What is happening these days? Everyone is aping the west only. Urbanization and all are against Indian culture boss. Did you know 2000 years ago there were no malls? What existed 2000 years ago we want to recreate now. What? Progress? All that is western concept yaar! In Indian ethos, we have to always remain in one state forever. Who needs electricity and computers? Did you know 2000 years ago there were no power plants?
Look at west. Just they are sleeping with everyone. No one knows their father also. Hmm what? People in the west love their children and care about their family? Nonsense. Someone told me westerners don’t care about their children, so it must be true. After all they’re westerners man! Just they kick their children out after they turn 18. Is that love? Real love you know is making your children marry whom you want and remote controlling them till you die.
See I will tell you the truth. India you know used to be very great. Women were virgins, people were innocent, no one raised their voice, all elders were respected, and they peed milk and honey. Also when they farted the smell was like a rose. These days if someone passes gas means that’s all!
And what is all this nonsense about freedom? That is a western concept man. In the olden days our ancestors used to live in villages where people poked their noses into every else’s business. Don’t you know that an individual must sacrifice their life for the sake of the group? After all we have reincarnation and all. What is one life? If a person doesn’t accept the diktat of their group leaders means their property has to be confiscated, they will not be allowed to drink from the well, and if they try and form a new life somewhere else means we will make sure everyone else knows also. That is what is called real progress yaar!
Self respect and dignity are all very un-Indian you know. These dirty western people only have imposed this on us. How dare they tell us that our lives are worth something? I tell you my life is worthless! Who are you to say otherwise? And everyone else’s life is also nothing. And Indian Constitution? Just a piece of paper imposed on us by Britishers robbing us of the right to control others. You don’t know only. A document giving people freedom is actually an instrument of oppression! Who wants equality? That is a western concept man!
And blindly we are following. These days women can divorce and all. Did you know in olden days women used to be the property of their husbands? That is true civilization man! Today just they think they own their bodies and are having sex willy nilly. Men? What about men? They can have sex no problem! How you can compare men and women? Idiot fellow. All that is just western propaganda man!
See in olden days a farmer’s son could only be a farmer. What is wrong with that? After all, no one has the right to look for a better life. People knew their place. They would not dare look above themselves and think they can be something more. Just people are born by chance into their line of work means their bad luck boss! Fate and all. Anything else is all western concept. Try and understand.
Also look at their lifestyle. Just they are idolizing Michael Jackson and useless singers. In our land we look up to Mahatma Gandhi and Vivekananda. What? US has holidays for Martin Luther and George Washington and also a holiday for remembering the Holocaust? That and all is meaningless. I don’t know why. It goes against my opinions so I will ignore. Next?
See how west is exploiting nature? Just in the name of development they are razing trees and all. We Indians used to live in harmony with the surroundings. No no I can’t hear you. What are you talking about national parks, and environmental movement, and preservation of forests? That and all err…I don’t know. Forget yaar, forget! Just you need to understand how west is evil. That’s all!
See how in India we have family support systems for old people? In west means they don’t care about the aged. Just they are left to starve and fend for themselves. Eh? What is this “social security” and all? All that is western concept man! Don’t listen to all that. Just they are trying to tempt you.
Don’t get fooled ok?
“which means that you are compromising a child from being able to be freely innocent”
We’ve been through this. Innocence has nothing to do with nudity.
According to who’s authority? You?
In the United States, a child witnessing an act of sex deliberately or even passively can grant the DA/ADA of any region to warrant the perpetrators sexual assault.
Societal harmony–a system of governing laws, right? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Something that is the very foundation of American Law, not even Western law.
Again, are you pro West or anti-India’s status quo? It seems more about frustration than anything else.
In reply to Western Point of View
“We’ve been through this. Innocence has nothing to do with nudity.
According to who’s authority? You?”
If you make strange statements, the onus is on you to provide proof. Not me. There was a time when humans lived mostly in one room areas. Children were fully exposed to sex between their parents. Nothing happened. It’s only prudish morality that states otherwise.
“Again, are you pro West or anti-India’s status quo? It seems more about frustration than anything else.”
Again, it doesn’t matter what I am and my motivations are unimportant. This is not about me.
fairness and equality: you said it yourself. No man has an excuse to hit a woman, and I agree. In an equal society, doesn’t that adage kind of fly out of the window?
Germans and Jews–as far as YOUR concerned, perhaps, but as far as the Germans were concerned, they finally had the freedom to express their Aryanism by destroying the “lesser” population. Completely relevant. As far as the Germans were concerned, ALL JEWS left the German people bankrupt and must be held “individually responsible.”
Societal harmony–no laws? Well Bangladesh doesn’t have too many laws in regards to building codes. What happened there? India’s laws are pretty lax on rape. What happened in Dehli?
It is the government’s responsibility to assure a sense of tranquility and a sense of order. Ever heard the term Law and Order. As opposed to Anarchy and Chaos?
Please elaborate as to why societal harmony shouldn’t exist.
