Whats the deal with rape storys?

[Canadian4Ever]

Hey folks, I hope people won't take this as a judgment, but I know some will. What the heck is the deal with rape stories. Part of the reason why I like this place is because I can ask that question. Back in the CSSA I was kicked out a few times because I expressed a dislike for fiction with minore, but here I can state it in my sig. This place in really where it is at for Freedom of Exprestion and quite frankly I think Victoria could learn a few things from DavesMistress.

So anyway what is it about rape stories that everybody seems to like? I am not parcial to them, even though I have been tempted to write them about Celebs I can't stand like Megan Fox, Stephantie McMahon, and Mariah Carrey. Is it simply a matter of getting your dark side out, or do you think there is more to it then that?

[anatole]

Certainly there is no single reason why forced-sex fantasies are appealing any more than there is a single woman all men find attractive, but there are some broad generalities.

There is a strong connection between sex and violence, not only in our culture, but in the human species and even across a wide spectrum of species in nature. Part of this may lie in a selective advantage in attracting powerful mates. After all, if a male is very aggressive towards a woman, he may also be more protective of her when she is threatened, and will likely sire strong offspring who will have a greater chance of survival. In a simpler sense, sex itself may be seen as an aggessive act: in nature, a broad range of males must subdue the female before mounting her. This occurs in everything from cats (haven't you seen the male holding the female down by her throat while atop her?) to spiders. Again, this might be a function of selecting for strong mates. Rape is really quite common in nature, so it might simply be part of our biologic heritage.

Another, more cultural, interpretation, might be that rape is a rationalization. If you see a woman you desire, you have the option of pursuing her and winning her as your mate, but, realistically, very few women are going to actually agree to having sex with you because of some inadequacy on your part: you could be the wrong age, body type, profession or economic class to successfully woo her. If you go back to the most basic, primitive, "schoolyard" approach to such things, then you simply take what you want, if you are able. As adults, most of us don't act like that, but we still have the primitive childlike part within us, so we can create rationalized fantasies that get us what we want, knowing that they are not realistic. For some, that might be a fantasy of how Jessica Alba really does want to have sex with us in particular, or she is somehow so oversexed that she wants to have sex with anyone, which would include us. Another way to get what we want is to create some scenario in which she has sex with us, although unwillingly. That could include the mind-control stories, or the hypno and sleepy stories, as well as the rape stories.

I think it comes down to very simple things, as most things do. We have some need in us that we want to satisfy and our minds do the rest. It's just the details that differ so much that people are willing to go to war over them, or imprison those whose details differ from their own.

regards,

AD

[anatole]

There is a very strong prohibition against sex with minors in our culture, but that is a fairly modern phenomenon. In the past, the only distinction between children and adults was the ability to inseminate or conceive, so once a boy can ejaculate or a girl began to mestruate, they were considered adults. Since development is correlated with nutritional status, in time of want, which, periodically, all earlier times were, people did not reach sexual maturity until their mid teens. Today, it starts around nine.

Men generally look for health and vigor in their mates and there are correlates between these traits and young women. For example, young women have smooth, flawless skin, which shows they are disease and pest free, and they have a bit of "baby fat" on them which shows good nutritional status. Older women, especially in the past, would not necessarilly show these traits, so they were not "preferred" mates.

Another thing to consider is that women are neotenous (they retain childlike characteristics later into life). For example, they have big eyes, rounded features and a general hairlessness of a child. One theory is that men feel an inherent urge to welcome and protect children, so, as the species ceased solitary existence and became more social, a woman who could stir these protective feelings in a man would be more likely to keep him around longer.

I do distinguish between "minor" and "child." There is every reason to expect a man to be attracted to a sexually mature minor, but there is no advantage to him be sexually attracted to someone who is sexually immature. Afer all, having sex with someone who cannot conceive is wasted effort, biologically speaking. This may be why secondary sexual characteristics, such as the development of breasts and body hair, were so important (remember that, despite Disney cartoons, only human females have permanently enlarged breasts). They were indicators that the girl was now a woman, and so worth mating with.

I suspect that much of the "pedophilia" that is prosecuted by law enforcement is simply wholesome biology clashing with a paranoid culture. This would not apply to sexual exploitation of sexually undeveloped children, which seem to be more culturally related.

