question? you seem to have conveniently skipped over that question.
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by freaked out on May 31, 2002 at 10:04:20:
That question cannot be answered until the underlying assumptions about why incest itself is
taboo are answered. Since you are starting with the premise that it is wrong, any answer I give will
in a similar matter be wrong.
You conveniently skipped over answering that.
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by The Quick and The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 10:10:10:
You're right about one thing. Any answer YOU give IS wrong. Incest isn't taboo, it's sick.
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by The Quick and The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 10:10:10:
Forget my opinoin on the matter, I want YOU to back up your previous comments that parents should teach their children about sex. If the underlying assumptions are that incest is taboo but there is no answer as to why it is taboo, then why have you given your opinoin that a parent should teach their child about sex knowing there is no answer to the taboo.
How exactly should a parent teach a child about sex in your opinion? Still waiting for an answer to THAT question.
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by The Quick and The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 10:10:10:
OK, I'll bite. I can't answer to the "incest itself" question. But, I can answer to sexual relations between parents and children from a biological standpoint and an emotional standpoint.
This is a really complicated issue and we could go around and around - I can see that from this point. But, I am going to answer quickly, hoping you will see the depth in what I am trying to say.
Biologically - from a reproduction standpoint - you already know the answer to that. It doesn't work and you have a high chance of getting defective and retarded offspring from mating with a parent or sibling. In my husband's culture, 1st cousins marry. It's the standard and preferred practice, among the older generation at least. When he married me, his parents had a fit. They had a girl picked out for him and were trying to force him to be with her. He found the idea abhorrant, even though he came from that culture where it is o.k. to do that.
Emotionally - physical, sexual relations is a very personal, spiritual thing to the individual. I realize that is my opinion and my experience and may be different from yours or from a man in general. But, if my parents had taken it upon themselves to decide to teach me about sex by having physical sex with me, I would be screwed up and severely damaged. I had to learn about it on my own terms and in my own time. Not when my parents felt it was time for me to learn. In my opinion, you do not have permission as a parent to do this to your child. You do not have permission from the child.
You also had a lot of assumptions in your original post. One of them was that people are screwed up because of sex and they wouldn't be screwed up if their parents would have had sex with them first, or would have taught them about sex in some unknown way (unknown because you refuse to explain what you meant). I can tell you from first had experience that people are screwed up because of adults in charge taking "liberties" with children. My mother's grandfather had sex with her and she is not better for the experience, believe me. She still struggles with that today and she is 65 years old.
Now, I've gone on and on about this and you are probably going to say that is not what you meant. That all you meant was that parents should talk to their children about sex and all you wanted to know was why incest is taboo, right?
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by The Quick and The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 10:10:10:
Well, kinda looks like YOU are the stupid one, since you're going to resort to name calling. You obviously have no valid argument. It also appears that everyone is agreeing that parents should NOT molest their children. I agree with one post that adults can really mess up their children in this way. And for your information, I had a perfectly grand childhood. There were no family members or anyone pawing my body and I am very lucky I wasn't forced into the sick acts that you think are ok. There are others that aren't so lucky and will struggle for the rest of their lives because of the violations against their bodies and minds. I just hope that YOU will not have children and if you have them already, GOD help them.
In Reply to: Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked out on May 30, 2002 at 10:44:07:
I read thru these posts, and found some answers disturbing. Anyone who molests/uses a CHILD for sexual gratification, should be locked up and the key thrown away, at a minimum. As far as what CONSENTING ADULTS do sexually, other than the horrendous/Criminal act of child sex abuse,it is really up to the individual and the GOD, if any, they espouse too. My only concern with ADULT sexual behavior is the SPREADING of DISEASE, thru unsafe practices. After all what CONSENTING ADULTS do should be their PRIVATE business.
In Reply to: Who Gets To Decide? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 30, 2002 at 17:11:35:
Insest is not a taboo, it is a crime. It is the act of a preditory animal who stalks and kills the emotional growth of a child. It is an act of hatred. It causes the victim a lifetime of suffering.
Like other crimes of this crime, those who act were once victims themselves. You are obviously one of these unfortunate children who was dammaged by a preditory adult. Like other pedophiles, you now find yourself thinking and acting in order to identify yourself no longer the child, but the adult in control. You want children in order to show yourself that no one can hurt you anymore.
