NAMBLA

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, in regards to socially acceptable pedophilia, here is an interesting story I found. In Papua New Guinea(Trans-Fly region) there is a tribe called the Etoro. This is a group of about 400 individuals who survive by hunting and agricultural cultivating. Anthropologists have had a hard time studying this culture, because females are considered so beneath the males, that often times those studying them aren't even allowed to interact with them. The Etoro basis for sexuality and sexual attraction are based on the birth cycle, physical maturation, mental maturation, old age and death. Not only of human beings, but also animals and plants.

Etoro men think that males must contribute the semen for teh fetus, which has been placed in the female by dead ancestors, to actually develop into a life form. So, they basically think that the female produces a fully formed fetus, but that fetus is only "activated" by the introduction of semen.

They also believe that a man has only so much available semen. On this basis, they believe that sex between a man and a woman is hazardous to the health and vitality of the man. In fact, there is such a strong stigma associated with the practice of heterosexual sex, that it is seen as a chore, a burden. To this end, the Etoro culture only permits heterosexual intercourse for about 100 days out of the year. Outside of this timeframe, it is considered a taboo. Heterosexual sex, outside of the need for reproduction, is discouraged. Women who want too much sex are considered "witches".

Coinciding with their belief that the fetus is placed inside the woman by dead ancestors, the Etoro also believe that young boys are also born without the ability to produce their own semen. To this end, starting at the age of ten and continuing into adulthood, the young boys of the tribe are expected to provide oral sex to the older, more established males of the tribe. In order for the boys to become fully capable and mature men, they must swallow the semen of the older members of the tribe. This behavior often takes place in public. At the age of 20, several boys are taken to a mountain lodge a frequently visited by the older men in the tribe. During these visits, the boys engage in anal sex with these older men, as a means of ensuring that they will later be able to provide life to a child.

That being said, it is also socially taboo for these young boys to engage in homosexual behavior with other boys of their age. They believe that to be an act that will remove the "life force" and child rearing ability of the children.

I remember hearing about that years ago in a cultural geography class.

Funny to think about if whob had of been born into this tribe how he would be defending man on man sexual interaction as not only acceptable, but necessary.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I remember hearing about that years ago in a cultural geography class.

Funny to think about if whob had of been born into this tribe how he would be defending man on man sexual interaction as not only acceptable, but necessary.

Indeed, I first heard about it in an anthropology class. But, it took some research to recall all the specifics. I had to look them up on the net because I couldn't remember their name.

one day those people will be able to look back and laugh about it!

Hey frank, remember when our ancestors use to practice pedophilia as if it was the norm???

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Indeed, I first heard about it in an anthropology class. But, it took some research to recall all the specifics. I had to look them up on the net because I couldn't remember their name.

Yes it's fascinating, Can you remember the name of that African tribe that has evolved almost to a different species level with the vaginal flap as an adaptation against sand,a nd various extra heat exchangers? I can't find anything about them on the web and I think it's the key to the evolution debate. I heard about them years ago in an Anthropology unit also.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Indeed, I first heard about it in an anthropology class. But, it took some research to recall all the specifics. I had to look them up on the net because I couldn't remember their name.

Yes, it might have been an anthropology class, my mistake. We also discussed another tribe in Papua New Guinea that encouraged underage children to have copius amunt of sex amongst eachother. I forget the name of that tribe.

I think I've read about the Aborigines too...Sexual display is very open amongst them. In public and everything. 😱

Okay, how about this one:

The Kaluli, also of Papua New Guinea, (who also engage in the aforementioned practices, but they vary from the Etoro) believe that semen holds magical properties that promote knowledge and growth. Before travelling into foreign territories, the boys from this tribe are expected to consume a mixture of adult male semen, salt and ginger so their ability to grasp another culture and language will be enhanced.

Also, at age 11 or 12, Kaluli boys enter into a sexual relationship with an adult male, of their father's choosing. (The practice of incest is considered taboo) These "couples" practice anal and oral sex, the older imparts wisdom to the younger, and teaches him how to hunt and care for himself in the wilderness. The Kaluli cite the growth of facial hair not long after these relationships begin as evidence of the growth and maturity that takes place as a result of this "bonding".