Bottom line is that I really don't see anything wrong with sex with minors who are sexually mature, but feel that "kiddy porn" is basically maladaptive. In terms of fanfiction, I have no problem with stories about Miley Cyrus, although I wouldn't submit one because of the possibility of ending up in the wrong sort of database somewhere, but I would not see the appeal, so I would not condone, a story about some pre-pubescent Disney star. I did submit one, on request, with Dakota Fanning, but I did put in the caveat that she was, in this story, of legal age.

regards,

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

I suspect that much of the "pedophilia" that is prosecuted by law enforcement is simply wholesome biology clashing with a paranoid culture. This would not apply to sexual exploitation of sexually undeveloped children, which seem to be more culturally related.

I have to be honest with you Anatole, that is the sickest load of BS I have ever read in my life.

[anatole]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you should give some consideration of what you describe as "sick."

In nature, there are three absolute requisites for survival:

To preserve the self - that is, you need to be able to protect yourself as an organism from things that want to use your substance for themselves. That is, you have to keep from being eaten, in one way or another.

To accrue resources - that is, you need to be able to get the things you need to survive and grow as an organism, usually at the expense of some other organism. This even applies to plants, which use sunlight; they still need nitrogen and phosporous and other materials that are in the bodies of other organisms.

To reproduce - each organism is finite, so the only way to survive through time is to reproduce. It doesn't matter if it's sexually or asexually, but otherwise you disappear and those things that do reproduce will persist.

These are the primary functions of all biology. If we go off into space and discover exotic alien life, it will still have to perform these three basic functions.

Since reproduction is essential, it isn't appropriate to call it "sick." What you take exception to, I suspect, is age. In various cultures, there are different "ages" at which a person is considered a child. We have chosen an age around eighteen for most definitions, but we could have chosen, as a culture, fifteen or twenty-five. The number has no real meaning other than an agreed-upon arrangement. It is in no way "natural." In nature, sexual maturity means that the organism is able to reproduce, and, since reproduction is one of the primary functions of organic nature, if you are going to talk about "natural" behaviour, then as soon as an organism reaches sexual maturity, it "should" reproduce. Thus, if you have a twelve-year-old girl menstruating, then it is "natural" for her to reproduce, even if it is not "socially" acceptable to have her do so. Certainly in most of history, that girl would be considered to be a woman.

I don't understand why you feel what I write is BS. Actually, it's none of my own work or thought, but the work and thought of historians and researchers who simply describe the state of things. If you feel this is BS, then the onus is upon you to provide evidence that what they have described did not actually exist. Certainly you can say that you dislike the state of things, or that you find what has occured in the world to be morally repugnant, but that is simply a personal feeling that is deserving of respect, but not necessarilly universal.

Much of the problem lies in the use of the word "child." There is an enormous difference between sex with a five-year-old and sex with a seventeen-year-old, so I don't think they should be equated under the child sex laws, but they are. It's similar to what has happened with the term "rape." Originally, that was only applied to forced sexual intercourse, but now that it has been lumped in with "sexual assault," the meaning has been expanded to ridiculous extremes. In my state, "assault" is leagally defined as any physical contact that is not sanctioned under existing law (exceptions are made, for example, for medical personell and law enforcement). That means that if you go over to someone and give them a hug, you are guilty of "assault," and, if they are of the opposite gender then you have committed "sexual assault," and you are considered a "sex offender." Most often, these cases are not prosecuted, but sometimes they are and they have consequences beyond what was originally intended. When you get into thought-crime legislation, you can be charged with sexual assault by simply having a provocative picture in your workplace, and a single picture of an underage child naked is considered "child pornography" even if it's your own four-year-old in the backyard pool.

So, simply because our legal system has chosen to define a child as someone under the age of eighteen does not make it "sick" or even "wrong" to envision sexually-mature people engaging in sex. It simply make it prosecutable.