Doubt what I am saying? Then I dare you, if you have the courage, to attend a meeting of Insest Survivors. Listen to what these hurt children/now adults say. Your mask of intellect cannot hide the frightened child inside of you.
In Reply to: Who Gets To Decide? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 30, 2002 at 17:11:35:
Insest is not a taboo, it is a crime. It is the act of a preditory animal who stalks and kills the emotional growth of a child. It is an act of hatred. It causes the victim a lifetime of suffering.
Like other victims of this crime, those who act were once victims themselves. You are obviously one of these unfortunate children who was dammaged by a preditory adult. Like other pedophiles, you now find yourself thinking and acting in order to identify yourself no longer the child, but the adult in control. You want children in order to show yourself that no one can hurt you anymore.
Doubt what I am saying? Then I dare you, if you have the courage, to attend a meeting of Insest Survivors. Listen to what these hurt children/now adults say. Your mask of intellect cannot hide the frightened child inside of you.
In Reply to: Who Gets To Decide? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 30, 2002 at 17:11:35:
Virtually all cultures on this planet, whether primitive or modern, have one thing in common -- murder, theft and incest are taboo. It has nothing to do with puritan values or sexually repressive practices.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? posted by survivor on May 31, 2002 at 14:21:40:
Sorry. I wasn't abused. I suppose on a health board I will get nothing but the negatives -the ones who were damaged. Maybe a post on an incest board I can get some answers from people undamaged by the experience, the positives. HA! caught in my own assumption.
Thank you all, expecially Freaked Out for your input. In my line of work it is sometimes very helpful to be able to argue something you don't particularly believe in to see what assumptions people bring to the table.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? posted by ktj on May 31, 2002 at 14:56:57:
That may or may not be a factoid (provable or not provable) but it does not address why, nor does it reveal the assumptions of making such a statement.
In Reply to: Re: Sexual deviants. posted by FZ on May 31, 2002 at 12:40:29:
I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. Imagine having sex with a 2nd cousin. Lock them up. Mutual masturbation? Lock them up! Sex with an older/younger/same sex/opposite sex/same age relative? Lock them up. Innocent Sex Play or Deviant Sex Offenders? Doesn't seem like such a hot idea to let any of you bastions of individual freedom decide.
In Reply to: Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked out on May 30, 2002 at 10:44:07:
All of us came from a Perfect God and Perfect Divine Intellegence!
The "I" is the Problem!
The mind we inherited is just information, some of us live our life, like it is our God! The Information we filed in our computor is making us happy or sad, mad or glad and yet it is just information!
Our I-ego can do some stupid things, and it Never Considers others when we are in that part of our mind, IT IS SELF CENTERED! .
The Key for us today is can we stay centered and move from that place that is thoughtful and balanced;
Taking Action where we are intuitively guided is one thing and Reacting is another-One is from a fear base and one is from seeing what needs to be done [from a balanced state] and doing it: Let us know we are all moving with clarity now and that all terroristic acts are coming to an end! We can now -Hold the truth:
Regardless of appearance, that is being in the healing and sending it!
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? posted by The Quick The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 16:27:12:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by Donna E. on May 31, 2002 at 11:59:26:
Rock on, Donna!
It is because of the *nature of sex* that incest is taboo.
People think about sex in a very surface way. They look at it and they see the bodies having a fine time together sharing pleasure. The liberal-minded ones who are trying to throw off the old puritanical mindset (as well they should) declare, "What can possibly be the harm in this pleasure?" and the pro-incest argument further adds, "Why not show the child these pleasures in the safest possible way?"
Well, what they forget is that a human being is a complex creature. ANY role of authority (which is YOUR role as a parent) is a sacred trust. The purpose is to guide that person (child, pupil, whoever) and facilitate THEIR path in life, and to have more love for their own good, in a certain selfless way, than for your own. OK fine you say. That still does not tell me why incest cannot be part of this guidance.
Well, I will try to convey how I see it. The beauty in sexual consummation is a surrendering of ego, willing loss of control, to the spirit... This is our gift to give and receive as adults, out of free choice, from of all the levels of our being. A child's psyche (ego, self) is simply not well-developed enough to countenance the raw desires of an adult. It is overwhelming to them. Of course it is unlikely that the child will tell you (the adult) as much - because they canNOT. So you will think that all is well, because the child is, on the surface, so compliant with you, so "teachable".
