Barbarian Pederasty

[b]"Everyday I think about being at camp so I can be with the kids, especially this one kid. I think about playing sports with them and hanging out. When I am around him I get nervous and try to impress him…almost like when crushing on a girl. I dont think about him sexually…as in having sex with him wouldnt be my thing…but as much as I hate to say it…if you told me I could see him naked without anyone knowing I would probably say yes…whether its because I am curious as to if it attracts me, I dont know. I want him to look up to me and think I am cool…like a role model or big brother figure. The thought of not working at camp terrifies me. I used to be happy getting theses thoughts because I thought i just really liked kids, but now I am realizing it is bad and my be a sign of something bad.

  • chat site[/b]
    A long long time ago, there were no mothers and also no fathers… kinda like Peter Pan… but instead of Peter Pan, I call it the Lower Pliocene… And instead of being a short fiction… this one’s real, and it’s lasted for about four-million years…

Before the last few decades or centuries, depending where you live, there were no schools and there were no houses. There were no teachers (or camp leaders) and there were no moms or dads either. There was also no punishment or threats, and there were no bribes or rewards too. In those ancient times, people didn’t love and take care of the young because it was their job (youth-worker) or because it was their social structural duty (dad) – we did it because we got increadible joy and meaning from it!

In 399 BC, Socrates was executed for “corrupting the youth”: Socrates never took money for educating, his reward was the intimacy he shared with the boys who were “unbearded”… That system of imitation based on role-modeling and care was how culture was transmitted for millions of years. It survived as the Apprenticeship system in early civilization, and sort of exists today as the School System. In Ancient Greece, free people like Socrates who never took money, and cared for the youth as it’s own reward, were replaced by Sophists: paid educators. Sophists were viewed as having few deep values; their main motive was financial. In Rome, these teachers were known as pedagogues, and they were slaves. The Pedagogues replaced the Pederasts.

Pedagogy replaced Pederasty.

The barbarian system of enculturation that had existed for as long as four million years was displaced by capitalism. This famously happened in the West at the death of Socrates in 399 BC. That’s when free intimate education of youth ended, and the state/family-unit system based on discipline and sallary initiated.

Enculturation of the youth had been motivated for millions of years by the natural rewards of being intimate with young people. Capitalism has slowly eroded the original pederastic system of intimate and imitative culture transmission, and replaced it with a system of animal training based on discipline and punishment, where the reward for both student and also older figure are now token rewards: grades and sallary, rather than care and love…

I’m going to allow this thread, but I would encourage everyone to keep in mind that, in Social Sciences, threads of this nature are subject to special Rules that I have created which should be read at the link below prior to posting:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176235

Yours,
PavlovianModel146

This person is confused. He, I assume, has a crush and brings up the idea of wanting to see the kid naked. This is sexual. I don’t get the point, or likely I don’t think it works as making a point in the post, but at the very least this is an example of someone who is confused (or pretending to be confused and thus dishonent.)

A fantasy figure who refused mothers and fathers and to grow up.

Where there were mothers and fathers.

I don’t think this is true at all. You have to back more than a few centuries anywhere I know of to not have mothers and fathers and families and kinship connections. How you know what their motives were, I do not know.

And sometimes people put their girls out to be eaten by wild animals. They owned slaves. IOW booboos were made, even in the past. Oddly enough.

Can you document this transition? What about, for example, Native americans? the Chinese? And could you link us to some support for the idea that the economic system of Greece (and the rest of the world?+??) changed when Socrates died.

[/quote]
Oh, yeah. Like pedophiles don’t use rewards and punishment on children.

Might as well come right on out and say what you are advocating. I also recommend you interview adults who were previously involved in sexual relationships with adults.

I want to ask about the emotional life of early hominids? The libidinal economy of the pre-tribe…?

We guess that aust.af mothers gave minimal attention to off-spring due to fossil record suggests prompt weening… At some time… allomothering and allofathering developed. With allomothering: all the femals in the pre-tribe would nurse the infant: in modern humans, tetrarchy preceeds metratchy. i.e., human females can breast-feed years before they can get pregnant – and – pregnancy is not required to inititate lactation of females either – therefore, we guess mothering was a group activity.