I will ad one last anecdote that is worth remembering when you want to tamper with biology. Pitcairn Island, as you probably know, was settled by the survivors of the mutiny on the Bounty. The mutineers took polynesian women with them to be their wives, and polynesian men with them to be their servents. Obviously, this didn't work out well and the polynesian men and the mutineers all killed each other until only a single mutineer was left, along with a lot of pregnant polynesian women. The mutineer, stunned by the violence, discovered religion and set up a very stingent theocracy that vilified sex. Essentially, the islanders would not engage in sex because they thought it evil, or, you might say, "sick." The only way the population persisted was because whalers would occassionally visit and the whalers, not bound by the islanders' morality, would impregnate all of the available women. This kept the population going up into modern times when the decline of whaling and the enforcement of international law ended the practice. At the moment, Pitcairn Island is almost depopulated. Mostly, only old people remain, and there is talk of simply relocating the remnant of population to some other island and abandoning Pitcairn completely.

When you start calling natural behaviours "sick," be careful what you wish for.

regards,

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

Somebody 13 is not metally ready to be sexually active. They are not adults. Any adult who has sex with a person that young or even a few years older is taking advantage of a child. Culters that normally allow this sort of behavior are normally barbaric people who condone throwing rocks at women (or wipping them) for leaving their homes so I don't really consider their way of live something to be copied. It is sick to have sex with a kid.

[anatole]

On the other hand, I know of some perfectly normal thirty year olds and even some forty year olds who are not emotionally or psychologically ready to have sex with anyone other than themselves. Certainly I know of a great number of people of all ages who are "taken advantage of" sexually by others. You probably don't like this, but accept it because these people are "adults." I hope you realize that you are engaging in a circular argument here; i.e. people are taken advantage of because they are children, but as soon as they are adults, they are no longer being taken advantage of as children because they are adults. A large part of what you deem "ready" for sex is culturally based and is not actually part of human nature. Even infants derive pleasure from being sexually stimulated, and there are certainly many cases of fifteen-year-olds being excellent parents, even in our own culture. Mostly, we raise our children in a way to keep them immature while other cultures encourage maturity. In a fundamental sense western culture tries very hard to keep people in a juvenile state. Just look at the behaviour of media role models: mostly they are infantile, and that is presented as an ideal form of behaviour. You would be hard pressed to find an adult role model in the media who exhibits the characteristics classically associated with a mature adult. Mostly they are simply old adolescents. Since western, especially American (and Australian) culture lionizes youth and childishness, there is a blurring of the cultural roles of youth and adulthood. That's not something I really want to expand upon, but it probably contributes, in combination with a punitive and repressive society, for the evident increase in sexual crimes against children, although it's not currently acceptable to suggest such things.

The point to remember is that "adult" is an artificial concept within a culture. It's actually wrong to say that a 13 year old is not mentally ready to be sexually active. Certainly they are. What you are talking about are the social consequences of such action, and those are all cultural and vary from culture to culture.

I don't quite agree with your statement about barbaric cultures because barbarism is simply a relative term that one culture uses to condemn the practices of another. It's useful to stir up emotions to get people to do things, but it has no real meaning in any absolute sense. Certainly you could make the case that socially and financially coercing people to indenture themselves for forty hours per week for thirty years could be considered a brutal form of tacit slavery and, thus, barbaric, but we accept it as being not only normal, but desirable.

I agree we don't generally whip people for infractions, but we do occassionally send them writhing on the ground in paroxysms of agony after shooting them with tasers. Well, that's certainly civilized!

We also don't smear dung on our heads to make us more attractive like the barbaric tribes do, but we do cut open the chests of our women and push bags of plastic into the gaping wounds before sewing them up again so that they won't feel socially inadequate. That's certainly civilized!

I guess we and the primitives both shove needles under our skin and inject paint to make us more decorative. Nothing primitive there!

This is getting pretty far from the field. Essentially, I still maintain that anyone who has reached sexual maturity is, by definition, ready for sex. If they are "emotionally" unprepared for the consequences of having sex, that is simply a function of their culture. The criterion we use to distinquish child from adult is totally arbitrary. If we set it at fifteen, then sex with sixteen year olds would be seen as perfectly alright, and if those individuals did a poor job of coping with the consequences of their actions, then we would blame them and not their age. Similarly, if we set it at twenty-five, then sex with a twenty-four-year-old would be seen as morally repugnant and, since it would be seen as abnormal, twenty-four-year-olds would be ill-prepared to deal with the consequences of having sex. There is no doubt, however, that both the fifteen and twenty-four-year-olds would derive pleasure from having sex. I don't think even you would challenge that most basic conclusion.