But why can the child not speak his objections? Well, that is part of the problem isn't it? They are NOT yet well developed enough to be able to clearly make these distinctions. For this they need time and inner solitude, so as to develop in their OWN way.
Children are in fact the perfect "captive audience" for an adult who seeks a vessel for reception of his values, gratify his own desires, and gaze in the mirror of his OWN soul, using as a vehicle his own imaginings of what the child needs and who the child is, which may be light years apart from the truth of who that child actually IS.
Your children are not your childrenAnd a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children." And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far. Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable. -- Kahlil Gibran
In Reply to: Gregory, is that you? nmi posted by ktj on May 31, 2002 at 18:58:27:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? incest taboo posted by Jan on May 31, 2002 at 19:19:26:
The voice of reason speaks at last.
It was well worth the wait.
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then NO topics can be taught a child for each topic holds the same potential for destruction. Children actively object. As a schoolteacher, I can tell you that they often object quite vehemently. That arguement does not quite hold water. Also quite to the contrary, they know pleasure and pain. That too is a distinction they are quite capable of making. Last, it is quite common for newborns to sexually pleasure themselves.
No one seems to want to acknowledge that we are all sexual creatures. It starts from before birth and does not end until one foot is in the grave and the other one is following it. No posts on the "sexual deviants" thread because the arguements against children engaged in sex play with their peer relatives cannot be countered without getting into the murky area of who counts as a relative. Six Degrees of Separation anyone?
I thank you for a non-reactionary viewpoint Jan. It gives me much to think about.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? Not A "Survivor" posted by The Quick The Dean on May 31, 2002 at 16:12:36:
Sorry, I don't belive you.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? Not A "Survivor" posted by survivor on May 31, 2002 at 21:36:18:
We're even. I don't believe you either.
In Reply to: That Is Significant posted by The Quick The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 19:44:22:
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then NO topics can be taught a child for each topic holds the same potential for destruction.
The difference is... A shared sex act involves a meeting of the selfs of the two people, intimately and directly. Other topics of instruction such as history, science, math, literature, and even the biggies, politics and religion (or even the history of sex), don't.
Children actively object. As a schoolteacher, I can tell you that they often object quite vehemently.
Children object when they can, and this is good, and to be encouraged. However, by us teaching them to have sex with us when they are too immature to have the will or the consciousness to object (and because they so want to please us), we could be achieving the opposite result - teaching them to be obedient losers.
Of course, children and even newborns feel pleasure and pain, I don't think I said otherwise. Sex is just a particular form of energy and we all feel eroticism in different ways, from birth. What I am really concerned about here is the dynamics of a personal relationship, not the sensation of self-pleasure, in and of itself. That is fine.
You're welcome. You pressed a button. It's not like me to words like "sacred trust" but I feel very strongly about this (as do you about your position).
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? Not A "Survivor" posted by The Quick The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 22:00:31:
I'm sorry for what you must have endured as a child. Please seek help.
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? incest taboo posted by Jan on May 31, 2002 at 19:19:26:
Thanks, Jan.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Sexual deviants. posted by Terri-Lynn on May 31, 2002 at 17:49:34:
Hi Terri Lynn + Walt
I value your opinion here, please can you answer my post and be direct as to my question on strange sexual practises that some people think is acceptable if in "their" opinion is not hurting anyone. Such as poster The Quick and The Deads argument that sex should be taught to ones own children by the parent and not as theory but in practical terms as in the parent having sex with their own child to show them the ropes and introduce them to the world of sex. It still makes me shudder to think that they actually believe this is helpful to a child who wouldnt know any better and would probably go along just to please the parent. Strange and very scary logic. Having a parent like that would be a nightmare come true!
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? Not A "Survivor" posted by survivor on June 01, 2002 at 03:22:12:
In your narrow view, I can only have been abused.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.
Do you think I lend any credibility to your "Please seek help." advice? My advice to you is to stay on your meds and continue the counselling.
