First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
George Takei talks about his sexual experience at 13/14 with 18/19 year old camp counselor
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Subtweeting aside, if you defend child molestation you cross the line from being the victim to further victimizing those who didn't "enjoy" it like you may have. There is no room for normalizing this.


I am likewise a bit lost on who exactly you are upset with now. Takei did not defend child molestation. Nor did Milo for that matter. As is the norm for Amys's threads the contents don't match the label on the box.


He did much worse
He rationalized it
Who knows if there are victims of his own
Videos of him on Howard Stern rubbing an unwilling man's genitals seems to suggest so


So trying to make sense of a criminals mind
Means he is a criminal himself?

That's what your saying sounds like.

He isn't Right but he isn't some evil pedo
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/21/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

He did much worse
He rationalized it
Who knows if there are victims of his own
Videos of him on Howard Stern rubbing an unwilling man's genitals seems to suggest so


So trying to make sense of a criminals mind
Means he is a criminal himself?

That's what your saying sounds like.

He isn't Right but he isn't some evil pedo


Totally agree, what both parties said was wrong but accusing them of a crime, one as serious as pedophilia in particular, is on a whole other level of bullshit.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
I'll make it simple. Under no circumstances is it okay for an adult to diddle a child. No matter how attracted(Tekai) the child is to you or how sexually mature(Milo) they are. You rationalize it(anyone who entertains the thought that it is okay as long as both parties are cool with it) and you definitely have my ire and disgust.


But no one was making the argument that it's "okay for an adult to diddle a child". You're just kind of yelling into the wind here which is why its a bit perplexing. Are you disagreeing with the legal/psychological definitions? Do you have a problem with age of consent laws? I mean, I get the impression you're pushing a moral argument instead of a legal one and that's fine. But be a bit more specific then just blanket condemnation of a straw man so we can understand where you're coming from.




I don't need to explain why it's bad to molest kids, why it's against the law and why it's against modern social consensus. You'd get a quicker answer if you ask a police officer and subsequently a lawyer and judge.

If you want to rationalize what Takei and Milo said then go ahead. Either way you dice it it'll just come off as defending child molestation, even if you use the words of the victims as your basis.
runec 
38558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

MysticGon wrote:
I don't need to explain why it's bad to molest kids, why it's against the law and why it's against modern social consensus.


No, you don't. Which is why it's perplexing that you keep bringing it up as an angle.



MysticGon wrote:
You'd get a quicker answer if you ask a police officer and subsequently a lawyer and judge.

If you want to rationalize what Takei and Milo said then go ahead. Either way you dice it it'll just come off as defending child molestation, even if you use the words of the victims as your basis.


If you asked a police officer about Milo's case he would shrug as Milo was above the age of consent in the relationship he described. If you asked a police officer about Takei's case it would fall under the realm of statutory rape ( in the US ). And, as noted, under modern US law would likely be a year or so off from protection under Romeo & Juliet laws in jurisdictions that have them. Neither of these is legally "child molestation" and in Takei's case in particular you're trying to use a legal basis of extremes. As you are effectively arguing that there's a one year difference between legal and TERRIFYING CHILD MOLESTER.

So your repeated appeal to a legal argument does not hold water.

Now, you can make a moral argument for why it's wrong for some 30 year old to chase a 16 year old boy or an older teen camp counselor to go after a younger teen in his care ( which might fall under an abuse of authority law in some areas ). And I would fully agree with you. But you don't seem to be doing that. You're just lumping everything together into a complete extreme.

Finally, as noted, Takei is not advocating for what happened to him. Milo *was* advocating for what happened to him. So these two things are not on the same level. Takei is describing a personal experience and how he felt about it. Milo described a personal experience and said that all young gay boys should have the same experience he did ( shacking up with an older man ).



28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
I don't need to explain why it's bad to molest kids, why it's against the law and why it's against modern social consensus.


No, you don't. Which is why it's perplexing that you keep bringing it up as an angle.



MysticGon wrote:
You'd get a quicker answer if you ask a police officer and subsequently a lawyer and judge.