Yep, sort of.

The admin advised no links… I would suggest to google for works like these from anthro~soc:

Carlos Pérez, Nucleus of Family and Industrial Capitalism

Jamie Heckert, Sexuality as State Form

James Prescott, The Origins of Human Love and Violence

Complex…

Very short bias answer:

Native Americans did use a form of token economy… called by Aristotle “size money”… We used countable money since before ‘out of Africa’…

Native Americans however were not exposed to the 22nd Century drought event (/trauma event) that in some ways leads to the Kazak invasion of Babylon (on horse-back), leading to the colapse of Palace Economy across the Old World about 1000ish BC, leading to the discovery of weight measures (?)… leading to the invention of coining in Lydia in 700 BC… until a lot later – like Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia were also protected from the money tic until more recently…

Many sources suggest pederasty in Native American cultures –

But I’m thinking way way earlier… 4 mya: aust.af, start of classical Lion-King Patriarchy? 3 mya: homo habilis, start of the “Band of Brothers”? (i.e. incest-taboo starts now?), imitation learning and tool use begin? The begining of the pederastic state? 2 mya: homo erectus, brain development is finished by age six, growth rate is retarded for six to eight years; this uniquely hominid life stage is called childhood: 5-11. Allomothering of infants and toddlers 0-4. Alofathering of children 5-11 – usually boys, as girls were busy alomothering from shorly after toddlerhood… Since boys can be loud and obnoxious etc… how were adult males motivated to care for and enculture boys and youth…? What motivated hominids, unlike other species, to not be dead-beat dads? Love. 1 mya: homo sapien, societies tended between Bonobo-like polysexual promiscutiy when the climate was abundant… to very strict patriarchal structure with strict sexual taboos and sexual assignments when the climate is crowded or resources are difficult to obtain.

The history of money in the Old World is one singe contiguous process… what was happening in China was happening at the same time, sort of, in the Mediteranean… continuations of Neolitic money… Communication across the Old World was slow – but steady…

Yes.

Capitalism hijacked the old emotional economy of the pre-tribe creating a kind of global super-organism… Globalism started a long long time ago… Important very recent steps of the story of money and of the memetic evolution of our current sexual-taboo system started in Greece…

Um… According to Pérez, we have today a broad knowledge of the sexual state form of the other simians… And, we have a broad knowledge of sexual state form historically and ethnographically of our own species… therefore… we also can make some anthropological guesses with reference to the fossil record of how we got from the polysexuality of arboreal bonobos, to the capitalist/family-unit heteropatriarchy we find today.

Pedo-bot. Would you like child-arse with your spam…?

=; Smiley says stop right now.

david7----what is your point???

Sorry… I have corrected some of the typos and formatting in my reply to Moreno, I hope my query will be clearer once the Admin has approved the edits…
Check out the Pérez article if you had never previously considered the relationship between incest-taboo and banking…

Another work that comes to mind that expalins in a sorta clear way how economy, sexual-taboo, and punishment form one single drive-engine of the real state is,

Eugene W. Holland, Introduction to Schizoanalysis

Social happenings are understood by guessing about the invisible emotional life: anxiety, neuroticism, anger, insecurity, sexuality, sadness, sensitivity…

Hominid evolution and the emergence of rich culture cannot be understood without a back-to-the-body philosophy à la French Feminism that puts aside all the unfounded interpretation and old categories (of lack and negativity), i.e. the old body capitalism; and – looks gulliblly again at the facts and observable phenomena.

  1. Even if his paper somehow supported men having sex with young boys in some other society, I know first hand how damaging this is for the young boys in this society 2) It is guesswork to assume that the rather radical differences between humans and even their closest primate ‘relatives’ means that we can assume what bonoboes do would be good for us, or ‘really’ what we would do. 3) Most animals do not remotely react to trauma and what makes them uncomfortable with the kinds of long term effects we see in humans. They tend to bounce back. Try using canid or primate dominance patterns on human children, and they do not grow up happy and healthy.

