How to Stop Child Sex Murders
mant...@my-deja.com
adult sex. The children are being murdered so that they cannot identify
the perpetrators. If child-adult sex were legalized, there would be no
more reason for such people to murder them.
We can never eliminate all murders, but we can make small changes
that will help bit by bit.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
case_...@my-deja.com
mant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Child-sex murders can be significantly reduced by legalizing child-
> adult sex. The children are being murdered so that they cannot
identify
> the perpetrators. If child-adult sex were legalized, there would be
no
> more reason for such people to murder them.
> We can never eliminate all murders, but we can make small changes
> that will help bit by bit.
>
Well...................
Try to get your doctor to increase your medication. Also you have the
wrong forum you need a paedophilia site. These people should be put to
torture in various gruesome ways. And then killed.
case_white
Aragorn
Help WHOM ?! Children are NOT ready for sexual relationships yet. Let
them play with their peers to discover things, yeah, but adults have
to KEEP THEIR HANDS of children. There is ALWAYS an unbalance between
two such parties. What children get into the hands of pedophiles?
Neglected children, those who don't fit in with their peers, children
craving for attention these deceivers give them - for THEIR own sexual
pleasures, not of the children. Real child-loving pedophiles keep away
from children! Goddamn mantikkon, if you said this standing right
before me, I'd have shot you on the spot. What are you, a
4-year-old-child's penis sucker yourself? Go castrate yourself, rotten
piece of SHIT !! If MURDER was legalized, there would be NO MORE
MURDERERS, right? Can't wait for THAT day!
A
<mant...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
88ouas$e85$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
cognitivelingis
The best way to stop child murders is to legalize the euthansia of pedophiles.
This would provide the world with a ready supply of transportable organs for
the diseased and eliminate some undesirables. Another added benefit is that
many of the catholic priests/fundie ministers that are so troublesome would no
longer create problems.
Regards
Ludvig Prinn
>adult sex.
And grand theft auto cases can be significantly reduced by legalizing auto
theft. I somehow suspect that the victims of *this* legislation will not enjoy
it either.
_____________________________________
"Trauma is the engine of Initiation" - Lud
"You are a sickening, twisted THING - NOT a person, NOT HUMAN!"--Metadromos
Ludvig Prinn
Worker of Miracles
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ThunderRoad
Fax: (707) 924-8774
Paul Murray
news:20000220140603...@ng-bj1.aol.com
> The best way to stop child murders is to legalize the euthansia of
pedophiles.
<Applause>
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
ShivaGirl
physically "gutting 'em off, but through some sort of injection that
rendered them impotent)
Has anyone heard anything new about that?
--
www.sirenproductions.com
ShivaGirl
<mant...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:88ouas$e85$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Child-sex murders can be significantly reduced by legalizing child-
> adult sex. The children are being murdered so that they cannot identify
> the perpetrators. If child-adult sex were legalized, there would be no
> more reason for such people to murder them.
> We can never eliminate all murders, but we can make small changes
> that will help bit by bit.
>
>
SVsite
them "chemically" castrated. FUCK THAT! MORE waste of MY goddammed
tax dollars. SHOOT THEM!
OH, the logic of the original post. I.. well.. I lost my language!
Quite an accomplishment. Had to wait 15 minutes before I could post.
Of all the utterly STUPID.... UGH. Legalize it so it won't be a
crime? EH? Legalize murder why don't we, and thefttoo, theft will no
longer be theft in a society of thieves, right?
I have a Ph.D. from Screw U. I say SHOOT THEM. A woman once put her
hands IN my neice who was 6. That woman found her head thru a car
window. Justice. Next? Taught my neice how to KILL and use legal
weapons like safety pins and darning needles, aim for eyes. How to
FIGHT. How to kick fight. Teach kids self defense.
TJ
n article <v10s4.6026$04.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
Aragorn
Malcolm, a 46-year old pedophile, twice convicted for childrape, was
shot with one bullet in the head last week when he opened his door for
two unknown men. His execution is supposed to have been the work of
professional hitmen and was applauded by the people of the
neighbourhood he lived in and "the gutter press".
Unfortunately, other known pedophiles have gotten extra guard by
British police.
HAIL THESE HITMEN AND THOSE WHO HIRED THEM!!! Let they be an example!
Aragorn
ShivaGirl
is, even if they were sentenced to death it would take YEARS for the states
to get around to executing them. (talk about a waste of tax dollars.)
I'd like to see them being turned over to the families of their victims, as
I understand they do in some mid-east countries (and probably others). But
the USA is very "sensitive" and it's people need to be shielded. (Not my
opinion, but a common one I've seen in many writings about this issue.)
We look for humane ways of execution, and it takes forever to get around to
carrying them out. And half of our methods of dispatching criminals are
designed so no one knows who actually killed the criminal...thus clearing
conscience. (the "blank" in a firing squad, the "dummy" IV tube, etc...)
Until the USA starts getting more serious about its justice system, people
like child-molesters and rapists are going to continue. Sad thing is,
vigilantes who get caught trying to avenge their own often end up getting
worse treatment than the original criminals.
Teach kids self defense. Good idea. Just be sure to teach them what
situations merit the use of physical violence.
One of my young neices is going through self-defense instruction. I caught
her trying to karate-chop my Husky for "practice". I had to explain to her
that if she "practices" hitting him, he will "practice" biting her.
What is the ideal age for kids to start learning martial arts anyway?
--
www.sirenproductions.com
ShivaGirl
"SVsite" <tanija...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88qquo$kjp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
~Missy.
executed where there is irrefutable evidence leading to their
conviction. Those whose guilt is questionable should be incarcerated
untill they are proven innocent. In a properly Satanic society, the
legal system would function smoothly, and those who are incarcerated
would earn their own keep through forced labor. Give them all the
crappy jobs no one else wants to do. They would also be responsable
for preparing their own meals and laundry, ...
Children raised in proper Satanic environments are educated in sexual
matters as soon as they are old enough to express interest in the
issue. When a child is raised in a healthy, unrepressive environment,
he begins to ask questions about sex nearly as soon as his language
capabilities allow it. As long as all the child's curiousities (in
all topics) are adressed in an unbiassed (balanced) way, the child
will learn to rely on his innate instincts and therefore will no
longer remain vulnerable to predatorial adults. A child in full
posession of "animal" instincts (a challenge to raise in current
society), would never place himself in the type of situation which
causes the above-mentioned crimes to occur.
The basic problem adressed in most of the posts here lies in "what to
do with the remnants of current societal problems during conversion to
Satanic standards". Generally, when adjusting to change on a small
scale (smaller scale being a good model for larger scale conversions,
as it helps to encourage a balanced perspective and full grasp of
proportions), one will find that in introducing changes gradually, the
whole process is more easily accepted.
Concerning the volume of verbal abuse on this n.g., I might add that
as Satanists, we might find chanelling the agression into ritual or
other fruitfull avenues to be a better use of valuable Satanic energy.
Psychic vampires abound in this medium, and arguing with them has
proven to be most draining to me as well... Perhaps ignoring them and
letting them stew in their own juices will do them more harm than
lowering ourselves to their dispicable level (which is what they
want...) ever can.
Satanist ‚ shit disturbing asshole
~Missy.
Paul Murray
news:sb3627a...@corp.supernews.com...
> Murderers and sex offenders and other perversions of nature should be
> executed where there is irrefutable evidence leading to their
> conviction. Those whose guilt is questionable should be incarcerated
> untill they are proven innocent. In a properly Satanic society, the
> legal system would function smoothly, and those who are incarcerated
> would earn their own keep through forced labor. Give them all the
I understand that the french respect and trust their legal system far more
than the americans do theirs. Much of it is totally different.
Rev. Unisex
Fuel the flames
Nadonski
mant...@my-deja.com
same trap that Xtians are: they cannot yet see the true nature of
children. If we gave children open information about sexuality, then
let them decide for themselves if they wanted to have sexual contact
with whomever they wanted, they would decide in some cases to have it
with adults of any and all ages, as well as other children. LaVey
states that the main principle of his church is that people are carnal
beings. So we can recognize that children are people and that they too
have carnal, i.e., sexual feelings. No evidence has ever been found to
prove that sexuality itself harms anyone ever. What harms not only
children but adults in sex crimes is force, trickery, and intimidation.
And of course murder. But sexuality and other non-harmful acts should
not be criminalized. Until we learn this we will keep producing
murderers and mentally ill people in our midst, then telling ourselves
that the cure is the same thing that causes the disease in the first
place.
~Missy.
wrote:
----------snip-----------
But sexuality and other non-harmful acts should
not be criminalized. Until we learn this we will keep producing
murderers and mentally ill people in our midst, then telling ourselves
that the cure is the same thing that causes the disease in the first
place.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Childrens' minds and bodies are unripe for sex acts. In children,
curiousity about one's body is not sexual, but sensual in nature.
When you touch a child as you would a sexual peer, you do irreversible
damage to that child's mental and spiritual health. It is blasphemy!
It is a parent's job to protect his/her children from sick people who
would impose their sexuality on children. I would slit your throat if
you went anywhere near my children.
~Missy.
eyebix
Satan think of child molesters? I mean, if Satan were to
actually manifest and you could ask him his opinion of
these "people", what do you think might be his response?
Frankly, I think pedophiles can not be cured and will always be
a threat to children so the death penalty or absolute life in
prison is required.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
cognitivelingis
While it may be true that Doktor LaVey celebrates the fact that we are carnal
beings, he has never suggested that we break the law. Child exploitation is
illegal -- at least in the USA.
> LaVey
>states that the main principle of his church is that people are carnal
>beings.
Given your sordid (and quite illogical) defense of pederasty, I find your
assertion that you have any knowledge of the "true nature of children"
completely mendatious.
>You made a thoughtful response. The other posters are caught in the
>same trap that Xtians are: they cannot yet see the true nature of
>children.
It's seems akin to Lincoln Rockwell defending the rights of blacks or jews.
You merely desire to exploit children for some perverse purient release and
have no interest in the mental state of minors.
