Sex Robot Brothels - Weird double standard? A cure for incels?

No. I do not believe there are any true equivalences so I will never present anything as entirely equivalent, which I did not do in this case. Is your response to try and drag me into some moral straw man which does not even remotely resemble the case I've presented? If so, we're done here. I have no time for intellectual dishonesty, even if it is driven by a genuine and passionate desire to do right
Explain, then, because I read it the same way as Gregolian. No "intellectual dishonesty", just going by your choice of words.
 
Prostitution was originally regulated to prevent men in the military from getting STDs during war time. To question why it is still illegal, you just need to look at who does not benefit from it. Women in general who are not prostitutes do not want it. Their men could easily go and cheat. The religious right has a major problem with sexual relations outside of marriage (even though many of them secretly engage in this or worse). There you have it. A major voting base on the left and a major voting base on the right are against legalizing something. If it weren't illegal in most states, it is doubtful anyone would push to make it illegal, however, it is much harder to repeal laws than to write them.
 
Not trying to morally strawman but I think it's ridiculous that people are "ok" essentially with the idea of children fucking becoming normal.

That's fucked.

It has been normal before - and what's more, in some of the most enlightened civilizations in history, at large. Whether I think it's right or not, the idea that, as society becomes more permissive and starts to interpret Enlightenment values more loosely, it couldn't become normal again, is wishful thinking.

The sanctity of children, the way we perceive it now, is a relatively recent historical development. There are a lot of factors involved in how it came to be but a large part of it is based on the primacy of reason, an Enlightenment staple, and that humans are divine insofar as they are able to reason. Children are perceived as not able to reason properly yet, but have the potential to do so in the future, so they are viewed in a sort of special light - divine potential that has not been actualized. What you'll note is that this idea stems from notion of A) reason is a sacred faculty, that which is truly special about humans, and B) reason is Divine - sacred in a way that is above other considerations. Consider then what happens to this model if you strip the idea of the divine away, and then strip away the primacy of reason? The human is a base, but clever, animal.

Now, what do we see in our society today? Privileging of other modes of knowing, privileging of personal experience (IE - feelings rather than an objective, reasonable space), an increasing focus on gratification of drives rather than a focus on wills backed by reason... Enlightenment values are being stripped away - and with them, the foundation of the structure in which humans are treated as sacred. The elements that made the human being sacred are being eroded ever faster and a Dionysian turn is taking place in society, but you think that somehow we'll draw a line around children? I'd say that's wishful thinking. Remember this little fellow?

Prideboy2.png


The little boy twerking in front of a crowd to their enthusiastic applause? Here's an article attacking people who were troubled by it:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/15/watch-little-boy-twerks-at-pride-parade-and-upsets-homophobes/

You really think that, in an age where the character of the sacred it stripped from our moral landscape, you can still effectively cordon of one area and say "Here is something that is absolutely inviolable." Sorry, that may work when humans are divine and sacred, but when we're just clever animals, the reasoned structures that support such sanctification simply don't hold up under scrutiny. History doesn't support your contention, and I don't think the future will either. I'd prefer it were not the case, but I'm afraid this is what is coming down the pipeline - and it is coming fast...
 
You really think that, in an age where the character of the sacred it stripped from our moral landscape, you can still effectively cordon of one area and say "Here is something that is absolutely inviolable." Sorry, that may work when humans are divine and sacred, but when we're just clever animals, the reasoned structures that support such sanctification simply don't hold up under scrutiny. History doesn't support your contention, and I don't think the future will either. I'd prefer it were not the case, but I'm afraid this is what is coming down the pipeline - and it is coming fast...
My biggest problem (I'm cutting your post down to this last paragraph cause I admittedly don't have a ton of time on my hands) with this... well.. trend, is I've seen the end result of the what happens to the kid that is victimized. And I use the term victimized because that's what these kids are based on our laws... they're victims. They often go on to become juvenile offenders (usually drugs and petty theft) and then as soon as they turn 18 or shortly after pick up adult charges and then victimize a child themselves.

Almost all the child predators who's pre-sentence DOC reports I've browsed through were victimized themselves.
 
I just edited your post to a view that looks like what someone from even a few decades ago would have said, with societal consent and backing, which also reflects the Western standard of human history. I wonder what Grampa Gregolian, who would have perhaps uttered your edited post, would be saying today? And more to the point, what would it matter? On top of that, many cultures - including the cornerstone culture of Western society - would have read what you originally posted and said "But what's the big deal?"

We all like to pretend like our moral standards, the standards of the time we live in, represent some sort of moral realist absolute. We also like to pretend that consensus on our side, in a given historical moment, matters in the long term. The reality is that we're a bit of cultural tweaking and a generation or two away from celebrating what we now consider to be the greatest sin. Declare it all you want, demand the perpetrators have their genitals cut off, whatever, it doesn't change that myopic views declaring moral absolutism are so much dust that blows away in the face of cultural forces far beyond them. You and your views will likely amount to less than nothing in decades to come and, while I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news in the face of such passion, that's just the way it is.

Whoa dude!

<TheWire1>
 
Explain, then, because I read it the same way as Gregolian. No "intellectual dishonesty", just going by your choice of words.

He's presenting it as if I'm saying "Well, we've decided we can screw people of the same sex now, so why not kids as well?" which is not at all the case I'm presenting. My position stems from a few points.

One, this sanctification of children is actually a historical rarity. Civilizations - many of the greatest, most enlightened, and most important - in history have arrived at a point where sex with children is OK in certain circumstances. What do we think is so special about our culture - ESPECIALLY today - that makes it impossible we'll arrive at the same point? Considering what's going on in our culture at the moment, I can't help but feel like we're getting ever closer.

Two, the idea that there are sacred cows in our society, things which we cannot question, areas we cannot transgress, died with God, so to speak. We live in a time where if a case can be made for it, and enough people want it, society will follow suit and deem it permissible. Ask yourself - what is the absolute stumbling block that prevents us from taking this step now? A century or two ago, someone could say "Well, God says it's wrong" or something like that, but the metaphysical underpinnings of absolute morality are gone.

Three, relations between adults and children and relations between adults of the same sex are obviously different. I did not say otherwise, suggest otherwise, etc etc... The problem is that they're the same in one way which is very important here - both have been, in relatively recent times, totally impermissible in our culture. The issue is, one of them is no longer so - so one utterly impermissible thing has become permissible. The arguments that got us there are going to be different but, again, what is the absolute, inviolable case that is going to prevent the normalization of the sexualizing of children? There isn't one. That has been done away with. The idea of an absolute morality is dead and, with it, clever people can shift culture through discourse, argument, and all sorts of campaigns and lobbies and other methods until the standards shift, bit by bit, and the impermissible becomes permissible.

This is not a phenomenon without historical precedent. The cornerstone stumbling blocks, in our culture, that would have prevented it are either gone or crumbling. After that absolute framework allowing for the sacred, non-transgressable space is gone, it's just an issue of culture creep.
 
He's presenting it as if I'm saying "Well, we've decided we can screw people of the same sex now, so why not kids as well?" which is not at all the case I'm presenting. My position stems from a few points.

One, this sanctification of children is actually a historical rarity. Civilizations - many of the greatest, most enlightened, and most important - in history have arrived at a point where sex with children is OK in certain circumstances. What do we think is so special about our culture - ESPECIALLY today - that makes it impossible we'll arrive at the same point? Considering what's going on in our culture at the moment, I can't help but feel like we're getting ever closer.

Two, the idea that there are sacred cows in our society, things which we cannot question, areas we cannot transgress, died with God, so to speak. We live in a time where if a case can be made for it, and enough people want it, society will follow suit and deem it permissible. Ask yourself - what is the absolute stumbling block that prevents us from taking this step now? A century or two ago, someone could say "Well, God says it's wrong" or something like that, but the metaphysical underpinnings of absolute morality are gone.

Three, relations between adults and children and relations between adults of the same sex are obviously different. I did not say otherwise, suggest otherwise, etc etc... The problem is that they're the same in one way which is very important here - both have been, in relatively recent times, totally impermissible in our culture. The issue is, one of them is no longer so - so one utterly impermissible thing has become permissible. The arguments that got us there are going to be different but, again, what is the absolute, inviolable case that is going to prevent the normalization of the sexualizing of children? There isn't one. That has been done away with. The idea of an absolute morality is dead and, with it, clever people can shift culture through discourse, argument, and all sorts of campaigns and lobbies and other methods until the standards shift, bit by bit, and the impermissible becomes permissible.

This is not a phenomenon without historical precedent. The cornerstone stumbling blocks, in our culture, that would have prevented it are either gone or crumbling. After that absolute framework allowing for the sacred, non-transgressable space is gone, it's just an issue of culture creep.
Thanks for the response, I understand what you meant now.
I agree with you on the death of absolute morality, but right now, in the West at any rate, sex involving kids being disgusting and forbidden is pretty hard wired into our collective brain. For now.
That may change over time, we can see the first rumblings towards normalizing one of the last real taboos as we speak.

It's just one more aspect of the cancer eating away at the West.
 
My biggest problem (I'm cutting your post down to this last paragraph cause I admittedly don't have a ton of time on my hands) with this... well.. trend, is I've seen the end result of the what happens to the kid that is victimized. And I use the term victimized because that's what these kids are based on our laws... they're victims. They often go on to become juvenile offenders (usually drugs and petty theft) and then as soon as they turn 18 or shortly after pick up adult charges and then victimize a child themselves.

Almost all the child predators who's pre-sentence DOC reports I've browsed through were victimized themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I have COUNTLESS problems with the age of consent becoming a thing of the past - I just see it happening... Or, at the very least, I don't see a societal structure in place which can give an absolute case as to why it shouldn't. If there isn't such a thing - an absolute standard of judgment which unifies the cultural block - then there is a grounds for creating sacred, non-transgressable spaces. The Nietzschean "God is dead!" moment spoke to exactly what we're seeing slowly unfold today... That we don't have that standard any more, so what can be argued, what can be pushed via force of culture, can be done.

One of the things that woke me up about this was reading Foucault quite extensively. If you're not familiar with him, he's a very important post modern philosopher that, if your children go to university in the humanities, they will most likely learn a fair bit about. He has some quite important theories which I think are valuable and should be taken seriously. That being said, a great deal of his work is a careful study of ancient Greece, and a large part of that is a study of the master/student relationship between an older man and a young man. There was sex involved. Foucault's disinterested, analytical style goes through a wide range of theories and models for such older/younger man relationships which were viewed as nurturing and importantly formative of a good character. These relationships involved sex. This is not a cultural exception, as many cultures have accepted such norms. The point that I'm getting here is that you are drawing attention to a trend of these relationships being harmful, with an authority of "it hurts kids" backing it up. What happens when you have generations of kids coming out of university reading Foucault, or any number of other people who might be similarly sympathetic to such types of relationships, and they say "Well, yeah, we don't want kids hurt - but what if such relationships don't hurt kids? What if they can be helpful, like the ones Foucault was talking about?" That cultural norm I was talking about just inched, ever so slightly, towards it being permissible.

As a grad student at a major university I was reading literature which talked about this and not in an entirely negative light. I can turn on the TV and see a biological little boy in a girl's dress saying they want hormones and people saying "Yes, this should happen" - and then applauding when that little boy twerks at a pride parade. I'm arguing that not only can the cultural standard shift, but it is shifting. I ask you again - what, in our culture, has the absolute force required to prevent it if the tides of culture keep moving in the direction they're going?

I am not in support of this. I am reporting what I see. Sadly, I think your reading of the situation is dead wrong. This is coming. Get ready for it. I strongly suspect that in a few decades someone will be talking about you and your current views like I was talking about "Grandpa Gregolian" a few posts above.

I am done for the day. I would ask, please don't take my posts for something they are not. I am not normalizing this - I am saying that it is being normalized. Don't shoot the messenger. It would do you well to pay attention because, if you know what's coming and why it is coming, you can oppose it better. Burying your head in the sand will not help you prevent this.
 
Thanks for the response, I understand what you meant now.
I agree with you on the death of absolute morality, but right now, in the West at any rate, sex involving kids being disgusting and forbidden is pretty hard wired into our collective brain. For now.
That may change over time, we can see the first rumblings towards normalizing one of the last real taboos as we speak.

It's just one more aspect of the cancer eating away at the West.

See my post directly below your last one. Read up on Foucault and realize that this guy's work is standard reading at the graduate level in MANY disciplines, and even quite common at the undergrad, at countless universities in the West. What's more, my whole point with the homosexuality comparison is that abhorrence to that was also hard wired into our collective brain even a few generations ago... But you grew up being taught that it wasn't that bad, as was I, and we think it's perfectly normal. That kid twerking in the pride parade isn't going to grow up thinking about kids and sex the same way you and I do, nor are the ones who are being taught that what he's doing is normal and OK. What will his kids think?

This is coming. Be ready for it. I'm really leaving now though. Oddly enough, I just finished reading a bunch of Foucault... Probably why this is on my mind.
 
As I said in the other 2 threads on this topic.

As I said on the other thread on this, I can see this leading to a whole new host of VD's.

No way the minimum wage employees are getting in there and cleaning it out appropriately and no way guys are wrapping it up when they do not fear pregnancy.

Also. Don't judge!

5-when-a-man-buys-a-sex-toy-humor.jpg
 
See my post directly below your last one. Read up on Foucault and realize that this guy's work is standard reading at the graduate level in MANY disciplines, and even quite common at the undergrad, at countless universities in the West. What's more, my whole point with the homosexuality comparison is that abhorrence to that was also hard wired into our collective brain even a few generations ago... But you grew up being taught that it wasn't that bad, as was I, and we think it's perfectly normal. That kid twerking in the pride parade isn't going to grow up thinking about kids and sex the same way you and I do, nor are the ones who are being taught that what he's doing is normal and OK. What will his kids think?

This is coming. Be ready for it. I'm really leaving now though. Oddly enough, I just finished reading a bunch of Foucault... Probably why this is on my mind.
I'm familiar with Foucault, and we are indeed heading towards unsavory territory.
The question is: can we avert it?
 
Do we really think this approach is going to cure mental illness?
 
I dont know.

But putting a social stigma on the shit before its even started aint fair.

Yall must like not having free range kids.
 
Prostitution was originally regulated to prevent men in the military from getting STDs during war time. To question why it is still illegal, you just need to look at who does not benefit from it. Women in general who are not prostitutes do not want it. Their men could easily go and cheat. The religious right has a major problem with sexual relations outside of marriage (even though many of them secretly engage in this or worse). There you have it. A major voting base on the left and a major voting base on the right are against legalizing something. If it weren't illegal in most states, it is doubtful anyone would push to make it illegal, however, it is much harder to repeal laws than to write them.

It is not still illegal in some places of the world.
 
Back
Top