indonesian lesbian breaks underage lover out of sexual orientation classes

[bcbm]

East Jakarta Police are investigating a case where a martial arts expert was able to break her underage lesbian lover out of protective custody where she was being “cured” of her attraction to women.

continued:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesian-lesbian-breaks-underage-lover-out-of-sexual-orientation-classes/398452

[counterblast]

(Let me first preface this by saying I love this article, and what I'm about to post isn't directed at you, bcbm, but at moderators and people who are too caught up in neoconservative shock-tactics to even critically think about topics such as prostitution and "pedophilia" (for lack of a less inflammatory term).)

With that being said, its so fucked how an article like this is deemed "acceptable" in radical circles (anarchist/communist friends of mine have posted this article other places too), and yet even basic discussions of inter-generational relationships (especially relating to people the state deems "minors") are immediately closed or deleted from RevLeft.

The reasoning behind this false distinction made between the two is completely rooted in misogyny, heterosexism, and ageism and seems to suggest;

A) Women are innocent, either because they are inherently pure (or sexless) or mentally incapable of meticulously carrying out a "abominable act", which means obviously they can't be REAL pedophiles. Further, it implies women are eternal victims which means they cannot be sexual instigators or "aggressors".

B) Lesbian sex isn't real sex, at least not in the sense "natural penetrative" sex (ie: any sex involving a penis) is. Also, lesbian "love" or "lust" is simply an exhibition of woman being naturally "emotional" and "nurturing", not real "love" or "lust".

C) All youth are intellectually inferior to adults. Further -- youth have no sexual desires. Anything that manifests itself as a "sexual desire" is merely a result of adolescent confusion or "puberty", not real sexual urges, therefore a young person is incapable of consenting to -- muchless initiating sex.


In conclusion;

Gender/sexual/age essentialism are being perpetuated and overlooked in the Discrimination forum, and aspects of ageism are not being taken seriously because of social taboo in the Discrimination forum.

If these issues aren't addressed, I propose we scrap the Discrimination forum altogether, because both positions seem to imply ageism and sexism are moot.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say we're not aloud talk about underage sex relationships and such for legal reasons maybe??

[counterblast]

If legality is the issue, I suggest myself and all other women be banned from RevLeft, since women aren't allowed to be educated by other women in some municipalities.

I'd also suggest that discussion of atheism is not allowed on RevLeft, since in some places such discussion is punishable by a long prison sentence.

Further, any discussion of queer rights should be outlawed, since homosexuality can be a crime that carries a death sentence in several countries.

Also, this far, no one has suggested legality is the reason for closing the topics. The reason generally give is that the topic is inherently inflammatory, without any iteration of how or discussion of why it is.

So if it is for "legal reasons", it seems that legality is being selectively used or that RevLeft mods are being Eurocentric, and that they're not being transparent about their motives for closing topics.

[ContrarianLemming]

In all honesty, you're being dramatic, we have discussed child replationships with adults before intelligently without problem, it was generally when things circled around that TAT/Sankara nonsense that threads were closed.

[counterblast]

I've been around RevLeft a couple of years, and I cannot recall a single discussion about youth/adult relationships that hasn't been deleted (usually prematurely). Feel free to link me to one in Discrimination, if one exists.

Dramatic or not -- this is an issue that is being silenced unjustifiably.

[M-26-7]

I've been around RevLeft a couple of years, and I cannot recall a single discussion about youth/adult relationships that hasn't been deleted (usually prematurely). Feel free to link me to one in Discrimination, if one exists.

Dramatic or not -- this is an issue that is being silenced unjustifiably.

I haven't been around as long as you have, counterblast, but in my experience here, I agree. I was called a "troll" for merely bringing up the issue.

[Jack]

Gender/sexual/age essentialism are being perpetuated and overlooked in the Discrimination forum, and aspects of ageism are not being taken seriously because of social taboo in the Discrimination forum.


I don't know whether to laugh at how fucking stupid you are, or be honestly upset that a sick piece of shit who condones child molestation has been allowed to post this long.

[#FF0000]

I don't know whether to laugh at how fucking stupid you are, or be honestly upset that a sick piece of shit who condones child molestation has been allowed to post this long.

This isn't how you have a constructive discussion.

Have an infraction :3c

[#FF0000]

Anyway I still think this is an interesting discussion.

I sort of agree with what some of what some people say on this topic. "Childhood" is more or less a social construct (who was considered a child 100 years ago and who's considered a child today are pretty different), but there is definitely a difference between a 13 year old and a fully grown adult of 18 years.

