Thread: Civil disobedience and the age of consent

Throughout history there have been unjust laws, such as persecution on the grounds of skin color, sexuality or religion. These laws were unjust because there was no justification for their existence, other than blind hatred and ignorance. When people disobey these unjust laws it is called civil disobedience.

Age of consent laws vary across the world, from 18 in the USA to 14 in Italy. Clearly there is no consensus in regard to what age one becomes capable of consenting to sex, or at what age sex ceases to be a harmful activity. There is no universal age of consent, yet the law imposes absolutist age based restrictions on sexual activity. Actions must be proven to be harmful in some way in order for them to be illegal, yet there is no evidence suggesting sex with persons under the age of consent is harmful. For example much of the research only looks at individuals admitted to psychiatric hospitals, disregarding the potentially higher number of unharmed individuals who experienced under age sex.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is the role of adults in the lives of persons under the age of consent. For example there is no law preventing parents feeding their children junk food resulting in obesity. Another issue is that of criminal responsibility, it's not uncommon for persons under the age of consent to be tried as an adult - this implies persons under the age of consent can understand the implications of their actions. Finally there are different ages at which one can drive, serve in the army and drink alcohol - all adding to the inconsistency of age based laws. Martin Luther King said "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".


My question is this:

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

You should look up and revise your definition of civil disobedience. If a 30 year old man has sex with a 12 year old, it's generally considered rape and violation of criminal law.

It is also not only the victim, but also the effect on society which gets considered many times--or many times both. For example, in the US, the federal minimum age to consume alcohol is 21 but the reason has at least as much to do with tens of thousands of drunk drinking victims by young adults as them killing themselves.

If you're trying to point to sex laws in the US being a mess, I'd agree with you. Lots of inconsistencies, often a lack of psychological sciences in either the law or the penalty, and a lot of conflict with our legal principles about not differentiating by gender despite strong argument that victim gender matters a lot.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You should look up and revise your definition of civil disobedience. If a 30 year old man has sex with a 12 year old, it's generally considered rape and violation of criminal law.

Why is it considered rape? Does it matter if there is no evidence of physical/psychological harm? I'm sure you're aware there are many sexually active 12 year olds. Biologically they are capable of, and want to have, sex.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It is also not only the victim, but also the effect on society

This is true. The denial of child sexuality and the criminalisation of under-age sex results in thousands of uneducated, misinformed and scared young people getting pregnant or catching std's. Somthing which would be avoided if we had less stringent laws on sex.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

For example, in the US, the federal minimum age to consume alcohol is 21 but the reason has at least as much to do with tens of thousands of drunk drinking victims by young adults as them killing themselves.

That's right, under 21s are not mature enough to drink responsibly. Of course they can get shot in Afghanistan or star in a porn film, that's different. As an American you're probably unaware that the drinking age is lower than 21 in most nations - for example in Germany it's 16 (they also have lower rates of drink driving than the USA)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

a lot of conflict with our legal principles about not differentiating by gender despite strong argument that victim gender matters a lot.

Why does gender matter? I know Americans like to criminalise men who have sex with teenage girls whilst celebrating attractive blond female teachers having sex with male students. However contrary to popular belief not all males are emotionless sex robots who don't feel love, as not all females are prudent asexual crybabies. Why should it matter if the 'victim' is male or female?

Why is it considered rape? Does it matter if there is no evidence of physical/psychological harm?

I don't know the legal name for it, but there's a principle in law that presumes limits based on what's average. In this case, the argument would be that most 12 year old people are not mature (size, emotion, reason, risk and consequence management, knowledge, self-identity etc) enough to decide whether to have sex and therefore give consent. If a person doesn't give or can't give consent to sex then it's automatically rape.

As an American you're probably unaware that the drinking age is lower than 21 in most nations

Don't assume, I've spent considerable time in Germany, Hungry, Bosnia, Greece, Italy, Thailand, Iraq and visited dozens more.

Why should it matter if the 'victim' is male or female?

In simplest terms. If a 15 year old teenage has sex with a 30 year old women, he won't have physical burden of carrying a child for 9 months and most likely won't have to support the child or change his plans to finish school, go to college etc. Neither will his family. If a young women has sex with a 30 year old, there's far greater risk, physical responsibility for the carrying the child, and likely financial burden to family and "we the people." We'd probably disagree about the emotional implications so I'll just avoid that part of it.

Sorry, but depraved as our society has become, I don't think you will find much support for molesting children.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Sorry, but depraved as our society has become, I don't think you will find much support for molesting children.

What exactly do you mean with the term depraved?

Not considered moral by modern societies.

I understand the general meaning of the word, I was interested in what Harold was implying with: "but depraved as our society has become"

The simple answer is "No". It is not civil disobedience, it is a crime.

I am sure criminals often rationalize their crimes. Calling child molestation "civil disobedience" is just a way to rationalize a crime.

In fact it is one of the worst forms of criminal activity.

Originally Posted by dedo

The simple answer is "No". It is not civil disobedience, it is a crime.

I am sure criminals often rationalize their crimes. Calling child molestation "civil disobedience" is just a way to rationalize a crime.

In fact it is one of the worst forms of criminal activity.

So if a 19 year old boy has intercourse with his girlfriend, at her behest, two days before her eighteenth birthday he is, in your view very clearly a criminal and a child molester? Legally, in some jurisdictions he is a criminal, but you do you think his actions were wholly wrong and immoral? If so can you explain why it is that they would have been completely legal and broadly accepted in, for example, the UK?

There is, in my view, a grey area here and trying to make it black and white will ultimately harm some of those it is intended to protect. Every practical means should be employed to protect the young from sexual predators, but let us be certain, case by case, that we are dealing with a predator.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by dedo

The simple answer is "No". It is not civil disobedience, it is a crime.

I am sure criminals often rationalize their crimes. Calling child molestation "civil disobedience" is just a way to rationalize a crime.

In fact it is one of the worst forms of criminal activity.

So if a 19 year old boy has intercourse with his girlfriend, at her behest, two days before her eighteenth birthday he is, in your view very clearly a criminal and a child molester? Legally, in some jurisdictions he is a criminal, but you do you think his actions were wholly wrong and immoral? If so can you explain why it is that they would have been completely legal and broadly accepted in, for example, the UK?

There is, in my view, a grey area here and trying to make it black and white will ultimately harm some of those it is intended to protect. Every practical means should be employed to protect the young from sexual predators, but let us be certain, case by case, that we are dealing with a predator.

O.K. I concede that there is a grey area, and in most societies, the law allows for this. In general, "black and white" thinking is wrong. However, moral relativism that refuses to take any stand because no stand can cover every conceivable situation in also a mistake.

So, although I would agree that there is a grey area in this and many criminal situations, I believe it is safe to say that under age sex is never "civil disobedience". In my opinion, "civil disobedience" is generally is applied to people who resist an unjust law in a situation where the resister is not gaining personally. Thus, civil disobedience might apply to a trespasser at an abortion clinic or anti-war demonstration. It would not apply to someone who takes advantage of an underage person. And applying unrealistic hypothetical parameters such as "no damage" is not a deciding factor. "No damage" in whose opinion--the opinion of the molester?

In general, laws of a moral nature are determined by the standards of the community, not the individual. Thus, if one community sets the age of consent at 16, that is their standard. In another community, the age might be 18. Violating that rule by 10 days might be a small crime, and rarely prosecuted. Violating it by 5-10 years would generally be a severe crime in most or all communities.
It is still a crime, not civil disobedience. It is such a severe crime, that perpetrators are often separated from other prisoners for their own protection.

Also, each of us who escaped from a law violation with a "warning", believes in "case by case" discretion being applied to matters of law from responsible authorities.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

a lot of conflict with our legal principles about not differentiating by gender despite strong argument that victim gender matters a lot.

The gender of the victim does not matter in terms of the brain damage caused by pedophilia. Research shows that the psychological distress caused by childhood molestation is so intense that it physically-injures the brain. Again, gender is irrelevant.

Read more here: Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the gender of the perpetrator DOES matter. In a child of either gender, being inappropriately touched by a man causes more emotional trauma than being similarly touched by a woman. Most kids of any gender would rather experience affection from women, than men. If a woman hugs a child, the child see it as nurturing. If a man hugs a child, the child feels threatened.

In addition, there are many more cases of men sexually-assaulting boys, than men sexually-assaulting girls. This is because society forces males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children. This is especially true in non-western cultures -- such as that of Russia and the Native American "Indians".

I started a thread in another science forum regarding this "pro-girl sexism" and how it has a negative impact on boys and girls as well as humanity as a whole. You can read about it here: Are girls really treated preferentially? - Science Forums

We really aren't' talking about Pedophilia, though it might apply to early teenagers who haven't passed puberty.

I'll have a look at the new thread.

Clearly neither ther perp nor the vic in underage sex can be considered to be acting in civil disobedience because both gain pleasure from the activity. Itis interesting to consider who could be said to be involed as an 'act of civil diobedience". Consenting parents of the underage person? Some one who knowingly provides a venue for the sexual activity?

In Arizona, the legal age for consent is 18 so if someone older has sex with a person under 18, it is a felony and will spend 5 to 10 years in prison. If two teenagers have sex that are under 18, they will wait until the male has reached 18 and try him as an adult and the girl is treated as a victim. The laws on this are completely insane since obviously teenagers are going to want and have sex.

Originally Posted by Barbi

If two teenagers have sex that are under 18, they will wait until the male has reached 18 and try him as an adult and the girl is treated as a victim.

This is exactly the pro-girl sexism I'm against.

As a child, the average girl is no more weak, innocent, or vulnerable the the average boy of the same age. So society should stop treating her like a "little princess" and cease treating him like a subhuman animal.

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.

Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

I'm against 'pro-girl sexism' and believe children should not be treated worse or better based alone on their gender. Most women and feminists agree with me. It's the non-feminist macho men who disagree.

'Pro-girl sexism' = society forces males of all ages to treat a girl-child "better" than boy-child of the same age and provide this treatment solely on the basis on gender.

"Better" = the following:

1. More compassion
2. More sympathy
3. More respect
4. More gentleness
5. More easiness
6. More empathy
7. More cleanliness
8. More protection
9. More luxury
10. More personal space
11. More privacy
12. More security
13. More freedom
14. More modesty
15. More decency
16. More leniency
17. Less discipline
18. Less strictness
19. Less physical contact
20. More politeness
21. More courtesy
22. Lower expectations

On average, the adult woman:

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man
2. Is more emotional than the adult man
3. Is better behaved than the adult man
4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man
5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't
6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man
7. Is less likely to mistreat children

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

Due to this, I believe males of all ages should treat adult women "better" than adult men. However, NO male -- of any age -- should *ever* be socially-mandated to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and it's irrational norms. In addition, it is *not* innate/instinctive for a male -- of any age -- to treat girls "better" than boys.

