IPPF and the Declaration of Sexual Rights
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/29/09 , edited 10/29/09
The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a self proclaimed “global service provider” and “leading advocate of sexual and reproductive health rights for all.” With funding from the United Nations and various European governmental entities as well as non-governmental and political institutions, the IPPF headquarters in the United Kingdom directs six regional organizations across the world.

The IPPF creates policies which are then enforced and advocated by its various districts. These regional organizations then press the policies onto national affiliates as a guide for political lobbying and campaign efforts. For example, Planned Parenthood spends millions of dollars to support pro-choice politicians (including but not limited to Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton) because this is the policy put in place by the IPPF. They spend money lobbying for bills, releasing propaganda, and buying political ads because this is the policy established by the IPPF.

On May 10th, 2008 the Governing Council adopted “Sexual Rights: an IPPF Declaration.” Based on seven principles and ten articles this document provides protection for what the IPPF describes as inalienable sexual rights.

Some of these rights are pretty standard and I don’t think anybody would object. For example, much of the declaration is dedicated to preventing federal, state, or social discrimination based on sexual preferences. However, some of the declaration is cause for controversy.

For example, the declaration says that no woman should “be condemned to forced maternity as a result of having exercised her sexuality.” (See Article Three Paragraph four.) Essentially that means that a woman’s ‘right,’ to attain an abortion shall not be abridged for any reason, at any stage of the pregnancy, or under any circumstances.

Indeed, paragraph three of the same article states that there shall be no “competing value placed on a [fetus] she may be carrying.” (The actual article uses the British spelling, but since most people here are American I’ve defaulted to this spelling for the sake of convenience.)

Paragraph thirteen of article three protects sexual predators from extradition and exclusion based on sexual history. So, that means that sex offenders cannot be required to register and child molesters cannot be barred from working as kindergarten teachers.

The first paragraph of the third principle further “prohibits any distinction, exclusion or restriction based on…age…gender, gender identity…marital status…sexual history…” or “Health status; including HIV.” (The mentioned paragraph includes a long list of items. I’ve only listed the immediately relevant ones and that is why there are such frequent breaks in the quoted material.)

This means many things. You may not make any restrictions or distinctions based on age. That means that children should be free to as much sexual debauchery as they so choose regardless of age. Article 1 paragraph 1 further establishes this by saying that all persons are born with equal rights, meaning children have just as much sexual rights as their parents. HOWEVER, paragraph four of the same article elaborates “…with due regard for the evolving capacity of the child.”

Basically what they’re saying is that children with the capacity to make sexual decisions should be emancipated from the moral authority of their parents and that parents should not be able to prevent their children from consenting to sex with any partner “with due regard for the evolving capacity of the child.”

Mostly I think they’re talking about teenagers. Planned Parenthood has said it before and now the IPPF is reiterating loud and clear. “Sex isn’t just for adults.” In fact the article repeatedly describes sexual pleasures as part of a universal human experience.

The gender part seems to be the most pragmatically unrealistic part to me. You cannot make distinctions based on a person’s gender? That seems silly to me. That would imply that you cannot have urinals in a men’s restroom but not a women’s restroom. Moreover, it means that you cannot have a men’s restroom. There must be no segregation in public restrooms. This one I think most of us will have some issues with. I wouldn’t be comfortable having a lady I don’t know walk into a bathroom while I’m peeing at McDonald’s. On the flip side, I’m one of those weirdo guys who’s not comfortable changing in an all male locker room…

Ultimately, Peter Kreeft summarized my personal opinion on this in his “Between Heaven and Hell,” when he said:


To mentally distinguish male and female is good, and necessary…In fact, to unite them most fruitfully, you must mentally divide them most clearly.


When the principle says gender identity they’re obviously talking about transgender individuals. You cannot make restrictions or distinctions based on somebody having changed genders. You cannot, for example, require somebody who’s had a sex change to inform somebody before engaging in sexual behaviors therein. (See article 5 paragraph 9.)

Marital status is pretty clear too. You cannot outlaw polygamy or infidelity. Pretty clear, I don’t think I need to demonstrate either of these items. Again, grey area at best.