In Reply to: Re: To Terri lynn + Walt Please your Opinion too - Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked Out on June 01, 2002 at 09:59:16:
FO,
No fair asking Walt & Terri Lynn. If either should agree with you, you will simply *feel justified* in your OPINION which I feel compelled to point out is only an opinion. If they disagree with you, you will feel they are agreeing with me which may not be the case. They would simply be disagreeing with you. If the agree with me (unlikely) you will lose respect for them, and if they post no answer at all to your "unfair" question, you will badger them for an answer to something which may be unanswerable. I took it upon myself to ask this question not because I have "survivor issues" but because in many of my relationships and the relationships of friends and relatives what I see is massive dysfunction. There are always issues and in every case (so far) the parents seemed to have been the causative agent, instilling harmful attitudes towards sex and relationships and abject failures at in helping their children feel good about sex. The lack of sexual knowledge & relating to the opposite sex is breathtaking. While huge amount of it can be attributed to their parents, I have often wondered if "the system" itself is the problem, and if instead of closing off sex as something "outside" the family it is instead part of family life like meals and family vacations the outcome would be healthy adults and healthy relationships. The knee-jerk reaction that I've gotten so far (with one notable response/exception) only proves that I am on the right track.
In Reply to: Re: To Terri lynn + Walt Please your Opinion too - Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked Out on June 01, 2002 at 09:59:16:
Hi, Freaked.
I firmly believe in sex education in the home and feel that the schools have done their best to fill the vacuum (impossible task) that parents have abandoned because they are not comfortable discussing it. SO, the child has to learn it on the street--wonderful solution (sigh).
HOWEVER, that cannot include incest because of a number of reasons: First among them is the fact that ANY sexual congress under the age of consent HAS TO BE ILLEGAL whether it is with family or otherwise.
Next, it has been known for thousands of years that reproduction, within family members, results in a much higher rate of inherited disorders than when this "taboo" is honored.
Although recent discoveries, involving the human genome project and DNA testings, has shown that this increased rate of deformities is not as high as previously thought, it is REAL and at least high enough to justify the "taboo" of cousins reproducing with cousins--LET ALONE more intimate family menbers.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? incest taboo posted by Jan on May 31, 2002 at 19:19:26:
If I could be so eloquent...
You understand the depth, it was like a breath of fresh air to read that.
PS I have that book too.
In Reply to: Re: To Terri lynn + Walt: Choose your response carefully on Sexual deviants. posted by The Quick The Dead on June 01, 2002 at 18:24:43:
Disagreement is not a knee-jerk reaction. Your posts all imply that those who disagree with you are stupid, that they just don't get it. You're wrong, we know exactly what you mean. You aren't looking for an answer to some deep relationship issue. That's crap. You want people to give you permission to molest kids. When you say parents should teach their kids about sex you don't mean they should talk to them about it, you mean they should use them.
In Reply to: Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked out on May 30, 2002 at 10:44:07:
http://www.coolnurse.com/sexual_abuse_adult.htm
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? You're Joking Right? posted by The Quick The Dead on June 01, 2002 at 10:23:33:
I understand your need to defend yourself with sarcasm and hostility. You are threatened by what I have said, because it is the truth. You do need help, and I honestly wish that you seek it. Calling me names doesn't make me wrong. Only someone who suffered would want to find revenge in the pain of children.
In Reply to: Re: To Terri lynn + Walt: Choose your response carefully on Sexual deviants. posted by Lloyd on June 03, 2002 at 00:39:01:
No, that's what YOU mean. Certainly I am capable of stating what I mean. I can infer that you have relationship issues, and sexual issues also. But I don't know for sure. I wouldn't presume to tell you about your problems, or assume that I know what they are. You can extend me the same courtesy. That said, it is easy to see that you have not considered the premise seriously at all. The issue is probably too emotionally volatile for you. That's OK. But Lloyd, don't come to the party if you can't dance.
In Reply to: Re: Who Gets To Decide? You're Joking Right? posted by survivor on June 03, 2002 at 01:27:29:
No wonder you got voted off the island.
OK "survivor" whatever you say. I need help.
Let em go get some right now. I'm SO misunderstood.
In Reply to: Sexual deviants. posted by Freaked out on May 30, 2002 at 10:44:07:
why would you feel like the Odd one ?? Different people
Kids have kids to explore with as they always will. An
VF
In Reply to: Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole? posted by Freaked out on May 31, 2002 at 10:37:19:
By example and not being in that part of the mind that is so sick! Examples of life itself and love, and sharing from that place.
