Jump to content

badpuppy

Regular Member
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by badpuppy

  1. My apologies, yes, incase I am on ignore for you, someone else please to me a favor and tell her my apologies. I should have thought over that better. It's okay Valk, i'm sorry I flipped out on you. It just made me feel so terrible when you said that.
  2. I said I was out of this, but fuck it. It pisses me off that this issue is being so downplayed. A place like Ex-C is supposed to be a place of support for people and ALL the shit they have to deal with from their Christian past including any type of abuse involved in that Christian experience. It's not okay to pretend sexual abuse isn't sexual abuse just because thinking about it makes you uncomfortable or just because it's not someone fingering someone. There are many ways to sexually violate someone. So no. we CANNOT just "agree" that spanking is sexual to SOME and not to others because that entirely misses the point here. Key points for anybody skimming and not listening to me: I'm not saying every person who spanks a child is getting off on it. Nor am I saying every child is getting off on it. I'm saying it is inappropriate touching of a sexual part of the body that isn't consented to. This is not even a debatable topic. Your ass is an errogenous zone. Children are sexual beings. Spanking is sexual abuse. I do not care how anyone wants to justify it or deny it. I understand WHY people want to deny it but it is still deeply wrong and damaging to a great many people, not just as physical abuse but as SEXUAL abuse. It seems like some people seriously do not understand that the buttocks is a sexual part of the body. That kind of sexual ignorance astounds me. It's a private part. (i.e. one of those parts your mommy and daddy told you not to let strangers look at or touch.) It should not be exposed or hit during punishment. Period. I will always stand firm on this and people can deny it forever. And I will consider those people completely backwards. When you say that maybe "sometimes" it's sexual abuse but mostly it isn't... then you're basically blaming the victim. It's like saying there is "something weird or wrong" with the person who reacted in a negative way to it. Like "for some weird reason" it warped someone's sexuality or turned that child on. Like there is something wrong with the KID. No, it isn't some wacko wiring in the kid. It's WRONG BEHAVIOR. There is nothing wrong with me or mudhoney or anyone else who had some issue due to being spanked. It's inappropriate to spank a child, bare buttocks or no. It's humiliating. It's an exercise of power and domination. It's forcefully touching a sexual part of the body, causing pain to a sexual area of the body, against the child's will. While I like my kink as an adult and don't look at my parents as sexual predators it is beyond ICKY to me that most of my sexual identity was in some part shaped by something my parents did to discipline me. To behave as if there was just something "weird" about me to begin with by denying that even normal-level spanking is sexual abuse (no matter whether it damages/traumatizes/twists the kid or not) is just unacceptable to me. My body was violated. My privacy was violated. I was touched in a forceful way in a private area of my body without my consent. It is NOT okay to behave like this is an okay behavior and not sexual abuse. I'm not sure how much more clearly this position can be stated but I question the motives of anyone so dead set on denial who refuses to even read the article I linked. Willful ignorance is pretty annoying, especially when it comes to issues like abuse. For anyone here interested in actual truth on this matter, here's an article by a therapist on the subject: http://naturalchildh...ized-abuse.html The problem here is that to say it might be sexual abuse to some but not to others is to say it comes down somehow to how the kid reacts and that is blaming the victim. You might not see it that way, but it is. To say it's EVER okay for an adult to hit a sexual part of somebody's body against their will is to deny the serious damage this behavior causes many and to pretend it isn't "really" sexual abuse, but just processed that way by some. No. It's sexual abuse. One more question. If someone turned you over their knee as an adult and spanked you (with or without taking your pants down), and told you they loved you but that you needed to be disciplined, would you interpret that as asexual? If you can't view this in a totally asexual way as an adult, why the hell is it suddenly asexual if done to a child? We all know our buttocks are a sexual area of the body. It may not be a "primary sexual organ" but neither are breasts. Breasts, genitals, and buttocks are all considered private, sexual areas. Children deserve the dignity of not having these areas violated in ANY way. (And I agree with someone above that changing a diaper is NOT the same thing and it's disingenous to pretend that it is.) If a 16 year old girl was spanked by a parent, most of us consider this a form of sexual assault. So, why is it sexual abuse if done to a 16 year old girl but somehow not sexual abuse if done to a 7 year old girl? Are we still operating under the delusion that children are not sexual beings? We consider other forms of sexual abuse STILL (and often ESPECIALLY) sexual abuse when done to children. So why is this different? Is it different just because you don't want it to be true?
