Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

elfman11 · 2006-03-30 00:29:42

Garybobs wrote:

As far as I am concerned, anyone who would espouse such ideas is no less than a vile individual worthy of total castigation from decent society.

Garybobs.

There is much that I would like to say about the above but I will confine myself to two points.

1. As a practicing Buddhist I am deeply offended by your attack on the culture and philosophy I embrace. Buddhist and Tantric art has celebrated the purity and beauty of burgeoning sexuality for millennia and my philosophy teaches that it is not only acceptable but natural and healthy to recognise it, so long as you dont touch.

2. Please remember that there a great many people in this world who would hold you in similar revulsion for subscribing to sites like BA and IFM. You should be very careful before taking the moral high ground.

Elfman.

Last edited by elfman11 (2006-03-30 01:08:34)

Garybobs · 2006-03-30 02:00:01

Elfman:

I will confess that I don't know a damned thing about Buddhism outside of the big rotund statue that, [[[["I think"]]]] Buddhists pray to.

I am not sure what you mean by "celebrating" burgeoning sexuality and I am not going to engage in a religious debate here as I don't think this is the proper venue for that.

I will correct you in as much as I WOULD NOT hold anyone in contempt or revulsion for subscribing to BA, IFM or any other site that features people "of age" engaging in sexual acts. Afterall, would that not be just slightly hypocritical? I'm not sure how you gleaned that in your analysis.

I do hold in revulsion those who derive sexual pleasure at the thought/sight of a child. As to taking the moral high ground, if I have to walk such a path alone in this instance....so be it!

Last edited by Garybobs (2006-03-30 02:03:21)

elfman11 · 2006-03-30 08:04:36

Garybobs.

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding the point of my second paragraph with your usual uncanny ability. Read it again.

But Im done. Another thing my religion teaches me is that it is a waste of time trying to reason with those incapable of reason. It can only harm you and them. You will be delighted to hear that I will not be responding to any of your future posts on either of the sites. I pray that The Enlightened one will guide you on your path to Nirvana. I fear you may find it a long one.

Elfman.

Last edited by elfman11 (2006-03-30 09:21:50)

Garybobs · 2006-03-30 17:15:36

Elfman, now was that really necessary??? Did I insult you? Okay so we disagree with each other. Does that mean now that because I happen to hold a different view from you that I am incapable of reason [according to your religion]?

Sounds like Christianity to me with that "my way or the highway" attitude.

And what exactly did I misunderstand this time? Did you not say that I would hold in revulsion anyone who subscribes to this site et al.? I would ask you to re-read your own post and then enlighten me.

Respond or not if you like. I hold no animous. My "religion teaches me not to make enemies unnecessarily, but also, to stand for right no matter the cost. Even if that means I have to walk on one side of the street alone while the rest of the world walks on the other side.

elfman11 · 2006-03-30 21:04:38

OK Garybobs. One more time just for old time sake but I know that I'm going to regret it. Did you insult Me? well you described me as a "vile individual worthy of total castigation from decent society" because I embrace different cultural beleifs and therefore happen to hold a different view from you (to use your own words). some might say that is fairly insulting.

Secondly if you go back yet again to the second point of my post you will find that I did not say that YOU reviled members of this site but that many people in the world would revile YOU for BEING a member of this site (and that therefore you should not be so quick to adopt a postion of moral superiority).

As for the "My way or the highway" attitude can you not see that that is precisley the stance you are adopting by your total refusal to accept mine or Ruby's slant on the inocent appreciation of sexual beauty and labeling us as moral lepers?

THAT is why I described you as incapable of listening to reason. It is my personal view, not that of my religion.

Now. Let me try to explain in deatail the view that I, Buddhism, Ruby and most rational people have about the recognition of young sexuality.

We are creatures of nature and as such our primary drive is to reproduce. This is achieved by making the opposite sexes sexually attractive to each other. Since nature has no taboos or concepts of underage sex and wants us to begin breeding as soon as we are biologically capable we are programmed by nature to be attracted to adolescents of the opposite sex. This being the case it is therefore perfectly natural and healthy to be attracted to post pubescent adolescents provided that we recognise those feelings for what they are and, (and this is the important bit) that we do not take sexual advantage of their innocence and that we do nothing that could cause them harm, either physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually.

