kids lifting people with their feet
ERIC
cousin, the SHE-HULK, had defended herself against her cousin by lifting him
with her feet and throwing him. I also saw people lift others with their
feet in some circuses.
Over a decade ago I'd convinced a then almost 10 year old kid [about half
the age I was then] into lifting me with his feet. We didn't tell our
parents. Nowadays, I'd still like this to happen, but only with the kids'
parents' knowledge and permission. I realize that this isn't really
appropriate, but there are several potential advantages to this happening.
When kids realize that they're just as strong as adults, they seem to feel
somewhat empowered and self confident.
The safe and gentle ways that I know how to do this would be for both a
child and someone else [friend, older sibling, or maybe an adult] to be
perpendicular with each other on either a bed or a sofa pulled away from a
wall. If the person on top is on his back, then another person's feet should
be centered on both his rear end and lower back. If both people face each
other, then 1 foot should be centered on both the stomach [not the rib cage]
and the genitals. Naturally, this is somewhat of an erotic experience, even
though the child's hands wouldn't touch me, and we'd both wear pants. After
all, aside from a foot, I wouldn't ask or tell a child to touch my pants.
I'd already suggested this [but didn't explain the method] to several
people. An uncle doesn't want his blue belt Karate kid to do this because
he's trying to train my cousin to be well-behaved. When I'd privately
suggest this to someone else, she'd just laughed, though her kids later said
that they're interested in doing this with each other. Since I'd just called
on the phone, I couldn't show them. Though I'd explained the "back" method
to the older child, I'd also insisted on his mother's permission. Finally,
I'd suggested this to 2 more parents, who will discuss this with their kids.
I'm not sure if I could do this with any more kids, though I feel more
secure talking to their parents, rather than going behind their backs. This
way, there are no surprises, and I may be trusted to listen to their
parents. Personally, I don't want to touch any children where they don't
want to be touched. I'd prefer to see them mature, and hopefully, if they're
female, get lucky when they're no longer minors.
By the way, I'm not a child molester or abuser, contrary to what I did long
ago and would like to do again. I'd just like to have some fun with others
who may not think of themselves as very strong, either. Does anyone think
that even suggesting something like this is a mistake? If so, why?
ERIC
"Nick" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:t4au0tsr67q2g8mlj...@4ax.com...
> tell this thinking your a pedosexual. That's often not in your best
> interest.
>
> I fail to see how this is on topic for alt.activism.youth-rights btw.
>
This seems to be on topic for this newsgroup because young people sometimes
feel powerless when they're with authority figures. Therefore, when a
heavier, older person lets himself temporarily be physically controlled in a
way that the child had previously thought he/she was too weak to possibly do
so, the child may feel somewhat of a sense of empowerment and self esteem.
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.
By the way, though I'd sometimes like to feel someone or something tough my
genitals, I'm not a pedosexual because I don't like to see the genitals of
other guys, and I don't want to touch them between their legs. Similarly, I
wouldn't dare ask a minor to use his/her hand to touch me between my legs,
though I'm not sure if I'd mind if a child [probably a teenager] voluntarily
does so. I also haven't had or am interested in having [or giving] a blow
job. However, I've always enjoyed gently lifting people and being lifted in
swimming pools, though I rarely have a chance to swim. I also like being
tickled by kids, providing that I'd already be lying down. I'm sorry about
the misunderstanding. Does Dorothy or Free Spirit have anything to add?
>
>
>
> --
> It is no wonder that grown men, either perplexed in the
> necessary affairs of life, or hot in the pursuit of pleasures,
> should not seriously sit down to examine their own tenets;
> especially when one of their principles is, that principles
> ought not to be questioned. --John Locke
ERIC
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:00:26 GMT, "ERIC" <ek...@obongo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nick" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:t4au0tsr67q2g8mlj...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:16:32 GMT, "ERIC" <ek...@obongo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Over a decade ago, I saw an old INCREDIBLE HULK cartoon in which the
> >Hulk's
> >> >cousin, the SHE-HULK, had defended herself against her cousin by
lifting
> >him
> >> >with her feet and throwing him. I also saw people lift others with
their
> >> >feet in some circuses.
and pushed someone into either a river or a lake. His feet were on both his
lower back and his rear end. Therefore, I blame both the media and personal
experience for some of my ideas.
somewhat lighter than I [an older sibling or parent] before trying to lift
me. This way, there are no secrets or surprises. I hope that I've now
clarified my intentions.
