|
|
Post by june on Apr 28, 2009 21:37:23 GMT
Preference isn't an absolute - you can prefer dark hair but it does not preclude you from becoming attracted to a blonde. But, if you are homosexual you are not attracted to the opposite sex. rarely do paedophiles not form relationships with opposite sex adults - so I feel that debunks the pre programmed argument - they are acting on a preference not a compulsion. Yet a contraindication of this being the case would be the fact that they cannot be 'cured'. Can they not? So all sex offenders repeat? |
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Apr 28, 2009 22:42:50 GMT
Yeah RV, but what I'm asking (stumbling towards) is what if your sexual attraction is hardwired to fancying children? Seriously dodgy ground RG. 'Childhood' is a new term for humans. 15 thousand years ago we died when we hit about 30. So when and how do you define a child in sexual terms? We do through culture and laws. Difficult to see how you could 'hardwire' say a date on diary into 'genes'. A child who is 15 and 364 days old does not become became an adult in genetic terms the next day. We just know it is wrong to have sex with kids because our laws tell us that. 16 is the age, but that only goes back to Victorian times. What if the date chosen was a couple of years either way? 14 or 18 for example? What about two fourteen year olds? Are they Peodophiles? Or just randy teenagers who have sex for the sake of it? I think peodophiles are not finding children sexually attractive, but they get turned on by the power trip over a child. |
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 29, 2009 0:49:46 GMT
That's one of those things that is batted back and forth with multiple meanings like all sexual tastes. It has improved a little with the distinction between mere 'underage' sex and 'paedophilia' under 13. It still does not recognise the difference between restriction to a specific group and acceptance of that group. Questions into just what 'Virgin' Mary meant in her time find that Rabbis could not agree whether a girl was 'virgin' because she had not become pregnant, was not capable of becoming pregnant, whether bleeding from a torn hymen (not necessary!) counted as first menstruation, whether first mentruation changed her status or it had to be three times, and a bewildering philosophical debate such as only Rabbis could manage including that a woman might become a virgin once no longer capable of childbirth.
It is not so surprising: few men must have peered up a girl's crotch to actually see the difference between a physical virgin and a girl not one. I doubt most girls ever do, especially then when mirrors were St. Paul's in a 'glass' (bronze - not glass) darkly. I've done it once and well, there was a bit of 'pulling in' round the back but really nothing to show and that wasn't what hurt her. It's not nearly as noticeable as the difference between aa man circumcised or not. Then again, the only tampons 2,000 years ago were contraceptives and nice Jewish girls no doubt kept fingers out of it, so maybe their hymen covered further. If there was any sense equivalent to ours of distinction between child and adult it would have set in at puberty until very recently. Even in quite recent times, 'respectable' women have been expected to behave like girls wanting nothing to do with the sex that men demand of them, and there are still too many around who continue to think of women that way.
So we should make a distinction between people who only get turned on by particular types and those who'd basically shag anything. There are probably further distinctions between the feeble-minded intending only affection and the brutal with thrills in sadism. But then sadism is a 'natural' feature in that animals do gang up to destroy the weak that our moral conventions tell us to protect. Yet for some people, dominating and crushing the already dominated and crushed is a major turn-on.
Nobody is Paedophile because they have sex with children - even less when the 'children' are teenagers who would be legal under another jurisdiction, any more than they re [Homosexual[/i] for having sex with their own kind (or Racist shoud it be another 'kind'). They are those perverts when that is the only people they will consider sex or emotion with, when they reject adults of the opposite sex on principle because they have a very personal desire uninterested in relationship with anybody else automatically prejudiced against all others.
There may be deep indoctrinations to protect children. Some 12 years ago a teenage virgin latched onto me and although I had known somebody the same age ten years before, because she shaved and was anorexic, she looked much more girlish. Lovely to look at, I could imagine her as an Art Deco statue, but what wants to make love with a statue?
