LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Just teaching them to be literate would be a good start

andyh wrote:
None of that text speak bollocks - lulz

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: I totally agree with you there. What I would say is that the prevailing attitude is that 14, 15 and 16 year-olds aren't capable of being taught this concept, identifying what their boundaries are, or recognising what is coercion. Which I disagree with. And if this is the case, the way to deal with it is not to pretend that 15 year-olds don't have any sexuality and brush the whole thing under the carpet, it's to address the subject head on and equip them to be able to do so.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:

I agree WUB, and it is problematic. I also think this sort of eduction should start earlier, so children are taught about their personal boundaries, but are also taught from an early age that other people have boundaries too. This might be a little radical for the Daily Mail readership though.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I would say that its difficult to teach a teenager much without actually having the 'higher' moral ground to speak from...so to speak

This is the problem with our way of life, media, culture etc.
We basically indoctrinate kids with it from birth so its hardly surprising to expect some strange behaviour from teenagers and for teenagers to even be a little unsure why they feel the way they do

I kinda liken it to the brain having its last gasp at clinging to the straws of rationality before giving it all up and going to work, voting and all that crazy crap. Perhaps even marrying and having their own kids to rinse and repeat with

You're basically right Andy, I think popular culture is very much to blame. You can try and instill good values in your children, but you're fighting against a mightier force.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: It's a tough force to fight against, of this there is no doubt. It makes me laugh as someone who plays video games to see claims that playing violent games has no mental effect on people (which people claim all the time, even though there have been loads of studies with MRI scans that show they directly change brain activity).andyh wrote: I totally agree with you here. I'm sure a lot of teenage behaviour which is seen as 'rebellious' is actually perfectly natural, and it's what they're rebelling against that is a perversion.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yep and perhaps somehow in the transition to adulthood they learn to let go.

Everything affects the brain by the way, every experience we have, be it watching tv, playing computer games, literally every experience we have.

I think perhaps the ingredient we are missing is to spend time in the wild, not many of us get to do that, in fact just about any decent experience costs money, serious money I should say.
We can afford the just over broke stuff like a tv, video game console, 1 trip to benidorm or something...

I think we just get swamped with input and it overloads the senses.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: Instead of letting them spend all day with the tv send them to a convent or sunday school, hmm actually..

I do not think that on the day of a girl 16th birthday everything falls into place and she is suddenly able to deal with the emotional implications of sex - tbh I think it is different for everyone - I also do think that there is pressure put on girls and boys to have sex before they are ready - I would say that young boys in general are not sexualised in the same way as young girls because we still have that 'throw back' to where females were very much thought of as 'possessions' whose entire purpose in life was to be desirable and have children. Its a cynical marketing tool that is utterly offensive but has nothing to do with 'liberal values' and everything to do with making money.

andyh wrote:
It is permissive society that has repeatedly attacked sexual morality and spread both the free sex agenda and worked to have the age of consent lowered (and still do today, to get it lowered to 14). The same liberals who have dominated the arts at least since the war and who probably formed the 'cultural environment' in which people looked the other way as regards Savile and others. The result being an apparent confusion and apathy as regards the sexual exploitation of younger teens, because to question it would be to "impose" your "judgemental" and restricting "morals" upon people...

Consider how the NCCL, which was renamed Liberty in 1989, actively fought to promote the acceptance of sexual abuse of younger teens...and it did so under the leadership of Patricia Hewitt (who would 20 years later be one of Blair's cabinet ministers) and with Harriet Harperson working as legal advisor.

So it is very much the left/liberals that have been at the forefront of the erosion of the protection of children against this sexual predation by making out that it is an attack on liberty to not allow 14 year olds to be sexually active.

Ironic, given that Shakespeare shows "liberal" being used to label someone who has no appreciation of the correct limits of behaviour - so that a liberal could equally mean someone who took liberties...

The only sexual freedom I want kids to have, is the freedom from being prey to fooking perverts.

I'd like to see more sex education, but the kind of sex education that talks about emotions and relationships. For example, talking to young children about the sort of touching that's ok, and the sort that isn't. Placing an emphasis on the fact that if someone touches them in a way that makes them feel confused or frightened, that they should tell a teacher/parent/an adult they trust. Also, I think they should talk about the ways in which abusers could scare them into keeping quiet and bust the myths so to speak.

With older children and teens I think they should talk about what abusive relationships are, and about how they don't have to do anything sexual if they don't want to, and that they can say no. Also, the fact that it's not OK to pressure others to do something they're not comfortable with.

I don't know how much this would help, but I don't see any harm in it. At the moment the subject is a bit taboo, and I think they only way to stop it is to get it out in the open and talk about it. I think this type of ex ed would actually be useful as there's a lot of shame on the victims part when it comes to abuse. Abusers target vulnerable people, and I think this kind of sex education would empower children and young adults.