> >> >By the way, I'm not a child molester or abuser, contrary to what I did
> >long
> >> >ago and would like to do again. I'd just like to have some fun with
> >others
> >> >who may not think of themselves as very strong, either. Does anyone
think
> >> >that even suggesting something like this is a mistake? If so, why?
> >> >
> >> I think the mistake in suggesting this is that you'll leave some you
> >> tell this thinking your a pedosexual. That's often not in your best
> >> interest.
> >>
> >> I fail to see how this is on topic for alt.activism.youth-rights btw.
> >>
> >This seems to be on topic for this newsgroup because young people
sometimes
> >feel powerless when they're with authority figures. Therefore, when a
> >heavier, older person lets himself temporarily be physically controlled
in a
> >way that the child had previously thought he/she was too weak to possibly
do
> >so, the child may feel somewhat of a sense of empowerment and self
esteem.
> >I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.
>
> Ok, I still think the post is unusual though.
>
> >By the way, though I'd sometimes like to feel someone or something tough
my
> >genitals, I'm not a pedosexual because I don't like to see the genitals
of
>
> I just told you what a lot of people would think after reading/hearing
> what you posted.
Aragorn
ERIC <ek...@obongo.com> wrote in message
news:gMUP5.110675$td5.16...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
ERIC
messages in other threads before replying to this message. Then, maybe
you'll understand me better.
"Aragorn" <ara...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g35Q5.195843$JS3.31...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
ERIC
"Ray Da Capo" <he...@there.com> wrote in message
news:uto11tcb515pld6unioem588lfj43so3f8@canttouchthis...
> Hello Eric:
>
> You don't know me, and you haven't asked for my advice. But it's the
> nature of Usenet that everybody and anybody jumps in on whatever
> thread interests them, so I hope you don't mind too much if I direct
> this post to you.
>
> I want to reply generally to your posts rather than comment about
> anything specific you have written. I notice you are attracting the
> attention of several people who are convinced you are sick and need
> professional help. They might be right, but I don't think so.
> Nothing you have written anyway justifies such hasty conclusions. But
> you do sound like you are confused about your sexual feelings, and are
> searching for some answers about the conflict between your body and
> your mind. Your search is a Good Thing, and I'm confident you will
> find the answers you seek. I would like to make only one small
> suggestion, one that I hope you will think about seriously. My
> suggestion is this: until you figure it out, avoid physical intimacy
> with children much younger than yourself. They know nothing of your
> confusion and can't help you much with it. But your confusion will
> confuse them. And any physical intimacy with them will only make you
> more confused and your search more difficult. It doesn't matter if
> it's innocent or sexual. It doesn't matter if it's deliberate or
> accidental. It doesn't matter if they do it or you do it. It doesn't
> even matter if they ask for it. It only matters that such things will
> keep you from finding the answers you have to have in order to take
> control of your life.
Ray, I'm not sick, but I've not had a girlfriend in years. I've been getting
professional help for years. I'm not on any kind of prescription medicine.
Last year it was innocent, my cousin and I both did it, and he'd asked for
it. We'd kept our clothes on, and didn't put our hands in each other's
clothes. I didn't put my hands between his legs or vice versa. Now, does
this sound like a sick person to you?
However, I now realize that the only proper places to touch a child are the
hands, head, back, and shoulders. Anything more than that would excite me so
much that I'd try to get similar affection from other kids, with varying
results for the reasons that you'd mentioned. I'd even prefer for kids to
stand on either chairs or stairs so that I may kiss and hug them without
lifting them. My heart is in the right place, and I want to do what's best
for kids.
I still believe that all kids, especially those who get bullied, should
learn how to pick people up with their feet, though I already agree that
this is their parents' decision rather than mine. This would apply only if
the kids practice with someone emotionally closer and lighter than I am.