Thus, I still don't see any inherent problem with sexually mature people having sex. I won't, however, condone it, because it is illegal, just as I would not condone women going out in public without a burkha in an orthodox Islamic country because that's also illegal. That, however, does not make either action wrong or "unnatural."

regards,

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

You sound like somebody who is desprit to defend the sexual abuse of children.

[anatole]

Actually, I'm just disinclined to condemn any action that is not demonstrably harmful to anyone. As I've pointed out, the designation of "child" is an arbitrary legal determination, not based on any actual or "natural" condition of the individuals affected. Thus, it is illegal to mix sexuality with individuals the law defines as "children," regardless of their psyhcological state.

I have tremendous respect for the punitive power of the law, but not great regard for the judgements that go into making the law. It's illegal to smoke marijuana, but legal to drink alcohol even though vastly more harmful effects are attibutable to alcohol than to marijuana. Prostitution is illegal, but sex-for-free isn't, which leaves me scratching my head about why the introduction of monetary benefit, as opposed to social or emotional benefit, should be singled out for prohibition. But, then, in Mississippi, it's still illegal to serve a glass of wine with dinner on Sunday, but legal the rest of the week, which begs questions of both the seperation of church and state, or why alcohol is harmful to consume one day per week.

I do not condone any action that is demonstrably harmful to an unwilling person, but you get into shaky ground when you decide to place yourself in the position of determing what is harmful or not to someone other than yourself. It gets even shakier if the two people agree to an action and you place yourself in the position of deciding whether they are allowed to freely do it or not.

Personally, if a couple of young people, even a fifteen-year-old and a twenty-year-old want to be physically intimate, I don't think it necessarily is bad as long as they each respect each other. I can't condone this, though, since it is illegal and if their action is discovered, they will suffer more from the machincations of the legal system than they ever would from either "exploiting" the other. I take the same approach to marijuana. Whatever pleasure it gives is not worth the grief you get from the legal system if prosecuted. In neither case is the action itself "wrong" in any demonstrable way.

The flaw in your logic is in equating "underage" sex with "child abuse." I hope you realize this is tautological. Essentially, you make the judgement and then define the damage as a consequence of your judgment. It's circular reasoning.

regards,

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

I disagree. The only problem with law involving minores and adults having sex is that they are not strict enough. The only reason they aren't as harsh as they should be is because there are far to many perverts elected to office. Men and woman of a certain age should not have sex with people of a certain age. You can try to justify it all you want, but there is no justification. I don't care how hard a 15 year old comes on to an older person they should be smart enough to know not to "go there" with somebody that is 15. People who do these things are wrong, if we did not have these laws then the sexual exploitasion of children would be legal, and preventing that is more important then anything else.

[anatole]

I can't argue against a moral stance, which is what you are taking. Once a person has decided something is wrong and will admit no evidence to the contrary, then there is no common ground upon which to come to agreement.

I do hope, however, that you realize that the stance you are taking is the same one that has been behind most of the persecution in our long history: of gays, of blacks, of native Americans, of Australian aborigines, of Jews, of Christians, of infidels, of witches, of women and, yes, of children, if they weren't offspring of the dominant people.

Each of these groups was, at one time or another, in one place or another, despised for how they acted, what they thought, or merely what they were. Each was socially or culturally "wrong," and well deserving, in the minds of those who make rules and laws, of the most punitive actions to "control" them, and always it was excused by the argument that it was necessary to punish these people in order to protect one or another aspect or segment of society from their "threat."

In questions of faith, there can be no argument because, after all, faith requires one to believe one is right when all reason tells him otherwise. It's not terribly surprising to hear someone express this degree of absolutely sincere and well-meaning, if unreasoning, prejudice, but, nonetheless it is always disappointing.

with best regards, I remain...

AD

[Donnie2]

I'm not into rape or sex with minors and I lost my point I wanted to make clear....

Sex with minors was common in the past. There is "art" in museums showing naked or barley dressed childs. Greeks preferred young boys once. Although I think it's totally wrong some countries allow marriage under 13.

It's also the position of the line that you draw. 18 is OK, 17+11months is not. I'm not saying something against an 18 year old boy that is interested in an 16 year old girl, but definitely if the guy passed 30.

