I *can't fucking BELIEVE* you really mean that!
If you really mean that, then you're advocating raving pedophile lunacy.(Me, earlier: ...a Brazilian girl of _EIGHT_, IIRC. She obviously _could_ do it -- but I defy you to claim, with a straight face, that she was "ready" for it!)Skip replies:
I do claim so. With a straight face.
What do YOU mean by 'ready'?I mean 'ready', of course (otherwise I wouldn't have said so).
"Objectively" 'ready', or as close as we can get in a world where, as Ashton never ceases to remind us, apparently fucking *nothing* can *ever* be truly "objectively" known.
Ready in the eyes of society?No.
I mean 'ready' in the eyes of, say, a disinterested (=unbiased, not uncaring) pediatrician, say... if that isn't too "Western-centric" or "Allopathic" for you?
Or the *best* "measurement" would, of course, be whether she is 'ready' in her *own* eyes -- but how the heck are we supposed to *know* that? How the fuck is *she* supposed to know it?!?
Remember, little girls play with dolls and pretend they're "mothers" from the age they're TWO[*] or something... And many of *those* would probably, if asked, claim they're "ready" to *become* mothers. Are you next going to claim, "with a straight face", that *this* MAKES *them* 'ready' to become mothers?!?
Which society? Judeo-Christian? Western? European?That's a very nice strawman you're putting up there, but it doesn't have anything to do with what *I* am talking about, by any means.
"Judeo-Christian"... Sheesh!!! Say what you will about Marlowe, but he's right in at least one thing: Some forms of "Cultural Relativism" are truly despicable.
Was this 8-year old girl persecuted? Was her life 'ruined'? Was her child's life 'ruined'? By whose standards? Yours? Mine? Her parents? Social agencies? Would she agree with you that the sex act had hurt her or her life terribly?I really couldn't say for sure, since -- as I thought was obvious from the context -- this was a dim recollection of a tabloid headline decades ago. She could have been nine years old -- or seven. Or Mexican, or Samoan, for that matter. But I *think* she was eight, and Brazilian.
But what do *you* think: Would you *advocate* that all eight-year-old girls everywhere -- in Brazil, the U.S.A, and Finland -- get themselves pregnant? If not, why not -- would *your* (so far hypotethical) resistance to this be based on "Judeo-Christian" values, or those of (presumably "Western") "social agencies"?
Or would you agree that a CHILD of eight is "supposed" to run around care-free[**], playing and *learning to become* a human being -- WITHOUT having to shoulder the responsibility for *another* child?
Just tell us, yes or no, whether you think that is a "right" that is -- or ought to be -- reserved for children in "Western, Judeo-Christian" societies -- hey, let's make it _white_ children in "Western, Judeo-Christian" societies, while we're at it -- or if it should be an equal, universal, right for *all* children. Which is it?
Or, hey, I see I'm presuming too much: I'm still reasoning under the hypotethis that you *wouldn't* advocate that all eight-year-old girls everywhere get themselves pregnant. Maybe you think that NO children, not even (white) ones in "Western, Judeo-Christian" societies, should run around care-free and playing, but should *all* become parents at eight?
To get back to your question: Yes, I think her life was ruined. Either she got no childhood at all, because she had to take care of her own child while whe was still one herself, or she had the trauma -- will you admit that *this* is one? -- of having to give up her child, at far too early an age to have to do that, either. (Or, most probably, some wretched "middle way" solution that meant the worst sides of both.) How the fuck could her life *not* be ruined?!? Please paint me a scenario where she has a happy normal childhood, after having become a mother at the age of eight -- preferably one where she *isn't* an heiress of one of the richest families in Brazil, but (as I dimly recollect the case to have been) a slum brat of the Rio or Sao Paulo favelas.
