Philosophy Now Forum

Yet, it was important enough to tell your mom, as you sensed something was amiss, even to your innocent six year old mind.

ForgedinHell and vegetariantaxidermy you are both taking things to the extreme for no apparent reason. You don't have to show things up in other people's face, and everything that can be taught or has a reason for being taught can be done so in due time. Taking away their innocence got nothing to do with either rape or pornography (although I must note that I watched pornography from a rather young age and I don't see why this should have been harmful to me ^^). Innocence is a quality from perspective, it is what you see in children who do things always in approval with what you like, for instance, what rules of norms you have for yourself and to which you want others to conform with. Sub-cultures and cultures often support certain perspectives of innocence which all follows the same pattern, and this group-support is majorly what I'm against here. People want others to be vulnerable, to be weak, to be conformative, dumbed down. I don't want people to be that, because that is a danger to themselves, to the people who meet them and to the freedom of all individuals.

Your arguments puts words into my mouth which I of course I would never say, and that's quite rude of you mr. civil guy (ForgedinHell)! A kid might loose its innocence by spotting two weird guys trying to perform some bizarre sexual act, but any non-innocent kid would immediately know that whatever they are doing it probably got nothing to do with oneself, although it could be quite funny to watch. An innocent kid however could be anxious, completely out-of-touch with what is happening, enthralled by the bizarreness, or feeling a sudden need to tell their parents. In other words, innocent kids does not know how to cope with it themselves because they have had a world around them where they are taught into acceptance instead of proper reasoning. They either become anxious because of uncertainty while they know they should do something, they could completely ignore the whole thing whereas it actually is something not to be left ignored, they could (usually from having learned to watch and being told by parents instead of oneself being an active participant in things) just stare and not being able to do anything but continue to stare and wonder about it as if it's magic show, or they could run home to mom and dad and tell about what weird thing is happening in for instance a public park. The non-innocent kid would not treat it as a major problem but would know it is a minor problem, hence it would not seek contact with the two men but would not make itself scared or otherwise personally affected by the happening. Rendering the other people vulnerable, weak and dumb while our non-innocent child manages very well to deal with the situation. What's best? To say any of the former given the options I made you would have to be a pervert or a control-freak to want any of them...

The Voice of Time wrote:ForgedinHell and vegetariantaxidermy you are both taking things to the extreme for no apparent reason. You don't have to show things up in other people's face, and everything that can be taught or has a reason for being taught can be done so in due time. Taking away their innocence got nothing to do with either rape or pornography (although I must note that I watched pornography from a rather young age and I don't see why this should have been harmful to me ^^). Innocence is a quality from perspective, it is what you see in children who do things always in approval with what you like, for instance, what rules of norms you have for yourself and to which you want others to conform with. Sub-cultures and cultures often support certain perspectives of innocence which all follows the same pattern, and this group-support is majorly what I'm against here. People want others to be vulnerable, to be weak, to be conformative, dumbed down. I don't want people to be that, because that is a danger to themselves, to the people who meet them and to the freedom of all individuals.

Your arguments puts words into my mouth which I of course I would never say, and that's quite rude of you mr. civil guy (ForgedinHell)! A kid might loose its innocence by spotting two weird guys trying to perform some bizarre sexual act, but any non-innocent kid would immediately know that whatever they are doing it probably got nothing to do with oneself, although it could be quite funny to watch. An innocent kid however could be anxious, completely out-of-touch with what is happening, enthralled by the bizarreness, or feeling a sudden need to tell their parents. In other words, innocent kids does not know how to cope with it themselves because they have had a world around them where they are taught into acceptance instead of proper reasoning. They either become anxious because of uncertainty while they know they should do something, they could completely ignore the whole thing whereas it actually is something not to be left ignored, they could (usually from having learned to watch and being told by parents instead of oneself being an active participant in things) just stare and not being able to do anything but continue to stare and wonder about it as if it's magic show, or they could run home to mom and dad and tell about what weird thing is happening in for instance a public park. The non-innocent kid would not treat it as a major problem but would know it is a minor problem, hence it would not seek contact with the two men but would not make itself scared or otherwise personally affected by the happening. Rendering the other people vulnerable, weak and dumb while our non-innocent child manages very well to deal with the situation. What's best? To say any of the former given the options I made you would have to be a pervert or a control-freak to want any of them...