Sexual history is a troubling part. If you cannot make distinctions then you effectively cannot acknowledge past criminal records. So, if somebody who has raped eight women in the past is on trial for his ninth rape you can’t even consider the previous eight that you know happened. The court would not even be permitted to bring his sexual record up. There could be no record; you could have no way of keeping track of sexual predators. No restrictions means that a child rapist would be allowed to work at a daycare.

The HIV status part also bothers me. If you cannot make any distinctions based on HIV status then somebody with AIDs cannot be required to inform their sexual partner. That means that somebody could tell you that they’re completely clean, convince you to have unprotected sex, infect you, and walk away without being penalized. In fact, it would be a violation of their rights to hold them accountable.
Article eight is controversial right off the bat. In the first paragraph it says that “All persons,” that’s including children of all ages, “have the right to education and information…to comprehensive sexuality education and information…” That means parents may not restrict their child from learning about sexually explicit topics

Paragraph four of the same article states: “All persons shall, without regard to national borders, have access to non-traditional and traditional information in all mediums that enhances sexuality…young people in particular”

Article eight paragraph six, “All persons shall have access to community…information regarding sexuality in understandable language, including information…to ensure sexual decision making.”

I don’t think the concepts themselves are at all concerning, but limiting parental rights certainly is. Parents, in my opinion, should have the right to decide on an individual basis rather or not their child is suited to sexual education and when. In other words, if you have a very immature child of ten you SHOULD be able to deny them access to information they are not yet ready to absorb. Article eight does NOT say ‘with due regard to the evolving capacity of the child,’ and that’s why this particular article bothers me. It also bothers me that it means communities cannot decide to have abstinence only programs at public schools. Mind you, I’ve come to support safe sex programs, but a community should have the right to make that decision for itself. (this being said we should have the right to commute out of our district if we are discontent with our schools, and since we do not have this right in the United States perhaps schools should be required to teach safe sex.)

What are your thoughts, opinions, feelings, reactions, ext?

http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Statements/Sexual+rights+an+IPPF+declaration.htm This is straight from the IPPF themselves. It contains the entire 36 page document in a variety of languages available in adobe format.

http://www.all.org/ippf This is the American Life League’s sort of rebuttal.
Posted 10/29/09
Absolutely right. Sexual deprivation of any kind is horrible. Freedom is the only option.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/29/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a self proclaimed “global service provider” and “leading advocate of sexual and reproductive health rights for all.” With funding from the United Nations and various European governmental entities as well as non-governmental and political institutions, the IPPF headquarters in the United Kingdom directs six regional organizations across the world.

The IPPF creates policies which are then enforced and advocated by its various districts. These regional organizations then press the policies onto national affiliates as a guide for political lobbying and campaign efforts. For example, Planned Parenthood spends millions of dollars to support pro-choice politicians (including but not limited to Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton) because this is the policy put in place by the IPPF. They spend money lobbying for bills, releasing propaganda, and buying political ads because this is the policy established by the IPPF.

On May 10th, 2008 the Governing Council adopted “Sexual Rights: an IPPF Declaration.” Based on seven principles and ten articles this document provides protection for what the IPPF describes as inalienable sexual rights.

Some of these rights are pretty standard and I don’t think anybody would object. For example, much of the declaration is dedicated to preventing federal, state, or social discrimination based on sexual preferences. However, some of the declaration is cause for controversy.

For example, the declaration says that no woman should “be condemned to forced maternity as a result of having exercised her sexuality.” (See Article Three Paragraph four.) Essentially that means that a woman’s ‘right,’ to attain an abortion shall not be abridged for any reason, at any stage of the pregnancy, or under any circumstances.

Indeed, paragraph three of the same article states that there shall be no “competing value placed on a [fetus] she may be carrying.” (The actual article uses the British spelling, but since most people here are American I’ve defaulted to this spelling for the sake of convenience.)

Paragraph thirteen of article three protects sexual predators from extradition and exclusion based on sexual history. So, that means that sex offenders cannot be required to register and child molesters cannot be barred from working as kindergarten teachers.

