Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7
File: cole_thomas_the_course_of_empire_destruction_1836-1024x629.jpg (204KB, 1024x629px) Image search:
[Google]
204KB, 1024x629px
Over the coming decades, pedophilia is going to enter the public scope of debate, and will eventually be accepted as an orientation and permitted in society. Not only that, but there is a possibility (small, but greater than most realize) of the legalization of child-adult sex. These claims are pretty bold, so I want to start off with some background information, before jumping into the meat of the data. In addition, this will largely be a rant against John Money, fuck that faggot.
First, we have to go back to John Money, a psychologist who I would say was largely influential to the upbringing of today’s gender debate. This may seem unrelated, but It has much to do with understanding the current ideological and intellectual makeup of psychologist today. His work in gender dysphoria and studies of hermaphrodites caused him to publish quite extensively on the idea of gender not as a biological concept, but as behavioral concept. He utilized this model to perform surgery on kids with ambiguous genitalia, in a sense providing them with a “gender identity” (a term coined by him) when they had none. The child would then be brought up as whichever sex they were surgically given, and typically the children turned out relatively healthy and integrated in society. For John, this showed evidence of gender not being related to genitalia or hormones, but that their upbringing determines how they make sense of themselves in society.
>>
File: El_jardín_de_las_Delicias,_de_El_Bosco.jpg (632KB, 1920x1024px)
632KB, 1920x1024px
John Money had a perfect opportunity to test this hypothesis with the Bruce/Brian experiment. Bruce, through a fucked circumcision, lost his genitals before he could even turn one. Understandably, his parents were upset, and wanted some semblance of normalcy for their child. Turning to John Money, he provided regular contact and reinforcement of the gender identity. The parents dressed him up in girlish clothes and ensured he socialized with the girls. He came to look as much as a girl as others and this identity was pushed on him from day fucking one. But in the end, Bruce knew he was a boy; something which John Money brushed off in early stages of the experiment as merely defiant behavior from an average growing child. Moreover, he had Bruce and Brian participate in what I would call incestuous and pedophilic “child sex play”, wherein the brothers would assume several sexual positions that were to further his treatment by forcing bruce to be in a feminine (bottom) role. In the end, the experiment took a heavy toll on them, causing both Brian and Bruce to take their lives. This led to the general rejection of his theory, and a return to a more biologically centered idea of gender and how behavioral patterns arise.
>>
File: 14676794_153005185159016_8522714041670434816_n.jpg (19KB, 480x480px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 480x480px
Or… no… it didn’t. In fact, it has become the very foundation of which “experts” on gender and sexuality base their research on. The Bruce/Brian experiment should have proven, at the least, that gender is more than the upbringing and societal treatment of a person. It was, however, too late by then for this information to come out. Already were physicians and psychologists moving along this road, and legislation judicial precedence against transgender discrimination was occurring in several states. Rather than accepting that the biological sex plays a crucial role in determining how one interprets one’s gender and assumes that role in society, they have taken his argument and ran with it, producing toxic shit that tries to make sense of gender through subjects of study in thoroughly intriguing areas like: Fashion, Masculinity as Homophobia, Gender performance (a big fucking buzzword in the social sciences), and even studies into online blogs. In studying this, they tiptoe around how identity is formed in interactions with others. It isn’t as simple as saying “I believe I am X, therefore I will demand everyone respect me as X”, it is a process of negotiation. You can perform being female all you fucking want, but everyone is going to see past the eye shadow, powdered face, and frilly dresses and realize you’re a fucking dude. Your identity isn’t yours, it’s how others perceive and how you interact with others based on your behavior and physiology, and it just so happens that’s very heavily related to whether you are XX, XY, or some fucking genetic accident in-between.
>>
However, by delimiting the definition of gender to the performance of a person, as opposed to the objective qualities of a person, it opened the flood gates in terms of how we view sex and sexuality. The whole concept of a gender “spectrum” doesn’t exist without viewing it all as a performance and power game. Since it’s all just “how you act it out”, universities became areas that, through their research, opened up the social sphere of sexual relationships. It pushed sex and relationships from “heterosexuality is the accepted sexual preference” to “anything is fine as long as they are consenting adults”. Due to personal political convictions I tend to agree with this sentiment, but the push to accept homosexuality and transsexualism became one that interfered with reality. They are, by the rough parameters which we draw the line, mental disorders. It doesn’t mean they are bad people, or are threats to us, but they are absolutely experience a disorder in how the mind functions. The DSM-V shows it as follows:
1. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
2. That reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
3. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
Both transsexualism and homosexuality fit these definitions, being a sexual dysfunction that often results in anxiety, depression, and several other medical problems. Additionally, it goes against the basic biologic instinct to procreate through sex with a female. Some would try to avoid the topic and say that these problems are brought about due to social stigma, but even in countries like Sweden where it is wholly accepted amongst its population and pounded into their fucking heads day in day out, their mortality rates are still far higher than the typical population (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016885).