  3. I'm out of this discussion. I posted a link to a well-researched article. People can read it or not. This is like having a discussion with a fundie Christian about why hell is abuse while they go: "No it isn't!" One more time: http://www.nospank.net/sexdngrs.htm Incidentally this is only one of many articles on this subject. If you don't understand the buttocks is a private area with nerve endings that produce SEXUAL responses in a large majority of humanity then I'm done discussing/dealing with you on the subject.
  4. Stop making the absurd claim that "ALL spanking is sexual" and I'll stop calling it absurd. I don't doubt that some spanking is sexual, but saying that all is is just ridiculous. Hits close to home? I already said that my experience with spanking was not the least bit sexual, so don't go making assumptions. Getting 10 lashes on my arse and not being able to sit comfortably for a day or so was not the least bit sexual to me. It was physical abuse, but not sexual abuse. All spanking IS sexual. That is a sexual part of the body and those are sexual nerve endings. Just because every person who spanks doesn't have a sexual motive and just because every child spanked doesn't get turned on or isnt' sexually warped by it... it is STILL SEXUAL. It is unwanted sexual touching. I know people don't want to admit this. Too many in our culture have either been spanked or spanked themselves, so let's just downplay it some more. But if you haven't studied the topic in any depth then don't pretend you KNOW. Holy crap. It denies the damage just "regular level spanking" has done to the psychosexual development of children... including my development. Let me ask you this... are you allowed to walk down the street and smack a grown woman on the ass? What if you don't mean anything sexual by it? What if she isn't turned on? It's still illegal to smack a woman on the ass without her consent because it's touching a private area without someone's consent. Children don't consent. They can't. They are children. I'm sorry spanking was physical abuse to you, but to many it is sexual abuse. how someone processes something doesn't change what was done or wasn't done to them. I was once sexually molested by a boyfriend. It never really harmed me due to my kink allowing me to reshape it into something "hot", but he STILL violated me. It was STILL sexual abuse. Denying that spanking is a form of sexual abuse is harmful to those who were harmed. Pretending like something is only a violation if somebody is personally traumatized by it isn't helpful either because it basically makes it something wrong with that person as opposed to something wrong to do to a person to begin with. Some people get lucky and aren't affected. That's luck, not the nature of what happened.
  5. That's really cool, Legato. It makes me think of the Native Americans who thanked the animal before killing it for food.
  6. That is a very rare person to be in that position and publicly tell the world that it's not what you think. I just posted in another thread that you should always question everything, including the things that the "tribe" that you identify with say. This man has done that. BRAVO! The "grow up" and "human" parts I 100% agree with. THANK YOU for sharing that. Oh, and I love this video also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=related What I love the most about him is... he says many of the same things Ex-C's do, but he had the AUDACITY to stay a bishop in the episcopal church, which pissed so many people off!