The first paragraph of the third principle further “prohibits any distinction, exclusion or restriction based on…age…gender, gender identity…marital status…sexual history…” or “Health status; including HIV.” (The mentioned paragraph includes a long list of items. I’ve only listed the immediately relevant ones and that is why there are such frequent breaks in the quoted material.)

This means many things. You may not make any restrictions or distinctions based on age. That means that children should be free to as much sexual debauchery as they so choose regardless of age. Article 1 paragraph 1 further establishes this by saying that all persons are born with equal rights, meaning children have just as much sexual rights as their parents. HOWEVER, paragraph four of the same article elaborates “…with due regard for the evolving capacity of the child.”

Basically what they’re saying is that children with the capacity to make sexual decisions should be emancipated from the moral authority of their parents and that parents should not be able to prevent their children from consenting to sex with any partner “with due regard for the evolving capacity of the child.”

Mostly I think they’re talking about teenagers. Planned Parenthood has said it before and now the IPPF is reiterating loud and clear. “Sex isn’t just for adults.” In fact the article repeatedly describes sexual pleasures as part of a universal human experience.

The gender part seems to be the most pragmatically unrealistic part to me. You cannot make distinctions based on a person’s gender? That seems silly to me. That would imply that you cannot have urinals in a men’s restroom but not a women’s restroom. Moreover, it means that you cannot have a men’s restroom. There must be no segregation in public restrooms. This one I think most of us will have some issues with. I wouldn’t be comfortable having a lady I don’t know walk into a bathroom while I’m peeing at McDonald’s. On the flip side, I’m one of those weirdo guys who’s not comfortable changing in an all male locker room…

Ultimately, Peter Kreeft summarized my personal opinion on this in his “Between Heaven and Hell,” when he said:


To mentally distinguish male and female is good, and necessary…In fact, to unite them most fruitfully, you must mentally divide them most clearly.


When the principle says gender identity they’re obviously talking about transgender individuals. You cannot make restrictions or distinctions based on somebody having changed genders. You cannot, for example, require somebody who’s had a sex change to inform somebody before engaging in sexual behaviors therein. (See article 5 paragraph 9.)

Marital status is pretty clear too. You cannot outlaw polygamy or infidelity. Pretty clear, I don’t think I need to demonstrate either of these items. Again, grey area at best.

Sexual history is a troubling part. If you cannot make distinctions then you effectively cannot acknowledge past criminal records. So, if somebody who has raped eight women in the past is on trial for his ninth rape you can’t even consider the previous eight that you know happened. The court would not even be permitted to bring his sexual record up. There could be no record; you could have no way of keeping track of sexual predators. No restrictions means that a child rapist would be allowed to work at a daycare.

The HIV status part also bothers me. If you cannot make any distinctions based on HIV status then somebody with AIDs cannot be required to inform their sexual partner. That means that somebody could tell you that they’re completely clean, convince you to have unprotected sex, infect you, and walk away without being penalized. In fact, it would be a violation of their rights to hold them accountable.
Article eight is controversial right off the bat. In the first paragraph it says that “All persons,” that’s including children of all ages, “have the right to education and information…to comprehensive sexuality education and information…” That means parents may not restrict their child from learning about sexually explicit topics

Paragraph four of the same article states: “All persons shall, without regard to national borders, have access to non-traditional and traditional information in all mediums that enhances sexuality…young people in particular”

Article eight paragraph six, “All persons shall have access to community…information regarding sexuality in understandable language, including information…to ensure sexual decision making.”

I don’t think the concepts themselves are at all concerning, but limiting parental rights certainly is. Parents, in my opinion, should have the right to decide on an individual basis rather or not their child is suited to sexual education and when. In other words, if you have a very immature child of ten you SHOULD be able to deny them access to information they are not yet ready to absorb. Article eight does NOT say ‘with due regard to the evolving capacity of the child,’ and that’s why this particular article bothers me. It also bothers me that it means communities cannot decide to have abstinence only programs at public schools. Mind you, I’ve come to support safe sex programs, but a community should have the right to make that decision for itself. (this being said we should have the right to commute out of our district if we are discontent with our schools, and since we do not have this right in the United States perhaps schools should be required to teach safe sex.)

