What sexual acts, if any, should people not be able to consent to? Discuss.
Limits of Sexual Consent
What sexual acts, if any, should people not be able to consent to? Discuss.
Mentally sound adults can consent to whatever they want, whether that be vanilla prostitution or erotic cannibalism ending in death. It's not anyone else's business what people consent to. I don't really believe in protecting people from themselves
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell猫が生き甲斐
You're saying a mentally sound adult would desire death through erotic cannibalism?Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
Last edited by persimmonism; 04-28-2022 at 02:08 AM.
I actually know of an anime where what you mention happens pretty much as labeled on the tin. It was rather fucked up but hey, if you're into that than "Rin: Daughters of Mnemosyne" or "Mnemosyne no Musume-Tachi" is a series for you.
Females are/become literally immortal women who can even survive getting sent through a jet turbine but if a male gets "infected" by what granted her said immortality, well, he becomes a mindless beast that, well, if she ever gets within a reasonable proximity of said now immortal male beast, well, yeah, she, and even as he devours her flesh in...
It's graphic and rather disturbing and I'll end it there. It's also a prime example of the fetish you mention. Watch it and then tell me that maybe, just maybe, ya might wanna draw a line somewhere other than where you've currently drawn it.
"I'll do anything" is a phrase that ought not be uttered lightly (or at all if I'm being honest if uttered seriously). That last word in particular carries a definition and significance when paired with the former "I'll do" great enough to save or doom entire universes. "Anything" is good/OK if both so called adults "consent" you say? Ya sure? Really and truly sure?
no severe damage or removal of body parts
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Just in case this thread blows up: I don't have the energy to click the "Like" button on everyone's posts, so please assume that's my intent. Cheers.
Not at all, no, probably not, I doubt it. It's possible though, and honestly I don't think I myself am mentally sound enough to decide when someone else isn't. What exactly does sanity mean or look like, and who got to decide that? Frankly, I'm skeptical of all claims involving knowing what's best for another person, so I think it would be highly hypocritical of myself to tell someone what they can or can't do
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
I think people have a right to choose their own doom. Given your faith I am guessing you are not in support of assisted suicide, but to anyone who believes people have that right yet objects to my laissez-faire attitude to less conventional forms of death help, I would ask how are they really different? In both cases a person is granting someone permission to end their existence. The only difference is that erotic cannibalism makes people feel icky. I don't think being squeamish is a valid reason to limit other people's freedoms.
In my opinion, if you believe in the right to assisted suicide then you have to believe in the right to erotic cannibalism. If you don't believe in the right to erotic cannibalism then you may not believe in assisted suicide. They're the same right. One's just dressed up more nicely.
Now should there be some kinds of checks/balances/limitations/bureaucracy surrounding this right? Maybe. I don't know. I'm only really interested in whether the right exists or not, not in how it gets applied in the real world.
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Do I have the right to sever my own hand? If so, why can I not give that right to someone else? If I can't give that right to someone else, then I must not really own my own hand. Who owns it then? If no one owns it, then the right must be mine after all
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
i dont care dont do it
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
I am very directly aware of the Christian perspective. Some of my cousins weren't even allowed to pierce their ears growing up, meanwhile circumcision was viewed as not only acceptable, but necessary.
~This next part is a lot of me ranting, but it's not at you, Dreymagine, you're good. Don't worry. We're cool. It's just my general thoughts and frustrations about things lol~
I must say, as someone who did not not grow up to hold the same faith that justified this, the idea that other people were allowed to nonconsensually remove parts of my body but that it is wrong for me to get piercings or tattoos that I actually want feels incredibly ridiculous to me. I don't see how a secular society can allow routine infant circumcision while banning consensual removal of body parts. It seems to me that the US (and many other countries too of course) hasn't yet decided who owns your body. We exist in a strange liminal space between philosophies and that just generates nonsense. Someone must own your body. I think it should be you, the self housed within it. That makes what you do to it your right, and your right alone. That makes plenty of sense to me. Yet a lot of people view your body as belonging to religion, or state, or family, or whatever else. I'm fine with the plurality of opinions, but I think if we are to live together peacefully in the same society, we must choose the secular option of self-ownership and ban things that violate bodily autonomy like circumcision.