But there are huge differences in how the brain of an 18 year old and the brain of a 13 year old work. Even more between someone 25+. The brain isn't done developing in most people until 25 years old and the last parts to develop control impulse and decision making. No matter what I don't think a 10, 11, 12, 13 year old or whatever are capable of making a healthy decision in this regard, and so I can't see an adult who engages in sexual activity with a child this young as anything but an abuser.

[AnthArmo]

Youth Liberation movements, especially in the United States, have ditched the word "Ageism" as it's too general and has often been used by older people when referring to discrimination against seniors. They've started adopting the word "Adultism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultism)" instead.

Anyway, for those that think that young people are unable to initiate sexual relations, and that its always the adult doing the "exploiting". Here's an interesting story (http://www.youtube.com/user/NMAWorldEdition#p/u/61/p8qicYyOKxU).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qicYyOKxU

[counterblast]

I don't know whether to laugh at how fucking stupid you are, or be honestly upset that a sick piece of shit who condones child molestation has been allowed to post this long.


mo·lest

vt \mə-ˈlest\
Definition of MOLEST

1
: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect

2
: to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on




Not sure how giving youth the social standing, legal ability, and physical resources to become safely/consensually sexually active if they want to, is considered "molestation" to you. Molestation requires coercion.

[M-26-7]

counterblast, just give it up. You are wrong. I have changed my mind and you are wrong.

[Widerstand]

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say we're not aloud talk about underage sex relationships and such for legal reasons maybe??

The RevLeft servers are located in Germany, as such the discussion here is subject to German laws. I can't recall any German law forbidding the discussion of 'underage' relationships, especially considering that a lot of what people here define as 'underage' is perfectly legal by the German Age Of Consent (14). The German media, at times, discusses minor sex at length, and various books and movies depicting such acts are perfectly legal in Germany.

No, legality is clearly not the issue. Moralism seems far more likely to be it.

[meow]

counterblast, just give it up. You are wrong. I have changed my mind and you are wrong.
ok. what did counterblast mention in this thread?

do you disagree that:

Molestation requires coercion

or something in:

If legality is the issue, I suggest myself and all other women be banned from RevLeft, since women aren't allowed to be educated by other women in some municipalities.

I'd also suggest that discussion of atheism is not allowed on RevLeft, since in some places such discussion is punishable by a long prison sentence.

Further, any discussion of queer rights should be outlawed, since homosexuality can be a crime that carries a death sentence in several countries.

Also, this far, no one has suggested legality is the reason for closing the topics. The reason generally give is that the topic is inherently inflammatory, without any iteration of how or discussion of why it is.

So if it is for "legal reasons", it seems that legality is being selectively used or that RevLeft mods are being Eurocentric, and that they're not being transparent about their motives for closing topics.

or maybe:

Gender/sexual/age essentialism are being perpetuated and overlooked in the Discrimination forum, and aspects of ageism are not being taken seriously because of social taboo in the Discrimination forum.

or something else they say?

this is not a "you are wrong because i say so" forum. this is a forum to discuss.

oh. and "fuck you" :)

[Sasha]

(Let me first preface this by saying I love this article, and what I'm about to post isn't directed at you, bcbm, but at moderators and people who are too caught up in neoconservative shock-tactics to even critically think about topics such as prostitution and "pedophilia" (for lack of a less inflammatory term).)

With that being said, its so fucked how an article like this is deemed "acceptable" in radical circles (anarchist/communist friends of mine have posted this article other places too), and yet even basic discussions of inter-generational relationships (especially relating to people the state deems "minors") are immediately closed or deleted from RevLeft.

The reasoning behind this false distinction made between the two is completely rooted in misogyny, heterosexism, and ageism and seems to suggest;

A) Women are innocent, either because they are inherently pure (or sexless) or mentally incapable of meticulously carrying out a "abominable act", which means obviously they can't be REAL pedophiles. Further, it implies women are eternal victims which means they cannot be sexual instigators or "aggressors".

B) Lesbian sex isn't real sex, at least not in the sense "natural penetrative" sex (ie: any sex involving a penis) is. Also, lesbian "love" or "lust" is simply an exhibition of woman being naturally "emotional" and "nurturing", not real "love" or "lust".

C) All youth are intellectually inferior to adults. Further -- youth have no sexual desires. Anything that manifests itself as a "sexual desire" is merely a result of adolescent confusion or "puberty", not real sexual urges, therefore a young person is incapable of consenting to -- muchless initiating sex.


In conclusion;

Gender/sexual/age essentialism are being perpetuated and overlooked in the Discrimination forum, and aspects of ageism are not being taken seriously because of social taboo in the Discrimination forum.