Otherwise, I'll try very hard to take my own advice because I'd really
rather respect the kids, and get along with them for many years to come.
I'll practice being appropriate with my cousin in January. Afterwards, I
don't expect any more problems with any kids.
ERIC
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:30:35 -0700, "Ray Da Capo" <he...@there.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello Eric:
> >
> >You don't know me, and you haven't asked for my advice. But it's the
> >nature of Usenet that everybody and anybody jumps in on whatever
> >thread interests them, so I hope you don't mind too much if I direct
> >this post to you.
> >
> >I want to reply generally to your posts rather than comment about
> >anything specific you have written. I notice you are attracting the
> >attention of several people who are convinced you are sick and need
> >professional help. They might be right, but I don't think so.
>
>
It is to a limited extent because I'm in therapy only once weekly
> >Nothing you have written anyway justifies such hasty conclusions. But
> >you do sound like you are confused about your sexual feelings, and are
> >searching for some answers about the conflict between your body and
> >your mind. Your search is a Good Thing, and I'm confident you will
> >find the answers you seek. I would like to make only one small
>
> actually carry out all of them. Sexual desires can be for right or
> wrong actions, but they don't just go away if you want them to.
>
Unfortunately, I've apparently tried to repeat my great experience with some
other kids I've known for years and even 1 I'd met for the 1st time, with
mixed results. Without a girlfriend I'm quite lonely. I really don't want
any kids to get scared or mad at me for any reason. I'd rather see them grow
up. I'd never intentionally harm a child, but I'd made the mistake of merely
talking to and emailing some of these kids and their parents to discuss my
boundaries with the kids. I'd somewhat damaged my relationship with some
people I care about, even though nothing had actually physically happened. 1
of these people is my father's friend for several decades! I'm really sorry
that I'd talked to them because I was probably somewhat misunderstood. I
believe that the 1st step in healing myself will be by respecting my
cousin's body when I'll see him again in January. Then, I'll feel more
confident that I can respect other kids, particularly the daughter of my
father's friend of several decades. Meanwhile, I should try very hard to
avoid both porn and further contact with them.
> >suggestion, one that I hope you will think about seriously. My
> >suggestion is this: until you figure it out, avoid physical intimacy
> >with children much younger than yourself. They know nothing of your
>
> sexuality, it's best not to when one or the other has any emotional
> hang-ups regarding it. You don't even seem sure where *you* believe
> the line should be drawn. You need to figure out what you believe
> before you do anything with any kids.
>
> >confusion and can't help you much with it. But your confusion will
>
> act, the child is likely to feel that what's going on is wrong making
> it harmful to them.
>
> >confuse them. And any physical intimacy with them will only make you
> >more confused and your search more difficult. It doesn't matter if
> >it's innocent or sexual. It doesn't matter if it's deliberate or
> >accidental. It doesn't matter if they do it or you do it. It doesn't
> >even matter if they ask for it. It only matters that such things will
> >keep you from finding the answers you have to have in order to take
> >control of your life.
>
>
>
>
>
ERIC
someone heavier unless he/she knows from some weight training that it's
possible to lift that much. Therefore, I agree that I was mistaken to even
suggest it, despite how much fun it was for me with my mother's friend's
son! If someone has been working out, then that person would know what
he/she is capable of. Otherwise, it's quite inappropriate to even try! After
all, I don't want to be responsible for someone needing treatment from a
chiropractor. Therefore, I regret recently making that suggestion to anyone.
Perhaps I'd reacted more to emotion, rather than logic.
"ERIC" <ek...@obongo.com> wrote in message
news:fgvQ5.114912$td5.17...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Stan Rothwell
> >This seems to be on topic for this newsgroup because young people
sometimes
> >feel powerless when they're with authority figures. Therefore, when a
> >heavier, older person lets himself temporarily be physically controlled
in a
> >way that the child had previously thought he/she was too weak to possibly
do
> >so, the child may feel somewhat of a sense of empowerment and self
esteem.
> >I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.
>
No shit.... :Oo
> >By the way, though I'd sometimes like to feel someone or something tough
my
> >genitals, I'm not a pedosexual because I don't like to see the genitals
of
>
> I just told you what a lot of people would think after reading/hearing
> what you posted.