Ultimately I'm not really trying to argue for erotic cannibalism. I don't think such a thing is "good" or "cool" and I certainly hope it never becomes the hot new thing. I find it just as icky as other people, as I am also somewhat squeamish, particularly when it comes to cannibalism. I can hardly stand the taste of my own blood when I bit my lip or floss particularly hard. My argument is entirely about owning yourself. Everything else just springs out of that basic principle. If you own yourself then it seems to me you must have the right to allow/deny access to yourself by others in the ways that you choose and ought to be able to expect that third parties will mind their own business. You should never expect other's to like or support you, but you should definitely be able to expect them to not intervene in your affairs if you're not intervening in theirs. I very much believe that this is the only way for everyone to live peacefully and freely together
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
*lays my arm down on the table saw*
Don't tempt me!!!
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
do it pussy and dont blame me for ur degenerate adventures
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
No, no, no! I can only get off to this if you keep telling me not to!
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
i figuredNo, no, no! I can only get off to this if you keep telling me not to!
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Who needs hands when you have logical consistency for getting yourself off with
If you’re gonna put de lime in de coconut, you’d better get their permission.
You are correct that "assisted suicide" and "erotic cannibalism" are what amounts distinctions without differences. After all, in the case of the later you are providing the "assistance" as it were.
Nitpicking aside I believe my point still stands. A suffering person gets drugged up hard and massively enough one way or another and, well, is that really consent? If some whacked out and cracked out druggie begs you to help them die is that moral on their end to indulge you? If your physical biochemistry was so potent that it demanded you offer yourself up to some monster as a meal and the act of being eaten gave you infinite orgasms with every bite they took out of you... Is it OK for them to oblige your request that they eat you? I'd argue no while you may argue yes.
We can get into a very detailed argument on this front and a part of me wants to. Tell me, what is the "best" case for assisted suicide you can think of? Try to get me to question my own faith and principles with this one.
How do you verify that an act of cannibalism was consensual when one participant has been killed and eaten?
If the government was to allow this sort of thing, it would need a system to certify acts of consensual cannibalism. This would spawn an industry of lawyers, agencies, consultants who facilitate erotic cannibalism. Do we really want to create a market for this? I understand that cannibalism has existed across many cultures, but I don’t see the benefits of embracing the practice today in the US. In fact, I think it would be incredibly damaging to normalize killing and eating people for sexual pleasure.
There’s a big difference between assisted suicide and erotic cannibalism. There is no sexual incentive for a doctor to aid a patient in suicide (and on that note, doctors aren’t paid more for providing suicide assistance, so the financial incentive is removed as well). Erotic cannibals, on the other hand, are motivated to maximize the number of people they can get away with killing/eating.
Clearly, if you can get euthanized or change your gender then a visit to doctor should be enough. Because doctors are practically gods.
And I managed to anger 95 % of population.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Anything involving minors, anything where body parts are being collected/removed.
This reminds me of the case of the guy who "consented" online to another man raping and killing him and they hooked up in a bathroom and well, he got killed and eaten and the authorities arrested the guy lol. Yeah I don't really judge what other people are into sexually much but that was too much... even for me.
Some things are so morally abhorrent I don't see them getting positive attention just for the very small percentage of the population that wouldn't be abusive morally. And then there is the fantasy vs reality arguement... the fantasy of being cannibalized I guess could align with what's in your head but it could be one of those things where the person loves it in fantasy but actually being eaten in real life they are just genuinely horrified and disgusted.