The dual problems of mental illness and violence in society have already been
oversimplified by professionals with more intellectual heft than you can ever
fathom. These are incredibly complex issues that scientists are finding have a
more of a biological than social cause.
Please, leave your posts to the "Nambla" site.
Regards,
Harry Lime
Aragorn
<mant...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
88ubab$37q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> they cannot yet see the true nature of
then
> let them decide for themselves if they wanted to have sexual contact
> with whomever they wanted, they would decide in some cases to have
it
> with adults of any and all ages, as well as other children.
Now I'm dead sure that you are a pedophile yourself, mantikkon, for
this is EXACTLY the kind of reasoning they have been using for decades
now to justify their lack of self-control, and deny the damage they
do. "But the children want it, too! Children are sexual beings from
birth on! You DEPRIVE them of their sexuality, bastards!"
There have been PLENTY studies into the sexual behaviour of children,
child-adult relationships and the effects of these on children at
later age. READ THEM, as supplements to your childporn and
pedo-magazines.
Children have an awareness and curiousity about their bodies and learn
about their body in a natural playfull way [unless ofcourse the
parents suppress this natural development]. They may also have a
curiousity about the bodies of adults and will develop the same for
sex. No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked in the
house and have sex in front of his children or involve his children in
adult sex - children would be extremely embarrassed and rather be
traumatized than enlightened. They are learning how to swim in the
shallow end. What people like you want to do, is throw the most
vulnerable ones in the deep end and be their saving water ring. With
subtle manipulation and plain bribery you manoevre them into a sick
kind of "relationship" that's TOTALLY out of balance.
Maybe you was thinking that on a satanic newsgroup you'd be applauded
for your message. You fell into the same trap as the christians: you
expect to find some reversed christians in here with a totally lawless
attitude. Why yes, we are animals. How many kinds of animals mate with
juveniles of their kind? Life in a Satanic society would not be hard
for your kind at all. It would be extremely short.
Aragorn
Delila
>
>
>No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked in the
> house
Nothing wrong with letting your child see you naked in a casual way.
You're from the Netherlands? I thought people were more enlightened then
that there. I agree with every thing else, though.
Delila
Spectre&TheBeatCat
Delila wrote:
What I see with the problem some people think of with children and nudity is
nothing but personal embarrassment and inhibitions being forced upon the
child. There is nothing wrong with nudity, and there is nothing wrong with
raising a child comfortable being nude and around others who are nude. Sex
and nudity are far too often associated with each other. What about tribal
communities who do not suffer from embarrassment? I doubt they are having
big orgies everyday just because they are not clothed. My husband and I
will be raising our children with 'unclothed sessions' included, as well as
talking very openly about sex and sexuality. I do not expect to end up with
sex crazed children, but children who view sex as a healthy part of life,
and their own bodies without shame or disgust.
--
Spectre
FREEDOM PHOTOGRAPHY
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/degas/501
Live Dangerously, Love Passionately
The Influence of Satan
http://www2.crosswinds.net/niagara/~beatcat
Essays, thoughts, and recipes!
"ARBEIT MACHT FREI"
Mark Gerard Miller
> adult sex. The children are being murdered so that they cannot
identify
> the perpetrators. If child-adult sex were legalized, there would be
no
> more reason for such people to murder them.
> We can never eliminate all murders, but we can make small changes
> that will help bit by bit.
>
Yes, and just think, we could eliminate racism and prejudice by killing
all who are different from us.
Mark
Aragorn
Delila <bre...@gateway.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
38B3FC41...@gateway.net...
> Aragorn wrote:
> >
> >
> >No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked in the
> > house
>
>
> Nothing wrong with letting your child see you naked in a casual
way.
> You're from the Netherlands? I thought people were more enlightened
then
> that there. I agree with every thing else, though.
"No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked in the
house and have sex in front of his children or involve his children in
adult sex -"
One big mistake made about the Netherlands is that people are
"enlightened" here. NOT! But this aside.
The cue word is "casual". I meant : not in a provoking way. Not
deliberately because you have exhibisionistic tendencies. Not in
sexual situations. I don't think occasionaly seeing parents nude is
traumatising, but I have heard about a parental couple walking around
nude and having sex in front of their children [3, age between 3 and
9] as a rule - and that was most certainly not a healthy situation.
>
>
> Delila
Aragorn
Spectre&TheBeatCat <free...@sprint.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
38B41DAA...@sprint.ca...
> What I see with the problem some people think of with children and
nudity is
> nothing but personal embarrassment and inhibitions being forced upon
the
> child. There is nothing wrong with nudity, and there is nothing
wrong with
> raising a child comfortable being nude and around others who are
nude. Sex
> and nudity are far too often associated with each other. What about
tribal
> communities who do not suffer from embarrassment? I doubt they are
having
> big orgies everyday just because they are not clothed. My husband
and I
> will be raising our children with 'unclothed sessions' included, as
well as
> talking very openly about sex and sexuality. I do not expect to end
up with
> sex crazed children, but children who view sex as a healthy part of
life,
> and their own bodies without shame or disgust.
>
> --
> Spectre
Nothing wrong with it, but children do have a certain feeling of
embarrassment with their own parents having sex and/or walking around
nude, if not in a naturist camping or on the beach. I have never been
secret about sex and our bodies, but when I'm in the house, I'll have
at least basic clothing on.
SVsite
lived in communal setting. No locked doors on bathrooms and no one had
their own room. There is not one "shame bone" in my body. I don't
even know what "shame" is. I helped deliver my cousin's baby when I
was 9 years old - I walked in and the babe was half out of her, she was
yelling for help and no one else was there. This is INDEED like
primitives live and no, we never end up with perverted people or kinky
people or anything of that sort. It's NO big fucking deal. It's only
in this sick patriarchal RELIGIOUS dung heap society that SHAME kicks
in and people feel all this HOO LAA LAA over a lot of nothing. Take
other primates. Adult male chimps don't go around raping baby
females. Females go into ESTRUS which would be similar to
menstruation. THEN they are nubile and the hormones to mate come into
play. Meanwhile you got the Western xian culture (Jews included) with
all this shame bullshit and the Islamics covering up their faces.
What a lotta hooey over nothing. Children that have never been
subjected to that sickening "OOOOOOOO" when they are naked often run
outside the house bare assed naked. NO BIG DEAL. One BIG so what.
But hormones to FUCK don't kick in until just before puberty - and
that's the desire to HAVE SEX. Children (young ones) raised in open
societies ARE NOT curious - nothing to be curious about!
OOOOO oh my GOD, I just saw your ELBOW! I have to wonder what kind of
misshapen garbage first came up with the idea to cover it all up. I
can go to the beach down here and HA LOL every time. There is a shower
outside right near the damned street. You get these LOL people from
the xUSSR vacationing and sure enough, they proceed to get bare assed
naked to take the shower and SOMEONE has to tell them it's illegal.
They stand there, staring in wonderment. Illegal? Then why put a
shower here? Are they to shower with their clothes ON?
Then the inside showers. The older people have no problem with this,
taking a shower in the "lady's shower room" in the open. But the
younger people? ALL ASHAMED. They are even ashamed to take off their
tops when there are nothing but women in there. What are they ashamed
of?
Tani
In article <891852$gbo$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
Delila
> younger people? ALL ASHAMED. They are even ashamed to take off their
> tops when there are nothing but women in there. What are they ashamed
> of?
>
>
Tell me about it. Many women here wear a big T-shirt over their
bathing suit even in the water. Why?
I saw a documentary a few years ago on 60 minutes no less about people
from a part of the Soviet Union, who were all over weight, but they all
wore their bikinis and tight bathing pants and weren't self conscious at
all. I thought it was cool, the commentators were surprised but said it
was refreshing to see a people that were not slaves to any of those
silly norms for bodies that exist in the US.
Why is it that younger women are worse about that then older ones? I
would think that the older ones were brought up in a more repressive
environment.
Delila
Paul Murray
> states that the main principle of his church is that people are carnal
> have carnal, i.e., sexual feelings. No evidence has ever been found to
Carnal means 'bodily', not nessesarily 'sexual'. We are carnal in the sense
that we are construct of our body - there is no "soul". Yes, children are
carnal - eating, playing, shitting. This does not mean that pederastry is
justified.
Paul Murray
news:38B3FC41...@gateway.net...
> Aragorn wrote:
> >
> >
> >No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked in the
> > house
>
> Nothing wrong with letting your child see you naked in a casual way.
> You're from the Netherlands? I thought people were more enlightened then
> that there. I agree with every thing else, though.
>
Tsk tsk, Delilah. The full quote was this:
"They may also have a curiousity about the bodies of adults and will develop
the same for sex. No sane adult grasps this as a reason to walk around naked
in the house and have sex in front of his children or involve his children
in adult sex."
Nudity is fine, I suppose. There's some climates (eg: equatorial polynesia)
where it's pretty much inevitable. Displays of sexual arousal and passion
is, I think, possibly a different matter. Even if it isn't, it's quite a
ways different from "involving chilren in adult sex", which is the point
Aragorn was making.
juilz
Sex-offenders are often people with completely "twisted" sexual
desires that they choose to act on. It's not a matter of
subjectivity, but of violation. Fucking kids and dogs and
people against their will is WRONG. Rape and pedophilia should
definitely carry death sentences. I dunno about zoophilia,
unless maybe the animal is seriously harmed or traumatized.
Humans have a hard time executing eachother over "lower animals."
On that note, in Colorado they're trying to pass a law mandating
a 60 day minimum prison sentence for people who exhibit cruelty
to animals. Right now you can beat your animal to death (or
starve it, or spray paint it, or blow it up, etc) and you'll
find a lighter sentence than someone busted with more than an
ounce of pot. Cruelty should not be tolerated in any manner,
which is the point of the law -- people who beat dogs tend to
beat their wives and kids. Wifebeaters oughta be executed too.
The problem with these people is not their THOUGHTS but their
ACTIONS. I have been mad enough at my partner to think about
the IDEA of physically hitting them, but I don't -- the thought
disappears quickly and then I feel bad for thinking it in the
first place.