Now. Can you accept that anyone who holds the above opinion is not a "vile individual worthy of total castigation from decent society"?

Elfman.

Last edited by elfman11 (2006-03-30 21:45:20)

kirkpa · 2006-03-30 22:10:58

Look out Lauren is going to let the BEES out

Garybobs · 2006-03-30 23:08:50

Well, I re-read the second paragraph in your post and I am not above admitting my mistake. Nor am I above apologising to you for the misread and subsequent commentary.

However, I still disagree that finding post-pubescent adolescents sexually attractive is a healthy thing unless the attraction comes from another person of same age. For an adult to look at an adolescent while entertaining, pondering, or visualising in any manner a sexual theme is not healthy in my view and we will just have to disagree on that. I disagree that it is natural and I disagree that it is okay whether or not one acts on such pondering.

Finally, you are correct in your assertion that there are many who would look upon my membership here and elsewhere with revulsion. I am okay with that. I do draw a line, however because there are things out there that are far worse to view and 'gulp" enjoy! Things involving children being at the top of the list as far as I'm concerned as you may have gathered.

As to you, I make a continual offering of peace and an offering of thanks for the discussion.

If Ruby was misunderstood in her post, then let her make a stand for clarity. This issue has progressed far enough over the past few days without a word from her on the subject.

Unless/until that happens, my position stands!!

elfman11 · 2006-03-31 01:11:04

Garybobs.

I note your comments on the main theme of our discussion (the sexual identity of adolescents) and although I personaly beleive it to be a repressed and narrow one I have no alternative but to accept that that is how you see the issue and your right to hold those views.

I also note your offer of peace. I regret that this is not possible unless you withdraw your statement that "anyone who would espouse such ideas is no less than a vile individual worthy of total castigation from decent society." This remark is an attack not only on my right to hold my own opinions on the matter but on my moral integrity, branding me as little better than a paedophile.

Elfman.

Garybobs · 2006-03-31 01:36:21

Then let us find peace in silence!

ashmedi · 2006-03-31 01:51:53

Garybobs wrote:

Then let us find peace in silence!

Amen. No more discussion, ................. Please

Garybobs · 2006-03-31 03:17:51

LOL. Agreed Ashmedi

elfman11 · 2006-03-31 10:46:59

ashmedi wrote:

Amen. No more discussion, ................. Please

Since a retraction is obviously not forthcoming there seems little point ashmedi.

I would like to say in closing though that in hindsight I realise that during this discussion strong opinions have been aired and certain forum rules have been broken (or at least badly bent). For my part I would like to apologise to any members who may have taken offence at anything I have said and to Richard and Lauren for any contravention of the rules of this forum.

Elfman.

kurvenal · 2006-03-31 14:07:12

A quote from Wikipedia:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an
established community such as an online discussion forum, and
posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy
and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of
discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting). "Troll" can also
mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such
messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the
activity."

Has anything like this been going on here?

If any discussion list mavens are willing to comment, I'd benefit from the enlightenment and be grateful.

jamesd · 2006-04-01 03:02:25

Garybobs,

You appear to have misinterpreted "young woman's sexual expression" as "child's sexual expression". The two are very different, certainly so far as the law as concerned, and neither is the same as "pre-menopausal female" which is the age range which I expect includes your children.

It's worth remembering here that a major Brish newspaper routinely carried pictures of topless 16 year old females, of the legal age of consent in the UK and most of the US, for many years, until UK law for such publication was changed to match the US. Also worth remembering that in the US the age of consent with an 80 year old is as low as 14 years outside marriage, younger in a marriage, so lawful activities of a young person include quite a range of ages below 18.

While you and I may not find much interest in the thought of sex with a 14 year old, it remains the case that the appropriate US authorities have determined that it is acceptable for an 80 year old and 14 year old to engage in sexual activity and for the 14 year old to seek to attract the 80 year old and for the 80 year old to be so attracted and to act on it.

I think you owe Ruby an apology for your misreading which suggested that she was advocating anything illegal. It seems clear to other readers that she wasn't.