Yeah, right. Your commingling (Thank you for that one, Judge Jackson! :-) of "psycho-" and "-social" is a whole 'nother strawman in itself, isn't it?And, yes, for all we know, it quite probably *was* traumatizing to many of those "child brides" of yore [and still, in places like India]. Don't say you hadn't even *considered* that possibility?!?(I hope you aren't talking about arranged marriages - I speak of consensual sex, here) Traumatizing? Maybe in the sense that you can be 'traumatized' by the loss of a job - or 'traumatized' by any purely psycho-social influence, for that matter.
In case you didn't know (not that I think you don't; I think you're faking it), child brides were quite OK from a "-social" viewpoint in, for instance, mediaeval Europe -- but that's no big help if (as I contend) it creates trauma on the *individual*, "psycho-", level. Trying to pretend that they're the same is not just unbecoming, it's downright stupid.
But, perhaps slightly apart from that: Yes, I'm talking about arranged marriages. How do you know they *weren't* "consensual"? Just what kind of "consent" is a CHILD even *capable* of giving? Heck, for all we know, most of those child brides maybe said "Yes, I wanna get married! Wanna, wanna, wanna!!!"... But did they say that because they *knew* what was coming, or because they imagined they'd get to play with even better dolls they'd somehow magically make themselves?
And with the very issue of 'consent' itself so debatable, how the fuck can we ever know that we are, in fact, talking about "consensual sex"?
If you ARE speaking of the pycho-social or peer effects this has, may I remind you of the double-standard which exists typically in western society (the culture the boy lives in) - men are not usually painted as 'sluts', or 'whores' - and if they are, it's often with amusement, not contempt.So, to be the standing butt of others' amusement is *not* traumatizing?!?
I think I see why you seem so incapable of imagining anyone's childhood could be deeply troubled by anything... *Yours* wasn't, was it?
No 'trauma' from social, then. Indeed - I'll bet a number of his peers would look up to him.Yeah, sure -- but in a way that's *guaranteed* not to turn him into something of a whacko when he's grown up?!?
Don't be too sure all forms of peer "respect" are beneficial. Heck, it's not just bullied kids that become traumatized -- I gather the little *bullies*, themselves, grow up into fairly screwy adult individuals, too.
This is just a PC attempt to ignore the existence of that double-standard. I'll bet any 'trauma' he feels is well coached.Sure, that's possible... So that makes it all right, then? There's absolutely *no* possibility he's more or less (admittedly, probably less, but still) fucked-up for life, *without* yet realizing it?
Anyway, on the contrary to what you are saying, to me *your* (and Mike's) point of view looks like an attempt -- non-"P.C.", but no better for all of that -- to affirm and reinforce precisely that double standard. "Hey, little boys think it would be cool to bang Miss Teacher, so it's quite OK for women to fuck any little tyke they come across!" If that's not what you're saying, then either I'm having a remarkably bad reading day, or you're not expressing yoursel[f|ves] very clearly.
(Unless you're simply claiming that what little boys think must necessarily be true?!? That they *think* it would be cool to bang Miss Teacher, so therefore it *is* guaranteed to be good for them? Naah... You can't be *that* naive... I hope.)
Now, whether I consider this to be 'moral', or 'right', well - that's another question entirely.Maybe this is all a question of semantics, then... Because that's what I'm talking about. But please explain your usage, then: How could it be 'immoral' or 'wrong', if there *wasn't* any harm done in any way at all? By people engaging in the act of sex itself? What, because they weren't married? That's ridiculous, and you know it...
I think this is bad, because I think it harms the boys -- whether they (or you) grasp that (yet), or not. If I didn't think it harmed them, why would I think it was wrong?
Why would you?
[**]: Or probably earlier, for all I know -- I picked the age pretty much at random, mainly so they can at least SPEAK enough to say the "Yes" you're apparently advocating should be taken at full face value.
[**]: At least "as 'care-free' as possible" -- many little girls of eight in Brazil probably have to do some form of work anyway... But should that be taken as license to impute that they could just as well get themselves with child, *too*? Kind of "while they're at it, anyway"?!?