In reply to Western Point of View
“No man has an excuse to hit a woman”
No woman has the right to hit a man either. What’s the point of this?
“as far as the Germans were concerned, they finally had the freedom to express their Aryanism by destroying the “lesser” population.”
Irrelevant because we’re only talking about freedoms that don’t directly harm others. That is what the west is about.
“India’s laws are pretty lax on rape.”
They are? And how is this relevant?
“ease elaborate as to why societal harmony shouldn’t exist.”
When society itself is a myth, how can you have this imaginary “social harmony”?
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad–how can society be a myth? Have you truly lived in a land without laws? India’s laws on rape are considerably lax, yes they are. This is relevant in that it shows what happens when society allows certain things to be more “freely accessible” in this case, rape.
Going to say public sex, scholarly articlese galore will tell you that any child exposed to any form of adult material becomes severely and traumatically damaged. You said it yourself “we’re only talking about freedoms that don’t directly harm others.” With that said, a child exposed to public sex IS directly harmed mentally.
Of course you will throw the good ole “well he isn’t harmed physically.” Does this mean you are allowed to go up to an old person who lacks the capability otherwise and verbally abuse them out of no reason? It goes alonside the same line just because both an elderly person as well as a young person may lack the capacities or avenue to avert themselves from such situations.
So how is society a myth? Human beings don’t exist? We shouldn’t have laws? No order? No one to protect us? We should just live and let others do what they want to those that lack the capabilities to protect themselves (older people, women, children, mentally/physically ill). that is what society is about.
Going back to Germany–guess what. As far as most Germans were concerned, they were not harming anyone. remember, they didn’t view such people as animals, but rather as parasites. Obviously, Western laws don’t really take into account when parasites are being harmed.
You say there is no such thing as society, yet you also state that people shouldn’t be directly harmed. If society didn’t exist, how would it matter if someone were or were not harmed? If society is a myth, why have laws in the first place?
In reply to Western Point of View
“Have you truly lived in a land without laws?”
I didn’t say laws were a myth.
“any child exposed to any form of adult material becomes severely and traumatically damaged.”
To put it politely…bullshit. I saw lots of porn when I was young. No one cares.
“Does this mean you are allowed to go up to an old person who lacks the capability otherwise and verbally abuse them out of no reason?”
Yes. It makes you a jerk, but this is proof that you don’t need laws to prevent something. People naturally don’t do such things.
“Human beings don’t exist?”
Did I say this?
“they didn’t view such people as animals, but rather as parasites.”
Can be scientifically proven to be wrong. Irrelevant.
“If society is a myth, why have laws in the first place?”
How are the two connected? Each individual makes a contract with the state to obey the laws and pay taxes in exchange for protection and rights. What is the need for this “society” nonsense?
We are just a collection of individuals. There’s no need to use new words like “society”.
In reply to bhagwad
you did, but others may not be as fortunate as you are. You have caring parents. You are in a stable household, but what about others. It isn’t all about you you know. right?
People don’t naturally do such things? Umm, have you not heard of the verbal abuse in elderly care homes? Oh right, too bad right? Those old folks can’t report it simply because most of them lack access to the outside world as a result, but too bad, right?
Taxes and obey state laws–apart of the “governing society.” With this in mind, even if you remove term society, because lets be honest it seems you are being more politically correct than anything, you have a collection of individuals under one government, right?
With that in mind, isn’t it in the government’s interest to make sure all of those individuals fairly have access to “life, liberty and the pursuit of property?” That is the West I know.
BTW , proven scientifically? Well science in itself can be manipulated. Germans simply used science to their advantage. They gave human beings certain characterisitcs–blue eyed, blonde hair, fair skin and a certain nose length. Anyone outside of those parameters was considered “sub-human.”
In reply to Western Point of View
“Umm, have you not heard of the verbal abuse in elderly care homes?”
It still makes it rare as a whole compared to the entire population.
“Those old folks can’t report it simply because most of them lack access to the outside world as a result, but too bad, right?”
Are they in prison or something?
“you have a collection of individuals under one government, right?”
A collection of people with the same terms of contract.
“With that in mind, isn’t it in the government’s interest to make sure all of those individuals fairly have access to “life, liberty and the pursuit of property?””
These are already provided in the bill of rights in the US.
“Germans simply used science to their advantage. They gave human beings certain characterisitcs–blue eyed, blonde hair, fair skin and a certain nose length. Anyone outside of those parameters was considered “sub-human.””
And all of it is now debunked.
In reply to bhagwad
Old folks–actually yes. Often times, certain old folks who are sent to certain elderly care facilities are literally treated like prisoners.
http://www.kristv.com/news/griffin-given-4-years-for-elderly-abuse-at-adult-day-care-center/
again, this is not seen in India since there aren’t too many elderly care facilities in the country.
The terms of a contract are still a society–a collection of people under a contract. Whatever way you look at it, it is still be definition a society. You can say a society that is under the same terms of contract.