And you're being charitable...
>
> >other guys, and I don't want to touch them between their legs. Similarly,
I
> >wouldn't dare ask a minor to use his/her hand to touch me between my
legs,
> >though I'm not sure if I'd mind if a child [probably a teenager]
voluntarily
> >does so. I also haven't had or am interested in having [or giving] a blow
> >job. However, I've always enjoyed gently lifting people and being lifted
in
> >swimming pools, though I rarely have a chance to swim. I also like being
> >tickled by kids, providing that I'd already be lying down. I'm sorry
about
> >the misunderstanding. Does Dorothy or Free Spirit have anything to add?
Nick, if you're thinking what I'm thinking,
I wouldn't trust this guy hanging around
the neighborhood playground... :O|
Stan Rothwell
> You are a weirdo. I really can't think of a better term.
Pervert?
Stan Rothwell
> I believe that I'm more lonely than weird.
If anyone out there is wondering what the commotion
is, it's the red lights and warning horn. Dude, get
yourself to a psychiatrist as soon as possible, and
stay away from small children.
Stan Rothwell
news:uto11tcb515pld6unioem588lfj43so3f8@canttouchthis...
> My suggestion is this: until you figure it out, avoid physical intimacy
> with children much younger than yourself.
I don't believe what I just read here! #:O0
ARE YOU KIDDING, OR JUST TRYING TO
BE NICE TO THIS GUY?
How about telling him to AVOID ANY TYPE
OF INTIMACY WITH ANY CHILDREN,
ANYTIME, ANYWHERE?
Jesus Christ, Ray! I'm sure you were trying to
say the right thing, but leaving ANYTHING
ambiguous in the minds of these types of people
is to them an indication that it's OK!!!
Can you say "Child Molester"?
Stan Rothwell
"ERIC" <ek...@obongo.com> wrote
Stan Rothwell
"Nick" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
> I have to agree here too. While I have no problem with adult/child
> sexuality
I do. Sexual relations with children is wrong.
Now whether the "age of consent" should be 17, 18, 19
may be a gray area, but if we're talking young teens or
earlier, it's not even debatable.
Do yourself a favor, and don't do anything to
encourage this Eric guy whatsoever... :Oo
Witt
> OF INTIMACY WITH ANY CHILDREN,
> ANYTIME, ANYWHERE?
Of course, so should parents, and close family, because statistically, they
are much
more likely to be child abusers than complete strangers.
> Jesus Christ, Ray! I'm sure you were trying to
> say the right thing, but leaving ANYTHING
> ambiguous in the minds of these types of people
> is to them an indication that it's OK!!!
I'd love to know what experience you have of "these types of people"
in any professional capacity, be it clinical, psychological or other
professional
involvement I've spent many years studying the motivations of "these people"
and the reasons for them. What I haven't done is believed much of what I've
read in the
tabloid press. I've had to deal witrh ambiguities, and, to be honest, people
with your
point of view seem to me to be much readier to exploit those ambiguities
than those
you would label as "child molesters".
> Can you say "Child Molester"?
Of course you can, but that label (and it's a pretty powerful social tool,
albeit very misused),
is of limited application. You seem to be confusing fantasy with action
here.
Many people who find children sexually attractive (and it's more than you'd
think possible)
do nothing practical about it. Paedophiles, properly defined, do not need to
reify their
desires, and you should not confuse or conflate paedophiles with child
molesters. They are not necessarily the same thing, although there may be
some overlap.
WItt
Stan Rothwell
"Witt" <puc...@turan.com> wrote in message
news:974607230.22514.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > How about telling him to AVOID ANY TYPE
> > OF INTIMACY WITH ANY CHILDREN,
> > ANYTIME, ANYWHERE?
>
> Of course, so should parents, and close family, because statistically,
they
> are much more likely to be child abusers than complete strangers.
Have you actually read this guys posts, dude?
Forget the boilerplate platitudes and THINK
for a minute. :Oo
>
> > Jesus Christ, Ray! I'm sure you were trying to
> > say the right thing, but leaving ANYTHING
> > ambiguous in the minds of these types of people
> > is to them an indication that it's OK!!!