People who ACT on their violent thoughts need to be dealt with
violently. There should be no tolerance towards people who are
naturally abusive.
Here's a short article on the subject of rape..
Rape: Reprehensible as Instinct or Sickness
by Lord_H
With the release of a new book that claims rape may be a
biologically "ingrained" instinct among men, an uproar has risen
among feminists. The book goes as far as to state that women
who dress a certain way are more likely to be raped and advises
them against such practices.
So is rape an acquired psychological sickness or a
biological instinct? With humans, it's incredibly hard to
disseminate the two sources of behavior. The human brain is a
network of constantly-adapting neurons that begin learning
immediately at birth if not slightly before. It is very
difficult to say what is and isn't instinct, but the point is
not that instinctual rape is an acceptable behavior. Many women
see this book as offensive because it declares "rape is natural"
and thus they conclude the authors defend it at some level.
I highly doubt this. Their main line of reasoning is
simply that rape is the way many "reproductively unsuccessful"
men invade the gene pool. Men who otherwise simply wouldn't
"get any" force themselves upon women in the subconscious hope
that the women will become pregnant and bear their child. Many
cases of coercive sex in the "animal kingdom" (in which we truly
are a part) can be cited to support this claim. On average men
DO tend to acquire more upper-body muscle-mass, making it
physically possible for them to subdue a woman with ease. It
may not be that there is an instinct that says "if you can't get
laid, rape women," but it may simply be a derived solution to
the overwhelming instinct to self-replicate when one has no
other choice.
Does this make rape defensible? Of course not. Many
find the book offensive because it strays from the old idea that
"rape is not about sex, it's about power." I'd say it's more of
a combination of the two. The rapist may not be consciously
THINKING about pregnancy and carrying on his genetics during the
act, but this intent is behind all sexual intercourse. We may
wear condoms and take birth controls in order to enjoy the
physical pleasures of sex without its consequences, but it only
FEELS good because our genes WANT (in a sense) us to reproduce.
Rape is about power in the sense that a rapist gets a
thrill in over-powering a woman and violating her right of
choice. I would venture to guess that many rapists experience
rejection throughout life and find a sick pleasure in the idea
of denying a woman the ability to reject their advances. Unable
to deal with rejection, they bottle up their rage (akatharsis)
and eventually act on their violent impulses. Whether or not
they are psychologically ILL or genetically DRIVEN to rape, they
cannot function properly in society. They are violent offenders
who threaten the safety and violate the "sanctity" of womanhood,
the notion that a woman has the ultimate authority in choosing
her sexual partner. Many rapists also are driven to murder,
either in panic or from further deviant pleasure they may obtain
from it. As violent people, their presence shouldn't be
tolerated.
Last night I watched a segment on "60 Minutes"
discussing the chronic rape problem that plagues South Africa.
Many young girls (12 and under) are raped because of an
incredibly STUPID myth that AIDS can be "gotten rid of" by
having sex with a virgin. Rapists threaten the safety of every
woman in the country, but their officials have little to say on
the matter. During an interview, one man claimed that the grim
statistics regarding rape are wrong (one rape every 17 seconds
in the relatively small country). His reasoning was "Do you
know how many 17 second periods of time have passed since we've
been talking? Do you see anyone being raped?" Of course the
interview was being conducted in broad daylight in an area where
only a complete idiot would be caught in the act of perpetrating
a crime.
One's stomach should churn when hearing stories of women
being forced to submit to a violent, genetically worthless human
being. If rape truly is a biological mechanism favored by those
who can't reproduce otherwise, then we should take note and
EXTERMINATE rapists without concern for "rehabilitation." Most
marijuana offenders spend more time in jail than your average
rapists. The reason these "genetic rapists" can't get laid is
BECAUSE they are deemed genetically UNFIT for the pool. Perhaps
along with the "rape gene" (I doubt there's really a gene but
perhaps a series of tendencies that lead to such activity) come
other undesirable properties that makes rapists genetically
worthless. In essense, they are genetically unfit for the
population, so they force themselves in.
This isn't an excuse to allow rape but a reason to
execute rapists. Many are repeat offenders, but I think that
the utter destruction that rapists can cause in one woman's life
SHOULD justify the taking of theirs the FIRST time they do it.
Many would say "but some rapists are just kids who don't know
any better," but I'm sure they'd be a lot less prone to violence
if there was a real threat of DEATH on the other end. Self-
reproduction is the SECOND highest instinct. Self-preservation
comes first. Many claim that the death penalty does not deter
murder because most murders are occurred in an irrational state
of mind where one doesn't properly weigh the consequences;
rapists probably operate in a similar manner, losing all concern
for the legal ramifications behind their violent actions.
But why should we tolerate people who don't find the
notion of death threatening enough to curb their impulses?
People who are easily driven to rape and kill shouldn't be
coddled in the arms of the justice system, they should be
punished -- not rehabilitated, punished. Most of our "worst and
most violent criminals" are indeed repeat offenders who find
prison to be if anything positively conducive to their
behavior. Prison may work to rehabilitate thieves and the like,
but someone who has an uncontrollable urge to subdue and violate
another against their will should not be "treated" but instead
DEALT WITH.
Chuck Shaddoway
>I have heard about a parental couple walking around
>nude and having sex in front of their children [3, age between 3 and
>9] as a rule - and that was most certainly not a healthy situation.
>
sex: "What are you doing NOW, Daddy?"
-Shaddoway
"I plan on living forever; so far, so good."
SVsite
were not repressed AT ALL. It's basically the Anglo American kind
of "WASP" Victorian and Puritan heritage that does this. Other
cultures don't have that.
TJ
In article <38B49B84...@gateway.net>,
Delila <bre...@gateway.net> wrote:
> But the
> > younger people? ALL ASHAMED. They are even ashamed to take off
their
> > tops when there are nothing but women in there. What are they
ashamed
> > of?
> >
> >
>
> Tell me about it. Many women here wear a big T-shirt over their
> bathing suit even in the water. Why?
> I saw a documentary a few years ago on 60 minutes no less about
people
> from a part of the Soviet Union, who were all over weight, but they
all
> wore their bikinis and tight bathing pants and weren't self conscious
at
> all. I thought it was cool, the commentators were surprised but said
it
> was refreshing to see a people that were not slaves to any of those
> silly norms for bodies that exist in the US.
> Why is it that younger women are worse about that then older ones? I
> would think that the older ones were brought up in a more repressive
> environment.
>
> Delila
>
Aragorn
SVsite <tanija...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
891noo$i6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You are wrong. I was myself raised the way Spectre is describing
and
> lived in communal setting.
Hi,
The fact that you, and others, were raised that way, doesn't
necessarily make me wrong. The fact that Inuit give their woman to
their guest for the night doesn't make it wrong when in other cultures
you don't. Or, should the guest sleep with your wife, shoot the guest.
>No locked doors on bathrooms and no one
>had
> their own room. There is not one "shame bone" in my body. I don't
> even know what "shame" is. I helped deliver my cousin's baby when I
> was 9 years old - I walked in and the babe was half out of her, she
was
> yelling for help and no one else was there. This is INDEED like
> primitives live and no, we never end up with perverted people or
kinky
> people or anything of that sort.
I don't think I said anywhere in this threat that seeing your parents
naked on a regular basis makes you grow up a pervert or kinky person.
BTW I don't mind kinkyness. I do mind perverts like mantikkon, or
chickenfuckers and the like. Seeing a baby being born or attend birth
is a natural thing. Your body is a natural fact and I'd be the last
one to have my child grow up with complexes about either the child's
body or mine or men's. I DO warn her against sex without precautions
regarding sexual diseases and/or unwanted pregnancies. I DO warn her
against the way certain adults try to cheat children into having sex
with them. I taught her to be aware when walking on the streets and
NOT walk along with strangers, NOT come too close to a car with doors
opened asking you the way to get here or there. There IS a possibility
that you end up going with them quite unvoluntarily. I also taught her
that sex can be a very pleasant passtime and that there are many
possibilities for enjoying it, be it with one of your own gender or
with the opposite gender. Or with yourself, for what it matters.
> It's NO big fucking deal. It's
>only
> in this sick patriarchal RELIGIOUS dung heap society that SHAME
>kicks
> in and people feel all this HOO LAA LAA over a lot of nothing.
That's exaggeration of what I meant. I cannot but face the fact that
IN THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN children around the age of 9 start becoming
very aware of their body and other's, and that they will start closing
doors of bathrooms and changing clothes with the door of their bedroom
closed - all by themselves. They will open these doors sooner or later
again for people they feel comfortable with showing themselves dressed
or undressed. As long as my child , when needed, doesn't mind me
seeing her naked, there's no reason to assume she's developing an
unnatural and unhealthy "shame".
AND: living in this sick patriarchal society I may be as open-minded,
free-sexual habits minded, nude-raising as I choose to be, I will ALSO
have to accept the fact that in choosing to go around undressed or
having the whole family together undressed, I may expect intervention
from outside: it only takes ONE complaint from ONE outsider to get a
visit from the Child Welfare Council and see my child removed from my
home. [Daddies these days cannot bath or shower with their children.
They must even me carefull with how they carress their own children.
That's sick, but it's the way it is these days, and a whole bunch of
pedophiles and childmolesters, incestuous parents and too-close
priests or school principals have brought this about.] That may be an
anonymous complaint, a worried schoolteacher who heard something in
the talk-round at the beginning of the day, or anyone else. The
situation Delila described is being regarded as very damaging by many
outsiders and they will not hesitate to make something utterly sick of
it. [in the end, that's exactly what they do]. We don't want the child
to be taught to be free at home and keep it's mouth shut about that
freedom elsewhere, do we? So in the given circumstances I'd say we'll
have to steer a middle course between our own liberated mind and the
narrow minds of people who unfortunately DO have the power to meddle
with YOUR ways of upbringing. If you refuse that middle course, you'll
either need to get very isolated as a family or see yourself involved
in all sorts of sick need to defend your rights. Would you not mind
the queer glances of your backstabbing neighbours; your child being
name-called at school etc.? Would you not mind the akward questions of
people where your child has been for a stay? Fine. Go for it!