In addition, science has already proven that average girl-child is NOT *innately*:

1. Weaker
2. More sensitive
3. More delicate
4. Lower-IQed
5. Slower
6. Less energetic
7. Less aggresive
8. Less violent
9. Less cold-hearted [or more hot-hearted]
10. Less openly abusive to members of the opposite gender
11. Less openly sexist against members of the opposite gender
12. More tense
13. More emotional
14. Less emotionally-stable
15. More compassionate
16. More mature in personality
17. Less mischievous
18. Less naughty
19. Less resilient

... than the average boy-child of the same age. In addition, she is not more likely to be mistreated by males [of any age] than he is.

Boy = male under 18 years of age = child

Girl = female under 18 years of age = child

Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult

Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult

If a boy-child is more naughty than a girl-child, it is because of the psychological trauma he experiences by being subjected to society's evil gender roles. *Innately*, a boy is no more mischievous than a girl of the same age.

Gender stereotypes are detrimental to children. Kids need to be protected against them.

This 'pro-girl sexism' I speak off has been there in all cultures ever since humans formed a society. From ancient times, the men of society have usually -- at least in public -- treated girl-children "better" than boy-children. This 'pro-girl sexism' is [and always was] *far* more intense in non-western cultures than in western cultures.

Here is my list of examples of non-western cultures:

1. Natives American "Indian" cultures
2. Latino cultures -- such as that of Spain and Mexico
3. Russia
4. All of Asia
5. Turkey
6. Kazakstan
7. Nations run by Islamic fundamentalists
8. All of Africa
9. Eastern Europe
10. All of what used to be in the Soviet Union location
11. Romania
12. South and Central Americas


Here is how 'pro-girl sexism' started:

It most likely started more than thousands of years ago with a small gang of strong macho men [the only male homo-sapien humans existing at the time] who decided that they would treat girls "better" than boys. The gang singled out male individuals and forced them to follow and enforce this rule -- they left the females alone. These male individuals joined the gang and -- out of extreme fear -- began following and enforcing the gang's pro-girl, anti-boy rules. More and more male individuals began joining this gang -- out of fear for their own safety -- and submitting to their oppressive anti-boy regime. This is how the anti-boy, pro-girl gang got bigger. Members of this gang began teaching their boy-children -- likely through extreme corporal punishments -- to follow these sexist rules and pass these rules onto the next generation of children. Fathers who didn't teach their boy-children to follow this sexism were singled out by the gang [which was now big enough to be considered a society] and horrifyingly mistreated along with their helpless sons.

This is my theory as to why 'pro-girl sexism' exists. It exists for the same reason many other irrational, un-natural societal norms exists -- they are followed and enforced out of fear of facing social condemnation.

This historical gang of humans I describe pretty much had similar rules of most of today's street gangs. If they want you, they force you to join, and if you try to leave, they torture and kill you. If they see you and don't want you, they torture and kill you regardless of your actions.

Once again, 'pro-girl sexism' is not at all innate or instinctive. It is an example of learned behavior that is practiced out of fear and shame.

Due to society's 'pro-girl sexism' I don't *ever* want to have children. I don't want my potential son suffering the horrors of society's gender roles nor do I want my potential daughter to turn into spoiled-rotten monster.

I agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

This is exactly the pro-girl sexism I'm against.

As a child, the average girl is no more weak, innocent, or vulnerable the the average boy of the same age. So society should stop treating her like a "little princess" and cease treating him like a subhuman animal.

You are ignoring a basic biological fact. Girls can get pregnant from sexual activity, boys cannot. This will explain why societies have developed different rules of behavior for treatment of boys and girls. It all makes sense from the standpoint of evolution.
The male of the species can sire an almost unlimited number of progeny. All they need to do is donate a little bit of sperm. Therefore, lacking control imposed by the rules of the society, it is to their advantage to impregnate as many females as possible, preferably without being required to commit any resources to the rearing of said children.
The female of the species has a different agenda. Since she can only give birth to about one child per year, to which she must commit substantial resources both during and after the pregnancy, her interest lies in ensuring the survival of those children which she bears. This means she is best off to bear her children in a committed relationship with the father providing substantial resources toward the rearing of the offspring.

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.



Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

This is a rather flawed argument. The logical extension of this reasoning is that society should have no rules at all, lest the violator or person innocently accused of violating those rules should be adversely affected.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

This is exactly the pro-girl sexism I'm against.

As a child, the average girl is no more weak, innocent, or vulnerable the the average boy of the same age. So society should stop treating her like a "little princess" and cease treating him like a subhuman animal.

You are ignoring a basic biological fact. Girls can get pregnant from sexual activity, boys cannot. This will explain why societies have developed different rules of behavior for treatment of boys and girls. It all makes sense from the standpoint of evolution.
The male of the species can sire an almost unlimited number of progeny. All they need to do is donate a little bit of sperm. Therefore, lacking control imposed by the rules of the society, it is to their advantage to impregnate as many females as possible, preferably without being required to commit any resources to the rearing of said children.
The female of the species has a different agenda. Since she can only give birth to about one child per year, to which she must commit substantial resources both during and after the pregnancy, her interest lies in ensuring the survival of those children which she bears. This means she is best off to bear her children in a committed relationship with the father providing substantial resources toward the rearing of the offspring.

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.



Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

This is a rather flawed argument. The logical extension of this reasoning is that society should have no rules at all, lest the violator or person innocently accused of violating those rules should be adversely affected.

The problem with these laws on convicting a teenage boy who has sexual relations with his girlfriend when he turns 18 is that they don't convict the girl too. I will explain why, many girls who their boyfriend has broken up with them will use this law to get even with him. The parents of the girl gets upset that their teenager is having sex and goes after the boy by bringing the law into it. Both of these situations is morally wrong, in my opinion, and they both take advantage of the law which is wrong.

Either the law needs to be changed to include both the girl and boy since neither one can conscent to sexual relations or allow the parents to handle this as it should be.

How many cases are of this type of prosecution? I have not heard of any in the last few years.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

How many cases are of this type of prosecution? I have not heard of any in the last few years.

In Arizona, it happens alot.

OK, how about in civilized countries?

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

How many cases are of this type of prosecution? I have not heard of any in the last few years.

In Arizona, it happens alot.

Number and links to cases?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

How many cases are of this type of prosecution? I have not heard of any in the last few years.

In Arizona, it happens alot.

Number and links to cases?

I had a friend who was charged for one pornographic underaged girl for one year and he told me about the details of some of those cases concerning other immates. I trust my source.

you may trust your source, but that does not mean I have to. The sweeping statments you made are very serious and concerning, but you have not provided evidence that actually backs the allegations. Do you have any other evidence then the third had accounts of misconduct?

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

This is exactly the pro-girl sexism I'm against.

As a child, the average girl is no more weak, innocent, or vulnerable the the average boy of the same age. So society should stop treating her like a "little princess" and cease treating him like a subhuman animal.

You are ignoring a basic biological fact. Girls can get pregnant from sexual activity, boys cannot. This will explain why societies have developed different rules of behavior for treatment of boys and girls. It all makes sense from the standpoint of evolution.
The male of the species can sire an almost unlimited number of progeny. All they need to do is donate a little bit of sperm. Therefore, lacking control imposed by the rules of the society, it is to their advantage to impregnate as many females as possible, preferably without being required to commit any resources to the rearing of said children.
The female of the species has a different agenda. Since she can only give birth to about one child per year, to which she must commit substantial resources both during and after the pregnancy, her interest lies in ensuring the survival of those children which she bears. This means she is best off to bear her children in a committed relationship with the father providing substantial resources toward the rearing of the offspring.

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.



Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

This is a rather flawed argument. The logical extension of this reasoning is that society should have no rules at all, lest the violator or person innocently accused of violating those rules should be adversely affected.

The problem with these laws on convicting a teenage boy who has sexual relations with his girlfriend when he turns 18 is that they don't convict the girl too. I will explain why, many girls who their boyfriend has broken up with them will use this law to get even with him. The parents of the girl gets upset that their teenager is having sex and goes after the boy by bringing the law into it. Both of these situations is morally wrong, in my opinion, and they both take advantage of the law which is wrong.

Either the law needs to be changed to include both the girl and boy since neither one can conscent to sexual relations or allow the parents to handle this as it should be.

Prior to the age of 14, the average girl is bigger and stronger than the average boy of the same age. So if I'm in a bad mood and there is a case where a girl and boy below 14 are in a relationship and of the same age...

... I wouldn't mind stooping all the way down to society's devilishly-low level and severely-condemning the girl as the "abuser" while sympathizing with a boy as the "victim".

When I'm upset and dealing with non-disabled adult human beings, I absolutely REFUSE to be the bigger and better person.

This "pro-girl sexism" I speak of, is an example of unjust societal norms perpetrated by non-disabled adult human beings.

BTW, I'm a *disabled* adult human being. My condition is Asperger's Syndrome.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you may trust your source, but that does not mean I have to. The sweeping statments you made are very serious and concerning, but you have not provided evidence that actually backs the allegations. Do you have any other evidence then the third had accounts of misconduct?

I am not implying that you do have to trust my source. Your comment that my "sweeping statements that I made are very serious and concerning" tells me that you are not very familiar with the legal system and its increasing corruption of distorting the laws here in Arizona. I do know, firsthand, where a teenager got mad at her boyfriend because he broke up with her and the girl told her mother that this boy seduced her into sleeping with him. She called police, they took the report but did not arrest him until he turned 18 which he got 5 years.

Here in Az, some of our laws are so ridiculous and the punishment is so severe that I can see why comments like, "There is no justice, its just "us" are made regularly from people. For example, God forbid that a man has to pull over in a empty parking lot and take a piss behind a dumpster, if a cop sees you, you are charged with indecent exposure, must register as a sex offender, do some jail time, subjected to taking 2 lie detector tests along with a complete sexual history which all of it can cost quite high by the time you are done.

Come on, Barbi. How about posting some facts.

These are the facts and I am sorry you do not believe me. I don't have the time or even the access to those legal documents that would prove it to you. Does it really matter, its not like anyone on this board can change the way the laws are enforced here in Az.

All you have to do is type in your browser, "is public urination considered a sexual offense?" and it will give you plenty of sources and facts.

Originally Posted by Barbi

All you have to do is type in your browser, "is public urination considered a sexual offense?" and it will give you plenty of sources and facts.

Is public defecation a sexual offense even if the groin/crotch is completely covered?

public urination/deification is not the topic you made the statements on. Also the person who posts the assertions is the one that should supply supporting evidence when asked for it. it is not our job to dig up the evidence to support your position.

Sorry, some of those cases involve personal friends of mine and people that they know who experienced what I mentioned above. To give you evidence violates their privacy and I will not do that on a open forum thread.

If they are happening with the frequency that you claim then it shouldn't take much to find records of cases not involving people you know to support your assertion.

[QUOTE=Harold14370;297903]

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.



Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

This is a rather flawed argument. The logical extension of this reasoning is that society should have no rules at all, lest the violator or person innocently accused of violating those rules should be adversely affected.

Society should have rules. However, none of those rules should mandate that a male of any age treat a girl-child "better" than a boy-child.

For example, if a girl hits a boy, then one of the following should happen:

1. He should be allowed to hit her back without facing condemnation from the men of society

2. She should face the same condemnation from the men of society that he would face for hitting her

In addition, since girl-children are stronger than boy-children, a girl should NEVER hit a boy, even if he hits 1st. Stronger should protect -- not mistreat -- the weaker.

