People abusing children exists universally. Societies openly
sanctioning such behavior is not universal. The latter phenomenon
existed in pre-Christian Europe. It is beginning to reappear again in
post-Christian European civilization.

Got it now?

Denis Loubet wrote:

"The Black Monk" <ch.mon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149261403.425424.216740@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Richard Smol wrote:

The Black Monk schreef:

It's all about freedom and diversity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5038682.stm

Actually, pedophilia is pretty much Christian.

As an individual act, it's a sickness of individuals found across
cultures and socioreligious contexts.

Then why, as below, do you dismiss it as characteristic of pre-christian
Europe, when you just said it's universal?

Are you lying?

No, you are just stupid or don't understand English easily.

As a socially acceptable
behavior, it was characteristic of pre-Christian Europe, an
openly-practised pastime of some Roman emperors and philisophers.

Oh, so now it's NOT a sickness of individuals found across cultures and
socioreligious contexts? Now it's specific to pre-christian Europe, Roman
emperors, and philosophers?

Maybe if you read out loud you'll understand what I wrote better. But
I will try to write in a again for you, Denis. Hopefully you'll
understand this time.

People abusing children exists universally. Societies openly
sanctioning such behavior is not universal. The latter phenomenon
existed in pre-Christian Europe. It is beginning to reappear again in
post-Christian European civilization.

Got it now?

Denis Loubet wrote:

"The Black Monk" <ch.mon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149261403.425424.216740@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Richard Smol wrote:

The Black Monk schreef:

It's all about freedom and diversity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5038682.stm

Actually, pedophilia is pretty much Christian.

As an individual act, it's a sickness of individuals found across
cultures and socioreligious contexts.

Then why, as below, do you dismiss it as characteristic of pre-christian
Europe, when you just said it's universal?

Are you lying?

No, you are just stupid or don't understand English easily.

As a socially acceptable
behavior, it was characteristic of pre-Christian Europe, an
openly-practised pastime of some Roman emperors and philisophers.

Oh, so now it's NOT a sickness of individuals found across cultures and
socioreligious contexts? Now it's specific to pre-christian Europe, Roman
emperors, and philosophers?

Maybe if you read out loud you'll understand what I wrote better. But
I will try to write in a again for you, Denis. Hopefully you'll
understand this time.

People abusing children exists universally. Societies openly
sanctioning such behavior is not universal. The latter phenomenon
existed in pre-Christian Europe. It is beginning to reappear again in
post-Christian European civilization.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:17:23 -0400, "Jeff White"
<mrsknickerbaiter@hasexploded.net> wrote:

"The Black Monk" <ch.mon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149261403.425424.216740@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Richard Smol wrote:

The Black Monk schreef:

It's all about freedom and diversity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5038682.stm

Actually, pedophilia is pretty much Christian.

As an individual act, it's a sickness of individuals found across
cultures and socioreligious contexts. As a socially acceptable
behavior, it was characteristic of pre-Christian Europe, an
openly-practised pastime of some Roman emperors and philisophers.
Western Europe is getting back into that.

according to freud, the only sexual deviation is to have no sex
drive
at all.

so what's worse? having sex with a consenting minor, or child abuse?

To the fundies' way of thinking - and I use the term 'thinking'
loosely - *any* sex act performed for any reason other than
procreation is by default "bad."

Culture-Whipped

All too often, our children are exposed to the loud, frenzied, garish
spectacle of adult sexuality.

By Gil Reavill

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is an excerpt from Smut: A Sex-Industry Insider
(and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough, released today.

Let me sketch out a day I spent with my middle-school age daughter. It
started with an episode of a "tween" sitcom - that is, a show
targeted for kids between the ages of nine and twelve. I passed through
the room where my daughter was watching the program and just happened
to catch a scene where twin seven-year-old girls tried out a new
cheerleading routine they were practicing.

"Shake it, shake it, shake it," the seven-year-olds squeaked, sticking
out their fannies, slapping them, and then reacting as if they'd just
touched a hot stove. I looked at my daughter, who gazed at the tube
with the vacant-eyed look that is, if statistics about TV watching are
right, the most common facial expression in America. I felt upset at
the clear sexualization of a pair of prepubescent girls, and especially
annoyed that their antics were played for laughs. "Shake it, shake it,
shake it," chanted the seven-year-olds.

Ha, ha, ha, went the laugh track.

"How cute" was the barely subliminal message being conveyed to my
daughter. "Look at these tykes acting like a pair of pole dancers!"

Real funny, I posed my unspoken thought against the canned laughter.
But I resisted the impulse to point out the inappropriateness of the
message.

Just the day before, my daughter and I had talked about a
Ludacris song she liked, about thuggin' and clubbin' and ho's (street
slang for "whores"), and I didn't want to come off as constantly
preaching. In present-day America, we learn to swallow many of our
responses to modern culture, so as not to appear prudish, vanilla, or
outré.

A commercial interrupted the seven-year-old lap dancers. A trailer for
The Girl Next Door, the latest theatrical movie from Fox about to open.
"I want to see that," my daughter said. I let that pass, too. The movie
is rated R, and my daughter is not allowed to see R-rated movies. The
plot involves a porn star moving in next door to a teenage boy.

Why are they advertising an R-rated movie on a program aimed at
twelve-year-olds? That was my thought, but again I said nothing out
loud.

We got into the car for a drive, my wife up front next to me, my
daughter in back with her beloved iBook laptop. She had just received
the computer as a present for her birthday and had already downloaded
seventy-five songs into her iTunes jukebox. She sang along as the iBook
trolled automatically through her playlist.