> Take
> other primates. Adult male chimps don't go around raping baby
> females.
True, so true. Adult human males do. Not all of them, but if you know
the figures of how many DO, you know how utterly insane humanity has
become.
> What a lotta hooey over nothing. Children that have never been
> subjected to that sickening "OOOOOOOO" when they are naked often run
> outside the house bare assed naked.
No - and they don't even are aware of "running around naked" and
nobody else does. Untill a certain age and untill they start
developing breasts and pubic hair and the voluntary wish to put on a
bikini or swimming trunks.
> But hormones to FUCK don't kick in until just before puberty - and
> that's the desire to HAVE SEX. Children (young ones) raised in open
> societies ARE NOT curious - nothing to be curious about!
Yes, but we're not Indians or African tribes all of us. WE ARE NOT AN
OPEN SOCIETY.
> OOOOO oh my GOD, I just saw your ELBOW! I have to wonder what kind
>of
> misshapen garbage first came up with the idea to cover it all up.
You're exaggerating again. Duh, I don't know what the latest fashion
is in the USA, but kids around here are wearing very tight clothings,
belly-button T-shirts, miniskirts and the like. I'm glad my child is
one of them; there's another group that wears the widest, most
conceiling clothings possible. Yet, I do worry about my child - not
for her peers, but for the mantikkons around.
> they proceed to get bare
>assed
> naked to take the shower and SOMEONE has to tell them it's illegal.
> They stand there, staring in wonderment. Illegal? Then why put a
> shower here? Are they to shower with their clothes ON?
Right, every sane person knows it's useless to shower with your
clothes on, and everyone from our society also knows that unless
you're on the nudist strip of the beach, you HAVE TO. Go and try to
change the law if you care enough about it.
> What are they ashamed of?
Well, what about being raped, and not be taken seriously because "you
provoked it"? COMMON SENSE, Tani. If I walk the streets at night and I
have the guts to wear high heels and miniskirts, in the opinion of
many law enforcers I might as well put a badge on saying "rape me or
buy me" and they will NOT do anything with charges for harrassement or
rape. If I stabbed the person who tried to harrass or rape me, oh
well...
Like it or not, and I most certainly don't like it, but that's the way
things are and we'll have to deal with it one way or another. I have
not the energy to willfully make an issue out of it and get myself and
my family in trouble, and therefore I adapt to the rules as they are
set. That does NOT turn me into a parent who contributes to the false
shame and repression of the body that too many adults have developed.
The sixties are over, this is the puritan zero's. And talk of that,
many hippies from the age of free sex, promiscuity and nudist
communities in retrospect feel that they were just following a fashion
that they felt compelt to go with - their liberations of that time
have vanished into thin air after the years.
SC,
Aragorn
SVsite
fed to lions.
Whole community means just that - WHOLE community. It's not that
anyone makes it a "thing" to go nude, or fuck in front of others.
Conditions are there. NO privacy. Ergo? What is privacy? There is no
shame - what is shame? The CONCEPT doesn't exist. I don't have it and
never felt it. I have NO CLUE what it is. I know what LAW is,
however. It doesn't matter to me if I'm on a beach naked (legally) or
with long pants on. I don't care one way or the other. It's NOT an
issue.
People "INTO" nudity are the flip side of people "INTO" puritanism -
it's still rooted in the same patriarchal religious culture. It's an
obsession with the SAME ISSUE which should be a NON-issue.
Patriarchies are notably like that.
I'm not responding to YOU - but to the whole concept/idea on this
thread.
In such communal type societies there is NO SUCH THING as kids getting
raped, in fact rape itself is almost unheard of - certainly UNHEARD of
in the sense that rapes happen in industrial western countries. Most
rape victims are NOT pretty or sexy women at all. Many are OLD - a 92
year old woman got raped awhile back down here. It's not a crime of
sex - it's a crime of violence.
The so-called "sexually liberated ones" were the same obsessed hung up
puritanical xtoids they always were. They were rebelling and sorry,
that doesn't work! It's all a matter of upbringing FROM THE START.
Again: WHAT is privacy? WHAT is shame? LACKING the concepts, one
doesn't manage to make issues of them. What is modesty? I certainly am
aware of OTHER PEOPLE in the society and how THEY react. I never cared
about styles (the latest uniform for consumer dupes) or any of it.
I don't know what the styles are either - I don't notice or care. MY
MOM used to notice, she loved the 1960's mini skirt styles and sexy
stuff. Me? They ain't gettin my money!
But - it started somewhere. PEOPLE started it and they didn't start it
up because it was COLD out. On the contrary, it was quite hot.
Surrounded by half naked pagans, the Hebrews, as one well-known
example, were robed and covered. Why? They also mutilated their
penises (circumcision). Why? Why THAT organ? Why not pierce their
ears? The xtoids only inherited this from that tradition and a lot of
other sick anti-body shit. Anti flesh concepts.
YOU SHOULD WONDER THEN: I have to wonder: what could cause a culture
to hate their own flesh? Were they IN PAIN? Look to the ROOTS of it.
You won't find my race has these roots at all. Did they cover up
because the sun burned them in that hot climate? What could cause them
to despise their own bodies? What could cause ANY of it. It's all
deranged and the despising of it and taboos about it CAUSE perversions
of the worst kind to BE IN that society - but NOT IN OTHERS! And so
it's a vicious circle.
TJ
Spectre&TheBeatCat
> bathing suit even in the water. Why?
> I saw a documentary a few years ago on 60 minutes no less about people
> from a part of the Soviet Union, who were all over weight, but they all
> wore their bikinis and tight bathing pants and weren't self conscious at
> all. I thought it was cool, the commentators were surprised but said it
> was refreshing to see a people that were not slaves to any of those
> silly norms for bodies that exist in the US.
> Why is it that younger women are worse about that then older ones? I
> would think that the older ones were brought up in a more repressive
> environment.
Being on a Dominican beach for a week, it was strange. The beaches are all
topless, yet the majority who took advantage of it where the older European
crowd. Very few younger woman felt comfortable enough to remove their
tops. It was funny to see how many woman struggled trying to move down
their bikini straps without exposing themselves. Over all the amount of
woman who did remove their top was very low.
The whole time I felt like yelling at these woman "What is WRONG with
you??" If I hadn't had such a great time, it really would have bothered me.
--
Spectre
Spectre&TheBeatCat
SVsite wrote:
> Then the inside showers. The older people have no problem with this,
> taking a shower in the "lady's shower room" in the open. But the
> younger people? ALL ASHAMED. They are even ashamed to take off their
> tops when there are nothing but women in there. What are they ashamed
> of?
There are many factors that could attribute to this. One that pops into
mind is that woman/young girls are constantly judging themselves against
other woman/young girls. I don't think it's a secret that woman dress more
for other woman than for men, and we are constantly thinking "My boobs are
nicer than hers, she has a better butt than I do, that dress makes her look
fat, etc." With this, we are looking in the mirror at ourselves, not happy
with what we see (I'll admit I am always looking, sucking in my poochy belly
thinking if only I could get rid of this thing!!), and even ashamed for not
being perfect. How many woman find a man very happy with them, but still
only have sex at night with the lights off?
Many woman like to blame the supermodels for such an attitude - well men see
this and that's what men want. However, there are numerous woman who are
not embarrassed. What men want is a woman who can parade around without
clothes on, regardless if her butt is a bit jiggly, or her boobs aren't a 36
C. If a woman is more comfortable with how she looks, she has a healthy
attitude towards other things that are important. I'm not saying looks
aren't important, just not as important as woman think.
Of course, religion plays a big part in all this. I suggest reading The
Satanizing of Woman: Religion versus Sexuality, by Demosthenes Savramis. It
is an older book, but very good. Woman have always been 'evil' because of
how they look and what their bodies can do. Nudity overall has
unfortunately always been related to sex, but woman have always been more
penalized than men, and it has been carried on from one generation to
another.
mant...@my-deja.com
Spectre&TheBeatCat
mant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But what if the victim has lied about the rape?
A friends father is currently serving some time. His niece made up a
story, changed the story many times, and though it is believed he is
innocent, the law states 'something' has to be done just because the
story was brought up.
Aragorn
Spectre is. I get the picture now. I still live in a society that will
not allow your ways, so I wish you good luck in yours! Let's hope for
children not affected by the general diseases of jealousy & false
shame.
SC,
Aragorn
SVsite <tanija...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
892te3$cl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Spectre&TheBeatCat
Aragorn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The fact that you, and others, were raised that way, doesn't
> necessarily make me wrong. The fact that Inuit give their woman to
> their guest for the night doesn't make it wrong when in other cultures
> you don't. Or, should the guest sleep with your wife, shoot the guest.
I don't think you are wrong, but it does seem unanimous that the shame
associated with nudity and sex is wrong in what it does to ones self
image, which is pushed on to others. It is unfortunate you live in a more
strict society. However, the views of your society is shared by
individuals and groups everywhere.
> I don't think I said anywhere in this threat that seeing your parents
> naked on a regular basis makes you grow up a pervert or kinky person.
> BTW I don't mind kinkyness. I do mind perverts like mantikkon, or
> chickenfuckers and the like. Seeing a baby being born or attend birth
> is a natural thing. Your body is a natural fact and I'd be the last
> one to have my child grow up with complexes about either the child's
> body or mine or men's. I DO warn her against sex without precautions
> regarding sexual diseases and/or unwanted pregnancies. I DO warn her
> against the way certain adults try to cheat children into having sex
> with them. I taught her to be aware when walking on the streets and
> NOT walk along with strangers, NOT come too close to a car with doors
> opened asking you the way to get here or there. There IS a possibility
> that you end up going with them quite unvoluntarily. I also taught her
> that sex can be a very pleasant passtime and that there are many
> possibilities for enjoying it, be it with one of your own gender or
> with the opposite gender. Or with yourself, for what it matters.