Taking Miley Cyrus (aka Hanna Montana) as example. She's very attractive to me, but she's under 18 (although she looks like she could be 18) so I'm not reading any stories about her or try to think about her body or even having sex with her.

Back to the actual topic. I'm not into rape... I read a story where Megan Fox (yeah I like her) was treated rough, but she wanted it. I don't have problems with harder sexual activities in stories if it's not rape. Sex and violence and pain are linked somehow. Sexual emotion and pain is processed by the same brain areal.

Some how off-topic but also on my mind: What's the deal with incest stories?
Those stories are really often found... well celebrity incest stories aren't that common. I'm not into those kind of stories. Ok, I've read stories about Kylie and Danni Minogue having sex with each other and I liked it. This may be not strict.... but it's an exclusion.


Good things about stories about sex with minors, rape and incest are that it's just fiction. I don't understand people reading and writing it, but if the can handle it and the only action is writing or reading those stories it's better if the go out an rape someone in real life.

Where I'm from sex with minors is forbidden. Started with everything below 16. Porn was child-porn if the person was under 18. (So far so good... would sign that) Recently the law was changed a little. Not only everything below 18 was forbidden also porn with actors above 18 if the look younger. (Including: dressing up as schoolgirl, babysitter, etc). my point here is that laws a good to protect you, but not every single one is good.


I'm picking up anatole's word.... Some countries treat gay people as medical disease... some kind of neurological error (others have laws against gay people). I can't control that I like females and that I sexually prefer white ethnics. Gays can't control their needs too. I guess the same can be applied to pedophile people, although it is wrong what they want. In the end we follow our neurological error...

If those guys could be helped with therapy it would help them to control it. Sex with childs will never be accepted. Gays do it voluntary... childs mostly not... and rape is never about agreement to sexual actions... This makes the biggest difference for me.. the consent

[Canadian4Ever]

I can't argue against a moral stance, which is what you are taking. Once a person has decided something is wrong and will admit no evidence to the contrary, then there is no common ground upon which to come to agreement.

I do hope, however, that you realize that the stance you are taking is the same one that has been behind most of the persecution in our long history: of gays, of blacks, of native Americans, of Australian aborigines, of Jews, of Christians, of infidels, of witches, of women and, yes, of children, if they weren't offspring of the dominant people.

Each of these groups was, at one time or another, in one place or another, despised for how they acted, what they thought, or merely what they were. Each was socially or culturally "wrong," and well deserving, in the minds of those who make rules and laws, of the most punitive actions to "control" them, and always it was excused by the argument that it was necessary to punish these people in order to protect one or another aspect or segment of society from their "threat."

In questions of faith, there can be no argument because, after all, faith requires one to believe one is right when all reason tells him otherwise. It's not terribly surprising to hear someone express this degree of absolutely sincere and well-meaning, if unreasoning, prejudice, but, nonetheless it is always disappointing.

with best regards, I remain...

AD

The thing you seem to forget is that most of those groups were used as scape goats to rally other wise broken nations. My hatred in this matter isn't based on race, religion, colour or creed. Nor do I hate homo sexuals. The times when it's was acceptable to have sex with what we today call minnors was excepted because if you were 50 you were considered extreamly old. In fact I would be suprised if in those day most people died by (if not before) they reached 40. So in those time, with out the medical know how we have today I could understand why a 13 year old girl would find herself the bride of an 18 year old man. But guess what, the world (at least some of it) has evolved, we live until we are in our 70's and 80's now. It isn't nessisary for young children to bare the burdan of marage and child birth. Kids can be kids, and enjoy thier youth.

While it is true that some people mature mentally faster then others (and some never mature at all) emotional maturity still only comes from living life, and going through different experiences. Somebody who is 18 or even older would find it quite easy to manipulate the emotions of a 13-15 year old because they have already been where they are now. Only a coward would stoop to such manipulations, and I would have no problems marching cowards who take advantage of young people into an oven.

The biggest probelem with you Nazi like comparison is that they used to turn people into soap, witch with a pediphile is pointless, because soap is suposed to make people clean. I can't imagine anything made from them doing that. As far as I am concerened people like that are only good for one thing, land fill.

