-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in
news:fkl7c0523ue7gse1v48sseflgqntl39hr1@4ax.com:
> In alt.support.girl-lovers
> Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Secret Squirrel)
> wrote:
>
>>I do agree that man/boy sexuality can create powerful bonds
>>for the transfer of knowledge, however I would want it to
>>be part of a more peaceful, open, democratic, equalitarian
>>and gender-equal society than was ancient Greece.
>
> Me thinks your attitude is *quite* narrow there.
>
> From my experience, that statement could be *much*
> simplified: "Sexuality can create powerful bonds," whether
> for the transfer of knowledge, or any other exchange.
>
> It isn't "Man/Boy", "Man/Girl", "Man/Woman" or any of the
> other limited sets; but ALL of them.
>
> Even the truth that sexuality can produce powerful bonds
> isn't usually argued all that much by those against certain
> sets (Like, for example: Man/Man) but whether the actual
> sexual contact should be allowed, even if (or sometimes
> especially if) the result is positive.
Oh, I agree. That's what I think it's true biological
raison d'etre is for humans, just like it is for our
bonobo cousins. That's why we, like they, are so sexually
versatile--that is, if we listen to our natures instead of
narrow, sexaphobic, ideologies which developed from our
cultural evolution (for a variety of reasons).
Bonobo pansexuality not only creates strong bonds, it also
keeps them from fighting--a bonobo has never been observed
killing another bonobo, either in the wild or in captivity.
Maybe we could learn a lot from a chimp?
> By some views, same-sex bonds *should not* be formed
> outside of friendship; and emphatically sex itself should
> not be allowed outside of whatever the person against such
> bonds views as "normal". To some, it's an "abomination
> against God" or something like that; and the end result
> (Hell for those involved) is not worth ANY temporary gain.
>
> Again, it's all in the viewpoint. Some view same-sex-sex
> as the abomination, others view a large age-difference as
> the abomination. Some would allow adult/child sex ... if it
> matches their personal views as to what is "right" for
> gender combinations, while being disgusted at the same
> age-difference between those combinations they despise.
>
> Thus some "Boy lovers" would be disgusted at men "taking
> advantage of little girls" at the same time some "Little
> Girl lovers" might turn equal disgust at Men seducing boys.
> Others (Like some people in this newsgroup) would be
> disgusted by either one because of the age-difference; yet
> allow any sex-combination among "adults", as long as the
> participants were willing.
All of this disgust is completely arbitrary and self-
serving, IMHO. "What I like is OK and you're a pervert"
is what it boils down to.
> But ignoring the fact that ANY sexual relationship will
> usually create deep bonds, whether man/woman, child/adult,
> or any combination of genders or ages, is to blind oneself
> because of personal prejudices.
>
> And such bonds CAN be used for many things; including
> teaching those who otherwise might find it hard to take
> lessons. The usual objection is that such bonds are often
> used for other purposes that aren't so benign.
>
> Even the "usual" man/woman bonds leading to marriage are
> often misused by one party or the other: Sometimes to get
> sex; sometimes to "trap" the other person into supporting
> him/her for life. (Yes, men sometimes marry rich women for
> the same purpose that many women marry rich men ... To find
> a quick way to the "easy life" where he/she doesn't have to
> work any more.)
>
> And (as noted above) sometimes the bond formed by sex is
> used to teach ... But often the lessons taught are not
> those that many other people would find desirable.
>
> Frex: In many "cults" where the cult is led by a powerful
> leader with a powerful sex-drive, "children" are taught
> that the leader is either God, or a Prophet from God (or
> something similar, equally powerful) and that it's not only
> "right" for them to have sex with such a leader, but a
> privilege and a blessing to do so. Something to be
> *desired*, not avoided. The sex itself and the pleasures
> felt (and, of course, the bonding that takes place because
> of sex) tends to complement and justify the teaching.
>
> NOT exactly the sort of "teaching" our society wants
> children to learn. However, it's *exactly* the sort of
> lesson the cult-leader wants the children of his followers
> to learn; and thus to pass on to the children of their
> children.
>
> Just the THOUGHT that such a case might be, even without
> evidence to show it is, is enough to drive those in charge
> of our present society to do some awfully stupid things.
> Thus we get fiascos like Wacco Texas. Still, in their
> defense, the gubmint HAS stopped some real abuses too.
I agree that strong emotional bonding can be abused by
someone who has power over others to bend them to his or
will. This is one of the reasons I'm not completely enamored
of the ancient Greek model, as with all other hierarchical
and status- and privilege-ridden models. This just begs for
abuse of this type.
To prevent this from happening, the best solution is for all
of our social relations to be open and equalitarian. The cult
leader usually doesn't drag his following into the jungle or
to the hills or to some heavily-armed compound for nothing--
nope, he wants to shield them from the "bad" opinions of
"outsiders". Just like a little Joe Stalin. Because these
little Joes inherently realize that if their following gets
the perspective of "outsiders", and misses their daily
indoctrination sessions, then they'll desert.
In short, the problem with sex and power is fundamentally
one about "power", not about sex. As long as we live in a
society where some people can control others this will be
a problem, whether or not sex is involved. The fact that we
start kids out in a type of dictatorship called the nuclear
family isn't exactly getting them off on the right foot for
preparation for participation in a free and open society.
IMHO.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQMOwAT/rA6+b3AyhAQEQCggAt5hynLUJgE+JPlQTdDd4RsORyfODvKmV
eAm5eoc0GVR6uqKp/fr8fxGNbOvKTODKc0odlZWyEUWr8dG4sPKa9z4s/d8Iqn5I
PAwLkcNfBa4JN7/DUSyaiAbZ5Euux/KmAyFuFONk1pW0V0A2swnWAjL3FLjFhMy/
Gf16q10yP3Z8VWrPUdpS+kuneEJJFgGGYQdUmApPMkhOQLww8CTGhJDjZCaf0DoZ
M4Z4f72SmLeKbqV+f98XS9Qk+r8Kbr9FEklVa1HsraQ4bZK4YOyk1EpPpscGMdYG
YNIxhqJJnMyPZ5j2l0VlnYVXX5KWg4XuIBquk39O2v59k9+qPy9wuA==
=V1Tr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|