[QUOTE=Green Xenon;298405]

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Not to scare anyone but if the boy is wrongly-accused of rape [as in the situation you provide], and society continually beats him up over it, then it's of no surprise to me if he goes insane and takes revenge against society by pulling off a Columbine-style attack on schoolgirls.



Treating a child like a sexual-predator will cause him as much psychological harm as molesting the child.

This is a rather flawed argument. The logical extension of this reasoning is that society should have no rules at all, lest the violator or person innocently accused of violating those rules should be adversely affected.

Society should have rules. However, none of those rules should mandate that a male of any age treat a girl-child "better" than a boy-child.

For example, if a girl hits a boy, then one of the following should happen:

1. He should be allowed to hit her back without facing condemnation from the men of society

2. She should face the same condemnation from the men of society that he would face for hitting her

In addition, since girl-children are stronger than boy-children, a girl should NEVER hit a boy, even if he hits 1st. Stronger should protect -- not mistreat -- the weaker.

I agree with you and I also think the law should stay out kids under 18 that have sex should be left to the parents to handle.

Theres an important cultural aspect to this. Imo you should respect the culture and values of the society in which you live and be transparent to some extent. Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent. Apparently its common for the brain to not be fully developed until a person gets to his mid 20s.


I usually associate civil disobedience with a cause that is supported by prevalent culture and/or by the people in general, and that is made to be suppressed by regulations/codes that do not match the culture or values of the population. For example, since culture/values evolve over time, sometimes rules/regulations/code are outdated and anachronistic or not adapted to a situation, but still enforced by he authorities as if they were still relevant/reasonable.

I was not referring to people over the legal age that can influence younger then 18 mentality. It should be a crime and it is, I am talking about kids under 18 having sex should not be criminalized for their behavior since it is a natural instinct to participate in it.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent.

STDs and pregnancy aside, if an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the psychological distress that the child suffers is intense enough that it physically damages the central nervous system. I already posted a wikipedia link detailing the brain damage that occurs in children who are victims of sex assault. The extent of this physical harm to the brain is not at all affected by the child's gender. This is one of the many logical reasons that girls don't need or deserve anymore protection than boys and boys deserve as much protection as girls.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent.

STDs and pregnancy aside, if an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the psychological distress that the child suffers is intense enough that it physically damages the central nervous system. I already posted a wikipedia link detailing the brain damage that occurs in children who are victims of sex assault. The extent of this physical harm to the brain is not at all affected by the child's gender. This is one of the many logical reasons that girls don't need or deserve anymore protection than boys and boys deserve as much protection as girls.

Good point (sorry for responding to the op without reading the entire thread)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent.

STDs and pregnancy aside, if an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the psychological distress that the child suffers is intense enough that it physically damages the central nervous system. I already posted a wikipedia link detailing the brain damage that occurs in children who are victims of sex assault. The extent of this physical harm to the brain is not at all affected by the child's gender. This is one of the many logical reasons that girls don't need or deserve anymore protection than boys and boys deserve as much protection as girls.

Good point (sorry for responding to the op without reading the entire thread)

Let me bring up something else.

In situations where invasive searches of children are mandated by law [such as in juvenile detention centers and in airports], society should stop demanding that girls be given the privilege of being searched by women.

If boys are subjected to the discomfort of being searched by men, then girls deserve the same discomfort. Either that, or men should *not* be allowed to search children at all and all invasive searches should be performed solely by women whether the searched child is a boy or a girl.

There is nothing special about a child being a girl. Girls are no more precious than boys.

If a child -- of any gender -- is subjected to physical contact by an adult, the child would rather be 'contacted' by a woman than a man. For any child, being searched by a man causes the child to feel a significant amount of distress, while being searched by a woman doesn't not cause much negative or positive emotions.

As for invasive searches of adults [persons 18 or above], I agree with society that such searches should be performed by officers of the same gender because adult women feel especially uncomfortable if searched by men.

In addition, in contact sports [such as martial-arts] which involve physical contact among adults and children, a male instructor should be allowed -- by society and the law -- to treat a girl the same way he is allowed to treat a boy, *without* facing bullshit accusations of "sexual harassment".

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent.

STDs and pregnancy aside, if an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the psychological distress that the child suffers is intense enough that it physically damages the central nervous system. I already posted a wikipedia link detailing the brain damage that occurs in children who are victims of sex assault. The extent of this physical harm to the brain is not at all affected by the child's gender. This is one of the many logical reasons that girls don't need or deserve anymore protection than boys and boys deserve as much protection as girls.

I am female and I was sexually abused by many men from the age of 2 thru 16 and I also know that boys who I knew personally were also sexually abused by their gym teacher at the same school I attended as a child. In the boys case, all they did was fire the teacher. In my case, it was kept as a secret since society in the 60's and 70's did not talk about his very much. I suffer from severe anxiety since I was child and the boys that were abused got into drugs. All of us had trouble with relationships as adults. It does mess up your brain chemistry permantly as a result of exposure to sex at a young age.

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its normal to frame the actions and interactions with people that are learning about the world because they do not have all the background information and have not fully developed their ability to process it. So society has norms and the tutors/parents have a say. If someone is a 35 year old drug addict sharing needles with HIV infected individuals and with a high risk of having HIV, a 12 year old might not have the information and wisdom to know about / detect / evaluate this risk for example, might not fully understand the full spectrum of implications of getting pregnant or being a parent.

STDs and pregnancy aside, if an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the psychological distress that the child suffers is intense enough that it physically damages the central nervous system. I already posted a wikipedia link detailing the brain damage that occurs in children who are victims of sex assault. The extent of this physical harm to the brain is not at all affected by the child's gender. This is one of the many logical reasons that girls don't need or deserve anymore protection than boys and boys deserve as much protection as girls.

I am female and I was sexually abused by many men from the age of 2 thru 16 and I also know that boys who I knew personally were also sexually abused by their gym teacher at the same school I attended as a child. In the boys case, all they did was fire the teacher. In my case, it was kept as a secret since society in the 60's and 70's did not talk about his very much. I suffer from severe anxiety since I was child and the boys that were abused got into drugs. All of us had trouble with relationships as adults. It does mess up your brain chemistry permantly as a result of exposure to sex at a young age.

I wasn't abused myself, my childhood was excellent. I was born into an upper-middle-class well-to-do family in the USA [the best nation in the world]. No abuse at home, school, or any other place. However, I have too much sympathy for who I view as 'victims of society' and excessive desire to punish who I view as the 'perpetrators of irrational societal norms'.

So you -- other readers -- might want to ask WHY I'm so much against 'pro-girl sexism', if I'm not a direct victim of childhood abuse via that sexism? The answer to that question -- which is partially-provided above -- is that I have a strong respect for what I view is "right vs. wrong"

When I'm able to think rationally, one of the elements of my opinion on "right vs. wrong" is that no one of two children -- of different genders -- should be treated better or worse than the other if/when such differential-treatment is provided based solely on the children's genders.

However, during moments when I'm pissed off over 'pro-girl sexism', my thoughts on "right vs. wrong" go awry and I start supporting reverse discrimination.

Reverse-discrimination = anti-girl sexism = society allows a male of any age to publicly-treat a girl-child "worse" than a boy-child.

"Worse" = more/less the opposite of my definition of "better", which can be seen in one of my previous posts in this thread.

My parents are from India, so I have an idea of what goes on in that nation. Indian society -- much like the cultures of Russia, Africa, that of the Native American "Indians", as well as other non-western cultures -- are notorious for what I describe as 'pro-girl sexism'. Even in the poorer communities and white-supremacist areas of the western world, there is rampant 'pro-girl sexism'.

However, no culture in the history of humankind has ever permitted 'anti-girl sexism'. In addition, the more primitive a society is, the more 'pro-girl' it is. A century ago, 'pro-girl sexism' was far more intense than it is now. The decrease in 'pro-girl sexism' is due in part to feminism. I support feminism to the extreme. I'm a super-radical feminist. Feminism encourages a man to view what evil-society would consider his "effeminate" or "unmasculine" side. Feminism also encourages boys to defend themselves against girl-bullies and not to follow that cruel "girls can hit boys but boys can't hit girls" rule. This "don't hit girls" code is an entity made by the macho men of the primitive evil society which we are descendants of. Feminism and machismo are polar opposites. Feminism goes against 'pro-girl sexism', while machismo sternly supports it.

Reinforcements of the horrible realities regarding 'pro-girl sexism' cause me to feel extreme sympathy for victims of that sexism and a passionate hatred for its perpetrators. It's important to understand that the perpetrators of 'pro-girl sexism' are the men of society. Especially, in impoverished and/or non-western cultures, these evil macho men publicly-treat girls like roses while dumping boys in the gutter.

In December of 2008, I watched Slumdog Millionaire which depicts the truth about India and its evil macho men who mistreat minor boys while treating minor girls like queens. I was so outraged, I almost had a heart attack. I felt like jumping into the screen and doing things I'd better not discuss in a public forum.

Due to the horror of societal 'pro-girl sexism', I don't want to have any children -- biological or adopted.

Your childhood could not have been that great otherwise this wouldn't be such a sensitive issue for you.

Originally Posted by Barbi

Your childhood could not have been that great otherwise this wouldn't be such a sensitive issue for you.

I think the issue here is that I just happen to have a personality that fluctuates between warm-hearted and hot-hearted.

When I'm warm-hearted, I believe that no one of two children -- of different genders -- should be treated better or worse than the other if/when such differential-treatment is provided based solely on the children's genders.

When I'm hot-hearted, I support what I define as 'reverse discrimination' or 'anti-girl sexism'.

It could be related to my Aspergers. Also, knowing that 'pro-girl sexism' exists and is heinously-intense in impoverished, non-western, and/or nazi-like communities is what makes me hot-hearted when such sexism is reinforced to me. While I -- being in a well-to-do childhood environment -- was protected from such horrific discrimination, I began to read the newspaper at an early age and the existence of pro-girl sexism was a shock to my system. In middle-school and high-school, we studied history [of both USA and the rest of the world] and the disgusting reality of how boys were discriminated against -- by the men of society -- caused me to dissociate. In the old days, boy-children were -- and still are in most non-western cultures -- forced from day 1 to depend on no one other than themselves, while girl-children are given protection.

Perhaps, due to Aspergers, the stuff I learned during my childhood was not appropriate for my developing psyche and caused me to go crazy to this day. However, as I said before, I never experience any abuse myself, nor did I witness any other child endure abuse.

You setup for this discussion makes a few statement that are really opinions. Sex is not a sport. There are moral issues that you seem to ignor, but I'm sure you are aware of. We are not a pack of animals, so it would be part of our social responsibility to act in a mature manner and help others within the social network to work together. In a society where each member feels a responsibility towards other members, and recognizes their needs, laws would not be required. But a generally recognized code of ethics, written of simply understood wold bring the most rewards to the members.
Laws are supposed to protect the members of a society. But the real protection come from the other members respect for each other. If the society is balanced in the distribution of age and sex, it would seem to me that the sexual attraction of one age group towards another would be limited. Are we talking about animal lust, or a nuturing loving relationship? Or does sex equate as just another physical act?

