Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > The Break Room
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-30-2007, 11:38 AM   #101
shasarak
Member
 
shasarak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Emily's Shop
Posts: 60
shasarak is on a distinguished road
Re: Sex & Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfyr View Post
Was in a discussion a while back about the issue and I still don't see a rational explanation for why pets *do* fall into a category of "society needs to care about it". Seriously, the only arguments that hold water at all are a) harm to the pet, b) harm to the person doing it and c) lack of consent. A is absurd, as is C, in the case of any animal of sufficient size to survive an attempt. Why? Because animals are, in general, less likely to allow something they don't like and far more well equipped to point this out to you, in a very painful and possible lethal way, than people are.
Come off it, Shadowfyr, by that argument it's impossible to physically abuse any reasonable-sized animal in any way. You're surely not claiming that? It's very easy to abuse even a large animal if you hit it repeatedly with a very heavy club, or a whip, or a stun-gun. And if you do that often enough it will be sufficiently frightened of you that it will submit to more or less anything.
shasarak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 06:06 PM   #102
Fifi
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 227
Fifi is on a distinguished road
Re: Sex & Violence

I don't understand your investment in trying to claim that child abuse is largely a myth,
Fifi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 06:23 PM   #103
scandum
Senior Member
 
scandum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 308
scandum will become famous soon enough
Re: Sex & Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifi View Post
I don't understand your investment in trying to claim that child abuse is largely a myth,
Hey now, it's common knowledge that one out of every two males in the US has been sexually abused through genital mutilation. Imagine the massive psychological damage inflicted by the evil snip snip. Hence it's no small surprise some males are getting back at the opposite sex by whatever means possible, which includes marginalizing rape statistics.
scandum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 11:24 PM   #104
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Re: Sex & Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by shasarak View Post
Come off it, Shadowfyr, by that argument it's impossible to physically abuse any reasonable-sized animal in any way. You're surely not claiming that? It's very easy to abuse even a large animal if you hit it repeatedly with a very heavy club, or a whip, or a stun-gun. And if you do that often enough it will be sufficiently frightened of you that it will submit to more or less anything.
I never said it wasn't possible to abuse such an animal, but I think you would agree that "most" types of abuse involve either a) keeping a safe distance from the animal, while clothed, possibly with the use of a weapon of your own, or b) it involved, more accurately, neglect. Now, lets consider what happens in the former case when the person is completely naked and in *intimate* close contact with something that has teeth with a high bite strength and probably claws... Seriously, I find the idea that someone could "force" themselves on an animal while in both an emotional and physically vulnerable state, where they are not expecting to get attacked, just completely absurd. As for the idea that exposure to it may make it easier, sure, if it actually qualifies as an abuse, which sex isn't. Its not like animals haven't been caught on film engaging in what should be impossible or useless cross species mating, without humans being involved in making the choice for them. Rare yeah, but not unheard of. So, you still have to explain how/why it constitutes any more abuse than some idiot that insists on shaving their poodle or making their bulldog wear a sweater, both of which are *way* less natural, but which, oddly, no one questions as possibly somehow mentally or physically hurting the animal.

Also, frightened animals will try to hide in a corner, but even the most frightened, if trapped, will attack. I don't care how much abuse you direct at them, their natural instincts, if they can't run away or hide from you, is to fight. Repeated abuse isn't going to change that instinct. It just doesn't make any sense to claim that, just because they don't generally engage in sex between seasons, that they couldn't, or that they wouldn't derive anything from it if they did. Though, I will say that the odds are that the males would be more likely to engage than females, precisely because of that seasonal limitation in female libido.