>
> I'd love to know what experience you have of "these types of people"
> in any professional capacity, be it clinical, psychological or other
> professional
> involvement I've spent many years studying the motivations of "these
people"
> and the reasons for them. What I haven't done is believed much of what
I've
> read in the
> tabloid press. I've had to deal witrh ambiguities, and, to be honest,
people
> with your
> point of view seem to me to be much readier to exploit those ambiguities
> than those
> you would label as "child molesters".
You're an idiot. This guy talks about his sexual feelings
and desires to be with young children. He talks about
how he can have so much trust and power with kids.
He talks about how he can't have such a relationship
with adults. WAKE UP!
> > Can you say "Child Molester"?
>
> Of course you can, but that label (and it's a pretty powerful social tool,
> albeit very misused),
> is of limited application. You seem to be confusing fantasy with action
> here.
> Many people who find children sexually attractive (and it's more than
you'd
> think possible)
> do nothing practical about it. Paedophiles, properly defined, do not need
to
> reify their
> desires, and you should not confuse or conflate paedophiles with child
> molesters. They are not necessarily the same thing, although there may be
> some overlap.
No wonder the nutcases run amok these days.
Witt
> > sexuality
>
> I do. Sexual relations with children is wrong.
I'll pass over the grammatical confusion here between the singular and the
plural, because I believe that what you think you are saying is not only
what you
believe to be the case, but also is the conventional wisdom.
I've never believed in the conventional wisdom, largely because it's a
product of
vested interests, doesn't question itself, and resists attempts to questions
itself from
outside.
However, the major problem to be considered here is what you mean by "sexual
relations"
and what you mean by "children", and I think you might find that considering
either in detail
is a lot more complex than you imagine. You tacitly admit this below,
partly, when you consider that age of consent.
Dealing first with "sexual relations". You don't define this term, and it
could therefore range from
full penetrative intercourse right down to kissing and cuddling, or beyond
that to "seductive chat".
Again, "child" varies from culture to culture and across time as well; what
you define as a child
may be neither universal nor relevant. I think I know what you mean, but
unless you are more
specific, you are not being helpful to the debate.
This is unhelpful, because you seem to rely on the juxtaposition of "sex"
and "child" as being enough to prove your point. To the ignorant, who have
no appreciation of history, culture, art, or anthropology,
I suppose you've made your case out; however, those of us who have made a
lifetime's study of
bothering to find out the facts, it's not good enough.
To close this section, there is a wealth of research material which
concludes that (to put it in your
crude terms) "sexual relations" between adults and "children" is (and I
cannot emphasis this enough)
NOT NECESSARILY HARMFUL.
This research can be criticised on grounds of, e.g. vested interest, in a
few cases, but overall is
methodologically more sound than research which assumes, and ostensibly
demonstrates the
contrary position.
>
> Now whether the "age of consent" should be 17, 18, 19
> may be a gray area, but if we're talking young teens or
> earlier, it's not even debatable.
Here you are plainly incorrect. The age of consent in Spain and Malta for
full sexual relations is 14 - "young teens", I think you'd call them. So
it's
legal. How is that debatable? Are you going to take on the Governments of
these countries and tell them they're wrong? I doubt it.
As to "or earlier", many countries do not criminalise sexual behaviour with
minors which falls short of penetrative sex. Even in the UK, it's perfectly
legal for
a 13 year old girl (but not a boy) to perform oral sex upon me.
> Do yourself a favor, and don't do anything to
> encourage this Eric guy whatsoever... :Oo
Perhaps so, but some facts would be welcome.
What he wants to do and what he can do with impunity
are two different things. If he breaks the rules, then he will
pay the price, however stupid the rules are.
Unfortunately, it seems to be people like you who make these rules;
I just wish you knew what you were talking about. Knee jerk reactions
have no place here.