Hummm... Doesn't that sound Greek or Roman?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hummm... Doesn't that sound Greek or Roman?

Are you talking about the Spartans?

In actuality, homosexuality was generally accepted in greek and roman cultures (except among Rome's Patrician class and after their cultural conversion to christianity) but wasn't the social norm or as socially integrated/prevalent as many have come to believe.

Well, they had those bath houses....... 😱

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Are you talking about the Spartans?

In actuality, homosexuality was generally accepted in greek and roman cultures (except among Rome's Patrician class and after their cultural conversion to christianity) but wasn't the social norm or as socially integrated/prevalent as many have come to believe.

I'm referring to the practice of relationships between an adolescent boy and an adult male for the purpose of impating knowledge about the world, sex and battle.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm referring to the practice of relationships between an adolescent boy and an adult male for the purpose of impating knowledge about the world, sex and battle.

Yes, a Spartan father gave his son (I believe at the age of 7 or 8) to a man whom he respected to raise his son. This was done because it was thought that a father could not be as strict (an by strict I mean "brutal and emotionally distant"😉 to his sone as another man could in his training as a warrior. Sexual relations in this occasion would be looked upon in a most grave manner.

The boys were also trained at the agoge by older boys and warriors. Punishments were harsh and unforgiving and many young boys died as a result of training or discipline. For example, stealing was not looked upon as a crime as it may be necessary in war and taught stealth, survival and cunning. However, getting caught stealling was a crime punishable by being whipped by your elders, and many of these lashings resulted in death.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I am a big fan of history.

same thing happened in Sammurai apprenticeships

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hummm... Doesn't that sound Greek or Roman?

So maybe.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Maybe in your deluded mind it does. Of course, who am I to argue with people who equate a man boinking a dog, raping a young boy, screwing a corpse, raping a girl, etc, etc..as all being "relative" acts of obscenity. Introspection my friend..perhaps if you look at the true basis of your argument, you'll see who the real perpetuators of condoning obscene behavior are..😉

Regardless of how the act occurs..it is quite obvious from a common
sense level, that there are obvious "degrees" to what one classifies as sexual assault, molestation, rape obscenity, etc. Everything is not "relative" as you have stated in many other threads. Everything isn't made up of "shades" of gray. There are clear distinctions between what would be considered obviously offensive and illegal..and what would be considered "obscene and illegal"

Do you think that Jeffrey Dhamer eating and killing people should get the same sentence as a person who uses excessive force and mistakenly kills someone during a fight?

Do you think that a man who rapes a 2 year old girl, should be considered on the same level as one who rapes a 15 year old girl?

There is no bigotry showing X, it's just that like many in this forum..your mind has become to deluded to comprehend that all crimes commited against an individual can not be equated. The fact that you, PVS, and others like you try to "relativize" all acts of obscenity as being on the same level is indeed the "sickening" position..and I truly hope that all of you do some serious thought about your positions on said topic..before you posting such drivel again.

Fin.

"Common sense"? The same common sense from a person that says H. neanderthal were just humans who all suffered from the exact same combinations of disease pathology to create their morphological difference from H. sapiens based on single quotes from over a centuy ago, despite modern molecular and genetic research having established that H. neanderthal were beyond the normal genetic variablity of H. sapiens, and that there is no evidence of any gene flow between the two taxological species. Oh yes, we all need some more of that "common sense". Then we can collect all the species of animal onto one big boat and row them over the edge of the flat earth.

You are transparent, everyone here can see you consider two consenting males in a relationship as "obscene" and you are trying to rationalise your irrational prejudice. And even those of the religious persuasion find you ridiculous.

Am I the only one who notices that someone doesn't know the meaning of the word relative. When one talks about things in the world not being relative and then goes on about the degree of obscene of one situation relative to other situations then one looks like a sad, confused rambling individual. Maybe you should clarify your position before you take another verbal dump on the forums.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But the sole purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation isn't it? So an 11 year old who's undergone menarche and a 60 year old man who's still virile is perfectly natural according to your rationale.

"Common sense"? The same common sense from a person that says H. neanderthal were just humans who all suffered from the exact same combinations of disease pathology to create their morphological difference from H. sapiens based on single quotes from over a centuy ago, despite modern molecular and genetic research having established that H. neanderthal were beyond the normal genetic variablity of H. sapiens, and that there is no evidence of any gene flow between the two taxological species. Oh yes, we all need some more of that "common sense". Then we can collect all the species of animal onto one big boat and row them over the edge of the flat earth.