If these issues aren't addressed, I propose we scrap the Discrimination forum altogether, because both positions seem to imply ageism and sexism are moot.

i think that in general on this board discussions about realtionships between teenagers and young adults are not banned but frowend uppon, like i frown uppon the relationship in this article, because of the age diffrence, and because of the fact the elder was the teacher of this girl.
we frown uppon the power imbalance and, and maybe thats only so in my case but i doubt that, that is irregardles of the sex/gender of either the younger or the older person in the relationship.
as far as i know we dont ban people for saying that it could bepossible for an 15 year old to have an informed consenting relationship with an 26 year old. I would argue it would be difficult but i wouldnt ban someone.
but we do ban people who advocate lifting age of consent laws including those involving pre-pubesents (who cant give consent by difenition)
because the BA sees this as advocating/accomedating sexual abuse.

so please lay of the strawmans, sorry strawpeople.

[revolution inaction]

i suspect that many radicals are opposed to attempts to cure people of there sexual orientation, which could be why they are interested in this story.

also its clearly not paedophilia.


The story centers around Tn, 15, who began martial arts lessons with her taekwondo teacher, Sj, 26, two years ago.

[mel]

The RevLeft servers are located in Germany, as such the discussion here is subject to German laws. I can't recall any German law forbidding the discussion of 'underage' relationships, especially considering that a lot of what people here define as 'underage' is perfectly legal by the German Age Of Consent (14). The German media, at times, discusses minor sex at length, and various books and movies depicting such acts are perfectly legal in Germany.

No, legality is clearly not the issue. Moralism seems far more likely to be it.

RevLeft's servers haven't been in Germany for a while. RevLeft got moved to a virtual server in the US before the CC closed.

Oh, and it's simply factually incorrect that this (Pedophilia/Age of Consent/Relationships with Minors) isn't talked about here. There have been many threads on age of consent laws, and many threads not about them where they have come up and been discussed at length. I'm not sure where counterblast is getting this data, but here are a few threads which aren't closed or which only closed after a long run:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-feel-t142814/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/pedophiles-they-born-t138629/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/roman-polanski-t118813/index.html (became about AoC about 4 posts in)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/pedophiles-t108976/index.html

And there are TONs more where that came from. The subject comes up with relative frequently and yes, sometimes the discussion is closed if it was made just for the purpose of trolling, sometimes it's closed because it's framed in an inflammatory way, but ultimately this is one debate that comes up constantly and it seems bizarre to me that anybody would claim we dont' talk about it frequently enough considering how often it gets discussed.

Also, anybody supporting the abolition of the AoC under the superficial guise of "children's liberation" is making a cry out in support of their rape. It's like decriminalizing assault because people should be able to consent to having the shit kicked out of them if that's what they're into (and yeah, maybe they should) but the actual effect ends up being that it's almost impossible to establish or prove that no consent was provided (and even harder to prove that any consent provided was because of subtle psychological manipulation, which is usually the case). The structure of the law would then presuppose that in the majority of cases a vast age difference is due to true consent, when the reality indicates that it is most often the other way around. Leaving an "Age of Consent" barrier up does far more good in protecting children from harm than it does harm by stopping poor, oppressed subminorities of mentally capable 12 year olds from pursuing a fully consensual sexual relationship with their 33 year old tennis instructors.

Sometimes you just have to weight the cost/benefit, and it seems like a totally pointless mental exercise to posit that protecting the right for children to pursue relationships with much older adults is somehow MORE important than protecting the right for children not to be coerced into unwanted sexual relationships with much older adults. You can't really have it both ways. (And trying these cases as "normal" rape cases isn't really a plausible option. When there are age of consent laws, you're dealing with a set of basically plainly available facts [and even then, the rapist often gets let off the hook] such as whether or not a sexual encounter took place and the ages of the participants. Without age of consent laws, it's basically a total crapshoot)

[Widerstand]

RevLeft's servers haven't been in Germany for a while. RevLeft got moved to a virtual server in the US before the CC closed.

Then why are the rules forbidding Nazi imagery still in place? As far as I know they have, without exception since I'm on this forum, been justified with the German law system demanding it.


Oh, and it's simply factually incorrect that this (Pedophilia/Age of Consent/Relationships with Minors) isn't talked about here.

It is, but in a crass way that stinks of moralism and reactionary attitudes so much, that one might find a more civilized and mature discussion on stormfront even.

[#FF0000]

Then why are the rules forbidding Nazi imagery still in place? As far as I know they have, without exception since I'm on this forum, been justified with the German law system demanding it.