By the way you are pushing Godwins law. I think I can claim victory here even though you didn't mention Hitler or the Nazi's by name. I do believe the refference to the Jews may be enough for me to claim victory.

[Canadian4Ever]

If those guys could be helped with therapy it would help them to control it. Sex with childs will never be accepted. Gays do it voluntary... childs mostly not... and rape is never about agreement to sexual actions... This makes the biggest difference for me.. the consent

Donnie2, YOU ROCK!!!!

[Donnie2]

So in those time, with out the medical know how we have today I could understand why a 13 year old girl would find herself the bride of an 18 year old man. But guess what, the world (at least some of it) has evolved, we live until we are in our 70's and 80's now. It isn't nessisary for young children to bare the burdan of marage and child birth. Kids can be kids, and enjoy thier youth.

I don't hope those days come back. It's understandable... as marriage was invented and they claimed to stay together till they die they didn't got older as 30. So young marriage wasn't unusual.

I'm a catholic (I don't care). Our priests are not allowed to marry and/or have sex. Some of them HAVE HAD sex with boys who helped out in the church. (I don't know any, but you hear those stories) The bad truth seems to be that I never heard that someone was arrested for that. They had to much to another church.. where people did know what he did. It's still there... I don't know why. Don't know how to get it out of peoples heads.

The example with the priest is also an indicator what can happen if you suppress natural sexual development... people become strange.

[Canadian4Ever]

I don't hope those days come back. It's understandable... as marriage was invented and they claimed to stay together till they die they didn't got older as 30. So young marriage wasn't unusual.

I'm a catholic (I don't care). Our priests are not allowed to marry and/or have sex. Some of them HAVE HAD sex with boys who helped out in the church. (I don't know any, but you hear those stories) The bad truth seems to be that I never heard that someone was arrested for that. They had to much to another church.. where people did know what he did. It's still there... I don't know why. Don't know how to get it out of peoples heads.

The example with the priest is also an indicator what can happen if you suppress natural sexual development... people become strange.

I think most of the priests who did that stuff go into the church planning to do that. I agree with you on everything else though. The church protects thes guys who mess with young lads, but then want to hate on people for being gay? I don't get that one at all. The Canadian troops stationed in Kandhar (SP) in Afganistan have to put up with the Kandahar police rounding up teen age boys every Thursday night and take them into the station to abuse them. The world is a fucked up place.

[anatole]

You are both misinterpreting the demographics of the past. It actually was quite common for people in previous ages to live to very old ages. All you have to do is visit an eighteenth century cemetary and see all of the people who died in their eighties and nineties. The mortality rate was very high for children because of disease, and for women because of childbirth, but if you avoided these dangers, and war, you stood a good chance of living to an advanced age.

This demographic pattern is important because it impacts this discussion. In the past, there really was no "life expectancy" as we have today. People young and old realized they could die at any moment, so being "young" did not ensure long life any more than being "old" signaled you were about to die. Because of that, people did not sort people out by age, which is largely a modern function put forth by insurance companies, which simply did not exist in the past. People were judged by their abilites, so if a "child" could do a man's work, he was considered a man, and if an eighty-year-old could do the work of a thirty-year-old, then they were considered social equals. Since this was the case, then it was not seen as being at all unusual for a sixteen-year-old girl to marry a man in his fifties. By all evidence, these were normal, happy marriages.

In an extreme example, Barbarossa, the European who became an admiral for the Tripoli corsairs, was in his seventies when he married a fifteen-year-old, and they had three children before he was killed in action some eight years later. It's important to remember that, in that situation, Barbarossa would not have been viewed as "old," and his bride would not be seen as a "child."

Your comment about the disparaged minority being used as a scapegoat for a troubled society is well taken. If you think about it a bit, perhaps you can make the connection between our paranoia about pedophiles and the degree of angst in in western society.

I think it is amusing at best that you make the leap from the mere mention of Jews to Hitler. Have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, or the pograms in the Ukraine? The Jews have a long history of being a despised people. So have the Romany, who were also murdered by the NAZI, so have the aboriginal peoples. So have many others.

Personally, I have no interest in "Victory," or even in changing anyone's mind. I just would like people to think clearly and, hopefully, be internally consistent in their thinking. I only point out relevant information so that people can make informed decisions for themselves. I don't really want to sway anyone to adopt one position or another.