[b]We are not bonobos. For example bonobos do not have homosexuals. So any pederast looking to justify fucking young boys should know they are acting strangely if they restrict their sexual attraction to one age or sex. Get ready to go down on women.

I am sure there are some pederasts who use Socrates as a forefather who are also bisexuals, but they should warn most other members of their clubs that they will be considered capitalist if they don’t have sex with both men and women. It’s so unbonobo-like to only have sex with your own sex. And fetishistic and highly capitalistic if it is only younger members of that sex.[/b]

So, way more than a few centuries and certain decades ago, when people lived out of doors and the males hunted in groups and life was generally short and had very little to do with modern life. Back then.

Yep, sort of.

This one seems to suggest that mothers, as opposed to what you say, were focused care givers of their children going back hundreds of thousands of years. I see no mention of Socrates death.

pre tribe? The Greece of Socrates is post-tribe.

[/quote]

  1. Even if his paper somehow supported men having sex with young boys in some other society, I know first hand how damaging this is for the young boys in this society 2) It is guesswork to assume that the rather radical differences between humans and even their closest primate ‘relatives’ means that we can assume what bonoboes do would be good for us, or ‘really’ what we would do. 3) Most animals do not remotely react to trauma and what makes them uncomfortable with the kinds of long term effects we see in humans. They tend to bounce back. Try using canid or primate dominance patterns on human children, and they do not grow up happy and healthy. We are not bonobos. For example bonobos do not have homosexuals. So any pederast looking to justify fucking young boys should know they are acting strangely if they restrict their sexual attraction to one age or sex. Get ready to go down on women.

I am sure there are some pederasts who use Socrates as a forefather who are also bisexuals, but they should warn most other members of their clubs that they will be considered capitalist if they don’t have sex with both men and women. It’s so unbonobo-like to only have sex with your own sex. And fetishistic and highly capitalistic if it is only younger members of that sex.

I agree with you, there are no homosexual bonobo. Bonobo are polysexual. Bonobo share sexual expression with males and females, and with adults or juveniles. If I recall… 50% of adult male bonobo coupling is with adult females, the other 50% is with other males or with juvenilles.

The Henry Harlow experiments seemed to show that animals don’t ever fully “bounce back” from trauma. However, horse trainers tell me that six month at pasture is usually enough to heal a horse emotionally… provided the horse isn’t re-exposed to the same trigger.

Yep; because patriarchy is tribalism.


[size=150]Incest-taboo & Capitalism[/size]

The useage of agora in the eight and tenth centuries BC was for Athenians ‘an open place’. By the fifth-century, agora was a market place of “stalls”. Socrates’s conviction and death was an embodiment of the advance of horse training culture across continents. The sexual state form which had previously been the Pederastic State for Hellens (eg Spartans) now became Mediterranean Capitalism: a culturometabolic system based on the insertion of the market place and division of circular society into triangularly related household units. i.e. a bio-political system that now used paid schooling (sophists) and not free immitative barbarian pederasty (“corrupting the youth”) for enculturation.