The two US jurisdictions with a 14 year old age of consent are Missouri and South Carolina (both for the male person involved, which is relevant to Ruby).

Iso · 2006-04-01 10:37:46

I don't know how you guys make it past the first sentence of GaryBob's posts, let alone read and respond to them seriously.

Don't feed the troll.

elfman11 · 2006-04-01 14:34:16

Iso wrote:

I don't know how you guys make it past the first sentence of GaryBob's posts, let alone read and respond to them seriously.
Don't feed the troll.

Because I was stupid Iso and let him upset me. Don't worry I've learnt my lesson. I wont be doing it again.

Elfman.

Garybobs · 2006-04-02 07:45:24

James, I had no idea that the age of consent was so low in some States here in the US. 14?? That is incredible. And an outrage. I do thank you seriously for that information. Learned something new.

As for apologising to Ruby, I would like very much to do so. However, as I've stated, if I have indeed misread her meaning, let her come back to this thread and clarify. Her silence, however, only serves to ratify my conclusions. Thus far, everyone has stood up for Ruby with the exception of Ruby. And of course, Elfman who basically stood up for himself. I find it difficult to apologise for stating that sexual behavior with a child is wrong.

Elfman: I never meant to upset you. To be "upset" was a decision you made on your own. As I've said before, and will repeat here, I meant you no harm. Your choice to take issue with me and to make this a personal issue was completely your own doing. Yet, I have no problem with you and I still value your input here and at IFM. Do with that as you wish.

ISO: I am so greatful to you for lableling me as a Troll. I rather like the adjective . This is the second time you have brilliantly "responded" to something I have posted by stating that no one should respond to my posts. I have been tring to find an avatar for IFM that suits me and you've helped me tremendously in my endeavor.

To that end, please know that in the future, I welcome your "non-responses" as much as I do everyone elses.

kirkpa · 2006-04-02 13:21:47

I hear the BEES comming

ruby · 2006-04-03 08:23:36

ah lotsa fussin ana fighting!
all over a little orgasm and the effects are felt all over the world as we all feel the need to justify/ explain our reactions!

ah gary bob! we are all sexual objects, sexual and sensual beings.
if you have children you would be well aware that exploration of ones own body on a sensual level is a natural and innate element of development and growth. Babies and children learn about the world around them and about other humans by first learning and mastering their own bodily functions.

in other words- sexual arousal and response are perfectly natural, harmless, and beautiful things!

I have no problem with you insulting me, thinking less of me, or disagreeing with my opinion.

I wont however, allow you to violate the simple fact that WE ARE ALL SENSUAL BEINGS. Babies, children, adults. How do I know this? I am a trained primary and secondary school teacher, I was employed by the Royal Childrens Hospital as a Researcher and worked on a longitudinal comparison study between Washington state and Victoria for 3 years. The study focussed on sexual development and sex educational here and in the US. I have been studying human sexual development for the past 10 years from a Freudian, Jungian and feminist perspective.

Garybob, I am by no means an expert. But I can substantiate my arguments with theory as well as emotion. Unfortunately you seem to be only able to do the latter.

kirkpa · 2006-04-03 12:53:21

Bravo Ruby

northdallas1968 · 2006-04-03 17:17:27

ruby wrote:

I wont however, allow you to violate the simple fact that WE ARE ALL SENSUAL BEINGS. Babies, children, adults. How do I know this? I am a trained primary and secondary school teacher, I was employed by the Royal Childrens Hospital as a Researcher and worked on a longitudinal comparison study between Washington state and Victoria for 3 years. The study focussed on sexual development and sex educational here and in the US. I have been studying human sexual development for the past 10 years from a Freudian, Jungian and feminist perspective.
Garybob, I am by no means an expert. But I can substantiate my arguments with theory as well as emotion. Unfortunately you seem to be only able to do the latter.

Well Ruby that just adds to my fantasies about you! Those videos of yours were quite the teaching tools! An amazing beautiful multifaceted woman.

BTW - I sorry I even began the thread - I was just feeling a bit pervy. Oh well....