I don’t understand your next point, as yes they are in there. It is the government’s responsibility that everyone has fair access to the Bill of Rights.
Debunked? yes. Debunked TODAY, not during Nazi Germany. What if another society ends up and saying only Bhanie are superior and all lower castes are subhuman and therefore, do not deserve the same rights and should die?
Sure it was debunked today, but tell that to some dead Jewish kid killed by SS, rigth?
In reply to Western Point of View
“are literally treated like prisoners.”
Already have laws dealing with that then. Next.
“What if another society ends up and saying only Bhanie are superior”
Wrong is wrong. Doesn’t matter past or future.
And once again, let’s end this here.
In reply to Western Point of View
btw, if you are an abused wife and pay your taxes, wouldn’t you appreciate it later down the line if the government you paid your taxes due actually is attempting to help you out and gurantee that you see that your right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of harmony” is beign taken seriously? AKA, wouldn’t you want your government to assure you have access to?
Also, what if you were an elderly person, a child, or a mentally handicapped person? How could you account for “individual responsibility” if your mental/cognitive functions were inferior to say you or me?
Society:A society, or a human society, is a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
Obviously, in the United States, the American society is governed by American law. Saying society doesn’t exist is like saying the atmosphere exists, but the sky doesn’t exist.
In reply to Western Point of View
“btw, if you are an abused wife and pay your taxes, wouldn’t you appreciate it later down the line if the government you paid your taxes due actually is attempting to help you out and gurantee that you see that your right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of harmony” is beign taken seriously? AKA, wouldn’t you want your government to assure you have access to?”
You only have the freedom to pursue happiness. By not reporting the crime, she’s simply not pursuing it. That’s her problem.
“Also, what if you were an elderly person, a child, or a mentally handicapped person? How could you account for “individual responsibility” if your mental/cognitive functions were inferior to say you or me?”
Children an mentally ill people don’t have the same rights as adults.
In reply to bhagwad
you yourself said that children and mentally ill don’t have the same rights as adults. What does this mean? They can’t be treated fairly and with dignity? Does this mean that the people that care for kids and the mentally ill don’t have to feed them simply because they “dont have the same rights as adults?”
There is no “pursue happiness.” Its “pursue property.” A lot of people outside the US make that mistake.
Just like the murdered victim, but not reporting the crime, h/she is simply not reporting the crime and is, therefore, not pursuiting “happiness?”
When people are abused, they slowly lose certain mental capacities. Just like a person who is murdered loses the ability to, well, be alive. An abuse victim may live in a state of utter fear and lack the capacity to call for help. Just like a mentally ill person, right?
Contradictary isn’t it? So I suppose we just shouldn’t care about the mentally ill, kids or abused people right? Let them take care of themselves, right?
In reply to Western Point of View
They can’t be treated fairly and with dignity?
You just made that up. I didn’t say it.
“When people are abused, they slowly lose certain mental capacities.”
Again made up.
In any case, I have other stuff to do. Let’s end this here.
In reply to bhagwad
no i didn’t:
A study of college students by Goldsmith and Freyd[42] report that many who have experienced emotional abuse do not characterize the mistreatment as abusive. Additionally, Goldsmith and Freyd show that these people also tend to exhibit higher than average rates of alexithymia (difficulty identifying and processing their own emotions).
psychological stress means you have lost some sort of mental capacity compared to the average human being.
Regarding kids and mental ill people–they don’t have rights the same rights? The only rights America concerns itself with is Life Liberty and the pursuit of property.
Kids/mentally ill do have DIFFERENT rights, however those must be safely guranteed not only by the government, but also under a guardian as well. This is a requirement, otherwise the state must directly take action. So a child without parents has a guardian–foster parents or the state. Again, something unique to the US and nonexistent in India.
btw, nudity and children?
” Early onset of sexual activity among teens may relate to the amount of adult content children were exposed to during their childhood, according to a new study released by Children’s Hospital Boston. Based on a longitudinal study tracking children from age six to eighteen, researchers found that the younger children are exposed to content intended for adults in television and movies, the earlier they become sexually active during adolescence.”
As such, any form nudity, something reserved for adults, falls under this category.
you mentioned public sex and children. Obviously, children are not mentally programed nor possess the capabilities to understand what sex is. Psychologists agree that exposing chidlren to any form of sexual intercourse is damaging to them. This is why many municipalities place limits on public displays of affection. For example, in some cities, men/women cannot kiss for more than a certain period of time.
To you, Bhagwad, seeing sex isn’t a big deal, Same with me. However, a child does not know what it going on at all and becomes troubled.
With that in mind, isn’t this actually going against a child’s right to “life, liberty?” Someone’s freedom to have sex compromises with that child’s harmony, doesn’t it?
In reply to Western Point of View
“researchers found that the younger children are exposed to content intended for adults in television and movies, the earlier they become sexually active during adolescence.””
So? What’s wrong?
“Psychologists agree that exposing chidlren to any form of sexual intercourse is damaging to them. “
Lol. Says who?