If you want to rationalize what Takei and Milo said then go ahead. Either way you dice it it'll just come off as defending child molestation, even if you use the words of the victims as your basis.


If you asked a police officer about Milo's case he would shrug as Milo was above the age of consent in the relationship he described. If you asked a police officer about Takei's case it would fall under the realm of statutory rape ( in the US ). And, as noted, under modern US law would likely be a year or so off from protection under Romeo & Juliet laws in jurisdictions that have them. Neither of these is legally "child molestation" and in Takei's case in particular you're trying to use a legal basis of extremes. As you are effectively arguing that there's a one year difference between legal and TERRIFYING CHILD MOLESTER.

So your repeated appeal to a legal argument does not hold water.

Now, you can make a moral argument for why it's wrong for some 30 year old to chase a 16 year old boy or an older teen camp counselor to go after a younger teen in his care ( which might fall under an abuse of authority law in some areas ). And I would fully agree with you. But you don't seem to be doing that. You're just lumping everything together into a complete extreme.

Finally, as noted, Takei is not advocating for what happened to him. Milo *was* advocating for what happened to him. So these two things are not on the same level. Takei is describing a personal experience and how he felt about it. Milo described a personal experience and said that all young gay boys should have the same experience he did ( shacking up with an older man ).





Takei saying it was okay because he was attracted to the man who molested him is not advocacy, it's excusing the act. That does not make it right. Especially in the legal sense. Fastest way to get a judge to fly off the handle? Tell them that's what the victim wanted. A child's willingness is not even a factor and doesn't make you any less of a predator in the eyes of the law or the public.

Age of consent is different from place to place but laws are laws and just like Piers Morgan found out the hard way by railing on the gun ownership in America, when in Rome. You can't come from Somewhereistan where the age of consent is 8 and go to another country and shag a 8 year old. And you sure as hell can't speak fondly of it without expecting blow black. I can honestly say I'm in the majority when I express disgust with an adult having sex with a child.

If you say "it's okay, that's how they do it where they are from" I'll will absolutely paint you as a sympathizer. Those deserve nothing but condemnation.
33010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Kavalion wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I'll have to read into this. In any case, I was disturbed by a personal experience of a sexual harassment claim. Honestly? School is fucking shit when we believe women over men.


Just referring to the infamous "If you're rich, women let you grab them by the pussy" versus OP's audio of Takei. Not much to read into.

Sorry to hear that you were harassed. Yeah, I think that public schools are pretty shit about silencing kids to avoid having to investigate anything, which is why people can get away with that stuff for so long.


Well no, I was interested in sexual jokes and told them. Girl, if you cannot tell me to stop, then why would I? Schools have become so stringent on this any claim is investigated with such zeal as to against male perpetrators.

My solution? Teach girls (and boys) a couple of things.

-If someone says something that you do not like in a group function, stand up for yourself. Silence in these cases is tolerance, if not consensual.
-Get adults involved only when it is serious.
-Attractive physically is no guarantee of anything. That girl with the long hair could be psycho. The captain of the football team could be a rapist.
-Treat people relatively the same when regarding certain matters. It doesn't matter if you find him unattractive, that does not mean his one time invitation to the prom without any mention of sexual motive is molestation. FFS, stop using molestation and harassment to your advantage.


Uh, sorry, but I don't think your proposed solutions are a good idea. Girls should not be encouraged to stand up to creepy guys. If the guy turns aggressive, they can end up assaulted, raped, or - worst case scenario - murdered.

I get that you don't feel it was fair to you that the situation got escalated to a teacher without you knowing, but I would never advocate for a girl who is feeling unsafe around someone to confront that person directly.

Also, all of your recommendations seem to revolve around what other people should do. You need to learn to read body language and lean to tell when you are making someone uncomfortable even without them saying it in so many words.
Posted 2/21/17

MysticGon wrote:

Takei saying it was okay because he was attracted to the man who molested him is not advocacy, it's excusing the act. That does not make it right. Especially in the legal sense. Fastest way to get a judge to fly off the handle? Tell them that's what the victim wanted. A child's willingness is not even a factor and doesn't make you any less of a predator in the eyes of the law or the public.