What are your thoughts, opinions, feelings, reactions, ext?

http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Statements/Sexual+rights+an+IPPF+declaration.htm This is straight from the IPPF themselves. It contains the entire 36 page document in a variety of languages available in adobe format.

http://www.all.org/ippf This is the American Life League’s sort of rebuttal.


is this some type of international law? if so it cant be enforced anyway..and it seems that a lot of it is simply ambiguous..and left to many interpretations. So any form of enforcement is impossible. Not to mension it's practicly legal to do any of the above in the some societies already...
You can have mutiple wives in America, just outside of "normal society".countries in Africa to. Children have sex all the time, parents wont allow children to have sex in front of them reguardless of what the law says in some societies.

um..people simply wont let a pedofile teach children once he's caught again. He can come in there and teach with a "clean record", but if he doesnt sway from his ways, he wont be leaving with a clean one.

And since thier record of sexual crimes is to be kept secret, they might just get life in prison, or another rediculasly long term for one rape charge.-in some societies of course.

people with HIV walk away unpenalized all the time. I mean how often is that enforced? and where?

i mean i can go through all of them if u want me to, but all im trying to say is that this law wont hold up in some societies anyway. No one is going to let thier 10 yr old kid have sex with a 40 yr old man, because the law believes the kid has the "evolving capacity" to make such a decision( they will just find another reason to justify it or to condem it). In my society thier are already laws that prevent such a thing. all this sexual rights will be doing is creating illogical paradoxs to the existing rights (or lack of rights) of the people that live in a different society. so i really dont see the big deal about it...it wont hold up as far as the world is concerned. And if it does hold up in some societies, its because the people wanted it to. peace over war

Posted 10/30/09
I'm going to take their "evolving capacity of children" clause along with their Principle 5, and burn through their proposals about empowering our youths with their idea of sexual rights and freedoms:

Principle 5
Ensuring sexual rights for all includes a commitment to freedom and protection from harm

The right to be protected from and to have recourse against, all forms of violence and harm underpins sexual rights. Sexuality-related harm includes both violence and abuse of a physical, verbal, psychological, economic and sexual nature as well as violence against individuals because of their sex; age; gender; gender identity; sexual orientation; marital status; sexual history or behavior, real or imputed; sexual practices or how they manifest their sexuality.

All children and adolescents are entitled to enjoy the right to special protection from all forms of exploitation. This includes protection from sexual exploitation, child prostitution and all forms of sexual abuse, violence and harassment, including coercion of a child to engage in any sexual activity or sexual practice and the use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
And this is how I'm going to do it; by proving that people under the age of 25 are vulnerable to sexual exploitation due to their relatively immature frontal lobes, which can cause their desire for instant gratification.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/30/09

H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:

Absolutely right. Sexual deprivation of any kind is horrible. Freedom is the only option.


So child molesters should be allowed to teach at daycares? And if you have AIDs you shouldn’t be required to inform your sexual partner prior to engaging in unsafe sex? And there should be no laws regulating public display of sexual behavior? And there should be no men and women’s restroom because making distinctions based on gender is sexist?
Posted 10/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:

Absolutely right. Sexual deprivation of any kind is horrible. Freedom is the only option.


So child molesters should be allowed to teach at daycares? And if you have AIDs you shouldn’t be required to inform your sexual partner prior to engaging in unsafe sex? And there should be no laws regulating public display of sexual behavior? And there should be no men and women’s restroom because making distinctions based on gender is sexist?


In exception to molesters and those infected with AIDS. Two things I forgot to mention. Public display, possibly. Why not? Unisex bathrooms are something which may happen but not anytime soon if so.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/30/09

H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:

In exception to molesters and those infected with AIDS. Two things I forgot to mention. Public display, possibly. Why not? Unisex bathrooms are something which may happen but not anytime soon if so.


Shouldn’t a community have the right to decide, as a community, what they want displayed on their streets? I mean, we’ve decided as a community that we don’t want offal strung across the freeway and the air filled with human effluvia. But, if we wanted the freeway to be speckled in road kill why should we be allowed to do that?