In Reply to: You & your assumptions. posted by The Quick The Dead on June 03, 2002 at 08:08:49:
I have to admit that was funny. I think that all of your posts, hostile or otherwise do show that you are a smart person. So, think about this: why did you set this topic out for discussion on a health BB? Here people ask for help for all kinds of problems; physical, spiritual, emotional. Others offer them advice, often great advice. You must have been reading the questions and comments here for a while, so you know that the people here tend to be more kind than most. I think you posted your thoughts here, so that someone could help you. Good for you. Maybe you can find answers here. Talking about it is almost asking for help. I don't think your misunderstood. I think lots of us understand perfectly.
In Reply to: Re: You & your assumptions. posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 01:07:33:
In the hospital rarely do you find well people. Everyone is mainly interested in what you got. Everyone assumes that you must have something, otherwise why would you be there. If you are not clearly identifiable as a doctor, you must be a patient. An either/or mentaility never considers a 3rd 4th or 5th possibility.
In Reply to: In The Hospital or Under A Microscope? posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 01:46:08:
Pretending to be above and removed is another symptom of abuse. With every angry, pretentious, defensive, denial you make, you show yourself to be a victim of what you support. Child sexual abuse isn't a game and you aren't playing. You came here because this issue is all too real for you.
In Reply to: That Is Significant posted by The Quick The Dead on May 31, 2002 at 19:44:22:
The sexuality of children is not the issue. The behavior of adults is the issue. Adults who prey on children for thier own pleasure rob them of their childhood.
In Reply to: Re: In The Hospital or Under A Microscope? posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 13:22:54:
ok. whatever say. you're the shrink.
but. but wait. oh, I forgot. aren't *you* the survivor.
uuummm. yes. yes. now it's coming back to me.
you "survived" abuse. oh wait. news flash. I didn't survive abuse. there was NO ABUSE in my family to survive.
*whew* you had me going there for a minute.
gotta stay out of these psyche wards.
Survivor, you are in serious need of help. I'm sure you're getting it, but not everyone you meet needs it. You can't "help" everyone you meet be cause not everyone was abused like you were. I'm sorry I wasn't abused like you were because then your words would make some sense. But they don't. I had siblings, and we fought, but the parental stuff, nada. I'm removed cause it wasn't there, not "in denial." I know it's fashionably chic to have been sexually abused by one's parent's but what can I say? I have to run with the "behind the times" haven't-been-abused crowd.
In Reply to: Re: That Is Significant posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 13:51:06:
It is not the issue for you, granted. However this issue is so superheated that you are never going to consider any other viewpoint other than your own. Admit it and move on.
In Reply to: Hopeless posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 18:01:07:
Would you mind explaining what your purpose was for bringing up the incest issue? I personally don't think that you really meant for parents to have sex with their children. Do you even know what you meant or did you just say things to instigate reactions?
Since you said we are all your subjects for study, I want to ask if are you really learning anything from this? If you are, what? I would really like it if you would share some insight because at this point it seems that everyone is beating a dead horse. This has really deteriorated into nonsense, don't you think?
In Reply to: Hopeless posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 18:01:07:
The difference between you and me is that I have had the courage and honesty to face my life. You on the other hand deny the past and try to pass your pain on to others. It must have been terrible to turn you into a preditor.
In Reply to: That Is Also Significant posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 18:28:35:
Your right. I will never consider cruelty to children, "another viewpoint." You are trying to convince the readers here that molestation is kind and rape is love. You ignore the mountians of expierence, behavioral studies and documented evidence that proves the opposite. No, I won't, "move on." As long as you're here talking about the joys of being a pedophile, I'll be here telling the truth.
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by Donna E. on June 04, 2002 at 19:18:26:
I know Donna. You ask good questions. I would like to know too.
It's true that we need only ask, in order to find out. But like you I think this thread is getting beyond that point. Yes, it was always incumbent on us to ask for clarification and not simply react (as Quick and the Dead and Gregory are so fond of pointing out). But, some of us did ask. Something is required of the one initiating the argument, too.
In any argument, the one making the assertion is the one who must back it up. This, Q&D has never done, instead relying on pointing out the histrionics, projections, personal belief filters, etc. of his detractors as the means to prop himself up. This is only half the job at best. Some of us tried to get more information, but he did not carry the ball, seeming to prefer to expound on the quality of our argument, rather than answering substantive points we raised. I gave a solid basis for discussion and he was receptive to my logic but somehow, discussion of the substance fizzled out. I appreciate leaving it on the table for pondering, I do not require it to be discussed, but I just wondered why it would stop there, with the others, too. You, Donna, asked here, and here. Freaked Out requested here (in a slightly adversarial tone) for Q&D to clarify how he sees the underlying reason/(lack of reason) for the incest taboo in the first place, and how a parent should go about teaching sex; however, Q&D did not answer. (Why not?)