Wow, the more I read you ideas of society, And what you have cocerns about, the less I want to say.
Let me just say this; laws shouls protect the individual. But laws can damage a societies ability to interface. A moral code is a more effective means of protecting the individual while allowing freedom of choice. A value system is taught, those responsible for teaching the value code have a high level of responsibility towards the individual and the society. Raising children is not a task to be taken lightly.
In you comments I didn't see love mentioned. Perhaps that would be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Jack1941

laws shouls protect the individual. But laws can damage a societies ability to interface. .

What I'm about write is OT but I'll post it anyways.

There are times when society and the law are on opposites sides.

For example, it is socially-acceptable to perpetrate hate crimes against male-to-female transsexuals. However, by letter of the law, it is illegal.

The law maybe good, but sadly, society is a very strong and evil force. The jury -- being part of this societal force of evil -- may force the court to let these anti-transgender hate-criminals go scott free.

When it comes to legal vs. societal, I'm usually on the side of the legal system and against that of the societal system. In most cases, I support judges over juries. The judge is an individual while the jury is part of society.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

For example, it is socially-acceptable to perpetrate hate crimes against male-to-female transsexuals.

You are clearly moving in a damaged society. I know some hard cases and none of them would consider such action socially acceptable.

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Here is how 'pro-girl sexism' started:

It most likely started more than thousands of years ago with a small gang of strong macho men [the only male homo-sapien humans existing at the time] who decided that they would treat girls "better" than boys. The gang singled out male individuals and forced them to follow and enforce this rule -- they left the females alone. These male individuals joined the gang and -- out of extreme fear -- began following and enforcing the gang's pro-girl, anti-boy rules. More and more male individuals began joining this gang -- out of fear for their own safety -- and submitting to their oppressive anti-boy regime. This is how the anti-boy, pro-girl gang got bigger. Members of this gang began teaching their boy-children -- likely through extreme corporal punishments -- to follow these sexist rules and pass these rules onto the next generation of children. Fathers who didn't teach their boy-children to follow this sexism were singled out by the gang [which was now big enough to be considered a society] and horrifyingly mistreated along with their helpless sons.

This is my theory as to why 'pro-girl sexism' exists. It exists for the same reason many other irrational, un-natural societal norms exists -- they are followed and enforced out of fear of facing social condemnation.

I think you have a really skewed view of history. May I propose an alternative?

Early in the history of war, it was decided that primarily men would be the warriors. Women were encouraged to avoid violence at all costs, so the outcomes of wars would have a smaller impact on the long term population of humans in the world.

Since women weren't warriors, they were deprived of all rights and reduced to abject slavery. However, on the plus side, they were considered to have zero obligation to be tough or brave, and had the right to demand protection from all males in their own culture. If their side lost in a war, they could be raped, or taken as slaves (since they were slaves either way), but it was generally considered bad form to kill them.

The point is: the pro's and con's of being a woman balance out. It's not really any better to be male or female I guess.

This historical gang of humans I describe pretty much had similar rules of most of today's street gangs. If they want you, they force you to join, and if you try to leave, they torture and kill you. If they see you and don't want you, they torture and kill you regardless of your actions.

Once again, 'pro-girl sexism' is not at all innate or instinctive. It is an example of learned behavior that is practiced out of fear and shame.

Due to society's 'pro-girl sexism' I don't *ever* want to have children. I don't want my potential son suffering the horrors of society's gender roles nor do I want my potential daughter to turn into spoiled-rotten monster.

I can see how the problem of gangs forcing all capable warriors to join them might be upsetting if you live in an area dominated by them. It's kind of like how, on the government level, when there's a major war the government may decide to have a draft and force all the able bodied young men to submit to that draft, and be pressed into military service. Gangs are constantly at war because it is their nature.

However, I think you're not considering how viciously those gangs deal with women also, often kidnapping them and forcing them into prostitution for the rest of their lives (they're likely to kill them rather than let them quit when they get too old to go on doing it.) Even falling short of that, a woman in a gang dominated area can easily be forced to become a gangster's sexual partner against her will, which essentially amounts to rape. Any woman who's ever been "hood rat" will tell you how dangerous it is to try and say "no".

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by Barbi

Your childhood could not have been that great otherwise this wouldn't be such a sensitive issue for you.

I think the issue here is that I just happen to have a personality that fluctuates between warm-hearted and hot-hearted.

When I'm warm-hearted, I believe that no one of two children -- of different genders -- should be treated better or worse than the other if/when such differential-treatment is provided based solely on the children's genders.

When I'm hot-hearted, I support what I define as 'reverse discrimination' or 'anti-girl sexism'.

It could be related to my Aspergers. Also, knowing that 'pro-girl sexism' exists and is heinously-intense in impoverished, non-western, and/or nazi-like communities is what makes me hot-hearted when such sexism is reinforced to me. While I -- being in a well-to-do childhood environment -- was protected from such horrific discrimination, I began to read the newspaper at an early age and the existence of pro-girl sexism was a shock to my system. In middle-school and high-school, we studied history [of both USA and the rest of the world] and the disgusting reality of how boys were discriminated against -- by the men of society -- caused me to dissociate. In the old days, boy-children were -- and still are in most non-western cultures -- forced from day 1 to depend on no one other than themselves, while girl-children are given protection.

Perhaps, due to Aspergers, the stuff I learned during my childhood was not appropriate for my developing psyche and caused me to go crazy to this day. However, as I said before, I never experience any abuse myself, nor did I witness any other child endure abuse.

While I agree that treatment of different genders should not discriminate, I have a hard time agreeing with you on pro-girl sexism in society. Whats further confusing me is your parents are from India and that country is known for suppressing their women. To make woman wear a veil to cover their women's physical appearances is controlling them. In my opinion this is done to reduce the male individuals in their society to not be tempted to want to rape them as easily if they were not covered.

Most families of any society do not raise their daughters to be spoiled with the view they can control men or get away with advantages to being female.

I can kind of understand Green's concern that polite society assigns a greater importance to the safety of women, especially young and/or beautiful women, than that of men. I think it's just because women are stereotypically more gentle, and pacifist. And as a society we value those things, and like to see gentle people be treated better than people who (we perceive to be) less gentle.

The age thing clearly differs from antiquity, when women were commonly married and bearing children by age 12, but I can't say it's a bad thing that we're putting it off until 18 now. Best to make sure everyone participating in sex is legally able to assert themselves. It makes it easier to protect against the subjectivity of rape accusations if we just blindly assume everyone who can't assert themselves otherwise is automatically considered to be saying "no".

Originally Posted by kojax

I can kind of understand Green's concern that polite society assigns a greater importance to the safety of women, especially young and/or beautiful women, than that of men. I think it's just because women are stereotypically more gentle, and pacifist. And as a society we value those things, and like to see gentle people be treated better than people who (we perceive to be) less gentle.

The age thing clearly differs from antiquity, when women were commonly married and bearing children by age 12, but I can't say it's a bad thing that we're putting it off until 18 now. Best to make sure everyone participating in sex is legally able to assert themselves. It makes it easier to protect against the subjectivity of rape accusations if we just blindly assume everyone who can't assert themselves otherwise is automatically considered to be saying "no".

I disagree in that the statistics for young beautiful girls is high in that a majority of them have been molested while growing up.

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by kojax

I can kind of understand Green's concern that polite society assigns a greater importance to the safety of women, especially young and/or beautiful women, than that of men. I think it's just because women are stereotypically more gentle, and pacifist. And as a society we value those things, and like to see gentle people be treated better than people who (we perceive to be) less gentle.

The age thing clearly differs from antiquity, when women were commonly married and bearing children by age 12, but I can't say it's a bad thing that we're putting it off until 18 now. Best to make sure everyone participating in sex is legally able to assert themselves. It makes it easier to protect against the subjectivity of rape accusations if we just blindly assume everyone who can't assert themselves otherwise is automatically considered to be saying "no".

I disagree in that the statistics for young beautiful girls is high in that a majority of them have been molested while growing up.

Do you have any actual studies that back that up?

Oh no not again.

In Barbi's defense I think we all agree it's under-reported?

Are ugly or beautiful girls more likely to report molestation.

Originally Posted by Pong

Oh no not again.

In Barbi's defense I think we all agree it's under-reported?

Are ugly or beautiful girls more likely to report molestation.

Girls of any kind are more likely to report molestation than boys. Boys, however, are more likely to be molested because it is easier for pedophiles to get away with. If a girl reports abuse, she gets sympathy. If a boy reports abuse, he gets scorn for not somehow being able to fight of his perpetrator "like a man".

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Girls of any kind are more likely to report molestation than boys.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Boys, however, are more likely to be molested because it is easier for pedophiles to get away with.

Do you have any evidence for that?

If a boy reports abuse, he gets scorn for not somehow being able to fight of his perpetrator "like a man".

Do you have any evidence for that? Is that what happened to you?

Originally Posted by Barbi

While I agree that treatment of different genders should not discriminate, I have a hard time agreeing with you on pro-girl sexism in society. Whats further confusing me is your parents are from India and that country is known for suppressing their women. To make woman wear a veil to cover their women's physical appearances is controlling them. In my opinion this is done to reduce the male individuals in their society to not be tempted to want to rape them as easily if they were not covered.

1. You are confusing India with Pakistan, in terms of women being expected to veil themselves.

2. The Indian suppression of females is limited to adult women. As children, girls still have more freedom than boys.

3. Rape is a form of violence. It results from the desire to cause harm, not relieve sexual urges. Hence, wearing a veil does not decrease the chances of being raped.

Originally Posted by kojax

I can kind of understand Green's concern that polite society assigns a greater importance to the safety of women, especially young and/or beautiful women, than that of men. I think it's just because women are stereotypically more gentle, and pacifist. And as a society we value those things, and like to see gentle people be treated better than people who (we perceive to be) less gentle.

Women are gentler than men, but only as adults. As children, girls are just as rough as boys.

Originally Posted by kojax

The point is: the pro's and con's of being a woman balance out. It's not really any better to be male or female I guess.

You're correct when talking about adults. However, as children, it's much easier to be a girl than a boy -- especially in primitive societies like India and Pakistan.

Originally Posted by kojax

However, I think you're not considering how viciously those gangs deal with women also, often kidnapping them and forcing them into prostitution for the rest of their lives (they're likely to kill them rather than let them quit when they get too old to go on doing it.) Even falling short of that, a woman in a gang dominated area can easily be forced to become a gangster's sexual partner against her will, which essentially amounts to rape. Any woman who's ever been "hood rat" will tell you how dangerous it is to try and say "no".

This mistreatment of females [by gangs] is limited to adult women. Male gang members often follow a "code of masculinity" when dealing with children. This evil code states that you can "toughen up" boys but don't you dare lay a finger on a girl.

[QUOTE=Strange;311207]

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

If a boy reports abuse, he gets scorn for not somehow being able to fight of his perpetrator "like a man".

Do you have any evidence for that?