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I really don't see how anyone can deliberately take away a child's innocence without traumatising them, and I don't see why anyone would want to. They lose their innocence soon enough anyway, especially in today's environment. And another thing, people who expose themselves in public are forcing others to participate in their perversion. The shock and disgust of strangers is what they get off on. They have no right to involve children in their revolting antics.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

tbieter wrote:DNR officers in Ramsey park find blindfolded man tied to trees, allegedly waiting for sex
By Sarah Horner
shorner@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/11/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/11/2012 11:03:14 PM CDT

Two officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources looking for fishing violations in a Ramsey park Thursday, May 10, stumbled upon someone reportedly engaged in a different kind of illegal act.

The officers found a man blindfolded, with his wrists and ankles bound with rope to nearby trees and his genitals exposed, according to Ramsey Police Chief Jim Way.

The man, Alan David Petrusson, 50, of Pillager, Minn., apparently was waiting to engage in "anonymous sex," Way said.

The incident occurred just after 5 p.m. in Dayton Port Roadside Park, in the 9200 block of U.S. 10 in Ramsey.

"It's not uncommon to see that kind of behavior in this park, or in parks across the metro, really. ... It's a hangout for people into that kind of activity," Way said. "They wait for someone to come by and perform sexual acts on them."

Ramsey police officers conduct random sweeps to monitor for the activity, which often takes place on private properties adjacent to the Ramsey park and involves mostly men, Way said. He added that some people use signals to alert others of their interest in engaging in sexual activity, such as leaving their car headlights on or rolling down their car windows to a certain level.

"There is a whole culture to it," Way said. "My biggest concern is that families and children use these parks."

Thursday's incident led to Petrusson's arrest on suspicion of indecent exposure and trespassing, Way said. Petrusson could not be reached
for comment Friday.

Ramsey police reportedly found Petrusson walking on a path in the park shortly after the DNR officers saw him in the compromised position, Way said. Their identification led to Petrusson's arrest.

Police also found ropes nearby that Petrusson admitted to using to tie himself up with slipknots in order to wait for sex, Way said. Petrusson's car also was found with pornographic materials inside.

Though police have found others engaged in sex acts at the park, Way described Thursday's behavior as "unusual."

Sarah Horner can be reached at 651-228-5539.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... d-man-tied
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/tag/dayto ... side-park/

Why must the public, such as visiting parents with young children, risk such an unwanted encounter with illegal sexual activity in a public park or space? Apparently, the present penalty for the crimes of trespassing and indecent exposure is insufficient to deter offenders. Why maintain a penalty that does not deter such unnecessary offensive public conduct?

Why not gradually increase the penalty with the goal of deterence? I submit that the community should adopt a policy of zero tolerance toward such illegal conduct. Accordingly, the penalties should be incrementally increased until such behavior no longer occurs.

Why worry about such trivialities, exposure to such 'truth' is just that, TRUTH! It's a good thing for all to be exposed to such behavior, so as to see how the others live, I'd consider it a zoo instead of a park. My family like's to watch the animals do there thing, it reminds us of our own animal type behavior, though quite a bit different. While you and I may think that what they do is stupid and selfish so is a law prohibiting such things, the dichotomy of living a lie, via the sword backing the pen, thus negating the truth that knowledge affords. It's wisdom that viewing the truth of the menagerie affords.

It's hardly trivial. Let's just expose children to all deviant behaviour then, because it's the 'truth'. The park is a public place, and it's a matter of common decency and consideration not to shove your sexual preferences in others' faces against their will. I've managed to get through quite a big chunk of my life without being aware of every kind of oddball sexual activity that others get up to. One example is feeders and eaters. I wasn't aware until very recently that there are those who get off on feeding women who are morbidly obese and making them fatter and fatter. I really don't feel that I have missed out on anything by not knowing the 'truth' about what every weirdo on the planet gets up to.
As for your zoo comment, I've often heard there are people who go to the zoo for just that reason. I didn't think it was true. I've never seen anything like that at the zoo. The zoo is not exactly a natural environment for other animals.

