Originally posted 2022-07-19 17:24:09.
In Asia, South America and elsewhere, boys are likely to become sexually active with older boys and men while in late childhood or adolescence. Where is the evidence that there is harm in sex like this?
Their activity will almost always be as recipients in anal sex. It should go without saying that in cultures where male femininity is tolerated and even admired, the number who turn out to be ‘regular straight folks’ is approximately zero. So is there any harm in sex like this?
By ‘childhood’ I mean ‘prior to puberty’, ie, twelve and before. The present ‘safeguardist’ attempt to suggest that all young people under eighteen are ‘children’ who are incapable of making simple decisions for themselves is a flagrant misrepresentation, once again promoted by those who promote so many bad ideas, the USicans. Humans are evolved to become sexually active around the age of fourteen and while we might reasonably try to protect them from the consequences of that, to brand them as criminals and ruin their lives for doing things they are evolved to do is evil and an abuse of authority.
The vast majority of cases of experimental sex therefore do not involve ‘children’ at all, but adolescents, those between twelve and twenty. We have long accepted that the ability to take responsibility for our actions does not arrive, presumably in a paper parcel tied up with string, on the eighteenth birthday, but develops over a period of years, beginning around twelve. The Gillick-Fraser guidelines encapsulate this understanding very nicely and that is why they have been so widely adopted. It is also why they are so hated by the haggle of feminists, TERFs, ‘safeguarders’ and general anti-sex busybodies, who always see harm in sex.
To give some idea of the absurdity of the ‘safeguardist’ position, in England and Wales today, the age of criminal responsibility is ten. That’s right, TEN. So a ten-year old is sufficiently mature to know that stealing a car and wrecking it is a crime, old enough to make the decision to do so, to understand the consequences and the legal implications, and then be punished under law for doing it, but is still too young to decide whether he should or should not suck his buddy’s cock! Nobody I know ever got harmed by sucking cock, although a few have complained of lockjaw after the event. Doesn’t seem like there’s much harm in sex there.
Regrets? Nope, sorry Frank
In at least some cases the first sexual encounter was definitely coerced, but at the same time, this does not appear to have triggered later regret — rather the opposite. In most cases however, even when the first actual penetration was coerced, the target boys had been performing fellatio and masturbating other boys voluntarily, prior to their first penetration. If they thought there was harm in sex, I don’t think they’d have invited it.
All the baklas (the term for a gay in Luzon in the Philippines) that I have discussed this with stated that after the first encounter, they did not desist but rather sought out more. This was so even if the first penetration was painful, as might well happen with a lover who was also inexperienced.
It appears that their bakla behaviour caught the attention of older males. Eventually, their date with destiny came along and they duly found an aroused member inside their ‘female organ.’ Being pedicated did not make them Homosexual, but being obviously a Homosexual got them penetrated. This was almost certainly affirmative, but that is not the same as causative. It seems that what really happened was that things just went further than the target boys had planned, but that they had in mind all along that it would happen sooner or later, so, shrug of shoulders.
This is in line with Dr Bruce Rind’s observations that the social climate around the boys affects how they perceive the event. Where it is socially sanctioned, it is regarded as inconsequential, a necessary step on the road to being a bakla, which is, for these particular boys, the desired end.
In the Anglo-West, where such behaviour is not sanctioned and actually may be punished, receiving boys may develop guilt feelings which might be at the level of trauma. But is this trauma the result of the act or of the guilt caused by repressive social attitudes?The latter is more likely.
It takes distance to see how completely corrupted the Anglo-West has become, by collectivist and anti-individualistic ideas. In Britain, for example, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) considers ‘harmful behaviour’ to include ‘One or more children engaging in sexual discussions or acts that are inappropriate for their age or stage of development. These can range from using sexually explicit words and phrases to full penetrative sex with other children or adults.’
In other words, just talking about sex, or making a schoolboy joke about sexual organs is enough, in the Fascist Nanny State of New Britain, to get a young person in serious trouble and potentially be removed from the family environment, to become a prisoner of the State or its proxies. (And if ever there were a route to abuse, that is it.) An older brother trying to explain to a younger sibling how sex works, for example, is in this view, ‘harmful behaviour.’ I have no doubt that the agents of the NSPCC, were they to find out about such utterly shocking activities, would be at the house door lickety-split, presumably accompanied by armed police and attack dogs, to take the entire family into custody, never to see each other again.
(Lest you doubt me, the State in Britain has done exactly that on many occasions. The most famous were in the 1980s and 90s, for example the Orkney and Ayrshire scandals, but the leering green-eyed monster of the State has not gone away; it just became more careful.)
Only the State and its agents are allowed to discuss sex, in the Fascist New Britain. Note too, the vagueness of the language, typical of ‘safeguarders’ — aka Nanny-State busybodies. What is ‘an act that is inappropriate to age or stage of development?’ Who decides? Oh, I know, some twat from the Gummint who read a paper from some other twat in some university Humanities Department who doesn’t know if her (it’s always a damn woman) arse is punched, bored or countersunk.
The fact is that boys have been fooling around with each other since we came out of the bloody trees and it is high time that was recognised as a normal feature of human behaviour. There is no harm in sex like this and it’s as unremarkable as water being wet, in almost the whole world. Sex is fun and between members of the same sex it has no harmful consequences, or didn’t until HIV came along. Nobody can get pregnant (we are not about to fall for the kiddology that ‘men can have babies too.’ No, they can’t, nor can adolescent boys.)
It doesn’t ‘make boys gay,’ no matter how much New Gay shills and screaming feminard harpies would like you to think it does. Generations of schoolboy diaries detailing their routine pedication by older boys and how they in their turn, pedicated younger ones, but did not turn out ‘gay’ is proof positive that this is a bogus argument. No harm in sex there, m’lud, just boys fooling around.
In modern traditional cultures where formal pederasty is still practised, despite the incessant efforts of the USA to stop it, there is no suggestion of harm to either party in the relationships (Herdt, Sambians) By the way, to Julie Bindell: I am pretty sure you never sucked a cock in your life, so how would you know it was ‘torture?’ As ever, feminards can’t keep their traps shut about things they know nothing of.
The West today lives under the boot-heel of USican Puritanism and authoritarianism, backed up by social, psychological, economic and military sanctions. That this insufferable arrogance is exported by the Heart of Darkness is the real scandal. Maybe we could just get rid of the USA. Vlad, got a few nukes going spare? We really really need them.