A lot of problem with sex police people is that it can be this AoE Tidal Wave where they will go after people like that but also society for years have went after men just wanting to give each other a blowjob in the privacy of their own homes. It was just hot fun and consensual/even loving, but it had to be wrong and gross in somebody else's head due to jealousy or bigotry. I guess you could argue simply sucking somebody else's dick is 'cannibalism-lite' and I guess it is in a way. Sexuality always pushes the envelope like I said before, but how much is needed often depends on the psychological health of a person.
Being more subtle and coy has a kind of empathy to it rather then just going for intense extremes. Sexuality has a mystery in it for a lot of people, that can be ruined by being too over the top. You should always be campy in other ways though. =p
Well I do have a great deal of contempt for those who insist on making distinctions without differences and pretending their pedantics actually matters given that fact. Assisted Suicide is indeed akin to Erotic Cannibalism if we get down to the fundamentals of it all. I mean, if I "eat" you I have indeed assisted you in your "suicide" if you just lied there and let me devour your flesh when you could have fought back as if you didn't want that you'd have fought back somehow on some level.
Even a weak dying man can try to lift his middle finger as he swears to give you the worst case of indigestion you'll ever experience as he offers his last moments of suffering up to his patron deity and, his gods willing, give that degenerate fucker either a case of indigestion so bad it's like Cholera and they literally shit themselves to death or they get a prion disease because they were dumb enough to go full Zombie and eat their brains without cooking them first (and if we're referencing human flesh here I'm not sure even cooking it "Well-Done" will keep you from getting Kuru).
I'd also get a lot more worried about how any concept or idea of yours gets applied in "the real world" as you put it. Things that sound good "on paper" have been the cause of untold suffering from any angle you can care to imagine. We finite beings are made in the image of God, but we are not, never will be, nor ever ought to aspire to be gods...
As I alluded to earlier, for me it comes down to self-ownership. I think that before this discussion can go anywhere at all we have to establish who owns a body. In my opinion, the attached mind ought to be considered the proper owner. All other alternatives seem to me to be some form of slavery, whether that be slavery to another person, a family, a governing body, or a deity. I suppose I don't have any grand reason for why I think that you ought to own yourself. It simply makes sense to me that if we all want to get along together in this world, the simplest way to do that is to respect each other's self-ownership. Are there exceptions to this? Yeah, probably. I'm under no illusions that this philosophy is perfect, but as a general rule of thumb I think the assumption should always be self-ownership first with the burden of proof on the party that wants some restriction in place. I consider the right to suicide to be a right by default in this sense. No one needs to justify their decisions about their own body or fate to anyone else. It's up to other people to justify why they are right to infringe on someone's self-ownership.
Obviously I recognize that Christians don't believe in self-ownership generally. Instead tending to believe everyone is owned by God. If that's your faith than there's not much I can say that I think would make you think otherwise. I would really only ask that you not use your faith to restrict others. If you believe you belong to one deity or another, then by all means carry on living as such.
I feel I need to reiterate that I'm not here arguing in favour of just letting people kill themselves or whatever. I've talked someone down from suicide before. I know people who have self-harmed or killed themselves, and I recognize that this is a very sensitive topic. I suppose I don't really know how it should be handled in practice, but somehow I just feel that when it comes down to it your fate really ought to be in your own hands. In a pluralistic secular society you can't belong to anyone but yourself
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Nor should I ever aspire to go into politics (and I don't intend to, so there's nothing to fear lol).
I don't know. I'm not interested in making the rules. I'm simply explaining my thought process for why I personally find it nearly impossible to judge what people are into (most of the time). I don't see how I can maintain any sort of consistency while making these sorts of judgements other people seem to be perfectly comfortable making. There's always some sort of weird barrier between the realm of philosophy and the realm of praxis. I've never been good at the praxis end of things
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
I think this mindset might have troubling implications (correct me if I'm wrong)
Should we accept the anorexic's self-perceived reality that they are fat, not intervene, and let them starve themselves (to death)?