  7. Since you've taken the time to look into it ... I've lost track of a seemingly scientific long term study on NDEs that was being done (in the UK I think) where they were putting signs on the top of ER light fixtures and other such vantage points that would be visible only to someone floating above their body during an NDE. And then interviewing people who were resuscitated to see if they had an NDE and then asking them to describe what they saw, in hopes that they would notice these placards and relate their contents. Stuff like that. Did anything useful ever come out of that? I went through a period where I was intrigued by NDEs, particularly that minority of cases where the NDE experience could be firmly located during significant cardiac arrest, where brainwave activity pretty much stops and coherent dreaming, etc., should be completely impossible. But ultimately if no one can prove these things to a scientific standard, I start to lose interest. How are things on that front these days? Bob, I'm not sure if it ever did or not (the sign), but I do know that there have been multiple situations where things were witnessed/observed during flatline then recounted that were correct and often very specific to the individual situation... i.e. not generic or vague things that could be true anyway of anyone, that they couldn't have known otherwise. One such case was a man whose dentures were removed by a nurse when he was flatlined. Upon awakening he recognized the nurse on sight and said something like "you know where my dentures are, you put them on a cart" (or in a drawer. I don't remember the exact quote. what I remember is the case study was reported as accurate.) There was also a case where a NDE experiencer said something about floating outside their body and outside the hospital itself... and said that there was a tennis shoe on the ledge of one of the floors above their room. And there was. It wasn't something they could have seen or known about. Nobody knew about it. Regarding this sign issue... It may take quite awhile before they get a "hit" (And they may have and not published the study yet, or they may have and I just don't know about it.) Most people who have NDE's are FAR more interested in other aspects than OBE aspects... I mean we've got beautiful colors, ethereal music, dead relatives, beings of light... how many details of the hospital room would you care about? And when they are interested in OBE aspects they tend to be paying attention to what is going on with their body. I mean, I could put a sign on my wall with a number on it and it be right in your field of vision and then take it down and wait for you to mention it. You might never mention it. If I asked you about it you may or may not recall seeing it or may or may not be able to identify it properly. We don't recall every single thing we ever see. We tend to filter out the inconsequential. This would be especially true in an extremely lucid and life-altering event like an NDE, IMO. You might look into the research by Pim Von Lommel. There have been quite a few longitudinal prospective studies with control groups by his team as well as others that I consider quite convincing. (The longitudinal part is that they follow the control group and the NDE group over several years to see how the NDE affects someone's life. These are reported to be life-changing experiences and so this part of the study was necessary to see if the life-altering part was the NDE itself or almost dying. The research seems to indicate it's the NDE itself. There have also been some interesting ESP effects noted in some who have had NDEs. NDE experiencers also tend to recount their NDE in almost the same words years later... so it isn't an overly malleable memory where things keep changing in the retelling. This was my experience with the loved one who had an NDE as well. Anytime he tells the story, it's exactly the same. No exaggeration of details over time.) There have also been intriguing studies that involved patients blind from birth who saw things during their NDE. (The first part of the experience generally freaks them out because at first they don't understand the experience they are having is sight.)
  8. That is a very rare person to be in that position and publicly tell the world that it's not what you think. I just posted in another thread that you should always question everything, including the things that the "tribe" that you identify with say. This man has done that. BRAVO! The "grow up" and "human" parts I 100% agree with. THANK YOU for sharing that. No problem! Spong was a big part of my deconversion. I'm not sure I would have had the courage to walk all the way out of Christianity and explore MY OWN path had it not been for the encouragement of this person who still stood inside the walls of it trying to reform it from the inside. It's one thing when a non-Christian tells you that you're okay and you aren't going to hell and that there is no hell, it's quite another when a Christian like Spong or even a Christian Universalist like Rob Bell or the tentmaker.org website say it. I may personally have no real use for Christianity and feel it's more harmful than helpful to most people, but I have to admire people like this who stand firmly against the cruelty inside their faith system.
  9. @LivingLife, yes, I was referring to the Job story. I should have been more specific but i wasn't because I didn't know if there might be other accounts I was overlooking. Either way, I agree with you that the Christian Satan/devil character took on a life of his own inside Christianity that was never a part of the Jewish faith system. I think she's one of the few Christians who really HAS read her bible, though she may have been reading it all in the KJV where it's much easier to not fully absorb what you're reading. I agree also re: TMI. Much of humanity in the west is too evolved now to just accept a myth as some one true truth without critical examination, especially when they are so exposed to so many competing faith systems. The beauty of the bible is... the truth will set you free. You only need to read it without anybody else's personal input and twisting of things to see what's really there.