>>
File: 539882_10154449625233873_2914988157585253728_n.jpg (61KB, 960x704px) Image search:
[Google]
61KB, 960x704px
What I’m trying to convey here is that a series of mental disorders, due to changing thoughts about sex and sexuality, went from being on the DSM to being socially solidified in society. This brings up the new precedent society has accepted as its baseline for sexual relation: that whatever consenting adults do in the bedroom is nobody’s business. Consent, as a result, becomes the crux of the argument, taking a purely negative rights approach to the whole concept (Lawrence v. Texas). However, as we translate this into policy, the question goes from “are atypical sexual preferences acceptable” straight to “where is the line of consent exactly”
This goes straight to the Age of Consent laws, which have enough flaws in them to bring into question their legitimacy. First, considering variances in AoC laws internationally, people will question why countries like the UK, Netherlands, Finland, etc… allow 16 year olds but for some reason the US sets the age higher. Furthermore, inconsistencies between various legal ages (drinking, driving, sex, etc) then beg questions as to why they are set to the ages they are; and when people remember that it was largely political and emotional pleas, there will be a degree of anger at these limitations. Then, the natural question of “how does an arbitrary age limit fit with our notions of social responsibility” comes into question. We consider the human mind to produce decision making and reasoning skills well into its early 20s, so how do we connect our legal construct of consent with a biological reality. Moreover, an armchair philosopher could
>>
>>132312521
cont.
easily beg the question of “Does a person, at 17 years old and 364 days, magically become able to consent over the span of 24 hours?”. These are not concerns you have to care about or think are legitimate, but they are realistic expectations of the kinds of arguments that you can find against the AoC. Combine this sense of disingenuity with AoC with a lowered averseness to mental disorders, specifically paraphilias, and you have an environment that is ripe for the growth of pedophilia.
>>
File: tumblr_n15ju4s7yj1s5okito1_500.jpg (14KB, 500x307px) Image search:
[Google]
14KB, 500x307px
This is why you see places like Vice, NYT, Salon, and other media sources leaping on the “I’m a pedophile, not a monster” bandwagon. It’s because it begs the legitimate question of “if a person is not actively harming others, why should they be shunned from society.” You don’t have to agree with its conclusion or even the legitimacy of the question, but the fact that it can be posed in that manner means that it is appealing to that sense of negative rights in sexuality. Rather than society having a set of moral standards that it wants to uphold, it leaves you with the “don’t hurt anyone and you’re good” rule. Again, I sympathize with this view, but by its nature it must beg the question about treatment of pedophiles. If you think that people aren’t already thinking about this kind of shit, just think about the fact that John Money, the man responsible for a majority of the framework in which psychological professionals consider gender and sexuality, stated this:
“If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ...then I would not call it pathological in any way”
And to be straight up with you guys, I’m a pedo, and I’m fucking scared for our future. Letting pedos roam about free fucking kids isn’t the fucking road we need to go down. It leads down a road of abuse and destruction for kids, and that’s not what this fucking world needs. I don’t want to see little girls pressured by adult authority figures into fucking and losing all sense of decency. I sure as hell don’t need to see how this will affect how children and adults interact with one another. It will be the slow agonizing death of civilized society, and It needs to stop, here and fucking now. But it won’t. It’s going to happen. And there isn’t anything you or I can do about it.
>>
Except that pedophilia was always the norm historically.
The age of consent meme was created by feminists in the first place.
>>
>>132312165
This seems like a thread with a pretty serious discussion, can anyone give some credible statistics about homosexuality and pedophilia and any relationship there?
Im on the fence about this and need to know.
>>
>>132314500
If the current trends in Canada show anything, it will be the dream of boipussi that gets pushed up. Remember that 8 year old drag queen?
>>
File: 1495092492847.png (597KB, 477x477px) Image search:
[Google]
597KB, 477x477px
>>132312844
not really, if we're talking europeans, historically they waited until the girl had her first period, and that usually happened when they were approximately 16, but due to both environmental and genetic factors, that number has been going down.
>>
>>132312705
>tumblr picture, furry picture, long boring posts
Theargument that all pedos are going to take advantage of kids and that all sexual relations are bad is stupid, tried and old. It conflicts with the evidence.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7