Your children are lucky to have such an openminded home. I personally was
not speaking of what could happen outside the home, but about raising a
child who is comfortable with who they are and what they look like. I
believe this is a big part in hindering the consequences of sex -
pregnancy, pressured sex, sex to fit in - not the only one, but very
important nonetheless. I have seen many young girls (as a peer) having
sex for nothing more than needed attention, to feel beautiful, better than
others, and wanted. At the other end of the scale there were the girls
who did everything possible to hide their beauty, sexuality, and
femininity. They avoided contact as much as they could with 'boys', and
were very intimidated by other girls who felt more comfortable with
themselves.
I feel very strong about letting children know at a young age what can
happen if one isn't careful. It's logical as a loving parent to make sure
children are better to take care of themselves when someone is not there
to do it for them.
> That's exaggeration of what I meant. I cannot but face the fact that
> IN THE SOCIETY I LIVE IN children around the age of 9 start becoming
> very aware of their body and other's, and that they will start closing
> doors of bathrooms and changing clothes with the door of their bedroom
> closed - all by themselves. They will open these doors sooner or later
> again for people they feel comfortable with showing themselves dressed
> or undressed. As long as my child , when needed, doesn't mind me
> seeing her naked, there's no reason to assume she's developing an
> unnatural and unhealthy "shame".
> AND: living in this sick patriarchal society I may be as open-minded,
> free-sexual habits minded, nude-raising as I choose to be, I will ALSO
> have to accept the fact that in choosing to go around undressed or
> having the whole family together undressed, I may expect intervention
> from outside: it only takes ONE complaint from ONE outsider to get a
> visit from the Child Welfare Council and see my child removed from my
> home.
Of course we suffer from closed minds in society. Unfortunately we must
give in to it to some extent, depending on where one lives. And children
do go through 'funny' stages in development. Hopefully they can easily
speak to their parent(s) about it, and learn what is normal and that there
is nothing to be embarrassed about. Fortunately for me, the pedophile
panic left as quickly as it came, and in recent years toplessness in
public has become legal. Just a few months ago gay/lesbian couples have
been recognized as legal couples (though they are still refused the word
'spouse'). I have advantages where I live that will allow me to have more
freedom in how I raise my children (at least for now). But no matter
where someone lives, there will always be the chance that someone else is
so disgusted by something, they take it upon themselves to 'stop the
corruption of children'. Not actually having children yet, we are still
unsure of how we will go about things (obviously) but we will stand by our
intentions.
> True, so true. Adult human males do. Not all of them, but if you know
> the figures of how many DO, you know how utterly insane humanity has
> become.
I believe monkeys do have rape in their communities on occasion, however
without ridiculous religion or morals muddling up things, they are dealt
with quickly and sufficiently. They also murder, and masturbate, though
I'm sure not together.
~Missy.
<free...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>I believe monkeys do have rape in their communities on occasion, however
>without ridiculous religion or morals muddling up things, they are dealt
>with quickly and sufficiently. They also murder, and masturbate, though
>I'm sure not together.
Jane Goodall witnessed an infanticide. The baby chimp was eaten by
its' own mother, if I remember correctly. Mental illness _does_ occur
among animals, but it is brought on by trauma, same as in humans. It
may even be brought on by trauma _from_ humans! Who knows? Ever get
the feeling we are not from here?
Here is an fascinating article on child psychology which adresses the
issues in this thread quite satisfactorily:
http://www.trauma-pages.com/perry96.htm#APP3
Please enjoy.
~Missy.
~Missy.
<free...@sprint.ca> wrote:
------snip---------
>Of course, religion plays a big part in all this. I suggest reading The
>Satanizing of Woman: Religion versus Sexuality, by Demosthenes Savramis. It
>is an older book, but very good. Woman have always been 'evil' because of
>how they look and what their bodies can do. Nudity overall has
>unfortunately always been related to sex, but woman have always been more
>penalized than men, and it has been carried on from one generation to
>another.
Remember Eve from Adam and Eve? lol!
By the way, most of us women like to forget that men are _raised_ by
women...Insecure, shallow women. Men often like whatever they are
taught to like; through _example_. It is largely a problem of
Pavlovian conditioning.
There _have_ been recent studies linking physical beauty to fertility
in females...there could also be genetic factors at play here, but I
think it runs far deeper than that.
At any rate, if we want well adjusted people we have to raise them
that way. If it means countering the steady influx of imbalanced
commercial notions and fashion trends, so be it. Providing kids with
an historical perspective on clothing and gender roles can help a
great deal.
As long as we also teach them to recognise shallow, "consumerist" herd
posturing for what it is, they need never fear that they are missing
out on something good...Also, they always have the option of "fitting
in" whenever it is the appropriate course of action.
In response to TJ's posts (which, BTW, I do not really disagree with
in principle), I have two words: WACO, Texas.
~Missy.
juilz
wrote:
>But what if the victim has lied about the rape?
This is a definitely worthwhile concern -- I doubt America would
ever institute a death penalty for rapists, but if it did, the
evidence would have to be overwhelmingly incriminating. Many
women don't report rapes until it's too late to prove what
happened, and proescuted or not these rapists simply couldn't be
executed.
However, there ARE many cases where there's genetic evidence,
either in pubic hair or semen that is left at the scene. Unless
the woman is simply out to frame the accused, it's hard to deny
the guilt in these cases.
SVsite
uncontrollable asocials. AGREE AGREE. AGREE AGREE oh, AGREE.
That book was written by eddicated idiots. IDIOTS. They never worked
in a rape registry and found out that the MAJORITY of women who are
victims of rape DO NOT dress sexy at all, are mostly NOT sexy at all.
Lots of OLD LADIES, 60, 70, even 92 get raped! Men are stronger than
women is the TIRED old line. I have never had a problem kicking the
living shit out of MEN that started fights with me! But then, I
learned a form of fighting young. MANY women can fight and are taught
to fight - and they CAN BEAT men - and the stronger/bigger the men are,
the harder they fall! Most rapes don't even produce semen. FACT!
What reproduction? Animals don't fucking rape anything - they can't.
The females go into ESTRUS - the males HAVE TO fuck them, they don't
have a choice! That's like the BULLSHIT lies they also say about "what
animals do" to justify SICK, TWISTED behavior.
Most rapists are STUPID men and yes, genetic garbage. EXTERMINATE
them. Most rapes also include beatings. EXTERMINATE. Fuck the
prison, I don't want to pay to feed them. By the way, I don't
consider "date rape" to be rape with most cases, at all. I mean RAPE,
you see the violence and bruises. My mother was raped, she was in her
damned 60's. Wanna know what we DID TO HIM when we hunted him down?
Won't post it.
TJ
In article <011ecbae...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>,
juilz <lord_hN...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> Not only should pedophiles be executed, but ANY sex-offenders.
> Sex-offenders are often people with completely "twisted" sexual
> desires that they choose to act on. It's not a matter of
> subjectivity, but of violation. But why should we tolerate
people who don't find the
> notion of death threatening enough to curb their impulses?
> People who are easily driven to rape and kill shouldn't be
> coddled in the arms of the justice system, they should be
> punished -- not rehabilitated, punished. Most of our "worst and
> most violent criminals" are indeed repeat offenders who find
> prison to be if anything positively conducive to their
> behavior. Prison may work to rehabilitate thieves and the like,
> but someone who has an uncontrollable urge to subdue and violate
> another against their will should not be "treated" but instead
> DEALT WITH.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
SVsite
there will evidence of battery. AND YES, the dumb fucking bitches need
to report it WHEN IT HAPPENS and NOT take a fucking bath after. What's
all this shit about "oh, I felt so dirty". BULLSHIT. It's a fucking
assault and battery, same thing. In my view, those women are GUILTY of
being accomplices of the NEXT rape the man does to the NEXT victim. If
there is a death penalty for FALSE ACCUSATION that would help too.
Women should CARRY GUNS or some other weapons. LETHAL weapons. Women
ugh, xian bitches, meepy wimpy bitches. When the rapist is in the
throws and out of control, what, she has no fingers? He has no eyes?
She COULD wrap her legs around him, make him LOSE CONTROL MORE and then
gauge out his fucking eyes. I was TAUGHT this by my people. HOW TO
FIGHT and USE my femaleness if I have to, to disarm the male. USE
ANYTHING. FLASH him if you have to (if you are getting robbed it would
shock the man). THEN USE FEET, use anything. ANYTHING can be a
weapon. UGH - what's the use. WIMPY WOMEN. Weaklings. I'm fucking
49 with arthritis of my shoulders (due to accident), 4 years ago my
arms were so bad I could not pour myself a cup of coffee - I FIXED IT
MYSELF and OH GODS IT HURT... and I can do 50 pushups and 10 chin ups
the hard way. And what, some feminist bitch into "exercise" can't even
do 10 pushups or ONE chin up? Jeff is CANCER sick, and he can do FIFTY
CHIN UPS the hard way - he pulls himself up all the way to his CHEST,
not just the chin. He can do pushups with ONE ARM. A xian guy
provoked him and he literally threw the mother fucker across the room -
as sick as he is. Weaklings. Wimps. NO CHI. NO KUNDALINI. Klippoth
bitches and klippoth no-dicks. I'd exterminate them ALL. They are ALL
Vragi Naroda. They coddle the bastards, they create shit societies
where "male guards" are needed - what the fuck. READ MALE DISEASE the
whole article, it's got female disease in there too.
TJ
In article <029a0d10...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com>,
juilz <lord_hN...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <893i0d$qib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mant...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
> >But what if the victim has lied about the rape?
>
> This is a definitely worthwhile concern -- I doubt America would
> ever institute a death penalty for rapists, but if it did, the
> evidence would have to be overwhelmingly incriminating. Many
> women don't report rapes until it's too late to prove what
> happened, and proescuted or not these rapists simply couldn't be
> executed.
>
> However, there ARE many cases where there's genetic evidence,
> either in pubic hair or semen that is left at the scene. Unless
> the woman is simply out to frame the accused, it's hard to deny
> the guilt in these cases.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
night...@my-deja.com
mant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But what if the victim has lied about the rape?