“However, a child does not know what it going on at all and becomes troubled.”
I’m fairly sure I’ve seen my parents having sex as a child. Also extensive nudity. Nothing happened. It’s ridiculous. I already told you that in days gone by, having sex in front of your children was a no brainer.
No one cares. Sex is like going to the toilet or taking a leak. Utterly insignificant.
In reply to bhagwad
well, apparently you are the exception. I guess all must be like Bhagwad then right? Is this about Westernism or “Bhagwadism?”
What’s wrong?
OK, here are some articles with the quotes:
Study suggests that previous childhood sexual abuse and exposure to adult sexual behavior of many sex offenders led to a kind of imprinting in which they repeat same acts onto others.
Eissenman, R. & Kristsonis, W. (1995). How children learn to become sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Behavior, 32, (1), 25-29.
Schimmer, R. (1993). The impact of sexually stimulating materials and group care residents: A question of harm. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 11, (2), 37-55.
Exposure to sexually stimulating materials may elicit aggressive behavior in youth who are predisposed to aggression. Sexually violent and degrading material elicits greater rates of aggression and may negatively affect male attitudes toward women.
BTW, you said it yourself. Children are not mentally mature until they are 18. Why should they be forced to expose to themselves to anything revolving the privates–public urination or sex or otherwise.
Pornography’s Relationship to Child Molestation
In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 percent of those who molested girls admitted to the habitual use of pornography in the commission of their crimes.iii Besides stimulating the perpetrator, pornography facilitates child molestation in several ways. For example, pedophiles use pornographic photos to demonstrate to their victims what they want them to do. They also use them to arouse a child or to lower a child’s inhibitions and communicate to the unsuspecting child that a particular sexual activity is okay: “This person is enjoying it; so will you.”
Now, you will argue that, to bad they’ll get arrested.
Do you really think that if ALL people were exposed to such materials, they grow up and ALL become sexual rapists and the such, it would do the government more harm than good?
Think about it, they lose potential tax revenue, they’ve got to hold them in prison, which in the US costs the taxpayer roughly $40,000/day. How is that feasible?
It seems you are contradictary–you yourself said people are not mature until they are 18. This means they lack certain mental capacities at that point. Who are you to say that public sex doesn’t compromise with someone under that age in terms of trauma?
Could you prove it? I just did above.
So the bottom line according to you is that physical abuse=bad, but mental abuse=perfectly ok?
In reply to Western Point of View
“Study suggests that previous childhood sexual abuse”
Stop right there. This sexual abuse not merely seeing someone naked.
“Exposure to sexually stimulating materials may elicit aggressive behavior in youth who are predisposed to aggression. Sexually violent and degrading material elicits greater rates of aggression and may negatively affect male attitudes toward women.”
Public nudity is not sexually stimulating by itself. Nor is it sexually violent or degrading. Also note a preponderance of “may”. None of this is scientifically beyond doubt.
“Why should they be forced to expose to themselves to anything revolving the privates–public urination or sex or otherwise.”
We don’t protect children from seeing trees right?
“Now, you will argue that, to bad they’ll get arrested.”
What do you think? :D
“Think about it, they lose potential tax revenue, they’ve got to hold them in prison, which in the US costs the taxpayer roughly $40,000/day. How is that feasible?”
Lol, the government cannot manipulate people for its own benefit. You’re forgetting that the people are the masters and the government is the servant.
“Who are you to say that public sex doesn’t compromise with someone under that age in terms of trauma?”
The onus is on you to prove it. And you haven’t.
Seeing someone naked IS defined as adult material, and therefore falls under such parameters.
Scientifically beyond doubt? I just showed you the quotes above. want more?
The government cannot maniupulate anything if it is receiving $0 dollars, right? People are not the “masters.” They are the “subjects” that has elected the government to “masterfully serve them.” Remember, the US doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
Public sex in itself is similar to pornography. How? 2 people having sex while someone else is watching.
Schimmer, R. (1993). The impact of sexually stimulating materials and group care residents: A question of harm. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 11, (2), 37-55.
Exposure to sexually stimulating materials may elicit aggressive behavior in youth who are predisposed to aggression. Sexually violent and degrading material elicits greater rates of aggression and may negatively affect male attitudes toward women.
it may not be sexually stimulating to you, but who are YOU to say it isn’t sexually stimulating to someone else?
Again, children lack the mental capacities to differentiate such things. When you were a child, for example, were you able to explain to me how the world wide web worked? Obviously children lack certain mental avenues we take for granted.
You saw your parents boink. Great, that is fine, but how do you know if another child sees sex in public, it won’t traumatize them the way I outlined above?
Again, the government has to protect its citizens from harm, no?
In reply to Western Point of View
“Seeing someone naked IS defined as adult material”
No it isn’t. Greek statues are not “adult material” by any stretch of the imagination.
“2 people having sex while someone else is watching.”
Not all sex is pornography.
“but how do you know if another child sees sex in public, it won’t traumatize them the way I outlined above?”
Because millions of kids are exposed to sex and nudity and nothing happens.
Anyway, like I said before I’m a bit tired. So let’s end this here.
the closest thing we have to public sex is pornography, since technically anyone can wattch it. Adults are fine but children, well:
Exposure to Pornography Interferes with a Child’s
Development and Identity
During certain critical periods of childhood, a child’s brain is being programmed for sexual orientation. During this period, the mind appears to be developing a “hardwire” for what the person will be aroused by or attracted to. Exposure to healthy sexual norms and attitudes during this critical period can result in the child developing a healthy sexual orientation. In contrast, if there is exposure to pornography during this period, sexual deviance may become imprinted on the child’s “hard drive” and become a permanent part of his or her sexual orientation.xii
Psychologist Dr. Victor Cline’s findings suggest that memories of experiences that occurred at times of emotional arousal (which could include sexual arousal) are imprinted on the brain by epinephrine, an adrenal gland hormone, and are difficult to erase. (This may partly explain pornography’s addicting effect.) Viewing pornography can potentially condition some viewers to have recurring sexual fantasies during which they masturbate. Later they may be tempted to act out the fantasies as sexual advances.
Sexual identity develops gradually through childhood and adolescence. In fact, children generally do not have a natural sexual capacity until between the ages of ten and twelve. As they grow up, children are especially susceptible to influences affecting their development. Information about sex in most homes and schools, comes, presumably, in age-appropriate incremental stages based on what parents, educators, physicians, and social scientists have learned about child development. But pornography short-circuits and/or distorts the normal personality development process and supplies misinformation about a child’s sexuality, sense of self, and body that leaves the child confused, changed, and damaged.xiii
Pornography often introduces children prematurely to sexual sensations that they are developmentally unprepared to contend with. This awareness of sexual sensation can be confusing and overstimulating for children.
The sexual excitement and eventual release obtained through pornography are mood altering. For example, if a young boy’s early stimulus was pornographic photographs, he can be conditioned to become aroused through photographs. Once this pairing is rewarded a number of times, it is likely to become permanent. xiv The result is that it becomes difficult for the individual to experience sexual satisfaction apart from pornographic images.
Most of us find it difficult to talk to our children about sex in general, let alone the harmful effects of pornography, as graphically described in this chapter. We want to protect the innocence and purity of childhood for as long as possible.
Are you saying you want to deny kids their identity and their own harmony?
In reply to Western Point of View
“the closest thing we have to public sex is pornography”
Not all sex is pornography.
“We want to protect the innocence and purity of childhood for as long as possible.”
Oh for god’s sake can we stop harping about this stupid innocence of children? Kids are not so fragile.
Like I said, let’s end this here.
In reply to bhagwad
OH and btw, how do you know that kisd aren’t so fragile? Do all pieces of glass share the same EQUAL forms of integrity? Some glass shatters easily, others not so much. Again, equal versus fair. Maywood versus Brentwood. You said it yourself, some people are taller, darker, smarter etc. In order to be fair, the ruling administration must take all of this into consideration under the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Can children drive? No, they cannot acquire the priveledge (not right, as driving is not a right) to drive. However, children do have the right under American law to have fair access to school to learn. Adults, actually, do not have that right to have fair access to school. It is actually on them.
So not all kids are as tough and rugged as you were Bhagwad. Perhaps some are living in Maywood and get exposed to pornography accidentally. Without a father figure, what would the Maywood child do? The Maywood mother is working 16 hours a day and he is all alone until 9 PM (she cannot afford day care). What then?
If public sex were legal, you would be fine, but wouldn’t it traumatize the Maywood kid more? He already lacks the avenues you had as a child to become quite well adjusted. As the above information I posted regarding the harms of porn mention, the Maywood child may SEVERELY become mal-adjusted. Rather than incarcerate, shouldn’t the government make sure that delinquency does not form? Again, life liberty and teh such. Why else do we even have welfare and other state programs? To help aid those that are less fortunate, right?
Public sex may not be a big deal to you, but to some it can be extremely traumatizing.
In reply to Western Point of View
Enough. This is ideological. You want the government to take care of people. I don’t. We’re leaving it at that.
Nah, lets not, lol
Why can’t I harp? Isn’t it in a child’s best interest to be a child? Just because you don’t think so, doesn’t mean the rest of those individuals who are living under a contract, o I’m sorry, the rest of society, don’t believe so, right?
all of that is from scholarly papers. You asked for proof. I gave it to you. What more can I do?
BTW, kids and trees? There is no evidence that children can be harmed from seeing trees. There is evidence, however, that children’s lack of exercise can lead to Type II Diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.
BTW children don’t understand that not all sex is pornography. Also remember, all pornography involves some sort of sexual act, rigth? Public sex is equal to hardcore pornography=the actual insertion of the penis into the vagina, mouth, anus etc.
quote below:
Dr. Victor Cline, possibly the world’s foremost expert on sex addiction, has this to say on pornography and compulsive masturbation in his classic essay Pornography’s Effects on Adult and Child:
In my experience as a sexual therapist, any individual who regularly masturbates to pornography is at risk of becoming, in time, a sexual addict, as well as conditioning himself into having a sexual deviancy.