Similarly, if we don’t want people performing sexual acts on public streets shouldn’t we be allowed to, as a community, decide to say “no blow jobs at the playground?”

The majority of us, I'm sure, also don't want unisex bathrooms. I doubt it'll ever come to pass though. I think it should be up to the owner of the property. Like if Walmart wants unisex bathrooms it should have the right to make them. If it wants segregated bathrooms that's their right too, it's private property.
Posted 10/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:

In exception to molesters and those infected with AIDS. Two things I forgot to mention. Public display, possibly. Why not? Unisex bathrooms are something which may happen but not anytime soon if so.


Shouldn’t a community have the right to decide, as a community, what they want displayed on their streets? I mean, we’ve decided as a community that we don’t want offal strung across the freeway and the air filled with human effluvia. But, if we wanted the freeway to be speckled in road kill why should we be allowed to do that?

Similarly, if we don’t want people performing sexual acts on public streets shouldn’t we be allowed to, as a community, decide to say “no blow jobs at the playground?”

The majority of us, I'm sure, also don't want unisex bathrooms. I doubt it'll ever come to pass though. I think it should be up to the owner of the property. Like if Walmart wants unisex bathrooms it should have the right to make them. If it wants segregated bathrooms that's their right too, it's private property.


No blow jobs at the playground... LOL. Indeed sir. What a community wants always comes first. It's the source of law. But, imagine a community where things were much more... liberal. It could be magnificent. Say we conducted ourselves in a manner that resulted in no harm being done (thought that is really a thing of fantasy) we could pull off living with conditions in a society like many of the aforementioned details debated over in this thread. It would be a thing of the future, no doubt. We would have mental conditioning through technology disallowing certain harmful incidents, though some people oppose being altered artificially even if it is for a good purpose.

I see ahead from today a utopia where people can be free of their inhibitions within safe boundaries. Still, if there are the really sick customers around with problems such as pedophilia, then they would still be treated as incurables like they somewhat are today. An interesting concept albeit not a guaranteed or entirely relevant one. As Murphy's Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/09

H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:No blow jobs at the playground... LOL. Indeed sir. What a community wants always comes first. It's the source of law. But, imagine a community where things were much more... liberal. It could be magnificent. Say we conducted ourselves in a manner that resulted in no harm being done (thought that is really a thing of fantasy) we could pull off living with conditions in a society like many of the aforementioned details debated over in this thread. It would be a thing of the future, no doubt. We would have mental conditioning through technology disallowing certain harmful incidents, though some people oppose being altered artificially even if it is for a good purpose.

I see ahead from today a utopia where people can be free of their inhibitions within safe boundaries. Still, if there are the really sick customers around with problems such as pedophilia, then they would still be treated as incurables like they somewhat are today. An interesting concept albeit not a guaranteed or entirely relevant one. As Murphy's Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.


Well, the IPPF declaration would actually enable pedophiles because you cannot make distinctions based on age. Instead, you would have to somehow develop a way to measure a child’s ‘evolving capacity,’ but how would you enforce this in the streets? In heinous sex acts in public became socially acceptable how would we be able to identify the sociopaths (such as pedophiles,) from the citizens? I mean, a man having sex with a fifteen year old on a public bench would be a common sight, and all the man has to say is, “well she has the evolved capacity of an adult, you can’t make distinctions based on age because that’s a violation of my rights as well as my vic…partner.”

The IPPF just isn’t being practical, and while your Utopian ideal would be amazing for anyone with absolutely liberal ideology it simply will not happen. Hints, we have laws making distinctions based on age and forbidding public debauchery.

Perhaps, as a molestation victim, I’m a bit overly sensitive about these topics but seriously I worry about the psychological effects tossing away all our inhibitions would have on children. We’ve spent our entire existence as a civilized species placing restrictions on sexuality, and we’ve developed to function in a sexually restricted world. Toss that aside too suddenly and our programmed minds will malfunction, sensory overload.

