Leftist Child Grooming

Reader mode
Captain X said:
They used to censor women's belly-buttons on TV. As in, they thought that was blatantly sexual. :cautious: You'd be surprised what people argue is blatantly sexualized. Fucking John Ashcroft had them cover up a statue of Lady Justice over an exposed breast that didn't have a nipple on it. Ironically, the reason why I started hating the Left like I did is because they reminded me so much of the conservative Christian busy-bodies who also wanted to censor everything.


Good. Because pornography of that type is entirely victimless.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the way to avoid making innocent things illegal because someone got horny by art is to just remove protection of hardcore porn. I can’t think of any classical or older style of art where penetrating is shown instead of just nudity. Basically soft core is fine hard core not.

Also porn isn’t victimless it’s just that the victim is the consumer. So traditional means of policing is stupid people that watch porn and get addicted to it need help not prison. Now punishment of people making porn could be a thing.
 
Captain X said:
No they aren't.
Click to expand...
Not in all cases but you don’t think that those who get addicted to porn or spend money on onlyfans are t harmed by that behavior.

Look I can respect a libertarian perspective of individual freedom and choice. But you have to acknowledge that people will harm themselves and this is one instance of that.

You can argue that people should have the right to harm themselves but you can’t argue that they are not harmed by this.
 
King Arts said:
Not in all cases but you don’t think that those who get addicted to porn or spend money on onlyfans are t harmed by that behavior.

Look I can respect a libertarian perspective of individual freedom and choice. But you have to acknowledge that people will harm themselves and this is one instance of that.

You can argue that people should have the right to harm themselves but you can’t argue that they are not harmed by this.
Click to expand...

this.
 
S'task said:
Again, much of the "modern" understanding of human sexuality is founded on the Kinsey reports. Kinsey had nothing to do with the Long March as far as I can find, his academic careers goes back to the 1920s, before, to my understanding, the Long March even began. His studies took place in the 1940s, again, independently of the academics who fled Germany. Certainly, later developments on sexuality in the 1970s and later from other academics were influenced by the Long March, but the origin point for it had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
My view of the long march, as one where there was no central organization, but autonomous order, means I don't really have an explicit date on which the long march began, just times when it got more powerful. Kinsey could be argued to be lumped in as a forerunner of the march, or excluded.
S'task said:
Another thing I do have to take some degree of disagreement with is the idea that "porn has always been a thing". This is... very much not the case? At least in the sense of its accessibility and amount. Porn as images really only became popular in the later 20th century when printing methods began allowing for highly detailed pictures to be printed in mass. There was a boom of "Men's magazines" featuring images beginning in the 1950s due to those print advances and even then, porn was something you had to actively seek out and was in more limited supply compared to the internet where it's just a quick search away. Those who say we are in uncharted waters when it comes to porn are not wrong, and there is starting to emerge evidence that porn is subject to the hedonism treadmill and that that can end up severely fucking people up.
Click to expand...
No, porn has existed for long before then. From paintings on walls in Pompeii, to the Karma Sutra, porn (I'm including pictures and writing) has existed for a long time.

There's a whole wikipedia page on it, but basically it's been an incredibly popular thing to buy for any who could afford it, so as the costs associated went down, the amount available went up.

Even in relatively common use, engravings etc made it far more common, and that there were laws in the 1860s Victorian England against obscene stuff says that it started far earlier than the 20th century.

King Arts said:
Not in all cases but you don’t think that those who get addicted to porn or spend money on onlyfans are t harmed by that behavior.

Look I can respect a libertarian perspective of individual freedom and choice. But you have to acknowledge that people will harm themselves and this is one instance of that.

You can argue that people should have the right to harm themselves but you can’t argue that they are not harmed by this.
Click to expand...
A victimless crime is one where all parties can consent. So yes, porn, drugs, etc all count. CP doesn't, because a kid can't consent. You are allowed to consent to harm to yourself, such as doing extreme sports.
 
Abhorsen said:
My view of the long march, as one where there was no central organization, but autonomous order, means I don't really have an explicit date on which the long march began, just times when it got more powerful. Kinsey could be argued to be lumped in as a forerunner of the march, or excluded.

No, porn has existed for long before then. From paintings on walls in Pompeii, to the Karma Sutra, porn (I'm including pictures and writing) has existed for a long time.

There's a whole wikipedia page on it, but basically it's been an incredibly popular thing to buy for any who could afford it, so as the costs associated went down, the amount available went up.

Even in relatively common use, engravings etc made it far more common, and that there were laws in the 1860s Victorian England against obscene stuff says that it started far earlier than the 20th century.


A victimless crime is one where all parties can consent. So yes, porn, drugs, etc all count. CP doesn't, because a kid can't consent. You are allowed to consent to harm to yourself, such as doing extreme sports.
Click to expand...
Also irrelevant. This had nothing to do with crimes. Captain said porn was victimless. But that’s not true the actresses and producers are harming the consumer.
 
King Arts said:
Also irrelevant. This had nothing to do with crimes. Captain said porn was victimless. But that’s not true the actresses and producers are harming the consumer.
Click to expand...
No more than a Sky Diving instructor harms a sky diver. No, the consumer is not a victim of anyone other than themselves, they are a willing participant and need to have the personal ability not to indulge.

