by Dreams End » Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:24 am
If it is possible to genetically determine wants, desires, attitudes and emotions, then we are nothing but machines...and this depresses me. I choose not tot think this is true...for my own sanity if nothing else. Therefore, tongue in cheek or not, programs to weed out "pedophiles" by genetic means are not feasible.<br><br>Like the drug war, the establishment has its own uses for the "war" on child sexual abuse. For example, the CIA et al have lots of dirty pictures of various politicians and businessmen. Video, I'm sure, with the young victim saying clearly into the camera: "No, for the last time, I'm only 14." Cut, print and write up whatever bill you need passed, for you now own a Congressman. I think that Franklin S and L exposed a bit of the network that does that sort of thing.<br><br>Also, who can object to registering "sex offenders" or biometric tracking? Naturally, they are simply tuning up these techniques on those society rather unanimously condemns (publicly anyway) but I'm sure those techniques will be utilized on others in the coming days. Great way to keep track of "terrorists." <br><br>This is completely independent of the current discussion about the "morality" of pedophilia, just an observation about how it works in society as a method of control .<br><br>In addition, a man trying to lure a young boy to his house for sexual purposes...that's bad. However, a network of child sex slaves....that is a whole other kettle of fish. The Finders, Boys Town, Larry King, the kidnappers of Johnny Gosch, traffickers in foreign children (so much easier to keep "off the books" don't you know). I still haven't seen much to prove there is an actual project Monarch which "programs" kids to be sex workers, but I'm not sure you need such "programming" for this network to operate. If you start them young enough, the combination of fear and survival instincts will do the rest. (I think of the Franklin Cover-up kids...they seem to be in touch with each other and to tell others what's going on, though only privately. This suggest they work consciously, though I think Noreen Gosch said that her contacts feel they have been programmed for something later. ). <br><br>That there is such a network is clear, though how extensive it is, I don't know. That's why the Finders case was one of those, as I looked into it myself, that really opened my eyes. Despite the fact that they went into the memory hole later, the Customs Agents saw memos about "procuring" children internationally, as well as a lot of photos which I simply took to be material for "catalogues" of the type Noreen Gosch said she was shown in Congressional hearings. <br><br>As for "elite" backing of pedophilia in movies and such. It's hard to know. We are not being honest if we suggest that young people, even fairly young children, do not have sexual feelings and experiences. I can recall sexual fantasies at age 4 and "playing doctor" by age 6 or 7. And be clear, playing doctor was a sexual experience, and I think a very natural and common one. <br><br>So, how do we acknowledge the sexuality of children, give them messages that keep them from being ashamed of their bodies and sexual feelings while at the same time keeping them safe from predators and even their own bad decisions? Well, NOT talking about sex is certainly not the way. My mom told me that she never got the "talk" from her parents and the first time she French kissed a guy, thought she could get pregnant. That's not dangerous, but the reverse is: "You won't get pregnant if....(insert myth here...my favorite is "drink Mountain Dew.") <br><br>So childhood sexuality is real. Childhood sexual abuse is real. Are we suggesting, despite these things, that our art forms should be "banned" from tackling these subjects? (I haven't seen the films listed in another thread, so I can't comment on those.) <br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