Remember the Michael Jackson child molestation case? The accuser's so-called "friends" bullied him mercilessly, often pointing fingers and saying "that's the kid who got raped by Michael Jackson". If the accuser were a girl, her peers would show her a lot more sympathy and Jackson would be lynched -- trial or no trial.

After being accused -- wrongly or not -- of child sex abuse, Jackson continued to remain rather popular. This is because Jackson was accused of molesting boys, not girls. If he were accused of molesting girls -- even falsely -- he would lose all his popularity and likely be burnt alive by angry inmates in jail.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

This mistreatment of females [by gangs] is limited to adult women. Male gang members often follow a "code of masculinity" when dealing with children. This evil code states that you can "toughen up" boys but don't you dare lay a finger on a girl.

At the risk of being boring: Evidence?

I was listening to a radio program on gang culture earlier and I can assure you that this is not true. Even young girls will collaborate in finding other girls to be gang raped. As far as I know, rape of males (of any age) is pretty much non-existent.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Remember the Michael Jackson child molestation case? The accuser's so-called "friends" bullied him mercilessly, often pointing fingers and saying "that's the kid who got raped by Michael Jackson". If the accuser were a girl, her peers would show her a lot more sympathy.

One case is not evidence.

Also, you appear to have forgotten to provide a reference and so, based on your history, I am forced to assume you have made this story up. (Until you provide some evidence.)

Originally Posted by Barbi

Originally Posted by kojax

I can kind of understand Green's concern that polite society assigns a greater importance to the safety of women, especially young and/or beautiful women, than that of men. I think it's just because women are stereotypically more gentle, and pacifist. And as a society we value those things, and like to see gentle people be treated better than people who (we perceive to be) less gentle.

The age thing clearly differs from antiquity, when women were commonly married and bearing children by age 12, but I can't say it's a bad thing that we're putting it off until 18 now. Best to make sure everyone participating in sex is legally able to assert themselves. It makes it easier to protect against the subjectivity of rape accusations if we just blindly assume everyone who can't assert themselves otherwise is automatically considered to be saying "no".

I disagree in that the statistics for young beautiful girls is high in that a majority of them have been molested while growing up.

I mean this in the sense of how like during the Prohibition Era society openly outlawed alcohol, but in practice people probably consumed just as much as they ever had. Behind closed doors people act differently than they do in public. Public sentiment may object more strongly to the mistreatment of women than men. But privately, perverted men naturally prefer to molest attractive young girls rather than male children. It happens in spite of a stronger societal objection because the inclination is stronger (or at least more commonly experienced).

On the other hand, molesting a boy child involves confessing to homosexual urges, which is highly stigmatized. So maybe girls are the less defended target in that sense.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

The point is: the pro's and con's of being a woman balance out. It's not really any better to be male or female I guess.

You're correct when talking about adults. However, as children, it's much easier to be a girl than a boy -- especially in primitive societies like India and Pakistan.

Originally Posted by kojax

However, I think you're not considering how viciously those gangs deal with women also, often kidnapping them and forcing them into prostitution for the rest of their lives (they're likely to kill them rather than let them quit when they get too old to go on doing it.) Even falling short of that, a woman in a gang dominated area can easily be forced to become a gangster's sexual partner against her will, which essentially amounts to rape. Any woman who's ever been "hood rat" will tell you how dangerous it is to try and say "no".

This mistreatment of females [by gangs] is limited to adult women. Male gang members often follow a "code of masculinity" when dealing with children. This evil code states that you can "toughen up" boys but don't you dare lay a finger on a girl.

I agree that last part is true, about not attacking girl children, but now we're talking about something broader than pedophilia, because gangs usually don't endorse pedophilia of any kind. Their institutionalized sexual misconduct is directed toward adult women and nobody else. No male of any age has to worry about being sexually abused by a gang unless they're in prison (and that's only because there are no adult women available for the gang to target.)

I like to think that general brutality is motivated by something different than the sexual variety. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by kojax

Behind closed doors people act differently than they do in public. Public sentiment may object more strongly to the mistreatment of women than men. But privately, perverted men naturally prefer to molest attractive young girls rather than male children. It happens in spite of a stronger societal objection because the inclination is stronger (or at least more commonly experienced).

On the other hand, molesting a boy child involves confessing to homosexual urges, which is highly stigmatized. So maybe girls are the less defended target in that sense.

1. In the case of a man-molesting-a-girl, society gives the victim extreme sympathy while wanting to burn the perpetrator alive

2. In the case a man-molesting-a-boy, society doesn't care to condemn the perpetrator but rather condemns the boy with transphobic/homosexual taunts such as "faggot", "sissy", "homo". In many parts of the world, a man who molests boys is not considered gay, but the boy-victims are because these boys are seen as playing the passive role and this passiveness is considered -- by irrational society -- to be feminine or unmasculine. Femininity in a male [regardless of his age] is considered [often falsely] as a sign of homosexuality.

3. If men are [in private] more likely to abuse girl than boys, it is in retaliation against society's "pro-girl sexism". The evil macho men of society publicly pamper girls while abusing boys. These victimized boys realize that those evil men have a soft spot for girls. Such a boy figures that the only way to punish the heinous criminals who ruined his childhood is to hurt girls, because evil men really care about girls. So this boy grows up to be a man who abuses girls, not because he is sexually-interested in these girls but because he wants to cause harm to these girls -- he wants to harm these girls because [in his mind] that is the most effective manner to hurt the feelings of macho men. This does not surprise me. As I've endlessly stated [and will continue to state], sexual violence is the result of a rapist's desire to cause harm and has nothing to do with the rapist's sexual urges. He is not a "sexual pervert" but rather an "anger retaliation rapist" who is angry at society and its macho men. Put bluntly, he perceives minor girls as the testicles of macho men. This anger-retaliatory-rapist [who was abused via pro-girl sexism as a child] wants to rob macho men of their masculinity [and I don't blame him], he does this by abusing minor girls [sexually and/or otherwise] even though he most likely isn't attracted to these girls. While no child -- of any gender -- deserves abuse, I can easily understand why abused-boys just lose control of their feelings of indignation and act out. As a living organism with emotions, there is only so much bullying you can take from society, at some point you snap and do unspeakable things. In this state of anger, all fear of legal/social condemnation is overridden. The victim of society's anti-boy sexism is so upset that he loses all concern for the consequences of his actions and just explodes. Do understand that this has NOTHING to do with sexual-preference or sexual-excitement. It's about anger.

4. As a result of the injustice in #3, nobody wins. The abused boy grows up with uncontrollable rage against the manhoods of macho men and wants to punish society. He is suffering greatly. He vents by abusing, raping, and possibly murdering many girls. The boy loses, the girls he attacks lose, and society is then left in turmoil. It is a vicious victim-perpetrator cycle. The only way to stop "anger-retaliatory-based sexual violence" is to end the horrific injustice of "pro-girl sexism". This sexism hurts boys initially, but eventually ends up hurting girls as well.

5. You might want to ask "if the boy was victimized by men, shouldn't he hate the men instead of girls?" The truth is, he does hate the men who abused him. So why doesn't he attack men, as opposed to girls? Because macho men are tough monsters and the only way to bring them down is to hurt what they treasure the most -- girls. Macho men are very protective of girls just as they are protective of their testicles. Hence, I make the colloquial statement "girls are the testicles of macho men".

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

However, I think you're not considering how viciously those gangs deal with women also, often kidnapping them and forcing them into prostitution for the rest of their lives (they're likely to kill them rather than let them quit when they get too old to go on doing it.) Even falling short of that, a woman in a gang dominated area can easily be forced to become a gangster's sexual partner against her will, which essentially amounts to rape. Any woman who's ever been "hood rat" will tell you how dangerous it is to try and say "no".

This mistreatment of females [by gangs] is limited to adult women. Male gang members often follow a "code of masculinity" when dealing with children. This evil code states that you can "toughen up" boys but don't you dare lay a finger on a girl.

Originally Posted by kojax

I agree that last part is true, about not attacking girl children

This is why I have a passionate hatred for society and it's evil "pro-girl sexism". There is nothing special about a child being a girl. Girls are no more precious than boys. So if males -- of any age -- are allowed to "toughen" a boy-child, they should be also be allowed to "toughen" a girl-child to the same extent. Either that, or men should not be allowed to roughly-treat children of any gender.

I despise macho men and the girls they aggressively and unfairly protect. The moment society stops perpetrating this horrific anti-boy sexism, is the moment I will stop hating these men and girls.

Originally Posted by kojax

No male of any age has to worry about being sexually abused by a gang unless they're in prison (and that's only because there are no adult women available for the gang to target.)

I disagree for your reason males are molested in prison. In both adult prisons and juvenile detention center, the general population has a strict code of "don't mess with girls" but it's okay to sexually-assault and kill boys.

In juvenile jails, there are plenty cases of strong adolescent boys [who look like and sound like adult men] sexually-assaulting and killing pre-pubescent boys just for sick pleasure. The guards also encourage such activity. Even if juvenile halls were co-ed, boys would still not lay a finger on girls because mistreating girls is seen -- by the macho "prison culture" -- as being 'unmanly'.

The general populations of prisons -- both adult and juvenile -- are filled with evil macho men who are extremely protective of girl-children but gain cold-hearted pleasure and dark humor from mistreating boy-children. As a result, I hate the general populations of prisons and the corrupt guards/wardens who run these pens.

Again lots of odd commentary with NO/0/ZIP in the way of actual supporting evidence. GX you had a hard childhood, we get that. However your insistence on asserting that it is the normal for the entire world is NOT viable and getting very tiresome.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Again lots of odd commentary with NO/0/ZIP in the way of actual supporting evidence.

Agreement [with me] that the macho men of evil-society treat girl-children better [by my definition of "better"] than boy-children was shown. This reinforced my perception of "pro-girl sexism" and caused me to get upset. Because I was upset [at society's pro-girl sexism] I responded with a verbal rampage.

I now have no choice but to daydream about a supernatural force descending from the heavens and controlling the muscle-contractions of adult male humans -- forcing these men to be extremely rude to girls [in an effort to punish the macho men of evil society]. Sadly, such a policing-force is too good to ever be true.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

[

1. In the case of a man-molesting-a-girl, society gives the victim extreme sympathy while wanting to burn the perpetrator alive

2. In the case a man-molesting-a-boy, society doesn't care to condemn the perpetrator but rather condemns the boy with transphobic/homosexual taunts such as "faggot", "sissy", "homo". In many parts of the world, a man who molests boys is not considered gay, but the boy-victims are because these boys are seen as playing the passive role and this passiveness is considered -- by irrational society -- to be feminine or unmasculine. Femininity in a male [regardless of his age] is considered [often falsely] as a sign of homosexuality.

You're exaggerating the degree of difference. There probably is a small difference in how the pedophiles are viewed, but at least inside prisons in the USA, if you're a pedophile most of the other inmates aren't going to bother themselves to ask whether your victims were boys or girls. They'll attack you just for being a pedophile of any type.

Girls who get molested are often afraid to report it for fear of being thought of as willing participants. Also they don't want boys who they meet later on to know that they've got that kind of emotional baggage. They may get more sympathy, but it comes at a price.

