On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:19:17 -0500, in article
<j40752tvtdrdlq9j2bqnp6173s78qnfh0u@4ax.com>, Frank McCoy
(mccoyf@millcomm.com) laid themselves atop the sacrificial altar, and
recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by *a
source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
> 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"
Teenagers are NOT the horniest part of the population, Frank. I recall
my teen years, and I wasn't even CLOSE to being as sexually excitable as
I am today, at 30. PLEASE cease with the generalizations and mass-
assumptions! I'm growing tired of them.
>
> 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!
>
>
|
|