No platform, basically.


It is, but in a crass way that stinks of moralism and reactionary attitudes so much, that one might find a more civilized and mature discussion on stormfront even.

Yeah people are kind of dumb babies about it.

[Widerstand]

No platform, basically.

;/

Oh, I found it. Mel was right, it's not because of where the servers are located, but because the owner is German:


Please dont post national socialist symbols on this website (linking is allowed), because the owner is german it can give him and us lots of legal problems

[counterblast]

I'm not sure where counterblast is getting this data, but here are a few threads which aren't closed or which only closed after a long run:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-feel-t142814/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/pedophiles-they-born-t138629/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/roman-polanski-t118813/index.html (became about AoC about 4 posts in)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/pedophiles-t108976/index.html

Again, only in topics relating to inter-generational relationships between youth/adults do entire topics get banned for individual misconduct.

People say I am overreacting, but I don't see how. If mods ever closed a topic on homophobia because some individuals came in saying inflammatory things like "you are all sickos, dykes are fucking disgusting", there would be riots in the forums with people demanding to know why discussions of homophobia are being silenced over a few idiots who could have just as easily gotten an infraction or warning.

Its also interesting that only the more loose-ended of those four topics (the one asking for a "general feeling" about age of consent laws) was left open.

[gorillafuck]

Not sure how giving youth the social standing, legal ability, and physical resources to become safely/consensually sexually active if they want to, is considered "molestation" to you. Molestation requires coercion.
Is it molestation if a man offers a girl candy to perform sexual acts with him? (I'm thinking of a specific incident, I didn't pull that out of my head). There's no coercion in that scenario.

When a good friend of mine was molested when she was 7 years old, she didn't resist. Is that not molestation to you? The fear of sex that she's retained for about 9 years since then says it was.

[counterblast]

Is it molestation if a man offers a girl candy to perform sexual acts with him? (I'm thinking of a specific incident, I didn't pull that out of my head). There's no coercion in that scenario.

When a good friend of mine was molested when she was 7 years old, she didn't resist. Is that not molestation to you? The fear of sex that she's retained for about 9 years since then says it was.

Rape is rape, regardless of age or whether someone was "bribed" to have sex.

If someone is mentally unable to give informed consent, then performing a sexual act is coercive.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i live in indonesia, and i've never heard about this news. it's not a major cases in indonesia, really. not necessary tho. but. still it's interesting.

[AnthArmo]

the actual effect ends up being that it's almost impossible to establish or prove that no consent was provided (and even harder to prove that any consent provided was because of subtle psychological manipulation, which is usually the case). The structure of the law would then presuppose that in the majority of cases a vast age difference is due to true consent, when the reality indicates that it is most often the other way around. Leaving an "Age of Consent" barrier up does far more good in protecting children from harm than it does harm by stopping poor, oppressed subminorities of mentally capable 12 year olds from pursuing a fully consensual sexual relationship with their 33 year old tennis instructors.

I kinda agree with you, sorta.

You have to keep in mind that of those subminorities, a large chunk of those are 13-17 year olds with an interest in 20-25 year olds.

In all honesty I'm unsure how this issue is to be approached. I don't agree with the moral grandstanding undertaken by the majority of the population were it's "just wrong". Going to the absurd lenghts of implementing an internet filter that eliminates all child porn, even if they don't involve actual children. It's as if taking away all their sexual stimulus will just make pedophiles "disappear". Going by that logic, if you seperate all females from the male population, males will suddenly become homosexuals?:rolleyes:

But still, I agree with you in essence. Removing age of consent laws would just allow some jerks to exploit kids. But I don't think the issue is as simplistic as most make it out to be. I don't see how love cannot transend age. I've heard of a 50 year old woman marrying a 90 year old man. That needs to be taken into account that somewhere, you're repressing a genuinely loving relationship.

There is most likely a line that has to be "crossed" somehow between whats appropriate and what isn't. A Catholic priest taking advantage of his power and knowledge over impressionable pre-pubescents is most certainly rape. But a scenario like the one in the video I posted is far from immoral.

[gorillafuck]

Rape is rape, regardless of age or whether someone was "bribed" to have sex.
So your idea about molestation requiring coercion goes down the tubes, then? If you're going to accept that that is rape, then it has to be based off of the idea that the victim was a child, because if a grown woman performs sexual acts for candy that is not rape. The reason it was rape is because it was a child, and children are mentally unable to give informed consent.


If someone is mentally unable to give informed consent, then performing a sexual act is coercive.
Aka, children.