Should we accept the young woman's assessment that they are male and let them self-sterilize, have early menopause, and mutilate their breasts and genitals?
There are many healed anorexics who are grateful for the intervention and on the other hand, a huge growing population of detransitioners who are furious at the medical industry here in the West who failed to properly examine them before letting them proceed with gender reassignment. = failed to intervene
Anyway I see where you're coming from, but from a practical perspective, I don't think that this approach is helpful to society.
@persimmonism First, I'll speak generally and clarify that I'm not arguing that there should be zero barriers to people doing things. I think appropriate checks are probably necessary in a lot of cases, but I have been intentionally avoiding speaking directly to what those are as I don't really think I'm qualified to determine that sort of thing. I'm only stating what I believe the underlying philosophy should be. That being said, I'll address each of these examples more specifically
This depends entirely on HOW the intervention occurs. I don't think for example that it could ever be acceptable to strap someone down and force-feed them no matter how dire the situation was. I'm not saying anyone else does either, but just painting that picture as a place to start. That to me is wrong most fundamentally because it is a violation of their selfhood, and I see violations of other people's selfhood as a kind of denial of our own. It's ultimately the same reason I think violence in self-defense is justifiable. I think whatever we do, we have to be incredibly careful we don't cross those boundaries. Anorexia interventions in the US (I don't know how they're handled elsewhere), at least as far as I understand them, generally do not fundamentally violate people's self-ownership, so such things are fine. I don't think it's the case that we should never try to alter people's destructive behaviours. I just think that we shouldn't assume we get to control them just because we think we know better. I believe that's a dangerous path
Potentially, yes. I don't think such medical procedures should be the first thing we reach for, but I fully believe there should be a legitimate avenue towards receiving this kind of treatment. I hope I never gave the impression that I thought we should immediately throw children on hormone blockers the second they give any vague indication that they feel uncomfortable with their gender. I don't believe that's responsible. I do however think that with the appropriate consultations and cooperation between medical professionals, themselves, and their families that it should be possible though.
The anorexia bit I feel I already addressed. As for detransitioners, I'm sure there are cases where the medical apparatus was irresponsible in dealing with them. I highly doubt it's perfect at handling this kind of thing after a long history of mostly ignoring and/or pathologizing the existence of trans people. I don't feel this is a good reason to prevent other people from receiving the treatment they believe they need though. Even if the system was perfect (which it never will be), I am certain there would still be those who came to regret their choices and detransition, but I simply don't think that's other people's problem. On some level you just have to live with the choices you made. We should indeed be careful to ensure that the frequency of this is minimized to the greatest extent possible, but we should not restrict other people's freedoms because of it
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
The OP only makes sense if xerx is floating an idea of thought control. There's a lot of confused thinking about "consent" because liberals made it the only standard by which they would condemn or excuse sexual activity, but weren't comfortable actually taking that logic very far. This is why pedophilia and bestiality are gaining acceptance. If you have an objection to pedophilia or bestiality but have no other way to justify your objection than as a matter of "consent" you're left saying that animals or children can't "really" consent to sex, which doesn't hold water if you pursue that statement very far. Pedophiles and people into animals make the point, correctly, that it's absurd to say an animal or child can't consent to sex, or that they can't "really" do this, and then, morally justified, you get Discord moderators and French philosophers and "gender theorists" making pedophilia a civil rights movement. This confusion is shown in the OP when @xerx says "should not be able to consent to" but really means "should not be allowed by the state" -- not actually saying this because that's an ideologically uncomfortable premise.
?
If everyone consented to having my DNA inserted into them as a sexual act, causing everybody on earth to start wanting to rub Dorito crumbs all over their own chests and mine, humanity would be ruined, because I would run out of Doritos. That can’t be allowed to happen. Everything else is within bounds though.
Or if everybody on Earth decides they don’t consent to sex or having their gametes used and the whole humanity vanishes in a few generations.
