Ah, you kid. I did inanely attack with my ‘bullshit metaphor’ comment. But in truth I find this a fascinating discussion and so to fuck it up with needless and feckless aggression would be folly of aristocratic proportions.
Well good man siatd, let’s take this from a purely empirical view of biochemical physiology.
Sexual stimuli is one of the most vigorous biochemical processes in the body, next to perhaps fear.
This is couched in Freudian presumptions but I’ll let it go. Personally I believe boredom is the most powerful driving force in human history, but I’m a mock-Hegelian.
Even though a child may not be cognisant of the parameters of sexual activity from a logical perspective, they are still observers, and observation is the first stage of stimuli.
Nonetheless according to Freud the ‘phallic stage’ occurs normally in children of 3 to 6 years of age. This would indicate that, in some sense of the word, most children become sexual, certainly autosexual if not beyond that, by the age of 6. I’m not defending pedophilia, far from it - I’d happily castrate perverts, chemically or otherwise. I’d prefer chemical castration, there’s a comfortable, clean, modernist aesthetic to it.
Though not sexually mature for procreation, all the necessary components are already in place. I’m certain you agree we don’t grow into our testicles or ovaries, they are there, though latent … to a degree. That a body is not ready for the procreative processes does not mean that those organs that are involved are entirely without activity. If they were completely latent, gender differentiation of children would be quite difficult, until they were stripped of all clothing.
I don’t see that respective sexual organs are particularly fundamental to gender differentiation. Of course, they are the most obvious anatomical feature, though hermaphrodites (a term that originates in medieval latin but has an obviously Greek connotation) pose a question here. I see gender as being more about temperaments than about anatomy, in it’s more basic and immutable sense.
Supplying any mind with sexual stimuli, will activate the natural hormones and endorphins that are intended to occur.
So will masturbation - no? And if Freud is correct (or the vast majority of sexual researchers) masturbation tends to occur well before the age of 10. Again, I’m not equating a 8 year old’s understanding or appreciation of sex with that of a mature 40 year old but nor am I willing to replicate as strict a definition and distinction as is implied (and only implied) by your comments.
And there is the odd freak, Fortean occurence that throws a total spanner in the works
damninteresting.com/?p=236
These chemicals are not isolated to the brain, they are part of the blood network, i.e. siatd’s eyes see a heavenly female form, (whatever that may be in your view), your brain translates those images into chemical information, releases endorphins into your system, including a degree of adrenaline, your heartrate rises, your testicles become stimulated, releasing the male hormone testosterone, you get an erection, and your prostate becomes busy with semen development activity.
Sounds pretty damn cool to me. Sorry to be flip but I got erections when I was a pretty young kid and I’m relatively normal, sexually speaking. Well, within mainstream boundaries, shall we say…
The fact that a male child’s “equipment” isn’t ready to go to the extent of creating procreation material, is not limited by age. The more these instances occur, and the more these chemicals are introduced to the system, the more the body begins to assume it is ready to start procreating. This encourages early puberty.
I can see the connection but I don’t see that early puberty is necessarily a bad thing. It has massive cultural implications, sure, but in terms of a necessary connection…
The inherent problem is, the child’s mind before puberty has not been chemically “rewired” for the adult logic methods, so a confusion is created. Feeling stimulated sexually, without the logic to understand that is what is going on, is an impossible conundrum for one so young. Then the aberrances begin with fear, possibly anger, depression, insecurities, feelings of oddness, dirtyness, etc, etc.
Sure, but all this affects people regardless of whether or not they masturbated at 6 to a picture of some Cuban refugee penetrating a sheep. You do account for this with your closing comment, I suppose.
The end being that giving/forcing this stimuli on a child activates processes that are not intended to occur until such time as the mind can adequately relate. This then, is where the damage occurs.
I think that children’s minds are more flexible in many instances than you are implying. That is not to say that I’m all for libertarian freedom, fuck 12 year olds and horses sort of behaviour or politics, I’m merely questionning the basis for a policy of limitations and censorship.
If necessary, it is likely you can be found some “internets sites” with relevant information … for being “internets sites”.
In my sons case, all other possibilities have been ruled out by default, misogyny does not occur in my presence. Although it is possible that there was a genetic predisposition towards the behavior, that would be far harder to prove/accept.
Sure, I can appreciate this.
You should notice I was clear that pornography is not always the precursor of such behaviors … I clearly stated that it has been show that it definitely can be the impetus.
So, given that we essentially agree we’re left with the question ‘is this enough to justify a politics?’