[size=150]Aristotle & 1400 -1700g[/size]:latin_cross:
v.1

Aristotle was wise; renound for wiseness. But even Aristotle believed some of the silly (and cruel!) prejudices of ancient days. Aristotle actually believed that “slaves” and “women” were lesser, unable to reason, not fully cabable of human becoming, or something. Today we know that both slaves and women are capable of humanity. How Aristotle could have seen things so warped like that doesn’t make any sense. “Slaves” and non-slaves (which are which!?) and women and men (?) have the same brain mass; 1400-1700g. So do Blacks (Greeks) and Whites (Barbarians). And so do kids (6+) and adults. Thankfully not everyone was as daft as Aristotle. Socrates saw through the whole racist, elitist, nationalist, ageist, sexist, logocentric charade. Socrates shewed that little girls and slave boys are fully ration humans.* Plato recorded the whole thing in a comedy called “the Meno”. How could Aristotle have believed he was observing these things? Slave races are mostly the result of bullying; demoralization. Bullying can be overt like a lynch mob, or latent like the way black has dark connotations in English. Some say breeding in slavery affected the biology of New World Blacks. Maybe. But that was just four centuries, and slavery didn’t cause blackness. But for kids, it’s five-thousand times worse: twenty-thousand centuries. Childish. Small. Little. Kidding. Minor. The entire English language conspires to keep the child down! And the small stature of juvenilles is the evolutionary concequence of two-million years of ageist breeding in a gangland patriarchy. Even though Black people have black bodies, Blacks are rational, breathing humans. Even though women have somewhat smaller bodies, fems are still capable of human becoming. Slaves… no comment. And even though girls and boys are small and minor and childish and have little bodies (female bodies some – and black bodies too), kids are yet human. Let’s not judge by outward body shapes, sizes, and colors. Just say “No” to all forms of body capitalism.

  • [size=85]“Corrupting the youth…” Corruption is the old circular economy. The death of Socrates at Athens is the moment in Western History when Meditteranean state capitalist paid schooling displaces the archaic cashless immitation economies of barbarian pederasty.[/size]

[size=150]Aristotle & 1400 -1700g[/size]:latin_cross:
v.2

A long long time ago, there was a very wise philosopher named Aristotle. Aristotle gave many lectures on whole areas of knowledge we still know today, like drama, logic and science.

Although Aristotle was very wise, he still held some of the nasty and mistaken interpretations of those days.

Aristotle believed that women and also slaves were less capable of thinking and feeling like full humans than Greek males were.*

Today we know that women are just the same as Greek men. And although we may not personally know any slaves, we probably believe that people who have been enslaved are still fully capable of whatever it is that humans can do or be.

How could the wise philosopher Aristotle hold an erronous view about the capacity and full humanity of women and slaves?

Because of the radical effects of demoralization.

Humiliation, domination, judgment, threat, bullying, intimidation, exclusion, isolation, etc have a crippiling effect on the will, morale, and even physiology, and mental capability of a person. Someone who is treated like that becomes quickly broken. The mental faculties and memory become impaired and confused, the emotions torturous, and the body succumbs to every kind of stuttering, flinching, restlessness and so on. An observer would easily guess that something inherent is there. But no; all these debilitations are strictly the result of words; situational constructs.

This could be partly why our contemporaries widely believe in the sub-human inferiority of children. Children cannot be informed. Children “are not able to”, etc etc in it’s many forms. Because children have for so long been humiliated, threatened, isolated etc, children are stunted and demoralized. Observing the child-slave race in this state, an observer might be inclined to guess there is something inherently simple, undeveloped, or incomplete about children. The effects of this trauma tend to be long lasting…

Today we know that women and men, Greeks and barbarians, adults and children (6+), and slaves and free, all have full human brain mass (1400-1700 g) and are wholely cabable of bisecting angles as well as the entire range of human actions, thoughts and feelings. A child is a whole.

  • [size=85]Remember by contrast Socrates in Meno demonstrates human accuity in a slave boy.[/size]

[size=150]Adultery & pedophilia-taboo[/size]

The possessive relationship between man and wife is the same type of chattle slavery relationship between parent and child. Man and wife are cruel fictions of patriarchy, eveyone knows that – and so are parent and child.

The division into households that precipitated man and wife, and also parent and child relationships, is basically similar in history and type.* Before the incest based band-of-brothers system, polysexuality and allomothering and alloparenting prevailed, and not husband-wife and mother&father-child.

If someone expresses tenderness and intimacy with another man’s woman, that’s adultery! If someone expresses tenderness and intimacy with another parent’s child, that’s pedophilia!

  • [size=85]Rationality is importantly constructed on the gender binary axis; and also on the parent/adult-child axis: phalogocentrism… adultucentrism: ‘mature’ sexuality as the bar of rationality and personhood.[/size]

:latin_cross:Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race
J.Philippe Rushton and C. Davidson Ankey

Very intriguing. You have balls david.

