|
US questions the "morality" of teens attending nudist camps (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
I can't wait to ogle all of the 15-18 year old naked girls at my local naked-teen camp. It's like a dream come true! I might even just rub a few out to the notion of such a camp.
OK, ok, ok. The real reason I'm against these camps is that it renders my favorite joke less humorous since it loses it's pedophilic edge...
Q: What's black and blue and hates sex?
A: The 8 year old in my trunk.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Quite right. Pedophilia is a kind of (probably inborn) disturbed sexuality that makes its victim attracted to pre-teens (like 10-12 year olds). I've read that a typical pedophile is attracted to both young boys and girls :wtf: Pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with fertile teens. Needless to say pedophiles must be found and treated, so that they can't destroy the sexual development of young kids.
But a nudist camp for teens is extremely unlikely to attract pedophiles and such because they know they can't find any victims of the right age there. I suppose girls with a fertile woman's body would be a turn-off for them (just as much a turn-off as a man's body is to us). The article that I read said that pedophiles are obsessed about childhood, so they can't just switch it off, and say "OK, I can be attracted to teens, too".
|
Right age range? The camp in question had boys and girls aged 11 and up ... I'm sure if I do a search for crimes against children, I can find plenty of victims in the 11-16 age bracket. You read the article, many of the children in there have not or are just reaching the age of puberty. Just because a chick has only partially developed boobs (as opposed to no boobs) that doesn't mean that he's going to be completely turned off. Maybe he just wants to lay a virgin? Perhaps he digs the half-developed look. Or perhaps he wants to lay a youthful boy. There is plenty of honey to attract the flies ...
| quote: |
Of course, when girls reach the fertile age, they DO attract normal guys and men, and that is a potential problem in teen nudist camps. But in natural societies, girls get married and pregnant at 14 years of age. It's been like this for 99% of the history of mankind. At that age, the laws of courtship prevent unwanted males from hurting the girls. The girls only have sex with men that they themselves choose (or their parents choose). Males who might harass girls are automatically eliminated from the picture because all social events with courtship potential have built-in membership restrictions, and the same should apply to nudist camps, too.
|
So simply because history is fraught with examples of men wedding adolescent girls at age 14 there is justification to continue in that tradition in the 21st century? Resolving conflict through murder and vigilanteism was also a tradition in 99% of mankind's history ... does that provide justification to continue the practice?
| quote: |
In case you are not yet convinced a 16-year old girl can be a full sexual being, let's take a look at the evolution of human sexuality. When there's an epidemic of a sexual disease, the younger the woman, the more likely she's not infected yet. Guys who are naturally attracted to younger women don't get the disease, so they have kids and pass on their genes. Guys who are naturally attracted to older woman are more likely to die without children, so their genes will over time become extinct. A teenage girl with a fully matured body can bear children just as easily as a woman, but a pre-teen girl without a woman's body can't bear children, so they must be kept out of sexual contexts. However, a properly administered nudist camp may not necessarily qualify as a sexual context.
|
We're human beings were not animals. You can't reduce the argument to ... our bodies are ripe for reproduction at age 15/16 so it's morally right to lay girls at this age. First of all, despite their body's maturity, one can argue that many girls this age are not of mental maturity to make such decisions. How many teenage moms upon reflection are actually satisfied with the decisions they made? So nobody is denying the body's ability to have sex ... the argument is whether kids should be placed in an environment to foster the attitude of sexual reproduction when they may not have the necessarily mental faculty.
| quote: |
So sexuality and nudity at the fertile age are not unnatural. When children are like 10 years, their responsible parents should start to slowly teach them about sexuality. Especially courtship. Boys should be told that it's unnatural to openly flash their sexuality in the presence of girls (so they would behave properly even in a nudist camp). Courtship is a delicate process that is based on the girls' selection and subtle buildup of intimacy (it can sometimes happen fast, but it's always subtle, never crude).
|
Agree here. Education is crucial.
| quote: |
It's sad that instead of bringing up their kids to be responsible sexual beings at the fertile age, many parents instead disturb their kids with all kinds of mistaken ideas like talking about pedophilia in relation to biologically adult girls. Growing up in an atmosphere of noble courtship between fertile humans is IMO the one and only natural way to responsible sexuality.
But then again, I'm a Darwinist. |
Wow ... you really are a hardcore darwinist. So it's ok to have sex with a girl the minute her body matures enough to have a baby? Why stop there ... sex can be for pleasure right? So why not have sex with a little girl WHENEVER? You're completely excluding a girl's mental state of mind when you arrive at the conclusion that fertility dictates appropriate states of sexual interaction. Along the same lines, why not legalize polygamy? Men were designed to spread our seeds everyplace and everywhere ... so why do country's outlaw polygamy? Because we aren't cavemen trolling about the alps with clubs and ing everything in sight ... much like the evolution of species there is an evolution of culture. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| very very very good point by occrider. Sex is not merely a physical act. I even think that the mental aspect of the union of two bodies outweighs the natural one by far. Granted there will always be exceptions- 16 year old girls who are more mature than 22 year olds. But once gain a line needs to be drawn somewhere. |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Sex is not merely a physical act. I even think that the mental aspect of the union of two bodies outweighs the natural one by far. |
You are being idealistic here. Unfortunately, any psychologist will tell you that there is no such thing as "love"; the things that do exist are sex, physical attraction, a sense of belonging, and affection and caring for another person.
