So I saw this thread of libcom.org about Hakim Bey being a supporter of NAMBLA and how anarchists should completely ignore him, how hes sick, twisted, and how anarchist publishers should ban his books. What the fuck? This sounds more like a Nazi forum than anything concerning "freedom". I'm not going to defend pedophilia, but to disregard and even censor Hakim Bey for his personal likes (or dislikes) is absurd. Habermas tried to do the same thing with Heidegger since he never apologized for being pro-Nazi during Hitler. We should not be denouncing whole philosophies due to perceived "character flaws".
See for yourself how sad the anarchist community is...
http://libcom.org/forums/current-affairs/hakim-bey-american-anarchists-and-paedophiles
Hakim has not abused anyone.
Hakim has not abused anyone. More people need to distinguish between thoughts, words, and actions. And anarchists of all people should oppose thought-policing, no matter how unsympathetic are the first victims.
I believe Hakim's point was
I believe Hakim's point was that de-sexualized children is a totally victorian invention.
M
That we know of?
That we know of?
It's not the "Forum" Dammit,
It's not the "Forum" Dammit, Anyone could have posted it. People could have posted it here, too. You're just using this to attack libcom, I'm sure. I support libcom.org, but whether Hakim Bey is into that stuff is, honestly, rather pointless and I wouldn't have bothered to criticize the guy for that reason. But you realize that in an anarchist forum ANYONE can say what they like.. or does having the wrong opinion make us nazis? (I think being a Nazi makes one a Nazi. Being "nazi like?" well, its a bigger issue..)
NAMBLA has gone around to the capitalist/market rule "libertarians" for political support years ago and for a time they had a foothold there until they were disowned. Then they went around to the anarchists and tried to get support there. When anarchist bookstores and distributors refused to carry their stuff, they complained about it. Bey's feelings about sexual freedom are probably shared by a lot of libertarian-minded people, like chomsky or richard stallman, and all the rest, but they present their position on it in different ways, or have differing degrees of opinion based on various contexts (and it renders what they say about it useless if you ignore this context). Some are more tactful than others. It is acceptable (if ultimately cowardly - we only have one life, one youth, one chance to be truly happy and free) to simply remain quiet about it, lest the witch hunters come to set you on fire.
I challenge you to tell me that position that article is more nazi-like than the "South Park" episode that presented NAMBLA members as child rapists and deviants (and my understanding is the South Park creators support the Libertarian Party position). Lets see you take on that? But no, South Park's too big a deal to criticize, and they would probably claim they did it in the name of being "politically incorrect" which every right wing nazi and capitalist has used as a badge to say pretty much any stupid thing. (or, perhaps in this case they did it to be politically correct? everyone is PC on their own terms, it's just the other guy who gets the pejorative label - whatever it may be.)
The point here is that people have a lot of reasons to freak out when this issue comes up. Most western Europeans are Christians of some kind, or so exposed to christianity that they have a deep psychological fear or sexual freedom and "deviancy". The issue of young people having sexual freedom is one that, like killing someone's pet or hitting on their lover can get you killed - regardless of the ethics concerned. The state of the world and society RIGHT NOW is that most people are either too scared to admit they believe in sexual freedom, or they are whipped up into a fury over the very idea. Some peopel actually are outraged by it, and some people act like they are outraged to draw attention from themselves. The mind of the person afraid of sex becomes a mazelike psychological labyrinth, intertwined with the "norms" of society, fear of real or imagined punishment, etc. Ultimately the reasons for someone attacking Bey over this could be just about anything. It's a pretty complex issue because once sex becomes taboo it becomes complicated. But I assure you that libcom.org is not the only place you will find fear of young people having sex (with older people or otherwise) .. like homosexuality and "deviancy" itself, it hides within every corner and recess, within authoritarian and democratic and even libertarian places (such as they exist today). It is all over the place, like an epidemic. Fear of sex, like extreme love of sex, (they dance together like lovers in the moonlight in the minds of the people at large and in our culture) is an epidemic. Our society has to fundamentally change before people can talk about this issue without becoming hysterical. Sorry. The closest we came was around 1970-1974 when there was serious beginnings of exploration exploration into the freedom of children... but that's all been forgotten - freedom for kids is officially defined as demanding their parents purchase commodities, and being goaded along by commercial entertainers, or learning to be "good" via the religions. It will take a real, vibrant social movement for real fundamental human freedom this to change.
