- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
What's the purpose in being open about it publically though, vs. in a professional therapy session?
I mean, I have secrets that carry way less social stigma than incest, that I would never publically acknowledge.
oh my. female circumcision is culturally subjective? i don't think so. how does THAT not interfere with a child's natural rights?I don't know if she's telling the truth, but I support her courage in speaking out about this.
To answer the question posted in the thread title - that depends. I believe that parents should have far-reaching rights over their children, even including culturally subjective things like female circumcision, incest, religious brainwashing, and so on, as long as they don't interfere with the child's natural rights to life and to emancipation. That means the children will ultimately be able to decide for themselves if they have been violated and whether to expose their parents, in which case they'd obviously face near-universal ostracism.
Trusting government intervention to stamp out incest is immoral, ineffective, and ultimately very destructive. Countless children are still being abused by their parents and other adults, including in the government-run "Child Protection Services", where all the smart pedophiles apply for their day job. Countless adults are prosecuted for alleged child abuse without the consent of the victim (and/or his/her parents/guardians) for that prosecution to take place (i.e. victimless crime). Countless adults decide not to have children because of the overbearing role the government is starting to play in family life, which can only lead to a demographic and economic collapse, as is already starting to play out in some of the more socialist European countries. Etc. The Anarcho-Capitalist approach that recognizes the rights of the parents, the child's right to emancipation, and relies on social pressure (i.e. ostracism) would be far more humane and far more effective.
Yeah, god forbid she should tell the secret that has probably been her shame for all these years, and set herself free from it. Telling a secret is part of healing for victims of these kinds of crimes. And, the response here explains why so many of them keep these kinds of secrets for so long and self-medicate to deal with the emotional trauma.
This is not HER shame. She's a VICTIM.
This is not HER shame. She's a VICTIM.
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone CatzShe may feel that by talking publicly about what happened to her, she makes it easier for other victims to get the help they need. Kind of like Betty Ford and breast cancer, and victims of domestic violence who talk publicly about their victimization in hopes that other women will get help if they are in similar situations. And, people who talk about mental illness/addiction in hopes of removing the stigma.
You go public to help other people, to let them know that they aren't alone, and that there is help.
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone Catz
She may feel that by talking publicly about what happened to her, she makes it easier for other victims to get the help they need. Kind of like Betty Ford and breast cancer, and victims of domestic violence who talk publicly about their victimization in hopes that other women will get help if they are in similar situations. And, people who talk about mental illness/addiction in hopes of removing the stigma.
You go public to help other people, to let them know that they aren't alone, and that there is help.
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone Catz
good point.In her book she writes about having sex with Mick Jagger.
All part of her therapy I guess. :roll:
In her book she writes about having sex with Mick Jagger.
All part of her therapy I guess. :roll:
oh my. female circumcision is culturally subjective? i don't think so. how does THAT not interfere with a child's natural rights?
I agree with you that female circumcision is bad, and we are free to speak out against it and ostracize the parents who do it to their children, but interfering in that family issue with force is unjustifiable.
So, similarly, if a parent wants to beat a child into a bloody pulp on a regular basis or use them as a sex toy, or take pornographic pictures of the child and post them on the internet for sale, or marry/sell their 12-year-old daughter to a 72 year old polygamist with 12 wives, that is their right. Am I correct?
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children. a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?Natural rights are based on empirically-observable objective economic facts, not on liblady's opinion of what sexual practices or body modification surgeries are desirable or undesirable. I agree with you that female circumcision is bad, and we are free to speak out against it and ostracize the parents who do it to their children, but interfering in that family issue with force is unjustifiable.
Parents choose to bring their children into this world, and until those children become self-owning adults no one has higher authority over them than their parents. Not all families are perfect, but one does not choose what reality s\he is born into. Having to obey your parents in all things until you can be legally emancipated is a very small price to pay in exchange for being born.
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children. a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?
we are a nation of laws, and children are protected by those laws.
Parents choose to bring their children into this world, and until those children become self-owning adults no one has higher authority over them than their parents. Not all families are perfect, but one does not choose what reality s\he is born into. Having to obey your parents in all things until you can be legally emancipated is a very small price to pay in exchange for being born.
I do agree with the gist of this.
Parents are the highest authority for a child or rather, should be.
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children.
a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?
we are a nation of laws, and children are protected by those laws.
TO WHAT POINT? There are some behaviors that are beyond the pale: beating your child. Having sex with your child. Drugging your child with illegal drugs. Allowing your friends to have sex with your child. Selling your child.
Good god. This is such a no-brainer.
Nah, you don't say.
Those are illegal, ofc there is a bloody point or limit :roll:
Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!
Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!
:screwy
i think you're disturbed, actually, and i'm being restrained in my opinion. government clearly DOES know better than some parents, thank god.I'm a male who is unhappy about the fact that I was circumcised as a child, and many other decisions that my parents have made, but c'est la vie - those were their decisions to make. I of course recognize that female circumcision is much worse, but any bodily modification that doesn't interfere with the aforementioned natural rights (life and emancipation) is a parents' right. Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!
No, force is not justifiable, and, yes, and I would picket with you. Furthermore, ever-advancing information technology makes ostracism very effective. Would you shop at a store that employs a known pedophile?
Speak for yourself, I'm not a part of your "we". Laws that govern the human civilization are universal, and have nothing to do with nations. Cultures that fail to recognize natural law diminish over time, while the culture that treat on it the least have the competitive advantage.
Your "government knows better than the parents" culture inevitably leads to out-of-control government and demographic free-fall! The former because trusting the government with oversight of education means it will always have greater control over public opinion than the electoral circus can ever affect government. And the latter because no one in their right mind wants to spend so much time, money, and energy raising little snitches for the state!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?