Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Effects of sexual abuse on minors
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:19:17 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <j40752tvtdrdlq9j2bqnp6173s78qnfh0u@4ax.com>
References: <1146298884.362437.190620@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:1013
In alt.support.girl-lovers "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole100@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The majority of experts believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors.
By definition.
If by "CSA" you mean "Child Sexual Abuse"; then it *has* to be harmful, or it
isn't abuse! Of COURSE Child Sexual Abuse is harmful to kids. ANY abuse,
sexual, verbal, physical, or otherwise is harmful by-definition.
Now if you leave out the word "abuse", which none of those with an axe to grind
against sex ever will, then "Child Sex" doesn't have to be (and rarely is)
harmful. Most "children" start having sex LONG before it's legal; and damned
few of them are ever harmed by it.
This is most especially true; since teenagers, the horniest part of the
population, are still considered "children" by these same so-called "experts".
It's a case of DEFINING sex as abuse; and then claiming that *since* it's abuse,
it's innately harmful. Yet they never see (or at least never admit) to the
circularity of their logic.
It's about as silly as calling talking to a child as "Child Oral Abuse"; and
saying that COA is innately harmful to minors. Well, it's TRUE that abusing a
child orally IS harmful ... But that doesn't make merely talking to a child
harmful. But the logic is the same as that given about sex.
To swallow that logic however, you first have to buy into the idea that sex
itself is inherently bad, evil, or harmful ... Something that our major
religions have been beating into our minds for centuries; so it's no surprise
that the idea is easily accepted when it comes to children. If sex is so
harmful to ADULTS (It isn't; but that's the attitude we unconsciously get.) then
how much worse and horrible it must be for "children". Then we define
"children" as anybody under 18; thus including people who are actually adults
physically and in the prime of their sexuality and sexual interest ....
It's amazing how STUPID a conclusion can be reached by starting with a
definition that's been deliberately altered to match somebody's fanatical
religious beliefs. The worst (of course) being "faith".
But that's another can of worms.
The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
|