My main curiosity: do you think you can elaborate, with (yet) more detail, the evolution from “peter pan” to “cheaper by the dozen?”

Especially how the “peter pan” stage was evolutionarily stable (you mention memetics, so maybe you know the concept of evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS)?)

“Back to the body”!

Let’s examine the evidence – the evidence and not the hear-say…

Let’s take some time to look at our own bodies carefully. The physical bodies of men, women and children are the primary sources we have for understanding our society and our social evolution.

This thread is like a game… a detective game… We are really top detectives and we are wanting to solve some mysteries. What we’re not gonna do is a lot of interviews or read much – instead, we’re gonna go straight to the very good physical evidence we have and consider what the bodies are telling us.

To put it really plain… Around 2 or 3 million BC, men started to take some interest in the young. I guess that this was an unintended concequence of patriarchal sexual repression? With few if any females available in a Lion King patriarchy to any males besides the dominant male(s?), the other males began to seek other ways to meet their needs for intimacy…

This bonding between men and children creates an evolutionary feed-back loop that begins from about 2 million BC and has at least three results:

● Childhood appears… Previous to homo erectus there were no children. From 2 million BC, growth rate slows from 10cm/yr to 5 cm/yr in humans aged 5-11. Patriarchy is gangland, so let’s recognize that although there were warm and sunny millenia, 2 mya can also be called the origin time of the ‘child-slave race’.

● The social institutions later known as apprenticeship, fathering, or school are emerging. We see the emotions of love, care and intimacy as being behind this change… Since most males were excluded from intimacy with females due to the Lion King nature of aust.af and habilus patriarchy, these males sought elsewhere to meet their need for intimacy… The unintended concequence being man-child type relationships.

● Complex culture emerges. After a million years of unchanged Oldowan tool making, around about 2 million BC the new Acheulean culture explodes on the scene… Creative and variable, this new culture is resultant of the caregiving relationship that had emerged between man and child with erectus.

What differences are noticed, exactly, between infancy in the homo erectus and infancy (or non-infancy) in hominids that the erectus evolved from?

Which would mean that the lifestyle of Socrates, as far as we know, was capitalist and fetishized. And pedagogical pederasty as a lifestyle - where other sexual partners are marginalized is also a distortion on a level of what you are calling capitalist. And most people, men, that is, who argue for this practice are going against bonobo practice at least as much as married faithful heterosexuals.

[/quote]
The key point is in the comparison with humans. It would be very hard to tell the effects, PTSD wise, of normal bonobo practice on bonoboes. I absolutely believe that animals can be permanently damaged, especially from ongoing trauma - see the changes in male elefant behavior in Africa - but compared to humans, the differences are there. We have more flexible learning systems - and trauma is a kind of learning. Rape a kid and then put him in a ‘pasture’ (with food) and this does not deal with the trauma, remotely.

You may, of course, be a consistent pedophile, who is attracted to both adults and children of both sexes, and thus faithful to ‘our true bonobo sexuality.’ But then you are in a very, very insignificant minority of pederasts, pedophiles, most of whom use such arguements selectively, gaining support for the one thing they want to do, regardless of the hypocrisy. To not mention the exceptional nature of your own consistency AND including a quote from a very confused person, potentially a dangerous one, AND using Socrates as a role model, is misleading at best and utterly confuses whatever rationale you present elsewhere. It comes off hypocritical.

So Greece was pre-tribe, their were not tribes before Greece?

Before erectus there is no childhood. Hominids did and do grow about 10cm/year, from birth until full stature. However, in erectus to sapiens, there is delayed development: growth slows to only 5 cm/year from ages 4 to 11. Other mammals have juvenile stage, as do hominids, but no other mammal has child stage. At age six, the adult teeth begin to errupt and the brain has reached full mass, but the body will remain markedly smaller (and sterile) for nearly a decade: this is not a co-incidence: horses gain 1000 pounds in five years, late hominids by contrast gain only a few kilos per year from 4 through 11. I hypothesize that the evolution of child stage is linked to the emergence of child-caring males, and that looked at empathetically, needs for sexual expression together with feelings of closeness and intimacy were what provoked these developments in social structure and means of enculturation.