You are transparent, everyone here can see you consider two consenting males in a relationship as "obscene" and you are trying to rationalise your irrational prejudice. And even those of the religious persuasion find you ridiculous.

Am I the only one who notices that someone doesn't know the meaning of the word relative. When one talks about things in the world not being relative and then goes on about the degree of obscene of one situation relative to other situations then one looks like a sad, confused rambling individual. Maybe you should clarify your position before you take another verbal dump on the forums.

Exellent! You are one of the few thinking along my lines...

I don't often provide evidence that contradicts my own point of view.

Originally posted by PVS
ok, so than you accept the irrelevance of the whole connection which this thread is based on? if so, good show

They were talking about something else, so I thought I would too.

Hopefully, you've accepted the fact that "Off-Topic" just happens to be a common thing among forums.

So... If I'm thirty and I have sex with an eleven year old boy, I'm noy gay? Oh...

...Oh Okay. 😆

Originally posted by Lörd Sorgo
They were talking about something else, so I thought I would too.

Hopefully, you've accepted the fact that "Off-Topic" just happens to be a common thing among forums.

So... If I'm thirty and I have sex with an eleven year old boy, I'm noy gay? Oh...

...Oh Okay. 😆

i guess you would have technically engaged in homosexual actiuvity, but you just present irrelivent circumstance, since most peadophiles have at some point in their lifes been married and thus engaged in heterosexual activity.

hetero-homosexual has nothing to do with the topic of peadophelia. its irrelivent

Originally posted by PVS
i guess you would have technically engaged in homosexual actiuvity, but you just present irrelivent circumstance, since most peadophiles have at some point in their lifes been married and thus engaged in heterosexual activity.

hetero-homosexual has nothing to do with the topic of peadophelia. its irrelivent

That's Ridiculous!

If a Male is having sexual relations with another Male, It is Homosexuality!

So, there is an age limit for yourself to actually be considered Homosexual? Or when you're practicing Pedophilia, You automatically aren't a Homosexual anymore?

Please. That's quite ridiculous and not so much leaning to the irrelevant side.

I find the two quite parallel.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But the sole purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation isn't it? So an 11 year old who's undergone menarche and a 60 year old man who's still virile is perfectly natural according to your rationale.

Yes my friend..and a young girl, at the age of 11 could indeed be "biologically" a woman. Thus from a biological standpoint..of course it would be natural.

Now the real question I believe you're attempting to pose..is whether it would be the moral thing to do?

Obviously from an "absolutist" perspective, which is what I believe myself to be...it would be undoubtly wrong for one ever engage in sexual activity with a minor. However since you fancy yourself a devout moral relativist, I believe this question should be more appropriately directed towards yourself

So with that being stated X, why don't you give me some examples from a relativistic viewpoint..of circumstance where you believe engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor..might be the morally right thing to do..

Oh and let's assume that the earth is fully populated with enough legal adults to engage in sexual activities with. The floor is now yours my friends..why don't you explain to us all, how a 60 year old having sex with an 11 year old, could ever be deemed as "morally" right? 😉

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Common sense"? The same common sense from a person that says H. neanderthal were just humans who all suffered from the exact same combinations of disease pathology to create their morphological difference from H. sapiens based on single quotes from over a centuy ago, despite modern molecular and genetic research having established that H. neanderthal were beyond the normal genetic variablity of H. sapiens, and that there is no evidence of any gene flow between the two taxological species. Oh yes, we all need some more of that "common sense". Then we can collect all the species of animal onto one big boat and row them over the edge of the flat earth.

Whoah..the sign of a desperate man above, bringing in arguments..that have no relation to the thread topic, in an effort to get their point across. Anyway..a lot of babbling in that one up there. As it has been stated to you countless times..in countless threads, despite you're opinion, Neandrathals..are considered fully human. The "genetic" differences you've asserted as existing..are no different then the "genetic" differences one would find in a normal human being, which would manifest themselves in a multitude of different physical ways. Some of these these "genetic differences" are listed below.