Witt
ERIC
"footnote [*]" <he...@there.com> wrote in message
news:tqeh1t0sv7fsca4je3mr9aup79amdt22f0@canttouchthis...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:41:09 -0500, "Stan Rothwell"
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ray Da Capo" <he...@there.com> wrote in message
> >news:uto11tcb515pld6unioem588lfj43so3f8@canttouchthis...
> >
> >> with children much younger than yourself.
> >
>
> >BE NICE TO THIS GUY?
>
>
Thank you.
>
> It seems to me Eric is describing an internal conflict and how he is
> trying to come to terms with it. All the hysterical name-calling in
> the world isn't going to stop him from doing anything. Do you really
> think you can convince anybody of anything that way?
I have somewhat of an internal conflict. I'd suggested flying to see my
aunt, uncle, and cousin before I'd even realized my problem. Technically, I
didn't molest my young cousin, partly because we were both dressed [except
for shoes] the whole time, I'd only touched his skin where I already saw it,
and I'd never touched him between the legs with my hands. We'd both loved it
and bonded somewhat. Unfortunately, I believe that I became somewhat of a
big kid and a pervert in the Spring of 1999 because I'd been somewhat
inappropriate with a few other kids since then. In fact, I didn't even
realize what the problem was until I'd discovered the child porn.
Then, I'd felt somewhat embarrassed, scared, and ashamed. In fact, besides
my parents and therapist, I'd made the mistake of alienating myself from the
parents of 2 kids by warning them about me. 1 of them has been my father's
friend for 4 decades. Another 1 is my uncle. I may be somewhat of a pervert,
but I care too much about these kids to make them feel uncomfortable around
me. I'd figured that warning others before anything would go too far would
be the lesser of 2 evils. Then, I'd misplaced some of my self confidence.
However, I believe that I'll redeem myself by being appropriate with my
cousin in January. In my heart, I know that I'm not a child molester, at
least not intentionally. I now know not to let a child either get on top of
me or sit on me because I'd enjoy it too much and may make mistakes with
others.
I'd already said why I now believe that suggesting to someone lighter than I
to lift me with his/her feet would be a mistake. Therefore, unless someone
else reminds me about it, it's no longer an issue. Besides, it had happened
over a decade ago, anyway.
By the way, my own mother had introduced me to buoyancy in water. However,
I'm responsible for everything else.
I've been talking to a social worker and showing her some emails and
newsgroup messages. I'm realizing that the best ways to show kids that I
care about them is through appropriate conversations [no sex], rather than
excess affection. I'll practice this when I'll see them.
I was appropriate with my sister's nephew [who did cartwheels] over 3 years
ago. In fact, when we'd shared a meal together, he was more interested in
talking to me than he was in eating his meal! And I'd thought that I was a
motor mouth! However, since he wouldn't remember me today, I already know
that I'll be appropriate with him. I'll mention what I'd remember. Then, if
he'll come to me, I'd just kiss his cheeks and gently hug him. That would be
all.
Maybe the kids are fortunate that they either live in different states, or I
just have the phone number. Regardless, others decide when we may see each
other.
Laurence Taylor
roth...@ix.netcom.com "Stan Rothwell" writes:
-> I do. Sexual relations with children is wrong.
With children by whom? When in someone's life should they be permitted
to become intimate with their friend?
-> Now whether the "age of consent" should be 17, 18, 19
-> may be a gray area, but if we're talking young teens or
-> earlier, it's not even debatable.
Why not? If those young people wish to be sexually active, why do you
wish to prevent them?
rgds
LAurence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HATE is not a Family Value
===================================================================
->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
Stan Rothwell
"Laurence Taylor" <laur...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:974908...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8v7eig$ddp$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
> roth...@ix.netcom.com "Stan Rothwell" writes:
>
> -> I do. Sexual relations with children is wrong.
>
> With children by whom? When in someone's life should they be permitted
> to become intimate with their friend?
When both parties are of legal age might be a good idea...
>
> -> Now whether the "age of consent" should be 17, 18, 19
> -> may be a gray area, but if we're talking young teens or
> -> earlier, it's not even debatable.
>
> Why not? If those young people wish to be sexually active, why do you
> wish to prevent them?
I can't PREVENT young people from doing such, but we CAN
prosecute adults who have sex with children.