Age of consent is different from place to place but laws are laws and just like Piers Morgan found out the hard way by railing on the gun ownership in America, when in Rome. You can't come from Somewhereistan where the age of consent is 8 and go to another country and shag a 8 year old. And you sure as hell can't speak fondly of it without expecting blow black. I can honestly say I'm in the majority when I express disgust with an adult having sex with a child.

If you say "it's okay, that's how they do it where they are from" I'll will absolutely paint you as a sympathizer. Those deserve nothing but condemnation.


So, basically, you attribute some kind of slippery-slope? If you have a fear of being easily swayed by the mere attempt of understanding something, that's your personal problem. It speaks of your weakness, not anyone else's. I'm going to be honest, here; your knee-jerk reactions give the impression of you projecting your own insecurities. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it really does seem that way. Perhaps I have high standards, though, by expecting anyone worth their salt to be more than capable of locking someone up, in spite of any thread of sympathy.
runec 
38558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17

MysticGon wrote:
Takei saying it was okay because he was attracted to the man who molested him is not advocacy, it's excusing the act. That does not make it right. Especially in the legal sense. Fastest way to get a judge to fly off the handle? Tell them that's what the victim wanted. A child's willingness is not even a factor and doesn't make you any less of a predator in the eyes of the law or the public.

Age of consent is different from place to place but laws are laws and just like Piers Morgan found out the hard way by railing on the gun ownership in America, when in Rome. You can't come from Somewhereistan where the age of consent is 8 and go to another country and shag a 8 year old. And you sure as hell can't speak fondly of it without expecting blow black. I can honestly say I'm in the majority when I express disgust with an adult having sex with a child.

If you say "it's okay, that's how they do it where they are from" I'll will absolutely paint you as a sympathizer. Those deserve nothing but condemnation.


Takei didn't say it was right. He told the story and how he felt about it. In a legal sense, again, its not so clear cut and we're not talking about Somewhereistan and 8 year olds. We're talking about America and the thorny legal area of teenagers having sex with each other. R&J laws are a legal attempt to avoid things like charging teenagers with having sex with a minor when both involved are minors. Or charging teenagers with creating child porn for taking a picture of themselves.

Takei's story is also from the 1950 and only involves sexual contact. If you want to get into the legal workings of it at the time it gets pretty ugly. AoG laws get pretty scary the further back you go and didn't even use to apply to boys let alone allow for one male to rape another. I mean Jesus, apparently the AoG was originally 7 in Delaware. Obviously, none of that makes it right but it is important to note the difference in eras and social perception / progression and how that might colour his experiences.

As for everything else, no one here was saying any of that so again it's a bit perplexing that you keep morally grandstanding as if someone was.
24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/22/17

the_zedmeister wrote:

Uh, sorry, but I don't think your proposed solutions are a good idea. Girls should not be encouraged to stand up to creepy guys. If the guy turns aggressive, they can end up assaulted, raped, or - worst case scenario - murdered.

I get that you don't feel it was fair to you that the situation got escalated to a teacher without you knowing, but I would never advocate for a girl who is feeling unsafe around someone to confront that person directly.

Also, all of your recommendations seem to revolve around what other people should do. You need to learn to read body language and lean to tell when you are making someone uncomfortable even without them saying it in so many words.


Hence "only when it is serious".

*Second bullet

I mean, I said "adults" for a reason. This is school age manners I am advocating. Are you telling me that someone is creepy enough to rape someone on the grounds of a school? It isn't really that feasible in such cases, though it does happen, I admit. It is such a rare occurrence I do not bother mentioning it. I suppose it could apply to parties, but such things do not have adults if situations can escalate.

I should read body language, but this doesn't deny the responsibility of people having to stand up for others, or themselves. If it is morally irresponsible to let others suffer from a bully without one taking a stand, or talking to an adult when the situation serious, I see no reason why one isn't obligated to be their own advocate, lest they actually need an adult.