Yes, all so-called sexual orientations are merely task-specializations of the patriarchy.

The E.S.S. stuff looks fascinating… seems there are several semi-stable sexual state forms…

I interpret patriarchy as neuroticism… When fears subside, hominids tend toward polysexuality and alloparenting… when stress levels are moderate we see what I’m calling the Pharonic Couple which is associated with incest taboo and market economy… when the environment is (or appears to be) very deprived and stress levels are high, pure Lion-King patriarchy emerges…

Spectrum of Sexual State form:

  • Polysexuality: Warm climates, abundant resources, eg. Tahiti; allomothering and alloparenting, convinience, minimal sexual taboos, minimal hierarchical social structure. Vegitarianism.

  • The Pharonic Couple: Moderate stress levels; semi-permanant male-female pair bonding, territorial household/nuclear-family unit, familism, mothering and fathering, market economy, incest-taboo, adultery-taboo. Animal domestication and agriculture.

  • Lion-King Patriarchy: Percieved high stress and high scarcity environment; Gang-land. Global polygamy. Ownership. Sexual expression is prostitution as the better alternative to rape. Meat economy.

  • Barbarian Pederasty: The Pederastic State could be interprested as a missing-link state form between Lion-King Patriarchy and the Pharonic Couple; or Barbarian Pederasty could be seen as support machinery: for example, pederasty in Mediterranean cultures in the recent past (even today) is a mid-way point for males between the social role of son and the social role of husband.

  • Homosexuality, sadism, asexuality, transexuality: Variably can be interpreted as either support machinery for the patriachy, as components of a laissez-faire polysexuality, or as pathological system failures in a society succumbing to environmental noise…

So most pederasts, the vast majority in fact including, it seems Socrates, have serious problems. And this is all assuming we are just like bonobos, which is, in the end, an assumption.

I’m understanding from your posts here that you had some life-alienating experiences when your needs were not being met, and those memories and associated thoughts have been coming to mind when you are reading and responding to this thread…

I’m wanting to consider hominid evolution from the subjective perspective: “motive”, while staying true to the objective archeological and historical facts. This is not an original project… Reich also considered extending his interpretation of “body armouring” (Reich’s term for what we might call emotional processes and patterns of muscular tension) into the earlier mammal period.

Our thoughts are all made-up fizz of our current time-and-place culture and situation… mostly sadistic trash… our feelings and sensations however go back millions of years.

Are you having a hard time imagining a society based on love and touch, instead of shame and isolation, when maybe for so many of our days, we have mostly only noticed the ticing* of the patriarchy?

  • [size=85]Not a typo. Tic, tic, tic…[/size]

Well, there’s some irrelevent speculation, otherwise known as an ad hominim argument.

Reich had many interesting ideas, quite a few I agree with. This, however, is not a response to what I wrote.

Notice how this is not a response to what I wrote.

So far I see a thread titled Barbarian pederasty - iow having to do with preWestern Civ sexual relations between men and boys, not a female remotely implicit in the title. Then we have Socrates and the very confused male in the OP, both with sexual desires and or relations with boys. yet, the supporting arguments go back to polymorphous sexuality. IOW it seems like a pattern as distorted, in Bonobo/polymorphous terms, as what you are calling patriarchal sexuality is being justified via Bonobo/polymorphous role models. IOW something smells disingenuous here.

As far as shame…great. I am all for avoiding patterns that increase shame or justify it. Intellectualizations that justify patterns that cause shame can also be problematic and there is something very telling in your psychoanalysis of me, where you assume that ‘needs were not met’: iow that something was lacking for me. There are two assumptions in this, at least: 1) that I must personally have experienced something negative and also 2) the very odd assumption that this negativity was a lack, when it is far more likely, given the topic, that it was not a lack but something all too present that would cause the skepticism aimed at your posts. To make this assumption is bizarre and telling given the topic.