>
ShivaGirl
> ugh, xian bitches, meepy wimpy bitches. When the rapist is in the
> throws and out of control, what, she has no fingers? He has no eyes?
I can tell you from first hand experiance that fighting back is not always
an option. Aside from the "date rape drugs", some guys are just as prone to
come up on your blind side and knock your ass out. (That happened to me when
I was 13)
But I agree...REPORT IT!
Not to play Devil's Advocate, but there has been an increase (at least, here
in the USA) of false accusations. I'm dealing with one right now with a
friend of mine who pissed off a woman. (he's never had any type of
relationship with her) so she screamed "sexual assult" on him and landed him
in jail and now thousands in lawyer fees.
This type of thing keeps happening, it is going to make things very
difficult for women (or men) who really are the victims of assult or rape.
--
www.sirenproductions.com
ShivaGirl
"SVsite" <tanija...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:896007$kkc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There should definetly be evidence and if the woman FIGHTS the rapist,
> there will evidence of battery. AND YES, the dumb fucking bitches need
> to report it WHEN IT HAPPENS and NOT take a fucking bath after. What's
> all this shit about "oh, I felt so dirty". BULLSHIT. It's a fucking
> assault and battery, same thing. In my view, those women are GUILTY of
> being accomplices of the NEXT rape the man does to the NEXT victim. If
> there is a death penalty for FALSE ACCUSATION that would help too.
> Women should CARRY GUNS or some other weapons. LETHAL weapons. > She
COULD wrap her legs around him, make him LOSE CONTROL MORE and then
> gauge out his fucking eyes. I was TAUGHT this by my people. HOW TO
> FIGHT and USE my femaleness if I have to, to disarm the male. USE
> ANYTHING. FLASH him if you have to (if you are getting robbed it would
> shock the man). THEN USE FEET, use anything. ANYTHING can be a
> weapon. UGH - what's the use. WIMPY WOMEN. Weaklings. I'm fucking
> 49 with arthritis of my shoulders (due to accident), 4 years ago my
> arms were so bad I could not pour myself a cup of coffee - I FIXED IT
> MYSELF and OH GODS IT HURT... and I can do 50 pushups and 10 chin ups
> the hard way. And what, some feminist bitch into "exercise" can't even
> do 10 pushups or ONE chin up? Jeff is CANCER sick, and he can do FIFTY
> CHIN UPS the hard way - he pulls himself up all the way to his CHEST,
> not just the chin. He can do pushups with ONE ARM. A xian guy
> provoked him and he literally threw the mother fucker across the room -
> as sick as he is. Weaklings. Wimps. NO CHI. NO KUNDALINI. Klippoth
> bitches and klippoth no-dicks. I'd exterminate them ALL. They are ALL
> Vragi Naroda. They coddle the bastards, they create shit societies
> where "male guards" are needed - what the fuck. READ MALE DISEASE the
> whole article, it's got female disease in there too.
>
> www.apodion.com/vad/
>
> TJ
>
> In article <029a0d10...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com>,
> juilz <lord_hN...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <893i0d$qib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mant...@my-deja.com
> > wrote:
> > >But what if the victim has lied about the rape?
> >
> > This is a definitely worthwhile concern -- I doubt America would
> > ever institute a death penalty for rapists, but if it did, the
> > evidence would have to be overwhelmingly incriminating. Many
> > women don't report rapes until it's too late to prove what
> > happened, and proescuted or not these rapists simply couldn't be
> > executed.
> >
> > However, there ARE many cases where there's genetic evidence,
> > either in pubic hair or semen that is left at the scene. Unless
> > the woman is simply out to frame the accused, it's hard to deny
> > the guilt in these cases.
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
> Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
> Free!
> >
> >
>
>
mant...@my-deja.com
mant...@my-deja.com
B, then my proposal was that we can decrease B if we lighten up on A.
But you interpreted my statement as being that we should allow A in
order to decrease A. You may not like A, but A is not the same as B.
You also sound just like the Wiccans in being intolerant and violent.
Maybe you should be wearing the pentagram the other way round.
mant...@my-deja.com
does not. Sex is not the same as murder. People can engage in the one
without the other. But your mind immediately links the two when the
subject of children is brought up. If sex is A and murder is B, then
you may be able to decrease B by allowing A. In your response, you said
in effect that my argument was that if we allow B, we may decrease B.
This is not what I said. We are concerned with saving some lives here.
mant...@my-deja.com
invoke threats without thinking carefully. Sex is not the same as
murder. As long you link them then, when the sex occurs, so will the
murder. But separate them and perhaps the murder will not be so
frequent. Also in you are a woman you may be allowing sexual jealousy to
overcome you. You think just like a wiccan. Maybe you are in the wrong
forum.
mant...@my-deja.com
children to destroy the evidence are justified. They may be killing so
that they will not come to the attention of people like you and your
hitmen. Also, remember that the government has distorted the word rape
by depriving children of a choice. Therefore even if a child gives
consent, the law says it is rape. Of course children can give consent
and the government has only distorted the meaning of the word so it can
maintain control over human beings.
mant...@my-deja.com
mant...@my-deja.com
anyone of any age or sex and anyone else of any age or any sex. That is
the science of it. But if we think that a harmless act is the same as a
harmful one, then we bring on the second with the first.
The next time you hear of children being killed over this sort of
thing, remember that it is people like you who create the social climate
the causes it.
mant...@my-deja.com
another. That would be slavery and would be wrong. But if there is
consent by both parties then it is not harmful to either party. Allowing
children to experiment may prevent them from growing up to become
twisted as you say. Allowing a harmless act, as sex is, regardless of
who does it and with whom, may prevent a harmful act: murder. I would
say a profitable trade.
Also, consider the case in which a child approaches an adult for sex
play. Then it would not be a violation by the adult but a surrender to
the wishes of the child.
mant...@my-deja.com
logic is not what I said. Following your interpretation, the proposal
would be legalize child sex murder in order to decrease child-sex
murder. But I said legalize child-adult sexuality in order to decrease
murders associated with it. If sex were A and murder were B, you are
assuming the A is the same as B. This is neither medically nor
psychology true. And it is a good trade-off if some lives can be saved.
Your opinion actually creates child-sex murders, because suppose someone
read your post but still had some need to engage in child-sexuality,
Then he or she would reason, well if they will kill then I may as well
kill to destroy the evidence and give myself a better chance. At the
same time if someone accepts your opinion that what they have done is
the same as murder, then you have already convinced them that they are
the same as a murderer. So their is no reason for them not to commit
the act that you have ascribed to them.
mant...@my-deja.com
2. Nothing that I propose is sordid because none of it degrades people.
It is you who assume that sex must be sordid and who presume on the
emotions of other people, in this case, children.
3.Regarding your Lincoln Rockwell analogy: wrong logic. I do not
defend what I detest.
4.Your comment about professionals is apt because everytime they are
asked the cause mental illnesses and acts like child murders they say
they dont know. I am giving you a reason for both mental illnesses and
for child murders. You have the opportunity to solve the problem.
5. You assume I make the proposal only to cater to my own lusts. Do we
decline to take a medicine that cures our disease just because we dont
like the motives of the inventor?
SVsite
9, just before puberty begins or older, whenever the person GETS HORNEY
and WANTS sex, is NUBILE - no matter what the "law" says is "of age."
Anything before that is a child. I have nothing against murder. Or
purges. You are talking to the wrong person. If you had ever tried
to "have sex with" my 8 year old neice, for instance, you'd have to
rape her. She would then put her ever ready LONG hat pin in your
throat. I advocate murder you see. Sex is for those who WISH TO HAVE
IT - there should be no force or violence in that since sex is
something both (or more) parties WANT to have. Murder however, is
another thing. No one wants to be murdered, or noo.. I'm gonna revise
that. I think lots of people have a hidden desire to be murdered or
beaten half to death because they PROVOKE people who WOULD do that -
and are usually too stupid to realize it. Healthy people, however,
have good intact instincts enough to know who NOT to provoke. The
others SHOULD be murdered.
So what's with the A and B. You doing algebra? One million murdered
strangers means nothing. One murdered relative is a tragedy.
I read it find - someone said "let's legalize murder to decrease
incidence of murder" or SOMETHING like that. They were responding to
the half-brained notion to legalize child-adult sex in order to stop
children from being murdered when pedophiles rape them. I didn't go
back and reread it. Fuck it. Define "child." I did, first sentence.
IMO "non-adults" that is "legal minors that are in fact GROWN MEN AND
WOMEN BIOLOGICALLY" that engage in sex do so because they want to; no
need to murder them. If your type can't keep your dicks under control
when you get the hots for FIVE YEAR OLD kids, I suggest you move to
Thailand where you can rent a hooker of that age.
WHATEVER gave you the idea that I was tolerant? Or liberal? Why I'm a
product after my own race: Oriental DESPOT, no, not the Far eastern
type, the Stalin type. I even LOOK like Yezhov. Dead ringer. When I
was around 11 or 12, I WANTED to fuck. Almost did. When I was 13, I
surely did. Does that make the man that I fucked a pedophile? No, I
told him I was 20. LOL. Was built enough like it to convince him. Why
would law get involved in this? It was nobodies god damned business.
My grandmother had 4 kids by the age of 16. SO? NORMAL for most
cultures. HEALTHY KIDS too. When a person is in puberty they are NO
LONGER A CHILD.
So what do YOU mean by child? And what sex murders? Where?
TJ
Les Masters
mant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I don't get the logic of your statement. Sex is not harmful between
> anyone of any age or sex and anyone else of any age or any sex. That is
> the science of it. But if we think that a harmless act is the same as a
> harmful one, then we bring on the second with the first.
> The next time you hear of children being killed over this sort of
> thing, remember that it is people like you who create the social climate
> the causes it.
>
Spectre&TheBeatCat
mant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In a way you are the same as those who brutalize others you can only
> invoke threats without thinking carefully. Sex is not the same as
> murder. As long you link them then, when the sex occurs, so will the
> murder. But separate them and perhaps the murder will not be so
> frequent. Also in you are a woman you may be allowing sexual jealousy to
> overcome you. You think just like a wiccan. Maybe you are in the wrong
> forum.