I did not mean silence is consent for all cases, but as a general aphorism for these types of situations. Most of what you get are sex jokes and invitations being taken out of context. A lot of burdening sexuality that comes with adolescence makes it more than unfeasible to not voice these thoughts with other people of one's own age, but you are correct, it can come too far. It can be creepy. Most of these people aren't rapists, and treating person A who looks like Brad Pitt with amorous advances who tells the same joke as Person B with less than stellar looks is an immoral bias, though honestly, it is within a reasonable realm of consent for those people. I wish people were a bit more aware, and by people, I mean school age children.

I am not too sure what you are saying it is wrong with my other thoughts.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/17

aeb0717 wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Takei saying it was okay because he was attracted to the man who molested him is not advocacy, it's excusing the act. That does not make it right. Especially in the legal sense. Fastest way to get a judge to fly off the handle? Tell them that's what the victim wanted. A child's willingness is not even a factor and doesn't make you any less of a predator in the eyes of the law or the public.

Age of consent is different from place to place but laws are laws and just like Piers Morgan found out the hard way by railing on the gun ownership in America, when in Rome. You can't come from Somewhereistan where the age of consent is 8 and go to another country and shag a 8 year old. And you sure as hell can't speak fondly of it without expecting blow black. I can honestly say I'm in the majority when I express disgust with an adult having sex with a child.

If you say "it's okay, that's how they do it where they are from" I'll will absolutely paint you as a sympathizer. Those deserve nothing but condemnation.


So, basically, you attribute some kind of slippery-slope? If you have a fear of being easily swayed by the mere attempt of understanding something, that's your personal problem. It speaks of your weakness, not anyone else's. I'm going to be honest, here; your knee-jerk reactions give the impression of you projecting your own insecurities. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it really does seem that way. Perhaps I have high standards, though, by expecting anyone worth their salt to be more than capable of locking someone up, in spite of any thread of sympathy.


Yeah I'm guilty of not wanting to talk about real life adults plowing real life children, guilty as charged. The same way you may not like entertaining the thought of bringing back the holocaust.
24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
I don't need to explain why it's bad to molest kids, why it's against the law and why it's against modern social consensus.


No, you don't. Which is why it's perplexing that you keep bringing it up as an angle.



MysticGon wrote:
You'd get a quicker answer if you ask a police officer and subsequently a lawyer and judge.

If you want to rationalize what Takei and Milo said then go ahead. Either way you dice it it'll just come off as defending child molestation, even if you use the words of the victims as your basis.


If you asked a police officer about Milo's case he would shrug as Milo was above the age of consent in the relationship he described. If you asked a police officer about Takei's case it would fall under the realm of statutory rape ( in the US ). And, as noted, under modern US law would likely be a year or so off from protection under Romeo & Juliet laws in jurisdictions that have them. Neither of these is legally "child molestation" and in Takei's case in particular you're trying to use a legal basis of extremes. As you are effectively arguing that there's a one year difference between legal and TERRIFYING CHILD MOLESTER.

So your repeated appeal to a legal argument does not hold water.

Now, you can make a moral argument for why it's wrong for some 30 year old to chase a 16 year old boy or an older teen camp counselor to go after a younger teen in his care ( which might fall under an abuse of authority law in some areas ). And I would fully agree with you. But you don't seem to be doing that. You're just lumping everything together into a complete extreme.

Finally, as noted, Takei is not advocating for what happened to him. Milo *was* advocating for what happened to him. So these two things are not on the same level. Takei is describing a personal experience and how he felt about it. Milo described a personal experience and said that all young gay boys should have the same experience he did ( shacking up with an older man ).





I do not mean to derail this, but it isn't surprisingly you would think Mystic would believe that, considering his "a death is a death argument".

*Sigh, it is a completely monstrous and merciless argument that has no place in our system.

I am not sure what I can do or say about Takei. Laws were likely looser back in the day. In any case, what can I say? There was a 13 year old student who married his teacher lover and had kids with her. Should I say "You married a disgusting pedophile! Be More damaged!" I am not even sure he is denying the illegal status of this today, or back then. I feel he is just stating personal feelings regarding the manner, which is why he felt it wasn't molestation as he was attracted to him.