I’m cool with it if I get my Doritos to the end but some ppl might be upset.
Consent is mental. If you say someone "shouldn't be able to consent" to something you either mean you're trying to control what you think, or what you really mean is just "shouldn't be able."
He’s sort of saying that the paradigm of consent as a main determiner of what should be legal in terms of sexual activity actually removes consent because it’s too vague, yet it’s kept because the alternative would be sounding too authoritarian.
Yeah, more or less, thanks. Someone else messaged me on Discord asking what I meant too, so I guess I wasn't too clear. Apologies. I'm a bit tired atm and my ability to form understandable sentences starts to suffer when I'm short on sleep.
Yeah I don't think it's a liberal vs conservative thing - but it's true you can consent to something and the experience can turn out horrid, and you can not really exactly 'consent' to something officially but it can still be very enjoyable, sort of how a lot of "aggressor/victim" eroticism happens tbh. Saying 'you're consenting to this, right' during a lot of sexual acts would of course be a turn off for a lot of people lol. Like 'come on you beta male, just ravage me' etc.
It's still much better when both people share the fantasies more or less. A lot of people, males especially over-all but some women too - are way too narcissistic with sexual desires. If it's just your fantasy that's fine, but don't always try to make it everybody else's. They understandably might not want to go on board.
So yeah it's not the be all-end all, but it's still a guideline when talking about sexual ethics. Kids are more sexual than people feel comfortable to admit, but actually them consenting to sex is still a big NO for me- teenage boys something else entirely. I myself wanted full on sex when I turned about 13 years old. Although that's still 3-5 years shy of the legal age limit. I wouldn't advocate society to lower the legal age of consent or anything- and just because I wanted it at that age doesn't mean it was a good idea necessarily I guess ((still hated the way some people would virtue signal that all the time due to their own homophobia or anti-sex beliefs)), but that's what it was for me naturally. /shrug. Less than 13 I didn't want it, there's a very subtle form of sexuality at that age but I wanted to play with my power rangers not be groomed by pedos lol.
Everybody is different, I also went through puberty a lot earlier than most of my peers.
Date rape is a thing, you know like with Bill Cosby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
The issue here is the power dynamic, not the consent. That's why a lot of places have laws that allow for minors to consent to sexual activity with each other without any legal repercussions for either party. There's nothing wrong with two 14-year-olds consenting to some level of sexual activity with each other. I think that's fairly developmentally normal. I would just hope they're being safe about it (hence why we need good sex ed). I'm reasonably sure that left to their own devices, much younger children don't do any more than "play doctor" with each other, and I also think that sort of thing is probably fine and age-appropriate as long as there's not any sort of bullying/coercion present. There's nothing wrong with kids having some level of curiosity about their bodies. Once again, communicating with your kids about this kind of thing and good sex ed is highly protective against them being taken advantage of in this regard. The real issue isn't so much that minors "aren't able" to consent, but that they are in a position of reduced authority relative to adults. I think pretty much everyone understands intuitively that the nature of any kind of sexual activity between adults and minors can only be predatory because of this, at least given the role minors have in our society. We can describe historical sexual relations between slaves and masters the same way. I don't think they can be considered valid if the slave was not freed first. Even if the slave allegedly consented, they may have only done so out of Stockholm syndrome or a practical calculus wherein they imagined their chances of being freed or treated better may have been higher if they entered into a sexual relationship with their master.
As far as animals are concerned I honestly don't care. Fuck a horse if you want. Our meat industry is far more morally questionable than bestiality is, so if we're going to start caring about animal rights, let's start there.