First of all, I understand your theory, however I don't believe it's as
simple as that.
Second of all, how the hell did you get all that from one question? I think
you should stand back from this little roll you are on, and actually read
the posts.
Ygraine
somewhat irrelevant if we are discussing going's on in the USA.
I do not doubt there are any number of 11 plus year
old girls ready and willing to take a fuck. I also have no doubt there are a
large number who aren't, and the largest percentage are probably utterly
unsure.
However, there are reasons, whether you agree with them or not, why we have
ages of consent in this country. They have to do with the fact that sex is not
completely harmless, and the repurcussions of an hour can last a lifetime---and
not only to the child! The parent of the child is the one who maintains all
the legal responsibility.
Personally, I have moral issues---but they are my own and I try to view the
topic with a degree of understanding of my personal biases.
However, I agree with consent laws because I am a parent. In this country the
law is quite clear about what my responsibilities are. My job, come rain or
shine, Nirvana or Armageddon, is to take care of my child until they reach the
age of 18. Period. I am responsible for their food, housing, education,
medical care and expenses, and every aspect of their life.
That means them coming home pregnant is MY business. That means them getting
an STD is MY business. That means that I have a direct responsibility
regarding my child's sex life---and I can either throw my arms in the air and
be a lax parent and play Russian roulette, or I can utililize the laws and my
own moral stance to take control of what becomes, de facto, my life.
When I first read this thread my gut reaction was the need to kill the
motherfucker who wants to fuck rather than kill kids---as if these are the
only two available options. I stayed quiet hoping that cooler heads would
prevail, and on the whole, they did...but I am still at a loss.
My six year old wants to eat chocolate until we'd need to buy stock in
Immodium. My five year old had to be pulled down from jumping off a moving
boat in an alligator filled canal. These are the people who can give
"consent"?
Look around at kids, people. Youth is designed to teach lessons about safety
while under the care of a loving and protective adult. To take advantage of a
child, simply because s/he "wants" it is absurd and selfish---ask for sex and
then ask if they want to drive 150 miles an hour down the turnpike---they'll
meet both dangerous situations with equal zeal.
Ygraine
Pandora's Box:
We Strive For Pestilence!
Kaiden Fox
Castration of sex offenders won't help much. You see, it's not a crime
about sex. It's about power.
--
80jXm_H{IMj
most boring site on the web:
http://www.execpc.com/~kaiden
~Missy
pbyg...@aol.comspareme (Ygraine) wrote:
>When I first read this thread my gut reaction was the need to kill the
>motherfucker who wants to fuck rather than kill kids---
And in a properly Satanic society he would be dead already. I have
already killed him in my mind.
>as if these are the
>only two available options. I stayed quiet hoping that cooler heads would
>prevail, and on the whole, they did...but I am still at a loss.
As will all parents be until the obvious tollerance for such behavior
continues in our society. No doubt there are many pedophiles high up
in the judicial system when one examines the lax penalties handed to
those maggots. One thing I do know, if everyone were as careful about
prevention as I am, the sickos would have to move to fucking Thailand
to feed their appetites.
~Missy.
mant...@my-deja.com
human beings as the Roman Catholic Church or the most monastic and
puritanical of churches in existence.
Ygraine
>Date: 3/8/00 6:13 AM Eastern
>Then according to you, LaVey's church holds exactly the same view of
>human beings as the Roman Catholic Church or the most monastic and
>puritanical of churches in existence.
No doubt this would be a fascinating insight, were it to provide a quote, or
perhaps even a hint as to whom or what it was referring.
Y~
mant...@my-deja.com
are, is
> somewhat irrelevant if we are discussing going's on in the USA.
>
> I do not doubt there are any number of 11 plus year
> old girls ready and willing to take a fuck. I also have no doubt
there are a
> large number who aren't, and the largest percentage are probably
utterly
> unsure.
thread, which is to find a way to save a few lives.
> However, there are reasons, whether you agree with them or not, why we
have
> ages of consent in this country. They have to do with the fact that
sex is not
> completely harmless, and the repurcussions of an hour can last a
lifetime---and
> not only to the child! The parent of the child is the one who
maintains all
> the legal responsibility.
>
> Personally, I have moral issues---but they are my own and I try to
view the
> topic with a degree of understanding of my personal biases.
>
> However, I agree with consent laws because I am a parent. In this
country
country or culture a good idea comes from and the US is copying laws
from other countries all the time.
the
> law is quite clear about what my responsibilities are. My job, come
rain or
> shine, Nirvana or Armageddon, is to take care of my child until they
reach the
> age of 18. Period. I am responsible for their food, housing,
education,
> medical care and expenses, and every aspect of their life.
>
> That means them coming home pregnant is MY business. That means them
getting
> an STD is MY business. That means that I have a direct responsibility
> regarding my child's sex life---and I can either throw my arms in the
air and
> be a lax parent and play Russian roulette, or I can utililize the laws
and my
> own moral stance to take control of what becomes, de facto, my life.
>
cultural anthropology, in which girls as young as five have some sort of
sexual contact with men as old as 40. If the choice is between creating
a certain percentage of adults who want to destroy the young of their
species and risking some STD, I know what I would choose.
> When I first read this thread my gut reaction was the need to kill the
the
> only two available options. I stayed quiet hoping that cooler heads
would
> prevail, and on the whole,
including my responses to others so that we don't repeat the same
points. This is not an advocacy of any sexual practice, but an attempt
to save lives.
they did...but I am still at a loss.
belong to the Nightstalker school of Satanism. The purpose of this
thread is somehow to short-circuit murder, not to cater to anyone's
sexual desires.
>
> My six year old wants to eat chocolate until we'd need to buy stock in
> Immodium. My five year old had to be pulled down from jumping off a
moving
> boat in an alligator filled canal. These are the people who can give
> "consent"?
>
> Look around at kids, people. Youth is designed to teach lessons about
safety
> while under the care of a loving and protective adult. To take
advantage of a
> child, simply because s/he "wants" it is absurd and selfish---ask for
sex and
> then ask if they want to drive 150 miles an hour down the
turnpike---they'll
> meet both dangerous situations with equal zeal.
give. But if we deny consent in those areas in which children can give
it and for what are really not harmful practices, then we risk raising
girls who become mothers filled with such rage that they turn their sons
into serial killers. And we risk raising boys that become murderers.
You might be interested in the book, Love Against Hate, by Karl Meninger
on the issue of children's true feelings.
Your notion that this thread is only to mount an argument for a
certain type of sexuality betrays a false concept of human beings.
You think that any person who might be inspired to sexual contact
with a child is already a murderer, which repeats the initial
mistake. You assume that such a person is a devious leering
manipulator constantly prowling for weak souls to lead into the wrong
path. This is the case sometimes unfortunately, but not always.
Sometimes there is genuine respect as between equals, because in matters
of the heart, children are the equals of adults. You may be misreading
the motives and the actions of other people.
Any adult who would want to "fuck" a small child is already a
murderer. We are trying to understand how to prevent adults from
developing into this. There may be preliminary stages, which, if
permitted, would prevent this.
Every year I hear of children murdered in connection with some sort
of sexuality. If we continue your attitude, the adults inspired to
engage in it will be persuaded that it is better to kill the children
than to risk being identified. The reason these murders are
happening may be precisely because of your attitude. This seems clear as
a bell to me. You make very good points and are obviously a strong and
responsible mother with whom any child would be safe.
>
> Ygraine
>
> Pandora's Box:
> We Strive For Pestilence!
>
>
mant...@my-deja.com
Of course it can. But any conscious human being would be able to see
what another person is capable of and what they are not. They would
know immediately if someone else were in discomfort. A decent person
who relates to others out of respect and caring would stop immediately.
A person who would harm a child or anyone during such an activity would
already be a psychopathic sadist and murderer.
But our purpose is to prevent such sickness from developing in the
minds of people. Why would a human being wish to hurt the young of his
own species?
The scene you conjure suggests someone who is either already a
murderer or is not in control of his actions. If he cannot control his
actions, it is because he cannot control his emotions. This is because
he does not know his emotions. This is because he is in unfamiliar
territory. Thus a first step in preventing such occurrences is to de-
mystify the issue. To allow people to become familiar with the
subject. What activities are safe between people of various
categories. Allow people to consciously get a grasp of their
relationships to each other and they will become more responsible in
those relationships.
If we always jump to the worst-case scenario, we prevent ourselves
from examining the issue. Thus the scenario becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
--mantikkon
mant...@my-deja.com
~Missy
wrote:
>You make very good points and are obviously a strong and
>responsible mother with whom any child would be safe.
Ygraine! The man is sucking up to you...next he'll be asking for your
adress so he can get closer to your children. Give a pedophile an
inch...he takes a mile.
Why do you reaffirm the validity of his ideas by adressing his
arguments? The warped logic he uses is in blatant misunderstanding of
LaVey's philosophy, and is the obvious justification of diseased
criminal thinking. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?
Yes, there are societies in the world, I know of one in the South
pacific, where children are forced into sex acts with grown men...and
it is FORCING, as what child could stand the stench of an adult's
breath or genetelia?? I the society I refer to, boys are forced to
give oral sex to tribesmen as a sort of "coming of age" rite. The men
sometimes end up snapping their little necks in the ensuing struggle.
Sounds REAL healthy to me!!
~Missy.
Ygraine
>mant...@my-deja.com
>wrote:
>
>>You make very good points and are obviously a strong and
>>responsible mother with whom any child would be safe.
>
>Ygraine! The man is sucking up to you...next he'll be asking for your
>adress so he can get closer to your children. Give a pedophile an
>inch...he takes a mile.
>
I appreciate your concern. Rest assured that anyone making any sort of
argument which could be construed as pro-child/adult sex is hardly on my list
of potential dinner guests.
>Why do you reaffirm the validity of his ideas by adressing his
>arguments?