  10. I'm not a fan of spanking either, but this I have to disagree with. I know you went on to say that most don't mean it that way, but to suggest that it's sexual anyway is a bit off-kilter. I was spanked a lot as a child (both for things I did and things that my jump-to-conclusions father just assumed I did), and it was never sexual. I used to spank our children a little bit a long time ago (never anywhere near as severely as I was spanked), and there was never anything sexual about it. That's not to say that there couldn't be some perverts who do have a morbid sense of sexual motivation for spanking. And again, I am certainly not advocating spanking. I'm just saying that you shouldn't read something extra into it that really isn't there. It's not just my opinion, it's a well-researched issue: http://www.nospank.net/sexdngrs.htm (I posted that link earlier. Perhaps you didn't see it or didn't read it.) I'm not saying it's sexual abuse because "all spankers are perverts and see it sexually", I'm saying it's sexual aggression against a child whether the aggressor interprets it that way or means it that way or not. (As the above linked article explains and details.) Also, just because *you* didn't experience being spanked as a child in any sexual way (i.e. it didn't turn you on as a kid), and just because it didn't screw with *your* psychosexual development, does NOT mean it does not occur with a significant percentage of human beings who have been spanked as children. It occurred with me. I'm sure being spanked as a child isn't the "only" reason I'm a masochist, but... I do feel it played some role. If any percentage of children can respond this way, then I consider it not worth the risk. And yes, I still think it's sexual abuse. Would I personally class my parents and grandparents as sexual abusers? No, because they didn't REALIZE what they were doing. They weren't predators. But they were still doing something that corrupted/interrupted/screwed up my psychosexual development in a way that might not have happened had they not done that. Having said that, I'm not ashamed of my kink. I embrace it. But it still exists in part because I was spanked as a child. I truly believe that. Your mileage may have varied, but you cannot define the experience of others. To me this is a serious issue and the serious part of it isn't necessarily that it's a type of "hitting" (that's bad enough.) it's that it's sexual touching. Just because most adults in this country can't seem to grasp that doesn't change the facts.
  11. Awesome links... Also... I wish Christianity was this: I LOVE this man so much. I wish Christians would evolve into this. What I most appreciate about him is... unlike Christian Universalists he does NOT think his faith system is "special" or "the best empirically" or some "one true truth". It would be nice, IMO if Christianity would just die off (not people, the system itself), but it probably won't, so the next best thing would be for it to evolve. To me, John Shelby Spong represents the best direction that faith could evolve to.
  12. I do for money the same thing I'd do if I didn't have to work for money. Then you have a charmed life compared to the average. That's very true. And I'm grateful for it.
  13. I think Satan as Christians understand him is a pagan concept, but there was a satan character in Jewish folklore, but he was basically working for God and wasn't this evil pseudo-god like Christians have turned him into. Christianity's version more resembles zoroastrianism than Judaism. LOL @ "folks want to believe in the red fella." i was talking to a friend today about hell. She's a genuinely sweet person doing the best she can and she's not unintelligent but she insists and RESISTS when it comes to letting go of the belief in hell. She'll use the same tired rationalizations for why her abusive monster deity is somehow really the most loving being ever... but still lets people go to hell for eternity. It makes me sad that she's brainwashed with this. If she'd been told this stuff as an adult for the first time, I doubt she would have believed in it. It's child abuse, IMO, to teach a child evil nonsense when they are too young to question or fight back or resist the indoctrination (i.e. when you are five you can't resist your parents taking you to church). Hell is such a destructive belief (as is belief in a god who would drown kittens (Noah's Ark), that it truly baffles me how otherwise loving, rational, and grown adults can hold such a belief. I may have beliefs many here consider to be "woo", but the one thing I DON'T believe in, is a higher power that eternally tortures anyone. Whatever one may say about my beliefs, they can't say they are unloving. And I don't think they could ever make the world a worse place like Christianity has. Christianity may have been "used for evil" but it has evil built right into the system of belief itself... Christians are "just following orders" and have been for centuries. The problem is the orders are mostly immoral or stupid.
  14. hehe. Yes. I will agree to agree! I approve this message.
  15. I think we're saying the same thing. LOL. Just in different words.
  16. So true. I think we have evolved. We are no longer a village secluded from the world. We are a world who is looking at ignorant villages. The perspective of living in a global village makes a "one true truth" and classifying everybody who doesn't agree... untenable.
  17. That's the King Jame's Version, the NIV is simpler: A = turtle.
  18. I think there might have been a time when human beings in general weren't evolved enough emotionally/intellectually to see things any other way. But it's totally against modern sensibilities. So this is a good thing. Atheism, IMO is a sign of progress, not necessarily because I think there is "nothing", but because anyone who reacts to the problems of organized religion by flat out rejecting the whole thing as immoral and stupid... is moving in the right direction, IMO. I think there was a time when eternal hell "made sense" to people, scary or not. And I think by this point most people understand the concept of cruel and unusual punishment and that this sort of thing just isn't appropriate. Sort of like how we grow up and evolve and realize slavery is bad and women are people.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.