[counterblast]

So your idea about molestation requiring coercion goes down the tubes, then? If you're going to accept that that is rape, then it has to be based off of the idea that the victim was a child, because if a grown woman performs sexual acts for candy that is not rape. The reason it was rape is because it was a child, and children are mentally unable to give informed consent.

Again, I made it very clear in my original response, candy or other forms of bribery are irrelevant to the issue of consent, so I'm not sure why you're misquoting me?

If someone offers me candy or any other material incentive for sex, whether I am 13 or 50, its pretty irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if I am mentally informed enough and socially empowered enough to distinguish between consent/rape and have legal recourse if someone crosses those lines.

And no, my definition of molestation, doesn't go down the tubes. Coercion can just as easily be mental/emotional as it can be physical.




Aka, children.
Sure, if you buy into sweeping, scientifically inaccurate generalizations that all children have the same intelligence and cognitive ability. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

This thread has been thoroughly hijacked.

Oh hoy, captain Counterblast!

[gorillafuck]

Again, I made it very clear in my original response, candy or other forms of bribery are irrelevant to the issue of consent, so I'm not sure why you're misquoting me?
Yes, they are irrelevant. But if we follow your own logic, this young girl gave consent to perform sexual acts with her father, since she did it willingly. Therefore you think it's okay. Which I disagree with. It was exploitative and harmful.


If someone offers me candy or any other material incentive for sex, whether I am 13 or 50, its pretty irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if I am mentally informed enough and socially empowered enough to distinguish between consent/rape and have legal recourse if someone crosses those lines.A 13 year old is most certainly not a "child", to me at least (maybe to you). A 13 year old is a young teenager.


Sure, if you buy into sweeping, scientifically inaccurate generalizations that all children have the same intelligence and cognitive ability. :rolleyes:7 year olds are not mentally ready for sexual activities from adults, that's a generalization I'm willing to make. It is a matter of development, and yes, children are not developed enough for sexual activities with adults.

[counterblast]

Yes, they are irrelevant. But if we follow your own logic, this young girl gave consent to perform sexual acts with her father, since she did it willingly. Therefore you think it's okay. Which I disagree with. It was exploitative and harmful.

A 13 year old is most certainly not a "child", to me at least (maybe to you). A 13 year old is a young teenager.

7 year olds are not mentally ready for sexual activities from adults, that's a generalization I'm willing to make. It is a matter of development, and yes, children are not developed enough for sexual activities with adults.


1. Clearly we have different definitions of consent. Consent isn't the absence of "no" or "stop", its the presence of an informed"yes".


2. I would agree that an overwhelming majority of 7 year olds are not developed enough to consent to a sexual act. But undoubtedly some are... Further, if one looks at many non-European cultures and how youth are treated, it becomes questionable how much it is due to "lack of development" so much as social subordination and censorship of knowledge.

[counterblast]

Also, to add historical parallel; women, prior to having labor rights, access to sexual knowledge, equal social signifigance, and legal reprieve, were essentially in the same position, youth are in today.

Unlike adult-run, rape apologist groups like NAMBLA, who merely wish to objectify youth and turn them into sex slaves, I am proposing youth to be liberated in all aspects of society, with an end to this moralist protectionism that women and youth have lived under in European societies for hundreds of years, and youth continue to live under today. I support a sexual revolution for youth but only one that is completely youth-led, and challenges the youth/adult (slave/master) binary.

[#FF0000]

Also, to add historical parallel; women, prior to having labor rights, access to sexual knowledge, equal social signifigance, and legal reprieve, were essentially in the same position, youth are in today.

Except women are grown adults who are fully developed physically and mentally. By definition, children and a lot of youth are not.


I would agree that an overwhelming majority of 7 year olds are not developed enough to consent to a sexual act. But undoubtedly some are... Further, if one looks at many non-European cultures and how youth are treated, it becomes questionable how much it is due to "lack of development" so much as social subordination and censorship of knowledge.

1) No way.

2) I don't think it becomes questionable at all if you look into childhood psychology. The brain of a child just isn't developed yet. It's just that simple and I don't understand how people who advocate against an age of consent can get around that fact.

[Ele'ill]

The legality issue has to do with what country the forum server is in.

I see we've already moved passed this though which is why you should always read the entire thread before posting from page one.


Edit- I think the points counterblast is bringing up are valid to a point but the solution being proposed is not appropriate and the negative affects of the points being brought up need to be dealt with but not in the manner being suggested.