Point is, the claims being presented on the subject are exaggerated projections, not facts, and there are indications, where animals, usually males (though you can't do that without some sort of female of a different species), *have* engaged in such cross species sex, which contradict the assertion that they can't, wouldn't or might be negatively effected by such from a human. Its all about the "Ick!" factor, not any objective considerations. Well, that and *traditionally* most cultures, like the romans, found it objectionable for the purity of humanity, believing that monsters and half breeds where possible, despite often using the practice as a form of punishment for specific crimes (like a temple virgin daring to not stay a virgin). It was most definitely in those cases not a mutual choice, and usually was with something that, if it didn't kill the criminal "while" doing it, would after they where done. Likely the general aversion is a mix of the silly superstitions (including one from the early 1900s, which said that physical appearance or deformities could be caused by close contact with an animal "resembling" the physical trait), and some hold overs from what it was used for in punishments, not on actually facts or dangers. Its just mutated more towards animal rights issues, which presume that some humans, who never engaged in any such thing to know, in fact do know better than the animal if humping someone feels good, instead of the other more traditional aversions.

Its pertinent to the idea of nudity being bad, as well as sex in general, since its based not on factual evidence of harm, but the presumption that harm *must* be the logical outcome. Still, ironically, some on the right, even if they have an entirely religious aversion to it, would probably agree with the assessment that its not harmful. After all, one of them made himself rather famous a year or so ago by stating, "Well, when you live on a farm and your hormones are racing, anything thats warm, wet or vibrates starts to look good to you." lol
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 12:01 AM   #105
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Re: Sex & Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifi View Post
I don't understand your investment in trying to claim that child abuse is largely a myth,
See, that is missing the point entirely. The issue isn't it being a myth. Its not. The issue is intentional exaggeration, intentional misinterpretation of the actual facts, and the intentional use of both to lie about who, how many and how often, for the express purpose of claiming that the world has millions of scary freaks in it, but you can be saved from them, if you only listen to their suggestions, pass their laws and force their narrow minded ideas of morality and education down everyone's throats. See the difference?

You can't fight a real problem if you have a mixture of well meaning paranoids and ill meaning radicals making up imaginary enemies for you to chase for them **instead** of figuring out why the problems really exist, how to fix them, and who is **really** going to either take advantage of the problems for personal gain or actually commit the acts. Cops have to deal with this every time they have a case. They say, "We need some info on a robbery that happened on X day, in X city at X store.", and for the next week they get thousands of idiots calling in tips. One of them *might* know something useful, but the rest are seeing imaginary boogie men, trying to make themselves look like heroes, while knowing nothing, or think it might be their neighbor's aunt's garner, because they never liked the way he trimmed the rose bushes. The problem here is, when it comes to some issues, the people pushing for the guilt of thousands of innocent people have special dispensation to not only not have what they say questioned adequately, but to have those imaginary enemies named on national TV, or printed in news papers. You can't challenge *why* they think its wrong, because you would be attacking their faith, you can't ask the government to do anything about it, because, when they are not in collusion with them, they are not allowed to interfere with them (never mind that colluding with them is already interference), and millions of people tune into programs that their leaders run, to listen to them tell them in detail how all those statistics are not only true, but that its actually *worse* than reported, because there is a conspiracy to stop the truth from being known, and so on.

If these people pulled this BS in some countries, where separation was not so strict, they would have their broadcast licenses pulled. Even suggesting that this might be acceptable in the US would get you smeared so badly, that if you didn't already work in some meaningless position, you would be hard pressed to work at a McDonald's after, assuming some nut didn't manage to pass a law allowing them to jail or deport you for it (one would hope not, but given some of the recent riders on bills passed, like the one adding like 10 million or something to "Intelligent Design" research <where is that taking place exactly again, someone's basement under a crack house?> by the senate, its not impossible that they will, or have already, tried. Nor is it unlikely that another president, like the one we have, which has already stated that "some" people shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Americans or be considered citizens, would sign it if it landed on their desk.).

These people don't play fair. They cheat 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time... they probably listen to voices in their heads, telling them to cheat more. The rest of us, sadly, are gifted, or cursed, with a conscience and ethics, which doesn't allow us to sink to their level, even when we have a few hundred tiny psychological studies, and they have 50 published books (which could all be condensed into 30 pages of drivel) and 50,000 news articles, where the "reporter" chose to be "fair and balanced" by lending equal time and credence to both the real facts, and what ever paranoid delusional crank they could find under the nearest rock, to present the "alternative" view. In the modern US, ignorance **is** not just a point of view, its considered a valuable one, to be placed on equal terms with real facts, when reported by virtually the entire press.