Laurence Taylor
roth...@ix.netcom.com "Stan Rothwell" writes:
-> > With children by whom? When in someone's life should they be permitted
-> > to become intimate with their friend?
->
-> When both parties are of legal age might be a good idea...
Fine, permit them when they're allowed to. "Legal age" is a variable
arbitrary figure. You said "children" should not be allowed to have
sex. How do you define a "child" for this purpose? How do you decide
that Mary shouild be allowed to become intimate, but Fred should not,
or vice versa?
-> > -> Now whether the "age of consent" should be 17, 18, 19
-> > -> may be a gray area, but if we're talking young teens or
-> > -> earlier, it's not even debatable.
-> >
-> > Why not? If those young people wish to be sexually active, why do you
-> > wish to prevent them?
->
-> I can't PREVENT young people from doing such,
No, you can't, but you'd like to. Why?
but we CAN
-> prosecute adults who have sex with children.
Again, why? Define "adult" and "child". (For that matter, dfine
"sex"). When should two people who wish to do so be forbidden from
becoming intimate, and at whet point should they be permitted? And why
prosecute only one party for what both willingly engaged in?
NM
kids won't you Lawrence? Sorry its abnormal to the point of illness.
Get some help. Kids don't want adults for sex and don't get
trapped/tricked into it without an adult's manipulation.
You'll never have your wish to have adult/child sex legalized or
legitimized.
NM
Secret Squirrel
>You'll say anything to normalize or legitimize sex between adults and
>kids won't you Lawrence? Sorry its abnormal to the point of illness.
>Get some help. Kids don't want adults for sex and don't get
>trapped/tricked into it without an adult's manipulation.
>
>You'll never have your wish to have adult/child sex legalized or
>legitimized.
>
>NM
NM saying in the 1840s to William Lloyd Garrison: "You'll never
never have your wish to have slavery abolished"...
NM
In 1840 I wold have been militating against the *peculiar institution*
as well as those who wish to visit their aberrant (perverse?) fantasies
upon our children. What a ridiculous strawman to try to equate slavery
with prohibition of child molestation.
Do keep trying Squirrel I can see why you have to be secret. Now, care
to comment cogently rather than draw inappropriate historical parallels
and obfuscate the contention? If you disagree, state the reasons.
"You'll never have your wish to have adult/child sex legalized or
legitimized."
NM
Squirrel wins the stupidest attempted parallel. Equating abolitionism
with approval of adult/child sex.
Laurence Taylor
-> You'll say anything to normalize or legitimize sex between adults and
-> kids won't you Lawrence?
Really? Will I? What, anything? How do you define "adults", "kids",
and "sex"? Why not respond to my questions? (And please spell my name
right).
-> Get some help. Kids don't want adults for sex and don't get
-> trapped/tricked into it without an adult's manipulation.
The facts prove otherwise. Many "children" do indeed want adults for
sex. I know someone who, at the age of twelve, actively set out to
seduce adults. I'm not saying all young people are attracted to older,
but a sizable proportion certainly are.
Secret Squirrel
>Equating adult/child sex to to abolitionism is laughable at best.
>
>In 1840 I wold have been militating against the *peculiar institution*
Would you? How do you know? You seem pretty much
committed to defending the status quo--an unquestioning,
unreasoning defense of the status quo.
Mind you, if you were raised in the South (or in the North,
for that matter) you would have been conditioned to accept
African-American slavery and "inferiority" as being part
the natural order of things---just as you now "know" that
"adult"-"child" (both concepts that vary from culture to
culture) sexual relationships are "obviously" wrong and
harmful.
So how do you know that? Some humility, please.
It's easy to be wholeheartedly on the side of yesterday's
victims and to rage against the oppressors of yesteryear.
But that wins you no moral laurels. Ethical people fight
for the victims of *today*, and fight against the wrongs
of today. And those despised "pedosexuals" and their
"victims" are the real "niggers" and "nigger-lovers" of the
year 2000.
>as well as those who wish to visit their aberrant (perverse?) fantasies
>upon our children.
Aberrant? How? Why?
Why are human children capable of sexual activity and
capable of orgasms, well before they are able to procreate?
