Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DancePost by Chafetz Chayim ha'Yehu'diShalom & Boker tov, George...another area where the troll is outright lying is his statement that I use the word 'nazi'. He is illiterate. The Hebrew word I always use is 'natz'ri', which in English is 'christian'. 'natz'ri-derived paradigms' is what I wrote. Although the Sho'ah was financed, controlled, and carried out by 'born-again' German natz'rim, this has only an indirect relationship to the suppression of sexualities in the U.S. Not all German natz'rim were nationalsozialisten, but all nationalsozialisten were natz'rim. And the troll's white supremacist nationalsozialismus is part of his identity here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STEPHAN PICKERING / חפץ ח"ם בן אברהם
Torah אלילה Yehu'di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher
לחיות זמן רב ולשגשג...לעולם לא עוד
THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT
לעולם לא אשכח
davening in the musematic dark
Shalom, Stephan. Got it: "nat'zri" means "Nazarene" - a follower of Yeshua.
Does it make a difference ... or any more sense?
What "Christian paradigm" has duped me into believing that adults shouldn't have sex with children?
As I've said, I suspect it's something that a priest taught you in your youth: Talking about this is wrong. There's been a lot of that going around in there.
Or it could have been a scout leader; there's a lot of it in there, too.
Neither Pick, nor I, was talking about keeping child abuse behind closed doors.
Pick made his position quite clear (as clear as his nutzy-futzy phrases allow).
"Sexuality among cultures varies, and you are in no position, like some Victorian inquisition, to use your natz'ri-derived paradigms as constituting what is 'normal'."
As you can see, Pick's "natz'ri-derived paradigms" pertain to my belief that adults having sex with minors is not "normal."
Let's illustrate what you're talking about with a concrete example: the 24-year-old and 17-year-old who have an affair in the movie /Call me by Your name/. While that's considered "normal" in many countries and most U.S. states, you are convinced it's not "normal" at all, but perversion and pedophilia run amok - and seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to change those laws to the norm you want is therefore a pedophile if not an actual child-molester.
Let's stick to the original text.
Pick said that 13/14 was "normal." I disagree. Pick blames my disagreement on Christian paradigms.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPick is responding to my disparagement of Allen Ginsberg's support of NAMBLA and his having taken underage sexual partners.
He has pointed out that your stories about Ginsberg's "underage sexual partners" are mostly just smears you've made up. As for Ginsberg's support of NAMBLA," it was a freedom-of-speech issue for him, and (as I've noted) speech about pedophilia does seem to be your issue.
Pick admitted to at least one underage sexual partner for Ginsberg. One statutory rape, is more than enough for a conviction.
Pick chooses not to take Ginsberg's statement that he's never been with anyone under the age of 15 at face value. My claim that Ginsberg's statement implies (in as strong language as he's able to get away with legally) that he *has* slept with 15-year olds is hardly a made up smear.
As to his support of NAMBLA: his claim that he lusts after 12-year olds proves him to have at least one ulterior motive (apart from supporting "freedom of speech").
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonNeither of us has mentioned keeping silent about abuse.
Pick goes on (in the same thread) to state his position that "under present cultural/biological conditions, I would posit 13/14 as being an area where rational consent is possible, but anything younger while possible, is not advisable."
IOW: This is what Pick considers "normal."
Since some 13 and 14-year-olds do freely choose to have sex, it's obviously "possible" (which does not mean the same thing as "normal," BTW). Many legal systems - including both Canada and New York State acknowledge that possibility by building in a close-in-age exemption for children under the age of consent (so that the 14-year-olds are not treated as sex offenders). Of course you disagree with all that.
It is my understanding that minors cannot be charged as adults for *any* criminal offense (including murder).
However, we are not talking about two children. We are talking about 60-something year old Ginsberg's lust for 12-year olds.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonAccording to Pick, my finding the idea of an adult engaging in sexual relations with a 13/14-year old to be "abnormal," is the result of my having been duped by Christian-derived paradigms.
I think that for him, as for me, your finding the idea of a 17-year-old giving a bj to a 20-year old to be not just "abnormal" but perversion is a sign of your being duped by something.
That was never my contention.
My contention was that a 60-year old man fantasizing about 12-year olds giving him a bj (or vice-versa) is a disgusting pervert.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonNow I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about an "age of consent," and am not aware of what specific paradigms Pick is referring to. But assuming that these "natz'ri-derived paradigms" exist, Pick's implication that non-Christian (or, Jewish) paradigms accept adult sex with 13/14-year olds is quite disturbing to me, as a Jew.
