In article <n7f344hk0mav5jfem5soticq718v071ksd@4ax.com>,
HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
> A previous strand has generated considerable discussion, petering out
> (no pun intended) with the various trolls babbling among themselves
> regarding images, informed consent, masturbation, and assauging the
> desires of killer psychopaths (based on the direction of discussion,
> an exclusive heterosexual troll club, I gather.)
>
> The opposition has already conceded that boys can give consent.
>
> The issue under discussion is if they could give informed consent to
> have images posted. The assumption is that the subjects of the images
> would be horrified or otherwise psychologically abused, if they knew
> that the viewers were masturbating over them (the "informed" part of
> "informed consent") I shall dispense with the argument that
> paedophiles masturbate while viewing these images, because it is
> simply an assumption based on the accusors' own behaviours when
> viewing naked women--which, by the way, may explain the unanticipated
> expense they incur for keyboards, etc.
>
> This observation aside, if indeed one believes that such behaviour
> occurs, and that if the boys knew it before hand, would they have
> given "informed consent" or would they have been horrified,
> embarrassed, wrought with shame and guilt requiring several therapy
> sessions and thus not given consent.
>
> Having been a boy, and having known many boys, I can state that boys
> are infamous exhibitionists ... and that they would react to the
> prospect with a great deal of mirth and hilarity. It would be a real
> "hoot" to think some older fellows were pulling taffy over them and
> the source of endless jokes.
>
> On the other hand, the boys would certainly learn to be horrified,
> embarrassed, wrought with shame and guilt that may or may not require
> several therapy sessions once they were exposed to "society's" (and,
> Psyko, please note the correct use of the possessive) horror and
> outrage. Given that unfortunate tendency of the "enlightened and
> morally upright" adults, the boys would not only be compelled to
> withdraw consent, but strenously deny they had ever extended it.
>
> But, as Ted has repeatedly observed, this is precisely how society
> works to keep its young indocrinated and its members in line.
>
> HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
>
>
> God Save the Queen!
> God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
> Rule Britannia!
There are some well known phenomena related to this concept: one is that
after exposure to the indoctrination of adult society, people may change
their minds about what they did as children or youths, some to the point
of denying it happened at all. Others have the wisdom and the honesty
to say to themselves, "That was then, this is now". Another phenomenon
that has been observed is that adults tend to "forget" their own
youthful indiscretions once they become parents -- but only those who
have become parents tend to forget! Most children are shoplifters, if
not outright thieves, as children. Do they agonize with remorse when
they are adults? Embarrassment would be about all an adult might
normally feel about such childhood exploits, if thought of at all.
I've already mentioned that boys in my neighborhood used to have bloody
fights to determine who could take over the newspaper route where a
known (to the boys) pedo lived. To the winner belonged the spoils.
I'm certain that the boy who introduced me to pornography in grade 8
would be mortified today if he were reminded -- he might even deny it
happened, but there they were -- two mimeographed 2 page stories, one
entitled "The Green Door" and the other something about taking a girl to
a secluded blue berry patch. Of course, that boy became a parent, so
his amnesia follows naturally.
|
|