I would hardly say I validated his ideas. I explained that there were reasons
for the laws that trancended "morality" and went to responsibility.
>The warped logic he uses is in blatant misunderstanding of
>LaVey's philosophy, and is the obvious justification of diseased
>criminal thinking. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?
Yes, I do. No hollering necessary.
>Yes, there are societies in the world, I know of one in the South
>pacific, where children are forced into sex acts with grown men...and
>it is FORCING, as what child could stand the stench of an adult's
>breath or genetelia??
>I the society I refer to, boys are forced to
>give oral sex to tribesmen as a sort of "coming of age" rite. The men
>sometimes end up snapping their little necks in the ensuing struggle.
>
>Sounds REAL healthy to me!!
The whole notion is utterly disgusting, and is an argument for the elimination
of cultural relativity.
Y~
SVsite
practices" tend to convince me that this is not a culture of humans and
at all, and maybe I could drop bombs on them and exterminate them. I
was referring to the Islamics and their "cultural" practices regarding
the other half of their race - females. If any country did this to a
MINORITY GROUP living in countries with an "other" majority, the UN
would have a holy shit fit over "crimes against humanity." Oh, women
are not humanity? Even DEALING with nations that do that kind of thing
is SICK, imo. The Taliban. Where are the fucking BOMBS for them? I
REALLY believe these people should be eradicated - NO tolerance at
all.
Sure the kids struggle.
Tani
In article <20000310171442...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
pbyg...@aol.comspareme (Ygraine) wrote:
> >From: "~Missy" p...@intergate.bc.ca
>
Missy said:
> >I the society I refer to, boys are forced to
> >give oral sex to tribesmen as a sort of "coming of age" rite. The
men
> >sometimes end up snapping their little necks in the ensuing struggle.
> >
> >Sounds REAL healthy to me!!
>
> The whole notion is utterly disgusting, and is an argument for the
elimination
> of cultural relativity.
>
> Y~
> Pandora's Box:
> We Strive For Pestilence!
>
>
mant...@my-deja.com
horrible thing. But you should not get your facts from the internet or
from gossip. You need to document this with a sociological or
anthropolical study from a recognized university, hopefully from more
than one source.
--mantikkon
~Missy
pbyg...@aol.comspareme (Ygraine) wrote:
>>Ygraine! The man is sucking up to you...next he'll be asking for your
>>adress so he can get closer to your children. Give a pedophile an
>>inch...he takes a mile.
>>
>
>I appreciate your concern. Rest assured that anyone making any sort of
>argument which could be construed as pro-child/adult sex is hardly on my list
>of potential dinner guests.
I *did* give you at least that much credit.
>>Why do you reaffirm the validity of his ideas by adressing his
>>arguments?
>
>I would hardly say I validated his ideas. I explained that there were
>reasons
>for the laws that trancended "morality" and went to responsibility.
This person has no place posting on this newsgroup. We only encourage
him when we feed into his ideas. It sickens me that someone with his
thinking would even dare consider approaching the Satanic culture with
his ideas...We are clearly making this N.G. too hospitable a place for
his kind. Could it be that the Xians kicked him out? Seems to me he
would fit in much better with them if he pushed his thinking just a
little beneath the surface...
>>The warped logic he uses is in blatant misunderstanding of
>>LaVey's philosophy, and is the obvious justification of diseased
>>criminal thinking. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?
>
>Yes, I do. No hollering necessary.
I meant only to emphasize...not holler. I understand that selected
text can be accentuated through capitalization provided that it isn't
extensive.
>>Yes, there are societies in the world, I know of one in the South
>>pacific, where children are forced into sex acts with grown men...and
>
>>it is FORCING, as what child could stand the stench of an adult's
>>breath or genetelia??
>
>>I the society I refer to, boys are forced to
>>give oral sex to tribesmen as a sort of "coming of age" rite. The men
>>sometimes end up snapping their little necks in the ensuing struggle.
>>
>>Sounds REAL healthy to me!!
>
>The whole notion is utterly disgusting, and is an argument for the
>elimination
>of cultural relativity.
Intervention is unwise...in any respect. That is provided they do not
interfear with our existence. It only becomes our problem when it
effects our lives.
We can, however, have the wisdom to learn from other cultures'
mistakes rather than allowing pedophiles to run rampant in our own
society. Do you think the cowardly man-child would be so quick to
grab at our childrens' genetilia the minute our back is turned if he
knew we had the right to execute him when caught red-handed? I
believe that his diseased mind would turn on itself and he would
slowly self-destruct if the stakes were this high, rather than risk
such humiliation. I also believe he would be caught _before_ he did
any damage if we as parents were spiritually intact to begin with, and
that a sexually well adjusted child would be far less injured by such
an experience.
What we need to adress as well is the irresponsable way our culture
raises children. Lambs for the wolves to slaughter. If we saturate
their complete, and powerful minds with asexual, behavior-modifying
eye candy from the day they are born, we rob them of their predatorial
instincts. We rob them of any conscious awareness and use of their
powerful sexual energies. They become wanton and crave physical
attention as a placebo for lack of parental guidance. This builds
compulsion-- resulting in the perfect victim _and_ perpertrator of
sexual assault...The perfect societal mind-control victim. We do it
to _ourselves_damnit!!!
Ideally, one could just "go with" one's natural instincts from day
one, and everything would be o.k. However, given the current
refinement of our societal approach to existence, nothing can be this
simple. We have become so utterly conscious of ourselves as to
re-define the patterns of the group consciousness upon the
individual's introduction to society. This self-consciousness is
manifest in the ability we have to adulterate and manipulate our own
minds, and therefore our surroundings. I find myself thinking of "the
borg"<<shudder>>.
The BALANCE of the situation, as pertaining to Satanism, would be to
feed a child's mind with sufficient, high quality (as opposed to
gratuitous) dark imagery and fiction to counter the effects of current
societal trends; therefore creating a _complete_ picture of REAL life
in the child's psychological landscape. To transcend the bounds of
time drawn by style and habit is the rule when arming little ones with
the tools they need to win in this world. And win we must if we want
to succeed.
~Missy.
mant...@my-deja.com
be based on a culture in New Guinea, in which a boy of eight is given
by his father to an adult uncle or male friend. The boy and he engage
in what we would call a homosexual relationship, and this is seen as
necessary to the boy's growth into manhood. Then at fifteen the boy
marries a girl and lives as a heterosexual. They do not snap their
necks; no normal person does this sort of thing. So Missy's story has
been embellished to suit the opinions of the reteller.
As for us learning from the mistakes of other cultures, we have so
much rage, and mental illness, and drug addiction, etc. in our own
culture, it is we who should learn from others.
--mantikkon
SVsite
to do it because, like with shitty tasting food that a kid wants to
SPIT OUT - YUCH, his MOUTH and taste buds and olfactory senses said NO
to it. What cultures do you suggest "we" learn from? The Taliban
maybe? Nigerian clitoridectomy culture (that's not culture, that's
crimes against humanity).
YOU PEOPLE are fucked up because YOU PEOPLE come FROM patriarchal dung
heap cultures that are repressive as hell and phallo centric at the
same time. Go read "TREE OF DESTRUCTION" (www.apodion.com/vad/) (it's
not about Kaballa at all) and see a synthetic analysis (which IS 100%
TRUE, based on facts) of societies since agriculture. Go read it. If
anything, the Germanic peoples and Slavic people are the LEAST
patriarchal and MOST free and natural because they are much
newer "modern" cultures compared to the Romans and Greeks, or to India
and China which are the oldest. DUNG HEAPS and these are 3rd world
countries or near that now. The problem is the MENTAL sex as opposed
to natural sex. Maybe you don't know the difference.
This whole conversation on this thread is tired. We have the
technology to really test human beings now. It would take a
totalitarian dictator like Stalin to IMPLEMENT such testing. I'm all
in favor of it. I'd advocate exterminating the misfits. That would
help society be rid of the problem AND help with the overpopulation
problem. As for the Taliban: you got a nuke bomb you wanna lend me to
drop on the whole country? ALL those male centered warrior ethic
cultures do STUPID SHIT like that, centered on the fucking penis no
less. ALL of them. The Trobriand Islanders are NOT a warrior ethic
culture - they DONT do such things. Read on same website MALE DISEASE
and find out about it. Read MATRIARCHY up there too, by Phil Marsh.
It's got facts. Apparently the ONLY THING YOU KNOW is phallocentric
culture. I don't come from such a culture and I regard it, seeing it,
as SICK - it's demented as hell. And the women it produces or
indoctrinates? DOOR MATS. Even the strong ones who can KICK ASS with
military training are DOOR MATS.
Of all the unga bunga STUPID shit I've ever heard: get a boy to suck a
cock to make him into a man? SAY WHAT? Transglutaminase causes immune
dysregulation syndrome: it's found in human sperm. GO SUCK ON IT. Or
go eat some Jesus flesh in the form of round wafer. STUPID unga
bunga.
Tani Jantsang
In article <8aivg6$s14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mant...@my-deja.com
to solve the problem of child-sex murders. Like almost all of the
people who answer in opposition to my proposal, you fantasize an
argument that was never made, then you knock it down. This is called a
Straw Man argument. No one ever identified the original proposal of
this thread with either patriarchal or matriarchal societies and the
answer to that is "Who cares!" Whatever society or technique that
decreases child-sex murders should be looked at. You mention female
circumcision assuming I advocate it. This is as incorrect as saying
that I advocate male circumcision, which you somehow forgot to
mention. Maybe pain inflicted on boychildren is ok with you. And
anyway the joke is on you regarding female circumcision: if it is
anything like the practice in Ethiopia, it is done by the old women,
who take the girls away without the knowledge or approval of the men.
You still did not present a reputable source for your south-sea island
story. If you think this thread is tired, don't read it and don't post
on it. As for your nuke comments, Eurocentric cultures have been
fighting the Moslems for about 900 years. Just try dropping a bomb on
them. See how far that gets you. Who the hell is "YOU PEOPLE"? I
don't belong to any "you people", neither matriarchal nor patriarchal.
--mantikkon