Well, you do seem to be a Jew of convenience; you converted out of "family necessity" or somesuch, rather than any interest in the teachings.
Yes, I did. The term my Rabbi used was "family harmony."
Pick, otoh, has refuted the Jewish faith as "a meaningless combination of words and contexts...", so he's in no position to talk.
Post by George J. DanceFor the record, I don't know of anyone who's said that adults having sex with 13-year-olds was 'normal' - I think you're just beating a strawmman.
No one has used those exact words, but the meaning becomes quite clear when taken in context.
The argument arose over Ginsberg's alleged molestation of boys.
The subject of "age of consent" arose within this argument.
Here, again, is Pick's statement: "a meaningless combination of words and contexts..."
Pick said that "age of consent" was a culturally-dependent construct that had no real (read "valid") meaning.
I asked Pick at what age he felt it was appropriate for a child to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult.
Pick's answer was "13/14."
So, yes. He's saying that it's a "normal" (or acceptable) age for child-adult sex.
Here, again, is Pick's original statement: "I would posit 13/14 as being an area where rational consent is possible, but anything younger while possible, is not advisable."
Note the phrase "an area where rational consent is possible."
He is clearly referring to "age of consent" -- which pertains to adult-child interactions.
Post by George J. DanceOn the other hand, I'd ask your rabbi, if you actually have one, if he condones a 20-year-old marrying* and then having sex with a 17-year-old (*since one would expect him to condone only sex after marriage), or if he would consider it rape as you do.
I have never said any such thing.
The closest I said was that the laws should be obeyed.
I believe that 17-year olds can be legally married in many states, and that parental permission may or may not be required.
If this is the case, then a 20-year old could marry a 17-year old provided that it is done so in accordance with the law.
And, since a marriage contract is a legal contract, I feel safe in assuming that if such a marriage took place, it would automatically be legal.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonIOW, Pick is saying that while a "Christian" (which is what he considers me to be) finds the idea of adult-child sex appalling, those unpolluted by Christian paradigms (Jews, like himself) support it (or, at very least, accept it).
Pick then goes on to call me "homophobic" because I consider Allen Ginsberg (whom he calls "Reb" in blasphemous defiance of traditional Jewish Law) to have been a pervert. And you will note that I called him a pervert, not because he engaged in homosexual sex, but because he did so with 15-year old boys
So you've said, though we've never seen any facts from you on that. At one time he did say he'd never consider having sex with anyone under 15: that may mean that he had sex with a 15-year-old at some point, or it may not.
IMO, his wording made it clear that he had.
Regardless of whether he did, or whether he intentionally misled others to believe that he did, I still find his behavior offensive.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael Pendragon, and openly expressed his sexual desire for 12-year old boys.
While, of course, denying that he ever acted on that desire. Yes, I know, you've accused him of lying about that; but, as I've pointed out, if he decided to lie, he wouldn't have mentioned the attraction either; it would have been easier for him to just say the same stuff you say.
He mentioned it for a reason. Whatever his reason was, it was offensive, and can be seen as supportive of adult sex with 12-year olds.
Post by George J. DanceOTOH, if he only expressed a desire, but never touched anyone under the a.o.c as an adult - we're that brings us away from child-adult sex, and back to the freedom of speech issue.
He's a celebrity and, for want of a more damning synonym, a role model. If he tells people it's fine to lust after 12-year olds, some will take his advice. And they may not be able to stop themselves from acting on those desires.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonFor some reason, both you and Will have seen fit to support him on this issue. I give Will a pass because he's too damn stupid to understand what was actually being said. You, otoh, have no excuse.
I understand what was said well enough to know that Stephan never said that "adults having sex with 13-years olds is normal" -
Here are his words: "I would posit 13/14 as being an area where rational consent is possible, but anything younger while possible, is not advisable."
He doesn't say the word "norman" (as this would not have applied to my question). My question pertained to the age of consent for child-adult sex. He answered. I find his answer wholly condemnatory.
Post by George J. Dancewhile you have said that a 19-year-old "adult" having sex with a 16-year-old "child" is clearly not. So let's drop your silly strawman and concentrate on the real issues where we disagree.
Again, I said that I would accept whatever age the powers that be decide upon and write into law. A 19-year old and a 16-year old are a far cry from a 65-year old and someone who's 12.