We have a conflict between liberal acceptance and traditional puritanism meeting on the same ground where before they could avoid each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 29, 2009 6:58:22 GMT
Yeah RV, but what I'm asking (stumbling towards) is what if your sexual attraction is hardwired to fancying children? Seriously dodgy ground RG. 'Childhood' is a new term for humans. 15 thousand years ago we died when we hit about 30. So when and how do you define a child in sexual terms? We do through culture and laws. Difficult to see how you could 'hardwire' say a date on diary into 'genes'. A child who is 15 and 364 days old does not become became an adult in genetic terms the next day. We just know it is wrong to have sex with kids because our laws tell us that. 16 is the age, but that only goes back to Victorian times. What if the date chosen was a couple of years either way? 14 or 18 for example? What about two fourteen year olds? Are they Peodophiles? Or just randy teenagers who have sex for the sake of it? I think peodophiles are not finding children sexually attractive, but they get turned on by the power trip over a child. Trust me RV, I don't want to get into the 'when are people old enough for sex' debate, and I fully understand what your'e saying about the 'age of consent' being a social construct. But whether it's 14, or 16, or 18, - it's POST-puberty. I thought there was a difference between a peadophile and a sex offender, in that someone who has sex with a child above the age of puberty but below the age of consent was a sex offender, but someone who was sexually attracted to a child PRE Puberty was a peadophile. It's normal to find teenagers sexually attractive. But it' snot normal to find, say, 4 yr olds sexually attractive. I see what you're saying about the whole 'it's about power not sex' thing for peadophiles. But it's not an area I've looked into . . I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that for some people it IS about sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. And that such a thing is hardwired in the same way that heterosexualit is . . . or perhaps caused by childhood experiences. Sorry, i think I've come the full circle here. |
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 29, 2009 18:21:20 GMT
Now there's maybe a useful distinction. Riot assumes sexual attraction. I think that (as with my experience) somebody who looks juvenile is not sexually attractive. Arguments about precocious pubescents who do not look the part are something of a distraction. But not all sex requires attraction. There's no attraction for a vibrator or an inflatable doll or an animal. This is the area of pure personal sensation and young boys have a long Arab history there (whatever the Qur'an has to say about it). I suppose that technically it falls into the category of rape, but not of the same kind as when sex is being used as pure power-play in the way that's been going on in African wars (and probably always did). One can't call it a true paederasty either because 'attraction' is not really at issue. None of it makes any difference as far as culpability goes but it does in terms of treatment or punishiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by tg on Apr 29, 2009 18:57:29 GMT
Yet a contraindication of this being the case would be the fact that they cannot be 'cured'. Can they not? So all sex offenders repeat? All indications are that they cannot. We were not talking about all sex offenders but rather paedophiles. They have a high recidivism rate over a five year period, even after treatment, and a very high rate, well over 50% in some studies over a 25 year period. As with all studies of this nature, only the ones that got caught get counted. |
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 29, 2009 19:22:26 GMT
We have yet to define precisely what it means. However, Canada claims a 90%+ rate on reforming men who've admitted to an attraction specific to children. There seems no reason why not. Most of us find some adults of the other sex attractive but we don't go round propositioning or raping them.
|
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 1, 2009 1:02:31 GMT
Why did God put us on earth? Why are we here? Deep and ponderous questions.
Number one, I would say he (or she) wanted us to get laid. Sex is truly a consuming obsession especially in the mating age of 18 to 30 years. We're animals and the same is true for most animals. The urge to reproduce is governing. It's in our genes. Ladies, lift your skirts.
Next I would say kill or be killed. I don't know why but men are wired to compete and to kill their enemies. Enemies are defined as anyone on the other team (country, city state, religion, whatever). It's been going on for centuries. When the Romans didn't have an convenient enemy army nearby, they put up the Colloseum so they could kill for spectator sports. Look at today's Jihadists. It's crazy I agree, but it seems to be out there.
It's interesting that man has the ability to learn, adapt, and develop solutions to problems. This is what puts us at the top of the food chain. It's what gave us air conditioning, automobiles, computers, and television. It also gave us spam, traffic congestion, crime, and recessions.