3. If men are [in private] more likely to abuse girl than boys, it is in retaliation against society's "pro-girl sexism". The evil macho men of society publicly pamper girls while abusing boys. These victimized boys realize that those evil men have a soft spot for girls. Such a boy figures that the only way to punish the heinous criminals who ruined his childhood is to hurt girls, because evil men really care about girls. So this boy grows up to be a man who abuses girls, not because he is sexually-interested in these girls but because he wants to cause harm to these girls -- he wants to harm these girls because [in his mind] that is the most effective manner to hurt the feelings of macho men. This does not surprise me. As I've endlessly stated [and will continue to state], sexual violence is the result of a rapist's desire to cause harm and has nothing to do with the rapist's sexual urges. He is not a "sexual pervert" but rather an "anger retaliation rapist" who is angry at society and its macho men. Put bluntly, he perceives minor girls as the testicles of macho men. This anger-retaliatory-rapist [who was abused via pro-girl sexism as a child] wants to rob macho men of their masculinity [and I don't blame him], he does this by abusing minor girls [sexually and/or otherwise] even though he most likely isn't attracted to these girls. While no child -- of any gender -- deserves abuse, I can easily understand why abused-boys just lose control of their feelings of indignation and act out. As a living organism with emotions, there is only so much bullying you can take from society, at some point you snap and do unspeakable things. In this state of anger, all fear of legal/social condemnation is overridden. The victim of society's anti-boy sexism is so upset that he loses all concern for the consequences of his actions and just explodes. Do understand that this has NOTHING to do with sexual-preference or sexual-excitement. It's about anger.

There may be some men who think like that. But I don't think most of them do.

It may be why you feel the urge, but it's likely that, for a lot of other people, it may be driven by something entirely different. Some men just plain want power over women. The same kind of man who would beat his wife is likely to molest his daughter.

4. As a result of the injustice in #3, nobody wins. The abused boy grows up with uncontrollable rage against the manhoods of macho men and wants to punish society. He is suffering greatly. He vents by abusing, raping, and possibly murdering many girls. The boy loses, the girls he attacks lose, and society is then left in turmoil. It is a vicious victim-perpetrator cycle. The only way to stop "anger-retaliatory-based sexual violence" is to end the horrific injustice of "pro-girl sexism". This sexism hurts boys initially, but eventually ends up hurting girls as well.

"Uncontrollable" is a ridiculous characterization. All urges are controllable. If by no other means, a person could commit suicide in order to protect their potential victims.

In the first place, the boy must be aware that the girls he wishes to victimize have done nothing to deserve his anger. It's morally wrong to harm one person out of a desire to punish another. The direct recipient of the harm would then be entitled to revenge, and since the person in question is killing his victims instead of merely molesting them and letting them live, he's actually worse than the people he wants to avenge himself against.

You're never going to convince me that a person's past experience can make that a sensible decision.

5. You might want to ask "if the boy was victimized by men, shouldn't he hate the men instead of girls?" The truth is, he does hate the men who abused him. So why doesn't he attack men, as opposed to girls? Because macho men are tough monsters and the only way to bring them down is to hurt what they treasure the most -- girls. Macho men are very protective of girls just as they are protective of their testicles. Hence, I make the colloquial statement "girls are the testicles of macho men".

I think you'd find there are a lot of other, better, ways to hurt macho men. Cut off their balls. Subject them to non-macho deaths. Permanently maim them and make them have to live out the rest of their lives in a helpless condition at the mercy of all around them.

There are lots of better ways.

Originally Posted by kojax

No male of any age has to worry about being sexually abused by a gang unless they're in prison (and that's only because there are no adult women available for the gang to target.)

I disagree for your reason males are molested in prison. In both adult prisons and juvenile detention center, the general population has a strict code of "don't mess with girls" but it's okay to sexually-assault and kill boys.

How can they have such a strict code if there are no women present?

How do you explain all the housewives who show up at the nation's hospitals with broken bones and other severe injuries from their husbands beating them?

In juvenile jails, there are plenty cases of strong adolescent boys [who look like and sound like adult men] sexually-assaulting and killing pre-pubescent boys just for sick pleasure. The guards also encourage such activity. Even if juvenile halls were co-ed, boys would still not lay a finger on girls because mistreating girls is seen -- by the macho "prison culture" -- as being 'unmanly'.

The general populations of prisons -- both adult and juvenile -- are filled with evil macho men who are extremely protective of girl-children but gain cold-hearted pleasure and dark humor from mistreating boy-children. As a result, I hate the general populations of prisons and the corrupt guards/wardens who run these pens.

I don't know how you claim to know what they would do if women were present. There are many documented cases in female-only penitentiaries of male guards raping the female prisoners. And that's guards.

Prisons are segregated precisely because it is perceived as being likely the women would be victimized. Well,,, that and it saves having to worry about pregnancies happening on the inside.

Originally Posted by kojax

"Uncontrollable" is a ridiculous characterization. All urges are controllable. If by no other means, a person could commit suicide in order to protect their potential victims.

This opens up another can of worms. If the boy-victim of society is going to commit suicide, he has nothing to lose by taking a large amount of girls with him.

Originally Posted by kojax

In the first place, the boy must be aware that the girls he wishes to victimize have done nothing to deserve his anger.

That depends. Girls are not the innocent little princesses society stereotypes them to be. Macho men of evil society provide girls with unfair advantages, girls often cruelly-exploit these advantages and bully boys. Those who benefit from evil are evil.

Originally Posted by kojax

You're never going to convince me that a person's past experience can make that a sensible decision.

What's to say the decision is 'sensible'? When blinded by rage, it is very difficult to be sensible.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

5. You might want to ask "if the boy was victimized by men, shouldn't he hate the men instead of girls?" The truth is, he does hate the men who abused him. So why doesn't he attack men, as opposed to girls? Because macho men are tough monsters and the only way to bring them down is to hurt what they treasure the most -- girls. Macho men are very protective of girls just as they are protective of their testicles. Hence, I make the colloquial statement "girls are the testicles of macho men".

I think you'd find there are a lot of other, better, ways to hurt macho men. Cut off their balls. Subject them to non-macho deaths. Permanently maim them and make them have to live out the rest of their lives in a helpless condition at the mercy of all around them.

You can only castrate one macho man at a time but the globe is polluted with billions of them. Alternatively, you can infuriate the psyches of all the world's macho men by hurting girls. If the aforementioned boy-victim has his suicide planned out, I don't blame him if he does the latter.

Remember the Columbine miracle* of the Spring of '99? That is an example of a victim-of-society punishing society. I don't blame the two kids at all for shooting those evil schoolyard bullies. These victims of bullying knew they were going to die untimely deaths, so they realized they had nothing to lose by offing the sadists who ruined their lives. As a result of this deserved retaliation, schools were forced to make tougher policies against bullying.

*It is a miracle that those bullies are dead. As for their families, I have no sympathy for them. You raise your kids to be narcissistic jerks, you deserve to lose them. All my sympathy goes towards the two boys who pulled off the Columbine as well as the families of these boys.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

No male of any age has to worry about being sexually abused by a gang unless they're in prison (and that's only because there are no adult women available for the gang to target.)

I disagree for your reason males are molested in prison. In both adult prisons and juvenile detention center, the general population has a strict code of "don't mess with girls" but it's okay to sexually-assault and kill boys.

How can they have such a strict code if there are no women present?

In juvenile jails, there are plenty cases of strong adolescent boys [who look like and sound like adult men] sexually-assaulting and killing pre-pubescent boys just for sick pleasure. The guards also encourage such activity. Even if juvenile halls were co-ed, boys would still not lay a finger on girls because mistreating girls is seen -- by the macho "prison culture" -- as being 'unmanly'.

The general populations of prisons -- both adult and juvenile -- are filled with evil macho men who are extremely protective of girl-children but gain cold-hearted pleasure and dark humor from mistreating boy-children. As a result, I hate the general populations of prisons and the corrupt guards/wardens who run these pens.

I don't know how you claim to know what they would do if women were present.

It is rather simple to predict the behavior of inmates in hypothetical housing situations.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

You're never going to convince me that a person's past experience can make that a sensible decision.

What's to say the decision is 'sensible'? When blinded by rage, it is very difficult to be sensible.

I don't think people have the right to give into their rage. You can't claim "rage blindness" and thereby become unaccountable for your actions.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

5. You might want to ask "if the boy was victimized by men, shouldn't he hate the men instead of girls?" The truth is, he does hate the men who abused him. So why doesn't he attack men, as opposed to girls? Because macho men are tough monsters and the only way to bring them down is to hurt what they treasure the most -- girls. Macho men are very protective of girls just as they are protective of their testicles. Hence, I make the colloquial statement "girls are the testicles of macho men".

I think you'd find there are a lot of other, better, ways to hurt macho men. Cut off their balls. Subject them to non-macho deaths. Permanently maim them and make them have to live out the rest of their lives in a helpless condition at the mercy of all around them.

You can only castrate one macho man at a time but the globe is polluted with billions of them. Alternatively, you can infuriate the psyches of all the world's macho men by hurting girls. If the aforementioned boy-victim has his suicide planned out, I don't blame him if he does the latter.

You'd have to demonstrate your motivation clearly, because there are thousands of perverts out there who would rape and kill a little girl just to get off. If you want to send a message, it has to be done in a way where it's very clear what you are *not* saying, just as much as being clear what you are saying. Greed is different from idealism, but most people will assume greed. So the only way to overcome that assumption is to be careful to gain absolutely nothing. Gaining nothing proves it's not greed that motivated you. In the case of killing little girls, you'd have to do it humanely, by just plain shooting them, otherwise causing instant death. Any act of torture could be mistaken for a sexual fetish.

However, I don't think killing little girls is the best approach. Society does not have sympathy for people who involve a third party in their vendettas. The girls themselves are innocent of any wrong doing, and killing them makes you accountable for a crime much worse than the one that was committed against you, targeted at a victim who never did anything wrong.

Remember the Columbine miracle* of the Spring of '99? That is an example of a victim-of-society punishing society. I don't blame the two kids at all for shooting those evil schoolyard bullies. These victims of bullying knew they were going to die untimely deaths, so they realized they had nothing to lose by offing the sadists who ruined their lives. As a result of this deserved retaliation, schools were forced to make tougher policies against bullying.

*It is a miracle that those bullies are dead. As for their families, I have no sympathy for them. You raise your kids to be narcissistic jerks, you deserve to lose them. All my sympathy goes towards the two boys who pulled off the Columbine as well as the families of these boys.

The reason the Columbine massacre worked is because the boys in question gained nothing by their actions. It was pure revenge, un-polluted by any other ambitions.

But, the other reason it was effective is because the Columbine shooters targeted the people who had harmed them specifically, rather than a third party. If they had been angry at the parents, and killed their kids to get at them, that would not have lead to the same public response. You'll never get anywhere targeting third parties. If you go after third parties, then the public response toward you would be like the public response to Al Qaeda. They'll go out of their way not to appease you.