The only "thoughtcrime" I can actually think of that Bey has been called on (besides that silliness mentioned above) is when he wrote that technophiles and primitivists were fundamentally similar, so he proposed a union of the two. This caused him to be excommunicated by John Zerzan, who was outraged by the idea. (And once CAL Press stopped talking about him and Mondo 2000-style techno-drug-psychadellia went out of fashion Bey faded from most people's view.)
My personal issue with Bey was that he made up new names for stuff that already existed, and he pontificated about this or that in ways I didn't find very interesting. Other than that, I think the guy's innocent and should be left alone.
As for NAMBLA, I think they make themselves an easy target.. but at the same time, I think that it's possible that by being brought up in a society that isn't based on consent or equal power in relationships (we're raped economically by market rule, and religion twists us - and this we grow up with as a normal state of affairs), it might be impossible to have any kind of officially sanctioned stuff like that actually work anyway - so to officially try to make it possible, when it's better when it's just an accident - one of those things that happens and doesn't go bad, you remember it, but you don't go trying to "set it up". This is just an opinion though and as far as I am concerned ultimately people should be able to do their own thing so long as nobody gets hurt.
-too lazy to log in
"The point here is that
"The point here is that people have a lot of reasons to freak out when this issue comes up. Most western Europeans are Christians of some kind, or so exposed to christianity that they have a deep psychological fear or sexual freedom and "deviancy". The issue of young people having sexual freedom is one that, like killing someone's pet or hitting on their lover can get you killed - regardless of the ethics concerned. The state of the world and society RIGHT NOW is that most people are either too scared to admit they believe in sexual freedom, or they are whipped up into a fury over the very idea. Some peopel actually are outraged by it, and some people act like they are outraged to draw attention from themselves. The mind of the person afraid of sex becomes a mazelike psychological labyrinth, intertwined with the "norms" of society, fear of real or imagined punishment, etc. Ultimately the reasons for someone attacking Bey over this could be just about anything. It's a pretty complex issue because once sex becomes taboo it becomes complicated. But I assure you that libcom.org is not the only place you will find fear of young people having sex (with older people or otherwise) .. like homosexuality and "deviancy" itself, it hides within every corner and recess, within authoritarian and democratic and even libertarian places (such as they exist today). It is all over the place, like an epidemic. Fear of sex, like extreme love of sex, (they dance together like lovers in the moonlight in the minds of the people at large and in our culture) is an epidemic. Our society has to fundamentally change before people can talk about this issue without becoming hysterical. Sorry. The closest we came was around 1970-1974 when there was serious beginnings of exploration exploration into the freedom of children... but that's all been forgotten - freedom for kids is officially defined as demanding their parents purchase commodities, and being goaded along by commercial entertainers, or learning to be "good" via the religions. It will take a real, vibrant social movement for real fundamental human freedom this to change.
The only "thoughtcrime" I can actually think of that Bey has been called on (besides that silliness mentioned above) is when he wrote that technophiles and primitivists were fundamentally similar, so he proposed a union of the two. This caused him to be excommunicated by John Zerzan, who was outraged by the idea. (And once CAL Press stopped talking about him and Mondo 2000-style techno-drug-psychadellia went out of fashion Bey faded from most people's view.)
My personal issue with Bey was that he made up new names for stuff that already existed, and he pontificated about this or that in ways I didn't find very interesting. Other than that, I think the guy's innocent and should be left alone.
As for NAMBLA, I think they make themselves an easy target.. but at the same time, I think that it's possible that by being brought up in a society that isn't based on consent or equal power in relationships (we're raped economically by market rule, and religion twists us - and this we grow up with as a normal state of affairs), it might be impossible to have any kind of officially sanctioned stuff like that actually work anyway - so to officially try to make it possible, when it's better when it's just an accident - one of those things that happens and doesn't go bad, you remember it, but you don't go trying to "set it up". This is just an opinion though and as far as I am concerned ultimately people should be able to do their own thing so long as nobody gets hurt."
-too lazy to log in
you talk sense, i like that. yeah, very shitty damaged situation we live in.
-lord rambler
heh. thanks. Oh, and when I
heh. thanks. Oh, and when I wrote "like extreme love of sex" I guess I meant obsession. There's no need for sex to be an obsession when it's not a big deal. When it's made a big deal, through taboo, it (can) become obsession.
-too lazy to log in
I think its less his
I think its less his character flaws and more that he connects anarchism and pedophilia in his writings. If I were in the distributors' position, I'd refuse to sell anything that links the two ideas but I'd have no problem putting out the rest.
