Yeah, totally. What a load of ageist BS, is what I think. Here, I got something to add to that: When we LET children know what "we" want them to know, we are called "good". When we DON'T let children know what "we" want them to know, we are called "incompetent". When we DON'T let children know what "we" DON'T want them to know, we are called "moralistic". When we LET children know what "we" DON'T want them to know, we are called "disturbed". I myself wouldn't include myself in the quote-unquote "we" category. That particular category, as far as I'm concerned, represents society. Children deserve the accurate information regarding life. We as adults should concentrate more on trying to get them to understand what they essentially deserve to know, than trying to filter everything and in turn confusing them further. Encouraging ignorance, to me, is far more damaging to children than letting them learn everything they deserve to know in the way that they would understand.
Well, I have to admit that would be a little odd. ha ha... But, I hardly think it violates any sexual boundaries!
You're welcome. It's very difficult to find clear thinkers who aren't socially conditioned at least to a certain point on these topics. You and heron seem to be more open to clear discussion without all the societal baggage.
I agree, it the suppression of your desires is not conducive to progress. I mean, holding everything in and being all "hidden" and "forbidden" and shit is just puritan. You are correct and I believe that talking about it and coming out in the open with things is the best way to go. Problem is...most people don't have open minds publically because they are afraid of others (and society in general).
Thanks! ha ha... Don't pay attention to that guy. He just likes to mess with people. He's really ok, but he's just an ASSHOLE DICKHEAD sometimes.
I am, after all, an Alternative_Thinker... See, most people don't understand me because they find it rather difficult to follow the way I think. I HAVE come across a few people who have similar views as I do, though. I'm also partial to rational/selective anarchy, and my being an anti-ageist is a part of the whole package, so to speak. I still DO have my own set of morals, however. They wouldn't be considered as society-approved because they are just really basic, that's all.
I have thought of that before. See, I'm not from the States. Which may also mean, where you might not explore, I just might...or have.
Yes, the old societal mantra : "IGNORE rather than EXPLORE". You are too innocent and ignorant to make your own decisions of what to do with your own body. That's some old man's job in the legislative branch of government! Your intelligence shows that you aren't either, but that you are a person who is second-classed as a citizen just because of when you were born. Infants, toddlers, children are one thing, but 15/16 year olds (although not fully mature) are capable of "just saying no" or "just saying yes" and making their own decisions. These politicians sure want to put them in jail if they commit a crime like murder. THEN they can be seen as an "adult". How hypocritical!
I've never fucked a minor, except when I was one. I had sex with a 16 year old when I was over 18. But, the legal age of consent in my state is 16. But, it was 14 for a long time. Up until about 10 years ago, I believe. She pretty well knew what the hell she was doing. Shit, she was more prepared than I was!! Ha ha... The point is that "SEX" in general scares American society. They don't want you to explore your sexuality, but watching 10,000 violent scenes on TV or the movies is just "part of our culture". Shit...give me a break! What is worse, seeing a pair of tits or some guy get his fucking head blown off? Our society is too afraid to make love, so they make war instead.
Very true. Our society promotes such movies as "American Beauty" and "Lolita", Alicia Silverstone and Britney Spears in a catholic school girl outfits and the like, but then make laws harsher and morality stricter against those people who are attracted by them. It's a true culture war, I suppose. One for progress and the other for the pilgrim days. Ha ha... But, I hardly think that lusting after someone 16 is considered "pedophilia". If it is, the majority of the male population is in deep shit.
One of my ex-girlfriends was 16 when I first met her. I was 21 then. There was no element of pedophilia whatsoever in our relationship. I just saw her as a beautiful girl with a beautiful personality. We just clicked well. Simple as that. A year prior to that, I was very much attracted to two girls at separate times. One was older than I, and the other 14 years old. Again, there was no element of pedophilia in either situation(well, the former was older than me, so who gives a shit?). I just recognized things in them that I would very much like in a romantic partner. Quite simple. Oh, here's my favorite story. I was interacting with a group of people in a particular online community, and there was a 13 year-old girl. She wanted people to talk to her, and one of the older guys actually said, "13 year-olds are disgusting". Can you believe that?? And can you believe the fact that it is probably safer to say a 13 year-old is "disgusting" than to say they are "beautiful", when you are an "adult"?? Load. Of. Crap. Seriously, we live in a BIG-assed pile of it.
In my opinion, some can't help the attraction to children, just like some can't help attraction to the same sex. That doesn't however give them justifiable reason to act on that attraction, and it's the one's that do that are sick. The thought of what happens to paedophiles in jail would be enough to keep me from acting on the attraction, if i ever felt it.
Unfair generalisation. It may well be true with regards to myself, but you can't make a statement that generalises across half the world's population.