Addendum: As I said before, I'm not a fan of getting into specific situations, so I'm not sure what the cutoff ages should be in which we consider two minors "close enough" in age for sexual activity to not be considered automatically predatory, but I'm sure some developmental psychologists could figure something out that made sense. The nature of this kind of thing will always be at least a little bit arbitrary though, hence why I dislike the specifics
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Admittedly, I am indeed deeply uncomfortable with the idea of state as arbiter of what we can and can't do with our own bodies. I've done my best to come up with a philosophy that is as consistent as possible while limiting the role of a state to the maximum extent. I'm curious what you think about the role of the state in this though. I know you came from a very libertarian background, so perhaps you understand where I'm coming from on this
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Well, I'm not a libertarian in the American sense of the word. I don't want the state to exist at all, but I don't think with the conditions we have now that legalizing pedophilia is going to do any good. Generally I don't think shunting people in prison for years or decades is great either, but the kinds of people who fuck prepubescent kids are so degenerate I find it hard to care personally about them or believe that removing them from society is bad for society. I feel that the way people talk about pedophilia as the ultimate crime is a bit weird and comes from weird and dark places, and is overblown, but I honestly just don't really care about pedophiles themselves. So my personal feelings don't really derive from a principled stance on what the state "should" do about pedophiles.
I don't think there is much of a "principled" stance in the way I think you're getting at. I mean, you can say pedophilia is bad for kids and argue from a harm-reduction standpoint that the state should punish pedophiles. But then that just pushes questions back: why it's the state's responsibility to interfere, then why it oughtn't intervene in every relationship with a "power imbalance," and so on. But generally how I look at things is that how and whom people fuck has social consequences and so society has traditionally maintained a right to circumscribe sexual relationships. As society liberalizes and atomizes this justification becomes increasingly shaky. If "society" stops existing or stops benefitting anyone, why acknowledge social obligations? Instead people will just do whatever they want and think they can get away with. So, why shouldn't homosexuality become public and normal? (I'm not saying homosexuality is "wrong" or "shouldn't" be accepted; just that it became accepted when and probably because because western/liberal culture was beginning to fall apart) Why shouldn't abortion be acceptable? Why shouldn't people walk their BDSM partners like dogs, naked, on the street? Why shouldn't bestiality be accepted, and why not include discussion of it in sex ed curriculums? Acknowledging social responsibility in the context of who you fuck has become so foreign and probably inapplicable it's become hard to devise convincing arguments against these things.
And pedophilia I think will be normalized just like everything else above under the logic of individualism. Sure, there's a power imbalance, but there's a power imbalance in every relationship, and the traditional family is on the decline anyway. So I don't think that's enough for sustained opposition to the practice. So without significant economic change I think it'll probably become acceptable eventually.
Pedophilia *is* usually that dark and creepy though. If it was just some guy that was attracted to kids but didn't act out on it because he knew it was wrong, that would be somewhat pitiable. But it's often not like that. In real life- it really is that creepy and dark. It's Mason Verger shit. I thought about categorizing pedos as type 1 or type 2 pedos for this reason before, like a Ti system thing but I don't know lol. I think most pedos would be Type 1 though, they are into abusing the innocence of children, it's about the abuse not the sex. They aren't into simply having sex with kids- they want to "have sex" and basically make it hurt. That's why people get so outraged and offended and grossed out and angry at pedos.... also even type 2, is gross because for non-pedos the physical act of having sex with a child would be too sickening even if it's not all dark - but that would be the type that would foster more understanding or whatever.
But yeah a lot of 'Nurse Ratched' types will use it as a way to get power. Or falsely accuse people left and right. "You're a pedo, you're a pedo. I'm the only one who is not a pedo because I'm the most righteous and the one most closest to God!" Especially Narcissists- manipulating how most people are disgusted it. When Narcs do that it's important to realize that being better than a pedo- isn't saying much. Society is often fooled by this thing, because well most people are idiots.
Yeah sure pedophilia comes from a twisted place. But even so I don't trust the impulse I see a lot where people largely don't really emotionally care about rapes or murders happening in the same city they live in, but some story of a pedophile in another state gets them riled up and randomly saying "pedophiles should be killed" and whatever. I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's motivated by any great love of children.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