Gahh, went to edit my post and made another one.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Incorrect.
Do you know why?
Because it is the older societies with more conservative religious values that are having sex with kids.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/ap...hild-abuse-pederasty

Freedom is not about the right to abuse kids, only a twisted wingnut or religious freak would have you believe otherwise...such as savile or a pile of choir boy buggering priests.
Kids did indeed end up having sex at much younger ages in the past here in the UK, the age of consent went UP not down when more 'liberal' governance arrived.
Sure there are probably what the media calls 'liberals' asking for it to be lowered, they're about as 'liberal' as Savile.

Freedom is about responsibility and not infringing on the rights of others. The moment you are in favour of stepping over that line you are no longer a liberal.


Hardly ironic if I want it taken off the curriculum. It would be ironic if I praised him.
Shakespeare was a dick, if I ever got chance to go back in time I'd give him the same piece of mind blackadder did...

andyh wrote:
Irellevant bullshit. That has nothing to do with it.

Which of the hippy generation were Islamic or Christian? None of them, they rallied against the Church.

Were Hewitt and Harperson acting from such when they promoted Paedophilia in the 1970s?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour...pornography-law.html

Is Peter Tachell a Christian or Muslim, yet he too promotes child sex and a lowered age of consent?
www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reite...ower-age-of-consent/
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/liberty...ex-under-16-underage

Desert religions have nothing to do with this.
andyh wrote:
“Liberal” is about being free, which means not being subject to a hierarchy (as a hierarchy imposes upon you, limiting your liberty).

“Left-wing” is about egalitarianism, everyone being equal, and thus is against hierarchy and rules (because that would imply a “superior” that is imposing itself on an “inferior”, and this obviously cannot be egalitarian).

Morals are a form of rule that are imposed, in a hierarchy, by a superior upon an inferior. Telling someone that they are morally wrong is thus anti-liberal.

This all creates a moral confusion and ambiguity, which in turn created an environment where:
1, The age of consent is being continually attack as not being low enough
2, No one dare tell Savile that he was wrong for fear of being called an "authoritarian wingnut" going against "free love".

It's not my fault that liberalism is based on self-contradictory bullshit "repeated" (as Icke would put it) by people who have little grasp of the consequences.

Mr Shiny wrote:
chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?se...arysources&source=38

1885 London, 13yr old girls, no problem.
History is replete with such child abuse and it gets far worse if you turn back the clock a bit.
If you want to note something 'ironic' how about how the journalist there in 1885 did a better job of sticking his neck out than journalists do today, in our so called 'liberal' society.

Morals are not imposed by some 'superior' by the way...lol.
Liberal according to the dictionary refers quite clearly to individual freedom, it does not suddenly become about child rape, torture, murder or the complete disregard for the freedoms of others. If you only have freedom for one or a select group/s then you have the complete OPPOSITE of liberal which is called fascist...
/looks inside shiny's lughole to see if a KOTG has crawled inside.

Do you think tachell is a liberal? lmfao!!
He's a left winger, he tried to run as a labour MP for chrissake...every single time I see example after example of left wing authoritarians from clueless daily mail readers being called 'liberal', its hilarious.

A liberal believes in the right to bear arms...do you see anyone in EITHER the left or right camp in the UK believing in that? Do you even see a single news column about it?

libertarianpartyuk.com/

^There is the only example of 'liberalism' in UK politics. I can't find any mention of them in the media either.

andyh wrote:
Which attitudes came from the same basic idea. I am simply describing the situation now and how the liberal/left are arguing for something that gives these predators the space to operate.

Liberalism is about liberty and equality, and equality itself comes back to freedom as well (you cannot have freedom with a hierarchy, and you cannot tell people that they are wrong unless you have a hierarchy). This is how liberalism gives the space to predators because you cannot tell them that they are wrong without contradicting the basic principle of liberalism (that everyone is equal and none is superior).

Liberalism is self-contradictory. It seeks to force upon “authoritarian wingnuts” the principle that you should not force your values upon others. It seeks to tell people that you should not tell people what to do. Duh!

I was showing, by mentioning Tatchell, how this is nothing to do with Christianity or Islam or whatever.

Mr Shiny wrote:
'Liberals' did NOT give the likes of Savile 'space' to operate...not when not that long ago in London the likes of Savile and many others were openly having sex with 13yr old kids.

Savile did what he did and here YOU are trying to pin the blame on someone or 'something' else.

It kinda reminds me of DIF with the usual complete disregard for what was mentioned in threads, sometimes several times over.
'Liberalism' is about force now