XPost: alt.support.boy-lovers, alt.support.girl-lovers, alt.fan.prettyboy   
   XPost: alt.oyp.norp   
   From: YoureNotWorthy@BendOver.com   
      
   On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:19:17 -0500,  in article   
   ,  Frank McCoy   
   (mccoyf@millcomm.com)  laid themselves atop the sacrificial altar, and   
   recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by *a   
   source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...   
   > In alt.support.girl-lovers "bobandcarole"    
   wrote:   
   >   
   > >The majority of experts believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors.   
   >   
   > By definition.   
   > If by "CSA" you mean "Child Sexual Abuse"; then it *has* to be harmful, or it   
   > isn't abuse!  Of COURSE Child Sexual Abuse is harmful to kids.  ANY abuse,   
   > sexual, verbal, physical, or otherwise is harmful by-definition.   
   >   
   > Now if you leave out the word "abuse", which none of those with an axe to   
   grind   
   > against sex ever will, then "Child Sex" doesn't have to be (and rarely is)   
   > harmful.  Most "children" start having sex LONG before it's legal; and damned   
   > few of them are ever harmed by it.   
   >   
   > This is most especially true; since teenagers, the horniest part of the   
   > population, are still considered "children" by these same so-called "experts"   
      
   Teenagers are NOT the horniest part of the population, Frank.  I recall   
   my teen years, and I wasn't even CLOSE to being as sexually excitable as   
   I am today, at 30.  PLEASE cease with the generalizations and mass-   
   assumptions!  I'm growing tired of them.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > It's a case of DEFINING sex as abuse; and then claiming that *since* it's   
   abuse,   
   > it's innately harmful.  Yet they never see (or at least never admit) to the   
   > circularity of their logic.   
   >   
   > It's about as silly as calling talking to a child as "Child Oral Abuse"; and   
   > saying that COA is innately harmful to minors.  Well, it's TRUE that abusing   
   a   
   > child orally IS harmful ... But that doesn't make merely talking to a child   
   > harmful.  But the logic is the same as that given about sex.   
   >   
   > To swallow that logic however, you first have to buy into the idea that sex   
   > itself is inherently bad, evil, or harmful ... Something that our major   
   > religions have been beating into our minds for centuries; so it's no surprise   
   > that the idea is easily accepted when it comes to children.  If sex is so   
   > harmful to ADULTS (It isn't; but that's the attitude we unconsciously get.)   
   then   
   > how much worse and horrible it must be for "children".  Then we define   
   > "children" as anybody under 18; thus including people who are actually adults   
   > physically and in the prime of their sexuality and sexual interest ....   
   >   
   > It's amazing how STUPID a conclusion can be reached by starting with a   
   > definition that's been deliberately altered to match somebody's fanatical   
   > religious beliefs.  The worst (of course) being "faith".   
   >   
   > But that's another can of worms.   
   > The soapbox is empty.   
   > NEXT!   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)