All of the above makes me suspect it's true that he's doing this more as an intellectual exercise than because it's a position he sincerely wants to hold forth on. Perhaps he does not believe it at all.
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by Jan on June 05, 2002 at 07:03:54:
Can't you recognize the rantings of a sociopath? Q & D has no compassion for the suffering of others (because then he would have to face his own).
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by Jan on June 05, 2002 at 07:03:54:
Come on Q&D - rise to the occasion and address the questions and address the points that were raised. Or, let us in on your little secret experiment. At least stop going back and forth with the "You were abused. No - you were abused." thing.
Personally, I am waiting for something profound from you. That would be the only reason to put so much energy into this thread, right? I would hate to think that a school teacher would put so much energy into such useless arguing.
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by Jan on June 05, 2002 at 07:03:54:
If you (collectively) are going to attack "why" and then select only the pieces of the original premise that YOU want to address I feel no responsibility to respond at all.
Survivor is SURE that I am a "victim" of abuse myself, and his/her response is based on that.
Freaked Out does not likewise is not interested in any response that does not agree with hers and is not willing to entertain any of my arguements.
Other respondents have "reacted" in much the same manner, and while your response was by far the best, it did not address the whole original post.
Overwhelmingly, certain assumptions have been made.
The first and most prevalent one is that the parent is somehow selfish and cruel. I did not start with this premise. My ideal & hypothetical parent's (for I've never met one in real life) motive is to spare his or her child much of the pain of rejection that comes from a poor self body image. Starting early in the child's life, the best I could come up with was full nudity around the house, and frequent trips to nude beaches, campgrounds, etc.
The second "phase" if you will is initiation into sex by an older relative I thought parent since a bond of trust would already be there, but apparently that relationship is too volatile. It doesn't seem to matter who I suggest for fulfill that role in the family, nothing but alarms and cries of "incest." In any event, the idea is to introduce the young adult (puberty - 21) to sex, to how to pleasure one's self, how to pleasure a partner, and how to initiate and maintain a relationship of harmony.
No one saw fit in the feeding frenzy that followed to address the current models of "sex & relationship education" and their abysmal failures to produce happy, healthy and well adjusted couples and children. From my point of view, a radical rethink was in order.
There are in fact other cultures where this was done. And with quite a bit of success. There is the inherent danger of taking these techniques away from their cultural backdrop, so implementation remains a problem if tried on a community level, but not if done at the family level.
I also noticed that no one actually defended the current system either, perhaps noticing that it is the current system that has produced the dysfunctional adults and children that one sees all around them.
As per one's sexual interests, I can only say that in a "free" society, you HAVE TO take the good with the bad. Limiting one activity because it is "bad" means limiting them all. It becomes a matter of who sets themselves up as "the authority" and makes the decrees. It doesn't matter if the majority agrees with the decrees, for there will always be some who don't (and many will agree because they are sheep and are scared NOT to, not out of any sense of individually coming to the conclusion that it is right or wrong), and it for those who don't that restrictions cannot be put what is "right" and what is "wrong."
This is how Hitler for example, got his start. People stood by and "let" him start targeting certain groups without lifting a finger. (Yes I know there were other factors involved. I am focusing on the lack of hue & cry from other countries and from other ethnic groups in Germany). By allowing the Nazi Instrumentality to put forth this ideology, (because it was "right") the freedom of others were subsequently taken away with disasterous results. The scope of "wrong" people subsequently got larger and larger until only a very tiny group of "right" people existed.
Admittedly this is a somewhat extreme example, but you simply cannot define "right" and "wrong" in the manner put forth because it is so easy to co-opt WHAT becomes right and wrong. You SAY that certain things are clearly right and wrong but nevertheless you have walked straight into the trap with your eyes open.
You may consider this the Why Not.
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by ------ on June 05, 2002 at 12:04:05:
Q &D is very intelligent but do not confuse intelligence with sanity. The world has seen many mad geniuses. Hitler is a fine example. The good people of Germany saw only his genius, not his madness.