Garybobs · 2006-04-04 01:59:38

ruby wrote:

ah lotsa fussin ana fighting!
all over a little orgasm and the effects are felt all over the world as we all feel the need to justify/ explain our reactions!
ah gary bob! we are all sexual objects, sexual and sensual beings.
if you have children you would be well aware that exploration of ones own body on a sensual level is a natural and innate element of development and growth. Babies and children learn about the world around them and about other humans by first learning and mastering their own bodily functions.
in other words- sexual arousal and response are perfectly natural, harmless, and beautiful things!
I have no problem with you insulting me, thinking less of me, or disagreeing with my opinion.
I wont however, allow you to violate the simple fact that WE ARE ALL SENSUAL BEINGS. Babies, children, adults. How do I know this? I am a trained primary and secondary school teacher, I was employed by the Royal Childrens Hospital as a Researcher and worked on a longitudinal comparison study between Washington state and Victoria for 3 years. The study focussed on sexual development and sex educational here and in the US. I have been studying human sexual development for the past 10 years from a Freudian, Jungian and feminist perspective.
Garybob, I am by no means an expert. But I can substantiate my arguments with theory as well as emotion. Unfortunately you seem to be only able to do the latter.

First: With all of your amazing experience as a researcher, look at where it's gotten you now, hey? Stripping, masturbating and promoting the exploitation of children. Yea, bravo for you!

Second: While I read through you lengthy curriculum vitae, I couldn't help but wonder where the hell is your clarification. When did you deal with the specifics of what was asked of you. You did a great job of tooting your own horn, but you completely avoided any real substance.

Third: Children exploring their own bodies and the like was not/is not at issue. I did not raise it, nor did you in your first "Rant". However, since you've raised it here, I will respond by saying that there is a major difference between a child exploring his/her own body and and adult exploring a child's body [something which you apparently do not differentiate].

Fourth: THEORY IS NOT FACT, Ms. Freudian/Jungian non-expert. Theory is theory and fact is fact. There is no "support" for anything you've said if "theory" is all you have to stand on. 10 years of research and all you have is theory/opinion??? I am not suprised in the least.

Fifth and finally: It seems odd to me that you would come here and spout off your resume under the guise of being some pillar of the intellectual world to a quarum that sees you in reality as nothing more than a good fuck. Oh you'll make a real prize of a wife some day. After your hubby gets bored and tired of banging away at you, what else could you possibly have to offer? Oh, let me guess....more theory!!

You're like the hooker who opens wide, swallows and then wants to be respected in the morning. As long as no one protests your right to do anything you want in the name of sexual freedom. The real markings of a truely vile and sadly misdirected individual.

Emotionally speaking of course.

ashmedi · 2006-04-04 02:08:34

GaryBobs . . . . . . . . You are one sorry excuse and a collossal waste of the building blocks of life.

Garybobs · 2006-04-04 02:26:25

Ashmedi, flattery will get you nowhere! But don't worry, I'm sure ruby appreciates you for heralding her rescue.

ruby · 2006-04-04 07:36:36

don't want to waste anymore time garybob........sorry.
I've got to go my pimp is calling!

#26 2006-03-30 00:29:42

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#27 2006-03-30 02:00:01

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#28 2006-03-30 08:04:36

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#29 2006-03-30 17:15:36

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#30 2006-03-30 21:04:38

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#31 2006-03-30 22:10:58

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#32 2006-03-30 23:08:50

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#33 2006-03-31 01:11:04

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#34 2006-03-31 01:36:21

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#35 2006-03-31 01:51:53

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#36 2006-03-31 03:17:51

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#37 2006-03-31 10:46:59

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#38 2006-03-31 14:07:12

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#39 2006-04-01 03:02:25

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#40 2006-04-01 10:37:46

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#41 2006-04-01 14:34:16

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#42 2006-04-02 07:45:24

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#43 2006-04-02 13:21:47

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#44 2006-04-03 08:23:36

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#45 2006-04-03 12:53:21

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#46 2006-04-03 17:17:27

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#47 2006-04-04 01:59:38

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#48 2006-04-04 02:08:34

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#49 2006-04-04 02:26:25

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

#50 2006-04-04 07:36:36

Re: Am I the Only One Feeling Guilty About 494??

Board footer