No, no, no, i thought I made myself clear, assuming one would focus on 'all' that I said, contextually. I do not go to the zoo to watch animals mate, but if I see such things I do not avert my eyes, snicker or feel ashamed, sex is a most fundamental thing, whatever it's manifestation, and the only version that I have a real problem with is when one uses physical force, or mental coercion, not at the others preference. And no I would not seek out such instances to ensure my children are exposed to such things, but I see that if we happened upon such things, my job as a parent would be to simply answer any questions they might have as to what they had just seen. I would add that there is no accounting for taste or modesty. I see that such a fundamental act as sex is not something to fear, lest you want to be the object of Freudian psychology. It is a fools game to fear something so fundamental to the species as sex. This is not to say that I did not teach my children to be responsible with sex, I see that one should always treat their sex with respect, and be responsible with it to the highest degree. But each to their own, who am I to judge another, I'm just another flawed man that does not need to look down my nose at someone in order to qualify my own feeble existence in life.

The sad fact is, this is acceptable behavior and the likelihood of children stumbling upon this is practically zero. This type of behavior is usually in places well known to the homosexual who seeks out potential participants and these places are not your usual 'park" environment where a family would visit. Well, that is how it works here.

The Voice of Time wrote:ForgedinHell and vegetariantaxidermy you are both taking things to the extreme for no apparent reason. You don't have to show things up in other people's face, and everything that can be taught or has a reason for being taught can be done so in due time. Taking away their innocence got nothing to do with either rape or pornography (although I must note that I watched pornography from a rather young age and I don't see why this should have been harmful to me ^^). Innocence is a quality from perspective, it is what you see in children who do things always in approval with what you like, for instance, what rules of norms you have for yourself and to which you want others to conform with. Sub-cultures and cultures often support certain perspectives of innocence which all follows the same pattern, and this group-support is majorly what I'm against here. People want others to be vulnerable, to be weak, to be conformative, dumbed down. I don't want people to be that, because that is a danger to themselves, to the people who meet them and to the freedom of all individuals.

Your arguments puts words into my mouth which I of course I would never say, and that's quite rude of you mr. civil guy (ForgedinHell)! A kid might loose its innocence by spotting two weird guys trying to perform some bizarre sexual act, but any non-innocent kid would immediately know that whatever they are doing it probably got nothing to do with oneself, although it could be quite funny to watch. An innocent kid however could be anxious, completely out-of-touch with what is happening, enthralled by the bizarreness, or feeling a sudden need to tell their parents. In other words, innocent kids does not know how to cope with it themselves because they have had a world around them where they are taught into acceptance instead of proper reasoning. They either become anxious because of uncertainty while they know they should do something, they could completely ignore the whole thing whereas it actually is something not to be left ignored, they could (usually from having learned to watch and being told by parents instead of oneself being an active participant in things) just stare and not being able to do anything but continue to stare and wonder about it as if it's magic show, or they could run home to mom and dad and tell about what weird thing is happening in for instance a public park. The non-innocent kid would not treat it as a major problem but would know it is a minor problem, hence it would not seek contact with the two men but would not make itself scared or otherwise personally affected by the happening. Rendering the other people vulnerable, weak and dumb while our non-innocent child manages very well to deal with the situation. What's best? To say any of the former given the options I made you would have to be a pervert or a control-freak to want any of them...