Then again I also believe that, with the proper influences, a society could program its citizens to be homosexual or to lust after animals so…maybe I give social evolution too much credit?
Posted 10/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:No blow jobs at the playground... LOL. Indeed sir. What a community wants always comes first. It's the source of law. But, imagine a community where things were much more... liberal. It could be magnificent. Say we conducted ourselves in a manner that resulted in no harm being done (thought that is really a thing of fantasy) we could pull off living with conditions in a society like many of the aforementioned details debated over in this thread. It would be a thing of the future, no doubt. We would have mental conditioning through technology disallowing certain harmful incidents, though some people oppose being altered artificially even if it is for a good purpose.

I see ahead from today a utopia where people can be free of their inhibitions within safe boundaries. Still, if there are the really sick customers around with problems such as pedophilia, then they would still be treated as incurables like they somewhat are today. An interesting concept albeit not a guaranteed or entirely relevant one. As Murphy's Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.


Well, the IPPF declaration would actually enable pedophiles because you cannot make distinctions based on age. Instead, you would have to somehow develop a way to measure a child’s ‘evolving capacity,’ but how would you enforce this in the streets? In heinous sex acts in public became socially acceptable how would we be able to identify the sociopaths (such as pedophiles,) from the citizens? I mean, a man having sex with a fifteen year old on a public bench would be a common sight, and all the man has to say is, “well she has the evolved capacity of an adult, you can’t make distinctions based on age because that’s a violation of my rights as well as my vic…partner.”

The IPPF just isn’t being practical, and while your Utopian ideal would be amazing for anyone with absolutely liberal ideology it simply will not happen. Hints, we have laws making distinctions based on age and forbidding public debauchery.

Perhaps, as a molestation victim, I’m a bit overly sensitive about these topics but seriously I worry about the psychological effects tossing away all our inhibitions would have on children. We’ve spent our entire existence as a civilized species placing restrictions on sexuality, and we’ve developed to function in a sexually restricted world. Toss that aside too suddenly and our programmed minds will malfunction, sensory overload.

Then again I also believe that, with the proper influences, a society could program its citizens to be homosexual or to lust after animals so…maybe I give social evolution too much credit?


You don't give social evolution too much credit because that is about the only evolution we have left. The utopian idea I had would indeed not happen. I think of evolving capacity as something we can't be sure of in youths. Not every young girl, for instance, is like how Tracy Lords became, though she was raped at age ten upon reaching her sexual maturity.

I'd say you are not overly sensitive about topics of sexuality having gone through what you did. No one wants to be stripped of all their dignity and violated. A system to keep things in line is the only chance we have, but it is not foolproof. It might one day be taken to the extreme of our sexuality being removed entirely. No need, no desire. We could just go to a lab and pick a child from a vat of liquid where it grew.
Posted 10/31/09 , edited 10/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:No blow jobs at the playground... LOL. Indeed sir. What a community wants always comes first. It's the source of law. But, imagine a community where things were much more... liberal. It could be magnificent. Say we conducted ourselves in a manner that resulted in no harm being done (thought that is really a thing of fantasy) we could pull off living with conditions in a society like many of the aforementioned details debated over in this thread. It would be a thing of the future, no doubt. We would have mental conditioning through technology disallowing certain harmful incidents, though some people oppose being altered artificially even if it is for a good purpose.

I see ahead from today a utopia where people can be free of their inhibitions within safe boundaries. Still, if there are the really sick customers around with problems such as pedophilia, then they would still be treated as incurables like they somewhat are today. An interesting concept albeit not a guaranteed or entirely relevant one. As Murphy's Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.


Well, the IPPF declaration would actually enable pedophiles because you cannot make distinctions based on age. Instead, you would have to somehow develop a way to measure a child’s ‘evolving capacity,’ but how would you enforce this in the streets? In heinous sex acts in public became socially acceptable how would we be able to identify the sociopaths (such as pedophiles,) from the citizens? I mean, a man having sex with a fifteen year old on a public bench would be a common sight, and all the man has to say is, “well she has the evolved capacity of an adult, you can’t make distinctions based on age because that’s a violation of my rights as well as my vic…partner.”