A frequent side effect is that it also dramatically reduces their capacity to love. Their sexual side becomes in a sense dehumanized. Many of them develop an “alien ego state” (or dark side), whose core is antisocial lust devoid of most values.
Now lets take this. I’m a scientist and i know a little about carcinogens. If a man is exposed to a carcinogen that binds to his DNA the carcinogen remains in his cells, since he doesn’t grow. However, if a child is exposed to a carcinogen, that carcinogn, since it is in the DNA replicates as the child is growing, which makes this carcinogen much more dangerous. The same applies to Dr. Cline’s statement above.
Child and impression:
Cellular-memory groups are being formed and linked together with other cell groups with great rapidity throughout a child’s mindbody. These cellular memories will act as a pair of glasses through which the child will see herself and the world around her. What happens if during a critical developmental time in a child’s life she is exposed to pornography on the Internet or in some other way? Or what if she is sexually abused by an older friend or relative who has been exposed to and been taught by pornography? Part and parcel with this abuse, cellular memories will be formed in this child that will affect her for the rest of her life. And because the child is so impressionable and at such a sensitive developmental stage, the cellular memories and linking pathways forged will be especially wide and very deeply etched. Hence her future growth and development-especially in the emotional/spiritual and healthy human intimacy vein-may be greatly retarded.
http://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/144
again, you asked for proof.
A child doesn’t know the difference between sex and pornography. Could you ask a child relative of yours what the difference is? Did you know what the difference was when you were 4 years old?
In reply to Western Point of View
Nah, lets not, lol
I was being polite. It has ended.
BTW, the onus is on you to prove to me that millions of kids are exposed to porn and are fine. I’ve provided how a young child at say 5 years old can be harmed. It is on you to show me that millions of children have been studied by scientist while viewing porn and are fine.
In reply to Western Point of View
Nope, this is over.
In reply to bhagwad
Sorry didn’t mean to sound rude. C’mon, you can’t say we didn’t have fun, lol. Honestly though, it was very cool to see your insight. Unlike a lot of other kids on the internet these days you are very intelligent Bhagwad and I do appreciate discussing with you the current status of Westernism.
I’m still open to discuss Westernism and its pros/cons if you change your mind :)
Take care.
Excuse me??? Are you trying to say that exposing a child to porn or sex is different from sexual abuse? Are you out of your mind?
In reply to Vinay
Since when is sex the same as porn?
Also, it seems by your definition that I must have been “sexually abused” as a kid. Can you sexually abuse yourself? :D
In reply to bhagwad
I never asked you about the differences or similarity between sex and porn and neither do I care if there is any. But deliberately exposing a child to either of them is child abuse and is illegal. And here I’m not talking of a child who sneaks up to the computer and watches porn by himself; as in your own case. A child accidentally stumbling upon a sexual act either live or on screen is not sexual abuse. But someone who deliberately indulges in a sexual act in front of a kid or asks a kid to watch a sexual act on screen is abuse.
In reply to Vinay
Most of the problems with sex come about as a result of the big deal everyone makes of it. There were times in human history when people used to stay in one room. Nudity, and sex were not such a big deal. Kids must have seen and heard their parents having sex on a routine basis. No big deal was made out of it.
The intention was not to deliberately expose children to sex, but it just happened that way. There was no question of “abuse”. The idea is not make sex as important as going to the toilet. A regular part of life without treating it as something extra special.
Again, we’re not talking about forcing kids to watch sex. By forcing them you’re admitting that sex is something special. I’m talking about desensitizing us and making sex no big deal.
In reply to bhagwad
Why are you repeating the same thing again? I’m not talking of accidental exposure. If a person flashes himself or completely strips off and starts to indulge in a sexual activity in front of a kid, knowing well that the kid is watching, do you think that should be fine? Of course he is not forcing or asking the kid to watch. But still, he is well aware that the kid is watching. What next do you suggest in the name of desensitizing??? A person stripping a kid and touching him/her all over? Since you say sex is something very normal do you go on to suggest that it is fine to indulge in sex with a kid? Ridiculous!
In reply to Vinay
Wow, you sure read a lot into what I said over there. I said nothing about doing anything with a child, nor did I talk about deliberately flashing or showing anything.
In reply to bhagwad
Since you are so confused about everything, let me ask you simple and direct questions.
1. Do you think it should be illegal to deliberately show a child any sexual act either on screen or live? Yes or no?
2. Do you think it should be illegal to deliberately flash one’s genitals to a child? Yes or no?
3. Even except children do you think it should be illegal to deliberately flash one’s genitals to an unsuspecting adult stranger? Yes or no?
To prevent any confusions regarding the use of the word deliberately above, it is not when a person physically ties up the other person and forces him/her to watch. It is used entirely in the sense when it is a surety that the other person will view the act. Ex. a person watching a sex act on a screen which is simultaneously being watched by a kid without the person asking the kid to watch it or asking him to go away.
In reply to Vinay
If it’s done deliberately and not as a natural course of going about one’s business, then I wouldn’t support it.
In reply to bhagwad
Nobody cares what you support or what you don’t. The simple question is should the above 3 examples be illegal as per the law. And you haven’t answered it. Obviously you have entangled yourself by your previous comments and you will avoid answering this. Btw, how can flashing one’s genitals be going about one’s business???
In reply to Vinay
“Nobody cares what you support or what you don’t.”
Obviously you care since that’s what you asked me. If you can’t be respectful and polite, don’t bother commenting here.
I’m going to comment, however, Bhagwad, if you don’t want me to, thats ok.
Here are a few myths and realities about sex and abuse:
source http://www.forgetaboutdiets.com/trauma/sexualabusemythsandfacts.htm
Myth
If the child acts sexually aroused, or does not complain during the sexual abuse, then it does no harm and could not be considered sexual abuse.
Reality
The body reacts to physical sexual stimulation. This also can occur during sexual abuse. That is not under the child’s control. The child may even enjoy these physical responses. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a physiological reaction. However, it does not mean the child is enjoying the abuse. Most children do not have emotional capability of understanding what is happening. In many cases, the events leading up to the touch may be the child’s only moments of closeness. Children learn to dissociate from an early age. They also can “go away” mentally because the event is confusing. This misperception often hampers the adult survivor’s ability to let go of their feelings of being responsible for past abuse. Remember to ask who really has the power?
Myth
It’s not sexual abuse unless intercourse is involved. There is really no harm in fondling, touching, rubbing, French kissing, mouth kissing, lewd talk, pornography exposure or voyeurism.
Reality
Wrong! All of the above constitute sexual abuse and can have extremely harmful effects on a child.
dosomething.org:
Sexual Abuse
Sexual abuse, which is about 10% of child abuse, is any sexual act between an adult and a child, including both touching and non-touching acts.
Non-touching sexual abuse offenses include indecent exposure, exposing children to pornography, or deliberately exposing a child to a sexual act.
Touching sexual offenses include fondling, making a child touch an adult’s sex organs or any penetration of a child’s vagina or anus by an object that doesn’t have a medical purpose.
Sexual exploitation offenses include engaging a child for the purpose of prostitution or using a child to film, photograph or model porn.
court cases:
Ginsberg v. New York:
In 1968 the Supreme Court held that the government can constitutionally prohibit children from accessing certain types of sexually explicit material that it can’t constitutionally ban for adults. It also noted, per Butler v. Michigan (1957), that the government can’t “reduce the adult population…to reading only what is fit for children.”
take an old parable. The child touching the fire. Even if a child SEEKS to play with fire, it still burns, no matter what. Children, as you mentioned regarding mental maturity, do not know what is good for them or what is bad for them.
In reply to Western Point of View
meaning bhagwad if you don’t want me to comment, i’ll stop. Sorry, i typed that wrong. Meaning its ok and i’m completely fine with stopping these entries.
In reply to Western Point of View
No it’s ok :). As long as it’s relevant to the topic I don’t mind.
In reply to bhagwad
I’m not trying to go off topic or anything, but what I’m tryign to show is that even Western societies don’t truly believe in such statutes as true “freedom of expression” as everythign has limits. As I pointed out, you can be married, but can’t be getting nasty out in public. Not just for the obscenity reasons, but health reasons, exposing kids to such things etc etc. That is why.
But the other stuff was just fun as hell to discuss with ya ;)
BTW, sex and porn. Not all sex is porn, but all porn is sex(ual). That probably makes more sense than anything and all sex is sex(ual). Sexuality has different degrees. Looking at a woman wearing purdah for example can be extremely sexy, and that is only with her eyes exposed.
In reply to Western Point of View
We can debate on what is healthy/unhealthy, and what is harmful/not harmful. But when we talk about freedom of expression, it’s understood that it’s to the extent that it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedoms.
So restricting FoE when someone calls a mob and says “Let’s go burn down xyz’s house tomorrow at 6pm” is not really a violation since it’s linked directly and immediately to a real world violent incident. But if a person says “I hate Muslims/Christians/Whatever” and the government clamps down on it, that’s wrong. That’s something the US does very well as I’d written earlier: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/why-does-only-the-us-get-free-speech.html/
In reply to bhagwad
Freedom of speech, however always has limits. This is recognized by the Court System as well.
As you mentioned, threatening someone violates those limits.
Also: Fighting Words
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”
Libel and Slander is not protected in Free Speech
Also Obscenities:
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection
Also, if someone says something that conflicts with the government’s interest, this is NOT protected udner free speech.
In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.
Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.
Also some common sense limitations as well:
If you live in a neighborhood, it is 3 AM and someone starts shouting at the top of his lungs how bad the Rangooni Muslims are, they obviously have transgressed the limits of Free Speech in that they woke up a lot of people at 3 AM.
This is where “protecting the whole” comes into play. It is fine that such a person may express this, but he’s also woken up a lot of (probably grumpy) people by doing so.
Also, if someone has security clearance, they technically have given up their Freedom of Speech, right? How is this? Well sometimes, even without choice, people must accept some information or face punishment by the government.
Freedom of speech is nice, but severe limits are necessary.
In reply to bhagwad
outside of the US, people think that there are people that express themselves in several ways, but this is absolutely not true.
Take for instance Disneyland. If you are excessively tattooed, even if you “express” yourself, chances are you are not going to be allowed in the park. One cannot argue that “disneyland is preventing your free speech.”
Also, in a public park, if a woman is dressed bizzarely and causes a comotion, that woman is likely to be arrested simply based on nuisance and public obscenity laws. Law enforcement hold this right.
Also, if law enforcement feels that a certain speech will incite a fight, even if fighting words are not explicitly stated, law enforcement has the right to quash the speech. So let us say that there is a protest against blacks and some joker in the crowd is wearing a KKK outfit in front of a black man, law enforcement would deem such as a potentially inciting, and would make the judgement to take such a person in.
Also, treason, of course, is not allowed in the US. if anti-American speech arises to a certain threshold, that person who is stating such things may also be arrested.
Oh and of course child pornography is NOT protected by Free Speech. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), is a precedential decision given by the United States Supreme Court. In the case of New York v. Ferber, the Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.
Obscenities again: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be “outrageous”.
This really is no different in essence to your typical Run in the Muslim country. If anything, the US acts as a better “Muslim” government than the Muslim countries, ironically.
In reply to Western Point of View
Disneyland is a privately owned organization. Freedom of expression only relates to non interference by the government, not by private organizations.
Also, just because there are certain restrictions doesn’t mean that all restrictions are equal. The US is certainly the “most free” country in the world when it comes to freedom of expression.
“Obscenities again: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be “outrageous”.”
This supports my stance.
I made a mistake, Snyder V Phelps was the other way around Westboro actually won that case, simply because they were not seen as “disturbing the procession.” In any case, hate speech is actually NOT protected under special circumstances. Boy I should have read the briefs, lol.
I will tell you my honest opinion as a Muslim. If somone is bashing Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alahi wasallam) its on them. My honest opinion would be that this “dude is acting like a typical khafir and will burn in hell.” Harsh? Yes, but hey, its on him, right? No biggy. I ain’t hurting him and I’m letting him do his thing, whatever. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that may not have the capacity to hold themselves back, whether someone is saying something anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Jew whatever, and thus fights break out. As a governing body, the United States may find it necessary to intervene by essentially stopping the fight from the beginning, and why not? Why let buildings burn, bones break etc?
What the US does is it limits freedom of speech quite well and that is important–finding the limit.
Oh and btw, false advertising is not protected by freedom of speech. Using other’s speech (ie copyright) is also not protected.
Obscenity is protected quite nicely in the US, however:
Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) Upholding the 1991 ruling that nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
public schools can restrict the speech of students. if you are wearing a disruptive type of T shirt, you can be sent home.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) To be obscene, a work must fail several tests to determine its value to society, essentially having “no redeeming social value” to be so declared.
and of course:
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) Defined the power of the FCC to regulate indecent broadcasts, including the so-called “seven dirty words” that could then not be said on TV or radio.
7 dirty words:
the s word
the p-i-s-s word
the f word
the c word
the c sucker word
the m f word
the t word
Those still cannot be said on TV today and will likely not change.
In reply to Western Point of View
Actually the “seven dirty words” thing is old hat.
“The FCC regulations regarding “fleeting” use of expletives were ruled unconstitutionally vague by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on July 13, 2010, as they violated the First Amendment due to their possible effects regarding free speech.”
In general, the terms regarding free speech in the US are the most lax compared to any other nation on earth. Even hate speech is allowed.
The problem with “stopping the fight from beginning” is again assuming that people cannot control their reactions to “outrageous” things. And that violates the doctrine of personal responsibility.
In reply to bhagwad
But isn’t the stop from the beginning a good idea in terms of preventing bad things from occurring. You did mention that the US does not have riots, but I can tell you from personal experience that simply isn’t true. Remember 1992? The LA riots? I was caught in the middle of that and trust, me, it ain’t fun. Not as many people died as say in Gujarat, but the property damage was in the billions (you read that right) and some neighborhoods STILL have not recovered.
Sure the US doesn’t have speech riots, we have sports riots and race riots instead, lol.
Hate speech actually is very much restricted.
THe US is lax compared to other nations, however the US also isn’t stupid. Law enforcement will tell people that if they yell hate speech, the Law Enforcement essentially isn’t responsible for what comes next. It puts their officers in danger.
BTW, if you wanna reply, lets do it on the next page to make things simpler. I haven’t read other comments after this yet, that is why.