Just as Mystic is treating all murder with the same brush, he does so for other crimes.


llunga 
4605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Mᴇᴡɴɪ
Offline
Posted 2/21/17


I can't listen to this lol
runec 
38558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I do not mean to derail this, but it isn't surprisingly you would think Mystic would believe that, considering his "a death is a death argument".

*Sigh, it is a completely monstrous and merciless argument that has no place in our system.


I am trying to find a point of reason to work with in terms of having an actual discussion. But I can't pinpoint exactly what discussion Mystic is having to begin with.



PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I am not sure what I can do or say about Takei. Laws were likely looser back in the day. In any case, what can I say? There was a 13 year old student who married his teacher lover and had kids with her. Should I say "You married a disgusting pedophile! Be More damaged!" I am not even sure he is denying the illegal status of this today, or back then. I feel he is just stating personal feelings regarding the manner.


Likewise, he shared his experience and his feelings on the matter. He didn't say everyone else needs to get a handjob at 13-14 from a camp counselor. Nothing is accomplished by somehow blaming him for not being more of a victim(?) or whatever the argument supposedly is here. I am genuinely kind of perplexed as to what all the noise in this thread is about.

Sure, we're in an Amys's bait thread but once that initial clickbait is out of the way it should quiet down a bit -.-
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Takei saying it was okay because he was attracted to the man who molested him is not advocacy, it's excusing the act. That does not make it right. Especially in the legal sense. Fastest way to get a judge to fly off the handle? Tell them that's what the victim wanted. A child's willingness is not even a factor and doesn't make you any less of a predator in the eyes of the law or the public.

Age of consent is different from place to place but laws are laws and just like Piers Morgan found out the hard way by railing on the gun ownership in America, when in Rome. You can't come from Somewhereistan where the age of consent is 8 and go to another country and shag a 8 year old. And you sure as hell can't speak fondly of it without expecting blow black. I can honestly say I'm in the majority when I express disgust with an adult having sex with a child.

If you say "it's okay, that's how they do it where they are from" I'll will absolutely paint you as a sympathizer. Those deserve nothing but condemnation.


Takei didn't say it was right. He told the story and how he felt about it. In a legal sense, again, its not so clear cut and we're not talking about Somewhereistan and 8 year olds. We're talking about America and the thorny legal area of teenagers having sex with each other. R&J laws are a legal attempt to avoid things like charging teenagers with having sex with a minor when both involved are minors. Or charging teenagers with creating child porn for taking a picture of themselves.

Takei's story is also from the 1950 and only involves sexual contact. If you want to get into the legal workings of it at the time it gets pretty ugly. AoG laws get pretty scary the further back you go and didn't even use to apply to boys let alone allow for one male to rape another. I mean Jesus, apparently the AoG was originally 7 in Delaware. Obviously, none of that makes it right but it is important to note the difference in eras and social perception / progression and how that might colour his experiences.

As for everything else, no one here was saying any of that so again it's a bit perplexing that you keep morally grandstanding as if someone was.


Yes the past is the past and rightfully so. I guess the best way to convey my thoughts in a way you could relate would be to say the same disgust you may feel when the OP starts to spew his racism in such a casual way that is my view of anyone who tries rationalizing child molestation. There isn't even a starting point for this conversation. Just one-sided condemnation in the strongest of terms.

Edited: for accuracy
runec 
38558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/17 , edited 2/21/17

MysticGon wrote:
Yes the past is the past and rightfully so. I guess the best way to convey my thoughts in a way you could relate would be to say the same disgust you feel when the OP starts to spew his racism in such a casual way that is my view of anyone who tries rationalizing child molestation. There isn't even a starting point for this conversation. Just one-sided condemnation in the strongest of terms.


Well, two things:

First of all, again, no one is doing the thing you are condemning. Which is why it's a bit perplexing.

Second of all, the way you phrased this implies that I would not also feel disgust such towards such a thing. That is neither fair nor called for when talking about a subject this abhorrent.

No one here is A-Okay with child molestation and the implication that they are, intentional or not, is pretty offensive frankly.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.