Mind you, it cuts both ways. I have, on more than a few occasions, seen the opposite disturbing result, where, confronted with someone trying to present a conservative view, the paper/news agency has opted to find the closest rock, under which some famous crank from the left is sitting.

We are not expected to believe 50 impossible things at the same time (or how ever the saying goes), but more often its simply expected that if there are 49 impossible things and one possible one, the press must pick one of the 49 to contrast it to the one true thing, hand picked to push the buttons of the expected audience, so that they don't notice the other 48 impossibilities at all (those being the purview of *other* news sources with different audiences. I, and many others, are getting rather annoyed by it. And its not something you would have gotten back during Watergate, or any other "previous" generations of news reporting, unless you mean the middle ages, where the news was probably, if printed at all, done so at the bequest, or anger if not to their liking, of the local noble.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 06:06 AM   #106
shasarak
Member
 
shasarak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Emily's Shop
Posts: 60
shasarak is on a distinguished road
Re: Sex & Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifi View Post
I don't understand your investment in trying to claim that child abuse is largely a myth,
I'm not trying to claim anything of the sort.

Let's recap a little.

You originally said that having thoughts about sex with children was inherently wrong. I disagreed, on the grounds that the difference between having thoughts and acting on them is a vitally important one.

You then said that having sexual thoughts about children was wrong because such thoughts "escalate" into action. I suggested that, in the same way as nearly everyone has violent or even murderous thoughts sometimes but only a small percentage actually acts on them, it was likely that a similarly small percentage of the people who have sexual thoughts about children actually act on those thoughts. So, while it is true that there is an escalation in the case of abusers, it is very far from true that all instances of "bad thoughts" escalate.

You then argued that because the sexual abuse of children was so incredibly commonplace ("1 in 4 girls has been abused") this had to mean that virtually all of the people who had sexual thoughts about children do eventually act on those thoughts, otherwise there wouldn't be enough of them to do all the abusing.

I am therefore now pointing out that the sexual abuse of small children by adults is in fact far less common than your statistics would suggest, and that its true prevalence therefore does not, in fact, undermine my sugegstion that most people who are attracted to children do not act on the attraction.

I'm certainly not denying that the sexual abuse of children happens. What I'm doing is pointing out that your "1 in 4" number is not accurate, and that it doesn't say what you think it says about the actual incidence of predatory paedophiles. For example:
  • It probably includes your parents making you kiss your funny-smelling uncle at the Christmas dinner when you didn't want to.
  • Investigative techniques tend to bring up a lot of false positives (c.f. Cleveland and Orkney).
  • In the cases of genuine sexual abuse contributing to the "1 in 4" number, many of them actually happen when the victim is old enough that it is not reasonable to class them as a child any more (e.g. when the victim is 17 years old). Of course it's still sexual abuse and still horribly wrong, but if the victim is 17 there's no reason to label the abuser as a paedophile rather than as an adult sex-offender.
  • In cases where the victim is still young enough to be classed as a child, it is very often the case that the abuser is actually a child himself, and there is no reason to assume that he will remain fixated on children once he grows up. He is not likely an abuser of children, but an abuser of people of his own age-group. So, again, the abuse is real, but it doesn't tell you anything about the prevalence of genuine abusive paedophiles.
Note that these last two points are not arguments that abuse isn't happening. They're simply pointing out why, when such abuse does happen, it doesn't necessarily tell you anything about adults having sexual thoughts about children: in one case it's adults having sexual thoughts about adults, and in the other case it's children having sexual thoughts about children.

Of course, adults having sexual thoughts about adults who are not attracted to them sometimes escalates to the point of an actual sexual assault; but that's not a good enough reason to ostracise or imprison anyone who has ever had a sexual fantasy about someone who is not attracted to them.

Last edited by shasarak : 10-01-2007 at 12:47 PM.
shasarak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014