That's the way you view it, but look at somewhere like ancient greece, there was quite implicit and well known boy love.That wasn't just a case of banging kids and saying 'they probably wanted it'.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:32,
archived)
and you think little boys actually enjoy cocks up their arses?just because those boys grew up to do the same thing doesn't mean it didn't cause suffering.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:34,
archived)
If it was a society, and it was, where that was seen a higher form of love then it wouldn't have been suffering.Also I'm talking about like 12-14 here maybe, not like really young kids.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:39,
archived)
I'm talking about the physical/emotional act of having a cock in your arsenot some societal attitude. I'm sure more than a few kids were manipulated or intimidated into doing it. Just because their society turned the other cheek doesn't mean that kids didn't suffer unneccesarily.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:48,
archived)
You realise it wasn't forced upon them, it wasn't like they were owned or anything.And I'm sure there are more than a few women and men beyond consent who are manipulated or intimidated or pressured into doing sexual things these days, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. In fact in ancient greece the man-boy relationship was pretty much an act of moral and spiritual education, to the extent that abuse wasn't even vaguely tolerated.
It may seem strange to you, but that's because social positions and meaning changes ALOT. I suggest you read into it, if alone because it's interesting reading.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:56,
archived)
It may seem strange to you, but that's because social positions and meaning changes ALOT. I suggest you read into it, if alone because it's interesting reading.
saying that something happened in the past is no argument for something being justified in the future.There were times where eccentric ladies were burned as witches. Suffering occurred.
There were times when it was acceptable to have slaves. Suffering occurred.
We haven't regressed by taking these things out of society.
Anyway I'm really hoping you're just playing devil's advocate here and you don't genuinely believe that sex with minors is cool.
(There were times when it was acceptable to have slaves. Suffering occurred.
We haven't regressed by taking these things out of society.
Anyway I'm really hoping you're just playing devil's advocate here and you don't genuinely believe that sex with minors is cool.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:02,
archived)
Saying that because something isn't tolerated now is no argument for saying it was reprehensible.And as I said, you should read about it more before you make emotive reactions. And frankly it just seems incredibly ignorant and kneejerky to equate your modern perception of paedophilia to something you clearly don't know a huge amount about, for a start the maturation and education of children used to be much faster in those days. Boys were essentially expected to be educated in mathematics and spirituality and ready to be men much much younger.
Devil's advocate or not, we have to do something about it because you can't just have a large portion of people who aren't able to function or interact with society.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:16,
archived)
Devil's advocate or not, we have to do something about it because you can't just have a large portion of people who aren't able to function or interact with society.
Reading up on ancient greek boy love won't justify modern day paedophilia.I haven't been especially emotive here, I've just pointed out that there is a large potential for people to suffer, and as such it should not be seen as a good thing.
You're clearly not going to accept that, which is unfortunate. Paedophilia isn't good. Sorry if that's the way you swing, but if it is then you should be denied access to potential victims.
(You're clearly not going to accept that, which is unfortunate. Paedophilia isn't good. Sorry if that's the way you swing, but if it is then you should be denied access to potential victims.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:22,
archived)
I hope you mean 'you' as in 'one', otherwise that's pretty lame debating implying I'm a paedophile.There's a large potential for people to suffer in anything, condoning or making something illegal will rarely change whether anyone's going to suffer. The people who do things at the expense of others will still continuing doing it, it's just that others would be able to act without others suffering.
And as I said, it's the view of modern day paedophilia and children in society, that's not going to stay the same, nothing ever does, not because of a push to be more permissive but just because society and moral views always change. They just do. It's ridiculous to assume that just because something was acceptable in the past and now isn't, it will stay unacceptable. And frankly it doesn't matter if you feel it hurts people or it's wrong, you can't just say something "isn't good", you might as well just say it's immoral if you want to provide absolutely no meaningful analysis or insight.
You're suggesting that because someone has already suffered they're not allowed to seek justice?The only reason I have to suggest that you have some sort of vested interest in this discussion is that you're ignoring the viewpoint of the victim.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:39,
archived)