Jul
22nd
2014
Prepare your jimmies. · 2:54pm Jul 22nd, 2014
Been doing a bit of light reading for the latest chapters of Fallen Angels...
Here's an article showing 75% neutral or positive experiences leaving no future negative impact in adults who gave simple (uninformed) consent to sex while they were children:
http://www.helping-people.info/rbt/metaana.htm
When U.S. Congress and others got their jimmies rustled, this was the response:
http://www.helping-people.info/rbt_files/rbt_skept_e.htm
Report
Flutterpony · 602 views
·
The actual condemnation:
https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb//Documentation/Documents/doc_99083_congress.htm
You can tell that not one of them even read the thing or its abstract.
2306624 To them, most of the article and research was irrelevant. Only the conclusion mattered in that it contradicts their concept of morality.
Here's an article full of outrage/rustled jimmies from the other side: http://www.helping-people.info/articles/violent_frame.htm
"What is being violated, I suggest, is not children but the tyranny of ill-founded moral resistance of both right and left. It is a tyranny from which the gay community is only now escaping along with a diverse and culturally rich range of other long-despised and feared sexual minorities. And it is now high time for children and paedophiles to join this great escape."
Even I -- and I consider myself open-minded -- believed that, with so much "research" against CSA, adult/child sexual relationships must invariably be harmful. I maintain that those relationships are harmful, but not exactly for the reasons I thought, and, now, I have to admit they aren't harmful invariably. I had put too much trust in victimology.
I always knew that the villainization of pedophilia as an orientation was wrong, and I suspected that there might be such a thing as positive adult/child sexual experience, if culture would allow it. It was easy for me to realize on my own what many of the professionals in my current reading are saying, that the damage is done more by society and some therapists themselves than by the act itself, and that studies confound poor family environments with the impact of so-called sex abuse in children, but I still wavered, thinking, what if I'm wrong and culture isn't the biggest factor? Victimologists are a very loud bunch (they must be for their careers). Only now am I seeing exactly how shrill and full of lies many (maybe not all) of them are. I didn't know the history as well as I do now thanks to the site on which these articles are found. Still, sources like these will constantly be criticized despite their purpose being to help pedophiles and children alike in our culture (and finding success).
Though it all leads me to question, what role does morality play? I'll continue to assume that wholesome values and true morality -- not "morality" contrived to manipulate for egotism's sake -- true morality plays the role of empowering us to find harmony with ourselves, our environments, and our nature both spiritually and physically, despite what conflict may arise, what may happen, or who we are. In simple terms, I believe true morality enables our happiness as well as universally promoting the happiness of others (whether or not they accept it).
Then, of course, we're left with the problem of discerning true morality, or just truth generally, while there are so many differing, seemingly intelligent/logical opinions (many calling themselves fact, yet contradicting others that do the same). If we were to try and discern true morality by ourselves, without being influenced by others, how would we go about it? Some will give up and say, for example, all religion is false and not hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They've been offended, maybe, or fear being controlled... Since collecting empirical data seems to have led so many to uncertainty or to differing views, I think it's safe to assume that either truth is relative (i.e. every absolutist view is wrong -- a contradiction in itself) or we don't currently have adequate tools to collect and/or process sufficient empirical data (perhaps we may never).
My only solution is what I've found in the precepts of my own faith regarding personal divine revelation. Assuming that truth isn't relative and that it never contradicts itself (scientific truth, logical truth, spiritual truth, etc.), in the case of moral truth, I take from personal experience that there is a great law which breaks down into many laws (I call it 'Love' with a capital) that binds everyone universally and which, if we seek to use it to our advantage, not fight it, will lead us to happiness. Again, I resolve this issue (of whether or not true morality exists or is all relative/fabricated) for myself through the same personal divine revelation (part of the aforementioned personal experience). It is not something of which I can convince others. I cannot demonstrate the revelation given to me (give a sign), but it is something that everyone can experience for themselves and come to the same conclusion equally. But that's, perhaps, a topic better left for another time (though I'd be happy to discuss it via PM).
2307323
The problem is that in the end, reality is always case-by-case. This is both the beauty of it, and what makes it so difficult to work in
No finite written moral code is going to be absolutely right in all situations. It's all highly subject to the personalities and life situations involved. And in the case of children, both their current personality and their future adult personality, which often have some reversals of moral stance.
And of course, human civilization goes in cycles. Adult/child sex has been socially acceptable at various points in history, and most likely will be again once people realize that we've gone too far trying to eliminate it entirely. Then after a while people will start to go overboard the other way, and it will go back taboo again
Large groups of people have a very difficult time reaching a point of balance on any issue.
My sister made a prediction a couple years ago that pedophilia will be the new gay, now that gay marriage is getting legalized all over and isn't controversial enough to keep people arguing anymore
2308721
The word 'finite' makes that statement just ambiguous enough for me to be unable to decide whether or not we agree. To say there is no absolute universal truth to guide every person to greater happiness, peace, and strength, is, itself, a statement that would apply, if true, absolutely and universally. It contradicts itself. But to say "No finite written moral code is going to be absolutely right in all situations" may still be true. I firmly believe in an infinite moral code that leads us all to good, though. So, in that sense, I can't agree that reality is always case-by-case. Again, to say reality is always case-by-case would imply a firm rule of reality, contradicting itself unless we redefine terms. We could always add, "except this reality," to the end, but then it seems like we're just cherry-picking what we believe in or taking the easy way out.