You calling me "rude"? Hell, I was just trying to remove your innocence.

reasonvemotion wrote:Yet, it was important enough to tell your mom, as you sensed something was amiss, even to your innocent six year old mind.

well i knew that one should not run around naked in public and should only touch oneself down there in private

so I told my mom not because i was scared or anything it was just weird and children will usually report anything out of the ordinary

the police was called and in my mind the purpose of police expanded from catching bad guys to catching bad guys and people who run around naked in public - it did not occur to me that the naked people are a subset of the bad guys

i still remember the police officer - a very stern looking african american man who would have been played by morgan freeman if this was a movie - trying to get me to describe the suspect

i told him he was fat and naked and playing with his wiener and I was giggling uncontrollably as i told him that

he asked me if he was white or black or mexican and i told him he was white

then i proudly told him that i knew that the real word for wiener is penis

i have no idea if they eventually caught the guy

ForgedinHell wrote: You calling me "rude"? Hell, I was just trying to remove your innocence.

okay, now you made me laugh, and I'm gonna leave it at that. Good one, I got your point

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I really don't see how anyone can deliberately take away a child's innocence without traumatising them, and I don't see why anyone would want to. They lose their innocence soon enough anyway, especially in today's environment. And another thing, people who expose themselves in public are forcing others to participate in their perversion. The shock and disgust of strangers is what they get off on. They have no right to involve children in their revolting antics.

People are just disgusted if they are taught to or have been given otherwise reason to react that way. It's not natural to view the complexities of human social-psychological thought as disgusting least you have something for it to be disgusted compared to.

About traumatization I would on the contrary say that it's the fewer cases where a child gets traumatized. Traumatization is when something happens that children are completely or largely incapable of coping with. No children are traumatized by sexual education in schools are they? A child can very well know what all the different things are and able to reason about it without ever having encountered it in natural environments, and natural environments that aren't pushing the different capacities of children would neither prove traumatizing.

Whether or not a child copes with something depends upon parental skills at creating a child-mentality and an environment for the child which enables a progressive (but preferably not hasty) process of understanding the many different aspects of life. The sooner you become frank about where babies come from (but doesn't "push" excessive knowledge onto the child, but explore the subject in a person-to-person form of way where you know when the child is achieving a stage of full-form understanding so you can enter a new stage in the complexity of different factors that leads to this) the sooner children will find things like this simple non-complex subjects, and very much copable.

Statistic

Human trafficking is a $32-billion industry worldwide.

Personally, the thought of my child being abducted, never to be seen again and most probably subjected to horrors beyond my imagination and then murdered, is a torment I could not endure.

Sexual Acts, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or whatever the fucksexual you wish to nominate, have extended way beyond normal expressions. Trafficking is a multi billion industry and children, I believe should be taught the dangers of this. To see a child walk casually by a pevert masturbating in public and think, it is ok, he is expressing his sexuality, is madness.

How are children procured. Abduction.

and for Women

There are many causes of human trafficking to Australia. Project Respect argues that the demand for trafficked women in Australia is fueled by:
1) a lack of women in Australia prepared to do prostitution; this was interesting
2) 'customer' demand for women seen as compliant;
3) 'customer' demand for women who they can be violent towards;
and 4) racialized ideas that Asian women have certain qualities, for example that they are more compliant and will accept higher levels of violence.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/australia

A couple I knew had their small child abducted whilst living in Hong Kong. Never to be seen again.

What emotional wreckage they have to endure. Never.............. to heal.

reasonvemotion wrote:Statistic

Human trafficking is a $32-billion industry worldwide.

Personally, the thought of my child being abducted, never to be seen again and most probably subjected to horrors beyond my imagination and then murdered, is a torment I could not endure.

Sexual Acts, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or whatever the fucksexual you wish to nominate, have extended way beyond normal expressions. Trafficking is a multi billion industry and children, I believe should be taught the dangers of this. To see a child walk casually by a pevert masturbating in public and think, it is ok, he is expressing his sexuality, is madness.

How are children procured. Abduction.

and for Women

There are many causes of human trafficking to Australia. Project Respect argues that the demand for trafficked women in Australia is fueled by:
1) a lack of women in Australia prepared to do prostitution; this was interesting
2) 'customer' demand for women seen as compliant;
3) 'customer' demand for women who they can be violent towards;
and 4) racialized ideas that Asian women have certain qualities, for example that they are more compliant and will accept higher levels of violence.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/australia

A couple I knew had their small child abducted whilst living in Hong Kong. Never to be seen again.