You're right that cutting off balls probably wouldn't do it. If you want to scare macho men, you've either got to commit a massacre in a way they know their machismo won't help them defend against (like spreading an aerosol into a biker's club that gives them all a lethal disease), or you've got to maim them in a way that makes them unable to fight (like getting a really strong laser, and permanently blinding them with it. A blind man quickly learns what it's like to be defenseless.)

Either of those two threats is very effective on warriors.

1) - To die a death that is not a "warrior's death".

2) - To be forced to live a life that is not a "warrior's life".

Originally Posted by kojax

You'd have to demonstrate your motivation clearly, because there are thousands of perverts out there who would rape and kill a little girl just to get off.

1. I'm not specifically talking about "little" girls but any minor girl. In the situation I describe, any minor girl is a target of revenge whether she is 17 years old or 17 hours old -- in either case, society defines her as an "underage female".

2. I doubt any pervert would molest or murder a minor girl for pleasure. There would have to be some desire for revenge against society.

Originally Posted by kojax

If you want to send a message, it has to be done in a way where it's very clear what you are *not* saying, just as much as being clear what you are saying. Greed is different from idealism, but most people will assume greed. So the only way to overcome that assumption is to be careful to gain absolutely nothing. Gaining nothing proves it's not greed that motivated you. In the case of killing little girls, you'd have to do it humanely, by just plain shooting them, otherwise causing instant death. Any act of torture could be mistaken for a sexual fetish.

1. People who assume greed in such a situation are ignorant imbeciles and deserve to be outraged by the fatal and painful mistreatment of girls by men/older-boys.

2. A man torturing minor-girls is no more in it for "sexual fetish" than a man torturing minor-boys. If society is going to misconstrue any physically-discomforting contact with minor-girls -- by men or older boys -- as "sexual violence", then it goes to show that society is extremely immature and illogical.

3. Call me crazy but I don't believe death is the end of suffering. Read the stuff below, please:

There are many cases of patients who are "clinically dead" and are then brought back to life. During this 'death', these patients are able to perceive the universe in locations beyond the range of normal perception. For example, such a patient can see what is happening in other parts of the hospital and outside the hospital. What the patient perceives is often confirmed by real events. In addition, patients who are born blind can see during this near-death-experience and patients born deaf can hear during the NDE.

Due to the above, I'm starting to think that there is no such thing as 'death'. What if I experience excruciating "phantom" pain after I 'die'? What if my consciousness enters emotionally-distressing environment after 'death'?

As interested as I am in altered mental states, I realize that these state can be very traumatic to the psyche. What if I permanently enter a state of torture after 'death'?

These are reasons why I'd like to stay alive as long as possible. I'm no longer convinced that your death is your end.

There is just too much that even the most intelligent humans have no clue about.

For those of you who are contemplating suicide, my logical advice is DON'T. There is high chance that it is impossible to 'die' as you define 'death'. What we measure and body/brain functions may cease to exist, but think about the stuff you canNOT measure. It gets really scary and there is NO escape.

I have this belief that if you die before it's your time [such as by suicide], you will experience eternal suffering [of immeasurably-high intensity] after death. This has nothing to do with God, the devil, karma, angels, or any religious phenomenon. Rather it simply how nature works, so I believe.

I don't believe in life after death. However, I do believe in pain after death. This pain has nothing to do with karma or how you lived your life. It's just pure agony that results from the death. I call this PMD ["Post-Mortem Distress"].

PMD is physically and emotionally the worst form of torture and affects its victims eternally. I can't stress this enough. If you die before your time, you will experience PMD. That is why I want to remain alive for as long as possible.

You know, the other thing about Columbine which I think you're missing is that, the bullies in society are not the ones who changed their perspective about bullying. It was the non-bullies who decided to make stricter rules about bullying. It's the rest of society you have to mobilize when you protest something. The ones directly causing the problem will not change their own minds no matter what you do. You have to get the rest of society to change their minds for them.

You get sympathy from the rest of society when you kill a bunch of bullies who've been picking on you (like the Columbine shooters did). You don't get sympathy from society when you kill ordinary girls who've done nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

Originally Posted by kojax

You'd have to demonstrate your motivation clearly, because there are thousands of perverts out there who would rape and kill a little girl just to get off.

1. I'm not specifically talking about "little" girls but any minor girl. In the situation I describe, any minor girl is a target of revenge whether she is 17 years old or 17 hours old -- in either case, society defines her as an "underage female".

But, what are the girls guilty of?

As I mentioned, society isn't going to understand you taking revenge on a third party. If you're trying to destroy the object of the macho-men's affection, then that's the problem right there: you're treating the girls as "objects" and doing so in the most horrific way imaginable. That is such a colossal atrocity against reason itself, that society will be utterly blind to the comparatively small issue you were trying to bring to their attention. Girls are not objects!!! They're people. You can't use them as a means to an end and expect society to ignore that mistake.

Does it ever occur to you that maybe whoever tortured you was doing the same thing? Maybe they saw their dad beat their mom as a child, and so they see society the reverse of how yo see it. Maybe they perceive that girls are always the victims of everything, because they met misogynistic men (instead of the Macho men you met). Lots of misogynistic men treat their sons as princes and their daughters as filth, molesting their daughters and brutalizing their wives. It's just random chance that you saw one side of it instead of the other. Both exist.

Originally Posted by kojax

If you want to send a message, it has to be done in a way where it's very clear what you are *not* saying, just as much as being clear what you are saying. Greed is different from idealism, but most people will assume greed. So the only way to overcome that assumption is to be careful to gain absolutely nothing. Gaining nothing proves it's not greed that motivated you. In the case of killing little girls, you'd have to do it humanely, by just plain shooting them, otherwise causing instant death. Any act of torture could be mistaken for a sexual fetish.

1. People who assume greed in such a situation are ignorant imbeciles and deserve to be outraged by the fatal and painful mistreatment of girls by men/older-boys.

It was imbeciles who harmed you in the first place. If they're the ones you're trying to communicate anger toward then....... you probably would want them to understand why you're doing it, wouldn't you? What's the point in revenge in the intended target doesn't even know why it's happening?

2. A man torturing minor-girls is no more in it for "sexual fetish" than a man torturing minor-boys. If society is going to misconstrue any physically-discomforting contact with minor-girls -- by men or older boys -- as "sexual violence", then it goes to show that society is extremely immature and illogical.

Society tries to use what it can understand. Most members of society have never been through the kind of torture that makes you want to go out and harm a child, boy or girl. They understand sexual attraction because they all experience sexual attraction (though usually not directed toward children.)

How well would you understand an experience you'd never been through?

Also, Green Xenon, I think you misunderstand the psychology of "macho men". When I was a child, I think I was one of those macho men. My father hit me a lot, and so I had a lot of rage, and whenever I was on recess I would pick fights with anybody who would fight me. Very early on, I realized that there was no satisfaction to be had in hitting girls. At the time, my reasoning was that I perceived that the girls on my playground were no threat to me, like they were pacifists and there was no joy to be found hitting someone who wouldn't fight back. But as an adult, I can see that the reason I didn't feel threatened by them is because my mom didn't hit me. Only my dad hit me. I didn't feel threatened by my mom.

So, what? Do you want women to start violently abusing their children so the "macho men" of the world will start seeing the girls on recess as threats too? Perhaps it just so happens that very few mothers abuse their children and too many fathers do abuse them.

I don't know if that's the same personality type you've dealt with, though. I never got satisfaction out of "bullying" exactly, where you terrorize somebody who's obviously weaker than you are. Also (just so you don't hate me) I took a vow of pacifism at age 10, because I felt so bad about all the people I had been hurting. High School was pretty rough for me after that (though at least I knew I *could* fight back if I really needed to.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Does it ever occur to you that maybe whoever tortured you was doing the same thing? Maybe they saw their dad beat their mom as a child, and so they see society the reverse of how yo see it. Maybe they perceive that girls are always the victims of everything, because they met misogynistic men (instead of the Macho men you met). Lots of misogynistic men treat their sons as princes and their daughters as filth, molesting their daughters and brutalizing their wives. It's just random chance that you saw one side of it instead of the other

Originally Posted by kojax

Also, Green Xenon, I think you misunderstand the psychology of "macho men". When I was a child, I think I was one of those macho men. My father hit me a lot, and so I had a lot of rage, and whenever I was on recess I would pick fights with anybody who would fight me. Very early on, I realized that there was no satisfaction to be had in hitting girls. At the time, my reasoning was that I perceived that the girls on my playground were no threat to me, like they were pacifists and there was no joy to be found hitting someone who wouldn't fight back. But as an adult, I can see that the reason I didn't feel threatened by them is because my mom didn't hit me. Only my dad hit me. I didn't feel threatened by my mom.

So, what? Do you want women to start violently abusing their children so the "macho men" of the world will start seeing the girls on recess as threats too? Perhaps it just so happens that very few mothers abuse their children and too many fathers do abuse them.

You're not taking into account the following facts:

1. Ever since human beings formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors, this evil society has since been dominated by machismo and pro-girl sexism -- especially in non-western cultures. So there is absolutely no reason for ANY individual to develop a perception of gender-bias opposite of mine.

2. The actions of a child's mother will affect that child's impression of adult women, not his/her impression of minor-girls.

3. The actions of a child's father will affect that child's impression of adult men, not his/her impression of minor-boys.

4. As I said before, I was born into a well-to-do family. Much as I hate minor-girls, I still love my mom. My mom is an adult women and none of her actions have affected my view of girl-children. I care about the safety and well-being of all adult women.

I can't stress this enough, a minor and an adult are two *totally-different* entities even if they are of the same gender.

I'm very protective of my mom. If any man were to rape my mom, I'd want to cook him alive.

On the other hand, if I had a younger-sister below 18 years of age, I wouldn't care in the LEAST if she was molested-to-death by a man or an older minor-boy. If anything, in this case, I'd request that the perpetrator by treated leniently by society and the law.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

You're not taking into account the following facts:

1. Ever since human beings formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors, this evil society has since been dominated by machismo and pro-girl sexism -- especially in non-western cultures. So there is absolutely no reason for ANY individual to develop a perception of gender-bias opposite of mine.

If it's that ingrained, then I doubt it's worth the effort to try and change it now. However I doubt that it is. I don't see you referring to any evidence. You know.... that thing science is supposed to be based on?

What I described often happens at the family level. You'll notice that in China right now many baby girls are being abandoned at birth, left in orphanages to fend for themselves, because Chinese people place almost no value at all on their female children. Only the males matter. In the middle east, girls are slaves to the boys, and can be beaten merely for disobeying them.

If pro-girl sexism exists, it is only present in just one, single, aspect of the way they are treated. Instinctively, the species knows that its long term survival depends more on the well being of its women than of its men, so girls are spared from violence whenever possible. Think about why that is. If too many women are killed they won't have kids, and the species will die off, but only a few men need to survive to get them pregnant.

2. The actions of a child's mother will affect that child's impression of adult women, not his/her impression of minor-girls.

3. The actions of a child's father will affect that child's impression of adult men, not his/her impression of minor-boys.

Yet that flies in the face of my own experience. What information are you basing this on? A random guess?