My advice is to ignore killing your enemies and the recession. Concentrate on getting laid.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 1, 2009 15:50:18 GMT
Why did God put us on earth? Why are we here? Deep and ponderous questions. Number one, I would say he (or she) wanted us to get laid. Sex is truly a consuming obsession especially in the mating age of 18 to 30 years. We're animals and the same is true for most animals. The urge to reproduce is governing. It's in our genes. Ladies, lift your skirts. Next I would say kill or be killed. I don't know why but men are wired to compete and to kill their enemies. Enemies are defined as anyone on the other team (country, city state, religion, whatever). It's been going on for centuries. When the Romans didn't have an convenient enemy army nearby, they put up the Colloseum so they could kill for spectator sports. Look at today's Jihadists. It's crazy I agree, but it seems to be out there. It's interesting that man has the ability to learn, adapt, and develop solutions to problems. This is what puts us at the top of the food chain. It's what gave us air conditioning, automobiles, computers, and television. It also gave us spam, traffic congestion, crime, and recessions. My advice is to ignore killing your enemies and the recession. Concentrate on getting laid. Interesting. In your first paragraph you declare a joy in the most base lust and suggest that women make themselves more sexually accessible. But in your penultimate paragraph you talk about how we have developed and evolved from our primitive states. See any contradictions there? |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 17, 2009 18:27:26 GMT
Isn't it that genes give you a propensity towards certain behaviours, not that they control them? In that, haven't they identified a genetic propensity to alcohol addiction, which doesn't mean everyone with those genes will become an alcoholic, but just that they're more at risk of it, like the genes for breast cancer. Yes, but that does not mean that you will become an alcholic. The main determining factor for that is culture and nuture. I mean there must be, by the law of averages, muslims with the ‘alcholic’ gene, who never become addicted to beer, mainly because they live in a culture where it does not exist. If you live in a culture or family where the main pastime is getting ripped to the tits every week then you are likely to become adicted to the stuff. You'd be surprised. The muslim analogy does not hold, for oppression is in play. It tends to skip a generation or two. |
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 17, 2009 19:15:15 GMT
The muslim analogy does not hold, for oppression is in play. That was the point I was making. You cannot simply say it is down to genes. Culture is FAR more important. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 18, 2009 18:22:13 GMT
The muslim analogy does not hold, for oppression is in play. That was the point I was making. You cannot simply say it is down to genes. Culture is FAR more important. It tends to skip a generation or two. |
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 7, 2010 0:39:16 GMT
Why did God put us on earth? Why are we here? Deep and ponderous questions. Number one, I would say he (or she) wanted us to get laid. Sex is truly a consuming obsession especially in the mating age of 18 to 30 years. We're animals and the same is true for most animals. The urge to reproduce is governing. It's in our genes. Ladies, lift your skirts. Next I would say kill or be killed. I don't know why but men are wired to compete and to kill their enemies. Enemies are defined as anyone on the other team (country, city state, religion, whatever). It's been going on for centuries. When the Romans didn't have an convenient enemy army nearby, they put up the Colloseum so they could kill for spectator sports. Look at today's Jihadists. It's crazy I agree, but it seems to be out there. It's interesting that man has the ability to learn, adapt, and develop solutions to problems. This is what puts us at the top of the food chain. It's what gave us air conditioning, automobiles, computers, and television. It also gave us spam, traffic congestion, crime, and recessions. My advice is to ignore killing your enemies and the recession. Concentrate on getting laid. Interesting. In your first paragraph you declare a joy in the most base lust and suggest that women make themselves more sexually accessible. But in your penultimate paragraph you talk about how we have developed and evolved from our primitive states. See any contradictions there? Where is the contradiction Riotgirl? What's primitive about getting laid? Happens every night most everywhere around the world. It had better continue if mankind is going to sustain long term. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 7, 2010 0:51:22 GMT
Interesting. In your first paragraph you declare a joy in the most base lust and suggest that women make themselves more sexually accessible. But in your penultimate paragraph you talk about how we have developed and evolved from our primitive states. See any contradictions there? Where is the contradiction Riotgirl? What's primitive about getting laid? Happens every night most everywhere around the world. It had better continue if mankind is going to sustain long term.
We're animals and the same is true for most animals. The urge to reproduce is governing. It's in our genes. Ladies, lift your skirts.Sounds pretty primitive and animalistic to me. The demand for women to make themselves immediately sexually available is something a bit different from the simple urge to get laid. |
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 7, 2010 1:38:16 GMT
Where did you find this RiotGirl? "The demand for women to make themselves immediately sexually available."
If that would happen there would be an uncontrollable population explosion. Not what we need.