In Reply to: Now do you see it, Jan and Donna? posted by ---- on June 05, 2002 at 14:11:40:
Just curious.
Nice to see you addressing the points that I made rather than framing your view as one of sanity.
In Reply to: Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him? posted by The Quick The Dead on June 05, 2002 at 14:36:47:
Is Q&D Gregory? Sounds like him, only no colored ink....
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 22:04:41:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him? posted by guessing on June 06, 2002 at 01:27:04:
Yes, he is.
In Reply to: Re: Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him? posted by guessing on June 06, 2002 at 01:27:04:
I'm not him.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ****** on June 06, 2002 at 02:50:47:
I don't think R. or Gregory ever posts anonymously. I think they are stand up guys and back up what they have to say.
I hate it when people post anonymously. I did it once and felt like a creep - I don't do it anymore.
In Reply to: Well, He let's me use his computer. He's got six of them after all. But... posted by The Quick The Dead on June 06, 2002 at 11:44:24:
Dr. Bernardo.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Donna E. on June 06, 2002 at 13:26:20:
Donna E.
There is nothing wrong with posting anonymously if thats what the person feels comfortable doing. If you feel uncomfortable with it, thats ok too, but others dont, and if thats the only way they feel comfortable posting then thats ok too, especially if its controversial or a delicate subject.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R???? posted by Sandra on June 06, 2002 at 21:19:44:
Yeah, you're right. I just didn't feel right doing it myself. I guess I just like knowing who is posting if it is someone that hangs around this board.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Donna E. on June 06, 2002 at 13:26:20:
Gregory is Quick and the Dead. Check out how they both mis spell argument and use the word factoid.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ------ on June 08, 2002 at 22:36:49:
Kind of interesting, dont you think, How R. conveniently didnt answer the question as to whether it was him or not. Your silence speaks volumes, R. You can come out of hiding now.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ------ on June 08, 2002 at 22:36:49:
If I'm not mistaken, misspellings are not a good indicator of identity. Make that assumption
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Donna E. on June 06, 2002 at 13:26:20:
You are new here Donna. There are alot of attacks that happen to people on the BB. Some people cannot take it.
In Reply to: to Donna: Is That you, R. posted by Anon on June 09, 2002 at 01:33:37:
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 00:58:34:
You don't fool me, Lightwalker. Your twisted logic is easy to spot.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ---- on June 09, 2002 at 13:29:13:
Whatever.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 00:58:34:
No, Gregory, it's not me. I have largely bypassed this thread. I've read a couple of posts in it but haven't replied to any.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ****** on June 08, 2002 at 22:38:53:
Conveniently??? Are you dumb? I just wasn't following the thread!
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 00:58:34:
In Reply to: Re: Hopeless posted by Donna E. on June 04, 2002 at 19:18:26:
Donna,
See this post and this one. All should be explained.
The Quick & The Dead
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by R. on June 09, 2002 at 17:41:08:
Yeah, sure you did R. Must be your stupidity again, or couldnt you come up with a better excuse.
In Reply to: Re: Is That you, R. posted by ****** on June 09, 2002 at 21:30:43:
Follow Ups:
Re: Sexual deviants.
Posted by Vince F on June 03, 2002 at 08:19:58:
may have different desires but I feel it is best to keep
things between consenting adults and then let animals do
Their thing. What makes me feel good is having incredable
sex with someone that I Should want to have it with. That
way there are never any confusing thoughts about wether I
should have. I may be odd that I am VERY selective BUT if
others can get the same depth of feeling then good for them.
I would rather turn down an experience that was just easy
for one where both parties had the same desire.
adult should just give advice or answer questions. To me, if
they get involved physically then they are VERY imature and
wether they claim they feel any guilt they Should and if
they don't I would think that it affects them some other way
that they aren't aware of.
Follow Ups:
Re: Reactionary Or Just Stupid Carole?
Posted by Terri-Lynn on June 03, 2002 at 21:50:21:
Follow Ups:
Re: You & your assumptions.
Posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 01:07:33:
Follow Ups:
In The Hospital or Under A Microscope?
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 01:46:08:
So I must have an illness or need help, because certainly I am not here to offer help. However I neither need help, nor am I seeking to help others. I am here for another reason altogether, although initially it was not to question Freaked Out's morality. That was just a bonus. I doubt any of you understand but that isn't my problem either. You have proven wonderful test subjects, and for that I thank you.