The IPPF just isn’t being practical, and while your Utopian ideal would be amazing for anyone with absolutely liberal ideology it simply will not happen. Hints, we have laws making distinctions based on age and forbidding public debauchery.

Perhaps, as a molestation victim, I’m a bit overly sensitive about these topics but seriously I worry about the psychological effects tossing away all our inhibitions would have on children. We’ve spent our entire existence as a civilized species placing restrictions on sexuality, and we’ve developed to function in a sexually restricted world. Toss that aside too suddenly and our programmed minds will malfunction, sensory overload.

Then again I also believe that, with the proper influences, a society could program its citizens to be homosexual or to lust after animals so…maybe I give social evolution too much credit?

Quite the opposite, I think not enough people realizing that just how much of a social creature that we humans truly are. When our individuality is heavily influenced by our interdependency.

And after an extensive research on human brain science, I would have to agree that while in the beginning our children lack the ability of self-discipline as well as self-regulate, due to their underdeveloped frontal lobes. That's no justification to prohibit adults' own natural inhibition ability, which came naturally with their fully developed frontal lobes.


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:
You don't give social evolution too much credit because that is about the only evolution we have left. The utopian idea I had would indeed not happen. I think of evolving capacity as something we can't be sure of in youths. Not every young girl, for instance, is like how Tracy Lords became, though she was raped at age ten upon reaching her sexual maturity.

I'd say you are not overly sensitive about topics of sexuality having gone through what you did. No one wants to be stripped of all their dignity and violated. A system to keep things in line is the only chance we have, but it is not foolproof. It might one day be taken to the extreme of our sexuality being removed entirely. No need, no desire. We could just go to a lab and pick a child from a vat of liquid where it grew.

And not every young girls have abusive father figures, who are so foolishly raised and led by other fools. It's those kind of fools that no institution on earth is good enough for them.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/09

H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:
You don't give social evolution too much credit because that is about the only evolution we have left. The utopian idea I had would indeed not happen. I think of evolving capacity as something we can't be sure of in youths. Not every young girl, for instance, is like how Tracy Lords became, though she was raped at age ten upon reaching her sexual maturity.

I'd say you are not overly sensitive about topics of sexuality having gone through what you did. No one wants to be stripped of all their dignity and violated. A system to keep things in line is the only chance we have, but it is not foolproof. It might one day be taken to the extreme of our sexuality being removed entirely. No need, no desire. We could just go to a lab and pick a child from a vat of liquid where it grew.


You ever read Aldous Huxley’s book, “A Brave New World,”?
Posted 11/1/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:
You don't give social evolution too much credit because that is about the only evolution we have left. The utopian idea I had would indeed not happen. I think of evolving capacity as something we can't be sure of in youths. Not every young girl, for instance, is like how Tracy Lords became, though she was raped at age ten upon reaching her sexual maturity.

I'd say you are not overly sensitive about topics of sexuality having gone through what you did. No one wants to be stripped of all their dignity and violated. A system to keep things in line is the only chance we have, but it is not foolproof. It might one day be taken to the extreme of our sexuality being removed entirely. No need, no desire. We could just go to a lab and pick a child from a vat of liquid where it grew.


You ever read Aldous Huxley’s book, “A Brave New World,”?


I haven't but know what they are about. Huxley was an incredibly brilliant man.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/2/09

H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:



I haven't but know what they are about. Huxley was an incredibly brilliant man.


Huxley was a brilliant man; I love his works on Christology. Well, anyway, his book is a bit of a tedious read. The guy really, really, really loved commas. But, it’s still an interesting concept and if you’re interested it’s a science fiction about the very concept you’re discussing.
Posted 11/2/09 , edited 11/2/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


H1k1k0m0r1 wrote:



I haven't but know what they are about. Huxley was an incredibly brilliant man.


Huxley was a brilliant man; I love his works on Christology. Well, anyway, his book is a bit of a tedious read. The guy really, really, really loved commas. But, it’s still an interesting concept and if you’re interested it’s a science fiction about the very concept you’re discussing.


I will endeavor to read Huxley's works some time. If not, I will die of /wrists from shame. Brave New World is where I might begin.
You must be logged in to post.