Now, regarding your claim that sex is not merely a physical act... I've had experiences with prostitutes. Was there anything non-phsyical or "spiritual" about it? No. And what about one-night stands? |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
You are being idealistic here. Unfortunately, any psychologist will tell you that there is no such thing as "love"; the things that do exist are sex, physical attraction, a sense of belonging, and affection and caring for another person.
Now, regarding your claim that sex is not merely a physical act... I've had experiences with prostitutes. Was there anything non-phsyical or "spiritual" about it? No. And what about one-night stands? |
No such thing as LOVE? Thats news to me actually. Im kinda surprised that some psychologists found the answer to one of the oldest questions of mankind. Love will always remain an unexplainable, irrational phenomenen. It cannot be logically analyzed, it never will be. Cognitive studies of the human brain reach their limit. It's like some1 saysing that ther's no such thing as a soul and all human emotions are explained bynatural instincts etc. It's all speculation...Only thing that's certain is that us thinking we're on the way to fully explain the human behavior is one big ing illusion. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
You are being idealistic here. Unfortunately, any psychologist will tell you that there is no such thing as "love"; the things that do exist are sex, physical attraction, a sense of belonging, and affection and caring for another person.
Now, regarding your claim that sex is not merely a physical act... I've had experiences with prostitutes. Was there anything non-phsyical or "spiritual" about it? No. And what about one-night stands? |
Well everything can be reduced to a bunch of chemical interactions in the brain. My question, however, is is it appropriate to take advantage of and screw a girl who is mentally immature despite her physical maturity? Along the same lines ... is it ok to convince a mentally handicapped girl that sex is ok and screw her?? Pedophilia is wrong EVEN if the 14 or 15 year old looks 24 because it all boils down to one simple premise: You are taking advantage of her! |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
No such thing as LOVE? Thats news to me actually. Im kinda surprised that some psychologists found the answer to one of the oldest questions of mankind. Love will always remain an unexplainable, irrational phenomenen. It cannot be logically analyzed, it never will be. Cognitive studies of the human brain reach their limit. It's like some1 saysing that ther's no such thing as a soul and all human emotions are explained bynatural instincts etc. It's all speculation...Only thing that's certain is that us thinking we're on the way to fully explain the human behavior is one big ing illusion. |
Yep, there is no such thing as "love".
It's an imaginative term that we humans like to use, but it doesn't exist. Ask any psychologist. Any counsellor, even.
Get this, TranceGiant: our mating process is random, and determined simply by who is around us. The fact that your father married your mother is nothing special or magical or "romantic", because your father could just as well have married somebody else, had he been in a slightly different place at a slightly different time. All these things are completely random. In this discourse, the term "love" should not - and in fact, does not - have any meaning. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
Nope I'm not convinced. Look every emotional term is "imaginative" (fear, sadness, fury). In fact any term we created is an IDEA. Bah, donno if I've got power to get into a philosophical debate with my headache :(
I just dont get your point with randomness.... Does the existance of love implay that there's some predetermined connection between two specific people only? No, it's not that person A can only love person B and thats its. However Person A will date several chicks until it clicks with person X . It might have clicked with several others after X but that doesn't say that the clicking with X is therefore faked. |
|
|
| magik_ss |
Why not?
Better young people then old!!!
I am for it!!!!
Express yourself!!!!
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
Yep, there is no such thing as "love".
It's an imaginative term that we humans like to use, but it doesn't exist. Ask any psychologist. Any counsellor, even.
Get this, TranceGiant: our mating process is random, and determined simply by who is around us. The fact that your father married your mother is nothing special or magical or "romantic", because your father could just as well have married somebody else, had he been in a slightly different place at a slightly different time. All these things are completely random. In this discourse, the term "love" should not - and in fact, does not - have any meaning. |
I'm calling bull. Where do you get this information? Show me a psychologist (or a psychiatrist for that matter--at least they go to med-school) that says love doesn't exist and I'll show you 2 who say the opposite. Love is an emotion, like many others. Are you saying that fear doesn't exist either? There's no such thing as excitement either. Sure, when reduced to the chemical reactions in the brain, nothing makes sense on a macro-level. The feelings, however, are real. I respect your stoicism, but I'm afraid that you are full of .:nervous:
I think what might make more sense in your argument would be to say that there is no proof that there's only one person out there that is ideally suited for another. That I can buy, and sell. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
if my teen daughter comes home with a pearl necklace, i'll cut her open:mad: and this is not BS.
whore-daughter at age 15 doesn't fit in my parenting agenda. |
|
|
| Eugene |
Vesa... all I can say is, GREAT JOB man!
You're obviously very intelligent, but that's beside the point.
The point is, I agree with all your arguments and ideas 100%!
Seriously!
:cool: |
|
|
|
|