Did nature make a mistake? Are you aware of the sexual
activity among bonobo chimpazees--perhaps our closest
relatives, and the primates which most resemble us sexually--
includes adult-juvenile sexual activity? And *why* bonobo sexuality
is believed to be the way that it is?
And what about the cultures which not only tolerated
"adult"-"child" sexual activity, but actively encouraged
it or even made it mandatory for all youths?
Are bonobo chimps and other human cultures "aberrant"
and "perverse" for doing this?
>What a ridiculous strawman to try to equate slavery
>with prohibition of child molestation.
That's for you to demonstrate. Saying so doesn't
make it so.
In a truly free society someone who wants to place
restrictions on the behavior of others much show,
using criteria which can be reasonably defined as
"objective", that said activity is harmful. Slavery
can be demonstrated to be harmful by such criteria.
The "proofs" which are usually given that adult-child sexual
relationships are harmful fail this test.
>Do keep trying Squirrel I can see why you have to be secret.
Know what a remailer is?
>Now, care
>to comment cogently rather than draw inappropriate historical parallels
>and obfuscate the contention? If you disagree, state the reasons.
I'm not drawing an "inappropriate" historical parallel, and
the "contention" I'm drawing is not "obfuscated" in any
way.
Abolitionists were hated and despised, as well as African-
Americans, throughout most of the 19th century before
the Civil War. And that was true in the North as well as
the South. You know, like pedosexuals?
You predicted to Laurence Taylor:
"You'll never have your wish to have adult/child sex legalized or
legitimized."
That statement, proclaimed by a defender of slavery to
an abolitionist in 1840 would have rung "just as true".
Yet it was wrong--in 25 years slavery was officially
abolished in the US.
If you know anything about history, you should be more
careful in making such predictions.
Finally, I suspect that your response that my (short)
response drew was because I hit close to the mark.
I predict that think of yourself as being "enlightened" and
"progressive", but in reality on this subject you're just
as unquestioning and reactionary and repressive as those
slaveowners of yesteryear that you castigate.
ERIC
my young cousin and I wore shorts when he'd bounced on me. Therefore, I
believe that there was only affection. I'd never touched them between the
legs. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I'd probably treated them like
they were the younger brothers that I never had.
"Secret Squirrel" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:33149dda10b7a573...@anonymous.poster...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:22:08 GMT NM <a...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Equating adult/child sex to abolitionism is laughable at best.
> >
> >In 1840 I would have been militating against the *peculiar institution*
>
> Would you? How do you know? You seem pretty much
> committed to defending the status quo--an unquestioning,
> unreasoning defense of the status quo.
>
> Mind you, if you were raised in the South (or in the North,
> for that matter) you would have been conditioned to accept
> African-American slavery and "inferiority" as being part
> the natural order of things---just as you now "know" that
> "adult"-"child" (both concepts that vary from culture to
> culture) sexual relationships are "obviously" wrong and
> harmful.
>
> So how do you know that? Some humility, please.
>
> It's easy to be wholeheartedly on the side of yesterday's
> victims and to rage against the oppressors of yesteryear.
> But that wins you no moral laurels. Ethical people fight
> for the victims of *today*, and fight against the wrongs
> of today. And those despised "pedosexuals" and their
> "victims" are the real "niggers" and "nigger-lovers" of the
> year 2000.
>
> >as well as those who wish to visit their aberrant (perverse?) fantasies
> >upon our children.
>
> Aberrant? How? Why?
>
> Why are human children capable of sexual activity and
> capable of orgasms, well before they are able to procreate?
> Did nature make a mistake? Are you aware of the sexual
> activity among bonobo chimpanzees--perhaps our closest
Secret Squirrel
>Look, I wore pants when a former boy had lifted me with his feet. Also, both
>my young cousin and I wore shorts when he'd bounced on me. Therefore, I
>believe that there was only affection. I'd never touched them between the
>legs. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I'd probably treated them like
>they were the younger brothers that I never had.
Which was really the way I saw it, too. My responses are directed
to the ones who went well-nigh hysterical over your post. Sorry if
there was any misunderstanding there, too.