What is your position on anarchist distributors not selling books by National Anarchists?
Refusing to sell books
Refusing to sell books connecting anarchism with pedophilia is still setting an objective morality that marginalizes the dissident voices (such as that of Hakim Bey). Should publishers not sell Bookchin's work because he connects "lifestylism" with anarchism? How far can we go? Where do we draw the line of what is acceptable and whats not? And is this even anarchistic at all?
I'm not totally sure of what you mean by 'National Anarchists', but I'll assume you are talking about the Nazi anarchists (a decent example as well if not what you stated). I think that anarchist distributors should sell the works if they are in their interests (i.e. if people will actually buy them). It would be strange to see someone like AK Press start selling books by Milton Friedman, this would not be in their interests. However we should not discriminate based on moralist agendas. How could there be any literature if we ever followed this rule? How many great figures would have been killed? Well, Jean Genet, William Burroughs, Charles Bukowski, Spinoza, Descartes, Goethe, just to name a few. We would all still be reading John Donne (I don't think Chaucer or Shakespeare would even survive such a world). Actually, that brings up a great point, Shakespeare wrote about sexual experiences with a young boy, should we not publish his works? Once again, how far does this censorship go? And once we give someone the ability to draw the line, the authority to draw it, what shreds of anarchy remain? I think none of it is left, if we do such a thing it would be a return to the judgment of the Salem with trials.
Although in John Donne's The
Although in John Donne's The Good-Morrow there is a reference to sucking on 'country pleasures'...
Man you have a real fixation
Man you have a real fixation for the Salem witch trial time period.
i cant recall mentioning it
i cant recall mentioning it more than possibly once before. and that was because it was an appropriate historical example.
People like it (referring to
People like it (referring to the Salem Witch Trials) because it was one of those times when unofficial, hidden intentions and every-day goings-on of decades and centuries became official, openly sanctioned goings-on. Today's "playful" nerd and misfit hating and bashing is tommorow's trials for deviancy and immorality. Todays denigrated "hysterical" or "uppity" feminist woman is tomorrow's jailed abortion supporter.
wouldn't it simply be up to
wouldn't it simply be up to the distributor what they carry and what they do not? that is simply how i look at it. if i were to put something out that i wanted some distro to carry and they didn't want to carry it, oh well, i would go elsewhere or find some way to put it out myself or post it to somewhere like here. this has been my point when i have chimed in on other debates such as this. i am not too concerned whether AK press carries books by bob black or green anarchy, or anarchy mag gives equal space to left anarchists: these are not my projects. i know for damn sure i wouldn't put out anything by national anarchists if i felt like doing a distro, unless i thought it could have some value to expose recuperation or something and if i were doing that i would probably also be prefacing with my own analysis at that point (or perhaps i'd just work in one from someone else if i were feeling lazy and didn't want to write my own i guess, that would be another option).
-lord rambler
Say what!!! Nazi Anarchists
Say what!!! Nazi Anarchists actually exist within our realm of existence? I didn't even think that was possible!
-Eyedea
yeah and i don't think they
yeah and i don't think they are anarchists...remember national socialism? front groups anyone? recuperation? at least that is how i look at them.
-lord rambler
It's just not your daddie's
It's just not your daddie's KKK any more!
yeah, chappy may have been
yeah, chappy may have been right about how they see themselves and if they leave other people the fuck alone i don't much care about their idotic little visions of community (as always it is a different story if they want to, say, enforce eugenics or the 1000 year riech on people, or are in any other way in the way of what i would desire). but they look an awful lot like nazis to me to and i think they can just fuck off.
-lord rambler
NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF! god i
NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF!
god i hate punk music
Well, originally punk music
Well, originally punk music was SUPPOSED to be hated by most people. Really. We just went through a phase of it going mainstream after 20 years of it being underground, so what are we s'posed to think of it now?
-too lazy to log in, freedom1936
Tastes,fashions or beliefs
Tastes,fashions or beliefs are often pendulous expressions of generational rivalry. gilligan
I think they regurgitate
I think they regurgitate themselves also, as almost new or just short fads.
there are right-wingers who
there are right-wingers who *think* they are "anarchists" because they hate the [socialist aspects of] government. bill o'reilly recently called himself an anarchist! of course he is not, and
anarcho-capitalists" are not either, but they still believe they are. racist social darwinists are not anarchists; they believe in oppression and exploitation to the extreme.
however, i cannot see the same criticism applied to hakim bey. if he wants to link freedom of non-harmful, consentual sexuality with anarchism, i do not see a contradiction there. i do see a contradiction in claiming to be against all oppression and yet partaking in the witchhunting against people with unorthodox sexuality.
I think NAMBLA are sick
I think NAMBLA are sick twisted fucks. I also do not like some people the UCLA represent.
I do believe people have the right to do whatever they want in their minds and with consenting adults. I also like the ideal that the UCLA is based on, that all people have civil liberties and rights to their own whatever (as long as it does not infringe in an authoritarian controlling way).
I do not have to like others opinions or fetishes, I just have to respect they have the right to them, and not try to censor them.
If you coerce or manipulate a fragile age into something they are not sure about then I have a major problem with their ass.
spOOk
why assume coercion or
why assume coercion or manipulation?
actually i know nothing about nambla, but just talking about sexuality in general, i don't think its wise to assume that an age difference necessitates coercion.
The poster above makes a
The poster above makes a good point, but just to add on to it: can't children consent to things as well? Do they have to be legally defined as an adult? I had sex before I was an 'adult'--would you say it was not consensual? Was it a case of statuary rape? This seems to be an overwhelming bias in society today that 'children' can't make decisions. 'Childish' has even become a derogatory term. It would seem that the adult-child spectrum is another bounded category that is asserted by all institutions to maintain a sort of ideological strangle hold on imagination and the power of the youth. I wouldn't go as far as Fourier in my view of liberating children, but our current state is obvious one counter to anarchist goals.
Something I also dislike that is another example of some type of categorical oppression is calling NAMBLA "sick twisted fucks." I agree that coercion is bad, but to simply demonize such men without asking the right questions will only end with continuation of what has happened for so long. What really pisses me off is when people say we should execute molesters or pedophiles. I think the most horrible thing to see is a stronger being controlling a smaller one by force (I wouldn't even watch the abuse scene of Raging Bull). But to just kill off these people doesn't nothing except sell more coffins. The whole prison complex denies this fact: that most 'criminals' that commit such crimes need psychological attention rather than just confinement. Belittling these people and forcing them to play a game will not help them in the long term and it is precisely the logic that these people are "sick twisted fucks" instead of sincere human beings with an issue that maintains the gruesome view we see proliferated today. I'm not saying you support any such things, but it is just something I noticed in other people--but my guess is you may agree with these sentiments.
On another note, are you a libertarian by any chance, spOOk?
I think you are a very
I think you are a very compassionate and anarchist in one bundle,like a roasted marshmellow,,,delicious
Wow Alberto,good luck
Wow Alberto,good luck
I don't quite understand why
I don't quite understand why I would need good luck. Was there something hopeful in my analysis?
No numbnuts,the anon who
No numbnuts,the anon who said goodluck was referring to your interaction with the anon who thinks you're scrumptious like a roasted marshmellow
Those older anarchists
Those older anarchists always seemed a little strange (I'm assuming the writer of the marshmallow comment is dingleberry or whatever because of the style). I'm not too threatened.
Well hoorah,,Albeto wins the
Well hoorah,,Albeto wins the first anarchist trophy for surveillance and blowing the cover of a brother to my personal nomencular
well who are you then,if it
well who are you then,if it be such an issue,if you have no subversive activities to hide,anon (1)
well who are you then,if it
well who are you then,if it be such an issue,if you have no subversive activities to hide,anon (1)
what the fuck...i didnt
what the fuck...i didnt "blow your cover" or anything of the sort. if you want to be incognito that is fine, just dont leave the same trademark when you do so. i figured you just forgot to sign your name, not that you gave a fuck.
My friend Alberto,curiosity
My friend Alberto,curiosity in the glorious post-apocalyptic world awaiting us all does not require signature to systematic records of identity,There was no forgetfulness and I give a fuck,I am a wanted man, not in the danger sense,but that my ideoligy is of a nature that people are liquidated for,freedom is underground,our anarchist muses,they didnt fade away,they died.Listen to Hendrix Live Machine Gun,Nirvana Lithium,The 40 yr cycle is upon us and you leftists dont understand the soul sacrifice involved in being a plain old anarchist,broke anon (1)
the only reason people would
the only reason people would deny consent to youths is that their own view of sexuality is negative. if one thinks of sex in general as "immoral," then one sees youthful sex as "very immoral." but that is bullshit, of course.
Yeah.One of the predominant
Yeah.One of the predominant methods of control is go for the freeist funist goodest(I just add the suffix to streamline the point)things in life and make it into a guilt ridden bad expensive experience.It still basically revolves around the primitivistic pursuit of drugs,sex and R;R,or any loud music to go ape to or just blow the stale cobwebs out of the cranium with.Music is the universal language theoretically one note played at the precise point in time can induce reformation of a meteorlogical event.Then they've got you by the souls use by date tag.anon (1)
"the only reason people
"the only reason people would deny consent to youths is that their own view of sexuality is negative. if one thinks of sex in general as "immoral," then one sees youthful sex as "very immoral." but that is bullshit, of course."
i feel it can be traced to mind/body dualism, the absurd idea of a war on nature, and fear of our own mortality myself, problems that become more acute when we are selling our lives away. it has gotten to the point now where hatred of the body can even dress up as a celebration of it (see also sex as commodity).
-lord rambler
I lean that way at times
I lean that way at times (libertarian) Al, but am not affiliated with any group. I check their news a lot but it is still a political party.
I have not checked anything to confirm NAMBLA; so I may be wrong.
I was told it was Man, Boy, Love, Assoc.
If that is true then I stand by the twisted Fucks comment, for the simple reason; they label man then boy. Boy being the word to mean not adult; Gary Glitter style!
If wrong I will retract it.
spOOk
That's fair, but doesn't
That's fair, but doesn't what you said earlier about people's "right to do whatever they want in their minds and with consenting adults" contradict this abhorrance to the labels of "man" and "boy"?
I've murdered countless
I've murdered countless people in my mind; do I get the death penalty?
If someone tells me they fantasize about non-adults in a sexual manner, I'm gonna kick their ass. If it is in their mind, what I do not know will not get them hurt.
So no, I see no contradiction.
spOOk
yeah i hope your hype doesnt
yeah i hope your hype doesnt lead to decapitation of loving aunt/uncle for their nephews,nieces,you ass kickin vigilanta coffee addict anon (1)
There are sex offenders,
There are sex offenders, many of them pedophiles, throughout the westside of Columbus. There residences are announced to the neighbors when they enter. They are largely isolated on their block, but some are halfway houses for pedophiles, like the one at the end of the street. I fail to see what difference I am making by attacking one after another after another after another and so on of these people.
I don't know if I would call them oppressed in terms of their relationship with children, but they do live very precarious lives with their neighbors and are targeted by the state for their sexual activities. I don't think less of an anarchist for making some sort of analysis of this social situation and coming to the opinion that pedophiles are an oppressed people.
On the flip side, if all we are trying to "liberate" is small segments of people, the pedophile might not ever be free from the disgust within present. I would think an anti-systematic approach would be more personal and not make society wide gestures of moral condemnation. I don't know what the answer is to naivety and personal relationships, but it seems like more is going on than bad people doing bad things.
Yeah. thats what I'm talking
Yeah. thats what I'm talking about. If you just "liberate" pedophiles, or just liberate mentally ill homeless people, or liberate violent criminals, it wont work. You have to change the whole system, the whole society - at the root (and no, most people dying off isn't the answer) .. as it is now, a pedophile can seek individual solutions to their problems, but ultimately it's connected with our society.
And even if society changed, would people change? I do believe most sexual "deviancy" would pretty quickly stop existing if sex were not taboo anymore, but it would probably take a generation or two.. but who knows? Maybe soon people will have technology that allows them to alter their brain some way so they don't desire this or that or don't remember this or that. In a freedom based society such technology would be great. In an authoritarian society it would be pure hell. (For those who love the idea of forcing it on people, there is no guarantee it would be used to make everyone the way you want, and you might find that what the majority wants sucks no matter how much of a jockoid normal white boy you think you are, and ultimately everyone being "the same" could mean we're not inoculated against this or that thing that reality throws at us. For example, if you can force everyone to be prudish, straight and white skinned, how long would such a society be stable? And if it was for a certain number of centuries? And then collapse into disaster or extinguish the human race? This situation wouldn't be some Internet forum where people can talk shit about whatever they want, this would be the real deal.) On top of that it could just be really really boring.
I read a lot of rage and words of power and destruction from the folks condemning pedophiles or whatever outright, but from a scientific or ethical position I would say, let's ask some questions and find out what the facts are. Not simply about human sexual behavior but about the nature of desire and the whole purpose of it, and why there would be variations in it that can be considered so reprehensible, and what other precedents their are for this.
If emotions are all that control our decisions, that is basically barbaric. Of course, emotions are real, and emotions are what will walk up to you and smash your face (or threaten to on the Internets, lol), so we better pay attention to emotions.
One thing does become apparent. On one side of this "argument" you have the threat of force and violence. The victim and victimizer become one in the sense that the victim is so upset, they now have the psychic energy to commit any act against a person once they have good reason to, no matter how ghastly, no matter how extreme the torture (quick and painful... or long, slow years of isolation and lack of social contact)
You have the person who has actually been sexually molested or raped, who may live with shame and anger and can't ever have normal relationships, or if they did recover they always bear this pain inside them. This trauma is real, but it has also affected the ability to reason to some extent, as emotion has taken priority over other types of brain activity. Fear, anger, resentment, hopeless/helpless/haplessness, rage.
For the vengeful we have this victim (whether it was us or not) who we sort of "become" or who we imagine we are shielding (like a superhero) when we feel most angry about this. We imagine we are them or are protecting them, and with this power we can kill anyone. Smash them, destroy them, torture them with relish and glee and still be considered "good", "just" and "right".
From what someone else said about the pedophile communities, it sounds horrible (people forced to scrape a meager existence and live as modern day pariahs), but what I've heard about prison in general, or the lot of the mentally ill, and various places of confinement and punishment the world over, there is no end to horrors and ghastly things for humans to suffer.
Every time I walk around outside, here in America, things seem normal, relaxed. Happy humans. Could there be a great, vast sea of suffering and unhappiness of kinds we can't imagine there at a psychological level? And on the other hand, could our "civilized" society be waiting to explode into justified violence and torture given the chance?
Why are we here in an "anarchist" forum? Because we dream of smashing, or because we dream of love? Maybe some of each? As we can see, we have people here who are upset about Bey's treatment, and at the same time people who are ready to kill any "pedo" or even some person who walks up to them and says "hey, I find you sexually attractive".
-too lazy
I'm with spOOk on this one.
I'm with spOOk on this one. If Hakim even tried to make a move on me I'd fucking make sure he walked away with rearranged facial features, if ya know what I mean. Although maybe no facial features would be better! As long as he keeps it in his damn head, his face will live to smile another day!
Nothing personal, but I'm just not that fond of grown men trying to get in my pants.
To be fair, I wouldn't mind
To be fair, I wouldn't mind reading his books.
Perspective? --- SCUM
Perspective?
---
SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Lesbian Separatist Ally sez:
I hate men. All men should die. If you even think of touching me with your perverted hands I'm gonna bash your face into a jack-o-lantern!
How many women get raped by men? Far larger number than boys by men. Is the oppression of women less than that of boys? Why are all of these personal accounts of wrath being expressed when millions of women and children are being raped by men, yet nothing is being done about it! Are you so special you must give pedophiles bare life but men are still treated as the power in this society? Oh no! the future kings are being warped into pervert monsters! Hate to break it to you but all men are perverted monsters and potential rapists. Maybe men should all be castrated?
---
I sez: Your value system is totally fucked and you are drawing conclusions about others that don't necessarily exist. Just because men like women doesn't mean they want to rape them. In your lesbian separatist community, I can keep my hands to myself. I might appreciate the beauty of a lesbian, but this is not the same as rape. I can interact in your community and I should be able to without feeling like a demon.
I never said anything about
I never said anything about "banning" Hakim Bey, or alienating him. I was simply stating, as an adolescent myself, that if he made the moves on me I"d kill him. I wasn't saying he would do such a thing. Obviously not because for one, I will never meet the man, and secondly, I'm sure he's not some psycho pedophile that hunts down kids and sexually violates them. As long as he doesn't act on his urges *without* conscious and reasoned consent, then it's really none of my business. I didn't mean to come off as some raging moralist who points his finger and says "KILL THE PERVERT".
"I was simply stating, as an
"I was simply stating, as an adolescent myself, that if he made the moves on me I"d kill him."
To reiterate on this statement. I'm of a "conventional" sexuality. So if Hakim approached me in a respectful, and consensual manner then, to be honest, I'd be disturbed, probably a little disgusted, but I would most likely just walk away and refuse his "attempts". I obviously wouldn't "kill him". If he aggressively pursued his goal, THEN I'd beat the shit out of him. If he still made his pursuit in an aggressive and violent manner, then I'd just kill him. Honesty, pure and simple.
My comment below was being
My comment below was being written while this was posted. It still responds to most of what is said, but it seems we agree that we don't need to be unreasonable on this issue.