What emotional wreckage they have to endure. Never.............. to heal.

Human trafficking has absolutely nothing to do with the article, and to assume that a homosexual that ties himself to a tree, no less, is somehow involved in such activities is ludicrous. Do you really profess to know why those that abduct children or women do so? I'm thinking money. Are you really such a 'psychologist' that you can generalize what types of perverts, or more specifically which particular individual pervert, out in the open, no less, is prone to abducting someone, after telling everyone, via his actions, that he is a bit of an exhibitionist. No, I say we have to worry for our children and young women when it's one skulking in the darkness in the security of his windowless panel van. That's what you should warn you children about, not some homosexual tied to a tree with his pants around his ankles screaming, "Sex Me," "Sex Me," See Me, I'm desperate, for someone, anyone, to screw me. And that in fact, it's he that had better worry, as he's there tied to the tree, vulnerable, because if a murderer, a hater, walks by, he might just get the final screwing of his life.

I mean who doesn't hate people that hate and kill, I know I do, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about exhibitionism, public nudity; basically it's about the stationary form of streaking. We'll call him a modeling nude, not too far removed from those found in university art class's around the globe. Was his name David per chance? Pardon me, I seem to have forgotten.

I understand what you are saying.

My thoughts progress further and if we become complacent to overt sexual desires in public without concern for who may wander by then we must take responsibility for what happens next. Yes, Spheres sometimes there is a next, a progression, nothing stays the same. You take a hit, that is ok for a time, but you want more, you need more to excite and so it progresses.

I can't be complacent about these practices, how do you think people become abductors, dont you think they sample who they "take". It is about money and SEX. Everything has a beginning and then a progression and I am surprised you would be so naive and then an end. There are people in this world who take what they want and obviously do what they want without thought or consequence.

There are some bad people in this world and you should know this already.

Also, your casual attitude to "streaking" I think, is considered a sexual offence in your country, although I am not certain on that.

Voice of Time

A kid might loose its innocence by spotting two weird guys trying to perform some bizarre sexual act,

Do you really think so?


Do you really think that because a child might witness sexual acts, their innocence is lost. They might have watched their parents, or secretly flipped through their brother's Penthouse mag or watched a porn movie, like VoT at a young age. That does not constitute loss of innocence. Loss of innocence, is it not, actually stuff like loosing one's virginity, by the physical act of intercourse. Cast your minds back to that time of your life. Was it not when you actually experienced intercourse that a change in yourself occured, both physically and mentally. There would be a difference in the loss of innocence if it was lost via violence or taken without consent. That constitutes abuse, accompanied by loss of innocence.

A child can stand on the sidelines and view this stuff, but still retain innocence. He/she will easily be embarressed by such things, even if they have witnessed it, like Kayla did, when she witnessed the guy in the park. Remember how she said she was giggling when telling the police officer her view of the event. This experience didnt affect her deeply, only on a superficial level. The real difference is actual experience, as it is with most things in life, that makes the change within us, not just "seeing" but also experiencing with all our senses.

Yeah yeah, ms. RvsE, that's why I said "might" because it just leaves the possibility. First thing is, kids can use what they see and try it out themselves, and while kids remains innocent in some peoples eyes, conservative adults would most likely freak out at seeing their kid strip another kid down and bind it to a pole or whatever, I myself would find that quite disturbing at some level, and I'm very liberal.

It's no catastrophe, the kids aren't traumatized or anything, but it is kind-of over-the-top don't you think? Not that any such thing is likely to happen, that it's more likely than the likelihood of gaining any other disturbing habit, but it can happen and what if the kids like it? Then you better live on the country-side because it's not a viable play anywhere there's other people living! Unless you live on some naturalist place or something...

The Voice of Time wrote:Yeah yeah, ms. RvsE, that's why I said "might" because it just leaves the possibility. First thing is, kids can use what they see and try it out themselves,

i dont think any of the kids who witnessed the masturbator doing his thing with his thing had any urges to try masturbating in public

any child over the age of 3 could clearly understand this what the man was doing was not acceptable behavior