Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Second Thoughtless

I link to his blog, not because I like it, but because I don't. His tone is nasty, his thinking is sloppy and he's generally one of the most stupid reads anywhere.

Here we go, darlings Second Thoughtless has blogerrhea again:

So let's call this phenomenon, and the people who practice it, by the proper term: it's pedophilia, which means an unnatural sexual attraction for children. Let's call it by its right term, so we don't get confused about it.

Dear, you are very, very, very, very, very confused. So let's start from the top. There is the legal dividing line between allowable sex and not allowable sex. That is 18 on SL, which makes it one of the most restrictive jurisdictions, most states allow at 16 or 17. Some as young as 13. You confuse the legal age of consent, with the sickness. That's very confused to begin with, because according to you, many states have legalized unnatural sexual attraction for children.

Another confusion is your clear contempt for BDSM. Dear, if it weren't for BDSMers, you wouldn't have skin and clothes probably, and thousands of other slers wouldn't. Without the need for extreme expression, you'd all be running around looking like a child dumped you out of a can.

I can fully understand why authorities are fearful of age play between even consenting adults, because the track record is that such consenting adults often play together, and then form a ring to hunt real children. It isn't the age play between adults that is problematical, I've been humped by a centaur on SL, so let's expand the realm of the possible here, it is the corrosive series of relationships that come out of it. As for "unnatural sexual attraction" first, nature has children as sexual beings. Children can have orgasms. Children engage in sex play all the time. If sexual attraction in children is unnatural, no child would survive, because a mother's love for her child is erotic, consuming and sexual.

No, the reality of sexual urges towards children, like the fear in the military of male homo-erotic bonding, is not that it is unnatural, but that it is all too natural. In the case of children, though not homosexuality, which is in the realm of consenting adults and healthy erotic love, if a line is not errected, many people will wander across from acceptable into not acceptable. From bonding which is good and necessary for child rearing, and into bonding which prematurely fixates one young person on sexual attraction before they have finished maturing as people enough. Children are sexual beings, adults are sexual beings, and the two most dance around that sexuality in order for adults to raise children. If it were truly "unnatural" we would not have as many problems with it.

This leaves aside those sad cases, not that I am saying they should be allowed to run loose, but they are ill, not at fault, of adults whose brains are wired to see the child body as the appropriate sexual object. Children must be protected from them, in the same way society must be protected against people who carry infectious diseases, but they aren't "unnatural" either, but varients from the process of evolution. They are spin offs of the natural process of attraction and fixation, ones which have gone wrong in a particularly horrible way. They keep occuring because the paths of development cannot get rid of them within the reach of evolution. But like people born without moral sense, or with horrible deformities, they are not morally culplable for their condition, but, instead, they are a public health problem, to be kept away from children and away from circumstances where they might be able to inflict their condition on others.

"Responsible" is a word that it loaded, it implies that the choice is in the range of cognitive play and volition. So people who like teenagers aren't pedophiles, even if the law calls all minors children in its infinite capacity to mislabel. And the attraction isn't unnatural, but all too human and all too natural. And the people afflicted with it are not "responsible" for their affliction, even if they are responsible for whether they do anything on the impulse.

Very confused boy. Very stupid. Very, very, very angry clearly. He needs a good blow job, his writing would be dramatically improved, I think, if he were doing it one handed.

In fact sl is very confused. There are many flat chested narrow hipped girls out there who aren't clearly over the age of 18 rl. Many playdos start out looking distinctly like they just walked out of sophmore study hall in high school. Some of the free bodies lying around sl, aren't clearly over the age of 18. The rule, if this were about pedophilia, would be that avatars need to be clearly post-pubescent, but it isn't. Which means the rule is really about the confused blend of immoralizing and sublimated eroticism which both sexualizes adolescents, for example about half the female singers out there, and legally forbids it. Look at my own before picture farther down the page. I don't think I looked clearly above the age of 18.

After all, if we were to ban sexual imagery of people not clearly over 18, they would have to raid every major art museum in the word that has a cherub, and they would have to shut down the pop music industry.

There, I hope that clears up confusion. But it probably won't.

On the iPod is Dvorak's Cello Concerto, followed by Elgar's Cello Concerto.


  1. It's a woman.

  2. Yes, Prokofy is actually a woman. No big secret actually. While she may be on the money in certain areas she tends to go overboard and go on and on forver in her posts.