My wife and I were talking, not really paying much attention to what
was going on in the backseat, when I heard my daughter mouthing the
words to D12's hit "My Band," featuring Eminem (who was born Marshall
Mathers) as lead rapper. "I swear to *****n'God," my twelve-year-old
sang, "Dude, you *****n'rock! Please, Marshall, please, let me ****
**** ****."

"What was that?" I asked, twisting my head around and almost running
off the road. In our household, which is not a free speech zone, we
have well-articulated boundaries about what sort of words are
inappropriate. "You don't even know what that means!"

"I do, too!" my daughter responded, even though I know she doesn't, and
she knows I know she doesn't.

It turned out she had downloaded "My
Band" from the Internet, where there was a choice of the cleaned-up
"radio" version (which she is allowed) and the unbleeped explicit
version (which she is not allowed). My wife and I fell asleep at the
switch, not monitoring which version our daughter actually chose.

But what happened next we could not have stopped or avoided through any
action of our own. We drove into Manhattan along the West Side Highway,
through a commercial district of warehouses and garages. The carriage
horses that operate in Central Park are stabled here, and across the
highway the military museum installed in the decommissioned aircraft
carrier USS Intrepid looms massively on the docks. Also located in this
neighborhood, so that it acts like something of a portal to all of New
York City, is Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, a sprawling burlesque house
situated in a former automobile showroom. Flynt adorns the side of the
building with a billboard-sized sign showing a woman, her mouth pursed,
blowing on her hand.

I glanced back at my daughter, who was gazing out the window, keeping
an eye out as she always does, for a glimpse of the carriage horses.
What she got instead was a teasing display of adult sexuality. I didn't
say anything, but I tried to imagine what was passing through her mind.

She had asked about the club before. "What's that?" How to explain a
strip joint to your pre-teenage daughter? Keep it simple, my wife
always advised, when communicating grown-up concepts to children. "Some
men like to watch women dance," I had told her, back when she first
asked about it.

Even for someone such as myself, with experience in the world of
commercial sex, the explanation sounded lame and incomplete. I recall
suddenly feeling unworthy of the charge of being a parent. How could I
unravel the tangle of politics, morality, exploitation and hedonism
that represents the knotted sexuality of America today? I had trouble
explaining it to myself, much less to my daughter.

That specific day was not atypical. My family has been treated to
X-rated movies on the DVD screens of cars in the lanes next to us. The
Howard Stern radio show has boomed out of what seemed like
nuclear-powered car stereo speakers when we were attempting to enjoy a
morning in a riverside park. Now as I watched her gazing out at Larry
Flynt's smut emporium, I realized the degree to which we have failed
our children.

In a political sense, the young are powerless, voiceless, totally
reliant on adults. In myriad important ways, in providing them with
health insurance and legal protection, our record as a society is
spotty at best.

But we also have left unfulfilled our function as guardians of their
cultural environment. The boundaries of their world have been
repeatedly breached, many times by people interested in making money
and dismissive of all other considerations. All too often, our children
are exposed to the loud, frenzied, garish spectacle of adult sexuality.
They get their faces rubbed in it. So within the course of one hour of
one very ordinary day, I had been treated to a vision of twin
seven-year-old fanny slappers, a sex professional taking up
neighborhood residence, and groupies begging for sex. I didn't like it.
It made me mad. What had happened to my family that day was that we had
been "culture-whipped," a term that measures the gulf between the
expectations of the viewer (or listener) and the content of the media.
When you whip your head around, asking "What was that?" not believing
your eyes and ears, you've been culture-whipped.

In today's media climate, whether we want it or not, we are inundated,
saturated, beaten over the head with sex. Television, our national
public commons, has an ever-mounting percentage of explicit sexual
content on cable, shading down to the mere leering double entrendre and
snickering innuendo of broadcast sitcoms. It's difficult to find a
program that doesn't reference sex. It's egregious, it's out of
control, it's too much. Media, advertising art, and entertainment
constantly shove images at me that I am just not interested in seeing.

The average child in America puts in a full workweek, forty hours,
consuming media. That means our kids are getting a snootful of this
stuff, all day every day, week in and week out. I am reminded of
Groucho Marx, who once had a guest on his interview program You Bet
Your Life, a woman who said she had nine children and that she and her
husband liked it. "I like my cigar," Groucho responded, "but I take it
out of my mouth every once in a while." In today's culture, the "cigar"
of smut has been permanently and surgically stapled to our lips. We
can't take it out of our mouths at all, much less every once in a
while.

-----------------

All of which was, naturally, foreseen in Huxley's Brave New World,
where capitalism and socialism reigned supreme and God was banned...

BM

thomas p wrote:

On 2 Jun 2006 08:16:43 -0700, "The Black Monk" <ch.mon@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Richard Smol wrote:

The Black Monk schreef:

It's all about freedom and diversity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5038682.stm

Actually, pedophilia is pretty much Christian.

As an individual act, it's a sickness of individuals found across
cultures and socioreligious contexts. As a socially acceptable
behavior, it was characteristic of pre-Christian Europe, an
openly-practised pastime of some Roman emperors and philisophers.
Western Europe is getting back into that.

There are no reliable statistics that make it possible to state with
any certainty that there is more pedophilia today than in the past.
We only know that people are more aware of it today and more willing
to talk about it in public.

And more willing to express pride for it in public: