When has religion irked you personally and why?

It is my opinion that some of you folks are way out of line in your comments toward Mech -- and his thesis. And I think some of you protest way, way too much.



I think Mech has been trying to say that there are cultures where what we refer to as "sexual abuse of children" is considered "a significant part of training for adulthood."

And from what I've read, those cultures usually have fewer sexually related crimes and phsychological sexual disfunction.

Mech also seems to be saying that some of the young people who have encountered sexual activity with adults -- have not truly been abused and may have enjoyed and benefited from such encounters. My guess is there are many such encounters that are never reported -- and not because of fear or guilt on the young person's part, but because the young person never considered it to be abuse.

Since this area is so repellant to many of us (it is to me despite the argument I'm making here), perhaps it is best to assess it from a different perspecitive that might easier allow the detachment necessary to appreciate the argument Mech is making.

I would offer the fact that some people consider any use of recreational drugs to be "drug abuse." Often it isn't -- any more than occasional and reasonable use of alcohol should be considered signs of alcohol addiction.

I understand and appreciate the passionate feelings engendered in this discussion -- but to vilify Mech the way some of you have, is unwarranted -- and probably says as much about the people being so vocal than about Mech and Mech's ethics.

Mech raises a reasonable perspective for discussion -- and that kind of thing never is a negative for society -- where the kind of de facto censorship some here advocate, is.

Phoenix, I agree with your general position. Cultural relativism does have its limits, but consider the following: an anthropologist friend of mine, who does his research in rural Mexico was hired as an expert witness in a case where a young man in his early twenties from a so-called Indian village in rural Mexico was accused of child molestation. He was married in Mexico to a post pubescent girl (14 or 16 years of age). They were living here with the girl's parents in what all in the family considered a perfectly conventional marriage. Nevertheless, he was dragged off to jail to the great surprise of himself, his wife and his in-laws. The anthropologist was called in by the defense to affirm that the behavior was not considered deviant in the defendant's culture. Nevertheless, the court concluded that his behavior was subject to the cultural and legal canons of the United States where he was residing. As far as I know he is still in jail, and his wife is pining for him. She does not consider herself a child, and she does not consider herself to have been molested.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is my opinion that some of you folks are way out of line in your comments toward Mech -- and his thesis. And I think some of you protest way, way too much.



I think Mech has been trying to say that there are cultures where what we refer to as "sexual abuse of children" is considered "a significant part of training for adulthood."

And from what I've read, those cultures usually have fewer sexually related crimes and psychological sexual dysfunction.

(I corrected two misspellings)

I think you need to state specifically what you mean here, Frank - that is such a general statement that I need you to be far clearer before I can address it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Mech also seems to be saying that some of the young people who have encountered sexual activity with adults -- have not truly been abused and may have enjoyed and benefited from such encounters. My guess is there are many such encounters that are never reported -- and not because of fear or guilt on the young person's part, but because the young person never considered it to be abuse.

Again, Frank - that is a very easy thing to say - can you be a lot clearer about what you mean? You are saying that some of us have rushed to judge akaMechsmith - I would not want to do that to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Since this area is so repellant to many of us (it is to me despite the argument I'm making here), perhaps it is best to assess it from a different perspecitive that might easier allow the detachment necessary to appreciate the argument Mech is making.

I would offer the fact that some people consider any use of recreational drugs to be "drug abuse." Often it isn't -- any more than occasional and reasonable use of alcohol should be considered signs of alcohol addiction.

As a couple of people have already said, this is not a true analogy at all - unless people have drugs inflicted upon them with no choice.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I understand and appreciate the passionate feelings engendered in this discussion -- but to vilify Mech the way some of you have, is unwarranted -- and probably says as much about the people being so vocal than about Mech and Mech's ethics.

Mech raises a reasonable perspective for discussion -- and that kind of thing never is a negative for society -- where the kind of de facto censorship some here advocate, is.

You have mentioned this a couple of times - what do you mean - by this and "protesting too much" - do you mean that the people who have reacted strongly are those who wish to sexually abuse kids?

I think, when it comes to a discussion of such matters, that that is fine - however, the points you raise are the very points that paedophiles, many of whom are in close connection with each other through their web-sites and such, use to justify their behaviour - and I think those points need to be vigorously de-bunked - these are not simply neutral discussion points.

I make no claims re Mech's personal behaviour or ethics...

...but the ARGUMENTS are, as I have said, used to justify appalling behaviour - out in the real world, not here in cosy discussion land.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Since this area is so repellant to many of us (it is to me despite the argument I'm making here), perhaps it is best to assess it from a different perspecitive that might easier allow the detachment necessary to appreciate the argument Mech is making.

I would offer the fact that some people consider any use of recreational drugs to be "drug abuse." Often it isn't -- any more than occasional and reasonable use of alcohol should be considered signs of alcohol addiction.

dloan said:As a couple of people have already said, this is not a true analogy at all - unless people have drugs inflicted upon them with no choice.

frank answered: I'm going to leave this one for now -- but I think the analogy is being dismissed inappropriately. The explanation is going to take more time that I want to devote to it -- so like I said, I'll leave it for now.

Dlowan,

Molestation ( the legal definition of) varies throughout the world and even in different cultures of the same country. In the "legal" forum of A2K look up the difference in Australia for instance. The thread in question is obvious.

Specific crime had not been mentioned. I re read all 32 pages and I don't think I missed it.

I am not denying harm, I am acertaining harm. There is a subtle difference.

Wilso,
It was intended as social commentary. However my obscureness ran smack dab into your obtuseness.

Try Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" or Aldous Huxleys "Island" but as social commentary I suspect that they also may go right over your head also. If you need them explained to you just start another thread. I'll be watching.
I do not claim to be of their calibre but I wouldn't be writing on A2K if I was.

Dlowan and Phoenix, regarding the previous paragraph. I had thought that you were brighter than that. I was mistaken. I apologize.

I think Mech has been trying to say that there are cultures where what we refer to as "sexual abuse of children" is considered "a significant part of training for adulthood."

Mech also seems to be saying that some of the young people who have encountered sexual activity with adults -- have not truly been abused and may have enjoyed and benefited from such encounters.

My guess is there are many such encounters that are never reported -- and not because of fear or guilt on the young person's part, but because the young person never considered it to be abuse.

Since this area is so repellant to many of us (it is to me despite the argument I'm making here), perhaps it is best to assess it from a different perspecitive that might easier allow the detachment necessary to appreciate the argument Mech is making.

I would offer the fact that some people consider any use of recreational drugs to be "drug abuse." Often it isn't -- any more than occasional and reasonable use of alcohol should be considered signs of alcohol addiction.

I understand and appreciate the passionate feelings engendered in this discussion -- but to vilify Mech the way some of you have, is unwarranted -- and probably says as much about the people being so vocal than about Mech and Mech's ethics.

Mech raises a reasonable perspective for discussion -- and that kind of thing never is a negative for society -- where the kind of de facto censorship some here advocate, is.

religion does not irk me until you bring in religious people.