You could make an argument that many actresses aren't fully willing in practice, and you'd actually have an argument. But the consumer? They need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
 
Abhorsen said:
No more than a Sky Diving instructor harms a sky diver. No, the consumer is not a victim of anyone other than themselves, they are a willing participant and need to have the personal ability not to indulge.

You could make an argument that many actresses aren't fully willing in practice, and you'd actually have an argument. But the consumer? They need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...
No skydiving isn’t an addictive thing like drugs porn or gambling.

Also porn actresses not being willing is a meme and simp cope to prevent women from taking responsibility. No 99.99 percent of the time women are fully on board having sex for money on camera.
 
King Arts said:
No skydiving isn’t an addictive thing like drugs porn or gambling.
Click to expand...
It's a dangerous thing though.

And if we are going for addiction, now Dunkies and Starbucks are making victims of their customers.

Frankly, stop blaming the supplier for people making bad decisions. This encourages a victimhood mentality, and is just as cringe as blaming systemic racism for not making enough money.
 
Abhorsen said:
It's a dangerous thing though.

And if we are going for addiction, now Dunkies and Starbucks are making victims of their customers.

Frankly, stop blaming the supplier for people making bad decisions. This encourages a victimhood mentality, and is just as cringe as blaming systemic racism for not making enough money.
Click to expand...
I mean I can respect the argument if someone is consistent about it. If you hold the same opinion on hard drugs like cocaine or extasy or heroin,etc. but even if you do most people don’t and do blame the supplier aka drug cartels and gangs.
 
King Arts said:
Not in all cases but you don’t think that those who get addicted to porn or spend money on onlyfans are t harmed by that behavior.

Look I can respect a libertarian perspective of individual freedom and choice. But you have to acknowledge that people will harm themselves and this is one instance of that.

You can argue that people should have the right to harm themselves but you can’t argue that they are not harmed by this.
Click to expand...
I think we have different ideas of what "harm" is. Literally anything done to excess can be harmful. Wasting time on forums like this can be harmful, if one wants to get broad enough in their definition.

King Arts said:
No skydiving isn’t an addictive thing like drugs porn or gambling.
Click to expand...
There are probably people who would argue otherwise. That kind of thrill-seeking is probably about as close to doing drugs that someone can get without actually doing drugs.

King Arts said:
I mean I can respect the argument if someone is consistent about it. If you hold the same opinion on hard drugs like cocaine or extasy or heroin,etc. but even if you do most people don’t and do blame the supplier aka drug cartels and gangs.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: These are not equivalent things.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time and effort on you.
 
King Arts said:
I mean I can respect the argument if someone is consistent about it. If you hold the same opinion on hard drugs like cocaine or extasy or heroin,etc. but even if you do most people don’t and do blame the supplier aka drug cartels and gangs.
Click to expand...
The idea that a user is not responsible for their addictions is the same idea that a black person should get an easier test because of history: self victimization to get an advantage. More, a complete lack of personal responsibility.

Claiming it's addicting is no excuse. Anything that you do that is fun hits the dopamine sensors in your brain and encourages you to do it more. Sugar is addicting. So is caffeine. And I could go on. One should take responsibility for the problems one causes in their life.
 


BREAKING: A Family Court Judge has prevented a 12-year-old boy from receiving 'gender-affirming' treatment and removed him from his mother's custody after determining he does not have gender dysphoria, finding the boy had been surrounded by 'gender-affirming and external influences'.

The mother claimed her son was gender-dysphoric from the age of 6 and started taking him to a children's gender clinic.

Despite no formal diagnoses or consultation with the treating doctor, his mother gave him a female name and socially affirmed her son, including making him wear 'gender-affirming' underwear described as 'small, tight, and padded underpants designed to pressure and flatten his penile area'.

The mother then sought the son to be prescribed puberty blockers, which the father objected to, resulting in court action. There was no formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria from the gender clinic until the commencement of the court case.

The Judge slammed one of the key witnesses in the case, a paediatric gender-medicine 'expert' who for failing to meet court requirements in giving an 'objective and unbiased opinion that is independent and impartial' after she was found to be an advocate for trans people who's preferred model of healthcare for transgender children is 'gender-affirming' care and supported the removal of court authorisation for trans and gender diverse adolescents to receive gender-affirming hormones.

The Judge also found the RCH Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines 'do not have the approval or the imprimatur of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory Government, including any such minister or Department of Health'.

This damning judgment further highlights the need for an urgent national inquiry into youth gender medicine in Australia and a pause on all medical gender transitions for children and young people until this inquiry is complete.

Judgment: https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2025/211.html…


@australian
: https://archive.md/ouxmf

Join over 100+ prominent Australians calling for a public inquiry: https://womensforumaustralia.org/genderinquirynow…

CC
@AlboMP

@PeterDutton_MP


#Auspol
Click to expand...

I'm surprised this managed to happen in Australia, but hopefully it is the sign of a wider pushback.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Back
Top