Women are going to continue to use their favors as a negotiating chip. Always have, always will.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 7, 2010 9:44:20 GMT
I believe there is a Divine purpose to every life...no matter how short. And we are here to learn spiritual lessons, grow, help others and make the world a better place. Can't think of any Divine purpose regarding the little babies that died in the Haiti earthquake. Tell me this: what sort of god allows people to be buried in an earthquake for a fortnight then takes all the praise when a bunch of men risk their lives to rescue said people? Why does he go to the bother of letting the earthquake happen in the first place? Is it to reap praise? Ah, you're going to say "we are here to learn spiritual lessons, grow, help others and make the world a better place" Hmmmmmmmm. The thing is, it's ALWAYS god who gets the thanks, never the poor saps who do the rescuing. [come on Jumbo, we haven't had a god discussion for a while  ] |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 7, 2010 11:10:28 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by 'broad sense' Let us say that you have 'the fat gene' for example. Being fat in this culture may make you worse off. It may limit you in ways that are not all that noticable. You may have fewer friends, you may not enjoy sports and therefor you might not mix with children. That may make you a loner and get buliied that makes you withdraw from school. By the time you leave, you may not have the ability to earn good wages. I would say that the 'fat gene' made you worse off, but not directly in that it made you stupid, but our attidude to fat people clearly has. This is the sort of misinformed rubbish one sees all the time. "the fat gene" Alleles do not influence in splendid isolation. It should be common knowledge by now that a gene family is a group of genes that share important characteristics. In many cases, genes in a family share a similar sequence of nucleotides. In other cases, dissimilar genes are grouped together in a family because proteins produced from these genes work together as a unit or participate in the same process. Genes interact with other genes. But don't take my word for it.... Bateson, W. Mendel's Principles of Heredity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1909) Bateson, W., et al. Experimental studies in the physiology of heredity. Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society 2, 1–154 (1904) ---. Experimental studies in the physiology of heredity. Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society 3, 1–53 (1906) ---. Experimental studies in the physiology of heredity. Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society 4, 1–60 (1908) Dooner, H. K., Robbins, T. P., & Jorgensen, R. A. Genetic and developmental control of anthocyanin biosynthesis. Annual Review of Genetics 25, 173–199 (1991) Cordell, H. Epistasis: What it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Human Molecular Genetics 11, 2463–2468 (2002) |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 7, 2010 13:30:59 GMT
Yes Fret, but we knew what he meant by 'the fat gene'.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 7, 2010 13:33:51 GMT
Where did you find this RiotGirl? "The demand for women to make themselves immediately sexually available." . YOU made this demand Bushadmirer. |
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 7, 2010 13:37:02 GMT
I think we are here to 'be'
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 7, 2010 14:35:59 GMT
Yes Fret, but we knew what he meant by 'the fat gene'. Did you. Because I did not. Which ones??? |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 7, 2010 19:25:40 GMT
I don't think I agree with some of this. One of my best friends is heavy - always has been, so I guess that mean the "fat gene". In spite of that, she married a great guy, had 3 lovely, bright children, has traveled the world and is, generally, an interesting, happy person. Stereotypes often lead down a strange and winding garden path.
Why are we here? Our parents decided to procreate. Beyond that, it's up to us to give our lives some meaning. jmo
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 8, 2010 19:29:02 GMT
I don't think I agree with some of this. One of my best friends is heavy - always has been, so I guess that mean the "fat gene". In spite of that, she married a great guy, had 3 lovely, bright children, has traveled the world and is, generally, an interesting, happy person. Stereotypes often lead down a strange and winding garden path. Why are we here? Our parents decided to procreate. Beyond that, it's up to us to give our lives some meaning. jmo Beth, I'm sure your friend is a lovely person (I have one or two "heavy" friends who are lovely people), but, as far as traveling is concerned, sitting next to a "heavy" person on a plane in economy can be a bit of a trial. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 9, 2010 1:26:48 GMT
I don't think I agree with some of this. One of my best friends is heavy - always has been, so I guess that mean the "fat gene". In spite of that, she married a great guy, had 3 lovely, bright children, has traveled the world and is, generally, an interesting, happy person. Stereotypes often lead down a strange and winding garden path. Why are we here? Our parents decided to procreate. Beyond that, it's up to us to give our lives some meaning. jmo Beth, I'm sure your friend is a lovely person (I have one or two "heavy" friends who are lovely people), but, as far as traveling is concerned, sitting next to a "heavy" person on a plane in economy can be a bit of a trial. Oh, I agree with that, Everso - from experience. I don't believe my friend is quite that portly, though. She's what I'd describe as "well padded".  My point is that one cannot assume people who are over their ideal weight are, somehow, socially incapable. That may be the case, but there are probably additional reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 9, 2010 10:16:33 GMT
we are here because of the sexual urge and the random meeting of egg and sperm
the urge to reproduce.....
|
|
]
Nov 14, 2024 22:18:24 GMT
*
Nov 14, 2024 22:18:24 GMT
*
biglinmarshall.proboards.com/thread/7917/bits-pieces-magazine-issue-2024
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
yay! 
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
Oct 23, 2024 18:34:05 GMT