I always appreciate comments! Thank you.
2311593
I... think we agree. It's tough to avoid speaking in absolutes.
Yes, I do agree with that. With the caveat that you never have all the information necessary to fully interpret a situation in context of the infinite moral code. Which means that you have to use a combination of knowledge, logic, emotion, and intuition to essentially take your best guess at what is the true "right" choice in a given situation.
But on the other hand, if there is an omnipotent one true God creator of the universe, then he does have all the information necessary to interpret every situation, and can give you a nudge in the right direction. And there's been enough evidence throughout human history that I certainly don't discount the possibility of such a being's existence.
BTW, I'd be happy to discuss religion with you sometime
Though be warned that it would involve a lot of words, and likely not be a particularly fruitful discussion since the end result is that for the most part, my feet are planted firmly "on the fence". And I don't trust large groups of humans.
2311710
Oh, now I see it. We're definitely of the same mind on everything, except, in my faith we rely on that divine nudge you mentioned, believe that, if God is the same as he always was, constant as he should be, then he continues to interact with folks today like he did with Moses and the apostles, etc. That means that he would have established an organization to guide his people. We claim to be members of that organization, led by a prophet and apostles and modernly revealed scripture, but also led, each member individually, by divine influence, otherwise we wouldn't know whether the church we support is true or not.
Honestly, I'd only be interested in discussing religion if there were no expectation that either of us change our belief. I simply don't see it as my place to change someone's stance on things. If what i say rings true and the message convinces somebody, then that's extremely cool, so I'm open about it, but I'm not out to find out who's right or not, of course.
We seem to be trying to hide under bigger and bigger rocks. We're going to be crushed eventually.
2306624
Yeah, but this is the same organization that has us lock up 17 year olds as pedophiles for dating each other, and locks up entire subpopulatons for minor "offenses." They only care about the determining voters- the small fraction of the voters that decide who gets into office. Since voter turnout is often low, we do not have proportional representation, and many people will vote a party ticket no matter who is on it the meaningful votes are about the same numerically as the number of people who believe the government is secretly controlled by lizard people. And the thing about crazy people? they all vote.
As to morality, I do believe it can be quantified. if you dont mind me boosting my blog here, I have said that a few tweaks to the math seem to fix utilitarianism as a means of determining. The variables in each case remains case by case though.
2397122 2396898
The main problem I see is that many intelligent people who don't consider themselves, indeed, appear not to be, insane disagree about immensely important things like love and sex or GMOs or stem cell research or healthcare or who should lead the nation. It's no wonder we're so polarized about crucial issues (in the U.S. at least) if even our "brightest and best" don't agree. If the issues were really so crystal clear, why wouldn't we be united? We can blame poor upbringing and lack of education for many, but, like I said, even our brightest and best appear to be at odds, and not just in the field of politics where, arguably the votes are all that matter.
To make matters worse, people very often act like, "If you don't believe my way, (e.g. forbid or promote gay marriage), then I can't associate with you." In the more extreme cases there are modern social lynchings or full on witch hunts that go as far as to take the guise of law enforcement (just like the Salem witch trials). Some of the more appalling examples include the trials of my own family members and, in the case of pedophilia, the show To Catch a Predator.
Try having friends on both the liberal and conservative side of gay marriage on Facebook and then posting that you support one side or the other. I've literally been given death threats and people have broken ties with me for expressing my views. These people were bronies, non-bronies, long-time friends, and near strangers alike. My closer long-time friends actually tolerated me, fortunately, when they saw I wouldn't throw insults or judge them for their opposing beliefs, but it could have gone the other way if I'd let myself feel offended when they challenged me and I hadn't been respectful, no matter what they said.
This is a mild example compared to pedophilia, unfortunately. Who would be willing to publicly expose themself as someone attracted to children, much less someone who supports relationships with children? We see in the case of this research what happens when a completely neutral party gives results that don't condemn pedosexuality.
I'm curious to see whether Twilight decides to take things public and, if she does, how it's received.
2397122
I don't mind if you boost your blog, especially since you asked.
2397215
I'll somewhat disagree here. While there's always going to be some disagreement, experts and amateur experts (enthusiasts) will generally reach a high level of consensus when it comes to well understood matters. E.G., climate change >97% consensus. The reason we have the schisms are psychological and sociological, not analytical. For example, my friend Bob doesn't believe in global warming, but climate change? He knows that happens all the time. Phrasing and context have more correlation to position than the substance of the matter itself.
and this is the substance of the problem itself.
2397449 Well said.
2397215 The problem is, nothing IS crystal clear, black-and-white. There will ALWAYS be imperfections in the crystal, and there will ALWAYS be grey.
2401314 Whether spiritual or scientific, we see truth through dark-tinted glass. Without faith, we might not so much as rely on the sun to rise. Even the most thorough experimentation or a lifetime of experience can leave room for error or uncertainty. We all press on regardless, and some of us try to connect with whatever cosmic truth exists, hoping that, by a power beyond ourselves, we can understand and prepare for whatever end will come.
2401978 I don't even know how to respond to that. Wow.
2402142 How should anyone respond to that? I get to say some unconventional things because this is my blog after all, I suppose.