There does seem to be one difference between us, though, Canadian. I don't want to shove anyone into an oven. Every man and woman born started out as someone's beloved child, and they still have that within themselves somewhere. I have never met a man who was entirely good or entirely bad, but circumstances have sometimes led them to show only one face to the world. If circumstances had been otherwise, another face would have been shown. Saddam Hussein, for example, was a brutal dicatator, and a gentle gardener and poet. He was also a loving and over-indulgent father of two monstrous offspring who, if born into a powerless family would have been wholesome local lads - and perhaps still alive today.

Since you mention Hitler, it would be good to remember that he would have been that odd, but amiable fellow who lived next door and dabbled in poor painting if he had not become Fuhrer. The only thing that distinguished him was that he had the power to do great harm. Many, and maybe most, people would be as "evil" as Hitler if they had the power to do so, and they would, like Hitler, be doing it for the very noblest of reasons. Even Canadian says that he would summarily murder people who acted in a way that he found unacceptable. What if he were a religious fundamentalist and felt that it put both the individual and the society in danger of losing its immortal soul to have atheists living among them? I'm sure that a religious zealot could make as strong a case for the damage that the non-believer does to children as Canadian does for sex between people of arbitrarily different ages. I am eternally grateful that most people are relatively powerless.

regards,

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

Since you mention Hitler, it would be good to remember that he would have been that odd, but amiable fellow who lived next door and dabbled in poor painting if he had not become Fuhrer. The only thing that distinguished him was that he had the power to do great harm. Many, and maybe most, people would be as "evil" as Hitler if they had the power to do so, and they would, like Hitler, be doing it for the very noblest of reasons. Even Canadian says that he would summarily murder people who acted in a way that he found unacceptable. What if he were a religious fundamentalist and felt that it put both the individual and the society in danger of losing its immortal soul to have atheists living among them? I'm sure that a religious zealot could make as strong a case for the damage that the non-believer does to children as Canadian does for sex between people of arbitrarily different ages. I am eternally grateful that most people are relatively powerless.

regards,

AD


What makes you think that I have to have power to take out Kiddie Rapers. All I need is a heavy blunt object and an empty ally way on a late evening. People who mess with kids should be wiped from the planet earth. There is no redemption for them, there is no cure for them, only the sweet sound of their skulls popping when a rock makes contact with their temples. That is a far cry from killing somebody simply because they are a different colour or religion, that is actually against both my religiouse and personal beliefs. I hate people based on there deeds, and messing with kids is about as low as it gets.

[Donnie2]

That is a far cry from killing somebody simply because they are a different colour or religion, that is actually against both my religiouse and personal beliefs.

You can call almost everything a religion as long as you find enough people believing the same and playing the same rules. Christs started as sect separated from Jews.

You'll find enough people who believe in god (Jahwe, Allaha), but don't agree to every rule the current religions forces. So you could create your own religion. Others believe in Satan and sacrifice him virgins... not every one agrees and so there are also other cults

Same applies to pedophile. Let them claim that the first rule is to have sex with minors... Most people wouldn't agree but it would be like Scientology (something that wants to be a religion, but never will be)

How can things like:
- Suicide bombing
- Killing in the name of god
- sex with minors
be accepted?

This exists within those groups I think.

I agree with you C4E in the sense that those guys are doing really bad things, but I don't believe that death will help anyone. If they are kept in jail they can't do any harm to childs anymore.

The world is and maybe it always was a fucked up place. Seems to be men-made.

As you both mentioned Hitler here... and I am German.. I drop some words. Hitler was a great leader, that fucked up in the end. His power to drive things forward on keep things going was seldom. In the end he pushed the war although he knew that he wasn't able to win anymore. He told the soldiers to fight for better times although he already knew that most of them would die. What was wrong about him was what he all did. It was the time and the people around him that created the ground for a bad seed.

Today nobody (just a few) would follow him. At his time the crowed believed everything he said. As far as I know nobody died by the hand of Hitler... he only gave order to kill them. Hitler was a bad guy... even if he did single good things...!

Curing sick (asthma and other short-time illnesses) by killing them.

Wouldn't it be easy to kill every
- NAZI
- pedophile
- rapist
?