[enrici]

2. I would agree that an overwhelming majority of 7 year olds are not developed enough to consent to a sexual act. But undoubtedly some are... Further, if one looks at many non-European cultures and how youth are treated, it becomes questionable how much it is due to "lack of development" so much as social subordination and censorship of knowledge.

How did I ever think of becoming an anarchsit? It's clear to me now that this "anything goes" philosophy justifies anything in the name of liberatoin, like raping a child or baking cookies with human ashes.

As a survivor of child abuse, I won't mince words. Fuckin 7 year olds? This user counterblast is a fucking pedophile. Why is he allowed to post here? He needs therapy and barring that to be removed from society completely by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Go ahead, moderator, infract me. I dare you to. Fucking coward!

[#FF0000]

How did I ever think of becoming an anarchsit? It's clear to me now that this "anything goes" philosophy justifies anything in the name of liberatoin, like raping a child or baking cookies with human ashes.

As a survivor of child abuse, I won't mince words. Fuckin 7 year olds? This user counterblast is a fucking pedophile. Why is he allowed to post here? He needs therapy and barring that to be removed from society completely by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Go ahead, moderator, infract me. I dare you to. Fucking coward!

1) Counterblast isn't a pedophile nor does she believe people should be able to rape children. She just believes that teenagers (13+, I'm assuming) are capable of giving informed consent.

I mean I think she's very wrong. But she's certainly not a pedophile.

2) Not all anarchists take this stance or think it has anything to do with youth liberation.

3) The ashes thing was a hoax and you're dumb to believe it.

4) I won't infract you though because being stupid is it's own far greater punishment.

[khad]

How did I ever think of becoming an anarchsit? It's clear to me now that this "anything goes" philosophy justifies anything in the name of liberatoin, like raping a child or baking cookies with human ashes.

As a survivor of child abuse, I won't mince words. Fuckin 7 year olds? This user counterblast is a fucking pedophile. Why is he allowed to post here? He needs therapy and barring that to be removed from society completely by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Go ahead, moderator, infract me. I dare you to. Fucking coward!
We apologize for the delay, but the pedophile liberationist has been banned.

[AnthArmo]

We apologize for the delay, but the pedophile liberationist has been banned.

Dude...what the hell?

[AnthArmo]

Except women are grown adults who are fully developed physically and mentally. By definition, children and a lot of youth are not.

2) I don't think it becomes questionable at all if you look into childhood psychology. The brain of a child just isn't developed yet. It's just that simple and I don't understand how people who advocate against an age of consent can get around that fact.

This, this is good. I agree with you, a pre-pubescent child is by definition not ready for sex. This is apparent. I don't see how this is a "social construct"


Also, to add historical parallel; women, prior to having labor rights, access to sexual knowledge, equal social signifigance, and legal reprieve, were essentially in the same position, youth are in today.

Unlike adult-run, rape apologist groups like NAMBLA, who merely wish to objectify youth and turn them into sex slaves, I am proposing youth to be liberated in all aspects of society, with an end to this moralist protectionism that women and youth have lived under in European societies for hundreds of years, and youth continue to live under today. I support a sexual revolution for youth but only one that is completely youth-led, and challenges the youth/adult (slave/master) binary.

This, this I TOO agree with. Arrg! me too stoopid to make up my own mind :(


1. Clearly we have different definitions of consent. Consent isn't the absence of "no" or "stop", its the presence of an informed"yes".


2. I would agree that an overwhelming majority of 7 year olds are not developed enough to consent to a sexual act. But undoubtedly some are... Further, if one looks at many non-European cultures and how youth are treated, it becomes questionable how much it is due to "lack of development" so much as social subordination and censorship of knowledge.

Had you not been randomly banned, I'd have loved to ask for what exactly these societies were and for you to give us an example.


How did I ever think of becoming an anarchsit? It's clear to me now that this "anything goes" philosophy justifies anything in the name of liberatoin, like raping a child or baking cookies with human ashes.

As a survivor of child abuse, I won't mince words. Fuckin 7 year olds? This user counterblast is a fucking pedophile. Why is he allowed to post here? He needs therapy and barring that to be removed from society completely by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Go ahead, moderator, infract me. I dare you to. Fucking coward!

I think you've misunderstood her position, but judging by your past experiences, I can't blame your emotional reaction.

She isn't in favour of child rape. In fact, she is explicitly against organisations like NAMBLA, actually read what she says.

She also makes the argument that many kids, such as teenagers, are fully aware of making an informed decision and that we have no right to imprison them sexually. I think we can all agree with this.