1. Hair color
2. Eye color
3. Facial features and characteristics
4. Body weight
5: Skin color
6. Bone structure

Must I really go on? These types of "genetic differences" are present in humans today. So by yours and others of like minded rationale, we should now start putting modern man in various "species" categories. This is a racist and diluted view of humanity, and I'm appalled that you and so many others have been so indoctrinated to the point that you actually believe such drivel. You and others like you are truly the ridiculous ones my friend. You have spent years studying such nonsense, and it's taken me less than 30 minutes to completely refute it. Based on this, I think it's clearly apparent to all, which one of us carries the greater degree of "common sense" my friend.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You are transparent, everyone here can see you consider two consenting males in a relationship as "obscene" and you are trying to rationalise your irrational prejudice. And even those of the religious persuasion find you ridiculous.

I find it interesting that not having little to no knowledge of the bible, and being a moral relativist, you somehow have a bearing of the "opinions" of the "religious" minded in this forum...😉

Moving on my friend, the only prejudice that I have in this forum is against fools like yourself, who attempt to "rationalize" all types of "deviant" behaviors..and attempt to justify and force these behaviors upon others.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Am I the only one who notices that someone doesn't know the meaning of the word relative. When one talks about things in the world not being relative and then goes on about the degree of obscene of one situation relative to other situations then one looks like a sad, confused rambling individual. Maybe you should clarify your position before you take another verbal dump on the forums.

definition of relativism
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Once again X, you've proven yourself to be the fool. If I were truly "relativising" the concept of "murder"..I would not be assigning no moral value to such a crime. I would conceivably give the implication that murder at some point could be deemed as right, depending on the circumstance. I did not state that in the quote above my friend, merely gave the implication that some types of murder, are determined by society to warrant harsher penalties than others. Either you're misunderstanding, or purposely denying this simple concept.

Moving on...I must say that if you've proven anything about relativity, you've proven that intelligence is indeed a relative concept..and has no bearing on the practical knowledge or the "common sense" of an individual.

Once again..good luck in your studies my friend.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes my friend..and a young girl, at the age of 11 could indeed be "biologically" a woman. Thus from a biological standpoint..of course it would be natural.

Now the real question I believe you're attempting to pose..is whether it would be the moral thing to do?

Obviously from an "absolutist" perspective, which is what I believe myself to be...it would be undoubtly wrong for one ever engage in sexual activity with a minor. However since you fancy yourself a devout [b]moral relativist, I believe this question should be more appropriately directed towards yourself

So with that being stated X, why don't you give me some examples from a relativistic viewpoint..of circumstance where you believe engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor..might be the morally right thing to do..

Oh and let's assume that the earth is fully populated with enough legal adults to engage in sexual activities with. The floor is now yours my friends..why don't you explain to us all, how a 60 year old having sex with an 11 year old, could ever be deemed as "morally" right? 😉 [/B]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
1. Hair color
2. Eye color
3. Facial features and characteristics
4. Body weight
5: Skin color
6. Bone structure

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I find it interesting that not having little to no knowledge of the bible, and being a moral relativist, you somehow have a bearing of the "opinions" of the "religious" minded in this forum...😉

A few pages ago sithsaber told you you were making Christians look bad. Unlike you, I actually base my statements on things, rather than spewing out words and praying that they come out somewhat coherent.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on my friend, the only prejudice that I have in this forum is against fools like yourself, who attempt to "rationalize" all types of "deviant" behaviors..and attempt to justify and force these behaviors upon others.

I haven't tried to rationalize any behaviours or force them upon others. If the behaviour was bigotry, then the sentence more aptly describes what you are doing.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Once again X, you've proven yourself to be the fool. If I were truly "relativising" the concept of "murder"..I would not be assigning no moral value to such a crime. I would conceivably give the implication that murder at some point could be deemed as right, depending on the circumstance. I did not state that in the quote above my friend, merely gave the implication that some types of murder, are determined by society to warrant harsher penalties than others. Either you're misunderstanding, or purposely denying this simple concept.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on...I must say that if you've proven anything about relativity, you've proven that intelligence is indeed a relative concept..and has no bearing on the practical knowledge or the "common sense" of an individual.

Once again..good luck in your studies my friend.

Fin