4. As I said before, I was born into a well-to-do family. Much as I hate minor-girls, I still love my mom. My mom is an adult women and none of her actions have affected my view of girl-children. I care about the safety and well-being of all adult women.

I can't stress this enough, a minor and an adult are two *totally-different* entities even if they are of the same gender.

I'm very protective of my mom. If any man were to rape my mom, I'd want to cook him alive.

On the other hand, if I had a younger-sister below 18 years of age, I wouldn't care in the LEAST if she was molested-to-death by a man or an older minor-boy. If anything, in this case, I'd request that the perpetrator by treated leniently by society and the law.

I wish you'd elaborate as to why this is. When I was a child, I would quite literally die to protect my sister. That possibility was tested to some degree. I understand if you disassociate the two groups, but I highly doubt its a view that can be generalized to everyone. What horrors have little girls put you through to make you hate them so much? What makes you so sure they aren't an isolated group? Did your father favor your sisters over you or something?

And why do you think that hurting little girls will change macho men, instead of just driving them to be more macho?

Originally Posted by kojax

And why do you think that hurting little girls will change macho men, instead of just driving them to be more macho?

There is only one solution to this horror of pro-girl machismo. It is AFFRGD [Angelic Force of Fairness and Reverse Gender Discrimination].

AFFRGD is a hypothetical science-fiction entity that enters the brains of all humans. It specifically affects the parts of these brains involved in voluntary-vocalization and voluntary-movement.

AFFRGD does not involve any mind-control. Rathers it regulates how volition is physiologically-expressed without changing how the human thinks. All opinions, thoughts, emotions, and other psychological entities are not directly affected by AFFRGD.

AFFRGD is a miracle that makes the men of society incapable of perpetrating the "pro-girl sexism" I've previously-discussed. AFFRGD lives within the brains of humans and forces individuals humans -- who make up the evil entity I call the "society of humans" -- to go against the unfair rules of this cold-hearted society.

In particular, AFFRGD makes men unable to provide minor-girls [female humans below 18 years of age] with any "friendly-treatment" and forces these men to involuntarily provide such girls with "unfriendly-treatment".

"Friendly-treatment" = the following:

1. Compassion
2. Sympathy
3. Respect
4. Gentleness
5. Easiness
6. Empathy
7. Cleanliness
8. Protection
9. Luxury
10. Personal space
11. Privacy
12. Security
13. Freedom
14. Modesty
15. Decency
16. Leniency
17. Lack of discipline
18. Lack of strictness
19. Lack of physical contact
20. Politeness
21. Courtesy
22. Lack of expectations

"Unfriendly-treatment" = pretty much the opposite of friendly-treatment

As an added bonus, this AFFRGD makes men unable to perform what are considered by society to be "manly" activities including but not limited to:

1. Weightlifting
2. Sports
3. Attempting to speak in an unusually low-pitched voice
4. Visiting clubs, lounges, bars and other "masculine" locations
5. Fighting
6. Displaying -- or attempting to display -- "masculine" mannerisms
7. Wearing "manly" wardrobes

As I said before, there is absolutely no brainwashing of any human in the process. These evil macho male bullies will continue to think the way they do, however, they will be unable to voluntarily act upon their evil thoughts. This will bring an end to the deplorable "pro-girl sexism" that I often speak out against.

As a result, AFFRGD causes the world's men to be what society tradiationally considered "unmanly" or "effeminate".

AFFRGD causes the macho men of evil society to be extremely frustrated as these men are forced to publicly-mistreat minor-girls in the most heinous manners possible. To further punish the evil society, these macho men now involuntarily dress in unmanly and womanly manners. This leads to the death of machismo.

AFFRGD causes men to become pre-op transgender women with female identities while continuing to possess male organs in their groins.

AFFRGD forces the otherwise-macho men to enforce some new rules against their own volitions such that:

1. It is now common for a boy to fight with a girl and win "either way". If the girl wins the fight, the boys will beat her to death for "hitting a boy". If she loses, the boys will tease her and beat her to death for being weak-enough to "lose to a boy". In either case the boys who observe the altercation will attempt to rescue the boy whose is fighting the girl and check if he is okay.

2. Boys are allowed to be what society historically-considers effeminate. However, if a girl is tomboyish, then the boys will severely-mistreat her and cause her fatal and humiliating physical injuries.

3. Boys are allowed to cry -- or otherwise express -- emotion. However, girls who express distress are publicly-tortured to death by men and older boys. While this painful execution takes place, such a girl is used as an example to other girls who plan to cry, whine, whimper or otherwise express displeasure.

As a result, macho men feel terrified, humiliated and outraged to the core. Terrified because they no longer have control over their own bodily-movements [including speech]. Humiliated because they involuntarily abuse minor-girls in socially-unacceptable manners in public. Outraged because they are no longer able to rescue such girls from such abuse.

Sadly, AFFRGD is an entity that is way too good to ever be true. I simply daydream about it as an escape-mechanism.

That doesnt do anything but further confirm that you are nothing but a troll and one that has very warped ideas

Green Xenon's posts suggest he has some serious mental health issues. Affording him a platform on this forum is unlikely to be helping him deal with these. Moreover the contents of his posts are offensive and disturbing. This thread should be locked forthwith and Green Xenon suspended pending a review by the moderator team. This is only the opinion of one person, but it is a carefully considered opinion.

I agree with this

As do I. He will be suspended immediately and permanently.

On the other hand, if I had a younger-sister below 18 years of age, I wouldn't care in the LEAST if she was molested-to-death by a man or an older minor-boy. If anything, in this case, I'd request that the perpetrator by treated leniently by society and the law.

You are one sick individual sir. I strongly urge you to seek professional help, but will no longer afford you the opportunity to discuss your warped ideas on this forum. Don't ever come back. You are not welcome here.

What makes me sad is that, instead of focusing on being mad that "macho-men" mistreat weaker males, he focuses his rage on how they fail to equally mistreat young females. Like that's the injustice.

The injustice is that they're not evil to everyone, instead of it being that they are yes evil toward some people.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

That doesnt do anything but further confirm that you are nothing but a troll and one that has very warped ideas

Originally Posted by John Galt

Green Xenon's posts suggest he has some serious mental health issues. Affording him a platform on this forum is unlikely to be helping him deal with these. Moreover the contents of his posts are offensive and disturbing. This thread should be locked forthwith and Green Xenon suspended pending a review by the moderator team. This is only the opinion of one person, but it is a carefully considered opinion.

In fairness, I think both of you have misunderstood what he was trying to do with this last post. He's talking about a hypothetical make believe drug/pathogen/something.... that would reverse the gender discrimination he perceives young males to suffer, and then describing what a reversal would look like.

Also I think he's not crazy. He just has Asperger's Syndrome. You have to try and understand what that means. Asperger's Syndrome is a light form of Autism. It's hard to navigate the social jungle.

I hate to see someone banned because they don't quite understand the concept of offensiveness. When you have asperger's syndrome, you are nearly oblivious of the concept of "offense" in the social meaning. It takes lots of thought and analysis to foresee stuff like that. The ability to just "intuitively know" when you've gone too far is ....um.... what Asperger's Syndrome means you can't use. That's why people with Asperger's Syndrome try to avoid looking you straight in the eye. Better to be safe and just not engage anyone ever at all, right?

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

AFFRGD forces the otherwise-macho men to enforce some new rules against their own volitions such that:

1. It is now common for a boy to fight with a girl and win "either way". If the girl wins the fight, the boys will beat her to death for "hitting a boy". If she loses, the boys will tease her and beat her to death for being weak-enough to "lose to a boy". In either case the boys who observe the altercation will attempt to rescue the boy whose is fighting the girl and check if he is okay.

So what he's clearly trying to do is point out how unfair he thinks it is that, at present in the real world, if a girl attacks a boy and he fights back, the other boys will pick on him for beating up a girl. If she attacks him and he loses the fight, they'll pick on him for being weak enough to lose a fight against a girl. In either case, if a boy fights with a girl, the other boys will come to her aid and try to rescue her from the fight and check if she is ok.

Switching the roles adds a certain shock to it. It's like when civil rights activists used to describe some horrible thing that had befallen a black person under Jim Crow laws and then finish their point by saying "now imagine if this person were white."

2. Boys are allowed to be what society historically-considers effeminate. However, if a girl is tomboyish, then the boys will severely-mistreat her and cause her fatal and humiliating physical injuries.

Again, clearly this is Xenon's way of describing how unfair it is that girls can wear boy clothes, but boys get severely picked on if they wear girl clothes. Probably his own experience of getting picked on over this stuff was just as severe.

3. Boys are allowed to cry -- or otherwise express -- emotion. However, girls who express distress are publicly-tortured to death by men and older boys. While this painful execution takes place, such a girl is used as an example to other girls who plan to cry, whine, whimper or otherwise express displeasure.

As a result, macho men feel terrified, humiliated and outraged to the core. Terrified because they no longer have control over their own bodily-movements [including speech]. Humiliated because they involuntarily abuse minor-girls in socially-unacceptable manners in public. Outraged because they are no longer able to rescue such girls from such abuse.

Sadly, AFFRGD is an entity that is way too good to ever be true. I simply daydream about it as an escape-mechanism.

I think Xenon's real core problem is that he has Asperger's Syndrome, as he mentioned. He would have stepped outside the norms of social behavior on a regular basis by way of simple ignorance and had society come down on him like a ton of bricks.

My guess is that he chooses this particular norm as the target of his rage, because he doesn't want to deal with the bigger problem for which there may not exist any solution: he has a condition that causes him to invoke the wrath of society. Had he been born a girl, the other girls would have abused him just as readily as the other boys abused him when he was born a boy. The internal society of girls is really very dog-eat-dog. Girls are capable of a brutality boys don't even hardly approach. They're just more devious about it, but I know plenty of adult women who were abused by the other girls growing up.

1. As far as I am aware he did not mention his Asperger's in this forum, but in another place.
2. You have skillfully avoided the fact that he was promoting the murder of girls as a socially responsible action.
3. Perhap's I have mild Asperger's because I don't give a flying **** if my strong reaction to that gross proposal offends anyone.
4. Your acknowledgment that his targeted rage is a way of avoiding dealing with his real problem is confirmation that he needs profesional help.

Originally Posted by John Galt

1. As far as I am aware he did not mention his Asperger's in this forum, but in another place.

From the bottom line of post #26 of this thread:

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

BTW, I'm a *disabled* adult human being. My condition is Asperger's Syndrome.

4. Your acknowledgment that his targeted rage is a way of avoiding dealing with his real problem is confirmation that he needs profesional help.

Very good point, actually. He should be looking for solutions at the root of his problem, instead of the branches.

In reality, any set of societal norms that allows a group of people to bully weaker individuals would have lead to the same results as the ones he has experienced. Changing the particular conventions that lead to him being abused in this one case won't prevent the next weak individual who grows up in this community from being abused on the basis of some other convention. Bullies invent conventions as they feel it necessary.

It's like if some guy's got a pistol, a rifle, a sword, and a can of mace, and he shoots your dog with his pistol. Can we honestly expect that, if we take away his pistol he'll stop killing peoples' dogs?

Trash