Were I think everybody else disagrees with her is her solution, to abolish age of consent laws. I'm not sure that would actually work. There has to be some sort of line drawn between what is acceptable (such as the relationship put up by the OP, or in my video) and what isn't, such as a pre-pubescent child who knows nothing of sex being taken advantage of by a much older man. Obviously age isn't that solution, as different people become sexually informed at different ages.

I'm kinda taking the position that your average proletarian would in relation to Capitalism. I don't like it, but I don't know about any working solutions, I need someone with a good idea to come along :D


We apologize for the delay, but the pedophile liberationist has been banned.

I've been doing a lot of lurking. I've noticed that you tend to abuse your moderator powers for your own self-benefit. She isn't a "pedophile liberationist", she's a youth liberationist. She is explicitly against organisations like NAMBLA. rather than abusing your power, actually read what she says. You'know, have an informed debate.

You can do that right?

What're you going to do, ban me too? I suppose I also count as a "pedophile liberationist" because my opinion doesn't confer completely with yours. Go, ban me, I dare you, prove that your an abusive moderator to the rest of the forum. Go on. Do it.

[khad]

What're you going to do, ban me too? I suppose I also count as a "pedophile liberationist" because my opinion doesn't confer completely with yours. Go, ban me, I dare you, prove that your an abusive moderator to the rest of the forum. Go on. Do it.
I love your rage. Perhaps if you channeled that indignant energy into reading, you might learn a thing or two. For example, the fact that I never banned counterblast. The admins did.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/admin-actions-t111648/index.html?p=1890148#post1890148

So, next time, at least get your targets right. How could I have been abusing my mod powers when I didn't even exercise them?

And for the record, the only one abusing mod powers in this thread was Loveschach. Fortunately his infraction against Jack has also been reversed by admin decision.

[gorillafuck]

1) Counterblast isn't a pedophile nor does she believe people should be able to rape children. She just believes that teenagers (13+, I'm assuming) are capable of giving informed consent.
She was arguing that some 7 year olds can give informed consent. She specifically stated 7 year olds.

Everything you said in your response to what she said to me is absolutely correct, by the way.

[penguinfoot]

Molestation is not rape, and neither is deception. We can all agree that if someone has sex with someone and is able to do so only because they have lied about themselves or because the person they had sex with was under the influence, of, say, alcohol, and they wouldn't normally have consented, then that's not a good thing, and that it would be better if we lived in a world where sexual relations didn't involve deception and so on. We can all agree that an individual who touches another individual in inappropriate ways or shows that individual pornographic material (both of these being accusations that have been central to recent debates over abuse within the Catholic Church where the concept of rape has been stretched and distorted in truly shocking ways in order to suit contemporary anti-Catholic prejudices) is doing something that undermines the autonomy of other individuals. However, by branding these and other sexual situations rape what you are doing is obscuring what it is about actual cases of rape that makes rape such a brutal thing to do to another human being, namely the experience of being penetrated or otherwise used as an object of sexual satisfaction in a violent and brutal way - as such you do not uphold the importance of consent, you diminish it.

[mel]

Molestation is not rape, and neither is deception. We can all agree that if someone has sex with someone and is able to do so only because they have lied about themselves or because the person they had sex with was under the influence, of, say, alcohol, and they wouldn't normally have consented, then that's not a good thing, and that it would be better if we lived in a world where sexual relations didn't involve deception and so on. We can all agree that an individual who touches another individual in inappropriate ways or shows that individual pornographic material (both of these being accusations that have been central to recent debates over abuse within the Catholic Church where the concept of rape has been stretched and distorted in truly shocking ways in order to suit contemporary anti-Catholic prejudices) is doing something that undermines the autonomy of other individuals. However, by branding these and other sexual situations rape what you are doing is obscuring what it is about actual cases of rape that makes rape such a brutal thing to do to another human being, namely the experience of being penetrated or otherwise used as an object of sexual satisfaction in a violent and brutal way - as such you do not uphold the importance of consent, you diminish it.

Have you ever heard of "informed consent"? Such a thing does not exist in a situation in which one party has been fed disinformation for the sole purpose of manipulating them into sex.

So yeah, manipulating somebody into sex that they would not have had if they were properly informed is rape.

[penguinfoot]

Have you ever heard of "informed consent"?

Informed consent doesn't mean that you know everything about the person that you're about to have sex with, it means that you have some understanding of the significance of the sexual act - if what you are saying is true and it is possible for someone to be raped just because they weren't given some piece of information that might have altered their decision to have sex or not then you get the exact problem I outlined in my previous post, where the definition of rape is expanded in a way that obscures what is so fundamental about consent, as a moral condition, and the actual act of rape. I don't normally give personal examples in debates like this but I happen to know a woman who had sex with her boyfriend because she had been told by him that he went to a good university in my country and was doing law, only to find out later that this wasn't true at all, that he had in fact been unemployed the entire time - are you seriously saying that an incident like that, as regrettable as it may be from the viewpoint of humans being honest to one another, is ethically the same as someone being held down and forcibly penetrated?