Follow Ups:
Re: In The Hospital or Under A Microscope?
Posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 13:22:54:
Follow Ups:
Re: That Is Significant
Posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 13:51:06:
Follow Ups:
Hopeless
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 18:01:07:
I guess I'm just hopeless. You'll forgive me won't you?
Follow Ups:
That Is Also Significant
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 04, 2002 at 18:28:35:
Follow Ups:
Re: Hopeless
Posted by Donna E. on June 04, 2002 at 19:18:26:
Follow Ups:
Re: Hopeless
Posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 22:04:41:
Follow Ups:
Re: That Is Also Significant
Posted by survivor on June 04, 2002 at 22:14:40:
Follow Ups:
Re: Hopeless
Posted by Jan on June 05, 2002 at 07:03:54:
Follow Ups:
Re: Hopeless
Posted by ------ on June 05, 2002 at 12:04:05:
He keeps posting because there is a part of him that wants his "secret" , whatever it is, to be known.
Follow Ups:
Re: Hopeless - Thanks Jan
Posted by Donna E. on June 05, 2002 at 12:09:38:
Follow Ups:
Why Not - For Jan & Donna E.
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 05, 2002 at 12:14:12:
What I have noticed is that generally speaking, my words are taken out of context.
In order to have the middle ground, you have to have the extremes to define it.
Follow Ups:
Now do you see it, Jan and Donna?
Posted by ---- on June 05, 2002 at 14:11:40:
Follow Ups:
Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him?
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 05, 2002 at 14:36:47:
Follow Ups:
Re: Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him?
Posted by guessing on June 06, 2002 at 01:27:04:
same reasoning.
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by ****** on June 06, 2002 at 02:50:47:
Follow Ups:
Re: Would those Good People of Germany be the same one's who went along with him?
Posted by ------ on June 06, 2002 at 10:30:04:
Follow Ups:
Well, He let's me use his computer. He's got six of them after all. But...
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 06, 2002 at 11:44:24:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by Donna E. on June 06, 2002 at 13:26:20:
Follow Ups:
Very Clever,
Posted by ---- on June 06, 2002 at 18:47:40:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R????
Posted by Sandra on June 06, 2002 at 21:19:44:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R????
Posted by Donna E. on June 07, 2002 at 16:02:02:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by ------ on June 08, 2002 at 22:36:49:
By the way, the only reason I post anonymously is because after a nasty attack from Gregory I learned it's wiser to not use my name. I'm sure survivor learned the same lesson. Stick around long enough and he'll get to you, too, if you dare disagree.
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by ****** on June 08, 2002 at 22:38:53:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 00:58:34:
I suppose it would do no good to deny it for the same reason that you have already
made up your mind and don't confuse you with the truth. Whatever floats your boat erm, uh, ------. Are you related to ---- by any chance?
Lightwalking,
Gregory
at your own risk.
Follow Ups:
to Donna: Is That you, R.
Posted by Anon on June 09, 2002 at 01:33:37:
The choose not to deal with it. So they post anon.
Gregory has posted as several different posters....
not unusual at all, many people do it. Many good people have left the BB because of being attacked, they get sick and tired of it and leave.
Follow Ups:
A Case In Point: Anon nmi
Posted by Anon II on June 09, 2002 at 12:56:04:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by ---- on June 09, 2002 at 13:29:13:
Follow Ups:
'I Grow Fatigued Captain. Perhaps We Can Discuss This Some Other Time. . .'
Posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 14:39:03:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by R. on June 09, 2002 at 16:59:33:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by R. on June 09, 2002 at 17:41:08:
Follow Ups:
Actually R, I wasn't directing my response to you.
Posted by Gregory on June 09, 2002 at 20:00:25:
The same error you made, I made also, thinking the RESPONSE was being made TO me rather than the
original poster. Whatever. If it was important, they would email me.
Lightwalking,
Gregory
Follow Ups:
Hopeless no more.
Posted by The Quick The Dead on June 09, 2002 at 20:12:35:
Follow Ups:
Re: Is That you, R.
Posted by ****** on June 09, 2002 at 21:30:43:
Follow Ups:
Whatever, Sandy... nmi
Posted by R. on June 09, 2002 at 22:00:12:
Follow Ups:
[ Sex Questions Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!