You almost need a second (biblical) sin-flood to grap all evil by the root and rib it out.

[Donnie2]

Can we stay funny from now on?

C4E what makes you different from an American?

All I need is a heavy blunt object
An American would have said
"All I need is a gun"
:)

[anatole]

All hatred derives from fear. Fear derives from feelings of powerlessness. Those who have the least power, or who feel they have the least power, or who feel that they might lose the power they have, are those who hate. The man who feels in control over his existence has no fear. If you look closely at those places where hate prevails, you will always find pervasive fear. In Germany in the 1930's, you had a country in economic and social chaos. In the US in the 1950's, you had social and military fear resulting from the cold war and the changes in society after the war. In the hatred of the "terrorists," you had a fear of another 9/11. In Gaza, you have a disempowered subject people pitting rocks against tanks. If you have control over something, you might destroy it, much like exterminating roaches in your house, or hunting aborigines for sport in Australia, but you don't fear it, so you don't hate it.

Anyone who has a deep hatred of anything is simply afraid of it, and the way to overcome that hatred is to understand exactly why you fear it, and overcome that fear.

Regarding any form of violence, including execution, sometimes it's necessary, but it should never be something that provides any degree of pleasure, or even satisfaction. Violence is a failure, and should be viewed as such. Executing a man, or killilng an enemy soldier, is an admission that you are powerless to achieve your ends without violence. It's not a sign of strength, but of weakness and lack of imagination. He's like the child who doesn't understand the world around him, but feeling pain, lashes out and destroys things.

Sometimes you have to resort to violence, such as when you confront a thug in a back alley who feels he has god on his side, but it's still an admission of failure and should bring neither joy nor satisfaction, but only disappointment at an opportunity to do good being lost.

A good example of fear is the recent change in policy on this site regarding stories with "underage" characters. I have little doubt this was effected from fear that someone would call the thought police down on this site. It's another small chip being flaked away from our freedom by those who hate and fear. Congratulations, Canadian, you've made us all a little "purer," and, in the process, more powerless, so we, too, can be free to hate.

When talk becomes repressive action, it's no longer amusing. I'm gone.

AD

[Canadian4Ever]

Can we stay funny from now on?

C4E what makes you different from an American?


An American would have said
"All I need is a gun"
:)

See I would have said "The way I spell Colour". :D

[Canadian4Ever]

All hatred derives from fear.

You are right, I am afraid of people trying to take advantage of young people they realy have no buisness being around. So if I kill them I won't have anything to fear or hate anymore :D

[Canadian4Ever]

I agree with you C4E in the sense that those guys are doing really bad things, but I don't believe that death will help anyone. If they are kept in jail they can't do any harm to childs anymore.

The world is and maybe it always was a fucked up place. Seems to be men-made.

I don't want my taxes going to feed people who harm kids, or anyone, in a sexual manner. IMO sexual crimes are the worst, more so then even murder. I might be able to understand a persons motive for killing somebody, but I could never do so for sexual assault.

[Donnie2]

I might be able to understand a persons motive for killing somebody, but I could never do so for sexual assault.

I sign that.

[jingoE419]

I've always thought of rape as a crime worthy of more severe punishment than western nations give out, and yet I enjoy rape fantasies. They only manifest around women I see as unobtainable, such as celebrities, but never around coworkers for example. An extremely violent rape is a big turn-off though and while I might rape a woman in my mind, I find the thought of it really happening to her heart breaking and feel the urge to protect her, rather than take advantage. It should NEVER be more than a fantasy.

[neyha]

For the record: I totally agree with anatole. :wiz

[Blackmist]

I didn't read everything that was posted, I just wanted to comment on something very early in the thread. There is a difference between the hypno stories and the rape stories (at least on my account) as mind control stories are my favorite and the rape stories can be too violent for me on occasions.

[Wolf_lord]

I am with black mist on this. I find hypo stories a good way to get to a celeb. I don't like the idea of nc, i know hypno is nc but I try to find a way back for them not to be nc, and rape is the apitamy of nc.

nc=Nonconcensual

Sorry for my spelling. I am tired and stuff

[Blackmist]

Spelling aside, you are dead on. I like you Wolf Lord- you have a good head on your shoulders.

[Wolf_lord]

Cheers mate :-D