[mel]

Informed consent doesn't mean that you know everything about the person that you're about to have sex with, it means that you have some understanding of the significance of the sexual act - if what you are saying is true and it is possible for someone to be raped just because they weren't given some piece of information that might have altered their decision to have sex or not then you get the exact problem I outlined in my previous post, where the definition of rape is expanded in a way that obscures what is so fundamental about consent, as a moral condition, and the actual act of rape.

So you're for narrowing the definition of rape because some ways in which people are taken advantage of sexually aren't that big of a deal?

[penguinfoot]

So you're for narrowing the definition of rape because some ways in which people are taken advantage of sexually aren't that big of a deal?

Um, no, it's not that those instances aren't "that big of a deal", and neither is this really about the semantic nature of the term "rape", the basic point is that someone agreeing to have sex as a result of being given or not given certain information when they might otherwise have refused to do so, as in the example I gave, or someone being shown pornography without having consented, as in some of the cases that have been highlighted during the recent Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, are not the same as someone being subject to immediate violence and coercion in a way that constitutes a direct exercise of power over them - power rather than sexual desire being ultimately what rape is about. By treating these different scenarios as morally equivalent, that is, by subsuming them all under the single term of "rape", you totally obscure and diminish the true importance of concepts like consent and bodily autonomy as well as the true horror and indignity of actual instances of rape.

[the last donut of the night]

We apologize for the delay, but the pedophile liberationist has been banned.

I'm sorry, khad, but this is fucking bullshit, even if you didn't ban her. "Pedophile liberationist"? What does that even mean?

counterblast had an amazing perspective on race to sexual issues, banning her further dumbs down RevLeft.

[AnthArmo]

I love your rage. Perhaps if you channeled that indignant energy into reading, you might learn a thing or two. For example, the fact that I never banned counterblast. The admins did.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/admin-actions-t111648/index.html?p=1890148#post1890148

So, next time, at least get your targets right. How could I have been abusing my mod powers when I didn't even exercise them?

And for the record, the only one abusing mod powers in this thread was Loveschach. Fortunately his infraction against Jack has also been reversed by admin decision.

Fine, sorry. It wasn't you. But you can't help but understand my misunderstanding. You called her a "Pedophile liberationist", I mean, did you even read what she had to say?

Regardless, I demand that she be unbanned. The whole point of banning is to get rid of Capitalist/Fascist trolls from turning every discussion into a "Capitalism versus Socialism" argument. Banning her does nothing. It is purely an abuse of mod powers on the shoulders of whoever it is that excercised it (which seems to be Miles)

[9]

I haven't really been following this discussion, because I saw early on that it became about age of consent, which is a subject that:

a) I don't find particularly interesting, and
b) I don't think is possible for there to be a reasonable discussion about on this forum, due to the general maturity level here, among other factors; and
c) it always ends with someone getting banned.

However, just to comment on some things which have come up on the last page of this thread...


Have you ever heard of "informed consent"? Such a thing does not exist in a situation in which one party has been fed disinformation for the sole purpose of manipulating them into sex.

So yeah, manipulating somebody into sex that they would not have had if they were properly informed is rape.

So then this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/arab-guilty-rape-t138895/index.html?t=138895), presumably, is entirely justified because it is indeed an instance of rape?


Um, no, it's not that those instances aren't "that big of a deal", and neither is this really about the semantic nature of the term "rape", the basic point is that someone agreeing to have sex as a result of being given or not given certain information when they might otherwise have refused to do so, as in the example I gave, or someone being shown pornography without having consented, as in some of the cases that have been highlighted during the recent Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, are not the same as someone being subject to immediate violence and coercion in a way that constitutes a direct exercise of power over them - power rather than sexual desire being ultimately what rape is about. By treating these different scenarios as morally equivalent, that is, by subsuming them all under the single term of "rape", you totally obscure and diminish the true importance of concepts like consent and bodily autonomy as well as the true horror and indignity of actual instances of rape.

Basically I agree with this, and I think people who are insistent upon widening the definition of what constitutes "rape" are essentially helping to detract from the seriousness of actual rape.

[Le Libérer]

There are certain issues with the legalities of this subject and this thread is bordering on them. Therefore this thread is closed.